'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[kosta50]

The references I gave you is an exhaustive work. The author at least had the humility to admit he was no Greek language expert.

What he does do very well is show that the Septuagint was the foundation on which the NT Scripture was built. There are only six verses where the Apostles quote Hebrew over Septuagint. In all other OT references (2/3), the Septuagint version is preferred, or both the Septuagint and MT agree (1/3 minus the six verse mentioned earlier).

I don't see it as an exception or a contradiction

But all Septuagint versions call her a virgin and not a young woman.

[HarleyD]

Eze 36 is about the Jews.

Tsk, tsk. Augustine didn't think so. But then, the Orthodox don't like much of what Augustine had to say.

[Forest Keeper]

But all Septuagint versions call her a virgin and not a young woman.

That's fine, the Hebrew means essentially "a" virgin also. The young woman is chaste, as the same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew OT. I'm not sure what else I can add. I don't know which version(s) the Apostles used at the time, but it is true that they quoted from it very often.

[kosta50]

the Hebrew means essentially "a" virgin also. The young woman is chaste, as the same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew OT

Isaih uses the word 'almah, which denotes a young, chaste woman, as you say, but – trouble is – the OT uses the word betuwlah in other places of the OT, which means specifically a virgin (from which virginity, or betuwlyim is derived.

Christian Bibles do not translate 'almah as young woman but instead use the word which specifically means a virgin, which Isaiah did not use.

[Uncle Chip]

What everyone seems to ignore (as much as possible it seems) is that no matter how you turn it around, the Apostles used what appears to be (whatever version) of the Septuagint that was used at that time among some Jews.

If they did use it they would not have used it in Israel where the Jews spoke Hebrew and the Hebrew Text was authoritative. And the Jews that wanted to make sure that the Apostles were telling the truth about the prophecies of the Messiah would have checked with their most authoritative copy --- the Hebrew Text, not a translation, Greek or otherwise. The Hebrew Text was the official text.

All we know for sure, from those like Josephus and Philo, is that the Septuagint, which was primarily only the five books of the Law, was used by the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria.

Obviously, in only six instances did they prefer clearly the Hebrew (Pharisaical) version of the OT as opposed to that of the LXX.

But you and every other Septuagintist knows very well that there is no proof that the Septuagint that you have in your hands today to make these claims is the same Septuagint that was in the hands of the Hellenistic Jews of Alexandria at the time of the Apostles, or even in the hands of the Christian Church before the time of Origen. You have no pedigree and the facts of history are against you. Otherwise why would Christians be using Aquila's, or Symmachus', or Theodotian's Greek OTs if there had been a sacred Septuagint text available. And why would Origen need these translations for his fifth column or even a fifth column LXX at all if a Septuagint existed in any viable form???And why spend years and money and 5000 pages of valuable papyrus to create something that already existed???

According to Paul Kahle, the famous OT scholar, who did extensive work on the Septuagint, there was no single Greek version or archetype, just a variety of Greek translations. Only later was an official standardized version of the Law made, but for the rest of the books, there were a variety of translations. As he said, the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text, and thus the Septuagint that you have in your hand quotes from the New Testament, not vice versa.

[kosta50]

If they did use it they would not have used it in Israel where the Jews spoke Hebrew and the Hebrew Text was authoritative

Actually, the use of the Septuagint was quite common even in Palestine in the first century AD. However, the Epistles were written for the Gentiles and hellenized Jews of Asia Minor, and the Gospels followed when the Church was already in exile, and were intended for the Gentile converts, so using a Hebrew source was pointless.

the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text, and thus the Septuagint that you have in your hand quotes from the New Testament, not vice versa

If that is so indeed, then a vast number of references made by the Apostles to the OT become meaningless, since they differ in meaning and content from those in the Hebrew Bible.

The same would hold true of Matt 1:23, where Christian Bibles specifically use the word "virgin" and not "a young woman."¹

Is that not an example where all Christians "adjust" the New Testament to fit the Old?
_____
¹The Hebrew word for young woman Isaiah used is 'almah, and the Greek word is korasion. The Hebrew word for virgin is bethuwlah, and the Greek word parthenos. The Septuagint uses parthenos in place of 'almah.

The same is true of many other words we use, starting with the word Messiah. The meaning of the Hebrew word meshiyah is unlike anything we assign to it. Other phrases commonly encountered such as the "world to come" have been "retro-engineered" by Christian founders to mean something they never meant in Judaism.

Frankly, accusing the Orthodox of retro-fitting the OT to agree with the NT is like the pot calling the kettle black, since all of Christianity is based on finding the "foreshadowing" of Christ in the OT which the Jews deny as much as Christians deny LDS to be a 'fuller' revelation of Christ.

All of Christianity is 'retro-fitting' Judaism to fit the NT, imo, beginning with abandoning such practices as circumcision and dietary laws for the Gentiles. Christ never taught or even hinted at that. All that was later added ex post facto in Acts.

As for various versions of the Septuagint floating around, they were not Septuagint but Greek translations of the OT written by a convert to Judaism and an Ebonite apostate, masquerading as 'Septuagint.' The only one that was written by a Christian was a 3rd century translation from Ephesus. The Christians there did not ask for the Library of Congress verification of various books. People read what was available. If it was in Greek and it looked like the OT they assumed it was the Septuagint.

There were no copy-right laws. Among Christians, the people copied whatever they felt like copying and in any way they wanted. If the scribe felt the copy he was copying was flawed, he would insert a 'correction' of his own. We are not even sure of the authorship of some of the NT books, let alone of the veracity of the flood of stuff that came along centuries after.

Eventually, Christian texts were made more flawless and more seamlessly connected. The Codex Alexandrinus is a perfect example of such efforts, which coincided with the more elaborate theological definitions and practices of the Church. The resultant Christian canon by the end of the 4th century AD was a carefully screened and redacted set of books, with all the originals "conveniently" lost.

[Uncle Chip]

the later formulators of the Greek OT made it conform with the New Testament Text, and thus the Septuagint that you have in your hand quotes from the New Testament, not vice versa

If that is so indeed, then a vast number of references made by the Apostles to the OT become meaningless, since they differ in meaning and content from those in the Hebrew Bible.

That is not so. Jesus didn't hand each of the apostles the exact same copy of the 22 books of the OT for their quotations --- the exact same copy incidentally that then disappeared for centuries, only to surface magically when the Septuagint was being recreated and revised and reconstructed ad infinitum.

The NT writings are called the "New" Testament not the "Old" Testament. The New Testament had new things in it as well as old things. Jesus' teachings encompassed old things as well as new things. So why shouldn't the Holy Spirit through the writers of the NT say some of the old things in new ways for the New Testament Church? Isn't the God who gave the Jews the OT free to paraphrase His word if and when he chooses as the application requires to elucidate and further its meaning for a now wider audience. And some of those could be copyist errors, like Acts 15:17.

As it turned out, many Jews were criticizing the new faith of merely copying the Jews' scriptures to create its documentation. If the writers had just sat down and copied everything out of the book of the Jews, this criticism would have been justified. But the New Testament was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who would help them to remember what Jesus had said and inspire anew.

What I think is more evidence of the inspiration of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT is that they were transmitted separately, by opposing parties with separate agendas often hostile to one another, with challenges and accusations going back and forth. And yet after centuries of transmission under conditions in which each used its scriptures to challenge the authenticity of the others', the two texts emerge centuries later from separate hands with still so many Hebrew OT passages conforming to their NT Greek equivalent. God looked after his word in the hands of the Jews just as he did in the hands of the Greeks, and those translations faithful to it.

The same would hold true of Matt 1:23, where Christian Bibles specifically use the word "virgin" and not "a young woman." Is that not an example where all Christians "adjust" the New Testament to fit the Old?

Nope. When the Hebrew text refers to a damsel who may or may not be a virgin, the Hebrew word "naarah" is used. But the Hebrew "almah" is used in Isaiah 7:14 with the same meaning as it is used in Genesis 24:43 as regards Rebecca who was a "virgin". And it describes the damsels [almah] that played the timbrels before the congregation of Israel [Psalm 68:25] and these damsels all had to be virgins, young unmarried girls who had not known a man. Everywhere that "almah" is used in the OT it means a "virgin" --- a young girl who has not known a man. Thus the Greek "parthenos" is the equivalent of the Hebrew "almah".

[Forest Keeper]

Isaiah uses the word 'almah, which denotes a young, chaste woman, as you say, but – trouble is – the OT uses the word betuwlah in other places of the OT, which means specifically a virgin (from which virginity, or betuwlyim is derived.

I agree that the Hebrews more often used bethuwlah, but almah still legitimately means "virgin". However, if the word bethuwlah is taken in isolation, says Barnes, it does not necessarily mean that the woman was to be a virgin at the time of birth, although it is open to that reading. Here are Barnes' notes on "virgin" in Is. 7:14:

"Isaiah 7:14 [A virgin] This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word `almaah, is derived from the verb `aalam, "to conceal, to hide, to cover." The word `elem, from the same verb, is applied to a "young man," in 1 Sam. 16:56; 20:22 . The word here translated a virgin, is applied to Rebekah (Gen 24:43), and to Miriam, the sister of Moses, Ex 2:8. It occurs in only seven places in the Old Testament. Besides those already mentioned, it is found in Ps 68:25; Song 1:3; 6:8; and Prov 30:19. In all these places, except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural sense, to denote a young, unmarried female. In the Syriac, the word "alem," means to grow up, "juvenis factus est; juvenescere fecited." Hence, the derivatives are applied to youth; to young men; to young women-to those who "are growing up," and becoming youths."

"The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one "in the unmarried state;" Gesenius, that it means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed the word bªtuwlaah, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was "then" unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us to understand it of one who was "not then married," and who was, therefore, regarded and designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it 'virgo.' The Septuagint, hee parthenos, "a virgin" - a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew bªtuwlaah in Ex 22:16-17; Lev 21:3,14; Deut 22:19,23,28; 32:25; Judg 19:24; 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius' Concordance); of na`ªraah, a girl, in Gen 24:14,16,55; 34:3 (twice); 1 Kings 1:2; and of `almaah, only in Gen 24:43; and in Isa 7:14."

"The word, in the view of the Septuagint translators, therefore conveyed the proper idea of a virgin. The Chaldee uses substantially the same word as the Hebrew. The idea of a "virgin" is, therefore, the most obvious and natural idea in the use of this word. It does not, however, imply that the person spoken of should be a virgin "when the child" should be born; or that she should ever after be a virgin. It means simply that one who was "then" a virgin, but who was of marriageable age, should conceive, and bear a son. Whether she was "to be" a virgin "at the time" when the child was born, or was to remain such afterward, are inquiries which cannot be determined by a philological examination of the word. It is evident also, that the word is not opposed to "either" of these ideas. "Why" the name which is thus given to an unmarried woman was derived from the verb to "hide, to conceal," is not agreed among lexicographers. The more probable opinion is, that it was because to the time of marriage, the daughter was supposed to be hidden or concealed in the family of the parents; she was kept shut up, as it were, in the paternal dwelling. This idea is given by Jerome, who says, 'the name is given to a virgin because she is said to be hidden or secret; because she does not expose herself to the gaze of men, but is kept with great care under the custody of parents.' The sum of the inquiry here, into the meaning of the word translated "virgin," is, that it does not differ from that word as used by us. The expression means no more than that one who was then a virgin should have a son, and that this should be a sign to Ahaz." (emphasis added)

[Forest Keeper]

... But the Hebrew "almah" is used in Isaiah 7:14 with the same meaning as it is used in Genesis 24:43 as regards Rebecca who was a "virgin"...

Ping to 11,228.

[kosta50]

Thank you both for your extensive and reasonable answers. The NT Greek lexicon defines 'almah as virgin, young woman of marriageable age, maid or newly married. It also reminds that at no time can it be construed that she is not a virgin.

This is somewhat inconsistent considering the "newly married" part, as it is almost certain that a newly married woman would no longer be a virgin.

The difference is that in 'almah her presumed virginity is just that — presumed. In the bethuwlah it is a certainty.

In the former, also, it is not the object; in the latter it is. From a strictly Christian point of view, it is critical that virginity is a certainty not only before marriage but after the conception.

Thus, when the Septuagint refers to the woman as a virgin, it places the virginity in focus and makes a statement of fact, not a presumption. The Hebrew text does not assure us of virginity, but simply presuposes it.

[kosta50]

You use the nonexistence of the 'original' Septuagint (LXX) as 'proof' that it didn't exist, or that it was retro-written to fit the NT.

Do we have the original Hebrew OT? Do we have anything regarding the written Bible older than 500 BC? God did not dictate, word-by-word, the Scripture.

Absence proves nothing except absence itself.

[Uncle Chip]

From Barnes' notes that FK posted it reads thus:

"The Septuagint, hee parthenos, "a virgin" - a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew bªtuwlaah in Ex 22:16-17; Lev 21:3,14; Deut 22:19,23,28; 32:25; Judg 19:24; 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius' Concordance); of na`ªraah, a girl, in Gen 24:14,16,55; 34:3 (twice); 1 Kings 1:2; and of `almaah, only in Gen 24:43; and in Isa 7:14."

So the Septuagint "parthenos" was used to translate "almah, bethuwlah, and naarah" from the Hebrew text? If this is true, then the writers of the Septuagint had a broader definition in mind for the word "parthenos" than just "bethuwlah", right? Or was it just a poor choice of a word by the Septuaginters? If "parthenos" is so specific to be only the translation of "bethuwlah", why was it used to translate "naarah" and "almah". The Septuaginters have som "splainin'" to do.

[kosta50]

The Septuaginters have som "splainin'" to do

It is clear from all those Barns' references that the three Hebrew terms (batuwlah and naarah) are used interchangeably. In fact, in Deut 22:19, batuwlah and naarah are used in the same verse for one and the same woman and for one and the same concept!

Obviously, the word almah (appearing only in Isa 7:14 and Gen 24;43) is an uncommon term in Hebrew, judging by its usage, because in both instances when it appears in the Bible, it represents a young woman specifically designated by God for His purpose, and is not a "mere" virgn.

If anything, the koine [common] Greek language of the Septuagint fails to distinguish the Hebrew terminology of special grace associated with almah, but so does English.

The rabbinical Hebrew Bible actually goes out of its way to remove any possibility of associating almah with special grace. Thus the English language Tanach translates the same word (almah) as "maiden" in Genesis 23:43 and "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14.

The exact words in Tanach are: "behold, the young woman is with child (Hebrew hareh = pregnant), and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."

The tense used is Qal, such as "sat, bought, found..." (in other words it is in the past, not present or future. So, the Lord gave a sign to a pregnant young woman; almah also allows for the possibility that a woman may be married and therefore no longer a virgin) that she shall have a son and shall call him Immanuel.

The LXX says "a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His name Emmanuel."

The difference is not just in the choice of the words, but in the entire sentence. The former makes it nothing special. A "young woman is with a child (pregnant)," while the LXX says "a virgin shall [prophetically] conceive in the womb." Obviously a woman conceiving in the womb can no longer be a virgin.

According to Uncle Chip's theory, the LXX was retro-written to fit the NT; in other words, it is a forgery. Trouble is, all Christian Bibles adhere to this 'forgery,' and not the Hebrew text when it comes to Isa 7:14.

If anyone has a link to the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah passage, please oblige.

[kosta50]

Correction: three Hebrew terms should read "two Hebrew terms"

[Salvation]

Did everyone see this thread?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1795015/posts

[kosta50]

Actually, I made a mistake of trusting a Protestant source. Lesson learned. Barnes is wrong. Almah is used in more than just two instances in the OT as Barnes claims, and others on this thread have asserted.

Proverbs 30:19 not only uses almah in a context that makes is not God's special purpose, but also clearly NOT as a virgin.

The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid/ almah /.

Seems to me that actually the Prots have some "splainin'" to do, Uncle Chip.

[Uncle Chip]

The rabbinical Hebrew Bible actually goes out of its way to remove any possibility of associating almah with special grace. Thus the English language Tanach translates the same word (almah) as "maiden" in Genesis 23:43 and "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14.

But we both agree that the Jewish authorities here have gone out of their way to deliberately mistranslate this word as well as words in other Messianic prophecies, right? Even Aquila used the word "neanis" for "almah" in his translation and that was a deliberate mistranslation.

The point is that the Jews, even here in this passage, could have altered the text but didn't? They could have substituted the word "naarah" for "almah" when making copies of the Hebrew text, but they didn't. They kept a word in there that they had to try to explain away with scholastic rhetoric. Their text is right but their translation is wrong.

According to Uncle Chip's theory, the LXX was retro-written to fit the NT; in other words, it is a forgery.

No, it should read: "According to Paul Kahle, famous Bible scholar who spent years studying the Septuagint, the formulators of the Septuagint made it conform to the NT".

And Origen, as we all know, was the master of "forgeries", was he not? And all Septuagints today trace their pedigree to his fifth column, right? Beware of Alexandrians bearing translations.

[kosta50]

The point is that the Jews, even here in this passage, could have altered the text but didn't?

Well, they didn't find a need for it (assuming they would have under some circumstances), because there is nothing in the Hebrew version that suggests what is suggested in Matthew 1:23/LXX.

The part where it says "the deity gave (Qal) you a sign; Behold, a pregnant young woman is with a child..." the 'you" is a plural, there is no connotation to a virgin conceiving in the womb as the LXX says.

They also knew that the almah is not only used in two instances as Barnes claims, but in other parts of the Hebrew OT as well, especially in Prov 30:19-20, which dispell any notions of virginity or chastity.

"... And the way of a man with a maid [almah]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth"

The LXX drops the "maid" and makes the verses non sequitur.

"...and the ways of a man in his youth[fulness] (neotes). Such is the way of an adulterous woman [huh?] who having washed herself from what she has done, says she has done nothing amiss.

Where did the "adulterous woman" come from?

So, there may be some truth in Paul Kahle's theory. However, that causes more problemns for the Christian side than for the Jewish side.

[Uncle Chip]

Whoa!!! wait a minute. Verse 18 links "the way of a man with a maid" with the other three things before it that it says are "too wonderful for me": the way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man with a maid."

Verse 20 "such is the way of an adulterous woman" is certainly not something the writer would consider to be "too wonderful" for him. Verses 19 and 20 are parenthetical verses while verse 20 goes back to verse 17 ---

[kosta50]

I still don't see how 20 relates to 17. But, be it as it may, "the way a man with a maid /almah/" hardly suggests virginity or chastity for that word. It also does nothing to explain Barnes' false claim.