glenn@sdcrdcf.UUCP (06/27/84)
1) Where is the *sign* if the word is only "young woman" ? 2) When the JEWISH scholars translated the scriptures into Greek they chose the word 'parthenos'in 286 BCE. 3) "That fact of viginity is obvious in Gen. 24:43 where `Alma' is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Issac. Also obvious Ex 3:8, Song. 6:8 refers to three types of women, two of whom are called queens and concubines. It could be only resonable to understand the name of the third group for which the plural of `Alma' is used." [Theological Word Book of the Old Testament pg. 672] 4) A secular definition of how a word is used may not be applicable to scripture. Let scripture interpret scripture, cf. Is. 28:9-10.
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/01/84)
I am uninterested in debating religious belief, but I am interested in linguistic questions. When the issue came up a few months ago, I suggested that parthenos is not clearly equivalent to virgin in the Alexandrian Judeo-Greek of 2100 years ago. I was told I was wrong and that parthenos was exactly equivalent to virgin. Now I looked up the word in a Greek dictionary, and I have found that the word is basically equivalent to (adolescent) girl. Therefore, I am correct. If the standard classical Greek meaning is not equivalent in range of meaning to English virgin, there is no reason to believe the JudeoGreek parthenos is equivalent to virgin. > 1) Where is the *sign* if the word is only "young woman" ? I do not want to argue religious belief, but there is no reason to assume 'ot in this verse means miracle. > 2) When the JEWISH scholars translated the scriptures into Greek they chose the word 'parthenos'in 286 BCE. Precisely because the range of meaning of JudeoGreek parthenos and Hebrew `almah are fairly close and do not imply virginity. > 3) > "That fact of viginity is obvious in Gen. 24:43 where `Alma' is used of > one who was being sought as a bride for Issac. Also obvious Ex 3:8, > Song. 6:8 refers to three types of women, two of whom are called queens > and concubines. It could be only resonable to understand the name of > the third group for which the plural of `Alma' is used." > [Theological Word Book of the Old Testament pg. 672] This passage shows a total lack of understanding of the operation of language. I would be correct to call a three-year old female a girl, this girl would probably be a virgin, but the usage does not imply the word girl means virgin. As for Song of Songs, we do not interpret it literally, but even if we did there were several different classes of married and unmarried women in ancient Jewish society (and in fact in oriental Jewish society to the present day) and the terms for these classes do not translate well into English (pilagshim does not mean concubines as I understand the meaning in English). The basic meaning of `almah is recently sexually mature female with no particular statement about sexual experience. In Palmyrene (a language closely related to Biblical Hebrew) `alamot (the word used in the verse from Song of Songs) means harlots. > 4) A secular definition of how a word is used may not be applicable to > scripture. Let scripture interpret scripture, cf. Is. 28:9-10. A linguistically meaningless statement. The books of the the bible like the wisdom literature of most religions are composed in plain direct every-day language which is not considered holy. The content has the holiness (which is an immensely bad translation of Qedushah). The Qor'an uses Arabic (it claims) because plain every-day language which the people understand is necessary to state its revelation. By the way, the Greek works of Christian scripture are not written in some recondite classical Greek dialect but in plain every-day koine. -- Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo But we can all agree on one belief -- the existence of the planets.
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (07/02/84)
Yaqim: You ever tried to read Luke and Acts if KOINE is your meat and drink. That, at least is pretty literary and recondite sledding. No argument with the general mention, though. Hebrews is pretty bad too, but I suspect that's because I'm somewhat ignorant of the conventions of Judaic scholarship and rhetoric..... Thanks for the news, Greg ________________________________________________________________________________ ad hoc, ad loc, gtaylor@cornell pro quid, pro quo: Gregory Taylor o so little time, Theorynet (Theoryknot) o so much to know. 607-273-0535x261 ooo ________________________________________________________________________________