# The Schuyler Canterbury Bible



## JimmyH (Feb 4, 2019)

There have been a couple of reviews on this Bible on the PB, and I've meant to comment, but procrastinated until the threads are now closed for further comments, so here is my take. It is a beautifully made Bible. The size of the text block @ 6"x9" allows for large type and though it is a hefty volume, 1 3/4" thick, and weighing in at 3 pounds, the proportions are very pleasing to me.

My gripe with the text is that it is laid out as in the old 'Self Pronouncing' style. Person and place nouns are printed with separated syllables . Good enough, but they do not include diacritical marks over the vowels. I can't speak for anyone else, but this annoyed me to no end. To the point where I have used an old Oxford SPB to edit the Canterbury, and write in the diacritical marks myself.

In addition, the layout is not consistent between the OT and the NT. In other words,, they did not follow the same syllable splits for person/place nouns in the NT that they did in the OT. I'm about 1/3 complete on making my own diacritical marks. A hard row to hoe, but if I'm going to be able to use this as my primary KJV it is necessary. I'm posting a photo of the text that I've marked, and another photo of text that I havent gotten to yet for comparison. What is the point of printing name/place nouns in syllables without the key to pronunciation ? Ridiculous ! Other than that, I highly recommend the Bible. Photos below ;

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## mgkortus (Feb 4, 2019)

I just acquired this Bible last month. I spent no small amount of time researching quality Bibles and finally settled on this one. Features that I love:

Size 11 font that is remarkably crisp. Makes for easy reading. 
References at the bottom of the page rather than in the middle or on the sides.
Psalms are single column, rather than double. 
The Bible sits open to any passage of Scripture (even Gen. 1:1). 
The overall craftsmanship. This is a beautiful Bible. In fact, I have preached from it twice so far and both times had people ask me about it. 
I personally do not mind the lack of diacritical marks. Really, I have no complaints about this Bible. The only thing I would perhaps change would be to make it ever so slightly small, say 5.5 x 8.5.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 4, 2019)

I have been going back and forth between this and the calfskin NCPB. The NCPB has been my primary translation inside Logos. I have enjoyed it. My concern with the NCPB is the paper quality. I have read it is less than spectacular. This is pushing me closer to the Canterbury. My experience is limited with KJV in comparison to other translations. I am not sure the diacritical marks will be as much of an annoyance as I am just not used to them. I do appreciate the above reviews.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 4, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I have been going back and forth between this and the calfskin NCPB. The NCPB has been my primary translation inside Logos. I have enjoyed it. My concern with the NCPB is the paper quality. I have read it is less than spectacular. This is pushing me closer to the Canterbury. My experience is limited with KJV in comparison to other translations. I am not sure the diacritical marks will be as much of an annoyance as I am just not used to them. I do appreciate the above reviews.


The paper in the 'personal size' NCPB is thin, and not as opaque as I like. There is ghosting. The paper in the full size NCPB 2005 edition is very good, but it weighs just over 4 pounds, is 9 3/4 x 6 3/4, and 2" thick. Mark Bertrand (Bible Design Blog) referred to it as a 'brick.' I think it is out of print for some time now, but I may be wrong. The paper is thicker, and there is not as much 'ghosting', but there is some. 
The Canterbury is really nice all the way round. I just wish they had either printed it with the diacritical marks, or just a standard typeset without the syllables. If that doesn't bother you it is a very nice Bible.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Feb 4, 2019)

Have it buy still believe the Schuyler Westminster KJV is still the best. No self-pronouncing, explanations of some archaic words, the modern font and the best references


----------



## bookslover (Feb 6, 2019)

Nice photos, Jimmy. I like the way the chapters are divided into sections with their own section headings, and I really like the way the psalms are set out, single-column fashion (not in your photos, of course). And, for my aging eyes, the 11-point font is a plus, and the fact that the verse numbers are colored, with the same color for them in the bottom-of-the-page references. Now, if we could only get an ESV that had all these features!

However, the self-pronouncing feature mars the look of the page, in my opinion, and would, frankly, drive me to distraction when I read.


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 7, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Nice photos, Jimmy. I like the way the chapters are divided into sections with their own section headings, and I really like the way the psalms are set out, single-column fashion (not in your photos, of course). And, for my aging eyes, the 11-point font is a plus, and the fact that the verse numbers are colored, with the same color for them in the bottom-of-the-page references. Now, if we could only get an ESV that had all these features!
> 
> *However, the self-pronouncing feature mars the look of the page, in my opinion, and would, frankly, drive me to distraction when I read*.


The self pronouncing feature did drive me to distraction without the corresponding diacritical marks. In order to use the Bible I was driven to add them myself, now I can use it. 

Before I began adding them, on longer nouns, I found I sometimes tended to read a syllable as if it were a complete word, before realizing that it was broken up into syllables.

I actually like the self pronouncing feature, if it is complete, since so many of the people and place names are impossible to pronounce correctly without it. .


----------

