Re: John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)

From: Dan Parker (stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org)
Date: Tue Dec 28 1999 - 18:02:07 EST


>
> I havenât noticed reference to Bultmannâs analysis of EGW EIMI (forgive me
> if I have missed it) and it is perhaps worthy of consideration.
>
> He says, ãWe must distinguish various forms of the EGW-EIMI formula,
> although of course there are transitions between them: 1. The
> Îpresentation formulaâ, which replies to the question: ÎWho are you?â By
> the use of EGW EIMI the speaker introduces himself as so and so; here EGW is
> the subject.... 2. The Îqualificatory formulaâ, which answers the
> question: ÎWhat are you?â, to which the reply is, ãI am that and thatâ, or
> ÎI am the sort of man who...â. Here too EGW is subject.... 3. The
> Îidentification formulaâ, with which the speaker indentifies himself with
> another person or object. Here too EGW is subject.... 4. The Îrecognition
> formulaâ, which is to be distinguished from the others by the fact that here
> EGW is the predicate. For it answers the question: ÎWho is the one who is
> expected, asked for, spoken to?â, to which the reply is: ÎI am he.âä (The
> Gospel of John, pgs. 225-26, n. 3). Bultmann supplies a number of examples
> from Jewish and non-Jewish literature for each use and analyzes many of the
> examples in Johnâs Gospel.
>
> In my view, while some on the list have suggested we have here an example of
> what Bultmann calls a Îrecognition formulaâ (ãI am heä), the context does
> not suggest as much since there has not been reference to one who is
> expected, asked for or spoken to (for a good example of this use see Mt.
> 14.27 and par.).
>
> While the LXX of Ex. 3.14 does not use EGW EIMI, as others have noted in
> this list, the phrase is used of God in Dt. 32.39; Isa. 41.4; 43.10; 46.4;
> and 48.12. In commenting on the passage under discussion in this string,
> Jn. 8.58, Bultmann rejects such an association since then the phrase would
> mean, ãI am the ÎI-am,âä which is impossible since then EGW ãwould have to
> be both subject and predicate!ä (ibid.. 328, n. 5). If, however, the phrase
> could be a form of the Divine Name then Bultmannâs analysis in terms of
> subject and predicate does not apply.
>
> As Chuck Stevens has pointed out, the context in the Gospel suggests
> something worthy of death has just been spoken. I think the rest of Johnâs
> Gospel uses agent language and prophet language to bear witness to Jesusâ
> identity as transcending all such categories to the extent that he is
> associated with God in a unique way. Thus, a reference to the Divine Name
> is quite in keeping with this passageâs context and Johnâs Gospel in
> general. Such discussion, however, goes beyond the limits of this list.
>
> Rod
>
> The Rev. Dr. Rodney A. Whitacre
> Professor of Biblical Studies
> Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry
> 311 Eleventh Street
> Ambridge, PA 15143
> USA
>

I have always considered the phrase PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI to be an
adverbial subordinate clause which modifies the principal clause of
EGW EIMI. I tag this as a adverbial clause because PRIN is the
subordinating conjunction. To me this means that the question
being answered is a temporal one, that of "when," not "who" or
"what."

This seems to be in line with the question asked in verse 57 as
to how someone not yet 50 years old could have seen Abraham.

I am interested in your comment that EGW EIMI is a form of the
divine name. Where is EGW EIMI used in this fashion?

Sincerely,
Dan

-- 
Dan Parker stoixein@sdf.lonestar.org

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:52 EDT