ESV Catholic Bible UPDATE

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 :worms:)
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.”
 
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.
 
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.
 
“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.

The distinction between Law and Gospel, the substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, and other teachings that characterize–but are not limited to–Lutherans are well-supported by this Bible. (See the ingenious way the EHV handles James 2:24, which seems to reverse Galatians 2:16 by saying that we are justified by works after all: “You see that a person is shown to be righteous by works and not by faith alone.” The EHV shifts from “justification” language to the related “righteousness” language.)

And yet, sometimes the “Lutheran” reading is surprisingly absent. What most translations render as “You must be born again” (John 3:7) can just as legitimately be rendered “You must be born from above.” Indeed, the Greek carries both meanings, as Nicodemus construes “anothen” as “again” and Jesus focuses on the other meaning. (See my discussion of this here.) Lutherans, being, like Calvinists, divine monergists believe that God creates faith through Word and Sacrament as a gift of the Holy Spirit. We are born “from above,” and this is the reading of the EHV.

And yet, in a closely-related passage in the same Gospel, the EHV accepts a non-monergist reading. The ESV rendering of John 1:12-13 is as follows:

12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

That verse 13, saying that the children of God are not born “of the will of man” is a pretty decisive refutation of “decision theology,” the notion common to many evangelicals –specifically, those of the Arminian persuasion–that we choose, by an act of our will, to be “born again.” But the EHV translates the phrase according to the Arminian interpretation: “or of a husband’s will.” As if the passage were referring only to physical sex and birth, and as if birth comes from the husband’s decision.

Also coming out not so strong as I would like are passages related to the doctrine of vocation, which, for Lutherans is an extremely important teaching, amounting to the theology of the Christian life. Here is a key passage for that teaching, an accurate rendition of 1 Corinthians 7:17 from the ESV: “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him.” Compare that to the EHV version: “However, each person is to live in the situation the Lord assigned to him—the situation he was in when God called him to faith.”

The context of the passage discusses marriage, being a Jew or a Gentile, being a “bondservant” or a free citizen. . . .These are not “situations” but vocations. The EHV reduces “calling” to the call to faith, completely eliminating the additional sense of the word that God calls us to the “life” that He has assigned us, where He has “stationed” us to live out our faith in love and service to our neighbor.

So, setting aside my disappointment in some of these readings, we can see that the reading that best serves Lutheran theology is not always the one chosen for the EHV, that the translators were trying to render what they believed the original languages meant apart from their theological preconceptions
 
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).
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top