ESV being used at Catholic University!

[dalcent]

Many posters here rack their brains over what Bible they should be using. I’ve always wanted to (and need to) use a version that is accepted in the academy.

Most will know that the RSV (the 1973 ecumenical version used in the Catechism not the RSVCE) and later the NRSV are the two bibles the scholars use.

Anyway, returning for more post-graduate study at a Jesuit founded University College I was surprised to find they are using (boxes of classroom bibles) the evangelical, non-inclusive, liberal-bias removed English Standard Version: the ESV.

This college had previously been using the NRSV. Now personally, I believe this version is exceptionally good and the RSV pales by comparison. And I hate the NRSV.

Do any Catholics know about this version? or have any comments about this. Certainly, this version remains incomplete until the Deuteros are added.

 

[jemfinch]

It’s no coincidence that ESV could also stand for “Evangelical Standard Version” which is what its authors aspire to

I used the ESV when I was Protestant and much preferred it to the NASB, my previous translation, because it flowed much better. But, as I understand it, there will never be deuterocanonicals translated for the ESV, and so I can never again use it, since it’s incomplete. A pity, really, because I did like it.

Personally, however, I could barely tell the difference between the ESV and RSV; the ESV, remember, is a revision of the RSV, only 6% different.

Jeremy

 

[a_cermak]

When I took theo classes at Loyola, most profs had a pretty generous attitude–use whatever version you find most comfortable. Since we weren’t debating actual verbiage it worked pretty well. That was the policy in my OT class and my NT class. What was cheapest at our local bookstore seemed to be popular (a paperback version of the RSV I believe). Because the OT class really only covered the Pentateuch (try teaching the entirety of the OT in one semester in any depth), you didn’t even need a Catholic Bible.

That was not, however, true in Hebrew class. In that class we used the Stuttgartensia and in NT Greek class we used a standard Greek NT text, I’m not sure which variant. Of course, in Biblical language courses, you are concerned with verbiage.

 

[mmortal03]

I have been convinced by others that the changes that were made to create the ESV that might be considered to be more in line with Catholicism were just happenstance, i.e. these “right” changes were made for the wrong reasons. That is all well and good if that happens, that is until you get to a passage where Catholics and Evangelicals have differing viewpoints, and the translators start making the wrong revisions for the wrong reasons.

Now that I think about it more, I’d actually like to see a comprehensive list of the differences between the ESV and the RSV. This would extinguish all the hearsay and we could simply focus on the objective differences. Is this even available?

From what I have read, the ESV revisionists brought back certain traditional Christian renderings of certain passages because they felt that “Conservative Christians” were used to hearing them in that way, and not because they were the most accurate. That obviously gets into the debatable realm of reasons that one should or should not revise a translation.

Just because some of the renderings that were brought back happen to be more traditional within the context of historical English biblical translations, those which might at first glance also be perceived as more Catholic, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other issues that were introduced into ESV. Keep that in mind.

I am not familiar enough with the ESV to say for sure, thus my request for a exhaustive list of the 6% difference, such that we can objectively analyze it from a Catholic perspective. I am surprised that this is not available.

 

[jmcrae]

Many posters here rack their brains over what Bible they should be using. I’ve always wanted to (and need to) use a version that is accepted in the academy.

Most will know that the RSV (the 1973 ecumenical version used in the Catechism not the RSVCE) and later the NRSV are the two bibles the scholars use.

Anyway, returning for more post-graduate study at a Jesuit founded University College I was surprised to find they are using (boxes of classroom bibles) the evangelical, non-inclusive, liberal-bias removed English Standard Version: the ESV.

I don’t understand why they (the publishers of the ESV - not your teachers) don’t just go with the KJV.

It seems like a lot of extra effort to go through, when it seems like their primary audience is the KJV crowd. It’d be easier and cheaper just to get a regular Bible publisher to give you a set of KJVs at wholesale.

And the KJV has the Deuterocanonical books - they aren’t often published, but one could get in touch with a KJV publisher and ask them to publish a version for you that has the Deuteros in it. They have the plates, already (or they could get them, easily enough - you can even get them on-line, if you want to go with digital publishing - they just don’t use them all that often.

I’m a fan of the KJV - it’s the one I memorized from when I was a kid, and it’s still the one I go back to when I want to “sound Biblical” - the ESV seems as though they want to have the KJV sound, but for whatever reason call it a “new translation?” Which seems counter-productive - conservative Protestants don’t buy “new translations,” typically - at least, I never did.

 

[bauerice]

christianbook.com
Sells the KJV with apocrypha in paperback. I bought a copy for reference. Has been helpful when talking to Protestants.

 

[Manfred]

Just because some of the renderings that were brought back happen to be more traditional within the context of historical English biblical translations, those which might at first glance also be perceived as more Catholic, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other issues that were introduced into ESV. Keep that in mind.

mmortal,

As usual, you bring a voice of reason to the discussion at hand. But other posters made some good points as well.

First off - ESV = Evangelical Standard Version; there’s no other rationale for producing this translation. Of course, said evangelicals are so taken with their New Evangelical Version, aka the NIV, they’ll never notice. And fundies recognize nothing but the KJV. We Catholics can’t use it because it doesn’t have the deutero-canonical works, and, given the version’s target readership, it may never have them.

Next - better than the NASB? Of the (now three) versions for evangelicals, I thought this one did it best, “wooden” as it may seem to some. The whole rationale for the making of the NASB was a negative reaction to the RSV of 1946. NASB: “been there, done that.”

Both the ESV and the RSV are online; one could with some effort compare a few “key” passages to see if the former does indeed “get it right” where the latter didn’t.

As far as those Jesuit schools using whatever’s available for bible-based classes - they should be ashamed of themselves, since Ignatius Press (named for the founder of the Jesuits, St. Ignatius; HELLO?!) publishes the RSV-CE.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on this matter.

Manfred

 

[mmortal03]

mmortal,

As usual, you bring a voice of reason to the discussion at hand.

Thanks! So Manfred, what do you think about the ESV’s rendering of Luke 1.34: “And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

 

[Manfred]

Thanks! So Manfred, what do you think about the ESV’s rendering of Luke 1.34: “And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

Well, it IS better than even the 1971 RSV’s “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” And “I am a virgin” does translate “do not know man” reasonably, though not perfectly, well, it would seem.

But where are “Hail, full of grace”? “gates of hell”? True, the NASB didn’t get these right, either, but that was to be expected.

Alright - so maybe the version that Catholic scholars SHOULD be editing (instead of that blasted NRSV) is the ESV - so long as the deutero-canonicals will be forthcoming. As I recall, when the RSV-CE work begaan in 1954, there was no RSV Apocrypha as yet, so, maybe there’s hope.

 

[mmortal03]

But where are “Hail, full of grace”? “gates of hell”? True, the NASB didn’t get these right, either, but that was to be expected.

I’d say it was expected with the ESV as well.

Alright - so maybe the version that Catholic scholars SHOULD be editing (instead of that blasted NRSV) is the ESV - so long as the deutero-canonicals will be forthcoming. As I recall, when the RSV-CE work begaan in 1954, there was no RSV Apocrypha as yet, so, maybe there’s hope.

They should be knowledgeable of the 6% of changes that became the ESV, the “I don’t know the number”% of non-inclusive changes in the NRSV, the 1% of non-archaic language related revisions in the Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition, and then apply all of their revisions that they decide upon onto the 2006 Oxford Press Reader’s Edition, keeping the Douay Rheims Challoner clearly in mind, and not including silly stylistic alterations.

Catholic translators really need to read this board.

 

[Manfred]

I’d say it was expected with the ESV as well.

They should be knowledgeable of the 6% of changes that became the ESV, the “I don’t know the number”% of non-inclusive changes in the NRSV, the 1% of non-archaic language related revisions in the Ignatius 2nd Catholic Edition, and then apply all of their revisions that they decide upon onto the 2006 Oxford Press Reader’s Edition, keeping the Douay Rheims Challoner clearly in mind, and not including silly stylistic alterations.

Catholic translators really need to read this board.

Uh, yeah, that might happen, alright. The funniest part was the last sentence re Catholic translators’ reading this board. Other than Ron Conte and one or perhaps, two,others, there’s not much chance of that, regrettably. I mean, they would certainly be hampered from being “pastorally effective” by collecting some of our thoughts, many of which are well articulated.