German has its own special wordings of some texts (I mean, other than their being in German), like what the lector and people say after a reading: "Wort des lebendigen Gottes / Dank sei Gott" (The Word of the living God / Thanks be to God) - I like this. I understand there are some other places were something different is said than, say the English version says.
As for the ESV, I wonder if that change applies to Canada, as they've been using the NRSV. That's how our (USA Anglo-Catholic) parish got a set of the weekday lectionary books...from the publisher of such things for Canadian RC parishes.
When it comes to the Trinity, you cannot have the one without the others.
No, but you can have someone be the mother of the incarnation of one person of the Trinity without being the mother of all three persons of the Trinity.
And I challenge you to find anyone of any authority who thinks Mary was both.
As for the ESV, I wonder if that change applies to Canada, as they've been using the NRSV. That's how our (USA Anglo-Catholic) parish got a set of the weekday lectionary books...from the publisher of such things for Canadian RC parishes.
No change in Canada. Each country's bishop's conference gets to choose which translation they want to use—with Vatican approval of course.
The big thing is that the Vatican has been "encouraging" changes to more literal, word-for-word translations ("formal equivalence" in the jargon) in everything (hence the new translation of the Missal) instead of the looser, somewhat paraphrased "dynamic equivalence" translations that were popular when the vernacular started to be used and have been in use since.
That includes moving away from the Jerusalem Bible translation that used to be common in lectionaries in English-speaking countries outside the U.S. (which uses the New American Bible, a translation produced under the auspices of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops itself, and which itself has already been revised to be more literal), as the Jerusalem Bible, for all its lovely poetic language that reads well aloud, is a rather dynamic translation.
The bishops conferences of England and Wales and Scotland, decided to piggyback on the Indian conference's work on the Catholic Edition of the ESV, which is strongly formal and therefore exactly what the Vatican wants. As its really just a relatively modest update of the RSV, which has been in use in a few other places, including for scripture quotations in the official English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and was an option for parishes the U.S. when the expanded lectionary was introduced in 1970, as was the Jerusalem Bible—the standardization on the NAB wasn't actually formalized until the 1998 revision of the lectionary, though it was already the most widely used by a large margin). As such, it was deemed acceptable even if it was produced by a decidedly evangelical publisher. So those countries have switched to the ESV starting advent 2024.
Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have decided to go with the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, which is the recent second update to the Jerusalem Bible to make it a more literal translation. (Some say that strips it of its unique character and strengths, though.)
As the NRSV is already largely formal-equivalence translation, there's no need to change it in those grounds. The heavy tendency to use gender-neutral language when the original text is gendered is a different story, and why the Canadian lectionary required many edits before being approved, and why the NRSV largely wasn't adopted in other countries, even ones that like Canada had been using the RSV previously.
There are a whole boat load of assumptions baked into that, mostly around languages having masculine generic terms. Contemporary English doesn't, by and large, whereas (say) French does. To use "brothers" in an English language text implies an all-male group which is not necessarily the implication of the Biblical text. Where that fits in terms of formal vs dynamic equivalence is, as far as I can see, up for debate.
@oknazevad the Protestant ESV is the darling of Reformed-leaning conservative evangelicals, so any gender neutrality of language is there for translation/linguistic reasons and Definitely Not for any kind of progressive or egalitarian reason.
It does surprise me a great deal that a Catholic ESV Bible even exists going by some of the material I remember from the Study Bible...
Having used the ESV Lectionary for a few months since Advent it is becoming glaringly apparent that it is not designed to be read out loud in public.
Here is the Alleluia verse for next Sunday from the prevous (JB) translation
"Jesus Christ was rich, but he became poor for your sake,
to make you rich out of his poverty."
And now from the current ESV version
"Jesus Christ, though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor,
so that you by his poverty might become rich."
I have decided that we will be using the JB version this Sunday. It has the advantage of being in English.
@oknazevad the Protestant ESV is the darling of Reformed-leaning conservative evangelicals, so any gender neutrality of language is there for translation/linguistic reasons and Definitely Not for any kind of progressive or egalitarian reason.
I thought oknazevad’s (welcome, @oknazevad!) reference to gender neutrality was only with regard to the NRSV.
And I would agree with @Arethosemyfeet that brothers in contemporary English doesn’t carry the range of meanings that adelphoi does in NT Greek.
Lot and Abraham are (somewhere) called brothers, even though their relationship biologically was that of uncle and nephew. That's either an error, or an indication of the breadth of meaning carried by the word "brother" in Hebrew.
Lot and Abraham are (somewhere) called brothers, even though their relationship biologically was that of uncle and nephew. That's either an error, or an indication of the breadth of meaning carried by the word "brother" in Hebrew.
Genesis 14. Genesis 14:12–14 (ESV) says:
12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. 13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
All instances of “brother” (or “brother’s”) translate a form of the same Hebrew word, and as I understand it, that word (akh) can mean both sibling or kinsman. (Interestingly, the ESV translates that word as “kinsman” in Genesis 24:48. Also interestingly, the NRSV has “When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive,” apparently opting for something more akin to dynamic equivalence over formal equivalence.)
But what @Arethosemyfeet and I were talking about was not use of Hebrew or Greek words for brother to include degrees of kinship beyond that of sibling, but rather using brothers (or brethren) to address or refer to a group comprising both men and women. The audience to whom Paul was writing would have understood that adelphoi as a group could and quite possibly would include women. That understanding about brother or brethren, which once existed in English, has gone or is going the route of thou and thee.
Lot and Abraham are (somewhere) called brothers, even though their relationship biologically was that of uncle and nephew. That's either an error, or an indication of the breadth of meaning carried by the word "brother" in Hebrew.
When I lived in Kenya our colleagues would often mention numerous sisters and brothers- on closer enquiry we discovered that the terms could mean immediate siblings but also cousins, "cousin brothers".
It took us a while to get our heads round the fact that the words brother and sister covered both!
Comments
As for the ESV, I wonder if that change applies to Canada, as they've been using the NRSV. That's how our (USA Anglo-Catholic) parish got a set of the weekday lectionary books...from the publisher of such things for Canadian RC parishes.
And I challenge you to find anyone of any authority who thinks Mary was both.
I think we have all reached the ground floor.
No change in Canada. Each country's bishop's conference gets to choose which translation they want to use—with Vatican approval of course.
The big thing is that the Vatican has been "encouraging" changes to more literal, word-for-word translations ("formal equivalence" in the jargon) in everything (hence the new translation of the Missal) instead of the looser, somewhat paraphrased "dynamic equivalence" translations that were popular when the vernacular started to be used and have been in use since.
That includes moving away from the Jerusalem Bible translation that used to be common in lectionaries in English-speaking countries outside the U.S. (which uses the New American Bible, a translation produced under the auspices of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops itself, and which itself has already been revised to be more literal), as the Jerusalem Bible, for all its lovely poetic language that reads well aloud, is a rather dynamic translation.
The bishops conferences of England and Wales and Scotland, decided to piggyback on the Indian conference's work on the Catholic Edition of the ESV, which is strongly formal and therefore exactly what the Vatican wants. As its really just a relatively modest update of the RSV, which has been in use in a few other places, including for scripture quotations in the official English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (and was an option for parishes the U.S. when the expanded lectionary was introduced in 1970, as was the Jerusalem Bible—the standardization on the NAB wasn't actually formalized until the 1998 revision of the lectionary, though it was already the most widely used by a large margin). As such, it was deemed acceptable even if it was produced by a decidedly evangelical publisher. So those countries have switched to the ESV starting advent 2024.
Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have decided to go with the Revised New Jerusalem Bible, which is the recent second update to the Jerusalem Bible to make it a more literal translation. (Some say that strips it of its unique character and strengths, though.)
As the NRSV is already largely formal-equivalence translation, there's no need to change it in those grounds. The heavy tendency to use gender-neutral language when the original text is gendered is a different story, and why the Canadian lectionary required many edits before being approved, and why the NRSV largely wasn't adopted in other countries, even ones that like Canada had been using the RSV previously.
There are a whole boat load of assumptions baked into that, mostly around languages having masculine generic terms. Contemporary English doesn't, by and large, whereas (say) French does. To use "brothers" in an English language text implies an all-male group which is not necessarily the implication of the Biblical text. Where that fits in terms of formal vs dynamic equivalence is, as far as I can see, up for debate.
Anyway, welcome aboard the ship!
It does surprise me a great deal that a Catholic ESV Bible even exists going by some of the material I remember from the Study Bible...
Here is the Alleluia verse for next Sunday from the prevous (JB) translation
"Jesus Christ was rich, but he became poor for your sake,
to make you rich out of his poverty."
And now from the current ESV version
"Jesus Christ, though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor,
so that you by his poverty might become rich."
I have decided that we will be using the JB version this Sunday. It has the advantage of being in English.
And I would agree with @Arethosemyfeet that brothers in contemporary English doesn’t carry the range of meanings that adelphoi does in NT Greek.
And there are references to his 'sisters' too, I think, which again are taken to be relatives or the offspring of Joseph's possible previous marriage.
But what @Arethosemyfeet and I were talking about was not use of Hebrew or Greek words for brother to include degrees of kinship beyond that of sibling, but rather using brothers (or brethren) to address or refer to a group comprising both men and women. The audience to whom Paul was writing would have understood that adelphoi as a group could and quite possibly would include women. That understanding about brother or brethren, which once existed in English, has gone or is going the route of thou and thee.
When I lived in Kenya our colleagues would often mention numerous sisters and brothers- on closer enquiry we discovered that the terms could mean immediate siblings but also cousins, "cousin brothers".
It took us a while to get our heads round the fact that the words brother and sister covered both!