The Curious Case of the ESV-Catholic Edition

[Reader Antonius]

The English Standard Version-Catholic Edition (ESV-CE) of the Holy Bible has now made its debut in the United States thanks to the Augustine Institute. Not surprisingly, it has been published under the title: "The Augustine Bible." As the translation's name suggests, the ESV-CE is a Catholic Bible based on the Protestant English Standard Version (ESV). Originally published by Crossway (a largely Calvinist Evangelical organization), the ESV has become the "go-to" translation for many Evangelicals and conservative Protestants. Based on the 1971 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the ESV is an updated translation that seeks to give a "word-for-word" English Bible rooted in the great King James-Tyndale tradition. Now that it is in the form of a Catholic Bible containing the inspired deuterocanonical books, English-speaking Catholics in the US have a new version for reading and study.

How well the ESV-CE will fare among Catholics is another question. This is a particularly interesting question in light of the current Bible translations on the market. Unlike its closest "competitors," the RSV-CE and RSV-2CE, the ESV-CE by contrast utilizes newer manuscript evidence; notably from the Dead Sea Scrolls. While it is supposedly extremely close to the 1971 RSV, the changes it makes are significant. This is especially the case in Old Testament prophecies that are revealed in the New Testament. Also, the language of the RSV (which can be dated) was updated to modern English. The ESV-CE is thus a modern Bible translation using better textual sources in its creation than the original RSV had access to (and that the RSV-2CE relies upon).

Moreover, the ESV-CE has a lot going for it. While it is currently only available in fine paperback, it could easily be published in more premium editions. Its language, as mentioned, is dignified but modern, and it is accurately and closely translated to the originals using the new manuscript evidence. As I understand it, it is also being considered for use in the Roman liturgy in Britain and India. It may be a "baby Bible" in the English Catholic scene, but it could easily grow into a giant.

Personally, I am a bit wary of the ESV-CE because of its translation origin and its stated dependency on the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. The RSV-2CE, for example, while relying on older manuscripts, uses far more of the Septuagint and Vulgate readings; something that I think enriches the translation and makes it more "Catholic." That said, the ESV-CE does clearly stand in the Tyndale-King James-Revised Standard Version (RSV) stream. What excites me though about the ESV-CE is that it is rooted in more recent Biblical scholarship and manuscripts. For all the many excellent points of (again, for example) the RSV-2CE, it relies on much older manuscript evidence. This does not make it a bad translation per se, but it does give the ESV-CE a certain edge. Further points in the ESV-CE's favor are the dignified language in the King James-Tyndale tradition (a plus for me, given that I grew up with the old King James Version), formal equivalence translation, and modern language.

There is also the tantalizing possibility of the ESV-CE providing a bridge to another "Common Bible" (as the Oxford Annotated RSV with the "Apocrypha" largely did). In the case of the ESV, this possibility is most especially present with Evangelicals and others. The ESV is highly trusted by many conservative Protestants (including Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, and Baptists), and so the ESV-CE provides a common translation basis for ecumenical and apologetics discussions. The NRSV and the NABRE simply cannot provide this possibility due to overuse of inclusive language and denominational translation suspicions.

For me, at least, the prospect of reading a Bible rooted in the King James-Revised Standard tradition, widely accepted by my Protestant brothers and sisters, and using new manuscript evidence is compelling. Depending on how it reads and the way that the Church accepts it in the coming years, I may very well become a devotee of this particular Bible translation. I'm looking forward to seeing what new editions are printed in the future, as well as how this translation is received by both clergy and the faithful.

Last but not least, the ESV-CE, importantly so, includes the nihil obstat and imprimatur, and the approval of the Indian Bishops' Conference. It was reviewed by a team of Catholic biblical scholars and was edited to conform with Liturgiam Authenticam. Good points for a Catholic Bible.

Anyway, just some thoughts on the newest Catholic Bible translation out there.

St. Jerome, pray for us.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

I'll be really looking forward to reading it. Although I have no problems with dated language, I am loving more and more the ESV and will really appreciate an ESV-CE!

 

[Markie Boy]

I use the RSV2-CE - but probably like the ESV better. Now if we can get them to properly dispose of all the NAB's in use in the Church and OCP Missal-etts we'd have something to work with!

 

[Lady Bug]

I read Douay-Rheims 99% of the time and it actually feels so natural for me to read it, the prose just clicks with me, but I view it as literary, not conversational. However I do cheat once in awhile with the RSVCE if I can't understand something in the Douay but that has become less often. But I can use a dictionary (especially an app dictionary) to look up a word in the Douay and it tends to solve the problem.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I read Douay-Rheims 99% of the time and it actually feels so natural for me to read it, the prose just clicks with me, but I view it as literary, not conversational. However I do cheat once in awhile with the RSVCE if I can't understand something in the Douay but that has become less often. But I can use a dictionary (especially an app dictionary) to look up a word in the Douay and it tends to solve the problem.

The Douay (Challoner revision) had a good basis in being a translation of the Vulgate, which was more accurate than the manuscripts available for the Protestant Bibles. But the advances in manuscripts make a newer translation like the RSVCE better for accuracy. And the ESVCE should be better than the RSV in that regard. Douay is still good, and if you like it run with it.

 

[Reader Antonius]

I'll be really looking forward to reading it. Although I have no problems with dated language, I am loving more and more the ESV and will really appreciate an ESV-CE!

Agreed. I've grown to really appreciate the ESV over time. When it first came out, was I still an Evangelical Protestant, but I never really got into it until very recently. Oddly, the flavor of faith of an organization like Crossway would have probably been my kind of Christianity had I not rejoined the Church. And I'd probably have become a big ESV user too.

 

[Reader Antonius]

The Douay (Challoner revision) had a good basis in being a translation of the Vulgate, which was more accurate than the manuscripts available for the Protestant Bibles. But the advances in manuscripts make a newer translation like the RSVCE better for accuracy. And the ESVCE should be better than the RSV in that regard. Douay is still good, and if you like it run with it.

Good points. I've never been a votary of the Douay-Rheims personally, but I can appreciate its role as a kind of counterpart to the KJV among American Catholics. I waver in my use of the DRB because I don't like translations of translations...but the DRB is a translation of St. Jerome's Vulgate. St. Jerome had access to manuscripts now long lost to history, which is pretty cool.

 

[Markie Boy]

The Vulgate and Douay have some bad flaws in translation - like in Genesis 3:15 it makes it sound like Mary will crush Satan's head, which I think lead to some wrong direction in thought of Mary's role.

Better, later translations clearly state it's the woman's seed - Jesus - that would crush Satan's head.

I think some of the misguided Marian perspective comes from this.

 

[Reader Antonius]

The Vulgate and Douay have some bad flaws in translation - like in Genesis 3:15 it makes it sound like Mary will crush Satan's head, which I think lead to some wrong direction in thought of Mary's role.

Better, later translations clearly state it's the woman's seed - Jesus - that would crush Satan's head.

I think some of the misguided Marian perspective comes from this.

It cannot be denied that there are significant influences from the Vulgate on Western Catholic theology and Mariology, including from erroneous translations (which are remarkably few). At the same time, the idea that the Theotokos shares in some way in the victory over the serpent is ancient and pre-exists the Vulgate and even older Latin translations prior to the Vulgate itself (cf. St. Irenaeus; St. Justin Martyr; etc.). This is one reason that the Old Itala and Vulgate translation's perspective was accepted as valid in the first place.

 

[Reader Antonius]

Came across this excellent review of The Augustine Bible (ESV-CE). Worth a watch for those interested in the new version.

 

[Julian of Norwich]

That was really good and helpful esp. with the comparisons to the ESV and the RSV-CE in various passages. I don't remember mention of the font point size in the ad for the Augustine Bible, so his visually giving the looks of the pages was also helpful (my eyes seem to need a large font size now and contrast is important also).

 

[Reader Antonius]

That was really good and helpful esp. with the comparisons to the ESV and the RSV-CE in various passages. I don't remember mention of the font point size in the ad for the Augustine Bible, so his visually giving the looks of the pages was also helpful (my eyes seem to need a large font size now and contrast is important also).

He is an excellent reviewer and his page on Youtube has a variety of really helpful videos comparing translations and such (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and so on). Plus, his voice is remarkably soothing and enjoyable to hear.

 

[chevyontheriver]

He is an excellent reviewer and his page on Youtube has a variety of really helpful videos comparing translations and such (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and so on). Plus, his voice is remarkably soothing and enjoyable to hear.

I now have an ESV curtosy of a Methodist chaplain at a hospital where I have been laid up for a few days. I find that it's a Gideons version that has it's own small differences with the base ESV. So far so good. It would be good to know the differences.

 

[Tara Blount]

The Douay (Challoner revision) had a good basis the ESVCE should be better than the RSV in that regard. Douay is still good, and if you like it run with it.

The reason that I hesitate with a "catholic edition" of the ESV is that the original translation was made by and intended for evangelical protestants as a response to the ecumenical NRSV. The NRSV was a completely new translation intended for all denominations whereas the ESV was/is intended for evangelical protestants. And it is quite popular among protestants. Augustine says they changed 60,000 words or about 6% of the content. Without substantive changes (and no American or Canadian imprimatur), I can't see a reason to pick it up. It's an evangelical translation made as a counterpoint to the NRSV. There is already a catholic version of the NRSV and I feel it's just too soon to throw out the NRSV for a clearly reactionary translation put together in two years.

I do not agree that the NRSV-CE needs to be thrown out to suit a set of pet beliefs about gender.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The reason that I hesitate with a "catholic edition" of the ESV is that the original translation was made by and intended for evangelical protestants as a response to the ecumenical NRSV. The NRSV was a completely new translation intended for all denominations whereas the ESV was/is intended for evangelical protestants. And it is quite popular among protestants.

You are right that it had zilch Catholic contribution. What it does have is the result of much more recent scholarship than the RSV and NAB. I imagine there has been even some scholarship advance from even the NRSV. The advance in scholarship is a definite good thing. The lack of Catholic scholarship can't be good though. I saw it in the Pastoral Letters where a bishop is called an 'overseer'. Technically accurate but misleading.

Having read the Gideon's version of the ESV (hey, it was free) I find it to be easy to read. Is it a good Catholic version? Not sure. I want to know more.

Augustine says they changed 60,000 words or about 6% of the content. Without substantive changes (and no American or Canadian imprimatur), I can't see a reason to pick it up. It's an evangelical translation made as a counterpoint to the NRSV. There is already a catholic version of the NRSV and I feel it's just too soon to throw out the NRSV for a clearly reactionary translation put together in two years.

The bishops of India approved it. And that was the open door for this version. Did the 60,000 changes happen before the Indian bishops approved it? Or did Augustine Press further change it? Does anyone know? Had they already been using the NRSV in India?

 

[Bob Crowley]

I fail to see how a translation based on a masoretic or Septuagint translation can be regarded as more "Protestant" or "Catholic".

What the writer means is that "This is the way we've done things in the Catholic Church viz. we've tended to use the Septuagint documents as our starting point." A Protestant author might say we (English based) Protestants have always done things this way ie. depended on the Masoretic text as our starting point.

The texts are what they are.

All the rest is a dog fight about traditions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I fail to see how a translation based on a masoretic or Septuagint translation can be regarded as more "Protestant" or "Catholic".

What the writer means is that "This is the way we've done things in the Catholic Church viz. we've tended to use the Septuagint documents as our starting point." A Protestant author might say we (English based) Protestants have always done things this way ie. depended on the Masoretic text as our starting point.

The texts are what they are.

All the rest is a dog fight about traditions.

The Septuagent text is a pre-Christian text taken up by Christians. Many of the NT quotes from the OT were quotes from the LXX. We can assume that the LXX was at least a fair translation of the Hebrew pre-Christian texts.
The Masoretic text is a later text by Judaism well after the time of Christ. In some cases the MT is far less messianic than the LXX. It has been assumed that the MT is highly faithful to the Hebrew pre-Christian texts. But this turns out to be a dangerous assumption. It is the dangerous assumption of many Protestants, wanting to reject all tradition and go with the originals. But the MT text is not 'the originals' but texts filtered by an anti-Christian understanding.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have added perspective to all of this. They are much earlier than the MT.

What is needed is in disputed readings, and there are many, to follow the LXX, as that was the accepted version of the early Church, unless there is a good basis from the MT AND Dead Sea Scrolls to do otherwise. I think the Orthodox follow the Septuagent. Catholics have tended to do the same. Protestants should do the same. That does not mean writing off the MT entirely, but relegating it to the level of a supporting text, as the Dead Sea Scrolls are also supporting texts.

The LXX is the more Christian textual tradition. The MT is less so. Protestant reasons to follow the MT presumed the MT was more true to Hebrew originals. That is not guaranteed and there is reason to be suspicious of that. In the end it shouldn't be a Catholic vs Protestant issue.