...Yes, there is. The implication of "I will be" in the main clause (where LXX clearly has "I am") is that YHWH is not currently what he will be, but will change and become something different from what he is now (i.e. in the time of Moses). That is a theologically controversial suggestion. And it is one which has no basis in the Hebrew text, understood aspectually, which implies not change but continuation.
Even with our current understanding of Hebrew verbal aspects, there is no reason to *not* render ehyeh asher ehyeh as "I will be." Even the KJV does it at Exodus 3:12.
The divergence appears to be centered around the context. But it is quite possible to see the context as implying that the name YHWH was a confirmation of what God will do in the future for the Hebrew slaves, rather than a discussion of ontology.If he had said "I will do what I will do", or on the causative reading "I will cause to be what I will cause to be", perhaps. But the use of HYH in the qal implies that this is an ontological statement. The word "ontology" derived from the Greek WN, ONTOS, the present participle of the verb "to be" as used in all the Greek translations mentioned.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.