The Bible is the most accurate modern translation. Best English Bible Translation

First of all, there is no such translation. There are adherents of different versions of the Bible who claim that this is the translation they have been waiting for. However, it’s great that someone has decided and is satisfied. But here's what we should do, for whom English is not native language, and translations a huge number, what should we choose? For beginners, it is better to choose a translation in and certainly not the classic KJV, written in outdated English.

Sales

The sales rating is a good indicator. Numbers are stubborn things. You can talk as much as you like about the popularity of a translation, but if they don’t buy it, then they don’t actually use it. So, for last years the NIV, NLV, KJV, and NKJV are the most purchased. All of them alternately occupy the first place in sales. So most people choose these translations.

Standard

Among Russian translations, the Synodal Bible is the standard. If a book uses quotations from the Bible and does not indicate the version of the Bible, we know that these are quotations from the Synodal. In English, that standard is the KJV. There are many people who believe that this is the only correct translation. But this is not and cannot be. Something is bound to get lost in translation; this is the nature of language.

Popular versions

The popularity of the KJV has been said. NIV - emphasis on concise modern language without distorting the word. Which is an extremely difficult task. There is a well-known translation of the Living Bible, which is more likely not a translation, but a retelling (we have a similar translation - the New Testament “Word of Life”). NIV is very popular in Youth with a Mission. NASB is popular with teachers. When the original Bible describes something in a way that is not definitive or clear (allows for variations), the NASB also does not provide a clear translation, unlike the KJV or NIV. That is, the NASB conveys the Word more accurately. NLV is most popular among foreigners for its simple English. This is the most popular translation in plain English. Amplified Bible - an expanded translation of the Bible, also popular with many because it does not just translate, but interprets the text. What’s convenient is that you don’t need dictionaries or additional literature. The Message. I can't help but mention it. This is not a direct translation, but a retelling in modern, beautiful literary English. If you want to look at the Bible with a fresh look, it will be very interesting.

God speaking

God's Word is God speaking to man. The purpose of God's speaking is for man to understand God, know God, and contact God. Therefore, at all times, God has spoken to man through His Word contained in the Bible.

The understanding of what God says to man deepens over the years. In this present stage of the Lord's recovery, we have great wealth—the deep and high truths that are contained in God's Word. These truths were lost by Christians in centuries past, but were restored by those who wholeheartedly followed the Lord and sought Him in His Word.

Bible translations

The original New Testament was written in Greek. To be accessible and understandable to a person in a given place in given time, The Word of God must be translated and interpreted. There are currently about 2,000 Bible translations in different languages. Each translation, having its own distinctive features, makes its own specific contribution to deepening the understanding of the Bible. Some translations are aimed at the greatest accuracy in reflecting the original, others at the greatest simplicity and clarity of the language, while others try to combine both. By reading the same verse in several translations, the reader can get a more comprehensive understanding of its content than by reading the same verse in only one translation. Therefore, the more translations of the Bible there are into a particular language, the more detailed and deep understanding of the Bible those who read it in that language have.

Working on the Recovery Translation

The Restoration Translation of the New Testament embodies today's modern understanding God's speaking. A restoration translation is a translation done in the Lord's recovery, by the powers of the Lord's recovery, and for the Lord's recovery. Currently, there is a Restoration Translation of the New Testament in English, Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Japanese, Tagalog, Indonesian, and several other languages. Today, work is underway on a Restoration Translation in Portuguese, Korean and other languages. All these translations are united in their interpretation of the text of the New Testament.

Work on the Restorative Translation in Russian began in May 1993 and was completed in December 1998. A group of Russian-speaking saints worked on the Restorative Translation, initially consisting of four translators, two editors and a typist. Over the five and a half years of work, the composition of the group has undergone some minor changes.

This work was carried out by specific people, but in no case should it be considered someone's personal work or the work of a narrow group of people.

It was carried out in close communication with the brothers, who at one time led the work on the Restorative translation into other languages.

The Restorative Translation is based on the Greek text by Nestlé-Åland (26th edition). Translators translated the text directly from Greek. The translators and editors underwent a detailed three-year accelerated course in New Testament Greek under the guidance of a specialist teacher from Moscow State University. The same specialist reviewed the translated text, and his recommendations were also taken into account when editing the text. Upon completion of the translation, the Russian text was edited several times and also verified with the text of the English Restoration Translation, which is accepted as the standard for all recovery translations in terms of text interpretation. When translating and editing the text, the Synodal Translation, Cassian's translation, other Russian translations, as well as translations of the New Testament into other languages, in particular, the Restorative Translation into Spanish and Chinese, were used as auxiliary sources.

Comparison of the Restorative Translation with the Synodal Translation Synodal translation
The Bible, released almost 150 years ago, was and remains the main and practically the only Russian translation of the Bible today. His authority is very great among all Christians.

The release of the Recovery Translation does not mean that the Synodal Translation should be consigned to oblivion. However, we need to clearly understand the nature and purpose of each of these Bible translations in order to properly navigate their use. Let us compare the Synodal and Restoration translations from several points of view.

The first important feature of the text of the Restoration Translation is its closest possible proximity to the original. There are passages in the New Testament that are difficult to understand (remember what Peter said about the letters of Paul: “...there are some things in them that are difficult to understand” - 2 Pet. 3:16), and although the King James Version for the most part strives to convey the meaning accurately the original, however, in some cases, when the original uses complex or unusual grammatical structures, the Synodal Translation seeks to “smooth out” them, make them more understandable, while sacrificing their deeper meaning.

The translators of the Restorative Translation did not try to make such passages more “understandable” artificially, that is, by changing the grammatical structures of the text.

Let's give an example:

In Eph. 3:16, the Recovery Version says, “That He might grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit into the inner man.” Let us pay attention to the phrase “strengthen... into the inner man.” The Synodal Version says at this point: “to be established... in inner man" The Synodal version sounds much more understandable and natural. But what does the original say? The Greek text uses the preposition εὶς, denoting movement in any direction and corresponding to the Russian preposition "V" With accusative case. The same Greek preposition is used in phrases with verbs of motion, for example: “to go to Jerusalem” (Acts 21:12). Accordingly, the Greek grammatical construction forces us to translate this phrase as “strengthen into the inner man,” and the Restorative translation here does not deviate from the requirements of the original grammar. Thanks to this we can see more deep meaning in what Paul says, who used such a construction in his letter. Paul's point is conveyed in the note on this verse, which says that to be strengthened into the inner man means to be strengthened so as to enter into the inner man. The inner man is our regenerated spirit, whose life is the life of God. To experience Christ into all the fullness of God, you need to be strengthened in your inner man. This implies that we need to be strengthened in our spirit through the Holy Spirit.” If we try to “smooth out” this grammatical construction and translate this phrase as “to be strengthened in the inner man,” the deep meaning of Paul’s words will be lost.

Thus, Restorative Translation makes it possible to obtain the most accurate understanding of the original text. At the same time, an important feature of the Restoration Translation are extensive notes that reveal the meaning of the text and explain difficult to understand passages, as well as an outline of each book and cross-references that help to obtain a deeper vision of divine revelation.

Close to the original

PLACE	SYNODAL	RESTORATIVE
Rome. 3:30	For there is one God who will justify the circumcision By faith and the uncircumcised through faith.	If there really is one God who will justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcised through faith. (See note 30 2 in Romans 3)
Rome. 5:1	Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace With God through our Lord Jesus Christ.	Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace To God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (See note 1 1 in Romans 5)
Rome. 8:27	He intercedes for the saints By will God's .	He intercedes for the saints according to God . (See note 27 2 in Romans 8)

2. Language

Second important feature Restorative translation is the use of modern Russian language.

The language of the Synodal translation is very peculiar. Its main distinctive feature is a large number of archaic words and grammatical constructions. On the one hand, this gives the text a certain “sublime” flavor, but, on the other hand, archaisms, many of which are direct borrowings from the Church Slavonic translation of the Bible, often either make the text incomprehensible or mislead the reader, since some words today mean not what they meant 150 years ago.

Let's give a few examples. In Heb. 2:3 in the Synodal Version says: “... how will we escape if we neglect so much salvation.” For most readers, the meaning of the archaic phrase “having neglected so much salvation” is incomprehensible: words are used here that are absent in the modern Russian language. Meanwhile, the meaning here is very simple: the phrase “to neglect such great salvation” means “to neglect such great salvation.”

In 2 Tim. 4:7 says: " Feat I'm kind labored, flow committed, kept the faith." Let's pay attention to the highlighted words. They exist in modern language, but their current meaning does not correspond to the meaning of the original. In accordance with today's usage, a "feat" is a heroic act; “to strive” - to act, to work in some area; “flow” - movement of water flow; “commit” - to carry out, to fulfill. If you combine all these words in one sentence, you get something devoid of meaning. However, here, as in the previous example, the meaning turns out to be very simple if modern words are used instead of archaisms: “feat” is “battle”; “to strive” - “to fight”; “flow” - “running”; “commit” - “finish”. Thus, in the modern reading of the Recovery Version, this verse reads: “To good battle I fought, run graduated, kept the faith." (See notes 7 1 and 7 2 in 2 Timothy 4.)

PLACE	SYNODAL	RESTORATIVE
In. 13:34	I give you a new commandment, Yes love each other; as I have loved you, so do you Yes love each other.	I give you a new commandment: to you loved each other; just as I loved you, to and you loved each other.
1 Cor. 13:7	covers everything, believes everything, hopes everything , endures everything.	Covers everything, believes everything, hopes for everything , everything endures.
1 Thess. 5:12	We ask you, brothers, to respect your workers, and primates yours in the Lord, and admonish you.	In addition, we ask you, brothers, to recognize those who labors among you, and guides you in the Lord, and admonishes you. (See note 12 3b in 1 Thessalonians 5.)
Phil. 2:6	He, being the image of God, did not honor theft to be equal to God.	Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider that to be equal to God is a treasure to be grasped . (See note 6 3 in Phil. 2.)
2 Tim. 1:7	For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and chastity . (Greek σοφρονισμóς)	For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, and love, and sanity . (See note 7 2c in 2 Timothy 1.)
1 Cor. 4:9	we became disgrace for the world, for Angels and people..	we have become a spectacle For peace - both for angels and for people. (See note 9 3b in 1 Cor. 4.)
Heb. 12:1	to run the race set before us	to run in the race before us

3. Manuscripts used

The third important feature of the Restorative translation in comparison with the Synodal translation is its use of more authoritative manuscripts of the original.

The Synodal Translation relies on New Testament manuscripts that may have been considered authoritative 150 years ago, but are not considered the most authoritative today due to the fact that the study of New Testament manuscripts has advanced greatly over the past 150 years, especially in the late nineteenth century, when researchers gained access to to some particularly important manuscripts. Today we have a much more accurate idea of ​​what the original New Testament texts looked like.

For example, in 1 Tim. 1:4 The Bible uses the word “edification” in accordance with the Greek manuscripts, which use the word οὶκοδομήν. But today, manuscripts containing the outwardly similar word οὶκονομὶαν, meaning “housekeeping,” are recognized as more authoritative. This is the word used in the Recovery Version. From the point of view of divine revelation, the difference between these two words is very significant.

Manuscripts used

4. Interpretation

Finally, the fourth important feature of the Restorative translation in comparison with the Synodal translation is the interpretation of the text.

The restoration translation embodies the understanding of divine revelation that has been accumulated by seekers of the Lord throughout the ages. Some believe that the “pure Word of God” is a translation, devoid of any interpretation. However, it is impossible to translate the Bible without relying on one interpretation or another. For example, how to write the word “spirit” in various verses - with a capital letter or with a small letter?

Indeed, in the original there is no such difference at all: Greek manuscripts are written either entirely in capital letters or entirely in small letters. Of course, this does not mean that the New Testament writers did not distinguish between God's Spirit and the human spirit. This difference exists, but it is hidden in the text of the Bible, and it is the translator's task to show this difference. Thus, any translation (including, of course, the Synodal) is based on one or another interpretation of divine revelation, and any translation has the right to its own interpretation, but the readers have the right to compare certain translations and differentiate between them in search of the most complete vision truth.

Let's give one example. In In. 7:39 literally says, “…for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” In many translations of the Bible, certain words are added to the phrase “The Spirit was not yet.” For example, the Synodal Version says: “...for there was not yet on them Spirit Saint By ..." The word "Holy One" was added to some Greek manuscripts by a copyist, and the words "on them" were added in italics by the makers of the Synodal Translation. Apparently this addition was made because the phrase “The Spirit was not yet” was considered incomprehensible within the current view of divine revelation. However, today in the Lord's recovery we see that the Spirit that John said “was not yet” is the all-inclusive Spirit of Jesus Christ, the composite Spirit made complete after the glorification of Christ in the resurrection. This Spirit is typified by the compound ointment shown in .

teaching Christ Jesus .
May the God of patience and encouragement give you the same thoughts towards each other according to Christ Jesus (See note 5 1 in Romans 15.) 1 Tim. 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of hands. priesthood (Greek πρεσβυτέ ιον). .
Do not neglect the gift that is within you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of hands. presbytery
5:18 (See note 14 5 in 1 Timothy 4.) Ef. . And do not get drunk with wine, which causes debauchery; but be fulfilled Spirit And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled within the spirit (Greek ὲν πνευματι). See note 18 1 in Eph. 5 tasted death for

total (or: "all"

). See note 9 3 in Heb. 9 . Conclusion

We must be judicious in our use of different translations of the Bible, taking into account the particularities of each translation. We can use the Synodal and other translations to feed on the Word of God and study the truth. But we will benefit most by delving into the Restoration Version and drawing from its text and notes the crystals of divine revelation accumulated over centuries of painstaking work by saints who sought the Lord. The restoration translation is today's understanding of the Lord's revelation. May the Lord bless us in our quest for full knowledge the truth contained in His Word!

Feedback from readers of this article - questions about the essence of the Colwell method

· Alexander Belinsky. Published 01/11/2010, 01/16/2010 on another site

1. The author of the article did not take into account... one point: many of the translations in question were compiled after the publication of the Nestlé-Åland [text] [and are based on this text]. So it is hardly correct to compare translations corresponding to new sources with those that have already become obsolete [the Westcott-Hort text of the 1881 edition].

Author's response: First, it is hasty to claim that the Westcott-Hort text has become obsolete. Even from the outdated Textus Receptus, translations are still being made. Regarding the comparison of the Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland texts, I would like to note that in 1951, when the Nestle-Aland text already existed (albeit not in the latest edition), Colwell, a recognized authority in the textual criticism of the New Testament, chose Westcott’s text for his rating –Hort rather than the Nestlé-Åland text, citing as the reason that the Westcott and Hort text is “generally respected by scholars as the best or most accurate text.” (, p. 86, translated from English). In the article I do not prove which text is better. On the contrary, the two texts were juxtaposed with the Textus Receptus together.

Secondly, I showed in the article that these two texts differ from each other not so much compared to how they differ from the Textus Receptus. For example, in the Gospel of John there are about 200 discrepancies between the texts of Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland (27th edition). However, the vast majority of them do not affect the meaning of the passage and its translation, since they consist only of the presence and absence of an article, the omission of an insignificant particle or pronoun, the rearrangement of words, and even simply indications of interpolation (in one text a word is marked as a possible insertion, and in another - no, but this is also considered a discrepancy). The number of discrepancies affecting the translation is counted in single units, and the meaning does not necessarily change significantly (“Lord” instead of “Jesus”, “boat” instead of “small boat”, etc.). Of the 64 texts selected by Colwell, only three differ between the Westcott-Hort and Nestlé-Aland texts (both the 26th and 27th editions). In the “explanations for the rating of Russian-language translations”, in paragraph 2, I cited all these differences and, in fact, showed that if we take the Nestlé-Aland text as the basis for the rating, the rating will practically not change. Colwell wrote the same thing in his work: “The rating of translations will not change noticeably if the text of Westcott and Hort is noticed by the texts of Tischendorf or Nestle. The contrast between any modern scientific edition [of a text] and the Textus Receptus will have the same proportions." (, pp. 86–87, translated from English).

2. It is incompetent to compare translations from [different] Greek versions... It would be more competent to compare according to Westcott-Hort those translations that took Westcott-Hort as a basis.

Author's response: I don't agree. The rating clearly shows that not a single Russian-language semantic translation of the New Testament corresponds 100% to the stated source text - all translators also use other Greek texts and choose to read the source verse at their own discretion. Therefore, the scores in the rating indicate the degree of compliance the best text. In addition, I remind you that the author of this method is a recognized textual scholar of the New Testament, who is undoubtedly “competent” in such matters. Colwell's method was created in order to compare different translations, regardless of what text was stated as their basis.

Author's response: The only author of the universal method discussed in the article is Colwell himself. In addition, Colwell is also the author of the first English-language ranking, which had 17 translations. Hanz Schmitz added 37 more translations to the English ranking, based on the rules formulated by Colwell. Hanz Schmitz has nothing to do with the Russian-language rating.

2. 64 [passages] characterize the entire translation... Since when is such a small percentage sufficient? Take the trouble to find out what percentage in sociology is a sufficient cross-section to characterize the overall picture. How can the translation of thousands of texts be judged by 64 individual ones?

Author's response: It's not a matter of percentage, but of quantity. Colwell's method is statistical. Statistical methods Starting from 20–40 elements are used, there are 64 of them, that is, quite enough. The beauty of statistics lies in the fact that from a small, properly selected sample you can accurately judge the whole. Thanks to this, Colwell’s method allows you to quickly obtain a characteristic of the entire translation. (The sample of 64 texts was made by Colwell, I think he can be trusted to be correct.)

Since you decided to appeal to sociology, and not to textual criticism, then this is the percentage in it: a correctly selected sample of 1600–2000 people with high accuracy characterizes the state of everything Russian society– 145 million people – with all its multi-confessional, multi-professional, multi-age, and so on and so forth. It is not difficult to calculate that 1 out of almost 100,000 people are being surveyed, i.e. 0.001%! In Colwell’s rating, this percentage is almost 1000 times higher: 64 passages from approximately 8000 verses of the New Testament are compared, i.e. 0.8% (though not entire verses are compared, but their fragments, but it is clear that the proportion of what is covered is still text tens and hundreds of times higher than 0.001%).

· (Name not given), Tambov. Published on March 20, 2010 on another site

Your system for evaluating translations is strange. If the translation is based on the Westcott-Hort [text], then it is good. If not, it's bad. The main thing in translation is the accuracy of conveying the meaning of the original. After all, Westcott and Hort are human and make mistakes.

Author's response: Of course, they tend to make mistakes, however, the quality of their text is much higher. This point is noted quite clearly in the article. As for the rating system (by the way, it is not mine, but Colwell's), the importance of following the highest quality text cannot be underestimated. I wrote that there are thousands of discrepancies between the Westcott-Hort (or Nestlé-Aland) text and the outdated Textus Receptus. Although most of these discrepancies are not critical in terms of meaning, there are still some that radically distort the meaning.

Think for yourself: is it really important who distorted a verse? Holy Scripture– scribe or translator? The main thing is that the verse is distorted and does not convey the meaning put into it by God! Translations based on the Textus Receptus can accurately convey the meaning of this text into Russian, but this does not make those thousands of errors and distortions made by copyists cease to be distortions of the meaning of Scripture!

Therefore it is important to equally evaluate both the quality of source manuscripts and the quality of their translation. The proposed method compares translations with the best original text and allows us to identify errors made by both copyists and translators, and in this sense gives an absolute score.

· Alex., Khmelnitsky, Ukraine. Sent 06/30/2010

Perhaps, by compiling such a table, Colwell had only the goal of showing Greek sources different translations, and not to rank translations, as the author of [this] article does.

Author's response: No. In his work, Colwell explicitly identifies the original Greek text for each of the 17 translations he examines. (, table on pages 85–86). However, further he compiles the ranking of translations (“The ranking of the translations”). This can be easily seen by looking at the passage of text and tables on pages 86–87.

· Mark, Vologda. Published on January 10, 2012 on another site

Author's response: The Qumran scrolls are scrolls of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and the presented rating concerns exclusively the Greek Scriptures (New Testament). The rating takes into account latest achievements textual studies of the New Testament - the explanatory notes also discuss compliance with the latest (27th) edition of the Nestlé-Åland text, also known as UBS4.

Author's response: As I understand it, by “processing” you mean critical editions of the Greek text. Have you seen somewhere that translations today are not made from critical manuscripts? You may be aware that the original New Testament manuscripts have not survived, but existing texts are copies in which there are thousands of discrepancies - errors and additions made by copyists. Recovery source text Biblical textual scholars are engaged, as a result of which so-called critical editions of the Greek text are published. Therefore, translating Scripture from any one text, and not from a critical edition, is a dead-end path; it was generally abandoned many centuries ago. All existing Russian translations are made from critical editions. Today there is no other way to obtain a reliable translation of the Bible. Accordingly, the rating determines the correspondence of translations to the best critical texts.

3. Even without going into further study of the material, I can confidently say that the facts here are clearly rigged in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses and, most likely, this research was financed by them.

Author's response: This study It was not funded by anyone, I carried it out at my own expense. I am a scientist, this is purely scientific work. The English-language rating and the methodology itself were compiled by the famous textual critic E.K. Colwell, who, by the way, was never a Jehovah's Witness. I just applied it to translations into Russian. The rating methodology is simple and absolutely transparent, and this is its beauty. All translations were evaluated according to strictly identical rules, based on Greek texts. The rating results were carefully double-checked to avoid the slightest inaccuracies. And you make such unfounded conclusions without even finishing reading the article.

Responses from readers of this article - reviews and questions about the article

· Lyra. Sent 12/27/2009

I was very pleased to receive the New World Translation in 2001 (New Testament), and in 2007 to receive the complete Bible in this translation. More understandable and easy to read, moreover, it is very accurate and close to the original in meaning.

· Sergey. Sent 12/31/2009

Thank you for your objectivity and impartiality. That's right!

· Elena. Sent 03/08/2010

Probably, the article would be more convincing if, in addition to the positive aspects, it also touched upon negative sides New World Translations. [...] Surely, not only those points that are touched upon in the article are a significant difference between this translation. As far as I know, the translation of the New World has not received one hundred percent recognition among specialists and scientists. Yes, this could not have happened, since the translation was made by imperfect people, and, therefore, there are flaws and changes that, for example, are stated differently in 5000 copies of the Greek Scriptures. These are precisely the flaws that I would like to see in the article, as well as criticism from famous scientists of the world who actually have knowledge of the Greek language and enormous experience. [...]

Author's response: It seems that some readers of the article (including, apparently, you) perceive this article as a kind of “advertisement” for the New World Translation. Let me clarify that the article is not an “advertisement” and did not have the initial goal of proving that this particular translation is the best. When I started working on the article, I had no idea which translation would be at the “top” of the ranking. The fact that the New World Translation ended up there is a credit to its authors and an illustration of the overall approach they took when working on the text. Nevertheless, the method discussed in the article rates other translations quite highly.

Of course, the New World Translation has some features and certain shortcomings. Even its authors never called it “ideal” or “flawless.” However, one or another weak sides has any translation, because they were all made, as you said, by “imperfect people”, with all the consequences you mentioned. Why, then, do you propose to discuss the shortcomings of only one translation?

Anyway, this article is not intended to discuss the specifics of individual translations. As noted in the article, it “presents the overall rating of translations and shows what place a particular publication occupies in it.”

· Novel. Sent 03/29/2010

Marvelous! I could never have expected such results. I will have to reconsider my preconceptions about the New World Translation.

· Paulis Ingis, Moscow. Sent 04/04/2010

Surprisingly, this is the first time I have seen a positive review of the New World Translation based on sound logic and research. I'm confused.

Author's response: The impetus for writing this article was precisely the lack of works in Russian devoted to the scientific analysis of Bible translations. The bulk of articles examining certain translations are based on the subjective (mainly confessional) views of the authors of these articles and consideration of the features of the translation of individual texts (often, again, from the position of the author’s vision of how this or that text should be translated). At the same time, the authors of such articles mainly consider one specific translation, trying to present it either in a clearly positive or in a clearly negative light. Accordingly, they consider either its positive or negative aspects. Judging by your response, you have already encountered similar works devoted to the New World Translation and, possibly, other translations.

This rating differs from such works in that all translations in it are analyzed together according to strictly the same rules, formulated by an authoritative textual scholar and not subject to anyone’s confessional preferences or ideas. In addition, the article is not intended to “advertise” or discredit any specific translation, but shows the general picture in the field of translations of the New Testament into Russian. However, for any individual translation, it allows you to see both its absolute rating (sum of “points”) and its comparative rating (place in the ranking).

As for the New World Translation, the high praise it received is not due to me or Colwell, but to the authors of this translation. As I wrote above, it illustrates the overall approach they took when working on the text.

· Artemy. Sent 04/23/2010

Thank you for the article! This is the best answer to the slanderers of the PNM [New World Translation – approx. auto ] from all that I have seen! Rather than engage in apologetics for the translation of individual verses with your opponents, it is better to simply show an analysis of the translations by the most famous biblical scholars, who clearly assessed the PNM as one of the best (if not the most) at a certain time (it is clear that in the future, maybe someone and a better translation will come out, especially if there is new data, but for now PNM is in the lead!)

· Larisa, Kyiv. Sent 06/25/2010

I agree that the Bible contains the thoughts of our Creator. But I am also sure that He is the living God, so it can be logically assumed that He will definitely make sure that His Word is available to people in the very accurate translation. Because only under this condition will people be able to know and understand the will of God. Proof that God cares about the accuracy of the translation of the Bible is the fact that the more the accuracy of the Bible is disputed, the more evidence appears that the Bible has not changed (ancient texts, archaeological finds), and attempts to adapt it to someone else's denominational understanding are unsuccessful. .

· Arsen, Sochi. Sent 12/15/2010

Thanks for your objectivity! It is precisely its crisis that is felt most acutely today. Your phrase “when I started working on the article, I had no idea which translation would be at the top of the ranking” shows your true scientific approach To a question. Also, your answers demonstrate your worth. I wish you all the best!

· Andrey, Nizhny Novgorod. Sent 02/27/2011

Where can I find a description of all the differences between WH and NA? What advantages and disadvantages do textual critics see in them? What is The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1993) based on? Please enlighten me.

Author's response: A complete list of discrepancies between the Westcott-Hort text and the 27th edition of the Nestlé-Aland text is available as a module for the widely used Bible Quote program. I posted it (ZIP archive, unpack it into the folder with the mentioned program and install the font in the archive). The module is a Westcott-Hort text that shows discrepancies with NA27 (highlighted in the text with “//” symbols).

Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of these texts, I refer you to the source (see). It describes this in sufficient detail.

The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1993) is the Nestlé-Aland text, 27th edition (also known as UBS4). What the Nestlé-Åland text was originally based on can also be read in.

· Igor. Sent 04/04/2011

A most interesting read. Thank you!

· Dmitry, Perm. Sent 08/23/2011

1. Why is the comparison made with the WH text and not with NA27 or UBS4 (20th century editions)?

2. It is strange that the English translations do not have the NKJV or NIV (the most authoritative English text to date). It seems to me that the translations chosen are quite old. [...] If Colwell died in 1974, it would be a good idea to update the translations used.

Author's response: The English-language rating is not given here in full; both translations you specified are in its full version (54 translations in total, see the link in the article). I don’t see any point in adding to the English-language rating, since for most Russian-speaking readers it in itself has no practical significance.

3. It turns out strange that, according to Colwell’s method, the text of PNM 2001 is better than PNM 2007. It turns out to be some kind of degradation.

· Sergey, Beregovo (Ukraine). Sent 08/29/2011

Reading the first reviews, and not the first, I discover how typical it is for people to not think about what they are reading. For some reason, everyone decided that the method was compiled by the author, he personally chose the translations, and in general, these Jehovah’s Witnesses are zombifying us again. [...] Personally, when I received the New World Translation, at first I was against it because of some subtleties, but then it dawned on me what was what. We can finally tell those who repeat the phrase “You have a different Bible” that they are very mistaken.

· Andrey, Arkhangelsk. Sent 09/26/2011

Hello! I don’t know your name, I just read your study of Bible translations. I express my sincere gratitude to you for your objectivity, since this is rare. Typically, these types of ratings are ordered by influential people and organizations in order to humiliate those they dislike. Objectivity from God. Personally, my God (and the Creator as well) is objectivity, truth and logic, and not bias based on rumors and ignorance. Again Thanks a lot for useful and necessary information.

· Alexei. Sent 11/16/2011

1. How can the New World Translation rank highest when compared to the Greek texts if the name “Jehovah” does not appear in the Greek text of the New Testament? I'm not against using this name, but how did it not affect the ratings?

Author's response: The name “Jehovah” appears 237 times in the New World Translation (NWT) of the New Testament, while that portion of the Bible contains about 8,000 verses. Thus, the name of God appears in this edition of the New Testament approximately 1 time per 34 verses. That is, for all 64 verses used in the rating, the name of God on average should have appeared about two times, and given that the compared passages generally (except for two) cover not the entire verse, but only a small part of it, on average it should have been would expect less than once. By a “happy” coincidence, the name of God did not appear even once in the compared passages in the PNM. However, even if it fell on them 2 or even 5–7 times and was counted as a retelling, PNM would still remain the leader of the rating.

Jehovah's Witnesses say that God's name in the Greek Scriptures (New Testament) is not translated, but restored. The principles by which this was done are set out in detail in the appendix to this translation. (in the 2007 edition - on pp. 1733–1741). The rationale for each of the 237 verses is given in the English PNM with notes (pp. 1565–1566, and also in notes to some of such verses). Unfortunately, this work is not yet available in Russian. Some prerequisites are also listed on Wikipedia.

2. How can a Russian translation, which was made not from a Greek text, but from English, take first place in the ranking?

Author's response: The Russian-language New World Translation was indeed done using the English version, but it is a common misconception that Jehovah's Witnesses simply translated it from English into Russian. Secondary translations of the Bible from English into other languages ​​(including Russian) are always accompanied by a “comparison with the Greek and Hebrew text” (“Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom,” p. 611).

With the advent of computers, specially developed computer programs, which were also used in preparing the Russian translation. Such programs allow you to display not only English, but also Hebrew or Greek equivalents biblical words and see how the original words have been translated in other cases (The Watchtower, 11/01/07, p. 12). This method, on the one hand, allows one to maintain literalness, and, on the other hand, to avoid semantic discrepancies with the carefully verified English edition.

· Denis, Chisinau (Moldova). Sent 01/09/2012

Thank you very much for such good work. Indeed, I have never seen such a detailed and objective analysis of Bible translations. [...] I would like to know: last year the Russian Bible Society released a new Bible, full translation Holy Scripture into Russian, which seems to be supposed to replace the outdated Synodal translation. Is it possible to include this translation in your rating? What principles were used in its compilation and where should it objectively be in your ranking?

Author's response: The translation is already included in the rating: its New Testament part was published in 2001 and is known as “Good News” (Kuznetsova’s translation). From the rating it is clear that this translation of the New Testament is quite good (in third place), although it is not without its share of retelling. However, according to this article, the translation of the Old Testament part of this edition was carried out according to completely different principles, so I cannot say anything about its quality.

· Anatoly, Ternopil (Ukraine). Sent 03/12/2012

Excellent article, a tremendous amount of work has been done - comparing so many translations with WH! I am impressed. I especially liked this conclusion: “Even the New World Translation, made from another text, is more consistent with the Nestlé-Aland text than all the translations that are said to have been made from this text.”

· Ekaterina, Vladivostok. Sent 05/11/2012, 05/12/2012

Author's response: Why did you decide that I was even trying to prove something to someone? The purpose of writing the article is quite clearly indicated in the article itself: it “presents the general rating of translations and shows what place this or that publication occupies in it.” Based on this rating, a person who has several translations of the New Testament will be able, for example, to decide which one is preferable to read, and a person who wants to purchase a certain translation will be able to evaluate how justified it is. Ultimately, all this will contribute to the fact that the Word of God will be studied by them closer to the original, that is, in the least distorted form. This is the mission of this article, which is also written in it. And the fact that individual Jehovah’s Witnesses are rejoicing that the translation they used was at the top of the rating is, in my opinion, quite natural: representatives of any religion would be rejoicing that the translation published by their denomination turned out to be the best.

2. Do you think the Lord wanted each denomination to invent its own translation for itself?

· Dmitry, Nyagan (Tyumen region). Sent 08/06/2012, 08/09/2012

I generally liked your site, especially the article on Bible translations. Thanks to you, I finally got an idea about all these Textus Receptus, Westcott-Hort and Nestle-Aland. Previously for me it was dark forest. [...] This important information for my worldview, I don’t know where else I would find it.

· Pavel, Vladivostok. Sent 10/16/2012

Hello! I wanted to ask, what religious organization do you belong to?

· Vadim Bykov, Kolomna (Moscow region). Sent 02/01/2013

Regarding the translation of Vasily Probatov: I am the publisher of this archive. Texts [John, chapters 13-14, missing from many editions of this translation - approx. auto ] were not lost, they are there in their entirety, but I kept them to protect copyright. I note that this was written during the years of Stalin’s repressions by an old man, deprived of any means of livelihood, excommunicated even from the church by the Sergians. This canonical translation fully corresponds to the original in the presence of a rhythmic pattern. This is not a poetic adaptation of other translations, but a translation. Cm. .

Author's response: Thanks for the link. I have included the missing verses in the evaluation of this translation. Also, taking into account your remark, I have consistently replaced the term “retelling” with “translation-retelling” in relation to it. Although the article did not state that this was a retelling from other translations, nevertheless, it will be clearer.

· Tamara Radetskaya, Kherson (Ukraine). Sent 07/12/2013

Thank you very much for the article. An unbiased evaluation of translations is very helpful when faced with mistrust of the New World Translation. I also enjoy the fact that I have in my hands the most accurate Russian translation of the Bible. Thanks again!

· Sergey, Kotovsk (Ukraine). Sent 11/19/2013

Thank you for the article. I am not a Jehovah's Witness, so it is difficult for me to perceive the arguments, or, more precisely, the facts presented in the article. But I am a believer and I understand that the Creator made sure that His Word reached people. Therefore, you will have to put aside your emotions and study the New World Translation. Thanks again for the article.

· Vadim, Borisov (Minsk region, Belarus). Sent 09/24/2015

It is very pleasant to once again receive an objective and unbiased assessment of the translations of the Holy Scriptures. I am a Jehovah's Witness, and have repeatedly encountered prejudice against the New World Translation. There was also an absolutely unfounded accusation that the translation was heretical, and it went so far as to say that not a single author of the translation signed his name under his work. And it is very pleasant that this painstaking research was carried out by a person without prejudice to other translations. Even knowing the amount of work put into our translation and knowing the sincere work of the authors without any goal of adjusting it to our supposedly unbiblical worldview and understanding of the Bible, it is still pleasant every time to receive such news from people who do not use their own views and priorities in their research. Thank you very much!

· Valentina, St. Petersburg. Sent 11/26/2015

Thank you very much for the article. What a pity that I didn’t read it earlier... Our lives are very short, and many studies cannot be carried out on our own. You taught me how to respond to dirty and stupid criticism. And it’s wonderful that there are such unbiased scientists. Good luck! And more such works! Thank you.

The Bible is a holy book. From the depths of centuries this book has come down to us. When we hold this book in our hands today, we understand how many centuries of history it has had to endure. There was a time when it was forbidden to translate it into ordinary people. The established church forbade this on pain of death. But time passes, times change and so does the government. Today the Bible is available to everyone. But in order to understand it better, it would be good to choose best translation Bible.

What are Bible translations?

The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Ancient Aramaic and Ancient Greek. Now these are dead languages ​​that no one uses, therefore, so that we can understand this book, it was translated into other languages, including Russian. At the moment, a huge number of Bible societies and individual translators have taken on this task.

What criteria should be used to choose a Bible translation?

The first is, of course, its accuracy. It is important for the author to have a competent knowledge of the original languages. But, if you are a simple reader, you can hardly determine this without comparison with other translations. Therefore, it is worth paying attention to some other factors. Accessibility and understandability are what are also important. What does this depend on? Depending on the year the translation was published. It is better to use the latest translations of the Bible, as scholars today have greater knowledge of the ancient languages ​​in which the Bible was written. Take, for example, the Synodal translation. The Church has used this translation for over 150 years, and it has been reprinted several times. But it cannot be called accurate and modern. As you read it, you will notice that it contains many old, outdated words that are not easy to understand. The Bible is already difficult book, but if the translation is also unclear, then it is simply impossible for a simple reader to understand it. Test yourself - do you know such words as “daughter” (daughter), “thief” (thief) or “ramena” (shoulders)? These and similar words are used in older translations.

There are many good translations. For example, the Modern translation is quite objective, outdated words have been removed, and has a dictionary with notes. Translation by Archimandrite Macarius - the personal name of God is restored - “Jehovah” (also known, in narrower circles, as “Yahweh”). It appears several thousand times in this translation. Among the good translations of the New Testament, it is worth noting the Gospel of Lutkovsky and the New World Translation. It is worth saying about the latter that it is one of the most modern. Recently, namely in 2007, this translation was published - Old Testament.

By choosing the right translation, you can better understand a book that has captured the attention of entire generations.

Created: 10/25/2013, 41608 219

“...beware lest you be carried away by the error of the wicked and fall from your own affirmation.”

2 Peter 3:17

Nowadays, there are many different translations of the Bible in almost all languages ​​of the world. It would seem that you just need to go and preach the Word of God, which is written in the Bible. However, if you look at all the variety of Bible translations that exist in the world today, the question arises: which translation should be taken as a basis? Translations of the Bible vary, and at times some translations do not agree with some passages in other translations. This puts any person who wants to study the Word of God but does not know what translation that Word is in a difficult position. Here we will figure out which translations more correctly convey the Word of God, and which contain distortions.

To begin with, it must be said that the Bible is not written as a whole book, but is a collection of ancient manuscripts that have somehow survived to this day. These ancient manuscripts are not originals that came to us directly from the Apostles, but are rewritten works of the early Christians who wanted to preserve the Word of God. Manuscripts were copied in different times for the preservation and transmission of the Word of God to future generations. But at different times there was a certain political and ecclesiastical influence on the copyists of manuscripts, and therefore different manuscripts may have distinctive features from their original. Therefore, it is important for translating the Bible to have an older text among all manuscripts, since such a text has undergone the least number of corrections and errors.

There is a wide variety of manuscripts that have different classifications. Regarding the New Testament, there are uncial manuscripts, which are large texts that may contain several books of the New Testament at once. There are also minuscules, which are small fragments of text up to a couple of verses of one chapter. As for the Old Testament, the Masoretic text in Hebrew and the Septuagint text in Ancient Greek, which contains the complete text of the Old Testament. Having a wide variety of manuscripts, you need to understand on the basis of which of them a particular translation of the Bible was made. We can trust the most ancient manuscripts and those that do not contradict the most ancient texts.

One of the first complete Bibles is the Vulgate, which was written in Latin. This translation was made by Jerome at the end of the 4th - beginning of the 5th century. This translation was made under the patronage of the Pope, after which this translation was used in churches Western Europe. The Old Testament of the Vulgate was made on the basis of the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. The New Testament was already in Latin at that time, which most likely came from Africa, and therefore Jerome only made corrections to it.

At different times, when translating the Old Testament, the Masoretic text was taken as a basis, on the basis of which such translations as Martin Luther's translation into German or the King James translation into English, even the Synodal translation into Russian is also made on the basis of the Masoretic text. However, the Vulgate partially contains the text of the Old Testament from the Septuagint, and the Elizabethan Bible also contains a translation of the Septuagint. The peculiarity of the Septuagint is that almost all modern translations of the Bible are based on it, regardless of the denomination that makes this translation. The Septuagint gains this authority from the belief that it is an older text than the Masoretic Text, but there is virtually no evidence to support this.

The New Testament is not as complete as the Old Testament and there are practically no complete manuscripts containing the entire text of the New Testament. To translate, you need to collect different parts of the text from different manuscripts in order to have a complete text, and therefore the Latin Vulgate was used for a long time. However, during the period of the 15th-16th centuries, a complete ancient Greek text was made, which was called the Textus Receptus. This text was compiled from many ancient manuscripts by Erasmus of Rotterdam. Erasmus took most of the New Testament texts from two manuscripts he found in the monastery library in Basel, and he also used various minuscules. It was the first complete collection of the ancient Greek texts of the New Testament into a single book, which later formed the basis of Martin Luther's translation, as well as the King James Version. This text differs significantly from the text of the Vatican manuscripts, which are supposedly more ancient. After the appearance of Textus Receptus, many began to criticize it for allegedly a large number of errors, and later announced that the Textus Receptus was based on manuscripts later than those used by the Vatican. This forced textual critics to look for an alternative text that included critical changes. The first critical text was that of Wescott and Hort. They took the Sinaiticus, Vatican and Alexandrian codes as a basis. This critical text was made in 1881 on the principle that if two authors of the Gospel agree with each other, this means that one author copied from the other. In addition, if for one passage of Scripture there are different variants ancient Greek text, which means you need to take the one that is shorter and contains fewer words, as well as the one that is less understandable. These are the principles of textual criticism that are used today to create critical texts and modern translations of the Bible. It was precisely such critics who rejected Erasmus' text and constructed their own text using absurd principles. All other critical texts are based on the Wescott-Hort text, making some changes there, which means their adherence to Egyptian manuscripts that were made under the influence of the Pope in the period of the 3rd-4th centuries.

The opposition between the Textus Receptus and the critical texts can be resolved by comparison with the most ancient texts, which have partially survived to this day. Although the Codex Vaticanus is considered to be older, this does not guarantee that the Textus Receptus is more correct than older texts. To begin with, it must be said that the first Latin translation of the New Testament was a translation that came from Africa, which was popular before 210 AD, that is, even before the appearance of Jerome's Vulgate. However, Jerome made certain changes to the Latin translation and included the corrected version in the Vulgate. But many Christians who were not loyal to the Pope abandoned the Vulgate and used old version Scriptures in Latin. For this, for example, the Albigensians were called heretics. Tertullian also mentioned the ancient Latin Bible. This Bible was called Itala and it was this Bible that Jerome edited when creating the Vulgate. You also need to pay attention to the Syriac manuscripts, which are closest to the most ancient texts going back to the Apostles. This statement can be justified by the fact that most of the authors were in Asia Minor and Syria and these manuscripts are older on average by 100 years than the Vatican and Alexandrian codes. It must also be said that many very ancient papyri have survived, many of which are older than Egyptian manuscripts. They are written on plain paper and were used among ordinary people, which makes them an additional source of verification of the veracity of the translation. Text Critics designate papyri with the letter “P,” which means we will also use this designation for further comparisons between Text Critics and the Textus Receptus.

Let's look at the differences between the Textus Receptus and critical texts:

- John 8:38: “I speak what I have seen with My Father; but you do what you saw your father do.”. In this text, the phrase Textus Receptus: “what was seen with your father” fully corresponds to papyrus P66 (II century) and the Syrian palimpsest (IV century). However, critical texts sided with the later Vatican Code, where the phrase sounds like “what was heard from your father.” This speaks against the critical text and in favor of the Textus Receptus.

- John 12:3: “And Mary took a pound of pure precious ointment, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the world". In this text, the Textus Receptus contains the word “Mary,” which is consistent with papyri P45 (III century), P66 (II century), P75 (III century) and for the most part manuscripts. However, critical texts choose the later Vatican version, which pronounces the word "Mariam."

- Luke 22:20: “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.”. Here the phrase Textus Receptus: “And the cup after supper” is consistent with papyrus P75 (III century), but the critical texts again take the later version of the Vatican Code, which literally reads “and the cup also after supper.”

- 1 Corinthians 5:4: “As you meet together in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in fellowship with my spirit, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ.”. In this text, the Textus Receptus contains the word “Christ” at the end of the verse, which corresponds to papyrus P46 (III century), Codex Sinaiticus (IV century) and other ancient Latin texts of the 4th-5th centuries. However, this word was deleted in Egyptian manuscripts, which once again sided with the creators of critical texts.

- James 5:16: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed: the earnest prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”. Here the Textus Receptus contains the word "misdeeds", which is consistent with almost all the manuscripts, but the critical texts insert the word "sins" instead of the word "offences". But the word "sins" was only seen in the Vatican Codex and nowhere else. This begs the question: why is this single incorrect option taken, which contradicts all possible manuscripts? The answer can only be that critical texts are the invention of Catholics and made to support their own teachings. This text has been corrected to justify the teaching of confession of sins.

- Matthew 23:14: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses and hypocritically pray for a long time: for this you will receive all the more condemnation.”. This text of the Textus Receptus is confirmed by a number of Byzantine manuscripts that are older than the Vatican Codex, because in the 4th-5th centuries there was only an editorial correction of them, but before that they already existed, and the Vatican Codex was only written in the period of the 4th-5th centuries. This text of the New Testament is absent from the Egyptian manuscripts, which are directly related to the Vatican, and therefore it is absent from critical texts without any justification.

- Matthew 1:25: “And he knew her not. How at last She gave birth to Her firstborn Son, and he called His name Jesus.”. At this point the Textus Receptus contains the word “firstborn,” which is consistent with a number of manuscripts, including Byzantine ones. But this word is not in the Vatican Code, so critical texts give preference to the later Vatican Code and remove this word from the text. This deletion was made to protect the teaching that Mary had no children with Joseph, and therefore the word “firstborn” has no place in Catholic critical texts.

- Matthew 19:17: “And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? No one is good except God alone. If you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments.". The Textus Receptus contains the phrase "Why do you call Me good?" which is consistent with most manuscripts, including Byzantine texts. But the late Vatican Codex contains the phrase “why do you ask Me about what is good?”, which for some reason was inserted into critical texts, despite the fact that it does not fit the context and violates the clear meaning.

- Mark 1:2-3: “As it is written in the prophets: Behold, I send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You. The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”. This text became the apogee of the blindness of textual critics who blindly take the Vatican Codex as a basis, despite the fact that the Textus Receptus is consistent with many manuscripts period II-V centuries, except the Vatican and several others from the Egyptian group. Here the Textus Receptus contains the phrase "as it is written of the prophets", which corresponds to most manuscripts, but the critical texts are thoughtlesslymade a replacement with the words:“as it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” This is a complete absurdity of critical texts, if only because the words “Behold, I send My angel before You, who will prepare Your way before You” were written by the prophet Malachi, which can be found in the book of Malachi 3:1, and the words in Mark 1: 3 was recorded by the prophet Isaiah. Here the Textus Receptus not only relies on more ancient manuscripts, but also correctly conveys the essence that these words belong to two different prophets, and not to Isaiah alone, as textual critics present. This falsification of Scripture is preserved in all critical texts and in all modern translations that are based on critical texts.

Apart from the above examples, there are many differences between the Textus Receptus and critical texts. Even though the Textus Receptus is consistent with texts older than the Egyptian manuscripts, many continue to believe that the Egyptian texts are older than the sources of the Textus Receptus. However specific examples show that the Textus Receptus is based on some of the most ancient manuscripts, some of which may not have survived to this day. Therefore, this text is unique and in fact the only reliable one full text the New Testament, which was taken from the most ancient sources. In contrast, the Egyptian group of manuscripts that critical texts take into account is a Catholic fabrication. Its roots are found in the works of Origen, who was the first to distort Scripture.

So, it can be said that translations of the New Testament based on the Textus Receptus are closer to the truth and to the ancient sources than those based on critical texts. Popular translations consistent with the Textus Receptus include the King James Version, the Martin Luther Version, the Synodal Version, and the Moraczewski, Kulish, and Ogienok translations. Ukrainian language. It must be said that in Lately adjustments are being made to these translations, especially the King James Version. Therefore, it is advisable to use older versions of editions where fewer changes have been made by textual critics. In contrast to the old and proven translations, today translations are being created based on critical texts, popular among which are the New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV) and more than 60 other modern English versions, the Cassian translation, the Glad Tidings translation. , Khomenko's translation into Ukrainian, as well as the New World Translation. These translations are entirely consistent with Catholic distortions and doctrines that do not correspond to the most ancient texts. Interesting is Torkonyak’s compromise translation into Ukrainian, in which he leaves in many places the text consistent with the Textus Receptus, but at the same time, fragments that do not agree with the critical texts are placed in square brackets. This is not the correct approach because the Catholic texts and the Textus Receptus contradict each other, making compromise impossible. This translation does not give the reader the truth, but rather gives the reader the opportunity to choose what to believe. This leads to the fact that everyone begins to believe in what they want, and not in a single truth.

Now consider the confrontation between the texts of the Old Testament, which include the Hebrew Masoretic text and the ancient Greek text of the Septuagint. The Masoretic text was finally formed after the 2nd century AD, and the Septuagint is traditionally dated to the period 3rd-2nd centuries BC. This is what pushes modern textual scholars to claim that the Septuagint is the more ancient text of the Old Testament, and the Masoretic text, in their opinion, contains a lot of anti-Christian corrections. In support of the Septuagint, they even say that the Qumran scrolls support the Septuagint and are different from the Masoretic scrolls. However, in all of this we need to figure out what is true and what is the best text to use in translating the Bible.

The Septuagint is also called the “translation of the seventy” (LXX) and is said to be mentioned in the “letter of Aristaeus to Philocrates,” which was written during the time of King Ptolemy II. Such statements need to be verified, but before that it must be said that the Septuagint is not mentioned anywhere earlier than the 2nd-3rd century AD, except for this letter. However, one can see the enormous dubiousness of this letter, as well as its author. In the text of the letter, the ancient Greek text is called a “translation of seventy,” but it is indicated that there were 72 translators. This is a clear mistake that was not made by the far-sighted author of the letter. The letter claims that 6 people were taken from each tribe of Israel, which ultimately leads to 72 translators, but not 70. What is absurd in this situation is that Jews were taken from the 12 tribes of Israel, because in the III- 2nd century BC it was not known where the tribes of Israel were, and it was not possible to know who was from which tribe, and there was not even anyone who would make a family tree. Therefore, it is not clear on what basis 6 people were chosen from the 12 tribes of Israel. Moreover, devout Jews would refuse to translate the Old Testament into Greek language, because only the Levites were supposed to keep the Scriptures, which means that other tribes did not have the right to do so. All this makes it clear that the “letter of Aristaeus” is a late falsification that appeared in the period of the 2nd-3rd centuries. The reason for this was the support of the Greek text, which is not mentioned anywhere before the 2nd century. If there had been an ancient Septuagint that was quoted by Christ and the Apostles, as many claim, then there would have been much more information about it among the people of Israel, as well as among the early Christians of apostolic times.

Also suspicious is that the Septuagint contains apocrypha that is not in the Masoretic Text. If the Masoretic Text is later, why didn't the Jews preserve the Apocrypha as part of their Scripture? If the Apocrypha was not part of the Jewish canon, then it turns out that they appeared in the Septuagint later than the Masoretic text, that is, after the 2nd century. This suggests the conclusion that someone added the apocrypha to the Septuagint after the 2nd century AD. or simply the Septuagint itself is a creation dating back to the 2nd century AD. Both of these options destroy any confidence in the Septuagint.

Regarding the Qumran scrolls, it must be said that everyone who says that the Septuagint is confirmed by these scrolls has no reason to say this, because no one can name the scroll number and does not cite a specific text. All such statements are just empty words, because they simply have no evidence. Therefore, it is simply unacceptable to say that Qumran confirms the Septuagint.

Modern Bible translators always use the Septuagint and the critical text together, and almost all new translations are done in this duet. This is because the Septuagint is a later work, which is consistent with later Egyptian manuscripts. The suspicious similarity between the texts in the Septuagint and later manuscripts suggests that the Septuagint was written shortly before the appearance of the Egyptian manuscripts of the New Testament, especially since ancient history does not know about any Septuagint and the legend about 70 or 72 Jews who translated the Holy Scriptures.

An additional argument against the Septuagint is that Jerome in the 4th century, when creating the Latin Vulgate, first used the Septuagint, but then abandoned it and made a significant part of the Old Testament based on the Masoretic text. If the Septuagint is an ancient and infallible source, why did the 4th century translator refuse to use it? Apparently he understood that no ancient Septuagint exists and we simply do not have a more reliable text than the Masoretic.

Bible translations that are based on the Masoretic Text are the same as translations that use the Textus Receptus, namely the King James Version, the Martin Luther Translation, the Synodal Translation, the Ukrainian translations of Kulish and Ogienko. But all modern translations, as well as some translations made after 1881, adhere to the Septuagint and critical texts. The Septuagint was also used to create the Elizabethan Bible in Old Church Slavonic.

All of the above suggests that there is a huge difference between the Bible translations that we can read today. It is necessary to choose translations whose ancient text is more reliable and less controversial, and these turned out to be translations made on the basis of the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.