Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: btwlh & `lmh

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: "Charles David Isbell" <cisbell AT home.com>, "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: btwlh & `lmh
  • Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:24:30 -0000


There is another explanation of the use of BETULOT in Esther 2. This group
was introduced in verse 2 using this word, when the girls in question were
in fact virgins, we assume. So it has become a label for this group. During
the course of the chapter they presumably lose their virginity. But the
label remains, they are still referred to as BETULOT, even if they no longer
qualify for the label. This may well be how Hebrew works. It may also be how
Greek works in the story of the rape of Dinah.

Peter Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles David Isbell [mailto:cisbell AT home.com]
Sent: 29 January 2001 22:47
To: Biblical Hebrew
Subject: Re: btwlh & `lmh


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page