Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Charles David Isbell wrote:

>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."

Charles, despite the numerous examples of btwlh in the OT/HB which seem to
me to help to clarify the meaning of the word, the difficulties you raise
are limited to one book which purports to represent life in a foreign
country. I think though Est 2:2-3 helps to explain the perceived
difficulties with the use of btwlh in the later verses. The prerequisite for
all those brought into the palace harem was that they were virgins. They are
also referred to as n`rwt, which supplies the generic term for them: v4,
"let the girl [n`rh] who pleases the king be queen..." Therefore btwlh is
contrasted with the generic term n`rh: its significance is elsewhere. It is
the legalistic idea which I have stated before which seems to be fundamental
to the use of the term here. The king had a requirement for all the girls
that were brought into the harem -- that they were "virgin", ie "a female
who had not lain with a man". Hence the group was called btwlwt. The notion
that each girl had their night with the king doesn't appear to have changed
the title of the group.

>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?

I can't really say why a pious translator would want to use parthenos in v3
for hn`r. He doesn't do so in v2 (though we may be dealing with two
different scribal traditions of the text). We are however in a linguistic
grey area: perhaps the translator worked on the assumption that she was a
virgin at the time of the event and he was still dealing with the event. It
would be interesting to know what the Peshitto does with Gen 34:3.

>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".

Does calling Elizabeth (I) the Virgin Queen change the modern meaning of the
term in English? Putting aside marked metaphorical uses of the term, I think
it still means what it has always meant.

>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.

Rereading the text of Dt.22:13-19, I think the ruling is exceedingly clear.
The husband claims that the wife was not a virgin at the time of marriage,
which he obviously claims through his matrimonial experience. What do you
think the hwcy'w 't btwly in v15 was? Although the verse is talking of
btwlym, was it not hard evidence of your "virgo intactus", the $mlh of the
night of the consumption of the marriage? If the evidence is shown then she
was considered to have been a virgin at the time of marriage as the husband
was found guilty of bringing an "evil name on the virgins of Israel". The
rulings elsewhere in the chapter, v23 & v28, use btwlh unqualified to mean
"virgin" in the intact sense. I guess you could say that, seeing as the
significance of "virgo intactus" has been laid firmly over the context,
these later examples have already been qualified, but it is important to
note that it is only btwlh which is used in these rulings (including Ex
22:15 [16 in RSV]). Does bty btwlh of Jdg 19:24 mean anything other than
"virgin daughter" or daughter who is a virgin? Why is Amnon so tormented by
Tamar being a btwlh (2Sam 13:2)? Is it the logic behind Job not looking upon
a virgin (Job 31:1)? ie virgo intactus, untouched by other men, lust, lust?
Why does a young man marry a btwlh, not a n`rh or a `lmh (Is 62:5)?

Having said this, ie that the significance of btwlh seems clear to me, I
will freely admit that words may often be used more loosely than their
significance might suggest. When in 2 Chr 36:17 no compassion was shown to
young man or young woman [btwlh], I don't think a virginity check was
performed on the individual young women. I think it reflects more the
literary outrage of the writer.


Ian