It should be noted that the St. Ignatius Press RSV 2CE is a 'kissing cousin' to the evangelical ESV; they both were evolved from the RSV. With a few minimal exceptions I have found, the ESV and RSV 2CE are identical. In only one case did I discover a change made to the ESV to respond to evangelical concerns and that was the use of 'overseer' for 'bishop' in Paul's letters.
Although I didn't vote for it, I think the one that would sell the most would be an NIV-CE.
While it's true that the ESV and RSV-2CE have their base in the RSV, the RSV-2CE is much closer to their predecessor. I did a side-by-side comparison of Romans from both texts and the ESV has altered more verses to better fit evangelical teaching, as Laurence pointed out. One example: both the RSV and RSV-2CE translate Romans 5:1 as "Therefore, since we are justified by faith..." while the ESV renders Romans 5:1 "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith..." apparently changing the tense from present to past depending upon how you look at it. And there are many more examples.Despite these small variants I think the ESV is a solid translation but the RSV-2CE is just as good so I'm not sure why the desire for a Catholic edition.
I thought there was already an NASB Catholic edition (although probably not approved).
I voted for the NIV. The Psalms have already been approved, so it is arguably the furthest along at 1/73 of the way there.Come to think of it, "NIV" is probably the most ambiguous of the translations listed in the survey, since it could mean either the NIV published decades ago or the recent update to the TNIV.
"None of the above."There are enough good Catholic translations already available that I don't think any of these translations, if made "Catholic," would cause me to use it over what is already available.Michael P.
The NIV is so biased against Catholicism that you'd practically have to revise the entire thing from the ground up to make a Catholic Edition.
Interesting popularity of ESV.
RE: the KJV/NKJV votes, the old Angelic Salutation just wouldn't sound the same with "Hail Mary, highly favored".I voted for the NASB. I like its literal > readable approach, and availability in red letter format.
Given that all the Catholic Bibles either follow the Vulgate text or the Alexandrian-Critical text, it would be nice to have at least one Catholic Bible using the Byzantine Majority text.
As an aside all the above versions are available withred letter textm
The Living Bible already has a Catholic version, and it's descendant the NLT had one, as well, but not with the 2007 or 2013 updates. I think the NLT team chose not to pursue it further after they put forth the effort to produce a Catholic edition but were subsequently denied an imprimatur.Still, of the options given, I would go with the NLT precisely because they tried. What with the anti-Catholic renderings in the NIV, NASB, and HCSB, and Crossway's well-known and intense anti-Catholicism, I simply can not understand why Catholics would even bother with those translations outside of academic interest.
I would agree with Jason that the NLT deserves a chance to come up with a Catholic edition. I just hope that, since the TLB had an edition with the imprimatur, the NLT could also have one. With the debates that ensued with the first "Catholic" edition, I hope the folks at Tyndale (and maybe the bishops too) could get over them and start afresh with a properly approved NLT-CE.
The ESV is no more anti-Catholic than the RSV, and since there is already an ESV translation of the deuterocanon, producing a Catholic Edition is more complicated than just putting the books in the right order.
Post a Comment