KNOX: how good is his Bible?

[colmcille1]

Hi KShaft,
Thanks for your post.
I agree with you on this. PC is downright pernicious. We must pray for those who are mis-led by this attack on the Sacred Word.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[johnbres2]

tyndale.org/TSJ/4/day.html

here is one interesting article about the Knox Bible

 

[colmcille1]

tyndale.org/TSJ/4/day.html

here is one interesting article about the Knox Bible

Hi johnbres,
Thank you for your post and it’s informative link.
Is Tyndale popular today, do you know? I will certainly research his version. It’s poetry in the excerpts cited is compelling.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[johnbres2]

I looked up the Tyndale version after finding that Knox article. It does not seem that there is a mass-produced version of it at all. It pre-dates the KJV.

 

[johnbres2]

The guy who called my first comment “rubbish” might want to look at this link.

catholicism.org/problem-knox.html

Here’s one example of Knox’ account of Isaiah 7:14, just a slightly important passage

“In a previous issue, The Point has decried Monsignor Knox’s malicious and willful attack on the Blessed Virgin Mary, in his translation of the sacred text from Isaias, Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium: which can only mean, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son.” In complete sell-out to a centuries-old Talmudic tradition, Monsignor Knox refused to use Saint Jerome’s Latin or even the Greek texts for this verse. He went to the post-Crucifixion Babylonian rabbis for their version, and came up with, “Maid shall be brought to bed of a son.” This rendering, which takes all portent out of the prophesied event — meant to be a wondrous sign from God — completely discredits the inviolate virginity of Our Lord’s Mother and the virginal manner of His birth.”

 

[KShaft]

The guy who called my first comment “rubbish” might want to look at this link.

catholicism.org/problem-knox.html

Here’s one example of Knox’ account of Isaiah 7:14, just a slightly important passage

“In a previous issue, The Point has decried Monsignor Knox’s malicious and willful attack on the Blessed Virgin Mary, in his translation of the sacred text from Isaias, Ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium: which can only mean, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son.” In complete sell-out to a centuries-old Talmudic tradition, Monsignor Knox refused to use Saint Jerome’s Latin or even the Greek texts for this verse. He went to the post-Crucifixion Babylonian rabbis for their version, and came up with, “Maid shall be brought to bed of a son.” This rendering, which takes all portent out of the prophesied event — meant to be a wondrous sign from God — completely discredits the inviolate virginity of Our Lord’s Mother and the virginal manner of His birth.”

The lunacy of the rendition of this passage boggles the mind in contrast to the eloquence of the majority of the translation by Msgr Knox. He does have moments of irreverence no doubt. Just read his comments about the Gospel of John.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

johnbres2:

The guy who called my first comment “rubbish” might want to look at this link.

Knox’s translation of the Vulgate is a dynamic equivalence. Everyone should know that, as he says so in his preface. For the Pauline letters it works very well, other times not so much.

If you want a formal equivalence or literal translation of the Vulgate, you should stick to the D/R.

BTW, that anti-Knox web page is also full of rubbish.

His commentary on John’s Gospel is still considered a most likely scenario. Those that think St. John sat at a Medieval copyists desk, carefully composing his Gospel may be guilty of romanticizing the event. Knox’s description is not disrespectful or irreverent, just a plausible scenario, given the text.

If one is going to read Knox’s translation, it might be helpful to also have a D/R on hand for a literal translation’s perspective on any given passage.

I have to admit, I don’t much like Knox’s translation of the Isaiah passage, and I also have to agree with the anti-Knox website’s view that Knox allowed himself to be overly influenced by the Masoretic Hebrew texts despite what the Vulgate plainly said. Even the NAB translates this passage better than Knox. (a strong censure of the Knox version indeed!) However, I don’t care what translation you use, you WILL be able to find some passage or other that is just terrible compared to some other translation. Especially those “litmus test” passages like Isaiah 7:14 or Genesis 3:15.

 

[Anna_jane]

I can’t agree with the claim that Knox is defaming Our Lady by translating “maid” . Maid does mean virgin, especially when we are talking about older English. Cf the Oxford English Dictionary. The medieval hymn “Blest be that Maid Marie” is a good example.
Also, since that anti-Knox site is written by Fr Feeney, who was excommunicated for his heresy, I’ll take his condemnations of others with a very large grain of salt.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all,
Thank you so much for your very informative posts.
I wonder is it a case that Knox perhaps knew that some of his translations would attract censure but proceeded nonetheless as all publicity would be good.
Certainly, when I view Acts 2:42 in Knox, D-R and New Jerusalem, the Knox version is the least attractive in my eyes. But then, as a previous poster pointed out, I suppose there would be something subjectively amiss in every version.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[KevinAK]

If I am not mistaken Archbishop used the Knox Bible when writing his book The Life of Christ. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Fidelis]

If I am not mistaken Archbishop used the Knox Bible when writing his book The Life of Christ. That’s good enough for me.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, that is.