Begging your pardon, but the Vulgate is not the first Bible. By Jerome, it is a reasonably fair translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanach and Koine Greek NT into Roman. The DRB is a translation into English, a second-hand warmed-over massage of the Latin, brought into being as a response to the extremely popular and ubiquitous success of an Anglican version from copies of the autographs, by the Crown of England.
This is what it took to get the super-resistant minions of the Bishop of Rome to answer the needs to communicate The Word in English culture's vernacular.
Just a minor but significant correction --
William Tyndall paid his life for translating the first complete printed English New Testament, as well as much of the Old Testament -- a precursor of the KJV/AV (about 85% of its NT, and about 75$ of the OT). The KJV, always before my eyes, is a translation of the first water. But it is far closer to the DRB than, say, the NIV or TEV.
Tyndall's NT and those of the Geneva, the Bishop's, and the AV Bibles, were largely based on the Greek compilation of MSS by Desiderius Erasmus, a great Catholic scholar rejected by his Church, for which content the term "Textus Receptus" (Received Text) was coined. His Romanist body found a home in Basel's Protestant cemetery. He was a remarkable warrior for both religious tolerance and doctrinal accuracy
I would also point out to you to a companion to the KJV, A Precise Translation -- The Gospels freely available from The Happy Heralds, Inc. It is a very good application of Greek grammar in center-column-noted syntax features, and has both a Translation Glossary of grammatical terms, as well as a Chronological Harmony of the Gospels.
The perigrinations of Jesus in his ministry is very detailed, and leads any time span from Gospel to Gospel, with almost minute-by-minute progress in His last hours before final Ascension.
Did you know that Peter's denials were in two separate time intervals, in groups of three each, for six denials? That is the detail to which the author's precision conforms. The Chronology is embedded throughout the pages, with every page dated in the heading.
"A Precise Translation" is slated to come out as a full New Testament in the near future. The translation is completed, but the issue format for printing is still in process.
So long for now --
stpio: Start reading the footnotes in the Douay-Rheims, they will help you. http://www.drbo.org I can’t speak Latin, a wonderful thing that we have the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. My dear mother could speak Latin. She never had difficulty with spelling, this was before spell check.
“Begging your pardon, but the Vulgate is NOT THE FIRST BIBLE. By Jerome, it is a reasonably fair translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanach and Koine Greek NT into Roman. The DRB is a translation into English, a SECOND-HAND warmed-over massage of the Latin, brought into being as a response to the extremely popular and ubiquitous success of an Anglican version from copies of the autographs, by the CROWN OF ENGLAND...
Just a minor but significant correction —
WILLIAM TYNDALL paid his life for translating the first complete printed English New Testament, as well as much of the Old Testament — a precursor of the KJV/AV (about 85% of its NT, and about 75$ of the OT). The KJV, always before my eyes, is a translation of the first water. But it is FAR CLOSER to the DRB than, say, the NIV or TEV”....
~ ~ ~
It’s impossible to reject all of Christian history and blinded to reject most of it.
“the Vulgate is not the first bible”...”second-hand”...
Name the first “Bible” then, state the first Bible, complete with the OT and NT books? Obvious, before Christianity came to be, there is the the OT Canon, God’s written revelation of the Old Covenant. Jesus spoke Aramaic, most of the original New Covenant writings were in Greek. It’s history, the divinely inspired original writings were first translated by someone.
The Vulgate is the Latin (the common language of time) translation of the original Hebrew and Greek writings translated by St. Jerome.
Remember, before the Latin Vulgate, someone, had to determine which of the original writings were divinely inspired. Who did this, William Tyndall, Martin Luther or another “reformer” who lived in the 16th century? No, by God’s authority given to him, the Holy Father decided, Pope Damasus determined the Canon in 382 A.D.
You accept Damasus’ choices for the NT and Luther’s OT choices, his mistaken tossing out of 7 books, rejecting the correct Jewish Canon, the Alexandrian Canon.
The denial of where the Bible came from (while at the same time, non-Catholic Christian’s only authority) is a mistake, you all go away from the Truth at the start.
Who notices you said “far closer”, how is that? The
Douay-Rheims Bible is a word for word translation of the 4th
century Latin Vulgate. I want to read in English, the closest to Our Lord’s words not changed heretical translations centuries later.
Be real, the “Crown of England” was an evil man who went against the Church because he wanted her approval to commit scandal, grave mortal sin. And his other scandal, King James was a sodomite. His group translated their version of the Bible, making changes to fit the new Protestant heresies. Why our discussions goes on and on, the differences are there for everyone to see.
Tyndall and his father were anti-Catholics too. His version of the Bible you praise, not good, the Bible is a Catholic book.