Common English Bible?

[JTornado1]

I recently purchased a duotone leather edition of the Common English Bible.

I noticed that in Genesis, Adam is called "the human" or "the man" until Genesis Chapter 4.

This Bible also uses contractions throughout, making it more informal.

God calls Ezekiel "Human one" instead of "son of man."

Jesus is also called "Human one."

In I Timothy 3, Bishops or overseers are called "supervisors."

I'm not sure which audience this translation is trying to reach.

Does anyone else have the Common English Bible? Any thoughts about it?

 

[childofdust]

Found this great quote on-line, which I think sums it up wonderfully:

“Some translators try to tell you what the text of the Bible means while others try to give you a text that you will like. Which do you prefer?”
--Joel M. Hoffman, Accuracy versus Personal Preference: a hidden choice in Bible translation « God Didn't Say That

Unfortunately, the vast majority of bibles are more interested in giving you a text you like. The CEB is no exception... even though it has some FANTASTIC scholars in its committee.

 

[hedrick]

Found this great quote on-line, which I think sums it up wonderfully:

“Some translators try to tell you what the text of the Bible means while others try to give you a text that you will like. Which do you prefer?”
--Joel M. Hoffman, Accuracy versus Personal Preference: a hidden choice in Bible translation « God Didn't Say That

Unfortunately, the vast majority of bibles are more interested in giving you a text you like. The CEB is no exception... even though it has some FANTASTIC scholars in its committee.

What the CEB translators like, and what I like, is the most accurate possible translation. The page you point to supports the concept of gender-neutral translations, using "giving people what they like" to refer to using traditional translations even where a new one is more accurate. Is that what you meant, or were you referring to just that one sentence out of context? I agree with the article that people tend to prefer traditional wording even where new wording would be more accurate, and that retaining the traditional wording is giving people what they like rather than what is accurate. But I have a suspicion that this is not what you meant.

As I'm sure you know, Adam does in fact mean "man". When dealing with the first pair, names aren't needed to distinguish them from other people. It's reasonable to believe that the intent actually was "the man." The literal meaning of man would not be obvious to readers if it was translated as a name. Ironically, this is a situation where the CEB is more literal than traditional translations.

"son of ..." is Semitic idiom for someone with the quality of ... The job of the translators is to translate idioms. Pretty clearly Daniel's "one like a son of man' means a human. However since it is a specific title, it is translated "the Human One" rather than just "a man" or something generic.

Similarly, with Jesus' use of "son of man." The usual translation would be simply "human." But the translators think it's a Messianic title, so they translate as "Human One" as a reference to Daniel. The usual Christian impression that "son of man" refers to Jesus' humanity and "son of God" to his divinity is just wrong. Son of Man was a Messianic title, and "son of God" could mean a godly man, although in his case it seems to have been meant as a title. But "son of Man" is probably a more explicitly Messianic title than "son of God".

The problem with "bishop" is that it's anachronistic. To use it of people in NT times implies an organization that didn't exist yet.

The CEB is an attempt at something interesting. It is intended to use normal language, and not depend upon people to understand "biblical" English. But unlike translations such as the TEV, they are going for as much precision as in traditional translations. Thus Fuller seminary has approved it for use in Bible courses. I've started using it, and also looking at some of the translations. As far as I can tell they've achieved their goal.

 

[hedrick]

I

I'm not sure which audience this translation is trying to reach.

Does anyone else have the Common English Bible? Any thoughts about it?

Read the list of publishers. It's the denominational publishing houses of the mainline churches. The mainline churches have two relevant characteristics:

* Children in the Sunday School program, and to a lesser extent adults, aren't as comfortable with and committed to traditional language as more conservative churches.

* Members are generally willing to accept recent scholarship, and less committed to tradition than more conservative Christians.

The CEB is based on picking language that will convey meaning as accurately as possible, without relying on knowledge of Biblical English. And it uses the best current scholarship.

If you've read the descriptions, you'll note that a lot of work went into looking at how normal people understood the words, and adjusting it to communicate as accurately as possible. But just as much work went into getting the meaning accurately. Hence this is not a paraphrase. You can use it, for example, to understand the details of Paul's arguments, as long as you're willing to accept newer choices of words. While I love the TEV, I wouldn't use it when doing real exegesis. I might use the CEB, although I need more time with it to be sure.

I've actually been looking for a new translation. The NRSV isn't as readable as more recent things when I'm reading a whole chapter for meaning. But I'm not happy with the accuracy of the more readable translations. I have also been looking at N T Wright's Kingdom NT. If the CEB hadn't come out, I probably would have switched to that. But I think the CEB reads better, and I'd prefer something that has more than one person involved, particularly when the one person has particular strong feelings that would affect the translation. It is still very interesting to see how he translates Romans.

There are a number of interesting translations. The handling of "man" and "son of man" have been discussed. Note also the use of "immigrant" for the traditional "alien" in the OT passages talking about the obligation to be welcoming to immigrants. Their use testing showed that "alien" reminded people of ET. I agree with them that "immigrant" is the term we'd normally use for this status. It's a politically charged translation for people in the US, but I think they're right. Whether those parts of the OT apply literally to our situation is another question, but we shouldn't avoid the discussion by using a translation that obscures the issue.

 

[ebia]

Recommended for study by Fuller is a pretty good recommend in my book. And John Goldingay on the translation list. I'll have to give it a look.

 

[childofdust]

What the CEB translators like, and what I like, is the most accurate possible translation. The page you point to supports the concept of gender-neutral translations, using "giving people what they like" to refer to using traditional translations even where a new one is more accurate. Is that what you meant, or were you referring to just that one sentence out of context? I agree with the article that people tend to prefer traditional wording even where new wording would be more accurate, and that retaining the traditional wording is giving people what they like rather than what is accurate. But I have a suspicion that this is not what you meant.

I was using a great quote from someone else to sum up my thoughts on the CEB: it was created more to give you a text you will like than give you a text that tells you what the Bible means. I pointed back to the source not because I had any interest in saying something about where the quote came from or what it meant there, but because I wasn't it's author and needed to document its source when I reused it in a new context to say something different. This is a normal use of human language and not in any way "out of context" unless I were intending to say something about what the quote meant where it came from.

they are going for as much precision as in traditional translations.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't cut it. Take a few verses pulled out at random and examined for their accuracy and precision...

Do not use the LORD your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the LORD won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.
--Exodus 20:7, CEB

The CEB has taken a specific Hebrew verb that means to carry, lift, raise, elevate, etc, and turned it into something that is narratively valueless: “to use.” The same verb occurs shortly before the Decalogue begins. YHWH tells Moshe how he “carried/lifted/elevated” Israel on the wings of eagles and brought them to him (19:4). The use of the same verb that YHWH previously used to describe what He had done for Israel thus hearkens back to that occurrence in order to signal a relationship between YHWH and Israel in the giving of these "commands" – just as YHWH lifted up Israel for Israel's honor and benefit (freedom from slavery, to inherit a good land, etc), so Israel should lift up YHWH's name for YHWH's honor and benefit. The verb there is vital because its use points back to the release from Egypt, which begins the Decalogue: “And Elohim spoke all these things: I am YHWH your god who brought you out from the land of Egypt (20:1-2). The verb “to use” that the CEB chose does absolutely nothing to signal a relationship with what YHWH had previously said about carrying Israel and communicates absolutely nothing about the release from Egypt. How is that precision? How is that accurate?

Another random example:

On exactly the third-month anniversary of the Israelites’ leaving the land of Egypt, they came into the Sinai desert.
--Exodus 19:1, CEB

There is nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Hebrew that tells us there is some sort of “anniversary” being celebrated or intended. The very word itself is a contradiction since it literally means “past year” and only three months have passed, not a year. The translation is using the word “anniversary” in place of a phrase meaning “that very day” (the very same day they left Egypt three months ago, they entered this new place). But the point of it is NOT to say that some great anniversary has occurred because it's now exactly three months since they left, but to locate the time they arrived at the Mountain of God in terms of when they left Egypt. So again, I have to wonder... how is that precision? How is that accurate?

And it uses the best current scholarship.

Which is why I feel this is such a let-down. They could have given us a translation that really tried to tell us what the text means. Instead, they focused on giving us a text we would like. Which goes back to that great quote. When it comes to a translation, what are you REALLY most interested in? Something you will like or something that conveys what the text means? My guess is, most people will go with the former and not the latter. The CEB certainly does.

 

[ebia]

I was using a great quote from someone else to sum up my thoughts on the CEB: it was created more to give you a text you will like than give you a text that tells you what the Bible means. I pointed back to the source not because I had any interest in saying something about where the quote came from or what it meant there, but because I wasn't it's author and needed to document its source when I reused it in a new context to say something different. This is a normal use of human language and not in any way "out of context" unless I were intending to say something about what the quote meant where it came from.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't cut it. Take a few verses pulled out at random and examined for their accuracy and precision...

The CEB has taken a specific Hebrew verb that means to carry, lift, raise, elevate, etc, and turned it into something that is narratively valueless: “to use.” The same verb occurs shortly before the Decalogue begins. YHWH tells Moshe how he “carried/lifted/elevated” Israel on the wings of eagles and brought them to him (19:4). The use of the same verb that YHWH previously used to describe what He had done for Israel thus hearkens back to that occurrence in order to signal a relationship between YHWH and Israel in the giving of these "commands" – just as YHWH lifted up Israel for Israel's honor and benefit (freedom from slavery, to inherit a good land, etc), so Israel should lift up YHWH's name for YHWH's honor and benefit. The verb there is vital because its use points back to the release from Egypt, which begins the Decalogue: “And Elohim spoke all these things: I am YHWH your god who brought you out from the land of Egypt (20:1-2). The verb “to use” that the CEB chose does absolutely nothing to signal a relationship with what YHWH had previously said about carrying Israel and communicates absolutely nothing about the release from Egypt. How is that precision? How is that accurate?

Another random example:

There is nothing—absolutely nothing—in the Hebrew that tells us there is some sort of “anniversary” being celebrated or intended. The very word itself is a contradiction since it literally means “past year” and only three months have passed, not a year. The translation is using the word “anniversary” in place of a phrase meaning “that very day” (the very same day they left Egypt three months ago, they entered this new place). But the point of it is NOT to say that some great anniversary has occurred because it's now exactly three months since they left, but to locate the time they arrived at the Mountain of God in terms of when they left Egypt. So again, I have to wonder... how is that precision? How is that accurate?

Which is why I feel this is such a let-down. They could have given us a translation that really tried to tell us what the text means. Instead, they focused on giving us a text we would like. Which goes back to that great quote. When it comes to a translation, what are you REALLY most interested in? Something you will like or something that conveys what the text means? My guess is, most people will go with the former and not the latter. The CEB certainly does.

It sounds like you are asking too much of any readable English translation. You can't carry in a target language all the same set of connections and connotations as the original; some of them have to be sacrificed in favour of others. This is intended to be an easily read translation. To "lift up a name" might be what the Hebrew says literally but in English it would be an utterly meaningless phrase.

 

[hedrick]

I don't think your examples show the CEB giving people what they like. Rather, they show a translation that doesn't pick up particular nuances that you think are important.

I doubt that they had in mind that the ancient Hebrews celebrated a 3 month anniversary. It's an English idiom. You might accuse it of "over-translation." They were trying to find a way in English to show the Hebrew term that suggested emphasis on the precise date. This does it, but it would have been simpler just to say something like "three months to the day." You'd need to talk to the translators to see why they thought this particular wording was better.

On the commandment: The Word commentary also comments on the verb meaning. If it were a positive command to lift up the Lord's name, I could see that you'd want to capture all the implications of "lift". But I don't see that it makes much sense to carry over all of the nuances of use when it says not to use the Lord's name in vain. The other Engish translations I checked have use, misuse or take as in "take in vain." All of these seem equivalent. So if you're right, no other translation gets it either.

 

[Unix]

CEB is neither accurate nor renders anything the way I like. I use it for for only 5 verses the entire Bible, Lord's prayer in Mt 6:9-13.
A litmus-test that the CEB doesn't pass, is that in the OT the blessing is "on" a person. That's unacceptable bias! Have a look at what this link says about Ps 137:8-9
yabt (yet another bible translation): the common english bible | “shields-up”
I don't need the CEB for comparison or apologetics, or as an example of anything whatsoever. I'll never buy it, nor use it over the internet. It has no value whatsoever to me, (which I am saying also about many other versions too, such as the 1978-2011 NIV, all ESV editions, NRSV, just to mention the currently most popular Bibles. Likewise the 1986 NAB NT has little value, just to mention another popular version.)

When it comes to a translation, what are you REALLY most interested in? Something you will like or something that conveys what the text means? My guess is, most people will go with the former and not the latter. The CEB certainly does.

 

[ebia]

Okay, I've started reading Acts from it.
The short sentences are very striking compared to the NRSV, but it's certainly clear and easy to read.

If I'm teaching scripture to teenagers again this would be my translation of choice.

A Catholic rubber stamp on it would be useful.

 

[hedrick]

CEB is neither accurate nor renders anything the way I like. I use it for for only 5 verses the entire Bible, Lord's prayer in Mt 6:9-13.
A litmus-test that the CEB doesn't pass, is that in the OT the blessing is "on" a person. That's unacceptable bias! Have a look at what this link says about Ps 137:8-9
yabt (yet another bible translation): the common english bible | “shields-up”
I don't need the CEB for comparison or apologetics, or as an example of anything whatsoever. I'll never buy it, nor use it over the internet. It has no value whatsoever to me, (which I am saying also about many other versions too, such as the 1978-2011 NIV, all ESV editions, NRSV, just to mention the currently most popular Bibles. Likewise the 1986 NAB NT has little value, just to mention another popular version.)

This seems like an odd litmus test. Doing a quick Google search "blessing on" is certainly used in English. Checking other English translations, some use it and some don't. It's used most by the NET bible, and also significantly by the Good News translation. Interestingly, the page you cite is fairly positive about the CEB. It's unusual for any translation to make exactly the same choices any one person would make. I don't much like their translation of Psalms 1:1.

 

[Unix]

What I mean is that I don't believe in such, I think it's a fair test, it reveals the theology behind the CEB, NET and GNT. Thanks for the input about the Good News translation, now I know another aspect what to avoid about it! Do You remember was that mostly in the OT or also in the NT? Because I have only New Testaments of the Good News

"blessing on" [...] It's used most by the NET bible, and also significantly by the Good News translation.

 

[EricGray]

I think the question of the Common English Bible is one of whether it is a primary or a secondary translation. Everyone has their favorite, of course. But for most people there needs to be a balance of accuracy and readability.

The NASB, for instance, deserves the same criticism Spurgeon gave to the English Revised Version: "strong in Greek; weak in English."

The original NIV is extremely easy to read, but difficult to do any kind of consistent study with because of its rather low concordance rate between Greek and English words.

Just a cursory view of my own copy of the Common English Bible shows a good bit of innovation that could be jarring to people trying to recognize a familiar passage.

The work of revision is a slow process, and the marketplace has a darwinian effect on translations, weaning out those that are strong in Greek; weak in English, as WELL as those that are strong in English; weak in Greek (and Hebrew).

My suspicion is that the mean will continue to lean toward the kind of optimization one would find in the RSV, which is giving the parasitic ESV more sales than it would otherwise deserve because of the way it was rushed together with explicitly stated biases before they even began the work.

Let's take a familiar OT passage such as Isaiah 7:14. Is it "the virgin shall conceive" or "the young woman is with child?" Well, neither. "Virgin" is of course a carryover from the LXX parthenos. The Hebrew equivalent would be bethulah. "Young woman" on the other hand, would most properly be the Hebrew naarah. But the Hebrew is neither bethulah nor naarah, but instead almah.

Almah DENOTES "young woman" but CONNOTES "virgin." The English equivalent would be "maiden" (which is a young woman of presumed virginity).

Right now you have the scholarly RSV, NRSV and Jewish TNK versions reading "young woman" and the evangelical ones NKJ, ESV, HSBC, etc, reading "virgin." At SOME point in the future translations may settle on "maiden", but probably not in our lifetimes, and maybe not before "maiden" is so alien to current English that it no longer means anything to the readers.

In other words, translation is an extremely imperfect process. Fortunately doctrines are built on a consensus of passages rather than on the parsing of a single term in one place. So translations, while IMPERFECT, are for the most part perfectly SUFFICIENT.

The Common English Bible appears to be interesting and sufficient, but I don't see it becoming a "standard" Bible for people to settle on. It will have specific uses for teachers, teens, those wanting a second view, etc. But the ESV, for all its flaws, is closer to what will eventually become the new standard.

Having just begun to review the Comprehensive New Testament, I think any new "standard" should be explicit in its textbase (as apparently only this version is so far), but that's apparently not a big concern for most versions for the time being.

 

[hedrick]

I've been looking at some samples, next to the NRSV, with an interlinear Greek. I think the CEB is a candidate for a primary translation. It really sticks quite closely to the original, being almost formal equivalent in most cases. Where it uses more than one word to translate a single Greek word, I can see a reason. E.g. it will translate repent as "change their hearts and minds", but Louw and Nida suggest (correctly I think) that "repent" in English makes most people think more of contrition, where in many passages the Greek word emphasizes change. I'm going to need a better electronic text to check whether they've done this consistently. Similarly, in Romans it looks like a better choice than something like the TEV for serious study. The translate justification by phrases such as "accept as righteous." Again, the issue is the "justification" in English means something very different. Furthermore, the Greek is closely related to righteous, which is not apparent from the English justification. In several cases it arguably catches implications of the original that the NRSV does not.

I agree that it's not likely to become a standard. I'm not sure there will be, for several reasons: (1) the division between conservative and liberal; while the effect of this is only a few passages, no liberal is going to buy a translation that conforms OT texts to their NT citations, and no conservative will buy one that does not. There are a small number of other ideological translations as well. (2) Publishers have a strong interest in coming out with new versions, even if there's no very clear reason for them. (3) The gender-neutral issue. (4) The insistence of many people on traditional texts.

I think 3 and 4 will vanish over time, but I'm far from sure that 1 and 2 will.

I agree that the ESV's strengths are from the RSV. Conservatives rejected it years ago, and it needs a new title for them to realize its merits. However I find it weak in English. The repeated sentences starting with "and" in the NT get distracting. Formal equivalent is fine, but I'd like the English to be English and not Biblese.

 

[ebia]

I've been looking at some samples, next to the NRSV, with an interlinear Greek. I think the CEB is a candidate for a primary translation. It really sticks quite closely to the original, being almost formal equivalent in most cases. Where it uses more than one word to translate a single Greek word, I can see a reason. E.g. it will translate repent as "change their hearts and minds", but Louw and Nida suggest (correctly I think) that "repent" in English makes most people think more of contrition, where in many passages the Greek word emphasizes change. I'm going to need a better electronic text to check whether they've done this consistently. Similarly, in Romans it looks like a better choice than something like the TEV for serious study. The translate justification by phrases such as "accept as righteous." Again, the issue is the "justification" in English means something very different. Furthermore, the Greek is closely related to righteous, which is not apparent from the English justification. In several cases it arguably catches implications of the original that the NRSV does not.

I agree that it's not likely to become a standard. I'm not sure there will be, for several reasons: (1) the division between conservative and liberal; while the effect of this is only a few passages, no liberal is going to buy a translation that conforms OT texts to their NT citations, and no conservative will buy one that does not. There are a small number of other ideological translations as well. (2) Publishers have a strong interest in coming out with new versions, even if there's no very clear reason for them. (3) The gender-neutral issue. (4) The insistence of many people on traditional texts.

I think 3 and 4 will vanish over time, but I'm far from sure that 1 and 2 will.

I agree that the ESV's strengths are from the RSV. Conservatives rejected it years ago, and it needs a new title for them to realize its merits. However I find it weak in English. The repeated sentences starting with "and" in the NT get distracting. Formal equivalent is fine, but I'd like the English to be English and not Biblese.

How long for Logos to produce a version with their reverse interlinear functionality I wonder?

I hope it gets the Catholic rubber stamps quickly too.

 

[EricGray]

no liberal is going to buy a translation that conforms OT texts to their NT citations, and no conservative will buy one that does not.

I've been looking at these in the Comprehensive New Testament and I think they've found a solution to that dilemma: whenever the NT quotes the OT they just show if the quote is following the Masoretic, Septuagint, or a Dead Sea Scroll type text.

The NT authors weren't misquoting the Masoretic of Isaiah 7:14, for instance, but rather correctly quoting the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14. The readers can parse out the rest however they wish, but it is entirely appropriate for them to have quoted a pre-existing Greek translation when writing their Greek gospels and letters.

I did some digging online and found a Messianic source (which would fall under a conservative idealogy) using the notes of Jesus' last words to show whether he was quoting a Targum or Hebrew source (interestingly, it differed depending on whether the Greek text used was Byzantine or Alexandrian). One would think conservatives might be concerned, but they actually seemed excited about those details.

Still digging...

 

[ebia]

I've been looking at these in the Comprehensive New Testament and I think they've found a solution to that dilemma: whenever the NT quotes the OT they just show if the quote is following the Masoretic, Septuagint, or a Dead Sea Scroll type text.

The NT authors weren't misquoting the Masoretic of Isaiah 7:14, for instance, but rather correctly quoting the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14. The readers can parse out the rest however they wish, but it is entirely appropriate for them to have quoted a pre-existing Greek translation when writing their Greek gospels and letters.

I did some digging online and found a Messianic source (which would fall under a conservative idealogy) using the notes of Jesus' last words to show whether he was quoting a Targum or Hebrew source (interestingly, it differed depending on whether the Greek text used was Byzantine or Alexandrian). One would think conservatives might be concerned, but they actually seemed excited about those details.

Still digging...

Is it as simple as that. Or is it that some would like to see the OT and NT passages translated identically so that the correspondence can be seen, and others would like each to be translated as best fits their own meaning in context. Both are worthy, but are in tension.

 

[EricGray]

Is it as simple as that. Or is it that some would like to see the OT and NT passages translated identically so that the correspondence can be seen, and others would like each to be translated as best fits their own meaning in context. Both are worthy, but are in tension.

I think it's moved beyond that now. Conservatives are increasingly aware of the tension now that Liberals have raised it -- but I can see that it would be empowering to show the actual source for the difference.

Here's the rub: if Matthew misquotes Isaiah, then Matthew's authority is put into question. But if Matthew is simply quoting a known Greek version, or something close to it, then there is no challenge to his authority. He's no longer misquoting Hebrew, but accurately quoting Greek. Since he's WRITING in Greek, it's perfectly fine. Even the most conservative evangelicals quote TRANSLATIONS, because that's the language their audience is reading.

It gives them an explanation for the variations in wording that doesn't challenge the authority of scripture in any way.

 

[hedrick]

Is it as simple as that. Or is it that some would like to see the OT and NT passages translated identically so that the correspondence can be seen, and others would like each to be translated as best fits their own meaning in context. Both are worthy, but are in tension.

The TEV tried that proposal. They flagged when NT quotations were from the LXX. They even had an appendix that gave the LXX version of passages from which quotes were taken.

I don't think that's going to satisfy conservatives though. The problem is that they believe that the original is inspired, in this case the Hebrew. If the difference is one of wording, no problem. But if the LXX predicts the virgin birth and the original prophet's writing does not, quoting the LXX to say that the event was predicted by the prophet is a mistake.

My own view is that this is too narrow a view of how the Jews used the OT. The saw the OT as patterns. So the promised king was seen as a new David. John was seen as the new Elijah. That doesn't mean that they were literal reincarnations of David or Elijah, nor that all details of their lives match the original. I think Matthew understood that Is 7:14 originally involved a woman who was alive at the time. Presumably it wasn't a virgin birth, unless you think there were two virgin births. Applying it to Jesus was an example of using the OT as a pattern and a sign. Matthew might well have done that independent of the virgin birth (although it's also possible that he considered the LXX independently inspired).

I recommend translation the OT passages as their original authors would have meant them, because otherwise you rob the passage of its initial meaning.

 

[ebia]

The TEV tried that proposal. They flagged when NT quotations were from the LXX. They even had an appendix that gave the LXX version of passages from which quotes were taken.

I don't think that's going to satisfy conservatives though. The problem is that they believe that the original is inspired, in this case the Hebrew. If the difference is one of wording, no problem. But if the LXX predicts the virgin birth and the original prophet's writing does not, quoting the LXX to say that the event was predicted by the prophet is a mistake.

My own view is that this is too narrow a view of how the Jews used the OT. The saw the OT as patterns. So the promised king was seen as a new David. John was seen as the new Elijah. That doesn't mean that they were literal reincarnations of David or Elijah, nor that all details of their lives match the original. I think Matthew understood that Is 7:14 originally involved a woman who was alive at the time. Presumably it wasn't a virgin birth, unless you think there were two virgin births. Applying it to Jesus was an example of using the OT as a pattern and a sign. Matthew might well have done that independent of the virgin birth (although it's also possible that he considered the LXX independently inspired).

I recommend translation the OT passages as their original authors would have meant them, because otherwise you rob the passage of its initial meaning.

Mmm