ואתה הוא

[Lostntym8]

ואתה הוא

At Ps 102:27 we see the 2nd person singular pronoun juxtaposed (I'm reluctant to say in apposition but maybe that is correct) with the 3rd person singular intensive pronoun. The LXX has the literal translation Συ δε ο αυτος which is the same two corresponding pronouns. I have been told that הוא also can mean "the same". I find this an astonishing coincidence that two very different languages would have such an exact correspondence of meaning for the 2nd person singular intensive pronoun. Is it possible that the LXX Greek usage influenced the Hebrew lexicon? Does הוא really have the adjectival meaning "the same"?

[Lostntym8]

Bueller?...Bueller?...anyone?....anyone?

[SteveMiller]

Scott,
I don't think it is right to say that ה֜וּא means "the same", but the expressions ani hu and ata hu, which are not uncommon, are special phrases for the name of God. In the context of Ps 102:27 "You are HE" is in contrast to the creation which will change, hence, the SAME.

In synagogue each service would usually end with the singing of ain keloheinu (no one is like our God). The song has a few stanzas. The 1st stanza all start with ain ke, no one is like. The 2nd stanza all start with mi ke, who is like?. The final staza all start with ata hu, You are He.

[Lostntym8]

Steve,

Thank you for your kind reply. Still my Tanakh by the JPS has: "But You are the same,..." There are a number of other translations that are in accord with the translation as well. Where does this adjectival use of the 3rd person singular pronoun come from? Is there an entry in a lexicon that has it as a usage?

Thank you for your help!

[SteveMiller]

Scott,
I am not saying that the translation of "the Same" is wrong. I think it is correct because that's the way Hebrews translated it. I just meant that hu by itself would never mean "the Same", but in the special phrases ani hu and ata hu, hu may mean "the Same" or "the Unchanging One". It is not adjectival either, but is more like a proper noun.

[Ken M. Penner]

I don't have a lot of time right now to ponder this, but the following might be helpful.
From Driver's Treatise:

200. Does הוא do duty for the copula when inserted between אַתָּה or אֲנִי and the predic., as Ps. 44:5 אַתָּה הוּא מַלְכִּי? Here we must either (with Roorda, § 563, and Delitzsch on Isa. 37:16) suppose that הוא strengthens the preceding pronoun, as though equivalent to αὐτός—‘thou, he (and none else), art my king,’ or (with Ewald, § 297b end) regard it as anticipating the predicate—‘thou art he—my king.’ The rarity with which הוא is appended to a noun—Isa. 7:14 י׳׳י הוא. Nu. 18:23 הלוי הוא. Esth. 9:1 stand perhaps alone in O.T.—the difficulty of separating אֲנִי הוּא הַמְדַבֵּר Isa. 52:6 from אֲנִי הוּא 41:4. 43:10. 13 etc. and אתה הוא Ps. 102:28 (where הוא is, of course, predicate), and the analogous … מי הוא (if not … אלה הם as well), where the pronoun cannot be accounted for except on the assumption that it is anticipatory, favour the latter supposition. The other instances are 2 Sa. 7:28 אתה הוא האלהים. Isa. 37:16. 43:25 אנכ֨י אנכ֥י ה֛וא מֹחה֥ פשע֭יך. 51:9. 10:12. Jer. 14:22. 29:23b Kt. (Ew. Keil etc.). Neh. 9:6. 2 Chr. 20:6. So in Aram. Dan. 2:38 אנתה הוא ראשה די דהבא. 5:13. Gen. 16:13 Onq. את הוא אלהא חָזֵי כולא. Ps. 71:5 את הוא סוברי.

Obs. 1. 1 Chr. 21:17. Ez. 38:17 also, הוא is clearly predicate. The change of person which follows in these passages (κατὰ σύνεσιν) is very unusual: Jer. 49:12 ואתה הוא נקה תנקה may, however, perhaps offer a parallel—the relative being omitted (§ 201. 2); see also Jud. 13:11. Neh. 9:7 (cf. Nu. 22:30); and cf. in Syriac, Wright, Apocr. Acts of Apostles, pp. 179, 12. 180, 3.198, 11 al.; Acta Pelagiae, pp. 3, 20. 8, 7.
Obs. 2. Ezra 5:11 (Aram.) … אנחנו המו is quite in accordance with the Syriac usage, Luke 22:67 ܐܶܢ ܐܰܢ̱ܬܽ ܗ̱ܘ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ if thou art the Christ. 70, and often. Matth. 5:13) ܐܶܢ̱ܬܘܽܢ ܐܶܢܘܽܢ ܡܶܠܚܳܗܿ ܕܰܐܪܥܳܐ ye are the salt of the earth (Nöldeke, § 312 D).

S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1892), 271–272.

From Jouon-Muraoka §154j:

2) P-Pron.-S(): Gn 42.6 וְיוֹסֵף הוא הַשַּׁלִּיט על־הארץ now it was J. who was the governor of the land; 1Kg 18.39 יהוה הוא האלהים it is Y. who is the (true) God (contr. vs. 21 אם יהוה האלהים with lesser emphasis, § f); 2Sm 7.28 אתּה הוא האלהים it is you who are the (true) God; the same confession in 1Kg 8.60 followed immediately by אֵין עוֹד there is none other; Dt 4.39; 10.9; 2Kg 19.15; Ps 44.5; 100.3; Ct 6.9 אַחַת היא יוֹנָתִי she is unique, my dove (in contrast to sixty queens and seventy concubines); 1Sm 4.8 אֵ֫לֶּה הֵם האלהים הַמַּכִּים … these are the gods who struck …; Is 9.14; Lm 1.18. Occasionally with repetition of the predicate(): Is 43.11 אנכי אנכי יהוה (followed by “beside me there is no deliverer”); 43.25 אנכי אנכי הוא מֹחֶה פְשָׁעֶ֫יךָ it is I, it is I who efface your sins (further reinforced by הוא); 51.12.
The first slot may be occupied by an interrogative: Gn 21.29 מה הֵ֫נָּה שֶׁ֫בַע כְּבָשׂת הָאֵ֫לֶּה What are these seven sheep? where the fem. pl. pron. הנה unmistakably marks the following phrase as S. See also Gn 27.33; Ps 24.10; Zc 1.9, 4.4f.
An anaphoric demonstrative introducing a genealogical list appears in a tripartite nominal clause: Gn 25.16 אֵ֫לֶּה הם בְּנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, which is preceded by a bipartite nominal clause similarly introduced by a demonstrative, but cataphoric, at 25.13 אלה שְׁמוֹת בני ישׁמעאל. See also Nu 3.20, 21, 27, 33; 1Ch 8.6. Elsewhere the same demonstrative pronoun functions almost as the subject: Ec 1.17 גם־זה הוא רַעְיוֹן רוּחַ this is also a feeding on wind. Similarly in a gloss: Gn 36.8 עֵשָׂו הוא אֱדוֹם.
In this type of sentence with emphasis on the predicate, the pronoun regularly bears a disjunctive accent.
The pronoun in both patterns serves to give more or less prominence to the immediately preceding element. Whereas such a pronoun in the first pattern, S-P-Pron., is somewhat weak and enclitic in force, as indicated by the use of maqqef in many places, the pronoun in this second pattern seems to retain more of its independence, as shown by the frequent occurrence of a disjunctive accent with the first constituent.
The absence of the pronoun in 1Kg 18.21 as against 18.39 (both quoted above) does not necessarily mean that the pronoun is superfluous, a mere ‘copula’(): it gives an explicit syntactic/lexical expression to what could also have been expressed by a special intonation or some such means. See also Ex 9.27 יהוה הַצַּדִּיק ואני וְעַמִּי הָרְשָׁעִים it is the Lord who is righteous, and I and my people who are iniquitous; 1Kg 3.22 בְּנִי הַחַי וּבְנֵךְ הַמֵּת it is my son who is alive, and yours who is dead. The pronoun is scarcely pleonastic even in cases such as Gn 2.14 הַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוא פְרָת the fourth river is Euphrates(); 9.18 וְחָם הוא אֲבִי כְנָ֫עַן and Ham was the ancestor of Canaan(). See also Pr 28.26 בּוֹטֵחַ לִבּוֹ הוא כְסִיל הוֹלֵךְ בְּחָכְמָה הוא יִמָּלֵט it is one who relies on his own judgement that is silly, and it is one who walks in wisdom that escapes (calamities). In Ec 1.17 גם־זה הוא רַעְיוֹן רוּחַ this also is pursuit of wind the pronoun is apparently pleonastic.
Observation. It is no doubt on the analogy of the pronoun used in the manner as discussed here that one should interpret the sentence in Isaiah אני הוא as meaning I am the one, i.e. the entity in question: 41.4; 43.10, 13; 46.4; 48.12. In other words these are cases of the third constituent, S, being implicit. Cf. also Ps 102.28 אתה הוא (Ibn Ezra ad loc.: “you are the true one, and there is none other”).

Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006), 539–540.

[Lostntym8]

Thank you Ken! That's the kind of information I was hoping for.