B
Bible_Reader
Guest
I know that we are blessed on this forum by a number of articulate readers who are able to find great spiritual nourishment from the Haydock Bible (as, for example, recently republished by Catholic Treasures). I am afraid that I have not yet been able to fully take advantage of this.
I have tried. I actually have three copies of the Haydock Bible. I have a copy of a fine 19th century that I bought from eBay (similar to this one – although I certainly did not pay $1500 for my copy) – it is magnificent, but so large and unwieldy that it is really just for show – not actually practical to use. I have a two volume paperback pair published by Catholic Treasures. And I have a one volume hardcover reprint from Catholic Treasures. I have mostly tried to use the one volume hardcover reprint, but I can’t say I’ve been especially successful.
My first challenge is typographical. The Catholic Treasures reprint has been slightly reduced from the 19th century edition I have. Fortunately, the Bible part of the book is printed on Bible paper, and the Bible dictionary part of the book is printed on glossy but thin paper, so the reprint is much easier to handle. Still, it is too large to read comfortably on one’s lap or in bed – the only way to read this Bible is to put it on a desk or table and sit down. But the way the type is laid out makes this a tough Bible to read. The commentary notes are tiny – maybe about 6 point – and a little blurry. The book introductions are so wide and with such tiny print that I’m amazed anyone can read them easily (for example, take a look at the introduction to the Book of Judges on page 293.)
My second problem is that it doesn’t offer much in the form of Patristic commentary. For example, consider the commentary to Judges 1:2. First here is the verse:
Furthermore, on p. 12, Haydock warns us that Josephus is one of those who “have erred from the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and can therefore be consulted only as Critics or to be refuted.” (emphasis in original). But what is being done here? (Presumably, he is being consulted as a critic, but again, the language is unclear).
In the second sentence, one is struck by the strange way in which Haydock repeats the phrase “some little time”; “some time”. Now at first, you might think that “some time” means “a couple of years”, but if you remember Eleazar died the same year as Joshua (Joshua 24:33). So the real point takes a moment to grasp – Joshua was outlived by several years by Eleazar, and Phinehas followed Eleazar, so therefore this must have taken place after Joshua’s death.
Naturally, at this point, we are wondering why the concern over this chronology particularly since
All of this is interesting, perhaps, but it doesn’t really help me understand or appreciate the text more. It is settling an old argument against a heretic Biblical exegete which is long, long forgotten. No Patristic quotes at all (although we did get a vague reference quote from a Second Temple-period Jew.)
In fact, this is fairly typical of annotations in this Bible (I picked it at random, in fact.) There are very few mystical or allegorical remarks from the Church Fathers.
Now, I am certain that someone will respond to some of my complaints by pointing out that there is an electronic version of the commentary available online here. But you may notice that the electronic version has even more typos that the original text. For example, instead of using “some little time” and “some time” in the second sentence, the electronic version simply presents “some time” twice, which is confusing when we remember that Eleazar died in the same year as Joshua.
I suppose what I was hoping for was an annotation that really built on the Church Fathers. I’ve seen examples of that, such as book-length translations of the Fathers (I’ve been enjoying the New City Press six volume series containing Augustine’s Exposition of the Psalms, for example.) Shorter compilations such Aquinas’s Catena Aurea, or a number of 19th and 20th century compilations of Patristic commentary (e.g., Neale’s [Anglican] summary of Patristic commentary on the Psalms, or the Protestant Ancient Christian Commentary series, or the Navarre Bible. But at least in the sections I have consulted, I haven’t found the Haydock to contain much Patristic commentary. And again, when Haydock does quote the Fathers, he quotes them only to understand the plain meaning of the text, and not the mystical or allegorical meaning.
All, in all, I am finding this a difficulty Bible to use effectively. When I go through it, I need to keep a computer at my side to Google various obscure references.
But I do know that this work has a number of enthusiastic fans on this forum. I was wondering I could ask you what your tips are for reading this Bible more effectively. I am eager to pick up suggestions.
Thanks, and happy reading!
I have tried. I actually have three copies of the Haydock Bible. I have a copy of a fine 19th century that I bought from eBay (similar to this one – although I certainly did not pay $1500 for my copy) – it is magnificent, but so large and unwieldy that it is really just for show – not actually practical to use. I have a two volume paperback pair published by Catholic Treasures. And I have a one volume hardcover reprint from Catholic Treasures. I have mostly tried to use the one volume hardcover reprint, but I can’t say I’ve been especially successful.
My first challenge is typographical. The Catholic Treasures reprint has been slightly reduced from the 19th century edition I have. Fortunately, the Bible part of the book is printed on Bible paper, and the Bible dictionary part of the book is printed on glossy but thin paper, so the reprint is much easier to handle. Still, it is too large to read comfortably on one’s lap or in bed – the only way to read this Bible is to put it on a desk or table and sit down. But the way the type is laid out makes this a tough Bible to read. The commentary notes are tiny – maybe about 6 point – and a little blurry. The book introductions are so wide and with such tiny print that I’m amazed anyone can read them easily (for example, take a look at the introduction to the Book of Judges on page 293.)
My second problem is that it doesn’t offer much in the form of Patristic commentary. For example, consider the commentary to Judges 1:2. First here is the verse:
Here is the commentary (I tried to match the font size and and font, to give you a sense of how hard it can be to read the annotations):
Well, that commentary is not particular clear, is it? In the first sentence Josephus is referenced, but my goodness – what does “v. 2” mean? How does that help me find the appropriate place in Josephus? Probably Haydock meant the second volume of the Jewish Antiquities, but Josephus wrote several “multi-volume” books.
Furthermore, on p. 12, Haydock warns us that Josephus is one of those who “have erred from the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, and can therefore be consulted only as Critics or to be refuted.” (emphasis in original). But what is being done here? (Presumably, he is being consulted as a critic, but again, the language is unclear).
In the second sentence, one is struck by the strange way in which Haydock repeats the phrase “some little time”; “some time”. Now at first, you might think that “some time” means “a couple of years”, but if you remember Eleazar died the same year as Joshua (Joshua 24:33). So the real point takes a moment to grasp – Joshua was outlived by several years by Eleazar, and Phinehas followed Eleazar, so therefore this must have taken place after Joshua’s death.
Naturally, at this point, we are wondering why the concern over this chronology particularly since
- Judges 1:1 states that this happened after Joshua’s death; and
- there is a footnote reminding us that that this took place “A.M. 2575, A.C. 1484” (Of course, this footnote has an egregious typo – A.M. means Anno Mundi – the accounting which makes the year of creation year 1. A.C. means what we today call *A.D *-- but of course, Haydock meant B.C.) This is just one of many typos in the volume – I find between one and six typos on each page.
Well, this is all a setup to attack someone named Le Clerc. Who is that? Le Clerc is not listed in “The List of the Principal Commentators &c.” on page 12. Of course, we can simply google his name and find out that he was a radical Protestant Biblical scholar who was kicked out of Geneva for heresy. At this point, one begins to wonder – why are we even bothering with this fellow?
All of this is interesting, perhaps, but it doesn’t really help me understand or appreciate the text more. It is settling an old argument against a heretic Biblical exegete which is long, long forgotten. No Patristic quotes at all (although we did get a vague reference quote from a Second Temple-period Jew.)
In fact, this is fairly typical of annotations in this Bible (I picked it at random, in fact.) There are very few mystical or allegorical remarks from the Church Fathers.
Now, I am certain that someone will respond to some of my complaints by pointing out that there is an electronic version of the commentary available online here. But you may notice that the electronic version has even more typos that the original text. For example, instead of using “some little time” and “some time” in the second sentence, the electronic version simply presents “some time” twice, which is confusing when we remember that Eleazar died in the same year as Joshua.
I suppose what I was hoping for was an annotation that really built on the Church Fathers. I’ve seen examples of that, such as book-length translations of the Fathers (I’ve been enjoying the New City Press six volume series containing Augustine’s Exposition of the Psalms, for example.) Shorter compilations such Aquinas’s Catena Aurea, or a number of 19th and 20th century compilations of Patristic commentary (e.g., Neale’s [Anglican] summary of Patristic commentary on the Psalms, or the Protestant Ancient Christian Commentary series, or the Navarre Bible. But at least in the sections I have consulted, I haven’t found the Haydock to contain much Patristic commentary. And again, when Haydock does quote the Fathers, he quotes them only to understand the plain meaning of the text, and not the mystical or allegorical meaning.
All, in all, I am finding this a difficulty Bible to use effectively. When I go through it, I need to keep a computer at my side to Google various obscure references.
But I do know that this work has a number of enthusiastic fans on this forum. I was wondering I could ask you what your tips are for reading this Bible more effectively. I am eager to pick up suggestions.
Thanks, and happy reading!
