D
DonCampbell
Guest
Anyone familiar with it? Would you recommend it? I do not see it on the list of approved versions for Catholics on the USCCB website. Is it approved for use in the UK?
Thanks.
Thanks.
- Status
B
boomerang
Guest
All I know is that Bishop Fulton Sheen liked that version.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
The USCCB only lists Bibles that are approved since 1983 (or thereabouts.) ANY Bible that has the episcopal approbation is automatically approved. The Knox bible was not only approved by the Primate of England, but was translated expressly for use in the UK liturgy. You can’t get much more approved than that!
The Knox Bible is a very good translation, albeit somewhat loose at times. Knox was trying to create a translation that would be very understandable to the English around the time of the War.
His Pauline Epistles may be the best translation EVER!
P
pianistclare
Guest
While the translation is good, the wording is VERY FLOWERY.
Really hard to follow if you’re not used to it.
I couldn’t get into it, but many love it.
I’d definitely read an except or many online before I bought one.
Really hard to follow if you’re not used to it.
I couldn’t get into it, but many love it.
I’d definitely read an except or many online before I bought one.
C
ctb95
Guest
I have one and I love it! It is written very poetically, so yes, the language is very flowery. It does make for an interesting reading experience.
I would definitely read excerpts before you buy one. It can be read for free online:
newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
I would definitely read excerpts before you buy one. It can be read for free online:
newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm
T
tvknight415
Guest
I like it a lot. But as others have said, its flowery. But for a reading Bible, I find it just about right.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
All of a sudden Knox is considered flowery! 
I think what strikes Americans today as flowery, would just be ordinary mid-20th century English in the UK, for whom this bible was translated.
I think what strikes Americans today as flowery, would just be ordinary mid-20th century English in the UK, for whom this bible was translated.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Well, because we don’t live in mid 20th century England. I guess you just answered your own question.All of a sudden Knox is considered flowery!
I think what strikes Americans today as flowery, would just be ordinary mid-20th century English in the UK, for whom this bible was translated.
Nobody said it was BAD, it’s just very difficult to get past the o=effusive language.
People don’t speak like this anymore. At least not where we live.
A
AttendeDomine
Guest
Obviously, not every one agrees that Biblical language should perfectly reflect the colloquial language of where you and I happen to live. There is a good argument that can be made for “flowery” language, at least insofar as it happens to be dignified and reverent. Approaching something as holy as Scripture with an “aw shucks! D’ya reckon so?” type of language is … weird.People don’t speak like this anymore. At least not where we live.
I think most would agree — and I think this might be your point — that we should strike a balance between language that pulls down Scripture to the crass level of the reader, and language that raises up the reader to Scripture in a snobby or difficult to understand manner.
Having said that, I think that Knox’s translation is incredibly idiosyncratic — the presence of Knox absolutely permeates every page. I happen to think that that gets in the way of Scripture.
Also, for the OP, the only currently printed version of this Bible that I’m aware of is the Baronius Press edition. I don’t know why, but there’s just something about the font, its size, its boldness, and the single-column pages that, when combined, leads to my having pretty bad headaches. I have difficulty reading the text, in other words, and perhaps you might as well.
P
pianistclare
Guest
T
TimothyH
Guest
There are no quotation marks in the Knox Bible.
Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Ingen. Aucun. Nenhum. कोई नहीं. Hiçbiri. Le ea mong. None.
Quotation marks simply are not used and it is sometime difficult to know when someone is speaking or whom is speaking to whom.
Super annoying to the point that I put it down and switched to something else.
-Tim-
Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Ingen. Aucun. Nenhum. कोई नहीं. Hiçbiri. Le ea mong. None.
Quotation marks simply are not used and it is sometime difficult to know when someone is speaking or whom is speaking to whom.
Super annoying to the point that I put it down and switched to something else.
-Tim-
M
mccorm45
Guest
Any one use the Knox bible as their primary reading bible?
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
The Knox Bible is more of a paraphrase than a translation. Not that people shouldn’t read paraphrases, but they should also be very aware of what they are reading.
po18guy
Well-known member
I am almost gun-shy of offering an opinion, but the Knox is 100% British mid-century. The 1941-1969 US “Confraternity” offers a more American (but still last-century) rendering. As inexpensive as excellent used bibles are on the market, I have simply gathered as many versions as I can and read them comparatively.
Each translation misses the bulls-eye by a bit. Reading several versions helps me to bracket the bulls-eye and perhaps come closer to the original intent. One thing about the Knox is that Monsignor Knox clarified Matthew 1:25, apparently in response to the growing assertion that Mary was just a random, worldly woman who had a bunch of kids.
Each translation misses the bulls-eye by a bit. Reading several versions helps me to bracket the bulls-eye and perhaps come closer to the original intent. One thing about the Knox is that Monsignor Knox clarified Matthew 1:25, apparently in response to the growing assertion that Mary was just a random, worldly woman who had a bunch of kids.
Demonstrating more clearly the link to Isaiah 7:14. Read the Knox online here: newadvent.org/bible/mat001.htm
M
mccorm45
Guest
The Message and the Good News are properly paraphrases, Knox is clearly on the dynamic end like the Jerusalem Bible.
po18guy
Well-known member
I rotate among several versions, the Knox being one of my primaries. A 1949 Confraternity, a 1989 Revised English Bible w/Deuterocanon and occasionally a 1966 Jerusalem. The Knox is very British English (how’s that for a redundancy?), and does take some linguistic accommodation for those west of the Atlantic. I will say that an English friend has a copy and states that the Psalms, in particular, are beautiful.
po18guy
Well-known member
I rotate among several versions, the Knox being one of my primaries. A 1949 Confraternity, a 1989 Revised English Bible w/Deuterocanon and occasionally a 1966 Jerusalem. The Knox is pure British English (how’s that for a redundancy?), and does take some linguistic accommodation for those west of the Atlantic. I will say that an English friend has a copy and states that the Psalms, in particular, are beautiful.
Per the Wiki, it is a “Dynamic and formal equivalence.” The Knox being perhaps guided more by Sacred Tradition than the Jerusalem, i.e. 2 Corinthians 2:10
Jerusalem
Knox
“in persona Christi” as is the original and constant practice of the Church.
M
mccorm45
Guest
Ephesians 3:15:
“that Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its title.”
“that Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its title.”
Crusader13
New member
I’ve recently tried to make the switch to the Knox bible as my go to bible. Yet, it has been difficult. Although I find it to be beautiful and poetic in places, there are other passages that give me pause and I’m forced to reach for another translation to understand the meaning.
It can be difficult to simply jump right into the Knox bible, especially when one has never attempted to read a bible from this time period or for someone unfamiliar with early 20th century British dialect. Where I found help was in reading books from Bishop Fulton Sheen. Probably the best place to start is with Sheen’s*** Life of Christ***. A side note though, be careful which editions of this book you come across. I have found some, which use a different translation for the scripture verses. If I’m not mistaken, I believe they used *The New English Bible *for the scripture verses.
Reading Sheen’s Life of Christ, has really opened up Knox in a whole new light. Not only does Sheen give an excellent, commentary of sorts, but he brings Knox to life in a way that you might miss if you were to read it on your own. There are a few places, where Sheen reverts back to the Douay Rheims bible and in some cases he even says it was because Knox is more “free” in his rendering. So that should give one an idea of the writing style of Knox.
Yet, when you read other works from Ronald Knox, such as his short book, ***Trials of a Translator ***or On Englishing the Bible, as it is also called, he gives you great insight into his methods and his reasoning behind why he translates certain passages the way he does. Personally, after reading up on Knox and some of his other works, it propelled me into wanting to read his Bible, because the man is nothing short of a true gentleman and scholar. He was one the greatest Catholic apologists of his day and I felt I could learn a lot from his bible.
L
LiamQ
Guest
I have at least two problems with it:
(a) It’s extremely idiosyncratic, and I feel as if I’m reading a novel rather than Scripture;
(b) The Baronius Press edition makes my head ache, since the font and its size and everything else are just far too difficult for me to sit down and get cozy with.
(a) It’s extremely idiosyncratic, and I feel as if I’m reading a novel rather than Scripture;
(b) The Baronius Press edition makes my head ache, since the font and its size and everything else are just far too difficult for me to sit down and get cozy with.
- Status