The Augustine Bible: a Catholic ESV?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I welcome interaction whether in agreement or not. However, comments that do not interact with the content of this video or that merely attempt to push one's platform will be deleted and the commenter potentially blocked.

[@sevynn3970]

I am of the opinion that those who say "we change pronouns so that no one misunderstands that it doesn't just apply to males" is a deliberately deceptive one. It's done for "inclusivity" of the current zeitgeist and more often than not, obscures the true meaning of Scripture. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian who has a fondness for the ESV, I am happy to see this available!

[@kinsmarts2217]

Let's be honest, if someone misunderstands this it means they should not be reading the bible anyway.

[@pvkom26]

@@kinsmarts2217 who are you to say who should be reading Bible and who shouldn’t? “Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”

[@pvkom26]

How is it deceptive, specifically? Your rejection of “inclusivity” (whatever that means) blinded you to the only thing that matters in this question - whether or not the changes would bring us closer to the original meaning. Yes, one could argue, perhaps, that leaving it to the footnote works just fine, but there are certain issues with that too. Rendering the proponents of new changes as deceptive on the ground of personal bias doesn’t display Christian approach to reasoning and argumentation.

[@kinsmarts2217]

@@pvkom26 How reccomending that you should have a minimal knowlege of how the english language works, before you read the bible, how is that arrogant? If someone cannot even understand an Archie comic, how can they understand the scripture? Besides, the "inclusive language" is just a perversion of the text introduced by modernists.

[@willthatcatholicguy]

The reason we like and enjoy RSV CE or RSV CE 2e - because it uses standard (non-feminist) English and is in conformity with the Church's translation guidelines found in the Vatican document, Liturgiam Authenticam. More modern Bibles change and take out "Him"

[@southpawhammer8644]

Have you come across the 'New Catholic Bible' translation? I just got a copy, I like it a lot.

[@TheCatholicNerd]

6:20 The Septuagint also translates this as virgin, which I think represents the very least a current of Jewish thoughts at the time the Septuagint was translated if not a full-blown textual variant of Isaiah that we don't have the original Hebrew for yet that was used to translate by the rabbis in Egypt.

[@ellenlatanzi5536]

Outstanding review! As a former Evangelical who loves the ESV, I'm thrilled to see a Catholic edition. I'm currently Eastern Orthodox but seriously contemplating Catholicism and I'm attending a local Catholic parish every other Sunday. I'm so grateful to have discovered your website. One fyi, at minute 12:33 you mention that only the Douay-Rheims translates Luke 1:28 as "Hail, full of grace" but you also visually show that the RSV translates Luke 1:28 as "Hail, full of grace". Thank you for all your awesome KZbin content :)

[@KatherineWeasley]

Cambridge just announced the ESV-CE Cornerstone! A sewn binding, readers edition in imitation leather or black cowhide. I'm beyond excited to see a premium bible option with the books in Septuagint order!!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Oh I will definitely check that out, thank you!

[@davidsmith9161]

The Greek transliterated is kekharitomene (the last -e- is a long e, an eta). The most literal translation is 'engraced'. The participle is in the perfect tense, meaning that Mary had received and still has grace (kharis).

[@mr_retro62]

I own an ESV Bible and am looking forward to getting this one since I am Catholic. I like the ESV translation very much. It is a pleasure to read all the way through. I am thrilled the Catholic version came out, but I hope one with a bit larger type and a hardcover is published soon. Mr. Beaumont does an incredible job explaining the translation and comparing it to others. An excellent review. Thank you.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Thank you Richard!

[@doomerquiet1909]

There is an anglican esv with apocrypha which has hardcover

[@richardbaranzini8805]

Concordia publishing house (Lutheran) publishes an ESV Apocrypha to go with The Lutheran Study Bible.

[@kena3234]

Just want to say that your presentation is excellent. The script is tight, the lighting is good, audio is great. Just really great video. Catholic KZbinr's take notes! This is how its done.

[@BlueOstinato]

Got my copy. An absolutely sublime version and my new go-to bible. Great review brother!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@manny75586]

The RSV2CE also says "full of grace" for kecharitomene...which is why I stick with the Douay and RSV haha *the New Catholic Bible translation also says Full of Grace but I havent read that cover to cover yet so I've no strong opinion on the quality of the translation on whole.

[@Infinatus25]

Amazing video, thank you. I was raised Orthodox and was doing research on which English translation to start reading in adulthood. Of all the versions, the ESV appealed to me the most, but it was important to me to have the Apocrypha included because of my background. I was gonna settle on a used copy of the Oxford University Press, but now I'm considering this Catholic version for it's placement of the Apocrypha in between the Old and New Testaments, as opposed to at the very end.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Yeah save yourself some money! (Now if they could just come out with one as beautiful as the Orthodox Study Bible.... ;)

[@samoller]

Just received my copy. I go to Psalm 23 and 103 first. Am delighted with this translation. It restores the beauty of earlier translations expressed in a very readable contemporary English.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Yes with few exceptions, the ESV is a worthy successor to the RSV.

[@bengoolie5197]

Thanks very much for this information. Most of the bibles in my house are Douay Rheims, which has served me well, but I might pick up a copy of this new translation just for reference. Thanks again.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@johnfisher247]

Are you aware there are two Douay Rhiems translations. Bishop Challoner made revisions to harmonise passages with the later King James version.

[@bhgtree]

I have been enjoying and using the ESV Bible for about 15 years and love its formal and modern translation. As a Catholic who used the RSV mostly when younger, it was a natural progression (I have most other translations as well, both Protestant and Catholic NASB, NAB(RE), KJV, NRSV, NIV, NLT, JB,NJB etc.). One version of the ESV I got early on was the Oxford ESV with Deuterocanonicals and loved it. Thanks.

[@jayzlvillafanianebre546]

The first time I read the ESV, I fell in love with it. I knew I had to keep one in my shelf even if it is a non-Catholic translation. I knew for a fact that as a translation originally made by Protestants, I would be encountering some parts that I would find odd. However, I realised that it is quite a well translated version, as you said : "It lets you do the hard work of interpreting the text." And that is what I liked about it. Of course, when doing the LECTIO DIVINA with my Catholic community, I would still pull up my NAB or JE. But if I am in that moment when I want to study more, this is a great companion to NRSV. I would always go back and forth these two version. But I would dare say, next to the Douay-Rheims Bible, this is one of the ones that I would love to pick my verses from. The language us so elegant even if it is modern. Thank you for this review.

[@feaokautai7354]

Great program, Sir. You do great work for JESUS CHRIST.

[@vipnetworker]

Thank you for this excellent review. 🙏

[@DouglasBeaumont]

My pleasure!

[@ramongitamondoc3491]

Wonderful review Doug, I really appreciate the specific verses you pointed out in this review.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@MinnieGreenie]

Thank you for this. I just saw this now and am a new subscriber - what i have is the The Didache Bible by the Ignatius Press, it's also a beautiful bible. I am a cradle catholic and just starting to read my bible :) - so, that explains my choice. Thanks for all the notes you have, as you were talking i keep pausing the video and compare it with the bible i have. I think will settle with the copy i have right now. Thanks!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

The Didache is my #1 choice for Catholics. :)

[@PadraigTomas]

The Catholic Church in Britain is adopting the ESV for liturgical use.

[@billythebeard6055]

Thank you for this review. As a former protestant, I use ESV a lot and love the translation. Glad to know there is a Catholic version of it.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Thanks for sharing!

[@duke927]

I very much enjoyed your review. Thank You. I had read the Protestant version of the ESV and thought it was very well done. I commented in another video a while back that “Thine is the Kingdom, Power etc…” that that invocation was never a part of the TLM and was kinda sorta a Protestant thing. I was then lectured how it has always been there in the Mass and that I was wrong. I related a story when I attended third grade at a public school in Virginia and every morning they said the Our Father (you can tell how old I am:)) followed by “Thine is the Kingdom etc.”. Needless to say I had never heard that before being Catholic and I was silent while all the students and teacher said that verse. The kids being curious asked me why I didn’t say it. I told them I didn’ know the words and really had never heard it said before. Being about nine years of age I wasn’t really up on religious differences. But I was taught how to say it from then on in that classroom.:)

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Yeah ironically Protestants steal a Catholic tradition and put it in their Bibles as Scripture!

[@MB-zn9vg]

I think that part was an addition to some eastern Gospel manuscript, in fact they have always said it in their liturgy (some eastern catholics and orthodox-I think it’s in the syriac Rite), it’s something that some Novus Ordo have borrowed from them. So it’s correct to say that it’s always been part of the catholic Mass, just not the latin one :) Sometimes scribes added notes to the manuscripts because, and as a catholic like me I’m sure you know it, they were for liturgical use. I hope this clarifies why you haven’t heard it before

[@duke927]

@@MB-zn9vgI heard it first from Protestants and my third grade was 64 years ago:) and didn’t hear it again until I attended NO Mass or a Protestant Service for a funeral or something You are correct it is not in the Latin rite except now in the Novus Ordo. It is very much a Protestant invocation that I recognized as such (even with some connection to some form of Catholicism). I consider the NO a Protestant usurpation of the Mass redone in some kind of weird 60’s ecumenical effort and I no longer attend the NO.

[@MB-zn9vg]

⁠​⁠@@duke927oh yeah I just wanted to point out that it’s been part of the eastern traditions (including catholics of the syriac rites), rather than the protestant, who took it from their manuscripts… so it’s not protestant… I go to TLM

[@doomerquiet1909]

If you compare the term in 3:16 to how the same term for desire is used of sin wishing to have its way with cain, it starts making more sense as to why they did do it

[@R6FTW59]

Thanks Doug. I have a lot of bible translations (I’m Catholic) and I have a new ESV but I can’t put down the Douay Rheims, when I read it it’s hard to go back to the modern translation’s. I love the literal because of the depth and it’s not easy like you said in the video that we have to spend time with the text. I believe all Catholics should have a Douay Rheims because of how powerful and beautiful and reliable it is, not to mention it’s Tradition as you quoted in 1 Tim 3:15. Could you do a video on the Douay Rheims? God bless 🙏

[@DouglasBeaumont]

The only problem is literal translation of the DR is not the Greek. :/

[@hestia598]

i'm catholic dr is really the most accurate catholic bible?

[@JMJ.516]

@@hestia598It’s not because it’s a translation of the Latin Vulgate, so it’s a translation of a translation. Most accurate would be something like the RSVCE which is very literal and like reviewer said, it’s used by most biblical scholars.

[@villentretenmerthjackdaw4205]

You should check out James Snapp's Excellent articles/videos defending the longer ending of Mark, The Woman Caught in Adultery, and Acts 8:37. Disappointing to see some of modern scholarship's eagerness to discard this. So many Early Church Fathers include references to these sections.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Agreed 100%!

[@armanddimeo6575]

Thanks for your review. I am overall very happy with the ESV-CE. I believe it offers the best balance of accuracy and literary style. However, it is good to know its few shortcomings, since as you indicated, no translation is perfect. I thought I would point out, however, that the RSV-CE also translates Luke 1:28 "Hail, full of grace." "Favored one" is not wrong but I feel more comfortable with the more traditional Catholic translation of this verse. There is no way to avoid having more than one Bible translation.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Agreed 100%!

[@JMM0111]

9/4/2023: You may not think that “Favored One” is wrong, but it sure isn’t right, either. The Angel Gabriel recognized Mary’s Queenship and said, “HAIL”!

[@gigiC144]

Thank you! Your review was very insightful. I grew up Catholic, but really not that religious even though I went to church every Sunday. Now I never go to be honest. I did and still do believe in God though, and now I finally want to read the Bible. I just wanted to get one that’s easy to read and prefer Catholic. This one seems perfect 👍

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Good to hear!

[@Birdwatcher8071]

Thank you for this review! Interesting commentary. 👍

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@richardvoogd705]

The copy I have of the NAB has moved Matthew 17:21 to a footnote of the "some manuscripts add" variety, with a reference to Mark 9:29. The verse is missing from the copy of the ESV I have by my side, not even a footnote!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

It's unsettling when publishers make those kinds of decisions!

[@richardvoogd705]

I later had a look in a "Study Bible" edition of the ESV, and found a footnote.

[@danielswartz6818]

I have three different translations of St. Luke’s gospel which say hail Mary full of grace and I have about eight other translations that say highly favored daughter. Also note worthy is that the Duey Raims version has a woman crushing the head of the serpent. There the pronoun is neuter and not masculine or feminine. Thanks for the great review and I am shopping for this translation.

[@danielswartz6818]

The day after I read your review I went to the local Catholic bookstore and bought two Augustine Bible’s. One for myself and one for my daughter who loves to read the Bible. From what I have been able to tell if this translation is very similar to the Bible that we had before the American version of the Bible. There are of course two Discrepancies that I found one is the annunciation and the second is when the woman steps on the head of the serpent. Even though it is lacking footnotes towards agree I think it is a better Bible for studying for you get the actual words and not what someone thinks. Thank you so very much for giving us this information I look forward to reading this Bible on a fairly regular basis have a great holiday or I should say holy day amen

[@southpawhammer8644]

Jeez, I just got the NRSV-CE, now I need this one too, LoL

[@3ggshe11s]

Just got the ESV-CE recently. It's a good, solid literal interpretation. Too bad there aren't any study notes, though. For what it's worth, the RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, and New Catholic Bible all use "full of grace" for Luke 1:28.

[@douglasj2254]

Nice review sir. Now that other editions have been released, has anyone had a chance to compare them? I'm specifically wondering if the paper quality/ghosting is better or worse in the hardcover compared with the paperback. Is one edition more readable than another? Thanks!

[@BlueOstinato]

SPCK's hardback ESV-CE is very nice and thick given the price.

[@DanielWB1]

This is my favorite Bible for personal Bible study

[@JMM0111]

9/4/2023: The RSV2CE and the Douay Rheims both read “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you.” It’s not just in the Douay Rheims. This translation is the accurate one and nothing else should replace it. The ESV is not a fantastic translation. If Luke 1:28 isn’t right, then it’s not right.

[@09bamasky]

I have this Bible (Augustine) and it’s nice. I’ve been frustrated to not be able to find a beautiful, soft, goatskin/calfskin Bible anywhere except Schuyler. I just purchased their Quentel ESV with Apocrypha. I’m wondering if there are opinions about Schuyler’s Bibles and if any Catholics have opinions about them?

[@BuzzGordon]

Not sure if you'll see this, but Ascension Press just released a premium version of their Great Adventure Bible in Goatskin.

[@philipwest4553]

I think that the Ignatius RSV second Catholic edition is a better choice than the Augustine ESV for several reasons, (1) the RSV 2nd CE isn't devoted to gender neutral language but the Augustine ESV is to a degree. (2) the RSV 2nd CE is a modern and dignified, the Augustine ESV is too but a little more 'modern' and a little less varied in vocabulary. (3) RSV 2nd CE seems to have greater variety in binding.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I don't necessarily see 2 as an advantage, but 1 & 3 are strong plusses. I like the ESV as a reader but for study I'll stick with the RSVII. Thanks!

[@DanielWB1]

Thank you for this I love this translation

[@adamhovey407]

No Bible is perfect (which you touched on), I have RSVCE 2nd edition New Testament, Douay Rheims and NRSV Gospels and Psalms on the table next to me. I am at my sister's house, and these are the versions I brought with me. I may get ESV- CE when I get some money. I like having multiple versions.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Yeah, after a year of Greek I gave up because even the experts don't agree haha - best to play the field.

[@NassauOngalewuPukapuka-hg4zt]

Very proud of you God Bless 🙏

[@villentretenmerthjackdaw4205]

RSVCE renders Luke 1:28 as "full of grace" btw not just Douay-Rheims, while offering alternative translation in the foot notes.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Yeah I think I misspoke in the video. :) Thanks for watching!

[@flintymcduff5417]

If a translation is done honestly it shouldn't matter who does it. The ESV is a very good translation. Having all the books makes it even better.

[@PuzzlesC4M]

This is great! Also swimming the Tiber, but I like the BLB app. What do you think about the NASB for Hebrew translations? Any verse biases I should be aware of?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I used the NASB for eyars in seminary, I always liked it. It's literal enough for good study but I haven't investigated it for bias.

[@pawollatounenmoun]

I appreciate the very good review. Thanks.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@duke927]

Enjoyed the video and would like to add that all these new Catholic Bibles ESV-CE, RSV-CE, RSV-2CE, NRSV-2CE are derivations of the KJV Bible and not the DRC-1752. The CCD New Testament was published in 1941 to update the DRC. The OT was partially done in the mid 60’s and abandoned and the NAB took its place. So the Douay with all its faults is still my go to Bible. My mother gave me as a boy in 1962 a Bible where the OT is the DRC and the NT is the CCD. I do think the KJV with Apocrypha is superior in a poetic way to the DRC and the RSV versions keep that poetic bent also alive in certain passages.

[@odessaxmusicclips6028]

Excellent review. Im buying one ASAP ))) ( and subscribing )

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Great! and Thank you!

[@gerardmaroney3918]

Thank you very much for this, Dr. Beaumont.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

You're welcome!

[@MarkGoesHiking]

Good info here Doug. Great info regarding translations! Thanks for the examples too! I am buying one for my teaching this Fall. How does it organize Daniel? Ant Man, Doug...duh. 🤣😂🤣

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Daniel is laid out with the DC portions integrated into the book / chapters. Intra-chapter material is dual-versified to avoid citation confusion (like the Ester example I showed at 17:36). It's great!

[@johne2815]

Thankfully, the RSV2CE translates kecharitomine to “full of grace” like the Douay-Rheims.

[@jeffcook9905]

Have you heard of or been able to find the St John's Bible? My husband and I saw one at the Basilica of St Louis and it is beautiful. Have you found one in print for the general public and if so how is the translation?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I have not, sorry!

[@user-zo2ge3oe8d]

Good thing you waited until the end to say the text is small or I would have not watched the video after you said that. Small text ruins it for me.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Hopefully they'll come out with a larger print!

[@kingpatriarch224]

Anglican Liturgy Press publishes an ESV with a full Orthodox Apocrypha for around $24

[@ericostmann684]

Hmmm, I wonder how this stacks up against the RSV, second Catholic Edition or the Knox translation of the DR?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I'm still partial to the RSV but I am glad we're not trapped by the NABRE anymore! ;)

[@westsidewarrior1972]

Very well done. That said, I can't quite agree with you regarding 1 Tim. 3.15. Why in the world did the Church in India agree to this translation, without fixing THAT? I'm sure we wouldn't use the JW version that says, "in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was A God." The obvious bias of the translators is there for all to see. I could not ever approve of this translation, nor use it. It IS a big deal. How many pillars (according to the ESV translators) are there? The Church in India should have used the RSV or the NRSV, or even the RNJB.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

The quality of Bible translations is a sliding scale for sure - one that never reaches perfection it seems. I'm not sure what our disagreement is on regarding 1 Tim. 3:15 though - I called it out myself. Do you think I did not communicate the problem clearly?

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@DouglasBeaumont Doug, you communicated the issue with the article in 1 Tim 3:15 perfectly. In fact, that was a very early objection by Catholic scholars to the ESV. I agree with westsidewarrior1972: WHY would the Indian bishops approve this version, and also why was Luke 1:28 not done as we Catholics expect to see it?

[@-GodIsMyJudge-]

It does seem like it would be an easy revision to use the catholic translation for those verses and leave the original ESV interpretation in the notes

[@user-fy2ox9ep9t]

I am grateful that I bought a copy of ESV when I visited India. An Indian printed copy which is cheaper.

[@decluesviews2740]

Excellent review! Thank you!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Thanks!

[@robertgordon50]

Excellent review from the pov of theological faithfulness. Thanks. I only recently heard of the ESVCE from Catholic reviewers who have the same orientation (i.e. Trad Cath) but not the scholarly insight into translation. Right now, I have the ESVCE on order from Amazon $51 delivered (though my order has not yet been confirmed and it seems it is hard to get a copy). If I had not seen your review first, I would have been painfully disillusioned by some of the shortcomings; I'm grateful you let me down softly. "Sexual immorality" (though good enough for meaning) is poetically as ugly as NAB "lewd conduct" [I'd go with "fornication" -- w note if needed]. Forewarned by you, I will enjoy the savour of accuracy without gagging on lumps.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Glad to be of service!

[@Stephen937]

would you recommend buying the ESV-CE instead of the RSV-CE (Ignatius Bible)? Thanks!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Not really. I'd be OK with either translation but the RSV has a longer standing scholarly tradition and better study versions available.

[@sonnygregg5902]

In Genesis 3; is it possible that contrary could be used to make it more of an example type phrase. As if she will want something he doesn't and so his choice overrules hers? Just a thought

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Possible, I havent done much study of this passage.

[@matthewleonetti2733]

My main issue is that they don’t say, “Hail, full of grace,” which is why I will not buy this version.

[@sandygrogg1203]

I don’t seem to be able to find a large print, which is what I need...

[@DouglasBeaumont]

This is a brand new publication - if it does well, they will likely introduce more versions.

[@LorenzoSleestak]

Matthew 17:21 isn't present in the earliest manuscripts. It appears to was added by a scribe to make it align with Mark 9:29.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

That's one theory.

[@matthewleonetti2733]

The RSV2CE says “Hail full of grace.”

[@TheAnnoDomini]

I'm generally uncomfortable with rehashed protestant translations that are stamped "Catholic". The first thing I look at is Luke 1:28. The RSVCE has Luke 1:28 written as "...O highly favored one...". This is corrected in the RSVCE2 written as "... Hail, full of grace...". The correct translation of this is easily proven through the Greek manuscripts. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that all modern bibles use the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. I am pretty sure that when St. Pope Damasus I commissioned jerome to translate scripture into Latin, he was expecting jerome to use the LXX, not a proto-masoretic version. Even St. Augustine begged jerome not to do this. Why is it that Catholics have never had a complete bible with the LXX? Compare Acts 7:14 to Genesis 46:27 in your modern bible and the LXX.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Do you have an authoritative lexicon that lists "full of grace" for "κεχαριτωμένη" - because I've never seen one. Just because it sounds more Catholic doesn't mean it is more accurate. ;)

[@TheAnnoDomini]

@@DouglasBeaumont Really, you've never seen one? Kekaretomine is a past, perfect participle for "having grace". The blessed virgin Mary was (past tense) perfected in having grace. In other words, full of grace.

[@justinharnett]

@Douglas What do you think of the ESV-CE using propitiation with the Catholic teaching on the matter?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

At which verse?

[@philodonoghue3062]

It’s interesting, intriguing even, that this new Augustine English Bible was written in India and authorised by Indian bishops. Does anyone have any explanation for this?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

It was approved in India but the translation itself was headed by Americans and is itself a modification of the earlier Revised Standard Version which was published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

Per my understanding, unless a translation is submitted to the US Council of Catholic Bishops for review and approval, it will NOT make THEIR list of "approved translations". Do you not realize that the USCCB is the copyright owner of the infamous NABRE? Do you see where I'm going with this? Not even the RSV-2CE is on their list.

[@tabandken8562]

Nothing is better than the DR. The fact that all others got rid of penance and replaced it with repent and repentance makes it sound like we only need to stop sinning and only have contrition for sin but we dont need to show it. That is a very big deal. I would like a faithful update to Jerome's ORIGINAL version.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

All modern DRs are revisions of Jerome's original as it has been modified several times throughout history. The DR is already a translation of a translation, and its quality should not be judged by its faithfulness to Catholic theology but to the original writings. For more information, you might want to read this: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/uncomfortable-facts-about-the-douay-rheims

[@tabandken8562]

@@DouglasBeaumont "The original translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. However, it was revised from 1749-1752 by Bishop Richard Challoner, who corrected it according to the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (published by Clement VIII in 1592, after the Rheims New Testament) and the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts." The DR we read from is NOT a direct translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Why can't they just give us a translate straight from the original Latin Vulgate? So what Latin is not the original language. Jerome knew the faith and had the oldest manuscripts. He knew what best fit. He knew whether "repent" or "penance" was more appropriate, for example. Who cares about giving us a translation from the original languages if those manuscripts are 1000 years older than Jerome's and THEY are a translation of a translation of a translation?

[@njdutoit]

While the ESVCE seems very promising, I think I will wait for a hardcover or leather edition to come out.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I hope it does!

[@coondogbob]

It is available now in hard and leather Google it , i believe its catholic market that sells them

[@DouglasBeaumont]

@@coondogbob Great!

[@Kjt853]

Is the kingdom of God “within you” or “among you” (Lk 17:21)?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

The Gk. (entos) means within, inside, or among - so it's the translator's call. Here is the BDAG entry concerning that passage: Lk 17:21 ἐ. ὑμῶν is probably patterned after ἐν σοί (=[God] is among you) Is 45:14, but with Lk preferring ἐντός in the sense among you, in your midst, either now or suddenly in the near future.

[@Kjt853]

@@DouglasBeaumont Thanks for the reply. I’m not a Scripture or linguistics scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I prefer “within.” It was so translated in the Douay-Rheims, as well as in the King James Version. I also have a “Confraternity” version published in the ‘50s that renders the preposition as “within.” (In my reading of St. John of the Cross, I find that the Mystical Doctor also translated it into the Spanish equivalent of “within.”) I can’t help suspecting that at least one of the reasons that so many translations nowadays, both Catholic and Protestant, render it “among” relates to a mistrust of mysticism. I have a friend who’s a Russian Orthodox priest, and the Orthodox also tend to translate it as “within.”

[@DouglasBeaumont]

@@Kjt853 Yeah I don't have a strong opinion either way - both translations have interesting applications. :) The Latin behind the DR (which itself is a translation of the Greek) is "intra" means "to enter" (a prefix we typically use to mean "inside").

[@RedWolf5]

Does this version show Gen 3:15 as “She shall crush” or “He …”?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

"He" - just like the RSV before it.

[@RedWolf5]

@@DouglasBeaumont Thank you very much. I love your videos and your very logical approach is very appealing to me. Do you believe “He” is correct? I was taught Traditional Catholic and I was told that pretty much all Hebrew scholars agreed that the pronoun used in that passage can be translated He, She, They and that the reason why the DR Bible translators decided for “She” was due to context. I’ll try to explain it the best I can, but please correct me if you understand this differently. Genesis 3:15 I (He God) will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: He (It should be I) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Genesis 3:15 I (He God) will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: She (He God can’t be due to context) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. I was told this translation (using She) was accepted since the times of Jerome and that at the time they also struggled to pin the gender to it but went for this since it was the most logical and fitting to them. I was also taught, that the theology behind it was that Jesus (God) would technically never go to “punches” with Satan and he would never come in contact (physical contact) with the unholy one as suggested in 1 Samuel 17:40 I was told that God (Jesus) would always use a tool or weapon to defeat the devil so in that sense “She” would be the appropriate noun; she would be the pebble used by David to defeat Goliath. Many Trad Cats complain this was a standard teaching before Vatican II and that even the RCC is not longer teaching due to pressure from Protestant groups and their desire to bring them in to the faith but Marian devotion being huge road block for their conversion. Thank you!

[@tabandken8562]

Its better to highlight with color pencils.

[@Shlomayo]

Luke 1:34 has become one of the passages I check more closely these days. New Catholic Bible: "34 Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” Many modern Bibles put "How *can* this be" instead of *will*. The "can" seems to denote a certain doubt, which certainly Our Lady did not have. The *will* provides a reading where Our Lady simply wishes to know about the process that will bring about the conception.

[@edr8082]

“Can” is appropriate because she is a Virgin not yet married.

[@WaldoNevada]

Wonderful video, thank you! I am very interested in getting the ESV-CE to replace my Douay-Rheims. I highly value the ESV-CE because it utilizes translations of the most recently discovered ancient texts, even more recent than those used by the RSV (or so I have been led to believe). I know you said "No translation is perfect", but clearly some are better than others, and it looks like the ESV-CE is the closest. However, I was extremely disappointed to find out it had so many short-comings! So, I am wondering if you know of any other available ESV-CE Bibles that correct them? Or, is it possible that as the ESV-CE becomes more popular, other publishers will come out with their own versions of the ESV-CE? Do you know of any soon-to-be released versions?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I do not know of any revisions to the ESV, even the CE version simply includes the deuterocanonical books Protestant publishers usually leave out.

[@MinnieGreenie]

Ha! Okay, as for Luke 1:28 - this is what it said in The Didache bible version: 28And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!" It has a note b2: Or O favored one. So yes, thank you much, i think i got a veritable bible! Thank you again!

[@Thomasrice07]

John 1:18 in the ESV is painful "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Makes it sound like God and the Father are two or that the Father is not God. Horrible. No other translation has that wording. I have purchased the hardcover and softcover Augustine Press and enjoy them very much. However, I have been looking for a premium Catholic bible and think I have found one with the new Cambridge ESV-CE in cow leather.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

They all seem to blow it here or there. :)

[@yvonnegonzales2973]

Comparison & difference between ESV Oxford edition & ESV Catholic edition? & How many intertestamental books both of them?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I do not have the Oxford edition and it out of print - but as far as I can tell from others, there are two main differences. Oxford places the deuterocanonical books (which it refers to as "Apocrypha") in the back of the Bible after the NT, and it also includes books outside the Catholic canon (such as Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees). The ESV-CE includes only the historic Catholic canon and places the books/chapters in their proper places in the OT.

[@mj-gb6tr]

My only snag with the ESV is that the translators get so worried about the word 'slave' and how it should be translated so as not to cause offence, so you end up with strange phrases like 'bondsman', the meaning of which is not familiar to the modern ear. I guess it's more of a concern to American readers who may have a more sensitive reaction to words like 'slave' due to history. Do the translators use context to ascertain the different meaning of the Greek for 'slave' or are there different actual Greek words for slave that differentiate between slaves, bondsmen etc?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

That's a very good point, but the term has basically come to mean someone held against their will to perform hard labor but thay is not what was going on with these people. For them it was more of a contractual agreement and I think they want to make sure people know that.

[@starlightatdusk4896]

As a Anglo-Latin Catholic (in the US Ordinariate), I prefer the DRC and Knox, and the KJV tradition corrected - the RSV2CE. Compared to the RSV2CE, I don't really see any use for the ESVCE, and I used the original ESV when I was a Lutheran.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

To each his own! Those are all good translations.

[@MinnieGreenie]

Hello Doug! It is me again and i hope you will answer me: It just bothers me. Genesis 3:15 - what is the correct translation: "HE shall bruise your heel" or "SHE shall bruise" or "IT shall bruise" other translations even had it as "THEY"... just got me confused. Thanks in advance for the help.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

It's an ambiguous pronoun, that's all.

[@ashwith]

Does your version have a lot of cross references like the RSV2CE does? The one we have in India (the Augustine Bible is based on it) doesn't have as many cross references.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Nope. :) Most of the notes are translational, and that's about it. Pretty basic.

[@ashwith]

@@DouglasBeaumont I see. Thank you for replying! I think the main reason our Bishops commissioned this translation was for use in the lectionary (I remember reading this but I could be wrong). We've been using the new lectionary based on the ESV-CE since Palm Sunday this year. From this perspective, I guess there wouldn't be a need for working on cross references.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

@@ashwith It's a good reader in my opinion - but maybe they can re-do The Catholic Study Bible in the ESV and without all the heretical notes. :)

[@larrym.johnson9219]

​@@DouglasBeaumontYep 🔥🤟

[@d.o.7784]

Luke 1:28 - “Hail, thou who art full of grace; the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women”. Knox version

[@MatthewC1128]

KJV still reigns supreme! Praise the Lord for his pure and holy words!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

LOL! . . . OH wait, was this serious? ;)

[@MatthewC1128]

@@DouglasBeaumont God bless you, brother, have a wonderful day!

[@user-bv4sj2gq7g]

Interesting changes in the ESV. I have one from 2001. In 2001, Gen. 3:16 was rendered “for your husband”, with a footnote saying “or against”. Matt. 17:21 is missing from the text, but is in a footnote. On a comical note, talking about very bad literal translation, I remember the older versions of the Jehovah’s Witnesses translation rendered Ps. 23:5 “you have greased my head with oil.” Gasp, 😱🙈

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Ha! I remember freaking out the first time someone told me to turn to Matthew 18:11 and it was missing. :)

[@flintymcduff5417]

I remember reading that! I found a copy of their "translation" in a used book store for $1 (still overpriced) and it was changed to the much more elegant "With oil you have greased my head". About on a par with the rest of their theology.

[@richardvoogd705]

The copy of the ESV I have open in front of me at the moment, doesn't even have a footnote for Matthew 17:21! This deficit appears to have been corrected in the ESV Study Bible.

[@johnritter5951]

Geez ... I spent 20 minutes waiting to hear what is Augustine about the Augustine Bible. Did I miss it? Why is it called an Augustine Bible? Does it not have commentary from his writings?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Haha - I understand. I believe it is just because the Augustine Institute published it.

[@johnritter5951]

@@DouglasBeaumont Which is hardly a sufficient reason to call it an Augustine Bible. I think it's a sales strategy like: The MacArthur Bible, the Jim and Tami Faye Bible ??? the Ravi Bible ??? the Jimmy Swaggert Bible ??? Well some names may be a little less "lustrous" than others ... say what? Marketing strategies within Christendom always irritate me. It stood behind the whole Church Growth Movement of the 90s, then the Church Planting Movement. I think God sees all such "movements" as bowel movements. Other than that, I think it's all just fine.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

@@johnritter5951 Understood!

[@therese6447]

Douay-Rheims says Hail full of grace...i Aramaic and Greek it says Hail full of grace!

[@OrthodoxPhilip]

My biggest problem with the ESV is it ignores the word "genes" in "monogenes" ("only-begotten)" in John 3:16. This word is critical for trinitarian theology and is featured in the Nicene Creed and often found in patristic theology as a critical component of the faith. Like many modern translations, the ESV pulls the rug out from any English speaker looking to ground his patristic theology in the Scriptures. The RSV-CE 2nd Edition fixed this. Otherwise, we are left with the NASB95, NKJV and KJV for an authentic rendering of that very important Greek word.

[@sandygrogg1203]

There is a New RSV, but it does the gender neutral thing, and I won’t buy it. This looks great.. Thanks. Great review... I have been in the fence abiut the ESV...Probably because I am not familiarity uTube. Your review has convinced me...and as soon as my new debut card comes ( I was hacked), I will be either ordering one, or buying one from a bookstore.

[@DouglasBeaumont]

I hope you enjoy it!

[@74opaque]

The New catholic bible has Matthew 17.21 and Luke 1.28 correct.

[@Antonia_D]

“This kind only comes out by prayer and fasting” … wonder why evil spirits would want that verse changed or eliminated altogether!

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, wanted no one to die, so He gave His life so that anyone who believes in Him can have everlasting life.

[@michaelleosamuel4725]

It has no commentary...it is not a study bible...Augustine has much too say...the book has nothing to say...I rate it a * single star.

[@wallamboklahong9125]

Bro. Beamont, isn't Douy Rheim Bible a much better and most oldies Catholic Bible!

[@DouglasBeaumont]

It depends on what you mean by better. The DR is a translation of the Latin Vulgate which is itself a translation from the original languages. A Bible translation's faithfulness to the original writings is what makes it good, not it's age or "catholicity."

[@FrenchHawk878]

As someone has said before, the best bible is the one that you actually read. :)

[@johnfisher247]

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition is the most faithful translation of the Scriptures.

[@d.o.7784]

Mat 19:9 has nothing to do with immorality. In fact, even if the wife was proven to be sexually immoral, it would be unsafe to assume that the husband has the right to divorce her and get married with another woman. Whatever the case is with the husband and/or wife, divorce is never allowed.

[@lutherseye5356]

For thine is the.... Is a Prot thing that got wrote into Catholicism

[@DouglasBeaumont]

No, it isn't. douglasbeaumont.com/2015/05/26/the-lords-prayer-adding-to-or-subtracting-from-scripture/

[@Prismatic_Truth]

You say the translators "translated the Hebrew word _almah_ as _virgin"_ -- which would seem to imply this was translated from the Masoretic rescension, rather than from the Vulgate or Septuagint. Both the Vulgate & the Septuagint already translate _almah_ as "virgin" in their respective languages. Surely anything claiming to be a Catholic Bible should be translated from the historical texts of the Church, rather than from medieval Jewish texts?

[@DouglasBeaumont]

Well, the Septuagint predates the church and the Vulgate is itself a translation of Hebrew, so . . . I'm not sure what the issue is. The Church does not claim to have special translational powers and words mean what they mean. A translation should seek to be as true to the original as possible, interpretation is thr second step.

[@Prismatic_Truth]

@@DouglasBeaumont The point I was trying to make is that the Masoretic rescension of the Hebrew text is significantly different than the ancient Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated. So a Bible translated from the Septuagint or Vulgate will thus vary significantly from a Bible that's translated from the later Masoretic text. The text of the Septuagint forms the basis of the Church's Tradition, while the Masoretic text was created by non-Christians whose "corrections" often had the explicit goal of removing references to Christ.

[@manfredcaranci6234]

@@Prismatic_Truth In this, thou hast spoken rightly.