Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 12/24/98 12:55:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Peter_Kirk AT sil.org writes:

<< Does 'ani 'asher 'ani really mean "I am that I am"? When we discussed 
 Joel 3:5 recently the same question arose: can a relative clause with 
 'asher (and no other marking) be the complement to an implied copula? 
 No-one came up with any unambiguous example from the actual text. 
 Normally a relative clause following a noun (or pronoun ??) is an 
 attribute rather than a predicate. On this basis 'ani 'asher 'ani 
 would mean "I, who am". Perhaps if we really want a continuous present 
 we need a participle (cf. Randy Buth's recent examples and Exo. 9:3): 
 'ani hoye 'asher 'ani. But then our attempts to translate back into 
 ancient Hebrew quickly become even more speculative than those 
 examples.
 
 Peter Kirk >>


Dear Peter:

Yes, I agree that this situation is difficult, and my citation of Arnold on
this point was merely to add to the discussion a possible suggestion,
supporting the one offered by Eric.

Of course, the situation concerning the translation and meaning of Exodus 3:14
is anything but 'normal,' so it may not be necessary to simply look for other
examples supporting a suggested rendering, as any suggestion for a present
meaning in Exodus 3:14 should probably be different from anything else we
might find. Thus, the issue with an implied copula or a relative clause
following a noun may not be an issue at all. 

If we were dealing with later Hebrew we might expect the copula to be
expressed by hu: 'ani hu 'asher 'ani hu.  But perhaps the participle would be
the best way to express a present meaning. The LXX translators certainly
thought so.

Greg Stafford