On Apr 9, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sure, this is readily apparent to *us*, but back then any pregnancy in concert with an intact hymen would be considered miraculous.
How much knowledge of a hymen was there ca. 2K years ago, though? I mean, did anyone in Galilee even know they existed?
Uh......I would think that knowledge was universal.
What? You're suggesting that the concept of a hymen -- as well as a gynecologically safe way of examining whether a hymen was intact -- was known to the witch doctors of 2,000 years ago? If so, do you have some documentary evidence to support the suggestion?
People back then knew how to tell if a woman was a virgin and would test the question if there was any question before a marriage.
You mean the "cask of wine" test?
"If a non-virgin sits over an open cask of wine, the perfume of the wine passes through her body. The wine and can be smelled on her breath by a rabbi. On the other hand, if a virgin sits over an open cast of wine, the perfume of the wine does not pass through her body, and, naturally, a rabbi cannot smell it. Here is an account of the conversation between the bride, the groom, and the rabbi that describes the technique."
<http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_6.html>
The only other test mentioned for virginity (apart from personal affidavits) was the in/famous "bloody sheet". If it wasn't, she wasn't either, basically. But that requires a complaint to be issued -- that is, the husband (or possibly his family) has to complain because the sheet wasn't bloodied on consummation night. I'd suspect that in many cases no complaints were forthcoming, because the bloodless sheet wasn't surprising to any of the parties involved.
Ostensibly if the author in Isaiah had said "virgin", he would have meant virgin -- or else scripture can't validly be applied to modern life, since other terms would surely have drifted as much.
Besides that, of course, the word "virgin" wasn't used. There's a big difference between a young woman and a virgin.
True, but that is a separate question.
Not really, I think. If we're arguing about whether the locals would be impressed by a virgin conception, and especially since the event was tied in to Isaiah, it seems to me the wording of the Hebraic passage would be very relevant, and not at all a separate issue.
I think were are discussing multiple things in these threads.
1 Oral tradition and political influences have changed the original story and wording of scripture.
True -- and they surely did so between the penning of Isaiah and 33 AD as well. ;)
2 People can see the miraculous in mundane events when suggested to do so.
*And* when *prone* to do so. ;)
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
