Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: I am becoming what I am becoming

At 4:36 PM -0800 9/16/00, barre AT nethere.com wrote:

        < ... >

> The  unusual  rendering of the Hebrew, ¥eyeh aser ¥eyeh  as "I am becoming what I am Becoming" is informed by the fact that both the form and content of this formulaic _expression_ finds it closest parallel not in Semitic thought but in Hamitic ontological speculation.  Its formulation, based on a theological word-play of the verb "to be(come)" not only reveals that we are dealing with ontology in a strict sense, but also that such a formulation is characteristically Egyptian.  Consider, for example, this comparable formulation taken from an Egyptian grammar regarding the verb, xeper ("to be[come]"):
> xeper-a xeper xeperu
> "I  who became
>  made become 
> the beings who became."
>  
>
> We note three similarities to the formula found in the Elohist's epic.  First, the divine name is predicated upon a repetition of a verb, the Egyptian version repeating it three times as subject, verb and object while the Hebrew version repeats it twice with the second occurrence functioning syntactically as an objective, subordinate predication introduced by the relative particle, aser.  Although the syntax varies, the two formulations are similar in the central importance of the repeated verb.  Second, the verbs themselves, adjusting for the different cultures that produced them, are roughly semantic equivalents, both meaning "to be" or "to become."  Third, both formulations are theological proclamations, intended to expose the essential characteristics of a deity 
> based upon a distinctively Egyptian perspective.  As such, it stands apart from typical Semitic understandings of divinity, but is demonstrably at home within Egyptian religious tradition.

Dear list-members,

the Egyptian phrase quoted by L.M. Barre comes most probably from a grammar by E.A.W. Budge, "The Egyptian Language" (1910, repr. many times), a pioneer book but of course outdated. Actually, Budge's complete translation there reads as follows: "I am he who came into being and who made to come into being the beings who came into being."

Although this is not a discussion list on the Egyptian language, it may be useful to observe that Budge did not reproduce the exact writing of the original, nor his translation renders well the syntactic structure of the text (which is most probably taken from the Book of Apophis in the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus). Joseph Kaster's translation (quoted in Banay Michael's post 18 Sept, 2000) is better: "When I came into being, being itself came into being."

I would only object that the phrase "being itself" is misleading in that it may make us to believe that the Egyptian passage is ontological. This is not the case. The original term in the Bremner-Rhind Papyrus, *Xprw* [Khepru], has a concrete determinative--man + woman, meaning all kind of beings, both human and divine. Besides, the verb *Xpr* means "to come into existence, to assume a given form," while the derived plural noun *Xprw* means "forms, shapes." Therefore, a better translation of the passage may be, "When I came into existence, the beings who came into existence came into existence." This is a claim by the Lord-of-the universe (Neb-er-djer in Egyptian) that he was the first to exist and that everything came into being through himself. This claim is repeated several times in the Egyptian text, with variants, by the supreme god. BTW, a passage quoted by the same L.M. Barre (17 sept, 2000) as "another Egyptian cosmological text" is likely to belong to the same Book of Apophis.

It seems to me that this Egyptian text shows no ontological speculation at all. Ancient Egyptians were a very positive, non-speculative people, the exact opposite of what a fashionable kind of literature depicts them. They spoke of different, concrete "beings, forms," rather than of "being in itself" as an ontological category.

I am also skeptic of the usual renderings of Exod 3:14, e.g., "I am what I am," or "I will be what I will be," as well as of an ontological interpretation of this phrase. An ontological interpretation is indeed present in the Septuagint rendering, *ego eimi ho on* (I am the Existent), but this is Greek philosophy rather than Biblical revelation.

Already fifteen years ago I proposed the following analysis of Exod 3:14: "I WILL BE WHAT I WAS," i.e., "I WILL BE [i.e. for you, with sentence-initial, volitive yiqtol: I promise I shall be] WHAT I WAS [i.e. for your Fathers, with x-yiqtol for habitual past: what I used to be]."

>From the point of view of interpretation, this God's answer is the key of the dialogue in Exod 3:6 ff. The text makes it clear that "the God of YOUR [Moses'] father" (3:6) is to be recognized and believed (3:18) as "the Lord God of YOUR [the people's] Fathers" (3:13); for this purpose, it is necessary that God is presented to the Israelites as "THE LORD (YHWH) God of your Fathers" (3:15); and God reveals Himself as "THE LORD (YHWH)" by the fact that HE WILL BE for the Israelites in Egypt WHAT HE WAS for the Fathers.

Thus, the God of the Exodus reveals Himself as the same as the Lord of the Patriarchs. This is done by a word-play on God's personal Name based on verb *hayâ*. The Lord's Name is thus significant for the present situation of the Israelites and is capable to bring them to recover their identity and the awareness of their link with their Fathers and with the divine promises done to them.

This kind of analysis underlies several Jewish interpretations of Exod. 3:14, especially that of Midrash Hagadol: "As I was with Abraham, Isaak and Jacob, thus I will be with you". Compare Targum Ps.-Jonathan of Deut. 32:39: "See then that I am the one who is (now) and have been (in the past) and I am the one who will be (in the future)". -- BTW, the latter interpretation recalls the divine title in Revelation 1:4 (and similar passages): *ho ôn - kai ho ên - kai ho erchomenos* (The one who is, and who was, and who will come).

Thus God's answer in Exod 3:14 is far from having any ontological overtone and is perfectly Semitic and Biblical. -- I have nothing against assuming Egyptian influence on Biblical literature and thought, on the contrary. Through the years I published several essays on the relationships between Egypt and Israel. E.g.,  I tried to prove that the Biblical story of the exodus shows a good number of genuine Egyptian elements; I studied the relationship between the Egyptian hymn to the sun-god Aton and Psalm 104, as well as Egyptian influence on Biblical wisdom literature, and Isa 18-20 in the light of Egyptian literature and history. Since years I prepare students to a two-week long trip to Egypt. -- However, there is always a danger of misrepresenting either/both Egyptian or/and Biblical points of view.

Peace and all good.

--
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:     http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email       mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il