Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <GregStffrd AT aol.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> In a message dated 05/03/2001 8:56:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:
> 
> << But for such a unique verbal name, should it be a surprise to find a 
> unique way of expressing it following _)aSHER_?  >>
> 
> 
> Maybe you can explain why such a unique, otherwise unknown use of 'aSHER 
> would be used instead of the more common Hebrew verbless clause?

Yes, i can (below). (i would hope so!)

> 
> It seems to me that the only trigger for even considering 'aSHER in this 
> light would be to further a preconceived view concerning 'aSHER as I AM, 
> hence, in line with Solomon Landers' observation about theological 
> motivations. 

There are theological reasons in the immediate context; i'll grant that. But 
this is not my only nor even my primary motivation. It's grammatical.

> And that is fine if you can establish your point, but in the 
> absence of even one other example of 'aSHER to offer in support of your 
> view 

Like i said, there is no other example because by definition, none is needed. 
What i'm getting at here is that i think you and others may be 
misunderstanding the function of _)aSHER_ in general. It is not a "relative 
pronoun." It is a sign of subordination, and functions extremely broadly as 
such. But in our passage, the context is the key, and it's uniqueness is what 
i want you to see. 

If he intended to say what i think he is saying, how else would he say it? 
You seem to have the idea that "I am: I-AM" should be communicated in Hebrew 
with a "verbless" (!) clause like this:
 
)aNI EHYEH

OOPS! Big problem don't you think? Hardly a verbless clause, but just "I 
myself am...." Maybe you have something else in mind--i can't imagine what 
though. That's why i think that there is no other way to say "I am/will be: 
I-AM" except by what we find here. And because of the follow-up statement 
that does *not* say, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 
'*I-AM-THAT*-I-AM [or I WILL-BE-WHO-I-WILL BE] has sent me to you,'" but 
instead it simply says, "Say to the children of Israel, 'I-AM" [or 
"I-WILL-BE"] has sent me to you.'" I thus take the full name at the beginning 
of the verse to be only "I-AM."

Do you think i have a good argument for distinguishing the usage of the first 
_EHYEH_ from that of the second (as also in LXX)? Do you think that the only 
way to do this in Hebrew was with the _)aSHER_ used as a sign of 
subordination to introduce the substantive finite verb? How do you propose to 
introduce a finite verb as a substantive??

> I am sure you would agree that until you can establish your point about 
> 'aSHER those views built upon the common understanding and use of 'EHYEH 
> and 
> 'aSHER are to be preferred, grammatically. Do you?

No, i hold to it grammatically. Theologically/contextually there are 
alternatives that may work fine, such as Niccacci's view. But i think 
overall, the view i've presented is best in every area of analysis.

Concerning the tense of the verb(s), it's not the grammar but the context 
that is determinative. Grammatically i think either present or future is 
possible (as others have attempted to show). To those who say it *must* be 
future, i have a simple question: How would it have been written in Hebrew 
had the writer wanted to indicate present tense yet maintain a finite verb as 
the Name?

But one cannot ignore theological concepts when analyzing grammar. Like it or 
not, the OT/HB was intended by its writers to be a theological piece of 
literature. So to divorce theology from our grammatical analysis of any 
passage is to stick our heads in the sand and ignore everything we know to be 
true about the intent of that grammar. 

As in my other reply (to an anonymous scholar here) the point is God's 
covenant relationship to His people, and it's continuity. That's why it's a 
mistake to take the _EHYEH_'s here as uniquely future. It's especially a 
mistake concerning the second _EHYEH_. God's *Name* is not merely "I-WILL-BE" 
but rather "I-AM," when one allows the theology of the passage to play it's 
full role in exegesis. (I think this works well with taking YHWH is something 
like "HE-IS," either etymologically as it stands for itself, or else this 
"I-AM" secondarily to it by analogy.)

God is *always* whatever He needs to be in His covenant relationship with His 
people. I reject the notion that there was no way of expressing such a 
concept in Hebrew. I think we have it in Exodus 3:14, and further clarified 
in verse 15 where God speaks of the past relationship with the patriarchs, 
and then says (using your stative noun clause!), "This is My Name forever; 
this is My Memorial from generation to generation."

If you still don't agree, am i at least clear now?

Dan Wagner


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