Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Eric Weiss  wrote:
>
>Of course, that raises other problems, i.e., if the LXX of Exodus 3:14 is
>perhaps NOT a good rendering (which is what I believe what Rolf Furuli is
>suggesting - BTW, what does "fientic" or "semi-fientic" mean?), then the
>author of GJohn or Jesus himself operated from a misunderstanding of Exodus
>3:14!

Dear Eric,

Your question about definitions prompts me to say a few words about method.
To work without a frame of testable principles leads to a similar situation
as the one described in Judges 20:25 "In those days there was no king in
Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."

The crucial point in any investigation of Hebrew verbs is to differentiate
between the factors which are semantic, i.e. an uncancellable part of a
verb, and which factors are pragmatic implicatures, i.e. dependent upon the
context. An analysis which does not deal with this fundamental question
definitely has a serious weakness. For those who want to learn more about
how to do such an analysis, I heartily recommend: Mari Broman Olsen, 1997,
"A Semantic and Pragmatic model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect" New York
and London, Garland Publishing Inc.

Hebrew grammars use the word stative (static) with reference to verbs that
denote a state, and fientive (fientic) with reference to verbs that denote
actions. Any part of a state is similar to any other part or to the state
as a whole, and the state continues without any input of energy and is not
dynamic.  Actions are dynamic, i.e. they entail change and are not
homogenous.  Now a question by which to test one's linguistic ability: The
stativity which we ascribe to a static verb ( say "to be" or "to love" ) is
it semantic or is it pragmatic? The answer is that it is pragmatic, because
a clause with a "stative" verb may either be interpreted as static or as
dynamic. The verb MALE  in Deut 34:9 is for instance static, but the same
verb in 40:34 is  fientic.

The pragmatic nature of statives indicates that there is no equipollent (
one is the exact opposite to the other) relationship between stative and
dynamic verbs, but the relationship is privative. This means that the
dynamic part is positively marked with dynamicity; a dynamic verb cannot be
interpreted as static.
However, the other part is not marked at all for dynamicity, and in some
contexts will verbs belonging to this category be interpreted as states in
other contexts as actions. If the situation is not clearcut, I use the
expression "semi-fientic".  This privative model which differentiates
between semantic and pragmatic factors can also be applied to tense, and
the result as far as Hebrew is concerned, is that past, present and future
are pragmatic factors, and that tense  is not a  semantic part of any verb
form.

I write this to stress that a rigorous linguistic analysis along the lines
above is necessary to approach an understanding of passages such as Exodus
3:14. To draw parallels between this verse  and a passage in another
language through a translation of the Hebrew text into that language (LXX
and John 8:48), is very risky to say the least.

Greg Stafford wrote:

<If there is a copulative use of EIMI in John 8:58 the predicate, since it is
<not stated (as it is in Exodus 3:14 [LXX]) must be gathered from the context.
<The implied predicate in Jesus' other EGW EIMI sayings (both in the Synoptics
<and in the Fourth Gospel) is almost always "Messiah" or "Son of Man" (see, 
for
<example, John 4:26; 8:28; Mark 14:62 [Luke 22:70]; compare Mark 13:6 [Luke
<21:8] with Matthew 24:5), and there may be a similar predicate implied in 
John
<8:58, given the context of his discussion about how Abraham had seen his (=
<the Messiah's [compare Genesis 22:17-18; Galatians 3:16]) "day." It is of
<interest to note how the Jews rejected a similar use of EGW EIMI by Jesus,
<where the implied predicate is clearly, "Christ, Son of the Blessed."---Mark
<14:60-64.

<The high priest's reaction shows that his claim to be the Messiah/Christ/Son
<of the Blessed was rejected, and that a claim to such a sacred office by a 
man
<whom they believe to be demonized (John 8:48) was to be punished with the
<greatest severity.

In a previous post I wrote about the possibility that Jesus used EGW EIMI
in John 8:58
as a reference to himself as "the prophet" or "the Messiah", as "something
which is less likely in this context." However, as Greg shows above, this
is just as likely as a reference to mere existence.


Regards
Rolf



Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo