Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

Dear Steve Miller wrote:

> > > Can the word "was" in the verse "Now the earth was unformed and void" be translated 
> > > "became"?
> > >      
> > >
> > > This is one response from a Hebrew Scholar:
> > >
> > > When the word hayah refers to a change in state, then it takes a le-before the noun; 
> > > here we have no le- so this is a report of a state that was, not that became something 
> > > from something else.  At this stage in the Creation story, we are just getting the 
> > > first reports on the initial state of chaos (an early mix of time/space/energy/matter), 
> > > which only later "became" something else more ordered.
> > >      
> > >
> > >      
> > HH: That's a good comment.
> >
> >    
> Harold, this is the very same quote that was brought up earlier by Schmuel,
> and your reply was the opposite. Without controversy, when le- prefixes
> haya, it means "to become", but this "scholar" is saying that haya ONLY
> means "became" when prefixed by le-. Without controversy, as you already
> illustrated, haya also can mean "became" without having the le- prefix.
> Examples are numerous, just search for "become" or "became" in the OT, and
> it usually is a translation of haya without a le- prefix. i.e. Gen 3:22;
> 32:10; 2:10.
>  
HH: I apologize, then, but it seemed a good comment to me because people 
were pushing other, worse ideas. This comment generally seems to 
represent the proper interpretation of the verb in the verse. Yes, there 
are exceptions to the rule given about the verb with a following lamed 
preposition, but the norm has some value for analyzing the verb in Gen 
1:2. The initial disjunctive wav in Gen 1:2 with the fronted noun 
suggests a circumstantial clause, as someone else has mentioned. 
Circumstantial clauses give background information, another fact 
favoring a copulative force for the verb.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard