[b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity
rosewalk at concentric.net
Mon Oct 16 00:27:46 EDT 2006
Maybe. But that would be an assumption, not the working definition.
Just as today, it is an "assumption" - but we know very well that it
is not always the case - that an unmarried woman is a virgin.
And it is only the distinction between a woman who was previously
married, whether she was widowed or divorced, and a woman who was
never married, which makes a big difference in the conditions in the
Ketuba (ie the money she is entitled to, from the groom and/or his
family, if he divorces her). No one really probes into her private
life, to determine if she is a virgin or not, in order to designate
the conditions in the Ketuba.
Also, whether or not she is a convert to Judaism - but that is a
But - if she had a child, and was never married - then they use the
word "It'ta" - which simply means "woman" - since they cannot pretend
that she is a betulta - which "assumes", as you say, that she is a
virgin. I don't remember off hand, in this case, whether the money
she is entitled to, is the same as if she had never been married, or
the same as if she had been widowed or divorced or converted - I can
look it up, not now - it's after midnight.
>In Isaiah's culture, wouldn't such a woman have been assumed to be a virgin?
>On 15 Oct 2006 at 23:34, Shoshanna Walker wrote:
>> No, alma referred to a woman who had not been married. Also today,
>> the modern word that everyone translates as virgin ie; Betula, or
>> betulta in Aramaic, refers for legal purposes in the Ketuba, marriage
>> contract, not to a virgin, but to a woman who has not been married
>> >Actually the documentaries on tv plus the museum visits I've taken allow me
>> >to assume exactly that the word "parquenos" translated "virgin"
>> >did not mean a celibate female. That idea was not even a popular
>> >consideration in those days. I didn't know the Greek word so
>>thanks for the
>> >verification. I also visited Pompeii which gave me wonderful insight into
>> >the world of the bible. In one room in the Vatican, I stood in the "Mary"
>> >room where they created the modern definition of almah/parquenos. So I
>> >can't even blame us Jews, now, can I?
>> >Just an amusing aside about my Vatican visit: I asked the Guide why the
>> >room I happened to be standing in was decorated with "magen davids". He
>> >smiled indulgently "They are not magen davids, they are six pointed stars,
>> >intertwined triangles. Triangles are an ancient symbol for
>>truth." I don't
>> >recall the name of the room, something to do with knowledge IIRC.
>> >Now that we're approaching the winter solstice season, the Maccabees books
>> >are extremely pertinent to the ambiance of the words almah/parquenos:) I
>> >think more in terms of "wild girls" which I found to be how teenage girls
>> >were considered by the Greeks and probably every other male back then:)
>> >I think people don't really read Torah today as they should.
>> >would know that there wasn't such a thing as monogamy back then and that
>> >only married women committed adultery:) Actually, the wife was a
>> >designation for inheritance only and like the top dog in the harem??
>> >Message: 1
>> >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:31:46 -0500
>> >From: "Yonah Mishael" <yonahmishael at gmail.com>
>> >Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Septuagint vs Hebrew, effect on Christianity
>> >To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> ><4b24a3090610142031h5c326199ka46a754302588701 at mail.gmail.com>
>> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> >You assume, I guess - though you didn't spell it out, that the Greek
>> >???????? PARQENOS means "virgin." In classical Greek, the word does
>> >*not* mean "virgin." It is a common word for "girl," nearly synonymous
>> >with the ???? KORH. According to the classical definition, the Greek
>> >PARQENOS and the Hebrew ???? (LMH have nearly the same semantic range.
>> >The question is what the LXX translator intended. Did he intend the
>> >reader to take PARQENOS as "maiden" or "girl" per the older meaning,
>> >or did he intend the meaning "virgin" -- which was taken from a more
>> >religious sphere, as it refered to the Vestal Virgins (who were really
>> >no virgins at all).
>> >My own supposition is that the translator of the LXX did *not* intend
>> >PARQENOS to be understood as "virgin." And the fact that they used
>> >that term does not indicate their belief or disbelief in any "virgin
>> >birth." The term is far more flexible that this.
>> >b-hebrew mailing list
>> >b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the b-hebrew