Douay-Rheims Bible

I have the DR Bible and refer to it often to compare with other translations. It does not have the "Factbook" filter so it has not been tagged yet (is that the correct terminology?).

Will the Factbook filter be made available for it at some point?

Thanks,

KSC

Find more posts tagged with

Catholic Products

Comments

DMB

I'm not Catholic, but great suggestion (question). I don't know the answer, of course.

But I can opine to why DRA should be tagged (actually RI'd even better). The DR is the twin of the KJV ... it was slightly ahead of the KJV, and as each moved forward, the DR would influence the KJV, and later the KJV influence the DR (Challoner). Only again, to see addional changes in the late 1800s, with the Clementine, and new manuscripts being digested (DRA).

So, it'd be a nice addition (tagging). Of course, the Clementine got the Logos heavy-lifting, a few years back.

Now, if I could pull strings at Bellingham HQ, I'd want the old DR-Bishops Bible combo (right before the KJV). Now, THAT one would be worth its weight.

Kevin S. Coy, OFS

Bump. Not asking for a timeline or anything just wondering if it is in the works?

Thanks,

KSC

David Ames

Douay Rheims or Challoner version

OK how to you tell which version you have of the Douay-Rheims

To test if it is the 1609 / 1582

Gen 1:5 that made one day not just one day

Psa 1:1 gone not walked

Mat 2:1 Sages not wise men

[[ I don't yet know how to test for the Clementine changes]]

Gen 1:5 OT Part 1

5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

(5) And he called the light, Day, and the darkness, Night: and there was evening & morning, that made one day. Reading of 1609 Version

Psa 1:1 OT Part 2

Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence: Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

(1) BLESSED (a) is the man, that hath not gone in the counsel of the impious, & hath (b) not stood in the way of sinners, and hath (d) not sit in the chair of pestilence: reading of 1609 Version

Mat 2:1 When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem, Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version

Mat 2:1 (1) WHEN JESUS therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda in the days of Herod the King, behold, there came Sages from the East to Jerusalem, reading of 1582 Version

The version in Logos is the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version:

WHEN Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the East to Jerusalem,

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. (2009). (Mt 2:1). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Kevin S. Coy, OFS

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1154788#Comment_1154788

Yes, I have the Challoner Version. Do you know if it is going to be tagged (again not sure if that is correct terminology) for use with the Factbook filter? Not asking for a timeline or completion date just if it is in the plans?

Thanks,

KSC

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1154788#Comment_1154788

[[ I don't yet know how to test for the Clementine changes]]

Did my homework. Clementine is the name of the version of the vulgate in Logos.

And where do we find versions prior to 1592?

From a Google search:

The Sixto-Clementine Vulgate or Clementine Vulgate (Latin: Vulgata Clementina) is the edition promulgated in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII of the Vulgate—a 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible that was written largely by Jerome.

The so-called Clementine Vulgate, issued by Pope Clement VIII in 1592, became the authoritative biblical text of the Roman Catholic Church. From it the Confraternity Version was translated in 1941. Various critical editions have been produced in modern times.

[Where I saw the word ‘Clementine’ I thought that it was a version of the DR]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1154979#Comment_1154979

And where do we find versions prior to 1592?

somewhere outside Verbum. I've seen a push to get the Old Latin but don't recall a request for earlier Vulgates. About the Nova Vulgata or "Neo-Vulgate" and How it Relates to the Clementine Vulgate and Pian Vulgate - Taylor Marshall

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155001#Comment_1155001

From a comment on that site "Here’s a an example of minor differences between the old Jerome/Gallican/Clementine Psalter and the Nova Vulgata Psalter." They see the three, at least where the Psalter covers, to be very similar.

[[I know of Jerome. I found some information on Clementine. Now I need to research Gallican. [I am in over my head] ]]

And thanks for adding your wisdom!

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155006#Comment_1155006

Now I need to research Gallican

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Psalters#Versio_Gallicana

And the best early Vulgate (prior, mainly fragments):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

With the DR using later Vulgate versions (Metzger), prior to the Clementine.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155007#Comment_1155007

With the DR using later Vulgate versions (Metzger), prior to the Clementine.

Thanks

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155006#Comment_1155006

Now I need to research Gallican

Well I intended to point you to some excellent Gallican chant but it appears to be out of print. [:'(]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155022#Comment_1155022

Now I need to research Gallican

Well I intended to point you to some excellent Gallican chant but it appears to be out of print.

Title and Author please. Every once in a while I google the used book market.

[David" Remind self to stop reading recommendations by "MJ. Smith" as that only leads to you spending money!]]

Donald Antenen (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155153#Comment_1155153

One of the difficulties of the Vetus Latina Bible is that it's not a single translation. It's a whole collection of manuscripts with dozens of variants on every verse. Is there a good edition of it that brings all these manuscripts together?

I'm going to investigate all the Latin Psalters.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155161#Comment_1155161

One of the difficulties of the Vetus Latina Bible is that it's not a single translation.

I think we all expect a collection of texts not a single book ... like for the DSS etc. But there are resources such as that from Vetus Latina Institute . Or if I'm in a bad mood I could take a page from a much hated teacher and say "Accordance has it, why don't you?"

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1155161#Comment_1155161

Is there a good edition of it that brings all these manuscripts together?

MJ mentions the Institute, for which critical editions have slowly worked forward after WWII.

For anyone curious, the volume Accordance has, is sort of a mashup of available mss's and quotes that Sabatier had put together before unexpectedly departing. It's OT only, and provides no clue as to the sources of the pieces. In a way, it's like DSS Bible without the notes. But it is a nice contra to the LXX, from whense the largely African church was working (and early latin fathers).

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sabatier-pierre