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

[Bible_Reader]

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.

It is true that Josephus and Philo repeat the story from the Letter of Aristeas about about the divine inspiration of the Septuagint, but it is vital to remember that this referred only to the translation of the Pentateuch.

You can read about the factual errors in the Letter here.

It is hard to understand how St. Simeon could have been a Septuagint translator since the Septuagint dates from 200 BCE.

 

[Bible_Reader]

It still does not change the fact that a group of 72 Jewish scholars, (called “the seventy”), translated “almah” to “parthenos”.

In fact, according to the legend as related by the Letter of Aristeas, Philo, and Josephus, the seventy translated the Law only.

Regarding tradition, Origen himself rejected the Septuagint as deficient and his Hexapla is a collection of material for revision. I do not think of Origen as being in opposition to tradition.

See this article for more details

The Christian Church received the Septuagint from the Jews as a divine revelation, and quite innocently employed it as a basis for Scriptural interpretation. Only when Jewish polemics assailed it was the Church compelled to investigate the true relationship of the translation to the original. Origen perceived the insufficiency of the Septuagint, and, in his “Hexapla,” collected material for a thorough revision of it. But the legend long adhered closely to the Septuagint and was further embellished by the Church. Not only were “the Seventy” (the usual expression instead of Seventy-two) credited with having translated all the Sacred Scriptures instead of the Law only (according to Epiphanius, a whole mass of Apocrypha besides), but the miraculous element increased.

 

[SFH]

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.

And your post is a bit pretentious …

The question of how Isaiah 7:14 should be translated goes beyond mere Hebrew and Greek. It is a deeply philosophical and theological issue.

How should the entire Bible be interpreted? Is the Bible the work of men or the work of the Holy Spirit? If the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit, then a subsequent statement by the Holy Spirit about what a text means should be definitive.

In other words, if I write that “the dog retrieved the bone” and someone later translates that “the beagle retrieved the bone,” there is a legitimate question about the accuracy of the translation. However, if I write that “the dog retrieved the bone” and I later indicate that I meant a “beagle,” than a translation of the text as “the beagle retrieved the bone” is perfectly proper – that is a more accurate translation of what the author intended when he wrote “the dog retrieved the bone.”

As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit wrote the entire Bible. So when the Holy Spirit in Matthew says that the passage in Isaiah means “virgin,” there is a logical reason to translate the passage that way.

Apart from the philosophical/theological arguments, the word “almah” is NEVER used in the Old Testament to signify a married woman or a young woman with child. In the context in which it is used, it always signifies a young, unmarried (presumably virgin) girl. Perhaps a better translation would be “the maiden shall be with child,” but “virgin” is certainly defensible.

Beyond the numerous translation problems witht he NABRE, the language is still awkward and stilted. While the translators may have been adequate in their knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, they were considerably less gifted linguistically. At this point, Catholics really have only one decent option of a contemporary bible – the RSV-CE Second Edition. Unfortunately, it’s printed in China, the print is quite small, and it stops short of a full implementation of the recommendations in Liturgiam Authenticam (recommendations that are completely consistent with the Fathers of the Church).

Hopefully, no one buys this wretched translation and the publisher takes a bath.

 

[pnewton]

As a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit wrote the entire Bible. So when the Holy Spirit in Matthew says that the passage in Isaiah means “virgin,” there is a logical reason to translate the passage that way.

The Holy Spirit (Matthew) does not say say that the passage in Isaiah means “virgin”.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

You said: “The Holy Spirit (Matthew) does not say say that the passage in Isaiah means ‘virgin’.”

But of course the Holy Spirit said this in Matthew AND in Isaiah!

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.”

If God was not referring to “the prophet” (Isaiah) in Matthew, to what other prophet was he referring? No other prophecy in the entire OT speaks in a way that is repeated almost verbatim in the NT.

Consider the following commentaries:

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).”

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.

---

“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.*

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

You said: “The Holy Spirit (Matthew) does not say say that the passage in Isaiah means ‘virgin’.”

But of course the Holy Spirit said this in Matthew AND in Isaiah!

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.”

If God was not referring to “the prophet” (Isaiah) in Matthew, to what other prophet was he referring? No other prophecy in the entire OT speaks in a way that is repeated almost verbatim in the NT.

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.

I do not forget. I would like to point out that the unspoken assumption in your logic, an assumption I do not hold, is equating “fulfilment” with " translated as. I never said that the New Testament did not say this passage was fulfilled at the birth of Christ, only that the New Testament does not say it is to be translated this way.

The majority of prophecy is for the contemporaries of the prophet. Most passages that are fulfilled have a primary meaning to the people at the time. We today tend to think of prophecy as a predicting of the future. That is not the NT sense. This is why I hold to the literal meaning of the Matthew passage that you give, that the verse of Isaiah was fulfilled in Jesus, but I do not expand it to mean that the verse in Isaiah does not refer to a virgin.

The elephant in the room here, and one that is not really addressed in translating the word virgin, is that there was not virgin birth at the time of Isaiah. Let me say again, there was no virgin birth at the time of Isaiah. The person that Isaiah referred to be born primarily was not born of a virgin, but of a maiden. That is why I prefer the literal translation of the Hebrew word. If you do not, good for you. The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not. It will likely change again. This is not a right or wrong issue. It is also not a “modernist” issue. That is just an unfair insult at those who disagree on an issue that disagreement is perfectly 100% okay.

 

[SFH]

The Holy Spirit (Matthew) does not say say that the passage in Isaiah means “virgin”.

Note that I chose my words carefully. I did NOT say that the Holy Spirit said the word “almah” should be translated as “virgin.” Rather, I said that the Holy Spirit indicated in St. Matthew that what the Holy Spirit meant in Isaiah was that the “almah” was a “virgin” and that the “virgin” would give birth to a child.

The problem with the way you approach the Old Testament prophecies is that you have adopted the modernist approach. If you believe the Bible is just another religious book like the Koran or the Gita, then your approach is perfectly defensible.

If you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, then your task is to determine what God meant (not what the author of the text meant). And if there is an ambiguous passage (e.g., maiden/young woman) and God subsequently clarifies what that passage means, then you should translate the passage as God meant it.

To say that St. Matthew merely indicates that Isaiah was fulfilled in the virgin birth doesn’t save your argument, the passage in Isaiah would not be fulfilled by the virgin birth of Our Savior if the passage did not actually mean that a virgin would give birth.

Moreover, Catholics rely on both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While the Hebrew text uses the word “almah,” an admittedly ambiguous term that could refer to either a virgin or a young woman, the Greek Septuagint translates the passage as “parthenos” or “virgin.” In other words, the Greek Septuagint testifies to how the passage was interpreted by Jews in the Diaspora, how the passage was interpreted in accordance with Sacred Tradition.

To translate the passage as “virgin” is perfectly acceptable because that is how it was interpreted by the Jews in the Diaspora, that is how it was interpreted according to Sacred Tradition.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

You said: “The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not. It will likely change again.”

With this statement, I most certainly disagree. The Catholic Church has NOT changed its teaching of the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled with the birth of Christ from Mary. The only change that occurred is a word being replaced by a group of publishers/editors who hold a copyright to the NAB.

They do NOT have the approval of Rome to change scripture. They can’t. To change scripture - namely, the official bible of the Vatican - they would have to change the Nova Vulgata, and that is not happening. The Nova Vulgata reads “ecce virgo” - “behold the virgin”. No wiggle room on this one.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

You said: “The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not. It will likely change again.”

With this statement, I most certainly disagree. The Catholic Church has NOT changed its teaching of the prophecy of Isaiah being fulfilled with the birth of Christ from Mary. The only change that occurred is a word being replaced by a group of publishers/editors who hold a copyright to the NAB.

They do NOT have the approval of Rome to change scripture. They can’t. To change scripture - namely, the official bible of the Vatican - they would have to change the Nova Vulgata, and that is not happening. The Nova Vulgata reads “ecce virgo” - “behold the virgin”. No wiggle room on this one.

What in the world are you talking about. I never said anything about changing doctrine or teaching. I am talking about translations. Yes, the Catholic Church does change translations. Case in point, this year. Translating, linguistics and many other areas are not a matter of faith and morals. I am beginning to think that what I say is being deliberately misconstrued, as it is happening so much. The Church is under no obligation to depend on the Vulgate, or any translation. Translating from the original languages is permitted.

I grow weary of being misrepresented, as is this whole issue. It makes me long for more substantial issues, like angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

If I misinterpreted what you were saying, I apologize as that was not my intent. I can only go on what I see when I read.

You said this (verbatim): “Let me say again, there was no virgin birth at the time of Isaiah. The person that Isaiah referred to be born primarily was not born of a virgin, but of a maiden. That is why I prefer the literal translation of the Hebrew word. If you do not, good for you. The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not. It will likely change again.”

First, of course there was no virgin birth at the time of Isaiah - it was PROPHETIC. That is, it was a prophet prophesying about a future event.

Second, the part that I took issue with, and that SOUNDS like there is a change in Church teaching/doctrine on biblical interpretation is when you said “The person that Isaiah referred to be born primarily was not born of a virgin, but of a maiden.”

That is simply not true.

If you accept (and I said this earlier - as a Catholic, you MUST accept this) that the Holy Spirit was the “author” of the OT and NT, then you must realize that the Holy Spirit already knew that Christ would be born and that his birth would be of a virgin.

Thus, how can you say that “the person that Isaiah referred to be born primarily was not born of a virgin”, when clearly he was? Who else was Isaiah referring to, if not Jesus Christ and Mary?

THAT is why I interpreted what you said as a change in “church teaching”, because the Church has ALWAYS interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as prophesying the birth of Jesus Christ by a virgin, his mother Mary. I know of no interpretation made by the Church where Isaiah was ever interpreted differently.

P.S. - one quesiton I asked early on in this thread and one that no one has yet to answer: if translators of bibles are to follow the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, and that encyclical has been around for almost 70 years, why in the world would the editors/publishers of the NABRE wait until 2011 to make such a change? We haven’t discovered anything by way of new historial writings or biblical archaeology in the last 50 or so years, so the editors/publishers CAN’T be referring to something scholarly for the change. So - what gives?

 

[pnewton]

pnewton,

If I misinterpreted what you were saying, I apologize as that was not my intent. I can only go on what I see when I read.

You said this (verbatim): “Let me say again, there was no virgin birth at the time of Isaiah. The person that Isaiah referred to be born primarily was not born of a virgin, but of a maiden. That is why I prefer the literal translation of the Hebrew word. If you do not, good for you. The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not. It will likely change again.”

First, of course there was no virgin birth at the time of Isaiah - it was PROPHETIC. That is, it was a prophet prophesying about a future event.

I see. So the basis of my disagreement is that I do not see the future fulfillment as the* primary* fulfillment. Let me give the context for those not familiar.

But within sixty years and five, Ephraim shall be crushed, no longer a nation. Unless your faith is firm you shall not be firm!

Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz: 11 5 Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky! 12 But Ahaz answered, “I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!” 13 Then he said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall be living on curds and honey by the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good. 16 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.

Two things. Jesus did not live on curds and honey. His maturity was not a sign of the downfall of Aram and Israel, and prosperity for Judah. Ahaz’s son who succeeded him turned Judah around for the time. Ephraim fell. I do not know of Aram. This is why I believe this was first fulfilled at the time of Ahaz. The context of Isaiah was a conversation about present woes, not a vision. It should be noted that this is scarcely the on only prophecy that is fulfilled on multitple levels. The abomination of desolataion in Daniel comes to mind. The Psalms. The Jewish idea of fulfillment allows for this. It is not like we think of today, some Nostradomus quatrain.

 

[pnewton]

I think even Matthew was aware of this double meaning. Perhaps that is why he felt the need to add,"He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. "

I have never heard a modern scholar try to argue away the virgin birth by use of semantics. The only way I have heard this attempted is through demythology. Usual if the virgin birth goes, so does all the miraculous.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton,

The following is what I meant when I started this thread, and goes directly to what you and I have discussed in our recent posts: the inconsistency of the NAB publishers/editors, the manner in which the Catholic Church always interpreted Isaiah 7:14, and the specific reference to the prophecy of Christ’s birth by his virgin mother, Mary.

In other words, according to the first edition of the NAB (published in 1970 - I have the first edition in front of me as I type this), Isaiah 7:14 presaged the birth of Christ. The note from the 1970 NAB version appears between the quotation marks and is in dark red.

“The church* has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillmenmt of this verse in Christ and his Virgin Mother.* The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words; and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman.”

[pnewton - Ironically (and I say this as I do not know if you were aware of the note that accompanied the first edition of the NAB in 1970), what you mentioned in one of your earlier responses to me is exactly what this note refers to when it speaks of “some Catholic writers” and what they tried to explain. But note the clear rejection of this “duality” of prophecy of which you spoke . . .]

"The Holy Spirit was preparing, however, for another Nativity which alone could fulfill the divinely given terms of Immanuel’s mission, and in which the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God was to fulfill also the words of this prophecy in the integral sense intended by the divine Wisdom."

Thus, my “argument” or complaint is not with you - it is with the proprietors of the NAB itself, as they have obviously “reversed” their earlier belief and translation of the same OT “ancient texts” that existed in 1970, as existed in 2011.

Nothing changed in terms of biblical scholarship or archaeology to warrant such a change.

I don’t know how much clearer an interpretation one can give to Isaiah 7:14, and ironically, it is from the NAB itself, in its debut.

P.S. - remember you said to me: “The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not.”

No, it is not the Church that has agreed or disagreed - it is those who hold the copyright to the NAB. As the note I quoted above said, the Church has ALWAYS interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as applying to Christ and the Blessed Mother.

 

[JackQ]

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.

Actually “virgin” would make sense even for the birth of Hezekiah, since it would be a way of describing the time that would elapse before Immanuel would be born. The word “virgin” as understood in that context wouldn’t refer to a miraculous birth, but would refer, instead, to a young woman who was a virgin at the point in time of the prophecy subsequently conceiving, who would not, it would be assumed, be a virgin at the time of the conception.

 

[pnewton]

P.S. - remember you said to me: “The Church usually has agreed with you. Now it does not.”

No, it is not the Church that has agreed or disagreed - it is those who hold the copyright to the NAB. As the note I quoted above said, the Church has ALWAYS interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as applying to Christ and the Blessed Mother.

I know the Church has always applied Isaiah to Christ. Matthew did. I thank you for the correction on the NAB. I had misunderstood this part. I thought the new translation was going to part of the new lectionary. That is my misunderstanding.

and some Catholic writers have sought a preliminary and partial fulfillment in the conception and birth of the future King Hezekiah, whose mother, at the time Isaiah spoke, would have been a young, unmarried woman."

Theologians are free to agree are disagree in many areas, as long as one does not deny any dogma, or at my level, any doctrine at all. Nor do I.

 

[Salvatore123]

pnewton - you didn’t need "correcting. I just think we were talking about the same thing and probably overlooked what the other was saying.

As I said, my “argument” was never with you

 

[Mickey]

I am partial to literal translations.

That is my point. I believe it is a grave error to be partial to modern day revisionists while ignoring the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Oh my goodness. So now you are using the technique of false authority?

Oh my goodness! Now you are calling sacred Tradition “false authority”!

Yet I am agreeing with the Catholic Church on this one issue and you accuse me of not agreeing with Holy Tradition.

Much of the Catholic Church does not agree with you.

Since when does Sacred Tradition support the laity deciding how the Church should translate the Bible?

Sacred Tradition is our interpretation. You are saying that the modern day revisionists are above Sacred Tradition? Oh My!

I thought Sacred Tradition allowed for freedom of opinion in academic areas

Academic areas? This mis-translation is not academic. It is a travesty.

 

[Mickey]

It is hard to understand how St. Simeon could have been a Septuagint translator since the Septuagint dates from 200 BCE.

Pray about it.

 

[Mickey]

Regarding tradition, Origen himself rejected the Septuagint as deficient and his Hexapla is a collection of material for revision.

If that is true, it certainly is not a consensus amongst the fathers. Do you have a source?

But I will reiterate…I will accept the translation of the Hebrew scholars who translated this material (who actually lived in this era and knew the meaning of “almah”). And I will accept the Sacred Tradition of the Church and the writings of St Jerome…over and above your opinion and acceptance of this modern day revision.

 

[Mickey]

The elephant in the room here, and one that is not really addressed in translating the word virgin, is that there was not virgin birth at the time of Isaiah.

No. The real elephant in the room here…is that interpretation goes beyond a literal and cold interpretation of Isaiah by a group of modern day revisionists.

The Church usually has agreed with you.

Amen.