If you had to choose between these two translations

[LucyK]

…which would you choose?

CTS New Catholic Bible
RSV-CE

If you know about both of these, could you tell me the strengths and weaknesses, and why you’d prefer one over the other? I have them both. The CTS is really easier to read but don’t know if it’s a good study bible,and the psalms are numbered differently.

Lucy

 

[Manfred]

…which would you choose?

CTS New Catholic Bible
RSV-CE

If you know about both of these, could you tell me the strengths and weaknesses, and why you’d prefer one over the other? I have them both. The CTS is really easier to read but don’t know if it’s a good study bible,and the psalms are numbered differently.

Lucy

Lucy,

The CTS Bible is the 1966 Jerusalem Bible except for the Psalms which are the 1963 Grail edition. Also, The Name “Yahweh” is replaced throughout the Old Testament by “the LORD”.

While many here really like and strongly defend the text of the 1966 JB, I found it to be way too much of a dynamic-equivalent translation. What many do like about it is its readability. But because it strays pretty far from the literal at times, it does not really make a good basis for a study bible, where one can almost “see” the underlying Hebrew or Greek.

The RSV-CE is not perfect either, but it does hew a LOT closer to the original languages than does the JB.

The CTS Bible is popular in Great Britain, since it contains the same texts as used in the Lectionary there.

 

[RedSoxFan]

I would most likely sit around for a bunch of hours.

The RSV-CE is considered the more academic translation, but is short on notes.

While the CTS Bible supposedly has decent notes. (I don’t have a copy so I am going by what I heard, that the notes are by a Benedictine.)

I like them both equally. I have the Jerusalem Bible and the RSV-CE. Sounds like the CTS Bible corrects some of the mistakes of the original JB. Though it will still not be as academic as the RSV-CE.

SO I guess I am not able to give you an answer right now.

 

[Manfred]

Sounds like the CTS Bible corrects some of the mistakes of the original JB.

I don’t agree with you on two counts.

(1) Use of The Divine Name “Yahweh” was not a mistake that had to be corrected in a study bible, or one for private reading; use of The Divine Name is not allowed in translations approved for use in the Liturgy.

(2) None of the dynamic equivalence or the inconsistency in rendering certain Greek words in the NT with a variety of English words was corrected; the NEW Jerusalem Bible (1985) made a decent attempt at this.