Subject: Is 7:14

From: [email-masked] (William L. Petersen)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:51:57 -0500

Regarding the recent exchange on Is. 7.14, Jimmy Adair wrote:

>I will be presenting a paper this weekend at the Southeast regional SBL
>meetings in South Carolina in which I argue that Isa 7:14 can be viewed as
>an "orthodox corruption" from two different points of view!  First, Isaiah
>LXX is a fairly free translation, so PARQENOS (parthenos) is almost surely
>original to the translator (the Hebrew word that most closely corresponds
>would be B:TULFH [betulah]).  However, the translation didn't run into any
>major opposition until Matthew picked it up and used it as a proof-text
>for the virgin birth (Mt 1:23).  After this, many Jews rejected the LXX
>reading and opted for NEANIS (used by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion),
>which is closer in meaning to the MT of Isa 7:14, (FLMFH (almah).  For
>Christian scribes, then, PARQENOS suddenly became a doctrinally important
>reading, and they accused the Jews of altering texts in order to refute
>the doctrine of the virgin birth.  Jews, on the other hand, felt that
>their reading NEANIS was a justified correction of the errant LXX reading. 
>Thus, both PARQENOS and NEANIS could be viewed as orthodox
>corruptions/corrections from different points of view.
>
>Jimmy Adair

This whole area (the LXX, its base text in Hebrew, and the evolution of the
LXX's own text [that is, its own transmission history]) is fraught with
pitfalls, for it is still an evolving area of research.  F.G. Kenyon, _The
Text of the Greek Bible_, 3rd ed, rev. and augmented by A. Adams (1975 [1st
ed. was 1936--sixty years ago, and this may be in the original edition!), p.
17 foot, gives exactly the same argument as Jimmy Adair.  (Reading old
scholarship is not only invaluable, it is essential...  I'm sure this
argument antedates Sir Frederick.)

On the whole matter of the LXX's history, see S. Jellicoe, _The Septuagint
and Modern Study_ (OUP 1968; Eisenbrauns 1989).  Extreme care must be taken
in evaluating these readings, for--as the study of Justin's text of the
Hebrew Bible has shown--Justin's citations may not agree with the LXX or MT,
but they often DO agree with OTHER (often fragmentary) Greek stuff current
in his time! (See, e.g., the study of J. Smit Sibinga, _The OT Text of
Justin Martyr, I. The Pentateuch_ {Brill 1963], which demonstrated that what
were once thought to be "loose" paraphrases of the MT or LXX by Justin, now
are seen to have agreements with early Greek fragments, the Hebrew Micah,
etc., etc., and thus are NOT free "paraphrases" or "loose" quotations.
Another example such work is D. Barthelmey, "Redecouverte d'un chainon
manquant...," RB 60 (1953), 18-29].)  To acknowledge this "proto-LXX" Greek
text, scholarship now speaks of an "Old Greek" (see E. Tov, _Textual
Criticism of the HB_ (1992), p. 135, etc.;  E. Ulrich, "Origen's OT Text,"
in _Origen of Alexandria. His World and His Legacy_, edd. C. Kannengiesser &
W.L. Petersen [U Notre Dame, 1988]).

The question, therefore, is much more complex, IMHO, than "LXX or corruption
of LXX".  Rather, the matter is "mistranslation OR corruption, yes;  which,
I'm not sure;  where in the transmission history, I'm also not sure."

That PARQENOS is a corruption is not certain, for the evidence is too
fragile.  To wit: (1) If corrupted, then why only here?  Such a bold hand
certainly would not have hesitated to have messed with the LXX elsewhere.
(Contra: Perhaps it did, in Ps. 22 for example?)  (2) Why corrupt Is. 7.14,
when the whole CONTEXT of 7.14 shows (i) that it is not messianic, and (ii)
that its chronological time-frame is fixed by 7.16?  (3) In the NT itself,
there is too much evidence which contradicts the virgin birth:  (i) "this
day I have begotten/generated you", which is the standard reading of the
_New Jerusalem Bible_ and also of the Huck-Greeven _Synopse_ at Lk. 3.22;
(ii) why do Mary and Joseph worry over the young Jesus missing in Jerusalem
at age 12 (Luke 2.41-50)?  After all, THEY, at least, KNOW that he is will
hold the "throne of his ancestor David" and rule without end (Luke 1.32-33)!
(iii) Etc., etc., etc.  Why not "correct" these NT passages first?

Even more significant, however, is the testimony of the early church, which
has Ebionites and other Judaic Christians rejecting the virgin birth--yet
they are Christians (cp. Epiphanius, Pan. 28.1.2;  30.2.1).  Also the whole
NT ignores the issue (save for the VB stories themselves in Matt & Luke).
This corroborates the NON-v.b. passages in the NT.  One must not forget the
religious context either, in which humans were regularly divinized, and
virgin births were attributed to "great men" (Alexander the Gt., etc.:  see
the _ERE_ under "VB").

Thus, the question of WHERE the mistranslation/corruption took place is a
very dicey issue.  It could have been (1) in a pre-LXX rendering (in the
"Old Greek" ?), (2) it could have been nothing more than a "free" rendering
(as Jimmy argues) by a Jew who didn't know his Greek-Hebrew equivalencies
that well, or (3) it could have been a Christian corruption.

All in all, a rather "stickey wicket," as they say.  I am willing to bet on
sure things, or even when the odds are in my favor;  here, however, I would
not wager.

--Petersen, Penn State Univ.