My Bibles 1

I think it is great that the shelf that is holding these Bibles is beginning to bend.

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!

NT Wright @ Synod of Bishops in Rome

Noted Biblical scholar, and Anglican bishop, N.T. Wright attended the October Synod of Bishops in Rome. It's theme was "the Word of God". While we may not see the fruits of this Synod for some time, Bp. Wright has some reflections on what he took from the Synod.

"Three months ago I had the privilege of being the Anglican Fraternal Delegate at the Synod of Bishops in Rome. The topic was "the word of God", and it quickly became clear that it carried enormous ecumenical implications.....continue.

By the way, recently I have been trying to re-read Wright's Paul: In Fresh Perspective but have been occupied by reading for Trinity/Christology class. Hopefully I can pick it up sometime this weekend, but that will depend on how fast I can get through St. Gregory of Nazianzus' Third and Fourth Theological Orations.

Update: I spotted a talk by NT Wright on the NT Wright Page sight. It was recorded this past January at the Catholic Cathedral Church of St. Mary in the UK. While the main talk is centered on Paul, Bp. Wright does speak briefly in the beginning about his experiences at the Synod of Bishops.

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.

Lectionary Search Tool

There is now a site that allows you to search the Lectionary by Scripture passage. So, if you have a particular passage that you love, you can type it in and see when it will be read during the Liturgical year. For example, one of my favorite passages is Romans 5:8, well here are the results. Thanks to Jeff at The Cross Reference for developing this great tool!

Comments by ESV Apocrypha Translator

In the comment box from the previous post, it appears that one of the Apocrypha translators, David A deSilva (Ashland Theological Seminary), decided to add some interesting information about the publication process of the ESV w/ Apocrypha. I certainly agree that a Catholic edition of the ESV will probably never happen. There would need to be a not only a willingness to produce a Catholic edition, but it would also need to be approved by a Bishops conference, which is not always the easiest thing to do. Thanks for stopping by my humble little blog Dr. deSilva.

I was very pleased myself to get a copy of this edition in the mail.I can put to rest one question in the preceding comments: OUP did NOT make the decision to place the Apocrypha in the back. 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. I think a Catholic edition will be a long way off (perhaps scheduled for a few years after the second coming), unfortunately.

It was a privilege, however, to have been asked to work on this. We subjected the RSV to a very thorough revision, correcting it in ways that escaped the notice of the NRSV translators of the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. I know that the ESV has occasioned some serious debates on account of its inclusive language policy, and I am very sympathetic to the application of the same in the NRSV and TNIV. I think we attended well to this policy in handling the Apocryphal books, and expect, if we are not judged together with the rest of the translation, that critics from both sides will look favorably on what we have done.

But most importantly, we have put the Apocrypha within the grasp of the devotees of the ESV -- and anything that fosters knowledge of and appreciation for these texts is a project worthy of some part of my short span on this earth. :)

Kind regards,
David deSilva