Question re "I AM" in the gospels

by BlackSwan of Memphis 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  In John 18:6 it seems fairly clear that the implied predicate is "Jesus of Nazareth".

  Of course. That's why I classified the usage as ordinary from a purely linguistical viewpoint. The tip to the double entendre (as I perceive it) is narrative.

  If Jesus is meant to be claiming divinity rather than identifying himself as Jesus, then the fact is it would have been inaccurate for him to state "I told you that I am he", or, "I told you I am Jesus", in response to the statement they were looking for Jesus. Otherwise he should have said, "I told you that I am divine". The conversation makes much less sense if you think Jesus was claiming to be the I AM and then affirming it. Why did the soldiers not fall down the second time in that case?

  This makes much more sense: the soldiers are looking for Jesus. A man asks them who they are looking for. They say Jesus. The inquirer responds boldly that he is Jesus. The soldiers are startled at the self-identification from the famous preacher who is supposed to be on the run. Rousing them from the ground Jesus asks again who they are looking for, and again he confirms that he is Jesus and asks that the others be let go.

  Yeah sure.

  A debate focusing on isolated texts and starting from a non-contextual problematic (static and exclusive identities, "who is who") and dilemma (either "God" as opposed to "creature" or "creature") is probably one of the worst possible angles to appreciate literature in general and the Fourth Gospel in particular.

  An allusive style of writing using ambiguity, double entendre and deliberate misunderstanding is, by definition, not flagrant in any particular context; but becomes evident to the reader/hearer in a more inductive way, by an accumulation of "tips" as he reads and re-reads in a cursory / cyclical way. None is so obvious in itself as to be "undebatable" but once you have started to "see" you see more and more (cf. the blind man!). Which is about the opposite attitude to the use of individual verses as "prooftexts". The Gospel of John (and already, in a different way, that of Mark) is closer to an "initiatic" or "spiritual exercise" than to a theological treatise. It takes either a comprehensive analytical and comparative study of the whole Gospel (where Johannine use of ambiguity in egô eimi can be compared to and illustrated by the use of other ambiguities, e.g. about being born "again/from above," "Son of Man," "resurrection," and so on) -- or simple reading of the Gospel, depending on how your mind works.

  But in the end you either "see" or you don't (another Johannine theme). That works in literature as well as in religion I guess.
• 

  slimboyfat

  So is egô eimi used as an absolute or with an implied predicate in John 18? If this is not an example of an absolute use of the phrase then where is?

  I do see that egô eimi is used as a leitmotif in John's gospel. But it is everywhere used to identify Jesus as the Messiah not as God.
• 

  Narkissos

  So is egô eimi used as an absolute or with an implied predicate in John 18?

  Imo, both. There is an implied predicate on the surface of the narrative. But the "believing reader/hearer who knows better" (not out of sheer eisegetical fantasy, but because the text itself constructs this self-understanding) definitely perceives the absolute sense on a "deeper" level. The comical exaggeration (as the inquirers hear the egô eimi -- repeated for good measure --they fall to the ground) makes sure the intended reader doesn't miss it. (Humour is an integral part in this shift to a deeper/higher level of reading, cf. the conversations with Nicodemus or the Samaritan woman.)

  Btw this is (I believe) a very developed and consistent process in GJohn, but not unique to it. For instance, when in the Synoptic Gospels a sick person is said to be "saved" by his/her "faith" the surface meaning is "cured/healed through trust in God/Jesus," but the believing reader cannot miss an insider's "deeper" understanding. A point that many "functional equivalence" translations miss.

  I do see that egô eimi is used as a leitmotif in John's gospel. But it is everywhere used to identify Jesus as the Messiah not as God.

  Where exactly is an established, commonly accepted definition of "Messiah" as opposed to "God" found in the 1st century as a plausible background for this dichotomy? If it cannot be found (and even if it could), it might be methodologically better to let the contents of each work define what it means by "Messiah" and by "God", and how far those concepts are mutually exclusive or not.
• 

  Leolaia

  For instance, when in the Synoptic Gospels a sick person is said to be "saved" by his/her "faith" the surface meaning is "cured/healed through trust in God/Jesus," but the believing reader cannot miss an insider's "deeper" understanding.

  Another example of double entendre can be found in the healing story of the epileptic boy in Mark 9:26-27:

  "The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse (hósei nekros) that many said that (legein hoti) he was dead (apethanen).' But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted (égeiren) him to his feet, and he stood up (anesté)".

  The qualifying use of the comparative hósei and embedding apethanen as a complement of legein suggest that the boy was not really dead but only appeared to be in that condition. The author thus plays with the ambiguity of egeiró and anistemi, the two technical terms referring to resurrection in the NT, in this passage. The English translation (in this case, the NIV) does not express the double meaning, i.e. the connotations of resurrection.
• 

  Narkissos

  Good example: this play on the symbolism of resurrection actually runs through the Gospel stories and beyond (another very interesting case on the same -- unapparent -- motif is Peter's liberation from prison in Acts 12). The same can be said of other aspects of the Christian "mystery" such as the Eucharist (which is echoed in the multiplication and apparition pericopes but also in Paul's shipwreck story in Acts).

  Iow, in addition to conceptual anachronism, what is regularly missed in dogmatic debates using the Bible as a source of "prooftexts" is a consideration of the literary genre of the texts involved (be it "books" with a relative unity as Mark or John or smaller units in Luke or Acts). The interpretive pattern of "unique meaning" which applies to some (not all by far) modern literature simply doesn't apply. Patristic and medieval exegesis was much more sensitive to this "stratification of meanings" (with the flip side of unjustified allegory). To an extent, though, it seems to me that the average Bible reader (provided s/he is attentive to a possible symbolic dimension of the text and the "windows" from the surface meaning to "deeper" or "spiritual" meanings are not shut by the translation) often "feels" that better than the systematic dogmatician ("orthodox" or "heterodox"). JWs and xJWs, of course, may be in a relatively worse position to appreciate this aspect of Bible texts, because in the WT system cursory reading and meditation of Bible texts is at best secondary to doctrine...
• 

  slimboyfat

  In many/most of the passages where the phrase appears absolute, the context suggests a claim to Messiahship forms the implied predicate. Is there any equivalent passage where the question is "Who is God?", and Jesus steps forward, "I am"? It is not a matter of making an arbitrary or outside distinction between the Messiah and God. It is about paying attention to the context where the question is invariably about Messiahship not about divinity. Plus John 10:34-36 appears to be a key passage where Jesus clearly does not class himself as on a level with God.

  So there is humour at play in the text then? I wonder if it was meant as a joke that the blind man in John 9:9 uses this phrase that many commentators insist was used by Jesus to claim divinity. Or did the author put the phrase into the mouth of another innocently? And if that could be done so easily, just how special is this phrase then?

  I must admit to being bamboozled a bit by the complexity of these issues, but I re-read what BeDuhn wrote on the subject today and it still sounds eminently sensible to me:

  One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression "I am" in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. In this verse, the words ego eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say "I am he," the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that ego eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title for God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency in how words are handled by biased translators. If ego eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translators we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying "I am," let alone "I AM." According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its "interlinear" form, the blind man is also God. We'll leave that problem to them. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech...

  It is Jesus' claim to be superior to Abraham, and to have a superhuman longevity, not a claim to a divine self-designation, that enrages the audience. Jesus' claim here fits perfectly John's understanding of Jesus as God's logos, or creative agent at the beginning of time, in John 1. Jesus' argument in John 8:58 is that he has superiority over Abraham, and so by the standards of Jewish society, he has greater authority than the patriarch. No one listening to Jesus, and no one reading John in his own time would have picked up on a divine self-identification in the mere expression "I am", which, if you think about it, is just about the most common pronoun-verb combination in any language.

  I am not claiming that Jesus' remark in John 8:58 is without significance, nor that is has nothing to do with the Old Testament background. Two passages from Isaiah appear to be related in thought. Isaiah 41:4, God says "I, God, I am first and to (all) futurity." In the Greek Septuagint translation of this verse, the phrase ego eimi comes at the end of the sentence. Yet here, as in John 5:58, the verb "am" has a predicate phrase referring to time: "first and to futurity." Another related passage, Isaiah 46:4, shows God saying, "I am, and until you have grown old, I am." Ego eimi is used twice in this sentence, once again in relation to a temporal reference. Yet obviously the "I am" is not a name or a title. Instead God declares his ongoing existence in reference to the aging of his audience. In a sense, Jesus appropriates this kind of language for himself in the Gospel of John, and uses it to characterize his close identification with the God who speaks that way in the Old Testament. You can make several different sorts of theological interpretation based upon that fact. But the interpretation should not be forced back into the text of the Bible.

  This discussion has piqued my interest so I decided to order the following book that apparently discusses the issue.

  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rhetoric-Reference-Journal-Testament-Supplement/dp/1850753458/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238003479&sr=1-3

  I will report if it says anything interesting. Has anyone else read it?
• 

  moshe

  I Am, pretty certain that I will never understand the Bible. I Am, also pretty sure I will never understand the deep hidden thoughts in the novel, Moby Dick, which I have failed to read as a school assignment several times ( thank you cliff notes).

  I Am, certain I know why this is- one book is a whale of a tale and the other book is a tale of a whale. Whale books are just too big for humans to digest, I guess.
• 

  rocky

  ***

  w749/1HowAreGodandChrist“One”?

  ***

  NOT

  ETERNALLIKEHIS

  FATHER

  The oneness or unity that Jesus enjoyed with his Father is, of course, far greater and grander than that enjoyed in any human father-and-son relationship. Even before the creation of the physical universe the Father and the Son were “one.”

  With reference to his prehuman existence, Jesus said to unbelieving Jews: “Before Abraham ever was, I Am.” (John 8:58, JerusalemBible) Did Jesus thereby identify himself as being Jehovah? Did not God tell Moses, “‘I Am who I Am. This’ he added ‘is what you must say to the sons of Israel: “I Am has sent me to you”’”? (Ex. 3:14, Je) Many translations use the expression “I Am” both at John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. But do both texts express the same thought?

  No. We know that they do not because at Exodus 3:14 the Greek SeptuagintVersion (the translation that was often quoted by the apostles in the first century C.E.) reads, e·go′ei·mi′hoOhn′, “I am the Being.” This is quite different from the simple use of the words e·go′ei·mi′ (I am) at John 8:58. The verb ei·mi′, at John 8:58, is evidently in the historical present, as Jesus was speaking about himself in relation to Abraham’s past. Numerous translators indicate this in their renderings. For example, AnAmericanTranslation reads: “I existed before Abraham was born!”

  Jesus’ pointing to his prehuman existence should have come as no surprise to the Jews. Centuries earlier, Micah’s prophecy said of the Messiah: “You, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.” (Mic. 5:2) Thus while Jesus existed long before Abraham, he is not without beginning. Unlike his Father, who is “from time indefinite to time indefinite,” the Son is spoken of as having “origin.”—Ps. 90:2.

  The very fact that Jesus is called the “Son of God” reveals that he was produced by the Father and is, therefore, his firstborn and only-begotten Son. Jesus himself said: “I live because of the Father.” (John 6:57) After having come into existence, the Son was used in creating everything. (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:2) As firstborn Son, this one enjoyed a special intimacy with the Father. He is spoken of in Scripture as being “in the bosom position with the Father.”—John 1:18.

  So perfectly did Jesus reflect the image—the personality and ways—of his Father that he could say to Philip: “He that has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) That is why one can come to know God only through the Son. As Jesus put it: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and who the Son is no one knows but the Father; and who the Father is, no one knows but the Son, and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal him.”—Luke 10:22.

  What a grand oneness exists between Jehovah God and his firstborn Son! They are always “one” in purpose and activity. But, as the Scriptures clearly show, they are not equal. The Son always acknowledges his Father’s superior position, subjecting himself to his Father as his God and delighting in doing his Father’s will. “He that sent me,” said Jesus, “is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.” (John 8:29; 1 Cor. 11:3) Thus Jesus truly is, not ‘God the Son’ or the “second person” of a triune God, but the “Son of God.”—John 20:31.

  [Footnotes]

  This rendering is in harmony with the lexicons of Brown-Driver-Briggs, Koehler-Baumgartner and Gesenius.
• 

  Narkissos

  In many/most of the passages where the phrase appears absolute, the context suggests a claim to Messiahship forms the implied predicate.

  I can see that in 4:25f -- which interestingly enough uses the transliteration Messias instead of the Greek Khristos (also 1:41) but seems to refer to the Samaritan concept of ta'eb (he that returns or comes back) as being essentially a revealer or teacher like Moses ("he will proclaim everything to us"). Formally it may be read as an absolute use (not necessarily, as Jesus' sentence can also be read independently as "I am the one speaking to you"). I didn't count it as absolute in the strictest sense inasmuch as the most natural reading (at surface level) is indeed a backward reference to "Messiah" as the implied predicate.

  Now how this applies to 8:24, for instance, is another matter: here there is no title referred to as a predicate in the previous dialogue but a complex statement by which Jesus deepens the prophetic misunderstanding of the crowd (v. 22): "You are from below, I am from above (egô ek to anô eimi); you are of this world, I am not of this world (egô ouk eimi ek tou kosmou toutou)." (V. 23.) That the next absolute use of egô eimi is understood neither as a reference to the previous declaration of origin/nature nor as a positive affirmation of identity is apparent from the next question (v. 25a): Who are you? (further misunderstanding). The next reply in 25b is notoriously obscure although formally reminiscent of 4:26... In 8:28, still in the same context of utter misunderstanding (again, v. 27) a reference to "the Son of Man" as implied predicate is formally likely but it hardly clears the overall meaning.

  We could go on and on but imo nothing is worth a cursory reading of the text (in a fairly literal translation): I don't know how anyone who plays the game fairly (or enters and abides by the "reader's contract" if you will) can escape the conclusion that through a continuous use of tragicomical misunderstanding and double entendre the Johannine Jesus is basically portrayed as a mystery flowing from "the Father" and extending to the elect. The characteristic use of "I am," just as the peculiar use of more common "messianic" or "christological" titles, or even the use of theos/theoi (God/gods) are all part of the same original strategy. It doesn't give a static definition of Jesus' identity as essentially distinct from the Father or the elect. Apart from this inclusive mystery, "by himself," Jesus is nothing (5:19,30; 8:28,54; 9:33; cf. 15:5). Which incidentally explains why the same Gospel provides the best weapons to both sides of the anachronistic christological debate: the "highest christology" on one side and the lowliest admissions of dependence on the other.
• 

  slimboyfat

  So if we are playing the game fairly and are signed up to the reader's contract... what are we to make of John 9:9? What's the significance of putting this phrase into the mouth of someone other than Jesus, or is it just a coincidence and the author thought nothing of it? Maybe I seemed flippant before, but I am actually interested.