> Dear Professor Niccacci,
>
> You wrote of the verb HYH:
>
> > The presence of HYH is needed to express past and future information as
> > well as volition (jussive). For present information, no form of HYH appears
> > since this verb is not (normally) used in the participle.
>
> My search of 'eHeYeH (yiqtol, 1c sing) is consistent with your statement
> above. It is not used for the present indicative. Two puzzling cases,
> however, are Job 12:4 (with a ptc.) and 17:6.
>
> How do your conclusions impact the translation of Exodus 3:12-14? "I am
> that I am"?
>
> --
> Lee R. Martin
> Adjunct Faculty in Old Testament and Hebrew
> Church of God School of Theology
> Cleveland, TN 37311
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God
------------------
Dear Lee,
Here is a summary of a paper I worte (in Italian) on Exodus 3:14 in _Liber
Annuus_ 35 (1985) 7-26.
Interpreters analyze Exod. 3:14a chiefly under two syntactic types:
(a) as a relative paronomastic sentence: *esomai hos esomai* (Aquila,
Theodotion), *ego sum qui sum* (Vulgata); and
(b) as relative clause with a pronominal antecedent: *ego eimi ho on* (LXX).
I suggested that Exod. 3:14a should rather be taken as a verbal sentence
with a correlative pattern; compare 2Sam. 15:34a *'abdeka 'ani hammelek -
'ehyeh 'ebed 'abika - wa'ani me'az - we'atta we'ani 'abdeka "As for your
servant, I, o king - I used to be a servant of your father - and I was it
since long time - and now, I am your servant." Also compare 2Sam. 16:19;
Job 10:19a. These examples show a correlative pattern linking two pieces of
information having a different time setting, e.g. *'ehyeh 'ebed* is set in
(habitual) past and *we'ani 'abdeka* in the present.
Exod. 3:14a should then be translated: "I will be [first-place, volitive
yiqtol: I promise I will be, i.e. for you] what I was [yiqtol for habitual
past, i.e. or your Fathers]."