Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by moon jung »

Carl, long time no see.
Thanks for the information.
But, what you quoted explains Lk 1:8, but not Lk 1:5.

Moon Jung
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by moon jung »

Carl, nice to hear from you.

Thanks for the information about LXX usage of EGENETO.

But that seems to be applied to setences like Lk 1:8-9:

8 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἱερατεύειν αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς ἐφημερίας αὐτοῦ ἔναντι τοῦ Θεοῦ, 9 κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατείας ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Κυρίου,


Lk 1:5 seems to be a different animal:
5 Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις

Perhaps are you suggesting that I can paraphrase it as follows?

It happened in the days of King Herod, there was a certain priest.

It assumes that ἱερεύς τις itself is a sentence.

Moon Jung
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by moon jung »

David and Carl,


Carl's post further pushed me and some insight ocurred to me.
It seems that we have the same grammatical structure both in Lk 1:5-6 and Lk 1:8-9.

In Lk 1:8-9, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial temporal clause relative to which ELACE ( ἔλαχε ) in 1:9 begins the main clause.
In Lk 1:5-6, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial nominal phrase, relative to which 1:6 begins the main clause.

So, both passages have the same structure, though in one passage, EGENETO introduces a temporal clause, whereas in the
other passage, EGENETO introduces a nominal phrase.

I have reached this conclusion, after I looked up an advanced Hebrew grammar book by Bruce K Walke and M O'Connor.
In p. 553 - 554, they list the Hebrew idioms that seem to correspond to both passages above.


Judges 17:1-2:


1 και εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου χιλιους

In the days when the judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land אִ֥ישׁ מֵֽהַר־ אֶפְרָ֖יִם וּשְׁמ֥וֹ מִיכָֽיְהוּ׃ 2 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאִמּ֡וֹ

1Now a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim 2said to his mother,

Ruth 1:1:


και εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη
1 וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ
In the days when the judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land

In both passages,εγενετο ( וַיְהִ֗י ) introduce settings ( temporal or character ) relative to which
further descriptions are added.

Wow. This is a sort of discovery.
What do you think?

Moon Jung
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by David Lim »

moon wrote:Carl's post further pushed me and some insight ocurred to me.
It seems that we have the same grammatical structure both in Lk 1:5-6 and Lk 1:8-9.

In Lk 1:8-9, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial temporal clause relative to which ELACE ( ἔλαχε ) in 1:9 begins the main clause.
In Lk 1:5-6, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial nominal phrase, relative to which 1:6 begins the main clause.

So, both passages have the same structure, though in one passage, EGENETO introduces a temporal clause, whereas in the
other passage, EGENETO introduces a nominal phrase.
Just what is a "circumstantial nominal phrase"? No, what I consider to be the subject of "εγενετο" in Luke 1:5 is not in any way circumstantial. Furthermore, there are countless examples of "εγενετο" used in exactly the way I described earlier:
[Gen 1:5] και εκαλεσεν ο θεος το φως ημεραν και το σκοτος εκαλεσεν νυκτα και εγενετο εσπερα και εγενετο πρωι ημερα μια
[Gen 2:7] και επλασεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον χουν απο της γης και ενεφυσησεν εις το προσωπον αυτου πνοην ζωης και εγενετο ο ανθρωπος εις ψυχην ζωσαν
[Gen 7:12] και εγενετο ο υετος επι της γης τεσσαρακοντα ημερας και τεσσαρακοντα νυκτας
[Gen 21:9] ιδουσα δε σαρρα τον υιον αγαρ της αιγυπτιας ος εγενετο τω αβρααμ παιζοντα μετα ισαακ του υιου αυτης
[Gen 47:20] και εκτησατο ιωσηφ πασαν την γην των αιγυπτιων τω φαραω απεδοντο γαρ οι αιγυπτιοι την γην αυτων τω φαραω επεκρατησεν γαρ αυτων ο λιμος και εγενετο η γη φαραω
[Mark 9:7] και εγενετο νεφελη επισκιαζουσα αυτοις και ηλθεν φωνη εκ της νεφελης ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος αυτου ακουετε
[Luke 6:49] ο δε ακουσας και μη ποιησας ομοιος εστιν ανθρωπω οικοδομησαντι οικιαν επι την γην χωρις θεμελιου η προσερρηξεν ο ποταμος και ευθεως επεσεν και εγενετο το ρηγμα της οικιας εκεινης μεγα

Circumstantial description is never by simply using the subject of "εγενετο" but by the context or by the use of other constructions.
[Luke 1:23] και εγενετο ως επλησθησαν αι ημεραι της λειτουργιας αυτου απηλθεν εις τον οικον αυτου
[Luke 1:44] ιδου γαρ ως εγενετο η φωνη του ασπασμου σου εις τα ωτα μου εσκιρτησεν το βρεφος εν αγαλλιασει εν τη κοιλια μου
[Luke 22:14] και οτε εγενετο η ωρα ανεπεσεν και οι δωδεκα αποστολοι συν αυτω

The purpose of "εγενετο" is not to tell you what is circumstantial (and in fact usually it is just the opposite), but simply to signals that what is tied to it, whether an entity (noun phrase as subject) or an event (statement), is one that has (figuratively) arisen. In contrast, the simple "ην" would be used to describe entities or states without such implication.
moon wrote:I have reached this conclusion, after I looked up an advanced Hebrew grammar book by Bruce K Walke and M O'Connor.
In p. 553 - 554, they list the Hebrew idioms that seem to correspond to both passages above.
I suggest you refrain from attempting to conclude anything about Greek just like that. In general it is hard to ascertain whether there are idioms from another language that underlie specific phrases, Similarities could be coincidental, or could be due to the content of the expression itself, rather than because of an influence of one language on another. Thus it makes good sense not to assume beforehand that there should be a similar Hebrew construction and look for one to support that assumption.
δαυιδ λιμ
Barry Hofstetter

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

moon wrote:David and Carl,


Carl's post further pushed me and some insight ocurred to me.
It seems that we have the same grammatical structure both in Lk 1:5-6 and Lk 1:8-9.

In Lk 1:8-9, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial temporal clause relative to which ELACE ( ἔλαχε ) in 1:9 begins the main clause.
In Lk 1:5-6, EGENETO introduces a circumstantial nominal phrase, relative to which 1:6 begins the main clause.

So, both passages have the same structure, though in one passage, EGENETO introduces a temporal clause, whereas in the
other passage, EGENETO introduces a nominal phrase.

I have reached this conclusion, after I looked up an advanced Hebrew grammar book by Bruce K Walke and M O'Connor.
In p. 553 - 554, they list the Hebrew idioms that seem to correspond to both passages above.


Judges 17:1-2:


1 και εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου χιλιους

In the days when the judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land אִ֥ישׁ מֵֽהַר־ אֶפְרָ֖יִם וּשְׁמ֥וֹ מִיכָֽיְהוּ׃ 2 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאִמּ֡וֹ

1Now a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim 2said to his mother,

Ruth 1:1:


και εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη
1 וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ
In the days when the judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land

In both passages,εγενετο ( וַיְהִ֗י ) introduce settings ( temporal or character ) relative to which
further descriptions are added.

Wow. This is a sort of discovery.
What do you think?

Moon Jung
Of course, we are dealing with translation literature here, and in the case of Luke, an apparently deliberate attempt to mimic the style, perhaps to make it sound more biblical and help the reader establish the connection to canonical literature. εγενετο as a translation of וַיְהִ֗י is not normal Ancient Greek. Normal written discourse would use a genitive absolute or some sort of relative subordinate clause. At the same time, a person fluent in Ancient Greek would have no problem understanding it, it would simply sound odd, much as native English speakers can understand "Money I have, ship you need" even though it's not normal English syntax.
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by moon jung »

David, thanks for the comments.

What you said makes sense. Before I modify my conclusion, let me pursue a little bit.


(1) Let's talk about LXX Judges 17:1-2 and Luth 1:1, which use εγενετο which renders Hebrew וַיְהִ֗י .
[Assuming that Luke mimics this style]
Ruth 1:1:

και εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη
1 וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ שְׁפֹ֣ט הַשֹּׁפְטִ֔ים וַיְהִ֥י רָעָ֖ב בָּאָ֑רֶץ
In the days when the judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land

Judges 17:1-2:

1 και εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου

וַֽיְהִי־ אִ֥ישׁ מֵֽהַר־ אֶפְרָ֖יִם וּשְׁמ֥וֹ מִיכָֽיְהוּ׃ 2 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לְאִמּ֡וֹ
1Now a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim 2said to his mother,


In Luth 1:1, the first εγενετο ( וַיְהִ֗י ) introduces a circumstance in which the setting [the severe famine came ( εγενετο ) upon the land] of the story is introduced.

If Judges 17:1-2 uses the same grammatical structure, "what arose" is not
ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα but ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου.

Here the author of Judges introduces a character, and the setting [ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου ]
is introduced to begin a story.

In summary, Judges 17:1-2 and Luth 1:1, εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας is parallel to ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα.

(2) You seem to think that in Ruth, εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας is complete in itself grammatically
without the following και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη:

"It" (an event) "arose" when the judges ruled; A severe famine came upon the land.

Similarly, in Judges 17:1-2, εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα
is complete in itself, without the following και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου:

A man from the mountain of ephraim "arose"; he said to his mother.


(3) If we take the parallelism between Judges 17:1-2 and Ruth 1:1 seriously, according to the Hebrew grammar book by Walki, however, in Ruth 1:1, the whole passage εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη introduces a setting. In the same way, In Judges 17:1-2 the whole passage
εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου introduces a setting.

(4) Then, In Judges 17:1-2 and Luth 1:1 εγενετο which defines a setting is a sort of dummy verb, a fixed part of
an idiom expression. So, the usage of the verb here is DIFFERENT from the usage of the verb
in
[Gen 1:5] και εκαλεσεν ο θεος το φως ημεραν και το σκοτος εκαλεσεν νυκτα και εγενετο εσπερα και εγενετο πρωι ημερα μια.

(5) But it seems that it is quite likely that the Greek speakers who are not familiar to the LXX translation style would think the way you think.

Moon Jung
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by David Lim »

moon wrote:(1) Let's talk about LXX Judges 17:1-2 and Luth 1:1, which use εγενετο which renders Hebrew וַיְהִ֗י .
[Assuming that Luke mimics this style]
If we talk about the LXX, we don't have to assume anything about Luke...

[Ruth 1:1] και εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη
[Jdg 17:1-2] και εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου χιλιους και εκατον αργυριου τους λημφθεντας σοι και εξωρκισας και ειπας εν τοις ωσιν μου ιδου το αργυριον παρ εμοι εγω ελαβον αυτο και ειπεν η μητηρ αυτου ευλογημενος ο υιος μου τω κυριω
moon wrote:In Ruth 1:1, the first εγενετο ( וַיְהִ֗י ) introduces a circumstance in which the setting [the severe famine came ( εγενετο ) upon the land] of the story is introduced.
No, "εγενετο" does not actively introduce any circumstance. "εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας" is itself an adverbial phrase, and has no need of any words to introduce it. The only reason "και εγενετο" is there is because it represents the words in the Hebrew text.
moon wrote:If Judges 17:1-2 uses the same grammatical structure, "what arose" is not ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα but ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου.
Why do you say so? The narrative describes a man arising (figuratively) out of the mountain of Ephraim (he was previously not known), whose name was Micah, and ...
moon wrote:Here the author of Judges introduces a character, and the setting [ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου ] is introduced to begin a story.
Just because all these are a background for the subsequent parts does not imply that it is circumstantial, otherwise we might as well count whole writings like Genesis as circumstantial for other writings like Exodus. If you want to talk about that, it has nothing to do with "εγενετο" but rather the context. On the other hand, if you want to talk about the syntactic constructions with "εγενετο", I won't call those phrases circumstantial because I consider any circumstantial phrase to be syntactically optional, and they aren't. On the same note, you still didn't explain what you meant by "circumstantial nominal phrase".
moon wrote:(5) But it seems that it is quite likely that the Greek speakers who are not familiar to the LXX translation style would think the way you think.
Firstly, what evidence do you have that what you claim here is true? Since the LXX is a rather literal translation, it is easy to tell on reading it that it represents something foreign. Secondly, why do you think that the LXX translation style has anything to do with the issue? As Barry said, it would simply sound odd, and doesn't imply anything much.
Last edited by Louis L Sorenson on June 20th, 2014, 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed In Luth 1:1 to Ruth 1:1
δαυιδ λιμ
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by cwconrad »

Lk 1:5 wrote:Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν θυγατέρων Ἀαρὼν καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Ἐλισάβετ.
I continue to believe that the simplest understanding of ἐγένετο here is that it is existential with the subject ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας: in idiomatic English: "there was a certain priest named Zachariah ... "
Moreover I see this usage as the one described thus in BDAG:
7. to come into a certain state or possess certain characteristics, to be, prove to be, turn out to be (on relation to the forms of εἰμί [here and in 8–10] s. ALink, StKr 69, 1896, 420ff). Used w. the nom. (Wsd 16:3; Jdth 16:21; Sir 31:22; 1 Macc 3:58) γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι be prudent Mt 10:16. ἄκαρπος γίνεται 13:22; Mk 4:19.—W. other words: vs. 22; 9:50; Lk 1:2; 2:2; 6:36 and very oft. Freq. the dat. of advantage (dat. commodi) is added (1 Macc 10:47; 2 Macc 7:37; 4 Macc 6:28; 12:17): ἀγαπητόν τινι γ. be dear to someone 1 Th 2:8. ἀπρόσκοπον γ. τινι be inoffensive to someone 1 Cor 10:32; γ. τινι μαθητήν J 15:8; μισθαποδότην γ. τινι be a rewarder of someone Hb 11:6; γ. ὁδηγόν τινι Ac 1:16. Cp. παρηγορία, σημεῖον, τύπος.— γ. ὁμοθυμαδόν come together in unanimity or reach unanimity Ac 15:25.—τὶ γίνεταί τινί τι a thing results in someth. for someone τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐμοὶ ἐγ. θάνατος; Ro 7:13. ἡ ἐξουσία πρόσκομμα τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν 1 Cor 8:9.—γίνομαι ὡς, ὥσπερ, ὡσεί τις (Ps 21:15; 31:9; 37:15; 82:11; 87:5 al.) be, become, show oneself like Mt 6:16; 10:25; 18:3; 28:4; Lk 22:26, 44; 1 Cor 4:13; 9:20f; Gal 4:12. καθὼς ἐγένετο . . . οὕτως ἔσται as it was . . . so it will be Lk 17:26, 28. οὐ χρὴ ταῦτα οὕτως γίνεσθαι this should not be so Js 3:10. ὁσίως καὶ δικαίως καὶ ἀμέμπτως ὑμῖν ἐγενήθημεν we proved/showed ourselves . . . toward you 1 Th 2:10.—In statements pert. to age (Aristoxenus, fgm. 16 γεγονότα [sc. τὸν Πυθαγόραν] ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα; Demetr. of Phaleron [IV–III BC], fgm. 153 Wehrli [’49]; Demetr: 722 fgm. 1, 1 Jac.; Jos., Ant. 10, 50) ἐτῶν δώδεκα Lk 2:42; cp. 1 Ti 5:9.—Here prob. also belongs ἐγένετο γνώμης he decided Ac 20:3 (cp. Plut., Phoc. 752 [23, 4] ἐλπίδος μεγάλης γ.; Cass. Dio 61, 14 τ. ἐπιθυμίας γ.; Jos., Bell. 6, 287).
I think, moreover, that David was right to associate this with the older renditions such as "And it came to pass that there was a certain priest named Zachariah ... " ἐγένετο does function as an aorist of εἶναι; somewhat awkward might be "there came to be a certain priest ... " I don't think there's any ellipsis here; the presence of this particular person at a particular historical moment is announced by use of this verb. The verb ἐγένετο simply indicates an event at a particular time and place. I think that's also what's happening in Mk 1:4:
ἐγένετο Ἰωάννης [ὁ] βαπτίζων ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
I agree too with Barry's comment:
At the same time, a person fluent in Ancient Greek would have no problem understanding it, it would simply sound odd, much as native English speakers can understand "Money I have, ship you need" even though it's not normal English syntax.
I doubt that the force of the Greek will go readily into idiomatic English: "There was ... " doesn't quite convey the tone, nor does "there appeared ... " (there's nothing sudden about it). But "There was ... " probably still comes closest to what's called for: it points to the fact of the existence of this particular person at this particular point in time and space.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by RandallButh »

On εγενετο and wayyehi, there is a distinction between having a subject and being subjectless. When the Hebrew has a feminine subject, the word is vattehi. Greek does not show this distinction but the Hebrew shows that subject agreement is part of the structure. On the other hand, the subjectless εγενετο is distinct. It turns out that in Luke-Acts, the εγενετο + subject is used throughout Luke-Acts, but the subjectless εγενετο is restricted to the Gospel only. A long article in the volume The Linguistic Environment in First-Century Judaea deals with this: Randall Buth, "Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha."
moon jung
Posts: 71
Joined: June 7th, 2014, 12:38 am

Re: Luke 1:5: EGENETO's function

Post by moon jung »

Randall,
thanks for the comments.

I read the long article you wrote.
You distinguish the EGENETO which has a subject from the EGENETO which is subjectless or
rather which has an impersonal subject. You say that the latter form occurs in Luke, but not in Acts,
and that only the latter is a Hebrew idiom which introduces a setting for a main event.
So, "The Hebraic EGENETO structure does not occur even once in Acts".

If I accept your position, the very problem in this thread is solved. The issue in this thread is this:

Do the following two passages have the same "setting" defining structure?

Judges 17:1-2:

1 και εγενετο ανηρ εξ ορους εφραιμ και ονομα αυτω μιχα και ειπεν τη μητρι αυτου χιλιους


Ruth 1:1:

και εγενετο εν τω κρινειν τους κριτας και εγενετο λιμος εν τη γη


It seems clear that both passages pose settings for main events by means of εγενετο ( וַיְהִ֗י ) .
In Judges, a character is introduced as a "setting" or "circumstance" for a main event, and
in Ruth, a situation is introduced as a setting for a main event.
[
By the way, David, I am sorry for my unprecise term "circumstantial nominal phrase". I guess what I just wrote above may tell you
what I mean by this term. ]

Now, Judges 17:1-2 uses EGENETO + subject.
So, can't we say the EGENETO + subject is a setting introducing structure as well as
the EGENETO with an impersonal subject?

Moon Jung
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”