Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi,

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.
>
>
Sure I agree entirely. But I'm sure you would also agree that there is a
slight overlap in the semantic fields of the terms EIMI and EHYEH that allow
them to be translations of each other in certain contexts. I'm not saying
the overlap is large. It is, as you have shown, quite small but it is
nevertheless there.


> 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.
>
>
I'm not sure I'm following you. I'm not familiar with this part of your
research. Also I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'stress of
person'. Hebrew puts stress on person by the use of it's rarely used
personal pronouns. But I'm getting the feeling this is not what you are
talking about. Are you talking about person in the sense of the person of
God?


> 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.
>
>
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that the standalone EHYEH is
not a name? How can that be so? He quite clearly says "Tell them that EHYEH
sent you to them". There is *no* other sensible way of interpretting this
than as a 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).
>
> 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.
>
>
What do you think about the theory that YHWH is an archaic form of YHYH?
What's your personal theory on the connection between EHYEH and YHWH? If
YHWH is God's way of referring to himself in the first person and EHYEH is
the third person version of his name this seems to put pay to the
Watchtower's theory that YHWH means "I cause myself to become" as the form
is neither causative nor reflexive. In all the Watchtower literature I've
read there doesn't ever appear to be any discussion which indicates whether
the originators of this Watchtower position were aware of the grammatical
issues raised by such a theory. There is never a discussion of the forms of
Hebrew verbs beyond a simple reference to a causative. However, no
discussion is ever even raised of reflexives and it comes across as though
they were completely unaware of this part of the issue.

And to our Jewish counterparts (or anybody else who might know) do any of
the great Rabbis of the past have anything to say on this subject?

James Christian