Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

Truth in Translation has much to recommend it. It describes how the translation process works, gives a history of English Bible translation, reviews modern translations, and describes the different translation philosophies. Then it explores several Bible passages where BeDuhn thinks bias controls a translation’s wording. All the passages reference Christ’s “divine” nature in some way. He believes that the theological significance for Trinitarian translators overrides their translation principles and results in biased, pro-Trinitarian wording. In every case, BeDuhn feels bias controlled the decisions of the translators, but less so with the New World Translation’s wording.I agree with BeDuhn that bias exists in modern English translations, and agree with several of the points he makes, even within some topics that I have disagreement with. There are other concepts besides Christ’s divinity that seem to show bias, which he doesn’t explore. Here are some actual historical examples of translations being accused of bias.In the 1950s, when the Revised Standard Version translated Isaiah 7:14 as “a young woman shall conceive and bear a son,” instead of using the word “virgin” as in the King James Bible, evangelicals accused it of liberalism. Now, the RSV and NRSV aren’t used in most evangelical churches. (The real reason for the translating “young woman,” was because the RSV committee went back to the older Hebrew text, rather than the Greek Septuagint Old Testament text. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is age-based, not virginity-based, and means “young woman.” There was no “liberal bias” involved.) In 2008, when Today’s New International Version came out (a revision of the NIV), it used “inclusive language,” changing “brothers” to “brothers and sisters” when it was obvious that both sexes were being referred to (the NRSV was already doing this). An angry backlash from conservative evangelical leaders like Norman Geisler resulted in a boycott of the translation, so much so, that Zondervan ceased printing it due to lack of sales.The major problems I have with the book are threefold. First, BeDuhn takes a dismissive attitude towards religious translators and Greek sources written by religious scholars and puts forth his own historical (and non-religious) approach as superior. Second, his analysis of Greek wording and syntax in the passages examined is sometimes flawed. Third, he is less critical of the New World Translation’s translation problems than he is with orthodox Christian translations.In the preface (p. ix) he says, “There is no system of control, or of editorial oversight, in the market of popular biblical ‘scholarship’,” and that 2) he was “greatly disappointed to find that the few well-trained scholars…have chosen to reinforce rather than alleviate the burden of misinformation and wanton bias in the debate.” He says bias occurs (p. xv) ”when differences in translation cannot be explained by reasons based in the likely meaning of the original Greek….Sometimes, translators make their biases explicit, by identifying themselves with certain denominations or agendas.” So it is religious affiliation that apparently causes bias. In a description of qualified Bible translators he asserts (p. xix) “I am one of them. That is why I feel somewhat justified in writing this book. But just as importantly, I have an attitude that puts me at a distinct advantage to write a book such as this. I am a committed historian dedicated to discovering what Christians said and did two thousand years ago….If you are looking for my bias, I guess you could say that I have a bias in favor of historical truth, the accurate reconstruction and comprehension of the past.” So Jason BeDuhn, of all these translators, alone can be trusted to be unbiased. Wow.In chapter two he discusses how Bible translation works, and describes the best Greek lexicons. (Dr. BeDuhn has a Ph.D., but not in biblical Greek. He also has a master’s degree in theology from Harvard, so I presume studied biblical Greek there. I studied Greek for three years for my B.A.) Most online sources I’ve read say the Liddell and Scott covers classical Greek and somewhat the New Testament period. The Bauer, Danker, Arndt & Gingrich lexicon covers the periods, and literature of the Septuagint and New Testament. Both are considered good lexicons. BeDuhn recommends Liddell & Scott, and secondly the Bauer lexicon. But he then goes on to say that of the “many lexicons” available, they should “be used only secondarily, if at all. Biblical lexicons have many weaknesses.” What lexicons are these? Does he include Bauer as a “biblical lexicon”? Or Louw & Nida, and Thayer’s lexicons? BeDuhn doesn’t say, and so presents no evidence, yet draws the conclusion that religious scholars and religious reference works are too inherently biased.In his first examination of specific Bible passages, BeDuhn cites verses using the word “worship” when referring to Jesus (in Greek, prŏskuneō). The Greek word can mean giving devotion and rightful recognition towards a god, or doing obeisance (and physical prostration of some sort) towards a ruler of rank to whom one owes fealty or thanks. When the word is applied to Jesus, which meaning is correct? BeDuhn agrees with modern translations in many places where the word is translated obeisance, veneration or prostration, usually given to Jesus by people he had healed. But in three places BeDuhn takes strong exception to modern translations using “worship,” rather than “obeisance or prostration” in reference to Jesus. All are in Matthew: 14:33 (where Jesus walks on water, rescued Peter, and calmed the storm), 28:9 (when after his resurrection Jesus greets the women), and 28:17 (when after his resurrection Jesus met his disciples in Galilee). BeDuhn sees a “conspiracy” by modern translators: (p. 45), “But when the disciples of Jesus are the actors, suddenly we see “worship” everywhere,” and on page 47, “When we observe how these same translators choose “worship” when the gesture is made to Jesus by certain persons, and choose other English words to translate the very same Greek term when the gesture is directed to someone other than Jesus, or is directed to Jesus by someone whom they regard as not qualifying as a true believer, their inconsistency reveals their bias.” That’s quite an accusation! But the question that needs asking, is what happened in those three encounters in Matthew, that would prompt modern translators to use “worship” in describing the disciples’s response to Jesus? In Matthew 14:33, after Jesus gets in the boat the disciples proclaim, “Truly you are the Son of God.” The text says that they “worshipped him” THEN proclaimed “It’s really true!! You are the Son of God.” They didn’t just say, “Wow! You’re the Messiah,” or “Thanks for calming the storm and rescuing Peter.” So it was a supernatural act of Jesus that changed their religious perspective. And modern translators recognize that. BeDuhn doesn’t. Instead he says (p. 47), “I am not going to enter into a debate over interpretation…when this occurs, the translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God.” But the translators got that “idea” from the context in the Bible passages. The other two passages in Matthew have people worshipping Jesus when seeing him after his resurrection. The impact on them was far greater than seeing another lame person walk. It altered their supernatural and religious worldview. Perhaps BeDuhn, as a non-religious historian, doesn’t think that’s relevant.The second Bible passage, Colossians 1:15, reads that Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation…” It reads that way in many modern translations, including the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Unlike Trinitarian translators, however, the Witnesses believe that Jesus is a created being of Jehovah God, and interpret “firstborn” to mean “first-created” (however, the Greek word for “firstborn,” “prōtotokos,” does not mean “first-created” in any Greek lexicon that I’m aware of). This is expressed in their literature, but not worded so in the NW translation. The New International Version (NIV) translate it a bit differently: “the firstborn OVER all creation.” BeDuhn takes exception to this and says, “This qualifies as addition because “over” in no way can be derived from the Greek genitive article meaning “of.” The problem is that BeDuhn is completely wrong. A standard intermediate Greek grammar, “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics” by Daniel B. Wallace, devotes 58 pages to discussing the genitive case (the “of” relationship between nouns: “the dog of John, the book of poems, the teacher of the students”). On page 103 Wallace gives three clear biblical examples of why “over” is the better choice: 1) Matt. 9:34 “the ruler of the demons” = “the ruler over the demons”; 2) Mark 15:32 “the king of Israel” = “the king over Israel”; 3) 2 Cor. 4:4 “the god of this world” = “the god over this world.” What justifies using “over” instead of “of” in these verses, is the relationship of the two nouns to each other. In the Matthew and Mark passages, the words “ruler” and “king” imply positions of authority over, respectively, the demons, and over Israel. The situation is the same in Colossians 1:15. The relationship of “firstborn“ to the “creation” is the key. And that relationship is detailed in the verses following verse 15, where Jesus is described as being the means by which heaven and earth and everything in them were created, and that he is before all things, and they were made for him, in order that he might be pre-eminent, the way a firstborn son is heir to the property, and pre-eminent over it. Since Col. 1:16–18 provide the context, verse 15 must be understand as “firstborn over all creation.” BeDuhn relies on a simplistic understanding of the genitive case, and then misinterprets the better meaning of the NIV translation.The third Bible passage, discussed in chapter five, is Philippians 2:6–7, “…who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped…” (NASB translation). Several points BeDuhn makes I’m in agreement with. The first point, is that the NIV translates the first part of the verse as “Who being in very nature God,” and BeDuhn says that’s taking the Greek word “morphā” (“form”) too far in meaning, and pushing Jesus to be God in nature, which the word doesn’t warrant. Next, in translating the Greek word “harpagmos” (“a thing snatched, grasped, seized”) as “a thing to be exploited,” or “a use of force” or “a taking advantage of,” which many orthodox translations choose, BeDuhn rightly castigates them for trying to deflect the meaning of the word so it doesn’t make Jesus appear like he’s trying to seize equality with God. Trinitarian translators are showing religious bias in order to negate the influence of the NW translation. On the other hand, the NW translation reads ”he gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal with God.” BeDuhn shows a lack of follow-through in criticizing the NW’s translation’s phrasing of “that he should be equal with God.” He says (p.61) “…I have to say that “gave no consideration to seizure, namely, that he should be equal,” while a hyper-literal rendering of the Greek, is too convoluted and awkward. It could be conveyed much more simply, as something like, “gave no thought to a seizure of equality,” or “did not consider seizing equality,” or “did not consider grabbing at being equal.” So why didn’t the NW translate it much more simply? It’s not due just to “hyper-literalism”; it’s a wrong translation. Here is a breakdown of the Greek structure. The Greek wording is “tŏ–eivai–isa–theō,” translating as “the–to be–equal—with God.” The words “tŏ–eivai–isa” taken together translate best as “the being equal,” or “the state of being equal,” or best expressed as “the equality.” The last word “theō” is the dative (like an indirect object) form of “theŏs,” or “God,” and translates as “with God.” Put it all together and it reads “the (state of) equality with God.” There’s no sense of doubt or uncertainty in the meaning. But the NW translation suggests this equality doesn’t exist, with the conclusion that Jesus didn’t even consider that he should be equal with God, and that perhaps he should not try to be equal with God, and thus didn’t try to grasp for it. The big problem in the NW translation is that their interpretation could have easily been expressed in Greek if the first two words of the clause had been different, expressed as “hina–ā–isa–theō,” translating as “in order that–he might be–equal–with God.” If that’s what the Greek wording would have been, the NW would be absolutely correct in translation and interpretation. But……the Greek wording DOESN’T SAY THAT! Why doesn’t BeDuhn notice that it’s more than just a bit of “hyper-literalism,” and that the NW wording is not just “convoluted and awkward”; it’s a completely faulty translation of the verse? That’s bias on a major level by the NW, and BeDuhn misses it completely.The fourth Bible passage is Titus 2:13, discussed in chapter eight. The controversy of Titus 2:13 concerns the accuracy of a grammar rule by Granville Sharp, regarding the construction of the verse, whether it should read “of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” or “of our great God, and of our Savior Jesus Christ,” the first translation supportive of a Trinitarian viewpoint, the second translation countermanding it. After critiquing this verse and comparing it with other New Testament verses, BeDuhn summarizes that Sharp’s rule is not valid. I don’t believe his comparisons are truly one-to-one, but more a comparing of apples-to-oranges. The syntax and grammar of the Greek is too technical to unravel for this review. BeDuhn concludes by saying (p. 93) “The problem is not with Sharp’s honesty or his diligence, but with the premises by which he did his work. He ignored the fact that the Greek language was not confined to the New Testament.” So BeDuhn then references the Smyth classical Greek grammar, and cites examples he believes close the door on Sharp’s “rule.” (Coincidentally, BeDuhn never cites Greek grammars that support Sharp’s rule, such as Dana and Mantey’s intermediate grammar.) Assuming a Greek grammar book such as Smyth’s which concerns the Greek language of 500 years before the New Testament period, and assuming it is completely relevant to the New Testament period, would be like citing an English grammar of the early Renaissance period and saying it is completely relevant to modern English. It doesn’t recognize where the language has changed. But that’s what BeDuhn does. On top of that, the examples he does give from Smyth’s grammar are not cited with any historical references. Are they just Smyth’s own examples, or are these from actual non-NT Greek manuscripts? We don’t know, because BeDuhn doesn’t supply them! So the very thing that BeDuhn says is faulty with Sharp’s Rule “NT-only” references, he himself doesn’t correct.Other reviewers who have given the book three stars or less have commented on John 1:1, and their analysis I agree with, so there’s no need for me to add to it.This book is insightful on the process of translation, and on actual biases found in modern English translations. But he is not careful nor astute enough in understanding New Testament Greek rules and makes some big mistakes. He is also naive in asserting that he is less biased because he is not religious. Coupled with his own assertion of competence, and it makes him sound arrogant. Finally, he is not even-handed in his labeling of bias against translations, and unfairly (and incorrectly in my viewpoint) elevates the New World Translation as the best of the translations reviewed. Many respected and competent Greek scholars would severely disagree with him, as do I.

August 26,2010I re-read this book for the fifth or so time and now give it five stars rather than four. This book is unbiased. Here are some of my notes:p. 32, NIV translators freely admit it is a "theological" translation.p. 53, NIV & TEV use the word "nature" instead of "Form" Phil. 2:6.p. 61, "harpagmos" literally a "seizure" NWTp. 82, TEV & NIV introduce wrong ideas at Col. 1:15-20, Bratcher & Nida have circular reasoning.p. 83, Bratcher deliberately altered the meaning in TEV.p. 85, TEV & NAB use the word "other" at Luke 21:29; TEV & NIV at Luke 11:42.......(Places where I found "other" in NIV but not in the Greek: Acts 5:29;Luke 11:42;13:2,4;1 Cor. 6:18p. 91, The TEV,LB,NW add a second "of at 2 Thess.1:12. NRSV,NASB.NAB,AB,LB have some explaining to do. If the distinctness of Jesus in 2 Thess. 1:12 is certain then why not Titus 2:13?p. 92, 2 Pet. 1:1,2 Sharp's "rule" shows it to be a fictionp. 107, "I am" verses John 4:26;6:20;8:24,28;13:19;18:5,6,18.p. 108, Interpretive sleight of hand separating "I am" to stand alone in LXX Nothing in the original Greek to suggest Jesus is quoting from OT (Ex. 3:14). If "I am" were a separate quote, there would be no subject or main verb to go with "before Abraham cane to be".p. 110, TEV & NAB's inconsistency in interpretation exposes what they were up to. Jesus never says "I AM 'I AM'" (See also John 9:9)p. 134, footnote to p.117, be verb sentences both subject and predicate nouns have definite article at John 1:4;6:63,51;15:1.p. 117, John could afford making subject and predicate nouns formally identical because context differentiates.p. 118, Colwell does not know why the article is dropped when a definite predicate noun is written before the verb.p. 118, Predicate nouns that do not drop the article when they are placed before the verb,do not obey "Colwell's rule", John 6:51;15:1;20:15;217,12p. 118,119, Colwell himself found 15 exceptions ftn6 see page 134, Luke 4:41;John 1:21;6:51;15:1;Rom.4:13;1Cor. 9:1,2;11:3,25;2Cor.1:12;3:2,17;Rev. 19:8;20:14.p. 119, No explanation for exceptions to "Colwell's rule". His predetermination of definiteness made his whole study circular from the start.p. 121, Harner successfully makes the case that predicate nouns without the article placed before the verb tend to have a qualitative function, but not always.p. 134, footnote 7, no John 9:16; 1 Cor,8:4 / yes Mark 9:35;Luke 20:33; John 4:18;18:13;Acts 10:36;2 Thess.2:4. these are examples of no before the verb and yes after the verb.p. 121, Harner detected an important use of anarthous predicate nominatives, but not one that in any way depends upon the position of the noun relative to the verb.p. 121, John 4:19, a prophet;8:48,a Samaratan;9:24, a sinner;12:6 a thief; p. 122 9:28 a disciplep. 122, cannot be definite in John 1:14;2:9;3:4,6(twice) 4:9;6:63(twice);7:12;8:31;844(twice);8:48;9:8,24-31(5 times); 10:1,8,33,34(twice) 21:6,36;18:26,35.p. 122, John 6:60 (John 6:20 is a misprint) similar sentence structure as John 1:1.p. 123, John 4:24 spirit indefinite. To be verb implied in Greekp. 126, Luke 20: 28 Jehovah "a god" no article in Greek. also Mark 12:27p. 126,127 also no article in 2 Cor.1:3;Rev.21:7;Phil.2:13;2Thess 2:4Regarding the Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures look at two scriptures that show that it was used freely in the first century.Let's use the same method Jason BeDuhn uses: (I don't have Greek letters on my keyboard so I'll transliterate.John17:6 Efanerosa sou to onoma tois anthropois Int. English: I manifested of you the name to the men. (onoma Gr. name Eng.) NW "I have made your name manifest to the men KJ "I have manifested thy name unto the men NASB "I manifested Thy name to the men TEV "I have made you known to the men" NRSV I have made your name known to those NAB "I revealed your name to those NIV "I have revealed you to those" (footnote Gr. your name; also in verse 26 AB "I have manifested Your Name[I have revealed Your very Self, Your real Self to the people LB ""I have told these men all about you"Heb. 13:15b karpon kheileon omologounton to onomati Int. English: fruit of lips confessing to the name. (onomati Gr. name Eng.) NW "the fruit of lips which make public declaration to his name. KJ "the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name. NASB "the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name. TEV "let us always give thanks to his name with our voices. NRSV "the fruit of lips that confess his name NAB "the fruit of lips that confess his name". NIV "the fruit of lips that confess his name. AB "fruit of lips that thankfully acknowledge and confess and glorify His name. LB "telling others to the glory of his name.After giving this book 5 stars in my review, I would like to address one flaw in the book.Jason BeDuhn dosen't address the fact that a form of Jehovah, namely "Jah" appears four times in Revelation 19:1,3,4,6. There is your evidence.The Greek word "alleluia" means "praise Jah". let's look at our translations: NW They said: Praise Jah, YOU people! KJ saying, Alleluia; NASB saying, Hallelujah! TEV saying, "Praise God! NRSV saying, "Hallelujah! NAB saying: "Alleluia! NIV shouting: "Hallelujah! AB exclaiming, Hallelujah (praise the Lord)! LB "Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!This is from "Insight on the Scriptures" Vol. 2 Published by Jehovah's Witnessespage 352Originally Written in HebrewExternal evidence to the effect that Matthew originally wrote this Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E.Eusebius quoted Papias as stating: "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxix, 16) Early in the third centuty, Origen made reference to Matthew's account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the "first was written...according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ,...in the Hebrew language." (The Ecclesiastical History, VI,xxv,3-6) The scholar Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) wrote in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men) chapter III, that Matthew "composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed...Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilius so diligently collected." - Translation from the Latin text edited by E.C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig' 1896Vol 14, pp. 8,9.I know we are discussing Jehovah in the Christian Greek Scriptures, but the following information is interesting.Also, regarding the use of YHWH in the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament, here is an article from the Watchtower July 15, 1979, page 27:Hiding The TruthWhy did the recently published "New International Version" (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7000 times in ancientBible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV's committee wrote:"Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollarsinto this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, 'Yahweh is my shepherd.' Immediately,we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise andpractical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it - that is how many have bought itto date - and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh... It was a hard decision, and manyof our translators agree with you."(The King James does render the Name Jehovah four times Exodus.6:3;Psalm 83:18;Isaiah 12:2;26:4)

In "Truth In Translation" Jason BeDuhn strips the original Biblical language down to its bare bones and shows the reader what the Greek is literally saying, as he analyzes some commonly mistranslated words and phrases in 9 of the most widely-used English Translations of the N.T. available today.One truly amazing thing about this book is that it seems to go down a path that no Biblical scholar has gone. Regardless of the final conclusion of his book (which will surprise many), just the whole idea of comparing translations using specific verses to see which is most biased is really unique in Biblical exegesis.Although Dr. BeDuhn does not reveal his own religious leanings, choosing to remain as unbiased and neutral as possible, he strongly hints that the Trinity doctrine is not Biblical and that it has only found its way into Christianity due to biased English translations of the New Testament. As the author shows through careful consideration of the evidence, his suggestions about the Trinity, (and by extension, his book's conclusions) are correct.But the true message of the book is not the wrongness of the Trinity doctrine, but the honesty of the translators. It just so happens that the Trinity doctrine is probably the best way to show how biased the translators of English New Testaments have been throughout the years.Hopefully in the future BeDuhn will update the book to correct some of the typographical errors, which I found surprising due to his usual meticulous attention to detail when it comes to the Greek language. But those errors do little if any harm to his down-to-earth prose and honest evaluation of many commonly misapplied and misunderstood verses in the New Testament.Congratulations to the author of this very important and ground-breaking book, a book that should assist many to open their minds and ask themselves the question that BeDuhn himself, through this very well-researched and honest material, is asking: Can my Bible translation be trusted?

This is a most useful book for anyone interested in issues of New Testament translation.The writing, though scholarly, is accessible to the non-Greek-scholar reader. Professor BeDuhn's explanations are very clear and make for an illuminating read. Even if the reader is not interested in extensive comparison of moderns English translations, there are many interesting points and insights which will add to enjoyment and understanding in reading the New Testament.Although the book is really about specific issues of translation, and bias, it might have been nice to include a short chapter giving a brief overview and opinion of the general English style of each translation. The New English Bible, long quite popular in the UK, is sadly not included, since this book is by a scholar in the USA.The book does not aim to be a comprehensive examination or evaluation of each of the translations chosen. Rather, specific passages are chosen for comparison, and the passages slected are ones which might more readily demonstrate bias on the part of translators. BeDuhn's explanations of the language of the passages, and of the context of the writing, are fascinating.

I found "Truth in Translation" by Jason BeDuhn an excellant book for understanding how and why bias is found in the various translations considered. I was amazed (although not surprised) at the extent some translators went to adjust the meaning of verses to comply with their preconceived ideas. The main bias, in the verses analysed, concerned the idea of the divinity of Christ (the trinity). It seemed to me that the vast majority of the translators obviously believed the trinity; their translations reflected this concept, sometimes so strongly that the verses they supposedly translated were more like interpretations! I think that this book would be an enlightening read for everybody, and certainly those who had not yet made up their mind about the relationship between God and Christ. It does tend to be a little technical at times but most people would enjoy the read.Incidentally, the author came to a rather startling conclusion on which was the best of the translations considered - the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures!John Student.

Clearly written book with full, easy to understand reasoning on 9 key controversial verses (controversial regarding support or not for the Trinity doctrine). I made a chart of the 9 verses and 9 translations, awarding 1 point for his agreement with the New World translation (used by Jehovah's witnesses) and a half point if he thought the translation not his favourite, but justifiable. Zero points if the translation was just plain wrong and biased. Amazingly, the translation you would imagine to be most biased (the New World) turned out to be the least biased in the key texts by a very clear margin!The writer is a scholar of repute in the Greek language and culture of the time the Greek scriptures were written. Eminently readable, and recommended for anyone serious about seeing what was really meant in the verses concerned.

It's an academic subject but well enough written so that a layperson can understand it.It appears to be a plain unbiased statement of the author's position on these various Biblical texts.With any subject other than Biblical doctrines I'm fairly sure it would be accepted as the definitive result of academic research.As it is however it appears to have opened a Pandora's box of critique and dispute, which sadly always seems to be the norm within Theology. or perhaps more accurately within Christology.For me, I will use it in harmony with its title and will accept it as unbiased until someone without a public doctrinal position is able to show it to be wrong!Thank you Prof. Behhn for having the courageous to publish it knowing I'm sure that it would cause you much adverse publicity.