Dear Tory,
The portion of the commentary you quoted, I
actually agree with some of it, pushes for the definition of "almah"
from a distinctly christian theological standpoint: "the term
'ha'mah' (sic!) denotes 'a girl of marriageable age,' but not
married, and therefore a 'virgin' by implication." This is wrong.
It's not wrong simply because it comes from a christian commentary.
It's not wrong because I disagree with it. It's wrong (a) because it
is an assumption that promotes a particular theology (perfectly
suitable for the commentary but against list guidelines?) and (b)
does not take into account the importance of Eigenbegrifflichkeit
when studying cultures and languages.
HH: Your accusation seems wrong because "a particular theology" is not
necessarily why people say that the word generally should connote a
virgin. Also, Christian theory is taking into account
Eigenbegrifflichkeit, and that is what leads some to make the assumption
that the Hebrew word would imply virginity.
The Jews who translated the Septuagint in 200 B.C.E. or so evidently felt that the word implied a
virgin.
In addition, the law of Moses required that women be virgins
before they were married. This word seems to describe young women, women
before they were married. So one assumes that they were virgins.
The assumption that physical virginity is implied in almah may seem
reasonable from a christian point of view; but it is not an
assumption that any scholar familiar with (b) would make. Thus the
very nonpartisan view expressed in the footnote to Isa. vii 14 in the
JPS study Bible:
HH: How is it that a Christian comment is partisan, but the JPS study
Bible is non-partisan? How is JPS non-partisan?
"All modern scholars, however, agree that the Heb
[almah] merely denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether
married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not."
HH: True, but quite a number of scholars believe that the word, while
not strictly requiring virginity, would have been associated with it in
Israel.
This sense is already in archaic BH where we see that the plural of almah may denote a
separate category of young wives in the royal harem among queens and
concubines (Song of Sol. vi 8; cf. BDB s.v. almah, "maid or newly married").
HH: Nowhere does the Song of Solomon indicate that the women dubbed
"almah" were part of a royal harem. The young women in Israel could have
swooned at Solomon the way that young women nowadays swoon at Hollywood
hunks or star athletes.
The semantic range is the same in the MH; in later
rabbinic vocabulary and idiom; in later medieval vocabulary; and in
modern Hebrew. Basically, there is no reason whatsoever to believe
that almah, by itself, was ever a term restricted to unmarried
physical virgins in the Hebrew speech community.
HH: You're right that it is obvious that "the prophetess" is a name that
Isaiah gave his wife, since he is describing a woman he has sex with,
and Isaiah was a man of God. Your theory requires the unsubstantiated
assumption that Isaiah had two wives, the second of which was a virgin
at this time.
Since having two wives simultaneously was not God's ideal
(Genesis 2), I do not want to saddle Isaiah with the assumption of his
being bigamous.
Of course, if the woman had been his wife for any time
at all, it would be odd if she was still a virgin.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.