Question on the deuterocanon

[Mikaele]

A protestant book a friend of mine gave to me claims that the ‘apocrypha’ was probably not in the earliest versions of the Septuagint. “It is true that late copies of the Septuagint include the Apocrypha. Scholars have noted, however, that although the Septuagint was translated several centuries before the time of Christ, it was apparently not until the fourth century after Christ that the Apocrypha was appended to this translation. Scholars know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha… I say this because the apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint in their New Testament writings- yet there is not a single quote from the Apocrypha in their writings…”

Some help would be greatly appreciated… cheers.

 

[Crumpy]

checkout this thread and some of the links in it

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=225419&highlight=apocrypha

 

[CEM5]

The Deuterocanonical books were written in the Greek language and were the closest books written to the time of Christ with the last one being written around 100 BC. When the rabbis (which consisted of Sadduccees who did not believe in life after death, angels or the resurrection) gathered together around 100 AD in the ancient city of Jabneh (known as Jamnia now), they discarded those books that pointed to Christ’s divinity, praying for dead, and they only wanted to use the Hebrew manuscripts. Regardless of this, one scribe, Aquilla, changed the word in Isaiah 7:14, from a “virgin” shall give birth, and instead rendered it to a “young woman” shall give birth. These rabbis no longer had any authority from God to decide which Scriptures were inspired for God, through Jesus, promised that the Church would be guided to all truth by the Holy Spirit and that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church. This is the Catholic Church, the beloved Bride of Christ.

Deuterocanon means “second canon” and parts of the New Testament fall into this category as well.

These books from the Septuagint were what all Hellenistic Jews used and quoted from including Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers as well. There are numeroous quotes from the deuteroncanonical books that are in the New Testament.

Recall that the Church guided under the Holy Spirit had (and still has) the authority to determine which books were inspired and which books were not inspired. Not the Jewish rabbis of Jamnia who discarded these books and also reject the New Testament, and not the Protestants.

blessings,

 

[CEM5]

here are just a few examples:

Matt. 2:16 - Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven = Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Matt… 7:12 - Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” comes from the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” = Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” = Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” = Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the Wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and is part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 - the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 - let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 - Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 - Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 - the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God = Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 - Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” = Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 - branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 - Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 - Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

to be continued…

 

[CEM5]

continued:

Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 - Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 - Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 - the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 - James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 - condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 - God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 - the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

Also, if I recall correctly, the Jewish Festival of Lights, Hanukka, this story of how it came about is recorded in Maccabees, which happened during the reign of Alexander the Great.

 

[MarcoPolo]

A protestant book a friend of mine gave to me claims that the ‘apocrypha’ was probably not in the earliest versions of the Septuagint. “It is true that late copies of the Septuagint include the Apocrypha. Scholars have noted, however, that although the Septuagint was translated several centuries before the time of Christ, it was apparently not until the fourth century after Christ that the Apocrypha was appended to this translation. Scholars know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha… I say this because the apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint in their New Testament writings- yet there is not a single quote from the Apocrypha in their writings…”

Some help would be greatly appreciated… cheers.

If his rationale for determining whether the Deuterocanon was in the Septuagint is based on quotes, then not only do you have the quotes provided in this thread, but your friend has also disqualified books in his own Bible that the Apostles don’t quote from: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, and Nahum.

See also the article I linked to in your other thread by Mark Shea: 5 Myths about 7 Books.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

A protestant book a friend of mine gave to me claims that the ‘apocrypha’ was probably not in the earliest versions of the Septuagint. “It is true that late copies of the Septuagint include the Apocrypha. Scholars have noted, however, that although the Septuagint was translated several centuries before the time of Christ, it was apparently not until the fourth century after Christ that the Apocrypha was appended to this translation. Scholars know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha… I say this because the apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint in their New Testament writings- yet there is not a single quote from the Apocrypha in their writings…”

Some help would be greatly appreciated… cheers.

The book as we know it (codex, bound pages with covers) was not even invented until around the 4th cen. so when someone says “Scholars know of no Septuagint manuscripts earlier than the fourth century that contain the Apocrypha…” it’s because we have nothing remotely approaching a complete manuscript that is any older than the 4th cen.

It’s only when one needs to compile a bound book that deciding what’s going to be in or out really comes into play. Before that, “the Septuagint” consisted of various individual translations of individual books of the Bible probably on parchment scrolls for those that could afford it.

There’s a quotation from the Book of Enoch in the Epistle of Jude.

At a more basic level, using quotations from the N.T. as some sort of criteria for the canon of the OT seems pretty silly. Using such a criteria, we’d need to also get rid of a lot of other books as well: Numbers, Judges, Ruth, Esther…you get the idea.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The Deuterocanonical books were written in the Greek language and were the closest books written to the time of Christ with the last one being written around 100 BC. When the rabbis (which consisted of Sadduccees who did not believe in life after death, angels or the resurrection)

The rabbis are generally considered to be the successors of Pharisaic, not Sadduccean traditions. The rabbis certainly believed in life after death, angels and the resurrection.

…gathered together around 100 AD in the ancient city of Jabneh (known as Jamnia now), they discarded those books that pointed to Christ’s divinity, praying for dead, and they only wanted to use the Hebrew manuscripts.

I don’t know of any reputable Talmud scholars who believe that the meeting that you refer to in Yavneh actually happened, much less that it was a meeting to decide on the canon of scripture.

Regardless of this, one scribe, Aquilla, changed the word in Isaiah 7:14, from a “virgin” shall give birth, and instead rendered it to a “young woman” shall give birth.

I don’t see how anyone would/could know this for sure. I’d be interested in seeing your evidence.

There are numeroous quotes from the deuteroncanonical books that are in the New Testament [sic].

I’d be interested in seeing your list of quotes. Most I’ve seen are simply possible allusions or repetition of two-three word phrases, but it would be nice to see a list of actual quotes.

 

[Brannock]

The last debate I had with a southern baptist minister he claimed the books were removed because they didn’t fulfill the age old 3 requirements for determining inspired scripture. Which pathetically I can’t remember as the conversation happened a long time ago. However the first was that they must be written (or dictated) by a prophet and/or apostle, or an immediate disciple of one.

Anyway, we continued to argue semantics over each book and eventually he stated a line that I have heard time and time again in protestant defense of their canon. “The bible is a fallible collection of infallible books”.

The more I hear it, the more rediculous it sounds. At the very heart of Sola Scriptura, is an fallible set of scripture? And if the collection is fallible, how can the doctrine possible be infallible? From Scott Hahn’s “Rome Sweet Home”, this very line was a turning point with him, and it just seems so…sparse and meak…for the centrality of the teachings for salvation and Christ our Lord.

Can someone explain how this quote has any real validity? Or perhaps others defend that this is not a fair explaination of the Bible?

 

[CEM5]

The rabbis are generally considered to be the successors of Pharisaic, not Sadduccean traditions. The rabbis certainly believed in life after death, angels and the resurrection.

I don’t know of any reputable Talmud scholars who believe that the meeting that you refer to in Yavneh actually happened, much less that it was a meeting to decide on the canon of scripture.

I don’t see how anyone would/could know this for sure. I’d be interested in seeing your evidence.

I’d be interested in seeing your list of quotes. Most I’ve seen are simply possible allusions or repetition of two-three word phrases, but it would be nice to see a list of actual quotes.

Hi Dave,

The history is recorded that this took place. Look it up for yourself. Today there exists two different Talmuds: the Palestinian Talmud (from Jamnia), and the more extensive Babylonian Talmud. There are many various sects of Judaism, and even today they have differing beliefs: some are like the Sadducees who do not believe in life after death, etc, and others do. The Sadducees were of the aristocratic class, and belonged to the Sanhedrin, where the High Priests and Chief Priests of the Temple came from. They were more concerned with politics and agreeing with the Roman authorities. The Pharisees gave oral tradition equal authority as the written, and they were more popular with the masses. Rabbis were religious teachers, and NO, not all rabbis believe, even today, in life after death, or the resurrection. Jesus was also called “rabbi”, and he was neither a Saduccees nor a Pharisee.

Why would you believe Jewish scholars who dispute anything Christian? They deny the divinity of Christ, and there are plenty of reputable scholars around who do know about the Jamnia Council that occured, and the creation of the Palestinian Talmud. Regardless, the fact remains that there was a group of Jewish rabbis who did reject parts of the Septuagint, and they even created prayers cursing the Jewish converts to Christianity.

The evidence is out there and even the Jewish scholars agree that there was a council, but they are in disagreement of WHEN it occured. However, history does record this fact:

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. (Recall that the Sanhedrin was mostly comprised of the Saduccees).A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament. [Encyclopaedia Britannica]

Also, it was at Jamnia where the famous school of Johanan ben Zakkai was started some years (around 90 AD) after the destruction of the Temple. Under the leadership of Rabbi Akiba, around 100 AD, was when the “canon” of the Hebrew Bible was first discussed, and determined which books should be part of the Hebrew Bible.

Dave, I have presented the list of quotes from the Deuterocanonical books that appear in the NT in this thread. Please locate them and read.

blessings,

 

[CEM5]

P.S.

Dave,

Eusebius writes of the two Jewish proselytes, Aquila of Pontus and Theodotion of Ephesus who interpreted Is 7:14 (virgin) and changed the word to read “damsel” (young woman) whom the Ebionites pretend that he was begotten of Joseph." Eusebius cites this (H. E. v. 8).

The earliest author to mention him is St. Irenaeus, in a passage which, by reason of its higher antiquity and authority, must be our standard to test the accounts of later writers, who probably derived their accounts partly from it. Irenaeus (III. xxi. 1, p. 215), referring to the word “virgin” παρθένος in Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to be read "not as certain of those who now venture to misinterpret the Scripture, ‘Behold, the damsel (νεᾶνις) shall be with child and shall bear a son’

Theodotion’s work was not so much an independent translation as a revision of the LXX, with its insertions usually retained, but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew—probably with the help of Aquila’s version. Theodotion’s was the version Origen usually preferred to the other two for filling omissions of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he found it; and from it accordingly comes a large part of the ordinary Greek text of Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job.

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century

Another source from pg 32, of “Why do Catholics Do That?” by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. With imprimatur of the Most Reverend Charles Grahmann, D.D. Bishop of Dallas

Also Dave, in the Greek, which the Septuagint was written and all Jews used until after the second century, when the rabbis changed the OT, the Greek word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, which was written long after the death of Christ, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin is bethuwlah.

This Greek verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23, and uses the same word: a “virgin” shall conceive.

The Hebrew Bible changed the word from virgin and rendered it “young woman” when they discarded the Greek Septuagint. Regardless, a young woman (a girl), was always known to be a virgin anyways!

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hi Dave,

The history is recorded that this took place. Look it up for yourself. Today there exists two different Talmuds: the Palestinian Talmud (from Jamnia), and the more extensive Babylonian Talmud. There are many various sects of Judaism, and even today they have differing beliefs: some are like the Sadducees who do not believe in life after death, etc, and others do. The Sadducees were of the aristocratic class, and belonged to the Sanhedrin, where the High Priests and Chief Priests of the Temple came from. They were more concerned with politics and agreeing with the Roman authorities. The Pharisees gave oral tradition equal authority as the written, and they were more popular with the masses. Rabbis were religious teachers, and NO, not all rabbis believe, even today, in life after death, or the resurrection. Jesus was also called “rabbi”, and he was neither a Saduccees nor a Pharisee.

Why would you believe Jewish scholars who dispute anything Christian? They deny the divinity of Christ, and there are plenty of reputable scholars around who do know about the Jamnia Council that occured, and the creation of the Palestinian Talmud. Regardless, the fact remains that there was a group of Jewish rabbis who did reject parts of the Septuagint, and they even created prayers cursing the Jewish converts to Christianity.

The evidence is out there and even the Jewish scholars agree that there was a council, but they are in disagreement of WHEN it occured. However, history does record this fact:

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. (Recall that the Sanhedrin was mostly comprised of the Saduccees).A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament. [Encyclopaedia Britannica]

Also, it was at Jamnia where the famous school of Johanan ben Zakkai was started some years (around 90 AD) after the destruction of the Temple. Under the leadership of Rabbi Akiba, around 100 AD, was when the “canon” of the Hebrew Bible was first discussed, and determined which books should be part of the Hebrew Bible.

Dave, I have presented the list of quotes from the Deuterocanonical books that appear in the NT in this thread. Please locate them and read.

blessings,

The Talmud (neither Babylonian nor Palestinian) mention anything about a Council at Jamnia to rule on the canonicity of the various Books of the Bible. If you have information to the contrary, I would ask that you to cite the specific reference (Masseket and page number) and we can discuss it further. Also, the Talmud was compiled hundreds and hundreds of years after the events described in the Talmud occurred, and contains a great deal of material that’s clearly legendary. Most scholars (Jewish or otherwise) would seriously question the historicity of the events described in the Talmud.

While I’m certain you can find a Jew who doesn’t believe in the afterlife and the resurrection, the belief (העלם הבא) is definitely part of mainstream Judaism.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

P.S.

Dave,

Eusebius writes of the two Jewish proselytes, Aquila of Pontus and Theodotion of Ephesus who interpreted Is 7:14 (virgin) and changed the word to read “damsel” (young woman) whom the Ebionites pretend that he was begotten of Joseph." Eusebius cites this (H. E. v. 8).

The earliest author to mention him is St. Irenaeus, in a passage which, by reason of its higher antiquity and authority, must be our standard to test the accounts of later writers, who probably derived their accounts partly from it. Irenaeus (III. xxi. 1, p. 215), referring to the word “virgin” παρθένος in Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to be read "not as certain of those who now venture to misinterpret the Scripture, ‘Behold, the damsel (νεᾶνις) shall be with child and shall bear a son’

Theodotion’s work was not so much an independent translation as a revision of the LXX, with its insertions usually retained, but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew—probably with the help of Aquila’s version. Theodotion’s was the version Origen usually preferred to the other two for filling omissions of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he found it; and from it accordingly comes a large part of the ordinary Greek text of Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job.

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century

Another source from pg 32, of “Why do Catholics Do That?” by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. With imprimatur of the Most Reverend Charles Grahmann, D.D. Bishop of Dallas

Also Dave, in the Greek, which the Septuagint was written and all Jews used until after the second century, when the rabbis changed the OT, the Greek word for virgin is parthenos, and it literally means a virgin. In the Masoretic Text, which was written long after the death of Christ, however, the word is almah which means a young girl. The usual Hebrew word for virgin is bethuwlah.

This Greek verse is quoted from Isaiah in the Christian Scriptures in Matthew 1:23, and uses the same word: a “virgin” shall conceive.

The Hebrew Bible changed the word from virgin and rendered it “young woman” when they discarded the Greek Septuagint. Regardless, a young woman (a girl), was always known to be a virgin anyways!

Then why does the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah (which predates Jesus by 100 years) have עלמה (young girl) and not בתולה (virgin)?

 

[CEM5]

Then why does the Dead Sea Scroll copy of Isaiah (which predates Jesus by 100 years) have עלמה (young girl) and not בתולה (virgin)?

Sorry for the long delay in answering: I hadn’t realized that this was here until I was looking at my older posts.

All the information I gleened from the translations of the Dead Sea scrolls use the word “virgin” for Is. 7:14. Please provide your source that shows it does not.

Here are my sources: Exegetical Study of Isaiah 7:14, www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/isaiah7…

TEXTUAL ISSUES IN THE TEXT OF ISAIAH 7:14

Fundamental to an exegetical study on any given passage is the question of textual criticism that asks how does the passage under examination read in the various extant manuscripts. There are several different readings of Isaiah 7:14.

1. The Designation of Adonai versus Yahweh.

Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

There are several manuscripts that read, “Therefore Yahweh shall give you a sign…” This is generally considered to be a minority reading.

1. Terms for “Virgin.”

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, A VIRGIN will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14).

All of the Hebrew versions of the text are consistent in using the term HaAlmah to refer to “the virgin.” Both the Septuagint translation as well as the Gospel of Matthew’s quotation of the passage in Matthew 1:23 translate this with the Greek word h parqenos, though it is noted that the Alexandrinus, the Rossano and one other minor tenth century text read neanis (“young girl”). Because of the scarcity of this divergent reading, this author has concluded that the reading of the Massoretic Text can be held with a high degree of confidence.

to be continued (due to length)…

 

[CEM5]

'continued…

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The passage before us is rooted in a historical context. Without an examination and an understanding of that context, the passage will lose much of its impact.

1. The Author.

The name of the author is identified in the beginning of the book: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz…” (Isaiah 1:1). In the last 150 years, liberal scholarship has brought into question the authorship of this book and has largely maintained that this is the work of at least two different men. Though a number of superficial reasons are given for this view, at the heart of the matter is that detailed prophecies are given of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Empires and such scholarship therefore has assumed that it must have been written subsequent to this time. Thus the underlying reasoning behind such the theory of multiple authorship is a presupposition that there is no such thing as prophecy or supernatural revelation.

The unity of the book was never brought into question by either Jewish or Christian scholars prior to the rise of liberalism. When a full copy of Isaiah was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the scroll was found intact with no distinction between the first half and the second half of the scroll.

1. The World of Isaiah’s Day.

Isaiah’s ministry is said to have spanned the reigns of four of the kings of Judah: The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, concerning Judah and Jerusalem which he saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The events of the prophecy of Isaiah 7 are even more specific. Ahaz was the ruler of Judah and he was facing troubled times.

On the political scene, Ahaz found his tiny kingdom threatened with enemies from the north, especially the kingdoms of Israel and Aram. The Assyrian Empire was at its zenith and the fierce Assyrian warriors had spread their reign of terror throughout most of the known world, plundering and burning wherever they went. The small kingdoms that lay along the shores of the Mediterranean were no match for these hoards and they decided that the only way they could resist the onslaught was to band together into a single alliance. Accordingly, Egypt, Aram (Syria) and the Northern Kingdom of Israel formed an alliance and asked Judah to join with them. Ahaz, the king of Judah, refused.

Tensions mounted as the confederation threatened to invade Judah and install a puppet king of their own choosing. Ahaz found himself surrounded by enemies on all sides. It was into this scene that Isaiah came with a message from the Lord. The message was that the plans of the confederacy would fail.

1. A Sign for Ahaz.

In the early part of the chapter, God gives a prophecy to Ahaz. He tells Ahaz what will take place in the near future. He promises that Ahaz will not be deposed by the alliance. But that is not all. The Lord also offers to give Ahaz a sign. God promises to place His signature to the promise.

Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying, 11 “Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” (Isaiah 7:10-11).

God even permits Ahaz to choose what the sign will be. He says, “Ask anything you want. Make it as great a sign as you desire. Make is something whereby the greatness of My strength will be seen.” But Ahaz refuses to ask for such a sign. But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!” (Isaiah 7:12).

At first glance, Ahaz seems to be doing a very noble and pious thing. He gives the excuse that he does not want to test the Lord. But that is not a correct response. It is like the man who says, “I do not pray because I do not want to bother God with my problems.” The root of Ahaz’s problem was that he was trusting in the armies of Assyria rather than trusting in the Lord. It is for this reason that the reply from the Lord serves as an indictment against Ahaz at the same time that it promises salvation to his people.

Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? 14 Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 7:13-14).

God turns to this unbelieving king and says, “Since you didn’t want a sign, I’m going to give it to the house of David.” Accordingly, He turns from Ahaz to the descendants of David. Seen in this light, the sign has nothing to do with Ahaz who has already demonstrated his unbelief. Signs are given, not to those who refuse to believe, but to those who are willing to believe. This sign is given to the people of Judah who believe God.

another source: www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FR92203…

Additionally, consider the word for the sake of argument, if it was “young girl” (or young maid" – a young girl is undoubtably a virgin regardless of terminology. So, either way, it still predicts that a “virgin” (young girl) will give birth to the Savior.

blessings,
CEM