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: bet_yaakov <bet_yaakov AT paradise.net.nz>
  • Cc: B Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:53:39 -0400

Bet_yaakov,

I believe it. By fourteen Dinah was probably a mother, and by thirty a grandmother.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

On Jul 16, 2007, at 9:16 PM, bet_yaakov wrote:

I am sure in the old days some girls just dripped a little red grape juice
of sum form on the sheets to keep everyone happy!! This was proof of their
virginity!
But the chastity of a Jewish or Israelite Girl was precious.
The Rabbis say Dinah was like only twelve or so, so this is not really about
premarital sex. Its abuse and Simeon and Levi had a right to be angry.
Its how they did it that was wrong, not what they did!
The information in the text is sparse and difficult to prove much, but the
reaction of the two brothers is to the wrong their little sister had and
seems to indicate a wrong had been committed. Then the fact that the man
could not do it again due to his member being out of action after
circumcision seems a good idea! Jacob never forgave these two brothers even
at his death bed, which seems harsh! But he must have had his reasons!!


-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Isaac Fried
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 7:20 a.m.
To: Tory Thorpe
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] virginity

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page