There's nothing especially holy about "blessed are the paps that gave thee suck" or "Paralipomenon."
How about this instead : "A woman in the multitude said to him aloud, "Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breast which thou hast sucked." And he answered, "Shall we not say, 'Blessed are those who hear the word of God, and keep it?'"
That sounds fairly faithful to the original, without the bizarre archaic language ("pap" fell out of common usage for "breast" nearly 400 years ago).
It's from Knox.
I think it could be helpful if someone would make a sort of revised Douay-Rheims. They could translate it from the Latin with the same idea of fidelity, but use today's Standard Written English, keeping in mind the formality and poetry that is in character with sacred scripture.
Listen, I'm not a Knox apologiist, nor do this his translation is the best. (I, for instance, despise some of his psalms when he decides to depart from his stated purpose and goes all alphabetical on us like in Psalm 118-- sure the Hebrew is that way, but in English it's just kitschy, not a great works of literature.)
Anyway, I just don't see why people are desirous of a modern redaction of the Douay-Challoner: 1. It is reinventing the wheel
There are plenty of decent Catholic translations into English : Knox, RSV-CE, Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB), Confraternity, etc.). Why are these so insufficient that the Challoner needs to be redacted to modern language?2. It smacks of a certain fundamentalist Protestant spirit which wants to have a "perfect" translation of scripture (because it is the foundation of their privately developed "faith").
No Bible translation will every be 100% accurate to the original inspired texts. That's because those texts are no longer extant and any translation will fail to completely convey the meaning of the original.
What we have to settle for is what the Magisterium teaches us about scripture (since we're not able to privately interpret) : the Vulgate is, in morals and doctrine, substantially equivalent to the inspired texts. When the Church teaches what scripture means it comes from this text, or another which bears the same characteristic of substantial equivalence to the original (no others have been so defined).
The problem is that no translation from the Vulgate, Greek or any other early version will ever be good enough to be used for us defining doctrine or moral teaching, because that's not our job. Thus any reasonably accurate translation would be fine to study scripture and back up what the Church already teaches.
Thus, a word-for-word literal translation is somewhat pointless unless you're trying to study Latin or Greek.
Pick the version or versions that best help you to understand the text. Don't seek some "perfect" translation. It doesn't and will never exist.