Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: dwashbur AT nyx.net
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:25:32 -0700



On 16 Jul 2007 at 1:03, Tory Thorpe wrote:

> On Jul 15, 2007, at 10:52 PM, Harold Holmyard wrote:
>

> >>> The Jews who translated the Septuagint in 200 B.C.E. or so evidently
> >>> felt that the word implied a
> >>> virgin.
> >>
> >> False. The "Jews" who created the LXX did not restrict the meaning of
> >> PARQENOS to physical virgins (cf. Gen. xxxiv 3). So you cannot say it
> >> implies physical virginity in Isa. vii 14 even in the Greek version.
> >
> > HH: Yes, there are exceptional cases with PARQENOS, but the word
> > generally means virgin...
>
> But then the word evidently did not have this generic meaning for the
> Alexandrian Jewish translators working in the 3rd century BCE. What
> you said was that the "Jews" who created the LXX felt the word almah
> implied a physical virgin. The example from Gen. xxxiv 3 (and
> elsewhere) shows that you cannot make that deductive leap.

How does Gen 34:3 suggest any lack of physical virginity? Are you basing
this idea on the
fact that PARQENOS in that verse translates NA(AR in Hebrew? I have no idea
what your
point is from this verse, or how it "shows" anything.

Dave Washburn
But I can't say Sylvester, George!




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page