Which Bible should you read? by Thomas A. Nelson

[Hildegard of Bingen]

This booklet was available at TAN Books, the only Bible they had for sale was the Douay-Rheims that is no longer the case. Needless to say this booklet is no longer available at TAN Books.

WHICH BIBLE SHOULD YOU READ?




“You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it:
keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” —Deuteronomy 4:2

By Thomas A. Nelson



“Every word of God is fire tried: he is a buckler to them that hope in him. Add not any thing to
his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar.” —Proverbs 30:5-6

Dedicated to The Blessed Virgin Mary, “full of grace,”

“Mother of fair love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope,”

Who shall crush the head of Satan.

---

Contents

Preface

Abbreviations of the Bibles Used

Introduction


Which Bible should you read?

The Importance of the Latin Vulgate Bible

The Stature of the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims Bibles

The Method of Translating Employed in the New Bibles

Three Fundamental Mistakes

   1. Which Authoritative “Original” To Use
   2. Incorrect Choice of Words
   3. Interpreting Rather than Translating

Sample Problem Passages

  “She Shall Crush Thy Head . . .”
  “I Am the Mother of Fair Love . . .”
  “Wheresoever the Body Shall Be . . .”
  “Let All Your Things Be Done in Charity”
  “Amen, Amen, I Say to You . . .”
  “Being of One Mind One Towards Another”
  “And the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail against It”
  “How Shall This Be Done . . .?”
  Judas’ Betrayal
  Peace on Earth . . .”
  “What Does It Profit . . .?”
  “Power to Be Made the Sons of God”
  “I Will Begin To Vomit Thee out of My Mouth”

Conclusion

A Synopsis

---

PREFACE

    Which Bible should you read?  That is an important question everyone should ask himself. For version differs from version of Sacred Scripture by so much that one has to recognize that they cannot all be accurate— if indeed, logically speaking, any one of them is. Therefore, which one should a person choose to use for his own personal study of God’s Holy Word?

    In order to shed some light on this question the reader is asked initially to consider a most unusual letter that was mailed to this publisher in 1985, a letter which describes one person’s singular, prayerful quest to discover that one Bible translation which is the best version to read in English. It was written by a nun who gave us permission to reprint it, and it is given here in toto, just as it came to us. It is addressed to the Publisher as a result of her reading a promotional sales letter the company mailed out in 1985, which outlined briefly the chief reasons for employing the traditional English Catholic Bible, called the Douay-Rheims. Here is her unusual story.

A Testimony

October 20, 1985

Dear Mr. Nelson:

    Your Letter in regard to the Douay- Rheims Version of the Bible was absolutely fascinating. And after I finished, I wished that I could read more. Have you thought of doing a full length work on the subject? You write so beautifully.

    But on the mystical side, I thought I might share my own story with you:

    I grew up in the Methodist Church, but was hungry for a deeper spirituality, particularly contemplative. In 1962 I studied with a Hindu guru and later also studied other areas of Eastern contemplation. I was fascinated with Eastern mysticism and contemplation and never would have thought of leaving it. But Jesus just scooped me up like a little lamb about his shoulders, and I converted to Catholicism in 1972. So that was ten years in which I was immersed in “New Age” circles and Eastern mysticism. (In fact, my guru gave me the name of Shiva Kumari, and I’d had it changed legally, which is why Cardinal O’Connor left it as it was when he pronounced my vows as a hermit nun.)

    When I first converted to Catholicism 14 years ago, I was so lost! I had no idea there was such a thing as “left wing” and “right wing” [in the Catholic Church]. I just wanted to learn the teachings of the Faith. But one priest said one thing; someone else said the opposite; and I became terribly confused. So I turned back to prayer.

    Then I went to bookstores, but since I had no concept of that which was orthodox and that which was not, I bought books indiscriminately and became even more confused! So I turned back to prayer.

    Through prayer and continually throwing myself upon the Lord, depending wholly upon Him, looking to Him in all my need and confusion, He has led me out of the darkness into the Light. I look back now over those many years and am absolutely amazed at how He has led me! But I think the Douay-Rheims story is most awesome:

    When I first converted and was going from one Catholic bookstore to another, I picked up different versions of the Bible, not having the foggiest notion as to which would be the best. I finally concluded that they must all be good, so I got copies of each. And I already had the King James Version from my Protestant days.

    (I’m sitting here trying to think how I can capsulize 20 years of spiritual growth and transformation which enabled me to be able to listen to the Lord on that mystical level and allow Him to guide me—most of it is grace though—all glory and honor to Him!)

    What happened was odd indeed—when I picked up the New American Version, it was dry like sawdust. There was no life in it; I mean mystical life. (I’m having such a difficult time verbalizing this, since it was all interior guidance on a mystical level.) So I stopped trying to read the New American. Then I tried another version, and the words literally swam on the page. I thought I might be suffering from some sort of eye strain, so I stopped reading that version.

    Finally, someone suggested the Douay- Rheims. I’d never even heard of such a thing, but wrote down the words and went immediately to a bookstore that carried it. (I guess this was about 10 years ago.) The minute I touched the Douay-Rheims, I knew this was it! I stood there in the bookstore, turning it about in my hand (without ever opening it) just feeling that wonderful sensation of life which seemed to be coursing through it. (I’ve never told this story to xii Which Bible Should You Read? anyone! They would think I was completely “off-the-wall”!)

    I got my Douay-Rheims home, and oh, what a happy day! I’ve loved that book as though it were not a book at all, because that sensation of life has never left it. Whenever I touch it, and certainly when I read it, everything comes alive with God’s light, love and guidance.

    A couple of years ago, a man said I ought to read the St. Joseph’s version, and I said I intended to stick to my Douay-Rheims— with a tone that sounded as though I were defending my best friend—and I couldn’t give any rational explanation as to why I felt that way. I never doubted that it was the hand of the Lord; it’s just that I hadn’t really given it any thought until I read your letter. Then all these incidents flooded back into my memory, and I was struck with wonder!

God bless you,
Sister Shiva Kumari

---

Abbreviations of the Bible  - Versions Used in this Tract

Catholic

DRB Douay-Rheims Bible
NAB New American Bible
CRSV Catholic Revised Standard Version
JB Jerusalem Bible

Protestant

KJV King James Version
NKJV New King James Version
NIV New International Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NASV New American Standard Version
NEB New English Bible

---

INTRODUCTION

    The present little book is an unabashed apologia* for the traditional Catholic Bible in English, called the Douay-Rheims. The first edition of this present little work was actually a sales letter promoting the Douay-Rheims Bible by explaining to readers why the Douay-Rheims is the most accurate and most reliable version of the Bible in English.

    This version of Sacred Scripture was first published in the New Testament at Rheims in Northern France in 1582 and at Douay in Flanders (Northwestern France) in 1609-1610 in its entirety. (These were the times of the penal laws in England under Elizabeth I, when it was a capital crime to practice the Catholic faith. Thus, the work of rendering into English a proper Bible translation had to be carried out on the Continent.) It was later revised (1749- 1751) by Bishop Richard Challoner (1691- 1781), Coadjutor Roman Catholic Bishop of London from 1741 and Vicar Apostolic from 1758. A slight revision was made in 1859 by Mgr. F. P. Kenrick, Archbishop of Baltimore, which is commonly used in the United States, though other Douay-Rheims versions have been in use. The current edition in print by TAN was issued in 1899 by the John Murphy Co. of Baltimore, Maryland, under the official approbation of His Eminence, James Cardinal Gibbons, dated September 1, 1899, wherein he stated: “We hereby approve of the publication by Messrs. John Murphy Co. of the Catholic Bible, which is an accurate reprint of the Rheims and Douay edition with Dr. Challoner’s notes.”

* “Apologia” is used here in the sense of “a defense.”

    From the first edition of the Douay-Rheims Bible in 1609-1610 until 1941, there was no other English Catholic Bible in use, and even until approximately 1960 the readings from the pulpit in most Catholic churches in the U.S. continued to be from the Douay-Rheims because there existed a popular, large-print lectionary of the Epistles and Gospels for each Sunday of the year that was in common use in most Catholic parishes in this country; it used the Douay-Rheims translation. Therefore, one might say that the universal use of the Douay-Rheims Bible lasted from Bishop Challoner’s revisions in 1749-51 until approximately 1960, roughly some 210 years. But, if one were to begin from the original issue date of the first edition of the Douay-Rheims in 1610 until 1960, the time span of the effective, universal life of this version is 350 years.

    Thus, the only Catholic version of the Bible in use in the English-speaking world for 330 years (c. 1610-1940) was the Douay-Rheims, which continued to be used for pulpit readings for about 20 years more. There was a hiatus of its availability for about 10 years, until 1971, when the Douay-Rheims was first issued by TAN. Even during this period (1960-1971), however, there were other English editions of the Douay-Rheims available here and there from older inventories.

    The important point to consider from this brief historical sketch is that for 330 years (1610-1940), English-speaking Catholics had no other English Catholic Bible than the Douay-Rheims, and therefore, if this version is not accurate, then all the many millions of Catholics who used it since 1610—as of this writing a time span now of 390 years—have been deceived in their study of Scripture. They have not, in effect, had an accurate version of God’s Holy Word. The Holy Ghost, in other words, had let them down, had failed them Introduction xvii in their Scripture study; they have been, to a fairly large degree, deluded by a “bad” bible.

    The above is also a correct line of reasoning if we compare the Douay-Rheims version with the three modern Catholic Bibles currently in use, namely, The New American Bible (1970, which was partially revised and reissued in 1986), The Catholic Revised Standard Version (1966, originally a Protestant Version dating from 1946 and 1952) and the Jerusalem Bible (1966). If any one of these three translations of Scripture is correct (and they all differ among themselves), then the Douay-Rheims is simply inaccurate. But, if the Douay- Rheims is accurate, then these new Catholic versions contain many inaccurate passages and should not be used. A number of comparisons between the Douay- Rheims and these newer Catholic versions shall be made further along in this work. These comparisons shall also include several popular Protestant versions.

    In this little tract we shall study in depth 11 famous passages from the New Testament and mention two from the Old Testament. The rationale for this approach in using mainly New Testament passages is to eliminate any objections based on the original Hebrew texts of the Old Testament, the reasoning being this: If the translators of these new Bibles cannot translate correctly even the extant “original” Greek text of the New Testament—for the New Testament was written in that language*—then how are we to trust them to translate accurately the ancient Hebrew texts, which by reason of age and antiquity are far more arcane and often are far more poetic and filled with double and triple entendre?

    Here a word needs to be said about the use of Hebrew in the Old Testament of the Bible. The ancient Hebrew in which most of the Old Testament was written is an ancient Semitic language that has come down to us from time immemorial. Some think Hebrew was the language spoken by man at the time of the multiplication of languages, caused by God as a curse on mankind because of man’s trying to build the Tower of Babel. (Genesis 11:1-9).

    In the course of the centuries, Hebrew was discontinued as a spoken language— about the time of the Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C. (599-536)—when it was superseded by Aramaic. Thereafter, Hebrew was only written. Nonetheless, the Hebrew of the Old Testament texts displays a great fixity over a number of centuries that is admirable and quite unparalleled in most other languages— which tend to mutate more. This relative stability of Hebrew was inspired, no doubt, by Almighty God to preserve the integrity of the Old Testament’s original language.

*It has been commonly held that St. Matthew’s Gospel was written in Aramaic. However, no copy of the Aramaic has survived. Current thinking holds that it is not certain that he did not in fact write his Gospel in Greek.

    As a result of Alexander the Great’s 4thcentury conquest (334-323 B.C.) of the land of Israel, Egypt and Mesopotamia, among other areas, the spread of Greek influence and language by the 3rd century B.C. caused Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (284-247 B.C.), to bring to Alexandria, Egypt, 72 Hebrew scholars to translate “the Law”—presumably the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible—into Greek (284 B.C.). This version became known as the “Septuagint” (from the seventy-two scholars) and is one of the basic versions of Scripture; the entire Greek text of Old Testament Scripture is presumed not to have been the work of the original 72 men, but to have been completed during many following years. Nonetheless, the Greek of the Septuagint—called koine (pronounced koinay)—is the Greek spoken at that time by the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt, and the Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament is one of the most venerable and accurate texts of the Old Testament we have.

      Most of the Old Testament’s 45 books were originally written in Hebrew, and it is generally thought all of the New Testament’s 27 books were written in Greek, save for St. Matthew’s Gospel, which was thought for many years to have been originally written in Aramaic, though the Aramaic text has been lost to history, even if this is so.

      Approximately 150 A.D., a version of the entire Bible in Latin was assembled, called the Old Itala (Vetus Itala). It was in general use until St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin (390-405), this latter being called the Latin Vulgate, which was written in the “vulgar” or common Latin tongue. This version soon superseded the Old Itala version and is now considered an august, sacred translation in its own right, having received the approbation, not only of nearly 16 centuries of continuous use, but also formally by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which means, as Pope Pius XII has stated, that it is free from doctrinal error. The Vulgate has served the Western Catholic Church ever since and was used exclusively until modern vernacular translations began to appear in the 15th and 16th centuries.