Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> In a message dated 05/07/2001 6:11:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
> dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:
> 
> << Excuse me?  Dan isn't taking 'ehyeh as a nominal.  His whole 
>  point is that it's a verb, and hence can't be part of a verbless 
>  clause.  >>
> 
> 
> 
> He said he views the second 'EHYEH as a name, that is a NOMINAL. It may 
> have 
> verbal associations, but it is a nominal. The same as the example I gave 
> concerning YHWH in Exodus 9:27. Are you reading the entire message? YHWH 
> has 
> verbal associations as a proper name derived from HYH, but it is frequently 
> the subject or predicate of a verbless clause. 

A number of things: first, the connection between YHWH and HYH 
is speculative and is by no means a fact.  Truth is, we don't know 
the origin of the name YHWH, so it really can't serve as the basis 
for these kinds of statements.  Second, who says a verb can't be 
used as a name?  Does the name Jehovah-Jireh, YHWH YR)H, 
ring any bells?  There is no good reason why 'ehyeh can't function 
the same way without being considered a nominal.  The word 
'ehyeh must be a verb, even if it is functioning as a name, and not a 
nominal unless you want to suggest that there was a homograph of 
it that actually was a nominal.  Names in particular often used 
verbs substantivally, but that doesn't change the essential verbal 
character of the word.  Third, yes, I'm reading the entire message, 
and especially the unfounded assumptions therein.  Fourth, the 
fact that YHWH is often used in verbless clauses is true but 
meaningless in this context.

> << 'ehyeh is more than a word with a "verbal idea attached to 
>  it," it's an actual verb.  >>
> 
> 
> I think you need to pay better attention to what is being discussed. In the 
> first instance Dan is claiming that it means "I am," acting as both the 
> subject and copula (or he gets the copula from somewhere else that is not 
> clear to me). He then views the second 'EHYEH as a ***NAME***. A name is a 
> nominal and, like YHWH, is frequently a part of a verbless clause. YHWH has 
> verbal associations, being derived from a verb, just as we could say of 
> 'EHYEH ***IF*** we accept it as a name. 

The flaw in this reasoning (overlooking the personal sniping) is the 
statement that a name is a nominal, which clearly implies that a 
name is ALWAYS a nominal.  In Hebrew this is not always the 
case, as I already stated.  The above also, like the previous 
paragraph, leans far too heavily on the speculative YHWH<->HYH 
connection, and hence need not be addressed.

> <<< By definition, this precludes 'ani 'ehyeh from 
>  being a verbless clause.  I get the feeling somebody missed Dan's 
>  point here. >>>
> 
> 
> It precludes no such thing when and if you offer 'EHYEH as a proper name; 
> but 
> your feelings about missing the point are correct.

Thank you for admitting it :-)


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"You just keep thinking, Butch.  That's what you're good at."