John 8:58 & scholarly sources

From: Ron Henzel (
Date: Thu Aug 22 1996 - 05:38:11 EDT

Alan wrote:

> You made such a strong statement to the effect that EVERYONE
> believes that John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 are parallel uses of
> 'I AM',

I think that if you check my recent messages, you'll discover that
you are engaging in gross exagerration.

> yet I find it interesting that your sources qualify
> their statements with words like 'could be' and 'awkward'.
> Awkward indeed !

No, my sources do *not* qualify their statements with words like
"could be" and "awkward!" *I* was the one who used the words "could
be," when I wrote:

>> Therefore, "I am who I am" of Exodus 3:14 could be interpreted as
>> an expression of divine impatience. God essentially cuts Moses'
>> line of questioning off, saying, "Look, Moses! Whatever you need,
>> I am!"

Those were *my* words, not the words of some "source." As for the
word "awkward," you completely misunderstood that quote:

>> Now: does such a line of reasoning preclude the notion of
>> timelessness in the original Hebrew? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Durham
>> seems to think that timelessness was also included in the basic
>> thought: "The repetition of these 'I AM' verbs, as awkward as it may
>> appear, is entirely intentional." [op. cit., p. 39].

Durham was *not* trying to establish a link between Exodus 3:14 and
John 8:58. He was simply making an observation about the Hebrew
text of Exodus 3:14! Therefore, I could not have possibly quoted him
as a "source" in support of such a link (at least not *that*
particular quote -- and since he was commenting on Exodus, and not
John, it's doubtful that he gave an opinion on such a link).
Therefore, he could not have been "qualifying" any statement about
such a link!

I quoted him only as an example of someone who thought that the
*Hebrew* text of Exodus 3:14 conveyed the idea of timelessness as
part of the being of Jehovah. HIS *separate* observation was that
the grammatical construction of the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 was
awkward. He, of course, is correct. He was *not* qualifying *any*
statement with the word "awkward," he was merely making a grammatical

sola (scriptura + gratia + fide) = solus Christus,

-- Ron Henzel

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:49 EDT