Unbelievable that bibles languish on store shelves, even thrift stores. That 1805 D-R edition certainly benefits from Bishop Challoner’s updates, but as we know, the English language is a true shape-shifter. Have a pic of it?
I think the best Bible, is the one that you’ll read.
Can you mention few differences in this version compared to the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
a leather bound quarto Mathew Carey D/R from 1805. It is in incredibly good condition considering what they usually look like. It is an exact reprint of Dr. Troy’s Bible of 1791
I am sorry that I do not have the two versions to compare. I can only imagine that revisions were slight, mostly having to do with words or phrases that had fallen out of use since Bishop Challoner revised the original in 1750 or thereabouts.
Here is my prior favorite: a 1949 Douay-Confraternity, leather bound and gilt edged. I had to pay for this one, though: $1.99.
I see you go after really fine examples of those old bibles! Like me.
Here’s a pic of my 1805 Mathew Carey bible:
It’s an interesting bible because for a long time it was thought to be the first American Catholic Bible. If you click on the pic, for the enlarged view, you can see that it says “First American from the Fifth Dublin Edition” The Fifth Dublin edition is what Dr. Troy’s Bible of 1791 styled itself. (Although Cotton proves how that statement makes no sense.) However O’Callaghan documented another earlier one by Mathew Carey, printed in 1790 in Philadelphia. Among Bible collectors it is recognized as the RAREST of all Early American Bibles, and can easily fetch prices in 5 figures. The very first American Bible in English was the KJV of 1789 by Aitken (a small 8vo.)
For more information on Dr. Troy’s bible see here.
Both links go to very valuable Catholic Bible bibliographys. O’Callaghan’s covers all American Bibles printed up to the year 1860 with special emphasis on Catholic Ones.
Cotton’s work covers all Catholic Bibles printed up to the year 1855, but only Catholic ones and especially ones printed in the UK, although he mentions one or two American bibles (like the 1805 one). Cotton’s work is exhaustive, and details the differences between Dr. Troy’s Bible and Challoner’s originals.
Another valuable Catholic Bible bibliography is the one done by Fr. Pope in 1950. He gives much better analysis of the various editions, like Dr. Troy’s Bible and other later D/R bibles. Unfortunately that bibliography is not online to the best of my knowledge.
Lastly, it should be known that John Henry Newman wrote a good article reviewing Cotton’s book on the Catholic Bibles.
I have a similar book by Fr. Hugh Pope, titled English Versions of the Bible. In it he discusses the history and various version of the Douay Rheims versions, along with the protestant versions as well. It was rather insightful and it’s filled with good information about the different versions of the DRB that were published in the early 1900’s.
One of my more unique DR bibles is a small pocket version, published by the John Murphy company. It’s probably the smallest pocket version I have come across, but what I noticed was in the back of the bible, under the Table of References section, (Table of Controversies) as it is labeled in this bible. When I looked under the “Holy Scriptures” section, it gives several bible verses about the dangers of private interpretation etc etc, but what is unique about this version is that it says “Corrupted by Protestants” and in all other Douay Versions that I have it says “Corrupted by Heretics”.
I’ve never found that verbiage used in any other Douay Version, even in a my larger John Murphy copy of the DRB.
Has anyone else ever seen this?
It’s beautiful! I hope it will give you many years of joy.
That is an excellent condition bible! And rare. Thank you for the history and the links. Rather fascinating history in the US - which was decidedly anti-Catholic since before its official founding.
My favorite? I can barely keep to one version without knocking my head off my shoulders… pun intended of course.
The differences between the King James Bible and The King James Version is an example how someone can run in circles seeking The Truth about God, His Son and The Father of Christ. Not to mention every other mentioned topic in The Holy Bible. Why does The KJV contain the Johannine Comma, affirming the Holy Trinity in Heaven agreeing as 1 whereas the NIV does not?
Regardless if it was an ‘addition’ or subtraction, the point of the matter is; Was John Lying about certain things he may or may not have said and written himself? Or can man add or subtract from the written words and spoken words of one of Christ’s own Apostles?
if man can add or subtract from the truth of what was written or said by one of Christ’s Apostles, then what can’t be added or subtracted and why should I place any ‘trust or faith’ upon things which man can add or subtract from the written and spoken words of one of Christ’s Apostles? And if man can add or subtract from an Epistle, what makes me to think man could not add or subtract to Jesus Christ’s sayings themselves? I don’t need encouragement books or Proverbial books. I need The Word of God
If I had never read the KJV for myself I may have never known that there was a Holy Spirit in Heaven.
Some Christian denominations refer to The Holy Spirit as some other ‘thing’ than a Person.
But Jesus refers to Spirit as ‘he’.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning."
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
"Grace be to you, and peace, from God, our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
God, The Spirit.
Our Father, The Father of Jesus Christ.
The Lord Jesus Christ, The Only Begotten Son of God.
A good, thoughtful reply. Have you read the Revised English Bible (1989)? I have 2 or 3 with the Deuterocanonical books, and I prefer it substantially over the “approved” Catholic New American Bible and/or Revised Edition. It was compiled by all major denominations in the UK and is very readable on both sides of the Atlantic.
Please tell us about the Didache Bible. I have heard of it, but never held one.
That, and the story of the woman caught in Adultery are modern doubts due to some of the old ancient copies not having them. However, the Vulgate has both, and therefore Catholic Bibles always had both. The KJV, which relied on the Textus Receptus also had both. The NIV has wasted no time adopting all of the modern doubts into its texts.
The NIV is really for Evangelicals who deny Baptismal Regeneration, the Sacraments, the Ministerial Priesthood and (IMHO) are Semi-Arians.
Did you notice on the New Testament Title Page “Philadelphia” is misspelled? On the General Title page it is spelled correctly!
Mine is hard cover. Father told me it was a very good Bible to use and I can see why. There are explanations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the bottom of each page and on the dividing pages between “books” there are GREAT explanations about a lot of things. It really is a great Bible. The Ignatius Study Bible is the one our priest gave to our Bible Study leader but right now it is only available in the one volume of the New Testament. They are working on the one volume of the Old testament but it isn’t out yet. That one is great as well. Maybe when both volumes are done and all together in one I will get a copy of that one as well.
Re: the KJV-Onlyists criticism of the NIV, a good percentage of them believe that it denies Christ’s divinity. I know that it is a very generic, dumbed-down translation - charity demands that we grant good intentions to the translators. Except, in attempting to be a one-for-all, the dilution or dissolving or blurring of truth proves deadly to that same truth.
All that I know is that the NIV’s publishers are seeking to flood the world with copies. Used book stores and thrift stores are are packed with copies under different covers and different titles. As far as leading souls to Christ, this is a noble goal. As far as accuracy and completeness, it is well off the mark.
I like the D-R translation of Saint John’s words in this regard:
1 John 4:3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is
Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already
in the world.
www.biblegateway.com has bible text in numerous languages. I haven’t checked to see if they have a parallel function on their site.
Lately, I’ve been really loving my Didache NABRE.
The CCC uses both the RSV and NRSV.