B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:00 am Karl,
I forgot to ask you something. Do you think parthenos meant virgin only or it could be used about non-virgins too?

Didn’t Jason already answer that question, when he wrote, “In earlier Greek, παρθένος was simply a synonym of κόρη, meaning “girl.” ”? The LXX is earlier Greek by centuries compared to the New Testament.

Karl W. Randolph.

Jason Hare wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:35 am

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:04 am

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:46 am Karl,
Just for interest, the Septuagint translates Isaiah 62:5 as a young man will marry a virgin.

The last I looked, translations are not evidence in this forum. The LXX is a translation. Therefore, it’s not evidence.

Karl W. Randolph.

Summary dismissal isn’t evidence, either.

To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:22 pm

Jason Hare wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 3:35 am

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:04 am
The last I looked, translations are not evidence in this forum. The LXX is a translation. Therefore, it’s not evidence.

Karl W. Randolph.

Summary dismissal isn’t evidence, either.

To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I would agree with those translations being evidence, but they are translations and they are from a long time after the originals were written, so I would not see them as "witnesses" like people call them. "Witnesses" don't show up a thousand years after an event.

Jason Hare wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:23 am

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:59 am What I find odd is that you focus on this action, while ignoring the linguistic evidence.

Please, share it with me. I don’t know what linguistic evidence you’re referring to. If you demonstrate that בְּתוּלָה doesn’t mean virgo intacta (and Isaiah 62:5 was not a great attempt at proving that), it does not mean by default that עַלְמָה takes on that meaning. It could be that there is no Hebrew word that bears that meaning per se. You’d need to demonstrate two parts: (1) that בְּתוּלָה doesn’t mean “virgin” when used non-metaphorically; and, (2) that עַלְמָה necessarily refers to a virgin in its various uses.

I also mentioned Joel 1:8 where בתחלה refers to a young widow.

Jason Hare wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 5:23 am How do you understand Proverbs 30:18–19?

שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה הֵ֭מָּה נִפְלְא֣וּ מִמֶּ֑נִּי
וְ֝אַרְבָּעָ֗[ה] לֹ֣א יְדַעְתִּֽים׃
דֶּ֤רֶךְ הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר ׀ בַּשָּׁמַיִם֮
דֶּ֥רֶךְ נָחָ֗שׁ עֲלֵ֫י צ֥וּר
דֶּֽרֶךְ־אֳנִיָּ֥ה בְלֶב־יָ֑ם
וְדֶ֖רֶךְ גֶּ֣בֶר בְּעַלְמָֽה׃

What do all four of these things have in common? Specifically, what is the דֶ֫רֶךְ גֶּ֫בֶר בְּעַלְמָה that is similar to the other three?

What do the first three have in common? That their next moves are unknown, and unknowable.
• A bird of prey can be lazily soaring in a thermal, then make a sudden, unexpected turn when it spots prey.
• A snake on bare rock casts about from side to side, looking for the slightest bump to use to propel itself forward. It is completely unpredictable which bump it will find and deem sufficient for movement, unknown and unknowable.
• A sailing ship sailing in the winds is subject to unexpected gusts from unexpected directions that can spin the ship into unexpected directions, unknown and unknowable.
• So what does the future hold for anyone? Unknown and unknowable.

I already pointed to the grammatical pattern that a feminine derivative from a root can indicate an abstract concept, in this case, “the unknown”.

Karl W. Randolph.

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:22 pm
To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I would agree with those translations being evidence, but they are translations and they are from a long time after the originals were written, so I would not see them as "witnesses" like people call them. "Witnesses" don't show up a thousand years after an event.

Hey, Kenneth, you contradict yourself. First you claim that the LXX is evidence, then here you say that it is not.

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:49 pm

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:22 pm
To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I would agree with those translations being evidence, but they are translations and they are from a long time after the originals were written, so I would not see them as "witnesses" like people call them. "Witnesses" don't show up a thousand years after an event.

Karl,
In a legal case, you have evidence and you have witnesses. For some reason, they call translations witnesses. I consider them to be evidence, but I hate how they are called witnesses because they are not really witnesses. They are not from that time, but from hundreds or a thousand years later. Evidence is something that shows the possibility of what it originally said in Biblical Hebrew. I think a witness would be if the translation was made at the time of the original.

Hey, Kenneth, you contradict yourself. First you claim that the LXX is evidence, then here you say that it is not.

Karl W. Randolph.

I messed this one up and did it again.

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:49 pm

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:37 pm

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:22 pm
To be consistent, then you’ll have to admit that the evidence from translations, including the LXX, Vulgate, etc., is that כארי in Psalm 22:17 is a typo, that the real word should be כארו.

Karl W. Randolph.

I would agree with those translations being evidence, but they are translations and they are from a long time after the originals were written, so I would not see them as "witnesses" like people call them. "Witnesses" don't show up a thousand years after an event.

Hey, Kenneth, you contradict yourself. First you claim that the LXX is evidence, then here you say that it is not.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,
In a legal case, you have evidence and you have witnesses. For some reason, they call translations witnesses. I consider them to be evidence, but I hate how they are called witnesses because they are not really witnesses. They are not from that time, but from hundreds or a thousand years later. Evidence is something that shows the possibility of what it originally said in Biblical Hebrew. I think a witness would be if the translation was made at the time of the original.

kwrandolph wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 1:16 pm

Kenneth Greifer wrote: Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:00 am Karl,
I forgot to ask you something. Do you think parthenos meant virgin only or it could be used about non-virgins too?

Didn’t Jason already answer that question, when he wrote, “In earlier Greek, παρθένος was simply a synonym of κόρη, meaning “girl.” ”? The LXX is earlier Greek by centuries compared to the New Testament.

Karl W. Randolph.

So I guess you are saying that in the Septuagint, when it said "virgin", they translated it as "girl"?

I will just quickly note that I do not think Joel 1:8 or Isaiah 62:5 nullifies the clear evidence that bəṯūlāh was a techincal term for "virgin." I am with Christophe Rico on this when he thinks that ‘almāh is distinct from bəṯūlāh in stressing the youth of the virgin.

Karl,
Do you know of any commentary that agrees with your explanation that the young man will marry (will husband) a woman (non-virgin) with "husband" meaning he will be a husband to a woman in an ongoing way? I have a feeling that this explanation is unique to you. It seems like every translation and commentary says that a young man will marry a virgin. Have you ever read this explanation anywhere or is this just your own opinion?