My local church assembly was blessed by this information this morning, and we are all a little more knowledgeable now thanks to you. I went to buy this but since it is not a for-sale item, i printed it in a word document and used it as a hand-out. Properly cited, of course! I appreciate the scholarly work and accessible visual aid. Thank you.
@@commoncents5191 No they cannot! The many translation that is. The KJV is infallible. An all powerful God can and did give us a correct translation. What is the best selling book of all time> The KJV 1611.
Thanks for a clear description of the Bible's history, all done in a fair unbiased manner. I learned more in the 20 minutes of this video than what I would've learned spending days reading and researching other sources. This is a great starting point for individuals wanting to learn the Bible's history.
Tyndale was "executed for heresy"...but totally and completely not because he publicly criticized Henry for his divorce and scandalous affairs....After which Henry used Tyndale's translation almost in its' entirety for the "Great Bible"
Hmmm. Tyndale was executed for heresy, but in Flanders, by the imperial authorities, if I'm not much mistaken. Given the Imperial authorities represented Catherine's brother, the Emperor, I'm not sure Henry had much to do with it. Sure, Henry was mad at Tyndale for opposing the annulment of Henry's marriage, but that wouldn't have carried any weight whatsoever with the Emperor Charles.
Have y'all read any biographies of Tyndale?) There is so much in the comments that are wrong or incomplete. My understanding is that what really got Tyndale at odds with the Catholic church and specifically Henry VIII was translating the Bible into the English language and make it accessible to everyone. I don't recall any mention of being in trouble for criticizing Henry XIII divorce (or perhaps if he did it was a very minor issue). I think some of you may be conflating him with Sir Thomas More because of his stand on the King's divorce. More fell out of favor with the KIng for very loud criticism of the divorce But this has encouraged me to refresh myself on Tyndale.
Wow! How did you miss The Jerusalem Bible? This has a weird history, having been originally translated from Greek and Hebrew into French, and then into English. However, it's extremely popular with academics and Catholics outside the US. J.R.R. Tolkien provided the translation of the book of Jonah.
Catholic High Schools used the New Jerusalem Bible for a long while. It was translated directly from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic and edited by Benedictine biblical scholar Henry Wansbrough.
This is majestic, now I understand and got a bird’s eye view on the family tree of English Translations of the Bible. In everyday’s reading, I use KJV, but for deeper study, I use interlinear to see what’s the Hebrew or Greek wordings are actually saying And yeah, how KJV translates Psalm 23 is iconic
Man, there is so much packed into what “conservative” and “liberal” Christian means, especially when you typified conservatives as “Baptists or Pentecostals.” Sounds like an opportunity for another great chart!
I was thinking that too... Baptists and Pentecostals might both be "conservative" but they sure don't have much in common! But this isn't Ready to Harvest channel...
I thought the same thing when he labeled Methodists as liberal. The Methodist church is splitting over this very issue (or rather a more specific issue within lib vs. cons) and a majority of of the international church bodies actually fall on the conservative side of the debate
Yup… being an American Baptist minister myself, and gay, and theologically liberal, I can’t wrap my head around the concept of all Baptists being considered “conservative.” In fact, the American Baptist Churches are firmly mainline.
@@fluffysheap What’s interesting to me is the relative nature of labels like “conservative” and “liberal.” On the one hand, some groups may conflate their national political conservatism or liberalism with their theological view, others compare divergence from traditions as the standard. So a Greek Orthodox Christian might look at a Southern Baptist and use the word “liberal,” based on the fact that a Southern Baptist appears to radically diverge from Greek Orthodox traditions.
My great grandfather was Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation, which translated and published the NASB. It was his dream and life work to crests that version, and he sacrificed his personal wealth to do so. Neat to see the history of where it came from.
How cool Michael! Anytime I see the Lockman Foundation on a book, I know it can be trusted! I had heard a short bio of your Great Grandfather before and knew he was a great man of God! You must be related to Nancy Leigh DeMoss?
@@bonniemoerdyk9809 I believe so. Don't remember exactly how. Thank you for the very kind words about my great grandfather. I've heard he was a tough man, a product of his age, but above all, an honest man devoted to his beliefs. He sacrificed MASSIVE amount of future wealth to publish his Bible, but he believed it was worth it.
Unfortunately the LSB hasn’t escaped the gender neutralizing due to the feminism of our culture. In John 1 they translate anthropos as everyone instead of every man like the NASB95 and KJV do. The slow creep of feminism, hopefully in a later update they will fix this.
From a Christian perspective, it is noteworthy that many Old Testament texts quoted in the Gospels seem to follow the Septuagint translation. In the Septuagint version, the word almah was translated as parthenos which does mean virgin. This shows that at least during the time of Jesus, many Jews considered the Septuagint version to be acceptable.
I think it makes an interesting case for what many translators will say outright in their preface: that while there are important disagreements on specific phrases and words in translating, and no one translation can be perfect, the power of the scriptures can still be felt from all of these translations.
Have you ever thought about doing a genealogy chart for race horses? Their backgrounds are pretty well knowns and can be traced back for several centuries, in many cases.
All racehorses in Europe (and probably America) are descended from only three stallions - the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian and the Godolphin Arabian.
This is a great introduction to the differences in origins and interpretive methodologies among popular English translations. From a biblical scholarship perspective there are a couple of points, however, that deserve some clarification, especially regarding the differences between what you label the "critical text" source and the Textus Receptus. You rightly point out that the Critical Text (also referred to as the "Eclectic Text") is based on the Alexandrian text-type corpus of manuscripts and that many of these fragments do in fact pre-date exigent Byzantine text-type manuscripts. Western scholarly preference for the critical next (first presented as the Novum Testamentum by Nestle and Aland in 1898 and typically denoted by the abbreviated "NA" followed by the edition number, now NA28) is, however, based on the critical method of selecting texts and arbitrating differences between the text fragments, not on their age. Eastern scholars argue that this same critical methodology was essentially employed in the early years of the Christian Church (1C-4C, CE) resulting in the Byzantine corpus that has been used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches throughout their history. Their argument, and I would tend to agree, is that such a critical methodology conducted in the 2nd or 3rd century is likely to be far more accurate than doing so in the late 19C. This lead to vocal criticism of NA27 when it was released in 1993 for its bias against Byzantine text-type manuscripts in favor of (then) newly discovered Alexandrian texts that, while older, are not necessarily more reliable. This resulted in NA28 being released in 2012 along with substantial notations added to English translations such as the ESV to point to traditional differences seen in those texts based on Byzantine texts. The final point I would highlight is the third Greet text source, not mentioned in the video, termed the "Majority Text." This is comprised on Byzantine text-type manuscripts collected and preserved by Easter Orthodox churches and is considered significantly more complete and accurate than the Textus Receptus. It was republished in 1904 under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and is officially titled the Patriarchal Text (or, PT). The GNT contained in the PT was used to produce the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) in 2011 as the first English translation based on the Majority Text. Those who enjoy the King James Version, especially along theological grounds, will probably appreciate the EOB over other ecumenical texts such as the NASB, RSV, and ESV. Disclaimer, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but as a lifelong student of biblical studies I firmly believe that Orthodox sources have been overlooked to the detriment of Scriptural accuracy and faithfulness to their original intent. Hope this helps.
I'm with you. I trust the Byzantine texts. My understanding is the Byzantine preservers actually believed in the inerrancy of the scriptures they were entrusted to preserve, meanwhile the Alexandrian "preservers" were more-or-less agnostic in their view of scripture. This argument potentially clarifies why Alexandrian or "critical texts" are "older" than Byzantine. Byzantine texts ensured careful preservation, meaning the scripts we received were not "old" by physical age standards. Meanwhile, the agnostic Alexandrian "preservers" failed to upkeep the scripts, and what we have is physically "older" texts that aren't necessarily more "accurate", just more worn. The discovery of the Alexandrian texts and Dead Sea Scrolls has been the most wonderful and cursing discovery. Wonderful, in the sense that Christians have rational justification for why scripture can be trusted since it can be traced so far back in the past now. Cursing, because the small differences (again, likely due to bad or non-existent preservation methods) have cause these so-called "Biblical scholars" to question CRITICAL doctrinal scripture found in the Byzantine texts/TR. This dichotomy has caused renown Bible teachers (like MacArthur, who I actually have a lot of respect for), to cast doubt on scripture using mental gymnastics as to why certain scriptures don't belong in the Bible (Mark 16:9-20), "but we can still claim inerrant sola scriptura".
18:40 Not quite. The Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition) is authorized for the Ordinariate. I would guess also that the Byzantine Rite is using a different version too.
This is very good, but there are a couple of things that might have been added. First, there are other Catholic translations of the New Testament out there -- Knox, Spencer, Confraternity -- that are worth a mention, as well as the Jerusalem Bible (I know it's based on the French version, but it's still pretty widely read and used in some circles). Second, is either of the Jewish versions influenced by variant readings from Qumran, or are they straight MT?
The scholar/editor I mentioned above claimed that the New Jerusalem Bible isn't based on the French version like the Jerusalem Bible. He said it was a direct translation using Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic. The JB was used as a reference for the NJB, but not relied on and only Scripture in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic (more primary sources) were used for the English translation. Just thought I'd add what was said.
The New JPS has footnotes (very very short ones and most pages have none, but some pages have quite a few) which reference other texts (I think including Qumran), but most of the footnotes are "meaning Heb. uncertain". The JPS is translating the text of the MT, which in many editions it has printed in the original Hebrew on the same page line by line..
@@highpath4776 Your memory does not serve you well in this case. The DSS actually have a few groups of texts, some of which are very similar to MT, others which are more similar to other texts. On the whole the DSS have much more plene orthography than other texts and also some texts are written in the Hebrew alphabet, bu the tetragrammaton is written in paleohebrew
While watching this, I also thought "What about the Catholic Knox and Jerusalem Bibles, the Good News Bible, the New English Bible, and this & that, etc.?" Then I realized that Matt was dealing with today's most popular translations. It's not a personal slight that he didn't include your favorite translation.
The NASB used to be my go-to, and I still enjoy it a lot. I recently started looking into what translation is the best, and I decided to give the KJV a try, and it's become my favourite. What really convinced me is just looking at verses side-by-side. The phrasing in the KJV is just excellent and no other translation tops it. Plus thee/thou is very helpful for critical understanding
i'm pretty much the opposite of you lol. i grew up amidst the "KJV only" mormons, and as a result i consider it to be unbearably stodgy and hard to read. the first non-KJV translation i ever read was the NIV, and i've stuck with it (for the very rare times i actually use the bible lol) ever since
The language of the KJV is just so vastly superior to any other translation, I really don't understand why everyone doesn't use it. When you read any other bible, you learn about what the bible says, when you read the KJV you learn about what the bible says and get a first-class education in the English language at the same time. Its religious significance aside, it's one of those texts, along with the likes of the Canterbury Tales, the collected works of William Shakespeare, and Milton's Paradise Lost, that every English-speaker should be intimately familiar with merely for its influence on the English language, irrespective of your opinion on the content.
@@TheGullibleSkeptic Thou/thee is second person singular, while ye/you is second person plural. The same difference between you and y'all. It helps for understand if the speaker is talking to one person or multiple.
For me, the ESV is my daily reader, my main Bible translation. The NLT is my support translation Bible. It helps to give me more understanding from the ESV verse that I just read. Also, as I’m dyslexic, I find NLT much easier to read.
@@dantombs5697 Ridiculous and nonsensical position. Nowhere did God promise that an assembly of Anglicans (a heretical, non-Christian sect) would produce the one true Bible.
@@dantombs5697 I know, not believe, that we possess various manuscripts and source documents. Are you even aware that in the preface to the original KJV it states that one should study a variety of translations?
Dan - one thing I've never understood about the KJV only position is: What about people who don't speak English? Like, let's say I only speak Polish. Which Bible is the one true Bible for me?
How is it an "extreme" or "theoretical" question when 95% of the world does not speak English as their main language? A person who speaks a language other than English is a not an "exception" - they are very much in the majority! So how then is the KJV the one true Bible? If anything, all you can claim is that it is the best translation available in a language spoken by only 5% of the world.
@@dantombs5697 The point is that the very Anglican translators, who you deem to be the instrument of an infallible translation, repudiate your position. It's a circular argument. Why does that apply to the KJV specifically? It doesn't. It's totally illogical and cultic thinking. Why doesn't it apply to the Douay-Rheims, which is an earlier and objectively more accurate translation, straight from the Vulgate?
Same here! My go to is the the 95 and I like the 2020 version. I use the HCSB & NKJV too and sometimes the CSB. The HCSB is the only other Bible version I have seen with all of the deity words capitalized like the NASB.. The KJV and the NKJV do it but I think the HCSB might even be better at it than the KJV or the NKJV. Obviously KJV is great but not my main go to . I think a lot of the classic verses that we learned over the years growing up were from the KJV and I think it's probably even still a good idea to have kids learn some of those classic verses in KJV. Some of them are easy but I also don't see anything wrong with learning them with some of the other literal word for word versions thought for thought. Blessings everyone!
I think that the first "generation" of the Church Fathers were the disciples of the Apostles. The second "generation" disciples of the first "generation", the third of second, etc.
The NAB is really solid. Some other translations do this as well but it’s really good at providing cultural context and translation commentary in footnotes
I personally use multiple Bible translations. My go to is the ESV for this is used by my Church. For easier reading I change between the CSB and the NLT. I wish there was one go to translation but each translation serves a specific purpose. Great Video!
I wonder how obscure translations such as the New World Translation (the one made by the Jehovah's Witnesses), Tree of Life, Complete Jewish Bible, and Orthodox Jewish Bible (the later 3 being Messianic translations) fit into all this.
This would be a great follow-up video - all the translations and paraphrases available at bible gateway and which ones to avoid. (Looking at you, Passion “Translation.”)
From my reading of the New World Translation, it seemed to me to be strict word for word translation; so strict that it doesn't match our English sentence structure, which makes it very difficult to read.
@@agis230 I should have said I was referring to word order. "Man tall bites dog red big" would make sense in the biblical languages with their word endings, but nonsensical in English. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I attended a French Catholic church when I lived for a years in Tangiers. A very sweet French family took me under their wing. I had (and still have) a New Jerusalem Bible, and I will never forget the father of the family explaining that the Jerusalem Bible is the best version because it was first translated into French and "French is the language of the Holy Spirit" pretty sure he was 9nly partly joking. :)
When I was in high school and college, I had a Thompson's Chain Reference KJV bible. I enjoyed that I could follow exact Greek or Hebrew words through the text and get meanings on them while also finding out what other words were also translated to the same English word and the relationship between the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words,
My Catholic Mom in Pittsburgh Pa asked my Pentecostal-Holiness pastor in Charlotte NC yrs. ago 'which bible should she purchase for me as a birthday gift 12-22". He stated the Thompson's Chain Ref. KJV bible also. My folks visited the church in Charlotte while visiting me. She loved him because he was a 'balanced, non-fanatical pastor who preached with spot on accuracy. Not all pentecostal/holiness churches are out in left field. The denomination is Church of God, Cleveland, Tn. branch. Also, it is not required you speak in tongues. Also, not all Church of God denominations is the Cleveland, Tn. branch. If interested call the headquarters in Tn. for list of churches that are affiliated with Tn.
Also realize that there are several Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and their definitions must also be examined by comparing words that are found in various locations and in alternative contexts.
I was surprised the Ethiopian Bible didn't make the list. As always though I do enjoy your videos. You always offer a very constructive view on the topics I have seen you address. I was also very impressed by the fact that you posted a video addressing your detractors (critics) regarding the authorship of some of the Christians doctrines. You were polite and patient in your demeanor.
Thank you so much for this video!!! This really blessed me and I hope to share it with friends who want to have an understanding of where we get our Bibles/Translations from
You should make a part two and look more into other translations! I had the honor of taking a class with Dr. Everett Fox and learned about the way he translates the Tanakh; it was a fantastic class.
I notice a lot of comments are mentioning other translations. I used to work in a religious bookstore, so I know you could have added dozens of others. But I guess you have to have a limit somewhere. My own favorite for basic reading and reference is the sadly neglected Revised English Bible - similar to the NRSV, but a fresh translation with a somewhat literary feel.
The _Revised English Bible_ is the update of the _New English Bible,_ a Bible I now love for its scholarship, but which my father - a Baptist - didn't allow me to have as a seven-year-old (I was given an _NEB_ NT as a leaving prize from my boarding school, but I also I had the _RSV_ he'd bought me to take with me - approved for Catholic use by the bishops of Kenya - both of which I still have, and in addition I bought myself from my pocket money a copy of _Good News for Modern Man_ as I loved the illustrations). There - three versions before I was eight...
The REB, like its predecessor NEB, is a translation undertaken by mainline Protestant churches of the British isles. Perhaps that’s why it is much better known in Britain but not so in America.
Salvation is Simple HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH” YaH is The Heavenly Father YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING YaH was Who they Crucified for our sins YaH was Crucified on an Almond TREE - Ancient Semitic Cuneiform of Moshe (Moses) - Isa Scroll (The Original Isaiah) Isaiah 42:8 "I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.” Isaiah 43:11 “I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me.” Isaiah 45:5 “I am YaH, and there is none else.”
I suspect you missed one of the most interesting and significant modern translations (unless you named it differently). The New English Bible was translated into modern idiom with dynamic equivalence preferred to literal word for word rules in the 1960s. And to me does a better job of capturing the spirit of the authors of individual books in English. I'd be interested to know where you think it fits.
The NEB and its later revised version the REB (Revised English Bible) need to be slotted into the chart. And what about the very recent LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)?
For daily reading and devotionals, I use my trusty well-worn NABRE. I also still own a few NABs that I acquired before the NABRE was released. For ecumenical reading and dialogue with non-Catholics, I use my NRSV-CE (basically the NRSV that includes the Deuterocanon) For beautiful, flowerly language, I love using my DRV. It actually predates some of the modern book naming conventions so some of the books have different names (1 and 2 Samuel are called 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are called 3 and 4 Kings, etc.) I also own an ESV-CE that I don't use so much since I only just got it, but I want to use it for ecumenical reading as well. I also want to try some of the other old and new Catholic editions, like the Confraternity Bible (CB) and the St. Joseph New Catholic Bible (NCB). I don't think the latter has been formally approved by the USCCB for private devotionals since it's so new, but from what I've seen it's pretty popular for teen groups.
Yes, there are 4 Books of Kings in Catholic Bibles. The Psalms are numbered a little differently. The Prophets have Latinized titles instead of Hebrew (Isaias=Isaish; Jeremias=Jeremiah, Osee=Hosea, etc.), and the last book, formally known as “The Revelation of the Apocalypse according to St. John the Divine” is abbreviated as Apocalypse.
Dear Laird Matt Baker--just finished the 'books of the bible history' 2.5 hour youtube video - which I loved- and I rushed to buy your chart of the history of the bible texts. I wanted to be able to follow concordances in the chronological order they were written. I started to figure out 'who was quoting who' but it was so complicated to track I determined it would take years to do that. THANKS SO MUCH FOR DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING. and creating a single visual aid out of the massive amount of research it took. I really see the value in it!
I'm sorry, but I feel you must mention the Good News Bible/ Today's English Version. A well-done book, which is one of my personal favorites because of the line-art illustrations.
Memorization and retention are best 'rewarded' in the King James Version in my experience. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)
Agreed. I use the KJV for memory, not only for its quotability but also because it is used by my Reformers Unanimous group which, among other Christian principles, pushes Bible memorization pretty hard. Also, I like to carry around a Gideon pocket New Testament (Gideons give out KJV and ESV testaments), and I use KJV for memory.
Agreed. The KJV is direct and straight-forward. I want to "study" rather than "do my best". Frankly, I have zero interest in the modern versions. I have read plenty of them to compare. 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 ESV - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[a] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NIV - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NLT - Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.
Amazing! You explain so many things about the Bible that most know seemingly little about, but should be thoughtfully considered whenever anyone reads it. Love your approach to it all in your videos
At 10:00… the discussion of Isaiah 7:14… Except that he said that “Almah” being translated as young woman is “more accurate.” It is telling that the Septuagint, (250 before Christ) translates it as “virgin.” Since “almah” can be translated accurately EITHER WAY, it is telling that the Greek Jews translated almah as “virgin” in the Septuagint. A young women, usually meant an unmarried women, aka virgin. That is why Christian’s, view Isaiah 7:14 as virgin…. Because we see it through the eyes of the Jews in the second temple period. The Septuagint is very useful.
What a gift Tyndale was to English speakers! His labors were of inestimable worth to Bible believers, and he died a martyr's death for his efforts. The docu/movie God's Outlaw portrays his story. The title God's Bestseller by Brian Moynahan, about the writing of the English Bible and thus Tyndale, is recommended.
The NET is also gaining a foothold among seminary students and scholars today. The NET Full Notes edition in particular was not marketed as a study Bible, but it’s packed with so much notes that it could definitely serve as one!
@@mattvanderford4920 yeah the NET has a heavy and clear theological bias in almost any note they put out (it's really good for reading the differences in the manuscripts tho)
@@diansc7322 so I actually have not read the foot notes. I have only used it as a source on software. I typically have KJV or ESV set to standard and only read NET for verse comparisons. Not surprised typically seen heavy reformed guys use it.
The USA and the Philippines only uses the NAB at mass, Canada uses only the NRSV, the UK, Ireland, Australia and India only use the Jerusalem Bible. Basically every country's Bishop conference decide which translation they will use. The reason is simple, they print lectionaries (all the readings are organized according to the liturgical calendar) and if there are multiple translation used then you would need to publish different versions of the lectionary. Also they want uniformity so if you travel a lot and go to different parishes all the time, there is a continuity/uniformity in what you are hearing. It doesn't stop parishioners from reading from another translation on their own time.
I personally enjoy the NIV. I especially appreciate the introductions included for each book that serve to give background and context. I typically compare with NKJV/NLT where I feel unsure about a verse or passage. Amplified can be interesting too, though not my main translation by any means. I only recently came to learn about the NRSV.
@@dantombs5697 I use the YouVersion Bible app, I believe it is the 2011 NIV. It does not have John 5:4 or Acts 8:37; I hadn't noticed. Might you know why those are omitted? Are there other instance you know of?
@@dantombs5697 the reason the NIV of removed versus like Acts 8:39 and John 5:4 because it's proven that these vrs were added from the 6th Century to the 14th century. They do not appear on the early Greek manuscripts. They were not written by the Apostle to walked with Jesus Christ
@@rorisxng The reason why the NIV omitted John 5:4, Acts 8:37 and the other verses, its because they do not appear on the early Greek manuscripts. It is proven these verses were added starting somewhere from the 6th century throng the 14th century. They are not supposed to exist. The NIV Bible Scholars did a great job by omitting those verses.
The NIV isn’t a word for word “translation”. It is a “dynamic” or “thought for thought” translation. Meaning that basically they took the verse, attempted to translate it, then wrote down what they “thought” the underlying meaning of the text was. You’re reading their interpretation, not a translation. Also, the other dude is wrong in the comments. There are a lot of verses/words not found in newer translations, because the manuscripts they used didn’t have those verses/words. They used those manuscripts, because they’re older than many we have… but older does not equal more accurate. As copies were made, errors crept in due to human error in hand copying. If that error was copied 50 years later, it’s still an error. All of the manuscripts we have are copies of copies or copies… we don’t have the originals. How do we know what’s right? Logical deduction… if 499 of the manuscripts say one thing and 1 says something different, we bet the 499 are right.
Robert C Alter's translation is incredible. It's so highly detailed and yet also poetic. It offers the most out of any translation and is direct from the Hebrew. Would recommend to anyone looking to study the Hebrew Bible.
Although I love Alter’s translation, I would argue Everett Fox’s does an even better job of capturing the alliteration and prose of the Hebrew. It is most elegant yet still portrays acute accuracy, and his attempts to represent the Hebrew are, from what I’ve read, based in a better understanding of the original stories instead of relying on emendations as Alter tends to.
Great job--it's accurate and clear. I would point out that the NASB has been revised twice since it was first published in 1971. The 1971 edition had a weird system of using archaic grammar for prayers and when people were addressing God, but modern grammar for everything else. The 1995 edition updated the grammar. I'm not familiar with the 2020 update.
The 2020 update went gender neutral. I bought a copy regretfully. In it Jesus says "follow me and I will make you fishers of people". While technically accurate, it just doesn't seem as inspiring.
The church was able to function fine for 2000 years without gender neutral language. No one was confused that where the word anthrópos (man) was used it referred to mankind. It irritates me that modern society is supportive of modern feminism - it’s so destructive to the family and ultimately the culture. Whether the 2020 NASB changes were driven by radical feminism or not I don’t know - but the timing implies it was. The church and the word of God isn’t a playground for feminists or any other radicalized group. I am not a proponent of unchecked tradition but in this case it is better to leave “man” in there. anthrópos is a masculine noun after all.
I really appreciate this channel, and all the religious/theological videos. Some of my issues with church and faith make more sense to me now. Having a more academic and less “involved” view has been super helpful for me. I’ve had many disagreements with folks who swear up and down there’s no “wiggle room” in biblical interpretation, but with so many translations and versions, it literally has to be interpreted. I wish people could be a little more open minded and less rigid when it comes to theological things, but that hasn’t been my experience very often.
There is only one truth, but understanding it can be challenging. However, John 7:17 provides the key. (And I recommend reading it in multiple translations to understand it... haha!)
The American church was very much influenced by fundamentalism. During the 19th century, many academics were bringing into question parts of the Bible. This was very upsetting to a certain substrate of believers. So a book called The Fundamentals was published which argued for the inerrancy of the Bible and of the KJV in particular. This had a major influence throughout the early 20th century and is still believed by many today. This is patently false and certain conservative non-inerrantists proclaim it to be a form of idolatry - putting the Holy Bible as equal to God. However, it is still very difficult to be an evangelical leader in America if one does not subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Anyway, the belief in inerrancy also drives a belief in a literal interpretation. This is very intellectually dishonest and leads to a lot of cognitive dissonance. People raised in this sort of church tend to fall away - particularly after they get to college and have their beliefs challenged.
@skepticalfaith5201 The reason for the cognitive dissonance is not because of a literal interpretation of the scripture. The cognitive dissonance happens when you BOTH take it literally AND believe that your understanding of the words written are perfect (i.e. inerrant). That second part is foolishness and pride and foolishness, and pride lead to cognitive dissonance in any context. What proves the Bible to be true is the following: When God makes a promise or prediction that pertains to you personally, and you see it occur and realize that it is not something you could have dreamed or imagined, you pretty quickly start to believe the rest of it. And as a person in that position, I can tell you that, without question, although my Bible translation may be imperfect, my God is not, and His Word is most definitely inerrant. There is a distinction between the words written on the page and the Word of God, but God uses the words written on the page to communicate the Word, and if the words written on the page become too far off from what is true, it will certainly be a problem because there are true thoughts behind them that are proceeding from His mouth.
@@BardicLiving I agree... for sure. Those problems though, while on the surface seem to be the simple difference of strong convictions, are actually the fruit of pride and an unwillingness on the part of one or both parties to humble themselves to God, who is always right. And of course, I hold this view with strong conviction, but if you disagree with strong conviction, I can simply point you to the books of 1 Corinthians and Galatians and leave you to your own conclusions rather than arguing with you.
For english translation of Tanakah, there are also Stone edition published by artscroll and the Magerman edition & Steinsaltz edition published by Koren.
I haven't read the bible in a decade but this video makes me want to pick up a copy of the NRSV! I grew up reading NIV, NKJV and NLT (brethren church) and it never quite clicked for me.
I recommend the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible. It's very academics and has many critical notes. I went through deconstruction last year, and really appreciate the honest notes and introductions.
Your other videos on the Bible got me thinking about this - I tried googling the other week. I'm an atheist/agnostic but I was raised Anglican, and I kind of want to read the Bible properly as an adult - not of an act of faith, but as an important shared cultural and literary text.
I really enjoyed reading F. LaGard Smith’s chronologically organized “The Daily Bible.” Because it reorganizes the traditional text in chronological order, it reads much more like one continuous narrative. That seems to make it far more accessible to most readers. It’s based on the NIV translation.
If I had to pick one translation for everything, it would be the ESV. It's more accurate than anything besides the NASB, and almost as easy to read as the paraphrase translations.
Read the NRSV, it's the most used translation in secular Academia and is an incredibly easy read. Many would say it's one of the 'least-biased' because of how it was composed but there is a ton of hate online for it because it doesn't go out of its way to ram in things about gender and other controversial topics (they also explain why they don't do this with textual analysis if you're interested). Either the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) or the Harper Collins Study Bible (HCSB) would be the most widely used study bibles in Academia. They both use NRSV translations. They contain academic essays before each book that go into details about each book, they also include tons of footnotes about translations and other things, I think it would be up your alley. Start with the New Testament, you'll thank me later.
I thought the NIV was glossed over pretty quickly despite the fact it was also ecumenically produced, based off original texts, and has consistently been one of the most popular translations. I’d like to see a part two going more in depth on translation differences.
I agree. He probably didn't want to make the video too long by going into so much detail, but there's a lot more to these translations than he mentioned. For example, the KJV that we use today isn't the one from 1611. There were actually many different versions of the "original" KJV, and it was corrected a few times over the years. The KJV that we know today is actually a revision from 1769. The NIV has also had a few updates, the most recent being in 2011. This is notable since many people disliked the 2011 revision, but if I remember correctly, the 1978 edition is no longer in print, so the 2011 edition is the only one you can get today.
@@cswrye Yeah I was hoping for a bit more detail about the controversial NIV updates, given he mentioned updates to other versions like the NRSV. On the other hand he _could_ have cut down his material in order to produce a video of length 16:11. That would have been funny.
@@michaelzimmerman214 they're not missing; they're actually just omitted because they don't appear in the earliest manuscripts, and this point is noted in the margin (often with the text that would otherwise be there quoted) for each instance.
@@michaelzimmerman214 What Alan Cooper said, and also, many many other modern translations based off the Aland text do the same thing. The ESV is usually considered a pretty conservative version, but I remember the endings of Mark, the woman caught in adultery in John, the trinity verse in 1 John, and several others being excluded, or being very clearly highlighted as different, with footnotes explaining the controversy. I may be wrong, but I feel like even the version of the NKJV I had as a kid did something to point out the dubious nature of these passages.
Except that he said that “Almah” being translated as young woman is “more accurate.” It is telling that the Septuagint, (250 before Christ) translates it as “virgin.” Since “almah” can be translated accurately EITHER WAY, it is telling that the Greek Jews translated almah as “virgin” in the Septuagint. A young women, usually meant an unmarried women, aka virgin. That is why Christian’s, view Isaiah 7:14 as virgin…. Because we see it through the eyes of the Jews in the second temple period. The Septuagint is very useful.
Thank you so much for breaking this down and explaining it so well. I am currently trying to find 3 different translations to work with on the spectrum, and knowing were each one lands so I make sure all 3 are very different from each other is extremely helpful.
Great video. I wonder where The Amplified Bible, The Message, and The NET Bible would fit on this chart? I like your organization of information and instruction. Well done.
For me, polish catholic, understanding of all protestant divisions in USA is very hard. From history I know lutherans, kalvinists, husites and arians (those last were popular in Poland in age of reformation), but I have very little knowledge about modern divisions. In my country over 90% of Christians are Catholics, and protestants or ortodox people are very often foreigners (ortodox - russians, ukrainians, belarussians; protestant - germans, maybe some tourists from Scandinavia or USA or GB). As interesting fact I can say that we in Poland made our own division of Christianity, but not of protestantism, but of ortodox. In 1596 there were union of Brześć, which was going to unite ortodox from Ruthenia (part of Poland in those days) with the Catholic Church. Some of ruthenians accepted it, but majority stayed in oposition and eventually idea was rejected. But to this day there live people that recognize this union - they are part of (Polish) Greek Catholic Church.
And it would be very interesting to me to watch similar video, but for polish bibles. I know only some of the most recent but it would be interesting to see all others, even those protestant ones (or ortodox, if such versions exist)
In my opinion he got it right by saying that American Protestants are basically either mainline or evangelical, where evangelicals tend to be more politically conservative and worship at one specific church, whereas mainline tend to be more liberal and worship at any church in their denomination. American Catholics are split more or less 50-50 liberal vs conservative.
Arians weren't Protestant. They existed before the reformation. And are the ones who denied Jesus being God which led to the formation of the trinity. Before u post false information fact check
@@jenex5608 I know about medieval arians, many germanic tribes were arians, but arianism disapeared in early dark ages and in times of reformation it raised again. In our history books they are consider protestants.
@@Macion-sm2ui As a Polish-American Catholic I’m in the same boat as you. Too many Christian denominations to count with your fingers! 😂 it’s really interesting the amount of denominations that formed after the Reformation and flourished in America due to Freedom of Religion. Ironically, it’s a double edge sword. For example, Joseph Smith probably wouldn’t have been taken seriously if he had his revelation in Europe. Scientology wouldn’t have any forward momentum if I started outside of the USA. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but just an interesting observation. Just recently one of America’s biggest Methodist Churches split because their Synods couldn’t agree to allow same sex marriage. This is were the commentator is talking about “Liberal vs. Conservative” between the Protestants. I don’t think it’s strictly Protestant either because one’s interpretation of the Bible can be Liberal or Conservative depends how you read it and digest it. This is happening to the Catholic Church Post- Vatican II council. Where American Priests and Dioceses are starting to separate themselves with the Vatican due to theological differences. Also Pope Francis being the ever loving creature he is isn’t helping. I know Catholics either love him or hate him. But his position as the vicar of God is very controversial because he wants to show God’s love to everyone without stepping on people’s toes.
As an addendum to this video: There were other partial pre-Wycliffe bible translations in English, specifically in Old English. These were made in the 10th and 11th centuries, and a number of these manuscripts survived to the modern day, including of the four cannonical Gospels, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Psalms. Some portions were very complete in the translation (such as the Gospels), and some portions (Joshua, Judges) were summarized in places or parts were omitted. For the Psalms, a third were translated into straight Old English prose, and the other 2/3rds were written in alliterative verse poetry. All of these translations were made from the Latin Vulgate.
As always, easy to follow and interesting. I was raised atheist but as an adult I became religious. It's been a very time consuming re-education for me, and your charts and explanations really help me with getting to the heart of the matters! Would you ever consider making something like an atlas that has for instance, all of the religious charts, or all of the royalty charts, etc? There are many subjects you have covered that I would totally buy in that form.
@@uni12785John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Salvation is freedom from the power of sin. You are saved for eternal life. You are no longer lost to sin.
@@uni12785 "Saved" refers to being saved from sin and its penalty, which the Bible says is death. The Bible uses the term "born again," and Jesus says we can be born again (given new, eternal life) when we put our trust in Him, who paid the penalty for our sin. When we are born again, we receive the Holy Spirit, who helps us follow Jesus.
I swapped from the NIV to the NRSV a few years back, and apart from the gratification I got from being kind of a hipster in my majority-evangelical school, I do prefer the wording of it.
Every time I watch your videos I have to fight the urge to want to scroll and move the chart around to explore and study it, but then I remember that I can't, it's a video
A very clear and well researched presentation, for which I am grateful. I never realized before the irony that King Henry the 8th had Tyndale executed, then later authorized a Bible based on his work. I hope he genuinely repented of ordering Tyndale's execution. Concerning the RSV's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 - 9:30 - I wish you had included a bit more about "almah." As we know, words don't mean much in a vacuum but usually depend on context to make the user's meaning clear. In context in Isaiah, God is inviting the king of Judah, Ahaz, to ask for a "sign" or miracle to attest to the certainty of the prophecy Isaiah had just given him (Isaiah 7:1-11). 10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your[f] God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (ESV). Ahaz declines in pretended piety, and God moves Isaiah to offer a sign to the "house of David" (Ahaz and David's descendants after him): 12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. There is nothing particularly miraculous about a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, so there is reason to expect more than that of this promise -- and the name to be given to the son only heightens that expectation. So much so, that when Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek many years later, they translated "almah" as "parthenos," a Greek word that can only mean virgin. Now the significance of that decision is debated (as is nearly everything else), but Matthew's citation in 1:22-23 of his gospel makes clear that the early followers of Jesus saw that promise God had made to the house of David had reference to both Ahaz in the near term, and the heir of David's throne in the ultimate. Therefore, if almah can mean either: 1. young woman 2. virgin I don't see how you can simply say that translating it as young woman is "arguably more accurate" than virgin - 10:05. At most it could go either way, and if taken in only the most normal usage it would hardly be a miraculous sign that a prophet had spoken in the name of the Lord.
In the Jewish culture, would the term "young woman" only be used of unmarried girls? If so, then it makes perfect and only sense to translate it as "parthenos" and "virgin".
@@theSpian1 Your question is a good one. But when Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint) they used the Greek word "parthenos" to translate the Hebrew "almah" in this passage. Parthenos can only mean virgin, a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man. That should settle the question of what they understood it to mean.
When I was in college, the Champaign Religious Studies program used the Oxford Annotated Bible. After a quick search, it turns out that it's the NRSV, plus the annotations.
There are things that aren't really mistranslations, but that still get lost in translation. Some concepts just aren't translatable. The Old Testament is full of puns and double meanings that only work in Hebrew, the New Testament is easier to translate but much of it is highly specific to Hellenized Jewish culture and it practically takes a philosophy or religion degree to understand.
Though an awesome and informative presentation, this begs the unanswerable question of: Which is the "correct" translation as would intended by ancient authorship(?)
Hi, Matt! I love your videos and have been watching nonstop for a few days now. I really love and respect your scientific point of view, plus the respect you hold for beliefs you don't have. I didn't know you were Jewish until you mentioned in this video, and I was curious what makes you weary of the story of Christ as to not believe its inspired nature? I'm also curious if you were just raised Jewish or if you chose that religion, and if so why? And if not, what keeps you to it?
I am actually a former Christian that converted to Judaism. It would be too complicated to explain the full story here but basically, Judaism fits better with my worldview. Generally, I am very sceptical about most religious claims but modern Judaism allows for this while at the same time being open to the existence of God, even if we can't fully understand the mystery involved in what that means.
When I was gifted a Bible from my Catholic Church, the one they gave me was called "The Good News Bible" and was hoping that one might get a mention. (It must have been somewhat popular as I have 2 or 3 different copies of the GNB that were clearly made by different publishers.) That said when I went to College in North Carolina, an evangelical friend gave me a New Living Translation, and that version is absolutely as readable as advertized. I would love to see an overview of popular Transaltions from around the world. It is also amazing how the Vulgate remained so popular and Influential for so long.
My Catholic Church gave out the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. However this was published in the late 90’s early 2000’s. I’m greatly disappointed he didn’t go further and talk about Quentus Tertullian. He was an early Christian Apologists and prosecuted Gnostic Christians under the new Heresy. He is credited to translate the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into Latin, thus creating the Latin Vulgate. The early scholars that translated the Latin Vulgate into English used his work and other references such as The Septuagint. Though it is much more complex than that. I just wish he explained a little more. During the time of the Early English Bible, the Protestant reformation was still in full effect. So yeah, it gets juicy real quick.
@@Ziiphyr yes I got a Good News Bible as a kid in Australia. I believe it is considered a terrible version but I don't know enough to know. I too wonder where it fits in all this.
The Revised Standard Version, Second Edition, Catholic Edition RSVCE is my favorite. Currently using it for Bible Study, its lack of footnotes is great as it doesn’t influence your reading of the text.
Awesome video! I love learning about and comparing translations so I was pumped when I saw this posted! Have you read Robert Alter's translation of the Tanakh? It's quite bulky so I don't use it as my everyday, but I find the writing quite beautiful!
@@UsefulCharts Oh my gosh you replied, I feel famous! Aha. I completely understand, the footnotes are wonderful but also a daunting undertaking. IMHO the Proverbs are especially *chef's kiss* though. Thanks for all the great content and work you do, to Lord Matt and everyone else on the Useful Charts team!
Great video! I use the NRSV and the NJPS Tanak in study contexts. I would love to see it expanded to cover some missed translations and where they fit, such as the Common English Bible, TNIV, Jursalem Bible etc. Love your work!
The NRSV for study contexts? I'm sorry. The NASB is probably the best for scholarly comparison in the critical texts. Secular does not equate scholarly
@@seanchaney3086 If you're a scholar comparing critical texts then you're working from original language manuscripts and/or textual apparatus. Even a "literal" translation like the NASB is choosing at most one meaning from the semantic range of each word.
@James Ellis You're saying that there aren't Christian scholars who review the NASB and ESV more favorably that the NRSV? You must not get too far outside of your own circle.
How come you didn’t talk about the Septuagint and how Jerome used the Masoretic Text against the advice of other church fathers when translating the Latin vulgate?
At minute mark 8:30, you start talking about the KJV. My parents taught me how to read using this Bible translation. Growing up in the 1980s and '90s, this made it difficult for me in school. I wrote in the same language of this version where everybody else was writing in modern American English. However, in high school in the late 90s, a teacher recognized this literary style and introduced me to other writings and similar fashion. Now, I have several writings published and love to read and write.
Now, when I study the Bible, I use several translations including the Lexham English Bible, Authorized KJV, NKJV, NIV, New American Standard, among others.
I read some pre-Revolution Russian literature. If I use the phrases online, many think I'm using a sloppy Google translation when really it's just an older form of Russian.
I have 3 Bibles. I really like the Good News Bible, as it is written in simple language and has nice little doodles for illustrations. It was made by the American Bible Society, which is largely Non-Denomination, I think. I also use the New American Bible. What's cool about this is that the Catholic Church actually collaborated with Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish scholars when making that Bible. To what extent, I don't know. It also has a lot of notes with scholarly information. I also have the Orthodox Study Bible, which has the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament, and the King James New Testament. Having different versions really helps to see the differences, and potentially lead to researching the original terminology used.
Great video. I had a crude understanding of the differences between the translations, but it's really helpful to see how they trace back to the different sources 👍🏻
Regarding which (English) version is best to use for studying ( 17:35 ), it is good advice not to rely on one specific version (especially if it is a paraphrase). However, it is better advice not to rely solely on English versions and to dig into the original languages as much as you are able.
An very good synopsis of the most popular translations/versions. Well done. My personal preference, however, is the "Modern Language Bible, Revised Berkeley Edition, 1969" edited by Gerrit Verkuyl. As I understand, it too was based on the Critical Texts, and is a word-for-word. My preference for it began in 1979, when the Gideons gave out pocket New Testaments in this translation to me and my fellow boot camp wannabe sailors. The passage that sold me on it was the John 21 account of the post-resurrection breakfast which Jesus cooks, and while He and the disciples are eating, He asks Peter a rather innocuous question: "Do you love Me more than these do?" Here he used that good ol' Agape word. Peter responds, "Yes, Lord, You know that I love you as a dear friend." (Phileo). Again Jesus asks, "Agape?" Peter again responds, "Phileo." The third time, Jesus asked, "Phileo??" which grieved Peter, as he conceded, for yet a third time, "Phileo." The MLB is the only translation which captured the nuances of "love" in that passage, as far as I know. But I did enjoy watching and listening to this family tree!
I personally use The Modern English Bible, and The King James Bible...and NOTHING ELSE! The reason I use The Modern English Bible, is because, in General Terms, it is based off of the Masoretic Text, which is the very same Text (Along with the Byzantine, the Antiochian, and the Textus Receptus Scrolls), that have existed, ever since God spoke to Men to write down what he said. This guy is all over the place...and, frankly, I find his explanation, as to what we should follow, to be very disturbing. He praises Vulgate-Styled Writings quite a bit...and I suspect that this guy is a Catholic Plant! I don't trust him -Not even one little bit!
I'd highly suggest to also be reading from a more modern version simply because words and phrases from the KJV are often mistaken today because meaning of the words have changed or phrases that we don't use anymore. Even NKJV would be good. I'd simply just also use something like NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NRSV or which ever other one you like. Just to help understand the Bible even better.
@@Sharp_3yE "words and phrases from the KJV are often mistaken today because meaning of the words have changed or phrases that we don't use anymore." Nah that sounds awful. I'd rather learn and decipher text and communicate passages with others than to read something dumbed down. Have you heard the Gen Z bible? That stuff is cringe.
@@GUNS_jk Yes the Gen Z Bible is a joke and kinda funny and also horrible at the same time. Haha 😂 Bible translations aren't "dumb down" but simply modern. A couple like NLT are in a more simple language. That's true. But even the KJV was in a more modern language that people spoke when it was released. It wasn't high class, everyone knew it. Today, it's just kinda old now with phrases that use to be used that we don't anymore. ESV is not dumb down. RSV is not dumbed down. RSV is what is used in university. My favorite translations are CSB, ESV, NASB, LEB which these versions are not low reading level. Then next tier down on my tier list is RSV, NIV, NLT. Just my personal preference.
I read some biblical scholarly work here and there, and also listen to interviews with scholars and the versions I hear most mentioned are ESV, NASB and NET.
Where is the New English Bible? It has been my favorite since my college days back in the Sixties. The verse numbers are in the margin, making finding a text easier, and the poetic verses are actually written poetically. Translated by a large ecumenical group of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge, and not derived from an earlier version.
Question for bible scholars... When examining a word in the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic via Strongs Concordance, how much influence does the root word have on the allegorical interpretation of the verse? For example: Mark 13:28 NKJV “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near." The word "branches" comes from the Greek "klados" (Strongs G2709) which means both: "a young tender shoot, broken off for grafting" or "a branch - as the Jewish patriarchs are likened to a root, so their posterity are likened to branches" and the word "leaves" comes from the Greek "phyllon" (Strongs G5444) which means "leaf" but who's etymological root is phylē (Strongs G5443) which means "a tribe - in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch, Jacob; a nation, people". Thus the interpretation of this verse that I've found most compelling is that, in continuing from the first part of Mark 13 in which Jesus is describing the last days to his disciples, and in the parable of the fig tree, Jesus is stating that the last days will be near once the nation of Israel is reformed again (which occurred in 1948), and that "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled". Since God specifies that a man's lifespan will be limited to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he [is] indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.", is it safe to assume that "the harvest" which occurs in the last days is slated to occur sometime between 1948 & 2068? Finally, if we look at implications of Satan's attempts to copy / mimic God (ex: 666 vs. 777) and that he will come disguised as an angel of light, if we take the view that Jesus's ministry began approximately around 30AD, would it be safe to assume that AntiChrist would appear around ~2030? Add in that this also aligns with the target date for "The Great Reset" and the implementation of a new one world system and digital currency, with Vaccine / Social Credit "passports" that will control whether you can buy or sell or travel, to me it seems very plausible...
Not a expert, but with end times issues, dates are not the important thing. We know that earthquakes aren't fun and Jesus is good. We know certain things will happen, We know that someone will try a decive, We know not not worship that, The important thing is meet more regularly as you see this happening, so to let a date influence a thing to do by observation is not something I would recommend. On words things are called things because of other things sometimes and Jesus's examples are multi fascisted but these things (kindom being like things)will break down because of the difference between the sprit and tangible. And we must be carful not to inadvertently adding to something, most things that the things alluded to are backed up in other scripture use things you think might be insight to dive deeper into God's word.
I attend a Southern Baptist church and the NIV is the translation in the pews, and the one the pastor preaches from. But, walking around campus, you can find so many different translations in the hands of the congregation. Personally I like the KJV for its classic sound, the NKJV for my daily reader, and the HCSB for casual reading from time to time. Then again, I am a nerd, and have a 4 translation parallel bible I break out for serious bible study time.
Very nice! The NAB is the version read in US Catholic Mass (like you said) but I believe the NRSV and ESV are approved in Canada and India respectively.
Also one of the reasons for the king James Bible was to create a standard English, before the king James Bible you could travel to different parts of the country and find a totally different language/accents
You can still travel and meet five different main accents in Britain. I am quite fond of Scouse and dislike Cockney, but SSB is useful. I was taught RP at school in South Africa, but the last RP speak would likely HRH King Charles III
Hello Matt. I hope you’re doing well. Just finished watching your UA-cam presentation on the Bible Translations, for the second time, and wanted to thank you for your work on all these charts. My wife and I enjoy them immensely. I should tell you in the front that I am a practicing Catholic who converted from Protestantism. That said I have many translations of the Bible to include KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV Catholic Edition, and ESV. I also use BibleGateway a lot. That said I wanted to let you know that the ESV I have is now also in a Catholic edition. The main difference between the Catholic Edition of the NRSV and the ESV and the Protestant Christian versions is the inclusion of the Apocrypha books of the Old Testament. You may have known this, and I just thought it would be a good update to your video. Steve
One reason the King James version has lasted so long and had such a wide appeal, is that King James prohibited the use of margin notes and interpretive text to be included with it. It was common for early translators to english to include interpretations and opinions, along with prayers etc with their translations. By omitting these from the official text, it ensured the Anglicans and Reformists would approve, and any other offshoot over the years would also find it to be neutral in doctrine.
This video is amazing! I wish I could find this for the Spanish translations. If anyone knows where can I find it, I would forever appreciate it... Keep the great work!!!
@@TRUECOLDMETALthe Gomez is the one to stay away from. Valera 1602 purificafa is the one to use. The Gomez was ruined and the diety of Christ was attacked in that translation he was basically stripped of his title of being god. DO NOT USE THE GOMEZ
The NASB has now been re-translated to an update more current than 1995. It is called the Legacy Bible. Check it out. I am waiting for the fully footnoted version to be released but regular versions (like large print) are already available. I especially like that the letters for yahweh are back where they belong.
To be fair to the New Living Translation (NLT). The Tyndale Website says - "The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, is an authoritative Bible translation, rendered faithfully into today’s English from the ancient texts by 90 leading Bible scholars. The NLT’s living language breathes life into even the most difficult-to-understand Bible passages-but even more powerful are stories of how people’s lives are changing as the words speak directly to their hearts." "The Old Testament translators used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as represented in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), with its extensive system of textual notes; this is an update of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also further compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on the meaning of difficult passages." "The New Testament translators used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS, fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (NA, twenty-seventh edition, 1993). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent, for the most part, the best in modern textual scholarship on the New Testament...."
Check our biblical family tree: usefulcharts.com/collections/religion/products/biblical-family-tree
My local church assembly was blessed by this information this morning, and we are all a little more knowledgeable now thanks to you. I went to buy this but since it is not a for-sale item, i printed it in a word document and used it as a hand-out. Properly cited, of course!
I appreciate the scholarly work and accessible visual aid. Thank you.
How about the 32 koran versions
Haf and warsh
Some translations actually change the meaning or doctrine. Many Christian’s say the Bible is infallible but can so many translations all be correct???
@@commoncents5191 No they cannot! The many translation that is. The KJV is infallible. An all powerful God can and did give us a correct translation. What is the best selling book of all time> The KJV 1611.
@@gw3598 How do you know it’s infallible?
Thanks for a clear description of the Bible's history, all done in a fair unbiased manner. I learned more in the 20 minutes of this video than what I would've learned spending days reading and researching other sources. This is a great starting point for individuals wanting to learn the Bible's history.
Tyndale was "executed for heresy"...but totally and completely not because he publicly criticized Henry for his divorce and scandalous affairs....After which Henry used Tyndale's translation almost in its' entirety for the "Great Bible"
*Tyndale laughing before criticizing the King* “This is a good way to die”
Hmmm. Tyndale was executed for heresy, but in Flanders, by the imperial authorities, if I'm not much mistaken. Given the Imperial authorities represented Catherine's brother, the Emperor, I'm not sure Henry had much to do with it. Sure, Henry was mad at Tyndale for opposing the annulment of Henry's marriage, but that wouldn't have carried any weight whatsoever with the Emperor Charles.
He criticized the leader and got canceled....just like 2023 in the west
Tyndale actually cried out for God to open the King's eyes so in a way perhaps he did
Have y'all read any biographies of Tyndale?) There is so much in the comments that are wrong or incomplete. My understanding is that what really got Tyndale at odds with the Catholic church and specifically Henry VIII was translating the Bible into the English language and make it accessible to everyone. I don't recall any mention of being in trouble for criticizing Henry XIII divorce (or perhaps if he did it was a very minor issue). I think some of you may be conflating him with Sir Thomas More because of his stand on the King's divorce. More fell out of favor with the KIng for very loud criticism of the divorce
But this has encouraged me to refresh myself on Tyndale.
Wow! How did you miss The Jerusalem Bible? This has a weird history, having been originally translated from Greek and Hebrew into French, and then into English. However, it's extremely popular with academics and Catholics outside the US. J.R.R. Tolkien provided the translation of the book of Jonah.
Agree, an interesting version.
Beat me to it!
Catholic High Schools used the New Jerusalem Bible for a long while. It was translated directly from Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic and edited by Benedictine biblical scholar Henry Wansbrough.
@@debraturner4559 NJB’s my favorite
It doesn't necessarily fit very closely into the tree, perhaps that's why it doesn't feature.
This is majestic, now I understand and got a bird’s eye view on the family tree of English Translations of the Bible.
In everyday’s reading, I use KJV, but for deeper study, I use interlinear to see what’s the Hebrew or Greek wordings are actually saying
And yeah, how KJV translates Psalm 23 is iconic
No need to go back to archaic words. Radical liberal interpreters will twist ancient words to support their own arguments.
Thank you for your videos. You have made my church Sunday Sermons and Sunday School lessons so much more sense for a lay person. Thank you!
Man, there is so much packed into what “conservative” and “liberal” Christian means, especially when you typified conservatives as “Baptists or Pentecostals.” Sounds like an opportunity for another great chart!
I was thinking that too... Baptists and Pentecostals might both be "conservative" but they sure don't have much in common! But this isn't Ready to Harvest channel...
I thought the same thing when he labeled Methodists as liberal. The Methodist church is splitting over this very issue (or rather a more specific issue within lib vs. cons) and a majority of of the international church bodies actually fall on the conservative side of the debate
Yup… being an American Baptist minister myself, and gay, and theologically liberal, I can’t wrap my head around the concept of all Baptists being considered “conservative.” In fact, the American Baptist Churches are firmly mainline.
Especially because you could be a very progressive or very Conservative baptist
@@fluffysheap What’s interesting to me is the relative nature of labels like “conservative” and “liberal.” On the one hand, some groups may conflate their national political conservatism or liberalism with their theological view, others compare divergence from traditions as the standard. So a Greek Orthodox Christian might look at a Southern Baptist and use the word “liberal,” based on the fact that a Southern Baptist appears to radically diverge from Greek Orthodox traditions.
I think you should've mentioned the Septuagint, the ancient greek translation of the Tanakh that predates the Masoratic texts.
Yeah I also felt it was an elephant in the room.
Agreed
Even the samaritan too...
@@ardaduck735 he's jewish..jews like to pretend it doesnt exist or they attack it since it is directly quoted in the NT
@@ricardooliveira9774 jews(judeans) dont like samaritans and so that is why they ignore them
My great grandfather was Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation, which translated and published the NASB. It was his dream and life work to crests that version, and he sacrificed his personal wealth to do so. Neat to see the history of where it came from.
How cool Michael! Anytime I see the Lockman Foundation on a book, I know it can be trusted! I had heard a short bio of your Great Grandfather before and knew he was a great man of God! You must be related to Nancy Leigh DeMoss?
@@bonniemoerdyk9809 I believe so. Don't remember exactly how.
Thank you for the very kind words about my great grandfather. I've heard he was a tough man, a product of his age, but above all, an honest man devoted to his beliefs. He sacrificed MASSIVE amount of future wealth to publish his Bible, but he believed it was worth it.
Looking for a Kindle Bible myself, I went with the NASB, and I'm happy with it.
The NASB is my go-to translation.
Unfortunately the LSB hasn’t escaped the gender neutralizing due to the feminism of our culture. In John 1 they translate anthropos as everyone instead of every man like the NASB95 and KJV do. The slow creep of feminism, hopefully in a later update they will fix this.
This man’s channel is a fascinating blessing to UA-cam.
From a Christian perspective, it is noteworthy that many Old Testament texts quoted in the Gospels seem to follow the Septuagint translation. In the Septuagint version, the word almah was translated as parthenos which does mean virgin. This shows that at least during the time of Jesus, many Jews considered the Septuagint version to be acceptable.
I think it makes an interesting case for what many translators will say outright in their preface: that while there are important disagreements on specific phrases and words in translating, and no one translation can be perfect, the power of the scriptures can still be felt from all of these translations.
This clip cleared up my confusion for over 40 years! Thank you for making this!
We have more English translations than are needed but I am grateful for what is available.
We have more than 5000 Greek Manuscript finds, too.....that is way way too many, and we don't need all of those.........
Who is to say what is “needed?”
@@JMJ.516 We don't need any more than the English KJV....right?
Have you ever thought about doing a genealogy chart for race horses? Their backgrounds are pretty well knowns and can be traced back for several centuries, in many cases.
This seems like it'd be a very interesting video. +1 to Larry!
I’d find that interesting, my uncle breeds race horses
That vid sounds cool to me
All racehorses in Europe (and probably America) are descended from only three stallions - the Byerley Turk, the Darley Arabian and the Godolphin Arabian.
@@lomax343 that is interesting
This is a great introduction to the differences in origins and interpretive methodologies among popular English translations. From a biblical scholarship perspective there are a couple of points, however, that deserve some clarification, especially regarding the differences between what you label the "critical text" source and the Textus Receptus. You rightly point out that the Critical Text (also referred to as the "Eclectic Text") is based on the Alexandrian text-type corpus of manuscripts and that many of these fragments do in fact pre-date exigent Byzantine text-type manuscripts. Western scholarly preference for the critical next (first presented as the Novum Testamentum by Nestle and Aland in 1898 and typically denoted by the abbreviated "NA" followed by the edition number, now NA28) is, however, based on the critical method of selecting texts and arbitrating differences between the text fragments, not on their age.
Eastern scholars argue that this same critical methodology was essentially employed in the early years of the Christian Church (1C-4C, CE) resulting in the Byzantine corpus that has been used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches throughout their history. Their argument, and I would tend to agree, is that such a critical methodology conducted in the 2nd or 3rd century is likely to be far more accurate than doing so in the late 19C. This lead to vocal criticism of NA27 when it was released in 1993 for its bias against Byzantine text-type manuscripts in favor of (then) newly discovered Alexandrian texts that, while older, are not necessarily more reliable. This resulted in NA28 being released in 2012 along with substantial notations added to English translations such as the ESV to point to traditional differences seen in those texts based on Byzantine texts.
The final point I would highlight is the third Greet text source, not mentioned in the video, termed the "Majority Text." This is comprised on Byzantine text-type manuscripts collected and preserved by Easter Orthodox churches and is considered significantly more complete and accurate than the Textus Receptus. It was republished in 1904 under the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and is officially titled the Patriarchal Text (or, PT). The GNT contained in the PT was used to produce the Eastern Orthodox Bible (EOB) in 2011 as the first English translation based on the Majority Text. Those who enjoy the King James Version, especially along theological grounds, will probably appreciate the EOB over other ecumenical texts such as the NASB, RSV, and ESV.
Disclaimer, I am not an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but as a lifelong student of biblical studies I firmly believe that Orthodox sources have been overlooked to the detriment of Scriptural accuracy and faithfulness to their original intent. Hope this helps.
Fully agree.
100% spot on.
I'm with you. I trust the Byzantine texts. My understanding is the Byzantine preservers actually believed in the inerrancy of the scriptures they were entrusted to preserve, meanwhile the Alexandrian "preservers" were more-or-less agnostic in their view of scripture. This argument potentially clarifies why Alexandrian or "critical texts" are "older" than Byzantine. Byzantine texts ensured careful preservation, meaning the scripts we received were not "old" by physical age standards. Meanwhile, the agnostic Alexandrian "preservers" failed to upkeep the scripts, and what we have is physically "older" texts that aren't necessarily more "accurate", just more worn. The discovery of the Alexandrian texts and Dead Sea Scrolls has been the most wonderful and cursing discovery. Wonderful, in the sense that Christians have rational justification for why scripture can be trusted since it can be traced so far back in the past now. Cursing, because the small differences (again, likely due to bad or non-existent preservation methods) have cause these so-called "Biblical scholars" to question CRITICAL doctrinal scripture found in the Byzantine texts/TR. This dichotomy has caused renown Bible teachers (like MacArthur, who I actually have a lot of respect for), to cast doubt on scripture using mental gymnastics as to why certain scriptures don't belong in the Bible (Mark 16:9-20), "but we can still claim inerrant sola scriptura".
18:40 Not quite. The Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition) is authorized for the Ordinariate. I would guess also that the Byzantine Rite is using a different version too.
This is very good, but there are a couple of things that might have been added.
First, there are other Catholic translations of the New Testament out there -- Knox, Spencer, Confraternity -- that are worth a mention, as well as the Jerusalem Bible (I know it's based on the French version, but it's still pretty widely read and used in some circles).
Second, is either of the Jewish versions influenced by variant readings from Qumran, or are they straight MT?
This video was very protestant heavy
The scholar/editor I mentioned above claimed that the New Jerusalem Bible isn't based on the French version like the Jerusalem Bible. He said it was a direct translation using Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic. The JB was used as a reference for the NJB, but not relied on and only Scripture in Hebrew, Greek and Arabic (more primary sources) were used for the English translation. Just thought I'd add what was said.
The New JPS has footnotes (very very short ones and most pages have none, but some pages have quite a few) which reference other texts (I think including Qumran), but most of the footnotes are "meaning Heb. uncertain". The JPS is translating the text of the MT, which in many editions it has printed in the original Hebrew on the same page line by line..
@@HesderOleh The Dead Sea Scrolls and Masorotic are not too far apart from memory, some bits of some of the genelogies vary
@@highpath4776 Your memory does not serve you well in this case. The DSS actually have a few groups of texts, some of which are very similar to MT, others which are more similar to other texts. On the whole the DSS have much more plene orthography than other texts and also some texts are written in the Hebrew alphabet, bu the tetragrammaton is written in paleohebrew
While watching this, I also thought "What about the Catholic Knox and Jerusalem Bibles, the Good News Bible, the New English Bible, and this & that, etc.?" Then I realized that Matt was dealing with today's most popular translations. It's not a personal slight that he didn't include your favorite translation.
The NASB used to be my go-to, and I still enjoy it a lot. I recently started looking into what translation is the best, and I decided to give the KJV a try, and it's become my favourite. What really convinced me is just looking at verses side-by-side. The phrasing in the KJV is just excellent and no other translation tops it. Plus thee/thou is very helpful for critical understanding
i'm pretty much the opposite of you lol. i grew up amidst the "KJV only" mormons, and as a result i consider it to be unbearably stodgy and hard to read. the first non-KJV translation i ever read was the NIV, and i've stuck with it (for the very rare times i actually use the bible lol) ever since
That sounds like NIV is simply sticking to older manuscripts, but I understand why you feel that way
The language of the KJV is just so vastly superior to any other translation, I really don't understand why everyone doesn't use it. When you read any other bible, you learn about what the bible says, when you read the KJV you learn about what the bible says and get a first-class education in the English language at the same time. Its religious significance aside, it's one of those texts, along with the likes of the Canterbury Tales, the collected works of William Shakespeare, and Milton's Paradise Lost, that every English-speaker should be intimately familiar with merely for its influence on the English language, irrespective of your opinion on the content.
I was wondering if someone could briefly elaborate on the comment about thee/thou for understanding
@@TheGullibleSkeptic Thou/thee is second person singular, while ye/you is second person plural. The same difference between you and y'all. It helps for understand if the speaker is talking to one person or multiple.
For me, the ESV is my daily reader, my main Bible translation. The NLT is my support translation Bible. It helps to give me more understanding from the ESV verse that I just read.
Also, as I’m dyslexic, I find NLT much easier to read.
Southern Baptist here, and son of a preacher. I've been in hundreds of churches all over the south, majority of them still use the KJV
@@dantombs5697 Ridiculous and nonsensical position. Nowhere did God promise that an assembly of Anglicans (a heretical, non-Christian sect) would produce the one true Bible.
@@dantombs5697 I know, not believe, that we possess various manuscripts and source documents. Are you even aware that in the preface to the original KJV it states that one should study a variety of translations?
Dan - one thing I've never understood about the KJV only position is: What about people who don't speak English? Like, let's say I only speak Polish. Which Bible is the one true Bible for me?
How is it an "extreme" or "theoretical" question when 95% of the world does not speak English as their main language? A person who speaks a language other than English is a not an "exception" - they are very much in the majority! So how then is the KJV the one true Bible? If anything, all you can claim is that it is the best translation available in a language spoken by only 5% of the world.
@@dantombs5697 The point is that the very Anglican translators, who you deem to be the instrument of an infallible translation, repudiate your position. It's a circular argument. Why does that apply to the KJV specifically? It doesn't. It's totally illogical and cultic thinking. Why doesn't it apply to the Douay-Rheims, which is an earlier and objectively more accurate translation, straight from the Vulgate?
I'm a NASB man myself. I like to read mostly word for word translations and interpret them the most accurately I can.
I love the NASB also!
Same here! My go to is the the 95 and I like the 2020 version. I use the HCSB & NKJV too and sometimes the CSB. The HCSB is the only other Bible version I have seen with all of the deity words capitalized like the NASB.. The KJV and the NKJV do it but I think the HCSB might even be better at it than the KJV or the NKJV. Obviously KJV is great but not my main go to . I think a lot of the classic verses that we learned over the years growing up were from the KJV and I think it's probably even still a good idea to have kids learn some of those classic verses in KJV. Some of them are easy but I also don't see anything wrong with learning them with some of the other literal word for word versions thought for thought. Blessings everyone!
Nigga some foos said that Bible wasn't that good is it worth it
You should make a Church Fathers family tree and show how different early Christian figures connected to the Apostles
I think that the first "generation" of the Church Fathers were the disciples of the Apostles. The second "generation" disciples of the first "generation", the third of second, etc.
There aren't any certain connections past Irenaeus
The NAB is really solid. Some other translations do this as well but it’s really good at providing cultural context and translation commentary in footnotes
Heck, even as a Protestant, I find NABRE is fairly even-handed when it comes to where Catholics and Protestants differ.
Bleh… NAB and its footnotes are less than desirable. And its prose is uninspiring.
@@erravi Do you value accuracy or prose more?
that is the Bible I use
Just my $0.02-worth: the NAB(RE) can't hold a candle to the NJB.
I personally use multiple Bible translations. My go to is the ESV for this is used by my Church. For easier reading I change between the CSB and the NLT. I wish there was one go to translation but each translation serves a specific purpose. Great Video!
Lol
I do the same. Love the CSB and NLT.
I wonder how obscure translations such as the New World Translation (the one made by the Jehovah's Witnesses), Tree of Life, Complete Jewish Bible, and Orthodox Jewish Bible (the later 3 being Messianic translations) fit into all this.
I was just posting a question about that.
This would be a great follow-up video - all the translations and paraphrases available at bible gateway and which ones to avoid. (Looking at you, Passion “Translation.”)
From my reading of the New World Translation, it seemed to me to be strict word for word translation; so strict that it doesn't match our English sentence structure, which makes it very difficult to read.
@@DouglasJenkins No way they are strict when they change the reading of "spirit of God" as "power of God" or something like that
@@agis230 I should have said I was referring to word order. "Man tall bites dog red big" would make sense in the biblical languages with their word endings, but nonsensical in English. Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I attended a French Catholic church when I lived for a years in Tangiers. A very sweet French family took me under their wing. I had (and still have) a New Jerusalem Bible, and I will never forget the father of the family explaining that the Jerusalem Bible is the best version because it was first translated into French and "French is the language of the Holy Spirit" pretty sure he was 9nly partly joking. :)
It's been translated into Portuguese too, and It's one of the four main Catholic translations in Brazil.
@@jebby6285 That's untrue, I believe. Jesus' mother retired to Mount Athos according to Tradition.
@@Thelaretus ok thanks
@@Thelaretus fake
When I was in high school and college, I had a Thompson's Chain Reference KJV bible. I enjoyed that I could follow exact Greek or Hebrew words through the text and get meanings on them while also finding out what other words were also translated to the same English word and the relationship between the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words,
My Catholic Mom in Pittsburgh Pa asked my Pentecostal-Holiness pastor in Charlotte NC yrs. ago 'which bible should
she purchase for me as a birthday gift 12-22". He stated the Thompson's Chain Ref. KJV bible also. My folks visited the
church in Charlotte while visiting me. She loved him because he was a 'balanced, non-fanatical pastor who preached
with spot on accuracy. Not all pentecostal/holiness churches are out in left field. The denomination is Church of God,
Cleveland, Tn. branch. Also, it is not required you speak in tongues. Also, not all Church of God denominations is the
Cleveland, Tn. branch. If interested call the headquarters in Tn. for list of churches that are affiliated with Tn.
Also realize that there are several Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and their definitions must also be examined by comparing words that are found in various locations and in alternative contexts.
@@bernadettegreen7134 I hope that one day you will realize the Treasure Trove that you left, and come home to the RCC.
I was surprised the Ethiopian Bible didn't make the list. As always though I do enjoy your videos. You always offer a very constructive view on the topics I have seen you address. I was also very impressed by the fact that you posted a video addressing your detractors (critics) regarding the authorship of some of the Christians doctrines. You were polite and patient in your demeanor.
Thank you so much for this video!!! This really blessed me and I hope to share it with friends who want to have an understanding of where we get our Bibles/Translations from
You should make a part two and look more into other translations! I had the honor of taking a class with Dr. Everett Fox and learned about the way he translates the Tanakh; it was a fantastic class.
I notice a lot of comments are mentioning other translations. I used to work in a religious bookstore, so I know you could have added dozens of others. But I guess you have to have a limit somewhere. My own favorite for basic reading and reference is the sadly neglected Revised English Bible - similar to the NRSV, but a fresh translation with a somewhat literary feel.
A religious bookstore. Now that hits as close to home as far away it does.
The _Revised English Bible_ is the update of the _New English Bible,_ a Bible I now love for its scholarship, but which my father - a Baptist - didn't allow me to have as a seven-year-old (I was given an _NEB_ NT as a leaving prize from my boarding school, but I also I had the _RSV_ he'd bought me to take with me - approved for Catholic use by the bishops of Kenya - both of which I still have, and in addition I bought myself from my pocket money a copy of _Good News for Modern Man_ as I loved the illustrations). There - three versions before I was eight...
The REB, like its predecessor NEB, is a translation undertaken by mainline Protestant churches of the British isles. Perhaps that’s why it is much better known in Britain but not so in America.
Salvation is Simple
HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH”
YaH is The Heavenly Father
YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING
YaH was Who they Crucified for our sins
YaH was Crucified on an Almond TREE
- Ancient Semitic Cuneiform of Moshe (Moses)
- Isa Scroll (The Original Isaiah)
Isaiah 42:8
"I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.”
Isaiah 43:11
“I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me.”
Isaiah 45:5
“I am YaH, and there is none else.”
I suspect you missed one of the most interesting and significant modern translations (unless you named it differently). The New English Bible was translated into modern idiom with dynamic equivalence preferred to literal word for word rules in the 1960s. And to me does a better job of capturing the spirit of the authors of individual books in English. I'd be interested to know where you think it fits.
The NEB and its later revised version the REB (Revised English Bible) need to be slotted into the chart. And what about the very recent LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)?
For daily reading and devotionals, I use my trusty well-worn NABRE. I also still own a few NABs that I acquired before the NABRE was released.
For ecumenical reading and dialogue with non-Catholics, I use my NRSV-CE (basically the NRSV that includes the Deuterocanon)
For beautiful, flowerly language, I love using my DRV. It actually predates some of the modern book naming conventions so some of the books have different names (1 and 2 Samuel are called 1 and 2 Kings, and 1 and 2 Kings are called 3 and 4 Kings, etc.)
I also own an ESV-CE that I don't use so much since I only just got it, but I want to use it for ecumenical reading as well.
I also want to try some of the other old and new Catholic editions, like the Confraternity Bible (CB) and the St. Joseph New Catholic Bible (NCB). I don't think the latter has been formally approved by the USCCB for private devotionals since it's so new, but from what I've seen it's pretty popular for teen groups.
Yes, there are 4 Books of Kings in Catholic Bibles. The Psalms are numbered a little differently. The Prophets have Latinized titles instead of Hebrew (Isaias=Isaish; Jeremias=Jeremiah, Osee=Hosea, etc.), and the last book, formally known as “The Revelation of the Apocalypse according to St. John the Divine” is abbreviated as Apocalypse.
Dear Laird Matt Baker--just finished the 'books of the bible history' 2.5 hour youtube video - which I loved- and I rushed to buy your chart of the history of the bible texts. I wanted to be able to follow concordances in the chronological order they were written. I started to figure out 'who was quoting who' but it was so complicated to track I determined it would take years to do that. THANKS SO MUCH FOR DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING. and creating a single visual aid out of the massive amount of research it took. I really see the value in it!
I'm sorry, but I feel you must mention the Good News Bible/ Today's English Version. A well-done book, which is one of my personal favorites because of the line-art illustrations.
Yes I would love to know more of its history also.
Memorization and retention are best 'rewarded' in the King James Version in my experience. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. (Psalm 119:11)
Yep. KJV is by far the most quotable.
So pretty!
Agreed. I use the KJV for memory, not only for its quotability but also because it is used by my Reformers Unanimous group which, among other Christian principles, pushes Bible memorization pretty hard. Also, I like to carry around a Gideon pocket New Testament (Gideons give out KJV and ESV testaments), and I use KJV for memory.
Yes as far as I’m concerned there is only one english bible and it’s not the ESV(Extremely Sloppy Version)
Agreed. The KJV is direct and straight-forward. I want to "study" rather than "do my best". Frankly, I have zero interest in the modern versions. I have read plenty of them to compare.
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 ESV - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,[a] a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 NIV - Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 NLT - Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.
Amazing! You explain so many things about the Bible that most know seemingly little about, but should be thoughtfully considered whenever anyone reads it. Love your approach to it all in your videos
Agreed ... good explanations.
At 10:00… the discussion of Isaiah 7:14… Except that he said that “Almah” being translated as young woman is “more accurate.” It is telling that the Septuagint, (250 before Christ) translates it as “virgin.” Since “almah” can be translated accurately EITHER WAY, it is telling that the Greek Jews translated almah as “virgin” in the Septuagint. A young women, usually meant an unmarried women, aka virgin. That is why Christian’s, view Isaiah 7:14 as virgin…. Because we see it through the eyes of the Jews in the second temple period. The Septuagint is very useful.
My 15th Great Uncle was William Tyndale and he translated the Bible into English..he was fluent in 8 languages…I also have the Geneva Bible…
That’s really cool!!
Awesome, Praise GOD'!!!
What a gift Tyndale was to English speakers! His labors were of inestimable worth to Bible believers, and he died a martyr's death for his efforts. The docu/movie God's Outlaw portrays his story. The title God's Bestseller by Brian Moynahan, about the writing of the English Bible and thus Tyndale, is recommended.
My great uncle as well!
@@sdlorah6450he wasn't a martyr but a heretic.
The NET is also gaining a foothold among seminary students and scholars today. The NET Full Notes edition in particular was not marketed as a study Bible, but it’s packed with so much notes that it could definitely serve as one!
He wasn’t meaning seminary scholars when he said academics!
Net is great for sure not something an academic would want to touch.
I'm so glad to hear someone mention my favorite translation! :D
@@mattvanderford4920 yeah the NET has a heavy and clear theological bias in almost any note they put out (it's really good for reading the differences in the manuscripts tho)
@@diansc7322 so I actually have not read the foot notes. I have only used it as a source on software. I typically have KJV or ESV set to standard and only read NET for verse comparisons.
Not surprised typically seen heavy reformed guys use it.
The USA and the Philippines only uses the NAB at mass, Canada uses only the NRSV, the UK, Ireland, Australia and India only use the Jerusalem Bible. Basically every country's Bishop conference decide which translation they will use. The reason is simple, they print lectionaries (all the readings are organized according to the liturgical calendar) and if there are multiple translation used then you would need to publish different versions of the lectionary. Also they want uniformity so if you travel a lot and go to different parishes all the time, there is a continuity/uniformity in what you are hearing. It doesn't stop parishioners from reading from another translation on their own time.
If you attend the Tridentine Latin Mass, often the Epistle and Gospel are re-read from the Douay-Rheims on Sundays and Holy Days.
I personally enjoy the NIV. I especially appreciate the introductions included for each book that serve to give background and context. I typically compare with NKJV/NLT where I feel unsure about a verse or passage. Amplified can be interesting too, though not my main translation by any means. I only recently came to learn about the NRSV.
@@dantombs5697 I use the YouVersion Bible app, I believe it is the 2011 NIV. It does not have John 5:4 or Acts 8:37; I hadn't noticed. Might you know why those are omitted? Are there other instance you know of?
@@dantombs5697 the reason the NIV of removed versus like Acts 8:39 and John 5:4 because it's proven that these vrs were added from the 6th Century to the 14th century. They do not appear on the early Greek manuscripts. They were not written by the Apostle to walked with Jesus Christ
@@rorisxng The reason why the NIV omitted John 5:4, Acts 8:37 and the other verses, its because they do not appear on the early Greek manuscripts. It is proven these verses were added starting somewhere from the 6th century throng the 14th century. They are not supposed to exist. The NIV Bible Scholars did a great job by omitting those verses.
@@dantombs5697 I already did my research. what I said is 100% true. God bless you to my brother.
The NIV isn’t a word for word “translation”. It is a “dynamic” or “thought for thought” translation. Meaning that basically they took the verse, attempted to translate it, then wrote down what they “thought” the underlying meaning of the text was. You’re reading their interpretation, not a translation.
Also, the other dude is wrong in the comments. There are a lot of verses/words not found in newer translations, because the manuscripts they used didn’t have those verses/words. They used those manuscripts, because they’re older than many we have… but older does not equal more accurate.
As copies were made, errors crept in due to human error in hand copying. If that error was copied 50 years later, it’s still an error. All of the manuscripts we have are copies of copies or copies… we don’t have the originals.
How do we know what’s right? Logical deduction… if 499 of the manuscripts say one thing and 1 says something different, we bet the 499 are right.
Robert C Alter's translation is incredible. It's so highly detailed and yet also poetic. It offers the most out of any translation and is direct from the Hebrew. Would recommend to anyone looking to study the Hebrew Bible.
Thanks. Checking it out. Judging by the introduction, it’s quite promising
Wow! It’s mind blowing. Thanks again
Although I love Alter’s translation, I would argue Everett Fox’s does an even better job of capturing the alliteration and prose of the Hebrew. It is most elegant yet still portrays acute accuracy, and his attempts to represent the Hebrew are, from what I’ve read, based in a better understanding of the original stories instead of relying on emendations as Alter tends to.
Great job--it's accurate and clear. I would point out that the NASB has been revised twice since it was first published in 1971. The 1971 edition had a weird system of using archaic grammar for prayers and when people were addressing God, but modern grammar for everything else. The 1995 edition updated the grammar. I'm not familiar with the 2020 update.
The 2020 update went gender neutral. I bought a copy regretfully. In it Jesus says "follow me and I will make you fishers of people". While technically accurate, it just doesn't seem as inspiring.
The 2020 went gender accurate, not gender neutral.
The church was able to function fine for 2000 years without gender neutral language. No one was confused that where the word anthrópos (man) was used it referred to mankind. It irritates me that modern society is supportive of modern feminism - it’s so destructive to the family and ultimately the culture. Whether the 2020 NASB changes were driven by radical feminism or not I don’t know - but the timing implies it was. The church and the word of God isn’t a playground for feminists or any other radicalized group. I am not a proponent of unchecked tradition but in this case it is better to leave “man” in there. anthrópos is a masculine noun after all.
@@Psalm146-2 Agreed!
Seems like it's not worth getting familiar with... 😒😒😒
I really appreciate this channel, and all the religious/theological videos. Some of my issues with church and faith make more sense to me now. Having a more academic and less “involved” view has been super helpful for me.
I’ve had many disagreements with folks who swear up and down there’s no “wiggle room” in biblical interpretation, but with so many translations and versions, it literally has to be interpreted. I wish people could be a little more open minded and less rigid when it comes to theological things, but that hasn’t been my experience very often.
There is only one truth, but understanding it can be challenging. However, John 7:17 provides the key. (And I recommend reading it in multiple translations to understand it... haha!)
The American church was very much influenced by fundamentalism. During the 19th century, many academics were bringing into question parts of the Bible. This was very upsetting to a certain substrate of believers. So a book called The Fundamentals was published which argued for the inerrancy of the Bible and of the KJV in particular. This had a major influence throughout the early 20th century and is still believed by many today.
This is patently false and certain conservative non-inerrantists proclaim it to be a form of idolatry - putting the Holy Bible as equal to God. However, it is still very difficult to be an evangelical leader in America if one does not subscribe to biblical inerrancy. Anyway, the belief in inerrancy also drives a belief in a literal interpretation. This is very intellectually dishonest and leads to a lot of cognitive dissonance. People raised in this sort of church tend to fall away - particularly after they get to college and have their beliefs challenged.
@skepticalfaith5201 The reason for the cognitive dissonance is not because of a literal interpretation of the scripture. The cognitive dissonance happens when you BOTH take it literally AND believe that your understanding of the words written are perfect (i.e. inerrant). That second part is foolishness and pride and foolishness, and pride lead to cognitive dissonance in any context.
What proves the Bible to be true is the following: When God makes a promise or prediction that pertains to you personally, and you see it occur and realize that it is not something you could have dreamed or imagined, you pretty quickly start to believe the rest of it. And as a person in that position, I can tell you that, without question, although my Bible translation may be imperfect, my God is not, and His Word is most definitely inerrant.
There is a distinction between the words written on the page and the Word of God, but God uses the words written on the page to communicate the Word, and if the words written on the page become too far off from what is true, it will certainly be a problem because there are true thoughts behind them that are proceeding from His mouth.
@@ibealion1 Problems can arise though when people have a similar level of conviction about conflicting understandings of God/God's word.
@@BardicLiving I agree... for sure. Those problems though, while on the surface seem to be the simple difference of strong convictions, are actually the fruit of pride and an unwillingness on the part of one or both parties to humble themselves to God, who is always right. And of course, I hold this view with strong conviction, but if you disagree with strong conviction, I can simply point you to the books of 1 Corinthians and Galatians and leave you to your own conclusions rather than arguing with you.
For english translation of Tanakah, there are also Stone edition published by artscroll and the Magerman edition & Steinsaltz edition published by Koren.
I haven't read the bible in a decade but this video makes me want to pick up a copy of the NRSV! I grew up reading NIV, NKJV and NLT (brethren church) and it never quite clicked for me.
I recommend the Harper Collins NRSV Study Bible. It's very academics and has many critical notes.
I went through deconstruction last year, and really appreciate the honest notes and introductions.
Wow, I had always wondered about the various version. Thank you for a clear and independent review of the various bible versions. Thank you.
Good job Matt. Brief, without detail overload, but informative at a level to help folk understand the differences. Love the color coded chart!
Your other videos on the Bible got me thinking about this - I tried googling the other week. I'm an atheist/agnostic but I was raised Anglican, and I kind of want to read the Bible properly as an adult - not of an act of faith, but as an important shared cultural and literary text.
The ESV is very well written. If you can find a Single column version, then it reads like a novel
I really enjoyed reading F. LaGard Smith’s chronologically organized “The Daily Bible.” Because it reorganizes the traditional text in chronological order, it reads much more like one continuous narrative. That seems to make it far more accessible to most readers. It’s based on the NIV translation.
If I had to pick one translation for everything, it would be the ESV. It's more accurate than anything besides the NASB, and almost as easy to read as the paraphrase translations.
Read the NRSV, it's the most used translation in secular Academia and is an incredibly easy read. Many would say it's one of the 'least-biased' because of how it was composed but there is a ton of hate online for it because it doesn't go out of its way to ram in things about gender and other controversial topics (they also explain why they don't do this with textual analysis if you're interested).
Either the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) or the Harper Collins Study Bible (HCSB) would be the most widely used study bibles in Academia. They both use NRSV translations. They contain academic essays before each book that go into details about each book, they also include tons of footnotes about translations and other things, I think it would be up your alley.
Start with the New Testament, you'll thank me later.
I agree
I thought the NIV was glossed over pretty quickly despite the fact it was also ecumenically produced, based off original texts, and has consistently been one of the most popular translations.
I’d like to see a part two going more in depth on translation differences.
I agree. He probably didn't want to make the video too long by going into so much detail, but there's a lot more to these translations than he mentioned. For example, the KJV that we use today isn't the one from 1611. There were actually many different versions of the "original" KJV, and it was corrected a few times over the years. The KJV that we know today is actually a revision from 1769. The NIV has also had a few updates, the most recent being in 2011. This is notable since many people disliked the 2011 revision, but if I remember correctly, the 1978 edition is no longer in print, so the 2011 edition is the only one you can get today.
@@cswrye Yeah I was hoping for a bit more detail about the controversial NIV updates, given he mentioned updates to other versions like the NRSV.
On the other hand he _could_ have cut down his material in order to produce a video of length 16:11. That would have been funny.
NIV has verses missing. Especially in the New testament. They took verses out. It may be popular but that doesn't mean it's the best.
@@michaelzimmerman214 they're not missing; they're actually just omitted because they don't appear in the earliest manuscripts, and this point is noted in the margin (often with the text that would otherwise be there quoted) for each instance.
@@michaelzimmerman214 What Alan Cooper said, and also, many many other modern translations based off the Aland text do the same thing. The ESV is usually considered a pretty conservative version, but I remember the endings of Mark, the woman caught in adultery in John, the trinity verse in 1 John, and several others being excluded, or being very clearly highlighted as different, with footnotes explaining the controversy. I may be wrong, but I feel like even the version of the NKJV I had as a kid did something to point out the dubious nature of these passages.
I was mind blown when you said you are Jewish and yet you made the greatest Bible comparison video ever with no Bias. You have my respect
Except that he said that “Almah” being translated as young woman is “more accurate.” It is telling that the Septuagint, (250 before Christ) translates it as “virgin.” Since “almah” can be translated accurately EITHER WAY, it is telling that the Greek Jews translated almah as “virgin” in the Septuagint. A young women, usually meant an unmarried women, aka virgin. That is why Christian’s, view Isaiah 7:14 as virgin…. Because we see it through the eyes of the Jews in the second temple period. The Septuagint is very useful.
Thank you so much for breaking this down and explaining it so well. I am currently trying to find 3 different translations to work with on the spectrum, and knowing were each one lands so I make sure all 3 are very different from each other is extremely helpful.
Thank you so much for this video, the free chart! And the cool Lord thing from Scotland! 😮😊
Great video. I wonder where The Amplified Bible, The Message, and The NET Bible would fit on this chart? I like your organization of information and instruction. Well done.
I also used the amplified. I like the fact that it list the differences between versions going as far back as Wycliffe
they all are based off the Alexandria/ minority text
For me, polish catholic, understanding of all protestant divisions in USA is very hard. From history I know lutherans, kalvinists, husites and arians (those last were popular in Poland in age of reformation), but I have very little knowledge about modern divisions. In my country over 90% of Christians are Catholics, and protestants or ortodox people are very often foreigners (ortodox - russians, ukrainians, belarussians; protestant - germans, maybe some tourists from Scandinavia or USA or GB). As interesting fact I can say that we in Poland made our own division of Christianity, but not of protestantism, but of ortodox. In 1596 there were union of Brześć, which was going to unite ortodox from Ruthenia (part of Poland in those days) with the Catholic Church. Some of ruthenians accepted it, but majority stayed in oposition and eventually idea was rejected. But to this day there live people that recognize this union - they are part of (Polish) Greek Catholic Church.
And it would be very interesting to me to watch similar video, but for polish bibles. I know only some of the most recent but it would be interesting to see all others, even those protestant ones (or ortodox, if such versions exist)
In my opinion he got it right by saying that American Protestants are basically either mainline or evangelical, where evangelicals tend to be more politically conservative and worship at one specific church, whereas mainline tend to be more liberal and worship at any church in their denomination. American Catholics are split more or less 50-50 liberal vs conservative.
Arians weren't Protestant. They existed before the reformation. And are the ones who denied Jesus being God which led to the formation of the trinity.
Before u post false information fact check
@@jenex5608 I know about medieval arians, many germanic tribes were arians, but arianism disapeared in early dark ages and in times of reformation it raised again. In our history books they are consider protestants.
@@Macion-sm2ui As a Polish-American Catholic I’m in the same boat as you. Too many Christian denominations to count with your fingers! 😂 it’s really interesting the amount of denominations that formed after the Reformation and flourished in America due to Freedom of Religion. Ironically, it’s a double edge sword. For example, Joseph Smith probably wouldn’t have been taken seriously if he had his revelation in Europe. Scientology wouldn’t have any forward momentum if I started outside of the USA. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing but just an interesting observation. Just recently one of America’s biggest Methodist Churches split because their Synods couldn’t agree to allow same sex marriage. This is were the commentator is talking about “Liberal vs. Conservative” between the Protestants. I don’t think it’s strictly Protestant either because one’s interpretation of the Bible can be Liberal or Conservative depends how you read it and digest it. This is happening to the Catholic Church Post- Vatican II council. Where American Priests and Dioceses are starting to separate themselves with the Vatican due to theological differences. Also Pope Francis being the ever loving creature he is isn’t helping. I know Catholics either love him or hate him. But his position as the vicar of God is very controversial because he wants to show God’s love to everyone without stepping on people’s toes.
now we need a full version with the other versions of the bible
You are awesome! Thanks for all of work you do
As an addendum to this video: There were other partial pre-Wycliffe bible translations in English, specifically in Old English. These were made in the 10th and 11th centuries, and a number of these manuscripts survived to the modern day, including of the four cannonical Gospels, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Psalms. Some portions were very complete in the translation (such as the Gospels), and some portions (Joshua, Judges) were summarized in places or parts were omitted. For the Psalms, a third were translated into straight Old English prose, and the other 2/3rds were written in alliterative verse poetry. All of these translations were made from the Latin Vulgate.
As always, easy to follow and interesting. I was raised atheist but as an adult I became religious. It's been a very time consuming re-education for me, and your charts and explanations really help me with getting to the heart of the matters! Would you ever consider making something like an atlas that has for instance, all of the religious charts, or all of the royalty charts, etc? There are many subjects you have covered that I would totally buy in that form.
I grew up in a Calvinist church and was religious while unsaved. I then got saved and grew apart from religion.
@@Afriqueleblanqi am rather confused on the word "saved"
@@uni12785John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” Salvation is freedom from the power of sin. You are saved for eternal life. You are no longer lost to sin.
@@Afriqueleblanq athiest aren't ya
@@uni12785 "Saved" refers to being saved from sin and its penalty, which the Bible says is death. The Bible uses the term "born again," and Jesus says we can be born again (given new, eternal life) when we put our trust in Him, who paid the penalty for our sin. When we are born again, we receive the Holy Spirit, who helps us follow Jesus.
I swapped from the NIV to the NRSV a few years back, and apart from the gratification I got from being kind of a hipster in my majority-evangelical school, I do prefer the wording of it.
Every time I watch your videos I have to fight the urge to want to scroll and move the chart around to explore and study it, but then I remember that I can't, it's a video
A very clear and well researched presentation, for which I am grateful. I never realized before the irony that King Henry the 8th had Tyndale executed, then later authorized a Bible based on his work. I hope he genuinely repented of ordering Tyndale's execution.
Concerning the RSV's interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 - 9:30 - I wish you had included a bit more about "almah." As we know, words don't mean much in a vacuum but usually depend on context to make the user's meaning clear. In context in Isaiah, God is inviting the king of Judah, Ahaz, to ask for a "sign" or miracle to attest to the certainty of the prophecy Isaiah had just given him (Isaiah 7:1-11).
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz: 11 “Ask a sign of the Lord your[f] God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (ESV).
Ahaz declines in pretended piety, and God moves Isaiah to offer a sign to the "house of David" (Ahaz and David's descendants after him):
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test.” 13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
There is nothing particularly miraculous about a young woman conceiving and bearing a son, so there is reason to expect more than that of this promise -- and the name to be given to the son only heightens that expectation. So much so, that when Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek many years later, they translated "almah" as "parthenos," a Greek word that can only mean virgin.
Now the significance of that decision is debated (as is nearly everything else), but Matthew's citation in 1:22-23 of his gospel makes clear that the early followers of Jesus saw that promise God had made to the house of David had reference to both Ahaz in the near term, and the heir of David's throne in the ultimate.
Therefore, if almah can mean either:
1. young woman
2. virgin
I don't see how you can simply say that translating it as young woman is "arguably more accurate" than virgin - 10:05. At most it could go either way, and if taken in only the most normal usage it would hardly be a miraculous sign that a prophet had spoken in the name of the Lord.
In the Jewish culture, would the term "young woman" only be used of unmarried girls? If so, then it makes perfect and only sense to translate it as "parthenos" and "virgin".
@@theSpian1 Your question is a good one. But when Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint) they used the Greek word "parthenos" to translate the Hebrew "almah" in this passage. Parthenos can only mean virgin, a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man. That should settle the question of what they understood it to mean.
When I was in college, the Champaign Religious Studies program used the Oxford Annotated Bible. After a quick search, it turns out that it's the NRSV, plus the annotations.
I didn't realise there were so many different translations, it's fascinating
Yup. I always try to look at the many different translations because, unfortunately, I don't know hebrew or greek.
@@ricardooliveira9774 I unfortunately can't help wonder how many issues have been caused by mistranslations of the texts over and over again
There are things that aren't really mistranslations, but that still get lost in translation. Some concepts just aren't translatable. The Old Testament is full of puns and double meanings that only work in Hebrew, the New Testament is easier to translate but much of it is highly specific to Hellenized Jewish culture and it practically takes a philosophy or religion degree to understand.
@@fluffysheap something that doesn't help is that Hebrew contains a lot of words with duel meaning based on context
There are around 200 only counting English. Most of these are considered outdated and less accurate today.
Though an awesome and informative presentation, this begs the unanswerable question of: Which is the "correct" translation as would intended by ancient authorship(?)
that can't be known, since original sources contemporary to each other were written differently, probably from memory or by shortcutting scribes
Wonderful video. I love so many different English bible translations that it's hard to pick a favorite, God's Word reins supreme!!!
Hi, Matt! I love your videos and have been watching nonstop for a few days now. I really love and respect your scientific point of view, plus the respect you hold for beliefs you don't have. I didn't know you were Jewish until you mentioned in this video, and I was curious what makes you weary of the story of Christ as to not believe its inspired nature? I'm also curious if you were just raised Jewish or if you chose that religion, and if so why? And if not, what keeps you to it?
I am actually a former Christian that converted to Judaism. It would be too complicated to explain the full story here but basically, Judaism fits better with my worldview. Generally, I am very sceptical about most religious claims but modern Judaism allows for this while at the same time being open to the existence of God, even if we can't fully understand the mystery involved in what that means.
Thank very much for putting all this information together in a clear infographic video!
When I was gifted a Bible from my Catholic Church, the one they gave me was called "The Good News Bible" and was hoping that one might get a mention. (It must have been somewhat popular as I have 2 or 3 different copies of the GNB that were clearly made by different publishers.)
That said when I went to College in North Carolina, an evangelical friend gave me a New Living Translation, and that version is absolutely as readable as advertized.
I would love to see an overview of popular Transaltions from around the world. It is also amazing how the Vulgate remained so popular and Influential for so long.
My Catholic Church gave out the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. However this was published in the late 90’s early 2000’s. I’m greatly disappointed he didn’t go further and talk about Quentus Tertullian. He was an early Christian Apologists and prosecuted Gnostic Christians under the new Heresy. He is credited to translate the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into Latin, thus creating the Latin Vulgate. The early scholars that translated the Latin Vulgate into English used his work and other references such as The Septuagint. Though it is much more complex than that. I just wish he explained a little more. During the time of the Early English Bible, the Protestant reformation was still in full effect. So yeah, it gets juicy real quick.
@@Ziiphyr yes I got a Good News Bible as a kid in Australia. I believe it is considered a terrible version but I don't know enough to know. I too wonder where it fits in all this.
@@jpgsawyer it’s good for teens to read as it’s simple and easy to meditate with. It’s not good for scholarly purposes however
@@ZiiphyrThe translator of the Vulgate was St. Jerome.
The Revised Standard Version, Second Edition, Catholic Edition RSVCE is my favorite. Currently using it for Bible Study, its lack of footnotes is great as it doesn’t influence your reading of the text.
Awesome video! I love learning about and comparing translations so I was pumped when I saw this posted! Have you read Robert Alter's translation of the Tanakh? It's quite bulky so I don't use it as my everyday, but I find the writing quite beautiful!
I actually do have Robert Alter's Tanakh but to be honest, I haven't looked at it much yet!
@@UsefulCharts Oh my gosh you replied, I feel famous! Aha. I completely understand, the footnotes are wonderful but also a daunting undertaking. IMHO the Proverbs are especially *chef's kiss* though. Thanks for all the great content and work you do, to Lord Matt and everyone else on the Useful Charts team!
Great video! I use the NRSV and the NJPS Tanak in study contexts. I would love to see it expanded to cover some missed translations and where they fit, such as the Common English Bible, TNIV, Jursalem Bible etc. Love your work!
The NRSV for study contexts? I'm sorry. The NASB is probably the best for scholarly comparison in the critical texts. Secular does not equate scholarly
@@seanchaney3086 If you're a scholar comparing critical texts then you're working from original language manuscripts and/or textual apparatus. Even a "literal" translation like the NASB is choosing at most one meaning from the semantic range of each word.
The Jerusalem Bible has been translated into Portuguese too, and It's one of the four main Catholic translations in Brazil.
@@seanchaney3086 apologies, but i'm taking the advice of christian academics over the exhortation of a random youtube commenter.
@James Ellis You're saying that there aren't Christian scholars who review the NASB and ESV more favorably that the NRSV? You must not get too far outside of your own circle.
How come you didn’t talk about the Septuagint and how Jerome used the Masoretic Text against the advice of other church fathers when translating the Latin vulgate?
why no Septuagint translations?
Looks like he just focused on the new testament variations.
At minute mark 8:30, you start talking about the KJV. My parents taught me how to read using this Bible translation.
Growing up in the 1980s and '90s, this made it difficult for me in school. I wrote in the same language of this version where everybody else was writing in modern American English.
However, in high school in the late 90s, a teacher recognized this literary style and introduced me to other writings and similar fashion. Now, I have several writings published and love to read and write.
Now, when I study the Bible, I use several translations including the Lexham English Bible, Authorized KJV, NKJV, NIV, New American Standard, among others.
I read some pre-Revolution Russian literature.
If I use the phrases online, many think I'm using a sloppy Google translation when really it's just an older form of Russian.
I have 3 Bibles. I really like the Good News Bible, as it is written in simple language and has nice little doodles for illustrations. It was made by the American Bible Society, which is largely Non-Denomination, I think. I also use the New American Bible. What's cool about this is that the Catholic Church actually collaborated with Protestant, Orthodox, and Jewish scholars when making that Bible. To what extent, I don't know. It also has a lot of notes with scholarly information. I also have the Orthodox Study Bible, which has the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament, and the King James New Testament. Having different versions really helps to see the differences, and potentially lead to researching the original terminology used.
Great video. I had a crude understanding of the differences between the translations, but it's really helpful to see how they trace back to the different sources 👍🏻
Regarding which (English) version is best to use for studying ( 17:35 ), it is good advice not to rely on one specific version (especially if it is a paraphrase). However, it is better advice not to rely solely on English versions and to dig into the original languages as much as you are able.
An very good synopsis of the most popular translations/versions. Well done. My personal preference, however, is the "Modern Language Bible, Revised Berkeley Edition, 1969" edited by Gerrit Verkuyl. As I understand, it too was based on the Critical Texts, and is a word-for-word.
My preference for it began in 1979, when the Gideons gave out pocket New Testaments in this translation to me and my fellow boot camp wannabe sailors. The passage that sold me on it was the John 21 account of the post-resurrection breakfast which Jesus cooks, and while He and the disciples are eating, He asks Peter a rather innocuous question: "Do you love Me more than these do?" Here he used that good ol' Agape word. Peter responds, "Yes, Lord, You know that I love you as a dear friend." (Phileo). Again Jesus asks, "Agape?" Peter again responds, "Phileo." The third time, Jesus asked, "Phileo??" which grieved Peter, as he conceded, for yet a third time, "Phileo."
The MLB is the only translation which captured the nuances of "love" in that passage, as far as I know.
But I did enjoy watching and listening to this family tree!
The King James Version of the Bible is the only Bible I read. This version has been blessed in my heart. Citizen of USA
I personally use The Modern English Bible, and The King James Bible...and NOTHING ELSE! The reason I use The Modern English Bible, is because, in General Terms, it is based off of the Masoretic Text, which is the very same Text (Along with the Byzantine, the Antiochian, and the Textus Receptus Scrolls), that have existed, ever since God spoke to Men to write down what he said. This guy is all over the place...and, frankly, I find his explanation, as to what we should follow, to be very disturbing. He praises Vulgate-Styled Writings quite a bit...and I suspect that this guy is a Catholic Plant! I don't trust him -Not even one little bit!
I'd highly suggest to also be reading from a more modern version simply because words and phrases from the KJV are often mistaken today because meaning of the words have changed or phrases that we don't use anymore.
Even NKJV would be good. I'd simply just also use something like NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NRSV or which ever other one you like. Just to help understand the Bible even better.
@@Sharp_3yE "words and phrases from the KJV are often mistaken today because meaning of the words have changed or phrases that we don't use anymore."
Nah that sounds awful. I'd rather learn and decipher text and communicate passages with others than to read something dumbed down. Have you heard the Gen Z bible? That stuff is cringe.
@@GUNS_jk Yes the Gen Z Bible is a joke and kinda funny and also horrible at the same time. Haha 😂
Bible translations aren't "dumb down" but simply modern. A couple like NLT are in a more simple language. That's true. But even the KJV was in a more modern language that people spoke when it was released. It wasn't high class, everyone knew it. Today, it's just kinda old now with phrases that use to be used that we don't anymore. ESV is not dumb down. RSV is not dumbed down. RSV is what is used in university. My favorite translations are CSB, ESV, NASB, LEB which these versions are not low reading level. Then next tier down on my tier list is RSV, NIV, NLT.
Just my personal preference.
Two videos in one family trees and religious texts awesome
I read some biblical scholarly work here and there, and also listen to interviews with scholars and the versions I hear most mentioned are ESV, NASB and NET.
Seminary scholars he was referring to secular not believing scholars. Hints the liberal church translations
Where is the New English Bible? It has been my favorite since my college days back in the Sixties. The verse numbers are in the margin, making finding a text easier, and the poetic verses are actually written poetically. Translated by a large ecumenical group of scholars from Oxford and Cambridge, and not derived from an earlier version.
Question for bible scholars... When examining a word in the original Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic via Strongs Concordance, how much influence does the root word have on the allegorical interpretation of the verse? For example: Mark 13:28 NKJV “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near." The word "branches" comes from the Greek "klados" (Strongs G2709) which means both: "a young tender shoot, broken off for grafting" or "a branch - as the Jewish patriarchs are likened to a root, so their posterity are likened to branches" and the word "leaves" comes from the Greek "phyllon" (Strongs G5444) which means "leaf" but who's etymological root is phylē (Strongs G5443) which means "a tribe - in the NT all the persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch, Jacob; a nation, people". Thus the interpretation of this verse that I've found most compelling is that, in continuing from the first part of Mark 13 in which Jesus is describing the last days to his disciples, and in the parable of the fig tree, Jesus is stating that the last days will be near once the nation of Israel is reformed again (which occurred in 1948), and that "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled". Since God specifies that a man's lifespan will be limited to 120 years in Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he [is] indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.", is it safe to assume that "the harvest" which occurs in the last days is slated to occur sometime between 1948 & 2068? Finally, if we look at implications of Satan's attempts to copy / mimic God (ex: 666 vs. 777) and that he will come disguised as an angel of light, if we take the view that Jesus's ministry began approximately around 30AD, would it be safe to assume that AntiChrist would appear around ~2030? Add in that this also aligns with the target date for "The Great Reset" and the implementation of a new one world system and digital currency, with Vaccine / Social Credit "passports" that will control whether you can buy or sell or travel, to me it seems very plausible...
Not a expert, but with end times issues, dates are not the important thing.
We know that earthquakes aren't fun and Jesus is good.
We know certain things will happen,
We know that someone will try a decive,
We know not not worship that,
The important thing is meet more regularly as you see this happening, so to let a date influence a thing to do by observation is not something I would recommend. On words things are called things because of other things sometimes and Jesus's examples are multi fascisted but these things (kindom being like things)will break down because of the difference between the sprit and tangible. And we must be carful not to inadvertently adding to something, most things that the things alluded to are backed up in other scripture use things you think might be insight to dive deeper into God's word.
Thanks for this, my lord.
The Douay-Rheims is beautiful and doesn't get enough love
I attend a Southern Baptist church and the NIV is the translation in the pews, and the one the pastor preaches from. But, walking around campus, you can find so many different translations in the hands of the congregation. Personally I like the KJV for its classic sound, the NKJV for my daily reader, and the HCSB for casual reading from time to time. Then again, I am a nerd, and have a 4 translation parallel bible I break out for serious bible study time.
OF COURSE UsefulCharts would make ANOTHER video about comparison and genealogy EXACTLY when I just got inquired by it. Sick dude
What about the Dead Sea scrolls translation website? I know it’s INCOMPLETE but still worth a mention since it’s a large portion of the TANAKH
As always a great video essay! I learned a lot!
Very nice! The NAB is the version read in US Catholic Mass (like you said) but I believe the NRSV and ESV are approved in Canada and India respectively.
Canada for sure uses the NRSV and I've heard that Catholics in the UK use the New Jerusalem translation. Personally, I like my RSV2CE and DRA versions
@@kzizzles8329 agreed on the RSV2CE. Here’s hoping it’ll replace the NAB someday…
I own a NRSV-CE from the 1960’s, Imprimatur Cardinal Cushing of Boston.
Also one of the reasons for the king James Bible was to create a standard English, before the king James Bible you could travel to different parts of the country and find a totally different language/accents
You can still travel and meet five different main accents in Britain. I am quite fond of Scouse and dislike Cockney, but SSB is useful. I was taught RP at school in South Africa, but the last RP speak would likely HRH King Charles III
Tyndale’s translations were primarily from the Greek and Hebrew. He translated his New Testament from the editions of Erasmus, for instance.
Hello Matt.
I hope you’re doing well. Just finished watching your UA-cam presentation on the Bible Translations, for the second time, and wanted to thank you for your work on all these charts. My wife and I enjoy them immensely. I should tell you in the front that I am a practicing Catholic who converted from Protestantism. That said I have many translations of the Bible to include KJV, NKJV, NIV, NRSV Catholic Edition, and ESV. I also use BibleGateway a lot.
That said I wanted to let you know that the ESV I have is now also in a Catholic edition. The main difference between the Catholic Edition of the NRSV and the ESV and the Protestant Christian versions is the inclusion of the Apocrypha books of the Old Testament.
You may have known this, and I just thought it would be a good update to your video.
Steve
They are actually the deuterocanonical books, not apocrypha.
One reason the King James version has lasted so long and had such a wide appeal, is that King James prohibited the use of margin notes and interpretive text to be included with it. It was common for early translators to english to include interpretations and opinions, along with prayers etc with their translations. By omitting these from the official text, it ensured the Anglicans and Reformists would approve, and any other offshoot over the years would also find it to be neutral in doctrine.
It is interesting that a lot of KJV bibles in the US omit the Apocrypha, although the original 1611 version included it.
It took 200 years for the KJV to replace the Geneva Bible as the popular version. It was not widely accepted when it first came out.
@@khutchinsoncpa1 My sister got me a paperback version of the KJV Apocrypha this past Christmas.
This video is amazing! I wish I could find this for the Spanish translations. If anyone knows where can I find it, I would forever appreciate it... Keep the great work!!!
Use the Reina Valera Gómez
@@TRUECOLDMETALthe Gomez is the one to stay away from. Valera 1602 purificafa is the one to use. The Gomez was ruined and the diety of Christ was attacked in that translation he was basically stripped of his title of being god. DO NOT USE THE GOMEZ
The NASB has now been re-translated to an update more current than 1995. It is called the Legacy Bible. Check it out. I am waiting for the fully footnoted version to be released but regular versions (like large print) are already available. I especially like that the letters for yahweh are back where they belong.
The new NASB is not the Legacy Bible, it is called NASB 2020.
@@Imsaved777NASB 2020 and the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB) are both updates of NASB 1995
I'm also Lord Matt Baker! My wife, Lady Angela, and I purchased our plots years ago, in Aberdeenshire.
To be fair to the New Living Translation (NLT). The Tyndale Website says - "The Holy Bible, New Living Translation, is an authoritative Bible translation, rendered faithfully into today’s English from the ancient texts by 90 leading Bible scholars. The NLT’s living language breathes life into even the most difficult-to-understand Bible passages-but even more powerful are stories of how people’s lives are changing as the words speak directly to their hearts."
"The Old Testament translators used the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as represented in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), with its extensive system of textual notes; this is an update of Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, 1937). The translators also further compared the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint and other Greek manuscripts, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and any other versions or manuscripts that shed light on the meaning of difficult passages."
"The New Testament translators used the two standard editions of the Greek New Testament: the Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies (UBS, fourth revised edition, 1993), and Novum Testamentum Graece, edited by Nestle and Aland (NA, twenty-seventh edition, 1993). These two editions, which have the same text but differ in punctuation and textual notes, represent, for the most part, the best in modern textual scholarship on the New Testament...."