NET Bible vs. NASB and ESV

I don't see a problem with using a dynamic equivalent translation for study, especially one with so many translation notes like the NET. Visiting the above example in Romans 1, what's the big deal translating "Paul" as "from Paul" to start the book or translating "from the seed of" as "descendent of" or translating "spirit of holiness" as "Holy Spirit?" Are these renderings really imprecise?

If you prefer a formal equivalent approach (which even the NASB has many dynamic equivalent translations in it...it's near impossible to avoid sometimes), then use it. But it is a bit of a misnomer to claim that the Greek says something different than the translation if you mean that the Greek should convey a different meaning to the reader than what the translation says (the term "loose translation").

If the "loose" translation conveys the same meaning as the Greek wording without all the ambiguities inherent in many formal equivalent translations like the overabundance of "of," "to" and the "wooden" English, then I would argue that it is advantageous (and more precise ).

I don't recommend that one should adhere to any dynamic-equivalent translation blindly because the translators make interpretive decisions for the sake of clarity when there may be other options than the one they chose (like translating a subjective genitive over an objective genitive instead of leaving an "of" for the reader to decide for herself). Sometimes it is nice to read a version that does not make so many interpretive choices for the reader (like the NASB), which is why both translation philosophies are valuable. However, I like the NET because usually the translator will give the options and explain why the decision was made (or at least put in a footnote what the Greek wording is so one can compare it to what the translation says).

The NET Bible is a decent half-way house for those who do not know the original languages into the difficult world of translating the Bible. I would still endorse it for Bible study for an English-only reader, and for those who know Hebrew and Greek, well they probably already know its value.

BJ

 

The dynamic equivalence philosophy of Bible translation arose out of the need for missionaries to translate the Bible into the languages of peoples of cultures with a very limited vocabulary where access to Bible dictionaries and Bible commentaries did not exist. It was subsequently thought by some that this same philosophy of Bible translation might appropriately be applied to meeting the needs of English speaking persons whose reading skills are very poor, and who, therefore, do not have access to a collegiate English dictionary, Bible dictionaries and Bible commentaries. Today’s English Version (Good News for Modern Man) was a consequence of this thinking, but due to the ultraliberal views of the primary translator of this work which influenced the translation itself, it was rejected by most conservative pastors as being an unacceptable translation.

A group of Reformed Bible scholars, however, believed that the dynamic equivalence philosophy of Bible translation was a viable philosophy to meet the needs of the multitude of English speaking persons with poor reading skills who did not have access to a collegiate English dictionary, Bible dictionaries and Bible commentaries, and who, as a consequence, often failed to interpret the Bible in accordance with the Reformed tradition. The New International Version (NIV) was the consequence of this thinking. However, its very strong bias toward Reformed theology made it very apparent to many others that this translation was also unacceptable for theological reasons.

Other groups of scholars and pastors continued to see a need for a simplified translation for English speaking persons with poor reading skills, and the result has been a multitude of dynamic equivalence translations, all of which were easier for many English speaking persons to read and understand, including many of those whose reading skills were sufficient for them to read a formal equivalence Bible translation by simply making the effort to do so.

Yet other groups of scholars and pastors saw that by making the Bible easier and more enjoyable to read, more people would spend more time reading it. They realized that very precise translations like the NASB were simply not being read by very many English speaking people and concluded that it would be far better for these people to read a dynamic equivalence translation that did not go overboard in its simplification or theological bias than not to read the Bible at all, or very little. The NET Bible is one of the consequences of such a realization.

In view of all of this, the Lockman Foundation, a Corporation Not for Profit and the organization behind the NASB, released in 1995 an updated version of the NASB that maintains its formal equivalence stance and yet incorporates into the text of their translation more current English in a more fluid style.

For those English speaking individuals who desire to go beyond simply reading the Bible and who desire to study it, the application of the dynamic equivalence philosophy is both unnecessary and inappropriate, especially today when most English speaking persons have access to the Internet and thus free access to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary and a number of good Bible dictionaries and Bible commentaries, not to mention a number of good Bible dictionaries and Bible commentaries that can be downloaded onto one’s hard drive for free along with more than 20 translations of the Bible into English at E-sword.net and other websites.

Many people—In books, articles, reviews, and posts on message boards—have criticized the NASB for being a bit too difficult to read and for being too “woody” of a translation. I would like for someone to post examples from the Updated NASB to document that these criticisms are valid for this 1995 update.

 

This is getting way off course. If you want a new thread to discuss d-equiv. vs. f-equiv., then that would be fine, but I see no need to go down this path on this thread.

You can thumb your nose a d-equiv translation and those who like them all you want, and perhaps people should consult a myriad of English sources when reading Scripture. Yet, I will still claim that both styles are valid, have their place in the translation markteplace and both have their own respective strengths and weaknesses.

I have had to personally translate the entire books of Ecclesiastes and 1 Thessalonians as part of my seminary training, and trust me, translating is no easy task with either philosophy. There will always be some "theological bias" in any translation, yes, even the mighty NASB (and the even mightier BJones version, lol).

As to your documentation on the "woody" NASB, simply revisit the scholarly articles that review this translation or others that compare them (they are out there)...or revisit the ones that you refer to in your own post because I don't have the time for what is IMO a bunch of useless busywork.

If you like the NASB, then use it; I have no problem with that. If you don't like the NET, don't use it; I have no problem with that. However, don't say that it is too "loose" of a translation for Bible study (especially considering all of the notes). I will admit that some instances of translation in the NET are rather maverick (as I mentioned previously), but the translation overall is very reliable and profitable.

sincerely,
BJ

 

I have read very many articles and reviews of the pre-1995 NASB, and when it comes to “woodiness,” they simply parrot earlier articles and reviews. If you do not have any specific examples that you can readily share with us of the NASB being a “woody” translation, I do not believe that it is fair for you to make that allegation against such a very fine translation.

Good footnotes do not make up for an inadequate translation. This thread is not about footnotes, it is about three translations of the Bible. The NET is without question inferior to both the ESV and the NASB, 1995, and it is not suitable for a study Bible for anyone with a 7th grade or higher proficiency in reading due to the unwarranted liberties that it takes with the texts that it is a translation of. And the fact that it takes great liberties with the text the footnotes more than amply demonstrate.

If anyone would like detailed documentation regarding any of my statements, please do not hesitate to ask for it.

 

I'll ask for it: "The NET is without question inferior to both the ESV and the NASB, 1995, and it is not suitable for a study Bible for anyone with a 7th grade or higher proficiency in reading due to the unwarranted liberties it takes with the texts that it is a translation of."

Let's see some proof for these outrageous claims.

 

I will make some more comments. The value of the NET IS in its footnotes, not in the translation itself. However, the notes give the reasons for many of the translation decisions so trying to make a false dichotomy between the translation itself and its notes is silly. It is a great study Bible and that is because of the notes. I would not even begin to know how to "rate" the translation itself vs. the notes or "without" the notes. That is a wrongheaded way to look at the NET. The proper way is to consider the NET itself: translation AND notes. Then one can make a proper rating of its suitability based on the whole product, not just a part of it.

I'll wait for the "great liberties" and if I have time I will defend what is defensible (I tend to agree that some instances of the NET's translation are not defensible, but that does not ruin the entire translation).

I just read Ephesians in the NASB, I'll stand behind my statements regarding it. It's a great translation (I didn't pick this fight, neither did I attack the NASB; I think the NASB is great and I read it quite a bit).

But it is not perfect: it has long, long sentences (granted Eph. 1:1-11 is a very long sentence in Greek, but the NASB could have done a better job with English style here). It uses too many "ofs" and "tos" that can bog a reader down or leave many things ambiguous. Sometimes the NASB does make an interpretive decision regarding subjective/objective genitives (a d-equiv rendering), but then makes a questionable decision (cf. Eph 3:22 "faith in Christ"...could be Christ's faithfulness; cf. Rom 3:22). It also sometimes separates pronouns from their antecedents (or postcedents) in a way that is most unhelpful (cf. Eph 1:9, where the NASB has "Him" but the reader would never know that this pronoun refers to Christ and not God the Father). It sometimes has confusing translations: (like Eph 1:6: "to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved," who is "the Beloved?") It also makes some poor text-critical decisions (but every translation does that at one time or another...however, the NET is rather strong in this regard). I won't go into specific examples here, but the NET's text-critical notes in the OT (and even the NT) are excellent.

Does all of this make the NASB, to use Craig's words "not suitable for a study Bible for anyone with a 7th grade or higher proficiency...?" I would say no, it is an excellent translation that has its own strengths and weaknesses and deserves a place in the translation marketplace today...just like the NET.

BJ

 

Brandon wrote,

Brandon agrees with me,

Brandon, you yourself have admitted above that “The” value, not just some of the value, but “the” value of the NET “IS in its footnotes, not in the translation itself.” I also noticed that you typed “IS” in uppercase letters, emphasizing that the value “IS” in its footnotes. I fully agree with you and no further documentation is necessary. Nonetheless, Brandon writes,

The subject of this thread is not “study Bibles,” but translations of the Bible.

And Brandon writes,

 

Brandon wrote,

The very long Greek sentence of which you write is actually found in Eph. 1:3-14. It is a eulogistic sentences that includes one primary clause, and a multitude of subordinate clauses which highlight the primary clause, which the NASB translates, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The only major translation of the New Testament that retains the integrity of this eulogy is the ASV, which reads,

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ:
4. even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:
5. having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved:
7. in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trepasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8. which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence,
9. making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him
10. unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, I say,
11. in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will;
12. to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ:
13. in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto the praise of his glory.

The NASB, 1995, reads here,

3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
4. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
5. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
6. to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
7. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
8. which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
9. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
10. with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
11. also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,
12. to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.
13. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,
14. who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

By beginning a new sentence with the last two words of verse four, it places too much emphasis on the subject of predestination, a subject which in the Greek text is subordinate to the blessedness of God. It does a similar thing with the last two words of verse 10.

 

In the NET we find,

1:3 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ. 1:4 For he lovingly chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight. 1:5 He did this by predestining us to adoption as his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the pleasure of his will— 1:6 to the praise of the glory of his grace that he has freely bestowed on us in his dearly loved Son. 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 1:8 that he lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. 1:9 He did this when he revealed to us the secret of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, 1:10 toward the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ—the things in heaven and the things on earth. 1:11 In Christ we too have been claimed as God’s own possession, since we were predestined according to the one purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will 1:12 so that we, who were the first to set our hope on Christ, may be to the praise of his glory. 1:13 And when you heard the word of truth (the gospel of your salvation)—when you believed in Christ —you were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit, 1:14 who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of God’s own possession to the praise of his glory.

The NET chops up Paul’s eulogy of the blessedness of God into a multitude of choppy little sentences which destroy the eulogy. I certainly prefer the style of both Paul’s Greek sentence and the translation of it found in the ASV over the slightly choppy style found here in the NASB, but the NET here could well be said to be devoid of style altogether. It is very easy to read, but how many readers of the NET understand that in these twelve verses the primary thought of the author is the blessedness of God, and that all else in these 12 verses is subordinate to that thought?

I do not see anywhere in this paragraph anything that even remotely suggests that the NASB, 1995, is a “woody” translation. I freely agree, however, that it is NOT a perfect translation. I used the expression, “fine translation,” and you used the expression, “great translation,” probably a stronger expression than I used. The NET (speaking of the translation itself) is a substantially inferior translation.

 

Seems to me that you have personal taste as a major factor as to which translation is better or worse than another and now the ASV is king over the NASB (at least in Eph 3-11). That's fine, but not a good reason to say that one translation is "substantially inferior" to another when it is simply your personal taste. As much as you may not like it, good English style is not the same as "good" Greek style (really long sentences), and there is no problem with what the NET did, or at least you didn't point one out beyond your quibbles over English style.

Personal taste is always a big factor (unfortunately) in why a person likes one translation over another (instead of more valid reasons), but I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claims above. You picked some sentences out of my posts and tried to make me agree with you but ignored most of my points (especially that you can't continue this false dichotomy of the NET Bible translation vs. the NET Bible notes--it is one product). You seem to think that since I admit that the NET has some bad instances of translation, then I agree with you. Sorry, but no translation is perfect, and until you actually come up with some proof, I see no need to pay attention to your outrageous statements about the NET.

It seems that you have changed what this thread is about...it is about study Bibles from what I recall (at least Marcia asked what others thought of it since she used it as a study Bible).

Now, if you want to make these outrageous claims about the NET back it up with some facts...show that the translation takes too much liberty with the text; prove to me that there is no question as to its inferiority when compared to the NASB. Please show it from both the translation itself and the rationale for the translation from the footnotes (if it gives one). ]

You seem to think that the NET is not good despite its notes and despite some flaws (which every translation has). It looks like you have found some flaws in the NASB too, so what's your big problem with the NET? Is it really just style, or did you have something substantial in mind? Until I see something valid from you I see no need to keep this up since I have not attacked any translation, but you have without backing up your outrageous claims with some specifics (you mentioned Romans 1, but then gave nothing more).

I've spent too much time on this thread, perhaps you will say something meaningful against the NET, but my guess is that this will be my last post on this thread.

If you actually do find some valid reason for your outrageous claims about the NET, one thing that you can do is contact the translators themselves and give them your suggestions (they do listen). That's something that you can't do with any other translation right now.

BJ

 

There is no Eph. 3:22. The expression "faith in Christ" occurs in seven places in the NASB, 1995:

Acts 24;24
Gal. 2:16 (twice)
Gal. 3:26
Phil. 3:9
Col. 1:4
Col. 2:5

The expression "faith in Jesus Christ" occurs in two places in the NASB, 1995:

Rom. 3:22
Gal. 3:22

I suppose that you are really talking about Gal. 3:22 rather than Eph. 3:22. Gal. 3:22 in the NET reads,

3:22 But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given—because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ—to those who believe.

Romans 3:22 in the NET reads,

3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,

Therefore, the NET is ALSO making here an interpretive decision between a subjective and an objective genitive. The NASB follows the interpretation of the large majority of commentators on Romans (I have 233 commentaries on Romans in my personal library) and Galatians. And in neither case is the dynamic equivalence philosophy involved. This is a question of Greek grammar and New Testament theology, and not English linguistics.

Abraham was saved, not by the faithfulness of God, but by his faith in God. Christians, likewise, are saved by faith in God in the person of Christ Jesus.

 

Affinity to the text and style of the translation are two entirely separate issues. The NASB is without question a more precise translation of the text than is the NET. Style is a considerably more subjective thing, but it is not entirely subjective. The style of the KJV and the RSV is greatly superior to that of both the NASB and the NET. The style of the NASB is distinctly more sophisticated than the style of the NET. English style is important when a translation is used in public reading for devotional purposes, but is it totally irrelevant when studying the theology of the Bible.

 

The English style of the NET is poor—but that is not the important issue in this thread or the reason why I posted that the translation of Eph. 1:3-14 in the NET is inadequate. It is inadequate because it fails to translate the subordinate clauses as subordinate clauses, thereby altering the meaning of the author’s words. That is not a matter of style; it is a matter of syntax.

 

The following review may be of interest to some,

The NET Bible

W. Hall Harris, ed., The Holy Bible: The Net Bible (New English Translation). Dallas, Texas: Biblical Studies Press, 2001.

The Net Bible in its initial form was produced by a team of translators under the direction of W. Hall Harris, the General Editor, and Daniel B. Wallace, the Senior New Testament Editor. Harris and Wallace are both professors of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. The identity of the Old Testament Editor and the names of the translators who worked on the individual books have not been made public. The preface states that there were "about twenty scholars" involved, and fully describes the editorial process.

The preface states that the idea for the version was conceived in November 1995 during discussions with an anonymous "sponsor" at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Philadelphia. The concept of the version was that it would be freely available on the internet from the beginning. The name of the version (NET Bible) is meant to have a double meaning, standing both for New English Translation and the Internet. The New Testament portion of the version first went online in October of 1998 at www.netbible.org. The Old Testament was added in 2000, and in 2002 the Apocrypha appeared online. In November 2003 a "second beta edition" of the whole Bible was put online.

The New Testament has been substantially revised since its first appearance, incorporating many suggestions made by reviewers associated with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). Wallace states that there have been thousands of such changes, 1 and many more to be made in the future. Because the version was primarily designed to be an Internet resource, the editors have freedom to experiment with and revise the version as they may see fit.

Method of Translation

The method of translation used in the NET Bible in its present form (December 2003) is hard to characterize. Much of it is fairly literal, with a moderate use of interpretive renderings, similar to the New International Version. But the translation is very uneven, sometimes much more literal than the NIV and sometimes much less so. In truth, it seems that the version is not very well edited in this regard. Often there are condescending "dynamic equivalence" renderings right next to unusually difficult literal renderings in the same verse. For example, in the "second beta edition" currently online, Romans 1:5 reads, "Through him we have received grace and our apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name." Here the version has begun a new sentence because the salutation has been "divided into shorter English sentences in keeping with contemporary English style," as a footnote explains, and the word "our" has been added before "apostleship" so as to "to clarify the sense of the statement." Neither of these adjustments are really necessary for the average reader. The verse could have been translated as a subordinate clause, as it is in the Greek, and the "our" is certainly not needed to convey the sense. Yet after these needless helps we have the eccentric hyper-literal rendering "on behalf of his name," which makes no sense at all in English. Ordinarily in English versions this final phrase is rendered "for his name's sake." It is unclear why the NET editors were not satisfied with this idiomatic rendering. Have they given us the cryptic "on behalf of his name" because they think that &#61 557; does not mean "for his name's sake"? What then do they think it means? A note might have been helpful here. Other examples of this strange conglomeration of dynamic equivalence and literalism can be found on every page. It is probably a consequence of the way in which suggestions for revision have been incorporated—in piecemeal fashion—as these were received from the SIL reviewers mentioned above. "Dynamic equivalent" renderings seem to have been grafted onto a translation which was originally intended to be an essentially literal one.

Treatment of the Old Testament

Despite the fact that the version is being promoted as a product of evangelical scholarship, it departs from the usual evangelical treatment of the Old Testament, interpreting it without any reference to the New Testament. In Isaiah 7:14 it has "young woman" instead of "virgin" (compare Matthew 1:23). In Genesis 22:18 we read "all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants" (compare Galatians 3:16). In Psalm 2:12 it has "Give sincere homage" instead of "Kiss the Son." And so forth. This is surprising, in view of the obvious connection of the version with the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, which has a reputation for conservatism among evangelicals. But evidently this seminary has changed quite a bit since 1953, when its faculty issued a scathing Critique of the Revised Standard Version for this same manner of treating the Old Testament. Michael H. Burer, the Assistant Editor of the version and an Adjunct Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas, has published an explanation and defense of this deliberately un-Christian translation of the Old Testament, in which he uses the concept of progressive revelation. 2 It may be wondered whether the new hermeneutics of "progessive dispensationalism" taught at Dallas in recent years has contributed to this new readiness to translate the Old Testament without reference to the New Testament. But whatever the root causes may be, the repudiation of the position which was maintained so staunchly by their predecessors at Dallas, and by the great majority of ministers in theologically conservative churches to this day, is notable.

Independence of the Translation

The preface makes some unusual claims about the independence of the translators. It states, "the broad framework of the project is unique among translations. From its beginning the project has been independent of ecclesiastical control. The NET Bible is not funded by any denomination or church. This has directly impacted the content: Translators and editors are free to follow where the text leads and translate as they see best. There is no pressure to make sure the text reads a certain way." This is an interesting statement for several reasons. First, the claim that the NET Bible is "unique among translations" in its freedom from "ecclesiastical" influence implies that all other versions in use were produced under the direct influence of ecclesiastical officials. But this is not true. Most of the versions currently in use among protestants were produced by committees which were not subject to any regular church authority. We wonder why the NET Bible editors would say that their version was unique in its independence, when in fact nearly all modern versions have been produced by committees which answer only to publishers or non-denominational Bible societies. Second, there is in this statement an implicit claim that there is something wrong with any pressure upon scholars and translators to stay within the theological bounds established by churches. We wonder how this anti-dogmatic or anti-ecclesiastical attitude, which celebrates independence from the church authority instituted by Jesus Christ himself, can be squared with any biblical doctrine of Christian ministry. And third, the statement assumes that where there is no ecclesiastical pressure, there is no pressure to make the text read "a certain way." This is belied by the presence of the blatantly artificial inclusive language in the NET Bible, which speaks volumes about the kind of pressure which is now so powerful in the academic environments, where these "independent" scholars are producing new Bible versions.

The gender-neutral language in the NET Bible is moderate when compared to other recent Bible versions. It involves mostly an avoidance of the words "son," "man," and "men" when the translators felt that the sense would not be affected by putting in their place "child," "person," "people," etc. For example, in Mark 1:17 the generic masculine anthropos in "I will make you fishers of men" is neutralized with the rendering "I will turn you into fishers of people." This is accurate enough, and it requires no explanation or apology. But we note with disappointment that when the editors do offer an explanation of it in their preface, they do not acknowledge the true reason for their avoidance of the word "men," and instead they repeat the ridiculous claim often made by proponents of gender-neutral language, that a phrase like "fishers of men" would be misunderstood by modern readers. We should like to see evidence that any reader who is capable of understanding the metaphorical usage of "fishers" here would be so dense as to think that "fishers of men" means that Jesus is calling Simon and Andrew to become evangelists of male adults only. But again, regardless of the motives for it, it makes little difference whether "men" or "people" is used in most places. There are however some places where the NET Bible has actually falsified the sense by avoiding masculine nouns. An example is in Proverbs 6:20, where the word for "son" appears in the Hebrew, but the NET Bible has "child." Obviously we have problems with the genderless "child" when we arrive at the warning given to him or her beginning in verse 24, concerning the dangers of loose women! There it becomes apparent that this is a father-son talk about matters which are very far from being gender-neutral, and which have no relevence to a "child" of either sex. The same thing occurs in Proverbs 7:1 and following. But enough has been said on this subject in another place. We note with gratitude that the NET Bible editors have avoided the worst excesses of gender-neutralism, but even the comparatively small amount of it in this version cannot be explained apart from political correctness

So much for the vaunted independence of the translators, who resisted the churchly pressure to translate the Old Testament in accordance with the New Testament, but who dutifully observed the rules of the liberal feminist language-police in hundreds of places, contrary to the usage and the true sense of the original text. The outstanding problem in our recent glut of English Bible versions is not the kind of conservative ecclesiastical pressure which the editors of the NET Bible contemn in their preface, it is the pressures from outside the churches -- from academics who are preoccupied "in nothing other than telling or hearing some new thing" (Acts 17:21), from professors who are eager to excel one another in political correctness, from laymen who "according to their own lusts heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Tim 4:3), from publishers who cook up faddish new versions so as to "make merchandise of the word of God" (2 Cor 2:17). In short, it is pressure from the world, the flesh, and the devil that we need to oppose. What is needed in this modern pandemonium of Bible translation is more salutary pressure from faithful conservative churches, not less of it.
Continued....

 

Sorry for the typo, I meant Eph 3:12...why didn't you just ask instead of assuming Gal?

Regarding this:"Therefore, the NET is ALSO making here an interpretive decision between a subjective and an objective genitive. The NASB follows the interpretation of the large majority of commentators on Romans (I have 233 commentaries on Romans in my personal library) and Galatians. And in neither case is the dynamic equivalence philosophy involved. This is a question of Greek grammar and New Testament theology, and not English linguistics."

I never said that it was a matter of linguistics, neither did I say that the NET does not make interpretive decisions...of couse it does.

If you actually read the notes on the verses discussed in the NET itself, then you would see that they mention that the majority of commentators opt for the objective genitive in these disputed verses (perhaps all 233 of your Romans collection).

saw no salient points against the NET here...see you later no need to keep this meandering exchange up.

 

continued...

Text-Critical Decisions

Wallace reports that the NET New Testament is based on "a critically constructed Greek text, following the principles of reasoned eclecticism." By the phrase "reasoned eclecticism" he means the method of textual criticism practiced by most scholars today, including the editors of the Nestle-Aland (UBS) text. The method is "eclectic" in that readings are chosen from a variety of witnesses and text-types, and "reasoned" in that it generally prefers older manuscripts which are judged to be superior. Wallace says that the NET text differs from the Nestle-Aland text "in about 500 places." 3 Interestingly enough, Appendix A of the printed edition states, "the Greek text to be used by individual translators was decided by the textual consultant." The identity of this "consultant" is not revealed, but there is good reason to suppose that it was Wallace, who has published a number of articles on the subject of textual criticism. This is a notable departure from the usual method of translation committees, in which the text is established by a consensus of the committee.

The Margin

The version contains a very full margin of footnotes, which, like the translation, are of miscellaneous character and value. Most are labelled "tn" for "translator note," and these are sometimes highly technical, using grammatical terms which few readers will understand. They may be compared to the notes in Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament or in Rienecker's Linguistic Key to the New Testament. They will be helpful to advanced students, but many of these "tn" notes are tiresome and tendentious (e.g. informing the reader over and over again that anthropos needs to be translated "people" because it is inclusive of women) or merely trivial, and clutter the page to no purpose. In some places where a note is obviously called for in such a margin, there is none. For this reason the NET Bible margin is not really an adequate substitute for Robertson or Rienecker. For example, at Acts 14:1 the expression kata to auto is translated "the same thing happened" without comment, but the note in Rieneker's manual explains that the expression means 'together' or perhaps 'in the same way' or 'at one time.' In Romans 8:3 a fairly useless note advises readers that "because it was weakened through the flesh" is literally "in that it was weakened by the flesh," but the very obscure rendering "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin" is left without comment. Other notes, labelled "sn" for "study notes," are such as may be found in most study Bibles intended for casual students. The "tc" notes delve into text-critical matters which very few readers will be able to follow, but these are probably the most valuable part of the NET Bible. They are the most complete and detailed set of text-critical notes on the internet, and they are comparable to the notes in Metzger's Textual Commentary.

One gets the impression that this version is still very much a work in progress. But the editors seem to have no clear sense of the purpose of the translation. Apparently it was originally conceived as a Bible for students who required a fairly literal translation for close study, with detailed exegetical notes; but the revisions are continually making the text simpler and more paraphrastic, as if the version needs to be understandable to uneducated and casual readers (including the imaginary readers who cannot understand the word "man"). In any case, the translation itself is of little importance or value. There are already several versions which present a more accurate translation for students, and others which give a more idiomatic text for casual readers. The marginal apparatus of the NET Bible is however of considerable value as a free internet resource for poor scholars who would otherwise have no convenient access to the kind of grammatical and text-critical information presented in it.


1 Daniel B. Wallace, "An Open Letter Regarding the NET Bible, New Testament." Notes on Translation 14.4 (2000): 1-8. Accessed online July 16 2002 at www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/NOT_NET.htm.

2 Michael H. Burer, "Consideration of Contexts in the Translation Philosophy of the NET Bible: Discussion and Examples." Accessed July 15 2002 at www.bible.org/docs/about/transphilosophy.htm.

3 Daniel B. Wallace, "Innovations in the Text and Translation of the NET Bible, New Testament" Paper presented to the SBL Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, on November 18, 2000 in the Bible Translation Section, accessed online July 15 2002 at www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/net/innovations.htm. For discussion of the term "reasoned eclecticism" see Michael W. Holmes, "Reasoned Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticism," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research edited by Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes (Eerdmans, 1995) pages 336-369.

Bibliography
• Preface to the NET Bible
• Toby Lester, "Beta-testing the Bible," The Atlantic Monthly. December 10, 1998.
• An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament. By Daniel B. Wallace, the Senior New Testament Editor of the version. An article published in Notes on Translation 14.4 (2000). Wallace responds to mild criticism that was published in a recent review of the NET New Testament.
• Innovations in the Text and Translation of the NET Bible, New Testament. By Daniel B. Wallace. A paper presented to the SBL Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, on November 18, 2000.
• Consideration of Contexts in the Translation Philosophy of the NET Bible: Discussion and Examples. By Michael H. Burer, an Assistant Editor of the version. Mainly an attempt to justify to evangelical readers the seemingly "liberal" renderings of Genesis 3:15 and Isaiah 7:14.
• Ephesians 2.2 in the NET Bible. By Daniel B. Wallace.
• Matthew 24:40-41 in the NET Bible Notes: Taken for Salvation or Judgment? By Michael H. Burer.

Bible Research

 

I didn't assume, I "suppose[d]," a weaker verb that more accurately describes what I did. Nonetheless, the points made do not change because we have the same Greek construction and the same interpretation of it in both verses.

 

-- NET
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ’s faithfulness.

-- English Standard Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him.

-- King James Version
Ephesians 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

-- New King James Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him.

-- American Standard Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him.

-- Revised Standard Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

-- International English
Ephesians 3:12 In Christ and by believing in Christ, we have boldness and confidence to come near to .

-- New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in Him.

-- Holman Christian Standard Bible
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness, access, and confidence through faith in Him.

-- New Jerusalem Bible
Ephesians 3:12 In him we are bold enough to approach God in complete confidence, through our faith in him;

-- New American Bible
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness of speech and confidence of access through faith in him.

-- New Revised Standard Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him. {Or [the faith of him]}

-- Young's Bible
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have the freedom and the access in confidence through the faith of him,

-- Darby's Bible
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and access in confidence by the faith of him.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have this bold and confident access through our faith in Him.

-- Webster's Bible
Ephesians 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him,

-- New Living Translation
Ephesians 3:12 Because of Christ and our faith in him, we can now come fearlessly into God's presence, assured of his glad welcome.

-- International Standard Version
Ephesians 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confident access through his faithfulness.

-- William's New Testament
Ephesians 3:12 By union with Him and through faith in Him we have a free and confidential introduction to God.

-- Montgomery New Testament
Ephesians 3:12 In him we have this fearless confidence and boldness of access through our faith in him.

 

Brandon wrote,

Eph. 1:9. He did this when he revealed to us the secret of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, (NET)

Eph. 1:9. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him (NASB)

Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ (ESV)


In Eph. 1:9, the NASB translates the pronoun as a pronoun just as it in the Greek text where the antecedent is not expressly clear. And not everyone agrees that the antecedent is Christ and not God the Father. Compare, for example, the KJV here,

Eph. 1:9. Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Both the NET and the ESV interpret the pronoun; the NASB, 1995, simply translates the pronoun as a pronoun and leaves the interpretation up to the reader just as the Greek text does. It is NOT the job of a translator to clear up ambiguities in the Greek text; it is the job of the translator to translate the Greek text as it is, ambiguities and all.