Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (volume 3) by Botterweck and 
Ringgren, in dealing with the *grammar* of hayah/ehyeh have this to say 
(pages 380, 381):

"Aside from Ex. 3:14, the 1st person singular imperfect of hayah occurs 64 
times in the OT.  If we ignore the 22 instances of its use with the 
vav-consecutive and the uncertain passages Job 3:16; 12:4, the form is always 
future in meaning, or at least optative.....This situation suggests that the 
correct translation of Ex. 3:14 should be 'I will be who I will be.'  The 
ancient versions of Aquila and
Theodotion understood the Hebrew text in this sense (esomai hos esomai).  
Such an interpretation is also supported by the appearance of the expression 
'I will be with you' in Ex. 3:12."

As other Hebrew-speakers have pointed out, the regular way of looking at 
"ehyeh" is simply "I will be."

What is the reason for insisting that it must mean "I am"?

Solomon Landers

Dave Washburn wrote:

> >There is no grammatical or linguistic reason to translate Ehyeh >as "I am" 
> >at Exodus 3:12 OR 3:14. All the justifications I have >read have been, 
> >ultimately, theological.
> Of course it's easy to say this sort of thing, not so easy to demonstrate 
> it. In what way are the passages I've offered showing that 'ehyeh can and 
> does have present meaning "ultimately, theological"? Anyone can say there's 
> no grammatical or linguistic justification for something; I can say the 
> same thing about reading BH with MH tensings. But such statements 
> contribute nothing to the discussion.
>
> Dave Washburn http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur "You just keep thinking, Butch. 
> That's what you're good at."
>