Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Haydock Commentary  (Read 5787 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Vladimir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1707
  • Reputation: +494/-0
  • Gender: Male
Haydock Commentary
« on: June 14, 2011, 12:04:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Has anyone read the Douay-Rheims with Haydock Commentary?

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000OTWYF6/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B000OTWYF6&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

    Is it worth the $125?

    I realize that the entirety of Haydock's commentary is available for free online, but I am trying to wean myself from the computer unless its absolutely necessary.

    My first reservation is that I *think* that the translation of Sacred Scripture in question is based on the Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims, which I've heard (albeit online, so I have no idea as to the claim's veracity) isn't the most Catholic translation and diluted the original Douay-Rheims translation to some extent.




    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #1 on: June 14, 2011, 04:08:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This old thread has reassured me as to the reliability of the Haydock version:

    http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=3361&min=10&num=10

    But now, I'm wondering if it would be a wiser choice to invest $200 (*only* another $75) and buy the 5 volume reprinting of the original Douay:

    http://www.churchlatin.com/Books.aspx?BookID=30


    Perhaps Hobbledehoy can shed some light on the quality of the commentary found in the original Douay versus that of the Haydock edition.





    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3825/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #2 on: June 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't look now, but:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Douay-Rheims-Haydock-Bible-/150616162226?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item23116c3fb2#ht_500wt_1049

    Its a 2 volume flexicover, says 'new' condition, for $88. I would have bought it but have to save up first  :wink:

    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #3 on: June 14, 2011, 05:48:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    Don't look now, but:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/Douay-Rheims-Haydock-Bible-/150616162226?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item23116c3fb2#ht_500wt_1049

    Its a 2 volume flexicover, says 'new' condition, for $88. I would have bought it but have to save up first  :wink:


    If you want to buy it, you don't need to worry that I will beat you to it. I have an affinity for hardcover books.

    Aside from that, I need to save up money as well!



    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3825/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #4 on: June 14, 2011, 05:52:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So when you say "original Douay" do you mean the Chandler (spelling?) version?


    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #5 on: June 14, 2011, 06:23:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    So when you say "original Douay" do you mean the Chandler (spelling?) version?


    I mean the 1582 New Testament and the 1635 Old Testament Douay Version that is sold at Ecclesiatical Latin.

    In this case its not so much the antiquity of the book that interests me, but if someone that has read both the reprint of the original Douay and the Douay with Haydock commentary and can shed some light as to the comparative quality of the commentary in both, I would really appreciate it.

    Unfortunately, the aesthic beauty of the antiquarian type-face of the 1582/1635 reprint comes at the cost of an unintersting cover. I'm sure that, physically speaking, the Haydock Douay for $125 is much more beautiful than the 1582/1635 reprint, but I'm willing to sacrifice exterior beauty for superior content, if that is indeed the case.



    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5020
    • Reputation: +3825/-26
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #6 on: June 14, 2011, 06:35:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I'll put my "Hobble-signal" light up in the sky and hunker down waiting for him...

    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #7 on: June 14, 2011, 08:45:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vladimir
    Quote from: s2srea
    So when you say "original Douay" do you mean the Chandler (spelling?) version?


    I mean the 1582 New Testament and the 1635 Old Testament Douay Version that is sold at Ecclesiatical Latin.

    In this case its not so much the antiquity of the book that interests me, but if someone that has read both the reprint of the original Douay and the Douay with Haydock commentary and can shed some light as to the comparative quality of the commentary in both, I would really appreciate it.

    Unfortunately, the aesthic beauty of the antiquarian type-face of the 1582/1635 reprint comes at the cost of an unintersting cover. I'm sure that, physically speaking, the Haydock Douay for $125 is much more beautiful than the 1582/1635 reprint, but I'm willing to sacrifice exterior beauty for superior content, if that is indeed the case.


    As far as I know Challoner just updated words. The DRB with Challoner matches the Latin of the Vulgate in our English no? The Original will sound like shakespeare since that is how they talked. You'll also see spellings that are different like an extra e added or whatnot.

    Anyhow. I have the Haydock and I've read it online. It is the DRB with LOTS of footnotes. Like half of the page is footnotes, and they are BIG pages. I'm a little conflicted since I like the way this site http://www.veritasbible.com/commentary/haydock has the Haydock formatted so that the footnotes are beside the quote itself. The Hardcover real Haydock has them all at the bottom like footnotes.


    Offline LordPhan

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1171
    • Reputation: +826/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #8 on: June 14, 2011, 08:48:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I also thought I'd throw out the Angelus Press link too. http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/5456/the-haydock-bible

    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #9 on: June 14, 2011, 09:21:04 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The antiquated grammar and alternate spellings will not be a problem; there's a tremendous treasure cove of Catholic Recusant literature available online that is photographically reproduced from the original sources that are much less legible and in the same style as the Douay reproduction (Ecclesiastical Latin Site offers a sample - the entire Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew - and the readability is surprisingly accessible to any speaker of the English language, especially once one has become familiar with the alternate spellings, etc).

    Thanks for the input. I actually haven't even read the Douay   - even without footnotes, so I thought that if I were to invest in buying one, I might as well get the best one there is.

    Thank you for the Angelus Press link, but if I were to buy the Haydock-Douay, I would do so at a local church - yet another advantage over having to buy over the internet.

    I'm mainly concerned with the quality of the commentary in the two versions in question.



    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #10 on: June 15, 2011, 12:53:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Vladimir,

    As requested, here is my take on this.

    As I have hitherto remarked to others, my personal preference shall ever be the Douay Old Testament and the Rheims New Testament as published at those French cities by the English College that educated and trained the clerics who fled from the persecution of Elizabeth I only to go back and save English souls (and some these Seminarians became the Priests whom we now honor as holy Martyrs). The reason is twofold: the literal (some would say slavish) fidelity to the Latinity of the Sacred Vulgate and the commentary (more on that in a moment or three).

    A quick perusal at the mimeographed MSS of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and the 1635 Douay Old Testament will shew how necessary the orthographical emendations done by Bishop Challoner became during the course of the centuries. Elizabethan English orthography may intimidate most present day readers; since there was no such thing back then as "correct spelling" as we understand it now, since what mattered was the phonological enunciation of the words, and there are many ways of eliciting the same pronunciation of word with a various and sundry assortment of letters. Moreover, the mimeographed MSS, which the now incarcerated non-Catholic Gordon Winrod distributed some decades ago, and which Maximus Scriptorius Publications has happily reprinted (be thankful for that because my own copy of the tomes cost me over $400 when I was a young and lively University student), is somewhat difficult to read at some places, but (speaking of one who owns both the original Winrod tomes and the ChurchLatin.com reprints) this is a very minimal impediment. The recent reprint is better because it is somewhat larger than the original Winrod MSS, so it is clearer to read.

    Regarding the Haydock Bible: a wonderful edition. It is more correct to speak of it as a variant of the Douay-Rheimish translation, rather than an edition of Bp. Challoner's emendation. I have heard some comment that Fr. Haydock's text is somewhat better and clearer than the edition of Bp. Challoner's text that was (and still is) widely in circulation.

    Regarding the commentaries: the commentary found in the Haydock Bible is very concise and informative, and was meant for the average lettered Catholic who wished to understand more of the Holy Scriptures. The commentary in the pre-Challoner Douay-Rhemish translation (marginal notes, prefatory notes, annotations, &c.) had a specific apologetical purpose: to refute the heresies and errors of the Protestant editions of the Bible, which propagated their heresies. The commentary in the latter is more copious and more theologically detailed than the former, precisely because the Fathers of the English College wished for clerics and learned layfolk to have a translation of the Sacred Vulgate with the information necessary in order to both understand the texts and be enabled to answer the controversial questions of the day. The apologetical nature of these commentaries make them particularly desirable for our day, since the old Protestant errors have arisen in new forms, and the "Evangelicals" and other "non-denominational" Christians [sic] essentially bring up the questions Luther and Calvin and other heretics had brought up in the past (sola Scriptura, private interpretation, &c.). When it comes to questions of a purely archeological nature, the Haydock commentaries may be more thorough, since the specific purpose of the Haydock commentaries was informative rather than apologetically driven specifically against the Protestant heretics (though there is plenty of stuff in there that refutes them too).

    My advice: if you can handle the Elizabethan orthography and the printing usages of that period, I would advise you to get the reprographically reprinted edition of  the 1582 Rheims New Testament and the 1635 Douay Old Testament. Otherwise, the Haydock Bible would be a wonderful investment.

    The commentaries of  the 1582 Rheims New Testament and the 1635 Douay Old Testament there often mentions what portions of the Scriptures serve for lessons at Mass and at Matins, and there's a table of Epistles and Gospels as one of the appendices. Peculiar to this edition of the Douay-Rhemish translation alone, is the insertion as an appendix of the translation of the apocryphal books that were rejected from the Canon by the Church: the Prayer of King Manasses and the 3rd and 4th Books of Esdras.

    Hey, that reminds me...

    FUN FACT

    The Introit of today's Mass (it is yet Whit-Tuesday here on the Pacific coast) is taken from the 4th Book of Esdras, proving against the Protestants that the Bible was the sole source of authority for the Christian of the first ages, and that the Missal itself is older than the Biblical Canon!
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.


    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #11 on: June 15, 2011, 01:06:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Vladimir
    My first reservation is that I *think* that the translation of Sacred Scripture in question is based on the Challoner revision of the Douay Rheims, which I've heard (albeit online, so I have no idea as to the claim's veracity) isn't the most Catholic translation and diluted the original Douay-Rheims translation to some extent.


    I have heard this too, and I would not agree. Bishop Challoner did change the translation very much, in order to make it accessible to the Anglophone Catholics of his day. Most of the changes had to do with syntax and substituting more palpable phrases for literal ones (such as "uncircumcision" as opposed to "prepuce"). The commentaries he had to delete in order to fit the entire text in one handy volume. There are no errors against faith and morals in the text (of course!), and it is pretty much an accurate translation of the Sacred Vulgate and accessible to most Anglophone Catholics.

    The problem is that over the years there have been errors inadvertently inserted in the editions of Bp. Challoner's text by editors and printers, and Catholic scholars had long noticed these errors. For example, the more widely published Douay-Rheims edition translates Ps. xc. 1 as "He that dwelleth in the aid of the most High, shall abide under the protection of the God of Jacob." I have no idea from whence "Jacob" came because the Latin Vulgate has "Dei coeli," "the God of heaven," which the Haydock Bible correctly translates.
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline Hobbledehoy

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3746
    • Reputation: +4804/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #12 on: June 15, 2011, 01:12:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: s2srea
    I'll put my "Hobble-signal" light up in the sky and hunker down waiting for him...


     :roll-laugh1:

    It worked! Well, uh, sorta...

    Someone wrote me a quick note: "Hey dude, someone's calling out to you at CathInfo for information." So, someone else saw the "Hobble-signal" and told me.

    It's been a taxing week so far, but this has made it bearable. Thank you friend!

    For future reference, the best way to get to me about a specific question or to request a reply on the forum is by the forum's Messenger.
    Please ignore all that I have written regarding sedevacantism.

    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #13 on: June 15, 2011, 08:07:01 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you, that was very informative.

    Actually, the antiquarian orthography, etc is a plus. The actual print is much more aesthetically pleasing and the free spellings provide a refreshing break from the slavishly (and seemingly arbitary in some cases) followed spelling rules today.

    It looks like the reprint is going to be the choice. Ideally, I could buy both the Haydock and the reprint, but I will definately investing in the reprint first.



    Offline Vladimir

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1707
    • Reputation: +494/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Haydock Commentary
    « Reply #14 on: June 15, 2011, 08:42:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0



  •  

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16