Words for nature, automatic, natural and existence?

[cae]

I would be grateful if anyone could tell me whether Biblical Hebrew had words for:
1) “nature” (as in the nature of trees);
2) “automatic” or “natural” (in the sense of something that happens of own accord, and invariably happens in certain circumstances);
3) “existence”.

At a guess, there have always been ways to express such concepts in any particular language, but my query is whether these concepts were embodied in single words (or short phrases signifying these meanings) in Biblical Hebrew that could reasonably be translated as the words above, or whether the meanings of the words above entered language as single words at a later date.

If there are Biblical Hebrew words or phrases that can reasonably be translated as the meanings above, are there other meanings can be indicated by these words or phrases?

 

[yonah_mishael]

In modern Hebrew, we have:
1) nature = טֶ֫בַע téva
2) automatic = אוֹטוֹמָטִי otomáti;
natural = טִבְעִי tiv’í
3) existence = מְצִיאוּת m’tsi’út

I’ve never seen these words in the Bible. I’m not sure the concepts existed at the time. When it comes to the Hebrew Bible, we have received the writings of poets (later called “prophets&#8221, shepherds, historians and lawgivers. We did not receive the writings of philosophers, unless you consider Qohelet the work of a philosopher, and it doesn’t discuss nature or existence either. Don’t forget that our philosophical approach to the world today is very much influenced by the debates of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

 

[cae]

Thanks a lot, Yonah. What you say confirms my intuitive feeling — based on my extremely limited knowledge — of the lexical range available to writers of the Hebrew Bible, which no doubt affected the form in which they expressed certain ideas.

 

[yonah_mishael]

What made you raise these questions, though? Anything specific?

 

[cae]

Yes, the beginning of Genesis.

It seems to be assumed that the writer was referring to God as a causative entity, but the form of causation of the nature of existence seems to me to be implied in the choice of words "Let there be". These words imply a process that is taking place naturally, of its own accord, and is not being influenced, performed or impeded by the speaker. Such a natural, automatic process precisely mirrors the way that the nature of existence is reflected in the phenomenon of existence.

I wondered if the writer was seeking a way to express this in the language of the time, and chose the closest possible words to convey this idea. God as the nature of existence makes sense to me.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Oh, I can’t comment on that. I don’t think that the writer(s) of Genesis had any idea about evolutionary theory. I don’t think that was part of their thinking or that they tried to describe it in alternative terms. They told the story of creation as they had received it, I think. There were many creation myths in those days, you know?

 

[cae]

Sure. It was just a thought I had, and was curious about. I don’t think it implies that they had any ideas about evolutionary theory. The concept of the nature of existence is a rather subtle idea, though, and probably very difficult to express if words like "nature" and "existence" don’t exist in the language at the time.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Sure. It was just a thought I had, and was curious about. I don’t think it implies that they had any ideas about evolutionary theory. The concept of the nature of existence is a rather subtle idea, though, and probably very difficult to express if words like "nature" and "existence" don’t exist in the language at the time.

Very true. Greek early on had the concept of nature in the word φύσις, which meant basically the way things go. They can actually be κατὰ φύσιν (kata physin, “according to nature”) or παρὰ φύσιν (para physin, “against nature”). For example, according to nature an apple tree produces apples. If an apple tree suddenly produced an orange, it would against nature. Make sense? These phrases were not used in the Hebrew Bible, and I think we can assume that the concept of natural and unnatural simply never occurred to them.

In modern translations of Romans into Hebrew, it mentions יְחָסִים טִבְעִיִּים “natural relations” and יְחָסִים בִּלְתִּי טִבְעִיִּים “unnatural relations.” The discussion in this chapter is also something that would not have existed in the Hebrew mind, though the concept of תּוֹעֵבָה “abomination” that is mentioned there is certainly based in the Hebrew Bible. Paul’s use of “nature” (φύσι&#962 in that passage is also not from the classical use of the word but probably developed in Hellenistic philosophies of the time, that there is a “right” way to do things because of a certain design. In classical Greek thinking, anything that happens naturally (that is, in nature) is “according to nature,” not “against nature.” Paul was taking up an almost Stoic approach to the topic in that chapter, which later became engrained in Catholic teaching not only regarding homosexuality but regarding sexuality in general.

Sorry for pulling the topic in this direction. My mind sometimes makes jumps that I’m not prepared for. The discussion of “nature” naturally leads me to Romans 1, a passage which actually fascinates me. There’s an intriguing discussion of this issue in John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, chapter 6 (“Theological Traditions”). He traces where Paul probably got his use of the term and how it came to influence later Christian thinking on this subject.

Anyway, I’ll not distract the conversation any longer. Thanks for bringing up your question. I hope not to have confused you with my ramblings.

 

[cae]

Thanks for the extra explication, which all makes sense, and is very interesting. It shows how words — and their corresponding concepts — can be dangerous little beasties, and it’s easy to get carried away with new concepts, and not see them in a wider context. For me, that’s the nice thing about God as the nature of existence — the widest context of them all — with the power to transport one out of any narrow rut in one’s thinking.

Any further digressions and explications would be welcome!

 

[benelchi]

While I would agree with Yonah that the word "nature" does not exist in Biblical Hebrew I would disagree that the concept does not exist. The idea of "being in the nature of ..." is expressed a number of different ways in Biblical Hebrew. In Ge. 1 we see the concept expressed by the idea that a tree produces fruit according to its kind (למינ&#1492. In the song of Moses the question "who is like you, majestic in Holiness?" is really asking the rhetorical question, who else besides God is in their very nature a god? A person's "way/path" can be used idiomatically to describe the nature of a person; and the prepositional prefixed מ is sometimes used to contrast something of a different "nature"


==========================================


Both the word and concept for "exist" does exist in biblical Hebrew. The verb להיות is defined in almost every Hebrew Lexicon as "to be" or "to exist"

====================================================

Additionally, while I would agree with Yonah that it would be difficult to support the idea of theistic evolution from the account of Creation given in Genesis 1, I would disagree with his characterization of Genesis 1 as just 1 of many creation myths.

 

[cae]

Thanks, benelchi. I understand your examples of "being in the nature of ...", and how these express the same concept in different words. I also understand your reference to the concept of "exist". However, there is a difference between the verb "exist" and the noun "existence".

Since posting my query, I came across an article by Arthur Green (Rector of the Rabbinical School of Hebrew College) in the online Tikkun Magazine (March/April 2010) on Sacred Evolution, in which he writes "Y-H-W-H ('Being') in the adventure of becoming HWYH (Hebrew for 'being' or 'existence')".

YHWH is usually translated as "I am that I am" but I found his alternative translation interesting. Does it make sense to you that YHWH could be translated as Being and therefore close to the idea of existence?

I agree that all creation myths are not necessarily equally accurate, and am intrigued by the idea that what we see today as a myth may have been the closest way of conveying certain subtle concepts in the limited lexicon of the time.

 

[benelchi]

Thanks, benelchi.

Your welcome.

I understand your examples of "being in the nature of ...", and how these express the same concept in different words. I also understand your reference to the concept of "exist". However, there is a difference between the verb "exist" and the noun "existence".

This is only sort of true. In Hebrew, both nouns and verbs are formed from roots. For example, all of the following come from the root [FONT=&quot]היה[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]להיות[/FONT] (the infinitive) to be or to exist
[FONT=&quot]יהי אור[/FONT] (the usage in Genesis 1) it will be light
[FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] (God’s name) Yahweh
[FONT=&quot]הווה[/FONT] (present time) This is the name of the present tense in modern Hebrew
Similarly, In Hebrew the verse “for unto us a child is born” is “[FONT=&quot]כי ילד ילד לנו[/FONT]” Note: when you read the unpointed text from right to left, the 2nd and 3rd words are identical (although they are vocalized a little differently); the first occurrence is a noun and the second occurrence is a passive verb.

Since posting my query, I came across an article by Arthur Green (Rector of the Rabbinical School of Hebrew College) in the online Tikkun Magazine (March/April 2010) on Sacred Evolution, in which he writes "Y-H-W-H ('Being') in the adventure of becoming HWYH (Hebrew for 'being' or 'existence')".

This is hard to evauluate because of the Latin letters but it doesn’t look right i.e. I might transliterate [FONT=&quot]הווה[/FONT] as HWWH but I am not sure what HWYH is? I would transliterate it as [FONT=&quot]הויה[/FONT] Understanding the name YHWH to be a derived from the root “to be/to exist” is generally accepted; it is a slightly irregular 3rd person imperfect construction.

YHWH is usually translated as "I am that I am" but I found his alternative translation interesting. Does it make sense to you that YHWH could be translated as Being and therefore close to the idea of existence?

This is wrong. “I am that I am” is a translation of “[FONT=&quot]אהיה אשר אהיה[/FONT]” [FONT=&quot]אהיה[/FONT] is the regular first person imperfect.

 

[cae]

Thanks for the further clarification. Now that I think about it, the merging of verbs and nouns also happens in English, e.g., the word "being" can be either a verb or a noun, quite apart from root connections that often exist between verbs and nouns in English.

I guess there is more than one way of translating the word "Yahweh" into English, quite apart from the word "God". In addition to being generally accepted as deriving from "to be/to exist", and being "a slightly irregular 3rd person imperfect construction", is there anything else implied by the word "Yahweh", or does that cover it?

 

[yonah_mishael]

While I would agree with Yonah that the word "nature" does not exist in Biblical Hebrew I would disagree that the concept does not exist. The idea of "being in the nature of ..." is expressed a number of different ways in Biblical Hebrew. In Ge. 1 we see the concept expressed by the idea that a tree produces fruit according to its kind (למינ&#1492. In the song of Moses the question "who is like you, majestic in Holiness?" is really asking the rhetorical question, who else besides God is in their very nature a god? A person's "way/path" can be used idiomatically to describe the nature of a person; and the prepositional prefixed מ is sometimes used to contrast something of a different "nature"

Here I thought we were talking about the word “nature” in the sense of φύσις or טֶ֫בַע, which concept surely does not exist in biblical Hebrew.

Both the word and concept for "exist" does exist in biblical Hebrew. The verb להיות is defined in almost every Hebrew Lexicon as "to be" or "to exist"

How would the biblical language form the word “existence” from the root ה.י.ה? I know of no such construction, and this root can only be drawn into meaning “existence” by extension (just as יֵשׁ is a particle that expresses the essential idea that something exists). However, as we know since the root chosen for expressing existence in modern Hebrew is מ.צ.א (that is, in the word מְצִיאוּ&#1514 or even ק.ו.ם (as in the word קִיּוּם related to קַיָּ&#1501, we should not take the root ה.י.ה as too expressive of this concept – otherwise it would have been adopted with that meaning into modern Hebrew.

By the way, how do you say “this exists” in biblical Hebrew in the same sense as זֶה קַיָּם in modern Hebrew?

Additionally, while I would agree with Yonah that it would be difficult to support the idea of theistic evolution from the account of Creation given in Genesis 1, I would disagree with his characterization of Genesis 1 as just 1 of many creation myths.

Granted. You probably believe in the stories that are written in the Bible. I don’t see any reason to differentiate between the donkey talking to Balaam and the stories about Apollo sending a plague among the Danans at the beginning of the Iliad. It’s all myth. I don’t know why logical people today chose to accept one myth and to reject another. They should all be rejected if we’re interested in what really happened in the past.

This is only sort of true. In Hebrew, both nouns and verbs are formed from roots. For example, all of the following come from the root [FONT=&quot]היה[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]להיות[/FONT] (the infinitive) to be or to exist
[FONT=&quot]יהי אור[/FONT] (the usage in Genesis 1) it will be light
[FONT=&quot]יהוה[/FONT] (God’s name) Yahweh
[FONT=&quot]הווה[/FONT] (present time) This is the name of the present tense in modern Hebrew
Similarly, In Hebrew the verse “for unto us a child is born” is “[FONT=&quot]כי ילד ילד לנו[/FONT]” Note: when you read the unpointed text from right to left, the 2nd and 3rd words are identical (although they are vocalized a little differently); the first occurrence is a noun and the second occurrence is a passive verb.

What do you mean in interpreting the jussive יְהִי as a simple future “it will be” – as if it were יִהְיֶה? The phrase יְהִי אוֹר does not mean “it will be light” but “let light be!” Apparently, the name יהוה and the form הֹוֶה are from the root ה.ו.ה rather than ה.י.ה, which is related but not the exact same. The former is the root employed in Aramaic, the latter in Hebrew.

The example of י.ל.ד is not applicable here, since the second instance in that verse is actually pu’al (יֻלַּ&#1491. The passive meaning comes from the binyan, not from the root. I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to make in bringing this up, actually. It would only muddy the water for someone who is not very familiar with Hebrew.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Thanks for the further clarification. Now that I think about it, the merging of verbs and nouns also happens in English, e.g., the word "being" can be either a verb or a noun, quite apart from root connections that often exist between verbs and nouns in English.

I guess there is more than one way of translating the word "Yahweh" into English, quite apart from the word "God". In addition to being generally accepted as deriving from "to be/to exist", and being "a slightly irregular 3rd person imperfect construction", is there anything else implied by the word "Yahweh", or does that cover it?

Anything implied in the word “Yahweh”? This is like asking if there is anything implied in the name “Asherah” or the name “Ba’al.” It is simply the name of one of the gods of the region of Canaan, one of the children of Elyon. Just so happens that the Hebrews adopted this god as their own and eventually transformed him into not just a regional deity but the Supreme Power. The name never changed from the beginning. Why should significance be found in this name any more than in the names of the other gods of the region, whom people have conveniently forgotten?

 

[cae]

Thanks for your additional thoughts, Yonah. Even though I have no knowledge of Hebrew, I can follow the gist of the discussion between you and Benelchi. As to the meaning of “Yahweh”, I imagine that the particular word carried a meaning that went beyond a sound and set of symbols arbitrarily assigned to one of a pantheon of gods. I would be inclined to imagine that the names of the other early gods also carried a meaning that went beyond an arbitrary sound and set of symbols, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the various meanings shifted over time, as the meaning of so many words do. However, going to the linguistic root of a word can sometimes elicit an earlier meaning.

Likewise, I imagine all early origin narratives — that we generally refer to as myths today — carried meanings at the time that may be difficult to discern today, given our vastly expanded palette of words and concepts, and the difficulties of translation into modern concepts.

Did people at the time literally believe that a donkey — or the snake in Genesis — made sounds in words that carried a specific meaning to humans? If so, did everyone at the time believe this, including the authors, or modifiers, of the various narratives? I rather doubt this. For example, perhaps the talking snake in Genesis was meant to indicate an impulse that came to humans silently and unnoticed, like the movement of a snake can be silent and unnoticed. Even today, someone might say that the sky and clouds speak to me of rain tomorrow, and no-one is going to imagine that the person actually heard the sound of the word “rain” issuing from the clouds. In ancient times, the word “speak” may have carried a meaning that went well beyond the way we’re inclined to understand it today.

Even today, we can say that the thought occurred to me to do XYZ, when in fact the thought was not formulated in words in our mind at all. We just did XYZ as the result of a silent impulse to do so that we can refer to as a thought. Did the word “thought” even exist in early language? That’s not clear to me. If the word “thought” did not exist, and if the word “speak” carried a vastly expanded meaning, and if one wanted to convey the idea that an impulse came to humans silently and unnoticed, then it does not seem a stretch to me that an early author might have referred to a snake that spoke, especially if many other modern words were also absent from the language at the time.

 

[benelchi]

@yonah,

Most biblical Hebrew scholars believe that היה and הוה developed from a common root and הוה actually exists in both BH as well as in Aramaic. And it did develop in modern Hebrew, the word הויה (sometimes spelled הוויי&#1492 in modern Hebrew means existence; it is a synonym for הקיום and המציאות. The idiom דברים כהווייתם ("things as they exist") is a good example of its modern usage.


Not every scholar agrees that יהי is jussive. The prefix of the י is unusual for Hebrew jussive forms and is far more indicative of the imperfect. Additionally, it is quite common for ל"ה roots to omit the final ה when forming the imperfect in biblical Hebrew. In the very next verse, we see that construction i.e. וירא אלהים. I am far more accepting of the idea that this is an imperfect that is treated as a jussive (which is not uncommon) then I am in believing that this is a true jussive form. Genesis 24 has a much better example of a true jussive form i.e. את היי לאלפי רבבה

Last, the link of Yahweh to the root היה is much stronger than you indicated i.e. the 3rd person perfect masculine piel construction of היה is יהוה; the exchange of י and ו is not uncommon in Semitic languages. For example, the forms ילד and ולד both exist in biblical Hebrew (the latter is the common form in Arabic). BTW - my point in using the example ילד was simply to show how understanding the link between nouns and verbs in Semitic languages is important; this is a feature of all Semitic languages that is different from English.

 

[yonah_mishael]

@yonah,

Sorry, benelchi. I didn’t notice your response.

Most biblical Hebrew scholars believe that היה and הוה developed from a common root and הוה actually exists in both BH as well as in Aramaic. And it did develop in modern Hebrew, the word הויה (sometimes spelled הוויי&#1492 in modern Hebrew means existence; it is a synonym for הקיום and המציאות. The idiom דברים כהווייתם ("things as they exist") is a good example of its modern usage.

Well, normally we would translate הוויה as “experience,” but I get what you mean.

Not every scholar agrees that יהי is jussive. The prefix of the י is unusual for Hebrew jussive forms and is far more indicative of the imperfect. Additionally, it is quite common for ל"ה roots to omit the final ה when forming the imperfect in biblical Hebrew.

As far as I know, they omit the heh when forming the jussive, not the imperfect. Do you have clear examples of imperfect non-jussives without the final heh? I would expect it in purpose statements, in vav-conversives and in what would be third-person imperatives in Greek (for example, ἔστω/ἔστωσαν for יהי\יהיו in Genesis 1 [in addition to γενηθήτω/γενηθήτωσαν]). We would translate the jussive with “let it X” or “may it X” in English. I think it would be one of the uses of the optative in classical Greek, but I’m not certain – being that I’ve only studied Koiné formally. I’m working on classical Greek, but I still haven’t learned to work with the optative mood.

In the very next verse, we see that construction i.e. וירא אלהים. I am far more accepting of the idea that this is an imperfect that is treated as a jussive (which is not uncommon) then I am in believing that this is a true jussive form. Genesis 24 has a much better example of a true jussive form i.e. את היי לאלפי רבבה

The jussive forms are used for vav-consecutives as inverted imperfects. This is not the case with non-consecutive forms, though. They are not used (to my knowledge) as regular imperfects. No one would say that יהי means “he will be.” It is a third-person imperative, “let him be.” The same with יחיה “he will live” and יחי “may he live!”

Last, the link of Yahweh to the root היה is much stronger than you indicated i.e. the 3rd person perfect masculine piel construction of היה is יהוה; the exchange of י and ו is not uncommon in Semitic languages. For example, the forms ילד and ולד both exist in biblical Hebrew (the latter is the common form in Arabic). BTW - my point in using the example ילד was simply to show how understanding the link between nouns and verbs in Semitic languages is important; this is a feature of all Semitic languages that is different from English.

Well, I’m certain that יהוה came from הוה, but I’m not certain that the name originated in Hebrew. I think it was a loan word that was adopted when the Hebrew people took Yahweh as their deity over against the other competing deities of the Near East.

As it is, in the pi’el יהוה is vocalized as yehaveh (יְהַוֶּ&#1492 and means “he/it will constitute.”

“This decision constitutes a great challenge for the employees of the company.”
החלטה זו מְהַוָּה (מהוו&#1492 אתגר גדול עבור עובדי החברה

Do you know if להוות has ever been used in Hebrew literature to mean something along the lines of “causes to be”?

Thanks,
YM