[b-hebrew] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?
peter at qaya.org
Thu Jun 29 13:03:36 EDT 2006
On 29/06/2006 16:44, Awohili at aol.com wrote:
> Even with our current understanding of Hebrew verbal aspects, there is no
> reason to *not* render ehyeh asher ehyeh as "I will be." Even the KJV does it
> at Exodus 3:12.
Yes, there is. The implication of "I will be" in the main clause (where
LXX clearly has "I am") is that YHWH is not currently what he will be,
but will change and become something different from what he is now (i.e.
in the time of Moses). That is a theologically controversial suggestion.
And it is one which has no basis in the Hebrew text, understood
aspectually, which implies not change but continuation.
> The divergence appears to be centered around the context. But it is quite
> possible to see the context as implying that the name YHWH was a confirmation
> of what God will do in the future for the Hebrew slaves, rather than a
> discussion of ontology.
If he had said "I will do what I will do", or on the causative reading
"I will cause to be what I will cause to be", perhaps. But the use of
HYH in the qal implies that this is an ontological statement. The word
"ontology" derived from the Greek WN, ONTOS, the present participle of
the verb "to be" as used in all the Greek translations mentioned.
E-mail: peter at qaya.org
More information about the b-hebrew