The Knox Bible Online

[Innocent]

I've been searching the internet hoping to find Msgr. Ronald Knox's translation of the Holy Bible online somewhere, but so far I haven't succeeded. However, today, I found this:

LINK: [url="http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/book/knox_bible"][size=4][b]Knox Bible ('you' version)[/b][/size][/url]

Here's the introduction to this version of Ronald Knox's translation:

[quote][b]The Knox Bible ('you' version)[/b]

The past 40 years have seen a welter of English translations of the Bible. One appears to have been quite lost in this biblical multiplication: that of Ronald Knox which was so immensely popular from its publication in 1944 to the mid-1960s. My own reaction to it had been enthusiastic, yet maybe somewhat ambivalent: I found it very readable, very inspiring, and at times a bit debatable...

In any case it descended into practical oblivion after Vatican II. It might - and perhaps should - have survived if Knox had not made the mistake, as I now see it, of sticking to the "thou" forms throughout.

Some time back, seeing the very varied quality of the new versions, I began to wonder if Knox, in "you" form, might not be of interest and help to some people. So I began to while away odd moments by "you-ing" his New Testament (I have a good program for such a task). With "you" etc. throughout, many passages seemed to take on a new freshness and interest.

Now, more than a year after its first appearance on my website, I find that the 'you' version has drawn more interest than I ever anticipated. One reader makes a comment worth transcribing. For him, the Ronald Knox translations, "somehow combine clarity with mystery: I mean they are easy enough to understand and they still have that majesty of language which constantly reminds the reader that these words concern much more than the everyday".

It is an opinion that may have particular application to the pauline epistles. Regarding these I do recall some early critic who, while conceding that Msgr. Knox had certainly made St. Paul intelligible (he was at times barely so in the old Douai-Rheims version), still doubted whether Knox's version really makes Paul say what he actually wanted to say... I am not scripture scholar enough to resolve the question; but am sure that the same doubt can be made extensive to quite a few more recent versions.

In consequence, the more the present spare-time activity progresses, the greater my impression that something old has in a small but important way become new again. If so, the endeavor is not totally useless.

In any case, may "Ronnie" forgive me from his heavenly abode, if he does not approve of my efforts. But I would not like to see any of his masterly and inspiring prose being thrust aside because of a few pronouns or adjectives here and there.[/quote]

[mcts]

huh. i've never heard of it.

should i look into reading this version?

[tinytherese]

Why are older bibles such as the douay rheims simply not edited for the old english? How hard can it be? If they fixed the old english and any strange spellings then more people may read them. There's a New King James Version that edited the old english in the King James so why can't we do it too?

[Innocent]

[quote name='mcts' post='1712060' date='Nov 27 2008, 12:51 PM']huh. i've never heard of it.

should i look into reading this version?[/quote]

What makes me happy to have found this is the fact that reading Msgr. Ronald Knox's [url="http://www.cin.org/liter/belief0.html"][i]The Belief of Catholics[/i][/url] was one among the things that made me decide to be more than just a Catholic in name only.

James Akin mentions this Translation in his essay on how to choose a Bible:

[quote]Also on store shelves are minor translations, most of which use the dynamic equivalence method. These include well-known ones, such as the Protestant Moffat and Catholic Knox Bibles, and specialty versions, such as the Jewish New Testament (JNT, translated by David Stern), which renders New Testament names and expressions with the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Yiddish equivalents. Jesus becomes Yeshua, Paul is Sha'ul, the Mosaic Law is the Torah, the Feast of Dedication is Chanukka, and the Holy Spirit is Ruach-Ha Kodesh.[/quote]

Here are some articles on Knox:


[url="http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Msgr_Knox_Bible_Translation.html"]1. Thoughts on Translation - a paper presented by Msgr. Ronald Knox.[/url]

[url="http://www.tyndale.org/TSJ/4/day.html#ref4"]2. The Holy Bible Translated by Ronald Arbuthnott Knox - by Hilary Day[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=145&CFID=19398905&CFTOKEN=54241089"]3. Who was Knox? - by Michael de la Bedoyere[/url]

[url="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/ronald-knoxs-conversion-story.html"]4. The Conversion Story of Ronald Knox - by Dave Armstrong[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicauthors.com/knox.html"]5. The Ronald Knox article on catholicauthors.com[/url]

However, I also came across [url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030219020326/http://www.catholicism.org/pages/knoxproblem.htm"]an article from a Traditionalist site[/url] with an unfavourable opinion of Ronald Knox. I don't know how far to trust their research. I'm just including the link here because I found the article while searching for information on Ronald Knox.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1712504' date='Nov 28 2008, 12:41 AM']Why are older bibles such as the douay rheims simply not edited for the old english? How hard can it be? If they fixed the old english and any strange spellings then more people may read them. There's a New King James Version that edited the old english in the King James so why can't we do it too?[/quote]

It's more complicated than you might imagine.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1712944' date='Nov 28 2008, 04:35 PM']It's more complicated than you might imagine.[/quote]

+1

Biblical translation work is extraordinarily complex and any translation with a "New" at the front of it is not a superior translations of the Bible and will be riddled with errors. I have never read a "new" anything Bible that I have liked or is good enough for real biblical research. The most common problem is the inclusive language.

[tinytherese]

I stand corrected.

[Theoketos]

The Knox Bible is Phat.

[philothea]

A little too Phat, apparently.

I get a database error.