Mark Giszczak
Bible Translation and the Making of the ESV Catholic Edition
Augustine Institute (2002) £20
Review by Adrian Porter sj
When I was a novice, a wise and prayerful older Jesuit recommended that we adopt one translation of scripture and stick to it in our prayer, in our spiritual reading, and in our study throughout the years of our lives. This good advice underscores how scripture seeps into our ways of speaking to God and thinking about God. Its phrases and cadences, the way it renders biblical images in our own languages in translation, shape our very language. It forms us as Christians.
This excellent book, written with great clarity and detailed knowledge, traces the parallel development of Protestant and Catholic translations of the bible into English. In the Protestant tradition, the King James Bible (KJV), the “Authorized Version” (1611), was effectively the only bible in English until the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of 1951 and the New International Version (NIV) of 1978. However, for conservative evangelical protestants, these translations took too many liberties with the text, adopting the translation principle of “thought-for-thought” translation in which “the translator’s inevitable act of interpretation becomes more pronounced and some meaning is clearly omitted” (p.5).
In reaction to this perceived liberty-taking with the word of God, the New American Standard Bible (NASB 1971) adopted the opposite approach, seeking “to render each original language term with a single English term” (p.5) but the result, Giszczak says, was “wooden and unreadable, a difficult translation to read aloud in front of a congregation” (p.6).
In the Catholic tradition, the bible in English was produced by recusant scholars in exile, working from the Latin Vulgate (of St Jerome 404AD) rather than directly from the original languages of Hebrew and Greek (which Jerome had used) – the New Testament at Rheims (1582) and the New Testament at Douai (1609-10). Seeking to make the Catholic translation conform more closely to the KJV, Bishop Richard Challoner (1749-52), one of the great pioneers of the revival of Catholicism in the eighteen century, revised Rheims-Douai version, making it “the gold standard of Catholic English Bible translations” (p.15).
A translation for the twentieth century was undertaken by Catholic Biblical Association of America – at first issuing a revised version of the Douai-Rheims-Challoner bible (1941) and then, in light of Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943)[1] which permitted and encouraged translations made from the original languages, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than the Latin Vulgate, embarking on a completely new translation published as the New American Bible (NAB) in 1973. Giszczak notes that the NAB and its later revisions were criticized for “its low view of English, opting for simple, straight-forward language that gives a thought-for-thought rendering of into contemporary speech, rather than embracing a more literal approach that would preserve some of the elegance of so-called ‘biblical English’” (p.18). The revised NAB is still the translation used in the Lectionary for the dioceses of the United States today.
In England and Wales and in Scotland, the RSV was at first adopted for the Lectionary, closely followed by the Jerusalem Bible (JB 1966; 1970 in the Lectionary) which is more or less ubiquitous today although other translations are permitted.[2] The JB is criticised for translation choices that are “too free, too dynamic, too distant from the original language meaning” (p.20).
Here lies the nub of the translation dilemma: whether to translate “thought-for-thought” (known as dynamic or functional equivalence) or “word-for-word” (known as formal equivalence). To use a non-biblical example to illustrate, a literal or formal equivalence approach to translation would render the unusual French phrase “cracher dans la soupe” as “to spit in the soup”. This is, word-for-word, what the phrase means. But to English speakers its meaning is opaque and probably impenetrable. A decision to translate this phrase employing the “thought-for-thought” dynamic approach so that its meaning is conveyed, gives us the English equivalent “to bite the hand that feeds it” or simply “ingratitude”. But the actual words of the French text are lost – there’s no spitting and no soup.
Once it is nothing less than the Bible, the Word of God, the foundation of all Christian belief and practice, that is the subject of translation, the stakes become immeasurably higher. Those who prefer the literal approach argue that “the translator only translates, rendering the text as faithfully as possible, leaving the job of interpretation to the preacher” (p.109), leaving ambiguities and difficulties in the translated text. The “thought-for-thought” approach tends to work into the translation a degree of interpretation and explanation for the benefit of the reader by seeking to analyze “meaning in each case and then transfer that, perhaps with a variety of words, into the receptor language where the meaning is ‘restructured’” (p.106).[3]
“Translations are tough” comments Giszczak, “They are a matter of good taste as well as a balance between extremes, sound judgement, academic integrity, and a nuanced mastery of the English language” (p.11). If we are to use scripture “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness”[4] as St Paul enjoins, then the clarity, accuracy and authenticity of translation is important and more than a matter of personal taste.
The English Standard Version (ESV), which we are about to hear read from the Lectionary at Catholic liturgy in the UK, sets out its translation policy in the preface to every bible: “It seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and exact force of the original . . . [and] seeks to carry over every possible nuance of meaning in the original words of Scripture into our own language.”[5] This approach “requires more of the reader, the preacher, and the interpreter, but it also promises more by being as transparent as possible to the original meaning” (p.112).
The churches and, more particularly, translators of the scriptures, were not immune from concerns about gender-specific language such as ‘men’, ‘brothers’ and ‘he’ as catch-all terms for humans of both genders, of the 1990s. This continues to be a live concern as society more widely pursues equality and dismantles discriminatory ways of behaving and speaking. Giszczak gives a detailed and fascinating account of these debates which proceeded in striking parallel in protestant and catholic churches. For Catholics, the Holy See intervened in the debate with Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) setting out what was and wasn’t acceptable translation method in Rome’s eyes, including the rendering of gender-based words. Giszczak’s assessment is that the ESV “approach to gender language is thoughtful, detailed and systematic” (p.135) which “follows the principles where they lead, sometimes to an inclusive translation and sometimes into a gender-specific rendering” (p.130).
Giszczak also has an important discussion of the way in which Christians have traditionally interpreted and therefore translated Old Testament male references to refer not to men, or to men and women, but to the specific man who is Jesus Christ: “The ESV Catholic Edition seeks to present the whole Bible, in both testaments, in such a way that a Christian can see how the New Testament relies on the Old for explaining who Christ is” (p.115). This is a concept which will be unfamiliar to many Catholics today and will need to be part of the catechesis around the introduction of this new translation in the liturgy.
The origins of the ESV translation lie with Good News Publications, an American family-run not-for-profit Bible tract publisher, who, in 1997, approached the owners of the Revised Standard Version, “a widely accepted translation [which] would be adopted and then transformed” (p.70) into a new English Standard Version. The revision would be done by a large team rather than by individuals to ensure “that the ESV would not become an idiosyncratic novelty, but a well-thought-out, middle-of-the-road English bible . . . that ironed out difficulties, corrected errors, and presented the Word of God in beautiful, formal English style” (p.80).
A board of 54 biblical scholars led the ESV project, with a Translation Oversight Committee of twelve, supervising the work of 116 translators and fifty review scholars who represented a broad cross section of evangelical protestant translation and theological interests. A further sixty consultants were engaged on specific issues, including an English literature and language specialist, Professor Leland Ryken, to ensure “the appropriate mixture of literal translation and literary beauty” (p.73). From the outset the project was conducted with an eye to ecumenical cooperation and outcome – a common bible which all the traditions could use.
The ESV saw the light of day in 2001. It changed about 8% (or 60,000 words) of the RSV translation on which it was based. Crossway, a division of Good News Publications, developed a clear policy to “publish a robust preface . . . in the front of every Bible to explain the ‘essentially literal’ translation philosophy at work” (p.78).
Following publication, Crossway retained a formidable army of scholars to make subsequent revisions in the light of experience and further biblical scholarship. The Translation Oversight Committee made 360 changes in 2007, 276 in 2011, 52 in 2016. It was then minded to allow no further amendments but changed its mind which, happily, allowed an anglicized spelling edition, the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books (the apocrypha being excluded from the protestant canon), made the ESV freely available online, and, at the initiative of the Catholic bishops of India, led to the ESV Catholic Edition (2017) which becomes our Lectionary text shortly (2024) in the UK.
Eight biblical scholars, led by Fr Lucien Legrand MEP, worked on the Catholic edition (ESV-CE). Celebrating its release in India, Cardinal Oswald Gracias commented, “The ESV Catholic Bible is the Indian Church’s contribution to the universal Church.”[6] It may yet fulfil the hope of the bishops gathered in Council at Vatican II that “if the opportunity arises . . . translations are produced in collaboration with the Christians of other denominations” such that “all Christians will be able to use them”.[7]
When it became known that the ESV was on the cards as the preferred translation to replace the Jerusalem Bible text for English-speaking Catholics elsewhere,[8] concerns were voiced about this translation’s evangelical protestant origins. Yet, Giszczak carefully demonstrates that the concerns of the Catholic bishops and of the Holy See closely mirrored the evangelical concerns which led to the ESV project.
The new Lectionary for England & Wales and Scotland replaces ESV psalms with The Abbey Psalms and Canticles, a 2010 reworking by the monks of Conception Abbey, Missouri and approved by the Holy See, of the Grail Psalms which were published in 1963.[9] The Lectionary makes a number of other small but significant changes to the ESV-CE, such as the angel’s greeting to Mary: “Greetings, O highly favoured one” is replaced by “Hail Mary, full of grace” (Luke 1:28), echoing the phrase familiar to Catholics in prayer; John 1:18 is rendered “only begotten Son” reflecting the Nicene creed; “bishop” replaces “overseer” in three places[10]; and “chalice” for “cup” in many places.
For those of us who have grown up with the Jerusalem Bible text, it will be a wrench to hear its familiar patterns of speech and imagery replaced with something new and sometimes jarring. But, as Nick King comments elsewhere in this journal, it is important we give the new translation time to settle into our ears and get to know it, and allow God to continue to speak to us in the liturgy, even though it may feel the accent of his voice has changed. Mark Giszczak’s book serves us well in allowing us to peak behind the scenes of this new translation, better to understand the difficult choices that have been made and which, whatever translation each of us ultimately prefers, have been oversimplified and misrepresented in the Catholic press.
Bible Translation is short book at 163 pages – but does the excellent job of informing the average reader who has little detailed background, without losing them in too much detail or too specialized discussion. For all those who will proclaim the Word of God from the new Lectionary later this year, and for those who will switch to the ESV for lectio divina, it is an excellent introduction to the translation that will now shape our understanding of God and his voice in the coming decades.
Notes
[1] Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) made it mandatory for all Catholic bible translations to be made from the original texts (cf. n.24)
[2] Ove the years, the English and Welsh bishops have also approved for liturgical use the New Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Good News Bible for Masses with children.
[3] This is the philosophy of Eugene Nida (1914-2011) who developed the dynamic equivalence theory of translation which dominated bible translation in the mid-twentieth century.
[4] 2 Timothy 3:16–17 ESV-CE
[5] Catholic Bible ESV-CE (Crossway Publishing/SPCK 2017) Preface p.ix-x
[6] 16 February 2018
[7] Second Vatican Council, Dei verbum (1965) n.22
[8] The Scottish Bishops’ Conference made this decision in July 2020 and the Bishops of England and Wales in January 2021.
[9] As does the SPCK printed edition of the ESV-CE
[10] Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and Titus 1:7