I'm 22, and I've decided I won't be a backseat Catholic any longer, and thoroughly read the bible. All the translations are rather daunting, and I've had difficulty navigating them due to the many prejudices and varying opinions from all denominations. I'm very pleased to have found a very knowledgeable presentation with historical backing! I'm now confident I have selected the correct translation in the DR, thank you so much!!!
Douay Rheims Holy Bible is the best translation indeed. I had Jerusalem Bible and Good News Bible too. Douay Rheims Holy Bible is the only approved by Catholic Church for use, not the other two. Viva Cristo Rey.
@@j.knight9335 Be sure to get the original uncens0red 1859 version of the Haydock, available from Loreto and kindle. In 1883 a cens0red version was widely distributed by New York department stores and facsimiles are all over amazon with different color covers. Many comments from church fathers and Haydock were removed to please the same lobby that got the church to drop the Good Friday prayer.
Please meditate on Revelation 18:4,5. Ask Jesus to grant you a revelation of the entire truth. I was a Catholic till my age 20. Now I am open to the truth of the whole Bible sans Apocrypha
Finally an informative video - as opposed to the endless videos out there that rant on and on about a particular bible version edition's physical properties (like the type of calfskin leather it's bound in!) but never address the contents, which is what we are (or should be) interested in . . . also, the video is so beautifully done
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Great video. I have a Kjv bible. I was told this was the oldest and most accurate bible. I will pick up this version that you talk about in your video. Something inside is drawing me back to the catholic church. Thanks for taking the time to share your great info. God Bless❤
The KJV is my preferred version and it is excellent but it is not the oldest or first English translation. The first English translation of the complete Bible was the Wycliffe Bible, done by John Wycliffe and his associates, in the late 1300s. Like the Douay, it was also a translation of the Vulgate. After that you had a number of translations in between the Wycliffe and the KJV, including the Coverdale Bible (which built upon the work of William Tyndale, who had previously translated the New Testament from the original Greek), the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible. The story of the Bible's journey into English is actually extremely interesting.
There is a KJV for Catholics. It is the Bible the Anglican Ordinate uses and that version removed and anti-Catholic translations and includes Deuterocanonical Books.
The RSV of the KJV was produced with inputs from both Catholic and Protestant translators, and the approved Catholic edition includes the Septuagint Old Testament.
Best video out there explaining the differences. As a retired educator, I can tell you are a teacher. You even gave a summary to close the lesson. Great job, brother!
I'm not even sure how to properly express my amazement, but it's kinda mind-blowing how thoroughly you look at the historical perspective of the Church! It gives me a lot more respect for how much work would go into even just one sentence of Scripture! Please keep up the great work!
I'm not Catholic, but the more I read it, the more I like it. I prefer it to the KJV honestly. It's always amazing how often a KJV verse is rather inscrutable but when I check it in the Douay Rheims, it makes more sense.
That’s interesting brother. When i was Protestant I appreciated the KJV. I have a few videos that deal with some Catholic / Protestant disagreements about the early church - I invite you to check them out and let me know what you think!
@YAJUN YUAN It is an actual print of scans of the late 1500s/early 1600s pages. Because of Lulu page limits, you have to buy it in several volumes though. It's the real deal, as in, yes, it's basically impossible to read without some knowledge of early modern English, and even Latin, since the English uses so much Latin-based vocabulary. You're right, figuratively, about the "never" part though. The people seeking out such a version are not typical lay-Catholics; they're people with an interest in the history of English translations of the Bible or the history of the Church.
I'm born and raised Roman Catholic, though I was exposed to the KJV through Protestant family. So I have a certain affinity towards the KJV, though I'm well aware of its shortcomings in certain places and it's OT is based off the altered Masoretic Hebrew (except where the translators HAD to deviate from it like Isaiah 7:14). The Masoretic, unfortunately, was heavily altered to write out Christ from OT prophecy. The most altered book being Isaiah. Read Isaiah from the KJV then read it over again from the Greek Septuagint and it's a mind-blowing experience! The KJV translators actually used the Douay-Reims rendering in many places. Then the later Challoner Douay-Reims revision used the KJV in many places...🙃 So both translations are actually very interconnected with one another. The KJV though has clear Protestant bias, particularly in the New Testament. What makes the KJV special over all other translations, even the DR, IMO...is that is has this "rhythm" and "cadence" to it that allows easy memorization of verses, even entire passages of the Bible. No other translation is like this. Everything I've memorized from the Bible (and there is tons I have memorized from reading over many years) is always in the KJV English and translation. Always. It just "sticks" in your brain like that. I can't explain it. I'm 23% English so maybe there's some weird genetic connection there, I don't know. The beauty of the DR is unmatched though. Probably the most beautifully worded book in the DR, for me, has to be the deuterocanonical/apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). I mean, I tear up reading through Ecclesiasticus 1. Then there's Ecclesiasticus 24 (starting at verse 23 down) where there is a plain as day description of "Wisdom" that is clearly a description of the Blessed Virgin Mary that just melts my heart into puddy. It's amazing. This rendering is not found in any other translation outside the Vulgate and its beautiful. The RCC has always associated the "female" aspect of Wisdom in the OT with Mary and this passage sums it all up.
I just bought me a Douay Rheims Bible, but never thought about the historical background....your explanation is a great help !!! Just discovered your channel, great works sir ! Gbu
As a non-Catholic, I found this riveting, and very well researched. I have appreciated the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity Bibles over the NAB for largely aesthetic reasons: the former are beautiful while the latter is decidedly not. I appreciate your perspective on this matter. Thank you for your efforts here.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Excellent video! I have a wide range of different bible translations on my shelf, including the DR and I use them all for different purposes. Personally, my favorite translation for prayer and devotional reading is the Knox version, which is another translation of the vulgate. It's got the solid Catholic theology of the DR, and gorgeous prosaic English that sings off the page. I'd definitely recommend it.
I'm Catholic and proud of my Englsh family history including great uncle Thomas Worthington DD who helped translate the Douai bible and infiltrated northern England to serve
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Excellent! Recently, I did a lot of research to find the "best" missal. I ended up choosing the New Marian missal, mainly because it uses the Douay-Rheims translation- And two other reasons: The beautiful artwork, and there are plenty of original copies of the 1958-1962 editions available at reasonable prices. Yesterday, I found-and purchased- a 1962 New Marian missal, in great shape, for $15. plus $5. shipping.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
For history buffs, it's interesting to note the Battle of Lepanto (1571) occurred only 9 years before NT/DR was published in 1582. Wm Shakespeare began his public acting /writing career circa 1585 in Stratford on Avon -- only 3 yrs after the NT/ DR was published. He died 1616, shortly after OT/DR published. A vowed member of Church of England, during his life, evidence exists his parents were raised and remained (hidden) practising Catholics., so its likely WS had access to a copy of DR. IMHO, a reading of his plays /sonnets reveals many shades of commentary on the Catholic Church and its dogmas. And wikipedia says, "Scholars find evidence both for and against Shakespeare's Catholicism, Protestantism, or lack of belief in his plays, but the truth may be impossible to prove.[279][280]" So... Food for thought.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
@@HAL9000-su1mzThe Knox translation reads as if it was translated by an English public school boy - since it was! It is a popular translation amongst the educated English middle classes, but does not read quite so well on the other side of the Atlantic.
I've been using the duauy rheims for a couple years now and really enjoy it . Other bible translations seem to be watered down, for example habacuc ch 3 vs 18 . I recommend using duauy rheims as a reference when reading more recent Bible translations
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Thank you for putting this together. I really enjoyed your work. One point early on though. It was Bishop Richard Challoner. You may want to revise your template to reflect that. Good work though. Blessings in Christ
I am getting more into the DR. I'm using it now alongside the ESV/CE. You bring up a good point though with modern translations in that none of them seem to "stick". They are revised, revised again, then revised again-and often within a space of 30 years or less. It certainly isn't that our language is changing since the original RSV is still completely understandable, or that our understanding of the ancient languages is so much better. It's almost like translations have become like most of our society--disposable.
NAB and RSV have always been incomprehensible to me. There’s a finesse to the language of God that’s glossed over in “dumbed” down translations. That’s why DR is so good. 🔥 ♥️
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
That seems revisionist history though. The DRA has many editions and revisions as it coalesced into its most popular variation. I assume it soon fall victim to the spirt which caused Chacoller to revised into back in 1750, an adherence to more popular English.
Thank you for a very insightful presentation of the benefits of using the Douay Bible!!! I dug out my copy and will use it as my primary Bible for devotion and study! God Bless you! 🙏🏻
I appreciate your nuanced and charitable discussion of the NAB footnotes at the 23 minute mark. I agree with you that the translation itself is quite good. For anyone who doubts the NAB can be used effectively - go watch Father Mark Goring, he's awesome, orthodox and uses the NAB :)
Over the years since the Novus Ordo Missae, I - and no doubt, many others - have winced over the numerous infelicitous renderings from the NAB. Why? We'd become quite used to the dignity and reverence of the Confraternity NT, a revision of the Rheims-Challoner NT. If the NABRE was so great, then why did ROME itself have to intervene and edit the NABRE-based Lectionary submitted to them by our beloved US bishops? By "intervene" I mean ROME had to actually edit the raw NABRE text in the Lectionary for orthodoxy before it could be approved. IMHO, ROME didn't go far enough here. I would've had them REJECT the NAB/NABRE altogether and go with the RSV-CE. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it's the RSV that's used, NOT the NAB/NABRE.
Love this video learned a lot and I am reading the Douay Rheims bible everyday for a few years and I have a lot of bibles I actually collect bibles but When I take a break from reading the DR I don’t know what to read. I’m from the RSV to the NKJV to the NRSV and I keep coming back to the DR. The notes are exceptional. Each chapter of every book has a prophecy about Christ or the church. I love the notes on Isaiah 10:27 about the Sweet Unction of Divine Mercy. Bishop Challoner must have been some preacher and all the headlines in the book of the prophets point to the church the death and resurrection of Christ and especially the psalms. It’s hard to go back to the newer versions when there’s that much information and revelation in this bible. For instance read psalm 67 Exurgat Deus and the notes or psalm 68 Salve me fac for example. Why is the church not preaching with this treasure trove of doctrinal ammunition? We need to bring it back to our pulpits. The devil hates Holy Scripture because it’s the truth that makes us free and the more he can Water it down and undermine it the better. I do love other translations but the DR is the best. You get used to the language it’s better anyway. The DR is Hardcore ✝️🕊📖🔥
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Nice video. I studied in a Baptist seminary and learned New Testament Greek and biblical criticism 30 years ago. I really like St Jerome and the Septuagint over the Hebrew texts we have today because Jerome's manuscripts are so much older than the Masoretic texts we have. I love the Douay Rheims version of Prov. 15:27, "by mercy (almsgiving) and faith, sins are purged away." This is an outstanding doctrine, and appears elsewhere in Proverbs, Daniel, etc. I feel like reading this has been a "counter-reformation" for me, like my own tradition down plays the importance of almsgiving, charity, mercy, love out of fear that works might get confused with faith. I have been reading Pitre and Anderson and Krom, and they are doing a nice job explaining how true faith is not a threat to good works, but the two go hand-in-glove to conform us to Christ. I am using the NABRE and notes, and I like it, but holy smokes it is very biased in some notes against the old ways. Bless you.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead. Hieronymus was never a venerated AntiSaint before the 11th century. Nor were the CappaDocians. Nor was John ChrysosTom.
Tobit 12:8-9 "Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold: For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
As someone who grew up on the pre-2011 NIV, I find my RSV2E-CE with commentary by Dr. Scott Hahn to be an amazing translation. I also have a copy of The Augustine Bible you had pictured there.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
I began my Bible in a Year challenge this year, reading the KJV. It was always the version I was told was the “best” for English readers. While I love the language of it, I was disappointed in the omission of certain texts, like Bel and the Dragon, Judith, Tobit, Maccabees etc. For that reason, I wish to read the DR for my second read of the Bible. Thank you for this terrific video.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
@christsavesreadromans1096 So the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ and Supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit would make such an error? Wouldn’t the Church be 100% proficient in Hebrew? But that proves to me that the Church fathers make mistakes something that Orthodox and Catholics deny.
Great video. Thank you for giving us more light regarding this topic. It only made me realise that I made the right choice in purchasing the Douay-Rheims version. I actually have the one from Baronius Press which puts the DRV side by side to the Latin from the Clementina Vulgata. Deo Gratias!
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions on the post Vatican II English bibles. If they are based on or collaborated with protestant sources, then they are not good. Most post VII bibles straight up removed 1st John 5:7's Trinitarian reference. Removing catholic truths from the Bible makes them not the bible.
I started with NAB because it matched the Missal. Then I read the Jerusalem Bible, which I liked the formatting and the language. Then went to RSVCE which is better than NAB. After that The Confraternity which I love and has become my everyday Bible. Decided to get the DR and it just arrived. I absolutely think it’s the best and I do like the thees and thous. I’m sticking with translations from the Vulgate, because of what you said about the Mazoratic texts. Great video. I don’t read any Protestant Bibles.
It would be great if in the upcoming NAB revision in 2025, the reader could choose to purchase an NAB "Historically Critical Footnote Edition" or an NAB "Patristics / Fathers Footnote Edition". Then everyone could be satisfied!
BIBLE TIMELINE: The 73 books (not 66) of bible were translated and canonized by Catholic church in 392 & 393 AD @ Councils of Carthage and Hippo. (Reaffirmed @ Council of Trent to rebuke the heretical Prot. reformation.) Even earlier, in 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, recognized the 27 New Testament books in his 38th annual Festal (Easter) letter. There was no canonized Christian bible before that except the OT Greek Septuagint (which all included the 7 OT books transcribed in around 285 BC by 72 Jewish scribes for King Ptolemy for his library in Alexandria) and which the disciples probably used because they were in hellenistic (greco-roman) influenced world. Today, the 3 Great Codices, Vaticanus and Sianaticus, (300’s AD) and Alexandrinus (400’s AD) and Dead Sea Scrolls (300-200 BC) confirm the 7 “Disputed Books” of OT. The Latin Vulgate was the 1st ever Holy Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic church to create the infallible bible. Early Christians (who were all Catholic, there were NO Protestants and only ONE Catholic church) relied on Oral Tradition of succession of apostles (bishops). Most were tortured and killed (martyred) for these same beliefs Catholics believe today. In 1550’s, Martin Luther TRIED to remove 11 books (7 OT & 4 NT) bcz they didnt jive w/ his new theology (Sola x 5). Those NT books: were James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations. Despite his wishes, it didnt happen, thank God. In 1611, the english translation of Douay Rheims (73 books) is completed. In fact, the KJV of 1611 still have the 7 OT books as did almost all bibles. It wasn’t until 1804 that a protestant organization, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) voted to remove ALL 7 OT books moving forward bcz it was converting people to Catholicism AND it was “cheaper to print.” In 1908, Gideons International began mass producing these “cheaper” protestant bibles and freely disseminating them in hotels, schools, hospitals, gov’t agencies, prisons, etc. The ignorant public over time began false propaganda that Catholics added 7 books. And today, protestants who don’t study history believe the lie still. Additionally, below Jesus and Paul quote from those 7 OT books that have always been “protocanonical.” Sirach 28:2 & Matt 6:14-15 Tobit 4:16 & Matt 7:12 Wisdom 7:36 & Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 9:13 & Romans 11:34
@@HAL9000-su1mz Be mindful, V21-22; however, says this: “21 That is how evil people think, but they are wrong. They are blinded by their own wickedness. 22 They have never known God's secrets, never hoped for the rewards of a holy and blameless life.” So, he’a saying we shouldn’t think that way
I actually got all the versions. Finally read the bible through for the first time last year. Right now working on the Navarre study Bible. Learning a lot. One thing I like about having all versions with commentary is if I get "stuck" on a particular passage I can go through them all and get a pretty good understanding. Whats your thoughts in the Knox Bible though you never mentioned it.
A great way to start weeding out good translations is going to Luke 1:28. If it says anything other than "hail full of grace" that ain't the Bible for you.
I liked your video. The only thing that came to mind in listening to the video is this: The DR translation was a contemporary English Language translation when it was first published. I think we need a contemporary English language translation of the Latin Vulgate. This translation could still retain "thousands hast" for the familiar tense and. "You have" for the formal tense. So, just as Bishop Challenor updated the DR for his day, we should have an update for our day. No need to look at the Masoretic and Byzantine Texts, or the Critical Text. Justin the Latin Vulgate.
You may enjoy the KNOX translation. In 1936 the Catholic bishops of England and Wales asked Monsignor Ronald Knox to produce a modern translation of the Vulgate, and Monsignor Knox spent the next nine years studying ancient copies of St. Jerome's Bible. The Knox Bible, published by Baronius Press, comes with a 65 page booklet, "ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE", written by Knox, explaining his translation.
The Confraternity edition is an update of the DR New Testament only , done in the 50s under the authority of the US bishops Pocket edition from Sceptre publications
@@alhilford2345An excellent translation. Since Monsignor Knox translated the entire Bible, himself, without assistance, it reads very well throughout. Most Bibles were put together by a Committee. The full three volume set of the Knox Bible, with all of the translator’s notes, is an excellent resource.
I am fortunate to have a nicely bound Vulgate. Some years ago, I found an old, battered, Vulgate from an online second hand book shop. I ordered it and nothing arrived for several weeks. Then, a brand new Vulgate, still in its original film wrapping arrived. The book shop apologised for the delay, explaining that they had mistakenly accepted two orders for the old, battered, version, so they had bought me a brand new one. I hope the Lord rewards them for their integrity. The Vulgate is still the official translation of the Church. Fortunately, I know enough Latin to be able to read it, with Monsignor Knox’s excellent translation alongside, to help me out, if necessary. My edition of the Vulgate is the current, revised, official version approved by the Church. It incorporates the most recent scholarship, so is not identical to Jerome’s translation, but the differences are very minor.
Excellent video. Thank You. Why was the Confraternity version ditched in favor of the NAB. It seems the Septuagint-Vulgate-Douay-Challoner-Confraternity line of translation ended suddenly with the Confraternity never finished and then the NAB-NABRE-ESV-RSVCE etc came to the fore. With notable prior offshoots of the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox translations. All rather confusing. Thanks for shedding some light on this rather chaotic tableau.
If you examine the copyright page of the New American Bible, you will find that it was published by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Thus, Confraternity itself reoriented its translation methodologies of the first half of the 20th century in favor of the fashionable mid-twentieth century progressive exegetical methods, and thus produced the New American Bible.
@@historiaecclesiastica Id be curious to know which individual made the decision and the reasoning to give up the Vulgate in the middle of the translation (or near the end of the translation rather) and switch to the more “authentic” Masoretic texts etc. All that work to end up with an unfinished Bible.
@@duke927 Certainly progressive leaning scholars abused Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII, but the encyclical did make reference to using the original language texts, opening the door for this movement in scholarship. You raise a good point about the individual players on the scholarly side and I don't know much about that side of it.
As a Protestant I find it very interesting that Jerome used 300s AD Greek and Hebrew texts in translating into the Latin of his day. Have now owned a Douay Rheims bible around four weeks. And have procured a reprint of Jerome's New Testament. I'm quiet enjoying this research, and this bible as well! The Protestant world is virtually devoid of manuscripts that old.
Overall, this is an excellent video. However, you did make a mistake in saying that the vulgate was a translation of the septuagint. Although Jerome consulted the septuagint, the vulgate is a translation of ancient hebrew manuscripts similar, but not identical, to the masoretic text. The old latin, which the vulgate replaced, was translated from the septuagint.
I have been using KJV or NKJV but after checking further I am now using Douay Rheims (Challoner revision). I always thought it was Latin or French only.
As I understand, The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible preceded the KJV and that the OrIginal KJV contained the same amount of books as the Catholic Douay Rheims And only within about 3 to five years afterwards did they remove the 7 books as these books did not agree with the NEW PROTESTANT THEOLOGY !
They were removed because they were (and still) not considered scripture to the Jewish people. Even in Jesus' life, they were not considered scripture.
There's also the matter of copyright that makes the DRV preferable. Unfortunately, there do exist publishers that commission new Bible translations so the can copyright them and make money off sales and copyright licenses. I imagine Crossway has made a pretty penny off the ESV. Another example is the RSV/NRSV, the copyright to which is held by the National Council of Churches in the USA, an ecumenical organization of which the Catholic Church is not a member. That means Catholic publishers have to fork over a chunk of change to the NCCUSA in order to license the copyright to the RSV/NRSV and print Catholic editions of those translations. Because it was already centuries old when copyright law came into being, the Douay-Rheims has always been and always will be public domain. It is literally everyone's Bible. No one "owns" it.
Hi there, thank you so much for your great video. I was brought up Baptist but lean towards Catholic nowadays. I own a Douay Rheims Bible and love it. I have been a staunch KJ all my life. I still like it but the DR is my go-to. My life long goal has been to get back to the original spoken and written word - so that we can live by what our Lord actually said and not our interpretation of it. I have a great book by a man called Les Garrett, a friend of mine and a great preacher (who wrote the song "This is the Day".) The book is called "Which Bible can we trust" - He was heavily for the KJ but more than that he was against the modern versions that arose in the 1880s that distorted sound doctrine. His arguments are sound and based on facts. I am not sure what he says about the Vulgate. Check it out if you are interested. Les also has videos online . Thanks again. G A May
I read tree chapters a day knowing it speaks in a different way as I age. I am 73. My first was born severely/profoundly handicapped and his mother my wife died of small cell lung cancer....
England was known as Our Lady's Dowry. France was known as the fairest daughter of the Church. The KJ bible translators consulted the earlier Catholic Douia Rheims bible. Bishop Challoner later lifted passages from the the KJ inserting them into his revision of the Douia Rhiems. The RSV is the most accurate translation made so far. Other translations may have useful and comprehensive footnotes and cross referencing but they dumb down or change words for ideological reasons. English words such as bishop, priest and deacon are direct equivalents of the Greek words deriving directly from them.
Thank you so much for this biblical lesson. I attend a Diocesan mass which as you say is what is used in the US. At times when reading the NAB I was left puzzled. With regards to Our Lady Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offsprings and hers; He will strike at your head while you strike at his heel” and Luke 1:28 And coming to her he said “Hail, favored one the Lord is with thee.” Now that I have a Douay-Rheims Our Lady’s role is more clear. Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” And Luke 1:28 And the Angel being come in, said unto her. Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women. I can’t tell you how happy I am with my Douay-Rheims I am spending more time daily with it. Thank God! Thank you for the lesson! God bless!
I'm a Catholic Priest. I have about 10 different translations of the bible (including DR). I use all of them, but defer to those which carry an imprimatur. I have found certain Protestant translations quite helpful, depending on what I'm using scripture for. Many times in doing inductive study Protestant traditions that have a very high view of scripture have texts that can be beneficial. Just FYI the DM version is discouraged at seminary, because it's a translation of a translation of a translation of the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) and we are required to study the text as closely as possible to the original languages.
@Historia Ecclesiastica No wonder your video is 1 hour long - It could have easily been much longer😅. Thanks for introducing the history for those not familiar (almost all the lay Catholics I've interacted with (including Catechists in my 18 years of ministry). It was was in the 20th century that a significant number of translations started to be made from pre-Latin sources. This was encouraged, as you correctly say, by Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. When this started happening, Catholic translators relied on a combination of the LXX (Septuagint) and the MT (Masoretic) primarily OUT OF NECESSITY. Some of the books of the Catholic Old Testament seem to have been written as part of the developing LXX tradition (e.g., Wisdom, 2 Maccabees), and so there are no earlier versions. For these, Catholic translators use the LXX since there is no MT equivalent of these books. Other books of the Catholic Old Testament were based on earlier versions in Hebrew or Aramaic but have survived primarily in the LXX (e.g., Sirach). For these Catholic translators tend to use primarily the LXX, but they may also consult the original language versions to the extent that these have been recovered by archaeology (e.g., the Hebrew version of Tobit). Still other books are found in both the LXX and the MT. Here recent Catholic translators have tended to use the MT as their base text, using also the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) for purposes of comparison In some passages, it appears that what the MT has is the most original; in others it seems like the LXX or the DSS may better preserve the original. The base text is just a starting point for the translators of major editions of the Old Testament, though. The goal is not to translate what is in the base text but to produce a translation that best reflects what the originals most likely said. This means going with what is in alternative sources (like the LXX and DSS) whenever it appears that the reading in the alternative source is more likely the original reading. How this gets sorted out is a complex process, but it’s part of the burden that scholars have to shoulder in an effort to get past the manuscript variation we are confronted with and try to arrive at the original readings.
@@JohnVianneyPatron The Book of Tobit chapter 6 : verses 20 21 22 The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) and others translations ? DOESN'T HAVE these verses . why? .
My only issue with the vulgate/DR is the ages in genesis for shem's descendants The septuagint, dead sea scrolls, samaritan pentuatech, and josephus agree that shem died long before abraham lived, due to the descendants of shem having lived over 100 years each. Totaling roughly 600 extra years The vulgate, DR, and masoretic text remove those 600 years so we're left with a timeline where shem lived in the same time as abraham and jews today use this to say that shem was melchizedek and therefore jesus cannot be the high priest Also i remember reading that other people like Augustine criticized Jerome for NOT relying on the septuagint as much and instead favoring the hebrew
Fascinating point. I enjoy reading Rev. George Leo Haydock's biblical commentary, which is pictured in the thumbnail of this video, because he diligently compares the Masoretic, Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and the KJV translations for their different translations and textual traditions. He weighs in and considers which translation has it best, generally giving credit to the DR. The Douay Rheims can be identified as the greatest available English translation, consecrated by tradition, while still not being an "original text."
yep I've myself read the letter from St Augustine, he indeed told St Jerome to not deviate from the Septuagint and Jerome's answer was something like "leave me alone"
First off, Jesus is the fulfilled and restored High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:6,10, 6:20, 7:1-17). Jewish tradition in Midrash and Talmud associate Shem, son of Noah as King of Salem and The Melchizedekian Priest. It’s important connection because you have to follow the succession of blessings, starting w/ Noah, then Shem, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then all 12 sons or tribes of Israel. This was the Melchizedekian line all the way up UNTIL they worshipped the golden calf under Moses. Those 1st born sons were all slayed by the Levites, and the priesthood changed to the Levites under Aaron, Moses’ brother. Leading to Sanhedrin Council. Jesus restores all that and blesses, lays hands on, washes feet of, and blows the Holy Spirit upon his 12 Apostles ordaining Peter as the head (Matt 16, John 10:17 with John 20, etc.) He effectively replaced the Levitical High Priest (Seat of Moses) and Jewish Sanhedrin Council of Rabban’s, Rabbi’s, and Rab’s with the Pope (Seat of Peter) and the Catholic Magisterium.
I purchased my first one at a used book store, but I happen to be blessed with an enormous 5 story used bookstore in my area. I’m not sure if most would carry them. I purchased my second one online.
The miracle of the Manna was not that it fell directly from heaven but that the whole of the community was amply provided for in the wilderness. The commentary on the Manna should do nothing to the piety of a Catholic, it does not matter the way in which the Lord worked the miracle (whether actually transcending natural law or using natural law as an agency at the exact right time). Otherwise, great job! Makes me want to read the Douay-Rheims more often, I am in love with my NRSV though.
A tually though the source of the manna is of extreme importance. In Hebrew manna literally means "what is it". If it were the result of insects or a tree we should find it today. We don't. Also it's spoiling and developing worms if not eaten overnight or the fact that on the sabbath that didn't happen, indicate a direct miracle from God, not a natural occurance that stopped literally on the day they were to cross into the promised land. The NAB notes cast doubt on it being a miracle and thus on the word of God itseld since manna is also referenced in the NT.
From Monsignor Knox's note in the 19532 3-volume edition: "Throughout the books which are included in the Jewish canon, I have translated from the Vulgate, with constant reference to the Massoretic text; I have naturally consulted the Septuagint in cases of difficulty, although (except in the Psalms) it seldom throws much light on discrepancies between the Latin and the Hebrew." He noted that in a handful of verses, the Vulgate posed difficulties, thus he rendered from the Hebrew, providing the Latin translation in footnotes.
Missa actually means message. Translating "Ite, missa est," as "Go, the Mass is ended" is quite wrong. The message - Missa - never ends. It is eternal. I enjoyed the video.
1 Timothy 4:12 - Presbyteros ? There is no reference to elder or priest in my copy - " Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity." I have just acquired a copy of the Challoner revision have I got the wrong copy or am I miss-reading it.
I don’t recall what exactly I said about that verse but I think I was saying that St. Paul was clearly indicating here that the clerical office was not restricted to age, so it is preferable not to translate the office of presbyter to elder.
Please invest in Higher quality audio equipment, your content is of top notch quality and well researched but it is a tragedy that it is marred by subpar equipment
Also, I think it is a mistake to say the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint. My understanding is they are from completely different sources, though the Septuagint was probably consulted for some passages. But lest someone misunderstand me, I totally agree with you that the Challoner and the original 1582 1610 Douay Rheims are the best translations.
your understanding is correct. from what i can tell, the vulgate is kind of a mix of the hebrew and greek manuscript traditions, with a couple passages derived from the old italic version (such as the 'she' in gen 3:15)
@@somewhatreallycoolguy7439 and I can't remember if this video points it out, but it's important to remember when saying Hebrew and Greek that the Vulgate was translated from much older, no longer extant manuscripts than the post Christian, Talmudic Rabbinic revisions modern translations are based on since Protestantism.
The Canon was set in the 380s at the Council of Rome. However, this canon was solemnly defined as a matter of dogma in the 16th century. The Church typically does not solemnly define a teaching as dogmatic until it is explicitly challenged by a heresy. This is why the Council of Trent reaffirmed the 4th century Canon in response to Protestantism.
The 73 books (not 66) of bible were translated and canonized by Catholic church in 392 & 393 AD @ Councils of Carthage and Hippo. (Reaffirmed @ Council of Trent to rebuke the heretical Prot. reformation.) Even earlier, in 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, recognized the 27 New Testament books in his 38th annual Festal (Easter) letter. There was no canonized Christian bible before that except the OT Greek Septuagint (which all included the 7 OT books transcribed in around 285 BC by 72 Jewish scribes for King Ptolemy for his library in Alexandria) and which the disciples probably used because they were in hellenistic (greco-roman) influenced world. Today, the 3 Great Codices, Vaticanus and Sianaticus, (300’s AD) and Alexandrinus (400’s AD) and Dead Sea Scrolls (300-200 BC) confirm the 7 “Disputed Books” of OT. The Latin Vulgate was the 1st ever Holy Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic church to create the infallible bible. There was no bible before that except the Greek Septuagint. In 1500’s, Martin Luther TRIED to remove 11 books (7 OT & 4 NT) bcz they didnt jive w/ his new theology (Sola x 5). Those NT books: were James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations. Despite his wishes, it didnt happen, thank God. In 1611, the english translation of Douay Rheims (73 books) is completed. In fact, the KJV of 1611 still have the 7 OT books as did almost all bibles. It wasn’t until 1804 that a protestant organization, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) voted to remove ALL 7 OT books moving forward bcz it was converting people to Catholicism AND it was “cheaper to print.” In 1908, Gideons International began mass producing these “cheaper” protestant bibles and freely disseminating them in hotels, schools, hospitals, gov’t agencies, prisons, etc. The ignorant public over time began false propaganda that Catholics added 7 books. And today, protestants who don’t study history believe the lie still. Additionally, below Jesus and Paul quote from those 7 OT books that have always been “protocanonical.” Sirach 28:2 & Matt 6:14-15 Tobit 4:16 & Matt 7:12 Wisdom 7:36 & Hebrews 1:3 Wisdom 9:13 & Romans 11:34
Interesting points. I use DR, RSV2CE, KJV, NIV and NABRE (as that last 2 are commonly used by the people I talk to). My daily driver is and will always be RSV2CE. I like comparing and using multiple versions. I don’t believe these translations exist to compete. I always say the best Bible version is the one that you’ll actually read and can understand. People need to start somewhere. God won’t mind.
I have several Bible's,catholic and protestant my kj key word ,withj greek acrnd other translations has even helped me prove catholicism to my protestant skeptics.
I don't know much about the Confraternity NT, but I've heard good things from good people about it. It was a translation of the Vulgate, faithful to traditional translation choices. I believe it used the Masoretic text for comparison in its translation considerations, but don't quote me on that. Regardless, it basically retains the same pros as the Douay Rheims I talked about in this video. I think it also has more natural paragraph formatting and no thees and thous.
@@historiaecclesiastica The Confraternity Edition of the NT of 1941 was wholly Vulgate-based. FYI, the Masoretic Text is a HEBREW text, and, as such, has NO NT. The Confraternity Edition of the OT FROM THE VULGATE was essentially squashed when Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. Thus Catholic OT translations other than the Douay or the Knox are all essentially from the original languages, based on the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and many other "ancient versions".
Although the King James Version is primary for me, I have a great respect and love, too, for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, of which I have several editions, of the British (Catholic Turth Society) and of the American 1899 texts. I feel that it is important that the Greek and Latin texts of the Church in the West be accorded their place in understanding and even recognising what the Biblical text itself is. One way to keep this in mind is to honour and to consult the Clementine Vulgate in Latin and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner in English.
I have a few objections to this video. Unfortunately, we do not have the original vulgate from jerome today, however our manuscript tradition for his work is more reliable than the masoretic or greek old testaments, so I would not expect the original to defer much from our oldest extent copy. There are some errors with the Douay Rheims. For one, it contains 1John 5:7, which is absent from ALL manuscripts until over 1000 years from the original composition, be it Greek, Latin, etc. Although it teaches true doctrine which can be affirmed with other bible excerpts, it has been 100% confirmed to be a later interpolation. The rendering of 1 Samuel 13:1 claims that King Saul was 1 year old when he began to reign. The NRSV and its line of predecessors were not translated from the kjv. They followed a similar literary style although they used sources rejected by the kjv such as the septuagint and the majority text.
The LORD's Prayer. Matthew 6:13 Doouay-Rheims 1899 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. Matthew 6:13 KJV And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. Even the Lord's Prayer has been altered. Hope this helps some, Enoch (Priest & Prophet)
@@njoguszn what you mean what's wrong do you research and pay attention I gave you a verse that was completely messed up by the authors of the doui raims. The KJV is the only true preserved word of God but what I'm saying is only service deep you actually have to look and see for yourself which I'm almost 100% sure you're not going to do
@@barakoniner1644 here's something I'm almost 100% sure YOU won't do. Compare that verse to a dozen other translations then compare it to a Jewish translation then finally do some research on the verse itself. It's problamatical at best. But here's a question for: does anyones salvation depend on the correct translation of that one verse?
@@flintymcduff5417 wow the fact you said that proves you're a clown. So you're telling me your limiting God's word to other languages right? The English isn't clear enough? We HAVE to know get it translated to Jewish writings right God failed when it came to plain English right? Whe it comes to the English Jesus is as bad as Mohammed? That what you're saying ? Gtfoh And yes you need the correct translation clown other wise you start fallowing false religions like catholicism. The religion that supposedly fallows the Bible yet doesn't follow the Bible. Make not my house of merchandise, Do not bow down or worship graven images. Call no man Father. Salvation is of faith alone, but no you all have to do your sacraments n be baptized otherwise it's off to hell you go. It's like your priests read this n said let's do the opposite
The people who run the Ark replica in the USA were touting a new translation of The Bible. They were so excited about a more correct verbiage in Genesis that was missed by KJV. I checked the Douay Rheims and guess what....it was correctly translated!
Great video! One correction. The English were not converted in the 6th century. The Church existed in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales before the Roman mission of Augustine. It was just not ritualistically Roman at this time. There is evidence Roman Britain had Christians by the 4th century. There are 5th century Christian cemeteries and many early post-Roman inscriptions bearing Christian symbols still in existence. In the fourth century an organized church in Britain, with its own bishops, supported the Catholic Nicene position. This was almost three centuries before the Roman missionaries set foot in Britain. And when Augustine came, he was met by other British bishops in apostolic succession.
Hello - you are referencing the Celtic Brit inhabitants of the island (such as St. Patrick, Venerable Bede, and Pelagius the heretic) while I was discussing the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons (today called "English.") The Anglo-Saxons were a different group of people who conquered the island, migrating from present day Denmark. I was discussing the Anglo-Saxons because they developed the English language, the focus of this video (they spoke Old English), while the Brits spoke a form of Gallic.
That is a little unfair. The English Bishops have decided to adopt the ESV because it is an improvement on the RSV second Catholic edition currently in use. It is not “more Protestant” just more closely in accordance with the original texts.
I am a Catholic and I love the Bible. I do want to say that the KJV is a BEAUTIFUL translation and often reads much better than the Douay and can be less clunky (even if it isn't as great overall). Being based in that KJV tradition (even though it's not totally Catholic), which was so foundational in the formation of modern English and traditional English literature, is not a bad thing. I think the RSV-CE is a very very good translation. I read both it and the Douay (I'm also a Latin nerd so I read the Vulgate as well of course). Both have good value. I understand the argument for the DR and as a traditional Catholic I love the DR and always refer to that or the Vulgate. However, there is definitely great value in translating directly from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and there are good nuances there that the DR doesn't catch because it is a translation of a translation. It's good to not just stick to one translation but see what others have to offer and also refer to interlinears and stuff. DR is definitely solid though.
As a Traditional Catholic I prefer the Douay Rheims Bible. To me it is more Specific and Detailed. The Revised Versions have unavoidable Ambiguities and the Douay Rheims Bible does not. It is also the Version used in the TLM Parishes.
As a Catholic who was once Protestant (and is still firmly surrounded by Protestants in every sphere of my life), who grew up reading the KJV, I find that it is SO hard to break away from it. The language is poetic, memorable, and it “flows” in a way that the Douay simply doesn’t. That’s always been a dilemma for me: a Catholic reading a Protestant translation. Someone else posted this above or below-I’m not sure-that the Douay does an incredible job of clearing up some of the ambiguities of the KJV, which I also find to be true. I think there’s a middle road for folks like me-Catholics stuck in an overwhelmingly Protestant atmosphere-where usage of the KJV, while not sanctioned by the Church, can be informed and corrected by a thorough re-reading of the same passages in the Douay. I don’t know, this is just my rambling two cents 😂🤷🏻♂️
I'm 22, and I've decided I won't be a backseat Catholic any longer, and thoroughly read the bible. All the translations are rather daunting, and I've had difficulty navigating them due to the many prejudices and varying opinions from all denominations. I'm very pleased to have found a very knowledgeable presentation with historical backing! I'm now confident I have selected the correct translation in the DR, thank you so much!!!
Get the Haydocks notes version if you can.
Douay Rheims Holy Bible is the best translation indeed. I had Jerusalem Bible and Good News Bible too. Douay Rheims Holy Bible is the only approved by Catholic Church for use, not the other two. Viva Cristo Rey.
Listen to Audio as you read.
@@j.knight9335 Be sure to get the original uncens0red 1859 version of the Haydock, available from Loreto and kindle. In 1883 a cens0red version was widely distributed by New York department stores and facsimiles are all over amazon with different color covers. Many comments from church fathers and Haydock were removed to please the same lobby that got the church to drop the Good Friday prayer.
Please meditate on Revelation 18:4,5. Ask Jesus to grant you a revelation of the entire truth.
I was a Catholic till my age 20. Now I am open to the truth of the whole Bible sans Apocrypha
Finally an informative video - as opposed to the endless videos out there that rant on and on about a particular bible version edition's physical properties (like the type of calfskin leather it's bound in!) but never address the contents, which is what we are (or should be) interested in . . . also, the video is so beautifully done
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Great video. I have a Kjv bible. I was told this was the oldest and most accurate bible. I will pick up this version that you talk about in your video. Something inside is drawing me back to the catholic church. Thanks for taking the time to share your great info. God Bless❤
The KJV is my preferred version and it is excellent but it is not the oldest or first English translation. The first English translation of the complete Bible was the Wycliffe Bible, done by John Wycliffe and his associates, in the late 1300s. Like the Douay, it was also a translation of the Vulgate.
After that you had a number of translations in between the Wycliffe and the KJV, including the Coverdale Bible (which built upon the work of William Tyndale, who had previously translated the New Testament from the original Greek), the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible.
The story of the Bible's journey into English is actually extremely interesting.
There is a KJV for Catholics. It is the Bible the Anglican Ordinate uses and that version removed and anti-Catholic translations and includes Deuterocanonical Books.
Come back to the Catholic faith which is of absolute necessity for salvation, you are being called back.
The RSV of the KJV was produced with inputs from both Catholic and Protestant translators, and the approved Catholic edition includes the Septuagint Old Testament.
There are reviews of these editions on TH-cam. Most of them comment on the apparent durability for daily use.
This channel is a hidden gem!
I really appreciate that - it's a new channel, please spread the word!
Best video out there explaining the differences. As a retired educator, I can tell you are a teacher. You even gave a summary to close the lesson. Great job, brother!
I'm not even sure how to properly express my amazement, but it's kinda mind-blowing how thoroughly you look at the historical perspective of the Church! It gives me a lot more respect for how much work would go into even just one sentence of Scripture! Please keep up the great work!
I'm not Catholic, but the more I read it, the more I like it. I prefer it to the KJV honestly. It's always amazing how often a KJV verse is rather inscrutable but when I check it in the Douay Rheims, it makes more sense.
That’s interesting brother. When i was Protestant I appreciated the KJV. I have a few videos that deal with some Catholic / Protestant disagreements about the early church - I invite you to check them out and let me know what you think!
They certainly sometimes do.
You can get printed copies from Lulu.
@YAJUN YUAN It is an actual print of scans of the late 1500s/early 1600s pages.
Because of Lulu page limits, you have to buy it in several volumes though.
It's the real deal, as in, yes, it's basically impossible to read without some knowledge of early modern English, and even Latin, since the English uses so much Latin-based vocabulary.
You're right, figuratively, about the "never" part though. The people seeking out such a version are not typical lay-Catholics; they're people with an interest in the history of English translations of the Bible or the history of the Church.
I'm born and raised Roman Catholic, though I was exposed to the KJV through Protestant family. So I have a certain affinity towards the KJV, though I'm well aware of its shortcomings in certain places and it's OT is based off the altered Masoretic Hebrew (except where the translators HAD to deviate from it like Isaiah 7:14). The Masoretic, unfortunately, was heavily altered to write out Christ from OT prophecy. The most altered book being Isaiah. Read Isaiah from the KJV then read it over again from the Greek Septuagint and it's a mind-blowing experience!
The KJV translators actually used the Douay-Reims rendering in many places. Then the later Challoner Douay-Reims revision used the KJV in many places...🙃
So both translations are actually very interconnected with one another. The KJV though has clear Protestant bias, particularly in the New Testament.
What makes the KJV special over all other translations, even the DR, IMO...is that is has this "rhythm" and "cadence" to it that allows easy memorization of verses, even entire passages of the Bible. No other translation is like this.
Everything I've memorized from the Bible (and there is tons I have memorized from reading over many years) is always in the KJV English and translation. Always. It just "sticks" in your brain like that. I can't explain it.
I'm 23% English so maybe there's some weird genetic connection there, I don't know.
The beauty of the DR is unmatched though. Probably the most beautifully worded book in the DR, for me, has to be the deuterocanonical/apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach). I mean, I tear up reading through Ecclesiasticus 1. Then there's Ecclesiasticus 24 (starting at verse 23 down) where there is a plain as day description of "Wisdom" that is clearly a description of the Blessed Virgin Mary that just melts my heart into puddy. It's amazing. This rendering is not found in any other translation outside the Vulgate and its beautiful.
The RCC has always associated the "female" aspect of Wisdom in the OT with Mary and this passage sums it all up.
I like the Douay Rheims Bible, and trust it a good deal.
I thought the Challoner update was done by Richard Challoner. Who is William Challoner?
This is a great essay. Thank you for organizing, presenting, and posting it!
I just bought me a Douay Rheims Bible, but never thought about the historical background....your explanation is a great help !!!
Just discovered your channel, great works sir !
Gbu
As a non-Catholic, I found this riveting, and very well researched.
I have appreciated the Douay-Rheims and Confraternity Bibles over the NAB for largely aesthetic reasons: the former are beautiful while the latter is decidedly not.
I appreciate your perspective on this matter. Thank you for your efforts here.
Am I the only one who finds the NAB beautiful? I much prefer it for eloquence over my NRSV, which I find sterile.
@Colin V much like Brian Wilson, I get around.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Excellent video! I have a wide range of different bible translations on my shelf, including the DR and I use them all for different purposes. Personally, my favorite translation for prayer and devotional reading is the Knox version, which is another translation of the vulgate. It's got the solid Catholic theology of the DR, and gorgeous prosaic English that sings off the page. I'd definitely recommend it.
Knox is a fairly loose, interpretive translation.
Thanks for sharing. The more *quality* versions, the better as far as I am concerned.
Bi
I'm Catholic and proud of my Englsh family history including great uncle Thomas Worthington DD who helped translate the Douai bible and infiltrated northern England to serve
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Excellent! Recently, I did a lot of research to find the "best" missal. I ended up choosing the New Marian missal, mainly because it uses the Douay-Rheims translation- And two other reasons: The beautiful artwork, and there are plenty of original copies of the 1958-1962 editions available at reasonable prices. Yesterday, I found-and purchased- a 1962 New Marian missal, in great shape, for $15. plus $5. shipping.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
For history buffs, it's interesting to note the Battle of Lepanto (1571) occurred only 9 years before NT/DR was published in 1582. Wm Shakespeare began his public acting /writing career circa 1585 in Stratford on Avon -- only 3 yrs after the NT/ DR was published. He died 1616, shortly after OT/DR published. A vowed member of Church of England, during his life, evidence exists his parents were raised and remained (hidden) practising Catholics., so its likely WS had access to a copy of DR. IMHO, a reading of his plays /sonnets reveals many shades of commentary on the Catholic Church and its dogmas. And wikipedia says, "Scholars find evidence both for and against Shakespeare's Catholicism, Protestantism, or lack of belief in his plays, but the truth may be impossible to prove.[279][280]" So... Food for thought.
Thank you for your help. God bless you
This is a Bible I am drawn too and feel I can trust.
It used the word Priest and this is so important.
Thank you
This is your best video yet. Very informative.
Another important Bible translation to consider is the Knox Bible, which is also based on the Vulgate. Great video!
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
A master work. If only there was an Americanized edition - but it would lose something.
@@miguelpasamano4995 Are you a Nestorian heretic?
@@HAL9000-su1mzThe Knox translation reads as if it was translated by an English public school boy - since it was! It is a popular translation amongst the educated English middle classes, but does not read quite so well on the other side of the Atlantic.
@@Mark3ABE So, which branch of Protestantism are you?
I've been using the duauy rheims for a couple years now and really enjoy it . Other bible translations seem to be watered down, for example habacuc ch 3 vs 18 . I recommend using duauy rheims as a reference when reading more recent Bible translations
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Thank you for putting this together. I really enjoyed your work. One point early on though. It was Bishop Richard Challoner. You may want to revise your template to reflect that. Good work though. Blessings in Christ
An excellent presentation! Thanks for putting this together.
I am getting more into the DR. I'm using it now alongside the ESV/CE. You bring up a good point though with modern translations in that none of them seem to "stick". They are revised, revised again, then revised again-and often within a space of 30 years or less. It certainly isn't that our language is changing since the original RSV is still completely understandable, or that our understanding of the ancient languages is so much better. It's almost like translations have become like most of our society--disposable.
NAB and RSV have always been incomprehensible to me. There’s a finesse to the language of God that’s glossed over in “dumbed” down translations. That’s why DR is so good. 🔥 ♥️
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
That seems revisionist history though. The DRA has many editions and revisions as it coalesced into its most popular variation. I assume it soon fall victim to the spirt which caused Chacoller to revised into back in 1750, an adherence to more popular English.
Thank you for a very insightful presentation of the benefits of using the Douay Bible!!! I dug out my copy and will use it as my primary Bible for devotion and study!
God Bless you! 🙏🏻
This is an outstanding presentation
Thank you for your detailed explanation of this subject. I very much appreciate it. 👍
I appreciate your nuanced and charitable discussion of the NAB footnotes at the 23 minute mark. I agree with you that the translation itself is quite good. For anyone who doubts the NAB can be used effectively - go watch Father Mark Goring, he's awesome, orthodox and uses the NAB :)
Over the years since the Novus Ordo Missae, I - and no doubt, many others - have winced over the numerous infelicitous renderings from the NAB. Why? We'd become quite used to the dignity and reverence of the Confraternity NT, a revision of the Rheims-Challoner NT.
If the NABRE was so great, then why did ROME itself have to intervene and edit the NABRE-based Lectionary submitted to them by our beloved US bishops? By "intervene" I mean ROME had to actually edit the raw NABRE text in the Lectionary for orthodoxy before it could be approved. IMHO, ROME didn't go far enough here. I would've had them REJECT the NAB/NABRE altogether and go with the RSV-CE.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it's the RSV that's used, NOT the NAB/NABRE.
@@manfredcaranci6234 Did Rome intervene on the NABRE, or rather, the original NAB? Good to see you around brother, we've spoken before!
Love this video learned a lot and I am reading the Douay Rheims bible everyday for a few years and I have a lot of bibles I actually collect bibles but When I take a break from reading the DR I don’t know what to read. I’m from the RSV to the NKJV to the NRSV and I keep coming back to the DR. The notes are exceptional. Each chapter of every book has a prophecy about Christ or the church. I love the notes on Isaiah 10:27 about the Sweet Unction of Divine Mercy. Bishop Challoner must have been some preacher and all the headlines in the book of the prophets point to the church the death and resurrection of Christ and especially the psalms. It’s hard to go back to the newer versions when there’s that much information and revelation in this bible. For instance read psalm 67 Exurgat Deus and the notes or psalm 68 Salve me fac for example. Why is the church not preaching with this treasure trove of doctrinal ammunition? We need to bring it back to our pulpits. The devil hates Holy Scripture because it’s the truth that makes us free and the more he can Water it down and undermine it the better. I do love other translations but the DR is the best. You get used to the language it’s better anyway. The DR is Hardcore ✝️🕊📖🔥
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
Nice video. I studied in a Baptist seminary and learned New Testament Greek and biblical criticism 30 years ago. I really like St Jerome and the Septuagint over the Hebrew texts we have today because Jerome's manuscripts are so much older than the Masoretic texts we have. I love the Douay Rheims version of Prov. 15:27, "by mercy (almsgiving) and faith, sins are purged away." This is an outstanding doctrine, and appears elsewhere in Proverbs, Daniel, etc. I feel like reading this has been a "counter-reformation" for me, like my own tradition down plays the importance of almsgiving, charity, mercy, love out of fear that works might get confused with faith. I have been reading Pitre and Anderson and Krom, and they are doing a nice job explaining how true faith is not a threat to good works, but the two go hand-in-glove to conform us to Christ. I am using the NABRE and notes, and I like it, but holy smokes it is very biased in some notes against the old ways. Bless you.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead. Hieronymus was never a venerated AntiSaint before the 11th century. Nor were the CappaDocians. Nor was John ChrysosTom.
Tobit 12:8-9 "Prayer is good with fasting and alms more than to lay up treasures of gold: For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
Once I discovered the DR, Bible study became so much deeper and spiritual. I love the language
As someone who grew up on the pre-2011 NIV, I find my RSV2E-CE with commentary by Dr. Scott Hahn to be an amazing translation. I also have a copy of The Augustine Bible you had pictured there.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
I began my Bible in a Year challenge this year, reading the KJV. It was always the version I was told was the “best” for English readers. While I love the language of it, I was disappointed in the omission of certain texts, like Bel and the Dragon, Judith, Tobit, Maccabees etc.
For that reason, I wish to read the DR for my second read of the Bible. Thank you for this terrific video.
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
The KJV translators actually did translate the Apocrypha and their translation is available. I have a copy.
Theologically the Vulgate is without error and is excellently preserved.
You mean, theologically?
So Moses had horns?? 😂
@christsavesreadromans1096 True but how come they depicted him with Ox horns in iconography?
@christsavesreadromans1096 So the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ and Supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit would make such an error? Wouldn’t the Church be 100% proficient in Hebrew? But that proves to me that the Church fathers make mistakes something that Orthodox and Catholics deny.
@@YourBoyJohnny94:
"Horns", symbolic of strength and power.
You'll find many other examples in the Old Testament.
Great video. Thank you for giving us more light regarding this topic. It only made me realise that I made the right choice in purchasing the Douay-Rheims version. I actually have the one from Baronius Press which puts the DRV side by side to the Latin from the Clementina Vulgata.
Deo Gratias!
I want to get a copy like that
The masoretic texts are the ultimate source of the vulgate, the received texts, the Douay-Rheims, the AntiKing James, the Challoner-HayDock, the ConFraternity, the Knox, the ReVised UnStandard, the JeruSalem, the New American, the PseudoIgNatian, and the "Word" on "Fire". I recommend the Dead Sea Sacred Scrolls, the SeptuaGint, the Peshitta, and Charles ThompSon's, LanceLot Charles Lee BrenTon's, and James MurDock's translations for cross referencing instead.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions on the post Vatican II English bibles. If they are based on or collaborated with protestant sources, then they are not good. Most post VII bibles straight up removed 1st John 5:7's Trinitarian reference. Removing catholic truths from the Bible makes them not the bible.
I started with NAB because it matched the Missal. Then I read the Jerusalem Bible, which I liked the formatting and the language. Then went to RSVCE which is better than NAB. After that The Confraternity which I love and has become my everyday Bible. Decided to get the DR and it just arrived. I absolutely think it’s the best and I do like the thees and thous. I’m sticking with translations from the Vulgate, because of what you said about the Mazoratic texts. Great video. I don’t read any Protestant Bibles.
It would be great if in the upcoming NAB revision in 2025, the reader could choose to purchase an NAB "Historically Critical Footnote Edition" or an NAB "Patristics / Fathers Footnote Edition". Then everyone could be satisfied!
It'd be even better if Ignatius Press could finish and publish the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible in full :D
BIBLE TIMELINE:
The 73 books (not 66) of bible were translated and canonized by Catholic church in 392 & 393 AD @ Councils of Carthage and Hippo. (Reaffirmed @ Council of Trent to rebuke the heretical Prot. reformation.)
Even earlier, in 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, recognized the 27 New Testament books in his 38th annual Festal (Easter) letter.
There was no canonized Christian bible before that except the OT Greek Septuagint (which all included the 7 OT books transcribed in around 285 BC by 72 Jewish scribes for King Ptolemy for his library in Alexandria) and which the disciples probably used because they were in hellenistic (greco-roman) influenced world.
Today, the 3 Great Codices, Vaticanus and Sianaticus, (300’s AD) and Alexandrinus (400’s AD) and Dead Sea Scrolls (300-200 BC) confirm the 7 “Disputed Books” of OT.
The Latin Vulgate was the 1st ever Holy Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic church to create the infallible bible. Early Christians (who were all Catholic, there were NO Protestants and only ONE Catholic church) relied on Oral Tradition of succession of apostles (bishops). Most were tortured and killed (martyred) for these same beliefs Catholics believe today.
In 1550’s, Martin Luther TRIED to remove 11 books (7 OT & 4 NT) bcz they didnt jive w/ his new theology (Sola x 5). Those NT books: were James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations. Despite his wishes, it didnt happen, thank God.
In 1611, the english translation of Douay Rheims (73 books) is completed.
In fact, the KJV of 1611 still have the 7 OT books as did almost all bibles.
It wasn’t until 1804 that a protestant organization, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) voted to remove ALL 7 OT books moving forward bcz it was converting people to Catholicism AND it was “cheaper to print.”
In 1908, Gideons International began mass producing these “cheaper” protestant bibles and freely disseminating them in hotels, schools, hospitals, gov’t agencies, prisons, etc.
The ignorant public over time began false propaganda that Catholics added 7 books. And today, protestants who don’t study history believe the lie still.
Additionally, below Jesus and Paul quote from those 7 OT books that have always been “protocanonical.”
Sirach 28:2 & Matt 6:14-15
Tobit 4:16 & Matt 7:12
Wisdom 7:36 & Hebrews 1:3
Wisdom 9:13 & Romans 11:34
Not to mention Wisdom 2:12-20 being perhaps the clearest prophecy of the life and death of Christ in all of the OT.
@@HAL9000-su1mz Be mindful, V21-22; however, says this:
“21 That is how evil people think, but they are wrong. They are blinded by their own wickedness. 22 They have never known God's secrets, never hoped for the rewards of a holy and blameless life.”
So, he’a saying we shouldn’t think that way
I actually got all the versions.
Finally read the bible through for the first time last year.
Right now working on the Navarre study Bible. Learning a lot.
One thing I like about having all versions with commentary is if I get "stuck" on a particular passage I can go through them all and get a pretty good understanding.
Whats your thoughts in the Knox Bible though you never mentioned it.
I love the work you’ve presented and the effort this must have taken. The slurping did detract from your work, however.
Great video. You need more subscribers.
A great way to start weeding out good translations is going to Luke 1:28. If it says anything other than "hail full of grace" that ain't the Bible for you.
I liked your video. The only thing that came to mind in listening to the video is this: The DR translation was a contemporary English Language translation when it was first published. I think we need a contemporary English language translation of the Latin Vulgate. This translation could still retain "thousands hast" for the familiar tense and. "You have" for the formal tense. So, just as Bishop Challenor updated the DR for his day, we should have an update for our day. No need to look at the Masoretic and Byzantine Texts, or the Critical Text. Justin the Latin Vulgate.
You may enjoy the KNOX translation.
In 1936 the Catholic bishops of England and Wales asked Monsignor Ronald Knox to produce a modern translation of the Vulgate, and Monsignor Knox spent the next nine years studying ancient copies of St. Jerome's Bible.
The Knox Bible, published by Baronius Press, comes with a 65 page booklet, "ON ENGLISHING THE BIBLE", written by Knox, explaining his translation.
The Confraternity edition is an update of the DR New Testament only , done in the 50s under the authority of the US bishops
Pocket edition from Sceptre publications
@@alhilford2345An excellent translation. Since Monsignor Knox translated the entire Bible, himself, without assistance, it reads very well throughout. Most Bibles were put together by a Committee. The full three volume set of the Knox Bible, with all of the translator’s notes, is an excellent resource.
I am fortunate to have a nicely bound Vulgate. Some years ago, I found an old, battered, Vulgate from an online second hand book shop. I ordered it and nothing arrived for several weeks. Then, a brand new Vulgate, still in its original film wrapping arrived. The book shop apologised for the delay, explaining that they had mistakenly accepted two orders for the old, battered, version, so they had bought me a brand new one. I hope the Lord rewards them for their integrity. The Vulgate is still the official translation of the Church. Fortunately, I know enough Latin to be able to read it, with Monsignor Knox’s excellent translation alongside, to help me out, if necessary. My edition of the Vulgate is the current, revised, official version approved by the Church. It incorporates the most recent scholarship, so is not identical to Jerome’s translation, but the differences are very minor.
Great review! Thank you!
Excellent video. Thank You. Why was the Confraternity version ditched in favor of the NAB. It seems the Septuagint-Vulgate-Douay-Challoner-Confraternity line of translation ended suddenly with the Confraternity never finished and then the NAB-NABRE-ESV-RSVCE etc came to the fore. With notable prior offshoots of the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox translations. All rather confusing. Thanks for shedding some light on this rather chaotic tableau.
If you examine the copyright page of the New American Bible, you will find that it was published by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Thus, Confraternity itself reoriented its translation methodologies of the first half of the 20th century in favor of the fashionable mid-twentieth century progressive exegetical methods, and thus produced the New American Bible.
@@historiaecclesiastica Id be curious to know which individual made the decision and the reasoning to give up the Vulgate in the middle of the translation (or near the end of the translation rather) and switch to the more “authentic” Masoretic texts etc. All that work to end up with an unfinished Bible.
@@duke927 Certainly progressive leaning scholars abused Divino Afflante Spiritu by Pius XII, but the encyclical did make reference to using the original language texts, opening the door for this movement in scholarship. You raise a good point about the individual players on the scholarly side and I don't know much about that side of it.
As a Protestant I find it very interesting that Jerome used 300s AD Greek and Hebrew texts in translating into the Latin of his day. Have now owned a Douay Rheims bible around four weeks. And have procured a reprint of Jerome's New Testament. I'm quiet enjoying this research, and this bible as well! The Protestant world is virtually devoid of manuscripts that old.
Thanks for watching and your comment!
Overall, this is an excellent video. However, you did make a mistake in saying that the vulgate was a translation of the septuagint. Although Jerome consulted the septuagint, the vulgate is a translation of ancient hebrew manuscripts similar, but not identical, to the masoretic text. The old latin, which the vulgate replaced, was translated from the septuagint.
I have been using KJV or NKJV but after checking further I am now using Douay Rheims (Challoner revision). I always thought it was Latin or French only.
As I understand, The Catholic Douay Rheims Bible preceded the KJV and that the OrIginal KJV contained the same amount of books as the Catholic Douay Rheims And only within about 3 to five years afterwards did they remove the 7 books as these books did not agree with the NEW PROTESTANT THEOLOGY !
They were removed because they were (and still) not considered scripture to the Jewish people.
Even in Jesus' life, they were not considered scripture.
I have this bible I really love reading it😊
What edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible would you recommend? I'm looking at buying the Baronius Press printing.
Granting your DR observations. Why didn't you cite any of the list of problems with Eshter?
I’m Irish, The Douay Rheims Holy Bible is The Holy Bible I use 🇻🇦🙏🏻☘️✝️🕊️🇮🇪PAX🇺🇸
There's also the matter of copyright that makes the DRV preferable. Unfortunately, there do exist publishers that commission new Bible translations so the can copyright them and make money off sales and copyright licenses. I imagine Crossway has made a pretty penny off the ESV.
Another example is the RSV/NRSV, the copyright to which is held by the National Council of Churches in the USA, an ecumenical organization of which the Catholic Church is not a member. That means Catholic publishers have to fork over a chunk of change to the NCCUSA in order to license the copyright to the RSV/NRSV and print Catholic editions of those translations.
Because it was already centuries old when copyright law came into being, the Douay-Rheims has always been and always will be public domain. It is literally everyone's Bible. No one "owns" it.
Hi there, thank you so much for your great video. I was brought up Baptist but lean towards Catholic nowadays. I own a Douay Rheims Bible and love it. I have been a staunch KJ all my life. I still like it but the DR is my go-to. My life long goal has been to get back to the original spoken and written word - so that we can live by what our Lord actually said and not our interpretation of it. I have a great book by a man called Les Garrett, a friend of mine and a great preacher (who wrote the song "This is the Day".) The book is called "Which Bible can we trust" - He was heavily for the KJ but more than that he was against the modern versions that arose in the 1880s that distorted sound doctrine. His arguments are sound and based on facts. I am not sure what he says about the Vulgate. Check it out if you are interested. Les also has videos online .
Thanks again. G A May
Any friend of the Shire is a friend of mine! Thank you for the recommendation, I will bookmark your comment.
I read tree chapters a day knowing it speaks in a different way as I age. I am 73. My first was born severely/profoundly handicapped and his mother my wife died of small cell lung cancer....
You inspire me.
Any opinions on which version to get? Baronius, Loreto, St. Benedict, other? I need something that will be durable with being handled.
I have. My GreatGrandmother’s Douai Bible - 1880 edition. The New Testament is in pieces, but the Book is very dear to me.
Could you comment on the great Bishop Schneider's new cathechism?
England was known as Our Lady's Dowry. France was known as the fairest daughter of the Church. The KJ bible translators consulted the earlier Catholic Douia Rheims bible. Bishop Challoner later lifted passages from the the KJ inserting them into his revision of the Douia Rhiems. The RSV is the most accurate translation made so far. Other translations may have useful and comprehensive footnotes and cross referencing but they dumb down or change words for ideological reasons. English words such as bishop, priest and deacon are direct equivalents of the Greek words deriving directly from them.
How about the RSVCE? I own it. And the NRSBCE. ?
Thank you so much for this biblical lesson. I attend a Diocesan mass which as you say is what is used in the US. At times when reading the NAB I was left puzzled. With regards to Our Lady Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your offsprings and hers; He will strike at your head while you strike at his heel” and Luke 1:28 And coming to her he said “Hail, favored one the Lord is with thee.” Now that I have a Douay-Rheims Our Lady’s role is more clear. Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” And Luke 1:28 And the Angel being come in, said unto her. Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women.
I can’t tell you how happy I am with my Douay-Rheims I am spending more time daily with it. Thank God!
Thank you for the lesson! God bless!
That woman is not Mary. You are reading your love for Mary into the text.
Exactly!!! 🌹
I'm a Catholic Priest. I have about 10 different translations of the bible (including DR). I use all of them, but defer to those which carry an imprimatur. I have found certain Protestant translations quite helpful, depending on what I'm using scripture for. Many times in doing inductive study Protestant traditions that have a very high view of scripture have texts that can be beneficial.
Just FYI the DM version is discouraged at seminary, because it's a translation of a translation of a translation of the Hebrew and Greek (and Aramaic) and we are required to study the text as closely as possible to the original languages.
@Historia Ecclesiastica No wonder your video is 1 hour long - It could have easily been much longer😅. Thanks for introducing the history for those not familiar (almost all the lay Catholics I've interacted with (including Catechists in my 18 years of ministry).
It was was in the 20th century that a significant number of translations started to be made from pre-Latin sources. This was encouraged, as you correctly say, by Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. When this started happening, Catholic translators relied on a combination of the LXX (Septuagint) and the MT (Masoretic) primarily OUT OF NECESSITY.
Some of the books of the Catholic Old Testament seem to have been written as part of the developing LXX tradition (e.g., Wisdom, 2 Maccabees), and so there are no earlier versions. For these, Catholic translators use the LXX since there is no MT equivalent of these books.
Other books of the Catholic Old Testament were based on earlier versions in Hebrew or Aramaic but have survived primarily in the LXX (e.g., Sirach). For these Catholic translators tend to use primarily the LXX, but they may also consult the original language versions to the extent that these have been recovered by archaeology (e.g., the Hebrew version of Tobit).
Still other books are found in both the LXX and the MT. Here recent Catholic translators have tended to use the MT as their base text, using also the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) for purposes of comparison
In some passages, it appears that what the MT has is the most original; in others it seems like the LXX or the DSS may better preserve the original.
The base text is just a starting point for the translators of major editions of the Old Testament, though. The goal is not to translate what is in the base text but to produce a translation that best reflects what the originals most likely said. This means going with what is in alternative sources (like the LXX and DSS) whenever it appears that the reading in the alternative source is more likely the original reading.
How this gets sorted out is a complex process, but it’s part of the burden that scholars have to shoulder in an effort to get past the manuscript variation we are confronted with and try to arrive at the original readings.
@@JohnVianneyPatron The Book of Tobit chapter 6 : verses 20 21 22 The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) and others translations ? DOESN'T HAVE these verses . why? .
Thank you for the information!!
God bless you always 🙏🏽📿
Knox bible is also great for fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, if you are into poetic stuff
Your first few minutes ie 5 minutes or so is chilling to the bone, dude!
Deja vu...
My only issue with the vulgate/DR is the ages in genesis for shem's descendants
The septuagint, dead sea scrolls, samaritan pentuatech, and josephus agree that shem died long before abraham lived, due to the descendants of shem having lived over 100 years each. Totaling roughly 600 extra years
The vulgate, DR, and masoretic text remove those 600 years so we're left with a timeline where shem lived in the same time as abraham and jews today use this to say that shem was melchizedek and therefore jesus cannot be the high priest
Also i remember reading that other people like Augustine criticized Jerome for NOT relying on the septuagint as much and instead favoring the hebrew
Fascinating point. I enjoy reading Rev. George Leo Haydock's biblical commentary, which is pictured in the thumbnail of this video, because he diligently compares the Masoretic, Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and the KJV translations for their different translations and textual traditions. He weighs in and considers which translation has it best, generally giving credit to the DR. The Douay Rheims can be identified as the greatest available English translation, consecrated by tradition, while still not being an "original text."
yep I've myself read the letter from St Augustine, he indeed told St Jerome to not deviate from the Septuagint and Jerome's answer was something like "leave me alone"
First off, Jesus is the fulfilled and restored High Priest of the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:6,10, 6:20, 7:1-17).
Jewish tradition in Midrash and Talmud associate Shem, son of Noah as King of Salem and The Melchizedekian Priest.
It’s important connection because you have to follow the succession of blessings, starting w/ Noah, then Shem, then Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then all 12 sons or tribes of Israel. This was the Melchizedekian line all the way up UNTIL they worshipped the golden calf under Moses.
Those 1st born sons were all slayed by the Levites, and the priesthood changed to the Levites under Aaron, Moses’ brother.
Leading to Sanhedrin Council.
Jesus restores all that and blesses, lays hands on, washes feet of, and blows the Holy Spirit upon his 12 Apostles ordaining Peter as the head (Matt 16, John 10:17 with John 20, etc.)
He effectively replaced the Levitical High Priest (Seat of Moses) and Jewish Sanhedrin Council of Rabban’s, Rabbi’s, and Rab’s with the Pope (Seat of Peter) and the Catholic Magisterium.
This is a beautifully made video
How are bible names presented in the DR vs RSV versions?
I cannot find any copies for sale anywhere.
Any advice?
I purchased my first one at a used book store, but I happen to be blessed with an enormous 5 story used bookstore in my area. I’m not sure if most would carry them. I purchased my second one online.
The miracle of the Manna was not that it fell directly from heaven but that the whole of the community was amply provided for in the wilderness. The commentary on the Manna should do nothing to the piety of a Catholic, it does not matter the way in which the Lord worked the miracle (whether actually transcending natural law or using natural law as an agency at the exact right time). Otherwise, great job! Makes me want to read the Douay-Rheims more often, I am in love with my NRSV though.
A tually though the source of the manna is of extreme importance. In Hebrew manna literally means "what is it". If it were the result of insects or a tree we should find it today. We don't. Also it's spoiling and developing worms if not eaten overnight or the fact that on the sabbath that didn't happen, indicate a direct miracle from God, not a natural occurance that stopped literally on the day they were to cross into the promised land. The NAB notes cast doubt on it being a miracle and thus on the word of God itseld since manna is also referenced in the NT.
@@flintymcduff5417 Asking what is it does not necessitate your point. Many insects and trees are extinct. My point still stands.
What about the Knox bible? Mazoretic texts also?
From Monsignor Knox's note in the 19532 3-volume edition: "Throughout the books which are included in the Jewish canon, I have translated from the Vulgate, with constant reference to the Massoretic text; I have naturally consulted the Septuagint in cases of difficulty, although (except in the Psalms) it seldom throws much light on discrepancies between the Latin and the Hebrew." He noted that in a handful of verses, the Vulgate posed difficulties, thus he rendered from the Hebrew, providing the Latin translation in footnotes.
Missa actually means message. Translating "Ite, missa est," as "Go, the Mass is ended" is quite wrong. The message - Missa - never ends. It is eternal.
I enjoyed the video.
1 Timothy 4:12 - Presbyteros ? There is no reference to elder or priest in my copy - " Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity." I have just acquired a copy of the Challoner revision have I got the wrong copy or am I miss-reading it.
I don’t recall what exactly I said about that verse but I think I was saying that St. Paul was clearly indicating here that the clerical office was not restricted to age, so it is preferable not to translate the office of presbyter to elder.
Please invest in Higher quality audio equipment, your content is of top notch quality and well researched but it is a tragedy that it is marred by subpar equipment
I have started using the DR V after studying the JB, NAB, RSV. So far I find the DR psalms read best as a warrior would. Just saying sofar.
Also, I think it is a mistake to say the Vulgate is a translation of the Septuagint. My understanding is they are from completely different sources, though the Septuagint was probably consulted for some passages. But lest someone misunderstand me, I totally agree with you that the Challoner and the original 1582 1610 Douay Rheims are the best translations.
your understanding is correct. from what i can tell, the vulgate is kind of a mix of the hebrew and greek manuscript traditions, with a couple passages derived from the old italic version (such as the 'she' in gen 3:15)
@@somewhatreallycoolguy7439 and I can't remember if this video points it out, but it's important to remember when saying Hebrew and Greek that the Vulgate was translated from much older, no longer extant manuscripts than the post Christian, Talmudic Rabbinic revisions modern translations are based on since Protestantism.
Was your catholic Canon fixed in the 1550 s or was it set in the 380s ?
The Canon was set in the 380s at the Council of Rome. However, this canon was solemnly defined as a matter of dogma in the 16th century. The Church typically does not solemnly define a teaching as dogmatic until it is explicitly challenged by a heresy. This is why the Council of Trent reaffirmed the 4th century Canon in response to Protestantism.
The 73 books (not 66) of bible were translated and canonized by Catholic church in 392 & 393 AD @ Councils of Carthage and Hippo. (Reaffirmed @ Council of Trent to rebuke the heretical Prot. reformation.)
Even earlier, in 367 AD, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, recognized the 27 New Testament books in his 38th annual Festal (Easter) letter.
There was no canonized Christian bible before that except the OT Greek Septuagint (which all included the 7 OT books transcribed in around 285 BC by 72 Jewish scribes for King Ptolemy for his library in Alexandria) and which the disciples probably used because they were in hellenistic (greco-roman) influenced world.
Today, the 3 Great Codices, Vaticanus and Sianaticus, (300’s AD) and Alexandrinus (400’s AD) and Dead Sea Scrolls (300-200 BC) confirm the 7 “Disputed Books” of OT.
The Latin Vulgate was the 1st ever Holy Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit through the Catholic church to create the infallible bible. There was no bible before that except the Greek Septuagint.
In 1500’s, Martin Luther TRIED to remove 11 books (7 OT & 4 NT) bcz they didnt jive w/ his new theology (Sola x 5). Those NT books: were James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations. Despite his wishes, it didnt happen, thank God.
In 1611, the english translation of Douay Rheims (73 books) is completed.
In fact, the KJV of 1611 still have the 7 OT books as did almost all bibles.
It wasn’t until 1804 that a protestant organization, the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) voted to remove ALL 7 OT books moving forward bcz it was converting people to Catholicism AND it was “cheaper to print.”
In 1908, Gideons International began mass producing these “cheaper” protestant bibles and freely disseminating them in hotels, schools, hospitals, gov’t agencies, prisons, etc.
The ignorant public over time began false propaganda that Catholics added 7 books. And today, protestants who don’t study history believe the lie still.
Additionally, below Jesus and Paul quote from those 7 OT books that have always been “protocanonical.”
Sirach 28:2 & Matt 6:14-15
Tobit 4:16 & Matt 7:12
Wisdom 7:36 & Hebrews 1:3
Wisdom 9:13 & Romans 11:34
Interesting points. I use DR, RSV2CE, KJV, NIV and NABRE (as that last 2 are commonly used by the people I talk to). My daily driver is and will always be RSV2CE. I like comparing and using multiple versions. I don’t believe these translations exist to compete. I always say the best Bible version is the one that you’ll actually read and can understand. People need to start somewhere. God won’t mind.
I have several Bible's,catholic and protestant my kj key word ,withj greek acrnd other translations has even helped me prove catholicism to my protestant skeptics.
What do you think about the confraternity NT? Are there any problems with it?
I don't know much about the Confraternity NT, but I've heard good things from good people about it. It was a translation of the Vulgate, faithful to traditional translation choices. I believe it used the Masoretic text for comparison in its translation considerations, but don't quote me on that. Regardless, it basically retains the same pros as the Douay Rheims I talked about in this video. I think it also has more natural paragraph formatting and no thees and thous.
@@historiaecclesiastica The Confraternity Edition of the NT of 1941 was wholly Vulgate-based. FYI, the Masoretic Text is a HEBREW text, and, as such, has NO NT. The Confraternity Edition of the OT FROM THE VULGATE was essentially squashed when Pius XII issued Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943. Thus Catholic OT translations other than the Douay or the Knox are all essentially from the original languages, based on the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and many other "ancient versions".
Although the King James Version is primary for me, I have a great respect and love, too, for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible, of which I have several editions, of the British (Catholic Turth Society) and of the American 1899 texts. I feel that it is important that the Greek and Latin texts of the Church in the West be accorded their place in understanding and even recognising what the Biblical text itself is. One way to keep this in mind is to honour and to consult the Clementine Vulgate in Latin and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner in English.
By the way, I am Lutheran.
Great work
Great Video
Thee Thou Thy are the personal and informal forms.
We are praying to God as Father.
May you please explain the age of Saul in 1 Kings/1 Samuel 13?
Who does the vulgate/DR say he was 1 year old?
I have a few objections to this video. Unfortunately, we do not have the original vulgate from jerome today, however our manuscript tradition for his work is more reliable than the masoretic or greek old testaments, so I would not expect the original to defer much from our oldest extent copy. There are some errors with the Douay Rheims. For one, it contains 1John 5:7, which is absent from ALL manuscripts until over 1000 years from the original composition, be it Greek, Latin, etc. Although it teaches true doctrine which can be affirmed with other bible excerpts, it has been 100% confirmed to be a later interpolation. The rendering of 1 Samuel 13:1 claims that King Saul was 1 year old when he began to reign. The NRSV and its line of predecessors were not translated from the kjv. They followed a similar literary style although they used sources rejected by the kjv such as the septuagint and the majority text.
It's updated by Bishop Richard Challoner, not William Challoner.
The LORD's Prayer.
Matthew 6:13 Doouay-Rheims 1899
And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.
Matthew 6:13 KJV
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Even the Lord's Prayer has been altered.
Hope this helps some,
Enoch (Priest & Prophet)
I am sold, I am getting the Douay Rheims Bible.
Sure about that? Compare the KJV with this false translation.
Look at 1 Samuel 13:1 lol
@@barakoniner1644 what’s wrong
@@njoguszn what you mean what's wrong do you research and pay attention I gave you a verse that was completely messed up by the authors of the doui raims. The KJV is the only true preserved word of God but what I'm saying is only service deep you actually have to look and see for yourself which I'm almost 100% sure you're not going to do
@@barakoniner1644 here's something I'm almost 100% sure YOU won't do. Compare that verse to a dozen other translations then compare it to a Jewish translation then finally do some research on the verse itself. It's problamatical at best. But here's a question for: does anyones salvation depend on the correct translation of that one verse?
@@flintymcduff5417 wow the fact you said that proves you're a clown. So you're telling me your limiting God's word to other languages right? The English isn't clear enough?
We HAVE to know get it translated to Jewish writings right
God failed when it came to plain English right?
Whe it comes to the English Jesus is as bad as Mohammed?
That what you're saying ?
Gtfoh
And yes you need the correct translation clown other wise you start fallowing false religions like catholicism.
The religion that supposedly fallows the Bible yet doesn't follow the Bible.
Make not my house of merchandise,
Do not bow down or worship graven images.
Call no man Father.
Salvation is of faith alone, but no you all have to do your sacraments n be baptized otherwise it's off to hell you go.
It's like your priests read this n said let's do the opposite
Great video
The people who run the Ark replica in the USA were touting a new translation of The Bible. They were so excited about a more correct verbiage in Genesis that was missed by KJV. I checked the Douay Rheims and guess what....it was correctly translated!
There's other books in the Latin Vulgate that don't make it to the Bible. Should they be read.
That’s the RSV Second Catholic Edition you have in the video.
Great video! One correction. The English were not converted in the 6th century. The Church existed in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales before the Roman mission of Augustine. It was just not ritualistically Roman at this time. There is evidence Roman Britain had Christians by the 4th century. There are 5th century Christian cemeteries and many early post-Roman inscriptions bearing Christian symbols still in existence. In the fourth century an organized church in Britain, with its own bishops, supported the Catholic Nicene position. This was almost three centuries before the Roman missionaries set foot in Britain. And when Augustine came, he was met by other British bishops in apostolic succession.
Hello - you are referencing the Celtic Brit inhabitants of the island (such as St. Patrick, Venerable Bede, and Pelagius the heretic) while I was discussing the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons (today called "English.") The Anglo-Saxons were a different group of people who conquered the island, migrating from present day Denmark. I was discussing the Anglo-Saxons because they developed the English language, the focus of this video (they spoke Old English), while the Brits spoke a form of Gallic.
The ESV is an update of the 1971 RSV text revised to bring it Into line with conservative Protestant doctrine.
That is a little unfair. The English Bishops have decided to adopt the ESV because it is an improvement on the RSV second Catholic edition currently in use. It is not “more Protestant” just more closely in accordance with the original texts.
I am a Catholic and I love the Bible. I do want to say that the KJV is a BEAUTIFUL translation and often reads much better than the Douay and can be less clunky (even if it isn't as great overall). Being based in that KJV tradition (even though it's not totally Catholic), which was so foundational in the formation of modern English and traditional English literature, is not a bad thing. I think the RSV-CE is a very very good translation. I read both it and the Douay (I'm also a Latin nerd so I read the Vulgate as well of course). Both have good value. I understand the argument for the DR and as a traditional Catholic I love the DR and always refer to that or the Vulgate. However, there is definitely great value in translating directly from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek and there are good nuances there that the DR doesn't catch because it is a translation of a translation. It's good to not just stick to one translation but see what others have to offer and also refer to interlinears and stuff. DR is definitely solid though.
Imagine a Douay Rheims study bible.
As a Traditional Catholic I prefer the Douay Rheims Bible.
To me it is more Specific and Detailed. The Revised Versions have unavoidable Ambiguities and the Douay Rheims Bible does not. It is also the Version used in the TLM Parishes.
As a Catholic who was once Protestant (and is still firmly surrounded by Protestants in every sphere of my life), who grew up reading the KJV, I find that it is SO hard to break away from it. The language is poetic, memorable, and it “flows” in a way that the Douay simply doesn’t. That’s always been a dilemma for me: a Catholic reading a Protestant translation. Someone else posted this above or below-I’m not sure-that the Douay does an incredible job of clearing up some of the ambiguities of the KJV, which I also find to be true. I think there’s a middle road for folks like me-Catholics stuck in an overwhelmingly Protestant atmosphere-where usage of the KJV, while not sanctioned by the Church, can be informed and corrected by a thorough re-reading of the same passages in the Douay. I don’t know, this is just my rambling two cents 😂🤷🏻♂️