Gen 4:23

[Michael W Abernathy]

I was reading Genesis 4:23 and the usual English translation made me wonder if this was a passage that would support the “causal εἰς.” Genesis 4:23 εἶπεν δὲ Λάμεχ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ γυναιξίν
Ἀδὰ καὶ Σελλά, ἀκούσατέ μου τῆς φωνῆς·
γυναῖκες Λάμεχ, ἐνωτίσασθέ μου τοὺς λόγους·
ὅτι ἄνδρα ἀπέκτεινα εἰς τραῦμα ἐμοί,
καὶ νεανίσκον εἰς μώλωπα ἐμοί·

The NASB translates this as, “Lamech said to his wives, ‘Adah and Zillah, Listen to my voice, You wives of Lamech, Give heed to my speech, For I have killed a man for wounding me; And a boy for striking me;

Then I checked Rashi’s translation, “Now Lemech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him).”
I’m not sure the Greek can support this translation. Am I missing something?

[Barry Hofstetter]

All the translations you mention are based on the Hebrew. We can of course discuss what the Greek of the LXX means, and how that shows the translator's understanding of the Hebrew, but the translations and Rashi all work with the Hebrew.

[Michael W Abernathy]

Sorry, I should have been clearer and stuck to the Greek. I was writing because I don’t generally accept the causal εἰς but it appeared that Genesis 4:23 might support that use.
Accept for giving τραῦμα and μώλωπα a metaphorical meaning, Brenton translates this in a way that is closer to what I expect.
“And Lamech said to his wives, Ada and Sella, Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech, consider my words, because I have slain a man to my sorrow and a youth to my grief.”
Are there other possibilities I am not taking into account?

[Ken M. Penner]

Besides Brenton, have you checked other LXX translations such as NETS or LES or Brayford (Brill)? Or Wevers’ Notes?

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
wives of Lamech, give ear to my words,
because I killed a man for a wound to me
and a young man for a bruise to me,
because sevenfold revenge has been given to Cain,
but from Lamech seventy times seven.”

Now Lamech said to his own wives:
“Ada and Sella, hear my voice;
you wives of Lamech, listen to my words,
because I have killed a man for a wound to me,
and a young man for a welt to me,
because seven times vengeance has been exacted by Kain,
but by Lamech seventy times seven.”

Ada and Sella, listen to my voice;
Wives of Lamech, pay attention to my words;
Because I killed a man for my wounds,
And a young man for my bruises;
24 Because Kain has been avenged seven times,
But Lamech seventy times seven.

Gen 4.24.jpg (147.96 KiB) Viewed 15215 times

Gen 4.24 notes.jpg (39.17 KiB) Viewed 15214 times

[Stephen Carlson]

Perhaps to stir the pot a bit, but what's the difference between causal and final (purpose)?

[Ken M. Penner]

what's the difference between causal and final (purpose)?

Causes happen beforehand; purposes happen afterward.

[Stephen Carlson]

what's the difference between causal and final (purpose)?

Causes happen beforehand; purposes happen afterward.

But the purpose is formulated prior to the action, no?

[Ken M. Penner]

Perhaps to stir the pot a bit, but what's the difference between causal and final (purpose)?

"I killed a man because I got wounded" would be causal.
"I killed a man in order (for me) to get wounded" would be final. Yes, the purpose (getting wounded) was formulated before the killing, but it happened afterward.

[Daniel Semler]

Perhaps to stir the pot a bit, but what's the difference between causal and final (purpose)?

"I killed a man because I got wounded" would be causal.
"I killed a man in order (for me) to get wounded" would be final. Yes, the purpose (getting wounded) was formulated before the killing, but it happened afterward.

Hi Ken (and Stephen), I am probably having problems with your somewhat odd example - one would not normally I think kill someone in order to be wounded but rather to avoid it. Nonetheless, "happened afterward" doesn't make sense to me. If it was the reason the act was undertaken rather than post-facto spin as it were, then the intent precedes the action. Now if there was no conscious intent but nevertheless purpose (which I'm having trouble with without some ultimate agent and manipulation of an intermediary) then I'm not so sure.

All that to say, I accept that cause and purpose may differ (I suspect that they can also be the same in some cases), say in some proximate vs ultimate sense I would expect both to predate the action regardless of how the telling of the events is structured in language.

What, and it may well be a lot, am I missing ?

Thx
D

[Daniel Semler]

Ok, I think I get your example now Ken, the distinction being which clause carries the precipitating event and which the consequence.
Let me know if I'm off.

Thx
D