Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ian wrote: I can see no way to escape the fact that btwlh means "virgin". At
the same time, there is nothing which suggests that `lmh has anything
directly to do with the notion of "virgin".

Ian, I concur that your analysis of `lmh is correct.  But with respect to
betulah and parthenos, let me ask you and others about two additional
passages.  In Esther two, "women who lived in the harem of King Ahasuerus,
who had spent at least one night in the palace  with him (vs. 14), and who
were officially labelled as his concubines' (vss. 8, 14), could also be
called bethulot."  This is from my BAR article in 1977 (III:2, 18).  Does
this not show that the term betulah was not BY ITSELF, without the
qualifying phrase, adequate to mean  virgo intacta?  I guarantee you that if
my sister had spent the night with a Persian monarch, I would be able to
draw my own conclusions!
Second, I also pointed out in 1977 that the LXX twice used parthenos
[Genesis 34:1-4] to refer to the just-raped Dinah.  Again, does this not
show that the term parthenos BY ITSELF, without the qualifying phrase, was
also inadequate to express what our word "virgin" means?  Remember if either
betulah or parthenos is used even one time to refer to a female who has had
sex in any fashion, then neither word can carry the modern meaning of
"virgin".
That is why the analyses of the context in Isaiah seven are far more telling
than arguments about which particular lexical item happens to be found.
Hebrew [and Greek also] did not use these two terms with the kind of
specificity and exactness that we are attempting to ascribe to their modern
English counterparts.
Shalom,
Charles