Crossway Approves Catholic Edition of the ESV

Status
Not open for further replies.

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
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?

esvaugustinebible.png
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Professor
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.

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).
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

Logan

Puritan Board Senior
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)
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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.

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.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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.
 

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
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.
 

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
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."
 
Last edited:

Jake

Puritan Board Senior
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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
 

Tom Hart

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

John Yap

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

Username3000

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

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
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:
  1. Does the translation have 'denominational bias'? That may be the case if it is a Lutheran translation.
  2. 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

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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

Moderator
Staff member
I have heard very good things about these conservative Lutherans. I understand they made helpful recommendations re the CSB. I have 2 questions:
  1. Does the translation have 'denominational bias'? That may be the case if it is a Lutheran translation.
  2. 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/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top