Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Propp on EHYEH

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Daniel Wagner" <dan.wagner AT netzero.net>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Propp on EHYEH
  • Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 19:16:20 -0400


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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page