Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 19 Jul 2007 at 7:54, Tory Thorpe wrote:

> 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.

I never said anything about virgo intacta.  I'm not going to play this game 
any more.

> > 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"?

You can't be serious.  Get a dictionary.
 
[snip]

I've had enough of this.

Dave Washburn
But I can't say Sylvester, George!