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: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:00 AM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> 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. 

Oops, you're correct of course! But how would that work in our context? 
You're not expecting an infinitive for the name, i don't think; it must be 
the finite verb. How would you subordinate it as a predicate noun/adjective 
without an _)aSHER_?? That is the essence of my entire argument.

> 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.

In English (and Greek), it's translated as a relative, yes. But i don't think 
that is the essence of its function in Hebrew. It's so hard to divorce 
ourselves from understanding grammar in terms of English or whatever target 
language. I'm not accusing you of doing that here, but i think it's worth 
thinking about.

> 
> > 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.

Yes, i accept this. After posting while going to bed last night i started 
thinking about what i'd said about the definite article, and it was really 
haunting me! It's a relative in Greek.

However, what i really should have emphasized (which is the reason that LXX 
caught my eye to start with) is that the first _)EHYEH_ [trnsl. as _ego 
eimi_] is not translated the same as the second _)EHYEH_ [as _ho on_], and 
that the way of translating the 2nd _)EHYEH_ is the one repeated for the name 
later in the verse [_ho on_]. The point is that they considered the name to 
be only _ho on_ = 2nd _)EHYEH_, and they did *not* consider the name to be 
the entire _)EHYEH )eSHER )EHYEH_. If they had, then they would have 
translated _ego eimi ho ego eimi_, don't you think?

Dan Wagner


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