Re: Parthenos

On Sun, 25 Sep 1994, Larry Swain wrote:
> For starters, I am not convinced that Matthew did "misinterpret" a LXX 
> version of Is. 7.14.  I think that he deliberatly interpreted it.  

Could you clarify that, please?
> You are correct in pointing out that in many, perhaps even the majority 
> of occurrances, parthenos appears synonymous with neanis, occasionally 
> being used to describe a sexual state or marital state.  IN short, a 
> discussion of the meaning of parthenos will depend on the context.  Since 
> Genesis 34 was brought up-parthenos is used twice to refer to Dinah-once 
> before the rape and once after.  I
do not think that "virgin" is the best 
> translation for Is. 7.14. 

Nor do I.

 I do think that it is a necessary translation 
> for Mt 1.23 because of the care that Matthew takes in pointing out Mary's 
> sexual purity in the eyes of the Law, that Jesus is not Joseph's son but 
> Mary's, that at the very least this conception is sanctioned by the 
> HS-and imho, ( I read MT 1.1 as referring to Genesis) caused by the HS 
> referring us back to Gen 1.2 and 2.7, and that Joseph did not "know" her 
> until after Jesus' birth all add up to Matt saying that in Jesus we have 
> a virginal conception which fulfills this piece of scripture, which Mt 
> would then have probably read as "virgin" rather than just young girl.

Would you say that Matthew's reading "virgin" is the result of linguistic
change--resulting, for example, in Trypho the Jew's comment that the word
in Isaiah 7:14 is not properly _parthenos_ but rather _neanis_?  Or would
you say it is a deliberate interpretation to fit a given theological format?

Follow-Ups: References: