Douay-Rheims PDF. English. eng. letter size ( pages) · A4 size ( pages) · 6 in x 9 in 9 point. The Douay-Rheims Version of the Holy Bible, translated between the years and and revised by Bishop Richard Challoner from Douay-Rheims Bible () (CrossReach Bible Collection Book 14) – Kindle edition by Douay Rheims, CrossReach Publications. Download it once and read it.

Author: Brazahn Grojas
Country: Gambia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 21 January 2007
Pages: 384
PDF File Size: 12.99 Mb
ePub File Size: 6.29 Mb
ISBN: 252-6-41792-373-3
Downloads: 56963
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nikozil

The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in and by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering Genesis through Jobwas published in ; the second, covering Psalms to 2 Machabees plus the apocrypha of the Vulgate was published rhfims Marginal dkuay took up the bulk of the volumes and had a strong polemical and patristic character.

They offered insights on issues of translation, and on the Hebrew and Greek source texts of the Vulgate. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which up till then had dominated Elizabethan religion and academic debate.


As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Counter-Reformation. The New Testament was reprinted inand The Old Testament volumes were reprinted in but neither thereafter for another hundred years. InWilliam Fulke collated the complete Rheims text and notes in parallel columns with those of the Bishops’ Bible.

This work sold widely in England, being re-issued in three further editions to It was predominantly through Fulke’s editions that the Rheims New Testament came to exercise a significant 11899 on the development of 17th century English.

Consequently, this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner ; the New Testament in three editions of, and ; the Old Testament minus the Vulgate apocryphain Although retaining the title Douay—Rheims Biblethe Challoner revision was a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible [4] rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.

Subsequent editions of the Challoner revision, of which there have been very many, reproduce his Old Testament of with very few changes. Challoner’s New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from to These Dublin versions are the source of some Challoner bibles printed in the United States in the 19th century.

Subsequent editions eouay the Challoner Bible printed in England most often follow Challoner’s earlier New Testament texts of andas do most 20th-century printings and on-line versions of the Douay—Rheims bible circulating on the rhwims. Following the English Reformationsome Catholics went into exile to the European mainland. And it was here where the Catholic douah of the Bible into English was produced.

A run of a few hundred or more of the New Testament, in quarto form not large foliowas published in the last months of Herbertduring a temporary migration of the college to Rheims ; consequently, it has been commonly known as the Rheims New Testament.

Though he died in the same year as its publication, this translation was principally the work of Gregory Martinformerly Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxfordclose friend of Edmund Campion. He was assisted by others at Douai, notably Allen, Richard Bristowand Thomas Worthingtonwho proofed and provided notes vouay annotations.

The Old Testament is stated to have been ready at the rgeims time but, for want of funds, it could not be printed until later, after the college had returned to Douai. It is commonly known as the Douay Old Testament. It was issued as two quarto volumes dated and Herbert Surprisingly these first New Testament and Old Testament editions followed the Geneva Bible not only in their quarto format but also in the use of Roman type.

As a recent translation, the Rheims New Testament had an influence on the translators of the King James Version see below. Afterwards it ceased to be of interest in the Anglican church.

Although the cities are now commonly spelled as Douai and as Reimsthe Bible continues to be published as the Douay—Rheims Bible and has formed the basis of some later Catholic Bibles in English. The title page runs: Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions”. The cause of the delay was “our poor state of banishment”, but there was also the matter of reconciling the Latin to the other editions. William Allen went to Rome and worked, with others, on the revision of the Vulgate.

The Sixtine Vulgate edition was published in The definitive Clementine text followed in Worthington, responsible for many of the annotations for the and volumes, states in the preface: Genesis iii, 15 does not reflect either Vulgate. The Vulgate was largely created due to the efforts of Saint Jerome 189whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent.

While the Catholic scholars “conferred” with the Hebrew and Greek originals, as well as with “other editions in diverse languages”, [7] their avowed purpose was to translate after a strongly literal manner from the Latin Vulgate, for reasons of accuracy as stated in their Preface and which tended to produce, in places, stilted syntax and Latinisms. The following short passage Ephesians douaay To me the least of al the sainctes is given this grace, among the Gentils to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men douya is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created all things: In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.


Other than when rendering the particular readings of the Vulgate Latin, the English wording of the Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale inan important source for the Rheims translators having been identified as that of the revision of Tyndale found in an English and Latin diglot New Testament, published by Miles Coverdale in Paris in Consequently, the Rheims New Testament is much less of a new version, and owes rather more to the original languages, than rheijs translators admit in their preface.

Where the Rheims translators depart from the Coverdale text, they frequently adopt readings found in the Protestant Geneva Bible [11] or those of the Wycliffe Bible, as this latter version had been translated from the Vulgate, and had been widely used by English Catholic churchmen unaware of its Lollard origins.

Nevertheless, it was a translation of a translation of the Bible. Many highly regarded translations of the Bible routinely consult Vulgate readings, rheijs in certain difficult Old Testament passages; but nearly all modern Bible versions, Protestant and Catholic, go directly to original-language Hebrew, Aramaicand Greek biblical texts as their translation base, and not to a secondary version like the Vulgate.

The translators justified their preference for the Vulgate in their Preface, pointing to accumulated corruptions within the original language manuscripts available rheima that era, and asserting that Jerome would have had access to better manuscripts in the original tongues that had not survived. In their decision consistently to apply Latinate language, rather than everyday English, dokay render religious terminology, the Rheims—Douay translators continued a tradition established by Thomas More and Stephen Gardiner in their criticisms of the biblical translations of William Tyndale.

Gardiner indeed had himself applied these principles in to produce a heavily revised version, which unfortunately has not survived, of Doiay translations of the Gospels of Luke and John.

Douay–Rheims Bible

More and Gardiner had argued that Latin terms were more precise dousy meaning than their English equivalents, and consequently should be retained in Englished form to avoid ambiguity. However, David Norton observes that the Rheims—Douay version extends the principle much further.

In the preface to the Rheims New Testament the translators criticise the Geneva Bible for their policy of striving always for clear and unambiguous readings; the Rheims translators proposed rather a rendering of the English biblical text that is faithful to the Latin text, whether or not, such a word-for-word translation results in hard to understand English, or transmits ambiguity from the Latin phrasings:. Hierom, that in other writings it is ynough to give in translation, sense for sense, but that in Scriptures, lest we misse the sense, we must keep the very wordes.

This adds to More and Gardiner the opposite argument, that previous versions in standard English had improperly imputed clear meanings for obscure passages in the Greek source text where the Latin Vulgate had often tended to rather render the Greek literally, even to the extent of generating improper Latin constructions.

In effect, the Rheims translators argue that, where the source text is ambiguous or obscure, then a faithful English translation should also be ambiguous or obscure, with the options for understanding the text discussed in a marginal note. The translation was prepared dojay a definite polemical purpose in opposition to Protestant translations which also had polemical motives. Prior to the Douay-Rheims, the only printed English language Bibles available had been Protestant translations.

The translators excluded the apocryphal Psalm18999 unusual oversight given the otherwise “complete” nature of the book is explained in passing by the annotations to Psalm that “S. Augustin in the conclusion of his Sermons upon the Psalms, explicateth a mysterie in the number of an hundred and fieftie[. In England the Protestant William Fulke unintentionally popularized the Rheims New Testament through his collation of the Rheims text and annotations in parallel columns alongside the Protestant Bishops’ Bible.

Douay–Rheims Bible – Wikipedia

Fulke’s original intention through his first combined edition of the Rheims New Testament with the so-called Bishop’s Bible was to prove that the Catholic-inspired text was inferior to the Protestant-influenced Bishop’s Bible, then the official Bible of the Church of England.

Fulke’s work was first published in ; and as a consequence the Rheims text and notes became easily available without fear of criminal sanctions. Not only did Douay-Rheims influence Catholics, but it also had a substantial influence on the later creation of the King James Bible. The King James Bible distinguished dpuay previous English Protestant versions by a greater tendency to employ Latinate vocabulary, and the translators were able to find many such terms for example: Consequently, a number of the Latinisms of the Rhims, through their use in the King James Bible, have entered standard literary English.

The translators of the Rheims appended a list of these unfamiliar words; [14] examples include “acquisition”, “adulterate”, “advent”, “allegory”, “verity”, “calumniate”, “character”, “cooperate”, “prescience”, “resuscitate”, “victim”, and “evangelise”. In addition the editors chose to transliterate rather than translate a number of technical Greek or Hebrew terms, such as ” azymes ” for unleavened bread, and “pasch” for Passover.

Douay-Rheims American Edition (DRA) – Version Information –

The original Douay—Rheims Bible was published during a time when Catholics were being persecuted in Britain and Ireland and possession of the Douay—Rheims Bible was a crime. By the time possession was not a crime the English of the Douay—Rheims Bible was a hundred years out-of-date. It was thus substantially “revised” between and by Richard Challoneran English bishopformally appointed to the deserted see of Debra Doberus.


Challoner’s revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version 11899 a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism and thus familiar with its style.

Challoner not only addressed the odd prose and much of the Latinisms, but produced a version which, while still called the Douay—Rheims, was little like it, notably removing most of the lengthy annotations and marginal notes of the original translators, the lectionary douau of gospel and epistle readings for the Mass, and most notably the apocryphal books all of which save Psalm had been included in the original. At the same time he aimed for improved readability and comprehensibility, rephrasing obscure and obsolete terms and construction and, in the process, rueims removing ambiguities of meaning that the original Rheims—Douay version had intentionally striven to retain.

The same passage of Ephesians 3: That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same body: To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles rbeims unsearchable riches of Christ: That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Unto me, douxy am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 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: 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, whereof I am made a minister, by the gift of the grace of God given unto me, through the working of his power.

Unto me the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the gentiles the unsearchable doauy of 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, to the intent, that now unto the rulers and powers in heaven might be known by the congregation the manifold wisdom of God, according to that eternal purpose, which he purposed in Christ Jesu our Lord, by whom rouay are rhims to draw douau in that trust, which we have by faith on him.

Challoner issued a New Testament edition in He followed this with an edition of the whole bible inmaking some further changes to the New Testament. Rueims issued a further version of the New Testament inin which differed in about 2, readings from the edition, and which remained the base text for further editions of the bible in Challoner’s lifetime.

Gone also was the longer paragraph formatting of the text; instead, the text was broken up so that each verse was its own paragraph. The three apocryphawhich had been rheime in an appendix to the second volume of the Old Testament, were dropped.

Challoner’s New Testament was extensively further revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from tofor the most part adjusting the text away from agreement with that of the King James Bible, and these various Dublin versions are the source of many, but not all, Challoner versions printed in the United States in the rheimw century.

Editions of the Challoner Bible printed in England sometimes follow one or another of the revised Dublin New Testament texts, but more often tend to follow Challoner’s rheijs editions of and as do most 20th-century printings, and on-line versions of the Douay—Rheims bible circulating on the internet. Husenbeth in was approved by Bishop Wareing. A reprint of an approved edition with Haydock’s unabridged notes was published in by Loreto Publications.

The Challoner version, officially approved by the Church, remained the Bible of the majority of English-speaking Catholics well into the 20th century. It was first published in America in by Mathew Carey of Philadelphia. Several American editions followed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, prominent among them an edition published in by the John Murphy Company of Baltimore, which was approved by James Cardinal Gibbons duoay, Archbishop of Baltimore.

This edition included a chronology that was consistent with young-earth creationism specifically, one based on James Ussher ‘s calculation of the year of creation as BC. Inthe John Murphy Company published a new edition with a modified chronology consistent with new findings in Catholic scholarship; in this edition, no attempt was made to attach precise douuay to the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis, and many of the dates calculated in the edition rheimms wholly revised.

However, so extensive were these changes, rheeims it was no longer identified as the Douay—Rheims. The Challoner revision ultimately fell out of print by the late s, only coming back into circulation when TAN Books reprinted the Murphy edition in