The deceivers so hate Jesus that they have re-written the Bible and, because their tampered fraud is in Hebrew, they have gulled many. Masorete Jews altered the Old Testament for a millennium after the Crucifixion in order to dethrone Jesus Christ in their tampered Hebrew fraud.
At the time of Jesus Christ’s Incarnation, there was no complete Hebrew Bible. Ironically the only complete Bible (Old Testament) for the Israelites at the time of Jesus was the Greek Septuagint, a Greek translation authorized and compiled in about 250 B.C. by the 72 rabbis of the Sanhedrin, the official Jewish court.
After Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, a “Hebrew Bible” was compiled to de-throne Jesus Christ.
“The compiler Akiba ben Yosef (aka Rabbi Akiva) drew up the canon which would became the Tanakh in A.D. 95. He believed that the messiah wasn’t Jesus the Christ but a man named Bar Kochba. In his Torah he included the rabbi-created Halakahic laws and set out to destroy the credibility of the Gospels. This text ultimately became the Hebrew Bible or Masoretic Text when it was codified by Aaron Ben Asher in the A.D. 10th century and was latter given the stamp of sacred authorization by none other than the anti-Catholic, Maimonides!”
As late as 1000 A.D., the Masoretes, Jewish enemies of Jesus, altered their phony “Hebrew Bible” to reflect Judaism’s hatred of Jesus Christ. Need proof? The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Septuagint confirming that the “Hebrew Bible” was changed by the rabbis to reflect their hatred of Jesus Christ, His Church, and the New Israel, Christians. The rabbis altered the Word of God to dethrone Jesus, dispute His Virgin Birth, etc. Ironic isn’t it that the Greek is authentic while the Hebrew is not? It is a clever and diabolical trick of the rabbis to pretend otherwise. For the Old Testament, rely on the Septuagint. For an English version, rely on the Douay Rheims, as we do here.
Four lines of evidence confirm that the Septuagint is authentic and the Masoretic “Hebrew Bible” is a post-Christian fraud:
The New Testament quotes the Septuagint, not the Masoretic “Hebrew Bible.” The early Church accepted the Septuagint texts as authentic. The Guns, Lies, and Forgeries article below is compiled by a non-Catholic (Greek Orthodox), but it is a well-written and succinct summary of the problems with the Masoretic texts and the extreme measures that the Israelis have taken to prevent access to the Dead Sea Scrolls because the Dead Sea Scrolls contradict the Masoretic texts in hundreds of verses. See:
Guns, Lies, and Forgeries
by Robert E. Reis
download an interlinear Greek-English Septuagint here
When God Spoke Greek—A Review
by Michael A. Hoffman
The Masoretes changed “virgin” (παρθένος parthenos in the authoritative Greek Septuagint and בְּתוּלָה bethulah in the Dead Sea Scrolls) to “young woman” or “damsel” (הָעַלְמָה, ha-almah in the Masoretes’ fraudulent “Hebrew Bible”).
In the same passage, the Masoretes made other changes as well. Not only the Greek Septuagint, but also the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal the Masoretic Text as a fraud.
Isaias 7:14 fragment of the Great Isaiah Scroll, the complete “Q” of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumram
The above passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls has a few differences from the Masoretic text (as used today in all Hebrew Bibles and which most translations are based on). In the top line the word יהוה (YHWH, Yahweh) is underlined, this is the name of God, the tetragrammaton. In the Masoretic text the word אדוני (adonai) is used instead.
In the bottom line, near the middle is the word וקרא (v'qara) meaning “he will call.” In the Masoretic text this word is written as וקראת (v'qarat) meaning “she will call.”
On the bottom line near the left end is the word עמנואל (imanuel). This word is the combination of two words - עמנו אל (imanu and el). Because these two words are grouped together as one we know that it is a name. In the Masoretic text this name is written as two separate words - עמנו אל (imanu el).
“Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke.”
This was foretold in Zacharias 9:9:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: Behold thy King will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass. Zacharias 9:9
The authentic Septuagint identifies the King entering Jerusalem as the one who is “delivering” [salvation], the King is the Savior:
“The ancient texts which Jerome consulted for his translation are no longer extant. The early Church Fathers held that these texts were more faithful to the original Scripture autographs than any manuscript that survived Jerome, thus rendering Jerome’s Vulgate and the Douay Rheims’ translation of it, the surviving pristine fountain of Bible accuracy.”
Bible Wars • The Conspiracy Against the Douay Rheims Vulgate and the Geneva Apocrypha
by Michael Hoffman
Revisionist History Newsletter, Number 38, November 2005
excerpt (note especially the Protestant endorsements of both St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the original Douay-Rheims):
The Bible in English begins with the Bible in Latin, specifically the “Vulgate” (“common”) Bible of the western Church, translated by St. Jerome, circa 405 AD. Erasmus’ reputation as Bible scholarship’s humanist outlaw was based on his daring attempt to supplant the Vulgate with a new Latin translation, the Novum lnstrumentum, of 1516, based in tum on supposed authenticated Greek texts. In 1408 an Oxford statute, first directed against Lollardy, and then Lutheranism, required episcopal approval for publication of any English translation. William Tyndale would quickly run afoul of it.
“Luther’s German translation appeared in 1522, Tyndale’s in 1525, and it was inevitable that contemporaries should regard the latter as an English rendering of the former.” (J. Isaacs, “The Sixteenth Century English Versions” in The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions, Henry Wheeler Robinson, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940).
According to Isaacs: Tyndale adopts Luther’s order of the books, takes over a substantial part of his prefaces and prologues, uses nearly all his margin references, errors included, adopts his paragraph division, and incorporates a large number of his marginal comments and “certain prefaces, and other pestilent glosses in the margins” as Henry VIII wrote to Luther, “for the advancement and setting forth of his abominable heresies.”
Tyndale’s translation is mainly based on the Greek of Erasmus (second edition of 1519 and the third of 1522),’ and Luther’s German. When, in 1529, the Vatican librarian Agostino Steuco furnished extensive arguments for the superiority of the Vulgate over the Greek texts, the friends of Erasmus must have had a good laugh at the expense of this “backward” prelate. But we now know that assaults on Erasmus’s edition were often well founded. A sound Greek text would not be established until the nineteenth century.
The guarantor of the gospels throughout the majority of the existence of the Church had been the Vulgate, not defective Greek texts which Tyndale relied upon in “translating directly from the Greek.”… Tyndale was responsible for a singular advancement in Bible translation: he bucked the rabbinic superstition against the printing and pronunciation of God’s personal name, YHVH (Yahweh), with the introduction of Jehovah into his English version. The Oxford English Dictionary: “1530 edition of Tyndale’s Exodus 6:3: ‘I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob an almighty God: but in my name Jehovah’ (Wyclif and Jerome’s Vulgate have: ‘Adonay; Adonai’). The rabbinic Masoretes gave as a direction to the translator to substitute Adonai for the ‘ineffable name,’ which is actually done by Jerome in the Vulgate translation of Exodus 6:3 and hence by Wycliff. Tyndale, was ... the first to use it (Jehovah) in English (Peter Galatinus had used it in Latin in 1516).” Tyndale was responsible for a singular advancement in Bible translation: he bucked the rabbinic superstition against the printing and pronunciation of God’s personal name, YHVH (Yahweh), with the introduction of Jehovah into his English version.
The Oxford English Dictionary: “1530 edition of Tyndale’s Exodus 6:3: ‘I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac and Jacob an almighty God: but in my name Jehovah’ (Wyclif and Jerome’s Vulgate have: ‘Adonay; Adonai’). The rabbinic Masoretes gave as a direction to the translator to substitute Adonai for the ‘ineffable name,’ which is actually done by Jerome in the Vulgate translation of Exodus 6:3 and hence by Wycliff. Tyndale, was ... the first to use it (Jehovah) in English (Peter Galatinus had used it in Latin in 1516).”
Beginning in 1526 copies of the Tyndale Bible were smuggled into England from the Continent chiefly by Antwerp merchants, and sold secretly by the private enterprise of such men as Robert Barnes and Simon Fish of Gray’s Inn. These dealers in a contraband book were known as ‘New Testamenters.” In response, a book-banning decree to the bishops of England was issued by Cuthberth Tunstall, Archbishop of London, in 1526.
Tyndale attempted to put a brave face on the ban and the subsequent burning of his New Testament in his native land, being more alert than the Catholic authorities, as the Protestant party almost always was in these cases, to public relations and world opinion: “I am glad, for these two benefits shall come thereof: ‘I shall get money to bring myself out of debt, and the whole world will cry out against the burning of God’s word ... “
But was it simply a matter of the suppression of the pure word of God? Who was Archbishop Tunstall? Shall we be satisfied to characterize him simply as a blockheaded, bookburning bigot who suppressed Tyndale because he feared that the truth of the Gospel would get into the hands of the peasantry?
“It has long been the fashion to speak of Tunstall as a bitter opponent of vernacular versions because he declined to further Tyndale’s project for an English version of the Bible ... and because he burnt copies of the latter’s New Testament, which he ... felt did not faithfully represent the original... It is well to remember that Tunstall was a finished Greek scholar, the friend and patron of Erasmus, and perfectly competent to assess Tyndale’s version at its true value. Even the Protestant historian Burnet terms Tunstall, ‘the last and most eminent of all the Popish clergy’… lt was not ... the fact of a translation being made accessible to the people that provoked Tyndale’s condemnation ... As Canon Dixon says (in History of the Church of England, vol. 1, p. 451): ‘If the clergy had acted thus, simply because they would have kept the people ignorant of the word of God, they would have been without excuse. But it was not so. Every one of the little volumes containing portions of the Sacred Text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and notes, written with such a hot fury of vituperation against the prelates and clergy, the monks and friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church as ... was hardly likely to commend it to the favor of those who were attacked.” (Hugh Pope, English Versions of the Bible. (St. Louis, Herder, 1952), pp. 148-149. (Emphasis supplied).
“There is no proof that churchmen of those days were as a body opposed to having the Bible circulated in English. Nor is there any truth in the widespread notion that Tyndale’s version provided an eye opener to the people of England ... that ‘the contrast between Christianity as disclosed in the sacred literature, and the version of Christianity which the Medieval Church presented was so extreme that not even the simplest reader could fail to see it.” (Pope 149).
Catholic Biblical scholarship had been far from moribund in the sixteenth century. The first new Latin Bible (Lyon, 1527-28) was translated by the Dominican Sante Pagnini under papal patronage. Pagnini’s Old Testament “was universally recognized as the product of impressive Hebrew scholarship .. .it was reprinted and revised throughout the century ... the first critical edition of the Vulgate, produced by Bernardino Gadolo, a Camaldolese monk ... was published in 1495 ... .in 1547 Johannes Hentenius (a Dominican) published a version (of the Vulgate) ... His text was reprinted at Antwerp by Plantijn publishers ... and was accepted by the faculty of theology at the University of Louvain.” (Oxford Encylopedia of the Reformation, vol. 1, pp. 162, 164).
The blunder of the Catholic hierarchy of Henrician England was that instead of issuing a better and more accurate New Testament in English, they endeavored to suppress the only entrant in the field. It would not be until 1582 that a Catholic New Testament would be issued but not by the well-heeled hierarchy of the Catholic Church; rather by nearly destitute Elizabethan exiles, among them the cream of Oxford scholars, who found refuge from Elizabeth’s hounds in France, at a place called Rhemes (a.k.a. “Rheims”).
The Conspiracy Against Douay Rheims
In Tudor England, both sides of the religious controversy regarded the other’s Bible as foul heresy. The stakes were enormous and emotions at fever-pitch. On February 7 1587 the eve of the judicial assassination of a queen, with only hours to go before she was to forfeit her head, a disagreement erupted over whose Bible version was the trustworthy one, a dispute mconce1vable to twenty-first century minds:
“Dr. Eadie on the authority of La Mort de la Reyne d’Escosse, Douairere de France, reprinted in Jebb’s Collection ii, p. 616, related that Mary Queen of Scots on the evening before her execution in Fotheringay Castle, ‘laying her hand solemnly on a copy of the Rheims New Testament took an oath of innocence, and that the Earl of Kent interposing that as the book on which she had sworn was false, her oath was of no _value, to which she promptly answered: ‘Does your lordship suppose that my oath would be better, if I swore on your translation in which I do not believe?” (Jacob I. Mombert, English Versions of the Bible: A Handbook [London: Samuel Bagster, 1883], pp. 317-318. How the Word of God was translated and annotated was a matter of state security in the Elizabethan Age.
A cartoonish distillation of the issues at stake, consisting of half-truths, was prepared by the British Secret Service. This “press release” was composed in its essentials in the 1560, but it was parroted as recently as 2005 by the noted Calvinist scholar R.C. Sproul: “During the reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558) the Reformation was suppressed. The Roman Catholic mass had to be celebrated, services could not be conducted in English ... persecutions drove exiles from Britain to Europe. The most capable scholars among them came to Geneva, Switzerland. There they undertook the task of preparing a new translation of the Bible in English.” (Sproul, The Reformation Study Bible [Orlando, Florida: Ligonier Ministries, 2005], p. iv).
It was important to the Cryptocracy that the story would have legs and m this they have been triumphant. Their account is what most of us are taught in school. This is what Hollywood movies about the Tudor era and the Elizabethan Age suggest, or state outright. It has entered the canon of popular culture and high brow academia but it is in its essence, _a classic case of mendacious selective indignation, because it omits the other half of the story. During the reign of Elizabeth Tudor (1558-1603) Catholicism the popular religion of the majority of the people of England, was suppressed. The Anglican service had to be celebrated and attendance was mandatory; the ancient Latin Mass was forbidden. Persecutions drove exiles from Britain to Europe. The most capable scholars among them came to Douay, in northern France. There they undertook the task of preparing a new translation of the Scriptures in English. Their work the masterfully accurate Douay Rheims English Bible, was a triumph of Catholic Biblical scholarship. [The revisionist assertion that Catholicism in this era was the popular religion of the English people is persuasively documented m The Voices of Morebath: Reformation and Rebellion in an English Village, by Eamon Duffy. ‘]
The preceding proscribed truths could not be allowed to gain any sort of currency. About the year 1583 no less a pivotal figure of the Cryptocracy than Sir Francis Walsingham, head of the English Secret Service, ordered the publication of an official refutation of the Rheims New Testament. The Puritan theologian Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) was assigned the task, financed by the Secret Service itself. The Rheims Bible, according to Walsingham’s man Cartwright, consisted in “Impieties, Heresies, Idolatries, Profaneness, Treasons, Slanders, Falsehoods and other Evils.” Persons in England found with copies of the Rheims New Testament were imprisoned and torture was applied to those Englishmen who sold or otherwise circulated it. [Cf. J.H. Dore, Old Bibles (1888), p. 292; quoted by Pope, 275.]
The Cryptocracy considered the fact that Oxford scholar Gregory Martin translated the Rheims based primarily on the Latin text of Jerome, rather than the Greek of Erasmus, or the defective manuscript then in preparation by Pope Sixtus the V, as a highly threatening development. [Sixtus V’s own translation of the Latin Vulgate was completed by him in May, 1590. After the death of Sixtus, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine warned the Vatican that Sixtus text was so riddled with errors that its publication would “create a scandal.” A revision was ordered. It was promulgated on Nov. 9, 1592 by Clement VIII. This is thee much improved “Sixto-C!ementine” edition which owed considerably to Bellarmine’s erudition, and the collations of the Spanish Benedictine, Benito Arias Montano. It is worthwhile to note that the 1582 Rheims Bible was an independent effort by English Catholics. The Vatican did not finance or authorize it. Furthermore, the Rheims New Testament did not have the Church’s formal mark of ecclesiastical approval, the imprimatur. Technically, the Rheims was published illicitly, bearing only an “approbation” from four obscure clerics who were themselves reputed to be members of the Douay College.]
For years this writer had been leery of the Douay Rheims because of Jerome’s [substitution for] the Divine Name of Yahweh. But Martin and his colleague Richard Bristow, another exiled Oxford prodigy who wrote the copious and incendiary polemical Rheims notes, held the Latin Vulgate of Jerome to be superior to all other Bible texts precisely in that, in almost all other respects, Jerome had resisted and eschewed the massive rabbinic scribal interpolations present in other contemporary manuscripts.
In an epistle to the English reader, prefixed to the Douay Old Testament (1609-1610), Bristow and William Allen wrote, “Another question may be proposed why we translated the Latin text, rather than the Hebrew or Greek which Protestants prefer as the fountain tongue, wherein holy Scriptures were first written. To this we answer, that if indeed those pure Editions were now extant, or if such be extant were more than the Latin, we would also prefer such fountains before rivers ... But the ancient best learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church do much complain and testify to us that both the Hebrew and Greek editions are foully corrupted by Jews and Heretics, since the Latin was truly translated out of them while they were more pure; and that the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruptions.”
This is the heretofore largely undiscussed dimension to the Douay Rheims Bible, strictly and faithfully based as it is on the Vulgate of Jerome. The ancient texts which Jerome consulted for his translation are no longer extant. The early Church Fathers held that these texts were more faithful to the original Scripture autographs than any manuscript that survived Jerome, thus rendering Jerome’s Vulgate and the Douay Rheims’ translation of it, the surviving pristine fountain of Bible accuracy.
Hugh Pope observes: “Considering ... the vehemence with which the Rheims Testament has been decried by Protestants as a corruption of the word of God, the reader will perhaps be scarcely prepared to hear how a large number of its peculiar readings and renderings have been confirmed and adopted by the framers of the Revised (King James) New Testament of 1881. This fact, which may be easily verified, is a remarkable testimony to the intrinsic value of the Latin Vulgate, as a faithful representation of the most ancient and approved manuscript copies of the original Greek Testament ... “
A distinguished Protestant exegete concurs: “ .. .it should be remembered that the Latin of the New Testament is of very ancient date, and that many of its readings, being derived from early documents, are of critical value, and the renderings in the Rhemish New Testament occasionally (are) in perfect agreement with the most ancient Manuscripts.” (Mombert, 305-306).
Gregory Martin died in 1582, the year of the Rheims New Testament’s publication. It is said that he had worked himself to death in order to have the entire Vulgate Bible translated into English in just four years. Sincere Protestants have always conceded Martin’s genius. Bible scholar Rev. Jacob I. Mombert, D.D. wrote, “Gregory Martin was one of the original scholars of St. John’s College, Oxford, where he took his M.A. in1564, and reputed the best Hebrew and Greek scholar of his college.” Dr. Andrew Edgar: “ ... there are in all parts of the Douay Bible both evidence and fruits of advanced scholarship ... “ Methodist theologian Rev. R.C. Moulton, circa 1874: “ ... there is no other English version of Scriptures that will prove more instructive to the student who will take the pains to separate what is good and useful from what is ill-advised and wrong.”
The Douay Rheims editors were repelled by what they regarded as the pandering by Protestant translators to the demands of literacy and eloquence, which in their view, sometimes led Protestants into prideful seeking after literary immortality at the expense of strict adherence to faithful translation. This was the central traditional Catholic objection to the Bible in Tyndale’s English.
Some Christians will find that there is immeasurable value in an English Vulgate, in getting inside the mind of the Church as it existed from 400 through 1600 AD (the period of the Latin Vulgate’s preeminence). For English readers who do not have sufficient command of ecclesiastic Latin, the original Douay Rheims serves that end better than any other translation. Some would go further, and assert that to know the mind of the Church in those twelve centuries is to encounter the Gospel at the most intimate level, and that the door to that encounter for the non-Latin specialist is “Douay Rheims 1582-1609/10.”
The renowned English Catholic Scripture scholar and translator Ronald Knox, shows forth the scrupulous adherence to accuracy that was the mark of Jerome’s translation as rendered in the Rheims: “ ... why did the Wise Men receive an ‘answer’ in sleep? Why did Simeon receive an ‘answer’ from the Holy Ghost that he should see the Christ?
There is no suggestion, in either case, that a question has been asked ... The solution is very simple; St. Jerome’s responsum does not mean an ‘answer’. It means an oracle; it is a technical word for an oracle. The Greek had used chrematizomai, and St. Jerome, in his strict preference for verbal equivalents, did the best he could to give the oracular atmosphere without using the pagan word oraculum.” [Ronald Knox, The Trials of a Translator, (New York: Sheed and Ward: 1949), p. 77.]
Knox pinpoints Jerome’s philosophy: a “strict preference for verbal equivalents.” This dedication to strictest accuracy was the virtue of the Douay Rheims translators as well, a virtue for which they were criticized! One nineteenth century Protestant theologian stated, “The translators ... had no lack of scholarship or command of good English ... and when untrammelled they could write trenchant English. But in translating the Scriptures they were hampered by their own maxim -- ‘not in hard places to mollify the speeches or phrases, but religiously keep them word for word, and point for point, for fear of missing or restraining the sense of the Holy Ghost to our fantasy.” (Edgar, 254).
Bishop Challoner’s Fahrenheit 451
In the middle of the eighteenth century the Cryptocracy’s agents and dupes in the Roman Catholic Church, such as Rev. Fr. Cornelius Nary (1660-1737) of the Paris University, and Dr. Robert Witham, began to agitate against the authentic Douay Rheims. A claim was circulated that Martin’s translation should be derogated due to its “obsolete language,” “bad orthography” and “translation so very literal” which did “grate on the ears.” These lightweight objections evolved into the rationale for the English Catholic Bible’s suppression by the Catholic Church itself; to be replaced by a dreary, hodge-podge “revision” (so-called, but actually a rewrite) by Bishop Richard Challoner, which ensured the long sunset of Catholic lay enthusiasm for Bible-reading in the English-speaking Church.
Sir Francis Walsingham has succeeded perhaps beyond even his own wildest imaginings. The original and authentic Douay Rheims is even today scorned by Catholic prelates who have been taught to dismiss its verbatim translation as unreadable, and recommend Challoner’s version, which is unread. Catholic inertia, apathy, ignorance and complacency in this vein almost exceeds belief. What deep design is behind this specious characterization of the Douay Rheims that seems to have been planted in Catholic minds almost since its appearance, growing in virulence in the intervening years? Can its almost total suppression since 1635, with the exception of a handful of minor print-runs by Catholics in 1738, 1788 and 1789; and by Protestants in New York in 1838 and in Missouri in 1987, be attributed to coincidence alone?
Here we see a maxim of the British Secret Service in action: Challoner’s Bible is falsely denominated by liberal, conservative and traditional Catholics as “the Douay Rheims,” thereby conveying the misapprehension that what may be the most reliable of all Bibles in English, is freely available and everywhere in print. This fulfills the “vanished forever” principle of the Secret Service: “The seeker cannot find that which he does not know is lost.”
The 1582 Rheims New Testament and the 1609-10 Douay Old Testament [Though both the Old and New Testaments in English were completed by Gregory: Martin in 1582 they had to be published twenty-seven years apart due to a lack of funds. In contrast, the complete Geneva Bible was immediately funded in 1560, at considerable financial risk, by exiled English businessmen led by the visionary John Bodley (father of Thomas Bodley, the founder of the famed Bodleian Library). …] were suppressed by the Catholic powers themselves and the eradication was too thorough to have been a “coincidence.” No major edition of the Rheims New Testament of 1582 has appeared since 1633. The first hoaxed “Douay Rheims” Bible was published in 1738, and the full-blown counterfeit appeared in 1749.
There is something fantastically shrewd and designing in suppressing a Bible translation by pretending it is still in print. This writer has scoured book catalogues worldwide and found the faux Challoner Bible repeatedly described by scholars, bookstores, historians, theologians--you name it--as the “authentic Latin Vulgate of the Douay Rheims translation.” This boldface lie, retailed unknowingly by the majority who employ it, is an ingenious ruse. I know of no other example in bibliography where such a scam has been so successful. It is as if we were living in a Fahrenheit 451 universe where even the memory of the true Douay Rheims has faded from both the human mind and official records.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914 edition) states: “Although the Bibles in use in the twentieth century by the Catholics of England and Ireland are popularly styled the Douay Version, they are most improperly so called; they are founded, with more or less alteration, on a series of revisions undertaken by Bishop Challoner in 1749-52 .... The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they ‘almost amounted to a new translation ... ‘ In nearly every case Challoner’s alterations took the form of approximating the (Protestant King James) Authorized Version, though his three editions of the New Testament differ from one another in numerous passages. The best known version (of Challoner) published in England in modem times was perhaps Haydock’s, which was first issued at Manchester in fortnightly parts in 1811-12. In America an independent revision of (Challoner’s) Douay Version by Archbishop Kenrick (1849-59) was much used.”
Hugh Pope: “Challoner’s alterations tended to simplify and modernize the version, and in the process made it approximate more closely to King James’ Bible. Bishop Challoner (1691-1781) ... revised the Old Testament twice in 1750 and 1763 and the New Testament five times, in 1749, 1750, 1752 and 1763 and 1772 ... (Challoner) did not possess the profound scholarship of Gregory Martin or Richard Bristow ... There are of course inaccuracies in his (Challoner’s) renderings ... The Gospels are perhaps the best part of his work, the epistles the least satisfactory .... the necessary simplification he aimed at and secured has resulted in the loss of that dignity, rhythm and majesty which was so noticeable at times in the original version of 1582 ... “ (Pope, pp. 352-353).
In the nineteenth century, Catholic Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman inveighed against Challoner’s counterfeit: ‘To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any sense remains as it was originally published; and so far as simplicity and energy of style are concerned, the changes are in general for the worse .... he (Challoner) weakened the language considerably ... “ Wiseman cites Challoner’s version of II Timothy 2:16 as one of the many verbatim passages from the King James version which Challoner inserted into the “Douay-Rheims.” Wiseman said the passage contained an “absurd tautology” (he is referring to the phrase “vain babblings”, since the word babbling encompasses the whole of vaniloquium). [Wiseman, Dublin Review, April 1837, pp. 475-492; reprinted in his Essays, vol. I, London, 1853. Wiseman’s protest had no discernible effect in lifting the de facto ban on the true Douay Rheims.]
Dr. Andrew Edgar: “One of the many outstanding features in the Rheims New Testament and Douay Bible is the large number of ‘inkhorn’ terms they contain. For many of these scholastic terms, common words were substituted in Challoner’s revision, especially of the New Testament. Instead of ‘celestials, terrestrials and infernals,’ Phillippians 2:10, we read, ‘those that are in heaven, on earth and under the earth.’ It will be seen in that in a very large number of the ... cited cases in which Challoner has amended the phraseology of the Rheims Testament, he has adopted the words of what we call the authorized version (of King James). The extent, however, to which he has plumed the Catholic version, especially in the New Testament, with Protestant feathers, will be more fully realized when we have examined passages that have not only been altered in respect of a significant word or a significant phrase, but have been recast all over. Some of these reconstructed verses will be found to correspond word for word with the translation in the authorized (King James) Bible ... “ (Edgar, 280-282).
Knox demonstrates the almost impeccable rigor of the true Rheims in comparison with Challoner’s hoax: “When our Lady says, at Cana of Galilee, ‘They have no wine,’ there is no reasonable doubt that our Lord replied, ‘Let me alone’; the Jewish idiom for which is, ‘What have I to do with thee?’ The Protestant Bible, in translating the idiom literally, makes it sound too harsh. But Challoner has not dared even to be literal; he adopts without comment the far less probable interpretation, ‘What is that (the absence of wine) to me and to thee?’ The old Douay, in the same passage, is very illuminating. It gives the translation, ‘What is to me and to thee, woman?’ without pretending that it is English. And the footnote says, ‘Because this speech is subject to diverse interpretations (“divers senses”), we keep the words of our text, lest by turning it into any English phrase we might straighten the Holy Ghost’s intention to some certain sense either not intended, or not only intended, and so take away the choice and indifferency (objectivity) from the reader, whereof (in holy Scripture especially), all translators must beware.’ The principle is one of capital importance; where interpreters disagree, the reader must be given his choice ... as much as possible, though Challoner does not seem to have thought so.” (Knox, p. 82, emphasis supplied).
While Protestants cherish and perpetually reprint the King James Bible (cf. for example The Holy Bible, 1611 Edition: A word-for-word reprint of the First Edition of the Authorized Version [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982), and in the late twentieth century sparked revived interest in the 1560 and 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible (“the family Bible of Shakespeare and the Elizabethan age” which went through more than 140 printings in eighty years), no such esteem is accorded the original Douay Rheims by Catholics. The antique Protestant versions are far more highly honored, preserved and accessed than the Bible produced by the Elizabethan Catholic fugitives.
In virtue of its marginal annotations, for example, the Geneva Bible is today prized by scholars, “for the Geneva notes alone.” Many readers even ask specifically for the 1599 edition of the Geneva, “with the Junius’ notes to Revelation,” (considered among the most scorching rebukes of the Papacy in the whole of Reformation Scripture commentary). Notice that Junius is asked for by name by contemporary Protestants. I will wager that among millions of Catholics today, there are no more than a few thousand in the entire world who can recall the name of Richard Bristow, or the fact that he authored the thundering polemical notes to the original Rheims New Testament, which his own Church suppressed: “Haydock’s text agrees almost verbatim with Challoner’s ... the grand difference between the current editions of the Rheims-Douay versions and the original editions is the suppression of many of the savage, fanatical notes ... “ (Mombert, 325). These lively and fascinating notes by Bristow were allowed to sink under the dust of the seventeenth century, never to be revived, except by bibliophiles seeking rare and limited editions of scarce works.
As the Cryptocracy had intended, in the name of making the Bible more attractive reading fare for Catholics, the Challoner version helped to confirm the general consensus view that Catholics were apt to read everything except the Bible. Writing in 1949, after Challoner had monopolized the Catholic world for two hundred years, Msgr. Ronald Knox offered these brutally honest observations on the state of Bible reading among the Catholic masses:
“ ... is the Douay as it has come down to us through Challoner, really so ... universally beloved? .. .In my experience, the laity’s attitude towards the Bible is one of blank indifference, varied now and again by puzzled hostility. The clergy no doubt, search the Scriptures more eagerly. And yet, when I used to go round preaching a good deal, and would ask the presiding priest for a Bible to verify my text from, there was generally an ominous pause of twenty minutes or so before he returned, banging the leaves of the sacred volume and visibly blowing on the top ... Please God, there will always be earnest people, perhaps one Catholic in a thousand, who will study the Scriptures; but the reader and student (II Mach. 2:26) are different people. Where are the Catholic readers of the Bible? When did you last come across one of your Catholic friends with a Bible open in front of him? ... The Douay people knew how to write ... But the Bible translated at Douay on the principle of Kelly’s Keys, and then watered down by Challoner to make it sound less rugged--was there any hope that this would give us desirable English?” (Knox, pp. 21-23, 34).
There is much else that is strange and fantastic about the history of the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, not the least of which is the identity of its last publisher of record, Rev. Gordon Winrod, a Lutheran minister with a passion for Biblical accuracy, who, in 1987, brought the huge, three volume work back into print in facsimile, in a quality hardcover edition which is now a collector’s item. [In 2005 a two-volume set of Winrod’s Douay Old Testament sold at auction for more than $200.] Is the Cryptocracy still as anxious about the original Douay Rheims as it once was in the days of Walsingham? It would seem so, if Winrod’s fate is any indicator. A few years ago Rev. Winrod, a passionate opponent of Judaism, was framed, prosecuted in a show trial and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Coincidence?
In his introduction to his printing of the real Douay Rheims, Pastor Winrod wrote, “The audacious determination to dissolve Christ from the Old Testament is plain in the Authorized [King James] Version, where names of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, are removed more than 100 times. 21 times the name Christ is deleted, where it appears in the Vulgate and Douay. This is true of the name Jesus, 1 time, in Hab. 3:18 (as also in Jude 5); of The Just One, 25 times; of Saviour, 15 times; of Dominator, 13 times; of The Holy One, 5 times; of The Strong One, 6 times; of The Son of Man, 5 times; of My Deliverer, 2 times; of our Lord, 7 times; of the Lamb; of our Redeemer; of The Meek One; of The Noble One; and of The Orient. Discovery of these deletions are sufficient cause for a reproduction of the Douay-Rheims Bible.
“There are fourteen portions of the Old Testament, which by St. Jerome and the Church until the 16th century A.D., were not considered canonical Holy Scriptures, but were accepted only as apocryphal writings. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) eleven of the fourteen writings were elevated to the level of God’s Word. The other three portions were set aside to be discarded. The Douay Old Testament has interspersed through its text eleven of these portions; but the other three are courteously appended at the end of the second volume. The Council of Trent ordered a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which was not accomplished until 1590-92 A.D. The publication of the Rheims Testament ante-dated the Vulgate revision. This reprinting is of the 1582 A.D. Rheims Testament, and of the 1635 A.D. reprint of the Douay Old Testament ... making available, once again, by the grace of God, the most faithful English text of Holy Scripture, as translated from the sole authoritative source, the Latin Vulgate. July 27, 1987 A.D. Gordon Winrod. Gainesville, Missouri” (Emphasis supplied). …
The Pirate Queen’s Pirated Edition: An Apocryphal Tale
The reader will note the importance Mr. Winrod places on the Apocrypha. A similar emphasis is found in the writing of the Protestant exegete Richard Kelly Hoskins: “The history of Jacob from the time of their return from captivity to the coming of Jesus Christ is missing from today’s Bible. It appears that it was universally censored from today’s Bible in the 183Os. The reason that the Apocrypha was censored, in my opinion, is that it reveals too much information about how to wage successful war against Esau.” [Hoskins Report No: 371, p. 5 (emphasis supplied). PO Box 997, Lynchburg, Virginia 24505.] The books of the Apocrypha began to be removed long before 1830, of course. Some of the so-called “Puritanical printings” of the Geneva Bible (for Puritans in the low countries), began to omit the Apocrypha, while other editions retained them.[ These editions are noted by AS. Herbert as 248, 2491 250, 2511 253, 254, 255, 256, 257 263., 270, 276 in his Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible. Herbert 1s the leading reference authority on editions of the English Bible.] The Geneva Bibles were printed without the Apocrypha in a covert arrangement with the partners and heirs (“deputies”) of Christopher Barker, who died in 1599. The suppression of the Geneva Apocrypha was a British Secret Service operation.
It is a singular fact of the bibliographic record that Geneva Bibles published in the region of the Netherlands in the 17th century, bore the date “1599” and gave the place of publication as “London.” These printings are what the uninitiated term “black market editions” (unless the edition is a Herbert 247, one of the very few “Imprinted at London ... 1599” that actually were published in that time and place).
1599 is the year that “pirated” Bibles attributed to Christopher Barker’s deputies in London, were first printed in Amsterdam for expatriate Puritans. The 1599 date would be affixed to Geneva Bibles published in Amsterdam as late as the 1640s!
I have qualified the terms “black market” and “pirated” in the preceding references to this traffic, because this was officially sponsored pseudo-piracy, a false flag operation made possible by the pact between Dutch printers, Elizabeth’s royal printing company in London (“the deputies of Christopher Barker” [In 1577, through Walsingham’s patronage, Christopher Barker obtained the sought-after rQYal monopoly on printing the Bible. “Walsingham was Barker’s patron, lending his device of a tiger’s head to the premises in St. Paul’s Churchyard where the Bibles were printed.” (Patrick Collinson, The Elizabethan Puritan Movement [Univ. of California Press, 1967], p. 165), and the British Secret Service, whose mission it was to keep royal sponsorship of a Bible suddenly appearing without fourteen of its books, unknown to the world at large, and in this, as in so many of their other plausible denial stratagems, they were eminently successful.
The subterfuge extended beyond Amsterdam. The Geneva version, generally regarded as a radical Puritan text, had no formal approval in England, yet somehow it managed to gradually supplant the official “Bishop’s Bible” of the Anglican Church, due in large part to a pair of Walsingham’s Secret Service assets, Laurence Tomson, the translator of the 1583 edition of the Geneva New Testament, and Christopher Barker: “The Geneva Bible, printed in a format suitable for domestic use and with its ‘profitable annotations’ in a Calvinist sense ... now at last had an English printing. Within two years ... Christopher Barker printed in rapid succession two pocket and four folio editions, as well as two impressions of Laurence Tomson’s translation of Beza’s New Testament. Tomson’s New Testament was dedicated to his master, Walsingham ... while Barker enjoyed a monopoly of bible-printing, there were sixteen further editions of the Geneva version and not a single reprint of the despised Bishops’ Bible ... “ (Collinson, pp. 164-165).
The Secret Service instituted de facto what would occur de jure years later -- the formal removal of canonical status from the Apocrypha. This was a portentous act of Biblical tampering, evocative of occult contempt for the Bible, since it denied to the lay people in whose name the Protestant Reformation had been waged, a significant portion of the Holy Scriptures.
Today, virtually all Protestant versions of the Bible omit all the books of the Apocrypha. This suppression of books of the Bible by “Bible Protestants” remains shrouded in obscurity. For example, in his introduction to the flagship Bible of today’s “Reformed” (Calvinist) churches, The Reformation Study Bible, R.C. Sproul offers not one word of explanation concerning the omission of the Apocrypha. Like the vanishing act the Vatican managed for the authentic Douay Rheims, the disappearance of the books of the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles, is “a done deal” to such an extent that no explanation for the gaping hole is any longer deemed necessary.
History is seldom what it seems. Rome dumped the clearest expression in English of Christendom’s ancient Latin Vulgate scriptures, and substituted for it a gutted mediocrity whose legitimacy is at present almost unquestioned. This enigma is equaled in perversity by London having derogated its own Anglican scriptures, the Bishop’s Bible; covertly raising the Geneva version to ascendancy while pretending to be deeply troubled by its radical exegetical material. Removing the books of the Apocrypha from “contraband” Geneva editions, their operatives briefly restored them during the prescribed “reaction” under King James, rightly confident that the process of the Apocrypha’s complete extirpation had been set in irretrievable motion.…
The original Douay-Rheims Bible
1610 A.D. Douay Old Testament, 1582 A.D. Rheims New Testament
in Old English is available here
1749-1752 A.D. Douay-Rheims Bible with revisions and footnotes by Bishop Richard Challoner and
The Latin Vulgate Bible Clementine version
Translation from Greek and other languages into Latin by St. Jerome, about 382 A.D.
Anxious to vet Protestant heresies, the homosexual King James assembled a team friendly to Protestant innovations and built upon the fraudulent Masoretic texts, made about 30,000 significant alterations in the Word of God, and dumped more than 7 inconvenient books from the long-accepted Bible.
All Protestant Johnny-come-lately (2,000 years late!) efforts to criticize original texts that are no longer available to anyone today, texts that St. Jerome had in his possession now lost to modern men, reveal their transparent desperation to defend the Protestant scriptural frauds.
Specifically regarding the Old Testament Scriptures, St. Jerome depended upon the authentic Septuagint, authorized and translated by the Sanhedrin about 250 B.C., and corroborated by the Dead Sea scrolls, New Testament quotes from the Old Testament, and the Syriac Peshitta Bible from the 2nd century A.D.
Meanwhile the homo-heretic’s King James Version (KJV) relies for its fake Old Testament upon the post-Christian Masorete fraud. The “Hebrew Bible” and the derivative KJV are frauds discredited by all that corroborates the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Douay-Rheims.
See numerous examples here: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/translations/kjversion.htm
Is the King James Bible Infallible?
written article here: https://vaticancatholic.com/is-the-king-james-bible-infallible/#.VJn2mF4AAA
The Canon of the Old Testament by Bp. Tobias Mullen (Co-author: Monsignor Thomas A. Casey, whose death is shrouded in mystery). This rather large book very extensively covers how the canon of the Old Testament came to be, which "version" is the correct one, and details how it was mutilated, and by whom. download here
A Discovery of the Manifold Corruptions of the Holy Scriptures by Fr. Gregory Martin. Published in 1582, but still very relevant today. In this book, Fr. Martin proves conclusively that the Protestants have deliberately mistranslated the Bible to remove anything Catholic, and goes into the original Greek and Hebrew to prove his points. Never be confused by Protestant arguments again! download here
Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements
by Rabbi Louis I. Newman,
download full pdf here
Fresh off the ‘drukn’ — The Bible of Friendship
As we teach our children, when he attacks you, the devil will not be wearing a red suit and carrying a pitchfork. He will pose as your friend. As the saw goes, “With friends like these…,” the rabbis are coming at Catholics in “friendship,” amicizia, to teach us what we should believe. Expectedly the talmudic anti-Pope is backing the rabbis’ play, not Jesus. The details will enrage you.
Francis receives a copy of ‘The Jewish Annotated New Testament’
The Jewish Annotated New Testament was written by eighty Talmudic Jews (anti-Christians such as Susannah Heschel, Jacob Neusner, Geza Vermes). In it they cite the Talmud, the Kabbalah, the Mishnah, the Zohar, the Pirkei Avot, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and an assortment of other Judaic literature to explain that Jesus was nothing more than a simple Jew and that the anti-semitism of Christianity comes from the non-Jewish followers of Jesus because they twisted his words. It’s enough to make one want to barf. As an example of the ‘scholarship’ in the book we quote from the preface (pp. xiii-xiv) of the book written by its editors, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler,
See there it is and not very subtly. Christians are too dumb to understand the New Testament and need the Talmudic Jews to explain it to them. The “good news” of the gospels isn’t “good news” if it says something against the Jews! Could you ever imagine the shoe being on the other foot and the ‘holy’ texts of Talmudic Judaism such as the Talmud and the Zohar being annotated by the Christians so it is pointed out that Talmudic Judaism is not only anti-Christian but also anti-goyim? Don’t hold your breathe because it’ll never happen. That being said, this book is right up Francis’ hasidic alley. In two 2018 speeches to the Participants in the International Conference on the Responsibility of States, Institutions and Individuals in the fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic hate crimes, to the European Jewish Congress’ conference “An End to Antisemitism!” , and in his preface to An End to Antisemitism! A Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism, Francis said as much, “Translations of the New Testament... need marginal glosses, and introductions that emphasize continuity with Jewish heritage of... Christianity... and warn readers about antisemitic passages.” He doesn’t end there however, “As I have often repeated, a Christian cannot be an anti-Semite; we share the same roots. It would be a contradiction of faith and life. Rather, we are called to commit ourselves to ensure anti-Semitism is banned from the human community.”
Francis’ Novus Ordo religion doesn’t begin with the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” but begins with the Go-spiel of Elie, “In the beginning was the Holocaust...” Since the holocaust is his standard reference, he must combat anti-semitism (it matter not if it be imagined or real) at all times. The motto of his noahide Holocaustianity is an inversion of the Jesus’ teachings and His Church’s. It can be summed up as, ‘forgiveness is never attainable, reparations are never ending, and salvation is only for the chosen ones’.
“Rabbi Arragel took pains to make the Alba Bible a legacy of the Golden era of Sephardic scholarship, boldly avoiding concessions to Christian thinking. He included in his commentary extracts from rabbinical writings and the Quabbalic Zohar, and illustrations specifically depicting Jewish scriptural interpretations and religious objects.”
The Alba Bible, Digital Exhibits, UWM Libraries Special Collections
“The Alba Bible, with its 513 folios and 334 miniatures, is a powerful work of visual art. But still more significant is the vast commentary it contains. Rabbi Moses showed great independence and courage, and his translation and commentary make few concessions to Christian thinking, although he must have been aware of the dangers awaiting both him and the Jewish community. It is rich in extracts not only from rabbinical writings such as the Targumim, Midrashim and Talmud, but also from later works such as the Zohar - the source book of Jewish mysticism. Rabbi Moses may well have given the artists detailed instructions on the illustrations, furnishing them with specifically Jewish interpretations of biblical scenes. The resulting images are also very important as cultural records, since contemporary weapons, musical instruments, furniture and costumes are all depicted...no other extant manuscript contains so many rabbinically inspired miniatures. For instance, Cain kills Abel by biting his neck like a serpent, exactly as is described in the Zohar. Similarly, religious objects from the Temple are depicted just as in Hebrew Bibles of the same period.”
The Alba Bible, Facsimile Editions.
“The Alba Bible contains a series of comments on the writing of both Jewish and Christian theologians, including Abraham ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Nahmanides, R. Joseph Kimhi, R. Asher ben Jehiel, Shlomo ben Aderet, R. Ya'acob and Nissim of Gerona. There is also commentary taken from rabbinic literary sources such as the Talmud and the Midrash.”
Alba Bible, Wikipedia, 7 October 2018.
navigate this page