English Standard Version

  • Thread starter Thread starter jurist12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jurist12

Guest
I purchased a copy of the English Standard Version last summer and have been reading it and find that it is a far better translation than the RSV. For those of you who are unaware the ESV is what the RSV should have been. It is a an RSV essentially that has been updated but not “gender inclusive” with all the liberal biases removed, in Isaiah 7:14 for example the RSV has “a young woman shall conceive” while the ESV restores the proper translation “a virgin shall conceive”… This is just one example among many. The only bad thing about this version is that there is no Catholic edition, IE it does not contain the Deutero-Canonical books or Apocrypha. Don’t let that stop you from dumping that RSV, get an ESV and purchase the Apocrypha / Deutero-Canons in a separate volume.Another thing Catholics can do is to write and email Crossway books and ask them to publish a Catholic Edition. Crossway Publishing is trying to get market share for the ESV and is in competition with the NIV and the New King James Version. If Catholics get behind this translation and urge Crossway to come out with a Catholic Edition then it would be in Crossway’s best interests to do so. Instead of pushing a lame liberal translation like the RSV Catholic Answers and other Catholic Apologists should get behind the ESV and work with the publisher to get a Catholic Edition of this excellent translation into the hands of Catholics. In Christ, jurist12 . .
 
I couldn’t agree more with your assessment on the ESV. I would further caution that there is one instance of an apparent protestant bias in the footnotes of Matthew 16:19. Not being fluent in Koine I can’t comment on the validity of there claim. Overall the ESV is an amazing English translation of the Bible!
 
The ESV is an extremely Protestant translation – not for Catholics. Get real and get yourself a good Catholic Bible.

Not to come off as a prick, but I do think this is important. It seems a lot of Catholics these days are reading Bible versions like the KJV and the NIV, simply because they do not know any better.
 
I’ll be glad to get the ESV as a second translation, IF they come out with the Deuterocanonicals.

BTW, Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV is not a “liberal” rendition; “young woman” actually better translates the Hebrew “almah.” “Virgin” comes from the Septuagint’s “parthenos”, which appears in Matthew, hence you will see the RSV’s rendition there as “virgin.” What would BE liberal is if a translation used “young woman” in the Matthean quotation as well.

Inserting “virgin” is the English text of Is 7:14 wouldn’t be heretical or anything like that, but it wouldn’t be true to the orignal language of the OT, much like in order to be true to the language of the NT, you must translate it as “virgin” in Matthew.
40.png
jurist12:
I purchased a copy of the English Standard Version last summer and have been reading it and find that it is a far better translation than the RSV. For those of you who are unaware the ESV is what the RSV should have been. It is a an RSV essentially that has been updated but not “gender inclusive” with all the liberal biases removed, in Isaiah 7:14 for example the RSV has “a young woman shall conceive” while the ESV restores the proper translation “a virgin shall conceive”… This is just one example among many. The only bad thing about this version is that there is no Catholic edition, IE it does not contain the Deutero-Canonical books or Apocrypha. Don’t let that stop you from dumping that RSV, get an ESV and purchase the Apocrypha / Deutero-Canons in a separate volume.Another thing Catholics can do is to write and email Crossway books and ask them to publish a Catholic Edition. Crossway Publishing is trying to get market share for the ESV and is in competition with the NIV and the New King James Version. If Catholics get behind this translation and urge Crossway to come out with a Catholic Edition then it would be in Crossway’s best interests to do so. Instead of pushing a lame liberal translation like the RSV Catholic Answers and other Catholic Apologists should get behind the ESV and work with the publisher to get a Catholic Edition of this excellent translation into the hands of Catholics. In Christ, jurist12 . .
Click to expand...
 
40.png
porthos11:
BTW, Isaiah 7:14 in the RSV is not a “liberal” rendition; “young woman” actually better translates the Hebrew “almah.” “Virgin” comes from the Septuagint’s “parthenos”, which appears in Matthew, hence you will see the RSV’s rendition there as “virgin.” What would BE liberal is if a translation used “young woman” in the Matthean quotation as well.

Inserting “virgin” is the English text of Is 7:14 wouldn’t be heretical or anything like that, but it wouldn’t be true to the orignal language of the OT, much like in order to be true to the language of the NT, you must translate it as “virgin” in Matthew.
Click to expand...
This is a misconception.

The Hebrew manuscripts used by modern Bible translators are anything but the “original” manuscripts they are often claimed to be.

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts for the OT as a whole are medieval copies (Masoretic texts) dating back only to around 1000 AD. It is these that use “Young Woman” in Isaiah 7.

In fact the OT of the Apostles and the early Church, the Greek Septuagint is much older, dating to 200BC, with complete copies from 300 AD still in existence.

Being of much later date, the Hebrew manuscripts are less reliable, and the early christians particularly accused the jews of the roman period of changing the wording of Isaiah 7 in their copies in order to remove the word “Virgin”.
 
There should be an English Standard Version: Catholic Edition
 
The ESV with the Apocrypha is forthcoming!!! Oxford Press will be publishing it in January 2009.
 
mike7up said:
The ESV with the Apocrypha is forthcoming!!! Oxford Press will be publishing it in January 2009.
Click to expand...
Thank you for letting us know. I like the ESV and will definitely purchase the new one with all the books!
 
mike7up said:
The ESV with the Apocrypha is forthcoming!!! Oxford Press will be publishing it in January 2009.
Click to expand...
Good stuff, I try to avoid buying incomplete volumes 😉

Any more info you can point us at? Is it looking they’re making a true Catholic Edition or just tacking on their translation of the deuteros?
 
jurist12 said:
in Isaiah 7:14 for example the RSV has “a young woman shall conceive” while the ESV restores the proper translation “a virgin shall conceive”.
Click to expand...
lol.

actually, “young woman” is the better translation of the hebrew. “virgin” just fits better with our theology. a young woman can be a virgin so the better way of translating the verse does NOT conflict with the virgin birth… it just doesn’t confirm it completely either. we need the gospels to do that.
 
mike7up said:
The ESV with the Apocrypha is forthcoming!!! Oxford Press will be publishing it in January 2009.
Click to expand...
Where did you hear this. I’ve been looking on the Web and haven’t been able to find out anything about it.

Gary
 
Axion said:
This is a misconception.

The Hebrew manuscripts used by modern Bible translators are anything but the “original” manuscripts they are often claimed to be.

The oldest Hebrew manuscripts for the OT as a whole are medieval copies (Masoretic texts) dating back only to around 1000 AD. It is these that use “Young Woman” in Isaiah 7.

In fact the OT of the Apostles and the early Church, the Greek Septuagint is much older, dating to 200BC, with complete copies from 300 AD still in existence.

Being of much later date, the Hebrew manuscripts are less reliable, and the early christians particularly accused the jews of the roman period of changing the wording of Isaiah 7 in their copies in order to remove the word “Virgin”.
Click to expand...
Can you help me in determining which bible gives the best translation? I was told the New American Bible St. Joseph Family Ed. offers a poor translation. Yet it has been approved by the Catholic Church. I would like to know which bible offers the most accurate translation from the original language used in writing the OT & NT. What good is it if I quote a bible verse to defend our Catholic faith if others simply reject the translation of that bible I quote it from?
 
bengal_fan said:
lol.

actually, “young woman” is the better translation of the hebrew. “virgin” just fits better with our theology. a young woman can be a virgin so the better way of translating the verse does NOT conflict with the virgin birth… it just doesn’t confirm it completely either. we need the gospels to do that.
Click to expand...
If “young woman” was correct, then how is that a “sign” from God? That rendering completely destroys the whole sense of that verse.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
If “young woman” was correct, then how is that a “sign” from God? That rendering completely destroys the whole sense of that verse.
Click to expand...
Actually I like the NJB’s translation the best. They translate it as maiden which means both a young woman but also implies virginity.

Gary
 
jurist12 said:
I purchased a copy of the English Standard Version last summer and have been reading it and find that it is a far better translation than the RSV. . .
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the ESV has a very strong Protestant slant. A translation like this, designed to support Protestant doctrine as it is, is unsuitable for use by Catholics.
 
Ignatius said:
Unfortunately, the ESV has a very strong Protestant slant. A translation like this, designed to support Protestant doctrine as it is, is unsuitable for use by Catholics.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking to promote a fight but, since I’ve never seen the ESV, I have to ask why you say this? I’m aware that there are some translations, such as the NIV, which do have a very anti-Catholic slant but the RSV was translated by Protestants but a version with minor changes made by Catholic scholars is the version used in English translations of Vatican documents. Also, the NASB is a Protestant translation but, as far as I know, is not anti-Catholic.

My point is not to argue with you but to ask what your problem with the ESV is other than it was translated by Protestants.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
I’m not looking to promote a fight but, since I’ve never seen the ESV, I have to ask why you say this? I’m aware that there are some translations, such as the NIV, which do have a very anti-Catholic slant but the RSV was translated by Protestants but a version with minor changes made by Catholic scholars is the version used in English translations of Vatican documents. Also, the NASB is a Protestant translation but, as far as I know, is not anti-Catholic.

My point is not to argue with you but to ask what your problem with the ESV is other than it was translated by Protestants.

Gary
Click to expand...
The Church is “a” pillar and foundation of truth, not “the”, quoth the ESV.

Yes, the Greek does not have the definite article in this verse, but merely inserting “a” here in opposition to the long-standing King James tradition is Jehovah’s-Witness Translation Science, IMO.

In context, it reads better with “the” rather than “a”.
 
The ESV is the Baptist book of lies.

The RSV is the greater Protestant book of lies.

Young Woman comes from the Jewish book of lies.

Virgin will conceive comes from the Catholic real bible!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top