7 Comments


  1. The notes I’ve read so far also seem to be fairly neutral as well. I sometimes find myself wondering what other notes were left out.

    Reply

      1. It seems like there is/was a larger note that got edited out. Sometimes the thoughts don’t seem like they are finished or just too brief. Maybe I am used to the notes in the ESV SB which are a lot longer in comparison.

        I mostly got the NOAB for the articles, and as a NRSV companion for the NETS. The notes have been okay, and I reference them before I teach a lesson, but I wouldn’t buy the NOAB for the notes alone.

        Reply

  2. I do not fi d ig academically dishonest to point to ‘us’ as a reference to the Trinity. Given that the words of a man are seperate unto themselves in some older hebrew texts and given that creation was spoken into existance then you have the Creator, the life of the Creator (breath) and the force of the creation all shown before. It is a very protohebrew idea. I would see it much more likely that the kingly habit of refferring to oneself in the plural derived from this rather than the inverse. Remember which happened first.

    Reply

    1. But, we do know that the OT speaks rather to a heavenly court to the later developed idea of a Trinity (and even that is still understood differently by different groups). Note Job and Psalms where God speaks to the sons of God and other gods. Or Revelation.

      Reply
  3. doug

    interestingly, the first and second editions of the NOAB have these same notes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!