Re: John 8:58 - Ex. 3:14
Ronald Wong (dogtoy@isgroup.net)
Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:12:18 -0500
Wes.Williams@twcable.com wrote:
>
> Dear Ronald,
>
> I would recommend you research the archives for the very extended
> discussion the list had on John 8:58 last summer. It hit all the
> angles and was quite confrontational. Current scholarly concensus is
> that the EGW EIMI of John 8:58 does not refer to Ex. 3:14. This belief
> was widely held in the past but more scholars, even those of the
> strong "Jesus is Jehovah" persuasion, are abandoning it due to lack of
> linguistic support. Of course, there are still some who hold to the
> link, but they are fewer.
>
> The principal problems are that John 8:58 is a verb of existence and
> Ex. 3:14 is a title refelecting purpose. Ex. 3:14 in the context is
> talking about a future time and the verb HAYAH naturally refers to the
> future (cf. v.12 which clearly uses HAYAH as referring to the future).
> In fact, Theodotion's LXX translates HAYAH as EGW ESOMAI "I will be"
> and not "I am." But regardless of how one translates the subject and
> verb of Ex. 3:14, it is the predicate that matters. The predicate of
> Ex. 3:14 in LXX is hO WN, not EGW EIMI. Linguistically the link falls
> apart. John 8:58 is referring to a past time up thru the present.
>
> Sincerely,
> Wes
>
>
> From: Ronald Wong <dogtoy@isgroup.net>
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 09:07:02 -0500
> Subject: Re: Pronoun Emphasis
>
> I certain agree that the construction is strange...yet, I believe that
> there is a historical purpose that Jesus and the way John recorded it to
> mean "I, I am." There is an OT pararallel. When Moses was sent back to
> the hebrews in Egypt, he asked the question: "If they ask who sent me,
> whom should I say?" and it says that God answered "I am."
> I think it would be possible to say that John and Jesus are emphasizing
> (if I can be allowed to use the word :) ) Jesus' claim of being God,
> which is a major theme in the fourth Gospel.
Wes...
I don't believe I was trying to make that point that it refers to the
passage itself...as much as I believe that the John is using it to
identify whom Jesus is.
as much as modern scholarship may abandon it because of lack of
linguistic support...this doesn't sway me to believe that John doesn't
think of Jesus as deity. Not from my own theo. posit. but because over
and over again, John points to that... :)
not knowing hebrew I will not argue that point. but why would God say
"I will be"? is he not yet God? is not yet??? what? who he is? what
kind of predicate does God need to be who he is? The link,
linguistically may fall apart, again I'm not a linguist. who
knows...you've tried to convince an ignorant man of with something he
knows absolutely nothing he knows about. :)
Ronald Wong
O'Brien, FL.