I don't take LXX as authoritative or perfect. However, it does here seem to indicate how one particular group of readers at one time understood the Hebrew. It seems unlikely here that they were using a different text.This is not what LXX means. ὤν WN (omega-nu) is simply the present
participle of EIMI "to be". So Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν EGO EIMI hO WN simply means
"I am the being one", or, as Greek participles are commonly equivalent
to English (and presumably Hebrew) relative clauses, "I am who I am".
This is of course rather good evidence that the Hebrew probably means "I
am who I am", and is certainly evidence for a present tense
interpretation of the Hebrew.
Using LXX, a garbled translation, for interpreting minute details of the
Hebrew text? Seems kind of odd to me. At the maximum, LXX evidences how a
particular translator or a group wanted to understand or present to Greeks
the text at the period. Not really a firm evidence; you wouldn't take even
Rashi views for granted; why take the LXX translators'?
Vadim Cherny
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.