USCCB issues new Old Testament on wednesday during Holy Week

  • Thread starter Thread starter PUP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s see what St Jerome says:
St Jerome
Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah! What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men. Then again, Rebecca, on account of her extreme purity, and because she was a type of the Church which she represented in her own virginity, is described in Genesis as Almah, not Bethulah, as may clearly be proved from the words of Abraham’s servant, spoken by him in Mesopotamia: “And he said, O Lord, the God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: behold I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden which cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of this pitcher to drink; and she shall say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the Lord hath appointed for my master’s son.” Where he speaks of the maiden coming forth to draw water, the Hebrew word is Almah, that is, a virgin secluded, and guarded by her parents with extreme care.

Let’s see what St Ireneas says in regards to heresies:
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)

And St Justin Martyr:
Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ. But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;’ and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavor to discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ.
(St Justin Martyr diologue with Trypho Chapter XLIII)

And St John Chrysostom:
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.

I think I will stick with the Church Fathers and the Magisterium!
 
I think Catholic Answers has already answered this question!

Q: A friend of mine contends that the Bible nowhere makes the prophecy that Mary would be a virgin, only that she would be a young girl. He says that’s what it means in the original Hebrew. Is he correct?

A: The controversy surrounds the translation of Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” This Old Testament prophecy is quoted in the gospel of Matthew (Matt. 1:23) and specifically applied to the virginal conception of Christ.

Christians have always cherished this prophecy of Isaiah and its miraculous fulfillment in the virgin birth of Jesus the Messiah. Likewise, non-believers have attacked this prophecy in an attempt to discredit Christ and his Church; the attack is a weak one that is easily refuted.

The Hebrew word translated as virgin, almah, can also be translated as “young woman” but as Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon notes “there is no instance where it can be proved that almah designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

Additional evidence that the correct translation is “virgin” is supplied by the Septuagint version of the Bible, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made several centuries before Christ. It was translated by Jewish scholars for use by Greek-speaking Jews, mainly in Alexandria.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew almah into Greek as parthenos. This Greek term has the precise meaning of “virgin.” So several centuries before the birth of Christ, before there was any reason to attack his Church, the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 was clear: almah = parthenos = virgin.

I wonder if CA is going to change there answer now that the USCCB has spoken!
 
You go right on banging away about “the Jews”, PUP. It is very revelatory. Of you.
 
Here is what the feminists and Jews are saying:

R
you did not give a source and link
worthless
one rabbi’s opinion does not equal “here is what feminist and Jews are saying”
 
Well I don’t understand it and I’m mad about it.

Yes, saying ‘born of a young woman’ doesn’t say explicitly she *wasn’t *a virgin, but it doesn’t say she was one either, and this is a very important point!

No one is having babies by immaculate conception! If someone picks up this bible and reads it for the first time - they may never get that understanding! And whats worse is its being released by the USCCB??? Uh hello?? And we are supposed to say the CC doesn’t endorse it? How does that add up?

This is stupid. I’m mad. I can’t even understand why they would do this, why the USCCB would be allowed to do this. All of these efforts, revising Mass…bringing back latin…and now this…some modernized leftist pc bible of baloney - IRK. One step forward - 15 backwards.
 
you did not give a source and link
worthless
one rabbi’s opinion does not equal “here is what feminist and Jews are saying”
some guy on facebook:
The new American Bible wants to change “Christ was born to a virgin” to “Christ was born to a young woman.” This change is pending Vatican approval. Herein lies the reinvention of biblical characters to suit contemporary paradigm. The Bible is slated to yet undergo another iteration, which will further dilute “history.” SMDH
I don’t know about the feminists or jews in particular are saying, but here is just one example of what ‘they’ are saying. :rolleyes:

And they are right. All these ‘little’ changes make a big difference. ‘Born a VIRGIN birth’ is a pretty significant detail…

I’m totally irritated over this…
 
The use of the word alma was translated to “parthenos” which Christians claim always means virgin. However, in the Septuagint version of Genesis the word “parthenos” is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman (Dinah) who had been raped (Genesis 34:2-3) .

Except for this one passage, in all other places in the Christian bible the Alma was correctly translated to “young woman” and the word betulah to the word virgin (check your Christian bibles at Genesis 24:16,Leviticus 21:3 and Leviticus 21:3).

Linguistically, even if we could connect the word with virginity it would merely mean a virgin who gave birth. This does not imply that that the woman was a virgin at the time of conception but rather that like all Jewish women of that era she was a virgin when she married and then conceived in the usual way.

Finally, the concept that Jews are unable to understand and translate their own scriptures is more than amusing. As is the claim that Jews tempered their translation to prevent it supporting Christian theology that a god took human form and came down to earth after being born from a virgin mother and a divine father.
Great… http://img2.mocospace.com.edgesuite.net/wap/images/emoticons/sad.gif

I feel like someone just ran over my puppy.
 
You might at least check a source or two before posting this stuff.

The NABRE nowhere says “Christ was born of a young woman”. The “young woman” translation is in Isaiah, with a footnote saying that this has always been construed by the Church as a prediction of Christ’s virgin birth. In the New Testament the Virgin Mary is still a virgin. Nothing has changed there.

One gets tired of the hysteria, especially when it’s based on nothing. And even more tiresome, to me, is the innuendo that the USCCB is somehow under the control of “Zionists” or whatever. That says more about the conspiracy-minded people who spread such nonsense around than it ever could about the bishops.
 
You might at least check a source or two before posting this stuff.

The NABRE nowhere says “Christ was born of a young woman”. The “young woman” translation is in Isaiah, with a footnote saying that this has always been construed by the Church as a prediction of Christ’s virgin birth. In the New Testament the Virgin Mary is still a virgin. Nothing has changed there.
Oh so it’s only in Isaiah 7:14 - where it says “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (young woman) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”?? I guess thats not *that *bad…

The Angel still comes…Mary is still a virgin…? I can still sleep at night?? :o
 
I very much hope you can sleep at night! I do.

I have about twenty Bible translations. I’m also a translator. It is not an exact science. If it were, a computer could do it, and I’d be out of work.
 
All of these efforts, revising Mass…bringing back latin…and now this…some modernized leftist pc bible of baloney - IRK. One step forward - 15 backwards.
The Latin Mass (of both forms) has not changed. And virgo still means virgo. Direct your blame to the changing vernaculars, which the bishop conferences apparently control. Perhaps St. Thomas More had a point about translations.
 
It seems quite a few people do not realize that with the advent of the Novus Ordo and Vatican II, the Catholic Church did NOT forbid the saying of Mass - any Mass - in Latin.

Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, and Paul VI, in approving the Novus Ordo, PERMITTED the use of vernacular languages in saying that Mass.

Section No. 12 of the Preamble of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states in relevant part:

" . . . Since no Catholic would now deny the lawfulness and efficacy of a sacred rite celebrated in Latin, the Council was also able to grant that “the use of the vernacular language may frequently be of great advantage to the people” and gave the faculty for its use.16 The enthusiasm in response to this measure has been so great everywhere that it has led, under the leadership of the Bishops and the Apostolic See itself, to permission for all liturgical celebrations in which the people participate to be in the vernacular, for the sake of a better comprehension of the mystery being celebrated."

And in 2004, Rome issued the following: “Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 112).

Thus, no priest or bishop can lawfully forbid a Novus Ordo Mass from being said in Latin. A bishop MAY prevent the saying of a Summorum Pontificum Mass (which is essentially the 1962 Mass), but the rules of prohibition have been so relaxed that it would be very difficult to do so now.

The Novus Ordo remains the “ordinary form” for Mass in America (and I am sure other nations as well), while the 1962 Mass is called the “extraordinary form”, and is permitted in accordance with Summorum Pontificum.
 
Oooh my gawsh I have no idea what any of that (or anything in latin) means…I just know the Mass has gotten more ‘old school’ and I like it.

I like it reverent. I like it with latin. And I like it old school. 😃

I wasn’t trying to say it ‘shouldnt’ be in latin or anything like that…just in case I gave that impression. 🙂
 
Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church, and Paul VI, in approving the Novus Ordo, PERMITTED the use of vernacular languages in saying that Mass.
Mass in the vernacular presupposes approved translations by the bishops’ conferences. This is not as easy as just “using the right hand side of the old Missal.” Since the virgin is mentioned at least twice in the Mass (Confiteor and Canon) who’s to stop them from changing the English (or any other vernacular, for that matter) in the Mass to “young woman” as well?
 
I had a chance to see the NABRE and I can’t say I’ll ever use that version. It appears to me to be a dumbed down version. Wouldn’t it better to give people the education to understand the wording rather than to reword it? 🤷
 
I had a chance to see the NABRE and I can’t say I’ll ever use that version. It appears to me to be a dumbed down version. Wouldn’t it better to give people the education to understand the wording rather than to reword it? 🤷
Precisely. Explanations of the originals and possible interpretations should be the rule rather than one translation that is supposed to fit all. I understand they’re expanding the classics programs in many universities; perhaps they can offer more Hebrew as well.
 
Well, if the NABR is approved by the Vatican, I will be very surprised. This translation and the earlier NAB translation is a direct violation of the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council published by the Congregation for Divine Worship, a Dep. of the Vatican which oversees and has over seen the revision of the New Roman Missal and revised vernacular translations of the Scriptures.

If it does go through, you have the option of joining a Latin Rite community where you will not have to deal with a horrible translation. I do know many Clergy are very upset with the old translation and with the new one as well. You must realize that there has long been going on within the ranks of USCCB offices an idiological struggle between liberals and conservatives. You are probably aware of this.
 
Well, if the NABR is approved by the Vatican, I will be very surprised. This translation and the earlier NAB translation is a direct violation of the Fifth Instruction " For the Right Implementation of the Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council published by the Congregation for Divine Worship, a Dep. of the Vatican which oversees and has over seen the revision of the New Roman Missal and revised vernacular translations of the Scriptures.

If it does go through, you have the option of joining a Latin Rite community where you will not have to deal with a horrible translation. I do know many Clergy are very upset with the old translation and with the new one as well. You must realize that there has long been going on within the ranks of USCCB offices an idiological struggle between liberals and conservatives. You are probably aware of this.
A few issues with this:
  1. You have always been in a Latin-Rite community. (I’m assuming you’re of the Western Church.)
  2. A Latin Rite community will still need a Bible in the vernacular for personal study (I can recommend the Douay-Rheims), unless they happen to be particularly fluent in Latin. Nobody has ever been free from issues with translation, and certainly not even St Jerome himself. The only time when Sacred Scripture is read in Latin is when it is used as the Lectionary.
  3. It is not so much a struggle between liberals and conservatives so much as a struggle between dynamic or formal equivalence, which depends on the particular individuals working on the translation. The bishops are not the linguistic experts, so they wouldn’t know which words can be translated in what manner. They can only vet its conformity to Catholic doctrine.
  4. Why you resurrect old thread? 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top