Meanings of Hayah Followed by Lamedh
APPENDIX XII (Reference: p. 53)
While it is not true that the verb  must be followed by  in order to establish the meaning "become", "became", etc., it is true that when the preposition  does accompany the verb it cannot mean anything else. But in the latter circumstance it has the sense of becoming in a rather special way.
If there is a general principle, it would seem to be this. When something becomes something else, there may be two kinds of conversion involved. (1) A thing may be so completely changed and become something so entirely different that it is no longer what it was before, a situation which would not normally require the lamedh. (2) A thing can be merely viewed as having become something different only in a manner of speaking as (a) when one individual becomes a multitude, (b) when there is a change in status, or (c) when a thing becomes something else analogously.
We have already dealt at some length with (l): namely, the use of hayah without lamedh following. On the other hand, in (2) the situation is rather different because the change, though real enough, in a sense involves no change at all. Thus one individual becomes many individuals, a woman becomes a wife, and a man becomes a stone of stumbling. In these examples each object remains fundamentally what it was before and yet each is changed. The individual remains even while he multiplies, the woman achieves a new status, and the man takes on a new significance. It is my contention that, although there are some exceptions undoubtedly, these last three kinds of becoming require that the preposition  follow the verb  . In a very great number of cases the sense is brought out rather nicely by rendering the lamedh by the words "as it were", though the English does not demand these words, the reader being left to surmise what is intended. For example, Abraham becomes a nation; or in the matter of a change of status, one of the commonest illustrations is in connection with marriage, a woman becomes a wife wherein although she is the same woman, her status has been changed. Or again, when a man becomes a stone which the builders reject, he does not strictly become a stone at all - but only analogously, as it were, a stone which the builders cannot, or will not, use.
As illustrations of (2) (a), we have:
Gen. 18.18 Abraham becoming a great nation.
Gen. 32. 10 Jacob becoming two bands.
Isa. 60. 22 A little one shall become a thousand.
As illustration of (2) (b), we have:
Gen. 20. 12 most have reference to becoming a wife.
Gen. 24. 67
Ruth 2. 13
I Sam. 25.42
II Sam. 11. 2 7)
Deut. 27. 9 a people who are not the Lord's becoming the Lord's people.
II Sam. 7.24 the Lord to become Israel's God.
As illustration of (2) (c), we have:
Gen. 2. 10 a single watershed out of Eden becomes four heads.
Gen. 2. 24 a man and a woman are to become one flesh.
Deut. 2 8. 37 a people becomes an astonishment.
II Ki. 21. 14 a people becomes a prey and a spoil.
II Ki. 22. 19 the inhabitants of a place become a desolation.
Psa. 69. 22 a table becomes a snare.
Isa. 8. 14 he shall become a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
Jer. 5. 13 prophets shall become wind.
Jer. 50. 37 men shall become as women.
. . . . . all of which involve the sense of "as it were".
In the Hebrew Version of the New Testament, Jonah becomes a sign and accordingly here, too,  is followed by  (Lu. 11. 30).
It will be understood that in all the above references  is followed by  . As already stated, there appear to be a few exceptions , but by and large the "rule" is a useful one and the majority of passages in which  is employed can be subsumed under one of these headings. In a few cases the rule seems to involve implications which might require some careful re-thinking. The rod becoming a serpent (Exod. 7. 10), and the water becoming blood (Exod. 7.19),
are cases in point, for according to my "rule" since the lamedh appears in the original the rod didn't really become a serpent., but the water really did become blood! Regarding the water, there is a wide consensus of agreement today that it became infested with micro-organisms which give it a thick red soupy appearance, making it look very much like blood. This still happens occasionally in different parts of the world with the consequent destruction of fishes in it. It can hardly be better described in a popular way than as "blood". If this is what actually happened, then we ought to find the appropriate  following. But such is not the case in Exod. 7.19 (twice) and 21, which would therefore be an exception challenging the proposed rule.
As to the rod becoming a serpent, it will be difficult for many, people to surrender the conviction that it really did become a serpent, and not merely an appearance only: yet the magicians were able to do the same thing - perhaps by some process of suggestion. Nevertheless, Exod. 7.12 goes on to say that Aaron's "rod" ate up the "rods" of the Egyptians. This seems almost certainly to indicate that in both cases we are dealing with real serpents because if one assumes that Aaron's rod became a real serpent - with an appetite it seems unlikely that he would be fool enough to eat up a bunch of rods which merely looked like serpents. One must therefore assume here that the rods did become real and not merely as-it-were serpents. In which case, we have another clear exception to the rule.
Nevertheless, in such matters, rules are established by general usage rather than by particular usage, and the great majority of cases fit nicely into the framework suggested. As already observed, Hebraists, like Driver, have underscored the great importance of not confusing the sense of becoming with the sense of being. Yet it is so easy to substitute the one for the other in English that we have difficulty in being persuaded that such a distinction can really exist or that it has any fundamental importance even if it does.
The translators of the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament appear to have followed a rule that when  is accompanied
by  the verb is to be rendered "became", etc. According to the Concordance of that Version, there are approximately 450 listed occurrences of the English word "become" or "became" in the Old Testament. Examination of these shows that about 80% of them
include the associated  . To some, this will perhaps be powerful evidence that  is required in order to give the meaning of "become" to the verb  . Yet from all that has been said, it is clear that this is not the case, nor is the Revised Standard Version consistent, as such verses as Gen.37.20; 39.2; Deut.33.5; Josh.9.21; I Sam. 14. 15; 16. 2 1; etc. etc. , show.
What is argued here is that this is only one class of occurrences in which the sense of becoming is intended, not a real conversion but conversion only in a manner of speaking, and that the verb  standing alone without  bears the fundamental meaning of becoming in the simplest and most complete sense of the word as indicated in Appendix XVIII (page 171 f.).
|
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
|