Has anyone read this translation? Is it any good. I saw some images online and I like the annotations given by the old rheims. I haven't bought it yet but want to hear any opinions, the red letter edition is more than double the price.... 

https://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-william-von-peters/the-original-and-true-rheims-new-testament-of-anno-domini-1582/paperback/product-16zvrd.html?page=1&pageSize=4

https://www.lulu.com/shop/dr-william-von-peters/the-original-and-true-rheims-new-testament-of-1582/paperback/product-5wkgw7.html?q=The+Original+and+True+Rheims+New+Testament+of+1582&page=1&pageSize=4

For purposes of Scripture study, I prefer this original version to the omnipresent Challoner revision because of its closeness to the Vulgate and to the Septuagint. The language is slavishly Latinate with syntax that can seem odd to modern English speakers. Also, the orthonography can often be strange looking, e.g., u instead of v or sometime ye instead of the.

The Challoner revision was heavily influenced by the stately English of the Book of Common Prayer and Authorised Version (aka King James). It is much better for devotional reading than the original Rheims NT, although even the Challoner, even with its theological accuracy that can be distorted in the Authorised Version, has a clunky feel not found in the Authorised Version with its stylistic grace.

I don’t care much for translations and prefer the Vulgate.  Some of the older English translations can use very archaic language, and they’re difficult especially for younger readers.  I actually like the Knox English translation.

I can't read and understand latin atm, but I am more interested in the annotations of the older rheims. They guy also has done 3 volumes of the OT so not sure if anyone here as also read those? Do they also have annotations?

The "common" Douay-Rheims, a.k.a. Challoner revision (done in the 1800s) is slavish enough, accurate enough, and Trad enough for me.

If you look up a passage in the original Vulgate, and look at the corresponding Challoner English translation, you will find the same meaning -- the same content. It is slavishly accurate, without doing stupid archaic stuff with no payoff like using the thorn (The Y in "Ye barber shop" -- the Y is a thorn, pronounced "th", an archaic/obsolete letter of the English language/alphabet)

What is the point of putting the thorn back in? It adds NOTHING to the translation's accuracy. Likewise, it adds nothing to an archaic, other-worldly, sacred feel which you get with the Douay-Rheims Challoner. That one is PLENTY removed from the vulgar speech of today (grocery store, twitter, facebook, etc.). Honestly, if it were a notch more towards "archaic" it would start to lose serious practicality and usability (understandability, getting spiritual benefit from it, etc.)

Please don't try to be an Elite Trad among Trads. "Oh yeah, you think you're a Trad? You're practically Novus Ordo. You read the TAN Books Douay-Rheims? Well I read it in the original Shakespearean English. Oh yeah? Well I read it in the original Vulgate."

Ugh. Spend less time trying to be singular and stand out, even when you don't need to, and spend more time meditating on the vices of pride and vainglory. No particular reason.

I know it's a foreign concept to NOT be singular in current year. Just dressing decently, not being insane makes you stand out to a huge degree. But when you're among sane TRADS, or at a Trad seminary, you should keep your head down, don't be singular, follow the crowd, and "do what the others do". See? It doesn't go down smooth, we're all shellshocked from living the last X years in the Modern World. We breathe singularity like air and eat it for breakfast every morning. It's hard to know when to stop, isn't it?

In other words, the arguments "But most people do it this way" and "But [the authority] says to do it this way" have been COMPLETELY annihilated for a few generations of Catholics. A casualty of Vatican II.

On the other hand, I strongly dislike more modern-sounding translations of the Bible.

I do think there are a few passages in Douay-Rheims that could be updated a bit because the archaic language is a bit off, or some words have picked up vulgar connotations, but overall I agree.  Nevertheless, I find that Douay-Rheims is a bit difficult for a younger reader to get through.  If you look at the Latin and the Greek (of the New Testament at least), the language is extremely simple.  You don't need strong knowledge of Homeric or Attic Greek to read the New Testament.  It's written in Koine, which was a very simplified version of Greek.

My litmus test is where I look up St. Luke 1:28, and if it doesn't say "Hail, full of grace" ... it goes into the trash bin.  "Greetings, o highly favored one" or other such garbage demonstrates Modernist perspective immediately.  To me it's as simple as that where it comes to the general "reliability" of a translation ... regardless of what one might say of the style, etc.

Matthew makes such excellent points in reply #6.
 
Looking at the links posted by the OP, they say:

Dr. William G. von Peters has transliterated the text into modern English.

So, if this text has been “transliterated into modern English” I’m not understanding how it can be “The Original and True Rheims New Testament of 1582”.  How is it somehow more “authentic” than Bishop Richard Challoner’s revision in the 18^th century?

Also, who wrote the annotations that were mentioned?  Are they from Dr. von Peters?  Who is he? I’m not casting aspersions on him, I just have no idea of who he is or his authenticity as a genuine (and traditional) Catholic bible scholar.
 
A safe resource is the Fr. George Haydock (1774-1849) commentary.  It is expensive in hard copy (also check the used book market) but available online: https://haydockcommentary.com.

Like Ladislaus, I also like the Fr. Ronald Knox translation.

when I say "Holy Spirit" I become immediately suspect of Modernism. 

As well they should! How else are we to quickly size up when we're dealing with a "new" Trad, who might need some help, etc., a Novus Ordo Catholic who probably needs a LOT of help and holds a lot of errors/baggage from their years in material heresy, and a life-long Trad who we can trust more quickly? These clues are usually quite reliable indicators.

That is why I don't call myself a "Christian". People will RIGHTLY assume I'm some sort of Protestant. I can shout "Hey, don't jump to conclusions! Get to know me and you'll know!" or "ACKTCHUWALLY Christian can mean Catholic" all I want -- I'd be sending out the wrong signal, an actual CONTRARY signal to the signal I should be sending.

Don't kick against the goad, I say. Conquered ground is conquered ground -- give it up already. Reality is reality. Don't be like Denethor in the Return of the King *movie* where he sends a bunch of soldiers to certain death to retake Os Giliath. Give it up, regroup, and live to fight another day.

If you want to tell your co-workers about your "intercourse" with the mailman, or wear rainbow stuff because you like bright colors -- be my guest. Meanwhile I'll refrain from ignoring reality, modern connotations held by words -- and conquered ground.

Matthew makes such excellent points in reply #6.
 
Looking at the links posted by the OP, they say:



So, if this text has been “transliterated into modern English” I’m not understanding how it can be “The Original and True Rheims New Testament of 1582”.  How is it somehow more “authentic” than Bishop Richard Challoner’s revision in the 18^th century?

Also, who wrote the annotations that were mentioned?  Are they from Dr. von Peters?  Who is he? I’m not casting aspersions on him, I just have no idea of who he is or his authenticity as a genuine (and traditional) Catholic bible scholar.
 
A safe resource is the Fr. George Haydock (1774-1849) commentary.  It is expensive in hard copy (also check the used book market) but available online: https://haydockcommentary.com.

Like Ladislaus, I also like the Fr. Ronald Knox translation.

This is a sample of the original text: https://www.churchlatin.com/_files/ugd/53aa8c_cefe0952a9bd43beb78dd4cabeb61b52.pdf

As I understand it, Dr. Peters text is just updated to modern standardized spelling and notation.
I have a facsimile copy of an original. I don't notice that much difference in the actual text compared to the Challoner, it's just that the original has extensive annotation. The annotations being primarily attributed to Fr. Martin.