[faithandlife] ISAIAH 7__14 INTEGRITY IN TRANSLATIONS

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : December 2002 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Charles Scott" <crscott@...>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:12:09 +0000


Brothers+

In preparing for Advent and Christmas messages, I came across some old 
correspondence on a discussion list regarding Isaiah 7:14 and the Messianic 
Prophecies.

This particular exchange reminded me of  debates I heard nearly a 
half-century ago in regard to Isaiah 7:14.

The bit below is not a conservative-liberal or a Bible-believer versus 
agnostic-atheist debate.  Below is the relatively recent correspondence 
between two Bible believing very conservative Christians.  Both believe  the 
Incarnation and the Virgin birth, but differ in regard to translating Isaiah 
7:14.

George has his theology down and knows what Isaiah 7:14 means.  Wayne 
believes as George does, but is wrestling with his integrity as a 
translator.  Both try hard to be nice.

I suspect that among our parishoners there are many who have no clear idea 
of what is involved and have no idea of what they are missing, which I will 
explore in another post.

Charles+
--------------------------------------------------------------

From "Wayne "
Date : 19 Dec

>Wayne wrote - some time ago -> >I  bought the new translation, "The 
>Message, of the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible." The translator, Eugene 
>Peterson, finesses the issues in Isaiah  7:14 rather well, I think:  "A 
>girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a
son and name him lmmanuel ["God-With-Us"]."
--------------------------------------------------------------->
George wrote:

>Wayne,  I understand that the authors of Isaiah 7:14 intended  
>compenatration, called by some "dual fulfillment."
-----------------------------------

Wayne
Yes, I know this position. I think it was basically what I was taught 
growing up in church and at Bible school, that is, if I was even taught that 
there was any possibility other than that Isaiah was
prophecying only about the virgin birth of the messiah.

Your understanding is a fair one, but it is, IMO, not one which we should 
translate for Isa. 7:14, and I know you haven't stated that. I think it is 
fair enough to translation the verse so that it can
allow for dual fulfillment, but I think Isaiah himself was only prophecying 
about a boy to be born who would be a sign to King Ahaz.

I also believe that the HS chose to modify that original authorial intent in 
Matt. 1:23 to make the OT passage christological, and the HS had that right. 
Many other NT quotes from the Hebrew Bible have the same christological 
customization. That still doesn't change how we need to translate the OT 
passage, IMO. I have come to believe that each passage in the Bible needs to 
be translated according to original authorial intent. Translating OT 
passages on the basis of NT
interpretation goes beyond the scope of translation, IMO, into the the 
sphere of application.
------------------------------------

George
>  Peterson's translation  does not deal with the distant aspect of the 
>prophecy but makes it sound  like Isaiah and the Holy Spirit were speaking 
>only of  Mahershalahashbaz.
------------------------------------

Wayne
This is my current understanding of Isa. 7:14 within its context. As a 
translator, I cannot look forward in time several hundred years and 
translate from that POV. (But I should add that if I see sufficient evidence 
within the Isaiah context that Isaiah was likely giving a dual
prophecy, I'd definitely want to buy that interpretation. I just don't want 
to be guided by my personal theology, rather than "the facts" of the OT 
passage, which I must limit myself to as a translation.)
--------------------------------------

George
>   The expression "presently a virgin" eliminates Mary  the Mother of Jesus 
>because she was not yet born at the time of Isaiah's  writing.   Actually, 
>I think Peterson does finesse the issue quite well in that he  uses both 
>words suggested by differing exegetes.  I think he finesses it better than 
>he translates it, I'm afraid!
---------------------------------------

Wayne
It could be. I suspect he was trying to avoid the problems that the RSV and 
other translations have faced when they translated almah only as 'young 
woman.' I'm not sure NavPres, a conservative publisher, would have accepted 
that as the primary translation.

It's tough translating for English speakers!

Have a good week, George,
Wayne
---------------------------------------------------------------------










_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963