Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Eric Weiss" <eweiss AT gte.net>]

Part of where I am going with this is that "I am what/that I am" conveys 
the
idea of eternality, unchangingness, etc. But "I will be what I will be" in 
light of the other near uses of ehye in this passage ("I will be with you" 
- 3:12), "I will be with your mouth" - 4:12,15) conveys to me a more 
covenant/personal
sense of God - i.e., I will be to you and with you for whatever you need
as you walk with me and do my will, etc., as opposed to an eternal "ground 
of being" (a la Tillich?) sense of God.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, and I know just enough Hebrew to be 
dangerous (I had 1 year but have let it lay dormant). I don't want to make 
3:14 have this "more meaningful" covenant senst if indeed all the author 
wanted to convey was the eternality and omni-whateverness of God. But if he 
wanted to stress the "I WILL BE WHAT YOU NEED"-ness of God and and used 
ehye for that, because he indeed had other choices for saying "I AM..." 
then perhaps ehye does better mean "I WILL BE..."

I figured that ")ANI ASHER )ANI" would be a Hebrew way of saying "I AM WHAT 
I AM" (like the Greek EGW hOS EGW - I incorrectly wrote hO in my first 
message).

I assume you're not satisfied with the LXX rendering of Exodus 3:14. When 
you say:

> BTW, if the above explanation is accepted, 
> there is a huge gap between Exodus 3:14 and
> the EGW EIMI of John 8:58.

are you saying that those who read a reference to Exodus 3:14 in John's "I 
AM" statements are in error?

On 12/23/98, "Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>" wrote:

> Dear Eric,
> 
> The basic problem, which is seldom realized, is that HYH and EIMI do not
> have the same meaning. The Greek EIMI is used as copula, and the Hebrew
> counterpart to this is the nominal clause where a verb "is" is understood.
> Thus "I am" in biblical Hebrew may simply be expressed by the lone pronoun
> ")ANI".
> A few numbers may illustrate the difference between HYH and EIMI. There are
> a total of 493 occurrences of HYH in the Hebrew OT, compared with 6469
> occurrences of EIMI in the Septuagint and 2462 occurrences of EIMI in the
> NT.  When HYH is used, there often is a stress on existence which is
> normally lacking in the Greek EIMI. (In a few instances may HYH seem to
> have a copulative force)
> 
> What then, is the basis for the LXX rendering? It is a principle in modern
> translatology (not Bible translation) that if a particular stylistic effect
> in the source language is impossible to express in the target language with
> the corresponding word or phrase, this effect may be expressed by another
> word in the clause or even by a neighboring clause. It seems to me that
> this was what the LXX translator tried to do in Exodus 3:14. I would argue
> that the EGW EIMI of the LXX does not correspond with the first EHYE and
> that hO WN does not correspond with the second EHYE. The translator
> understood correctly that HYH refers to existence, and because the word is
> used two times, he evidently viewed this as emphasis. The best way he
> thought he could express this, was by using the participle of EIMI together
> with hO. Thus hO WN is a translation of *both* the occurrences of EHYE, and
> EIMI in the LXX is just a linking verb which has no counterpart the Hebrew
> text.
> 
> What the Greek translator failed to note (but which you  correctly
> mention), is that EHYE normally refers to the future. In fact, all
> occurrences of this form except, possibly Job 3;16; 10:19; 12:4; 17:6 and
> Ruth 2:13 have future meaning. (To translate EHYE in Exodus 3:14 as "I am"
> both ignores its lexical meaning and its use as future, and is clearly
> idiosyncratic.) Therefore, your suggestion "I WILL BE WHAT/THAT I WILL  BE"
> is much better than the renderings of most modern translators; I think you
> should delete "THAT"  and keep "WHAT".  The rendition "I will be what I
> will be" would not only stress static existence but rather imply action in
> connection with existence, thus making the clause semi-fientic. In this way
> would the clause be meaningful and not only tautological.  BTW, if the
> above explanation is accepted, there is a huge gap between Exodus 3:14 and
> the EGW EIMI of John 8:58.
> 
> 
> Regards
> Rolf
> 
> 
> Rolf Furuli
> Lecturer in Semitic languages
> University of Oslo