Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

>  From a 1930 edition, "The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament" 
> Printed in London for the British and Foreign Bible Society

Is this supposed to be significant?

> >Not in the Torah proper, but in 2 Sam 15:34 it's past.
> 
> 
> 
> Not clear

Oh really?  How would you translate 'ehyeh ebed abiyka wa'aniy 
m"'az in this context?  As the NIV puts it, "I was your father's 
servant in the past" is the only possible translation.  The next 
clause makes it even clearer: "but now I am your servant."  How do 
you propose to make sense of "I will be your servant in the past"?

> >2 Sam 16:18
> >appears to be present.
> 
> 
> Why does this appear to be present?  The first translation I looked 
> at, uses it as future

The translation is wrong.  The NIV errs here as well, because the 
translators miss the context: I am the servant of the one YHWH et 
al have chosen, and with him I will remain.

> >See also Isaiah 3:7
> 
> Definitely future

How?  The one crying out is complaining about his present 
circumstances.  Look at the parallel clause: "I have no food in my 
house."  This is a negative clause with 'eyn describing a present 
situation, as is the previous one lo' 'ehyeh xobe$ "I am not a ruler" 
or NIV "I have no remedy."  Are we reading the same texts?

> >; Ps 50:21;
> 
> 
> Not used by itself

This comment doesn't make sense.  The phrase is "You thought 
that I was ['ehyeh] like you."  "Not used by itself" is not only 
obscure, it's irrelevant.  'ehyeh is used here in a modal present 
sense.

> >Ruth 2:13;
> 
> 
> "Though I be not"

Yep.  Present tense, modal.  Thank you for making my point.

> >Song of Songs 1:7.
> 
> 
> "should I be"

Where do you get "should"?  The clause begins with $:lfmfh, 
"why."  "Why am I like a veiled woman etc.?"  Again, even using 
your translation, we get a present tense, not a future.

What I see here is pure reaching.  When a problem appears, it is 
written off as "not clear" or "definitely" something else without 
justification.  I have shown that 'ehyeh can be and is used in both 

present and past contexts, and haven't seen a refutation based on 
the actual texts yet.  I rest my case.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."