The NET Bible Review

7/30/2019 The NET Bible Review

1/29

The NET Bible

W. Hall Harris, ed., NET Bible. Garland, Texas: Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

The NET Bible was produced by a team of translators under the direction of W. Hall Harris (theGeneral Editor), Daniel B. Wallace (Senior New Testament Editor) and Robert B. Chisholm

(Senior Old Testament Editor). All three are professors at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS).

Thepreface of the first "Beta Edition"(printed in 2001) stated that the version was "completedby more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts." They were identified only as scholars who "teach biblical

exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools," each of whom were "chosen in every instancebecause of his or her work in that particular bookoften extending over several decades." It alsostated that these scholars were "assisted by doctoral students."

In the First Edition (printed in 2005) a list of people on the "Net Bible Team" appears at the end

of the Introduction. Twenty-two men and one woman are listed as translators and editors. For theOld Testament: Richard E. Averbeck, William D. Barrick, M. Daniel Carroll R. [sic], Robert B.

Chisholm, Dorian Coover-Cox, Donald R. Glenn, Michael A. Grisanti, W. Hall Harris III,Gordon H. Johnston, Eugene H. Merrill, Allen P. Ross, Steven H. Sanchez, Richard A. Taylor,

and Brian L. Webster. For the New Testament: Darrell L. Bock, Michael H. Burer, Buist M.

Fanning III, John D. Grassmick, W. Hall Harris III, Gregory J. Herrick, Harold W. Hoehner,David K. Lowery, Jay E. Smith, and Daniel B. Wallace.

Although the Introduction does not mention it, seventeen of these people were teachers at DTS;and of the remaining six, five were students at DTS. Only one (William Barrick) has no obvious

connection to Dallas Theological Seminary. Some of them have no publications, and are little-

known outside of DTS. Evidently the version was almost entirely a project of the members of theDTS faculty, assisted by their students. This provides some context for the Introduction'sstatement that the translators were "chosen in every instance because of his or her work in that

particular book." The copyright page of the printed edition does not say where "Biblical Studies

Press" is located, but from other sources we learn that its offices are in Garland, Texasa suburbof Dallas. Evidently the people involved in the version have some interest in concealing its

"Dallas" connection.

The preface states that the idea for the version was conceived in November 1995 during

discussions with an anonymous "sponsor" at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in

Philadelphia. The concept of the version was that it would be freely available on the internetfrom the beginning. The name of the version (NET Bible) is meant to have a double meaning,

standing both forNew English Translation and the electronic "net" of the World Wide Web. The

New Testament portion of the version first went online in October of 1998 atwww.netbible.org.

The Old Testament was added in 2000, and in 2002 some of the Apocrypha appeared online. InNovember 2003 a "second beta edition" of the whole Bible was put online. In 2005 the "First

Edition" (i.e. the first to supercede the "beta" editions) was put online, and was also published in

a printed edition.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.netbible.org/http://www.netbible.org/http://www.netbible.org/http://www.netbible.org/http://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.html


2/29

The New Testament has been substantially revised since its first appearance, incorporating many

suggestions made by reviewers associated with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). In an

article published in 2000, one of the editors stated that there had been thousands of such changes,(1)

and many more were to be made in the future. Because the version was primarily designed to

be an Internet resource, the editors have freedom to experiment with and revise the version as

they may see fit.

Method of Translation

The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (2006) is inconsistent, but in

general it is less literal than theNew International Version. The translators have for the most part

employed adynamic equivalencemethod, in which they have tried to use expressions in"common language." This method gives the version a simple and contemporary English style,

which may be appreciated by some readers; but it does tend to degrade the accuracy of the

translation. For example, in Psalm 8:5-6 the NET Bible has "you grant mankind honor and

majesty, you appoint them to rule over your creation; you have placed everything under their

authority" where the Hebrew says,

with glory and honor you have crowned him

You cause him to rule over the works of your hands

All things you have put under his feet

The images and metaphors of the Hebrew versethe man, his crown, his feet, and God's

handsdisappear through the use of more general and abstract words in the NET Bibletranslation. And although the translators probably feel that their prosaic rendering here

adequately conveys the overall sense of the verse, it should be noticed that their renderinginvolves not only the loss of poetic imagery, but also a preclusion of the New Testament's

interpretation of the verse. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews depends upon a literal

rendering of Psalm 8 when he uses it to teach something about a certain man, namely Christ(Heb. 2:7-8), to whom these statements are referred, because He is the only man for whom they

are true in the fullest sense.

Romans 1:5 in the NET Bible reads, "Through him we have received grace and our apostleshipto bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles." Here the version has begun a new

sentence because the salutation has been "divided into shorter English sentences in keeping withcontemporary English style," as a footnote explains, and the word "our" has been added before"apostleship" so as to "to clarify the sense of the statement."

Evidently the translators felt that such interpretive adjustments are necessary for the averagereader. But readers will pay a price for this condescending help. On another page we draw

attention to many inaccuracies of the NET Bible in a sample passage, Hosea 4:1-14.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note1http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note1http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net2.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net2.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net2.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net2.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note1


3/29

Treatment of the Old Testament

The example given from Psalm 8 above illustrates another tendency of the version. It departsfrom the usual evangelical treatment of the Old Testament, by interpreting it without any

reference to the New Testament.

The New Testament treatment of the Old Testament is a complex subject, and we cannot treat it

fully here. To put it very briefly, we will say that the New Testament authors often interpreted

passages of the Old Testament in ways that go quite beyond the literary or historical contexts ofthe passages. To the apostles, the words of Scripture were directly inspired by God, and their

meaning is not limited to meanings which can be supposed to have been in the minds of the

human authors on the basis of historical considerations. God is the Author, and like a novelist, heknows the end of the story while he is writing it, and he foreshadows the end in various ways

throughout the story, even from the beginning. Having this view of Scripture, the apostles

assumed that its words carried some meanings that point beyond the immediate context, and by

the Spirit of God they identified some of them, including a number of mysterious prefigurations

of Christ. The human authors were perhaps not fully aware of what God intended by the wordshe caused them to write. As Patrick Fairbairn expressed it:

Now, we are expressly told, even in regard to direct prophecies of Gospel times, that not only the

persons to whom they were originally delivered, but the very individuals through whom they

were communicated, did not always or necessarily understand their precise meaning. Sometimes,at least, they had to assume the position of inquirers, in order to get the more exact and definite

information which they desired [Daniel 12:8, 1 Peter 1:12]; and it would seem, from the case of

Daniel, that even then they did not always obtain it. The prophets were not properly the authors

of their own predictions, but spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Theirknowledge,therefore, of the real meaning of the prophecies they uttered, was an entirely separate thing from

the prophecies themselves; and if we knew what it was, it would still by no means conclusivelyfix their full import.(2)

The whole approach to Scripture here may be compared to John's interpretation of the words of

Caiaphas in John 11:49-52. Caiaphas did not realize what God intended by his words, but thesewords happened to be prophetic, and John knew the meaning. This concept of divine authorship

and intent, which presupposes the verbal inspiration of the Biblical books, is involved when

theologians speak of asensus plenioror "fuller sense" of Scripture which transcends theimmediate context. Raymond E. Brown defines it thus:

Thesensus plenioris that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intendedby the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or

even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the

understanding of revelation.(3)

In the example above, from Psalm 8, the New Testament writer does not interpret the Psalm's

statements about the "son of man" in the way that the NET Bible does. The author of Hebrews2:6-8 has perceived that these statements go beyond anything that can be attributed to mankind

in general, and he understands them as referring to Christ, as the ideal "man," to whom all
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note2http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note2http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note2http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note2


4/29

authority and honor truly belongs.(4)

This is asensus pleniorinterpretation, it is esoteric in

nature, and it partly depends upon the singular nouns and pronouns of the Hebrew text. But the

NET Bible interprets these statements as referring only to mankind in general, and by itsparaphrastic use of plural pronouns it simply excludes the Christological interpretation. The

result is, readers cannot interpret the passage according to the interpretation indicated in the New

Testament. This problem frequently occurs in the NET Bible.

In the preface of the NET Bible we find a long but very inadequate discussion of this matter,(5)

in which the New Testament interpretations are said to be "clarifications," but at the same time itis denied that these clarifications should have any influence over the translation. It is argued that

such a treatment of the Old Testament is needed if we wish to have an accurate picture of the

progress of revelation:

A very important concept for understanding the translation philosophy of the NET Bible and

how these three contexts work together isprogressive revelation. Simply put, progressive

revelation recognizes that God reveals himselfhis nature as well as his word, plans, and

purposesover time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in theworld all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Laterrevelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. The relation of thisreality to translation work creates a great deal of tension, especially as it relates to the theological

context, because certain earlier passages are clarified by later ones. Does the translator translate

the older passage with a view to the clarification that the later passage brings, or does the

translator concentrate solely on the native context of the older passage?

But this way of putting the question is misleading, because the "clarifications" of the New

Testament are no ordinary clarifications. They do not unfold meanings which can be readilyattributed to the conscious intentions of the human authors. And when we examine the

explanations that the NET Bible editors give for specific renderings, their explanations revealthat they do not really believe that the New Testament writers provide clarifications; they believethat the New Testament writers have imposedmeanings upon Old Testament passages which

were not originally intended. The NET Bible editors handle Scripture in a modern historical-

critical way, and they do not share the apostles' assumptions about its authorship and potentialmeanings, as described above. They do not acknowledge asensus pleniorin the text, they treat it

in such a way that the meaning is limited to the presumed intentions of human authors. Their

conception of "the theological context" takes no account of any divine intention beyond what is

clearly intended by the human author; as the preface defines it, the "theological context" islimited to "the understanding of God and his work that a particular author would have at the time

he wrote a particular passage of scripture."

In addition to the statements on this subject in the preface, there is a fuller explanation for at least

one of the editors' understanding of "progressive revelation" in a paper written by Daniel

Wallace (the Senior New Testament Editor), and posted on the bible.org website. In his paper "Is

Intra-Canonical Theological Development Compatible with a High Bibliology?" Wallacedevelops the idea that "implicit in the recognition of progressive revelation is that something

more than mere perspectival differences are to be found in the various books of the Bible," and
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note5http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note5http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note5http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1225http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1225http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1225http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1225http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note5http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note4


5/29

he suggests that "later biblical writers did not always correctly grasp the meaning of earlier

revelation."

Is the progress of revelation along linear lines, or is it more multifaceted than that? Essentially, if

there is room for formal (as opposed to substantive) contradiction within the Bible in one

direction, why not the other? That is, since in the former case we must argue from achronological and historical perspective to erase the contradiction, is that not also valid in the

case of one biblical writer misunderstanding the full import of an earlier one?

Is there evidence within the text of scripture that addresses some of the above questions? I think

there is. To take but two examples: (1) the use of the OT in the NT, and (2) 2 Peter 3.15-16. In

the former case, many evangelicals would argue that the resultant message was right but themethod for extracting it was hermeneutically or exegetically invalid. That is, that the revelation

given to the OT author is not entirely understood by the NT writer who uses and interprets his

text. The passages used to support this contention are too numerous to list here. But if this

supposition is valid, then it implies that later biblical writers did not always correctly grasp the

meaning of earlier revelation.

Wallace does not explain how such ideas can be reconciled with a belief that the Scriptures areverbally and plenarily inspired. He writes, "I am not going to elaborate on how these two can be

harmonized; I only wish to note that respected evangelical theologianswhose bibliologicalcommitments are not in doubtembrace this thesis." But we do not grant that the bibliologicalcommitments of those who embrace this thesis are beyond doubt. Wallace's suggestion that the

interpretations of the apostles are "hermeneutically or exegetically invalid," and that they involve

a failure to understand the Old Testament, is especially troubling. The problems raised by these

statements should be dealt with forthrightly; they cannot be set aside by some facile appeal to theauthority of nameless "theologians"

(6)

The theological position taken here is really none other than that expressed by neo-orthodoxtheologians like Alan Richardson:

We can indeed no longer imagine that the OT writers were given a miraculous 'preview' of the

events of the life and death of Jesus, or that detailed predictions of his ministry and passion were

divinely dictated to them; nor shall we look for precise fulfilments of particular OT texts, aswriters in the pre-critical period have done ever since the days of the author of St. Matthew's

Gospel (e.g. Matt. 1.22f., 2.5f., 15, 17f., 23, etc.).(7)

The Immanuel Prophecy

The preface dwells upon the case of Isaiah 7:14, and so we will take up that issue here. This

verse is quoted in theGospel according to Matthew(1:26), in which it is explained that Isaiah'sprophecy concerning the child named Immanuel is fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ. In his

quotation, Matthew uses the Greek word (parthenos), which in the Hellenistic erausually had the meaning "virgin." This rendering was already given in theSeptuagint, and so

Matthew is not introducing it as something new; but there can be no doubt that he uses this worddeliberately, because the virginity of Mary is an important aspect of his account of Christ's birth.

However, the NET Bible has "young woman" instead of "virgin" as a translation for
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note6http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note6http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note6http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note7http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note7http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note7http://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/matthew.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/matthew.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/matthew.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/lxx.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/lxx.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/lxx.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/lxx.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/erv/matthew.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note7http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note6


6/29

(almah) in this verse. Its preface claims that the in Isaiah 7:14 cannotrefer to Mary, and

that the word does not even mean "virgin." We are given a rather opaque argument that tries to

explain Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 while condemning "virgin" as a translation of the Hebrewword.

It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 meansyoung woman and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammaticalcontext of the verse in the Old Testament is in our opinion fairly straightforward. Neither does

the historical context of Isaiah 7:14 point to any connection with the birth of the Messiah: in itsoriginal historical context, this verse was pointing to a sign for King Ahaz that the alliance

between Syria and Israel which was threatening the land of Judah would come to nothing. The

theological context of Isaiah 7:14 is also limited: it is a presentation of Gods divine power toshow himself strong on behalf of his people. The role or birth of the Messiah does not come intoview here. So the historical and theological contexts of the verse support the grammatical: the

word (almah) means young woman and should be translated as such. Within the book ofIsaiah itself, however, the author begins to develop the theological context of this verse, and this

provides a connection to the use of the passage in Matthew. In Isaiah 8:9-10 the prophet deliversan announcement of future victory over Israels enemies; the special child Immanuel, alluded toin the last line of v. 10, is a guarantee that the covenant promises of God will result in futuregreatness. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is a pledge of Gods presence during the time ofAhaz, but he also is a promise of Gods presence in the future when he gives his people victoryover all their enemies. This theological development progresses even further when another child

is promised in Isaiah 9:6-7 who will be a perfect ruler over Israel, manifesting Gods presenceperfectly and ultimately among his people. The New Testament author draws from this

development and uses the original passage in Isaiah to make the connection between the child

originally promised and the child who would be the ultimate fulfillment of that initial promise.

The use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 draws upon the theological development present in thebook of Isaiah, but it does not change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context.

The notes in the NET Bible further explain that, in the opinion of the editors, the Immanuelprophecy was fulfilled in the person of Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hash-baz (8:1-4).

Several interpretations of the Immanuel prophecy have been proposed by modern scholars who

do not believe that Isaiah is referring to Christ. Most liberal scholars flatly deny that the

prophecy was intended to be understood as a vision of Christ. Some believe that here Isaiah is

predicting the advent of a messianic king in the following generation, but that the prophecyfailed. Some conservative commentators believe that Isaiah did not envision a fulfillment of the

prophecy in his own time, but only the fulfillment in Christ. Others suppose that there was a

preliminary fulfillment in the birth and naming of some child of Isaiah's time, but that this child

was a symbolic foreshadowing of Christ. This last view is the one most often found incommentaries written by conservatives in the past century, but these commentators differ in their

opinions about the identity of that child. Some think it was a son of the Prophet. For example,

Milton S. Terry (a conservative Methodist of the nineteenth century) wrote, "we understand theprophecy to have been truly fulfilled in the time of Ahaz and Isaiah by the birth of a child who

was a type of the Messiah... Its application to Christ in Matt. i,23 is to be explained typically, just

as we explain the passage cited from Hosea in Matt. ii,15. The most simple explanation is that


7/29

which identifies the virgin with the prophet's young wife ... and the child Immanuel is no other

than Maher-shalal-hash-baz." (Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. [1890], p. 333.)

The explanation given in the NET Bible resembles Terry's, but it is not the same, because the

NET Bible explains the matter in terms of a "development," not in terms of a typological

foreshadowing and fulfillment. It seems that the author of this explanation wants to have it bothways: the Immanuel prophecy is merely "a sign for King Ahaz" in which "the role or birth of the

Messiah does not come into view," but through a bit of fuzzy logic he manages to give some

room to the idea that "the child who would be the ultimate fulfillment" of the Immanuelprophecy is Christ. We get from one thing to the other by a "theological development." The

development is said to be underway in the Book of Isaiah itself, where some real messianic

prophecies do occur, yet we are given to understand that the Immanuel prophecy is not

messianic, and so Matthew's interpretation of it is not really correct. The intervening"development" that Matthew "draws upon" cannot "change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its

original context."

Obviously this explanation presents some problems for our view of the truthfulness andinspiration of Scripture. If we believe that these are the words of God, and if we believe that

Christ is "the child who would be the ultimate fulfillment" of the prophecy, we cannot set asideMatthew's interpretation, and interpret the Immanuel prophecy as if it were only "a sign for King

Ahaz that the alliance between Syria and Israel which was threatening the land of Judah would

come to nothing." Matthew's interpretation must be accepted as a true interpretation in

accordance with the Author's original intention. At the very least, we must recognize a messianicsensus pleniorin the Immanuel prophecy.

The preface concludes the discussion of the Immanuel prophecy with these words:

The editors expect to receive criticism, particularly on this passage, from those who are againstall modern translations. Our central motivation, however, is faithfulness to the original Hebrewtext and context in this instance. While a rendering of virgin in Isa 7:14 might lead to wideracceptance, we believe that this kind of acceptance of traditional renderings would not be

pleasing to God. The Bibles clear statements affirming the virgin birth of Christ are not inquestion here by either the NET Bible or its translatorsit is merely a question of which is themost faithful English rendering of the meaning of the original text of Isa 7:14 in Hebrew. The

editors of the NET Bible believe that a translation which is ultimately the most faithful to theoriginal text will ultimately prove more useful in both evangelism and ministry by an unswerving

focus on accuracy to the original Biblical texts. Ultimately, it is our faith in our sovereign God

that causes us to believe that faith is strengthened, not threatened, by faithfulness to the original.(8)

We think this writer "protests too much." One who declares that Christ "does not come into

view" in the Immanuel prophecy can hardly share the spirit of Matthew 1:23. And his dismissalof the rendering "virgin" is quite arbitrary, because the conservative literature on this matter is

extensive, and many competent scholars have maintained that "virgin" is the best rendering.(9)

The preface uses the phrase "traditional renderings" in reference to this, as if it were merely amatter of tradition, but it should not be forgotten that the real issue here is the legitimacy of the
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note8http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note8http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note9http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note9http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note9http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note9http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note8


8/29

interpretation in Matthew 1:23. This interpretation does not rest upon ignorance of Hebrew, or

upon false principles of exegesis, as the preface insinuates (we can only suppose that the editors

have come by these opinions and attitudes through spending too much time at meetings of theSociety of Biblical Literature); on the contrary, it is inspired by God and infallible.

Nor is it true that this is "merely a question of which is the most faithful English rendering of themeaning of the original text of Isa 7:14 in Hebrew." The issue here is not just the meaning of one

Hebrew word; it concerns our whole view of the relationship between the Old and New

Testaments. Are the New Testament interpretations true, or aren't they? And in connection withthem, can we not speak of a "fuller sense" intended by God from the beginning? And if we can,

is it really proper for a translator to render the text in such a way that this sense is excluded?

These are important questions. But the preface does not address them squarely. Instead, we are

given an evasive argument in which "clarifications" do not really clarify, and in which Matthew'scitation somehow ends up in the class of "traditional" renderings, the acceptance of which

"would not be pleasing to God."

Other Examples

We could discuss many other examples of this tendency to translate the Old Testament withoutregard for the New Testament. In Genesis 22:18 we see "all the nations of the earth will

pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants" instead of a literal

rendering, "in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed," but the New Testament

interpretations of this promise (cf. Acts 3:25-26 and Galatians 3:16) depend upon the ambiguityof the literal rendering. In Matthew 9:13 our Lord refers to Hosea 6:6 when he says to the

Pharisees, "go and learn what this means, I desire mercy ...," but we will not learn his meaning

from the NET Bible's translation of Hosea 6:6, because in it the wordchesedis rendered"faithfulness," not "mercy," and there is no explanation for it in the notes (see also Matthew

12:7).

The "tc" note at Hosea 11:1 reveals an astonishing disregard for the New Testament. Although

the verse itself is translated in such a way that Matthew's typological interpretation of "my son"

is possible (cf. Matthew 2:15), the editors tell us that they have retained the "my son" of the

Masoretic text here "because of internal evidence; it is much more appropriate to the context"than the reading "his sons," which is indicated by the Septuagint. Here the Septuagint is taken

seriously as a source of information about various readings in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts,

but the New Testament citation of this verse is not even mentioned. Apparently it meant so littleto them that it was not even a factor in their decision to retain "my son" in Hosea 11:1.

Another example of this approach may be seen in the "tn" note on Psalm 8:5, where the editorsexplain that "the referent of (elohim, 'God' or 'the heavenly beings') is unclear," despite the

fact that in the Epistle to the Hebrews (2:5-9) the author clearly bases his interpretation on the

rendering "angels." The NET Bible editors favored a similar rendering"heavenly beings"notbecause of anything in the New Testament, but because they see here "an allusion to Gen 1:26-

27." Again, the interpretation in Hebrews 2:7 was not a factor in their decision.(10)

In Psalm 16:10 the NET Bible's rendering "you will not allow your faithful follower to see the

Pit" undermines the argument of Peter in Acts 2:25-31, where this clause is rendered
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chesed.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/chesed.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/chesed.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note10http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note10http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note10http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note10http://www.bible-researcher.com/chesed.html


9/29

, "neither will you allow your Holy One to see corruption." TheHebrew word (shachat) is translated not "Pit" but "corruption" here,(11)and Peterpoints out that this statement is not true of David, because in fact his body has decayed. But it istrue of Christ, who, although he descended to Hades (the "Pit") for a time, did not experience

corruption or decay. Therefore, we must understand that David "foresaw and spoke about the

resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption."This argument cannot be made on the basis of the NET Bible's rendering. We also note that inthe NET Bible a "faithful follower" has supplanted the "Holy One" in the translation of .

In Psalm 45:6 the translator understands the word as a vocative meaning "God," and so the

verse is translated "Your throne, O God, is permanent." This agrees with the quotation of the

verse in Hebrews 1:8, where the words are applied to Christ. But the "tn" note here, following

the lead of recent liberal commentators, ignores the New Testament interpretation, and explainsthat the verse should be translated this way because it is an instance of "royal hyperbole." To put

it more plainly, we are asked to think that here a king is lightly addressed as "God" by a court

poet who is laying it on thick, as we say, with a bit of exuberantflattery. In the New Testament it

is quoted to establish the divinity of Christ, but in the NET Bible it is interpreted as a piece ofhyperbolic rhetoric. The same explanation is given for in Isaiah 9:6.(12)

These are only a few of the places where the New Testament has been ignored and contradicted

by the translators and annotators of the NET Bible's Old Testament, in accordance with their

ideas about what is "pleasing to God" in a Bible version.

Christians of past generations never did this. They never imagined that the Old Testament could

be understood rightly apart from the interpretations of it given in the New Tesament. In ancient

times only the heretics who rejected the Old Testament interpreted it in this manner. Marcionthe arch-heretic of the second centuryrefused to accept the apostolic interpretations of the Old

Testament, and (consistently enough) he erased quotations of the Old Testament from his copiesof the New Testament. But faithful Christians did not follow Marcion; they received andtreasured the Old Testament scriptures as interpreted by the apostles. Bernard Ramm writes:

The conviction of the early Church was that the Old Testament was a Christian book. Itrecognized its inspiration no doubt. But a sheer appeal to the inspiration of the Old Testament

without the profound conviction that it was a Christian book would not have made its case. The

heresy of Marcionthat the Old Testament was not a Christian bookhas been vigorouslycontested in the Christian Church wherever and whenever it has appeared and in whatever form

it has appeared. The entire Patristic period is uniform in its testimony that the Old Testament

belongs to the Church because it is a Christian book. There is absolutely no doubt that this

conviction stemmed from the manner in which our Lord and his apostles used the OldTestament.(13)

Even fifty years ago, no scholar who wished to be taken seriously in conservative churcheswould have contradicted Ramm's statement that "If an Old Testament scholar says that a given

passage meant so-and-so to the Jews (on the grounds that the passage must have meaning to its

contemporaries) and limits its meaningto that meaning, he is misapplying the cultural principleand denying thesensus pleniorof Old Testament prophecy."

(14)Ramm associated this negative
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note11http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note11http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note11http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note12http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note12http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note12http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note13http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note13http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note13http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note14http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note14http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note14http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note14http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note13http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note12http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note11


10/29

"use of the grammatico-historical method of exegesis in the hands of the religious liberals" with

"radical criticism" and characterized it as "a return of Marcionism."(15)

In 1953 the faculty of

Dallas Theological Seminary issued a scathingCritique of the Revised Standard Versionfor thismanner of treating the Old Testament. But evidently this seminary has changed quite a bit since

then.

We are not inclined to mince words on this subject. The ancient Church would never have

tolerated such a treatment of the Old Testament. The first Christians rejoiced to see Christ

everywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (Luke 24:27-32), and we cannot accept any translation ofthe Bible which deliberately prevents us from doing the same. The apostle John wrote, "Isaiah

said these things because he saw [Christ's] glory and spoke of him" (John 12:41). We cannot

contradict these words. We are not ashamed to stand with the apostles, and we read the Old

Testament as they read it. We affirm that Christ was seen by the Prophets, and was prefigured inmysterious ways in the Old Testament.

Independence of the Translation

Theprefacemakes some unusual claims about the independence of the translators. It states,

In addition to format and content, the broad framework of the project is unique among

translations. From its beginning the project has been independent of ecclesiastical control. TheNET Bible is not funded by any denomination or church. This has directly impacted the content:Translators and editors are free to follow where the text leads and translate as they see best.

There is no pressure to make sure the text reads a certain way. This does not mean that the

project is not responsible to anyone. In a very real sense, the NET Bible is responsible to theuniversal body of Christ. Through publication on the Internet and free distribution of the text, the

editors and translators have sought to submit the NET Bible to their brothers and sisters in Christ

all over the world. The questions, comments, and feedback received from them are examinedvery carefully, and the translation and notes are reevaluated in response. This dynamic processyields a Bible that is honest to the original text of the Bible, yet valuable and acceptable to Bible

readers everywhere.

This is an interesting paragraph, because it expresses some grand ideas about the version and its

relationship to the Church.

The claim that the NET Bible is "unique among translations" in its freedom from "ecclesiastical

control" seems to imply that other versions in common use have been produced under the direct

control of ecclesiastical officials. But this is not true. Most of the versions currently in use amongProtestants were produced by committees which were not subject to any regular church

authority. Even among Roman Catholics, the bishop's imprimaturhas become a rubber-stamp for

anything the scholars want to publish. Nearly all modern versions have been produced bycommittees which answer only to publishers, to non-denominational Bible societies, or to liberal

churchmen who show little interest in perpetuating traditional dogma. Why do the NET Bible

editors say that their version is unique in its independence? It would have been helpful if theeditors were to have given some examples of what they have in mind here, but we must suppose

that it is not so much "ecclesiastical control," as the influence of Christian theology in general. It
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note15http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note15http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note15http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv-bibsac.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note15


11/29

reminds us of a similar statement made in the introduction of theJesus Seminar's version of the

Gospels:

The Scholars Version is free of ecclesiastical and religious control, unlike other major

translations into English, including the King James Version and its descendants (Protestant), the

Douay-Rheims Version and its progeny (Catholic), and the New International Version(Evangelical).... The Scholars Version is authorized by scholars.(16)

The NET Bible editors seem to take it for granted that there is something wrongwith the kind of"ecclesiastical" influence that would tend to make Bible translations reflect the traditions of

historic Christian orthodoxy. Evidently it pleases them to think that in the absence of such

influence, scholars will still tend to interpret the Bible rightly. This is an idea often expressed bynaive people in the independent churches, who do not seem to be aware of how much their

teachings depend upon theological traditions.

There is an assumption here, that when there is no "ecclesiastical" pressure, there is no pressure

to make the text read "a certain way." But this is very far from being true, because not allpressures come from the Church. Arguably, the strongest pressures and temptations for Bible

translatorsmost of whom are employed as professorscome from within theiracademicenvironment. Professional scholars are not immune from peer pressure; they are exposed to the

influence of hermeneutical fads, intellectual bandwagons, and conventional thinking; they are no

more independent of such influences than are the pastors of the churches, or the laymen in thepews. Those who are ambitious for academic respectability will not flout the reigning

orthodoxies of their environment. For instance, at liberal "mainline" seminaries, such as the one

at Princeton University, it is a regarded as a settled fact that there are two irreconcilable

narratives of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis. The traditional manner of explainingthe relationship between 1:12:3 and the narrative that follows it is thought to be not only wrong

but intolerablygauche. It is associated with the belief in biblical inerrancy, which was rejectedby scholars in the liberal seminaries more than a century ago. Will anyone who aspires to betaken seriously at Princeton contradict this opinion? Not if he understands the situation there. No

one who wishes to be taken seriously at Princeton can afford to contradict the conventional

wisdom on this subject, and on many other subjects. The requirements of academic respectabilityare really quite elaborate, and many of these stem from the demands ofpolitical correctness. One

must avoid, for instance, the politically incorrect "A.D." (Anno Domini) in dates, because it

means "the year of our Lord," and this is thought to be offensive to Jews. One should write,

"C.E." instead, for the "Common Era." Where such rules prevail, those who believe that theBible is non-contradictory and inerrant have no place, and those who would dare to interpret the

Bible in accordance with this belief are far outside the pale of respectability. The unbelieving

scholars who created the academic culture where such requirements are in force consider

themselves to be "independent" and "objective" thinkers, of course.

Gender-Neutral Language

The most conspicuous feature of academic political correctness in the past thirty years has been

the demand for the use of "non-sexist"gender-neutral language. Secular scholars cannot safely
http://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note16http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note16http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note16http://www.bible-researcher.com/political-correctness.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/political-correctness.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/political-correctness.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/political-correctness.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note16http://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/5gospels.html


12/29

ignore it, even when preparing translations of ancient literature, and some renderings in the NET

Bible can only be understood as a consequence of this pressure.

The gender-neutral language in the NET Bible is moderate when compared to some other recent

Bible versions, such as theTNIV. We notice that in the NET Bible, the willful "brother" does not

disappear from Matthew 18:15-17, the cowering "women" are still to be seen in Isaiah 19:16,and the masculine singular pronouns are not removed from Psalm 1. But there is an avoidance of

the words "son," "man," and "men" when the translators felt that the sense would not be affected

by putting in their place "child," "person," "people," etc. For example, in Mark 1:17 the genericmasculine in "I will make you fishers of men" is neutralized with the rendering "I willturn you into fishers of people." This is accurate enough, and it requires no explanation or

apology. But we note with disappointment that when the editors do offer an explanation of it in

their preface, they do not acknowledge the true reason for their avoidance of the word "men,"and instead they repeat the evasive claim often made by proponents of gender-neutral language,

that a phrase like "fishers of men" would be misunderstoodby modern readers. We should like to

see evidence that any reader who is capable of understanding the metaphorical usage of "fishers"

here would be so dense as to think that "fishers of men" means that Jesus is calling Simon andAndrew to become evangelists of male adults only. But again, regardless of the motives for it, it

makes little difference whether the plural of is translated "men" or "people" in mostplaces.

There are however some places where the NET Bible has actually falsified the sense by avoiding

masculine nouns. An example is in Proverbs 6:20, where the word for "son" appears in theHebrew, but the NET Bible has "child." Obviously we have problems with the genderless "child"

when we arrive at the warning given to him or her beginning in verse 24, concerning the dangers

of loose women! There it becomes apparent that this is a father-son talk about matters which arevery far from being gender-neutral, and which have no relevance to a "child" of either sex. The

same thing occurs in Proverbs 7:1 and following. In Psalm 1:1 "the man" is inaccurately

translated "the one." A note here rightly points out that the word does mean "man," and it

explains that Scripture "often assumes and reflects the male-oriented perspective of ancientIsraelite society." Nevertheless, they translate it as if it were gender-neutral, so as to "facilitate

modern application." Yet it seems very doubtful that any Christian woman needs the "man"

neutered here before she can apply the teaching of this Psalm to herself. In Ezra 2:2 the phrase, lit. "the number of the men of the people of Israel," is arbitrarily paraphrased

"the number of Israelites." The reason for this suppression of a masculine word is not hard to

guess, but did the translator not notice that this is likely to be misleading? Unless readers knowthat only the men were counted in an ancient Jewish census (cf. Numbers 1:2), they will

naturally suppose that the numbers given in this chapter include the women. We observe that

another NET Bible translator gives a more accurate rendering of this same Hebrew phrase in

Nehemiah 7:7, "the number of Israelite men," and notes that "Some English versions translate as'the people from Israel' (NCV) or 'the Israelite people' (NRSV), but 'men' should be retained

because the following numbers presumably include only adult males." Actually, a more helpful

note would have explained that should be understood 'laymen of' here, because the priests,

levites, and other temple workers are enumerated separately; but this annotator is preoccupiedwith the need to apologize for not suppressing the word entirelyas his colleague did in Ezra2:2.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/tniv.html


13/29

We cannot help but notice that, in their treatment of messianic passages of the Old Testament,

the editors claimed that they were sticklers for the exact meaning of Hebrew words, and that

their "unswerving focus on accuracy" prevented them from translating these passages with theNew Testament's application of them to Jesus Christ in view; but when we come to the

translation of masculine terms they are quite ready to swerve, with the plea that these must be

avoided or neutralized so that modern female readers can apply the teachings and promises of thetext to themselves. We perceive that the expectations of a proper Christian application of thetexteven when they carry the credentials of the New Testamentare bluntly rejected andignored, while the demands associated with modern feminism get respectful attention, and a

degree of paraphrastic accommodation. The most charitable construction we can put on this isthat it indicates a skewed sense of priorities, under the influence of secular academic trends.

The editors do not seem to realize how insulting it is when they imply that Christian women needor want such patronizing adjustments of the text. The truth is, women have no problem with

"blessed is the man ..." and other such passages, for they easily take things to heart. Men, on the

other hand, are much less inclined to take things personally, and almost need to be addressed by

name before they will apply something to themselves. Those who are wise to this well-knownfact of pastoral ministry will think twice before removing the word "man" from the Bible. And

we have some serious reservations about the principle of translation which would make it theduty of a translator to modify the text so as to facilitate application. In recent years this principlehas been invoked to justify all sorts of distortions of the text. Translators should leave application

to the reader, and to pastors.

But enough has been said on this subject inanother place. And in general we have reason to

thank the NET Bible editors for the restraint they show in this area, despite the fact that in some

places they have failed to resist the pressure to neutralize the text.

Text-Critical Decisions

Daniel Wallace reports that the NET Bible's New Testament is based on "a critically constructed

Greek text, following the principles of reasoned eclecticism." By the phrase "reasoned

eclecticism" he means the method of textual criticism practiced by most scholars today,including the editors of the Nestle-Aland (UBS) text. The method is "eclectic" in that readings

are chosen from a variety of witnesses and text-types, and "reasoned" in that it generally prefers

older manuscripts which are judged to be superior. Wallace says that the NET text differs fromthe Nestle-Aland text "in about 500 places."

(17)Interestingly enough, Appendix A of the printed

edition states, "the Greek text to be used by individual translators was decided by the textual

consultant." The identity of this "consultant" is not revealed, but there is good reason to suppose

that it was Wallace, who has published a number of articles on the subject of textual criticism.This is a notable departure from the usual method of translation committees, in which the text is

established by a consensus of the committee.

In the Old Testament, the translators seem to have preferred the Masoretic text, although they

often abandon it in places where small difficulties arise. In a pinch, they adopt an easier reading

from the Dead Sea Scrolls, or a reading indicated by the ancient versions, or a conjecturalemendation. Some of their conjectural emendations are of the highly speculative kind that one
http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note17http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note17http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note17http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note17http://www.bible-researcher.com/inclusive.html


14/29

rarely sees in Bible versions, though they are seen often enough in modern critical commentaries.

Readers of the NET Bible will encounter some surprising renderings based upon these

emendations.

A typical example is in Isaiah 3:12, where we find the rendering "Oppressors treat my people

cruelly; creditors rule over them." This requires a revision of the Hebrew consonants in twowords ( is changed to ) and a change of the vowel points in another word( "and women" is repointed to read "and creditors"). But the Dead Sea Scrolls support the

traditional text here, and the text is not problematic enough to justify these emendations.(18)

Wealso notice that in the following verse (3:13), the NET Bible needlessly emends the Hebrew

"peoples" to "his people," simply because "his people" seems to fit better in the context.

These emendations to the text of Isaiah 3:12-13 were not invented by the NET Bible editors; they

are in the margin of the critical edition of the Hebrew text used by the translators, theBibliaHebraica Stuttgartensia, and they enjoy some scholarly support. They are found also in theNew

English Bible(notorious for its emendations) and its successor, theRevised English Bible. But

all other English versions have adhered to the Masoretic text in Isaiah 3:12-13, and for good

reasons. We think a tendency to emend an already intelligible text that is supported by the oldestmanuscripts indicates a lack of critical tact and modestyand perhaps also an overly pessimisticview of the preservation of the text in existing manuscripts. The reliability of the Hebrew text ismoreover a point of traditional Protestant teaching, and although it seems to be out of favor nowat Dallas, we should like to see it maintained.

(19)

The Margin

The version contains a very full margin of footnotes, which, like the translation, are of uneven

character and value.

Most are labeled "tn" for "translator note," and these are sometimes highly technical, usinggrammatical terms which few readers will understand. They may be compared to the notes inRobertson's Word Pictures in the New Testamentor in Rienecker'sLinguistic Key to the New

Testament. They will be helpful to advanced students, but many of these "tn" notes are tiresome

and tendentious (e.g. informing the reader over and over again thatneeds to betranslated "people" because it is inclusive of women) or merely trivial, and clutter the page to no

purpose.

Some of the "tn" notes show an annoying tendency to defend the translation by associating other

interpretations with mere ignorance of the languages, or with theological agendas. An example

of this is at Proverbs 8:22, rendered "the LORD created me as the beginning of his works," andwith the following note:

There are two roots (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning 'to possess,' and the other meaning 'tocreate.' The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain

places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic

confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation 'possess'because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning.

They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note18http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note18http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note18http://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note19http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note19http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note19http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note19http://www.bible-researcher.com/reb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/neb.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note18


15/29

wisdom of God and so chose the translation 'create.' Athanasius translated it, 'constituted me as

the head of creation.' The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of 'to acquire';

but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning 'create.' Although the idea is thatwisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses ('appointed,' 'given birth') argue

for the translation of 'create' or 'establish' (R. N. Whybray, 'Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed

Prototypes,' VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, 'Where Will Wisdom Be Found?' JBL 80[1961]: 133-42).

There are several problems here. For one thing, the traditional rendering "possessed" does notindicate any lack of knowledge about recent developments in Hebrew philology. It is found not

only in the versions done before the discovery of the Ugaritic literature, but also in such modern

versions as the NASB, NKJV, and ESV. This understanding of the word is also reflected in the

CEV rendering "from the beginning I was with the Lord." The translators of these modernversions were not ignorant, they simply disagreed with the idea that the word means "create"

here. We also notice that the NIV has "brought me forth," and the NAB has "begot me," which

represents another understanding of the Hebrew word. Were all these translators just ignorant? If

we look at the most recent edition of the Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon (2001), we find that itdoes not give two different roots. There is only one, with a range of proposed meanings,

including "buy," "acquire," "create," and "produce." As for the opinions of Arius and Athanasius,these pertain not to the Hebrew word , but to the Septuagint's ("the Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works"). Theseancient theologians did not know Hebrew, and they did not refer to the Hebrew text. (At that

time, the Septuagint was used as an authoritative source in every theological dispute.) Thestatement that Athanasius "translated it, 'constituted me as the head of creation'" is doubly false.

Athanasius was interpreting a Greek sentence, he wrote in Greek, and his interpretion of this

phrase cannot be summarized 'constituted me as the head of creation.'(20)

The writer of this note

says that the "Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning create," but in theSeptuagint may also mean "established."

(21)He also fails to indicate that the otherGreek

versions done in ancient times (by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion) all have "hepossessed," and the Vulgate haspossedit. Regarding the "parallel ideas" or contextual

indications, he says that they "argue for the translation of 'create' or 'establish'" for the Hebrewword , but we see a very different opinion expressed by Bruce Metzger:

The passage in the Old Testament to which Jehovah's Witnesses (and Arians of every age)

appeal most frequently is Proverbs 8:22 ff. The translation usually given is the following, or

something similar to it: "Jehovah made me [that is, Wisdom, interpreted as the Son] in thebeginning of his way, before his works of old." This rendering understands the verb to be

used here with the meaning "to create." The true translation of this passage, however, according

to a learned study by the eminent Semitic scholar, F.C. Burney, must be, "The Lord begat me as

the beginning of his way ..." [F.C. Burney, "Christ as the of creation,"Journal ofTheological Studies, XXVII (1926), 160-177.] The context favors this rendering, for the growth

of the embryo is described in the following verse (verse 23, where the verb appears, as a footnote

in Kittel's Hebrew Bible suggests, to be from the root "knit together," as in Job 10:11 and

Psalm 139:13), and the birth of Wisdom is described in the two following verses (24 and 25).Thus, in the context, the verb in verse 22 appears with certainty to mean "got" or "begot."

(22)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note20http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note20http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note20http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note21http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note21http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note21http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note22http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note22http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note22http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note22http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note21http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note20


16/29

Regarding in verse 23, which is translated "I was appointed" in the NET Bible, a note says

only "it is not a common word; it occurs here and in Ps 2:6 for the coronation of the king. It

means 'installed, set.'" There is no mention of the interpretation suggested by Metzger in thepassage quoted above, or of others commonly found in scholarly literature and English versions.

We have "poured forth" in the NAB, "poured out" in the Berkeley version, "fashioned" in the

NEB, JPS, and NIV margin, "formed" in the REB, etc. The Koehler-Baumgartner lexicon (2001)lists this occurrence as a niphal form of under "woven, shaped," and, with different vowelpoints, as a form of (as suggested by Kittel), which it interprets as "made into shape." The

note should have acknowledged the existence of these other interpretations.

The NET Bible's renderings here are based upon the translator's opinion about what fits best in

the immediate context. But its notes do not interact with other likely interpretations in a decent

way, and they fail even to mention some of them. The note on contains false and misleadingstatements, and it tries to dismiss the other renderings of the Hebrew word as ignorant or

theologically biased. This is especially to be regretted when we consider that the rendering

"created" lends support to heretical opinions.

In 2 Peter 1:1 we find the rendering "our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Here a translator's note

calls attention to the fact that "this is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning thedeity of Christ," explains that the rendering is supported by the "Granville Sharp rule" of Greek

syntax, and refers the reader to Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics for more

information. The same note is found at Titus 2:13, in explanation of the rendering "our great God

and Savior Jesus Christ." This is a very helpful note, as far as it goes,(23)

and we have noobjection to these renderings. However, we are left wondering why in 2 Peter 1:1 and in Titus 2:13 do not receive the sameexegetical treatment as was given to in Psalm 45:6 and in Isaiah 9:6. A number ofscholars have pointed out that and were practically stock phrases in the Hellenistic culture, used in reference to mortal kingswho were honored with divine titles.

(24)As we noted above, the NET Bible has explained

in Psalm 45:6 and in Isaiah 9:6 as instances of such rhetorical deification, in imitation of thepagans, despite the fact that Psalm 45:6 is quoted as scriptural proof of Christ's divinity in the

New Testament. So how will the NET Bible editors answer someone who interprets the "clearest

statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ" in 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 in the samerationalistic way that they have treated Psalm 45:6 and Isaiah 9:6?

One bright spot in the version is the rendering of John 1:1, in which the phrase is translated "and the Word was fully God," and a translator's note explains that here theanarthrous pedicate noun (God) bears a qualitative meaning; i.e., it attributes to the (Word) all the essential or defining qualities of God himself. This handling of the matter is

clearly better than the usual procedure in English versions, in which the phrase is rendered "theWord was God" without explanation, and readers are left wondering how the Word "was with

God" and also "was God." Some who lack a formal education in Christian theology might prefer

the paradoxical traditional rendering, and might think that the explanation given in the noteweakens the theological force of the statement, but in fact the NET Bible here not only expresses

the meaning more accurately, but also happens to be more in line with the orthodox doctrine of
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note23http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note23http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note23http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note24http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note24http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note24http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note24http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note23


17/29

the Trinity. As Wallace points out, the traditional English rendering "the Word was God" might

suggest a kind of Sabellian (modalistic) Unitarianism.(25)

In some places where a note is obviously called for in such a margin, there is none. For example,

at Acts 14:1 the expression is translated "the same thing happened" without

comment, but the note in Rieneker's manual explains that the expression means 'together' orperhaps 'in the same way' or 'at one time.' In Romans 8:3 a fairly useless note advises readers that

"because it was weakened through the flesh" is literally "in thatit was weakened by the flesh,"

but the very obscure rendering "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh andconcerning sin, he condemned sin" is left without comment. In Romans 8:20-21 the rendering is,

"For the creation was subjected to futilitynot willingly but because of God who subjected itin hope that the creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of decay into the glorious

freedom of God's children," and here a note explains that the text reads literally "because of theone who subjected it," and "the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity."

But there is a notable lack of clarity in the rendering of the following clause, "in hope that the

creation ...," which seems to imply that God merely entertains a "hope" for the renovation of the

creation. This rendering is very problematic, and indeed it does not convey Paul's meaning at all.The idea that God merely "hopes" that the world will end up being renewed is quite out-of-place

in biblical theology; and the commentators generally agree that the "hope" mentioned here ispoetically attributed to the creation, not to God, although the syntax of the Greek sentence isawkward and perhaps "slightly tangled," as Dunn puts it (Romans 1-8 [Dallas: Word Books,

1988], p. 470). The NET Bible translator should at least have given a note indicating the

generally-accepted meaning, represented by the RSV's rendering "subjected it in hope; becausethe creation." He shows a rather peculiar sense for what is noteworthy or clear in the text,

neglecting entirely this point of exegesis and translation, after having bothered to inform the

reader that the word "God" has been supplied in the preceding clause.

In Hebrews 11:1 the words are rendered "Now faith isbeing sure of what we hope for" without a note, as if there were no reason to doubt that

bears the meaning "confidence, assurance." But the BAGD lexicon (1979) states thatthis proposed sense of the word "must be eliminated, since examples of it cannot befound," and assigns to it the meaning "realization," in agreement with the TDNT. The revised

BDAG of 2000 continues to warn translators that the sense presumed in the NET Bible "must beeliminated" from consideration, but suggests that "guarantee of ownership/entitlement, title

deed" rather than "realization" may be the sense of in Hebrews 11:1. This is no minorpoint of exegesis: it is crucial to the understanding of an often-quoted verse which appears to setforth a definition of "faith," and discussions of it may be found in any exegetical commentary.

The NET Bible translator shows no awareness of the matter. But then, after ignoring this

important translation issue concerning in verse 1, he cites the BDAG lexicon for hisuncontroversial rendering "with reverent regard" for in verse 7, as if this renderingrequired an explanation or were in some way exegetically interesting.

In 1 Corinthians 7:21 the translator has adopted a very questionable interpretation, in which Paulseems to be advising slaves to seek freedom ("if indeed you are able to be free, make the most of

the opportunity"), without providing a note that gives the more likely interpretation (cf. the

rendering in the NRSV and NAB, which fits much better in the context). Regarding this
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note25http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note25http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note25http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note25


18/29

example, we observe that the RSV translators made the same mistake. In the first edition of their

New Testament (1946) they gave the rendering "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of

the opportunity," without a footnote. But as one reviewer pointed out, this rendering "illustrateshow divergent interpretations of the same Greek may be introduced into the English translation

when attempts are made to remove rather than to reproduce its ambiguity. It is in just such

instances that marginal comment would be useful."

(26)

This criticism was not ignored by theRSV committee. When the New Testament of the RSV was slightly revised for the publication ofthe complete RSV Bible in 1953, they added a footnote here, "Or, make use of your present

condition instead." In our generation many translators are too eager to interpret the Bible for

readers, and people are too often misled by versions that present questionable interpretations.

Other notes, labeled "sn" for "study notes," give the kind of cultural background information that

is often helpful for an accurate understanding of the text. Most of these resemble the notes foundin study Bibles intended for laymen (e.g. the NIV Study Bible), but some go deeper, and

resemble the comments one finds in scholarly introductions. A good example of the latter type is

the long note (of about 180 words) at Isaiah 1:23 which explains that the rich people who are so

often denounced in the writings of the prophets were not private capitalists, but people whocontrolled the government bureaucracies. It makes a big difference when people understand that

this is how great wealth was ordinarily gotten in the ancient Near East (and still is today in "thirdworld" countries)members of the ruling families were enriched by highway tolls and tariffsdemanded from merchants, heavy taxes laid on farmers and artisans, tribute money and slaves

taken from subjugated peoples, bribes collected from everyone who must deal with them,

exemptions and advantages obtained arbitrarily through their legal and administrative privileges,and other parasitic uses of their public authority. The NET Bible note here rightly suggests that

those whose have grown rich in this way should not be confused with those who have gained

wealth by productive enterprises in a free market system.

Some of the "sn" notes are, however, rather one-sided, and some of them appear to have an

apologetic purpose.

The "sn" note at Isaiah 8:8 presents "several reasons for considering Immanuel and Maher-

Shalal-Hash-Baz one and the same," without even mentioning other interpretations which aremore widely accepted. The opinion presented in the NET Bible is certainly not the opinion of

most scholars (see Wildberger's commentary for a brief review of opinions held by modern

scholars), and the other views should not have gone unmentioned.

There is a long "sn" note (of about 1,000 words) at John 2:14, in favor of the conservative view

that there were two cleansings of the Temple by Christ, one at the beginning of his ministry

(reported by John) and one at the end (described by Matthew, Mark and Luke). The basic reasonfor this opinion among conservatives is that we want to credit John with historical accuracy,

rather than supposing that he freely altered the facts or invented fictitious accounts of Christ's

ministry to suit his own theological purposes, as the liberals do. But the argument of the note is

rather tepid: "It thus appears possible to argue for two seperate cleansings of the Temple as wellas a single one relocated by John to suit his purposes," but it "appears somewhat more probable

that John has placed the event he records in the approximate period of Jesus' public ministry in
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note26http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note26http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note26http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note26


19/29

which it do occur." We do not get the impression that the writer of this note thinks that John must

be credited with historical accuracy.

The "sn" note at 1 Corinthians 14:34 also reflects an apologetic agenda. It is designed to remove

the offensive prohibition against women speaking in the worship service, by suggesting that in

vv. 34-35 Paul is only saying that women should refrain from speaking while the men of thecongregation were "evaluating the prophets," during some period of critical discussion about the

prophecies given in the Corinthian worship services. But the wording of the prohibition is much

too absolute and emphatic for such a limitation of its meaning, and nothing in the contextsuggests that it was intended to be understood in this way. There is not even any indication in the

context (or anywhere else in early Christian literature) that a critical "evaluation of the prophets"

session took place during Christian worship services.(27)

If these verses are indeed authentic, as

the "tc" note concludes, then the prohibition must be taken seriously; its scope cannot berestricted to an imaginary setting of bygone days. Theprophesying of womenmentioned in 11:5

does not force us to such an unnatural interpretation of 14:34-35, because there is no need to

suppose that the "prophesying" mentioned there could only have taken place in the weekly

worship service that Paul is making rules for here.

(28)

Conspicuously absent from the "study notes" is any discussion of the authorship of the books ofthe New Testament. The only place where we have found the subject addressed is in a "tc" note

on Ephesians 1:1, where the question of this epistle's authorship is raised because of its bearing

on a text-critical issue. The words "in Ephesus" are omitted by some early manuscripts, and the

note offers one explanation which involves the assumption that Paul wrote the epistle; but itinforms readers that the Pauline authorship is "strongly contested today." Thereafter, the

annotator adopts an agnostic attitude in his notes. He does not attribute the epistle to Paul, but

prefers to speak of "the author" of the epistle. For example, the note on verse 3 discusses "theauthor's intention," and draws certain conclusions about what "the author seems to be" saying.

Notes on verses 4 and 15 discuss "the author's use" of a word and "the author's prayer." The

annotator cannot bring himself to say, "Paul's." On the other hand, we do not find such a

reluctance to say "Paul" in the notes to the Pastoral Epistles. But then again in the epistles ofJohn (all three) we have "the author," and likewise in the epistles of Peter. The annotators of

John's Gospel often use the cumbersome phrase "the author of the Fourth Gospel" instead of

simply writing "John." (This is like saying, "the author ofThe Babylonian Captivity of theChurch"as if we didn't know it was Martin Luther.) Perhaps some of the NET Bible annotatorswrite this way only because in the sort of books they read this is how writers normally refer to

the authors of the New Testament. But it does seem odd for those who are convinced that theNew Testament books are the authentic writings of the apostles.

The "tc" notes delve into text-critical matters which many readers will not be able to follow, but

these are probably the most valuable part of the NET Bible. They are the most complete anddetailed set of text-critical notes on the internet, and they are comparable to the notes in

Metzger's Textual Commentary. In the Old Testament, the "tc" notes bring together a lot of

information which has never before been made available in one volume, and not in some skimpyform, but in such a way that the student can fully understand the thinking involved in many

textual decisions. The note at Deuteronomy 32:8 that explains the emendation "according to the

number of the heavenly assembly" (supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint) is an
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note27http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note27http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note27http://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note28http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note28http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note28http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note28http://www.bible-researcher.com/women-prophesying.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#note27


20/29

especially good example of this. Ordinarily the student must have access to a whole library of

Old Testament commentaries in order to understand the thinking behind the various departures

from the Masoretic text one sees in modern versions of the Bible. There is some room forimprovement in this area. For example, the editors fail to note the Dead Sea Scroll/Septuagint

reading in Deuteronomy 32:43, which is favored by many scholars, and adopted in the NEB,

REB, NRSV, and ESV. After the emendation and note at 32:8, we expected to see a similar notehere. The editors also fail to note the Dead Sea Scroll reading in Isaiah 53:11. The note at Isaiah21:8 fails to mention that the reading adopted in the text is supported by the Dead Sea Scrolls,

and presents the reading as if it were a conjecture without manuscript support. But even so, the

NET Bible editors have done a great favor for students here.

Conclusion

The NET Bible has some good features. The primary strength of the version is its value as a free

internet resource for fledgling scholars who would otherwise have no convenient access to the

kind of grammatical and text-critical information presented in the notes. But the "tn" and "sn"

notes cannot be relied upon to inform the reader where scholars differ on important points ofinterpretation. When they do notice other interpretations, they tend to be dismissive, defensive,

and sometimes misleading. These notes are in need of some careful revision. Students who arestudying the notes of the NET Bible should realize that many of them barely scratch the surface

of the interpretive issues, and they are no substitute for a comprehensive exegetical commentary.

It would be to their advantage if the editors were to get a clearer sense of the purpose of the

version. Apparently it was originally conceived as a Bible for students who required a fairly

literal translation for close study, with detailed exegetical notes; but revisions moved the text in a

paraphrastic direction, as if it had to be understandable to uneducated and casual readers, to thosewho are offended at "sexist" language, and even to such dull readers as those who cannot

understand obvious metaphors (e.g. "under his feet"). The result is, the translation itself is notvery useful for close study. And there are already several versions which present a moreidiomatic translation for readers who need one. What is needed is a version that will be useful to

the same readers who will benefit from the scholarly marginal apparatus. It does not make sense

to attach such an apparatus to a version intended for uneducated readers. The translation shouldbe much more literal than it is now.

We also would like to see the un-Christian treatment of the Old Testament repaired, but it seemsthat the editors have committed themselves to this approach. The explanation for it in the preface

is facile and theologically inadequate. We cannot overlook the rationalistic presuppositions of

their approach, which practically excludes the apostolic interpretations of the Old Testament.

Although the editors seem to hope that their version will be "acceptable to Bible readerseverywhere," they must know that it will not be acceptable to conservatives as long as they

persist in this treatment of the Old Testament. The editors should not imagine that they have

been "responsible to the universal body of Christ" when they merely invite people to send email

to their website. The body of Christ has been around for nearly two thousand years, and it is nosmall thing to be responsible to it. When modern scholars cherish novelties, show contempt for

the universal Church's heritage of interpretation, and boast of their independence from all

"ecclesiastical" bodies, they minimize their responsibility to the Church.


21/29

Michael Marlowe

14 August 2006, revised 1 January 2007.

1.Daniel B. Wallace, "An Open Letter Regarding the NET Bible, New Testament."Notes onTranslation 14.4 (2000): 1-8. Accessed online July 16 2002 at

www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/NOT_NET.htm.

2.Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture, 5th ed., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870),

p. 182. Likewise, Roger Nicole states that "the Spirit of God may very well have inspiredexpressions which potentially transcended the thoughts of the sacred writers and of those to

whom they addressed themselves. This certainly occurred in the case of Caiaphas (John 11:49-

52), and there is no ground to deny the possibility of such a process in the inspiration of the Old

Testament Scripture." ("New Testament Use of the Old Testament," inRevelation and the Bible,ed. Carl. F.H. Henry [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958], pp. 137-151.)

3.Raymond E. Brown, The Sensus Pleniorof Sacred Scripture (Baltimore: St. Mary'sUniversity, 1955), p. 92. Secular scholars do not recognize such asensus plenior, because they

do not acknowledge that the text is verbally inspired by God. Some scholars who do affirm the

doctrine of verbal inspiration have argued against thesensus pleniorconcept, such as Walter C.Kaiser, Jr. (see his article "Legitimate Hermeneutics," inInerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980] pp. 125, 127; and his bookToward an Exegetical Theology:

Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981], p. 47); but in such

cases, the arguments depend upon the acceptability of some very problematic attempts to showthat the original authors of the Old Testament Books consciously intended all the meanings

drawn from their words by the New Testament authors. A convincing reply to Kaiser's view of

"authorial intent" is given by Raju D. Kunjummen in his article "The Single Intent of ScriptureCritical Examination of a Theological Construct," Grace Theological Journal7/1 (Spring, 1986)pp. 81-111. The weakness of Kaiser's arguments leads us to suppose that other motives and

influences are at work here. Probably he and other Dispensationalists reject thesensus plenior

concept because it tends to undercut the "literal interpretation" principle of Dispensationalisthermeneutics.

4.Cf. Hans-Joachim Kraus: "In the whole use of the quotation the decisive factor is that Psalm 8

is taken out of an anthropological setting into a Christological one. Behind this lies the

conviction that only the Son of God can be that ['son of man'], under whose feet all things are

placed in subjection (cf. also 1 Cor. 15:27)." (Theology of the Psalms, translated by Keith Crim[Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986], p. 202.) We reject D.A. Carson's apology for the 'inclusivist'

rendering of Psalm 8 in his "Review of the New Revised Standard Version" (Reformed

Theological Review 50/1 [January-April 1991], pp. 1-11), where he asserts that in Hebrews 2:6-8

the words of Psalm 8:5-6 are merely "appliedto Jesus ... qua human being," and that here thephrase "son of man" is "not a Christological title with univocal reference to Jesus (the dominant

if not exclusive usage in the Gospels)." (p. 9.) This is an unlikely interpretation of Hebrews 2:6-

8, and it ignores the fact that 1 Cor. 15:27 also interprets "thou hast put all things under his feet"in Psalm 8 christologically. Moreover, it certainly does not represent the thinking of the NRSV's
http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota1http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota1http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota2http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota2http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota3http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota4http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota3http://www.bible-researcher.com/nicole.htmlhttp://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota2http://www.bible-researcher.com/net.html#nota1

Documents

The NET Bible Review