Author Topic: any opinions on correct Catholic Bible version? (Read 3883 times)

AlbertusMagnus · « **on:** October 04, 2007, 10:09:13 PM »

OK, I am assuming that all of you use the Douay Rheims. My concern is that some think the Challoner revision makes some bad language choices and apparently there are changes in the footnotes. The pre-Challoner version seems hard to come by. A protestant in Missouri was attempting to print the old 1609 version but has since stopped.

gilbertgea · « **Reply #1 on:** October 05, 2007, 11:02:39 AM »

The Douay-Rheims is the generally-accepted (traditional) Catholic Bible written in the English language.

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2007, 11:22:11 AM »

I'd like to hear about these "bad language choices".

Challoner is already too old-fashioned for many (most?) people -- how can we go to "Shakespearean English"? I think that's excessive and unnecessary

I have read the Challoner Douay-Rheims all the way through, several times. It is a very accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate -- and I'm not just repeating what I heard. I can read Latin (at least with a dictionary) and I've compared many verses. The Douay-Rheims (Challoner revision) is VERY literal.

Remember, you have to be able to understand the language, or that serves as a barrier to understanding Holy Scripture. So going with an EXCESSIVELY archaic English version of the Douay-rheims might harm one's proper understanding of Scripture almost as much as going with the NIB or NIV version.

I think the Challoner is sufficiently accessible, and yet extremely accurate.

Again, I'd like to be shown these "bad word choices". I'm not convinced that the 1600 version of the Douay Rheims is any better for circa 2007 Catholics.

I think if it was worth the "trouble" (i.e., the step from Challoner Douay-Rheims to the 1600 Douay-Rheims), then TAN Books would have published it. It's not as though they're a bunch of compromisers or something. On the contrary.

Matthew

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2007, 01:35:48 PM »

I own both versions, and it is a simple fact that Challoner eliminated certain words, many times at that. I have not the time at present to illustrate this with examples, but perhaps in the coming weeks.

Most could not read the original DR without significant difficulty, as it is an English that is unfamiliar to us. There is a site with the text as it was in the original, with simple alterations to allow more easy reading, but I do not have this URL on my at the moment. Look it up, as it should not be hard to find.

Kephapaulos · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2007, 10:56:41 PM »

Challoner had to have had approval from Rome for his translation though, right? Nonetheless, imho, any type of the Douay-Rheims version is better in comparison to any other English translation out there now.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2007, 11:16:37 PM »

Quote from: Kephapaulos

Challoner had to have had approval from Rome for his translation though, right? Nonetheless, imho, any type of the Douay-Rheims version is better in comparison to any other English translation out there now.

Well-said.

The Douay-rheims is the best English translation, if you restrict yourself to "bibles a non-specialist can understand".

I have serious doubts that any of the words "left out" have any bearing whatsoever on the meaning. Like Kepha said, otherwise Rome wouldn't have approved it.

Matthew

Dulcamara · « **Reply #6 on:** October 08, 2007, 10:00:40 AM »

Of course if you want the really precise version, you'd have to get a copy of St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, and learn Latin. But few of us are that zealous. (Don't we wish, though!)

:rolleyes:

As others have stated, this is about as good as we're likely to get in this day and age.

I think perhaps it's even more important to have the proper understanding of scripture according to the (traditional) teachings of the Church. In fact, I've heard it's not allowed by the church for Catholics to read the Bible without commentary... (perhaps where that absurd rumor about Catholics not being allowed to read the bible originated from?)

Precision in translation is important, but understanding it according to the light of the church is as important. If the commentary tells us rightly how to take scripture, the absence of a word here and there (which in Latin may not have literally been there to begin with for all we know) is not too much of a crisis. Of course we must do our best to get the utmost precise translation but... I think we've pretty much got it with the Douay-Rheims.

On this note, I'm curious as to whether the words in italics in the Douay-Rheims were words that were not actually (literally) in the Latin translation. (Chant knows what I mean, having studied languages... such as in Japanese when we say "chotto" which is literally "a little" without adding "matte" which is "wait" and yet the meaning is wholly understood as "wait a minute/little".)

Languages play funny tricks in translation. Some languages just "understand" things which we would have to add words in order to understand in English. So long as the meaning was precise, there really isn't a problem there.

Matthew · « **Reply #7 on:** October 08, 2007, 10:04:28 AM »

Speaking of which, that is why the Latin Vulgate is BETTER than the Greek versions, even though the Greek seems to be "going back further" and/or a more original language.

Why?

Because St. Jerome was providential, having understood Hebrew, Greek AND Latin -- so he knew all of those idioms, nuances, etc. and picked the most accurate word in every case.

The topic deserves more than a couple paragraphs that I have time for, but I could give you a PDF of "What Bible Should You Read", which I will do straight'way.

Matthew

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** October 08, 2007, 10:06:09 AM »

Here is the complete version of "What Bible Should You Read?" by Thomas A. Nelson.

TAN Books provides this as a free download on their website.

Matthew

JoanScholastica · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2007, 12:54:01 AM »

in my opinion, it is still the Douay-Rheims version that is correct. :smile:

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2007, 05:41:53 AM »

Quote from: JoanScholastica

in my opinion, it is still the Douay-Rheims version that is correct. :smile:

It's my preference too.

Miss_Fluffy · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2007, 02:59:43 PM »

Personally, I find the Haydock version of the Douay-Rheims to have the most informative footnotes. I've learned a greatdeal about Church history hidden in those footnotes.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2007, 05:28:22 PM »

FYI, the Haydock version is also the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims text -- it just has a LOT more commentary.

I own the Haydock version, as well as the TAN Books (Challoner) Douay-Rheims.

I bought the Haydock so that I'd get more out of Scripture by reading the Catholic commentary. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Matthew

s2srea · « **Reply #13 on:** May 16, 2011, 04:40:12 PM »

Any thoughts on the RSV (Catholic version)... I referenced this thread and just went out and bought a Douay-Rheims (Tan-Chandler) during my lunch :dancing-banana: its only the New Testament however.

I remember my priest said as part of his sermon the other week that it is our responsibility to know God through the bible and Catechism and that he was going to give a catechism for adults so that when our Lord calls him, he doesn't have to answer for peoples ignorance... I took that as pretty serious. He also told me I should read the bible front to back as well. They only had the NT at the local catholic bookstore, I don't have too much patience, so I picked it up and started on Matthew.

Matthew · « **Reply #14 on:** May 16, 2011, 04:52:10 PM »

Regarding the original Douay-Rheims version vs. the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims --
(This is partially aimed at Gladius, who contributed to this thread a few years ago)

I just looked in my Douay-Rheims (TAN edition from the 80's/90's), and right there on the front page is an approbation from His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. Dated September 1, 1899.

For those who do not know, he was a valid Cardinal of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He probably knew more about Scripture, Latin, Greek, Theology, Philosophy, etc. than anyone who has graced CathInfo. Yes, that includes Gladius, Matthew and Raoul.

(The TAN edition is a photo-reproduction of this version)

So it would seem that the true Catholic Church approves of the Challoner version. Indeed, it is a most excellent Bible to nourish the Faith of Catholics, providing them with a good, faithful translation of sacred Scripture.

If it's good enough for the (pre-Vatican II) Catholic Church founded by Christ and preserved by the Holy Ghost, it's good enough for me. Who am I to say, "I don't know...do you have anything better?"

Roma Locuta est. Causa Finita est.

"Rome has spoken; the case is closed."

Anyone who says otherwise is a purist and/or elitist who wants to be stuck up and feel superior about their choice of Scripture translation. In almost every category of life, you have a few individuals who wish to sit atop the pyramid, looking down at practically everyone. The Mass, Scripture, approval of Catholic priests, devotions, lifestyle, you name it.