Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Bearpecs AT aol.com]

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