Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Stoney Breyer" <stoney AT touchwood.net>]

Dear Greg Stafford:

Thank you for your observations.  Permit me to respond and clarify.

> The first thing we need to make clear is that
> arguments from English, especially English tense, have no bearing on the
> subject.

I think perhaps you overlooked my heading to this part of my posting, where 
I stated I was addressing "translation" not "meaning".  I think when you 
are translating a passage into English the meaning of the English you 
select has at least some bearing on the subject! :)


> The problem with your second proposed translation (I am who I am) is
> that it has no grammatical basis. The first (I'll be who I'll be) is
> essentially the same as "I will be who I will be," to which you previously
> objected, but not the level of speaking one might expect the writer of Exodus
> would attribute to Deity!

Ah.
1) As I tried to make clear, "I'll be" is NOT the same as "I will be", 
essentially or any otherwise.  The full form is, in contemporary English, 
marked (relative to the elided form) to a limited set of contexts which I 
do not believe obtain here.

2) You disagree, indicating that you believe that one of those contexts -- 
formal prose -- *does* obtain here,  arguing that the elided form does not 
represent "the level of speaking one might expect the writer of Exodus 
would attribute to Deity."  Now this could turn into a jim-dandy discussion 
if we (and anybody else who wants to join in) can keep our tempers; but 
it's going to test us! . . . So here goes -- I have acknowledged my virtual 
ignorance of Hebrew, so I ask you, as a philological scholar, "Can you 
confidently distinguish between formal and colloquial speech in the HB?" 
and if so, "On what linguistic evidence?"  But if all you can adduce is the 
"level of speaking YOU expect" I will feel perfectly free to retort that 
"I'll be who I'll be" is *exactly* the level of speaking I expect the 
writer -- on the evidence of his previous characterization -- to attribute 
to the Deity.

3) As for the "grammatical basis" let me draw my lines a little more 
clearly.  There's (at least) two different kinds of future tense.  If 
'ehyeh is future in the sense of excluding the present -- "not yet but at 
some time to come" -- then Yes, there is a grammatical issue here and you 
must use "will" or "'ll".  But if 'ehyeh is future in sense embracing the 
present --  "from now into the future" -- then *grammatically* it's pretty 
much of a tossup  because "I will be" "I'll be" and "I am" are all capable 
of bearing this sense.

> You claim that the response appears to be a sign of irritation. May I ask, is
> that what Moses asked for? I say this because your argument is: "I incline
> towards "I am" because Moses' isn't asking who the Deity *will* be at the
> time the sons of Israel raise the question but who He *was* at the time He
> commissioned Moses."

> You assume that the response has to fit with Moses' question, as asked.

Sorry, I'm not grasping what you're asking me or what you're objecting to 
here.

> In
> fact, the grammar shows that YHWH's answer was a way of telling Moses that
> the people would know who he was by what he becomes on their behalf.

I see from that "become" that you indeed come down very firmly for 'ehyeh's 
bearing an exclusive future sense.  Would you then entertain the 
translation "I will become what I will become"? (Or, losing something in 
strict parallelism but gaining something in idiomatic acceptability: "I 
will become what I become.")

> The
> grammar is actually rather clear when viewed in this contextually supported
> light, particularly with the previously communicated thought in verse 12,
> namely, that YHWH would be with Moses. So, too, he would be with his people,
> and that is how they would come to know him.
>
> If you have examples involving Hebrew grammar to support your position, then
> please share them with us. This is, after all, a discussion of Hebrew.

A hit, a very palpable hit! . . . however, it is being conducted in English 
and occasionally that language has been abused to the detriment of the 
discussion.

Regards,

Stoney


Tracking #: 6B93065588083146AB7EB1BAE7DF023E71589034