Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50
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.

11,237 posted on 03/05/2007 10:04:56 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11233 | View Replies ]


To: Uncle Chip
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.

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.

11,238 posted on 03/05/2007 12:00:36 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11237 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson