Ani/Anoki
I've considered this topic in the past, but I wanted to revisit it in order to facilitate my current discussion of Genesis. In P, Ani is used 123 times, but Anoki only once. In D, the score is 53 anoki's to 2 ani's. JE uses both, using Ani 51 times and Anoki 85 times. The list of Anoki's in JE is as follows:
Gen 3:10, 4:9, 7:4, 15:1, 15:2, 15:4, 16:14, 16:8, 18:27, 19:19, 20:6 (twice), 21:24, 21:26, 24:3, 24:13, 24:24, 24:27, 24:31, 24:34, 24:37, 24:42, 24:43, 25:22, 25:30, 25:32, 26:24 (twice), 27:11, 27:19, 28:15, 28:16, 28:20, 29:33, 30:1, 30:2, 30:3, 30:30, 31:5, 31:13, 31:38, 31:39, 32:12, 37:16, 38:17, 38:25, 43:9, 46:3, 46:4 (twice), 47:30, 48:21, 50:5, 50:21, 50:24
Ex 3:6, 3:11, 3:12, 3:13, 4:10 (twice), 4:11, 4:12, 4:15, 4:23, 7:17, 7:27, 8:24, 8:25, 17:9, 19:9, 20:2, 20:4, 23:20, 32:18, 34:10 34:11
Nu. 11:12 (twice), 11:14, 11:21, 22:30, 22:32, 23:15
Deut 31:23
The complete list of Anoki's in P is Gen 23:4.
It was requested than in considering various words, I begin to also consider the meaning of the word and why it would be limited to a specific source. In this case though, as far as i can tell, there is none. Other than saying that two authors used different words due to a different style, there is really no way at all to explain this phenomenon. This is because the words Ani/Anoki have the exact same meaning, as far as I can tell. I've only ever heard of two possible suggestions to explain the difference in the words. Rabbi Shalom Carmy of YU once told me thought Anoki was more pompous. An interesting theory, but I don't see any such pattern actually being born out in the usage of the words. Even if you did see such a pattern, the fact remains that that criteria is highly subjective. Cassuto tries to argue that there is a grammatical difference in the words. In order to save myself some typing, I'll just copy and paste the rules according to Cassuto from Dovid Gottlieb's website:
1. If subject of verbal-clause, `anokhi is used (examples G 16:5, 30:3). Single exception (G14:23) is sentence of unusual rhythm
2. If pronoun is in compound subject, following the verb, always `ani (G37:10)
3. If pronoun in nominativus pendens, and subject of rest of sentence is that pronoun, `ani is used (G17:4); if subject of rest of sentence is someone else, `anokhi is used (G24:27)
4. If pronoun emphasises pronominal suffix in verb then `ani used (G27:34, 38)
5. In noun-clauses, if wants to emphasise subject, `anokhi (G15:1); if does not want to emphasise subject, `ani (G41:9)
In my opinion, Cassuto's grammatical principle is a huge load of complete garbage. Since my response to his grammatical argument is quite long, verbose, and complex, I will leave it to a comment.
posted by littlefoxlings at 9:00 PM
1 Comments:
I find 7 problems with cassuto's approach to ani/anochi.
1. cassuto first correctly notes that many of the ani's in p are in
the phrase "ani Hashem." while this is so, it does not answer the
question. Ani appears 123 times in P and Anochi only once. Anochi
appears 53 times in D and ani only twice. While the 50 or 75 ( i
don't remember which) or so Ani Hashem's certainly reduce the counts,
it is not sufficient to answer the problem. 50 to 2 is better than
123 to 2, but it is still unacceptable. Moreover, some of those Ani
Hashem's should not count as "Ani Hashem's." For example, if one
chooses to consider Num 15:41, Lev 25:38 Lev 26:13 as "Ani Hashem's"
the one has a serious problem with Deut 5:6
2. More importantly, "Ani Hashem" just reformulates the question.
The question now is why is "Ani Hashem" always appearing in P. While
i agree this is a less forceful question, it still is one.
Cassuto then attempts to give a "grammatical" distinction that answers
the question. There are many problems with this.
3. From the outset, any attempt to establish rules governing
ani/anochi only reformulates the question. If a given set of
circumstances educe an Ani, then, whatever they are, be them
grammatical, the whim of the Author etc., it is a problem that they
appear 123 out of the 124 I's in P and only 2 out of the 55 I's in D.
If it is a grammatical distinction, then that implies that Lev has a
different writing style than Deut which is equally problematic. It
only reformulates the question
4. This is not so much a question on Cassuto, but on the fact that
frum people quote him as a defense for the divinity of the Torah
Cassuto was not saying that the torah has one Author, but rather that
the way the DH divides it up is wrong. But, using this to say that
there is one Author is silly. Cassuto's approach only holds for Gen
(e.g. Ex 33:19). He himself admits this. If you think that Gen and
Ex. have the same Author it is ludicrous to say that the laws of
grammar switch from book to book. Perhaps Cassuto did not think this.
5. Cassuto himself admits that his rules don't even hold in all of
Gen. He quotes 14:23 as the one exception. But, honestly, either i
am missing something or the entire rule is ridiculous because i see
tons of exceptions. Two examples are 18:13, 48:22, but the list goes
on. I feel these are subjects and not Nominativus pendens, but if you
disagree, how will you explain 24:31? Perhaps I am missing something,
but as far as i can tell his rules simply do not hold. I am hesitant
to say that there is a blatant falsehood here, but I simply don't get it.
6. Even if the rules do hold they are ridiculous. Cassuto lists it
as "5" rules but in reality he lists 7 because two of them have 2
contingencies. A grammatical rule that has 7 arbitrary and unrelated
parameters is quite odd.
7. Cassuto's rules aren't even relevant to most of the cases.
Cassuto's last rule says that if there is no verb, then the rule is
that if the point is to emphasize the word "I" then "anochi" is used,
else, "ani" is used. This is most of the cases since Hebrew doesn't
have the verb "is" and in Hebrew the present tense is a nominal form.
But, how to apply this rule is entirely subjective. Compare, for
example, Gen 27:32 and Gen 27:19. I pick these bec Cassuto actually
talks about them in the book and claims that in the first the emphasis
is on the "Bincha bechorcha esuv" and in the latter the emphasis is on
the "anochi." Whether you like his p'shat as to why is not the issue.
What is the issue is that it is clear the p'sukim have the same exact
layout and so you could have said the exact opposite about the
emphasis. He says it this way to defend his theory. But, if one is
using this sort of after the fact explaining, one can explain anything
and the explanation is thus meaningless.
When you are done with the cases that he's wrong and the cases that
are subjective, you have few left. As a sample, let's look at the
first 15 ani's
You've got the Nominativus pendens where cassuto is right: (6:17, 9:9, 17:4)
You've got the cases he's wrong: (14:23, 18:13, 22:5)
and you've got the cases that are subjective: (9:12, 15:7, 17:1, 18:17
(twice), 27:8, 27:24 27:32)
The 15th is 24:45 which I have deliberately left out bec i think he's
wrong but i could see one arguing that it is Nominativus pendens so i
am not sure where to put it. The point is, of the first 15 ani's, his
rule addresses less than 1/2 of them. Of those he addresses he's only
right around 1/2 of the time which isn't very good when you consider
that just saying that every single time is ani in all of Chumash makes
you right 56% of the time (182 to 141). And this sort of pathetic
showing is not limited to the first 15 ani's but is true throughout.
I could be missing something about the 3 i think he is wrong, but i
don't think i'm missing something abut the 8 he doesn't address.
Moreover, even DH would accept some level of impact from sentence
structure bec different authors, according to the theory, have
different tendencies in sentence structure.
12/02/2006 9:33 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home