Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Hi,


> 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.
>
>
Thanks. You've won back my confidence again. I couldn't have taken you
linguistically seriously if you weren't prepared to accept the existence of
this small overlap.

However, surely you are not suggesting that you support the Watchtower's
translation of 'system of things' of Greek KOSMOS? Folk just don't speak
like that in English. And KOSMOS was a word with a large semantic range just
as English 'world' is. I see no problem with translating KOSMOS as 'world'.
The context makes the intended nuances of 'world' clear enough for the
reader to understand them without having a theological position forced on
the translation.


> 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."
>
>
I think you haven't read the theory I presented. I am not arguing for his
name being 'I am'. This is not the view of the translators of the LXX
either. The view of the translators of the LXX is that his name was 'O WN'
and that the first EHYEH is translated as 'EGO EIMI' as a way of introducing
the name as in "Hello, I'm O WN. What's your name?"

I can see why the Watchtower is bent on convincing the world that EHYEH does
not mean 'EGO EIMI'. This is often used as a counter argument of many
Christians who claim that whenever Jesus uses the phrase 'EGO EIMI' he is
claiming to be the second person in a triune God by saying 'My name is EHYEH
too'. However, I really don't see the need for the Watchtower to go to these
lengths because:

a) Jesus always uses the phrase EGO EIMI in a context with its literal
function and never in a context which is unambiguously a claim of possessing
such a name and...
b) The name as translated in Greek was O WN and not EGO EIMI anyway as
countless Orthodox icons in the world and the LXX will testify

What do you think about the following translations:

a) I am what I will become
b) I am whatever I am now and whatever I will become
c) I am and will be whatever I am now and whatever I will become

>
> 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.
>

)HYH never having been used with a definite article just like YHWH we have
no basis for concluding that it is anything other that a proper name.
 >

> >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.
>
>
Sure. The vowel pointing we reconstruct using the theophorics Yeho and Yahu
and the contraction Yah seem to support a Hiphil i.e. I cause to be/become.
We have a more natural way of saying that in English "I make" or "I create"
with the idea of God being the subject, with creation being the action, and
the object/s which is/are created implied.

However, you haven't addressed the point have you? The Watchtower advance
the theory that YHWH's name means that he will "cause himself to become
whatever needed in order to save his people". Causing yourself to become is
a reflexive action just as washing yourself or hitting yourself is a
reflexive action. In Hebrew reflexive actions are expressed with Hithpaels.
We don't need to know the mystery vowel pointing to see that YHWH is not a
reflexive. The missing consonants do a good enough job of helping us without
recourse to vocalisation theories. So, I hope I've now made my question
clearer. The way the Watchtower presents this comes across as completely
ignorant of how Hebrew verbs express reflexiveness.

James Christian