Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> Do I understand you as saying that the hO in EGW EIMI hO WN (not hO ON,
> surely, in the standard transliteration, that W is an omega), 

Yes, i was being lazy using phonetic transliteration, but it does make things 
confusing in this text.

> the LXX for
> Exodus 3:14, is a relative pronoun? Surely not, this is the article. If it
> were a relative pronoun, this would read hOS WN if masculine, or possibly hO
> ON if neuter. Anyway, I don't think you would ever have a relative clause
> consising of only a participle, whereas the construction article +
> participle is very common. 

Thanks; you're correct. What i had originally said was: 

> > 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. 

...and that was correct. My original gut feeling was correct, and i was not 
very careful when i reconsidered.

> A possible alternative would be EGW EIMI hOS EGW
> EIMI, perhaps?, but not with hO unless neuter.

Yes, that is preferred, although in theory both might be possible, either 
with _hos_ translated as "I am WHO i am" or with _ho_ "I am WHAT i am"? 
Either could work as a translation for the standard view of the Hebrew, 
though the context gives focus on the person's identification rather than 
attributes/characteristics.

> 
> Now if your point is that hO WN functions as a relative clause, an
> equivalent to hOS EGW EIMI, that might be a valid analysis of the Greek. 
[snip]

I'll confess i was not thinking that, but interesting. Maybe this is what 
Trevor Peterson was thinking?

> I like the Greek rendering of this used in effect as the name of YHWH in
> Revelation 1:4 etc: hO WN KAI hO HN KAI hO ERCOMENOS, lit. "the being and
> the was and the coming". The Greek is ungrammatical, but surely this is
> capturing well the ancient writer's understanding of the Hebrew as original
> as present, past and future.

I'd never thought of the grammar of this verse that way before. This is 
interesting too.

I'll post another on this thread which gets back to the Hebrew and the key 
argument i'm making (although i think LXX supports my understanding of the 
Hebrew by translating the two _)EHYEH_'s differently, and only the second of 
them as the name). I'm interested if you have any thoughts on my main point 
of argument here.

Dan Wagner


> 
> Peter Kirk
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wagner [mailto:dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> Sent: 05 May 2001 03:36
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 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