|
|
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.53) Meanings of Hayah Followed
by Lamedh. While it is not
true that the verb order to establish the
meaning "become", "became", etc., it is true that when the preposition
mean anything else. But in
the latter circumstance it has the sense of becoming in a rather
special way. If there is a general
principle, it would seem to be this. When something becomes
something else, there may be two kinds of con- version involved. (1) A thing may be so completely changed
and become something so
entirely different that it is no longer what it was before, a situation
which would not normally require the lamedh. (2) A thing can be merely
viewed as having become something different only in a manner of
speaking as (a) when one individual becomes a multitude, (b) when there
is a change in status, or (c) when a thing becomes something else analogously. We have already dealt at
some length with (1): namely, the use of hayah without lamedh
following. On the other hand, in (2) the situ- ation is rather different
because the change, though real enough, in a sense involves no change at
all. Thus one individual becomes many individuals, a worn an
becomes a wife, and a man becomes a stone of stumbling. In these examples each object remains
fundamentally what it was before and yet
each is changed. The individual remains even while he multiplies,
the woman achieves a new status, and the man take son a new significance.
It is my contention that, although there are some exceptions
undoubtedly, these last three kinds of becoming require that the
preposition a very great number of
cases the sense is brought out rather nicely by rendering the lamedh
by the words "as it were", though the English does not demand these
words, the reader being left to surmise what is intended. For example, Abraham becomes a nation; or
in the matter of a change of
status, one of the commonest illustrations is in connection with
marriage, a woman becomes a wife wherein al- though she is the same
woman, her status has been changed.
Or again, when a man becomes a
stone which the builders reject, he does not strictly become a
stone at ail-but only analogously, as it were, pg
1 of 4 a stone which the builders
cannot, or will not, use. As illustrations of (2) (a), we have: Gen. 18.18 Abraham becoming a great nation. Gen. 32.10 Jacob becoming two bands. Isa. 60.22 A little one shall become a thousand. As illustration of (2) (b),
we have: Gen. 20.12 Gen. 24.67 Ruth 2.13 I Sam. 25.42 II Sam. 11.27 (most of the above verses
have reference to becoming a wife.) Deut. 27.9 a people who are not the Lord's becoming
the Lord's people. II Sam. 7.24 the Lord to
become Israel's God. As illustration of (2) (c),
we have; Gen. 2.10 a single watershed out of Eden becomes
four heads. Gen. 2.24 a man and a woman are to become one
flesh. Deut. 28.37 a people becomes an astonishment. II Ki. 21.14 a people becomes a prey and a spoil. II Ki. 22.19 the inhabitants of a place become a
desolation. Psa. 69.22 a table becomes a snare. Isa. 8.14 he shall become a stone of stumbling
and a rock of
offense. Jer. 5.13 prophets shall become wind. Jer. 50.37 men shall become as women. . . . . . all of which
involve the sense of "as it were". In the Hebrew Version of the New Testament, Jonah becomes a sign and accordingly here,
too, It will be understood that
in all the above references followed by
ceptions, but by and large
the "rule" is a useful one and the majority of passages in which
these headings. In a few
cases the rule seems to involve implications which might require some
careful re-thinking. The rod becoming a serpent (Exod. 7.10), and
the water becoming blood (Exod. 7.19),
are cases in point, for
according to my "rule" since the lamedh appears in the original
the rod didn't really become a serpent, but the water really did
become blood! Regarding the water, there is a wide consensus of
agreement today that it became infested with micro-organisms which give
it a thick red soupy appearance, making it look very much
like blood. This still happens
occasionally in different parts of the
world with the consequent destruction of fishes in it. It can hardly be better described in a popular
way than as "blood". If this
is what actually happened, then we ought to find the appropriate
(twice) and 21, which
would therefore be an exception challenging the proposed rule. As to the rod becoming a
serpent, it will be difficult for many people to surrender the
conviction that it really did become a serpent, and not merely an
appearance only; yet the magicians were able to do the same thing - perhaps
by some process of suggestion. Never- theless, Exod. 7.12 goes
on to say that Aaron's "rod" ate up the "rods" of the
Egyptians. This seems almost
certainly to indicate that in both cases we are
dealing with real serpents because if one assumes that Aaron's rod
became a real serpent - with an appetite - it seems unlikely that he
would be fool enough to eat up a bunch of rods which merely looked
like serpents. One must therefore assume here that the rods did
become real and not merely as-it-were serpents. In which case,
we have another clear exception to the rule. Nevertheless, in such matters, rules are established by general usage rather than by
particular usage, and the great majority of cases fit nicely into the
framework suggested. As already
observed, Hebraists, like Driver,
have underscored the great importance of not confusing the sense of
becoming with the sense of being. Yet it is so easy to substitute the
one for the other in English that we have difficulty in being
persuaded that such a distinction can really exist or that it has any
fundamental importance even if it does. The translators of the
Revised Standard Version of the Old Test- ament appear to have
followed a rule that when by
Concordance of that
Version, there are approximately 450 listed occurrences of the English
word "become" or "became" in the Old Testament. Examination of these shows that about 80%
of them include the associated
evidence that
to the verb
this is not the case, nor
is the Revised Standard Version consistent, as such verses as Gen.
37.20; 39.2; Deut.33.5; Josh.9.21; I Sam. 14.15; 16.21; etc. etc.,
show. What is argued here is
that this is only one class of occurrences in which the sense of becoming
is intended, not a real conversion but conversion only in a
manner of speaking, and that the verb
standing alone without
in the simplest and most
complete sense of the word as indicated in Appendix XVIII (page
171 f.). * * * Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved
|
