Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Dear Greg,

The reason I did not respond to every jot and tittle of your argument that 
"son of
man/messiah" is the predicate of "I am he" in John 8:58 is because (as I 
already
said), such a predicate is logically problematic.  Also, your insistence that 
because
the predicate of "I am he" is "son of man/messiah" therefore the predicate is 
not the
same as the "I am he" statements in Isaiah (i.e. Yhwh) begs the question, Who 
is the
messiah (not "who by name?" but "what is his nature?").  Is he just a special 
man, a
unique descendant of David?

So John 8:58 adds something to what Jesus said previously - he existed before
Abraham.  He is now the son of man, but he could not exist AS the son of man 
before he
became the son of man/messiah/son of David (which requires human nature).  
What was
he, then, before he became the son of man?  What was he before Abraham 
existed?  A
god, an angel, a mere name, or yet-to-be-realized decree?  It is at this 
point that I
think the parallel construction of "before Abraham was, I am he" to Isa 43:13 
"from
the day [i.e. in the past], I am he" is relevant.

Let me mention a couple more parallels to the "I am he" (Yhwh) passages in 
Isaiah:
John 4:26 ego eimi ho lalwn soi is almost verbatim from Isa 52:6 My people 
shall know
my name; therefore in that day,  'ani hu' hammedabber hinneni.
John 13:19 "I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does 
occur, you
may believe that I am he" is a nice prose summary of Yhwh's statements that 
his
ability to predict the future (especially the deliverance brought by Cyrus) 
should
cause Israel to acknowledge that "I am he" (Isa 41:2-4; 43:10-13; 44:26-45:6;
48:12-14)

For what it's worth, I quote the following concerning studies of the EGW EIMI
statements in John that do not have a predicate:
Both [Raymond] Brown and [Philip] Harner argue that the absolute "I am" 
sayings find
no significant parallels in non-Jewish literature.  Both conclude that the key
influence upon the formulations comes from the Greek translation of passages 
in Second
Isaiah where Yahweh is made to say literally "I He" ('ani hu), and the 
translators of
the Septuagint have rendered the expression "I am" ego eimi (e.g., 47:8, 10). 
 . . .
Both agree that in those passages the meaning of the absolute "I am" is the 
emphatic
assertion of monotheism and that in effect it came to be used as an 
abbreviation for
the divine name itself.  Hence, Brown can conclude, "Jesus is presented [in 
the fourth
gospel] as speaking in the same manner in which Yahweh speaks in 
Deutero-Isaiah." And
Harner concurs, "Second Isaiah supplied John with a solemn expression that was
eminently suited for expressing the unity of the son and the Father and that 
had at
the same time a strong connotation of monotheism which also served to express 
the
Christian belief that God continued to be one."  Moreover, both Brown and 
Harner
affirm, in addition to this influence from the Greek form of Second Isaiah, a
knowledge on the fourth evangelist's part of the rabbinic use of "I am He" 
('ani wehu)
as a surrogate expression for the divine name, especially in the liturgy for 
the feast
of Tabernacles (e.g., Mishnah, Sukkah 4:5).
(end of quote from Robert Kyser, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An 
Examination
of Contemporary Scholarship [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1975], pp. 119-20).  The 
author's
own view is that the evidence given by Brown and Harner is "totally 
convincing" (p.
122).

GregStffrd AT aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/26/98 12:50:14 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> ronning AT ilink.nis.za writes:
>
> << Greg Stafford wrote:
>  >The implied predicate in Jesus' other EGW EIMI sayings (both in the
> Synoptics >and in the Fourth Gospel) is almost always "Messiah" or "Son of
> Man" (see, for >example, John 4:26; 8:28; Mark 14:62 [Luke 22:70]; compare
> Mark 13:6 [Luke >21:8] with Matthew 24:5), and there may be a similar
> predicate implied in John >8:58.
>
> ^^^^ I'm in general agreement with this but I think there is a problem with
>  "Son of Man/Messiah" as predicate in John 8:58 - Jesus is not "Son of
>  Man" until he takes on human nature. ^^^^^
>
> Dear John:
>
> Yes, and no. He is not officially anointed as the Messiah until his sojourn 
> in
> the flesh, but prophetically he was known as the Messiah from at least the
> time of Genesis 3:15. Then there is the fact that in the Judaism prior to,
> during, and after the first century CE it was thought that the name of the
> Messiah was preexistent. That is, it was predetermined by God before the
> Messiah actually appeared. Thus, the Targum of Micah 5:1 (2) reads,
>
> "And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, you who were too small to be numbered among
> the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the
> anointed One, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned
> from of old, from ancient times."---Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon,
> The Aramaic Bible, vol. 14, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Wilmington,
> Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1989), 122.
>
> I pointed out several things in Jesus' discussion with the Jews in the 
> context
> of John 8:58 that seem to support the view that we have _another_ use of a
> Messianic EGW EIMI. Since you did not reproduce them above, could you please
> comment on them next time?
>
> ^^^^ Two things are striking about egw
>  eimi in John 8:58 - one is that there is no predicate (when there is no
>  predicate it leads to the question "*Who* are you?" as in John 8:25).^^^
>
> But, John, the above question is in response, not to John 8:58 (which comes
> later in the dialogue) but to earlier statements made by Jesus, which he
> believed made it clear just who he was. The predicates for the EGW EIMI 
> saying
> of 8:24 (and 8:28) are so clear that Jesus replies, with perhaps a bit of
> frustration, saying, THN ARCHN hOTI KAI LALW hUMIN; compare 8:43.
>
> Also, the fact that the Jews did _not_ know who Jesus claimed to be shows 
> that
> they did not see in his use of EGW EIMI/ani' hu, in John 8:24 and 8:28, a
> claim to be God. It is only when he uses the expression a third time, with
> strong Messianic overtones, and where he claims priority to the Jews'
> "father," Abraham, that they become enraged and seek to kill him.
>
> Regarding John 8:24, which gives rise to the question in 8:25, to which you
> refer, surely we can see how Jesus would tell the Jews that they would die 
> in
> their sins if they refused to believe that he was the Messiah. Even if his
> enemies here failed to recognize those things foretold in the Bible about 
> the
> Messiah, Jesus certainly knew them: "By means of his knowledge the righteous
> one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their
> errors he himself will bear. . . . and he himself carried the very sin of 
> many
> people, and for the transgressors he proceeded to interpose."---Isa 
> 53:11-12.
>
> Also, in Daniel 9:24-25 we have a prophecy about the time when "Messiah the
> Leader" would appear, which is directly linked with the finishing off of 
> "sin"
> and the "atonement for error." Thus, for the Jews to reject Jesus, the 
> Messiah
> who would 'carry their sin,' would assure them of "death through sin."---Ro
> 5:12.
>
> Edwin D. Freed, "EGO EIMI in John VIII. 24 in the Light of Its Context and
> Jewish Messianic Belief," JTS 33 (1982), page 164, remarks: "When Jesus 
> thrice
> stated that the Jews would die in their sins unless they believed that ego
> eimi, he was doing only what the Messiah was expected to do-reprove 
> sinners."
>
> The context, then, in which the phrase ego eimi is used, favors seeing 
> another
> reference to Jesus as the Christ, the sent forth one of God. Godet rightly
> points out that the "understood predicate was certainly the Christ."---F.
> Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, vol. 2 (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
> 1886), 98.
>
>
> ^^^ Secondly, he does not say, "before Abraham existed, I was" (which is
>  what I assume he would say if he merely wanted to state his
>  pre-existence in agreement with Micah 5:1/2).  Thus there is use of a
>  "present" construction (I am he), with past time. ^^^^
>
> That is precisely the point, and that is why he used the present EIMI and 
> not
> the simple past HN. Jesus is _not_ merely stating his preexistence, but
> highlighting his continual existence from before Abraham's birth, to the
> present moment of his speaking with the Jews in John 8:58. This is, as you
> rightly state, in agreement with Micah 5:2, which is clearly a Messianic
> passage.
>
> The Greek idiom that denotes duration from a past time to the present
> requires, in most cases, a past expression with a present verb. This is what
> we find in John 8:58, and it fits perfectly with the context, and with the
> implications of his other EGW EIMI sayings.
>
>
>  ^^^^ In Isa 43:13 Yhwh says "From the day (miyyom), I am he," mixing past 
> and
>  present, and in 46:4 Yhwh says "even in your old age, I am he" mixing
>  the "present" (I am he) with a future reference.  In John 8:58 Jesus mixes
>  the present with the past.  Perhaps then the reason there is no
>  predicate in John 8:58 is that the answer to the question "Who are you?" is
> "I am the one who says `I am he'" in the Hebrew Scriptures; i.e. Yhwh. ^^^
>
> Again, the question "Who are you?" is asked throughout the discourse, even
> though Jesus revealed himself several times, even pointing to their lack of
> understanding and acceptance of him. However, this question could and I
> believe is answered by the implied/directly stated predicates in 8:24, 28, 
> 58,
> but the context has to tell us what those predicates are, and the same is 
> true
> with the 'ani hu sayings of Isaiah.
>
> However, when you analyze the context of these 'ani hu sayings you will find
> that the predicates to which hu refers are entirely different from those
> implied/directly stated predicates in John 8. Of course, John uses EGW EIMI 
> in
> a similar sense in John 9:9, namely, with a predicate ("the one born blind")
> from the context.
>
> Regarding the reference to Isaiah 43:13, I am not sure that we have, in
> Hebrew, a past with a present expression. Jehovah's words may simply mean,
> "From (to)day
> I am he." The hu refers back to the 'el of verse 12.
>
> But, in the LXX the use of ARCHN may be taken together with EGW KURIOS hO 
> QEOS
> to mean that Jehovah was their God, and not the idols mentioned in the
> context, from "the beginning," which is context-dependent and likely refers 
> to
> the beginning of his relationship with Israel.
>
> So there is a parallel of sorts in that we have Jehovah stating his 
> existence
> as God "from the day/beginning." But the predicate to which hu refers is 
> clear
> and unmistakable, as it is in EGW EIMI sayings of John 8 and 9.
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg Stafford
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: ronning AT ilink.nis.za
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.