Biblical Hebrew Forum

[barre AT nethere.com]

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book but of course outdated.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.

In am using the term "ontological" in a literaral sense, that is, that the 
sentence utilizes the verb to be[come].  I did not mean to equate it with say 
Greek ontological tradition.

 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.

Fine.  Being is anything that is.

 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.

I am not talking about speculation, only ontology.  Word "to be[come] is 
employed.  To that extent it is ontological.

 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.

Agreed.

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.

I am not confortable with your use of the word "revelation."   It presupposes 
much.

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]." 

My translation may be paraphrased as 'What I am becoming in part now [in the 
Exodus] situation is what I forever become."

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. 

I do not think this intepretation acknowledges the closes of a Egyptian 
literary form that is characterized by the repetition of the verb to 
[become].  It is a form critical observation, classifying Ex 3:14 as a trait 
that belongs to a type or genre of Egyptian literature.  Interpretations that 
ignore the family resemblence I think error seriously

LMB.


---------------------------------------------------
L.M. Barre, Ph.D.

Angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael

Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com