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: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Tory Thorpe" <torythrp AT yahoo.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Definite Article 7:14
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:28:05 -0700

Tory:

The Greek word parthenos referred not only to a person who was a
virgin, but also to "virginity", the state of being a virgin. So while
we cannot read the minds of the translators of the LXX, they way they
used the word in this verse is not necessarily an indication that they
considered parthenos as being other than a reference to virgin(ity).

The Hebrew original is clearer what happened. Thus this can be an
example of a poor translation rather than proof of language use.

Karl W. Randolph.

On 7/15/07, Tory Thorpe <torythrp AT yahoo.com> wrote:
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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page