Why use the Masoretic Text over the Vulgate (and Septuagint)?

[Dolezal]

St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from Chaldean, parts of Esther and Daniel from Greek. Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees he left unchanged from the Itala. The Psalms he did translate from Hebrew, but this translation was not popular, and the Clementine Vulgate contains the Old Latin translation corrected by St. Jerome according to the Septuagint.

As for his translation from the Hebrew. A strong argument for favoring the Vulgate over the Masoretic Text seems to me that it is based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Vulgate is almost 600 years older than the Masoretic Text.

Another problem I have with the Masoretic Text, is that medieval Jewish commentaries attacked Christian dogma and specifically the Christian claim that Old Testament prophecies foretold the coming of Jesus. This may explain why in the prophecy of Isaiah, the Masoretes used the word “young woman” and the Septuagint uses the word “virgin.”

Isaiah 7:14: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” Matthew 1:22: “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”

Now, the Septuagint and the Vulgate both use the word “virgin” and were both translated from pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint and Vulgate predate the Masoretic Text by 1300 and 600 years respectively. The Masoretic Text contradicts the New Testament and the Septuagint, and the Septuagint was quoted by Our Lord and the Apostles (2/3 of all quotes).

So why do modern Catholic translators trust the medieval texts of the Masoretes over the ancient Vulgate and the Septuagint?

 

[Zekariya]

St Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 – 165) supports the Septuagint and claims that the Jews altered their Scriptures:

“But I am far from putting reliance in your teachers, who refuse to admit that the interpretation [Septuagint/LXX] made by the seventy elders who were with Ptolemy [king] of the Egyptians is a correct one; and they attempt to frame another. And I wish you to observe, that they have altogether taken away many Scriptures from the translations effected by those seventy elders who were with Ptolemy, and by which this very man who was crucified is proved to have been set forth expressly as God, and man, and as being crucified, and as dying; but since I am aware that this is denied by all of your nation, 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.’ And I promised to prove that the prophecy referred, not, as you were taught, to Hezekiah, but to this Christ of mine: and now I shall go to the proof.” Here Trypho remarked, “We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled.” - St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXI
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxi.html

And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras [Ezra] made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’ And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following: ‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’ - St Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXXII
Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxxii.html

[emphasis mine]

 

[COPLAND_3]

A theory I have kicked around in the back of my mind is that some of those who favor the MT do so because their specialty is Hebrew, and being Hebrew scholars they tend to favor a text that gives them work to do, and a sense of being important. I get that sense from other scholars in areas of Greek and Syriac. I see the Syriac translators of the Peshitta make extreme claims that the whole NT was originally written in Araimaic, and I see many Greek scholars argue passionately for Greek. I would be content going completely back to the Vulgate and never looking back. But until I become pope I have no say so!

 

[Dolezal]

Zekariya–

Thanks, I did not know that. This seems to support my hypothesis that the Jews changed Scripture. Even if the argument can be made that the Masoretes did not change Scripture, they may still have copied previous changes.

 

[Zekariya]

Zekariya–

Thanks, I did not know that. This seems to support my hypothesis that the Jews changed Scripture. Even if the argument can be made that the Masoretes did not change Scripture, they may still have copied previous changes.

And that is where the Septuagint is valuable since it is a a pre-Christ Greek translation of an older Hebrew text. You can compare with the Vulgate post-Christ Latin translation of a Hebrew text [with some LXX influences] that still dates before the Masoretes standardized the text.

 

[Dolezal]

A theory I have kicked around in the back of my mind is that some of those who favor the MT do so because their specialty is Hebrew, and being Hebrew scholars they tend to favor a text that gives them work to do, and a sense of being important. I get that sense from other scholars in areas of Greek and Syriac. I see the Syriac translators of the Peshitta make extreme claims that the whole NT was originally written in Araimaic, and I see many Greek scholars argue passionately for Greek. I would be content going completely back to the Vulgate and never looking back. But until I become pope I have no say so!

Makes sense.

Those are my sentiments too. We will never have a completely accurate text of the Bible, the original sources have been lost and human error is unavoidable. Scholarly attempts for the most accurate Scripture are interesting of course, but the Clementine Vulgate seems more than sufficiently accurate and trustworthy for Catholic use.

 

[Zekariya]

Makes sense.

Those are my sentiments too. We will never have a completely accurate text of the Bible, the original sources have been lost and human error is unavoidable.

That is why we have the Tradition of the Catholic Church in the Pope, Councils, and Fathers.

 

[Julia_Mae]

As for his translation from the Hebrew. A strong argument for favoring the Vulgate over the Masoretic Text seems to me that it is based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Vulgate is almost 600 years older than the Masoretic Text.

I don’t think so, can you post a link to a reference? My understanding is that Jerome started to use the Septuagint and mistakenly believed the Masoretic text in Hebrew was older or more original, when, in fact, most of the Masoretic text was translated into Hebrew from the Greek Septuagint.

 

[Zekariya]

I don’t think so, can you post a link to a reference? My understanding is that Jerome started to use the Septuagint and mistakenly believed the Masoretic text in Hebrew was older or more original, when, in fact, most of the Masoretic text was translated into Hebrew from the Greek Septuagint.

There was no Masoretic Text in St Jerome’s days. St Jerome used a pre-Mesoretic Hebrew text. The Masoretes worked on their text between the 7th and 11th centuries AD.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There was no Masoretic Text in St Jerome’s days. St Jerome used a pre-Mesoretic Hebrew text. The Masoretes worked on their text between the 7th and 11th centuries AD.

Sorry. I use the word loosely to refer to the Scriptures the Jews translated from Greek into Hebrew which was then copied, edited and distributed by whoever became known as the Masoretes. I was making the point that Jerome was in error when he thought he had “original” Hebrew (and abandoned use of the Septuagint) instead of a translation from a translation he then translated into Latin. I also think it’s surprisingly accurate for all of that.

 

[Zekariya]

Sorry. I use the word loosely to refer to the Scriptures the Jews translated from Greek into Hebrew which was then copied, edited and distributed by whoever became known as the Masoretes. I was making the point that Jerome was in error when he thought he had “original” Hebrew (and abandoned use of the Septuagint) instead of a translation from a translation he then translated into Latin. I also think it’s surprisingly accurate for all of that.

I agree completely.

It is interesting to Read St Jerome’s and St Augustine’s letters back and forth on that issue.

 

[patrick457]

St. Jerome translated Tobias and Judith from Chaldean, parts of Esther and Daniel from Greek. Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees he left unchanged from the Itala. The Psalms he did translate from Hebrew, but this translation was not popular, and the Clementine Vulgate contains the Old Latin translation corrected by St. Jerome according to the Septuagint.

As for his translation from the Hebrew. A strong argument for favoring the Vulgate over the Masoretic Text seems to me that it is based on pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Vulgate is almost 600 years older than the Masoretic Text.

Another problem I have with the Masoretic Text, is that medieval Jewish commentaries attacked Christian dogma and specifically the Christian claim that Old Testament prophecies foretold the coming of Jesus. This may explain why in the prophecy of Isaiah, the Masoretes used the word “young woman” and the Septuagint uses the word “virgin.”

Isaiah 7:14: “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” Matthew 1:22: “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.”

Now, the Septuagint and the Vulgate both use the word “virgin” and were both translated from pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. The Septuagint and Vulgate predate the Masoretic Text by 1300 and 600 years respectively. The Masoretic Text contradicts the New Testament and the Septuagint, and the Septuagint was quoted by Our Lord and the Apostles (2/3 of all quotes).

So why do modern Catholic translators trust the medieval texts of the Masoretes over the ancient Vulgate and the Septuagint?

I’ll come up with a fuller reply later, but for now I’ll just say this: the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran mostly agrees with the MT on this particular point, especially on the crucial word ('almah).

 

[Zekariya]

I’ll come up with a fuller reply later, but for now I’ll just say this: the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran mostly agrees with the MT on this particular point, especially on the crucial word ('almah).

I am not trying to downplay the value of the DSS, however, there was also found from Qumran a text that supports the Samaritan Pentateuch which teaches that Mt Gerizim as the place of OT worship.

The LXX was most likely translated from are different textual tradition than the texts that were used to form the MT. We currently have the LXX, MT, and the Vulgate; who knows how many variant Hebrew copies of the OT existed besides what we have from Qumran and the Samaritan Pentateuch. We know from the LXX that it was understood that a virgin would give birth (regardless as to whether almah is the original word or not). Fortunately, we have the Church to tell us what to believe and needn’t worry about slight variants in the OT texts. They don’t change any doctrines of the Church.

 

[patrick457]

I am not trying to downplay the value of the DSS, however, there was also found from Qumran a text that supports the Samaritan Pentateuch (ie Mt Gerizim as the place of OT worship).

The LXX was most likely translated from are different textual tradition than the texts that were used to form the MT. We currently have the LXX, MT, and the Vulgate; who knows how many variant Hebrew copies of the OT existed besides what we have from Qumran and the Samaritan Pentateuch. We know from the LXX that it was understood that a virgin would give birth (regardless as to whether almah is the original word or not). Fortunately, we have the Church to tell us what to believe and needn’t worry about slight variants in the OT texts.

Exactly. The thing about the Bible is that we often think of it in terms of one original text simply branching off into different versions when in reality things were more complicated: at first you had a plurality of texts, out of which one version would be selected out of many as the standard, thereby supplanting the others. Thus the Masoretic becomes the standard out of all the other textual versions of the OT, the Byzantine text becomes the standard version of the Greek NT, and the collection of St. Jerome’s translations (dubbed the ‘common version’ or versio vulgata in the Middle Ages) becomes the standard text in Latin.

BTW do you know about the different recensions of the Septuagint?

P.S. While a text-form similar to the Samaritan Torah (aka Proto-Samaritan) was found, AFAIK the bit about Mt. Gerizim isn’t attested, nor would I expect it to be (after all Qumran was a Jewish site).

 

[Zekariya]

Exactly. The thing about the Bible is that we often think of it in terms of one original text simply branching off into different versions when in reality things were more complicated: at first you had a plurality of texts, out of which one version would be selected out of many as the standard, thereby supplanting the others. Thus the Masoretic becomes the standard out of all the other textual versions of the OT, the Byzantine text becomes the standard version of the Greek NT, and the collection of St. Jerome’s translations (dubbed the ‘common version’ or versio vulgata in the Middle Ages) becomes the standard text in Latin.

BTW do you know about the different recensions of the Septuagint?

I did know but, I’m am not thoroughly knowledgable in the precise differences.

P.S. While a text-form similar to the Samaritan Torah was found, AFAIK the bit about Mt. Gerizim isn’t attested.

This is my source [it’s a PDF] on the matter (not necassarily supporting Mt Gerizim over Jerusalem but, it shows the sacrifice taking place on Mt Gerizim instead of Mt Ebal which is only found, as far as I know, in the Samaritan Pentateuch): upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/658_ef82e03f461ae30b7f76073dc824342e.pdf

It says that the fragment translates as:

Translation (line numbers denote the extant line, not the beginning of a line): Line
1 (4) “[when] you [have crossed] the Jo[r]dan, you shall set u[p these stones, about
2 [which I charge you] today, on Mount Gerizim, and coat [them with plaster. (5) And there, you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of]
3 st]ones. [You must] not wield upon them an iron (tool). (6) [Of unhewn] st[ones you must build the altar of the LORD]
4 your [God], and you shall offer upon it burnt offerings to the LOR[D your God.]”

This text diverges from the MT: “(4) upon crossing the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I charge you this day, on Mount Ebal, and coat them with plaster. (5) There, too, you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones. Do not wield an iron tool over them; (6) you must build the altar of the LORD your God of unhewn stones. You shall offer on it burnt offerings to the LORD your God,

 

[patrick457]

This is my source [it’s a PDF] on the matter (not necassarily supporting Mt Gerizim over Jerusalem but, it shows the sacrifice taking place on Mt Gerizim instead of Mt Ebal which is only found, as far as I know, in the Samaritan Pentateuch): upsite.co.il/uploaded/files/658_ef82e03f461ae30b7f76073dc824342e.pdf

It says that the fragment translates as:

Translation (line numbers denote the extant line, not the beginning of a line): Line
1 (4) “[when] you [have crossed] the Jo[r]dan, you shall set u[p these stones, about
2 [which I charge you] today, on Mount Gerizim, and coat [them with plaster. (5) And there, you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of]
3 st]ones. [You must] not wield upon them an iron (tool). (6) [Of unhewn] st[ones you must build the altar of the LORD]
4 your [God], and you shall offer upon it burnt offerings to the LOR[D your God.]”

This text diverges from the MT: “(4) upon crossing the Jordan, you shall set up these stones, about which I charge you this day, on Mount Ebal, and coat them with plaster. (5) There, too, you shall build an altar to the LORD your God, an altar of stones. Do not wield an iron tool over them; (6) you must build the altar of the LORD your God of unhewn stones. You shall offer on it burnt offerings to the LORD your God,

Further down the article is something that piqued my interest.

Text Type: Either Samaritan Pentateuch (unlikely) or Text with the Original Reading (likely). The fragment preserves four variants to the so-called MT [see transcription and notes].

Two categories should be distinguished: Fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch and fragments of Pre-Samaritan manuscripts. One should distinguish between a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Old Readings (known in the Samaritan Pentateuch and reflected often in the LXX and elsewhere) that appear in pre-70 Hebrew Scrolls. Hence, “Proto-Samaritan Texts” should be defined as manuscripts preserving textual traditions that are not caused by Samaritan editing and appear not only in the Samaritan Pentateuch but also in some Qumran biblical manuscripts, namely 4QpaleoExod m, 4QNum b, 4Q158, and 4Q364. These manuscripts are not portions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, because they do not contain the striking Samaritan features of the Pentateuch.

The close relation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the received Pentateuch (the so-called MT) - especially in textual tradition and sense divisions - indicates that the Samaritans and Judeans (and conceivably some Jews in Lower Galilee) separated late (perhaps during, or after, the time of John Hyrcanus). The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture. We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may represent the original reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redaction by others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan “altar” by John Hyrcanus in the late second century BCE.

 

[Zekariya]

Further down the article is something that piqued my interest.

Text Type: Either Samaritan Pentateuch (unlikely) or Text with the Original Reading (likely). The fragment preserves four variants to the so-called MT [see transcription and notes].

Two categories should be distinguished: Fragments of the Samaritan Pentateuch and fragments of Pre-Samaritan manuscripts. One should distinguish between a copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch and Old Readings (known in the Samaritan Pentateuch and reflected often in the LXX and elsewhere) that appear in pre-70 Hebrew Scrolls. Hence, “Proto-Samaritan Texts” should be defined as manuscripts preserving textual traditions that are not caused by Samaritan editing and appear not only in the Samaritan Pentateuch but also in some Qumran biblical manuscripts, namely 4QpaleoExod m, 4QNum b, 4Q158, and 4Q364. These manuscripts are not portions of the Samaritan Pentateuch, because they do not contain the striking Samaritan features of the Pentateuch.

The close relation between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the received Pentateuch (the so-called MT) - especially in textual tradition and sense divisions - indicates that the Samaritans and Judeans (and conceivably some Jews in Lower Galilee) separated late (perhaps during, or after, the time of John Hyrcanus). The study of the transmission of the Pentateuch indicates that Samaritans and other early Jews shared an early stage of traditions and Scripture. We should keep in focus the possibility that a manuscript with a reading found in the Samaritan Pentateuch may not be the result of editing by Samaritans; it may represent the original reading. Thus, the MT and other related text types may represent redaction by others, notably Jews in Judea, especially after the burning of the Samaritan “altar” by John Hyrcanus in the late second century BCE.

Interesting. Good catch!

 

[Dolezal]

I’ll come up with a fuller reply later, but for now I’ll just say this: the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran mostly agrees with the MT on this particular point, especially on the crucial word ('almah).

Thanks for bringing the Great Isaiah Scroll to my attention. It seems that the Jews changed their interpretation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young women.” This is supported by the Septuagint and the claims of Justin Martyr, Origen, and Irenaeus.

Qumran Isaiah Scroll: [{Behold}] the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son and he shall call his name Immanuel.](http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm#c6)

Commentary and analysis found here:

Verse 14: A Virgin: The Hebrew word in the text that is translated virgin is “almah.” It has a definite article in Hebrew as can be seen in the last word in the first line in the Hebrew text above. It is “ha’almah” or literally “the virgin.” Only after the beginning of the Christian dispensation did Jewish scholars insist that the word means a young woman who is not necessarily a virgin and therefore they say a virgin birth was not predicted. Irenaeus is the first one to answer that argument and his points have not been improved upon. One of the most telling arguments he uses is that the Septuagint translators not only translated the verse here but they told what it meant, to them, before the advent of Jesus. It is obvious from their translation that they believed that one who would be called “God with us” required a virgin birth.
**
Jewish Sages Who Translated the Septuagint Version of Isaiah in 285 BC believed that “ha’almah” meant Virgin and not Young Woman.**



Jewish scholars used the words “ha parthenos” (the virgin) for the Hebrew "ha-'almah"

Irenaeus wrote about 140 A.D., and is one of the first to show that Jews before the time of Christ knew that Isaiah 7:14 predicted a virgin birth. Irenaeus points out that the Septuagint translators in 285 B.C. used a word in Greek that means exactly what “virgin” means in English. Since the Jewish Septuagint translators used the Greek word “parthenos” to translate the Hebrew word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 they therefore “interpreted” the passage as well as translated it to mean that a virgin would conceive and bear a son. Irenaeus said:

" 1. 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," as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph;......

" and [since] this interpretation [of "virgin" by the Septuagint translators] of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared--for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted;--[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations,"*
*Irenaeus Book III Chapter XXI

That is: a “desire to make different translations” than those made by the Septuagint translators whose genius had been approved by Jewish historians like Josephus and Philo and other Jews from the time of Ptolemy Lagos through the first century.

 

[Dolezal]

Continued:
**
Origen, in the third century, used arguments against the objections of the post first century Jews that are as good today as when first elucidated.**

“But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, [almah,] to endeavor to persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it [virgin birth] or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his birth these words, “God with us,” were uttered, let us make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus: “Ask a sign for thyself from the LORD thy God, either in the depth or height above;” and afterwards the sign is given, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” What kind of sign, then, would that have been–a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., “God with us”),–whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth it is said, “God with us.” And should he be so captious as to say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, “Ask for thyself a sign from the LORD thy God,” we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, “Immanuel,” i.e., “God with us?” And if no one can be found. then manifestly what was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the Savior was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign is said to be “in the depth or in the height,” since “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all things.” And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.”*

*Origen Contra Celcus XXXV

END

So, why do modern Catholic translators use the words “young woman”? Seemingly ignoring the Jewish interpretation before Christ and the context?

 

[patrick457]

A little comparison here.

1QIsa[sup]a[/sup] (Col. 6, lines 28-29)

Line 28: … ]לכן יתן יהוה הוה ל
Line 29: ה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקרא (=יקרא?) שמו עמנואל…]

lkn ytn yhwh hwh l…]
…]h h’lmh hrh wyldt bn wqr’ (= yqr’?) šmw 'mnw’l

“Therefore Yhwh Himself will give you [a sign: behold,] the almâ shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and his name shall be called (wəqārā’) Immanuel.”

Masoretic Text

‏לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל׃

lāḵēn yitēn ’ăḏōnāy hû’ lāḵem ’wōṯ hinnēh hā‘almâ hārâ wəyōleḏeṯ bēn wəqārā’ṯ šəmwō ‘immānû ’ēl.

“Therefore Adonai Himself will give you a sign: behold, the almâ shall conceive, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call (wəqārā’ṯ) his name Immanuel.”