Thanks for watching.

Amen

I am actually illiterate. Thanks for watching. :)

@@biblegeekPhD You certainly have proved yourself to be ignorant.

So, I agree with you. My presentation and mention of “power” is actually influenced by more than what is in this video. The ESV also mistranslates metaphors that are used for militaristic men’s actions when they are applied to women. They present them as demure, essentially, when in reality they are doing something men do when they fight. So, I mention “power” here because what that implies is that the ESV translators see women in ministry and women doing “militaristic manly things” as related, and thus they mistranslate both and write women out of things they see as “positions of power” or powerful. So, I agree with you that ministry is about service, being like Christ, relinquishing “power” like Phil 2 indicates. All that stuff is essential to good theology. The ESV, however, has attempted to write women out of ministry, and it’s tragic.

This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Lol

@@andrewbacon3583 that’s sounds a bit strange. tell me why you say that

@ "I found one modern version that is bad, so I became King James Only" is reductive, reactionary, and silly. I mean no disrespect, but it's literally an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are good modern translations. Our scholars now know the Greek texts better than the KJV translators did (they're more widely attested). Keep your KJV if it's what you like, if it's what you prefer (I'm not telling you to stop using it), but KJV-onlyism is an ignorant position. Those guys had their own sets of biases that colored how they translated the text (and their text was flawed in many ways). Reading one translation only is a mistake, and reading ONLY a very old one (just look up the term "false friends," if you aren't already familiar) is a huge mistake. But my biggest concern is that KJV onlyism tends to spread like the flu. Those who adhere to it tend to give it to others, either on purpose or without meaning to. And it's a bad position to begin with (although, again, there's nothing wrong with reading the KJV).

@@andrewbacon3583 yes my church changed to the ESV and for three years I suffered through it. It reads like a bicycle assembly manual translated from a Communist Chinese bureaucrat. but I stomached it because it was told to me it was word to word and the most accurate. But bible study after bible study it was fumbling the verses when compared to the mild NKJB. Then I broke my mind when I read Mark 16:9 bracketed notes IN THE TEXT!! I said wait what? I realized it’s not only a bad read and poorly written but poorly translated and poorly researched. It’s the rejected RSV which was based on really poor unfounded assumptions. The best assumption was that the TR was so well kept that it had to be fraudulent(german reasoning). There are many more reasons that makes the me seriously distrust anything coming out of modern scholarship. Then I found out that the “english” in the KJV was used specifically to mimic the Greek with its in a numbered pronouns and extended verbs. So if when it comes to accuracy you are going to have to learn to read it rather than allow it to be dumbed down for you or learn greek. Unless reading it as close to the greek isnt the goal. Then there is the things found in ditches waste baskets and deep dark dungeons in the Vatican in the 1800’s that really smell of tampering. It’s all too much. If I am silly, I am silly in deed.

They are fine, if you’re aware of the ways the majority text tradition has added verses and such. I actually think the KJV is pretty consistent, when I reference its choices.

Yeah, I just happened to find an imagine full of kings, and rolled with it. Thanks for watching. :)

It’s more, I don’t have time to delve into every translation, and the ESV is the most widely read with these issues. And to answer your question, no, the debate is not decided by these verses, and that’s why the translation issues are so problematic, as they are breaking translation norms that are unjustified and not necessary.

“Ish” is translated as “man” or “husband”

There are times where the word can be used to describe a “wife” but usually it’s specific and obvious. “Frequent expressions are X ʾēšet Y, “X, the wife of Y” (e.g., Gen 11:31), and šēm ʾištô X, “his wife’s name is X” (e.g., Ruth 1:2).” (TLOT)

Thanks for watching and commenting

What’s bad is people consistently calling being a “servant” some kind of metaphor or something. This video is just scratching the surface. When Paul calls himself a “prisoner of Christ” people don’t deny that Paul was imprisoned. It is only this topic that troubles people because it is challenging to learn that the messiah was born into slavery. However, I find it more compelling that Jesus was enslaved, as he understands the lowest of the low because he experienced it.

Just so you’re aware, there are many complementarians who agree with me on many things in this video. NASB 1995: “who are outstanding *among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.” You have referenced an update that happened after the NET and ESV made their changes. Unfortunately, it’s the other way around; some people didn’t like that egalitarians used this verse to legitimize women leaders, so they started mistranslating it based on bad Greek scholarship that no one has ever argued in the 400 years of English translations. You can take whatever position you want on women’s roles, but I think we both can agree that we shouldn’t mistranslate the Bible to fit our theology.

@ so the NASB 2020 is mistranslating?

@@petermillist3779 yeah, the NASB is following other translations mistranslation.

You comment on KZbin

All lot of good points here. Just to preface, I think this reading is a possibility that helps explain many things in Luke, and also expands Philippians, but I recognize that it isn’t an air-tight argument. The reality is though, that’s how many historical claim about Jesus actually are. We have to do a lot of work to understand these texts, and this idea I found helpful. If the author of Luke was aware of Paul’s writings, as you point out, this is one way of explaining Luke’s textual choices. That being said, a couple comments on your presentation of history. The first Jewish war came as a result of decades of oppression from the Roman. To say that the Roman occupation began in 66 is a simplification of history. 66 was the first explosive moment, but it came as a result of many oppressive practices. Keep in mind that in 6CE Judea became an official province of Rome, and in 63BCE it was concurred by the Roman general Pompey and later Harod was made king of Judea by the order of the Roman Senate, so it was a client kingdom of Rome. This is all common knowledge, and a simple wiki read on the first Jewish war will explain this, for example “Over the six decades following the establishment of the province (in 6CE), relations between the Jewish population and Roman authorities were marked by numerous crises. Many disputes arose from religious offenses committed by the Roman authorities, some of which were unintentional. Jewish discontent also stemmed from the harsh Roman suppression of disturbances and the widespread perception of Roman rule as oppressive.” In other words, Rome was certainly a presence in Judea, and their laws would have been expected to be followed, so much so that Jews regularly had issues and saw the relationship as oppressive. Also, many in scholarship note that the laws about freeing the enslaved in the Hebrew Scriptures were often not kept. So, the ideal in scripture is not always the reality, whether Jesus was born into a Jewish household or not, it’s possible his enslaver would not free him. And, keep in mind, Matthew (often understood as a gospel to a Jewish audience) does not mentioned Jesus’s circumcision. If this mention were about Jesus being a good Torah observant Jew, it would likely have been mentioned in Matthew as well. I don’t go into this in the video but Mitzi Smith argues that Joseph was Jesus’s enslaver, and it was at his death that he freed Jesus, so that he could inherit whatever property he had. This explains why 3:23 has the explanatory statement: “He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli.” The logic is, Jesus was enslaved by Joseph, people assumed Joseph was his father, and then when he freed him it confirmed “as was thought.” 🤷‍♂️ All that said, to your point about moving around and such, the enslaved can go where their enslaver goes. So, just because they are presented as having mobility doesn’t mean they weren’t enslaved, especially considering that Joseph may have been their enslaver. I think Philippians 2 is the strongest piece of evidence we have in this regard. As I said, this is thought to be early Jesus tradition, and thus decades earlier than all the gospels. Instead of explaining away Philippians, we should be trying to understand why this explicit mention of being born into slavery is muted or absent in the gospels. I think this oversight is indicative of the many white and affluent scholars who have been interpreting Jesus for centuries. Of course Jesus’s enslaved status is a metaphor to them, because slavery is distant and far removed from their experiences. We need to reckon with the long standing history of biblical interpreters reading ancient texts without understanding how different the people represented in the texts are from themselves. Finally, no one doubts that Paul was imprisoned, but he calls himself a “prisoner of the Lord.” If we are willing to interpret that phrase as both a metaphorical statement as well as a real statement about his social condition, we should be willing to do the same for Mary. Thanks for watching and engaging the video. I am glad you enjoyed it enough to leave such and substantive comment. :)

Thanks for watching and commenting. Just so you’re aware, many conservatives, even complementarian christians, recognize that these translation choices are incorrect. That is why many of these choice never appeared in any English Bible before 2001. People are welcome to disagree with theological conclusions about texts in the Bible, but they shouldn’t mistranslate texts just to fit their predetermined theological conclusions, which is what the ESV (and NET) have begun doing.

@@biblegeekPhD hello... i was planning to buy NET... but since you mentioned net here... can you please share any issues with NET or point me in the directin.

@@arthurmorgan8654 if you have seen my video on the ESV, you will see similar problems in the NET. In fact, the ESV changed after the NET, so this is all really that Bible’s fault, seemingly. But the problems with the NET are deeper. The NET makes similar poor translation choices, and then adds “scholarly” footnotes to make the novel choices look legitimate. What scholars like myself notice, is that the notes aren’t representative of actual scholarship. They are one sided, sometimes even citing journals that are not scholarly peer review, and they ignore the many articles and commentators that refute their choices. So, the NET essentially pretends it is giving you scholarly references, when in reality they are a house of cards. This then leads people to think the choices are vetted scholarship, when they aren’t. The amount of times I have had people leave comments just regurgitating the NET notes on Rom 16:7 is laughable. Meanwhile I have actually read all those articles referenced in the NET, and the like other 5 the NET conveniently ignore that undercut their choices. If you want a good study Bible, that represents actual scholarship, go for the SBL Study Bible. It won’t be as fancy as a Crossway ESV in the binding, but the content will be what scholars actually think. www.amazon.com/Study-Bible-Society-Biblical-Literature/dp/0062969439?tag=hydsma-20&source=dsa&hvcampaign=booksm&gclid=CjwKCAiAg8S7BhATEiwAO2-R6ozXZFZ9LVvQOfPPZaTvW3ugqmPK9kBhM81fvI90JM8_B2AukGq7gBoCDHAQAvD_BwE

Thanks for watching! Yes, it’s definitely worth you time :)

Thanks for watching and commenting. Also, everything is debated in Jesus scholarship, soooooo 🤷‍♂️

Great questions! Perhaps on answer can answer both: protecting an investment. If they were enslaved, they are more valuable alive to the person who is enslaving them. That’s my two cents. Thanks for watching and commenting.

Wow, I find it humorous that, some how, I crammed "all ideas into the narrative of the American South" into my video without mentioning that one time... seems more like you have crammed that into my comments than I have crammed it into my video. But what do I know, probably just writing in a "stupidly American" sort of way. Thanks for watching.

I am glad you found it interesting! Dr. Mitzi J. Smith argues that Joseph was the person who was enslaving them. I didn’t go into it in the video because I was trying to keep the video short, as well as I think that case is harder to make. Basically though, in the same verse that mentioned Jesus was 30, it mentioned Joseph. “Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli” Luke 3:23. It was apparently common practice to free your enslaved child when you die so that they can inherit your property, and this Jesus was freed, which explains the “as was thought” comment. That being said, I think there is a lot less to go on in the argument that Jesus was enslaved specifically by Joseph, so I didn’t feel it was necessary to include. That said, I would recommend checking the argument in full from Smith.

I searched “slave OR slaves” in the ESV and only found 101. However, the CSB has it 167 times, the NIV 158 times, the NET 208 times, and the NASB 172 times.

@@No_auto_toon Bible Gateway show 127 for ESV slave(s).

​@@barryjtaft interesting - is it including marginal translations from the footnotes maybe?

The original script actually had 4 points, but I cut it because it didn’t state it very clearly in the video shoot. Probably good, anyway, as it would have made the video longer. All that said, there are certainly more. Thanks for watching.

You’re welcome, and thanks for watching and commenting.

Thanks for watching

Thanks for watching and commenting

Good question, and it depends what you mean. I think you mean that some Bibles have missing verses. If that’s that case, most modern bibles have the verses that scholars believe are the original based on the earliest manuscripts. That said, the KJV and other Bible who follow the “majority text” tradition have verses that were added 300-500 years later. Essentially, a majority of later manuscripts have verses that have been added, usually things that clarify or expand ideas. However, just because a lot of manuscripts from 1000AD copied an expanded text, doesn’t mean it’s original. Especially, when multiple early manuscripts don’t have those verses. So, when a Bible has “missing” verses, it’s actually the opposite, Bible’s like the KJV accidentally have added verses. Those “missing verses” usually can’t be found in texts before like 400AD. Just so you’re aware, a verse isn’t removed unless scholars are certain. I should just make a video on this topic, as it’s obvious when you start looking at the manuscripts. Basically, if a verse is removed from the base text, when there are usually like 3 or 4 manuscripts that have it missing, from before the 4the century that were found in different geographical regions (meaning they aren’t just copies of each other), and usually other language translations also show it missing in like Coptic or Latin, and when all that is the case, then it’s obvious that later manuscripts added the verse, and it is removed. Anything less than overwhelming evidence usually means they just leave it in and put a footnote that says something like, “some mss are missing this.”

Cool thanks for the response. ​@@biblegeekPhD

I am not a Catholic. The NRSV is used in this video for two reasons. 1) it is the update to the RSV, which the ESV is as well, so they are related. 2) the NRSV is actually ecumenical, and it is used by the academy, so it is actually not directly associated with any branch of Christianity or Judaism. The issue with the ESV is that it consistently mistranslates words in contexts that egalitarians use in order to obscure those passages in favor of complementarian theology. So much so that no Bible before 2001 made some of these choices, and many of them the ESV only made after their 2016 update. In other words, the are novel and new choices because the words don’t actually work that way. People are free to come to comp conclusions, I know many, but they should not mistranslate the biblical text to do so. I am a Greek professor, and I have a PhD in NT, and I am an ordained minister, all of these things mean I care deeply about accurately representing the Bible, and that is what this video and my channel seeks to do. You will notice the rest of my videos aren’t about Bible translations. I agree with you that many who talk about such things often are just splitting hairs and being needlessly divisive. Yet, the ESV warranted discussion because its choices were so abnormal. Thanks for watching and commenting.

I'm Catholic. We DON'T have female deacons. The NSRV isn't a Catholic translation, though it does have a Catholic version, the NSRVCE. Our Translations are primarily the Douay-Rheims, which is an English translation even older than the KJV, and the New American Bible (NAB) or NABRE (NAB Revised Edition). But there are MANY Protestant Bibles with Catholic editions, which just re-insert the seven Deuterocanonical books that Protestants leave out.

@@Davcramer You're a Catholic? I was catholic, until I read the Bible. Now I'm Christian. Call No man Father. Matthew 23:9; Exodus 20:4 You shall not make yourself any graven image.... That was enough for me to know catholicism is of Satan.

@@Davcramer glad a Catholic spoke up, as I was only knew you all used with the NAB, and I assumed there were more.

@@biblegeekPhD I have a Living Bible that my mother gave me for High School graduation and a Living Bible Catholic Edition that she gave me after I converted. There are actually quite a few Catholic Bibles that are just Protestant Bibles with the Deuterocanonical books added back in.

You better hope you’re right … or else the Spirit is going to be pissed. 🤣

Thanks for watching and commenting

You should watch my videos on women in ministry, you may find them illuminating. Thanks for watching and commenting.

It’s the one used in academia, so it’s the one I would cite if, for some reason, I wanted to talk about the Bible and not translate it. That said, I know Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, so I usually just reference the original language and translate the text when I am researching and writing on the topic, especially the NT, as I am very proficient in Greek. In this video I reference the NRSV because the ESV and NRSV are both updates to the RSV, and thus they are related.

@@biblegeekPhD Thank you, sir. Good video here.

Thanks for watching

Are they not the same?

Yes, I agree that words are never a one to one connection. However, the ESV is making choices that do not match the original language appropriately or consistently. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

If what you have described is “true Christian nationalism” then that too is an issue, as Jesus and God don’t intend to establish an earthy kingdom attached to a nation state. God’s kingdom is radically different than earthly kingdoms.

@ You’re telling me that a theocracy is not only unsupported, but condemned by the Bible? I’d love to hear the mental gymnastics behind that. Do you just cut out the parts of your Bible about the thousand year reign?

You have argued that true Christian nationalism seeks “to establish a theocracy in the US.” This is not what Revelation 19 is about, not even a little bit. The Kingdom of God certainly affects politics, but it is not the kind of politics that any kind of nationalism desires. There is a reason when Jesus is asked by a political leader if he is a king, he responds “my kingdom is not from this world.” The way God reigns in the world is not through and with earthly power structures like governments, militaries, police, city states, and so on. If Jesus is actually you king, and if you think Jesus reigns as king, then his ministry reveals that he rules as king through, love, sacrifice, feeding the poor, caring for the widow, doing justice, making peace, and all that kind of stuff. In contrast, any form of nationalism is committed to caring for its own people first, whereas Jesus is committed to all people, from all nations.

@@biblegeekPhD Of course it’s not what it’s talking about, but it shows that God is king and lord over all. It shows he will rule over the earth. There is nothing in the Bible against having your government operate with Christian morals/intentions. What would the downside be? Having the US become a theocracy would lead to many more “christians” actually being Christians, a mass influx of converts, and an opportunity for the entire country to glorify God. Again, all of these aren’t guaranteed, but they’re a great step in the right direction. We’d rid the country of pornography, brothels, sex changes, and many other abominations. You can’t seriously think that from a Christian point of view that we would be WORSE off as a country if we were a theocracy.

Gotta love your neighbor. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeekPhD titus 3:10-11, 1 corinthians 5:1-13, matthew 18:15-17, galatians 6:1. I will love my neighbor, but I won’t condone their mass misinterpretation of the Bible

My video is not about the KJV, and all my commented are based on the original language, Greek or Hebrew.

@@biblegeekPhD I think the point that she was making was that this translation choice is not something that's unique to the ESV. So, it's not really a fair critique to say that they're "adding the word in for their agenda" (no, that isn't intended to be a verbatim quote, but it is an accurate representation of what you've suggested here). Personally I'm not familiar enough with the manuscripts in question to know off the top of my head, but I wonder if this is a textual variant in the manuscripts that the ESV translators chose to go with this version, that they believed to be more accurate for whatever reason?

@@KFish-bw1om that is exactly what I was trying to point out. The ESV is a translation that derives from the KJV, as do many other translations. Thank you 😊

γυναῖκας [women] ὡσαύτως [likewise] σεμνάς [dignified] (Elzevir's Textus Receptus). No possessive pronoun to be found. The KJV translators have interpreted the text this way to suit a theological presupposition they held, rather than the strict wording of the text.

As I say at the end of the video, use multiple translations, and recognize that none are perfect. I often reference the NRSV, NASB, KJV. I also think the NIV and NLT are useful for reading casually.

I am well aware of the verse, as everyone and the brother leaves comments about it. Haha I was also well aware when making the video. I don’t address it because, what you have presented (which many think, so it’s understandable) is not how language, translation, and interpretation work. As you point out, “if we say sin has a desire for a person, we rightly see that as something negative.” However, this logic should not affect Gen 3:16. We should not say that a “woman’s desire for her husband, we right see that as something negative.” Of course sin desires for Cain something bad, but the hermeneutical choice to assert that the woman desires something bad for her husband is not justified. When you read a story, you would read chapter 3 before 4. As a result the statement in 3:16 would influence 4:7. The woman’s “desire for” is perfectly fine and neutral, good or not bad, but then in chapter 4, after the fall, we see the consequences of the fall, and sin has a negative desire for Cain. Sin has twisted the narrative and now acting with agency. And, as you point out, the Cain verse is understandable with “for” and that is because that is the appropriate translation choice. “Contrary to” is such a bogus translation that is only used to skew Gen 3:16, so much so that it only appears one other place. I am sorry, but that is just not good translation practice. There is a reason no one made this choice for, literally thousands of years, it’s because it’s not a legitimate choice. What’s tragic is, the translators have made the women about to be tantamount to sin … yikes. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@@biblegeekPhD In fact, that exactly how both language and translation work. 1. Immediate context always colors how we view a person's word choice or phrasing, and 2. Similar constructions are often translated similarly, therefore 3. It is important to note, when emphasizing that there is only one other example of the ESV translating a word in a certain way, to point out that it was an exception that was very relevant to the case in point. As per your response, apparently "everyone and the brother" thinks so as well. 4. Translating "contrary to" certainly would need a language note, as it is making a choice of how to present the word here, but translators make such choices constantly. Nothing bogus about it. Thanks for responding.

This is why I always recommend people to go learn Greek and Hebrew if they have the ability and access. Knowing the language is very helpful. And, had I never taken Greek, I likely would have never become a PhD in NT.

I agree with you, often times people just like finding issues with translations. You will notice that I have not done this for other translations. The reason being, most other translations aren’t breaking basic translation rules in specific and targeted verses that create problems for the translators theology. There is a reason many of these choices didn’t exist until now, and that is because these choices are illegitimate options. Thanks for watching.

When looking for study Bibles, I recommend the SBL Study Bible, New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL is the newest and full of world class Bible scholars. Though, if this is for someone young and new the the faith, the Zondervan NIV Study Bible is also useful.

Get the ESV, this guy in the video is making errors about the translatiom while talking about what he "thinks" are errors in the ESV. He says the verse in Genesis does not fit the idea of male headship and yet if you read the literal context of the whole verse, I. E. Read the whole chapter you'll see that's exactly what it's talking about. It's talking about how the women will be rebellious towards her husband from and how her husband will rule over her. We literally see this today, why do we see wives always fighting with their husbands? It's clear what the text is referring to if we just look at even real life today. Just get the ESV. This video is way off.

The version you choose is insignificant compared to the choice you've already made to read and study. God Bless.

Indeed, moderating KZbin comments is often entertaining.

Well, I looked into this. It's removed as the earlier texts don't have it, and it's an exact copy of verse 48. So the text is still there, and scholars aren't sure why it was added later in time.

The KJV and the ESV versions use different versions of the New Testament. The KJV uses what is called the majority text.

The Gideons decided to use the ESV. They had to put these versus back in for Gideons to use it.

Here is what one scholar (Comfort) says in his textual commentary: “Although it could be argued that these verses were omitted by scribes who considered the repetition to be unnecessary, such a deletion could hardly occur in manuscripts of such vast diversity as those that give witness to the absence of these verses. Contrarily, verses 44 and 46 were added as a sort of prophetic refrain that makes for good oral reading. Indeed, many textual variants entered the textual stream as the result of scribes enhancing the text for oral reading in the church. This is a classic example. Several modern English versions omit these verses and then note their inclusion for the sake of readers familiar with their place in the KJV tradition. By retaining the verses in the text, the HCSB retains the KJV tradition.” And, here is what another group say the the Textual Commentary on the New Testament, “The words ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ … οὐ σβέννυται, which are lacking in important early witnesses (including ℵ B C W itk syrs copsa), were added by copyists from ver. 48.” All these scholars are explaining that what we find in the “majority text” tradition represented in the KJV is actually a later addition. It is not the ESV who has removed verses, but rather the KJV has verses that were added. There are many early manuscripts that lack these additions, and thus scholars are very convinced they were a later addition likely added for public reading that worked their way into the main text. I get that people see verses removed, and they think things are intentionally being redacted. However, history has shown us that it is the other way around, for centuries people read and copied the Bible, they loved it so much, they gradually expanded it, whether intentionally or accidentally, and so the “majority text tradition” repeatedly expands ideas in the text. But, thankfully we have many manuscripts that show us where these expansions happened. Regardless, an expanded text is much different than a text with gaps. So, the majority text is still valuable, as it has the original text within it, it just has a little more sprinkled in, and we need to be aware of those things, so that we don’t base theologies and such on them.

Glad you all discussed this in the comments. Thanks for watching and commenting :)

I have a PhD in New Testament, and I am a Greek professor. I say that to say, I am well aware of how words are supposed to be used in context, both from a literary standpoint and a cultural. Also, I expertise is in interpretation, so I am also very aware of how text produce meaning. What I have explained in this video is discussed by many in scholarship, and feel free to look at the resources in the video description. The ESV, following the NET, has broken long standing translation on norms. Also, what you have been told about women in leadership is historically false. You can see my other videos on women in ministry for more on that. Moreover there were women in leadership even in early church history, see “Mary and Early Christian Women,” it demonstrates that there were actually women leaders the first like 400-700 years. Glad you studied theology, I hope my channel reminds you of your education. As a seminary prof, I love helping students read, and translate, scripture thoughtfully. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@ interesting. Thank you for not taking offense.

This is I say in the video no translation is perfect. Thanks for watching and commenting.

If you’re looking for a good study Bible, the two I recommend are the SBL Study Bible and the Oxford Annotated Study Bible. The SBL study Bible is newer, so I would pick that one. Thanks for watching.

Oh, Cool, I don’t know Syriac, so I didn’t think to look at that. Had I become a text critic, I would have learned it, but I am not interested in the minutia of textual criticism, so Greek Hebrew Aramaic Latin German and French was enough for me. Haha Thanks for sharing!

I don’t know how to read. Thanks for watching.

So motivated