I bought the Knox Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Melbourne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Melbourne

Guest
Ok I admit it I’m a bit finicky when it comes to my Bible. I like it to look like a Bible such as the ones Baronius Press produce for example (plain black cover with the words “Holy Bible” on the front). As much as I enjoy reading through other Bibles like the Great Adventure Bible or the Didache Study Bible they don’t “feel” like a Bible for me. Perhaps that’s a bit silly I guess?

Anyway I bought the Baronius Press Knox Bible a few days ago. It’s really very well made, probably one of the best I’ve seen in a Catholic Bible. It’s the right size, leather cover, pages not too thin, font nice and dark. It really is a pleasure to hold and read.

I was a little cautious though because there’s really not much on the internet when it comes to clear reviews of this version of the Bible. Most of what you find is just a copy of what Baronius Press have published on their website.

So far I’m enjoying reading it. Knox has done a fine job in interpreting the Latin (and apparently the Hebrew when he needed more information the Latin didn’t offer) into clear “modern” language whilst still maintaining the dignity and spirituality of the Bible. I compared his text to the same in my Douay-Rheims Bible and to be honest I found the Knox version to be almost the same, but with more clarity in some occasions.

I know some people are concerned that just one person interpreted this Bible and therefore a certain amount of bias would be apparent, but seriously that could be said for any version of our Bible really (especially the most recent versions).

Of course I still like my Douay-Rheims Bible, but for an enjoyable and cohesive reading I have to admit the Knox Bible for me wins without question and I probably do prefer it to an RSV Bible.

Do you own a copy?
 
Melbourne said:
Do you own a copy?
Click to expand...
I won a copy, but I don’t read it very often. While the prose flows nicely, I struggle with some of his wording - probably an indication of my lack of education rather than a comment on Msgnr. Knox. However, I really did enjoy reading the small book that came with the Knox Bible on his journey to translate the Bible. That has helped me to look at how things are worded in the RSV Bible that I prefer reading. His discussion on the word “rightous” is worth the pricve of the entire book!
 
I haven’t read the little book yet I got so engrossed in the Bible. I must read it.
 
I have it and it’s one of my favorite Bibles to read. It isn’t really very suitable for study, as it’s a dynamic translation, but the prose is wonderful. I also enjoy Msgr. Knox’s footnotes, which explain why he translated certain passages the way he did.
 
I purchased it recently and am finishing my read of the Bible on it. I appreciate what Msgr. Knox (edit: title corrected) was going for and have a greater appreciation for literary interpretations, though I still approve of more literal ones, too.

I think the only thing I disagree with is his idea that the opening of the gospel of John “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” lacks punch. To me that, even in its simplicity, is one of the most beautiful passages. I feel like he was too verbose in his version.

However, overall, I love it. That is my only nitpick.
 
Last edited:
The internet Knox Bible at the New Advent website is very quick and easy to use. There are one or two things I’ve noticed about his translation that I find slightly offputting. For instance, take the very first verse of Genesis. The Vulgate and the Septuagint both follow the Hebrew word order, starting with “In the beginning …”. Why did Knox switch the words around and start with “God”? Did he ever explain this in print? I suppose he did it for theological reasons, but even so, I would expect a translator to stick more closely to the original.

http://newadvent.com/bible/gen001.htm
 
He does give his thoughts on word order in the little book “On Englishing the Bible” which Baronius Press sends with hardcopies, which would cover this. English is very grammatically different from all three and handles stress differently , basically.

I have my hands full now but will see if I can quote/sum up what he says later.
 
Last edited:
Some say that the Knox is idiosyncratic. Well, Saint Jerome’s Vulgate was also idiosyncratic. It seems that not as many have difficulty with that. What a single translator means to me is that that text does not suffer from the all too often seen “committee think” in which differing literary styles are applied to different books of the bible. At a minimum, idiosyncratic means consistent.

I will note that their are scant footnotes and no quotation marks in either of the Knox versions which I have.

Being American, in reading the Knox bible, I had to Anglicize my thoughts as Monsignor Knox was 100% British. To be asked to translate the entirety of the scriptures is both an amazing honor as well as an immense cross. Monsignor Knox had to enter into a very hermit-like existence for 12 years as he translated.

As to Genesis 1:1, perhaps the Monsignor simply wanted to give God the pride of place in the text. We must remember that we read none of the scriptures in their original form or language. As it is with the Lord’s prayer, we are accustomed to a certain rendering - they have been inculcated in us - without giving much thought to the originality of the text.

The Knox, and the 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible are my two favorite translations - both being refreshing changes from the most modern translations. They are clear and unambiguous, 100% unapologetically Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I’ll see if I can distill Knox’ thoughts down less than I’m about to do, he has a whole page and a half with examples of just this one point I want to make, plus many more pages after that for his preferences, concessions, etc…

The goal of the translation was to turn a phrase/sentence/passage and present it as an Englishman would say it, while keeping the both the oomph and stress of the original Latin (or Greek or Hebrew).

It really was about Englishing the Bible, not to write just for academics to unpack. Simply changing the words one for one wouldn’t do, neither would converting the words one to one and changing the word order such that it made sense in English. Not for Knox’ project.

And as a whole the translation really does feel like it’s own thing, not just modernization of the KJV or the slight changes you see between many modern translations in English.
 
Last edited:
I feel it’s totally appropriate the first word in the Bible is God. After all it is God’s word we are reading.
 
We can distill all of creation, all of time by simply combining the first and last words in the Knox:

“God. Amen.”
 
I like mine. I haven’t picked it up in a while, but I did like the way he handled place-names, like Migdal Eder and such. I also liked his formatting— it made things flow very fluently, almost novel-ishly, vs the columnar format we’re so used to.
 
po18guy said:
As to Genesis 1:1 , perhaps the Monsignor simply wanted to give God the pride of place in the text. We must remember that we read none of the scriptures in their original form or language.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s what I meant by “theological reasons” for switching the word order. I don’t get your point about not reading the Scriptures in the original languages. They are readily available online in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The Knox Bible I linked to gives the Greek and the Latin texts, though not the Hebrew, side by side with the English.
 
Yes, you feel it, and apparently Knox felt it, too. But it’s not what the authors felt, nor what the earlier translators felt – the Septuagint and the Vulgate both put “In the beginning” first, in accordance with the Hebrew word order.
 
Last edited:
I cannot bring myself to love the Douay-Rheims or the Knox Bibles. Their source language (Latin) and the resulting structure (“Latin masquerading as English”) are a deal-killer for me and I can’t spend good money on those. If I need to refer to them, I can go online. And all the Elias’es and the Eliseus’es and the Isaias’es and the Osees and Noes and Josues just grate.

All I need to do is read Psalm 23 (22) from those editions and I’m sent running. Away.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
Yes, you feel it, and apparently Knox felt it, too. But it’s not what the authors felt, nor what the earlier translators felt – the Septuagint and the Vulgate both put “In the beginning” first, in accordance with the Hebrew word order
Click to expand...
I guess if you’re interpreting some languages the ordering of verbs and nouns could be placed literally as they are written in that language, but in English it doesn’t always make sense to read it in that order. God is and was the beginning so it makes sense the word God is the first word of the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that it makes sense. But the usual word order, following the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, also makes sense. It’s not a question of not making sense. It’s a question of a translator introducing improvements of his own.

Some translations can be an improvement on the original. I’m not denying that, either. But is Knox’s word order, in fact, an improvement? That is debatable.
 
Knox was never a Bishop, perhaps you are confusing him with his father, who was a Bishop in the CoE.
 
Enjoying the thread. I have long been a huge fan of Knox, but have never taken the time to buy his Bible translation. I think I might do that.

I am completely American, but will admit the English language works better as spoken by the Brits than by us, so the fact that it is very much English appeals to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top