ἐγένετο standing for ויהי vayehi wo/subject

[Thomas Dolhanty]

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.

Thank you for that reference, Andrew. The very thing I've been looking for. It can be downloaded from: http://www.academia.edu/9228161/Non-Sep ... ient_Truth

[RandallButh]

'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.

You'll find more linguistic data in the article on distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in translation-Greek in that volume. One datum is that the "non-Hebrew" ἐγένετο (like Luke 3:21, introducing an infinitive main clause) is the only 'subjectless' ἐγένετο in Acts. The "Hebraic" ἐγένετο (introducing a finite verb main clause) are restricted to the the Gospel of Luke and NEVER in Acts, contrary to what some commentators have mistakenly written. The NT field has had some pretty entrenched positions ("Luke's Hebraisms are from the LXX", "Hebrew" meant "Aramaic") that have been able to resist data and even to fudge data on occasion. (See the article "Distinguishing..." and also "EBRAISTI..." for documentation.)

[Andrew Chapman]

The "Hebraic" ἐγένετο (introducing a finite verb main clause) are restricted to the the Gospel of Luke and NEVER in Acts, contrary to what some commentators have mistakenly written.

Yes, I saw these two cases (Notley, 329):

Ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδυῖα τὸ γεγονὸς εἰσῆλθεν. [Acts 5.9) διάστημα is clearly the subject.

καὶ εὐθέως ἀπέπεσαν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ὡς λεπίδες, ἀνέβλεψέν τε καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐβαπτίσθη (19) καὶ λαβὼν τροφὴν ἐνίσχυσεν. Ἐγένετο δὲ μετὰ τῶν ἐν Δαμασκῷ μαθητῶν ἡμέρας τινὰς (20) καὶ εὐθέως ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς ἐκήρυσσεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. [Acts 9.18-20] Paul is clearly the subject.

Thanks, Thomas, for the link.

Andrew

[Stirling Bartholomew]

It has taken some time to wade through R. Buth's 76 page article along with Steven Notle's contribution. I have some lingering doubts about the test criteria in Randall's article. For one thing I looked through Xeno. and Thucyd. without finding one example of ἐγένετο w/setting + infinitive. This is supposed to be regular greek in narrative. Would be glad to see some examples, not claiming to have ruled them out. Thucydides has two or more idioms with clause initial ἐγένετο but nothing like Luke 3:21-22 or Test. Job:

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

Test. Job 23.2.1
καὶ ἐγένετο κατὰ συντυχίαν ἀπελθεῖν πρὸς
αὐτὸν τὴν γυναῖκά μου καὶ αἰτῆσαι ἄρτον, νομίζουσα εἶναι
αὐτὸν ἄνθρωπον.

It isn't fair to claim Luke 3:21 is regular greek unless you include ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι … in the discussion of what is normal. Plummer (ICC Luke p. 45) claims this is normal (classical) greek. I wonder what he is using as a measure. I also wonder if the absence of NARRATIVE Τότε combined with one or more other criteria really establishes the case for Hebrew coloring. This absence of NARRATIVE Τότε certainly might be explained on several grounds but R. Buth's treatment is quite subtle. It isn't absence alone but absence in a particular configuration of other test criteria.

[RandallButh]

congratulations on a long read. If it's any consolation, the article on ἑβραιστί was quite long as well, and just addressed one word, widely misread within the discipline.

This is supposed to be regular greek in narrative.

Actually, regular Greek is subjectless συνέβη ... +main infinitive clause. The subjectless ἐγενετο + infinitive main clause is a feature of Jewish Greek. But it does not directly reflect either a Hebrew or Aramaic structure.

[Stirling Bartholomew]

congratulations on a long read. If it's any consolation, the article on ἑβραιστί was quite long as well, and just addressed one word, widely misread within the discipline.

This is supposed to be regular greek in narrative.

Actually, regular Greek is subjectless συνέβη ... +main infinitive clause. The subjectless ἐγενετο + infinitive main clause is a feature of Jewish Greek. But it does not directly reflect either a Hebrew or Aramaic structure.

RE: Type C prototype

I am wondering if type c; ἐγένετο --> setting --> infinitive[main event] is really a variant developed from συνέβη --> setting --> infinitive[main event]. I looked at some samples but didn’t draw any conclusion.

Reading Randall’s article[1] particularly in reference to setting type C (A. Plummer, type gamma, Luke ICC, p. 45) lets suggest a prototype something like:

(Καὶ) ἐγένετο/γίνεται* (δὲ) (setting) infinitive [the main event]

*One might argue that γίνεται has a slightly different flavor than ἐγένετο.

Greek setting structure (Buth[1] p305) illustrated from Mark by:

Mark 2:15 Καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ· ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ.

Mark 2:23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας.

Randall would probably consider R. T. France’s (NIGTC, Mark, 2002, p. 123) comment on Mk 2:15, 23 Καὶ γίνεται/Καὶ ἐγένετο + infinitive “a semitic turn of phrase” just one more example of what he is talking about, a misunderstanding of an idiom “modeled after the standard greek structure” Buth[1] page 314 (bottom of page). In various places in Buth’s article this idiom is referred to as Greek, “Greek”, Greek setting structure, Greek structure, structure c, Jewish Greek, “Jewish Greek”, modeled after … standard greek; but I don’t recall seeing it referred to as a semitic idiom, e.g., “it is not a direct Hebraism” (p. 270, top).

The “the standard greek structure” is different in that it involves συνέβη rather than ἐγένετο. Buth (p. 269) cites two examples:

2Mac. 5:2 συνέβη δὲ καθ᾿ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν σχεδὸν ἐφ᾿ ἡμέρας τεσσαράκοντα φαίνεσθαι διὰ τῶν ἀέρων τρέχοντας ἱππεῖς διαχρύσους στολὰς ἔχοντας καὶ λόγχας σπειρηδὸν ἐξωπλισμένους καὶ μαχαιρῶν σπασμοὺς

NRSV 2Mac. 5:2 And it happened that, for almost forty days, there appeared over all the city golden-clad cavalry charging through the air, in companies fully armed with lances and drawn swords

2Mac. 5:2 is not a straight forward sample of the prototype:

συνέβη δὲ two-adverbial-phrases (w/φαίνεσθαι) (no setting) infinitive [the main event] …

Acts 21:35 ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς, συνέβη βαστάζεσθαι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν στρατιωτῶν διὰ τὴν βίαν τοῦ ὄχλου,

Acts 21:35 inverts the order of the prototype with the setting first in a separate clause:

setting (ὅτε δὲ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀναβαθμούς) συνέβη infinitive [the main event]

Both examples show departures from the prototype unless you choose to read συνέβη βαστάζεσθαι alone as minimalist sample.


The first sample I found in Josephus follows the prototype but has an elaborate setting.

Josephus AJ 12.248
Συνέβη δὲ μετὰ ἔτη δύο τῷ ἑκατοστῷ καὶ τεσσαρακοστῷ
καὶ πέμπτῳ ἔτει μηνὸς πέμπτῃ καὶ εἰκάδι, ὃς καλεῖται κατὰ μὲν
ἡμᾶς Ἐξελέους, κατὰ δὲ Μακεδόνας Ἀπελλαῖος, ὀλυμπιάδι ἑκατοστῇ
καὶ πεντηκοστῇ καὶ τρίτῃ μετὰ πολλῆς δυνάμεως ἀναβῆναι τὸν
βασιλέα εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ προσποιησάμενον εἰρήνην ἀπάτῃ
περιγενέσθαι τῆς πόλεως.

Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery;

Συνέβη δὲ setting infinitive ἀναβῆναι [main event]

None of this disproves anything in regard to Randall's hypothesis. It was just an exercise to get a handle on what he was saying.


[1] Distinguishing Hebrew from Aramaic in Semitized Greek Texts, with an Application for the Gospels and Pseudepigrapha, Randall Buth, 2014. The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, Edited by Randall Buth and R. Steven Notley, Brill 2014, p247. In regard to Type C see pages 268-69, 305, 310-15.

[RandallButh]

Thank you, C Stirling. It does appear that you are getting a handle on the phenomena, μελετᾷς. (μελετᾶν seems a good Greek idiom for "get a handle on" "working through material".)

The article did become rather long and bulky, but one might expect that when needing to document how the likes of Dalman, Howard, Sparks, Black, Turner, Fitzmyer, and Casey could all misrepresent and misread the basic data on the ground (pp310-312, etc.). It almost reminds one of how ἑβραιστί has been mis-read throughout most NT studies of the past couple of centuries.

[Andrew Chapman]

Could there be a difference in tone between συμβαίνω and γίνομαι, with the former referring to the falling out of chance events, and the latter having more of a sense of purpose or teleonomy, so that the gospel writers might prefer the latter?

I perhaps should add that BDAG doesn't show any discernible difference: γίνομαι 4 - 'to occur as process or result'; συμβαίνω 2 - 'to occur as event or process'; but L&S has quite a lot about chance, accident and contingency under meaning 3 of συμβαίνω, and the question having occurred to me, I would like to ask it, despite rather expecting the answer no.

Andrew