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

[Mickey]

Ya’ll can go back and forth all day about what’s included in the Septuagint translation. But the Tradition is clear: The consensus of Church Fathers support the translation of “virgin” over “young woman”. It is not a new argument. St Jerome, St Irenaeus, and St Justin Martyr have spoken clearly and eloquently about this issue. The question is: Why have the NABRE revisionists decided to go against Sacred Tradition and use the translation of “young woman”?

Here is another great Church Father to weigh in on the issue:

But if, when their mouths are stopped on this point, they should seek another, namely, what is said touching Mary’s virginity, and should object to us other translators, saying, that they used not the term “virgin,” but “young woman;” in the first place we will say this, that the Seventy were justly entitled to confidence above all the others. For these made their translation after Christ’s coming, continuing to be Jews, and may justly be suspected as having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose; but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted.

And what goes before also establishes this interpretation. For he doth not merely say, “Behold, the Virgin shall be with child,” but having first said, “Behold, the Lord Himself shall give you a sign,” then he subjoins, “Behold, the Virgin shall be with child.” Whereas, if she that was to give birth was not a virgin, but this happened in the way of marriage, what sort of sign would the event be? For that which is a sign must of course be beyond the course of common events, it must be strange and extraordinary; else how could it be a sign?
Saint John Chrysostom - Homily V.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Does anybody remember what was read at Mass today? Was it “young woman” or “virgin?”

 

[pnewton]

Does anybody remember what was read at Mass today? Was it “young woman” or “virgin?”

Virgin.

 

[pnewton]

For these made their translation after Christ’s coming, continuing to be Jews, and may justly be suspected as having spoken rather in enmity, and as darkening the prophecies on purpose; but the Seventy, as having entered upon this work an hundred years or more before the coming of Christ, stand clear from all such suspicion, and on account of the date, and of their number, and of their agreement, would have a better right to be trusted..

Like Justin Martyr, he is not promoting a translation, but only pointing out that the idea that Isaiah’s prophecy was to apply to a virgin preceded the birth of Christ. Note the context. Note the audience. This is a Christian apologetic directed at a Jewish apologetic. It still has application today, if a Jewish person, or anyone else, were to claim that the idea of virginity in Isaiah only arose when Jesus was born. No. It this concept was at least a solid understanding in the Jewish mind at the time of the Septuigint.

 

[Mickey]

Note the context. Note the audience.

Sheesh! What purpose do you have to try to spin this? Read it again. It is completely applicable to this dialogue…just as St Justin Martyr…just as St Irenaeus…just as St Jerome…

St John specifically mentions the translation.

But if, when their mouths are stopped on this point, they should seek another, namely, what is said touching Mary’s virginity, and should object to us other translators, saying, that they used not the term “virgin,” but “young woman;” in the first place we will say this, that the Seventy were justly entitled to confidence above all the others.

 

[Mickey]

Virgin.

Of course.

 

[pnewton]

Sheesh! What purpose do you have to try to spin this?

I gave no “spin.” Just adding context. Lack of context results in many misunderstandings. I do not think I gave the wrong context in this case, but feel free to point out anything additional.

Another fact is that the Church has spoken definitively on only a handful of verses, like John 3. This too is not spin. It is perspective to bear in mind if you decide to scratch and claw at someone in an area where discussion is permitted and more that one viewpoint may hold more or less merit.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Mickey – we are not required to accept the views of John Chrysostom on Isaiah 7:14 any more than we are required to accept his assertions, in Adversus Judaeos, that Jews are “pigs” who “worship devils” and that it is the duty of every Christian to “hate Jews”. See fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html.

We are free to make our own judgments – as have translations such as the Knox Bible, the RSV-CE, the NRSV-CE, the JB, the NJB, the GNB-CE, and now the NABRE.

Now, I would agree with you if the NABRE did not include a footnote or explanation of its decision. But in fact, the NABRE has a careful footnote that does explain that the Christian tradition is to read the word as virgin:

Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David (2 Sm 7:12–16). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals (Gn 16:11; Jgs 13:3). The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23. Emmanuel: the name means “with us is God.” Since for the Christian the incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness to “be with us,” it is understandable that this text was interpreted to refer to the birth of Christ.

I finally point out that the Confraternity requires that this note (like all the footnotes) be included in all editions of the NABRE (with the exceptions of parallel Bibles or audio Bibles).

 

[po18guy]

As I said earlier, I would truly and sincerely like to hear a defense of this change by the NABRE and why it should not be considered, as I feel it is, “a big deal”. Thanks.

Is it the New American Bible, Revisionist Edition, then? The more I compare even the prior NAB, the less I like it. Job 14:4 can be cited in support of the Catholic teaching of the immaculate conception. Let’s examine how the protestant bibles typically phrase it:

From the fundamentalist NIV: “Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!”

From the NASB: “Who can make the clean out of the unclean? No one!”

From the KJV: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.”

From the Holman Christian Standard Bible: “Who can produce something pure from what is impure? No one!”

The English Standard Version: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.”

Let’s check the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: “But will anyone produce the pure from what is impure? No one can!”

…and now the USCCB approved “Catholic” NAB: “Can a man be found who is clean of defilement? There is none,”

This is what happens when you try to make sacred scripture “New” and “American”

 

[Bible_Reader]

Is it the New American Bible, Revisionist Edition, then? The more I compare even the prior NAB, the less I like it. Job 14:4 can be cited in support of the Catholic teaching of the immaculate conception.

Let’s check the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible: “But will anyone produce the pure from what is impure? No one can!”

…and now the USCCB approved “Catholic” NAB: “Can a man be found who is clean of defilement? There is none,”

This is what happens when you try to make sacred scripture “New” and “American”

po18guy: First, the Church Fathers usually cite Job 14:4 as a reference to original sin, not immaculate conception per se.

Second, I am pleased to tell you that NABRE translates Job 14:4 as

Can anyone make the unclean clean?
No one can.

I hope this meets with your satisfaction.

 

[pnewton]

Is it the New American Bible, Revisionist Edition, then?

No, that is not the title.

 

[po18guy]

po18guy: First, the Church Fathers usually cite Job 14:4 as a reference to original sin, not immaculate conception per se.

They are two applications of the same doctrine, actually. In the early Church, the immaculate conception (IC) had not yet developed, so was not challenged. Original sin (OS) was at the forefront of discussion, especially in the age in which baptism had only recently been introduced. I focused much more on the IC, rather than OS, as OS is not seriously challenged these days, whereas the IC certainly is. Original sin is the turning point of the immaculate conception, and so this verse would appear to be quite important to modern Catholicism as well.

One point to raise is that God’s living Word is intended to address all questions from the beginning to the end of time - thus raising the importance of translations which are insulated from contemporary culture. Such insulation is the very definition of holiness. Unfortunately, the NAB was not such a translation. I am soured on any translation which uses the modern man-made concept of inclusive language, as God, being the Creator of all that is, is inclusive by His very nature. Inclusive English, for all of its current popularity, just sounds contrived - which it is.

As with the tower of Babel, it seems that these numerous translations are intended to confuse those who do not belong to an authoritative Church.

Second, I am pleased to tell you that NABRE translates Job 14:4 as… I hope this meets with your satisfaction.

Why such a give and take in the translation, one must wonder? **Isaiah 7:14 **and Job 14:4 are two sides of the same coin, as far as Marian doctrine goes. With the frontal assault by an increasingly organized militant atheism upon Christianity, it would seem more appropriate to solidify the defense all round, rather than to strengthen it here, only to weaken it there. This is why I have begun to pray daily for our Bishops.

 

[po18guy]

As to the rest of the world, I have no idea as to how the Vatican treats them. Here in the US of A, it is frustrating to anyone, priest or lay translators, who do not follow that which the Holy See directs. I agree with you there. The Church has always held to the principle of subsidiarity when it comes to all countries, not just here…I don’t know about you, but I have seen a change in the last decade. The appointments made seem to indicate a preference in promotion for those who are faithful to the Church. We has some very good bishops that have been placed in many diocese. Perhaps even in the America we will see a diminishing of those who do not wish to follow that which the Holy Father says in favor of greater orthodoxy and obedience.

I think you have correctly identified that crux of the problem. Subsidiarity, when applied to the culture of a rebel nation like America, will sooner or later fail. It is the temporary triumph of worldliness over holiness, since the American Church hierarchy has come from secular society. As you correctly point out, that is changing, which can only be good. IMO, sacred scripture is something to which subsidiarity should never apply. I don’t think that we would expect to read, in the Book of Acts for example, that Paul used one set of scrolls in Ephesus, and a locally produced, slightly different set at Corinth.

The idea of authority, especially foreign authority can run counter to how we Americans think. We need to learn how to think like sheep again.

Amen! And pray that the Bishops think and act like good shepherds. Example: The New York Bishops recently decided that pro-abortion politicians will not be denied communion, as they fear that this will make a political statement in the Church! Do they worry at all about the politicians making a secular statement in the Church? Or about those same politicians eating and drinking damnation unto themselves? I simply pray.

 

[po18guy]

Usually a mismatch is indicative of a close family relationship, like the (son of-xxx) (male of-female), or the wife of-xxx, "(woman of-man). Isaiah/Matthew have a female, and then of-temple/virgin(ity), the two words do not agree in type (of-xxx vs. noun) . It suggests a consecrated woman, though I wouldn’t call it a proof of this – “She of the temple/She of virginity.” in essence, married to the temple.

In Luke 1:38, we see Mary willfully consecrating herself to the Lord (“servant”, “bond slave”, “handmaiden”). I see this as entirely consistent with your proposition that the Greek suggests consecration at some point. And, self-consecration by the obedient use of free will is the most genuine of consecrations, IMO.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

po18guy: First, the Church Fathers usually cite Job 14:4 as a reference to original sin, not immaculate conception per se.

Second, I am pleased to tell you that NABRE translates Job 14:4 as

I hope this meets with your satisfaction.

Looking at Job 14:4, in the LXX, I decided to compare it with Psalm 138(or 139) 13-16; I don’t have a NABRE to compare the psalm against and am curious as to how they translate the psalm.

I tried translating the passages of interest a few times, and this is what I came up with:

Job 14:4 For someone will be clean from ripeness, but no man.
Job 14:4 For who will be clean from ripeness, but nobody!

However, that phrase “no one/man/body” also shows up in a curious setting in the psalm 138/139: 16

I would translate, poetically:
Ps. 138:13 … Lord! my support from my mother’s womb!
…
Ps. 138:15 My bone is not hidden from you, the maker in hiding, and my personality is not cryptic in the depths of the Earth.
Ps. 138:16 My fallowness is beheld by your eyes, and will, all day, upon your book, be written, be formed, and no-body in them.

I don’t think translations quite catch the sense of the psalm or Job regarding the ‘body’ and ‘nobody’. Both of these passages are talking about the life (AKA bios/biology in Job) of man. The psalm may go farther in also including the effect of God on the person.

Job speaks of the cut flower in verse 14:2, which is the channel that fruit comes from on a tree. In analogy, Job is saying man comes forth from woman and is “cut off”. That is perhaps why he is rotten, the premature after birth cutting.

Job makes it clear in 14:7 that the cut tree (not flower) can recover from the damage done by application of water. This is how someone can be cleansed from ripeness – by being like a tree stump rather than a fruit of reproduction.
Reproductive fruit’s flesh requires death. The poetic image is similar to Eve prematurely picking/grasping the fruit of the tree in Eden. The same Greek root word for grasping is used for “conceiving” a child, which is literally a “grasping-together” (of man and wife presumably).

In both Job and the psalm, the images are directly tied to farming.
The psalmist is saying the bone/body is not properly plowed (worked under) and thus empty. The elements of man need husbandry, just as land does for farming.

But notice in the psalm, God is supposed to be the one who will deliver the child from the mother’s womb. It is in this image that there is a possibility of hope; that the virginity of Mary, and the cleanness of her birth(s) are foreshadowed. I do think both Job and the Psalm are perfectly consummate with the doctrine of original sin.

In any event, I’d like to see how the NABRE translated the psalm. The relationships seem really obscured by the English translation.

The rest of this post is just for those interested in how I got the translation from the Greek; and can be skipped if you don’t need to see it.​

Job 14:4 τις γαρ καθαρος εσται απο ρυπου αλλ’ ουθεις
Literal:
“for what clean will be from ripeness/rottenness, but no man.”
Or, looking at how the pronoun “what” could also be interpreted:

“for who/what/someone will be clean from ripeness, but no man.”
So, it has this thrust: “For someone will be clean from ripeness, but no man.”

The concept “no one” or “no man” is something to look at carefully.
In psalm 138/139 13-16, the psalmist speaks about the birthing of a man in a different way.

Psalm 138:13 οτι συ εκτησω τους νεφρους μου, κυριε αντελαβου μου εκ γαστρος μητρος μου
The first part refers to the darkness of the womb, and God being able to handle the child in the womb, but after the comma we have a calling on the Lord to assist “me” out of the womb.

Lord! pre-pare of-me out of-womb of-mother of-me.
Lord! my support out of my mother’s womb.

Psalm 138:15 ουκ εκρυβη το οστουν μου απο σου ο εποιησας εν κρυφη και η υποστασις μου εν τοις κατωτατοις της γης
Not hidden the bone of me from you the maker in hiding and the person of-me in-the depths of the earth.

Personality is for the literal Greek word “sub-stance” (hypo-stasis), The reason I chose this is the theology of Three-persons of god (hypostasis) and God is one substance (Latin). The translation ought to be more correct as person than as substance, but substance would also make sense here – as a person is a rational substance.

My bone is not hidden from you, the maker in hiding, and my personality/substantiality is not cryptic in the depths of the Earth.

Psalm 138:16 το α-κατ-εργαστον μου ειδοσαν οι οφθαλμοι σου και επι το βιβλιον σου παντες γραφη-σονται ημερας πλασθη-σονται και ουθεις εν αυτοις

The not-worked-under of-me behold the eyes of-you and upon the book of-you all will-being-written day will-being-plastic and no man in them.

My fallowness is beheld by your eyes, and upon your book will all day be written, be formed, and no man in them.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Why such a give and take in the translation, one must wonder? **Isaiah 7:14 **and Job 14:4 are two sides of the same coin, as far as Marian doctrine goes.

I would posit a simpler answer: both are straightforward readings of the Hebrew. Leaving aside the highly charged issue of Isaiah 7:14, the Hebrew in Job 14:4 is fairly straightforward.

The NAB is often compared with the NRSV; note its translation of Job 14:4

**Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
No one can. **

 

[Bible_Reader]

Looking at Job 14:4, in the LXX, I decided to compare it with Psalm 138(or 139) 13-16; I don’t have a NABRE to compare the psalm against and am curious as to how they translate the psalm.

NABRE Psalm 139
The All-knowing and Ever-present God

[1] For the leader. A psalm of David

• I -

Lord, you have probed me, you know me:
[2] you know when I sit and stand;*
you understand my thoughts from afar.
[3] You sift through my travels and my rest;
with all my ways you are familiar.
[4] Even before a word is on my tongue,
LORD, you know it all.
[5] Behind and before you encircle me
and rest your hand upon me.
[6] Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
far too lofty for me to reach.

[7] Where can I go from your spirit?
From your presence, where can I flee?
[8] If I ascend to the heavens, you are there;
if I lie down in Sheol, there you are.
[9] If I take the wings of dawn*
and dwell beyond the sea,*
[10] Even there your hand guides me,
your right hand holds me fast.
[11] If I say, “Surely darkness shall hide me,
and night shall be light”* –
[12] Darkness is not dark for you,
and night shines as the day
Darkness and light are but one.

• II -

[13] You formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.
[14] I praise you, because I am wonderfully made;
wonderful are your works!
My very self you know.
[15] My bones are not hidden from you,
When I was being made in secret,
fashioned in the depths of the earth.*
[16] Your eyes saw me unformed;
in your book all are written down;
my days were shaped, before one came to be.

-III -

[17] How precious to me are your designs, O God;
how vast the sum of them!
[18] Were I to count them, they would outnumber the sands;
when I complete them, still you are with me.
[19] When you would destroy the wicked, O God,
the bloodthirsty depart from me!
[20] Your foes who conspire a plot against you
are exalted in vain.

• IV -

[21] Do I hate, LORD, those who hate you?
Those who rise against you, do I not loathe?
[22] With fierce hatred I hate them,
enemies I count as my own.
[23] Probe me, God, know my heart;
try me, know my thoughts.
[24] See if there is a wicked path in me;
lead me along an ancient path.*

**NOTES**

Psalm 139 A hymnic meditation on God’s omnipresence and omniscience. The psalmist is keenly aware of God’s all-knowing gaze (Ps 139:1-6), of God’s presence in every part of the universe (Ps 139:7-12), and of God’s control over the psalmist’s very self (Ps 139:13-16). Summing up Ps 139:1-6, 17-18 express wonder. There is only one place hostile to God’s rule – wicked people. The psalmist prays to be removed from their company (Ps 139:19-24).

139:2 When I sit and stand: in all my physical movement.

139:9 Take the wings of dawn: go to the extremities of the east. *Beyond the sea: *uttermost bounds of the west; the sea is the Mediterranean.

139:11 *Night shall be my light: *night to me is what day is to others.

139:15 The depths of the earth: figurative language for the womb, stressing the hidden and mysterious operations that occur there.

139:24 Lead me along an ancient path: the manner of living of our ancestors, who were faithful to God’s will, cf. Jer 6:16.

 

[pnewton]

I think you have correctly identified that crux of the problem. Subsidiarity, when applied to the culture of a rebel nation like America, will sooner or later fail.

Subsidiarity within the Church not the nation or culture*.* The bishops in America are not, and have never been declared “rebels”. There has not been even a hint of schism. Furthermore, regardless of our opinions, the Catholic Church does grant ecclessial conferences a role in the process of translation.

 

[Bible_Reader]

the Catholic Church does grant ecclessial conferences a role in the process of translation.

To be fair, Canon Law 825 only provides for a role to the Episcopal Conference in approving translations; and further, the rescript signed by Cardinal George only authorizes the NABRE for “private use and study.” The NABRE joins the ranks of many authorized English translations of the Bible; but it does not enjoy any special status under canon law.

 

[Mickey]

Lack of context results in many misunderstandings.

Indeed! Perhaps you should read these quotes again.

I do not think I gave the wrong context in this case, but feel free to point out anything additional.

The Fathers are very clear.

It is perspective to bear in mind if you decide to scratch and claw at someone in an area where discussion is permitted and more that one viewpoint may hold more or less merit.

Scratch and claw? I think not. The Fathers are very clear…I do not need to scratch and claw.