Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve Miller" <smille10 AT sbcglobal.net>]

> From: Yigal Levin Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:30 PM
> 
> Steve,
> 
> It is entirely possible that at the time when Mat. Was written, in the 
> late 1st century CE, there were several slightly different versions of 
> Isaiah in circulation. One, which is represented by what eventually 
> became the MT, has WQR)T, which the Masoretes read as "veqarat" - "she 
> shall call". The same spelling can also be read "veqarata" - "and you 
> shall call", which is what the LXX has. A second text-type may have 
> read WQR)W - "and they shall call", and this may have been the text 
> picked up by Mat.

[SteveMiller:] Thanks Yigal. Yes, there must have been at least these 2
slightly different variants in circulation before Christ, because the LXX
translated ~250 BC agrees exactly with the MT and the DSS ~100 BC agrees
exactly with Matthew. So the MT reading cannot be blamed on anti-Christian
bias. I think the MT reading was due to a bias of protecting the divinity of
God. "they shall call" means that the child born of the almah actually is
"God with us", which they considered blasphemous. "she shall call" (which is
not what MT actually says) could just mean that at the time the child is
born, the mother realizes that "God is with us".

The DSS text says וקרא, literally "and he shall call", which is the
indefinite pronoun in Hebrew, best translated in English and Gk as "they" as
Matthew did. The Hebrew indefinite pronoun is usually translated into
English as passive, but that misses some of the meaning.

Why do you say "veqarat" means "she shall call"? Doesn't it mean "you (fem
sing) shall call", which is how LXX translated it? If voweled as "veqarata",
then it would mean "you (masc sing) shall call". The problem is that "you
shall call", whether masc. or fem does not make sense, so translations
translate it as "she shall call" which would be וקראה.

> 
> The real problem in the translation of this verse, of course, is the 
> translation of "Almah" - "young woman" as "virgin", which also goes 
> back to the LXX.

[SteveMiller:] My understanding is: Almah means an innocent young unmarried
woman, from its usage throughout the Tanach and from its root meaning
"unknown". Alam is an unknown or innocent young unmarried man (1 Sam
17:56;20:22). Naarah is a young unmarried woman or girl, but if that word
were used here, it would imply immorality. Naar is a young unmarried man or
boy. Betulah, for which there is no masculine counterpart, is a woman
virtuous in her relationship to men, whether an unmarried virgin or a wife
of 1 husband from her virginity, not necessarily young (Joel 1:8; Es
2:17,19; Deu 22:19). If betulah were used here, it would be a normal birth.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Miller Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 5:24 AM
> To: davedonnelly1 AT juno.com; b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I do not personally know any KJBO Christians, but I do think KJB is an 
> excellent translation, better than any modern Old Testament 
> translation, but it is not perfect.  Here is an argument I would use 
> against the doctrine that KJB is a perfect translation:
> 
> 
> Foremost, it is extrabiblical doctrine.
> 
> 2nd, an instance where KJB proves itself not perfect:
> Matt 1:22 (KJB) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring 
> forth a son, and *they* shall call his name Emmanuel, which being 
> interpreted is, God with us.
> 
> This is a quote from
> Isa 7:14 (KJB) ... Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, 
> and
> ** shall call his name Immanuel.
> 
> Matt 1:22 says "*they* shall call his name", but Isa 7:14 says "a 
> virgin ...
> shall call his name". This is a big difference. As pointed out by 
> counter-missionary Rabbi Tovia Singer, "What gives Matthew the right 
> to change the word of God?". "they shall call his name", by use of the 
> indefinite pronoun, means that Emmanuel is not his actual name given 
> to him by his parents, but that is what he is, and that is what many 
> unnamed people know him to be. The mother calling his name Immanuel 
> could just be something of what the mother is experiencing at that 
> time.
> 
> If KJB Matt 1:22 is perfect, then KJB Isa 7:14 cannot be, and vice 
> versa.
> 
> At the time KJB was translated, they did not have the Dead Sea 
> Scrolls, but relied on the Masoretic Text and the LXX. The DSS text 
> for Isa 7:14 says, "and they shall call His name Immanuel", which 
> perfectly agrees with Matthew 1:22. Since Matt 1:22 is the inspired 
> word of God, then the DSS must be the correct text, and not the MT or 
> LXX, for this specific verse.
> 
> While KJB did not do a bad job of translating Isa 7:14 from MT, the MT 
> was in error here, hence the KJB translation has an error.
> 
> Sincerely,
> -Steve Miller
> Detroit