Easyrider wrote:
But consider the Greek Septuagint, which was written "B.C." Jewish scholars translated almah in Isaiah 7:14 as "parthenos," which is also virgin - Note the Parthenon and Athena the virgin goddess of Athens. This, of course, is pre-Christianity, so no one can say it was a Christian invention.
Hello again Easyrider. The problem with the Septuagint is that it does not represent the text of the Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic. If you were to take the Septuagint and translate it back into Hebrew, you would end up with variants from the Hebrew because some sense of word meanings are unavoidably lost in the translation process and decisions have to be made by translators to clarify terms (such as idioms) that are unfamiliar to the audience the translation is being produced for. If you are going to defend this particular passage as it stands in a Greek translation, then this prompts the question- why not just use a translation of the Septuagint into English instead of going to the Hebrew text at all?
The reason translators do not use the Septuagint alone is because the Hebrew text represents a form of the Scriptures that are very much closer to the original writings. Because the early Christian movement began in a Hellenized territory, was comprised of both Jews and non-Jews and variations of the Greek language were the vernacular at the time, early Christians were much more familiar with the Septuagint than they were with the Hebrew text. Hence the quotes used in the New Testament by the Gospel writers as well as some of the Epistles reliance on the LXX.
Again, this over-reliance on the Septuagint is only done to support CERTAIN passages that are closely linked to Christian theology. I am certain this debate would not exist if Isaiah 7:14 was NOT used by Matthew to support the story of Mary's immaculate conception. Christians, Jews and presumably everyone else would choose the word 'young woman' to translate Almah in most cases. This whole debate is about the semantic range of a word that we know the meaning of- but because of Matthew's use of it in his Gospel, Christians are uncomfortable with it's use in this context. This was evident when conservative Christians began to burn copies of the Revised Standard Version in the 40's and 50's for using the term 'young women' in this passage, and this un-scholarly, knee-jerk exegesis is (not surprisingly) still being promoted today.
A translation will NEVER be more reliable than a copy in the original languages, whether it was done in 300 BC or yesterday. Let me ask you this; The New International Version is a respected translation to many Christians today. In 300 years, would you support creating a new Bible translation only from the New International Version? Apply the same argument to the Septuagint and tell me why I should believe it's more reliable than the Hebrew Bible.
As for WHY the translators of the Septuagint chose the Greek equivalent for virgin in this passage, I honestly have no idea. But while you are researching the answer you may also want to check out the first part of Songs of Songs in the LXX, "For your breasts are better than wine...". Since when are love and breasts the same word? Why don't Christians translate this passage as 'breasts' since the translators of the LXX must have had a really good reason for making this translation choice as well. Again, there is no theological weight to this passage, so there's no harm in following the Hebrew, which correctly reads, "For your love (or lovemaking) is better than wine...". This selective translation method is an example of what I meant earlier by "glossed over". If you start a translation with a pre-conceived idea of how to render what you are translating, then the translation can not be regarded as accurate. Thanks for your response Easyrider.
