And, again, non-virgins can have sexless conceptions just as easily as virgins can, making this point irrelevant.
No, it is not irrelevant, it is corroborative with the other evidence, just as a christian would consider the fact that Mary's conception of Jesus was allegedly non-sexual to be corroborative with the fact that she had previously been called a parthenos to try and deduce that she's meant to be viewed as a virgin mother.
In fact, that's the point of the miracle really, that sex was not needed to conceive Jesus, her alleged virginity just emphasizes that such is the case, seems it's her virginity that compliments her miraculous pregnancy, not vice-versa, her non-sexual pregnancy is not being used to supplement her status as a virgin. The point being, Christ's non-sexual conception is more important to the story than Mary's status as a virgin.
And such is also the case in the conception of Horus, the authors of the early version of the tales, and the artists of the relevant depictions, clearly went out of their way to show that Isis's ba is what gets pregnant while her body stands off to the side in order to emphasize the fact that she did not physically copulate with Osiris. Given the fact that she is demonstrated to be a virgin mother at Sais & Abydos, this leads to the succinct conclusion that one of the reasons, if not the only or most important reason, was in order to preserve Isis's virginity. The nature of Horus's conception is very relevant to whether he was virgin born or not, because if he was the product of sex, then in that version, such as some of the ones recorded by Plutarch, he would clearly not be virgin born. So your statement was wrong, this is plenty relevant. But of course, the job does not stop there, but, neither does the evidence, since her virginity must be demonstrated on top of this non-sexual birth, and it has been demonstrated, at Sais, Abydos, and the Songs papyrus.
You go on to admit that when sex cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, the most succinct conclusion is that a virgin birth is what is intended by the story teller, as in the case of Perseus's birth.
The one and only objection you've brought to the table in regards to this being the same case with Isis, is her marriage to Osiris. This has been rebutted by the fact that she calls herself the great virgin. In response to that, you exchange deduction for induction, and try to argue, against the scholarship of folks of like Botterweck, Becking, etc., that hwnt cannot mean virgin in this one and only exception, because Isis is married.
But as Vishnu pointed out to you, Botterweck demonstrated that marriage does NOT nullify the hwnt's meaning as "virgin". We saw how in Botterweck's work that even though Queen Ahmose was married, she was still a virgin because she was a hwnt. She had not yet copulated.
So yes, inspite of your hair splitting attempts to try and distance "hwnt" from "virgin" on account of a marriage, here an actual scholar(unlike ourselves) has proven that your argument does not work. Marriage does not deter hwnt from meaning virgin. And so just like Queen Ahmose, yes, as Botterweck also told us, Isis IS indeed the Great Virgin, and she said so after already having given birth to Horus. So case closed, and this refusal of yours to acknowledge the Abydos passage as the proof that it is of Isis status as both a virgin and a mother is untenable.
"Immaculate" doesn't mean "virgin", but just sinless or clean.
Incorrect. Now had you only moved that word "just" over to between "doesn't" and "mean", and then put an "also" into it's former spot, then your statement here would've been correct. As per Merriam-Webster's dictionary & thesaurus, virgin and virginal are listed as synonyms, as is clean, but sinless is not. However, I am granting that, since I too have heard immaculate used in that way as well, although that may just be a colloquial thing. But that aside, the point here is that immaculate does also include virginity.
We know full well that when immaculate is used in reference to Mary(in times prior to the invention of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, such as in the writings of Hippolytus & Methodius) it is in reference to her status as a virgin. Plus given that the same epithet there given to Isis would be given to Mary centuries later for the very reason of denoting her virgin status, Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that Isis likewise had the epithet for such a reason, given how well her virgin motherhood was established(which is indisputably
well), especially in places like Sais & Abydos.
If it meant "virgin", then calling Mary the "immaculate virgin" would be redundant, wouldn't it?
Had you clarified better with a "always" or "only" in front "meant", I might agree with this statement, and even then that would be the fault of the ones who composed the epithet. Tertullian refers to just plain ol' jane doe christians as having "immaculate virginity", plus Tertullian is writing before the development of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, he doesn't appear to even regard Mary as sinless, let alone regular john & jane does to be sinless, since we're all allegedly sinners, that being why we need Christ, as they say. So even if redundant, he is clearly not implying that these virgins are sinless by his use of "immaculate".
Did the people of Sais ever refer to Isis as a "virgin mother"?
If you mean by that explicit phrase, "virgin mother", then of course not, and same with the New Testament in regards to Mary. And likewise, same as with the New Testament, the passage is clearly intended to denote virgin motherhood inspite of the lack of such an explicit phrase as that in your question.
Do they have a variation on the Horus story in which is mother is clearly portrayed as a virgin upon his birth?
Yes, that being shown by the inscription to which we are referring. As several ancient sources have shown us, such as Plutarch, Diodorus, and even as early as Herodotus in the 5th century BC, Horus was syncretic with Apollo/Helios. It is also demonstrated in artifacts, such as the gems mentioned in this catalogue- "HORUS, as Helios, standing on a starred spheroid flanked by serpents"
, "HORUS, as Helios, in a quadriga preceded by Phosphorus"
So there's no disputing that Helios is also Horus. So the only thing left in which one could possibly try and dispute is Isis's statement that no one has uncovered her robe/lifted her veil. What do you take that to mean? That smacks of euphemism, not at all unlike the biblical euphemism "thou shalt not uncover her nakedness". uncovering the robe is clearly referencing sex, she is stating that no one has had sex with her, that she is a virgin.
"On Mankind, Their Origin and Destiny" p. 468-
The Egyptians did in fact celebrate at the winter solstice the birth of the son of Isis, and the delivery of the goddess who had brought this young child into the world, feeble and weak, and in the midst of the darkest night.
It was this child of whom the virgin Isis called herself the mother in the inscription over her temple at Sais which contained the words, "The fruit which I have begotten is the sun". This Isis of Sais has been correctly assumed by Plutarch to be the chaste Minerva[Athena], who, without fearing to lose her name of virgin, nevertheless says of herself that she is the mother of the sun.
She is the Virgin of the constellations, who is called by Eratosthenes, a learned Alexandrian, Ceres or Isis; that Isis who opened the year, and presided over the birth of the new solar revolution, and of the god of day - in a word, her in whose arms we shall soon see the symbolic child.
I said "only virgins could portray Isis", which is definitely an exclusivist statement. I'm not sure how you could possibly interpret that any other way than non-virgins were forbidden from portraying Isis.
So you didn't like my use of the word "could", but use it in your clarification?
So you clarify that you in fact did not
intend anything significant by it. Very well then. Although that is admittedly weird and unbecoming that I ended up phrasing it exactly the same way in the "rephrase". Must have had a Freudian slip of sorts. But no matter, as you have clarified that nothing in particular was being implied by that word choice.
I'm really pretty amazed that you can't see how weak this is. "Only virgins could portray Isis" does not mean that Isis herself could only have been a virgin. Is there significance that the girls who played her could only be virgins? Sure, but the significance could just as easily have been in regards to many other things.
I'm really not amazed that you continued in your pattern of obstinacy here and refused to see how weak your argument here is. You didn't even address one of the main points in this portion of my post, and it is against parsimony as it is making assumptions beyond what the text implies, i.e., your "many other things", when no such things are implied by the text. As I stated, you are engaging in special pleading here for just that one and only thing in the list of requirements. The significance of the virginity could only "as easily have been in regards to many other things" as easily as it can be the case that the girl is given the name Isis could "have been in regards to many other things", and not because this is a feature of Isis herself. You have offered no justification for why you separate the feature of virginity from the list of requirements(and understandably so, since there is no justification) and apply an ad hoc criticism to it while not applying the same criticism to the other features of the list. They COULD have named the girl Isis for any number of "other things", they COULD have just drawn letters out of a hat, and the ones picked just coincidentally happened to spell Isis. The name COULD be due to any irrelevant unsubstantiated reason you can pull out of your ass, but based on the context of the passage and the law of parsimony, the simplest explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is that these features were required because they are features of Isis herself. She is given the name Isis because Isis is Isis, that is indisputably obvious, as is the fact that she should be beautiful, and that she should be a virgin, and etc. on down the list. There is no break in the passage when it gets to the virginity requirement, no reason to make any special pleading for that one feature above any of the rest.
The most likely has to do with the fact that, per most religions,
I find this interesting that you appealed to other religions, as that once again makes you guilty of using "a completely different story" to try and bolster your applications of those stories features to this story right here. Something your previous posts tried to staunchly forbid.
virgins are considered "better" than non-virgins, being more pure and untainted.
No, the requirement to be pure was already addressed earlier in the list of the requirements distinct from the virginity stupilation, and so was clearly not the objective of listing virginity in the requirements. It says that they must be females, they must be "pure of body", and they must be virgins, and so on.
Plus the implication of what you're arguing here makes a false dichotomy. I mean, when you admit that "virgins are considered better", well, yeah EXACTLY, hence Isis had this feature as well, but not merely demonstrated by this papyrus though, but also in corroboration with everything else brought up so far.
So when choosing someone to play the goddess Isis, they're basically "offering their very best" to the goddess, instead of casting someone who they would consider inferior. Do I know this to be the case? No, I just came up with that. But it seems just as likely, if not more so, as the idea that it means Isis herself was a virgin.
Again, another false dichotomy. The succinct "idea that it mean Isis herself was a virgin"(and that Isis herself was named Isis, etc.) wouldn't exclude the religious sacredness of these requirements. The very fact that they are in emulation of a goddess would seem to indicate that, yeah, they are trying to offer their best. There just really is no apparent dichotomy here between these two things as your statement seems to want to imply.
Casting someone who they would consider superior would be a part of offering their best to Isis, stands no reason from the text why this would not be the case.
For instance, while your allowing appeals to "completely separate stories", i.e., other religions, as I pointed out last time, in literature I've read, catholic monks and nuns take vows of celibacy in emulation of (their perception of)Christ himself. And their emulation of him is a very part of their efforts to offer their best to him. There just really isn't any dichotomy here at all. There just doesn't stand any reason why emulating your deity for religious purposes would be exclusive and not inclusive of an attempt to offer your best to said deity.
the choices involved in who will portray a role can relate to factors other than the character itself
Something never denied or argued against. It is simply that such factors are not stated in the Songs papyrus's list of requirements, the requirements clearly have correlation to Isis herself, there is no justification for making exceptions to this for the feature of virginity, and so the fact you point out here is not the case with the requirements listed in this text.
But there are many things we do know for sure about Isis, and were significant. Per mythology, she's a mother and a wife. That much is without question.
And in some versions she is a virgin mother. That much is without question.
So, if they were trying to cast someone who had a lot in common with Isis, it seems more logical to use a married woman with a child, rather than a virgin.
Even if Isis was believed to be a virgin mother who was married (which doesn't seem to be the case), casting a virgin fulfills only one of those three items. Casting a married mother would fulfill two.
Again, this was already covered when I addressed how things not required were clearly of no consequence. Had they required she have the same hair color as Isis, then that would fulfill three, and had they required her to have the same eye color, that would fulfill four, and so on. But they clearly weren't trying to just score high numbers on some meticulous checklist, numbers were not what was important.
These other details were obviously not listed because they did not matter. Eye color, Hair color, husband, children, were clearly not of any consequence to the authors. And hair color in particular did not matter since the girls were told to wear wigs made of long ram's wool. Anyway, the details listed clearly were of consequence to the authors and clearly in emulation of Isis.
She is named Isis because Isis is named Isis.
She has to be a female because Isis is a female.
She has to wear wig of long flowing ruffled ram's wool because the text states that Isis & Nephthys are the two girls with flowing ruffled hair, and the usage of their hair is significant to the story, since it describes how Isis & Nephthys show their mourning of Osiris by tying the curls of their hair into knots/braids, and later on it describes how they used their hair to clean the torn pieces of Osiris's corpse.
Clearly this requirement for them to name themselves Isis and to wear wigs of hair resembling the description of Isis's hair is because these ARE attributes Isis, and attributes which play a significant role in the story, unlike any other meticulous details not listed which are clearly of no consequence.
And there is no reason to think anything less of any of the other requirements in the list.
"Per mythology", she's named Isis. That much is without question. At Sais and Abydos, she is a virgin(in spite of being a mother). That much is without question. So finding these two details listed as requirements for portraying Isis comes as no surprise and Occam's razor leads us to the firm conclusion that these are to be understood as attributes of Isis herself, including the virginity, which is made all the more undeniable by the fact that the text itself, as well as other texts(and even supported by Herodotus), let us know that these rituals of the mourning of Isis for Osiris took place in...SAIS
. The very place where the aforementioned temple to Isis bears the inscription of Isis herself claiming to be both a virgin and a mother. So, although you appear to have repealed your prohibition against corroborating "completely different stories" from different places, even if such a ludicrous stipulation were to be humored, that is not the case here. Isis called herself a virgin mother in Sais, her rituals for mourning Osiris took place in Sais, the Songs of Isis & Nephthys mentions in passing that it's rituals are taking place in Sais, so when this same text has Isis depicted as a virgin, Occam's Razor points out to us how things things are corroborative and further supports the fact that this requirement in the Songs text is put there, just like its other requirements, because these were understood to be attributes of Isis.
But getting back to your statement that including a married woman with a kid would've outscored a virgin, the text reveals to us why they did not cast someone who already had a kid, and so no, a married mother with children would have only fulfilled ONE attribute of Isis that a virgin(most likely) could not, thus would only be tied with virgin at 1-1. But as I said, scoring points was clearly not the objective of the requirements.
A woman who already had a kid would not have properly corresponded to Isis for these particular rituals, because within the narrative of these songs, the birth of Horus occurs. That's only part of the story though, not it's central plot. The main plot is the mourning for Osiris, then the collection of his pieces and reassembling him, and then trying to raise him from the dead. These texts also reaffirm the belief that Osiris was reborn in Horus as Budge confirms. In particular, Column 13 has Isis & Nephthys pleading for the deceased Osiris to return to them and to his temple, during which time the birth of Horus occurs, indicating to us that their request for Osiris to return was fulfilled in Horus, for he is born again and lives on in his son. Throughout the songs Isis prophesied of all the great things Horus will do that are typical of his mythos, i.e., defeat Seth, become king, raise Osiris, etc.
Anyway, the point is, as the ritual begins, Isis has not yet had child. Horus has not yet been born. His birth takes place during the course of the ritual, during which, btw, intercourse is never even alluded to, and Isis & Nepthys are given the titles of birds, and based on the artistic depictions of the conception of Horus, we know why, because, as the Pyramid Texts also tell us, it was Isis's ba, Sothis, in the form of a bird, that conceives Horus.(Perhaps that's part of the reason why Horus has a bird's head).
This text of the Songs papyrus is highly corroborative with everything else we know about this scenario. And most of all, it is corroborative with Isis herself claiming to be a virgin mother in Sais.
So it's unlikely that the "virginity" clause related to any idea of Isis being a virgin,
Only as unlikely as giving her the name Isis is related to any idea of Isis being named Isis, or giving a wig of ruffled long flowing hair is related to the fact that Isis has the same ruffled long flowing hair which she uses to clean Osiris's corpse, etc., etc.
but rather to honoring Isis by casting their "purest" actresses in the role.
Same false dichotomy already addressed above, plus the requirement that she be pure is listed in the list distinct from the requirement that she be a virgin.
No, you're missing my point once again. I'm simply saying that the choosing of a role CAN relate to factors other than "similarity with the character".
No, I didn't miss that point, that point missed any relevancy to the papyrus, and as I have already more than sufficiently demonstrated, and as the text conspicuously clear about- those required features correlated to Isis herself. So that fact that other instances of portayal have not abided by such is inapplicable to this text's requirements. But what you have entirely failed to demonstrate, against the conspicuously clear implications of the text, is any justification for your special pleading for singling out virginity from the rest of the list.
Many times, a specific actor is chosen for a role because they're an actor popular with audiences, and thus guaranteed to bring in a bigger take at the box office. Does that mean that the character in the movie is popular with audiences, and thus guaranteed to bring in a bigger take at the box office?
When did I say, or suggest, that the similarities are "of no consequence"? All I'm saying is that similarities with characters aren't the only factor in choosing an actor or actress for a role.
But here's a good question - why hire Kirsten Dunst in particular, rather than a natural redhead who looks more like Mary Jane, of which I'm sure there are many? Probably because Dunst was popular with audiences based on her earlier movies, which is, obviously, a dissimilarity with Mary Jane herself, who was an obscure, struggling actress.
Irrelevant based on what has already been addressed above. You continue to want to try and swing this papyrus towards theater instead of religious ritual. They weren't trying to break box office records or win an Oscar or make a good film, etc.
Yes, because the audience would have no way of knowing this fact
Such a statement leads me to deduce that you either haven't seen Superman Returns or other Kate Bosworth films, or at the very least, not a good quality version, and/or you saw it but just didn't pay attention to it, and/or just don't know what heterochromia is.
just as the audience for the Isis plays would have no way of knowing whether the actress portraying her was a virgin or not.
And with that statement you have revealed that you have lost the plot. There was no audience here. This was not a "play", and there was no "audience", the text gives no indication of anyone else being present other than the participants. And given this is a religious ceremony taking place in a temple, it's reasonable to think that priests and priestesses would have had some role in it as well. These were the mourning rituals for Osiris afterall, a major religious observance. In fact, the text tells us these rituals took place on what is in our calendar, December 25th to the 29th. So this was really like their Christimas, in a manner of speaking. This did not have some audience like that in a play, you keep trying to turn this thing into a theatrical perfrmance and use theatrical language like play and actress, when really this is just not the case. They weren't "acting" as Isis in kind of theatrical sense anymore than the Pharoahs of the Pyramid Texts "acted" as Horus, Osiris, or Ra.
Thus the virginity requirement was most likely for a reason that has no bearing on the audience itself,
Agreed, since, as just stated, there was no "audience", they weren't putting on a performance to entertain a crowd, or to do anything for a crowd. These things were done in worship of the gods, and especially Isis & Osiris in this case. These weren't put on for approval of some audience anymore than the Mithraic Mysteries or the Cybele Mysteries were done for the sake of an audience, since Faulkner says of this papyrus that these were part of the Osirian Mysteries. There is no indication that there was ever an "audience" for any of these rituals, other than those who served in some capacity in the ritual itself. And to liken that to an audience for a theatrical play or movie is painting with a brush so wide it doesn't even fit on the canvas. And even the participants being taken into consideration, the rituals were not being done for their entertainment or whatever, it was being done to worship their gods.
such as simply "offering their best" for the role, out of honor for Isis herself.
Already addressed further above.
The actress playing Mary Jane in "Spiderman" is required to be a female because Mary Jane is a female. She is required to be a redhead (even if it's a dye job) because Mary Jane is a redhead. She is required to be an actress who is popular with movie audiences and thus will bring in a bigger take at the box office because...um...Mary Jane is an actress who is popular with audiences and thus will bring in a bigger take at the box office? Nope.
Nope indeed, as this was already addressed further above, and is grasping at straws.
Just because some factors required for the role relate directly to the character being portrayed, it doesn't mean that all of them do.
Already addressed further above as well.
Indeed, and this was never the argument. You have yet to demonstrate any justification for your special pleading for this one and only attribute on the list in the face of corroborative evidence and logical parsimony. And this lack of justification is to be expected, since there is none.
For Mary, we have the authors specifically saying that Mary and Joseph were abstinent until after Jesus' birth, making it as obvious as it could possibly be that they're intending to relate to their reader that Mary was a virgin. We have nothing similar for Isis.
Incorrect, we do have something similar for Isis, which has been referenced here time and again.
This isn't a case of special pleading. If we had a version of the Isis/Horus story in which the authors were clearly trying to relay to their reader that Isis and Osiris were abstinent after marriage, then you'd have made your point
Which we do have, and so my point has been made, time and again. At Sais(both Isis's temple and from the Songs Papyrus) and Abydos we have the texts demontrating that she is both a virgin and a mother. And as Botterweck demonstrated to us from an Egpytian primary source, marriage does not deter hwnt from meaning virginity/abstinence, and Queen Ahmose was a virgin inspite of being married, and Botterwekc tells us we know this because she was a hwnt.
If you could find me a version of the Horus story in which Isis and Osiris didn't have sex, I wouldn't arguing, "well...maybe she had sex with Ra instead".
Indeed you wouldn't have argued that since Isis is not having Ra's kid, but Mary IS having Jehovah's kid, and so your attempted analogy here does not correspond and makes it all the more transparent that you are engaging in kettle logic.
Sex between Isis and Ra is not suggested, any more than sex between Mary and Jehovah is.
It sure is suggested more, for the reason already mentioned above. Isis is not having Ra's kid, and in fact she has no interaction with Ra at all during that scenario in any text I've ever read. But Mary IS having Jeohavah's kid. Your flawed analogy does not correspond. And it's interesting that you acknowledge through this statement that just having a kid with someone is not indicative of sexual intercourse between them, neither for Mary & Jehovah nor Isis & Osiris. The only thing you've ever been able to try and bring to the table was the fact of their marriage, but Isis being a virgin mother at Sais and in the Songs, and being a virgin mother at Abydos nullifies that as any kind of contention, as does the case of Queen Ahmose being a virgin/hwnt in spite of being married. And so the one and only thing you even had to try and argue against Isis virgin motherhood doesn't even work. You've got nothing. Her statements concerning her virgin motherhood remain validated.
The Gospel authors were clearly relaying the idea that Mary was a virgin upon Jesus' birth. I see nothing in ancient writings giving the idea that Isis was a virgin upon Horus' birth.
Then you have not seen the inscription at Sais, the Songs of Isis & Nephthys, or plate 9 from Seti's temple in Abydos.
The difference is that Osiris was married to Isis, thus sex between them is strongly suggested.
Jehovah was not married to Mary, thus sex between them is not suggested at all.
Again, you acknowledge that having someone's kid does not suggest sex at all. But you have yet to acknowledge the same in regards to marriage it's failure to suggest sex at all, especially in the cases of Queen of Ahmose, Isis, in which we have explicit statements letting us know they were virgins in spite of marriage, and in Mary's case in which we have strong implication that she was too.
And the only reason you could even say something so counter-intuitive such as having someone's baby does not suggest sex at all, is because you have removed this scenario from human experience, and into the realm of the supernatural in which the constraints of human experience are removed and pretty much anything is possible thus there is no apriori bias to be had.
And yet, the only evidence that supports your claim that marriage is a strong suggestion of having had sex is... human experience. Here, in regards to divinities, you have distanced pregnancy from what we observe in human experience, i.e., pregnancy ONLY ever happens by sex(before the invention of artificial means), yet you have refused to likewise distance marriage from what we observe in human experience, but rather have maintained the evidence of human experience in regards to marriage in order maintain your apriori bias. And in such, your double standard is revealed.
If it's pregnancy- sex being our only means to produce that just doesn't count, and sex "is not suggested at all", but if it's marriage, oh yeah, that one's okay, we can appeal to the record of human experience on that one.
Nah, there's no evident justification for this special pleading of yours. Though true to form for you.
Why not, though? Without it, we obviously have nothing telling us that Isis was a virgin upon Horus' birth.
Incorrect. Even without an explicit statement of "Osiris knew not Isis until after Horus was born", we still have all the aforementioned things, the inscription at Sais, and at Abydos, etc.
The problem is that your "Jehovah" example only calls Mary's virginity into question. Let's say, hypothetically, that the Gospel authors WERE intending for us to believe that Mary and Jehovah had sex (which we both seem to believe isn't the case). Ummm...okay, now what about Isis and Osiris? Is there anything in their story suggesting they didn't have sex?
Yep. Isis's virgin motherhood, proven by all the things reference previously in this post.
Nope. We still don't have anything similar to Matthew 1:25, and thus we don't have anything suggesting that Isis was a virgin upon Horus' birth.
Incorrect. We do have other things suggesting it, all of which have been referenced earlier, time and again.
Except for the fact that she’s married, which, obviously, implies that she had sex. Sex an marriage go together like a horse and carriage, to paraphrase ol' blue eyes. Unless the text specifically says the couple was abstinent after marriage, you would never just assume it.
The double standard here has already been exposed above. Pregnancy and sex go together like a penis and vagina as well, and yet you've never claimed that unless the text specifically says the couple having the baby was abstinent, you would never just assume it. And you have just assumed it for Jehovah and Mary.
But that aside, we do have the proof of her abstinence by way of her statements that she is a virgin mother.
Of course it can. You point this out in your own video, that it's been translated as "lass", "damsel" and "maiden", none of which have the exact same meaning as "virgin". Yes, they're all synonyms for "virgin", but that doesn't mean that they have the exact same meaning. It only means that their definitions are similar enough that the terms can mean the same thing in a given context.
And the terms are all used in the SAME given context, and hence they mean the same thing, that is WHY the various translators can use the various word to translate the same passage, because none of the meaning is lost. Otherwise, they are doing just that, changing the meaning of the text. Hence no meaning is lost when Faulkner translates the Pyramid Text phrase as Great Maiden while Botterweck translated it as Great Virgin. Yet that is what you tried to argue from the outset with your whole "hwnt is also maiden" thing, you were trying to pass it off as if the meaning should be different, when, as you just conceded here, they are synonyms and "mean the SAME thing in a given context", this given context being, Utterance 389 from the Pyramid Texts. Synonyms can only be interchangeable when the meanings in their definitions overlap. And the place in which the definitions of virgin and maiden overlap is in regards to sexual abstinence-
But sexual abstinence is not the only place where almah, bethulah, and parthenos overlap with each other, they also all three extend beyond that to women who have engaged in sex, either by getting laid by Heracles, raped by invading armies, or are examples of adulterous women. Yet sexual abstinence IS the ONLY place where these three words overlap with hwnt, as there has yet to be such a case demonstrated in which hwnt means someone who has engaged in sex. As the Vishnu fellow pointed out to you, or rather, as scholar Johannes Botterweck pointed out to you, hwnt is the absolute best word in Egyptian to denote virginity and even denotes virginity in the face of marriage.
No, "maiden" doesn't mean virgin, since virgins are always virgins, and maidens, while frequently virgins, aren't necessarily. To say that one word is a synonym for another doesn't mean that they have the same meaning. For example, "gossip" and "repeat" are synonyms for each other, but that doesn't mean that they have the exact same meaning.
Yes, maiden does mean virgin, as already demonstrated above, and even you concede "their definitions are similar enough that the terms can mean the SAME thing in a given context", this is still the same given context, thus they mean the same thing. You are hyperextending what was argued. It was never put forward that synonyms always mean the same thing universally irrespective of the context. But given that our discussion of hwnt has never veered off of context, that much should have gone without saying. But with as often as you have lost the plot on sub points through out this exchange, it comes as no surprise that you did the same here.
They don’t, though. You seem to think that if one word is a synonym for the other, then they must mean the exact same thing, which isn’t the case. Lasses and damsels aren’t necessarily virgins, though they often are, which is why they are synonyms.
Already addressed above, and, EXACTLY, it is only in those times when "they often are" virgins that they can be interchangable with virgins. It is where they overlap that no meaning is lost in interchanging them. Hence no meaning is lost from Botterweck's translation as "virgin" to Mercer's "damsel" and so on. This "damsel" in the Pyramid Texts IS a virgin, afterall she cannot copulate and only got pregnant by lightning or moon light. Same with Botterweck's translation of the Abydos passage, which is the ONLY English translation I've seen. If someone were to come along and translate it as maiden, no meaning is lost or changed since they are synonyms. Should someone come along and translate it as "whore" or "loose" or "easy", or anything at all that is not synonymous with virgin, THEN we have a problem. But so far, no problem, no meaning is lost from virgin to maiden. Hwnt is still virgin, and has yet to demonstrated to mean otherwise.
You're right, actually. But that's only because I thought you understood what a synonym was. I was wrong. Apparently, you think if one word is a synonym for another, then they mean the exact same thing.
You're wrong, actually, that is not what I think or have ever put forward, as already expounded upon above.
If it can be translated the same way, sometimes as "virgin" and sometimes as "damsel", etc., then the idea that it can ONLY mean "virgin" is incorrect. This means that it's a word with the same properties as a, b and p, referring to the same type of women.
Already expounded upon above. Virgin is more exclusive than damsel, as you go on to say something similar, a damsel can be a virgin or non-virgin, but a virgin can never be a non-virgin. Hence for damsel to be interchangable with virgin and no meaning be lost, then the part of damsel's definition that is being invoked by it's usage can only be the definition that matches with virgin. Hence Luke 1:27's parthenos could be translated as a virgin or maiden or damsel and no meaning is lost. But in a case of a parthenos that has been raped for instance, cannot be translated as damsel OR virgin, as the meaning WOULD get lost in translation.
But alas, we have no such instance of a hwnt getting raped, or getting laid at all. Hence, as it stands now, hwnt only means virgin and thus can only properly be translated as such or some synonym thereof.
As is hwn't, since it's sometimes translated to words like damsel, lass and maiden, which don't necessarily mean "virgin".
No, not as is hwnt, since as I was clearly contrasting there, I never "went beyond" that with hwnt, only with almah, bethulah, and parthenos as they are the only ones here that even can go beyond that. And I even demonstrated that they only go beyond just virgin NOT on account of being translated as maiden, damsel, etc., but on account of actually being able to demonstrate cases that with no ambiguity have these nouns engaging in sexual activity. This was never done with hwnt. Again you have confused yourself about what was said.
Damsel, lass, and maiden DO necessarily mean virgin when it is the situation that they are interchanged with virgin, for, as stated, a virgin can NOT ever mean a non-virgin. It is damsel, lass, and maiden that must step down to where virgin is, virgin cannot step outside it's boundaries to include everything they also include, otherwise, meaning is lost on that word. If they are being used interchangably with virgin it is because they are accomodating to virgin's meaning, as virgin cannot do the vice-versa and ever include non-virgins.
Maiden here DOES necessarily mean virgin-
And likewise, maiden in Faulkner's Pyramid Texts DOES necessarily mean virgin, as this maiden cannot copulate and only got pregnant through non-sexual supernatural means.
And IF maiden were to be interchanged with virgin here(since it has yet to be), it too would necessarily mean virgin since virgin can never mean non-virgin, and a hwnt has yet to be shown to refer to anything other than a virgin, as Botterweck has demontrated. Not even marriage was able to change that fact.
Actually, you did when you pointed out that it's sometimes translated as "lass", "damsel" and "maiden", words which don't necessarily refer to virginity.
No, I did not, as just addressed above.
Huh? You think that all women who can be described as "hwn.t" must either be married or virgins?
Married OR virgins, then no, of course not, since hwnt only means virgin. No OR to it, no dichotomy there, as Queen Ahmose proves.
That it can't refer to a young woman who hasn't gotten married yet, but has engaged in premarital sex? How so?
Yep, it cannot, and how so is because it can only ever be demonstrated to mean virgin, as Botterweck has shown.
Keep in mind that it's also translated as "damsel" and "lass", words which generally mean "young woman".
Until they are used interchangably with virgin, in which case they mean virgin, as virgin is more exclusive than just young woman. As already expounded upon above.
As have a, b and p. But they, like hwn.t, have also been translated as "damsel", "lass" and "maiden", meaning that they, like hwn't, aren't words that can only mean "virgin".
Again with this pitiful strawman. I never once argued that almah, bethulah, and parthenos can refer to non-virgins just on account of them being translated as damsel or maiden, it is because it can actually be demonstrated when a parthenos has engaged in sex, or a bethulah has been raped, etc. But this has never been demonstrated with hwnt.
Since it's been translated as "maiden", "damsel" and "lass", it clearly has non-exclusive properties. If it didn't, it would only be translated as "virgin".
No, as already addressed above. Virgin can never be a non-virgin as damsel can. Hence if they are used interchangably, it is because they accomodate to virgin, as virgin cannot do the vice-versa in regards to a non-virgin.
This maiden can never be anything other than a virgin, forever-http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5278427969_85a1e4a41d_z.jpg
Interchanging maiden with virgin does not expand virgin's meaning, it specifies which of maiden's multiple meaning is being invoked, it is making maiden more exclusive, it cannot make virgin more inclusive.
a, b and p are also applied to people who had not yet had sexual intercourse. But that doesn't mean that they ONLY apply to people who had not yet had sexual intercourse, any more than hwn.t does.
Incorrect, as alreay explained earlier, the reason why being translated as virgin "doesn't mean that they ONLY apply to people who had not yet had sexual intercourse" is because it can be demonstrated in no ambiguous terms that a parthenos has slept with Heracles or Ares, or that a bethulah has been raped, or that an almah is an example of an adulterous woman, etc. No such thing has ever been demonstrated of hwnt. It's only ever been used to denote virginity, in particular, fertile virginity, as Botterweck notes, hence a virgin too young to have kids would not be a hwnt inspite of being a virgin. So in that respect, hwnt is even more exclusive than the English word virgin, as Botterweck notes, just biological virginity is not enough to get in this club, pre-pubescent virgins need not apply.
Yet, as we read on, we see that she is married and has a kid.
Just like Mary. And married, just like the virgin/hwnt Queen Ahmose. You yourself even earlier conceded, just because a chick has someone's kid, "sex between them is not suggested at all."
Pregnancy doesn't suggest sex at all.
And Ahmose proves marriage is not sufficient to deter the fact that hwnt means virgin.
Normally, when faced with a word that could be translated as "damsel" or "lass", we would say "okay, obviously that word back on plate 9 isn't referring to biological virginity in this case". But, instead, mythicists say "well, she must be a virgin anyway!"
Already addressed above. Damsel or lass could only even be made interchangable with virgin when it's meaning as "virgin" is the meaning being invoked. A virgin can never mean a lass who is not a virgin, but a lass can mean a virgin who is a virgin. Moreover, damsel or lass isn't even used to refer to Isis, it used to refer to Nut, who's virgin motherhood Osiris is inconstestable. She cannot copulate, hence she got pregnant by non sexual means, such as moon light. Hence nothing is lost in the meaning of the passage whether we read Botterweck's translation as great virgin or Faulkner's translation as great maiden, etc.
It has never been demonstrated that hwnt has ever been used for someone who has had sex.
But regarding the Abydos inscription, you can't show me other texts where Isis birthing Horus while still a virgin is implicit, giving us no reason to assume that the authors of the inscription recognized him as such.
We sure did, the inscription at Sais in which he declares herself to be a virgin and yet also mother of Helios/Horus.
And her being married and a mother does imply that Isis is not a virgin, strongly suggesting a different intention by the authors for the word "hwn.t".
No, as pointed out time and again, being married has no bearing on the fact that hwnt denotes virginity, as was the case with the married virgin/hwnt Queen Ahmose.
I'm not "making an exception", but am looking for the evidence in the first place. You're holding to "hwn.t" meaning "virgin", when it's a word that doesn't necessarily mean "virgin".
Already addressed throughout above.
No, but if she was generally seen as such, then it's a reasonable assumption. But since there's no evidence that she was generally seen as a virgin mother, it's beside the point.
Yes, there is evidence, though it's not necessary as hwnt indisputably denotes virginity even in the face of marriage. But yes, at Sais she was seen as a virgin mother.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "new narrative". I'm talking about creating facts not present in any of the above stories. For example, if in one story, a woman is seen as a virgin, and in another story, she is seen as married, you can't combine the two stories in order to say she she was a married virgin. It doesn't work that way.
Actually, yes you can, and yes it does work that way, although the Sais & Abydos inscriptions can and have stood on their own as proof of her virgin motherhood, they are simply corroborative with everything else.
But anyway, to expound upon what I just said, yes it does work that way. Different versions of stories in ancient mythology are not regarded by academia as antithetical, but rather, as corroborative, as different versions which supplement each other, even when contradictory on certain points.
And to begin here on this point, I will quote historian Prof. Elizabeth Vandiver in her Teaching Company lectures-
"Once a version of a myth is written down, it's fixed, there it is. And we, literate people, have a strong tendency to assume that that means that version is somehow the myth, the real myth, the only way the myth was ever told. But that's not how traditional tales work, in any oral setting.
I can give a clear example of what I mean by this. Everyone knows the story of Oedipus the King, how he killed his father, married his mother, without knowing who they were. When he discovered the terrible thing that he had done, after his mother hanged herself Oedipus blinded himself, went into exile, never returned home to Thebes again, right?
Well, right according to Sophocles, who wrote the play "Oedipus the King". In homer, in "The Odyssey", there's a very brief reference to Oedipus which agrees that yes, he killed his father and married his mother. Yes, his mother killed herself after the truth came out, but Oedipus, says Homer, continued to rule in Thebes many years thereafter.
Which is the "real" version of the Oedipus myth?
THEY BOTH ARE.
Sophocles version dominates our understanding of the myth because it is such a marvelous play, and because it's so famous. And this is the kind of thing we have to guard against. Often we have only one version of a myth. We have to remember there probably were others.
Occasionally a work of art preserves what is clearly a very different version from the only ones known to us by literature. There's a beautiful classical Greek painting, vase painting, of a character who is quite clearly Jason, Jason who got the golden fleece, after his voyage on the Argo.
The golden fleece is there on a tree behind Jason, the tree is guarded by a dragon. All of those elements point to the fact that this is very clearly Jason, and yet, in this painting, the dragon is either swallowing Jason, or spitting him back out again. Jason is halfway out of the dragon's mouth. His arms and head are visible outside the dragon's mouth.
In no written version of Jason's story that has survived for us, does the dragon eat Jason, or attempt to eat Jason. The whole point is that Jason is helped by Medea, who gives him magic potion so that he can overcome the dragon without being eaten. If this case painting had not survived, we would not know that there had ever been a variant in which Jason was eaten by the dragon. Because we have the painting, we know this variant existed, but that's all we know about it. We have no written description of that version of Jason's story."
And to bring this closer to our specific topic, concerning Horus, Egyptologist Edmund S. Meltzer wrote-
"The roles, local cult foundations, and titles or epithets of Horus are sometimes correlated with distinct or preferred forms in iconography: for example the falcon, the falcon headed man, the winged disk, and the child with a side-lock(sometimes in his mother's arms). Egyptologists therefore often speak of distinct, sometimes originally distinct, Horuses or Horus-gods.
Combinations, identifications, and differentiations were, however, possible for Horus, and they are COMPLIMENTARY RATHER THAN ANTITHETICAL. A judicious examination of the various Horuses and the sources relating to them supports the possibility that the roles in question are closely interrelated, and so they may be understood as different aspects, or facets, OF THE SAME DIVINE PERSONA."- The Ancient Gods Speak: A Guide to Egyptian Religion
Of course there is. The authors of the birth narratives are clearly intending to portray Mary as a virgin when she gives birth to Jesus, clearly stating that she and her husband remained abstinent while married, and giving no indication that Mary had sexual intercourse with Jehovah.
You can't say the same for Isis.
The only thing you have ever been able to try and point out as any remote possibility of indication of sex with Osiris is her marriage to him. And that has been proven to not work time and again here, as Botterweck did in the case with Ahmose.
No, it does not. They're being synonyms doesn't mean that they have the same meaning. Maidens can be non-virgins. Virgins cannot be non-virgins.
Already addressed further above.
And in Mary's case, her being abstinent until Jesus' birth is explicit in the story.
No, it is not, as already pointed out. Her being abstinent until the birth is at best implicit, never explicit to all without dicrimination. Only her abstinence with Joseph is explicit. And even if parthenos were as strong an indicator of virginity as hwnt(which I have demonstrated, it is not), she is never called a parthenos after the annunciation.
The same can't be said for Isis.
Sure it can, and has been, both at Sais, Abydos, and in the Songs papyrus.
So, by that logical, every living creature was born of a virgin. Is that what you're actually saying?
No, that's what the text is saying. I have merely pointed out to you that obvious fact of what it says.
Or do you recognize this as being like us Christians saying God is the "father of us all", not a reference to Jehovah literally being our biological father, but just the one who ultimately created us.
No, I recognize as being like how Genesis has Eve being the mother of us all. And had she born her children by parthenogenesis, it's quite easy for her to have been a virgin mother to everyone. Much like Gaia, which, given the Hellenistic nature of this inscription, it seems to bear influence from this image of Gaia as the mother of all, especially as per Hesiod's version since he explicitly states she gave a virgin birth to her first three children, though after that she took up sex, but what is relevant is her being the first female from whom all things living have descended and that she did have parthenogenesis, and we see this same idea having been transferred to Isis here in Sais. But moreover, as I mentioned, and was the point of that portion of my post, she gives special emphasis to Helios, who by way of syncretism, is also Horus, whom we know Isis did not just "ultimately create", she biologically gave birth to him, as she even makes reference to in inscription, "the fruit I bore". Fact remains, this inscription has been identified as Isis, this inscription makes it clear that she is a virgin, and this inscription makes it clear that she has given birth to Helios(or Horus the Elder, pick your flavor), hence she is indisputably a virgin mother here.
Sure, and the idea that Isis never had sex with Osiris before Horus' birth doesn't mean that she didn't have sex with someone else.
And our position here has never been exclusive to just sex with Osiris, as the definition of hwnt or virgin has never been exclusive to just abstinence from Osiris. Not would her statement that no one has lifted her veil be exclusive to just Osiris.
But unfortunately for Mary, Matthew 1:25 is just exclusive to Joseph.
And also unfortanely for Mary, parthenos is more ambiguous than hwnt, and thus fails us in indicating that she was completely abstinent, unlike hwnt does for Isis.
But if you can show me that she didn't have sex with Osiris, and no other lover for her is implicit in the text, then I'll agree that she is, per the text, a virgin mother.
Sure, as shown to you many times- "Ever memorable should be the inscription at the base of the statue of the Egyptian Isis at Sais: "I am the goddess Isis, the Mother of all the living. No man hath lifted my veil, and the fruit I bore was Helios."
"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: 'I am the great virgin'."
Hwnt does not make exceptions for who the hwnt is abstinent from. Unfortunately, parthenos doesn't indicate absitence at all, but has been used to refer to women who can be demonstrated to have already had sex. Such a thing has yet to be demonstrated of hwnt.
I don't need unambiguous explicit evidence for Isis, just something showing that the authors intended to portray her as a virgin mother, exactly as we have for Mary.
Which you have received time and again, portrayed as a virgin, while assisting Seti alongside her full grown son-"In a text in the Abydos Temple of Seti I, Isis herself declares: 'I am the great virgin'."
Virgin + her child=virgin mother.
That would be interesting, but if you're making an analogy to my challenge, it doesn't fit. I'm not asking for texts that leave zero room for misinterpretation or misunderstanding, just texts where the authors' intentions are clear.
Which you have received time and again, and referenced above, yet you have indeed tried your best to "misinterpret" and "misunderstand" them, in spite of how unambiguous they are.
Well, that was rather tedious and less than enjoyable. I'm not sure how much time I can keep devoting to such long exchanges in text format. So as far as the 'last word' goes, you can go ahead and have it. I've kind of grown weary of such drawn out back & forth and it has become abundantly apparent that neither side can produce anything sufficient to satisfy the other, so I'm going to just agree to disagree at this point and go ahead and punch out.