NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/alt/messiani/3973

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-12 | 4.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu!fmsrl7!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu!jlove
From: [e-mail] (Jack Love)
Newsgroups: alt.messianic
Subject: Re: Almah - Betulah
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:55:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization
Lines: 73
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Carlson) writes:
>     However, the problem
>     is not that 'almah' can be used in a generic sense of 'young-
>     maiden' [ALONG with the idea that a 'young girl of marriagable age
>     who by common-sense is also a virgin in the most common
>     understanding of that class & age-group - (that idea was even
>     present in the English language with the word "maiden" until the
>     last few decades); the PROBLEM arises when certain folks on here
>     INSIST that the word ALMAH can NOT mean VIRGIN; and that only
>     betulah can.

I haven't seen anyone argue that the word 'almah' cannot be applied
to a virgin. (Unless you are referring to some straw man that was
set up in a response a while ago.) I think that Dov and Rob Strom
and Bob Levine would all agree that a virgin can qualify as an
"almah," although an old virgin might not. (And forgive me, gentlefolk,
if I have misrepresented you here).

>     I believe that Isaiah specificly chose almah to
>     indicate a 'young-maiden' AND a virgin - and was speaking in a
>     prophetic sense of a sign to come to the entire house of Israel.
>     Since while betulah means virgin, it also can indicate an OLD-
>     VIRGIN, and Miryam was a young-maiden/virgin, - hence the sign
>     was more defined and evident when it occured, since almah cannot
>     indicate an OLD-virgin/old-maid.

The key word in this statement is "believe." I think you have a right
within your religious environment to believe this, and I would not
criticize any aspect of your remarks which recognize that they are
based on belief. The problem appears to be the inverse of what you are
stating. It is your side which is attempting to argue that the Hebrew
word "almah" MUST mean "virgin." And this is simply untrue. We can do
another run around the bush on whose authority to rely on regarding
this question, but it is getting a little old. I rely on the
scholarship of Christians, Jews, and non-religious people who adhere to
the standards of the scientific method. These standards recognize that
although none of us are free from bias, the evaluation of the evidence
must be as free from bias as we can make it. The standards mean that if
we find evidence that confronts our beloved pet theories, that we will
allow ourselves to be persuaded by the evidence and not our prejudice.

On the subject at hand, every scholar who has considered the subject
in recent times (meaning for the last century or so) has come to
the conclusions that have been stated by me as well as others on
the net. Although Harvey Smith made an effort to paint these as
"rabbinic," the truth is that they have nothing to do with rabbinism.
The conclusions I have stated are endorsed by major non-Jewish
and devout Christian scholars. They have been included in Bible
translations and commentaries regarded as accurate by most Christian
denominations. The only exceptions to this are what you are
referring to as "conservative" Christians and I would characterize
as "fundamentalists."

>     But that is still a side issue.  The real issue is that over
>     and over again, even though we show linguistic evidence, Rabbinic
>     quotations, Judaic statements in commentaries showing that Almah
>     CAN INDEED bear the meaning of VIRGIN, as does the word betulah -
>     it is COMPLETELY ignored!  And instead, slander is leveled, and
>     accusations against MJ's that we are stupid or ignorant, or both!

It is not ignored, it is refuted. You do not have a shred of
linguistic evidence regarding your basic point. Unlike some of
the others here, I don't have time to chase down every bizarre
quote you and Harvey are capable of dredging up. It appears
that some people delight in creating wild goose chases. Instead,
I choose to rely on professional university trained scholars
in linguistics, literary analysis, and philology. Most of these
scholars are deeply religious people, Christians as well as
Jews, who approach the sources with devotion and respect.
--
________________________________________
Jack F. Love    |     Opinions expressed are mine alone.
        |    (Unless you happen to agree.)