The Bible Re-Translated
The Holy Bible. Translated by Ronald A. Knox. I. Genesis-Esther. (Burns Oates. 21s.)
BrEux translation is in the air. The demand for a new English version springs from two sources. One is the conviction that the last three centuries have added to our knowledge ; and the other is a feeling that the language of the traditional versions no longer conveys the meaning which it had for the sixteenth century. The former need could be met by simple revision, but the latter will be satisfied only by a completely new translation. A satisfactory ver- sion would meet both points. But only those who have tried it know how difficult the task can be. The more deeply a reader is steeped in the language of the original, the more hopeless he becomes when faced with the duty of rendering its thought in concise language ; one of the indispensable qualifications of the perfect translator is probably that he knows the thing to be impossible.
Nevertheless, in his New Testament Mgr. Ronald A. Knox achieved a brilliant success, and-he has followed this up with an original version of the Old Testament, of which the first part has now appeared. According to the publishers' wrapper he has himself laid down three rules for a translator : (t) be accurate; (2) be intel- ligible ; (3) be readable. But what is accuracy ? Clearly, not a literal word-for-word rendering. Here Mgr. Knox is certainly right, but we naturally ask first of all that the basis should be that text which most nearly approaches the original form of the Bible. The day is long past when a good Cardinal could write: "Medium autem inter has latinam beati Hieronomi translationem velut inter Synagogam & Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus tanquam duos hinc & inde latrones medium autem lesum, hoc est Romanam sive latinorn Ecclesiam collocarttes, and the Westminster Version has shown us what results can be obtained from the Hebrew text. Mgr. Knox has preferred the Vulgate, though he claims to have used the MT, and to some extent the LXX ; in Tobias he adds the (later) Hebrew and Aramaic versions, and seems to regard one of the latter as being the original "Chaldee," on which St. Jerome based the Vulgate of this book. In passing it should be remarked that references to the MT should be checked ; notes such as those on Gen. I :20, II Kings 4:7, III Kings 9:25, IV Kings 6:22 and others, are open to criticism.
Even if one grants reason for the choice of the Vulgate as a basis there are grounds for questioning some of the readings in this new version. Every translator has to interpret, but there are limits within which he should confine himself. Normally we have a very free representation of the Latin with some happy renderings, e.g., " challenge " for tentatio (Ex. 17:7), "Has Saul, too, turned prophet ? " for "Num et Saul inter prophetas ?" (I Kings 19:24, but why not also in to: Ix ?) or " award " for fudicium (II Kings 3:28). Other renderings are less satisfactory. The " we " in Jud. 5: 2 may be a misprint, but "Man must shed his own blood in return" for fundetur sanguis illius (Gen. 9:6), "he would have all the clan chiefs . . ." for "Alt ad Moysen : Tolle cunctos principes populi " (Num. 25 :4), " mood " for spiritus (I Kings 16:4, 19:19), " wanderers " for proselytis (Tob. I :7)—to take a few random instances—are difficult to justify, while such translations as those of I Kings 2:13-17 and III Kings x2:9 suggest as serious misunder- standing of the passages in question. Sometimes there are needless variations, e.g., de novissimis is represented by "first-corner" in
III Kings 13:33 but by "dregs of the people" (much nearer) in IV Kings 17:32. While accuracy demands wide variation in syntax, idiom and even thought-shape, it should preclude definite misinter- pretation. One other serious blot must be mentioned, the complete failure to reproduce anything like the true poetic form so obvious in the Old Testament. It is almost painful to read Judges 5 or II Kings 22 in this version ; in the latter case, at least, we can com- pare the Westminster rendering of Ps. 17 (i8), a model which the reader may consult with profit. The thought-rhythm of Hebrew verse is indispensable for its emotional appreciation, and here it is almost completely lost.
On the other hand, the language is intelligible. Mgr. Knox writes in a free, lively and vivid style. Occasionally we meet with obscure or unusual words and forms, such as "brethren," "bethink," " orichalc," " handsel " (surely not the best word either for sanctificare in Neh, 3 : r or for sacrificare in Neh, 4:2) and " scathe" ; but as a rule the terms used are familiar to us all, and sometimes we find a passage of clear beauty like the opening verses of Judith 4.
It is to be regretted that Mgr. Knox has used a style so different from that of his New Testament. It has its virtues ; especially commendable is his frequent substitution of oratio oblique for the oratio recta of his original. But there are mannerisms which irritated one reader almost to the point of exasperation. "Thou," " thee " and " thy " (also in Mgr. Knox's New Testament) are forms long obsolete except in prayer, in some local dialects, and in the esoteric speech of Friends. The use of "must," "would," "now turn we to . . ." and the frequent inversions may impart emphasis, but should be reserved for special occasions. It is features of this kind which make the book intelligible but hardly readable.
The Douay version has undergone some modification since 1609, but remains a monument of noble simplicity comparable to the Vulgate itself. The Westminster Version, too, has preserved much of the beauty and dignity of the original ; a passage like Ruth 2:14-19 may be read with great pleasure, and a few minor alterations would completely modernise the language. Judgements on style are apt to be subjective, but it seems clear that this version of the Old Testament .cannot take the place most of us would assign to
Mgr. Knox's rendering of the New. THEODORE H. ROBINSON.
Previous page
