You are just using superlatives, and not giving an argument as to WHY it's good. How do You for example explain away the Calvinistic bias in it? That is intentional bias, worse than Catholic bias. Also, the ESV is very formal equivalent, a Bible shouldn't be. If You don't know any Greek or Hebrew the formal equivalent sentence structure and the puns wont make sense to You, You'll only THINK You understand without understanding correctly.
There's less difference between a protestant Bible and a Catholic Bible, than You might think.
I'm glad You thought that the CTS New Catholic Bible is a Catholic Bible, because that gives me chance to give a counter-argument: it's not a Catholic version, it's in-between a Catholic and a Protestant version, intermediating. If You read about it's predecessor the ©1966, 1967, 1968 Jerusalem Bible, You can see that.
Let me give an example: I have a parallel New Testament printed in 1974, with 8 versions, on the back cover there's brief descriptions about the included versions, and it says that the Jerusalem Bible is appreciated by both Protestants and Catholics alike, also by scholars.
If You look at Catholic Bible commentaries, extremely few of them use the Jerusalem Bible, I come to think of only one series, and none use the CTS New Catholic Bible.
A more Catholic Bible which You should bevare of then, is the NAB-RE (OT done in 2002, Psalms done in 2010, NT done in 1986). To give my priest as an example: even though he is supposed to holding the Mass from the CTS New Catholic Bible (or the Jerusalem Bible), he is going solo in Europe using the NAB. He holds very Catholic sermons, so this means he doesn't think the CTS New Catholic Bible nor the Jerusalem Bible are.
The Jerusalem Bible is very famous, and everyone I've have spoken with IRL 2011-2012 have heard about it (and I've only spoken to Protestants, except my priest). One bloke hadn't heard it - but he didn't even know where to buy Bibles and used only a Finnish version. The CTS New Catholic Bible hasn't altered everything, but is clearly more modernistic, historical-critical, and a bit skeptic, than the Jerusalem Bible, just like the ESV and NRSV. The notes reflect a very modern view indeed.
Yes I know very well, the ESV is said to be conservative, but that's a grave miscomprehension/sales trique, it's based on the liberal RSV-2P. And yes the RSV is a liberal version. The only actual difference where the ESV is not giving into the liberalism of the RSV-P, is the famous Is 7:14 passage.
Also, if You think the ESV is a clearly protestant Bible, You might be very surprised that it has recently been amended by the Catholic Church in Australia for both use in Mass and in private - although it might not show up in the official Vatican listed of approved versions, but this is a fact. Also, brandplucked has showed that the ESV uses a Catholic scholarship critical textual basis, in several long threads. That's true, and the protestant translators were sold to the Catholic basis.
The ESV is marketed as a Bible study group version. If that's not Your main usage of it, it wont function well as a devotional Bible.
Serious scholars rarely use the ESV. Of course some, not that few. Unnecessary to point out, there's no commentary series which is widely accepted or that I would have noticed, based on the ESV. Only thing I've noticed is that there's interlinear Bibles Greek-English and Hebrew-English based on the ESV and that's besides the point.
The ESV may be popular, I'm sure it's in the top 3 or 4 list. Thats no sign of quality.
Regarding the scholarship of the ESV? Well, the RSV had decent scholarship for it's time, and has had several upgrades, the first edition of the NT came in 1946, then there were several revisions, especially Catholic revisions, the last as recent as in the '00s. What the ESV has done, is a downgrade, there's perhaps ⅓% improvements or less. It's nicknamed the Extremely Similar Version or Evangelical Standard Version, and it's not even mainstream because of the said Calvinistic bias. It's a version of very narrow usage because it falls into a cathegory.
Protestants, on an average, buy extremely much and recent Bibles. Catholics don't. The Orthodox use the Majority Text textual basis for the NT and the Septuagint as textual basis for the entire OT. You can see how it's not especially difficult to explain the sales figures of the ESV!
Firstly, I have to disagree with our Catholic friend about. The ESV is a fantastic version, whether or not it's one of the top sellers. It sells well for a reason; it's excellent.
False:
1) the ESV's only merit is that it's new. Whatever the advantage of that - not much at all. It's not even following the UBS Greek New Testament Version 4 that well even though version 4 IS the very newest, from 1993. There is another version that adheres to it strictly: the 2008-2009 Comprehensive New Testament, then of course You lack the OT.
2) It's not conservative like said.
But the ESV's merits come primarily from being based on the RSV, which is of course the predecessor to the NRSV. They've just adjusted it a bit to match conservative preferences. If your own theology is conservative you may still prefer it.
