[b-hebrew] virginity

Yigal Levin leviny1 at mail.biu.ac.il
Mon Jul 16 03:01:11 EDT 2007

Dear Rivka,

I agree that the discussion of the "Almah" in Isaiah 7:14 was turning into a theological debate, and I'm happy that the thread took a different direction before I (or another moderator) had to step in. Just goes to show that most people on this list are serious and responsible and realize the bounds of our discussion.

The discussion of whether "almah" in general means "virgin" is certainly legit. And one cannot understand what a word really "means" if one ignores the cultural etc. background in which that word is used. So while I feel that the thread may be running out of steam, I do not think that it's off-topic for this list, and will certainly want to hear if someone has any new insights or information.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Yodan 
  To: 'Yigal Levin' ; 'b-hebrew' 
  Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:46 AM
  Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] virginity

  Thanks for suggesting a more appropriate title.  Not only the title is no longer valid, it seems to me that the discussion in of this topic is not longer a b-Hebrew discussion... it has gone way into theology on the one hand and into cultural/societal/legal etc. issues on the other hand. I hope that we'll get back to Biblical Hebrew discussion soon.


  Rivka Sherman-Gold  





  -----Original Message-----
  From: b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Yigal Levin
  Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:20 PM
  To: b-hebrew
  Subject: [b-hebrew] virginity




  Since we're no longer really discussing either "Definite Article" or "Isaiah 

  7:14", please change the subject line to "virginity".


  Thank y'all,


  Yigal Levin




  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Tory Thorpe" <torythrp at yahoo.com>

  To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>

  Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 9:07 AM

  Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14



  > On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:25 AM, dwashbur at nyx.net wrote:


  >> How does Gen 34:3 suggest any lack of physical virginity?  Are you

  >> basing this idea on the

  >> fact that PARQENOS in that verse translates NA(AR in Hebrew?  I

  >> have no idea what your

  >> point is from this verse, or how it "shows" anything.


  >> Dave Washburn

  >> But I can't say Sylvester, George!


  > It's very simple. If the word PARQENOS meant only physical virginity

  > to Alexandrian Jewish translators then Dinah was still a physical

  > virgin even after being raped according to the Greek translation of

  > Gen. xxxiv 3. Now I suppose its possible the translators may have

  > felt that Dinah remained pure and that by some miracle her hymen was

  > not broken; but it is painfully obvious that the usage of PARQENOS

  > among Jews in the 3rd century BCE could not have been limited to

  > women who never had intercourse. One simply has to keep this in mind

  > when reading the Greek version of Isa. vii 14.


  > Tory Thorpe

  > _______________________________________________



  b-hebrew mailing list

  b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.6/902 - Release Date: 15/07/2007 14:21

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list