Question on Genesis 34:3 LXX

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Nov 6 09:36:44 EST 2002


At 7:41 AM -0500 11/6/02, Barry Hofstetter wrote:

The original message, of course, was from George Somsel; I merely forwarded
it to the list for him.
>----- 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.

But as has already been pointed out earlier in this thread, the term
PARQENOS is used elsewhere in the LXX also of young women who are not
virgins in our strict sense of the word.

>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....

This discussion has already passed over beyond focus on Greek lexicography
to broader issues of hermeneutics and general Biblical interpretation;
these areas are OUTSIDE the legitimate scope of B-Greek discussion inasmuch
as people bring to their discussion assumptions based upon very different
perspectives and perhaps also faith-commitments.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu OR cwconrad at ioa.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list