Language and Manuscript Complexity

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Over centuries, as these languages evolved or became less widely known, the Bible needed to be translated into other languages so people could understand it (e.g., the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome in the 4th century). Modern translators work from ancient manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or Codex Vaticanus, which may differ slightly, necessitating thoughtful decisions in translation.

Two Main Translation Philosophies

• Formal Equivalence (Direct/Literal Translation): Aims to stay as close as possible to the original wording and structure. Examples include the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV). These strive for accuracy but can sometimes be harder to read.

• Dynamic Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought Translation): Focuses on conveying the meaning or intent behind the original text in more natural language. Examples include the New International Version (NIV) and New Living Translation (NLT). These are easier to understand but risk straying from literal meanings.

Some translations, like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) or the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE), attempt a balance.

Translator Bias and Theological Influence

Translators inevitably bring theological perspectives to their work, which can influence word choices and phrasing. For example, the Greek word presbyteros might be translated as “elder” or “priest,” depending on denominational leanings. This can affect doctrinal interpretation. Additionally, inclusive language or gender-neutral terms in some modern translations (e.g., NRSV) can lead to both clarity and controversy.

As a more detailed example: The New International Version (NIV), is a widely read dynamic-equivalence translation that aims for readability and clarity. However, some scholars and Catholic apologists have raised concerns about translator bias, especially regarding how it handles words like "tradition" (paradosis in Greek) and "teaching" (didachē or didaskalia), which are theologically significant — particularly in debates between Catholic and Protestant perspectives.

Bias in Translating “Tradition” (Greek: paradosis)

In the original Greek New Testament, the word paradosis literally means “that which is handed on” and can refer to human traditions or apostolic teachings, depending on the context.

• In negative contexts, such as Mark 7:8–9 or Colossians 2:8, the NIV correctly translates paradosis as “traditions” to refer to human rules that oppose God’s command.

  Mark 7:8 (NIV): “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

• In positive contexts, however, where the term refers to apostolic tradition, the NIV often avoids using the word "tradition", substituting it with “teaching” or “message,” which may weaken the theological implication of an oral apostolic deposit preserved by the Church.

  For example:

  • 2 Thessalonians 2:15

    • Greek: "Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradosis) you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

    • RSV-CE: “Hold to the traditions...”

    • NIV: “Hold fast to the teachings…”

    • This translation potentially downplays the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition as passed on orally through the apostles, and aligns more with a Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) viewpoint by generalizing it to “teaching.”

Bias in Translating “Teaching” (Greek: didachē, didaskalia)

The NIV tends to flatten the distinction between didachē (a formal body of teaching) and paradosis (handed-down tradition). While both are important, they carry different implications:

• Didachē often refers to the doctrinal content being taught.

• Paradosis emphasizes the mode of transmission — oral or written — a crucial distinction for Catholic theology, which sees Sacred Tradition as parallel to Scripture (cf. Dei Verbum 9).

By rendering paradosis as "teaching" rather than "tradition," the NIV may obscure the Catholic position that Tradition is part of the deposit of faith (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 3:6), not merely human instruction.

Catholics are advised to use translations approved by the Church, such as the New American Bible (NABRE) or RSV-CE, which align with Catholic teaching and include the full canon, including the deuterocanonical books.

Conclusion

Different translations exist to make the Bible accessible to diverse audiences, balancing accuracy, readability, and doctrinal fidelity. While variety enriches our understanding, readers should be aware of each version's methodology and potential bias. The NIV is a readable and widely respected Bible version, however its translation choices—especially around words like paradosis—reflect a Protestant theological framework that may underplay Catholic doctrines such as Sacred Tradition. For Catholics or those studying Catholic theology, versions like the RSV-CE or Douay-Rheims are better suited for doctrinal accuracy.

References:

• Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101–108

• Dei Verbum (Vatican II), esp. §22

• Fee & Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth

• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (usccb.org/bible)

• Dei Verbum, Vatican II, esp. §§9–10

• James Akin, Bible Translations Guide

• Robert Sungenis, Not By Scripture Alone

• William F. Beck, A Comparative Study of Paradosis in Biblical Translation