Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

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