What is the “NewDouai Rheims Bible?” Well, it is
actually the old Douay Rheims Bible Old Testament 1609-1610, and New Testament
1582, but it has been retyped with modern spelling and in-text language notes
for the more obscure Latinate words, showing and defining the Latin word from
the Vulgate! If that isn’t cool enough,
how about getting it leather-bound about the same size as the RSV-2CE for
$29.99?
If that seems
too good to be true, perhaps I should share the rest of the story. It is apparently published by a Protestant
person or group who has removed the original notes and the Deutrocanonical
books! You are probably asking yourself:
who, what, why, and perhaps some other questions, too. I will try my best to answer these based on
the limited information that I have. It
was published by “Straightway Ministries” in September 2011 but I cannot find
any links or listings for them other than their one website that advertises the
Bible. I got my copy from Amazon where
you can also find their website listed.
So first off, I
will share the basic gist of the information given in the forward. The publisher states that his or her intent
is to “use this Bible as a resource to clarify text differences; forthwith,
will bring more understanding to the reader.”
Hmm, that is not a very thorough explanation, in my opinion, as to why a
Protestant would go through the trouble of retyping the entire original D-R
when there are revisions already in print.
I therefore supplemented this explanation with the content of the “Bible
Study Notes” listed in the back to form my own opinion. The note section has lists for titles of
Christ that have been omitted or translated differently in modern
versions. The list includes 34 instances
of the name “Jesus” (one in the OT: Hab. 3:18), 40 instances of “Christ” (20 in
the OT including references to King David: e.g. 1 Kg. 2:10, 2:35, II Kg. 22:51,
23:1, Ps. 83:10, 131:10), 23 instances of
“just” or “Just One” referring to God (17 OT and 6 NT), 13 instances of
“Dominator” or “dominator” (e.g. OT: Ex. 34:6, II Kg. 23:3, Amos 5:16, one NT
ref. Jude 4) and one instance of “Strong one” (II Kg. 23:3.) There is also a page that lists the other
places that “christus” and other forms thereof appear in the Vulgate and are
translated “anointed,” as well as a list of instances where the word “savior”
appears in the D-R and is translated differently (such as “salvation”) in other
versions. The other list I will draw
attention to is “The Holy Land, The Seed, The Rest and The Promise of
Everlasting Possession”, which shows the D-R’s use of the capitalization
(Genesis 12:3 and 28:14, for example) the translation “seed” (which can be read
as prophetical to Christ as being a singular or plural noun) instead of
“descendents”, and other relative verses.
So what does this all mean? I
think the publisher is showing how the traditional Christian translation of the
Bible better shows the Christological connection in and between the Testaments. The publisher does not say so explicitly, but
I get the impression he feels the Vulgate is backed by a certain amount of
apostolic authority.
So now on to
more details about the book itself. As
mentioned above, the spellings have been updated. For example the word spelled “yuorie” is
changed to “ivory,” all the “j’s” that were “i’s” in the original have been
changed (except when a consonant was following, e.g Isai.) Also, capitalization and punctuation were added
or changed to match the Vulgate Text (the version used is the “Biblia Sacra
iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam Nova Editio Sexta Editio MCMLXXXII.) This edition of the Vulgate was also used to
help interpreting the English words as they appeared in the original D-R. The publisher has added timelines at the end
of each book that conform to the ones found in the Baronius Press edition
(creation: 4004 BC, etc.), and plentiful cross references in smaller print at
the end of the verse. These came from
some edition of the KJV and do not always correspond exactly.
Although this is
a very strange publication, the publisher has done a very nice job with
it. The type is very readable with good
spacing, the paper is more opaque than average, and although it has a glued
binding, the construction appears to be fairly solid. I like having the original D-R for private
study. There are many interesting
features, including the older English: the use of “mine” and “thine” before
words that begin with a vowel, “spake”, “doest” and “doeth” as well as the
“dost” and “doth” used frequently in the Challoner. The Psalms verses are paragraphed by number
and Psalms 118 includes the meaning of the Hebrew letters throughout. There are so many interesting alternate
renderings in the original D-R I could make a huge list of them just by briefly
browsing through its pages. I would recommend it for any Catholic who
collects and/or studies Catholic Bibles.
The Deuterocanonical Books are also available separately from the
publisher.
3 comments:
They removed the deutro-canonical books from a Catholic Bible??? That sealed the deal (or no deal) for me!
I just bought a Confraternity-DR bible on e-bay at a good price, that will be good enough for me.
Thanks for the detailed review. I think that much of the interest in 1582/1611 Douay-Rheims lies in it copious notes. It is also the case that many transcriptions of the 1582/1611 Douay introduce errors. For this reason, I recommend that readers consult a facsimile edition (Early Modern English spelling is not that difficult.) I can recommend this site for purchasing a facsimile edition.
Theophrastas:
Thanks for the link, although I did know about this one already. I have been reluctant to splurge for the facsimile because of the price, and because I have been using the Haydock and finding a lot of traditional Catholic apologetics in it. I may eventually get a copy of the original, but I hope there is a substantial amount of additional information in it to justify the price, because I do still prefer the Challoner version overall.
My concern as well about the reviewed Bible was the quality, especially typos. There is actually an errata sheet included that lists I believe three typos, two of which are two words repeated, and one instance where "Jeremias" is printed "Jeremy" at the top of the page. It seems to be very meticulously done, with a lot of details including page headings, paragraph marks, etc. Whomever did this focused a lot of time on it. It is too bad the Deuteros were not included, even if was in an appendix.
Post a Comment