Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Thanks -- this is the most substantive and thought-provoking post critiquing 
the view i've presented concerning Ex. 3:14, and thus i appreciate it very 
much. Some comments below.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Bearpecs AT aol.com>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Propp on EHYEH


> In a message dated 5/7/01 4:58:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> Numberup AT worldnet.att.net writes:
> > 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).
> 
> See Isaiah 52:6.  NJPS translates:
> Asuredly, My people shall learn My name,
> Assuredly [they shall learn] on that day
> That I, the One who promised,
> Am now at hand.
> 
> An older translation:
> Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore [they shall know] in that 
> day that I [am] he that doth speak:  behold, here I am.
> 
> In this verse, when G-d says "I (am) the One Who speaks", the Hebrew is 
> 'ani 
> hu' hamedaber. 

Yes, it's 1CS pronoun + 3MS pronoun + MS Participle with article.

> This is further demonstration that that the meaning "I am 
> 'E-HYEH" could have been grammatically expressed as 'ani hu 'E-HYEH.

I disagree. We are dealing with a participle in Isa. 52:6, but Exod. 3 has a 
finite verb. Furthermore, this would break down the rhetorical power in Exod. 
3 whereby the introduction )EHYEH is equivalent with the name )EHYEH. The 
name and the covenant formula of self-introduction are the same, which 
intensifies the entire concept rhetorically by the repetition.

> Thus, I think we can eliminate any argument based on 'asher being necessary 
> to express this meaning.  (This does not address whether 'asher *can* be 
> used 
> to express this meaning, but other posts are addressing that.)

In theory, the concept could *possibly* have been communicated otherwise 
(though you don't demonstrate that conclusively, since your construction is 
hypothetical and without true parallel, the example you supplied being a 
participle rather than a finite verb), but i think the rhetorical element 
would be lost even if your hypothesis is valid. 

> 
> I also want to point out, though, that if it meant, "I am E-HYEH", there 
> would have been no need to explain to Moses that he should tell the 
> Israelites "E-HYEH sent me".  
> "Who should I say sent me for pizza?"
> "I'm Joe.  Tell them "Joe" sent you."
> Kind of redundant, isn't it?

Yes, but surely it's not parallel to our Ex. 3:14 passage (esp. if my 
rhetorical view is correct).

> "Who should I say sent me for pizza?"
> "I'm seeking mushrooms.  Tell them Seeking-Mushrooms sent you."
> "Oh.  I get it."

This is an improvement, but i hope my comments above and elsewhere about the 
rhetorical element inherent in Exod. 3:14 explain where i'm coming from. 

> If the first sentence (v. 14a) is an explanation rather than a name, it 
> makes 
> sense for G-d to then explicitly say (v. 14b) which divine name he is to 
> use.

The name would need to be explained or clarified in 14b if (1.) your 
hypothesis above fails, or (2.) if the rhetorical aspect i see was indeed 
intended by the text, (3) we are dealing with syntax that was 
uncommon/unfamiliar even for the native speakers of BH! (Even today we have 
to clarify ourselves when speaking to the less literate of our native 
languages about difficult or unusual concepts.)

Thanks again. This was a good post.

Dan Wagner




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