The 1582 Rheims New Testament
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ส.ค. 2024
- A detailed review of the 1582 Rheims New Testament, ISBN 1719276080, 9781719276085. This volume, published by CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, is a facsimile of the original edition, printed with archaic Roman type in a 10 point font. Text is formatted in a single column organized into paragraphs. Each chapter is followed by a lengthy section of annotations, many of which are polemical in character and defend Roman Catholic doctrine against the Reformed theological views then held by the Church of England. The translation is said to be a word-for-word (literal) translation of the Latin Vulgate. The preface defends the practice of withholding the Scriptures from laypersons, except those licensed by their local ordinaries. It also argues that the Latin is superior to the Greek, because the Greek text of the New Testament has been corrupted by heretics.
Detailed Contents
00:00 Dimensions, margins, layout, font ... (three charts)
00:43 Where is Rheims?
01:30 Size compared with other Bibles
02:30 Page format
03:35 The margins
04:05 The font in the text
04:30 The text is organized into paragraphs
04:58 Verse numbers are located in the inner margin
05:40 References and translation notes in the inside margin
06:25 The notes in the outer margin
06:55 The annotations, which appear at the end of each chapter, are in a seven point font
07:30 The book and section introductions are in an eight point font
07:52 Paper qualities: thick, matte, white, very little show through
08:30 Print non-uniformity (some pages are printed more darkly than others)
09:02 The words of Christ are in black
09:40 Old Testament quotations are in an italic font
10:25 Book titles, chapter numbers, page numbers are printed at the top of the page
12:00 A harmony of the gospels
12:40 Tables of Peter, Paul, and the other apostles - plus the Apostles’ Creed
13:35 A table of Epistle and Gospel readings for Sundays, holy days, and the principal days of the year
14:42 An index to the annotations (a table of controversies)
16:20 A short glossary of obscure terms
16:40 Errata
17:02 This glued paperback does not lie open in Matthew or the Apocalypse
17:33 The title page
18:02 The preface to the reader
18:25 A key to symbols
19:08 The books of the New Testament, with quotations
19:46 Decorative capital letters appear at the beginning of each chapter
19:52 Fonts compared: 1582 Rheims New Testament vs recent Douay-Rheims Bible
21:00 A history timeline - some significant events from 1558 to 1611
23:55 Gregory Martin was the primary translator of the Rheims New Testament
24:21 Richard Bristow was responsible for the annotations
24:32 How does the Rheims New Testament read? A sample from Galatians chapter three
25:57 Comparison of the 1582 Rheims New Testament to the 1752 Challoner revision in Galatians 3.1-5
26:05 Ephesians 3.9 (‘sacrament’ instead of ‘mystery’), Ephesians 4.30 (‘contristate’), and Philippians 2.7 (‘exinanited’)
28:08 The note at Matthew 6.24 on Two Masters. “Communion” considered a wicked thing, like Baal, Calvin, and heretical conventicles.
29:32 The note at Matthew 3.2, ‘Do Penance’, which includes painful satisfaction.
30:12 The extensive notes at Matthew 16.16
31:37 1 John 4.3, ‘every spirit that dissolveth Jesus’. The Latin is superior to the Greek, because of heretics.
31:14 The note at Romans 5.14 and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
34:49 The preface on laypersons reading the Bible. The translators did not think that everyone should be permitted to read the Scriptures.
35:49 The preface on translation philosophy. ‘Word-for-word’ preferred over ‘dynamic equivalence’.
36:27 The tenth reason the preface gives for translating from the Latin: the Greek was corrupted by ancient heretics.
37:40 Summary
The 1582 Rheims New Testament is available here: www.amazon.com/1582-Rheims-Testament-John-Fogny/dp/1719276080/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me&fbclid=IwAR30suz_M450TUSkzxuV48xG0TlGq5xQLgod6ue6eoV8rlQKV4NtNI-chH4 . The _different edition_ I mention in the video, the _Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582_ , is available here in paperback: www.lulu.com/shop/dr-william-von-peters/the-original-and-true-rheims-new-testament-of-anno-domini-1582/paperback/product-23871092.html . A hardback edition is also for sale from lulu.com.
@@bodaciouscharmer - Yes, about twenty years ago. I mentioned it in my review of the Orthodox Study Bible, I believe.
@@bodaciouscharmer - Thank you!
@@bodaciouscharmer Which paper are you referring to? I too would be interested in reading it.
Cheers Thanks very much! I am definitely going to be reading that!
@The Fifth Nones - there is this: www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/gregory-martin/douay-ot-volume-1-part-1/hardcover/product-14m9jyjp.html?page=1&pageSize=4 . That should link to the first volume of a multi-volume set, available at lulu.com. Expensive, and I've not seen it, so I can't judge whether it's worthwhile.
I got a copy of this New Testament because of this review. Thank you for your videos. God Bless you!!!
Thanks for the comment! I hope the purchase was worthwhile. I think the notes are fascinating. May God bless you and yours as well.
#1 as usual in bible reviews!
Thanks, tminus five!
37:30 The modern Catholic Church still uses the Latin Vulgate. However, currently the Vatican officially uses the Novo Vulgata which is still mostly based on the Latin Vulgate, but is also compared with the Greek texts. Also, if you go to a Catholic Latin Mass the scripture readings will be from the Clementine version of the Latin Vulgate as the Missals used at the latest are from 1962. The Nova Vulgata only started to be used in ~1969. The Council of Trent declared: "that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it [the Latin Vulgate] under any pretext whatsoever." which means the Catholic Church as a whole will & cannot ever completely abandon nor reject the Latin Vulgate for the Greek texts.
Many Latin learned Catholics still prefer to use the Clementine Vulgate, while the Douay Rheims version is still very popular among English speaking Catholics.
I can confirm that the Dr. von Peters edition is in a modern typeface. It is also single column, but is verse by verse, rather than paragraphed. He also has produced the two volume Old Testament.
HaHaVids - thank you for that helpful information!
@@RGrantJones could you do a video on Dr.Von Peters edition….?.
@@binyamin3716 - it's not likely. The last time I checked, it was available in multiple, somewhat expensive volumes.
I have one from BARONIUS PRESS. I read a chapter every day. Father Grunner said start in ACTS
I've been going through your videos and I'm interested: which denomination do you describe yourself as? I myself am a Catholic.
Anglican. Thanks for commenting, D O!
Very nice video, thank you! Have you seen either the (rather large) Baronius Press Douay-Rheims/Clementina Vulgata hardcover or the Loreto Publications hardcover Latin-English New Testament? They have both texts side-by-side. If you have them I would be curious to see what you think of either. (If not, Google search and a few clicks should pull both up on their respective websites.)
I see on lulu & amazon there are facsimiles of different editions of the DR. I got the hardcovers of 1582 NT, and 1635 OT from lulu, but there are also editions of both from around 1609/1610. It would be interesting to find out, compare if the notes are different or more extensive in one version. (I recall I got the 1635 OT for more notes, but my memory is foggy). I'll add, I just read the extensive intro to PSALMS, and after a dry start on authorship it was very inspiring and instructive.
Thank you sir, for another outstanding video. Keep up the good work!
And it's a perfect opportunity to ask a question regarding the DR and revisions. I have heard various opinions of the extent and nature of Bishop Challoner's revisions. Some say it was practically a new translation while others claim it was mostly spelling and grammar adjustments. While I have never done an exhaustive comparison, I recently had the opportunity to sit for an hour or so with a 1582 edition and do a handful of "spot checks."
In my opinion, and based on the admittedly random samples, the changes I saw were mostly minor.
I realize this is a somewhat subjective matter but I would love to hear your opinion.
Thank you and best wishes.
Thanks for the comment! I compared the two in the first few verses of Galatians 3 -- chosen at random -- in this video, and the changes did seem minor, but there are also quite a few of them. I haven't spent enough time comparing them to form a strong opinion.
@@RGrantJones I noticed Dr Van Peters who transcribed the "Original and True Douay Rheims" feels the changes by Challoner are sometimes important. Have you reviewed any of those volumes? I know I've stumbled across some passages in the Challoner & DR that are quite different from modern Catholic and all Protestant versions based on the Masoretic Text, but that's another issue. As an aside I also later noticed Dr Van Peters has independently re-published (with new intros, charts & appendices) quite a number of old Catholic (and at least one Protestant) books that have been relegated to obscurity, mostly for political-correctness. Most are on lulu, and several on amazon. I will be curious to check out some of those in the future.
A friend of mine has the Douay Rheims old and new testament, its very interesting, thanks for your review
Thanks for the view and comment, Gypsy!
There was published a reprint --- pages were photocopied --- of the 1899 Murphy Baltimore Gibbons bible...jbut I thought it had another reference date of 1908. Printed in its credits and printing history.....just the new testament rheims portion....on very durable soft back....as I remember a bit bigger than 8 high and closer to 6 wide.....maybe released in the 1990s. Do you have any data on that ?
What is the pen/pencil you are pointing with? Thanks
It’s a Pentel GraphGear 500 PG523. Thanks for the question.
Thanks for the reply! I’m going to look into this pencil
Does it have all the original notations / margin notes?
I think so.
@@RGrantJones Thanks for the vague answer LOL . . i gues i could try find out myself :D . . but i know for example the catholic reproduced facsimiles have some censoring going on with the notes in the margins most likely for "politically correct" reasons of "our day" . . if you do come across anything more on this please update me here.
@@ivanfourie - if you have a specific location you'd like me to examine, I'd be happy to. (I answered the way I did because I don't have access to the original, but I don't see any evidence of editing or redaction.)
@@RGrantJones Thanks.
@@RGrantJones Surely the original (or closest to it) facsimiles of most classical bibles are public domain . . it must just be a question of finding pdfs online ?
I have my grandmothers 1932 print
Any published with modern English text?
I'm not aware of any. Thanks for the question!
@@RGrantJones - Is there a published version of the 1609 Douay Old Testament in print? Thanks!
@@TheOssia - I haven't seen it in person, so I can't be sure, but it appears that you can buy the 1609 Douay Old Testament at lulu.com, though it's printed in several volumes. If you navigate to their bookstore and search on "Douay Old Testament," you'll see a few options.
you say the verse symbols look like a cross, implying its something else, but as far as i can remember, you dont actually say what the symbol is called if not a cross.
Thanks for the comment, entiretinofsweetcorn. I phrased it that way because I'm not 100% sure it is meant to be a cross. It's certainly shaped like one.
@@RGrantJones okeydoke thanks
Please don't pay for the "Original and True" edition by "Doctor" von Peters. It contains many amateur typos (not in the original text), repeated mistakes, and he even accidentally skipped entire verses and chapters. Though his efforts are commendable, he asks exorbitant prices for such a sloppy product. I've been in the process of typing the original DR into modern spelling for some time off-and-on for the past few years (though the project is currently on hold for the time being until I getvmy own computer again), and will make it available for free online, as it should be.
Thanks for the information, Sharif!
@YAJUN YUAN No, I decided what I was making was anachronistic, and that any modernization misrepresents the text. Just read the original.
@YAJUN YUAN well that's the hardest thing. The notes are hard to read, and a lot of them require knowledge of Latin that I really don't have. The other thing is, anyone who *wants* to read this kind of thing isn't the sort of person who needs help reading the original document. You get used to the spelling after a while.