If the Douay-Rheims Bible is the best Catholic Bible, then what was the point of Pope Pius XII writing his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu"?
Pope Pius XII realized that the Latin Vulgate translation had many flaws because after its 16th-17th Century publications, older (and more accurate) Greek manuscripts were discovered that put St. Jerome's translations to shame.
Later published Catholic bibles (thanks to "Divino afflante Spiritu") used the newly discovered older Greek manuscripts for their translation and hence the Douay-Rheims became obsolete. Again, if the Douay-Rheims Bible was not made obsolete, then why else would Pope Pius XII have written "Divino Afflante Spiritu?"
For example, the Douay-Rheims Bible is the only Catholic bible that insists on continuing to erroneously translate Luke 1:28 as Mary being "full of grace" rather than the correct translation of "favored one." The correct translation does not affect the sacred Hail Mary prayer by any means, although Douay-Rheims "onlyists" may disagree.
The Catholics who prefer the Douay-Rheims version of the Bible are the opposite side of the same coin as the Protestants who favor the (Authorized) King James Version of the Bible. Both sides refuse to acknowledge the errors of their own Bibles since the discovery of older extant Greek manuscripts. The only difference is that, fortunately, Catholics had a Pope who issued an encyclical to guide the faithful away from such erroneous translations with "Divino Afflante Spiritu."
There is no excuse for Douay-Rheims "onlyists" to wallow in their own culpable ignorance for over 70 + years. Wake up.
You are incorrect here because you are ignoring the recent discoveries of older extant Greek manuscripts which were not available to St. Jerome during the time he was translating the Vulgate.
You are also in error when you immediately jump to the conclusion that just because "favored one" (rather than "full of grace") is (correctly) translated into every single Bible save the Douay-Rheims, then that nullifies Mary as being "full of grace."
The Virgin Mother has always been "full of grace"....that's a given. So when older and more reliable Greek manuscripts appear and state "favored one" instead of "full of grace," nobody should be upset and deny these modern (and more reliable) manuscript discoveries.
Your logic is akin to saying that Catholics cannot believe the Virgin Mother is full of grace unless it is printed in the Bible. Pope Pius IX's 1854 Encyclical on the Immaculate Conception explains several ways in which Mary was "full of grace." Do not fall into the error known as "Sola Scriptura of Douay-Rheims" in the same way Protestants fall into the error of "Sola Scriptura of Authorized King James Version."
I shall refer you to the docuмent "Divino Afflante Spiritu" itself along with the following:
When translating Luke 1:28, the Greek does not contain the name "Mary." Therefore the Greek word kecharitomene ("favored one") is the object of the Angel Gabriel's salutation. Therefore, the salutation literally says: "Hail, favored one." It does not say: "Hail Mary, full of grace." Every Bible has gotten this right except the Douay-Rheims.
Also, as a Traditional Catholic, you know it is in error to mix the Latin language with the vernacular. This is why the Latin Mass contains no vernacular speech whatsoever and the Leonine Prayers said in English are not part of the Latin Mass. However, the Douay-Rheims ignores this error when it uses the English Language yet still retains the Latin names of many Old Testament books. Every other Bible correctly uses the original Hebrew names. It's only the Douay-Rheims who gets this important concept wrong.
When reading the Bible in the vernacular, remember these facts:
- It's "Joshua" not "Josue"
- It's "Tobit" not "Tobias"
- It's "Isaiah" not "Isaias"
- It's "Jeremiah" not "Jeremias"
- It's "Ezekiel" not "Ezechiel"
- It's "Hosea" not "Osee"
- It's "Obadiah" not "Abdias"
- It's "Jonah" not "Jonas"
- It's "Micah" not "Micheas"
- It's "Habakkuk" not "Habacuc"
- It's "Zephaniah" not "Sophonias"
- It's "Haggai" not "Aggeus"
- It's "Zechariah" not "Zacharias"
- It's "Malachi" not "Malachias"
Do you erroneously say that Jesus Christ is the "Messias" or do you correctly say that Jesus Christ is the "Messiah?"
Do you correctly say that "Jonah" was swallowed by a fish or do you incorrectly say "Jonas" was swallowed by a fish?
And as if all of this wasn't enough, the Douay-Rheims erroneously labels some Old Testament books. Remember:
- It's "1 and 2 Samuel" not "1 and 2 Kings"
- It's "1 and 2 Kings" not "3 and 4 Kings"
- It's "1 and 2 Chronicles" not " 1 and 2 Paralipomenon"
- It's "Ezra" not "1 Esdras"
- It's "Nehemiah" not "Nehemias" or "2 Esdras" [a double error here]
FYI, since you've most likely never read or even heard of Divino Afflante Spiritu and thus continue to bury your face inside a Douay-Rheims like the Protestants who bury their faces inside an Authorized King James Version, you will continue to wallow in your ignorance.
You are in favor, perhaps, of the ecuмenically-inspired RSV-CE (in which Our Lady is no longer "full of grace," but only "highly favored"); an explicit attack by the modernists and rationalists on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; a gesture to the Protestant collaborators who were delighted with this new "discovery."
But let me revise your argument for you:
It is not the Douay Rheims Bible which you are really arguing is obsolete, but the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., As though new "advances" in true biblical scholarship could weaken one of the foundations for a defined dogma of the Church).
As for Divino Afflante Spiritu, it was a modernist docuмent of Pius XII; like you, my modernist seminary professors rejoiced in it, because it gave the nod to a "Catholic version" of the Protestant-rationalist historico-critical method of Bultmann (his greatest protege being the grand-heresiarch Fr. Raymond Brown).
We used Lawrence Boadt's modernist work "Reading the Old Testament," which includes on the inner frontispiece a quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu as justifying all that was later to poison our minds in those pages (the goal of which was to convince us that the biblical accounts of miracles all had natural explanations and causes, and that inerrancy only pertained to "moral truths," not the historical accounts of scripture; the same claim later made by the evolutionists now invading Tradition).
I would posit you are already in the process of losing your faith (if you ever had it).
The fruits of Divino Afflante Spiritu and the condemned modernist exegetes of Pascendi being partially rehabilitated by the transitional Pope Pius XII.
Speakest thou... Michael A. Hoffman ?I can assure you I am not Michael Hoffman.
If the Douay-Rheims Bible is the best Catholic Bible, then what was the point of Pope Pius XII writing his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu"?
Pope Pius XII realized that the Latin Vulgate translation had many flaws because after its 16th-17th Century publications, older (and more accurate) Greek manuscripts were discovered that put St. Jerome's translations to shame.
20. Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate.[24] It is historically certain that the Presidents of the Council received a commission, which they duly carried out, to beg, that is, the Sovereign Pontiff in the name of the Council that he should have corrected, as far as possible, first a Latin, and then a Greek, and Hebrew edition, which eventually would be published for the benefit of the Holy Church of God.[25] If this desire could not then be fully realized owing to the difficulties of the times and other obstacles, at present it can, We earnestly hope, be more perfectly and entirely fulfilled by the united efforts of Catholic scholars.21. And if the Tridentine Synod wished "that all should use as authentic" the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church." Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical.
Even if one were to concede to this point, that doesn't change the fact that the Douay-Rheims goes much much further into error when it includes in its Bible the following:I am not sure what you think you are proving by collecting passages in which the Douay-Rheims differs from "oldest Greek manuscripts".
- Matthew 17:21 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, with all of its excessive commentary, fails to mention to the reader that this verse is a duplicate of Mark 9:29)
-Matthew 18:11 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, with its copious commentary, fails to mention that this verse was manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10)
- Mark 4:23 and Mark 7:16 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, even with its Bishop Challoner commentary, fails to mention that these two verses are missing in many of the most ancient extant manuscripts)
- Mark 16:9-20 (The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain this "longer ending")
- Luke 23:17 (The Douay-Rheims Bible again fails to mention that this verse is a duplicate of Matthew 24:40 and is not included in the oldest Greek manuscripts)
[etc]
It's obvious that you are making up numbers (i.e. facts) and I am glad that you admitted this. Also, there is no need to censor truth by writing the following:
"Stupidity snipped by moderator."
I don't laugh at or insult people who disagree with me, I kindly ask that you would extend to me the same courtesy.
Now I will easily refute some of the false assumptions stated here by others:
False. Popes have used Roman Catholic Bibles translating it as "highly favored one" for decades. Are all of these Popes in error, along with any Roman Catholic who uses a Bible other than Douay-Rheims?
Apparently, you are not familiar with Liturgiam Authenticam which requires the usage of ancient texts that have proven to be much older than any of the texts St. Jerome used to complete the Vulgate. I have not installed the principle. The "Kyrie" (the only language other than Latin in TLM) is not considered "mere vernacular" like the languages which exist today. That's because the original New Testament docuмents were written in Greek and so the TLM can easily use Greek wording because it is using the exact language in which the NT was written. No other language can claim the same importance, not even Hebrew or Aramaic, because the NT was not written even in those languages.Even if one were to concede to this point, that doesn't change the fact that the Douay-Rheims goes much much further into error when it includes in its Bible the following:
- Matthew 17:21 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, with all of its excessive commentary, fails to mention to the reader that this verse is a duplicate of Mark 9:29)
-Matthew 18:11 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, with its copious commentary, fails to mention that this verse was manifestly borrowed by copyists from Luke 19:10)
- Mark 4:23 and Mark 7:16 (The Douay-Rheims Bible, even with its Bishop Challoner commentary, fails to mention that these two verses are missing in many of the most ancient extant manuscripts)
- Mark 16:9-20 (The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain this "longer ending")
- Luke 23:17 (The Douay-Rheims Bible again fails to mention that this verse is a duplicate of Matthew 24:40 and is not included in the oldest Greek manuscripts)
- John 5:3-4 (Here is where the Vulgate is in "serious error" when compared to the ancient Greek manuscripts. Verse 4 is missing from all of the earliest Greek manuscripts and St. Jerome "added" the end of verse 3 to the Vulgate. Whether or not this was a genuine error or not, I will give St. Jerome the benefit of the doubt)
- John 7:53-8:11 (The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain this story)
- John 21 (The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain this final chapter)
- Acts 8:37 (The oldest manuscripts of Acts do not include this verse. Again, why does the Douay-Rheims Bible commentary fail to mention this to the readers?)
Of course these facts were not known at the time the Douay-Rheims Bible was published (1582; 1609-1610) or even when Bishop Richard Challoner made his commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible from 1749-1752. However, since these facts are known today, any re-printing of the Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner revision or not) should make the reader aware of them.
Other errors include:
- Mark 8 only contains 38 verses, yet the Douay-Rheims Bible errs by placing Mark 9:1 in Mark 8 as Mark 8:39
- Acts 15:34 (The oldest manuscripts of Acts do not contain this verse)
- Acts 24:6-8 (Not only is verse 7 not in the oldest Greek manuscripts but also the end of verse 6 and the beginning of verse 8 are also not included in the oldest Greek manuscripts.
- Acts 28:29 (This verse is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts)
- Romans 16:24 (This verse is also not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts)
- 1 John 5:7-8 (The "comma" contained in this passage first appeared in the Vulgate manuscripts of the 9th century. St. Jerome did not write it. The earliest known copies of the Vulgate did not contain it, it was only in the "revised" Vulgate where this initially appeared)
- Romans 16:7 (The oldest manuscripts contain the female name "Junia" and that was a common woman's name at that time. The Douay-Rheims Bible incorrectly has the name as "Junias" and there is no evidence for "Junias" being a man's name at that time)
Since the Douay-Rheims Bible comments on none of these things, one can understand why an encyclical like "Divino Afflante Spiritu" was both needed and successfully written.
"Full of Grace" is in fact the correct translation. These idiots fail to take into account that a lot of common terms became highly-specialized theological terms in the early Church. Take for example the term presbyter from the Greek. Literally, in its original colloquial meaning, it means an old man or an elder. But elder also connotes rank and superiority. So it became applied in the early Church to "spiritual superiors", i.e. priests. Yet some insist on translating it as "elder". Similarly, episcopos in Greek LITERALLY means "overseer" or "superior", but it was used in a technical theological way to refer only to consecrated bishops.
Same thing with the term charis in Greek, the root word of kecharitomene "full of grace". Note the root word "charit-", related to "charis" and "charitos", i.e. "charity". Already in the Epistles of St. Paul, "charity" is used for the theological virtue ... along with faith and hope. While colloquially meaning "favor", it meant, when applied theologically, the "favor of God", i.e. being in the state of grace. And the perfect passive tense of the verbal "kecharitomene" in Greek indicates completion and perfection. Consequenly, full of grace or "perfected in grace" is INDEED the correct translation ... despite what these modern idiots tell you. St. Jerome knew this. He could speak both Greek and Latin fluently, and he was fully aware of the theological significance of the root word "charis".
We even have examples of this in modern English. So, for instance, the word "grace" is used colloquially to mean "elegance" or "beauty". But if you read a Catholic text about the "grace of God", you're obviously using a specialized theological term and not the colloquial meaning. That would be like someone a thousand years in the future, after English has ceased to be spoken, digging up an old Catholic book written in English and trying to translate "grace of God" as the "elegance and beauty of God". Same thing these buffoons are doing.
I took 4 years of Latin and 3 of Greek in High School, double-majored in Greek and in Latin at Loyola U. in Chicago (got a scholarship there to study these), and completed the Ph.D. courework in Greek and Latin (with Patristic emphasis) at The Catholic University of America in D.C. I taught Latin at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary. I in fact intended to write my dissertation precisely on the theological use of colloquial terms in the early Church. But then life took a different turn for me ...
Outstanding post!
I wanted to write my dissertation on the subject because I saw how much people's faith was being damaged by this kind of idiotic sophistry. And there's also the underlying hubris of "St. Jerome was just an idiot compared to me" tone that's always there. No, these Fathers were brilliant men who were much closer to the Church and to its theological language (in Greek and Latin) than we ever will be.Indeed! Just read the biography of St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate.
Read this little booklet, "What Bible Should You Read?" by Thomas A. Nelson.
Spoiler alert [...]: the answer is the Douay Rheims.
Spoiler alert, hinted at on the very cover: the answer is the DOUAY RHEIMS.
Well, I prefer to read the Vulgate.I hope you noticed how carefully I phrased my comment earlier in the the thread. I said the Douay-Rheims "remains the best choice for English speakers lacking the Latin necessary to read the Vulgate directly."
I hope you noticed how carefully I phrased my comment earlier in the the thread. I said the Douay-Rheims "remains the best choice for English speakers lacking the Latin necessary to read the Vulgate directly."
8)
If the Douay-Rheims Bible is the best Catholic Bible, then what was the point of Pope Pius XII writing his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu"?
If I were his priest, I would give Hank the following penance:I would suggest that if he has problems with the Douay Rheims that he learn Latin and study the Vulgate.
Read this little booklet, "What Bible Should You Read?" by Thomas A. Nelson.
Spoiler alert, hinted at on the very cover: the answer is the DOUAY RHEIMS.
If I were his priest, I would give Hank the following penance:Yeah Seriously!
Read this little booklet, "What Bible Should You Read?" by Thomas A. Nelson.
Spoiler alert, hinted at on the very cover: the answer is the DOUAY RHEIMS.
It is unlikely that you could understand it .
Is it possible nowadays to purchase a non-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims?
My favorite version of the Douay-Rheims Bible is the Haydock Version with the commentary/footnotes of the Doctors of the Church. I grew up novus ordo and my traditional Catholic godmother gave me a copy as a gift one year for my birthday (or baptism I forget). It made a BIG impact in my life and I believe that it played a part in preparing me for the traditional Catholic Faith.This edition is also condemned by the website that happenby linked.
The link provided in the OP. They reproduced the original Douay exactly, and it is available through them.
Is it possible nowadays to purchase a non-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims?
It is unlikely that you could understand it .I own the original 1592 version and it is understandable. When in doubt, one can cross check with the Douay to get an idea of what is being said, but its not as bad as one might think considering the early date it was published.
I do not mean that as a slur on Meg's intelligence . I mean that the English of that time is significantly different from that which we speak.
The link provided in the OP. They reproduced the original Douay exactly, and it is available through them.So they try to convince Catholics that there is something wrong with other versions while making a profit selling the one that they claim is the only good one. This is not a disinterested source of information.
It is unlikely that you could understand it .
I do not mean that as a slur on Meg's intelligence . I mean that the English of that time is significantly different from that which we speak.
Here are a few Old English words from the 14th century, along with their modern translations:Old English is the language spoken by Anglo Saxons up to around 1150. It is a completely different language from the one we speak. Middle English refers to language spoken from around 1150 to around 1500. This is the language of the Wycliffe Bible (heretical) and Chaucer. Meg gave examples from Middle English, not Old English.
Old English is the language spoken by Anglo Saxons up to around 1150. It is a completely different language from the one we speak. Middle English refers to language spoken from around 1150 to around 1500. This is the language of the Wycliffe Bible (heretical) and Chaucer. Meg gave examples from Middle English, not Old English.
The next stage is Early Modern English. Works of this period include, Shakespeare's, the King James Bible (heretical) and the original Douay-Rheims. Most of us can only understand this English with some difficulty.
Modern English, the language of the Challoner edition and also what we speak, begins towards the end of the 17th century.
This edition is also condemned by the website that happenby linked.Really? Oh wow... :(
Really? Oh wow... :(I'm not sure it is of a serious concern for regular Catholic folks who desire to read the gospel, but it could be more serious for those studying a particular subject in depth where the information must be more precise in order to escape doubt. However, those studying Scripture in depth have other obstacles including intellectual honesty that plays a big role in Scriptural exegeses and the dishonest ones will butcher the more precise texts anyway. In the meantime, the Church endorsed the Challoner for a reason, it is overall good and correct. For those of us that do not want to be steered by less than exact translations, or be subject to footnotes exclusive to that edition that wind up being the opinion of the translator, or who need the accuracy of the original regarding a particular matter, the fewer persons who handle/translate any edition of Scripture, the better. Especially when so many scholars express concern over the differences.
First of all, the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church approved the Challoner version. Case closed.
Besides, the Challoner revision is slavishly accurate to the original Latin Vulgate. How many of you can argue with me on that? You first have to know Latin.
Why would any Catholic on this board object to their fellow Catholics preferring to use the version of the Douay-Rheims that existed prior to the Protestant Revolt?The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is the "old Bible". It was the accepted replacement for the original D-R for about 200 years, until shortly before Vatican II. It is a recent novelty to claim that there is something wrong with it.
The secular gov suppressed and prosecuted ownership of that Bible for 200 years.
If you like the old Mass, why would you dislike the old Bible?
So they try to convince Catholics that there is something wrong with other versions while making a profit selling the one that they claim is the only good one. This is not a disinterested source of information.You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??
Why trust this group that has a clear conflict of interest over the bishops and popes who approved the Challoner and Hadock editions of the Douay Rheims Bible?
You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??That's backwards.
I was surprised to find this in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909Funny how this isn't addressed at all. One need ask himself why? If the Challoner version isn't quite as accurate having come under the microscope of a very early Catholic Encyclopedia as well as good bishops, and because the Challoner is more closely associated with the KJV, why eschew the original? Notice that one complaint of those who reviewed Challoner said about the original Douay, "and the translation (is) so literal" As if that were a terrible thing! We all agree that the Challoner is approved, that it works for Catholics, but it also has some problems. Why do people try to prevent others from knowing that?
It states:
"Although the Bibles in use at the present day by the Catholics
of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they
are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less
alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in
1749-52 . . .
The changes introduced by him were so considerable that,
according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new
translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, 'To call it any longer
the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been
altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was
originally published.' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took
the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]. . ."
The Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims is the "old Bible". It was the accepted replacement for the original D-R for about 200 years, until shortly before Vatican II. It is a recent novelty to claim that there is something wrong with it.Totally incorrect.
The original D-R did not exist prior to the Protestant Revolt.
You don't trust the bishops and popes that approved the Douay-Rheims Bible prior to the 1752 Challoner version??It was an excellent translation for the time at which it was written. Both the English language and the challenges facing Catholics changed over time.
Also, IMO the Crisis of Modernism in the Church began with Galileo.
All the errors since flow from that.
Funny how this isn't addressed at all. One need ask himself why? If the Challoner version isn't quite as accurate having come under the microscope of a very early Catholic Encyclopedia as well as good bishops, and because the Challoner is more closely associated with the KJV, why eschew the original? Notice that one complaint of those who reviewed Challoner said about the original Douay, "and the translation (is) so literal" As if that were a terrible thing! We all agree that the Challoner is approved, that it works for Catholics, but it also has some problems. Why do people try to prevent others from knowing that?Being overly literal is a bad thing. A translation can be literal to a point that interferes with the comprehensibility of the result.
It was an excellent translation for the time at which it was written. Both the English language and the challenges facing Catholics changed over time.Change of circuмstances and/or modern language is no excuse, otherwise, communion for the divorced and remarried, which stands on this principle, is perfectly fine. Moderns always cite "change" for the purpose of changing what is Catholic.
From Wiki:
"..
Challoner's revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version...
"
Being overly literal is a bad thing. A translation can be literal to a point that interferes with the comprehensibility of the result.Sorry, this is no argument at all because the original Douay in English does not say "in the beginning created God heaven and earth". This comparison makes no accounting for the differences in sentence structure in language. Latin works differently than English and this was accounted for in the original Douay, obviously. Accusing the original Douay of error in this matter shows contempt or ignorance, either of which produces error.
For example, look at the first sentence of the Bible:
in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram
A completely literal translation is: "In beginning created God heaven and earth." This is bad English.
We already know how much Jaynek hates the literal Bible because it would force her to drop many of her erroneous beliefs.Meanwhile, something tells me that certain archaic D-R fans are all about Flat Earth, and that's their real motivation.
Talk about beating a dead horse.
Who gives a rat's behind? Unless they also borrowed its protestant heresy-inspired mis-translations, I couldn't care less.It's been repeated multiple times. No one is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No one is taking Hank's position. The information provided remains interesting even some choose to ignore it.
The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature. So if they borrowed certain English turns-of-phrase, that would be completely acceptable for a Catholic bible. As long as the translation is still faithful to the Vulgate, it's fine.
Seriously, do you think the King James bible reads like a Superman comic or something, with similar content? There are only some problematic issues with certain parts of that translation.
Guess how conservative the Anglican church was back when the King James translation was made? I'll give you a hint: they didn't have female bishops yet.
By your argument I have to give up the Rosary, because Annibale Bugnini said the Rosary a few times, and he was a Freemason. He probably made the Sign of the Cross on multiple occasions -- we Catholics gotta ditch that habit as well. Because we don't want to "borrow from Annibale Bugnini's habits."
You know what expression comes to mind?
"Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."
The King James version isn't all bad; and yes you can quote me on that. It just so happens that the King James was a beautiful work of English literature.I agree. Even though this is not much publicized by Anglicans, the KJV drew on the D-R as a source. Other than a few places where the KJV distorted the translation to support their heresies, it is overall quite accurate. And, as you say, it is is renowned for its beauty.
Meanwhile, something tells me that certain archaic D-R fans are all about Flat Earth, and that's their real motivation.Nobody did.
DO NOT go there; I'm just saying.
Sorry, this is no argument at all because the original Douay in English does not say "in the beginning created God heaven and earth". This comparison makes no accounting for the differences in sentence structure in language. Latin works differently than English and this was accounted for in the original Douay, obviously. Accusing the original Douay of error in this matter shows contempt or ignorance, either of which produces error.I gave an exaggerated example to make the problem clear. A completely literal translation creates an ungrammatical and/or awkward result. When a critic complains that a translation is too literal, that is what he is talking about.
I gave an exaggerated example to make the problem clear. A completely literal translation creates an ungrammatical and/or awkward result. When a critic complains that a translation is too literal, that is what he is talking about.Conversely, the dynamic version (that is, the translation into the vulgar) also produces changes in meaning. That's why I'd much rather check my understanding against a lesser version while using the more precise version rather than the other way around. Or, as moderns do, not check at all.
This is a completely different issue from how literally one ought to take Scripture as the Word of God.
For the record, I completely accept traditional Catholic teaching concerning Scripture.
Change of circuмstances and/or modern language is no excuse, otherwise, communion for the divorced and remarried, which stands on this principle, is perfectly fine. Moderns always cite "change" for the purpose of changing what is Catholic.Language change is a key concept when discussing translation issues. This has nothing whatever to do with modernist attempts to change doctrine. A person who does not understand how language change works is not in a position to offer a knowledgeable opinion on translations. Similarly, change of circuмstances affects what material will be most useful in the notes and commentary. This too is unrelated to attempts to change doctrine.
Besides, no one is saying the Challoner isn't acceptable. Just that there are even more precise versions which reflect the original more perfectly. As an aside, some notable Catholics of good authority actually believe the differences between the two are even more dramatic than that. This reminds me of the Novus Ordo argument, that there's no need to go back to TLM and there is nothing wrong with the New Mass because bishops approved it. <sigh>
Language change is a key concept when discussing translation issues. This has nothing whatever to do with modernist attempts to change doctrine. A person who does not understand how language change works is not in a position to offer a knowledgeable opinion on translations. Similarly, change of circuмstances affects what material will be most useful in the notes and commentary. This too is unrelated to attempts to change doctrine.Cardinals Newman and Wiseman disagree with you when they tell us that the original Douay and the Challoner are significantly different, and therefore, the Challoner is not as accurate. As the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia reveals " 'To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published.' In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version [King James]." This tells us the meaning changed. And the differences brought to light in the two manuscripts by these cardinals is proof that one is not the same as the other in actual content. The sources are reliable, the differences manifest, yet, you refuse to consider their warning. That's entirely up to you, but exaggerating or playing semantics as you're doing here, in order to prove what you belief, won't change things.
There is no good reason to claim that the original D-R is a "more precise version which reflects the original more perfectly." This is nothing like the well-supported arguments for showing that the Tridentine Mass is superior to the Novus Ordo. A better analogy for these false claims about the original D-R is the absurd claim that Catholics ought to receive Communion in the hand because this was the practice of the early Church. Earlier does not mean better. Claiming that it does is the error of antiquarianism.
Cardinals Newman and Wiseman disagree with you when they tell us that the original Douay and the Challoner are significantly different, and therefore, the Challoner is not as accurate.I have not denied that the Challoner version is different from the original version. It does not, however, follow that different means more accurate. The Challoner is so accurate that scholars have used it to reverse translate in order to recreate its original Latin source.