Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT nis.za>]

jim west wrote:

>
> >> (re. Joel 1:8, the bethulah who weeps for the husband of her youth)
> >>
> er... ya musta misread the context- she is lamenting the "husband of her
> youth"- i.e., the man she was promised to in the arragned marriage- but
> which she never consummated because of the judgement of God.
>
> she is a bethulah because she is a virgin!  She remains a virgin because she
> does not marry (her poor dead husband now being unavailable).
>
> I am not reading into the text- you are not reading the text aright.

Your entire statement "the man she was promised to in the
arranged marriage- but which
she never consummated because of the judgement of God" is
read into the text.  Which
verse talks about the arranged marriage?  Which verse says
the marriage was  never
consummated?

>
>
> >The point is that the word bethulah by itself may not be
> >sufficient to indicate
> >virginity.
>
> yes it is.
> a rose by any other name... you can rationalize as you like, but the facts
> remain facts- almah means young woman and bethulah means virgin.

Then you must be able to point out a place where `almah
refers to a woman who is not a
virgin, or at least a woman who is married, and you must be
able to explain away
places where the meaning "young woman" (merely referring to
age) is unsuitable.  Like
Song 6:8 "There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, And
`alamoth without number" -
does that mean all the queens and concubines are old?


>
>
> >What you said is that if Isaiah meant "virgin" he would have
> >used bethulah, but the
> >fact is you can't make the case that bethulah is any closer
> >to the meaning of "virgin"
> >than `almah is.
>
> rubbish.  only a theologically tendentious reading into the text sees 
> otherwise.

Make your case then - all I see from you is pontifications.

>
>
> >Personal preferences aside, what does the context lead you
> >to expect?  A huge miracle
>
> perhaps- but it has NOTHING to do with a virgin.

Another pontification.

>
>
> >The Messiah has quite a few names in Isaiah, Immanuel being
> >only one of them - it's
> >not necessarily referring to his given name - could be his
> >character, in which case
> >you would have a nice fit with Isaiah 9:6 (which certainly
> >describes a child who is
> >literally "God with us"), which would also explain why the
> >birth resulting from this
> >miraculous pregnancy is not recorded (i.e. it's recorded
> >under a different name, in
> >Isa 9:6).
> >
>
> such gymnastics are always necessary arent they- when the plain meaning of
> the text has to be submitted to the contortionists box in order to fit the
> dogmatic presuppositions of the exegete.

Facts are facts - the Messiah is given four or five other
names in Isaiah, and more
are given in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  It's not gymnastics to
recognize that fact and
suggest that not all of them are given names (how would you
explain it?).

John