[B-Greek] Gen 3:16b LXX: t'shuqah (desire) => APOSTROFH (turning)
Albert Pietersma
albert.pietersma at sympatico.ca
Thu Jan 7 11:18:27 EST 2010
Iver,
I have neither the time nor the inclination to investigate the
semantic range of of APOSTROFH. Nor, for that matter, would doing so
aid the present discussion. The point I have been trying to make is
not one of detail but one of principle. You suggested that in order to
get at the meaning of APOSTROFH, we need to study Hebrew TShWQH. I
continue to think that such an approach is erroneous and passé in LXX
studies.
Similarly, I did not rise in defense of NETS--which is not say that I
reject what the individual NETS translators did. As it happens, yes,
LSJ does in fact give "attention (paid to a person)" as a gloss for
EPISTROFH, and, yes, LSJ does in fact give "recourse" as a gloss for
APOSTROFH. But, as I am sure you agree, a specific gloss in dictionary
is scarcely the point.
What sources should we turn to? Obviously the sources we have, but as
with all sources, to use them well, we need to be aware of their
strengths and weaknesses. I do not reject Muraoka, in fact quite the
contrary. In my view, it is the best Lexicon we have and it has taken
giant strides away from the manner in which LSJ dealt with the the
LXX. But does that mean that Muraoka's lexicon has no weaknesses?
Certainly not. Neither do I reject LSJ, but its approach to the LXX is
well known and has often been criticized notably by John Lee (see e.g.
his article in Glotta more than forty years ago). Incidentally,
regarding APOSTROFH LSJ, rightly, makes no mention of any LXX
reference. Lastly, I do not reject LEH, but since I am aware of the
principles that undergird it, I make allowances and try to use it
wisely.
Al
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:37 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
> 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
>
>
—
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