Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

Would anybody have any serious objections to translating 
ehyeh asher ehyeh as 'I will always be what I have 
always been'? Both tenses used preserve the imperfective 
nature of the hebrew forms and the meaning seems to be 
a little closer to what we have said the original 
concept was.

Any thoughts?

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
To: JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:22:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew]  "I Am" vs. "I Will Be"

On 30/06/2006 00:29, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ wrote:
> Peter's evidence as to the meaning 'I was, I am and I 
> always will be' is rather convincing and I tend to agree 
> with him.
>
> Where I disagree with Peter is that based on this meaning 
> 'I am' is the best translation. ...
>
> It is exactly for examples like these that it is that I 
> insist that concept translation is of far more value 
> than any form of grammatical translation. In order to 
> translate such a concept in English it is necessary to
> do an empirical analysis of the English language in its
> entirety and ask the question 'What would be the normal
> thing to say be for a person who wishes to express his
> belief that he has always existed and always will
> exist?'
>
>
James, I entirely agree with you here in this last paragraph. Bible
translation is indeed a matter of translating meanings and concepts, not
grammatical forms. I do not claim that "I am" is an ideal translation,
just that it is the best short translation and better than "I will be".
The problem with the kind of expansive translation which you suggest is
that it tends to distort the balance of the passage. But in this case it
may be necessary to do something like you suggest.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail:  peter AT qaya.org
Blog:    http://speakertruth.blogspot.com/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/