Douay-Rheims only?

[Paul]

While reading about Catholic Bible study, I came across the claim that only the Douay-Rheims Bible should be read, and that all others are corrupt. (God has even provided me with a copy of Douay-Rheims through my local used bookstore.) Here are some good arguments I have found:

• The Douay-Rheims Bible was the only Bible in use among English-speaking Catholics until 1940, and was used in the English part of the liturgy until 1960; people on all sides of the debate agree on this. If it is wrong, then we were without God's Word from 1610 to 1940, which is similar to what Protestants and Mormons believe.
• By the same logic, the Vulgate, from which Douay-Rheims is translated, was the only Bible used in Latin from when it was translated around 400 to when the a Nova Vulgata was written in 1979. Either the Vulgate is right, or Catholics were without God's Word from 400 to when the first modern translator decided to use Greek and Hebrew texts, a claim suspiciously similar to Protestantism. Arguments against Douay-Rheims try to discredit the Vulgate, but none have even tried to get past this argument.
• The Council of Trent declared the Vulgate free from errors in faith or morals (not necessarily errors in translation, but give me an error in translation over an error in faith or morals!), a declaration affirmed in Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The Council also forbade rejecting the Vulgate for any reason (that is, even the "original languages" argument). Since other translations differ from Douay-Rheims in key areas (such a list of verses can easily be found through an online search; consider Genesis 3:15, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 16:26, Matthew 20:16, Matthew 24:28, Matthew 26:50, Luke 1:34, Luke 2:14, John 1:12, Romans 12:16, Revelation 3:16, and more), where they differ from Douay-Rheims in faith and morals, they are wrong. There's a lot in our tradition that is based on these key verses.
• St. Jerome's first language was fourth-century Greek. He therefore knew the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the New Testament better than any modern scholar possibly could. He spoke Latin nearly as well.
• It's free from Protestantism except where Bishop Challoner based his updates on the King James Version--but these are few and do not affect doctrine, according to those who have read both the original and the Challoner version.
• Using all kinds of Bible versions creates the same kind of doctrinal chaos as Protestantism (even worse, the New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version are full of modernism); even some Protestants complain about the abundance of versions and become "King James Only" for this reason. Modern versions have to keep getting revised as new manuscripts are discovered, creating the same kind of chaos as science. Similarly, the abundance of Greek and Hebrew texts that differ in major ways allows a translator to pick the one he personally likes best.
• We Catholics value the writings of saints, and no other translation was done by a saint. Many saints used the Vulgate or Vulgate-based translations.
• It was common knowledge among the Church Fathers that the Hebrew text was changed by Jews after the spread of Christianity to edit out anything implying that Jesus was the Messiah (I am told that in modern times, some Orthodox Jews in Israel have taken out Isaiah 53 for this reason). Therefore the Old Testament is better translated from the Septuagint, since that was hundreds of years before the Incarnation.
• Popes have spoken out against translations done by "Bible societies," which most modern versions are.
• What we read is very important, so we need to be very careful about what kind of Bible we read.
• The most common argument against it is the archaic language, but the Challoner revisions make it far easier to read than King James or Shakespeare.
• My number one reason: It's totally free from modernism, because it was translated into English before modernism even existed!

Now, I still use my RSV because some of my Bible study tools (Navarre Bible commentary, Ignatius Study Bible, Eerdman's concordance) use it; I even use a King James Bible for the same reason (Nave's Topical Bible, Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and Vine's Expository Dictionary all use it). For devotional reading before bed, I sometimes use the Catholic Living Bible (a paraphrase, but a very readable one), but I treat it as a children's book of Bible stories--it has the gist of the stories, but doctrine cannot be based on it.

All this being said, it seems to me that Douay-Rheims should be the standard by which we measure all other versions. What do you all think?

[Shin]

I remember Thomas A. Nelson had a booklet out called 'Which Bible Should You Read?' have you heard of it?

'Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.'

- The Catechism of Pope Pius X

If you read the original Douai you will find it even more close corresponds to the Vulgate and the writings of the saints.

 

[Paul]

Wow, great quote! Maybe I should read that catechism.

Yes, I have heard of Nelson's book; in fact, I got a copy, and it was part of my research. The reason I investigated this issue is because I know only Douay-Rheims was written before modernism existed.

Do you know much about the differences between the original a Douay-Rheims and the Challoner revisions? The sales pitch at realdouayrheims.com didn't do much. That site claims:

In the 18th century, Bibles appeared in England Bibles - the work of a Bishop Challoner - which were erroneously titled The Douay- Rheims Bible. These counterfeit versions were allowed circulation in England and its colonies. The real Douay- Rheims --- the original and true version --- vanished --- to be found only in museums and literary collections.

However, one of the selling points of Douay-Rheims in general for me is that there was a time when it was the only Bible available for Catholics. If this guy's claim that the Challoner revisions are corrupt is true, then the English-speaking Catholic world was without a proper Bible for quite some time, which is no different from the claims of the anti-Douay-Rheims crowd.

I mean, didn't God promise to preserve His Word (Psalm 12:6-7 (11:7-8 DRB), Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)? Didn't He promise that the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18-19; "Hell" is ONLY found in Douay-Rheims)?

I'm certainly not criticizing the original Douay-Rheims, I just don't understand the argument in favor of it.

[Poche]

I saw this on a French Language forum.

La Douay Reims est une bible de référence. Traduite depuis la Vulgate ce qui est un gage de qualité.
C'est un anglais littéraire mais peut-être est-ce mieux ainsi car l'anglais courant, lui, passe et se démode.

A rough translation it says;

The Douay Rheims Bible is a reference. Translated from the Vulgate which is a guarantee of quality.
This is an English literary but maybe it's better that way because everyday English, he goes and goes out of fashion.

[Paul]

Somehow I thought there would be more Douay-Rheims enthusiasts here...

[Shin]

The original Douai is 'The' Bible in English for me.

For Bible reading that's what I will only use. I will do computer based searches and check out other variants for selective verses to see what the possibilities are and try to judge if they're acceptable or not.. but for 'The'.. it's the original Douai is #1 and nothing is #2.

 

[Therese]

One should only read the Douay-Reims Bible -- all the others are indeed corrupted.  The Haydock Bible is comprised of the Douay-Rheims with commentary --  a very good Bible with a very good commentary.

[Neopelagianus]

Me I can be considered a Douai-Rheims onlyist. But if there is no DRB, I would either stick to the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition or the Jerusalem Bible (minus the tetragrammaton)

Neopelagianus

[Poche]

•By the same logic, the Vulgate, from which Douay-Rheims is translated, was the only Bible used in Latin from when it was translated around 400 to when the a Nova Vulgata was written in 1979. Either the Vulgate is right, or Catholics were without God's Word from 400 to when the first modern translator decided to use Greek and Hebrew texts, a claim suspiciously similar to Protestantism. Arguments against Douay-Rheims try to discredit the Vulgate, but none have even tried to get past this argument.

There were other translations into English from around the seventh century. However, the English language itself changed over the years so that newer translations were needed.

[Poche]

•The Council of Trent declared the Vulgate free from errors in faith or morals (not necessarily errors in translation, but give me an error in translation over an error in faith or morals!), a declaration affirmed in Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The Council also forbade rejecting the Vulgate for any reason (that is, even the "original languages" argument). Since other translations differ from Douay-Rheims in key areas (such a list of verses can easily be found through an online search; consider Genesis 3:15, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 16:26, Matthew 20:16, Matthew 24:28, Matthew 26:50, Luke 1:34, Luke 2:14, John 1:12, Romans 12:16, Revelation 3:16, and more), where they differ from Douay-Rheims in faith and morals, they are wrong. There's a lot in our tradition that is based on these key verses.

that is why when you read from the saits you see the Latin Vulgate used. That is the version that was used by such saints as St John of the Cross, St Alphonsus Ligouri, and many others. That way as language changes you could see different words used in the different translations but the same words from Sacred Scripture.

[Poche]

•St. Jerome's first language was fourth-century Greek. He therefore knew the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the New Testament better than any modern scholar possibly could. He spoke Latin nearly as well.

He also studied Hebrew so that he could get a better insight on the real meaning of the Old Testament.

[Poche]

While reading about Catholic Bible study, I came across the claim that only the Douay-Rheims Bible should be read, and that all others are corrupt. (God has even provided me with a copy of Douay-Rheims through my local used bookstore.) Here are some good arguments I have found:

• The Douay-Rheims Bible was the only Bible in use among English-speaking Catholics until 1940, and was used in the English part of the liturgy until 1960; people on all sides of the debate agree on this. If it is wrong, then we were without God's Word from 1610 to 1940, which is similar to what Protestants and Mormons believe.
• By the same logic, the Vulgate, from which Douay-Rheims is translated, was the only Bible used in Latin from when it was translated around 400 to when the a Nova Vulgata was written in 1979. Either the Vulgate is right, or Catholics were without God's Word from 400 to when the first modern translator decided to use Greek and Hebrew texts, a claim suspiciously similar to Protestantism. Arguments against Douay-Rheims try to discredit the Vulgate, but none have even tried to get past this argument.
• The Council of Trent declared the Vulgate free from errors in faith or morals (not necessarily errors in translation, but give me an error in translation over an error in faith or morals!), a declaration affirmed in Pope Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. The Council also forbade rejecting the Vulgate for any reason (that is, even the "original languages" argument). Since other translations differ from Douay-Rheims in key areas (such a list of verses can easily be found through an online search; consider Genesis 3:15, Matthew 16:19, Matthew 16:26, Matthew 20:16, Matthew 24:28, Matthew 26:50, Luke 1:34, Luke 2:14, John 1:12, Romans 12:16, Revelation 3:16, and more), where they differ from Douay-Rheims in faith and morals, they are wrong. There's a lot in our tradition that is based on these key verses.
• St. Jerome's first language was fourth-century Greek. He therefore knew the Greek of the Septuagint and the Greek of the New Testament better than any modern scholar possibly could. He spoke Latin nearly as well.
• It's free from Protestantism except where Bishop Challoner based his updates on the King James Version--but these are few and do not affect doctrine, according to those who have read both the original and the Challoner version.
• Using all kinds of Bible versions creates the same kind of doctrinal chaos as Protestantism (even worse, the New American Bible and New Revised Standard Version are full of modernism); even some Protestants complain about the abundance of versions and become "King James Only" for this reason. Modern versions have to keep getting revised as new manuscripts are discovered, creating the same kind of chaos as science. Similarly, the abundance of Greek and Hebrew texts that differ in major ways allows a translator to pick the one he personally likes best.
• We Catholics value the writings of saints, and no other translation was done by a saint. Many saints used the Vulgate or Vulgate-based translations.
• It was common knowledge among the Church Fathers that the Hebrew text was changed by Jews after the spread of Christianity to edit out anything implying that Jesus was the Messiah (I am told that in modern times, some Orthodox Jews in Israel have taken out Isaiah 53 for this reason). Therefore the Old Testament is better translated from the Septuagint, since that was hundreds of years before the Incarnation.
• Popes have spoken out against translations done by "Bible societies," which most modern versions are.
• What we read is very important, so we need to be very careful about what kind of Bible we read.
• The most common argument against it is the archaic language, but the Challoner revisions make it far easier to read than King James or Shakespeare.
• My number one reason: It's totally free from modernism, because it was translated into English before modernism even existed!

Now, I still use my RSV because some of my Bible study tools (Navarre Bible commentary, Ignatius Study Bible, Eerdman's concordance) use it; I even use a King James Bible for the same reason (Nave's Topical Bible, Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and Vine's Expository Dictionary all use it). For devotional reading before bed, I sometimes use the Catholic Living Bible (a paraphrase, but a very readable one), but I treat it as a children's book of Bible stories--it has the gist of the stories, but doctrine cannot be based on it.

All this being said, it seems to me that Douay-Rheims should be the standard by which we measure all other versions. What do you all think?

Actually I use the Latin Vulgate as thh standard by which I measure all other versioins.

[Shin]

Very good to hear Poche!

I didn't know that St. Jerome's first language was Greek!

The Vulgate is the Bible of the Saints!

I hope our project here for providing the Original Douai-Rheims and Latin Vulgate in parallel (or interlinear) online continues to make good progress. Say some prayers folks.

It is very good to be able to compare the English and the Latin side by side. When you have a parallel or critical edition you can learn a great deal -- At times when the English is not its normal derivative word from the Latin, one notices and looking a little more at the true meaning of the words.

The initial typesetting on the Old Testament is moving through the minor prophets at this point, it takes time and work, with much more proofing and arrangement to complete, but God willing it will be provided.

[CyrilSebastian]

The New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible was published in 1582.

[eschator83]

It seems an absolute, unquestionable, amazing coincidence that this thread popped up when I closed my last post which on Cyril's thread Breviary prayers.  Should I say Inspiration.  I pray to due and fruitful meditation here, and then comment further.  I wonder what you think.