Genesis 34:3

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 11
Joined: June 11th, 2015, 3:43 pm

Genesis 34:3

Post by Michael W Abernathy » November 2nd, 2018, 4:48 pm

καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον καὶ ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ.
Since we know from verse 2 that Dinah was raped before this, the word παρθένος doesn't fit the English meaning of the word virgin. Apart from cultic uses, did the word originally mean something like a young girl and came to mean virgin at a later date? Or is this use unusual?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
0 x



S Walch
Posts: 137
Joined: June 13th, 2011, 4:27 pm
Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by S Walch » November 2nd, 2018, 6:49 pm

I'll just post a link to LSJ for the lexical definition:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... arqe%2Fnos

Can mean "maiden, girl, virgin, unmarried woman who is not a virgin, unmarried woman, chaste, unmarried man".

Context defines meaning, as usual :)
0 x

Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 11
Joined: June 11th, 2015, 3:43 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Michael W Abernathy » November 3rd, 2018, 11:59 am

Thanks, I didn't think to check the perseus project.
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 804
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 3rd, 2018, 1:59 pm

J.W. Wevers, Notes on Genesis 1993, page 348,

Gen 24:14, cf 34:3

παρθένον translates נערה

Wevers says "virginity is presupposed" in both passages.

The problem your having is probably caused by a misreading of the narrative. You are imposing a sequential linear framework on something which didn't necessarily happen that way. καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας describes a scenario in which Συχεμ was considering Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ as a marriageable girl.


Gen. 34:2 καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὴν Συχεμ ὁ υἱὸς Εμμωρ ὁ Χορραῖος ὁ ἄρχων τῆς γῆς καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὴν ἐκοιμήθη μετ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτήν.

Gen. 34:3 καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον καὶ ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Michael W Abernathy
Posts: 11
Joined: June 11th, 2015, 3:43 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Michael W Abernathy » November 4th, 2018, 7:21 pm

You said, "The problem your having is probably caused by a misreading of the narrative. You are imposing a sequential linear framework on something which didn't necessarily happen that way. καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας describes a scenario in which Συχεμ was considering Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ as a marriageable girl."
I’m not sure I can follow your reasoning. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, The Word Biblical Commentary, and The Continental Commentary Series all interpret verse three as happening after her rape. Can you give support for your position?
0 x

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 804
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 5th, 2018, 4:13 pm

Michael W Abernathy wrote:
November 4th, 2018, 7:21 pm
You said, "The problem your having is probably caused by a misreading of the narrative. You are imposing a sequential linear framework on something which didn't necessarily happen that way. καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας describes a scenario in which Συχεμ was considering Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ as a marriageable girl."
I’m not sure I can follow your reasoning. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, The Word Biblical Commentary, and The Continental Commentary Series all interpret verse three as happening after her rape. Can you give support for your position?
Συχεμ considering Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ as a marriageable girl isn't a narrative event in the temporal sequence. It is a cognitive and/or emotional state. It is a setting for Συχεμ's request. It wouldn't precede the action of verse two because it doesn't explain the setting for verse two. I am distinguishing between clauses that are part of the narrative sequence and clauses which are qualifiers (settings) that are outside the narrative sequence.

The text presents Συχεμ as considering Δινας as a marriageable girl which explains the grounds for his request. This is independent of the facts on the ground which are irrelevant to Συχεμ's point of view leading to his request.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 804
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 5th, 2018, 5:11 pm

The syntax of v3 ...

Gen. 34:1 ¶ Ἐξῆλθεν δὲ Δινα ἡ θυγάτηρ Λειας, ἣν ἔτεκεν τῷ Ιακωβ, καταμαθεῖν τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἐγχωρίων. 34:2 καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὴν Συχεμ ὁ υἱὸς Εμμωρ ὁ Χορραῖος ὁ ἄρχων τῆς γῆς καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὴν ἐκοιμήθη μετ᾿ αὐτῆς καὶ ἐταπείνωσεν αὐτήν. 34:3 καὶ προσέσχεν τῇ ψυχῇ Δινας τῆς θυγατρὸς Ιακωβ καὶ ἠγάπησεν τὴν παρθένον καὶ ἐλάλησεν κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν τῆς παρθένου αὐτῇ.

... looks like sequential narrative but the leading clause describes a state of mind not an event and the two following clauses are manifestations of that state of mind. All of which functions as setting for the request to obtain a marriage arrangement.

Approaching the text as if τὴν παρθένον must be dis-proven as a technical term for virginity is imposing something which is contextually extraneous. Wever's claims that when παρθένον translates נערה virginity is presupposed in this context as well as Gen 24:14. No need to claim that τὴν παρθένον is a technical term for anything. That whole discussion is driven by Arianism, which has nothing to do with Gen 34. On that topic read Athanasius not Genesis.
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 804
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: Genesis 34:3

Post by Stirling Bartholomew » November 5th, 2018, 8:03 pm

While my reading of the text is open to objections, I am not alone in thinking that there is something less than obvious going on in this story. For example:

Yair Zakovitch
The sequence of actions at the beginning of the story is difficult: Shechem lay with the girl and ravished her (verse 2), and only afterward became infatuated with her and sought to persuade her (verse 3).”
According to Zakovitch, later editors added the rape in verse 2b to justify the brother's violence.
Zakovitch also proposes that the editors wanted to assimilate the original story to two biblical texts: the story of the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13) and Jacob’s curse of his two sons (Genesis 49:5-7). Accordingly, the changes resulted in a contrived version in which rape explains the fraternal violence. In contrast, the original story did not contain “the rape element”. It reported only “Shechem’s innocent attraction to Dinah and Jacob’s sons’ treacherous exploitation of the situation in order to plunder the city”.

What “Really” Happened to Dinah, Susanne Scholz

http://www.lectio.unibe.ch/01_2/s.htm
0 x
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply