What English Bible Do You Read?

[Didacus]

other

I read the french bible!

Free T-shirt anyone?

[Peccator]

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

[Didacus]

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

[Amator Veritatis]

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


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

[Brother Adam]

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

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

[OLAM Dad]

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

This is the version I have.

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

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

[Guest JeffCR07]

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

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Theoketos]

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

[Theoketos]

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

This is the version I have.

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

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


I have that version as well.

[Amator Veritatis]

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

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 3 2006, 10:16 AM']I chose the Douay-Rheims Haydock Edition, but in case this is unclear, the Haydock Bible is simply the same edition of the Douay-Rheims as Bishop Richard Challoner's revision, but it includes extensive notes by Father George Leo Haydock. Father Haydock did not provide a revised translation. I also have at least one Douay-Rheims Bible of my own which does not have Haydock's commentary. As far as the original Douay-Rheims Bible, the cases in which one might obtain such a copy are "rare if not practically non-existent". In addition to this, the language is a bit more difficult from the brief citations I have seen made. I have not had the opportunity to investigate the matter any further than this for the simple reason that access to the work is so limited. In any event, in the citations I read, the English was essentially the same as that of the Challoner's revision, simply with older forms of the English and with certain anglicised Latin words. One noted difference is that, at least in what I have seen, the Middle English spellings of certain words might be used, though, as St. Thomas More stated, such English is still modern English, properly speaking. An example of such a difference might be the spelling of the word "folly" as "folie" or perhaps "follie". In the preface for Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims, the point is made that his changes are not substantial. They sought primarily to update the spellings rather than change the diction, but in the instances of certain anglicised Latin words, English equivalents served as replacements. In any event, from what I have read, a person well-versed in the English language, even without extensive studies in older forms of the language, and in Latin would not have serious problems reading the original Douay-Rheims Bible. Challoner's revision does serve as an easier, more fluid read. There are certain aspects of the revision, however, that are perhaps a bit detrimental grammatically speaking. A pertinent example is seen in the fact that "you" is used both as the plural nominative and accusative, at least in certain constructions. N.B., "Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?" Cf., St. Paul to Romans vi.3. Rather than using the more proper forms, i.e., thou, thee, thy, thine ; ye, you, your, yours, Challoner's revision may employ a modernised form of this, i.e., thou, thee, thy, thine ; you, you, your yours. In addition, if I am not mistaken, the simplified plural forms are employed in the singular at times as well and not for the sake of forming a polite, formal form of address. It should also be noted that I am unaware as to whether the original Douay-Rheims Bible actually used the plural forms as a polite or formal form of address, e.g., thou, thee, thy, thine being used only for familiar usages and ye, you, your, yours being used in both formal singular usages and in all plural usages. In any event, as far as the language in these versions are concerned, it seems a bit ridiculous to characterise the English in Challoner's revision as "outdated", though I am not sure that anyone has actually done this, for his revision is modern English, not Olde English. [right][snapback]934084[/snapback][/right][/quote]i do not mean to be snotty about this, but paragraphs are a gift from God and make your posts so much easier to read

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

[Amator Veritatis]

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

Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52. His object was to meet the practical want felt by the Catholics of his day of a Bible moderate in size and price, in readable English, and with notes more suitable to the time. He brought out three editions of the New Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 respectively, and one of the Old Testament in 1750. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they "almost amounted to a new translation". So also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, "To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published". In nearly every case Challoner's changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version published in England in modern times was perhaps Haydock's, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. The Irish editions are mostly known by the names of the bishops who gave the imprimatur: as Dr. Carpenter's New Testament (1783); Dr. Troy's Bible (1791); Dr. Murray's (1825); and Dr. Denvir's (1836) -- the last two of which have often been reprinted, and were circulated largely in England and Ireland. Around the turn of the century, the issue of the sixpenny New Testament by Burns and Oates of London, by its large circulation, made the text adopted therein -- Challoner's of 1749 -- the standard one, especially as the same was adopted in Dr. Murray's and Dr. Denvir's Bibles. In America an independent revision of the Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used. Cf., Catholic Encyclopedia, Douay Bible

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


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

[Amator Veritatis]

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

[son_of_angels]

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

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

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

[dspen2005]

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

[Nathan]

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

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

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

[Funky_R]

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

[Paphnutius]

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

[Nathan]

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

[Amator Veritatis]

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