Isaiah 7:14 - Why, I believe, the NABRE got it wrong

[Salvatore123]

I am NOT getting into the current “debate” on what certain members believe or don’t believe, mean or don’t mean, intend or don’t intend. I do, however, offer the following, which is an excerpt from an infallible decree by the Council of Trent. I find its admonition as far as the canon (which precedes the part I cite below) and the actual translation, pretty clear (at least to me):

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

As for the Nova Vulgata - the alleged “revision” of St. Jerome’s original Latin Vulgate (which all biblical scholars acknowledge is impossible, as no known copy of Jerome’s Vulgate - as Jerome wrote it - exists for someone to revise, let alone read or study) - see the following link: cba.cua.edu/clifnv.cfm

Although the linked article is not a definitive teaching by any stretch, the author’s presentation is, in my opinion, very well reasoned. Quite frankly, I agree with what he says.

And as I have pointed out in other threads (perhaps this one too, quite a ways back), I have always found it both interesting and a bit “saddening” to see that JPII relied on the RSV and NRSV whenever scripture is cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Benedict XVI relied on the RSV in his “Jesus of Nazareth” biography(ies). Yet we, in America, are relegated to using ONLY the NAB (and I assume, the newly published NABRE - although I have not yet seen an official statement as to what status will be accorded to the NABRE) for official liturgical use.

I do NOT believe that JPII and Benedict XVI chose the RSV (the one translation they had in common between them on such important works - the CCD and the first papal biography of our Lord) simply because that was the closest bible at hand.

 

[pnewton]

Yet we, in America, are relegated to using ONLY the NAB (and I assume, the newly published NABRE - although I have not yet seen an official statement as to what status will be accorded to the NABRE) for official liturgical use.
.

I have to agree with you on that. I would even go so far as to say I would love to see the Douay-Rheims used in liturgy. Personally, my favorite English version for study still is my NASB, which most her have not heard of as it has fallen out of disuse and is no good for the deuterocanicals. It’s language is stilted, but reflects very well the tenses of Greek in the manner I was taught.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

With your obvious knowledge of this thread’s topic (and if you don’t want to comment for any personal/professional reasons, I understand) would you mind taking a “stab” at WHY the Vatican seems to treat America different than the rest of the world?

When I say “different”, I mean that it appears that the Vatican seems to give far more leeway and much less “warning” to those bishops in our country who not only sometimes ignore Vatican directives, but who I SEE let priests in their dioceses violate the GIRM with absolutely no repercussion?

Many claim that it is because we have a very low supply of seminarians and thus Rome is reluctant to do anything that might thin the ranks even further. My own observation has been that whenever a “crackdown” occurs and a more “conservative” angle is instituted, church attendance and seminary recruitment actually goes up. I know that based on statistics I have seen (it has been a few years, but not more than 5), the parishes/dioceses in the US that are considered “traditional/conservative” also produce the most seminarians per capita of registered Catholics, and that attendance at Catholic Mass on Sundays is higher.

From an American perspective, I think the fact that the overwhelming majority of bishops were raised in a country where our liberties are quite a bit more extended to its citizens than other countries, makes our bishops a bit more “reluctant” to listen someone from another part of the world - regardless of whether he is the pope - tell them how to “run their ship”.

I think, quite frankly, that Americans just don’t like to be told what to do by anyone who is not American. Look at the hill JFK had to climb (I think JFK’s people made TOO MUCH out of the fact that he was Catholic) because of his Catholicism and his statement that he was (and I am paraphrasing) and American who happened to be Catholic and that he did not take orders from the Vatican.

I think the Psalms revision fiasco between America and Rome is a perfect example of how our bishops tend to handle matters when it comes to - again - “taking orders”. One revision: okay - understandable - we made a mistake. Two revisions: well, let’s take this more serious and realize we can’t do this exactly how we want it done. Three revisions: now ROME is pretty much saying, “guys, you get it right or we do it”. Fourth revision: Rome to US: “you had your chances - now we do it”.

I do appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut in the thread and I look forward to your perspective.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I wish Rome would skip to #4 and just do it–they would do a much better job of it.

The Holy See isn’t on an inclusive language campaign.

 

[ProVobis]

If “Behold a young woman shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel” is correct, of what theological value is it? Anyone can name his kid Emmanuel. Birth without intercourse.is central to Catholic theology. Protestants can believe whatever suits them.

 

[Mickey]

I changed my opinion of what might be most prudent, not what I prefer or think is most accurate.

That’s a start!

 

[pnewton]

would you mind taking a “stab” at WHY the Vatican seems to treat America different than the rest of the world?

When I say “different”, I mean that it appears that the Vatican seems to give far more leeway and much less “warning” to those bishops in our country who not only sometimes ignore Vatican directives, but who I SEE let priests in their dioceses violate the GIRM with absolutely no repercussion?

First, let me clarify that my education was at a Baptist university and seminary, not Catholic, but I did have a passion for languages. As to the rest of the world, I have no idea as to how the Vatican treats them. Here in the US of A, it is frustrating to anyone, priest or lay translators, who do not follow that which the Holy See directs. I agree with you there.

The Church has always held to the principle of subsidiarity when it comes to all countries, not just here. I don’t know about you, but I have seen a change in the last decade. The appointments made seem to indicate a preference in promotion for those who are faithful to the Church. We has some very good bishops that have been placed in many diocese. Perhaps even in the America we will see a diminishing of those who do not wish to follow that which the Holy Father says in favor of greater orthodoxy and obedience. I do not doubt that you strike at the core of the problem. The idea of authority, especially foreign authority can run counter to how we Americans think. We need to learn how to think like sheep again.

 

[pnewton]

If “Behold a young woman shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel” is correct, of what theological value is it?

I can answer that. For Isaiah and Ahaz, it means that God gave a promise that by the time a maiden could conceive, have a child and see it grow to full stature, that they would see the deliverance of Judah. The sign was a promise and a timetable. The message, hang in there.

Yet because Isaiah was a prophet who was writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit, this would also serve as a sign of deliverance of all of Israel under the coming Messiah. Did Isaiah know this? I really have no idea or opinion on that, but surely during and after the captivity this passage became recognized as having a Messianic fulfillment also. The real theological significance of this only becomes obvious in Matthew when we see this passage directly connected to Jesus, in which Matthew clarifies as being a women who had no relations .

 

[pnewton]

That’s a start!

Let me also add that I never knew prior to this thread that this verse was a source of controversy in the past. That is one little tidbit of Church history I had not learned since becoming Catholic. I read a little bit more on the Justin Martyr quote. It seems like he was making apologtical arguments in opposition to Jews, presenting Jesus as the Messiah. I am wondering if the Rabbis at the time were trying to tie the prophecy to Hezekiah and Justin Martyr was pointing out that prior to Jesus the prophecy in Isaiah as already recognized as Messianic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

pnewton,
Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

Matthew 1:22-23: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
…

In Greek Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 read:
Isaia 7:14 δια τουτο δωσει κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον** ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον** και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ
Matth 1:23 ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος

The Confraternity Commentary on the New Testament

“The Greek translator of the Aramaic Gospel of St. Matthew (1:23) does not follow the Septuagint exactly in his version of these words of Isaiah (7:14), *yet both independently render the Hebrew word ‘almah’ as ‘parthenos’, virgin (in the strict sense).”
*
Notice the bolded words, compare them LETTER by LETTER. They are the same. It is true that after the Prophet says, “Bohold the virgin, in [her] womb, will have and bring-forth [a] son.” That the following verb is changed in tense, but that is a trivial change, like putting emphasis on a verb by bolding it here in the forums.
The Confraternity is the same name on the NAB bible publishing it.

A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953 edition)

"The Hebrew word here translated ‘virgin’ is not the technical term, ‘betulah’, but its practical equivalent, ‘almah’, which means an unmarried maiden of marriagable age, presumed to be a virgin by the strict moral code of the Hebrews. The word NEVER designates a married woman and is sometimes rendered ‘parthenos’ by the Septuagint.
Which is odd, considering the normal word would be parthenon; as can be seen in the passage in Luke which I quoted concerning Anna. Luke has the easiest to understand Greek of the writers. Parthenon would be equivalent to almah, in the sense of an unmarried young woman. However, Isaiah in Greek uses a mismatched ending with “The” and “Virgin” – using feminine “The” and a non-standard genitive ending on “Virgin” which Matthew copies letter for letter.
The fact that this is not the normal ending of Parthenon shows that Matthew’s Greek translator did indeed copy from one of the forms of the Septuagint.

---

"All this has taken place

, says Matthew (for whom the Incarnation is an abiding thing) in such a way as to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. Over seven centuries before, the prophet had announced a Davidic King to be born of a young woman (a ‘virgin’ in the Septuagint) by divine intervention. Isaiah 7:14. His contemporary . . . has alluded to the same event."

If one accepts (and as a Catholic, one MUST accept) the belief that the Holy Spirit was the “author” of both the OT and the NT, one must also accept the obvious: that the Holy Spirit knew in advance when Isaiah 7:14 was written, that not only Matthew 1:22-23 would be written, but that the Isaiah prophecy would be fulfilled.

I think THAT is what most people forget when comparing/contrasting the OT and NT verses - the fact that the author was the same for both testaments.Yes, clearly so. The specific form of the Greek, is like a unique fingerprint. I am curious as to what version of the Greek NT the earlier commentator was using that would cause the claim that Matthew is “different” from the Septuagint text of Isaiah.
In the versions I have, the critical part and the UNUSUALLY spelled part of the text is identical.

In the NT text of Matthew, the variant spelling ( ) “The Parthenos” vs. the spelling in Luke (“τῆς παρθεν-ου”) – “Of-The Parthen-ou” – even suggests the possibility of a consecrated virgin as opposed to a young lady, virgin. The masculine/genitive ending of Parthenos clashes with the definite article “The” when it doesn’t have to.
(“η παρθεν-ος”) but In Luke, “The” and “virgin” are both genitive, agreeing.

Usually a mismatch is indicative of a close family relationship, like the (son of-xxx) (male of-female), or the wife of-xxx, "(woman of-man). Isaiah/Matthew have a female, and then of-temple/virgin(ity), the two words do not agree in type (of-xxx vs. noun) . It suggests a consecrated woman, though I wouldn’t call it a proof of this – “She of the temple/She of virginity.” in essence, married to the temple.

 

[pnewton]

In the NT text of Matthew, the variant spelling ( ) “The Parthenos” vs. the spelling in Luke (“τῆς παρθεν-ου”) – “Of-The Parthen-ou” – even suggests the possibility of a consecrated virgin as opposed to a young lady, virgin. The masculine/genitive ending of Parthenos clashes with the definite article “The” when it doesn’t have to.
(“η παρθεν-ος”) but In Luke, “The” and “virgin” are both genitive, agreeing.

Usually a mismatch is indicative of a close family relationship, like the (son of-xxx) (male of-female), or the wife of-xxx, "(woman of-man). Isaiah/Matthew have a female, and then of-temple/virgin(ity), the two words do not agree in type (of-xxx vs. noun) . It suggests a consecrated woman, though I wouldn’t call it a proof of this – “She of the temple/She of virginity.” in essence, married to the temple.

Fascinating. Thank you for your research.

 

[ProVobis]

In Greek Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23 read:
Isaia 7:14 δια τουτο δωσει κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον** ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον** και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ
Matth 1:23 ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσουσιν το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον μεθ ημων ο θεος


Notice the bolded words, compare them LETTER by LETTER. They are the same.

Excellent analysis. Best test for a workable translation is consistency throughout.

 

[Mickey]

Let me also add that I never knew prior to this thread that this verse was a source of controversy in the past. That is one little tidbit of Church history I had not learned since becoming Catholic. I read a little bit more on the Justin Martyr quote. It seems like he was making apologtical arguments in opposition to Jews, presenting Jesus as the Messiah. I am wondering if the Rabbis at the time were trying to tie the prophecy to Hezekiah and Justin Martyr was pointing out that prior to Jesus the prophecy in Isaiah as already recognized as Messianic.

I believe that the quotes from St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, and St Jerome speak for themselves and appropriately address the issue of this thread. Most posters who support the NABRE revisionists ignore their (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[HolyBeThyName]

I believe that the quotes from St Justin Martyr, St Irenaeus, and St Jerome speak for themselves and appropriately address the issue of this thread. Most posters who support the NABRE revisionists ignore their (name removed by moderator)ut.

I agree with you Mickey. If the Saints and Doctors of the Church all agree that “virgin” is the best translation, then what is the point in changing the text to say “young woman”. It appears to me that the Catholic Church had settled this matter centuries ago.

 

[Salvatore123]

Holy,

Unfortunately, what the NABRE publishers/editors say is actually true: “the matter WAS settled long ago and we are not trying to change the matter because it cannot be changed - the matter being the fact that Christ was born of a virgin”.

MY problem, however, is why they felt the need to change the WORDING NOW, in 2011, 68 years after Divino Afflante Spiritu, and then cite that encyclical as the reason for the change.

That argument/basis for change (relying on the encyclical) is pretty lame . . .

As I said previously: I think we Catholics are ENTITLED to have an approved litugical-use translation of the sacred scriptures where we can read THE SCRIPTURES to find out what was said/intended, and NOT have to resort to a footnote explanation.

And the most frustrating part for me is what I quoted earlier to pnewton: the ORIGINAL NAB had a footnote that went into great detail about what seems to be, at first blush, a “duality prophecy”, but in the end, the Holy Spirit KNEW that Isaiah’s prophecy applied to one event and only one event: the one that Matthew states in 1:23.

I so wish that one could buy a one-volume Confraternity Bible, that includes the excellent notes in the individual volumes, and for a reprint of the excellent Confraternity NT commentary (something MANY Catholics do not even know existed - I have it along with the entire Confraternity Bible set). In my humble opinion, I think the Confraternity translation does a better job than even the RSV-CE-2nd.

P.S. - and I still say that it would be nice to be able to crack open an approved Bible that has verses that match the wording spoken during the Novus Ordo. That “lectionary change” problem did not exist under the Latin Mass of 1962 or the Tridentine Mass before it. What was read in Latin at Mass was what appeared in the Sixto-Clementine Vulgata.

To me, there is just something intuitively “wrong” when the scripture readings at Mass do not match the biblical passages in the bible upon which they are based. I understand that some modifications probably needed to be made so that one could have an easier participation in the celebration of the Mass by the people.

But change the scripture readings themselves??? What in the world was up with that . . .

 

[Salvatore123]

And it DOES make apologetics work for us Catholics harder when we are asked: Why does the priest read passages from the bible from a book that does not match the verses from the bible?

One poster in another thread told his protestant wife that “we have missalettes” when she asked him why we don’t take our bibles to Mass and use them. While it is true we don’t NEED our bibles because of the presence of missalettes, the overwhelming majority of those attending the Novus Ordo Mass do not bring bibles with them because what they hear being read from the lectionary will not match what they would see in their bible. And this is STILL the case, even with the revised NAB that was just released.

Now try to figure THAT one out

 

[CEM5]

Ambrose – you apparently missed my comments several posts above in which I demonstrated that all the ancient sources agree that the legend of the 72 applied to the Pentateuch only. Greek Septuagint was translated much later, almost certainly by a single individual, and as I have demonstrated, the version we have now radically departs from Hebrew version (for example, at 8:14, adopting the exact opposite meaning of the verse). The version was so defective that the great doctor of the church, Origen, noted on its deficiencies and contrasted it with three more popular Jewish-Greek translations and prepared a corrected version.

hi Bible Reader,

You are incorrect in saying that all the ancient sources agree that the legend of the 72 applies only to the Pentateuch. The following are facts:

• The Pentateuch, meaning “five books”, also called by Jewish people, “Torah” (The Law – also called “Teaching”), is the first five books of the Old Testament Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition teaches that Moses was the author of these books, divinely inspired by God. “The Law” was first written about 1,300 BC by Moses, (would have been the 10 Commandments and certain “laws”). There would have been insufficient time for Moses to write all five books since they were busy wandering in the desert and had no access to papyrus. These stories would have been transmitted orally. In Scripture we are told that “Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord” Ex. 24:4, and in Acts 7:22 Moses was “educated in all the learning of the Egyptians”. The Torah hadn’t begun to be written until about the 6th century BC. The first part of the Bible written is ascribed to David in the Psalms, about 1,000 BC.

• The Septuagint (the Old Testament), is the Latin word for “Seventy”, or simply the LXX. After the Assyrians conquered the Northern 10 Tribes of Israel and scattered the survivors (dispersion) among the other nations, the 10 Tribes were not heard of again. They had been completely assimilated into the other cultures. The remaining 2 Tribes of Benjamin and Judah were known as the Southern kingdom of Judah (where the word “Jew” came from, thus the “Jewish people”) and they later were conquered by the Greeks, under Alexander the Great. Over time the Hebrew language became almost non-existent, and Greek became the vernacular (common language) of the Jews since it was the universal language of that period of time. It was only the High Priests and Temple Priests who knew Hebrew, and when the Old Testament was read in Hebrew, it had to be translated for the common people to understand. Under the Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy Philedelphus, were commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (Scribes) to translate into the vernacular (common spoken language of the time): Greek. This is the Greek translation that Jesus and His Apostles, as well as the Jews at that time, used and quoted from. Just as today English is the universal language. The Greek spoken of then is not the same Greek as is spoken of today, just as the English spoken today is not the same of Old English or even Middle English. Koine Greek is the original language of the Septuagint and of that era. The Septuagint is the sole and official canon of the Catholic O.T.)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

hi Bible Reader,

You are incorrect in saying that all the ancient sources agree that the legend of the 72 applies only to the Pentateuch. The following are facts:

The Septuagint dates from 300BC. But, for example, the book of Macabees records a history of less than 100BC, hence – unless these 70/72 lived ~200 years, they could not have translated all of the Septuagint. No ancient source can say the whole of the Septuagint was translated at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphos.

…, just as the English spoken today is not the same of Old English or even Middle English. Koine Greek is the original language of the Septuagint and of that era. The Septuagint is the sole and official canon of the Catholic O.T.)

Your information is more or less correct. I would caution you about this last sentence, though. Olde English, and Elizabethan English, differ much more than new testament Greek from old testament Greek. It isn’t a good comparison.
Our country is well over 200 years old now – and the documents that were written at the beginning such as the declaration of independence are still read today (typed versions are easier to read…). The remarkable unity of language was one of the founding concerns of the USA; Once the USA came into existence, we were never required to go back to Elizabethan, or Olde English.

It is inappropriate to compare languages from different Governments and periods simultaneously as an analogy about the new and old testament Greek. All biblical Greek is the same kind, Koine. It was put in place by Alexander the Great over 300 years before Christ, at the start of his empire – and Koine did not loose favor until Alexander’s empire legacy had gone into full decay — which was only beginning at the time of Christ.

Just so, the Greek of the Septuagint, within the 300 years before Christ changed very little. The Hexapla of Origin is a comparison of 6 copies of the Septuagint, and minor mistakes & additions and “polish” that writers had added over 300 years. These differences are not very significant. Understand that Origin was a perfectionist with an incredibly astute memory, and very strong opinions. Any little jot would be a difference he would study. I have never found a complete copy of the Hexapla, and what fragments I have seen show that it is mostly tedium comparing sentences that differ in trivial ways.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Over time the Hebrew language became almost non-existent, and Greek became the vernacular (common language) of the Jews since it was the universal language of that period of time. It was only the High Priests and Temple Priests who knew Hebrew, and when the Old Testament was read in Hebrew, it had to be translated for the common people to understand. Under the Pharaoh of Egypt, Ptolemy Philedelphus, were commissioned 70 Jewish scholars (Scribes) to translate into the vernacular (common spoken language of the time): Greek. This is the Greek translation that Jesus and His Apostles, as well as the Jews at that time, used and quoted from. Just as today English is the universal language. The Greek spoken of then is not the same Greek as is spoken of today, just as the English spoken today is not the same of Old English or even Middle English. Koine Greek is the original language of the Septuagint and of that era. The Septuagint is the sole and official canon of the Catholic O.T.)

I am afraid there are several errors in your account. First, during the Second Temple period (and in the subsequent exile), Aramaic was the common language in Palestine – thus the priority of the Targums as Jewish translations. (Perhaps if you saw Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, you will recall Jesus speaking Aramaic.) However, Greek was the major language of the Alexandrian Jewish community.

The word Septuagint does not appear in the New Testament; neither is there any explicit reference to any Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

It seems to be the case that the gospels we have were originally written in Greek (although there is a minority view that Matthew was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic). However, it is certainly not the case that knowledge of Hebrew was limited to the temple kohen – the Dead Sea Scrolls provide ample evidence of that.

The legend of the Septuagint is related in the work known as the Letter of Aristeas, which clearly and repeatedly states that the Septuagint was limited to the Books of Law (= the Pentateuch).

Similarly, the legend is repeated by Josephus in Paragraph 3 of the Preface to Antiquities of the Jews (“gave him only the books of the law”) and retells the legend in some detail in Book 12, Chapter 2, Paragraphs 1-4 of the same work explicitly referencing the account of Aristeas. Again, Philo repeatedly states that the Septuagint was limited to the Books of the Law (= the Pentateuch).

Even St. Jerome – often mentioned in this thread – agrees with this account. Look at the preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions (emphasis added)

It is not my purpose, as snarling ill-will pretends, to convict the LXX. of error, nor do I look upon my own labour as a disparagement of theirs. The fact is that they, since their work was undertaken for King Ptolemy of Alexandria, did not choose to bring to light all the mysteries which the sacred writings contain, and especially those which give the promise of the advent of Christ, for fear that he who held the Jews in esteem because they were believed to worship one God, would come to think that they worshipped a second. But we find that the Evangelists, and even our Lord and Saviour, and the Apostle Paul, also, bring forward many citations as coming from the Old Testament which are not contained in our copies; and on these I shall dilate more fully in their proper places. But it is clear from this fact that those are the best mss. which most correspond with the authoritative words of the New Testament. Add to this that Josephus, who gives the story of the Seventy Translators, reports them as translating only the five books of Moses; and we also acknowledge that these are more in harmony with the Hebrew than the rest. And, further, those who afterward came into the field as translators—I mean Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion—give a version very different from that which we use.

Further, as Huiou Theou correctly points out, Macabees I covers events that date from 175-135 BCE which is incompatible with the Septuagint being translated at the time of Ptolemy Philadelphos (who reigned from 283-246 BCE).

If you prefer a more contemporary source, the Anchor Bible Dictionary entry for Septuagint begins:

The word “Septuagint,” (from Lat septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 (other ancient sources mention 70 or 5) elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.

Now, I am not denying that Septuagint Isaiah is a Jewish translation – but to claim it is an inspired translation of the Seventy runs against every ancient source we have – even St. Jerome.

 

[NotWorthy]

CEM5,

Our good friend Huiou Theou is correct in pointing out several of the errors in your thinking. I’d like to add a couple of more.

Although Jesus certainly did speak Greek, especially when teaching in the Decapolis area, but He also spoke Aramaic, as is clearly evidenced in Matthew 16 where He calls Peter “Kepha”. This can be proved by looking at Paul’s referring to Peter sometimes as “Cephas” which is the transliteration of “Kepha” (Aramaic) instead of simply calling him Petros.

You can’t claim that “The Septuagint is the sole and official canon of the Catholic O.T.”, because there are books found in the Septuagint that are not in the Catholic Canon. I’m thinking of 3rd and 4th Maccabees and maybe 3 or 4 more books. As a matter of fact, I don’t think there ever was a universal or “official Septuagint Canon”.