Author Topic: Challoner vs Haydock (Read 1596 times)

ascanio1 · « **on:** November 12, 2019, 04:35:44 PM »

Can someone explain the difference between a Challoner and a Haydock DR Bible version.

In a post a forum member mentioned that the Haydock Bible uses the Challoner revision... it is a bit confusing...

DecemRationis · « **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2019, 05:23:38 PM »

Hi, Ascanio.

Bishop Challoner revised the original Douay Rheims translation. The Haydock Bible uses the Challoner revision as Bible text and adds additional, copious annotations.

Here's a good discussion and comparison of the original DR and the Challoner:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/challoner-revision-to-dr-bible/396897

DR

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 12, 2019, 06:20:48 PM »

A "Catholic Answers" thread? Really? Those jokers over there don't even have a problem with the NAB. The examples they give of parallel translations have to have been cherry-picked to show minimal changes between the true Doway-Rhemes and Bp. Challoner's Douay-Rheims revision. In actual fact, there are some substantial differences. The Doway-Rhemes was translated pretty much directly from Jerome's Vulgate, which was written in Latin in the late 4th century. One thing very notable about Jerome's translation is that he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew back then. Later translators pride themselves on incorporating the original Hebrew, Greek, etc. sources in their version, but there's a big problem that no one talks about -- by the time of the Challoner revision the oldest version of the Old Testament extant in Hebrew was the "Masoretic text," written between the 6th and 10th centuries. It was "corrected" by тαℓмυdic "scholars" in Babylon and Palestine. And that's what is used as primary source material in all modern Bibles.

claudel · « **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2019, 06:59:15 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 12, 2019, 05:23:38 PM

Here's a good discussion and comparison of the original DR and the Challoner …

On the contrary, there is little that is good in the linked discussion. It is a morass of ignorance, misinformation, and misdirection, not the least of which is the mischaracterization of the remarks of Cardinals Newman and Manning. Both men were admirers of Bishop Challoner's work, which succeeded in (1) correcting numerous errors of translation in the original DR, (2) taking advantage of both the Clementine Vulgate and other fully approved Latin, Hebrew, and Greek sources either unknown or unavailable to Gregory Martin and his associates, and (3) using an English vocabulary that reflected the extraordinarily changed nature of the language in the two-century interim.

Do not believe anyone who says that the English of the DR is closer to the meaning of the Vulgate's Latin than the Challoner revision. Such a person knows nothing of Latin, English, or the transitory nature of vernacular languages.

There are at least half a dozen threads here at CI where this matter is discussed with more knowledge and insight than at the linked site's thread. Since Matthew has been good enough to save virtually everything ever published here, it's a pity that the archives are so widely ignored in favor of reinventing the wheel every six months.

claudel · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2019, 07:50:08 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus on November 12, 2019, 06:20:48 PM

… but there's a big problem that no one talks about -- by the time of the Challoner revision the oldest version of the Old Testament extant in Hebrew was the "Masoretic text," written between the 6th and 10th centuries.

The nature of the Masoretic text, however problematic it may be, is far from being something "no one talks about." It is one of the rudimentary elements of Bible-text history, and as such it is a matter familiar to all scholars, students, and laypeople with a close interest in the establishment of sound biblical texts and their translation into the various vernaculars. That it is unknown to most Christians is no more significant than that Sandy Koufax's won-lost record is unknown to people with only a passing interest in baseball.

The more genuine problem here is the introduction, utterly without adequate background, of this elementary fact in such a way as to make it serve as a cudgel for hammering away at the Challoner translation.

ascanio1 · « **Reply #5 on:** November 13, 2019, 12:35:02 PM »

Quote from: DecemRationis on November 12, 2019, 05:23:38 PM

Hi, Ascanio.

Bishop Challoner revised the original Douay Rheims translation. The Haydock Bible uses the Challoner revision as Bible text and adds additional, copious annotations.

Here's a good discussion and comparison of the original DR and the Challoner:

https://forums.catholic.com/t/challoner-revision-to-dr-bible/396897

DR

The link is very sueful, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

What does it mean: "revision"? I imagined comments but, if Haydock added comments, then I must be in error. Does "revision" mean correction? Why would someone correct our Sacred Text?

DecemRationis · « **Reply #6 on:** November 13, 2019, 12:45:54 PM »

Quote from: claudel on November 12, 2019, 06:59:15 PM

On the contrary, there is little that is good in the linked discussion. It is a morass of ignorance, misinformation, and misdirection, not the least of which is the mischaracterization of the remarks of Cardinals Newman and Manning. Both men were admirers of Bishop Challoner's work, which succeeded in (1) correcting numerous errors of translation in the original DR, (2) taking advantage of both the Clementine Vulgate and other fully approved Latin, Hebrew, and Greek sources either unknown or unavailable to Gregory Martin and his associates, and (3) using an English vocabulary that reflected the extraordinarily changed nature of the language in the two-century interim.

Do not believe anyone who says that the English of the DR is closer to the meaning of the Vulgate's Latin than the Challoner revision. Such a person knows nothing of Latin, English, or the transitory nature of vernacular languages.

There are at least half a dozen threads here at CI where this matter is discussed with more knowledge and insight than at the linked site's thread. Since Matthew has been good enough to save virtually everything ever published here, it's a pity that the archives are so widely ignored in favor of reinventing the wheel every six months.

The discussion identifies many of the issues and is fine for a point of departure into them. It is "good" in that sense. I wasn't endorsing it. And I wasn't ignoring what is here. I did a quick Google search for Ascanio and grabbed the link to the article to, again, give him something that identifies some of the issues. Glad you gave him more.

As to "mischaracterization" of Cardinals Newman and Wiseman (not Card. Manning), they simply QUOTE the CE (did you check the link?).

DecemRationis · « **Reply #7 on:** November 13, 2019, 12:55:21 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 13, 2019, 12:35:02 PM

The link is very sueful, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

What does it mean: "revision"? I imagined comments but, if Haydock added comments, then I must be in error. Does "revision" mean correction? Why would someone correct our Sacred Text?

Bishop Challoner made changes to the translation, the Biblical text, of the original DR. Some say for the better, some say for the worse. I have and read both. Don't have an opinion either way, but the original DR was written during the Prot revolt and its annotations take a good shot at the errors of the "adversaries." Not that the Haydock doesn't take a similar cognizance; it also will incorporate some original DR notes.

The "sacred text" here is not in English, of course, but in Greek (NT and Septuagint OT, but also Hebrew for OT) originally and then authoritatively translated into Latin by St. Jerome (the Vulgate). Both the original DR and I think the Challoner used the Vulgate as primary text. So the neither the original DR, nor the Haydock, is "sacred text" not to be revised in the sense that the original Greek and the Church approved Latin Vulgate (for me and many Catholics) are.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #8 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:01:36 PM »

Quote from: MiserereMeiDeus on November 12, 2019, 06:20:48 PM

A "Catholic Answers" thread? Really? Those jokers over there don't even have a problem with the NAB. The examples they give of parallel translations have to have been cherry-picked to show minimal changes between the true Doway-Rhemes and Bp. Challoner's Douay-Rheims revision. In actual fact, there are some substantial differences. The Doway-Rhemes was translated pretty much directly from Jerome's Vulgate, which was written in Latin in the late 4th century. One thing very notable about Jerome's translation is that he translated the Old Testament directly from the Hebrew back then. Later translators pride themselves on incorporating the original Hebrew, Greek, etc. sources in their version, but there's a big problem that no one talks about -- by the time of the Challoner revision the oldest version of the Old Testament extant in Hebrew was the "Masoretic text," written between the 6th and 10th centuries. It was "corrected" by тαℓмυdic "scholars" in Babylon and Palestine. And that's what is used as primary source material in all modern Bibles.

Have at it with Claudel.

Hey, for both of you: I wasn't sneakily promoting Catholic Answers. I feel like I need to go to Confession here. :o

What a crowd!!

ascanio1 · « **Reply #9 on:** November 13, 2019, 01:18:31 PM »

Quote from: claudel on November 12, 2019, 06:59:15 PM

There are at least half a dozen threads here at CI where this matter is discussed with more knowledge and insight than at the linked site's thread. Since Matthew has been good enough to save virtually everything ever published here, it's a pity that the archives are so widely ignored in favor of reinventing the wheel every six months.

Can you, please send me alternative links to those sent by MiserereMeiDeus, kindly?

In any case, I am still confused. What difference is there between Challoner and Haydock?

Challoner revised (i.e. traslated) and Haydock commented? So, all Challoner Bibles are DR Bibles and all Haydock Bibles are Challoned, DR Bibles?

Am I correct?

If not, kindly, could you help me understand the difference?

Finally, commenting your challenges to the link, in my own reasearches here I have come across Dr Von Peters translitteration of "a" version of the Bible (I don't remember if from vulgate or... ).

I came across many who mentioned that the Challoner Bible was not based on the correct DR but on other close translations.

If it were true that Challoner translates "Christus" into "annointed" then I have a problem with the Challoner translation.

*]Vulgate. Ingrediemur enim in requiem, qui credidimus: quemadmodum dixit: Sicut juravi in ira mea: Si introibunt in requiem meam: et quidem operibus ab institutione mundi perfectis.
*]Rheims. For we, that have believed, shall enter into the rest, as he said, As I sware in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest; and truly the works from the foundation of the world being perfected.
*]Challoner. For we who believed shall enter into rest; as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, If they shall enter into my rest; and this, when the works from the foundation of the world were finished.

It seems a small departure from the Vulgate but there is some difference.

Kindly, could you comment?

claudel · « **Reply #10 on:** November 13, 2019, 05:01:22 PM »

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 13, 2019, 01:18:31 PM

Can you, please send me alternative links to those sent by MiserereMeiDeus, kindly?

Look at these links. They are listed chronologically, oldest first.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/king-james-bible-21077/

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/which-bible-should-i-read/

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/commentary-on-'which-bible-should-you-read'/

https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/bible-recommendation/

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/vain-repetition/

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/'pope'-changes-text-of-gloria-lords-prayer/

Quote from: ascanio1 on November 13, 2019, 01:18:31 PM

In any case, I am still confused. What difference is there between Challoner and Haydock?

Challoner revised (i.e. translated) and Haydock commented? So, all Challoner Bibles are DR Bibles and all Haydock Bibles are Challoner, DR Bibles?

Am I correct?

What is correct is that the so-called Haydock Bible is the specific edition of the Challoner-Rheims translation* of the Bible that includes notes and commentary by Father George Haydock. Two words in the prior sentence are set in italics because your confusion seems to be about what constitutes a translation and what constitutes an edition. If indeed this is what confuses you, a dictionary ought to clarify the distinction.

This isn't the end of the story. Specifically, it shouldn't be forgotten that referring in the singular to the "Challoner revision/translation" is something of a misnomer. There were, if I remember aright, five versions of his revision published in his lifetime, and the scholarly estimate is that the changes from the first version to the third number about two thousand (the later published versions were largely unchanged from the third, however). Curiously, the version of Challoner annotated by Haydock was one of the several major revisions to Challoner's work done by an Irishman named Bernard MacMahon in the quarter century prior to 1810. Challoner-MacMahon was widely used and published only in Ireland and the USA, however. English bishops and clergy continued to prefer Challoner's own second and third editions, and this preference became the rule virtually everywhere in the twentieth century. Even in Ireland, the MacMahon revisions gradually lost favor.

ascanio1 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 14, 2019, 10:12:15 AM »

Quote from: claudel on November 13, 2019, 05:01:22 PM

What is correct is that the so-called Haydock Bible is the specific edition of the Challoner-Rheims translation* of the Bible that includes notes and commentary by Father George Haydock. Two words in the prior sentence are set in italics because your confusion seems to be about what constitutes a translation and what constitutes an edition. If indeed this is what confuses you, a dictionary ought to clarify the distinction.

Thank you. Yes, you helped me understand and I appreciate the time that you invested.

Fr Haydock added notes to Challoner's own re-translation of the Rheims-Douay translation of the Bibile.

I hope that I understood correctly.

Quote from: claudel on November 13, 2019, 05:01:22 PM

Look at these links. They are listed chronologically, oldest first.

https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/king-james-bible-21077/

CUT ...

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/'pope'-changes-text-of-gloria-lords-prayer/

These seem very interesting and will take time to go through them all. I will revert.

Quote from: claudel on November 13, 2019, 05:01:22 PM

This isn't the end of the story. Specifically, it shouldn't be forgotten that referring in the singular to the "Challoner revision/translation" is something of a misnomer. There were, if I remember aright, five versions of his revision published in his lifetime, and the scholarly estimate is that the changes from the first version to the third number about two thousand (the later published versions were largely unchanged from the third, however). Curiously, the version of Challoner annotated by Haydock was one of the several major revisions to Challoner's work done by an Irishman named Bernard MacMahon in the quarter century prior to 1810. Challoner-MacMahon was widely used and published only in Ireland and the USA, however. English bishops and clergy continued to prefer Challoner's own second and third editions, and this preference became the rule virtually everywhere in the twentieth century. Even in Ireland, the MacMahon revisions gradually lost favor.

This is even more interesting...

So, in practice, Fr Haydock added notes to a MacMahon revision of the Challoner's re-translation of the Rheims-Douay translation of the Bibile... and I thought that our Faith was difficult to live by but, at least, simple to understand!

again, thank you for your time and expertise.

StCeciliasGirl · « **Reply #12 on:** May 05, 2020, 12:36:58 AM »

I came for this question. I hadn't read the Challoner. I'd heard it of course, but my DRB was a Haydock which I now understand to be a mishmash of Challoner and (?) Knox or something? Due to visual impairment, it was software plus an online version. And I was making a module for the software with Haydock's notes while reading through in a year, so everyone could have access to $$$ Haydock's notes. But I wasn't enjoying it. No I'll be honest: I detest Haydock's notes. At first, they look impressive (some Challoner footnotes but hard to distinguish from others, a few "big names" like St. Augustine, etc), but he was always with the naming off of demonic mythological figures.. let me shoot you an example:

Quote

> Isaias 1 Verse 29
> Idols. Protestants, "oaks, which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens," &c. (Haydock) --- the groves were sacred to Venus, and the gardens to Adonis, and were scenes of the greatest immorality and profanation, chap. lxv. 3.

Let's just say his notes had me cringing when it was time to read the Bible and do the Haydock module. It was Hell but I didn't know what was "wrong"; I figured I just didn't have the right kind of faith, and put MORE effort into it.

But then I got a look at a real old Haydock, and there really are masonic symbols in the imagery and on the cover (like you wouldn't believe), so that turned me off. I'm considering abandoning the module because I don't want to contribute to soul-stealing masonry. Sorry not sorry.

So part-way through March, I pulled down an old OLD Challoner that was in great condition, and it's LOVELY! Dear God has it been a blessing! I finally got a great reading lamp (I wear dark glasses with bifocals), but I got the lamp because of the Bible!, so I was physically able to "read a book" again without relying on sunlight at the window. It was that important to me, that in a time of probable economic collapse, I sought out a special lamp for visually impaired people, just so I could read the Challoner!

I keep my laptop open with the software including the original KJV, some oddball DRB (freebie module, better than NAB), the (English) LXX and the Vulgate. But those barely interest me anymore because of the "Faithful" footnotes! Those words he opted to use are beautiful! Clearly, Bp. Challoner is someone who LOVED Holy Writ, and his Faith, and while I had started out not trusting it because of poor reviews, and checked it against the software Bibles as if I were some expert, that attitude soon disappeared. I love it! I trust it.

It's a big, heavy Bible that you wouldn't want to carry around, but for pleasurable reading?! Dear GOD what a blessing!

(And no freaky pyramid/eyeball imagery. It's very holy. I am humbled to have read as much as I have, and feel most blessed.)

Read the Challoner. Don't trust anything with a square and compass. Honestly, Bp. Challoner was the 2nd millennium's St. Jerome when it comes to love of Church.

Incredulous · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2020, 08:15:11 PM »

Quote from: StCeciliasGirl on May 05, 2020, 12:36:58 AM

I came for this question. I hadn't read the Challoner. I'd heard it of course, but my DRB was a Haydock which I now understand to be a mishmash of Challoner and (?) Knox or something? Due to visual impairment, it was software plus an online version. And I was making a module for the software with Haydock's notes while reading through in a year, so everyone could have access to $$$ Haydock's notes. But I wasn't enjoying it. No I'll be honest: I detest Haydock's notes. At first, they look impressive (some Challoner footnotes but hard to distinguish from others, a few "big names" like St. Augustine, etc), but he was always with the naming off of demonic mythological figures.. let me shoot you an example:

Let's just say his notes had me cringing when it was time to read the Bible and do the Haydock module. It was Hell but I didn't know what was "wrong"; I figured I just didn't have the right kind of faith, and put MORE effort into it.

But then I got a look at a real old Haydock, and there really are masonic symbols in the imagery and on the cover (like you wouldn't believe), so that turned me off. I'm considering abandoning the module because I don't want to contribute to soul-stealing masonry. Sorry not sorry.

So part-way through March, I pulled down an old OLD Challoner that was in great condition, and it's LOVELY! Dear God has it been a blessing! I finally got a great reading lamp (I wear dark glasses with bifocals), but I got the lamp because of the Bible!, so I was physically able to "read a book" again without relying on sunlight at the window. It was that important to me, that in a time of probable economic collapse, I sought out a special lamp for visually impaired people, just so I could read the Challoner!

I keep my laptop open with the software including the original KJV, some oddball DRB (freebie module, better than NAB), the (English) LXX and the Vulgate. But those barely interest me anymore because of the "Faithful" footnotes! Those words he opted to use are beautiful! Clearly, Bp. Challoner is someone who LOVED Holy Writ, and his Faith, and while I had started out not trusting it because of poor reviews, and checked it against the software Bibles as if I were some expert, that attitude soon disappeared. I love it! I trust it.

It's a big, heavy Bible that you wouldn't want to carry around, but for pleasurable reading?! Dear GOD what a blessing!

(And no freaky pyramid/eyeball imagery. It's very holy. I am humbled to have read as much as I have, and feel most blessed.)

Read the Challoner. Don't trust anything with a square and compass. Honestly, Bp. Challoner was the 2nd millennium's St. Jerome when it comes to love of Church.

This is an extraordinary account of your journey to find an old Bp. Challoner Bible SCG.

Would you tell us more details about the Challoner edition you found?

Concerning Haydock, I believe Michael A. Hoffman had the same assessment of his masonic tampering of DR.

But maybe Claudel knows of this and can elaborate in a more scholarly fashion?

claudel · « **Reply #14 on:** May 23, 2020, 09:19:42 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on May 23, 2020, 08:15:11 PM

This is an extraordinary account of your journey to find an old Bp. Challoner Bible SCG.

Would you tell us more details about the Challoner edition you found?

Concerning Haydock, I believe Michael A. Hoffman had the same assessment of his masonic tampering of DR.

But maybe Claudel knows of this and can elaborate in a more scholarly fashion?

I am as much in the dark as you are, Incredulous. The very first thing needed to get to the light, figuratively speaking, is for SCG to supply the full publication data of the various Bible editions that she refers to. Without some knowledge of this data, reaching a sound conclusion is impossible.

For example, there is no indication in her comment as to the source of the Masonic symbolism she refers to. Is there clear evidence that Haydock himself wanted it to be there, or is it an editorial gloss of some sort? If the former, what is the clear evidence? And why, I wonder, has no previous CI commenter mentioned this matter? It's not as if Haydock's commentary has ever been the subject of controversy.

The fundamental point is that, as Father Haydock's notes were written roughly two hundred years ago, they have been in the public domain since roughly 1900, if not earlier (before 1950 or so, copyright laws were immeasurably less restrictive than they have since become). Thus, there is effectively nothing to prevent a given publisher or editor from using them in any way he chooses—whether to represent or misrepresent, to enlighten or deceive.

I would also be curious to learn the specifics of what Hoffman has to say. Whether one agrees with his rationale or not on a given matter, he has never been a guy to make charges in a void. He always provides reasons for his assertions.

Again, more specifics—many more—are needed before some kind of conclusion can be reached.

Author Topic: Challoner vs Haydock (Read 1596 times)

ascanio1

Challoner vs Haydock

DecemRationis

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

MiserereMeiDeus

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

claudel

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

claudel

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

ascanio1

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

DecemRationis

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

DecemRationis

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

DecemRationis

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

ascanio1

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

claudel

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

ascanio1

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

StCeciliasGirl

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

Incredulous

Re: Challoner vs Haydock

claudel

Re: Challoner vs Haydock