# ESV Catholic Bible UPDATE



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

This is a follow-up to a previous thread (See https://puritanboard.com/threads/crossway-approves-catholic-edition-of-the-esv.101118/ )

I emailed Crossway directly regarding my concern about the ESV Catholic Bible. 

This is the official statement given to me:

“Two years ago, Crossway was approached by Roman Catholic leadership in India about adopting the ESV into Catholic church life and liturgy. After careful consideration, we were glad to license the ESV for publication by an Indian publishing house, supplying Bible readers in this part of the world with a sound translation. Though it is not our calling to publish resources for the Catholic church, we are grateful for this opportunity to support their desire to provide an essentially literal and academically current translation of the Bible. We remain as committed as ever to publishing gospel-centered resources in the historic stream of the Reformation.” 

Let’s have a discussion about what is contained in this statement, _not_ about supposed hidden motives about making money or the like. I have been assured that if the discussion devolves into hypotheticals or unfounded assertions, then it will be shut down. Let’s keep it focused on the statement given. 

What do you all think?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Doesn't the RCC have enough scholars to do their own translation compared with other texts? Why capitulate and allow your work to be changed for the purpose of the RCC? What hath Christ to do with Baal? That is a nice reply but I am wearied by pragmatic ways. My preference is not for the ESV even though my congregation uses it. I use it some as I do other translations I don't usually refer to. But that might be another discussion.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Doesn't the RCC have enough scholars to do their own translation compared with other texts? Why capitulate and allow your work to be changed for the purpose of the RCC? What hath Christ to do with Baal? That is a nice reply but I am wearied by pragmatic ways. My preference is not for the ESV even though my congregation uses it. I use it some as I do other translations I don't usually refer to. But that might be another discussion.


For the record, we don’t know if they allowed changes to the ESV text. All we know for sure is that the Apocrypha was included.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Jan 28, 2020)

Still doesn't sit well with me. They claim to promote Reformation virtues but are happy to provide Romans with a modified translation. The very reason the men of crossway hold to Reformation virtues is because the Roman Catholic church had turned Christian religion into an idolatrous, devilish church. In my opinion it'd hypocritical.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> For the record, we don’t know if they allowed changes to the ESV text. All we know for sure is that the Apocrypha was included.


There were some references mentioned in the other thread to changes in the script.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There were some references mentioned in the other thread to changes in the script.


Yes, but we don’t have specific examples to prove it; nor has Crossway confirmed that they have allowed changes. 

A moderator I talked to would like the discussion to be about what we know for certain, and we don’t have certainty about potential changes to the text.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 28, 2020)

If it is documented or any subsequent statement from the publisher comes to light then that can be discussed. Otherwise, limit discussion to the OP.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> There were some references mentioned in the other thread to changes in the script.





Rutherglen1794 said:


> Yes, but we don’t have specific examples to prove it; nor has Crossway confirmed that they have allowed changes.
> 
> A moderator I talked to would like the discussion to be about what we know for certain, and we don’t have certainty about potential changes to the text.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> Still doesn't sit well with me. They claim to promote Reformation virtues but are happy to provide Romans with a modified translation. The very reason the men of crossway hold to Reformation virtues is because the Roman Catholic church had turned Christian religion into an idolatrous, devilish church. In my opinion it'd hypocritical.


Yes, it is very strange to say that they wanted to help Catholics, and then to affirm that they are pro-Reformation. The logic is so flawed. 

Is getting a “sound translation” into a region presumably without one worth supporting the ‘Catholic Church’?


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

If this statement is all there is to it, I don't really see the issue. Crossway publishes a licensing agreement in the front of every Bible about being able to quote up to 500 verses without permission, and requiring written permission for longer than that. 

And as for what we know on changes, there is no proof of any changes made yet. There is proof of changes that were _not_ made, such as 1 Tim 3:15, which a number of Catholics I've come across believe has a Protestant bias in the ESV.

http://catholicbiblestudent.com/2018/03/review-esv-catholic-edition-bible-esvce.html
https://forums.catholic.com/t/esv-catholic-edition-out-now/471639/9
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/8yly5z/esv_for_catholics/
http://stutler.cc/russ/esvce.html



http://stutler.cc/russ/esvce.html said:


> But for those who are curious about other crucial verses, I have checked some of the ones which have been inquired about at different web forums and found them to be identical to the Protestant ESV. [e.g., Gen 3:16, John 3:7, Rom 14:11--12, 1 Tim 3:1, 1 Tim 3:15, 1 John 5:16-17]

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Jan 28, 2020)

They also already authorized a version of the ESV with Apocrypha: https://www.amazon.com/English-Standard-Version-Bible-Apocrypha/dp/0195289102


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Is getting a “sound translation” into a region presumably without one worth supporting the ‘Catholic Church’?



Perhaps I'm just really obtuse, but sticking strictly to the statement by Crossway in the OP, how is allowing the RCC the use of what they believe to be a good, sound translation of the word of God "supporting" them in a bad way? Can you help me understand what I'm missing?

If a Roman Catholic came up to me and said, "hey, would you be willing to let me have that extra copy of the Bible you have?" I'd say sure. If he offered to pay me for it I'd still say sure. If he said he was going to copy it and resell it to friends, I'd still say sure. Is this a different scenario?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Specifically it is mentioned that the biggest change was in the book of Tobit. It was totally redone. The apocrypha was translated in 2010. 



> 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. The biggest change was the Book of Tobit, which had to be retranslated from scratch. The translation was reviewed in accord with the norms of _Liturgiam authenticam_, then it was approved and granted the _Impimatur_ by the whole Conference of Catholic Bishops of India and published in early 2018. It is available in India from the Asian Trading Corporation.
> 
> http://catholicbiblestudent.com/201...k5aL_9_z7s6PnQCO1Ja0D9vp6PZULNVHHefqZ3wg2k_QI


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Logan said:


> If a Roman Catholic came up to me and said, "hey, would you be willing to let me have that extra copy of the Bible you have?" I'd say sure. If he offered to pay me for it I'd still say sure. If he said he was going to copy it and resell it to friends, I'd still say sure. Is this a different scenario?


Handing an RCC member a copy of the 66 books is not the same as handing him a RCC bible with it's notes and emendations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Logan said:


> If this statement is all there is to it, I don't really see the issue. Crossway publishes a licensing agreement in the front of every Bible about being able to quote up to 500 verses without permission, and requiring written permission for longer than that.


But this isn’t for 500 verses. This is allowing the ESV name to be on a Catholic item, and enabling a Catholic project. 

Is this not essentially helping spread the Catholic message?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Handing an RCC member a copy of the 66 books is not the same as handing him a RCC bible with it's notes and emendations.



Is that the case? I thought it was specifically printed without any notes. I've seen no notes in any of the photos of the pages besides translation notes.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Reread this section:

“Though it is not our calling to publish resources for the Catholic church, we are grateful for this opportunity to support their desire to provide an essentially literal and academically current translation of the Bible.”

That is so problematic.

The ecumenical tone is very troubling. Should they not be denouncing the false Catholic Church?

What if this was a cult, and not the RCC?

You would not support equipping heretics with Bibles to go out into the world and spread their false gospel, would you? 

That, to me, seems to be the real issue here. This is most certainly not “contend[ing] earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

I'm still not really understanding, and that might be my fault. Perhaps this would help me: What would an appropriate licensing agreement look like? Or do you think there can be one at all?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Logan said:


> I'm still not really understanding, and that might be my fault. Perhaps this would help me: What would an appropriate licensing agreement look like? Or do you think there can be one at all?


No, I don’t think a Christian organization can justify giving the RCC licensing rights to its Bible translation, especially in the context of it being used in their false worship.

Edit: This isn’t a _product_ we are talking about. It is God’s inspired Word to men.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Logan said:


> I'm still not really understanding, and that might be my fault. Perhaps this would help me: What would an appropriate licensing agreement look like? Or do you think there can be one at all?


Why can't the RCC do their own work? What hath Christ to do with Baal. Also, almost every Bible I have seen has come with some notations, recommendations, and prefatory intro.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

I am not opposed to sharing my Bible with a Roman Catholic. I am disheartened that an Ecclesiastical body that has disowned the Gospel of Jesus Christ and pronounced anathema upon those who believe the Gospel and in the One and only true Mediator between God and Man has now possibly looked more endearing to those they oppose. An angel of supposed light is putting on clothing that might be used to deceive even more. At the same time God is able to override RCC dogma and tradition which has authoritative preeminence over the Bible in the RCC by His Spirit. I pray for mercy and grace.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> No, I don’t think a Christian organization can justify giving the RCC licensing rights to its Bible translation, especially in the context of it being used in their false worship.



Okay, thanks. I believe I understand your concern and point of view.

However, I would tend to think that if I could give a copy of the Bible to everyone in the world, I would (sort of like what the Gideons aspire to do). That would of course include all the heretics in the world who might use it to further their heresy or use it in false worship. Perhaps that's a different scenario than licensing but that's where my thinking goes.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

Logan said:


> Okay, thanks. I believe I understand your concern and point of view.
> 
> However, I would tend to think that if I could give a copy of the Bible to everyone in the world, I would (sort of like what the Gideons aspire to do). That would of course include all the heretics in the world who might use it to further their heresy or use it in false worship. Perhaps that's a different scenario than licensing but that's where my thinking goes.


I do think that that is a different scenario.

For me, this hazy ecumenicalism (which, by the way, would have been kept secret from us Western Protestants had we not stumbled upon it from others) casts a shadow of suspicion over Crossway as a publisher.

I’m not saying they have some hidden, underhanded motives; but I feel I need to treat them now the same way I do The Gospel Coalition: Be diligent and thorough in making sure what they are offering is sound.

Also, this adds to the handful of potential problems with using the ESV as my long-term translation.

The others being things like the 2016 ‘Permanent Text’ debacle; the questionable changes made in Genesis; Crossway’s enabling of the grotesque Scripture art fad by providing Bibles for, and encouraging people to use, art as a form of personal devotion; the high number of textual changes in a relatively short period of time compared to a similar translation like the NASB; the appearance of being a marketing-juggernaut that hurried a translation to market when another English translation was definitely not needed; etc.

These things together do not give me confidence in the long-term wisdom of committing myself and my family to the ESV. It’s a shame I bought so many before this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 28, 2020)

As another thought, it seems problematic for protestants to say "we will never let you use any of our translations." That means the alternative is for them to create their own and that's not a better situation for anyone.

This is a good subject for me to chew on a bit and I'm not seeing the clear, simple answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 28, 2020)

My gut tells me there is context to consider that might not immediately come to mind for us who live comfortably in the West.

1. Persecution of both protestants and Catholics is increasing sharply in India. This is causing them to rely on each other more than in the past simply to survive and maintain their work. And the Reformed missionaries I know there, who are seeing a great number of conversions amid all of this, report that the Catholic missionaries are taking note and often will freely allow evangelicals to teach in their schools and so on, realizing that the evangelicals have something true and better to offer. In short, some Catholics there are opening up to gospel teaching due to the hard times.

2. Catholicism is splintering in new and bigger ways. Worldwide within the Catholic church, there is a growing and more visible rift between old-school and progressive factions and an increased willingness to admit displeasure with the Vatican. One result is that evangelical-curious factions are becoming bolder as well. So you might find Catholics, even pretty high up in the church, who say in effect, "We trust an evangelical publishing house and the values and teaching they represent more than we trust what the Vatican might give us." Is this a positive development, or must such Catholics be rebuffed and told to go back to Rome where they belong?

3. There are 1.3 billion(!) souls living in India, most of them in spiritual darkness. If you believe you have a solid translation of the Bible, and if any group at all wants to make that translation more assessible on that subcontinent, might you say yes in the belief that the Spirit uses the Word powerfully even where it is distributed by those who are part of the darkness? How can you say to all those souls in India, "No, we will let you remain in darkness because we have to make sure that we, here in Wheaton, Illinois where there is no persecution and churches are abundant, are kept insulated from any tricky entanglements"?

I would not guess this was a slam-dunk decision for Crossway, but I can see why they might end up saying yes. If one's primary outlook on the world is that it is a dangerous place and the church must hunker down and insulate itself from the evil out there, one probably says no. But if one sees the church as an advancing force, used by the Spirit to bring the gospel into the world with power, one might see this as an opportunity to make inroads. Both are true to an extent. It would be a mistake to see the whole affair through one lens only.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Yes, it is very strange to say that they wanted to help Catholics, and then to affirm that they are pro-Reformation. The logic is so flawed.



Not necessarily. If a Catholic who didn't have a bible came to me and asked for a Bible so he could find Catholic proof-texts, I would give it to him.

Disclosure: I am a New American Standard guy, so I am not carrying water for Crossway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Let’s have a discussion about what is contained in this statement


My concern lies more in what is NOT contained in the statement. The Bishops Conference of India has publicly stated that changes were indeed made to the text of the ESV without clearly enumerating what those changes were. That is what is difficult to understand. Why would they allow Roman Catholics to make changes to their translation? Why would that even be necessary if the translation is so acceptable to these Catholics if the reason for such changes was not doctrinal in nature?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 28, 2020)

Its use in the RC liturgy could be significant. People will be singing the ESV: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." They may also be reading it in their lessons. Until shown otherwise, the publisher appears to be sharing the powerful word of God with Indians sitting in pews.

The Apocrypha is not evil in and of itself. It has widely been used by Biblical theologians to give insight into language translation and to understand the context of the New Testament as it developed in the intertestamental period.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not necessarily. If a Catholic who didn't have a bible came to me and asked for a Bible so he could find Catholic proof-texts, I would give it to him.
> 
> Disclosure: I am a New American Standard guy, so I am not carrying water for Crossway.


You aren’t a Christian publisher. And that’s one person Apples and oranges.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> My concern lies more in what is NOT contained in the statement. The Bishops Conference of India has publicly stated that changes were indeed made to the text of the ESV without clearly enumerating what those changes were. That is what is difficult to understand. Why would they allow Roman Catholics to make changes to their translation? Why would that even be necessary if the translation is so acceptable to these Catholics if the reason for such changes was not doctrinal in nature?



If no changes were made, you are okay with it?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> Its use in the RC liturgy could be significant. People will be singing the ESV: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." They may also be reading it in their lessons. Until shown otherwise, the publisher appears to be sharing the powerful word of God with Indians sitting in pews.



Isn’t it more accurate to say that they are sharing the Word with those who obscure it, and lead their people astray?

And does Crossway’s almost complete silence on the matter—other than a small, ambiguous statement when asked—concern you?

If they released a statement going into more depth for those of us who support this non-profit publisher, then maybe we could talk about the issues you bring up.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 28, 2020)

If it were as simple as Roman Catholics wanting access to a "faithful" translation of the Scripture, what would hinder them from simply purchasing existing copies of the ESV? Of course we should have no problem selling or _giving _Bibles to anyone who wants one. The implication seems to be there is more than these Roman Catholics wanting access to "faithful" Bibles, right?

No, the Apocyrpha may not be evil in itself, but knowing that the Roman Catholic Church affirms it to be Scripture, doesn't that change the equation at all? I can't help but think this situation goes a step beyond just giving/selling/licensing a Bible.

(And as an aside I won't rant about too much, maybe this is a good illustration of how the whole "licensing" of Bibles may be problematic too )

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> You aren’t a Christian publisher. And that’s one person Apples and oranges.



Fine. Let's pretend I am the President of End Times Bible Prophecy Publishing. I okay the project. Let's further pretend that a bishop comes to me wanting a bunch of bibles (whether purchased or gifts, whatever). This bishop saw half his diocese macheted to death. He thinks they need bibles. Who am I to say no?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> The Apocrypha is not evil in and of itself.



Agreed. You can't fully understand the NT background without having a good grasp on 1-2 Macc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

ADKing said:


> but knowing that the Roman Catholic Church affirms it to be Scripture, doesn't that change the equation at all?



No. That's a logical fallacy.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. That's a logical fallacy.



Which logical fallacy? I don't think you understand. It is possible for something not to be inherently evil and used lawfully and for that not to be a problem. If you know someone intends to use something for unlawful purposes then the change in factual circumstances may alter one's perspective.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am the President of End Times Bible Prophecy Publishing.


Ah, I have always wondered who publishes the "Left behind" series. Now I understand

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Funny 2


----------



## KMK (Jan 28, 2020)

Does Crossway bind itself to WCF 25:VI?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

KMK said:


> Does Crossway bind itself to WCF 25:VI?


No. Why?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> The Apocrypha is not evil in and of itself. It has widely been used by Biblical theologians to give insight into language translation and to understand the context of the New Testament as it developed in the intertestamental period.


We can acknowledge the Apocrypha is both useful for study _AND_ that something wicked was done when Apocryphal authors claimed to be speaking for God. We can also say that it is positively wicked to assert that the Apocrypha is the inspired Word of God. That's what Rome claims. And the Lord does not mence words about those who add to his Word.

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish _ought_ from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.—Deut. 4:2

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.—Prov. 30:6

Then the LORD said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.—Jeremiah 14:14

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and _from_ the things which are written in this book.—Rev. 22:18, 19
​My advice to Crossway would be, Be not a partaker of other men's sins. If Catholics like the ESV, they are free to buy them and use them just as they are. If they don't, tell them to make their own translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

ADKing said:


> Which logical fallacy? I don't think you understand. It is possible for something not to be inherently evil and used lawfully and for that not to be a problem. If you know someone intends to use something for unlawful purposes then the change in factual circumstances may alter one's perspective.



I thought you were saying the Apocrypha is wrong because Rome. I think the Apocrypha is necessary reading to understand the context of the NT World. I do not think it is necessary for salvation, of course.

As to using the Apocrypha for evil purposes, I can't imagine how that would work, outside that weird verse in Macc.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

KMK said:


> Does Crossway bind itself to WCF 25:VI?



Of course not. They aren't and have never pretended to be confessional.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> We can acknowledge the Apocrypha is both useful for study _AND_ that something wicked was done when Apocryphal authors claimed to be speaking for God. We can also say that it is positively wicked to assert that the Apocrypha is the inspired Word of God. That's what Rome claims. And the Lord does not mence words about those who add to his Word.
> 
> Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish _ought_ from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.—Deut. 4:2
> 
> ...



I wonder how many apocryphal writers actually claimed to speak for God? The author of 3 Macc. almost admitted there were errors in his work. Tobit and Judith read like fairy tales, which any educated Greek or Jew would recognize right away.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> Its use in the RC liturgy could be significant. People will be singing the ESV: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." They may also be reading it in their lessons. Until shown otherwise, the publisher appears to be sharing the powerful word of God with Indians sitting in pews.


This video has a SCV but they already sing that and they also make it a mass issue.
John Polce from the album Here is my Servant, To Whom Shall We Go is the song.


Can't post it without it posting as a video with a pic. It is on YouTube.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not necessarily. If a Catholic who didn't have a bible came to me and asked for a Bible so he could find Catholic proof-texts, I would give it to him.


I would also with some explanation and Matthew Pooles booklet. https://www.donkistler.org/store/p20/A_Dialogue_Between_a_Catholic_Priest_and_a_Protestant.html#/

I am not a book burner on some things.
I have heard testimony of Jehovah's Witnesses coming to Christ through the New World Translation and abandoning it.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I thought you were saying the Apocrypha is wrong because Rome. I think the Apocrypha is necessary reading to understand the context of the NT World. I do not think it is necessary for salvation, of course.
> 
> As to using the Apocrypha for evil purposes, I can't imagine how that would work, outside that weird verse in Macc.



I was not saying the Apocrypha is wrong "because Rome." I was saying (however unclearly ) Rome uses it sinfully.

How would one use the Apocrypha for evil purposes? How about disseminating it as the Word of God, when it is not and teaching others that it is the Word of God?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## KMK (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> No. Why?



If Crossway does not confess that the Pope is the Antichrist, then why should they hesitate to make a buck off of him?


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

KMK said:


> If Crossway does not confess that the Pope is the Antichrist, then why should they hesitate to make a buck off of him?


If that is their thinking process, then that is cause for great concern, wouldn’t you agree?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 28, 2020)

No one who affirms a qualifying confession can claim that the apocrypha is anything but extra-bibical. So let's not develop straw man arguments and "prove" you can't add to the scriptures. The position is accepted _a priori_. I would hope that any Bible publisher would put some kind of disclaimer on an apocrypha and that is, perhaps, the issue with Crossway here.

If one publishes hymnals and orders of worship I'm assuming international copyright agreements would stipulate owning the right to use a particular translation of the Bible. High churches are dependent on these resources. (That is one of the hopes I have for RC and liberal but traditional Anglicans and Lutherans. They sing and read God's word week after week even in an unholy setting.) Sending a crate of Bibles overseas won't fill this purpose. Our publishers can likely address this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> I would hope that any Bible publisher would put some kind of disclaimer on an apocrypha and that is, perhaps, the issue with Crossway here.


I am willing to bet that a disclaimer hasn't happened in this situation.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 28, 2020)

NEW UPDATE RECEIVED FROM CROSSWAY:

“In regards to any changes, a
handful of words were changed. No changes, however, were made to the ESV
text for theological reasons pertaining to Catholicism.”

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

ADKing said:


> How would one use the Apocrypha for evil purposes? How about disseminating it as the Word of God, when it is not and teaching others that it is the Word of God?



I suppose, but if someone reads Judith and 3 Macc. and thinks that the author of those books thinks they are inspired, there isn't much more I can say.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 28, 2020)

KMK said:


> If Crossway does not confess that the Pope is the Antichrist, then why should they hesitate to make a buck off of him?



Perhaps, but since zero evangelical publishers confess the original WCF on that point, it seems to be holding Crossway to an overly strict standard. And "making a buck off him" automatically imputes the worst motives to them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> “In regards to any changes, a
> handful of words were changed. No changes, however, were made to the ESV
> text for theological reasons pertaining to Catholicism.”


That is fine and okay maybe. Depends on how that is defined. If you read Gene Veith's blog on the Evangelical Heritage Version a word can make a big difference. And I believe he is Lutheran. 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2019/07/a-new-bible-translation-by-lutherans/


> *A Lutheran Bible?*
> Though the translators insist that the EHV is not just a “Lutheran Bible,” nor any sort of official translation of WELS or ELS, most Lutheran theological emphases are evident, as one would expect.
> 
> The translations of the relevant passages reflects a high view of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Evodius (Jan 28, 2020)

Here's one of the changes made to the ESV text.
Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O _highly_ favored one, the Lord is with you!”
The word '_highly' _is added.
Also, it is already available in the US (search the Augustine bible).

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## kodos (Jan 28, 2020)

Evodius said:


> Here's one of the changes made to the ESV text.
> Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O _highly_ favored one, the Lord is with you!”
> The word is '_highly' _added.
> Also, it is already available in the US (search the Augustine bible).



In this case, probably an improvement to the original ESV. See, KJV/NKJV/NIV for instance.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Susan777 (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I suppose, but if someone reads Judith and 3 Macc. and thinks that the author of those books thinks they are inspired, there isn't much more I can say.


It could be that same someone who believes that the angels flew the House of Loreto all over Europe.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I suppose, but if someone reads Judith and 3 Macc. and thinks that the author of those books thinks they are inspired, there isn't much more I can say.


3rd Maccabees is not included in the Catholic canon. But regardless, it makes no difference what any particular individual thinks of these writings. What matters is that Rome declares them to be the inspired Word of God. They cite them throughout their catechism as proof texts. Most Catholics don't think twice about it and accept this as fact. That is a serious matter. But most of what you are saying gives me the impression that you think it's no big deal.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

jwithnell said:


> No one who affirms a qualifying confession can claim that the apocrypha is anything but extra-bibical. So let's not develop straw man arguments and "prove" you can't add to the scriptures. The position is accepted _a priori_.


I'm not sure who you have in view with this statement. But in this discussion, the issue seems to hinge not so much on weather the Apocrypha is inspired Scripture (on that I am sure we are all agreed), but instead, whether the Church of Rome's claim that _it is_ inspired Scripture is anything that should trouble us. I am rather surprised by some of the things that have been said in this discussion on that question.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> NEW UPDATE RECEIVED FROM CROSSWAY:
> 
> “In regards to any changes, a
> handful of words were changed. No changes, however, were made to the ESV
> text for theological reasons pertaining to Catholicism.”


I have no reason to doubt this statement. But it does beg the question, If it's only a handful of changes, why not simply disclose what they are?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 28, 2020)

Authority


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wonder how many apocryphal writers actually claimed to speak for God?



Here are a few from just a quick search...

Baruch 2:21—Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.

Judith 2:5—Thus saith the great king, the lord of the whole earth, Behold, thou shalt go forth from my presence, and take with thee men that trust in their own strength, of footmen an hundred and twenty thousand; and the number of horses with their riders twelve thousand.

2 Esdras 1:12—Speak thou therefore unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord,​


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I can claim to be like a Jason Stellman and repent from things I use to believe. I really do not believe he understood those things. I have posted about that. But the Bible is one one one thing thing we shouldn't have disagreement about and what authority it holds. Where does Authority of the Scritpure come from? Even if we hold to the Critical or Majority Textual situation the issue has to do with the Authority of Scripture as God made things. This is a problem here. What has Gutenberg wrought?


Can you flesh that out a bit?

Are you saying that what Crossway has done here is problematic primarily in terms of authority over the Word of God, and how it ought to be handled?


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps, but since zero evangelical publishers confess the original WCF on that point, it seems to be holding Crossway to an overly strict standard. And "making a buck off him" automatically imputes the worst motives to them.



If they do not believe the Pope is the Antichrist, then RC is just another sect of Christianity. Why shouldn't they seek out as much business as possible? Maybe I am not getting it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Can you flesh that out a bit?
> 
> Are you saying that what Crossway has done here is problematic primarily in terms of authority over the Word of God, and how it ought to be handled?


Absolutely. The way we view the Bible is different than how the Roman Catholic Church or a Liberal Christian views the authority of what has been substantially written from Time Past. We believe What God Has Said and He has not been Silent on topics we need to address. The Moral Law is what it is and his Work for our Salvation is Ontologically and immanently relevant. What he says about His Written Word is important. Peter said it was of the highest importance.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 
2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


St. Peter heard the Audible voice of God in the Mount but considered his written word more than that.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Absolutely. The way we view the Bible is different than how the Roman Catholic Church or a Liberal Christian views the authority of what has been substantially written from Time Past. We believe What God Has Said and He has not been Silent on topics we need to address. The Moral Law is what it is and his Work for our Salvation is Ontologically and immanently relevant. What he says about His Written Word is important. Peter said it was of the highest importance.
> 
> 2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
> 2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
> ...



Indeed. 

It’s hard to envision a world where the Bible isn’t copyrighted and licensed for use. It’s been a while.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> It’s hard to envision a world where the Bible isn’t copyrighted and licensed for use. It’s been a while.


I believe the KJV is out of that range. It depends upon which translation. You can even find Wycliffe's or Tyndale's for free without copywrite probably. I have not looked into it. There are many free downloads. Even the Douay-Reims is free which is a Latin to English translation for Roman Catholics. I have it downloaded also.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 29, 2020)

This is the problem.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Absolutely. The way we view the Bible is different than how the Roman Catholic Church or a Liberal Christian views the authority of what has been substantially written from Time Past. We believe What God Has Said and He has not been Silent on topics we need to address. The Moral Law is what it is and his Work for our Salvation is Ontologically and immanently relevant. What he says about His Written Word is important. Peter said it was of the highest importance.



Authority of Scripture is the issue.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> If they do not believe the Pope is the Antichrist, then RC is just another sect of Christianity. Why shouldn't they seek out as much business as possible? Maybe I am not getting it.



I think you are putting two separate issues into one. In any case, I don't believe the Pope is the Antichrist, so there's that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Here are a few from just a quick search...
> 
> Baruch 2:21—Thus saith the Lord, Bow down your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon: so shall ye remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers.
> 
> ...



Strictly speaking, those "saiths" aren't actually denoting that the whole account is to be understood as real. If I were writing a religious fiction, I would probably have characters say that.

The author of Esdras, though, probably did think his was inspired.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But most of what you are saying gives me the impression that you think it's no big deal.



I don't think it is super wise, but no, I don't think "how the mighty have fallen."


----------



## kodos (Jan 29, 2020)

Just a thought: one doesn't have to believe the Pope is _the_ Antichrist to believe that those who peddle a false-gospel (and anathematized the true gospel) should not be enabled in their "ministry" and hope that good might come out of their wickedness.

Whether or not you believe the papacy is the seat of the Antichrist, it is difficult for me to imagine anyone wants to enable those who make their disciples twice the children of hell as they are. To enable those who cover up child abuse, enable pedophile priests, and commit other vile and wicked deeds, all in the name of Christ, virtually ensuring that the "_name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of them_".

No thanks.

Somehow, Rome has been rehabilitated in the eyes of Protestants and it is all rather shocking to me.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Jan 29, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe the KJV is out of that range. It depends upon which translation. You can even find Wycliffe's or Tyndale's for free without copywrite probably. I have not looked into it. There are many free downloads. Even the Douay-Reims is free which is a Latin to English translation for Roman Catholics. I have it downloaded also.



Just as a note, it depends on the copyright laws of the country you are in. For example, the KJV is still licensed by the Crown in the United Kingdom (Cambridge University Press editions even have a 500 verse quotation limit).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 29, 2020)

Jack K said:


> My gut tells me there is context to consider that might not immediately come to mind for us who live comfortably in the West.
> 
> 1. Persecution of both protestants and Catholics is increasing sharply in India. This is causing them to rely on each other more than in the past simply to survive and maintain their work. And the Reformed missionaries I know there, who are seeing a great number of conversions amid all of this, report that the Catholic missionaries are taking note and often will freely allow evangelicals to teach in their schools and so on, realizing that the evangelicals have something true and better to offer. In short, some Catholics there are opening up to gospel teaching due to the hard times.



It seems strange to seek shelter with the people who a few hundred years ago were trying- in many cases successfully- to burn us at the stake for heresy. We are deluded if we think the church of Rome would not immediately start up her violent persecution of Protestants once again if given the opportunity. The Pope is the Antichrist: he hates the Gospel and will do everything he can- overt and subtle- to undermine and destroy it. The church of Rome is to be repudiated and denounced in absolute terms.



Jack K said:


> 2. Catholicism is splintering in new and bigger ways. Worldwide within the Catholic church, there is a growing and more visible rift between old-school and progressive factions and an increased willingness to admit displeasure with the Vatican. One result is that evangelical-curious factions are becoming bolder as well. So you might find Catholics, even pretty high up in the church, who say in effect, "We trust an evangelical publishing house and the values and teaching they represent more than we trust what the Vatican might give us." Is this a positive development, or must such Catholics be rebuffed and told to go back to Rome where they belong?



As long as Romanists maintan allegiance to the pope and the church of Rome they are not on the side of the Gospel. It should also be borne in mind that when it comes to Rome both sides of the debate (traditionalist v progressive) are our enemies. The progressives are liberals and the traditionalists are traditionalist _Romanists_. Both sides reject the Gospel.



Jack K said:


> 3. There are 1.3 billion(!) souls living in India, most of them in spiritual darkness. If you believe you have a solid translation of the Bible, and if any group at all wants to make that translation more assessible on that subcontinent, might you say yes in the belief that the Spirit uses the Word powerfully even where it is distributed by those who are part of the darkness? How can you say to all those souls in India, "No, we will let you remain in darkness because we have to make sure that we, here in Wheaton, Illinois where there is no persecution and churches are abundant, are kept insulated from any tricky entanglements"?



There are millions in our own Western countries who are living in spiritual darkness with no knowledge of Scripture. Would we be happy sending out Romanists in our own neighbourhoods to "evangelise"? India has had the Gospel for hundreds of years. British missionaries were taking the Gospel to India throughout the time of the Empire. Protestant churches were established there. If India has rejected the Gospel that is a judgment upon that country.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 29, 2020)

Evodius said:


> Here's one of the changes made to the ESV text.
> Luke 1:28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O _highly_ favored one, the Lord is with you!”
> The word '_highly' _is added.
> Also, it is already available in the US (search the Augustine bible).



Whilst this is the rendering in the KJV it is more than a little curious why the change was made in this particular edution. Crossway obviously didn't think it was the best translation in previous editions. It would fit with Rome's doctrines of Mary to have that word included (whether it should be included or not) so one has to ask: was the word included because it was considered the correct translation or because the Romanists wanted it included? If the latter that would most definitely be a theological change.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Whilst this is the rendering in the KJV it is a more than a litle curious why Crossway included it in this specific edition. They clearly didn't think it should be rendered like that previously. It would fit with Rome's doctrines of Mary to have that word included (whether it should be included or not) so one has to ask: did Crossway add the word because they thought it was the correct translation or because they were asked to by the Romanists?



If Mary says that all generations are to call her blessed, the adjective "highly" isn't that troubling. In any case, Roman Catholic metaphysics demands the translation "full of grace," for they believe grace to be a quasi-physical substance, therefore Mary has that grace as a physical substance.

The above translation, while not my own (I translated it differently when I worked through that passage), isn't what Roman Catholics need it to say.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't think it is super wise, but no, I don't think "how the mighty have fallen."


I have made no sweeping statements about Crossway. I have simply been asking what I think are obvious questions in light of this decision to let a team of Catholic scholars meddle with their translation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

So Crossway does not confess Reformed confessions.

Have they made some kind of promise to champion the cause of the Reformation?

I don't understand why people feel betrayed by their business arrangement with the Pope.


----------



## kodos (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> So Crossway does not confess Reformed confessions.
> 
> Have they made some kind of promise to champion the cause of the Reformation?
> 
> I don't understand why people feel betrayed by their business arrangement with the Pope.



It used to be that merely being a _Protestant_ was enough to not want to help out the Pope. Especially when an organization states that they believe the gospel and seek the glory of God.

https://www.crossway.org/statement-of-faith/
"Redemption is wholly by the blood of Christ, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ."

https://www.crossway.org/history/
"Crossway’s goal is to continue seeking the glory of God in everything we do—to proclaim his truth in power; to reflect his glory in content and design; and to express something of his holiness and grace to a fallen world."

Some people are going to be upset that a ministry (I use the word loosely of course) that purports to be about advancing the gospel and the glory of God is helping out Romanists.

I'm not sure why it is a shock that some are really against those who "_trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ_" (Galatians 1:7) ... "_if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed_" (Galatians 1:8).

Whether they are right or wrong about the idea that Crossway is doing business with the Pope, is a different matter. But at the very least, it is, to me, an _understandable _reaction.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Uh oh.
https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...ster.html?mc_cid=601917a5cc&mc_eid=be0a88e845


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Uh oh.
> https://www.heritagebooks.org/produ...ster.html?mc_cid=601917a5cc&mc_eid=be0a88e845


Can you explain for the uninitiated?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Can you explain for the uninitiated?



A stalwart like Reformation heritage is partnered with Crossway. Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A stalwart like Reformation heritage is partnered with Crossway. Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon.


Oh, ha I didn’t pick up on that. 

Is Beeke working on a Catholic Study Bible?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Oh, ha I didn’t pick up on that.
> 
> Is Beeke working on a Catholic Study Bible?



Seriously? Do you find such a remark to be appropriate? Dr. Beeke labors indefatigably to spread Reformed theology and the Gospel around the world.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 29, 2020)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Seriously? Do you find such a remark to be appropriate? Dr. Beeke labors indefatigably to spread Reformed theology and the Gospel around the world.


I feel sure he meant that tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Seriously? Do you find such a remark to be appropriate? I would ask you to refrain from such comments. Dr. Beeke labors indefatigably to spread Reformed theology and the Gospel around the world.


It was said with the level of seriousness as when you razz a close friend about something jokingly. 

I know that Dr. Beeke is a giant, and doing so much good work. I’ll refrain from saying such things again. 

Also, since the idea of a Catholic Study Bible is so abhorrent to you, you must also shudder at what Crossway has done with regards to the ESV Catholic Edition, correct?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jan 29, 2020)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I feel sure he meant that tongue-in-cheek.



I understand that. It is nonetheless inappropriate. How is joking about a man that is dedicated to Reformed theology being involved with papist even remotely appropriate?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> It was said with the level of seriousness as when you razz a close friend about something jokingly.
> 
> I know that Dr. Beeke is a giant, and doing so much good work. I’ll refrain from saying such things again.
> 
> Also, since the idea of a Catholic Study Bible is so abhorrent to you, you must also shudder at what Crossway has done with regards to the ESV Catholic Edition, correct?



I in no way support papist. There is not much more that I can say.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I understand that. It is nonetheless inappropriate. How is joking about a man that is dedicated to Reformed theology being involved with papist even remotely appropriate?


You’re showing more concern for my words than Crossway’s actions. But you are not obligated to say any more, so I’ll leave it there.

And it is a good reminder for me not to joke about unrighteousness. It does not benefit the soul. Thank you.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

NEW INFORMATION FROM CROSSWAY:

I emailed more than one person with my original questions. Here is another response I have just received.

“In 2016, Crossway was approached by Roman Catholic leadership in India about adopting the ESV into Catholic church life and liturgy. After careful consideration, we were glad to license the ESV for publication by an Indian publishing house, supplying Bible readers in this part of the world with a sound translation. Though it is not our calling to publish resources for the Catholic church, we are grateful for this opportunity to support their desire to provide an essentially literal and academically current translation of the Bible. _*Since then we have been approached by a publisher to do the same for North America.*_ We remain as committed as ever to publishing gospel-centered resources in the historic stream of the Reformation.

Q. Who are the publishers of the ESV Catholic Edition?

A. The publishers of the ESV Catholic Edition are the Asian Trading Corporation, located in Bangalore, India, and the Augustine Institute, located in Denver, Colorado, USA.

Q. Have the apocryphal (deuterocanonical) books been added to this edition?

A. Yes. This edition of the ESV includes the deuterocanonical books which were translated by Oxford University Press. Crossway’s position on the deuterocanonical books, in line with historic Protestantism, is that these books can be usefully read for the purposes of edification but should not be used for the establishing of doctrine.”

Emphasis mine.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Oh, ha I didn’t pick up on that.
> 
> Is Beeke working on a Catholic Study Bible?


Seven degrees of Scott Hahn?


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

kodos said:


> It used to be that merely being a _Protestant_ was enough to not want to help out the Pope. Especially when an organization states that they believe the gospel and seek the glory of God.
> 
> https://www.crossway.org/statement-of-faith/
> "Redemption is wholly by the blood of Christ, and salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in our Lord Jesus Christ."
> ...



So, in a way, Crossway is going against its historical mission. They are breaking an implicit promise to Protestantism. Hence the feeling of being betrayed. I get it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> So, in a way, Crossway is going against its historical mission. They are breaking an implicit promise to Protestantism. Hence the feeling of being betrayed. I get it.


I don’t think it has anything to do with their historical mission, nor a feeling of betrayal. It has to do with simple right and wrong.


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I don’t think it has anything to do with their historical mission, nor a feeling of betrayal. It has to do with simple right and wrong.



Oxford University Press publishes Catholic Bibles. Is this equally upsetting? Why is Crossway being singled out when many publishers partner with the Pope?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> Oxford University Press publishes Catholic Bibles. Is this equally upsetting? Why is Crossway being singled out when many publishers partner with the Pope?


That is self-evident. What’s your goal here?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

KMK said:


> Oxford University Press publishes Catholic Bibles. Is this equally upsetting? Why is Crossway being singled out when many publishers partner with the Pope?



I wonder if many people have this tendency to identify parachurch and paraparachurch ministries with the actual church. And when that happens, it always looks like the worst thing has just happened.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I wonder if many people have this tendency to identify parachurch and paraparachurch ministries with the actual church. And when that happens, it always looks like the worst thing has just happened.


I don’t think anyone here has done that. But I am surprised that so many are taking this lightly. 

I guess it’s not the preferred brand by many here. But woe if it was Naphtali Press, Reformation Heritage Books, the Trinitarian Bible Society, or even the PuritanBoard that was lending a helping hand to the RCC. Then we’d have something to post about!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> But I am surprised that so many are taking this lightly.



I am not taking it lightly, but....well, I am not taking it or not not taking it at all. It's just not relevant to me. And in terms of whether Crossway produces scholarship, it's irrelevant. This is what publishers do.


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not taking it lightly, but....well, I am not taking it or not not taking it at all. It's just not relevant to me. And in terms of whether Crossway produces scholarship, it's irrelevant. This is what publishers do.


Okay, brother. Fair enough. 

May you have many blessed days with your NASB!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> Okay, brother. Fair enough.
> 
> May you have many blessed days with your NASB!



We can put it into perspective:

* Zondervan has published numerous questionable stuff, yet they've also released some outstanding scholarship.
* Eerdmans is top-notch, yet they published heretic David Bentley Hart.


----------



## KMK (Jan 29, 2020)

Rutherglen1794 said:


> I don’t think anyone here has done that. But I am surprised that so many are taking this lightly.



For what it is worth, I would rather all publishers shun the Pope, not just Crossway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 29, 2020)

If you were ever part of the New Calvinist/YRR movement, you'd know that Crossway was a big part of the feeling people in it had of having learned something wonderful about God that they had been locked out from for so long (i.e. his sovereignty). For whatever reason, Crossway was supposedly at the vanguard of this movement and published us our wonderful ESV Bible, which you wouldn't then dream of using any other version except that one. The men who worked on it were the very well-known and loved ones who spoke at all the big conferences, etc. There was a big element of trust in Crossway, I think, since it was especially known and touted as a "reformed" translation. So is that the reason perhaps for the bit of shock that this brings?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 30, 2020)

KMK said:


> Oxford University Press publishes Catholic Bibles. Is this equally upsetting? Why is Crossway being singled out when many publishers partner with the Pope?



OUP is not a Christian publisher, let alone a Reformed one. And, as a wee tidbit of information, it's Cambridge University Press which holds the copyright to print the KJV in the UK (granted them by the Crown, which is the ultimate holder of the copyright), which also isn't a Christian publisher.

OUP is also the publisher of the Scofield Reference Bible. So there's that...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> If you were ever part of the New Calvinist/YRR movement, you'd know that Crossway was a big part of the feeling people in it had of having learned something wonderful about God that they had been locked out from for so long (i.e. his sovereignty). For whatever reason, Crossway was supposedly at the vanguard of this movement and published us our wonderful ESV Bible, which you wouldn't then dream of using any other version except that one. The men who worked on it were the very well-known and loved ones who spoke at all the big conferences, etc. There was a big element of trust in Crossway, I think, since it was especially known and touted as a "reformed" translation. So is that the reason perhaps for the bit of shock that this brings?



Good point in connecting Crossway with YRR. I wonder, then, since YRR has basically imploded, if Crossway will go down that same route.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jan 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Good point in connecting Crossway with YRR. I wonder, then, since YRR has basically imploded, if Crossway will go down that same route.


That’s a good observation as well. I think it’s certainly safe to say that this newest venture by Crossway doesn’t square with what the New Calvinist/YRR faithful once thought of them. Which was misguided to begin with, I also think can be said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> If you were ever part of the New Calvinist/YRR movement, you'd know that Crossway was a big part of the feeling people in it had of having learned something wonderful about God that they had been locked out from for so long (i.e. his sovereignty). For whatever reason, Crossway was supposedly at the vanguard of this movement and published us our wonderful ESV Bible, which you wouldn't then dream of using any other version except that one. The men who worked on it were the very well-known and loved ones who spoke at all the big conferences, etc. There was a big element of trust in Crossway, I think, since it was especially known and touted as a "reformed" translation. So is that the reason perhaps for the bit of shock that this brings?


Bingo. This is why comparing Crossway to Oxford University Press is silly. It's apples and oranges.


----------



## KMK (Jan 30, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> There was a big element of trust in Crossway, I think, since it was especially known and touted as a "reformed" translation. So is that the reason perhaps for the bit of shock that this brings?



So there was a breach of implicit trust. That is why people feel betrayed. I understand now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## GlorytoGod (Jan 31, 2020)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Handing an RCC member a copy of the 66 books is not the same as handing him a RCC bible with it's notes and emendations.


Agree


----------



## David Taylor (Feb 3, 2020)

I've seen a lot in this thread over concerns about the Apocrypha being included. Did not the original KJV also include this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 3, 2020)

David Taylor said:


> I've seen a lot in this thread over concerns about the Apocrypha being included. Did not the original KJV also include this?


The integrity of all things KJV is inscrutable. You may not ask such questions.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------

