The Best Translation

One of the biggest questions people have when looking for a Bible is “Which is the best translation?” The answer is none of them. The very best way to read the scriptures is to be able to read and speak ancient Hebrew and Greek fluently and read the ancient texts directly. The problem is that whenever a human undertakes translating any piece of work, even God’s own Word, that person naturally interprets the text in his or her translation and colors the words according to his own style. When you read a translated work, you also indirectly read the thoughts of the translator. Consequently, there is no perfect translation.

This is an unsettling thought, though, and people want to feel safe reading the Bible they are reading. So I will attempt to explain which English translations are most suitable for casual and critical Catholic readers and why. Then I will explain briefly the place of the Latin Vulgate in the Church.

Two Kinds of Translations

The first thing to keep in mind about translations is that they may be translated either from the original languages, as most modern translations are, or from another translation, as the Douay-Rheims is translated from the Vulgate. Translation from the original languages, although probably more accurate, is not necessarily perfect. It must be kept in mind that we do not have the original manuscripts of the scriptures, but only copies, and although the copies were preserved very well for thousands of years, they are not perfect. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, may actually be more accurate in certain places, and consequently it and the Vulgate (which is translated from manuscripts older than we have and from the Septuagint) are often used as references for scholars and translators even when the books are being translated primarily from the original languages.

Also, certain Deuterocanonical books and passages are only availble to us now in translation. For example, the book of Sirach exists only in Greek and in Hebrew fragments although it was written originally in Hebrew. The good news with Sirach is that according to the prologue the author’s son made the Greek translation, and so it is probably pretty loyal to the author’s intentions.

After this consideration, the two broad categories of translations are “literal” and “dynamic-equivalent.” These arbitrary categorizations attempt to describe the translators’ intentions while writing their version. Both intentions have their strengths and weaknesses.

Dynamic Equivalent

The opposite of literal is not un-literal or liberal but “dynamic-equivalent.” The point is that although the words and wording of such a version may differ significantly from the original texts, their intention is to capture the primary meaning of the words rather than their raw form and expression. They are written primarily for audiences that are not familiar with ancient languages or ancient texts. Their goal is to make the Bible more accessible to audiences who might otherwise be scared away by difficult phrases (such as Hebrew-isms that make little sense in English, like “deep calls to deep”). These audiences include the average American, teenagers, and children.

The level of leeway taken in translation differs from version to version. Some translators try to incorporate modern informal language such as the word “cool” in order to make the Bible favorable to younger audiences. Some versions merely take a literal translation and paraphrase it, not writing a word for each word but modernizing the text phrase-by-phrase. Childrens Bibles may omit all but the most popular stories in order to keep the text short, simple, and appropriate. One thing dynamic equivalents tend to have in common is their use of inclusive language. The thought is that refering to God as “he” or using words like “man” when refering to the entire human race may alienate women. Thus “humankind” tends to replace “mankind,” pronouns are avoided for God, and passages that use “man” in order to express a type of person are pluralized (since “they” is neuter in English).

The consequences of such a translation model is that it tends to restrict the meaning. Whereas in the original languages there is often a purposeful vagueness that allows the reader to find multiple meanings for each passage, dynamic equivalents tend to use more specific English wording that limits the meaning of the passages to one or two meanings of the author’s choice.

For example, in the Psalms when the word “man” is replaced with “they,” it often covers up the Psalm’s spiritual meaning that points to Christ. Psalm 118 says, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and this is important because in the New Testament this is interpreted as refering to Christ, and so the people chant it when he enters Jerusalem. Yet a dynamic equivalent might render it, “Blessed are they who come in the name of the Lord.” This points to a basic truth that people are blessed who do God’s will, yet the reader might altogether miss the Christological significance. Moreover, in order to understand the original meaning of the psalm as a liturgical psalm probably used for the return of the king after battle a more literal translation will have to be used.

For casual readers these changes might be acceptable, since they are only seeking the most immediate message, but for spiritual or scholarly readers dynamic equivalent versions become a hurtle. In addition, in some versions inclusive language goes too far and attempts to make statements that are alien to the Bible (such as refering to God or Christ as “she” in order to make up for the masculine image of God people tend to have.

Most versions are dynamic equivalent (they tend to be a lot easier to produce, and in a pastoral environment they seem more necessary). Some examples of dynamic equivalent translations are:

• The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV): A newer, more dynamic version of the Revised Standard Version that contains more inclusive language and modernized phrases.
• The Message: A paraphrase based on the belief that the Bible was primarily written in informal language and thus it should be translated into modern English informal language.
• Today’s New International Version (TNIV): A thorough revision of the New International Version (NIV) adding much more inclusive language, replacing more archaic phrases with modern equivalents, and choosing more poetic rather than literal renderings of many verses. Many people prefer their Bible to be pretty rather than perfectly accurate.
• Contemporary English Version (CEV)
• Good News Bible
• Today’s English

Of these, the only one I would recommend for a casual Catholic reader is the NRSV. Although I do not like the version myself, it is less loose in translation than the others. Paraphrases like “The Message” are not suitable for Catholic audiences because they tend to render certain passages in an anti-Catholic way.

Literal

A literal translation is an attempt to preserve the plurality of meaning in the Bible by translating word-for-word as much as possible. There are, however, different levels of literal translation. The problem is that no translation can be perfectly literal since languages are not perfectly interchangeable, but different syntax and connotations make translation difficult. Sometimes a Hebrew word can be have two entirely different English meanings, and the translator has to choose the most pertinent one or try to bring out both meanings with a phrase.

Literal translations are my preference since I am a scholar. Also, anyone who reads the scriptures often and spiritually will probably find much more meaning in a literal translation. A dynamic equivalent reads just like a children’s story or an Indiana Jones movie that goes straight through the plot and brings a lot of enjoyment along the way. A literal translation reads more like a deep novel with hidden meaning, literary devices, allusions, and mystery. Mystery is a significant part of theology, and literal translations do not hide it.

Some examples of literal translations:

• Revised Standard Version (RSV): A good literal translation that is very popular even among Catholics. It is not perfect, but one of the best and one of the mot recommended. It is also available with the deuterocanonical books and some extra-canonical books.
• Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSV-CE): A specifically Catholic version of the RSV. It contains the deuterocanonical books and it corrects certain parts of the New Testament where the translation tends to hide meanings that are more favorable to Catholic doctrine (such as where the RSV translates episcopos as “overseer” instead of “bishop.”
• The New American Bible (NAB): The official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is very literal and attempts even to maintain Hebrew sentence structure to some extent. Some consider it dynamic equivalent because of its inclusive language (especially in the Psalms), but its intention and most of its wording is, for the most part, literal. On analyzing the Hebrew, I’ve even found places where it is more literal than the RSV. On the whole, though, it is a little closer on the spectrum to dynamic equivalent than the RSV. Yet it is a truly Catholic translation that attempts to bring out specifically Catholic understandings of the text.
• New International Version (NIV): Not the most literal translation, but about on par with the New American Bible.
• King James Version (KJV): A famous but not a very good translation. It was translated by English scholars not long after England formed its own Church and it is intentionally anti-Catholic. It was not translated from the oldest available manuscripts and it is questionable how good the translators’ knowledge of Hebrew was. Lastly the KJV is a terrible translation for modern use because it is NOT written in modern English, but an English that the average person no longer understands. The bigger problem is that people often think that they understand what they are reading when they really don’t. My favorite example is the Shakespearean phrase, “Wherefore art thou Romeo?” Most modern people think that means “Where are you, Romeo?” but it actually means “Why are you Romeo?”
• New King James Bible (NKJV): A modernization of the KJV, updating the words but not the sentence structure. The KJV is so popular among certain Protestant groups (particularly Fundamentalists) that all other translations are considered legitimate only inasmuch as they correspond with it. The cult of the KJV hates anything that does not sound exactly like the KJV, so this Bible renders things the same but uses modern words; thus it is written in a language that nobody has ever really spoken. The KJV has such popularity among many Protestants that even where it is apparently different than the Hebrew original it is maintained in regardless.
• The Douay-Rheims Version (DRB): A Catholic literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, not of the original languages. It is still a very good translation and very reliable. It was the most important English translation for Catholics for hundreds of years. It was even used as a reference by the translators of the KJV.

Once again, since these categorizations are arbitrary some might disagree with me on what qualifies as a dynamic equivalent or literal.

And so...

Now the final question to answer is, which translation should you use? My recommendation is the New American Bible. It is a good balance and it brings out a lot of Catholic meanings. Moreover it has wonderful explanatory footnotes that can immensely help all readers, casual or scholarly, to better grasp the text. In places where it takes a more free translation, for example, it tends to have a footnote with a more literal translation. Lastly, it is the basis for the current Roman lectionary in the United States, so readings in the New American Bible will mostly correspond with those that are heard in the Mass.

Second to the NAB I recommend the RSV-CE. Although it is not perfect, there are places where it is more literal than the NAB. Yet it also hides things. Ironically, one of my professors, a doctor of Biblical studies, had no idea that in Ezekiel 9 an angel marks crosses on people’s foreheads because he was a firm supporter of the RSV, which, in order to avoid a Catholic interpretation, says only that a “mark” is put on the foreheads. The NAB, however, in order to allow a Catholic spiritual understanding but also make sure that it is not taken too far so that the literal context is forgotten, renders it as “X”, which is, of course, a cross.

The Latin Vulgate

Another issue that is often encountered involves Catholics who claim that the Vulgate is the only viable translation, or that it is wrong to translate Bibles from the original languages. I have seen many arguments for this position which employed statements from Church documents taken completely out of context. So I will briefly elaborate the position and importance of the Vulgate in the modern day.

The Latin Vulgate is still, even after Vatican II, the official translation of the Catholic Church. It was declared so by the Council of Trent (1545-63). This is very important, but it does not mean that other translations are invalid. Divino Afflante Spiritu is the papal encyclical promulgated in 1943 by Pius XII that is commonly held to have opened the door for Catholics to form modern translations and use modern critical methods of Biblical exegesis. It not only did that, it really exhorted Catholic scholars to do so.

Yet the encyclical does not take away the pride of place that the Latin Vulgate has. In fact Pius XII states:

Nor should anyone think that this use of the original texts, in accordance with the methods of criticism, in any way derogates from those decrees so wisely enacted by the Council of Trent concerning the Latin Vulgate. ... And if the Tridentine Synod wished “that all should use as authentic” the Vulgate Latin version, this, as all know, applies only to the Latin Church and to the public use of the same Scriptures; nor does it, doubtless, in any way diminish the authority and value of the original texts. For there was no question then of these texts, but of the Latin versions, which were in circulation at that time, and of these the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which “had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.” Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical. (Divino Afflante Spiritu 20-21)

Therefore, when we say the Vulgate is the official translation, we do not mean that it is the most accurate and loyal to the original Hebrew and Greek. It obviously differs in some places, just as the manuscripts of Hebrew and Greek differ, because before printing presses existed all copies were made by hand. What is meant is that since Christians have used the Vulgate for hundreds of years and found in its pages the true Faith and the One God, it is known by experience to be free from theological error. It may not be free from scribal error, but since “the Christian faith is not a ‘religion of the book.’ ” (CCC 108), what is important is whether the text is true to the Word of God. Indeed, “Christianity is the religion of the ‘Word’ of God, a word which is ‘not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living’ ” (CCC 108).

Thus, no one should say that the Vulgate is outdated. It has withstood the test of time which most translations have hardly begun to undertake. It has shown itself to be a true fountain of the Christian Faith, and the manifestation of the life-giving Word of God.

~Michael Anthony

For more information on the place of the Bible in the Church, read the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum).