G
- Status
G
garysibio
Guest
The NAB, which is a Catholic translation, is so bad that the Vatican prohibited use of its version of the Psalms, translates Is 7:14 as “virgin.” Kinda blows your logic.
Gary
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
How do you figure?
Context.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Any translation is an interpretation. From their own blog the ESV admittedly has a conservative evangelical slant and is prized along with the Reform bible. That should tell you how the study Bible will be.If you want to read to compare- fine but I would NOT use it as a study tool for Catholics. I use my RSVCE and am happy with it- it’s the one I’ve recommended to my students-plus commentaries which I use constantly- most are Catholic Commentaries but there are some very good non-Catholic commentaries- you just gotta know your stuff. Folks starting out new in Bible study should stick to the most orthodox commentaries you can.-It’s just common sense. There is nothing evil about the other translations - they just come from different points of view.MT says "almah"young woman. LXX says "parthenos’ virgin.
G
garysibio
Guest
You have to remember that the RSV is also a Protestant translation for the most part. Catholic biblical scholars made some changes. Perhaps they will do the same with the ESV if and when a Catholic version appears. It really comes down to what do they mean by “Catholic version.” Are they just going to add the deuterocanonical books to the existing version or are they going to get an imprimatur and nihil obstat.
I don’t know if the current version of the ESV contains footnotes. If they do then those would have to be examined as well.
Gary
B
bengal_fan
Guest
wow, so Jesus and his apostles quoted from a “book of lies”. interesting.
and whoever brought up the “maiden” point… you are correct, maiden is actually the preferred translation by the jewish scholars i have read.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Riiiiiiiiight.
T
TheOneTrueFred
Guest
Not to endorse the sentiment of the guy that originally made the statment, but Jesus and his apostles didn’t quote from the Hebrew all that often
Yep. That’s right, sarcasm notwithstanding.Riiiiiiiiight.
If you read the entire chapter 7 of Isaiah, one can see that it’s not a prophecy of Jesus in its immediate context. It is merely an oracle of the birth of a child named Immanuel whose birth will set the timeframe within which Israel and Syria will fall.
There is nothing in the context that refers to or even requires a miraculous birth.
Jesus and company most likely read from the Hebrew in synagogue during their synagogue liturgy, since Hebrew was the liturgical language of the time.
But the New Testament writers quoted from the LXX most of the time.
T
TheOneTrueFred
Guest
I agree about the language, I was being a bit imprecise. I believe that using the LXX was a conscious choice on the part of the New Testament writers. These were Jews that learned the scriptures straight from Christ and the apostles. My understanding is that several of the Septuagint variants have now been found in the Hebrew and Aramaic. It’s also my understanding that in many cases the Septuagint variants are the result of the Hebrew being interpreted as if it had different vowels than the Massoretic. To me, this suggests that the Hebrew texts underlying the Septuagint are closer to the readings used by the first Christians.
But back to the topic at hand, does anyone have more on these ESV deuterocanonicals? I googled and didn’t find any hard info.
There aren’t any and not likely to be. The ESV is a loudly Evangelical translation, not ecumenical like the RSV and NRSV. But besides, with that gross mistranslation in 1 Tim 3:15 of the Church being “a” pillar and foundation of truth, I’d take the RSV’s foibles any day.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I do not believe that when Isaiah originally penned 7:14 that he didn’t say 'young woman" I believe he said “Virgin”.
When I said “Jewish book of lies” I was referring to the Masoretic text–why anyone would believe a text that recent and so many years after the original Hebrew was penned escapes me.
Why any Catholic would read the RSV which errs Doctrinally in respect to absolution also escapes me.
“Give us this day our Supersubstantial bread”.
If you believe that Jesus said that and if you believe that the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith and morals–if you believe the Ecumenical council of Trent as led by the Holy Spirit–why read Protestant books of lies such as the RSV?
And if you don’t believe me–if you don’t groove on the Vulgate then trust the Nova Vulgata–the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.
If you don’t think it carries any weight and you think that Protestant scholarship does are you really Catholic?
When I said “Jewish book of lies” I was referring to the Masoretic text–why anyone would believe a text that recent and so many years after the original Hebrew was penned escapes me.
Why any Catholic would read the RSV which errs Doctrinally in respect to absolution also escapes me.
“Give us this day our Supersubstantial bread”.
If you believe that Jesus said that and if you believe that the Vulgate does not err on matters of faith and morals–if you believe the Ecumenical council of Trent as led by the Holy Spirit–why read Protestant books of lies such as the RSV?
And if you don’t believe me–if you don’t groove on the Vulgate then trust the Nova Vulgata–the juridicial text of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church.
If you don’t think it carries any weight and you think that Protestant scholarship does are you really Catholic?
G
garysibio
Guest
If there are any Hebrew scholars among us, the text of Isaiah 7:14 from the Dead Sea Scrolls is pictured at this page:
ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm
Not being able to read Hebrew I couldn’t tell you which word is used but the English translation provided uses ‘virgin.’ I don’t know if this is due to the Hebrew text using a different word than ‘almah’ or it was prejudice on the part of the translator.
BTW, I don’t hink that anyone has mentioned it yet but the revised edition of the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE with some changes) uses ‘virgin’ here.
Gary
ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-6.htm
Not being able to read Hebrew I couldn’t tell you which word is used but the English translation provided uses ‘virgin.’ I don’t know if this is due to the Hebrew text using a different word than ‘almah’ or it was prejudice on the part of the translator.
BTW, I don’t hink that anyone has mentioned it yet but the revised edition of the Ignatius Bible (RSV-CE with some changes) uses ‘virgin’ here.
Gary
The DSS, which predates the Masoretic also has ha’almah, i.e. “the maiden”. So the charge that the Masoretes messed with this verse is a false one.
I’m not saying “young woman” is the preferred translation. I’m simply saying that it’s not a wrong one. And only if Isaiah is translated from the Hebrew.
As for the Matthew 1:23 rendering only “virgin” is the acceptable translation because this quote is lifted from the LXX, which has the explicit “parthenos”, i.e. virgin in the Isaiah 7:14 passage.
Here, listen everybody! Mr. Jet here would have you stop reading the English Catechism of the Catholic Church because it uses the evil, satanic RSV and NRSV in its Scripture quotations. So burn all your CCC’s, Vatican documents, and papal encyclicals and use the Latin only, since if you use the English, you’re not really Catholic.
Also throw out all your English translations of Pope Benedict’s books because they too use the evil RSV as well. You must learn only the original German for that.
J
Jaypeeto4
Guest
I believe that Isaiah was prophesying a virgin birth.
Genesis 3:15 certainly was, and Isaiah hauntingly hearkens back to that.
Interestingly, if prophecies such as Isaiah’s concerning the Almah and her baby can only have a literal fulfillment, then this prophecy was false as far as I know, because there was never a child born to a young woman who was named IMMANUEL in Isaiah’s day and age.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Genesis 3:15 certainly was, and Isaiah hauntingly hearkens back to that.
Interestingly, if prophecies such as Isaiah’s concerning the Almah and her baby can only have a literal fulfillment, then this prophecy was false as far as I know, because there was never a child born to a young woman who was named IMMANUEL in Isaiah’s day and age.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Although there was no mention of Immanuel’s birth after the oracle, nevertheless, it must be assumed that it was true because God clearly intended the birth to be mark the deliverance of Judah from Israel and Syria, clearly indicated in verse 16. In the next chapter (8:8), Immanuel is addressed directly as the recipient of oracle.
The proof, of course, of the truth of the prophecy was that within a generation, during the reign of Ahaz’s son Hezekiah, both Israel and Syria fell to the Assyrian Empire. So there is nothing in the text that requires a virgin birth because in its immediate fulfillment, it’s all a sign of the times of Isaiah, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.
All that is as far as the Hebrew text is concerned.
Now what would make for interesting discussion is WHY did the LXX translators move from a mere “maiden” to “virgin”?
The truth of the matter is, prophecy can have an immediate fulfillment and an ultimate fulfillment. Matthew clearly knew this when he saw in the LXX rendition of Isaiah 7:14 the full accomplishment of the name Emmanuel (Gk; Heb. Immanuel) in the presence of the divine Person of Jesus born of a virgin, as prophesied in the LXX.
G
garysibio
Guest
I agree with you about the translation based on what I know about the Hebrew. I was curious about the DSS version for exactly the reason you mention. Since it is much older than the Masoretic text, if it used ‘almah,’ then you couldn’t imply that it was changed later.
What I find funny about the use of ‘virgin’ in this passage to judge the quality of a translation is that the Revised NAB uses ‘virgin’ and it is such a horrible translation that the Vatican banned the use of its version of the Psalms.
Gary
- Status