|
|
Preface Introduction Chapters Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Appendices Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Appendix VII Appendix VIII Appendix IX Appendix X Appendix XI Appendix XII Appendix XIII Appendix XIV Appendix XV Appendix XVI Appendix XVII Appendix XVIII Appendix XIX Appendix XX Appendix XXI Indexes References Names Biblical References General Bibliography |
(Reference: p.51) The Existential Sense of
the Verb Hayah. The existential sense might be argued here as an explanation for the introduction of the
verb, making the sense to read, "And the earth existed
chaotically". But the
existential use requires not a simple predicate but a
clause such as would be introduced by the preposition "in"
or "as", as when Joseph lived (Authorized Version: "was") in
his master's house (Gen. 39.2) or when we are told "that there lived (Authorized
Version "was") a man in the land of Uz whose name (was) Job" (Job
1.1). In the purest existential sense the verb will have no predicate at
all nor any other clause following.
The paramount example is to be
found in the title of the Almighty, the great "I am",
the One Who always exists. It might also be argued
that Gen. 2.25 is a parallel of the use of the verb
that here we do have a
predicate in the presence of the word "naked". But this word is an adjective,
not a noun like tohu (
The sentence reads
"They lived naked" not "were a nakedness". It is true that a noun can
upon occasion be used adverbially so that the translation of
Isa.45.18 has been rendered, "He created it not in vain", the
words "in vain" being for the Hebrew tohu (
which is therefore treated
as an adverb just as it seems to be also in Isa.45.19. The latter reads (correctly, I feel
sure), "I said not unto the seed of Jacob,
Seek ye Me IN VAIN...." Since tohu
is here rendered as an adverb,
why should it not also be read as an adverb in Gen. 1.2? Thus verse 2 is taken to read, "And
the earth existed formlessly
or chaotically". In which case the render- ing might justly account
for the introduction of
on the grounds that this
is a parallel to Gen. 2.25 which could then be rendered, "And
they both existed (lived) nakedly and were not ashamed, etc.". In this case a noun (in verse 2) and an
adjective (in verse 25) are similarly
treated as adverbs and the verb
allowed its existential
meaning. By this method one might
justify the traditional
translation of Gen. 1.2. That an adjective can be
treated as an adverb is a well established fact in Hebrew, though
normally only in poetry. Yet it is still to pg
1 of 2 be noted that while tohu does appear elsewhere in probably at least one passage and possibly in
two as an adverb, this cannot actually be said of the second
descriptive term in Gen. 1.2, namely, bohu (
lative sense of the verb
"to be" might allow one to interpolate it before bohu so that
the sentence would then read, "And the earth existed chaotically and (was)
a void". This, however,
requires some rather special
manoeuvering. Yet such an
alternative must be allowed as a possibility
pending further investigation and we shall not progress towards the
truth unless we test out all possibilities. It is not yet time to
assert or deny either alternative dogmatically. Although such a possibility
must therefore be admitted, it must be underscored that the
alternative can only be justified by a process of "special
pleading" which is far less substantiated from Hebrew literature than the
alternative we are proposing. And
indeed in the present state of my
knowledge, it cannot actually be substantiated at all. Thus if it is once agreed, on the basis
of the information brought to light in this
volume, that the verb ively and that therefore
the rendering was in Gen.1.2 is not strictly correct so that it should
be revised to read "became", the alternative requires no special
pleading, for there is plenty of substantiating support from the rest of
the Old Testament. It has been customary to
say that those who argue for the trans- lation, "And the earth
became a chaos", can only press their point by appealing to exceptional
Hebrew usage. The fact is really quite otherwise as the evidence
shows. And the case becomes even stronger when the unusual
word order involved here is given due recognition. * * *
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved
|
