THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE.
"But the earth had become a desolation...."
The rendering above departs from that to be observed in almost
all the better known English translations in three ways:* the use of a
disjunctive (but for and), the use of the pluperfect in the place of the
simple perfect, and the use of became in place of the simple was.
Of the disjunctive, little need be said. The Hebrew (waw)
stands for both the conjunctive and the disjunctive particles, and the
context alone can determine which is the more appropriate. There
is, as we have seen, some reason to prefer the disjunctive in view
of the indicated pause in the Hebrew text at the end of verse 1. In
Appendix XIV will be found a number of illustrations of this use, in-
cluding some instances in which the correctness of the disjunctive
form is borne out not merely by the obvious sense of the passage
quoted but by its reappearance as a quotation in the New Testament
where the Greek has "but", not "and" (ie., rather than
The use of the pluperfect is dealt with in the following chapter, the
point being reserved for discussion only after the translation of the
verb itself has been carefully considered. The most critical issue
is whether should here be rendered "was" or "became" since
* See Appendix III.
a whole, hinges upon the settlement of this point. Granted that this
point can be settled, the other two points will probably not be ser-
Now this discussion does not make easy reading, not only because
of the subtleties involved (as will appear) but also because the verb we
must examine in its commoner forms happens also to be the very verb
we must use in its commoner forms in order to make the examination!
One runs into this kind of thing: "In such a case, the word was is
incorrect....". Or one might put this: "In such a case, the word
"was" is incorrect... ."; or " the word WAS is incorrect"; or "the
word was is incorrect....". At any rate, this points up the nature
of the problem! Thus we are forced to employ various devices
(underlinings, capitals, italics, and 'quote' marks) in order to make
each point clearer.* And this kind of constant typographical switch-
ing is most distressing to even a thoroughly dedicated reader. But
it seems unavoidable.
In view of the fact that one can scarcely construct an English
sentence of any complexity without using some form of the verb "to
be", it is difficult to realize that there are well-developed languages
which make little or no use of it at all in the simple copulative sense.
When, in English, we express the straightforward idea, "The man is
good", the verb "to be "is used merely to connect together the words
man and good. Many languages, and indeed many children, simply
say, "man good", considering the connective verb quite unnecessary.
A child will say, "Me good boy": an Indian might say, "Me brave
man". Hebrew does the same.
Benjamin Lee Whorf, the 'founder' of that branch of the study of
language known as Metalinguistics, observed that a Hopi Indian, for
example, has difficulty in understanding why we say, "It is raining".
because to his way of thinking the It is the rain. One might just as
well say, "Rain is raining" - which of course is a redundancy. So
he wonders why we don't simply say, as he does, "Raining"! Neither
* In the biblical quotations which follow, we have tried
to indicate to the reader where the verb "to be" has been
supplied in the English though absent in the original by put-
ting the verb in brackets. Thus: Gen. 3.11, "Who told thee
that thou (wast) naked?" indicates that (wast) has been
supplied to complete the English sentence.
and common sense, therefore, would argue the leaving out of both of
them. But this would not sound correct to us. Yet, as we have
observed, Hebrew shares the un-English view that a verb is not
needed here since it really contributes nothing.
Now, in translating, it is quite customary to equate the Hebrew
by Hebraists for many years that the equation is not strictly valid.
In English, being is a kind of static concept, things simply "are" this
or that. When we say, "The man is tall", we are not speaking of a
dynamic event but a more or less static situation. "The field is
flat" is indeed a static situation. In both these sentences English
requires some part of the verb "to be" in order to satisfy our sense
of linguistic propriety. Yet in spite of the possession of the verb
with its supposed sense of "being", Hebrew would not think it
necessary here and the verb is would therefore not be represented
in the Hebrew.
The reader who is limited to English will find that in some editions
of the Bible, especially in the Authorized Version, a means is prov-
ided, simply by the use of italics, to show where any part of the verb
"to be" has been inserted in the English translation to complete the
sense though not found in the original Hebrew. For example, if one
opens a first edition of the Scofield Bible at (say) page 21, some
eleven copulative or connective occurrences of the verb "to be" will
be found in italics, appearing in the text as is, art, be, and was: and
on page 395 some 39 examples will be found in the forms was and were
In every instance the word has been supplied by the translators where
the Hebrew original did not consider any verb necessary.*
* Any page would, of course, have served to illustrate
the point, and any printing of the Authorized Version will
show it. Thus, for example from Jud. 6.10 to 7.14 we have
in 6.10 am, 13 be, 15 am and is, 22 was 24 is, 25 is, 30 be;
and in 7.1 is, 2 are and are, 3 is, 12 were, 13 was, and
14 is. All these are copulative and is omitted in
the original. On the other hand, in Judges 6.27 the
verb was is not in italics since it is found in the Hebrew,
and it is clear that the intent of the writer was something
beyond the mere copulative force of the verb: as for example
Continued page 44.
Thus the fundamental idea behind the Hebrew verb is not pre-
cisely what would be copulative in English but is a far more dynamic
concept. This is indicated to some extent by its possible etymology.
A number of authorities, including Gesenius and Tregelles, believed
that the primary meaning was that of "falling" - comparing the word
with the Arabic meaning "to be headlong" or '"to fall down".
From this came the idea of "befalling" in the sense of "happening",
and so "to fall out", and thence "to come to be", ie., "to become".
From this idea of having become, we pass easily into the meaning
"to be" in the sense of having existence but the copulative sense
usually attributed to it seems without logical foundation.
Subsequently, Tregelles came to believe that the concept of "fall-
ing" was not really primary, and that the notion of "being" came
instead from that of "living". From the concept of "living" the idea
of "being" is readily derived so that it comes easily to mean "to be":
but this kind of being is dynamic being, living being, not the static
kind of being which is equative as when one says, "This is (ie., equals)
that", but the kind which is implied in such a sentence as "He is
alone", or "He is with thee".
Thus while Benjamin Davies gives the basic meaning as "to be" -
usually with the sense of "to exist", "to be alive", "to come into
being", and so "to become" - Brown, Driver and Briggs list the
meanings of in the following order: "to fall"; "to come to pass";
"to become"; and "to be". And under the last heading they add
subsequently in parenthesis, "often with the subordinate idea of
The concept of dynamic as opposed to static being is of great
importance to an understanding of the Hebrew usage of the word.
Boman, in a critical study of the verb, concludes that it is never
used copulatively at all and that all the usual illustrations of such a
use provided in lexicons are not really valid. He does not consider
that even Ratschow, who made a quite exhaustive study of Old Testa-
ment usage, was really able to give any clear unequivocal instances.
Thus, for example, in Gen. 2.25 the sentence, "and they were
"And it came to be that...." In Gen. 23.17 the verb 'to be'
is set in italics 5 times! We need this insertion of the
verb to fill out the sentence, but the Hebrew writer did not
see any need for it and so omitted it entirely.
at the moment of speaking the writer is observing the simple fact of
their nakedness but that this was how they lived, daily. They "went
about" without clothing and without shame. Subsequently, they
suddenly became aware that they were naked and this awareness
brought with it a sense of shame not experienced before. This was
nakedness in a new way and it occurred quite suddenly - suddenly
enough that Adam "discovered" it with a sense of shock. That this
was in the nature of a discovery is implied in the Lord's words (in
Gen, 3.11), "Who told thee that thou (wast) naked?". The question
would have been pointless otherwise. Thus the real emphasis here
is no longer upon the circumstance that Adam and Eve had been living
naked in the Garden of Eden but that they had both suddenly discovered
a fact which caused them to be ashamed.
Boman argues that the simple "is" or "was" in an English sentence
is never expressed in Hebrew and that where it IS expressed it does
not mean what the English translation implies. It is used in the sense
of eventuality: it is not used for a simple fact or circumstance or
One might wonder how Hebrew would then distinguish between the
phrase, "the man is good", and "the good man". In a sense they
convey the same basic idea, but there is a subtle difference. In any
case Hebrew can make the distinction. The first would appear
simply as "the man good" (ha-ish tobh: ), and the second,
as "the man the good one"(ha-ish ha-tobh: ).
One might then ask further, How would the distinction be made
between the sentences, "the man is good" and "the man was good"?
In Hebrew, the context is allowed to decide the matter. While it
might seem that this would be difficult (as upon occasion it is), the
number of such occasions must be remarkably small for there seems
to be not the slightest hesitation in omitting the verb, whether the
sense of "is" or "was" is intended. Such will be apparent from the
footnote with examples on page 43 of this Chapter and from the more
elaborate study which will be found in Appendix IV.
Some have felt this to be a real difficulty. Barr, for example,
argues that the verb must be inserted when the tense is past and the
situation no longer exists. For example, if a writer meant to say,
"The man was good.... but is no longer so", ie., "The man was
once good", then he would insert the appropriate form of the verb "to
be" to indicate the altered circumstance.
But this rule does not hold. For example, according to this
principle, the record of Job's complaint in Chapter 29 should have
altered by his diseased condition. Yet, in point of fact, the Hebrew
omits it. It is not merely that the situation is no longer true today:
the situation was no longer true when the statement was made. Thus
Job, inverses 14 and 15 and 20, tells his self-appointed comforters
that he was formerly - ie., was once - a father to the blind and feet
to the lame: he once enjoyed fame and recognition and his roots once
spread beside the waters like a flourishing tree. The meaning of
his complaint is unmistakable. He WAS all those things but is no
longer so: yet the Hebrew writer saw no need to express the connect-
ive verb "was" in such a situation.
We have another example in the case of Pharaoh's servants in
Gen. 41. Here the butler recalls (verse 12) how he and a fellow
tradesman were in prison and how at that time a Hebrew named
Joseph was also with them. Clearly the situation had now changed
for the speaker, since he is a free man - and his fellow tradesman
is dead. He refers back, therefore, to a situation which from his
point of view no longer exists and the English translation in verse 12
properly inserts the verb "was" - but the Hebrew omits it. Some
might argue that the situation for Joseph had not changed, since he
was still in prison! But one must surely consider the circumstances
from the point of view of the speaker. The omission of the verb in
reporting his speech shows, therefore, that it is not required merely
because there is the implication of altered circumstance. He was,
as he says, once in the same prison: but he is no longer so, yet the
Hebrew writer evidently saw no need for the verb in this context.
There are numerous illustrations of this kind of situation in the
Old Testament, but many of these require a somewhat elaborate
excursus in order to show how we know there has been a change.
Some are straightforward enough: as, for example, where Gen. 12.6
records that "the Canaanite (was) then (ie. , at that time) in the
land". But there are probably far more examples which are in
reverse. There are innumerable examples where the situation is
quite UN-changed and yet the verb "to be" is inserted in the original
in the appropriate form. This is a most common occurrence.
Thus, for example, throughout the first chapter of Genesis there is
the recurrent phrase, "And it was so". Here the Hebrew inserts
the verb. According to Barr, this insertion should imply that the
situation or circumstance is no longer true. But this is surely not
the case. Genesis 1, verses 3, 5, 7, 8, 9. and so forth, would all
be properly translated if one were to render the phrase which in
English reads, "And it was so", as "it became so", but it would
was once but is no longer so....".
Thus, the insertion of the verbal form "was" in a Hebrew sentence
is not intended to signify that the circumstance is no longer true, for
these evenings and these mornings retain their pre-eminence of
position in the processes of time. Thus when Barr proposes that
the verb is inserted in Gen. 1.2 in order to show that the desolation
was a temporary one and no longer exists, he is implying the existence
of a rule which certainly cannot be unequivocally demonstrated from
biblical usage. And to say at the same time, as Barr does, that on
this account "it would be quite perverse to insist on the meaning
'became' here", is clearly going beyond the evidence. Indeed, he
would perhaps be forced to admit that to follow out his own proposed
rule and render Gen. 1.5, "and the evening and the morning were
once a second day but are no longer so", would indeed be absurdly
perverse! But, by contrast to this absurd rendering, it would make
very good sense to render the Hebrew, "and the evening and the
morning became the second day", for this is precisely the truth of
the matter, and the Hebrew has seen fit to insert the verb in order
(as I believe) to make this quite clear. In this eventful period, it
did become the second day of the week.
From all of this it would appear that the decisive factor which
determines whether the verb will be inserted or omitted is not related
to tense. Nor is it related to circumstance, if by this is meant
merely that what is reported is no longer the case. Boman seems
to come much closer to the truth when he underscores the fact that
only where the sense is dynamic does a Hebrew writer introduce the
verb . He points out that there are three circumstances sur-
rounding its employment which bear out the contention that it is
basically a verb of action rather than condition.
First of all it can be, and frequently is, used in conjunction with
the infinitive or a participle of another verb of action. For example,
Nehemiah (2.13) tells how he was in the habit of inspecting the walls
of his beloved city Jerusalem while they were still under repair.
Thus he says, "And I was ( ) examining (" , participle) the
walls of Jerusalem". This could easily have been expressed by
the appropriate form of the verb without the associated verb
. But the object seems to be to underscore the idea of continuous
engagement.... A list of examples will be found in Appendix VIII and
a study of such usages indicates that the idea is best expressed by
rendering the verb not as "to be" but by some such English word
or phrase as "kept ---" (Ezek.44.2), "succeeded in ---" (II Chron.
"habitually ---" (I Sam.2.11, Gen.39.22), "was ever ---" (I Ki. 5.
1), "always ---" (II Ki.4.1, Ezek.44.2), "was daily ---" (Neh.
5.18), etc. All these imply something beyond a static situation, even
in Ezek. 44.2, for the idea is positive closure of the gate, that is,
keeping the gate closed and not merely "leaving it shut". It is a
case of maintenance rather than abandonment. In II Chron. 18.34
the mortally wounded king obviously did everything in his power to
hold himself upright in his chariot so that his supporters would not
lose heart.. In Gen. 1.6 the atmosphere actively divides, ie. , main-
tains, the division between the waters above it and those below: there
is nothing static about this process at all. And so it will be found
in every instance of usage in connection with either a participle or an
infinitive. It is analogous to the English usage in such a sentence
as "the water is boiling" or "the man is still angry".
Secondly, it appears in the niphal or passive form, as though the
sense was "to be be-ed", just as in English an active form (e.g.
"fold") is converted to a passive form* ("fold-ed") by the addition
of "-ed". It is much more difficult to think of the English verb "to be"
in a passive form because to us it tends to be essentially a static
concept. In Hebrew, since it is an active verb, the formation of a
passive did not seem strange and the verbal form of the active is
routinely changed to a passive form without hesitation. Thus in
I Ki.l. 2 7 a literal translation would be, "Is it from my lord the King
that this thing has been be-ed" (!), which would obviously have to
appear in English as "has been done" or "has come about" (in Hebrew
: ). The whole idea here is one
of action. Similarly, that often quoted passage from I Ki. 12.24 (lit-
erally, "For from me this has been done" ( )
is in the Authorized Version, "For this thing is from me". Most
lexicographers simply say that in the niphal or passive form the verb
is best rendered "come to be", ie., "become" or "happen". This
is the sense of Deut. 27. 9 for examples "This day ye have become a
people for the Lord your God".
Boman's third point is that the verb is often used in parallel
with other verbs, in sentences which have a clearly active context.
For example, in Gen. 2.5 it is written, "Every plant before it was
in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew....". And,
* See Appendix VII for illustrations.
significantly, this is followed by the words, "And there (was) not a
man to till the ground". In the first instance the verb is used as a
parallel to the verb "grew"; and in the final phrase the verb is omitted
because it is a statement of a static situation rather than an activity.
Another illustration of this kind of parallelism is to be observed in
Gen. 7.17,"And the Flood was forty days on the earth", followed by
verse 19 which says, "and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the
earth". Clearly the picture is one of the turbulence of an over-
whelming flood and not merely of a deep but placid sea of water.
Boman suggests quite properly I believe, that throughout the Creation
record, the verb used in the sense of "actively coming into
being" rather than merely factual existence. God created, or spoke,
or made, and "it came to be so", ie., "sprang into being", certainly
indicating an active process of realization rather than a static cir-
cumstance. Indeed, it is found in parallel with the Hebrew
which has the meaning of "realization" in such passages as Isa. 7. 7
("It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass") and Isa. 14.24
("Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass").
Now the verb occurs about 3570 times in the Old Testament.
It is a very versatile word obviously: and only by associating it with
various prepositions ( ) and various verbal
forms (infinitives and participles) can its full range of meanings be
set forth adequately.* As Boman observed:
" has thus been considered to some extent a general
word which can me an everything possible and therefore des-
ignates nothing characteristic. Closer examination, how-
ever, reveals that this is not the case."
Ratschow examined the occurrences of in the Old Testament
with a thoroughness hardly to be excelled and concluded that the verb
had three essential meanings which are given in the following order:
"to become", "to be" in the sense of existing or living, and "to effect".
Boman, in discussing Ratschow's findings, states his opinion that
these meanings really form a single basic unity with an internal
In his discussion he first of all points out something which was
elaborated by Benjamin Lee Whorf, namely, that the meanings people
* See Appendix VIII for illustrations.
that these views are not at all the same as those generally shared by
people of another language group. Many non-Indo-European peoples
tend to equate things which we would consider quite separate and
distinct. For example, to say in English that something IS wood
is not to identify the thing itself with the wood that it is made of, but
rather to say that it is made "out of " wood. By contrast in many
other languages, including Hebrew, the thing and the wood are ident-
ified, equated, considered as inseparable. Such a sentence as "the
altar and its walls (were) wood" (Ezek.41.22) means to the Hebrew
mind that altar, walls, and wood are a single entity, an equation, one
and the same in the particular instance. A verb is not necessary.
Similarly, "All the Lord's ways (are) grace and truth" would mean
to us that there is grace and truth IN all the Lord's ways. But not
so to the Hebrew mind. This is not an aspect of the Lord's ways, it
is a factual commonality. As Boman expresses it, "The predicate
inheres in the subject".
Thus he further observes:
"The most important meanings and uses of our verb "to
be" (and its equivalents in other Indo-European languages)
are (i) to express being or existence, and (ii) to serve as a
But having said this, Boman comments:
"Hebrew and other Semitic languages do not need (my
emphasis) a copula because of the noun clause (such a clause
as 'the altar is wood'). As a general rule, therefore, it may
be said that is not used as a copula.... The character-
istic mark of in distinction from our verb 'to be' is that
it is a true verb with full verbal force."
In short, he concludes that whether stands alone without any
accompanying preposition or is qualified by one, "it signifies real
becoming (his emphasis), what is an occurrence or a passage from
one condition to another.... , a becoming in inner reality...., a
becoming something new by vocation....". Such is Boman's view,
a view supported by many illustrations, some of which will be found
later in this text. It is a view arrived at by a most careful study
of the whole question in which cognizance has been taken of the
previous labours of a large number of recognized European scholars.
ments of some recent writer s whom we have already quoted as saying
in effect that every Hebrew scholar knows precisely the opposite to
be the case! It is a view which strongly supports the argument that
chaos was not the initial condition of the created earth.
Other linguists agree with Boman. Non-Indo-European languages
do not employ the verb "to be" as English does. In an interesting
paper entitled, Language and Philosophy, Basson and O’Connor ex-
amine the relationship between structure of language and form of
philosophy. This examination includes as an important part of their
thesis a study of the verb "to be" used in the following ways:
(1) As a logical copula, involving:
(a) Predication: "the leaf is green".
(b) Class inclusion: "all men are mortal".
(c) Class membership: "the tree is an oak".
(d) Identity: "George VI was king of England".
(e) Formal implication: "wisdom is valuable".
(2) In an existential sense: "God is".
(3) In any other sense peculiar to the language in question.
"Some interesting and possibly important information was
supplied to us (from a questionnaire sent to a number of phil-
ologists and linguists) on this topic. Most interesting was
the large number of languages which made a sharp distinction
between the existential 'is' and the copula.* Semitic lang-
uages have in general no copula, but Hebrew and Assyrian
both have a special word for 'exists'. Malay (an Austro-
nesian language) is similar to Hebrew in this respect. Tib-
etan uses 'yin' for the copula and 'yod' for existence, but a
sentence like 'That hill is high' might use either word accord-
ing to the sense of the context."
All the lexicons deal with the verb at some length. I do not
have in my possession, nor is there available to me at the present, a
copy of the original work completed by that most famous of Hebrew
lexicographers, Friedrich Heinrich Wilhelm Gesenius, in 1812. I do
have, however, translations of his original work edited and amended
in various ways by some of the scholars who followed him.
* See further Appendix IX
list of the meanings of the verb with illustrative examples from the
Old Testament which may be summed up under the following basic
headings: "to be" illustrated by reference to Exod. 20.3 ( a curious
circumstance since it is not copulative!), "to serve as" or "to tend
towards", "to become" or "turn into" (with the preposition ), "to
be with" (ie. , associated with, or on the side of), "to happen", "to
prosper" or "succeed", and "to have happened".
Tregelles' edition of Gesenius, published in 1889, gives the follow-
ing meanings: "to be" or "to exist", "to become", "to be done", "to
be made" (all without any associated preposition ). When followed
by modifying prepositions, the verb is given an extended list of
meanings which are summarized in Appendix X. Since the main
point at issue in this instance is the meaning of the verb in Gen .1.2
where it is accompanied by no preposition of any kind, the other
passages will not be examined at this point. In the passive voice,
Tregelles gives the meanings as "to become", "to be made", and
"to be done".
In 1890 a Student's Lexicon was published by Benjamin Davies,
also based on Gesenius (and Furst). He gives the basic meanings
as follows: "to be" - whether with the meaning of "to exist" or "to
live", or "to be somewhere" - or as the logical copula between subject
and predicate. As an illustration of this last, he refers to Gen. 1.2.
He then gives a second group of meanings as follows: "to come into
being", "to come to pass", "to occur" or "happen"; and in the passive
"to be done", "to be made to be".
In each of these Lexicons I have examined every reference in the
original Hebrew. In many instances the appropriateness of the
headings under which they are listed can be very much a matter of
opinion as is revealed by the fact that the same reference will be
reproduced under different headings be different lexicographers.
A list of these references will be found in Appendix XI.
I believe it would not be incorrect to say that as these Lexicons
appeared successively through the years, the verb was in the
course of time viewed somewhat differently. With Gesenius and Leo
the principle or basic view seems to have been that the verb meant
essentially "to be" in the ordinary English sense, with the concept of
"existing" or "living" next, and "becoming" only as a last alternative.
By the time we come to Brown, Driver, and Briggs, the modern
standard of reference, the position has altered. The basic mean-
ings are now set forth under four headings in this order; "to fall
out", "to come to pass", "to become", and finally, "to be". And
the authors add in parenthesis: "often with the subordinate idea of
becoming". Thus the emphasis has shifted: where the copulative
sense was originally listed as the primary one, it is now listed as
of least importance. Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Lexicon of the
Hebrew language is by far the most exhaustive available in English
and here we find that far from being a rare or exceptional meaning
of (as we are so frequently assured these days) the general sense
of "coming to be" or "becoming" is one of the most important and
most fundamental meanings.
I have examined every reference given in all these Lexicons as
well as those provided in some of the more elementary student's
dictionaries of Hebrew and I have no hesitation in saying that the
evidence tells unmistakably against the present commonly accepted
view among "conservative" biblical scholars who have expressed an
opinion on the meaning of Gen. 1.2. Some of these writers will
argue that may be allowed to mean "became" when, and only
when, it is followed by the preposition lamedh ( ). This is quite
untrue as is easily shown by a study of cases where "became" is
manifestly the correct rendering of , though the lamedh is omitted
in the Hebrew. A list of examples where is used – and the reasons
why – will be found in Appendix XII.
I would not say that the verb is never used copulatively (though
Ratschow and Boman hold this to be virtually so), but I think it can be
shown conclusively that the simple copulative use is the exception and
not the rule, and that such exceptions are very rare indeed. In a
few cases there appear to be exceptions only because we have failed
to observe the real meaning that the Hebrew writer had in mind and
our renderings are misleading. As we have seen, the verb can be
used to signify an "active existence" in a situation where we would
not expect to find "activity". Such a case as Adam's nakedness is
an example, for this is how he "went about". In this instance, the
English simply says that Adam was naked. But in the Hebrew
processes of thinking, this is not a static condition but a living circum-
stance. The Hebrew mind animated situations far more frequently
than we do and it is this animation which gives the Psalms, for
example, such tremendous dramatic force. Like many non-Indo-
European people, they thought of things as having character, not
Even in Brown, Driver, and Briggs the list of supposedly cop-
ulative uses includes numerous instances where the case is very
doubtful. For example, they list Deut.23.15, "The servant which
is escaped unto thee....". But surely this is an instance where
modern English would require the verb has rather than is. It is not
a copulative use of the verb: the verb is associated with another
verb of dramatic action. One could never properly substitute the
word "has" in such a sentence as "The field is flat", and the very fact
that one can make the substitution in the former but not in the latter
case is sufficient to demonstrate that the difference is a real one.
In such a sentence as Gen. 17.1 (also included in the list in Brown,
Driver, and Briggs) where the text reads, "And when Abraham was
ninety years old....", we are not really saying that Abraham WAS
ninety years. Obviously Abraham is not the same "thing" as ninety
years. We are actually saying, "When he reached the age of....",
ie., "When he became ninety years old....".
Brown, Driver, and Briggs list altogether 45 references to show
that can mean simply "to be". However, of these 45 references
8 should be excluded, being clearly not examples of a purely copulat-
ive use. Furthermore, I believe another 7 at least are equivocal
since in every case the translation "became" or "had become" would
be equally, if not more, appropriate. These are: Gen. 1.2;
17.1; Jud.11.1; II Ki.18.2; I Chron.11.20; II Chron.21.20 and 27.8.
This leaves us with only 30 examples out of a total (included under all
headings listed in their lexicon) of 1320 occurrences of which
have been proposed as illustrations of the possible meanings of the
verb. Moreover, of these 30, at least 8 others are ill-chosen be-
cause their use is either anomalous (Gen. 8.5) or signifies "came to
be" as in Gen.5.4,5,8,11; 11.32; 23.1; and Exod.38.24.
As we have already said, it seems possible that some cases of a
genuine copulative use of the verb which parallels that claimed by
most writers for the passage in Gen. 1.2 will be discovered if the
Old Testament is searched with sufficient care. But the fact that
Ratschow was not willing, after making such an exhaustive study, to
admit of a single instance, suggests that such cases will certainly be
the exception rather than the rule. By contrast, the number of
cases where the copulative sense is indicated by the very omission
of the verb in the Hebrew is very great indeed. I have not made an
actual count for the whole Old Testament but I am sure that it would
run into the thousands. There are 600 cases in Genesis alone, for
example. A single page in any English printing of the Bible will
usually show anywhere from 10 to 20 cases and most Bibles run into
a thousand pages or thereabouts for the Old Testament. Simple
arithmetic suggests, therefore, that such omissions may run as
high as five or ten thousand; five or ten thousand instances, that is
the meaning is simply copulative. On the other hand, the number
of cases where the verb can appropriately be rendered by some
expression which denotes becoming is very, very large indeed.
Whatever else may or may not be said, one certainly would not
draw from this the conclusion that the simple copulative use is the
normal use. While it is highly likely that Brown, Driver, and
Briggs could have supplied more examples had they considered it
worthwhile, it still remains true that the simple copulative sense is
placed last in the list and is then illustrated by a very small sample
only, a substantial proportion of even these being a little ambiguous.
By contrast with the actual evidence, one recent writer stated
categorically that the sense of "became" is so rare as to be found
only six times in the whole of the Pentateuch. As it stands, assuming
the writer meant precisely what his words imply, the statement is
demonstrably false. For example, the English reader will find the
following seventeen instances in Genesis alone, viz., Gen. 2.7,
10; 3.22; 9.15; 18.18; 19.26; 20.12; 21.20; 24.67; 32.10 (verse
11 in the Hebrew text); 34.16; 37.20; 47.20 and 26; 48.19 (twice);
and 49.15. Other occurrences elsewhere are listed in Appendix
XIII: the total exceeds 133.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that these are not by any
means all the instances in which is translated "became" (or
"become", "had become", etc.) but only those observable in the
Authorized Version. There are many other English translations
which supply us with further instances.* And it must be remembered
that English translations represent only one group of versions among
many. There are Latin, French, German, Greek, and dozens of
other versions besides the English ones. In these one may observe
many more instances.
For example, the Latin Vulgate has rendered as "became" in
thirteen instances in Genesis chapter 1 alone! Even more strikingly,
the Greek Septuagint translation renders as "became" in 22 cases
in Genesis 1. Throughout the whole of Genesis this version trans-
lated the verb as "became" 146 times: in Genesis and Exodus together
the total becomes 201 times: in the Pentateuch as a whole 298 times:
and some 1500 times throughout the whole Old Testament including
* See on this, Chapter IV, The Witness of Various
counting. The count may be slightly out one way or the other, but
certainly it is essentially correct and probably errs only by being an
understatement if anything. I may have missed a few but I certainly
did not invent any! Moreover, the figures do not include cases
where is rendered by some entirely different word that better
expresses by circumlocution its dynamic sense of "becoming".
The sad truth is that the issue can no longer be explored except
within the framework of a controversy which has crystallized itself
around the "Gap Theory". When the challenge of Geology brought
into sharper focus the importance of this particular exegesis, the
argument was not unnaturally shifted from the linguistic evidence of
the text of Genesis itself to an examination of other passages of the
Bible which it was believed contributed light on the matter. So the
is sue be came one of the "interpretation" rather than the precise and
careful analysis of Gen. 1.2 which is really the critical issue.
It may be argued with some force that if the case is rested primar-
ily on the linguistic evidence of Gen .1.2, it can never have compelling
weight because by far the great majority of authorities are so strongly
against it. But authorities are not always right. For exam pie,
from the very earliest times in English translations that I have been
able to examine thus far, the fifth verse of the first chapter of the
"Song of Solomon" has been rendered, "I am black but comely....".
I have so far found only one honourable exception. Yet the truth of
the matter is that the Hebrew word translated "but" is more frequently
rendered "and" in the English of the Old Testament. There is no
question that "but" is perfectly allowable here. Nevertheless, "and"
is its more usual meaning, and though there are a number of other
alternatives that could have been chosen, such as "yet", "neverthe-
less", etc. , common usage easily confirms the fact that the Hebrew
waw is much more frequently employed as a con-junctive than a dis-
junctive. Normally the context readily determines which it is.
Then why has it been rendered "but" in this passage where, by this
simple expedient, the speaker is in effect being made to apologize
for the colour of her skin? The answer, of course, is that the
choice was made on prejudicial, not linguistic, grounds, though each
* An approximate count shows that the particle is trans-
lated in the Old Testament as 'and' some 25,000 times, and
as 'but' some 3000 times.
was expressing itself. The use of "but" has nothing to do with
scholarship at all. It has simply been accepted without challenge
because the implications of it were not observed.
I am persuaded that we have wrongly reached the same kind of
general agreement as to the rendering of Gen.1.2, not on scholarly
grounds but either because the alternative simply did not occur to the
translator or because he desired to dissociate himself from a certain
view of the earth's early history which currently, at least, is said to
find no support from Geology. The emotional factor is often quite
evident from the vehemence with which the alternative rendering is
disallowed. Climate of opinion is simply against it but not , I believe,
the linguistic evidence itself. Some of this evidence is reviewed for
several books of the Bible in Appendix IV.
In Appendix IV will be found a rather involved examination of the
evidence as found in five representative books of the Old Testament;
Genesis, Joshua, Job, two Psalms, and Zechariah. This study has
been put in an appendix in order to remove it from the cursive text
and to allow the reader to read on through without getting tiresomely
bogged down in detail.
The evidence shows that some part of the English verb "to be"
occurs in the Authorized Version 832 times in the book of Genesis
alone.* Any other English version would, of course, have served
the purpose of analysis just as well. However, in the usual printing
of the Authorized Version text, italics are used for "supplied" words
which simplifies the counting, and of these 832 occurrences, 626 are
not represented by any form of the verb in the original. In
summary, where the copulative use of the English verb "to be" occurs
in the Authorized Version, the Hebrew original does not employ the
verb . On page 58 a breakdown of the tenses involved in these
626 occurrences of the supplied English verb indicates that a sub-
stantial number of them (169 in all) are in the past tense.
In this Appendix, a similar breakdown was undertaken of the use
of the verb "to be" for the other books of the Bible listed above and
a breakdown of the results is tabulated on page 146. From this
sample study I think certain things emerge with respect to the use
* See accompanying tabulation, page 58.
First of all, it is apparent that the verb is not normally em-
ployed to express the simple copula, whether the tense is past or
present. It is more frequently employed, however, when the tense
The second thing emerging from this study is that the Hebrew
writers did not find it necessary to employ the verb in order to
make clear to the reader whether the tense was past or present. In
other words, the introduction of the verb (as in Gen .1.2, for instance)
is not simply a literary device to inform the reader that this is how
the situation was in the past rather than how it is in the present. In
the Book of Genesis, the tabulation shows that in 169 cases the context
is allowed to decide for the reader that the events are past and the
reader is left to surmise for himself that in 442 cases the tense is
present. The context itself, in the absence of any expression of the
verb in the original, is considered to be sufficiently clear.
The third thing is that the verb is employed only when change
of a specific kind is involved. This does not mean change in the
sense that a past situation is no longer true in the present, but rather
that a pre sent situation is changing, has changed from what it was, or
will change in the future. The argument that a past situation which
has not continued into the present automatically requires the employ-
ment of the verb does not seem to be valid. The idea of change
is very nicely represented in English in a substantial number of cases
by some form of the verb "to become" or "to come to be". In a
surprisingly large number of cases where appears in the original
the use of such a form as "become" or "became" as a substitute
rendering will be found to clarify the meaning of the text or, at the
least, to make very good sense.
In the light of these findings, it can hardly be maintained that to
translate Gen. 1.2 as, "but the earth had become a ruin, etc.",
contravenes Hebrew usage. If the meaning intended had been simply
"the earth was a chaos", even if we understand the word chaos in
the Greek sense of "waiting to be given form", the verb would not
normally have been employed in the original.
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights reserved