[B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)

Albert Pietersma albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Wed Jan 6 13:04:10 EST 2010


On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:14 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Albert Pietersma" <albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca 
> >
> To: "Iver Larsen" <iver_larsen at sil.org>
> Cc: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>; "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org 
> >
> Sent: 5. januar 2010 21:21
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH  
> (turning)
>
>
> While from a Hebrew lexicographical perspective one would certainly
> want examine the three passages in which TShQH occurs, I don't think
> it is particularly relevant for APOSTROFH. Instead, one might better
> look at the nineteen occurrences of APOSTROFH in the LXX.
> -----------------------
> IL: My interest is not in lexicography but in understanding the  
> semantic range of both the Hebrew and Greek word. LXX is a  
> translation, and therefore it is IMO not a matter of either or, but  
> both and. One should look both at the occurrences of APOSTROFH in  
> the LXX (and beyond) and at the Hebrew words this Greek word is used  
> to translate. Of course, most words have a number of possible  
> senses, and therefore the same word can be used in different  
> contexts to translate different words in another language.

> ---------------------
> AP: Agreed. My interest as well is semantic range. However, the  
> semantic range of X is not affected by the word it happens to be  
> paired with in another language. Consequently, if we want to  
> establish the semantic range of APOSTROFH we need to study it in  
> "living" contexts, i.e. contexts in which straightforward use of  
> language can be presupposed. Thus, strictly speaking, even the  
> nineteen instances of APOSTROFH in the LXX  may not provide that.  
> Agreed, words have a number of possible senses, but again no new  
> senses arise based on translation equivalence---which is not to say  
> that such equivalence cannot (in time) give rise to an  
> institutionalized new sense.

> Muraoka
> (2002) has the following entry: 1. return, comeback; 2. turning to
> somebody for companionship and intimacy. Ge 3.16; 4.7. Given the fact
> that component 2. is (apparently) solely based on the two Genesis
> passages, one may well question its lexicographical legitimacy.

> --------------------------
> IL: But component 2 only might possibly fit Gen 3.16 (although I  
> doubt it), but certainly not 4.7. So this puts an even bigger  
> question mark on it.
> I don't have Muraoka, but  the LXX lexicon I do have, suggests that  
> the normal sense of APOSTROFH is "return" or "turn away from".  
> However, for Ez 16.53 it suggests "shall turn their fortune". For  
> Gen 3.16 is suggests "inclination".
> For EPISTROFH, the same lexicon suggests: return, attention paid to,  
> conversion, turning.

>
> Based on these resources, I suggest that both 1 and 2, above are too  
> narrow and only possibly fit in certain contexts. Rather, I suggest  
> that the basic idea is to turn oneself or somthing from one location  
> or focus to another location or focus. It can apaprently be either  
> transitive or intransitive. Whether the sense is "turn to", "turn  
> away from" or "return to" is a matter of context.
AP: The problem is that no new sense (component 2.) can arise simply  
from translation equivalence. To establish a new sense (e.g.,  
component 2.) one needs to do one of two things: either one treats the  
translation equivalence as straightforward use of language (WHICH IT  
IS NOT) or one documents the new sense from non-translation  
literature. Thus Muraoka's component is invalid unless it can  
documented from non-translation literature. The lexicon you cite  
likewise seems to treat translation literature as though it were not,  
as, for that matter, does LEH.
> ----------------------------
> What seems reasonably clear is that the Genesis translator did not
> know what TShQH meant. Why, in that case, he opted for APOSTROFH is
> anybody's guess (might he be pointing back to 2:21-23??). But as far
> as we can tell, it wasn't because it suited the Greek context.
> Potentially, reception history would have field day with it, but that
> is a different story.
> Al
> --------------------------
> IL: I don't think that is reasonably clear. It is reasonably clear  
> that WE do not understand the Hebrew word very well, but I trust the  
> LXX translator had a better chance of understanding it. That is why  
> I am willing to listen to that voice, too.
AP: What makes it reasonably clear is precisely that the word he uses  
to represent the Hebrew word in the target text poorly fits the Greek  
context——unless we make it fit despite its normal semantic range. So  
what does being willing listen mean? To suppose that APOSTROFH has a  
sense it has nowhere else in straightforward usage? Isn't this  
precisely why LSJ, as is well known, contains so many senses of words  
that are only to be found in the LXX?  As I see it, we are back were  
we started. APOSTROFH in Gen 3:16 and elsewhere in the LXX should be  
read within its established semantic range.
Al
>
> Iver Larsen
>
>

—
Albert Pietersma PhD
21 Cross Street,
Weston ON Canada M9N 2B8
Email: albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Homepage: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~pietersm




More information about the B-Greek mailing list