Eccles. 3:18

Abstract

that I AM is the name of the spirit; and 15 in still clearer language answers the query of Moses with mention of the name. But who can deduce such meaning from "I AM THAT I AM"? Instead, this phrase becomes one of mockery, denying Moses the revelation he had implored. And the variant renderings are even more derisively cynical. Now these are possible renderings of the Hebrew, yet, if the writer had meant such, he would much better have said DANI DASHER DANI, or DANI DASHER DEHYEH, or even the unusual ANI DASHER HOYEH. In other words, our accepted translations, while possible, are at best of doubtful validity. And it will be evident that, whatever may be the correct translation, the error here has arisen through taking the subject of the first verb as at the same time the antecedent of the relative. It should be borne in mind that the Hebrew "relative" clause has a wide syntax. It occurs frequently as subject of the verb, or as object (see Gaenssle, "The Hebrew Particle Asher," ?? 62 and 66; K5nig, Syntax der Hebrdischen Sprache, ? 384; Ewald, Hebrew Syntax, ? 336a [1]; Gesenius-Kautsch [Cowley], Hebrew Grammar, ? 155 n.). Particularly revealing for our present problem is Isa. 41:24, which, except for the omission of the relative particle, is identical in form with the passage we are discussing. It is seen at once that the relative clause is the predicate of a nominal sentence: "An abomination (is) who-chooses-them." Then one should add numerous other similar passages, notably those listed by Kdnig under the caption "Pridicativsdtze" (op cit., ? 383a) among which, to his credit be it mentioned, he actually includes in its correct order Exod. 3:14. Beyond a question Kdnig is right; the 'ASHER clause in this passage, rather than the verbal element in the first 'EHYEH, is predicate of the sentence. There can be no reasonable doubt that the correct translation is "I-AM is who I am"-a rendering far remote from the similar wording of R.V. W. A. IRWIN