Augustine Institute Publishes Major New Catholic Bible
- Thread starter ralfyman
- Start date
- Status
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
I’ll stick with Douay Rheims.
P
puer.dei
Guest
I love the ESV. SO happy to see a Catholic version!
P
phil19034
Guest
The Douay Rheims is great for devotional reading, but it’s not a good study Bible. That’s why the pastor at the local FSSP parish uses the RSV-2CE during his Bible studies.
The RSV-CE, RSV-2CE and the ESV-CE are considered the best English translations for Bible study & scholarship.
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
I always thought it was odd that they wanted to adapt the ESV. It was undertaken by a wholly evangelical Reformed committee. The editor-in-chief was J. I. Packer, a noted Anglican theologian who is very Puritan and very iconoclastic.
The ESV itself is a minor revision of the RSV: from what I had read, only 6-7% of verses received any significant translation changes compared to ~40% of the NRSV (which also uses the RSV as the base text). On top of that, they didn’t actually translate anew the deuterocanonical texts: the ESV Apocrypha is just the 1977 RSV Apocrypha.
The ESV itself is a minor revision of the RSV: from what I had read, only 6-7% of verses received any significant translation changes compared to ~40% of the NRSV (which also uses the RSV as the base text). On top of that, they didn’t actually translate anew the deuterocanonical texts: the ESV Apocrypha is just the 1977 RSV Apocrypha.
P
phil19034
Guest
First, it doesn’t matter who translates a Bible, as long as they translated it correctly. There are PLENTY of Protestant translations that Catholics would never touch.
But RSV was a true attempt to create a Bible that eventually Protestants, Catholics & Orthodox could all use, and in general they kind of succeeded.
From what I understand, the ESV is what everyone was hoping the NRSV was going to be.
While the RSV-2CE generally only updated Thou, Thees, etc to modern language, the ESV updated some translations that were considered notoriously bad in the RSV.
Y
yankeesouth
Guest
It seems they are trying to trade off ‘inclusive language’ with more strident Eucharistic language.
T
TigerLily-1
Guest
Same here! The ESV I have isn’t the Catholic version, but it’s one I read often and I do recommend the translation. It’s very similar to the RSV. The Augustine Bible looks very nice.
However, when I recently decided to buy a new Bible, I chose the Didache Bible RSVCE2 over the Augustine Bible ESV and am very happy with it.
Often when I have questions about the meaning of a text or its history or the theological meaning, etc., most Bible editions’ notes (including the Ignatius Study Bible) have explanations which are disappointing or don’t answer my questions. I’m very impressed with the Didache Bible’s notes, which so far have satisfactorily answered all of my questions, and I highly recommend it.
B
Bithynian
Guest
I have three copies of the ESV, and I think it’s a fine translation when read from the perspective of the translating committee. I just thought it odd to use it as a base text given the very particular theological positions of its translators (namely, all of them are Reformed and complementarians). Why not adapt the NRSV, which actually involved Catholic scholars? Why not undertake a thorough Catholic revision (rather than just an updated ‘edition’) of the RSV?
The RSV, from what I recall, was translated by an entirely Protestant committee and intended largely for Protestant consumption (e.g. the Apocrypha was translated at the behest and funding of the Episcopal Church). Unlike the ESV, the RSV had Protestants from a broad theological spectrum.
The impetus for the ESV was largely due to the perception that (1) the NRSV had strayed from confessional and orthodox Reformed Protestantism by the involvement of Jewish, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars; and (2) the NRSV was characterised as ‘too gender-neutral’ and ‘too historical-critical’ which, again, often meant that it strayed from classical Reformed theology; and (3) the only other mainstream evangelical translation, the NIV, was considered by some as too dynamically equivalent.
The ESV is considered the Reformed translation: it is so intimately associated with past two decades of Calvinist revival, variously termed the ‘New Puritanism’ and/or the ‘Young, Restless and Reformed movement’. There are some evangelicals who decline to use the ESV because they perceive it to be overtly partisan theologically.
Again, I don’t think the ESV is a bad translation: I use it keeping in mind all its idiosyncrasies and it’s fine for what it is. I just think it’s odd to use it as a base text for a Catholic translation. It’s a bit like using the 1904 Ecclesiastical Text (the NT text authorised by the Ecumenical Patriarch for use among Greek-speaking Orthodox) as the base text of a Catholic translation.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
Believe me, I understand what you are saying. When I first heard that the Bishops in India were working on the ESV-CE, I was kind of shocked.
But I trust the Bible scholars at the Augustine Institute. If they feel it is a good translations for study, then it must be. The ESV is considered more of a literal translation than the RSV.
Well, the NRSV is universally not liked by many scholars, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc. It’s also less of a formal equivalence translation than the RSV.
As far as a creating a new Catholic revision/translation: the stumbling block is the USCCB.
The RSV-2CE (from Ignatius Press) did fix some text from the RSV-CE; so the RSV-2CE is pretty good Catholic Formal Equivalence.
The United States (by far) has the most English speaking Catholics and has the most money to invest in such a project. It’s hard to get a completely new Catholic revision/translation off the ground without the support of the USCCB. Since they own the NAB /NABRE, the USCCB is not likely to get behind a new translation anytime soon.
However, there have been two new Catholic translations that debuted with little fan fair in 2019:
- The St Joseph’s New Catholic Bible
- The Revised New Jerusalem Bible
In all honesty, I really don’t see a bunch of Catholics coming out with a major Formal Equivalence translation. Serious Catholic scholars are doing Bible scholarship in Greek, Hebrew, Latin, etc. Few are going to do it in English.
However, there are many English speaking protestants who are going to do Biblical scholarship in English because they don’t acknowledge the 2000 years Church scholarship.
My point, it is easier for a protestant publisher or group of protestant scholars to invest in creating Formal Equivalence translations for scholarship.
Catholics on the other hand seem to be content with letting the protestants spend the money on Formal Equivalence while Catholics work on mixed Formal & Dynamic Equivalence translations.
D
Dovekin
Guest
This is a very strange claim. The National Council of Churches ‘sponsored’ the NRSV, presumably for use by as many as possible.
The USCCB is working on a revision of the NABRE. It is being done by members of the Catholic Biblical Association, which is probably the supposed stumbling block rather than the bishops themselves. Most of he Catholic scholars who would work on translating the bible are members of the CBA. Since they are already involved in the NAB project, there is some difficulty getting them together for an alternative.
This new revision of the NAB is meant to be used in the liturgy, as well as for study and devotion. It will be interesting to see if they adopt any dynamic equivalence in place of the formal equivalence that has been used to date.
B
Bithynian
Guest
I agree. The NRSV is the dominant translation used by Catholics for personal study in Australia. It’s also used for liturgy in most English language Anglican churches (e.g. CoE, Australia, etc.) It’s also the standard translation in most English language academic settings and scholarly publications. The only contexts where I’ve noted the ESV cited is in evangelical theological journals.
With that in mind, the Holy See rejected it for liturgical use. Apparently from what I read this evening, a major issue was that the NCC wasn’t - for whatever reason - particularly flexible in accommodating requests for changes.
Similarly, most English language Orthodox churches haven’t authorised the NRSV for liturgical or personal use (though this hasn’t stopped the various Greek Orthodox I know from using it!). This was largely because it uses the Masoretic Text and the Alexandrianian text style and so diverges substantially from Orthodox lectionaries at places. This, too, is an issue that they have with the RSV, but they largely tolerate the use of the RSV because most clergy are familiar with it.
Most biblical scholarship regarding the original languages has been conducted in the English language since 1945 (prior to that, it was predominantly German): the major symposia, conferences and journals are nearly all English.
Likewise, most important institutions focussed on biblical scholarship are predominantly Protestant. For e.g. the German Bible Society is a Protestant organisation and they are responsible for the Nestle-Aland NT and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, both of which are critical texts used by all modern Catholic and Protestant bible translations. As another example, the United Bible Societies (UBS) are primarily Protestant and they published another critical text for bible translators. The (Orthodox) Church of Greece even requested a grant from the UBS several years ago for a project related to the Antoniades Text.
P
phil19034
Guest
From what I understand, it will be a mix (which is great for liturgy and prayer)
I didn’t say the Churches don’t like it. The NRSV is exactly what you said: created for use by as many as possible.
Scholars often don’t have an issue quoting it in books.
What I mean is that the NRSV is less of the formal equivalence translation that the RSV. So for scholars who wanted a revision to the RSV to have more word of word translations, the NRSV didn’t meet that criteria.
That’s why many scholars are starting to prefer the ESV for study bibles over the RSV/NRSV, just like how many Catholic scholars to date have preferred the RSV-2CE over the RSV-CE and NABRE for study.
FYI - I’m going to be very interested to see how the Ignatius Press backed RSV-2CE vs Augustine Institute backed ESV-CE plays out in the world of Catholic scholarship.
P
phil19034
Guest
Please read my previous post (directly above). I clarify what I meant.
Yes. However, somehow, Canada (alone) was able to create a revised version of the NRSV for use at Mass.
This is not an issue. The NRSV is a fine translation. But it’s less of a Formal Equivalence translation than the RSV.
I was referring to primarily protestant master degree students who don’t really know the languages and their professors (in the role as teacher)
agreed.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The constant parade of new Bibles is confusing the heck out of me. I too am inclined to just use the Douay-Rheims and the NAB/ NABRE because those are the two I grew up with.
Can someone please explain like I’m 5 the difference between the RSV-CE, the RSV2-CE, and this new Catholic Bible? What is the point? And where does the Jerusalem Bible fit into all this?
Can someone please explain like I’m 5 the difference between the RSV-CE, the RSV2-CE, and this new Catholic Bible? What is the point? And where does the Jerusalem Bible fit into all this?
ralfyman
New member
Here’s what I remember off the cuff. There should be several corrections:
I think they came up with RSV because more English speakers had difficulty understanding archaic English. RSV-CE was made to add the missing books of the Catholic Bible. RSV-2CE was made because one group wanted some terms to be translated so that Catholics can recognize them, like the angel referring to Mary as “full of grace.”
NRSV came next because of new findings which helped in translating some parts of the Bible. With that, they had to come up with NRSV-CE to include the missing books for the Catholic Bible.
(For the Catholic Church, updated scholarship for translation is very important.)
There are plans to come up with NRSV-UE (for “updated edition”) because of more updated scholarship since the late 1980s. Of course, if Catholics want to use that, they’ll have to wait for the Catholic edition.
The U.S. had to use another translation because several of its speakers could not understand some idioms used in Britain and elsewhere, so they used NAB. For similar reasons as RSV, they had to come up with NABRE (for “revised edition”), but the Church could not accept it for use in Mass because there were problems with various phrases, among others. So, now, they plan to come up with a new version of NABRE that can be used for liturgy, and it involves coordinating with U.S. bishops and Vatican groups. It should be published a few years from now.
(For practical reasons, it’s better to have translations that can be used for liturgy, study, and prayer.)
About the Jerusalem Bible, it went through revisions similar to reasons as the others, and is used for Mass in some English-speaking countries.
The fourth one is the ESV, which was developed by non-Catholics and with a Catholic edition that’s now used in India.
Given that, here’s what I did:
I bought a copy of the Roman Missal which I use for Mass and for daily readings.
For a Bible with critical commentaries, I got a cheap hardcover NABRE, the translation that’s closest to the one used in U.S. Masses.
For a Bible with commentaries for prayer and reflection, I got a cheap hardcover version of the Catholic Prayer Bible, which uses NRSV-CE.
Meanwhile, I’ll wait for updated versions.
One more thing: you might encounter readers who complain that the English prose used isn’t sophisticated. That’s because translation takes place in a world that involves funding and sales: it has to meet the reading skills of markets of readers. In the U.S., it is said that the reading level of adults is somewhere at the eighth grade, which might explain why the reading level of NABRE might be similar.
I think they came up with RSV because more English speakers had difficulty understanding archaic English. RSV-CE was made to add the missing books of the Catholic Bible. RSV-2CE was made because one group wanted some terms to be translated so that Catholics can recognize them, like the angel referring to Mary as “full of grace.”
NRSV came next because of new findings which helped in translating some parts of the Bible. With that, they had to come up with NRSV-CE to include the missing books for the Catholic Bible.
(For the Catholic Church, updated scholarship for translation is very important.)
There are plans to come up with NRSV-UE (for “updated edition”) because of more updated scholarship since the late 1980s. Of course, if Catholics want to use that, they’ll have to wait for the Catholic edition.
The U.S. had to use another translation because several of its speakers could not understand some idioms used in Britain and elsewhere, so they used NAB. For similar reasons as RSV, they had to come up with NABRE (for “revised edition”), but the Church could not accept it for use in Mass because there were problems with various phrases, among others. So, now, they plan to come up with a new version of NABRE that can be used for liturgy, and it involves coordinating with U.S. bishops and Vatican groups. It should be published a few years from now.
(For practical reasons, it’s better to have translations that can be used for liturgy, study, and prayer.)
About the Jerusalem Bible, it went through revisions similar to reasons as the others, and is used for Mass in some English-speaking countries.
The fourth one is the ESV, which was developed by non-Catholics and with a Catholic edition that’s now used in India.
Given that, here’s what I did:
I bought a copy of the Roman Missal which I use for Mass and for daily readings.
For a Bible with critical commentaries, I got a cheap hardcover NABRE, the translation that’s closest to the one used in U.S. Masses.
For a Bible with commentaries for prayer and reflection, I got a cheap hardcover version of the Catholic Prayer Bible, which uses NRSV-CE.
Meanwhile, I’ll wait for updated versions.
One more thing: you might encounter readers who complain that the English prose used isn’t sophisticated. That’s because translation takes place in a world that involves funding and sales: it has to meet the reading skills of markets of readers. In the U.S., it is said that the reading level of adults is somewhere at the eighth grade, which might explain why the reading level of NABRE might be similar.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
I would love to hear the opinions of Catholic Bible Scholars like Scott Hahn on this new translation.
Last edited:
B
Bithynian
Guest
The RSV2-CE was undertaken to make the RSV-CE conform more closely to liturgical norms that were clarified by the Holy See in 2001. In doing so, they also refreshed the translation by removing archaic pronouns and changing a few verses to align more closely with Catholic theology.
The ESV was first released in 2001. It was translated by a committee of Reformed (that is, ‘Calvinist’) evangelical scholars. They wanted a translation that was more theologically orthodox than the NRSV (which was the official successor of the RSV) and more formal than the NIV (the most popular evangelical translation).
As for the reason why there is now a Catholic ESV. There were attempts by an international panel of Catholic bishops and liturgists to adapt the NRSV for use in the liturgy. While the Canadian Bishops’ Conference ultimately received reluctant permission to use the NRSV from the Holy See (largely because they had been using it for a while under the impression that they had permission), the Bishops’ Conferences in other countries (e.g. Australia) ran into numerous issues. Essentially, the international panel, the Holy See and the NRSV’s copyright holders (the National Council of Churches) couldn’t agree on mutually acceptable changes to the NRSV. Because of this, the panel gave up on the NRSV and disbanded.
Since then, there were occasional murmurings that some had set their eyes on adapting the ESV instead. Apparently the English and Welsh Bishops’ Conference were fielding the idea about a decade ago, but nothing came of it. Fast forward to the present day, and it looks like the Indian Bishops’ Conference succeeded and Crossway and the Holy See were amenable to the changes.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Thank you for the helpful information.
Maybe having new translation after new translation is important to Bible scholars, but to me this is just confusing and unnecessary.
Maybe having new translation after new translation is important to Bible scholars, but to me this is just confusing and unnecessary.
- Status