The ESV Diadem with Apocrypha 

I would love to see that: a NKJV with Apocrypha. And an OSB that uses the Septuagint in a more consistent manner as well.

I think that's an excellent idea - an NKJV with the Apocrypha. In addition to the Saint Athanasius Academy Septuagint, the old KJV Apocrypha would be useful for most of the books.

@@saulm58 absolutely 💯

@@RGrantJones if you had one English Bible to pick from which would it be? If your answer is the Old KJV which edition? New Cambridge KJV Paragraph, Third Millennium Bible, Cambridge KJV Cameo Edition, etc.? Thank you again Grant. When the day comes and we meet each other in God's Paradise I want to have great conversations with you. God love you.

@@peterpapoutsis496 - that's a great question, but I haven't been able to come up with an acceptable answer. Each specific edition I consider has at least one significant limitation. I look forward to that day as well, Peter! Thank you for the kind thoughts. May God bless you and yours!

Thanks for commenting, Joshua!

Thanks much for the encouragement, Donald!

Thanks, Danny! All's well here. Hope the same's true for you.

Thanks for commenting, eclipsesonic! I was uncertain about it because of my experience with the Cambridge NKJV wide-margin's small font, but in the end I decided to give it a try. I hope you enjoy your Christmas present.

I've found that I can read it without a great deal of difficulty with my glasses off. That's one advantage of nearsightedness for some older people. Thanks for commenting!

Thanks for commenting, M B! I covered my copy with a book sock.

@@RGrantJones where can we find book socks? Love to get some.

@@peterpapoutsis496 - I've ordered them from Amazon in the past. Unhappily, these days it's hard to find regular sized ones. They're mostly Jumbo. Just search for 'book sox' or go to booksox.com.

Thanks for commenting, Ryan! I don't have time to do a thorough check at the moment, but the original KJV has a reference to Tobit 4.7 at Lk 14.13. The Cameo does not. The original KJV also has a reference to Wisdom 7.26 at Hebrews 1.3. The Cameo does not. The original KJV has a reference to 2 Macc 7.7 at Hebrews 11.35. The Cameo instead points the reader to 2 Macc 6.19, 28 at that spot in Hebrews.

Thanks for the clarification, perhaps I’ll check out the Hendrickson 1611 edition. God bless.

Yes, there are ESV and RSV versions. The ESV versions are in the Diadem I reviewed in this video. They're also available in a separate volume: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-S3QpluQACBo.html . You can find the RSV versions here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1Smi6d-rPcY.html and here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LxICiv-G5JI.html . The books are: Tobit Judith Esther (with additions) Wisdom of Solomon Wisdom of Sirach Baruch The Letter of Jeremiah The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men Susanna Bel and the Dragon 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 1 Esdras The Prayer of Manasseh Psalm 151 3 Maccabees 2 Esdras 4 Maccabees

Thanks for the question. I haven't seen the Anglican edition. I suspect it doesn't have references. If that's the case, I would prefer this one.

Thanks for the kind comment, Gil! The small font is a serious issue. Perhaps Cambridge can see its way to publishing a 9.5 to 10 point font edition.

@@RGrantJones It would've been relevant for review to include comparison in font size etc with the ESV Apocrypha Lutheran Edition with Notes. I'm guessing these are the only currently avialable versions of ESV Apocrypha.

@@williamearle6281 - Yes, I wish I had thought of it when I was taping font comparisons.

@@RGrantJones I see there are now ESV with Apocrypha advertised 9.5 font (but no cross references). Perhaps they are easier to read than the "9.5" font of the Lutheran ESV Apocrypha. Have you looked at any of those? Alas I already find the "10 point" font of the Augustine Bible hard enough with my eyesight, though it is very attractive, so I strain myself. To be thorough, it would be interesting to see if there are any differences in readability between the recent ESV standalone Apocrypha, and the ESV Bible with Apocrypha.

@@williamearle6281 - I plan to acquire a copy of the standalone ESV Apocrypha soon and review it. I reviewed the Lutheran ESV Apocrypha a few months ago, and it has a larger font. I may release a brief supplemental font comparison video today or tomorrow to show the Diadem's font alongside that of the Lutheran edition.

Sorry, but I don't recall that font. Thanks for the kind words!

@@RGrantJones That is understandable. I think I might have gotten a good enough overview based on the comparisons you did in the video. It seems the ESV still labours under the curse of its light printing🙂

In this edition, it's based on the longer text, supplemented by the shorter and the Latin. Some earlier editions of the ESV Apocrypha, such as that in the Lutheran edition, are based on the shorter. In this video, I mention the basis for Tobit at about the 16:05 point. The topic also comes up in the next video, the brief supplement with additional font comparisons.

@@RGrantJones Thank you. Oh that's embarrassing, don't know how I could have missed that in the video. Guess I'll have to start paying better attention!

@@aaronmueller5802 - I just assumed you were like me and prone skipping around in videos. Thanks for commenting!

Thank you for that kind comment! That's “Lord Jesus, Think on Me.”

I would consider it a supplement, but I wouldn't want to do without a good English translation of the LXX.

​@@RGrantJones good to know, thank you for your answer.

@@RGrantJones how would you rate the English translations of the Septuagint we currently have from Brenton to Lexham?

@@peterpapoutsis496 - It would be challenging to come up with an objective way to rate them: Choose, say, fifty verses or so of consequence, with a good representation from passages of Messianic import, then score them as according to a set of criteria, such as accuracy, and how well they present in English the sense that fits early Christian interpretations. But in the absence of such an approach, I can only give my subjective sense. I would rate the OSB high if it were a consistent LXX translation, since the translators often show an awareness of the prophetic character of passages. The LES tries to do so, though it sometimes fails. Brenton's translation is generally good, but he's sometimes inaccurate, and he doesn't seem concerned with the way the text was read in the early Church. I haven't found errors in NETS, but like Brenton, the work is academic rather than devout in character. I haven't spent a great deal of time with Thomson, but my impression is that his work is less literal than Brenton. So my take is 1. LES 2. NETS 3. Brenton 4. Thomson and I leave the OSB out, awaiting a corrected edition. But if you were to ask me the desert island question, I would answer 'NETS' because it contains so much useful background information, as well as translations of different source texts.

@@RGrantJones Thanks Grant. That's actually what I ranked them at. Also, I am patiently awaiting the MASSIVE revision of the Orthodox Study Bible. Currently I'm just correcting it as I go along. Very annoying and time consuming to render an "Orthodox" bible Orthodox. SMH!

Longer. Watch from the 16:28 point. Thanks for the question.

@@RGrantJones I appreciate you for always taking the time to answer. I love watching your videos. Very informative.

@@KaiserAllen - thank you for letting me know!

I agree - I would like a larger font. Thanks for commenting!

Lol.