Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Raymond,
>> Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net> wrote on 31-01-2001 16:13:
>> 
>> Dear Dave,
>>> Hardly.  The profuse use of the phrase "the virgin `anat" suggests
>>> that it is a formulaic title, not a descriptive term.  Much the same
>>> as the Roman Catholic church uses the phrase "The Virgin Mary"
>>> even though we know from the gospels that she had other children
>>> and hence apparently lived a normal married life after Jesus
>>> (assuming the Christian approach, of course, purely for the sake of
>>> argument - I'll add that disclaimer so I don't get jumped on).  If
>>> you're going to argue away the Ugaritic evidence, you'll have to
>>> demonstrate its use from non-formulaic texts, a category into
>>> which the formulaic names for `anat do not fall.
>>> 
>> 
>> Your reference to the Roman-Catholic formula is quite illustrative, they
>> have made the virginity of Mary (after the birth of Jesus, during her
>> mariage) a dogma.  :-)
>> 
>> However, the formula the virgin Mary is, as far as I know, only used in the
>> credo (born from the virgin Mary, if I render it correct from Dutch) as a
>> formula and nowhere else. In each case nowhere in the gospels. In the credo
>> it refers solely to the believed miraculous event of Jesus conception and
>> birth. 
>> 
>> With regard to Isaiah 7:14 your remark is quite interesting. (almah has a
>> definite article, which might point to a formulaic use also: THE (young)
>> lady/maiden has conceived (in each case not as RSV or NEB: A young woman).
>> 
>> Finally, to be clear: I am not arguing the Ugaritic evidence away, I am
>> bringing the complete evidence in. >Glmt< as used for one who is not a
>> virgin, argues against the rendering "virgin". No one would use a title as
>> "Virgin" for a married woman (unless you would insinuate something 
>> regarding
>> her husband, :-)  ).  In this case a rendering like "young lady" or 
>> "maiden"
>> or the like in a formulaic sense should be better. Well and in case you
>> dismiss this evidence, you're the one who is arguing the Ugaritic evidence
>> away. 
> 
And my point is that the only place you've documented where
Ugaritic does this is in a formulaic phrase.  I'm asking for other
Ugaritic references other than `lmt `nt to demonstrate that this was
a real, common usage of the word in Ugaritic and not just a stock
formula.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No study of probabilities inside a given frame can ever
tell us how probable it is that the frame itself can be
violated."  C. S. Lewis