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

[Mickey]

If the Septuagint has priority here over the Hebrew…

I am not so much arguing priority of one over the other. I am saying that the Hebrews of the Septuagint translated “almah” to “parthenos” for a reason.

They would know better than you or I---------or modern day revisionists.

With respect to the Hebrew noun ‘almah, the editors of HALOT list among its meanings: “marriageable girl,” “a girl who is able to be married,” and “a young woman” (until the birth of her first child). The basic meaning is a woman (the age is less important) ready (able) to be married. The span of life covered by this term is poorly defined and quite long, ranging from the onset of puberty to the birth of a woman’s first child.

We propose a different etymology, namely, to derive the noun ‘almah from the root ‘-l-m I “to be concealed, hidden,” well attested in Hebrew. If this etymology proves to be correct, ‘alem (masculine) and *‘almah *(feminine) would designate an engaged couple, which would accordingly be rendered as “the concealed ones.” During the period of betrothal, fiancés used to live in their parents’ homes, separated, secluded, forbidden from seeing one another. The feminine form, ‘almah, may also be rendered “the concealed one” or even “the veiled one.” This last rendition would reflect the custom of engaged women wearing veils over their faces as a sign of seclusion, or concealment, during the time of betrothal. We may mention that, given the ethical standards of the ancient Israelite society, the idea of virginity, though not distinctly stated, is nevertheless implied in the term ‘almah. As is the case concerning the providential woman from Genesis 3:15 (*ha-‘ishshah *“the woman”), the noun *ha-‘almah *“the concealed one” from Isaiah 7:14 has the definite article attached, which points to a special female character, chosen by God from the very beginning to become the mother of Messiah.
(From an article by Rev. Eugen J. Pentiuc, Th.D., Ph.D.)

 

[NotWorthy]

That’s why I think virgin is a much better translation.

Besides, isn’t it the Jews themselves that translated it to “Virgin” when translating it into Greek? Wouldn’t THEY know what the word “Alma” meant?

 

[Mickey]

Besides, isn’t it the Jews themselves that translated it to “Virgin” when translating it into Greek? Wouldn’t THEY know what the word “Alma” meant?

Yes.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Besides, isn’t it the Jews themselves that translated it to “Virgin” when translating it into Greek? Wouldn’t THEY know what the word “Alma” meant?

Of course, it is not clear, because the textual history of the Septuagint is different, and as I pointed out, the author of the Septuagint version made a number of mistakes (for example, adding a “not” at 8:14), so the Septuagint Isaiah we now have is certainly not free of errors.

Furthermore, as the article cited by Mickey states, other Jewish translations (e.g., Targum Jonathan) do not use virgin, so it is hard to say that this was the view of more than a single person.

Finally, the entire theory of dual prophecy fails if we insist on the “virgin” reading only – since King Hezekiah did not have a virgin birth – which means that if we read the rest of Isaiah 7 (not including verse 14) it no longer makes sense

It seems to me that we are on far stronger ground arguing on the basis of Matthew 1:23 rather than on claiming that there is an unambiguous meaning to this verse in Isaiah. There are legitimate differences regarding this verse by well-qualified scholars of good will. As a practical matter, the translators of the NABRE, JB, NJB, RSV-CE, NRSV-CE, and GNB-CE preferred the plain Hebrew reading; and they did receive imprimatur.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Bible Reader:

It seems to me that we are on far stronger ground arguing on the basis of Matthew 1:23 rather than on claiming that there is an unambiguous meaning to this verse in Isaiah.

Good summary. The verse is ambiguous, as prophecy so often is. Genesis 3:15 is another example. However, I think the OP’s complaint is based on abandoning centuries old Catholic traditional wording as given in the Vulgate, and today’s unquestioning preference for scientific precision (even when precision is technically impossible with such vagueness) over Catholic tradition. Just as today’s translations of Genesis 3:15 have made all of the statues and images of Mary standing on the head of the snake suddenly wrong. But in fact they are NOT wrong, just the Catholic traditional reading of that verse. So with the understanding that these prophecies are vague or ambiguous in the most correct translations, why would Catholic translators not put the alternate reading in the footnotes instead of visa versa? Why are translations preferred that shake the Faith of the faithful, instead of confirming that faith? Is the bible a book for antiquarians and scholars or for the faithful? What are the priorities?

 

[Salvatore123]

Ambrose,

What you said at the end of your last post perfectly captured the essence of this thread: WHY in the world would the publishers/editors of the NAB release a revision that changes not only centuries of Catholic translation, but changes their own predecessors of the NAB as far as translation?

To me, this makes no sense. As I said early on, I do not mean to impugn the integrity of anyone, but I think it GREATLY disgingenuous for the NABRE to preface its revision by saying that it resorts to “new historical and archaeological biblical discoveries” when those of us who study the bible quite regularly all know that no such “discoveries” have been made in the last 50 years, let alone the last 20 or so years.

For me, it is already disgraceful that we have to rely on a missallete and a lectionary at Holy Mass to follow scripture, when both are actually modified scripture. We should return to “back in the day” when the upcoming Sunday’s scriptural readings were “advertised” outside of our churches so that we could begin reading them ahead of time, and we could bring our bibles with us to Mass and read the scriptural readings as they were read by the priest during Mass.

If the NABRE editors/publishers had really wanted to UNITE Catholics and bring us together with a common translation, they, in my humble opinion, went about it in a very strange way by changing deeply and closely held beliefs and passages that we have grown to read, memorize, and love their meaning. If they want to point out the difference of translations between parthenos and almah, then fine - point it out. But put “almah” and its accompanying explanation in the footnote to it - don’t substitute parthenos (virgin) and relegate IT to the footnote area of the Bible.

It is bad enough we have to read “o favored one” in lieu of “full of grace” in the NAB, while the lectionary reads “full of grace”, and they do it yet again to another distinctly Christian translation that has such significant importance to the prophecy of our Blessed Mother and the birth of Christ.

This does not sound nor seem very “inviting” to me . . .

Well, I think this thread has run its course (at least for me). I sincerely thank everyone for participating.

Pax Tecum +

 

[ryanoneil]

As far as I understand Isaiah is talking about an earlier prophecy before Christ that became be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment in Christ.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: a young woman shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. For before the child learns to reject the bad and choose the good, the land of those two kings whom you dread shall be deserted. The LORD shall bring upon you and your people and your father’s house days worse than any since Ephraim seceded from Judah. (This means the king of Assyria.) On that day The LORD shall whistle for the fly that is in the farthest streams of Egypt, and for the bee in the land of Assyria. All of them shall come and settle in the steep ravines and in the rocky clefts, on all thornbushes and in all pastures. On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard.

This prophecy was written hundreds of years before Christ and was actually fulfilled within the life time of Isaiah. In Isaiah’s time, Jerusalem was being besieged by the Syrians and the ten northern tribes of Israel, and the situation looked hopeless. But God assured them, through the prophet Isaiah, that their enemies would not be victorious over them. God would send the Assyrians against the Syrians and ten northern tribes. Isaiah promised that a young girl would concieve and give birth to a son and before the son was weaned Judea’s enemies would be destroyed, but there would be a period before that salvation was fully realized.

Then I went to the prophetess and she conceived and bore a son. The LORD said to me: Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz, for before the child knows how to call his father or mother by name, the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried off by the king of Assyria. (Isa 8:3-4)

This is the initial fulfillment of Isa 7:14. Jerusalem was spared from its enemies during those years. But the story doesn’t end there. In fewer than seventy years, the ten northern tribes that rejected the reign of David’s heir, were utterly destroyed. Jerusalem experienced God’s salvation but not every descendant of Abraham benefited from that salvation.

But then an interesting thing happened to this prophecy after it was initially fulfilled. Some Jewish leaders taught that the events of Isaiah 7:14 still had another future fulfillment. The birth of a son via a young woman would signal the coming salvation of God’s faithful remnant and the destruction of the faithless majority. And they said the young woman would actually be a virgin. Someday another Son would come who would signal the availability of a more universal salvation for Israel. By the time of Christ, Isa 7:14 was understood to be a Messianic prophecy, and the Gospels reference it as such. When Matthew uses this prophecy in Mt 1:23, he points to more than just the virgin birth. He includes the series of events including the salvation of the believing remnant and the destruction of the unbelieving majority that occured much later than the actual birth of the child (70 A.D.).

So as far as I understand the prophecy was fulfilled and that fulfilling event become a prophecy, pointing to another, more final and complete fulfillment. I don’t have an issue with the change in words, if in fact, the original fulfillment concerned the prophetess. It shows the progression of God’s revelation that points to Christ. There are all kinds of types in the OT that point to Christ.

 

[pnewton]

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?

The idea was to go to the original word and the orginal meaning, and give it the most literal translation. I have never like the word “virgin” in Isaiah as the context screamed against this idea. After all, a “virgin” did not and could not bear a child.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

You said: “The idea was to go to the original word and the orginal meaning, and give it the most literal translation. I have never like the word “virgin” in Isaiah as the context screamed against this idea. After all, a “virgin” did not and could not bear a child.”

But what you say is the whole point of me starting this thread:

1. Consider what you said in light of St. Jerome on the subject:

“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.”

pnewton - sounds to me like St. Jerome was pointing out that even the JEWS had it wrong when they decided to translate one of the ancient books (that being, Isaiah).

1. Again, as I said before: why do this NOW? The CCD, as well as every NAB translation before the RE, all had virgin. Now what happened between Ash Wednesday of this week and 20+ years ago to warrant a change? Nothing.
2. You say they wanted to go back to the “original”. But if one looks to the Septuagint as being the “original” OT text that was being used in Palestine at the time of Christ, then the word would have been “parthenos” - NOT “almah”. And parthenos means only one thing: virgin.
3. If the NABRE publishers/editors really wanted to publish a bible that reflects current “Catholic teaching/understanding”, why choose a word that does NOT reflect what appears in the current official bible of the Catholic Church - the Nova Vulgata - which has the words “ecce virgo” - meaning, of course, “behold a virgin”?
4. If the NAB (and now the NABRE) was such a good translation with such good notes, why did JPII refer to the RSV and NRSV when he referenced the bible in the catechism? Seems a bit odd to me for America to advocate using the NAB as the “most accurate” bible for Catholics to use, and yet we have a catechism that completely ignores that translation in favor of two others that we are forbidden in America to use for liturgical purposes.
5. Lastly, the NABRE publishers/editors could not have been that deaf to the “problems” cited by so many Catholics (“conservative/traditionalist” and even those more “liberal”) with previous NAB texts and notes. As I pointed out, this seemed a PERFECT opportunity to try to “correct” these problems by at least putting the traditional language we all grew up hearing at Mass (and which we STILL hear at Mass) and relegate the changes to footnotes/endnotes.

No one has yet answered one question I posed above: why can’t we Catholics have an english translation of a bible that we can “officially” use that corresponds to the readings at Mass, as opposed to being relegated to a translation such as the NAB that has so many “problems” that our own lectionary was changed to reflect Catholic teaching/understanding, such as “full of grace” and “virgin” instead of “o favored one” and “young woman”?

It is as though the NABRE editors/publishers WANTED to twist the knife that had already been stuck in, just to cause a little more pain. When I refer to problems with the NAB, I am not alone, nor do I refer to only those of a “traditionalist” bent. One can search the internet and find a plethora of PRIESTS who confirm that the NAB translation is bad enough - the notes are horrible.

 

[Mickey]

“Almah” was understood by early Jewish scholars to mean “a young virginal woman”. The septuagint reflected that understanding by translating the passage using the word, “parthenos”. This is supported by Holy Tradition including the writings of St Jerome. It is very sad to see a group of modern day revisionists come along and change it all.

 

[Mickey]

When I refer to problems with the NAB, I am not alone, nor do I refer to only those of a “traditionalist” bent. One can search the internet and find a plethora of PRIESTS who confirm that the NAB translation is bad enough - the notes are horrible.

Yes. It is one of the worst I’ve ever seen.

 

[pnewton]

1. You say they wanted to go back to the “original”. But if one looks to the Septuagint as being the “original” OT text that was being used in Palestine at the time of Christ, then the word would have been “parthenos” - NOT “almah”. And parthenos means only one thing: virgin.

I do not look at the Septuagint as being the original. It was one more transaltion in a long line. Isaiah was written (an therefore inspired) in Hebrew. I think the better question is why change it now. I can only speculate that it might be to avoid the confusion of a virgin birth in the Old Testament. I do not discount the work of the Holy Spirit in such thing though. Perhaps that is the answer to your question, “Why now?”

 

[Mickey]

I do not look at the Septuagint as being the original. It was one more transaltion in a long line.

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times. Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators. Furthermore, Sacred Tradition tells us that St Simeon the Righteous was one of the septuagint translators. I will accept this translation before I would accept the translation of a group of modern day revisionists.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times. Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators. Furthermore, Sacred Tradition tells us that St Simeon the Righteous was one of the septuagint translators. I will accept this translation before I would accept the translation of a group of modern day revisionists.

Interestingly enough, the revisionist changes are ALWAYS for the worse, never for the better. I wonder why that is?

 

[pnewton]

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times. Philo and Josephus ascribed divine inspiration to its translators. Furthermore, Sacred Tradition tells us that St Simeon the Righteous was one of the septuagint translators. I will accept this translation before I would accept the translation of a group of modern day revisionists.

The Septuagint is not an English translation. There is not a comparison. I meant not disrespect for the Septuagint. It is a good translation. However, just like KJV-only people can start to think their translation is somehow something more, it is only the originals that carry a charism of inspiration, or else we would all be in trouble with each new translation. LIke it or not, for Isaiah, that means Hebrew. This fact is not in dispute by scholars of any time period.

 

[pnewton]

Interestingly enough, the revisionist changes are ALWAYS for the worse, never for the better. I wonder why that is?

You do understand that this begs the question, don’t you, the very one asked here. I believe that this particular change is for the better, as I always prefer the more literal. I am not right or wrong, but neither is the axiom assumed in your statement.

 

[Mickey]

Interestingly enough, the revisionist changes are ALWAYS for the worse, never for the better. I wonder why that is?

Good question.

 

[Mickey]

The Septuagint is not an English translation.

I know. But “almah” was translated to “parthenos” which is tranlated as “virgin”.

It is a good translation.

It (the septuagint) is a great translation.

However, just like KJV-only people can start to think their translation is somehow something more…

You can make comparisons to the KJV-onlyists if you like. It still does not change the fact that a group of 72 Jewish scholars, (called “the seventy”), translated “almah” to “parthenos”. This aligns with the writings of St Jerome and the Holy Tradition concerning St Simeon.

If you are partial to the modern day revisionists—that is your business.

 

[Mickey]

I am not right or wrong,

The new revisionist translation, (and your approval of it), does not agree with Holy Tradition.

 

[pnewton]

If you are partial to the modern day revisionists—that is your business.

I am not. It is a logic error to assume that I am partial to modern day revistionists because I agree on this one point. I am partial to literal translations.

The new revisionist translation, (and your approval of it), does not agree with Holy Tradition.

Oh my goodness. So now you are using the technique of false authority? What an irony. I do not really care a whole lot, as both literal and dynamic translations have their place. Yet I am agreeing with the Catholic Church on this one issue and you accuse me of not agreeing with Holy Tradition. Since when does Sacred Tradition support the laity deciding how the Church should translate the Bible? I thought Sacred Tradition allowed for freedom of opinion in academic areas, especially when that opinion coincided with the Catholic Church. I thought we were the students and Mother Church was the teacher.

Accusing me of being opposed to Sacred Tradition, calling translators revisionists; these acts do not serve well to separate you from those who hold the translation in higher honor than the Scripture itself.