Index talk:The New Testament of Iesvs Christ faithfvlly translated into English, ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf

What publication is which?

(NOTE: This same exact message is being cross-posted here and here.)

So, this message will deal with the following three files:

• Index:1582 Rhemes New Testament.pdf
• Index:Bible (Douay Rheims NT, 1582).djvu
• Index:The New Testament of Iesvs Christ faithfvlly translated into English, ovt of the authentical Latin, diligently conferred with the Greek, & other Editions in diuers languages.pdf (i.e., this file)

For simplicity sake, they shall be referred to respectively as:

• A
• B
• C

(Now, obviously, B has certain grave issues (viz., various missing and mixed-up pages), but that is beside the point.)  What I am looking for is the earliest printing of the Rheims New Testament.

Comparing A and B

I have noticed is that both A-title and B-title have the same title pages (ignore image quality, it's not relevant to this point).  They both claim to the original 1582 publication, printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny).

BUT, A and B are not the same publication!  Just look at A-Matthew and B-Matthew to see for yourself.

Whereas A-Matthew is titled "THE HOLY GOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO MATTHEW", B-Matthew is titled "THE HOLY GHOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW."

That's right: the latter incorporates an 'h' in the word Ghospel and an 'S.' prior to Matthew.

These are two different printings.  Which one, if either, is the original 1582 printing?

Comparing B and C

I have noticed is that both B-Matthew and C-Matthew have the same Gospel of Matthew (ignore image quality, it's not relevant to this point).  They both are titled "THE HOLY GHOSPEL OF IESVS CHRIST ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW."

In fact, they were clearly scanned from the same book.  Compare the little dirt spots on these two pages, and you will see that they are identical.

BUT, B and C are not the same file!  Just look at the B-title and C-title title pages to see for yourself.

Whereas B-title it titled "NEVV TESTAMENT" and claims to be the original 1582 publication, printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny), C-title is titled "NEW TESTAMENT" and claims to be printed by Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier) in 1633.

This is (at least in part) the same printing.  Is this, or is this not, the original 1582 printing?

Other Sources

Google Books places A / B-title and A-Matthew in the same publication.

A copy scanned into Archive.org by FatimaMovement.com places A / B-title (3/765) and B / C-Matthew (29/765) in the same document.  (Indeed, B appears to simply be a copy of this document.)

A copy scanned into Archive.org by Gara3987 purports to be a combination of (1) Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier)'s 1635 edition of the the first tome of the Old Testament (1/2872), (2) Iohn Covstvrier (i.e., John Cousturier)'s 1635 edition of the the second tome of the Old Testament (1029/2872), and (3) the original 1582 edition of the "NEVV TESTAMENT" (1073/2872), printed at Rhemes by Iohn Fogny (i.e., John Fogny).  This third section places A / B-title (1073/2872) and A-Matthew (2103/2872) in the same document.

Based on what I am seeing, it appears like B wrongly combines parts of A and C, and that both A and C are faithful electronic reproductions of their originals.  But, can anybody confirm this?

(If so, this is pretty convenient, since B is trash anyway, being a scan of poor quality and having various pages that are either mixed up or outright missing.)

allixpeeke (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Margin notes

@DavidPorter65: I notice that you have decided to keep the annotations linked by letters (e.g. a, b) inside the margins instead of using <ref> like we do for the ⸬ annotations. Wouldn't it be better to use <ref> for all of them, since letters are used when they're too many annotations in the margins? Also, when we know for certain the scripture passages referenced (i.e. when the text uses the *), wouldn't it be neater to also use <ref>? I don't really see a reason in keeping them in the margins, since they tend to be crowded, making it difficult to identify the correct reference. I'd like to know your thoughts before I continue creating new pages and validating the work that's already been done. ChristusRex (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Normalization and modernization

I've noticed some editors are changing "u" to "v" based on modern usage, or replacing "&" with "and" and such. The fidelity of the transcription is thus compromised. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)