Skip to content

Luke 1:5

RandallButh wrote: Moon, Yes, you can say that both egeneto structures provide setting material. However, they are two structures and it is useful to track them separately. The subject structure will introduce participants. The subjectless structure will provide a setting. Commentators on Acts and Luke have led themselves astray by missing the distinction and making statements like "Luke uses the egeneto structure in both Luke-Acts," implying that there is no qualitative difference. But there is. And it leads to a significant reappraisal of both works and fits well with other data.
Randall, thanks for the answer. So, are you saying: (1) The EGENETO + subject structure is both found in Luke and LXX, and can be used to introduce a participant/character as sort of "setting" for a story.. (2) But this subject structure is NOT unique to LXX [Hebrew Bible], and can be a good Greek idiom. (3) So, only the subjectless EGENETO structure can indicate the relatedness to Hebrew source. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 21st, 2014, 10:03 pm
Moon, Yes, you can say that both egeneto structures provide setting material. However, they are two structures and it is useful to track them separately. The subject structure will introduce participants. The subjectless structure will provide a setting. Commentators on Acts and Luke have led themselves astray by missing the distinction and making statements like "Luke uses the egeneto structure in both Luke-Acts," implying that there is no qualitative difference. But there is. And it leads to a significant reappraisal of both works and fits well with other data. Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — June 21st, 2014, 11:09 am
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 Statistics: Posted by moon — June 21st, 2014, 3:14 am
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." Statistics: Posted by RandallButh — June 20th, 2014, 2:50 pm
 
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. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 20th, 2014, 7:50 am
 
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. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 20th, 2014, 6:56 am
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 Statistics: Posted by moon — June 19th, 2014, 8:36 pm
 
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. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — June 19th, 2014, 10:42 am
 
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. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 19th, 2014, 10:06 am
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 Statistics: Posted by moon — June 19th, 2014, 8:14 am
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 Statistics: Posted by moon — June 19th, 2014, 6:02 am
Carl, long time no see. Thanks for the information. But, what you quoted explains Lk 1:8, but not Lk 1:5. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 18th, 2014, 10:19 am
 
moon wrote: David, I got what you are trying to say. It is true that Lk 1:8 resembles that Hebrew idom which has the form of WeYeHi + circumstantial adverbial + Wa + full sentence. In Lk 1:8, it seems that EGENETO is not "real verb" but but part of a fixed grammtical structure, whereas in Lk 1:5 EGENETO is a real verb. But if we can find another Hebrew idiom of the form WeYeHi + circumstantial adverbial + noun phrase, which looks like Lk 1:5, your explanation will make some good sense.
Conybeare & Stock, in a repeatedly reprinted little volume on LXX grammar:
§41. Introduction of the Sentence by a Verb of Being. Very often in imitation of Hebrew idiom the whole sentence is introduced by ἐγένετο or ἔσται. Gen 39:19 ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ἤκουσεν . . . καὶ ἐθυμώθη ὀργῇ. Cp. vs. 5, 7, 13. 3 K. [2 Kings.] 18:12 καὶ ἔσται ἐὰν ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω ἀπὸ σοῦ, καὶ πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἀρεῖ σε εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν οὐκ οἶδας. In such cases in accordance with western ideas of what a sentence ought to be, we say that καί introduces the apodosis, but it may be that, in its original conception at least, the whole construction was paratactical. It is easy to see this in a single instance like — Gen 41:8 ἐγένετο δὲ πρωὶ καὶ ἐταράχθη ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, but the same explanation may be applied to more complex cases, e.g. — Nb. 21:9 καὶ ἐγένετο ὅταν ἔδακνεν ὄφις ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὸν ὄφιν τὸν χαλκοῦν, καὶ ἔζη. And there was when a serpent bit a man, and he looked on the brazen serpent, and lived. Cp. Gen 42:35, 43:2, 21: Jdg. 14:11.
Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — June 18th, 2014, 5:03 am
David, I got what you are trying to say. It is true that Lk 1:8 resembles that Hebrew idom which has the form of WeYeHi + circumstantial adverbial + Wa + full sentence. In Lk 1:8, it seems that EGENETO is not "real verb" but but part of a fixed grammtical structure, whereas in Lk 1:5 EGENETO is a real verb. But if we can find another Hebrew idiom of the form WeYeHi + circumstantial adverbial + noun phrase, which looks like Lk 1:5, your explanation will make some good sense. Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 18th, 2014, 3:09 am
 
David Lim wrote: [...] an implicit impersonal object [...]
Sorry I don't know how I used the wrong word; it should be "impersonal subject". I should also say that English always makes subjects explicit using "it". By the way I consider "X" in "there was X" to be the subject of "was", in case it isn't clear in my previous posts. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 18th, 2014, 2:07 am
 
moon wrote: If the verb of ἱερεύς τις is Ἐγένετο, then the sentence in Lk 1:5 seems to have a different structure from Lk 1:8, for example. In Lk 1:8 we have Ἐγένετο + circumstantial adverbial + a full sentence. Here the verb of the full sentence is not Ἐγένετο. If the usage of Ἐγένετο fundamentally different in Lk 1:5 and Lk 1:8, it is fine to me. But if we want to say that the usage is similar in both passages, we need to explain the difference in structure in both passages.
The sentences indeed have different grammatical structure, but I consider the underlying verb to be the same, since it can and often accepts an implicit impersonal object, which is the case when it is used in a narrative to introduce some occurrence, such as in Luke 1:8 "[it] came to be that when he served in the order of his course before God ...". Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 18th, 2014, 1:01 am
David, thanks for the comment. If the verb of ἱερεύς τις is Ἐγένετο, then the sentence in Lk 1:5 seems to have a different structure from Lk 1:8, for example. In Lk 1:8 we have Ἐγένετο + circumstantial adverbial + a full sentence. Here the verb of the full sentence is not Ἐγένετο. If the usage of Ἐγένετο fundamentally different in Lk 1:5 and Lk 1:8, it is fine to me. But if we want to say that the usage is similar in both passages, we need to explain the difference in structure in both passages. Lk 1:5 5 Ἐγένετο ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας ἱερεύς τις ὀνόματι Ζαχαρίας ἐξ ἐφημερίας Ἀβιά, Lk 1:8 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, Moon Jung Statistics: Posted by moon — June 18th, 2014, 12:27 am
 
moon wrote: wow!. What you said makes a perfect sense to me, and I am happy to be able to treat Mark 1:4 and Lukue 1:5 in the same way. The only problem with Luke 1:5 is that there is no verb for hIEREUS TIS. Is some verb omitted here?
I would take the verb to be "εγενετο", just as in Mark 1:4. As you learn Greek, you will find that there is completely no necessity for the verb to be anywhere near its subject. There may be intervening phrases like the adverbial clause "εν ταις ημεραις ηρωδου του βασιλεως της ιουδαιας" here. With "ιερευς τις" as the subject of "εγενετο", and the fact that "in the days of ... came to be some priest" is an awkward English phrase, it is why most modern translations use "there was in the days of ... some priest". Also, although your Beta-code Greek is certainly readable for me, it may not be so easy for others who are used to seeing Greek characters, so it might be good if you can type in Unicode. (Personally I use the addon Transliterator for my Firefox browser, which is very easily customizable, but others might suggest the Windows keyboard.) Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 17th, 2014, 10:53 pm
David, wow!. What you said makes a perfect sense to me, and I am happy to be able to treat Mark 1:4 and Lukue 1:5 in the same way. The only problem with Luke 1:5 is that there is no verb for hIEREUS TIS. Is some verb omitted here? Luke 1:5 is "εγενετο εν ταις ημεραις ηρωδου του βασιλεως της ιουδαιας ιερευς τις ονοματι ζαχαριας εξ εφημεριας αβια και η γυνη αυτου εκ των θυγατερων ααρων και το ονομα αυτης ελισαβετ" = "in the days of Herod the king of the Jews came to be some priest, by name Zechariah, out of the course of Abijah, and his wife out of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth." which can be paraphrased as "there arose in the days of Herod ... some priest whose name was Zechariah ...". Moon Statistics: Posted by moon — June 17th, 2014, 8:59 pm
 
moon wrote: [...] EGENETO is often used to introduce a story (cf. Mark 1:4). In Mark 1:4 it is natural to translate it as "John appeared in the desert". But here it is hard to interpet EGENETO this way. Most translations took it as: There was in the days of Herod the king of Judha a certain priest named Zakarias....
Besides what Carl has already said about the parallel usage in the LXX, I would like to add that there is no connotation of "appearing" in "εγενετο". In many cases like in Luke 1:5 it is indeed equivalent to an existential expression in English, but that isn't really intrinsic either, so I wouldn't say that "εγενετο" is like "there was". Instead, it is something like "[it] came to be [that]", which used to be translated in the time of the KJV by "it came to pass" (which was a correct idiom, which had nothing to do with "passing" either). In time this idiom came to be obsolete, and now some translations use "it happened that" (which doesn't work at all for some instances of "εγενετο". Mark 1:4 is "εγενετο ιωαννης βαπτιζων εν τη ερημω και κηρυσσων βαπτισμα μετανοιας εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων" = "John came to be immersing in the deserted [place] and proclaiming an immersion of repentance for forgiveness of sins" which can be paraphrased as "it happened to be that John was immersing ...". Luke 1:5 is "εγενετο εν ταις ημεραις ηρωδου του βασιλεως της ιουδαιας ιερευς τις ονοματι ζαχαριας εξ εφημεριας αβια και η γυνη αυτου εκ των θυγατερων ααρων και το ονομα αυτης ελισαβετ" = "in the days of Herod the king of the Jews came to be some priest, by name Zechariah, out of the course of Abijah, and his wife out of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth." which can be paraphrased as "there arose in the days of Herod ... some priest whose name was Zechariah ...". For whatever it's worth, here is how Darby (1889) translated it, which has the most similar structure to the original, and hence of course not idiomatic English. [Mark 1:4] There came John baptising in the wilderness, and preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins. [Luke 1:5] There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest, by name Zacharias, of the course of Abia, and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elizabeth. Statistics: Posted by David Lim — June 17th, 2014, 11:31 am