Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

On Jul 19, 2007, at 2:20 AM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:

> We have to be very careful about inferring too much from Ugaritic.   
> It's a cognate, not a
> precise parallel.  Gordon, Dahood and a couple of others had a  
> tendency to carry such
> things a little too far, and their conclusions have not been  
> generally accepted.

Gordon reached all sorts of conclusions. And not that facts are  
determined by hand raising but there is wide acceptance that no one  
word in the languages of the ancient Near East (other than perhaps  
BH) by itself means virgo intacta. The evidence from Ugaritic,  
Aramaic, South Arabic, and especially Mishnaic Hebrew is a reason to  
put BH on that list.

> As for Joel 1:8, first, it's poetry, which takes a lot of liberties  
> in any and every language where it exists.  Second, the term  
> rendered "husband" is BA(AL, which as the NIV notes, may also mean
> "betrothed."

How are you, and how is the NIV, defining "betrothed"?

> The Genesis passages actually undermine your case, because both  
> passages
> and terms clearly refer to a girl who is marriage material, clearly  
> virginal.

If 'almah meant strictly virgin that word would have been sufficient  
in the pericope since the matriarch is marriage material.

> The PARQENOS passages have been severally debated in the literature  
> on ancient Greek, and the fact that you choose the one article that  
> supports your idea proves only that you choose the one
> article that supports your idea, nothing more.

Yes, and I could cite many more. The question is does PARQENOS always  
mean "virgin" and the answer is no. If it means "virgin" in Isa. vii  
14 (LXX) prove that please without Matthew.

> Instead of taking someone else's word for it, have you read the  
> Ugaritic for yourself?

I have and I don't see a word there for "virgin" as it is understood  
in English.

Tory Thorpe