Crossway Denies Arminians Use of ESV, but Permits Catholics?

[B.L.]

Evening,

I recall last year there being a good amount of discussion generated here in response to Crossway approving a Catholic Edition of the ESV.

Well, I was reading through the latest copy of ONE Magazine, which is the denominational publication of the National Association of Free Will Baptists, and there was an announcement informing the reader that Crossway recently denied licensing of the ESV to Randall House for a Study Bible they intend on publishing. The reason given was Crossway didn't want an Arminian set of notes to accompany the ESV.

I found this decision by Crossway interesting. I wonder why they would allow the ESV to be tweaked by Catholic scholars for a Catholic edition of the ESV, but they reject Randall House from using the ESV, as is, for their translation of choice in a Study Bible? Seems inconsistent to me at first glance.


Here's the announcement:

Randall House Study Bible Update
After petitioning to license the ESV translation, Crossway the publisher who owns the rights to the ESV, denied usage. Known to be Reformed in theology, they cited a reluctance to allow an Arminian set of notes accompanying their text. Randall House is exploring other translations, seeking one suitable for our people and providing the highest quality study helps for our pastors and teachers.

 

[Brett]

Seems inconsistent to me too. Copyrighting a bible translation always rubbed me the wrong way. I agree that translators should be well compensated for their work. Also, I can see an argument about wanting to have errors of Catholics or Arminians not propagate off your work. But do translators and publishing companies really "own" a translation of God's Word? I would say idealistically that the Bible belongs to God and it is His will to offer it freely, and God will judge those who pervert or misuse his Word. Practically speaking I don't know how Christians should use copyright laws for their works. I'm in no position to wag my finger at Crossway, but my preferred translations are works in the public domain.

I don't know what reasons Crossway had for giving permission for a Catholic work but not an Arminian. Regardless of the reasons, it seems like a muddy system, and I wish there was an alternative.

 

[Taylor]

On the surface, yes, it does seem a little inconsistent. However, here are a few things to consider:

1) Is ONE Magazine reporting on the entire reason Crossway denied usage? Or did Crossway give them more reasons, and they are picking the one that offends them? After all, are there any study Bibles that use the ESV that is not also published by Crossway itself? (I am asking genuinely; I do not know if there are.) If not, then this is not really that inconsistent for Crossway, because...

2) ...making a study Bible is a different thing than giving the rights to another denomination to use as a base for their own translation.

3) In the end, Crossway is free both legally and morally to do with their work what they wish. Now, that does not mean we cannot scrutinize or criticize their decisions. But they are free to license their work to whomever they "elect" to do so.

...do translators and publishing companies really "own" a translation of God's Word?

Yes, they do. Owning a translation of the Bible is not the same thing as owning the Bible itself. Some people, especially rabid KJVO folk (not saying you are one or are arguing in that direction), like to use this line of argumentation, but it is simply fallacious. Crossway owns the ESV, not the Bible.

 

[Pergamum]

"...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..."

 

[Pilgrim]

I think I remember seeing that back in the dark ages, the National Council of Churches refused to allow an evangelical adaptation of the RSV. (In other words, one that would translate Isa 7:14 correctly, and likely making a few other changes.) But they allowed a Catholic edition and allowed them to change Isa 7:14 and some other things. I guess that was their way of saying that they are all for ecumenism but not fundamentalism. Later on, when they were in a much worse financial condition (and had already produced the NRSV) they did license the RSV to Crossway.

I haven’t been keeping up with the Catholic ESV. It kind of surprises me from the Catholic end actually since they already have several translations, including the 2nd edition of their version of the RSV that came out in maybe the last 15-20 years. Maybe they preferred the ESV Apocrypha that was published a number of years ago?

There’s a difference between licensing the text for use in a Study Bible and allowing it to be changed to suit the doctrines of an organization that at least some of Crossway’s employees regard as sub-biblical at best. Which one is worse? Is Free Will Baptist doctrine any worse than Lutheranism? I don’t think so, although I’m sure some will disagree. But they have Concordia permission to use the ESV in their Study Bible. If it wasn’t for their insistence on foot washing being an ordinance, I’d say Free Will Baptist theology is probably better than the more extreme versions of “once saved always saved” theology, as well as Wesleyanism and Pentecostalism. (I’m referring to FWB theologians, not necessarily what goes on in the churches, something about which I’m ignorant.)

Crossway did allow the Gideons to make some changes to the text a number of years ago, mainly with regard to the Gideons bringing it in line with the Byzantine or Majority text in some places.

The Free Will Baptists are probably going to end up going with the NKJV is my guess. That’s what the few that I’m familiar with use anyway. Most likely, there will be a somewhat limited constituency for it no matter what they call it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[B.L.]

There’s a difference between licensing the text for use in a Study Bible and allowing it to be changed to suit the doctrines of an organization that at least some of Crossway’s employees regard as sub-biblical at best. Which one is worse? Is Free Will Baptist doctrine any worse than Lutheranism? I don’t think so, although I’m sure some will disagree. But they have Concordia permission to use the ESV in their Study Bible. If it wasn’t for their insistence on foot washing being an ordinance, I’d say Free Will Baptist theology is probably better than the more extreme versions of “once saved always saved” theology, as well as Wesleyanism and Pentecostalism. (I’m referring to FWB theologians, not necessarily what goes on in the churches, something about which I’m ignorant.)

Questions along these lines came to mind when I learned of this as well. Perhaps there is more to the story as @Taylor opined, not sure.

To me it is worse to permit a group to tinker with the text than it is to permit a group to teach their unique doctrines along side the unaltered text. The potential to sew long lasting confusion increases when you alter the actual translation. Furthermore, when you consider the trajectory we're on in the west it scares me that a heterodox group can get permission to tweak the ESV to fit their teachings. How long before a different publisher allows the same for a different group of heretics? Or how long before a publisher permits tweaks to their translation to "soften the edges" on certain topics in the event hate speech becomes a legislated thing? (These examples are only meant to reflect the dangers of the trajectory we're on in our society.)

On the topic of Study Bibles, I think one of the worst fruits of American Christianity is the plethora of Study Bibles available on the market. There is a special Study Bible for just about every affinity group you can think of. Though Study Bibles published by specific denominations are a different issue in my opinion. We have more than enough English translations available today. My fear is that by denying a group permission to use an existing translation you will ultimately drive these groups to produce their own separate translations rather than adopt one of the widely available ones. The Church has splintered into thousands of different groups...I don't want to see the same on a smaller scale for Bible translations. An impossibility, but I often wish there was a single translation used in the church today.

 

[Logan]

To me it is worse to permit a group to tinker with the text than it is to permit a group to teach their unique doctrines along side the unaltered text... it scares me that a heterodox group can get permission to tweak the ESV to fit their teachings.

Statements like this keep coming up. Please be very, very careful before making accusations like this (and others in this thread). We had a post two weeks ago actually noting all the changes made and I think it's very hard to argue that they are "tweaking" the ESV to fit Papist teachings.

Differences between the ESV-CE and the ESV

I've created a complete list of all of the 150+ changes made to the Protestant Canon in the ESV-CE from the ESV 2016 edition at https://archive.azurewebsites.net/Documents/Differences%20Between%20the%20ESV%20and%20ESV-CE.pdf. I find this kind of stuff interesting, and couldn't find a list of...

www.puritanboard.com

I don't know why Crossway makes the decisions they do. None of you do either. But I'd rather be charitable to the people behind the organization and give the benefit of the doubt than immediately speculate the worst. This is a serious ninth commandment issue.

 

[B.L.]

Statements like this keep coming up. Please be very, very careful before making accusations like this (and others in this thread). We had a post two weeks ago actually noting all the changes made and I think it's very hard to argue that they are "tweaking" the ESV to fit Papist teachings.

I don't know why Crossway makes the decisions they do. None of you do either. But I'd rather be charitable to the people behind the organization and give the benefit of the doubt than immediately speculate the worst. This is a serious ninth commandment issue.

I consider the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the ESV-CE to be "tweaking" that fits Papist teachings. That said, I agree with you on the main.

Thanks for commenting.

 

[RamistThomist]

In the spirit of the Authorised Version, I wish more translations today included the Apocrypha.

 

[B.L.]

In the spirit of the Authorised Version, I wish more translations today included the Apocrypha.

Why do you wish more translations included the Apocrypha? I'm genuinely curious.

As Biblically illiterate as so many are in evangelical Protestantism today I think adding books that are not of divine inspiration back into the text of Holy Scripture would be a step backwards and leave churches further distanced from the reformation that is so desperately needed today.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why do you wish more translations included the Apocrypha? I'm genuinely curious.

As Biblically illiterate as so many are in evangelical Protestantism today I think adding books that are not of divine inspiration back into the text of Holy Scripture would be a step backwards and leave churches further distanced from the reformation that is so desperately needed today.

The Apocrypha functions like the maps in the back of the Bible. It tells you a lot about the biblical world, of which most Christians are ignorant. It is also good to get Christians familiar with the Apocrypha and to understand why we don't see it as inspired, although many early Christians did. That will inoculate them against silly arguments later on like, "You realize you got the wrong Bible, right?"

Also, the Table of Contents page in the Bible isn't inspired, yet we include that in the Bible.

 

[RamistThomist]

And you really can't understand the NT political background without Maccabees.

 

[B.L.]

The Apocrypha functions like the maps in the back of the Bible. It tells you a lot about the biblical world, of which most Christians are ignorant. It is also good to get Christians familiar with the Apocrypha and to understand why we don't see it as inspired, although many early Christians did. That will inoculate them against silly arguments later on like, "You realize you got the wrong Bible, right?"

Also, the Table of Contents page in the Bible isn't inspired, yet we include that in the Bible.

Exposure to the Apocrypha is beneficial in a number of ways, some of which you've highlighted; however, the history of the church shows the inclusion of these books has done an awful amount of harm and is the root cause of so much error that has seeped in and corrupted her over the centuries.

The Table of Contents page and the maps in the back of the Bible have never been used to formulate heretical teaching and promulgate false doctrine. Nor has the presentation page or the numbered chapters and verses.

So, I guess I'd be in the "keep them out and keep them separate" camp.

 

[RamistThomist]

however, the history of the church shows the inclusion of these books has done an awful amount of harm and is the root cause of so much error that has seeped in and corrupted her over the centuries.

Not really. The corruption in Rome did not come from the Apocrypha. There is that strange verse in 2 Macc and that is about as bad as it gets.

 

[RamistThomist]

and is the root cause of so much error that has seeped in and corrupted her over the centuries.

Not even the most Trail of Blood Baptist would hold that view. I really don't know where to start. To even make that into something like an argument, you would have to first posit a pure time of church history, and then zero in on when reading the Wisdom of Solomon caused the church to preach justification by works or celibacy or whatever.

Also, most of the Reformers agree with me on this, at least in the neutral to positive-neutral view of the Deuterocanonicals.

 

[Jake]

Seems inconsistent to me too. Copyrighting a bible translation always rubbed me the wrong way. I agree that translators should be well compensated for their work. Also, I can see an argument about wanting to have errors of Catholics or Arminians not propagate off your work. But do translators and publishing companies really "own" a translation of God's Word? I would say idealistically that the Bible belongs to God and it is His will to offer it freely, and God will judge those who pervert or misuse his Word. Practically speaking I don't know how Christians should use copyright laws for their works. I'm in no position to wag my finger at Crossway, but my preferred translations are works in the public domain.

I don't know what reasons Crossway had for giving permission for a Catholic work but not an Arminian. Regardless of the reasons, it seems like a muddy system, and I wish there was an alternative.

The World English Bible (WEB) is the only somewhat major version of a Bible I'm aware of that has not tried to copyright its work. Some have fallen into public domain in certain countries (e.g., the King James Version is considered under Crown Copyright in the U.K. but that is not acknowleged due to age in the U.S.), though.

 

[B.L.]

Not even the most Trail of Blood Baptist would hold that view. I really don't know where to start. To even make that into something like an argument, you would have to first posit a pure time of church history, and then zero in on when reading the Wisdom of Solomon caused the church to preach justification by works or celibacy or whatever.

Also, most of the Reformers agree with me on this, at least in the neutral to positive-neutral view of the Deuterocanonicals.

If I'm guilty of overstating the harm the Apocrypha has wrought on the Church (i.e. my "root cause" comment) you seem in my estimation of being guilty of the exact opposite. These uninspired books have historically functioned as more than just maps in the backs of Bibles or as useful historical intertestamental background to better understand the NT. The Reformation bears witness to this. Whether it has been the doctrine of purgatory, salvation by works, money and prayer offered for the sins of the dead, sayings in the mass, condoning the use of magic and other superstitious rituals, etc. the Catholic Church has defended these false teachings and others using these uninspired books. For very good reason our confessions of faith open with the section on the Holy Scriptures.

While you, as one who is well learned, might have the discernment to make proper use of the Apocrypha in the ways you have already mentioned, the inclusion of them in Protestant Bibles, besides being inappropriate, would sew confusion among your average pew sitting protestant today. In the midst of the great doctrinal downgrade many of our churches are suffering through the last thing we need is to add uninspired books to a Bible that is seldom read and often misunderstood.

Your "Trail of Blood Baptist" quip, which gave me a terrific chuckle by the way, was an odd comparison to make, but I'll leave it be.

Good day to you sir!

 

[Brett]

The World English Bible (WEB) is the only somewhat major version of a Bible I'm aware of that has not tried to copyright its work. Some have fallen into public domain in certain countries (e.g., the King James Version is considered under Crown Copyright in the U.K. but that is not acknowleged due to age in the U.S.), though.

I've used the WEB version a lot. I mainly use the KJV and ASV for personal reading now. I'm still uncertain about text criticism arguments but that's for another discussion.
Other translations I'm aware of are the Open English Bible and the Unfolding Word.

Open English Bible | Welcome

Literal Text — unfoldingWord

unfoldingWord® Literal Text

www.unfoldingword.org

The NET bible is another notable one that is copyrighted but has very lax terms, without their translation notes at least.

 

[RamistThomist]

Whether it has been the doctrine of purgatory, salvation by works, money and prayer offered for the sins of the dead, sayings in the mass, condoning the use of magic and other superstitious rituals, etc. the Catholic Church has defended these false teachings and others using these uninspired books.

There is the weird passage in 2 Macc and Tobit has a view on exorcism that is representative of Jewish exorcism practices. Both are wrong. Neither are Scripture. I hold to the view that people should grow in their faith and not be blindsinded by these. A good Protestant study bible on the Apocrypha is best of all scenarios.

As to "sayings in the mass," that is incredibly vague and doesn't give any historical context. Which mass? 4th century? 17th century?

Same for superstitious rituals.

 

[RamistThomist]

Your "Trail of Blood Baptist" quip, which gave me a terrific chuckle by the way, was an odd comparison to make, but I'll leave it be.

You made the statement about the Apocrypha being the root cause of error. The trail of blood guys love to posit a fall of the church. See the pastor Jim Meme Team on facebook. (Those are really funny)

 

[Jake]

The NET bible is another notable one that is copyrighted but has very lax terms, without their translation notes at least.

I think this is the best approach, in theory. Copyright is valuable, and US law makes it difficult to actually not have something copyrighted.

This can be a problem though if the company involved changes their perspective. For example, Crossway used to be pretty free with the ESV, but they've pulled permissions for using it in a lot of places (such as the SWORD project) and have been more restrictive now than they were earlier on.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I'm guilty of overstating the harm the Apocrypha has wrought on the Church (i.e. my "root cause" comment) you seem in my estimation of being guilty of the exact opposite. These uninspired books have historically functioned as more than just maps in the backs of Bibles or as useful historical intertestamental background to better understand the NT. The Reformation bears witness to this. Whether it has been the doctrine of purgatory, salvation by works, money and prayer offered for the sins of the dead, sayings in the mass, condoning the use of magic and other superstitious rituals, etc. the Catholic Church has defended these false teachings and others using these uninspired books. For very good reason our confessions of faith open with the section on the Holy Scriptures.

While you, as one who is well learned, might have the discernment to make proper use of the Apocrypha in the ways you have already mentioned, the inclusion of them in Protestant Bibles, besides being inappropriate, would sew confusion among your average pew sitting protestant today. In the midst of the great doctrinal downgrade many of our churches are suffering through the last thing we need is to add uninspired books to a Bible that is seldom read and often misunderstood.

Your "Trail of Blood Baptist" quip, which gave me a terrific chuckle by the way, was an odd comparison to make, but I'll leave it be.

Good day to you sir!

One other thing to think about, and I don't want to get too far afield, but when the 2TJ and/or early fathers spoke of some period after death, they almost certainly did not mean medieval Purgatory. We more or less know that for a fact. Instead of being purged in fire, they saw the soul after death as more of a catechetical school. Of course, I reject both but it is worth pointing out so that we don't read later concepts into earlier terms.

"To Sleep, Perchance to Dream": The Middle State of Souls in Patristic and Byzantine Literature Author(s): Nicholas Constas
Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 55 (2001), pp. 91-124 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291814
Accessed: 28-08-2015 15:51 UTC