Mike Rosoft

I have also heard that the New International Version is a rather dishonest translation, trying to explain away the problematic passages. Could anybody give me some examples of that?


Mike Rosoft

semyaza

It's not so much that the NIV is a dishonest translation, but rather that they tend to stick with 'traditional' translations when they should know better. Isaiah 7:14 is an example - most modern translators know that the Hebrew does not refer to a virgin.

Atticus_Finch

I am curious as to how you conclude that we "know" that the Hebrew does not refer to a virgin. It seems that the writers of the NT, particularly Matthew, were most likely 1st or 2d century Jews. Therefore, they were much more close in time to the writing of Isaiah and much more knowledgeable about Hebrew. Is it fair to conclude that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew is better than theirs?

Although I may have a bias on this issue, I am truly interested in hearing the argument on this particular point.

Regards,

Finch

CX

The issue is not with AMt's understanding of Hebrew, but rather with the translators who compiled the LXX version of the OT. The evangelists use the LXX version of the OT throughout their gospels. The LXX translates the Hebrew Word almah with the Greek word PARTHENOS. Almah does in fact mean young woman rather than virgin whereas PARTHENOS is the Greek word for virgin (from which we get the English term pathenogenesis for asexual reproduction). AMt didn't get the Hebrew wrong his translation of the OT did.

Atticus_Finch

I think the answer provided just further begs the question. One may have argued that Matthew was ignorant of the problem but can we so rashly assume that the translators of the LXX made such a mistake? Further, if Matthew's use of Isaiah to prove the point about the virgin birth was so wrong, are there any contemporary or nearly contemporary criticisms of Matthew on this point? Are there Jewish commentators saying Matthew is wrong because the LXX was wrong?

On a related note, does anybody know if the OT Jews knew about the hymen or had any traditions or procedures for testing virginity using it?

Regards,

Finch

CX

It is not rash. It is based on the textual evidence. almah is used elsewhere in the OT and clearly refers to a young woman not a virgin. It is possible that the LXX translators either slipped up or that their Greek was sketchy, who knows. The point is it is clear from the Hebrew text of the OT based on multiple instances that almah means young woman and a different word bethulah (I think) means virgin.

Why would there be? There is no evidence that GMt was widely circulated among Jews and furthermore the evidence indicates that AMt was not widely circulated until perhaps a century after the death of Jesus. The Isaiah 7:14 reference is an obvious goof or a strained attempt to stretch it to fit. Somewhat akin to when AMk misquotes Malachi by attributing it to Isaiah. GMt was likely not a Jew, but a 2nd or 3rd generation Jewish-Xian in the diaspora. What is so unusual about him making incorrect inferences from the Hebrew texts? The story of Jesus looks nothing like that of a Jewish messiah so the evangelists had to do significant amounts of spin-doctoring in order to co-opt the history of Israel into their own.

Atticus_Finch

I understand your argument CX. My question is this: Why is there no evidence that anybody at or even near the time complained about either the problem in LXX or Matthew? Isn't possible that the Jews at the time understood Alma to be largely interchangeable with the specific word for virgin? Assuming arguendo, the contemporary Jews were not motivated to correct or even aware of Matthew they certainly would have been motivated to correct a mistranslation of their holy book. Yet, I am not aware of any evidence of anyone thinking Isaiah was mistranslated in LXX anywhere near the time.

Please inform me if there is any such evidence. Even something from the Babylonian midrash (4th Century?), or similar document if the Babylonian Jews did not use LXX, would mean something.

Regards,

Finch

Volker.Doormann

Hi Danny,

i have no great knowledge about translated bibles especially not in English, because I'm from Germany, but I think it is a good idea to look to every word link to the orign hebrew text meaning, which are available from URL www.bju.edu/bible/index.html . I think a better understanding about the sense of that bible stuff is more possible, knowing the meaning of the hebrew words. P.e. means 'Sara' - the consort of Abram "princess" and because the 'fathers of Abram' comes from 'eastward of Jordan' it can maybe linked to the vedic couple of 'Brahm' and 'Sara_svati' in the ancient India.

Volker

CX

I think I already explained the issue with regard to GMt. As to the LXX I can't say because Judaica is not my primary area of study. That being said how many criticisms have you seen from Greek Orthodox Xians with regard to mistranslations in English versions? Isaiah 7 isn't an especially important chapter so why would a diaspora Jew be aware of the discrepancy between it and the LXX version that comes down to one word? It wasn't known as a Xian proof text until much much later. I'm not sure I can answer your question except to say that scholars of Hebrew make a compelling case that Isaiah 7:14 is misapplied in GMt.

Haran

Probably somewhere between 130 and 165 AD, Trypho (a Jew) said the following to early church father Justin Martyr:

Chapter LXVII of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho

Trypho was most likely referring to the a greek version separate from the LXX. During this time period, the Jews had begun to abandon the LXX probably because of its use by Christians. Other very literal greek translations were made from Hebrew, such as Aquila's version which used "young woman" in place of "virgin" in Isaiah.

See above. There are very good books (including some online) that discuss the Jewish migration from the LXX to other greek versions.

Introduction to the Septuagint by H.B. Swete

The oldest witness we have to Isaiah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, reads "almah" in Hebrew, that is, "young woman". This word does not, however, exclude virginity.


Interesting questions would be:

Is Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls really an older tradition than that reflected in the LXX?

Was Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls a corrupted version used by a sect of the Judaism of that time (e.g. the Essenes)?