Cow dung. There is simply no basis for the "generally should connote a virgin" in your first sentence apart from a particular theology. The commentary does not take Eigenbegrifflichkeit into account at all, else the commentators would not have said "but not married" as if almah cannot be used to describe a married woman, which is totally false.
The Jews who translated the Septuagint in 200 B.C.E. or so evidently felt that the word implied a
virgin.
False. The "Jews" who created the LXX did not restrict the meaning of PARQENOS to physical virgins (cf. Gen. xxxiv 3). So you cannot say it implies physical virginity in Isa. vii 14 even in the Greek version.
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.
What word are you talking about?
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?
The JPS footnote is nonpartisan because it does not attempt to restrict the meaning of almah to a physical virgin, as you do constantly. Any comment, be it from a christian or a martian, which attempts to narrow the definition in such a way that physical virginity is "generally to be assumed" is 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.
The word almah simply connotes youth, as does the masculine form, in the TaNaK. But saying that youth is associated with virginity, while true in almost every culture, is not a given in one where pre-teen and teenage marriages are the norm. A female or male Israelite is no longer considered an elem/almah after a certain age, not necessarily after marriage or after they have had sex (cf. BDB s.v. elem, "young man," almah, "maid or newly married").
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.
Then you would make the sixty queens and eighty concubines whose wives in Israel?
All of these women in Song of Sol. vi 8, i.e. "sixty queens, eighty concubines, and alamot without number," were part of the royal harem;
but the Shulamite who was not part of the harem turns out to be the king's favorite (v. 9) and the women of the harem praise her. That's the irony of the text. So you are rather missing the point.
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.
It does _not_ require that the second was a physical virgin.
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.
This is a problem for you the christian, not the preexilic Torah-observant Israelite.
You keep reading "virgin" into almah without demonstrating that the woman in Isa. vii 14 was that. Yet we know she is described as being pregnant when Isaiah spoke to Ahaz because of the verbs. All you are doing is forcing the text into a straight jacket because you seem incapable of thinking of almah as anything but a physical virgin.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.