Saturday, February 10, 2018

The ESV-CE is Now

Thank you to James for this.

Bengaluru, Feb 10: The launch of ESV-CE (English Standard Version – Catholic Edition) Bible took place on February 4 as Oswald Cardinal Gracias, archbishop of Bombay, and president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) officially released the first copy of the first edition.
Earlier, he had granted the ESV-CE the mandatory imprimatur on behalf of the CCBI (an official approval issued by the Roman Catholic Church which permits the printing of an ecclesiastical or religious book). The Pope Paul VI auditorium of the St. John’s National Academy of Health Sciences quivered with awe and controlled excitement as 140 Bishops from across India, CCBI office bearers and the city’s own revered Archbishop Bernard Moras, witnessed the event and got their individual copy of the new ESV–CE Bible, published by Asian Trading Corporation (ATC).

The ESV- CE Bible is an adaptation of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) Bible. The Catholic Church in India used the RSV for decades in the Liturgy. Eight scholars from across India, led by head of Scholars’ Committee Fr Dr Lucien Legrand worked on the translation process comparing it to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Nigel Fernandes, CEO of ATC, co-ordinated the project. After careful scrutiny and examination of the completed work, the CCBI Commission for Bible headed by Fr J Susaimanickam recommended the ESV-CE to the CCBI to be used for liturgical readings. This ‘essentially literal’ very first edition is recommended for public reading, preaching and private meditation, academic and devotional study. Like eminent Catholic scholar and master of ceremonies, Fr Dr Assisi Saldanha, put it, “With its commitment to literary excellence, the ESV-CE is well suited for in-depth study of the Bible.” On the occasion, two other important books were released – “The Order of Confirmation and The Order of Celebrating Marriage” – published by ATC in collaboration with CCBI Commission for Liturgy.
The celebrations were carried over to February 5, with ATC celebrating the 50th Anniversary of its Bengaluru operations, at The Grand Magrath Hotel here. Nigel Fernandes and Brenda Fernandes, CEO and Co-CEO of ATC, the couple with limitless enthusiasm thanked the dignitaries and guests which included Oswald Cardinal Gracias, Telesphore Cardinal Toppo, about 70 archbishops and bishops, Dr Lane Dennis, president and CEO and Co-CEO, Dr Dane Ortlund, executive vice-president and Bible publisher, Crossway Publishers, US, ESV-CE Scholar Committee, CCBI office bearers and executive secretaries, provincials, rectors, superiors, librarians, and Ivan Fernandes, MD of Regent Technologies Dubai, chairman of KE Global, Adrian D’Souza, president and representatives from Kanara Entrepreneurs, Peter Anil Rego, MD and other directors of Brilliant Printers, ATC Patrons and ATC Staff.
All the speakers on the occasion lauded the work of ATC and said that it is a remarkable example of the unique contribution which the laity has made to the mission of the church. They also lauded ATC’s contribution to ecumenical collaboration. Archbishop Bernard Moras commended and specially felicitated Nigel and Brenda Fernandes with a shawl and garland for the work of ATC in Bengaluru archdiocese and for reaching Christian literature to different corners of India and the globe.
In 1968, Bengaluru welcomed its first ATC bookstore in Brigade Road started by the late Fredrick Pais. (ATC founded in 1946 in Bombay), ATC was the Catholic resource centre for seminaries, convents, monasteries, religious houses, educational institutions and the laity. Today, ATC has become the most frequented Catholic bookstore in Bengaluru with 4 outlets across the city. ATC has published over two thousand titles, is one of the few bookstores to sell Catholic and protestant titles of various publishers side by side. ATC also has a great collection of books on self-help and current interest. Books published by ATC are today popular in Bookstores and Church stall across South East Asia.
ATC is the only lay organisation to publish four Bible translations in Asia – the Revised Standard Version (RSV), RSV Second Catholic Edition, the New Living Translation Catholic Edition (NLT-CE), and ESV-CE. ATC has the distinction of having Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI write a personally signed letter in April 2010 to Fr Joseph Fessio, the editor of Ignatius Press, San Francisco requesting him to grant rights to ATC to publish the Pope’s books for Asia. In addition to Pope Benedict’s books, ATC has also published the writings of Pope Francis, St Mother Teresa, Fulton Sheen, Henri Nouwen, etc. The recent bestsellers from ATC include the very popular Youcat Series. In the pipeline are the 3 volume Lectionary Chapel edition of the Missal for India and several other exciting titles.

(To purchase your copy of the English Standard Version- Catholic Edition (ESV-CE) contact ATC bookstore or call 080 2549 0444/25487444/25471444/7090100444/9036003544 or log on to www.atcbooks.in.

67 comments:

Jason Engel said...

Huh. Point of interest: They claim they took the RSV and made updates to it, NOT that they took the Crossway ESV and translated the Deuterocanonical books in the Crossway ESV style and put them in the Catholic order.

I'd like to know two things: Is this a Catholic variant of Crossway's ESV, and what's going on in India that Catholics there are so involved in taking Evangelical English translations and catholicizing them.

straykat said...

I'm surprised they rely on an English text (an Evangelical one at that). I mean, the Indian church is ancient. Going back to the Apostle Thomas, if that is to be believed.

476429 said...

It was the Crossway version. I contact Crossway last year about it and when Oxford gave up the rights to the ESV w/Apocrypha, they allowed the Indian Bishops to use that text as a base. I have no idea if they made any changes.

mike7up said...

The ESV is an update of the RSV. They are just repeating the slogan that Crossway has been using for years. It is essentially the ESV with Apocrypha adapted for us Catholics.

Llywellyn O'Brien said...

This is the Latin rite Church in India, not either of the two Eastern Catholic rites. Thus this Church has three languages, Latin, English and Hindi.

This effort to get Protestant translations approved (with the required work) is being lead by the Asia Trading Company (act) and the couple who own it who must believe there is a gap in this market, and presumably that these translations will make evangelisation easier.

mike7up said...

I’m so excited about this publication. Crossway will undoubtedly release editions in the USA. I own the ATC NLTCE editions and they are not that great in terms of quality.

476429 said...

When I contacted Crossway about this last year, they said they were already taking applications for licensing to publish it in the U.S.

Timothy said...

straykat,

Please make your point without ad hominem comments about the folks at Crossway.

straykat said...

What ad hominem? And how does it help when you delete my post?

This is clearly the teaching of Wayne Grudem (ESV's general editor) in his Systematic Theology and that of "Complementarianism" in general. And it's rife in the expanded notes of the ESV study bible. Go look it up. It's a Google Search away: The doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son, which is being debated fiercely now among Protestants.. especially confessional/Reformed ones that were the very conservatives the ESV was hoping to win over.

Also, I shouldn't have to defend myself on a Catholic site (of all things) when I call it Arianism. Calling a member of the trinity as "less than" another aspect of the Trinity has been declared a heresy for millenia. Calling it heretical is not ad hominem when the argument has been hashed out already. I simply defer to the Church's authority. I'm not here to give a history lesson.

Timothy said...

Grudem is not a Catholic thus, by definition, is not a heretic. Move on. I will not allow this post to go down this road. Discuss the translation.

Timothy said...

Let me also say that I have been doing this blog for ten years. I have seen countless threads go downhill fast because of certain comments. Again, I am not going to let that happen. In addition, I know a number of people who read this blog are Protestant and I want them to feel welcome. A few of them are even good friends of mine. Let’s move on.

straykat said...

Grudem is part of the Calvinist churches that are confessional. I pointed that out already.. and I pointed out that is where the fights are starting. Among the confessional churches that still care about some creeds. They all adhere to the Nicene Creed at least. Nicea was specifically formed to stop Arius. This is heresy by the standards they set for themselves. They are not Church of Fred the Televangelist, without any creeds.

And it should be taken seriously. I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish. To be glad about this? I have thousands of years of church history to rely on and be confident. Not even a Muslim (the original Arians) is going to break me with threats. So trying to appeal to kindness has even less chance. I know you mean well, but this is a sillier tactic. I almost respect the Muslim more. He doesn't hide his disgust.

I pointed out little about the translation. I even said I liked it, for the most part. It doesn't change the fact that the people controlling it are dangerous.

Timothy said...

They are not heretics. They are our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. It’s not a silly tactic, but rather how this blog operates. I take seriously the Council and it’s documents, like Lemen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio. We discuss bibles here, translations and editions. If you want to do that, please do. This isn’t the inquisition.

rolf said...

I wonder if this is going to be an Anglicanized text like the NLT-CE that came out of India? If so I will wait to see what get published for the US consumers!

Matthew Doe said...

I would like to know whether this ESV-CE is simply a reordering of the existing ESV with Apocrypha, as is the case for the NRSV-CE, or if there have been adaptations of the text itself to make it compatible with Catholic teaching, as is the case for the RSV-CE.

It seems to me that the latter is rather necessary, but this is not clear from the announcement.

(I note in passing that branch theory remains an Anglican idea incompatible with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, while the canon law definition of "heresy" applies to all baptised Christians, not just Catholic ones. Whether it is prudent and charitable to actually apply a label is a different question to whether it is formally applicable, of course.)

Timothy said...

Canon 11 of the current code (which abrogates the 1917 one) says: “Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.” Thus Protestants are not “under” canon law and also can not receive the penalties as outlines in canon law Can. 751, which says “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”. And even if they were, it would be difficult to prove that they were being “obstinate” since they were not raised in the Catholic faith and learned or were taught about any particular issue in a sufficient way thus making them “obstinate.”

Again, this is not an issue for this blog.

Matthew Doe said...

Timothy, your point concerning the scope of canon law is fair though a bit of a distraction. Canon 751 simply reflects standard definitions of heresy, apostasy and schism for its own canonical purposes, and these definitions have a wider scope and have been used by the Church accordingly throughout history.

Your point about obstinacy is important, as indeed some Baptist from the bible belt whose only exposure to Catholic teachings are Chick tracts is no "heretic". But I wonder if you realise that this is a double-edged sword... Consider somebody like N.T. Wright, whom you hold in high regard. If his denial/doubt of some Catholic doctrines (e.g., concerning the BVM or closed communion) is not "obstinate", then this word simply has lost all meaning.

Anyway, you are the master of what may become an issue for your blog. However, I do not think that something as the CE-ing of the ESV, which in part was a Protestant-ing of the RSV (as opposed to the NRSV), can be discussed fairly if one if forced to gloss over denominational differences.

Timothy said...

Matthew,

Examining denominational differences, vis-a-vis bible translation is perfectly legit. We’ve done that here for ten years. Starting the conversation by calling the editors of the ESV “heretics” is not. I know you see the difference. (Matthew, I am referring to another comment or and not you, just to be clear.)

Anonymous said...

Excuse my ignorance. Is there a good reason to read the ESV over the RSV-CE, RSV2ndCE, or the NSRV? I've always discounted it as the evangelical equivalent of, say, the RSV2dCE for Catholics. In other words, in general why bother with it? - AJA

Biblical Catholic said...

"Excuse my ignorance. Is there a good reason to read the ESV over the RSV-CE, RSV2ndCE, or the NSRV?"

Excellent question! There are actually many reasons, but the most important one is accuracy.

The RSV was published after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but before the majority of them were translated, and definitely before scholars could fully incorporate the findings into their understanding of the Old Testament text. In the Dead Sea Scrolls was at least a partial manuscript of every single book of the Hebrew Bible except for the book of Esther. And it also contains Hebrew copies of several books of the Deuterocanon that were previously only available in Greek, including the book of Tobit, the book of Sirach and the additions to Daniel that were previously only available in Greek. In addition to that, there are also several commentaries on the Hebrew Bible. These manuscripts shed significant light on what the original text of the Old Testament said and on how the Jews of the time interpreted the text. So, there are now literally hundreds of places in the Old Testament where it is commonly believed that the Masoretic Text which was the basis of the RSV OT is probably wrong, and the text has been modified in those places to fit with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In addition, while there have not been advances nearly as significant, there has indeed been an increase in understanding of the Biblical languages, both Hebrew and Greek. In the 1952 RSV OT, there are thousands of places where the notation can be found in the margins 'meaning of Hebrew uncertain', which is used to indicate where the Masoretic text was so unclear that they were forced to essentially make something up (a process called by the technical term 'conjectural emendation'), and while this still happens even in the NRSV, it happens significantly less often because scholars now believe that in many places where the meaning of the Hebrew was unclear in 1952 and much clearer today. The same has happened to the Greek in the New Testament, albeit less dramatically than the Hebrew.

A couple of examples of this should suffice.

in Psalm 118:14, the RSV reads 'the lord is my strength and my song.' Later scholarship has convinced most scholars that this translation was wrong, which is why the NRSV (and most modern translations including the NIV, NABRE, ISV, and NET) read 'the Lord is my strength and my might.' (or some variation of this phrase). This is a pretty significant difference. Surprisingly, the ESV at this verse sticks with the RSV rendition, which is a point against the ESV and in favor of the NRSV.

in the NT, one really big change is in Matthew 2:2, which in the RSV reads "“Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East, and have come to worship him.”

However, thanks to word studies done since 1952, virtually all scholars agree that this translation is incorrect. So most translations read some variation of 'we have seen his star at its rising.' (see the ESV, NRSV, NABRE, NIV, NET).

There have also been significant advances in textual criticism of the NT since 1952 in the abandoning of the 'western non-interpolation' theory of Westcott and Hort. (I'm not going to explain this, look it up in Wikipedia). Because of this, the NT of the NABRE, NIV, ESV, NRSV, NASB and all modern translations is nearly 10% longer than the 1946 RSV NT. The diffences is so stark, that the RSV issued a revised New Testament in 1971 to reflect the change.

I could go on, but these are some of the biggest reasons.

Michael Demers said...

The ESV was done by evangelical scholars. The ESVCE, RSVCE2 and the NRSVCE include books many Protestants don't read or consider canonical.

Bob said...

Great reply Biblical Catholic. That should be written on a warning sticker and affixed to pre-1980 bibles.

Timothy, you've referenced this in posts before, but doesn't the ESV rely on the Masoretic Text quite heavily compared to Catholic translations and ecumenical ones (NRSV, NEB, REB, etc, etc)?

I seem to remember that the ESV's reputation was that it was a rather literal translation of the MT with "virgin" tossed into Isaiah 7:14.

Of course we all know that the internet is a terrible place, and the reputation of bible translations usually is strange and distant from the actual experience of reading them.

Timothy said...

Bob, yes the editors, I believe in the preface, state that they relied more on the MT, compared to the LXX or DSS. They did not utilize the DSS nearly as much as the NRSV.

Biblical Catholic said...

To be honest, even though I'm a fan of the ESV, I've always been suspicious of the claim that it is a new 'translation.' I am suspicious for a couple of reasons.


The first reason is that work on it began in 1999, and yet it was published in 2001. If you're really translating the entire Bible from scratch, I think it will take a wee bit longer than about 2 1/2 years. When I was in graduate school working on my Ph.D., I translated a textbook in Algebraic Geometry from French into English. This take took me nearly 2 years, and that is despite the fact that a math textbook is a book with a rather limited vocabulary, most of the words are technical terms whose meaning is known without a doubt and French is a modern language. So, I can't help but think that if you're translating the Bible, a book written in ancient languages, with a very broad vocabulary, with many of the words being rather obscure that no one alive really knows what they mean, that it will take quite a bit longer than it took me to translate that textbook.

The other reason I'm suspicious is that, according to those who have done the comparison, the text of the ESV is somewhere between 94% and 97% identical to the 1971 RSV. Could they have re-translated everything from scratch and by pure accident had wound up with a text that is more than 90% the same as the RSV? I rather doubt it.

I strongly suspect that all they really did is go through the RSV, find all the passages they didn't like, looked at the original languages, and reworded them to fit with their theology and to eliminate words that they believed to be archaic, such as 'unto'. I'm really skeptical of the claim that it really is a brand new translation.

Jonny said...

I wonder if this CE is based on the ESV 2007, 2011, or the controversial 2016 edition. Not that is matters too much, I am just curious. What I really want to see is the extent and nature of the changes made. I am assuming it has been revised according to the latest Biblical scholarship, but has it also been corrected according traditional Catholic interpretation? Liturgiam Authenticam dictates that the Latin version be taken into consideration as far as the original language allows. Hence, the infamous passage Isaiah 7:14 can be interpreted "virgin" IN THAT CONTEXT, as both Jewish and Christian translators have done since the beginning. (Yes I know there is another Hebrew word that explicitly means "virgin.")

The thing I like about the ESV is that it has a lot of language notes, and alternate translations therein. It is a good secondary reference for me since it is supposed to be a more literal rendering in places where the RSV had glossed over the ASV in favor of a simpler reading. I imagine the translators referenced the KJV and ASV along with the critical editions and ancient versions when they revised the 1971 RSV in the first place. I could be wrong about that, but the changes do seem to echo back to the earlier versions.

I have a couple other questions about this edition for those considering ordering a copy with a heavy shipping cost. Do these ATC Bibles have sewn bindings? Are there cross-references? And will Tim be receiving a review copy any time soon? ;)

Also, a note for those concerned about the theological stance of the original translators of the ESV. The Bible in question is not technically the ESV. It should be judged on its own merits. Also, being an official Catholic edition with an Imprimatur, it is a lot less subject to the tinkeritus that has happened with the original. I look forward to seeing a copy of this and having a good discussion on this blog about the translation itself apart from its origin. Honestly, the KJV has probably had an influence on every translation that has proceeded it. Have you ever noticed how similar the NAB and the RSV are? Even Bishop Challoner used the KJV to help him improve the English of the DR. I hope that an ESV-CE will give all Christians more common ground to love our Lord and grow closer together! If that sounds silly to anyone just remember it is our Lord's will that we all be one, so yeah, we got that going for us! ;)

Matthew Doe said...

I noted that the advertised price for this bible is ridiculously low - less than £4 for a hardback and apparently no shipping fee. So I thought, what the heck, let's just order one...

FYI, below find an email I just sent concerning that. I will keep you posted on what happens next.

"Hi,

I was trying to order an ESV-CE from you (order number ********). First I tried to pay via PayPal. I note that this is not in fact possible, at least from the UK. Whether one uses PayPal directly, or as credit card merchant, PayPal does not accept charges in Indian Rupees. Basically, the transaction gets blocked once it gets transferred to PayPal.

Next I tried to use the direct bank transfer. However, the final order screen does not actually reveal an account to pay to, and I could not find that info elsewhere on your website (I note that the "Payment" link on top does not seem to do anything).

Perhaps this necessary information will be sent to me by a person at some point? I have not received an automated email so far. I note in passing that your contact form on the website also produced an error, hence this email.

Best,
..."

Anonymous said...

What I want to know is does it have notes???

vladimir998

Anonymous said...

Okay, not much:

"The footnotes indicate significant alternative readings and occasionally provide an explanation for technical terms or for a difficult reading in the text."

I bet then that it's not much different than the Oxford that I already have which has few notes or none.

vladimir998

Jerry Mc Kenna said...

Is there any reason why ATC has so many different translations? Most religious publishers seem to center on one or two?

Jonny said...

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond:

Erudite Blogospherian: Welcome, Catechumen, to the Catholic Church in the USA! Please allow me to be your guide. First, you will need to get your Catholic Bible from India, then the Breviary you want is from a company in Africa, and of course you will want the best catechism which is obviously the edition available in the U.K. or Australia.

Catechumen: Thank you! But I already got everything I need from St. Joseph.

Blogoshperian: I - you already... gee whiz you just got money burning a hole in your pocket! Haha, just kidding. You know, for a modest fee you can get those books rebound in the premium animal hide of your choice! ;) ;)

Catechumen: Uh... I’m vegan...

Blogospherian: *chokes on meatball*

Steve Molitor said...

"Liturgiam Authenticam dictates that the Latin version be taken into consideration as far as the original language allows. Hence, the infamous passage Isaiah 7:14 can be interpreted "virgin" IN THAT CONTEXT, as both Jewish and Christian translators have done since the beginning."

Jonny, that's true. But my understanding is that the ESV-CE does not have to conform to Liturgiam Authenticam to get an imprimatur, only if it were to be used in the liturgy. Although if it (or the parts of it used in the liturgy) were to be revised according to LA, that would be exciting! I'm guessing that's not the case for now.

Although in the particular case you mention, the ESV *does* use virgin in Isaiah 7:14, while the NABRE does not. (Personally this verse is not something I get worked up about one way or the other though.)

Anyway I'm excited! I love the 1971 RSV, but appreciate that neither it nor the RSV-2CE is quite as accurate as it could be, for the reasons BC mentions. I see the ESV as an updated RSV, not a new translation, which is great because that's exactly what the RSV needed. Plus, it's a good thing for ecumenical reasons.

I'm going to get a copy as soon as it is practical to do so. I do hope they work that out!

Michael Demers said...

Thinking about what Biblical Catholic said somewhere, it may be better to just go with the NRSV than to rely on the ESVCE which is basically an updated version of the 1971 RSV.

476429 said...

Just got this info from Crossway. Looks like it's in the hands of ATC, the publishers in India, at this point.

Crossway had told me from the beginning that they personally would not be publishing any editions. Evangelical Bible said the same. However, I know last year that Crossway was preparing to accept applications for companies who wanted to create U.S. editions. I guess they still have some things to work out.

From Crossway's customer service department:

<< [The ESV-CE] was published last week. Crossway does not plan on making that version available in the US currently. I am not sure if it will become available through other channels.

I also haven't been given any information on whether any changes were made in order to receive the imprimatur.

At this point, as it isn't one of our products, we don't have that much info available although I believe we will be getting some more detail information on it shortly. >>

Here's what the rep from Crossway's licensing department told me in July 2017:

<< While we have not begun to seek licensees for [the ESV-CE], that time will likely come in a matter of months. >>

I have contacted the licensing department to see if they have any additional info the customer service department does not have.

Jim said...

I inquired of Crossway as to when/if a US ESV-CE would be made available; below is the reply I received on 2/12/18:

Thank you for contacting us. We do not have any set plans for an edition such as this in the US. However, your feedback has been heeded and we will consider it for future projects.

Have a blessed day.

In Christ,

Eddie LaRow

Customer Service Representative

Michael Demers said...

I get the feeling that Crossway is missing a golden opportunity to sell the ESVCE here in the U.S.

476429 said...

Just heard back from Crossway's licensing department. They said they will be accepting licensing application in the near future. So it does appear it will be published in the U.S.

Christopher Buckley said...

I'm just glad that I can actually pick up a Gideons Bible again as a traveling Catholic and trust that the translation is at least related to something approved for Catholic readership.

;-)

More and more, the Hotel rooms I stay in tend to have ESV Gideon Bibles instead of the NKJV.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

This is to several people:

Straycat - You worry too much. The great Origen cites the gnostic Heracleon in his Commentary on John. As one father (Origen?) said, we are to take from the Egyptians their treasures for our own use.

Tim and Straycat - AS to who and what is a heretic, it depends on your definition. Historically, Straycat is correct. As in the contemporary usage, which is juridicially based (Code of Canon law), Tim is correct. The simple fact is, Straycat, is that Tim does not want this string to devolve into name calling. Tim has that happen in the past. In the end, it is his blog, and he makes the rules.

Thank you for your patience and blog, Tim! Keep it up!

Biblical Catholic - your comment in which you state "The RSV was published . . ." is a good one, However, the same could be said of the use of patristic sources as another reason for the change. Origen and Jerome provide a lot of information regarding the meaning of words, variant texts, and so on that was not widely available 30-40 years ago. We now have access to Didymus the Blind and Ephrem of Edessa. Today, we even know that there were difference in the Septuagint between Alexandria and Antioch. There is also a greater awareness that the Syriac Peshitta preserves another variant. So, the over reliance on the Masoretic text is being corrected. Thanks for your comments, BC!

I look forward to the new ESV-CE. But of course, by "apocrypha" they usually mean only Roman Catholic apocrypha, not Orthodox-Byzantine/Greek Catholic Apocrypha - we use the Prayer of Manasses liturgically during Lent.

To all, Funny but in our Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Ruthenian Byzantine Churches we are still using the 1970 NAB. It gives us a connection with our childhood in the 1970s and 80's, but when you attend a Roman Church the difference can be jarring at times. As time goes by, I am sure more of its flaw will be exposed, but I will tell you, the NAB is very pleasant to chant.

Reminder - to all Byzantine-Greek Catholics - It is the time to say the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete!

Timothy said...

Easy to get Church approval in India?

Timothy said...

Great to see praise for the (old) NAB 😀

Theophrastus said...

I probably missed something with all the charges of heresy back and forth, but I want to ask a question about the published edition.

Other than using the Catholic canon (and splicing Daniel and Esther with their additions), does this edition have any editorial changes to the Oxford ESV + Apocrypha? Does it contain (a) additional notes or (b) changes to the texts published in the Oxford edition?

In other words, is this edition (in editorial content)
* more like the RSV-CE (which contains additional notes and changes to the base RSV translation ) or
* more like the NRSV-CE (which keeps the base NRSV translation and only adjusts the canon and splices Daniel and Esther with their additions)?

Theophrastus said...

One quick further note -- I note that the price for the hardcover ESV-CE is 350 rupees, which is currently equal to US$ 5.45.

Anonymous said...

WARNING! If you try to pay by PayPal, it comes up as 350 DOLLARS, not Rupees. Now that's a price hike! Don't think there's any way to change it.

Matthew Doe said...

ATC have slapped a shipping charge on their latest quote to me. Actual price now, quoted to me in US$ by email:

1 Holy Bible-ESV(catholic Edition)hardbound 1 $ 5.65
Sub- total in US $ : $ 22.60
Shipping Charges in US $ : $28.25
Payment method: Direct Bank Transfer

Yes, I know that sub-total and shipping charges are interchanged, the above is a copy and paste of what I received (including this error). This is shipping to the UK, but I assume to the USA it would be similar. So total costs would be around $30.

Not sure I'm going to buy at this price to be honest... and they still have not provided their bank details!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps they'll sell the ESV-Catholic Edition through Amazon as a "used" item.

I'll check. It can't hurt to ask. They would make money doing it!

Anonymous Catholic Bible Collector

Jim said...

I received a reply from ATC Books India as to the total cost of shipping an ESV-CE (hardcover) to the US:

Holy Bible-ESV(Catholic edition) $5.65
Shipping Charges in US Dollars: $ 32.25
Total in US Dollars : $ 37.90

Biblical Catholic said...

$40 is pretty expensive for a Bible that I have already purchased more than once, especially since if it published in the US in an e-book edition it will probably be free, just like the regular ESV e-book is.

Jonny said...

I officially have a copy on order. It cost $5 to transfer the money to their account via Western Union. I’ll be the first kid on my block to get one!

Jim said...

I’ve received another email from ATC Books which is rather interesting:

Thank you for your e-mail. As of now, we do not have rights to sell in the US. We are trying to work out an arrangement with Crossway to solve this and will revert to you shortly.

I apologise for the delay.

Nigel.

Nigel Fernandes
Asian Trading Corporation
P. O. Box 8444
58, 2nd Cross, Da Costa Layout
St. Mary's Town
Bangalore - 560 084
India

476429 said...

Here's the response I got from the publisher, ATC, as to whether there were any changes made to the ESV and if/when it would be available in the U.S. It is also from Nigel Fernandes:

<< Yes, there were some changes made to create the Cathoic Edition.

As of now, we do not have Rights to sell in the US. We are trying to work out an arrangement with Crossway to solve this and will revert to you shortly. Meanwhile we are also planning on finalising with a publisher to publish it in the US. >>

476429 said...

How much was shipping to the U.S.?

476429 said...

The Eternal Subordination of the Son (ESS) is primarily based on one word, "authority". I'm not going to post the original article with the accusations because it is fallacious and I will not spread misinformation.

The big problem is the exact same word is used the exact same way in the exact same verse in the following translations:

RSV, RSV-2CE, ESV, MEV, NKJV, NIV11, NIRV, Weymouth, Twentieth Century NT, and Common Edition NT.

If the use of that word in that verse means it promotes ESS, then the RSV-2CE is in the same boat.

The suggestion that the ESV has gone out on a limb and done something no other translation has done is ridiculous. It's the same as the RSV. If someone wants to pin ESS on something, they can start with the RSV translators. The "authority" translation is used in Protestant and Catholic Bibles. It is used in literal and dynamic Bibles. It is used across denominations. The suggestion that the ESV has somehow created something new which amounts to heresy is laughable.

Many translations use "authority". You would have to go through the Bible and find all of the verses that touch on this issue before you could attempt to come up with a pattern that supports a particular doctrine.

It's funny because if I read that verse in ten different translations, the doctrinal point they are trying to distinguish would not even occur to me.

Just for the record, the RSV has the imprimatur. The Catholic Church has a thoroughly traditional understanding of the Trinity. That's just one of the reasons I think some bloggers or podcasters are people looking for problems where none exist.

I have only seen blog posts relating this issue to the ESV. That tells me a lot.

Why are they not relating ESS to the RSV, RSV-2CE, ESV, MEV, NKJV, NIV11, NIRV, Weymouth, Twentieth Century NT, or Common Edition NT?

Why did the blog post originally bringing this false controversy to light simply dismiss those other translations out of hand? Why did the podcast on this issue focus on the ESV? Why aren't they focusing on the RSV where both the ESV and RSV-2CE (Catholic) got the rendering? Why is it being tied almost exclusively to the ESV?

This is not a theological issue. Haters gonna hate. One would hope and expect Christians to be above this type of thing. But one would be wrong.

Jonny said...

$5.65 book + $32.25 shipping

$37.90 total

James McColgan said...

https://youtu.be/LICOMIpIs1U

Timothy said...

Thanks for sharing this!

Bob said...

About the short length of time changing the RSV to the ESV: I was just flipping through "New Light and Truth", a slim book that tells the story of the making of the Revised English Bible. (Imagine Knox's "On Englishing the Bible" written by a group of boring people in a boring committee.)


They began revising the NEB in late 1973. The REB was published in 1989. That is about 15 years. They did a much more thorough revision of their source text than the ESV people did, though, which could explain the large difference in timelines. Or perhaps the ESV translators basically already knew what they wanted the translation to look like, whereas the REB folks were a bit more exploratory in their methods.

(Or just as likely, large committees work very slowly.)

Love the REB. Strange that its a translation that had Catholic involvement from the very start and it never received an imprimatur that I know of. Great translation though. Its my preferred way to consume scripture outside the liturgy and study.

Anonymous said...

I've ordered one, and had to send a bank transfer on Friday which was a pain, and they've still not replied to acknowledge my money being sent, despite me emailing them twice for confirmation, since the money has left my account. It better not fall through.

Anonymous said...

Is there any other store, shop, company who sells the same bible beside the ATC.in website .

Is there any other option at all to get it ,besides going through that website ?

Anonymous said...

Have they responded

Anonymous said...

They did on Monday to say the banks were closed and they'd inform me once they were open and they could check. It's now Thursday, I've emailed twice again and had no response. What an irritating and archaic system! Has anyone successfully acquired one yet?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone succeeded in acquiring a copy?

Jonny said...

Coming from India to the US will probably take a few weeks. As soon as I get mine I will send Tim some pictures to post on the blog if he wants to.

Timothy said...

Thank you, sir!

Anonymous said...

Yes irritating , I have sent some emails no reply, did an online order but where are direct debit details and what was shipping price Difficult just difficult .
No replies.

Russ said...

I tried to order it, but payment from Japan proved to be to big an obstacle. They no longer accept Paypal, Western Union will not send dollars to India, only rupees, and my bank charges over 50 dollars for a bank transfer. I'm looking forward to the photos and reviews of those who can actually order one.

Anonymous said...

Had an email today informing me that my payment has received and my bible will be posted soon. I'm in the UK so if I get it before I see any other review here I'll send photos and a write-up.

Timothy said...

That would be great. Thank you!