Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Peter Kirk <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:13 AM
Subject: RE: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")


> Dan, maybe I have missed something. Are you saying that )EHYEH is simply a
> variant form of the name YHWH? Now I understand the problem
> with ):ANIY )EHYEH. But why did YHWH not just say ):ANIY YHWH, at 3:14 as at
> 6:2 and countless other places? That's not intended as a put-down argument,
> but rather as a genuine question that needs answering before your suggestion
> can be established.

By no means. I have never had that idea nor thought of it. (I do believe 
there is a relationship between YHWH and the root HYW or HWH, but that is 
only remotely to my post.) 

You may have gotten that idea from Greg Stafford's response where he equated 
the noun clause, )ANI YHWH with the hypothetical construction )ANI EHYEH in 
order to claim it as a possible noun clause as well. This equation i reject 
because YHWH is a standard name in the proper sense, standing by itself, 
whereas EHYEH is truly a finite verb, although we 
all agree that the verb EHYEH is *used* as a name in Ex. 3:14b without debate 
(so far as i'm aware, at least) and is at least *part* (or all, in my view) 
of the name in Ex. 3:14a.

I'll clarify further in response to Greg's other post.

Dan Wagner

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Wagner [mailto:dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> Sent: 07 May 2001 08:41
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <GregStffrd AT aol.com>
> To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
> 
> 
> > In a message dated 05/03/2001 8:56:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:
> >
> > << But for such a unique verbal name, should it be a surprise to find a
> > unique way of expressing it following _)aSHER_?  >>
> >
> >
> > Maybe you can explain why such a unique, otherwise unknown use of 'aSHER
> > would be used instead of the more common Hebrew verbless clause?
> 
> Yes, i can (below). (i would hope so!)
> 
> >
> > It seems to me that the only trigger for even considering 'aSHER in this
> > light would be to further a preconceived view concerning 'aSHER as I AM,
> > hence, in line with Solomon Landers' observation about theological
> > motivations.
> 
> There are theological reasons in the immediate context; i'll grant that. But
> this is not my only nor even my primary motivation. It's grammatical.
> 
> > And that is fine if you can establish your point, but in the
> > absence of even one other example of 'aSHER to offer in support of your
> view
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. 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."
> 
> 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)? 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? How do you propose
> to introduce a finite verb as a substantive??
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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). 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.)
> 
> God is *always* whatever He needs to be in His covenant relationship with
> His people. 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."
> 
> If you still don't agree, am i at least clear now?
> 
> Dan Wagner
> 
> 
> NetZero Platinum
> No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
> Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
> http://www.netzero.net
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [dan.wagner AT netzero.net]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
> 
> 




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