Are you Jewish or Catholic?
Why does it matter to you what they think?
They were and are wrong about Christ. Why would it surprise any of us that they would be wrong about Matthew?
- Status
Why does it matter to you what they think?
They were and are wrong about Christ. Why would it surprise any of us that they would be wrong about Matthew?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Context.Yes of course, but we cherish our Jewish roots and much of the Gospel stands on the Jewish prophecies. :tiphat:
The Catholic Bible translates “parthenos” as “young woman” in Gen 34:4.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/34
Given this, I go back to “how can we know Matthew specifically intended ‘virigin’?”
W
Wesrock
Guest
There were actually groups running around preaching that Jesus was just a spiritual being and that he wasn’t really a man. Paul’s intent here was to emphasize that Jesus existed in the flesh and was born as all men are, through woman. That he is a fleshly, bodily being, and that he is truly man. It’s also the same word used for Eve in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, from whom all men are descended.
Kind of on the subject of detail given by Paul, celebrating the Lord’s Supper each Sunday is attested to by Paul and early Christians as being absolutely essential to Christian gathering and worship, but Paul really only makes reference to it when addressing specific issues and disputes in Corinth. Lack of words on the subject does not mean it wasn’t essential.
C
Coder
Guest
Okey-dokey - but there may be to a trend in Christian Bibles to translate to the more general “young woman” (which does not exclude the possibility of virginity but again the Hebrew word for virgin specifically is “betulah”).
D
DaveBj
Guest
For the record, the Hebrew here is yaldah, “girl”. It might be an interesting project to track that word thru the OT and see how many times it referred to a virgin, and how many times to a non-virgin, but not tonight. With reference to Dinah, on one hand this is after the rape, but on the other hand, it is reported speech, quoting Hamor.Yes of course, but we cherish our Jewish roots and much of the Gospel stands on the Jewish prophecies. :tiphat:
The Catholic Bible translates “parthenos” as “young woman” in Gen 34:4.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/34
Given this, I go back to “how can we know Matthew specifically intended ‘virigin’?”
C
Coder
Guest
Christian faith has its own revelations about Hebrew Scriptures. In the case of the word “almah” in Matthew, it’s seems not a typical Christian revelation of the New Testament because in this case the word “virgin” goes beyond a revelation but actually appears to somewhat disagree with the original Hebrew Scriptural text in that the Hebrew word for the intention of meaning specifically “virgin” is “betulah”.
For example, Christians have a belief that other prophecies in Isaiah apply to Jesus. That’s a matter of faith and no one can argue that - but I’m not aware of cases like this where the translation itself has a meaning that is different from the original Hebrew (i.e. if Matthew is quoting Isaiah and God intended specifically “virgin” in the original then wouldn’t one expect to see “betulah” in the Hebrew?
).Really, I think it may just be an English translation issue. As I mentioned, there seems to be a trend in Christian Bibles to translate this in Matthew as “young woman”. Perhaps Catholic Bibles sometime?
C
Coder
Guest
But still “parthenos” in Greek, right?
Interesting Article:
lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2007-July/032841.html
D
DaveBj
Guest
Actually, no – pais = “child”. Neither in Hebrew, nor in Greek, nor in Latin, nor in any of the major English translations (I didn’t check all the 20-odd versions that I have) is the subject of virginity mentioned in this verse.
BTW, I erred when I said that the reported speech was Hamor’s; it was actually the speech of his son, Shechem. Mea culpa.
Edit: Another version of the LXX that I have uses paidiske, but the meaning is basically the same. Still no reference to virginity.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The Hebrew word used in the Hebrew version of Isaiah is irrelevant to translating Matthew. The translation should be based on the language of the Gospel of Matthew: koine.
C
Coder
Guest
I can see we’re not going to solve it here.
Theologians are expounding on it. 
EWTN Article
"Isaiah himself, did not see the full import." ?? This is new waters for me.
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT
D
DaveBj
Guest
But not new to an understanding of the NT:I can see we’re not going to solve it here.
EWTN Article
"Isaiah himself, did not see the full import." ?? This is new waters for me.
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203.TXT
There are other citations in Hebrews and the Petrine Epistles indicating that the OT prophets did not understand the totality of what they were prophesying.
C
Coder
Guest
Cool. Like “faint outline” and I think St. Paull said he considered his former religion so much rubbish or something (although if that’s that case, why quote it at all - but let’s not start a whole thing on that
).
D
DaveBj
Guest
We quote it because the apostles received a full revelation of what the OT prophets knew only in part.Cool. Like “faint outline” and I think St. Paull said he considered his former religion so much rubbish or something (although if that’s that case, why quote it at all - but let’s not start a whole thing on that
C
Coder
Guest
Makes sense, it’s a matter of belief. (Outside of Christian faith one could debate that’s a proposition used to support a new belief system.)
I’ve definitely gained insight from this thread. Thanks to you and all.
D
DaveBj
Guest
Makes sense, it’s a matter of belief. (Outside of Christian faith one could debate that’s a proposition used to support a new belief system.)
I’ve definitely gained insight from this thread. Thanks to you and all.
J
japhy
Guest
catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=145
Fr. William Most wrote an article/essay about the matter. I won’t c/p it here, but it’s not too long of a read.
Fr. William Most wrote an article/essay about the matter. I won’t c/p it here, but it’s not too long of a read.
C
Coder
Guest
Very interesting article. Thank you.
Catholic scholars say one thing, other scholars (e.g. Jewish) have a different opinion. (Someone asked why I refer to Jewish scholars. Simply because I think they may know a thing or two about their own Scriptures.)
What I am realizing is that ultimately it’s all a matter faith combined with using reason to discern. What I also realize is that there are ultimately no proof texts for anything. For example, even belief that the OT and/or NT are inspired of God is a matter of religious faith that only God can lead one to. This also applies to who has authority e.g. to interpret scripture. Ultimately it’s all a matter of religious belief. Certainly God can provide assurance of truth and it must be only God that can lead others whether to believe books or a certain church has authority. Jesus taught that only God can lead people to him and only God can lead someone to believe if some humans have authority from Him and/or they are trustworthy to listen to. “Call no man your Rabbi”.
Thanks for all the answers on this thread.
Catholic scholars say one thing, other scholars (e.g. Jewish) have a different opinion. (Someone asked why I refer to Jewish scholars. Simply because I think they may know a thing or two about their own Scriptures.
)What I am realizing is that ultimately it’s all a matter faith combined with using reason to discern. What I also realize is that there are ultimately no proof texts for anything. For example, even belief that the OT and/or NT are inspired of God is a matter of religious faith that only God can lead one to. This also applies to who has authority e.g. to interpret scripture. Ultimately it’s all a matter of religious belief. Certainly God can provide assurance of truth and it must be only God that can lead others whether to believe books or a certain church has authority. Jesus taught that only God can lead people to him and only God can lead someone to believe if some humans have authority from Him and/or they are trustworthy to listen to. “Call no man your Rabbi”.
Thanks for all the answers on this thread.
Then there should be no issues with the LXX. It was translated by Jews too.Very interesting article. Thank you.
Catholic scholars say one thing, other scholars (e.g. Jewish) have a different opinion. (Someone asked why I refer to Jewish scholars. Simply because I think they may know a thing or two about their own Scriptures.
C
Coder
Guest
Yes, that’s fine. Still many have a different opinion today. Maybe their theology has “developed” as we say about Catholic theology. For example, Tertullian was a Montanist which was eventually declared a heresy. Catholics today reference Tertullian all the time to support certain beliefs. Theology develops and many Jewish scholars today simply interpret Isaiah 7:14 differently than Catholics.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Tertullian was not always a heretic.
Just back to interpreting Matthew, honest scholarship should interpret what he wrote. If his exegesis was based off of a mistranslation, then it’s important to capture what he thought it meant. If a Jew was doing the translation, they should still use virgin in Matthew (though not Isaiah, unless you were specifically interpreting the LXX), and then add a generous footnote stating that Matthew was quoting the inaccurate Greek translation of Isaiah, and then confirm what the original meant. But if you’re doing a translation of Matthew it has to be a translation of the actual Greek manuscripts of his gospels, not “correcting” what you may see as inaccurate translations of quotes he used. Again, note that you believe there is a translation error however you want, but you have to actually translate Matthew’s words when doing a translation of Matthew, or risk undermining what Matthew intended, scripture or not.
Just back to interpreting Matthew, honest scholarship should interpret what he wrote. If his exegesis was based off of a mistranslation, then it’s important to capture what he thought it meant. If a Jew was doing the translation, they should still use virgin in Matthew (though not Isaiah, unless you were specifically interpreting the LXX), and then add a generous footnote stating that Matthew was quoting the inaccurate Greek translation of Isaiah, and then confirm what the original meant. But if you’re doing a translation of Matthew it has to be a translation of the actual Greek manuscripts of his gospels, not “correcting” what you may see as inaccurate translations of quotes he used. Again, note that you believe there is a translation error however you want, but you have to actually translate Matthew’s words when doing a translation of Matthew, or risk undermining what Matthew intended, scripture or not.
- Status