Lesson 61: Fatal Attraction (Genesis 34:1-31)

Related Media

A few years ago, there was a popular movie called “Fatal Attraction.” I did not see it (because it was R-rated), but it was about a man whose involvement with a prostitute almost got him murdered. Genesis 34 is the original version of “Fatal Attraction.” A young man’s lust for a teenage girl results not only in his murder, but also in the murder of his father and all the men in his town. The script has lust, rape, anger, deception, greed, murder, and family conflict. Who needs the movies or TV--it’s all right here in the Bible!

You may wonder, “Why is a sordid chapter like this in the Bible?” If a Jewish writer, like Moses, had wanted to make the nation’s founding fathers look good, either he would have left this story out or doctored it up, because it isn’t a pretty picture. While Shechem’s date rape of Dinah was wrong, it was nothing compared to the treachery and brutality of Jacob’s sons, who even used their religion to trick these friendly men. After slaughtering them, they looted their goods and took their wives and children as slaves. God’s chosen people weren’t exactly being a channel for His blessing to the nations!

Since “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), this text has lessons for us. I think Moses included this chapter in all its repulsiveness to warn God’s people of the danger of becoming assimilated with the world. The nation Israel was about to go into the land of Canaan. The greatest danger facing them was not fighting the giants in the land. It was the danger of being seduced into blending in with the Canaanites. The same is true for us today:

Assimilation with the world is the greatest danger facing God’s people.

If Satan can get God’s people to act as bad or worse than those who do not know Christ, the world shrugs off the gospel. It’s even more tragic when Christians use the faith to take advantage of others, as Jacob’s sons did here. When believers are fatally attracted to the world, it is fatal for the world, which misses the gospel. Our text reveals three aspects about this fatal danger:

1. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it is a subtle danger.

The greatest dangers in life are always subtle, not frontal. With a frontal danger, you’re on guard; you’re not as vulnerable. But with a subtle danger, like the proverbial frog in the kettle, you’re not aware of it until it’s too late. When Jacob returned to Canaan, Satan didn’t use an army or a band of robbers to try to get him. Instead, he used Jacob’s fear of Esau to get him to settle in the north, near Shechem. It was inside the borders of Canaan, so Jacob could rationalize that he had obeyed God by returning to the land. But it wasn’t Bethel, where Jacob needed to fulfill his vow to the Lord. It wasn’t Hebron, where his father Isaac was still living. Jacob’s settling on the outskirts of Shechem reminds us of Lot pitching his tent near Sodom. Although Jacob built an altar there, he wasn’t where God wanted him to be.

The Shechemites were friendly toward Jacob. Although the young man for whom the town was named violated Jacob’s daughter, he wanted to make things right. He said he loved her and wanted to marry her. He was willing to pay a handsome dowry. He and his father offered to form a friendly alliance, intermarrying with Jacob’s people and letting them trade and own property (34:9‑10). The appeal was for Jacob to “become one people” with them (34:16, 22). It sounded attractive.

Jacob thought he was in great danger in facing Esau; actually, he was quite safe then, surrounded by a regiment of angels. Here, Jacob thought he was quite safe with these friendly people, but he was in great danger. If he had accepted the Shechemites’ offer, God’s people would have been absorbed into the Canaanite culture and would have ceased to exist. We pray for the church in countries where there is persecution, and rightly so. But the greatest danger to God’s people is not persecution; it’s assimilation. Persecution has a way of weeding out the lukewarm. We who are prone to blend in with our hedonistic culture are in greater spiritual danger than those who are persecuted.

I am convinced that the primary way Satan has seduced American Christians is through television. We average over three hours of TV per day per person. That’s almost one full day in seven spent watching the tube! American teenagers view about 14,000 sexual references a year on television. Weekend daytime programs for children portray an average of 25 acts of violence per hour. A decade ago, Newsweek (11/24/86, p. 76) reported, “Many social scientists think that television’s portrayal of family life may be the single most influential factor in how we conduct it.” They cited a study by the National Institute of Mental Health that “a majority of adults and children use TV to learn how to handle their own domestic roles.”

Back when “Ozzie and Harriet,” “Leave it to Beaver,” and “Father Knows Best” were the prime-time hits, the negative influence may have been negligible. Those days are long gone! This month TV breaks new ground by having the star of “Ellen” come out with the fact that she is a lesbian. Previous episodes have featured her and others on the show having promiscuous sex. The American Family Association’s Journal gives a brief synopsis of some of each week’s programs. I was going to read a few of these to you, but they are so gross I decided I should not. But popular programs such as “Seinfeld,” “Friends,” “ER,” “NYPD Blue,” “Living Single,” “Burke’s Law,” “Frasier,” and many more, are pure raunch.

Studies have shown that those who identify themselves as evangelical Christians watch the same amount and the same programs as the society at large! I’m going to make a statement that may make you angry, but I will defend it: If you as a professing Christian watch that kind of programming on a regular basis, you are not a godly person and you will not raise godly children! You are being assimilated into our godless culture, whether you realize it or not. To watch such fare is to disobey Ephesians 5:3, 4: “But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.”

So we’ve got to be on guard, because Satan is a subtle foe. He doesn’t usually saunter up and say, “Would you like to ruin your life and the lives of your family? Follow me.” He’s subtle, seducing us when we think there is no danger.

2. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it happens in the course of everyday family life.

Shechem may have been good for Jacob’s finances, but it was disaster for his family. His seed of disobedience in not going all the way to Bethel resulted in this harvest of shameful events in Shechem. And it all came about in the course of everyday family living. Dinah, Jacob’s daughter by Leah, was about 14 or 15. Like any teenage girl, she wanted some girl friends, so she started wandering over to Shechem. As she hung out there, she scored big‑‑the prince, for whom the town was named, fell for her.

What 14 or 15 year‑old girl wouldn’t be thrilled by that? It would be like a freshman girl being asked to the homecoming dance by the captain of the football team. Dinah was probably a bit naive, so she allowed herself to get into a situation with Shechem where the two of them were alone. His passion got the best of him, and he raped her.

When word of what happened got back to Jacob, he didn’t know quite what to do. But his sons got mad, and then they got more than even! When Shechem and his father came seeking Dinah’s hand in marriage, Jacob’s sons told them deceitfully that if they and all the men in their town would be circumcised, Shechem could take Dinah in marriage. Shechem, who was highly respected, persuaded his townsmen to comply by convincing them that it would be financially profitable. When all the men of Shechem were at the height of their pain from the operation, Simeon and Levi took their swords, came upon the city unawares, and killed every male. Then Jacob’s sons looted the town and took all the women and children as slaves.

It was terrible revenge. Even though God would later command Israel to wipe out the Canaanites, He had not done that here. There is no way of justifying what they did. The whole incident was like an avalanche which begins with a little stone and ends up burying a whole town. It never would have happened if Dinah had not visited there, which would not have happened if Jacob had not settled there. And it all came about in the course of everyday family life. Perhaps as Dinah went out the door she called, “I’ll be back later; I’m going over to my friend’s house.” Little did anyone suspect the events which would transpire.

As God’s people, we’re locked into a life and death struggle with our enemy, the devil. When you think about spiritual warfare, you may conjure up images of missionaries confronting witch doctors or of evil governments persecuting Christians. But do you think of everyday family life? You should! The family is under attack from the enemy, and the battlefield is made up of everyday events like a teenager going over to a friend’s house.

My question is, why did Jacob and Leah let a girl of Dinah’s age go alone to a pagan city to be with pagan friends? Why no word of warning? And then, after the disaster of her being raped, it seems that Jacob was going to let her be married to Shechem. (He didn’t know of his sons’ evil plan.) Jacob’s father had warned him sternly not to take a bride for himself from among the Canaanites (28:1), but he doesn’t seem concerned that Dinah is going to be married to this Canaanite man!

Parents are responsible before God for where their kids go, what they do, and who they spend time with. Wrong friendships can lead Christian kids into terrible situations where they lack the wisdom or willpower to resist evil. Shechem was a pagan young man with no moral scruples living in a town that was just the same. What do you expect when you let your 14 year‑old daughter visit such a place alone? I think one reason Jacob wasn’t as angry about this incident as his sons were is that he knew it was as much his fault as anybody else’s.

I also suspect that Jacob didn’t have enough of a relationship with Dinah to have warned and corrected her anyway. She was Leah’s daughter, and Jacob wasn’t overly fond of Leah. In that culture, daughters weren’t as highly valued as sons. My guess is that Jacob hadn’t spent much time with Dinah. So when she wanted to go visit the girls in Shechem, either he didn’t know about it until after the fact or he didn’t say anything. His passivity was a major factor in his daughter getting raped.

All of us are influenced by our relationships. It’s normal and proper for teenagers to develop friendships with others their own age. But if they get in with the wrong crowd, it can have devastating results. That’s why it’s so important for parents to maintain a close relationship with their kids during their teen years. They need the influence of godly parents, and that influence is imparted through a close relationship.

“Impossible!” you say. A lot of parents expect their teenagers to rebel and they assume that they have to give up friendship with their kids during the teen years. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that common notion. It’s not inevitable that teenagers rebel against their parents. I didn’t‑‑I never felt a need to. If parents treat their teenagers with respect and love, there doesn’t have to be a rupture in relationship. The teen years are a critical time when kids desperately need the wisdom and counsel of their parents, to keep them from making some very damaging mistakes. Your parental counsel will be heard to the degree that your love is felt.

Thus, assimilation with the world is a great danger because it’s subtle and it happens in the course of normal family life.

3. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it is an aggressive danger.

It’s subtle, but it’s not passive. If you’re passive against an aggressive foe, you’ll lose. We’re engaged in warfare, and you don’t win wars by being passive. Dwight Eisenhower once said, “War is a terrible thing. But if you’re going to get into it, you’ve got to get into it all the way.” One writer put it, “Casual Christians will become Christian casualties.” (John Blattner, Pastoral Renewal [11/87], p. 15.)

Throughout this chapter, Jacob is passive. He never warns or stops Dinah before it’s too late. When he hears of her defilement, he is silent. He doesn’t give any direction to his sons as to how they should deal with things. He’s passive in dealing with Hamor and Shechem, letting his sons do all the talking. It seems he would have let Dinah marry Shechem after he was circumcised, even though he still would have been as pagan as before. Although he rebukes his sons, it’s based more on his own fear of retaliation than on moral principle (note the emphasis on “me” and “I” in verse 30). If he was grieved over Dinah’s defilement or his sons’ godless revenge, it’s not recorded. At least his sons grieved over what happened to their sister (34:7).

One of Satan’s most aggressive schemes for wiping out God’s people has been intermarriage with unbelievers. Let me state it plainly: It is sin for a Christian to marry a non‑Christian. I’ve had girls tell me, “But I’ve prayed about it; I have a peace about it.” But you don’t need to pray about whether you should marry a non‑Christian any more than you need to pray about whether you should commit adultery. I’ve seen Christian girls neutralized by marrying nice non‑Christian guys. Often they get involved sexually, just as Dinah did. True, she was raped; but why was she alone with a guy like Shechem in the first place?

Whenever a Christian girl goes out with a non‑Christian guy, she is on the defense; he is on the offense, trying to see how far he can get sexually. Any football fan knows, you don’t win if you are always on the defense. It’s only a matter of time until the guy will wear down her resistance and she will lose her purity. (This applies just as much to Christian guys as to girls.) So don’t even date a non‑Christian! And choose friends of the same sex who want to follow Christ. Nobody plans the kind of disaster we have in Genesis 34. It began when Dinah went out to visit her worldly girlfriends.

Conclusion

How do you fight the subtle, yet aggressive danger of assimilation with the world, especially as it seeks to undermine your family life? Here are three commitments that will help:

First, commit yourself to proper separation. As God’s people, we are not to live in monasteries. But there is a place for proper separation from evil people, evil activities, and evil environments. Paul warned, “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals’“ (1 Cor. 15:33). If you want to be godly, don’t choose ungodly people as your best friends. If you think you’ll influence them and not vice versa, then you’re deceived and you’re disregarding the apostle’s warning.

Paul also wrote, “I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil” (Rom. 16:19). Not many of us could claim to be innocent in what is evil! I’ve heard Christian parents say, “My kids are going to find out about the world sooner or later, so I’m not going to shelter them.” That’s tragic! I can hear Jacob and Leah saying the same thing as Dinah trotted off to Shechem. Read the Bible to your kids and they’ll find out all they need to know about sexual immorality, lust, greed, and every other sin. But they’ll learn about it in a context where the results of sin are clearly spelled out.

I’ll shoot straight: Some of you watch TV shows and videos which neither you nor your kids should watch. Some of you have magazines in your home which belong in the trash. In the context of mental lust, Jesus said, “If your eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it away .... If your right hand offends you, cut it off and throw it away ...” (Matt. 5:29‑30). He used those radical images to make the point that we dare not dally with sin. God wants us to be holy in our thought life. And that means that we’ve got to separate ourselves from the things which defile us and hinder our fellowship with our holy God.

Second, commit yourself to proper insulation. By this I mean that we need to wrap our minds with the Word of God so that our thinking and attitudes are shaped by God, not by this evil world. Unless our minds are steeped in the Word, we’re going to be swayed by the world. If you read your Bible 15 minutes a day, and watch TV for 3 hours, guess which will influence you the most!

Take, for example, the worldly view of sin. You can see it here with Shechem and his father. Neither one admits that Shechem’s rape of Dinah was wrong. He’s just a red‑blooded young man! Boys will be boys! That’s a worldly view of sin: “Teenagers will be teenagers! Every generation has to sow some wild oats!”

Or take Jacob’s sons’ actions. It was right to be angry about the sin, but they were angry for the wrong reason: They were not concerned about God’s glory. Their family pride was offended: “Should he treat our sister as a harlot?” While they were bothered by Shechem’s sin against Dinah, they were oblivious to their own sins of deception, vengeance, murder, and theft. In their deception, they are truly Jacob’s sons (34:13). Years before, Jacob should have been dealing with his own and his sons’ sins.

My point is, if we pick up our values and how we relate to others from the world, especially from TV, we will justify sins like pride, envy, anger, deception, and sexual immorality, because the world shrugs off all those sins. Our kids will learn to be defiant to authority, because TV portrays parents as a bit slow, at best. We will learn to relate to others by selfishness and put-downs, because that’s how they do it on TV. It is only when we turn to the Bible that we learn how to please God in our thought life, our words, our actions, and our relationships.

If you’re a father, I urge you to read the Bible to your family on a regular basis. Every Christian needs to memorize verses that tell us how to think, how to speak, and how to relate to one another. Properly insulated with godly thoughts and attitudes, we can be in the world without being of the world.

Third, commit yourself to proper intention, or purpose. Jacob’s sons had the wrong purpose: They were out to teach the Shechemites, “Don’t mess with us!” Things would have been different if they had been focused on God’s purpose‑‑to be a channel of His blessing to all people! This situation should have been an opportunity for witness on behalf of their covenant‑keeping God. Instead, they used God’s covenant sign (circumcision) as the means of deceiving these lost men and sending them to a godless eternity!

When we go out into the world, we’ve got to keep our purpose uppermost in our minds. We’re not there to judge the world. We’re not there to cavort with the world in its sin. We’re there to represent our Savior, who came to seek and to save those who are lost. Go into the world with the proper separation from evil, the proper insulation of biblical thinking, and the proper intention of witness for Christ, and you won’t be assimilated into it. The world won’t be a fatal attraction for you, or you for it.

Discussion Questions

How much should Christians separate themselves and their kids from the world? Where do we draw the lines?
Agree/disagree: Teenagers need not rebel?
How should Christians respond to a crime against a family member such as rape? Is it wrong to seek justice? Vengeance?
Why do Christians who seek not to be worldly often seem weird?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Spiritual Life, Temptation

Lesson 63: A Successful Man Who Failed With God (Genesis 36:1-43)

Related Media

Near my boyhood home there was a small cemetery that had been there since before the turn of the century. Sometimes I would go there and walk along the rows, reading the inscriptions on the tombstones. The most fascinating one was an old, weathered, wooden tombstone which read, “Injun Joe,” and listed his death in the 1850’s.

Most of the tombstones had a brief description of the person, such as “Beloved Mother” or “Dear Father,” plus the dates they lived. I used to try to imagine what those people had been like. I wondered what they had done with their lives. The people buried there had meant much to their families and friends in their day, but now they were gone and unknown, except for this gravestone and the memories they left behind in the minds of their loved ones.

While I haven’t spent much time walking through cemeteries and reading tombstones, it isn’t a bad idea, now and then, to do that. It makes me stop and think about the fact that, unless the Lord returns, someday soon there will be a grave with my name on it, the years I lived, and a brief inscription. How do I want to be remembered? What do I want to accomplish in my brief years on earth? Am I living for the things that really count? The clock in the game of life is always running‑‑there are no time outs!

Even if you read your Bible, I’ll bet that Genesis 36 is a chapter you don’t spend much time thinking about. It’s one of those chapters that makes you wonder, if you’re honest, why it’s in the Bible. There are a bunch of names which mean nothing to us and about whom we can learn almost nothing. They lived and died almost 4,000 years ago, linked together with the common thread of being Esau’s descendants. But pondering this chapter can be like a walk through a cemetery: It can make us stop and think about the meaning of life and success.

Esau, the man whose generations are listed here, was a most successful man by worldly standards. He was the founder of a dynasty and a nation, the father of rulers and kings. He enjoyed financial prosperity. He had good-looking women in his harem. He had political power. He was a famous man in his time and for hundreds of years after. And he was a nice guy, the kind who would make a great neighbor or friend. But Esau lived for this world, and in so doing, he failed miserably where it matters most--with God. He was a successful man who went to hell.

This chapter is in the Bible for at least two reasons. First, Moses was writing to people who were about to conquer the land of Canaan. The Edomites, Esau’s descendants, lived on the borders of that land. When Israel had sought to pass over their land en route to Canaan, the Edomite king refused, even though Moses promised to pay for any food or water they consumed (Num. 20:14‑21). Perhaps once Israel was established in the land, someone would say, “Let’s teach those Edomites a lesson!” But God commanded Israel not to provoke Edom and said that He would not give Israel any of their land (Deut. 2:2‑5). So Israel needed to know who these people were so that they would treat them as the Lord had commanded.

A second reason for this chapter is to make Israel and us consider the outcome of Esau’s profane life, especially as contrasted with Jacob’s life. There is an obvious contrast between chapter 36, which outlines the wealth, success and power of Esau and his descendants and 37:1, which says with understatement, “Now Jacob lived in the land where his father had sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” While Esau was out conquering the land of Edom, founding a nation, fathering kings, and making a great worldly success of himself, Jacob was quietly living in a land he didn’t even own, the land where his fathers had sojourned. While Esau’s descendants were mighty chieftains, famous in their day, Jacob’s descendants were down in Egypt, enslaved to Pharaoh.

So the chapter in its context portrays two roads set before us all: The road to earthly success, fame, and power, which can bring quick, visible results; and, the road of obedience to the will of God, which is much slower and less visible in terms of the payoff. The worldly road focuses on the things which are seen, which, from God’s perspective, are destined to perish; God’s road focuses on the things which are not seen, but which are eternal and cannot be taken from us (see 2 Cor. 4:18). So the chapter teaches:

If we succeed by worldly standards, but fail with God, we fail where it really matters.

The text reveals four areas where Esau and his descendants succeeded in this world, but failed terribly in light of eternity:

1. A beautiful family by the world’s standards does not equal a family blessed by God.

Esau’s turn away from God is seen in that he took his wives from the daughters of Canaan (36:2). Esau’s grandfather, Abraham, had made his servant swear by the Lord that he would not take a wife for Isaac from the daughters of the Canaanites (24:3). But Esau shrugged off the strong warning of his godly grandfather and chose his wives from the Canaanites (26:34). Later, still lacking spiritual discernment, he took a wife from the descendants of Ishmael (28:9).

It’s significant that there is no mention of barren wives when it comes to Esau’s line. Abraham had God’s promise of many descendants, but his wife Sarah was barren. Isaac had the same promises, but Rebekah could not conceive for the first twenty years of their marriage. Jacob’s favored wife, Rachel, was barren for a long time. But Esau’s wives bore him five sons and a number of daughters with no trouble (36:4‑6).

Esau represents the natural man‑‑strong, capable, independent, able to cope with life’s problems with his own resources. Who needs to depend on God for things when you can take care of it yourself? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their barren wives, represent God’s way of working. He humbles our pride by shutting us up with problems we are incapable of solving‑‑ problems like barren wives in the face of promises to make us into a great nation. Then, when we call on Him, He proves Himself mighty to save.

Esau had a beautiful family by the world’s standards. He was the founder of a dynasty. To be one of Esau’s descendants in that culture was like being a Ford, Rockefeller, or Kennedy in our day. Esau’s sons and grandsons became chiefs and kings. Esau’s wives were no doubt beautiful women, as their names indicate. Their names present a problem, in that the names given in earlier chapters do not correspond with the names listed here. In 26:34, it is said that Esau married Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite and Basemath, the daughter of Elon the Hittite. In 28:9 it reports that he added Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabaioth. But in 36:2‑3, different daughters’ names are connected with each father.

The best solution to this problem is that the wives probably took different names, either when they moved from Canaan to Edom, or with changes in them over time (a common practice; Esau became known as “Red” [“Edom”] over the incident with the red stew which he traded for his birthright.) Names weren’t given just because they sounded nice‑‑they had meaning. So, perhaps, Basemath (“the perfumed one”) later took on the name Adah (“ornament,” “the adorned one”), as her focus shifted from perfume to jewelry and clothes. Mahalath (“the musical one”) took over as the perfume queen and changed her name to Basemath when she developed a formula for homemade Chanel No. 5. Judith (“the praised one”), a young teenager when Esau married her, grew tall and became known as Oholibamah (“tent height,” i.e., “tall, stately”). Note that each of their names focuses on some outward feature of beauty or sensuality.

There is another problem: In 26:34, Judith’s father is called Beeri the Hittite. Beeri means “well‑man.” In 36:2 he is called Anah. But it is mentioned that he is the Anah who found the hot springs (hence, he could easily be nicknamed Beeri, “well‑man”). Also, Anah (Beeri) is called a Hittite (26:34); a Hivite (36:2); and a Horite (36:20). Hittite is a broad term, roughly equivalent to Canaanite. Hivite is a branch of the Hittites, and Horite means “cave‑dweller.” So the terms are not contradictory, but explanatory in a more particular sense, much as we might refer to the same man as an American, an Arizonan, and a Phoenician (resident of Phoenix).

While the precise meaning of many of these names is uncertain, it’s interesting that most of the names are not spiritual, but rather reflect the natural surroundings (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis [Baker], 2:932-933; James Boice, Genesis [Zondervan], 2:356). I’ve already mentioned this in reference to Esau’s wives. Eliphaz (36:4) means “pure gold.” Zerah (36:13) means “rising” or “east.” Dishon (36:21) means “gazelle.” Only two names out of 81 may hint at a belief in the true God: Reuel (36:10), Esau’s son by Basemath, means “friend of God”; Jeush (36:14), Oholibamah’s son, means “The Lord helps.” But even these may have been connected with idolatry. One later king has a name of a false god, Baal‑hanan (36:38).

The point is, Esau’s family was outwardly attractive. His wives were beautiful women who bore him children. His kids were born leaders, talented and strong. Esau was a likable, popular man. He was a skilled outdoorsman, a man who loved the taste of game, a man caught up with the enjoyment of the good life. But there was one big problem: God was not a part of this family. Esau, the grandson of the godly Abraham, the favorite son of peaceful Isaac, was a thoroughly secular man who lived for the pleasure of the here and now. He was a successful man whose sons and grandsons after him were successful men, by worldly standards. But they all failed at what matters most because they left God out of their lives.

The most important thing you can impart to your kids is not how to be a worldly success. It’s easy to encourage our kids to succeed in the wrong ways. They may make the football team or be the homecoming queen. They may score well on the SAT and go to the best colleges and get the best paying jobs. But if they fail with God, all that stuff doesn’t matter at all. We need to instill in our kids what it means to succeed with God.

There’s a second lesson we can learn by strolling through Esau’s family cemetery:

2. Material prosperity does not equal spiritual prosperity.

Esau moved east because he was too prosperous to stay near Jacob (36:6‑8). This took place before Jacob returned. Esau realized that the inheritance was going to Jacob, so he looked for a new place to live. It was nice of Esau to be so agreeable. But, sadly, he had no vision for God’s promises to Abraham concerning Canaan. Ever since God called Abraham, He repeatedly emphasized Canaan as the land He would give to Abraham’s descendants. But for Esau, any nice land would do. He had no spiritual vision. He was living for himself, not for God’s purpose. He was materially rich, but spiritually poor.

To his credit, Esau was not greedy. When he saw Jacob after their twenty years apart, he declined Jacob’s gift by saying, “I have plenty, my brother. Keep your things.” But it’s possible to be generous, contented people, but still to be living for material things, not for God. The danger is that our material prosperity dulls our senses with regard to our desperate need for God. The Lord warned the church in Laodicea, “... you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,’ and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17). We American Christians, who have been so blessed materially, need to be careful to become rich toward God by laying up treasures in heaven (Luke 12:13‑34).

These tombstones reveal a third lesson about God’s perspective on success and failure:

3. Political power does not equal power with God.

Esau and his descendants were men of great political power. They are called chiefs (36:15 ff.; 40 ff.) and kings (36:31 ff.). It is pointedly stated that these men reigned as kings in Edom before any king reigned in Israel (36:31). Critics leap upon this verse as proof that Genesis must have been written after the beginning of the monarchy, some 300 years after Moses. But in the previous chapter God had prophesied to Jacob that kings would come forth from him (35:11), a promise which had also been made to Abraham (17:6, 16).

Clearly, the point of 36:31 is to show that Esau’s sons, who walked away from God, had the distinction of being kings long before Jacob’s sons to whom it was promised. Jacob’s sons were a nation of slaves at the same time that Esau’s sons were kings. Esau’s sons could have looked at Jacob’s sons and scoffed, “Where is your God and His promises?”

Isn’t that how it often seems‑‑that the world is winning, while God’s people are losing? We’ll reign with Christ someday, but meanwhile the church is often persecuted and disregarded by powerful political leaders who laugh at God. But we need to remember that political power and power with God are two different things. The world may boast now in its political power, but He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord scoffs at them (Ps. 2:4). It is the Lord who “removes kings and establishes kings” (Dan. 2:21). While it is fine for Christian people to be involved in politics, we need to keep things in perspective. Political power is always subject to Him who is “ruler over the realm of mankind,” who “bestows it on whom He wishes” (Dan. 4:17). True power is having power with God.

Esau’s kingdom, Edom, later caused great trouble to Israel. There were frequent wars between the two nations. Edom cheered those who attacked God’s people (Ps. 137:7; Obadiah). Amalek, Esau’s grandson (36:12), became the founder of a people who were a perennial enemy of Israel (Exod. 17:8‑16). There is a repeated emphasis in Genesis 36, that Esau is Edom (36:1, 8, 9, 19, and 43; also, the name Edom and its synonym, Seir, are used frequently). The significance of this otherwise unnecessary repetition seems to be that God wanted His people to see what results when a man lives apart from Him. From this one man, Esau, an outwardly good man, a likable man, a successful man from the world’s perspective, came the godless nation Edom, which often plagued the people of God. So God says, “Remember: Esau is Edom!”

There’s a final lesson we can learn about success and failure from our stroll through Esau’s cemetery:

4. Temporal fame does not equal eternal recognition by God.

In their day, Esau was more famous than Jacob. At the end of their lives, Jacob had about 70 descendants living under Pharaoh’s umbrella. Esau had conquered Edom and established a dynasty there. By Moses’s day (over 400 years later), Israel was a fledgling nation of slaves, recently escaped from Egypt, owning no land of their own. Edom was an established kingdom which had the power to refuse Israel passage over their land.

But this tour through the graveyard of Genesis 36 shows us that God, not man, writes the final chapter of history. These once‑ famous names don’t mean a thing to our world today, but Israel’s name is in the news almost daily. These men, successful by the world’s measure, passed off the scene and were soon forgotten as others clamored to take their place. Today we don’t know anything more about them than is written here. Fame is a fleeting thing.

The Edomite race endured until the time of Christ, when they were known as Idumeans. They disappeared from history in A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. But before that, some famous Idumeans, descendants of Esau, ruled over Israel: Herod the Great and his successor, Herod Antipas. They were wealthy, power‑hungry, cruel despots. Herod the Great slaughtered the infants of Bethlehem in his attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews. Herod Antipas had John the Baptist beheaded and mocked Jesus just prior to the crucifixion.

In a way it was a replay of history, when Esau’s descendant, Herod, who at that time had far more worldly prosperity, power, and fame, and Jacob’s descendant, Jesus, faced each other. God’s side didn’t seem to be winning. Jacob’s descendant went to the cross, while Esau’s descendant relaxed in his luxurious palace. But God would write the final chapter on that part of history as well. The great Herod, like his ancestor Esau, was a successful man who went to hell. Jesus Christ, the descendant of Jacob, was raised from the dead and is coming again to reign in power and glory.

What really matters is recognition by God, not by this world. We live in a culture that worships fame. If a famous person becomes a Christian, we rush his life story into print and hustle him onto the TV talk shows. The guy may be a babe in Christ, who doesn’t know anything about the Bible, but we listen to his every word as if he’s a spiritual authority.

But the recognition that counts will come soon, when we stand before the Lord Jesus Christ and hear Him say, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master.” The most awful thing would be to be famous on this earth‑‑even famous as a Christian‑‑and to stand before the Lord and say, “Lord, Lord, I’ve done all these things in Your name,” but to hear Him say, “Depart from Me; I never knew you.”

Conclusion

On the Shetland Islands off the northern coast of Scotland, a man spent five years and a lifetime of savings building a 62‑foot steel yacht that weighed 126 tons. On the day of its launching, he invited a local band to play and the whole town turned out to help him celebrate. He planned a voyage around the world as soon as the boat was launched. The band played, the bottle of champagne was smashed across the bow, and the ship was lowered into the water. But it sank to the bottom of the harbor! What good is a beautiful boat that doesn’t float? That man wasted five years and a lot of money building a useless thing‑‑a boat that didn’t float. What good is a successful life that ends, whether in 25 or 85 years, if the person is not ready for eternity? “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?” (Mark 8:36).

Our tour through Esau’s cemetery is over. I hope it’s made you think about the question, “What am I living for?” While we still live, we all have a choice: To join Jacob and his descendants in waiting patiently for God to fulfill His covenant promises to us, as we labor for His coming kingdom. Or, to look over at Esau, prospering in the world, and join him in the pursuit of secular success. If we succeed by worldly standards, but fail with God, we have failed where it really matters. Whether we fail or succeed by worldly standards, if we succeed with God, we will have true and lasting success.

Discussion Questions

How can we train our kids to aim for spiritual, not worldly, success? Should we encourage them toward worldly success?
Is financial success an unmitigated blessing, a mixed blessing, or a curse? Give biblical support.
Are Christians wasting their time to run for political office or to work for political causes? Why/why not?
Why does the Christian world give such high esteem to famous people who profess faith in Christ? What is the root of such adulation? What are some of its results?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

Related Topics: Failure, Spiritual Life, Temptation

Lesson 62: Getting Out of a Spiritual Slump (Genesis 35:1-29)

Related Media

Anyone who follows baseball knows that occasional slumps are part of the game. If you’re the Cubs, they’re a major part of the game! The New York Mets began their history as notoriously inept. During one especially bad time, Mets manager, Casey Stengel, got a cake for his birthday. Someone asked why Marv Thornberry, their first baseman, hadn’t received a cake for his birthday. Stengel quipped, “We were afraid he might drop it.”

If you’ve walked with the Lord for any time at all, you’ve gone through spiritual slumps, when the Lord seems distant. You hit a plateau where you seem to get stuck. Usually you’re not aware of it right away. But at some point, you realize that you aren’t as excited about the Lord as you used to be. You’re still going to church, reading your Bible, and praying, but you’ve lost your first love. It’s easy for that to happen after you’ve been a Christian for many years. Maybe you’re burned out from serving in the church, so you kick back. Slowly the air leaks out of your spiritual tires and you realize that you’re in a spiritual slump.

Jacob was there. Thirty years before, the Lord had met Jacob in a special way at Bethel, as he fled from his angry brother, Esau. Jacob made a vow that if God brought him back safely to the land of Canaan, then He would be his God. God kept His part of the deal: Jacob had prospered financially under Laban, in spite of Laban’s greed and deception. Jacob had been blessed with eleven sons and a daughter. After wrestling him into submission at Peniel, the Lord had protected him in his dreaded meeting with Esau and brought him safely back to Canaan.

But Jacob stopped short of returning to Bethel, the place of his vow to God. Whether it was continuing fear of Esau, attraction to the good life in Shechem, or other factors, we can’t be sure. But Jacob settled short of the place God wanted him to be. It wasn’t that he abandoned God during those ten or so years. He erected an altar there (Gen. 33:20). But even though he went through the outward motions, the reality of Bethel and of Peniel had faded. Jacob went through a decade of spiritual slump which climaxed in the rape of Dinah and the terrible slaughter of the Shechemites by his sons.

The trick isn’t getting into a spiritual slump‑‑most of us have done that without much trouble! The trick is getting out. How do you start growing again? Genesis 35 shows us how Jacob began to grow after his slump. In a nutshell,

We get out of a spiritual slump by responding obediently to God’s Word.

God spoke and Jacob responded obediently. There are four facets to Jacob’s obedience which we can apply personally:

1. Obey God’s present commands.

Genesis 35:1 ought to encourage anyone in a spiritual slump. After the events of chapter 34, you would have expected the Lord to say, “Jacob, that’s it! You and your family have messed up once too often! I chose you to be a blessing to all nations, but instead you deceived and slaughtered them! I’m going to find someone else to be My covenant people!” But instead the Lord graciously says to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.”

That’s encouraging! God wants us to come back to Him and grow, even after a decade of spiritual slump, even after a disaster like Genesis 34! Like the father in the parable of the prodigal son, the Lord is looking for His straying children to return to Him, and He always welcomes them back with open arms. His grace should motivate us to respond obediently to Him.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “It’s great that God spoke to Jacob. But God hasn’t spoken to me.” Ah, but He has! First bow your heart before Him and confess your spiritual apathy. Then, open your Bible and ask Him to speak to you from His Word and show you what to do. And then do as Jacob did‑‑obey.

One way you’ll know that the Lord has spoken to you is that you’ll have an immediate sense of the need for personal and family cleansing. You’ll be aware that there are things you have allowed into your life that have to go, because they are not pleasing to God. As soon as God told Jacob to go back to Bethel, he had to do some spiritual house cleaning (35:2). God didn’t have to tell him to get rid of the idols. Jacob knew that if he was going to meet with God, there had to be cleansing. He couldn’t let his family haul their idols to Bethel.

Here is the number one family on the face of the earth, as far as God’s dealings go. The Lord has been working with Jacob for over 30 years, and with his father and grandfather before him. And yet here we discover that his family is loaded with idols and earrings which had some sort of idolatrous significance (35:4). Rachel had stolen her father’s household gods (31:19); the rest of the family apparently had more of their own. Probably they had added a few more when they looted Shechem. Jacob had known about it, but just let it ride until now. But when God told him to return to Bethel, he confronted his family’s sin. For the first time we see Jacob taking the proper leadership of his family!

It’s easy to sit here and think, “This doesn’t apply to me. I don’t have any idols--I’m a Christian, not a pagan!” But idols aren’t just little statues you bow down to. An idol is anything that takes the place of God in your life and blocks you from growing in the Lord and doing His will. For some, the idol is career success. Everything else, even the family, is subordinated to that goal. For others, it’s affluence, collecting all the junk Madison Avenue tells us we need to be happy. Some worship personal fulfillment, even if it means divorcing their mate. For some, it’s the pursuit of leisure. They don’t have time for personal or family devotions. No time for getting to know their lost neighbors or for calling on church visitors. They’re too busy to work with the young people in the church or to be involved in a Bible study. But they’ve got time for TV, sports, or whatever.

It’s also easy to sit here and think, “I hope so-and-so is listening to this! He’s such a materialistic guy.” But each of us needs to take the log out of our own eye. The most stubborn idol we have to get rid of is self in all its manifestations. There are three things in the process of rooting out our idols (see vs. 2). First, we must identify and put away anything that hinders our drawing near to God (“Put away your foreign gods”). Second, we must cleanse ourselves, by confessing our sins and appropriating God’s forgiveness (“purify yourselves”). Third, we must change our outward behavior, which usually involves changing our schedules (“change your garments”). The way to get out of a spiritual slump is, in response to His grace, obey what God is telling you to do right now.

2. Fulfill your past commitments.

God had begun with Jacob 30 years before at Bethel, where he had made some commitments to the Lord. They were immature commitments in many ways, because Jacob was bargaining with God, and no sinner should do that. Jacob had promised God that if He would provide for him and bring him back safely, he would let God be his God, he would set up Bethel as God’s house and give a tenth to God. Although immature, God took Jacob’s commitments and began to work with him. He wanted Jacob’s obedience and worship. So here, the Lord doesn’t mention the house or the ten percent. He commands Jacob to return to Bethel and fulfill his commitment to worship. Jacob had to return to his original commitment to the Lord.

God has a way of bringing us back to commitments we made to Him years before. That’s why it’s good to encourage your children to commit themselves to the Lord, even if they don’t understand much. I “invited Jesus to come into my heart” when I was three. I didn’t understand total depravity or substitutionary atonement. But the Lord was at work in my heart. When I was in grade school, I remember responding when an evangelist at church asked those who wanted to be sure about going to heaven to raise their hand. In fourth and fifth grades, I went to a church camp in Crestline, California. I don’t remember anything any speaker said. All I remember is getting into nettle playing by the creek, having a crush on a couple of girls and on one of the girl counselors, choosing Philippians 4:13 as my life verse, and throwing a stick on the fire signifying dedicating my life to the Lord. Little did I know that God would bring me back to that same community to pastor a church for 15 years!

Most of us make commitments to the Lord early in our relationship with Him. Maybe it was at camp or at a church service. Maybe it was during a crisis, when you promised the Lord that if He would get you out of that jam, you would follow Him. It’s good to dust off those commitments once in a while and go back spiritually to the place where God met you then.

You have to do that in marriage once in a while, don’t you? It’s wonderful when you first fall in love! Remember how you felt toward each other? Remember that romantic moment when she told you she’d marry you? That was wonderful, but there isn’t anybody who maintains those intense feelings through the years of marriage. Sometimes, when marriage has grown a bit stale, it’s good to go back, either in your mind, or perhaps, even as a couple to the very spot, and renew those early commitments.

It’s the same spiritually. You’ve got to rekindle the romance you used to have with God. Get alone with Him and tell Him that you love Him. Clean out the junk in your life that has gotten you off track. Think about the things you’ve promised to do for Him. And recommit yourself to do them now, by His grace. That leads to the third factor in shaking off a spiritual slump:

3. Remember God’s past and continuing compassion.

Much of this chapter focuses on God’s past and continuing mercies to Jacob. God’s past mercy in protecting him from Esau is mentioned three times (35:1, 3, 7). The Lord mercifully protected Jacob’s family from vengeance for slaughtering the Shechemites by sending “a terror” on the Canaanites (35:5). When the Lord appears to Jacob again at Bethel, He doesn’t say much new, except that kings shall come forth from him (35:11). Everything else has been revealed before. The Lord reconfirms Jacob’s new name (35:10). He reveals to Jacob His name “El Shaddai;” but that wasn’t new; Abraham and Isaac knew God by that name (17:1; 28:3). It means, “God Almighty,” and pointed Jacob toward the fact that God was sufficient for all his needs.

The Lord goes on to remind Jacob that He will keep the promises He gave years before: To multiply Jacob’s descendants and give them the land. After God leaves, Jacob does the same thing he did 30 years before: He sets up a pillar and pours out an offering on it. Even the list of Jacob’s twelve sons (35:23‑26) fits the context here as a reminder of God’s covenant faithfulness. As the heads of the future twelve tribes of the nation, they are like the down payment of God’s promises. As Jacob knelt before God at Bethel, this time not alone, but with a great company, how could he help but thank God for His abundant compassion?

Sometimes we think that to get out of a spiritual slump we’ve got to discover some new spiritual truths. That’s seldom the case. Usually all we need is to be reminded of the old truths we already know. We need to remember God’s past and continuing mercies toward us in Christ. We need to recall that in spite of our sin and spiritual dullness, the Lord is faithful, that “He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6).

That’s one reason frequent observance of the Lord’s Supper is so important. I hear Christians say, “It becomes too commonplace and loses its meaning to do so often.” I’ll grant that any spiritual discipline can become commonplace and lose its significance if we let it. Daily prayer and Bible reading aren’t always exciting. A person could even get bored coming to church every week, in spite of my interesting sermons! But we need frequent reminders of the simple truth of God’s mercy toward us in Christ. The kindness of God leads us to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

So to get out of a spiritual slump, we need to obey God’s present commands, fulfill our past commitments, and remember God’s continuing compassion. There’s a fourth element:

4. Trust God with your present concerns.

God had spoken to Jacob ten years before at Peniel, but not since, as far as the text reveals. During that time, Jacob had become comfortable in his partial obedience in Shechem. Then the tragedies of Dinah’s rape and his sons’ bloody revenge shook Jacob out of his complacency. Suddenly, he was ready to listen and God spoke again. In verse 1, the Lord brings to Jacob’s mind how He had appeared to him when he fled from Esau. In verse 3, Jacob refers to that time as the day of his distress. It often takes a day of distress to get our attention so that we’ll snap out of our spiritual slump.

But then we mistakenly think that since we’ve turned the corner and now we’re obeying God that He will give us (or even owes us) a trouble‑free life. But obedience to God doesn’t mean that He will reward us with a life free from trials. It’s often the trials that keep us clinging to Him so that we don’t fall back into another slump. It’s significant that in this chapter which records Jacob’s spiritual recovery, there are no less than four tragedies which bring sorrow into Jacob’s life.

The first is the death of Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse (35:8). She was only mentioned before (not by name) when she left Haran with Rebekah, who was going to marry Isaac (24:59). If she had cared for Rebekah as an infant, she would be very old by now, probably about 170. It is not revealed when she joined Jacob’s company, but her presence probably indicates that Rebekah had died sometime during Jacob’s years in Haran. As close as he was to his mother, the death of her beloved nurse would have been tough for Jacob. The name given to Deborah’s burial place, “The Oak of Weeping,” shows his grief.

The second sorrow to hit Jacob was the greatest of his life: his beloved Rachel died in childbirth (35:16‑20). (Jacob’s journey from Bethel toward Hebron was probably not a violation of God’s command in 35:1, which meant, “Stay at Bethel long enough to fulfill your vows.” See also the command in 31:3.) Jacob had loved Rachel at first sight. He had worked seven years for her and then, when he got cheated with Leah, he worked seven more for Rachel. Although his grief is passed over in Genesis 35, it is revealed about 40 years later, when Jacob on his deathbed poignantly recalls, “... when I came from Paddan, Rachel died, to my sorrow, in the land of Canaan on the journey, ... and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath” (Gen. 48:7).

Jacob’s third sorrow is mentioned on the heels of Rachel’s death: Reuben, his firstborn son, committed incest with Rachel’s maid, Bilhah, Jacob’s concubine. This was probably Reuben’s attempt to grab the family inheritance for himself, much as Absalom in his rebellion publicly went in to David’s concubines, and Adonijah later attempted to usurp power from his brother, Solomon, with the same scheme. Reuben’s crass sin must have stung Jacob deeply (Gen. 49:4).

Jacob’s final sorrow in this chapter is the death of his aged father, Isaac. The text might make us think that Jacob arrived just before Isaac’s death. But from other chronological notices in Genesis, we learn that Jacob lived in Hebron with Isaac about twelve years before Isaac died. But Isaac’s death is presented here to wrap up this part of Jacob’s history. It was another sorrow for Jacob, as another link with the past was removed.

While the text doesn’t develop it in each situation, there are hints that Jacob bore these trials with renewed trust in God. His renaming Benjamin in spite of Rachel’s death seems to have been an act of faith. She had named him Benoni, “son of my sorrow,” but through his tears Jacob named him “son of my right hand.” There are two pillars in this chapter, the first at Bethel where he poured out his offering (35:14), the second at Rachel’s grave (35:20). They seem to be linked as monuments of growth, the first signifying Jacob’s thankfulness for God’s faithfulness, the second his faith in God’s promise in spite of his loss. Jacob’s faith may be hinted at when the text says, “Then Israel journeyed on” (35:21), using his new name of strength. At first glance I would have labeled Jacob’s silence in response to Reuben’s sin as another example of his passivity. But again the text states, “and Israel heard” (35:22). This seems to hint that he handled this shocking news in his new strength with God. He waited until the final blessings on his sons to deal with it (49:3‑4); but then he did deal with it by depriving Reuben of his birthright.

The point is that coming out of a spiritual slump doesn’t guarantee that life ahead will be rosy. Obedience doesn’t mean a trouble‑free life. But in the inevitable trials God uses to shake us out of spiritual indifference and to keep us trusting Him, we have the God of Jacob as “our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:1, 7, 11). It is significant that in chapter 34, with all its sin, God is not mentioned at all. But in chapter 35, God’s name appears 11 times, plus 12 more times in the names Israel, Bethel, El-Bethel, and El-Shaddai (James Boice, Genesis [Zondervan], 2:348, points this out). Trials can either make us self-focused or God-focused. If we allow the trials to help us put God back in the rightful center of our lives, we will recover from a spiritual slump, as Jacob did.

Conclusion

There is an old rabbinical legend about a man named Simon who lived in Krakow, Poland. Simon repeatedly had a vivid dream in which there was a great treasure buried under a bridge in Prague, many miles away. Being a poor man, he finally decided to make the long trip to Prague to search for this treasure. When he arrived and went to the bridge, a sentry saw him probing around and demanded to know what he was doing. Simon told the sentry about his dreams and his long journey from Krakow.

“You foolish man,” the sentry replied. “Don’t you know that you can’t believe your dreams? Why I’ve dreamed many times about a man in Krakow named Simon who has a treasure buried under his kitchen stove, but I’ve never been so dumb as to go to Krakow in search of it. Now get along!”

So Simon returned to Krakow, looked under his kitchen stove, and discovered a treasure which enabled him to live comfortably for the rest of his life. The rabbis always ended the story by saying: The treasure was always in Krakow, but the knowledge of it was in Prague.

Sometimes the very thing we’re looking for is right under our noses, but we’ve got to go the long, hard way around to discover it. God’s place of blessing for Jacob was in Bethel, but he had to go to Haran for twenty hard years and spend another ten in Shechem before he came back to Bethel. Some would say that those were all wasted years. Were they? In one sense, yes, in that if Jacob had learned to trust and obey the Lord sooner, those years could have been avoided or shortened. But in another sense, they were necessary in the process of shaping Jacob.

We have all of God’s treasures in Jesus Christ and in the written Word which reveals Him. He is El Shaddai, the All‑Sufficient One. Sometimes God uses a spiritual slump to make us wake up to the riches that have been right under our noses all the time. If you’ve been in a slump, shake it off by responding obediently to God’s Word.

Discussion Questions

Can spiritual slumps be avoided? How?
What are some American Christian “idols”? How can we “guard ourselves from idols” (1 John 5:21)?
How can we keep fresh at regular spiritual disciplines?
How would you respond to someone who asked, “If obedience to God doesn’t result in a life with less trials, why obey?”

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, © The Lockman Foundation

Does the Bible say that masturbation is a sin?

Below is a brief summary of some of the issues dealing with this subject. I hope it might help. This is one of those hot buttons on which there is a great deal of disagreement and what is given here by no means touches all the bases.

Summary: The Bible no where specifically forbids or denounces masturbation. It does, of course, denounce all forms of sexual impurity and fantasies that would involve adulterous relationships whether actual or mental. The problem with masturbation is that it not only can become habit forming and addictive, but men and women often engage in pornography and adulterous fantasies in order to reach a climax. Further, the difference in sex drive in a couple is often not the real problem or issue. It is rather a breakdown in the relationship and in an understanding of the role of sex in marriage as that which not only gives pleasure but expresses love, unity, and commitment to each other. Masturbation expresses the opposite unless done with the other partner. The husband may experience orgasm with his wife without actual intercourse. If away from his wife and he is experiencing strong sexual desire and he can have an orgasm by thinking about his wife, etc. then that could be appropriate.

More Detail: As mentioned, the Bible does not directly address the issue of masturbation or deliberate self-stimulation of the sexual organ to the point of orgasm. It does warn against all forms of self-indulgence, adultery of the mind, and fornication. One of the problems involved is that though God created sex for enjoyment and pleasure, it is to be confined to the marriage relationship because it is also designed to express love (not just sexual love), unity, and total commitment. Masturbation is an act of self-gratification rather than a part of giving gratification and pleasure to one’s partner. Here are a few of the dangers of masturbation that some have listed:

1. Psychic effects. Masturbation has a tendency to isolate its captives psychologically and socially. In masturbation, the person is focused on self-alone even though he or she usually is fantasizing about someone else at the same time.

2. Emotional deprivation. It is impossible for the one who is practicing this habit to experience the full extent of sex emotions. Therefore, in short-circuiting the emotions one can easily be removed from the world of reality.

3. Damaged sensibility. The habit of masturbation has a tendency in numbing the mechanism of the sexual organs if practiced excessively. This lessens the sensibility and thus detracts from normal sexual relations of married life.

4. Self-gratification. The emotional background of self-gratification is not the least bit healthy and usually militates against the home, wife and family because it is focused only on self.

5. Control of the mind. Along with the act of masturbation comes the fantasy of the mind. When practiced often, a pattern or cycle seems to become established within the individual’s mind. Thus, perversion has a tendency to control the mind and this in turn initiates the act. The real danger lies in the guilt that increases as the individual dwells in this world of fantasy.

Much more could be said, but this will give you a few things to think about. There are plenty of theologians and pastors, etc., that I am sure would disagree with my comments on this, but here are some things for consideration.

Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha

The NET Bible was begun with the intention of ministering to as many people as possible by making the best study Bible ever written available for free on the Internet. Many website visitors will notice that draft versions of various books of the Apocrypha are now also available on the website. Since these are not considered canonical by a majority of Protestant churches, an explanation as to why we are including these books is warranted. Inclusion of the Apocrypha in future editions of the NET Bible is based on a desire to minister to as many different Christians in as many different Christian traditions as possible. Of all the major Christian traditions, the Protestant tradition is the only one to exclude all the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha from the canon. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (both Greek and Russian) accept some of them, although not the exact same ones. Our intention is to impact the body of Christ as a whole, not simply Protestant believers, and for the NET Bible to be acceptable to those different church traditions, the Apocrypha will be included.

By doing so we are not making any claim to canonical status for these books. We are simply acknowledging that they are an important part of many church traditions and that they have inherent value for understanding the historical and theological background to the New Testament. The Apocrypha provides understanding of the intertestamental period, and it provides understanding of the Judaism of Jesus' day. To understand the New Testament, both of these areas must be understood well. Giving people access to the Apocryphal books with the same depth of notes as in the NET Bible Old and New Testament will help Bible readers understand the Old and New Testaments better than they have before.

Although no final decisions have been made, the printings of the NET Bible which include the Apocrypha will vary much as current Bible printings do. This is reflective of the different status accorded the books within each Christian tradition. Some editions of the NET Bible will be printed without the Apocrypha at all. In other editions of the NET Bible these books will be placed between the Old and New Testaments in their own distinct section just as a number of other Protestant Bibles have done (for example, the New English Bible, Revised English Bible, New Revised Standard Version, and the King James Version for much of its history). It is also likely that some editions of the NET Bible will be printed with the books of the Apocrypha in the order used by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. By providing these different editions, the editors and translators of the NET Bible desire to make the NET Bible useful to Christians in all traditions.

Many Protestants oppose the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Bible, arguing that mere inclusion of the Apocrypha in the NET Bible is an implication that it is inspired scripture. A quick look at the NET Bible and many other published Bibles will show that Bibles include a great deal of material between their covers which would never be considered scripture: maps, study helps, applicational notes, poetry, etc. The NET Bible itself includes thousands of notes which explain the Biblical text, but they are not regarded as scripture. The guiding rule for inclusion of extra material is that it is material the editors believe will be helpful in understanding the inspired text of the Bible, and that is the attitude the NET Bible translators and editors are taking toward inclusion of the Apocrypha. These books are important for understanding the historical and theological background to the New Testament, and this is a worthy reason to include these books as a separate section within the pages of the NET Bible.

The Editors and Translators of the NET Bible

Ephesians 2:2 in the NET Bible

April 8, 2002

“in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience”

(Eph 2.2, NET Bible)

In Ephesians 2.1-3, the apostle Paul describes the status of believers before they believed. He begins by painting a rather bleak picture, “you were dead in your sins”—that is, they were spiritually unresponsive to anything outside of sin. In v. 2, he goes on to speak of these pre-believers as living in such sins “according to the world’s present path.” That is, the unbeliever’s life is dictated more by culture and the age in which he lives than by any transcultural principles. Then, Paul delivers a double whammy: our lives used to be “according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience.” In other words, our lives used to be run by the god of this world, the devil himself, who ruled over both our external environment (the kingdom of the air) and over the spirit that energizes the rest of the unbelieving world.

Various Translations

The NET Bible here has a subtle difference from many, if not most, other translations. By adding ‘the ruler’ before ‘of the spirit’ it is explicitly denying that the ruler is the spirit. Listen to other translations on this part of the verse:

KJV: “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit”

RSV: “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit”

NAB: “the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit”

NIV: “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit”

NJB: “the ruler who dominates the air, the spirit”

NKJV: “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit”

TEV: “the ruler of the spiritual powers in space, the spirit”

NLT: “the mighty prince of the power of the air. He is the spirit”

NRSV: “the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit”

REB: “the commander of the spiritual powers of the air, the spirit”

ESV: “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit”

TNIV: “the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit”

All twelve of these English translations take the ‘spirit’ to be in apposition to ‘the ruler’ or possibly in apposition to ‘the power,’ ‘the kingdom.’ That is, all of these translations regard the spirit as the ruler or as the kingdom. The NET, however, regards the ruler as over the spirit. It does this by repeating ‘the ruler’ before ‘of the spirit.’ The NET alone interprets the spirit as subordinate to the ruler. Two questions immediately come to mind with the NET translation: (1) On what basis does it do this? and (2) if the spirit is not the devil himself, then what is it?

Various Commentaries

Before we examine the basis for the NET’s rendering, it might be helpful to survey some representative commentaries on this verse for their input.

T. K. Abbott, Ephesians (ICC), 42:

“tou' pneuvmato" is understood by some…as in apposition with toVn a[rconta. Winer, while rejecting this view, admits that in this case the apostle might most easily have wandered from the right construction, namely, on account of the preceding genitives. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose this, although it must be conceded that the only admissible alternative, viz. that pn. depends on a[rconta, is more harsh as to sense, although the harshness is lessened by the distance from a[rconta. Adopting this, the sense is, ‘the ruler of the spirit,’ etc. Here pneu'ma is not to be understood collectively, which it cannot be; it is what in I Cor. ii.12 is called toV pneu'ma tou' kovsmou, the spiritual influence which works in the disobedient. It seems to be a sort of explanation of the preceding ejxousiva.”

F. F. Bruce, Ephesians (NICNT), 283:

“As for ‘the spirit which now operates in the disobedient,’ the noun ‘spirit (pneuma) is in the genitive case, and is therefore naturally taken as governed by one of the two preceding nouns—‘ruler’ or ‘domain.’ To speak of ‘the ruler of the spirit which now operates’ would be strange; if we translate the clause as ‘the domain of the spirit which now operates,’ then either this spirit is identical with the ‘ruler of the domain of the air,’ the malign power that blinds the minds of unbelievers, or else the ‘spirit’ is in apposition with ‘air’ and could denote (as ‘air’ would not) the atmosphere or climate of thought which influences people’s minds against God.”

Markus Barth, Ephesians (Anchor), 215:

“There are three ways to explain the function of the noun ‘spirit’ in Eph 2:2.

a) It may be an expository apposition either to the remote noun ‘world-age,’ to ‘ruler,’ or to ‘atmosphere.’ One of these or all three are then marked as energetic, in their own way inspiring ‘spiritual’ forces….

b) Or ‘spirit’ may be understood as a third name for the devil, complementing the preceding titles ‘world-age’ and ruler of the atmosphere. …

c) Finally, if ‘spirit’ is understood as an apposition to the preceding noun only (‘atmosphere,’ lit. ‘domain of the air’), it may qualify the air as a substance that is breathed in by man and poisons his thoughts and actions. In this case the devil would be denoted as the ruler who poisons the atmosphere, producing a devastating stench or killing in the manner of the aftereffect of atomic explosions or industrial pollution.”

A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians (Word), 96:

“tou' pneuvmato" tou' nu'n ejnergou'nto" ejn toi'" uiJoi'" th'" ajpeiqeiva", ‘of the spirit that is now at work in those who are disobedient.’ There is much discussion about the syntactical place and the meaning of tou' pneuvmato", ‘of the spirit.’ Some take it as in apposition to toVn a[rconta, ‘the ruler,’ giving another name for the ruler and making clear that he is a spirit power… But why then the genitive case rather than the accusative which would be expected in agreement with toVn a[rconta? It could be explained as a genitive of apposition (cf. BDF 167) or as an unconscious assimilation to the two immediately preceding genitives, but it remains an awkward construction. Others take tou' pneuvmato" as in apposition to its most immediate antecedent tou' ajevro", ‘of the air’ (cf. Schlier, 104; Caird, 51). This interpretation can account for the genitive and appeals to a connection between spirit and air on the basis of the fact that in Hebrew and Greek one word could do service for spirit, breath, wind, air, and atmosphere. tou' pneuvmato", on this view, would be a further explanation of the air as the spiritual atmosphere which pervades those who are disobedient. There is one more syntactical option. tou' pneuvmato" could be parallel to th'" ejxousiva", ‘of the realm,’ and governed by toVn a[rconta, ‘the ruler’ (cf. Meyer, 98-99; J. A. Robinson, 154; Abbott, 42). This option again accounts adequately for the genitive and should be preferred as making better sense of the verse. On this interpretation, the personal power of evil is the ruler of the realm of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient.”

Ernest Best, Ephesians (ICC), 205:

“In relating the third phrase to what precedes it, it might appear easy to take tou' pneuvmato" as a genitive in apposition to tou' ajevro" (so Schlier, Huged) but “air” is used here with a spatial connotation not possessed by pneu'ma. Nor is it easy to take the phrase as dependent on toVn a[rconta; “the ruler of the spirits”, i.e. the evil spirits, would be a possible phrase but not the singular, “the ruler of the spirit”. If “spirit” denotes the human spirit (so Haupt) it is tautologous to speak of it as energising the disobedient; in any case ejnergei'n is normally used of supernatural and not human energy… It is better then to take pneu'ma as in apposition to toVn a[rconta (cf Ewald, Grosheide, Masson, Abbott [sic], Gnilka), the genitive being occasioned by the preceding genitives (for appositions which transgress strict grammatical correctness see BDR 137.3; cf 167.2). The spirit is then an (the) evil spirit, a regular meaning of the word in Jewish Greek derived from its Hebrew significance.”

The Basis for the NET Rendering

The live options found in these five commentaries are thus: (a) ‘spirit’ is in apposition to ‘ruler’; (b) ‘spirit’ is subordinate to ‘ruler’ and in apposition to ‘kingdom’;¹ or (c) ‘spirit’ is subordinate to ‘ruler’ and parallel to ‘kingdom.’ Of the five commentaries quoted above, option (a) is supported unequivocally only by Best;² option (b) is supported by Abbott and Bruce; and option (c) is supported by Lincoln. The NET Bible can be read as having the ‘spirit’ either parallel to ‘kingdom’ or in apposition to ‘kingdom’ (options [b] and [c]), but it cannot be read as equating the ‘spirit’ with the ‘ruler’ (option [a]). Thus, Best’s interpretation is ruled out by the NET rendering, but the other four commentaries’ views are not. On the other hand, the majority of English translations allow for ‘spirit’ to be in apposition either to ‘ruler’ or to ‘kingdom,’ but not subordinate to ‘ruler.’ Thus, most English translations allow for either (a) or (b), but not (c). No translation is perfect, of course, and as the adage goes, something is always lost in translation. But the NET has preserved an interpretive option that is not allowed in other English translations, while also preserving an option that is not easily seen in other English translations. The objective of the translators was not to take a poll of the best scholarship and offer a consensus translation, however! But in difficult cases, a certain amount of ambiguity was found desirable, as long as the English reader still had the ability to discern the most likely possibilities. What has been omitted in the NET rendering is, in the judgment of the editors, the least likely option.

At issue here is essentially whether the genitive of apposition can involve two persons. Best notes that the standard Greek grammar by Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf³ discusses “appositions which transgress strict grammatical correctness.” BDR speak a bit more broadly than genitive of apposition, however: “Die übrigen Flle sind Anfügungen einer Apposition oder eines Ptz. im Nom. statt in einem obliquen Kasus” (“The remaining cases are instances of apposition or of a participle in the nominative instead of in an oblique case”). The passages cited in 137.3 are Jas 3.8; Luke 24.47; Acts 10.37; 26.2-3; Mark 7.18-19; 16.14; and 2 Thess 1.8. Of these texts, not one involves a genitive of apposition. Further, in many respects they would be considered a significantly less harsh break in syntax that what Best envisions in Eph 2.2. The other section of BDR that Best cites is 167.2, a section that deals specifically with the genitive of apposition. But this section of the grammar only lists normal examples, not exceptional examples. (To be sure, Best’s reference to 167.2 is probably meant to be simply informative, letting the reader know where the discussion of the genitive of apposition can be found in the grammar.) Indeed, the older BDF⁴ begins this section by noting that “The use of the appositive genitive, i.e. of the genitive used in the sense of an appositive, conforms in the NT to classical usage…”⁵ Essentially the same verses are found in both the German and the English Blass-Debrunner. In other words, although Best’s point that occasionally apposition in the New Testament does not follow strict grammatical concord is true enough, what he did not demonstrate is (a) that the genitive of apposition ever fit into this pattern of irregularity, and especially (b) that the genitive of apposition involving persons ever involved such grammatical incongruities.

There is a solid linguistic explanation as to why the genitive of apposition does not occur with two personal nouns (the head noun and the genitive noun). The semantics of the genitive of apposition can be contrasted with the genitive in simple apposition as follows:⁶

In other words, both the genitive of apposition and the genitive in simple apposition involve an embedded equative clause. But the kind of equative clause in each case is different. In a genitive of apposition construction, the genitive is semantically equivalent to a subject that designates a particular belonging to a larger group (predicate nominative). Thus, “the sign of circumcision” can be unpacked as “circumcision is a sign” (but not “a sign is circumcision”). In this example, the lexical field of “sign” is much larger than that for “circumcision.” For a genitive in simple apposition the two nouns are equivalent to a convertible proposition. Thus, “Paul the apostle” could be unpacked as “Paul is the apostle” or “the apostle is Paul.”

In light of these genuine semantic differences, it becomes evident that a genitive of apposition will not occur when both nouns are personal. “The apostle of Paul” does not mean the same thing as “the apostle is Paul.”

Consequently, the NET Bible has taken an approach to Eph 2.2 that allows for tou' pneuvmato" to be read as parallel to or appositional to the genitive th'" ejxousiva", but not as appositional to the accusative toVn a[rconta. This is because if it taken as appositional to toVn a[rconta, then both nouns are personal, making for a rather awkward and highly improbable construction, unparalleled in any other genitive of apposition in the New Testament. This is not to deny that such could be the case here, but the exegetical arguments put forth on its behalf—in spite of the fact that most English translations can be read as following this interpretation—make this the least likely interpretation. That is to say, ‘the ruler of the spirit’ cannot be taken to mean ‘the ruler is the spirit’ any more than ‘the father of John’ could mean ‘the father is John.’ To be sure, commentators who argue that this is indeed the meaning see the construction as awkward. But to date no actual parallels in biblical Greek have been produced to show that this kind of awkward construction is part of the conventions of the language. The NET translation thus goes with the more probable meanings, allowing either apposition to another genitive (th'" ejxousiva") or parallel to it.

The Meaning of Eph 2.2 in the NET Bible

Lincoln’s statement is worth quoting again:

“It could be explained as a genitive of apposition (cf. BDF 167) or as an unconscious assimilation to the two immediately preceding genitives, but it remains an awkward construction. Others take tou' pneuvmato" as in apposition to its most immediate antecedent tou' ajevro", ‘of the air’ (cf. Schlier, 104; Caird, 51). This interpretation can account for the genitive and appeals to a connection between spirit and air on the basis of the fact that in Hebrew and Greek one word could do service for spirit, breath, wind, air, and atmosphere. tou' pneuvmato", on this view, would be a further explanation of the air as the spiritual atmosphere which pervades those who are disobedient. There is one more syntactical option. tou' pneuvmato" could be parallel to th'" ejxousiva", ‘of the realm,’ and governed by toVn a[rconta, ‘the ruler’ (cf. Meyer, 98-99; J. A. Robinson, 154; Abbott, 42). This option again accounts adequately for the genitive and should be preferred as making better sense of the verse. On this interpretation, the personal power of evil is the ruler of the realm of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient.”

At this stage, I could mention my understanding of this verse. But the point of this exercise was to show that the NET Bible allows for the most reasonable interpretations, not that it is tied in to only one. Some would prefer that we commit more to a particular interpretive option, while others would prefer that we leave the text even more ambiguous (as the ASV and NASB do here). The task of the NET Bible translators, however, was to try to produce a translation that was readable, accurate, and elegant. And when an interpretive option is not very likely, this means that we tried to lean toward those that were more plausible. I believe that the NET Bible has succeeded in Eph 2.2.

¹As we will see, there is very little difference between apposition to ‘kingdom’ and apposition to ‘air.’ Both words are in the genitive, and take tou' pneuvmato" could conceivably be either a genitive of apposition to either or in simple apposition to either. As for the expression, ‘the kingdom of the air,’ this is easily seen as a genitive of apposition construction: ‘the kingdom, that is, the air,’ or paraphrased, ‘Satan’s kingdom which is the air.’ Genitive of apposition is a live option here for precisely the same reason that it is not for ‘the ruler… of the spirit’: neither kingdom nor air is personal, while both ruler and spirit (if ‘spirit’ is in a genitive of apposition) are.

²Peter T. O’Brien has also recently sided with Best in his Pillar commentary on Ephesians.

³Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 17^th Auflage (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990).

⁴BDF is here quoted, rather than BDR, because BDR lacks this full statement.

⁵Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961).

⁶The following material is taken from D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 96-97.

Consideration of Contexts in the Translation Philosophy of the NET Bible: Discussion and Examples

Assistant Editor, NET Bible

Introduction

The ultimate objective of the NET Bible is to be accurate, readable, and elegant. The interplay of these three qualities has produced a translation that is useful to many different Christians from different traditions and walks of life. However, translation work does not occur in a vacuum. Although the NET Bible is not related to any prior translation, either as a direct revision or conscious imitation, it continues a long, vibrant history of English Bible translations. Within this living stream of tradition, many things have occurred. The English language has changed, so of necessity certain phrases which were elegant and powerful years ago are no longer so and must be modified so that they communicate effectively to today’s readers. Our understanding of the language of the Bible has improved greatly, so now we are better able to translate the original texts. Cultural and historical problems have been explained more fully. All of these factors work together to enable the translator to produce an English version that speaks more clearly to the contemporary reader than those versions that came before. It is the prayer of the translators and editors of the NET Bible that this translation will in fact do just that.

Within the history of English Bible translation, however, many concepts, verses, and phrasings have remained static. This is usually grounded in a belief that the traditional wording is the best way to translate the underlying text, but often there are other reasons for this stability. Theological interpretations can be imposed on a text and thereby freeze the translation when in fact there may be compelling reasons for a different rendering. Research into biblical languages often reaches an impasse, and translations may remain static simply because our understanding of the language has not progressed enough to find a better alternative. Sometimes texts are static because of the readers: certain texts become so well known and loved that translators and editors are reluctant to change them for fear of causing offense. If different English versions translate passages similarly because of consensus about the meaning and the best translation equivalent, the tradition has reached a state that is worthwhile to maintain. But if different English versions translate passages similarly for the wrong reasons, then Bible readers are not helped in their task and ultimately God is not honored.

The NET Bible has translated many passages in ways similar to other versions, but sometimes in ways very different. In fact, the editors have fielded many comments and questions about particular verses that are different from other English versions.¹ Consequently, it is appropriate to explain the translation philosophy of the NET Bible as it relates to the above issues and to illustrate that philosophy from various passages. Of the three principles mentioned above, accuracy is the one that will be the focus of this discussion. The translators and editors have worked to make the NET Bible accurate, but within a very specific context and framework. The NET Bible seeks to be accurate by translating passages consistently and properly within their grammatical, historical, and theological context. The interplay and proper understanding of these three contexts has produced some distinctive translations within the NET Bible. By explaining these we hope to help the Bible reader understand more fully the translation task undertaken to produce the NET Bible, but even more importantly to understand more fully the Bible itself.

The Role of Contexts in Translation

As a translator approaches a passage there are a number of contexts that must be considered. They can be summed up under three broad terms: grammatical, historical, and theological.

Grammatical context involves a natural, accurate understanding of the language of the original text which provides parameters for how language functions and which meanings are possible and probable for a given text. This is what most naturally comes to mind when translation work is done. It is the primary work of the translator to determine what meaning is expressed in the original language and how that can best be expressed in the target language. Understanding in this area has improved immensely over the last several years, especially with the advent of computer tools for language study. One of the primary goals of the NET Bible has been to stay abreast of current research in this area. The footnotes in the NET Bible often refer to recent articles, books, and dissertations that have new data regarding how biblical languages function. As our understanding of these languages improves, naturally it will affect the translation of particular passages.

Historical context involves an understanding of the peoples, cultures, customs, and history of the times in which the Bible was written. As with the grammatical context, the historical context provides parameters for understanding the meaning of passages in the Bible and how they should be translated. It looks at the historical background and events of the text to provide a good balance for possible interpretations and meanings of a text.

Theological context is the understanding of God and his work that a particular author would have at the time he wrote a particular passage of scripture. In a manner similar to historical context, theological context provides parameters for deciding upon the meaning of a text and the best way to translate it. The Bible was written over a period of about 1500 years. During this time, theological understanding changed dramatically. Moses did not know and understand God the way Paul did. This does not mean that Moses knew God in a wrong way and that Paul knew him the right way; it simply means that God had revealed more about himself over time, so Paul had a fuller understanding of who God was and what he was doing in the world. When translating an earlier passage of scripture, the translator should take into account that the theological understanding of the author will be different from that of a later author.

As implied above, these three concepts form a limited hierarchy. Grammatical context is the most important because it deals with the nuts and bolts of the language which convey meaning which ultimately can be translated. For example, in English one cannot communicate to a reader that the sky is blue by writing, “The tree is green.” The words and phrases that make up this sentence can only communicate a limited meaning, and this is defined by the grammar, the syntax of the phrases, the meanings of the individual words, and other similar considerations. Understanding the grammatical context is the most important task of the translator, for the meaning is found in these words and phrases. The translators and editors of the NET Bible translate a passage with precedence given to the grammatical context. The historical and theological context provide a reasonable system of checks and balances; they help the translator decide what is the most probable meaning of the original text and how that meaning should be translated. They do not drive the translation; instead they guide it so that the most probable meaning is conveyed.

A very important concept for understanding the translation philosophy of the NET Bible and how these three contexts work together is progressive revelation. Simply put, progressive revelation recognizes that God reveals himself—his nature as well as his word, plans, and purposes—over time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in the world all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Later revelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. The relation of this reality 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 render 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? The translators and editors of the NET Bible have generally chosen to do the latter for a variety of reasons. A translation that takes into account the progress of revelation will be true to the three contexts discussed above. It is also very beneficial to the Bible reader to have the progress of revelation accurately represented in the translation of particular texts. This helps the reader see how God has worked through the centuries, and it helps the reader to stand more accurately in the place of the original recipients of the text. Both of these are very instructive and inspirational, and they help the reader to connect with the text in a more fulfilling way.

Examples from the NET Bible

What follows is a discussion of particular passages in the NET Bible—how they have been translated and why. The goal of this section is to show how the translators and editors have put the aspects of the translation theory discussed above into practice. The translators and editors believe these issues are important for readers of the Bible to grasp, so all these passages have extensive notes regarding these issues.

Genesis 3:15

Genesis 3:15 has had a long history of interpretation. At issue presently is whether this text refers to a single entity in conflict with another single entity, or whether groups are in view. The text of the verse in the NET Bible is as follows:

And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; they will attack your head, but you will attack their heel.

A cursory reading of this passage indicates some major differences between the NET Bible and other traditional translations of this passage: the pronouns used here are plural, while many other translations have singular pronouns (“he will attack your head...”). The editors have received several comments about this verse, most of which point to this difference and ask whether it is valid since it seems to preclude a common interpretation of this verse, namely, that Jesus himself is in view. Here is where the interplay between the three contexts and progressive revelation is useful in determining the proper meaning and translation of this verse. The grammatical context is a primary factor in determining the meaning: the noun translated as “offspring” is a collective singular noun, meaning its grammatical number is singular but in reality it represents more than one thing (analogously, the word “army” in English is similar). The singular pronoun and verb which follow agree grammatically with this collective singular noun. To clarify the collective sense of the pronoun, the translation uses the English plural pronoun “they.” The theological context, informed by progressive revelation, supports this translation. At this time, the future coming of the Messiah had not been revealed, neither to the initial participants of the narrative nor to the author of the book. Therefore, it would be foreign to the original context to bring that meaning back into the passage in translation. The grammatical context and the theological context work together to yield the present translation. This is not to deny that Jesus came and eventually defeated Satan at the cross through his death; that is proclaimed clearly in later passages. However, that concept is foreign to the grammar and historical setting of this passage.

Isaiah 7:14

This verse has also seen a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation. The text of the verse from the NET Bible is as follows:

Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

The most visible issue surrounding this verse is the translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (’almah). The NET Bible uses the phrase “young woman,” while many translations use the word “virgin.” The arguments center upon two main points: the actual meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrew, and the use of this verse in the New Testament. There is a great deal of debate about the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, in the New Testament when this verse is cited in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word παρθένος (parthenos) is used, and this word can mean nothing but “virgin.” Therefore, many people see Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin birth with Matthew 1:23 serving as a “divine commentary” on the Isaiah passage which establishes its meaning. The interplay of these issues makes a resolution quite complex. It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammatical context 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 its original 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 God’s divine power to show himself strong on behalf of his people. The role or birth of the Messiah does not come into view here. So the historical and theological contexts of the verse support the grammatical: the word עַלְמָה (’almah) means “young woman” and should be translated as such. Within the book of Isaiah 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 delivers an announcement of future victory over Israel’s enemies; the special child Immanuel, alluded to in the last line of v. 10, is a guarantee that the covenant promises of God will result in future greatness. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is a pledge of God’s presence during the time of Ahaz, but he also is a promise of God’s presence in the future when he gives his people victory over 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 God’s presence perfectly 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 the book of Isaiah, but it does not change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context.

Passages Involving πίστις Χριστοῦ and Similar Expressions in Paul

The phrase πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) is a difficult one to translate. The issue centers on the relationship of the genitive noun Χριστοῦ to the head noun πίστις: is the genitive subjective or objective? That is, is the emphasis of this phrase on Christ as the one who exercises faith (subjective) or on Christ as the one in whom others have faith (objective)? Traditionally these phrases have been interpreted emphasizing Christ as the object of faith; “faith in Jesus Christ” is the traditional translation. However, in recent years an increasing number of New Testament scholars are arguing from both the grammatical and theological contexts that πίστις Χριστοῦ and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and emphasize Christ as the one who exercises faith or faithfulness: “the faithfulness of Christ.” A wider glance at the use of the noun πίστις in the rest of the New Testament shows that when it takes a personal genitive that genitive is almost never objective. Certainly faith in Christ is a Pauline concept, but Bible scholars have begun to see that in Paul’s theological thought there is also an emphasis on Christ as one who is faithful and therefore worthy of our faith. The grammatical and theological contexts are not decisive, and either translation is possible. The editors decided to follow the subjective genitive view because a decision had to be made—“faith of Christ,” a literal translation, communicates very little to the average reader in the context—and because scholarship in this area is now leaning towards this view. The question is certainly not closed, however, and if further research indicates that the grammatical or theological context proves decisive for the other view, the translation will be modified to reflect that.

Conclusion

The NET Bible strives to be accurate in its translation. This involves careful attention to the grammatical, historical, and theological contexts and the connection of the progress of revelation to all of these. We believe that being faithful to the original context of each Bible passage makes the reader more aware of how God works with his people, and it makes for a fuller experience when reading the Bible. It is our prayer that the NET Bible will help all who read it to know the scriptures better and then act upon what they learn.

¹The editors of the NET Bible encourage comments about the translation. Comments can be sent to NET Bible Comments.

Related Topics: NET Bible, Text & Translation

Innovations in the Text and Translation of the NET Bible, New Testament

As presented to the SBL Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, on November 18, 2000 in the Bible Translation Section.

The NET Bible was conceived in November 1995 at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Philadelphia. “NET” is a double entendre, standing both for New English Translation and for the Internet, since this translation is available for free on the Internet (www.netbible.org).

The NET is innovative in several respects, not the least of which is the massive number of notes (about 60,000 for the whole Bible so far), including extensive text-critical, lexical, and exegetical notes. But it is also innovative in its text and translation to some degree. This paper will highlight a few of these innovations.

Preface

But perhaps a word should be said first about the broader framework and philosophy of the NET. The NET Bible is a translation done by evangelicals whose highest commitment is to represent the meaning of the text as accurately as possible. The translation is not self-consciously evangelical; it is self-consciously honest. Our commitment to this task can be illustrated by reference to a couple of evangelical shibboleths. First, in Mark 2.26 Jesus speaks of David entering “the house of God when Abiathar was high priest.” The text-critical note says:

A few mss (D W et alii) omit the words “when Abiathar was high priest,” bringing the text in line with its parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4. The omission may have been motivated by a perception of historical inaccuracy, since 1 Sam 21 says that Abimelech was high priest at the time of the incident described.

The NET here is bolder than the NIV which implies a broader chronological timeframe: “In the days of Abiathar the high priest,” even though the Greek most likely cannot be taken so broadly.¹ And even the REB has “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.”² The NET Bible, in this instance, is identical to the NRSV’s rendering, even though fidelity to the meaning of the text is problematic for many evangelicals.

Second, undoubtedly the most divisive verse in twentieth-century American translation debates was Isa 7.14. This text was a watershed for orthodoxy, and became the battle cry of many fundamentalists and evangelicals in their attacks on the RSV. The translation of hmlu as “young woman” was deemed inappropriate by many conservatives, for it seemed to simultaneously impugn the virgin birth of Christ and destroy the unity of the canon. Both the NIV and the NASB were products of evangelical reactions to the RSV, and this verse provided much of the catalyst. In both of them, hmlu is translated “virgin,” in spite of the lexical stretch (some might say linguistic dishonesty) that such a translation required. The NET Bible here has “young woman” because, quite simply, that is what the Hebrew means.³ The NIV translators self-consciously conformed the OT christological texts to the NT;⁴ the NET team has instead self-consciously dealt with each testament within its own historical and cultural setting.

Along these lines, one other point should be mentioned: As far as I am aware, the NET Bible is the first evangelical translation that plans to include the Apocrypha.⁵ There is no sanctioning body to which the translators are subject, allowing them to move more freely in these matters than some other translations have been able to do.⁶

Perhaps because of the overarching desire to go where the evidence leads, the NET Bible has received endorsements from scholars whose own theological commitments represent a wide diversity: Philip Davies, Robert Gundry, John Walvoord, William Farmer, Klyne Snodgrass, and Raymond Brown, to name but a few.

Innovations in the NET Bible, New Testament

The innovations that I will discuss are grouped as follows: (1) synoptic parallels, (2) innovations in translation, (3) innovations in the underlying text.

As a preliminary, we have already noted that the NET Bible is not governed by any ecclesiastical body, allowing the translators greater freedom in assessing the meaning of the text. On the other end of the scale, however, we feel a great responsibility to the Church at large. Hence, this translation has been available for examination and critique on the Internet from the beginning. It is the first translation ever to be “beta-tested.” We have received thousands of emails and letters from interested readers—from high school students to distinguished professors of biblical languages, from non-native speakers of English to seasoned field translators.⁷ All of this input is important to us because the Bible is meant for the masses; the challenge of reducing the best scholarly insights into language that the average English reader can grasp means that responses from both ends of the spectrum are crucial in making a Bible translation both accurate and readable. For example, a native of France who is now living in England has sent us scores of emails asking about various renderings that were puzzling to him. In many places, this layman has put his finger on inadequate glosses. On the other end of the spectrum, two recent doctoral dissertations are mentioned in the notes of the NET NT because the authors contacted us via email. Coincidentally, both men are delivering an excerpt of their dissertations at this very hour in the Biblical Lexicography Section.⁸ One great advantage, then, of this electronic innovation is that the NET team has been able to stay quite current with biblical scholarship, even to the point of learning about materials before they are published.⁹

I. Synoptic Parallels

Although technically an innovation in translation, the NET team’s work on synoptic parallels should be singled out. Our procedure in examining the synoptic data was first to have individual translators submit their work. Then, this translation was edited to conform it to the general stylistic parameters of the NET. Third, we color-coded the Greek text of Kurt Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels, though with a few changes of the underlying Greek due to our different text-critical reconstructions.¹⁰ Color-coding the Gospels is a tedious, detailed process that involves highlighting exact verbal parallels between two, three, or even four gospels, all with their own color scheme; and underlining inexact verbal parallels in a similar manner. This process alone took hundreds of hours to complete. Fourth, we examined all synoptic parallels as well as the few true Johannine parallels for verbal identity in the Greek, and compared such to the English. The point was to conform the English parallels to each other when the Greek was identical unless there was good reason not to conform the parallels. In the process of editing, we noticed many Greek verbatim parallels that in English were gratuitously discordant. In such cases, conformity was sought. In many instances, due to the collocation of other elements that would be found in a lone Gospel, conformity was deemed inappropriate. The whole process took about a year of full time work for two editors. And the result of this work, along with the other extensive editorial work of the last eighteen months, is a revision of the NET NT that involves thousands of changes from the version that Dr. Lewis reviewed last year.

A few examples are given here.

1. Matt 8.3/Mark 1.41/Luke 5.13
The beta version of the NET NT had “he reached out his hand,” “he extended his hand,” and “he stretched out his hand” in this parallel, even though the Greek text was identical in all three gospels. Obviously, there is no substantive difference in these various renderings, but since the Greek was the same it was gratuitous to render the English differently. The revision went with “he stretched out his hand” in each place.

2. Matt 12.4/Mark 2.26/Luke 6.4
The beta version of the NET NT had “the sacred bread” in Matthew and Mark, and “the bread of the Presence” in Luke. All parallels now have “the sacred bread.”

On the other side of the ledger, there are synoptic accounts that are exactly parallel except that one Gospel fills in the narrative with other collocations, making uniformity in rendering undesirable in English.

3. Matt 8.4/Mark 1.44
Matthew has o{ra mhdeniV ei[ph/ and Mark has o{ra mhdeniV mhdeVn ei[ph/. The NET Matthew says, “See that you do not speak to anyone,” while Mark says, “See that you do not say anything to anyone.” The addition of mhdevn in Mark changed the collocation, making the verb more explicitly transitive, so that “speak” needed to become “say.”

4. Mark 2.6/Luke 5.21
Both use a form of the verb dialogivzomai. However, Mark collocates this with ejn tai' kardivai aujtw'n. Consequently we gave Mark a fuller translation: “turning these things over in their minds” while Luke is simply “began to think [h[rxanto dialogivzesqai] to themselves.”

What we noticed in the process was that although most English translations dealt with the larger issues of consistency in synoptic parallels, few if any had worked through all the minutiae. Or, if they had, they tended to harmonize the English gospels when the Greek was not the same. Not surprisingly, the TEV and NLT frequently harmonized accounts in English when the Greek was different. But so did the NIV on many occasions.¹¹ On the other hand, the NRSV and REB tended to harmonize the English parallels only if there was Greek justification; but on many occasions, even when the Greek was identical, the English was not. For example, in the pericope about Peter’s denials of the Lord, paidivskh is variously translated as “servant-girl,” “serving-maid,” and “girl” in the REB.¹²

At the same time, to its credit the REB seemed to be the most consistent of the translations we checked. Yet even one of the translators of the REB’s predecessor, the NEB, noted that the NET synoptic work seemed to be much more detailed than what had gone into the NEB. In a personal correspondence this past summer, C. F. D. Moule wrote about the changes made by the NEB translators’ panel: “I doubt if we achieved a very thorough or rigorous consistency. You have obviously done the job far more systematically.”¹³ I am sure that the NET also has its share of discrepancies in the matter of synoptic parallels. Even after all the work we have put into this, there are still bound to be errors. We invite you to alert us to them as we continue to refine this translation.

II. Innovations in Translation

Although largely positioned between formal and dynamic equivalence, the translation philosophy strives to represent the best of current biblical scholarship. Thus, interpretive renderings are offered where there is either a general consensus or where a neutral translation would be meaningless.

A. Interpretive Translation of Passages where there is a General Consensus

In this first category, consider the translation of ajpovllumi in the synoptic Gospels. On occasion, it refers to the religious leaders’ plot to kill Jesus. For example, in Matt 12.14 we read, oiJ Farisai'oi sumbouvlion e[labon kat j aujtou' o{pw aujtoVn ajpolevswsin. Older and more literal translations such as KJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, and NRSV render the verb simply as “destroy.” But “destroy” could be misunderstood nowadays to mean destroying one’s reputation. A literal translation could thus be misleading, for in the context it is evident that these religious leaders intended to kill Jesus. Indeed, in the parallel in Mark 11.18, we read that “they feared [Jesus] because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching,” and thus the religious leaders considered how they could ajpolevswsin him. Something more explicit than “destroy” is needed. More dynamic translations such as the NIV, TEV, and NLT have “kill” in both of these texts. Even the NRSV switched to “kill” in Mark 11.18. The NET editors felt that in this politically charged context, ajpovllumi would best be rendered by “assassinate.” This gathered in one English word several aspects of the religious leaders’ plot: (a) desire to kill Jesus, (b) a recognition of Jesus’ importance in the eyes of the populace, and (c) a need to act by stealth and illegally. The context as well as current scholarship on the Leben Jesu both confirmed that this translation was appropriate. One objection remained: Many translations today are moving away from sibilants because of the unpleasant effect such sounds have on the ear! But in this case, the phonetics are almost onomatopoetic in their pernicious effect: “The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate him, for they feared him because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching” (Mark 11.18). As far as I am aware, this is the first English translation to use “assassinate” in these passages.¹⁴ This rendering is a little matter, to be sure, but it illustrates some of the thinking behind the NET Bible.

B. Interpretive Translation where Neutral Rendering is Meaningless

In this second category—viz., an interpretive translation where a neutral rendering would be meaningless—scores of disputed texts have been handled differently from other translations. I will illustrate this point with two kinds of texts: those in which no scholarly consensus exists, and those in which the scholarly consensus may well be wrong and the NET has taken a road less traveled.

1. No Scholarly Consensus

In the first instance, the most significant departure in the NET from other English translations is undoubtedly the translation of the Pauline expression, pivsti [ jIhsou'] Cristou'. A neutral rendering in, say, Rom 3.22—“by faith of Jesus Christ” (the KJV wording)—is virtually nonsensical.¹⁵ Because of this, modern English translations could not be ambivalent here; a choice had to be made. Should the genitive Cristou' be regarded as objective or subjective? Virtually all modern English translations regard it as an objective genitive, both in Rom 3.22 and the other Pauline texts¹⁶: “faith in Jesus Christ.” This is so in spite of an increasing number of scholars who, in the past few decades, have argued for a subjective genitive— “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” This construction, and its use in Rom 3.22, illustrates the need of both a completely new English translation and one that does not hide the tensions of biblical scholarship from the lay reader. In 1975, when C. E. B. Cranfield’s first volume of his ICC commentary on Romans was published, he could speak of the subjective genitive view of pivsti Cristou' in Rom 3.22 as “altogether unconvincing” without giving much support for this conclusion, and citing only an early articulation of the subjective view written in 1891.¹⁷ The NIV NT had appeared two years earlier than Cranfield’s commentary. But in recent years, the subjective view has gained a greater hearing, although it still finds almost no place either in English translations or alternate renderings in the margin.

The state of flux that surrounded pivsti Cristou' put the editors in a quandary. The first translator of the NET Romans in fact rendered this as “faith in Christ.” The editors were split, though leaning slightly toward the subjective view. We decided to consult NT scholars in the United States, England, Canada, and Australia, to find out what the climate was in their circles. I wrote to Bruce Longenecker , J. D. G. Dunn, and others who have written on this subject, and visited R. B. Hays, to get their impressions. Our concern was not so much to solve this crux interpretum but to sense where NT scholarship was heading on this matter. The NET is not a market-driven translation, but it is intended to reflect the best of current biblical scholarship. In this case, a decision was by no means easy. In the end, we opted for “the faithfulness of Christ.”

Appendix I is a page from the NET Bible which gives both the NET’s translation and an extensive footnote on the discussion of this verse.¹⁸ This page ably represents the NET philosophy overall as well. Three things should stand out in the notes as a whole: (1) discussion, not just mere mention, of alternative renderings of difficult verses; (2) actual bibliography that addresses exegetical and translational issues; and (3) text-critical notes that mention manuscripts by name or number, rather than simply by the well-worn but fairly useless generic description, “other ancient authorities read…” The notes are of three sorts:

sn = study notes, suitable for laypeople

tn = translators’ notes that address exegetical and technical issues of translation

tc = text-critical notes, often including some discussion of external and internal evidence.

We recognize that many of the notes are not easily digested by those untrained in biblical studies. At the same time, we have made a conscious choice to take away some of the mystery for the person in the pew. The generic notes of other translations do little to sharpen the interest of the layperson in scripture. One of the byproducts of the NET notes is that they allow the laity to compare various translations, and to learn why their favorite version has translated the text the way it has—because the NET Bible, unlike their favorite translation, tells them.¹⁹

2. Scholarly Consensus Seems to be Wrong

There are a few places in which the NET editors have disagreed with the present scholarly consensus on the meaning of a given text. This is never a cavalier decision, but always has some substance behind it. Take, for example, another passage from Romans. In the last chapter, the apostle almost sings a litany of greetings to several friends. In 16.7 he says, ajspavsasqe jAndrovnikon kaiV jIounivan…ejpivshmoi ejn toi' ajpostovloi. There are two issues in this verse: (1) is jIounivan a man’s or a woman’s name? and (2) does ejpivshmoi ejn toi' ajpostovloi mean “outstanding among the apostles” or “well known to the apostles”? There is a growing consensus on this first issue—viz., jIounivan is a feminine name. The NET Bible thus reflects this consensus and translates it as “Junia.”²⁰ There is an even stronger consensus that ejpivshmoi ejn toi' ajpostovloi means “outstanding among the apostles”—i.e., that Andronicus and Junia were apostles and were excellent examples of such. But the expression seemed odd: would we not expect ejpivshmoi tw'n ajpostovlwn if the meaning were “outstanding among the apostles”? On the hunch that that was the case, two of the editors did some research in extra-NT Greek on ejpivshmo followed by (ejn +) dative and ejpivshmo followed by the genitive. Using TLG, the published volumes of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Tebtunis papyri, and the digitized collections of papyri from Duke University and the University of Michigan—a grand total of more than 60 million words of Greek literature from Homer to 1453 CE—an exhaustive examination of all such collocations was undertaken. And the results were startling: almost always, when ejpivshmo was followed by a personal noun in the genitive, the idea was a comparison from within (“outstanding among…”); but when ejpivshmo was followed by (ejn +) dative—as is the case in Rom 16.7, the idea was elative, with no internal comparison taking place (“well known to”). Thus, on the one hand, in 3 Macc 6.1 we read that Eleazar was “prominent among the priests of the country” (ejpivshmo tw'n ajpoV th' cwvra iJerevwn); on the other hand, in Ps Sol 2.6, where the Jewish captives are in view, the writer indicates that “they were a spectacle among the gentiles” (ejpishvmw/ ejn toi' e[qnesin). In this case, the scholarly consensus was found to be due to an off-handed comment by J. B. Lightfoot in his commentary on Galatians (!) that was picked up by other scholars who then claimed that Lightfoot had proved the Greek idiom in Rom 16.7 to mean “outstanding among”! Because Lightfoot was a good grammatical exegete, no one questioned his opinion on that score, and no one did any research on the construction in any Greek literature, as far as we could tell. Thus, when we examined the data, we were surprised to find it so uniformly against Lightfoot’s supposition. The research done on this text, in the course of wrestling with the translation of the NET Bible, was turned into an article and submitted to New Testament Studies last August. “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7” is scheduled to appear in the January 2001 issue of NTS,²¹ even though its acceptance came too late to be mentioned in the next printing of the NET NT.²²

III. Innovations in Text

The NET New Testament is based on a critically constructed Greek text, following the principles of reasoned eclecticism. The Greek text of the NET NT differs from the Nestle-Aland²⁷ in about 500 places. Further, some readings adopted by the editors are not often found in other translations. Four are briefly discussed here.

A. Matt 24.36

“Now about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, except the Father alone.” In Matt 24.36, the NET omits “nor the Son” (oujdeV oJ uiJov), even though this phrase has a strong pedigree in the Alexandrian and Western texttypes. The omission is found solidly in the Byzantine text, but that is hardly a sufficient ground for adopting this reading. More importantly is the fact that the Byzantine MSS do not omit oujdeV oJ uiJov in the parallel in Mark 13.32, thus suggesting that the omission in Matthew is not due to scribal deliberations. Indeed, the omission fits into the known redactional proclivities of the evangelist: Matthew has marked tendencies to elevate his Christology over that of Mark’s, either through omission of offensive material or addition of exalting material. Thus, in this text, the reading that best explains the rise of the other is the omission of oujdeV oJ uiJov. (See Appendix II for the page from the NET Bible that includes Matt 24.36.)

B. John 1.34

“I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.” The NET editors adopted oJ ejklektoV tou' qeou' rather than oJ uiJoV tou' qeou'. Although the external evidence for ejklektov was until recently rather thin, it nevertheless had overwhelming internal support. As Brown noted,²³ “On the basis of theological tendency…it is difficult to imagine that Christian scribes would change ‘the Son of God’ to ‘God’s chosen one,’ while a change in the opposite direction would be quite plausible.” Externally, oJ ejklektov is the reading of ^5vid * b e ff²* sy^s.c. The UBSGNT⁴ committee rejects this reading in favor of oJ uiJov (giving it a B rating); further, the testimony of ⁵ has been expunged from the record in the most recent critical texts. The witness of ^5vid has been omitted in NA²⁷, most likely because the papyrus has a lacuna at the point of the wording. However, since ejklektov is not a known nomen sacrum, and uiJov is, the only possible wording on this line—between these two variants—is ejklektov. Nevertheless, up until recently, the earliest demonstrable Greek testimony to ejklektov was from the fourth century in the first hand of . But now, with the publication of ¹⁰⁶ (III century) in a recent volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, the case for ejklektov has gotten significantly stronger. As Peter Head noted recently, “This early support [for ejklektov] in Greek, Latin and Syriac indicates a geographical diversity behind this reading.”²⁴

C. 1 Thess 2.7

“But we became little children among you.” Last year at SBL, two papers were given on the tiny textual problem of 1 Thess 2.7—nhvpioi (“little children”) vs. h[pioi (“gentle”). One paper was given in the Pauline section, while the other was presented to the Textual Criticism group. Both presenters came to the conclusion that nhvpioi was authentic. Even though the external evidence for nhvpioi is quite strong (⁶⁵* B C* D* F G I Y* it bo et alii), it may result in a reading that is too hard: “We became little children among you, like a nursing mother caring for her own children…” This is a violent mixed metaphor. But if the verse is repunctuated, with a full stop between these two clauses,²⁵ the result is a reading that is neither too hard nor unnatural.²⁶ In the least, the NET Bible is perhaps the first modern English translation to have “little children” in 1 Thess 2.7, even though the standard critical Greek texts have already adopted nhvpioi.²⁷

D. Jude 5

“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” The NET Bible note on Jude 5 says this:

The reading jIhsou' (Ihsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy strong support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 vg et alii), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they typically exchanged kuvrio (kurios, “Lord”) or qeov (qeos, “God”) for jIhsou' (though ⁷² has the intriguing reading qeoV Cristov [qeos Cristos, “God Christ”] for jIhsou'). As difficult as the reading jIhsou' is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate.

Altogether, the NET NT includes several hundred discussions of textual problems in the tc notes. In a day when more and more layfolks are getting a one-sided picture of the transmission of the text through publications done in the spirit of Dean Burgon, it is important that modern translations give more than “other ancient authorities read…” In Appendix II you will see, for example, how we have handled the Comma Johanneum of 1 John 5.7-8.

Conclusion

By way of conclusion, I should mention that these innovations are by no means the sum total of what the NET is doing new. Due to time constraints, I could not address either how the NET handles quotations and allusions from the OT in the NT, nor how we have dealt with gender issues in translation. Nevertheless, I hope that I have shown that the NET Bible is a multi-purpose resource for study and worship. It is not intended for scholars only, but it is intended to elevate both biblical literacy and engagement with the text among the people of God. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to relate some of the innovations in this exciting new project.²⁸

APPENDICES

The appendices are as follows:

Appendix I is a page from the NET NT at Rom 3.21-26, illustrating both the discussion of pivsti Cristou' and other notes

Appendix II is two pages from the NET NT that show how more detailed text-critical discussions are handled: one from Matt 24.36 and one from 1 John 5.7-8.

Appendix I

Romans 3.19-26 in the NET Bible

3:21 But now²⁹ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)³⁰ has been disclosed— 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ³¹ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 3:24 But they are justified³² freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed³³ him³⁴ as the mercy seat³⁵ by his blood through faith.³⁶ This was to demonstrate³⁷ his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.³⁸ 3:26 This was³⁹ also to demonstrate⁴⁰ his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just⁴¹ and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.⁴²

Appendix II

Matthew 24.36-44 in the NET Bible

24:36 “Now about that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,⁴³ except the Father alone. 24:37 For just like the days of Noah⁴⁴ were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 24:38 For in those days before the flood, people⁴⁵ were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark. 24:39 And they knew nothing until the flood came and took them all away.⁴⁶ It will be the same at the coming of the Son of Man.⁴⁷ 24:40 Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one left.⁴⁸ 24:41 There will be two women grinding grain with a mill;⁴⁹ one will be taken and one left.

1 John 5.7-8 in the NET Bible

5:7 For⁵⁰ there are three that testify,⁵¹ 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

¹ejpiV jAbiaqaVr ajrcierevw.

²In the OT references, the REB equivocates as well. Second Samuel 18.17 (MT) calls “Ahimelech the son of Abiathar” while the REB reverses this to conform with 1 Sam 22.20; 1 Chron 18.16 speaks of “Abimelech the son of Abiathar” (MT, followed by NASB; the NIV and NRSV have ‘Ahimelech’ for ‘Abimelech’ [with the support of LXX, Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate] and the REB both swaps out Ahimelech for Abimelech and reverses the order [‘Abiathar the son of Ahimelech’!], apparently without MS support, to conform it to 1 Sam 22.20. Here is an instance of the REB looking more conservative bibliologically than the NASB, for it corrects the text so as to avoid an apparent error!) This at least illustrates that retranslation of the text so as to eliminate discrepancies is not solely an evangelical vice.

³For a carefully documented and fascinating history of the debates over Isa 7.14 in twentieth-century English Bible translations, see Peter J. Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles over Translating the Bible (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), especially chapter five: “The Virgin Text: Evangelicals and Liberals in the Quest for an Undefiled Book” (121-44).

Evangelicals should be aware that not all conservative scholars rejected the “young woman” of the RSV. Many in the Christian Reformed tradition, led by Bastiaan Van Elderen, recognized the integrity of the translation. Thuesen adds that Luther also translated hmlu as “young woman” (ibid., 125), but a check of the 1545 and other early editions of the Luther Bible reveals that he translated the text as “virgin” (“Jungfrau” [modern spelling], not “junge Frau”). It is true that in his exegesis of this text, he partially conceded that “young woman” may have been meant (Luther’s Works, vol 16, edd. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald [St. Louis: Concordia, 1969] 84), but even here he put a strong christological spin on it, allowing him to translate it as “Jungfrau” in Isa 7.14. In other words, Luther recognized that the sense was young woman, even though his christological lens demanded that he think of her as a virgin.

⁴In the case of Isa 7.14, the translation conforms to Matt 1.23 where parqevno, a word that does mean “virgin,” is used.

⁵Thuesen noted that the evangelical reactions to the RSV had little impact on the committee: “Yet with the RSV translators themselves only willing to go so far to satisfy evangelical demands, a common Protestant translation on the order of the King James Bible was clearly a thing of the past” (ibid., 138). He adds that “The RSV translators had fairly readily accepted a Catholic corrective for the sake of Christian unity and would by 1968 invite six Catholic scholars, including Orchard and Fuller, to full membership on the committee. But similar collaboration between Protestant liberals and fundamentalists was out of the question for either side” (144). Perhaps the sociological paradigm is shifting now.

⁶One of the great ironies of the NIV, according to Thuesen, is that it was produced under the auspices of an ecclesiastical body: after the publication of the RSV, “it became clear that many conservative Protestants were experiencing a momentous change of mind: although they had deeply internalized the sixteenth-century valuation of Book over Church, prominent conservatives were now joining their liberal counterparts in deeming necessary the ecclesiastical certification of Scripture” (ibid., 119).

⁷In particular, we wish to single out SIL translators, most notably Phil Fields, Wayne Leman, and Katharine Barnwell. Fields wrote a review of the NET Bible in Notes on Translation 13.4 (1999) entitled, “The NET Bible, an Important New Bible Study Tool,” 42-54; Leman has sent the editors hundreds of suggestions via email; Barnwell has been a consultant for years to the NET editors. Fields’ article received a response as well: D. B. Wallace, “An Open Letter regarding the NET Bible, New Testament,” Notes on Translation 14.3 (2000) 1-8.

Suggestions, critiques, and comments may be sent to the Project Director, Dr. W. Hall Harris, at his email, or to the Senior New Testament Editor, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, here.

⁸Biblical Lexicography Section of SBL, Saturday, 18 November 2000, 3:45 p.m.-6:15 p.m. in Polk B. The two papers are: Donald Dale Walker, “The Leniency and Clemency of Christ in 2 Cor 10:1,” and Daniel P. Bailey, “Biblical and Mainstream Uses of Hilasterion as Homonyms.” Walker’s dissertation was done at the University of Chicago, and Bailey’s was done at Cambridge University. The bibliographic data on the dissertations are as follows: Daniel P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1999); Donald Dale Walker, “Paul’s Offer of Leniency of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1): Populist Ideology and Rhetoric in a Pauline Letter Fragment (2 Cor 10:1-13:10)” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1998).

⁹This is due in part to the extreme popularity of the netbible.org website, which fact has given it visibility even in scholarly circles and has encouraged dialogue. As well, the NET Bible notes mention some pre-publication drafts of articles on various passages because the authors were kind enough to send us the fruits of their research before their articles had gone into print.

¹⁰The NET’s Greek text differs from Nestle-Aland²⁷ in about 500 places. A Greek-English diglot of the NET NT is currently in the planning stages.

¹¹Cf., e.g., the following texts: Matt 21.13/Mark 11.17/Luke 19.46 in NLT (“you have turned it into a den of thieves”), while the Greek tense varies between present, perfect, and aorist (uJmei' deV aujtoVn poiei'te sphvlaion lh/stw'n uJmei' deV pepoihvkate aujtoVn sphvlaion lh/stw'n uJmei' deV aujtoVn ejpoihvsate sphvlaion lh/stw'n); Matt 8.4/Mark 1.44 in NLT (“Don’t talk to anyone along the way”), while the Greek of Mark adds the direct object mhdevn (o{ra mhdeniV ei[ph//o{ra mhdeniV mhdeVn ei[ph/); Matt 12.2/Mark 2.24/Luke 6.2 in TEV (a question is asked in the Greek of Mark and Luke, while Matthew has an exclamation; TEV has Luke alone asking the question, while Matthew and Mark make an exclamation); Matt 7.4/Luke 6.42 in NLT (“How can you think of saying, [Friend,] ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye?) when the Greek text has several significant differences (h] pw' ejrei' tw/' ajdelfw/' sou: a[fe ejkbavlw toV kavrfo ejk tou' ojfqalmou' sou, kaiV ijdouV hJ dokoV ejn tw/' ojfqalmw/' sou'…/pw' duvnasai levgein tw/' ajdelfw/' sou: ajdelfev, a[fe ejkbavlw toV kavrfo toV ejn tw/' ojfqalmw/' sou, aujtoV thVn ejn tw/' ojfqalmw/' sou dokoVn ouj blevpwn…); Matt 12.43/Luke 11.24 in NIV (“and does not find it” though the Greek is kaiV oujc euJrivskei/kaiV mhV euJrivskon); Matt 13.1-9/Mark 4.1-9/Luke 8.4-8 in NIV, NLT; Matt 23.37-39/Luke 13.34-35 are rendered identically in NIV, except for one punctuation difference and a ‘for’ in Matt 23.39, although the Greek texts differ at several places; Matt 27.38/Mark 15.27 in TEV.

¹²Cf., e.g., the following texts: Matt 9.15/Mark 2.20/Luke 5.35 in NRSV (“when the bridegroom is taken away from them”[Matt, Mark]/“when the bridegroom will be taken away from them” [Luke]) while the Greek at this juncture is identical (o{tan ajparqh/' ajp j aujtw'n oJ numfivo); Matt 11.19/Luke 7.35 in NRSV (“Yet”/“Nevertheless” when both translate a kaiv that follows an extended saying that is virtually identical in Greek); Matt 26.11/Mark 14.7/John 12.8 in NRSV (gavr is only translated in Matthew and Mark; ejmeV deV ouj pavntote e[cete is rendered “you will not always have me” in Matthew and Mark, but “you do not always have me” in John); Matt 26.55/Mark 14.48/Luke 22.52 in REB renders the Greek wJ ejpiV lh/sthVn ejxhvlqate as “Do you take me for a bandit?” in Matthew, but “Do you take me for a robber?” in Mark and Luke; Matt 27.23/Mark 15.14/Luke 23.22 in the REB renders kakovn as “harm” or “wrong”; the translation of paidivskh in various translations in the parallels in Matt 26.69/Mark 14.66, 69/Luke 22.56/John 18.17 (REB has “servant-girl,” “serving-maid,” “girl”; TEV has “servant woman” and “girl”; NRSV has “servant-girl” and “woman”; NASB has “servant-girl,” “maid,” “slave-girl”). Other translations also lack harmonization in the English when the Greek is identical. For example, Matt 8.19/Luke 9.57 in TEV (“I am ready to go with you wherever you go”/“I will follow you wherever you go” [ajkolouqhvsw soi o{pou ejaVn ajpevrch/]); Matt 10.26/Luke 12.2 in TEV; Matt 10.29/Luke 12.6 in TEV; Matt 11.5/Luke 7.22 in TEV (“the deaf hear, the dead are brought back to life”/“the deaf can hear, the dead are raised to life” [kwfoiV ajkouvousin, [kaiV] nekroiV ejgeivrontai]); Matt 11.18/Luke 7.33 in TEV; Matt 11.9/Luke 7.26 in NIV; Matt 11.11/Luke 7.28 in NIV; Matt 11.21/Luke 10.13 in NIV (translation of o{ti); Matt 11.24/Luke 10.12 in NLT (“Sodom” vs. “wicked Sodom”). All of these examples could be multiplied many times over.

¹³Letter dated 20 June 2000, from C. F. D. Moule to Daniel B. Wallace. Prof Moule is also to be thanked for his numerous suggestions and corrections on various passages in the NET Bible.

¹⁴The NET has “assassinate” in Matt 12.14; Mark 3.6; 11.18; Luke 19.47. However, various translations have the verb or noun in several places in the OT. For example, “assassinate” is found in 1 Sam 19.1 (NLT); 1 Kings 15.27 (NLT); 16.10 (REB, TEV); 16.16 (NLT, TEV); 2 Kings 12.20 (NIV, REB, NLT); 12.21 (NLT); 14.5 (NLT); 14.6 (NLT); 14.19 (NLT,. TEV); 15.10 (NIV, NLT, TEV); 15.14 (NIV, NLT, TEV); 15.25 (NIV, NLT, TEV); 15.30 (NIV, NLT, TEV); 19.37 (REB); 21. 23 (NIV, REB, NLT, TEV); 25.25 (NIV, REB); 2 Chron 23.25 (NLT); 25.3 (NLT); 33.24 (NIV, REB, NLT, TEV); Esth 2.21 (NIV, NJB, REB, NRSV, NLT, TEV); 6.2 (NIV, NJB, REB, NRSV, NLT, TEV); Isa 37.38 (REB); Jer 40.14 (NAB, NJB, REB, NLT); 40.15 (NJB, REB); 41.2 (REB); 41.16 (NIV); 41.18 (REB); Hos 7.7 (TEV). The noun “assassin” is found in 2 Kings 9.31 (TEV); 14.6 (NIV); 21.24 (TEV); 2 Chron 24.26 (NLT); 25.4 (NLT); 25.27 (NLT); 2 Chron 33.25 (TEV); Isa 1.21 (NJB). The noun “assassination” is found in Esth 7.9 (NLT); Jer 41.4 (NIV). As well, several translations refer to the name of a group in Acts 21.38 as “[the] Assassins” (so NAB, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NLT).

¹⁵Although Morna Hooker has argued that this text should be translated “by the faith of Jesus Christ” (M. D. Hooker, “Pivsti Cristou',” NTS 35 [1989] 321-45).

¹⁶Cf. also Rom 3.26; Gal 2.16, 20; 3.22; Eph 3.12; and Phil 3.9 for similar expressions, and compare these texts in the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, REB, NJB, NAB, TEV, NLT, etc.

¹⁷Cranfield, Romans (ICC) 1.203, citing J. Haussleiter, “Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der christliche Glaube: ein Beitrag zur Erklrung des Rmerbriefes,” NKZ 2 (1981) 109-45.

¹⁸It should be noted that only a partial bibliographic listing is found for some sources: because the NET Bible contains an extensive table of abbreviations and bibliography it was felt unnecessary to duplicate all such data in the notes.

¹⁹For another example of a NET translation where no scholarly consensus exists, see 1 Thess 4.4. There, skeu'o either means either “wife” or “body.” Because of recent work done by Dr. Jay E. Smith on this problem, which he kindly sent to the NET editors (in the form of a pre-publication draft of a lengthy article that is scheduled to appear in BBR 10 [Fall 2000] entitled, “1 Thess 4:4—Breaking the Impasse”), the beta version of “wife” was changed to “body.” To be sure, the issue is not entirely solved, but Smith’s work is both comprehensive and generally persuasive.

²⁰The scholarly shift in the last twenty years can be illustrated by comparing the entries in BAGD and the new BDAG on jIounian. The 1979 BAGD considered this a man’s name, giving the lexical form as jIounia'. The new BDAG regards this as a woman’s name, jIouniva.

²¹M. H. Burer and D. B.Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16.7,” currently scheduled for publication in NTS 47 (2001) 42-57.

²²For other texts in which the NET has gone against the grain of current scholarly consensus, cf. iJlasthvrion in Rom 3.25 (rendered “mercy seat” rather than “propitiation” or some similar term; Daniel P. Bailey’s doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University under Morna Hooker influenced our decision here); Eph 4.26 (ojrgivzesqe is taken as an command rather than a conditional imperative), etc.

²³R. E. Brown, John (AB) 1.57.

²⁴Peter M. Head, “Some Recently Published NT Papyri from Oxyrhynchus: An Overview and Preliminary Assessment,” Tyndale Bulletin 51.1 (2000) 1-16 (quoting 11).

The NET editors had already adopted ejklektov as the reading of John 1.34 before learning of the publication of ¹⁰⁶.

²⁵If we repunctuate vv 7-8, a full stop concludes ajllaV ejgenhvqhmen nhvpioi ejn mevsw/ uJmw'n (thus, “we became little children among you”). Then, wJ ejaVn trofov begins a new sentence in which a comparison is made between a nursing mother (7b) and “we… gave to you our very lives” (v 8). This possibility gains ground when we recognize that wJ...ou{tw form a correlative pair in the NT frequently enough: ‘as…so [also].’ The construction occurs 14 times, the largest group of which are correlatives. If the repunctuation holds good, then the metaphor is not in distress, and the nhvpioi is not too difficult a reading.

²⁶One other consideration, that is often overlooked in this passage: Paul uses familial language throughout this chapter that truly mixes the metaphors. Assuming nhvpioi to be authentic, notice the following: (a) Paul and Silas are ‘little children’ in v 7; (b) Paul and Silas are ‘nursing mothers’ in v 7; (b) the Thessalonians are ‘brothers [and sisters]’ in v 9; (c) Paul and Silas are now ‘fathers’ to these believers in v 11; (d) the Thessalonians are once again called ‘brothers [and sisters]’ in vv 14, 17; and (e) Paul and Silas are, once again, children in v 17, but this time they are ‘orphaned children’ (ajporfanisqevnte) when they become separated from the Thessalonians. Thus, Paul and Silas, in the space of eleven verses, regard themselves in relation to the Thessalonians as children, mother, brothers, father, brother, brother, and orphaned children! The whole context speaks of family, and the nhvpioi plays that tune well.

²⁷In the text-critical group at SBL last year (November 1999), Gordon Fee said, in response to the lecturer on 1 Thess 2.7, that the NIV would soon be the first English translation to have “little children” in this verse. What Fee did not know was that the NET Bible already had adopted “little children” no later than February 1999.

²⁸I wish to thank Michael H. Burer, the assistant editor of the NET NT, for culling the data on the synoptic parallels that were mentioned in this paper, as well as for making many other valuable suggestions.

²⁹tn NuniV dev (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

³⁰tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

³¹tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Christ,” an increasing number of New Testament scholars are arguing that pivsti Cristou' (pisti Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involves a subjective genitive and means “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ; Morna D. Hooker, “Pivsti Cristou',” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when pivsti takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980) 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, PISTIS CRISTOU,” SBL 1991 Seminar Papers, 730-44; as well as virtually all older commentaries on Romans and Galatians.

sn D. B. Wallace, who notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb pisteuvw rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful” (Exegetical Syntax, 116). Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

³²tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³³tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³⁴tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁵tn The word iJlasthvrion (Jilasthrion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25,” EvQ (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus as the Mercy Seat,” who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁶tn Grk “through faith in his blood,” but the latter phrase is better taken to describe propitiation than faith. An alternative is “by his blood through [his] faithfulness,” referring to the faithfulness of Christ.

³⁷tn Grk “for a demonstration,” giving the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁸tn Grk “because of the passing over of sins previously committed in the forbearance of God.”

³⁹tn The words “This was” have been repeated from the previous verse to clarify that this is a continuation of that thought. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁴⁰tn Grk “toward a demonstration,” repeating and expanding the purpose of God’s action in v. 25a.

⁴¹tn Or “righteous.”

⁴²tn Or “of the one who has faith in Jesus.” See note on “faithfulness of Jesus Christ” in v. 22 for the rationale behind the translation “Jesus’ faithfulness.”

⁴³tc Early Alexandrian and Western witnesses add oujdeV oJ uiJov (oude Jo Juios, “nor the son”) here. Although the shorter reading is suspect in that it seems to soften the prophetic ignorance of Jesus, the final phrase (“except the Father alone”) already implies this. Further, the parallel in Mark 13:32 has oujdeV oJ uiJov, with almost no witnesses omitting the expression. Hence, it is doubtful that the omission of “neither the Son” is due to the scribes. In keeping with Matthew’s general softening of Mark’s harsh statements throughout his Gospel, it is more likely that the omission of “neither the Son” is part of the original text of Matthew, being an intentional change on the part of the author. Further, this shorter reading is supported by the first corrector of as well as the following: E F G H K L M N S U V W G D P ¹ 33 Byz vg syr cop, along with several mss with which Jerome was acquainted. Admittedly, the external evidence is not as impressive for the shorter reading, but it best explains the rise of the other reading (in particular, how does one account for virtually no mss excising oujdeV oJ uiJov at Mark 13:32 if such an omission here is due to scribal alteration? Although scribes were hardly consistent, for such a theologically significant issue at least some consistency would be expected on the part of a few scribes).

⁴⁴sn Like the days of Noah, the time of the flood in Gen 6:5-8:22, the judgment will come as a surprise as people live their day to day lives.

⁴⁵tn Grk “they,” but in an indefinite sense, “people.”

⁴⁶sn Like the flood that came and took them all away, the coming judgment associated with the Son of Man will condemn many.

⁴⁷tn Grk “So also will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

⁴⁸sn There is debate among commentators and scholars over the phrase one will be taken and one left about whether one is taken for judgment or for salvation. If the imagery of Noah and Lot is followed, the ones taken are the saved. Those left behind are judged. The imagery pictures the separation of the righteous and the judged (i.e., condemned) at the return of the Son of Man, and nothing more.

⁴⁹tn According to L&N 46.16, this refers to a hand mill normally operated by two women.

⁵⁰tn A second causal o{ti (Joti) clause (after the one at the end of the preceding verse) is somewhat awkward, especially since the reasons offered in each are somewhat different. The content of the second o{ti clause (the one in question here) goes somewhat beyond the content of the first. The first o{ti clause, the one at the end of 5:6, stated the reason why the Spirit is the witness: because the Spirit is the truth. The second o{ti clause, here, states that there are three witnesses, of which the Spirit is one. It is probably best, therefore, to understand this second o{ti as indicating a somewhat looser connection than the first, not strictly causal but inferential in sense (the English translation “for” captures this inferential sense). See BDF 456.1 for a discussion of this ‘looser’ use of o{ti.

⁵¹tc Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo, kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei' e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei' eijsin oiJ marturou'nte ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500’s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1517. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek mss and yet goes back to the original text? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), NET Bible

An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament

N.B. This article was published in Notes on Translation 14:4 (2000): 1-8, and is used by permission.

In Notes on Translation 13:4 (1999): 42–54, Phil Fields wrote a review entitled, “The NET Bible, an Important New Bible Study Tool.” Because of the impact of this article as well as many other contacts with SIL in the last two years, the NET Bible editors have received a great deal of input from field translators, scholars, and layfolks. As Phil Fields’ review notes, the NET translation team is listening to any and all suggestions on how to improve this translation. This is the first translation in history that has been open to outsiders to investigate and criticize while it is in process. In other words, it is the first translation ever to be beta-tested!

Hundreds of thousands of people have seen the NET Bible at its website, www.netbible.org, and many of them have contributed suggestions. (To send your input to the editors, go to our comments database)¹ From high school students and non-native speakers of English to doctoral students and world-class biblical scholars, we have received compliments, suggestions, questions, and criticisms. All of this input is important to us because the Bible is meant for the masses; the challenge of reducing the best scholarly insights into language that the average English reader can grasp means that responses from both ends of that spectrum are crucial in making a Bible translation both accurate and readable. Among Wycliffe and SIL members, a special thanks must go out to Wayne Leman: his hundreds of e-mails to the editors, systematically working through various New Testament books, have been immensely valuable. And, of course, Phil Fields’ article, to which this is a response, has been quite helpful as well.

Largely because of the input from field translators, we have become more sensitive to several issues. We have also come to see more clearly the multitude of translation objectives that different groups bring to the task. This present article is intended to address some of those issues, show how the NET Bible has already improved because of input from SIL translation personnel and others, and to articulate more clearly what our objectives are in this work. No translation of the Bible will satisfy everyone. Indeed, no committee-produced translation will completely satisfy even all those who worked on it. And even though the NET project has several stated principles, these must not be seen as occupying airtight compartments. The ultimate objective of the NET Bible is to be accurate, readable, and elegant. Yet these three principles are all too often in conflict with each other. Even a universal taxonomy will not work, because some passages pose special problems (such as liturgical use, familiarity, connections with the Old Testament, theological richness, and the like) that would override any rigid taxonomy.

As an illustration of the complexity of competing principles, consider the Lord’s declaration in Mark 1:17: “I will make you fishers of men.” This wording, found in the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, REB, and ultimately going back to Tyndale, is familiar to church-goers. But in modern English it communicates a meaning that slightly deviates from the point: Jesus did not just want his apostles to evangelize adult males, but all people (the Greek is ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων). But there is a second problem with this verse: “fishers of men” is archaic. The NRSV opts for “I will make you fish for people.” This resolves the two problems of the older translations, but introduces two others. First, it sounds as if Jesus will force the disciples to “fish for people”; second, the conversion of the objective genitive to an object of the preposition results in a subtle shift from a focus on a new occupation to a mere activity. The NLT and TEV get past the first problem but not the second (“I will show you how to fish for people,” “I will teach you to catch people”). So, how best to solve the dilemma? The full meaning of Jesus’ declaration includes both non-exclusive evangelism and implications of an occupational shift. It is too cumbersome to express this as “I will make you fishermen of people,” though the archaism is removed. Nor is it correct to translate this as “I will make you fishers of mankind” because that would imply a mission to gentiles which the disciples could not have conceived of at this time in redemptive history. This text illustrates the clash of the translational objectives of accuracy, readability, and elegance. At bottom, we believe that the great value of the NET Bible is its extensive notes that wrestle with such issues, for the footnotes become a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. But on this passage—for now—we have settled on the translation, “I will turn you into fishers of people.” We have retained an archaism both because of its familiarity and because the alternative “fishermen” was too inelegant. The object complement construction was rendered “turn you into fishers” instead of “make you fishers” both because of its clarity and the hint of the disciples’ conversion as a prerequisite to their new occupation. We chose not to go with the more natural but less accurate rendering of “I will teach you to catch people.” In this passage, accuracy was more important than readability or elegance. But a decision was not easy; we are still open to suggestions.

Consider another passage, Romans 3:22, in which the controversial expression διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ was rendered “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” Virtually all other English translations have “through faith in Jesus Christ” here. A decision was difficult, but the NET editors felt that scholarly opinion has been turning toward a subjective genitive view in the last twenty years. In addition to researching the issue, we were also concerned with producing a translation that represented the best of current scholarship. So we corresponded with scholars who have written on this problem—in England, Canada, Australia, and the United States. Fields’ review of the NET praised our treatment here because we had the courage to go with our convictions. But he contrasted this with our handling of 2 Peter 2:12, where, because three plausible interpretations present themselves, we chose to leave the translation ambiguous. He comments (1999:52): “If one is going to have the two stated aims in translation of faithfulness and clarity, one must have the courage to make choices in the translation…[The translators] have left the more literal form in the text, with the result that none of the possible interpretations of the text is clearly communicated.” What he does not realize is that this is exactly what we intended to do: the meaning of the original at this point is both sufficiently ambiguous and capable of a variety of interpretations that we felt it best to leave to the English reader the same interpretive options that the reader of Greek has. That is a part of the “faithfulness” objective.² This is quite different from Romans 3:22, for there a neutral translation—“by faith of Jesus Christ” (the KJV rendering)—would communicate a nonsensical meaning. The NET editors make an interpretive choice if a more literal rendering is nonsensical or if there is something of a scholarly consensus on the meaning of the text. What we did in both Romans 3:22 and 2 Peter 2:12 is consistent with this principle.

There are, in fact, many times where an author intentionally uses an ambiguous expression, employing double entendre, puns, and the like. To collapse these texts into a single meaning is to destroy part of the author’s meaning. “The love of Christ” in 2 Corinthians 5:14 is one such instance;³ Paul’s frequent “in Christ” formula is another.⁴ Another broad example is the use of the divine passive and other oblique references to deity. This is a large category of uses that many translators (not to mention ancient scribes!) simply do not feel comfortable with leaving as is. But to add the name of God in many places is to destroy the author’s intentional literary subtlety—he is purposefully engaging the readers to think about who is behind the scenes. Philippians 4:13 affords a classic example: “I am able to do all things through the one who strengthens me.” The TEV and NLT have “Christ” here—a rendering which paints with black and white what Paul originally communicated with a full palette of colors; further, it may even be referentially inaccurate (perhaps the Spirit is more in view).

At issue here is whether clarity about the essential meaning, or fidelity to the fuller meaning, is more important. (Further, clarity often moves toward naturalness but away from elegance and rhetorical power.) To field translators (i.e., those who are making a first translation in a language where no Scriptures have previously been available), often the former is the higher priority. To those who translate into major European languages, especially English, and particularly with the goal of providing a Bible that is suitable both for study and pulpit reading, the latter is more important. It is this very issue—and the assumption that the NET editors have the same goals as field translators—that has produced the majority of Fields’ negative examples. For example, he criticized our handling of Ephesians 2:8 (“by grace you are saved”) because it used religious jargon; apparently he prefers the translation of God’s Word: “God saved you through an act of kindness”—a translation that, though clearer, has decidedly softened the full force of the apostle’s words.

Yes, it is true that the NET editors strive to rid this translation of religious jargon. On the other hand, if a term or phrase has both a certain theological import and is repeated in a number of contexts, then deletion of that expression may become a hindrance in seeing the rich tapestry of biblical revelation.

A similar issue faces us when it comes to figures of speech: Do we retain the fuller meaning or clear the figure and opt for its basic idea? If the figurative language communicates nothing to the modern English reader, then we must opt for an alternative. But if the figure is part of English usage or can be understood from the context (even if this may require some effort), the NET translation usually retains it. (Again, this goal is different from that of field translations in situations where there has been no previous exposure to the Scriptures.) Thus, in Matthew 3:8 the NET has “produce fruit that proves your repentance” both because fruit-bearing is a very common biblical idiom that is linked to several passages and because its meaning is clear enough from the context. (This can be objectively tested with the intended audience.)

At the same time, since those responsible for this new translation are primarily exegetes, our perspective is often so entrenched in the first-century world that we are blind as to how the English reader would look at the text today. Exegetes tend to produce a wooden translation without realizing it. That’s a weakness that SIL folks and others can help us overcome significantly. Your sensitivity in these matters is legendary. And we have already changed the text in hundreds of places because of such input. On the other hand, sometimes field translators (or anyone whose work is not primarily in exegesis), thinking that they have grasped the meaning of the text well enough, will make alterations in the wording that actually misconstrue the author’s intention. Several popular English translations already do this. The NET Bible is a conscious effort to be natural and idiomatic while retaining the full meaning of the original if at all possible. We almost always have greater freedom in narrative than in didactic literature, but suggestions are welcome for every genre.

A word is necessary here about those who have produced the NET Bible and about the latest revision. All of the scholars who worked on this translation teach biblical exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools. Further, the original translator for each book was chosen in every instance because of his work in that particular book—often extending over several decades. Many of the translators have participated in several other translation projects as well. Hence, the notes alone are the fruit of hundreds of thousands of hours of research.

In the last sixteen months, another revision of the NET New Testament has been under way. The version on which Fields’ review was based was produced early in 1999. The NET team has made thousands of changes to the text and notes of the New Testament since that last version, most of which move toward a more idiomatic and/or elegant rendering. Again, much of the impetus for such alterations has come from Wayne Leman and those he sent our way. We have enjoyed genuine mutual cooperation in this endeavor. We have also received a great deal of input from laypeople, such as high school students, Sunday school classes, English stylists, and others. All of the translators were encouraged to read their translations out loud to their families and others. How a text sounds is just as important as how it reads. Even though this kind of exchange has been encouraged, the final decisions have always been in the hands of the editorial team because communication of meaning is at stake.

As illustrations of the decision-making process in the revision, consider the following. A reader sends in a suggestion that the wording in Mark 3:27 is confusing: “enter into the house of the strong man.” Although the article is found in Greek, the expression is generic, and English often—and increasingly so—uses an indefinite article to communicate a generic idea. Thus, something that was quite clear to the translators was confusing to lay readers. The wording was changed to “a strong man’s house.” Here is a classic example of the reason why a symbiotic relationship is needed for this translation project: the problem here is easily overlooked by exegetes. Again, a reader sends in a suggestion on Luke 1:64 where the NET has: “Zechariah’s mouth was opened and his tongue released, and he spoke, blessing God.” The reader correctly notes that this is a Semitism, but incorrectly suggests that a simpler, more natural rendering would communicate the same meaning. The reason a simpler expression (such as the NLT and TEV have) changes the meaning is that, as one of the assistant editors noted in discussing this point, “[Luke] slowed the whole thing down by speaking of the opening of the mouth and the loosing of the tongue. The point is that his vivid description recalls Isaianic language and is important for it sets up motifs consistent with the arrival of the kingdom in Luke-Acts including loosened tongues and praising God. The language heightens the miraculous aspect of what happened, which seems lost somewhat in this reader’s suggestion.” It could be added that the first two chapters of Luke are intentionally Semitic in tone and wording—even though this style of writing was somewhat foreign to Luke!—and that one of our tasks is to reflect as faithfully as possible both the meaning and the “feel” of the original for modern readers. The challenge of the editors is to listen to readers’ suggestions and filter them through solid exegesis, bending as much as possible toward natural, idiomatic English, but without destroying motifs, themes, and theologically rich expressions.

Besides interacting with input both from without and within, the chief issue the NET editors faced in this latest revision was a rigorous comparison of the synoptic Gospels. First, a completely color-coded synopsis of the Greek text was constructed along the lines of William Farmer’s Synopticon (i.e., exact parallels were highlighted in the same color, inexact parallels were underlined in the same color; what color was used depended on which combination of gospels were parallel). John’s Gospel was also compared, and the whole process was based on the critically constructed text that stands behind the NET New Testament. The Greek comparison alone took several hundred hours to do. Then, a comparison of our current translation of the synoptics was made against the Greek synopsis. If the Greek of two or more Gospels was the same, then either the corresponding English needed to be the same or else justification for the differences needed to be made. Indeed, many times the similarities in the Greek were only snippets, and the English collocations were sufficiently different that harmonization was linguistically inappropriate. But at other times, the differences in the English were not justified. As far as we know, the NET Bible is the only English translation that has gone through such a rigorous process of synoptic (and Johannine) comparisons. (Some translations that would be expected to have done something like this [viz., the more literal ones] would be so inconsistent as to render παιδίσκη in the pericopae about Peter’s denials as “maid,” “servant-girl,” and “slave-girl”—Matthew 26:69, Mark 14:66, 69, Luke 22:56, John 18:17—when there is absolutely no reason for a different rendering each time.) The last step in the process was to have conformity of notes in parallel passages when appropriate. Each of these steps increases the labor exponentially; the whole process took over a year to complete.

One of the elements that contributes to good writing is the use of collocations that draw the reader into mental engagement with the author. But this is often in tension with other factors in a translation that may be the first and only translation a group of people will have for decades. Hence, field translators do not always have the luxury of retaining the theological richness and rhetorical power of the original text. Because they have the noble task of making the Bible plain and simple for those who have not heard, literary quality and/or literary level must often be sacrificed at the altar of clarity. This philosophy of translation has been transferred, without the deepest reflection, back into English Bibles in the last several years. The impetus toward simpler sentences and vocabulary, conversational or even vernacular English, and the removal of theological jargon seems to come largely from linguists and translators. I think that is commendable to a degree, and I have often told my students that the first translation of the Bible into a language must be of this ilk. The problem, as I see it, is that the philosophy that should drive field translation has been brought over into European-language Bibles, when the religious heritage of speakers of these languages is often decidedly different from that of language groups where first translations are being made. In fact, I would say the religious heritage of English-speakers—especially in America (where this translation will have its greatest impact)—comes close to what the first readers of the New Testament had.

In sum, I am grateful to Phil Fields for the stimulus his review provided, and for the many who have come forward to assist us in this great task. We continue to ask for your assistance because the mutual cooperation benefits us all. And with nearly three quarters of a million words in the text and notes, the NET team needs all the editorial and proofreading help we can get!

Reference

Farmer, William. 1969. Synopticon: The Verbal Agreement between the Greek Texts of Matthew, Mark and Luke Contextually Exhibited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fields, Phil. 1999. The NET Bible, an important new Bible study tool. Notes on Translation 13(4): 42–54.

Moule, C. F. D. 1977. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 The NET Bible is available on-line at www.netbible.org. It may be downloaded free of charge. The New Testament (with over 16,000 footnotes and 800 pages of text) may also be purchased in paperback, hardback, or leather-bound ($24:95, $34:95, and $44:95, respectively), or as a Logos-searchable CD with the search engine included ($39:95). The beta version of the Old Testament is also available at the website and will shortly be available in other formats too.

2 It is a non sequitur that faithfulness in translation leads to “the courage to make choices in the translation.” The courage to make choices is really more a part of the clarity objective. Hence, Fields’ error in his critique of the NET translation of 2 Peter 2:12 is that he assumed a certain taxonomy of principles because he saw it played out that way in other places. This led him to see certain inconsistencies that were not there. To be sure, there have been and still are many inconsistencies in the NET! And that is why we seek the help of SIL and others in this great task of translating the Bible into English afresh.

3 The meaning is probably both “Christ’s love for us” and “our love for Christ”—that is, the genitive is probably both subjective and objective, or plenary. It is Christ’s love for us that produces our love for him.

4 The meaning of this expression is multivalenced, picking up our incorporation into Christ in some places, an eschatological note in others, not to mention individual and corporate notions, etc. The language, in some ways, is distinctively unGreek. And yet, the very fact that it is a bit mysterious was intentional: the readers had to probe to uncover the depths of this expression. Much like puns or figures of speech, to reduce “in Christ” to a flatter expression would be to destroy part of its meaning. C. F. D. Moule made much of this idiom in his magnum opus, The Origin of Christology (1977). His chapter on the incorporated Christ shows how English readers have seen this expression as bizarre—just as Greek readers did! He points out that one simply is not in another person. The language, however, is meant to show that Christ though a man is more than a man; the language points to him as deity. Field translators would probably prefer to reduce this to something else. I have no quarrel with that; but for a translation in English, I believe we should usually maintain the idiom and let English readers grapple with its force just as the original readers had to.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word)

Preface to the NET Bible

The NET Bible

The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Turn the pages and see the breadth of the translators’ notes, documenting their decisions and choices as they worked. The translators’ notes make the original languages far more accessible, allowing you to look over the translator’s shoulder at the very process of translation. This level of documentation is a first for a Bible translation, making transparent the textual basis and the rationale for key renderings (including major interpretive options and alternative translations). This unparalleled level of detail helps connect people to the Bible in the original languages in a way never before possible without years of study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It unlocks the riches of the Bible’s truth from entirely new perspectives.

Produced for ministry

Our ministry, bible.org, was created to be a source of trustworthy Bible study resources for the world, so that everyone is guaranteed free access to these high quality materials. In the second year of bible.org’s ministry (1995) it became clear that a free online Bible would be needed on the bible.org website since copyrighted Bibles can’t be quoted in a huge collection of online studies.

The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry. The Bible is God’s gift to humanity – it should be free. (Go to www.bible.org and download your free copy.) Permission is available for the NET Bible to be printed royalty-free for organizations like the The Gideons International who print and distribute Bibles for charity. The NET Bible (with all the translators’ notes) has also been provided to Wycliffe Bible Translators to assist their field translators. The NET Bible Society is working with other groups and Bible Societies to provide the NET Bible translators’ notes to complement fresh translations in other languages. A Chinese translation team is currently at work on a new translation which incorporates the NET Bible translators’ notes in Chinese, making them available to an additional 1.5 billion people. Parallel projects involving other languages are also in progress.

Now serving individuals in 170 different countries on an average day, bible.org is the largest Bible study resource on the Internet with over 40,000 pages of Bible study materials currently available online for free. Also included are topical forums (http://forum.bible.org) where visitors to the site can dialogue and learn from each other. All this is done to support local church ministries and to build an effective online community of believers. Our passion is to see every person become mature in Christ and competent to teach and train others.

Accountability, transparency, and feedback

The NET Bible is the first Bible ever to be beta-tested on the Internet. In this beta-testing process all working drafts of the NET Bible were posted on www.bible.org for public review and comment. The significance of this is that the NET Bible team, from day one, has been listening to its readers. The purpose of the public review and comment was not to achieve a consensus translation, but to be accountable, to be transparent, and to request that millions of people provide feedback on the faithfulness and clarity of the translation as well as on the translators’ notes. Countless valuable suggestions have been made by scholars, by junior high school students, by college professors, and by lay Christians who speak English as a second language. Because of the open approach of the NET Bible team, the resulting product has been enriched immeasurably. Each one of us comes to the Bible from a different perspective; scholars need to listen to the person in the pew as much as the layperson needs to listen to scholars. The translation reflects the latest scholarship, and the sources are cited in the translators’ notes and documented in the appendices. The NET Bible is a truly symbiotic effort between the insights of biblical scholars and the needs of lay Christians. The combined effect of the notes and the nine year public review process has reinforced the translation’s primary goal of faithfulness to the original languages. By creating a translation environment that is responsible both to the world’s scholars and to lay readers, the NET Bible was read, studied, and checked by more eyes than any Bible translation in history.

The most important translation concept

The most important translation of the Bible is not from the original languages to English, but from the printed page into your life. If you have never read through a complete book of the Bible, we suggest you begin by reading the Gospel of John. We encourage you to recognize that the Bible is not merely a book. It is God’s message to us all, and God continues to speak through it today. There is, after all, a reason far more Bibles have been produced than any book in history. Read it and see.

We don’t like the copyright notice on the second page of the NET Bible, but we don’t yet know the best way to fix it. The reason for this dilemma is that we stand at the beginning of a new era made possible by the Internet. New approaches to ministry, publishing, distribution, and collaboration are made possible by the Internet. When the first Bibles and books began to be printed rather than copied by hand, new issues emerged (plagiarism, author’s rights, freedom of the press versus censorship, copyright laws, etc.). It is now time to recognize that the copyright and permissions conventions carried over from printed books must now be upgraded for the Internet age. The innovations will create new opportunities for ministry while also providing new opportunities for authors to support themselves. We believe that 1 Tim 5:17-18 (the author has the right to be paid) and Lev 23:22 (allow the poor and foreigner free access) can be simultaneously satisfied far better with a new Internet model.

The Problem: It’s difficult to quote a modern Bible translation legally

Bible.org’s ministry objective is to be used by God to mature Christians worldwide. To accomplish this we needed to quote a modern Bible translation in the production of thousands of trustworthy Bible Study resources that could be offered on the Internet for free. We predicted in 1995 that the number of Bible verses quoted in these studies would soon surpass available legal permission limits. We tried for a year, but could not obtain the necessary permissions. Lack of a legal ability to quote the Bible online makes online Bible studies impossible and threatened bible.org’s “Ministry First” model. Quite simply the only way we could secure permission to quote a modern Bible was to sponsor a new translation – the NET Bible. We now want to ensure that other ministries and authors don’t experience the same roadblocks. The NET Bible is not just for bible.org, but for everyone.

You may ask (as we have): “Why not just make the NET Bible public domain? Wouldn’t that solve the problem?” It does solve the permission problem but stifles ministry another way. When a publisher prints a public domain KJV they pay no royalties to anyone, but they still make millions of dollars in revenue – and don’t have to spend any of that money on ministry or charity. We didn’t create the NET Bible to save royalties for such publishers. We think a better approach is to leverage copyright laws to ensure that anyone selling NET Bibles must support ministry.

How we intend to solve the problem

The first major step was taken 10 years ago when we posted the NET Bible on the Internet when no other major modern English Bible translations had done so. The other major Bible translations partially followed suit – all of them are now viewable on the Internet – but after 10 years, the NET Bible is still the only major modern translation that can be downloaded for free in its entirety and used seamlessly in presentations and documents.

We think it is time to take a few more steps. NET Bible study software will now be offered free to allow those who can’t afford Bible study tools to search the Bible electronically. We also will remove an important barrier for teachers, pastors, authors, and students of the Bible who plan to write and distribute their studies. Bible copyright policies typically require special permission before Internet posting, writing commentaries, allowing mission organizations to translate works into other languages, or when quotations exceed some verse limit. The result is that an author is forced to delay writing until permission is granted, use an old public domain text, or proceed illegally in order to serve missions. Other authors have found that a valuable work is simply not publishable because they lack permission for the Bible translation quoted in it. We want all authors to know that the NET Bible is a safe choice. We intend to make quoting the NET Bible easy for both commercial publications and ministry by making the vast majority of requests covered by an automatic “yes.” This new copyright permission policy, when implemented, will result in many more works being created for charitable use and Internet distribution. A second major historical reason used to justify prior written approval of papers, books, and commentaries quoting Bibles is to ensure that nothing embarrassing is written using a copyrighted Bible. We’d rather risk embarrassment than hamper thousands of worthwhile projects. We’ll let the Internet community label the rare bad works and bad authors. We’d rather remove barriers so that the other 99.9% of Christian authors can be more productive. We solicit your ideas for an optimal solution for Bible quotations in the Internet age.

Characteristics of a good solution

By making permissions easier, it becomes far easier to post, share, and publish works which quote the Bible.
It should be easy to say “yes” to all requests to quote and use the NET Bible (both charitable and commercial use).
The “yes” should be automatic for the vast majority of requests, so our organization gets out of the way of ministries, teachers, pastors, and authors. We don’t want them to delay before authoring, sharing, and implementing the Great Commission of Matt 28:19 – and we don’t want their works which quote the Bible to be held hostage based on copyright permissions.
Incentives should be offered to authors who are willing to share their works for free, (even when they also sell books and software versions of the same title for income) while authors who only offer their works for sale should pay customary royalties. This encourages greater participation in the “ministry first” model.

It is time for ministry to be more free – and for a Bible which puts ministry first. The best way to encourage ministry is to give people the tools they need and remove barriers which encumber their work. Let us know how we can better serve your needs.

For the latest on “Ministry First” copyright innovations,
visit www.bible.org/ministryfirst

Introduction to the Net Bible

Welcome to the NET BIBLE with all 60,932 translators’ notes! We want to thank the millions of online NET BIBLE users and the students, teachers, and churches who have made the NET BIBLE a part of their daily Bible study, reading, and worship. Their countless observations have been a valuable addition to the NET BIBLE team’s methodical editing of the translation during its 10-year development. More people from more countries have used and reviewed the NET BIBLE during its production than any Bible translation in history – and you are still invited to join that process! This Edition signifies the transition from development and beta testing to official release of the translation. The NET BIBLE text (notes excluded) has now been frozen for at least 5 years. During the initial 10-year translation effort, the final 8 years were primarily spent editing and improving the translation of the biblical text. Consequently, the translators’ notes have not been edited to the same degree as the biblical text itself. Improvements and enhancements to the NET BIBLE’s notes therefore will be made on a continual basis.

What you have in your hands – or on your computer monitor, laptop, mobile phone or handheld – represents a new approach to Bible translation and a fresh approach to ministry for the new millennium. The NET BIBLE was planned from the very beginning to be available for free on the Internet. The decision to produce for the first time large quantities of Bibles on Gutenberg’s improved press in 1454-1455 sparked a revolution and provided a dramatic increase in the availability of Bibles and biblical study materials in many languages, but over five centuries later many people throughout the world cannot access Bibles and biblical study resources because of their high cost and because some governments attempt to prevent their citizens from ever encountering the Bible. The primary goal of the NET BIBLE project was to leverage the Internet to meet these two critical needs. The Internet represents the single best opportunity for ministry in history because electronic distribution via the Internet allows relatively free delivery of unlimited numbers of Bibles and unlimited amounts of biblical study resources to anyone worldwide who could otherwise not afford them or access them – for zero incremental cost. Organizations willing to share materials on the Internet will accomplish the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 more efficiently than those which follow older ministry models alone. The impact of a publishing ministry can increase by leaps and bounds because it is no longer limited by the number of copies of materials it can afford to print and give away. The NET BIBLE was created to be the first major modern English translation available free on the Internet for download and use in Bible studies and other teaching materials so that the opportunities provided by the Internet could be maximized. Authors, teachers, pastors, and translators are now ensured that their life’s work can be offered anywhere – even shared freely on the Internet – using verses quoted from the NET BIBLE . They can now work to create high quality biblical study materials confident in knowing that permission has been granted for works of ministry that will be offered for free to others. We are pleased to be the first to do this, and we hope many others will join with us in this effort to put ministry first.

Read more on our model of ministry — go to www.bible.org/ministryfirst

Translators’ Notes – unprecedented transparency for serious Bible students

The 60,932 translators’ notes included with the NET Bible are another result of our Internet focus. Bible readers are often not aware that every translation makes many interpretive decisions for them. One goal of the NET Bible project was to find a way to help the reader see the decisions and choices that went into the translation. The answer was to include notes produced by the translators while they worked through the issues and options confronting them as they did the work of translation – thus providing an unprecedented level of transparency for users. In fact, the nature of the Internet allows unlimited notes. These notes provide an extended dialogue between translator and reader about the alternatives for translation, options for interpretation, and finer nuances which are usually lost in translation. After the drafts and first rounds of editing were completed, we discovered that the thousands of notes we had accumulated could be made to fit on the printed page in addition to the electronic format. What you are now reading, on printed paper or on a digital screen is this Edition of the NET Bible complete with all the translators’ notes. Never before in the history of the Bible has a translation been published which includes explanatory notes from the translators and editors as to why the preferred translation was chosen and what the other alternatives are. Students of the Bible, future Bible translators,¹ and biblical scholars will all benefit from these unparalleled translators’ notes.² One of the goals of the NET Bible with the complete set of translators’ notes is to allow the general public – as well as Bible students, pastors, missionaries, and Bible translators in the field – to be able to know what the translators of the NET Bible were thinking when a phrase or verse was rendered in a particular way. Many times the translator will have made informed decisions based on facts about grammatical, lexical, historical, and textual data not readily available to English-speaking students of the Bible. This information is now easily accessible through the translators’ notes.

In short, the NET Bible that you now hold is different from all the Bible translations that have come before it. It represents a truly new departure in the way Bible translations are presented to the general public. With a translation as revolutionary as the NET Bible, you no doubt have some additional questions. The remainder of this Introduction addresses in question-and-answer format the most frequently asked questions, to help you understand what the NET Bible is about and how it differs from the many other Bible translations available to the English-speaking reader today.

What is the NET Bible?

The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It was completed by more than 25 biblical scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Most of these scholars teach Old or New Testament exegesis in seminaries and graduate schools. Furthermore, the translator assigned to prepare the first draft of the translation and notes for each book of the Bible was chosen in every instance because of his or her extensive work in that particular book – not only involving teaching but writing and research as well, often extending over several decades. Many of the translators and editors have also participated in other translation projects. They have been assisted by doctoral students and advised by style consultants and Wycliffe field translators. Hence, the notes alone are the cumulative result of hundreds of thousands of hours of biblical and linguistic research applied to the particular problems of accurately translating and interpreting the text. The translators’ notes, most of which were created at the same time as the initial drafts of the translation itself, enable the reader of the NET Bible to “look over the shoulders” of the translators as they worked and gain insight into their decisions and choices to an extent never before possible in an English translation.

Why do we need yet another translation of the Bible?

With over 25 different English translations of the entire Bible and approximately forty of the New Testament, an obvious question is, why yet another one? As described above, the initial problem was that other modern translations have not been made available for free electronic distribution over the Internet. Electronic searchable versions of contemporary English translations tend to be very expensive. Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection is able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study, preaching, teaching, and training others. In addition, anyone who wants to give away the Bible can print up to 1,000 copies of the NET Bible and distribute them for free without the need for written permission. Pastors without extensive libraries, missionaries and Bible translators in the field, and people in countries where access to Bible study materials are restricted or prohibited will all benefit from access to a contemporary English translation with extensive notes available on the Internet. (The notes accompanying the NET Bible can even help you understand other translations better.) Ultimately what you have in your hands or on your computer monitor with this copy of the NET Bible is God’s word, and we believe it should be available to everyone everywhere to read and study in a version that is accurate, readable, and affordable.

It is not just the new electronic media that justifies this translation, however. A great deal of scholarly literature has been produced on biblical interpretation and translation in the last quarter century. While virtually all other translations produced in the last two decades of the twentieth century were revisions of earlier versions, the NET Bible translators felt that an entirely different kind of translation was needed. In particular, the extensive translators’ notes that display for the reader the decisions and choices behind the translation ultimately chosen are virtually unique among Bible translations, in all languages, in the history of translation. The resulting translation itself is intended to capture the best of several worlds: readable and accurate and elegant all at the same time.

What is the cornerstone and guiding principle of our ministry?

Bible.org is guided by the principle of “Ministry First.” Our translation team desires to follow the Bible’s teaching with regard to the distribution of God’s word versus the sales of printed Bibles for massive profits. The NET Bible team has reflected on the model described in Leviticus 23:22 and asked how Bible publishers ensure that they “not completely harvest the corner of their field…for the poor and the foreigner.” Our ‘crop’ is a Bible translation. Even though some for-profit Bible publishers have allowed Bible societies to print and give away millions of Bibles, the amount of funds available to all Bible societies and publishers in all of history does not come close to being able to actually give a free printed Bible to all of the two billion people who have some ability to read English. This is why we feel so strongly that the NET Bible must not only be available for viewing on the Internet, but also for free downloading and use by everyone, worldwide, for free, forever. It is a cornerstone and guiding principle of our ministry. This approach helps us come closer to fulfilling the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20 by allowing all people of all nations on earth to learn what God has revealed in his word for them to understand and obey. Learning and following the Bible’s instructions must apply to Bible translators and publishers as well as Bible students. This is why we offer the NET Bible for free to the world – because we desire to offer Bibles and Bible study resources for free to those who cannot afford to pay for them. Now you know why the NET Bible is available for download and use in Bible studies free to all people, everywhere. These are exciting times, and while we are honored to have been the first modern English translation to do this, we are pleased to see that many other modern English translations are now posted on the Internet for free use as well. As a pioneer in this space, the NET Bible goes beyond just offering free online use and actually offers people around the world the ability to obtain a free download of the entire NET Bible in a popular word processing format as well as a searchable electronic NET Bible for free so that you can easily study for yourself and then write study materials quoting the NET Bible for use by others. We call this a “Ministry First” model, where ministry always takes priority.

Read more on our model of ministry — go to www.bible.org/ministryfirst

The NET Bible Society is working with other groups and Bible Societies to provide the NET Bible translators’ notes to complement fresh translations in other languages. A Chinese translation team is currently at work on a new translation which incorporates the NET Bible translators’ notes in Chinese, making them available to an additional 1.5 billion people. These notes are even more essential in Chinese (and other languages) because they incorporate citations and applications of critical biblical reference materials that are unlikely to be translated into Chinese (and other languages) in the foreseeable future. These tools are not simply to make the translation better, but also to provide a window into the original languages using resources otherwise unavailable. Refer to the List of Cited Works in the appendices and the translators’ notes for examples. Parallel projects involving other languages are also in progress.

What is the NET Bible’s place in the history of English Bible translation?

The history of the Bible’s translation into English is a long and complicated one, and can only be summarized briefly here. Parts of the Bible appear to have been translated into Old English by Alfred the Great (died a.d. 901), including the Ten Commandments, parts of Exodus 21-23 and Acts 15, and a number of Psalms. Later in the tenth century Abbot Aelfric and perhaps others translated significant parts of the Old Testament into English, as well as the Gospels and some other New Testament books.

Want to help create a NET Bible in your native language?
For information go to www.bible.org/translation

By around 1300 parts of the Psalms and the New Testament were being translated into Middle English. These were precursors of the famous versions associated with John Wycliffe (died a.d. 1384). The tradition that Wycliffe himself translated the Bible into English is founded on a statement by his follower Jan Hus. Whether he actually did the translation himself or it was carried out by his followers, he doubtless exerted a great influence over it. These translations were based on the Latin Vulgate, originally the work of Jerome, which was finished at the beginning of the fifth century a.d. and which became the standard Bible of the Western church throughout the Middle Ages.

Several other events in Europe had a significant impact on the history of the English Bible at this point. First was the general revival of learning in Europe known as the Renaissance, which brought about renewed interest in Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the Bible. Second was the construction of an improved printing press with metal moveable type some time prior to 1450 by Johannes Gutenberg (the first volume book printed on this improved press was the Gutenberg Bible printed ca. 1455³). This innovation launched an explosion in the availability of Bibles, which spread to England when the first printing press for English Bibles was established in 1476. The third event occurred when Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517, setting in motion the Protestant Reformation.⁴ These events combined to give considerable momentum to the translation of the Bible into everyday language. Luther’s New Testament, translated from the Greek into German, appeared in 1522, while William Tyndale’s, translated from the Greek into English, followed in 1525. Tyndale was arrested in Antwerp in 1535 and executed for translating the Bible into the vernacular, and his translation was vilified by the authorities. Yet almost every English translation for the next hundred years borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s work, including in particular the King James Version of 1611. Before this landmark in the history of English Bibles, however, there were other translations, like Coverdale’s in 1535 and the version called Matthew’s Bible in 1537. Both these Bibles received the royal license in 1537. The year 1539 saw the appearance of the so-called “Great Bible,” actually a revision of Matthew’s Bible by Coverdale, which by royal decree of Henry VIII was placed in every church in England.

The reign of Elizabeth I saw the production of two more English Bibles, the Geneva Bible (published in 1560 in Geneva, with a dedication to Elizabeth) and the Bishops’ Bible (1568, with a second edition in 1572). The former was the Bible used by Shakespeare, and was thoroughly Calvinistic in its translation and notes. It was so far superior in translation to the Great Bible that it became very popular, although the Anglican authorities were not pleased with its Calvinistic leanings. The Bishops’ Bible was prepared as a response, and as a result English-speaking Protestantism was left at the end of the sixteenth century with two competing Bibles. The problem was not resolved until the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, when King James authorized a new translation of the Bible and specifically prohibited the use of marginal notes commenting on doctrine (notes commenting on the sense of words were permitted, and the original King James Version contained thousands of these). Gradually this translation established itself as the English Bible par excellence, and the last edition of the Geneva Bible appeared in 1644.

Until 1885, when the Revised Version was published in England, the King James Version (known in England as the Authorized Version) reigned supreme. An American version of the revision, known as the American Standard Version, was published in 1901. The twentieth century saw the publication of a number of Bibles and New Testaments, among them James Moffatt’s (NT 1913; OT 1924) and E. J. Goodspeed’s (NT 1923), which combined with the Old Testament by A. Gordon, T. Meek, J. M. Powis Smith, and L. Waterman (1935) was published the same year as The Bible: An American Translation. One of the most important English translations of the twentieth century was the Revised Standard Version (NT 1946; complete Bible, 1952). This was a thoroughgoing revision of the KJV and ASV which many consider to be the first of the “modern” translations. The publication of the RSV was only the beginning of a flood of translations and paraphrases, including (among others) J. B. Phillips’ The New Testament in Modern English (1958), the Amplified Bible (1965), the Jerusalem Bible (1966), the New American Bible (1970), the New English Bible (1970), the New American Standard Bible (1971), The Living Bible (1971), and the New International Version (1973).

Over thirty years have passed since the release of the NIV New Testament.⁵ This major English translation is taken as a benchmark because (unlike many others) it was not a revision or update of an existing translation or a successor to a previous translation.⁶ During these thirty years neither biblical scholarship nor the English language itself has stood still.⁷ The NET Bible is the first completely new translation of the Bible to be produced in the age of the Internet with full computer networking support involving collaborative file sharing, data storage and retrieval, and the creation of task-specific databases. Biblical scholars exchanged not only e-mail but entire documents over computer networks and the Internet for constant editorial revision and correction. Electronic versions of standard lexical and grammatical reference works enabled translators and editors to work much more rapidly than if they were dependent on paper copies of these materials. Materials were posted on the Internet at www.bible.org from the very beginning, with seven complete books along with their accompanying translators’ notes available online in 1996, less than one full year after the beginning of the project. This allowed literally millions of people to “beta test” the translation and notes, making countless valuable suggestions to the translators and editors. The result was not a consensus translation (since all the comments and suggestions were carefully reviewed by the translators and editors), but a translation produced with an unparalleled level of transparency. This in turn created a high level of accountability, not to a particular group or denomination, but to the Church worldwide. The NET Bible truly is the first English translation for the next millennium, representing a step potentially more significant than the use of Gutenberg’s improved printing press for mass producing Bibles in 1455. The original authors of the Bible made the books and letters they had written available to everyone for free. That is what we are now doing electronically, and we believe that use of the Internet to distribute Bibles and Bible study resources globally represents the most efficient publishing and ministry model available in history. To a server on the Internet, distributing 6 billion copies – one for every person on earth! – costs almost nothing, unlike all previous methods of distributing Bibles. The Internet represents the single best opportunity for ministry in the history of the world. The mission of bible.org is to leverage the power of the Internet to provide people and ministries worldwide with universal access to the NET Bible and other trustworthy Bible study resources at an affordable cost – free!

How did the NET Bible project begin?

The project began on a rainy night in November 1995 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. There a group of Old and New Testament scholars met over dinner at a fine Italian restaurant with the sponsor of the project. Later that same night in a hotel lobby they were joined by a larger group of scholars – to discuss at greather length a new translation of the Bible. The topic of conversation was the possibility of an English translation for electronic distribution over the Internet. A revision and update of some existing English translation was initially discussed, but in subsequent discussions the biblical scholars themselves insisted that a completely new translation was both possible and indeed preferable. The initial planning group was interdenominational and evangelical, although not made up of official representatives from church groups or denominations. A deliberate decision was made early on to devote special attention to the avoidance of doctrinal peculiarities or sectarian bias in the new translation.

What is unique and distinctive about the NET Bible?

Working with the format of electronic media, it soon became apparent to those of us involved in the translation project that we could do some things that had not been possible before, given the limitations of traditional print media.

First, the NET Bible includes extensive notes with the translation, notes created by the original translators as they worked through the issues and options concerning the translation of the original language texts of the Bible. These notes operate on more than one level – a technical level for pastors, teachers, and students of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek who are interested in the grammatical, syntactical, and text-critical details of the translation, and a more popular level comparable to current study Bibles offering explanatory details of interest to lay Bible students. In electronic format the length of these notes, a considerable problem with conventional printed Bibles, is no longer a major limitation.
Second, within the more technical notes the translation team has taken the opportunity to explain and give the rationale for the translation of a particular phrase or verse.
Third, the translators and editors used the notes to show major interpretive options and/or textual options for difficult or disputed passages, so that the English reader knows at a glance what the alternatives are.
Fourth, the translators and editors used the notes to give a translation that was formally equivalent,⁸ while placing a somewhat more functionally equivalent⁹ translation in the text itself to promote better readability and understandability.¹⁰ The longstanding tension between these two different approaches to Bible translation has thus been fundamentally solved.
Finally, the use of electronic media gives the translators and editors of the NET Bible the possibility of continually updating and improving the translation and notes. The translation itself will be updated in periodically, while the notes will undergo a continual process of expansion and refinement.

In short, the notes allow a running commentary on the translators’ decisions to a degree never seen before in any translation of the Bible. The NET Bible with the complete set of translators’ notes is not just a very readable modern translation, but a copy of the Bible with its own commentary attached containing an average of two notes for each verse. Those who have years of expertise in the study of the original biblical languages can now communicate that information directly to the English-speaking Bible reader in a convenient, compact fashion that does not require the Bible student to read through a shelf of commentaries or spend years learning the original biblical languages.

In addition to format and content, the broad framework of the project is unique among translations. The NET Bible is not funded by any particular denomination, church, or special interest group. This has directly impacted the content: Translators and editors were left free to follow where the text leads and translate as they thought best. There has never been pressure to make sure the text reads a certain way or conforms to a particular doctrinal statement. The NET Bible is responsible and accountable to the universal body of Christ, the church worldwide. Through publication on the Internet and free distribution of the text, the editors and translators have submitted the NET Bible to their brothers and sisters in Christ all over the world. The questions, comments, and feedback received from them are examined very carefully, and the translation and notes have been constantly reevaluated in response. This dynamic process has yielded a Bible that is honest to the original text of the Bible, yet valuable and acceptable to Bible readers everywhere.

How do you know something isn’t “lost in translation”?

How can you know for sure something wasn’t “lost in translation” in your Bible? As Acts 17:11 indicates, the Bereans “eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.” Without firsthand competence in translating Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or access to the minds of the translators and their decision-making processes, you can’t “see if these things were so” in order to know how accurate any translation is. The NET Bible assists readers in discerning biblical truth by offering 60,932 notes to explain and document the translators’ reasoning and the decisions they made throughout the lengthy process of translating and editing the NET Bible. The translators’ notes are intended to allow Bible students without extensive training in the original languages to be more confident in the English translation they use and to provide a new level of access and transparency into the text of the Bible.

What is the significance of the NET Bible’s name?

The name that was chosen reflects our goals to provide the Bible to the Internet audience in electronic form in addition to the more traditional printed media. Users of the Internet can easily relate to the name “NET Bible,” while the Internet itself provides the vehicle for access and distribution to the world.

How large was the NET Bible Translation Committee?

A major consideration during the initial planning stage was the size of the translation committee. More than one person should do the work of translation, to avoid the unintentional idiosyncrasies that inevitably result from a single individual working in isolation from a community of colleagues. At the same time, it was obvious to all of us that a smaller group of about 25 scholars who shared a number of basic assumptions and followed generally similar approaches to the biblical text in terms of interpretive method and general philosophy of translation would be able to work quickly and efficiently. This proved accurate and valuable and the time from the commencement of the project to the posting of the first complete New Testament on the Internet was a remarkable 32 months. The list of translators is included on page 26*.

How was the NET BIBLE actually made?

The procedure followed in the making of the NET BIBLE was to assign each book of the Old or New Testament to an individual scholar who was extremely familiar with the interpretation of that particular book and in most cases had years of experience in research, teaching, and writing about the book. These scholars produced an initial draft translation of the books assigned to them along with the initial set of translators’ notes (including some text-critical notes and study notes as well). This work was then submitted to the New Testament or Old Testament Editorial Committee for extensive editing and/or revision. In some cases revisions in form and content suggested by the respective committee were carried out by the original translator, while in other cases an editor reworked the draft translation as needed. The work was then resubmitted to the appropriate editorial committee for final approval. An English style consultant, working independently of the editorial committees, then reviewed the translation for smoothness, clarity, and elegance of contemporary English style. Changes suggested by the style consultant were checked against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek before final incorporation into the translation. Generally between three and five different individuals edited and revised each book of the Bible. In this way the NET BIBLE was checked and revised repeatedly at many different levels for accuracy, clarity, and English style. Finally it was proofread a number of times and field-tested in various settings. Countless hours of research, translation, revision, and interaction thus went into the production of the NET BIBLE.

The New Testament was released as a first beta version in three separate printings in March, April, and June of 1998. It was then revised and released again in October of 1998, again as a first beta edition. During this time, the Old Testament was edited and released as a first beta version, along with still another revision of the New Testament. This First Beta Edition of the entire NET BIBLE (Old and New Testaments together) was completed and E-mailed to the printer just after 2 a.m. on September 11, 2001 (coincidentally a day many will long remember). The Second Beta Edition was released to the printer on September 2, 2003. After an additional two years of use, extensive comments from users, and ongoing improvements from the NET BIBLE editorial staff, the NET BIBLE was released to the printer on August 30, 2005.

Who decided what kind of translation the NET Bible was going to be?

No denomination, church, agency, or publisher determined the nature of the NET Bible translation beforehand. It was a translation conceived and designed by biblical scholars themselves who were primarily specialists in the biblical languages and in the exegesis (interpretation) of the biblical text. At the beginning of the project the Executive Steering Committee, composed of members of both the Old and New Testament Editorial Committees plus the Project Director, held extensive discussions before approving the “Guidelines for Translators” (now known as the “NET Bible Principles of Translation” and included in the printed edition as the first item in the Appendices) which set forth the basic character of the NET Bible translation and notes. Faithfulness to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek in which the biblical documents were originally written was the primary concern. This frequently extended even to the connectives (“for,” “then,” “so,” “now”) used to introduce clauses, sentences, and paragraphs in the original languages. These conjunctions are often omitted in contemporary English translations since current English style does not use them extensively to indicate transitions and argument flow. However, the Executive Steering Committee felt that in many cases it was important to preserve these connections so that the modern reader would understand the argument flow. (In some cases where this would result in awkward English style, these conjunctions have been indicated in the translators’ notes that accompany the text – another example of how the NET Bible text and translators’ notes work together to convey meaning.)

How would you characterize the NET Bible as a translation?

The ultimate objective of the NET Bible is to be accurate, readable, and elegant. Yet these three principles are all too often in conflict with one another. Even a universal taxonomy will not work, because some passages pose special problems (such as liturgical use, familiarity, connections with the Old Testament, theological richness, and the like) that would override any rigid taxonomy.

As an illustration¹¹ of the complexity of competing principles, consider the Lord’s declaration in Mark 1:17: “I will make you fishers of men.” This wording, found in the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, REB, and ultimately going back to Tyndale, is familiar to churchgoers. But in contemporary English it communicates a meaning that deviates slightly from the point: Jesus did not want his apostles to evangelize only adult males, but all people (the Greek is ἁλιε'ς ἀνθρρωώπων, Jalie anqrwpwn). But there is a second problem with this verse: “fishers of men” is archaic. The NRSV opts for “I will make you fish for people.” This resolves the two problems of the older translations, but introduces two others. First, it sounds as if Jesus will force (“make”) the disciples to “fish for people”; second, the conversion of the objective genitive (“of men”) to an object of the preposition (“for people”) results in a subtle shift from a focus on a new occupation to a mere activity. The NLT and TEV get past the first problem but not the second (“I will show you how to fish for people”; “I will teach you to catch people”). So, how best to solve the dilemma? The full meaning of Jesus’ declaration includes both nonexclusive evangelism and implications of an occupational shift. It is too cumbersome to express this as “I will make you fishermen of people,” though the archaism is removed. Nor is it correct to translate this as “I will make you fishers of mankind” because that would imply a mission to Gentiles which the disciples could not have conceived of at that time in redemptive history. This text illustrates the clash of the translational objectives of accuracy, readability, and elegance. We believe that the great value of the NET Bible is its extensive translators’ notes that wrestle with such issues, for the notes become a way for us to “have our cake and eat it too.” But on this passage – for now – we have settled on the translation, “I will turn you into fishers of people.” We have retained an archaism both because of its familiarity and because the alternative “fishermen” was too inelegant. The object complement construction was rendered “turn you into fishers” instead of “make you fishers” both because of its clarity and the hint of the disciples’ conversion as a prerequisite to their new occupation. We chose not to go with the more natural but less accurate rendering of “I will teach you to catch people.” In this passage, accuracy was more important than readability or elegance. But a decision was not easy; we are still open to suggestions.

Is a literal translation the best translation?

Although one of the general principles of this translation is to indicate in the notes a more literal rendering, not every departure from such is noted. For one thing, Greek (or Hebrew) and English are sufficiently different that to document every departure would be an exercise in futility. No translation is completely literal, nor should that be a desirable goal. A completely word-for-word literal translation would be unreadable. John 4:15, for example, would be rendered: “Says to him the woman, ‘Sir, give to me this the water that not I thirst nor I come here to draw.” Matthew 1:18 would say, “Of the but Jesus Christ the birth thus was. Being betrothed the mother of him, Mary, to Joseph, before of to come together them she was found in belly having from Spirit Holy.” Such examples are not isolated, but are the norm. Claims for a literal translation must necessarily have a lot of fine print.

Literal is also not necessarily faithful. The word order differences between English and Greek, the use of the article, case, infinitives, participles, voice, mood, and other grammatical features are often so different that gibberish is the result if an absolutely literal translation is attempted (as in the two examples cited above). Not only this, but the idioms of one language have to be converted into the receptor language. Thus, in Matthew 1:18, no English translation (not even the King James Version) would dare speak of Mary’s pregnancy as “she was having [it] in the belly.” Yet this is the literal Greek expression for pregnancy. But it is not English. Thus the real question in translation is not whether it is literal, but whether it is faithful. And fidelity requires converting the lexical, grammatical, idiomatic, and figurative elements (to mention but a few) of the original language into the corresponding package in the receptor language. At times this can be accomplished by maintaining an approximately literal force. At other times, a loose rendering is required if the sentence is to have any meaning in English at all. Of course, this can be overdone. There are two dangers to avoid in translation. First, a translation should not be so literal that it is not good English. The meaning of the original needs to be as faithfully rendered into good English as possible. Second, a translation should not be so loose that it becomes merely an interpretation or allows sectarian interests to overwhelm the resultant text. All translation is interpretation; it cannot be otherwise. But the issue is how much interpretation and how idiosyncratic an interpretation is.

Part of the problem is this: the more literal a translation is, the less readable it generally is; the more readable it is, the less faithful it is to the original meaning (at least in many cases). Some modern translations are quite readable but are not very faithful to the biblical author’s meaning. A major goal of good translation is of course readability – but not at the expense of the intended meaning. The philosophy of the NET Bible translators was to be interpretive when such an interpretation represents the best thinking of recent scholarship. Thus, for example, in Romans 6:4, the expression “newness of life” is taken to mean “new life” by grammarians and exegetes alike and is thus translated this way. But when an interpretive translation is unnecessary or might suggest sectarian bias, and when a more literal rendering results in good English, we have followed the latter course.

A major category of nonliteral translation involves certain conjunctions. For example, the Greek word καιί (kai), meaning generally “and, even, also, yet, but, indeed,” is often left untranslated at the beginning of a sentence. When such is the case, there is usually no note given. However, if the possibility exists that an interpretive issue is involved, a note is given.

An additional consideration of the translation team was faithfulness (as far as possible without violation of current English style) to the style of the individual biblical authors. Even within the New Testament, written over a short span of time in comparison with the Old Testament, the authors exhibit their own unique literary styles. Paul’s style differs from Peter’s, and both differ from John’s. The translators and editors attempted to give the modern reader an impression of these stylistic differences where it was possible to do so without sacrificing accuracy, clarity, or readability.

Is the NET Bible suitable for use as more than a study Bible?

Beyond the primary objective of faithfulness to the original, a second major objective for the NET Bible was the clarity of the translation for the modern reader. This concern for clarity extended to the literary quality and readability of the NET Bible, and individual translators were encouraged to have their translations read aloud so that such factors as assonance and rhythm could be considered. Thus, although originally conceived as a study Bible, the NET Bible is designed to be useful for reading aloud, memorizing, teaching, and preaching, as well as private reading and study. The NET Bible is now being released as audio files in mp3 format. To find out for yourself how striking it sounds when read aloud, go to www.bible.org for a sample.

Hear the NET Bible, visit http://netbible.org and click on audio link

What do you mean when you say the NET Bible was beta-tested?

Since the NET Bible is the first English translation done entirely in digital electronic form, an idea was borrowed from software developers – a beta test. How did we beta-test the Bible? Just like software is beta-tested – we let people try it and tell us where it could be improved.

Every working draft of the NET Bible has been posted on the Internet at www.bible.org from the very beginning of the project. More people have previewed, used and reviewed the working drafts of the NET Bible than any other Bible translation in history.¹² These prepublication reviewers of the NET Bible have logged millions of review sessions and sent the translation committee countless comments. The committee always takes each of these comments from our readers seriously and many have led to substantial improvement in the translation and notes. Now the complete NET Bible is available in both electronic and printed form. You have the opportunity to learn from a truly detailed, totally new Bible translation, plus you have our invitation to help us continue to improve the NET Bible through its planned ongoing development. This is unique in history.

What other changes have our readers suggested?

Many readers of the First Beta Edition asked for a NET Bible that weighed less and was easier to carry. With the Second Beta Edition, the First Edition and now the Full Notes Edition this has been accomplished. The font size remains standard study Bible size, the font size for poetry sections has been increased, and the font style of the footnotes has been upgraded to support better readability. This Edition also employs new footnote numbers that are much easier to read than in previous printings. Countless readers contacted us with suggestions about the translation and notes, and these have helped us improve the NET Bible in thousands of places.

The NET Bible was the first translation to be published in electronic form on the Internet before being published in traditional print media. The Old and New Testament Translation Committees have invited and received public comment on the NET Bible from laypersons, clergy, and biblical scholars. That process will continue even after this release. Editorial focus will now be shifted primarily toward the notes. We invite feedback from everyone to help us make the NET Bible even better (go to our online comments database at www.bible.org/comments).

What improvements were made during the beta process?

Many readers of the First Beta Edition asked for maps. In conjunction with RØHR Productions of Nicosia, Cyprus, we included maps of the Holy Land based on satellite imagery. We also introduced new “map” notes to locate places mentioned in the NET Bible text. An exciting combination of technologies was used to produce these incredible images and they represent a very interesting story in and of themselves.

Another major change introduced with the Second Beta Edition of the NET Bible was a significant update to the text-critical notes for the New Testament. After the printing of the First Beta Edition, it was suggested to the NET Bible team by the German Bible Society (Deutsche Bibelgesellchaft) in Stuttgart, Germany, that the information in the New Testament tc notes should be standardized to the Nestle-Aland 27th edition text which they publish in conjunction with the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany. (Prior to this point, the textual evidence in the tc notes had been drawn from NA²⁷, UBS⁴, and other sources.) Over the course of a year, part of which was spent in residence at the Institut in Münster, the Senior New Testament Editor revised all existing tc notes in the NET Bible New Testament and added scores more. In the Second Beta Edition all these tc notes were conformed to the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Greek New Testament (Novum Testamentum Graece), 8th revised printing including papyri 99–116. The changes to the notes are most noticeable with nomenclature for manuscript witnesses: All tc notes in the New Testament now use the same nomenclature as that used by NA²⁷, including the siglum Ï. The reader should consult NA²⁷ for discussion on this nomenclature. In addition, a double dagger (‡) is used in tc notes to indicate the several hundred places where the Greek text underlying the NET Bible differs from NA²⁷; at a glance the reader can now see when the text translated by the NET Bible New Testament differs from that of NA²⁷. This conformity to NA²⁷ increases the quality of the notes tremendously, as it aligns them with the standard critical text of the Greek New Testament used by scholars, pastors, and students all over the world. As a result NET Bible readers will be able to use NA²⁷ more effectively, and readers who use NA²⁷ will see more readily how the process of textual criticism is carried out. In 2004, a joint venture between the German Bible Society and bible.org produced the New English Translation – Novum Testamentum Graece New Testament which combines the full NA²⁷ text with apparatus and appendices along with the NET Bible text and a special edition of the translators’ notes and text-critical notes optimized to assist students of the original Greek. Additional information on this publication is available from www.bible.org/diglot.

Another significant change to the translators’ notes (tn) in the Second Beta Edition was the updating of all citations of BAGD to BDAG, thus keeping the NET Bible current with the most up-to-date reference materials.¹³ All of these changes have resulted in a better translation and an increase to 60,932 translators’ notes!

All of the biblical text was edited extensively for faithfulness to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as well as for English wording and style. In the final edit between the Second Beta Edition and this Edition, approximately 1,500 new translators’ notes were added. There were also cases in the Second Beta Editon where the same note applied multiple times within a short section of a book. To decrease redundancy, approximately 600 duplicate notes were consolidated and deleted. From the First Beta Edition to this Edition over 3,500 new notes of various kinds were added. These include translators’ notes (tn), study notes (sn), text-critical notes (tc), and map notes (map). The “map notes” [map] indicate where the particular location can be found in the map sections included in the NET Bible, “The Old Testament,” “The Journeys of Paul,” and “The Holy Land from the Heavens.” (For this Edition a new section of Old Testament maps have been included for the first time.) Preceding the maps is an index which contains every site marked on the maps (although the maps do not include every biblical site). The map coordinates in the notes and index first indicate the larger map and then the individual grid location; if a site is shown on more than one map, multiple sets of coordinates will be listed. For example, one of the coordinates for the city of Jerusalem is Map5-B1; this should be read as “The Holy Land from the Heavens” – map 5 – grid B1. Another coordinate for Jerusalem is JP1-F4; this should be read as “The Journeys of Paul” – map 1 – grid F4.

Can I still submit suggestions for improvements now that this Edition has been released?

Absolutely. The goal of this translation is to be accurate, readable, and elegant. While we think we’ve done a good job achieving that, we know we have not yet achieved perfection. If you come across a phrase or verse you feel needs further improvement, you can let us know through our online comments database at www.bible.org/comments. The comments database will remain online and input will be used for the first planned revision of the translated biblical text and for the ongoing development of the notes.

You can submit a comment on any aspect of the translation and notes, from the clarity and elegance of the English to specific points of Greek or Hebrew grammar, to interpretive issues discussed in the notes. We welcome any and all comments which would help us improve the NET Bible. To illustrate that we aren’t solely interested in just one type of comment, below is a sampling of the types of comments we welcome. These are by no means exhaustive and you need not reference which category applies to you. These are merely examples to encourage you to participate in the ongoing development process.

I’m not an expert in Hebrew or Greek, but I don’t understand the English meaning of this verse. It uses awkward grammar or words that aren’t in normal English usage. (Translation reflecting normal English usage was the primary goal of the original King James Bible.)

I’m a scholar in the Bible’s original languages, and (a) I really think you could better translate this verse this way…; (b) here’s what your translation incorrectly implies in English which was not a nuance of the original; (c) here’s why people of my background will interpret the English phrase in a strange fashion.

There is reasonable difference of opinion about this verse’s implications among honest Bible students; a more balanced note is needed. (Here you may specify the view you would like to see represented.)

Other comments and endorsements: We would also like to hear of specific passages where you particularly like what we have done, or other features of the NET Bible that impress you. Additionally, we would be very pleased to have your endorsement of the NET Bible. Comments of this type can be sent by E-mail to NETBibleComments.

Have suggestions and comments? Go to www.bible.org/comments

Will the NET Bible be updated on a regular basis?

Absolutely. No translation can achieve perfection, and even if it could, the English language itself would change and the translation would still become dated. The supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, the standard reference source for English vocabulary, contains over 85,000 entries of words that did not exist in the English language when the OED was published in 1924. No one has any idea of the number of words and phrases that have dropped out of English usage in the same period. No one reading the KJV who comes across expressions like “meteyard” in Leviticus 19:35, “vain jangling” in 1 Timothy 1:6, or the “mean man” in Isaiah 2:9, 5:15, and 31:8 can fail to see how words change in meaning over time. Even terms like “usury” (Nehemiah 5:10; Ezekiel 18:17) or “she-camel” (Jeremiah 2:23) – both found in the NIV – are not familiar to many modern readers. Other English words like “thong” have developed new meanings which are problematic for their use in Bible translations (e.g., Judges 16:7 in the NIV).

Additional research, additional discoveries of new manuscripts, and archaeological discoveries that shed additional light on first century history and culture also contribute to the need for revision. Attempts to produce notes better suited to the needs of users will also result in frequent revision of the notes accompanying the NET Bible. Thus the production of the NET Bible is not a one-time undertaking to be completed and put aside, but an ongoing project with planned improvement and revision.

What position does the NET Bible take on gender-inclusive language?

Much concern has recently been expressed by people unhappy about modern translations of the Bible which employ “gender-inclusive” language. Some of the changes causing such concern involve the inclusion of references to women in almost all places where the biblical text refers to men, the pluralization of singular references to avoid the use of masculine pronouns like “he” or “him,” and even, in extreme cases, the application of such inclusive language to God himself. (This last idea is one completely foreign to the original authors of the canonical texts in question.)

Having said this, it is also true that many of the ancient texts of the Bible are less gender-specific than English translations often suggest. In many cases an ancient reader encountering a masculine noun or pronoun would have recognized it to be generic without having to be told. Modern readers (accustomed to the tendency of current English style to use inclusive language wherever possible) often assume the opposite to be true: if both genders are not explicitly mentioned, an assumption of exclusivity is frequently the result.

It is important to distinguish two approaches to gender inclusivity in the history of the Bible’s translation into English. The first approach we might call “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” since it attempts, on an ideological basis, to remove “objectionable” elements like patriarchalism or even male metaphors for God himself. No such radical approach has been followed with the NET Bible. The other approach could be called “Gender-Accurate Translation,” which simply means translating terms without respect to gender when the intended meaning or application is broad and not gender-specific. This type of translation has been around at least since the publication of William Tyndale’s New Testament in 1526, when he rendered the phrase υἱοὶ θεοῦ ( Juioi qeou, “sons of God”) as “children of God,” a gender neutral translation. Along these same lines the KJV of 1611 rendered בֵּן ( ben, “son”) or its plural 2,822 times as “son” or “sons” and 1,533 times as “child” or “children,” resulting in a gender-neutral translation 35% of the time. A further example of gender-neutral translation can be found in Hosea 2:4, which refers to Gomer’s three children, two sons and one daughter. The Hebrew text of Hosea 2:4 literally reads “Upon her sons also I will have no pity, because they are sons of whoredom.” Yet the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX), uses the Greek term for children, τέκνα ( tekna, Hosea 2:6 [LXX], which is neuter gender), and among English translations the KJV, ASV, NIV, and NRSV all employ “children.”

With the NET Bible our concern was to be gender-accurate rather than gender-inclusive, striving for faithfulness to the original biblical texts while at the same time seeking to attain accuracy in terms of current English style. The English language constantly undergoes change. Acceptable conventions for dealing with gender-related language have undergone a great deal of change in the last few decades, and more change in this area will certainly come in the future. As the conventions of the English language change, new translations and revisions of existing translations will have to take this into account. This is especially important when the goal of the translation (like that of the NET Bible) is faithfulness to the original.

At the same time, we do not employ “Ideological Gender Inclusivity,” since we do not believe the Bible should be rewritten to incorporate gender-inclusive language foreign to the original. The Bible is a historical document rooted in a particular set of cultures and languages, each with their own conventions in the area of gender-related language. In addition, these languages and cultures are separated from us not by mere decades, but by millennia. In all cases the goal for the NET Bible was to be as accurate as possible with regard to gender-related language, faithfully reproducing the meaning of the original text in clear contemporary English. In some instances this meant allowing gender distinctions found in the original-language texts to stand in the translation, as for example in a historical setting – like Jesus crossing the Sea of Galilee with his disciples in a boat – when it is almost certain that only males were present. In other instances when a group of people are addressed by the Greek term anqrwpoi (literally, “men”) and it is clear from context that both men and women are addressed (with the term used in a generic sense), the translation “people” has been used. Here are some of the other typical features of the NET Bible’s handling of gender-related language:

Adelfoi (traditionally “brothers” or “brethren”) has been rendered as “brothers and sisters” in the epistles where the church is addressed at large. Ample evidence for this usage can be found in nonbiblical (secular) documents as mentioned in standard lexical reference tools like BDAG. This evidence is typically mentioned in the notes.
Participles have been translated “the one who” or (rarely) “the person who” with the following pronoun left as masculine, because English has yet to develop a gender-neutral pronoun for the third person. Only infrequently, when a participle refers to Deity, has it been translated “he who.”
There are a very few instances where anhr, which typically means “man” (i.e., adult male) or “husband” in Greek, has been rendered as “someone” (e.g., James 1:23) or (very rarely) as a generic (e.g., Acts 17:34, where Damaris, a woman, is explicitly mentioned as a member of the group).
In some cases in James, 1 John, and a few other places adelfo has been rendered as “fellow believer” or “fellow Christian” following usage outlined in standard lexical reference tools.

In most of these instances, further explanation of the way the gender-related language has been handled in the translation is given in a translators’ note.

Considerable time was spent discussing many significant New Testament texts with regard to gender issues. One example of such a text is 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and anqrwpoi (men / mankind / humankind), the anqrwpos (man / person / human) Christ Jesus.” The NET Bible New Testament translation team discussed this intriguing example at length. The basic question was, “Is the key to Jesus’ role as mediator that he mediates for males, or for both men and women?” There was also the need to be sensitive to the word play in both halves of the verse involving anqrwpos. Typically the objection has been that a rendering like “human” in the second half compromises Jesus’ maleness which is also involved here. But the translators had to ask, “Which rendering might cause more confusion, a use of “men” in a generic sense, or a rendering like “humanity”? Which point is more central to this particular context, the redemption of humanity, or Jesus’ maleness? Everyone knows Jesus was a male human, so his maleness is not in question here! Deciding that the redemption of humanity was the primary point in the context, and that Jesus’ participation in humanity was central to his mediatory role, the translators opted for the rendering, “For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human.”

Finally, with regard to the issue of translational gender inclusivity it is important to note the flexibility shown by the New Testament authors themselves when citing Old Testament texts. A few examples will suffice: in Isaiah 52:7 the prophet states “how beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news”; this was incorporated by Paul in Romans 10:15 as “the feet of those who proclaim the good news.” In Psalm 36:1 the psalmist writes, “There is no fear of God before his eyes,” while Paul quotes this in Romans 3:18 as “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Again, the psalmist writes in Psalm 32:1, “Blessed is he whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered,” while Paul in Romans 4:7 has “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” Even more striking is the citation by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:18 of 2 Samuel 7:14, where God states, “I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me.” Paul renders this as “I will be a father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters.” Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that Paul is simply following the common version of the Greek Old Testament (the LXX) here, since the LXX follows the Hebrew text closely at this point, literally, “I will be to him for a father, and he will be to me for a son.” Although considerable flexibility is shown in Paul’s handling of this text, hardly anyone would charge him with capitulating to a feminist agenda!

What is the story behind these incredible photographic maps?

“The Holy Land from the Heavens” map supplement was a new addition to the Second Beta Edition of the NET Bible. There are two types of images in this section. Several of these images are photographs of the Holy Land taken from aircraft. The second type are satellite maps of the Holy Land. How these satellite images came to exist may be an interesting story to many readers.

When you compare these images to other satellite imagery or photographs, you will immediately notice their unique resolution and quality. This gives you, the reader, a great deal of information – relative altitude, topography, vegetation, available mountain passes, travel routes, etc. – and this information is often vital to understanding the Bible. As we searched for maps to include in the NET Bible, we found that the high quality map lithographs included in 16^th century Bibles had not been surpassed by the maps in contemporary study Bibles. Now they have. The images in “The Holy Land from the Heavens” are far better than any maps that have ever been included in any Bible.

What you see is essentially a photograph in the sense that all of the colors shown derive from a single satellite photograph, but it is so vastly improved that we feel we owe you an explanation. The process to create these images was quite complex. Every image began as a photograph taken by a U.S. LandSat 5 satellite on a cold, crystal clear morning in January. Every color is thus true and contextual, not a mixture of images from different days. It was a rare and specifically chosen day because there were virtually no clouds anywhere in the entire region. Because LandSat images are taken from directly above, contain no altitude data, and have only a 30 meter resolution – far worse than the result you see here – more needed to be done to make the images better. A resolution of 30 meters means is that a building which is 30 by 30 meters would appear as one single dot on the image, so objects smaller than this size would not be visible at this resolution.

To improve the images, data from a French SPOT satellite was integrated in order to increase the resolution to 10 meters, so that smaller features of the landscape could be seen. This was complicated because the SPOT satellite data is black and white, but has 10 meter resolution. Thus there are 9 pixels of data (9 dots) in the SPOT data for every single colored dot in the LandSat data. Since these two satellites took their pictures from different altitudes and different locations in the sky, combining the two images required continuous compensation for differences in altitude, focal length, and image skew – because these two images sources were never intended to be combined into a single image. Therefore it was required that the combined images be precisely aligned, that the edges of every mountain and valley be identical and not blurred, resulting in an extensive investment of money, love, time, and technology. Along the way, two photographic exposure settings were required so that the desert south was not overexposed and the vegetation of the north was not underexposed. So the base image had to be an integration of two exposure settings shot at the same time by the same satellite in order to achieve the photographic exposure perfection you see. Once the SPOT and LandSat photographs were integrated, the image was still a topographically boring look from above with no altitude data.

The next step was to “drape” these two-dimensional images over a 3-D relief model of the terrain which added topographical data. This required relatively complex math and a significant amount of computer time. On some maps, this kind of data is shown as contour lines overlaid onto the images and labeled with altitude numbers for each contour line. Using this approach, locations where the contour lines are very close represent steep slopes. This method is fine for hiking maps, but obscures a photographic image and certainly detracts from the beauty of high resolution color satellite images like these.

The final step, therefore, was to develop software which would remove the need for contour lines by rendering the entire image as if it had not been taken from directly above in space, but as if the observer was viewing the scene from the side window of a commercial airliner. In this manner, altitude information would appear photographically as height in a natural way rather than as numbers on a vertical view from above. One drawback of this oblique scene projection is that the opposite sides of large mountains and valleys are obscured. For this reason, there are two views presented for each scene to allow you to “see behind” each of the mountains – one looking from the southwest and another from the northeast. In this manner, none of the original data is lost in these photographs. You can see both sides of each mountain from 180 degree opposing photographs of each region. In addition, the natural distortion that occurs when projecting an oblique image is also accounted for by looking at the same region from two different perspectives.

Why these particular viewing perspectives (northeast and southwest)? Since the computer could have projected each image from any angle, these photographs could have been rendered as if shot looking in any compass direction – looking north or east for example. But these particular perspectives have been chosen for a specific reason. Depth perception and contour imaging clues interpreted in the brain are indicated by shadows in photographs. Although the original photographs were taken from above, the sun was not high overhead at the same time, so the shadows included in the original satellite photos dictate the optimum viewing angle of the scenes. Since the original photographs were taken early on a winter morning, the sun was low on the southeast horizon, casting long shadows to the northwest from the southeast. The eye understands an image best when viewed perpendicular to the direction of any shadows. Therefore, in order to produce the most illuminating three dimensional image, the observer must look at right angles to these shadows. These circumstances dictate that the best viewing perspectives for the reader will be looking northeast and southwest.

These images took more time and technology than have ever been used before in the creation of images for biblical studies. They are the result of over thirty years of diligent effort by RØHR Productions Ltd. whose goal is to create unsurpassed images of the Holy Land, images which enable the reader to better understand the land of the Bible – and provide teachers a far better than normal reference for guiding students through biblical narratives in their proper geographical context. Although we have modified these maps to suit the smaller format of the NET Bible they are all derived from the Holy Land Satellite Atlas: Volumes 1 and 2 (and the related 3-D Animation CD of the Holy Land), published by RØHR Productions Ltd. We are grateful for permission to use them in the NET Bible. The effort that went into the procurement and production of these images deserves your support. We encourage you to obtain RØHR’s family of imagery reference materials in order to support both your studies and RØHR’s ongoing efforts.

What are some of the distinctive characteristics of the NET Bible translation philosophy?

One distinctive characteristic is how the NET Bible strives for accuracy. The NET Bible seeks to be accurate by translating passages consistently and properly within their grammatical, historical, and theological context. The interplay and proper understanding of these three contexts has produced some distinctive translations within the NET Bible. By explaining these here we hope to help the Bible reader understand more fully the translation task undertaken to produce the NET Bible, but even more importantly to understand more fully the Bible itself.

As a translator approaches a passage there are a number of contexts which must be considered. They can be summed up under three broad terms: grammatical, historical, and theological. Grammatical context involves a natural, accurate understanding of the language of the original text which provides parameters for how language functions and which meanings are possible and probable for a given text. This is what most naturally comes to mind when translation work is done. It is the primary work of the translator to determine what meaning is expressed in the original language and how that can best be expressed in the target language. Understanding in this area has improved immensely over the last several years, especially with the advent of computer tools for language study. One of the primary goals of the NET Bible has been to stay abreast of current research in this area. The footnotes in the NET Bible often refer to recent articles, books, and dissertations which have new data regarding how biblical languages function. As our understanding of these languages improves, naturally it will affect the translation of particular passages.

Theological context is the understanding of God and his work that a particular author would have at the time he wrote a particular passage of scripture. In a manner similar to historical context, theological context provides parameters for deciding upon the meaning of a text and the best way to translate it. The Bible was written over a period of about 2,500 years. During this time, theological understanding changed dramatically. Moses did not know and understand God the way Paul did. This does not mean that Moses knew God in a wrong way and that Paul knew him the right way; it simply means that God had revealed more about himself over time, so Paul had a fuller understanding of who God was and what he was doing in the world. When translating an earlier passage of scripture, the translator should take into account that the theological understanding of the author will be different from that of a later author.

As implied above, these three concepts form a limited hierarchy. Grammatical context is the most important because it deals with the nuts and bolts of the language which convey meaning which ultimately can be translated. For example, in English one cannot communicate to a reader that the sky is blue by writing “The tree is green.” The words and phrases which make up this sentence can only communicate a limited meaning, and this is defined by the grammar, the syntax of the phrases, the meanings of the individual words, and other similar considerations. Understanding the grammatical context is the most important task of the translator, for the meaning is found in these words and phrases. The translators and editors of the NET Bible translate a passage with precedence given to the grammatical context. The historical and theological context provide a reasonable system of checks and balances; they help the translator decide what is the most probable meaning of the original text and how that meaning should be translated. They do not drive the translation; instead they guide it so that the most probable meaning is conveyed.

A very important concept for understanding the translation philosophy of the NET Bible and how these three contexts work together is progressive revelation. Simply put, progressive revelation recognizes that God reveals himself – his nature as well as his word, plans, and purposes – over time. He did not reveal everything about himself and what he was doing in the world all at once; instead he graciously revealed more and more as time went on. Later revelation serves to complement and supplement what has come before. The relation of this reality 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? The translators and editors for the NET Bible have generally chosen to do the latter for a variety of reasons. A translation which takes into account the progress of revelation will be true to the three contexts discussed above. It is also very beneficial to the Bible reader to have the progress of revelation accurately represented in the translation of particular texts. This helps the reader see how God has worked through the centuries, and it helps the reader to stand more accurately in the place of the original recipients of the text. Both of these are very instructive and inspirational, and they help the reader to connect with the text in a more fulfilling way.

A discussion of particular passages in the NET Bible – how they have been translated and why – will illuminate these concepts. Explaining these examples will show how the translators and editors have put the aspects of the translation theory discussed above into practice. The translators and editors believe these issues are important for readers of the Bible to grasp, so all these passages have extensive notes regarding these issues. An example from both the Old and New Testaments will be given.

Isaiah 7:14. This verse has seen a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation. The text of the verse from the NET Bible is as follows:

Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

The most visible issue surrounding this verse is the translation of the Hebrew word עַלְמָה (’ almah). The NET Bible uses the phrase “young woman,” while many translations use the word “virgin.” The arguments center upon two main points: the actual meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrew, and the use of this verse in the New Testament. There is a great deal of debate about the actual meaning of the Hebrew word. However, in the New Testament when this verse is cited in Matthew 1:23 the Greek word παρθένος ( parqenos) is used, and this word can mean nothing but “virgin.” Therefore, many people see Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about the virgin birth with Matthew 1:23 serving as a “divine commentary” on the Isaiah passage which establishes its meaning. The interplay of these issues makes a resolution quite complex. It is the opinion of the translators and editors that the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14 means “young woman” and actually carries no connotations of sexual experience, so the grammatical context 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 its original 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 God’s divine power to show himself strong on behalf of his people. The role or birth of the Messiah does not come into view here. So the historical and theological contexts of the verse support the grammatical: the word עַלְמָה (’ almah) means “young woman” and should be translated as such. Within the book of Isaiah 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 delivers an announcement of future victory over Israel’s enemies; the special child Immanuel, alluded to in the last line of v. 10, is a guarantee that the covenant promises of God will result in future greatness. The child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 is a pledge of God’s presence during the time of Ahaz, but he also is a promise of God’s presence in the future when he gives his people victory over 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 God’s presence perfectly 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 the book of Isaiah, but it does not change the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 in its original context.

Passages Involving πιίστις Χριστοῦ and Similar Expressions in Paul. The phrase πιίστις Χριστοῦ ( pisti Cristou) is a difficult one to translate. The issue centers on the relationship of the genitive noun Χριστοῦ to the head noun πιίστις: is the genitive subjective or objective? That is, is the emphasis of this phrase on Christ as the one who exercises faith (subjective) or on Christ as the one in whom others have faith (objective)? Traditionally these phrases have been interpreted emphasizing Christ as the object of faith; “faith in Jesus Christ” is the traditional translation. However, in recent years an increasing number of New Testament scholars are arguing from both the grammatical and theological contexts that πιίστις Χριστοῦ and similar phrases in Paul (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and emphasize Christ as the one who exercises faith: “the faithfulness of Christ.” A wider glance at the use of the noun πιίστις in the rest of the New Testament shows that when it takes a personal genitive that genitive is almost never objective. Certainly faith in Christ is a Pauline concept, but Bible scholars have begun to see that in Paul’s theological thought there is also an emphasis on Christ as one who is faithful and therefore worthy of our faith. The grammatical and theological contexts are not decisive, and either translation is acceptable. The editors decided to follow the subjective genitive view because a decision had to be made – “faith of Christ,” a literal translation, communicates very little to the average reader in the context – and because scholarship in this area is now leaning toward this view. The question is certainly not closed, however, and if further research indicates that the grammatical or theological context proves decisive for the other view, the translation will be modified to reflect that.

In short, the translators and editors of the NET Bible are committed to following the text where it leads and translating it honestly. The translation philosophy leaves no other options: For the sake of Christ and the truth, the translators and editors are compelled to translate as they have done in the examples above and throughout the NET Bible. The 19^th century conservative Christian scholar Henry Alford stated it best: “a translator of Holy Scripture must be…ready to sacrifice the choicest text, and the plainest proof of doctrine, if the words are not those of what he is constrained in his conscience to receive as God’s testimony.”

For the specific guidelines employed by the translators and editors of the NET Bible, see “NET Bible Principles of Translation” included as the first item in the Appendices.

What is the Hebrew text behind the NET Bible Old Testament?

The starting point for the Hebrew text¹⁴ translated to produce the NET Bible Old Testament was the standard edition known as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), which represents the text of the Leningrad Codex B19^A (L), still the oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Bible. Thus the Hebrew text on which the present translation of the Old Testament is based does not represent a critical, or reconstructed, text in the same way the standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament do. It is generally recognized that the Hebrew text represented by the Leningrad Codex occasionally needs to be corrected based on other Hebrew manuscripts, early versions, and the biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the case of the Old Testament such decisions were left up to the individual translators who prepared the initial drafts for consideration by the Old Testament Editorial Committee. The textual decisions made by the translators were then reviewed by the editors and a textual consultant, and in some cases were revised. Conjectural emendation was employed only where necessary to make sense of the Hebrew text in order to be able to translate it. Significant textual variants or emendations are noted in a text-critical note [tc]. These notes frequently include references to principal versional evidence where relevant. The text-critical notes on the Old Testament are not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide the reader with basic information about the major textual issues affecting the translation.

How are the verses in the Old Testament arranged?

Some of the divisions found in copies of the Hebrew Bible were already established by the end of the Masoretic era (ca. a.d. 900). While it is generally understood that the division of the Old Testament text into verses goes back to the early centuries of the Christian era, the standard verse division which has continued in use up to the present was fixed by the Ben Asher family around a.d. 900.

In the places where the Hebrew versification differs from that of the English Bible, the NET Bible follows standard English practice, but a study note [sn] gives the corresponding Hebrew versification. Unlike the Hebrew text, which treats the superscriptions to individual psalms as the first verse, the NET Bible follows most English Bibles¹⁵ in leaving the superscriptions unnumbered, and they are set in a slightly smaller font size to distinguish them from the text of the Psalm proper.

How is the Divine Name translated in the Old Testament?

The translation of the Divine Name represents special problems for all English Bibles. The most difficult issue is the handling of the so-called tetragrammaton, the four consonants which represent the name of God in the Old Testament. This was rendered traditionally as “Jehovah” in the King James Version, but it is generally recognized that this represents a combination of the consonants of the tetragrammaton, יהוה ( YHWH), and the vowels from a completely different Hebrew word, אֲדֹנָי( ’adonai, “master”), which were substituted by the Masoretes so that pronunciation of the Divine Name could be avoided: Whenever יהוה ( YHWH), appeared in the text, the presence of the vowels from the word אֲדֹנָי ( ’adonai) signaled to the reader that the word אֲדֹנָי ( ’adonai) was to be pronounced instead.

Today most Old Testament scholars agree that the vocalization of the Divine Name would originally have been something like Yahweh, and this has become the generally accepted rendering. The Executive Steering Committee of the NET Bible spent considerable time discussing whether or not to employ Yahweh in the translation. Several Old Testament editors and translators favored its use, reasoning that because of its use in the lyrics of contemporary Christian songs and its appearance in Bible study materials, the name Yahweh had gained more general acceptance. In spite of this, however, the Committee eventually decided to follow the usage of most English translations and render the Divine Name as “Lord” in small caps. Thus the frequent combination אֶלֹהִים יְהוָה ( Yahweh ’elohim) is rendered as Lord God.

Other combinations like יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת ( Yahweh Tséva’ot), traditionally rendered “Lord of hosts,” have been translated either as “the Lord who rules over all” or “the Lord who commands armies” depending on the context. Such instances are typically indicated by a translators’ note [tn].

What is the Greek text behind the NET Bible New Testament?

As for the Greek text used in the NET Bible New Testament, an eclectic text was followed, differing in several hundred places from the standard critical text as represented by the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (each of these differences are indicated by a double dagger [‡] preceding the text-critical note). The translators who prepared the initial drafts of individual New Testament books made preliminary decisions regarding textual variants, and these were then checked and discussed by editors and a textual consultant. Where there are significant variant readings, these are normally indicated in a text-critical note [tc], along with a few of the principal witnesses (Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic writers) supporting the variants. While this listing of manuscript evidence is not intended to be exhaustive, readers familiar with the major witnesses will find this feature useful in making brief evaluations for themselves, sometimes with the aid of the textual apparatus in Nestle-Aland 27th edition of the Greek New Testament.

How is the New Testament text arranged?

Divisions in the New Testament text like chapters, paragraphs, and verses were added later in the process of handing the text down from one generation to the next.¹⁶ Verse divisions were added to the New Testament, for example, in 1551. They are not part of the original documents, and in many cases give the appearance of being rather arbitrary. However, they have become accepted over time, and are useful to students of the Bible as “aids to navigation” when reading through or referring to the text. The text of the NET Bible itself has been arranged in paragraphs determined by the translators and editors. In almost all cases the verse divisions follow standard English practice. In the few instances where there is a difference between the versification of the standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament and most English versions,¹⁷ this is indicated by a translators’ note [tn].

New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are indicated by a combination of boldface and italic type. Less direct allusions to Old Testament passages are indicated by italic type only. In both cases a study note [sn] gives the Old Testament reference.

What are the sectional headings in the Old and New Testaments?

As a further aid to readers and students of the Bible, descriptive sectional headings are given in italics. These were determined by the translators and editors in an attempt to be as helpful as possible, but should not be viewed as an integral part of the NET Bible text. They were not part of the original Hebrew and Greek texts that formed the basis for the translation.

How are quotation marks used?

Earlier printed editions of the Bible (the King James Version of 1611, for example) did not make use of quotation marks. Modern readers have come to expect them, however, so the NET Bible follows standard conventions of setting direct quotations with various combinations of single and double quotation marks. In cases where embedded quotations would require the use of more than three layers of quotation marks (instances are found in many of the Old Testament prophetic books which could run to five or more layers of embedded quotation), a more streamlined approach has been followed to eliminate excess layers of quotation marks by the use of colons and commas.

What types of notes are included in the NET Bible?

There are four basic kinds of notes employed in the NET Bible, “text-critical notes” [tc], “translators’ notes” [tn], “study notes” [sn], and “map notes” [map]. In this Edition of the NET Bible the “translators’ notes” are generally more numerous and considerably more technical in nature than the “study notes” (although the latter will continue to be expanded and developed in future editions of the NET Bible).

The “text-critical notes” [tc] discuss alternate (variant) readings found in the various manuscripts and groups of manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. These notes can indicate historically important readings, exegetically significant readings, or readings accepted by the translation that are different from standard critical editions. The basic Hebrew text followed by the translators of the NET Bible is that of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS). For the New Testament, in cases where the translation follows a different reading than that found in NA²⁷, a text-critical note [tc] preceded by a double dagger (‡) explains the major options and defends the reading followed in the translation.

The “translators’ notes” [tn] are the most numerous. They explain the rationale for the translation and give alternative translations, interpretive options, and other technical information. “Translators’ notes” generally fall into the following categories:

Notes introduced by “Or” need no further explanation. They introduce alternative translations that (unless accompanied by additional discussion in the note) are regarded by the translators and editors as more or less equally viable alternatives to the translation used in the text, with the choice between them made for reasons of style, euphony, other characteristics of contemporary English usage, or slight exegetical preference.
Notes introduced by “Heb,” “Aram,” or “Grk” give a gloss that approximates formal equivalence to the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text. This gloss was not employed in the translation, however, because it was inconsistent with English style or could possibly be misunderstood by the modern reader. Such glossses do not represent the “core” meaning of the word(s).
Translators’ notes are also used to indicate major lexical, syntactical, and exegetical options for a given passage. In such cases the form of the note may vary, but in general the major options will be listed and in most cases a brief evaluation is included in the note. Standard reference materials and, on occasion, relevant periodical literature are frequently mentioned in the notes. Abbreviations for these materials, as well as abbreviations for both biblical books and nonbiblical literature, generally follow the standard abbreviations established by Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). Full bibliographic citations are given for periodical literature. Standard reference works and special studies, such as commentaries and monographs, are referenced by abbreviations or shortened citations; full bibliographic citations are given in the List of Cited Works.
In some cases where a rather lengthy note occurs on multiple occasions within the same book, the note will be given in full only on its first occurrence in the book, while succeeding repetitions of the note will refer back to the first occurrence by phrase and verse. This is intended to conserve space by avoiding excessive repetition of identical notes within the same book.

The “study notes” [sn] are explanatory notes intended for the nonspecialist engaged in the reading or study of the Bible. This category includes comments about historical or cultural background, explanation of obscure phrases or brief discussions of context, discussions of the theological point made by the biblical author, cross-references and references to Old Testament quotations or allusions in the New Testament, or other miscellaneous information helpful to the modern reader.

The “map notes” [map] indicate for the reader where the particular location can be found in the map sections included in the NET Bible. Preceding the maps is an index which contains every site on the maps, although the maps do not include every biblical site. The map coordinates in the notes and index first indicate the larger map and then the individual grid location; if a site is shown on more than one map, multiple sets of coordinates will be listed. For example, one of the coordinates for the city of Jerusalem is Map5-B1; this should be read as “The Holy Land from the Heavens” – map 5 – grid B1. Another coordinate for Jerusalem is JP1-F4; this should be read as “The Journeys of Paul” – map 1 – grid F4.

What is the NET Bible team’s request?

No matter how bad or good a translation may be, it will do you no good at all unless you read and study it! The words of the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus¹⁸ (also known as Sirach) are appropriate here: “You are therefore urged to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, in spite of our diligent labor in translating, we may appear to have rendered some phrases imperfectly.” As the NET Bible team it is our desire and earnest prayer that the Lord add his blessing to our endeavor at the translation of his word.

The NET Bible Project Director

for the Translators, Editors, and Sponsor of the NET Bible

The NET Bible^® Team
Translators, Editors, and Consultants

Old Testament Translators and Editors

Pentateuch:

Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D.
(Dropsie College)¹⁹

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)

Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)

Historical Books:

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Gordon H. Johnston, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Richard A. Taylor, Ph.D.
(Catholic University of America)

Wisdom Books:

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Gordon H. Johnston, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)

Steven H. Sanchez, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Major and Minor Prophets:

William D. Barrick, Th.D.
(Grace Theological Seminary)

M. Daniel Carroll R., Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Donald R. Glenn, M.A.
(Brandeis University)

Michael A. Grisanti, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)

Steven H. Sanchez, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Brian L. Webster, Ph.D.
(Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion)

New Testament Translators and Editors

Gospels and Acts:

Darrell L. Bock, Ph.D.
(University of Aberdeen)

Michael H. Burer, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

Gregory J. Herrick, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

David K. Lowery, Ph.D.
(University of Aberdeen)

Pauline Letters:

John D. Grassmick, Ph.D.
(University of Glasgow)

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

Gregory J. Herrick, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Harold W. Hoehner, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)

David K. Lowery, Ph.D.
(University of Aberdeen)

Jay E. Smith, Ph.D.
(Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)

General Letters and Revelation:

Buist M. Fanning III, D.Phil.
(Oxford University)

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

Gregory J. Herrick, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

David K. Lowery, Ph.D.
(University of Aberdeen)

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Translation Consultants

Wayne Leman, M.A.
(University of Kansas)

James Routt, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)

English Style Consultant

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.
(University of Sheffield)

NET Bible Executive Steering Committee

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.,
Project Director and Managing Editor

Michael H. Burer, Ph.D.,
Editor and Assistant Project Director

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D., Senior OT Editor

Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D., Senior NT Editor

Buist M. Fanning, Ph.D., NT Editor

Donald R. Glenn, M.A., OT Editor

Gordon H. Johnston, Th.D., OT Editor

Steven H. Sanchez, Ph.D., OT Editor

Richard A. Taylor, Ph.D., OT Editor

Project Management and Production

W. Hall Harris III, Ph.D.,
Project Director and Managing Editor

Michael H. Burer, Ph.D.,
Editor and Assistant Project Director

J. Hampton Keathley IV, Th.M.,
Technical Director

Todd Lingren, M.A.,
Director of Publication

Due to the rapidly expanding list of endorsements of the NET Bible, a current list may be seen at www.bible.org/endorse.

The current list of editors and contributors may be seen at www.bible.org/editors.

¹ Wycliffe Bible Translators, for example, has included the NET Bible (with all the translators’ notes) in its standard reference software furnished to its field translators.

² There is an average of two translators’ notes for each verse in the Bible.

³ Many of the dates surrounding Gutenberg’s development of the printing press are uncertain or speculative (for more information go to www.gutenberg.de).

⁴Modern Luther scholars have questioned whether Luther actually posted his theses publicly on the Wittenberg church door; he may have circulated them privately. The famous story about the door was related by Melanchthon after Luther’s death; Luther himself never mentioned it.

⁵ The NIV New Testament was issued in 1973 and the entire Bible (with revised NT) published in 1978.

⁶ Bible translation has certainly not stood still in the interim, however, with the publication of Good News for Modern Man (Today’s English Version, 1976), the New King James Version (1979) as the successor to the KJV, the Reader’s Digest Bible (1982) as a condensation of the RSV, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) as a revision of the JB (1966), the NRSV (1989) as a significant revision of the RSV (1952), the Revised English Bible (1989) as a revision of the NEB (1970), the New Century Version (1991) as successor to the International Children’s Bible (1986), Eugene H. Peterson’s paraphrase The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary Language (1993), the 21^st Century King James Version (1994) as another successor to the venerable KJV, the Contemporary English Version (1995), the NASB update edition (1995), the New International Reader’s Version (1995) based on the NIV, the New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (1995) based on the NRSV, and the New Living Translation (1996), successor to The Living Bible (1971).

⁷ The English language changed enough within twenty years to warrant the release of the Contemporary English Version (CEV) in 1995, although as a vernacular translation it was similar to the Good News Bible/TEV published in 1976. (A more vernacular translation must be revised more frequently to keep up with changes in the English language.)

⁸ With formal equivalence each word of the original language is represented by a word in the receptor (target) language, and the word and clause order is kept as nearly identical to that of the original language as possible. This approach has been stated as a translation rule by J. B. Lightfoot: “the same English words to represent the same Greek words...as far as possible in the same order.” Thus this approach translates word for word. As a matter of fact, the King James Version itself did not subscribe to this approach, but used a variety of English words to translate the same Greek or Hebrew word on various occasions.

⁹With functional equivalence (sometimes called dynamic equivalence) the goal is to render the original language text in the closest natural equivalent in the receptor language, both in meaning and style. This approach translates phrase for phrase or thought for thought.

¹⁰ There are, however, occasions in which a more formally equivalent translation is found in the translation; in such instances, the interpretive options are usually found in a footnote.

¹¹This illustration is taken from “An Open Letter regarding the NET Bible New Testament” by D. B. Wallace, Notes on Translation 14.3 (2000).

¹² The NET Bible website (www.bible.org) is used by millions of people each year. The public beta-testing process began in 1995 and spanned the 10-year development process of the translation and notes.

¹³ BAGD and BDAG are abbreviations which refer to the second and third editions respectively of the standard Greek-English lexicon used in New Testament studies. The third edition appeared in print after the text and notes of the NET Bible New Testament were largely completed.

¹⁴ This includes the brief portions of the Old Testament written in Aramaic.

¹⁵ There are some exceptions. The New American Bible, for example, follows the Hebrew versification and treats the superscription as verse 1 of the psalm.

¹⁶ Divisions of material in the New Testament (somewhat analogous to chapter divisions) date back to codex Vaticanus (B) in the 4th century a.d. The present chapter divisions in the English Bible are attributed to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, around a.d. 1205. The first edition of the New Testament to be divided into verses was the fourth edition of Robertus Stephanus published in 1551. One of the first translations to be divided into paragraphs (as opposed to the individual verses of the King James Version) was the American Standard Version (1901).

¹⁷ For example, both the NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ editions of the Greek text (along with the NRSV, which generally follows the versification of the critical editions of the Greek text in the New Testament) place the familiar phrase “I have been crucified with Christ” at the end of Galatians 2:19, while most other English versions place these words in Galatians 2:20. This is explained in a note in the NET Bible.

¹⁸ Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach) is a book of the Old Testament Apocrypha.

¹⁹ The institution listed in each case is the institution granting the degree.

Related Topics: Bibliology (The Written Word), NET Bible

Bosanski

You are here

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Lesson 61: Fatal Attraction (Genesis 34:1-31)

1. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it is a subtle danger.

2. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it happens in the course of everyday family life.

3. Assimilation with the world is a great danger because it is an aggressive danger.

Conclusion

Discussion Questions

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Lesson 63: A Successful Man Who Failed With God (Genesis 36:1-43)

1. A beautiful family by the world’s standards does not equal a family blessed by God.

2. Material prosperity does not equal spiritual prosperity.

3. Political power does not equal power with God.

4. Temporal fame does not equal eternal recognition by God.

Conclusion

Discussion Questions

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Lesson 62: Getting Out of a Spiritual Slump (Genesis 35:1-29)

1. Obey God’s present commands.

2. Fulfill your past commitments.

3. Remember God’s past and continuing compassion.

4. Trust God with your present concerns.

Conclusion

Discussion Questions

From the series: Genesis PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Does the Bible say that masturbation is a sin?

Preface to the NET Bible Apocrypha

Ephesians 2:2 in the NET Bible

Various Translations

Various Commentaries

T. K. Abbott, Ephesians (ICC), 42:

F. F. Bruce, Ephesians (NICNT), 283:

Markus Barth, Ephesians (Anchor), 215:

A. T. Lincoln, Ephesians (Word), 96:

Ernest Best, Ephesians (ICC), 205:

The Basis for the NET Rendering

The Meaning of Eph 2.2 in the NET Bible

Consideration of Contexts in the Translation Philosophy of the NET Bible: Discussion and Examples

Introduction

The Role of Contexts in Translation

Examples from the NET Bible

Genesis 3:15

Isaiah 7:14

Passages Involving πίστις Χριστοῦ and Similar Expressions in Paul

Conclusion

Innovations in the Text and Translation of the NET Bible, New Testament

Preface

Innovations in the NET Bible, New Testament

I. Synoptic Parallels

II. Innovations in Translation

A. Interpretive Translation of Passages where there is a General Consensus

B. Interpretive Translation where Neutral Rendering is Meaningless

1. No Scholarly Consensus

2. Scholarly Consensus Seems to be Wrong

III. Innovations in Text

A. Matt 24.36

B. John 1.34

C. 1 Thess 2.7

D. Jude 5

Conclusion

APPENDICES

Appendix I

Appendix II

An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament

Reference

Preface to the NET Bible

The NET Bible

Produced for ministry

Accountability, transparency, and feedback

The most important translation concept

The Problem: It’s difficult to quote a modern Bible translation legally

How we intend to solve the problem

Characteristics of a good solution

Translators’ Notes – unprecedented transparency for serious Bible students

What is the NET Bible?

Why do we need yet another translation of the Bible?

What is the cornerstone and guiding principle of our ministry?

What is the NET Bible’s place in the history of English Bible translation?