The reliability of the Douay Rheims

[Valz]

Bible criticism and is not really my forte, so I feel a bit umprepared to answer some of the challenges that often come up while discusing theology with non-Catholics.

One recent example has to do with Luke 1:28, which the DR has as "full of grace" when reffering to Mary but other translations such as the KJV have "favored one".

Another one is Psalm 129:4, which has a verse in the DR: "For with thee there is merciful forgiveness: and by reason of thy law, I have waited for thee, O Lord. My soul hath relied on his word", that is not found in other translations.

The main argument that is often advanced is that the DR is a poor translation whereas the KJV (for example) is a better translation because it better matches the original Septuagint and the Masoretic text, they claim that the  DR / Latin Vulgate, "added words/verses" not found in the original.

...

I would like to know, is there a good resource where one can learn the counter arguments to these claims, so that one can defend the reliability and accuracy of the DR against these attacks?


Thanks,
Valz

[QuisUtDeus]

Are you going to trust modern Prots or St. Jerome who spoke all the languages of the Bible and consulted with Rabbis on the OT texts?  He also had access to texts that are no longer around.

Remember the Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church.  That's not to say St. Jerome may not have made an error here or there, but there are no doctrinal errors.

The Protestants belabor every single iota because they are Sola Scriptura.  Catholics have the Magisterium that infallibly guarantees the Vulgate is without doctrinal error.

[miss_fluffy]

Valz, there are many good resources.  And by the way, if you pick up an old KJV it also has the "full of grace" in Luke.  "Favored one" is a very new translation.

Basically, Douay-Rheims is an old translation of the Latin Vulgate.  The Latin Vulgate was the first Bible written in vernacular.  It was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts by St. Jerome. 

The KJV used old Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as the Latin Vulgate, and it's not a terrible translation, but has some problems that the Douay Rheims translation does not.  First of all, it was specifically written for poetic rhythm.  Translation was fudged according to what rhymed better, and made for more beautiful prose.  This is highly evident if you compare Psalm 23 between the texts.  The Douay Rheims made no effort to rhyme or have rhythm, but simply be as accurate a translation word per word.  Second of all, the KJV was translated at a time and place in history where the oppression of the poor, as well as oppression of women was rampant.  Some of this skewed the KJV in favor of the rich men who were involved in it's translation.

You can find a great deal of information about Catholic bible studies at Robert Sungenis site: www.catholicintl.com  His links page has many links to different bibles online for comparison.

[Valz]

Are you going to trust modern Prots or St. Jerome who spoke all the languages of the Bible and consulted with Rabbis on the OT texts? He also had access to texts that are no longer around.

I am not saying that I am willing to trust protestants...I trust St. Jerome.

Remember the Vulgate is the official Bible of the Church.

I know, that is why I use the DR only.

Catholics have the Magisterium that infallibly guarantees the Vulgate is without doctrinal error.

And I believe that. All I want is to learn how to defend that in discussions with non-Catholics.


Valz

[QuisUtDeus]

Catholics have the Magisterium that infallibly guarantees the Vulgate is without doctrinal error.

And I believe that. All I want is to learn how to defend that in discussions with non-Catholics.

You can't because they reject the Magisterium and just thump their mistranslated Bibles.  It's like clapping with one hand.

Ask them how they know their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

"I prayed on it."  -- Don't they think that St. Jerome and the councils prayed on it, too?

"I use exgesis." -- Don't they think the Church used and uses that?

What it comes down to is that for Protestants any interpretation of the Bible - except the Catholic one - is possible.  That's why they have like 30 different Bibles in their houses with concordances, etc.

[Valz]

Valz, there are many good resources.  And by the way, if you pick up an old KJV it also has the "full of grace" in Luke.  "Favored one" is a very new translation.

Basically, Douay-Rheims is an old translation of the Latin Vulgate.  The Latin Vulgate was the first Bible written in vernacular.  It was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts by St. Jerome.  

The KJV used old Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as the Latin Vulgate, and it's not a terrible translation, but has some problems that the Douay Rheims translation does not.  First of all, it was specifically written for poetic rhythm.  Translation was fudged according to what rhymed better, and made for more beautiful prose.  This is highly evident if you compare Psalm 23 between the texts.  The Douay Rheims made no effort to rhyme or have rhythm, but simply be as accurate a translation word per word.  Second of all, the KJV was translated at a time and place in history where the oppression of the poor, as well as oppression of women was rampant.  Some of this skewed the KJV in favor of the rich men who were involved in it's translation.

You can find a great deal of information about Catholic bible studies at Robert Sungenis site: www.catholicintl.com  His links page has many links to different bibles online for comparison.

Thanks for the information miss_fluffy and also for the link, I will check it out. By the way, do you have any references that show that "favored one" is a modern translation?


Thanks!
Valz

[Valz]

Catholics have the Magisterium that infallibly guarantees the Vulgate is without doctrinal error.

And I believe that. All I want is to learn how to defend that in discussions with non-Catholics.

You can't because they reject the Magisterium and just thump their mistranslated Bibles.  It's like clapping with one hand.

Ask them how they know their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

"I prayed on it."  -- Don't they think that St. Jerome and the councils prayed on it, too?

"I use exgesis." -- Don't they think the Church used and uses that?

What it comes down to is that for Protestants any interpretation of the Bible - except the Catholic one - is possible.  That's why they have like 30 different Bibles in their houses with concordances, etc.

I understand what you are saying and agree with you. However, the argument these people advance is not concerned with the interpretation of the Bible but with how closely a given translation matches the original source text.


Valz

[Sonoman]

I have a mid-1970s KJV with "Full of Grace." Should I scan it for you?

[Valz]

I have a mid-1970s KJV with "Full of Grace." Should I scan it for you?

Well, it is not necessary for you to go through the trouble of doing that. I just would like to know when and why it was changed. You know, some information that I may use to defend "full of Grace" as the correct translation.


Thanks,
Valz

[QuisUtDeus]

I understand what you are saying and agree with you. However, the argument these people advance is not concerned with the interpretation of the Bible but with how closely a given translation matches the original source text.
Valz

Sorry if I seem cranky, Valz, but I get really irritated thinking about the Protestant arguments I've heard.  My frustration isn't directed towards you, but towards the ignorant arguments they make based on whatever translation they have or can find to fit their logic.