Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Shoshanna,

 I agree with you that the verbs of Exodus 3:15 have future 
reference. But please note that  the Hebrew verb HYH normally is not 
a stative verb but a fientive one (a verb of action)-it signals 
existence rather than being. This means that the clause in Exodus 
3:15 can be translated, "I will become what I will become." This 
means that God signals that he in the future will do great things for 
his people to whom Moses was the leader. In Greek, the verb EIMI 
means to be (stative). It occurs 6,469 times in the LXX while HYH 
occurs 1,594 times in the Tanakh. So, just the numerical differences 
shows that the two verbs have different meanings.

When we consider meaning in connection with translation, we should 
not only find the lexical meaning and the aspect of a verb, but we 
should also consider whether the use of person may signal something. 
For example, for a person to say "I am" in a stative sense, is in 
fact a tautology. The fact that he is there-he is seen or heard- 
indicate that he exists-there is no need to say that. So it is not 
necessary to tell the audience that he exists. A reference to the 
existence of another person would be very different.

Please consider Exodus 3:12 where we also find )HYH. Is there any 
Bible translation that would render this verb with present reference? 
Her God promises that he will be with Moses in the time to come-not 
in a stative but in an active sense. If Bible translations render 
Exodus 3:12 with future, why do they render the same form in 3:15 
with present? I remember my old professor Ebbe Knudsen saying when we 
discussed Exodus 3:15, "To render this verb with present is 
nonsensical; those who do that must have a superficial understanding 
of Biblical Hebrew grammar and syntax, or else they are religiously 
biased." (Please note that this is a quote expressing the professor's 
opinion, and I do not apply this to any person of this list.) A 
similar conclusion regarding the future meaning of )HYH was reached 
by C. Gianotti, "The Meaning of the Divine Name YHWH," Bibliotheca 
Sacra 39 (January-March) 1985:38-51.

The only possible exception seen by Gianotti is Ruth 2:13, which has 
been mentioned in an earlier post. A verb can be used in the 
indicative and refer to this world. But it can also be modal, 
referring to possible worlds. Thus, the normal indicative use of )HYH 
as future reference may be different in modal clauses (hypothetical 
conditional clauses). The NAB renders Ruth 2:13 this way: "She said, 
"May I prove worthy of your kindness, my lord: you have comforted me, 
your servant, with your consoling words; would indeed that I were a 
servant of yours!" The NETS Bible, which is a translation of the LXX, 
renders the last clause like this: "I shall be like one of your 
maidservants." The reason for this  is that the LXX does not have a 
negative particle in this verse. The same is true with the  the 
Syriac Peshitta where a future reference is clear. This means that 
there may be a textual problem in Ruth 2:13, or the use of )HYH here 
may be an exception. A good exercise would be to analyze all the 42 
places where )HYH occurs.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo






> Except that G-d, who originated the Torah, Transmitted this
> particular Name to us in the future tense.  And as He is the Creator
> of the Universe, and of you and me, and of the Torah, He is the final
> authority.  And if He meant this Name to be "translated" in the
> present tense, He would have Said it that way.  And what man has the
> credentials/audacity to second guess G-d and say that He was wrong
> the way He transmitted His Name?
>
> You attribute to this phrase the meaning  "I am the Eternal".
>
> I can just as easily attribute the same meaning as yours to this
> phrase, by using the future tense as G-d transmitted it thus:  "I
> will [continue to] be that which I will be [and have always been -
> implied]" - ie; eternal - without changing the future tense as G-d
> transmitted this Name, to present tense, which people, other than all
> of our Rabbinical Commentaries, seem to have the need to do, to show
> that they "know better" than G-d, the Owner and Originator of this
> Name, in the first place.
>
> Shoshanna Walker