# Crossway Approves Catholic Edition of the ESV



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 24, 2020)

Well, this is troubling. Apparently, Crossway has approved letting Catholic bishops make changes to their translation for use by Catholics.






According to Catholic Bible Student, the text was changed in order to prepare it for publication for Catholic use,

"The Bishops Conference of India needed a new English translation for the Lectionary and other liturgical purposes. Crossway worked out a deal with them, where a team of Catholic theologians and Scripture scholars headed up by Fr. Lucien Legrand, O.P. (now 93 years old!), would review the ESV translation carefully and make some emendations. The Catholic team did indeed review–and change–the text of the ESV in preparation for publication."​
Of course, this begs the question — what, exactly, were the changes?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Seems consistent with the ESV and Crossway, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Logan (Jan 24, 2020)

I'm no fan of Crossway but I think it would be prudent to wait and see what the emendations are before casting needless aspersion on them. For example, if the only changes made were to the ESV translation of the Apocrypha, who cares?

Let's not criticize what they only did in our imaginations. Imagination may prove true but we don't know yet.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 24, 2020)

Will Crossway themselves publish this new edition? If not, then isn’t this pretty much the same thing the ESV did to the RSV?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Crossway has for a long time been seen as an evangelical publisher. There is no needless aspersion given. They have played the game that many others have in aiding in the role of the antichrist. As to what this will contain is quite clear by a google search. It's very plainly a roman catholic book. Yes, it will contain the apocrypha. Yes, it will contain all the other changes that are known about papist bibles. Other than that, it's merely a 'new' translation for papists like having never heard of the ESV in 2000, only having the RSV, NIV, NASB, KJV, and then in early 2000's the ESV was published.

I critique crossway for this move as being anti-protestant to get more money and help the antichrist? Yes, it's a dumb move and a sinful move.

May I critique the ESV? My critiquing of the ESV or ESVCE is due to two things - Crossway and another needless translation from the critical text.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Will Crossway themselves publish this new edition?



It's already been published based on a licensing agreement between Crossway and those who will print it (Asian Trading Corporation).

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 24, 2020)

Logan said:


> For example, if the only changes made were to the ESV translation of the Apocrypha, who cares?


I think how we define the canon of Scripture is an important doctrinal question. Following the Reformation, the Church of Rome declared these books to be inspired Scripture. Certain things in them are appealed to by Catholics to defend unbiblical doctrines and practices. By Crossway allowing this edition to be published, they lend tacit approval of calling apocryphal writings inspired Scripture. That is something I would hope any conscientious Christian would care about.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 24, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Will Crossway themselves publish this new edition? If not, then isn’t this pretty much the same thing the ESV did to the RSV?


No it isn't the same thing. The RSV and ESV are recognized as two seperate translations. This Bible is inscribed with the words "English Standard Version." So weather they directly publish it or not, it bears their name and has their approval.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 24, 2020)

I've found several reviews (from Catholics) that critique it for being essentially the ESV with the Apocrypha inserted. For what it's worth, some complained that "protestant bias" wasn't removed.

I don't know what the precise case is, but it looks like Crossway licensed the text of the ESV, without changes. I don't know if it was for a fee or not.

Andrew, do you know there were changes made to the text? What changes? Do you know they received a fee to "get more money and help the antichrist"? How much? You may be right but isn't that conjecture?

(it appears to have initially been licensed for sale in Africa and India but the Augustine Institute has made an edition for the US. Crossway does not sell it)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Logan said:


> Andrew, do you know there were changes made to the text?



Doesn't matter if there were changes or not. The issue is the name, licensing agreement, and the critical text.



Logan said:


> Do you know they received a fee to "get more money and help the antichrist"? How much? You may be right but isn't that conjecture?



There's a licensing agreement. That isn't mere conjecture that they got paid, that's the logical conclusion for how businesses work. Unless you believe Crossway is going to do it out of the goodness of their heart. Licensing agreement costs are not usually made public. At the end of the day, they got paid. That's implicit in the action. Besides this, even if they didn't get paid (which is absurd) out of the goodness of their sinful hearts they approved of the action through the agreement, which is tacit approval of the antichrist and what he's doing.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Jan 24, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> No it isn't the same thing. The RSV and ESV are recognized as two seperate translations. This Bible is inscribed with the words "English Standard Version." So weather they directly publish it or not, it bears their name and has their approval.



I figured as much...unfortunately.


----------



## Jake (Jan 24, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Seems consistent with the ESV and Crossway, in my opinion.



My 1611 KJV (re-print) has too many Popish monuments of idolatry for my taste. It includes the Apocrypha (and has cross references between it and the OT and NT text undistinguished from Scripture cross references). It has tables for the days in which holy days are celebrated. It has questionable art work, some of which verges on 2nd commandment violations.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Jake said:


> My 1611 KJV (re-print) has too many Popish monuments of idolatry for my taste. It includes the Apocrypha (and has cross references between it and the OT and NT text undistinguished from Scripture cross references). It has tables for the days in which holy days are celebrated. It has questionable art work, some of which verges on 2nd commandment violations.



Okay. I'm not sure I get your point of bringing that up here in a thread about the ESVCE.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Jan 24, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> Okay. I'm not sure I get your point of bringing that up here in a thread about the ESVCE.



My point is that I wouldn't judge a translation by the activities of the publisher. The KJV had many solid Puritan-minded translators, but the published result was problematic in the ways I described. I still use the KJV in other editions. I likewise wouldn't make the merit of the ESV stand or fall based on some misjudgments of Crossway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2020)

Jake said:


> My point is that I wouldn't judge a translation by the activities of the publisher. The KJV had many solid Puritan-minded translators, but the published result was problematic in the ways I described. I still use the KJV in other editions. I likewise wouldn't make the merit of the ESV stand or fall based on some misjudgments of Crossway.



I don't believe I have, the ESV FALLS due to it being based on the Critical Text. I stated that above while the main of my critique here has been on Crossway. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that above, that was my intent without detracting from this particular issue with Crossway.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 24, 2020)

Logan said:


> I don't know what the precise case is, but it looks like Crossway licensed the text of the ESV, without changes.


According to the the Bishops Conference of India, the team did indeed review–and change–the text of the ESV in preparation for publication. But no clear statement has been made of all the exact changes that have been made. And it does not seem as though one will be given. Which is troubling because, as I've said, the bible bears the inscription "ESV."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Jan 24, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> According to the the Bishops Conference of India, the team did indeed review–and change–the text of the ESV in preparation for publication. But no clear statement has been made of all the exact changes that have been made. And it does not seem as though one will be given. Which is troubling because, as I've said, the bible bears the inscription "ESV."



In the case of other mostly Protestant translations, the Catholic Edition is usually so denoted differently. BibleGateway for example marks the RSV and RSVCE as two separate translations (same for NRSV). I don't think it would be too confusing since the same has already been done for other RSV-tradition Bibles.

You can see the changes made to the RSV here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-ce.html


----------



## bookslover (Jan 24, 2020)

I imagine that, for Crossway, this is no more than yet another marketing opportunity among the endless marketing strategies for the ESV over the last nearly 20 years (yes, the ESV will be 20 years old late next year).

I did smile though: just a couple of years ago, they were saying that the text was now "set" and would never be changed again. LOL

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 25, 2020)

Why, Crossway? Why?


----------



## bookslover (Jan 25, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Why, Crossway? Why?



$$$$$$$

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 26, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Why, Crossway? Why?


I think it's spelt _Crucifix_way now.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Jan 26, 2020)

I move that the thread title be changed to read "Roman Catholic" (or _Romish_, or _Popish_, or some such). The word _catholic_ (a very good word!) ought not to be soiled by foul associations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 26, 2020)

So what exactly do you all have against Crossway?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 26, 2020)

Some people are arguing that it may get more Catholics to read the Bible more which is a good thing.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 26, 2020)

TheInquirer said:


> So what exactly do you all have against Crossway?



I have no problem with them. Others don't like them because they publish the ESV, which is not the KJV

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 26, 2020)

TheInquirer said:


> So what exactly do you all have against Crossway?



Read above, starting with post #1 and work your way down.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 26, 2020)

And with Lockman’s upcoming NASB update not looking very good, what solid (non-KJV) Bible publisher is left?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 26, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> And with Lockman’s upcoming NASB update not looking very good, what solid (non-KJV) Bible publisher is left?



I have really enjoyed the Evangelical Heritage Version, produced by The Wartburg Project. It is a translation done by very conservative Lutherans. Lutherans, it seems to me, have not intermingled in broader evangelical circles like the Reformed have, and have really been content to keep to themselves. Therefore, you don’t see influence from the hot topics of "Big Eva." They have no desire to placate SJWs. It’s a solid translation, and very readable. Plus, they seem to take a more Majority Text-ish view of the New Testament.

I have enjoyed it a lot.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 26, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I have really enjoyed the Evangelical Heritage Version, produced by The Wartburg Project. It is a translation done by very conservative Lutherans.


I have heard very good things about these conservative Lutherans. I understand they made helpful recommendations re the CSB. I have 2 questions:

Does the translation have 'denominational bias'? That may be the case if it is a Lutheran translation.
Does it use an Optimum Equivalent approach to translation (similar to the CSB)?
I did a quick skim of a sample page. I still prefer the ESV for Psalm 23.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 26, 2020)

Is this a good missions outreach strategy to Catholics to get them to read the Bible? 

Or is it a compromise and a moneymaking scheme?

I am so conflicted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 26, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have heard very good things about these conservative Lutherans. I understand they made helpful recommendations re the CSB. I have 2 questions:
> 
> Does the translation have 'denominational bias'? That may be the case if it is a Lutheran translation.
> Does it use an Optimum Equivalent approach to translation (similar to the CSB)?
> I did a quick skim of a sample page. I still prefer the ESV for Psalm 23.


I appreciate Gene Veith's review. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2019/07/a-new-bible-translation-by-lutherans/


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 26, 2020)

So several of you are fine with assigning sinful motives to the publisher without hearing the reasons behind it? I didn't realize that some here have the gift of omniscience.

I have met the owner of Crossway and his wife and spoken to them on several occasions, still receive their annual personal newsletter. I have also supported them on a missions project. Though I am not close to them (but close to people that are), as far as I know, their reputation as people are blameless. They have done extraordinary work for the kingdom so far.

The choice to allow the Catholics to get their hands on the ESV is troublesome but I would want to hear the reason behind it.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 26, 2020)

i personally haven't been impressed by Crossway concerning the ESV translation and the way they are dealing with the apps. I spoke to representatives about the translation at the Reformation and Revival Conference in Deerfield a long long time ago. I had more hope for some things that didn't happen. There are some strange goings on with how this Catholic Version is being done. I am not so sure that some motives can't be adduced from recent actions. I do know that financial motives are real in some of the decisions they make. My AND Bible android app removal of the translation for instance is one instance. Is it wrong for them to desire to be paid for their work? I don't think so. A workman is worthy of his hire. I do think it is a mess when they allow the translation to be changed for Roman Catholic benefit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Jan 26, 2020)

Seems like NASB 1995 will still be going strong even post NASB 2020 https://316publishing.com/


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 26, 2020)

John Yap said:


> Seems like NASB 1995 will still be going strong even post NASB 2020 https://316publishing.com/


Nice.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 26, 2020)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Does the translation have 'denominational bias'? That may be the case if it is a Lutheran translation.
> 
> Does it use an Optimum Equivalent approach to translation (similar to the CSB)?



1. I have not detected any denominational bias. One thing I love about this translation is the amount of literature the translators have produced explaining their approach to many issues, and they give many detailed reasons as to why they have approached it they way they have. Even if I disagree with them, at least I can appreciate why they did something I disagree with.

2. I think the EHV is what the NIV should have been. I have found that, like the CSB, they are literal when understandable, and freer when necessary. I have really enjoyed it.



Stephen L Smith said:


> I did a quick skim of a sample page. I still prefer the ESV for Psalm 23.



In my opinion, the Psalms is where the EHV struggles most. It’s not all the time, but sometimes their rendering of a psalm is not so great. Just compare Psalm 127:1 in the EHV to almost any other translation. The EHV’s rendering of Psalm this verse is, frankly, atrocious. Accurate, but atrocious.


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 26, 2020)

I didn't realize we had "Only KJV" peeps on PB! I'm not sure I've ever met an "Only KJV" person in real life.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 26, 2020)

OPC'n said:


> I didn't realize we had "Only KJV" peeps on PB! I'm not sure I've ever met an "Only KJV" person in real life.


Who do you imagine on this board and in this discussion is KJVO?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 26, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Who do you imagine on this board and in this discussion is KJVO?


Perhaps @Romans922 came off that way?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 26, 2020)

Sounded like Andrew Barnes, but I could have just misunderstood. In any case, I was just being light-hearted. I don't care if people are "Only KJV" it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 26, 2020)

Would anyone be upset if Crossway gave publishing rights to Mormons or JW’s in places where people didn’t have any other Bibles?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 26, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Perhaps @Romans922 came off that way?


Just re-read his posts in the thread and I do not think there is anything is his remarks to justify calling him a proponent of KJVOism.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 26, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Would anyone be upset if Crossway gave publishing rights to Mormons or JW’s in places where people didn’t have any other Bibles?


Great question.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 26, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Just re-read his posts in the thread and I do not think there is anything is his remarks to justify calling him a proponent of KJVOism.


No. Just a CT critic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 27, 2020)

Logan said:


> I'm no fan of Crossway but I think it would be prudent to wait and see what the emendations are before casting needless aspersion on them. For example, if the only changes made were to the ESV translation of the Apocrypha, who cares?
> 
> Let's not criticize what they only did in our imaginations. Imagination may prove true but we don't know yet.



Why are they working with Romanists at all? So much for the ESV being the new standard conservative translation of the Bible. (Which, of course, it never was.)



Jake said:


> My 1611 KJV (re-print) has too many Popish monuments of idolatry for my taste. It includes the Apocrypha (and has cross references between it and the OT and NT text undistinguished from Scripture cross references). It has tables for the days in which holy days are celebrated. It has questionable art work, some of which verges on 2nd commandment violations.



You should get one of the later editions. The TBS does some very nice ones.



TheInquirer said:


> So several of you are fine with assigning sinful motives to the publisher without hearing the reasons behind it? I didn't realize that some here have the gift of omniscience.
> 
> I have met the owner of Crossway and his wife and spoken to them on several occasions, still receive their annual personal newsletter. I have also supported them on a missions project. Though I am not close to them (but close to people that are), as far as I know, their reputation as people are blameless. They have done extraordinary work for the kingdom so far.
> 
> The choice to allow the Catholics to get their hands on the ESV is troublesome but I would want to hear the reason behind it.



I haven't met the owner of Crossway and his wife but as a seller of Christian books I can tell you there are plenty of reasons to be cautious in regards to Crossway. Their output is _very _mixed, to say the least, and this is just another questionable move. It seems to me that personal friendships should not take priority over fidelity to God and His revealed Word. There can be no excuse for co-operation with the Antichrist.



Rutherglen1794 said:


> Would anyone be upset if Crossway gave publishing rights to Mormons or JW’s in places where people didn’t have any other Bibles?



Yes

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 27, 2020)

I find some of the attitudes in this thread far more disturbing than what Crossway may have done. I am really struggling to see how this attitude squares with the 9th commandment.

We have zero data as to what Crossway actually did or their motives. Please keep that in mind.

And if it does turn out to be the case that the worst imagined offenses are true, can we not try to sorrowfully correct as a brother rather than wholesale condemnation? I have no doubt there are many Christians there.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 27, 2020)

Logan said:


> I find some of the attitudes in this thread far more disturbing than what Crossway may have done. I am really struggling to see how this attitude squares with the 9th commandment.
> 
> We have zero data as to what Crossway actually did or their motives. Please keep that in mind.
> 
> And if it does turn out to be the case that the worst imagined offenses are true, can we not try to sorrowfully correct as a brother rather than wholesale condemnation? I have no doubt there are many Christians there.



How am I meant to correct the owner of Crossway? I'm not friends with him, like some people. How about a publisher of Christian books can be called to account in public since publishing books is, you know, a public act.

And it is blatantly not true that we have "zero data" as to what has happened otherwise how could this thread have occurred in the first place? This statement is close to a lie, in my opinion. I'm sure you didn't mean to lie, but perhaps you should be more careful in how you phrase things.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 27, 2020)

I don't think anyone is lying on this thread. They may not have seen or simply not understood the evidence the same way. For this to continue, I think there is a need that the known information be restated succinctly for review. If someone is willing to make a post of that information with explicit proof and backup without judgment, opinion or comment, I'll reopen the thread and the discussion can continue based on that information. Contact me or any moderator.

Reactions: Like 5


----------

