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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvatore123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salvatore123

Guest
For anyone who has read my posts regarding translations of the Bible, they will know that I am favor ANY translation that is close to the original as possible.

In other words, as orthodox as I am in my Latin Rite Catholic faith, I do NOT like translations that “conform” to my Church’s dogmas. I have enough faith in my Church and Jesus’s promise to protect it that we Catholics do not need to change Holy Scripture to “suit” a particular teaching.

With the first completely new English-Catholics translation of the OT in more than 40 years about to make its debut on Ash Wednesday of this year, some changes to well-known texts have begun to “leak” to the press. One such change is already causing quite a stir.

According to published reports, the NABRE has rendered Isaiah 7:14 with the English phrase “young woman” in place of “virgin”. Of course, this is of significant importance when using 7:14 to refer to the prophecy of the birth of Christ of a virgin mother, Mary.

I have researched the issue as much as I can (given the fact that I have a job and family to support), and have discovered the following (which I believe I can call “facts”, and thus not subject to debate):
  1. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in 1947, provide us with the oldest known complete text of the OT book of Isaiah. The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, a fragmented copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. The majority of the fragments are from Isaiah and the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). The books of Samuel, in a tattered copy, were also found and also two complete chapters of the book of Habakkuk. In addition, there were a number of nonbiblical scrolls related to the commune found.
  2. A comparison of the Qumran (DSS) manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text (produced approximately 1000 years later) revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other. For example, a comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our “honor” and the English “honour”) and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for “light.” This word was added to the text by someone after “they shall see” in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah.
  3. The ancient Hebrew word for “young woman” is almah. Now, almah, by itself, does not mean the female referred to is or is not a virgin. In most instances, and given the Hebrew culture at that time, an unmarried young woman was almost always a virgin. But we cannot rely solely on that assumption to conclude that “almah” mean virgin.
  4. The ancient Hebrew word for “virgin” is betulah. With this word, no confusion exists: it means one thing and only one thing: a female who has never had sexual intercourse.
  5. I have yet to see one respected biblical scholar submit that the original books of the Bible were written in any language other than three: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
cont’d
 
  1. The majority view is that the OT was written primarily in Hebrew, followed by Aramaic, in terms of percentage-content.
  2. I think it fair to say that the vast majority of scholars believe almost all (if not all) of the NT was written in Greek. The only exception to the NT being composed completely in Greek is that a very few scholars believe that Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew. But if we go with the consensus that Matthew was also written in Greek, as were the other books of the NT, then the word “parthenos” would have appeared in Matthew 1:23, where we see the NT “tie in” with the OT Isaiah prophecy of 7:14
  3. When Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to compile a single bible in Latin, Jerome began consulting the Septuagint for his OT work, as Greek was the language of the Septuagint and Greek was the primary language spoken in the area and at the time where and when Jerome produced his great Latin Vulgate. As many “old Latin texts” existed and had become corrupted because of errors in translations, the idea behind compiling one “definitive” text for a Christian bible was an excellent project.
  4. While into his OT work, Jerome apparently encountered some “problems” (aside from his belief regarding the deuterocanonicals - this issue is for another topic/thread) and began to consult with “locals” who were knowledgeable in Hebrew. Thus, it can be said that Jerome consulted both Greek and Hebrew in compiling the OT portion of his Latin Vulgate.
  5. Now, the reason why I mentioned that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls was so important, is that their content is almost identical (except for very few differences that have NO impact on teachings/beliefs) to the text adopted by the Masoretes around 900 AD. The Masoretic text was “adopted” by the Jews as their “official” version of the OT part of their sacred scriptures.
  6. The Septuagint is also remarkably similar to the Masoretic text regarding the Book of Isaiah. The significance of the Septuagint (produced at least 200 years before the birth of Christ), the Dead Sea Scrolls (with a carbon-dating age of around 150 years before the birth of Christ), and the Masoretic text (compiled around 900 AD) is that we have three very old sources of at least one complete OT book (Isaiah), from three different periods, and yet are virtually identically as far as essential wording (that is, discounting minor spelling differences, insignificant word-order, etc. - nothing of import),
  7. When Jerome was compiling the OT portion of the Latin Vulgate, he was most likely looking at Greek texts. The ancient Greek language at that time had one word for virgin: parthenos. Thus, he would have translated parthenos into Latin. It is highly doubtful that he would have consulted an Isaiah text that used the word “almah” for 7:14.
  8. Even if Jerome HAD consulted an existing “old Latin” text of Isaiah, he would have found the Latin word for virgin: “virgo”.
  9. In the 27th edition of the Nestle/Aland Greek-English NT, the word “parthenos” is found in 7:14.
  10. In the 4th edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, the word “parthenos” is found in 7:14.
  11. Finally, even the “dreaded” NAB (with its horrendous notes) used the word “virgin” in 7:14.
Given all of the above, why would the USCCB produce, supposedly, the “newest, best” translation, that changes one of the most important wording in the OT - important because of its Messianic prophecy about the coming of Christ by way of a virgin mother?

This makes no sense to me, and like the wording in the NAB in Luke that has “favored one” instead of “full of grace”, we Catholics are left to “defend” a Bible whose most recent translation changes one of the most important prophecies in the OT.

I understand that some changes are made for “aesthetical” reasons, such as “booty” being replaced with stolen treasure, and “holocaust” being replaced with “burnt offering”. But, again - ***why change something like Isaiah 7:14 when no one, other than Jews who deny that Christ was the Messiah, *** “complain” about the wording? Why do (primarily) American translators feel the need to continue to tinker with Sacred Scripture? It seems to me, at times, as though they WANT to foment dissent or stir up the water for no other reason than to just do so. And this is sad . . .

I certainly welcome any (name removed by moderator)ut/corrections to what I have written above. And I would truly like to hear anyone who supports the change in Isaiah and your support for such a change.

Thanks.
 
I’ll tell you what’s sad: this post.

Your methodology is definitely amateurish.

I’ll take time to correct these gross misunderstandings when I’m not quite so busy.

For starts, Nestle-Aland and the UBS New Testaments are precisely that – New Testaments. Last time I checked, the Book of Isaiah isn’t found in the New Testament.
 
Uhhh . . . I know what books are and are not part of the NT.

My reference to the NT works are dealing with Matthew’s “tie-in” between Jesus being born of a virgin and the OT prophecy of it in Isaiah 7:14.

Before attacking me for my “sad” and “amateurish” thread, you might want to READ my entire post - you would have seen that I raised that point.

I do look forward to see you point out how poorly educated I apparently am based on your standards.
 
Epistemes said:
I’ll tell you what’s sad: this post.

Your methodology is definitely amateurish.

I’ll take time to correct these gross misunderstandings when I’m not quite so busy.

For starts, Nestle-Aland and the UBS New Testaments are precisely that – New Testaments. Last time I checked, the Book of Isaiah isn’t found in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I thought this was a Christian forum. Is this really how we deal with fellow Christians who have honest questions, have tried to figure an issue out, explained their reasoning and then asked for help?

BTW, The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition translates Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” and footnotes it as “the virgin” in Greek. I personally think that virgin is a much better translation but I’m an amateur and don’t wish to get hollered at for expressing my views.
 
If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would this be? (St. Jerome)
 
Salvatore123 said:
Before attacking me
Click to expand...
I apologize. This is something that I am trying to work on, honestly. “Knowledge puffeth up,” and sometimes my words can be venomous towards those who I disagree with. “But love buildeth up.” It was arrogant of me to use such critical words. While I don’t agree with your methodology, I know I could’ve been less insulting. So, again, I do apologize.
 
William_Pitts said:
If it meant a young woman, what sort of a sign would this be? (St. Jerome)
Click to expand...
In the immediate context, the sign would simply have been one of timing. The historical setting of the prophecy was a joint invasion of Judah by an Israelite-Syrian alliance. The “sign value” here was that the birth of Emmanuel marks the beginning of the downfall of both nations, that is, before he reaches a certain age, both Samaria and Damascus would be defeated, and Judah therefore saved. This came true when Assyria destroyed both Samaria and Israel a few years later.

I’m of the thought that because of this, “young woman” is an absolutely fair and correct translation for the Old Testament passage because of the Hebrew, although I will never object to its rendering as “virgin” in English because of our Christian ties to it.

However, I will never accept the use of “young woman” in the corresponding quote in Matthew because the canonical text is the Greek, which has parthenos in it, a clear, unmistakable word for “vigin.”
 
" I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men." - St. Jerome
 
Chesster and porthos,

You both raise good points.

Chesster, as it is your quote, you obviously know that St. Jerome said this around the time he was putting together the Latin Vulgate. It is found in a book on the Nicene and post-Nicean Fathers of the Church.

And porthos, you make an excellent point as well: why should we accept the NABRE translation a something OTHER THAN “virgin”, when, if Matthew was written in Greek by St. Matthew, the word used was parthenos (which can only mean “virgin”)?

These two things are why I raised the issue about correct translations and how I dislike translations that are “changed” to fit some Church teaching (Catholic or otherwise), rather than simply allowing the original wording to remain as is and to then trust (which we Catholics should do) the Holy Father and the Magisterium to provide us with correct guidance in interpreting the scriptures.

Digging a little deeper, I found the following that I thought might be of interest:
  1. In a book called “The Original and True Duoay Old Testament” (which can be purchased online in PDF format or in book form - I have the books - from Lulu.com), Dr. William von Peters transliterated the Latin Vulgate (as it existed at the time the Duoay-Rheims was written) into modern English. In other word, von Peters’s transliteration is a literal translation with NO change in wording except to render “old English” words into modern English (as an example - he would transliterate “divers” into “diverse”). Thus, we have a DR Bible that is “written” in modern English. In this version, von Peters transliterated Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin”.
  2. Baronius Press has published a magnificent volume called the Biblia Sacra, with Latin and English text of the entire bible appearing side by side. As the introduction explains, by the time of the Reformation, the leaders of the Catholic Church realized that after approximately 1000 (around 900 before the printing press), Jerome’s Latin Vulgate had become corrupted. To “fix” the mistakes that had crept in, Popes Sixtus V and Clement VIII, who both reigned at the time of the upheaval known as the Reformation, and through the Council of Trent, ordered a new edition of St. Jerome’s work. This Latin version (until Challoner’s major revision, which was, in itself, almost a new translation rather than a revision) was the Bible Catholics read until Vatican II.
The Latin appearing in this Baronius edition is known as the “Clementine Vulgata” or “Sixto-Clementine Vulgata”, because it was produced under the patronage of these two popes.

The English appearing next to the Latin is that of the 1899 Cardinal Gibbons DR version.

The English text renders the word in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin”.

The Latin text renders the word in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgo”.

When we turn to Matthew 1:22-23, we see the plain, unmistakable reference to Isaiah 7:14, where St. Matthews writes: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet [again - clearly referring to Isaiah], 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.”

The Latin of Matthew 1:23 also refers to “virgin”, where it says in relevant part: “ecce virgo”.

cont’d
 
  1. The Navarre Bible, one of the most conservative bible studies/commentaries available to us, has the unique place amongst bibles in that it reproduces the entire Nova Vulgata (the Vatican’s revised Latin Vulgate that was published in 1979/1986 and is considered the “official” Latin version of the Catholic Church’s bible).
The English text used in this bible, however, is taken from the RSV, and the RSV is NOT the Catholic edition or Catholic Second edition. To the best of my knowledge and research, I have NEVER seen an english-approved translation of the Nova Vulgata, and it has been around for more than 25 years!!!

The RSV-english version of Isaiah 7:14 states: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Now, herein lies the irony (and sadness, for me, regarding the NABRE’s use of the phrase “young woman”):

A. The Nova Vulgata’s rendering of the pertinent part of 7:14 is: “Ecce virgo concipiet . . .” Obviously, the Latin word for “virgin”.

B. The Navarre’s commentary of this passage quotes two important “sources”, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium.

In in diem natalem Christi, 1136, St. Gregory comments: “Learn from the prophet himself how all of this would come to pass. Does it, perhaps, follow the laws of nature? Absolutely not, replies the prophet: Behond a virgin . . . What a miracle! A virgin will become a mother and remain a virgin! . . . It is fitting that he who enters into human life to save all mankind . . . should be born of a woman of perfect intergrity who has given herself wholly to Him.”

And in 55 of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium*, the Church said: “The Sacred Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, as well as ancient Tradition show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the economy of salvation in an ever clearer light and draw attention to it. The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. These earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of the woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. When it is looked at in this way, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin.(284) Likewise she is the Virgin who shall conceive and bear a son, whose name will be called Emmanuel.(285) She stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from Him. With her the exalted Daughter of Sion, and after a long expectation of the promise, the times are fulfilled and the new Economy established, when the Son of God took a human nature from her, that He might in the mysteries of His flesh free man from sin.”

Summary

porthos, when you said in relevant part: " . . . I will never accept the use of ‘young woman’ in the corresponding quote in Matthew because the canonical text is the Greek, which has parthenos in it, a clear, unmistakable word for “virgin”, you are not alone in feeling this way.

Vatican II can hardly be called a “conservative” pastoral council. And yet we have part 55 of Lumen Gentium tying Isaiah 7:14 of the OT as prophesying the coming of Christ as noted in the NT of Matthew 1:22-23 and Luke 1:26-31.

So I (or rather, we) are left with: Why? Why revise the NAB to remove the word “virgin” from the NT? Although I think I have shown above that the OT points more towards “virgin” rather than “young woman”, there is no doubt that “parthenos” is used in Matthew and Luke, and that “parthenos” means only one thing: virgin.

Perhaps I am missing something in making this complaint. But I just don’t “get it” when it comes to producing supposedly “newer, more accurate” translations of scripture, when, at least to me, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

Without intending any disrespect for the Jews, the NABRE’s change of Isaiah from “virgin” to “young woman” directly supports/accomodates the Jewish interpretation/teaching of Isaiah for over a thousand years: Isaiah was NOT prophesying the coming of the Messiah..

For the Jews, Isaiah 7:14 was supposedly a prophecy from God to King Ahaz, that Ahaz will have a son, the future King Hezekiah, and that Hezekiah’s birth would indicate that his birth would be a sign of divine protection, meaning that his dynasty would continue.

For us Catholics (and, of course, Christians), the prophecy refers to another child, not yet known, and that the prophet’s words would mean that the child’s birth would manifest hope that “God was going to be with us” [hence the name Immanuel]. In the NT books of Matthew and Luke, the deeper meaning of the prophecy is that Mary is a virgin, and that her Son is NOT a symbol of God’s protection (as is the case in the Jewish prophecy), but that it will be God himself who dwells among us.

As I said earlier, I would truly and sincerely like to hear a defense of this change by the NABRE and why it should not be considered, as I feel it is, “a big deal”.

Thanks.*
 
Look, the liturgical-intellectual-elitists who came up with this translation are not going to listen to the objections of a bunch of lay people.

Start praying to the Holy Spirit to have this grotesque error reversed ASAP!
 
turtle,

I find that the more I pray about matters like this, the worse it gets 😦
 
Well…it looks to me that i better start reading the Bible :o…fully and not bits and pieces

I like www.veritasbible.com partly because it includes commentary
 
Chesster,

I did not give your post the time I think it deserves, as it is an excellent point.

Jerome NEVER thought that “almah” meant anything BUT “virgin”. And this was despite the fact that “almah” referred to a young woman, and had nothing to do with whether she had been sexually active. One might ask: how can “almah” definitely refer to a young woman but never had, as its DEFINITION, a chaste woman? Jerome answered it perfectly.

Matthew 1:23 clearly refers to Isaiah as prophesying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. The wording in Matthew and Isaiah are simply too similar to discount. As mentioned earlier, the Jews denied that Isaiah referred to the virgin birth of Christ. Their argument was that a proper interpretation of the text required the word neanij (“neanis” - young woman), and not* parqenoj *(“parthenos” - virgin). Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (all ancient scholars who worked on biblical translations) had translated the Hebrew word as almah.

On the other hand, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argued that the word neanij was an intentional corruption of the original version of the Septuagint. They also claimed that if this reference was merely to a “young woman” instead of “virgin”, how could this be taken as a a divine “sign”? Surely, something more had to be at work. Young women giving birth were hardly “signs”.

Although the latter argument was not refuted, St. Jerome took a different approach.

A. Jerome agreed with the Jews that “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 is NOT the normal word used for virgin. As I noted above, Jerome showed that the Hebrew word for virgin was “bethula”, because it referred to a woman had not yet had sexual intercourse. “Bethula” had no other meaning. Likewise, Jerome showed that “na’ara” was the usual word for “young woman”. “Na’ara”, too, had no other meaning.

“Almah”, however, was a different matter. Jerome, ever the master linguist, turned the Hebrew language against the Jews, who were determined that Isaiah 7:14 did NOT refer to Christ and Mary.

In order for the Jews to prove that “almah” did not mean virgin, they had to claim that only one word had the exclusive meaning of virgin: bethula. But Jerome argued that the word “almah” did not mean ONLY “young girl”, because the Hebrew language already had an “exclusive” word meaning “young girl”: “na’ara”. With proof that “almah” did not mean virgin, and that “na’ara” meant “young girl”, what, exactly, did “almah” mean?

B. Jerome looked to the root of “almah”: “alm”, which means to “hide” or “conceal.” Hebrew translators such as Aquila often used the word “alm” in the context of “concealing” or “keeping a secret”. Jerome then referenced the Jewish use of the word “almah” involving a young woman who has remained “hidden” (or, as we would say today, “cloistered”).

Thus, Jerome showed that although “almah” did, indeed, REFER to a young woman, that references was to a special “kind” of young woman: one who had been hidden or cloistered. Logically, if a young woman had been hidden or cloistered from society (especially men), it was logical to conclude she was a virgin. So, although “almah” does not MEAN “virgin”, its usage “necessitated” virginity based on the “hidden” life of such a young woman.

As my own modern-day example, suppose a 7 year old girl’s parents die and she is entrusted to the care of a Carmelite Monastery, whose sisters lead a contemplative, cloistered life. Further suppose the girl lives with the Carmelites until her mid-teens and then professes her vows. Do we know for certain this girl has never had sexual intercourse? No. Might we reasonably conclude with a high degree of certainty that the girl IS a virgin? I doubt anyone would think otherwise.

C. But Jerome did not just leave the issue as one of semantics. He used the Bible itself as proof of his argument. He began with Exodus 2:8, where we are treated to an “almah” in the context of Moses’s birth and survival.

Moses’s mother did not want him killed along with all other male-born Hebrew slaves, so she set him adrift in a baset on the Nile. Pharoah’s daughter happend upon the basket as she walk amongst the reeds, looked inside, and discovered a baby. Realizing immediately that Moses was a Hebrew and would have to be killed, she felt pity and wondered how to protect him. Moses’s sister, who had followed the basket out of concern, went to Pharoah’s daughter and asked if the daughter wanted Moses to live. Pharoah’s daughter said yes, and asked the sister to find a Hebrew woman who might be willing to nurse and raise the child until he was a bit older and at which time Pharoah’s sister would “take” Moses as her own and proclaim him as a gift from her gods. Moses’s sister did as she was told, but brought back Moses’s real mother to perform the task. Pharoah’s daughter promised Moses’s mother that she would compensate her for caring for Moses until such time as she would adopt him, but neither Moses’s sister nor mother told Pharoah’s daughter of their relationship to Moses. Later, Rabbis taught that Moses’s sister, in bringing forth Moses’s real mother to raise him until such time as Pharoah’s daughter would adopt him, was an “almah”, because the sister hid both her identity as the sister and her intention of using Moses’s birth mother to raise him for a short time.

D. Being an expert linguist, Jerome also used the concept of “loan-words” or “borrow-words”. Although Jerome did not say that the Latin word “alma” literally means “virgin”, it does connote virginity based on usage. Jerome then pointed out how “almah” was used in the OT, and that every time, it was used in the context of a virgin: Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19; and Isaiah 7:14.

At this point, it was easy for Jerome to argue that Jesus was born of a virgin.
 
As a faithful reader of a Catholic Bible blog (catholicbibles.blogspot.com), I give a great deal of credence to the owner of that site. I find his comments insightful and he is definitely not a “knee-jerk” reactionary when it comes to new publications, such as the upcoming NABRE. I truly wish I had the virtues of patience and hope that he exhibits.

I do, however, disagree with one point he made in the comments section regarding discussion of Isaiah 7:14, where he said in relevant part:

“When we look at Isaiah 7:14, the issue for the translator, it seems to me, is whether or not to stay literal with the Hebrew. If you are going to base your text of the MT, then should you stick with that in all instances? What about in the instance of an eclectic text, which incorporates the LXX? Or should you stick to the LXX for the entire translation?”

My disagreement is that I don’t think a translator should begin translating and “stick with” any particular base throughout the translation process. If the Masoretic Text is the best for some passages, then by all means - use those. On the other hand, if the Septuagint is the better of the two, then go with the Septuagint.

I am really hoping that enough people read this thread that I started and that SOMEONE will offer a credible argument for changing Isaiah 7:14 from “virgin” to “young woman” as has been done with the NABRE.

As I mentioned earlier, I find NO benefit to Christians, and find this would appeal to absolutely no one except Jews, who have always denied that prophecy as it applied to Mary and Jesus Christ.

Having poor notes is one thing. Having a poor textual translation is quite another matter.

If the NABRE took the St. Jerome approach and rendered “almah” as “young woman”, then fine - so be it. But AT LEAST like that passage to a detailed footnote to explain WHY “young woman” appears.
 
40.png
Salvatore123:
For the Jews, Isaiah 7:14 was supposedly a prophecy from God to King Ahaz, that Ahaz will have a son, the future King Hezekiah, and that Hezekiah’s birth would indicate that his birth would be a sign of divine protection, meaning that his dynasty would continue.
Click to expand...
There’s much truth in that. That is why Jews ALWAYS were supposed to marry and have children. It was Jewish belief that the Messiah would come from a normal married couple.

Next, the BVM we know took a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph as is indicated by her words to Gabriel “how can this be, I know not man.” In her humility she removed herself (in her own mind) from ever being the mother of the Messiah. I don’t think, based on Catholic belief in the attributes and ornaments of the BVM, that she would have been unaware of Isaiah’s prophecy. But that normal Jewish understanding would not have anticipated a virgin birth for the Messiah. I don’t think you’ll find corroboration anywhere in the OT that obviously and directly supports a Jewish belief in a virgin birth for the Messiah.

The NABRE’s use of the word “young woman” abandons thousands of years of using the word Virgin, which is not technically wrong, in this passage, although it may not be altogether the perfect word either, for the sake of pandering to the modern trend of going with scientific historical/critical accuracy over traditional purity, pleasing the unbeliever at the cost of undermining the Faith of the believer. :eek:
 
Ambrose,

I agree.

What gets me is why do those responsible for the NABRE refuse to even acknowledge in a footnote at the relevant part of Isaiah that although “almah” does, in fact, mean “young woman”, the sense in which it was used in this passage was prophesying the coming of the Messiah?

Good grief! We are talking about (as you correctly noted) SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS of Christian teaching about Christ being born of a virgin!!!

I know this may sound ad hominem, and I really do not intend it as such, but my blood pressure really starts to rise when I see advertisements and hear spokesmen for the NABRE tout this “revision” as “based on the best texts and biblical archaeological finds” that did not previously exist.

Really???

I would like to know what those “newly discovered texts” are and when they were found, because as far as I know, biblical scholars have not found ANY “old texts” that shed any more light on scripture translations since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that was in 1947.

Now, I realize that it took time to review and analyze the DSS, but let’s be generous and give them 23 years. That brings us to 1970, and publication of the first edition of the NAB. Now have we had any new scripture discoveries since 1970 that would warrant a change in the text of scripture or warrant omitting footnotes to discuss the “debate” about the use of the words “almah” and “parthenos”?

Again, I apologize ahead of time - but it is, at least to me, disingenuous in the least, when those responsible for the NABRE advertise the revision as “bringing something new to the table that other scripture scholars did not have a chance to examine before”.

That is simply not true.

Of course, I am certainly open to correction in what I have said, and I will perform a mea culpa ten times if I am wrong.

So, I am asking with this particular post (although I am certainly not giving up on other issues I raised throughout this thread), what did those responsible for the NABRE have available to them by way of “ancient texts, original sources, advances in biblical archaeology” that led them to conclude (1) the NAB needed to be revised, and (2) the NABRE needed to be revised AS IT HAS BEEN REVISED???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top