Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

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!