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

[AmbroseSJ]

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.

Yes, Ronald Knox makes the same argument, and yet he used “maid” instead of virgin! And he was translating the Vulgate!! :whacky:

 

[Mickey]

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]

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son, Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words.
St Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21)

 

[ryanoneil]

“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."

It depends what you mean by a clear rejection of duality? Both/and happens alot in scripture.

This footnote could just as easily mean that Mary and Jesus “transcend” (go beyond) the initial fulfillment because they give fuller complete understanding to the historical context of what Isaiah was saying. “The prophet need not have known the full force latent in his own words.” Mary “was to fulfill also the words of this prophecy.” The “integral sense intended” doesn’t necessarily mean exclusive. Integrated suggests formed with another part into a unit. In this case, Mary and Jesus are the essential part needed for completeness of the prophecy (especially concerning the promise to David). The other part being " concerned with the preservation of Judah in the midst of distress" at the time of Isaiah. Please re-read the first part of the footnote you didn’t include.

We know God would provide the lamb for sacrifice when Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac. This clearly refers to Jesus, but not in the initial sense of the ram caught in the thicket. The ram fulfilled what Abraham said in the historical context, but it pointed to Jesus and he completely fulfilled it. Do you see my point?

 

[Salvatore123]

ryan,

Yes, I do understand why you say I should not be so dismissive of the “duality” of the prophecy in that it COULD have referred to an upcoming, “near” event dealing with the birth of King Hezekiah, but that it was really fulfilled by the birth of Jesus of his virgin mother Mary.

My point has always been that the Church has, for almost 2000 years, ALWAYS interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as being a prophecy regarding the birth of Christ from Mary. Matthew (who was much closer in time to the event than we are) clearly identified with that prophecy (his wording in 1:23 is almost identical to the words in Isaiah), and Luke’s Gospel says essentially the same.

No one in the Church has ever doubted that Isaiah’s prophecy “fit” Jesus’s birth of a virgin motion to a “T”. That has never been the case with Isaiah applying to Ahaz and King Hezekiah.

In the end, my point (again) is why did the NAB publishers/editors, who originally translated the ancient texts from 1970 until Ash Wednesday, 2011 as “virgin”, but suddenly feel the need now to not only change the word from “virgin” to “maiden” or whatever word or phrase it now has?

Those publishers/editors FALSELY claim that the OT revision was based on “new historical findings and biblical archaeology”, when we KNOW that is not true. We have not had any new archaeological findings or theological insights in the last 40+ years on anything, let alone something that would lead to a change of this magnititude.

I do thank you for contributing, as you made an excellent point and did so in a very logical manner.

 

[pnewton]

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.

I didn’t say that. I said I was partial to literal translations. Your translating of my opinion is a prime example of why I prefer the literal. In it lies logic and truth, as opposed to rhetoric and name-calling. You also misuse the word “grave”. There is no fear of mortal sin in this issue. I am not “partial” to anyone. I give my own opinion, having studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary.

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

I did not. This is another lie.
Academic areas? This mis-translation is not academic. It is a travesty. Translting languages is not academic? Please to not twist my words anymore, or falsely represent me. There is no gain in doing so. It shows that this is only an emotional issue for you. It is far better to stick to the truth, even in disagreement. I did nothing to deserve such poor treatement, other than give an opinion that in no way conflicts with Catholic doctrine. Please stick to Truth if you are going to defend Truth.

 

[Mickey]

I said I was partial to literal translations.

I know.

Your translating of my opinion is a prime example of why I prefer the literal. In it lies logic and truth, as opposed to rhetoric and name-calling.

Name calling? I have said that you are preferring your suppossed opinion of a “literal translation” over Sacred Tradition.

I give my own opinion, having studied Hebrew and Greek in seminary.

Yes. And you ignore Sacred Tradition.

Translting languages is not academic?

There is more to a translation than academia.

Please to not twist my words anymore, or falsely represent me.

I have not done so.

It shows that this is only an emotional issue for you.

Wrong. It shows that I am adhering to Sacred Tradition. I see that you largely ignore the writings of St Jerome and St Irenaeus.

It is far better to stick to the truth

I always fight for the truth.

I did nothing to deserve such poor treatement, other than give an opinion that in no way conflicts with Catholic doctrine.

Your opinion is contrary to Sared Tradition.

Please stick to Truth if you are going to defend Truth.

I have done so.

Here is another tidbit for you to discern:

Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ. But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;’ and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to [discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ.
(St Justin Martyr diologue with Trypho Chapter XLIII)

 

[ryanoneil]

ryan,

Yes, I do understand why you say I should not be so dismissive of the “duality” of the prophecy in that it COULD have referred to an upcoming, “near” event dealing with the birth of King Hezekiah, but that it was really fulfilled by the birth of Jesus of his virgin mother Mary.

My point has always been that the Church has, for almost 2000 years, ALWAYS interpreted Isaiah 7:14 as being a prophecy regarding the birth of Christ from Mary. Matthew (who was much closer in time to the event than we are) clearly identified with that prophecy (his wording in 1:23 is almost identical to the words in Isaiah), and Luke’s Gospel says essentially the same.

No one in the Church has ever doubted that Isaiah’s prophecy “fit” Jesus’s birth of a virgin motion to a “T”. That has never been the case with Isaiah applying to Ahaz and King Hezekiah.

In the end, my point (again) is why did the NAB publishers/editors, who originally translated the ancient texts from 1970 until Ash Wednesday, 2011 as “virgin”, but suddenly feel the need now to not only change the word from “virgin” to “maiden” or whatever word or phrase it now has?

Those publishers/editors FALSELY claim that the OT revision was based on “new historical findings and biblical archaeology”, when we KNOW that is not true. We have not had any new archaeological findings or theological insights in the last 40+ years on anything, let alone something that would lead to a change of this magnititude.

I do thank you for contributing, as you made an excellent point and did so in a very logical manner.

I don’t know the answer to your question about the publisher. Thanks for listening.

 

[Salvatore123]

I researched the issue more and posted the following in response to another thread dealing with this issue. I thought it might help this thread to have it posted here as well.

A poster in the other thread said that “parthenos” referred to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and thus NOT necessarily a virgin. I think the passage I cite refutes that argument. But I also found it interesting to see how the English transliteration of the words “virgin” and “maiden” are the same in Greek:

The following is taken from The Apostolic Bible Polyglot, which is the first numerically coded Greek Old Testament, and it allows the student of the Word to study both testaments in the same language, and to follow the association of a word from either the New Testament to the Old Testament, or vice versa. The Apostolic Bible trilinear format has the AB-Strong numbers on the top line, the Greek text on the middle line, and the English translation on the bottom line. The Apostolic Bible text is separated into books, chapters, section headings, verses, and footnotes.

The relevant passage regarding Dinah is found in Genesis 34.1-3:

“And Dinah, the daughter whom Leah bore to Jacob, went forth to study the daughters of the native inhabitants. And Scheshem, the son of Hamor, the Hivite, the ruler of the land, and beheld her. And taking her, he went to bed with her, and humbled her. And he took heed to the soul of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob. And he loved the virgin, and he spoke concerning the thought of her virgin state.”

So yes, “parthenos” does refer to Dinah, a particular woman, but:

1. When I said that “parthenos” mean ONLY one thing: a virgin, I did not mean it referred to only ONE particular woman. I meant that it referred to only one “sexual status” of a woman.
2. “παρθένος”, when transliterated into English, is “parthenos”.

Thus, I still stand by my original thesis: when the Septuagint was written at the request of Ptolemy Philadelphius (if one believes the legend), one had Hebrews writing the OT and doing so using Greek words - the primary language spoken in Palestine at that time - and thus using Greek words that would have made sense and would have been an accurate representation of the OT they were translating. The Hebrew translators could have used another Greek word such as “νέα γυναίκα” (meaning young woman).

But here is something I found even more interesting. Look at “parthenos” (which appears in greek as “παρθένος”) and means virgin.

Now look at “παρθενικός” and “παρθένος”, which are greek for “maiden”!!!

Thus, I think we must go back to CONTEXT, as I and someone else alluded to earlier: a young “maiden” more than 2000 years ago would have been presumed to have been a virgin. The sexual mores at the time would have, for lack of a better word, “commanded” that it be so. That is not to say an exception could not have existed. I am simply saying that the Septuagint translators were careful when they used a greek word - παρθένος - when they wanted to convey the meaning “virgin”. Other choices were available to them if they wanted to indicate a young woman who was definitely NOT a virgin, or where being a virgin did NOT have meaning.

I think it obvious that “virgin” (remember - the Holy Spirit is the author) - was intended, as it was foretelling the birth of Christ from the Blessed Mother, a virgin.

My conclusion is that “virgin” and “maiden” both mean “virgin”, but that “young woman”, although it does not exclude a virgin, it does not necessarily mean virgin either. It simply refers to the opposite sex of a male who is not very old.

 

[CEM5]

Hi Salvatore,

Your research, in my opinion, is well done. I would like to add that St.Jerome had access to the original manuscripts that were written in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. It was those originals that he used to make the translation into the Latin (our Vulgate).

I did look up the Greek rendering and it follows as such for Isaiah 7:14:

δια τουτο δωσει κυριος αυτος υμιν σημειον ιδου η παρθενος εν γαστρι εξει και τεξεται υιον και καλεσεις το ονομα αυτου εμμανουηλ

The highligted blue Greek word is “virgin”.

I do not like the liberties the NABRE is taking. It seems to me that liberalism is creeping into our Faith, and this, in my opinion, is dangerous.

Thank you and God bless,
CEM

 

[Bible_Reader]

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, for basic information on Origen’s Hexapla see this, for example. You will notice that Origen preferred three other Greek translations over the Septuagint: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He did include the Septuagint, but only in a critical edition that included detailed notes on how it deviated from the Hebrew.

By the way, the translator of Septuagint Isaiah lived 500 years after Isaiah was written. At the time that the translator of Septuagint Isaiah lived, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the everyday language of Israel.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, for basic information on Origen’s Hexapla see this, for example.

Wikipedia? Do you have any source info which indicates that Origen rejects the word, “parthenos”?

You will notice that Origen preferred three other Greek translations over the Septuagint: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.

Well then…that explains it. I think I’ll stick with St Irenaeus.

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son, Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words.
St Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21)

 

[ERose]

I think that we need to use a little common sense here. Is 7:14 is providing a “sign” of the messanic birth as St. Matthew emphasizes. Ask yourself this question: What kind of sign is it that a young woman will give birth to a child? Really? C’mon there where 1000s of young women given birth everyday in Isreal everyday most probably. A comparison would be: I will give you a sign that I am telling you the truth. The sun will rise tomorrow in the morning. Well duh no kidding it will.

Signs were significant in Scripture. Signs were things that one normally did not see or experience. They were unordinary. That is why they are called signs. A young woman given birth is an ordinary occurance in any society.

The way the sign is written in Isaiah is that we would know this Emmanuel by the type of birth He would have. Thus the birth itself had to be unnusual, and a virgin giving birth is extremely unusual in my opinion and would match the requirements for a sign. So there is no way that this passage would have meant just a young woman. It is out context to what this passage is saying.

God bless.

 

[pnewton]

There is more to a translation than academia.

If you mean that there is more to translation than accuracy to the language, then perhaps that is yet another point of disagreement. I believe that intellectual dishonesty is as much a violation of the truth as any other. No, translation should never be about interpretation. That is exactly what the Jehovah Witness’ did with their NWV. As Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired in its writings, there is not need to fudge beyond pure academic acuracy. Inspiration does not need the assistance of the translator. That is the mistake the KJV people make.

As to your Justin Martyr quote, I have never referenced Hezekiah. Nor have I denied the fulfillment of this prophecy in Jesus. * This* is what Justin Martyr was addressing.

 

[Mickey]

If you mean that there is more to translation than accuracy to the language,

No. I mean that Holy isTradition is a factor.

I believe that intellectual dishonesty is as much a violation of the truth as any other.

Indeed.

As Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired in its writings, there is not need to fudge beyond pure academic acuracy.

The translation in conjunction with Sacred Tradition tells us that the passage should be interpretated as “a virgin”. Your opinion differs…it is duly noted…and most here don’t agree with your opinion (or the opinion of the modern revisionists of the NABRE).

This is what Justin Martyr was addressing.

St Jerome, St Irenaeus, and St Justin Martyr all speak to this issue…and you disagree with them. I could provide many more examples…but at this point you are convinced otherwise.

Let’s see what Catholic Answers has to say:

Q: A friend of mine contends that the Bible nowhere makes the prophecy that Mary would be a virgin, only that she would be a young girl. He says that’s what it means in the original Hebrew. Is he correct?
A: The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.

Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.

The Hebrew word translated as virgin, *almah, *can also be translated as “young woman” but as *Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon *notes “there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is *not *a virgin.”

Additional evidence that the correct translation is “virgin” is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as *parthenos. *This Greek term has the precise meaning of “virgin.” So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: *almah = parthenos *= virgin.
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601qq.asp

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Bible Reader:

By the way, the translator of Septuagint Isaiah lived 500 years after Isaiah was written. At the time that the translator of Septuagint Isaiah lived, Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the everyday language of Israel.

Then again, don’t modern critical/historical translators seriously question when and by whom Isaiah was written? So your dating may not hold up under scrutiny, nor your logic.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Then again, don’t modern critical/historical translators seriously question when and by whom Isaiah was written? So your dating may not hold up under scrutiny, nor your logic.

While there is a belief among some critics that Isaiah should be divided into three sections (Proto-Isaiah chapters 1-39, Deutero-Isaiah chapters 40-55, and Trito-Isaiah chapters 56-66), I am unaware of any widespread belief that Isaiah 7:14 was written by a different author than Isaiah 1:1.

See for example the (old) NAB’s Introduction to Isaiah.

The dating of Isaiah 1:1 is quite clear from its plain meaning.

Regardless of the dating of Isaiah, it is clear that at the time of the first Septuagint translations, Aramaic had – for several centuries – replaced Hebrew as the common language of Israel. Indeed, besides the various ancient Greek translations of the Bible, there are various ancient Aramaic translations of the Bible. An Aramaic translation is called a Targum.

 

[Salvatore123]

There is some guy who goes around (I cannot remember his name) claiming - as he peddles his “Peshitta” bible, that modern Syrian language is close if not identical to ancient Aramaic. Thus, he claims that HIS bible translation is definitely the most accurate as it would reflect the exact wording that was spoken by Christ, his Apostles, and the majority of the people they spoke to.

I don’t think I buy this . . .

 

[Bible_Reader]

There is some guy who goes around (I cannot remember his name) claiming - as he peddles his “Peshitta” bible, that modern Syrian language is close if not identical to ancient Aramaic

Ah, you are speaking of George Lamsa and his infamous Lamsa Bible. His view is decidedly in the minority.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

While there is a belief among some critics that Isaiah should be divided into three sections (Proto-Isaiah chapters 1-39, Deutero-Isaiah chapters 40-55, and Trito-Isaiah chapters 56-66), I am unaware of any widespread belief that Isaiah 7:14 was written by a different author than Isaiah 1:1.

See for example the (old) NAB’s Introduction to Isaiah.

The dating of Isaiah 1:1 is quite clear from its plain meaning.

Regardless of the dating of Isaiah, it is clear that at the time of the first Septuagint translations, Aramaic had – for several centuries – replaced Hebrew as the common language of Israel. Indeed, besides the various ancient Greek translations of the Bible, there are various ancient Aramaic translations of the Bible. An Aramaic translation is called a Targum.

Regardless, the 72 were all highly educated (in Hebrew) and religious Jews, and were chosen specifically for their superior learning in Sacred Scripture (at a time when men devoted their lives entirely to the Sacred texts unlike the “career” academics of today.) Therefore, coming a mere couple of centuries (+/-) later, at a time when Hebrew was more or less set in stone, it is foolish to suppose them less able to translate Hebrew than scholars today. Their use of parthenos is telling, and in my opinion, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

So taking the view that the 72 were just not as qualified to translate as today’s scholars is ludicrous IMHO.