The first thing we need to make clear is that
arguments from English, especially English tense, have no bearing on the
subject.
The problem with your second proposed translation (I am who I am) is
that it has no grammatical basis. The first (I'll be who I'll be) is
essentially the same as "I will be who I will be," to which you previously
objected, but not the level of speaking one might expect the writer of Exodus
would attribute to Deity!
You claim that the response appears to be a sign of irritation. May I ask, is
that what Moses asked for? I say this because your argument is: "I incline
towards "I am" because Moses' isn't asking who the Deity *will* be at the
time the sons of Israel raise the question but who He *was* at the time He
commissioned Moses."
You assume that the response has to fit with Moses' question, as asked.
In
fact, the grammar shows that YHWH's answer was a way of telling Moses that
the people would know who he was by what he becomes on their behalf.
The
grammar is actually rather clear when viewed in this contextually supported
light, particularly with the previously communicated thought in verse 12,
namely, that YHWH would be with Moses. So, too, he would be with his people,
and that is how they would come to know him.
If you have examples involving Hebrew grammar to support your position, then
please share them with us. This is, after all, a discussion of Hebrew.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.