Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net>]

I just found a reference to an article in Beth Mikra by Mayer Gruber volume 
157, that argued that Genesis 34:2 refers to premarital sex and not rape. Any 
comments?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
>From if AT math.bu.edu  Mon Jul 16 15:20:05 2007
Return-Path: <if AT math.bu.edu>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net
        [207.172.157.102])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389054C010
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:20:05 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.22])
        by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2007 15:20:04 -0400
Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net 
[207.172.4.11])
        by mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.8.3-GA) with ESMTP id NOF10396;
        Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 209-6-174-145.c3-0.bkl-ubr2.sbo-bkl.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO
        [192.168.1.100]) ([209.6.174.145])
        by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2007 15:19:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <7648B875-EEFA-43AD-8B87-64F2BE572C7F AT yahoo.com>
References: <d2a.1070a308.33cac379 AT aol.com>
        <002301c7c6a7$27cf8ce0$79345142@oemcomputer>
        <DE07A695-629E-4167-A2D9-CBC583C598E1 AT yahoo.com>
        <003601c7c6af$63652d20$79345142@oemcomputer>
        <C218DAAA-BBA8-4083-A67D-58CBA5DA0B29 AT yahoo.com>
        <469A7D4F.8050704 AT earthlink.net>
        <F5E5EAFC-FCB8-42E4-870D-3972CEAF04D2 AT yahoo.com>
        <acd782170707160551r12d8abeg4ffb0785b4ed41b7 AT mail.gmail.com>
        <7648B875-EEFA-43AD-8B87-64F2BE572C7F AT yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Message-Id: <BF1DD342-39C4-4554-B157-C4ECC5A6D077 AT math.bu.edu>
From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:19:58 -0400
To: Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Junkmail-Status: score/50, host=mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown,
        refid=str01.0A090204.469BC4E4.0118,ss=1,fgs=0,
        ip 7.172.4.11, so 06-12-09 10:45:40,
        dmn=5.3.14/2007-05-31
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=US-ASCII;
        delsp=yes;
        format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.9
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:20:05 -0000

Tory,

There is no, and there can not be, any reference in the Hebrew bible
to physical virginity as it MEANS NOTHING. We know, and the ancient
Hebrews certainly knew as well, that a girl may inadvertently lose
her virginity for no fault of her own. Some girls are born non
virgins, some girls need a certain medical intervention to facilitate
their blood flow during menstruation which may lead to virginity
loss, and a good number of girls loose their virginity by some common
non sexual activities. Lack of physical virginity is surely no
admissible evidence against any woman. You can rest assured that the
ancient Hebrews never stoned a woman to death for sheer lack of
virginity.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 16, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Tory Thorpe wrote:

> On Jul 16, 2007, at 8:51 AM, K Randolph wrote:
>
>> Tory:
>>
>> You are guilty of pushing a particular reading for what historically
>> have been ideological reasons.
>
> I disagree that the reading "young woman" in Isa. vii 14 is
> ideologically driven. In fact, I have never heard or read any modern
> Hebrew scholar make that claim. This reading allows for physical
> virginity.
>
>> It is my understanding that there was no problem among Jews with the
>> understanding of (LMH meaning "virgin" until after the Christian
>> claim
>> that Jesus was born of such. The belief that Messiah would be born of
>> a virgin continued among some Jews as late as the 1400s AD (mentioned
>> in Rafael Patai "The Messiah Texts", I'm citing from memory having
>> read the book decades ago
>
> I have this book and I've been searching but cannot find where a
> belief in a virginal conception and birth of the Jewish Messiah was
> maintained in Judaism from ? down to the 15th century. And you must
> understand, saying there was "no problem among Jews with the
> understanding of (LMH meaning 'virgin' until after the Christian
> claim that Jesus was born of such" is unfounded and highly offensive.
> It reminds one of a similar libelous claim that Jews altered their
> Bible in response to Christian claims.
>
>> The reasons that I and many others claim that (LMH means "virgin" are
>> both linguistic and ideological:
>
> The reason for reading "young woman" is simply linguistic and does
> not exclude your ideology. That's why the reading "young woman" is
> nonpartisan.
>
>> The claim that Mariam the mother of Jesus was a virgin at the time
>> she
>> got pregnant and gave birth.
>
> I am not disputing this claim.
>
>> By prior agreement, we are enjoined from pushing the ideologic
>> reasons
>> (the only reason I mention them above is to admit that they exist and
>> that they are not linguistic), but we can mention the linguistic
>> reasons which, contrary to your claims, is not "pushing our
>> ideology".
>
> If you translate almah as "virgin" in Isa. vii 14 you leave no room
> for much else. That is why it is a partisan translation. The "young
> woman" is not because physical virginity is not ruled out.
>
>> For you to deny that the linguistic reasons exist can only be
>> understood as pushing your ideology,
>
> I don't think this part of your argument can be taken seriously. I
> have not denied that you have linguistic reasons for your reading.
> However, your reading, which you yourself admit is part ideology,
> denies me mine. I stand by my claim that "young woman" cannot be
> construed as an ideological reading.
>
> Tory Thorpe
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>