I hope what I wrote and summarised from elpis' thread is a sufficient indication of what I understand: 1. Exodus 3:14 should be "I will be". 2. The LXX is a poor translation of Exodus 3:14. 3. John 8:58 is not quoting the LXX rendition of Exodus 3:14. I have yet to really consider what you and elpis discussed on the meaning of John 8:58 and this may affect my present view on this. I will be interested in any additional or altered input.
You have neatly summarized this into three issues, which I will address in turn... the first two in this post and the third in a post either later today or tomorrow:
1.
Translation of the divine self-declaration in Exod 3:14
The pertinent clause in MT of Exod 3:14 reads as follows:
אהיה אשר אהיה
Manuscript fragment 4QGen-ExodA is extent for most of this clause and reveals no variant (Ulrich 32). The middle word is the relative pronoun (HALOT 1.98-99) and the other two words are the same, the Qal imperfect first person singular form of the verb
היה (to be). The Hebrew verbal system revolves around the concept of completed (perfect) or incomplete (imperfect) action... context determines what English tense best captures the intended meaning. The two choices in the present case of these imperfects are (1) future, which "describes an action anticipated or announced" (Arnold and Choi 58) or (2) progressive, which "indicates action that is underway or continuing as the writer or speaker describes it" (ibid 58). Most major translations elect for the second, possibly under the influence of tradition, and translate either "I am that I am" (KJV) or "I am who I am" (NKJV, NASB, NAB, NRSV). The NRSV footnotes both to the progressive alternative "I am that I am" and the future alternative "I will be that I will be". Other translations aim less for formal equivalence and try to capture the essence: "I am he who is" (NJB); "I am; that is who I am" (NEB). Finally, the JPS leaves the clause as a transliteration of the Hebrew (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh) and footnotes that the meaning is uncertain, listing several possibilities: "I am that I am", "I am who I am", "I will be what I will be",
etc. Indeed, even sticking to formal equivalence, one could mix and match the future and progressive possibilities: "I am who I shall be" or "I shall be who I am" (Sachs 246).
Evaluation:
The divine self-disclosure is enigmatic with no exact parallels to help adjudicate. I think, however, that the best case can be made for a future rendering... this is the conclusion of the annotator for the translation of Exodus in the
Jewish Study Bible: "
Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh [is] probably best translated as 'I Will Be What I Will Be," meaning, 'My nature will become evident from My actions'" (Tigay 111). Indeed, there is a forward-looking focus in the surrounding context: "I will send you to Pharaoh..." (v10), "I will be with you..." (v 12), "you will worship God..." (v12), "you will say..." (vs14,15), "I will bring you up out of the misery of Egypt..." (v17), "they will listen to your voice..." (v18), "you will go to the king of Egypt..." (v18), "I will stretch out my hand..." (v20), "I will strike the Egyptians..." (v20), "I will give this people favor..." (v21), "you will plunder the Egyptians" (v22). All of these verbs are imperfects or converted imperfects... of critical significance is
אהיה in verse 12, which is identical to the verbs in the divine self-declaration, and here it is almost always translated "I will be" or "I shall be" (NEB is the singular exception of the aforementioned translations, placing "I am" in line but footnoting "or, I will be"). Other forward-looking action associated with disclosure of the divine name is found in Exod 33:19 where "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" is found with a near identical pattern as that found in 3:14 --- that is, an imperfect first person singular verb + relative pronoun + imperfect first person singular verb with the relative clause marked as a direct object.
2.
The Greek (LXX) translation of Exod 3:14
The pertinent clause is rendered in LXX as follows:
εγω ειμι ο ων
A number of manuscripts omit the clause plus the
και ειπεν following resulting in the reading "And God said to Moses: 'Thus shall you say to the sons of Israel, "The One Who Is has sent me to you."'" This reflects a later abridgement with no serious claim to being the earliest form of Greek Exodus here. The clause itself translates into English literally as "I Am the Being", which is rendered more colloquially in
NETS as "I Am the One Who Is". The translator identified the general profile of Greek Exodus as one of word-for-word equivalence, but with some examples of expansion, abridgement or variant order (Perkins 43). The translations of Aquila and Theodotion are notable for their reversion to not only formal equivalence vis-à-vis the original Hebrew text but one that understands the imperfect verb with a future sense:
εσομαι {ος} εσομ[αι].
Evaluation:
If one is judging the Greek translator in terms of formal equivalence to the Hebrew, the LXX of Exod 3:14 is a poor translation. The relative pronoun has been ignored altogether, the first verb has been rendered as a present active indicative first person singular with an explicit subject and the second verb as an articulated present active participle in the nominative singular masculine case. It cannot be said that, as a unit, this translation reflects well the underlying Hebrew and it is noteworthy that only
ο ων is taken up in the second half of the verse as parallel to the divine name disclosed in the following verse. That is,
εγω ειμι serves to introduce the name such as we see in Exod 7:5 where the verbless Hebrew clause
אני יהוה is translated with
εγω ειμι κυριος (= I am {the} Lord) rather than being an intrinsic part of the divine identity. While
εγω ειμι is the only element that might correspond formally to the Hebrew, the case was made above this is probably not the best understanding of
אהיה, which is supported by the noted revisions of Aquila and Theodotion with the future middle indicative first person singular form
εσομαι. If, however, the translator is allowed flexibility to capture something of the essence of the divine self-disclosure, the rendering is not particularly deviant in connecting the deity to some sort of boundless existence and, indeed, LXX was an influence on the NJB translation cited above in its own dynamic rendering of the Hebrew.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Bibliography:
Arnold, Bill T. and John H. Choi.
A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Cambridge University Press, 2003)
Coogan, Michael D. (ed.)
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (Augmented Third Edition; Oxford University Press, 2007)
Elliger, K. and W. Rudolph (eds).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed.; Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997)
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner (eds).
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Study Edition; 2 vols; Brill, 2001)
Perkins, Larry J. "To the Reader of Exodus" in
A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Sachs, Gerardo. "
Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh."
Jewish Bible Quarterly 38.4 (2010) 244-46
Tigay, Jeffrey H. "Exodus" in
The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2004)
Ulrich, Eugene (ed.)
The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Variations (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 134; Brill, 2010)
Wevers, John William (ed.)
Exodus (Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum 2.1; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991)