THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE

Chapter 2.

"But the earth had become a desolation..."

The rendering above departs from that to be observed in almost all the better known English translations in three ways: * the use of a disjunctive (but for and), the use of the pluperfect in the place of the simple perfect, and the use of became in place of the simple was.
Of the disjunctive, little need be said. The Hebrew

(waw) stands for both the conjunctive and the disjunctive particles, and the context alone can determine which is the more appropriate. There is, as we have seen, some reason to prefer the disjunctive in view of the indicated pause in the Hebrew text at the end of verse 1. In Appendix XIV will be found a number of illustrations of this use, including some instances in which the correctness of the disjunctive form is borne out not merely by the obvious sense of the passage quoted but by its reappearance as a quotation in the New Testament where the Greek has "but", not "and" (ie. ,

rather than

.
The use of the pluperfect is dealt with in the following chapter, the point being reserved for discussion only after the translation of the verb itself has been carefully considered. The most critical issue is whether

should here be rendered "was" or "became", since

* See Appendix III

the true significance of the verb, and indeed of the second verse as a whole,hinges upon the settlement of this point. Granted that this point can be settled, the other two points will probably not be seriously disputed.
Now this discussion does not make easy reading, not only because of the subtleties involved (as will appear) but also because the verb we must examine in its commoner forms happens also to be the very verb we must use in its commoner forms in order to make the examination! One runs into this kind of thing: "In such a case, the word was is incorrect. . . . ". Or one might put this: "In such a case, the word "was" is incorrect .... "; or "the word WAS is incorrect"; or "the word was is incorrect .... ". At any rate, this points up the nature of the problem! Thus we are forced to employ various devices (underlinings, capitals, italics, and 'quote' marks) in order to make each point clearer.* And this kind of constant typographical switching is most distressing to even a thoroughly dedicated reader. But it seems unavoidable.
In view of the fact that one can scarcely construct an English sentence of any complexity without using some form of the verb "to be", it is difficult to realize that there are well-developed languages which make little or no use of it at all in the simple copulative sense. When, in English, we express the straightforward idea, "The man is good", the verb "to be" is used merely to connect together the words man and good. Many languages, and indeed many children, simply say, "man good" considering the connective verb quite unnecessary. A child will say, "Me good boy": an Indian might say, "Me brave man" Hebrew does the same.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, ⁶⁰ the 'founder' of that branch of the study of language known as Metalinguistics, observed that a Hopi Indian, for example, has difficulty in understanding why we say, "It is raining" because to his way of thinking the It is the rain. One might just as well say, "Rain is raining" - which of course is a redundancy. So he wonders why we don't simply say, as he does, "Raining"! Neither

* In the biblical quotations which follow, we have tried to indicate to the reader where the verb "to be" has been supplied in the English though absent in the original by putting the verb in brackets. Thus: Gen.3.11, "Who told thee that thou (wast) naked?" indicates that (wast) has been supplied to conplete the English sentence.

the It nor the Is serves any useful purpose in this English sentence and common sense, therefore, would argue the leaving out of both of them. But this would not sound correct to us. Yet, as we have observed, Hebrew shares the un-English view that a verb is not needed here since it really contributes nothing.
Now, in translating, it is quite customary to equate the Hebrew verbal form

with the English "to be", but it has been recognized by Hebraists for many years that the equation is not strictly valid. In English, being is a kind of static coneept, things simply "are" this or that. When we say, "The man is tall" we are not speaking of a dynamic event but a more or less static situation. "The field is flat" is indeed a static situation. In both these sentences English requires some part of the verb "to be" in order to satisfy our sense of linguistic propriety. Yet In spite of the possession of the verb

with its supposed sense of "being", Hebrew would not think it necessary here and the verb is would therefore not be represented in the Hebrew.
The reader who is limited to English will find that in some editions of the Bible, especially in the Authorized Version, a means is provided, simply by the use of italics, to show where any part of the verb "to be" has been inserted In the English translation to complete the sense though not found in the original Hebrew. For example, if one opens a first edition of the Scofield Bible at (say) page 21, some eleven copulative or connective occurrences of the verb "to be" will be found in italics, appearing in the text as is, art, be, and was: and on page 395 some 39 examples will be found in the forms was and were In every instance the word has been supplied by the translators where the Hebrew original did not consider any verb necessary. *

* Any page would, of course, have served to illustrate the point, and any printing of the Authorized Version will show it. Thus, for example, from Jud. 6. 10 to 7. 14 we have in 6.10 am, 13 be, 15 am and is, 22 was 24 is, 25 is, 30 be; and in 7.1 is, 2 are and are, 3 is, 12 were, 13 was, and 14 is. All these are copulative and is omitted in the original. On the other hand, in Judges 6. 27 the verb was is not in italics since it is found in the Hebrew, and it is clear that the intent of the writer was something beyond the mere copulative force of the verb: as for example "And it came to be that. . . ." In Gen.23.17 the verb 'to be' is set in italics 5 times! We need this insertion of the verb to fill out the sentence, but the Hebrew writer did not see any need for it and so omitted it entirely.

Thus the fundamental idea behind the Hebrew verb

is not precisely what would be copulative in English but is a far more dunamic concept. This is indicated to some extent by its possible etymology. A number of authorities, including Gesenius and Tregelles, believed that the primary meaning was that of "falling" - comparing the word with the Arabic

meaning "to be headlong" or "to fall down". From this came the idea of "befalling" in the sense of "happening" and so "to fall out", and thence "to come to be", ie. , "to become". From this idea of having become, we pass easily into the meaning "to be" in the sense of having existence, but the copulative sense usually attributed to it seems without logical foundation.

Subsequently, Tregelles came to believe that the concept of "falling" was not really primary, and that the notion of "being" came instead from that of "living".⁶¹ From the coneept of "living" the idea of "being" is readily derived so that it comes easily to mean "to be": but this kind of being is dynamic being, living being, not the static kind of being which is equative as when one says, "This is (ie. , equals) that", but the kind which is implied in such a sentence as "He is alone", or "He is with thee".
Thus while Benjamin Davies ⁶² gives the basic meaning as "to be" usually with the sense of "to exist", "to be alive", "to come into being", and so "to become" - Brown, Driver and Briggs list the meanings of

in the following order: "to fall"; "to come to pass"; "to become"; and "to be".⁶³ And under the last heading they add subsequently in parenthesis, "often with the subordinate idea of becoming".
The concept of dynamic as opposed to static being is of great importance to an understanding of the Hebrew usage of the word. Boman,⁶⁴ in a critical study of the verb, concludes that it is never used copulatively at all and that all the usual illustrations of such a use provided in lexicons are not really valid. He does not consider that even Ratschow, who made aquite exhaustive study of Old Testament usage, was really able to give any clear unequivocal instances.
Thus, for example, in Gen. 2. 25 the, sentence, "and they were (

) both naked and were not ashamed", means not so much that at the moment of speaking the writer is observing the simple fact of their nakedness but that this was how they lived, daily.⁶⁵ They "went about" without clothing and without shame. Subsequently, they suddenly became aware that they were naked and this awareness brought with it a sense of shame not experienced before. This was nakedness in a new way and it occurred quite suddenly - suddenly enough that Adam "discovered" it with a sense of shock. That this was in the nature of a discovery is implied in the Lord's words (in Gen, 3. 11), 'Vho told thee that thou (wast) naked ?". The question would have been pointless otherwise. Thus the real emphasis here is no longer upon the circumstance that Adam and Eve had been living naked in the Garden of Eden but that they had both suddenly discovered a fact which caused them to be ashamed.
Boman argues that the simple "is" or "was" in an English sentence is never expressed in Hebrew and that where it IS expressed it does not mean what the English translation implies.⁶⁶ It is used in the sense of eventuality: it is not used for a simple fact or circumstance or situation.
One might wonder how Hebrew would then distinguish between the phrase, "the man is good" and "the good man". In a sense they convey the same basic idea, but there is a subtle difference. In any case Hebrew can make the distinction. The first would appear simply as "the man good" (ha-ish tobh:

), and the second, as "the man the good one" (ha-ish ha-tobh:

).
One might then ask further, How would the distinction be made between the sentences, "the man is good" and "the man was good"? In Hebrew, the context is allowed to decide the matter. While it might seem that this would be difficult (as upon occasion it is), the number of such occasions must be remarkably small for there seems to be not the slightest hesitation in omitting the verb, whether the sense of "is" or "was" is intended. Such will be apparent from the footnote with examples on page 43 of this Chapter and from the more elaborate study which will be found in Appendix IV.
Some have felt this to be a real difficulty. Barr, for example, argues that the verb must be inserted when the tense is past and the situation no longer exists.⁶⁷ For example, if a writer meant to say, "The man was good.... but is no longer so", ie. , "The man was once good" then he would insert the appropriate form of the verb "to be" to indicate the altered circumstance.
But this rule does not hold. For example, according to this principle, the record of Job's complaint in Chapter 29 should have the verb was in the original since the situation has clearly been altered by his diseased condition. Yet, In point of fact, the Hebrew omits it. It is not merely that the situation is no longer true today: the situation was no longer true when the statement was made. Thus Job, inverses 14 and 15 and 20, tells his self-appointed comforters that he was formerly - ie. , was once - a father to the blind and feet to the lame: he once enjoyed fame and recognition and his roots once spread beside the waters like a flourishing tree. The meaning of his complaint is unmistakeable. He WAS all those things but is no longer so: yet the Hebrew writer saw no need to express the connective verb "was" in such a situation.
We have another example in the case of Pharaoh's servants in Gen. 41. Here the butler recalls (verse 12) how he and a fellow tradesman were in prison and how at that time a Hebrew named Joseph was also with them. Clearly the situation had now changed for the speaker, since he is a free man - and his fellow tradesman is dead. He refers back, therefore, to a situation which from his point of view no longer exists and the English translation in verse 12 properly inserts the verb "was" - but the Hebrew omits it. Some might argue that the situation for Joseph had not changed, since he was still in prison! But one must surely consider the circumstances from the point of view of the speaker. The omission of the verb in reporting his speech shows, therefore, that it is not required merely because there is the implication of altered circumstance. He was, as he says, once in the same prison: but he is no longer so, yet the Hebrew writer evidently saw no need for the verb

in this context.
There are numerous illustrations of this kind of situation in the Old Testament, but many of these require a somewhat elaborate excursus in order to show how we know there has been a change. Some are straightforward enough: as, for example, where Gen. 12. 6 records that "the Canaanite (was) then (ie. , at that time) in the land". But there are probably far more examples which are in reverse. There are innumerable examples where the situation is quite UN-changed and yet the verb "to be" is inserted in the original in the appropriate form. This is a most common occurrence. Thus, for example, throughout the first chapter of Genesis there is the recurrent phrase, "And it was so". Here the Hebrew inserts the verb. According to Barr, this insertion should imply that the situation or circumstance is no longer true. But this is surely not the case. Genesis 1, verses 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and so forth, would all be properly translated if one were to render the phrase which in English reads, "And it was so", as "it became so", but it would surely be quite improper to suppose that the author means, "And it was once but is no longer so.. ..".
Thus, the insertion of the verbal form "was" in a Hebrew sentence is not intended to signify that the circumstance is no longer true, for these evenings and these mornings retain their pre-eminence of position in the processes of time. Thus when Barr proposes that the verb is inserted in Gen. 1. 2 in order to show that the desolation was a temporary one and no longer exists, he is implying the existence of a rule which certainly cannot be unequivocally demonstrated from biblical usage. And to say at the same time, as Barr does, that on this account "it would be quite perverse to insist on the meaning 'became' here", is clearly going beyond the evidence. Indeed, he would perhaps be forced to admit that to follow out his own proposed rule and render Gen. 1. 5, "and the evening and the morning were once a second day but are no longer so", would indeed be absurdly perverse! But, by contrast to this absurd rendering, it would make very good sense to render the Hebrew, "and the evening and the morning became the second day", for this is precisely the truth of the matter, and the Hebrew has seen fit to insert the verb in order (as I believe) to make this quite clear. In this eventful period, it did become the second day of the week.
From all of this it would appear that the decisive factor which determines whether the verb will be inserted or omitted is not related to tense. Nor is it related to circumstance, if by this is meant merely that what is reported is no longer the case. Boman seems to come much closer to the truth when he underscores the fact that only where the sense is dynamic does a Hebrew writer introduce the verb

.⁶⁸ He points out that there are three circumstances surrounding its employment which bear out the contention that it is basically a verb of action rather than condition.
First of all it can be, and frequently is, used in conjunction with the infinitive or a participle of another verb of action. For example, Nehemiah (2. 13) tells how he was in the habit of inspecting the walls of his beloved city Jerusalem while they were still under repair. Thus he says, "And I was (

) examining (

, participle) the walls of Jerusalem".. This could easily have been expressed by the appropriate form of the verb

without the associated verb

. But the object seems to be to underscore the idea of continuous engagement.... A list of examples will be found in Appendix VIII and a study of such usages indicates that the idea is best expressed by rendering the verb

not as "to be" but by some such English word or phrase as "kept---" (Ezek. 44. 2), "succeeded in --- " (II Chron. 18.34), "remained --- " (I Ki. 22. 35), "continually --- " (Gen. 1. 6), "habitually ---" (I Sam. 2. 11, Gen. 39. 22), "was ever ---" (I Ki. 5. 1), "always ---" (II Ki 4. 1, Ezek.44.2), "was daily --- " (Neh. 5. 18), etc. All these imply something beyond a static situation, even in Ezek.44.2, for the idea is positive closure of the gate, that is, keeping the gate closed and not merely !leaving it shut". It is a case of maintenance rather than abandonment. In II Chron. 18.34 the mortally wounded king obviously did everything in his power to hold himself upright in his chariot so that his supporters would not lose heart. In Gen. 1. 6 the atmosphere actively divides, ie. , maintains, the division between the waters above it and those below: there is nothing static about this process at all. And so it will be found in every instance of usage in connection with either a participle or an infinitive. It is analogous to the English usage in such a sentence as "the water is boiling" or "the man is still angry".
Secondly, it appears in the niphal or passive form, as though the sense was "to be be-ed" just as in English an active form (e. g. "fold") is converted to a passive form * ("fold-ed") by the addition of "-ed". It is much more difficult to think of the English verb "to be" in a passive form because to us it tends to be essentially a static coneept. In Hebrew, since it is an active verb, the formation of a passive did not seem strange and the verbal form of the active is routinely changed to a passive form without hesitation. Thus in I Ki. 1. 27 a literal translation would be, "Is it from my lord the King that this thing has been be-ed" (!), which would obviously have to appear in English as "has been done" or "has come about" (in Hebrew

. The whole idea here is one of action. Similarly, that often quoted passage from I Ki. 12. 24 (literally, "For from me this has been done" (

) is in the Authorized Version, "For this thing is from me". Most lexicographers simply say that in the niphal or passive form the verb is best rendered "come to be", ie. , "become" or "happen". This is the sense of Deut. 2 7. 9 for example: "This day ye have become a people for the Lord your God".
Boman's third point is that the verb

is often used in parallel with other verbs, in sentences which have a clearly active context.⁶⁹ For example, in Gen. 2. 5 it is written, "Every plant before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew ....". And,

* See Appendix VII for illustrations.

significantly. this is followed by the words, "And there (was) not a man to till the ground". In the first instance the verb is used as a parallel to the verb "grew"; and in the final phrase the verb is omitted because it is a statement of a static situation rather than an activity. Another illustration of this kind of parallelism is to be observed in Gen. 7.17,"And the Flood was forty days on the earth" followed by verse 19 which says, "and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth". Clearly the picture is one of the turbulence of an overwhelming flood and not merely of a deep but placid sea of water. Boman suggests quite properly I believe, that throughout the Creation record, the verb

is used in the sense of "actively coming into being" rather than merely factual existence.⁷⁰ God created, or spoke, or made, and "it came to be so", ie. , "sprang into being", certlinly indicating an active process of realization rather than a static circumstance. Indeed, it is found in parallel with the Hebrew

which has the meaning of "realization" in such passages as Isa. 7. 7 ("It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass") and Isa. 14.24 ("Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass").
Now the verb

occurs about 3570 times in the Old Testament. It is a very versatile word obviously: and only by associating it with various prepositions (

, etc. ) and various verbal forms (infinitives and participles) can its full range of meanings be set forth adequately. * As Boman observed:⁷¹

" has thus been. considered to some extent a general word which can mean everything possible and therefore designates nothing characteristic. Closer examination, however, reveals that this is not the case."

Ratschow⁷² examined the occurrences of

in the Old Testament with a thoroughness hardly to be excelled and concluded that the verb had three essential meanings which are given in the following order: "to become", "to be" in the sense of existing or living, and "to effect". Boman, in discussing Ratsehow's findings, states his opinion that these meanings really form a single basic unity with an internal relatedness.
In his diseussion he first of all points out something which was elaborated by Benjamin Lee Whorf,⁷³ namely, that the meanings people

* See Appendix VIII for illustrations.

attach to the words they use reflect their own views of reality, and that these views are not at all the same as those generally shared by people of another language group. Many non-Indo-European peoples tend to equate things which we would consider quite separate and distinct. For example, to say in English that something IS wood is not to identify the thing itself with the wood that it is made of, but rather to say that it is made "out of wood". By contrast in many other languages, including Hebrew, the thing and the wood are identified, equated, considered as inseparable. Such a sentence as "the altar and its walls (were) wood" (Ezek.41.22) means to the Hebrew mind that altar, walls, and wood are a single entity, an equation, one and the same in the particular instance. A verb is not necessary. Similarly, "All the Lord's ways (are) grace and truth" would mean to us that there is grace and truth IN all the Lord's ways. But not so to the Hebrew mind. This is not an aspect of the Lord's ways, it is a factual commonality. As Boman expresses it, "The predicate inheres in the subject".⁷⁴
Thus he further observes:⁷⁵

"The most important meanings and uses of our verb "to be" (and its equivalents in other Indo-European languages) are (i) to express being or existence, and (ii) to serve as a copula."

But having said this, Boman comments: ⁷⁶

"Hebrew and other Semitic languages do not need (my emphasis) a copula because of the noun clause (such a clause as 'the altar is wood'). As a general rule, therefore, it may be said that is not used as a copula.... The characteristic mark of distinction from our verb 'to be' is that it is a true verb with full verbal force."

In short, he concludes that whether

stands alone without any accompanying preposition or is qualified by one, "it signifies real becoming (his emphasis), what is an occurrence or a passage from one condition to another. .. . a becoming in inner reality... . a becoming something new by vocation.... ".⁷⁷ Such is Boman's view, a view supported by many illustrations, some of which will be found later in this text. It is a view arrived at by a most careful study of the whole question in which cognizance has been taken of the previous labours of a large number of recognized European scholars. It is a view which completely contradicts the rather bombastic statements of some recent writers whom we have already quoted as saying in effect that every Hebrew scholar knows precisely the opposite to be the case. It is a view which strongly supports the argument that chaos was not the initial condition of the created earth.
Other linguists agree with Boman. Non-Indo-European languages do not employ the verb "to be" as English does. In an interesting paper entitled, Language and Philosophy, Basson and O'Connor examine the relationship between structure of language and form of philosophy.⁷⁸ This examination includes as an important part of their thesis a study of the verb "to be" used in the following ways:

(1) As a logical copula, involving:
(a) Predication: "the leaf is green".
(b) Class inclusion: "all men are mortal".
(e) Class membership: "the tree is an oak".
(d) Identity: "George VI was king of England.
(e) Formal implication: "wisdom is valuable".
(2) In an existential sense: "God is".
(3) In any other sense peculiar to the language in question.

"Some interesting and possibly important information was supplied to us (from a questionnaire sent to a number of philologists and linguists) on this topic. Most interesting was the large number of languages which made a sharp distinction between the existential 'is' and the copula. * Semitic languages have in general no copula, but Hebrew and Assyrian both have a special word for 'exists'. Malay (an Austronesian language)is similar to Hebrew in this respeet. Tibetan uses 'yin' for the copula and 'yod' for existence, but a sentence like "That hill is high' might use either word according to the sense of the context."

All the lexicons deal with the verb

at some length. I do not have in my possession, nor is there available to me at the present, a copy of the original work completed by that most famous of Hebrew lexicographers, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, in 1812. I do have, however, translations of his original work edited and amended in various ways by some of the scholars who followed him.

* See further Appendix IX

Christopher Leo's edition of Gesenius,⁷⁹ published in 1825, gives a list of the meanings of the verb with illustrative examples from the Old Testament which may be summed up under the following basic headings: "to be" illustrated by reference to Exod. 20. 3 ( a curious circumstance since it is not copulative 1), "to serve as" or "to tend towards", "to become" or "turn into" (with the preposition

), "to be with" (ie. , associated with, or on the side of), "to happen" "to prosper" or "succeed" and "to have happened".
Tregelles' edition of Gesenius,⁸⁰ published in 1889, gives the following meanings: "to be" or "to exist", "to become", "to be done", "to be made" (all without any associated preposition

). When followed by modifying prepositions, the verb is given an extended list of meanings which are summarized in Appendix X. Since the main point at issue in this instance is the meaning of the verb

in Gen. 1. 2 where it Is accompanied by no preposition of any kind, the other passages will not be examined at this point. In the passive voice, Tregelles gives the meanings as "to become", "to be made", and "to be done".
In 1890 a Student's Lexicon was published by Benjamin Davies,⁸¹ also based on Gesenius (and Furst). He gives the basic meanings as follows: "to be" - whether with the meaning of "to exist" or "to live" or "to be somewhere" - or as the logical copula between subject and predicate. As an illustration of this last, he refers to Gen. 1. 2. He then gives a second group of meanings as follows: "to come into being", "to come to pass", "to occur" or "happen"; and in the passive "to be done", "to be made to be".
In each of these Lexicons I have examined every reference in the original Hebrew. In many instances the appropriateness of the headings under which they are listed can be very much a matter of opinion as is revealed by the fact that the same reference will be reproduced under different headings be different lexicographers. A list of these references will be found in Appendix XI.
I believe it would not be incorrect to say that as these Lexicons appeared successively through the years, the verb

was in the course of time viewed somewhat differently. With Gesenius and Leo the principle or basic view seems to have been that the verb meant essentially "to be" in the ordinary English sense, with the coneept of "existing" or "living" next, and "becoming" only as a last alternative. By the time we come to Brown, Driver, and Briggs, the modern standard of reference, the position has altered. The basic meanings are now set forth under four headings in this order: "to fall out" "to come to pass", "to become", and finally, "to be". And even with respect to this last alternative, at the appropriate place the authors add in parenthesis: "often with the subordinate idea of becoming". Thus the emphasis has shifted: where the copulative sense was originally listed as the primary one, it is now listed as of least importance. Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Lexicon of the Hebrew language is by far the most exhaustive available in English and here we find that far from being a rare or exceptional meaning of

(as we are so frequently assured these days) the general sense of "coming to be" or "becoming" is one of the most Important and most fundamental meanings.
I have examined every reference given in all these Lexicons as well as those provided in some of the more elementary student's dictionaries of Hebrew and I have no hesitation in saying that the evidence tells unmistakeably against the present commonly accepted view among "conservative" biblical scholars who have expressed an opinion on the meaning of Gen. 1. 2. Some of these writers will argue that

may be allowed to mean "became" when, and only when, it is foilowed by the preposition lamedh (

). This is quite untrue as is easily shown by a study of cases where "became" is manifestly the correct rendering of

, though the lamedh is omitted in the Hebrew. A list of examples where

is used - and the reasons why - will be found in Appendix XII.
I would not say that the verb is never used copulatively (though Ratschow and Boman hold this to be virtually so), but I think it can be shown conclusively that the simple copulative use is the exception and not the rule, and that such exceptions are very rare indeed. In a few cases there appear to be exceptions only because we have failed to observe the real meaning that the Hebrew writer had in mind and our renderings are misleading. As we have seen, the verb can be used to signify an "active existence" in a situation where we would not expeet to find "activity". Such a case as Adam Is nakedness is an example, for this is how he "went about". In this instance, the English simply says that Adam was naked. But in the Hebrew processes of thinking, this is not a static condition but a living circumstance. The Hebrew mind animated situations far more frequently than we do and it is this animation. which gives the Psalms, for example, such tremendous dramatic force. Like many non-Indo European people, they thought of things as having character, not merely characteristics.
Even in Brown, Driver, and Briggs the list of supposedly copulative uses includes numerous instances where the case is very doubtful. For example, they list Deut. 23. 15, "The servant which is escaped unto thee. . . ." But surely this is an instance where modern English would require the verb has rather than is. It is not a copulative use of the verb: the verb

is associated with another verb of dramatic action. One could never properly substitute the word "has" in such a sentence as "The field is flat", and the very fact that one can make the substitution in the former but not in the latter case is sufficient to demonstrate that the difference is a real one. In such a sentence as Gen. 17. 1 (also included in the list in Brown, Driver, and Briggs) where the text reads, "And when Abraham was ninety years old.... ", we are not really saying that Abraham WAS ninety years. Obviously Abraham is not the same "thing" as ninety years. We are actually saying, "Vhen he reached the age of....", ie. , " When he became ninety years old....".
Brown, Driver, and Briggs list altogether 45 references to show that

can mean simply "to be". However, of these 45 references 8 should be excluded, being clearly not examples of a purely copulative use. Furthermore, I believe another 7 at least are equivocal since in every case the translation "became" or "had become" would be equally, if not more, appropriate. These are: Gen. 1. 2; 17. 1; Jud. 11. 1; II Ki. 18. 2; I Chron. 11. 20; II Chron. 21. 20 and 27.8. This leaves us with only 30 examples out of a total (included under all headings listed in their lexicon) of 1320 occurrences of

which have been proposed as illustrations of the possible meanings of the verb. Moreover, of these 30, at least 8 others are ill-chosen because their use is either anomalous (Gen. 8. 5) or signifies "came to be" as in Gen.5.4,5,8,11; 11.32; 23.1; and Exod.38.24.
As we have already said, it seems possible that some cases of a genuine copulative use of the verb

which parallels that claimed by most writers for the passage in Gen. 1. 2 will be discovered if the Old Testament is searched with sufficient care. But the fact that Ratschow was not willing,after making such an exhaustive study, to admit of a single instance, suggests that such cases will certainly be the exception rather than the rule. By contrast, the number of cases where the copulative sense is indicated by the very omission of the verb in the Hebrew is very great indeed. I have not made an actual count for the whole Old Testament but I am sure that it would run into the thousands. There are 600 cases in Genesis alone, for example. A single page in any English printing of the Bible will usually show anywhere from 10 to 20 cases and most Bibles run into a thousand pages or thereabouts for the Old Testament. Simple arithmetic suggests, therefore, that such omissions may run as high as five or ten thousand: five or ten thousand instances, that is to say, in which the Hebrew has omitted the verb entirely because the meaning is simply copulative. On the other hand, the number of cases where the verb can appropriately be rendered by some expression which denotes becoming is very, very large indeed.
Whatever else may or may not be said, one certainly would not draw from this the conclusion that the simple copulative use is the normal use. While it is higly likely that Brown, Driver, and Briggs could have supplied more examples had, they considered it worthwhile, it still remains true that the simple copulative sense is placed last in the list and is then illustrated by a very small sample only, a substantial proportion of even these being a little ambiguous.
By contrast with the actual evidence one recent writer stated categorically that the sense of "became" is so rare as to be found only six times in the whole of the Pentateuch.⁸² As it stands, assuming the writer meant precisely what his words imply, the statement is demonstrably false. For example, the English reader will find the following seventeen instances in Genesis alone, viz. , Gen. 2. 7, 10; 3.22; 9.15; 18.18; 19.26; 20.12; 21.20; 24.67; 32.10 (verse 11 in the Hebrew text); 34.16; 37.20; 47.20 and 26; 48.19 (twice); and 49.15. Other occurrences elsewhere are listed in Appendix XIII: the total exceeds 133.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that these are not by any means all the instances in which

is translated "became" (or "become", "had become", ete.) but only those observable in the Authorized Version. There are many other English translations which supply us with further instances. * And it must be remembered that English translations represent only one group of versions among many. There are Latin, French, German, Greek, and dozens of other versions besides the English ones. In these one may observe many more instances.
For example, the Latin Vulgate has rendered

as "became" in thirteen instances in Genesis chapter l alone! Even more strikingly, the Greek Septuagint translation renders

as "became" in 22 cases !n Genesis 1. Throughout the whole of Genesis this version translated the verb as "became" 146 times: in Genesis and Exodus together the total becomes 201 times: in the Pentateuch as a whole 298 times: and some 1500 times throughout the whole Old Testament including

* See on this, Chapter IV, The Witness of Various Versions.

the Apocrypha. These totals are, of course, according to my own counting. The count may be slightly out one way or the other, but certainly it is essentially correct and probably errs only by being an understatement if anything. I may have missed a few but I certainly did not invent any! Moreover, the figures do not include cases where

is rendered by some entirely different word that better expresses by circumlocution its dynamic sense of "becoming".
The sad truth is that the issue can no longer be explored except within the framework of a controversy which has crystallized itself around the "Gap Theory". When the challenge of Geology brought into sharper focus the importance of this particular exegesis, the argument was not unnaturally shifted from the linguistic evidence of the text of Genesis itself to an examination of other passages of the Bible which it was believed contributed light on the matter. So the issue became one of the "interpretation" rather than the precise and careful analysis of Gen. 1. 2 which is really the critical issue.
It may be argued with some force that if the case is rested primarily on the linguistic evidence of Gen. 1. 2, it can never have compelling weight because by far the great majority of authorities are so strongly against it. But authorities are not always right. For example, from the very earliest times in English translations that I have been able to examine thus far, the fifth verse of the first chapter of the "Song of Solomon" has been rendered, "I am black but comely.... ". I have so far found only one honourable exception.⁸³ Yet the truth of the matter is that the Hebrew word translated "but" is more frequently rendered "and" in the English of the Old Testament. There is no question that "but" is perfectly allowable here. Nevertheless, "and" is its more usual meaning, and though there are a number of other alternatives that could have been chosen, such as "yet" "nevertheless", etc. , commonusage easily confirms the fact that the Hebrew waw is much more frequently employed as a con-junctive than a dis-junctive. Normally the context readily determines which it is. * Then why has it been rendered "but" in this passage where, by this simple expedient, the speaker is in effect being made to apologize for the colour of her skin ? The answer, of course, is that the choice was made on prejudicial, not linguistic, grounds, though each

* An approximate count shows that the particle is translated in the Old Testament as 'and' some 25,000 times, and as 'but' some 3000 times.

translator was probably quite unaware of the way in which his bias was expressing itself. The use of "but" has nothing to do with scholarship at all. It has simply been accepted without challenge because the implications of it were not observed.
I am persuaded that we have wrongly reached the same kind of general agreement as to the rendering of Gen. 1. 2, not on scholarly grounds but either because the alternative simply did not occur to the translator or because he desired to dissociate himself from a certain view of the earth's early history which currently, at least, is said to find no support from Geology. The emotional factor is often quite evident from the vehemence with which the alternative rendering is disallowed. Climate of opinion is simply against it, but not, I believe, the linguistic evidence itself. Some of this evidence is reviewed for several books of the Bible in Appendix IV.

CONCLUSION:
In Appendix IV will be found a rather involved examination of the evidence as found in five representative books of the Old Testament; Genesis, Joshua, Job, two Psalms, and Zechariah. This study has been put in an appendix in order to remove it from the cursive text and to allow the reader to read on through without getting tiresomely bogged down in detail.
The evidence shows that some part of the English verb "to be", occurs in the Authorized Version 832 times in the book of Genesis alone. * Any other English version would, of course, have served the purpose of analysis just as well. However, in the usual printing of the Authorized Version text, italics are used for "supplied" words which simplifies the counting, and of these 832 occurrences, 626 are not represented by any form of the verb

in the original. In summary, where the copulative use of the English verb "to be" occurs in the Authorized Version, the Hebrew original does not employ the verb

. On page 58 a breakdown of the tenses involved in these 626 occurrences of the supplied English verb indicates that a substantial number of them, (169 in all) are in the past tense.
In this Appendix, a similar breakdown was undertaken of the use of the verb "to be" for the other books of the Bible listed above and a breakdown of the results is tabulated on page 146. From this sample study I think certain things emerge with respect to the use

* See accompanying tabulation, page 58. (just below)

For a larger version, press on picture.

* Of these, 17 are rendered became, will become, etc., and in other versions many more are so rendered.

in Hebrew of the verb

.
First of all, it Is apparent that the verb

is not normally employed to express the simple copula, whether the tense is past or present. It is more frequently employed, however, when the tense is future.
The second thing emerging from this study is that the Hebrew writers did not find it necessary to employ the verb

in order to make clear to the reader whether the tense was past or present. In other words, the introduction of the verb (as in Gen. 1. 2, for instance) is not simply a literary device to inform the reader that this is how the situation was in the past rather than how it is in the present. In the Book of Genesis, the tabulation shows that in 169 cases the context is allowed to decide for the reader that the events are past and the reader is left to surmise for himself that in 442 cases the tense is present. The context itself , in the absence of any expression of the verb

in the original, is considered to be sufficiently clear.
The third thing is that the verb

is employed only when change of a specific kind is involved. This does not mean change in the sense that a past situation is no longer true in the present, but rather that a present situation is changing, has changed from what it was, or will change in the future. The argument that a past situation which has not continued into the present automatically requires the employment of the verb

does not seem to be valid. The idea of change is very nicely represented in English in a substantial number of cases by some form of the verb "to become" or "to come to be". In a surprisingly large number of cases where

appears in the original the use of such a form as "become" or "became" as a substitute rendering will be found to clarify the meaning of the text or, at the least, to make very good sense.
In the light of these findings, it can hardly be maintained that to translate Gen. 1. 2 as, "but the earth had become a ruin, etc", contravenes Hebrew usage. If the meaning intended had been simply "the earth was a chaos" even if we understand the word chaos in the Greek sense of "waiting to be given form", the verb

would not normally have been employed in the original.

What is the gap theory ?

Dansk side
Hvad er gap teorien ?

Hvad mener jeg med skabelse ?

Skabelse

Links

For danske artikler af mig, se:
Skabelse - gap teorien

New Email

Please link to me

The Gap theory blog

Sitemap

goto frontpage The gap theory page