Subject: Is 7:14

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 12:58:47 -0500

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.

And, if alteration (rather than corruption!!) has occured in this text, is it
fairly certain that it has occured elsewhere as well?

Thanks,

Jim West

---

From: Andrew Gross <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:19:19 -0500 (EST)

> 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.
 
> 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

---

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:06:56 -0500 (EST)

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
Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
    and
Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
---------------> http://scholar.cc.emory.edu <-----------------