February 28, 2004

Various translations have taken a different tack on predicate accusative bebaiovteron in 2 Peter 1:19. Much hinges on the interpretation of this adjective. Consider the following translations (the rendering of bebaiovteron is in italics each time):

KJV: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.”

NIV: “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

RSV: “And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.” The ASV and NASB are similar.

NRSV: “So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

ESV: “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

NAB: “Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

NET: “Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

The translations above can be broken down into three different broad groups: (1) those that take the adjective as an attributive adjective modifying toVn profhtikoVn lovgon (so KJV); (2) those that take it as appositional to toVn profhtikoVn lovgon (so ESV); (3) those that regard it as a predicate adjective (NIV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, NAB, and NET). Within this third group there are differences which we will come to shortly. For now, the first two views need to be addressed. Taking the adjective as an attributive is virtually impossible since it stands outside the article-noun group. The construction is e[comen bebaiovteron toVn profhtikoVn lovgon. In such a construction, the adjective needs to be taken as predicate or perhaps as substantival (and thus appositional). To be sure, there are a few places in the NT in which an adjective stands in predicate position but has an attributive relation to the noun, but these are few and far between. There are no more than half a dozen of them.¹ And when the text makes good sense taking the adjective as a predicate, there is no need to resort to seeing as an attributive. That is the case in 2 Peter 1:19. The KJV translation thus is in error here, as is often the case when the underlying Greek text involves the article.²

But what about the ESV? Perhaps the translators were truly seeing bebaiovteron as a predicate adjective; the resultant difference in sense between “we have the prophetic word as something more sure” and “we have something more sure, the prophetic word” is minimal. But it is somewhat surprising that a translation which is very much on the more literal side of the spectrum is here so loose when a more literal rendering is perfectly acceptable in English and indeed is an improvement stylistically! If the ESV translators regard bebaiovteron as appositional, then it seems that they have erred in two ways: first, as an adjective one would expect it to function in its typical adjectival capacity unless there is contextual or lexical warrant for taking it otherwise;³ second, as a substantival adjective here, one would expect it to have the article with it. In light of these considerations, the ESV translation must also be rendered less than satisfactory here.

Almost all other translations regard the comparative adjective bebaiovteron as the complement to the object toVn profhtikoVn lovgon (or more broadly as a predicate adjective to toVn profhtikoVn lovgon). This leaves us with two options (at least as far as modern English translations are concerned): “we have the prophetic word made more sure” or “we have the prophetic word as a more certain [thing].” The RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, and NRSV opt for the former option while the NAB and NET opt for the latter. One of the fundamental points we wish to raise in this brief essay is that the rendering “we have the prophetic word made more sure” is unlikely from a grammatical standpoint.

The construction almost surely has the force “The prophetic word is (more certain/altogether certain)—and this is something that we all have.” The translation, which many scholars⁴ prefer, “we have the prophetic word made more sure,” is unparalleled in object-complement constructions. When the construction has this force, poievw is present (as in 2 Pet 1:10 [spoudavsate bebaivan uJmw'n thVn klh'sin kaiV ejkloghVn poiei'sqai]). That so many translations render this verse as though it meant ‘made more sure’ is remarkable.

Exegetically, what is at stake is the following: (1) If we render the clause as ‘the prophetic word made more sure’ then Peter is saying that the OT is verified and certified by the NT apostles’ experience. In one respect, this would mean that Peter would regard his own experience as more authoritative than the OT. (2) If we render the clause as ‘the prophetic word is more sure’ (which is certainly more plausible grammatically), then this would be saying that the OT was a more reliable guide to truth than Peter’s experiences, including his experience of the Transfiguration. (3) If we render the clause as ‘the prophetic word is thoroughly reliable’ then no comparison is being made between the OT and the apostles’ experiences. This, too, is grammatically more plausible than the first option.

The meaning, as construed in the NET and NAB, is that the OT that these believers had in their hands was a thoroughly reliable guide. Whether it was more certain than was even Peter’s experience on the Mount of Transfiguration depends on whether the adjective should be taken as a true comparative (“more certain”) or as an elative (“very certain, altogether certain”).

Some would categorically object to any experience functioning as a confirmation of the scriptures and hence would tend to give the adjective a comparative force, with the ‘prophetic word’ being the greater authority over the apostolic experience: “we have the prophetic word as [that which is] more reliable [than our own experience].” Yet Peter labors to show that his gospel is trustworthy precisely because he was an eyewitness of this great event. Further, to say that the OT scriptures (the most likely meaning of “the prophetic word”) were more trustworthy an authority than an apostle’s own experience of Christ is both to misconstrue how prophecy took place in the OT (did not the prophets have visions or other experiences?) and to deny the final revelation of God in Christ (cf. Heb 1:2). That is, because of the finality of revelation in Christ, the apostles may have viewed their own experience of him to have equal authority with the OT. However, one might argue that the NT authors rarely if ever viewed their own writings as scripture. This is true, but the clearest text in the entire NT that any author viewed part of the NT as scripture is found in this very letter! In 2 Peter 3:15-16 the author speaks of Paul’s letters as scripture. If this letter is authentic (i.e., from the apostle Peter himself), then such an assessment of Paul’s letters would be a remarkable admission.⁵ But for our present purposes it would do more than that: If Peter is calling Paul’s letters scripture, would that not imply that his own were equally authoritative?⁶

Where does this leave us then? We have already ruled out the attributive and appositional views as highly unlikely on a grammatical basis. The same is true for the ‘made more certain’ view, even though it could well fit contextually. But the grammatical gymnastics required to make it fit this text twist the meaning of the Greek more than it can bear. Contextually and theologically (that is, arguing from the apostolic perspective), it is unlikely to take bebaiovteron in a comparative sense (“we have the prophetic word as [that which is] more reliable [than our own experience]”). This leaves us with one option: the elative (the translation of the NAB and NET).

In sum, since syntactically the meaning that “we have confirmed the prophetic word by our experience” is improbable, and since contextually the meaning that “we have something that is a more reliable authority than experience, namely, the Bible” is unlikely, we are left with the meaning “we have a very reliable authority, the Old Testament, as a witness to Christ’s return.” No comparison is thus explicitly made. This fits both the context and normal syntax quite well.⁷ The introductory kaiv suggests that Peter is adding to his argument. He makes the statement that Christ will return, and backs it up with two points: (1) Peter himself (as well as the other apostles) was an eyewitness to the Transfiguration, which is a precursor to the Parousia; and (2) the Gentile believers, who were not on the Mount of Transfiguration, nevertheless have the Old Testament, a wholly reliable authority that also promises the return of Christ.

¹ See D. B. Wallace, “The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions in the New Testament” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979) for instances of such.

² A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 756-57, notes this on the translation of the article in the KJV:

“The translators of the King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the Greek article loosely and inaccurately. A goodly list of such sins is given in “The Revision of the New Testament,” such as “a pinnacle” for toV pteruvgion (Matt. 4:5). Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in Matt. 5:1 toV o[ro" was the mountain right at hand, not “a mountain.” On the other hand, the King James translators missed the point of metaV gunaikov" (Jo. 4:27) when they said “the woman.” It was “a woman,” any woman, not the particular woman in question. But the Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all blame, for they ignore the article in Lk. 18:13, tw'/ aJmartwlw'/. The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and find the reason for the use of the article.”

The reason the KJV translators misunderstood the force of the article was apparently due to the fact that they had much greater facility in Latin than in Greek. Since there is no article in Latin, and since the KJV translators used the Latin translation of Erasmus to help them with the Greek, the result was hundreds of errors in the translation that simply not did grasp the force of the Greek article.

³ See my essay on “The Text and Grammar of John 1.18” posted at netbible.org for examples of substantival adjectives followed by nouns with the same concord.

⁴ Cf., e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude (London: Black, 1969) 321; Dick Lucas and Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter & Jude (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity, 1995) 80.

⁵ Most scholars deny Petrine authorship of this letter, and one of the major reasons is the statement in 3.15-16. Since no early church father until the second half of the second century called any part of the NT scripture, the problems of assuming Petrine authorship of this letter are very real: If authentic, why didn’t it apparently have any impact on anyone else’s assessment of the NT’s authority? I, for one, do think that Peter wrote this letter but that it was not well received initially nor in subsequent decades. Doubts about its authenticity arose immediately and persisted, and the lack of copying the letter effectively removed it from having much of an influence on patristic understanding of the nature of the authority of the NT.

⁶ In some respects, how one regards the authenticity of this letter may determine how he or she takes bebaiovteron: if this is a pseudepigraphical letter, it is possible that the author was not regarding his own writing as authoritative—especially if the church as a whole had not yet regarded the NT as scripture. Although allegedly from Peter, the author might see the OT as more authoritative than the apostolic experience. Thus, “we have the prophetic word as [that which is] more reliable.” But if from Peter, since he was treating Paul’s letters as scripture, the standard Jewish argument from the greater to the lesser would apply here: since Peter was an eyewitness to the Christ event, his apostolic voice would be no less authoritative than Paul’s. In this case, taking bebaiovteron as an elative would be the most natural. It is thus perhaps mildly surprising to find Bauckham among those who take the adjective as an elative since he rejects Petrine authorship for this letter (Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter [Waco, TX: Word, 1983] 223).

⁷ Some exegetes deny that the use of the comparative adjective in an elative sense is at all normal (so Lucas and Green, The Message of 2 Peter & Jude, 80, n. 36). But “the elative sense in classical Greek was normally reserved for the superlative form, but in Koine the comparative has encroached on the superlative’s domain” (D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] 300). Cf., e.g., Acts 13:31; 17:22; 2 Cor 8:17.

23 March 2003

“Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ” (Matt 16:20, NET Bible).

Immediately after Peter’s confession of Jesus as the “Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), the Lord blesses Peter, telling him that his insight was not due to his own mental prowess but was brought to his consciousness by divine aid. Then, the Lord warns his disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Christ. This is a common refrain in the Gospels, given especially to the disciples and demons (cf., e.g., Matt 12:16; Mark 1:34; 8:30; Luke 4:41; 9:21).

But there is a curious textual problem in v. 20. Most manuscripts (ͦlt;² C W Ϡlat bo) have “Jesus, the Christ” (jIhsou'" oJ Cristov") here, while one (D) has “Christ Jesus” (oJ CristoV" jIhsou'"). On the one hand, this is a much harder reading than the mere Cristov", because the name Jesus was already well known for the disciples’ master—both to them and to others. And a standard principle of textual criticism is that, all other things being equal, the harder reading is to be preferred as most likely going back to the original wording. The question here is whether all other things are equal; that is, were there other forces at work that may have influenced scribes to add “Jesus” to “Christ”?

Whether he was the Messiah is the real focus of the passage. But the addition “Jesus” (either before or after “Christ”) is surely too hard a reading: there are no other texts in which the Lord tells his disciples not to disclose his personal name. And why would he? He was well known everywhere as “Jesus of Nazareth.” Frankly, the addition of “Jesus” here is so contrary to the context, both literary and historical, that it has nothing to commend it. Further, it is plainly a motivated reading in that scribes had the proclivity to add jIhsou'" to Cristov" or to kuvrio" (“Lord”), regardless of whether such was appropriate to the context. In this instance it clearly is not, and it only reveals that scribes sometimes, if not often, did not think about the larger interpretive consequences of their alterations to the text. Further, the shorter reading is well supported by ͦlt;* B L D Q ˦lt;^1,13 565 700 1424 al it sa. These witnesses date from the early fourth century, and include representatives of all the early texttypes. Both externally and internally, the reading without “Jesus” is almost surely the original.

So, what lessons can be learned from this test passage? Three especially come to mind.

1. The discipline of textual criticism simply cannot be done by a mere examination of manuscripts, regardless of what theory one adopts. An integration of the external data with internal considerations is absolutely necessary and vital if we are going to recover the original text.

2. Both the literary context (one aspect of what is called intrinsic evidence) and known scribal habits (a.k.a. transcriptional evidence) are often at odds. Scribes did not always think through the macro-interpretive issues of their alterations. They often wrote in semi-conscious genuflective notations, especially when it came to descriptions of the Lord. And once these got into the text, they had a way pervading most manuscripts that would follow.

3. Liturgical and devotional motivations had a much larger impact on the transmission of the text than some are willing to admit. This especially impacted the Byzantine manuscripts, but others were not immune. The Western text, and even to some degree, the Alexandrian, also suffered from liturgical pressure. The growth of the text was the natural result. Still, the New Testament is one of the most stable documents of the ancient world. Reading a manuscript from the fourth or fourteenth century reveals the same God and the same gospel. For this, all Christians can be truly grateful.

This essay is more a travelogue than history, and more history than theology. But there is some history and some theology just the same. Caveat lector!

Note:The many pictures below are thumbnails of the original. Please wait for the page to load. You can click the pictures for a larger picture.

Introduction

On 1 July 2002, my sabbatical year began. As I write this, I am looking out a large window in my apartment in Münster, Germany, on the third floor (though in Germany they call it the second floor) of the Humboldt Haus on Hüfferstrasse. Humboldt Haus is a residence for visiting scholars.

This sabbatical has been dedicated to New Testament textual criticism, the science of determining the wording of the original documents. This discipline is needed because we no longer possess the originals of any New Testament book, and because there are hundreds of thousands of differences among the extant manuscripts (MSS). Only by a careful sifting of the data, and a rigorous comparison of MSS, can one increase in certainty as to what the original text said. And, of course, for evangelical Christians, textual criticism is of extreme importance because we are, above all, a people of the Book. But we cannot know what it means or how to apply it unless we first know what it says.

My sabbatical year has already been quite thrilling. I have spent several weeks in Greece, including a week on the island of Patmos, where John wrote the book of Revelation. The Monastery of St. John the Theologian sits atop the island, looking quite imposing from any direction. This monastery-fortress is a millennium old, with walls fifty feet high in places! And the library of this ancient monastery is absolutely stunning. I spent some time in the library examining some of the Greek New Testament MSS there. Perhaps I will tell more of my experience on Patmos at a later date.

After Greece, I took a two-week breather back home, only to head out for Egypt at the end of August. The journey was a nine-day trip to Mt. Sinai, to St. Catherine’s Monastery. I had been planning this trip for three years, negotiating with the monastery by corresponding in modern Greek. Father Nicholas Katinas of the Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Dallas joined me, as did Dr. Timothy Ralston of Dallas Seminary. We spent a week looking at some of the “New Finds” manuscripts. These are manuscripts that were discovered in 1975 when a fire broke out at St. George’s Tower, revealing a hidden compartment. In the compartment were 1200 manuscripts and 50,000 fragments (all undamaged by the fire). Among the 1200 manuscripts are over 200 biblical manuscripts. Most exciting among the discoveries were leaves of Codex Sinaiticus, the fourth-century MS that Tischendorf carried off to Russia in 1844 and 1859. Sinaiticus contains the oldest complete Greek New Testament in existence—by 500 years! It now resides in the British Library in London. That’s another story. There are also over a dozen uncial MSS of the New Testament (uncial MSS are capital-letter MSS on parchment; all of them are dated no later than the tenth century and as early as the third century, making them quite valuable for determining the wording of the original). We were so privileged to spend a week in the library handling and examining these ancient treasures! But that report will have to wait for a later time as well.

I took one week off after Egypt, packed my bags and headed out for Münster, Germany. My wife, Pati, joined me for this trip (as she had for Greece). Why Münster? On the western edge of the old city is the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, or the Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Founded in 1959 by Dr. Kurt Aland, this not-terribly-large four-story building houses microfilms and photographs of virtually all Greek New Testament manuscripts known to exist. A few decades ago, Dr. Eldon Epp noted that there are probably more textual critics at this institute than there are in the rest of the world. That situation has changed to some degree, but Münster is still the epicenter for New Testament textual studies. I am here working, in part, on exhaustive collations of MSS of Paul’s letters. Every variant is noted for each MS that is examined. By doing this kind of work, one can determine, to some degree, what a particular scribe’s tendencies were. For example, if one MS tends to have “Christ” where other MSS have “Lord,” its voice is discounted in places where other MSS join it in reading “Christ.” But if that same MS has “Lord” in disputed places, its voice is weighed more heavily. This kind of painstaking work has hardly been done on New Testament MSS, in large measure because there are very few who are both skilled in the task and have access to the photographs. On top of that, it is quite tedious work (especially because the microfilms are not easy to read, being cheap-grade photographs).

We’ve been here now for seven weeks. Pati and I are thoroughly enjoying our time in Germany. But we wanted to take a break and we decided to go to Wittenberg last week. We were there for four days, along with my assistant, Presian Smyers, who is helping me in the collation work on Paul’s letters.

The Autobahn

We rented a car since our only transportation to date has been two tired legs (per person) and one used bicycle each. We got out on the famous German Autobahn on the morning of 29 October, taking the A2 east to Berlin. It was my first time to drive in Germany; I wasn’t sure what to expect. Altogether we drove almost 1000 miles (nearly 1600 kilometers) in the six days that we had the car. I asked Pati to rate driving in America, Greece, and Germany in terms of how pleasant the experience was. Germany ranked by far the highest; Greece came in a rather distant third. The people in Germany are polite, respectful, and more patient than Americans. But, boy, do they drive fast! As is well known, the Autobahn has long sections of no speed limit. (But in many places the speed is limited to 120 kilometers or less.) We found ourselves going 160 to 180 kilometers for a good bit of the trip. It sure was fun! And we did not experience road rage except once (from someone who was obviously not German).

Berlin

Our first stop was Berlin. We spent two days and one night there, hardly enough to take in much. The museums in Berlin are world-class, and the cafs are wunderbar. Unfortunately, many Americans have an image of Berlin that belongs to an era long gone.

Presian and I went to the Staatsmuseen (national museum) to look at MSS, while Pati went shopping. We had the opportunity to examine two ancient uncial MSS, but no more since the MSS had been temporarily moved. After the MS discovery tour, we went to Checkpoint Charlie, the place where East Berlin met West Berlin. It was an eerie feeling. The Berlin Wall had been constructed in August 1961; it kept East Berliners from getting into the west. Some people, however, had to cross the lines in either direction. Checkpoint Charlie was the principal place where this occurred. Of course, we are all familiar with the many stories of tragedy and triumph, of the hundreds of people who did escape from East Berlin and made it to freedom (or who died trying). Many of these folks got out through Checkpoint Charlie by stealth, hiding in ingenious compartments. One of the most successful stories was of a Volkswagen Beetle that had the compartment below its trunk hollowed out so that people could hide there. Several folks escaped from the tyranny of Communism in this manner. The VW “bug,” along with hundreds of other artifacts from the Cold War, was on display at the museum next to Checkpoint Charlie (known as “Der Haus am Checkpoint Charlie”). I marvel at what lengths people will go, what incredible risks they will take, for the sake of freedom.

Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin

On 10 November 1989, East Berlin was officially open. Shortly after that, the wall was torn down. East Berliners (and East Germans) were free at last! The date is significant, though not intentional: November 10 is Martin Luther’s birthday. East Germany was freed 506 years to the day after Martin Luther was born.

Wittenberg

Reformation Eve

We left Berlin on the evening of 30 October, driving the 100 or so kilometers south to Wittenberg. We had reserved a hotel room at the L & K Pension, about two kilometers from the town square. We made our reservations through the city’s website (http://www.wittenberg.de/), just a couple of weeks earlier. I was surprised at how easy it was to reserve a room there, especially since we were going to be staying through the end of the month (and, therefore, over Reformation Day). I thought, in light of the fact that we could get two rooms in the same very small hotel (one for Pati and me, and one for Presian), that perhaps the celebrations would be minimal, that few visitors would come to town on this historic day. I am so glad that I was wrong! Wittenberg had thousands of visitors on Reformation Day, and the town was ready for it. I found out that only the private hotels off the beaten path (known as pensions) were not full. We had chosen a pension because of price, not realizing that this would be the only way we could get a room in Wittenberg. The L & K was very pleasant, with a surprisingly large room for two. It is a new building a block from the new Stadthalle (city hall). With real parking places and a decent breakfast, the $45 a night for two was a great bargain. I recommend this pension to you. But be warned: they only take cash. And if you arrive after 8 p.m. (like we did), no one will be there to greet you. The room key will be tucked away in some hidden place (they will tell you about this one or two days before your arrival; make sure to access email before you arrive). Finally, like so much of what used to be East Germany, they don’t speak English at the L & K. Come with a dictionary and some patience. And perhaps pick up a few German phrases before you go.

After we deposited our bags in the room, we drove down to the main drag. Quite a bit of Wittenberg is still intact as it was in medieval times. But there are newer buildings next to older ones, and buildings in ruins from neglect. World War II was not the cause: only two bombs dropped on the whole city. It looked to be more recent than that. Indeed, during the Cold War, Wittenberg was under Communist rule. This city, whose name means “white mountain” (so named for the sand found in the region, perhaps from the Elbe River which Wittenberg touches), ironically has factories on the edge of town with smokestacks, billowing with white smoke day and night. This ugly sight has become the new ‘white mountain’ of Wittenberg. But the industry of the Communist era is being replaced, once again, by tourism. Yet even eleven years after the east collapsed, there are still only 120,000 visitors annually to the epicenter of the Protestant Reformation. (And half of them, it seemed, showed up on Reformation Day!)

In the two streets that constitute the downtown area proper almost everything is well preserved. After we parked the car, we went to one of the newer restaurants in town, the Schlossfreiheit, built in 1683, 200 years after Luther’s birth. In this cozy little restaurant, we enjoyed a fabulous meal at a very reasonable price. On the menu was “Luther Bier,” a dark beer that was allegedly similar to the kind that Luther enjoyed. The more I learn about this great saint, the more I like! I picked up a postcard that had a saying of Luther’s (although I don’t know the source; perhaps Table Talk?): “Wer viel Bier trinkt, schlft gut. Wer gut schlft, sündigt nicht. Und wer nicht sündigt, kommt in den Himmel!” (The one who drinks much beer sleeps well. He who sleeps does not sin. And he who does not sin goes to heaven!”) One of the things about Luther that I love so much is that he was not pretentious; he was down to earth. He belonged to that rare breed known as ‘guy-next-door Reformer.’

Even after 10 p.m. there was quite a bit of activity near the Schlosskirche (Castle Church), the church on whose main door Luther put up his 95 theses. The door was open, but a guard in medieval dress was posted. And, curiously, the people milling around the church were teenagers. Hundreds of them. We found out later that annually scores of youth come to Wittenberg as confirmands in the Lutheran church. This year over 700 youth were there. They were allowed inside to spend the night in this historic church. We were excited about what the next day would reveal.

Reformation Day

We woke the next morning, 31 October, in anticipation of seeing some of Christianity’s most important sites. After a solid German breakfast, we headed out for the town square. As we drove, I began to reflect on the historic occasion. Five hundred years ago, the University of Wittenberg was founded. Within ten years, a bright young monk named Martin Luther joined its faculty. His doctorate was conferred in the Schlosskirche in October 1512. And 485 years ago on this day (31 October 1517) Luther marched two kilometers down the street from the monastery where he lived to the Schlosskirche and nailed his 95 Theses to the large double wooden door. (It was the custom of the day to post announcements on the church door.) He titled the flyer “Disputation of Dr. Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences.” In this post, he asked for a public debate: “Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Therefore, he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.”

That debate never came. Shortly after Luther posted his theses, someone tore down the sheet, and copies of it soon got to printers throughout Europe. Within weeks, over 100,000 copies of Luther’s manifesto had been printed. The Reformation was born!

To be sure, certain parts of the famous 95 Theses were worded quite strongly. But other parts were in praise of the pope and his policies, and appeared to be no more than a plea from a Catholic monk for a little sanity and sanctification in the matter of indulgences. Altogether, the 95 Theses do not yet show the clear reasoning about justification by faith alone that Luther would be known for. But they opened Pandora’s Box, and were a public display of incredible bravado in the face of a politico-religious authority that ruled all of life. It was Luther’s heart and head that started the Reformation. One without the other would not have done the job.

We parked the car and walked to the town square. As we turned the corner and saw the square we were immediately transported back half a millennium. The sights, smells, and sounds were all medieval. The city has done a lovely job of preserving this heritage, and the town square is the right place to have it, since that is a well-preserved medieval site as well.

Town Square with Pati and Presian in foreground, kiddie ferris wheel in background

Woman constructing brick oven for day’s festivities

Medieval Wittenberg on TV!

Making our way through the crowds, we got down to the Schlosskirche. This church was built in 1490. It was thus virtually new in Luther’s day. The large double-wooden door where Luther nailed his 95 Theses, the most famous door in Europe (known as the Thesentür), has long since disappeared. It was replaced in 1858 by a double brass door with Luther’s theses written on it. Using my sanctified imagination, I thought about the events that transpired 485 years ago this day. Luther most likely came from the monastery or the university (next door to the monastery), made his way down the long Collegienstrasse (almost two kilometers from the monastery to the Schlosskirche), with hammer and theses in hand. He was fed up with the practice of indulgences that, in essence, excused only the wealthy from purgatory and turned paupers into everyone whose hopes for the afterlife made their existence on earth miserable.

In a little antique bookstore on Collegienstrasse, I saw a painting that captured well the feeling of that day. (Unfortunately, the painting was not for sale.) It was of a young monk walking away from the door of the Wittenberg church, with hammer in hand, looking determined, ready for a battle. A number of townsfolk were standing around, pointing and gawking at what he had just posted. There was obviously an air of excitement. Off to the corner was another monk, but with a rather dour look on his face: trouble was brewing, and Luther was the brewmeister! This monk was obviously opposed to Luther and he knew well what the implications of Luther’s act meant. Of course, this painting is a bit romanticized: the theses were in Latin and most of the townsfolk probably did not understand their meaning. Within weeks, however, the 95 theses had been translated into German.

Schlosskirche Door, with mural above showing Luther and Melanchthon worshiping at the foot of the cross

Here I am in front of the Thesentür, with much the same expression that Luther probably had when he posted it.

The tower of the church overlooks all of Wittenberg, rising to 88 meters high at the top of the spire. On Saturday, 2 November, I took the 287 or so steps up to the top where I could see the sites. I was quite surprised at the beauty and majesty of this famous church. I expected it to be a little parish church, but it was truly magnificent. Wrapping around the tower today are the first few words, in German of course, of Luther’s most famous hymn, “A Mighty Fortress.” It may well be that the tower was the inspiration for Luther’s hymn, although its present form was not completed until the late 1800s.

The altar in the Schlosskirche

View of town from tower

This is a view of the town of Wittenberg from the tower of the Schlosskirche. Both main roads lead to the Schlosskirche; its tower can be seen plainly anywhere along these roads. The twin-towered church in the background is the Stadtkirche where Luther regularly preached; in front of it is the town center. The last building on the right whose outline is visible [just beyond the orange-tiled roof of the university] is Lutherhalle, the Augustinian monastery where Luther made his home.

After the visit to the Schlosskirche, we traveled up Collegienstrasse to the opposite end, to Luther’s home. If you are expecting a small, quaint one-story medieval brick home, you are in for a surprise! Luther lived in the Augustinian monastery, a rather large complex right next to the university. Within seven years of the beginning of the Reformation, the monastery was dissolved. Eight years later, in 1532, the building was granted to Luther by the elector of Saxony. Lutherhalle became his home for the rest of his days. He and his wife, the former nun, Katharina von Bora (sixteen years his junior), made a home here starting in 1525. They had six children, four of whom reached adulthood. But Luther and Kthe (or “Katie,” as he affectionately called her) did not occupy the entire Lutherhalle. They lived in a small portion of the former monastery, leased out several rooms to students, and allowed some rooms, including the large auditorium, to be used as classrooms.

Lutherhalle boasts the largest collection of Reformation art and artifacts in the world. Unfortunately, when we were there, the building was undergoing renovation and a little archeological spadework. Virtually all of the artifacts had been removed. The outside of the building was completely covered with tarps. But Luther’s Stube or heated room (with a large oven) where he studied and ate with his students (and where the conversations in his famous Table Talk took place) was still furnished to some degree. (It was unfortunately so crowded that I could not get very good pictures of it; but below is one of the oven.) The building was open only for a couple hours on Reformation Day; we made sure to visit it.

Katie on the go! (Statue of Katie von Bora in the courtyard of Lutherhalle.) I have a wife like that, too

The auditorium in Lutherhalle where lectures to as many as 400 students were delivered.

The oven in the Stube where Luther ate with his students, studied, and presumably had his ‘tower experience’.

Just a few doors down the street is Melanchthon’s home. Philipp Melanchthon was Luther’s right-hand man, coming to the university in 1521. Born Philipp Schwarzerdt (“dark earth”), his name was changed by his great-uncle, the famous classical scholar Johannes Reuchlin, to its Greek equivalent, Μελάνχθων. Melanchthon had earned his bachelor’s degree by age 14 (1511) at the University of Heidelberg, his master’s degree at Tübingen before the age of 17 (1514). He was extremely intelligent, and especially gifted in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. At first, his career was in ancient Greek, but after he met Luther he became interested in theology. The mind of Melanchthon and the heart of Luther were a powerful combination! In a large measure, Melanchthon was the brains behind the initial stages of the Reformation. He penned the great Augsburg Confession of 1530, the first official Protestant articles of faith. The statement on justification is worthy of mention: “They [the church] also teach that people cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by his death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in his sight. Rom. 3 and 4.”

Melanchthon was a popular professor. He sometimes filled his lecture hall with 200 students to teach them Greek! Melanchthon also wrote the first ‘modern’ Greek grammar (as well as a Latin grammar), an introductory text to enable students to grasp the language. His battle cry, ad fontes (“back to the sources!”), became the battle cry of the Reformation. His desire was to strip away fifteen centuries of tradition and get back to what the New Testament teachings were all about. To do this, he had to get behind the Latin Vulgate, behind the church fathers, behind the papacy and ecclesiastical layers, to the Greek New Testament itself. The Greek New Testament is indeed the source of truth. Melanchthon was on the right track.

Melanchthon’s home was built for him in 1539 by Johann Friedrich, the Elector of Saxony, after Melanchthon had received offers from several other universities in Europe. As the “teacher of Germany,” Melanchthon was a national treasure. Wittenberg had to do all it could to keep him at their university. It is a four-story, narrow building on Collegienstrasse, significantly larger than the tiny home he and his family had been used to up till 1539.

Melanchthon’s house from the herb garden

Melanchthon’s Stube—a study, dining room, and living room

Melanchthon lived, studied, ate, fellowshipped with friends and students, and died in this Stube

After a delicious dinner at the Schwarz Br Kartoffelhaus (“Black Bear Potato House”) on the main drag, we retired for the evening. This restaurant dates back to the time of Luther; they claim that it was one of Luther’s favorites.

We were exhausted from scurrying back and forth all day, taking in sites, pondering the significance of a lone brave act by an Augustinian monk so many years ago. That act set the world on fire! It was a gutsy move to challenge the corruption of the church, and it began to unravel the western world’s view of authority that it had held for many centuries, one based on tradition. Luther argued that revelation was a higher authority than tradition. People jumped on the Lutheran bandwagon for their own reasons, not all of them noble and pure. Many joined Luther because it gave them a political or financial advantage; some joined him because they embraced the truth of his convictions as their own. Who then could have imagined that Protestantism would become the third great branch of Christianity (after Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy), and would in fact outgrow the other two put together?

A Day Trip to Dresden

To a large degree, the discipline of textual criticism is an application of Melanchthon’s motto, ad fontes. For in this discipline, we are trying to recover the original text of the New Testament by examining the most ancient documents we can find. I thought about Melanchthon and his passion for truth when I took a side trip to Dresden on Friday, 1 November. I visited the university library to examine the famous Codex Boernerianus, the ninth-century Greek-Latin diglot of Paul’s letters (Gregory-Aland 012, a.k.a. Codex G^p. This is now housed in the brand new (finished in October 2002) university library (Staats Universittsbibliothek). The manuscript librarian, Dr. Thomas Haffner, was extremely helpful. What a joy it was to look at this ancient MS! I had seen the “pseudofacsimile” before, a reproduction of the text done in 1909, but never the real thing. Inside the cover of the book was a sign-up sheet covering a period of 96 years (1901—1996). During that time only 21 people had examined the MS (all but one with German names). The longest gap was from 1970 to 1992, followed by one from 1936 to 1948, mute testimonies to the ravages of malevolent political regimes.

There are several pages on this MS that are virtually unreadable, and a few where the scribe had scraped clean his parchment, leaving nothing in its place. To date, those blank places have not been able to be read. But there is a new technology that can recover the text that used to be there. Known as multi-spectral technology (MSI), it has been used successfully by Dr. Greg Bearman (a professor at CalTech) on the Genesis Apocryphon to decipher 200 words that were completely unrecoverable by any other means. Dr. David Armstrong, a classics professor at the University of Texas has also used it to read some of the charred remains of the Herculaneum papyri. This technology is opening doors that have been long closed. There are over 100 Greek New Testament MSS that have been scraped and reused for different purposes. Known as palimpsests, these MSS have an undertext that is often undecipherable. But with MSI, that undertext will be able to be read. How exciting it is to live at a time when new discoveries will be made because of new technology! (It is almost incredible to think about: we know that discoveries will be made, we know how to make them, and we even have the MSS. All that is required is permission from the libraries and monasteries that possess these ancient treasures.) A few years ago, a famous textual critic declared that no new discoveries were left to be made in this field. However, not only are there hundreds of yet-to-be discovered MSS, hiding in the recesses of ancient monasteries, but there are also a good number of known MSS whose texts have not been completely legible... until now. Not only palimpsests, but also papyri, water-damaged MSS, and many other hard-to-read MSS can benefit from MSI. If you’ve read this far, your interest in the scriptures is no trivial thing. I ask you to consider praying for libraries and monasteries to open their doors to qualified individuals who can take MSI photographs, finally giving the world the words of these precious texts that have been hidden from us for so long! The promise of this new technology is one of the reasons I founded the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts this year (CSNTM). It became incorporated on 13 September 2002. If you’d like to find out more about the Center, simply visit the website, www.csntm.org, or write to me directly.

Besides Codex G, I also wanted to examine some of Dresden’s other Greek New Testament MSS. I was grieved to learn that four of the university’s Greek New Testament MSS had been destroyed in World War II. Seventy-five percent of this beautiful city was destroyed in that great and terrible war. And even the priceless libraries did not escape unscathed. There was something of an unwritten agreement between the Allies and Axis powers not to bomb universities, to preserve knowledge and learning and beauty. For whatever reasons, this unwritten agreement was not always followed. I can’t tell you how heartsick I am to learn of the destruction of these precious scriptures, irreplaceable treasures that they are! And even though the tragedy occurred before I was born, the news hit me as though it happened yesterday. I believe that one of the highest priorities of these libraries and monasteries should be to make high-resolution photographic copies of these treasures (or allow someone else to make them), and preserve them off-site. Only in this way can the pain of loss be somewhat lessened. When the great library of Alexandria burned up many centuries ago, mankind lost much of its knowledge of the ancient world. The real tragedy is that this same kind of thing happens today (on a smaller scale, of course), even though it can be avoided. (A few years ago I was studying at a world-class university on my last sabbatical. I asked for photographs of the university’s Greek New Testament MSS. To my amazement, two thirds of the MSS had never been officially photographed! If libraries and monasteries will take the simple step of getting their documents photographed, and then placing the photographs off-site, repeats of the Alexandria fire and the ravages of war can be partially avoided.)

After a good day in Dresden, we headed ‘home’ to Wittenberg, about 150 kilometers away. We would spend yet another day in the city that Luther built (known today, appropriately, as Lutherstadt) before returning to Muenster.

Back to Wittenberg

Saturday, 2 November, would be our last day in Wittenberg. We visited the Schlosskirche once again, and took more time to see things that we had to rush through two days earlier. Inside the Schlosskirche are two grave markers just below the podium. One is Luther’s and the other is Melanchthon’s. The place where Luther staged a battle for the whole world to see ironically became his final resting place.

Nearly half way down the Collegienstrasse from the Schlosskirche is the town square. Erected in this square are two statues, one of Luther and one of Melanchthon. And towering above the square is the Stadtkirche (town church), St. Mary’s, where Luther frequently preached. This became the first Protestant church. It was the first church since anyone could remember in which the laity as well as clergy fully participated in the Lord’s Table, partaking of both the bread and the wine.

Luther’s statue in the town square

Melanchthon’s statue in the town square

The Stadtkirche in the background and the town square in the foreground, on Reformation Day, 2002

Final Thoughts

All in all, the trip to Wittenberg was an incredible experience. I’ve had a good amount of time to reflect on the significance of a single act that started the Protestant Reformation. Today’s world is quite different from Luther’s in many ways, and yet there remain the epistemological and practical questions regarding authority and truth. Nearly 500 years after Luther took his stand, Protestants and Catholics are beginning to wrestle with reconciliation. Gestures have been made on both sides. Language is toned down, and there is an increasing recognition that each branch of Christendom (including Orthodoxy) has a contribution to make—and even that no single branch has a corner on the whole truth. On the one hand, evangelical Christians have to ask themselves what ‘faith alone’—that great clarion call of the Reformation—really means. Is the doctrine of justification by faith alone a necessary doctrine for salvation, so that all those who do not embrace it explicitly are damned to hell? Or is it an important clarification of the gospel which is nevertheless not the core of the gospel? Our attitude toward one another within Christendom depends on how we answer this question. One of the interesting facets of this question has to do with the methodological battle cry of the Reformation, ad fontes. Indeed, when we go back to the scriptures, it does indeed seem clear that Paul has a doctrine of justification by faith alone. But that doctrine is not as easy to find in James, Peter, or Jude. Yet Paul seemed to accept these other apostles, along with their theological commitments, as genuine and true. But if they did not see things quite the same way as Paul did, who are we to insist on beliefs and formulations that just might exclude even some of the apostles?¹

In truth, Luther was a Paulinist. He held to a canon within the canon. Paul’s letters, especially Romans and Galatians, were the crown jewel of Luther’s theology. Is that altogether a bad approach? Is it possible to hold to a canon within the canon and yet to embrace a high view of scripture? And should Paul be considered the capstone of theological articulation? These are important questions that we must wrestle with. Further, by replacing tradition with revelation as the ultimate authority, Luther opened a Pandora’s Box whose implications he could hardly have anticipated. If revelation is the ultimate authority, then how should we interpret it? If we are to use reason—as Luther even hinted at at the Diet of Worms in 1521—then does this not make reason a higher authority than revelation? And if reason has this kind of power, what does this say about total depravity and the noetic effects of sin? How can a Christian reconcile the use of reason to grasp the meaning of scripture with a mind that has been tainted by sin? Although the Catholicism of Luther’s day was terribly corrupt, the value it placed on tradition was not altogether a bad thing. Protestantism gave rise to liberalism when reason usurped the throne of revelation. During this time, Catholicism remained far more conservative. And today, evangelicals and Catholics generally have much more in common than either of them has with liberal Christianity. In the least, this complex tapestry of western Christianity is not yet finished. The Weaver has more to do. And we all must humbly bow before him as he does his work in our lives both individually and corporately.

¹ For my own take on the difference between Paul and the other New Testament writers, see my essay, “Is Intra-Canonical Theological Development Consistent with a High Bibliology?” This was originally an Evangelical Theological Society paper, delivered in March 2002 at the southwestern regional meeting held in Dallas.

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.

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