As I mentioned before, Judaisms views of chastity do not mesh with Christians views of chastity. “Consecrated virgin” is a Christian term that would make no sense to the Jews of the period. However, this does not mean that the Jews didn’t have very complex ideas on the subject.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4263-chastity
But in turn, this places odd constraints on those Christian authors after the fact, trying to explain foreign ideas in Christian terms, to a Christian audience unfamiliar with the Jewish concepts.
No, 'consecrated virgin' is a pagan concept, which is where it's foundation lies (see 'Vestal Virgins').
But in turn, this places odd constraints on those Christian authors after the fact, trying to explain foreign ideas in Christian terms, to a Christian audience unfamiliar with the Jewish concepts.
No, one of the unique hallmarks of the House of YHWH is that novelty is *not* permitted. Since there is no evidence of 'consecrated virgins' in the Early Church whatsoever (except in spurious works, falsely attributed to that time), one can readily rely on the introduction of such a thing as bowing to syncretism, something the Roman church has a peculiar penchant for, and something which YHWH hates passionately.
The reliance upon spurious invention where there is otherwise a paucity of proof should be a big clue.