Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: SV: [b-hebrew] "virgin" vs. "young woman"in Isaiah 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • To: Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: SV: [b-hebrew] "virgin" vs. "young woman"in Isaiah 7:14
  • Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 17:55:52 -0500

Søren:

(LM as a verb is used over 20 times in Tanakh, sometimes as niphal
(Passive), hiphil (causative) and hitpael (reflexive), as well as
hundreds of times as (WLM “unknown span of time” sometimes not
always as a synonym for eternity, a few times as T(LMWT for unknown
(hidden) things, once as “the unknown”, and so forth. The concept
that pulls all of the different uses together is that all uses
share the idea of being or making unknown, where the unknown thing
is sometimes unknown because it is hidden. In other words, it is
used often enough in enough different contexts that we are able to
get a fairly good idea as to its meaning.

Therefore when we look at (LMH referring to a woman, unless it
refers to a stranger (of which I know of no examples), the
unknownness would have to refer to something unknown about the
woman. Seeing as the opposite, to know a woman indicated sexual
intercourse, then for a woman to be unknown means that she has
never experienced sexual intercourse, i.e. (LMH is the technical
term for “virgin”.

Its use in Psalm 46:1 seems to support that meaning. My
understanding from surrounding cultures is that women were
sometimes allowed to practice certain cultic activities (such as
public singing) only as long as they remained virgins (sexual
activity, not marriage per se, rendered a woman unfit). So it does
not surprise me to find a reference in Psalms that appears to
follow the same practice.

As to the claim that words have the same trilateral roots without
being semantically related, I find that it is far less common than
claimed by BDB. In fact, if one limits oneself to roots attested to
in Tanakh, such occurances are rare. But then I take the attitude
to assume unless there is good evidence to the contrary that all
words from an expressed root are semantically related, where the
relation is similarity of action: thus I often see relationship
based on action where BDB see differences based on form.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Søren Holst" <sh AT teol.ku.dk>
>
> Karl,
>
> By all means the LXX rendered 'almah as parthenos (which in most
> cases DOES mean virgin) in the pre-christian period, and thus
> chose a word with a narrower semantic field for its translation.
> I see no reason to doubt it. I'm not out to say christians were
> in bad faith when interpreting Isaiah or anything like that.
>
> But I'm afraid I don't see why 'almah should mean "unknown one"
> just beacuse the verb lehe'elim means "to ignore". There are
> plenty of cases, where words have identical triliteral roots
> without being semantically related.
>
> Nor do I see why "unknown one" should mean virgin, just because
> Gen 4:1 (and plenty of other passages) have the verb yada' in the
> sense of "have intercourse". This is very interesting speculative
> interpretation, but it's certainly not linguistics.
>
> As I pointed out previously, a woman referred to as an 'almah,
> would certainly be expected to be a virgin if not yet married. So
> virgins are included in the category of 'almah, and therefore the
> biblical passges with 'almah are not rendered nonsensical if we
> follow the LXX in narrowing the semantic field of the word. But
> if I check all occurrences of 'almah and betulah, I find no
> instance where 'almah must be translated as "virgin" in order for
> the text to make sense -- the situation is quite different for
> betulah, as may be seen from Gen 24,16.
>
> sincerely,
> Soren

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page