Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Charles David Isbell" <cisbell AT home.com>]

Jonathan Safren is correct.  For those who insist on insinuating the concept
of "virgo intacta" onto the Hebrew word `almah, a stretch that then permits
the view that Greek parthenos is an equally technical term, I have a
contextual question.  If the word itself was so unambiguous, why did Luke
bother to have Mary use the standard phrase "I have not known a man?"  This
is the same situation given to describe Rebeccah in Genesis 24:16, because
the word BeTuLaH itself was not the technical and specific term in biblical
Hebrew that "virgin" has become in modern English. I argued in 1978 [BAR
III] that there is no single word in the ANE languages  that means "virgo
intacta".  The fact is that the "not known a man" phrase is used whenever
such specificity is desired by an author.  Thus Luke felt he needed to add
his explanation in verse 34 because he knew that the word parthenos itself
did not carry the meaning he intended.

The "virgin" part of this verse can be derived from Isaiah only by imposing
on the Hebrew text the Christological lens of faith.  I have no problem if a
practicing Christian wishes to believe that the virgin birth of Jesus is
what Isaiah's words have come to mean for him.  But to presume  that
Isaiah's words must also have meant that to Ahaz is "straining at a gnat."
"Virginity" simply cannot be founded on either `almah or parthenos.  Luke
chose to make Isaiah's words mean something they had not meant before, and
he did so by the addition of a standard phrase.  The phrase is not in Isaiah
because he wasn't concerned about a god-man/Dionysiun/virginal conception.
It appears in Luke because he was.

Shalom,
Charles David Isbell