Tue Mar 12 13:22:13 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 12 13:22:13 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA04199; Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:22:13 +0500
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:19:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew  Gross 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Cc: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Is 7:14
In-Reply-To: <960312125847_244151353@emout09.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 1326
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Status: O
X-Status: 


On Tue, 12 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> It is well known that the LXX of Is 7:14 uses the word "parthenos"; while the
> MT has "almah" and not "bethulah".
> 
> My question, particularly to Dr. Ehrman is, is this an example of scribal
> corruption to make the LXX conform with the orthodox viewpoint concerning the
> messiahship of Jesus?
> 
> It seems that several other versions of the LXX, which have a different
> rendering, would support this view.

Because I'm on vacation right now, I am unfortunately away from my 
library.  Would you be able to post these different renderings for my 
(and hopefully, others') benefit?

Also, how is "`almah" usually rendered in the LXX.  I realize that I 
should probably know this one, but I unfortunately don', and I did not 
bring Hatch & Redpath with me on vacation.
 
> And, if alteration (rather than corruption!!) has occured in this text, is it
> fairly certain that it has occured elsewhere as well?

Well, here's a can of worms, if I ever saw one.  However, I must say that
the traffic has been low on this list, and an "Isaiah 7:14"  discussion is
always a good way to liven things up.  I think
soc.religion.christian.bible-study even has a FAQ on this subject, though
I don't believe it goes into textual issues too much, just the semantic
ones. 



andrew gross

Back