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

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

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

The NET Bible was conceived in November 1995 at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Philadelphia. “NET” is a double entendre, standing both for New English Translation and for the Internet, since this translation is available for free on the Internet (www.netbible.org). The NET is innovative in several respects, not the least of which is the massive number of notes (about 60,000 for the whole Bible so far), including extensive text-critical, lexical, and exegetical notes. But it is also innovative in its text and translation to some degree. This paper will highlight a few of these innovations.

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

Preface:

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

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

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

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

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

Sample Text

Premium Commentary Sample Text