Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dan Wagner <Dan.Wagner AT datastream.net>]

I freely confess that the issue of "virgin" [_BETHULAH_ and/or _(ALMAH_] is
a difficult one for any of us. There are, at least, potential problems no
matter what you do with either word. In the case of _(ALMAH_ we beg for more
data, but don't have it. In the case of _BETHULAH_, we have plenty of data
but struggle desperately for consistency, and seemingly can't find that
either.

Here is my take on the issue:
_BETHULAH_ is as Dr. Athos said, a social term indicating a single or
marriageable person. It is a *social* term. _(ALMAH_, on the other hand, is
a *technical* term which more closely approximates our "virgin" in regards
to sexual inexperience. I think finding association with _(LM_ as
"covered/hidden" works well with this. That is why it is used in Prov. 30 of
the marvel of the way of a man who is able to woo a (fearful?) _(ALMAH_ into
marriage union (although there is a significant textual question here if it
should be "the way of a man in [his] youth"; see most of the versions and i
think some Heb. mss. also), thereby taking "mastery" over her just as a
snake can master going straight up a rock, a bird through the sky in
fight--something elusive for the rest of creation, and like a ship which is
able to sail gracefully across the ocean. (I cite this Proverb since it is
the passage most commonly used to attempt to discount the idea of "virgin"
for _(ALMAH_). 

Thus, Isaiah uses the term _(ALMAH_, the technical term, because a
social-class term would not drive home his point of a miraculous event in
the way the more technical term does. He also uses _(ALMAH_ because it,
unlike _BETHULAH_, is the only word that can never be demonstrated to
reference a woman of sexual experience.

The usage of _(ALMAH_ in later Hebrew, whether Mishnaic or as reflected by
the Syriac Peshitta, has little bearing on the issue of its 8th cent. BC
usage by Isaiah. There is little continuity in later Hebrew--let alone in
Aramaic dialects--with BH, especially for rare BH words. 

Concerning Jan Britten's comments re: the LXX of Isaiah, i'll grant that
there are certainly better LXX sections such as the Pent., but *generally*
speaking when i go to LXX they are doing OK in Isaiah, and better than some
other portions. What would be of greatest value to our discussion would be a
study of LXX translation of Isaiah's rare Hebrew words (assuming one
translator, though substantial work has been done to try to demonstrate and
even identify multiple translators of Isaiah, making a real mess for us to
evaluate things!). I would be willing to revise my position on that issue
with substantial data for review (although this one point would not affect
my overall argument, and in any case it is still a pre-Christian, unbiased
interpretation).

HOWEVER, all should note that my argument regarding Isa. 7:14 was not based
uniquely or even primarily on the term for virgin. Rather, the strongest
evidence is based on necessary implication from a context requiring some
kind of a miraculous _)OT_, whereas "any old girl" giving birth to a baby
*cannot* meet that requirement. No one responded to that point. 

Also, the time is future--remote future--because Ahaz rejected it (though it
was, as often the case, still *presented* in terms of imminence and
virtually like the _futurum instans_, considering the following participle),
and so Isaiah moves on from singular to plural, from Ahaz to the "house of
David," from present to the logically future. Ahaz never saw *that* (good!)
sign of Immanuel, though he did see some "bad stuff" happen as a consequence
of his faithlessness (cf. v. 9 to Ahaz, "If you do not stand firm in faith,
you will not be left standing").

The near context of a "Son/Child" to be born and to reign in Isa. 9:5(6),
also divinely titled as "mighty God", and again presented in terms of
extreme imminence (WAYYIQTOL verbs here! as if it were already done as far
as God and the prophet were concerned), further supports my position on
7:14. Likewise for the "nobody" born to the "stem of Jesse" (Isa. 11:1ff),
unexpectedly sprouting up from his roots in the remote future, who would be
the greatest King of all (and certainly this was *not* fulfilled in Isaiah's
day).

Dan Wagner