Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] virginity

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu>
  • To: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:15:19 -0400

Dave,

A great deal was said about the (LMAH being a virgin, and now we are heatedly debating virginity, but none of the disputants ever made clear to the rest of us what he means by virgin or virginity. A virgin may mean:
1. A woman with an originally intact hymen.
2. A woman [of ripe age?] who never had sex [what this means needs also close scrutiny] with a man.
Of corse, an intact hymen does not mean the woman is innocent, and a broken hymen does not mean the woman is guilty of any wrong doing.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 16, 2007, at 7:19 PM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:

You are arbitrarily redefining "virginity" to mean "intact hymen" whereas in the biblical text it
clearly means "not having had intercourse." I have yet to see anything anywhere in the
textual or linguistic context that makes this redefinition valid.

On 16 Jul 2007 at 15:19, Isaac Fried wrote:

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



_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



Dave Washburn
But I can't say Sylvester, George!
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page