Well, having quickly read the passage you quoted (it’s in the foreword to the MN translation) it seems Venerable Bodhi has a view I do not share. He writes “that Nibbana is merely the destruction of the defilements and the extinction of existence cannot stand up under scrutiny.” But the clearest definitions of Nibbana are saying exactly those things he says it is not. I’ve quoted the passages before. Nibbana at enlightenment is the ending of the defilements, Nibbana at death is the cessation of existence (bhava).
He writes further “the most compelling testimony agasint that view is […] ‘there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned …’”. But this is firstly an inspired utterance (Udana), that, like verse, is not meant to inform but to inspire, and secondly can just as well be translated ‘there is an end to what is born, etc.’ or ‘there is that which is without what is born’. The un- prefix here (in unborn etc) is just as much a translation choice as others. That it doesn’t always work is shown in the same sutta (iirc) when it says Nibbana is “asoka”, i.e. the end of sorrow, or sorrowless. Not the Unsorrow.
Of course a translator’s view will inform his writings. So we can read Venerable Bodhi’s comment through this interpretation.
What is inspiring for one person is not inspiring to the other, so that should ideally not inform our translations too much. I find the idea of some eternal blissful consciousness (or whatever Nibbana ideas are out there) not very appealing in that I do not belief it is possible. On the other hand, the extinguishment of craving and the extinguisment of suffering are very beneficial ideas for me.