Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: GregStffrd AT aol.com
  • To: dan.wagner AT netzero.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
  • Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:42:35 EDT


In a message dated 05/06/2001 8:39:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:

<<
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. >>



That is your contention and I understood it fully. I never said you thought
it was a relative pronoun.



<< 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. >>


It's quite simple. You are taking 'EHYEH as a nominal, hence, the verbless
clause would be perfect, even as we find in 'ANI YHWH. TBy verbless clause we
do not mean that the subject or predicate does not have any verbal idea
attached to it, but that predication is acheived without a verb (other than
either the subject or predicate).

For example, in Exodus 9:27 we have YHWH HaTSaDyQ. If we follow Anderson (The
Hebrew Verbless Clause, page 63 [#109]) then we take YHWH as the predicate
and the meaning is "the one in the right is Jehovah." But whether YHWH is
suject or predicate this is still a verbless clause.

'ANI YHWH is a verbless clause with 'ANI as the subject and YHWH as the
predicate nominative. The same would be true for 'ANI 'EHYEH. But another
part of your analysis that is consistently unsupported is your claim that the
nominal I AM should be preferred over a nominal I WILL BE. You wrote in
another post:

In a message dated 05/06/2001 8:39:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:

<< So in Exodus 3:14 i think it is the same. God is asked for an answer to
give to the question "What is His name?" His answer is "I will be / I am:
I-AM" and by the "I-AM" He is whatever is needed in regards to relationship
with His people. But the Name is only "I AM" (or "I-WILL-BE", in theory; i'll
comment on the tense elsewhere). >>


There is a tendency on your part to *prefer* I AM and that is what gave rise
to the theological questioning. Nevertheless, we appear to be past that, so I
will simply comment on your arguments for this preference.


<< 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." >>


There is no problem with saying 'ANI EHYEH. The follow up does not affect
this at all, for if EHYEH is a nominal then it functions as the subject of
what Moses is to tell Israel. What you have is EHYEH being used in one or
more of the following ways:

'EHYEH 'ASHER 'EHYEH
I untransltd I AM

or

I am untransltd I AM

or

I am I AM


I don't see any justification anywhere for viewing EHYEH in one of these
combination of two senses. But I will consider what you have to say. If there
is some other breakdown that you believe more accurately conveys your
thoughts, by all means provide it.



<< 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)? >>


No.



<< 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? >>



The only potential legitimate way for your view to work is as you state
above. But I see no basis for using EHYEH as a present copula in an equative
sentence.



> 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. >>


What grammatical evidence do you have for your understanding of EHYEH in the
first instance? What grammatical evidence do you have for your second
understanding of EHYEH as present? My point was about the preponderance of
evidence, not merely what is possible. Please answer in that light.



<< 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). >>


My point is about what is more likely in light of the *grammatical* evidence.
Can you answer that?


<< 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? >>


About which verb are you asking? The first or second? You seem to assume
present meaning though, which could easily have been conveyed by 'ANI EHYEH.
But even here you are faced with the grammatical AND contextual likelihood
that the meaning of EHYEH is future.


<< 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. >>


So then Solomon was right that there was some theological motivation on your
part? There is a difference between *our* theological and the theology of the
text. But when the resulting theology is the subject of inquiry then one
cannot appeal to it to decide the question! We must start with grammar, then
context, and see what theology results. Then we ask, Is this consistent with
what we read in the larger context? Let us hear from one who has taken just
such an approach:

QUOTE
God's manifestation to Israel is yet future at the time of the burning bush
incident. This 'EHYEH is God's promise that He will redeem the children of
Israel. The people were in great need. They needed not so much to know the
facts about God's character or that He was simply a covenant God present in
their time of need, but to be reassured that this God would meet them in
their time of need, proving true His character and promises. This in fact
constitutes what God promised Moses in Exodus 3:12, namely, that God would be
present and working on Moses' behalf in the difficult task ahead. Surely
nothing less would have encouraged Moses to go. . . Whatever the situation or
need (in particular, the redemption from Egypt, but also future needs) God
will "become" the solution to that need. (Charles Gianotti, "The Meaning of
the Divine Name YHWH," BSac 39 [January-March 1985], page 42).
END QUOTE


<<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.) >>


I WILL PROVE TO BE fits perfectly with the context. I AM does not. I WILL
PROVE TO BE is the most likely meaning of this verb form; I AM is not. There
is no theology from the immediate or larger text that recommends I AM over I
WILL PROVE TO BE. In short, there are no reasons for *preferring* I WILL BE
over I AM.


<< God is *always* whatever He needs to be in His covenant relationship with
His people. >>


In this context His people are in a condition that requires assurance that he
WILL BE for them what he promises to be. A present meaning would not convey
this assurance given their present condition. Certainly not to the extent
that a promise to act would convey.


<< 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." >>


I have yet to see any evidence on your part establishing that 'EHYEH in
either of the two senses you prefer, as I am/I AM over I WILL BE. It argues
against the predominant sense of 'EHYEH, in bother instances. It is also the
least attractive contextual preference.


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


What you have said has never been unclear to me on this point. I simply take
what you say and respond to it. You are the one who has several times
admitted being unclear and corrected portions of your argument as facts come
to light. My only aim is to help further the process along.

Best regards,

Greg




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page