Does anyone have an explanation why the word “παρθένον” is used here in this context where it means a young woman(and not virgin too) “נערָ”?
because to my knowledge parthenos means virgin > ..
You are correct in your assertion.
Recently I have found myself in the middle of a study of the Masoretic text. Here is what I see:
I am of the opinion that the Oldest Reliable text is the LXX. It was the Masoretic Text that changed the meaning or added to it when speaking of Parthenos. I do not believe that it was always understood as a young woman but the older texts clearly point to “virgin”.
The Masoretes seemed to be interested in one thing and that was to have a Hebrew Text. Since Christianity was in full swing their bias away from Christianity influenced their interpretation of the older texts.
There is still a problem that I didn’t understand, the problem is within the Greek translation .. if you read the verses from 1 - 3 as I posted them above, you will read in verse 2 particularly that Shechem raped her
1 Now Dinah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land.
2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and raped her.
3 His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob; he loved the [parthenon] and spoke tenderly to her.
So disregarding the Hebrew text, there is still a problem in explaining how Shechem raped her and she remained her virginity (parthenon).
There are some references in L&S (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.52:8:159.lsj) to places where παρθένος is used of non-virgins, which you might like to track down. To me it seems that the word was like the (archaic) English “maid(en)”, which implies but does not entail virginity.
Although, in later Greek the word did come to explicitly mean virgin, but going by the LXX there, it didn’t seem to have reached that point yet.
I would definitely agree with this. In the early part of the Koine, παρθένος had not yet shifted to refer specifically to a virgin. It was used just like נַעֲרָה* (naʕará) and עַלְמָה (ʕalmá) and בְּתוּלָה (btulá) in Hebrew. The statement that a girl was a virgin had to be added in an explanatory phrase, such as “who has not known a man” or “who has not known the lying of a man (מִשְׁכַּב־זָכָר - mishkav zahar).” None of these terms referred to virgo intacta, though בְּתוּלָה (btulá) came closest and eventually became the Hebrew term for “virgin.” At least, that’s how I find things.
Notice that the difference exists even in the Tanakh, however, where the word בְּתוּלִים (btulím) means “(signs of) virginity” while נְעוּרוֹת (neʕurót) and נְעוּרִים (neʕurím) both mean “youth, childhood, boyhood,” similar to יַלְדוּת (yaldút). I don’t think there’s a noticeable difference (to an English speaker) among נַעֲרָה (naʕará) and עַלְמָה (ʕalmá) and יַלְדָה (yaldá).
Regards,
Jason
The form quoted from Genesis is a common defective form in the Torah, in which the final heh (a mater lectionis most commonly representing the final -á of a feminine noun, adjective or verb) is simply dropped. This leaves the form נַעֲרָ rather than נַעֲרָה, though they are both pronounced the same. In the above transcription, the symbol ʕ represents the sound of the letter ʕayin (ע), which is generally pronounced the same as alef (א) among Ashkenazim and Westerners, though among most Sefaradim it maintains its quality as a separate fricative sound, much the same as the Arabic ʕayin (ع).
Interesting. from my limited knowledge of biblical hebrew, the vowels were later added, and would not have appeared in the original text. So without the ‘he’ in the original, aren’t we simply left with a young man, rather than a young woman?
Correct that the form נער is normally used of boys (LOL), but two things: (1) there was an oral tradition about how to read the word in these contexts; and, (2) the context has agreement clues (adjectives and verbal forms that bear feminine forms that agree with נערה rather than נער). Know what I mean?
I fully agree with the fact that parthenos means a marriageable girl both in Classical Greek and in the book of Genesis. I also agree with the fact that it had the meaning of ‘virgin’ in the other instances of this word in the Greek Bible, mainly because it was systematically used to translate betulah. With respect to 'almah, the word meant a ‘young virgin’: that is the meaning given several times in their commentaries by Rashi, Ben Gershon and other Rabbis from the Middle Ages. The difference between betulah and 'almah is that the latter word adds the idea of youth.
Recently I have found myself in the middle of a study of the Masoretic text. Here is what I see:
I am of the opinion that the Oldest Reliable text is the LXX. It was the Masoretic Text that changed the meaning or added to it when speaking of Parthenos. I do not believe that it was always understood as a young woman but the older texts clearly point to “virgin”.
The Masoretes seemed to be interested in one thing and that was to have a Hebrew Text. Since Christianity was in full swing their bias away from Christianity influenced their interpretation of the older texts.
So it appears that GTM is using this discussion as an opportunity to rehash the old, discredited, extreme Christian claim that the Jews falsified the Biblical text in order to hide the passages that supposedly prophesied about Jesus.
Good thing this isn’t a theology forum, or we might end up with an argument on our hands.
While GTM might argue about the vocalic structure of the MT, it is certain that the consonantal structure at least of the text of the Torah was not at any point shifted at this time. The consonants read נער, and there’s no other way to understand the word in this verse. It very clearly means naʕará, no matter if GTM believes the Massoretes shifted vowels around to avoid admitting the obvious truth about his religious leader. I don’t see how any argument can move these things around.
Jason
P.S. I do have a theologically-inclined discussion forum if anyone would like to take this there.
Thanks!