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

[Huiou_Theou]

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

[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.

Thank you. This deepens the puzzle, and makes me think that the NABRE translation is still lacking the right vocabulary to really express the layers of meanings found in these passages. In the passage of Job 4:14, the Greek suggests that the fruit’s flesh is separate from the seed/tree. Hence the fruit will eventually become too ripe – “rotten”; The body, as opposed to the “seed” or bone, rots.

When I switch to the psalm, to trace out the meaning of that word “nobody” (no one?), I am struck by a physical interpretation as well.

(Ronald Knox Bible)
The psalmist says “138/139:5 rearguard and vanguard, thou dost encompass me about, thy hand still laid upon me. :6 Such wisdom as thine is far beyond my reach, no thought of mine can attain it. :7 Where can I go, then, …”

The psalmist begins speaking of the moment that he utters the psalm; the present. For although God knows the word to be spoken before the lips shape the word, that time is still after the words were formed in the heart. Speaking from the depths of the heart is different than speaking from the lips. (reprise/summary, verse 23)

Just so, in verse 16 I see a very tricky bit of grammar being written in the past tense, in the NABRE that looks like predestination style omniscience – when I am pretty sure, that’s not quite what is meant. The psalmist is contrasting earthly and spiritual things.

The “bone” which is equivalent to “seed” are found in v 14. And the whole person, bone & soul is seen in the depths of the unformed earth (like a seed would be the plan of a plant, buried in soil) – although there is no person there “yet” for a seed does not look like the “plant”. But STILL God sees us in embryonic form in the dark. Whether or not God see’s the final outcome isn’t being addressed by the psalmist.

The exact same idea is repeated in V16. God sees the ‘farmland’ (unworked/unperfected soil) ready to be planted, tilled, plowed – he has the imaginative vision and planning of a farmer at the stage of raw materials.

Most translations say something like ‘God saw my’ … “imperfection” … “all my acts”, or other such secondary meanings. Those aren’t actually in the LXX; and I doubt they are really in the Hebrew either. It is an interpretation of the meaning that I think might be more confusing than helpful. Hebrew poetry tends to use couplets, sentences or phrases that mean the same thing – but expressed in slightly different words. This clue is lost in the English translations and there are several couplets in this psalm.

There is no plant where a seed has not yet sprouted; there is no crop in soil that has not been worked; there is no-body where the work of “day” has not previously supported the life. For this reason, the Greek author chose a beautiful word which means “not worked under” but also carries the connotation “unsupported” (not upheld) to describe what God saw. God saw my fallowness. (verse 16). Or perhaps, God saw my naive nativity.

The Book (your book v:16) would have been parchment (parched skin) for that is what one writes on at the time of the psalmist – it could even be poetic English – parched earth / skin of a man.

The raw materials and seed/bone are worked, shined on, the dark is brought into the visible light…

Looking at the NABRE saying it “has” been written, is strongly suggesting a perspective from the end of life as if a man could see his own life like God can.

I am thinking – the idea of V.16 is that God has a plan (seed/bone) of a man in a hidden way, embryonic, and invisible to us like the soul. But the growth of that man, the formation of his body by the soul, is the work of God; We see only his work as it is brought to the light of day. (“Remember man you are dust.”)

That is why “wicked” and “blood” become important in the following verses – and are not a disconnected thought – as not all seeds/bone/souls are Good. They go astray from the womb. And to the very end, the psalmist eschews knowledge of the future – but rather says “Lead me on the road of ages/the world/time” (v24). meaning: Be with me today, and all my days here in time – support me, hold my hand, that I might live.

Given the common context I see for the word “no-one” in Job and the Psalm, I don’t think the NABRE passage in Job is a very good translation – it’s bland. (But no worse than most protestant translations). With respect to Mary, the virgin, I can see that the antithesis of rotten fruit, is virgin fruit. eg: something Job does not focus on, because his body is already full of sores.

However, the idea of “rotten” fruit vs. “clean” fruit – is not quite a perfect analogy to “clean” virgin and “clean” offspring. I suppose Christ talks about knowing a tree by its fruit. But that’s sketchy.

Although the poor translation “no one” is very much tied to a fleshly body – it isn’t clear that a virgin would never become rotten. In any event, thanks for the thoughtful pointer to Job and the virgin.

Your brother in Christ, Jesus.
–Andrew.

 

[Bible_Reader]

the case can be made that the “original manuscripts” that Jerome had access to were likely less filled with errors than any copies of supposed “original manuscripts” mentioned by the encyclicals.

Jerome’s project of translating directly from the Hebrew received considerable criticism from readers of his time, who considered him to be a “revisionist” – must like the drumbeat of some on this thread.

From a letter from Augustine to Jerome c.403:

A certain bishop, one of our brethren, having introduced in the church over which he presides the reading of your version, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah, of which you have given a very different rendering from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such a tumult in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correcting what had been read, and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask the testimony of the Jewish residents (it was in the town of Oea). These, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version, and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The man was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, as he desired not to be left without a congregation – a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken. You will also observe how great must have been the difficulty if this had occurred in those writings which cannot be explained by comparing the testimony of languages now in use.

It would be interesting indeed to have the manuscripts that Jerome had. However, it hardly follows that the earlier scholar has the better manuscripts. Erasmus lived 500 years earlier than us, and we know we have better manuscripts of the New Testament than Erasmus had. While the date of the composition of the Hebrew Bible can be debated, many scholars believe that Isaiah (or at least the first 39 chapters of Isaiah) were written in the 8th century BCE. In other words, Erasmus stands about as far from New Testament manuscripts as Jerome did from Isaiah manuscripts.

Of course, all of this is moot – we do not have Jerome’s Vulgate and Jerome’s comments on Isaiah 7:14 that we do have are theological rather than philological.

What we do know is that the issue was joined much earlier than Jerome – for example, in Trypho and Justin Martyr’s dialogue, which predates Jerome by more than two centuries. Since Jerome limits his arguments for the “virgin” interpretation to non-textual reasons (“what sort of sign is this?”), it seems reasonable to suppose that Jerome did not have better evidence here – after all, he had more evidence, wouldn’t he have brought it to bear on the problem?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Although Matthew probably knew the Hebrew original, since he was writing in Greek (like the other authors of the New Testament), he naturally quotes the Greek Septuagint and says “the virgin [parthenos] shall be with child.”

A minority opinion is that Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic – so that would even intensify the debate. Was this a later translational change of Matthew?

In other words, when Matthew reads the word parthenos (“virgin”) in the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 in light of what he knows of the virginal conception of Jesus (a historical tradition known independently to Luke), he recognizes that God was saying something profound through Isaiah that went beyond the political crisis of the eighth century B.C.

What does this mean? Maybe it’s in the your next post…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Both can be defended reasonably. The second faithfully represents the Hebrew original of the Old Testament.

Hmm… Which Hebrew? Has anyone checked the dead sea scrolls to see if that part of Isaiah is in there? I know it’s in the Masoretic text which dates after the time of Christ, but is still ancient. I assume, it’s in the DSS – but I’d be curious if someone knows.

Whichever translation is used should be explained in a footnote.

Ohhh… DOH! It was in the next post!

However, the Masoretic text preserves the tradition of the original Hebrew writings of the Old Testament, what Jews call the Tanak. There is no question that these writings were first put down in Hebrew, the language of ancient Israel.

As if it mattered. Faithfully copied is just as important or more so; even if translated an accurate translation is better than a flawed text with the original ‘ambiance’. God didn’t speak hebrew from all eternity… there’s more to the text than just the first writer – as Matthew points out, should the minority opinion be correct – the Hebrew really wasn’t that important or we would have kept it.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Salvatore, thank you for bringing this article by Peter Williamson to our attention. I think his view is very responsible. In particular I appreciated this remark by him:

So, which translation of Isa 7:14 is correct? “the virgin shall be with child”? or “a young woman shall be with child”? Both can be defended reasonably. The second faithfully represents the Hebrew original of the Old Testament. The first faithfully represents the Septuagint and the way that the Gospel of Matthew and the Christian tradition interpret Isaiah’s prophecy in light of Jesus Christ. Whichever translation is used should be explained in a footnote.

I agree completely, and it seems from the NABRE footnote to Isaiah 7:14 that the NABRE editors do as well.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Having only taken one foreign language, that being Deutsch, helps to understand that literal translations do not necessarily convey the true meaning of words. The word ‘jungfrau’ pulled apart, jung = young, frau = woman, young woman? Not in deutsch, jungfrau means virgin. So the Hebrew word translated into Deutsch would be jungfrau? and into English virgin?

Is THAT so?! Well, if there really is no English word that means exactly virgin and allmah – we shouldn’t translate that one word, but should rather just copy it letter for letter. Put the definition of the word in the footnote, not the actual word in the footnote. We say “Amen” all the time, but that’s not English, nor is “Hallelujah!”, nor Cephas (Which is also transliterated). So, why are we dodging the bullet – if it is tricky to translate “One” word – there are other options. If JungFrau were written JungFrau in place of Virgin, it wouldn’t take long for the truth of the meaning of the word to become known. The error, at least, wouldn’t be hidden.

My post is just a reminder that words or phrases can have a somewhat different meaning when put together, other than the simple meaning of the base parts (roots of the word).

Words can have both meanings. A word most often is very strongly related to the root words – just like “DishWasher” is in English. The additional meaning of “machine” doesn’t negate that the thing washes dishes. More often than not, compound words DO relate to their roots. It is best to pick a word which shares all the meanings of a word when translating, if possible. And sometimes it is better to make up a compound word, or add words, if it is not possible to do it in one word. (Literal translation).

Just to let you know Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Nonsexquiter! That would be news to me… but I don’t know it.

Can not the term “young women” be thought upon as also a virgin woman? Don’t most teenagers start complaining of feeling old after they have a baby? Yet before, they are young and carefree.

I must be … ancient… and I didn’t … even… know… that I DIDN’T KNOW.

it seemed that she was a maiden, or a young woman who was still a virgin–but not an ever-virgin. thus, in Isiah it probably refered to a young fiance–
“The almah, being with child, shall give birth to a son and shall call his name ‘Emanuel’.”

Considering Achaz was NOT a good king – what are the odds that he may have been fooling around BEFORE the wedding? (or with a consecrated virgin). I don’t recall the genealogy of Hezekiah… is it legit? I mean JOSEPH would have been suspect when Mary got pregnant before the wedding day (PEOPLE DO count the months).

Sheesh. Why is everyone after the more complicated explanation?
It’s not like anyone believes there were two truly virginal concepts. Either she is a virgin, or is supposed to be one when she’s NOT. Anything else is a figment of imagination because these are MUTUALLY exclusive.

 

[Bible_Reader]

I don’t recall the genealogy of Hezekiah

Hezekiah was the son of King Ahaz and Abijah (also known as Abi) (see 2 Kings 18:2, 2 Chronicles 29:1).

 

[Salvatore123]

Huiou,

If you don’t mind, you may want to re-read my post of the blog and the comments. I have no part in the blog or the comments. These were copied verbatim from another website where the NABRE change to 7:14 was specifically discussed.

The only comments I made were introductory and closing, and mine comments are all in black. Those in dark red and dark green were written in that blog and comments section

As I said earlier, this would be my approach to producing the most accurate translation of both the OT AND NT:

*I submit that one can make a good case that St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (which, unfortunately, was lost by the passage of time and human transcription errors by the time the DR was undertaken by Father Martin, et al.) was probably just as, if not more, accurate than the bibles that have been produced in our time so far . . .

I say “so far” because I believe that with the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with the relatively recent discoveries of the Codices such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, we now have both the technology AND the means to do what St. Jerome did in his day: produce a bible translation looking at “original languages” that date from not only St. Jerome’s time, but even before, as with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I wonder how many people realize that with the Codex Sinaiticus, we have a handwritten - well over 1600 years old - manuscript that contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest known COMPLETE copy of the New Testament - written in the same language scholars believe the NT was originally written in: GREEK!.

If I had found such a thing, I would have taken it, along with the Dea Sea Scrolls, published a bible in both Latin and English, and “dared” anyone to find fault with such a publication in terms of accuracy (provided that my translators had no agenda other than accuracy in the translation).*

I would be interested in someone commenting on my suggestion - looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus - and producing an english (and latin, of course) translation of those scrolls and codices. How much better can one get than having a complete 27 book NT codex that was written around the time that St. Jerome actually lived???

 

[pnewton]

So, which translation of Isa 7:14 is correct? …
Weighing the reasons, I think “the virgin shall be with child” is better suited to Catholic Bibles and to the use of Scripture in Christian liturgy. But obviously, some learned people, including the editors of the NABRE, think otherwise.

I appreciate you posting this and found it a good read. I think the quesiton of “correct” is off, as that implies a right or wrong. “Better suited” is a better phrasing and I think I pretty much agree with the whole article. There were a lot of good thoughts, including the balance between conveying the meaning and conveying the literal meaning. I guess I just always preferred the literal and digging for the meaning, having grown up on King James. Hey, once you get past “knowing” someone, everything else is downhill

I had an idea when reading about the texts that Jerome had. Wasn’t the scroll of Isaiah the first Essene scroll found at Qumran?

 

[Mickey]

We have the second century translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion

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)

 

[Bible_Reader]

Mickey, if I may, let me pose the following question to you: how do you understand Isaiah 7:15-16? If we interpret 7:14 as being solely about Jesus(=Immanuel) – then do you believe -(as verse 7:16 implies) that there was a time when Jesus did not know the difference between right and wrong?

 

[Mickey]

how do you understand Isaiah 7:15-16?

Let us once again look to the Holy Fathers of the Church.

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; and you shall call His name Emmanuel. Butter and honey shall He eat: before He knows or chooses out things that are evil, He shall exchange them for what is good; for before the child knows good or evil, He shall not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good.”

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, Butter and honey shall He eat; and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] before He knows good and evil; for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,— this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.
St Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 21)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Mickey, if I may, let me pose the following question to you: how do you understand Isaiah 7:15-16? If we interpret 7:14 as being solely about Jesus(=Immanuel) – then do you believe -(as verse 7:16 implies) that there was a time when Jesus did not know the difference between right and wrong?

Another consideration is why did Isaiah choose to say almah (young woman who would be a virgin?) Since the general meaning of almah, was a young woman that was a maiden, or virgin, wasn’t that really the startling part of such a divine prophecy? Shouldn’t Isaiah have just said “a woman” meaning a married woman of whatever age, or a even a married woman of a young age? Why didn’t Isaiah just say a woman? The immediate time reference part of the prophecy has nothing to do with the age or virginity of the woman. Obviously the use of Almah was just as important as the following verses referring to the child. Therefore the idea of a virgin conceiving, although ambiguously stated, was crucial to the meaning of the verse. This was seen by the Septuagint translators well before the coming of the Messiah.

 

[pnewton]

Another consideration is why did Isaiah choose to say almah (young woman who would be a virgin?) Since the general meaning of almah, was a young woman that was a maiden, or virgin, wasn’t that really the startling part of such a divine prophecy?

It is a good question. Perhaps it was because there was someone specific in mind, or that this had to do with the timing of the birth. A maiden was going to give birth, in the next few years, as opposed to this very day. Whatever the answer is, it will be a matter of conjecture, I think. I also wonder just how much Isaiah knew and how much the Holy Spirit worked without direct knowledge. I am not a believer in verbal plenary inspiration, but I do not doubt that many times the specific words are chosen in the mind of God, whether the writer know it or not.

 

[ryanoneil]

If the NABRE is “revisionist”, then that “revisionism” is quite dated – certainly predating the Vulgate. We have the second century translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion who use *neanis *(instead of parthenos) and into Aramaic as the Targums as ulemta.

Further, we have portions of Origen’s Hexapla, which was (a) the basic text relied on by Jerome, and (b) show that Origen considered the Septuagint as corrupt compared with Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

Given all this, I humbly suggest that it was Jerome who was revisionist, and that the NABRE (which after all is translated primarily from the Hebrew) is originalist.

I think the real revisionists (and rightly so) are in large print below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think the real revisionists (and rightly so) are in large print below.

If you say the Ancient Jewish teachers are revisionists, then you must consider the new NABRE revision to be a new teaching as well.

 

[ryanoneil]

If you say the Ancient Jewish teachers are revisionists, then you must consider the new NABRE revision to be a new teaching as well.

What do you mean by new teaching?
First of all, (I must admit) I don’t know what the actual footnote of the NABRE revision says?

As far as I understand, the orginal meaning of Isaiah was “young woman.” The Ancient Jewish teachers who correctly recognized the initial fulfillment ,correctly changed it to “virgin” concerning a future fulfillment.

If the revision says anything like this, wouldn’t that be pointing out an old teaching? Wouldn’t that be showing the progression of God’s revelation?

Thanks

 

[AmbroseSJ]

What do you mean by new teaching?
First of all, (I must admit) I don’t know what the actual footnote of the NABRE revision says?

As far as I understand, the orginal meaning of Isaiah was “young woman.” The Ancient Jewish teachers who correctly recognized the initial fulfillment ,correctly changed it to “virgin” concerning a future fulfillment.

If the revision says anything like this, wouldn’t that be pointing out an old teaching? Wouldn’t that be showing the progression of God’s revelation?

Thanks

I may have misunderstood your meaning then.

 

[ryanoneil]

I may have misunderstood your meaning then.

Perhaps! It sounds like NABRE is pointing out the old teaching, before the Ancient Jewish teachers revised that little messiah prophecy (of Isaiah’s current day) into the big Messiah prophecy of thier future.

But maybe I’m wrong. Did someone provide a link to the NABRE footnote?

 

[Mickey]

Perhaps! It sounds like NABRE is pointing out the old teaching, before the Ancient Jewish teachers revised that little messiah prophecy (of Isaiah’s current day) into the big Messiah prophecy of thier future.

No. The ancient Jewish teachers did not revise anything. They clarified it. And now…the NABRE modernists have clouded the meaning—whether or not they have provided a footnote.