Ἦν and Ἐγένετο

I was looking at John 1:6 and John 3:1...

Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, (3:1)

and Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, (1:6)

I don't think apostle John was trying to say anything different by using Ἦν in 1:6 versus Ἐγένετο at John 3:1. I think those who say that Ἦν and Ἐγένετο can never be interchangeable are mistaken, as shown by the above examples. Both verbs are connoting the same thing -- that was a man ....
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
I was looking at John 1:6 and John 3:1...

Ἦν δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τῶν Φαρισαίων, (3:1)

and Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, (1:6)

I don't think apostle John was trying to say anything different by using Ἦν in 1:6 versus Ἐγένετο at John 3:1. I think those who say that Ἦν and Ἐγένετο can never be interchangeable are mistaken, as shown by the above examples. Both verbs are connoting the same thing -- that was a man ....

Didn't you say αποστέλλω always indicated movement in literal space?

Γινομαοι is said by the lexicons to indicate a change of some sort. Setting that aside, the participle is dependent upon the verb γινομαι and modifies it adverbially.

This favors "came" over "was."
 
Matthew 7:27 and Luke 6:49 also came to my remembrance on this score --

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη.

ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ μὴ ποιήσας ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν, καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα.

Here again ἦν and ἐγένετο are interchangeable. There really should not be denial on this issue anymore.
 
Didn't you say αποστέλλω always indicated movement in literal space?

Γινομαοι is said by the lexicons to indicate a change of some sort. Setting that aside, the participle is dependent upon the verb γινομαι and modifies it adverbially.

This favors "came" over "was."

Roger, ἀπεσταλμένος is a substantival participial (it is not modifying γινομαι adverbially) even [especially?!] if you take it as a S-PN as does Gryllus.
 
I'll make it easier for those who need help seeing the similarity, with colors:

καὶ (conjunction) ἦν (equative verb) ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς (subject) μεγάλη (predicate nominative)

vs

καὶ (conjunction) ἐγένετο (equative verb) τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης (subject) μέγα (predicate nominative)

Clearly here ἦν is interchangeable with ἐγένετο
 
Who said that the verbs are never interchangeable? They clearly sometimes are, but certainly not always.

That's a good start . The two verbs are sometimes interchangeable and therefore at a minimum it is valid to say that the following two S-PN constructions are identical syntactically and structurally:

John 1:1b καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

and

Isaiah 38:4 καὶ ἐγένετο λόγος κυρίου πρὸς Ησαιαν

Both have an equative verb, both start with a conjunction, both have a singular nominative substantive followed by the preposition πρὸς followed by another singular substantive in the accusative.

Further, unless you want to argue that ἦν here is an "eternal" "to be," which you really cannot do so, ἦν and ἐγένετο in the above two clauses are interchangeable. It would make no difference if we substituted ἦν for ἐγένετο at Isaiah 38:4 and vice versa.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Matthew 7:27 and Luke 6:49 also came to my remembrance on this score --

καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν, καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη.

ὁ δὲ ἀκούσας καὶ μὴ ποιήσας ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδομήσαντι οἰκίαν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν χωρὶς θεμελίου, ᾗ προσέρηξεν ὁ ποταμός, καὶ εὐθὺς συνέπεσεν, καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ ῥῆγμα τῆς οἰκίας ἐκείνης μέγα.

Here again ἦν and ἐγένετο are interchangeable. There really should not be denial on this issue anymore.

That is a good example. But be careful to distinguish between affected and unaffected meaning and not illegitimately transfer something phenomenal from this one context to an ontological property of γινομαι.

I don't see the participle at John 1:6 as substantival. The only way to prove that would be the absence of a verb to govern it.

Young's Literal Translation
There came a man -- having been sent from God -- whose name is John
 
That is a good example. But be careful to distinguish between affected and unaffected meaning and not illegitimately transfer something phenomenal from this one context to an ontological property of γινομαι.

I don't see the participle at John 1:6 as substantival. The only way to prove that would be the absence of a verb to govern it.

Young's Literal Translation
There came a man -- having been sent from God -- whose name is John

There is no other way to see it. Btw., your English example makes it an appositive and thus substantival.
 
Yes there is:

Contemporary English Version
God sent a man named John.

What's that supposed to do for you ? The part in bold is a parenthetic nominative . You should actually read the Greek as follows -- There came a man sent from God (his name was John). Red and blue are in apposition:

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάνης·

ἀπεσταλμένος can only be a substantival participle.





And how does αποστέλλω being in apposition to γινοομαι help you at John 1:1

What ?
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
What's that supposed to do for you ? The part in bold is a parenthetic nominative . You should actually read the Greek as follows -- There came a man sent from God (his name was John). Red and blue are in apposition:

Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ, ὄνομα αὐτῷ Ἰωάνης·

ἀπεσταλμένος can only be a substantival participle.







What ?

I said:
And how does αποστέλλω being in apposition to γινοομαι help you at John 1:1

I already brought this up in this thread.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
Who says it helps me, or else hurts me ? I am concerned with the interchangeability of Ἦν with Ἐγένετο in this thread.

I said:

'Didn't you say αποστέλλω always indicated movement in literal space?

Γινομαοι is said by the lexicons to indicate a change of some sort. Setting that aside, the participle is dependent upon the verb γινομαι and modifies it adverbially.

This favors "came" over "was." '

Whether αποστέλλω is appositional to γινομαι, modifies it adverbially or is periphrastic, the sense of the verbal aspect at John 1:1 is change.

Your example that was paired for this with ην does not have those elements.

One cannot take the affected meaning from the syntax of one verse and consider it as the unaffected meaning of the verb in other places.

This seems to be something you use as a primary tool in your exegesis. The lexical meaning of a verb, it's aspect and usage comes from the majority of unaffected usages, not a minority of affected or phenomenal usages.
 
I said:

'Didn't you say αποστέλλω always indicated movement in literal space?

When it's a verb, not when it's a substantival participle.


Γινομαοι is said by the lexicons to indicate a change of some sort. Setting that aside, the participle is dependent upon the verb γινομαι and modifies it adverbially.

This favors "came" over "was." '

Whether αποστέλλω is appositional to γινομαι, modifies it adverbially or is periphrastic, the sense of the verbal aspect at John 1:1 is change.

Your example that was paired for this with ην does not have those elements.

One cannot take the affected meaning from the syntax of one verse and consider it as the unaffected meaning of the verb in other places.

This seems to be something you use as a primary tool in your exegesis. The lexical meaning of a verb, it's aspect and usage comes from the majority of unaffected usages, not a minority of affected or phenomenal usages.

I'm afraid that above is nonsense. Can't make head or tail of it.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
When it's a verb, not when it's a substantival participle.




I'm afraid that above is nonsense. Can't make head or tail of it.

If it is your intention to change my mind, then you will need to try harder.

Read "The approach of this book" at the beginning of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics." I borrowed the terminology from him.
 

Roger Thornhill

Active member
When it's a verb, not when it's a substantival participle.




I'm afraid that above is nonsense. Can't make head or tail of it.

You said:
When it's a verb, not when it's a substantival participle.

How can you expect anyone to take something like this seriously without providing evidence to back it up?

A pattern I have observed is that you make a statement like this and the expect your interlocutor to prove you wrong as if they bear the burden of proof.

That's not true. You bear the burden of proof.
 
You said:
When it's a verb, not when it's a substantival participle.

How can you expect anyone to take something like this seriously without providing evidence to back it up?

A pattern I have observed is that you make a statement like this and the expect your interlocutor to prove you wrong as if they bear the burden of proof.

That's not true. You bear the burden of proof.

You're derailing the thread with less than coherent points.
 
Top