Re: "Semantic Domain" and Translating Synonyms (was: entropy)

Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 06:56:39 -0400

At 4:17 AM -0400 6/03/98, Ron Rhoades wrote:
>Edgar Foster wrote:
>>While some commentators like to emphasize the distinctions between the
>>>two words, and some would even say that they are not synonymous--there
>>>is good evidence in the Classics that MORFE and SXHMA are indeed
>>>synonymous. My point is that the CONCEPT of "external appearance" is not
>>>bound by **one word** but can be expressed by two words. Thus, Jesus
>>>outwardly appeared as God in his pre-existence; on earth he outwardly
>>>appeared as a servant.
>
>If a translation presents itself as a paraphrase that kind of work is
>acceptable. But if I stake my LIFE on it I want to know wherever a
>different word is used no matter how insignificant the translator feels
>it is. For fun I'll choose a paraphrase but for serious study I want a
>literal English translation (until I can read Greek with the same
>comprehension).
>
>As for MORFH AND SXHMA though basically they can be termed synonyms, I
>think the differences in meaning in the example you cited (Phil. 2:6-8)
>are important to note: SXHMA denoting the demeanor, nature or manner and
>MORFH the outward look, appearance or representation. The use of MORFH
>at Mark 16:12 IMO is not interchangeable with SXHMA. Jesus had a
>*different* outward appearance (MORFH) than before, but did he have a
>different (SXHMA)? In other writings the MORFH always stays the same
>however the SXHMA changes at will (a dog still looks like a dog however
>his manners can change).

There's something about the usage of MORFH in Phil 2:6-8 that has always
bothered me; I won't inflict upon the list again my views on the "Christ
Hymn" that have been aired and debated on this list several times in the
last four years: it's just always struck me as strange how confident
interpreters can be about MORFH's exact sense when it appears to me that
it's being used as something fundamental with reference to the MORFH QEOU
(this is hardly the "outward appearance" of God, I think: does God has an
"outward appearance" other than fire and cloud in tradition?) and as
something that can be put on and taking off like a suit of clothes with
reference to the MORFH ANQRWPOU.

Earlier Edgar used the words EIKWN and SKIA to refer to Platonic form and
the transient particulars in space-time; the word EIKWN is interesting in
this respect: it DOES come in Hellenistic usage to have a sort of
transcendental sense, as in Col. 1 and in Hebrews--and Philo too uses it
that way); but Plato himself seems to use EIKWN as equivalent to SKIA;
EIKWN is essentially a "likeness" or "mirror image" or "reflection"--and in
the "figure of the divided line" Plato speaks of those objects of
perception in the lower segement GENOS AISQHTON, the very leasta
intelligible of all things grasped by sense or reason, as SKIAI and
EIKWNES. At any rate, MORFH in Phil 2 is far from having any sense closely
related to that given to it and used carefully by Aristotle. I think T.S.
Eliot in the 'Quartets' said something like "Words split, crack, won't stay
put." That's not verbatim, but I think he's pretty well on target regarding
the slippery quality of language.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/