John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14 Part Two

And we continue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaliberCadillac

Whether or not the early Church Fathers “made the connection” is somewhat superfluous.

I am simply pointing out that they were either reading the texts in the original Greek, their native language, or heard them spoken in such fashion. I don’t know for certain that the koine Greek in which the texts were written was the same dialect as that of the Fathers but Greek was the native tongue of the early Fathers.

For us today, it is a dead language so we are learning it less intuitively and much more theologically.

Quote:

We have since had some 2000 years of brilliant (and at times, not so brilliant), scholars examining the Scriptures and discovering things that they may have never even imagined.

Certainly and in many cases for the better. But we have also had 2,000 years of theology by which we read into the texts. More recent doesn’t always equate to better.

Quote:

Secondly it’s an argument from silence. While we have Church Fathers commenting on the passage of John 8:58 itself, (as you provided), we don’t seem to have any that actually comment directly comparing John with Exodus.

I would think that if it was so blatantly obvious, they would have said something. I remain convinced that textually the connection was not there.

Quote:

I will, however, zero in on this particular passage from Irenaeus:

First of all, the brackets are completely yours. Irenaeus does not say “i.e. the Father not Jesus.”

Of course he doesn't. That's why I put the brackets in there. Didn’t mean to imply they were in the original text.

Quote:

Secondly, notice the first sentence that states, “Wherefore, as I have already stated, no other is named as God…”

What Irenaeus had ‘already stated’ is found in the preceding paragraph where you will find him declaring,

“Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it:..” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VI,1)

Quote:

Irenaeus is clearly stating that the name “Lord” and the word “God” (as used in the OT), refers to both the Father and the Son.

That's my point. It is the Father and the Son. The key is that the "He who is" (i.e. the ho on as found in Exodus 3:14 of the LXX) refers to the Father.

Quote:

As I stated before, since they don’t comment directly about a comparison, no conclusions should be made. We don’t know if they ever made the connection or not. If they did, there is nothing extant that has survived.

That too is an argument from silence. What we do have is a pretty strong indication that they did not make the connection.

Quote:

I don’t really buy that they misunderstood him in this context. They certainly rejected him, they certainly felt he posed a threat to their authority, I doubt they ever believed him, but misunderstand him? I think not! While Jesus was at times very misunderstood by everyone, (including his own disciples), John doesn’t tell us this was the case here.

He doesn't say they misunderstood him in other places either but it's pretty evident they do.

Quote:

It does when you understand that the EGO EIMI name literally means the “eternally existing one.”

The ego is for emphasis of eimi. Eimi is the Greek verb "to be." It does not mean 'eternally existing one.' Ho on, not ego eimi, in the LXX, means "he/the one who is".

Quote:

When Moses asked God what his name was, the name given was “the eternally existing one.” (EGO EIMI).

Ho on, not ego eimi. It would read in English something like this: "I, even I, am he who is." The ego eimi is the "I, even I, am" and the ho on is the "he/the one who is" part.