I have been using the Msgr. Knox translation of the Bible (from the Vulgate), and was wondering if anyone was aware of an Eastern Christian view of this translation? Or does anyone have an opinion of this translation?

Thanks

Predanije:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!
Why don't you ask Father (Rt. Rev.) Economos Roman V. Russo? I sent him mine for his use after deciding I didn't use it enough to warrant it getting dusty.

BOB

I answered to the best of my poor ability Predanije's query about the splendid Msgr. Knox translation and its suitability for liturgical use in the various Eastern Churches. He is free to 'broadcast' my response for your reaction.

Father, I was worried at seeing an address on your location. Then I saw it was not a private address.

I would be interested in the Eastern perspective on the Knox Translation.

Friends:

Having been given permission to post the good Father's response I will post his e-mail to me below:

------------------------------------------------------------
Msgr. Ronald A. Knox's translation of the noble Latin Vulgate into beautiful, literary English is a twentieth century masterpiece. I use it routinely in Lectio Divina when not using original language texts. Its liturgical use is, however, problematic: Knox's text is a translation of a translation (St. Jerome's) of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Churches of the Byzantine Tradition privelege the Septuagint not the Hebrew even as the Churches of Syriac Tradition use the Peshitta. The ancient Armenian and Ethiopic Churches each have their own priveleged base-texts that differ markedly from both the Greek and the Syriac not to mention, again, the Hebrew. Accordingly I wouldn't use Msgr. Knox's translation in the Liturgies of the Eastern Churches. There is a fresh translation of the Septuagint available but its (small) deficiencies may be off-putting to some. There is no real translation of the Peshitta into English nor of the Armenian or Ge'ez versions. The RSV Ecumenical Bible comes slightly closer to the ideal by including a fuller canon, but it also translates from the Hebrew. The Old Jerusalem Bible was criticized for adopting 'Septuagint readings' where these differed from the Hebrew. That's a point in their favor from our point of view, but the recurrence of 'Yahweh' is an obstacle, to be sure.
Now whenever the NT quotes the OT it invariably follows the LXX so even in the NT we face the problem, though here I find the earlier Jerusalem Bible fine.
I do hope these personal (not professional) observations will prove helpful.
Devotedly in Christ,
Fr. Roman, unworthy priest
and his angel

I use the RSV for spiritual reading.
I use the Knox translation for literary reading.
I use the Orthodox Study Bible for Church.
I use the old Jerusalem Bible for academic studies.

I use the Confraternity spiritual reading.
I use the Catholic edition of the RSV for a closer reading.
I use the Jewish Publication Society, the ESV, and the KJV for comparison at times.

Why do you find about the ESV that attracts you? Isn't basically the RSV with about 5% textual change?

Thanks

Father Russo:

Father bless!!

Which one is it? where does one find it?

Asking for your blessing and continued holy prayers.

Bob

Oxford UP put it out

So, what title does it go by and how does one find a copy?

Bob

As a dear friend of mine pointed out: this is just one of the curious pronunciation issues in English - the word "Yahweh" is pronounced "Lord."

Jeff

The Jewish tradition has become that the Divine Name, the tetragrammaton, is not spoken out of respect. The LXX adopted the convention of rendering YHWH(YHVH) as Kurios, Lord. The Church properly follows the LXX but in the Old Testament YHWH is a proper name and it is illuminating to read it as such. It also avoids some of the adjustments that must be made when one encounters "the Lord YHWH." Being a proper name, YHWH is also a very personal form of address and reference: The Lord of Hosts is not a quaint honorific somewhat obscure title but is some particular one [Person(s)] in a particular concrete role, a leader, YHWH Sabaoth, YHWH of the Armies.

And of course as Christians we already do say the name that is above all others, as noted by St. Paul, Philippians 2:9-10.

Bob,

See here

Many years,

Neil

How does this new Septuagint translation differ and/or improve the one undertaken by Orthodox scholars and made from the Patriarchal typetext approved by the EP?

BOB

Could someone find a link for this Septuagint translation?

Also has anyone ever had a look at the NIV Archeological Bible?
Stephanos I

http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general...i=9780195289756

Father Stephanos:

Father bless!!

Neil gave me a link on the previous page, but I'm technoligically challenged when it comes to transferring a link. Hope this helps.

Bob

Neil:

How do you get all that stuff under a "link"?

Bob

Thanks much!
But does anyone know if it is a faithful translation or is there an agenda?
Stephanos I

Father Stephanos:

Father bless!!

Unless I'm mistaken or very naive--both very real possibilities--my guess is that anyone who would want to make a translation of the Septuagint must be rather orthodox--either large or small "O." The bulk of biblical scholarship since the 19th century seems to be bent on finding and putting together manuscripts to produce translations meant to be set against the Septuagint at least as it is used in the Byzantine tradtion. Somewhere there is an evaluation by Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver GOA that takes up this point.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bible_texts.html

Bob