γίνεσθαι

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Post Reply
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

γίνεσθαι

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Stephen 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.
The perfect is part of grammar, isn't it? Grammar is one of those things that people :geek: talk about, and I have been meaning to get around to learning it for a while :shock: ..... Perhaps I'll do that after I finish with vocabulary. :twisted:

Seriously though :| , how does
John 1:3 wrote:Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
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.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Matt 1:22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν, in whose voice?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
Stephen 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.
The perfect is part of grammar, isn't it? Grammar is one of those things that people :geek: talk about, and I have been meaning to get around to learning it for a while :shock: ..... Perhaps I'll do that after I finish with vocabulary. :twisted:

Seriously though :| , how does
John 1:3 wrote:Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
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.
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!
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

ὅλος v. πᾶς - τὸ γεγονός seems different

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:It would appear, Stephen (SH), that you're not going to finish with vocabulary ... -- you're into both for the long haul, like Solon, γηράσκων ἀεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος Take it from one who knows!
How could it be difficult? It is only one list of words. It's not like as if it is all the words of the language, only for a single corpus. :roll: You've really fallen in love with that old signature quote from Solon!

ὅλος ("throughout all its extent") is not used with participles. Πᾶς ("count them all" - "all occurances", "one thing as a unity") is. (In Modern Greek ὅλος is used more extensively). It doesn't feel natural to use πᾶν with τὸ γεγονός. I think the result of what has been made is πράγμα, and that action of making has limitation, and the entirity of something limited can be expressed in like πᾶν τὸ πράγμα, but becoming is unlimited itself, so just τὸ γεγονός can mean what you want it to - what the context requires. But that is just my thoughts.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: Matt 1:22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν, in whose voice?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote: 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.
How would this be if the verb were κτίσαι rather than γίνεσθαι (or ποιῆσαι), My impression is that the range of syntactic options goes down and the vagueness of what it refers do goes up, when γίνεσθαι is used.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Matt 1:22 τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν, in whose voice?

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote: 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.
How would this be if the verb were κτίσαι rather than γίνεσθαι (or ποιῆσαι), My impression is that the range of syntactic options goes down and the vagueness of what it refers do goes up, when γίνεσθαι is used.
Interesting question indeed! γενέσθαι calls upon a biological metaphor of generation, while κτίζειν calls upon a political metaphor of organization of a colony. What comes to my mind is the powerful image drawn by Philo (Opif. §17) of the creator as the founder of a city who formulates a "blueprint" (to use phraseology that is technologically already obsolete!) of the organization of the created world as a community, calling to mind the city-planning work of an engineer for Alexander or of a L'Enfant drawing up a plan for the layout of what was to become Washington, D.C.. It's instructive to compare the definitions of κτίζειν in LSJ and BDAF: LSJ indicates the political sense of establishing a colony as basic, while BDF rightly notes that in Jucaeo-Chiristian literature the verb is always associated with divine creation. I would ask the question whether the political overtones are quite dead in Biblical usage of κτίζειν, κτίσις and the cognates (just as the question must be raised whether the biological overtones are quite dead in Democritean-Epicurean usage of σπείρειν, σπέρμα (or Lucretius' atoms referred to as semina rerum).

I would agree that usage of κτίζειν and cognates would likely involve sharper/narrower conceptions that usage of γενέσθαι. But the usage of γενέσθαι in Jn 1:3 is different from that in Mt 1:22, the focus being more on the process of creation in the former, more on the unfolding of historical events in the latter. Both may be envsioned in terms of God's creativity, but I do think that the author's selection of one verb rather than the other makes a difference.

I find it hard to conceive Jn 1:3 rewritten as πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐκτίσθη, οὐδὲ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐκτίσθη οὐδὲ ἕν, ὂ ἔκτισται (or perhaps: οὐδεμία κτίσις?) Speculation of this sort is fun, but probably not very illuminating.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

γίνεσθαι v. κτίσαι / ποιῆσαι

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote: 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.
How would this be if the verb were κτίσαι rather than γίνεσθαι (or ποιῆσαι), My impression is that the range of syntactic options goes down and the vagueness of what it refers do goes up, when γίνεσθαι is used.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”