Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ehyeh (Exodus 3:14)

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] Translating Ehyeh (Exodus 3:14)
  • Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 11:17:52 +0100

Dear James,

I will address your concerns below.



Hi Rolf,

2009/12/23 Rolf Furuli <<mailto:furuli AT online.no>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.

I beg to differ here James. My point was that the static Greek word EIMI is not an equivalent to the Hebrew word HYH. The numerical difference shows that EIMI was used as a translation of something different, that is, EIMI is very often used where we find nominal clauses in Hebrew and not to translate HYH.


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.

Your observation regarding aspect and temporal reference is correct. My argument for a future rendering was not based on the the aspect, but on the aspect plus person with a stress of person.


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.

Here again I disagree. If 3:15 is translated, "I will become what I will become," or "I will prove to be what I will prove to be" -both renderings indicate action; God will in the future do great things-then "I will become," or "I will prove to be" standing alone is highly meaningful. There is no indication that either )HYH is equivalent to or stands for God's name, but the three words of the clause show God's characteristics-he is a person who will do great things in the future.


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).

There may or may not be a connection between YHWH and HYH; we have no data today that can tell us the meaning of YHWH.


James Christian



Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page