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.
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?
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.
>
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.
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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.