Introduction
My aim in this article is to show that the usual translation of the Hebrew htyh/hyTh as ‘was’ in Gen 1:2a (as above) is correct and that ‘became’ is not justified either for certain Gap theorists or for any other reason. A ‘Gap Theory’[1] that requires ‘became’ assumes a gap of countless millennia between vv. 1 and 2, in which there was a pre-Adamic habitation of the earth.[2] This era is said to have ended in a catastrophe which produced the state of the earth as Thw wBhw (vocalised: töhû wäböhû), interpreted as ‘chaos’.
My interest, here, is solely linguistic. Hence, although I report some of the history and reaction to the Gap Theory, I do not debate whether the earth is young or old. The gap view idea and ‘became’ surfaces from time to time. For example, M. Rooker (2003)[3] approvingly draws on B. K. Waltke’s (1974) grammatical treatment of Gen 1:2 against the restitution or gap theory.[4]
I identify usage within the Hebrew Bible (HB) that differentiates htyh/hyTh as ‘was’ from ‘became’, and draw on parallel language and quotational evidence in the GNT. This inter-textual arena is sufficient in itself, but mostly Greek translations in antiquity support ‘was’ in Gen 1:2a, and other linguistic aspects treated. Only Symmachus has the Greek term evge,neto/egéneto which tends to have a progressive ‘became’ sense, but I have not been able to discover the reasons for his deviation from ‘was’ of the Septuagint (LXX), Aquila, and Theodotion.[5]
In the beginning
The beginning of the linguistic life of the Hebrew term htyh/hyTh (KJV’s ‘was’) is in Gen 1:2. It is set in a context that presents, in a non-sensational matter-of-fact narrative style, a ‘this is how it was’ account of creation. This following comment, from a paper attempting to interpret Genesis 1:1 in the light of near eastern archaeology adds:
The literary genre of Genesis 1:1-2:4a is that of a report. In this unit we find no tension and no resolution of a crisis; what we encounter is doctrine which is not set out philosophically but under the guise of history.[6]
In Gen 1:1, God is both before and behind ‘in the beginning’. This is the context for a first encounter with transcendence; comprehending the Creator starts here. Causally, creation, “the heavens and all their host” (Gen 2:4; Ps 33:6) “became” (yhiY<+w:/wyhy Ps 33:9) “by the word of Yahweh”, “[made] by the spirit of his mouth” (Ps 33:6; Heb 11:3).[7] In the beginning, therefore, was the word, and the word was with/towards God (John 1:1-2).
‘(In) the beginning’ (e.g., Matt 19:4; Mark 10:6; Heb 1:10; 2 Pet 3:4) terminates the time ‘before the earth was’ (Prov 8:23).[8] Genealogically (Gen 2:4; Ps 90:2)[9], the earth’s primal condition is whbw wht/Thw wBhw (KJV’s) ‘without form and void’, read not as chaos but as a preparatory consequence of God’s creative initiative recounted in Gen 1:1,[10] which included, we learn later, God’s having “laid the foundations of the earth” (cf. Job 38:4-7; Ps 104:5; Prov 8:29; Isa 40:21; 51:13, 16).
In Gen 1:1 the earth is introduced created with the heavens and then the story of the earth is taken up in v. 2, as the Hebrew syntax positions the opening with (‘wäw’ = ‘and’): “‘and’ the earth” (wh´rc). In fact, narratively, the w[h´rc] ‘and’ could carry the sense of ‘now [the earth]’.[11] Gesenius states that “the noun-clause connected by a wäw copulative to a verbal-clause, or its equivalent, always describes a state contemporaneous with the principle action. . . .”[12] So, neither the principle action of Gen 1:1, nor 1:2’s opening noun-clause, offers any scope for a ‘gap’ of time. It is in this grammatical and syntactical area that M. Rooker believes that “Waltke’s critique of the gap theory is devastating.”[13]
W. Fields, whom I cite more below, puts it like this:
The grammar of verse two forces us to say that the earth was created unformed and unfilled, while the Gap Theory alleges that it should say the earth became unformed and unfilled after (perhaps centuries after) it was created! It is grammatically impossible.[14]
Kidner (1967) observes:
If verse 2 were intended to tell of a catastrophe (‘And the earth became . . .’), as some have suggested, it would use the Hebrew narrative construction, not the circumstantial construction as here.[15]
Likewise, E. A. Speiser (1964) has these two different constructions in mind and how v. 2 figures in relation to v. 1:
The parenthetic character of this verse [Gen 1:2] is confirmed by the syntax of Hebrew. A normal consecutive statement would have begun with waTTühî hä´ärec, not wühä´ärec häy•tâ.[16]
It is the case, however, that even if waTTühî hä´ärec had opened v. 2, without specific information favourable to ‘became’, that sense could not be sustained unambiguously; ‘was’ would still have been an acceptable sense.[17]
‘Was’ for htyh/hyTh in Gen 1:2a is featured relating the earth to its first description: hbw wht/Thw wBhw (KJV’s ‘without form and void’). Therefore, htyh/hyTh has a copula (connecting) and temporal (past time deictic) function.[18] I retain these two identifying features of the functional identity of this ‘(it/there/she) was’ as a way of defining its job description.
In sum: whbw wht/Thw wBhw interpreted as chaos[19] is said to be evidence of a pre-Adamic habitation of the planet that ended in cataclysm in a supposed ‘gap’ between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. This changes Genesis 1’s causal account of how it was. As A. Gibson (1983) cogently countered:
Verse 2 does not mention that it includes the creation of the planet Earth. Verse 2 seems to rely on verse 1 for the record of the creation of the Earth. Thus verse 1 is about the creation of the planet; verse 2 tells us about God’s creative activity on the planet . . . this interconnects the two verses quite closely. No time-gap is cited in either verse. Hence it is an assumption, not a present piece of information, which supports an appeal to the time-gap.[20]
The ‘Gap Theory’ context for ‘became’
Gen 1:1-2 and texts like Exod 20:11; 31:17 and Neh 9:6 feature God’s creation of the heavens (always plural in the HB) and the earth, providing for life on earth, within a symbolically-adapted chronological framework of six days, rather than, say, as an instantaneous[21] event. Modern science has projected different timescales for the start of the universe or the age of earth, and this has led to views, like the Gap Theory, that seek to accommodate Scripture to science.[22]
The origin of the Gap Theory is usually identified with Dr. Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University in 1814. Chalmers, who lived concurrently with Lyell and Darwin, deemed it necessary to harmonize the Scriptures and science in order to save Christianity from the onslaught of atheism.[23] W. W. Fields (1976) puts Chalmers’ concern thus:
[Chalmers felt the need to] make room for the vast expanse of time which the geologists of his day were demanding and at the same time maintain a literal interpretation of the creation account.[24]
Fields mentions that ‘Gap’, or ‘Ruin and Restoration’ theorists want the Hebrew term htyh/hyTh of Gen 1:2a, usually translated ‘was’ here in English versions, to be a progressive ‘became’(or, even ‘had become’).[25]
So, this view, centre-staging ‘became’, did not arise in a neutral interpretative context or through agenda-free exegesis. The following has been put to me by some who resort to ‘became’ and believe that God speaks to us both through Scripture and the fossil record:
The way forward is for the Christian to accept that the planet on which God created Adam and Eve is an extremely old creation. Next, that God produced many, many creations on this ancient planet, of which the fossils bear record. Next, that all life on this planet was extinguished, exterminated, and remained so up until God spoke at the start of Day One.
In 1970, A. C. Custance (1910-1985) published Without Form and Void, which according to Fields is the lengthiest defense of the Gap Theory any man has attempted in print.[26] Custance feels that the translation of hyTh is the pivotal point in the controversy and he argues for (the pluperfect) ‘had become’ (translating Gen. 1:2a: “But the earth had become a desolation”), whereas previous gap theorists, along with the New Scofield Reference Bible (OUP, 1967), supposed that “the word rendered ‘was’ may also be translated ‘became’”.[27]
For Fields, as no gap is suggested between Gen 1:1 and 2, “the only sense in which the pluperfect could be understood, is as a description of the state of the earth as it had been created”. That is, ‘was’ explained as implying: “Now the earth had come into being (been created) void and without form”.[28] I quote Fields because in my view he contends clearly and fairly against a gap view. He argues against ‘became’ and rightly claims that the “pluperfect [‘had become’] translation of Genesis 1:2 is better rejected.”[29]
It is true that forms of the Hebrew verb hyh―‘to be’―like hyTh and cognates, which give ‘was’ and ‘were’, occur in (structuring) certain ‘became’ expressions. However, comparing usage soon shows when htyh/hyTh is ‘was’ and how some of its 116 instances are configured to provide (the need for) the sense: ‘became’.
There is Tense (and other grammatical or functional characteristics) in Hebrew verbs.[30] As noted already, a prominent feature of the behaviour of Hebrew ‘be’ verbs is as temporal indicators! Differently, ‘became’ (cf. ‘became’/‘become’) has a temporal contour that implies some duration, or marks ‘happening’, and it can also be suggestive of a result (as in ‘come to be’).[31]
Finally, J. Barr (1961), in his ground-breaking and now classic work Semantics of Biblical Language, and in a chapter exposing some scholars’ theological or theory-laden approaches to the Hebrew verb, makes reference to the be-verb hyh/hyh (hayah). In this context he mentions its third person feminine singular form htyh/ hyTh in Gen. 1:2 (Field also cites Barr here).[32] Barr states:
[A] statement like ‘the earth is waste’ will have the nominal sentence and no verb; but if we put it in the past and say ‘the earth was waste (and is no longer)’, then the verb hayah is used, as in Gen. 1:2. It would be quite perverse to insist on the meaning ‘became’ here.[33]
[1] See R. L. Numbers, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 446, and the index for many references to “gap theory”.
[2] J. Thomas, Elpis Israel (Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 1966), 10-12, held the view that there was a pre-Adamic habitation of the planet, citing 2 Pet 2:4’s “the angels that sinned” as “pre-Adamic inhabitants of the earth”, and affirming that “in the period between the wreck of the globe as the habitation of the rebel angels and the epoch of the first day, the earth was as described in Gen 1:2”. He therefore believed that “Fragments . . . of the wreck of this pre-Adamic world have been brought to light by geological research” and that “the scriptures reveal no length of time during which the terrene angels dwelt upon our globe”.
[3] M. F. Rooker, Studies in Hebrew Language, Intertextuality, and Theology. (New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), 138-140.
[4] B. K. Waltke, Creation and Chaos (Portland, Oregon: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974).
[5] Symmachus has h` de. gh/ evge,neto avrgo.n kai. avdia,kriton. “And the earth became inactive [idle] and undifferentiated [mixed].” But it is not clear what lies behind this choice. However, LXX, Aquila, and Theodotion all have h=n/‘was’. 4QGenb, frg. 1i, and 4QGeng, frg. 1, are both missing different parts of Gen 1:2 including the word hyth (Cf. E. Ulrich, ed., The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants (VTS 134; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2010), 1, 3.
[6] A. J. Frendo, “Genesis 1:1, an Archaeological Approach” in Michael: Historical, Epigraphical and Biblical Studies In Honor of Prof. Michael Heltzer (eds. Y. Avishur and R. Deutsch; Tel Aviv-Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, 1999), 162.
[7] (i) Divine speech-act creation is the relevant sense of creatio ex deo ‘creation out of God’. It compares with: evx ou- ta. pa,nta “out of whom are all things” (1 Cor 8:6). Cf. A. Gibson, “The Word-Creation Scheme” The Testimony, Vol. 48, No. 573, (Sept 1978): 312-313.
(ii) See D. Tsumura, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 74-76, re ‘Exegetical Problems of rûaH ´élöhîm’, and his corrective of T. C. Vriezen’s “view that rûaH ´élöhîm (1:2) had no creative function, and ‘this function is taken over completely by the word of God’.”
[8] Cf. P. T. Geach, God and the Soul (London: RKP, 1969), 74.
[9] This can imply that each successive bringing into being over six days required the creative outcome that preceded it, as with human descent or genealogy. According to Gen 2:4, God’s creation is presented as tAdôl.At tôldôt ‘generations’ (cf. ‘brought forth’ in Ps 90:2; Isaiah 66:8). This tôldôt ‘begetting’ pattern next features in Gen 5:1ff.
[10] The initial state of the earth as töhû is not in conflict with “he [Yahweh] created it not töhû” in Isa 45:18 (KJV: “he created it not in vain”). How it was in Gen 1:2, was not how God intended it to remain. The Isaiah perspective contrasting with the initial geophysical töhû reveals God’s intention as a necessary presupposition of Gen 1:2. Eventually all would not be töhû but ‘good’. See Rooker, Studies in Hebrew Language, Intertextuality, and Theology, 138-149.
[11] Cf. Jonah 3:3, ‘Now Nineveh was [htyh/hyTh] a great city to God’ (my rendering and LXX are as the Hebrew).
[12] W. Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar (28th Edition;. Edited by E. Kautzsch; Translated by A. E. Cowley; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910/1970), 453, sect. 141e. Cf. the Hebrew structure of Hos 2:21, 22.
[13] Rooker, Studies in Hebrew Language, Intertextuality, and Theology, 139.
[14] W. W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory (Collinsville Il: Burgener Enterprises, 1976), 81-86.
[15] D. Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary ( London: The Tyndale Press, 1967), 44.
[16] E. A. Speiser. Genesis–Introduction, Translation, and Notes (The Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), 5.
[17] This construction is purely hypothetical, as it is not used to open Gen 1:2. However, ‘and became’ would not be certain for waTTühî , anyway. In some similar cases it would be inappropriate. One such case is Gen 11:30, which, like Gen 1:2, is parenthetical to the introductory preceding verse: “And [tonally: ‘but’ or ‘now’] Sarai was barren . . .” (hr”_q'[] yr:Þf’ yhiîT.w: /waTTühî Säray `áqärâ. She did not ‘become’ barren this is how she was. (LXX concurs with: kai. h=n Sara stei/ra).
[18] It is important not to be misled by conventional or elementary grammars’ talk of ‘Perfect’ (a category applied to htyh/hyTh) and it’s opposite ‘Imperfect’. Both terms are applied to Aspectual (complete or incomplete) actions of verbs, as if this adequately described all uses, or had priority over Tense (time). The verb ‘to be’ may initiate action (e.g., in ‘Let there be…’) but it is not an action verb; rather its main function is temporal, time marking. htyh/hyTh as ‘was’ is about past time. In any case, broadly speaking, Perfect forms tend to be about “complete events or facts that often can be translated with the past tense.” In practice, though, and this can easily be overlooked, the terms ‘Perfect’ and ‘Imperfect’ are about identifying the inflexional (prefix v suffix conjugation) “forms of the verb, not their functions.” Cf. C. H. J. van der Merwe, et al, eds. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 142-143.
[19] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 7-8. The Gap View’s ‘chaos’ concept rates as a piece of modern mythology, particularly where some Gap theorists believe Satan’s rebellion produced chaos. B. Thompson opposes this satanic view in The Bible and the Age of the Earth (Montgomery, Alabama: Apologetics Press, Inc, 1999), 61-64. ‘Chaos’, as the state of the earth in Gen 1:2, has long been read for töhû wäböhû assuming an ancient near eastern mythic cosmogony background. However, in relation to possible ancient perspectives with Genesis, D. T. Tsumura (approvingly reviewed by H. G. M. Williamson in VT 42 [1992]: 423-424) argues against a view of primordial ‘chaos’; see D. T. Tsumura, The Earth and Waters in Genesis 1 and 2. A Linguistic Investigation (JSOT Sup 83; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). Importantly, also, in his Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 75, Tsumura shows that the phrase tohu wabohu has nothing to do with a chaos concept at all. It simply refers to the “desolate and empty” state of the earth. It describes the initial state of the earth as “not yet” normal, as we know it; see his “Conclusions” p. 196. On p. 148, n. 33, he talks of the need to exercise interpretative control, especially across cognate languages where there is talk of ‘the sameness’ of two items, and he pertinently draws on A. Gibson, Biblical Semantic Logic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), 24 and 140.
[20] A. Gibson, ‘Creation versus Evolution’ The Testimony, Vol. 53, No. 631 (July 1983): 226.
[21] Compare the Greek of 1 Cor 15:52 for its expression of (infinitesimal, ‘atomic’) instantaneity (evn avto,mw|( evn r`iph/| ovfqalmou). KJV has “in a moment [gk]evn avto,mw[/gk], in the twinkling of an eye.” I assume no limitation on God’s power (Jer 32:17), as He is ‘power’ (th/j duna,mewj Matt 26:64; Rom 1:20). ’Ēl, basically ‘power’/‘might’, is the singular term for ‘God’. In Ps 90:2, ’ël is presented in the same way that ´ĕlöhîm is in Gen 1:1, there before creation. Isa 42:5 combines hä´ël―‘the God’―with Yahweh as the creator of the heavens.
[22] See A. Gibson, ‘Creation versus Evolution’. The Testimony, Vol. 53, No. 631 (July 1983).
[23] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 40.
[24] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, ix.
[25] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 87.
[26] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 44.
[27] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 88.
[28] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 107.
[29] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 108.
[30] Regarding the Hebrew Verbal System (HVS), the interwovenness of ‘time’ (Tense) and ‘kind of action’ (Aspect: as in ‘Perfect’ = complete, ‘Imperfect’ = not complete) is a distinct verb feature of many languages (cf. van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 143); Hebrew is no exception. See T. O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1973), 100, and J. F. A. Sawyer, A Modern Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (London: Oriel Press, 1976), 78-82, who implements a neutralising ‘prefix/suffix conjugational’ approach, but has examples of tense, aspect and mood. Theoretical tensions can give the impression that the HVS is an enigma yet to be unravelled. Cf. L. McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1982).
[31] Cf. van der Merwe, et al, eds. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, §44.5, d., 331-333.
[32] Fields, Unformed and Unfilled-A Critique of the Gap Theory, 91.
[33] J. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 59, and n.1.
Is Pentecost Happening Today? (Part 7) – Tongues Shall Cease