The Douay-Rheims Only Controversy? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ย. 2024
- This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Dr. John Bergsma. Watch the full livestream here: • The Biblical Basis for...
In this clip, Dr. Bergsma explains why the Douay-Rheims is a wonderful translation of the Bible, it's not only way (or best way) to read the Bible.
===
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Homeschool Connections: homeschoolconn...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
Reading the Douay Rheims feels like eating solid healthy meat.
And the King James is for vegans. 😁
I have a DR, and I absolutely love it, but I mostly read the Catholic study Bible because of the clarity and explanations.
@@crobeastness Other translations say He instead of She. It's assumed prophecy either way
@@Josiebydarn for absolute clarity I recommend Douay-Rheims Translation with revisions of Bishop Challoner. He was raised Presbyterian, as was I therefore I find his revisions easy to understand.
@Prasanth Thomas Douay-Rheims is better it's more accurate.
I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but I appreciate the Douay Rheims version.
@@shirleygoss1988 Yes I'm orthodox and just discovered it. It's great
After spending a couple of years with reading and note taking I can really appreciate the Douay Rheims even with its advanced and latinized vocabulary. Great reference for sure.
Take-away: no single translation suffices, so we need Tradition and the Magisterium. Cheers!
Yes indeed, while I think the DRB is as good as it gets with bible translations, you have rightly mentioned Tradition and the church as an addition to this ( SOLA SCRIPTURA is FALSE )
Factoids
Great comment. I have a protestant friend who only believes in what is between the covers of her NIV Bible.
I mean the Council of Trent infallibly declared the Vulgate bible to be completely free of errors in faith, morals, and doctrine. The Vulgate remains to this day the only translation to hold that standard in the Church, and since the Douay-Rheims is the direct English translation of the vulgate, it holds a special importance among English translations.
or you could learn the original languages.
I'm Presbyterian and I prefer Douay Rheims. :) I'm actually considering conversion.
That is wonderful to hear! It is a beautiful transition. I have traveled that road (from Calvinist to Catholic) and highly encourage it. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ established.
I hope you keep reading Scripture and praying for truth. I’d also encourage you to find a good Catholic parish near you and speak with a priest or attend daily Mass (just don’t receive the Eucharist please).
Please pray for me. God bless you!
@@jmjaquinas7298 well you know that's funny because the interesting thing is the particular version of Douay-Rheims that I have is the the DRB with the revisions made by Bishop Challoner, and he was also Presbyterian before converting I do believe... And it's interesting because with the Chalenor revisions of the Douay-Rheims Bible, he hasn't set up very much in the same or similar fashion that a Protestant Study Bible would be set up in terms of book chapter and verse frankly what I think needs to happen the laity need to form Bible study groups with DRB specific use, and get to the point where they can cite book chapter and verse just as well as any Protestant could that would be truly the answer to disproving the main doctrine of the Reformation which was Sola scriptura, the way to dissuade them from holding on to that error is to know all 72 books just as well as any Protestant knows their Canon of 66. Prove to them beyond the shadow of a doubt that even the holy scriptures encourage traditions handed down from God therefore without tradition of the church you can't truly uphold that particular doctrine of Sola scriptura. Am I making any sense?
@@bradleyhoyt3188 No, it's not what you intended to write, it's how you wrote it: one huge run-on sentence.
Reformed theology has fascinated me for a long time. If I wasn't Catholic and knew what the Church taught, I would be a Calvinist for sure.
@@matthaeusprime6343 the version of DRB (Douay-Rheims) that I have with the Bishop Challoner revisions he converted from The Presbyterian Church as well if I'm not mistaken.
Just look at the horrible translations we have these days. That is where rejecting the vulgate gets you.
Protestantism is to blame.
@@crobeastness article from Jimmy Akin
Genesis 3:15 is one of the most famous passages in Scripture, since it offers the first, veiled prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. But confusion results from differing translations of the passage.
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible-the Catholic counterpart to the King James Version-Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmities between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
In the New American Bible, and all other modern Bibles, it says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

The difference turns on who will crush the serpent’s head and whom the serpent tries to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns-”she” and “her”-implying that the woman is the person being described. Modern translations use masculine pronouns-”he” and “his”-implying that the seed of the woman is the serpent-crusher.
This disparity results from a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims follows a textual variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate, though not the original. Jerome followed the Hebrew of this text in his edition of the Vulgate. The variant probably originated as a copyist’s error, when a scribe failed to note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
Today, people notice this variant because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of popular Catholic art showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent. Her representation as Our Lady of Grace usually depicts her in this way.
Christians have recognized since the first century that the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons, such as Abel or Seth. They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. The first half of the verse (speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman) has been applied to Mary, and so the second half (speaking of the crushed head and heel striking) also has been applied to Mary.
Though the variant that uses “she” and “her” probably came from a copyist’s error, the idea it expresses is true. There is a sense in which Mary crushed the serpent’s head and in which she was struck at by the serpent. She didn’t do these things directly, but indirectly, through her Son. It was Jesus who directly crushed the serpent’s head from the cross and Jesus whom the serpent directly struck on the cross. Yet Mary cooperated in these events.
She, not anyone else, was the person who agreed to become the human channel through which Christ would enter the world in order to crush the serpent’s head (Luke 1:38). She herself was wounded when the serpent struck Jesus. Simeon had prophesied to her that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also,” a prophecy fulfilled when Mary saw her Son hanging from the cross (John 19:25-27).
Thus Jesus directly crushed the serpent and was directly struck by the serpent, while Mary indirectly crushed it and was indirectly struck by it, due to her cooperation in becoming the mother of Christ.
Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, state, “The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.” (For more information, see A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Bernard Orchard, O.S.B., ed. [New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953], p. 186.)
Gotta love The Message Bible
@@jackwsm5805 sometimes it's good to have an "explain it to me like I'm five" option.
@@matthewjoseph9897 I tried reading the rsvce but it feels weird how it says “you and your” instead of “thee and thou”. It makes it feel less sacred or something, I’m not sure
I’ve decided I want to get a Douay Rheims too! I’m not against having other ordained bibles in our home but I love how in the Rheims / Luke 1:26 it translates as “28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women”. For that alone I want a copy in my home for my family and I actually prefer the older language used. However also see the value of more modern translated language for the kids and other appropriate contextual translations.
I’ve only just heard of this.
Had no idea that Protestants removed seven books.
I’m keen to read this Bible.
The cheapest version I have found is from Angelus Press, if you’re looking to buy one
Pax Christi
It was Luther who decided to throw out the seven deutero-canonical books; to wit, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel. Early editions of the King James Version included these books; it was British publishers who decided to reduce book size and price by eliminating the deutero-canon from the KJV, and the MODERN Protestant translations followed suit. The 1885 English revision of the KJV and the 1957 RSV DID include the deutero-canon. But you'll never see those books in the NASB or the NIV or the NKJV; evangelicals tend to frown on them.
@@jarrettsmith88 Except it kind of is. The Council of Rome in 382 and the Synod of Hippo in 393 both included the deuterocanonical books. Protestants like to claim that the Catholic Church "added" these books at the Council of Trent, oblivious to the fact that Protestant objections were the only reason there ever was a reopening of the discussion. Jerome had some initial reservations based on linguistic concerns that would have been completely resolved had he been privy to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and He ultimately went along with their inclusion. I'm telling you, Protestants are so good at telling only half the story. Ravening wolves, indeed, some of 'em.
St. Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate from the Greek Septuagint (used widely in the temple during Jesus and St. Paul’s time), pre-Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible, and the Greek New Testament.
The Hebrew Bible used today is of the Masoretic Text, dating back only to the 9th and 10th centuries AD in Rabbinic Judaism. Only fragments of pre-Masoretic existed when compiling the texts of Rabbinic Judaism, so the Hebrew Bible required other translations like the Septuagint to translate texts back into Hebrew. It is from the Masoretic texts that Martin Luther and other Protestants (as well as some modern Catholic versions) have based the Old Testament portions of their bibles from.
I believe it is important for both doctrine and authenticity to use St. Jerome’s Vulgate as the litmus test of translation. While the vast majority of us will not have access to either the Septuagint or pre-Masoretic Hebrew Bibles, St. Jerome did. We have everything to win and nothing to lose by following St. Jerome and his sources. :)
Exactly
I have no doubt that St Jerome had access to the codex vaticanus and other versions as well as lost copies of the old testament.
Using everything available he made the best translation possible at the time, with fresh copies that are unknown to us. I trust that his translation is best.
I think back and forth insistence on a particular translation isn't helping anyone. We should never rely solely on one source. Jerome had access to materials that other translators and redactors may not have had access to. Jerome and his scribes may also have made mistakes that other authors did not make. Other authors may have made mistakes that Jerome did not make. That's why a theologian (or a textual critic) wants to be familiar with as many codices as possible, so he can identify where they overlap and where they don't, and make an educated decision about what the likely original intention was.
Sometimes this is simply not possible, so we need to hold multiple options in our mind at once. There are certain things that are just not definitively known by anyone, and we have to be open to that ambiguity. There are lots of hapax legomena in the Bible for which we have no definitive definition, but a diverse set of theories. We can either pick our favorite or be open to all of them and try to glean the wisdom from each interpretation. I have no way of knowing for certain, but I suspect the holy spirit is guiding us all. God did not arbitrarily set a date when he would spontaneously stop guiding us. He will guide us until the end of time.
I think it's very obvious that this guidance does not mean that our gut instinct will magically always be correct. I think what it means is that when we are open to all the possibilities and sincerely pray for guidance, without polluting our prayers by projecting our own wishes onto the text, the holy spirit will ensure that we derive the right _spiritual wisdom_ from the text. God may not tell us what species or type of material "gofer" refers to, but if we open our minds to the holy spirit, seek as many authoritative commentaries and exegeses as practical, and sincerely ask for guidance in interpreting a passage, we can be sure that whatever tropological and anagogical meaning we absorb (unconsciously) from the text, whatever knowledge is imparted on our _souls_ proper, will be consistent with God's will.
That still leaves room for disagreement between earnest seekers on certain aspects of interpretation, but the essence of scripture can be divined with enough external support and internal clarity of intention. Of course, the vast majority of us are not earnest seekers at any given moment. The best of us may only be truly impartial and open a few times in our lives, and then only by the grace of God. And we rarely have optimal spiritual direction in the first place. In interpreting scripture, I believe it's essential that _you_ disappear, that your ego dissolve as contemplation of God's glory takes over your mind completely.
But that state of selflessness is also a highly suggestible state. So we can't just hear a single point of view that we consider authoritative and contemplate it over and over again. We need credible spiritual direction (ideally Catholic) but we also need to be aware of the best counterarguments for alternative interpretations. That is such a monumental task that I think only specialists are really willing to engage with it like that. Most people (including me) would rather simplify things, just pick an interpretation to trust in (whichever one you naturally lean towards via culture, upbringing, aesthetics, emotional inclinations, etc.) and then seek out and internalize justifications for that particular interpretation. Once we've accepted something uncritically, it's very easy to rationalize it and very difficult to let down our guard.
So we have to always be vigilant about that tendency in ourselves, and in my experience that means humoring everything. It's that willingness to humor anything that brought me into the Catholic Church in the first place, after living my first 27 years of life as a staunch atheist. It's when we let down our guard that we are most open to the holy spirit. I'm convinced that the holy spirit itself convinced me of the truth of Christianity. But I wasn't open to that grace whatsoever for most of my life. It took a radical emptying of myself for me to accept Christ into myself. Only when my mind was emptied of my own ego could Christ fit.
Now that I accept Christ, I could go back to being defensive and egotistical about my ideas. Now that he is in me, I could shut the door again. But it's not like the holy spirit only guides you once in your life. I need to remain open, even as I believe the teachings of the CC. Especially when it comes to controversial subjects on which there is no official position. So I will read multiple translations and continue to recommend that others do the same. I will also read Hebrew Bible translations made by Hebrew scholars, Jews and even atheist linguists. I trust that when I come upon a fork in the road, God will gently nudge me in the right direction. But that can't happen if I'm not even aware there's a fork in the road, or if I artificially declare some rule for myself that I'll always turn left no matter where I am.
If I only expose myself to one interpretation, that's exactly what I'm doing - arbitrarily choosing to always turn left, while thinking I'm merely going straight on a lone road. If I read other interpretations but systematically privilege one over the others without very good reason, I'm restricting the opportunities for divine guidance. Sometimes that can be a good thing, of course. I don't want to be open to interpretations that are clearly dubious in methodology. But when there are multiple considerations (as there are when comparing Vulgate translations to modern Greek and Hebrew translations), it's far less clear that any should be ignored.
@Prasanth Thomas While I understand your opinion on this matter, to make the statement "Mesoratic Text is based on the texts of the Scriptures in their original language, that are copied down, with out any alterations." is a pretty huge assumption, since there are no complete copies dating from an earlier date than the 9th or 10 century, to prove your statement. You can have your opinion, but to claim it as fact without evidence means it's only an opinion.
Does that mean the Good News Bible is a Chicken Mcnugget ? 😆
Yes, this is why the doctor's arguments make no sense. The original manuscripts are gone and the modern language mastery is missing
I was a kjv onlyist. I’ve seen that heavy yoke laid upon people who can barely read and are told if they don’t read KJV it’s not the word of God. So instead of eating baby food( a newer even poorly written translation) they just didn’t eat at all. It’s sad.
That's a good perspective, thank you
NIV is the Bible on training wheels. But good lord they skew some key things. Luke 1:46 comes to mind. NIV writers replace the word “magnifies” with “glorifies” for no reason. In the verse, “magnifies” paints a much more beautiful and specific picture.
Very true. For many of the kjv onlyists it has become a salvation issue itself.
The KJV is a meager attempt at rewriting and reinterpreting the Word of God and the words that are inspired by God.
Keep in mind the 7 books that Luther removed are because he himself and he alone made the choice. It wasn't like there was a council of learned men who studied and debated those books. How can one man alone make this decision and how can millions agree with this unilateral decision?
Luther had issues but he did not intentionally set out to cause the reformation. There were people in the wings that were looking for an excuse and his was the only one available. Our Godly world would be so different today had Luther taken a different approach.
Yet many of those denominations still follow nearly all of the tents of the Catholic Church; Lutheran, Episcopalians, Anglicans, etc. They venerate the same saints, have the same holy days of obligation, etc.
Historically the Anglicans had no choice to be where they were back then. Henry the 8th wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him is request so he broke away from the Catholic Church, declared himself the head of the Church of England which was in fact a government agency at the time. The king or queen would chose the Archbishop of Canterbury while the Pope is elected from a conclave of Cardinals.
After then he ordered that every one in the UK had, under severe penalties, had to join his newly formed government agency and confiscated all Catholic Church property and closed down many more. The largest theft of property since the Normans from France invaded England and forced every native born Englishman off their property and given to the Normans and those who supported them.
Those that didn't convert fled the UK so they could immigrate to the US where they were guaranteed freedom of religion.
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus while the Anglican church was founded by a narcissistic pig of a person, a real man wouldn't have done what he did, who dared to compare himself to God because he wanted the citizens of the UK to bow down to him and not to get down on bended knee to our Lord.
King Charles III follows in those same footsteps as all the predecessors by honoring the pig of a king.
God bless you brother. You should read the homo erotic letters of king James. I wouldn’t read a bible that sponsored by someone with that life style. Jesus Christ is king. The only way is Jesus Christ
To be honest, while I have the DR, I’ve found that with the latest Biblical scholarship and manuscripts unearthed, the ESV-CE is a great translation. I don’t think that there is any one “perfect” English translation but with the DR and ESV-CE I feel like I have all bases covered pretty well.
Love ESV-CE!!
@@cauleyhog NRSV and ESV are great translations but suffer from an inordinate need to make the language inclusive even when unnecessary. I don't know about the ESV-CE, I just ordered one.
@@matthaeusprime6343 the ESV does NOT do that! The NRSV does for sure. The ESV uses whatever pronoun the writers used. It also retains "brothers" instead of a generic "brothers and sisters".
I have not seen an ESV-CE. I'm interested.
@@shirleygoss1988 the one I use is by the Augustine Institute
I'm not sure the question was answered. From my understanding the "Douay-Rheims Only" controversy is about reading only the Douay-Rheims version verses reading other translations of the Bible, not reading the Douay-Rheims version instead of the original writings which the Latin Vulgate come from.
In my opinion, i think its a good idea to have multiple versions available to read especially if you are working on a sermon/homily. Comes in handy for cross referencing as well. I myself am a fan of the Douay-Rheims and the KJV.
Even if you can't read the original languages, you can benefit from alternate translations by those who can/could. Bergsma's close colleagues Hahn and Mitch use RSV for their study Bible.
St Catherine Laboré seen the Image of our Lady Crushing the serpent beneath her feet, its continually being printed as the Miraculous Medal. A Church approved Apparition and devotion.
Yes indeed ... Genesis 3:15 DRB translation
I love the Miraculous Medal 💖
RSV 2nd Catholic edition is a great translation.
I read King James, Douay-Rheims, and the Aramaic in Plain English translations. 🙏🏾✝️📖
The DR is a translation of the Vulgate, but the translators did compare it with the original texts while the putting it together. Also what we refer to as the DR bible today is actually Bishop Challoner's revision of the text. His revision is so different to the original that I'm surprised it is still called the DR and not just the Challoner revised version.
Im Lutheran and Duoay Rheims is my favorite translation
@@GM-uy3cm your catechism says otherwise
@@GM-uy3cm besides... We are the catholic church... You should join us
How do you interpret Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1 ?
Most of the things they said is true especially about the Vatican 2 so indont see them as schismatic. That Bishop Barron, Francis and and that gay priest are people inwould consider as schismatic.
Love the DR, I have many, many translations because you can get something a little extra out of each one. But Douay is the standard that I hold all other translations to. That might change if I can ever get better at Latin and learn Greek and Aramaic.
There are 4 English translations of the DR
1- Original DR 1610 (unreadable today for today’s trads)
2- Haydock 1856 (popular with TLM clergymen and TLM seminarians)
3- Challoner 1899 (most popular with trad laity today in America and Canada)
4- Confraternity version (1941-1961)
That's actually a bit incorrect. Haydock's commentary/version is also DR-Challoner. The original DR recieved its Challoner revision in the late 18th century (around the time Haycock was born). I own a reprint of a Haydock bible and I love it - it has some invaluable insights! Edit: I see you edited and meant to say translations of DR. I'll leave the writeup here incase anyone is interested in more details. Cheers!
Also, regarding the Confraternity version - just the New Testament is based off the Vulgate. They had to scrap the project that exclusively used the Vulgate mid translation on orders to incorporate the original languages. Therefore the OT text in the Confraternity would eventually become part of the NAB. It's a shame because I find the Confraternity NT to be very elegant and tasteful, really wish they had an opportunity to complete the OT with the same exlusive source material (Vulgate).
I have the Haydock!
Big fan of the Confraternity version. I wish it was more common.
@@tedburns3089 American Catholics used it between 1941 and 1969 - diocese parishes gave it to parishioners during 1st Communion or Confirmation or during adult conversion classes back then when only the traditional Latin Mass (TLM) was the only Mass in America
As a translator myself, I know that every time you translate, something is lost. The translators are not infallible, so going to the original, whenever possible, is always the best.
@@crobeastness Genesis 3:15 is one of the most famous passages in Scripture, since it offers the first, veiled prophecy of the coming of the Messiah. But confusion results from differing translations of the passage.
In most editions of the Douay-Rheims Bible-the Catholic counterpart to the King James Version-Genesis 3:15 says, “I will put enmities between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
In the New American Bible, and all other modern Bibles, it says, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”

The difference turns on who will crush the serpent’s head and whom the serpent tries to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns-”she” and “her”-implying that the woman is the person being described. Modern translations use masculine pronouns-”he” and “his”-implying that the seed of the woman is the serpent-crusher.
This disparity results from a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims follows a textual variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate, though not the original. Jerome followed the Hebrew of this text in his edition of the Vulgate. The variant probably originated as a copyist’s error, when a scribe failed to note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
Today, people notice this variant because the expression found in the Douay-Rheims has been the basis of popular Catholic art showing a serene Mary standing over a crushed serpent. Her representation as Our Lady of Grace usually depicts her in this way.
Christians have recognized since the first century that the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons, such as Abel or Seth. They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. The first half of the verse (speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman) has been applied to Mary, and so the second half (speaking of the crushed head and heel striking) also has been applied to Mary.
Though the variant that uses “she” and “her” probably came from a copyist’s error, the idea it expresses is true. There is a sense in which Mary crushed the serpent’s head and in which she was struck at by the serpent. She didn’t do these things directly, but indirectly, through her Son. It was Jesus who directly crushed the serpent’s head from the cross and Jesus whom the serpent directly struck on the cross. Yet Mary cooperated in these events.
She, not anyone else, was the person who agreed to become the human channel through which Christ would enter the world in order to crush the serpent’s head (Luke 1:38). She herself was wounded when the serpent struck Jesus. Simeon had prophesied to her that “a sword will pierce through your own soul also,” a prophecy fulfilled when Mary saw her Son hanging from the cross (John 19:25-27).
Thus Jesus directly crushed the serpent and was directly struck by the serpent, while Mary indirectly crushed it and was indirectly struck by it, due to her cooperation in becoming the mother of Christ.
Therefore, though the she/her and he/his readings of Genesis 3:15 are different, both are true, and Catholics have long recognized this. A footnote provided a couple of hundred years ago by Bishop Challoner, in his revision of the Douay-Rheims version, state, “The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.” (For more information, see A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Bernard Orchard, O.S.B., ed. [New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953], p. 186.)
@@thereselastname9197 Catholics should stop trying to defend the pronoun error in gen 3:15 and let it go.. we all know that we can do anything by the Grace of God, but that verse in no way shape or form was truly referring to Mary crushing the head. of the Vulgate didn't contain the wrong pronoun we wouldn't had ever come to that conclusion. The text doesn't imply that when we read what the actual Hebrew says.
@@Earsnot310 Unless I misunderstand therese, and bergsma in the video, they aren't exactly saying that the Hebrew says that. They're saying the Vulgate is part of our tradition, and on that basis, it should inform our thought on the subject.
That said, this beloved mistranslation is Tradition, not the Bible, and you are correct that we ought not interpret it as actually in the Hebrew Bible
@@thereselastname9197 EXCELLENT! In this, thou hast spoken rightly.
I think you misrepresented those Catholics who prefer the Douay Rheims.
They never have said “only the D.R.” They think it’s best though and suggest it over other versions.
I'm like this
@@dondarius7262 same
There are many Catholics who are D-R only. They will reject other English translations much like some Protestants reject everything except the KJV. However they’re a very small minority, even in trad circles.
@@CodPlayMakers I’ve been a Traditional Catholic for 15 years going to SSPX and FSSP. I’ve met thousands of Traditional Catholics.
Literally...Not one has insisted “only D.R.”.
If there have ever been one or a handful of Traditional Catholics out of the millions to have said that from your own personal experience, it’s silly and a waste of time to mention the opinion of those 2 or 3 Catholics in a TH-cam video as if we have to tackle this problem. Lol
@Mariae Nascenti It's the best. For me, it makes sense that he does so.
I think it’s worth remembering what St. John Henry Newman wrote in his intense study of the Douay-Rheims Bible in his paper, “The Rambler,” 1859. He said, “Challoner’s version is even nearer to the Protestant (KJV) than to the Douay (pg 152 worth the read).” He continued that successive revisers would change the Douay-Rheims version to such an extent that it is far closer to the Protestant version than it was to itself!
Indeed, Cardinal Wiseman would write in the 1850’s, "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.”
Thats why you should get the REAL douay rheims. Go to their website. I got the red letter editiin. This is not challoner or haydock, but the original.
@@crobeastness Why not? KJV is a solid translation and if someone else gets something right you shouldn’t just ignore it. There are translational (but not moral) errors in the vulgate.
I just bought a hard cover DR.....It is such a great Bible.....engravings of St. Leo the XIII, who was one of the best Popes Ever. Engravings of Jesus and Mary and it is fantastic!
I almost exclusively read the RSVCE, and have for 20 years.
i thought of buying one, is it based on the masoretic text?
@Mariae Nascenti cool, i use the DR and find the the Psalm numberings is always -1 compared to contemporary numbering.
@Mariae Nascenti I like the icon in your DP, its looks more like precious stones grounded to powder rather than tempera and yolk. Is this the case?
@@matthewjoseph9897 thanks Matthew! Does that mean if the KJV did not exist, the RSV would not exist and all Catholic churches would be using text that is less smooth to read?
I am guessing its....St.Elizabeth convent in Belarus!
I can’t believe with over a billion Catholics on the face of the planet and 2000 years to work with the church has to rely on Protestant translations. The D-R and NAB(RE) are all we get (w/ maybe some exceptions)?
I have Douay-Confraternity and the St Joseph editions, but I prefer the Douay. It just seems more traditional.
If Douay-Rheims was good enough for St Peter it's good enough for me!
@Prasanth Thomas I was joking, he obviously used the Vulgate.
The real issue is why do we read Protestant translations or modern ecumenical translations. The Protestants rejected much of Catholic doctrine and there are many intentional mistranslations in them. So the best English, Church directed translation we have is the DR. The Vulgate or Septuagint would be the best option if you can read them.
I use the Catholic public domain version. It's basically just the douay rheims but with more modern English
I really like the language of the RSV-CE, but I have a hard time reading it knowing that some things are missing, such as “I am the Mother of Fair Love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope,” in SIRACH 24. Also, the translation of Matthew 16:26, “for what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?” This is the RSVCE translation, but the DR translates “soul” instead of “life”, which really seems more like what Christ was really trying to say and more significant as a Catholic-we cherish our souls over our earthly lives.
I try to read the RSVCE because of its easier language, but knowing these things are different, it bothers me that I don’t know what else is different or missing.
Some of the linguistic footnotes are good in that but on the whole that Bible like every other one produced throughout most of the twentieth century seems more set out to trash the sacred text and destroy people's faith in it than to help anyone. Modern Biblical 'scholarship', and I use that word advisedly, is run by a curious mix of lazy herd following incompetents and hard core anti-Christian ideologues who do everything in their power to ignore any and every piece of historical evidence that supports what has been handed down to us about the Sacred Scriptures while they trumpet moribund and long discredited anti-Christian theories from the 19th century about their composition.
D-R is giving you a real catechesis. RSVCE will make you a post-Vatican II Ecumenical world religion guy where Mary is no big deal and it's all good. Universal salvation.
Your guest seems to assume that the Masoritic Hebrew MT text is superior to the Greek Septuagint LXX. No?
Btw, i am not convinced that that is a good starting point....
Agreed. The MT is a deficient mess. Can't believe how many Catholics have fallen for it.
I'd welcome a discussion of what translations to avoid.
I love these shorts after listening to the complete interview. Nice technique!
I prefer the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, then the Knox, then the RSV2CE.
What’s the app where I can read the Bible please?
I still prefer the RSV CE, modern w a sprinkle of tradition. In the end which version helps you most should be the one you use. I still read the Jerusalem Bible for devotional reading
I would love to see a Revised Douay-Rheims in modern English.
Buy a Knox Bible then lol
This is a month late, but there is a version called the Confraternity version, that was meant to be just that. The New Testament was translated in the 1940’s, and the Old Testament was translated through the early 1960’s. However, they did not finish translating the Old, and moved to the original languages and out of that came the NAB. You can get copies on eBay of the old Confraternity version. In fact, in this clip Dr. Bergsma mentions having a New Testament only version he uses for devotional reading. God Bless!
No, you wouldn't; it would be ruined.
I love my DRB ... I think its the best and most accurate translation to use, BUT, its always good to use other translations to compare and contrast ... Like the RSVCE, ESVCE, NABCE, and KJV 1611 just for starters.
Douay-Rhiems is one of the all time great bible translations. I also like The Orthodox Study Bible which uses the Septuagint (LXX) Old Testament!
I tend to stick to translations in the Textus Receptus tradition nowadays. The KJV is my favorite for its cadence, beauty, and just pure poetry; I wish I could use it for the daily office but it’s not approved in the Ordinariate for it. I do like the RSV2CE and ESVCE though for translation accuracy and bible study.
1:25 actually, Jeromes Latin translation of Genesis 3:15 did not render “she.“ This occurred in the later Clementine Vulgate, which Pope Pius the IX used in 1854 scriptural evidence to support the immaculate conception of Mary. But this was corrected later in the 1979 Nova Vulgata where it translates “he,” to better reflect Jerome’s original Latin translation, as well as Romans 16:20 which supports this is talking about Jesus (“he”).
Where are these different versions of the vulgate, are they available to read?
Heard that Jewish scholars translate Gen 3:15 as she shall crush head like St. Jerome’s translation. Heard it from Taylor Marshal.
People say to read the RSV CE and other translations but I personally just can’t stand modern English while reading the Bible. It feels less sacred and not as engaging. Are there any better catholic translations that don’t use modern English?
You would probably like the Ronald Knox version.
As long as you’re not using the NAB 😂
NABRE and RSV2CE are my go-to Bibles.
@@timwilkins2008 Basically, me too. Those two translations have problems, but usually any problem had by one is not in the other, so if you consult both, you have something really good, haha
@@timwilkins2008 Same here. NABRE for devotional and RSVCE for study. I actually read my NAB while listening to Fr Mike Schmitz’ Bible in a year so I get the two translations at once and I’m more engaged in its meaning :-)
I’ve heard that the NAB Psalms are really bad though. I dunno any detail on that
Just says the Douey Rheims is the oldest translation of the Latin Vulgate, what is the oldest English translation of the Greek Bible?
Growing up Protestant, I was raised in the tradition of the Authorised Bible of 1611-the Douay-Rheims is a comfort for me, because the language (whilst in no way the same) is somewhat similar in style. If by some miracle the King James was reconciled to the Church (by, let’s say, the Personal Ordinariates) I would use it as my nearly exclusive English Bible.
I am currently attempting to research this topic. As best I can tell the douay rheims is the only English based on the vulgate. Further it appears the only scriptures of Cannon were those approved and place in the Vulgate. Why are we considering versions of scripture that the Church did not seem to use for the large majority of its existence and as far as we know are the very versions of scripture that were rejected during the process of deciding the cannon? I believe all versions of scripture we have in the Greek were only discovered after the 17th century, so why do we reference the Greek at all? Shouldn’t we only reference the Vulgate for clarification? Can anyone shed some light on this?
So basically his answer was focus on the primary sources (ie: Hebrew of Old Testament and Greek of the New Testament) because Jerome's translation is more of a secondary (not primary) source. The Douay Rheims being a translation of a translation is a tertiary source (3rd source)... If that's the case then all Bible translations outside of the original Greek or original Hebrew including the Vulgate (Jerome's translation) are equal in accuracy/translation.
I'm just another guy on the internet, but the Douay being translated from the Vulgate, which was translated from the original Hebrew/Greek has served me well.. when you read on the changes and differences in these other Catholic Bible translations it's almost shocking.
Yeah, he did not say they are all equal; Jerome's interpretation deserves special consideration but is not the only one possible.
What is the benefit of reading the confraternity transition over the DR?
While I own several DR, I read the Knox Bible translation for prayer. The poetic yet true to the original sense of it is very powerful.
@Mariae Nascenti keep assuming about other people you don't know
@Mariae Nascenti nowhere G.C said anything about DR being better than RSV-2CE yet here you are, putting words into someone's mouth
@Mariae Nascenti stay mad
Yes I agree. The Knox Translation is certainly poetic.
Wonder if Moses wrote in the Paleo-Hebrew script borrowed from the Phoenicians or the square script borrowed during the exile.
I'm not a Douay-Rheims onlyist and have a Jerusalem Bible, RSVCE, and RSV2CE. However many bibles coming from protestant translations do not translate according to Catholic tradition. For example it may be correct to say Mary was highly favoured but it has a totally different meanings to "full of grace".
we don't have a perfect preservation of Jerome's latin Vulgate. scholars are trying to faithfully reconstruct it and you can get their work in scholarly editions. the various DR editions are just snapshots of the later revisions of Jerome's work.
We have a pretty good understanding of the Vulgate and the textual variations are not very significant. A lot of the variants in the critical editions seem to be ancient typos, misspellings, or other scribal errors. And the gigantic multiplicity of manuscripts from across Europe provide a lot of good evidence to draw from.
The Douay, at least the Challoner edition, is a translation of the 1592 edition of the Vulgate mandated by the Council of Trent I think.
@@erics7992 The first edition of the Rheims New Testament came out in 1582 which was before the Clementine Vulgate came out. So they would have had to use manuscripts like the Codex Amiatinus to translate from. They might have used it for the Douay Old Testament which came out in 1610.
@@handsomegiraffe Thanks I realized that mid thought which is why I brought in Challoner. But thank you for the reminder. I seem to remember reading somewhere that it seems that there was a lot of work being done collecting and collating manuscripts during the decades between the close of Trent and the publication of the Clementine Vulgate in 1592 so its hard to know what the Rheims translators had at their disposal. If memory serves wasn't there an edition of the Vulgate published in the 1580s or some time like that that was felt to be so bad that it immediately needed to be corrected? Or am I wrong? Do you know when Codex Amiatinus first came to light?
@@erics7992 You might be thinking of the Sixtine Vulgate which came out in 1590, which was then revised heavily and published as the "Sixto-Clemetine Vulgate" or the Clementine Vulgate in 1592. The Codex Amiatinus was created somewhere between 688-713 AD. I know before 1590 you had translations such as the "Leuven Vulgate".
@@handsomegiraffe Thank you. I have a scanned copy of Tischendorff's publication of Amiatinus' New Testament, do you know if its Old Testament has ever been published anywhere?
And the LXX?
I use the DR and the ESV/CE together.
Does anyone have an opinion on the Moffat translation of the NT?
Dr. Taylor Marshal be like
"You guys are doomed" 😂😂😂
He advices to avoid modernist translations that can be biased and favours the D-R
@Prasanth Thomas OK I'll change my wording.
Dr. Marshall is suspicious of more recent translations because modernist tendencies may (and have) compromise the accuracy of the translation, or present a modernist interpretation of certain passages on the comentaries.
It is also noteworthy that modern followers of Arius have their own Bible, The New World Translation, and it's a mess.
The Clementine Vulgate and the Neovulgate (which is the official liturgical text of the Church since the 70's) aren't the same. There are some minor differences mainly because of developments in textual criticism, like in 1 John 5:7-8, the "johannine comma", to name one example.
We don’t have moses’ original Hebrew
fun fact: the 'she' in gen 3:15 appears to be derived from the vetus latina rendering, something like 'she shall watch thy head, and thou shalt watch her heel'
So what are the English translations from the original Hebrew and Greek?
I am a very devout Catholic. All these different translations are a bit confusing. All I know is that KJV is Protestant so, though I love our Protestant brothers, I don't use it just to be sure that I get the fullness of the Truth, the Catholic interpretation. But even the Catholic ones are so many and vary in the phrases they use even though they do give the same idea.
What version of the Douay Reims looks like old news paper? Lol I want to get one of these bibles but I know updated versions have changed things a little as in looks and how its read. Can someone tell me what the older one is called or where I can get it?
I’ve started reading the Duoay Rheims recently largely because it utilizes the traditional Christian numbering of the Psalms, doesn’t relegate verses of Sirach/Ecclesiasticus to footnotes, and because I know many generations of English speaking Catholics have prayed largely or exclusively with the DR, so using it helps me to be in deeper communion with them
I compare it often with other translations. DR catechizes the reader with its word choices and encourages devotion. For example "Hail Mary Full of Grace" in Douay-Rheims. Other translations say 'favoured one' and supposedly this is closer to the manuscripts. Mary is full of grace, not just favored. D-R lets the reader know that. People say they are Catholic but then say that other translations are better because they are updated from the Dead Sea Scrolls and so forth. I'm not sure what that would add. Perhaps it's Vatican II type people contemplating the ambiguities of those documents and hoping some new updated Biblical manuscript will prove out the Nouvelle théologie.
@@tomk5611 Tbh the Dead Sea Scrolls are generally proof of rhr veracity of the Septuagint and loosely the Vulgate. This MT text obsession is both baseless and nonsensical
This is also one of the odd reasons I considered the DR. I got fed up with some verses in Sirach relegated to the footnotes and the deuterocanon relegated separately. And surely Jerome had much more understanding of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek than how much modern scholars argue ad infinitum about unclear words.
Even the RSV-CE moving into RSV-2CE incorporated many textual choices by the DR, so why short change yourself into getting a hybrid when one can go directly to DR and not find any problematic rendering?
For some reason, I had thought that St Jerome's translation was considered by the Church as authoritative (as in, above all other translations).
It is my understanding that that is the official standing of the church.
I picked up a copy of the DR Bible and appreciate its antiquity, but it seems like the epistles in the New Testament (for one) are much harder to understand than they are in newer translations. It makes one think, as one translator said below, that something is always lost in translation and it's best to go to the source. Can we get some Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek classes going on Sundays after coffee and donuts? :D Just to get a little familiarity with how these languages work, I mean, since no language tends to be 1:1 with another.
Wonderful
just like when you talk to a KJV-Onlyst, if you talk to a DR-Onlyist, you've got to ask them "which Douay Rheims version"? and also "why"? Dr. John tells it like it is here.
Well the trouble is we don't really know if what we have is the Hebrew of Moses given that the "original language" translation we use is from the early medieval period and realistically Jerome was translating from even older texts than what most modern works have now.
I usually read the Bible online because cross references and notes are so easy to find. However, I have a copy of the Douay-Rheims that I enjoy because of many additional notes and prayers, maps and other reading aids that are hard to find in slimmed down modern versions. Granted, I can look all that up online too, but its inclusion in the book itself makes reading it a great treasure.
The RSV-CE and 2CE are derivations of the KJV Bible. The CCD NT (1941) and the CCD OT (partial translation only) were scrapped. They were the revision of the DRC and was scrapped and supplanted by the horrific NAB etc. the NAB is used as the official translation of the Bible by the USCCB for Church and Divine Office use.
2:28 Not a Hebraist, but:
masculine singular third person הוּא hu he / it
feminine singular third person הִיא / הִוא hi / hiw she / it
Strong resemblance in spelling for he and she, right?
I can’t find it in large print!
Tan Books just released a Deluxe Leatherette DR in Large Print. As of March 2024
It all comes down to the correct translation of Genesis 3:15 from Hebrew, and it's about much more than liturgical art, but the proper role of Our Lady. Is it her that crushes the head of the serpent, or her offspring? That's where DR differs from all others, including the original Hebrew.
@Prasanth Thomas Based on my research "he crushes" is more correct, but it can also imply she crushes the serpent too (through cooperation), so I don't find this as gamebreaking for tradition. However, you should never assume tradition is against or contrary to Scripture. It's important to view them as both connected and whole when together.
@Prasanth Thomas I also agree with He crushes. I believe tradition shows both He crushes and She crushes have a purpose. The biblical passage teaches both and doesn't contradict tradition
I struggle with this, if we are to uphold the Latin vulgate, then shouldn't we be cautious of the greek and hebrew? If we turn to the greek and hebrew are we rejecting the vulgate? Which the council of trent declares anathema.
I asked these questions elsewhere. I am not directing them at you but only sharing..,
I am currently attempting to research this topic. As best I can tell the douay rheims is the only English based on the vulgate. Further it appears the only scriptures of Cannon were those approved and place in the Vulgate. Why are we considering versions of scripture that the Church did not seem to use for the large majority of its existence and as far as we know are the very versions of scripture that were rejected during the process of deciding the cannon? I believe all versions of scripture we have in the Greek were only discovered after the 17th century, so why do we reference the Greek at all? Shouldn’t we only reference the Vulgate for clarification? Can anyone shed some light on this?
My personal bible is the Ignatius. Specifically the Didache Bible from Ignatius Press.
I cross-reference, when needed with the Douay and the Jerusalem Bible (Not the New Jerusalem)
Oh, my, the JB is so paraphrastic it is almost impossible to use for serious biblical study. OTOH, the NJB is more literal than the JB, but went down the rabbit hole of gender-inclusive language. While both the JB and NJB are really heavy on book intros, notes, footnotes, cross-references, some of the opinions expressed are a bit on the hetrodox side.
Can anyone in the comments point me in the direction of where the Latin Vulgate comes from? Textus Receptus or critical texts or…? Any help appreciated thank you
There is no confusion on Genesis 3.15 😅 it should be translated "He" like every other version, "She" is a solely Catholic rendering
excellent. I agree with everything he said. The problem is, he didn't give one single reason why we should replace Douay with any other English translation.
@Prasanth Thomas St. Jerome is not a translation, for us catholics it is on the same level as the (nonexisting) orinigals. And when somebody finds the original that Isaiah wrote (not the Hebrew bibles from the 15. ct), or the Gree original that Matthew wrote (not Codex Vaticanus from the 10 ct), then we could disscus the quality of Jerome's translation. (if we can do that at that point too, as there is a dogma of the infalability of the magisterium of the Church and pope).
The Pope demanded in 1893 that there be translations direct from the hebrew and the greek. That was Leo XIII in Provedentissimus Deus. Pius XII made the demand more clear in 1943 with Divino Afflante Spiritu That is why we have subsequent translations.
@@kitfinn4266 And yet St. John Paul II published a new edition of Vulgate in 1986, which is still the oficial text of the Latin Rite
@@leonardoljuljduraj8387 i don't think any Pope asked us to abandon the vulgate. But they emphatically asked for translations from the original texts. They asked for modern language, without obsolete words. The asked for modern textual research to be incorporated. The question was not why the Vulgate was still in use. The question was why modern translations exist, in a larger discusion of why some people think only the DR is a proper translation and believe other translations should not be used. Modern translations exist in proper obedience. Modern translations, as well as the Vulgate, are all translations. If you can read scripture in Hebrew and Greek, you have my admiration. If notm read a translation, Just read one with an imprimatur and nihil obstat.
@@kitfinn4266 I agree with everything you said, except that the Vulgate is a translation like any other. The Vulgate is not just a translation, it is more than that. It is even more than Septuagint. It's the only divinely inspired translation (Scripturarum Thesaurus, John Paul II, 1979, and some others).
As someone who recently converted from KJV only fundamentalism to catholicism I have seen very little credibility towards the DR only argument. Having a translation based off of a translation can hardly be more accurate than a direct translation from the originals to English. Not to mention the much greater availability of manuscripts that we have today that aren't taken into account if you just translate from the Vulgate. My personal view is that there is no perfect best translation, but that the main ones accepted by the Church are all great and will never lead someone astray.
Open to anyone who wants to change my mind
Welcome! I came from a Protestant background as well. The DR only Catholics remind me of the KJV only Protestants. I'm with you... if the church approves the translation it's good! As the old saying goes, "the best bible translation the one you'll read"!
Agreed
I love the D-R, read it among many others. However, I also have Bibles in Latin, French and Spanish. The controversy is stale beans.
There is no Douay-Rheims only controversy. It's not really a thing.
I would tend to agree. Saying this makes someone sound like a Protestant claiming KJV only!!!
It was mainly a joke. Some folks took it seriously and ran with it.
So which Bible has the closest accurate Hebrew for Old Testament and Greek for the new? Or did I miss it?
DR is based on the Vulgate, meaning that it has gone through (at least) two different languages since the original Hebrew/Greek. Newer translations like the RSV-2CE use the original languages as their source material (including new studies done on the Dead Sea Scrolls). I think the NAB might do this also, although the NAB seems to get a lot of hate and I'm not sure why. I own both an RSV-2CE Bible and an NAB Bible and I think both are very good, though I have started to prefer the RSV recently.
I think he said the Bible closest to the original sources is the original sources.
Everything else loses something in translation, so you can pick different translations depending on what you're trying to do, like devotion or study or proclamation.
@@michaelmicek I know man, but I don't have access to the original copies lol so I'm wondering the next best thing
I understand how complex translation is, but I would think that the Douay-Rheims being used in the English-Latin missals for the Holy Mass (the Traditional Mass of the Ages) appears to be a very strong approval.
I really like the Rheims. However, I have been scrupulous my whole life and it has caused me inner turmoil about thinking that everything is sinful - meaning even things that are not. In seeking advise on dealing with this religious form of OCD, after learning about it, I now see that Christ's peace heals when we trust in Him. He runs the Church and trusting in Him includes having confidence in His promise by trusting the magisterium.
With that in mind, I accept that all Catholic translations approved by the magisterium have their pros and cons. None of them are perfect. But they are all protected of any major defects. So even if I choose one that has a less-preferred imagery of Christ crushing the head of the serpent, I can still recognize that His Mother holds Him while He crushes the head. As long as we are properly formed in Catholic theology these things become somewhat mute points. We still can choose Catholic artwork of our preference.
Why do I say this was a hindrance to me before? Because I was afraid that it was sinful to participate in mass if they used an "improper" translation, or afraid to buy a beautiful study bible simply because it wasn't the Rheims. I am now trying to decide between the Great Adventure Bible and the Word on Fire version.
The Rheims served the English speaking Catholic world for centuries and it is owed our respect. But when the magisterium decided to Catholicize the translations founded on the KJ version, I accept their reasoning behind it. This makes it less of a hindrance for Protestants to come into the fullness of faith, and we can all benefit from modern scholarship - without compromise that is.
Pick whichever version assists you the most in growing close to God for private use, if approved. Don't allow complicated theological debates among scholars to prevent you from enjoying perfectly good approved translations.
Mosignor Knox translation is the best
What is the Knox Genesis 3:15 translation? Be interesting to hear.
DRV FTW!
Mary doesn’t crush the serpents head “through her Son”; Christ crushes the head of the serpent through Mary.
Sorry for being nitpicky, but words matter.
that's not what the verse actually says, Jerome didn't render the Hebrew correctly. Further the Biblical scholarship has made that painfully clear..
Mary was without sin. She crushed the serpent.
He failed to mention that many early manuscripts have deteriorated since the time of Saint Jerome. I read many translations but the spirit of Novus Ordo and globohomo has crept into many modern translations such as the NRSV and it's worse updated edition.
As a German, all these controversies are always funny.
DR Bible Challoner perhaps carries less suspicion of tinkering than perhaps more modern translations. The cause of this has the saame root cause as KJV onlyism - the belief that those in the past had no axe to gring politicically, theologically or doctrinally when translating, unlike our modern era. It's style also sounds traditional and authorative. DR Challoner version is probably the finest translation for Laity to read - folk who to be honest have little spare time in their lives to learn ancient greek, aramaic, Hebrew, or Latin but need a wholesome trustworthy translation. Good video.
We don’t have Moses’s Hebrew. That Masoretic Text which is used as a Hebrew basis for translation is some 700 years newer than the New Testament. Compiled by Jewish people who rejected Jesus. And the old complete manuscript of it only dates to the 11th century. St Jerome had access to manuscripts which no longer exist and is centuries closer to the original. Comparing with the Septuagint or cautiously with the Dead Sea Scrolls can aid with translation but not the Hebrew MT. Did you know that the original Hebrew was written with an entirely different alphabet than modern Hebrew which uses a modified form of the Aramaic alphabet.
This is an incredibly poor representation of the facts.There is no “Moses’ Hewbrew”. It’s a myth. Not a single person in the world can point to a Hebrew text and confidently call it the same as what Moses wrote.
What we have is what the Church has infallibly given us. And what the Church has given us is the Vulgate, not the Masoretic Text, which many people erroneously call the “original Hebrew '' for no other reason than it being in the original language.
It would be like saying that the UK version of The Office and the US version are the same thing because “they’re both in English”. They’re both written by completely different authors at different times with different interests and motivations. Plus, the Masoretic Text (or “original Hebrew” as most people call it) was written by people who completely rejected Christ centuries after His ascension.
I expected better from this channel. This was really sloppy.
Us Protestants have a similar controversy but with the King James Version. I think both controversies are beyond stupid and we should instead rely on what it actually says about translation in the Bible. According to the book of Nehemiah, and this is the only verse in gods word that speaks the issue translation, The Bible should only be translated in a way so people at the time can understand it and if people can no longer understand that translation it can no longer be used and has to be revised.
Grew up protestant but I prefer like the Douay-Rheims. I feel it is superior to the KJV. Going through RCIA later this year.
some professed Catholics, who are often weak in faith or limited in their education, have decided that "things were better in the past" so they've picked an arbitrary period when they perceive things were "better" and this is the 1950's in America. they associate things like the Latin Mass and the Douay Rheims (Challoner Version) with that. the trouble is they don't really understand why this is an arbitrary personal choice, and not a guarantee either of orthodoxy or living a holy life. it also creates the temptation of a caste system within the Catholic faithful, between those who follow the "real tradition" and those who don't. it's great that people want to be more holy, and its great they are seeking to prop up their weak faith, but proper education should dispel these false notions. you're not actually a "better Catholic" for doing this private devotional exercises and preferences.. and they could be fed by scrupulosity. grace comes from God and is dispensed through the Church's sacraments, whether the minister is a sinful hypocrite or the holiest saint you've ever known. God can't be fooled. be faithful, but it doesn't have to be this particular way. we don't have to pick between this and a lackadastical "modernism." go ahead and ask an "Old Catholic" or Eastern Orthodox Christian what they think is the best way to be Traditional. or ask a Lutheran! everybody has a different idea of "where the Church went wrong." I don't believe it went wrong. rather, the Church is filled with sinners from the day it was founded until the end of the world.
AMEN! I think if we all stayed at our home parish (providing the Mass itself is valid), prayed for Holy Priest, prayed for Seminarians, prayed for Vocations to the Preisthood AND spent our time/energy/talents being good examples, good stewards, and volunteers at our home parish God would work miracles!
YES this is so true!! People (like my dad) who are borderline obsessed with the medieval Latin church accept nothing BUT the medieval Latin ways. I took my dad to a Melkite Divine Liturgy down the street and it took awhile for him to understand that it wasn’t an Orthodox church. He thought it was weird and strange. Uh, dad... this is literally the most ancient and traditional you could possibly be. No, it HAS to be Latin and it HAS to be Tridentine and anything else is bogus New World Order heretical garbage...
2:41
yeah ok, that's cute and all, one problem. We don't actually have "Moses' Hebrew", neither do we have the Greek of the New Testament, the original manuscripts were all lost and what survives are generally faulty. The closest thing we have to the actual Hebrew of the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text, which is actually YOUNGER than the Latin Vulgate, as the MT was compiled by Jews in the 13th Century and, likewise, contains corruptions of Scripture to downplay Christian prophecy. It should also be noted that there are reasons to believe that some books of the New Testament weren't actually written in Greek originally: a common opinion both in the early Church and still held by some modern scholars is that St. Matthew was actually written originally in either Aramaic or Hebrew; there are some reasons to believe that St. Paul's epistle to the Romans may have been written in both Greek and Latin at the same time; Baronius even asserts, in the 17th Century, that St. Mark was written in Latin, itself being the Gospel commissioned by St. Peter in Rome. Ironically, St. Jerome's Vulgate is probably the most accurate "manuscript" that has been preserved of the original Bible given it's relative completeness and the bishop's access to more authentic manuscripts that we actually no longer have.
The AV and the Douay Rheims are closer to each other than they are to the so-called Critical Text.
I don’t understand greek or hebrew so the best English translation will have to do
Does it matter?
1st Example: “What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be numbered.”
Ecclesiastes 1:15 RSVCI
“The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite.”
Ecclesiastes 1:15 DRC1752
The DRC1752 wins!
2nd example:
“Let not the dead live, let not the giants rise again: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and best destroyed all their memory.”
Isaias (Isaiah) 26:14 DRC1752
“They are dead, they will not live; they are shades, they will not arise; to that end thou hast visited them with destruction and wiped out all remembrance of them.”
Isaiah 26:14 RSVCI
IMHO the Douay wins again and why would the KJV and its derivatives not want to say the word Giant.
If you ain’t duoay-ing it rheims you ain’t doing it right
I love the Dewie reams