Newman Reader - Rheims & Douay Bible

{405} IN attempting to trace the history, and to ascertain the present state, of the text of the Rheims and Douay version of Holy Scripture, we cannot avoid availing ourselves of the elaborate work on the subject, recently published by a dignitary of the Irish Establishment. We mean Archdeacon Cotton's Attempt to show what has been done by Roman Catholics for the Diffusion of the Holy Scriptures in English, published at the Oxford University Press in 1855.

Not that it needs any apology for using the investigations of a learned Protestant, or for feeling grateful to him, so far as he has anticipated the necessity of researches of our own, by such minute, exact, and persevering diligence as he has taken in a subject-matter which could not be of any the slightest personal interest to himself. But, painful as it is to say it, in spite of his stating in his preface, that "the design of his book is not controversial but literary," he has made it the vehicle of so much incidental insinuation, sometimes unfair, sometimes ignorant, always ill-natured, to the disadvantage of Catholic ecclesiastics, that we are unable to regard him with that unmixed respect, {406} and to use him with that ready and unfaltering confidence, which would be natural in those who, like ourselves, have long known his claims, both as a gentleman and a scholar, on public estimation. Perhaps, however, it is well that he should have allowed his animus against the Catholic Church to appear so distinctly; otherwise, from admiration of the long and patient pains with which he has prosecuted an irksome labour, we might have been led to such full reliance on his statements as it is never right to place on any writer whatever, much less on one who, whatever his personal worth, is naturally open to the prejudices of his creed and party. As things stand, while we shall use him in the following pages, we are warned at the same time to verify his various statements, as far as may be, and where this cannot be done, not to adopt them without distinct reference to him as our authority. At the same time, in so difficult and intricate an inquiry, we have no right to anticipate that, whatever be our care, we shall succeed, whether we use him or not, in guarding against inaccuracies and errors of our own in matters of detail.

§ 1. Rheims and Douay Bible

The circumstances under which the existing Catholic translation of Holy Scripture was made are rendered familiar to us by Mr. Tierney's edition of Dod's History, not to refer to other authorities. The College or Seminary of Douay had been founded in 1568 by the exertions of Cardinal Allen, some time fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. A few years afterwards, its members were obliged, by {407} the political troubles of Flanders, to migrate for a time to France, and to establish themselves at Rheims. One of their first works in the service of their countrymen was an English version of Holy Scripture. The divines chiefly concerned in the translation of the New Testament were the aforesaid Dr. William Allen, afterwards Cardinal; Dr. Gregory Martin, of St. John's College, Oxford; Dr. Richard Bristow, of Christ Church and Exeter; and John Reynolds, of New College. Martin translated the text, and the rest revised; the Annotations were written by Bristow and Allen. Martin was also the translator of the Old Testament, the notes to which were written by Dr. Worthington, who, according to Dr. Cotton, eventually joined the Oratory. This, however, was not the case; for we find his name in Alegambe's Script. Soc. Jes. p. 438. He joined the Society "ætate jam grandævus," dying in 1626. Martin died of an illness, the consequence of his labours, in the very year in which his New Testament made its appearance.

The reasons which actuated them in their work are detailed in the Prefaces with which both Old and New Testaments are introduced to the reader. "Now since Luther's revolt also," says the preface to the New Testament, "diverse learned Catholics, for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sects, and for the better preservation or reclaim of many good souls endangered thereby, have published the Bible in the several languages of almost all the principal provinces of the Latin Church, no other books in the world being so pernicious as heretical translations {408} of the Scriptures, poisoning the people under colour of divine authority, and not many other remedies being more sovereign against the same (if it be used in order, discretion, and humility) than the true, faithful, and sincere interpretation opposed thereunto ... We, therefore, having compassion to see our beloved countrymen, with extreme danger of their souls, to use only such profane translations and erroneous men's mere fantasies, for the pure and blessed word of truth, much also moved thereunto by the desires of many devout persons, have set forth for you, benign readers, the New Testament to begin withal, trusting that it may give occasion to you, after diligent perusal thereof, to lay away at least such their impure versions as hitherto you have been forced to occupy."

The preface to the whole Bible speaks to the same effect: "Now since Luther and his followers have pretended that the Catholic Roman faith and doctrine should be contrary to God's written word, and that the Scriptures were not suffered in vulgar languages, lest the people should see the truth, and withal these new masters corruptly turning the Scriptures into diverse tongues, as might best serve their own opinions, against this false suggestion and practice, Catholic pastors have, for one especial remedy, set forth true and sincere translations in most languages of the Latin Church."

The translation was made, as we have noticed, soon after the establishment of the college; but, owing to a "lack of means," as the preface says, in their "poor estate in banishment," "to publish the whole in such {409} sort as a work of so great charge and importance" required, it "lay by them," the New Testament till 1582, the Old till 1609-10. At these dates the versions of the New and Old Testaments were respectively published in quarto; that of the New at Rheims, that of the Old at Douay, whither they returned in the course of the year. The Old Testament came to a second edition (quarto) in 1635, without alterations or corrections. The New Testament came to a second edition (quarto) in 1600, with some few alterations and corrections; to a third (16mo) in 1621; and to a fourth (quarto) in 1633. After these there was no new edition of either Old or New Testament for above a hundred years, when at length, in 1738, the fifth was published (folio) of the New Testament. In this reprint the spelling is modernised, and the text and annotations have a few verbal alterations, but in substance it is the edition of 1600 and 1633. A sixth edition of the New Testament (folio) was published fifty years afterwards (1788) at Liverpool, with the original preface and annotations, after the edition of 1738.

In 1816-1818 an edition, or editions, of the whole Bible were published in Ireland, in which, as regards the New Testament, the Rhemish text and annotations were mainly adopted. This edition was printed in different places, with duplicate sheets, and various cancels; and the Old Testament follows mainly, both in text and notes, Dr. Challoner's revision, which will be described lower down. This may be considered the seventh edition of the original Rhemish version of the New Testament.

An eighth edition, both text and notes, was published {410} in New York, in octavo, in 1834, by a Protestant party, which hoped to make use of it as a weapon in controversy against Catholics. It professes to be "exactly printed from the original volume."

Such is the history of the Rheims and Douay Bible, of which there have been two editions of the Old Testament, 1609-10 and 1635, and eight (including the New York Protestant reprint) of the New, 1582, 1600, 1621, 1633, 1738, 1788, 1816-1818, and 1834. This version comes to us on the authority of certain divines of the Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the University of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent indirect recognition of English, Scotch, and Irish bishops, and by its general reception by the faithful. It never has had any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it received any formal Approbation from the Holy See.

§ 2. Dr. Challoner's Bible

We now come to review the labours of Dr. Challoner, Vicar-Apostolic of the London district, in the middle of last century.

Before that time the need of a revision of the Rheims and Douay version had been felt and acknowledged. During the greater part of the seventeenth century, indeed, from 1635 till the first years of the eighteenth, the inconvenience was borne of necessity; for no reprint was, during that long time, called for; but when, at length, the old edition was exhausted and a new one required, then the latent dissatisfaction of Catholics with {411} the existing version showed itself, for two translations of the New Testament successively appeared in rivalry of the Rheims, and as substitutes for it. The former of these new translations was that of Dr. Cornelius Nary, in the year 1718; the latter, that of Dr. Witham of Douay. Of these two translators, Dr. Nary was parish-priest of St. Michan's, Dublin; and the version which he published had the approbation of four Irish divines, of Paris and of Dublin. The translator observes of "the Douay Bible and the Rheims Testament," that the "language is so old, the words so obsolete, the orthography so bad, and the translation so literal, that in a number of places it is unintelligible, and all over so grating to the ears of such as are accustomed to speak, in a manner, another language, that most people will not be at the pains of reading them."

An additional reason which Dr. Nary assigns for a new translation is the inconvenience of the folio or quarto size, in which the hitherto editions (excepting the third of the New Testament) had been published. "They are so bulky," he says, "that they cannot conveniently be carried about for public devotion; and so scarce and dear, that the generality of people neither have, nor can procure them for their private use."

Dr. Witham, the latter of these two translators, was president of Douay College in 1730. He too complains of the obscurity arising out of the literal renderings of the Douay translators. "They followed," he says, "with a nice exactness the Latin text, which they undertook to translate, at the same time always consulting and {412} comparing it with the Greek, as every accurate translator must do, not to mistake the true sense of the Latin text. They perhaps followed too scrupulously the Latin, even as to the placing of the words; but what makes that edition seem so obscure at present, and scarce intelligible, is the difference of the English tongue, as it was spoken at that time, and as it is now changed and refined; so that many words and expressions, both in the translation and annotations, by length of time are become obsolete, and no longer in use."

These two translations appeared in 1718 and 1730; and in 1738, as I have said above, in spite of them, a new edition of the Rheims was published, probably, says Dr. Cotton, in London. However, though they were superseded, the force of the considerations which led to their publication seems to have been felt, and resulted in the revision of the Rheims and Douay text by Dr. Challoner in 1749 and following years. That this pious prelate, to whom the English Church is so much indebted, concurred in the dissatisfaction which Nary and Witham felt with the text itself, is proved from the very fact of his altering it. That he recognised the justice of the complaint which they urged against the size which had been selected for the Rheims and Douay, may be argued from the circumstance, that he prints his own edition, not in folio or quarto, but in 12mo.

The first edition of Dr. Challoner's revision was published in 1749. It consisted of the New Testament only, and professed in the title-page to be "newly revised and corrected according to the Clementine edition {413} of the Scriptures" (the standard Vulgate). The approbation of two English divines is prefixed to the volume, but of no Bishop, which perhaps was unnecessary, considering he was a co-adjutor Bishop himself. In the next year, 1750, he published an edition of the whole Bible, including, therefore, a second edition of the New Testament. In 1752 he published a third edition of the New Testament; in 1763-4, a second edition of both Testaments, which included a fourth edition of the New. In 1752 he published a fifth edition of it; which was followed in 1777 by a sixth, according to Mr. C. Butler, and the last in the editor's lifetime; for he died of the shock caused him by Lord George Gordon's riots, and the trouble in which he was involved in consequence. This was in the beginning of 1781, when he was in his ninetieth year.

As to the alterations of text which he introduced, he has given us no preface or other notice which would serve as our informant of the principle, the source, or the extent of them. On an inspection of the text itself, we find them to be very considerable. We say so on a comparison, as regards the Old Testament, of the edition of 1750 with the Douay of 1635, in seven passages taken at random, viz. Gen. i. 1-10; Exod. xv. 1-10; Judges xiii. 1-10; 3 Kings xviii. 18-27; Job xxxviii. 30-39; Psalm cvi. 21-30; and Ezek. xxxiii. 1-10. In these passages, reckoning roughly, there are altogether 170 variations in 70 verses: 11 in the first passage, 20 in the second, 32 in the third, 35 in the fourth, 21 in the fifth, 25 in the sixth, and 26 in the seventh. The variation {414} in the number of alterations in the several passages, compared one with another, may partly be accounted for by the varying length of the verses of which they are composed, and partly from the greater or less difficulty of translating. The principle of the alterations seems to be, that of making the text more intelligible to the reader; and, with this object, old words and old collocations are superseded by modern, and less usual ones are exchanged for those which are more in use and even familiar.

Thus, for "God also said," Challoner corrects "And God said;" for "Be a firmament," "Let there be." "It was so," for "it was so done;" "Then Moses sung," for "Then sang Moses." For "song," "canticle;" for "to whom," "to her;" for "sicer," "strong drink." "I have not troubled," for "not I have troubled;" "call ye," for "invocate ye;" "fasten," for "compact;" "wilt," for "shalt," in the sense of simple futurity; "food," for "meat;" "give glory to," for "confess to;" "affliction," for "tribulation;" "indeed," for "certes;" "I will require his blood," for "his blood I will require;" "The word of the Lord came," for "was made;" "be converted," for "convert." There seems no desire to substitute Saxon words for Latin, for "set forth" is altered into "declare;" nor, perhaps, to approach the Protestant version, though there often is an approach, in fact, from the editor's desire to improve the English of his own text. Thus, for "between waters and waters," he writes "the waters from the waters;" for "named Manue," he has adopted "whose name was," {415} &c.; for "having a wife barren," "and his wife was barren;" for "the waters were quiet," "the waves were still;" for "were moved," "reeled;" for "if thou speak not that the impious may keep himself from sin," "if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way." On the other hand, there are instances in which he leaves both the Douay and Protestant versions, which agree together, for a rendering of his own. Thus for "terrible" he puts "awful;" for "fill the appetite," "satisfy the appetite;" for the inverted sentence "his blood will I require," "I will require his blood."

At the same time, it can scarcely be denied that, in these specimens of Dr. Challoner's edition, there do seem to be cases in which he adopts the Protestant version by preference. Thus, for "the gathering of waters together," he writes "the gathering together of the waters;" for "hastened," "made haste;" for "the house of thy father," "thy father's house;" for "if Baal, follow him," "if Baal, then follow him;" for "till mid-day;" "even till [until, Pr.] noon;" for "the depths have overwhelmed," "the depths have covered." And undoubtedly he has sacrificed force and vividness in some of his changes; as, for instance, in his dispensing with all inversions of words, as, "his blood will I require," as already quoted; in altering "the haven of their will" of the Douay into "the haven which they wished for;" "fill," into "satisfy;" "marvellous," into "wonderful;" "making traffic" into "doing business;" "the blast of the storm stood," in a poetical passage, into "there arose a storm of wind." It is observable that for "our Lord" {416} (as in "the commandments of our Lord," "if our Lord be God," "the word of our Lord came," &c.) he uses "the Lord" passim.

So much of particular passages:—Looking at Dr. Challoner's labours on the Old Testament as a whole, we may pronounce that they issue in little short of a new translation. They can as little be said to be made on the basis of the Douay as on the basis of the Protestant version. Of course there must be a certain resemblance between any two Catholic versions whatever, because they are both translations of the same Vulgate; but, this connection between the Douay and Challoner being allowed for, Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction. We will take Psalm lii. as an example, selected at hazard; and we will go through it in the three versions, member by member, denoting the three by the initials of Douay, Protestant, and Challoner respectively.

to see if there be that understandeth. D. to see if there were any that did understand. P. C. {417}

Now, on this collation we observe: 1. That there is (with one exception) no instance of difference between the Douay and Protestant in which Challoner leaves the Douay but he leaves it for the Protestant. The exception {418} is in v. 4, where, for the Douay "declined," he does not substitute the Protestant "gone back," but "gone aside."

2. Next, we observe that, of the nine instances in which Challoner sides with the Douay against the Protestant, eight are cases of mere construction of the Latin Vulgate, not of diction, viz. "become abominable in," v. 2, "or," v. 3, "all," v. 4, "unprofitable," ibid. "shall not ... know," v. 5, "trembled," v. 6, "please men," ibid., and "who will give," v. 7. Such fidelity to the Douay was a simple matter of duty.

3. Subtracting these from the nine cases in which Challoner sides with the Douay against the Protestant, we have only one remaining in which he does so freely and by his own choice, viz. "confounded" for "put to shame," v. 6.

4. It is true there are other cases in which Challoner abstains from the Protestant, but in these the Protestant agrees with the Douay. There are three of these, that is to say, three instances of the Douay siding with the Protestant against Challoner; and thus there are more instances of the Douay siding with the Protestant than of Challoner siding with the Douay.

5. On the other hand, there are eleven instances in which Challoner leaves the Douay for the Protestant.

We really cannot say whether this Psalm supplies a fair instance of the general character of Challoner's Old Testament, though we have taken it at random; but, after all allowances for the accident of the selection, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, that at this day the {419} Douay Old Testament no longer exists as a received version of the authorized Vulgate.

So much as to the Old Testament; as to the New, we are not in possession of Dr. Challoner's first edition (1749), but we have compared with the Rheims of 1738 (which is the edition of the New Testament immediately before his own) his third edition of 1752, correcting it back into the text of his first, by means of the collations between the editions of 1749 and 1752, which Dr. Cotton has made. We have made the comparison in three places, taken at random—Luke viii. 1-10; John xiii. 6-15; and Heb. iv. 1-10.

In the first of these three passages there are about twenty-two corrections of the Rheims; of these fifteen are adoptions of the Protestant version, and seven alter the Rheims, yet differ from the Protestant.

In the second passage, John xiii. 6-15, there are but seven corrections of text; of these, at least six are made in accordance with the Protestant version, and one of these is even an insertion of a word, not in the Vulgate, which the Protestant inserts. As these changes are remarkable, we cite them. They are, "what I do," for "that which I do;" "but thou shalt know hereafter," for "hereafter thou shalt know;" "Thou shalt never wash my feet," for "Thou shalt not wash my feet for ever;" "for so I am," instead of "for I am so;" "your Lord and Master," for "Lord and Master;" "you also ought," for "you ought."

As regards the third passage, instead of a collation throughout, we will set down a few verses as a specimen: {420}

A comparison of these verses again suggests to us some of the rules which Dr. Challoner kept in view in approximating, or not approximating, to the Protestant {421} version. As we have said, he could not be unfaithful to the Vulgate: he never would leave its literal sense for the Protestant text, which, on the other hand, is translated from the Greek. Hence, in the contrast of the Greek [dokei tis] and the Latin existimetur aliquis, he keeps to the Rheims; and in like manner, in [husterekenai] as contrasted with deesse, and in [kaitoi genethenton] with et quidem operibus perfectis. It is remarkable, however, that in one case, where the Rheims is with the Greek, he leaves it for the Protestant, which is not faithful to the Greek, viz. [eis ten katapausin], in requiem. In one case he modifies the interpretation which the Rheims gives of the Vulgate by the Protestant, relictâ pollicitatione. Again, one object with him was to popularise the style; hence he puts unbelief for incredulity. Hence he alters the we that have of the Rheims, not to the we which have of the Protestant, but into we who have. Hence, too, he retains the enter into it of the Rheims, where the Protestant has enter therein; and the did not enter of the Rheims, where the Protestant translates entered not. Yet he is not always consistent: herein or therein occurs elsewhere in his revision; and unto for to very frequently. Vide also Cotton, note t, p. 49. In John vi. 53 he has altered the "Unless ye eat" of the Rheims into the less accurate or obsolete Protestant rendering, "Except ye eat." Vide also John iii. 3.

We have already implied that Dr. Challoner made corrections of his own editions of the New Testament as they successively issued from the press. The second edition (1750) differs from the first, according to the collations {422} which Dr. Cotton has printed, in about 124 passages; the third (1752) in more than 2000. These alterations, Dr. Cotton tells us, are all in the direction of the Protestant version; how far this is the case, and in what sense, the above examination of particular texts may serve to explain.

Challoner's text was the first which was published with an episcopal sanction; for it must be borne in mind that he was a Bishop, and the coadjutor of the Vicar-Apostolic of London, at the time of his first edition.

§ 3. Dr. Troy's Bible

Dr. Challoner died in 1781; while he lived, no editions were published but such as followed his Revision. A few years, however, after his death, as we have noticed above, there was a return to the original Rheims of the New Testament, which was published in a sixth edition at Liverpool in 1788. But this had been preceded by an edition at Dublin which, as being the first of a series of editions of the New Testament upon a new revision of the Rheims version, requires some distinct notice. It was made on the basis of Dr. Challoner's, but still with considerable changes of text. The revisor was the Rev. Bernard Macmahon, a Dublin priest, who published his first edition in 1783, in 12mo, with the formal approbation of his Archbishop, Dr. Carpenter. There is reason for supposing that it professed to be a continuation of Dr. Challoner's labours; for, as that venerable prelate published successively three corrected editions of the New {423} Testament, in 1749, 1750, and 1752 (for the subsequent editions are not new corrections, but almost fac-similes of the preceding: vide Cotton, p. 20, &c.), so this new Dublin edition is called, in the Archbishop's approbation prefixed to it, "the fourth edition, revised and corrected anew." This is Dr. Cotton's conjecture also, though he accompanies it, as is not unusual with him, with a gratuitous piece of ill-nature. If the "fourth" does not mean this, it is difficult to say to what previous edition it refers; for, at the time that it was published, there had been already five editions of the Rheims. Leaving this point, we are told by Dr. Cotton that the variations from Challoner's text, in the Gospels, are about 50; in the Acts and subsequent books, above 500. Eight years afterwards, in 1791, the same clergyman was selected by Dr. Troy, his then Archbishop, to superintend an edition of the whole Bible in quarto; and on this occasion, according to the same authority, he introduced into the New Testament above 200 changes more, calling it the "fifth edition." In 1794 it was reprinted in folio, forming "the sixth;" a "seventh edition" of the New Testament was published in 12mo in 1803, with above 100 variations from the text of 1791, in favour of that of 1783; and an "eighth" in 1810, in 12mo also, after the text of the seventh.

Thus we have five editions of the revision of Mr. Macmahon, with the titles of fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth. Of these the editions of 1783, 1803, and 1810 are of the New Testament only; those of 1791 and 1794 of the whole Bible. The text has also been adopted {424} in the Philadelphian edition of the Bible in 1805, which styles itself "the first American from the fifth Dublin edition."

If we are to follow Dr. Cotton, we ought to notice it as a peculiarity of this revision, that, whereas Dr. Challoner's alterations were in the direction of the Protestant version, those of Mr. Macmahon (or of his successors in the editorship) were in the opposite direction. We should not have been surprised at this being the case, without imputing to the English Bishop any wish to favour that version, or in the Irish priest a wish to protest against it. From the respective circumstances of the two countries, it has come about, as we are informed by those who ought to know, that the English language in Ireland has, in its diction and construction, more of a French or Latin character than in England. If this be so, the idioms and words, which each revisor would consider to be an improvement on the Rheims, might in one case approximate to the Protestant text, in the other recede from it. However, we are not sure of the accuracy of Dr. Cotton's alleged fact, nor of the actual operation, in this instance, of the principle to which we have referred it. We doubt whether Macmahon's alterations have a foreign cast, and we doubt whether he is further from the Protestant version than Dr. Challoner.

As to the character of his alterations, as regards the New Testament, they are sometimes more colloquial than Challoner's, and sometimes not so English, without being foreign. Thus, the Rheims and Challoner speak of {425} "the multitude," and the Protestant of "the people," being "put forth," when Mr. Macmahon speaks of "the crowd" being "turned out" (Matt. ix. 25). Where the Rheims translates "it shall break him to powder," and the Protestant and Challoner, "it will grind him to powder," Mr. Macmahon writes, "it will dash him to pieces" (Luke xx. 18). Where the Rheims has "they were in doubt of them, what would befall," Challoner, "they were in doubt concerning them, what would come to pass," and the Protestant, "they doubted of them, whereunto this would grow," Mr. Macmahon has adopted, "they were in doubt what was become of them" (Acts v. 24). The "Barnabas would have taken with them John" of the Rheims, "Barnabas would have taken with him John" of Challoner, "Barnabas determined to take with them John" of the Protestant, is rendered by Mr. Macmahon, "Barnabas had a mind to take along with him John" (Acts xv. 37). And for "that which is the foolish of God" according to the Rheims, and "the foolishness of God" of the Protestant and Challoner, Mr. Macmahon substitutes "that which appeareth foolish of God."

We could not, then, account for the fact, supposing it to hold, that Mr. Macmahon receded from the Protestant approximationsof Challoner's text, by his supposed preference of an English style less vernacular than what is in use among ourselves. However, we are not sure that the fact is as Dr. Cotton represents it. He says, "Of the passages rendered differently from Challoner, many recede much farther from the authorized version {426} than he (Dr. Challoner) did" (p. 55). We do not set our own diligence or accuracy in competition with Dr. Cotton's, still we do but state a fact when we say that our own experiments at collating the two revisions do not bear out the impression which his words convey. The edition, indeed, of the New Testament of 1783 hardly exists, and is unknown to us; but Dr. Troy's edition of 1794, which we have used, "follows," says Dr. Cotton (p. 77), "the quarto Bible of 1791 exactly," the text of which "is the text of Mr. Macmahon's Testament of 1783, with upwards of two hundred additional departures from Challoner" (p. 58). With this New Testament, then, of 1794 we have compared Dr. Challoner's of 1752, and the Rheims of 1621, with the following result.

In twenty specimens, taken at random, we found that, while in ten of them Dr. Challoner had left the Rheims for the Protestant, and in six Mr. Macmahon (or his editorial successor) had returned from Dr. Challoner's to the Rheims; on the other hand, in four, in which Dr. C. had retained the Rheims, Mr. Macmahon had adopted the Protestant; that is, on the whole, that out of twenty instances of variation, Dr. Challoner and Mr. Macmahon had left the Rheims for the Protestant in the same four; that Dr. Challoner had adopted altogether ten Protestant renderings, and Mr. Macmahon eight; that Dr. C. had kept the Rheims where Mr. M. had adopted the Protestant in four, and that Mr. M. had kept the Rheims where Dr. C. had adopted the Protestant in six.

Again, taking Hebrews xiii. and collating the three {427} texts of 1621, 1752, and 1794 with the Protestant version, we find Challoner and Macmahon have eleven differences from each other; in two Challoner leaves the Rheims for the Protestant, where Macmahon retains it, viz. in the position, &c. of words in vv. 7 and 11; in four Macmahon leaves the Rheims for the Protestant, where Challoner retains it, viz. "carried," 9; "now the God," &c. 20, 21; "working," 21; and "few," 22. In three C. retains and M. leaves both Rheims and Protestant, where the latter two agree together; and in two M. retains the Rheims and C. leaves it, though not for the Protestant.

Again, in James i. there are nine differences between Challoner and Macmahon; in which C. retains three of the Rheims, which M. changes, and C. changes into the Protestant five of the Rheims, which M. retains. In the ninth all four renderings are different from each other.

Again, in St. Jude's Epistle, 1-10, out of Macmahon's twenty-six alterations of the Rheims, twenty-four are from Challoner; but in the other two Challoner retains the Rheims, which Macmahon leaves for the Protestant.

And in 2 Ep. St. John, out of Macmahon's eighteen alterations from the Rheims, fifteen are from Challoner, and three are made where C. follows the Rheims.

On the whole, then, we are not able to corroborate Dr. Cotton's remark as to Mr. McMahon's dissatisfaction, greater or less, with the Protestant leaning of Dr. Challoner's revision of the Rheims, though it is a real perplexity to us that we should differ from {428} him. So much as regards the New Testament. As regards the Douay translation of the Old, there seems to be very little difference between the texts of Dr. Challoner and Mr. Macmahon. We have collated seven chapters taken at random: Numb. xxiv., Deuter. i., Esther v., Psalm lxxviii., Ecclus. v., Isai. xv. and Abdias. In four of these there is not a single difference between Dr. C. and Mr. M. In Deut. i. the only difference is C.'s "unto" for M.'s "to," in verse 3. In Psalm lxxviii., the last words "unto all generations," which C. adopts after the Protestant, instead of the "unto generation and generation" of the Douay, which M. retains. In Abdias the only difference is C.'s "speak proudly" after the Protestant, where M. retains the "magnify thy mouth" of the Douay. That is, in one hundred and forty-six verses there are only three, or rather two, differences; in these Macmahon returns to the Douay, which Challoner had left for the Protestant. These collations bear out, as far as they go, Dr. Cotton's remark that "the text of this edition (the Dublin) so far as concerns the Old Testament, does not differ materially from that of Dr. Challoner's" (p. 58).

This series of editions, commenced by Mr. Macmahon's New Testament, and extending from 1783 to 1810, may be fitly called Dr. Troy's Bible, from the Approbation which he gave to it in 1791. As that Approbation sums up the history of the version hitherto, and connects his own revision with that of Dr. Challoner, a portion of it shall be given here. "By our authority," the Archbishop {429} says in Latin, "we approve this new English edition of the Holy Bible, … which has by our order been carefully collated by the Rev. Bernard Macmahon with the Clementine Vulgate, also with the Douay Old Testament of 1609, and the Rheims New Testament of 1582, and with the London Old and New Testament of 1752, approved English versions."

§ 4. Editions since Dr. Troy's Bible

Challoner's revision is the first and the last to which the Douay version of the Old Testament has been subjected; the text remains almost verbatim as he left it. What qualifications must be made of this statement, on the score of certain passages in Dr. Troy's Bible, shall be considered when we speak of the now current editions. The same, however, cannot be said of Challoner's New Testament, and for this reason, if for no other, that the texts of his own editions vary from each other; and, moreover, as he was not the author of all the changes introduced into the later editions (for Mr. C. Butler tells us, "alterations were made in every" edition, "to his dissatisfaction," Cotton, p. 50), it is not wonderful that the tendency to fresh changes, which was powerful enough even in his lifetime to introduce itself, in spite of his wishes, into his own work, should have had actual results after his death. Dr. Troy's (i.e. Macmahon's) emendations have already been spoken of. Subsequent editors have had to choose between this or that of Challoner's three texts of the New Testament, and Dr. Troy's text; and, as might have been {430} expected, they have chosen variously. The principal of these editions shall now be enumerated.

1. In 1761 an edition of the whole Bible was printed in Edinburgh, 5 volumes, 12mo, under the inspection of Dr. Hay, one of the Vicars-Apostolic in Scotland, so well known by his publications. We introduce Dr. Hay's name on Dr. Cotton's authority, as we do not find it in our own copy, which is of the second edition [Note].

2. In 1804-5 "the same printer (Mr. John Moir) issued a reimpression." About 3000 and 2000 copies were struck off of these two editions.

3. In 1811 a great number of unsold copies were published in Dublin with new title-pages, some engravings, and a long list of subscribers, with the imprint, "Dublin, 1811." This may be called the third edition.

4. In the same year an actual reprint of the New Testament was published by the same Dublin publisher. It also has a list of subscribers; among whom are Dr. Troy, Dr. Murray, &c.

6. And in 1817, it probably supplied the text to the 12mo edition printed at Belfast.

Of the text of Dr. Hay's New Testament (for, as we {431} have said, the text of the Old Testament has not substantially varied since Challoner's time), Dr. Cotton says: "It in general follows Challoner's edition of 1763-4; but occasionally it deserts that edition for the first, of 1749, as in Matt. i. 25, iii. 13, iv. 9, v. 37, vi. 16, viii. 17, x. 22, xxi. 40; Acts v. 38; Eph. i. 21, and some other places. In a few passages, it agrees with Dr. Troy's Bible of 1791, as at Matt. ii. 23, iv. 9; Gal. vi. 9, &c." (p. 77).

1. In 1816-17, an edition of the Bible was published at Liverpool, in folio. It bore "on the title page that it was published with his (Dr. Gibson's) sanction" (p. 110).

3. In 1829, a third was published in London also, and in folio, and "very handsomely executed." It was put forth under the sanction of Dr. Bramston, then Vicar Apostolic, and calls itself "the third edition" (ibid.).

It is not certain that these three editions belong to each other, though the printers and publishers of all three, and the approving Bishop of the first two, are the same, and though the last two distinctly call themselves "the second and third" respectively, if we understand Dr. Cotton (pp. 110, 127). Our reason for this remark is, that the second edition is said to be "revised and corrected" by two Liverpool clergymen, and that the third edition has not the same episcopal sanction as the first two.

As to the text of the New Testament, Dr. Cotton tells {432} us that, in the edition of 1816-17, it is "taken almost without exception from Challoner's later edition;" in the third it "appears to agree with that of Dr. Challoner in 1763-4." These statements coincide.

1. 1815;—A New Testament was published in two sizes, "12mo and a handsome 8vo" (p. 99). It professes in the title-page to be "stereotyped from the edition published by authority in 1749," that is, from Challoner's first. It has a preliminary "Address," anonymous, but according to Mr. C. Butler, written by Dr. Poynter. "The superintendence of this edition," says Dr. Cotton, "was confided to the care of the Rev. Dr. Rigby, afterwards Vicar-Apostolic of the London District ... The text," he continues, "as was above stated, agrees with that of the edition of 1749. I have only detected a single slight variation, viz. at Phil. ii. 7." The reading of Dr. Poynter's edition, in this place, is "debased himself," taken from Challoner's text of 1752; for the reading in those of 1749 and 1750 is "emptied himself."

2. In 1818, a new edition of this New Testament was prepared by the Rev. Mr. Horrabin, under the sanction of Dr. Poynter. It was in 12mo, and was sold at a low price for the use of the poorer class.

3. In 1823, the stereotype plates of the edition of 1815 were used for an edition published by Mr. Bagster, which is still in circulation. {433}

4. 1825. A fresh edition of Dr. Poynter's New Testament, in 8vo. Dr. Cotton tells us that it follows the edition of 1815 "both in text and notes, with exception of reading 'debased' instead of 'emptied' at Phil. ii. 7." This perplexes us; for Dr. Poynter's edition of 1815, and Bagster's from the same plates, in 1823, both of which lie before us, both read "debased" already. We have not the means of comparing the edition of 1825 with them.

5. 1826. A new stereotyped edition of Dr. Poynter's New Testament, in 12mo. It was published at Dublin, at the expense of the Commissioners of Irish Education, with the imprimatur of the four Archbishops of Ireland.

7. 1842. The edition of 1825 was "reissued with a new title-page and a new printer's name" (p. 123).

1. 1820. This edition is quite distinct from the series of editions on which we have enlarged as Mr. Macmahon's revision. It is quite distinct, too, from Dr. Troy's Bible of 1816-18, which, as regards its New Testament, we have mentioned above (p. 409), as being a reprint, Text and Notes, of the Rhemish. It is remarkable for having no notes at all appended to the verses or chapters. The whole sacred text stands absolutely by itself, a supplement being added with the usual notes, which might or might not, according to the purchaser's pleasure, be bound up with it. Of this edition 20,000 copies were struck off. Dr. Troy, {434} in his Approbation, speaks of it as "conformable particularly to the text of the Douay English version sanctioned by him, and published in 1791;" however, Dr. Cotton tells us that "the text is taken literally from that of Dr. Challoner's second edition, 1750, and is," as he believes, "the first, if not the only, modern representation of that particular text" (p. 120).

1. 1825. This edition is in 8vo, stereotyped, and its plates are still in use. There have been fresh impressions of it from time to time, in 1829, 33, 40, 44, 47, &c.

As to the text of the New Testament, "it rather follows Dr. Challoner's early editions of 1749 and 1750" (Cotton, p. 124). He adds, "The Bible appears to have given great satisfaction to the Roman Catholic public, and to have been made a sort of standard or exemplar for some editions since issued both in Great Britain and Ireland."

2. 1883-36. The Glasgow Bible, 8vo, published with the Approbation of the Vicars-Apostolic of England and Scotland.

3. 1838. Dr. Blake's New Testament, 8vo, Newry, appears to adopt "the text of Dr. Murray, agreeing with the early editions of Challoner" (p. 140.) It was reprinted at Belfast, 1846-7.

4. 1838. Dr. Denvir's series of reprints at Belfast of {435} the New Testament begin apparently in 1836; Dr. Cotton sets down one under the date of 1837. Subsequent reprints, or fresh issues, are dated 1839, 41, 43, 45, and nearly every successive year; and the whole Bible in 1839, 47, &c. In another issue of Bibles his name appears in conjunction with Dr. Crolly's, in 1846, and 52.

The text of the New Testament in these editions, at least in that of 1839, "appears to agree with Dr. Murray's edition of 1825" (p. 146). We have collated Dr. Murray's text of 1825 with Dr. Denvir's of 1853, in Rom. xiii. There is a variation in verse 11, viz. "time" in edition 1853 for "season" in edition 1825. "Time" stands in Troy's edition, 1794; but the text is certainly not Troy's, from whose text in the same chapter it has the following variations: "princes" for "rulers," v. 3; "God's minister" for "minister of God," twice in v. 4; "to love" for "that you love," v. 8; and "our neighbour" for "the neighbour," v. 10.

5. 1840. At Philadelphia, U.S., a New Testament, apparently a reprint of Dr. Murray's text of 1825, with the approbation of Archbishops Kenrick and Hughes.

6. 1846. Dr. MacHale's New Testament. "Both the text and notes seem to agree with Dr. Murray's Bible published in 1825" (Cotton, p. 148).

1847. This edition is printed in 8vo by Messrs. Richardson, London and Derby. It has the approbation of Dr. Walsh, Vicar-Apostolic, and Dr. Wiseman, his coadjutor. {436} The text seems to follow Dr. Troy's of 1791, or of 1803, which inclines to Mr. Macmahon's original edition of 1783. This seems to be Dr. Cotton's account, vide pp. 78, 149. Out of twenty-seven instances of variation of text taken at random, we find none to side with Challoner against Troy, twenty-six side with Troy against Challoner, and in one the reading is without precedent, viz. in 1 John iv. 2: "Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ to come in the flesh is of God."

We must not conclude this enumeration of revisions and reprints of the Rheims and Douay, without giving some account of two rival folio editions, which were published (or rather sold to subscribers in parts) without direct episcopal sanction, though one of them has since risen into great reputation, and has received, first the approbation of the Vicars-Apostolic of Scotland, and of various Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, and lately that of the Archbishop of New York, where it has been republished, together with the recommendation of a great number of North American Bishops, in letters prefixed to the edition, as well as that of our own Cardinal Archbishop and of the late Archbishop of Milan. This is Haydock's Bible, originally published at Manchester and Dublin in 1811-12 and 1814; its rival being that of Oswald Syers, published at Manchester in 1811-13. Mr. Haydock and Mr. Syers, the respective publishers, were printers; but the editor and annotator employed by the former was his own brother, who was a priest, the Rev. George Haydock, to whom the edition owes its celebrity. {437}

1811-13. The Bible "bears no approbation of any living ecclesiastical authority; nor any preface or other introductory matter to explain the principle adopted in this edition, or the sources from which the annotations are derived" (Cotton, p. 91). With the annotations we are not here concerned; "the text," he continues, "appears rather to agree with that of Dr. Challoner, and in the New Testament it rather follows his early editions, 1749 and 1750, than his later ones, 1752, &c." We do not think it very necessary to go to any great pains in verifying what Dr. Cotton has so diligently examined. In Phil. ii. 7, this edition follows Challoner's later edition of 1752; otherwise our collations, as far as they have gone, lead us to agree with Dr. Cotton.

1. 1811-12 and 1814, fol. The characteristic of this edition is its series of new and copious Annotations. As to the text, the editor professes in his advertisement his intention to "adhere to the text of the Venerable and Right Rev. Dr. Richard Challoner;" on which Dr. Cotton remarks, "it is not exactly true that Dr. Challoner's text is followed universally" (p. 87). As regards the New Testament, the justice of Dr. Cotton's remark will be plain on a very superficial examination, however the {438} fact is to be accounted for. Out of twenty instances taken at hazard, we found Haydock's text to agree with Dr. Troy's of 1794, as against any of Challoner's texts, in eighteen; to agree with Challoner against Troy in one; and in one to differ from both.

2. 1822-24. In 1822 "an 8vo edition of Haydock's Bible with short notes was issued in Dublin; and two years later, a new title-page was prefixed to it with the date 1824, calling itself 'the second edition.' The book is very carelessly printed, and full of errors. The text of the New Testament seems to have been taken from Dr. Troy's Bible of 1791 and 1794" (Cotton, p. 123).

3. 1845-48. "A republication of Haydock's Bible at Edinburgh and London, with all its notes, in a handsome quarto form" (ibid. p. 149), with the approbation of the Vicars-Apostolic of Scotland, with their coadjutors, of the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, and of the Bishops of Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick. This edition was printed from Haydock's earliest impressions of his Bible in 1811, as Dr. Cotton tells us, verbum verbo, in consequence of the wish expressed by Dr. Scott, one of the Scotch Vicars-Apostolic.

4. 1852-56. This splendid edition, which is published by Messrs. Dunigan of New York, in quarto, is introduced to the public by those many high approbations and recommendations to which we have already referred. Dr. Cotton says that "it appears to have been copied from Haydock's first impression of 1811." We do not know how to follow him in this conclusion; but we have not been able to find any information on the subject in the edition itself. Our {439} reason for questioning Dr. Cotton's belief is, that, on taking twenty instances of text at hazard in the editions of 1811-14 and of 1852-56, we found the latter to differ from the former in seven, of which four are altered back to Challoner's editions, one agrees with Cardinal Wiseman's, and two with no edition with which we are acquainted.

5. 1853. This edition in quarto, with Haydock's notes abridged, is due to the Very Rev. Dr. Husenbeth, who undertook it, as he informs us, "with the approbation and sanction of his ecclesiastical superior, the Right Rev. Dr. Wareing, and with the concurrent approbation and sanction of all the Right Rev. Vicars-Apostolic of Great Britain." Approbations from the Vicars- Apostolic of England and Scotland follow.

§ 5. Current Editions

We may fitly sum up this account of public and authorised editions of the Catholic English Bible with a notice of its existing texts and their relation to the text of the original Rheims and Douay. We conceive these texts may be represented by the editions of Cardinal Wiseman in England, and of Dr. Murray and Dr. Denvir in Ireland, to which may be added Mr. Haydock's in the United States, till the learned Archbishop of Baltimore completes the laborious work to which he has so long devoted himself.

As to the Old Testament, as we have already said, there {440} have been no material alterations in its text since the revision or retranslation executed by Dr. Challoner. (1) Dr. Hay's text exactly follows Dr. Challoner's edition of 1763-4. So says Dr. Cotton, p. 77; and we can corroborate him as far as this, that, on comparing Challoner's 1750 with Hay's, we find that, all through the four volumes of the Old Testament, page answers faithfully to page: e.g. there are 507 pages in each first volume, ending with Ruth; 487 in the second, ending with Esther; and so on. So again, p. 300, vol. iii., ends with Eccles. iv. 9, in both; p. 400 in vol. iv. ends with Mal. iii. 9, in both, &c. (2) Again, Dr. Gibson's text "is taken from Bishop Challoner" (ibid. p. 110). (3) Of Syers's, the same authority says that "the text appears to agree with that of Dr. Challoner." We have collated it with Dr. Challoner's of 1750, in Eccles. x. and Isai. i., and find, as he would lead us to expect, not a single difference of reading between them. (4) Lastly, as to Dr. Troy's Bibles of 1791 and 1816. Speaking of the former of these, Dr. Cotton says: "I have observed a few variations [from Dr. Challoner] in several of the books, as in Dan. ii.," &c., p. 58. In these instances the text of 1791 is followed by that of 1816, which "generally follows Dr. Challoner, but occasionally differs, as in Neh. [2 Esdr.] ix. 17, Job xxvi. 13, Isai. viii. 19, Ezech. xix. 5," p.115. Considering, then, Dr. Troy is followed by the editions of Haydock, Dr. Murray, Dr. Denvir, and Cardinal Wiseman, pp. 124, 146, 149, which we have taken to represent the current text or texts of the day, we are safe in saying, first, that Challoner's revision has been hitherto a final {441} one; next that there is at present, as regards the Old Testament, one, and only one, received text, or very nearly so.

In verification of Dr. Cotton's statements, we have compared together the text of five passages in the Old Testament, taken at random in five editions: viz. in Dr. Challoner's of 1750, and in the current editions of 1847, Richardsons, London (Cardinal Wiseman's); of 1853, Dolman, London (Dr. Denvir's); of 1854, Duffy, Dublin (Dr. Murray's); and of 1856, Dunigan, New York (Haydock's); with the following results:—

1. 4 Kings xx. 1-11. They all agree verbatim, except that in v. 8, Haydock, instead of "What shall be the sign that I shall go up to the temple," reads, "What is the sign that I will go up." This is correctly printed after Haydock's text of 1811. Again, in v. 11, where the other four read "in the dial," Haydock, 1856 (after the edition of 1811), reads "on the dial."

2. Job xiii. 1-10. Where Challoner has changed the Douay "or shall it please him," v. 9, into "shall this," the four current editions have gone back to "it."

3. Psalm x. For "the Psalm of David" of the Douay 1635, Challoner reads "a Psalm for David." He is followed by Cardinal Wiseman, Dr. Murray, and Dr. Denvir; but Haydock (after ed. 1811) substitutes "a Psalm to David."

4. Psalm lxvii. 12-21. For Challoner's "amongst," v. 14, the four current editions read "among." For the "Sina," v.18, of Douay, Challoner, Cardinal Wiseman, {442} Dr. Murray, and Dr. Denvir, Haydock (after ed. 1811) reads "Sinai."

5. Isai. xxviii. 20-29. For "the mountain of divisions," v. 21, of Challoner, Murray, Dr. Denvir, and Haydock, Cardinal Wiseman reads "division." In v. 21 Murray, apparently by an error of press, leaves out "that he may do his work, his strange work." The same edition and Dr. Denvir's read "thrash," where the others read "thresh."

These are all the variations which we have discovered between Dr. Challoner and the four modern editions, in the passages in question. On the other hand, if we would see the concordant divergence of all five from the old Douay of 1635, we may take the following instances out of the same passages:—

1. Where the four editions all read, "In the Lord I put my trust, how then do you say to my soul, Get thee away from hence to the mountain like a sparrow?" in the Douay we find, "I trust in the Lord, How say ye to my soul, Pass over unto the mountain as a sparrow?"

2. Where the four editions read, "For they have destroyed the things which thou hast made; but what has the just man done?" the Douay has, "For they have destroyed the things which thou didst perfect; but the just, what hath he done?"

3. Where the four editions read, "The Lord shall give the word to them that preach good tidings with great power; the king of powers is of the beloved, of the beloved, and the beauty of the house shall divide spoils;" the Douay runs, "Our Lord shall give the word to them that {443} evangelize with great power; the king of hosts, the beloved of the beloved, and to the beauty of the house to divide the spoils."

4. And where the four editions read, "And now do not mock, lest your bonds be tied strait, for I have heard of the Lord, the God of hosts, a consumption and a cutting short upon all the earth. Give ear and hear my voice, hearken and hear my speech;" the Douay reads, "And now mock not, lest perhaps your bonds be tied strait; for I have heard of our Lord, the God of hosts, consummation and abridgment upon all the earth. Hearken with your ears, and hear my voice; attend, and hear my speech."

Now, lastly, we come to the current editions of the New Testament. Of the four current editions which we have been using, Dr. Cotton has given us, as we have said above, the following account: that Dr. Murray's text rather follows Dr. Challoner's early editions of 1749-50; that Dr. Denvir's agrees with Dr. Murray's; that Cardinal Wiseman's seems to follow Dr. Troy's of 1791 or 1803 and Haydock's; and that Haydock, professing to follow Challoner, does not always do so.

We have thought it sufficient, in corroboration, to take at hazard two passages, 1 Thess. iii. 1-5 and Apoc. xvi. 1-6. On collating together the text of these in the four current editions of 1847, 1853, 1854, 1856, we find altogether twelve variations between them; one in the {444} passage of the Thessalonians, eleven in that of the Apocalypse. And we are able to trace them all to one or other of Challoner's editions of 1749, 1750, 1752, and of Troy's of 1791, 1794, except three of 1856 (Haydock's, New York). We shall show this best by throwing the variations into a tabular form.

Var.	Murray, 1854, follows.	Denvir, 1853, follows.	Wiseman, 1847, follows.	Haydock, 1856, follows.
1	Challoner.	Troy, 1794.	T. 1794.	T. 1794.
2	C. 1749.	C. 1749.	C. 1752.	C. 1752.
3	C. 1749.	C. 1749.	C. 1752.	C. 1752.
4	C.	C.	T.	T.
5	C.	C.	T.	T.
6	C.	C.	T.	T.
7	C.	C.	T. 1794.	T. 1794.
8	C.	C.	T. 1794.	?
9	C.	C.	T. 1791.	?
10	C. 1749.	C. 1749.	C. 1752.	C. 1752.
11	C.	C.	T.	T.
12	C.	C.	T. 1794.	?

It appears from this analysis, as far as it is a fair specimen of the respective texts, that Dr. Murray and Dr. Denvir follow Challoner's early editions, and that Cardinal Wiseman and Mr. Haydock follow his later editions and Dr. Troy's; and this is pretty much what Dr. Cotton has said. As to the three readings, which are referable to no former edition, of which we are possessed, these all occur in no other of the four current editions besides the New York Haydock, and, what is remarkable, they do not occur in the Haydock of 1811-14, which follows in all three passages Dr. Troy's edition of 1794. The probability {445} is, that the New York editor has fairly used the same liberty of alteration which has been exercised by other editors before him.

We here close our sketch of the history of the received version, from the date of the Rheims and Douay translators to the present day. The versions of the New Testament, or portions of the Old or New, which have at various times been given to the world by divines and scholars,—such as Mr. Nary, Dr. Witham, and of late years by Dr. Lingard and the Archbishop of Baltimore,—also the Annotations which have accompanied the various editions, demand a separate consideration.

Note

It appears from a private letter of the date of 1792, which has been shown me by the kindness of Canon Toole, that the actual revisor of this edition was the Rev. James Robertson, of the order of St. Benedict.
Return to text