Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?

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] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:46:28 +0100

Dear Uri,

Because people of our day, including speakers of modern Hebrew, do not have
the same presupposition pool as the writer of Exodus and his audience, we
cannot know for sure the meaning of Exodus 3:14. Your thoughts below are
possible and your reasoning legitimate; nontheless, I will take another
approach,

First, I see no compelling reason to conclude that )HYH )$R )HYH in Exodus
3:14 is an explanation of the lexical meaning or etymology of YHWH. So
whether YHWH is Aramaic or Hebrew is not so important.
Second, the word $M (3:13) can refer to more than to the letters (and the
pronunciation of these letters) of a proper name. A study of the use of $M
and of the connotations of this word in the Tanakh may throw more light on
Exodus chapter 3.

In 3:11 we find the normal way of expressing "I am," namely by the use of a
nominal clause (MY )NKY). (Note also the nominal clause in 3:13 "what is his name?")
In 3:12 we find the first person singular form )HYH. What is its force? It
is not an ontological expression, something which hardly was a part of the
old Hebrew presupposition pool at all. God does not mean to say that in the future
he will exist. But )HYH is connected with the word )WT. This suggests
that )HYH in this verse is semi-fientive. By peforming particular actions in
the future it will be shown (a sign) that God supports Moses. The preposisional
phrase of the NIV rendering of this verse, "I will be with you" suggests that the translators viewed
)HYH as including action. A more explicit rendering would be "I will prove to be with you".

Having distinguished between the present stative force of "am" expressed by a
nominal clause, and the semi-fientive future force expressed by )HYH, we have
a good background for a discussion of 3:14.

The question in 3:13 "What is his name?" requires an answer that shows the
pronunciation of the proper name of God, since the identification "the God of
your fathers" may be inadequate. In my view, a direct answer to that question
is given in 3:15, namely, that this name is YHWH. This name is also connected
with "the God of your fathers" in that verse.

What then is the meaning of 3:14? I see no reason to believe that this verse explains
the meaning or etymology of YHWH, The connection between )HYH and YHWH
needs not be more than a word play (If YHWH is a verb, the grammatical person
is different from )HYH, and the WAW differs from the YOD:). I see in )HYH )$R )HYH in 3:14
an expansion of )HYH in 3:12. The word )HYH in 3:12 shows that God will act and support Moses
when he leads the people out of Egypt; the clause in 3:14 shows that not only in this
case is YHWH a God of action, but in all cases is he a God of purpose, and his purpose is
connected with his proper name. In other words, the people could identify and learn to know
their God by pronouncing and using his personal name, and they could identify and know
him by considering his grand actions which were connected with his name.

I therefore suggest the following rendering for )HYH )$R )HYH: "I will prove to be
what I will prove to be." I agree with those who view the renderings "I am who I am." as meaningless.
I also agree with those who find little meaning in, "I will be whom I will be," although
a semi-fientive interpretation of "will be" can be meaningful. But I view my translation
above as meaningful, becaus it says: "I am a God of purpose, and you can know me
by looking at my acts."

The basic obstacle for an understanding of Exodus 3:14,15 is the view that there is a lexical (or etymological)
connection between YHWH and )HYH; in my view this is a sidetrack.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



----- Original Message ----- From: "Uri Hurwitz" <uhurwitz AT yahoo.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:24 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Also asking a question - Re: YHWH is Aramaic?


Dear Rolf Furuli, you wrote correctly"::...the translator must use
the context to choose the tense in the target language. In some cases,
such as in this case, the context is rather decisive...."

It appears in the context of Exod. 3:14 that the author of this
verse simply didn't know the meaning of YHWH. Obviously
the name had been an object of some curiosity, and an answer
was sought. But the meaning of this word had been lost,
especially since it became truncated. Further, the Aramaic
form of the verb which had been brought over with some
Aramaic speaking anscestors was no longer used by the
author and his audience. Such very different scholars as Cross
and de Moor consider YHWH a hypocoristicon.

The writer of these verses shifted the verb to the Hebrew
usage, HYH. That much was clear to him. But since the meaning
was no longer understood, the answer given was the elusive
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh which is really meaningless . This phrase has
no meaning whether one wishes to understand Ehyeh as "I am"
or "I shall be" .

Thus in this specific case, it seems to me, one can translate it
either way.If it were a free translation, the best answer to the
questions "What is his name?" and "What shall I tell them?"
in verse 13 would be: "I don't know" in verse 14. Likewise the free
translation, further, would be "the God whose name I do not know sent
me'.


Uri Hurwitz








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page