Hey My Catholic Bros and Sisses:

Here's a company in Britain that has made LEATHER bound Douay-Rheims available. Approximately $56 in US Dollars. I just ordered mine and thought I would pass this info on. I have been looking for this for YEARS!

http://www.baroniuspress.com/our_edition.htm

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2003

Answers

I dont particulalry like leather, I prefer hard cover myself. However, may I ask, and I mean no disrespect, why is the Douby Rheims a favourite?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2003.

Hi, I love the majesty of the old English . . . the thee's and the thou's, and all that jazz.

The translation is faithful to the original text. No inclusive language. The footnotes are faithful to Catholic doctrine, and in fact, expound Catholic doctrine. I have a Catholic Study Bible that is very good but I don't care too much for the modern day American Standard translation. The footnotes, while good, miss some great opportunities to exegete Catholic truths. Such as, when the angel Gabriel addresses Mary it is "Hail, favored one." Well, that is a somewhat watered down translation. The actual Greek text translates, "Hail, full of grace." And actually "full-of-grace" does not quite capture the full essence of the Greek word, "charitoo," which means "endued with special honor" or "endow with special grace."

Charitoo is a spiritual gift of grace endowed on only ONE person in the whole Bible; i.e., Mary! So when my Protestant friends balk at the honor in which we Catholics give to Mary, I can simply point to scripture -- if I have a good, authentic-to-the-original translation - - and say "We just echo what the angel said!"

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 27, 2003.

I, too, love the majesty of Old Engish Prose, but this is why I use the King James Bible, which is also a faithful rendition. I woudl like one day for a Catholic edition of this Bile to be prodiced.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 27, 2003.

Hi Zarove,

The Douay Rheims was the FIRST English Bible translation PREDATING the King James by 50 or so years, and is VERY VERY much like the KJV only with the Apochrypha and, I believe, more faithful to the original text. That's why I am so excited to get this translation in leather (I love leather), and with gilded gold edges, and illustrations (beautiful illustrations).

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Actually the King James Bible also had the Apocrypha in it origionally, and some places still manufacture copies with it.I myself own a copy of the King James Bible withthe Apocrypha. ( Also known as the Deuterocannonical works.) The King James Bible possesses all the books used by Protestants and Catholics. And itds not incredibely difficult to find a reprint of the 1611 withhtem, or even a modern version with them.

As to didelity, they both have hteir errors, but King James is su [erior, and I speak from exeprience here, as a translation.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2003.

Hey Zarove, I have a copy of the KJV with the apochrypha. It's a Cambridge. I love it, but it's very small . . . a compact actually. The Douay Rheims that I'm getting is a tad bigger. You would like Douay if you like KJV. I don't know how you could possibly know KJV is better if you've never read the Douay! I have an old copy of the Douay, and I must say I think I do like it better than the KJV. Of course, since I am Catholic, I may have a little bias there!

I always try to encourage my Protestant friends to get a copy of the apochrypha since it is so beautiful. It's a shame they took it out. The literature is beautiful and in the Old English it is exquisite!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Actually I own a copy of the Doubey Reims as well. I also have it on Disk with a Bible porogramme that offers several translations. The reaosn i said it was better was because the King James mroe faithfully preserves the meaning of the origionals. I can read Hebrew.

I have nothign really agaisnt the doubey Rheims, I just prefer the King James Bible as it is a much more majersit trasnalation and is a formal equivolancy ( None opf htat silly inlcusive language rot) that wa sunbiased from the modern theological ideals that often corrupt Bible translations. ( I made the mistake of biying a "New revised standard" Bible... a waste of money...)

The doubey Rheims siompley has more errors in it than the King James Bible, and I prefer it. That and I know the vverses in the King James. ( which are sliughtly diffeent in the douybey rheims.)These facotrs motivate my favour to lean toward the King James authorised 1611. ( As I said though, I would liek a Catholic edition to be proiducesd and distibuted, so that Cahtolics can enjoy the command and mastery of this powerful translation.)

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2003.

Is your 1611 edition a larger Bible? Mine is like 5 by 5, or something like that, and it's hard to read the small print. I guess I have become somewhat of a collector of hard to find leather Bibles with the deuterocanicals. Before stumbling onto my journey to the Catholic faith, the question of "where the Bible came from" and "why did the Reformers take out the deuteros," was a major question. Those questions and a few more sparked an intense study of the Christian history. At any rate, now that I have read the apochrypha, I would be hard pressed to buy a Bible without it.

God Bless,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

I kow how you feel. I never liked those new testements that they =hand out.. too incomplete for my tastes. ( How can we coss reference the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled when we dont have the prophecies?)

My King James is a standard sized book... I dont know the exact suize but large enopugh.Thouhg not leather bound.Its a standard hard cover.Its also old.

However, I will look for a curretn on sale edition for you.

-- Zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2003.

Hi Zarove,

Using my search engine I found this concerning the "original" KJV. I thought you might be interested since we were just talking about this.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1967

Be sure and check out the photos. WOW!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Uhm...Gail... This is an anti-King James site, and it exAgerates things as well as overblows soem topics.

For starters, I never claimed the King James Bible was perfect, I just siad it was su[perior to the Doubey Rheims.

Firther, I was the one who mentioned that it contained the apocrypha initially... so I dont really complain.

Lets examine this site. ( sorry if I soudn critical, I relaly am nopt, I just wan tto be assured you have the facts here.) Mt addiions in {} brackets

The REAL 1611 King James Version

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

There is a strange new doctrine being taught in some circles -- the doctrine that the King James Version of the Bible alone is the Word of God, and all modern versions of the Bible (such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version) are "corrupt perversions."

{ This issue is a little more complexe than they make it ot to appear. In fact the Vatican itsself agrees that most of the New Translations are infirior. The reaosns are usually because the modern scholars try to warp the Bible to fit their spacific denominations theology or make it Politically COrrect by adding gender inclusive language. As well as ther current fad of Dynamic Equivolancy instea dof direct equivolancy in translation. This results in Paraphrased Bibl;es which are not pure translations. Most ancitn translatiosn where durect translations and could be more readily trusted, unless the trasnlators htemselves made errors.You yourself mentioned errors in inclusive language Bibles.}

Advocates of this KJV-Only position strongly insist that "the 1611 KJV is the only real Bible."

{ At the same time, many people, like me, preder to use ot but do not come accross as condemnign others for their use of a spacific translation. This lpassage creates a false assumption that anyone who reccomends the King James Bible is a King James Onlyistyt and somehow a crackpot.I assure you this sint the case.}

The irony is, most KJV-Onlyists have never actually seen a real 1611 KJV.

{ I have seen reprints, own a reprint, and have even seen a first edition in a museum.}

They would be surprised and even shocked to see how different the 1611 KJV was from the "modern" KJVs they read today!

{ Its nto as different as they tend to claim in this article, more to see...}

This website will list of some of the material found in the actual 1611 KJV, though not found in today's KJVs.

{ Some of which is irrelevant, but they wll say its signifigant, coupled with this passage, they want to create the illusion that the KJV has permutated beyonfd recognition. This is simple Propeganda.}

But don't take my word for it... click on the links to see what these pages looked like in the 1611 KJV itself.

{ The pictures are nice, and I agree that the origional had this informaiton, but I do not agree that it bears the weight that th sitemaster claims.Most of the above simpley is designeed to slant the readers veiw and convence them of the case before the fact.}

(Note: these graphics files are big... around 100 Kb. each. If you want to see the larger full versions, use your browser's "view image" function.)

What Will You Find in the REAL 1611 KJV?

The REAL 1611 KJV had a Preface from the Translators to the Reader, which included:

- a passage explaining why translation is necessary (page 3);

{ This is relevant why?}

- a passage explaining how God caused the Septuagint to be written; and of praise for Origen's Hexpla (page 4);

{ Again, point?}

- a passage of praise for St. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate (page 5);

{ He deserved praise didnt he?}

- a passage answering the question, "weren't the older translations good enough?" (page 6);

{ Uhm...K?}

- a passage declaring that even the worst English translations are still God's Word; that even a translation with errors is still God's Word; and that the Septuagint is God's Word (page 7);

{ Not entirely true. The actual meanign of the page in queastion is that even the worst translation can bestorw knowledge of God, it does not however indicate that bad translatiosn are A OK. ( this was added to plant a seed int he readers mind that will grow into beleif that the KJV Is itsself riddles with errors.)}

- a passage where the KJV translators boldly refer to themselves as Bible correctors (page 8);

{ Not really, they declare themselves correctors of old translations,. The King James Bible was the end result of over a century of translating efforts, and was itsself based heavily on the flawed Bishops Bible, as a revision.They never claimed ot be correctign the actual scriptures.}

- a passage explaining why a new translation is necessary (page 9);

{ Again point?}

- a passage affirming that God's Word was originally given in Hebrew and Greek; and explaining why marginal notes with alternate translations of words are necessary; and on the importance of using a variety of translations (page 10);

{ Point?}

- a passage explaining why translators should be free to use more than one English word to translate a word in the original languages; and the need for a translation in language that could be understood by the most common of common people (page 11)

{ I also beleive this, though accordign t this site since I use the King James predomenantly I am opposed to all other translations.}

*Significance: the arguments in the Translators Preface answer the same objections of today's KJV-Onlyists against modern translations.

{ Not really as I never had these issues.}

*Significance: some KJV-Onlyists believe Jerome and Origen were "corrupt," and that the Septuagint is "corrupt" (some go so far as to say that the Septuagint didn't even exist, and was Origen's invention!)

{ The term some is added to defelct culpability,. but the reader is generally left assuming this beelif is widespread, and its not.By the way Jerome lef tout the Apocruphal bpooks, and himself coined the term apocryhpa.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had this Table of Contents

- note that the 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, including the passage on prayer for the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

{ This is meaningless, sinc eI told you it contained these books.}

* Significance: most KJV-Onlyists consider the Apocrypha not to be inspired or authoritative, yet apparently King James himself thought it important enough to spend the time and resources to have it translated and printed.

{ The King James Bible, as a matter of course, was designed for common use in both Catholic and Anglican churches, as well as Protestant use. Thus it was of import to present all books everyone held.}

* Significance: KJV-Only literature is filled with examples of how modern versions remove words, verses, and even entire passages from the KJV, yet today's KJVs remove entire books that appeared in the original 1611 KJV

{ Not all, some publishers continue to supply the apocypha, and I have not complaiend about that yet. In fact I reccomended it.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had a calendar for each month of the year. The calendar for the month of October contains such things as

- a list of designated saints days' (Oct. 18, Luke the Evangelist; Oct. 28, Simon and Jude);

- a list of designated fast days (Oct. 27 and 31);

- a notation about which sign of the zodiac the sun is in that month (Oct. 12, "Sol in Scorpio");

- a schedule of Scripture readings for morning and evening prayer which includes passages from the Apocrypha (Judith, Oct. 6-13; Wisdom, Oct. 14-17; Ecclesiasticus, Oct. 18)

* Significance: saints' days and fast days are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are listed in the 1611 KJV

{ Again, see above, and I really wish they woudl priduce a KJV with all these features... my hreat grandmother had one until it burned in a fire.But I have no objectiosn here.}

* Significance: many KJV-Only supporters consider astrology "New Age" and "of the devil," yet there it is in the 1611 KJV

{ The use of the term many to lead you to assume all... again, I am not that sort of KJV Person, nor do I personally concern myself with astorlogy ( Ehich was a sicnece that has sence become defunct.) This is just not a part pf the real issue, and isnt even part of the KJV Text.}

* Significance: the 1611 KJV encourages rather than discourages the use of the Apocrypha in devotional reading and public worship, which is strange if the Apocrypha is not considered in some way inspired and authoritative Scripture

{ Again, its not considered inspired bu "Some" King James onliests, and now the assumption is all dont. This is dishonest and irrelevant.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had a list of Holy Days to be observed throughout the year, including

- Christmas ("The Nativitie of Our Lord") and Easter - The Purification of the Blessed Virgin - The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin - All Saints' Day - other saints' days

* Significance: Some KJV-Onlyists regard Christmas and Easter as pagan holidays not to be observed and celebrated by Godly people, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

{ Some King James Onlyinsts are also rabid followrs f Jaxk Chick, this does not mean anyhting...in fact so far none of the above have actually addressed the text of the King James in any meaningful way.}

* Significance: saints' days and days honouring Mary are considered "popish" and "Romanist" by some KJV-Only advocates, yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

{ Insignifigant, both to the valid accuracy of the King James, and to the subject matters we are discussing, namely its accuracy as a translation and its majesty.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal notes showing alternate translations and readings based on Greek and Hebrew manuscript evidence

{ Actually many MODERN King James Bibles have those, some int he same sort of brackets I am usign now to distinguish my writing form the text of the web site...}

- Judges 19:2 - "Or, a yeere and foure moneths. Heb. dayes, foure moneths"

- Ezra 10:40 - "Or, Mabnadebai, according to some copies"

- Psalm 102:3 - "Or, (as some reade) into smoke"

- Matthew 1:11 - "Some reade, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begat Iechonias"

- Matthew 26:26 - "Many Greeke copies haue, gaue thanks."

- Mark 7:3 - "Or, diligently, in the originall, with the fist: Theophilact, up to the elbowe."

- Luke 10:22 - "Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said"

- Luke 17:36 - "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"

- John 18:13 - a marginal note indicating that this verse, which is identical to verse 24, appears in verse 13 is some manuscripts

- Acts 1:20 - the note in the margin reads, "Or, office: or, charge" - - often used in modern translations, a less Anglican translation than "Bishopricke."

- Acts 13:18, 34 - a marginal note containing the Greek text of an alternate reading "according to the Sept. [Septuagint] and so Chrysost." [John Chrystostom, one of the church fathers], as well as a cross-reference to the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 7:27)... see for yourself!

- Acts 25:6 - "Or, as some copies reade, no more then eight or ten dayes"

- Ephesians 6:9 - "Some reade, both your, and their master"

- James 2:18 - "Some copies reade, by thy workes"

- 1 Peter 2:21 - "Some reade, for you"

- 2 Peter 2:2, 11, 18 - three alternate readings in the margins on the same page... see for yourself!

- 2 John 8 - "Or, gained. Some copies reade, which yee haue gained, but that ye receiue &c."

* Significance: when similar marginal notes appear in modern translations, many KJV-Onlyists raise a great hue and cry about how they "cause the reader to doubt the Word of God," yet there they are in the 1611 KJV

{ My Study King James has all of these...and its form the 80's.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had verses that are worded differently from today's KJVs

{ Below is a list of misprints formt he first editin that where corrected. Printing waS A HARD BUISNESS BACK THEN, AND MISTAKES HAPPENED. tHER EIS ALSO THE WICKED bIBLE AND HTE VINEGER bIBLE... PRINTER ERROR EDITIONS WHERE BOUDN TO HAPPEN IN MANUAL YPE SET...}

- Ruth 3:15 - "...and he went into the city." Today's KJVs read "...and she went into the city."

- Psalm 69:32 - "...and your heart shall liue that seeke goode." Today's KJVs read, "...and your heart shall live that seek God."

- Jeremiah 34:16 - "...and euery man his handmaide, whom yee had set at libertie...." Today's KJVs read, "...and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty...."

* Significance: KJV-Only advocates believe that the KJV is the "inerrant, pure, perfect, preserved Word of God." Which KJV are they referring to... the 1611 KJV or the KJV used today?

{ The 1611 was corrected based on PRINTER ERRORS, not base don flaws in the translation. I am not a KJV Onlyinst, but this is disnbhonest to their position.}

The REAL 1611 KJV had marginal cross-references to books of the Apocrypha

{ Again I recomended a version of the KJV withthe apocrypha... this sint as bg a deal as its mad eon this site. And its the biggest deal on this site, repeated more often than anyhtign else.}

- Daniel 8:25 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 6:9," a cross- reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 6:7 - the note in the margin reads, "Ecclus. 7:16," a cross- reference to a book of Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 23:37 - the note in the margin reads, "Wisd. 2:15,16," a cross-reference to a book of Wisdom in the Apocrypha

- Matthew 27:43 - the note in the margin reads, "4 Esd. 1:30," a cross-reference to a book of 4 Esdra in the Apocrypha

- Luke 14:13 - the note in the margin reads, "Tob. 4:7," a cross- reference to a book of Tobit in the Apocrypha

- John 10:22 - the note in the margin reads, "1 Macc. 4:59," a cross- reference to a book of 1 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

- Hebrews 11:35 - the note in the margin reads, "2 Macc. 7:7," a cross-reference to a book of 2 Maccabees in the Apocrypha

*Significance: why have a cross-reference to an "uninspired," "unauthoritative," "unscriptural" book?

{ I already addressed this...}

The REAL 1611 KJV had these other marginal notes of interest

- Isaiah 14:12 - "How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning?" The marginal note reads, "Or, O daystarre"

* Significance: KJV-Onlyist literature attacks modern translations which read morning star or day star instead of Lucifer because they allegedly "equate Satan with Jesus (cf. Rev. 22:16)." Yet the marginal reading in the 1611 KJV is the same as the one found in modern translations.

{ I am not that sort of KJV Person, and I havent complaiend, and saying that this is true of all KJV perile is simpley a Lie.}

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

The images on this site are taken from The Holy Bible, King James Version, 1611 Edition (Thomas Nelson Publishers), a reprint of the first edition of the Authorized Version.

Questions? Comments? e-mail me at seraph@bconnex.net

You are person number since January 18 1999 to discover what the REAL 1611 KJV contains.

-- Zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2003.

Hi Zarove:

I just posted it because it had facts concerning the Apochrypha, in particular, which we had been discussing. I did find it interesting that at that time, in England, they celebrated the Saints' holy days, etc., etc. Of course, they would because the Church of England (now the Anglicans) were the ones in power in England at that time, and they were a "twin" of the Catholic Church in many respects.

Gotta run,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Good people, here are some miscellaneous comments on the Douay-Reims Bible (D-R) and other things.

Speaking of the D-R ----- The footnotes are faithful to Catholic doctrine, and in fact, expound Catholic doctrine. I have a Catholic Study Bible that is very good but I don't care too much for the modern day American Standard translation. The footnotes, while good, miss some great opportunities to exegete Catholic truths.

The "Catholic Study Bible" doesn't have the American Standard Bible (which is Protestant). It has the 1970 "New American Bible" (NAB) possibly with the late 1980s Revised New Testament (good) and Psalms (yucko). Some of the NAB footnotes are good, but others are erroneous (even scandalously so). If one has a D-R edition with excellent footnotes, it is not an original text from the 16th or 17th century, but a greatly revised/corrected text from the mid-1700s, approved by Bishop R. Challoner of London.

The Douay Rheims was the FIRST English Bible translation PREDATING the King James by 50 or so years, and is VERY VERY much like the KJV ...

Actually, the D-R was not the first English Bible. There were partial bibles in Old English produced by Catholics (e.g., St. Bede). Before the D-R, there were complete, but defective, bibles in Middle and "modern" English produced by heretics (Wycliffe c. 1385) and by Protestants (Tyndale, Coverdale, Taverner, etc.). But it is true that the D-R precedes the KJV. Planning started in Douai in 1568. The NT was published (in Reims) in 1582. The OT was first published (in Douai) in 1609 and 1610, just before the KJV.

The King James Bible possesses all the books used by Protestants and Catholics.

This is not true. The vast majority of KJVs in use today do not contain "all the books used by ... Catholics." There are tens of millions of KJV copies called "Gideon Bibles" -- in hotel and motel rooms -- that lack seven OT books. No doubt there are many millions more in private homes and church buildings that are short seven books too. (Perhaps the writer's intention was to say that every KJV contains the 67 books mutually recognized as inspired by both Catholics and Protestants.)

As to fidelity, they both have their errors, but King James is superior, and I speak from experience here, as a translation.

A Catholic would have to say that you speak from bias or opinion -- not "from experience." The "fidelity" of D-R versus KJV is debatable -- and may depend on the age of the D-R being examined. The original D-R had more errors than later editions, but perhaps not as many as the KJV has always had. As mentioned earlier, the D-R underwent major (Challoner) revisions around 1750. I believe that all D-Rs being published today, including the one linked above, is a Challoner D-R.

Speaking of the KJV, Baronius Press (linked above as publishers of the new D-R edition) makes this interesting comment:
"... the translators of the KJV make specific reference to the Douay version in their translators’ preface. It is commonly acknowledged that, in preparing the KJV, the translators made use of the Rheims New Testament and adopted many of its readings in preference to those of other English editions."
On the other hand, it is alleged that Bp. Challoner's revisions caused some phrases of the KJV to be incorporated into the D-R.

The reaosn i said it was better was because the King James more faithfully preserves the meaning of the originals. I can read Hebrew. ... The Douay Rheims simply has more errors in it than the King James Bible ...

But is this a matter of opinion -- or a metter of comparing apples and oranges. If the Hebrew manuscripts used for the KJV were not the same as those used for the old Vulgate (and thus ultimately for the D-R), then one cannot claim that the KJV "more faithfully preserves" anything. Even if the same manuscripts were used, "more faitful preservation" can be a matter of opinion.

... much like the KJV, only with the Apochrypha ...
--- Actually the King James Bible also had the Apocrypha in it origionally ...
--- I myself own a copy of the King James Bible withthe Apocrypha.
--- I have a copy of the KJV with the apochrypha.
--- I always try to encourage my Protestant friends to get a copy of the apochrypha since it is so beautiful.
--- ... now that I have read the apochrypha, I would be hard pressed to buy a Bible without it. --- I just posted it because it had facts concerning the Apochrypha ...

Please, please, please, guests and especially Catholics ... NEVER misuse the word "Apocrypha" -- a word that has a pejorative connotation. The only proper meaning of the word "Apocrypha" (with regard to the Bible) is the meaning that the Catholic Church gave it in the Fourth Century when she canonized the testaments. The Apocrypha are those "candidate works" that the Catholic Church decided were not inspired by God (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas and IV Maccabees). Works labeled "apochryphal" in early editions of the KJV should instead be called by only one name: "Deuterocanonical." Anything else is completely inaccurate -- and even insulting to many Catholics.

Some disadvantages to using a Douay-Rheims Bible =====>

----- Many people have great difficulty understanding the archaic language. Lots of word meanings have changed, leading to misinterpretation or lack of comprehension. Other words found in D-R are no longer used at all. The Bible is tough enough to understand in modern English! Many people don't want their reading frequently interrupted to consult a dictionary.

----- Many people want to see and say "you and yours," not "ye, thee, thy, thine, and thou" -- plus "-eth" and "-est" at the end of verbs.

----- Many people want a Bible that is fully "compatible" with their missal/missalette and the Lectionary used in church. Why would they have trouble, at least initially, with the D-R?
.............................. The book of Psalms in the D-R has most of the psalms numbered differently from modern Catholic bibles/missals/lectionaries. The famous "Psalm 23" is 22 in the D-R! There is a reason for this, but that doesn't prevent confusion.
.............................. In the D-R, 26 books (25 in the OT) have names that are different from what is found in modern Catholic bibles/missals/lectionaries. Usually the differences are slight (e.g., Josue vs. Joshua), but they are major in several cases. The D-R's 1 Kings/2 Kings/3 Kings/4 Kings are now entitled 1 Samuel/2 Samuel/1 Kings/2 Kings, respectively. Major confusion there! How can anyone not familiar with the D-R know that 1 and 2 Paralipomenon are books of the Bible? (Chronicles!) ... Canticle of Canticles? (Song of Songs) ... Ecclesiasticus? (Sirach!) ... Osee? (Hosea) ... Abdias? (Obadiah!) ... Sophonias? (Zephaniah!) ... Aggeus? (Haggai!) ... Apocalypse? (Revelation).

----- The D-R is a translation of the old Latin Vulgate, which was a translation of the old Hebrew and Greek. This "second-generation" translating led to a variety of errors in the English. Moreover, even the old Latin Vulgate itself had many imperfections and has now been replaced by the New Vulgate (approved by Pope John Paul II).

New, 20th-Century Catholic translations, like the (Latin) "Nova Vulgata" the (English) "Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version" [RSV-CE], the (French) "Jerusalem Bible" [JB], and the (English) "New American Bible," are based on the Hebrew and Greek found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts known to today's archaeologists. They are not based on the poorer, less ancient manuscripts available to St. Jerome (for the old Vulgate). They are not based on the even poorer manuscripts used by English Protestants for the KJV. And they are not translations of the Vulgate (like the Douay-Rheims). Caution: I am NOT recommending the recent "feminist-language" revisions of the RSV (called the NRSV) and of the JB (called NJB).

(Sources for some of the statements of fact made above were http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm and http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1061)

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 28, 2003.

Above, I stated: In the D-R, 26 books (25 in the OT) have names that are different from what is found in modern Catholic bibles/missals/lectionaries. Usually the differences are slight (e.g., Josue vs. Joshua), but they are major in several cases.

I guess I was wrong to say that "usually the differences are slight." I listed 13 of the 26, above, as having major differences. We should add two more. In the D-R, we have 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras. These are known to most Catholics today as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Nothing wrong with owning a Douay-Reims Bible, fellow Catholics. But please don't make it the only Bible you own. I recommend the RSV-CE for accuracy and readability. While it uses modern English words, it does pay special reverence to God by using "Thee," etc., in references to Him.

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 28, 2003.

Thank you for correcting by blunder; i.e., "American Standard" rather than New American.

Very good information you provided. I wonder if you can tell me what is the difference between the RSV and the RSV-CE. I realize one is Catholic, but are these two differing translations? I have an RSV with the deuterocanonicals which is probably my favorite reading Bible, but should I have the RSV-CE?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

Gail,

As far as I know, the RSV-CE is an RSV with the deuterocanonicals. So if your RSV has these, it for all intents is a "CE". Of course, I could be wrong... :-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 28, 2003.

Hi Frank, Yes mine does have the deuterocanicals. But in Luke the angel addresses Mary, "favored one," rather than "full of grace." I guess that shouldn't bother me too much since the NAB translates it "favored one," as well. It is a wonderful translation, very similar to the New American Standard Bible, which used to be a favorite of mine, and of course it does NOT have the deuteros.

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 28, 2003.

As far as I know, the RSV-CE is an RSV with the deuterocanonicals. So if your RSV has these, it for all intents is a "CE".

This is almost correct. The RSV-CE, in order to get Church approval, contains some corrections and additions to the texts and footnotes of the New Testament.

The Protestant RSV was published in 1946 and 1952 as a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) -- which itself was a revision of the KJV. The RSV was so well received that the British Catholic bishops decided to determine if the translation could be published in a Catholic edition. They did not choose to alter the OT, but found about sixty places in the NT where they decided to make changes to the text. These are listed in an appendix of the RSV-CE.

Perhaps 1/3 of the changes are minor (e.g., substituting "brethren" for "brothers"), but others are more substantial. Examples:
1. "Hail, full of grace" replaces "Hail, o favored one."
2. There are numerous cases of replacing a phrase or a verse with different verbiage. These alternate readings, according to the CE appendix, can usually found in original RSV footnotes, where they are attributed to ancient sources.
3. There are several cases of inserting missing verses. Again, says the appendix, these verses are usually found in RSV footnotes, where they are attributed to ancient sources.
(Most of the footnote changes were required merely to reflect the insertion of the alternate or missing verses into the main text of the CE.)

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 29, 2003.

The RSV-CE is available as the "Ignatius Bible" from the U.S. publisher, Ignatius Press, in paperback or in hardback or in leatherette. Unfortunately, the "footnotes" (unless they have been recently moved and enhanced) are few in number and are actually "endnotes," making them a bit inconvenient to reference.

Using the RSV-CE text and the early Church Fathers as starting points, Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch are producing a multi-volume commentary known as the "Ignatius Catholic Study Bible." Over the course of perhaps many years, it will eventually be completed in some unknown number of paperback booklets, at $9.95 each. Six volumes have already been published:
St. Matthew's gospel -- 81 pages.
St. Mark's gospel -- 60 pages.
St. Luke's gospel -- 100 pages.
St. John's gospel -- 80 pages.
Acts of the Apostles -- 80 pages.
St. Paul's epistle to the Romans -- 64 pages.

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 29, 2003.

Thank you very much for that information. I have thought about getting started in Scott's Bible commentaries. His ministry offers weekly Bible studies as well.

I understand the Jerome Commentary (the old one) is very good . . . ? Any recommendations on that?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2003.

The apologists of Catholic Answers, Inc. (Karl Keating, James Akin, and others) are familiar with all the available commentaries, old and new. The only one that they consistently recommend is -- like the "Jerome Biblical Commentary" [JBC] of 1968 -- out of print, so you would need to seek it online or in a used book store. It is "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture." I think that it was edited by Bendictine Father Bernard Orchard and published in London in 1953. (Note: do not mistake this for the "New Catholic Commentary".)

Whenever I have seen an orthodox apologist or scripture scholar (such as Fr. Wm. Most) express an opinion about the JBC, it has been mostly positive, but with a word of caution mixed in. Even back when it was published, some of the bad parts of "higher criticism" had infected some of the JBC's editors, resulting in an uneven presentation -- much good, but some error mixed in. I think that there was beginning to exist that tendency to "de-mythologize" -- to doubt in the historicity of the gospels, in the reality of miracles, etc.. Many years ago, I used the JBC in a library to study the canons of the Testaments and found it helpful. But, in browsing through it, I did notice some errors -- so be on your guard if you do decide to buy it. (I've heard that the New JBC is far worse.)

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 29, 2003.

That's good stuff to know. Doesn't anyone regulate what is put out under the name "Catholic"? Do you have any advice on the Catholic Study Bible?

Thanks,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 29, 2003.

Sorry. I lack information on the Catholic Study Bible.

A good-faith attempt is made by the Church to "regulate what is put out under the name 'Catholic,'" but it occasionally falls prey to accidental human error or to human sinfulness.

There is a chapter of canons in the Code of Canon Law for the "West" entitled The Means of Social Communication and Books in Particular. Canon 827 is especially applicable here:
Canon 827 §1 ... the publication of catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical formation, as well as their translations, requires the approval of the local Ordinary.
§2 Books dealing with matters concerning sacred Scripture, theology, canon law, church history, or religious or moral subjects may not be used as textbooks on which the instruction is based, in elementary, intermediate or higher schools, unless they were published with the approbation of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.
§3 It is recommended that books dealing with the subjects mentioned in §2, even though not used as basic textbooks, and any writings which specially concern religion or good morals, be submitted to the judgment of the local Ordinary.
§4 Books or other written material dealing with religion or morals may not be displayed, sold or given away in churches or oratories, unless they were published with the permission of the competent ecclesiastical authority or were subsequently approved by that authority.

Approval by the local Ordinary (bishop) is gained by submitting a text to the bishop for the scrutiny of an expert reviewer of books ("censor librorum") employed by him. If the reviewer determines that a book contains nothing contrary to the Catholic faith, he will give his "Nihil obstat" ("Nothing stands in the way"), and the bishop will probably give his "Imprimatur" ("Let it be printed") -- as you have probably seen in the front of some books.

I'm sure that such approvals were sought and granted for the commentaries we have been discussing. However, there are "reviewers" and there are "reviewers!" Some may be less careful than others, perhaps not reading attentively enough or not reading the complete text of a book. Other reviewers may not have been so well schooled in Church doctrine -- perhaps having attended a deficient seminary -- so they accidentally approve something that is contrary to doctrine. Finally, there may be some reviewers who maliciously allow errors to be printed because they themselves consciously dissent from some elements of Church doctrine.

Naturally, these mistakes and sins should not happen, but they can only be minimized, not prevented completely. If a book is published containing doctrinal errors, any Catholic has the right to petition that the "Imprimatur" be withdrawn -- appealing all the way to the Vatican, if necessary. The Holy See has ordered some bishops, in our lifetime, to withdraw their "Imprimatur" from some seriously flawed books.

This has not happened to the commentaries about which we have been speaking. Apparently, any errors (or extremely dubious opinions) that they contain are not sufficiently bad or contradictory of Catholic doctrine to warrant the removal of the "Imprimatur." The editors of these books seem to be clever enough to couch their doubts and comments in sufficiently ambiguous language to be able to get them past reviewers. What I find most troubling is the cumulative negative effect, on a reader, of so many shady opinions and doubts being expressed throughout a book -- yet without there being any major error that a reviewer could pinpoint to justify withholding his "Nihil obstat."

Caveat emptor ("Let the buyer beware"). Let the Scriptures, the Catechism, and other Vatican documents be your guides. Reject anything in commentaries that contradicts these reliable guides.

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 30, 2003.

Hi Caution, thanks AGAIN!

I went to Ebay and bid on the Jerome Commentary. Looks to be excellent shape. I got the 2 volume set for $18. Not bad, huh?

I have an old copy of the NASB, Thompson Chain that I still use for apologetics, as I can quickly find passages under category. I don't use it for reading much anymore because it does have the deuteros, which I study all the time.

Thanks again, and God Bless

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2003.

You're welcome. May the Holy Spirit guide you in your studies.

-- Caution to the "uninitiated" (DouayReims@IsOK.But...), December 30, 2003.