Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Trevor & Julie Peterson <speederson AT erols.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:37 AM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> 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. 

To us reading Hebrew now, yes. But it's not unreasonable to imagine that they 
had a way to communicate it. 

> 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. 

Why? Is it not anwering the question just posed, namely, "[What if] they say 
to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" Then God responds by 
identifying Himself: "I am, I-AM." *Perhaps* (though see below) because of 
potential ambiguity, however, He clarifies, "Thus you shall say to the 
children of Israel, 'I-AM has sent me to you.'"

> 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. 

OK, i could buy this maybe, or at least it's food for thought. But the 
translations are usually agreeing with you. They all take the entire thing as 
one long name: "I AM THAT/WHO I AM" is the full name in most all of them. 
Your view is then unique also.

> 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. 


But "possibly" is my point. How do we know what to expect?

> 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.

But for such a unique verbal name, should it be a surprise to find a unique 
way of expressing it following _)aSHER_? 

> >
> > > 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.

I think it could be, but it could also be repeated because God wanted to 
emphasize His name by isolating it first as a single, startling, 
self-identification. Then He clarifies with a complete sentence that Moses 
could quote to the Israelites. In other words, the first occurrance is 
rhetorical, and the second is to clarify because it could be unusual or 
ambiguous enough even to the native Hebrew speaker of the time if he had only 
the first "I am I-AM."

> >
> [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?

It is a theory, i'll admit, but i'm not sure you can say what "would have 
been normal" in such a case as this. I suggest it only as theory, but in my 
mind it works a little better than the alternative(s).

> >
> > > 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 acknowledge that. But you can't subordinate a verbal concept to a 
preposition *without* an _)aSHER_, and that is really my only point. The 
function word can serve to subordinate verbs, and thus it's reasonable to 
assume that our Exodus 3 construction served in the manner i presented, even 
if it's not parallel, since parallels don't/wouldn't exist.

> 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.

I don't follow your comments here. LXX has "ego eimi ho on," which is "I am 
THE ONE BEING/EXISTING" or "I am THE BEING." How does it take it as a 
relative? I understand it to not take it as such, the _ho_ being the definite 
article. If they understood it in the our traditional way, should we not 
expect something like "ego eimi ho ego eimi" or simply just "eimi ho eimi" 
(cf. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:10).

Dan Wagner



NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net