Douay-Rheims Haydock Bible

[michelleds]

Anyone own this Bible and if so, could you comment on it in comparison to other Bibles and commentaries that you own or have used?

thanks!

 

[Epistemes]

There are more than enough threads on this topic already. I recommend a simple search and you find many, many proponents of this Bible.

 

[InnocentSmith]

Anyone own this Bible and if so, could you comment on it in comparison to other Bibles and commentaries that you own or have used?

thanks!

It is a Bble that I enjoy greatly, and would highly recommend. You can find it online here:


http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock

 

[Bible_Reader]

Anyone own this Bible and if so, could you comment on it in comparison to other Bibles and commentaries that you own or have used?

thanks!

I’ll let you form your own opinions on the content. I’m going to address the printing quality and size:

While the Biblical text is readable, I find the notes in the printed edition unreadable – the typesetting causes the words to be badly smeared and the abbreviations are often cryptic.

The volume(s) itself is relatively bulky: it is 8.5" x 11" – and some editions are as thick as five inches while others are a more manageable two inches.

For all these reasons, I think that using the free web-based version is preferable to the printed edition.

(I suggest this web-based version over the above listed site because it spells out more abbreviations and makes consistent references – Haydock uses inconsistent abbreviations such as Aug., Austin., and *Augustin. *to refer to Augustine.)

 

[thistle]

I’ll let you form your own opinions on the content. I’m going to address the printing quality and size:

While the Biblical text is readable, I find the notes in the printed edition unreadable – the typesetting causes the words to be badly smeared and the abbreviations are often cryptic.

The volume(s) itself is relatively bulky: it is 8.5" x 11" – and some editions are as thick as five inches while others are a more manageable two inches.

For all these reasons, I think that using the free web-based version is preferable to the printed edition.

(I suggest this web-based version over the above listed site because it spells out more abbreviations and makes consistent references – Haydock uses inconsistent abbreviations such as Aug., Austin., and *Augustin. *to refer to Augustine.)

I have it and don’t agree with your comments about the commentary in the notes being unreadable. For me they are perfectly readable. No smudging or smearing at all.
Maybe you just got a bad copy.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Here is something I wrote three years ago about this edition:

For example, consider the commentary to Judges 1:2. First here is the verse:

And the Lord said : Juda shall go up : behold I have delivered the land into his hands.

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):

VER**. 2. Said,** by the mouth of Phinees, (Josephus v. 2,) who had succeeded Eleazar in the pontificate. The latter survived Josue some little time, so that this must have happened some time later. Le Clerc offers violence to the text, when he asserts that the war against Adonibezec took place under the government of Josue. – Juda. Some suppose that this is the name of the leader: but most people conclude from the sequel, that it designated the tribe. C. — This first judge was of this tribe, but not all of them. The manner of consulting the Lord was by the high priest praying before the tabernacle, Exodus xxix. W.

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. (Some one later claimed that was a reference to Book V, Chapter 2.)

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” (You’ll need to know A.M. means Anno Mundi – the accounting which makes the year of creation year 1. A.C. means what we today call B.C.)

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?

The next comment is attributed to “C.”, and one just needs to figure out that this refers to Calmet’s famous bible dictionary (not so famous, though, that it is still in print.) Calmet is the single most cited source in the commentary – he is cited 21 times in Judges Chapter 1 alone. Well, this is useful, but it is not bringing us any closer to Patristic sources. Similarly, W. refers to Worthington, who was one of the original annotators of the Douai Old Testament.

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.

 

[thistle]

Here is something I wrote three years ago about this edition:

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. (Some one later claimed that was a reference to Book V, Chapter 2.)

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” (You’ll need to know A.M. means Anno Mundi – the accounting which makes the year of creation year 1. A.C. means what we today call B.C.)

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?

The next comment is attributed to “C.”, and one just needs to figure out that this refers to Calmet’s famous bible dictionary (not so famous, though, that it is still in print.) Calmet is the single most cited source in the commentary – he is cited 21 times in Judges Chapter 1 alone. Well, this is useful, but it is not bringing us any closer to Patristic sources. Similarly, W. refers to Worthington, who was one of the original annotators of the Douai Old Testament.

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.

You may have reason or not to complain about abreviations but the font type and size on my copy and the sample you gave in your post is easily readable to me.

 

[michelleds]

Thank you, everyone, for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I appreciate it.

I apologize for re-posting, unfortunately the last 2 or 3 times that I’ve tried to search for something, I keep getting a Nothing Found message. since one of my searches was for “confession” I think that the function wasn’t working!

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Here is something I wrote three years ago about this edition:

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. (Some one later claimed that was a reference to Book V, Chapter 2.)

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” (You’ll need to know A.M. means Anno Mundi – the accounting which makes the year of creation year 1. A.C. means what we today call B.C.)

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?

The next comment is attributed to “C.”, and one just needs to figure out that this refers to Calmet’s famous bible dictionary (not so famous, though, that it is still in print.) Calmet is the single most cited source in the commentary – he is cited 21 times in Judges Chapter 1 alone. Well, this is useful, but it is not bringing us any closer to Patristic sources. Similarly, W. refers to Worthington, who was one of the original annotators of the Douai Old Testament.

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.

Catholics find the notes helpful.