8/13/2019 I Am That I Am: Understanding Exodus 3:14 in Older
Bibles
2/3
2
In certain obsolete usages, that wasa versatile word. As an
equivalent of the modern what,it was an abbreviation of that
whichor that that.Early writers often dropped which or that,but the
omitted words were silently understood by the reader:
1549 Matthew Bible: I spare, lest any man should think of me
above that he seeth me tobe. [= that which or what he sees me to
be] (2 Corinthians 12:6)]
The practice of omitting a word so that it becomes a silent
partner, so to speak, is calledellipsis. This particular elliptical
usage was common in older Bibles, but has disappearedfrom our
language and is no longer understandable. Grammarian A.C. Partridge
explains:
Relative (or demonstrative) that for that that, modern what
(that which)
This is an elliptical usage, and consequently it is difficult to
determine whether thedemonstrative or relative was omittedExamples:
Genesis XXXII, 23: And he tookethemand sent over that hee had (=
what); Luke XII, 33: Sell that yee have, and givealmes.
5
Manfred Grlach adds:
A typical Early Modern English feature is the use of that for
that which in nominalrelative clauses what did not become frequent
until the seventeenth century.
6
With the passage of time, then, compound and elliptical
usagesbecame less popular, andwhat replaced them. As a result, we
were left with several ways of saying the same thing.Compare
different translations of Matthew 20:14 (spelling updated):
Wycliffe 1380:Take thou that that is thine and go, for I will
give to this last man as tothee.
7
Tyndale 1526:Take that which is thy duty, and go thy way. I will
give unto this last asmuch as to thee.
8
Coverdale 1535:Take thatthine is and go thy way. I will give
unto this last also, like asunto thee.
9
New King James 1982:Take what is yours and go your way. I wish
to give to this last
man the same as to you.These examples illustrate how the
ellipsis works, and how at Exodus 3:14 that (that) or that(which)
with ellipsis might mean I am whatI am.10
However another elliptical usage is also possible, one that was
typically employed withreference to persons.11Here the word or
words in first position were ellipsed from he that,they that, orthe
person that. We see this ellipsis in Tyndales New Testament at Mark
2:3:
1549 Matthew Bible: And there came unto him that brought one
sick of the palsy, borneby four men. [=people that,orpersons
who]
In the KJV we see it at Proverbs 11:24:
KJV: There is thatscattereth, and yet increaseth. [=he that or a
person who scatters]
The Oxford English Dictionary gives Exodus 3:14 as an example of
this second form ofellipsis.12If so, I amthat I amis an elliptical
form of I amhe that I am,or perhaps I am theone that I am. Of
course, now we would say who, which leads to the New King
Jamesrendering.
In the final analysis, the distinction is not great, and perhaps
we cannot really expect todelimit the question of the name of our
infinite God; that is, what wondrous thing or personor being He may
be. This must in part have been the point of Gods answer to
Moses.Furthermore, judging by the variety of translations, the
Hebrew is imprecise. It so happened
8/13/2019 I Am That I Am: Understanding Exodus 3:14 in Older
Bibles
3/3
3
that the KJV could reflect this, because it drew on the English
language in an age and timewhen words were fuller and
many-facetted, pregnant with meanings and nuances ofmeaning; when
the thoughts of men were often less precise; when expression was
looserand more all-encompassing.13 The men of the King James
revision committee chose arendering that captured all the
possibilities inherent in the Hebrew.
In conclusion, it appears that at Exodus 3:14 in the KJV there
is an elliptical usage of thepronoun that.Tyndale was unusually
modern when he put what.The KJV rendering is notproblematic due to
any fault of its own, but to changes in our language over time.
1 Michael Kuykendall, The Quaker Bible: Anthony Purvers Glorious
Failure, Bible Editions &
Versions, 14, no.4 (October-December 2013), p.15. Purver began
his work in about 1706. Hepublished a complete Bible in 1736, which
came to be known as the Quaker Bible.
2Ibid, p. 18.
3 No doubt the Hebrew, like the English that, could function as
pronoun or conjunction. In early
modern English that was sometimes used as the conjunction
because. I am told that at least one
other Bible, Spurrells of 1885, has the translation I am because
I am.4From Tyndales 1530 Pentateuch as carried into the Matthew
Bible (MB), first published in 1537,
being the first English Bible containing translations from the
original Greek and Hebrew. My source ismy original 1549 edition.
All MB quotations are from my copy. Spelling may be silently
modernized.
5A.C. Partridge, English Biblical Translation(London, England,
Andre Deutsch, 1973), p. 129.
6Manfred Grlach, Introduction to Early Modern English (Cambridge
University Press, 1991), p. 125.
7From The English Hexapla(London, Samuel Bagster and Sons,
M.DCCC.XLI; Facsimile by Lazarus
Ministry Press, 1999).
8William Tyndales 1526 New Testament (Facsimile by Hendrickson
Bibles, 2008).
9Miles Coverdales 1535 Bible, Volume 2 (Facsimile by The Bible
Readers Museum, 2009).
10It was not always clear which pronoun was ellipsed. Regarding
the ellipsis of 2
nd(relative) pronouns
after that, see the discussion at entry 7 of That, pronoun 1 in
the online Oxford English Dictionary(OED). The OED shows here
another ellipsis in their example Who is that stands by the dying
fire(= that that or that who).
11Online OED, entry 3.b of That, pronoun 2. (The online OED can
only be accessed by subscribers.)
12 Ibid. This ellipsis seems fairly frequent in complementary
use after be, asat Exodus 3:14, which
tends to support the OED classification of it. See also Proverbs
11:24 above, p.2.
13A much smaller vocabulary meant that one word often meant much
more than it does now. This
must have affected peoples world view, and also resulted in what
to moderns would be considerableambiguity. I discussed this more
fully in No Room in the Inn,also posted on Scribd.
Ruth M. Davis, November 2013. Ruth is editor of the New Matthew
Bible Project, dedicated toupdating the 1549 Matthew Bible for
today. Information is at www.newmatthewbible.org. Ruth is alsothe
author of the book True To His Ways: Purity and Safety in Christian
Spiritual Practice, asurprising, insightful, and biblical
examination of the problems with Charismatic spiritual
practices.Information about the book is at
www.truetohisways.com.
