"The sanctuary into which Jesus has entered is not one made by human hands, is not some adumbration of the truth; he has entered heaven itself, where he now appears in God’s sight on our behalf. Nor does he make a repeated offering of himself, as the high priest, when he enters the sanctuary, makes a yearly offering of the blood that is not his own. If that were so, he must have suffered again and again, ever since the world was created; as it is, he has been revealed once for all, at the moment when history reached its fulfillment, annulling our sin by his sacrifice. Man’s destiny is to die once for all; nothing remains after that but judgement; and Christ was offered once for all, to drain the cup of a world’s sins; when we see him again, sin will play its part no longer, he will be bringing salvation to those who await his coming."
-Knox
or
"Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands,
a copy of the true one, but heaven itself,
that he might now appear before God on our behalf.
Not that he might offer himself repeatedly,
as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary
with blood that is not his own;
if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly
from the foundation of the world.
But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages
to take away sin by his sacrifice.
Just as it is appointed that human beings die once,
and after this the judgment, so also Christ,
offered once to take away the sins of many,
will appear a second time, not to take away sin
but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him."
-NAB(RE)
Striking difference, the pedestrian NAB is easy to beat, however.
ReplyDeleteThe Knox is somewhat ruined by use of unnecessarily cryptic "adumbration". I guess this is one of those cases where's it's nice to have both translations since they both have plusses and minuses.
ReplyDelete:The Knox is somewhat ruined by use of unnecessarily cryptic "adumbration"."
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with it.
That's actually an excellent word for the idea he is trying to convey, nothing wrong with using an unusual word every now and again, when the word you choose is the correct one for expressing your idea. If people are unfamiliar with it, they can look it up a dictionary, which in 2012 is very easy. Nothing wrong with expecting a little work on the part of the reader.
This is the first one of these things you've posted where I prefer the Knox version...but then everybody says that the epistles are where Knox really shines so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThe NABRE version was easier to understand to me, and I think is like the Spanish version in its mental images. The Knox one is stronger in its images, but it is more difficult to connect the phrases in order to make an understanding of the reading.
Best regards.
Knox takes this one for me.
ReplyDelete(I didn't know anyone other than myself thought that Knox was pretty good in St Paul, decent in most of the rest of the NT, and bad in the OT. Although, if others see it that way, I believe it most certainly to be true, that the Epistles, as I said in a previous comment here, are the high-water-mark of Knox's work, just as they are the most obscure[antist {sic}] in the 1582 Rheims.)