[B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Jan 7 00:37:49 EST 2010
You did not interact with my suggestion for the semantic range, but clarified
your rejection of Muraoka and also questioned LEH. Are you also unhappy with
LSJ? Is "recourse" and "attention" listed there or where did the NETS get those
from? Which APOSTROFAI (resources) should we turn to?
Can you explain to us the semantic range of APOSTROFH?
Iver Larsen
----- 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: 6. januar 2010 21:04
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list