Ship of Fools: RC use of the ESV

Thread: RC use of the ESV Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029339

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I subscribe to an RC women's devotional series, aimed at younger women with a modern feel. If it has a 'denomination' it feels on the evangelical and more conservative edge of Catholicism, but this is pretty slight. I was surprised to see the ESV used a lot - basically for all readings except the RC-only/Apocrypha readings. Is the ESV often used by Catholics, or have I stumbled on a strange conservative evangelical Catholic outpost?

I own the ESV Study Bible (the huge heavy one) and in the essays in the back, Catholicism is viewed quite negatively.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Many conservative RCs have viewed the NRSV update of the RSV with suspicion (in particular the use of gender-inclusive language), but an update was still needed. Ignatius Press has the RSV-2CE, but it has an unclear status and the publisher is small. The ESV seems to fit the bill.

The ESV is already available with the "Apocrypha" (Deuterocanonicals) from OUP. The only thing missing now is (1) a careful removal of any obvious "evangelical" bias in the translation, and (2) a re-ordering of the books into the Catholic order. That would give a ESV-CE, just like there is a RSV-CE.

For a while it looked like the ESV would be used for the RC lectionary. This would have meant that all the lectionary texts would have been "Catholicised", which would have been the obvious starting point for a full ESV-CE. But that fell flat in the end.

So basically the ESV is a "could have been" now in the RC world. Still, I for one own a copy...

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

That is very interesting. My original faith background was in Calvinist-leaning, Sydney-influenced conservative evangelical Anglicanism. There, and as far as I can tell elsewhere in similar circles, ESV was seen as 'purer' as opposed to the NIV which was seen as being too liberal due to gender-neutral language. Certainly the idea of a Catholic using the ESV would be seen as ridiculous at best - the ESV was seen as best because it was the 'most evangelical'.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm interested what are the bits with "obvious evangelical bias". Those bits of St Paul which can be used to support PSA? The titles of Christian ministers in the pastorals?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

There's a write-up of the various changes for the RSV-(2)CE here.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Why the preference for the archaic "Brethren" over "Brothers"? As far as I am aware the difference in meaning is purely down to archaicism of brethren. It is simply the plural of "brother" the same way "children" is the plural of child.

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I wondered about that. Is it that "brethren" is preferred to "brothers and sisters", a more archaic word being possibly less exclusive?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I subscribe to an RC women's devotional series...

What's the name of this "RC women's devotional series"?

If you tell us, we might be able to tell you about its publisher, its writers, and why it uses the ESV. We could tell you if "the ESV (is) often used by Catholics", or if you have "stumbled on a strange conservative evangelical Catholic outpost" or not or whether there is even such a thing as a "conservative evangelical Catholic outpost".

Posted by Adam. (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
whether there is even such a thing as a "conservative evangelical Catholic outpost".

Oh, there are plenty of those!

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I subscribe to an RC women's devotional series...
What's the name of this "RC women's devotional series"?

If you tell us, we might be able to tell you about its publisher, its writers, and why it uses the ESV. We could tell you if "the ESV (is) often used by Catholics", or if you have "stumbled on a strange conservative evangelical Catholic outpost" or not or whether there is even such a thing as a "conservative evangelical Catholic outpost".

Surely the latter two are answerable whether you know or not? [Confused]

Anyway it's Blessed Is She, an online devotional series.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Anyway it's Blessed Is She, an online devotional series.

Interesting, I didn't know that one. Thanks. Their website is professional and sleek. It took me quite a bit of clicking around to find some hint that they are RC though, it's certainly not obvious at all.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Anyway it's Blessed Is She, an online devotional series.
Interesting, I didn't know that one. Thanks. Their website is professional and sleek. It took me quite a bit of clicking around to find some hint that they are RC though, it's certainly not obvious at all.

It certainly borrows heavily from evangelical devotionals, style-wise. I found it via an RC blog which is how I knew it was RC (it was advertised as such) but I agree that it is not obvious at all. I'm wondering if that plus the use of ESV means they hope to reach out to evangelicals.

Would you say they're conservative RCs? They come across that way...they're part of the RC 'mommy bloggers' who are almost universally on the conservative side, homeschooling often and sometimes even head covering outside Mass.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

I would just mention that many translations are quite protective of their copyright. The ESV seems to be more relaxed about people using their translation than most. Perhaps its use springs in part from that.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
... or if you have "stumbled on a strange conservative evangelical Catholic outpost" or not or whether there is even such a thing as a "conservative evangelical Catholic outpost".
Surely the latter two are answerable whether you know or not?

But they're not. "Evangelical" (as in that branch of Protestantism) and "Catholic" usually aren't associated together in devotional material (as implied in your use of the word "strange") and those words carry a lot of baggage on the Ship:

"conservative" = generally bad
"evangelical" = often bad, especially "conservative" + "evangelical"
"Catholic" = often to usually bad, especially "conservative" + "Catholic".

quote:
Anyway it's Blessed Is She, an online devotional series.

Thanks. Here's the link:http://blessedisshe.net/devotions/

It looks to me like the site is based in the U.S. and it seems to me that tclune is probably right. The devotional follows the lectionary for mass which in the U.S. is based on the New American Bible translation for English. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is very protective of their copyright over it and partly as a result many Catholic writers end up using other translations for their work.

I doubt the use of the ESV in itself is meant as an outreach to Evangelicals although I suspect the look and approach of the site as a whole is meant to make it more "non-Catholic friendly".

It is curious that they used the ESV instead of the RSV-CE which is more common in my experience but maybe that also has to do with a more relaxed attitude on copyright from ESV, as tclune said.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

I certainly wouldn't assume that conservative, evangelical, or Catholic equalled bad.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm wondering if that plus the use of ESV means they hope to reach out to evangelicals.

That's putting it rather mildly. The thought that came to my mind was roughly: "Wow, that's one carefully designed honeypot for evangelicals."

Catholics tend to wear their religious identity on their sleeves, if perhaps unconsciously. It usually takes only seconds to spot some obvious religious marker. I mean, a Catholic devotional website with no BVM, no saints, no novenas? No mass, no pope, no Rome, no nothing. No scapulars, no medals, no rosaries... not even bloody St Francis.

That website has been very, very carefully wiped clean of all obvious signs of Catholicism. I'm sure they edit ever last post that goes onto it. It would be kind of interesting to know whether their Facebook pages are less carefully managed.

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Would you say they're conservative RCs? They come across that way...they're part of the RC 'mommy bloggers' who are almost universally on the conservative side, homeschooling often and sometimes even head covering outside Mass.

I don't really know the RC conservative crowd in the USA that well, other than through the internet. My own RC traditionalism is more a peculiar European cultural snobbery than "homeschooling".

That said, wearing your head covering apart from mass kind of ruins the nice parallelism. Man: in the world - wear a hat, in church - take it off. Woman: in church - wear a mantilla, in the world - take it off. Admittedly, that got ruined by men having stopped wearing hats anyhow. But I'm hopeful for the return of hats. After all beards are back now. Personally, I want to see the return of the tricorne. Best hat ever...

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...not even bloody St Francis.

Hey!

quote:
That said, wearing your head covering apart from mass kind of ruins the nice parallelism. Man: in the world - wear a hat, in church - take it off. Woman: in church - wear a mantilla, in the world - take it off. Admittedly, that got ruined by men having stopped wearing hats anyhow. But I'm hopeful for the return of hats. After all beards are back now. Personally, I want to see the return of the tricorne. Best hat ever...

Its a nice parallelism but its only a recent one. Keep in mind that historically both men and women wore hats and other kinds of head coverings everywhere all the time and women wore their hats or bonnets in and out of church.

Also keep in mind that, while its become popular among more traditional women of all cultural backgrounds to wear mantillas to mass, they are a traditional item of women's clothing in Hispanic cultures and it was worn not just for mass but everywhere else.

(I'm with you on hoping for a return hats, though. You wear your tricorne and I'll wear a Panama hat. But not in church).

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Its a nice parallelism but its only a recent one. Keep in mind that historically both men and women wore hats and other kinds of head coverings everywhere all the time and women wore their hats or bonnets in and out of church.

History is hardly that uniform. The Romans, for example, largely did not cover their heads unless it was necessary due to weather or occupation, much like we do now. I'm not sure about the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, but I think it was likewise with them? So perhaps the ancient Jews were the odd ones out with headwear for both sexes. It might be cool to think about whether the apostle to the gentiles was dealing with some cross-cultural fashion issues...

quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
(I'm with you on hoping for a return hats, though. You wear your tricorne and I'll wear a Panama hat. But not in church).

Birettas is what confuses me. Who had the stupid idea of making them asymmetric?

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
History is hardly that uniform. The Romans, for example, largely did not cover their heads unless it was necessary due to weather or occupation, much like we do now. I'm not sure about the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, but I think it was likewise with them? So perhaps the ancient Jews were the odd ones out with headwear for both sexes. It might be cool to think about whether the apostle to the gentiles was dealing with some cross-cultural fashion issues...

Well, at least for most of the past millenium or so. Since the Middle-Ages in Europe until the first 60 years or so of the 20th century there and in the Western Hemisphere; as well as in much of the rest of world (like turbans in South and Central Asia).

I suspect you might be on to something when it comes to what St. Paul wrote about head coverings at church and the mysterious bit about "because of the angels."

Going back to something said earlier, there isn't one uniform translation of the lectionary used across the English-speaking Catholic world. In the U.S. the translation is based on the NAB, in Canada it's based on the NRSV, in the U.K. it's based on the Jerusalem Bible and the Grail Psalms, etc., etc. This is also true in the Spanish-speaking world. I don't know what the situation is in the French and German-speaking countries.

I did read that at one time the Australian bishops were going to use the ESV for their translation of the lectionary but I don't know if it went through or not. The RSV-CE-2nd Ed. has been approved for use in the Caribbean (link) and a lectionary based on the RSV (not sure which edition) is also approved for use in the Anglican Ordinariates (link.)

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

The emails from the site mention the day's feast day, if one applies...otherwise, the facebook page is just as the main website. I have noticed it being particularly 'safe' to share with evangelical friends. I mean the Bible study parts follow the format of lectionary readings and have responses to Psalms, but I doubt an evangelical would pick up on that as being Catholic. Actually, I subscribed to the email mailing list before I started using the website, and I think the Catholicism has been toned down a lot - I remember much more prominence of Mary than there is now. I...hadn't really noticed how not very distinctively Catholic it is until now.

I'm not sure what the powers that be in charge of RC evangelism would make of such a subtle kind of evangelism.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
I'm not sure what the powers that be in charge of RC evangelism would make of such a subtle kind of evangelism.

Are there any "RC authorities" behind this anyway? I haven't seen a trace of that either...

By the way, I could be somewhat unfair in saying that this is a "honeytrap". Maybe it is just a bunch of laypeople trying consciously to create a "mere Christianity" (least common denominator) kind of religious gathering place for women. I was sort of primed to look for signs of RC identity in a "RC devotional website", and my reaction was a response to not finding any. But I'm also not finding any clear signs of moving people along to the RCC at some later stage, so maybe it's just not that kind of place...

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
That is very interesting. My original faith background was in Calvinist-leaning, Sydney-influenced conservative evangelical Anglicanism. There, and as far as I can tell elsewhere in similar circles, ESV was seen as 'purer' as opposed to the NIV which was seen as being too liberal due to gender-neutral language. Certainly the idea of a Catholic using the ESV would be seen as ridiculous at best - the ESV was seen as best because it was the 'most evangelical'.

There may well be those who don't like gender neutral language, but my understanding is that more conservative scholarly types in evangelical circles prefer the KJV/RSV/NRSV/ESV over the NIV,
because the first 4 (AFAIK) are translated using principles of formal equivalence (aiming for word-for-word, where possible). The NIV's approach is that of dynamic equivalence - idea for idea, rather than word for word, where appropriate. The second approach allegedly allows more translator bias to creep in, and (at its worst) takes readers further away from the original.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Host hat on

This thread has wandered from its original theme of the RC use of the ESV.

If you want to discuss other stuff, please do it elsewhere.

Host hat off

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0