THE DOUAY BIBLE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 268, 8 August 1919, Page 8

THE DOUAY BIBLE

Sir—Mr. W. A. Downes insists that the Douay-Reims Bible was authorised in some way ,by the Roman Catholic Church. He does not know, therefore, that Cardinal Newman, in Tracts, p. 410. says it had only "indirect recognition," and "it never had any episcopal imprimatur, much lees has it received any formal approbation from the Holy See." Mr. Downes has in mind, however, a version now used amongst Roman Catholics as the Douay Bible, in respect of which Cardinal Wiseman declared, "Ta call it any longer the Douay or Reims Version is "an abuse of terms." It. would bo better to distinguish the version he' calls "Douay" by the name of "Glial' loner" Bible. At any rate, the information on the title page of these so-called Douav Bibles is wrong, and may have misled Mr. Downes. These "Douays' xliifer from, one anothor, and Mr. Downes thinks these dilTcrences in all cases un' important. But tho translation of St. John 2-4, given in pome of the Challoner Hihles, the Dublin "Review" of April, 1513, calls "fatal." Is that a matter of no importance? Writimr in Roman Catholic language, he calls the Authorised Version the "Protestant" Bible. But tho Douay-Reims has a better title to the name, for it was undertaken as a protest against current English versions, not as a necessary or desirable work on other grounds.' It was not much read and had very few editions. The Challoner Bible was in ( many respects au improvement, and, though it got rid of 'many Lalinisms which only readers of the Vulgate would understand, it never became popular. It Tetains not a little of the Oljd Version that might well have been dismissed. For instance, we read that. Sisera's mother "looked out at a window and howled, and she spoke from the dining-room." The old readi"? of Psalms 9) .s—"Nor shalt thou bs afrnyed ... of business walking in darkness . . . and the mid-dav divel' 1 —still regained its ludicrous features.. Mr. Downes 6eems rather confused as to what is Vulgate and what is comment on the part of the editors. "Dens erat vcrbum" is the Vulgate translation that misled tho Reimists into their grievous slip, "God was the Word."' and Mr. Downes, finding in the analysis of tho chapter (he calls it the preface) tlia words "Verbnm est Dcus," would interpret the, Vulgate accordingly. But this does not exculpate the Rcimish translation. No doubt the slip was lininten' tional, for wo must grant that the Reimists had no intention of attacking tho doctrine of the Trinity. Tho error was quietly corrected in subsequent Roman Catholic Bibles.

To call, as Mr. Downes does,, the Authorised Version a mutilated copy of the Douay is preposterous. The translation, although there are some common features, are independent. If King James's .translators had the lieimish translation before them, tho Reimists had Tyndalc's and Corerdale's. Further, and most important, Challoner had the Authorised Versiou in front of him and made large use of it, so much so', that stioklers for tho old Reimisli were much irritated. Mr. Downes, with wonderful confusion, pre-, posterously concludes from the resulting similarities that the Authorised Version is a copy of the Reims-Douay. Just so a certain good lady declared Shakespeare's "Hamlet" full of quotations.

With all its dcfects the Douay-Reims Bible is a most remarkable production, and is of such rarity and first-rate inv nortanee that its disappearance from the Parliamentary Library is a matter of deep regret. That this disappearance nhould have escaped the attention of librarians and custodians perhaps shows that they did not know what a treasure (hey had in their keeping-. They are not careless. Books on Now Zealand aro locked up in glass cases against the designs of thievish collectors of books on New Zealand, and the Reims-Douay was kept in one of the inmost recesses of the library. "Autcrrieth's Homeric Dictionary," also, used to be on the shelves. But where is it now? One would like to inquire whether members of Parliament report tho books they, borrow; otherwise, if the books are forgotten to be returned, the librarians have no clue. Or is it possible for. any privilege holder to walk out without reporting? To return, Mr. Downes contends that Roman' Catholics have an English Bible and are allowed to read it. Yes, else Roman Catholic booksellers would not sell them. But are these Douays read? What is the use of reading if the words aro always to be regarded as treacherous and the reading must be only through priestly spectacles? There is no one Roman Catholic English Bible. Each bishop is at liberty to sanction the use of a different one. Mr. Downes connises the easa of the Vulgate with that of the translations from the Vulgate. ; The able and well-known Catholic writer, Canon William Barry, writing in the Dublin "Review" of July, 1909, comes to the conclusion that it is now impossible to equal or amend the 'language of the Authorised Version. Our, ianguage he seems to regard as in a state of decay, and here it is interesting to note that in the "Times Literary Supplement" of May 8 last appeal's a, leading article pointing out and illustrating this decay. The article referred to is entitled "The Decay of Syntax." Says Dr. Barry, "Wo cannot rewrite 'Macbeth' or 'Othoilo," . . .' no revised version of them is conceivable. And so, in a literary point of view'; does it stand as recards the Bible text elaborated from unknown periods down to 1611. . . ." The revision, ISSI-1854, "is singularly uninspired; and whatever beauty it possesses we feel at once to be derived from (he original which it has undertaken to improve." As a Roman Catholic, he goes' on to suggest Hie adoption of the Authorised Version by the Roman Catholic Church, in 6pite of the fact that it was (he work of opponents, just as Latin, the Innjrunge of the persecutors of the Church, became the language of her lit-* urgy. This suggestion will startle Mr. Downes. The Authorised Version is evidently something more than a mutilated copy of the Douay. It is something infinitely, higher and bevond.—l am, etc., ALPHA. August 2, 1919. (