What English Bible Do You Read?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 3 2006, 10:16 AM']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. [right][snapback]934084[/snapback][/right][/quote]i do not mean to be snotty about this, but paragraphs are a gift from God and make your posts so much easier to read

i have the RSV-CE for personal study use. i also have the New Jerusalem, but i don't like it.

[Amator Veritatis]

Since having reading this thread and participated in it, I decided to do some more in-depth research regarding the various versions under the name of the Douay-Rheims Bible. It appears that my previous information regarding Challoner's revision was either incorrect, or if correct, simply inaccurate itself at the source. From the Catholic Encyclopedia, I found the following:

Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century 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. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. 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 sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock's, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's (1836) -- the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein -- Challoner's of 1749 -- the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used. Cf., Catholic Encyclopedia, Douay Bible

N.B., "Authorized Version" refers to the Protestant King James Bible, which was apparently the only text authorised throughout England until the eighteenth century.


These comments are quite interesting indeed. I hope to be able to continue this pursuit and, perhaps, to obtain some means of viewing more extensively an original Douay-Rheims Bible in order to better analyse the apparent predicament.

[Amator Veritatis]

I apologise for not sufficiently separating my post. I generally attempt to space my post more than necessary so that those who have difficulty reading large portions of text might more easily avail themselves of--what I hope to be--insightful entries and comments. In the future, I will be sure to pay greater attention to the length of my posts and the necessity of separating the comments at appropriate places.

[son_of_angels]

I use the Confraternity Edition, of two types, one which appears to have more of the Douai and the other which uses more of the Confraternity translation. Personally, I find the New Jerusalem Bible a WONDERFUL translation for devotional/Bible Study use. However, I do quite appreciate the majesty and simplicity of the Douai-Challoner Bible.

The Douai text is, essentially, what a Catholic Bible should be: a translation from the Latin, with a revisitation by the Greek, both in the New and Old Testaments. I have always wondered when a good translation of the Nova Vulgata or the Clementine Vulgate would be availabe....Ah well, if you want a job done, I guess you just have to do it yourself.

My advice....If you want to read the Bible pick up either the Clementine Vulgate, a better representation of Jerome's noble work, or the Nova Vulgata, which still uses his translation as a basis. Don't know Latin? Tough...Learn it.
If something in the Vulgate confuses you, pick up a Greek version of either Scriptures or, if you have studied too much, read Hebrew.

[dspen2005]

speaking translation.... does anyone know where I might be able to find a Latin translation of the one-volume 'Christian Prayer'??

[Nathan]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 2 2006, 07:56 PM']You use the Grail Psalter?

I personally know the abbot that heads it up.
[right][snapback]933622[/snapback][/right][/quote]

I love the Grail Psalter! It's great for devotional reading/Lectio Divina. I use the original 1963 version. I wish it were more widely available to those of us in North America -- at least as widely available as the later inclusive language version is, which was actually rejected for use in the Mass.

[Funky_R]

I use both the New American Bible and the Douay-Rheims Challoner Bible, primarily to compare the two. I like my Douay-Rheims better, but I like to have the NAB on me as well, to read and reflect.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Nathan' date='Apr 3 2006, 04:47 PM']I love the Grail Psalter! It's great for devotional reading/Lectio Divina. I use the original 1963 version. I wish it were more widely available to those of us in North America -- at least as widely available as the later inclusive language version is, which was actually rejected for use in the Mass.
[right][snapback]934523[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well hopefully the new version will do away with all the inclusive langauge and be a more accurate translation. It is in Rome for approval now and there are discussions on it as we speak I am sure. I do pray that it will go back to a more accurate translation. We shall see though.

[Nathan]

I dunno; the reason I like the Grail Psalter is because it is a dynamic equivalence translation. It is meant to be sung in church, or for devotional reading/prayer. A dynamic (less strict accuracy for the sake of readability) translation lends itself to these purposes better than literal translations. It takes chances; it is more literary, poetic. If I want a more accurate translation of the Psalms, I read the RSV or the ESV.

[Amator Veritatis]

Taking chances, however, is not the proper manner of presenting the sacred texts. The traditional manner of translating the Holy Scriptures is by directly translating the words in the same style. This makes for the most accurate translation and one that is quite appealing when done intelligently, as is the case with the Douay-Rheims Bible.

[Peccator]

The problem with translations are that they tend to be unconsciously translated according to the believes of the translator. I recently had a long discussion here with Fr. Bonaventure Hinwood, a Franciscan Priest and Catholic translator of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and numerous other languages.(a very orthodox and holy man)

He told me that in translation, the translator is often confronted with a word having 2-10 different meaning in the anciet tongues. Hemust then (judging on context) decide what word would be the one being implied in the text.

He said that the believes here definitely play a role in the translation as a Calvinist would choose the word which fits most into the Calvinist paradigm (the same goes for Lutheran, Methodist etc..)

The problem is that the meaning is not necessarily the one mean by the author…or as I’ve seen in the Afrikaans bible – the word has no Afrikaans equivalent. (Afrikaans makes no distinction between “grace” and “mercy” for instance, they are both translated as “genade” meaning mercy.)

I think its because of this reason that any student of the Bible will want to use numerous translations.

Edited April 5, 2006 by Peccator

[misereremi]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 3 2006, 05:19 PM']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.
[right][snapback]934147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
We mostly use the New Jerusalem Bible. My version does not have an extensive commentary but it is approved as far as I know-?

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:42 AM']The problem with translations are that they tend to be unconsciously translated according to the believes of the translator. I recently had a long discussion here with Fr. Bonaventure Hinwood, a Franciscan Priest and Catholic translator of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and numerous other languages.(a very orthodox and holy man)

He told me that in translation, the translator is often confronted with a word having 2-10 different meaning in the anciet tongues. Hemust then (judging on context) decide what word would be the one being implied in the text.

He said that the believes here definitely play a role in the translation as a Calvinist would choose the word which fits most into the Calvinist paradigm (the same goes for Lutheran, Methodist etc..)

The problem is that the meaning is not necessarily the one mean by the author…or as I’ve seen in the Afrikaans bible – the word has no Afrikaans equivalent. (Afrikaans makes no distinction between “grace” and “mercy” for instance, they are both translated as “genade” meaning mercy.)

I think its because of this reason that any student of the Bible will want to use numerous translations.
[right][snapback]936500[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Good stuff here. Thanks peccator.

[Mrvoll]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:56 PM']You use the Grail Psalter?

I personally know the abbot that heads it up.
[right][snapback]933622[/snapback][/right]

[/quote]

In Canada, we use it for our Psalms when we sing them, otherwise we use the NRSV.

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]We mostly use the New Jerusalem Bible. My version does not have an extensive commentary but it is approved as far as I know-? [/quote]

I suppose it is dependent upon what is meant by "approved". A Bible which may have the [i]Nihil Obstat [/i](nothing stands in the way), given by the diocesan Censor, the [i]Imprimatur[/i] (let it be printed), given by the Bishop himself and, if applicable, the [i]Imprimi Potest[/i] (it can be printed) given by the religious superior. Even with all these conditions met, it would simply illustrate that the Censor, Bishop, and if applicable, the religious superior, all felt that the contents were acceptable and conforming with the teachings of the Church. Each would then give his stamp of approval in the proper form given above. The Church has simply given us the norms that we must read the Holy Scriptures in conjunction with commentary approved by the Church. This fact does not necessarily mean that the commentary must be in the same edition as the Bible itself. It is my understanding that most commentary, at least prior to the twentieth century and perhaps the nineteenth as well, was published in separate editions from the sacred texts.

My only point in making my previous statements was that such commentary must be employed by Catholics wishing to follow the will of the Church on the matter. The commentary, however, does not necessarily have to be found directly below the passages and from a full text of the Bible, as is the case with most commentary today. All that being said, I do not know much about the almost infinite number of English versions available, so I could not comment regarding the value or orthodoxy of the New Jerusalem Bible, but I simply would recommend that you obtain a traditional commentary which is approved by the Church. Other than simply obtaining the Haydock Bible which includes both commentary and the Holy Scriptures themselves--though I would recommend doing this if you have not done so already--you might find helpful a work entitled in its English edition [i]A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture[/i], authored by Bishop Frederick Justus Knecht D.D. It has as its audience the lay or ordinary Catholic who does not necessarily seek exceptionally scholarly commentary for the sake of studies or argument. The edition currently being printed is from the early part of the twentieth century. I believe its [i]Imprimatur[/i] is from 1923. TAN Books is re-publishing this edition, currently on sale for $30. You can order it from their website at the link provided below.

[url="http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/618/category_id/9/"]http://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/sho.../category_id/9/[/url]

N.B., one can read an excerpt from the text at the link provided by clicking a link with the words "Read some pages from the book" under the section "More information about this item", which is located immediately below the information about the book, the pricing information and the discount information. In addition, the Douay-Rheims Bible is probably the best text to read in conjunction with this commentary, but, presumably, it can be used with any translation.