Bible Translations

I hear every now-and-again the phrase "the true Church is the one that is closest to the bible".  What exactly does that mean?  More importantly, which bible?  Does it matter?  Actually, yes, it matters a lot.  The bible was written in two languages, the old testemant in Hebrew and the new in Greek.  So, if we read a bible in English, it had to be translated at some point.  And, any translator will give their own "flair" on what the original author actually meant (both the Holy Spirit and the person who moved the pen).  And, to that end, there are literally hundreds of bible translations.  There are two different styles of translations, complete equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Complete equivalence is a literal word-for-word translation and dynamic is more of "what they meant when they said it" style.

For a brief history lesson, in 382 AD (around the time that the canon of scripture was established) St. Jerome was commissioned to make a complete equivalence translation of the bible from the original languages to latin.  Around 1600 AD, a bible translation called the Douay-Rheims Bible was commissioned by the church and so a complete equivalence translation was made into English.  While the Douay-Rheims lacks some readability it does give some great insight into what the actual "word" was, if you want to know.  From this point on, hundreds more English translations were made to help out the average English reader understand the written Word of God.  But, did any of these translators get it wrong?  I submit the following examples:

First, "tradition".  In Catholicism we have the Holy Bible and the Sacred Tradition, which we hold that the teachings of the Church were transmitted by word of mouth as well as the the written word.  Protestants reject this notion and accept the view of sola scriptura, which means "the bible alone".  But, you can believe whatever you want if you adjust the bible to suit your needs.  It turns out the protestant bible translators took some liberties when it comes to the greek word "paradosis".  Take the following two verses for example from the NIV (New International Version, the translation I had before I was Catholic):

Matthew 15:6 "For the sake of your tradition (paradosis), you have made void the word of God"

and

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings (paradosis) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

Wow.  So, paradosis is "tradition" when you want to condemn it, and "teachings" when you want to support it?  That is bad theology and translating.  In Matthew 15:6, Jesus is talking about the traditions of men, worshiping idols and whatnot.  The verse in 2 Thessalonians is a clear support for the notion of Scripture and Tradition and to get around it, the translator slipped in the word "teachings".  Paul is clearly saying "listen to the authority of the Church."  Without that authority we can make the bible say whatever we want.

Which leads into the second example, "works".  We all know that sola-fide was a big deal in the protestant reformation.  It turns out that Protestant bible translators are a bit inconsistent when translating the Greek root "erg".  When it supported protestant theology, they used "works" and when it supported Catholic theology, they used "deeds" to make the "saved by faith and works" look bad.  Take for example the following two verses from the NIV, Romans 4:2 and Romans 2:6-7.

Romans 4:2 "If, in fact, Abraham  was justified by works (ergon), he had something to boast about-but not before God"

Here, protestants think that "works" are bad because they misunderstand works of the law vs the free gift of salvation from God.  Then,

Romans 2:6-7 "God will give to each according to what he has done (erga).  To those who by persistence in doing (ergou) good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life."

So, it is "works" when convenient and "deeds" when convenient.  If the translator is consistent, then we read Romans 2:6-7 that those who persist by "working good", which supports the Catholic view of salvation.  Those three words all have the same root, why the change in English?

This was only two examples out of many.  Be careful what you read.  In the end, this is why we need a Church; to keep translators in line, and to help us understand what is meant in the Word of God.  While the most important thing to do is to choose a translation that you will read, it is also important to get some help understanding what it means.  Pick up a Douay-Rheims copy when you want to know what word the author used.  Or, better yet, check out the "paradosis" aka "tradition" (2 Thessalonians 2:15) that was passed on by word of mouth to the Church.  I have it on pretty good authority that one of the better Catholic bible translations is the Revised Standard Version published by Ignatious press.  The version that we use during Mass is called the New American Bible.

If you want to read a more thorough article on all of this, check out the following article on the Catholic Answers website: Bible Translation Guide.