As I am an advocate of the Byzantine textual tradition, I have posted this from the 2005 RP Edition of the Greek N.T. (which is copyright free, by the way) However, if you are of other textual persuasions, feel free to bring up any interesting variants.
EDIT*
You can see a video of me reading the passage here: http://youtu.be/kPxv0MlbwVY
I think I’ve heard from a few sources about the apparent Semitic nature of the phrase Ἐγένετο δὲ, often translated “and it came to pass.” But perhaps this is too perfective for the use of the aorist, perhaps a plain old “It happened” would better bring out the aoristic nature the verb; the implication that we are looking back on something in a sort of summary fashion, Any Thoughts?
ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις - The “far” distinction of “ἐκείναις” I think is very evident here… From the perspective of the writer, he is looking back to the relatively distant past, and being plural, as something that happened over a greater period of time than could be deduced from the physical length of these 21 verses.
Would there be a shift in nuance if Luke had written “δόγμα ἐκ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου”, or “δόγμα Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου” (no preposition)?
I think παρὰ is more vague than the others. Perhaps the idea is that it wasn’t necessarily Augustus in person that brought this δόγμα about; it was sanctioned by him, but his officials had the original idea and they took care of the details. Or something like that. Also, the narrator wasn’t probably born at that time; he certainly didn’t witness this personnally, so that could be a further reason for being vague.
It is found in Luke
Luke 2:1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην.
Luke 6:12 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις ἐξελθεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ ὄρος προσεύξασθαι, καὶ ἦν διανυκτερεύων ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Acts 9:37 ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἀσθενήσασαν αὐτὴν ἀποθανεῖν· λούσαντες δὲ ἔθηκαν [αὐτὴν] ἐν ὑπερῴῳ.
And Exodus LXX
Ex. 2:11 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταῖς πολλαῖς ἐκείναις μέγας γενόμενος Μωυσῆς ἐξῆλθεν πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ. κατανοήσας δὲ τὸν πόνον αὐτῶν ὁρᾷ ἄνθρωπον Αἰγύπτιον τύπτοντά τινα Εβραῖον τῶν ἑαυτοῦ ἀδελφῶν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ·
where it translates Ex. 2:11 ויהי בימים
ἐκ is “out of” – it would conjure up a strange image, I think–the decree would somehow be coming physically out of Augustus. Which orifice?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3De)k
παρὰ + genitive is regularly used to mean “from” a person, isn’t it?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dpara%2F
I lol’ed when I first read this, but if I wanted to be cynical I could say from the same orifice that many politicians today seem to get a lot of their policies (I speak as a Canadian)…
But I digress…
However BDAG has a definition which is in fact disctinct from ek, “Marker of the point fr. which an action originates.” with ek however, it doesn’t have to be an action, but is more likely a thing. Its good to break open that expensive collection of words now and then!
I suspect the late F. Danker adopted this terminology from some linguists like J. P. Louw & E.A. Nida. I don’t remember any of that kind of language in the 2nd Ed BAGD but my memory isn’t perfect which is why I haven’t dumped the 2nd still have it on hand.
παρα is not anything to get hung up on. It’s the ordinary and correct word to use of an instruction received “from” someone. It’s everywhere in the documentary papyri, used for all sorts of communications, official and private. Nothing “vague” about it. It was an imperial decree (if one can yet speak of Augustus as emperor), so it issued “from” him.
The εγενετο is much more interesting, kicking off the narrative with a marked semiticism reminiscent of the far less literary style of Mark’s gospel and of the Septuagint’s Greek Exodus quoted by C.S.Bartholemew, which it is presumably meant to evoke. It contrasts starkly with the high literary tone that Luke set in the dedicatory proemium (1.1-4) — which itself was directly followed by εγενετο εν ταις ημεραις, as again here. When he chooses, Luke is capable of writing the kind of Greek that would not disgrace any cultured Greek-educated writer, and he displays that at the very outset (a model literary dedication). Here he shifts into a very different stylistic mode, which his Greek teachers (along with his dedicatee Theophilus, one imagines) would have found shocking if not disgusting.
Just finished reading Fitzmyer’s discussion of semitisms in Acts. He makes a distinction between LXX language and semitisms. Using language of the Septuagint would be like adopting King James Version idioms in the south (USA) at least up until the mid 20th century. The language register is “biblical” the source is LXX translation greek. The language is to be expected from a member of a community who used the LXX as their bible. The syntax is an expanded formula of the much more common[1] ἐγένετο δὲ which is how the LXX renders a clause initial ויהי. This a narrative marker.
[1] Luke 1:8, Luke 2:1, Luke 2:6, Luke 3:21, Luke 5:1, Luke 6:1, Luke 6:6, Luke 6:12, Luke 8:22, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:37, Luke 9:51, Luke 11:14, Luke 11:27, Luke 16:22, Luke 18:35, Luke 22:24, Acts 4:5, Acts 5:7, Acts 8:1, Acts 8:8, Acts 9:19, Acts 9:32, Acts 9:37, Acts 9:43, Acts 10:10, Acts 11:26, Acts 14:1, Acts 15:39, Acts 16:16, Acts 19:1, Acts 19:23, Acts 22:6, Acts 22:17, Acts 23:9, Acts 28:8, Acts 28:17,
When he chooses, Luke is capable of writing the kind of Greek that would not disgrace any cultured Greek-educated writer, and he displays that at the very outset (a model literary dedication). Here he shifts into a very different stylistic mode, which his Greek teachers (along with his dedicatee Theophilus, one imagines) would have found shocking if not disgusting.
I just read over the preface. Is it possible that the preface was written by someone other than the author of the narrative that follows, or at least that the narrative was pulled together from someone else’s work? After all, the preface seems to disavow autopsy. I’m sure lots of scholars must have constructed elaborate theories about this–a stylistic difference of this sort is an irresistible temptation to speculation–but I’m not at all familiar with this area.
And what’s BADG?
Theories about sources in the gospels are endless. There are several major frameworks for the so called “synoptic problem.” Within each framework there is endless diversity. Stylistic difference is a fact which a text linguist might explain as a change of register, genre, … doesn’t require multiple authorship. Fitzmyer (Luke, Acts Anchor Bible) claims that Luke put his literary stamp on everything he borrowed from sources. Nobody argues that he didn’t have sources. Acts is a different problem from the gospel. But there are as many seams in the fabric in Acts as there are in Luke.
Bauer/Danker/Arndt/Gingrich: BDAG (standard English lexicon NT Greek, 3rd ed.) BAGD 2nd ed, BAG 1st ed. BADG dyslexia for BAGD. Replaces Grimm-Thayer which by the way is not such a bad lexicon, just prior to papyri which has very little practical effect on the definitions. Louw-Nida is a different concept, and after 25 years is now showing it’s age. Someone somewhere is working an update or new lexicon . Something like SEMANTIC DICTIONARY OF BIBLICAL HEBREW, Reinier de Blois. http://www.sdbh.org/vocabula/index.html
Your memory serves you right! This is a definition from the 3rd edition.
Perhaps the semetism is picked up from the “general lingo” in the religous groups of the day… It would be akin to the way Christians speak today, its very easy to pick out a christian by the type of vocabulary they use (encouraged, struggle, faithful… etc.)
This semetism does beg one questions: Should we take the tense from the greek word itself or does the general meaning come from the original source?
Are you asking about time? in expression:
Luke 2:1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις,
Well I don’t seen any problem here until you try and translate it. Carl Conrad has pointed out many times that most of our fussing about the semantics of Greek verbs and noun cases boils down to how are we going to translate it into English. If you just read it in Greek and forget about how you would put it in english then Ἐγένετο δὲ is not going to cause you any grief. It is a fixed formula for introducing a new development in the narrative. It is perfective but that terminology opens up what Markos would call a “can of worms” and it is better to just read the story than get bogged down in all kinds of theoretical issues.
BTW, καὶ ἐγένετο is another common LXX rendering of ויהי. The apocalypse of John always uses καὶ ἐγένετο. However, I would not venture to say that καὶ ἐγένετο in the apocalypse is equivlent to Ἐγένετο δὲ in Luke 2:1.
content deleted
On Hebrew discourse structure, ask Randall Buth 
A few very small quickies after looking through above posts.
Qimmik’s otherwise appealing idea runs up against the beginning of Acts (Luke “Part 2”), as the NT guys here will know perfectly well but it should be pointed out.
Agree with CSB (much more expert than me, a complete outsider) on egeneto. It’s Septuagint Greek, as read in Greek-speaking synagogues (which is not to say it’s not a semiticism, it is, only at a remove). Very unGreek Greek, and here scarcely functioning as a verb at all, followed as it is by exhlqen.
And I second CSB’s latest re translation. Isn’t this why we read Greek, to liberate ourselves from translation and translations?
Case in point: σὺν Μαριὰμ τῇ μεμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ γυναικί, οὔσῃ ἐγκύῳ. Without μεμνηστευμένῃ she wouldn’t necessarily be his wife (though it would most naturally be read so). Translation is difficult if not impossible. Now that I look at it, isn’t it rather an odd phrase to use anyway?
My understanding of verse 2 is that, again, Luke is stating that the census is from the one “governing/ruling” over Syria, but what I don’t understand is why Κυρηνίου is in the is at the end of the sentance, or even in the genetive case… Is it that Κυρηνίου is the reference for the participle, making him the ruler? I’m at a loss on this verse. What are your thoughs?
ἐπορεύοντο - Imperfect verb, any thoughts on why? Perhaps it was purposely set in the imperfect to sort of set the scene as to what was happening at the time. There arn’t many imperfects in this passage, and as a narrative, lends itself mostly to the aorists which it includes.
Genitive absolute, “while Kyrenios was governor of Syria.” [Κυρηνιος a Greek rendering of Quirinius, Greek having no letter Q!] ηγενονευω takes genitive (της Συριας), means to be the ηγεμων, the Roman governor. Κυρηναιου doesn’t have to come at the end but there’s no reason it shouldn’t, the effect perhaps more like “at the time when the governor of Syria was Quirinius.” It’s a common type of dating formula, giving a chronological fix.
Big chronological/historical problems here.
Tense of επορευοντο: not “everyone made the journey” as a simple event (aorist) but “everyone set about making the journey” (imperfect).
This is the first I’ve heard of this one! A quick google search shows the extant of the controversy, lets discuss… I have no knowledge of this, so I would be learning more than adding input.
The preface to Luke does seem to be written in a sophisticated register. I read the preface this morning after reading mwh’s post. Then I turned to what I’m currently engaged in reading, On the Crown, and stumbled across the exact same word:
Luke: παρηκολουθηκότι
Demosthenes: παρηκολουθηκότα
By the way, what kind of name is Loukas? It doesn’t seem either Greek or Hebrew (not that I know much Hebrew). Aramaic?
I agree and this is interesting, because to me this seems similar to the Homeric usage we discussed in the another lengthy Homeric Greek thread. (E.g. Od 2.2. ὤρνυτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐξ εὐνῆφιν Ὀδυσσῆος φίλος υἱὸς ). Looks like the Greek aspectual system remained pretty unchanged throughout antiquity.
It could represent the phrase ויהי בימים ההמה vayehi ba-yamim ha-hema (“it came about in those days”). Very neat correspondence, actually.
Why not “in those days, it happened that…”? Sounds good to me. Let’s try to avoid the sound of “and it came to pass in those days that…” in the style of the Book of Mormon. We have ample proof that this phrase can be overdone.
I wouldn’t put too much into the use of ἐκεῖναι here, since it would be used just to create a distinction with the present (that is, not now [νῦν = ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις] but then [ποτε = ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις]). Paul talked about his former way of life in Judaism and used the word ποτε to distinguish it from the present, and I cannot help but think that this is simply doing the same thing. It doesn’t mean that it was “a long time ago in a galaxy far away.”
Notice that Jesus often said that he had come “from the Father” (παρὰ τοῦ πατρός), and that he would send the spirit παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, that he made known what he had heard παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, and we have John the Baptist being sent παρὰ θεοῦ (“from God”). I cannot imagine the decree coming ἐκ the Caesar, but I can imagine it coming ἀπό him.
I see more will and intention involved with παρά than the others.