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

[pnewton]

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).

My opinion does not differ from the first sentence quoted. An accurate translation and Church teaching tell us how to interpret Scripture. Yes. Heck, even an inaccurate translation if interpreted through the eyes of the Church is better than a more accurate translation that one takes and tries to interpret on their own. I have never questioned this. I do however resent the devil out of this continual guilt by association you keep throwing up. The opinion of anyone else, whatever sort of demonizing label you wish to give them, has nothing to do with my opinion. And this nebulous group of “modern revisionist” whoever they may be, are in no way connected to me, or I to them. The part in parathesis that you included served no logical purpose that I can discern. It only serves logical fallacy.

I found a rather good explaination of what I have attempted to offer here, since I have been misunderstood so much.

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/01/jesus_immanuel_.html

This points us to look for the original fulfillment of the prophecy to be within the life of Ahaz, which ended in 715 B.C.
The second thing about the passage which helps us understand its original reference is the fact that it says before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good (i.e., avoid things that will hurt him and accept things that will help him), that the lands he is afraid of will get conquered. Now, the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians happened around 721 B.C., and it’s possible that the conquest mentioned in the prophecy is an even earlier one, which occurred in the 730s B.C.
So once again we’re pointed toward a child born in the 8th century B.C.
This child was not, in all likelihood, born of a virgin. The term that is used in Hebrew–almah–refers to a young woman. It is commonly assumed that an almah was a virgin, and the Septuagint translates it thus in Greek (parthenos), but that is not what the Hebrew requires.

and

Incidentally, here’s a tip for understanding how some New Testament fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies work: To avoid the trap of thinking that each Old Testament prophecy has one and only one fulfillment, which is the one the New Testament records, or that the New Testament fulfillment must be the primary fulfillment of the prophecy or that all the details of the New Testament fulfillment have to match those of the Old Testament prophecy, try replacing the word “fulfills” with a broader word, like “corresponds to” or “reflects” or “echoes,” to reflect the broader understanding that the biblical authors had.

 

[Mickey]

My opinion does not differ from the first sentence quoted.

…Then what are you arguing about?

The opinion of anyone else, whatever sort of demonizing label you wish to give them, has nothing to do with my opinion.

If your opinion differs from the Church Fathers on this issue (which it seems)…then it is proper to point it out. But you are over reacting a bit with your “demonizing” rhetoric.

And this nebulous group of “modern revisionist” whoever they may be, are in no way connected to me, or I to them.

Good adjective! They are truly nebulous!

But now I am confused. I thought you were agreeing with them.

The part in parathesis that you included served no logical purpose that I can discern.

On the contrary. I though you agreed with the NABRE revisionists. But now you say that you don’t. How odd?

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/01/jesus_immanuel_.html

I think it rather unclear what Jimmy is saying here. If he is trying to say that he agrees that the term should not be translated as “virgin”…then I will disagee with Jimmy also. He should look into the Sacred Tradition.

 

[Faith3Faith]

Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles have always translated Isaiah 7:14 to say “a virgin would bear a son”. So now we are expected to believe that “a young woman would bear a son” is a better translation, when anyone with true Catholic faith knows that Isaiah said and meant “virgin” in his prophecy? Since we all know Isaiah said and meant “virgin”, then obviously “virgin” is what should be used in that text.

It appears as though the liberal modernists are trying to appeal to the jewish lobby in the name of friendship, peace, coming together as one, blah blah blah, etc…

There was no point in changing that text. Its a disgrace.

 

[pnewton]

…But now I am confused. I thought you were agreeing with them.
On the contrary. I though you agreed with the NABRE revisionists. But now you say that you don’t. How odd?

Then I feel better about how I presented my opinions. I have clearly said that I agree on this point. I also clearly have said that there is not connection between us, in that I am no more modern that you are (you are modern, by the way) but I do not seek revision. This particular opinion is one I have held for quite a while and is based on Hebrew, not theology. You are having confusion in resolving these two positions. That is because people do not fit into monolithic categories and names and labels serve more to confuse that communicate. And contrary to what Faith3Faith said, understanding Isaiah in a more literal light, and believing that the birth in the Seventh Century BC does not mean that one is a liberal or lacks “true Catholic Faith”. Such a statement conveys a shallow and limited meaning of what it means to be Catholic. Disagreeing with me, or Jimmy Akin should never cause one to question anothers faith or orthodoxy.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

pnewton:

I found a rather good explaination of what I have attempted to offer here, since I have been misunderstood so much.

That link is good explanation of the first fulfillment of the prophecy, indicating it is more of a time image. So that in its day that was how it was read, a prophecy with an imminent fulfillment. However, by the time of the 72, it was seen as something more, there was something latent in its wording -a Messianic prophecy. Therefore, because the Bible is the living word of God, not a dead dusty artifact from the past, I would prefer the translation of the 72, which is further corroborated by St. Matthew. It is the way the NABRE treats the bible as an old dusty artifact or archaeological find, rather than as the Word of God, which we have in this last age, that is so irksome.

 

[pnewton]

Therefore, because the Bible is the living word of God, not a dead dusty artifact from the past, I would prefer the translation of the 72, which is further corroborated by St. Matthew. It is the way the NABRE treats the bible as an old dusty artifact or archaeological find, rather than as the Word of God, which we have in this last age, that is so irksome.

That is an interesting way of putting it. I do not really think the issue of translation is worth emotional energy though, unless we find a deliberate attack on the faith. Is it not possible to treat the Bible as both, a writing with historical context and the living Word of God?

I will say this, the conversation here has left me with an altered opinion that “virgin” is the most prudent translation of this word in Isaiah, even if it is not my preference.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

pnewton:

That is an interesting way of putting it. I do not really think the issue of translation is worth emotional energy though, unless we find a deliberate attack on the faith. Is it not possible to treat the Bible as both, a writing with historical context and the living Word of God?

Yes, to the extent that it does not unnecessarily scandalize the Faithful. That is why some have suggested that the alternate reading of “young woman” and its meaning to Ahaz be relegated to the footnotes.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, to the extent that it does not unnecessarily scandalize the Faithful. That is why some have suggested that the alternate reading of “young woman” and its meaning to Ahaz be relegated to the footnotes.

That is another interesting thought. The information would still be there if someone was confused by a virgin birth during the days of the Kingdom of Judah. It is good to remember that many read the Bible through, digesting whole passages. Narratives like this read like a story and need to make sense.

 

[Bible_Reader]

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.

Ambrose – you apparently missed my comments several posts above in which I demonstrated that all the ancient sources agree that the legend of the 72 applied to the Pentateuch only. Greek Septuagint was translated much later, almost certainly by a single individual, and as I have demonstrated, the version we have now radically departs from Hebrew version (for example, at 8:14, adopting the exact opposite meaning of the verse). The version was so defective that the great doctor of the church, Origen, noted on its deficiencies and contrasted it with three more popular Jewish-Greek translations and prepared a corrected version.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Ambrose – you apparently missed my comments several posts above in which I demonstrated that all the ancient sources agree that the legend of the 72 applied to the Pentateuch only. Greek Septuagint was translated much later, almost certainly by a single individual, and as I have demonstrated, the version we have now radically departs from Hebrew version (for example, at 8:14, adopting the exact opposite meaning of the verse). The version was so defective that the great doctor of the church, Origen, noted on its deficiencies and contrasted it with three more popular Jewish-Greek translations and prepared a corrected version.

Origen is not a Doctor of the Church, nor is he considered a Church Father. Some of his philosophies and beliefs were condemned as heretical. He is considered an ecclesiastical writer of much merit however. Origen’s corrections are immaterial to our discussion I think.

 

[Mickey]

you are modern, by the way

LOL! You do not know me very well.

but I do not seek revision.

Obviously you **do **seek revision. You support the NABRE revisionists. “Young woman” is not the proper translation…“virgin” is the proper translation. The Septuagint confirms this. The Holy Fathers confirm this. Holy Tradition confirms this. I stand by my comments. You seem to be at odds with all these sources.

You are having confusion in resolving these two positions.

No…I am not.

My confusion is related to your lack of clarity.

 

[Mickey]

I will say this, the conversation here has left me with an altered opinion that “virgin” is the most prudent translation of this word in Isaiah, even if it is not my preference.

Wow! Now I am confused again. You have changed your opinion?

Peace and prayers to you pnewton.

Please forgive me if I have offended you during this thread. I am the worst of sinners.

 

[Mickey]

Origen is not a Doctor of the Church, nor is he considered a Church Father. Some of his philosophies and beliefs were condemned as heretical. He is considered an ecclesiastical writer of much merit however. Origen’s corrections are immaterial to our discussion I think.

Correct.

 

[pnewton]

Wow! Now I am confused again. You have changed your opinion?

I changed my opinion of what might be most prudent, not what I prefer or think is most accurate.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Origen is not a Doctor of the Church, nor is he considered a Church Father. Some of his philosophies and beliefs were condemned as heretical. He is considered an ecclesiastical writer of much merit however. Origen’s corrections are immaterial to our discussion I think.

Admittedly, there is some controversy on this point. However, the current Pope describes Origen as a Church Father in chapter 2 of his Jesus of Nazareth, volume 1 book. Further Origen’s Hexapla was used by Jerome for his Latin translation, so I think his views are relevant.

For discussions of “72” being a translation of the Pentateuch only, see here.

For discussions of the two-century history of the Septuagint, see here (as well as a discussion of the preferred Jewish Greek translations, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.)

For a discussion of the many errors in Septuagint Isaiah, see here.

Of course, you are welcome to believe anything you wish. Nonetheless, the note to the NABRE Isaiah 7:14 is remarkably clear on the distinctions, and I don’t understand how anyone could possibly be confused about the range of opinions on the topics after reading it. In this sense, it is responsible in presenting the range of multiple views.

Finally, I am a bit amazed by this remark:

It is the way the NABRE treats the bible as an old dusty artifact or archaeological find, rather than as the Word of God, which we have in this last age, that is so irksome

The NABRE has only become available in Catholic bookstore near me in the last week, and although I have been diligently reading it, I am only half-way through. I am a bit amazed that readers are able to make pronouncements on the entire work – either they are lightening-fast readers or they are willing to make judgments based on brief fragments. Of the portions I have read to date, I will say that the notes are remarkably lucid and a large step forward from previous NAB notes.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Isaiah 7:14 involves Doctrine. The Vulgate does not err on terms of doctrine and can be used in all disputations.

When given a choice between the NABRE and the Vulgate the Vulgate is the obvious choice.

 

[pnewton]

Isaiah 7:14 involves Doctrine. The Vulgate does not err on terms of doctrine and can be used in all disputations.

When given a choice between the NABRE and the Vulgate the Vulgate is the obvious choice.

The Vulgate is Latin, not English.

 

[pnewton]

Obviously you **do **seek revision.

No, I do not, and your underlining does not mean you know me better than I do myself. I have held this particular understanding, if not the prudential application, for three decades. It is a rare co-incidence of my opinion and that of this new translation. I do not seek revision. Again, I do not seek revision. If it seems otherwise to you, I do not know how you can “misunderstand” when I have said the same thing multiple times, unless your desire to misunderstand is overriding the plain statement I make. I do not agree with much in the NAB, new or old, like the changing of genders to be inclusive for exactly the same reason this verse reveals, namely, I prefer the literal. I was raised on the NASB and then moved on to the original languages in college in seminary. This is no desire to change anything.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the meaning of the NABRE in English is different DOCTRINALLY than the meaning in English of the Latin Vulgate then the NABRE is simply take it to the bank and cash it point blank wrong!

I’m not in a lunatic minority for believing this to be the case. On the program The World Over on EWTN the moderator and a guest on the show also thought it was wrong.

Isaiah 7:14 is where the liberal agenda is unmasked!

The real question is this: regardless of what any Jew might have said or thought at the time that Isaiah was written are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn’t have sense enough to inspire the writer to convey virgin instead of young woman?

Many who push young woman as the correct ranslation don’t really believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures in the first place.

 

[pnewton]

The real question is this: regardless of what any Jew might have said or thought at the time that Isaiah was written are you going to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn’t have sense enough to inspire the writer to convey virgin instead of young woman?

Many who push young woman as the correct ranslation don’t really believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures in the first place.

I may be wrong and am open to being shown differently, but I do not thing the Catholic Church has ever claimed infallibility and inspiration in the translation of Sacred Scripture, only in its writing. If so, debating a particular translation has zero bearing on belief in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or a supposed liberal agenda, whatever that means. To my knowledge, again I am open to correction if someone can point it out, not one person who has posted here, or who worked on this translation has questioned the virgin birth of Jesus. This is a dogma of the Church and not open to debate. In any case, the literal translation in Matthew is “virgin” and even at that, Matthew saw the need to clarify and make definite the point that she had no relations.