Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Numberup AT worldnet.att.net]

After reading carefully here old and novel attempts to establish a
grammatical reason for "I AM,"  at Exodus 3:14, I yet find no argument
more convincing than that of  William H.C. Propp _Exodus 1-18 (The
Anchor Bible 1999)_, pages 204, 205:

"If one could say 'I am that I am' in Hebrew at all, it would probably
be through some such barbarous circumlocution as 'anoki hu' 'aser 'anoki
hu'.  Likewise, if the meaning were 'I am 'ehye(h),' as the second half
of the verse might suggest, we would expect 'anoki (hu') 'ehye(h).  And
if the intention were ''ehye(h) is who I am' (Anderson and Freedman
1980:199), again assuming this could be conveyed in Hebrew at all, we
should get something like 'ehye(h) 'aser 'anoki hu'.  We still have the
option of rendering 'ehye(h) 'aser 'ehye(h) as ''ehye(h) is who I will
be,' but this seems a strange way for the Deity to identify himself.  I
follow, therefore, the translation of Aquila and Theodotion: esomai
(hos) esomai 'I will be who I will be.'"

It may be argued whether the context of Exodus 3:14 refers to Who God is
or Who He will be with respect to delivering Hebrew slaves from Egypt
and constituting them a free and unique Nation.  I tend to favor the
latter.  And I find no logic in reconstituting the meaning of the text
to imply that the Deity is requesting Moses to become a Greek
philosopher and prove his mission by impressing the Hebrew slaves or
pharaoh with a discussion about Ontology.

Solomon Landers