Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Uri Hurwitz <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 14:24:22 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Rolf Furuli, you wrote correctly"::...the translator must use
the context to choose the tense in the target language. In some cases,
such as in this case, the context is rather decisive...."

It appears in the context of Exod. 3:14 that the author of this
verse simply didn't know the meaning of YHWH. Obviously
the name had been an object of some curiosity, and an answer
was sought. But the meaning of this word had been lost,
especially since it became truncated. Further, the Aramaic
form of the verb which had been brought over with some
Aramaic speaking anscestors was no longer used by the
author and his audience. Such very different scholars as Cross
and de Moor consider YHWH a hypocoristicon.

The writer of these verses shifted the verb to the Hebrew
usage, HYH. That much was clear to him. But since the meaning
was no longer understood, the answer given was the elusive
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which is really meaningless . This phrase has
no meaning whether one wishes to understand Ehyeh as "I am"
or "I shall be" .

Thus in this specific case, it seems to me, one can translate it
either way.If it were a free translation, the best answer to the
questions "What is his name?" and "What shall I tell them?"
in verse 13 would be: "I don't know" in verse 14. Likewise the free
translation, further, would be "the God whose name I do not know sent me'.


Uri Hurwitz



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
>From hholmyard AT ont.com Thu Jun 29 17:32:58 2006
Return-Path: <hholmyard AT ont.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from online.OnlineToday.Com (online.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.200.2])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D060D4C00B
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:32:57 -0400
(EDT)
Received: from [204.181.205.27] (ta27.OnlineToday.Com [204.181.205.27])
by online.OnlineToday.Com (8.12.10/8.12.8) with ESMTP id
k5TLZ4eP013257
for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:35:05 -0500
(CDT)
Message-ID: <44A446B0.8070403 AT ont.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:31:28 -0500
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
References: <bb9.166e31.31d593e1 AT aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <bb9.166e31.31d593e1 AT aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "I Am" vs. "I Will Be"
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
Precedence: list
List-Id: Biblical Hebrew Forum <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
<mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:32:58 -0000

Awohili AT aol.com wrote:

>
>It's quite simple. I'm not fishing. I asked a question, which has been
>ignored. I'd like a cogent answer to my question, which no one has
>answered yet.
>
>

HH: The answer is that the context is different in the two verses,
calling for a different handling of the verb in English. If a verb is
imperfective in aspect, then it can be present or future. The original
hearer would have adjusted according to the context. The future simply
does not suit 3:14b well, as has already been explained. To name
yourself "I will be" without a predicate leaves the hearer with a God
who exists in the future but perhaps not in the present. But the future
does suit 3:12 well. You could translate 3:12 as "I am with you," but
the futuristic context makes that less appropriate in English. The fact
is that God was with Moses at that moment and would be with him at every
step from that time onwards. It was partially for this reason that God
sought to put him to death when he attempted to return to Egypt without
having circumcised his son (Ex 4:24-25). God as with him, and he was
not free any longer to ignore the demands of God's covenant with
Abraham. So in a technical sense "I am with you" would be correct.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard


>
>Solomon Landers
>
>In a message dated 06/29/2006 1:29:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:
>
>See the discussion for the various people's reasonings. I'm not sure what
>it is that you
>want. Again, if you don't find their arguments convincing, that's your
>right as a free human
>being. But you seem to be fishing for something, and it's difficult to
>determine what.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>.
>
>
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page