Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: GregStffrd AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Cc: dan.wagner AT netzero.net
  • Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
  • Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 03:03:22 EDT


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page