Biblical Hebrew Forum

[dwashbur AT nyx.net]

On 16 Jul 2007 at 2:07, Tory Thorpe 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.

The word PARQENOS in Gen 34:3 occurs BEFORE she was raped.  I still don't see 
your 
point.


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