[B-Greek] GENOMENOS in Phil. 2:8

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Sun Mar 14 00:49:06 EST 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Blue Meeksbay
To: Iver Larsen
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: 13. marts 2010 20:01
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] GENOMENOS in Phil. 2:8

Thanks to all!

One last question to clarify what has been said concerning this sense. BAG says 
concerning GINOMAI  “II. As a substitute for the forms of EIMI,” and later it 
says “with prep. and adv. – be.”
--------------------------
IL: This is what we are being taught, but I am sceptical. I rather think it is 
caused by the need to occasionally translate it into English as "to be" to sound 
natural. I am not saying that it is necessarily wrong to translate the word with 
a form of "be" in English, but I think by doing so we miss a small nuance in the 
Greek text.
Some of the instances mentioned by BAGD are: GINESQE FRONIMOI (be wise) (Matt 
10:16), GINESQE hETOIMOI (be ready), GINESQE OIKTIRMONES (be compassionate). I 
suppose it is like a parent saying to a child "You be good".  EIMI is a stative 
verb and naturally occurs in the present, imperfective and future: "He was, he 
is and he will be." The future (and even present) can sometimes mean "it should 
be the case", because both present and future have an imperfective aspect. I 
suppose an aorist form of EIMI would be something like "he has been", but that 
gives a different meaning in English, often implying that he no longer is. Greek 
does not have such a form. In this respect I think Greek is more like German 
(Ich bin...zeit...).
----------------

For instance, with the reference in Rev. 1:18, are you saying the NIV just got 
it wrong, or can it legitimately be understood apart from the sense of “coming 
into that state?”  Can it just be used to emphasize the fact of that state?  In 
other words, even though one might not agree with the NIV’s take, is theirs a 
possible understanding.
-----------------------------
IL: I don't know why NIV chose to do what they did. My guess is that they were 
influenced by the KJV, since the RSV has "I died". I would say that NIV gives it 
a slightly different focus from the Greek, but it is still understood that if X 
is dead, then X must first have died. Maybe NIV wanted to focus on the contrast 
between being formerly dead and now being alive?
------------------- 
Another example would be Heb. 1:4 –

TOSOUTWi KREITTWN GENOMENOS TWN AGGELWN hOSWi DIAFORWTERON PAR᾽ AUTOUS 
KEKLHRONOMHKEN ONOMA

The Bishop’s Bible understood GENOMENOS as “being,” and not as “being made,” or 
“becoming.” (Please note – this is not the result of a frantic search. : >) I 
have known about the Bishop’s Bible’s take on this verse for a long time. : >)
---------------------
IL: So, it must have struck you as odd that the Bishop's Bible for some reason 
is different from what you would expect?
-------------------

P.S. On Phil. 2:8, thanks for the clarification. I see your point and Carl’s 
point. Perhaps, if Paul had used a preposition like was used in Luke 22:44 it 
might then be understood as a state of obedience, at least, at that point in 
time. Is that correct?

KAI GENOMENOS EN AGWNIAi EKTENESTERON PROSHUCETO· KAI EGENETO hO hIDRWS AUTOU 
hWSEI QROMBOI hAIMATOS KATABAINONTES EPI THN GHN.
-----------------------
IL: I don't think the presence or absence of a preposition is significant for 
the meaning and use of the verb.

Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list