English Standard Version

  • Thread starter Thread starter jurist12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now what would make for interesting discussion is WHY did the LXX translators move from a mere “maiden” to “virgin”?
Click to expand...
I’ve given this some thought since reading this thread and it has raised some questions; I thought that Jewish beliefs regarding the Messiah were such that it was considered a great shame for a woman to be barren, as the Messiah was expected to be born in the natural way, and not of a virgin. If I’m not mistaken, there was no “honor” in virginity per se, in 2nd Temple Judaism, as this might preclude the birth of the Messiah.

It sheds an interesting light on the Blessed Virgin’s perpetual virginity. IOW, did she believe she was removing herself from all possibility of being the mother of the Messiah? If so, it would add an interesting insight into her question to the Archangel Gabriel; “how is this possible?”

I also wonder if the Hebrew word was ambiguous enough to 2nd Temple Jews, that on the surface it suggested a mere maiden, but that the LXX in translating this word into the Greek, were knowledgeable regarding the usage of this word, in the context of Isaiah, to translate the word as “virgin?” There must have been a sufficient cause for them to make such a leap.
 
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 translation is clearly slanted in the Protestant direction. The ESV is available on-line and as an add on to ESword. Just browse through and see if the bias isn’t very plain to you.
 
Ignatius said:
The translation is clearly slanted in the Protestant direction. The ESV is available on-line and as an add on to ESword. Just browse through and see if the bias isn’t very plain to you.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of the problem with 1 Tim 3:15 but I checked a few of the other passages such as Matt 16:18, James 2:24 and a few others but I didn’t see any problem with them. Can you point me to any other problems that you’re aware of?

I also wonder if there might be some changes made to the text as was done when the RSV-CE first came out? It is my understanding that some of these changes were made in later Protestant editions of the RSV.

Gary
 
Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in ALL disputations.

There is a disputation about the word virgin.

The Virgin birth of Christ is a matter of faith and as Trent said–the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith.

If you DISPUTE the translation of virgin you DISPUTE the Holy Spirit that guided the Ecumenical Council of Trent!

Can the Vulgate ever be wrong translation wise? Yes!

Can it be wrong on a doctrinal matter? No!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Trent said that the Vulgate could be used in ALL disputations.

There is a disputation about the word virgin.

The Virgin birth of Christ is a matter of faith and as Trent said–the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith.

If you DISPUTE the translation of virgin you DISPUTE the Holy Spirit that guided the Ecumenical Council of Trent!

Can the Vulgate ever be wrong translation wise? Yes!

Can it be wrong on a doctrinal matter? No!
Click to expand...
I never said that the use of ‘virgin’ was a doctrinal error. I only said that it was not the only standard by which we should judge the accuracy of a Bible translation and gave the NAB as an an example of of a translation which uses ‘virgin’ in Is 7:14 but is, otherwise, a horrendous translation.

I’m no Hebrew scholar but, it is my understanding that the Hebrew ‘almah’ means a young woman. Hebrew has another word for virgin, I believe. I like the NJB’s translation of the passage which uses the word ‘maiden’ which is a young woman but also implies virginity in keeping with the LXX.

Gary
 
garysibio said:
I never said that the use of ‘virgin’ was a doctrinal error. I only said that it was not the only standard by which we should judge the accuracy of a Bible translation and gave the NAB as an an example of of a translation which uses ‘virgin’ in Is 7:14 but is, otherwise, a horrendous translation.

I’m no Hebrew scholar but, it is my understanding that the Hebrew ‘almah’ means a young woman. Hebrew has another word for virgin, I believe. I like the NJB’s translation of the passage which uses the word ‘maiden’ which is a young woman but also implies virginity in keeping with the LXX.

Gary
Click to expand...
The Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah.

In any case,

Isaiah 7:14 virgin=acceptable; young woman=correct; maiden=correct.

Matthew 1:23 virgin=correct; young woman=wrong; maiden=wrong.
 
I just found out that they published an ESV with a newly translated Apocrypha, and was wondering if anyone had actually checked it out and what their opinions were? I think it would be an interesting volume to own, at least to use in discussions with Protestants, and to compare with other RSV derivatives. It is relatively inexpensive, at 19 dollars on Amazon, though the reviews there do state the paper used is flimsy. That wouldn’t matter if you were only using it for comparison purposes.

From a thread from a while back, we had discussed creating a revised translation of the RSV that corrected the errors in it, and someone had proposed starting with the ESV as the base text. My response was the following, and I think it would still hold:
I think the prevailing opinion was that if we are going to have to edit the ESV to remove the Protestantisms that were introduced there, we might as well just edit the RSV and remove the Protestantisms that were introduced THERE.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with analyzing the ESV and looking at what they did for any non-biased ideas for updating the RSV, but I think we should start with the RSV itself. (actually, we should start with the unofficial RSV 1971 / RSV:CE 1965 hybrid )
Click to expand...
It would also instead be useful to look at the revisions in the NRSV that are not inclusive language changes, as those are supposed to be worthwhile. Regarding the NRSV, there also seems to be no recent news updates about the group that was formed to create a Catholic lectionary revision of it, as they (the ICPEL) was denied by the NCC the first time around on copyright grounds. See the following link:

ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/decjan2007p3_2691.html

Here’s my Google search looking for any further updates, of which there are currently none:
google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=nrsv+&as_epq=International+Commission+for+the+Preparation+of+an+English+Language+Lectionary+&as_oq=ICPEL&as_eq=&num=30&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=y&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
 
I’m generally not in favour with editing the ESV to produce a Catholic edition for 2 reasons:

(1) ESV is copyright-owned by a thorughly evangelical group and there’s very low chance they’ll release copyright for Catholic scholars to edit. Even the deuterocanonical/apocrypha books put out by Oxford are down by Oxford, and not by Crossway.

(2) When are we going to stop editing other people’s versions? 🤷

It’ll be good to have a new translation done up according to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam, rather than revision and re-revisions.
 
mmortal03 said:
I just found out that they published an ESV with a newly translated Apocrypha, and was wondering if anyone had actually checked it out and what their opinions were? I think it would be an interesting volume to own, at least to use in discussions with Protestants, and to compare with other RSV derivatives. It is relatively inexpensive, at 19 dollars on Amazon, though the reviews there do state the paper used is flimsy. That wouldn’t matter if you were only using it for comparison purposes.

From a thread from a while back, we had discussed creating a revised translation of the RSV that corrected the errors in it, and someone had proposed starting with the ESV as the base text. My response was the following, and I think it would still hold:

It would also instead be useful to look at the revisions in the NRSV that are not inclusive language changes, as those are supposed to be worthwhile. Regarding the NRSV, there also seems to be no recent news updates about the group that was formed to create a Catholic lectionary revision of it, as they (the ICPEL) was denied by the NCC the first time around on copyright grounds. See the following link:

ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/decjan2007p3_2691.html

Here’s my Google search looking for any further updates, of which there are currently none:
google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=nrsv+&as_epq=International+Commission+for+the+Preparation+of+an+English+Language+Lectionary+&as_oq=ICPEL&as_eq=&num=30&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=y&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=off
Click to expand...
I have a copy of the ESV with Apocrypha, friend. It’s a pretty nice edition, my only complaint is that they put the Apocrypha in the back of the Bible instead of inbetween the Testaments like the good ol’ KJV does. What do you need to know?
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
I have a copy of the ESV with Apocrypha, friend. It’s a pretty nice edition, my only complaint is that they put the Apocrypha in the back of the Bible instead of inbetween the Testaments like the good ol’ KJV does. What do you need to know?
Click to expand...
I’d just be interested to know how some of the important passages stack up to the other RSV derivatives, similar to the famous “RSV-CE Needs Corrections” thread. ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=91598 )
 
Well after following this post what bible do you recommend. It sounds as if the NAB is not a good bible to study from. Thanks
 
NMHS,

I think you can certainly use the NAB for study. Do I think it is the best, no. Personally, I would use the RSV or NRSV before using the NAB.

My biggest problem with the NAB is that it has been translated in three stages. The OT was done in the 50’s and 60’s, the NT was revised in '86, and the Psalms revised in 1991. The problem here is that you have different translators working during a period of over 40 years. In fact, the translation philosophy is different depending on the age when it was done.

For instance, the OT tends to lean more dynamic in its translation. In this case, it would be closer to the NIV. However, the revised NT is much more formal/literal than the OT and certainly the original NAB NT.

There is also the question of inclusive language. I personally don’t have a problem with minor uses of inclusive language, like found in the NJB. However, for the current NAB in publication it is very uneven. In the OT there is no inclusive language, the NT has modest inclusive language, and the revised Psalms has way too much inclusive language.

Ultimately, I think the NAB can be used for study. In particular, the NT is perfectly fine and is close enough to the RSV in many cases. The OT less so, and certainly not the revised '91 Psalms. I would recommend, for study, a new commentary series on the NT which uses the NAB as its base text, while referring to other translations. It is called the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. It is being edited by some professors I have studied under and their work is quite good and very Catholic.

One last point, the NAB OT is said to be in revision currently. So, perhaps, there is a chance that the NAB as a whole, will be a lot better for study in the future. (Although they need to re-revise the Psalms!)
 
What about the RSV-CE 2nd edition bible? How does this compare to the other bibles. It seems there are a lot of Catholic opinions on Catholic bibles out there. Is inclusive language the same as gender langauge? It seems each bible has its own strength and weaknesses, I would like to find a Catholic bible that meets in the middle, if it possible? Thanks
 
mmortal03 said:
I just found out that they published an ESV with a newly translated Apocrypha, and was wondering if anyone had actually checked it out and what their opinions were?
Click to expand...
I am opening my copy right now… 🙂
 
Crimson_Seraph said:
Sure thing, pm me the ones you wish to know about.
Click to expand...
We might as well discuss it here, so others can take a look at it. Basically, the following 45 instances at this link would be a good reference to have for everyone: mycanes.miami.edu/~m.edmundson/RSVCEdiff.htm

I don’t expect you to look all of them up for us, but giving us some of those would start to give us a feel for what this translation is all about. Eventually, if we had those, then we could move toward comparing it to the following set of passages which were the 1971 RSV revisions, those which I would assume it would be closer to versus the 1959: mycanes.miami.edu/~m.edmundson/ScepterChangesC.htm
 
NMHS said:
What about the RSV-CE 2nd edition bible? How does this compare to the other bibles. It seems there are a lot of Catholic opinions on Catholic bibles out there. Is inclusive language the same as gender langauge? It seems each bible has its own strength and weaknesses, I would like to find a Catholic bible that meets in the middle, if it possible? Thanks
Click to expand...
What is the most common bible that is used for Catholic bible study?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top