Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 05/08/2001 12:40:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:

<< A number of things: first, the connection between YHWH and HYH 
 is speculative and is by no means a fact.  >>


Who said it was fact? I, in fact, suggest in my book that it may not be! But 
I think the majority opinion is that it is, and the correlation between 
'EHYEH in verse 14 and YHWH in verse 15 is striking. What position do you 
advance and on what non-speculative basis do you advance it?



<< 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. >>



Sure it can. Just because something is not ironclad does not mean we cannot 
advance it as a likelihood. The fact that you do not believe YHWH is derived 
from a verb is nothing but a comment without any force. When you choose to 
back up your claims, THEN it may be considered as a nullification of my point 
if the evidence actually shows up. 



<< Second, who says a verb can't be 
 used as a name? >>



I certainly do not! Yet you seem to think I do!



<<  Does the name Jehovah-Jireh, YHWH YR)H, 
 ring any bells? >>



Why, YES, it does!



<< There is no good reason why 'ehyeh can't function 
 the same way without being considered a nominal. >>



If it is a proper name serving as the predicate in an equative sentence then 
it is a nominal. But it may have verbal associations which I made very clear, 
so clear in fact that you took issue with it! It's grammatical function in 
'ANI 'EHYEH is nominal, however. How would you translate 'ANI 'EHYEH?



<< 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. >>


If it is a name then it is a nominal, regardless of its verbal associations. 
When you use a proper name as the predicate in an equative sentence its 
function is nominal. Otherwise it makes no sense. Now, when you look at the 
nominal and seek to appreciate it, then the verbal associations come to the 
fore. But to say, "I am I will be" ('EHYEH = verb [non-proper name]) it 
meaningless. But to say, "I am I WILL BE" ('EHYEH = proper name) is proper 
grammar with a nominal as the predicate in an equative sentence AND conveys 
the verbal idea of 'EHYEH. 



<< Names in particular often used 
 verbs substantivally, but that doesn't change the essential verbal 
 character of the word.  >>>



I never said that it did. I am sorry, Dave, but if you continue to misread 
what I write then I will have to ignore you. Please address my specific 

claims, and do not attribute to me things that I have not claimed. I am sure 
such conduct is inappropriate for this scholarly forum. 



<< Third, yes, I'm reading the entire message, 
 and especially the unfounded assumptions therein. >>



Then why do you continue to distort what I say and suggest that I claim 
things that I do not? If you say you read it, then you have no excuse. So why 
did you do it?



<< Fourth, the 
 fact that YHWH is often used in verbless clauses is true but 
 meaningless in this context. >>



It is quite meaningful and in my opinion utterly destroys your ill-founded 
objection couched in emotive language (= your "Excuse me?" in your last 
post). To suggest as a last resort that YHWH is not derived from a verb 
simply because it undermines your view and hollow objection is disingenuous. 
What is worse, you claim that my suggestion that it IS a verb is mere 
speculation, yet you offer nothing but speculation yourself in denying the 
point! 
 


 > << '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. >>



My point was very specific: In an equative sentence such as that which Dan is 
offering, for 'EHYEH to serve as the predicate it MUST be a nominal if it is 
functioning as a proper name. I have maintained all along that the verbal 
associations are still there. Indeed, it is that very point with which you 
took issue! 



<< 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. >>



Another utterly baseless comment. Please provide 1) evidence against viewing 
YHWH as a verb; and 2) evidence that in Hebrew a name is not a nominal when 
serving as the predicate in an equative sentence.


 
 > <<< 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 :-) >>


 
You're welcome. "Somebody," as you said, has been and continues to not only 
miss the point but make claims about points I am making which are 
demonstrably  false. If you continue to do this and make wild claims without 
providing evidence, then I will ignore you completely. You really have not 
contributed to this thread anyway, so I see no point in responding to what 
you say unless you do by providing evidence for your claims.  

Best regards,

Greg Stafford