Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

I forgot to reply to this the other day ... a few important comments and 
clarifications as this post helps my position, in my opinion.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Numberup AT worldnet.att.net>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 7:57 PM
Subject: Propp on EHYEH


> After reading carefully here old and novel attempts to establish a
> grammatical reason for "I AM,"  at Exodus 3:14, I yet find no argument
> more convincing than that of  William H.C. Propp _Exodus 1-18 (The
> Anchor Bible 1999)_, pages 204, 205:
> 
> "If one could say 'I am that I am' in Hebrew at all, it would probably
> be through some such barbarous circumlocution as 'anoki hu' 'aser 'anoki
> hu'. 

I don't think that's what the verse is saying.

> 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). 

Ah-ha! Propp sees the problem with the verbless clause, and thus added the 
_HU)_ in parenthesis, evidencing his uncertainty as to how to subordinate a 
verb as the name, but surely this is not what would happen in Hebrew. The 
_HU)_ makes no good sense in Hebrew syntax here, but it's impossible in 
Hebrew to have a verbless "I am ____" clause with a finite verb for the 
predicate. Thus, the )ANI or )ANOKI which i admit is the *standard* 
introductory formula as used in verbless clauses simply does *not* work here, 
and *that* is why we have the text as it stands, with the 1CS verb followed 
by _)ASHER_ to introduce the name which is a finite verb, and to communicate 
"I am I-AM"!

> And
> if the intention were ''ehye(h) is who I am' (Anderson and Freedman
> 1980:199), again assuming this could be conveyed in Hebrew at all, 

[A side note: Every language is able to communicate every concept (though 
some languages are much more efficient than others at certain communicating 
concepts). That's why all language, in the ultimate analysis, is 
translatable.]

> we
> should get something like 'ehye(h) 'aser 'anoki hu'.  We still have the
> option of rendering 'ehye(h) 'aser 'ehye(h) as ''ehye(h) is who I will
> be,' but this seems a strange way for the Deity to identify himself.  I
> follow, therefore, the translation of Aquila and Theodotion: esomai
> (hos) esomai 'I will be who I will be.'"
> 
> It may be argued whether the context of Exodus 3:14 refers to Who God is
> or Who He will be with respect to delivering Hebrew slaves from Egypt
> and constituting them a free and unique Nation.  I tend to favor the
> latter.  And I find no logic in reconstituting the meaning of the text
> to imply that the Deity is requesting Moses to become a Greek
> philosopher and prove his mission by impressing the Hebrew slaves or
> pharaoh with a discussion about Ontology.

I've not seen any posts advocating a discussion of ontology, have you?? It 
may be implied in the thought as a secondary concept, but it is not the point 
of the Exodus 3:14 text according to the view i've presented or to any other 
view posted here, as best i remember. (I say that because i feel like you 
think you are arguing against an anachronistic theological reading, and this 
is not the case. There are theological implications of the Hebrew text here 
and elsewhere which the LXX and/or NT may pick up on and get further mileage 
out of, but that is not the same thing as reading those concepts back in as 
the main point of the OT/BH text.)

Dan Wagner




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