From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: How to choose a Bible Translation
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:13:28 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.724856783@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>>This (according to the Bible) has more to do with Joseph than anything
>>else.  Even before the visit of the angel, Joseph planned to keep things
>>quiet and not have her punished.
>
>I would imagine this to be the typical case. If a young, unmarried woman
>was found with child, she could be stoned to death if someone felt the
>need to accuse her. However, if someone took responsibility for the
>woman and child, I don't think she would be punished. The story of Mary
>is a prime example.

Agreed, at least in this respect.  Matthew says that Joseph planned to
quietly divorce her and not formally complain about the situation.  I
imagine that he would have arranged for her financially, or come to some
agreement with her father.  Joseph was hardly poor, being a tradesman.  He
likely wasn't well to do, but most certainly wasn't a peasent.

>>>JPS (ISBN:0-8276-0252-9) translates this correctly. I'd be surprised
>>>that *all* other English translations see virgin here, but given the
>>>less than stellar history of Christianity, perhaps I shouldn't be. 

>>They do not.  NRSV (New Oxford Annotated edition) translates it as
>>'young woman' with the text note "(q)Gk the virgin".
>>ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) (among others) uses NRSV 
>>as their default text.
>
>Good. I didn't think *all* English translations made this mistake of
>adding to the text as John M. stated.

The NIV, which is conservative, translates the verse as 'virgin,' giving
an interesting evasion in the study notes!  It says that the word here,
'almah' is the same used in Genesis 24:43 referring to a woman about to be
married.  It also says that the text *might* apply to the woman bethroted
to Isaiah (Isa 8:3)!  Then it goes on to say that Matthew clearly took it
as a forshaddowing of the virgin birth of Christ...

Hmm...;-)

[Hebrew/Greek/English discussion of 'virgin']

>At least the NRSV has sufficient fidelity to The Word
>that they are willing to go against what presumably has become the
>standard Christian practice of adding to The Word.

They specifically did not change the verse as quoted by Matthew.  It says
'virgin.'  The NRSV explanation is that since Matthew quoted the LXX
documents, they should leave his (incorrect) quote alone.

This actually came up at church today.  I visit with the pastor prior to
services and we chat about things in general.  We spoke about this
particular verse because I was reading lessons, and this (Isaiah 7:10-17)
was the OT lesson.  His comments match those of the NRSV (of course!) in
that Matthew clearly believed that the virgin birth was true, and the exact
translation of the verse does nothing to deny that fact.  As for propehsy,
that is another story altogether.

   -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:23588 soc.culture.usa:9110