> 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.