Schuyler has begun accepting preorders for their Personal Size Quentel (PSQ) ESV with Apocrypha which is expected to ship in mid-September. They will be offering three color options with the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books: black goatskin, desert camel calfskin, and Verona calfskin. All three of these editions will have a full yapp cover. Prices range from $255 for the goatskin edition to $260 for the calfskin editions.
This Bible will contain the 2025 ESV text (which changed a total of 68 words throughout the entire biblical text compared to the previous update of the ESV in 2016).
The Personal Size Quentel is approximately 1.1 inches shorter in height and 0.7 inches narrower in width compared to the regular Quentel (which was released with the deuterocanonical books last year and reviewed here.) It is also printed with a smaller font: 8.5 pt instead of 10 pt in the regular Quentel. For more details on the overall size and page design of the new PSQ (compared to older versions which Schuyler has published in the past), see Tim Wildsmith’s video here.
I am debating making this purchase. I read somewhere that in the ESV PSQ, the Deuterocanonical books were placed after the NT. Is that true???
That is definitely true for the regular size Quentel, so I think it’s a good assumption that Schuyler will also print the Deuterocanonical books in the back of the PSQ.
I missed the party. Why is the placement of the deutercanon in non-CE Bibles such a big deal?
Also, if you shorten “deutercanon” to “DC,” we can literally have a DC Expanded Universe in our Bibles! I’ll see myself out.
I think it is done to try to make the Bible “more ecumenical”, and other than the separation of the books of Esther and Daniel into two parts in two separate sections, it is not a big deal because, after all, there is no consistent ordering of the books in Catholic Bibles; the RSV and NRSV place the deuterocanonical books in a different place than the NABRE. So putting the books in a different order is fine.
And if you compare it to Jewish editions of the TANAKH, not only is the order different (ending with 2 Chronicles), but the books are divided differently too, with Daniel being part of the “Writings” rather than the “Prophets”
There really doesn’t seem to be a universally accepted way of ordering the Old Testament. And I have heard that in the soon-to-be-published USB 6 (and AN 29) of the New Testament, the ordering of the New Testament books will change, with the “Catholic Epistles” coming immediately after the Gospels and before the book of Acts, although it seems unlikely that would be reflected in any new translations based on that text.
I own a copy of the UBS6 and can confirm that the new order is the Gospels and Acts, then the Catholic Epistles, then the Pauline Epistles (with Hebrews included between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy), and then Revelation. The practice of “missing verses” is also gone now, no doubt to the cheers of Byzantine priorists. All the “missing verses,” except for the Comma Johanneum, have now been restored to the Greek text from the apparatus, just with consistent use of brackets. It will be interesting to see if future Bible translations choose to follow this lead and end the practice of relegating whole disputed verses to the footnotes entirely.
No Bible translation follows UBS (or NA, which is the same text, the only difference being the lack of a critical apparatus in the UBS text) perfectly; the translation team of each edition makes their own decisions about what to include. Somewhere I saw a list of percentages: the New American Standard is the closest, following the Nestle-Aland text around 95% of the time, but then it dips off quickly, with most modern Bibles, such as the CSB and NIV, coming in at only 60% agreement.
By the way, the NABRE follows NA more than 90% of the time.
So, in a sense, it doesn’t really matter what USB 6 includes or excludes; each translation does whatever it thinks appropriate for its purposes.
There has been, since the 1970’s, a gradual walking back of some of the more extreme decisions of Westcott and Hort by NT textual critics, and since the publication of the RSV New Testament in 1971, the trend has been increasing, with more and more verses coming back.
I think that with recent research on the Byzantine text, I think textual critics are coming around to the idea that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which are very old and very high quality, may be over represented in textual decisions.
One translation which seems to go out of its way to always give a crazy minority reading is the New English Translation; it is the only English translation I am aware of that, in the Gospel of Matthew, has Pilate ask “Should I release for you Jesus Barabas or Jesus of Nazareth?”
There are a small number of manuscripts of Matthew that say “Jesus Barabbas”; the translators of the NET argue that “Jesus Barabas” probably is correct, but that early scribes changed it because the name “Jesus” quickly became sacred and they didn’t want to use it for anyone else. They may well be correct, but there are very few manuscripts that say “Jesus Barabas,” and most translations don’t rely on them, going with the overwhelming majority reading.
It could be worse. The deuterocanon could be printed in comic sans or in the font size they used to use for the bottom of pharmaceuticals ads in magazines.
I am a bit unsure who they are mollifying by putting those books in the back. Early Protestant bibles in English had them between the testaments. Maybe they are copying Jerome’s appendix to the Vulgate, but I am merely assuming that was in the back.
But maybe the question is, who do they think is buying this? Conservative Anglicans? Peter Leithart types? They probably don’t imagine a lot of Catholic interest.
The process of Protestant treatment of the deuterocanonical books was first to group them together and place them in the middle of the Bible (with some, like Luther’s 1534 Bible, still counting them as “Old Testament” either explicitly or implicitly), then later came the practice of putting them after the New Testament in a smaller font size and with critical notes attacking them throughout, and then finally came their deletion from Protestant Bibles, mainly starting in 1826 in England thanks to the British and Foreign Bible Society capitulating to the demands of the National Bible Society of Scotland.
Yes
Is there that much Catholic interest in Bibles that label parts of the Old Testament as “Apocrypha”? It’s just a Protestant Bible at the end of the day. Even if you don’t mind flipping to the end to find Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 & 2 Maccabees, you have an interrupted Esther and Daniel.
Additionally, your children may see these books in the same section as truly non-canonical books like 3 & 4 Maccabees, 1 & 2 Esdras, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh, etc and accept the authority of the publisher over the authority of the Church when it comes to determining the canon of Scripture. Adults do it all the time.
No matter how beautiful a Protestant Bible may be, it’s still a Protestant Bible and I can’t bring myself to own it due to its rejection of Church authority and the canon of Scripture.
The reason Oxford University Press does that is that the Oxford Annotated Bible is the standard text for undergraduate Bible courses in universities. By doing that, they make the text as broadly ecumenical as possible.
I took a generic “Old Testament” and “New Testament” sequence as a college freshman; everyone takes those courses: Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, and the non-religious, so they want the fullest canon possible, but with some books separated so people can decide which books they accept for themselves. And of course they like the NRSV because it is the most PC major translation,. In the classes I took, you could use any Bible you wanted as long as you also had a copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible that was required for the course. It is, of course, quite useful for an academic class for everyone to have a common Bible to refer to.
The intersting thing about that is that even though most textbooks are sold back at the end of the semester, there were very few used copies of the Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV; it seems most students decided to keep it at the end of the semester.
I assume there must still be a version with “expanded apocrypha” that includes 3,4 Maccabees, 1&2 Esdras, Psalm 151 etc. Or at least I would be very surprised if there isn’t.
I am genuinely surprised that they have not yet incorporated books from the Ethiopian Bible such as Jubilees and Enoch. I work with two women who are Ethiopian Orthodox, and they are a growing religious minority. I am genuinely surprised that with all this “inclusiveness” stuff, no Bible translation I know of tries to include the Ethiopians. Certainly the NRSV would seem like the most likely candidate to do this.
The old NOAB with RSV, which accompanied me through my time at a so-called Catholic university, places the “Expanded Apocrypha” at the back, whereas the new NOAB with NRSV places it in the middle.
My personal policy is not to purchase Bibles containing just the 66 book Protestant canon – do we really need all these barely differentiated English translations, so that YouTubers can waste their and our time? – but I wouldn’t exclude versions of NOAB from my library. Does Christian have no curiosity about the Greek and Slavonic canon, even from an academic perspective? To be frank I find the argument about children coming across these Bibles a little bizarre. Surely it’s an opportunity to teach them about the authority of the Catholic Church.
As to Schuyler Bibles, they’re beyond my pocket, so the question doesn’t arise. But I don’t think Catholics are the target audience.
I know I’m commenting on a post about a Bible commonly used in seminary, but my initial comment was asking about general Catholic interest in Bibles with an apocrypha section versus just buying Catholic Bibles.
It seems that the interest is just for scholars and most folks simply tend to buy Catholic Bibles.
I do have curiosity about the Greek and Slavonic canon. In fact, maybe one day there will be a nice Bible with the proper 73 book canon and an apocrypha section with their canons. I have the Baronius Press Vulgate/Douay-Rheims side-by-side Bible that does this but only with a few of the books from the Eastern canons.
It sure is a good opportunity to teach children about the authority of the Church, but I think spiritually dangerous for a young Catholic in a Catholic household to exclusively see Bibles that label the inspired Word of God “apocryphal”. I understand owning at least one for study, but Catholics need real Catholic Bibles.
The Cambridge Cornerstone ESV-CE cowhide leather is still the closest thing to a premium ESV-CE. I would love for Schuyler or Humble Lamb or Cambridge to make an actual ESV-CE premium Bible, not just a premium ESV with Apocrypha. Surely with the ESV-CE now the official translation at Mass in some countries, there must be a market for it somewhere.
Yes, the ESV-CE is the base text for the lectionary in Britain, where I live, and it is undoubtedly a step forward after years of hearing the Jerusalem Bible at Mass, although the JB still has a place in my heart. But we’re stuck with the odd 2016 rendering of Genesis 3:16, which has been changed in the 2025 edition of the ESV.
I don’t think that many Catholics here are ESV-CE “adopters” despite hearing it at Mass and I find myself returning to the RSV time and time again for personal reading and study, even though the ESV and RSV are closely aligned.
I’m based in the UK too. I agree it’s a step forward from the old JB (which I am also fond of). I’m not the biggest fan of the ESV-CE – it just sounds a bit stilted and technical at times. I would have probably preferred the RNJB, because then we would have had the continuity of the JB family, and I think it just sounds a little better when being proclaimed. Regarding the RSV family my preference for devotional reading is the NRSV-UE and outside of that I love the NLT-CE – but then I always have tended to resonate more with dynamic equivalence translations.
The ESV does seem stilted alongside the RSV, at least on a reading of the psalms. The NRSV strikes me as more mellifluous than either. I haven’t spent much time with the NRSV-UE as yet, or indeed, the RNJB. I’ve yet to meet another person in the UK who reads the NLT!
I may be an outlier because I grew up evangelical, but as a Byzantine of some sort for 7.5 years, the ESV-CE is my favorite, personally. The lewd cantor at my parish also prefers the ESV-CE.
I presume you meant “lead” cantor, but that typo is hilarious.
Or, maybe it wasn’t a typo… In that case, yikes.
Definitely a typo oh my goodness
A couple of years ago this would have been very tempting, but with Ascension Press possibly producing a premium edition of the Catholic American Bible along the lines of their top-tier edition of the breviary, I plan to hold out for that, if it happens.
If the CAB is supposedly coming out in February, why are there no listings and no preorders open for the CAB? Why is the CAB MIA? Am I the only one who noticed there aren’t any listings for it when there should be by now if it’s coming out in Feb 2027?
I think Ascension is planning to release more info about their upcoming CAB editions in the next few months. I think they wanted to stagger their publicity and focus on the Liturgy of the Hours first before announcing the CAB editions. I’m not sure why other publishers haven’t shared mich info yet, though. TAN books has a page with some info on the CAB editions they are planning to publish.
TAN? I thought they only published books in the public domain
Tan has their preorders starting in September
https://tanparish.com/cab-info/
I agree – where are all the CAB pre order sneak peeks?
Why are none of the publishers discussing their plan?
It’s awfully silent across the board, we have yet to even get a sneak peek into CAB text itself.
If CBP could produce a “gift” sized CAB in the same format as the NRSV Gift Edition, it would be almost perfect.
Whatever we get, I just want a reader’s edition that either puts all the notes at the back of the book or removes them entirely. By all means still produce study bibles and have fun with the notes – but we need clean, simple editions that offer more options for devotional reading without 60% of a page being footnotes and not scripture.
Canon Law requires study notes to get an imprimatur, but I don’t think there is any clear regulation on how many notes there have to be. But even something like the Jerusalem Bible Reader’s Edition has more notes than most Bibles, even if it strips out more than 90% of the notes contained in the origal 1966 edition.
I don’t think many are required at all. The ESV-CE Cornerstone Edition has almost none, aside from section headings and textual footnotes.
I would just like to see a nice single column format for the new CAB, similar to either the Cambridge Clarion or the Crossway Veritas.
Neither Ascension or TAN say anything whatsoever about this, so evidently won’t be issuing such editions (at least not initially), but does anyone know of a publisher who is all but guaranteed to release a CAB New Testament (sans OT/Hebrew Bible and Deuterocanon)? I really desire a slim Bible and I have no desire whatsoever to re-purchase the entire Bible, especially given that I own so many Bibles (hefty tomes and unwieldy). What interests me in the CAB is the new new…..uh, new (if I say it 3 times in a row, does Beetlejuice appear?) testament. Not the prospect of buying yet another unwieldy Bible that’s uncomfortable for my wrists. It’s also concerning to me that Catholic Bible Press (an imprint of HarperCollins) has said nothing about publishing CABs. Their website is updated, ©2026, and they don’t even list the CAB as a translation option. Maybe we are a long ways off from publishers licensing the CAB and my hopes of a CAB NT stand-alone volume. It makes me incredibly sad.
Josh – I emailed CBP about this exact question and never got a response.
Not much else from Ascension or Tan either – other than their initial press releases.
I’m really wondering why the broader Catholic internet world of creators and publishers isn’t making more noise about this upcoming translation.
Related, last I checked they don’t say anything about NRSVue-CE either
It is not just the New Testament that is being revised; it is the entire Bible, including the notes. This is why the name is changing. It’s essentially a full reboot.
As for not wanting yet another Bible, there are non-physical options.
My understanding is that the revisions to the NABRE OT (aside from replacing the Psalms with the Abbey Psalms) will be very minimal. That’s the sense I got from Mary Sperry’s comments here on the blog last fall.
Realistically, there is not much change that can be made. It’s not like they can reinvent the wheel. The text is what it is; it’s not like in the next revision, Pharaoh will not harden his heart and will let the people go without any plagues. There are only so many ways of writing it; after you read about half a dozen Bibles, they all seem the same.
This is why I don’t understand the mania to create new translations.
I do wish they would fix some of the frankly mood breaking choices, like “God-Hero” in Isaiah 9:6
I can relate with having more Bibles than I need (or care to admit), so I understand the hesitation in adding one more hefty and unwieldy tome to your shelf. At the same time, the CAB is not just another translation or edition. When the revised Lectionary, the Liturgy of the Hours, Second Edition, and the CAB are all published and in use, it will mark the first time in the history of the US Catholic Church that one English Bible serves as the underlying text of both the Lectionary and Divine Office. In other words, the CAB is set to become our first ever complete “Liturgical Bible” in English. I am personally excited for this moment -over 5 decades in the making- and suspect it may occupy a cherished and valued place in your collection.
Regarding your other point, I would guess a stand alone NT or NT and Psalms will come out eventually. Until then, you could remove the cover from a CAB, gently and precisely separate the OT from the NT with a sharp utility knife, and then put a new cover on it. I have done that with with a few Bibles, and even combined the NCB stand alone NT with the RSV-2CE Psalms from the Ignatius NT and Psalms, and it worked out great. You could even separate out the Psalms and add it to the NT to make a CAB NT, Psalms, and Canticles.
I do not have an ESV-CE bible in my library yet. This post inspired me to look for one. I opted for Augustine Institute’s ESV-CE bible hardback edition.
I did not see any paperback or hardback editions available on their website so I asked them when they plan to restock their bibles. They responded that they will not be reprinting/restocking them once the Augustine Institute Bibles are sold out.
I do not know if this means Augustine Institute is leaving the ESV-CE market. If you prefer a non-Anglicized ESV-CE bible you may want to give them a visit before their bonded leather inventory runs out.
Just as I suspected and made waves for suggesting last year. I suppose this is confirmation that the ESV-CE is being phased out by it’s only publisher in America. This will bring to a close what has been a surprisingly brief venture.
The Augustine Institute also still owns catholicbible.org for the ESV-CE. I’m assuming, since it’s a prime domain, they’ll probably reboot it as the CSV’s website. But I echo the sentiment that, if anyone wants an Augustine Institute ESV-CE, it’s best to get them sooner rather than later, because I can imagine those could go for a pretty penny secondhand once they go OOP.
Do we know how long Augustine Institute has the rights to the ESVCE in the US? Might another publisher (who would actually promote it) acquire them in the (not too distant) future?
Also, is there any chance at all that we may one day get a version of the ESVCE that reflects the changes introduced for the lectionary?
CTS announced plans a while back to publish an edition of the ESV-CE revised to align with the lectionary – along the lines of their New Catholic Bible JB – but the project seems to have been dropped.
They did publish an entire book arguing that the ESV is the best modern translation. The book does make a compelling argument. I don’t think the problem is promotion, I think the problem is Crossway.
Yeah… I know a lot of Catholics online berate the NABRE, but at least our bishops are giving us an “American Vulgate” so to speak. I feel bad for the Brits because they’ll never have that, unless Crossway starts permitting us Catholics to include study notes in the ESV-CE.
It is probably a combination of low sales and resistance from Crossway. If they were selling like hotcakes and Crossway was accommodating, they would probably reprint.
Whatever happened to the Augustine Institute’s own translation of the Bible?
Hi Edward,
If I remember correctly, that translation won’t be completed until sometime in the 2030’s. We are a very long ways off, assuming the translation work hadn’t been cancelled altogether. The sales of the Gospel (was it Matthew?) that they published to show off what the new translation would have looked like may not have been enough to justify continuing the project. Keeping in mind that translation committee projects like this are extraordinarily expensive year on year. I was really unimpressed with their translation of Matthew. It contained numerous textual errors, retaining misreadings, and no distinctive features. I couldn’t even understand why someone would read it or prefer it of existing ESV Matthew.
Josh,
Actually, the Augustine Institute’s translation is well along. The completed draft Gospels were used internally for some seminars this summer, and they specifically noted years ago that the Gospel of Matthew volume was well-received upon release and helped them know that there was demand for continuing. Last I checked, they were still finishing up the New Testament.
Extremely slow going last I heard
The ESV-CE is by far my favorite translation and I hope someone picks up publishing/printing rights in the US. From the excerpts of the CAB I’ve read I haven’t been impressed at all. I think the USCCB should adopt the ESV too; why try reinventing the wheel (I know the answer is $$$).
JD – where are you seeing CAB excerpts?
I agree with you though, my AI ESV-CE is fantastic… might pick up another copy if they are going out of print.
Errata list of the Catholic American Bible – https://cab.scribenet.com/errata
This is interesting, “so let it be stricken”!
Errata for May 24, 2023
CITATION
Front Matter, List of Contributors, “Collaborators on the Revised New Testament of the New American Bible 1986”, section “Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee”, first line
PREVIOUS
Most Rev. Theodore E. McCarrick, D.D.
UPDATED
COMMENTS
Remove line
Oh man…based on seeing the “See Appendix for liturgical version of this canticle,” does that mean the Abbey Psalms and Canticles aren’t part of the main text? That was one of my biggest hopes for the CAB based on the descriptions I read.
Here’s the situation:
The “Abbey Psalms” are completely replacing the NABRE Psalms, the NABRE’s Psalms are completely gone. The Abbey Psalms translation replaces them in the main body of the Biblical texts. The NABRE Psalms are no more the moment the CAB actually gets published.
The “Abbey Canticles” are only included in an Appendix of the CAB, to be referenced for Liturgical Church services. The NABRE translations of those portions of texts designated as “canticles” remain as they are.
So, in brief:
Abbey Psalms replaces NABRE Psalms.
NABRE “canticles” texts do not get replaced, instead the Abbey Canticles will be in an Appendix. Those NABRE translations survive into the CAB.
I’m not a fan of the “erase history” school of thought. If McCarrick was one of the reviewers of the 1986 Revised New Testament, then the truth is just what it simply is, pretending it didn’t happen won’t actually change history.
The Errata list of the CAB was recently updated on 8/6/2026.
They are still fixing typos, mostly spelling issues. I’m a little apprehensive to buy Ascension Press’ first printing of the CAB especially if it is $900 a piece and find typos.
I’m sorry, what?!?!?!
$900.00 USD for a CAB? And here I thought luxury Bible price ranges were in the $150-$300 range. Obviously, a poor man like me, I’ve been out of the loop. If I was crazy enough, somehow had 1K laying around collecting dust (keeping in mind that with taxes and shipping, it’s going to make that $900 Bible significantly more expensive), I wouldn’t spend $900 on a CAB translation Bible.
I’m honestly surprised whatever USCCB subcommittee is responsible for editing the CAB doesn’t just use AI to find the typos. Organizations like Mozilla Foundation (makers of Firefox) used AI to look at the code behind Firefox and it found bugs and vulnerabilities that had been present for decades and never detected by humans (including malicious actors, thankfully). So yeah, just have an AI scan for typos and they wouldn’t have to keep posting errata updates those close to the (alleged) publication.
Josh,
As someone generally not favorable to AI, I nevertheless agree. This is a completely valid and positive use of AI. If one’s worried about the usual AI hallucinations, then go the Logos Bible Software route and disconnect your AI model from the internet. Run the scan, manually correct the typos, then run the scan again in case the AI didn’t get them all the first time, then manually correct the missed typos, and keep going until nothing more pops up.
I also agree with JG that I’m definitley not comfortable preordering Ascension’s edition of the CAB, or really any main edition, other than maybe the cheapest option. If I want a “nice” CAB for long-term use, I can wait till things get ironed out. In fact, if the USCCB won’t run the AI scans to find the typos, surely some enterprising Catholics could do so shortly after the first digital release and create a public list for the USCCB to then crib from.
The cost of $900 is most likely referring to the first printing of the 4-Volume premium LOTH 2nd Ed, which uses the initial CAB prior to the errata list. In other words, if you pre-buy the LOTH 2nd Ed or the CAB, you will possibly have a version with minor errors that had not yet been identified and corrected. If you are going to spend $900 on the premium set, I can understand the hesitation. It hopefully isn’t a big deal because the errors are likely few and far between.
I was just kidding about the $900 price tag. I based it from their premium LOTH. Ascension Press will have the monopoly on premium CAB bibles.
“my AI ESV-CE is fantastic”
I read that as my “artificial intelligence ESV-CE” for a sec and did a double take!
I do like the real, translated by humans ESV- CE. Formal but readable, beautiful at times.
I gather that there are limitations from Crossways on what Catholic publishers can do with it. I doubt we’ll see an ESV-CE study bible. Unless you ask AI (artificial intelligence) to write it. 😉
Why did Crossway authorize the Catholic Edition if they are just going to stand in the way and try to block it?