|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Roman Catholic
- 2 Questionable statement
- 3 Which one of the Continents?
- 4 Date of first publication
- 5 Faithful to the Magisterium?
- 6 Names
- 7 Questionable Influence
- 8 Psalm Numbering
- 9 Douay or Douai?
- 10 External Links to the pre-Challenor Rheims text
- 11 Bibleshark
- 12 Relationship to the King James Bible
- 13 Move Sections "Names of Books" and "Relationship to the King James Bible" to the separate KJV Article?
- 14 Parallel line-for-line formatting for Comparison
- 15 Apocrypha
- 16 Challoner's Notes
- 17 Obsolete external links
The English exiles for religious causes were not all of one kind or of one faith. There were Roman Catholic refugees on the Continent as well as Puritan, and from the one, as from the other, there proceeded an English version of the Bible. Fake history. No Puritan refugees on the Continent in 1582. Protestants had flocked back to England since the accession of Elizabeth. The Douai bible was a Catholic bible designed to counter Protestant "errors." Wetman 20:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The above comment is wrong. It is also four years old, so I will leave it at that. --Secisek (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The present version of the entry includes this sentence:
- All translations of the Bible depend upon Latin at least for consultation and can also be considered to some extent a translation of a translation.
This is in my view so much an overstatement as to deserve removal from the article (I do not see a means of salvaging it). It would appear to have been written from an apologetic rather than neutral POV, as if to justify the Douai. However, there is a huge distinction to be made between the use of the Vulgate made by Hebrew-and-Greek-based translations of the Bible and that made by the Douai translators. The former consult the Vulgate for assistance in understanding the sense of the original languages where the original meaning may be less than clear; but for the Douai men, the Latin was the final authority and if the Hebrew/Greek of the Bible's original texts disagreed, the Latin was to be followed without question. Translations based on original language Bible texts would not follow the Latin Vulgate in the case of clear deviation between the two sources.
Therefore it is my view that the sentence in question should be deleted, but I will wait a couple of days and see whether or not there is any comment on this before doing so. Thanks for your attention. --MollyTheCat 09:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
go for it, I just changed it because it was impossible to read before. Kfort 17:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Kfort! I did think of a way of rewriting this, changing the sentence to:
- Many highly-regarded translations of the Bible still use the Vulgate for consultation, especially in certain difficult Old Testament passages, but nearly all modern Bible versions go directly to the Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts for translation and not to a secondary version like the Vulgate. (The reason why the Douai translators went to the Vulgate instead is because they believed it was superior to the Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts--a belief which was common in their day, especially among Catholics, but which is no longer widely held.)
I think this sounds more balanced than what was there before. -- MollyTheCat 22:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I still think it should go. Rwflammang 22:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Which one of the Continents?
I suspect I can guess which continent is being referred to here, where the statement is unclear:
"The English exiles for religious causes were not all of one kind or of one faith. There were Catholic refugees on the Continent as well as Puritan"
As Wikipedia is a German based project, simply to say the word "Continent" can lead many to assume you mean Europe(or to be precise, the European part of Eurasia), espectially those for whom English is a second language.
Remember that the world is a very big place consisting of several continents and billions of people with many differing traditions and perspectives.
Please be specific.
Date of first publication
Can we get the date of first publication into the lead, please? Babajobu 22:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Faithful to the Magisterium?
I removed a clause from a sentence that said that Douai-Rheims-Challoner was the favoured translation, not only of traditionalist Catholics, but also by those seeking a translation that was "faithful to the Magisterium." The way the sentence was cast, it seemed to suggest that the New American Bible was somehow not "faithful to the Magisterium". While the literary flavour of the NAB strikes me as almost as unpleasant as that of the Living Bible, I can't imagine it being the usual liturgical Bible of Roman Catholics in the USA were it not considered to be faithful to the Magisterium. Smerdis of Tlön 19:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be something about how many of the versions or transcriptions of names of Biblical figures were rather different from those in the KJV (which have pretty much become standard in English) -- "Noe" instead of "Noah", "Isaias", etc. AnonMoos 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hear! Hear! It would be extremely helpful to many, many people if there were a (long, thin) table of proper nouns in English bibles. The columns could be KJB, Douay, IPA, Hebrew, Transliterated Hebrew. (IPA for the English pronunciation, which is often troublesome.) Since the majority of the names are less than notable, this could equally well be located in Wiktionary as in Wikipedia. It could be named List of Proper Nouns in the English Bible. Is there already a website that does this? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't altered them yet - but the words are suspect too. Allegory, character, and prescience are all present in the writings of Wyclif
JoeBlogsDord 23:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the entire list of words. It is very similar to lists given by Daniell in The Bible in English and in Herbert’s Historical Catalogue. However, consulting the Oxford English Dictionary reveals that all the words were already in use: evangelise too goes back to Wyclif, 200 years earlier. (Cooperate is not in the 1582 NT: if it occurs in later editions, it is probably anticipated by a 1604 usage. The version on www.studylight.org is not the 1582 NT edition.) No doubt there are some words that were introduced by the D-R Bible, but this list will not do. EEye 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- More to the point, none of the list of words is actually in the KJV. (If anyone can find them, let us know!) This is beginning to look like a long-established factoid. Where did Daniell get it from? EEye 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention somewhere in the article about the differences in the numbering of the Psalms as opposed to other translations. I hesitate to put it in myself since I dont know enough about it.
Douay or Douai?
- I propose making the spelling of the text conform to the spelling of the wiki-link, unless an external source is referenced, in which case the spelling of the source should be used. Rwflammang 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've always seen it as "Douay." I suppore the recent changes to such. Yahnatan 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The modern spelling of the town's name is Douai. The Oxford Style Manual specifies "Douay" for the name of the Bible. The article can legitimately use both spellings, according to context, but should be consistent within each context. EEye 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
External Links to the pre-Challenor Rheims text
There are a number of links to sites with the Challenor Revision, but I cannot find any that searchable (i.e. not facsimile) to the original. I am not sure that anything is gained by adding yet more Challenor links - but I would strongly urge someone who has more knowledge of the field to find a public-access version of the 1582 text. It does not help that the Challenor version is constantly mislabled to give the impression that it is the original.TomHennell (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- What you hope someone will find (a freely available, searchable text of the entire online Douay Rheims Bible) simply does not now exist. I have just added a Google Books link to a text of the Rheims NT of 1582 (it's searchable if you allow for the many errors from poor OCR). I agree with you both about the mislabeling (in the past I've seen the error on this page, and I am the one who organized the external links to try to carve a space for the pre-Challoner version), and about the unnecessary profusion of links to Challoner's revision. Some of these are redundant or border on spam, and I'll try to shorten the list. Wareh (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that the link to Bibleshark that I added was removed in these modifications with a note for link Spam. Bibleshark is non-profit and does have a revenue stream of any type and thus there is nothing for them to gain except visitors. The link was added as one of the only sources on the internet to side by side compare the "Douay-Rheims Bible" with many other translations. So I argue that it does add value over the other external links. I would like for it to be added back if possible. Is Bibleshark the Challenor Revision or the original?...I do not know enough about it to be able to tell. <<< aboved posted by User:22.214.171.124
- I didn't remove Bibleshark. It uses the Challenor Revision. However it is an incomplete bible. It only has the 66 books. It is the only instance, which I am aware of, which removed the deutrocanonicals from the Douay. Therefore I would advise against using Bibleshark ClemMcGann (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I removed it. As I noted at User talk:126.96.36.199, this IP address has been used solely for the single purpose of promoting bibleshark.com. As Clem points out, the addition ought to have been reversed even if it didn't come from a source with an apparent conflict of interest. Wareh (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Relationship to the King James Bible
I have redrafted much of this section, both to take into account the researches of Ward Allen on the John Bois's notes on the discussions of the General Committee of Review, and also to clarify the implications of Butterworth's work. Butterworth found many of the Latinate terms preferred by the KLJV translators had previously been used in one or another of the Wycliff bibles. But the KJV translators had no interest in Wycliff, they do not refer to him and had no regard for his text. But the Rheims translators do appear to have used the Wycliff Bible extensively - being unaware that the standard English manuscript bible that they knew well, was in fact, Wycliff's. So where the King James Bible uses a term that originated with Wycliff but is found in Rheims, it is from the Rheims version that the KJV translators will have been working. TomHennell (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the Main Douay-Rheims Bible entry states that '...the official instructions to the King James Bible translators excluded the Rheims version from the list of previous English translations that should be consulted...' The (unknown) author of the entry for 'Authorised Version of the Bible' in the third edition of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church makes a quite contrary statement that 'Their [the body of revisers] instructions were to take the Bishop's Bible as their basis, to consult all earlier versions, esp. the Rheims NT [my emphasis] and the Geneva Bible...' John Boutland 23:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jboutland (talk • contribs)
Well, it seems that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is contradicted by current scholarship. (What is the date of ODCC? Is it Protestant or Catholic oriented or neither?) "Fourteen rules were given to the translators," says David Norton in his lively little book The King James Bible, a Short History from Tyndale to Today (2010, Cambridge U P), where the 14 rules are stated and discussed. On page 86 is the last rule: "14. These translations to be used where they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz.: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva." [Whitchurch was the first to print the Great Bible.] Norton cites the original manuscrips in a footnote. Norton makes clear, with examples, that the KJB crew also consulted Rheims and Fulke.
The KJB is a revision of a revision of a revision of a revision of Tyndale and Coverdale. It helps me to think in terms of software version numbers. With apologies:
- English Bible 0.1, by Tyndale
- English Bible 0.5, by Coverdale
- English Bible 1.0, by Matthew
- English Bible 2.0, the Great Bible
- English Bible 3.0, the Bishop's Bible
- English Bible 4.0, KJB
If you want, the Douay Bible can be thought of as a fork in the development of the English Bible, a competing version 4.0. I call it a fork, because the Douay standard for avoiding doctrinal error was to follow the Vulgate, while the KJB followed the Hebrew and Greek originals; the two groups had their reasons. (Calling Matthew version 1.0 is my personal judgment.) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Move Sections "Names of Books" and "Relationship to the King James Bible" to the separate KJV Article?
While the KJV might itself relate to the Douay-Rheims Bible, DR's influence on the KJV should be moved to one of the KJV articles. This article compares too much, the Douay-Rhiems Bible and the KJV to the point that its scope appears narrowly focused on such comparison.
This article should specifically articulate the Douay-Rheims Bible and its influences, history, etc. Lengthy discussion on other topic's influence (KJV, in this case) should be placed in separate article. The above referenced sections are tangents to this subject. Timhunger (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Tricky point this, as at one time the KJV article contained extensive discussion on the degree of relationships to previous English versions, but these were removed when it was appreciated that the KJV article needed drastic shortening. I agree that the present text here is over-wordy, chiefly becuase it incorporates contributions from editors with greatly differing perspectives. So it would be a good idea to shorten it a lot - and perhaps extend the counterpart passages in the KJV article a bit.
- However, the issue of influence from the Rheims New Testament to KVJ New Testament is probably the most significant aspect for discussion in relation to the first Rheims-Douay text, as otherwise it had very little impact. 17th century English Catholic clergy and educated laity read the Bible in the Vulgate latin. Uneducated Catholics were strongly discouraged from reading the Bible at all. When the need for a vernacular Bible became pressing, the Challenor revision was produced - which took its name from Rheims-Douay, but its forms of English much more from the KJV. So, in my view, future editors are likely to want to develop this article in relation to this issue more than any other. Which does imply that it is worthwhile keeping a substantial section in being for such edits to find a home.
- So, by all means cut it down to what you might consider helpful - and then see which removed bits really need to go into the KJV article TomHennell (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- The same issue with the overburdened KJV article occurred to me independently when I read Timhunger's comment yesterday. A couple of thoughts. I personally would love to see this version's history, qualities, etc., take up more space than its influence on the KJV; absence of desired material, though, is not by itself a good reason to shorten the material we do possess. (I'm not saying that section can't be improved and condensed!) I also think that the somewhat tenuous connection would be better integrated into a fuller discussion of the Douay-Rheims version's place in the history of English versions. A more practical suggestion would be to start an article on the influence of previous versions on the KJV. It is clear that this is a notable subject, and that Early Modern English Bible translations is oriented in a different direction and cannot fulfill that function. Wareh (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Parallel line-for-line formatting for Comparison
a personal experiment with wikitables... would this look good in the section "Challoner Revision... - Translation"?
|Parallel Comparison of Ephesians 3:6-12|
|verse #||Rheims 1582||Challoner 1749||KJV 1611||Tyndale 1534|
|6||The Gentils to be coheires and concorporat and comparticipant of his promis in Christ JESUS by the Gospel:||That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: and copartners of his promise in Christ Jesus, by the gospel,||That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:||That the gentiles should be inheritors also, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise that is in Christ, by the means of the gospel,|
|7||whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power.||of which I am made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given to me according to the operation of his power.||whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.||whereof I am made a minister, by the gift of the grace of God given unto me, through the working of his power.|
|8||To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ,||To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ:||Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;||Unto me the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,|
|9||and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things:||and to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:||and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:||and to make all men see what the fellowship of the mystery is which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God which made all things through Jesus Christ,|
|10||that the manifold wisedom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church,||that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,||to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,||to the intent, that now unto the rulers and powers in heaven might be known by the congregation the manifold wisdom of God,|
|11||according to the prefinition of worldes, which he made in Christ JESUS our Lord.||according to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord:||according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:||according to that eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesu our Lord,|
|12||In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.||in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.||in whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.||by whom we are bold to draw near in that trust, which we have by faith on him.|
- I think it would belong there. However, I'd want to see the versions arranged chronologically, as any other arrangement (including this one) ends up seeming arbitrary and misleading. Wareh (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
"In this version the 14 books of the Apochrypha are returned to the Bible in the order written rather than kept separate in an appendix." In what previous Catholic Bible were they kept separate in an appendix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I am surprised to find that Bishop Challoner's footnotes, commonly still printed in copies of his translation to this today, are not clearly mentioned in this article? Why not? These exegesis notes were substantial(hence the fact they are still printed in copies of his bible to this day), contributed alot to the merits of his translation and are one reason I find this bible to be one of my favourites. First am I right that they are not mentioned? and am I right in believing they should at least be noted? Colliric (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Per a request received on my talk page, here is a quick explanation of why some of the external links (mostly originally added by me to the article) are now obsolete. In general, the important thing to know is that when I added links to the bits and pieces of the original 16th-c. D-R version (or paywalled scane of it, as EEBO), that was all that was available! Now that we have full Google Books versions of both OT and NT (which did not then exist), the page of the "bees" Bible is a mere curiosity. Online versions of the Challoner revision are plentiful, so there is a need to be selective. It seems to me we need one version with bells and whistles, and one plainer version that can be downloaded in toto. We should also avoid sites that have no distinctive content and are heavier with advertisements, etc. I believe that these principles are reasonable, and that I have acted by them and by the general spirit of WP:EL to prune away drbo and vulgatebible in favor of the veritasbible and the EWTN plaintext. Wareh (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
drbo.org conflict of interest
I am not removing the recent addition by 220.127.116.11 (talk · contribs) of a link to drbo.org. However, I do wish to put on the record here: (1) this IP has made this sole edit, and is located in St. Mary's Kansas; (2) the drbo.org website is registered in St. Mary's, Kansas; (3) the drbo.org website is liberally festooned with commercial advertisements. Wareh (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)