Biblical Hebrew Forum

["B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>]

Hi Peter,

Good points all the way 'round, Peter.  I'll put it another way: the work of
the lexicographers indicates that some clear contexts force "become,
happen," while few if any contexts force "be."  There are certainly some
contexts where "be" is more comfortable than "become, happen."

Shalom,
Bryan

you wrote:
> Thank you, Bryan. Actually I have HALOT in front of me. But the entry is
> far from clear cut in support of your meaning "happen; become" because
> it also gives the meaning "be". In support of this it quotes for example
> Job 1:1 )IY$ HFYFH, presumably taking it to mean "There was a man". Now
> I suppose it could mean "A man came/had come into being" or "A man
> was/had been born". Another example, Genesis 3:1 W:HAN.FXF$ HFYFH
> (FRW.M, does this mean "the snake had become crafty(?)"? At least Kohler
> and Baumgartner seem to have judged the sense here to be simply "be".
>
> Now I think it is uncontroversial that HYH can mean "become" as well as
> "be". But you seem to be suggesting that "become" is always better than
> "be". You may be right, but for this hypothesis you can't rely on HALOT
> but rather you need to prove it wrong - which may not be impossible as
> scholars tend to rely a lot on one another in such circumstances, rather
> than doing their own research project on every detail.
>