[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 ---