Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Eric Weiss wrote,

are you saying that those who read a reference to Exodus 3:14 in John's "I
AM" statements are in error?

John Ronning wrote:

>Dear Rolf,
>
>Apparently the Jews who heard Jesus say what is translated by John as EGW
>EIMI would
>not accept your explanation, since they picked up stones to stone him.  I
>also doubt
>the LXX translators simply overlooked the fact that  'ehyeh normally means
>I will be.
>Eric Weiss asked "HOW would one say in Hebrew at 3:14 "I AM THAT I AM"?
>Perhaps a
>better question would be, "How would one say in Hebrew, `I am who I am, in
>the past,
>present, and future' using the verb hayah to express existence?"  Is there
>a better
>way than 'ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh?  I think the LXX "I am he who (always) is"
>captures
>this thought quite well.  BTW egw eimi found in John 8:58 is also in the
>LXX to
>translate 'ani hu' (I am he) in Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10, and 46:4.
>'ani hu'
>(normally would just be "present tense") is used with reference to the
>past and / or
>future in Isa 41:4, 43:10, 43:13, 46:4, and 48:12).  These passages in
>Isaiah are
>related by some to Exod 3:14, which if correct would reinforce the idea
>that Exod 3:14
>is not to be confined to the future (or present).
>
>You also wrote
>
>"To translate EHYE in Exodus 3:14 as "I am" both ignores its lexical
>meaning and its
>use as future, and is clearly
>idiosyncratic."
>
>Whatever the translation, it is clearly idiosyncratic - only God (or a
>blasphemer)
>speaks this way (thus the intent to stone Jesus).

Dear Eric and John,

I think that those who read a reference to Exodus 3:14 in John's "I
am"-statement are wrong, because there neither is a linguistic nor a
contextual or theological parallel.  To demonstrate a linguistic parallel,
one has to show that the hO WN of the LXX is the basis for EGW EIMI in John
8:58, and that is of course impossible. To see a parallel between the
linking verb EIMI in Exodus 3:14 and the EIMI  of John 8:58 is not possible
because they have different functions. There is an additional problem:
Jesus did not speak Greek but Hebrew ( or, less likely, Aramaic).  It is
true that EGW EIMI can translate )ANI HU or )ANI, and Jesus could have said
BETEREM HE:YOT ABRAAM )ANI or BETEREM HE:YOT ABRAAM ANI HU. These Hebrew
words are very difficult to associate with the Hebrew words in Exodus 3:14.

Neither of the two Hebrew clauses above have any mystical connotations, as
is the case with the usual  English translation of John 8:48 "Before
Abraham was, I am" (RSV). If Jesus used something like my first suggestion,
he would probably have stressed existence: he was alive before Abraham was
born. This is likely because of vv 56 and 57. If he used the words of my
second suggestion, he would probably have referred to himself as "the
prophet" or "the Messiah", something which is less likely in this context.
To read into Jesus' words a reference to Exodus 3:14, to the effect that he
claimed: "I am YHWH", is completely unfounded. We must remember that the
trinity doctrine was first born 400 years later, and that the writers of
the NT tells that Jesus is YHWH's *son* and not YHWH himself. The fact that
the jews tried to stone him, does not prove that Jesus claimed to be YHWH.
The claim that he had lived before Abraham, thus having a supernatural
origin, and his words which contradicted their understanding of their own
law, was enought in their eyes to take his life.

Regarding the question about how one would say "I am who I am" in Hebrew,
I doubt that anybody ever would see the need to use such words, so this
tautological expression was non-existent. To express eternality on the part
of God, other words are used. On fine example is psalm 90:2 which has
several parallels with John 8:58 (but also differences). If you are
interested in a deeper analysis of  this subject, I recommend my own book
about Bible translation (you can find it by searching on my name on Alta
Vista). About 20 pages are used to discuss the problems in translating John
8:58 because three languages with completely different verbal systems
(Hebrew, Greek and English) must be taken into account.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo