Question on Genesis 34:3 LXX
Barry Hofstetter
nebarry at earthlink.net
Wed Nov 6 07:41:33 EST 2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 5:36 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Question on Genesis 34:3 LXX
Comments and further discussion below:
Dr. Ann Nyland is quoted as saying:
>>PARQENOS, "unmarried woman/girl", "girl of marriageable age" not parthenios,
PARQENIOS, "virgin" (of either gender). PARQENOS carries no connotation of
virginity. For PARQENOS clearly as girl oif marriageable age, see IG XIV
(1890) 1648 ll. 1-10. See also discussion of the word in Spicq, NLNT
111.516-25 which provides a number of documentary references. See also
discussion in G.R. Horsley, (not the American Horsley) New Documents
Illustrating Early Christianity, Vol. 4., p. 222. Sure, virginity may have
been expected, but the word does not require that connotation, and bear in
mind that most girls were married at the age of 12-14. People seem upset by
this simple lexical fact, but to put their minds at rest, the rest of the
text does make it clear that Mary was a virgin - she is quoted as saying
that to the angel. In other words, translating the text correctly doesn't
take away from Mary herself saying she is a virgin. However, the Greek word
PARQENOS does not say that.<<
There is no doubt that PARQENOS has a semantic range which, in certain contexts,
may extend to that of "a young woman of marriagable age." However, I would
argue, based on the lexical evidence, that the standard primary usage of
PARQENOS is what we mean commonly by virgin, and that the semantic overlap of
what is normally meant by NEANIS is one which requires clear contextual markers.
Of course, what complicates the LXX discussion is that we have translation
literature, which translates more than one term. The following are notes on the
subject for an article that I am preparing. I would appreciate any comments,
with the proviso that these are preliminary suggestions, not a final draft!
1. The real question is why LXX translator(s) of Isaiah would feel comfortable
translating *'almah* as *parthenos* (virgin) rather than as *neanis* (young
woman) or some other paraphrase which would capture the force of *'almah*, if
indeed the force is "young woman" as the RSV and other modern versions render
it.
2. It is rather facile simply to impute the translator with error. He shows a
fair amount of competency throughout Isaiah, and his several oddities may be
attributed to his theolgical presuppositions rather than any failure to
understand Hebrew and render it correctly into Greek. A simple error, then, is
unlikely at this point.
3. The word *neanis* appears several times elsewhere in the LXX, sufficient to
demonstrate that the word was in living speech at the times when the translation
was being produced. This suggests that the choice of *parthenos* is deliberate
rather than default in some sense.
4. I would suggest that the motivation was contextual, related to the
translator's understanding of the flow of discourse at this point. Ahaz is
asked to name a miraculous sign which the Lord may do to confirm his word. Ahaz
refuses to do so (thereby indicating unbelief on his part). In response, the
Lord, through Isaiah, assures Ahaz that he himself will give a sign, an
incontrovertable one, and a very surprising one.
5. *'almah refers to young women in general, which certainly includes virgins
in the technical sense of the word. In other words, the semantic range of the
word includes virgin, but is not restricted to that use.
6. It possible, therefore, that the translator, knowing quite will the possible
meanings or usages of *'almah*, wished to capture the suprising nature of the
prophecy, and translated *parthenos*, a meaning which the Hebrew may certainly
bear. It may be that in the local context, the woman was considered to be
virgin, and therefore everyone is surprised when she turns up pregnant.
7. Matthew knew Hebrew (there are several examples from Matthew's gospel which
indicate de novo translation). Despite this, he feels comfortable with the LXX
rendering of the passage, and uses it. Why? It very neatly accords with
Matthew's theological purpose in his description of the actual birth of
Jesus....
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
Fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te...
-- Augustine, Confessions 1:1
http://home.earthlink.net/~nebarry
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list