KNOX: how good is his Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter colmcille1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

colmcille1

Guest
Hi all,
Today, in a second-hand bookshop, I bought a single-volume translation of the Bible by Monsignor Knox.(1959 Edition).
My question is: where does this particular work stand in relation to all the other versions of the Bible in use today?
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
It’s no good, you should get rid of it by sending it to me right away! 😃 Just kidding.
The translation is excellent, Msgr Knox was one of the premier classicists of his day, with an extensive knowledge of Greek and Latin. This version is derived from the Vulgate, but consulting manuscripts in the original languages as well. He tried to put in in what he calls “classic English” : not dumbed down, but not using obsolete idioms either.
 
It remains and probably always will my favorite English translation. How the NAB could have been rendered in such prosaic non-poetic stilted business English is still a mystery to me, as if anytime a beautiful expression could have been used it was deliberately changed to the more pedestrian construct.
 
there are issues with the Knox Bible. I can’t recall what they are (if you do a little research you will find out) but he has some bizarre renderings. A one-man translation does not seem to work, because at some point the guy always lets his own “vision” take over.
 
Hi Anna jane and puzzleannie,
Thank you so much for your replies. I will treasure this Bible and study it closely. It is in pristine condition and I knew I couldn’t just pass up the chance of buying it!
Do you think it’s as good as the oft-quoted Douay-Rheims?
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
johnbres2 said:
there are issues with the Knox Bible. I can’t recall what they are (if you do a little research you will find out) but he has some bizarre renderings. A one-man translation does not seem to work, because at some point the guy always lets his own “vision” take over.
Click to expand...
Hi johnbres,
Thank you for your reply.
I am intrigued and not a little perturbed by what you say! I will definitely do the research.
What is the nature of Monsignor Knox’ “vision”? In the few verses I have read, there seems to be no problem with the clarity of his intention; but I am a novice and am at a loss as to the nuances of his style. Can you elaborate?
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
I’m not aware of any problems the Church has with the Knox Bible, it was approved by the English bishops of his time, so I don’t think there can be any doctrinal issues. Personally, I find it easier to understand than the Douay-Rheims, especially when it comes to St Paul’s Epistles! But some people miss the familiar phrases they’re accustomed to.
I found a link to an article he wrote on his work, just scroll down a little bit.
ronaldknoxsociety.com/member.html
 
I have just checked out my copy and discover that I was given it as a birthday present from my parents in 1957! 👍
 
colmcille1 said:
H
Do you think it’s as good as the oft-quoted Douay-Rheims?
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Click to expand...
sorry I can’t wade through the DR, it detracts from devotion and I was an English major. the bible I grew up with is the confraternity version, and I think the Knox bible was the translation for English Catholics in the same time period. My dad loved it for the elegance of the language and style, and I grew to love it as well. My point being if it can be accurately translated with poetics and grace and elegance, what is the benefit of the pedestrian style of the NAB?
 
colmcille1 said:
Hi johnbres,
Thank you for your reply.
I am intrigued and not a little perturbed by what you say! I will definitely do the research.
What is the nature of Monsignor Knox’ “vision”? In the few verses I have read, there seems to be no problem with the clarity of his intention; but I am a novice and am at a loss as to the nuances of his style. Can you elaborate?
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Click to expand...
Don’t let that guy’s post disturb you it was pure rubbish. The Douay/Rheims Bible was basically a one man Bible too, but you don’t hear anyone using that criticism against the D/R. Gregory Martin was primarily responsible for the D/R Bible translation, and then later Bishop Challoner was solely responsible for the update/revision. Let’s not forget that the Vulgate itself was a one man translation! It would be better to have a translation by one man with good judgement, ability and holiness translating the Bible than a comittee of diverse interests and agendas all trying to compromise everything away (like the NAB)

There are no issues at all with the Knox Bible. It is an accurate, entirely Catholic, and faithful translation of the Vulgate. It retains “Thee and Thou” for its Biblical sound, but in all other respects, is a wonderful modern rendition of the Vulgate in English. We have never had anything new since the mid-18th century. Unless you manage to assemble Bishop Kenrick’s version from the mid-19th c. which is very rare, and forgettable. 😉
 
Like most translations of the Bible, the Knox translation has strengths and weaknesses.

So often, in discussions on various translations of the Bible, opinions go to either extreme: each translation is said to be either very good or very bad, with nothing in-between. This type of exaggeration is generally not an accurate or fair evaluation of a Bible translation.
 
Hi all,
Thank you very much for your further contrbutions; they are very helpful.
Ron, although you make a perfectly valid objective point I think I have to side with those who opt for an “extreme” position. And my reason is a quite pressing practical one.
In my town, the parish priest is obsessed (if that’s not too strong a word) with a gender-neutral Bible. To be quite frank, this annoys me no end. The absurdity of his stance was very obvious in one of the recent Gospel readings. (My apologies- I cannot recall the exact one.) Anyway, the gist of it was that Jesus was addressing a man: in this priest’s version he inserted the word person for “man” despite the fact that on the next line Jesus refers to this “person’s” wife! I used to be a minister for the word but, on principle, gave it up because of this priest’s gender-neutral Bible insistence. Ironically, this situation has strengthened my Faith; and I am now sensitized to this whole gender-neutral issue.
So, in conclusion, based on the erudite opinions of the good folks here at CAF, I will treasure my Knox and my D-R and say a prayer of thanks to Saint Jerome!
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
Colmcille,

I do not like to disparage members of the clergy, but your parish priest does NOT have the authority to change scripture to suit his “agenda”. I am surprised that no one has reported him to the local ordinary, and if they have and the ordinary has allowed the changes to occur, then . . . you can always attend the Latin Mass like I do 🙂
 
colmcille1 said:
In my town, the parish priest is obsessed (if that’s not too strong a word) with a gender-neutral Bible. To be quite frank, this annoys me no end. The absurdity of his stance was very obvious in one of the recent Gospel readings.
Click to expand...
All Bible versions and translations have some gender-neutral language. It is a matter of degree as to how often, and in what contexts, a word will be used that does not specify gender over one that does specify gender. So a Bible translation has gender neutral language to one extent or another. There are not two types of translations, those that lack gender-neutral language, and those that use it.
 
no translation is perfect, and no translations are inspired

DR only-ism is just as silly as KJV only-ism

a one man-translation will undoubtedly be that person’s vision and should have some degree of coherence and consistency.

a translation done by a committee might not have the same vision (for good or for ill)

a committee translation might lack coherence and consistency … in addition it will be sure to have all the weakness of compromise. compromise is not necessarily a good thing: the side that is right never wins and the side that is wrong never looses.

if you read it, it is a very good translation
 
Salvatore123 said:
Colmcille,

I do not like to disparage members of the clergy, but your parish priest does NOT have the authority to change scripture to suit his “agenda”. I am surprised that no one has reported him to the local ordinary, and if they have and the ordinary has allowed the changes to occur, then . . . you can always attend the Latin Mass like I do 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Salvatore,
Thank you for your post.
I was not aware of such a process of complaint. However I do not wish to be seen as a “troublemaker” as I am a fairly recent blow-in to this small rural Irish town.
Your suggestion of a Latin Mass is an excellent one. Two friends of mine attend one in Dublin city each Sunday and have given me an open invitation to attend with them; I think it is time I took them up on this as I simply cannot abide this insipid gender-neutral nonsense any longer. Thanks again.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
Ron_Conte said:
All Bible versions and translations have some gender-neutral language. It is a matter of degree as to how often, and in what contexts, a word will be used that does not specify gender over one that does specify gender. So a Bible translation has gender neutral language to one extent or another. There are not two types of translations, those that lack gender-neutral language, and those that use it.
Click to expand...
Hi Ron,
Thank you for your post.
Yes, I think you have p(name removed by moderator)ointed rightly the significance of occurrence and context.
But I wonder: why is it felt necessary to imbue a translation with political correctness. This, for me, is what sticks in my craw. The word of God is eternal truth and should not be subject to such an absurd cultural construct. I have spoken to women who have absolutely no problem with a traditional wording. They fully understand that God loves us all equally and does not exclude women via the words in His Scripture.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
quasimodo said:
no translation is perfect, and no translations are inspired

DR only-ism is just as silly as KJV only-ism

a one man-translation will undoubtedly be that person’s vision and should have some degree of coherence and consistency.

a translation done by a committee might not have the same vision (for good or for ill)

a committee translation might lack coherence and consistency … in addition it will be sure to have all the weakness of compromise. compromise is not necessarily a good thing: the side that is right never wins and the side that is wrong never looses.

if you read it, it is a very good translation
Click to expand...
Hi quasimodo,
Thank you for your reply.
I think you are right re compromise. And this is perhaps the nub of my difference with the priest on the language issue. He told me, via anecdote, why he has adopted the stance he has. I did not challenge him as I was new to the town and did not want to appear “uppity”. Besides, I believe in this case discretion was the better part of valour.
I will attend a Latin Mass and enjoy reading my Knox! Thanks again.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
 
I searched for an online version of the Knox Bible, and all I could find was this. Does anyone have a link to the original Knox Bible online, or is it unavailable?
 
colmcille1 said:
Hi Ron,
Thank you for your post.
Yes, I think you have p(name removed by moderator)ointed rightly the significance of occurrence and context.
But I wonder: why is it felt necessary to imbue a translation with political correctness. This, for me, is what sticks in my craw. The word of God is eternal truth and should not be subject to such an absurd cultural construct. I have spoken to women who have absolutely no problem with a traditional wording. They fully understand that God loves us all equally and does not exclude women via the words in His Scripture.
God Bless,
Colmcille.
Click to expand...
Well I tell you what… if she did have a problem with it Id shut her up real quick and tell her ta git back in the kitchen and make me a samich or git me a beer!

I kid! I kid!

The gender neutrality that your talking about is of the PC type, not of the textual sort. The NRSV is full of such ****, including the translation of Daniel calling “The Son Of Man” “One like a human being.” Which would negate Christ’s most used title for himself and sign of Divinity. Satans a crafty evil dude. PCness is just a way to distort the truth in general for people who dont want to hear it for whatever reason; and he even uses it to obscure the word of the Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top