spin

First let me say that it is rather sus that a theophoric name uses only an abbreviation. Look at all the other nations in the fertile crescent,

Tikulti-Ninurta (Ninurta = an Assyrian god)
Marduk-apal-iddina (Marduk)
Hadad-ezer (Hadad [Syria] = Addu [Ugarit])
Niqmaddu (Addu)
Montu-hotep (Montu)

In all cultures which use theophoric names it is unusual to contract the theophoric element.

The name may have ended as YHWH, but it would seem likely to me that it was once YHW and many Hebrew names feature this as the theophoric element, eg Isaiah or, better, Yisa-yahu. Names from Khirbet el-Qom were YHW names, while names from Kunitllet Ajrud were names with Samarian YW theophoric, though at this latter the name of the deity appears to be YHWH, but that may only be appearance, for the consort of this god was '$RTH (Ashratu = Asherah), with the final sound, HEH, being unaccounted for; it just may be the same ending on YHWH, so we really may have absolute names YHW and '$RH*, with the same unidentified suffix on both.

Whatever the case it is unusual that the theophoric is an abbreviation of the name of the deity rather than the full version.


spin

* This is the normal Hebrew feminine form and the -T- of '$RTH is a feminine ending before a suffix.

spin

The most times parQenos is a translation of BTWLH (virgin), eg

Jdg 19:24 parQenos = BTWLH

but a number of times it is also translated as N`R, as in

Gen 24:55 parQenos = N`R (from N`RH)


You'll find N`R being translated:

in English as damsel, maidservant, bondwoman, virgin and also male forms.

in Greek as pais, paidiskh, parQenos and also male forms.

Deut 22:20-21 shows that N`R cannot be thought of under normal circumstances as "virgin" because this damsel had lost her signs of virginity.

I think we should be able to conclude that parQenos = N`R indicates that parQenos doesn't necessarily mean "virgin".


spin

Haran

In this case in Genesis, it is pretty obvious that Rebekah is probably a virgin, especially since she is not yet married. Also, this same root is translated a verse of two latter as paida (i.e. "girl-child").

Otherwise, as you note: The most times parQenos is a translation of BTWLH (virgin)

The root actually means, approximately, "youth". If the word takes on a feminine ending, it means "maiden", "damsel", etc. It takes on a "male form" with a masculine ending.

Same thing as above for the male forms. Why does this matter?

Wait, though. This girl who has lost her virginity is referred to in the Septuagint as a "neanis" (i.e. young woman) not as a parthenos (i.e. virgin). The translators of the Septuagint knew the difference and used the technical term for virginity here.

To strengthen the case for a parthenos being a virgin, what is the very word used in this verse to technically indicate her "virginity"? Hint: parthenia

Here is the verse:
NIV If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's (neanis translates N(RH) virginity (parthenia translates BTWLYM) can be found,

So, this verse shows quite well that the translators of the Septuagint knew the difference, because they correctly translated the Hebrew form of "bethulah" (i.e. BTWLYM, here meaning virginity) into the Greek as "parthenia" (i.e. virginity) and the term for "young woman" in Hebrew, N(RH, into Greek as neanis (i.e. both mean young woman).

We should be cautious and mostly conservative in what we conclude with respect to parthenos, for the main bolded definition of the word in most respected Greek lexicons (such as BDAG) is one who has never engaged in sexual intercourse, virgin, chaste. And the definition of the associated word, parthenia is of being a virgin, virginity.

Amlodhi

Hello Haran,

Yes, technically this is correct. However, for practical purposes it doesn't change things.

The only other stems that wouldn't require a prefix and/or suffix are the intensive stems "Pi'el" and "Pu'el".

While "Pi'el" can be active (or sometimes causative) it's only attribute is as an intensifier, i.e.:

שָבַר (Qal) - he broke

שִבֵר (Pi'el) - he shattered

Thus, it is not grammatically justified to infer "Pi'el" here, as if to indicate that: "she intensely conceived"; though Doctor X may have some comments.

The "Pu'el" form is passive:

הִלֵל (Qal) - he praised

הֻלַל - (Pu'el) - he was praised

Thus, use of the Pu'el form would indicate "she was conceived" rather then "she has conceived".

Of course there are also the infinitive and imperative forms. However, neither of these can even begin to fit grammatically.

I don't deny that there are some complexities involved. But because the grammatical form is almost certainly Qal perfect, it should be seen as indicating a completed action. This also corresponds to the BDB & HALOT listing of this term as being used in an adjectival form, i.e., the Qal perfect verb "she has conceived" = the adjectival (pregnant woman).

Ergo, my frustration, because it should be a completed action in both Judges 13:5 and Isaiah 7:14, it is listed in the "completed action" or adjectival form in the top lexicons, I have heard no credible reason why it should not be translated as a completed action (textually or contextually) and yet, the majority of English translations translate this term in the future tense. AAARRGH!

It is interesting to note also that if (as I think it should be), HRH indicates a completed action, that effectively disqualifies Maher-shalal-hash-baz from being the child cited in Isaiah 7:14.

The Jews seem to think that the enigmatic child of Isaiah 7:14 is Hezekiah. This could have some intriguing support. First off, though Isaiah's oracle is given for the "house of David", it is Ahaz that he is addressing. In the KJV, Isaiah 7:14b has the phrase:

Is. 7:14b (KJV) ". . .and shall call his name Immanuel."

In the Hebrew the phrase "and shall call" is וְקָרָאת . The KJV omits the personal pronoun inherent in the verbal form. This is because it has been considered that this is an "idem preterit" (referring to something that was formerly mentioned). In this case, the formerly mentioned item is taken to be the almah. But it could equally be a reference to Ahaz himself.

The JPS TaNaKH translates this term as "Let her name him Immanuel".

Without pointing or presupposition (either way), however, וקראת can be either 2nd person masc., 2nd person fem. or 3rd person fem.

If it is the 2nd person masc. that actually is implied here, then this would refer to Ahaz to whom Isaiah was speaking. IOW, Isaiah would be saying to Ahaz, "Look, the young woman (possibly one of Ahaz's wifes or concubines) is pregnant and she will bear a son, and you will call his name Immanuel. This, in turn, would imply that the child of Isaiah 7:14 was indeed Ahaz's son Hezekiah.

With this in mind, it is further interesting to note that according to Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, this phrase in Isaiah 7:14 reads " . . . and thou shalt call his name . . .", which would indicate Ahaz.

And what may prove even more interesting to you is that the LXX also reads: "and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel."

Hence, the Jewish tradition: Isaiah is speaking to Ahaz, Qal verbal form "Look the woman is with child", she shall bear a son, thou (you, Ahaz) shall call his name Immanuel.

This tradition also equates Hezekiah's name with Immanuel. As mentioned before, Immanuel means "God is with us" in the sense of "protecting", "aiding" or perhaps "strengthening". Thus, Hezekiah (Strengthened of Jah) or (God is my strength).

Interesting food for thought.


Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amlodhi

Hi spin,

Just to be sure I understand you correctly, you're saying that theophoric names that appear to incorporate a shortened form of YHWH are, instead, reflecting a time when the actual name of the Hebrew God was YHW and that these theophoric constructions persisted despite the later unexplained addition of the "H" suffix to YHW. Do I have this right?

If so, it is an interesting conjecture. One that I have not looked into or even considered before.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Haran

Thanks, Amlohdi. I'm not sure I'm ready to handle the next controversial part of the verse though! At least not right now.

Anyway, I looked up a website that I remember from past visits. It is a translation of and commentary on the Great Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll. The translator shares some thoughts on why the future tense is used on the Isaiah 7-8 page. I'm not sure this is the theory that all translators subscribe to in this verse, but it is interesting to note.

Simply, a verb earlier in this section is definitely in the future tense and is supposed to set the context for translating the rest of the verbs. I understand using context, but I'm not sure I completely agree that all verbs should be translated future tense because of it in this case, but I could be wrong. I still think there's more to it. Otherwise, I can't make sense of so many translations both modern and ancient using a future tense verb.

{P.S. - Please check your email. Thanks.}

Amlodhi

Hello Haran,

I could not receive your email because I changed my address when I switched to DSL and hadn't yet updated my profile. I have registered my current email address now, so perhaps you will try to message me again.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Haran

Done.

spin

You've got my conjecture right. If I recall, at Elephantine it is also only YHW as well.


spin

spin

You're being naughty. You'll find that it is used indifferently. Incidentally it should be the feminine version which takes on the female form N`RH, but look at Gen 24:16 which uses both N`R and BTWLH in the one sentence, the latter being a qualification of the former, so the term N`R contains in itself no idea of virginity, yet it is still translated as parQenos.

Completeness.

The verse was given to show how N`R is used. Once that is clear, we can go back to parQenos to understand the range of meaning it contains, but I grant you the preponderant idea is related to virginity.


spin