Isaiah 7:14 revisited

[Saved-By-Grace]

The NT writers were probably translating "on the fly" from the Vorlage Text, which differs from the Masoretic text, but seems to have been the source text for the so-called "Septuagint."

and why not from a text that is based on the Hebrew rather than the Greek, as the DSS seems more closely agreed with the LXX than the MT, which means that the NT writers could have used an Hebrew text that has not survived today?

 

[rlvaughn]

How much weight should we give the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation, which also chose to translate the Hebrew 'alma with the Greek parthenos?

Temporarily laying aside the debate of the LXX relationship to the New Testament, what about the LXX considered as a translation on its on? If the Hebrews who translated the LXX translated 'alma into the Greek word for virgin, parthenos, then they believed that was what the Hebrew text meant here, and that indicates 'alma could mean a virgin.

 

[TCassidy]

and why not from a text that is based on the Hebrew rather than the Greek, as the DSS seems more closely agreed with the LXX than the MT, which means that the NT writers could have used an Hebrew text that has not survived today?

The Vorlage text is a Hebrew text and it survives, in part, in the Qumran scrolls.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The Vorlage text is a Hebrew text and it survives, in part, in the Qumran scrolls.

you are right, I misread your earlier post which I commented on

 

[HankD]

I don't like the RSV translation of Isaiah 7:14.

I don't like the fact that the RSV omits 1 John 5:7 (Johannnine Comma).

No translation is perfect.

HankD (Former KJVO)

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I don't like the RSV translation of Isaiah 7:14.

I don't like the fact that the RSV omits 1 John 5:7 (Johannnine Comma).

No translation is perfect.

HankD (Former KJVO)

some are more than others

 

[rsr]

There is no solid evidence that the New Testament writers actually quoted directly from the LXX.

Solid evidence or not, it is clear that the NT writers often included renderings of OT passages that far more closely resembled what we know of the LXX than of the MT.

This is only a translation and therefore not Inspired as the Hebrew Old Testament is,

Yet it is possible that the LXX represents more authentic renderings than the Masoretic rescension.

and it causes the problem of having uninspired references in the divinely Inspired New Testament, especially when at times the LXX differs from the Hebrew.

Why is it a problem? The NT writers apparently thought it was inspired.

The LXX was made from Hebrew manuscripts of the time, as it is very probable, that the NT writers used this version, as they all would have understood the Hebrew language. ]/quote]

This is not a sure thing. Their common language was Aramaic, and perhaps Greek. Paul, certainly, was conversant in Hebrew, having been schooled in the rabbinical tradition. Was Matthew or Mark of Luke? Is it even certain that John and Peter were fluent in Hebrew?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Solid evidence or not, it is clear that the NT writers often included renderings of OT passages that far more closely resembled what we know of the LXX than of the MT.



Yet it is possible that the LXX represents more authentic renderings than the Masoretic rescension.



Why is it a problem? The NT writers apparently thought it was inspired.

How can you say that the NT writers thought that the LXX was inspired, as it is only a version of the actual Hebrew OT autographs? Unless you suppose that the Inspiration of the Bible also extends to human translations? In which case all can claim their translation is inspired by God. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that there is far greater agreement with this Hebrew text with the LXX, than the MT. It is this older Hebrew text of the original OT that I believe to be the basis of the NT quotations that resemble the LXX. Even though all the NT writers may not have known Hebrew, they could have done what the scholar Jerome did for his Latin Vulgate, he had Hebrew scholars working with him.

 

[Rippon]

A Snip from : The Translators to the Reader

The translation of the Seventy dissents from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it ...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace commend it to the Churches if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.

 

[robycop3]

I was told by a rabbi several years ago that if an "almah" had never been married, her virginity was a gimme.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

A Snip from : The Translators to the Reader

The translation of the Seventy dissents from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it ...which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace commend it to the Churches if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.

you fail to understand that there is not only one Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The MT dates from about the 10th century A.D.. The Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Texts are far older, and the LXX Hebrew text is among this. It is this Hebrew text that the NT writers used.

 

[rsr]

How can you say that the NT writers thought that the LXX was inspired, as it is only a version of the actual Hebrew OT autographs? Unless you suppose that the Inspiration of the Bible also extends to human translations?

I misspoke; what I should have said was that NT writers evidently accepted the LXX as faithfully representing the original.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying that it is "difficult" for Isaiah 7:14 to refer to the Birth of Jesus Christ, or simply mentioning this as an issue for some?

The passage had an immediate application, and a later on one to birth of Jesus Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

I misspoke; what I should have said was that NT writers evidently accepted the LXX as faithfully representing the original.

There were using it at times, but it was not inspired, only their product was....

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The passage had an immediate application, and a later on one to birth of Jesus Himself.

says you. Matthew, whose words are Inspired by the Holy Spirit, says ONLY in Jesus Christ. Show how Isaiah 7:14 can refer to any human, when the child in question is עִמָּנוּאֵל?

 

[Yeshua1]

says you. Matthew, whose words are Inspired by the Holy Spirit, says ONLY in Jesus Christ. Show how Isaiah 7:14 can refer to any human, when the child in question is עִמָּנוּאֵל?

And was also the child born at the time of Isaiah!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

And was also the child born at the time of Isaiah!

you serious? There was a human child born, who is "God with us"?

 

[Yeshua1]

you serious? There was a human child born, who is "God with us"?

I was referring to the Isaiah 7:14 passage!

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I was referring to the Isaiah 7:14 passage!

Yes, and this verse says,

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Which human child does this refer to?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and this verse says,

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Which human child does this refer to?

That refers to Jesus, but did they call him that though?