Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

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