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