Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

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