Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com>]

On Jul 16, 2007, at 1:25 AM, dwashbur AT nyx.net wrote:

> 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!

It's very simple. If the word PARQENOS meant only physical virginity  
to Alexandrian Jewish translators then Dinah was still a physical  
virgin even after being raped according to the Greek translation of  
Gen. xxxiv 3. Now I suppose its possible the translators may have  
felt that Dinah remained pure and that by some miracle her hymen was  
not broken; but it is painfully obvious that the usage of PARQENOS  
among Jews in the 3rd century BCE could not have been limited to  
women who never had intercourse. One simply has to keep this in mind  
when reading the Greek version of Isa. vii 14.

Tory Thorpe