Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

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