Is there a current list as to what are the most popular/best selling non-Catholic Bibles? The last list I saw, some time ago, had the NIV at #1 and the KJV at #2 (don't remember what the rest were).
IMO, I think the ESV, as a translation, is better than the NRSV, and is very similar to the RSV-2CE. It might be a smart thing for Ignatius Press to make a deal with the ESV copyright holders, and rebrand the RSV-2CE as the ESV-CE. It might sell better as the ESV-CE, and perhaps might even have a better chance of becoming the Liturgical version of Scripture in the English speaking world outside the US (which was Ignatius' main purpose of the translation) instead of the NRSV.
The look of the add is quite good. Ignatius should do something like this for the RSV-2CE.
Anon,
I think the ESV is ok, but there are a few rendering which I don't like. Are you aware that Oxford University Press published an ESV edition which contains the Apocrypha.
For some more of my thoughts on the ESV: http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/ESV
After watching it a few times, it reminds me of an interrogation room. The room is completely dark, and the speakers, although pleasent, are right up in your face.
A couple pastors mentioned they were happy with the scholarship that went into the ESV, but wasn't most of that done in the 1950s with the RSV?
I have to say that the promo didn't make me more interested in using the ESV. I don't understand using an emotional appeal to drive people towards a translation versus another.
The Ad was ok, well done, and captures the essence using a minimalist approach I don't think it was a "bit much".BTW Last I checked according to Christian Booksellers Association the ESV was #5 in unit sales. You can all laud the RSV-CE2 all you want but only Catholics use the older RSV whether it is the original RSV-CE or the RSV-CE2. Most Catholic Scholars I have come across use the NRSV along with "mainline" Protestants, most Evangelical Christians won't go near the NRSV or the older RSV. From my own reading most conservative, "orthodox" Evangelicals use the "ESV", "New King James Version", and the "New American Standard Version '95 Update" roughly in that order. My advice is that if you want to dialogue with conservative and Evangelical Christians is to ditch the NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE in any form along with the NRSV and only use the ESV, both in dialogue and in your own personal lives, BTW having a Bible with the "Deutero-Canonical/Apocrypha" is pretty useless IMHO because Conservative and Evangelical Christians don't accept them as Canonical Books.
Matt: I don't know about the others, but I think Rev. Paul McCain is a big deal in the LC-MS. He's mentioned in the "acknowledgments" section of "The Lutheran Study Bible", which uses the ESV as a base text. (That Bible should not be confused with the "Lutheran Study Bible", no "The", which is published by the ELCA and uses the NRSV).
John: How does having one translation over another affect dialog negatively? Timothy's done some leg work comparing the RSV-2CE to the ESV, and I seem to recall that he found them to be very similar.
Also, the ESV has the deuterocanon. The translator was even on this blog a year or so ago.
Francesco, I am just saying that since the ESV is being adopted as the de facto "standard translation" used by many consevative Christians it would be useful to have it and use it and be familiar with it, and yes I do own the Oxford Uni press ESV with the Deutero-Canons, but the font they use drives my eyes crazy. I personally prefer and use the NRSV as my "main translation" but the ESV isn't too far behind as they are both improvements over the old RSV. BTW I am not RC but a conservative orthodox Anglican so we too use the Deutero-Canonical books in our lectionary, but the Rector/Parish Priest would prefer that I use the New King James or the ESV rather than the NRSV, BTW the lectionary readings we use are taken from the King James/Authorised Version which DID include the Deutero-Canonical books originally.
I have found that when I talk with ultra-conservative Evangelicals, it really doesn't matter what translation I am using once I identify myself as being Catholic. At that point I am usually questioned, in rapid succession, on issues such as salvation, faith alone, purgatory, Mary, infant Baptism, etc... Of course, that is not always the case with every Evangelical I talk with, but often times it is. At that point, it doesn't matter if I use the ESV, NRSV, or KJV.
I think all three, NRSV,ESV, or RSV-2CE, are fine translations in their own right, but of course you are correct in saying that RSV-2CE is really not a new translation, but simply an update. While the NRSV and ESV are based on the RSV, they clearly are new, fresh translations. My hesitation in the ESV has always been on a few of its decisions in the NT, which seem to try and downplay ecclesastical authority, most famously in the 1 Timothy 3:15 case or in its translating of Episokopos. But, that is simply my opinion.
One thing I would agree with you on is that the ESV w/ Apocrypha font combined with the very thin paper is not very reader friendly.
The ad was "ok" I mean, after all, it IS a marketing tool. I am sure that just about any translation could get the same type of convinced advertisment, even the Good News Bible.
What struck me most was looking at the surnames and realizing that ethnically there were some who should historically be Catholic or Orthodox and how sad thart somewhere along the way their ancestors (or thmselves) chose othwerwise.
Solid marketing campaign, taking advantage of the celebrity-pastor movement in the Evangelical/Reformed world, but you're right. A bit much.
ReplyDeleteIs there a current list as to what are the most popular/best selling non-Catholic Bibles?
ReplyDeleteThe last list I saw, some time ago, had the NIV at #1 and the KJV at #2 (don't remember what the rest were).
IMO, I think the ESV, as a translation, is better than the NRSV, and is very similar to the RSV-2CE. It might be a smart thing for Ignatius Press to make a deal with the ESV copyright holders, and rebrand the RSV-2CE as the ESV-CE. It might sell better as the ESV-CE, and perhaps might even have a better chance of becoming the Liturgical version of Scripture in the English speaking world outside the US (which was Ignatius' main purpose of the translation) instead of the NRSV.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThe look of the add is quite good. Ignatius should do something like this for the RSV-2CE.
Anon,
I think the ESV is ok, but there are a few rendering which I don't like. Are you aware that Oxford University Press published an ESV edition which contains the Apocrypha.
For some more of my thoughts on the ESV: http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/search/label/ESV
Well, with that black background, it looks like those speakers are all in Limbo.
ReplyDeleteI am a little sad that all those leaders don't consult Hebrew and Greek.
Theophrastus,
ReplyDeleteAfter watching it a few times, it reminds me of an interrogation room. The room is completely dark, and the speakers, although pleasent, are right up in your face.
A couple pastors mentioned they were happy with the scholarship that went into the ESV, but wasn't most of that done in the 1950s with the RSV?
ReplyDeleteI have to say that the promo didn't make me more interested in using the ESV. I don't understand using an emotional appeal to drive people towards a translation versus another.
The look of the add is quite good. Ignatius should do something like this for the RSV-2CE.
ReplyDeleteAnd instead of featuring John Piper, Francis Chan, and Tullian Tchividjian they could feature Jerome, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.
And Fr Mitch Pacwa! ;)
ReplyDeleteYour "a bit much" meter appears to have at least three significant digits.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, it creeped me out. And on another note, what makes them leaders? Their paycheck? Just asking... :-)
ReplyDeleteThe Ad was ok, well done, and captures the essence using a minimalist approach I don't think it was a "bit much".BTW Last I checked according to Christian Booksellers Association the ESV was #5 in unit sales. You can all laud the RSV-CE2 all you want but only Catholics use the older RSV whether it is the original RSV-CE or the RSV-CE2. Most Catholic Scholars I have come across use the NRSV along with "mainline" Protestants, most Evangelical Christians won't go near the NRSV or the older RSV. From my own reading most conservative, "orthodox" Evangelicals use the "ESV", "New King James Version", and the "New American Standard Version '95 Update" roughly in that order.
ReplyDeleteMy advice is that if you want to dialogue with conservative and Evangelical Christians is to ditch the NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, RSV-CE in any form along with the NRSV and only use the ESV, both in dialogue and in your own personal lives, BTW having a Bible with the "Deutero-Canonical/Apocrypha" is pretty useless IMHO because Conservative and Evangelical Christians don't accept them as Canonical Books.
Matt:
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the others, but I think Rev. Paul McCain is a big deal in the LC-MS. He's mentioned in the "acknowledgments" section of "The Lutheran Study Bible", which uses the ESV as a base text. (That Bible should not be confused with the "Lutheran Study Bible", no "The", which is published by the ELCA and uses the NRSV).
John:
How does having one translation over another affect dialog negatively? Timothy's done some leg work comparing the RSV-2CE to the ESV, and I seem to recall that he found them to be very similar.
Also, the ESV has the deuterocanon. The translator was even on this blog a year or so ago.
Francesco, I am just saying that since the ESV is being adopted as the de facto "standard translation" used by many consevative Christians it would be useful to have it and use it and be familiar with it, and yes I do own the Oxford Uni press ESV with the Deutero-Canons, but the font they use drives my eyes crazy. I personally prefer and use the NRSV as my "main translation" but the ESV isn't too far behind as they are both improvements over the old RSV. BTW I am not RC but a conservative orthodox Anglican so we too use the Deutero-Canonical books in our lectionary, but the Rector/Parish Priest would prefer that I use the New King James or the ESV rather than the NRSV, BTW the lectionary readings we use are taken from the King James/Authorised Version which DID include the Deutero-Canonical books originally.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI have found that when I talk with ultra-conservative Evangelicals, it really doesn't matter what translation I am using once I identify myself as being Catholic. At that point I am usually questioned, in rapid succession, on issues such as salvation, faith alone, purgatory, Mary, infant Baptism, etc... Of course, that is not always the case with every Evangelical I talk with, but often times it is. At that point, it doesn't matter if I use the ESV, NRSV, or KJV.
I think all three, NRSV,ESV, or RSV-2CE, are fine translations in their own right, but of course you are correct in saying that RSV-2CE is really not a new translation, but simply an update. While the NRSV and ESV are based on the RSV, they clearly are new, fresh translations. My hesitation in the ESV has always been on a few of its decisions in the NT, which seem to try and downplay ecclesastical authority, most famously in the 1 Timothy 3:15 case or in its translating of Episokopos. But, that is simply my opinion.
One thing I would agree with you on is that the ESV w/ Apocrypha font combined with the very thin paper is not very reader friendly.
Wouldn't it be great if the NABre could inspire the kind of excitement and devotion from Catholic leaders which the ESV garners from Evangeleaders?
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Brad
Brad,
ReplyDeleteSo true!
The ad was "ok" I mean, after all, it IS a marketing tool. I am sure that just about any translation could get the same type of convinced advertisment, even the Good News Bible.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me most was looking at the surnames and realizing that ethnically there were some who should historically be Catholic or Orthodox and how sad thart somewhere along the way their ancestors (or thmselves) chose othwerwise.