NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

by hamsterbait 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

My Struggle

bookmarked
rocky

*** Rbi8pp.1582-15836FJesus—InExistenceBeforeAbraham
*** Jesus—InExistenceBefore
Abraham 8:58—“beforeAbrahamcameintoexistence,Ihave
been” πρι`ν?Αβραα`μγεν?σθαι?γω`
ε?μ? ge·ne′sthai e·go′
ei·mi′)
Fourth/Fifth “before Abraham was, Syriac—Edition:
Century I have been” ATranslationoftheFour
GospelsfromtheSyriac
of
theSinaitic
Palimpsest,
by Agnes Smith Lewis,
London, 1894.
Fifth Century “before ever Abraham Curetonian Syriac—Edition:
came to be, I was” TheCuretonianVersion
of
theFourGospels, by
F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1,
Cambridge, England, 1904.
Fifth Century “before Abraham Syriac Peshitta—Edition:
existed, I was” TheSyriacNew
Testament
Translatedinto
English
fromthePeshitto
Version,
by James Murdock, seventh
ed., Boston and London,
1896.
Fifth Century “before Abraham Georgian—Edition:
came to be, I was” “The Old Georgian Version
of the Gospel of John,” by
Robert P. Blake and Maurice
Brière, published in
Patrologia
Orientalis,
Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4,
Paris, 1950.
Sixth Century “before Abraham Ethiopic—Edition:
was born, I was” NovumTestamentum. .
.
Æthiopice (The New
Testament . . . in
Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell
Platt, revised by F.
Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation ε?μ? (ei·mi′), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.
Concerning this construction, AGrammaroftheIdiomoftheNewTestament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 ?π’ ?ρχη~ς μετ’ ?μου~ ?στ? [ap’ar·khes′met’e·mou′e·ste′], viii. 58 πρι`ν ?Αβραα`μ γεν?σθαι ?γω` ε?μι [prinA·bra·am′ge·ne′sthaie·go′ei·mi].”
Likewise, AGrammarofNewTestamentGreek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 2 48 13 7 . . . 15 29 . . . Jn 5 6 8 58 . . . ”
Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that ?γω` ε?μ? (e·go′ei·mi′) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ’ani′hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.
Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ?Εγ? ε?μι ? ω?´ν (E·go′ei·mihoon), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3 ftn; App 6A, 6E.
rocky

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
Application
toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
Application
toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for JesusChrist, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one throughwhom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
Application
to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

***
rsp.412par.3-p.414par.3Trinity
***
Alpha
and Omega: To whom does this title properly belong? (1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS,NE,JB,NAB,Dy. (2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there. See NW, 1984 Reference edition. (3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6) (4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it. (5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son. Savior:
Repeatedly the Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Italics added.) (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a?, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations. God:
At Isaiah 43:10 Jehovah says: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Does this mean that, because Jesus Christ is prophetically called “Mighty God” at Isaiah 9:6, Jesus must be Jehovah? Again, the context answers, No! None of the idolatrous Gentile nations formed a god before Jehovah, because no one existed before Jehovah. Nor would they at a future time form any real, live god that was able to prophesy. (Isa. 46:9, 10) But that does not mean that Jehovah never caused to exist anyone who is properly referred to as a god. (Ps. 82:1, 6; John 1:1, NW) At Isaiah 10:21 Jehovah is referred to as “mighty God,” just as Jesus is in Isaiah 9:6; but only Jehovah is ever called “God Almighty.”—Gen. 17:1.
If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called “king of kings” (Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus’ disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called “the light of the world.” (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the Bible where the same expression occurs.
Application
toJesusChristbyinspiredBiblewritersofpassagesfromtheHebrewScripturesthatclearlyapplyto
Jehovah
Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
rocky

***
it-2pp.55-56JesusChrist
***
What
did Thomas mean when he said to Jesus, “My Lord and my
God”?

On the occasion of Jesus’ appearance to Thomas and the other apostles, which had removed Thomas’ doubts of Jesus’ resurrection, the now-convinced Thomas exclaimed to Jesus: “My Lord and my God! [literally, “The Lord of me and the God (hoThe·os′) of me!”].” (Joh 20:24-29) Some scholars have viewed this expression as an exclamation of astonishment spoken to Jesus but actually directed to God, his Father. However, others claim the original Greek requires that the words be viewed as being directed to Jesus. Even if this is so, the expression “My Lord and my God” would still have to harmonize with the rest of the inspired Scriptures. Since the record shows that Jesus had previously sent his disciples the message, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and tomyGod and your God,” there is no reason for believing that Thomas thought Jesus was the Almighty God. (Joh 20:17) John himself, after recounting Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Jesus, says of this and similar accounts: “But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by means of his name.”—Joh 20:30, 31.
So, Thomas may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in the sense of Jesus’ being “a god” though not the Almighty God, not “the only true God,” to whom Thomas had often heard Jesus pray. (Joh 17:1-3) Or he may have addressed Jesus as “my God” in a way similar to expressions made by his forefathers, recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, with which Thomas was familiar. On various occasions when individuals were visited or addressed by an angelic messenger of Jehovah, the individuals, or at times the Bible writer setting out the account, responded to or spoke of that angelic messenger as though he were Jehovah God. (Compare Ge 16:7-11, 13; 18:1-5, 22-33; 32:24-30; Jg 6:11-15; 13:20-22.) This was because the angelic messenger was acting for Jehovah as his representative, speaking in his name, perhaps using the first person singular pronoun, and even saying, “I am the true God.” (Ge 31:11-13; Jg 2:1-5) Thomas may therefore have spoken to Jesus as “my God” in this sense, acknowledging or confessing Jesus as the representative and spokesman of the true God. Whatever the case, it is certain that Thomas’ words do not contradict the clear statement he himself had heard Jesus make, namely, “The Father is greater than I am.”—Joh 14:28.
Leolaia

Narkissos....I searched the TLG for examples of prin/pro and eimi and found some interesting examples; none closely parallel the form in Psalm 89:2 LXX and John 8:58.
Exodus 4:10 LXX: "I am not competent (oukh hikanos eimi) — before yesterday (pro tés ekhthes) or before the third day (pro tés trités hémeras) or from the time you began to speak to your attendant (aph' hou érkhó lalein to theraponti sou), I am/have been weak-voiced and slow-tongued (iskhnophónos kai braduglóssos egó eimi)".
Testament of Job 2:1-2: "For I used to be Jobab before the Lord named me Job (egó gar eimi Ióbab prin é onomasai me ho kurios Iób). When I was called Jobab (hote Ióbab ekaloumén), I lived (ókoun) quite near a venerated idol's temple".
Menander, Dyskolos 615-616: "For I have been your friend for a long time (eimi gar soi palai philos), you should know that's true, even before I saw you (prin idein)".
Gospel of Bartholomew 1:19: "Permit me to enter into myself, for I was formed before you were (pro gar sou egó plastos eimi)".
Anything interesting pops out for you in these examples? In the Exodus passage, eimi takes adjective complements that indicate that a state in the present extends into the past. We don't have a contrast between the present and aorist in the prin phrase (but see érkhó lalein in the apo phrase) nor an absolute use of egó eimi. In the case of the Testament of Job passage, eimi similarly takes a complement but here the prin clause marks a change of state, such that being Jobab is explicitly NOT a state in the present that extends into the past (as in a present of a past action). But like John 8:58 we have prin (é) introducing an aorist infinitive. So it is syntactically similar (setting aside the rest of the eimi predicate) but also semantically quite dissimilar. The Menander passage looks like a true present of a past action and we have prin introducing an aorist infinitive again but the prin phrase is secondary to palai making the friendship extend over a duration in the past. Also eimi again takes a complement. The last example from the Gospel of Bartholomew is from a discussion between the Devil and Hades and the latter says that he was formed before the Devil was. Again eimi is not absolute but takes plastos as its complement and pro does not introduce an aorist verb for the present to contrast with. Eimi also pertains to a single event in the past (the creation of Hades) as being anterior to another event, and not a durative/iterative action or state (such as existence). Psalm 89:2 LXX has egó eimi by itself to indicate existence, prin/pro taking an aorist infinitive verb in contrast to the present indicative, and the present tense indicating existence in the remote past.
I guess next I can search the same database for examples with present indicative einai in other persons than the first.
Leolaia

Of course, I meant su ei in my last post and not egó eimi with respect to Psalm 89:2 LXX; I wish again we had more than 30 minutes to fix typos and what not.
I also forgot to add the point concerning the Testament of Job that the prin clause in John 8:58 doesn't indicate a change of state -- as if Jesus' existence somehow ended when Abraham came into existence. It's still a kind of odd use of the present for the author of the Testament of Job — maybe a narrative present?
Narkissos

Thank you Leolaia,
It seems to me that those cases are best understood when related to a general use of the present tense which is common to Greek and French (among many languages) but different from English. The English "present perfect" (as I call it, but maybe it's not the right term) corresponds to the French "present" for an action/state starting in the past and still continuing, whether the past reference is indicated with a punctual starting date (I have been here since 2003 = je suis ici depuis 2003) or an expression of duration (I have been here for six years = je suis ici depuis six ans). E.g. Genesis 31:41, tauta moi eikosi etè egô eimi en tè oikia sou, I have been in your house for twenty hears now, Je suis (present tense in French, like in Greek) dans ta maison depuis vingt ans maintenant.
Now how this general usage relates to the use of prin / pro (before) in circumstantial clauses is interesting. In many cases the continuation to the present (and even into the future) is obvious. In the case of Exodus 4:10 the Greek formulation is awkward due to the calque of the Hebrew idiom mitmôl / mishilshom, "from yesterday / the day before," which moves the clear (although negative) expression of a "starting point" to the next clause, aph'ou èrxô lalein..., since you have begun speaking... (cf. Septuagintal Lexicography, ed. R.A. Kraft, p. 105). The case of Testament of Job 2:1f is more interesting: I would wonder, from the Greek formulation, if the speaker ceases to be Jobab once God names him Job and he is no longer called Jobab... if not the parallel would be better. The Menander example falls into the general rule I have mentioned above, as the prin clause is secondary as you pointed out. Gospel of Bartholomew 1:19 sounds like a periphrastic past tense (eimi + verbal adjective) with the function of a Greek aorist or English preterit (Latinism?).
Maybe I should have added that the wording of John 8:58, although definitely unusual (even if we can gather a handful of examples with the present tense in the main clause like Proverbs 8:25, they must be weighed against the countless examples with an imperfect or aorist in the main clause), is clearly understandable. The basic, superficial, zero-degree meaning in micro-context (the sentence) is indeed something like "even since before Abraham was born I have been" -- but the intratextual connection with the other absolute uses of egô eimi is essential to the book context, and no translation of the Fourth Gospel should miss that imo.
hamsterbait

MY God THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
I cannot belive the genuine interst my question has aroused and the research.
I have to admit that my question is based on having a HATE filled tirade against the catholic and all the usual targets of WT condemnation from my Mother on a recent visit.
More to come tho
HB
Leolaia

It is true that Job is still called Jobab by other people later in the narrative, so I suppose it is not so much as a change of state as it might first read.
The thing that is interesting about the Testament of Job, which may be relevant to the unusual eimi in 2:1, is that Job's personal identity is a large theme of the book (relating not just to his name change but also to his complete reversal of forture and change of appearance) and so eimi is a leitmotif throughout some key passages. Job says to his children "I am your father Job (egó eimi ho patér humón)" in 1:5, "I am from the sons of Esau" (egó eimi ek tón huión Ésau) in 1:6, and "I am Jobab before the Lord called me Job" (egó eimi Ióbab prin é onomasai me ho kurios Iób) in 2:1. Within the narrative himself, after Job is victorious in his faith, Satan twice uses egó eimi to contrast himself with Job: "I am weary and I withdraw from you, even though you are flesh and I am spirit (egó eimi pneuma). You suffer a plague but I am in deep distress (egó eimi en okhlései megalé)" (27:2). Then Job had his identity questioned by the visiting kings. Job says "my fellow citizens showed me to them but they remonstrated, saying that I was not Jobab" (29:1). But they were still in doubt so Eliphaz, king of Teman, asked him, "Are you really Jobab, our fellow king?" and Job says he wept, "shaking my head and throwing dust on it. And I said to them, 'I am' (egó eimi)" (v. 4). Then in ch. 30, the kings "said to one another, 'We do not believe that this is he' " (30:3), and they inspected Job a week and Eliphaz questioned him again: "Are you really Jobab, our fellow king? Are you the one who once had vast splendor? Are you the one who was like the sun by day in all the land? Are you the one who was like the moon and the stars that shine at midnight?" (v. 5). And Job again replied: "I am (egó eimi)" (31:6). Then in ch. 32 Eliphaz goes into a lengthy lament reiterating and expanding his questions about Job's identity. In reponse, Job talks about his kingdom as not belonging to the world but in heaven and "its splendor and majesty are in the chariots of the Father" (33:9). The provenance and relationship of the book with Christian literature is uncertain, but there is some good parallels here with John, and interesting that here too the egó eimi + prin phrase is part of a broader use of egó eimi throughout the work.
oompa

why are we doin this?...for a book with no originals?...when it could have been written or printed in stone on the inside of a pyrimid or cave to last forever?......oompa

NT "ho theos", and John 8: 58

Share this