Pre pub: Kenrick's Translation of the Vulgate

David Ames

Is this a translation of the Latin Vulgate or of the English Douay?

The Vulgate was a translation of the Hebrew and Greek into Latin about 400 AD

The douay rheims was a translation of the Vulgate in to English about 1585 / 1609 or so

The douay in logos is a Chandler edit of the douay rheims (Mid 1700?)

What is the Kenrick's Translation?

https://www.logos.com/product/33543/kenricks-translation-of-the-vulgate-with-commentary

The description states: Kenrick’s Catholic translation is a revision of the Douay version of the Bible,

the title says it is a translation of the Vulgate implying of the Latin

Elsewhere I found this: http://bibles.wikidot.com/kenrick

Francis Patrick Kenrick (1796-1863) was an Irish-born clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church. He served as the third Bishop of Philadelphia (1842–1851) and the sixth Archbishop of Baltimore (1851–1863). In addition to his duties as bishop and archbishop, Kenrick revised the complete Douay-Rheims Bible between 1849 and 1862.

Is this a translation of the Latin Vulgate or of the English Douay? and if of the English is it a translation of the original old English version or the Chandler version?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

mab

It's both by virtue of it patterning the Douay. How well it succeeds in either is something I would not feel remotely qualified to speculate on. Here's a little link that might be useful

https://hbu.edu/museums/dunham-bible-museum/reprints-from-the-collection/prefaces-to-major-bible-editions/francis-kenrick-catholic-translation-1860/

John W Gillis

There's not a conflict between those claims. Kenrick's Bible was a revision of the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate. Challoner's was the standard English text at the time, so he used it as a basis. He didn't "translate" the Challoner English into English, he revised it, based on his translation of primarily the Vulgate (as was fitting for a Catholic work in the day), but also of the Greek and Hebrew, both of which he was skilled in.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144407#Comment_1144407

There's not a conflict between those claims. Kenrick's Bible was a revision of the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate. Challoner's was the standard English text at the time, so he used it as a basis. He didn't "translate" the Challoner English into English, he revised it, based on his translation of primarily the Vulgate (as was fitting for a Catholic work in the day), but also of the Greek and Hebrew, both of which he was skilled in.

Ok, will keep my bid as is. Thanks. RE: "translate" the Challoner English into English, The original Douay-Rheims was in Old English of about 50 years older than the English in the KJV. ['s' looked like 'f'] There is a transcription of that into modern English by a Dr. Peters.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144480#Comment_1144480

Technically the English of the 16th century is Early Modern English. Old English is things like the Beowulf stories...

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144480#Comment_1144480

The original Douay-Rheims was in Old English of about 50 years older than the English in the KJV.

The NT of the Douay-Rheims was published in 1582, and the OT in 1609 and 1610. The KJV was published in 1611. No 50 year gap here.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144503#Comment_1144503

The NT of the Douay-Rheims was published in 1582, and the OT in 1609 and 1610. The KJV was published in 1611. No 50 year gap here.

Thanks for adding the exact dates to this thread.

John W Gillis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144480#Comment_1144480

RE: "translate" the Challoner English into English,

David, my point about "translating" the Challoner was not that the Challoner (or Douay) was not in need of updating to contemporary (at the time) English, but that it was not the object of translation. Kenrick would not have looked at the Challoner and said to himself "How can I turn that into language my readers will understand?" He would have looked at the Vulgate, consulted the currently accepted Hebrew or Greek texts for comparison, and then evaluated how well the Challoner captured that text into English, and revised the Challoner version as appropriate. So it is a translation of the ancient language texts, but still a revision of the Douay/Challoner tradition text, not a "fresh translation" from scratch.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144652#Comment_1144652

I do not read Latin but have used a very small part of the 1582 version in one of my studies. Looking forward to adding this version to my collection.

SineNomine

The odd thing to me about this project is that it's explicitly a translation of the Bible with a commentary, but a look at the Resources Included section suggests that it will be produced simply as a commentary, i.e., there will be no Type:Bible resource included. That would be a shame.

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144750#Comment_1144750

The odd thing to me about this project is that it's explicitly a translation of the Bible with a commentary, but a look at the Resources Included section suggests that it will be produced simply as a commentary, i.e., there will be no Type:Bible resource included. That would be a shame.

It looks to reproduce the original volumes. Is there anything to suggest that this was ever sold in any other format?

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1144770#Comment_1144770

Is there anything to suggest that this was ever sold in any other format?

I don't know. I also don't really care.