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
  • Subject: Re: _)aSHER_ in Ex. 3:14 (was "I AM")
  • Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 12:41:45 EDT


In a message dated 05/10/2001 6:44:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dwashbur AT nyx.net writes:

<< All that is to say this: the claim a Hebrew could have understood
)ANI )EHYEH as a verbless clause is more than a little unlikely. >>


I believe what I said in my last posts to you and Dan effectively covers the
same points you raise, again. But I appreciate the different tone in your
post.

Now that my points seem to be coming into clearer focus, I will reiterate
some things: First, 'ANI 'EHYEH is no more unlikely an introductory formula
than 'EHYEH 'ASHER 'EHYEH could be considered unlikely. Indeed, the verbless
clause with a verb-form nominal as the proper name predicate fits right in
line with how YHWH, another verb in form which functions as a proper name, is
used in verbless introductory clauses.

So then we ask: Would not a commonly used verb form such as 'EHYEH have been
confusing if used as a proper name predicate in 'ANI 'EHYEH? I do not believe
so, and the reason is as I have stated before: I don't believe it would have
been confusing because of the grammatical function which would have been
associated with it in 'ANI 'EHYEH. This construction could, in my opinion,
only make sense by taking 'ANI as the subject with an implied copula and
'EHYEH as a proper name predicate. Hence, no confusion.

But to suggest that in 'EHYEH 'ASHER 'EHYEH there would not have been
confusion in finding "I am" as a subject/copula in the first 'EHYEH and then
a predicate/proper name (hence, not a verb in FUNCTION) in the second 'EHYEH,
is a serious reach IMO. I think it is far less likely that a native speaker
would have been confused by the use of a common introductory formula such as
'ANI 'EHYEH, which would essentially have left only one grammatical option
and that is to view 'EHYEH as a proper name. To suggest that there would have
been confusion or any desire to interpret it in its finite verbal function
with 'ANI is an even greater reach.

I believe 'EHYEH is verbal in both instances in 3:14. I am simply arguing
against Dan's view by noting that if, as he claims, 'EHYEH is a proper name
in the second instance then we might expect to find the same introductory
formula as we find elsewhere when YHWH introduces or identifies himself. I
also do not believe there has been sufficient support for his understanding
of the first 'EHYEH either, namely, as the subject/copula "I am."

I believe the translation of 3:14 should be, "I will prove to be who I will
prove to be," as we find in the new KB lexicon. This fits perfectly with the
context and the primary sense of 'EHYEH.

But I appreciate the discussion and am always open to new views. However,
misrepresentations are never welcome or appreciated.

Best regards,

Greg Stafford




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page