Guest Post: Thoughts on Possible ESV-CE

Thoughts on an ESV-Catholic Edition

I am a former Catholic and also previously contributed posts here way back. Now I am a Reformed Baptist and took a sudden shift of beliefs. Well, that doesn't really count to this topic, but just to inform some of the avid readers here as this could be important to correctly appreciate my point of view.

News from this blog came up lately that Oxford renounced the rights to the ESV with Apocrypha. They seem to returned the rights back to Crossway and Crossway is allegedly making an attempt to secure the imprimatur.

I have previously posted here an article regarding the possible impact of an ESV-CE to the RSV-CE (or RSV-2CE as a comparable contender): http://www.catholicbiblesblog.com/2016/04/guest-post-would-esv-ce-kill-rsv-ce.html

For a long time, the concept of an ESV-CE brought excitement to many Catholics, including myself during that time. But this latest development not only reignited hopes for Catholics wanting for an ESV, it also came at an interesting time where versions are being discussed more extensively ever than before.

Some context on the ESV for the past months:

·         Crossway endured much criticism across the Evangelical circles last year on a thought of a “Permanent Text Edition”, perhaps to save the ESV from a bad reputation of continuously tweaking its text on a rather rapid manner incorporating only minor changes.

·         At the same time, the 2016 text edition raised concerns on the rendering of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 from “for” to “contrary to” for the Hebrew word teshuqa (which is otherwise found again in Songs 7:10). The 2011 only footnoted the “contrary to” rendering, but in the 2016 edition it found its way into the main text. This caused Crossway to revoke their initial decision of a “Permanent Text” and stated that they will leave the ESV open for revision at a later time but on a much slower pace than they did before.

·         In the most recent discussions on Reformed circles, ESV is now receiving criticism for possible doctrinal bias regarding “Eternal Subordination of the Son” which was taught by some that the Son is eternally subordinated in some sense (I am not particularly accurate with how the subordination is qualified here) to the Father, not only the submission of the human will of the Son during His earthly existence but being eternally subordinated. The concept was seen to be apparent in the ESV Study Bible notes.

Given this immediate context, an ESV Catholic edition going public might cause the ESV to be under the hot seat once more. ESV had experienced significant impact from the 2016 textual changes. In fact, this has caused some to Evangelicals shy away from the ESV and shift to either NASB or NKJV. From an Evangelical point of view, ESV-CE might only bring further serious blow of criticisms. 

The unfavourable impact for the ESV might be magnified as a NASB revision is currently being done. Lockman Foundation initially planned to release the revised NASB later this year, but they pushed it by the third quarter of 2018. And based from my Protestant friends, Lockman moved the timeline recently to 2019. The changes are being rumored to be improving the readability of the Old Testament section. 

Perhaps the negative reaction towards an ESV Catholic Edition is inevitable, but I suppose this should not surprise us. Instead, we find an interesting situation here: (1) ESV is being adapted by Catholics, (2) NASB is being revised, and (3) NKJV was already adapted by Eastern Orthodox as a basis for their Orthodox Study Bible. Seriously, if this ESV Catholic Edition would come up off the press immediately, and we know Crossway is capable of doing so, this might dissolve some market share of those waiting for NABRE 2025.

This news of an ESV Catholic Edition is not only a big news to the Catholic world, but more so to the Evangelical world. Let’s see what will happen.

ESV w/ Apocrypha

Back in 2009, Oxford University Press published the only available ESV with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals.  However, if you took a look at its listing on Amazon you will notice that it is only available from third parties and isn't in print. Even Christianbook.com doesn't have a listing for it anymore.  Well, my friend Brett did some digging and contacted Oxford.  Turns out that they decided to return the rights back to Crossway.  A note has been sent to Crossway to see if they have any plans to publish the ESV w/apocrypha.  If not, and you want one, I'd recommend you get a used copy of the Oxford one before they disappear.

I'll let you know if I get any additional news.

Update:
My friend Brett received some additional reliable information that Crossway is in the process of seeking an imprimatur for a future ESV-CE.  It is in the early stages, but they are moving forward with it.

Guest Post: Would an ESV-CE kill the RSV-CE?

Thanks to Gerald for this post.

It came rather as a surprise to Catholics that ESV was for consideration for the English language Lectionary when the NRSV-based lectionary was dropped from the table by the International Committee of the English Language (ICEL) in view of the changes brought by Liturgiam Authenticam. This project was deemed necessary to complement the more literal changes to the Roman Missal.

And from then on, some Catholics have been eager for a consequent ESV-Catholic Edition. Many spectators believed that it would be a challenge given the failure with the negotiations with NCC for the NRSV, the ESV would likely to pose more difficulties, knowing Crossway.  Now that the ESV lectionary project had been pronounced dead by the ICEL, it leaves the hypothetical question: "Should the ESV lectionary project and an ESV-CE became a success, would it kill the demand the demand for the RSV-CE?"

In this post, I will offer both sides of the coin of what could had happened to the Catholic world if ESV-CE penetrates the elusive arena of Catholic Bible market.

* YES, IT COULD REPLACE THE RSV-CE.
1. ESV corrected some of the "un-Christian" renderings in the Old Testament without looking at light from the New Testament, usually in the more scholarly critical path, bearing the RSV "liberal" in many Protestant circles. 
Knowing the RSV-CE's patronage by Catholic apologists, theologians and serious students of Scripture, an ESV-CE would certainly shift the market, provided that necessary Catholic emendations be made to rid of its apparent Evangelical slant.

2. ESV is an easier read due to modern formal English while being a bit literal from the RSV. Moreover, ESV used the 27th Nestle-Aland for the Greek, while RSV in its base used the 17th NA.

3. ESV is recently finding adoption by the Evangelicals, particularly brought by the mishaps by the NIV 2011. And this is phenomenon right now, the once unbeatable NIV is being replaced by ESVs. Most Protestants are already familiar with the ESV as a major translation, even competing to the good old NASB. Should an ESV-CE exist, it would further bring the ESV's popularity to great heights.

4. Since ESV is a light revision of the RSV, most study tools that are keyed to RSV would probably still be useful and would make the shift seamless to those who are already familiar with the RSV.

5. ESV is already widely distributed, not only by Crossway but also by Gideons and foreign Bible societies outside North America. And having an ESV Catholic Edition will surely fill the void of a formal translation for Catholics that can be widely available to most people.

*NO, IT CANNOT REPLACE RSV-CE.
1. ESV and its translation committee had never been ecumenical in the first place. Especially with the Crossway earning integrity as solidly conservative Protestant. Having an ESV-CE will put a doubt on its Protestant readers. This was not a problem to the RSV, since at the beginning, NCC did not paved way for evangelical revisions recommended to it in the early 60's. However, NCC gladly accommodated the Catholic and Orthodox reservations to make amendments to RSV and to provide the extended canon.

2. The Church authorities would probably not grant a recognitio to an ESV-CE.
The ESV is not an ecumenical committee and had not included Catholic members in the development of ESV. On the other hand, NRSV included Catholics from the beginning of their translation, and RSV only later after the Protestant release of the RSV upon the permission by Dei Verbum. Dei Verbum 22 specifies that other translations by "our separated brethren" may be considered, and that would also include our Orthodox brethren. ESV, still ia not finding any traction on Orthodox circles.

3. The ESV with Apocrypha by Oxford publishing likewise did not caught significant attention to Catholic specialists, nor the RSV-CE readers that could be the target market by the ESV w/ Apocrypha. NRSV with Apocrypha, immediately found support to some Catholic bishops. In fact, it first got the imprimatur before the NRSV-CE. It was the patronage of Catholics to the NRSVA that compelled NCC to release a specific NRSV-CE for Catholics. RSV with Apocrypha, likewise immediately found clamor from the Catholic authorities especially upon the immediate need for a version that would be compliant to Dei Verbum section 22.

4. Should an ESV-CE be anyways approved by Crossway, it would be likely that minimal changes will be allowed by Crossway to be done to ESV. I suppose much less than changes approved to both RSV-CE and NRSV-CE.

5. ESV textual decisions that are usually in preference to the Hebrew Massoretic Text and deferring most of the emendations offered by the Septuagint except for some theologically important verses will be a challenge if it aims to be compliant with Liturgiam Authenticam.  LA prescribes that while reference to the Hebrew texts should be the basis, emendations from either the Septuagint and the Vulgate should also be given weight, especially in view of Patristic understanding of biblical text for the Septuagint and preserving the latin liturgical tradition from the Vulgate.

Your opinions?

More on the Death of the ESV Lectionary

For more, go here.

Here is the key section:

After 10 years of unsuccessful efforts by ICPELL, it became apparent that the whole lectionary project was in serious jeopardy. It had proved impossible to find a lectionary that suits the Holy See, the copyright holders of the scripture translations, and bishops’ conferences. Another issue was that the Revised Grail psalms, which were planned to be part of the revised lectionary, have also lost support in some quarters.

At the end of 2013 the decision was made to dismantle ICPELL and leave each conference of bishops to make its own decision regarding a lectionary for Mass. Consequently, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference agreed to discontinue its involvement in the international lectionary project and to reprint the existing lectionary. It would contain a slightly modified version of the Jerusalem Bible currently in use and the Grail translation of the responsorial Psalms.

The general opinion is that some poor translations in the Jerusalem Bible are easily remedied and that other required changes to the text can be made fairly quickly.

So, there you have it.  Those who hoped for an ESV-CE can put that dream to rest.  So, what does that leave us with?  Well, from the article above, I would imagine that those other English speaking areas will follow suit and adapt the Jerusalem Bible.   My first question is why not spend a little more time and adapt the NJB.  It is better in almost every way compared to the original.  Also, I do find it interesting that the Revised Grail Psalms had "lost support."  I wonder if that is just in Australia or other places as well, like the UK?  So, then, it is quite possible that at some point we could have a different Psalter being used in the various English speaking territories.  That is just weird, and really I can't find another word to describe this situation.

What about that ever elusive dream of having a Bible, in hand, that actually matches what is read at Mass.  Will the Catholic Truth Society in London create a "new" CTS Bible after the UK bishops adapt the JB?  Will it include the original or revised Grail Psalms?  Is it possible, particularly after all the complaining here in the US, that the American bishops are the ones who actually pull off the unimaginable task of giving us a Bible that matches the lectionary?  It seems clear that the American Bishops are moving forward with the Revised Grail Psalms for future liturgical books, as well as the upcoming revised NABRE.  The revised NABRE NT provides the opportunity to do this.  Let's pray.

Is the ESV Lectionary Dead in the Water?

Thanks to reader Charles for this link which seems to suggest that it is.

If this is true, what is next for those in the English speaking Church outside of North America?  Here are the options that I came up with:

* Go with the newly revised New Community Bible.  (Remember this?)

* See if something can be worked out with the NCCUSA and start again with the NRSV

* Wait for the revised NABRE to be published in ten years which will supposedly provide a text that is both approved for Mass as well as available in print.

* RSV-2CE

* Re-work the Jerusalem Bible

* Do nothing and stay with the original Jerusalem Bible

The ESV Study Bible Personal Size

Igantius Press.......go and do likewise!

ESV vs NRSV Redux (2009)

ESV vs. NRSV
1) Overseers vs. Bishops (I Tim/Titus)

2) Propitiation vs. sacrifice of atonement (Rm 3:25)

3) Hell vs. Hades (Matt 16:18)

4) Born again vs. Born from Above (Jn 3:3)

5) Brothers vs. Brothers and Sisters

6) Son of Man vs. O Mortal/Human Beings (OT/Heb 2)

7) "a" vs. "the" (1 Tm 3:15)

8) grasped vs. exploited (Phi. 2:6)

9) made himself nothing yvs. emptied himself (Phi. 2:7)

10) Virgin vs. young woman (Is. 7:14)

11) Behold vs. Look or See

12) husband of one wife vs. married once (Titus 1:6)

13) the Helper vs. the Advocate (Jn 14-16)
(New One)

Update on ICSB from Fr. Fessio

Responding to a listener question on a recent Catholic Answers Live radio program, Fr. Fessio of Ignatius Press stated that he hoped the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Old Testament would be completed in a year or two.  That, of course, is nothing new.  We heard that from Dr. Scott Hahn a few months backs on EWTN Bookmark.  What was interesting, however, was that it appears that Ignatius may not ultimately publish the complete ICSB in one volume, but rather two.  Citing the amount of commentary and study helps found in the ICSB, he said they are struggling to figure a way to publish it in one volume.  You can listen to the entire program here.  He answers the ICSB question around minute 32.

Now, what do you think about the real possibility of there never being a complete, one volume edition of the ICSB?  Personally, having examined many study Bibles over the past ten years, including ones like the ESV Study Bible and the NLT Study Bible, both of which contain more notes and study helps than the ICSB, I would be highly disappointed if it is only available in two distinct volumes.  Those two study Bibles I just mentioned are full of annotations, contain a ton of extra material in the appendix, and come in many different editions and covers.  The NLT Study Bible, which I am flipping through as I write this post, has well over 300 pages of extra material in the appendix and contains more cross-references and in-text theme notes/person profiles/maps than the ICSB.  The ESV Study Bible, like the recently revised NIV Study Bible, is produced with full-color charts, images, and in-text maps.  When you compare these three study Bibles to the overall look of the ICSBNT, there is a huge difference in appearance and the amount of material contained within.  While the material in the ICSB is outstanding, something that has never been in doubt, the overall look and production quality is sorely lacking.  And the possibility of there not being a one volume edition is simply mind-blowing.  Again and again I continue to wonder what is going on at Ignatius Press concerning the ICSB.  Do they have limitations on what they can do?  Have they looked at other study Bibles on the market?  Where is the promotional support for the ICSB and the RSV-2CE?

More ESV and the Lectionary Info

Thanks to Theophrastus for providing the link and information:

Father Somerville-Knapman reprints an e-mail from Archbishop Coleridge:

In answer to your questions, the facts are these. The ESV was chosen over the RSV because the ESV, in its 7% modification of the RSV, seeks to incorporate the fruit of more recent biblical scholarship, i.e. since the publication of the RSV. In other words, the RSV is out-of-date. We were looking for a more up-to-date version of the RSV; and when the NRSV proved impossible, we chose the ESV. Unlike the copyright holders of the NRSV, the copyright holders of the ESV have shown themselves quite open to the kind of changes we would need or want to make for Catholic lectionary purposes; and the copyright arrangements for the project are now in place. What will appear in the lectionary will be a modified form of the ESV. This may in time look to the production of a Catholic edition of the ESV, though that is not decided. I know too little of the permission given to the English ordinariate, but I doubt that it will have an effect on the lectionary we are producing. That would depend on the Holy See. It is very hard to say when the ESV lectionary will be ready for publication. We have all but finished work on the first volume (Sundays and Solemnities), and it may be that the first volume will appear before the others. But it depends on how quickly the bishops of the five Conferences get back to us within the process of consultation. Many of them are keen to have a new lectionary as soon as possible, so it may be that we will have the entire new lectionary by 2014

The RSV Lectionary 2.0 (including some random thoughts)

For some additional info go here. Make sure to read the comments, which mentions a bit more on the ESV.

Some random, mostly speculative thoughts about this whole issue:

1) Are we right to assume that the RSV Lectionaries are that of the 2nd Edition? When they mention that they bought the remainder of what was in stock, does this mean Ignatius will not be producing any more in the future? With the NAB firmly entrenched in the USA and apparently the imminent publication of an ESV Lectionary, it seems probable that no large English language territory will ever use the RSV-2CE in its Lectionary. This may indicate why Ignatius is dumping its Lectionaries.

2) Why and how is the ESV being used? Why not the already adapted NRSV of Canada or the RSV-2CE? There are a lot of questions but very few answers. Who are they securing the rights to use the ESV? Crossway? NCCUSA? If Crossway, why would they do such a thing, considering the fact that they have been unwilling to produce an ESV with Deuterocanonicals? It was Oxford University Press that did so.

3) The link, above, states that there is a Catholic on the ESV translation team. Who might that be? Am I the only one who is a bit confused as to why any Catholic Lectionary would use a primarily Reformed translation?

4) What is the future of the RSV-2CE? We know that the complete ICSB will likely be published in the next 2-3 years, but one has to wonder if the RSV-2CE will remain a niche translation. The vast majority of theology books I have read since 2006 quote the older RSV-CE. Other than the ICSB, Ignatius doesn't seem interested in promoting or providing background information on their translation. I wish they would.

Some Initial Thoughts on the ESV Lectionary Thing

Since finding out about the likely use of an adapted form of the ESV in the Australian lectionary, a few random thoughts have been floating around in my mind since yesterday. Some of these have already been brought up by commentators in the previous post, but I think they are worth repeating and discussing:

1) What does this say about the RSV-2CE? The fact that it has already been adapted and issued in a lectionary format, yet was passed up instead for an adapted ESV, makes me wonder whether the RSV-2CE will ever be a major translation for liturgical use (or study)? Also, there must be some sort of cost associated with adapting the ESV and getting permission to do so by Crossway or Oxford. It seems to me that the Australian Bishops were willing to incur an expense, presumably, to do this adaption, while they could have just simply used the RSV-2CE. Why?

2) What does this change to the ESV mean for other English speaking bishops conferences that were adapting the NRSV? Canada already has an adapted and approved NRSV lectionary, but what about the others? How did the Canadian Bishops get permission to make modifications to the NRSV, while the Australians were not? The Holy See did eventually approve the Canadian adapted NRSV for Mass.

3) Who is the copyright holder that is granting permission to do this adaption of the ESV? Crossway or Oxford?

4) What do I think about the ESV? There has not been, nor likely ever be, any official Catholic participation in this translation. The ESV is a product of a conservative Reformed tradition and does, at times, reflect that perspective. As Chrysostom suggested in his comment: “Change Lk 1:28 to the Angelic Salutation, add "only-begotten" in John 3:16, change "episkopos" and "presbyter" to "Bishop" and "Priest", take the indefinite article out of 1 Tim 3:15, and change a few words to "husband" instead of "man" ("not by the will of a husband..."), etc. to remove some overtly Calvinistic interpretations.” There is also the issue of whether to use “propitiation" (ESV) or “expiation" (RSV or NAB) in Romans 3:25. (Please note I realize the Vulgate and Nova Vulgata (and thus DR) use propitiationem, but how are those two important theological terms understood today?) The RSV, of course, had no Catholic participation when it was originally produced either, but later through editorial changes by the CBA (UK) and Ignatius Press. The NRSV, on the other hand, had active participation from a number of Catholic biblical scholars. Joel, a non-Catholic Christian, on his blog Unsettled Christianity wonders why any Catholic body would utilize the “Evangelical Standard Version”. I wonder as well.

ESV in Aussie Lectionary?

This news comes from the Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn in Australia. During his reflections on the year 2011, archbishop Mark Benedict Coleridge mentioned the following:

"Some years ago, I was asked to chair a commission which would prepare a new English-language Lectionary, using a modified form of the NRSV and a revised Grail Psalter. That seemed straight-forward enough, and the expectation was that the new Lectionary would be ready for publication at the same time as the Missal.

However, we struck problems with the copyright holders of the NRSV and have had some difficulties in our dealings with the Holy See. All of this so becalmed the project that there is now no hope that the Lectionary or any part of it will appear at the same time as the Missal. In fact, we have decided to move away from the NRSV and to prepare the Lectionary using a modified form of the English Standard Version (ESV), still with the revised Grail Psalter.

On this new basis, the project has progressed well; and the hope now is to have at least the first volume of the Lectionary (Sundays and Solemnities) ready for publication as close as possible to the appearance of the Missal."

Very interesting news! I wonder if this means an official Catholic edition of the ESV could be on the way? An edition of the ESV w/Apocrypha has already been translated and published by Oxford University Press. What I find most interesting is the last line, which seems to indicate that this project is almost complete. I would assume, then, that they have received approval from the creators of the ESV, whether that be Crossway or Oxford University Press, as well as tacit approval from Rome? Interesting....

Hat tip to Joel at Unsettled Christianity for the link.

A Look into the Process of Translation (ESV-style)

Just getting back from two senior retreats at the high school, thus the small amount of blog content over the past week. As I get back into the daily routine, I thought I would post this Youtube video which examines a particular translation decision that the ESV Committee had to decide in regards to the word "slave". The debate about how to translate "slave" in this instance is fascinating, but more importantly this clip gives you a quite a bit of insight into the world of Bible translations. (Thanks to Louis at Baker Book House Blog for posting.)

Whatcha Think?

I think it is a bit much.

Thinline Bibles

Some of you who have been reading this blog for the past couple years know that I have always wanted a Catholic Bible in a thinline edition. As far as I know, one does not exist in any of the major Catholic, or ecumenical, translations. There have been times when I think I have found something that would ultimately meet my needs, but in the end it didn't. At least for me, a thinline Bible is something that can be used in both devotional, as well as classroom settings. Whenever I have picked up one in the store, I have always liked its size and feel. It's neither too small, like a compact edition, nor as big as a standard, average sized Bible.

Of course, in the back of mind currently is the upcoming release of the NRSV Thinline edition by HarperOne, which promises to come in Protestant and full Apocrypha editions in the fall, with a Catholic edition in early 2011. However, I have yet to see any indication as to what this edition will look like or what it will contain. If one remembers, it was only last year that HarperOne released their NRSV Compact Thinline, which ended up being a pretty bare bones compact NRSV. So, we shall have to wait and see what comes of the this.

Why do I bring this all up? Well, I was about five seconds away from purchasing the ESV Thinline pictured above. It contained all the elements that make up a really good thinline Bible. Not only was the text very readable, as well as containing OT cross-references in the NT, but the cover was flexible and soft trutone, and it contained both a concise concordance and maps. It was a pleasure to read from and hold....which is why I almost purchased it. Obviously, the lack of Deutercanonical books make this ESV edition incomplete, so I passed. But other than that, it gets very high marks. To be honest, another reason that almost convinced me to purchased it was that I had convinced myself that I could use the ESV w/ Apocrypha by Oxford in conjunction with the thinline. Hmmm.......

So, do any of you use a thinline? What do you think of thinline Bibles in general?

RSV-CE vs. RSV-2CE Redux

Over the weekend I had a few spare minutes and decided to count the number of changes between the RSV-CE and the RSV-2CE. Using the Emmaus Road Publishing Catholic Bible Concordance: Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition, I came up with well over 2500 changes between the original and the updated. In all actuality, it may be closer to 2800, but I can't confirm that I always hit the right button on the computer when adding it all up. :) Safe to say, however, the number of changes are significant.

Keep in mind, this does not include the changes made to the archaic language in the original RSV-CE, like the "thees" and "thous". So, overall, that is a pretty hefty number in my book. Certainly worth giving the RSV-2CE a second look.

I wonder how this would compare to the ESV?

Update: A few years back a guy, mmortal03, on the Catholic Answers forums tabulated some of the changes in the new RSV-2CE. This was well before the Emmaus Road Catholic Bible Concordance was released and which documented all of the changes. However, his list remains helpful, in particular when comparing the RSV-2CE to the the original 1966 edition of the RSV-CE and the subsequent updates done by Oxford University Press. So check it out!

Textual Basis: RSV-2CE, NRSV, ESV

Well, here comes another in my series of comparisons between the NRSV and ESV. This time, however, I decided to add the RSV-2CE to the mix. The three editions that I will be comparing are seen in the picture on the left. They are the 1) Ignatius RSV-2CE, 2) Cambridge NRSV w/ Apocrypha Reference Edition, 3) ESV w/ Apocrypha. In this post, I wanted to examine the textual basis behind each of these translations.

RSV-2CE:

The RSV-2CE is only a slight updating of the original RSV-CE by way of the original RSV. A list of the changes can be found here. Most of the changes have to do with the elimination of archaic language. Along with this, they did adopt a few alternate renderings as found in the RSV notes, most notably in Is. 7:14 as well as some suggested changes recommended by the Vatican. Fr. Joseph Fessio SJ, editor at Ignatius Press, commented on this blog last year about the process by which the changes were made in consultation with the Vatican. There was no attempt to use inclusive language in this update.

While it may be tempting to look at the RSV-2CE as being similar to the work done by the ESV, it must be pointed out that the changes are very few compared to the ESV. In addition, the RSV-2CE's textual basis is still the one used by translators of the original RSV OT and NT. According to Philip Comfort's Essential Guide to Bible Translations: "The Old Testament translators generally followed the Masoretic Text. At the same time, they introduced a few different renderings bases on the famous Dead Seas Scroll of Isaiah (166)." Thus, only the initial findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls were used for the OT. The Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books were not changed from the original RSV.

As for the New Testament, the RSV-2CE retains the textual basis behind the original RSV NT, which used primarily the seventeenth edition of the Nestle text (1941). None of the modifications done in the 1971 edition of the RSV NT are found in the RSV-2CE. (It should be noted that there is a strange phenomenon in the RSV-CE compact editions published by Oxford in recent years. It seems that some of the 1971 modifications were added to the original RSV-CE text. Again, some of these changes can be found here.)

NRSV:

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007), chair of the RSV revision committee, indicated in the preface to the NRSV that one of the main reasons for the NRSV was the discovery of older textual manuscripts. In particular, the continued discovery of more scrolls from Qumran shed greater light on even more books of the Old Testament. While the translators based their translation on the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977; ed. sec. emendata, 1983), it departed often when the Qumran scrolls suggested doing so. Therefore, the Old Testament translators followed an eclectic text. The book that saw the most deviation from the Masoretic Text was 1 and 2 Samuel. In particular, the first few chapters of 1 Samuel relied heavily on the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries. It should be noted that the translators also used, more than in the RSV, early Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts. The translators of the Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books made use of a number of texts, including findings from Qumran. This information can be found here.

For the New Testament, translators followed the text of Nestle-Aland 26th edition/UBS 3rd edition, of which Bruce Metzger was a leading member. Translators decided to go with a number of new renderings, like the adoption of "Jesus Barabbas" as the rebel in in Matthew 27:16.

The NRSV was one of the first major translations, following the lead of the NJB, to introduce gender-inclusive language. In many ways it is the standard, although there are some places, particularly in OT references to the "Son of Man" and in Heb. 2, where the traditional rendering would have been more helpful.

ESV w/Apocrpyha:

The ESV OT is based on the Masoretic text found in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983). Unlike the NRSV, the ESV tries to remain committed to the MT. This is particularly striking in 1 Samuel. The ESV Translation Committee states: "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 alternative reading in the ancient versions (ESV preface xi)." Of course, there are some places where they have followed the LXX for theological reasons, most notably Is. 7:14. For the Apocrypha, the translation team drew heavily on the RSV Expanded Apocrypha published in 1977. According to the Preface to the Apocrypha, the Gottingen LXX served as the textual basis for all the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical) books, except for 4 Maccabees (Rahlfs's LXX) and 2 Esdras (1983 Vulgate by German Bible Society).

The NT follows the Nestle-Aland 27th and the UBS 4th corrected editions. In many ways, it reads much the same as the 1971 RSV NT. It has been reported that the changes between the RSV and ESV only constitute somewhere between 5-10%.

The translation team decided to use a modest amount of inclusive language in the ESV. Although not always being consistent throughout the translation, the ESV's use of gender-neutral language is far less than the NRSV and the NJB.

Conclusion:

In my opinion, the biggest decision that one has to make when evaluating the textual basis behind these three versions is in regards to the Old Testament. The RSV-2CE and ESV tend to stick much closer to the MT, while the NRSV is more willing to use an eclectic text. It is interesting to note that while the NRSV will make use of the LXX, most prominently, to correct uncertain MT renderings, the RSV-2CE and ESV will use the LXX at times for theological reasons. So, do you like sticking close to the MT or do you prefer an eclectic text which is not afraid to use the LXX, Qumran, Old Latin, and Syriac texts more frequently?

I prefer using an eclectic text to translate the OT. With all of the textual discoveries that have been made since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many uncertain renderings can be solved, rather than leaving them ambiguous. I am also sympathetic to the LXX. Some books that I have recently read have reiterated the importance of the LXX in relation to the MT. Thus, any translation that is willing to appeal to the LXX or Qumran more liberally is superior in my book.

Another Post from Dr. deSilva on ESV Apocrypha

I asked Dr. deSilva two questions in the comment box:

1) Was it intentional the way in which the Apocrypha was arranged, with the Catholic Deuterocanonicals in order first? (I know that the original RSV NOAB Expanded Edition had it a little different)

2) How do you rate this new ESV edition in comparison with the NRSV? Do you think a Catholic, like myself, would be comfortable using it as a primary Bible for prayer and study?

Here is his reply:

Greetings, Timothy.

I really can't answer your second question, since only you can determine your level of comfort. If I were Catholic, I would probably be put off by the books appearing outside of the OT and in the back, although I do think placing them in the middle is an acceptable compromise (acceptable, because some Protestants wouldn't want it printed in a Bible at all, and Catholics would, of course, prefer the more common distribution of the books within the OT). As a translation, I think the ESV Apocrypha offers a strong option for devotional reading and study. I know that I approached my task with the attitude that I was translating the Church's scripture (even if it is not part of MY church's Scripture). I'm admittedly a little uncomfortable with some aspects of the ESV's inclusive language policy, though I think the NRSV sometimes solves the issue of gender inclusivity poorly (e.g., using "friends" or "beloved" to replace "brothers," when I would certainly have used "brothers and sisters" as the inclusive equivalent -- the kinship language being intentional and formational within the early church).

I'm embarrassed to admit that I have no answer for your first question at all. I never paid any attention to the question of how the books would be ordered -- just plugged along translating my own assignments!

All the best,
David

Thanks again, Dr. deSilva, for stopping by!

A Personal Encounter (while reading the ESV)

I just wanted to share a brief encounter I had at a local bookstore cafe yesterday. I was sitting at a table, sipping my hot chocolate, listening to my I-Pod, while doing some prep work for the STB comprehensive exam that I will be taking in April. (BTW: David at Better Bibles Blog has an interesting post about today's generation and Bible publishing, which corresponds to my need to do multiple things at once.) Anyways, on my table were my new ESV w/ Apocrypha, Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament, HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, my notebook, and a Catholic devotional book. Needless to say, a younger couple (maybe 5 years younger) came up to me on their way out to ask what I was reading. I told them that the Brown book was a good NT introduction. They then asked what I was studying for, which I told them was a graduate degree at a local seminary. Then they asked which denomination, at which I told them Catholic. At that point, they recommended, almost immediately, that I get some books by Wayne Grudem and John Piper. I told them that I was indeed familiar with their works, but had not read anything by them. At that point, they smiled, wished me a good day, and left.

So as they were leaving, I wondered why they decided to immediately recommend those authors. Did they just assume that since I was using an ESV that I would be well read in the works of Grudem and Piper? Or perhaps were they trying to steer me towards a more reformed theology? I am really not sure. In my line of work, I have had multiple encounters with other Christians, mostly Baptists it seems, who have tried to challenge me on Catholic theology. While I don’t personally set out to challenge other Christians on their beliefs, it has always struck me at how oftentimes I am looked on as not even being Christian, simply because I am Catholic. Now I am not suggesting that the couple I met yesterday had those thoughts, but some of those whom I have encountered certainly have acted and said as much.

For me, I am always ready to talk about my Catholic faith with those who are interested in listening. It’s not like I am ashamed to be Catholic or that I think there are some problems with Catholic theology. I don’t. I am a proud JPII Catholic and can defend my faith with the best of them. However, what is odd to me is that when I am sharing my experiences as a Catholic with a Protestant, it never occurs to me to regard them as anything else but a fellow Christian. Again, let me point out that I have some wonderful friendships with Protestants who don’t think this way, but I have run into a few, more and more recently, who have regarded me as being equal to a Roman pagan of the 1st century. Oftentimes in these situations, I feel as though I am being talked down to, as if I were a fourth grader.

I bring up this personal story in order to put this in context with the ESV. Is there a connection with those who primarily use the ESV and anti-Catholicism? I don't know to be honest, but it certainly makes me think about whether or not to use the ESV.

ESV vs. NRSV

So, I have been dabbling a bit into my new ESV with Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals) for the past few days. Overall, I have liked what I have read so far. It is definitely an improvement over the old RSV, particularly in its elimination of archaic English and its modest use of inclusive language.

While I am not a Bible translation scholar, nor do I pretend to be one on the Internet, I thought I might share some of my thoughts about the ESV translation, particularly in comparison to the NRSV.

I have jotted down some of my thoughts over the past few days, so this will not be a systematic analysis of the ESV, but simply some of my initial, random thoughts coming from my Catholic perspective.

**While I think the ESV is more readable than the RSV, I still find the NRSV to have better literary qualities. I have been reading through the prophets lately, mostly due to class assignments, and the NRSV just seems to read better. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the NRSV is not as "literal" as the ESV. I am also not beholden to the KJV style, which the NRSV begins to break away from. I must say, however, that there is an exception, which is that I much prefer the ESV's use of "woe" to the NRSV's "Ah" or "alas" particularly in Isaiah 5.

**Some of the interesting word choices in the two translations stand out to me. Here is a small list:

ESV vs. NRSV

1) Overseers vs. Bishops (I Tim/Titus)

2) Propitiation vs. sacrifice of atonement (Rm 3:25)

3) Hell vs. Hades (Matt 16:18)

4) Born again vs. Born from Above (Jn 3:3)

5) Brothers vs. Brothers and Sisters

6) Son of Man vs. O Mortal/Human Beings (OT/Heb 2)

7) "a" vs. "the" (1 Tm 3:15)

8) grasped vs. exploited (Phi. 2:6)

9) made himself nothing vs. emptied himself (Phi. 2:7)

10) Virgin vs. young woman (Is. 7:14)

11) Behold vs. Look or See

12) husband of one wife vs. married once (Titus 1:6)

It is interesting to not that in cases #2,3,4 the ESV agrees with the old Douay-Rheims. I also prefer the ESV in #'s 6, 10, 11, 12. However, there are some places, principly #'s 1, 5, 7, 8, and 9 that I prefer the NRSV translation.

** I am still not sure if I like using a translation that didn't have at least one Catholic scholar on the translation team. Is that wrong of me to think that way? While I am not always 100% in agreement with the NRSV's translation philosophy, I do feel somewhat better about the fact that there were Catholic scholars on the translation team.

**While I am glad that there is an ESV w/ Apocrypha (Deuterocanonicals), it does bug me that the main reason it is relegated to the back of the book is to affirm those books "uncanonicity". I appreciate the honesty of Dr. deSilva when he said on this blog: "Perhaps Luther's solution of separating them out and placing them in between the testaments (a location that makes far better sense historically) was not a sufficient statement regarding their (non-) canonicity." So there you have it. I am glad that the folks at Cambridge, who produced my beautiful NRSV w/ Apocrypha, refers to those books as "The Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament".

More thoughts to come over the next few weeks.