Siding with Trypho not St. Justin Martyr?

[WFS5801]

In his Dialogue with Trypho St. Justin Martyr accused Trypho of changing Scripture:

I do not address myself to these points, but I proceed to carry on my discussions by means of those passages which are still admitted by you. For you assent to those which I have brought before your attention, except that you contradict the statement, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and say it ought to be read, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive.’

It was St. Justin Martyr’s view that the LXX was correct in using “virgin” and the Hebrew was incorrect in using “young woman.” Note, the LXX was written before Christ’s birth and, as Catholics, we know it refers to the Virgin Mary. So Catholic Bibles, for centuries, used “virgin” in this passage.

Now, apparently, St. justin Martyr’s argument is seen as weaker than Trypho’s, as the Revised New American Bible has chosen to reject centuries of Catholic usage and employ the current Hebrew translation.

Sure, spoils is replacing booty in the forthcoming edition of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) New American Bible — which, being a 21st century update, already has its own Facebook page — but that’s hardly the most intriguing adjustment. Read further in USA Today’s article, and you’ll come across this tidbit:

"One change may set off alarms with traditionalists, in a passage many Christians believe foreshadows the coming of Christ and his birth to a virgin. The 1970 version of Isaiah 7:14 says “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”

“The 2011 text refers to “the young woman” instead. It elaborates that the original Hebrew word, almah, may, or may not, signify a virgin.”

So, if the word almah may signify either “virgin” or “young woman” why did USCCB choose the non-Catholic usage, and oppose centuries of Catholic Tradition? Why did they oppose St. Justin Martyr and the early LXX (an older Canon than the Hebrew one) when the passage clearly refers to the Virgin Mary?

Their explanation is not convincing:

“The effort in this translation was to be as faithful to the original Hebrew as possible,” says the USCCB’s Mary Elizabeth Speers. “It doesn’t mean the bishops are changing their mind on the virgin birth of Jesus or the perpetual virginity of Mary. That doctrine stands, and will probably stand until the end of time.”

Speers points out that references to the virgin birth remain unchanged in the revised edition’s New Testament; she says the Gospel of Matthew quotes the Greek translation of Isaiah, which used the Greek word for virgin, and so in Matthew, virgin it is. “We need to say what he [Matthew] said,” says Speers, who notes further that Luke 1:34, “which is actually the very strong warrant for the birth of Jesus,” has not been altered. As for Isaiah, “We are merely translating what the Hebrew says.” Speers cites the Divino Afflante Spiritu, the 1943 encyclical, as the reason for such faithful translation to the original.

But doesn’t Mary Elizabeth Speers realize that St. Matthew quoted the LXX version, which is why he used he “virgin” rather than “young woman?” Now we have the absurd situation where the quoted Old Testament passage appears altered in the New Testament. This was obviously not St. Matthew’s intent.

Why, after all these years, does she side with Trypho rather than St. Justin Martyr?

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

The translation is accurate, however I do not think that it affects the interpretation much. A “young woman” conceiving a child is not particularity what I would call a sign that is out of the ordinary, now a virgin conceiving a child…that’s a different story.

 

[rcjones]

The language of prophecy is written in riddle. Few are the prophecies where the fulfillment is clearly spelled out in literal terms. The nature of riddle is that you must know the answer and apply it back to the riddle.

We know he was born of the virgin, hence the prophecy speaks of a virgin whether the word in English is young woman or virgin it remains ‘alma’ in the original which clearly means ‘virgin’ by way of applying the fulfillment.

Those who hear his voice know it is a prophecy of his birth. And hearing his voice is the ultimate proof of being His sheep. Let the goats bleat as they may, the sheep will still hear his voice.

 

[Salvatore123]

WFS5801,

As you know, I started a thread several weeks ago that dealt exactly with the NABRE’s change of Isaiah 7:14. I don’t know if Ms. Speers was speaking personally or on behalf of the USCCB, but I find the following to be - and I will be diplomatic - “lacking”:

“As for Isaiah, “We are merely translating what the Hebrew says.” Speers cites the Divino Afflante Spiritu, the 1943 encyclical, as the reason for such faithful translation to the original.”

Here is the irony:

The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, which published its own entirely new english translation of the bible from 1941 through 1969, only to never publish a one volume compilation of its individual translations (which I consider to be the best yet in terms of accuracy and readability), published the NT of the Confraternity Bible in 1941 (they translated the NT first - 2 years before Divino Afflante Spiritu. In that first CCD translation, the word “virgin” is in Isaiah, and the Isaiah translation occurred after the 1943 encyclical.

In 1970, the New American Bible made its first appearance. And this is what I mean when I said “irony” above: the NAB was published by the CCD!!!

But as the CCD’s 1941 NT translation was undertaken and completed BEFORE the Holy Father’s 1943 encyclical, the CCD issued a new NT translation for the debut of its NAB.

As all of its OT translations occurred AFTER the encyclical, the OT translations produced for what was to eventually be a one-volume Confraternity Bible were retained (except for some minor changes to Genesis) for the 1970 first edition NAB. Thus, when the CCD translated Isaiah for its Confraternity Bible project, it did so after the encyclical and specifically stated that its OT translations were done in accordance with the encyclical.

Now, consider this tortuous journey of the NAB from its inception to the present:

1970 - NAB first edition: Isaiah 7:14 has the word “virgin”
1986 - NAB second edition: Isaiah 7:14 has the word “virgin”
1990 - NAB third edition: Isaiah 7:14 has the word “virgin”
2011 - NAB fourth edition (although it is not called the 4th edition - it is called the New American Bible Revised Edition, or NABRE): Isaiah 7:14 does NOT have the word “virgin”

Aside from the change being, in my opinion, a slap in the face to both prophecy as well as what I believe the translators of the Septuagint intended when they chose the word “parthenos” (which, in Greek, can only mean “virgin”), the USCCB (which I assume authorized Ms. Speers to say what she said about the change) claims it changed Isaiah to now read “young woman” in keeping with Divino Afflante Spiritu.

What I have asked (along with you and many, many others) is WHY NOW?

From 1943 to 1990 (the years the CCD was actively working on the NAB and its “predecessor” as far as the OT, the Confraternity Bible), the CCD continued to publish “virgin”. To say the change this year to “young woman” was to conform to the encyclical does not make any sense, because they had 3-edition chances before to make a change when they produced the original NAB in 1970, and then revised it twice (1986 and then again in 1990), yet retained the word “virgin”.

1. Does the ancient Hebrew word “almah”, which is traditionally translated as “young woman” necessarily EXCLUDE the “almah” from being a “bethulah” (the ancient Hebrew word for “virgin”)? No.
2. Did the translators of the Septuagint KNOW the difference between “almah” and “bethulah”, when they specifically chose the word “parthenos” (which can only mean “virgin”)? I would have to assume they did, considering they were Hebrew scholars who knew Hebrew AND Greek.

So why would the USCCB (through the CCD) choose a decidedly Jewish translation instead of a Christian translation?

I have yet to hear or read what I think is a reasonable explanation from the USCCB for the change . . .

I, as a Catholic, should not have to look to a footnote for Isaiah 7:14 to see an explanation about the differences regarding “almah”, “bethulah”, and “parthenos”. I should be able to read the only liturgically-approved bible for US Catholics and see “virgin” in that verse and if I need or want to know some history behind 7:14, I should find THAT in the footnotes.

Thus, not only do we Catholics still lack a more accurate litugically-approved bible for use in the US, but we will continue to have a lectionary that will NOT reflect what is translated in the NABRE!!!

Go figure . . .

 

[Bible_Reader]

Now, apparently, St. justin Martyr’s argument is seen as weaker than Trypho’s, as the Revised New American Bible has chosen to reject centuries of Catholic usage and employ the current Hebrew translation.

I am not sure that you saw the footnote that goes with that verse. It is, in fact, quite lucid and clears matters up nicely. Here it is:

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.

Note that most major Catholic English translation anticipated the NABRE’s translation by translating this phrase as “young woman” or “maid”: the NRSV-CE, the RSV-CE, the JB, the NJB, GNB-CE, and the Knox Bible.

If you are uncomfortable with this translation, there are versions that preserve “virgin”; the Ignatius volume called the “RSV-CE 2nd edition” is a possibility (however, the imprimatur on this work is limited to the RSV-CE – if one holds that the RSV-CE 2nd edition is covered by this imprimatur of the RSV-CE, then one is implicitly agreeing that the difference in translation of this verse would not affect imprimatur). Another translation that comes to mind is the Christian Community Bible, although you should be aware that the French version of that translation had its imprimatur rescinded. And of course, there is the Douai Bible (most commonly available in the Challoner revision), although this is primarily based on the Vulgate, rather than original Hebrew and Greek.

If you are willing to refer to a Bible without imprimatur, then you may find the New English Translation of the Septuagint to be useful. This work has the advantage of being entirely translated from the Septuagint – and thus would be closest English option to the Bible that Justin Martyr himself used.

However, if I may make a suggestion, perhaps you will want to withhold judgment on the NABRE until you have had a chance to review more than just one verse. Even if you disagree on this one verse, you may find the new translation as a whole to be superior to the previous NAB (which simply used the old Confraternity translation for all of the Old Testament except Genesis and Psalms).

 

[Bible_Reader]

I, as a Catholic, should not have to look to a footnote for Isaiah 7:14 to see an explanation about the differences regarding “almah”, “bethulah”, and “parthenos”.

Apparently the Confraternity (and Canon Law!) does not agree. From the Q&A from the Confraternity:

4) Will publishers be allowed to print the text without the commentary and footnotes?

No. Permission is almost never granted to print the NABRE without the introductions and explanatory notes. (The few exceptions are for audio products or certain works intended for scholarly use, such as parallel Bibles.) The reason is two-fold. First, canon law (specifically canon 825) requires that Scripture be “provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” Second, in undertaking their review of the text, the bishops who recommended the NABRE for approval reviewed the notes and introductions in great detail, often requiring additions to ensure that the note was as helpful as possible.

It seems that the Confraternity is not interested in allowing the NAB to be published without footnotes – it appears the Confraternity regards the footnotes as an integral part of the translation.

 

[Salvatore123]

BibleReader,

I think it is still sad regarding our bible/lectionary problem we have in America, and I would love to hear the USCCB’s/CCD’s explanation of why the Holy Fathers JPII and Benedict XVI chose to refer to primarily the RSV when JPII compiled the Catechism and Benedict wrote his 2 volume biography of Christ.

 

[Bible_Reader]

BibleReader,

I think it is still sad regarding our bible/lectionary problem we have in America, and I would love to hear the USCCB’s/CCD’s explanation of why the Holy Fathers JPII and Benedict XVI chose to refer to primarily the RSV when JPII compiled the Catechism and Benedict wrote his 2 volume biography of Christ.

I agree with you Salvatore. It is a mess. We should be able to have the same translation in the lectionary and in our Bibles.

The CCC seems to primarily quote from the NRSV-CE (although sometimes from the RSV-CE).

I’m not sure if Pope Benedict XVI chose the translation used in the English version of Jesus of Nazareth – although the choice of the RSV-CE makes sense for that book since the books’ arguments follow the text extremely closely, and the RSV-CE is the most formal-literal translation of all contemporary English translations. Even still, as I am sure you noticed, the translator made significant changes to the RSV-CE so that the quoted Biblical text matched up with Pope’s discussion.