Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear Stoney:

Thank you for your reply. Here follows my own:


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

Stoney:
<< I think perhaps you overlooked my heading to this part of my posting, 
where 
 I stated I was addressing "translation" not "meaning". >>


The translation of any verse must (or at least should) be concerned with 
meaning. I cannot disconnect the two the way you seem able to do. In this 
light, you offered:


<< 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! :) >>



Of course it does. I do not believe anything I said suggested otherwise. But 
we must first try and determine the meaning of the original language. If you 
are not beginning with the source language, then I don't know your starting 
point for purposes of dealing with the target language. Once we determine the 
most likely (it need not be absolute, and in many cases is not) meaning based 
semantics, syntax, and context, then we look for the best means of conveying 
that *meaning* into a *meaningful* translation. 
 

 Greg:
 >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!
 
Stoney: 
<< 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. >>



"I'll be" essentially means "I will be." They are the same; one is a 
contracted form of the other, and more colloquial. "I will be" fits 1) the 
semantic sense of all the words involved in 'EHYEH 'ASHER 'EHYEH, 2) it is an 
acceptable translation of the syntactical relationship of the words, and 3) 
has meaning in this context. There is no contextual indicator pointing to 
irritation, followed by a more clam reply. I do not find that your 
translation (or the meaning of it) is grounded in any essential element 
previously noted.  

 
Stoney:
<< 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?"  >>



No, I cannot differentiate between such in this context. So, on what basis 
should I think of it in any other terms than that which I previously 
outlined? If you want me to agree that it is *possible* that we have an 
irritated reply given to God's servant Moses, in a context where He is 
sending him forth to communicate His identity to His people in a context 
where serious thoughts concerning His intentions regarding them are in view, 
then I suppose I have to agree in as much as most things in this universe are 
possible except squeezing toothpaste back into the tube. 

My point has been and continues to be that the three elements I have outlined 
promote my view, or a variation of it, as the most likely. If you wish to 
purse any reason grounded in the Hebrew text for not preferring my view, then 
do so. If you wish merely to pursue the potential paralinguistic aspects of 
this issue then I don't think either of us can do using the Hebrew text; 
hence, there is no value in such a discussion on this List. 


Stoney:
<<< 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. >>



As I noted above, what I "feel" flows from a reading of the Hebrew text in 
its context. Such a "feeling" is consistent with the syntax and semantics of 
the verse. If you can provide something in the context that hints or 
otherwise points to the level of speaking you envision, then by all means 
argue your point *using the Hebrew text,* and not simply English 
translations. 


 Stoney:
<<  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. >>


Very well. But as we have discussed at great length on this List (a 
discussion which you said you followed and enjoyed), it is not simply a 
matter of *one* "I am" or *one* "I will be," but the relationship of 'EHYEH 
to 'EHYEH via 'ASHER. If you can please argue your point about the "from now 
into the future" (which is not a real problem for me), then we can pursue 
this issue further, if you do so based on one of the two 'EHYEH's. Then we 
can talk about the sense you attribute to the other. In other words, Stoney, 
are you suggesting something like, "I am [from now into the future] who I am 
[now into the future]"?
 

Greg:
 >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.
 

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



In one instance you claim or at least strongly imply that the answer given 
must match with the question asked. Yet, I fail to see how the reply you 
prefer fits with a question that does not appear overly bothersome or 
otherwise irritating.  
 

Greg:
 >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.
 

Stoney:
<< I see from that "become" that you indeed come down very firmly for 
'ehyeh's 
 bearing an exclusive future sense. >>



I do, but I am not entirely closed to the present-into-the-future view you 
suggest. I simply require some evidence from the Hebrew text (i.e., uses of 
'EHYEH that support your view), and an explanation on your part of how the 
two 'EHYEH's fit together given such a meaning. 



<< 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.") >>


Yes. Though in place of "what" I would prefer "who." I think this fits better 
with the question and context, namely, one of personal identity. 


Greg:
 >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.
 

Stoney:
 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. >>


I know of no examples in the present discussion that have abused English. 
What you say does not change the fact stated above, namely, this is 
discussion about the Hebrew text. I look forward to your participation in 
that discussion. But if you do not have anything to offer that is grounded in 
a discussion of the Hebrew text, then this is not the appropriate place for 
this discussion. 

Best regards,

Greg Stafford