|
|
Preface Introduction ChaptersChapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 AppendicesAppendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Appendix VII Appendix VIII Appendix IX Appendix X Appendix XI Appendix XII Appendix XIII Appendix XIV Appendix XV Appendix XVI Appendix XVII Appendix XVIII Appendix XIX Appendix XX Appendix XXI IndexesReferences Names Biblical References General Bibliography |
(Reference: p.45) The Use of Hayah in
Genesis, Joshua, Job, two Psalms, and Zechariah. In order to examine the
evidence in situ as it were, a study was made of the context of all
occurrences of the verb "to be" which are to be found in the English
of the Authorized Version of the Old Test- ament in the following
books: Genesis, Joshua, Job, two Psalms, and Zechariah. Genesis was chosen for obvious reasons;
Joshua, because it represented a
historical book of a later period; the book of Job, because of its
rather unique dramatic form; Zechariah, a minor prophet, because it
provided a sample of prophetic literature towards the end of Old
Testament times; and two Psalms because they were representative
of Hebrew poetry. The information thus derived is set forth in a more or less tabular form for each book as a
separate entity, and is then summarized as a whole. What emerges is that a great deal of what
has been commonly assumed regarding
the use and the meanings of the Hebrew verb
the very best authorities,
such as S. R. Driver. This, in
turn, has been repeated by
secondary authorities ("quoters" and "quoters of quotes") with even
less precision! The end result is
that the original authorities have
been credited at times with views on the subject which, though in a
sense they could be considered as logical extensions of their stated
views, are now sufficiently inaccurate that even the originators would
probably not have approved of them. It is hoped that although the
kind of information presented in this Appendix is dry and uninspiring, it
will nevertheless contribute something towards a re-statement of
the whole matter so that those who are concerned with the issue
may be better guided by at least a knowledge of what is clearly not
true. In this study, all occurrences of the verb "to be" in any of its various forms in English (be,
am, are, was, will be, etc.) were examined, whether
represented in the original Hebrew by some form of the verb (and therefore
set in bold type in the Authorized Version), or merely inserted by the
translators to complete the English sent- ence structure (and
therefore set in italics). Thus bold
face type as well as italics are
included in the total count, each sub-total being pg
1 of 14 properly identified as to
its category. The following is what was observed. In the whole of Genesis, the verb "to be"
appears 832 times according to my count. Of these, it is inserted by the
translators, where so required in English though not represented in the original
Hebrew, a total of 626 cases. It is found set in bold type,
indicating the presence of
in 206 cases. From this one may see that the simple
copulative sense of am, is, were,
shall be, etc., is not in the majority of cases represented in the
Hebrew whether the tense is past, present, or future. The verb
contexts (206 out of a
total of 832) where English seems to demand it. This might be
presumptive evidence that the verb is as a rule employed in a Hebrew
sentence only when the meaning is something more than merely
copulative. Most authorities today
admit this but assert at the same time that the general rule applies only
in cases where the tense is presents When the tense is past or
future, it is usually held that the verb is required even where the
usage is copulative. For this
reason, it is agreed that in Gen. 1.2
the verb the tense was past, and
that the correct rendering is therefore the simple "was". The basis of this argument
seems logical enough. Unless the verb is expressed in
Hebrew one cannot distinguish between such statements as "the man
was good", "the man is good", and "the man will be good", since
all three would appear in Hebrew without dis- tinction simply as
"the man - good" (
to the reader as to whether the situation was past, present, or future. But in point of fact,
Hebrew writers do not seem to have felt any such need to be more
explicit since of the total number of cases where the verb is unexpressed,
626 in all, some 184 cases or 30% clearly apply to a past or future situation. Of this number, only 15 are future. Consider, then, these 15
future cases in which the verb is un- expressed. The number is
surprisingly small when compared with the number of references
to past situations, but this is really to be expected. Future events
are much more likely to be looked forward to as involving a change
from present circumstance and since Hebrew writers seem to have
consistently employed the verb
a change of circumstance or
of status is involved, it would be a much less common thing to run
across a future that did NOT require the verb to be expressed. It
is obvious that in such as sentence as, "We are poor but we shall be
rich", a change is indicated which would
require that the verb
normally be expressed: but if the sentence happened to read, "We
are poor and always will be poor", signifying no change in the present
situation, the verb would not normally be expressed. Such a situation as this would then
perhaps best be translated by the corn
pound phrase, "We shall continue to be poor". Life being as it is, most
future circumstances are hopefully viewed as a change from the
present rather than a continuance of it; and indeed most future
references are to a change. This fact is reflected in Genesis where, out of a
total of 88 references to the future in the English of the Authorized
Version, the original expresses the verb (to indicate such a change)
in 73 or three-quarters of them. And
of the other quarter, the
fifteen already referred to, the majority also indicate a change, in
spite of the omission of the verb. This appears to be a contradiction of
the general rule, but an examination of them shows that there is
another qualifying factor in the application of the rule which is important
and logical. These 15 occurrences are as follows: Gen. 3.16; 4. 7;
6.15; 16.12; 17.15; 29.15; 43.23; 41.31; 46.6; and 49.8, 10, 12, 13
(twice) and 20. The passage in Gen. 46.6
is clearly one involving no change - past, present, and future all
being bleakly uniform: "For these two years the failure has been
in the land: and yet there are five years in which there shall be
neither ploughing nor harvest". All the others involve a prospective change in
one form or another in spite of the absence of the verb. But the
reason for the absence of otherwise be expected is
really clear enough. Each situation
is self-explanatory because
of an associated sentence or clause which enables one to see
unequivocally what the writer has in mind. The structure of the closely
linked sentences is such that one cannot read the text at all without being
made positively aware that a change is in view. This awareness
stems from the existence of either contrast or repetition in sentence
structure. Contrast is self-evident
in Gen. 17.15 where Abraham
is told, "Thou shalt not call her name Sarai but Sarah shall
be her name". Repetition is evident in such a passage as Gen. 16.12
where the record reads, "He will become a wild man and his hand shall
be against every man". So unnecessary is the verb in the second
clause that the meaning would (even in English) be perfectly
obvious if it were omitted and read merely as, "He will become a
wild man with his hand against every one". A change of circumstance or
metaphor is involved in most of these 15 passages, but the change is
made abundantly clear by the very struct- ure of the sentence and no
special device is needed to insure the reader's understanding. An excellent example of
the presence and absence of the verb
be found in Gen. 34.15:
"If ye will become as we are....", which in the original is:
and must therefore be
expressed: the second is a static situation (ie., strictly copulative)
and is therefore unexpressed in Hebrew. The reason for labouring the
point is that we so continuously and so unconsciously employ
similar sentence structures with subtle yet important distinctive
meanings that we are not in the habit of analyzing them. Only by insisting on
attention to them can one gain a hearing at all! And as soon as one has convinced the
reader that there is a real distinction, one at
once has to account for apparent exceptions! After all, the employment
or the omission of the verb
a literary device to help
the reader - not an austere law threatening the writer with some
penalty (other than being misunderstood!) if he fails to obey it. If the meaning which is served by the
literary device has been made quite
clear in some other way or by something already said, there is
obviously no need to adopt the device and slavishly insist on
expressing the verb. It is in order to bring out this point that I have
entered into this uninspiring but rather necessary excursus. I am keenly aware that a critic may otherwise
accuse me of being superficial by
the very simple expedient of pointing to exceptions without telling
his readers how they might be more ex- ceptional in appearance
than in fact. So I am anxious to avoid being superficial " even if
my conclusions should ultimately turn out to be quite wrong. The prime object is to elucidate the
issue, an issue that is complex and has
been confused by inadequate appraisal of the evidence. Let me therefore recapitulate
by stating the case thus, as I see the evidence: When there
is no change in view the verb is never required - whether in the
past tense, the present tense, or the future. Where a change is involved, it is
required unless the fact of the altered
circumstance has already been made abund- antly self-evident by some
other means. Thus: no change no verb. Some change - some form of the verb
expressed, or the change is clearly
indicated to the reader by some other means. Where the verb is
expressed in the past or future tense, a change is almost certainly in
view. The absence of the verb may or
may not in itself tell the
whole story but the presence of the verb (unless it has one of its rather
special meanings) always indicates that a change has occurred, or is
occurring, or will occur in the situation in the future. The
verb English by some such word
as became or had become (for the past), becomes or is becoming
(for the present), and will become (for the future). The word "become" is not always
the best English word to use but the meaning of
it seems most closely to represent the original. Such a phrase as, "it came to
be" (which is, after all, merely an alternative of
"it be-came"), is familiar and acceptable; as is, "it shall come
to pass" (which, again, is merely an alternative for "it shall come to
be" or, more simply, "it shall be-come"). I believe that the vast
majority of occurrences of the verb
employed in its more basic
meaning can sensibly be rendered by some equivalent of the English
word "become". In the
future tense this fact can readily be
verified by reference to its 73 occurrences, many of which are listed in
Appendix V. In the present tense, there are but 3 occurrences in
Genesis, according to my count, namely, Gen. 32.10, and 42.31, 36. In
the first, "became" is quite appropriate: "Now I am become two
bands". In the second, the meaning is less precise: the Authorized
Version reads, "We are no spies", a state- ment which may mean,
"We have not come as spies", since - were it merely copulative - it
would (by almost universal agreement) not require the expression of
the verb, least of all since it is in the present tense. The third
case (verse 36) is clear enough since the speaker is complaining of
a change in his fortunes because, suddenly, "all things have come
to be" against him. The omission of the verb would have conveyed the
meaning that things had always been against him. In Genesis, the verb
appears 60 times in the past or future tense in the well known English
rendering, "It came to pass" or "it shall come to pass", both
of which clearly describe a new situation or - to use a modern term, a
"happening". Since both
phrases could be equally well served by
substituting the word "be" for "pass", they would quite appropriately
be read as, "it came to be that...." or "it shall come to be
that....", and the word "be-came" or "be-come" therefore once more
appears as a proper rendering of the verb
As already noted, in 17
passages in the Authorized Version of Genesis the verb is in fact
translated "become" or "became". Besides these, there are some 63 passages in Genesis in which the verb is expressed,
appearing in the Authorized Version in the form "was" or
"were". These occurrences
can all be rendered, and indeed should be
rendered (to be more precise), by some English verbal phrase which is
more than a mere copulative. In many cases it is best rendered
"became" or "had become" and such a rendering does more justice to the
sense of the original. But there are
a
number of interesting and
rather special meanings of the verb
which are curious in that
they are strangely encompassed by some English phrase employing
the word "come". This strikes me as a noteworthy
circumstance. The following passages
include some chosen quite randomly from
Joshua, a book which - as I have stated previously - was also
analyzed for the purposes of this chapter. In Josh. 15,4,7,11; 16.3,8;
and 18.12 (twice), 14, and 19, the allotted territories of
the various tribes are being defined.
The verb
renderings are varied but
all mean "reached to" or "terminated at". The verb could have been
rendered "came to", just as we may say "my property comes to
here", indicating with a marker where the line actually falls. In
Genesis the phrase, "and it came to pass", belongs in this class, of
course. It is found throughout
Genesis 1 in verses 7, 9, 11, 15,
24, and 30, in all of which the meaning is clearly "and it
became so". A beautiful illustration of this is to be found in Psa. 33.9 where
the Hebrew reads:
in the Authorized Version
is rendered, "For He spake and it was done", but actually
should read, ""For He spake and it became", ie.,, "came to be".
The word "done" is quite properly printed in italics in the English translation
since it is not represented in the Hebrew, but it was felt necessary
to complete the sense. Such would be the case if one renders
proves unnecessary when
the sentence is correctly rendered, a circumstance which confirms
the non-copulative meaning of the verb
mistake that the English
translators did, for they rendered it thus:
came". When Lot's wife became
a pillar of salt, we have a third class. A fourth class includes
statements of simple arithmetic, as in Josh. 21.40, "So all the
cities.... of the Levites were (ie., came to).... 12 cities". Thus we have "came
to", ie., reached; "came to pass", ie., transpired;
"be-came", ie., turned into; "came to", ie., added up to; and "came",
ie., arrived (Job 1.13 and 2.1). I am not by these remarks seeking to prove
any point in particular but merely trying to show how the English
word "came" can be played upon so as to mean some surprisingly
different things! And the fact is
that the Hebrew word
extension of the English
word "come", as shown in Appendix VI. In summary, a future situation in which no change is in view, a
future which is merely a
guarantee of the continuance of the present, does not require the
verb English copulative
"to be" in any of its present tense forms require the verb to be expressed
either. Similarly, a past which is viewed as a static situation, a
past which "always was" or "was at the time", a past which is merely
referred to by the writer as a point of ref- erence or as a starting
point for his narrative, a past which though it no longer holds true
did not at the time involve some altered |
has been
somewhat imprecise - even when discussed by
in the original,
) with no
further guidance
where it would
as appropriate to the requirement of the writer's meaning may
. The
first verb proposes a change
when
which
as "and it was".
ie.,
"For He spoke, and it be-
to be expressed: nor does the
simple