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?
> 
> 
> No - just that it was not a text with Jewish commentary, and it does 
> not appear to have been translated with the commentary in mind, 
> therefore I would expect the translation to be more in tune with the 
> one dimensional perspective of mere linguistic dissecting, but even 
> in this translation, the word Ehyeh is not past or present.

Let's confine ourselves to the texts, rather than someone else's 
translation.

> > > >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
> 
> 
> MeAz VeAta - one phrase

Uh-uh.  Not in this case.  we`atah begins the next clause, "but now 
I am your servant."

> >in this context?
> 
> 
> I WILL be thy servant, O King, as I have been thy father's servant hitherto
> 
> > 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"?
> 
> 
> "MeAz VeAta"  is a common Biblical expression meaning "for always" - 
> then and now, or from then until now

But in this passage there's a different structure.

> Breaking it up into phrases:
> 
> "Avdecha ani hamelech ehyeh" O king, I will be your servant
> 
> "Eved avicha va'ani meAz veAta"  As I've always been your father's servant
> 
> "Va'ani avdecha"  So I am your servant

I disagree about which clause 'ehyeh goes with, but really it doesn't 
matter.  Since the first clause is saying the same thing as the third 
one, and the third one is a rather obvious present-tense verbless 
clause, it's only logical that the first clause also carries a present-
tense force.  "I am your servant.  I was your father's servant; now 
I'm your servant."  There is no compelling need to force it into a 
future tense unless one has a particular ax to grind and wants to 
overlay MH tensings onto an untensed language.

 > > >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.
> 
> 
> 18:  And Hushai said to Avshalom, Nay; but whom the Lord, and this 
> people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his WILL I BE, and with 
> him I will abide.

Why?  Hushai is stating a present reality.  Absalom appears to be 
the people's choice, so he is Absalom's servant.  Again, there is no 
reason to force a future tense here; is Hushai saying that he isn't 
Absalom's servant right now, but some time in the future he will be 
because that's the people's choice?  That would be incredibly 
stupid on his part, now wouldn't it?  Rather, he's saying "No, I'm lo 
longer David's servant, I'm yours."  Present situation, not future, 
because Hushai was no fool.

> Look at the next verse, 19.  Definitely future.  Do you really think 
> the same word would be used in two consecutive verses to mean 
> different things?

There's nothing definite about it.  He says "As I was a servant 
before your father, I am now (ken, even so) I am before you."  Was 
Hushai not "before" Absalom at this point?  Were they talking by 
phone?  Hushai is standing before Absalom, declaring himself to 
be Absalom's servant.  There is no reason to try and read an 
anachronistically-based future tense in either verse; in fact, it's 
counter-productive and counter to what we actually know about the 
BH verb system.  You're certainly free to force an artificial future 
tense onto it, but when you do it would be a good idea to keep in 
mind that this move is based on a verb system that never existed 
in BH.

> > > >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?
> 
> 
> I can't imagine how you cannot see this:  "In that day he shall 
> swear, saying, I WILL NOT be as a healer; for in my house is neither 
> bread nor clothing; make me not a ruler of the people."

Please.  Such a translation violates the context as well as the 
semantics of the clauses.  Once again, forcing future tense onto 
this clause is both stilted and artificial, to say nothing of 
unnecessary.

> > > >; 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.
> 
> Heyot Ehyeh is a phrase.  Like Hayo Haya in other places. 
> Conditional.  "You had thought that I should be (or would be) like 
> you"

Meaningless.  It's still not a future, as your own translation shows.  
That's what we're talking about, as I recall.

> The usage of language in Tehillim is the most difficult of all the 
> Tanach to understand

So what?  That doesn't mean it's impossible, unless we shove a 
verb system onto it that it never knew anything about.

> > > >Ruth 2:13;
> > >
> > >
> > > "Though I be not"
> >
> >Yep.  Present tense, modal.  Thank you for making my point.
> 
> 
> You're welcome - this is only one translation
> 
> It could just as easily be "And I WILL NOT be like one of your handmaidens"

It could.  Of course, it would violate the context and make the 
statement virtually incomprehensible wrt the material around it, but 
sure, it could.

> > > >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.
> 
> 
> "Why should I be"  - is PRESENT???

Yes.

> >What I see here is pure reaching.
> 
> 
> And I see the same in your position - grasping.

I'm using a verb system that we know has some relation to what 
was actually going on in BH.  It has been clear for a couple of 
centuries now that BH was not a tensed language, and that the 
prefix conjugation (in all persons and numbers) was used for both 
present and future.  I'm coming at the language on its own terms 
instead of shoving a later development down its throat.

> >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.
> 
> 
> You probably wouldn't listen

I've been listening.  Perhaps I'm the only one who has been in this 
discussion.

> >I rest my case.
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you, why/how in the original context which we 
> were speaking of,  anyone would ever think in the first place to 
> change the tense of Ehyeh to present tense, to mean I AM?  It's like 
> you just  - made it up.

Is this for real?  Nobody "changed" anything.  This is how the 
language operated.  I didn't make it up, the ancient Hebrews did.  
The fact that it doesn't fit your preconceived notions or 
anachronistic attachment to MH grammar is irrelevant.  It's also 
clear that continuing this discussion is pointless, because it is very 
true that someone here isn't listening.  So I'm off to other things.  
>From here I suggest you read a few of the standard grammars such 
as Gesenius, Waltke-O'Connor, van der Merwe and Jouon-Muraoka 
and open your mind to how biblical Hebrew actually operated.  Until 
you're willing to do that, we'll continue to get nowhere.


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