Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Tony Costa wrote:

>   Exodus 3:14 which reads EHYEH 'ASHER EHYEH has been translated
>traditionally as I AM THAT I AM. It has also been tranlated I WILL PROVE TO
>BE WHAT I WILL PROVE TO BE and so on. I understand that we have here a
>verbless clause. The LXX reads EGW EIMI hO WN, (I am the being one). Any
>interesting comments as to how Exodus 3:14 in the MT can be translated?


Dear Tony,

The word )EHYE is a verb and has future meaning in all its occurrences in
the MT except in possibly five instances (Job 3:16;10:19;12:4;17:6 and Ruth
2:13). The widespread rendition "I AM THAT I AM" (with its present tense)
,therefore, has very little linguistic backing. A rendition using English
future would be much better. Because stativity is not a semantic property
(i.e. all verbs with the label "stative" can also have a fientive
interpretation in particular contexts), translators must decide whether to
give HYH a stative or a fientive interpretation in a particular text. Those
who made the translation " I WILL PROVE TO
BE WHAT I WILL PROVE TO BE" evidently took it in the fientive sense. I see
nothing in the context suggesting either a stative or a fientive
interpretation, but the translators must decide on the basis of their
understanding of the whole book of Exodus. My conclusion is that "I AM THAT
I AM" is a bad choice and " I WILL PROVE TO BE WHAT I WILL PROVE TO BE" is
a good choice, but there may also be other possible renditions.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo