Readers of the New Testament (Christian-Greek Scriptures) know that translators commonly render hamartia as "sin." The word bears certain denotations in the LXX and NT (Isaiah 33:24; John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:21), but like any other term, hamartia gradually acquired denotations and connotations that it did not once have. Briefly studying the word illustrates why synchrony takes precedence over diachrony: one should analyze words contextually rather than impose meanings on them from outside their literary context (i.e., cotext). The fact is that words change their meaning through time.
In the famous work by Aristotle entitled Poetics, he writes: ὁ μεταξὺ ἄρα τούτων λοιπός. ἔστι δὲ τοιοῦτος ὁ μήτε ἀρετῇ διαφέρων καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ μήτε διὰ κακίαν καὶ μοχθηρίαν μεταβάλλων εἰς τὴν δυστυχίαν ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἁμαρτίαν τινά, τῶν ἐν μεγάλῃ δόξῃ ὄντων καὶ εὐτυχίᾳ, οἷον Οἰδίπους καὶ Θυέστης καὶ οἱ ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων γενῶν ἐπιφανεῖς ἄνδρες (section 1453a).
Why do protagonists in particular types of Greek tragedies undergo misfortune and pathos? Aristotle asserts that in tragedies such as Oedipus Rex or Hippolytus possibly, it is because of ἁμαρτίαν τινά committed by the protagonist: he mentions Oedipus and Thyestes as examples. But what does ἁμαρτία possibly denote in Poetics? It seems that the word does not primarily signify "a wicked or immoral act" or "missing the mark" in this case. E.R. Dodds explains that ἁμαρτία is "ambiguous." He continues by noting, "in ordinary usage it is sometimes applied to false moral judgments, sometimes to purely intellectual error--the average Greek did not make our sharp distinction between the two" ("On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex," page 38).
Dodds' analysis suggest that while it is quite possible that Oedipus' eventuality stemmed from hubris on his part or iniquity, it is equally conceivable that "sin" in the case of Oedipus refers to ignorance and faulty judgment, not rebellion or egregious transgression. Dodds supplements his prior comments as follows: "It is almost certain that Aristotle was using using ἁμαρτία here as he uses ἁμάρτημα in the Nicomachean Ethics (1135b12) and in the Rhetoric (1374b6), to mean an offence committed in ignorance of some material fact and therefore free from πονηρία or κακία" (38). If Dodds' analysis is correct, one could say that Oedipus acted without requisite knowledge; his plight was brought about by dint of nescience, not wickedness, hubris or malicious intent. Yet Oedipus committed some of the most reprehensible sins a person could commit, and he ostensibly suffered because of his deeds. But these acts possibly stemmed from his ignorance, not from malice, and this interpretation seems to be supported by the example of Thyestes alluded to in the Poetics. See Dodds, "Misunderstanding," 38.
In an article, "Responding to E. R. Dodd," Roy Glassberg seeks to correct Dodd's analysis of the Oedipus Rex and his treatment of
ἁμαρτία. While Glassberg makes a distinction between "sin" and a tragic flaw as one finds in discussions about tragedy, he argues (contra Dodds) that Oedipus commits a
ἁμαρτία in three different ways: Oedipus kills Laius and marries Jocasta, he believes that Tiresias and Creon conspire against him and he reasons that the gods can be outwitted by his smarts. Granted, all of these acts are a result of the protagonist's nescience, but Glassberg claims they qualify as ἁμαρτία all the same ("missing the mark").
This entry is not so much about trying to discern whose reading of the Oedipus Rex is correct, but I'm more interested in demonstrating the various shades of meaning that a word can bear through time.
Sources:
Aristotle. Poetics. Trans. Francis Fergusson. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961.
E. R. Dodds. "On Misunderstanding the 'Oedipus Rex'." Greece & Rome, 2nd Ser., Vol. 13, No. 1. (April 1966): pp. 37-49.
https://www.umanitoba.ca/outreach/lcmnd/e_journal/v2003_4.html
No comments:
Post a Comment