English Standard Version

[kotek]

It seems with all the chat going on here about best Bible translations and all I figured I’d put my two cents in for what its worth. I think that instead of turning that sows ear, The RSV, into a silk purse Catholics here on these boards, the Catholic Answers folks and Ignatius press should negotiate with and persuade the publishers of the English Standard Version into issuing a “Catholic Edition” of it. The ESV just blows away the RSV. I refuse to use the RSV no matter which edition. I do use the ESV and I am truly amazed at how good that translation is. It is unfortunate that the Deutero-Canonical books are not in it, if they were that truly would be THE Bible for all Christians both Catholic and Protestant. Is it perfect? No, but it is excellent, probably the best available after the Jerusalem Bible 1966 and the better, yes better New Jerusalem Bible. BTW everyone complains that the New Jerusalem Bible is “inclusive” but is that a matter of personal preference or what the original language actually means? The translators of the NJB have stated that “inclusive” language was used extremely sparingly and only where the context and meaning would give a more accurate rendering of the original language. The NJB is NOT a “Dynamic” equivalence but what is termed today as “optimal equivalence” keeping as close to word for word as necessary but also the abilty to convey the meaning accurately without resorting to “Dynamic Equivalence”(like the NIV) or paraphrase. I use the NJB as my main study text and have been happy with it along with the English Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible 1966 edition.

 

[dalcent]

It seems with all the chat going on here about best Bible translations and all I figured I’d put my two cents in for what its worth. I think that instead of turning that sows ear, The RSV, into a silk purse Catholics here on these boards, the Catholic Answers folks and Ignatius press should negotiate with and persuade the publishers of the English Standard Version into issuing a “Catholic Edition” of it. The ESV just blows away the RSV. I refuse to use the RSV no matter which edition. I do use the ESV and I am truly amazed at how good that translation is. It is unfortunate that the Deutero-Canonical books are not in it, if they were that truly would be THE Bible for all Christians both Catholic and Protestant. Is it perfect? No, but it is excellent, probably the best available after the Jerusalem Bible 1966 and the better, yes better New Jerusalem Bible. BTW everyone complains that the New Jerusalem Bible is “inclusive” but is that a matter of personal preference or what the original language actually means? The translators of the NJB have stated that “inclusive” language was used extremely sparingly and only where the context and meaning would give a more accurate rendering of the original language. The NJB is NOT a “Dynamic” equivalence but what is termed today as “optimal equivalence” keeping as close to word for word as necessary but also the abilty to convey the meaning accurately without resorting to “Dynamic Equivalence”(like the NIV) or paraphrase. I use the NJB as my main study text and have been happy with it along with the English Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible 1966 edition.

Have you noticed several anti-Catholic verses?
1Ti 3:15 if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth.

Joh 6:57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. (only evangelicals translate this trogon passage ‘feeds on me’, feeds on lends itself to anything, (such as feeds on his teaching) the RSV/NASB have ‘eats me’ (i.e. transubstantiation) which is faithful to the underlying Greek text. Nicholas King’s recent transaltion has ‘munches’ which does follow the lexicons.

Nevertheless, I so wish the catholic Church had produced a bible of the quality of the ESV. And it’s so near to the RSV text used in the Catechism.

I am struggling to understand why you dislike the RSV quite so much: the ESV is only a light conservative revision. The differences are small.

 

[Manfred]

It seems with all the chat going on here about best Bible translations and all I figured I’d put my two cents in for what its worth. I think that instead of turning that sows ear, The RSV, into a silk purse Catholics here on these boards, the Catholic Answers folks and Ignatius press should negotiate with and persuade the publishers of the English Standard Version into issuing a “Catholic Edition” of it. The ESV just blows away the RSV. I refuse to use the RSV no matter which edition. I do use the ESV and I am truly amazed at how good that translation is. It is unfortunate that the Deutero-Canonical books are not in it, if they were that truly would be THE Bible for all Christians both Catholic and Protestant. Is it perfect? No, but it is excellent, probably the best available after the Jerusalem Bible 1966 and the better, yes better New Jerusalem Bible. BTW everyone complains that the New Jerusalem Bible is “inclusive” but is that a matter of personal preference or what the original language actually means? The translators of the NJB have stated that “inclusive” language was used extremely sparingly and only where the context and meaning would give a more accurate rendering of the original language. The NJB is NOT a “Dynamic” equivalence but what is termed today as “optimal equivalence” keeping as close to word for word as necessary but also the abilty to convey the meaning accurately without resorting to “Dynamic Equivalence”(like the NIV) or paraphrase. I use the NJB as my main study text and have been happy with it along with the English Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible 1966 edition.

I do agree with you that the NJB, compared to the Revised NAB or the NRSV, is probably the most sparing of the inclusive-language versions, since it kept its inclusivity on a horizontal (human) plane, and did not venture onto the vertical (divine) plane, as did the other two. To my knowledge, it has not been approved for liturgical use in any English-speaking nation. But I still don’t feel safe quoting from it - it’s way too free a translation.

The NASB and the ESV are each a thousand times better than the Non-Inspired Version, but they both have a distinct evangelical bias in many passages. The RSV does not; it was intended to be as free of denominational biases as it could be. Many Catholic scholars also feel that it met this objective.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If someone were able to make CHANGES in the NASB the way that changes were made in the RSV–which would be a better translation?

 

[Nan_S]

From the official ESV website, www.esv.org

Manuscripts Used in Translating the ESV

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.

In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text. Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 27th edition.

The ESV completely ignores the Septuagint unless the Hebrew is completely incomprehensible.

Now, of 320+ quotations of the OT in the NT, over 300 of them are from the Septuagint, not from the Masoretic Text. Only the NT quotations from the Book of Job are solely from the Masoretic. The Septuagint in the New Testament

That, alone, is reason enough to stop using the ESV.

I’ll keep my RSV, JB, NJB, NAB, and even my NIV and lay them out side-by-side when researching passages, TYVM.

Nan

 

[mmortal03]

From the official ESV website, www.esv.org

The ESV completely ignores the Septuagint unless the Hebrew is completely incomprehensible.

Now, of 320+ quotations of the OT in the NT, over 300 of them are from the Septuagint, not from the Masoretic Text. Only the NT quotations from the Book of Job are solely from the Masoretic. The Septuagint in the New Testament

That, alone, is reason enough to stop using the ESV.

I’ll keep my RSV, JB, NJB, NAB, and even my NIV and lay them out side-by-side when researching passages, TYVM.

Nan

Are you sure this doesn’t also carry over to the RSV?

 

[Nan_S]

Are you sure this doesn’t also carry over to the RSV?

My RSV-CE is behind my desk at my office, but I am quite certain it notes the variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts where they occur. Certainly, it uses the Septuagint for Esther and Daniel.

The ESV pointedly avoids using the Septuagint, as if it were so much unreliable bilge. No, thank you.

Nan

 

[mmortal03]

My RSV-CE is behind my desk at my office, but I am quite certain it notes the variances between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts where they occur. Certainly, it uses the Septuagint for Esther and Daniel.

The ESV pointedly avoids using the Septuagint, as if it were so much unreliable bilge. No, thank you.

Nan

We would have to look at the slight differences in the two. The RSV-CE is a VERY light revision of the RSV, and the ESV is itself a light revision of the RSV.

So, for what you are saying to be relevant, the ESV committee would have to have been focused on overturning almost all of an even smaller amount of translations in the RSV that both happen to favor the Septuagint AND these be cases where the LXX and MT are significantly different, for this to even be something of interest.

While this could be true that this is what they mainly set out to do (a good number of Protestants still stand by the Masoretic Texts over anything else) I’d like to see some specific examples where there is actually a significant difference between the two, AND it is Anti-Catholic.

You do realize that they put back in the traditional Isaiah 7:14 rendering, and this more closely matches the Septuagint!

 

[richardeekw]

Dear kotek

The declaration of “Excellence” of any English Translation of the Bible is very Subjective.

How conversant are you “alone” in the original languages and the mastery of the English languan to critique on any English translation of the Bible? I tell you upfront that I wouldn’t dare but respects all English translation endorsed the the Bible Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.(with an understanding of how they were translated - e.g. Literal (word-for-word) or Dynamic (phrase-by-phrase or thought-for-thought) - I would elclude all “Paraphrased” English Bibles.

I went to the website and noticed the Translatators are all non-Catholic Biblical Scholars - thus this work is more a non-Catholic English translation. I bet you within the next couple of years a so-called “Better and improved version” of the English ttranslation will be out

Jesus loves you.

 

[dalcent]

The ESV pointedly avoids using the Septuagint, as if it were so much unreliable bilge. No, thank you.

Nan

Whilst I have argued for a Septuagint pre-eminence , I am not aware that ANY major translation Protestant or Catholic bases its OT on it. It has not been normal Catholic practice since St. Jerome rejected its authority and with papal sanction went to the original Hebrew languages (note, I don’t say original texts: there is a good argument that the Septuagint is based on an older different Hebrew tradition.)

The ESV following accepted scholarly norms is based on the Masoretic Text but consults the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate and other sources…’. This is completely normative, not some evangelical aberration.I can’t help feeling you have your wires crossed here critiquing just the ESV on its Masorete source.

I understand that there are currently two interesting full bible projects underway both due out in 2007 that base their OT on the Septuagint…
www.lxx.org
apostlesbible.com/esvlt.htm

 

[mmortal03]

I understand that there are currently two interesting full bible projects underway both due out in 2007 that base their OT on the Septuagint…
www.lxx.org
apostlesbible.com/esvlt.htm

Good to see that I am not the only one following these English translations of the Septuagint! Two others I am following are: ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/ and peterpapoutsis.com/index.htm .

 

[Nan_S]

The ESV following accepted scholarly norms is based on the Masoretic Text but consults the ‘Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate and other sources…’. This is completely normative, not some evangelical aberration.I can’t help feeling you have your wires crossed here critiquing just the ESV on its Masorete source.

The full sentence you’ve quoted from the ESV manuscripts explanation says: "In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text.

It also says “The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions.”

Bottom line: If the Hebrew is comprehensible, even with difficulty, any alternate reading from any other source is ignored.

The bibles I use footnote verses where the MT and the LXX texts differ, and give the alternate readings.

My “No, thank you” to the ESV stands.

I understand that there are currently two interesting full bible projects underway both due out in 2007 that base their OT on the Septuagint…
www.lxx.org
apostlesbible.com/esvlt.htm

I’ll look forward to seeing those.

Nan

 

[dalcent]

You can download the “Complete” Apostles’ Bible including Majority Text NT for free at (the Deuteros are still being completed):
e-sword.net/usermods/bbl/Complete%20Apostles’%20Bible,%20The.exe

You’ll need the free reader software first.
e-sword.net/files/setup777.exe

and you can get the Douay free too:-
e-sword.net/bibles.html

Questions:

What version/study bible of the RSV are you using which shows Septuagint variants. i.e. Isaiah 53:9? I think the Septuagint is the RSVCE’s source specifically for the “additions” to Daniel and Esther, i.e. where there is no Hebrew Masoretic.

Nan:

The bibles I use footnote verses where the MT and the LXX texts differ, and give the alternate readings.

Maybe in the most important cases as does the ESV. Even the monstrously large full edition of the NJB does not mention Isaiah 53:9 differing from the Septuagint (and indeed the NT) in its copious notes.

As a ‘hardcore Papist’ {hardcore Pope-follower hopefully not Ecumenical Council rejecting "Traditionalist"schismatic} why don’t you prefer the Vulgate, a translation, over the Septuagint ,again a translation, as they both can clearly by shown to derive from differing (to whatever extent) Hebrew sources to the Masoretic?

Probably most importantly, Pope Pius XII’s 1943 Encyclical Letter Divino Afflante Spiritu encourages Catholic Biblical studies to go back to the original languages. The science of textual criticism is probably best left to the experts in the field.

I do think you are mistaken in perceiving the ESV’s OT textual basis as substantially different from the other modern translations, or out of accord with academic norms. Isaiah 30:8 of the ESV definitely does not follow the Masoretic. gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=isaiah+30%3A8
I don’t think any substantial difference is going on with the ESV regarding its OT textual policy.

 

[dalcent]

:-here

 

[Nan_S]

You can download the “Complete” Apostles’ Bible including Majority Text NT for free at (the Deuteros are still being completed):
e-sword.net/usermods/bbl/Complete%20Apostles’%20Bible,%20The.exe

Thanks for the link. Do you know if they have a projected publishing date for a printed copy?

Questions:
What version/study bible of the RSV are you using which shows Septuagint variants. i.e. Isaiah 53:9? … Even the monstrously large full edition of the NJB does not mention Isaiah 53:9 differing from the Septuagint (and indeed the NT) in its copious notes.

Not every translatation is going to reference every variant, especially when there is no substantial difference in meaning. Is 53:9 says “violence” in MT, “sin” in LXX.

But if you look at other examples, IS 42:10 for one, in the RSV, you see “Let the sea roar” with a note that says “Hb. Those who go down to the sea.” The RSV is the only bible I have that gives both. A great many other RSV passages are similarly noted, with the Hebrew text given as a footnoted alternate.

The NIV, ESV, and even the NJB read like the Hebrew in IS 42:10, without footnoting any alternate reading. The NAB reads like “Let the sea and what fills it resound,” instead of the ESV’s "You who go down to the sea. This is one reason why I have several different translations.

(Yes, I know IS 42:10 is not quoted in the NT, but give me a break. It’s 1:45 in the morning, and my point here is that this is one of many examples where the RSV gives both readings, whereas the ESV only has the Hebrew.)

As a ‘hardcore Papist’ {hardcore Pope-follower hopefully not Ecumenical Council rejecting "Traditionalist"schismatic} why don’t you prefer the Vulgate, a translation, over the Septuagint ,again a translation, as they both can clearly by shown to derive from differing (to whatever extent) Hebrew sources to the Masoretic?

Yes, that’s papist as in Benedict XVI, JPII, JPI, Paul VI, etc… and not SSPX.

I don’t prefer the Vulgate over the Septuagint for two reasons: First, even though I can read some Latin, it’s not one of my best languages. Second, the NT authors used the LXX, not the Vulgate. I, like Pius XII, would rather read something translated directly from the ancient languages and best-available copies of the source documents used by the apostles.

Finally, I prefer the RSV because it’s the official choice of the Vatican in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Surely those wiser-than-I-am scripture scholars had some reason for that choice.

Nan

 

[dalcent]

Nan,

Good well thought out replies. The RSV:CE is very good especially for a mid-twentieth century translation but how I wish Catholics had bought the rights to the RSV and produced something of the calibre of the recent ESV but with the Deuterocanonicals and an Imprimatur. The ESV and the Updated NASB95 really are streets ahead of any of the contemporary Catholic offerings.

I offer the following challenge. Give me any example of ‘evangelical bias’ in the quality evangelical versions and I’ll show the same translation choice four times in my contemporary Catholic bibles: JB, NAB, NJB, CCB, etc.

(or at the very least that most evangelical renderings will be correct if you find me a single aberrational verse in one of their versions).

 

[Manfred]

Nan,

Good well thought out replies. The RSV:CE is very good especially for a mid-twentieth century translation but how I wish Catholics had bought the rights to the RSV and produced something of the calibre of the recent ESV but with the Deuterocanonicals and an Imprimatur. The ESV and the Updated NASB95 really are streets ahead of any of the contemporary Catholic offerings.

I offer the following challenge. Give me any example of ‘evangelical bias’ in the quality evangelical versions and I’ll show the same translation choice four times in my contemporary Catholic bibles: JB, NAB, NJB, CCB, etc.

(or at the very least that most evangelical renderings will be correct if you find me a single aberrational verse in one of their versions).

While not really a “quality” evangelical version, it is, by-and-large, their favorite for some unknown reason, so try on for size this verse from the Non-Inspired Version, if you will; the italicized phrase answers your challenge.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” - Matthew 5:32

 

[Nan_S]

The ESV’s OT footnotes make 318 references to the Septuagint here:-

I’ve been flipping through my RSV-CE just now. In the Pentatuch alone I found 111 footnotes giving alternate readings of the text in the Hebrew. Page count-wise, the RSV-CE offers 111 Hebrew alternate texts in just the first 20% of the OT. At this rate, if I were to continue counting, I expect I’d find a very great deal more than the paltry 318 alternate readings the ESV offers.

It’s nice that the ESV is on a searchable website. I did find the Protestant RSV online, but if the RSV-CE is on a website and searchable haven’t found it yet.

I offer the following challenge. Give me any example of ‘evangelical bias’ in the quality evangelical versions and I’ll show the same translation choice four times in my contemporary Catholic bibles: JB, NAB, NJB, CCB, etc.

OK, how about 2 Macc 12:44-46? Or Tob 12:12-16? I’m having a little trouble finding those verses in my quality evangelical versions. Bias, perhaps?

Or how about the insistence in quality evangelical versions that every instance of the word for “close male relative of Jesus” in the NT be rendered in English as “son of Mary and Joseph” (i.e., brother)? More bias?

Bad Aramaic Made Easy
Brethren of the Lord

Anyway, thus far I haven’t been convinced there’s enough value in the ESV to justify shelling out the cover price, especially when I already have nine other Catholic and Protestant translations to work with.

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

While not really a “quality” evangelical version, it is, by-and-large, their favorite for some unknown reason, so try on for size this verse from the Non-Inspired Version, if you will; the italicized phrase answers your challenge.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” - Matthew 5:32

Good one. The Mt 5:32 term translated in evangelical bibles as “marital unfaithfulness / sexual immorality” (a vague term which could be any sexual sin) is rendered “unlawful or illicit marriage” in the NJB and NAB. Quite a divergence in meaning, isn’t it?

The KJV and D-R give a third reading of the term: “fornication.” Fornication is a sin that only an unmarried person can commit. A married person who sins sexually is committing adultery. I recently read an explanation of this term and passage that made a lot of sense:

Matthew is the only one of the four gospel writers who gives the exception. Matthew, of course, was writing primarily to a Jewish audience, and addressing a nuance of Jewish law that was irrelevant to the Romans whom Mark was addressing, and the Gentiles whom Luke was addressing.

The “unfaithfulness / fornication” exception mentioned applied to the time when the man and woman were bethrothed, but before the marriage had been consummated.

To continue: Under Jewish law, Joseph and Mary were considered legally bound at their bethrothal, even though they did not live in the same house yet and the marriage contract had not been completed. A formal divorce was required to break the betrothal. If one or the other had committed sexual sin during that betrothal period (as Joseph initially suspected Mary of doing) it would have been perfectly proper for the other to obtain a divorce on the grounds of fornication, since the betrothed couple had never “known” each other.

Nan

 

[Manfred]

Good one. The Mt 5:32 term translated in evangelical bibles as “marital unfaithfulness / sexual immorality” (a vague term which could be any sexual sin) is rendered “unlawful or illicit marriage” in the NJB and NAB. Quite a divergence in meaning, isn’t it?

The KJV and D-R give a third reading of the term: “fornication.” Fornication is a sin that only an unmarried person can commit. A married person who sins sexually is committing adultery. I recently read an explanation of this term and passage that made a lot of sense:

Matthew is the only one of the four gospel writers who gives the exception. Matthew, of course, was writing primarily to a Jewish audience, and addressing a nuance of Jewish law that was irrelevant to the Romans whom Mark was addressing, and the Gentiles whom Luke was addressing.

The “unfaithfulness / fornication” exception mentioned applied to the time when the man and woman were bethrothed, but before the marriage had been consummated.

To continue: Under Jewish law, Joseph and Mary were considered legally bound at their bethrothal, even though they did not live in the same house yet and the marriage contract had not been completed. A formal divorce was required to break the betrothal. If one or the other had committed sexual sin during that betrothal period (as Joseph initially suspected Mary of doing) it would have been perfectly proper for the other to obtain a divorce on the grounds of fornication, since the betrothed couple had never “known” each other.

Nan

Wow, Nan, now THIS is “scholar”-ly, in that it’s something that comes up very frequently with friends and relatives who divorce and re-marry.

Another interpretation is that sexual relations within an illicit marriage (any of those forbidden by the consanguinity restrictions spelled out in Leviticus) contracted by certain Jews were considered “fornication” rather than “marital unfaithfulness” (brilliant rendering, NIV; NOT!). Douay-Rheims uses fornication, as does the Nova Vulgata still.

Again, Nan, great post!