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

[Mickey]

…From holy Tradition:

A Story from Holy Orthodox Traditionby Fr. Michael J. Buben
from The Word, March 1960

According to the witness of Holy Scripture, the old Simeon was a man “just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was upon him.” (Luke 2, 25). From God, Simeon had been foretold about the coming of the True Messiah. Ancient historians teach us the following about Saint Simeon.
The great and divinely inspired work of translating the Old Testament Books from the Hebrew to the Greek language was begun by Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt (Seventy-two (sometimes referred to as 70) Hebrew elders from the twelve tribes of Israel were selected for the work of translation. Each Hebrew elder was a teacher of Mosaic Law, a Scriptural Scholar, and proficient in both the Greek and Hebrew languages. These divinely inspired men brought forth the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Among these scholars who translated the Books of the Old Testament into Greek on the island of Pharos, near the city of Alexandria was the elder Simeon.
While translating the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Simeon came to the words; “Behold a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son” (Isaiah 7, 14). Reading them, he became confused, thinking that it was impossible for a Virgin without husband to give birth. Simeon took a knife and was ready to erase the word — Virgin — and substitute the word *— wife. *At this time an angel of God appeared, held Simeon’s hand and said:
“Have faith in the written word, and you yourself will see its fulfillment. You will not die until you yourself see the one who is to be born of a pure Virgin — the Lord Christ.”
With a strong belief in the prophetical words of the angel, Simeon impatiently waited the coming to earth of the Anointed One. For many, many years he led a righteous and immaculate life, avoiding all temptation and evil. Daily he prayed at the Temple that God would grant peace and mercy on His earth and save mankind from the all-vain Devil. His eyes gazed upon many infants who were brought to the Temple Forty Days after birth according to the Law of Moses (Exodus 13, 2). With all the infirmities of old age, and perhaps even a wish for release, Simeon continued to believe, and hope, and pray.
Forty Days after Christmas, Saints Mary and Joseph carried the Infant Jesus from Bethlehem to Jerusalem to present Him in thanksgiving at the Temple. When Simeon saw the Eternal Infant, he immediately recognized the predicted Messiah; and here at last stood she through whom the prophecy of Isaiah was accomplished. Seeing the Holy Family surrounded by a heavenly glow and crowned by a Godly light, Simeon with fear and joy came forth, received the God-Infant, and while carrying Him exclaimed: “Lord now lettest thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eves have seen Thy Salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people: a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.” (Luke 2, 29-32).
After this Simeon foretold the Passion of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the sorrow of the Theotokos seeing her Son on the Cross. (Luke 2, 34-35). He soon fell asleep in the Lord at an age likened to the patriarchs of the first biblical era. God had willed that he should live to the moment awaited for many ages — the birth of the Ageless Son from a Virgin to Whom be glory forever. Amen.
antiochian.org/node/25160

 

[Mickey]

…A similar version from holy Tradition…

SAINT SIMEON, THE GOD-RECEIVER
During the reign of the Egyptian Emperor Ptolemy Philadelphus, Simeon was chosen as one of the prominent Seventy to whom was entrusted the task of translating the Bible from the Hebrew language into the Greek language [The Septuagint]. Simeon was performing his task conscientiously but when he was translating the book of the Prophet Isaiah and came upon the prophecy: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and will give birth to a son” (Isaiah 7:14), he became confused and took a knife to remove the word “virgin” and to replace it with the words, “young woman,” and as such to translate it into Greek. At that moment, however, an angel of God appeared to Simeon and restrained him from his intention, explaining to him that the prophecy is true; that the prophecy is correctly written: that it is true and correct. The messenger of God also said that Simeon would be convinced of it personally for, according to the Will of God, he will not die until he sees the Messiah born of the Virgin. The righteous Simeon rejoiced to hear such a voice from heaven, left the prophecy unchanged and thanked God Who is making him worthy to live and to see the Promised One. When the young Child Jesus was presented in the Temple in Jerusalem by the Virgin Mary, the Spirit of God appeared to Simeon who was very old and as “white as a swan.” Simeon quickly entered the Temple and there recognized both the Virgin and the young Child by the light that shone around their heads as an aureal. The joyful Simeon took Christ into his hands and prayed to God to release him from this life: “Now, Master, You may let Your servant go in peace, according to Your word, for my eyes have seen Your salvation” (St. Luke 2: 29-30). Anna the Prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, was also there, who recognized the Messiah and proclaimed Him to the people.
“And coming forward at that very moment, she gave thanks to God, and spoke about the Child to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem” (St. Luke 2:38). At that time, Anna was eighty-four years old. St. Simeon died shortly after that. This righteous Elder Simeon is considered to be the Protector of young children.
engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/200529-saint-simeon-the-god-receiver/

 

[Mickey]

…yet another similar version from holy Tradition…

Commemorated on February 3

Righteous Simeon the God-Receiver was, according to the testimony of the holy Evangelist Luke, a just and devout man waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him (Luke 2:25). God promised him that he would not die until the promised Messiah, Christ the Lord, came into the world.

Ancient historians tell us that the Egyptian pharaoh Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) wished to include texts of Holy Scripture in the famous Library at Alexandria. He invited scholars from Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin sent their wise men. The Righteous Simeon was one of the seventy scholars who came to Alexandria to translate the Holy Scriptures into Greek. The completed work was called “The Septuagint,” and is the version of the Old Testament used by the Orthodox Church.

St Simeon was translating a book of the Prophet Isaiah, and read the words: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a Son” (Is 7:14). He thought that “virgin” was inaccurate, and he wanted to correct the text to read “woman.” At that moment an angel appeared to him and held back his hand saying, “You shall see these words fulfilled. You shall not die until you behold Christ the Lord born of a pure and spotless Virgin.”

From this day, St Simeon lived in expectation of the Promised Messiah. One day, the righteous Elder received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, and came to the Temple. It was on the very day (the fortieth after the Birth of Christ) when the All-Pure Virgin Mary and St Joseph had come to the Temple in order to perform the ritual prescribed by Jewish Law.

When St Simeon beheld their arrival, the Holy Spirit revealed to him that the divine Child held by the All-Pure Virgin Mary was the Promised Messiah, the Savior of the world. The Elder took the Child in his arms and said, “Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word, for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32).

There is a Christian epigram (Number 46) in “The Greek Anthology” which is addressed to St Simeon. It tells the righteous Elder to receive the Child Who was born before Adam, and Who will deliver Simeon from this life and bring him to eternal life. A similar idea is expressed in the Aposticha (Slavic use) for the Forefeast of the Nativity of the Lord (December 24). There the Mother of God refers to her Son as “older than ancient Adam.”

Simeon blessed the All-Pure Virgin and St Joseph, and turning to the Mother of God he said, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against. Yea, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:34-35).

The holy Evangelist continues: “And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Aser. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband for seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not leave the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And coming at that very hour, also gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption at Jerusalem” (Luke 2:36-38).

The holy righteous Simeon the God-Receiver died at a great age (Tradition says he was 360). His holy relics were transferred to Constantinople in the sixth century. His grave was seen by the Russian pilgrim St Anthony, the future Archbishop of Novgorod (October 8) in 1200.
ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100409

 

[Mickey]

…From St Jerome…

Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” 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. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: “And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded., and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance.

 

[Mickey]

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.
Isaias 7:14 (Douay Rheims)

 

[Labarum]

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.

I second that comment. I don’t understand why good Christians act totally different online then offline. There is always someone on the other side of the screen and the conduct of us Christians online is just as much of a witness to Christ as in person.

I think this assessment of the translation was good and not amateurish. Perhaps some might not agree on the points made but then attack the points instead of the person.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Salvatore – I respect your right to an opinion. However, rather than rely on “published reports” about the new translation, I think you should actually look at the new translation – in particular, the lengthy footnote that accompanies this verse. You can read that on NABRE’s Facebook page discussing Isaiah 7 here.

You can also read the responses of the NABRE representative to various questions posed about the wording of this verse in the comments on that page.

I think you’ll find that many of your points are addressed in the footnote (which is required to be printed in NABRE editions) or in the resulting discussion.

You may still disagree at that point, but I think you’ll be better informed about what the NABRE really says if you read the entire chapter (including the footnotes).

 

[JackQ]

1. The majority view is that the OT was written primarily in Hebrew, followed by Aramaic, in terms of percentage-content. [rest of quote omitted to meet posting limitations]

Well, almah means maiden or young woman, not, strictly, virgin. To translate it as virgin is to superimpose an interpretation onto the text. It may be the right interpretation, but it is still the superimposition of an interpretation.

What I understand about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they found manuscripts in the same family as the Masoretic text, and manuscripts in the family of texts from which the Septuagint was translated. As I understand it, it is now the opinion of most scholars that the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text are to accounted for by the fact that they each come out of different textual traditions. The Septuagint has parthenos in Isaiah 7:14, meaning “virgin.”

Most, not all, of the OT quotations in the NT come from the Septuagint. The early Christian Church adopted the Septuagint as its own. The Jews, seeing the use made of it by the Catholics, came to reject the Septuagint, although it was in wide use among Hellenistic Jews before the coming of Christ. There are parts of the Gospel of Luke that are deliberately written in Septuagint style. I am informed that the New Testament can only be fully understood in light of the Septuagint. The truth is, the fact that in the Western Church we translate the OT from the Masoretic rather than the Septuagint causes our translated NTs to be artificially disconnected from the tradition in which it was originally written.

So I agree with you, but for a different reason. I think our OT translations should be made from the Septuagint for the reasons stated. I guess that puts me with our Eastern brethren on this issue.

 

[Salvatore123]

Mickey,

Thank you very much for your contribution. Although I was familiar with the one regarding St. Jerome (I think I alluded to it earlier in this thread), I was not familiar with the ones regarding Simeon.

Labarum,

Thank you for your support. I don’t know what set off the other poster, but you and jbarbaretta handled it much more diplomatically than I did.

Jack,

I think we not only came to the same conclusion, but I think we agree on the translations as well. When I said that the OT was written primarily in Hebrew, followed by Aramaic, I think that is accurate as far as the ORIGINAL text of the OT. I am pretty sure that the first scriptures such as the Pentateuch, the Prophetic books, the Sapatiel books, etc., were all written in ancient Hebrew, and that when the Greek influence came about, the OT scriptures were translated into what we now know as the Septuagint so that the Greek-speaking Jews of Palestine could easily read them as those Jews were probably more versed in Greek than Hebrew in Palestine in the time shortly before and while Christ was alive on Earth.

Finally, Bible Reader,

Thank you for the references to the NABRE’s FB page. I had visited it several times before I began this thread, so my comments were NOT based on third-hand accounts. My concerns and questions remain the same: although the notes on the Isaiah passage make some references to the change that I raised in this post, I nevertheless started this thread because I personally don’t think that we should need to access FB in order to fully understand what the editors/publishers of the NABRE had in mind when they made their revisions.

From what I could gather, the primarily “explanation” given by the NABRE FB “spokesman” is that the change was made because “Isaiah was originally written in Hebrew and ‘almah’ would have been the word used.” That may be true, but that does NOT take into account that the Confraternity Bible (which WAS written in light of Divino Afflante Spiritu - which I am sure you know was the encyclical that ENCOURAGED a modern English translation made from the “original languages”), as well as the text the Catholic Church used for thousands of years, used the word “virgin”. Yes, the NABRE explains that “almah” meant young woman, but I did not see where it explained HOW “almah” dealt with the “hidden” issue so expertly raised and discussed by St. Jerome. Again, without any disrespect intended towards the Jews, I think that replacing the word “virgin” with “almah” caters to the Jewish REJECTION of Christ and the Blessed Mother prophecy, whereas “virgin” matches it perfectly with what Matthew and Luke wrote: that the prophecy of Isaiah was true (if one believes as we Catholics, and most Christians, do). Last, from what I recall reading on the NABRE FB page (notes as well as comments by the NABRE “spokesman”), I don’t think the issue I raised in this thread was ever addressed: Although I am admittedly NOT a fan of the NAB, I nevertheless have all three “editions” that have been released since 1970, because I (as a collector of bibles) thought it important to have them. Considering the NAB (and the OT Confraternity Bible in particular) was supposedly translated in accordance with Divino Afflante Spiritu, the NABRE editors/publishers do not explain why the change from “virgin” to “almah” was made NOW, as opposed to when the cited-encyclical was released by Pius XII. It seems that the Divino encyclical was pretty explicit in its “instruction” that translations be made of the more “ancient” and “original” texts because they were inherently “better”. Yet, the Confraternity and then its sucessor, the NAB, continued to use the word “virgin” until now.

Thus, my primary questions still stand: “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???”

I am not aware of ANY new discoveries sinced the DSS that would have prompted a revision as has been done by the NABRE. But as I said before, I am ready with a mea culpa if some new biblical archaeology was discovered and I simply have not heard of it.

I really did not mean to “attack” the editors/publishers of the NABRE. I simply think that their “selling points” sound much like advertisers of new products we see on TV today, rather than something scholars should be saying about a new publication. Don’t “inflate” the product with a sales pitch that gives a new reader and possibly new purchaser the impression that the NABRE is bringing to light things that have never been seen before.

I hope these points are both correct as well as charitable.

And I again sincerely thank those who have contributed to this thread so far - your (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated.

 

[Salvatore123]

As an corrollary to what I raised in this thread: Is it really asking too much for we Catholics to finally be given an English-approved translation of Holy Scripture so that we can bring our BIBLES (even if they are “slim-downed” versions as opposed to “study bibles”, because of the “bulkiness” inherent in study bibles) to Church and refer to them, as opposed to missalettes?*

I must admit that I envy our Protestant brethren in this sense.

I still remember as an altar boy that even Catholic Churches used to have an “announcement box” outside of Churches where the upcoming readings were cited before the Sunday Masses so that people could begin reading them ahead of time and be familiar with those readings when they were finally read at Mass. It would be (at least to me) so nice to be able to walk into Church with my personal bible and have my ribbons already marking the readings and then just turn to them as the lectors and priest read the passages for that weekend, and see the same words being spoken as those I was reading . . .

Perhaps that is asking too much . . .

 

[Bible_Reader]

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?

I’m not sure that it the understanding has been revised – the footnote to the current NAB states pretty clearly that meaning of the Hebrew world almah was considered as “young, unmarried woman” even in the previous translation. Rather the editors of the current NAB made the call to interpret this verse in light of Matthew 1:20-23. The current footnote also addresses the idea of dual fulfillment in the sense of both Jesus and King Hezekiah.

In contrast, the footnote to the future NABRE pretty clearly points out the Septuagint reading of the verse, the fact that “virgin” is the traditional Christian understanding, and refers to Matthew 1:23.

So, both in the current NAB and new NABRE, the footnotes explicitly state the original Hebrew *almah *meant a young, unmarried woman. And both of them point out that the traditional Christian understanding is determined by Matthew 1:23.

There is no new archaeological evidence claimed here – and in both cases, both senses are clearly explained in the footnote. But they had to choose a single meaning for the main translated text, and the NAB translators explicitly explain that they decided to deviate from the Hebrew, while the NABRE translators decided to follow it.

I can certainly understand those who would be upset at this choice (although it is also found in the JB, NJB, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, and GNB-CE). But when one reads the footnotes, it looks to me like little has changed – the understanding of the Hebrew is the same and the understanding implied by Matthew 1:23 is the same. And both are clearly indicated in both the NAB and NABRE footnotes to Isaiah 7:14.

The only thing that has changed is the judgment call about which to use in the main text, and in the NABRE, they decided to go with both the NAB’s and the NABRE’s understanding of the Hebrew.

One advantage of the footnotes is that they provide plenty of context for understanding the decisions made by the translators in the text.

Of course, I understand that many people are still upset by the issue.

 

[Mickey]

But when one reads the footnotes, it looks to me like little has changed

Then why not keep it as “virgin” so as to better reflect the prophecy of the virgin birth? If “the seventy” translated it as “virgin” (parthenos) some 200 years before the birth of Christ, why should anyone accept this new translation from these modern scholars?

 

[Bible_Reader]

Then why not keep it as “virgin” so as to better reflect the prophecy of the virgin birth? If “the seventy” translated it as “virgin” (parthenos) some 200 years before the birth of Christ, why should anyone accept this new translation from these modern scholars?

Actually the legend of the Seventy only applies to the translation of the Pentateuch. We don’t know the origin of Greek Isaiah. And, of course, we have quite a bit a variance in our existing Greek Isaiah manuscripts.

But the real problem comes in the fact that the translator of Greek Isaiah frequently chose meanings quite at odds with the original Hebrew. For example, just one chapter later, in Isaiah 8:14, the translator arbitrarily inserts a negative, giving the exact opposite meaning to the verse: “you will *not *encounter him as a stumbling caused by a stone.”

If you are interested in studying from the Septuagint, I can heartily recommend the volume the New English Translation of the Septuagint. One of the things that may surprise you is how incredibly wide the textual variation is in varying Septuagint sources.

In any case, since the new note (and for that matter, the old note too) clearly gives both Hebrew and Greek reading, it seems to me that readers can make up their own minds.

 

[Salvatore123]

Bible Reader,

This is what I meant by the editors/publishers of the NABRE being “disingenuous” in their description of the revision being the best yet.

This is the NABRE’s exact wording on their Facebook page:

“The NABRE is a formal equivalent translation of Sacred Scripture, sponsord by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, using the best manuscripts available.”

Consider the following facts:

1. The Confraternity Bible, specifically the OT, was translated and published AFTER Divino Afflante Spiritu.
2. In introductions to both the Confraternity Bible as well as its “successor”, the NAB, the Church (through the Holy Father, no less) states that "for more than a quarter of a century, members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America, sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the CCD, have labored to create this new translation . . . from the original languages or from the oldest extant form in which the text exists. In so doing, the translators have carried out the directive of our predecessor, Pius XII, in his famous Encyclical - Divino Afflante Spiritu - and the decree of the Second Vatican Council (Dei Verbum), which prescribed that 'up to date and appropriate translations be made in the various languages, by preference fromm the original texts of the sacred books . . ..

As I explained earlier, I mean no disrespect to anyone and am not trying to launch ad hominem attacks against anyone, but I find the above preface to simply fly in the face of what has occurred.

First, the ENTIRE Confraternity OT Bible WAS translated after, and in accordance with, Divino Afflante Spiritu. In fact, in the introductory notes for each OT volume of that bible translation, the then-Holy Father or his Apostolic Delegate praised the work of the new translation and how it was following the encyclical.

Second, Paul VI, who authored the quoted preface I cited above, said basically the exact same thing prefacing each Confraternity OT book produced during the 1960’s.

Third, as I pointed out several times - the publishers and the Vatican keep referencing “original languages” and “oldest extent texts”, yet we all know NO new biblical discoveries have occurred since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

Fourth, the Confraternity Bible used the word “virgin”. The NAB of 1970 (first edition following the Confraternity Bible and successor to the Confraternity Bible) used the word “virgin”. The NAB of 1986 (third edition) used the word “virgin”. And the NAB of 1991 (third edition) used the word “virgin”. Now, all of a sudden, the publishers/editors of the NABRE portray the revision of the OT (which is the first revision of the OT SINCE the Confraternity’s translation of the OT) as something “new” and “insightful” and “more scholarly”, while the facts show that no new scholarship exists and no reason to change one of the most important prophecies of the OT exists.

The NABRE simply changed the word and thinks that a footnote or study note will explain it.

But here is the kicker.

Although the Hebrew word originally written by the author of Isaiah was probably “almah”, NO ONE disputes that the Septuagint (the OT in use at the time of St. Jerome’s translation and the OT in use while Christ and his Apostles taught in Palestine used the word “parthenos” (Grk. for “vigin”). The reason WHY (at least in my humble opinion) “virgin” should have remained is because although parthenous only means “virgin”, the word “almah” does NOT EXCLUDE THE LIKELIHOOD OF ONE BEING A VIRGIN!!!

“Almah” means a maiden of marriagable age who was not married.

I don’t think it a far stretch of the imagination to conclude that 99.99999% of young Jewish women who were not married or bethrothed, were virgins.

So, to conclude my take on the matter: let the word “virgin” remain, KNOW that its use is in all likelihood correct, and uphold one of the most important prophecies of the OT regarding the coming of the Messiah.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Salvatore –

First, thanks for your excellent and perceptive comments. I wish to mention two things, though:

(1) You mention the 1961 Confraternity edition of Isaiah, the 1970 NAB version of Isaiah, the 1986 NAB version of Isaiah, and the 1999 NAB version of Isaiah as if they were different things. But as far as I know, the 1961 translation received only very minor revisions in 1970 and none since them – until the NABRE which comes out tomorrow.

(2) The problem with saying that all (or most) instances of *almah *were virgins is is that it flies in the face of other uses in the Bible. For example, in Proverbs 30:18-20 –

***Three things are too wonderful for me, yes, four I cannot understand:

The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, The way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with an *almah.

Such is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

**It certainly seems that here the almah is not a virgin!

 

[DRR7799]

It may be of interest to note that it was Trypho the Jew, in his 2nd century dialogue with Justin Martyr who first pointed out (as an aside really) that the LXX Isaiah was incorrect, and that the Hebrew more properly read “young woman” and not “virgin.” 1900 years later and it’s still being discussed.

Does anyone know by off chance if there was a complete Isaiah among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and whether or not it follows the LXX or the Masoretic along these lines? Because if the Hebrew Bible says “young woman,” and the Dead Sea Scrolls say “young woman” I’d have to side with the latter.

 

[Salvatore123]

DRR,

Not only was Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it was the only scripture found completely intact AND in parts more numerous than all but just three other books in the Bible!!

According to the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (of which I have a copy - a huge, two volume exhaustive work on every aspect of the DSSC), Isaiah was the “only biblical manuscript that survived intact over the intervening two millennia . . . Generous fragments from a second copy of the book were also found . . . while the fragmentary remains of 18 more manuscripts were recovered from Cave 4 and a couple of fragments from an additional copy in nearby Cave 5. Another was found . . . a few miles south. The total of 21 manuscripts at Qumran places Isaiah as one of the three most popular books there, along with Psalms (36 manuscripts) and Deuteronomy (29 manuscripts . . .”

Also, it is a common misunderstanding that the DSS were all based on Hebrew, considering the DSS were books of the OT. In fact, the DSS were composed of Masoretic and Septuagint texts.

Last, regarding the NATURE of the word “almah”, I think St. Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar in history, said it best:

“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. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: “And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded., and guarded by her parents with extreme care. Or, if this be not so, let them at least show me where the word is applied to married women as well, and I will confess my ignorance.”

Bible Reader:

1. You are correct in that none of the successive revisions to the Confraternity Bible (in both that translation, as well as the NAB translations in 1970, 1986, and 1991) evidenced any changes to Isaiah, and in particular, 7:14. But that was my point - the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE NABRE - THE CCD - chose to leave 7:14 the same for 4 different versions, and yet suddenly, the 5th revision has a change. I simply thought that a bit odd.
2. In the seminal work A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (1953 version), the experts discuss exactly your point:

“The Hebrew word here translated ‘virgin’ is not the technical term, betulah, but its practical equivalent, almah, which means an unmarried maiden of marriageable 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; cf. Prov. 30:19 for the one use of hte word where text and meaning are obscure. The imposition of the child’s name by the mother, contrary to custom, confirms the conclusion of a virginal conception. Emmanuel necessarily implies by Hebrew usage God’s ominipotent aid and consequently deliverance. The word ‘behold’, following the mentioning of a sign, naturally introduces it.”

In the end, Bible Reader, I sincerely appreciated your contributions to this thread. My only hope was that those who read it could at least sympathize with my points that (1) “almah” did not NEGATE such a woman being a virgin, (2) “almah”, more probably than not, referred to a virgin, and (3) why, after all this time, change such an important part of Catholic/Christian teaching/prophecy while supposedly seeking to gain acceptance of the NABRE as the “go to” bible for accuracy.

I think that by doing what they have done in this (as well as other) instance, the publishers/editors have only served to isolate the NAB even further as a reliable translation that Catholics can consult. I think most will admit that the NAB did not hold a very high position as far as reliable translations in the Catholic community. It will hold a lesser one now . . . and that is sad.

 

[Mickey]

In any case, since the new note (and for that matter, the old note too) clearly gives both Hebrew and Greek reading, it seems to me that readers can make up their own minds.

I think I will hold to Holy Tradition, St Jerome, and the Septuagint translation rather than your explanation–or the explanation of a group of modern revisionists.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I think I will hold to Holy Tradition, St Jerome, and the Septuagint translation rather than your explanation–or the explanation of a group of modern revisionists.

Fair enough. But under that criteria, every English translation of the Catholic Bible that I have consulted falls short.

Besides the almah/parthenos distinction, there is **another **major difference in this verse (Isaiah 7:14) between the Hebrew and the Greek version.

The Hebrew version clearly states that it is the **mother **that shall name the child (“she shall call”) while the Greek version clearly states that King Ahaz shall name the child (“you shall call”). This latter feature of the Septuagint is not considered in in the 1961 Confraternity/NAB translation, neither is it in the Douay or the Challoner revision of the Douay.

If the Septuagint has priority here over the Hebrew, shouldn’t it at least have priority for the entire verse? On what scholarly basis does one pick and choose and say – for a single verse: this word, parthenos, is correct, but this part where King Ahaz names the child is incorrect?

 

[Mickey]

Fair enough. But under that criteria, every English translation of the Catholic Bible that I have consulted falls short.

Oh indeed! I am especially disturbed by gender neutral language. However, this grave error has theological impact.