Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>]

On 7/5/06, B. M. Rocine <brocine AT twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Harold and other B-Haverim,
>
> I own all the "major published translations of the Bible" (to quote
> Harold) and found it unsatisfying.  That's why I have spent some
> considerable time and expense trying to learn Hebrew.
>
> So without recourse to English translations, can anyone tell me the
> difference between the meaning or function of a noun sentence and a
> sentence using qatal of HYH when either appears in narration?
>
> Example:  Is there any difference when a narrator says
>
> a.  veha'arets tohu vabohu
>
> and
>
> b.  veha'arets hayetah tohu vabohu
>
> ?????
>
> I am assuming there should be a difference.
>
> Thanks,
> Bryan
You see from this thread there is much discussion of the translation
of the perfect form and rendering it "had become." Using the verb here
explicitly states it is in the perfect state where a noun sentence
would just relate the attributes to the subject and could actually be
rendered as "is"
Personally I do not hold with the "had become" camp because I do not
believe that the perfect of HYH to imply that a change had occurred.
In fact I would argue that the perfect indicates that only that there
is no change occurring any more. I think "was" is the best translation
here and that the perfect is used to clearly set this verse in the
past tense. To me it appears to be a description of the world before
the first creative sentence. A lifeless, dark, chaotic mass of waters
with the wind of God blowing across them.
Harold's response is also very relevant. These are often matters of
mood, rhythm or even line space.

Joel Stucki