Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Frank Moore Cross on Exodus 3:14 (long)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Bearpecs AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Frank Moore Cross on Exodus 3:14 (long)
  • Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 15:22:11 EDT

Because his scholarship is so important to modern Biblical study, I felt it
was worthwhile to present at length the comments of Frank Moore Cross on the
issue we have been discussing.

Frank Moore Cross on Exodus 3:14
 
_Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel_ by Frank Moore Cross; Harvard University Press, 1973(paperback
edition 1997).

Diacritical marks in Hebrew transliteration are omitted, but“sh” is used for
Shin and s. (s followed by a period) for Tzad.

Pp 68-70:
[begin quotation]
Two archaic liturgical formulae require re-examination in view of the data
collected above on the cult-names of ’El and the origin of the name Y-hweh.  
One is the famous crux ofExodus 3:14, ‘hyh ‘shr ‘hyh, the other is the cult
name y.hwhs.b’t.  y-hwe s.eba’ot stemming from the Shiloh cultus as argued
persuasively by O. Eissefeldt.  [fn: O. Eissfeldt, “J-hwe Zebaoth” in
Miscellanea Academia Berolinensia
_ (Berlin, 1950), pp. 127-150 (KS, III,
103-123).]
The first formula has been vocalized by the Massoretes to read “I am he who
exists,” [fn: This rendering has been demonstrated by Joh. Lindblom, “Noch
eimnal die Deutung des J-hwe-Namens in Ex 3:14,” ASTI,3 (1964),4-15.]or “I
am he who endures.”  Not only is the meaning rather odd for an ancient
liturgical formula but is not idiomatically expressed.  We should expect ’ani
hu’ ’asher ’ehye or even better ’ani ’el `olam “I am he who exists,” “I
am the god who endures.” Furthermore, the _expression_ ’hyh shlhny in v. 14 is
repeated in parallel form in v. 15: y.hwh … shlhny so that it is clear that
’hyh, the first person form, and yhwh the third person form, are taken as
acceptable alternate forms of the name.  [fn:  Charles Krahmalkov,“ Studies
in Amorite Grammar,” has analyzed the name e-wi-ma-lik (Alalakh 194,2) as
/’hwi-malik<yahwi-malik, the form ’ehwi simply the dialect form showing the
shift of initial ya>e.  This wouldprovide a rather neat explanation of the
’ehwe/y-hwe variation in Exodus3:14,15.  however ewi also can be taken as a
Hurrian element, and we do not expect an Amorite dialect form in a name
native to South Palestine.]  Divine epithets as we have seen can be derived
both from first and third person formulae so that the alternation in the
revelation of the name is not surprising.
This brings us then to the view that the formula is probably original in the
third person as pointed out first, I believe, by Paul Haupt [fn:  Paul Haupt,
“Der Name J-hweh,” OLZ(1909), cols. 211-214.], and long defended by
Albright.  The vocalization of the formula would then be y-hwe ’asher y-hwe.  
[fn:  In the case of the formula ’hyh ’shr’hyh, we must vocalize ’ahye ’ash
er ’ahye, “I create what I create” in place of the Masoretic pointing which
rests on Hellenistic Jewish tradition (to judge from the Old Greek).  In the
era of the Elohist it was probably understood as an idem per idem
construction, in effect, “I am the creator” as pointed out by D.N.
Freedman.]  Further, we know that the element ’sher cannot be original if the
fomula *is* old ’Asher began to replace the relative particle du(>zu) no
earlier than the beginning of the Iron Age in Hebrew to judge from its scant
use in early Yahwistic poetry.  All this yields the reconstructed formula
*yahwi du yahwi.
It will be noted immediately that the phrase du yahwi is precisely parallel
to several formulae in Ugaritic literature…  In all of the longer forms of
the formulae, the verbal element “to create” takes an object: a god, the
council of the gods, the host of heaven.  We expect such a concrete object in
the original cultic cliches.  This brings us to the second formula, y-hwe
s.eba’ot…..
On the basis of the mythological parallels, s.eba’ot in this context probably
means “the hosts of heaven,” the banu ’ilima, “sons of ’El” or “holy
ones.”  In this case Y-hwe is described as du yahwi s.aba’ot, “He who
creates the (heavenly) armies,” a title of the divine warrior and creator.
[end quotation]

In applying this quotation, I think we must keep in mind a number of things.  
One is that Cross is attempting to excavate the original formulation and use
of the _expression_, not its meaning to the redactor of the Torah as we have
it, or even to thecompiler(s) of source documents.  This raises the
interesting challenge in regard to translation:  If we are trying to express
in English what the Hebrew “really” means, do we try to follow Cross into
the prehistory of Israelite religion when the _expression_ was formulated?  or
do we translate it in the context of the burning bush incident as related by
E? or do we translate it in the context of the Torah as we have it?  or in
the context of how it has been understood by generations who lived their
lives according to their understanding of it?  I don’t offer an answer for
this particular case, but I do think that this is sufficient argument that
translation cannot help but be interpretation.

Hayyim



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page