Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Charles David Isbell <cisbell AT home.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> That 'ehyeh is a future aspect in Exodus 3 is made clear from the contextual
> fact that Moses has not yet begun the task to which he is being commissioned
> and for which the divine presence is being promised.  I do not argue simply
> that 'ehyeh is a future FORM, but the equivalent of the English future is
> the only contextual translation that makes sense in the passage simply
> because what is being promised [from the perspective of the narrative] has
> not yet occurred.  Whether we want to get embroiled in a tense vs aspect
> argument or not, I cannot see how an English present tense I AM functions in
> the story itself.  Why it was first perceived as an I AM is unclear to me,
> as is the question of whether such a rendition is grinding a particular
> theological axe or not.  But I AM does not work in the Hebrew text of
> Exodus, while "I WILL BE [with you]" certainly does.

I appreciate your recognition of the important role of context here, but i 
don't understand why you argue this. Isn't the context pointing to Yahweh's 
*constancy*, not uniquely to the *future* ministry of Moses, but beyond time, 
inclusive of all time, by saying that He was everything to the Patriarchs, 
and now He is and will be everything for Moses and the people? He is "with" 
them now, not just in the future (if you want to focus exclusively on the 
"with" aspect of that covenant formula, i think it's broader than that). I 
think that "I-AM" communicates timelessness in English, and that  is 
precisely the point intended in Exodus 3.

> 
> On a related issue, Greg Stafford asks:  "Maybe you can explain why such a
> unique, otherwise unknown use of 'aSHER would be used instead of the more
> common Hebrew verbless clause?"
> 
> This is a fair question, and I think there is a simple answer.  The phrase
> 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh is an idem per idem construction implying essentially
> that 'hyeh equals 'ehyeh, and this carries the sense that 'ehyeh can not be
> defined by any outside reference but may be defined only in terms of itself.

I don't like the way you say that, but i do agree that there is a definite 
rhetorical function intended by the repeated _)EHYEH_. God is/will be 
(whatever) always the "I-AM". Thus the standard is set for _)EHYEH_ as 
indicating covenant constancy to meet the people's need and that promise is 
incorporated into the very Name of God!

But concerning a "simple answer" to not using the "common Hebrew verbless 
clause" here, would you not agree with my other post on that? It's a bit 
difficult to incorporate a finite verb into a verbless clause!

> Clearly 'ehyeh is an allomorph of yhwh in the context of Exodus 3, as the
> parallel sentences indicate:
> 
>     'ehyeh shlahani in 3:14
>     yhwh ... shlahani 3:15
> 
> In both of these sentences, regardless of what FORM is used, the FUNCTION of
> the two allomorphs is nominal.

Yes, definitely; good observation. But the function of the *first* _)EHYEH_ 
in verse 14 is *not* nominal. Would you agree with me on that?

> I have compiled much of the biblical evidence in a 1978 article, "The Divine
> Name 'Ehyeh as a Symbol of Divine Presence in Israelite Traditions" [Hebrew
> Annual Review, 101-118].

Do you happen to have a soft-copy of your article. I'd love to read it. I'm 
not sure if i have access to it locally or not.

Thanks,
Dan Wagner

> 
> Shalom,
> Charles David Isbell



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