I’ve told you my preferences for a version: 1. modern English, 2. translation notes. The KJV meets neither. I’m glad you have your own criteria, but it’s not pertinent to my choices, especially when I’ve asked you to use any version you’d like. Someone’s subjective assessment of the accuracy of an entire version is too coarse to be useful to me when I can simply read the notes and references of a well-annotated version and decide for myself the accuracy of each individual verse.
It’s clear when you said theses things:
you were not really interested in discussing the translation to the word “slave” or “when it hurts a cause”.
And there is the problem: If you are deciding for yourself which translations are the most accurate, then I can see where the cite I gave is of no use to you, let alone any opinions I may have on the matter.
But the author was supposedly logged into the great Google in the sky.
Look, if someone sends you the proof of some unsolved conjecture in math, and doesn’t get some basic algebra right on the first page, you can be excused in not reading further.
If you think that this is unlikely, there is a thread in GQ you should check out.
I have no strong opinion on the NET Bible (I quite like Darrell Bock and Dan Wallace, but I don’t know the other people you list), but I think the claim you’re making is quite the opposite of what the author of the piece you link to is making. He’s not criticizing the NET Bible because it translates the text in a way amenable to traditional teaching, he’s criticizing it precisely because it does not sufficiently allow traditional Christian ideology to influence the translation. For example, he criticizes the NET Bible’s translation of Isaiah 7:14 because they write “a young woman shall bear a son” rather than “a virgin shall bear a son”. Jewish and historico-critical scholarship tends to go with ‘young woman’, conservative Christian scholarship (and the older translations) go with ‘virgin’, mostly on the grounds that this was the way Matthew quoted it and the way that the Septuagint translated it, and that in this way it serves as a prophecy of Christ. For the record, I agree with the critic in your article that ‘virgin’ is the proper translation, but this is precisely I’m informed by Christian tradition here.
The unnamed critic makes the more general point a little further down: his main criticism of the NET Bible is that they aren’t sufficiently allowing their Christian commitments, and traditional Christian teaching, to influence their translation of the Old Testament, and he implies that they’re overly influenced by historical criticism. This is quite different than the criticism you’re making: the guy you cite is criticizing the NET from a conservative viewpoint, not a historico-critical one.
Let’s get a better modern translation so that the text is less word salady. Here is the New Living Translation:
*15 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, 2 “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.”
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandments of God? 4 For instance, God says, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘Anyone who speaks disrespectfully of father or mother must be put to death.’** 5 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, ‘Sorry, I can’t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I would have given to you.’ 6 In this way, you say they don’t need to honor their parents.[c] And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own tradition.*
Now firstly, both of you are still paying a lot more attention to Jesus’ general complaint rather than the specific example he gives. Let’s say that you’re both correct, what is the spirit of the law as regards bringing your child in to be executed?
You’re telling me that the spirit of the law is to ignore the law, but where does it actually say that? Feel free to go outside the above quote to find that place. Don’t just tell me that it’s true, because your priest or religious teacher told you that that’s the “correct” reading. Let’s get Jesus to say it.
But moving past that, let’s be real clear on “law” vs “tradition”.
The tradition is to wash your hands. Washing your hands is not a law, it is a tradition. From Jesus’ other complaints with the Pharisees, about having fancy outfits and gold trinkets and whatnot, it seems likely that Jesus believes that the handwashing tradition was introduced to separate the rich from the poor, who can’t afford to be washing their hands at every meal. God is for everyone, not just for the rich who can afford these expensive rituals that the church has decided are the official way of going about things, yet aren’t actually referenced anywhere in God’s commandments.
And not only are they adding “traditions” to the religion that exclude the common man, they’re using those traditions like law and using those fake laws to counteract God’s actual laws in ways that favor the enrichment of the Church. For example, they are using a tradition of giving goodies to the Church as a fully viable escape clause on execution. If you have something that your parents want, but give it to the Church instead, then the Pharisees are going to allow you to live despite that you have disobeyed God’s law and failed to honor to your parents. That ain’t kosher.
Jesus is not denouncing God’s commandment. He’s endorsing the execution of your children and denouncing any attempt to avoid the law, and particularly not for the sake of enrichment and class separation. There is no “spirit of the law” that somehow avoids enacting the law.
Thank you for pointing me to that (and since I quite liked Marlowe’s review I might look into more of his writing). My general point remained though, when you said
that their “translation” supported the previously established teachings of that seminary,
this is not at all an accurate summary of Marlow’s criticisms in that article, and it’s in fact close to the opposite of the criticism he’s making. (The general tenor of his article is that the translators of the NET tried to translate the Old Testament without reference to the tradition of Christian typological interpretation or to Christian theology more general, which he thinks, and I would agree with him, is a bad thing).
Right. Where do they get off, refusing to twist the words of the Hebrew Bible into something the authors never intended?
Seriously, if a Christian Bible wants to add a footnote giving the “real” meaning of a verse from the Hebrew Bible, OK. But to deliberately change the wording to make it conform to something that no Jew would accept is IMO unethical, at least. So few Christians actually read those verses that it seems a shame to reward their effort with a distorted translation.
I’m curious why you think translating ancient Jewish texts without reference to more modern Christian assumptions or hermeneutics is a bad thing. Can you elaborate?