Biblical Hebrew Forum

[shella <shella AT cswnet.com>]

Dear Brother Joseph, thank you dear brother for your reply and your 
introducing some
very important considerations.  Let me reply to them briefly in the following 
manner:

Joseph Crea wrote:

> At 10:12 AM 10/27/99 -0700, shella wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
> >SHELLA
> >10. What I seem to see developing is there is no known Hebrew text of 
> >Isaiah
> >which does support the virgin birth of the Messiah founded upon Isaiah
> >7:14.   The M T Isaiah 7:14 supports the YOUNG WOMAN concept, but not the
> >Virgin only concept as the LXX and later the Greek New Testament does.
>
> CREA
>     Unfortunately for your argument, the use of "parthenos" in the LXX is
> not restricted to any such denotative concept as "Virgin only".  See for
> example Gen. 34:3, where Dinah is referred to as both "parthenon" and
> "parthenou"  AFTER Shechem had raped the poor lass.

Debtor says:
This may involve a further study of these words in the LXX.  However, I feel 
that the
important thing is how this would be used in Isaiah.  I understand that the 
LXX became
translated over a long period of years and that often times scribes and 
copyists would
allow words to cross over into additional meanings when they were very close. 
 The
only reference of this kind I have is George Morrish's  A Concordance of the
Septuagint.  Do you feel this is a safe source. Yet, in spite of copyists; 
allowing
words to cross back and forth which are close to the same meaning, as in this 
case, it
still must be evident that each of these two different words has a very 
different
first and primary meaning.  When this is primary meaning is established then 
the
crossings over will not effect the primary meaning or definition of the word. 
 I do
not hold to sacred interpretation.  Therefore, if a Scribe did in fact allow 
a word to
cross over from its primary meaning, it would not effect the primary meaning 
of the
word.  At least, that is my view, but I will be happy to be corrected if I am 
wrong on
this.

>
>
> >SHELLA
> >11. Matthew, the New Testament witness, does not quote from the old LXX nor
> >from the Hebrew which we now have followed by the MT, but seems to quote an
> >unknown Hebrew Text.  Yet he does agree with the older LXX in that he uses
> >the term for Virgin, not young woman.
>
> CREA
>     Where on earth did you come up with this tidbit of misinformation?  Let
> me suggest that you go back and re-read your copy of Matthew, particularly
> Matt. 13:14-15 which just happens to contain a VERBATIM quotation from the
> LXX of Isaiah 6:9-10 --
>
>     <AkoE(i) akousete kai ou mE sunEte,
>         kai blepontes blepsete kai ou mE idEte.
>      epachunthE gar HE kardia tou laou toutou,
>         kai tois Osin bareOs Ekousan
>            kai tous ophthalmous autOn ekammusan,
>            mEpote idOsin tois ophthalmois
>         kai tois Osin akousOsin
>      kai tE(i) kardia(i) sunOsin kai epistrepsOsin
>         kai iasomai autous.>
>
>
>    Ditto for Matt. 21:16 and the LXX of Psalms 8:3 --
>
>    <ek stomatos nEpiOn kai thElazontOn katErtisO ainon>

Debtor says, thank you for causing me to be more careful in my statements.  I 
took for
granted that  we all understood I was talking about Matthew 1:23, not the 
entire
Gospel of Matthew.  I was not trying to mislead anyone nor supply any 
misinformation,
please do forgive me if this came across this way.  I shall try to be more 
specific in
the future.

However, you raise a very interesting point.

Is Matthew 13:14,15 a direct word for word quote from the LXX?  Or is a 
quotation from
the same Hebrew used to translate the LXX, which Matthew knew about but we 
don't
today? One thing is for sure it did not come from the M T Isaiah.  But back 
to your
very important point.  Are you sure this is a word for word quote from the 
LXX?  If
so, then then are there variants in it from the LXX?

It may be that we have very different LXXs I don't know.  The comparative 
text I am
using is the one called the Vatican.  That is not my preferred version, but 
the
easiest to use in the comparative way I have to study.  When I observe the 
old LXX and
then the Greek text of Matthew in this verse, I note some differences, not 
many, but
some.  Therefore it is not a word for word copy from the LXX as I know it.  
As I say,
you may have one which is different from mine.

However, this rule seems to hold up for me in my comparative studies:  When 
the New
Testament writers wrote to the Hebrews they used a Hebrew Text, and when they 
wrote to
the Gentiles Churches they used the LXX.  There are times when these two 
appear very
close to the MT, but then there are times when they do not.  Matthew 13:14,15 
is very
close, but not word for word.  I find it interesting that this is also used 
in Acts
28:26, 27; Mark 4:12; and Luke 8:10.

I would say than when these two texts are very close they came from one 
original
source, the Hebrew of the Great Assembly, that the Alexandrian translators 
used as
their foundation for the LXX and also later which the Scribes used for the 
Text of the
Sopherim and still later, its major recension, the MT.

Matthew 21:16 does seem either to be a direct quote from the LXX or they both 
came
from the same older pre Masoretic text, with the same translation.  I know 
not which.
Thanks for calling my attention to this verse, I greatly appreciate it as I 
had
overlooked it.

Thank you dear brother for your very important post and the suggestions and 
points you
have raised.  May the Lord bless you and may the peace of Jerusalem be upon 
us all.
Debtor.

>
>
> With Mettaa,
>
> Joseph Crea
> <Joseph.Crea AT worldnet.att.net>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: shella AT cswnet.com
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.