ESV Catholic Bible UPDATE

Status
Not open for further replies.
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,​
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

Indeed.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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,​

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top