Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk" <Peter_R_Kirk AT hotmail.com>]

Thank you, Bryan.

I am also rather attracted by your "had become" translation of Gen 1:2.
But I wonder if HAYTA actually implies this or just "was". What I mean
is this: If we read:

we-A hayta B

we know that this means that at the past time in question A was B, but
does it also imply that there was a previous time at which A was not B?
The English "had become" does imply this, as does the version with
"olmaq" as I describe it in this particular form. But English "was" and
the clitic "idi" do not imply this. And it is obviously important to
know whether such an implication was intended, e.g. in Gen 1:2 and all
the more in John 1:1.

Now how can we decide if Hebrew HAYTA implies this previous opposite
state? I suppose we need to look at a wide range of uses and see if
there are any where this implication is either impossible or a key part
of the argument. That would be an interesting little research topic.

Meanwhile, could we translate BARA' in Gen 1:1 also as pluperfect and so
1:1-2 as more like the following?

"In the beginning God had created the heavens and the earth, but the
earth had become wild and waste; there was now darkness on the face of
the deep, but the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Of course this leaves open lots of questions about what had happened to
the earth, but as you suggest the author was not necessarily trying to
fill in all the details.

Peter Kirk
peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. M. Rocine [mailto:brocine AT twcny.rr.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2002 06:12
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: [b-hebrew] Re: BH TMA, Gen 1:2
> 
> Hi Peter, you wrote:
> > I wonder if you are both trying too hard to fit this verb into
English
> > categories, either "become" or "be". I guess it works more like the
verb
> > "olmaq" in the language I was working on. The basic meaning is "to
> > become", but because there is no full verb "to be", only a few
clitic
> > forms, in some tense/aspect/moods "olmaq" is used with a meaning
more
> > like "to be". This got the translators into problems on John 1:1
which
> > could be read "In the beginning the word became... the word became
God"
> > suggesting that it had previously been something different; the
clitic
> > form would have been more suitable. (Sorry for the NT example which
is
> > to illustrate the use of the word not to comment on the text.) In
> > Genesis 1:2 at least we avoided that problem by using the clitic
form.
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> 
> Thanks for the interesting comparison of HYH and "olmaq."
> 
> On Gen 1:2, I may be able to bring up some points we haven't covered
int
> he
> list's previous treatment of the verse.
> 
> You mention the problem you avoid in Gen 1:2 by using, in your target
> language, a clitic morpheme that means "be."  I assume the problem you
> refer
> to is what to do with the qal qatal of HYH, haytah:  veha'arets haytah
> tohu
> vabohu.  The problem, I take it, is in seeing haytah as anything
*other*
> than a copulative.  You want "the earth *was*," and you want to avoid
the
> somehow problematic "the earth had become."  I don't see why "the
earth
> had
> become" should be a problem if that is indeed an acurate equivalent to
the
> Hebrew.  Isn't it Jeremiah who describes a sinful society that
becomes, as
> a
> result of the injustice and hypocrisy, tohu and bohu?  So what was
> possible
> in Jeremiah's cosmology?  I suggest he, as a native speaker of BH,
would
> not
> have a problem with translating haytah as "had become" either because
of
> the
> grammar or because of his cosmology.  Rashi also takes the first
verses of
> the Bible to support the idea that God takes His creation from one
people
> and gives it to another.
> 
> In any case, how about the different constructions employed by the
writer
> in
> the clause of verse 2a on the one hand and verbless clauses of verses
2b
> and
> 2c on the other hand:
> 
> 2a veha'arets haytah tohu vabohu
> 2b vexoshek `al pney tehom
> 2c veruax 'elohim meraxephet `al pney hammayim
> 
> Only 2a uses a form of HYH in this scene-setting passage.  Are we not
to
> judge clause 2a to be somehow different than 2b and 2c because of the
verb?
> An interpretation of haytah as a practically invisible copulative
seems to
> count as insignificant 2a's difference with the verbless nature of vv.
2b
> and 2c.
> 
> Grant me a sort of idiosyncratic translation of vv. 1 and 2 for
> conversation' sake:
> 
> "It was in the beginning that God was Creator of the heavens and the
earth;
> but the earth had become wild and waste; and darkness was upon the
face of
> the deep; and the Spirit of God was hovering upon the face of the
waters."
> 
> We may find such a translation unsatisfactory because we wonder just
how
> the
> earth had become so.  But that is not necessarily a weighty criticism
of
> the
> translation itself.  That criticism might only be suitable for the
writer
> of
> the Hebrew who hasn't satisfied our curiosity about how the scene came
to
> be.  Even directed toward the writer, it is a light criticism indeed.
> Writers decide what their audiences need to know and when to tell them
> what
> they need to know.  Even the best writers leave their audiences
baxoshek,
> "in the dark," about some conspicuously absent details.  If nothing
else,
> the writer has us relish the details we *do* have by leaving others
out or
> saving some for another time.
> 
> Shalom,
> Bryan
> 
> 
> B. M. Rocine
> Living Word Church
> 6101 Court St. Rd.
> Syracuse, NY 13206
> 
> ph: 315.437.6744
> fx: 315.437.6766
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as:
[peter.r.kirk AT ntlworld.com]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 149219L AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.