Actually, הימים (that is, without the preposition) comes with an adjective: ההם “those.” The whole phrase in Ex 2.11 is ויהי בימים ההם (link).
Addition: It seems that the modifier ταῖς πολλαῖς is taken from verse 23 rather than verse 11, where we see ויהי בימים הרבים ההם with הרבים being translated as ταῖς πολλαῖς in the LXX.
An excellent analysis, methinks.
Thank you so kindly for this link.
Yes, indeed. With the genitive absolute, the subject of the participle is also in the genitive.
Isn’t that a large controversy to open on a language study forum? 
Luke has another narrative connection expression γενομένης δὲ +noun genitive which is not an LXX idiom but See samples from 2Macc. This is found in Thucydides.
Matt. 13:21 οὐκ ἔχει δὲ ῥίζαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀλλὰ πρόσκαιρός ἐστιν, γενομένης δὲ θλίψεως ἢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον εὐθὺς σκανδαλίζεται.
Luke 4:42 Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἔρημον τόπον· καὶ οἱ ὄχλοι ἐπεζήτουν αὐτὸν καὶ ἦλθον ἕως αὐτοῦ καὶ κατεῖχον αὐτὸν τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν.
Acts 2:6 γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης συνῆλθεν τὸ πλῆθος καὶ συνεχύθη, ὅτι ἤκουον εἷς ἕκαστος τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν.
Acts 12:18 Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἦν τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος ἐν τοῖς στρατιώταις τί ἄρα ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο.
Acts 15:2 γενομένης δὲ στάσεως καὶ ζητήσεως οὐκ ὀλίγης τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Βαρναβᾷ πρὸς αὐτούς, ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν Παῦλον καὶ Βαρναβᾶν καί τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους καὶ πρεσβυτέρους εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ περὶ τοῦ ζητήματος τούτου.
Acts 21:17 Γενομένων δὲ ἡμῶν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἀσμένως ἀπεδέξαντο ἡμᾶς οἱ ἀδελφοί.
Acts 23:12 Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον.
Thucydides
1, 108, 1, 2
ἕκαστοι· ξύμπαντες δὲ ἐγένοντο τετρακισχίλιοι καὶ μύριοι.
νομίσαντες δὲ ἀπορεῖν ὅπῃ διέλθωσιν ἐπεστράτευσαν αὐτοῖς,
καί τι καὶ τοῦ δήμου καταλύσεως ὑποψίᾳ. ἦλθον δὲ καὶ
Θεσσαλῶν ἱππῆς τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις κατὰ τὸ ξυμμαχικόν, οἳ
μετέστησαν ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ παρὰ τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους. γενο-
μένης δὲ μάχης ἐν Τανάγρᾳ τῆς Βοιωτίας ἐνίκων Λακεδαι-
μόνιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι, καὶ φόνος ἐγένετο ἀμφοτέρων πολύς.
καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν ἐς τὴν Μεγαρίδα ἐλθόντες καὶ
δενδροτομήσαντες πάλιν ἀπῆλθον ἐπ’ οἴκου διὰ Γερανείας
καὶ Ἰσθμοῦ· Ἀθηναῖοι δὲ δευτέρᾳ καὶ ἑξηκοστῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετὰ
τὴν μάχην ἐστράτευσαν ἐς Βοιωτοὺς Μυρωνίδου στρατη
Thucydides
3, 74, 2, 2
μαχον, τοῖς δ’ ἑτέροις ἐκ τῆς ἠπείρου ἐπίκουροι ὀκτακόσιοι.
διαλιπούσης δ’ ἡμέρας μάχη αὖθις γίγνεται καὶ νικᾷ ὁ δῆμος
χωρίων τε ἰσχύι καὶ πλήθει προύχων· αἵ τε γυναῖκες αὐτοῖς
τολμηρῶς ξυνεπελάβοντο βάλλουσαι ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκιῶν τῷ κε-
ράμῳ καὶ παρὰ φύσιν ὑπομένουσαι τὸν θόρυβον. γενομένης
δὲ τῆς τροπῆς περὶ δείλην ὀψίαν, δείσαντες οἱ ὀλίγοι μὴ
αὐτοβοεὶ ὁ δῆμος τοῦ τε νεωρίου κρατήσειεν ἐπελθὼν καὶ
σφᾶς διαφθείρειεν, ἐμπιπρᾶσι τὰς οἰκίας τὰς ἐν κύκλῳ τῆς
ἀγορᾶς καὶ τὰς ξυνοικίας, ὅπως μὴ ᾖ ἔφοδος, φειδόμενοι
οὔτε οἰκείας οὔτε ἀλλοτρίας, ὥστε καὶ χρήματα πολλὰ ἐμπό-
ρων κατεκαύθη καὶ ἡ πόλις ἐκινδύνευσε πᾶσα διαφθαρῆναι,
Thucydides
4, 34, 2, 1
αὐτοὺς ὁμοίως σφίσι φαίνεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ εὐθὺς ἄξια τῆς
προσδοκίας ἐπεπόνθεσαν, ὥσπερ ὅτε πρῶτον ἀπέβαινον τῇ
γνώμῃ δεδουλωμένοι ὡς ἐπὶ Λακεδαιμονίους, καταφρονή-
σαντες καὶ ἐμβοήσαντες ἁθρόοι ὥρμησαν ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ
ἔβαλλον λίθοις τε καὶ τοξεύμασι καὶ ἀκοντίοις, ὡς ἕκαστός
τι πρόχειρον εἶχεν. γενομένης δὲ τῆς βοῆς ἅμα τῇ
ἐπιδρομῇ ἔκπληξίς τε ἐνέπεσεν ἀνθρώποις ἀήθεσι τοιαύτης
μάχης καὶ ὁ κονιορτὸς τῆς ὕλης νεωστὶ κεκαυμένης ἐχώρει
πολὺς ἄνω, ἄπορόν τε ἦν ἰδεῖν τὸ πρὸ αὑτοῦ ὑπὸ τῶν
τοξευμάτων καὶ λίθων ἀπὸ πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων μετὰ τοῦ
κονιορτοῦ ἅμα φερομένων. τό τε ἔργον ἐνταῦθα χαλεπὸν
Thucydides
8, 81, 2, 1
πράγματα, ὥστε κατάγειν Ἀλκιβιάδην, [καὶ] τέλος ἀπ’
ἐκκλησίας ἔπεισε τὸ πλῆθος τῶν στρατιωτῶν, καὶ ψηφισα-
μένων αὐτῶν Ἀλκιβιάδῃ κάθοδον καὶ ἄδειαν πλεύσας ὡς
τὸν Τισσαφέρνην κατῆγεν ἐς τὴν Σάμον τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην,
νομίζων μόνην σωτηρίαν εἰ Τισσαφέρνην αὐτοῖς μεταστή-
σειεν ἀπὸ Πελοποννησίων. γενομένης δὲ ἐκκλησίας τήν τε
ἰδίαν ξυμφορὰν τῆς φυγῆς ἐπῃτιάσατο καὶ ἀνωλοφύρατο ὁ
Ἀλκιβιάδης, καὶ περὶ τῶν πολιτικῶν πολλὰ εἰπὼν ἐς ἐλ-
πίδας τε αὐτοὺς οὐ σμικρὰς τῶν μελλόντων καθίστη, καὶ
ὑπερβάλλων ἐμεγάλυνε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ δύναμιν παρὰ τῷ Τισσα-
φέρνει, ἵνα οἵ τε οἴκοι τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν ἔχοντες φοβοῖντο
Also in 2Mac.
2Mac. 2:4 ἦν δὲ ἐν τῇ γραφῇ ὡς τὴν σκηνὴν καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ὁ προφήτης χρηματισμοῦ γενηθέντος αὐτῷ συνακολουθεῖν· ὡς δὲ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς τὸ ὄρος, οὗ ὁ Μωυσῆς ἀναβὰς ἐθεάσατο τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κληρονομίαν.
2Mac. 3:9 παραγενηθεὶς δὲ εἰς Ιεροσόλυμα καὶ φιλοφρόνως ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τῆς πόλεως ἀποδεχθεὶς ἀνέθετο περὶ τοῦ γεγονότος ἐμφανισμοῦ, καὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν πάρεστιν διεσάφησεν· ἐπυνθάνετο δὲ εἰ ταῖς ἀληθείαις ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχοντα τυγχάνει.
2Mac. 4:39 Γενομένων δὲ πολλῶν ἱεροσυλημάτων κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Λυσιμάχου μετὰ τῆς τοῦ Μενελάου γνώμης καὶ διαδοθείσης ἔξω τῆς φήμης ἐπισυνήχθη τὸ πλῆθος ἐπὶ τὸν Λυσίμαχον χρυσωμάτων ἤδη πολλῶν διενηνεγμένων.
2Mac. 5:5 γενομένης δὲ λαλιᾶς ψευδοῦς ὡς μετηλλαχότος Ἀντιόχου τὸν βίον παραλαβὼν ὁ Ἰάσων οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν χιλίων αἰφνιδίως ἐπὶ τὴν πόλιν συνετελέσατο ἐπίθεσιν· τῶν δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ τείχει συνελασθέντων καὶ τέλος ἤδη καταλαμβανομένης τῆς πόλεως ὁ Μενέλαος εἰς τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἐφυγάδευσεν.
2Mac. 6:7 ἤγοντο δὲ μετὰ πικρᾶς ἀνάγκης εἰς τὴν κατὰ μῆνα τοῦ βασιλέως γενέθλιον ἡμέραν ἐπὶ σπλαγχνισμόν, γενομένης δὲ Διονυσίων ἑορτῆς ἠναγκάζοντο κισσοὺς ἔχοντες πομπεύειν τῷ Διονύσῳ.
2Mac. 8:24 γενομένου δὲ αὐτοῖς τοῦ παντοκράτορος συμμάχου κατέσφαξαν τῶν πολεμίων ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἐνακισχιλίους, τραυματίας δὲ καὶ τοῖς μέλεσιν ἀναπείρους τὸ πλεῖον μέρος τῆς τοῦ Νικάνορος στρατιᾶς ἐποίησαν, πάντας δὲ φυγεῖν ἠνάγκασαν.
2Mac. 10:29 γενομένης δὲ καρτερᾶς μάχης ἐφάνησαν τοῖς ὑπεναντίοις ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐφ᾿ ἵππων χρυσοχαλίνων ἄνδρες πέντε διαπρεπεῖς, καὶ ἀφηγούμενοι τῶν Ιουδαίων,
2Mac. 12:1 Γενομένων δὲ τῶν συνθηκῶν τούτων ὁ μὲν Λυσίας ἀπῄει πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, οἱ δὲ Ιουδαῖοι περὶ τὴν γεωργίαν ἐγίνοντο.
2Mac. 12:11 γενομένης δὲ καρτερᾶς μάχης καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν Ιουδαν διὰ τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ βοήθειαν εὐημερησάντων ἐλαττονωθέντες οἱ νομάδες ἠξίουν δοῦναι τὸν Ιουδαν δεξιὰς αὐτοῖς ὑπισχνούμενοι καὶ βοσκήματα δώσειν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ὠφελήσειν αὐτούς.
2Mac. 15:29 γενομένης δὲ κραυγῆς καὶ ταραχῆς εὐλόγουν τὸν δυνάστην τῇ πατρίῳ φωνῇ.
Luke has another narrative connection expression > γενομένης δὲ +noun genitive > which is not an LXX idiom.
Mark prefers a different wording: Καὶ γενομένης ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου …
Mark 6:2 καὶ γενομένου σαββάτου ἤρξατο διδάσκειν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ, καὶ πολλοὶ ἀκούοντες ἐξεπλήσσοντο λέγοντες· πόθεν τούτῳ ταῦτα, καὶ τίς ἡ σοφία ἡ δοθεῖσα τούτῳ, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τοιαῦται διὰ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ γινόμεναι;
Mark 6:21 Καὶ γενομένης ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου ὅτε Ἡρῴδης τοῖς γενεσίοις αὐτοῦ δεῖπνον ἐποίησεν τοῖς μεγιστᾶσιν αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῖς χιλιάρχοις καὶ τοῖς πρώτοις τῆς Γαλιλαίας,
Mark 6:47 καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἦν τὸ πλοῖον ἐν μέσῳ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ αὐτὸς μόνος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
Mark 14:17 Καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα.
Mark 15:33 Καὶ γενομένης ὥρας ἕκτης σκότος ἐγένετο ἐφ᾿ ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἕως ὥρας ἐνάτης.
Perhaps in Thucydides?
Thucydides
4, 117, 1, 7
θέρους εὐθὺς ἐκεχειρίαν ἐποιήσαντο ἐνιαύσιον, νομίσαντες
Ἀθηναῖοι μὲν οὐκ ἂν ἔτι τὸν Βρασίδαν σφῶν προσαπο-
στῆσαι οὐδὲν πρὶν παρασκευάσαιντο καθ’ ἡσυχίαν, καὶ ἅμα,
εἰ καλῶς σφίσιν ἔχοι, καὶ ξυμβῆναι τὰ πλείω, Λακεδαι-
μόνιοι δὲ ταῦτα τοὺς Ἀθηναίους ἡγούμενοι ἅπερ ἐδέδισαν
φοβεῖσθαι, καὶ γενομένης ἀνοκωχῆς κακῶν καὶ ταλαιπωρίας
μᾶλλον ἐπιθυμήσειν αὐτοὺς πειρασαμένους ξυναλλαγῆναί τε
καὶ τοὺς ἄνδρας σφίσιν ἀποδόντας σπονδὰς ποιήσασθαι καὶ
ἐς τὸν πλείω χρόνον. τοὺς γὰρ δὴ ἄνδρας περὶ πλέονος
ἐποιοῦντο κομίσασθαι, ὡς ἔτι Βρασίδας ηὐτύχει· καὶ ἔμελλον
ἐπὶ μεῖζον χωρήσαντος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀντίπαλα καταστήσαντος
Thucydides 5, 76, 3, 5
σπονδὰς ποιήσαντες πρὸς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους αὖθις ὕστερον
καὶ ξυμμαχίαν, καὶ οὕτως ἤδη τῷ δήμῳ ἐπιτίθεσθαι. καὶ
ἀφικνεῖται πρόξενος ὢν Ἀργείων Λίχας ὁ Ἀρκεσιλάου παρὰ
τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων δύο λόγω φέρων ἐς τὸ Ἄργος, τὸν μὲν
καθ’ ὅτι εἰ βούλονται πολεμεῖν, τὸν δ’ ὡς εἰ εἰρήνην ἄγειν.
καὶ γενομένης πολλῆς ἀντιλογίας (ἔτυχε γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀλκι-
βιάδης παρών) οἱ ἄνδρες οἱ τοῖς Λακεδαιμονίοις πράσσοντες,
ἤδη καὶ ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ τολμῶντες, ἔπεισαν τοὺς Ἀργείους
προσδέξασθαι τὸν ξυμβατήριον λόγον. ἔστι δὲ ὅδε.
’Καττάδε δοκεῖ τᾷ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ξυμ-
βαλέσθαι ποττὼς Ἀργείως, ἀποδιδόντας τὼς παῖδας τοῖς
I have to say I see nothing whatever remarkable about these. They’re perfectly ordinary Greek (not semitic) genitive absolutes, fixing the time of day (as likewise with πρωας, οψιας, and the 3rd/6th/9th hour) in standard fashion. These examples put the verb first, but there are plenty of others that put the noun first.
Perhaps I’m missing what’s being suggested here? The εγενετο … idiom is totally different.
—That, incidentally, in Luke I’d now be inclined to think is a semitism at second remove: he took it from written accounts which owed it in turn to the LXX in the Greek synagogues. (In Joseph Smith it’s at 4th remove!) Plausible or not? I don’t really know enough about Luke’s Greek (or rather his semitisms) to say. Nothing is known about his background, is it, unless the conventional identification with the Luke mentioned by Paul is to be accepted, but that would put him earlier than one would guess from the preface and is there any good reason to accept it? I’m just an amateur here. When did the gospel get attributed to him, anyone know? (Pretty early, obviously, but just how early?)
EDIT. Oh, I see what you’re getting at: δε versus και as the connective. That’s certainly a significant stylistic difference. But (1) Mark’s predilection for strings of και’s is well known, and (2) there’s no need to link it to this verb in particular (or is there?) (The relevance of Thucydides, of all people, I still don’t see at all. And why 2 Mac.? No-one thinks that’s Septuagint Greek do they? – nor that it was written by Luke!)
No disagreement on this. Discourse studies aka NT Text Linguistics spends a lot of time talking about perfectly normal greek. Levinsohn (Discourse Features NT Greek 2000 pages 177-190) lumps εγενετο with pre-nuclear participle clauses in a discussion of back-grounding. What εγενετο has in common with γενομένης δὲ +noun genitive or Καὶ γενομένης ἡμέρας εὐκαίρου is that both are used for introducing narrative segments and according to Levinsohn both are used for back-grounding. In the examples given some form of γίνομαι is a component but γίνομαι is not a necessary component in the pre-nuclear participle clause.
I would claim that all of the above is perfectly normal Biblical Greek. Just like KJV-isms were perfectly normal American English up until fairly recently. Nobody accused anyone using KJV idioms of “bad English” or got excited because the KJV tended to model fairly closely the underlying syntax of the Greek and Hebrew vorlage. I am not a student of Milton but I suspect he used a lot of biblical idioms.
—That, incidentally, in Luke I’d now be inclined to think is a semitism at second remove: he took it from written accounts which owed it in turn to the LXX in the Greek synagogues. (In Joseph Smith it’s at 4th remove!) Plausible or not? I don’t really know enough about Luke’s Greek (or rather his semitisms) to say. Nothing is known about his background, is it, unless the conventional identification with the Luke mentioned by Paul is to be accepted, but that would put him earlier than one would guess from the preface and is there any good reason to accept it? I’m just an amateur here. When did the gospel get attributed to him, anyone know? (Pretty early, obviously, but just how early?)
EDIT. Oh, I see what you’re getting at: δε versus και as the connective. That’s certainly a significant stylistic difference. But (1) Mark’s predilection for strings of και’s is well known, and (2) there’s no need to link it to this verb in particular (or is there?) (The relevance of Thucydides, of all people, I still don’t see at all. And why 2 Mac.? No-one thinks that’s Septuagint Greek do they? – nor that it was written by Luke!)
The relevance of Thucydides is to demonstrate the obvious, a genitive absolute with or without γίνομαι introducing a narrative segment is “perfectly normal greek” if we assume Thucydides as model of “normal greek.” So I drawing a distinction between εγενετο δὲ / και εγενετο and γενομένης δὲ +noun genitive. One is Classical the other is Biblical greek.
I would claim that all of the above is perfectly normal Biblical Greek. Just like KJV-isms were perfectly normal American English up until fairly recently. Nobody accused anyone using KJV idioms of “bad English” or got excited because the KJV tended to model fairly closely the underlying syntax of the Greek and Hebrew vorlage. I am not a student of Milton but I suspect he used a lot of biblical idioms.
A friend of mine who is a text-linguist and LXX scholar from Moscow (Russia not Idaho) explained to me that the attitude reflected in the western LXX scholarship toward the literary qualities of the LXX, take for example Albert Pietersma’s “school boy greek” (source Carl Conrad), this attitude is not shared by all LXX scholars who are in Orthodox tradition. They consider the LXX a work of literature not just a tool for doing textual criticism on the Hebrew bible. The fact that it doesn’t sound like Thucydides isn’t an issue.
The only trouble with this is that it erases the distinctiveness of the εγενετο idiom.
Quite so.
Time to move on, perhaps?
I think so… At this rate, we’ll be into the new year before we make it to the end of the passage. lol
That was indeed quite the discussion, thanks for your time and effort into looking at that. So to conclude, there was semetic influance on the author due to the translation of the LXX which made its way into the new testament, especially in Luke and acts! Would you consider this statement accurate?
Let us consider “ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ,” Near the end of Verse four… Any thought on why an “indefenite” pronoun is used for in a seemingly definite way? Or is this just a simple case of… Sometimes its just used that way?
τι νομιζετε;
Yes we must get to the birth by Christmas Day!
Your summary statement I’d describe as accurate enough.
(But as a sidenote clarification: the LXX aka Septuagint is the translation, the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, reputedly by seventy—Lat. septuaginta, lxx—scholars commissioned by Ptolemy Philadelphus at Alexandria. There were other Greek translations too, by renowned later scholars, which at least partially displaced the LXX in synagogues but not I think before 2nd century.)
As to ἥτις versus ἥ, there’s no significant difference; the -τις doesn’t make it indefinite. You put it well: “sometimes it’s just used that way.”
ὅστις = ὅς It functions as a relative pronoun. See the discussion of ὅστις in ATR p728f, BDF §293, N.Turner p47.
Do you think there is any discourse significance to the use of ὅστις as apposed to ὅς? I’ve been reading through Stephen Runge’s discourse grammar and I’ve been learning about marked use and back-grounding. Does Lehvinson maybe say anything about these two? It seems like ὅστις could be the marked usage over ὅς.
It is risky to dogmatically assert that the distinction could have no discourse relevance. We need to distinguish between morphological marking, semantic functional marking, and marked in regard to information structure. Obviously ὅστις is morphologically different from ὅς. The question in most NT grammars has to do with the semantic and syntactic functional distinction between ὅς and ὅστις. Standard grammars don’t consider questions of information structure or if they do it is trivialised to the point of being useless.
Acts 23:12 Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ποιήσαντες συστροφὴν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀνεθεμάτισαν ἑαυτοὺς λέγοντες μήτε φαγεῖν μήτε πιεῖν ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωσιν τὸν Παῦλον. 13 ἦσαν δὲ πλείους τεσσεράκοντα οἱ ταύτην τὴν συνωμοσίαν ποιησάμενοι, 14 οἵτινες προσελθόντες τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις εἶπαν· ἀναθέματι ἀνεθεματίσαμεν ἑαυτοὺς μηδενὸς γεύσασθαι ἕως οὗ ἀποκτείνωμεν τὸν Παῦλον.
In regard to back-grounding Levinsohn (2000:192) cites Acts 23:12-14a where the relative clause is a continuative use of the relative. This use of the relative clause often follows a clause with background. The continuative relative narrates foreground events following a clause which contains information about the setting, time, scenario, etc. But note that the form of the pronoun is not a factor in this. What marks it in terms of discourse is how it is used in the narrative. Levinsohn makes no reference to the form of the relative οἵτινες. The form doesn’t have any bearing on the discussion.
back to Luke
Luke 2:4 Ἀνέβη δὲ καὶ Ἰωσὴφ ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐκ πόλεως Ναζαρὲθ εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐξ οἴκου καὶ πατριᾶς Δαυίδ,
This is a restrictive relative clause. It limits the scope of reference for εἰς πόλιν Δαυὶδ. There may be multiple places that this could refer to by we are only concerned with one ἥτις καλεῖται Βηθλέεμ. All of this is background information.
I’m not completely sure I understand what you mean, but I think I would translate ὅστις “the one which”.
I am not particularly happy[1] with Levinsohn’s treatment of the relative clause. It has little or nothing to do with the question about ὅστις vs. ὅς. This is not IMHO a discourse issue. The relative in Lk 2:4 is simple. It limits the scope for “City of David.” That’s all.
[1] I am inclined to think the relative clause introduces background information in many instances. I don’t sit well with notion that the primary use of it in Gospel narrative is to background the clause prior to the the relative clause. That is something that leads me to suspect that Levinsohn is working with a different understanding of background than I am. I got my background on background from R. E. Longacre Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed. which I no longer have.
I agree. No amount of guff about background and foreground is going to elucidate the difference between ητις and simple *η in this clause. There’s effectively none. They’re used indifferently. It’s a null distinction.
In certain syntactic contexts the -τις adds indefiniteness. Not here.
I can’t wait to find out what’s going to happen! She’s pregnant, you can count on it, the two of them forced to set out on such a journey by those nasty Romans. Will she come to term? Will it be a boy or a girl? I’m rather hoping it will be a girl myself, but I expect that’s too much to hope for, these stories are always about boys. What will it be called? I’m guessing there’s going to be something special about it, but what? Oh the suspense!
Καὶ ποιμένες ἦσαν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τῇ αὐτῇ ἀγραυλοῦντες καὶ φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς τῆς νυκτὸς ἐπὶ τὴν ποίμνην αὐτῶν. 9 Καὶ ἰδού, ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐπέστη αὐτοῖς, καὶ δόξα κυρίου περιέλαμψεν αὐτούς· καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν. 10 Καὶ εἴπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος, Μὴ φοβεῖσθε· ἰδοὺ γάρ, εὐαγγελίζομαι ὑμῖν χαρὰν μεγάλην, ἥτις ἔσται παντὶ τῷ λαῷ·
This brings to mind Hesiod Theogony 21ff:
αἵ νύ ποθ᾽ Ἡσίοδον καλὴν ἐδίδαξαν ἀοιδήν,
ἄρνας ποιμαίνονθ᾽ Ἑλικῶνος ὕπο ζαθέοιο.
τόνδε δέ με πρώτιστα θεαὶ πρὸς μῦθον ἔειπον,
Μοῦσαι Ὀλυμπιάδες, κοῦραι Διὸς αἰγιόχοιο:
ποιμένες ἄγραυλοι, κάκ᾽ ἐλέγχεα, γαστέρες οἶον,
ἴδμεν ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγειν ἐτύμοισιν ὁμοῖα,
ἴδμεν δ᾽, εὖτ᾽ ἐθέλωμεν, ἀληθέα γηρύσασθαι.
ὣς ἔφασαν κοῦραι μεγάλου Διὸς ἀρτιέπειαι:
καί μοι σκῆπτρον ἔδον δάφνης ἐριθηλέος ὄζον
δρέψασαι, θηητόν: ἐνέπνευσαν δέ μοι αὐδὴν
θέσπιν, ἵνα κλείοιμι τά τ᾽ ἐσσόμενα πρό τ᾽ ἐόντα.
καί μ᾽ ἐκέλονθ᾽ ὑμνεῖν μακάρων γένος αἰὲν ἐόντων,
σφᾶς δ᾽ αὐτὰς πρῶτόν τε καὶ ὕστατον αἰὲν ἀείδειν.
ἀλλὰ τί ἦ μοι ταῦτα περὶ δρῦν ἢ περὶ πέτρην;
[The goddesses] taught Hesiod beautiful song as he was shepherding his lambs at the foot of holy Helicon. The Muses of Olympus, daughters of Aegis-bearing Zeus, spoke this speech to me first: Shepherds out in the fields, you worthless creatures, you’re nothing but stomachs! We know how to speak many lies that seem like truths, but when we want to, we also know how to proclaim truths. This is what the prompt-speaking daughters of great Zeus said. And they cut off a thriving branch of laurel and gave it to me as a staff, an awesome one, and they breathed into me divine speech so that I could celebrate the future and the past. And they commanded me to sing praises of the race of eternal beings, and to always sing of themselves first and last. But why is this about oak and rock to me?
Of course, ἄγραυλοι naturally goes with ποιμένες, but the parallels between the supernatural messages to shepherds out in the fields are striking.
περὶ δρῦν ἢ περὶ πέτρην - a lot of ink has been spilled trying to explain that Greek expression (which crops up elsewhere) – all of it unconvincing.
Will it be a boy or a girl?
I skipped ahead and saw something about περιτεμεῖν, so I guess that answers the question.
That’s very interesting and I suppose there’s little doubt that this is a real topos. By itself, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Hesiod is the source or that the author even knew Hesiod. But this brings to my mind the righteous Ethiopian in Acts 8:26-40 and the Ethiopians in Homer. Now I don’t think that there’s so much of a word for word parallel between Acts and Homer, but the idea that Ethiopians have a special relationship with god(s) is the same.
If indeed Luke and Acts were written by the same person, we could argue that he was particularly fond of traditional Greek topoi. Perhaps we could even argue that he was well acquinted with Homer and Hesiod.
This just came to my mind; like I’ve said before, I don’t really know much about the NT.