Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH Derivation - a dead end

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH Derivation - a dead end
  • Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:33:18 +0200

Dear Yigal,

I agree with you that to discuss the origin of YHWH, or to try to derive YHWH from the name/designation of another god is a dead end. We know nothing about this, and we even do not have any clues. But there is much speculation!

I have a comment ont Ex. 3:14 though: The two most common English glosses for the rendring of HYH is "be" and "become". This means, for example, that the meaning of the word is very different from that of the Greek EIMI, which basically signifies a state. When a person speaks of himself and uses the YIQTOL form of HYH, the force is hardly that the person "is"; just his act of speaking proves that he "is," so any further statement is not needed. But the force is that he *will become* something that is lacking at present. Because of this, all examples of YIQTOL HYH, first person singular, save perhaps one or two, have future reference (cf. Ex. 3:12), and is translated by future in the Bible translations. It is an old tradition to translate Ex. 3:14 with "I am what I am". To say that a rendereing in a Bible translation "is wrong" is a very strong statement that seldom can be done, because passages can legitimately be translated in different ways. But I would say that the mentioned rendering of Ex 3:12 is tendentious and strange. Why should HYH in this case have a present reference when first person YIQTOLs of the root in most other cases are rendered with future?

As for YHWH, the points above suggest that there need not be any relationship between YHWH and HYH, even though this seems to be the case in Ex. 3:14. One natural rendering of the verse would be: "I will become (or:prove to be) what I will become (or:prove to be)." If this was the way the writer understood the words, the clause relates to the *acts* of God and not to his existence. It is often shown in the Tanakh that YHWH becomes known on the basis of what he does, and when he did somewthing great in the past, the people learned to know him in a new way. Thus, YHWH is known by his personal name and by his acts. If this is the thought behind the account in Ex. 3:13-15, it means that the clause ")ehe a$er )hye" is not an explanation of the meaning or origin of YHYH, but it points to another way of identifying God than by using his name, namely to identify him by his acts. So the similarity between YHWH and HYH need not be anything but a play of words, which is a tool often used by Hebrew writers.

The conclusion is that YHWH is the unique personal name of the God that the Bible writers worshipped; it cannot be derived from anything, and its meaning cannot be known with certainty.


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo


Yigal Levin wrote:

The one answer that I don't think anyone has brought up is the Bible's own:
")ehyeh a$er )ehyeh" - "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14) seems to understand the
name YHWH as derived from the root HYH. But in any case, this whole thread
seems to be leading to a dead end. Do we know the etymology of most other
ANE dieties? Hadad/Adad? Chemosh? Anat? Ashur (yes, that's also a toponym,
but which came first?)? Marduk? Qws? I could go on and on....


Yigal


_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page