Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: I AM

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Numberup AT worldnet.att.net
  • To: Daniel Wagner <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>
  • Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: I AM
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:25:09 -0700


But when you say "the original intent" how do you come to this from a Hebrew
perspective? I have yet to see a Jewish commentary that argues for an
open-ended "I AM" treatment of this text. Are we really getting into the
minds of the original target audience(s) of Exodus, or are we contemplating
what the words mean to the Western mind?

Solomon Landers

Dan Wagner wrote:
>To say merely "I-AM" and leave it open-ended is more equivalent to the
>>original intent, in my opinion, which is what we need to do in translation.
>(Or >if you prefer, "I-WILL-BE," that's OK, but just remember that
>*constancy* >of God's covenant character is the main contextual issue in
>regards to how >we deal with the temporal aspect.)

>Dan Wagner



Daniel Wagner wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Bearpecs AT aol.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:13 AM
> Subject: Re: I AM
>
> > In a message dated 5/6/01 11:38:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:
> > > Whenever we find God as the subject of _EHYEH_ it indicates some aspect
> > > of
> > > God's relationship to His people.
> >
> > And this is why Buber & Rosenzweig chose to translate it I-will-be-there.
> >
>
> Yes, and that is a legitimate implication, but it's a mistake to take some
> or even all of the implications and import them into our translation of the
> name. We'd have to say more than merely "I-WILL-BE-THERE" because more than
> that is implied in the covenant connotations. Or to focus on the problem
> with that in another way, I-WILL-BE-THERE is too specific/limiting. To say
> merely "I-AM" and leave it open-ended is more equivalent to the original
> intent, in my opinion, which is what we need to do in translation. (Or if
> you prefer, "I-WILL-BE," that's OK, but just remember that *constancy* of
> God's covenant character is the main contextual issue in regards to how we
> deal with the temporal aspect.)
>
> Dan Wagner
>
> NetZero Platinum
> No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
> Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
> http://www.netzero.net
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page