Criticism on Douay-Rheims (Please)

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’m curious: why are you suspicious of the Knox? It’s a good translation and the notes are quite orthodox. My brother bought me a copy as a Christmas present last year.

I will admit to possible being a baby about this, but it reads very strange-
ly in some areas. I only have one example, though if there its one, there
may be more:
**At **the beginning **of time **the Word *already *was; and
God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word
was God. **He abode, at the **beginning of time, with
God. It was through him that all things came into be-
ing, and without him came nothing that has come to
be.
– (John 1:1-3)
. . .
Same meaning, I get it, but even the Vulgate doesn’t read this way.
I am a really confused revert to Catholicism, so I guess I don’t take
to certain translations easily.

 

[RPRPsych]

I will admit to possible being a baby about this, but it reads very strange-
ly in some areas. I only have one example, though if there its one, there
may be more:
**At **the beginning **of time **the Word *already *was; and
God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word
was God. **He abode, at the **beginning of time, with
God. It was through him that all things came into be-
ing, and without him came nothing that has come to
be.
– (John 1:1-3)
. . .
Same meaning, I get it, but even the Vulgate doesn’t read this way.
I am a really confused revert to Catholicism, so I guess I don’t take
to certain translations easily.

I guess Knox just wanted points for style.

Here’s a nice quote from Henry Wansbrough (translator of the New Jerusalem Bible), discussing St. Jerome’s principle of a simple and direct translation:

“A paradigm case of the opposite is Ronald Knox’s brilliant and scintillating translation of the Bible, produced at the request of the English hierarchy during the 1940s. For all its richness and cleverness, it is redolent of the Oxford Common Rooms of the period. It is a translator’s translation, a joy to scholars, but too opaque to be accessible to ordinary listeners.”

I’m just the opposite: I grew up reading the Good News Bible (), and discovered better versions only when I was in my 20s.

 

[po18guy]

You know I may just get both Douay Rheims and RSV-2CE,
perhaps even the Knox (though I’m suspicious of that a bit).

The Knox Translation was reportedly Bishop Fulton Sheen’s favorite version. I have found it to be a fairly easy read for an American, as well as containing some very interesting notes that raise points perhaps not raised by other commentators. Some contemporary scholars questioned its accuracy, but then again, they questioned all available versions. As well, some modern scholars have also come under question themselves. It easily passes the Catholic litmus test on key verses.

It seems that I have become a bible collector of sorts, as eBay and thrift stores offer absolute bargains in bibles. As well, I find some pleasure to be taken in reading a bible that had been languishing on a shelf or in a drawer for perhaps decades.

 

[tvknight415]

I wouldn’t be wary of Knox at all. In fact, I find it a refreshing change of pace. Knox is definitely not a word-for-word translation, but it has a very nice read to it. Msgr. Knox also wrote detective novels, so there is a certain out-of-the-box-ness when it comes to how he translated things.

 

[po18guy]

I will admit to possible being a baby about this, but it reads very strange-
ly in some areas. I only have one example, though if there its one, there
may be more:
**At **the beginning **of time **the Word *already *was; and
God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word
was God. **He abode, at the **beginning of time, with
God. It was through him that all things came into be-
ing, and without him came nothing that has come to
be.
– (John 1:1-3)
. . .
Same meaning, I get it, but even the Vulgate doesn’t read this way.
I am a really confused revert to Catholicism, so I guess I don’t take
to certain translations easily.

We would perhaps have fewer attacks on Marian doctrine had all bibles used Monsignor Knox’s translation of Matthew 1:25: “and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.”

I do not see this as “opaque” at all - rather, it clarifies. As well, the comments of “competing” translators must be placed in context.

 

[po18guy]

I will admit to possible being a baby about this, but it reads very strange-
ly in some areas. I only have one example, though if there its one, there
may be more:
**At **the beginning **of time **the Word *already *was; and
God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word
was God. **He abode, at the **beginning of time, with
God. It was through him that all things came into be-
ing, and without him came nothing that has come to
be.
– (John 1:1-3)
. . .
Same meaning, I get it, but even the Vulgate doesn’t read this way.
I am a really confused revert to Catholicism, so I guess I don’t take
to certain translations easily.

Consider also that New Advent features the Knox Translation as their source of scripture. They would not do so lightly.

We know also that not a single copy of any “original” scripture existed even in Saint Jerome’s time (late 300s). Way back then, he worked from copies of copies of copies of copies. Since our modern language is so completely different form the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, it is amazing that our scriptures are as close in meaning as they are.

It also points to the absolute necessity of having an authoritative Church as an anchor.