@@anonimo-um2ng - I knew it. Thanks for commenting!

@@anonimo-um2ng with well over a thousand million Catholics in the world it would be rather difficult to accurately state what 'most' Catholics know. But it is likely that many Catholics do in fact know that Greek was the language of major portions of the liturgy in Rome and elsewhere in the "west" until the fourth and fifth centuries AD.

Thanks, Julia!

Julia Hunsinger Look up vaticancatholic.com to see the true Catholic faith.

Hey Julia I was a devout, classic-educated (Society of the Sacred Heart) , cradle Catholic *_until_* I read the bible... Please contact me at intruthbygrace2@gmail.com if you would like to know why I have left Catholicism and how I have picked up my cross and committed my life to being a John 8:31-32 disciple of Jesus Christ.

@@inTruthbyGrace I find it quite odd that you stated, " I was a devout cradle Catholic until I read the bible".. Because I was a fallen away Catholic who came back to the Catholic Church after reading the Bible. www.catholicbible101.com/catholicbibleverses.htm

@@inTruthbyGrace lol if you were classically educated in catholicism you would have been reading the bible in your education and understand if was the catholic church that compiled the bible, and is the only one with authority to teach its meanings.

You're welcome, Philip! Thanks for the encouraging comment. I hope you're pleased with the Didache Bible.

How'd you like the bible?

@@KillerofGods I liked it! I came to it as a Protestant just seeking to learn a bit more about Catholicism. I like how it's strongly tied to the Catechism and works well with it.

@@ThriftStoreBiblesdid you stay with your Protestant church or go to catholic since reading this? Curious how your views have evolved

@@dayyego No, I wasn't seeking a change. I just bought this as a Protestant who was interested in better understanding Catholic interpretation of scripture.

Thanks for taking the time to make that encouraging comment! I'll be interested to learn what they've added.

Cicie - nothing added. 1818 is the highest numbered page. The title pages, contents, forward-preface-introduction, etc. are pages i-xxxvi (36 additional pages). And there are 106 "full page" Apologetical Explanations that do not get page numbers, they appear between the numbered pages. So adding 1818 + 36 + 106 = 1960.

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Mark!

Thank you for saying so, Rene! I appreciate the encouragement.

Thank you for the correction. Does the configuration of his fingers symbolize his two natures and the three persons of the Trinity?

If you closely at the graphic, you see that Jesus' first two fingers are slightly bent and his thumb is touching the third finger (or fourth, I guess, depending on how you count them!). This is how Orthodox priests and bishops give a blessing to this day. If you kinda squint, the idea is that his fingers form the Greek letters I C X C -- the iconographic contraction for Ιεσυς Χριστος, or Jesus Christ. What you may be thinking of is the way the Orthodox faithful hold their fingers while making the sign of the cross: The first two fingers and the thumb are held together for the three Persons of the Trinity and the other two fingers are folded into the palm of the hand for the two natures of Christ.

@@RGrantJones And the 'cross' in the 'halo' is an indication of Christ's being God.

Thanks for the gracious comment, speed8877!

Leonardo - thank you very much for the kind words. But I want to encourage you to make your own reviews. I think that most people, when they're trying to decide whether to purchase a Bible, want as many perspectives as possible.

Thanks for the encouraging comment!

You're right -- I should have mentioned the notes in the red boxes. Thanks for viewing and for the informative comment!

You're right -- I should have mentioned the notes in the red boxes. Thanks for viewing and for the informative comment!

@R. Grant Jones - Could you double check the thickness of your copy of the Didache Bible? I noticed you gave a thickness of 2-1/8”. My copy (third printing) has a thickness of 1-3/4”.

@@iQRUZN - Mine is between 2 1/16 and 2 1/8 inches thick. It is the second printing.

@R. Grant Jones - So now we know even the Bible dimensions are different between the second and third printing. Interesting.

You're welcome, Mikki S. Thanks for commenting!

Thanks for commenting, acardnal! I don't know Hebrew, so you'll not see that language on this channel very often. But in my comparison videos (e.g., NRSV vs ESV, ASV vs ESV), you'll see Greek.

Thank you!

Got it , and it’s absolutely fantastic

Purely your opinion.

Thank you for the encouraging comment! I hope I can recall that pronunciation the next time.

Thanks for commenting, acardnal! That's good news, and I'm glad you posted it here so others can know that the print and paper quality have improved.

@@RGrantJones yes I just received the Didache bible, they seeme to have corrected the printing issues you mentioned. Its a beautiful study bible.

@@ACF1901 - excellent! Thanks for letting me know.

I had heard that the Didache Bible was available in the NABRE. I doubt I'll review it, since I prefer the RSV2CE to the NABRE, and the notes in the two editions should be the same. But thank you for the suggestion, and may God bless you and yours!

@@RGrantJones +1. I imagine the Didache Bible NABRE Edition being a quite schizophrenic read. It has the (some would say "less than faithful") introductions and footnotes from the NABRE, on the same page with the Didache's CCC-based notes.

Thanks for that kind comment! I did an internet search and found this -- catholicbookpublishing.com/new-catholic-bible. Is this the correct edition?

Thanks for the request, Shoba Elizabeth Antony. I'll have to check into the Catholic Study Bible to see if I'd find it useful.

It's available here: www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers-Greek-English-Translations/dp/0801022258/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=9780801022258&qid=1568462868&sr=8-1 . The edition being sold now is an update to the one I showed, so the cover is different.

I haven't spent much time in the text of this edition, so I haven't developed an opinion on it. I'm encouraged that you see it as an improvement. I must say I miss the archaic language.

@@RGrantJones Just two examples of improvements to the RSV translation: John 3:16 has "only-begotten" restored, and Isaiah 7:14 reads "A virgin shall conceive".

My copy is the RSV2CE. But I believe there's an edition in the NABRE also: www.amazon.com/Didache-Bible-American-Revised-Hardcover/dp/1939231175/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=didache+bible+nabre&qid=1561617544&s=gateway&sr=8-1 .

As a protestant looking into catholicism, that is very disheartening to hear. I really don't know how most modernists can be religious, doubly so for Catholics with all the worshiping/prayer/ritualistic nature of it. Im looking into catholicism to escape progressive heresies, sad that catholicism is being infiltrated as well.

​@@KillerofGods Catholic or Orthodox or protestant can't help or save you. Following the word of God can. Denominations are evil and cause separation.

@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 Which is why I go to both an Orthodox church and Catholic church. I go to God's original churches and pray for unity.

​@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Can you explain which commentaries you don't like?

Eric - I think it's a very good study Bible. The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament has more detailed notes, but as far as I know the complete work hasn't been published yet. I suspect when the entire Bible is available, it will be large and cumbersome. I'm not very familiar with Catholic study aids.

@@RGrantJones thanks for your prompt response! I saw your channel because of this review! I subscribed because you have a great commentary & ASMR voice. Very calming Thank you for being genuine and thorough and God Bless you and your house!

I think the difference in presentation has to do with the complexity of the Greek additions to Esther.

@@RGrantJones Greek Esther additions look fragmented and make no sense on their own. Out of 18 Apocrypha books, 5 are just book additions to already present Hebrew Bible books.

Thanks for the question, Catholic Femininity, but I'm not sure what you're asking. The Douay-Rheims Bible was published before the KJV, and the KJV translators made some use of it as they revised the (even earlier) Bishops' Bible. A man named Challoner revised the original Douay-Rheims in around 1750, giving us the Douay-Rheims used today. The KJV was revised in 1885, and that produced the Revised Version. An American edition of the Revised Version was published in 1901; it's called the American Standard Version. The American Standard Version was revised in the 1940s, producing the Revised Standard Version. A Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version was published in the 1960s, and it's called the RSV-CE. The RSV-CE is very close to the RSV, with a few changes to the RSV's New Testament. The RSV Second Catholic Edition (RSV2CE), which the Didache Bible uses, came out in 2006. It modernizes the language in the RSV-CE.

High humidity is my guess.

@@RGrantJones thanks for the fast reply, ca it be reverse? thanks

@@bernztapa1777 - not sure. You could try pressing it. Put a stack of books on the text block and leave it overnight. But I'm not optimistic.

If so, I don't find it printed in the volume. Thanks for the question!

Ignatius study bible or the Navarre Bible are the best. But you won't find all the books of the bible in one binding, due to the extensive notes, so they have to be purchased separately.

@@ACF1901 Thanks.

The notes in the Didache Bible do often quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thank you so much!

www.amazon.com/BestBookStand-INP-102-Patented-Ergonomic-Premium/dp/B00MVBDIPU/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=inp-102-0&qid=1593105478&sr=8-1 . I reviewed the bookstand here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g8uXqamBtMXRnHU.html .

@@RGrantJones Thank you!

This question comes up so frequently that I have a canned response, which I'll paste below. Here are a few reasons I dislike red letters: Red letters often cause me eye strain -- actual physical pain. Publishers seem to have difficulty printing them evenly, so you’re more likely to find faded sections of red text. Black text is often printed on the opposite side of the page, causing show-through/ghosting, and I find red characters on a cluttered background harder to read than black characters on the same background. I made a video on this topic, which can be viewed here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eOCqZaWmnq_OonU.html .

I did enjoy watching this review of The Didache. The review was balanced and showed the changes from the previous editions of the RSV as well as went through examples of some commentaries made in this Bible. I would agree that the leather edition of the Didache should be purchased as the quality of the paper is much better. Thanks for your review.

That's good information about the better paper in the leather edition. The paper in this one isn't horrible, and the line matching certainly helps. I'm always annoyed by glossy paper, and this one has a patterned glossiness, which is worse. But if the reader takes care with the angle between the lamp, page, and eye, it's perfectly usable.

Good question, M.A. Moreno. On 1st Peter, they write, "The early Church accepted this Epistle as having been written by St. Peter, and this has only been challenged seriously since the nineteenth century. The primary arguments [and they describe them] ... None of these, however, constitutes enough evidence to convince the majority of scholars to abandon the traditional belief of Petrine authorship." They give two dates for composition, one for "If written by St. Peter," and the other "If written by another author." The note to 1 Pt 1:1-2 says, "Written AD 57 or 58 by the Apostle Peter ..." On 2nd Peter, "the authorship ... has been in dispute almost since the beginning. ... Most scholars today believe it is the work of a later writer using St. Peter's name to add credibility, while the minority hold that it is indeed the work of St. Peter." Under "Date" there's this clause: "[T]he general consensus is that the Epistle was written from Rome, whether by St. Peter or another writer." The note to 1:12-15 reads as if the note's author believes Peter is the author: "Peter, sensing his own end, wanted to emphasize the foundational truths of the Christian Faith."

Jesus regularly spoke in parable and metaphor. You don't need to be a strict literalist to find spiritual edification and instruction in the Bible.

Some names are accented. Maccabeus is printed as Mac''cabe'us, which is curious.

That's correct. Thanks for commenting!

@@RGrantJones No problem, i appreciate your work.

Thanks for the comment, Monica!

@@RGrantJones I'm sorry it was not much of one. I wanted to tell u I appreciated your work. Very well done and no THANK YOU!

Thanks for letting me know. (By the way, this is the older RSV2CE, not the NRSV.)

@@RGrantJones Wow! Thanks for replying to my comment on a 5 year old video! I meant to say RSV2CE. I have this version in the Catholic "Great Adventure Bible" which I am using in following along with the Bible in a Year podcast by Ascension. I have to say I am underwhelmed, both by the "Great Adventure" and the Bible. A few good articles, but very sparse on commentary, and the translation itself is not a favorite. I'm planning to retire next years, so I'm on a bible buying binge, stocking up my library before the drop in income. Your videos are very helpful.

Can you give me the time mark for when I said the Bible has errors? It's been quite a while since I posted this review, and I don't know what I could have been referring to.

@@RGrantJones 25:55 you talked about a different book briefly and a chat you had with a priest and he agreed with you that the Bible contains some errors

@@dayyego - Ah. Well, if you listen carefully, I didn't say the Bible has errors. I simply related how the priest I was speaking with disagreed with the answer in Fr. Hardon's catechism.

@@RGrantJones ah got you. Sorry I misunderstood. Thank you for responding to clarify!

I don't see one either.

@@RGrantJones Thanks for responding . I have just received it and the front and rear binding pages were cracked / jagged ,so I got in touch with the supplier who asked me to take photos and the back bar code ? thanks anyway

Winnie Spencer - no, I'm not Roman Catholic. Thanks for those kind and encouraging words.

Cringe

Thanks for the comment, David. I'm curious how you reconcile your view with these words from Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus (18 Nov 1893). "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

@@RGrantJones Yup, he takes inerrancy as seriously as possible. The most I can say is that God did not err in the message he wanted to communicate, not just in terms of faith and morals, but in other aspects as well. Also, God was able to use the sacred writers to wholly communicate that message through the Bible. I know it's a stretch, but in that way I can agree with Pope Leo here. But it's really, super important to understand the difference between the Bible and the Qur'an. Muslims are stuck with the idea that the Qur'an was not only inspired, but also written by God word by word. And that is Islam's fatal flaw. If God were to write a book, it would clearly be better written than the Qu'ran, both in terms of writing style and content. We wouldn't want this same argument to be turned on the Bible. As beautiful as many passages of the Bible are, an honest person cannot say that the writing style of the Bible is as good as it can be on every page. Most people, for example, admit that the Gospel of John is the most beautiful of the Gospels. But if God were to have chosen every word of the Bible, then we would expect each book to be equally beautiful. Therefore, I conclude that although the message of the Bible was inspired by God, whatever that might be, and every word was directed by God at communicating this message without error, God left writing style and other lesser important things to the clumsy hands of the sacred writers. It really doesn't bother me, for example, that one Gospel has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on one animal and the other has Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals, and I don't feel the need to perform mental gymnastics in order to reconcile the two narratives. My faith is strong enough so that little things like that, or little disagreements with Pope Leo, won't cause my faith to collapse like a deck of cards. I still have tremendous respect for both Pope Leo and the Bible.

@@donquixotedelamancha58 If God can preserve messages about faith and morals, why wouldn't he preserve anything else in the bible to ensure it's trusted and there is no doubt? If everything else the scripture says is false, how can one believe its true in faith and morals? The bible never states what you are believing... you are to follow what the majisterium has consistantly taught about scripture.

The Catholic Church did not do anything in the Great Schism, except excommunicate eastern patriarchs for disobedience. But why would that be in the bible? It has nothing to do with scripture.

Fred - yes, I do. I think that all kinds of people who have incorrect theological positions can be saved through faith, including Catholics. I suspect some of my theological positions are incorrect, and I'd hate to think I would be damned for holding to incorrect theological positions while putting my faith in Christ. I hope these reviews encourage people to read their Bibles -- which can only be a good thing for all of us.

R. Grant Jones amen. I just have a hard time with it. I grew up Catholic until I visited the church I call home now. I think if a Catholic study’s their Bible and finds the meat and spits out the bones they most definitely can be saved. God is looking for everyone to come to Him so yea I agree.... I very much enjoy your videos. I listen to them everyday actually. I think you should do even more videos about the history of it all and the different intricacies that go into it. You seem to be very studied up and I enjoy gaining knowledge in all of it. Thanks Grant.

anónimo2323 I don’t believe the Bible is a Protestant book. And I am not a prostitute myself I am an independent fundamental Baptist. We never came out of the reformation we were always there

Yes we Catholics are redeemed and we "WORK out our salvation in fear and trembling." The Catholic Church is the sole custodian and expositor of the Bible. The Church ratified the entire Canon of the Bible in the third century. There was no protestant Church then.

rraddena you work because you’re saved not to be saved. My catholic friends I grew up in the Catholic Church. The problem is y’all believe what the “church” believes rather than what God said. If it were up to you to work your way to heaven then Jesus Christ would never of had to die please don’t let the Devil deceive you.

I apologize for speaking quietly, but my voice will not last if I speak loudly. Thanks for the comment!

You are mistaken the original King James Bible contains all the Books the Catholic Church holds as Canonical. These books were removed by Americans after the revolution of 1776. True, the King James translatiors were Protestant, but the translation they produced is very Catholic. I personally own several very old copies of the King James Bible that contain all the Books in the Catholic Cannon of the Old Testament. It is a lot easier to prove the Catholic position using the King James translation than it is using the New American Bible translation. The New American translation is the translation favored by the American Bishops.

Please see Adolph Paffen's comment regarding the original contents of the KJV. I have reviewed two editions of the KJV that include those seven books: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zr9mochoq7HdpY0.html and kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hthyi6t5nZzTYmw.html . I have improved the lighting in my more recent videos.

the KJV, when originally published, had the deutero-canonicals

C L - I appreciate the feedback, but when I listen to this video with my speaker volume at 10%, I hear my voice without *any* difficulty at all.

@@RGrantJones because you are using an external amp and speaker. this is very hard to hear on a mobile device internal speaker when every other video on youtube sounds normal.

I hear it just fine.

It literally has the Catholic canon, with notes corresponding to the Catechism, and an imprimatur from a Catholic bishop.

@@3ggshe11s That is not the Didache, the original Didache was before the counsel of Nicaea. The book contains a code of ethics of the original teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH). Before the gospels.

What exactly do you think it is, then?