OK, and what? Are you going to argue that men in Num 4:23 and in Num 8:24, and women in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 were assigned to an nonexistent service? These assigned to service at the tabernacle per Numbers 4/8 were men. In Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women assigned to service are described using the same verbiage. So women were assigned to some service similarly to men at the tabernacle. Tabernacle is a liturgical object. Women were assigned to assist in liturgy. That is the salient point.
Ex 38 and 1Sam 2 are not assignment, but action
In Numbers 4/8 men are assigned to action צבא and in Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 women are characterized as those performing the same action צבא. While we don't know what that action is, it is connected to the tabernacle per all four occurrences.
since the law specifically and explicitly denies the service of women in the Tabernacle and in the Temple
Let is see how it does that. Note that no one is claiming that women were priests, no one is claiming they entered the very tabernacle, and Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 show that they were at its door, and therefore inside the Temple. References from Jewish tradition, moreover, show what precisely these women were doing: weaving the veil, preparing incense etc. Somehow it did not occur to whoever was writing Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch that he was describing a legal impossibility. So there. I believe the evidence in front of me, as a rational person. I understand that the implications from the evidence probably upset you, but I am appealing to your rational sense.
This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility.
Psychologize all you want, I read "κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" and conclude that these were not merely virgins set apart by their virginity but κατάκλειστοι, locked away, virgins. Otherwise the inspired author would have simply said παρθένων.
As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters
This is your speculation, not supported by the text in 2 Maccabees. On the other hand, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a) gives a rational reason for the institute of such virgins at all times: ordinary feminine work at the temple.
There is *no* reputable Jewish source which proclaims any sort of Hebrew 'vestal virgin'.
Are the asterisks around "no" make it a provable fact? We just went over such Jewish sources.
In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined.
So? Their role was different altogether.
It would be salient if it were true. The word 'tsâbâ' does not form the linkage you seem to desire. I tire of this nonsense, and will address it no longer. We disagree profoundly and completely.
Let is see how it does that. Note that no one is claiming that women were priests, no one is claiming they entered the very tabernacle, and Exodus 38:8 and 1 Samuel 2:22 show that they were at its door, and therefore inside the Temple.
The Holy of Holies was surrounded by the Sanctuary. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that, only once a year. Only the priesthood could enter the Sanctuary, where priestly duties were performed... This is the 'Temple' proper. The Sanctuary was ringed with the Court of Israel (the Court of the Men), and only Hebrew men could enter therein. The Court of Israel was ringed by the Court of the Women. This was as far as Hebrew women could go. The Court of the Women was adjacent to, or ringed by (there is some contention) the General Court, or Court of the Gentiles. This was as far as any non-Hebrew could go.
The gate you must refer to is the gate between the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel, and thereby you seem to insist that these vestal virgins were allowed to enter the Court of the Men (where no woman could go, on pain of death), which can serve no liturgical purpose. Liturgical processes were limited to the precincts of the Sanctuary, where no one but the priesthood could enter. These are courtyards, and not the Temple itself.
And btw, 'at the gate' does not mean 'inside the gate', And considering the commandment that no woman should enter therein, one would naturally presume that 'at the gate' would mean near to the gate on the proper side thereof.
References from Jewish tradition, moreover, show what precisely these women were doing: weaving the veil, preparing incense etc. Somehow it did not occur to whoever was writing Mishna Shekalim, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 Baruch that he was describing a legal impossibility. So there.
References from the traditions of Judaism, or at least those you have provided, can just as easily apply to the natural meaning of virgin in the Hebrew sense, and require no special circumstance or order, nor do they lend the credence you would require. The legal impossibility is rendered in your interpretaion thereof, rather than within the texts themselves. Ergo, as I said before, another interpretation is most definitely called for, as any interpretation which causes the commandment to be nullified, must by it's nature, be in error.
I believe the evidence in front of me, as a rational person. I understand that the implications from the evidence probably upset you, but I am appealing to your rational sense.
I am not upset. But my rational sense requires me to understand that twisting the word of YHWH to fit the desires of men is the very definition of wickedness. What I am defending is the very kernel of that word, and the commandment that it can neither be added to or taken from - As Yeshua has commanded us both to observe. When one is purposefully denying what is specifically and explicitly laid out therein, one must of a necessity retire the thought and find another way forward. Since there is no exception within the explicit thing, one cannot use the implicit thing to change it, lest anything would be allowable, and that which is precise would lose the very nature of it's precision. It must be human hubris at that point, and we are told to follow YHWH, not Man.
And I would add btw, that I have entertained your argument by allowing not only the psuedapigraphal text you begin with, and your apocryphal sources and traditions, and also allowed the traditions of Judaism... But do not think for a minute that any of them, or all of them together, can move me from the clear word of YHWH. It boils down to the explicit commandments of the Torah, which are declared immutable and eternal. But do not feel slighted - Even if an angel came down and declared otherwise, I would show him the door as well.
[roamer_1:] This idea of seclusion is imprinted in the Roman mind because of centuries of religious nobility.
Psychologize all you want, I read "κατάκλειστοι τῶν παρθένων" and conclude that these were not merely virgins set apart by their virginity but κατάκλειστοι, locked away, virgins. Otherwise the inspired author would have simply said παρθένων.
I was speaking to the seclusion, the untouchable nature you implied wrt to the High Priest, not your imaginary nuns. You had claimed these virgins had access to the High Priest as if it showed some special status they possessed. My point was that everyone had access to the High Priest unless he was going about some consecrated duty, so virgins of any kind would have that access, along with anyone else.
And I do not consider 2Mac or any tradition to be inspired.
[roamer_1:] As I suggested before, it was by no means an uncommon thing for a city to lock away their daughters
This is your speculation, not supported by the text in 2 Maccabees.
I think it every bit as supported as your reading (which is also speculation):
18: Others ran flocking out of their houses to the general supplication, because the place was like to come into contempt.
19: And the women, girt with sackcloth under their breasts, abounded in the streets, and the virgins that were kept in ran, some to the gates, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows.
20: And all, holding their hands toward heaven, made supplication.
KJV w/Apoc, Mac 3:18-20
It says 'virgins who were kept in', not 'virgins who are kept in'. 'Were' implies 'had been, but are no longer kept'.
[...] On the other hand, Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 106a) gives a rational reason for the institute of such virgins at all times: ordinary feminine work at the temple.
Right... work that can be performed by any virgin or betrothed woman. No special order is either necessary or noted. And were it noted, it would more likely be Levite women, the wives (betrothed) and daughters of the priests themselves - If one begins with a thought of celibate priests, one forgets that these priests had family and tribe, and might suppose them to be without access to females for such work - But it doesn't even say that. These virgins are the normal use of virgin, thus without implication, would naturally be daughters of the people generally.
Are the asterisks around "no" make it a provable fact? We just went over such Jewish sources.
The asterisks were for emphasis, And what you have presented from Jewish tradition is badly misinterpreted to suit your cause, else you should be able to find at least an handful of practicing Jews here on FR that agree with your argument. I would dare to say that no such testimony will be forthcoming...
So? Their role was different altogether.
So the Jewish Temple Virgins' role was to be completely hidden? That makes no sense at all... To the point of no creation of the order in the Torah, and no recognition or regulation within the Hebrew tradition? There are reams of regulation covering every aspect of Temple governance, yet not a peep about these mythical virgins? It is patently absurd.