Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Just a couple of comments, since I don't think we're going to solve most of
this easily:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wagner [mailto:dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 11:50 PM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
>
[snipped]

> 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.

Actually, you can.  That's one of the main things that the infinitive
construct does.  Aside from that, though, I don't know that )a:$eR does
nothing but subordinate in these instances.  It tends to take on the
function of a relative adjective "the one who ___."  Regarding this, see
below.
>
[snipped]

> 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).

"The one who is" is a relative construction.  And when the universal
relativizer functions adjectivally in Hebrew, it takes on a character not
unlike a participle, in this case one used substantivally as translated in
the LXX.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics