Is the English Standard Version to become official?

This might be old news, but I got told tonight that the version of the bible bible used during Mass will go from the New Jerusalem Bible to the ESV bible ‘in a couple of years’. He did say that it would be a ‘New ESV’ bible (so presumably revised to correct translations/meanings).

Is this true?

Yes, the bishops of the UK and Wales, along with Australia, are developing a new lectionary based on the ESV. It is uncertain, however, if there will then be an ESV-CE.

That’s great, one question though, are they going to do it here? :confused:
BTW, I love the ESV!

The plan, just recently announced by Cardinal Weurl, is for another revision of the NAB which will take about 10 years. The result will be a text that matches exactly what is heard at Mass. They will be working on this text and getting approval from Rome as they go. The Psalter will be the recently released Revised Grail Psalms.

As per Liturgiam Authenticam (the Holy See’s translation norms), each country or Episcopal Conference can have only one translation per language used in the liturgy, for example the U.S. can have one English version and only one Spanish version for use in the liturgy (as well as one version of the various Native American languages used in the liturgy, or any other language that the USCCB might decide to publish liturgical books in). This being said, in the US, for better or for worse, the Bishops have chosen to use the New American Bible in its various incarnations. They are trying to harmonize the different versions so that it will eventually be possible to print a Bible that will have the same version as used in the Lectionary for Mass. This project will probably take about 10 years.

I don’t hink any country uses the New Jerusalem Bible, but most other English speaking countries (Ireland, England & Wales, Scotland, Australia, etc.) use the Jerusalem Bible. These countries can also use the Revised Standard Version as both versions were approved before Liturgial Authenticam came into effect. Canada uses a revision of the New RSV and the Antilles, the new Ordinariates for former Anglicans/Episcopalians and some African countries use Ignatius Press’ RSV 2nd Catholic Edition Lectionary.

The countries currently using the Jerusalem Bible tried to introduce a NRSV and then a RSV edition, but they ran into copyright issues and so now it does seem that they are moving towards the ESV as a base text (they would revise it for use in Catholic liturgy). It does hold good potential, but even if they do not run into any logistical or copyright problems,it will probably take some years to complete. In any case it will probably only be used in Ireland, England & Wales, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand, the rest of the English speaking world will continue with their current books.

ESV is okay. ESV Study Bible is quite Calvinistic …

Not to start Version Wars but comparing the ESV and the RSV I cannot find a substantial difference. I like both, lean toward the RSV. Wonder why we’d have to upgrade to ESV instead of just use existing RSV.

The ESV corrects some of the Old Testament texts of the RSV (Isaiah 7:14 is the most cited example) to bring them in line with the New Testament and authentic Christian teaching.

However, there’s also a Second Catholic Edition (RSV-2CE) that does much the same, and which also includes the deuterocanonical books. So there’s not too much choice between the RSV-2CE and ESV; either one of them would be a good choice. :wink:

If the US Bishops adopted the ESV for the lectionary, they would be required to pay copyright royalties to Good News/Crossway Publishers, a Calvinist-evangelical bookseller that also publishes material that could be considered anti-Catholic, e.g.:

If the bishops are on their toes, I don’ think that’s going to happen; they would much rather have the royalties stay “in house.”

Ugh, Calvinism of all things? :smiley: I think they should just switch to the RSV-2CE for now, at least till something better comes along. :slight_smile:

I was going to say that I like the Jerusalem Bible, and we should stick with it for another couple of decades until it starts to sound archaic and then switch to something newer, but then I realised that’s probably what the timeframe is for this plan :wink:

Is it the RSV that randomly has thees and thous only when referring to God (like older Anglican prayers), and sticks the traditional translation of the Our Father in rather than a straight translation of the words in the Gospels? Or was that a different translation? I’d hope that would be changed, if it was used in the Liturgy.

what’s so calvanistic about it?:confused:

I would say use the JB! Or the almost exactly equivalent 1975 Bible In Order. I have the JB New Testament and the whole Bible 1975 Bible In Order. You can go to: … to suggest that it comes out in Logos!

There is such a Bible, see: … and follow the link! I looked at Amazon and didn’t see a print copy of it though.

By the time it becomes the “official” version, there will be new bishops and it will be time for it to be revised again. :slight_smile:

Good point about the copyrights. But with hundreds of English Bibles with copyrights it will be difficult to come up with an original whose contents differ from the others.

The bishops control the copyrights for the NAB in all its iterations. So I don’t see how they will ever depart from the NAB as a base text as it would mean giving up collecting a lot of royalties, plus paying royalties to someone else.

The ESV is a curious choice for a Catholic lectionary. As far as I am aware no Catholic scholars were involved in its inception. It’s the product of conservative evangelical Protestants with a Calvinistic leaning, so hardly compatible with Catholicism. It’s an indication of the poor quality of Catholic translations of Scripture that the bishops have resorted to the ESV. Here in the UK the JB is the one I use, sometimes referring to the NJB for an alternative rendering. On the whole I think the JB is superior, despite its occasional quirks (‘happy’ instead of ‘blessed’ in the Beatitudes and elsewhere). The NJB has its own set of quirks, such as the insistence of ‘upright/ness’ instead of ‘righteous/ness’, Mary’s ‘humiliation’ in the Magnificat, and ‘sweetheart’ instead of ‘beloved’ in the Song of Songs. I also object to the gender-inclusive language which sometimes produces tortuous phraseology to avoid mentioning the male gender. And the link with Christ is often lost in the psalms (e.g. Psalm 1.1 ‘How blessed is anyone who rejects the advice of the wicked’). It’s all about political correctness rather than faithfully rendering the word of God. At least there is no such nonsense in the ESV. Perhaps we should wait for the third edition of the JB (currently only available in French) - if indeed it ever appears in English. It all depends on its commercial viability in a market already overcrowded with Bible translations.

OH, if only we would use the ESV in the States. The NAB isn’t a very good version, and the idea of using the same one in Church as in print is an awful idea, simply because the lectionary version is very, very sloppy and it’s been politicized. I won’t use such a platypus. Americans are total anti-intellectualists and care more whether someone controls something than whether it’s well-translated or not. Grrrrrr.

I won’t be comfortable with the ESV unless it corrects the translation that the Church is “a” pillar and foundation of truth.

what scripture is that from? I want to look it up.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit