The Development of the Bible, Post 4

This is the fourth post based on my discussion of the development of the Bible.  You can read Post #1 here.  

Post #2 here.  

Post#3 here.  

 

A continuation of my conversation with St. Augustine.

Saint Augustine:

The real question is what word [virgin/young woman] was used in the original Hebrew.  The Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the LXX, the Vulgate, and other things are all clues to what the original Hebrew was.

 

None of them is itself a perfect witness to the original Hebrew.

Manny:

How do you know?  As far as we know, the Masoretic was constructed in 900 AD.  The Septuagint in 300-200 BC.  How could the Septuagint not be more authoritative?  It most certainly is.

St. Augustine:

In this case, the Masoretic is correct.  Alma is a word that can mean “virgin,” but the word was referring to the wife of Isaiah, who was no virgin when she had his baby.  (See chapters 7 and 8 of Isaiah.)

 

The word also refers to Mary, and the LXX translation/interpretation is also correct.

 

One word can refer to two people.  That happens a lot in OT prophecy. Indeed, that happens a lot in the OT.  Indeed, that is what the OT is. Every person and event in the OT is pointing to Christ, so in some capacity or other every word pointing to each of them is pointing to Christ.

Manny:

Completely disagree.  The specificity of “virgin” is critical to the theology.  Christ was born of a virgin.  Christianity partly hangs on that concept.  It’s absolutely critical.  To strip it away is to (1) undermine Christianity and (2) reduce the evangelical power of the OT prophesying the NT.  Early Christians were converted by the power of this prophesying.  Jesus on the road to Emmaus “opened the scriptures” for those two apostles.  It was prophesies such as this that He was opening.  Jews who come to the Christian faith over the centuries still cite this as one of the main reasons.  This is why the Masoretes distorted their translation.

Saint Augustine:

Who’s stripping it away?  Of course it specifically means “virgin.”  I just said that.  Should I say it a third time?

Manny:

No it doesn’t.  The specific word in Hebrew is “bethula” put forth by the video I linked and substantiated at this Translation Question website: 

 

Question:

 

Is there a Hebrew word which means woman but not includes the meaning of a virgin. For example in English, a woman can mean a married woman or a virgin, but in Hebrew does the word woman also include virgin in it’s meaning or is specific to a married woman only.

Hipolito Mojica, III

 

Explanation:

Unfortunately I don’t have a Hebrew font installed, so I will write the English transliterations of the Hebrew words:

 

‘Isha’ is the Hebrew word for woman, and is a general term, referring to women of any age, whether a virgin or not, although it can also be used to mean ‘wife’ – ‘my wife’ in Hebrew would translate literally as ‘my woman’…

 

‘Bat-Zog’ also means ‘wife’ or ‘spouse’.

 

‘Bakhoura’ is a young girl (a maiden, perhaps, in English), and in some contexts implies virginity or innocence…

 

‘Batolah’ is the “technical” word for a virgin…

 

Hope this helps you :-)

 

Julia

 

“Batolah” = “Bethula”  It depends how you transcribe the sounds. 

 

St. Augustine:

Ok, so using your language, no, it does not specifically mean virgin.

 

It means young woman, and it could mean young virgin or something else.

 

It means both.

 

If it doesn’t mean both, then the Bible made an error. Do you think the Bible made an error?

Manny:

What are you talking about?  Where in a pre-Christian era text does it say alma?  You are going with alma because the Masoretic text wrote alma.  The Septuagint says “virgin” in Greek and they obviously took it from the Hebrew that existed. 

 

And the Septuagint translation was inspired, even according to Jews before Christ.  It was a miraculous translation if you read how it came about.  It was only after Christ that it came into question. 

 

I fail to see what I have not addressed.  Put together a comment with the specific list of questions you feel I still need to address and I’ll give it one final shot.  But the question has to be complete in itself and not refer to some other comment.

###

So St. Augustine put together a series of questions to finally reach a conclusion to this wild discussion. 

What exactly is your point about the Masoretic Text, and with whom are you disagreeing?

My point about the Masoretic text is that it is not more authentic than the Septuagint and that the Masoretes intentionally undermined Christianity in its creation.  It should be suspect to Christians and should not be used as the basis of the OT translation.  It is 1100 years older than the Septuagint, and altered by time and the changes to Judaism as a result of the destruction of the Temple.  I am disagreeing with the Bible translators who use the Masoretic text as the basis of the OT.

I don’t think the NT is based on the LXX. Do you have some reason I should, other than that the NT quotes from the LXX?

Well everywhere I read it says so.  When 90% of the references to the OT match the Septuagint and only 10% match the Masoretic, then I am convinced.  You want to disagree fine. 

I think the NT actually does not even quote from the LXX–much. Do you have some reason I should think otherwise?

I’ve given clear examples.  Look at my three egregious distortions from the Masoretic.  You are bucking the general consensus.  You prove the consensus is wrong.  I rest with the consensus.  We’ll just have to disagree.

Your only reason I can discern is that the NT is usually like the LXX rather than the Masoretic text where they differ. But you yourself acknowledged that it also tends to be like the Dead Sea Scrolls in these situations, and that when writing in Greek the NT authors can also be quoting from the Hebrew. So all you have shown is that the NT does not use the Masoretic Hebrew. Is it not possible (I would say most likely) that the NT is actually quoting from a Hebrew text which the LXX, Masoretic, and Dead Sea Scrolls are all representing?

The NT could not have used the Masoretic Hebrew because the NT was written 900 years before the Masoretic.  The 10% of the NT that seems to match the Masoretic text is mostly coincidence of dealing with the same material.  If there was a strong link to the Masoretic then it would have been well above the 10%.  I don’t acknowledge anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I did not see any evidence it was closer to the Septuagint.  I only saw a claim it was closer.  Yes, it is possible the Dead Sea Scrolls could have represented the same Hebrew as what the Septuagint used.  It could be the very original for all I know.  Unfortunately we only have fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and I think only one complete book of the OT.

Since we agree the original Hebrew OT text is inspired, do we not need to know what it says?

Because the Septuagint translated it while it still existed.  The Septuagint is the inspired OT.  Translate it back to Hebrew.  You seem to fail to understand that the Holy Spirit led to the creation of the Septuagint.  The Holy Spirit led to the apostles use of it in the NT, led to the canonization of the Septuagint by all the Apostolic Churches [Council of Rome (382 AD), Synod of Hippo (393 AD), Council of Carthage (397 AD) and the Council of Carthage (419 AD)].  The Holy Spirit allowed the original Hebrew to be destroyed.  1100 year passed before any challenge to the Septuagint, firmly integrating it into the faith.  I do not believe the Holy Spirit led non-Christians to create another OT.  The Masoretes didn’t even believe in the Holy Spirit as God and had every reason to undermine the prophesies of the coming Christ.  You seem to have become a skeptical scholar and not a devout Christian.

And how do you think we should figure out the original Hebrew text?

I don’t know.  Let the scholars try but frankly it won’t mean anything.  The Septuagint was created, canonized, and survived.  Are you aware that the Septuagint was also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls?  That means at least some Jews at the time considered canonical.    Without finding an actual OT written 2500 years ago, “reconstruction” of an OT will always be suspect to devout Christians.  Until then the Septuagint is it.

†