파르테노스와 네아니스 논쟁에 관한 성찰

Abstract

It has been pointed out that the Greek translation of “parthenos” from the Hebrew “almah” is a misguided one which does not capture the original meaning of virgin. Many Korean scholars like Gangnam Oh and Young-ok Kim as well as foreign scholars such as David Strauss, Bart Ehrmann, and John Spong have claimed and purported that the Greek translation of almah to parthenos was a partially incorrect one. When the notion of immaculate conception, or to put it rightly, when the natality of Jesus came into human consciousness, Christianity had to produce subsequent notions like the Trinity. Trinitarianism is but a derivation and extension of the false and entangled notion of virgin itself, the original meaning of which is “capable of giving births” or productive. The recent argument of Guilia Sissa (1990) indicates that in ancient Greece parthenos meant “the girl innocent of love and the unmarried mother... nothing but a designation of social position or ‘civil status,’” or someone “who seems to be one, outside of any legal cohabitation” (342, 347). Paul Wegner (2011) supports Sissa’s argument differently when he says that in Hebrew and its cognate Aramic language “bethula”(biological virgin in the modern sense) does not mean “virgo intacta,” or untouched virgin (473-476). Contrary to the arguments which advocate that the right word for Hebrew almah is neanis, not parthenos, the socio-textual investigation of the Bible itself shows us that parthenos is actually the right translation for almah, if we agree to the fact that parthenos is the one who cohabitated out of wedlock. The dichotomy of virgin and whore does not work any more, hence the need to demystify the Virgin cult and its exoteric femme fatale phenomenon. Now we can say there is no such thing as virgin or whore because all women have always been “virgin” (productive) regardless of whether sexually committed/experienced or not.