From: RHutchin@aol.com
Date: Fri Apr 13 2001 - 18:15:57 EDT
In a message dated 4/13/01 12:47:43 PM, dwashbur@nyx.net writes:
<< > Roger wrote--
> I agree.  There is the assumption of virginity.  However, does the term 
convey  the certainty of virginity?  On this point, the articles I have read 
all seem to waffle.  Almah may imply virginity but it does not guarantee it.
DWashburn
I think this is a non-issue.  If there is the cultural assumption of 
virginity built into the word's usage, why is it necessary for us to try 
and demand linguistic certainty as well?  Linguistic meaning 
doesn't happen in a vacuum; cultural factors affect semantics 
thoroughly, in fact it could be argued that words mean what they 
mean because a society chooses to use them that way and there's 
no such thing as an "inherent meaning." .....If, in 
that culture, a "young woman of marriageable age" was assumed 
to be a virgin if she ever hoped to gain a husband, then it would 
seem that virginity is at least implicitly guaranteed in the word's 
usage.  
RH
I agree, but it seems that there are cases where almah is used when a girl is 
not a virgin, thus the inability to outright conclude that almah explicitly 
means that the girl is a virgin.
+++
> RH
So, let's charge Mr. Washburn with the task of translating Is 7:14 into 
Greek. Further,  let's require that he do so in a way that conveys the idea 
that the virginity of the almah is a certainty and not just to be assumed.  
How would he translate Is 7:14?  Would he consider the text in Matthew  
sufficient to accomplish this purpose or would he think that a different 
translation is required ?
DWashburn
Why reinvent the wheel?  The LXX and Matthew's renderings are 
good enough for me.  The question, if there is one (see above) 
seems more one of emphasis; was Isaiah out to emphasize the 
woman's youth, her singleness, her virginity, what?.....Matthew was obviously 
emphasizing virginity, but even if Isaiah was emphasizing the fact 
that the woman was unmarried, the implication of virginity is still 
there because that's how the culture understood the word.  No 
problem, no need for another translation.  As I said, if one looks at 
the word in its cultural context, this is a non-issue.
RH
I agree that Matthew was emphasizing virginity and that led him to use 
PARQENOS.  While we agree on the cultural context, I am not sure that the 
translator always has words available to convey that context.  Some people 
allege that the use of PARQENOS amounts to a mistranslation.  My thinking is 
that it was not intended to be a direct translation of almah, but that it was 
selected to emphasize a specific aspect of almah (i.e., the virginity of the 
almah).   I agree with you.  I just want to be sure that the technical 
details of Greek translation also agree.
Roger Hutchinson
RHutchin@AOL.com
 >>
--- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 18:40:24 EST