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: Thu, 10 May 2001 22:50:10 EDT


In a message dated 05/10/2001 2:14:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dan.wagner AT netzero.net writes:

<< Greg,

The parallel between a noun clause introduced by a 1CS pronoun followed by
YHWH (as a standard proper name which is *not* a 1CS finite verb), >>



Hold it right there, Dan. First of all, I have been contacted by three active
members to this thread off-list who believe my position CAN stand. Add me,
and that makes four.

Second, 'EHYEH is not acting as a finite verb even in your suggestion. (If it
is then you are in an even less defensible position as explained in my last
two posts.) It is a proper name and hence quite parallel to YHWH. I have
demonstrated and explained this, you have not responded to my requests for
you to provide a grammatical basis for your suggestion. Thus, I have grown
from doubting your view to outright rejecting it as a near impossibility
based on your reference to it as a finite verb, when in fact it would have to
be a nominal in function to get to the view/translation your previously
suggested. If it is a nominal in function then your objection based on its
finite verb FORM has no merit, and I explained this several times already yet
we see this same objection over and over again, to wit:


<< and a noun clause introduced by a 1CS pronoun but followed by _)EHYEH_
(which *is* a 1CS finite verb but not a standard or common name) just will
not stand. >>


It most certainly WOULD stand. But since that is not what is happening, it's
a moot point. Just saying something will stand, Dan, does not a legitimate
argument make. In 'ANI 'EHYEH, 'EHYEH is NOT a finite verb in function, but
in FORM only. I have explained this at least 4 times, and THAT is why it can
and does work. It is a nominal, a proper name, which is what you were after
to begin with. As I stated in my previous post to this List:

QUOTE
[I]n neither instance do we have )MYT or )RP) used as the personal subject of
a follow-up (contextual) sentence such as 'EHYEH SHELACHANY 'ALAYCHEM (Exodus
3:14). Additionally, the verbs )MYT and )RP) complete a sensible thought in
association with the normal sense of the verbs. If we do not take 'ANI 'EHYEH
as "I am I WILL BE/I AM" (= subject + implied copula + proper name/predicate)
how else might a native speaker sensibly interpret the passage?
END


The use of 'EHYEH in verse 14 is sufficient contextual information to alert
any native reader how he/she should/could view 'EHYEH in 'ANI 'EHYEH. There
is no other sensible way to understand it! Of course, you ignored this point
and several others in my last several emails, and that is fine. But please do
not then expect me and others here to think that somehow your point survived
the information presented against it, especially when you chose not to
respond to my specific requests for your grammatical support.


<<< One is fully communicative in Hebrew; the other is ambiguous and
ultimately non-communicative. >>


You are wrong. As I made very clear, the follow-up (contextual limitation)
would make clear such a use of 'EHYEH. You are simply denying my point
without any grammatical or contextual basis.


<< But concerning the basis for my view, it centers in (1) the ambiguity
above giving necessity to some alternative to the standard noun clause
introduction, >>


There is no such ambiguity. It could only be understood one way. Address my
above points and answer my question if you can demonstrate otherwise. If you
simply disagree and that is the extent of your argument, we are already aware
of such disagreement so there is no need to mention it again.



<< which i find easily remedied in good Hebrew in the present construction
with a subordinating _)aSHER_, (2) a correct understanding of the function of
_)aSHER_, >>


The function of 'ASHER has to be the most unimportant point in this whole
discussion! I believe most here are prepared to grant such a function to
'ASHER; it is your dual understanding of 'EHYEH that rips the heart from your
position. There is no grammatical or contextual basis for either of your
views regarding 'EHYEH. What is more, had your suggested view been intended,
'ANI 'EHYEH would have been the most obvious choice, and created absolutely
no ambiguity at all as previously explained, in light of 14b.



<< (3) recognizing the clarifying comment in 14b as delimiting of the actual
*full* name of Moses' God to simply _)EHYEH_, or as i prefer, "I-AM," the
constantly-covenanting, all-that's-needed-by-virtue-of-who-He-is God. >>


14b is what most strongly argues against your view in light of the clear
meaning it would give to 'ANI 'EHYEH, which could only be understood in one
way, namely, "I [am] I WILL BE/I AM." You also prefer a sense for the second
'EHYEH that is the most unlikely, grammatically and contextually; hence, some
other motivation must be at work here, and you have made no secret of the
fact that theology plays an important part of your understanding this point.


<< Moses' God can be defined as the very essence of a covenant-in-action.
What better answer for the Israelites? >>


The answer was the very thing the Israelites needed to know: That God would
prove to be with them in their time of need. Thus, 'EHYEH was used.



<<PS I think the "prove-to-be" translation of KB is partly true, but is
reading in something too specific and too limiting. It misses the
covenant-in-action aspect i think i see in the grammar of "I-AM" and in the
surrounding context. >>


It misses no such thing. It fits in perfectly with the context, the need, and
the covenant relationship that would manifest itself from that point
*forward*.

By the way, no one ever questioned whether Dave understood your position, but
whether or not he understood the arguments against it. Both of you continue
to make the same points and ignore the same points. That is not a put-down,
but an observation which has resulted from the above and prior posts. It can
easily be straightened out, however, and I welcome your efforts to do so.

Greg Stafford





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page