# Tetragrammaton



## Isidore Demsky

I understand that in biblical Hebrew there are only two tenses - the perfect and the imperfect?

Is that true?

And if you wanted to say "He is," which tense would you use?

I ask this question because some say the Tetragrammaton (which I believe is the imperfect tense of the verb "to be") means "He is," while others say (because they consider the imperfect more of a future tense then a present tense, I think) that it means "He will be."

Is it best taken as a future or present tense (and is the imperfect tense a better choice to convey past, present, and future than the perfect tense would be)?


----------



## Drink

No that is not quite true. There is really no way to count the number of "tenses". The best we can do is say that there are five morphological forms of the verb used in indicative sentences:

- qōṭēl (the participle) or direct use of predicate nouns or adjectives: usually expresses continuous actions or states in any time, but most often the present
- qāṭal: usually expresses the past for active verbs and the present for stative verbs, but sometimes conpleted actions in any time
- yiqṭōl: usually expresses the future, but sometimes continuous actions in any time
- wayyiqṭōl: usually expresses consecutive actions in the past
- wəqāṭal: usually expresses consecutive actions in the future

The normal way to say "he is" is with a direct use of a predicate noun or adjective (the first bullet point above).

If the tetragrammaton is an archaic verbal form of the verb to be, then it is the yiqṭōl form. However, if this is the case, since it would be archaic, it might have followed pre-biblical grammar amd would not necessarily have matched the above description. Regardless, in the actual text of the bible, it can never be interpreted as a verb.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Thank you.

So if the normal way to say "he is" is with a direct use of a predicate noun or adjective (- qōṭēl ).

And if the tetragrammaton is an archaic verbal (yiqṭōl) form of the verb to be, would it follow that the correct interpretation of the name is "He will be" (not "He is")?

Would that follow because the - qōṭēl form would have been a better way to say "He is"?

And what of Ehyer (in Exodus 3:14)?

Is that in the yiqṭōl form too, and would that be better translated "I will be"?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> So if the normal way to say "he is" is with a direct use of a predicate noun or adjective (- qōṭēl ).



To clarify: With the verb "to be", a predicate noun or adjective is used directly, while for active verbs, qōṭēl (which is the participle) is used.



Isidore Demsky said:


> And if the tetragrammaton is an archaic verbal (yiqṭōl) form of the verb to be, would it follow that the correct interpretation of the name is "He will be" (not "He is")?



You can't translate a word like this out of context. It could have meant any of "he is", "he will be", or "he was".



Isidore Demsky said:


> Would that follow because the - qōṭēl form would have been a better way to say "He is"?



Again, you can't translate "he is" out of context, but yes, most of the time "he is" would have not actual verb and would just be a noun or pronoun  (or a noun and pronoun), followed or preceded by a predicate noun or adjective.



Isidore Demsky said:


> And what of Ehyer (in Exodus 3:14)?
> 
> Is that in the yiqṭōl form too, and would that be better translated "I will be"?



Yes, it is also the yiqṭōl form, but again, you can't translate a word like אהיה out of context. In most contexts in the Bible it would mean "I will be", but that doesn't mean that the intent in Exodus 3:14 wasn't "I am". It could be either. My advice is that it shouldn't be translated at all, but just studied in Hebrew.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> To clarify: With the verb "to be", a predicate noun or adjective is used directly, while for active verbs, qōṭēl (which is the participle) is used.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't translate a word like this out of context. It could have meant any of "he is", "he will be", or "he was".
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can't translate "he is" out of context, but yes, most of the time "he is" would have not actual verb and would just be a noun or pronoun  (or a noun and pronoun), followed or preceded by a predicate noun or adjective.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is also the yiqṭōl form, but again, you can't translate a word like אהיה out of context. In most contexts in the Bible it would mean "I will be", but that doesn't mean that the intent in Exodus 3:14 wasn't "I am". It could be either. My advice is that it shouldn't be translated at all, but just studied in Hebrew.


But what do you think G-d meant to convey by the name?

That He's growing, changing, and becoming (like some of the modern open theists say)?

Or that He's the ground and source of all being (as more traditional theists would say)?

Your annslysis of the Hebrew would seem to support the newer interpretation, because (if I understand you correctly) it would have made more sense for G-d to chose the - qōṭēl form if He wanted to convey the idea He was the ground and source of all being (or existence itself.)

Am I understanding you correctly?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> But what do you think G-d meant to convey by the name?



You're asking a very deep question that no one can know the answer to. But I can speculate a little bit.



Isidore Demsky said:


> That He's growing, changing, and becoming (like some of the modern open theists say)?



I don't see how such a meaning can be conveyed by any tense of the verb to be, so I cannot agree with it.



Isidore Demsky said:


> Or that He's the ground and source of all being (as more traditional theists would say)?



Maybe? The fact that the tense is not fixed could mean that it's all three tenses at once. Or that it's simply the imperfect, indicating a continued existence in any time.



Isidore Demsky said:


> Your annslysis of the Hebrew would seem to support the newer interpretation, because (if I understand you correctly) it would have made more sense for G-d to chose the - qōṭēl form if He wanted to convey the idea He was the ground and source of all being (or existence itself.)



Now that I understand the purpose of your questions, I can say that the meaning you were looking for is not the simple copula, but the meaning of "to exist". In Adon Olam, we say "והוא היה והוא הווה והוא יהיה", which is the qāṭal (היה), then then qōṭēl (הווה), then the yiqṭōl (יהיה): "and he was, and he is, and will be". But Adon Olam is only a few hundred years old. In Biblical Hebrew, the yiqṭōl could also be used for the present, and the existence of the qōṭēl form does not invalidate that. All the more so in pre-Biblical Hebrew.


There isn't a whole lot more that linguistics itself can say on this matter. The rest is theology. The Torah, as they say, is infinite, despite being composed of a finite amount of letters. This means that each letter itself is infinite and so in our finite lives we can never presume to entirely understand even the tiniest detail.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> Isidore Demsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> That He's growing, changing, and becoming (like some of the modern open theists say)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how such a meaning can be conveyed by any tense of the verb to be, so I cannot agree with it.
Click to expand...

Then you would disagree with this analysis?



> “In Ex. 3:14f. God declares that his name is _'ehyeh 'aser 'ehyeh_. The verb _'ehyeh_ is imperfect qal and is obviously linked to the tetragrammaton, as vv. 14f. make plain. Of the two possible senses for it, ‘I am who/what I am’ and ‘I will be who/what I will be,’ the latter is preferable but not because the idea of God as a self-existent, unique, transcendent being is ‘foreign to Hebrew thought,’ as has often been said (cf. Isa. 40-55, which describe Yahweh in exalted language that implies all those things). Rather, it is preferable because *the verb haya has a more dynamic sense of being — not pure existence, but becoming, happening, being present*


The Translation of the Tetragrammaton


----------



## origumi

Remember that the Bible is not an etymology text book. The Bible may relate terms to each other based on sound similarity although having no etymological linkage. the ancient God's name may had gotten a later explanation intended for the later audience.


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> Then you would disagree with this analysis?
> 
> The Translation of the Tetragrammaton



I don't necessary disagree (having read only your exerpt), but it doesn't seem very insightful; what he mentions (becoming, happening, being present) are not the same thing as what you mentioned (growing, changing). Also, there is no mention of the tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14, so I don't see that _'ehyeh_ and the tetragrammaton are "obviously linked".


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> I don't necessary disagree (having read only your exerpt), but it doesn't seem very insightful; what he mentions (becoming, happening, being present) are not the same thing as what you mentioned (growing, changing). Also, there is no mention of the tetragrammaton in Exodus 3:14, so I don't see that _'ehyeh_ and the tetragrammaton are "obviously linked".


Isn't Ehyeh first person, and HaShem third person?

And HaShem (the Tetragrammaton) is mentioned in Ex. 3:15.

If we assume the Torah really is inspired, and God really was trying to convey something to Moses in these two verses, do you think the meaning of Ehyer/HaShem is more likely to be "I Am/He Is," or "I Become/He Becomes"?

I'm sure I don't have to tell you I'm a real novice when it comes to Hebrew, but I'd really like to know whether you (and others who really know the language) think HaShem has more to do with absolute being, or with becoming (and why)?

And if Rashi or any of the other sages had anything to say on this I'd be very interested


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> Isn't Ehyeh first person, and HaShem third person?



Only if you assume that HaShem is in fact a form of the verb to be. I am not convinced of this. Maybe that is the case, but maybe not. The name Elokim could also be interpreted as "el hayam", meaning "to the sea", or even "G-d of the sea", but you'd have to be out of your mind to think that that is the true meaning of the word.



Isidore Demsky said:


> And HaShem (the Tetragrammaton) is mentioned in Ex. 3:15.



Yeah, so what? I still don't see any "obvious link". Again, I'm not saying that they are not linked, just that it's not obvious, and it's not certain.



Isidore Demsky said:


> If we assume the Torah really is inspired, and God really was trying to convey something to Moses in these two verses, do you think the meaning of Ehyer/HaShem is more likely to be "I Am/He Is," or "I Become/He Becomes"?



This verb can be translated as "become" only in the sense of, for example, Exodus 6:7: ולקחתי אתכם לי לעם והייתי לכם לאלקים = I will take you as a people and I will become to you a G-d. It's not about transformations. Now I will caution you again to not make the mistake of thinking that אהיה can have more than one meaning. אהיה only has one meaning, which happens to correspond to two different tenses in English (I am and I will be). When translating to English, you have to pick one based on context, but the original Hebrew word still unambiguously covers both English meanings at the same time. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here. For another example that might help you understand, in Russian there are two words for "blue", one referring to a lighter shade and the other to a darker shade. If you were translating "blue" to Russian, you might make the mistake of assuming that "blue" means either lighter blue or darker blue. But in reality "blue" just means "blue" and the Russian distinction is irrelevant when discussing the English word.



Isidore Demsky said:


> I'm sure I don't have to tell you I'm a real novice when it comes to Hebrew, but I'd really like to know whether you (and others who really know the language) think HaShem has more to do with absolute being, or with becoming (and why)?



Maybe issue is I don't know what you mean by "becoming". What do you think G-d is becoming?



Isidore Demsky said:


> And if Rashi or any of the other sages had anything to say on this I'd be very interested



Rashi says that "אהיה אשר אהיה" means "I will be with them in this trouble what I will be with them in their subjugation in other kingdoms" (in Hebrew: "אהיה עמם בצרה זו אשר אהיה עמם בשעבוד שאר מלכויות")


----------



## Isidore Demsky

> Maybe issue is I don't know what you mean by "becoming". What do you think G-d is becoming?


I don't think G-d is becoming, but some modern theologians I can't really understand seem to think the name supports their view, and I wanted to know if the connection to the Hebrew imperfect verb backed them up?

Wouldn't the perfect form of the verb have been a better way to convey absolute being?


----------



## Drink

Isidore Demsky said:


> I don't think G-d is becoming, but some modern theologians I can't really understand seem to think the name supports their view, and I wanted to know if the connection to the Hebrew imperfect verb backed them up?



Well I can't really answer that without knowing what they mean by "becoming". But it seems that most likely it does not back them up.



Isidore Demsky said:


> Wouldn't the perfect form of the verb have been a better way to convey absolute being?



No, the perfect form would convey "having been", implying that the being ceased to be.


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> Well I can't really answer that without knowing what they mean by "becoming". But it seems that most likely it does not back them up.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the perfect form would convey "having been", implying that the being ceased to be.


Thank you.


----------



## Drink

Thought this would be relevant. In the High Holiday liturgy, there is a prayer called וכל מאמינים ("And All Believe"), written by Yannai, which contains the following pair of lines:

הֶהָגוּי בְּ*אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה*
וְכֹל מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁהוּא *הָיָה הֹוֶה וְיִהְיֶה*

He who is called _*Ehye Asher Ehye*_
And all believe that *he was, he is, and he will be*


----------



## Isidore Demsky

Drink said:


> Thought this would be relevant. In the High Holiday liturgy, there is a prayer called וכל מאמינים ("And All Believe"), written by Yannai, which contains the following pair of lines:
> 
> הֶהָגוּי בְּ*אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה*
> וְכֹל מַאֲמִינִים שֶׁהוּא *הָיָה הֹוֶה וְיִהְיֶה*
> 
> He who is called _*Ehye Asher Ehye*_
> And all believe that *he was, he is, and he will be*


Thank you.


----------

