Dr. Conrad, your post contained some information that I need to investigate. Thank you.
Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 29th, 2014, 8:31 am
By "remote past" I basically mean something that is not part of the speaker's (extended) present. Something that is past but in the extended present is a near or recent past. A good clue (more sufficient than necessary) is whether the people involves are still alive. If they are not, then it is probably a remote past. In this case, I believe the events are those that relate to the virginal conception of Jesus. The conception would in the angel's recent past but in the author's remote past.Wes Wood wrote:Would you please define what you mean by remote past? What events do believe that he is referring to?Stephen Carlson wrote:It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past
This invocation of the fulfillment formula also uses a perfect and is separated from a preceding quotation by εὐθὺς δὲ ἀποστελεῖ αὐτούς.Wes Wood wrote: I have sometimes wondered if these passages refer to some type of source material. Not that I have any concrete reason for thinking so, but I do find it interesting that this formula occurs in 21:3-4 [3καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι, ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν χρείαν ἔχει: εὐθὺς δὲ ἀποστελεῖ αὐτούς. 4Τοῦτο δὲ γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος,]
This fulfillment formula on the other hand appears to have been placed on the lips of Jesus. Thanks. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 29th, 2014, 6:17 amWes Wood wrote: and 26:56 [56τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον]
Would you please define what you mean by remote past? What events do believe that he is referring to? I have sometimes wondered if these passages refer to some type of source material. Not that I have any concrete reason for thinking so, but I do find it interesting that this formula occurs in 21:3-4 [3καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι, ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν χρείαν ἔχει: εὐθὺς δὲ ἀποστελεῖ αὐτούς. 4Τοῦτο δὲ γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος,] and 26:56 [56τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν προφητῶν. Τότε οἱ μαθηταὶ πάντες ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον] which have contain some "minor" differences from gospel to gospel. You might be interested to compare 26:56 to Mark 14:48-50. [48καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με; 49καθ' ἡμέραν ἤμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ διδάσκων καὶ οὐκ ἐκρατήσατέ με: ἀλλ' ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν αἱ γραφαί. 50καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἔφυγον πάντες.] I don't know if this will be of interest or help or not. Statistics: Posted by Wes Wood — January 28th, 2014, 10:57 amStephen Carlson wrote: It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past
I can't speak for SC, but I've pondered the forms of γενέσθαι in Jn 1:3 for quite some time. Leaving aside the question whether ὂ γέγονεν belongs not with what precedes but rather with what follows, if construed with the traditional punctuation, I've understood this to mean, "Nothing that has created being came into existence apart from Him." As you (SH) say, there is an obvious affinity between τὸ γεγονός and ὂ γέγονεν. Both these substantives, it seems to me, refer to something real that has a history, as when theologians speak of "the Christ event" or Heilsgeschichte. (I don't want to discuss theology at all here; I'm just pointing to what seems implicit in the formulation). Might a phrase ὅλον τὸ γεγονός be understood in the sense, "this event in its entirety"? Then the sense of Mt 1:22 will be, "The meaning of this entire event is disclosed in the prophecy ... " It would appear, Stephen (SH), that you're not going to finish with vocabulary nor grammar -- you're into both for the long haul, like Solon, γηράσκων ἀεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος Take it from one who knows! Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 28th, 2014, 7:52 amStephen Hughes wrote:The perfect is part of grammar, isn't it? Grammar is one of those things that peopleStephen Carlson wrote:I am a little bothered about the perfect γέγονεν. It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past, which challenges at least the classical meaning of the perfect. The perfect is not a narrative tense, so the function of the fulfillment formula would have be non-narrative such as commenting upon the narrative.talk about, and I have been meaning to get around to learning it for a while
..... Perhaps I'll do that after I finish with vocabulary.
Seriously though
, how does
match or confound your expectaions about γέγονεν? To me there is much more affinity between τὸ γεγονός and (ὃ) γένονεν than is usual between a participle and indicative.John 1:3 wrote: Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
The perfect is part of grammar, isn't it? Grammar is one of those things that peopleStephen Carlson wrote: I am a little bothered about the perfect γέγονεν. It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past, which challenges at least the classical meaning of the perfect. The perfect is not a narrative tense, so the function of the fulfillment formula would have be non-narrative such as commenting upon the narrative.
talk about, and I have been meaning to get around to learning it for a while ..... Perhaps I'll do that after I finish with vocabulary.
Seriously though , how does
match or confound your expectaions about γέγονεν? To me there is much more affinity between τὸ γεγονός and (ὃ) γένονεν than is usual between a participle and indicative. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Hughes — January 28th, 2014, 6:19 amJohn 1:3 wrote: Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I am aware that the fulfilment formula is a Matthean motif, but I was wondering if he is here putting on the lips of the angel (John is a particularly flagrant example of this). My first inclination, and one I've had for a long time, is no, but it's something that is becoming less obvious to me. I am a little bothered about the perfect γέγονεν. It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past, which challenges at least the classical meaning of the perfect. The perfect is not a narrative tense, so the function of the fulfillment formula would have be non-narrative such as commenting upon the narrative. As for the angel, the perfect is less out of place, where the conception is still an on-going result. Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 28th, 2014, 4:59 am
"ἵνα" perhaps? Any more-than-casual reader of this gospel knows that this is the regular formula employed by this evangelist to indicate that an event has fulfilled a prophecy. The easy answer to the question is that this is ὂ γέγραπται, i.e., this is ἡ γραφή. I would attribute it to the narrator/evangelist, not to the angel, for the reason that it is very clearly the evangelist's recurrent formula. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — January 27th, 2014, 3:09 pmStephen Carlson wrote:Whose voice is this statement in? The narrator's? Or the angel's (v.20)? Or in other words, where does the angel's quotation end?Matt 1:22 wrote:τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵωα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος·
Whose voice is this statement in? The narrator's? Or the angel's (v.20)? Or in other words, where does the angel's quotation end? Statistics: Posted by Stephen Carlson — January 27th, 2014, 10:08 amMatt 1:22 wrote: τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵωα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος·