Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Numberup AT worldnet.att.net>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: I AM


> But when you say "the original intent" how do you 
> come to this from a Hebrew perspective? 

Solomon Landers,

Yes, i do want to leave it somewhat "open-ended" as far as the "I-AM" name. 
This is because in the *second* part of the verse, the )EHYEH is clearly the 
name by itself. So what does *that* name (forget 14a for a moment, 
hypothetically) mean? I think it is reasonable from the perspective of usage 
of )EHYEH with God as the subject in Hebrew that it is something of a 
covenant formula, as i've given evidence in another post. For convenience, 
here is the majority of it repeated:

The remainder of occurrences (22X) indicate a special relationship of God 
with His people:
7 X "I will be with _______" (Exodus-Judges)
12 X "I will be a God to [My people]" (5X Jeremiah, 5X Ezekiel, Hos., Zech)
3 X "I will be a Father to [David's Son]" (Samuel)

> I have yet 
> to see a Jewish commentary that argues for an open-
> ended "I AM" treatment of this text. 

I do not intend this as condescending, but in terms of the meaning of our 
passage to a 2nd mill. BC Jewish community, i'm not concerned about how 
post-Christian or modern Jewish commentaries take it, unless they base their 
conclusions on grammatical-historical exegesis.

> 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?

Again, please reference my comments made elsewhere, which answer what i 
assume to be your concern here. What is see is a *covenant* concept in "I-AM" 
and i'm sure you will agree that did not originate in Western anachronistic 
interpretation. I repeat that earlier response here for your convenience:

[Someone else had said:] 
> And I find no logic in reconstituting the meaning of the text
> to imply that the Deity is requesting Moses to become a Greek
> philosopher and prove his mission by impressing the Hebrew slaves or
> pharaoh with a discussion about Ontology.

[My response:]
I've not seen any posts advocating a discussion of ontology, have you?? It 
may be implied in the thought as a secondary concept, but it is not the point 
of the Exodus 3:14 text according to the view i've presented or to any other 
view posted here, as best i remember. (I say that because i feel like you 
think you are arguing against an anachronistic theological reading, and this 
is not the case. There are theological implications of the Hebrew text here 
and elsewhere which the LXX and/or NT may pick up on and get further mileage 
out of, but that is not the same thing as reading those concepts back in as 
the main point of the OT/BH text.)

Dan Wagner

_____________________________
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 




NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net