sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bible translations, Christian Standard Bible, Confraternity Bible, English Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible

1

Non-Catholic and Catholic from (Masoretic) Hebrew and Greek into English

Rev. Dr. Assisi Saldanha, C.Ss.R. Rector, Mt. St. Alphonsus, Bangalore – 560084

Bible translations from the original languages (OT: [Masoretic Hebrew to English] and NT: [Greek to English]) can be done on the basis of formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence or optimal equivalence. In order to achieve a sense of completion, the well-known Catholic , The Douay-Rheims Version and the Knox Bible, translated from the , are included here as an exception.

The Exception (Latin Vulgate to English)

The Douay-Rheims Version (DRV 1582 [NT]; 1609 [OT])

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The year 1558 A.D. marks the beginning of increasing hardships in for followers of the Vulgate. Some were forced to flee to the European mainland for safety. Some went to Douay, France, where a college had been founded for the training of missionaries to return to England. It was there, ten years later, that Gregory Martin began to translate from the Latin Vulgate into English. The Douay-Rheims (DR) was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. For want of means, the was not published until the first volume appeared in 1609 A.D., and the second in 1610 A.D. These volumes were for distribution in England. However, stringent Penal Laws in England forbade the entrance and ownership of such literature, which was considered inimical to the government and highly treasonable. The Douay-Rheims Version (DRV) contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called by Protestants).

One year later, in 1611 A.D., the Protestant , also known as the Authorized Version, was issued; but the Catholic Douay-Rheims was not allowed legal entry until the 18th century. The seven deutero-canonical books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not always in later KJV Bibles. The King James Version was permitted to stand without the contest of comparison with the Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims . The whole Douay-Rheims Bible was revised and diligently compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner in 1749-1752 A.D. The notes included in the text (in italics) were written by Dr. Challoner. The changes introduced by him were so considerable that, according to Cardinal Newman, they almost amounted to a new translation. So, also, Cardinal Wiseman wrote, “To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been 2 altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version...” [Source: http://www.drbo.org/preface_1582.htm]. St. Jerome’s Vulgate on which the Douay- Rheims version is supposedly dependent has been assessed presently with some reservations. St. Jerome’s major contribution was in the Old Testament, which he translated afresh from the Hebrew, with the exception of the Psalter, and the books of Wisdom, and Maccabees, which he did not work on. In the case of the New Testament, he merely revised the text of the Old Latin Gospels (completing it in 383 CE). It is not known with any certainty when the rest of the New Testament was revised, or by whom. Again, the question of what Greek exemplar was used is disputed. The consensus today favours the view that Jerome used a contemporary manuscript of the early Koine type, and not the more reliable Alexandrian type manuscripts. Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, , nos. 20-22, brought about the awareness that the Vulgate does not always reflect accurately the original texts. The Neo-Vulgate undertaken on the initiative of Pope Paul VI and then promulgated by Pope John Paul II by Apostolic Constitution on April 25, 1979, represented not only innumerable alterations of the traditional text in purely stylistic matters, but more significantly a correction of it to the Greek text [Source: Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989), 190-192]. Thus, there is no doubt the Douay-Rheims Version (DVR) did not entirely represent the Alexandrian text base with regard to the New Testament for the Vulgate on which it depended did not. It has been asserted that Jerome did have manuscripts that we don't have today — but this is misleading. He also lacked manuscripts that we do have, and he lacked the we have for sorting through textual variants. Again, it may be doubted that Jerome was a stupendous translator. No matter how good a translator is, the worthiness of his work will be proportionate to how much he exerts himself — and sometimes Jerome did not exert himself very much. For example, he translated the in a single night [Source: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4300].

The Knox Bible (1945 [NT]; 1950[OT]) In the early twentieth century, there was another English version also translated from the Vulgate, known as the Knox Bible. In 1936, Ronald Knox was requested by the Catholic hierarchies of England and to undertake a new translation of the Vulgate with use of contemporary language and in light of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. When the New Testament was published in 1945, it was not intended to replace the Rheims version but to be used alongside it, as Bernard Griffin, the Archbishop of Westminster, noted in the preface. However, with the release of Knox's version of the Old Testament in 1950, the popularity of translations based on the Vulgate waned as Church authorities promoted the use of Bibles based primarily on Hebrew and Greek texts following the 1943 encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu. The Knox Bible was, however, one of the approved versions of the Bible used in the readings for from 1965 to the early 1970s, along with the . The Knox Bible was considered as the finest translation of the twentieth century. It was meant to read as if an Englishman had written it. [Source: 3 https://www.baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=60#tab=tab-1 See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knox_Bible]. We shall now dwell on the English versions that were translated from Hebrew and Greek while categorizing each version under the type of translation it represents.

I. Formal Equivalence

What is “formal equivalence”? Often called “word-for-word” (or “literal”) translation, the principle of formal equivalence seeks as nearly as possible to preserve the structure of the original language (Hebrew or Greek). It seeks to represent each word of the original text with an exact equivalent word in the translation so that the reader can see word for word what the original human author wrote. The merits of this approach include its consistency with the conviction that the Holy Spirit did inspire the very words of Scripture in the original manuscripts. It also provides the English Bible student some access to the structure of the text in the original language. Formal equivalence can achieve accuracy to the degree that English has an exact equivalent for each word and that the grammatical patterns of the original language can be reproduced in understandable English. However, it can sometimes result in awkward, if not incomprehensible, English or in a misunderstanding of the author’s intent. The literal rendering of ancient idioms is especially difficult. However, the oversight committee, a committee that is formed to check on contentious issues that arise in the translation of texts, actually debates on the best rendering of such difficult texts. Indeed every translator and translation oversight committee, a committee, however, not found in the case of one-man translation, is conscious that they are dealing with the precious word of God and when an impasse is reached the translation oversight committee assumes collective responsibility in respect to the final decision it makes. The Bibles that reveal the literal method of translation are, among others, the KJV, ASV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NAB, NABRE and RNJB.

A. The King James Version (KJV 1611) and The American Standard Version (ASV 1901)

The King James Version (KJV) was first published in 1611. It sought to be a precise translation coupled with a majestic literary style. It should be noted, however, that the editors of the King James Version were instructed by King James I of England to make sure that the translation was in harmony with the theology of the . The King James Version was looked to as the standard English translation of the Bible for almost 400 years. By far most of the editions of the KJV printed between 1611 and 1890 contained the seven deutero-canonicals, designated as the “Apocrypha” books, and were bound between the New and Old Testaments. The first KJV printed in 1611 certainly contained the seven deutero-canonicals and these were regarded with great respect as is clear from the Translators' Preface to the 1611 KJV. Presently, the KJV omits these and contains only 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT. The (NKJV) was published in 1982. Both KJV and NKJV follow the formal equivalence in translation. While staying literal and remaining close to the original sentence 4 structure, change is sought only when the literal meaning could be misunderstood. A Roman Catholic edition of KJV or NKJV did not appear even though most editions of the KJV from 1611 up to 1890 did contain the deutero-canonical books. A Roman Catholic edition of the KJV has not appeared because the text base of the KJV is the (TR) which is basically a Byzantine Imperial or Koine text type of the twelfth-thirteenth century chosen by for the publication of the very first edition of the NT in 1516. Though the TR was then regarded as untouchable, indeed sacrosanct, many scholars did point to its deficiencies. Among them, were Johann Albrecht Bengel, Johann Jakob Wettstein, Johann Jakob Griesbach – all in the seventeenth-eighteenth centuries. The TR held for three hundred years until 1830, when , a professor of classical philology at Berlin, raised the issue with his classic slogan, “Down with the late text of the Textus Receptus, and back to the text of the early fourth-century church.” From then on, various scholars, of the nineteenth- twentieth centuries, such as Constantin von Tischendorf, Brooke Foss Westcott and John Anthony Hort, Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland strove to set aside the TR that was based on the Byzantine-Koine text type and move towards a text type based on the early Alexandrian manuscripts of the fourth century church [Source: Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans, 1989), 9- 22]. However, we mention the KJV translation because it is a significant one as it is very much in use by the Protestants, and also because it forms the basis of the American Standard Version (ASV), published in 1901. The ASV formed the basis of two further revisions: The (RSV, 1952) and The New American Standard Bible (NASB, 1971).

1. The Revised Standard Version (RSV 1952; RSV-CE 1966)

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was published in 1952 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV) is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version (ASV), published in 1901, which already was a revision of the King James Version (KJV), published in 1611. The RSV was intended to be a readable and literally accurate modern English translation which aimed to “preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the centuries” and “to put of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition.” It was this bible – that was based on Hebrew and Greek originals - that the Roman chose for biblical study and liturgy. The RSV Catholic Edition (RSVCE) was brought out by the Catholic Biblical Association of America under the editorship of Bernard Orchard, OSB, and Reginald C. Fuller in 1966.

2. The Revised Standard Version – Second Catholic Edition (RSVSCE 2006)

In early 2006, released the Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition (RSVSCE). The Ignatius Edition “was revised according to [the norms of] , 2001” and “approved under the same [i.e., 1966] by the Secretariat 5 for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, National Council of Catholic Bishops, February 29, 2000.” The Roman Catholic Editions of the RSV have 46 books of the OT (which include the 7 ) and 27 books of the NT. The textual basis of the RSVCE, both editions, is the RSV which following the principle of formal equivalence, stays close to the original sentence structure but changing it only where the meaning is compromised. This RSV Roman Catholic Edition was approved for liturgy in much of the English-speaking world. The first lectionary (produced in 1966 for England and Wales, and Scotland) used the Revised Standard Version (RSV) and this translation continues to be an approved alternative to the JB. The next lectionary used the RSVSCE. The RSVSCE and the JB continued to be the Roman Catholic Editions that were used in much of the English speaking world, outside of the .

3. New American Standard Bible (NASB 1971)

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) was published by the Lockman Foundation in 1971 (updated in 1995). It is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version (ASV), published in 1901, which already was a revision of the King James Version (KJV), published in 1611. It is a literal, word for word, translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. It remains very close to the original sentence structure. It was produced by a group of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches. Although the NASB revisers were influenced by the RSV’s interpretation in many places, overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study. Also unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament. The NASB was widely accepted by conservative churches in the years following its publication in 1971, but it was often criticized for its awkward and unnatural English. This was mostly a consequence of the version’s adherence to the idioms of the original languages, whether or not they were natural in English. Therefore, in 1992 the Lockman Foundation commissioned a limited revision of the NASB which was intended to improve its English style by allowing a somewhat less literal approach. The revision was published as the “NASB Updated Edition” in 1995. (Source: John Simpson, 2017, https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-New-American-Standard-Bible-come-from). However, the Roman Catholic church did not approve either the NASB or NASB Updated edition and hence a Roman Catholic edition did not materialize.

B. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV 1989; NRSV-CE 1991)

The New Revised Standard Version( NRSV) is an ecumenical translation. The NRSV Bible Translation Committee consisted of thirty men and women who are among top scholars in America today. They came from Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic church, and the Greek Orthodox Church. The committee also included a Jewish scholar. The NRSV stands out among the many translations available today as the Bible translation that is the 6 most widely “authorized” by the churches. It received the endorsement of thirty-three Protestant churches. It received the imprimatur of the American and Canadian Conferences of Catholic bishops. And it received the blessing of a leader of the Greek Orthodox Church. Before this, The RSVCE was the only major translation in English that included both the standard Protestant canon and the books that are traditionally used by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians (the so-called “Apocryphal” or “Deuterocanonical” books). Standing in this tradition, the NRSV is available in three ecumenical formats: a standard edition with or without the Apocrypha, a Roman Catholic Edition, which has the so-called “Apocryphal” or “Deuterocanonical” books in the Roman Catholic canonical order, and The Common Bible, which includes all books that belong to the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox canons. The NRSV stands out among the many translations because it is “as literal as possible” in adhering to the ancient texts and only “as free as necessary” to make the meaning clear in graceful, understandable English. It draws on newly available sources that increase our understanding of many previously obscure biblical passages. These sources include new- found manuscripts, the , other texts, inscriptions, and archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, and new understandings of Greek and Hebrew . The NRSV differs from the RSV in four primary ways:

 updating the language of the RSV, by replacing archaic forms of speech addressed to God (Thee, , wast, dost, etc.), and by replacing words whose meaning has changed significantly since the RSV translation (for example, Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians 11.25 that he was “stoned” once)  making the translation more accurate,  helping it to be more easily understood, especially when it is read out loud, and  making it clear where the original texts intend to include all humans, male and female, and where they intend to refer only to the male or female gender. (Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-NRSV- Bible/). However, The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) received official approval for Roman Catholic use in private study and devotional reading. As far as its use in liturgy was concerned, is currently the only country where the Roman Catholic lectionary is based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, the copyright for which is held by the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. The Canadian Conference and the Vatican approved a modification of the NRSV for lectionary use in 2008. And, while the adapted version was also under consideration for approval in England and Wales, in Ireland, and in Scotland, the bishops of England and Wales abandoned the project at Easter 2016. (Source: http://www.cccb.ca/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2510&Itemid=10 62&lang=eng).

C. The (ESV 2001; ESV-CE 2018) The English Standard Version (ESV) is an adaptation of the RSV Bible. Crossway did the adaptation from the RSV and for the first time published the ESV in 2001. The ESV is based 7 on the Hebrew, , and Greek manuscripts that best correspond to the principle of “formal equivalence,” for publication of an “essentially literal” Bible translation that seeks to reproduce “the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Biblical writer.” Besides, archaic language in the RSV has been brought into line with current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts. But throughout, the goal has been to retain the depth of meaning and enduring quality of language that have made their indelible mark on the English-speaking world. (Source: Preface to the ESV Bible). Rev. Dr. Lane Dennis, President & CEO, Crossway Publishers offered the ESV text to the Roman Catholic church in India so that it could be examined from the point of view of Catholic orthodoxy. The Bible Scholars’ Review Team of eight Indian scholars was formed. The Scholars Review Committee was headed by Rev. Dr. Lucien Legrand, MEP, who together with Rev. Dr. Assisi Saldanha, C.Ss.R., and Rev. Dr. Govindu Rayanna formed the core committee. The other five scholars who worked on this project were Rev. Dr. Prema Vakayil, Rev. Dr. Alfred Joseph, Rev. Dr. David Stanly Kumar, Rev. Dr. Shabu Joseph Thottumkal, SDB, and Rev. Dr. Stanislas Savarimuthu. After examining the ESV text and bringing it in line with Roman Catholic orthodoxy, the Scholars Review Committee presented the ESV to the Conference of Catholic Bishops of India (CCBI) for its Imprimatur. In this, the Chairman of CCBI Commission for Bible, Most Rev. J. Susaimanickam, and the former Executive Secretary, Rev. Dr. Govindu Rayanna, and the present Executive Secretary, Rev. Dr. John Baptist, of this same Commission were most helpful in giving wings to the project. The support offered by the Chairman of CCBI Commission for Liturgy, Most Rev. Dominic Jala, SDB, and his Executive Secretary, Rev. Dr. Ayres Fernandes, contributed immensely to the project. The Imprimatur on behalf of the CCBI was granted by His Eminence Oswald Cardinal Gracias on 4th May, 2017 after thoroughly scrutinizing the work of the Scholars’ Review Committee headed by Fr. Lucien Legrand. The official release of the Catholic Edition of the English Standard Version (ESV-CE) took place on 4th February, 2018, during the CCBI Plenary Assembly at Pope Paul VI Auditorium, St. John’s Research Institute, St. John’s National Academy of Health Sciences, Koramangala, Bangalore. This project of the ESV-CE was coordinated by Mr. Nigel Fernandes, CEO of Asian Trading Corporation (ATC). It would not have seen the light of day without his persevering coordination with Crossway, Scholars’ Review Team, and the CCBI. The Catholic Edition of the ESV (ESV- CE) was now accepted for use in the seminaries in India. The English Lectionary in India would in the future feature the text of ESV-CE. This new Lectionary in three volumes was released on 16th February, 2020, by the CCBI. It is envisaged that the text to be used in the liturgy would also be the text that would be studied in the seminaries.

D. The (NAB 1970; 1986; NABRE 2011)

The New American Bible was originally published in 1970 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. It is a Catholic edition. It is the achievement of some fifty biblical scholars, the greater number of whom, though not all, are Catholics. In particular, the editors-in-chief have devoted twenty-five years to this work. The collaboration of scholars who are not Catholic fulfils the directive of the , not only that “correct translations be made into different languages especially from the original texts of the sacred books,” but that, 8

"with the approval of the church authority, these translations be produced in cooperation with separated brothers" so that “all Christians may be able to use them.” The text of the books contained in The New American Bible is a completely new translation throughout. From the original and the oldest available texts of the sacred books, it aims to convey as directly as possible the thought and individual style of the inspired writers. The better understanding of Hebrew and Greek, and the steady development of the science of textual criticism, the fruit of patient study since the time of St. Jerome, have allowed the translators and editors in their use of all available materials to approach more closely than ever before the sense of what the sacred authors actually wrote.[Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P1.HTM].

In 1986 the New Testament of the NAB was revised. The primary aim of the revision was to produce a version as accurate and faithful to the meaning of the Greek original as is possible for a translation. The editors have consequently moved in the direction of a formal- equivalence approach to translation, matching the vocabulary, structure, and even word order of the original as closely as possible in the receptor language. Some other contemporary biblical versions have adopted, in varying degrees, a dynamic-equivalence approach, which attempts to respect the individuality of each language by expressing the meaning of the original in a linguistic structure suited to English, even though this may be very different from the corresponding Greek structure. While this approach often results in fresh and brilliant renderings, it has the disadvantages of more or less radically abandoning traditional biblical and liturgical terminology and phraseology, of expanding the text to include what more properly belongs in notes, commentaries, or preaching, and of tending toward paraphrase. A more formal approach seems better suited to the specific purposes intended for this translation. At the same time, the editors have wished to produce a version in English that reflects contemporary American usage and is readily understandable to ordinary educated people, but one that will be recognized as dignified speech, on the level of formal rather than colloquial usage. These aims are not in fact contradictory, for there are different levels of language in current use: the language of formal situations as not that of colloquial conversation, though people understand both and may pass from one to the other without adverting to the transition. The liturgy is a formal situation that requires a level of discourse more dignified, formal, and hieratic than the world of business, sport, or informal communication. People readily understand this more formal level even though they may not often use it; our passive vocabulary is much larger than our active vocabulary. Hence this revision, while avoiding archaisms, does not shrink from traditional biblical terms that are easily understood even though not in common use in everyday speech. The level of language consciously aimed at is one appropriate for liturgical proclamation; this may also permit the translation to serve the purposes of devotional reading and serious study. [Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PV7.HTM]. It is this revised text of the New Testament (1986) together with the Old Testament, which formed the basis of the revised Lectionary, and it is the only translation approved for use at Mass in the Roman Catholic dioceses of the United States and the Philippines.

The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) is the first major update to the New American Bible (NAB), originally published in 1970 by the Confraternity of Christian 9

Doctrine. The NABRE is the culmination of nearly 20 years of work by a group of nearly 100 scholars and theologians, including bishops, revisers and editors. The NABRE was released on March 9, 2011, and it consists of the 1986 revision of the NAB New Testament with a fully revised Old Testament approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2010. [Source: http://www.usccb.org/bible/index.cfm].

E. Revised New Bible (RNJB 2018) – see below under (JB)

II. Dynamic Equivalence

In contrast to the Bibles described above, some Bible versions have followed a “thought-for- thought” rather than “word-for-word” translation philosophy, emphasizing “dynamic equivalence” rather than the essentially “literal” meaning of the original. A “thought-for- thought” translation is of necessity more inclined to reflect the interpretive views of the translator and the influences of contemporary culture. The approach involved in “thought-for- thought” translation is less inclined to preserve the structure of the original language. Instead, it proceeds by extracting the meaning of a text from its form and then translating that meaning so that it makes the same impact on modern readers. Strengths of this approach include a high degree of clarity and readability, especially in places where the original is difficult to render word for word. It also acknowledges that accurate and effective translation may require interpretation. But the question arises - what if the original author intended multiple meanings? The lack of formal correspondence to the original makes it difficult to verify to what extent the interpretive text of the translator accurately corresponds to the original. This can affect the usefulness of the translation for in-depth Bible study in seminary classrooms or for use in liturgy. However, it serves as an excellent text for personal study, devotional reading and reading aloud in groups. The Bibles that manifest dynamic equivalence are the following: JB, NJB, NEB, REB, GNB, TEV and NLT.

A. The Jerusalem Bible (JB 1966), the (NJB 1985), and the Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB 2018)

The Jerusalem Bible (JB) is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible which first was introduced to the English-speaking public in 1966. In 1943, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical letter on in which he gave permission for an English version to be done by Roman Catholics on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts rather than upon the Latin Vulgate, as was traditional up to that time. And, following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), The Jerusalem Bible became the first truly modern Bible for Catholics. The Jerusalem Bible derives its name and its character from an earlier French version, called La Bible de Jérusalem. This French version, published in 1956 and revised 1961, was prepared by the faculty of the Dominican Biblical School in Jerusalem, on the basis of the Hebrew and Greek. The Jerusalem Bible was translated from the French version. The JB was edited by the renowned Bible scholar, Dr. Alexander Jones. However, the JB tends towards dynamic rather than formal equivalence in that it does not try to follow the original sentence structure and focusses on what the text means. As a Roman , it includes not only the 10 deuterocanonical books, but numerous notes and introductions, although for the most part they appear to be only marginally influenced by RC doctrine. In 1985, the English translation was completely updated. This new translation—known as The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)— was freshly translated from the original languages and not tied to any French translation (except indirectly, as it maintained many of the stylistic and interpretive choices of La Bible de Jérusalem). Rev. Dr. , OSB, a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar was General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible. It has the imprimatur of His Eminence Cardinal George Basil Hume. The NJB has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. and approved for use in study and personal devotion by Roman Catholics. The Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB) was a substantial revision of the JB and the NJB. In fact, it “applies formal equivalence translation for a more accurate rendering of the original scriptures, sensitivity to readable speech patterns and more inclusive language.” The RNJB was published by Darton, Longman and Todd in 2018.

However, it ought to be remembered that the approved liturgical version is the original 1966 Jerusalem Bible (JB), not the more recent 1985 New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) or 2018 Revised New Jerusalem Bible (RNJB). Apart from the RSV-2CE, the Jerusalem Bible (JB) except for the , for which the are used, is yet another translation currently used in the liturgy outside of the United States (Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jerusalem- Bible-JB.html; see also https://www.catholic.org/bible/; see also http://jesuitinstitute.org/Pages/Liturgy/ScriptureVersions.htm)

B. The (NEB 1970; REB 1989)

The New English Bible (NEB) - The New Testament was published in 1961 and the Old Testament (with the Apocrypha) was published in 1970. The translators of the New English Bible chose to render their translation using the principle of dynamic equivalence (also referred to as functional equivalence or thought-for-thought translation). C.H. Dodd, Vice- Chairman and Director of the Joint Committee, commented that the translators “...conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could... and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his.” He goes on to summarize the translation of the New English Bible as “...free, it may be, rather than literal, but a faithful translation nevertheless, so far as we could compass it.” As a result, the New English Bible is necessarily more paraphrastic at times in order to render the thoughts of the original author into modern English. Because of its scholarly translators, the New English Bible has been considered one of the more important translations of the Bible to be produced following the Second World War. Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce declared that “To the sponsors and translators of the New English Bible, the English speaking world owes an immense debt. They have given us a version which is contemporary in idiom, up-to-date in scholarship, attractive, and at times exciting in content...” T.S. Eliot, however, commented that the New English Bible “astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic.” The NEB was generally “highly regarded when published,” but “it was a product of its time” and fell “out of favor.” This led 11 to its revision into the . [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_English_Bible]. In 1989, the NEB was significantly revised and republished as the Revised English Bible (REB). This is an extensive revision of the NEB (1970) that eliminated many of the NEB’s incautious renderings in favor of a more literal approach, but it remains considerably less literal than the Revised Standard Version (RSV 1952). The method of translation is comparable to that of the New International Version (NIV 1973); but, being the work of non- evangelical scholars, it lacks the distinctively evangelical interpretation of the Old Testament to be seen in the NIV. It does however return to some more traditional renderings, as one may readily observe, for example, in the opening verses of the book of Genesis. The REB introduces gender-neutral language to the extent that it was deemed possible “without compromising scholarly integrity,” but much less than the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV 1990). The style is more dignified than the NEB, which had presented some problems for liturgical use. In their revision the REB revisers were also more cautious with regard to the Hebrew and the Greek text. Most of the venturesome transpositions and text-critical conjectures of the NEB were reversed. [Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.html].

C. The (GNB 1976; GNB-CE 1979)

The Good News Bible (GNB), also called the Good News Translation (GNT) in the United States, is an English translation of the Bible by the American . It was first published as the New Testament under the name Good News for Modern Man in 1966. It was anglicized into British English by the British and Foreign Bible Society with the use of metric measurements for the Commonwealth market. It was formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV), but in 2001 was renamed the Good News Translation in the U.S., because the wished to improve the GNB’s image as a “translation” where it had a public perception as a “paraphrase.” The GNB was originally published in 1976 and then revised in 1992. The GNB however displays dynamic equivalence in translation, in that it is often very colloquial and renders the original language loosely. Though it received an imprimatur from His Eminence Cardinal Basil Hume in 1979, its use was restricted to the purposes of study and personal devotion by Roman Catholics. It was not approved for liturgy.

D. The (NLT 1996, 2004; NLT-CE 2016)

The New Living Translation (NLT) was first published in 1996 by Tyndale House Publishers Inc. A committee review and further refinement in translation was carried out to increase the level of precision without sacrificing the text’s easy-to-understand quality. This resulted in the 2004 edition. Again, minor changes were introduced in 2007, 2013 and 2015. The translators of the New Living Translation (NLT) set out to render the message of the original texts of Scripture into clear, contemporary English. As they did so, they kept the concerns of both formal-equivalence and dynamic-equivalence in mind. On the one hand, they translated as simply and literally as possible when that approach yielded an accurate, clear, and natural English text. Many words and phrases were rendered literally and consistently into English, preserving essential literary and rhetorical devices, ancient 12 metaphors, and word choices that give structure to the text and provide echoes of meaning from one passage to the next. On the other hand, the NLT translators rendered the message more dynamically when the literal rendering was hard to understand, was misleading, or yielded archaic or foreign wording. They clarified difficult metaphors and terms to aid in the reader's understanding. The translators first struggled with the meaning of the words and phrases in the ancient context; then they rendered the message into clear, natural English. Their goal was to be both faithful to the ancient texts and eminently readable. The result is a translation that is both exegetically accurate and idiomatically powerful. More than 90 Bible scholars, along with a group of accomplished English stylists, worked toward that goal. In the end, the NLT is the result of precise scholarship conveyed in living language. The text of the NLT was reviewed by a group of eminent Catholic scholars, among whom was the Core Committee headed by Rev. Dr. Lucien Legrand, MEP, together with Rev. Dr. Assisi Saldanha, C.Ss.R., and Rev. Dr. Govindu Rayanna. The others involved in the review process were: Rev. Dr. Alfred Joseph, Rev. Dr. David Stanly Kumar, Rev. Dr. Joy Painadath, Rev. Dr. Joseph Titus, Rev. Dr. Pius James D’Souza, OCD, Rev. Fr. Praveen Henry D’Souza, OFM, Sr. Dr. Prema Vakayil, CSST, Rev. Dr. Shabu Joseph Thottumkal, SDB, and Rev. Dr. Stanislas Savarimuthu. The Catholic Edition of the NLT received an imprimatur from His Eminence Oswald Cardinal Gracias on behalf of the CCBI on 29th April, 2015. It was released during the Plenary Assembly of the CCBI on 6th March, 2016. The NLT-CE has found special favor among the laity, prayer groups and scripture students who want to compare a more literal text, such as the RSV or ESV, with this easy to read translation. Since its publication, the NLT-CE has been very popular with the masses, even though it has not been approved for liturgy. The NLT-CE is a project of Asian Trading Corporation (ATC), headed by Mr. Nigel Fernandes, who corresponded with Tyndale and the CCBI and ensured the task was successfully completed by the Scholars’ Review Team [Source: Introduction to the NLT - Catholic Edition, 2016].

III. Optimal Equivalence

Most discussions of speak of two opposite approaches: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. This terminology is meaningful, but Bible translations cannot be neatly sorted into these two categories. In practice, translations are seldom if ever purely formal or dynamic but favor one theory of Bible translation or the other to varying degrees. There is room for another category of translation philosophy that capitalizes on the strengths of the other two, formal and dynamic equivalence. Optimal equivalence as a translation philosophy recognizes that form cannot always be neatly separated from meaning. The primary goal of translation is to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as the original text and the translation language permit. Optimal equivalence appreciates the goals of formal equivalence but also recognizes its limitations. When word-for-word rendering might obscure the meaning for a modern audience, a more dynamic translation is used. [Source: Introduction to the (CSB)]. The Bibles that reveal optimal equivalence in translation are the following: CSB and NIV. 13

A. The Christian Standard Bible (CSB 2017)

After several years of preliminary development, Holman Bible Publishers, the oldest Bible publisher in North America, assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars, editors, stylists, and proofreaders, all of whom were committed to . What resulted was the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) in 2004. A standing committee subsequently looked for ways to improve readability without compromising accuracy. The committee renamed this revision of the HCSB as Christian Standard Bible (CSB) in 2017. The translators believed that their task lay not so much in choosing between faithfulness to the original text and clarity but in optimizing both, by which making it ideal for preaching and study, and for sharing with others. The CSB is shown to be both highly literal to the original languages and highly readable, achieving an optimal blend of the two. [Source: Introduction to the Christian Standard Bible (CSB); see also: https://csbible.com/about-the-csb/translation-philosophy/].

B. The New International Version (NIV 1978; 1984; TNIV 2005; NIV 2011)

The NIV Bible translation seeks to balance word-for-word and thought-for-thought approaches providing an English translation that is easily understood by a wide range of English speakers. “Even the best can’t follow the original form all the time. And even the best meaning-based translation can’t capture every detail of meaning found in the original. In 1978, the NIV pioneered a different approach: balancing transparency to the original with clarity of meaning. Our view is that if the first people to receive the Bible could understand God’s Word the way it was written, you should be able to as well.” [Source: https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/niv-translation-philosophy/]

The NIV began with one man’s vision. Howard Long, an engineer from Seattle, was known for his passion for sharing the gospel and his love for the King James Bible. One day, he tried sharing Scripture with a non-Christian—only to find that the KJV’s 17th-century English didn’t connect. He sought a new Bible translation that would faithfully capture the Word of God in contemporary English. The passion of one man gradually became the passion of a church, and ultimately the passion of a whole group of denominations. The New International Version (NIV) is a completely original translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translators’ work didn’t end when the NIV was published in 1978. It was part of the original mandate to continue the work of Bible translation, ensuring that the NIV always reflects the very best of biblical scholarship and contemporary English. Accordingly, the NIV saw its first revision in 1984. [Source: https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/history-of-the- niv/].

Today’s New International Version (TNIV) was a gender-neutral revision of the NIV. It was brought out in 2005. “Whatever its strengths were, the TNIV divided the evangelical Christian community,” said president Moe Girkins. [Source: 14 https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2009/09/bible-translators-the-tniv-yeah-that- was-a-mistake].

The NIV (2011) edition replaced both the NIV (1984) and the TNIV (2005) editions. In the NIV (2011) edition, all the changes are attributable to at least one of the following factors: changes in English, progress in scholarship and concern for clarity. About 95% of the text of the updated NIV (2011) remains exactly the same as the 1984 text it replaces, based on the number of word changes. [Source: https://www.thenivbible.com/about-the-niv/about-the- 2011-edition/].

Conclusion

Which is a good Bible for Catholics to read and/or study? The Catholic church does not forbid Catholics from reading any Bible but it is better for them to be acquainted with a version of the Bible that they hear often in the liturgy. The Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CCBI) gave its imprimatur to the English Standard Version - Catholic Edition (ESV- CE) in 2017. The CCBI proposed this same translation for use in liturgy, and permission was granted for the English Lectionary by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary, which fell on 9th December, 2019. The CCBI has further advised seminaries in India to follow the ESV-CE for the study of scripture, so that the students become conversant with ESV-CE text of the Bible which they will continue to read and use in liturgy. As for those, especially among Laity, who would need a Bible for spiritual reading, reflection and prayer, the CCBI has given its imprimatur to the New Living Translation, Catholic Edition in 2015. The NLT-CE is an easy to understand translation, meant for prayer and reflection. It is also beneficial for serious students when word-for-word translations, such as the ESV-CE, in some cases provide a difficult translation. The dynamic translation of the NLT-CE helps the student to make sense of the difficult text. Both these Bibles, with imprimatur of the CCBI, are readily available in Catholic book stores.