Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 05/08/2001 2:02:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:

<< > He said he views the second 'EHYEH as a name, that is a NOMINAL. It may 
have 
 > verbal associations, but it is a nominal. 
 
 No, the name *is* itself a finite verb. >>



It does not matter. If you want it to be viewed as a name, then as the 
predicate in an equative sentence it is a nominal.  There are no examples 
supporting your point that 'EHYEH is in the first instance the subject and 
copula of an equative sentence, or the predicate/proper name of the same. 
There simply are no examples. If you want to claim that the context somehow 
allows this to stand, then you have to demonstrate that. It can easily be 
shown that the future verbal sense of 'EHYEH is fitting in BOTH places of the 
text, but I have seen no contextual evidence for your view, and yet it seems 
to depend upon it entirely. Can you please list for me the contextual factors 
that argue most strongly for your view?



<<< We don't have any parallels, but i think that the first )EHYEH is used 
intentionally to show by rhetorical parallelism that the 2nd )EHYEH is also a 
verb. >>>


This goes back to the point I made before but which I believe you denied: If 
we have no parallel examples, then the likely understanding of the grammar 
should default to what we DO have parallels for, providing that it is 
consistent with the context. In this case it is, so there seems to be some 
other factor driving this point. 


<< God's name is thus summed up in His covenant self-identification / 
self-revelation to His people as "I-AM" (i don't want to transliterate the 
2nd verb, i think that is a mistake and miscommunicates the intent). >>



Again, you show a **preference for 'EHYEH that is unjustified. "I will be" or 
"I WILL BE" fill the immediate need of His people and fit in perfectly with 
the context as the quote I gave from Gianotti illustrated. There is 1) no 
basis for taking the first 'EHYEH as a subject and copula of an equative 
clause; and 2) there is no basis for taking the second 'EHYEH in a different 
sense as a proper name; and 3) even if we allowed this point safe passage, on 
what basis do you establish a preference for "I AM" versus the much more 
common "I WILL BE"? Then you have the contextual deck stacked heavily in 
favor of the verbal "I will be," and it just comes across as a very weak, 
though well-thought-out proposal. 



<< But that is not the only reason why )ANI )EHYEH will not work as a noun 
clause. The other reason is the grotesque ambiguity in such a statement.  >>>



I see no ambiguity whatsoever. Certainly no more than we have in "I am I AM"! 
If the second 'EHYEH is a name then I WILL BE has verbal associations that 
are far more clear than anyone might gather from I AM.  I WILL BE says 
something about what can be expected. I AM is nothing but a pure existential 
with no clear idea of what His people can expect. 


 
 > The same as the example I gave 
 > concerning YHWH in Exodus 9:27. Are you reading the entire message? YHWH 
has 
 > verbal associations as a proper name derived from HYH, but it is 
frequently 
 > the subject or predicate of a verbless clause. 
 >
<< There is a real difference in my mind between a name having verbal 
associations (and i agree that YHWH does) and a finite verb itself being used 
as a name itself. Sorry if i didn't make that clear, but i wasn't thinking 
down the line as you took it, though i can see how you came to that 
conclusion from a couple of my comments about YHWH and HYH / HWH roots. Same 
applies to the rest of your comments below. >>>



Can you please explain the difference you see? I see two proper names with 
verbal associations. When they take on the role of proper names, they are not 
limited as such by one verb type versus another. As proper names they are 
just that, and the verbal associations are the same as those conveyed by 
their non-proper usage.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford