Friday, August 26, 2016

Ginomai Verses

Here are some examples of GINOMAI (the aorist middle form EGENETO is employed in John 1:14) and brief comments about how it is utilized in each cited verse:

Matt. 4:3-used by Satan who asks Jesus to make some stones become loaves of bread.

John 1:3-John writes that all things (PANTA) came into being through the LOGOS.

John 1:12-Humans who exercise faith in Jesus and receive him are given the authority "to become" (GENESQAI) God's children (TEKNA QEOU).

John 1:14-The LOGOS became flesh.

Heb. 11:3-TOUS AIWNAS came to be out of things that do not appear.

Cf. Matt. 5:45 and countless other examples.


Duncan said...

He became flesh or it became flesh. Should they mean the same?

Edgar Foster said...

In the post, I simply wrote that the LOGOS became flesh without specifying the gender. ἐγένετο is 3rd person singular ("he/she/it became or was made"). However, the grammatical subject ὁ Λόγος is a masculine noun. So although natural and grammatical gender don't always coincide, I see nothing wrong with "he became" since ὁ Λόγος is masculine.

αὐτοῦ is also used.

Duncan said...

I have to wonder what significance masculine and femanine have when the Greek is used to convey Hebrew ideas. Wisdom is femanine but I would not assume it had anything to do with gender.

Edgar Foster said...

It's not only Hebrew that has a feminine noun for wisdom. So does Greek, and the word for child is neuter. Latin works the same way, but there is nothing wrong with calling the logos "he," depending on the context.

Edgar Foster said...

As I wrote earlier, natural gender and grammatical gender are different.

Duncan said...

There is one significant difference in BH. Masculine and femanine exist but no neuter accept at the semantic level.

Duncan said...

In BH "women" is masculine.

Duncan said...

Edgar Foster said...

Your point granted, Greek grammatical gender still does not necessarily conform to gender in the world (natural/ontological or socially constructed gender). But hO LOGOS is grammatically masculine, and in context, hO LOGOS becomes flesh and has the glory of an only-begotten child (Son). Greek does grammaticalize the neuter gender, as you say, but hO LOGOS and AUTOU are masculine, and so is μονογενοῦς.

Edgar Foster said...

The word for "women" in Hebrew actually has a masculine plural suffix, but that is a grammatical distinction, and doesn't tell us much about actual gender in the world. As you know, ruah (ruach) is grammatically feminine like qoheleth. But the Greek word for "women" is clearly feminine.

Duncan said...

"and has the glory of an only-begotten child (Son)" the authority of the favoured, chosen, son. Culturally daughter would never fit here.

Duncan said...δόξαν+woman&source=bl&ots=A0FK-fF7zS&sig=mtVTH8b-eQgrJtEEt15yYHhU7fw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ot7tp-LOAhXHDxoKHUitC_8Q6AEIIjAD#v=onepage&q=%CE%B4%CF%8C%CE%BE%CE%B1%CE%BD%20woman&f=falseδόξαν+woman&source=bl&ots=jk3CqAh5WC&sig=4IBKHUU8StbVSW2fqyRWO0R_Aj4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-ot7tp-LOAhXHDxoKHUitC_8Q6AEIHTAB#v=onepage&q=%CE%B4%CF%8C%CE%BE%CE%B1%CE%BD%20woman&f=false

Edgar Foster said...

Admittedly, I read the links fairly quickly, but one thing caught my eye in the last link you posted, where the writer talks about Paul's "distortion" of Gen. 1:26-27 in 1 Cor. 11. There are alternative explanations out there by qualified scholars that don't have to suggest that Paul distorted the Hebrew text. Maybe it's biased of me, but I usually give inspired apostles the nod over uninspired commentators. :)

Duncan said...

Not sure if the posts were completely on track but my main reason for posting them is in relation to doxa.

This is another place where brightness does not fit with the HB understanding.

" So examining the meaning of doxa is not going to help much. Doxa is used as the translation of twenty-five different Hebrew words in the LXX. But primarily it is associated with the Hebrew kavod. Rooted in the language of the land, kavod is about what is heavy, what has weight – and therefore has importance and significance."

This is about authority.

Where in first century liturature does it say that women have doxa?

The doxa of women is the hair, which is not saying the same thing. Samson may have some significance here and the symbolism of uncut hair but we can only speculate.

John 2:11 has some significance, as to the beginning of doxa.

Edgar Foster said...

Yes, kavod refers to weightiness, authority, and importance, no doubt. But is the idea of brightness totally absent from that Hebrew word and from doxa? What about Exod. 16:10 (LXX); 33:18, 22; Ezek. 1:28, 43:2 et al.?

The idea of brightness is clear in those verses. Compare 2 Cor. 3:7-11, 18; 4:4-6; 2 Peter 1:17. See also LSJ on doxa.

BDAG and other sources indicate that doxa is applied to women based on the rabbinic predilection for describing women as imago dei (and so forth) in terms of glory.

Paul actually writes that woman IS the doxa of man, not that she has doxa per se (1 Cor. 11:7). Then later, the Apostle writes: γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστίν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται αὐτῇ. (11:15)

The overall point is that doxa can have the meaning "glory" among other significations.

Duncan said...

Let's get more specific.

Exodus 16:10.

Why should anyone think that a cloud would emit light as opposed to just saying that the cloud is in Jehovah's full control demonstrating his authority.

I have no doubt that the lxx implies light, but this was my point for some time now. The lxx is coloured by the culture of its time.

You already know my opinion and current scholarly opinion on the authoritative appearance of Moses. Not light.

2 Corinthians 3:18 is significant. Action and authority.

Ezekiel 1:28 is clearly referring to lightning as the sign of authority. Not just light per se.

One only needs to look up "glory" in a good dictionary to see that is carries no clear meaning and much of the definition is cyclical . We do not get much more abstract. But much of the idea as understood by the majority is light but it's origins:-

Edgar Foster said...

Exod 16:10 proclaims that Jehovah's glory "appeared" in the cloud--it was some kind of visible manifestation. Compare Exodus 13:21; 16:7; 24:16; 40:34-35; Numbers 16:42; Ezekiel 3:23. Ezekiel 43:2 tells us that the earth shone because of God's glory.

The issue of Moses and light is another question, but I think his face shone because of Jehovah's glory. The verses in Corinthians seem to posit that understanding.

2 Cor. 3:18 mentions beholding the Lord's glory "as in a glass" (KJV) which again connotes visibility on some level. Furthermore, we are changed "into the same image from glory to glory" by the spirit of God.

It's hard for me to see how one can deny that YHWH's glory in 1:28 is visible, bright, and it overwhelmed the prophet. I also don't necessarily see the brilliance restricted to lightning in the verse.

"The meaning is, In the brightness, or light, that was about what I saw, was the appearance of the rainbow" (Benson Commentary).

This page contains plenty of information on doxa:

Glory is vague, but the basic idea is still conveyed, that the word "doxa" can refer to external splendor/an outward manifestation of brilliance, etc.

Edgar Foster said...

The notes for Ex. 16:10 in NET also explain the glory as visible, outwardly manifested and shining (the Shekinah/Shechinah).

Duncan said...

I know what the commenteries say but as per the Moses account there is no evidence for it.

The commentary you quote says rainbow, but it does not say that, is says bow - toxon, as used in revelation 6:2.

The appearance of a bow or the function of a bow?

Isn't rain bow iris. Why wouldn't the lxx translator/interpreted use this.

Edgar Foster said...

"When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him" (Exod 34:29-30 ESV).

You make the decision on how to understand the verse, but here's one quote from NET:

tn The word קָרַן (qaran) is derived from the noun קֶרֶן (qeren) in the sense of a “ray of light” (see Hab 3:4). Something of the divine glory remained with Moses. The Greek translation of Aquila and the Latin Vulgate convey the idea that he had horns, the primary meaning of the word from which this word is derived. Some have tried to defend this, saying that the glory appeared like horns or that Moses covered his face with a mask adorned with horns. But in the text the subject of the verb is the skin of Moses' face (see U. Cassuto, Exodus, 449).

The commentary said "bow" because it seems to mean rainbow when oen considers the surrounding words.

BDB has "rainbow" for Ezek. 1:28. Compare Gen. 9:13, 14, 16.

Rev. 10:1 uses hH IRIS. See Rev. 4:3. I'm not sure why the LXX chose toxon vs. iris.

Edgar Foster said...

For a discussion of rainbow imagery, and why the LXX employ toxon (toxson), see

Edgar Foster said...

Another perspective on the bow:

Duncan said...

For Moses We are back with the vowel points again. The quote from net has been superseded . As I said before this has no evidence but it cannot be ruled out as a possability, but must be compared with other possabilities equally possible.

For bow in the clouds that rain see


Both good candidates.

Edgar Foster said...

This is my last comment about Moses in this thread, since we're not discussing the use of GINOMAI in Greek. However, I am curious about which work supersedes the NET remarks. Which scholarly journal or scholarly monograph/study takes precedence over NET and many other versions including ESV?

As for the use of "bow," I provided lots of evidence that Ezek. 1:28 and Gen. 9 have the rainbow in mind. Not trying to be dogmatic, but it's hard for me to gainsay the lexica in this regard, both Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek.

Duncan said...

"But we have another explanation for this passage which did not explain the term "the skin of his face was shining" in the sense of light emanating from his face. Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam), the grandson of Rashi and a contemporary of Bechor Shor, writes in his Torah commentary concerning the term in question as follows: "karan refers to splendor, and similarly in 'rays issue from His hand' (Hab. 3:4), and anyone who compares [our verse] to "his horn are like the horns of a wild ox" (karnei re'em karnav - Deut. 33:17) is mistaken ."

I thought I sent you the info for this some time ago - I will have to track it all down again.

It demonstrates power and/or authority but nothing to actually indicate rays of light.

Duncan said...

Psa 75:4 is not literal but still denotes authoriy.

Edgar Foster said...

I remember the information you submitted, and it's in one of my email folders. I'm also familiar with the argument about translating by use of the word "horns," and you'll likely notice that NET mmakes the same remark in the footnote, but that translation opts for a different understanding of the word, while being familiar with the horns approach.

Duncan said...

I do not think it is a light or horns decision. If the translator uses "horns (of light)" it would be reasonable to indicate an interpretation as you favour. My point is that I do think there is a symbolism here which does not require them to be litteral horns but there is no evidence as to the actual meaning.

If you found the link to a very prominent reference work in it latest edition and the changes in its entry for this verse, I seem to remember it saying something similar.

Duncan said...

Genesis 9 is a difficult one for me to swallow since the physics of a rainbow is so basic to our environment. Do you think it had never been seen before?

Edgar Foster said...

Gen. 2 indicates that rain didn't occur in Eden and surrounding areas. We always say that Noah had never seen rain before. If that's the case, then he probably first saw a "bow" after the flood. I believe the context also suggests a rainbow in Gen. 9.

Duncan said...

Gen 2:6 IMO is talking about transpiration.

This is an interesting one since my understanding of fungi is that it feeds on trees for most it nourishment.

Trees in enough quantity make rain.

Duncan said...

Found this video interesting but more interesting is his comment regarding the anchor Yale Bible commentary of Habakkuk 3:4 (F.I. Anderson) as horns not light but I do not have access to this. I would really like to know what it actually says.