My struggle with bibles

[AveChristusRex]

No, the NABre notes are scholarly rather than faithful. They can inform about various facts and offer scholarly opinions on some topics but when I want comfort and faith building pastoral care, I am not so likely to find it in the NABre notes.

I personally never use any translation but the Douay-Rheims, as it was translated with scrupulous accuracy from the Vulgate of St. Jerome, and was used universally in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) for over 1500 years. The Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, but if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons.

Furthermore, in terms of philology and theological study, I use the Anno Domini 1609 Douay-Rheims, which I have in a three-volume copy and was incredibly hard to find. I use it because it is the scantron of the original parchment and thus proclaims the same infallible truth as Pius XII spoke of. It is hard to read, though, so if I am doing the Divine Office, I use the Douay-Rheims Challoner Version (CV) with the Vulgate side-by-side.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I personally never use any translation but the Douay-Rheims, as it was translated with scrupulous accuracy from the Vulgate of St. Jerome, and was used universally in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite) for over 1500 years. The Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, but if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons.

Furthermore, in terms of philology and theological study, I use the Anno Domini 1609 Douay-Rheims, which I have in a three-volume copy and was incredibly hard to find. I use it because it is the scantron of the original parchment and thus proclaims the same infallible truth as Pius XII spoke of. It is hard to read, though, so if I am doing the Divine Office, I use the Douay-Rheims Challoner Version (CV) with the Vulgate side-by-side.

What's an independent Catholic?

 

[jas3]

Furthermore, in terms of philology and theological study, I use the Anno Domini 1609 Douay-Rheims, which I have in a three-volume copy and was incredibly hard to find. I use it because it is the scantron of the original parchment and thus proclaims the same infallible truth as Pius XII spoke of.

This sounds interesting, where did you end up finding a copy?

 

[AveChristusRex]

This sounds interesting, where did you end up finding a copy?

I got in touch with Derek Barnell of Church Latin Publishing Co. and requested a special copy be made for me in hardcover (because the hardcover editions were no longer in print); you can find it here: Original Douay Rheims Bible 3 Volume Set | churchlatin.com (and don't worry, they don't come out blue, but they only come in paperback now)

I also have a .PDF of it, though I had to archive it because it was a rather large file, but this website provides it too: Original Douay Rheims Bible (1582 & 1610)

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I also have a .PDF of it, though I had to archive it because it was a rather large file, but this website provides it too: Original Douay Rheims Bible (1582 & 1610)

Thank you for the link to the 1609 DRB pdf.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Navarre is a good Bible, and the RSVCE Study Bible by Ignatius Press is also very good. I've seen Haydock Bibles and they are grand old things.

I don't mind archaeology notes but some of the Higher Criticism that got into the JB and NAB just seemed alien to the faith. A careful use of Higher Critical method can be useful but much of the results of the method are counter-productive.

I haven’t seen the Navarre Bible, but it sounds interesting. I quite like the Knox Bible and the Challoner Douai-Rheims.

By the way, the original Douay-Rheims from the 16th century is quite different, and not in a good way, from the very polished 18th century Challoner edition that we are accustomed to reading.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I haven’t seen the Navarre Bible, but it sounds interesting.

Do look it up. The distinction is not in the text but the notes, which are both scholarly AND faithful,

I quite like the Knox Bible and the Challoner Douai-Rheims.

I enjoy the Knox, even though it can hardly be considered a scholarly version.

By the way, the original Douay-Rheims from the 16th century is quite different, and not in a good way, from the very polished 18th century Challoner edition that we are accustomed to reading.

People THINK they are reading a Douay but mostly it's that they're reading a Challoner based on the Douay. An original Douay can be a jarring as reading an original KJV. I have a 'Confraternity Version' which is a revision of the Challoner, and people even call that a Douay. That was the main approved translation just before the NAB came along. The NAB was the first Catholic Bible that was translated directly from the original languages. I don't count the Jerusalem Bible, from original languages into French, and then into English. Both the NAB and Jerusalem Bible were big into notes, and some of those notes destroyed some people's faith.

Anyhow I use the ESVCE and the RSVCE mostly now, with an occasional diversion into the Knox and the pocket version Confraternity Version. Ignatius Press has finally finished their RSVCE study Bible, which I would purchase in a heartbeat if I were rich enough.

 

[AveChristusRex]

People THINK they are reading a Douay but mostly it's that they're reading a Challoner based on the Douay. An original Douay can be a jarring as reading an original KJV. I have a 'Confraternity Version' which is a revision of the Challoner, and people even call that a Douay. That was the main approved translation just before the NAB came along.

You're 100% right, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's NOT a Douay, rather that it is a spiritually abridged Douay; meaning, you will not receive the same spiritual growth from a Challoner than the 1609 Douay. The Challoner is really a non sequitur [i.e. a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it], because of its use of the KJV as its source text rather than solely using the Vulgate; this is directly condemned in the precafe of the to the Douay-Rheims, and thus speaks to the same effect: “Now since Luther and his followers have pretended that the Catholic Roman faith and doctrine should be contrary to God’s written word, and that the Scriptures were not suffered in vulgar languages, lest the people should see the truth, and withal these new masters corruptly turning the Scriptures into diverse tongues, as might best serve their own opinions, against this false suggestion and practice, Catholic pastors have, for one especial remedy, set forth true and sincere translations in most languages of the Latin Church.”

Bp. Challoner's work, though titled The Douay-Rheims, was allowed to circulate in England and its colonies because it used the KJV as its source text. The real Douay-Rheims—the original and true-to-life version—vanished, to be found only in museums and literary collections. To that degree, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 A.D. 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 same issue exists with the “Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible,” as it is another Challoner variation. The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia under the subject “Haydock, George Leo” has this to say concerning the “Haydock Bible” now being erroneously sold as the Douay-Rheims: "Father Haydock’s chief publication was a new edition of the English translation of the Latin Vulgate first published at Reims in 1582, and at Douai in 1609; Bishop Challoner’s text of 1750 was the basis of the work, but in the New Testament Dr. Troy’s edition of 1794 is largely followed. The notes are partly original, partly selected from other writers, those on the New Testament not having been compiled by Father Haydock. The edition appeared in Manchester, 1812- 14; Dublin, 1812-13; Edinburgh and Dublin, 1845-8; New York, 1852-6."

The "Troy Edition" Newman is referencing is defined in the July, 1859 “Rambler” article entitled “The History of the Text of the Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture.” Wherein he states: "§3. Dr. Troy’s Bible: “…The revisor was the Rev. Bernard Macmahon, a Dublin priest, who published his first edition in 1783, in 12mo, with the formal approbation of his Archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. There is reason for supposing that it professed to be a continuation of Dr. Challoner’s labours & eight years afterwards, in 1791, the same clergyman was selected by Dr. Troy, his then Archbishop, to superintend an edition…We doubt …whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner.”" Finally, Newman in his July 1859 “Rambler” article, stated: “We must not conclude this enumeration of revisions and reprints of the Rheims and Douay, … which were published … without direct episcopal sanction… This is Haydock’s Bible…[T]he respective publishers, were printers; but the editor and annotator employed by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes its celebrity.” So, we can clearly see:

1. Challoner's work is an approximation of the KJV,
2. Haydock's Douay-Rheims is a Challoner-based KJV translation,
3. But not only is it the Challoner version, but the New Testament is largely the Troy version of 1794,
4. The notes for the New Testament are NOT his notes.
5. It was not given direct episcopal sanction like Challoner or Troy.

Here are a few of the many examples that clearly illustrate the fact that Challoner's work is an approximation of the KJV:

Verse	Latin Vulgate	1582 Rheims	Challoner & Haydock
I Regum 12:3 (1 Samuel 12:3)	Loquimini de me coram Domino et coram christo eius...	Speak of me before our Lord, and before his Christ,	Speak of me before the Lord, and before his anointed,
I Regum 12:3 (1 Samuel 12:5)	Dixitque ad eos testis Dominus adversus vos et testis christus eius in die hac...	And he said to them: Witness is our Lord against you, and witness is his Christ in this day, …	And he said to them: The Lord is witness against you, and his anointed is witness this day, …
Psalmi (Psalm) 131:10	Propter David servum tuum ne avertas faciem christi tui.	For David thy servants sake turn not away the face of thy Christ.	For thy servant David’s sake, turn not away the face of thy anointed.
Psalmi (Psalm) 131:17	Ibi oriri faciam cornu David paravi lucernam christo meo.	Thither will I bring fourth a horn to David, I have prepared a lamp to my Christ.	There will I bring forth a horn to David: I have prepared a lamp for my anointed.
Isaias 64:10	Civitas sancti tui facta est deserta Sion deserta facta est Hierusalem desolata...	The city of thy holy one is made desert, Sion is made desert, Jerusalem is become desolate.	The city of thy sanctuary is become a desert, Sion is made a desert, Jerusalem is desolate.

KJV removed 'christus' and its parsings from: I K. 2:10; 2:35; 12:3; 12:5; 16:6; II K. 22:51; II Par. 6:42; Ps. 2:2; 17:51; 19:7; 83:10; 88:39; 88:52; 131:10; 131:17; Is. 45:1; Lam. 4:20; Hab. 3:13; Acts 4:33; 10:48; 28:31; Rom. 3:26;4: 24; 8:35; 10:17; I Cor. 2:1; 4:16; 5:5; II Cor. 5:15; 11:4; Gal. 4:31; Eph. 5:21; 5:29; Col. 3:15; 3:17; I Thes. 4:17; Heb. 10:19; 13:20; I Pet. 3:15; Jude 24, 25; Apocalypse 11:15-19.

Here is a comparison of nine different Bible versions:

King James verse	Douay-Rheims verse	Septuagint 270 B.C.	Vulgate 385 A.D.	Gutenberg 1455	Luther’s German 1534	Douay-Rheims 1609	King James 1611	Challoner 1750	Revised Standard 1952	Confraternity Version 1961
I Sam 2:10	I Kings 2:10	cristou	Christi	Cri	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	Christ	anointed	Christ
I Sam 2:35	I Kings 2:35	cristou	Christo	Cro	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
I Sam 12:3	I Kings 12:3	cristou	Christo	Cro	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
I Sam 12:5	I Kings 12:5	cristos	Christus	Cro	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
I Sam 16:6	I Kings 16:6	cristos	Christus	Cro	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
II Sam 22:51	II Kings 22:51	χριστω	christo	cristo	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
II Sam 23:1	II Kings 23:1	χριστον	christo	Cro	Messias	Christ	Anointed	Christ	Anointed	Christ
II Chr 6:42	IV Kings 6:42	cristou	Christi	cristi	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 2:2	Ps 2:2	cristou	Christum	cristu	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	Christ	Anointed	anointed
Ps 17:51	Ps 18:50	Χριστω	Christo	cristo	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 20:6	Ps 19:7	criston	Christum	cristum	Gesalbten	CHRIST	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 84:9	Ps 88:39	criston	Christum	cristi	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 89:51	Ps 88:52	cristou	Christi	cristum	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 132:10	Ps 131:10	χριστου	Christi	cristi	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Ps 132:17	Ps 131:17	χριστω	Christo	cristo	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Isa 45:1	Isa 45:1	χριστω	Christo	cristo	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	anointed	Anointed	anointed
Lam 4:20	Lam 4:20	cristos	Christus	crist	Gesalbten	Christ	anointed	Christ	Anointed	anointed
Dan 9:25	Dan 9:25	cristou	Christum	cristu	Christum	Christ	Messiah	Christ	An anointed one	one who is anointed
Dan 9:26	Dan 9:26	crisma	Christum	crist	Christus	Christ	Messiah	Christ	An anointed one	an anointed
Hab. 3:13	Hab 3:13	cristous	Christo	christo	Gesalbten	Christ	Anointed	Christ	Anointed	anointed

It appears as if they do not have the same meanings in the verse, as it gives them up for more interpretation in some editions, while those of the Vulgate state it is a prophecy for Christ specifically. I will restate this, as I think it is important: the reason it is so important to be true to the Vulgat is that the Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

As such, in the Catholic mind [Magisterially], any non-Vulgate scripture is 'lesser' or of lesser quality than that of direct Vulgate translation, which only the 1609 Douay-Rheims can claim. Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, I will say that if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons. I'll stop there, but I will quote the Rt. Rev. Henry Graham's 'Where We Got the Bible': “…At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled.”