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

[Zekariya]

Thank for that. Here is the popular (in EO circles) ****Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s translation of the LXX:

Psalm 22[MT 23]
A Psalm of David. The Lord is my shepherd, and I shall not want. In a place of green pasture, there hath He made me to dwell; beside the water of rest hath He nurtured me. He hath converted my soul, He hath led me on the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. For though I should walk in the midst of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they have comforted me. Thou hast prepared a table for me in the presence of them that afflict me. Thou hast anointed my head with oil, and Thy cup which filleth me, how excellent it is! And Thy mercy shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord unto length of days.

 

[Dolezal]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Why would God give a sign that is meaningless? “A young woman conceived! It’s a miraculous sign from God!” No! Plenty of young women conceive all of the time (that’s why they give out free birth control in schools ).

The only way that this could be a miraculous sign from God is if the young women is a virgin. The Jews who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek knew this. That is why they used the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in this passage.

In Christ,
Zekariya

Excactly the point Origen was making.

patrick457–

What is your interpretation of the Hebrew word “almah”? I understand that there are different versions of the Septuagint, but I think we can speak of “the Septuagint” where they all agree. My understanding is that the Septuagint uses the word “virgin” in the prophecy. Do you agree that the Septuagint and the arguments of Origen, Justin, and Irenaeus are sufficient evidence in support of the claim that the Jews changed their interpretation of the word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14?

 

[chosen_people]

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]

The Septuagint, the Rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the Rabbi’s as also being a translation of the Prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the Rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.

 

[Zekariya]

The Septuagint, the Rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the Rabbi’s as also being a translation of the Prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the Rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.

Please provide sources for your claims concerning the Septuagint. Also, what you said about the Torah only applies to the Masoretes on forward. The Masoretes standardized the Torah and there are many pre-Masoretic variants of the Torah (the Dead Sea Scrolls for example).

 

[Zekariya]

“Septuagint, abbreviation Lxx, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bc and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bc.” - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535154/Septuagint

 

[Dolezal]

The Septuagint, the Rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the Rabbi’s as also being a translation of the Prophets. Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected. Thirdly, the Rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.

You are obviously wrong on the Septuagint. But why are you suggesting that the tract Megillah can be relied upon for linguistic proof? The Mishna was written down after 200 AD, more than 300 years after the Septuagint translation and some 50 years after Justin Martyr and Irenaeus pointed out that the Septuagint said “a virgin will conceive.” Also, I have not found anything in the tract Megillah about the prophecy of Isaiah, it is mostly concerned with the reading of Esther.

 

[chosen_people]

You are obviously wrong on the Septuagint. But why are you suggesting that the tract Megillah can be relied upon for linguistic proof? The Mishna was written down after 200 AD, more than 300 years after the Septuagint translation and some 50 years after Justin Martyr and Irenaeus pointed out that the Septuagint said “a virgin will conceive.” Also, I have not found anything in the tract Megillah about the prophecy of Isaiah, it is mostly concerned with the reading of Esther.

Well obviously from your response I fear I have been unable to make my point understood.

I will try to simplify. Lets take the Christian claim that the world עלמה alma is always translated in the Septuagint as parthenos and that parthenos always means virgin. We immediately come to a problem when we get to the use of parthenos in Genesis 34:2-3 when referring to Dinah who has been raped and is therefore obviously a non virgin.

Another problem, at least from a Jewish perspective, is that all the authentic Jewish Messianic prophesies are empirically verifiable - for instance- the entire world would be able to see if the Messiah ben David is appointed King of Israel or the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt’ all war has ended, all Jews have returned to Israel, all people have adopted a universal belief in God. Christian Messianic prophesies are not empirically verifiable to all and must be taken on “faith” - for instance - it is not possible to know empirically whether the mother of Jesus was a virgin or whether Jesus died for the sins of the world.

The third point, again from the Jewish perspective, is such an issue as “virgin birth” could even arise in a Jewish context. The answer lies in Paulinian Christianity rejecting Torah and Judaism and modelling the story of the Christian leader around accepted beliefs and practices of the time. Osiris-Dionysus was worshiped around the Mediterranean basin in the centuries before Jesus: This was this god’s history and background:

God was his father.
A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.
Birth:
He was born in a cave or cowshed.
He was born on December 25th or January 6th
His birth was prophesied by a star in the heavens.
Ministry:
At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
His followers have the chance to be born-again through baptism in water.
He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
He had 12 disciples. At first he was not recognized as a divinity by his disciples but he was transfigured before them.
He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
He died “as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.”
He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
He was wrapped in linen and myrrh.
After death, he descended into hell.
On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
He later ascended to heaven in glory.
His titles:
God made flesh.
Savior of the world.
Son of God.
He is “God made man,” and equal to the Father.
He will return in the last days.
He will judge the human race at that time.
His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual of bread and wine

This is how Matthew 1:22-23 cites Isaiah 7:14
“Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel’ which translated means, God is with us”

From the Hebrew text this is linguistically incorrect, there is a changing of the pronouns and the tense, changing of the context, mistranslated the word alma (where the Christian scriptures in other places correctly translated virgin as בטולה betullah (all this before we get to the point that Jesus is not called Emmanuel even once in the Christian scriptures

This is the proper translation of the Hebrew to English of Isaiah 7:14

“Behold the [not “a”] young woman [not “virgin”] is [not “shall be”] with child and will bear a son and she [not “they”] will call his name Emmanuel.”

Answer:

 

[Zekariya]

Well obviously from your response I fear I have been unable to make my point understood.

I will try to simplify. Lets take the Christian claim that the world עלמה alma is always translated in the Septuagint as parthenos and that parthenos always means virgin. We immediately come to a problem when we get to the use of parthenos in Genesis 34:2-3 when referring to Dinah who has been raped and is therefore obviously a non virgin.

Another problem, at least from a Jewish perspective, is that all the authentic Jewish Messianic prophesies are empirically verifiable - for instance- the entire world would be able to see if the Messiah ben David is appointed King of Israel or the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt’ all war has ended, all Jews have returned to Israel, all people have adopted a universal belief in God. Christian Messianic prophesies are not empirically verifiable to all and must be taken on “faith” - for instance - it is not possible to know empirically whether the mother of Jesus was a virgin or whether Jesus died for the sins of the world.

The third point, again from the Jewish perspective, is such an issue as “virgin birth” could even arise in a Jewish context. The answer lies in Paulinian Christianity rejecting Torah and Judaism and modelling the story of the Christian leader around accepted beliefs and practices of the time. Osiris-Dionysus was worshiped around the Mediterranean basin in the centuries before Jesus: This was this god’s history and background:

God was his father.
A human woman, a virgin, was his mother.
Birth:
He was born in a cave or cowshed.
He was born on December 25th or January 6th
His birth was prophesied by a star in the heavens.
Ministry:
At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine.
His followers have the chance to be born-again through baptism in water.
He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves.
He had 12 disciples. At first he was not recognized as a divinity by his disciples but he was transfigured before them.
He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21.
He died “as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.”
He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross.
He was wrapped in linen and myrrh.
After death, he descended into hell.
On the third day after his death, he returned to life.
The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers
He later ascended to heaven in glory.
His titles:
God made flesh.
Savior of the world.
Son of God.
He is “God made man,” and equal to the Father.
He will return in the last days.
He will judge the human race at that time.
His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual of bread and wine

This is how Matthew 1:22-23 cites Isaiah 7:14
“Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel’ which translated means, God is with us”

From the Hebrew text this is linguistically incorrect, there is a changing of the pronouns and the tense, changing of the context, mistranslated the word alma (where the Christian scriptures in other places correctly translated virgin as בטולה betullah (all this before we get to the point that Jesus is not called Emmanuel even once in the Christian scriptures

This is the proper translation of the Hebrew to English of Isaiah 7:14

“Behold the [not “a”] young woman [not “virgin”] is [not “shall be”] with child and will bear a son and she [not “they”] will call his name Emmanuel.”

Answer:

I’ll repeat this for your sake:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Why would God give a sign that is meaningless? “A young woman conceived! It’s a miraculous sign from God!” No! Plenty of young women conceive all of the time with their consent and without their consent (that’s why they give out free birth control in schools ).

The only way that this could be a miraculous sign from God is if the young women is a virgin. The Jews who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek knew this. That is why they used the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in this passage.

Also…

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

From the Jewish perspective, I am guessing that this prophesy is false. Seeing that the the scepter has long since been taken away from Judah.

In Christ,
Zekariya

PS You say, “Another problem, at least from a Jewish perspective, is that all the authentic Jewish Messianic prophesies are empirically verifiable”. Can anyone today verify that they have descended from King David?

 

[chosen_people]

I’ll repeat this for your sake:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Why would God give a sign that is meaningless? “A young woman conceived! It’s a miraculous sign from God!” No! Plenty of young women conceive all of the time with their consent and without their consent (that’s why they give out free birth control in schools ).

The only way that this could be a miraculous sign from God is if the young women is a virgin. The Jews who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek knew this. That is why they used the Greek word parthenos (virgin) in this passage.

Also…

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

From the Jewish perspective, I am guessing that this prophesy is false. Seeing that the the scepter has long since been taken away from Judah.

In Christ,
Zekariya

Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. The context of Isaiah 7 is that the Jewish King Ahaz asked Isaiah to prophesize about the outcome of a threat to the Southern Jewish Kingdom (Judah). The Northern Jewish Kingdom (Israel) had been destroyed and King Ahaz feared that his Southern kingdom would meet the same fate by the Kings of Damascus and Samaria. Isaiah referred to the impending birth of the child by the (not “a”) young woman which meant a woman known to Isaiah and the King. Chapter 8 of Isaiah strongly implies that the young woman who was the subject prophesy was Isaiah’s own wife (this is Rashi’s opinion though Radak believes her to be the wife of Ahaz). The young wife will bear a son and through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Emmanuel, which means “God is with Us”. thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved. King Ahaz question was will God protect us from the threat by Damascus and Samaria and the name of this particular child was Isaiah’s way of answering yes.

 

[Zekariya]

Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. The context of Isaiah 7 is that the Jewish King Ahaz asked Isaiah to prophesize about the outcome of a threat to the Southern Jewish Kingdom (Judah). The Northern Jewish Kingdom (Israel) had been destroyed and King Ahaz feared that his Southern kingdom would meet the same fate by the Kings of Damascus and Samaria. Isaiah referred to the impending birth of the child by the (not “a”) young woman which meant a woman known to Isaiah and the King. Chapter 8 of Isaiah strongly implies that the young woman who was the subject prophesy was Isaiah’s own wife (this is Rashi’s opinion though Radak believes her to be the wife of Ahaz). The young wife will bear a son and through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Emmanuel, which means “God is with Us”. thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved. King Ahaz question was will God protect us from the threat by Damascus and Samaria and the name of this particular child was Isaiah’s way of answering yes.

And I could give you a Church Father’s opinion that contrasts Rashi. The translators of the Septuagint, which I sufficiently showed you that it predated Christ via the Encyclopedia Britannica, believed it to be a virgin not young woman.

“Septuagint, abbreviation Lxx, the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bc and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bc.” - Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Source: britannica.com/EBchecked/…154/Septuagint

Also…

Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations.

From the Jewish perspective, I am guessing that this prophesy is false. Seeing that the the scepter has long since been taken away from Judah.

 

[Dolezal]

Well obviously from your response I fear I have been unable to make my point understood.

I agree, you did not make your point by suggesting that the tract Megillah is reliable and relevant, and that the Septuagint was only a translation of the Pentateuch.

I will try to simplify. Lets take the Christian claim that the world עלמה alma is always translated in the Septuagint as parthenos and that parthenos always means virgin. We immediately come to a problem when we get to the use of parthenos in Genesis 34:2-3 when referring to Dinah who has been raped and is therefore obviously a non virgin.

That is not a problem at all, it is speaking of Dina beforehand, in the context she is still a virgin. Which is why the next verse, after the rape, uses the Greek word “paidiske”, not “parthenos”, when referring to Dina, which means “young woman”. The Hebrew too has “naara” before, and “yaldah” after.

Another problem, at least from a Jewish perspective, is that all the authentic Jewish Messianic prophesies are empirically verifiable - for instance- the entire world would be able to see if the Messiah ben David is appointed King of Israel or the Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt’ all war has ended, all Jews have returned to Israel, all people have adopted a universal belief in God. Christian Messianic prophesies are not empirically verifiable to all and must be taken on “faith” - for instance - it is not possible to know empirically whether the mother of Jesus was a virgin or whether Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Historical propositions and statements are generally not empirically verifiable. If we were to reject all history that is not empirically verifiable, we would reject most of accepted history. The principle of empiric verifiability alone is not an accepted historical method.

Osiris-Dionysus was worshiped around the Mediterranean basin in the centuries before Jesus: This was this god’s history and background:

Correlation does not equal causation, a sound approach to history does not commit logical fallacies. I suggest you look up the fallacy of false cause and irrelevant conclusion.

This is the proper translation of the Hebrew to English of Isaiah 7:14

“Behold the [not “a”] young woman [not “virgin”] is [not “shall be”] with child and will bear a son and she [not “they”] will call his name Emmanuel.”

If that is the correct translation, then why is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew word “almah” in all cases (Is. 7:14 and Gen. 24:43) “virgin”? The evidence seems to show that the Jews changed their interpretation of “almah” sometime after the destruction of the temple and in reaction to Christian claims.

 

[patrick457]

The Septuagint, the Rabbi’s translation of the Hebrew to Greek, was only of the Torah or the five books of Moses. Christians often mistakenly refer to the Septuagint regarding this translation by the Rabbi’s as also being a translation of the Prophets.

Quite true.

Secondly, the Torah is held in Jewish tradition to have been dictated from God to Moses. There are no “versions” of the Torah. A Torah scroll with even a single letter wrong may not be used. When the mass in-gathering of Jews occurred following the Jews regaining their independence over their homeland, Torah scrolls from Jewish communities around the world, many isolated, were gathered together. There were no textual differences in any of the Torah scrolls except for a single letter in scrolls from a single isolated Yemenite community, which had no effect on the textual meaning and was immediately corrected.

Not according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, as Zekariya said. If we’re talking about the pre-AD 70 situation, your idea here is somewhat anachronistic. If there is anything that the manuscripts from Qumran testify to, it is that textual diversity and elasticity was the norm before rabbinic attempts at standardization of the text was undertaken during the 2nd century and afterwards, when the thinking you are alluding to here became the norm. True, the proto-Masoretic text is, if we go by the numbers, apparently the more common version - at least in Palestine - but ultimately it is just one of the various forms of the same text.

Thirdly, the Rabbi’s feared the possibility that their translation of the Torah into Greek could be tampered with. Therefore 15 key passages of the Septuagint translation were placed in the Talmud, Tractate Megilla 9a-9b, so that the Septuagint could always be compared to the original translation of these passages. In the current version of the Septuagint, Christian translators have altered the translation of thirteen of the fifteen passages that the rabbi’s placed into the Talmud.In other words, Christian translators have falsified the rabbi’s original Septuagint translation of the Torah and it cannot be relied upon for linguistic proof.

I quoted this in an earlier post. I should add that the supposed number of key passages where the translators are said to have deliberately ‘mistranslated’ things differ between sources: it is ten in Tanḥuma, Shemot 22 and Avot de-Rabbi Nathan 37; thirteen in tractate Soferim 1.8, tractate Sefer Torah 1.9, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 14 and the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 71.d; fifteen in Megillah 9; eighteen in Exodus Rabbah 5.5 and in the Midrash ha-Gadol to Deuteronomy 4:19. Out of these, it is thought that the sources reporting thirteen or fifteen alterations represent the central tradition. Five of these supposed key verses are actually attested in the Greek text (Genesis 2:2; Exodus 4:20a; Exodus 12:40b; Numbers 16:15b; Leviticus 11:5a), and three or four show contact with it (Genesis 1:1; 2:2a; 18:12b; and 49:6b).

The ultimate point of this story is that differences were noticed between the common (proto-Masoretic) text and the Septuagint. However, as mentioned above the idea that these are ‘alterations’ is no longer supported. Instead, the differences between the LXX and the common Hebrew text can be thought of as deriving from (1) translations deviating from the MT based on Hebrew variants; (2) translations deviating from MT arising either from Hebrew variants or from exegesis; (3) exegetical translations; and (4) Greek equivalents which were misinterpreted by the rabbinic tradition as differences between the LXX and the Torah.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457–

What is your interpretation of the Hebrew word “almah”? I understand that there are different versions of the Septuagint, but I think we can speak of “the Septuagint” where they all agree. My understanding is that the Septuagint uses the word “virgin” in the prophecy. Do you agree that the Septuagint and the arguments of Origen, Justin, and Irenaeus are sufficient evidence in support of the claim that the Jews changed their interpretation of the word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14?

I would say that it’s more of an exegetical question. IMHO, just by itself, the statement “a parthenos shall conceive and bear a son” does not automatically imply virgin birth, just like reading “an 'almah shall conceive and bear a son.” For all we know, one could possibly read it as a woman who never had sex doing so and getting pregnant as a result. (I mean, while it says “an almah/a parthenos shall conceive,” it doesn’t tell you how the maiden will conceive, either by natural or by supernatural means ) I mean, Dinah is called a parthenos even though she has been seduced by Shechem in Genesis 34:3 LXX, though after the rape she is simply called paidiskē. The idea that Mary conceived Jesus without human agency is, ultimately, Matthew reading this into and connecting it with the text of Isaiah.

We could get into the whole discussion of the different messianic expectations in the Second Temple period at this point, but that’s for another place.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Holy Spirit could have INSPIRED Matthew to “read into” Isaiah 7:14!

Course I think it would be a fair bet that the type of people who wouldn’t translate “virigin” are the same types of people who would think it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the Holy Spirit to INSPIRE such a thing.

Why would they think that? Could it be possible that they don’t really believe in Holy Spirit inspiration of the bible? Are they so full of biblical criticism that such a miraculous thing as inspiration by the Holy Spirit is simply too impossible for them?

Such people ARE the problem in modern bible translation.

Even the NAB when first produced translated “virgin”–the NABRE gets rid of “virgin”.

How would the pope translate the verse?

Hopefully the next and final translation of the NAB will restore “virgin”…People who want that to happen should state that to their bishops and to the Holy See.

 

[Dolezal]

I would say that it’s more of an exegetical question.

Whether the virgin in the prophecy will remain a virgin is an exegetical question - that, I think, Origen answers. But my question whether we should read virgin does not seem an exegetical question because the Greek translates the Hebrew word universally as virgin. (I may be wrong, but I’ve searched for the Hebrew word here and some other sites and compared it with the Greek translation on New Advent.)

It would be interesting if the Hebrew word was ever translated differently by Jews before Christ, but the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon says that “[t]here is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

So, in light of this, would you not agree that the Jews changed their interpretation the Hebrew word? (In reaction to Christian claims, it seems, from the arguments of Origen, Justin and Irenaeus.) Does it not follow, then, that modern translations are inconsistent?

The idea that Mary conceived Jesus without human agency is, ultimately, Matthew reading this into and connecting it with the text of Isaiah.

I don’t think we can know how St. Matthew was informed of the virgin birth, but as Catholics we are convinced that his account is inspired and free from error (at least in its message, with which all manuscripts agree). So the idea of the virgin birth of Christ cannot have originated from St. Matthews’ reading of Isaiah.

 

[patrick457]

Whether the virgin in the prophecy will remain a virgin is an exegetical question - that, I think, Origen answers. But my question whether we should read virgin does not seem an exegetical question because the Greek translates the Hebrew word universally as virgin. (I may be wrong, but I’ve searched for the Hebrew word here and some other sites and compared it with the Greek translation on New Advent.)

It would be interesting if the Hebrew word was ever translated differently by Jews before Christ, but the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon says that “[t]here is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin.”

So, in light of this, would you not agree that the Jews changed their interpretation the Hebrew word? (In reaction to Christian claims, it seems, from the arguments of Origen, Justin and Irenaeus.) Does it not follow, then, that modern translations are inconsistent?

Rather than ‘changed’ I think it would be more accurate to say that ‘they chose a different interpretation of the prophecy.’

I don’t think we can know how St. Matthew was informed of the virgin birth, but as Catholics we are convinced that his account is inspired and free from error (at least in its message, with which all manuscripts agree). So the idea of the virgin birth of Christ cannot have originated from St. Matthews’ reading of Isaiah.

Which is exactly what I’m saying.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Matthew’s idea of the virgin birth of Christ COULD HAVE originated with the Holy Spirit INSPIRING that idea in Matthew!

The Holy Spirit is quite capable of doing that and the Holy Spirit would also know what He had inspired the prophet Isaiah to write and the Holy Spirit has the intellectual capacity to be CONSISTENT!

Are these concepts beyond the understanding of “modern day scripture scholars”?

I don’t get it–Jesus can rise from the dead–the disciples can perform miracles–but it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the Holy Spirit could inspire the gospel writers to write things that were not previously known to them?!

What sense does that make? The Father in heaven can reveal to St. Peter that Jesus is the Christ–yet it would be impossible for the Holy Spirit to reveal to Matthew the virgin birth of Christ?!

What sense does that make?

I don’t believe that Matthew believed that Isaiah didn’t mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

The reason modern scripture scholars don’t believe that is they flat out don’t believe in the inspiration of the gospels in sometimes miraculous ways by the Holy Spirit!

Ask yourself this question: God gives the bible to His church but you’re telling me that while His church is performing miracles that the Holy Spirit NEVER uses miraculous ways to inspire the writing of it?

And yes folks the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring biblical true authors in miraculous ways WITHOUT them being dictation machines–they can still be TRUE AUTHORS as the Holy Spirit does that!

“Modern scripture scholars” are incapable of accepting such realities.

 

[Zekariya]

Matthew’s idea of the virgin birth of Christ COULD HAVE originated with the Holy Spirit INSPIRING that idea in Matthew!

The Holy Spirit is quite capable of doing that and the Holy Spirit would also know what He had inspired the prophet Isaiah to write and the Holy Spirit has the intellectual capacity to be CONSISTENT!

Are these concepts beyond the understanding of “modern day scripture scholars”?

I don’t get it–Jesus can rise from the dead–the disciples can perform miracles–but it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that the Holy Spirit could inspire the gospel writers to write things that were not previously known to them?!

What sense does that make? The Father in heaven can reveal to St. Peter that Jesus is the Christ–yet it would be impossible for the Holy Spirit to reveal to Matthew the virgin birth of Christ?!

What sense does that make?

I don’t believe that Matthew believed that Isaiah didn’t mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14.

The reason modern scripture scholars don’t believe that is they flat out don’t believe in the inspiration of the gospels in sometimes miraculous ways by the Holy Spirit!

Ask yourself this question: God gives the bible to His church but you’re telling me that while His church is performing miracles that the Holy Spirit NEVER uses miraculous ways to inspire the writing of it?

And yes folks the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring biblical true authors in miraculous ways WITHOUT them being dictation machines–they can still be TRUE AUTHORS as the Holy Spirit does that!

“Modern scripture scholars” are incapable of accepting such realities.

The fact remains that, 200 years before Christ, God inspired (or allowed) the Jews to translate the Hebrew word “almah” into the Greek as parthenos (virgin). Regardless of St Matthew’s inspiration, the pre-Christ Jews believed that a virgin would conceive and bear a child.

Matthew quoted the pre-Christ, Greek Septuagint which says virgin (parthenos). St Matthew was just quoting it as it is. And by divine inspiration, he applied it to Christ.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Any bible translation that in Isaiah 7:14 does not have the word virgin is part of the problem in my opinion.

 

[patrick457]

For something that’s a bit unrelated, I think I noted this earlier, but the three Septuagintal quotes from Matthew are all from Isaiah (1:23; 3:3; 13:14-16). All of the other scriptural quotations in Matthew’s gospel are unique translations/paraphrases/interpretations which are influenced either by the (proto-)Masoretic text or Aramaic targumim.