Would you like to see a PROPER Douay-Rheims edition, pre-Challoner revisions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristusVincit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL at “reasonable price!”

They’re making a fuss about it being with the latin too - I’ve not seen newer breviaries, have they ditched the latin?
 
ChristusVincit said:
Pretty much the only people who would consider undertaking this might be Baronius Press. If you’d like to see this, perhaps you might like to go to their contact page on www.baroniuspress.com or email them on info@baroniuspress.com to request such a publication!
Click to expand...
I got the Challoner version from Baronius Press and I love it. I would love to see a pre Challoner edition. As far as calling it “proper” makes it seem like the Challoner and the Haydock are illicit, which is not true. I am still waiting for the Breviary and the Ronald Knox Translation to appear.
 
ChristusVincit said:
LOL at “reasonable price!”

They’re making a fuss about it being with the latin too - I’ve not seen newer breviaries, have they ditched the latin?
Click to expand...
Newer breviaries (well, the Liturgy of the Hours) do not have the side-by-side translations, which is to the detriment of the LotH, I think.

If I were Baronius, I’d get it out asap, and charge a low price. Otherwise, no one is going to buy it. Like, their Clementine Bible is $90. What!? Shakes head

The Latin is important, because then the priests can pray the Office to fulfill their canonical duty, and the English is important for learning/teaching/the laity.

So, here’s to hoping it’s done soon, and cheap.

My bet, though, is it’ll be in the region of $300+. Just pure speculation on my part.

I’d love to see it compete in price with the LotH, though…
 
You could not read a 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims pre-Challoner revision. It is why he revised it, is not?
 
Jon_Paul said:
You could not read a 1582/1610 Douay-Rheims pre-Challoner revision. It is why he revised it, is not?
Click to expand...
Challoner revised for clarity. Many people still did know how to read it, but some words were obscure
 
tobinatorstark said:
Challoner revised for clarity. Many people still did know how to read it, but some words were obscure
Click to expand...
Interesting. So where there other pre-Challoner revisions of the 1582/1610 edition or was Challoner the first?
 
Jon_Paul said:
Interesting. So where there other pre-Challoner revisions of the 1582/1610 edition or was Challoner the first?
Click to expand...
I believe it was the first. It is the one you more than likely find on the shelves. There is the Haydock Bible Commentary as well, but pricey at 125 dollars
 
I don’t mean to say it’s illicit - but it’s not the original, which seems impossible to find. Apart from an extortionate website that prints on demand…
 
tobinatorstark said:
I believe it was the first. It is the one you more than likely find on the shelves. There is the Haydock Bible Commentary as well, but pricey at 125 dollars
Click to expand...
Yes, I have the Baronius Press Challoner Edition, though I was looking to get the Haydock with the commentary, but it was in US$ and I couldn’t find anyone shipping within the UK. Baronius was the easier option.
 
ChristusVincit said:
I don’t mean to say it’s illicit - but it’s not the original, which seems impossible to find. Apart from an extortionate website that prints on demand…
Click to expand...
I have tremendous respect for the originals. I don’t know why it is so rare to find them out on the shelves. I do like the idea of Baronius Press coming out with it. The Douay-Rheims in general is the best Bible to defend the Catholic faith. The original Douay would be sure fine Bible that one could utilize.
 
Jon_Paul said:
Yes, I have the Baronius Press Challoner Edition, though I was looking to get the Haydock with the commentary, but it was in US$ and I couldn’t find anyone shipping within the UK. Baronius was the easier option.
Click to expand...
I use my Baronius Press Challoner Edition every day. I encounter the KJV-onlyist frequently and the Douay-Rheims is the only Bible I can utilize and defend the faith in a proper manner. Online I use the Challoner version and the Haydock Bible Commentary

haydock1859.tripod.com/
 
tobinatorstark said:
I use my Baronius Press Challoner Edition every day. I encounter the KJV-onlyist frequently and the Douay-Rheims is the only Bible I can utilize and defend the faith in a proper manner. Online I use the Challoner version and the Haydock Bible Commentary

haydock1859.tripod.com/
Click to expand...
I love my (Baaronius Press) Challoner Revision 1899
A friend of mine has an original copy of the 1609 DR. It was almost completely unreadable for me. Middle English is like another language! I had to be told how to recognize words like, “John, and Mathew”! It looks nothings like English at all to me…I thank God for Bishop Challoner!

Try out drbo.org as well. It is the 1899 DR BC revision with an awesome search engine!
 
tobinatorstark said:
I use my Baronius Press Challoner Edition every day. I encounter the KJV-onlyist frequently and the Douay-Rheims is the only Bible I can utilize and defend the faith in a proper manner. Online I use the Challoner version and the Haydock Bible Commentary

haydock1859.tripod.com/
Click to expand...
I love my (Baronius Press) Challoner Revision 1899
A friend of mine has an original copy of the 1609 DR. It was almost completely unreadable for me. Middle English is like another language! I had to be told how to recognize words like, “John, and Mathew”! It looks nothings like English at all to me…I thank God for Bishop Challoner!

Try out drbo.org as well. It is the 1899 DR BC revision with an awesome search engine!
 
I find the original D-R edition invaluable in reading the Vulgate, although it is sometimes near-incomprehensible in the English. (I studied and read Old English and Middle English, so the problem is not archaism.)
 
Well if you are interested in this - as people seem to be - please email Baronius and express interest. These things don’t happen by magic, and if they receive a bunch of requests they’ll realise that it’s probably worth their while doing it.

Plus, they’d have almost complete monopoly over it all.

Do you reckon they’d keep the archaic spelling or modernise it?
 
ChristusVincit said:
Well if you are interested in this - as people seem to be - please email Baronius and express interest. These things don’t happen by magic, and if they receive a bunch of requests they’ll realise that it’s probably worth their while doing it.

Plus, they’d have almost complete monopoly over it all.

Do you reckon they’d keep the archaic spelling or modernise it?
Click to expand...
archaic
 
Believe it or not, one challenge is publishing the original Douay-Rheims may be that it does not have an imprimatur (although the NT included “a recommendation was appended signed by four divines of the University of Reims” and the OT included a “recommendation … signed by three doctors of that university [Douai]”) [ref: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm”]Catholic Encyclopedia article on Douay Bible]. Cardinal Newman writes:
This version comes to us on the authority of certain divines of the Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the University of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent indirect recognition of English, Scotch, and Irish bishops, and by its general reception by the faithful. It never has had any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it received any formal Approbation from the Holy See.
Click to expand...
I use the 1997 Cadwyck-Healey (ProQuest) electronic version transcribed from the original 1582 Rheims (in the Eton Library) and the 1609-1610 Douay (in the Huntington Library). This is provided to me by my library. I am not sure if it is possible to subscribe to this as an individual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top