Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Michael Abernathy <mabernathy AT isot.com>]

Vadim wrote:

>  
"An answer "I am that I am" seems reasonable to the question of "What is your
name"?? Reasonable? Try answering so to anyone who asks of your name."

It would be totally unreasonable for me to answer "I am that I am." And that is 
one reason why so many have debated the meaning of the phrase. Various interpretations
have been proposed to make sense of it as an answer. I don't know how Moses 
understood this answer. However, I was not commenting on the legitimacy
of the traditional translation. I was commenting on your statement 
which implied that context was irrelevant.

Vadim also wrote:
"We discussed the issue of tenses few weeks ago, and I don't recall your
objections to my suggestion that Hebrew has a coherent system of tenses,
just with deictic shifts. If my suggestion is right - and so far it was not
contradicted - then the translation "I am" is without grammatical grounds.
But even imagining for a moment grammatical admissibility of such twisting
of tenses, there is no contextual reason to prefer "I am" to "I will be" -
only a theological, not even implicit contextually, view that God cannot
confine his existence or promises to the future."

Basically, I am tolerant of variant opinions. I don't mind that you insist on 
a future translation for the imperfect. But when you insist that theology alone
is responsible for the translation. I have to differ.

Personally, I find that the examples of the imperfect being used for the past 
and present tense make it difficult to promote the idea that the imperfect 
should always be translated as a future tense.
Note:
Present tense
Deuteronomy 1:44 "they pursued you, as the bees do"
Genesis 32:32 "the children of Israel do not eat"
Genesis 37:15 "What seekest thou?"
1 Samuel 11:5 ""What aileth the people that they weep?"

Past tense
Judges 11:40 "the daughters of Israel went from year to year"
Job 1:5 "In this manner used Job to do all the time"
Genesis 29:2 "out of that well they watered"

And before you object, I limited my choice of examples. Each of
the above verses are translated in the Isaac Leeser translation

Theology may cause a translator to prefer "I am" or "I will be."
On the other hand, there may be other reasons for the preference.

Vadim asked:

"How is "I am he" related to "I am"? Quite a leap of imagination. 3ms pronoun
merely replaces more common YHWH, likely because of the particular scribe or
author's piety. I don't recall, but I believe that some kings used to
address themselves in the third person; surely they called themselves in
plural. The same kind of superstitious piety or inflated ego."

Technically, ani hu may be translated as "I am he." But ani hu is the 
normal way to say "I am" in later Hebrew. The fact that it is used in a
way that seems to be synonymous with God's name lends some credence
to the possibility that the Biblical authors used it in the same way.

Vadim asked:
"You mean, you can't say in Hebrew, "I will study Hebrew" or "I will live in
that town"?"

I would not state that you can't make either statment in Hebrew. If I understood what Segal 
was trying to say, I would venture that you would not normally make either 
statement using the imperfect. I would appreceiate it if anyone could clarify that
for me.

Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy




--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.21/96 - Release Date: 9/10/2005