Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi Rolf,

2009/12/23 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.
>

I'm quite surprised Rolf. You usually give such convincing linguistic
arguments that show a level of professionality. How can you possibly see
these numbers as being significant of anything? You have yourself in the
past on this list discussed semantic fields and described how their centres
are well defined but their edges get quite fuzzy. You have also acknowledged
that there are both pragmatic and semantics features. Further you have noted
that the semantic fields of words and phrases which are translations of each
other rarely have semantic fields which map exactly. This renders your
numerical observation absolutely meaningless.

You have also made a strong case on several occasions for the Hebrew verb
system to be predominantly aspectual and then continue to give an argument
for a future tense translation and oppose a present tense translation. It is
clear that both the past, present and future can be indicated by aspectual
verbs and this is quite clearly what the phrase O WN in Greek is trying to
express.

You have also not commented on the contextual line of evidence that later
YHWH says EHYEH is sending you... This would seem to support the view that
it is only the second EHYEH that was intended to be understood as this name.

Further, the vowel pointing we have received is not causative and not
reflexive. It cannot be understood as 'causing himself to become' (I trust
you are familiar with this theory as presented in the Watchtower
literature).

James Christian