Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor & Julie Peterson" <speederson AT erols.com>]

See below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wagner [mailto:dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:39 PM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
>
[snipped]
>
> > Granted, if He had said, )a:NI )eHYE, this would be
> > potentially confused with the usual construction for a general
> present; but
>
> It would seem strange to say it that way to me, but then we are
> dealing with something obviously unique in the HB. So how do we
> know what to expect?

I guess I'm trying to suggest that any construction with a verb functioning
as a personal name would be potentially misleading.  My own thinking is that
the statement is not intended to identify the whole sentence or the
second )eHYE as a personal name per se, but to make an assertion about the
speaker.  We see other examples throughout the Hebrew Bible where a name is
explained on the basis of an assertion, and I guess I'm inclined to take
this somewhat similarly.  All I was trying to suggest in my previous post
was that there are other, possibly more likely, ways to say what you suggest
that it says.  Granted, there's still the potential for confusion with a
simple verbless clause, but since it would follow the usual pattern of
self-identification, it would probably suggest its true meaning more readily
to the reader.
>
> > I suppose it's questionable whether anyone would have seriously
> expected a
> > general present ("I exist as a general rule") used in an assertion of
> > self-existence, so the oddity would probably have suggested some other
> > meaning.  The follow-up instruction, which uses
> > )eHYE as a fronted subject, would also help to clarify that it is
> > functioning as a noun, rather than a verb.
>
> I think it clarifies that the name is not the entire clause, but
> only the )eHYE alone.

And that's my point--that, if your theory is correct, it would clarify to
the point where the first sentence may not even be necessary.  That's why I
would go with a separate assertion that forms the basis for the name.
>
[snipped]
>
> But this is part of my point. We are dealing with something
> unique, so thus how do *we* really know what to expect without parallels?

Shouldn't we start with what would have been a normal self-identifying
construction and work from there to figure out whether the construction we
see here is more or less ambiguous?
>
> > Do you know of any other instances where )a:$eR is used this way?
>
> Well, it's usage is so broad ... but no i can't. However, i can
> anticipate the possibility because of its broadness in function,
> as a sign of subordination. A verb would not be able to take a
> preposition, for example, whereas _)a:$eR_ can take one preceding
> a verb to subordinate the verbal concept or its subject. This is
> very common as i'm sure you know, but just as examples (with B)
> Judge 5:27; 17:8-9; Ruth 1:17; (with L) Lev. 27:24, Num. 5:7, Job
> 12:6, Isa. 2:8; (w/ K too many.... ) Gen. 7:9, 16, 8:21, etc.

But in these instances the verbal concept is subordinated to the
preposition.  We have no such construction in our passage.  I don't see how
this anomolous usage would follow from them.  Indeed, it seems to me
that )a:$eR should be understood in these examples as a substantive "one who
is" or "that which is" idea.  That meaning would fit perfectly with the more
traditional approach to )a:$eR in our passage.
>
> Is it reasonable? Is there any reason why the alternate
> (traditional) interpretation should be preferred? Why did the LXX
> seem to take it as i am (see my other post)?
>
Actually, the LXX does something a bit different.  It seems to
incorporate )a:$eR into the name, even though it doesn't appear in the
second statement in Hebrew.  I might even suggest that it agrees quite
closely with my reading, since it treats )a:$eR as a relativizer.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics