From the Bible Gateway Blog:
We’re pleased to announce the addition of a new Bible to our online library: the Knox Bible, published by Baronius Press!
The Knox Bible is a noteworthy translation for a number of reasons. It was first translated from the Latin Vulgate by the English theologian and priest Ronald Knox. Knox’s aim was to produce a translation that was clear and accurate, yet which also captured the readability and flair of English literary tradition...
Hat tip to Brian McCord via Facebook.
I have a copy of the Knox Bible at home. The New Testament is truly a great read. However, I was under the impression that it is not a formal equivalence translation, but it closer to "dynamic equivalence" though the term was not used in the 1930s-1940s. Can anyone enlighten me on the subject?ReplyDelete
Certainly, Msgr Knox's translations would not be considered formal equivalence. This is because his translations were not meant for public use but private. Below is a passage from an article in Anglican Embers "The Liturgy and the Pastoral Provision: Reflections on a talk delivered by Monsignor Bruce Harbert of ICEL at the 2006 Anglican Use Conference" that was published in the Lent 2008 issue. It is a good illustration of Msgr. Knox's translation philosophy.
Msgr. Harbert then spoke about the results of a change in translation philosophy, which first appeared “in 1951, with a new Holy Week book…published with translations by Ronald Knox, who though justly famed as a translator, published few versions of liturgical texts. This is his version:
Lord, on this household of thine,
look down with mercy.
For our sakes our Lord Jesus Christ
thought it no shame to die,
given up into the hands of sinners,
wrapped on a Cross."
Msgr. Harbert drew our attention to the phrase ‘For our sakes,’ noting, “That’s not in the Latin, and it’s not in any of the other translations that I’ve read to you hitherto.” And reflecting on why Knox translated it that way, the Monsignor acknowledged that while Knox was a superb translator, he also “hated the idea of translating the liturgy. He translated Scripture. And it’s very clear from what he wrote about translating Scripture that he envisaged his audience as individual readers, who would read his texts alone. You can almost see them, in their tweed jackets and slippers, puffing their pipes by the fire, thumbing through Leviticus. Knox was not concerned with public proclamation of his work. What he produced is a devotional translation, designed to help the lone worshipper in the pew, heightening the emotions by its exclamatory style. It’s a fine piece of work: vivid and arresting. It lacks the sobriety of the Roman original. And few would now consider it suitable for public, liturgical use.”