What English Bible Do You Read?

[OLAM Dad]

Mostly the RSV. I also have the DR but I'm not sure which version it is. It is in large, red with gold writing on the cover, and in two volumes. One is the old testament and the other the new.

Anybody know which version this is?

[Mrvoll]

The Confraturinety Version. It is a revision of the Douay Rheims and it is used at the Indult Mass in Kitchener ON.

[Nathan]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 2 2006, 06:30 PM']And, by the way, you are so naive to think that Early Modern English isnt more dignified than today's English.[right][snapback]933567[/snapback][/right][/quote]

What makes it more "dignified"?

[Peccator]

Briefly speaking, language contributes to how we understand and perceive the world, it does this by acting as a medium by which ideas are conveyed and understood. That generally speaking is its agreed upon function.

Now taking the development of language into account (changing of meaning over centuries especially), it seems silly to want to sacrifice the very understanding of the word of God in the name of making something more “dignified”...especially if the majority of the readers will not understand the historical meaning of the words (as they are not on the same Hermeneutical base) and when the more modernised translations can hardly be consider non-dignified, or disrespectful.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Peccator

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Apr 3 2006, 06:09 AM']What makes it more "dignified"?
[right][snapback]933856[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, pray tell, whyfor dost thou support such a doleful position?

[Didacus]

other

I read the french bible!

Free T-shirt anyone?

[Peccator]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Apr 3 2006, 04:00 PM']Free T-shirt anyone?
[right][snapback]933931[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Count me in!

[Didacus]

Would you light the yellow T-shirts with the bon-bon shoulders and fluorescent 'Didacus.corp' logo, or the plade-purple 'earth be blessede' T-shirt with fitted for pregnant woman under 80 lbs?

[Amator Veritatis]

I chose the Douay-Rheims Haydock Edition, but in case this is unclear, the Haydock Bible is simply the same edition of the Douay-Rheims as Bishop Richard Challoner's revision, but it includes extensive notes by Father George Leo Haydock. Father Haydock did not provide a revised translation. I also have at least one Douay-Rheims Bible of my own which does not have Haydock's commentary. As far as the original Douay-Rheims Bible, the cases in which one might obtain such a copy are "rare if not practically non-existent". In addition to this, the language is a bit more difficult from the brief citations I have seen made. I have not had the opportunity to investigate the matter any further than this for the simple reason that access to the work is so limited. In any event, in the citations I read, the English was essentially the same as that of the Challoner's revision, simply with older forms of the English and with certain anglicised Latin words. One noted difference is that, at least in what I have seen, the Middle English spellings of certain words might be used, though, as St. Thomas More stated, such English is still modern English, properly speaking. An example of such a difference might be the spelling of the word "folly" as "folie" or perhaps "follie". In the preface for Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims, the point is made that his changes are not substantial. They sought primarily to update the spellings rather than change the diction, but in the instances of certain anglicised Latin words, English equivalents served as replacements. In any event, from what I have read, a person well-versed in the English language, even without extensive studies in older forms of the language, and in Latin would not have serious problems reading the original Douay-Rheims Bible. Challoner's revision does serve as an easier, more fluid read. There are certain aspects of the revision, however, that are perhaps a bit detrimental grammatically speaking. A pertinent example is seen in the fact that "you" is used both as the plural nominative and accusative, at least in certain constructions. N.B., "Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?" Cf., St. Paul to Romans vi.3. Rather than using the more proper forms, i.e., thou, thee, thy, thine ; ye, you, your, yours, Challoner's revision may employ a modernised form of this, i.e., thou, thee, thy, thine ; you, you, your yours. In addition, if I am not mistaken, the simplified plural forms are employed in the singular at times as well and not for the sake of forming a polite, formal form of address. It should also be noted that I am unaware as to whether the original Douay-Rheims Bible actually used the plural forms as a polite or formal form of address, e.g., thou, thee, thy, thine being used only for familiar usages and ye, you, your, yours being used in both formal singular usages and in all plural usages. In any event, as far as the language in these versions are concerned, it seems a bit ridiculous to characterise the English in Challoner's revision as "outdated", though I am not sure that anyone has actually done this, for his revision is modern English, not Olde English.


OLAM Dad, if your version is published by Catholic Treasures and contains extensive commentary in it, it is the Haydock Bible, that is, Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible with Haydock's notes. I believe bookstore at my parish offers this edition of the Haydock Bible, but I have a different edition. If I am not mistaken, this edition was re-printed in 1991 and perhaps again in 2000. It is the most widespread edition of the Haydock Bible in print, I believe.

[Brother Adam]

I own a very wide variety of Bibles, both Catholic and Protestant because I very often compare two different texts in conversations with non-Catholics.

I make the most regular use in teaching and devotion of the RSV-CE (now Second Edition) and the Haydock Bible.

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 3 2006, 11:16 AM']OLAM Dad, if your version is published by Catholic Treasures and contains extensive commentary in it, it is the Haydock Bible, that is, Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible with Haydock's notes. I believe bookstore at my parish offers this edition of the Haydock Bible, but I have a different edition. If I am not mistaken, this edition was re-printed in 1991 and perhaps again in 2000. It is the most widespread edition of the Haydock Bible in print, I believe.
[right][snapback]934084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thanks, Amator Veritatis. You gave me enough info to find it online (it was a gift so I didn't know where it was purchased).

This is the version I have.

[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/materdei/OLAM%20Entrance/11050.gif[/img]

The commentary is quite extensive. Some of the pages are 90% commentary and only 10% text.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I use Challoner's version. In terms of difficulties, the only trouble I have is that certain commonly known names are translated differently (for example, he translates "Tobit" as "Tobias." The actual reading of the text has never been an issue.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Theoketos]

For scholarly work I read a vulgate and Greek, the RSV is the best English there is.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='OLAM Dad' date='Apr 3 2006, 10:51 AM']Thanks, Amator Veritatis.  You gave me enough info to find it online (it was a gift so I didn't know where it was purchased).

This is the version I have.

[img]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/materdei/OLAM%20Entrance/11050.gif[/img]

The commentary is quite extensive.  Some of the pages are 90% commentary and only 10% text. 
[right][snapback]934108[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I have that version as well.

[Amator Veritatis]

Yes, as I suspected, it is the edition re-printed by Catholic Treasures. It is important for Catholics to be sure to read the Holy Scriptures with proper commentary, extensive and approved by the Church. To read Holy Writ absent such notes would be contrary to both Tradition and the express command and desire of the Church.