I may be mistaken, but I think the NET takes the view that a (somewhat) dynamic translation is suitable for the text and a more formal translation may be found in the marginal notes. Supposedly, that gives one the best of both worlds. I think Dr. Harris is extending that idea to say if you really want something literal, just use what amounts to an interlinear in digital form.

I regret to say that I do not agree, or at least not fully. It gets a bit tiresome explaining to the motivated layman why the text he (or she) is reading in his dynamic translation is not quite what the biblical text says. Some words are left out; others are added; referents are supplied "for clarity." One may wonder how the early Christians got along without all this clarity.

Textual; criticism has made wonderful strides in approaching a Greek text with high confidence. The Reformation helped us get the priest out of the position of telling us the one true interpretation for each passage. So, why would we now want to let the translated text get fuzzy again in the hands of a dynamic equivalent translator who so frequently interposes his interpretive judgments? Seems to me we are giving up the very gains we have fought for!

Bruce Waltke used to say (in the '70s) that God didn't put all the cookies on the lower shelf. Dynamic translations try to move all the cookies within reach, but I'm not sure they are the same cookies we started with. Readability can never replace accuracy as a matter of first importance.

With respect,
Barry