Ecumenism and the Desacralized Bible

Modern English Bibles are, in the main, notable for two aspects. (1) They are ecumenically produced, by a team of Catholic and Protestant scholars. (2) They rely on the theory of dynamic equivalence, which means that rather than translating word for word, literally, the translator renders the underlying thought of the original writer in contemporary language.

The history of ecumenical, dynamic equivalence Bibles begins with the United Bible Society (UBS), founded in 1946. In 1964, the UBS removed the restriction on translating the books of the Bible used only by Catholics, the so-called ‘apocrypha.’ A year later, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation stated, “And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.”[1]

Approximately 14% of the Bibles produced by the UBS have Catholic involvement, through the cooperation of the Catholic Biblical Federation. This Catholic group was the primary architect of the document “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible” (GPICTB).[2]

One of the primary things this document accomplishes is to abandon the idea of a Catholic Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate. Instead, the translation is to be based on ecumenically agreed upon Hebrew texts (Old Testament) and Greek texts (New Testament). The goal was to have a single version of the Bible in a particular language, e.g., English, which all Protestants and Catholics would read, and which would be “understandable.” To this end, the UBS produced its own Greek New Testament, through the joint efforts of Protestant and Catholic scholars. GPICTB also calls for mutually acceptable commentaries and scholarly works. When it comes to texts of the Bible which Catholics and Protestants interpret differently, the document recommends the following:

“Such a procedure (giving separate interpretations based on different beliefs) does not seem wise, for it tends to accentuate differences...” If the differences are not “of great consequence” they should be ignored in order to develop an ecumenical Bible. If the differences are important, they should be identified as various ways of interpreting the Bible, without identifying which group (Protestant or Catholic) holds to which view.

Catholic images (the document does not name them as such) have no place in an ecumenical Bible; they are “of dubious artistic merit and of only passing relevance,” and “grossly misunderstood in other cultures” [read non-Catholic].

The language [e.g., English] used to translate this ecumenical Bible should “make sense to those both within and outside the church” [read Christian and pagan]. There should be no direct borrowing of individual words from the ancient languages of Latin (Catholic Bibles) and Greek and Hebrew (Protestant Bibles); borrowing should be directly from the major “living languages”, e.g., Spanish, French, English. The style of language should be “readable in public” (oral proclamation), and reflect “current usage.”

It was decided that scholars should produce entirely new translations (rather than revisions of existing translations) because this would enable the translators to avoid “undue traditional attachments”, and allow for “creativity”, relevancy, an ecumenical effort, and the “freedom to adopt new forms of language.”

Finally, rather than a nihil obstat and imprimatur, there should be a joint recommendation of the Bible by ecclesiastical authorities.

So, what we have here is a Bible which cannot contain words of immediate Latin origin, which cannot be a translation from Latin, which cannot have a Catholic guarantee of orthodoxy, which cannot contain Catholic images, which cannot practice identifiably Catholic exegesis, and which cannot be translated for a Catholic audience only, being geared also towards Protestants and non-Christians.

What is gained by such a Bible? According to its supporters, the answer is simple: intelligibility. By using a linguistic theory called dynamic equivalence, a Bible was created which could be understood by anyone reading English (or any of a large number of languages), without them having to come from a Christian background, and requiring little help in interpretation. This ecumenical Bible is no longer used for the spread of an established Church so that Catholics and Protestants are not seen as competing.

What happens when a large percentage of the Catholic population starts reading such a Bible? Will they lose the faith? Moreover, is the theory of dynamic equivalence compatible with Catholic teaching on the Bible which calls for translations of the Bible to be literal?

Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, Paragraph 15: “But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.”[3]

Moreover, Pope Pius XII, in his 1943 Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu [4], voiced many concerns related to biblical translations which are not met by the new ecumenical Bibles:

a. the Catholic Bible is to be kept safe from errors
b. the Catholic Bible is to be kept free from arbitrary, preconceived ideas
c. the Catholic Bible is to be defended from unbelievers

The three means which this encyclical spells out to ensure an orthodox understanding of the Bible are:

d. use safe rules of Catholic exegesis to produce biblical commentaries
e. to discover and expound the genuine meaning of the texts
f. to discern and define clearly the literal sense of the biblical words

The new, ecumenical, Catholic-Protestant Bibles do not carry out these functions, especially the last, which is the current focus of my research. On the contrary, for these scholars, the focus in creating their Bibles is not to protect the faith of Catholics, but to ensure that heathens can read them without consulting a dictionary. The founder of the United Bible Society, Eugene A. Nida, wrote the following in his 1969 book, The Theory and Practice of Translation:[5]

“Non-Christians have priority over Christians... That is to say, the Scriptures must be intelligible to non-Christians, and if they are, they will also be intelligible to Christians... The language of the church is to be kept from becoming an esoteric dialect - a symbol of belonging and identification or a semimagical means of imploring God.” (pp. 31-32).

“Hence, in a context speaking of God it [the word ‘grace’] seems to be largely out of place for the average secularized person.” (p. 75); the professional stylist who finalizes the wording of this new ecumenical translation of the Bible “...should be sympathetic with the message of the Scriptures (though not necessarily a ‘believer’).” (p. 157).

And unfortunately, the theory of dynamic equivalence, which Nida promoted, became the basis of the liturgical translations of the Roman Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council, in the document Comme le prevoit [6] (recently replaced with Liturgicam authenticam [7], which calls for a literal translation from the Latin). Furthermore, though the preface to the revised edition of the New Testament of the New American Bible moves away from dynamic equivalence, still it was designed to be a contemporary language version: “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.”[8]

It will take a detailed study to determine at the level of individual words whether and in which cases the traditional biblical vocabulary has suffered damage at the hand of translators whose main focus is to promote contemporary English [See appendix]. The “official” New American Bible, from which all the readings and gospels of the New Order lectionary are derived, has not yet become the subject of the “reform of the reform” the way the English language Mass texts are being revised to be more faithful to the original Latin texts. Even less have the ecumenical Bibles, intended to be read by Catholics and Protestants, been critically reviewed by the Church in the light of the negative influences of the theory of dynamic equivalence which prevail in the modern English Bibles. In the meantime, we continue to analyze the most important biblical vocabulary, which involve Catholic faith, morals, and the sacraments. This will help the Church carry out its mission, as Pope Pius XII said, “to help all the faithful to lead a life that is holy and worthy of a Christian.”[9]

Ed Snyder

[1] Dei Verbum, 1965, Ch. VI, para. 22.

[2] Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible, 1986.

[3] Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, 1893.

[4] Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Divino afflante spiritu, 1943.

[5] Nida, Eugene A., The Theory and Practice of Translation, United Bible Societies, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1969.

[6] Comme Le Prevoit.

[7] Liturgiam authenticam, 2001.

[8] New American Bible, "Preface to the New Testament."

[9] Op. Cit. Divino Afflante Spiritu, par. 24.

Appendix
Comparison between key biblical verses in the Douay Rheims (literal version), the New American Bible (Catholic, Ecumenical, “official” version) and the Good News Bible (Dynamic Equivalence version)

Matthew 16:18
Douay Rheims (DRV): That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
New American Bible (NAB): And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Good News Bible (GNB): Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

James 5:14
DRV: Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
NAB: Is anyone among you sick? 6 He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord.
GNB: Are any among you sick? They should send for the church elders, who will pray for them and rub olive oil on them in the name of the Lord.

Matthew 26:26
DRV: And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
NAB: While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, "Take and eat; this is my body."
GNB: While they were eating, Jesus took a piece of bread, gave a prayer of thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. “Take and eat it,” he said; “this is my body.”

Matthew 5:16
DRV: So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
NAB: Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.
GNB: In the same way your light must shine before people, so that they will see the good things you do and praise your Father in heaven.

Luke 1:28
DRV: And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
NAB: And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."
GNB: The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”

Matthew 3:8
DRV: Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance.
NAB: Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.
GNB: Do those things that will show that you have turned from your sins.

Brief Analysis
(1) The NAB uses “the netherworld” rather than hell; this may be an example of linguistic amelioration (avoiding the “harshness” of the word “hell”). The netherworld reminds us of the Greek Mythologies. The GNB uses death, with is a state rather than a kingdom of evil.

(2) The NAB reverts to a literal translation of presbuteros, rather than its derivative, priest, in James 5:14. The GNB uses elders, a term used in the Catholic Bible only for the Jewish leaders, not Christian ones.

(3) The NAB changes Jesus’ blessing at the Last Supper to a verbal formula; a detailed study of the Hebrew roots of the Mass shows that Jesus blessed the bread by his touch alone; the GNB avoids the word “bless”, replacing it with thanks.

(4) Good works is a technical term in Catholic theology, disputed during the Protestant Reformation; it is modified to deeds (NAB) and things (GNB), neither of which refers to a theological term.

(5) By deviating from the traditional wording of the Annunciation, both the NAB and GNB have removed the link between Luke’s verses concerning Mary, and the prayer of the Rosary.

(6) By avoiding the word penance, both the NAB and GNB deflect attention from the Catholic sacrament of Penance.