The Saint Benedict Press Douay-Rheims Bible

Рет қаралды 22,780

Күн бұрын

The Saint Benedict Press Douay-Rheims Bible in genuine leather. The copy that appears in this video has a burgundy cover (ISBN 9781935302049). Currently, the black genuine leather edition is available (ISBN 9781935302032).
The Biblical text is presented in two columns, arranged in verses. The font in the text is 8.85 points in height. Sadly, the words of Christ are in lightly printed red letters.
I estimate the paper weight at 32 gsm. The paper is somewhat glossy, but reasonably opaque. Show-through (ghosting) is not troublesome, even though the text is not line-matched.
Page edges are covered in gold. The binding is glued. The volume will not lie open in Genesis Chapter 1. One golden ribbon marker is provided.
Detailed contents
00:00 Dimensions, margins, layout, font ... (three charts)
00:30 Size compared to other Bibles
01:03 The genuine leather cover
01:54 Page layout
03:23 The font in the text
04:30 The font in the page-bottom references and notes
04:50 Paper qualities (thickness, weight, opacity, gloss, color)
05:32 Print non-uniformity (fading)
06:15 Book introductions
07:35 Each book does not begin on a separate page
08:00 The words of Christ in the gospels are in red ink
08:48 Quotations from the Old Testament in the New are in italic font
08:57 Historical and chronological index
10:39 The color paintings and maps
11:30 The text block is glued and the Bible will not lie open in Genesis Chapter One
12:08 The ribbon marker and head and tail bands
12:50 What do the letters "CSPB" on the cover mean?
14:34 ISBNs for other editions
16:15 The character of the translation
16:45 New Testament textual choices characterized by comparisons with four modern Greek New Testaments
19:27 An example of the variation in darkness in the red letters
19:51 A close-up look at the font
20:07 The font compared to that in the P.J. Kennedy & Sons Douay-Rheims Bible
20:29 The font compared to that in Ignatius Press' Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition
20:55 The font compared to that in a Saint Joseph medium-sized New American Bible Revised Edition
21:17 The font compared to that in a facsimile of the 1582 Rheims New Testament
22:41 A brief look at some notes in the original 1582 Rheims New Testament that are no longer present
24:19 Concluding thoughts -- pros and con

Пікірлер: 164

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I reviewed a 1980s TAN Douay-Rheims Bible here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iNFmeaiQ2N2ZpIE.html ; and the facsimile 1582 Rheims New Testament here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7lon710nbHefJc.html .

@delgande 2 жыл бұрын

I now own this Bible. It is simple and beaitiful.

@zacharyhoughton3391 3 ай бұрын

Very helpful review, thank you! Was looking between this and Baronius Press

@myzencatholicsim9613 7 ай бұрын

I just purchased this Bible and love it! I was also raised by Benedictine Monks in the Philippines having studied in San Beda (St Benedict's College, now a university) from all of kindergarten to college. Also served in the Abbey.

@joest.eggbenedictus1896 3 жыл бұрын

I appreciate your review of offbeat and Catholic Bibles! What I like most about this Bible is the name of the publisher!!

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

LOL. I wonder why.

@flintymcduff5417 Жыл бұрын

The DR is "offbeat"?

@chrisbaron70 Жыл бұрын

Off beat because it does not compromise and adapt to fit!

@liviannarrate3351 3 жыл бұрын

Love you R.Grant Jones & thank you 😊

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you very much for that kind comment, Livian!

@mariad4183 4 ай бұрын

LOVE you vids! Thank you so much!

@RGrantJones 4 ай бұрын

Thank you for the kind comment!

@2ndTrapkat5123 3 жыл бұрын

thx for this review, i was going to buy this one, but i will purchase the baronius press version now just stuck on the standard or large version now.

@johnwilderspin1633 3 жыл бұрын

Hi Grant, fine review, thank you. I have 2 different versions of the Vulgate NT. The more recent is bound with a NA 28th GNT, the older ed is bound with the OT Latin Vulgate. Both are published by UBS. Reviewers on Amazon have criticized the version bound with the NA saying, “That’s not a real Vulgate!” The newer version seems closer to NA & the older to MT /BT in certain text places. I’ve been planning on reading the introductions to both to get a better handle on the issue & your review has spurred me on, again thank you. Blessings & Merry Christmas John

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much for the enlightening comment, John! Not being a Latin reader, I wasn't aware of the editions you describe.

@joefrankhernandez7656 3 жыл бұрын

Awesome reviews

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the encouragement!

@rachelkarslake7787 3 жыл бұрын

What a lucky find! I enjoyed this review. It was very informative. I, especially, like the comparison with the facsimile. I have been thinking of getting a DR version for a couple months now. They are expensive new, for a Bible with a glued binding (in my opinion). Does your other DR Bible have a sewn binding, or is it also glued?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the encouraging comment, Rachel! I agree with you. The SBS edition is overpriced. The TAN DR I bought new in the 1980s, the one I reviewed about two years ago, has a glued binding. The P.J. Kennedy & Sons reproduction of the John Murphy edition, which I bought used in a library book sale and which appears just before the three charts at beginning of this video and again in the font comparison section, has a sewn binding. The facsimile 1582 Rheims New Testament is glued.

@ggarza 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for an excellent review. The 1899 American publication of the DR Bible very interesting, indeed. This Bible is republishing of the Challoner Revision of the DR text with a greatly reduced selection of his notes. It was printed by a man who was a former African-American slave who began his printing business by hand cranking Sunday School bulletins for his AME parish in Baltimore. Mr. John H. Murphy, Sr. founder of John Murphy Co. and was the first to publish the DR with an imprimatur, given by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. He did so, I presume, to reassure his Catholic readers. He would go on to publish this Bible in English for Catholics with the young earth chronology added to the end of the New Testament text, entitled, "An Historical and Chronological Index to the Old Testament." The chronology was written by Church of Ireland scholar and leader James Ussher of the previous century. This curious chronology would be remedied in subsiquent editions. Beginning in 1914, Murphy removed the precise dates of Ussher to the events of creation. Interestingly, it is this edition with Ussher's chronology that has been republished by Tan and others. Also, of interest is John Henry Newman's review of the Challoner Revision. He writes, "Challoner's version is even nearer to the Protestant (that is, the KJV/Authorised Version) than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction," July 1859, The Rambler, vol. 1, pt 2, pg. 152. He continues, "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," ibid, pg 153. I highly recommend Newman's review and history of the DR and precise comparison to the KJV/Authorized Version, quoted, above.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks very much for that informative comment, Gil! I hope other viewers see and read it.

@jimcook1747 3 жыл бұрын

I have the paperback St. Benedict Press Douay-Rheims for reference, the print non-uniformity makes the printing in red (which is often very faint) unpleasant to read (not the content of the words themselves, though, which liven the soul!).

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting! Yes, I wish that either red letters weren't so popular or publishers could learn to print them uniformly in a very dark red. But red letter editions seem not to be losing popularity, and Cambridge seems to be the only publisher that prints them well.

@brendakauffman2222 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones IKR burgundy for the red would be great.

@douglasj2254 3 жыл бұрын

Nice find sir! That would have fetched an absurdly inflated price online these days. I will share an observation regarding the glued bindings from St. Benedict/TAN Press. I do not have any editions from 1995 but I have several from 2009-2010, both DR and RSV. Some of them have spent hot and cold days in the car and been heavily used and the pages are still tight. Who knows if the adhesives used in the 1990s was the same as the 2000-2010 editions. Peace.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to comment, Douglas J! I have several Bibles with glued bindings that have held up well, but I'm very gentle with them, so I haven't actually given the glued binding much of a challenge. It's good to hear that your older copies are so durable!

@joehinojosa8030 3 жыл бұрын

Nice Bibles. I'm jealous

@cesaresp101 3 жыл бұрын

I know you said you don’t own a hcsb but if you ever don’t know what to review next, I think it’s a good option for completeness

@2macca746 3 жыл бұрын

The Benedict press DR bible that has been republished with Tan books does have a few typos. The First epistle of St Paul to Timothy is titled as “ The first epistle TO Saint Paul to Timothy”. Also I’ve found a few instances where one word is extremely spaced out taking up a full sentence worth of space. One example is the word “brought” in Ezechiel 31:15. I have the leather, ultra soft and paperback editions and they all contain the same typos. I am curious if this edition does as well. Thanks for another great review.

@roxannefrancis2 3 жыл бұрын

Mr. Jones , I like your reviews. I would like your opinion on which bible should a catholic use for deeper study, also the most accurate translation. Your answer would be appreciated

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the question, Roxanne! If I were a Catholic, I would probably use the Douay-Rheims as my primary Bible and the Knox translation as a backup, simply because the Council of Trent decreed that the Vulgate is authentic and that no one should reject it. Both those translations are from the Vulgate. But if I were to chose among modern translations directly from the original language, I would say that the ESV-CE is probably the most accurate English translation for Catholics available. Though I prefer the English style in the RSV-CE, the ESV-CE tightens the translation in a few places where the RSV-CE is more interpretive.

@paulcollins6732 3 жыл бұрын

Happy Christmas, R. Grant Jones! Can you review the Catholic edn of the NLT bible at some stage, please? Meant to ask, too, if US edn of the RNJB retains the anglicized text. Thanks & have a great 2021! Paul

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Merry Christmas, Paul! In my copy of the RNJB, Genesis 37.3 tells of Joseph's 'coloured tunic'. So, yes, it has the Anglicized text. I don't actually own a copy of the NLT, but I'll check into the NLT Catholic Edition.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Is the book you're interested in entitled 'Holy Bible, New Living Translation, Catholic Reader's Edition'? Amazon appears to sell a hardback.

@paulcollins6732 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones Yes - that's it! 90 or so scholars involved in the translation. I know that, in its dynamic equivalence, it's very different from my preferred RSV-2CE, but I'm nevertheless looking forward to reading its rendering of the more difficult passages in Paul's letters.

@paulcollins6732 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones Great. Thanks for your videos in 2020, and I wish you a joy-filled and fruitful 2021.

@pmachapman 3 жыл бұрын

I like the D-R translation for its faithfulness to the Vulgate, but this does make its proper nouns often unintelligible to the modern reader. I compare it to the KJV to quickly get a grasp on Latin/Western textual variants, particularly in the Deutrocanon/Apocrypha (the ending of Judith is one of my favourites right now).

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting, Peter!

@vincenzoaiello7998 4 ай бұрын

Love your reviews. I'd love to see your thoughts on the Confraternity Edition. Sadly, it was a project never completed. It was the church's attempt to modernize the Vulgate just before orders were given to translate from the original languages. They completed the New Testament and only parts of the OT. I know you're not Catholic, but I think it's one of the more elegant and tasteful translations. They can be found fairly cheap on eBay all the time (sometimes under Douay-Confraternity version).

@RGrantJones 4 ай бұрын

Thanks for the kind comment. I've reviewed a Confraternity New Testament ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fs6jopN3yaedkYk.html ) and a Confraternity/DR family Bible ( kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l8qFfJiA1Me8lqs.html ).

@icxcnikalastname3317 3 жыл бұрын

Would you please consider doing a AKJV vs Douay-Rheims translation comparison? I respect your opinions re translations and would like to hear what you say about it. It's my understanding that the DR Bible came out shortly before the KJV or the DR New Testament at least.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I plan to compare the KJV and DR at some point. But I've had some interest in a NABRE vs ESV-CE comparison, so that's the one I intend to post next.

@buzzledoux7572 2 жыл бұрын

KJV are fake! That is the differences!

@IIIzZplll 3 жыл бұрын

Sorry if I missed this. Did you or do do you plan to review the edition published by Baronius Press?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the question, Zachary! I understand that the Baronius Press edition includes a few typos, so I'm inclined to wait for those to be corrected.

@dcalflorian 3 жыл бұрын

I have this edition and like it very much. There is a Latin-English version that I would like to supplement my Latin study, Douay-Rheims and Clementina Vulgata English-Latin Bible by Baronius Press. I don't know if it is an earlier version of the Vulgate. Would you happen to know of this one? Thank for this presentation. You do a very good job with your research. Have a blessed Advent!

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the kind comment, Dave! No, I haven't seen that edition, though I believe others have mentioned it in comments in the past.

@douglasj2254 3 жыл бұрын

Loreto Publications makes a nice English/Latin New Testament. It has thick paper and bold print but is relatively small, naturally, since it is NT only. It likewise uses the so-called Clementine Vulgate. If I recall correctly, the Clementine Vulgate is just a later (1500s) edition of the Latin text issued with some improvements/corrections. I am no expert but I do not believe it was an "overhaul" of the previous Latin editions. Peace.

@AnimalLover-yi5ik 3 жыл бұрын

I just got this bible from Amazon today. Your pages look nice and white, but the pages in mine look yellow, as if this Bible has been sitting in the Amazon wear house for decades. Was your pages white when you first got it ? Or do they just look white on camera only ?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the question, Animal Lover! The paper in my copy is close to white. It has a slight beige tinge to it.

@Shuji_the_great Жыл бұрын

Found this online and they're way too expensive for what they are granted they have some goodies within. I hope some day Douay Rheims can have inexpensive edition for Catholic english speaker around the world like the king james, but fingers crossed.

@the2494silvester 3 жыл бұрын

Can you please give me the Link of this edition? Even if it is Black cover. God bless

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I believe it's this one -- it has the right ISBN. www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Bible-Black-Genuine-Leather/dp/1935302035

@the2494silvester 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones Thank You

@aaronmueller5802 3 жыл бұрын

I was just wondering about this particular bible and your review came out today. Must be providence. Thanks for your review. It's really a shame that Catholic bible publishing overall is nowhere near the quality of protestant bibles (especially the premium ones).

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment, Aaron! This edition reminds me of several Protestant Bibles I encountered in the first decade of this century, particularly with respect to the cover, glued binding, and light red letters. It's been mainly in the past few years that publishers like Zondervan and Nelson have stepped up the quality in their editions. Perhaps we'll see a similar trend soon for Catholic Bibles, to include the publication of a few premium editions. I hope so!

@aaronmueller5802 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones I certainly hope so!

@aaronmueller5802 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones Also, on an unrelated note, do you use Douay-Rheims in personal reading? I know you ready Greek and have talked about some other translations you use, but you have reviewed quite a few Douays. Just wondering.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

@@aaronmueller5802 - yes, but I would characterize my usage as consulting rather than reading. I often check the D-R when I'm puzzled over a passage to see if I can get a fresh perspective.

@Josh-yk6xk 2 жыл бұрын

My newer black leather Douay Rheims is a sewn binding.

@CadillacBunner 3 жыл бұрын

There are only three current publishers of the D|R: TAN (what you are holding), Loreto (The Haydock revision) and Dr. William G. von Peters' version which is published by himself.

@darklotus5309 3 жыл бұрын

Do you have a social media where we can ask more direct technical questions?

@sharifmansour9678 3 жыл бұрын

I wish you would spend more time reviewing the translation and content of your bibles than the physical attributes. I've heard this edition contains some typographical errors, and this has been my experience with modern reprints of the DRB in general, quite sadly. The Baronius Press edition has some. Not sure about the Loreto. Because of this, I will probably only be buying versions based on photocopies of older editions.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the constructive criticism, Sharif! What specifically would you like to see in the translation review portion of the video? I had heard that the Baronius Press edition contains typos, but I wasn't aware that this one did.

@sharifmansour9678 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones You're welcome! I'm a fan of the videos, but I usually have to skip far ahead to the parts that interest me. I know I personally like to use Isaiah 1 to check the tone of the translation to see how it reads. Passages that contain different names of God, terms for different theological concepts, like sheol, gehenna, rephaim, angels, etc. Maybe more focus on the theological biases of translations. I like when you cover things like that. A good video would be a comparison between the original DR, the KJV, and the DR Challoner revision. Take a look at the book of Wisdom, for instance. I typed it out recently for the originaldouayrheims.com website recently, and it's practically unreadable.

@paolofresnoza4261 3 жыл бұрын

Brother do you have any link where I can purchase this Bible? :) Pax Christi!

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I think the edition with the burgundy cover is out of print. But if you don't mind a black cover, you can find it at Amazon -- www.amazon.com/Douay-Rheims-Bible-Black-Genuine-Leather/dp/1935302035 .

@christophermorton7680 4 ай бұрын

TAN just released a Douay-Rheims large print edition in leatherette, any plans to review it?

@RGrantJones 4 ай бұрын

No, not I. Thanks for the question!

@AozenDreyar 6 ай бұрын

where can i find rsv ce first edition ? i am unable to find stores that sell it ( can you help me please?)

@AozenDreyar 5 ай бұрын

@@Anti.Vegans it does not ship to my country sadly

@viktor42069 3 жыл бұрын

have you ever come across the Ferrar Fenton Bible?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I've heard of it, but I've never seen one.

@johnedwinoliver6842 Ай бұрын

Text is too small.

@OrthodoxPhilip 2 ай бұрын

I'm very surprised that the NASB scored only ~60% matching with the NA28 text. Isn't the NASB supposed to be a literal translation of the NA text?

@7thheaventruth 2 ай бұрын

It’s the worst NASB it very misleading

@thecreeper6799 2 ай бұрын

I just bought what i thought was the catholic version of this book on amazon. Its by the same press and even has the same cover art. My book is almost identical to yours except it doesn't say catholic edition on the spine. I thought douay rheims was a catholic bible 😅 Is there any difference between the 2 versions?

@RGrantJones 2 ай бұрын

I haven't seen your edition, but my guess is that they're the same. When you look at the table of contents, do you see Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Machabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus?

@thecreeper6799 2 ай бұрын

@@RGrantJones yes it has all of those in it. Mine is also the black version too.

@RGrantJones 2 ай бұрын

@@thecreeper6799 - Maybe they took those words off the spine to declutter the cover?

@thecreeper6799 2 ай бұрын

@@RGrantJones thank you! I'm new to Catholicism and am learning about the differences in the translations and all the ones I bought say catholic edition except this one. I own 4 different translations (DR/KJV/NABRE/NRSV) and everywhere I look I see that the Douay Rheims bible is the way to go. I was worried that I may have gotten a different translation. Sorry if my question was silly. U seemed to know a lot. Thank you for responding too! I greatly appreciate it! 👍🏻❤

@darklotus5309 3 жыл бұрын

Thoughts on the NASB update?

@darklotus5309 3 жыл бұрын

Sorry. It took me 3 seconds to see you have a recent video on the subject. Thank you for your work.

@Younas7991 3 жыл бұрын

How many Bibles in your collection total?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I haven't counted them, Syed. Thanks for the question!

@ivanfourie 3 жыл бұрын

Maybe you could give me insight on this; Why is it so much harder to find a facsimile copy of the 1610 Douay Rheims than it is to find a facsimile copy of the 1611 King James Bible?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

I wish I knew, ivan. Perhaps publishers don't realize there's a market for original DRB facsimiles. (But let me point out that many of the 1611 KJV facsimiles are actually pseudo-facsimiles.)

@ivanfourie 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones so what does that imply regarding the KJV facsimile's, can you elaborate a bit more?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

@@ivanfourie - the original KJV was printed in black letter -- which looks like a Gothic typeface. If I recall correctly, the first KJV in Roman type came out in 1612. Most of the modern 'facsimiles' are in Roman type, but the font used in the 'facsimiles' doesn't include the long s used at the time. (The long s looks like an f without the crossbar.)

@ivanfourie 3 жыл бұрын

@@RGrantJones so I can assume that if my facsimile KJV has the long S (and the type face does look vary gothic) that it is from the original ? . . mine checks out lol

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

@@ivanfourie - if it looks like this, it's either a genuine 1611 or an actual facsimile: onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AHYe0OZFb0kXD3o&id=C61B94E6FD255BC9%2123911&cid=C61B94E6FD255BC9 .

@cesaresp101 3 жыл бұрын

Can you do the hcsb?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the question! I don't own a complete copy of that translation -- just a pocket New Testament.

@ivanfourie 3 жыл бұрын

Why are you so opposed to red letter additions?

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the question, ivan. I dislike red letter editions because red on white presents less contrast than black on white, and I find it difficult to read. Sometimes the red is so bright that it's painful. Red ink also seems more difficult to print evenly than black, so it's more common to find pages with faded print in the red letter sections. When you're trying to read red letters and the opposite page is printed in black, the show-through (ghosting) problem is more severe.

@loganross1861 3 жыл бұрын

Where can I get a douay rheims With the quality of a KJV published by Cambridge or Church Bible Publishers??? I actually like the print block of that first Benedict press. But I need smith sewn and ironed calfskin or some other similar quality cover....

@chrisbaron70 Жыл бұрын

Can you get a single column DR?

@RGrantJones Жыл бұрын

I don't know of one.

@chrisbaron70 Жыл бұрын

Okay I’ll speak to pope Francis about it

@gbantock 3 жыл бұрын

Several of TAN's other 1899 Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version Bible reprints are physicaly superior to this attractive, but essentially cheaply produced, edition. Even some of the TAN paperback bound Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible are superior to this one.

@gbantock 3 жыл бұрын

Although the Bibles which I use most are mainly K.J.V., I do use the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version more often than the various modern versions.

@RGrantJones 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting, Gerald! It's good to know that TAN produces higher quality options. I agree with your characterization of this one: "essentially cheaply produced."

@CadillacBunner 3 жыл бұрын

The TAN paperback is identical to the leather and ultrasoft editions. The difference is that the paperback is glued while the leather and ultrasoft are sewn and then glued. The contents and pagination are identical. The hardbound leather edition is from Loreto not TAN.

@buzzledoux7572 2 жыл бұрын

Challoner bibles are not valid translations

@buzzledoux7572 2 жыл бұрын

@@gbantock So you use a fake bible more than a real one