Last year, rumors were spreading in the Catholic Bible world that the remaining Old Testament volumes of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (ICSB) would be released in 2020. A few commenters mentioned this in a post on the ICSB Isaiah volume. One of the commenters referred to a video of Scott Hahn, which indicated a publication date of late 2020 or 2021.

A reader recently emailed Ignatius Press for clarification. Ignatius responded with a brief statement that they authorized to be shared on the blog:

No, it is not correct – we hope to have it out sometime next year, but because there is still a lot to do, there is no way to give a date yet.

Ignatius Press

36 thoughts on “Update on Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Progress”

  1. That’s funny because I clearly Remember receiving a newsletter from Scott Hahn and the St Paul Center sometime last year saying the final books were competed and would be released Sometime Q4 2020. He was very excited about it. I wish I had retained that so I could quote it.

    1. I would suspect the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic (and the resulting shelter-in-place/shutdown) has delayed the release of the complete Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (and a lot of other books) by at least several months (if not more).

    2. I sure hope they do release it soon. We have all waited so so long for it to be in print. I can’t wait. Blessing from our Abba I pray for us all

  2. I often wonder what’ll be completed first:

    A) The completely revised NAB, whatever they plan on calling it (estimate: 2025)
    B) The re-translated LOTH (estimate: 2022)
    C) The completed Ignatius Study Bible (“next year” for the last decade)
    D) The Ordinariate Divine Office (“awaiting approval from Rome” for almost a decade)

    I’m gonna have to go with A or B, at least the USCCB is serious about their projects.

      1. Like the Divine Worship Missal, it’s a variant crafted from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and other liturgical texts from the English tradition.

        You can pray it online here:

        I use the provisional print copy here:

        Also Ignatius Press published a fantastic devotional for the ordinariates called St. Gregory’s Prayer Book. It lacks the Divine Office, which is still unapproved, but is available for all Christians, in the ordinariate or not.

        1. I would love to start praying the Anglican office! Thank you for sharing this link. Do you know where you can find the ordo for the readings? Also, where can you find the appropriate collects? I have an O.F. Roman missal. Is it fine to use its collects?



      2. The two aren’t even remotely similar – the Ordinariate office (or offices, if each ordinariate publishes their own) will be a slightly modified office taken from various Anglican Books of Common Prayer (mainly 1662 and 1928, I believe). There’s an unofficial 1928-based version for Americans online at, and then a sort-of-official-but-temporary 1662-based office published by the Australian ordinariate which can be found at

      3. Don’t forget the UK’s version! The Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham!

        I’ve been using this one for about the past two weeks now, switched over from the LOTH. I’m loving it so far, though the lectionary in the book itself is actually kinda screwy, I couldn’t make heads or tails of it, didn’t seem to match the LOTH readings, or the Ordo for the Ordinariate in the US or even in the UK. So I just printed out the free copy of the Ordo from the Ordinariate fof the Chair of St. Peter and followed their reading plan instead.

        I like the Customary over the website because it’s a physical book, I tried using the site, and it really is a great site, but it only seems to work well on an actual computer or laptop, it never seemed to play well with my mobile devices. Plus, the Customary has an imprimatur so it’s technically more “official” than the website, though in practice I’ve noticed the two are VERY similar. Though I suppose I negate some of the “officialness” of the Customary by using it with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter’s Ordo instead of it’s own lectionary. Oh well…

    1. As a seminarian I really hope it’s B. While I would love A and C to come out sooner rather then later, B is what matters most to me right now. The only thing I really want out of the re-translated LOTH is better intercessions (or none at all), better hymns, and no Psalm prayers. I’d like a reworking of some of the readings in the Office of Readings as well, but those other three are more important. Also, something that’s confused me for a while is why there are no Gospel readings in the LOTH? Never thought to ask any of my formators, spiritual directors, or any of my diocesan priests that…

      1. I confess that I’ve been dreading the new LOTH translation. I am looking forward to the new hymns, which are expected to be translations from the Latin hymns in the Editio Typica (if I understand correctly). But I actually like the Psalm prayers, and I enjoy the simplicity of the intercessions and concluding prayers. I find the new collects in the English translation of the Mass to be difficult to follow, despite my best efforts to concentrate. I would be deeply saddened if the prayers in the LOTH became more difficult to pray from the heart.

        1. Oh good Marc. I thought I was the only person in the world who doesn’t mind the intercessions.

        2. I’m with Marc too. I like the psalm prayers and love the intercessions of the current LOTH. I don’t understand the reason why they’re planning to jettison the psalm prayers from the upcoming LOTH.

          1. They’re being removed because they aren’t part of the Latin editio typica, and as such never belonged in the LOTH in the first place. The American edition is the only one I’m aware of to feature them, and I have no idea how they got there in the first place.

          2. I would be interested to know more about the history. Despite their not being in the Latin version, I think they are helpful. There is leeway for local bishops’ conferences to approve hymns for the LOTH. Evidently, Rome allowed the Psalm prayers to be included.

          3. Following their policy that “if it ain’t in the Latin, then it ain’t in the English!”

            When the Latin edition of Liturgia Horarum (Liturgy of the Hours) was published, following the custom of the preconciliar Breviarium Romanum (Roman Breviary), it was published in four volumes for the four seasons of the year and thus could not accomodate the two-year cycle of Scripture readings for the Office of Readings as outlined in the introductory General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours (along with the appropriate second readings). Thus, the cycle of readings was reduced to a one-year cycle. The problem could have been solved with a new three-volume edition format: One volume for the day hours (morning, mid-day, evening, and night prayer) for the complete Church year, and two volumes for the Office of Readings (one for the first year of the two-year cycle, plus for the complete calendar of saints’ feasts, and the other for the second year), but Rome couldn’t “think outside the box.”

            This was followed in the case of the new altar Missal (formerly the Sacramentary). It was suggested again to include the Missale Parvum pro Sacerdotalibus Itinerariis (Small Missal for Traveling Priests, a collection of selected Latin Masses – including the readings and responsorial psalms – for the various seasons of the Church year – including Ordinary Time – as well as for the various categories of Saints) as an appendix to the altar Missal not for traveling but visiting priests competent not in English but in Latin. Rome kiboshed that suggestion, because it was not in the Latin Missale Romanum!

            Another suggestion at first “shot down” (because there was no counterpart in the Latin liturgical books) but later accepted was that of the Book of the Chair, the collection of the opening rites and prayers and of the concluding rites (Communion verses and Post-Communion prayers) for use at the celebrant’s chair, because it was difficult for young altar servers to hold the 12-15 pound complete altar Missal.

      2. I personally hope it’s D, since that’s what I’d use, but B would definitely be much more useful for the majority of Catholics. If only the LOTH included the full psalter, maybe then I’d consider it.

      3. Seth,
        I appreciate your ardor for the Liturgy of the Hours and wish you well and pray that the Holy Spirit remains close to you in your seminary journey of discernment.

        Some comments: You and many others express great disdain about the “Psalm Prayer.” The Psalm Prayer is optional so if you care not to read it feel free to do so. However, to some readers it may provide great insight when trying to discern the deep meaning of the Psalm. Father Timothy Gallagher has written two excellent books about the LOH. These books are well worth reading as the insights will increase the value to all who pray the LOH. Read, an article written by Father Gallagher which comes from one of his books, to see his viewpoint on many things, including the Psalm Prayer.

        The Gospels are not part of the LOH because they are part of the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass which is a different liturgy. However, if you take a look at the antiphons for the canticles for Sundays, you will see that the canticles for Evening Prayer I, Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer II refer to the Sunday Gospels for Cycle A,B,C respectively.

        Keep praying the LOH as deeply as possible as they are and don’t “fight it.” If you have any “anger” toward the editorial content it will only be a distraction to potentially deep prayer. I know that when a new edition of the LOH comes out I will have problems with it; however, over time I will and must get over it, as the LOH is the universal prayer of the church and I do desire to be in prayer communion with that church.

      1. Hah, good catch. With the might of WoF behind, assuming they stay popular, I’m sure it’ll be completed before the ICSB and Ordinariate office. Probably after the ultimate NAB and LOTH 2.0, though, due to its late start.

  3. Hello everyone, hope you all good. I’ve always wanted to study the Bible and the New Testament. I’ve been looking for some Catholic biblical scholarship books. To my surprise, most of them are based on higher criticism, historical-critical method, biblical criticism etc. I understand the reasons for it I don’t have problems with it but I think they re wrong. I think all biblical scholars have their left wing agendas n politics trying to discredit and disprove the Catholic Church teachings, Bible and the New Testament or something like that. So I’ve been looking at Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament and The Catholic Commentary On Sacred Scripture New Testament Set on the web. I’ve been thinking about buying them both. Are they both good or not? What abt the Sacra Pagina Books? What abt the Paulist Biblical Commentary? I just need some advices and your opinions before I buy that either books. Thanks

      1. Thanks for your suggestion. I’ve never heard of it before. I’ll look it up. Do u read it? Is it good?

        1. I think it’s good. It’s available in print, ebooks (Kindle and Nook) and also on Logos Bible Software. It’s a very big commentary and quite new (2017). $37.99 ebook and $56.77 hardcover (Amazon). It’s probably handier to use as a book than trying to use it on Kindle or Nook since it’s so big with 37 volumes. You can buy individual volumes or get a one-volume edition. It’s not too technical like the New Jerome Bible Commentary and it’s great for the general Bible reader who wants more than footnotes and introductions found in many study bibles.

    1. If you are looking for resources with less historical-critical commentary than both the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible and the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture series are what you would like. The Paulist Commentary includes a decent amount of historical-criticism. I’ve never read the Sacra Pagina series. The other resources I would recommend are A Catholic Introduction to the Old Testament and any of the Bible studies by Jeff Cavins or Mitch Pacwa.

  4. Thanks for your recommendation. I’ll take my time n research more again before I decide to buy any study books. I’ve seen some samples of ignatius Study Bible n Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture on google books. So both ISB And CCSS looks good and are interesting to me. I don’t have any problems about historical-criticism but sometimes it’s useful and sometimes it’s not good

  5. Their New Testament was such an excellent work, reading it through was a huge part of what led me to return to the Church after being away since secondary school. It’s a bit frustrating that the publication of the Old Testament keeps getting pushed back with no end in sight. Did Scott Hahn hire George RR Martin to ghostwrite the footnotes for him?

  6. One Catholic translation project which finished relatively recently was the Revised New Jerusalem Version of the bible (2019).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.