ἐγένετο standing for ויהי vayehi wo/subject

[RandallButh]

The example from Gen 35 has a masculine verb with the feminine noun.
Like Gen 15:17 וַיְהִ֤י הַשֶּׁ֙מֶשׁ֙ בָּ֔אָה

שֶׁמֶשׁ can be either masculine or feminine which is not true for חִתָהּ which is feminine (sorry about the mappiq in the final he).

shemesh is feminine when its verb is ba'ah.

[Andrew Chapman]

2Kings 13:21 ויהי הם קברים אישׁ והנה ראו את־הגדוד
2Kings 13:21 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν θαπτόντων τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἰδοὺ εἶδον τὸν μονόζωνον


See page 533 of A. Niccacci review of HATAV G. THE SEMANTICS OF ASPECT AND MODALITY

http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/Books/LA49/49501rec.pdf

See also S. Levinsohn Discourse Features NT GK, p. 177-180.

The second καί seems a bit odd, but no more so than:

ὡς δὲ ἤγγισεν τῇ πύλῃ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐξεκομίζετο τεθνηκὼς μονογενὴς υἱὸς τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ [Luke 7.12]

This is from BDF 442.7, on καί introducing an apodosis, which it says is primarily due to Hebrew. BDF adds that 'Καὶ ἰδού is even more Semitic'.

In 2 Kings 13.21, it looks to me like καὶ ἐγένετο stands on its own introducing what follows; then the genitive absolute is like a protasis - as they were burying the man - I don't know if it is technically a protasis - then we would want to say, 'behold they saw', rather than 'and behold they saw'. I don't know Hebrew but I can see the וְהִנֵה.

Andrew

[Stirling Bartholomew]

2Kings 13:21 ויהי הם קברים אישׁ והנה ראו את־הגדוד
2Kings 13:21 καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτῶν θαπτόντων τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἰδοὺ εἶδον τὸν μονόζωνον


In 2 Kings 13.21, it looks to me like καὶ ἐγένετο stands on its own introducing what follows; then the genitive absolute is like a protasis - as they were burying the man - I don't know if it is technically a protasis - then we would want to say, 'behold they saw', rather than 'and behold they saw'. I don't know Hebrew but I can see the וְהִנֵה.

Andrew

A. Niccacci suggests that ויהי doesn't play a part in the syntax of what follows and for that reason it doesn't need to be in concord with anything. Similar but not identical to Randall's comments concerning ויהי "dummy subject" … lack of concord …

In the examples from Luke we find several different things going on in narrative segments which begin (καὶ) ἐγένετο (δὲ).

καὶ ἐγένετο followed by ἐν τῷ + infinitive. BDF claims that the infinitive complex is the subject of ἐγένετο Levinsohn appears to accept this but I wonder if we need a subject for ἐγένετο.

Luke 3:21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν

καὶ ἐγένετο followed by some other temporal expression where καὶ ἐγένετο has no subject and is not a constituent in the following syntax.

Luke 2:15 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἀπῆλθον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν οἱ ἄγγελοι, οἱ ποιμένες ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους· διέλθωμεν δὴ ἕως Βηθλέεμ καὶ ἴδωμεν τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο τὸ γεγονὸς ὃ ὁ κύριος ἐγνώρισεν ἡμῖν.

Ἐγένετο w/o (καὶ) or (δὲ) followed by a temporal expression.

Luke 1:5 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.

καὶ ἐγένετο where ἐγένετο has a subject and participates in the syntax of what follows.

Luke 1:65 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ πάντας φόβος τοὺς περιοικοῦντας αὐτούς, καὶ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ὀρεινῇ τῆς Ἰουδαίας διελαλεῖτο πάντα τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα,

[Andrew Chapman]

καὶ ἐγένετο followed by ἐν τῷ + infinitive. BDF claims that the infinitive complex is the subject of ἐγένετο Levinsohn appears to accept this but I wonder if we need a subject for ἐγένετο.

Luke 3:21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν

What's the BDF reference, please? Shouldn't ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν be blue, or perhaps I don't understand what the colour signifies? With regard to the subject question, I don't yet understand what's wrong, if anything, with just thinking of this as a third person impersonal subject, as for δεῖ, ἔξεστι, κτλ.

Moulton has an interesting discussion of καὶ ἐγένετο at p.16, Prologomena. Cites Driver as saying that 'the וַיְהִי construction [occurs] when there is inserted "a clause specifying the circumstances under which an action takes place"'.

With regard to ἐν with the dative of the infinitive, with a temporal sense, Blass (-Thackeray, 1905, p.237) says this is from בְּ and is not Attic. The use with the aorist is specifically Lucan, with meaning 'after that' (Blass says).

An interesting question arises as to whether this means that all the people had been baptised before Jesus was baptised. Alford for one says it does, in line with Blass, but is this really right? It doesn't seem to fit easily with the meaning of έν, I would have thought.

Andrew

[RandallButh]

Luke 3:21 + en-clause is different because it introduces an infinitive clause as the main clause rather than a finite verb main clause.
The structure is not really Hebraic but modeled on Greek συνέβη + infinitive main clause.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

καὶ ἐγένετο followed by ἐν τῷ + infinitive. BDF claims that the infinitive complex is the subject of ἐγένετο Levinsohn appears to accept this but I wonder if we need a subject for ἐγένετο.

Luke 3:21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν

What's the BDF reference, please? Shouldn't ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν be blue, or perhaps I don't understand what the colour signifies?

Andrew,

The BDF reference was a mistake, should be Winer 1882:406. There is a treatment of clause initial ἐγένετο in BDF §442.5, §472.3 but it isn't very helpful. The color highlighting is just a visual aid to locate the salient constituents no particular meaning assigned to the colors.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

Luke 3:21 + en-clause is different because it introduces an infinitive clause as the main clause rather than a finite verb main clause.
The structure is not really Hebraic but modeled on Greek συνέβη + infinitive main clause.

Not sure why you consider the infinitive clause a main clause. Looks to me like it is a contextualizer for the following clause. Whether it is Hebrew or not is a different question. I looked for some similar LXX samples searching BHS for vayehi b+infin.const. Interesting that LXX Gen seems to treat this different than Exodus.

compare:

Luke 3:21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν

with:

Hebrew vayehi b+infin.const.

Gen. 4:8 καὶ εἶπεν Καιν πρὸς Αβελ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ καὶ ἀνέστη Καιν ἐπὶ Αβελ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτόν.

NRSV* Gen. 4:8   Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.

Gen. 11:2 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ κινῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν εὗρον πεδίον ἐν γῇ Σεννααρ καὶ κατῴκησαν ἐκεῖ.

NRSV* Gen. 11:2 And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.

Gen. 19:29 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐκτρῖψαι κύριον πάσας τὰς πόλεις τῆς περιοίκου ἐμνήσθη ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Αβρααμ καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν Λωτ ἐκ μέσου τῆς καταστροφῆς ἐν τῷ καταστρέψαι κύριον τὰς πόλεις, ἐν αἷς κατῴκει ἐν αὐταῖς Λωτ.

NRSV* Gen. 19:29   So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled

Note the missing καὶ Gen. 11:2 and the καὶ is too late in 19:29, there should be a one before ἐμνήσθη. Not sure if the καὶ is a significant factor in how we read the syntax of the Greek rendering. Both of these places we find a vav in BHS.

*NRSV rendering realtive the this question is syntatically identical to NETS.

[Andrew Chapman]

Luke 3:21 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν

Gen. 11:2 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ κινῆσαι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν εὗρον πεδίον ἐν γῇ Σεννααρ καὶ κατῴκησαν ἐκεῖ.

NRSV* Gen. 11:2 And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.

Gen. 19:29 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ἐκτρῖψαι κύριον πάσας τὰς πόλεις τῆς περιοίκου ἐμνήσθη ὁ θεὸς τοῦ Αβρααμ καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν τὸν Λωτ ἐκ μέσου τῆς καταστροφῆς ἐν τῷ καταστρέψαι κύριον τὰς πόλεις, ἐν αἷς κατῴκει ἐν αὐταῖς Λωτ.

NRSV* Gen. 19:29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled

Gen 19.29 seems to counter Blass's idea that the aorist infinitive conveys a completed action. Thanks for the Winer reference. If 'the infinitive clause is to be regarded as the (enlarged) subject of ἐγένετο', then surely in Luke 3.21, it would be ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν rather than ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν.

Robertson [1915, 1073] isn't convinced by Blass's view about the aorist infinitive with ἐν τῷ. Says that it is 'just the simple action of the verb which is thus presented, leaving the precise relation to be defined by the context, like the aorist participle of simultaneous action.'

Andrew

[RandallButh]

If 'the infinitive clause is to be regarded as the (enlarged) subject of ἐγένετο', then surely in Luke 3.21, it would be ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν rather than ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν.

This is correct, εγενετο introduces ανεωχθηναι. It is a Greek structure and is not used in Hebrew.

In Clay's other examples, the ויהי introduces
Gen 4:8 καὶ ἀνέστη
Gen 11:2 εὗρον
Gen 19:29 ἐμνήσθη

The καί is often dropped in the LXX because it is otiose if coming from a wayyiqtol.
But Hebrew can use a simple qatal follow-up, too, without "and".

[Andrew Chapman]

There's an interesting discussion in a chapter called 'Non-Septuagintal Hebraisms in the Third Gospel' in 'The Langauge Environment of 1st Century Judea' (ed. Randall Buth and Steven Notley), at p.325, 328-331 etc. Notley is arguing against Luke's Hebraisms being Septuagintal.

Gen. 4:8 καὶ εἶπεν Καιν πρὸς Αβελ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον. καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ καὶ ἀνέστη Καιν ἐπὶ Αβελ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτόν.

Should the καί of καὶ ἀνέστη be considered translation Greek from וַ·יָּ֥קָם or is it perfectly good Greek? Plummer has a note on Luke's use of ἐγένετο at p.45 (ICC, 1920). He says that where:

The ἐγένετο and that which came to pass are coupled together by καί, [this] may be regarded as 1) uniting two co-ordinate statements; or 2) epexegetic, "It came to pass, namely"; or 3) introducing the apodosis, as often in classical Greek, "It came to pass that."

Andrew