Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear James,


See my comments below.



> 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.

RF: The Greek word EIMI is often used as copula, and this matches 
nominal clauses in Hebrew. Sometimes, but rarely, HYH can also be 
used as copula. I often find the term "semantic field" to be 
confusing and misleading, so I avoid it. For example, the Greek words 
KOSMOS, AIWN, and OIKOUMENH are said to have the same semantic field, 
and in some Bible translations all three are rendered as "world." By 
doing this, important nuances are taken away from the text. I prefer 
to say that two words can be used in the same way or in the same 
sense. That is possible with EIMI  and HYH, as you say.

> 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?

RF: By "person" I do not refer to God but to the grammatical person 
(1st person, singular). An illustration of what I mean can be found 
in Jesus' words in Luke 20:37. Evidence for the resurrection he found 
in the temporal reference in Exodus 3:6. If the reference is present, 
"I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," the the resurrection is 
implied, according to Jesus. If the reference was past, the opposite 
would have been implied. However, there is no verb in Exodus 3:6, so 
the copula must be supplied. Nominal clauses like the one in Exodus 
3:6 may have past and future reference, but normally they have 
present reference. And Jesus connected an important theological point 
with present reference. I cannot present any statistics, but when 
YIQTOLs of HYH  are used, they often refer to the future. In the 1st 
person, singular, all examples that are not modal, possibly with one 
exception, refer to the future. I refuse to introduce any mystical 
concepts in a linguistic explanation, as so many religious people do 
in their explanation of Exodus 3:14. Lexically speaking, HYH, is a 
fientive  verb, the core meaning is "to become". In Exodus 3:14 the 
verb is in the 1st person singular, and as already mentioned, for a 
person whose existence is known, it is tautological to say "I am." 
Moreover, that would also be a static proposition, which is not 
expected when HYH is used. In view of all this, a future rendering 
stressing that he will become something is strongly implied. In my 
view, the best translation is, "I will prove to be what I will prove 
to be."

> 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.

RF: The passage Exodus 6:3 can be used to illustrate both the 
previous point and this one. Abraham, Isaac, and Jaacob viewed YHWH 
as the almighty God. According to the context they knew his personal 
name, YHWH, but they did not know what this name really represented. 
In Exodus 3:15, God tells Moses that his servants should always use 
his personal name YHWH. Then in v. 14  he implies that something 
great will be connected with  that name: "I will prove to be what I 
will prove to be." "I will prove to be has sent me to you."  In other 
words: "The one who will connect great works with his name has sent 
me.  If I twenty years ago heard the name Barack Obama, it would tell 
me nothing. Today he has proved to be something, the president of the 
United States, and this is connected with his name.

Yes, I am saying that )HYH is not a proper name; it is an epithet. 
And an epithet, while not being a proper name, can *function* as a 
proper name. In Ezekiel 1:24 and elsewhere the epithet $DY (almighty) 
functions in the same way as a proper name. and "I will prove to be" 
could have a similar function.
>  >
> > 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.

RF: It is difficult, if not impossible to know the meaning of a very 
old name written with four Hebrew consonants. Akkadian names often 
was a clause, e.g., Nebuchadnezzar (Nabu-kudurru-usur) "May Nabu 
protect the oldest son." Therefore, they are rather easy to 
understand. But not so with old Hebrew names. The name YHWH could be 
the Hiphil form of HWH, or HYH (WAW and YOD could alternate in old 
words), but we can not know that with certainty. So I simply have no 
opinion regarding this 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


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo