Hi Steve,
I was listening to your audio commentary on "ego eimi" (John 8:58 in your Life of Christ tape series). You mentioned that the Jehovan Witnesses claim that the Greek Septuagint did not have "ego eimi" in Exodus 3:14. But I checked my Bible software and I found "ego eimi ho ohn" (I am who I am) in the Septuagint Exodus 3:14. So "ego eimi" can be found there!
Anyway, I'm not a Greek scholar nor an apologist. So I did a quick Google search on the Internet and found this page:
http://neirr.org/egoeimi.htm
It explains how the New World Translation conveniently left out of its footnotes that "ego eimi" even appears in the Septuagint text of Exodus 3:14. There are scanned images of the relevant NWT pages on the website.
John 8:58 - ego eimi
-
_Benjamin Ho
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: Singapore
John 8:58 - ego eimi
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Grace and peace,
Benjamin Ho
Benjamin Ho
Hi Ben,
Thanks for writing to me about this and for sending the link. I have just discovered your message. I don't know why I didn't see it earlier. I sometimes get several messages around the same time and some get lost in the shuffle. I am trying to eliminate this problem, but I am getting old and absent-minded and am having "senior moments" more frequently than I used to!
It is true that "ego eimi" ("I am") is found in the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14, but (according to my limited understanding of Greek) it is not in the correct place to be the proper name in the passage. The Septuagint reads "ego eimi ho on" (something like "I am the one who is") but the "ego eimi" is functioning in its normal sense without being the proper name. This seems confirmed by the rest of the verse: "Thus you shall say...'I AM has sent me to you." This abbreviated version of the Name is not translated as "ego eimi," but as "ho on."
If I were to say "Ego eimi (I am) Steve Gregg" followed by, "tell them 'Steve Gregg sent you,'" you would understand that my name was Steve Gregg, and that I had used "ego eimi" in a generic sense, not as my name. Therefore, in the Septuagint, it is "ho on" that represents the divine Name, not "ego eimi."
Remember that, in John's Gospel, the author has translated Jesus' saying from their original Aramaic words into Greek equivalents. If John had meant to indicate that Jesus was identifying Himself with the divine Name in Exodus, he would probably have translated it using the same words he would find in Exodus, in the Septuagint (which was the Greek Bible that he and everyone else used). The fact that he did not reproduce these words from Exodus suggests he was not viewing them as a citation of that passage.
Of course, I do believe that Jesus, in saying "I AM" (ego eimi) in John 8:58 was indeed claiming a divine title for Himself. I just doubt that it was the particular title given in Exodus 3:14.
Rather, I believe He was adopting the title, "I AM," by which Yahweh designates Himself in places like Isaiah 41:4; 43:13; 46:4 and 48:12, where the present-tensed "I am" functions independently from the tense of the rest of the sentence, as is the case in John 8:58. Although the Hebrew of these passages actually reads "I—he" (implying "I am he"), the Septuagint consistently translates these with the words "ego eimi" (I am).
For example, Isaiah 46:4 reads: "Even to your old age, I AM" (capitalization my prerogative). One would have expected it to read "I will be"—had not "I am" been intended as an unchangeable title).
Another of these passages, Isaiah 43:13, has the same structure as does John 8:58—
"Before the day was, I AM"
"Before Abraham was, I AM"
(capitalization my prerogative, in both instances)
Again, we would expect it to read "I was," in order to fit the tense of the earlier verb in the sentence—had not the title. "I AM," been inflexible.
Thus, I think Jesus is indeed invoking a title that belongs to Yahweh, and thereby declaring His own deity—but not necessarily alluding to Exodus 3:14. I think it was F.F. Bruce who first brought this to my attention (through his excellent commentary on John, that is. I never knew the man).
Thanks for writing to me about this and for sending the link. I have just discovered your message. I don't know why I didn't see it earlier. I sometimes get several messages around the same time and some get lost in the shuffle. I am trying to eliminate this problem, but I am getting old and absent-minded and am having "senior moments" more frequently than I used to!
It is true that "ego eimi" ("I am") is found in the Septuagint at Exodus 3:14, but (according to my limited understanding of Greek) it is not in the correct place to be the proper name in the passage. The Septuagint reads "ego eimi ho on" (something like "I am the one who is") but the "ego eimi" is functioning in its normal sense without being the proper name. This seems confirmed by the rest of the verse: "Thus you shall say...'I AM has sent me to you." This abbreviated version of the Name is not translated as "ego eimi," but as "ho on."
If I were to say "Ego eimi (I am) Steve Gregg" followed by, "tell them 'Steve Gregg sent you,'" you would understand that my name was Steve Gregg, and that I had used "ego eimi" in a generic sense, not as my name. Therefore, in the Septuagint, it is "ho on" that represents the divine Name, not "ego eimi."
Remember that, in John's Gospel, the author has translated Jesus' saying from their original Aramaic words into Greek equivalents. If John had meant to indicate that Jesus was identifying Himself with the divine Name in Exodus, he would probably have translated it using the same words he would find in Exodus, in the Septuagint (which was the Greek Bible that he and everyone else used). The fact that he did not reproduce these words from Exodus suggests he was not viewing them as a citation of that passage.
Of course, I do believe that Jesus, in saying "I AM" (ego eimi) in John 8:58 was indeed claiming a divine title for Himself. I just doubt that it was the particular title given in Exodus 3:14.
Rather, I believe He was adopting the title, "I AM," by which Yahweh designates Himself in places like Isaiah 41:4; 43:13; 46:4 and 48:12, where the present-tensed "I am" functions independently from the tense of the rest of the sentence, as is the case in John 8:58. Although the Hebrew of these passages actually reads "I—he" (implying "I am he"), the Septuagint consistently translates these with the words "ego eimi" (I am).
For example, Isaiah 46:4 reads: "Even to your old age, I AM" (capitalization my prerogative). One would have expected it to read "I will be"—had not "I am" been intended as an unchangeable title).
Another of these passages, Isaiah 43:13, has the same structure as does John 8:58—
"Before the day was, I AM"
"Before Abraham was, I AM"
(capitalization my prerogative, in both instances)
Again, we would expect it to read "I was," in order to fit the tense of the earlier verb in the sentence—had not the title. "I AM," been inflexible.
Thus, I think Jesus is indeed invoking a title that belongs to Yahweh, and thereby declaring His own deity—but not necessarily alluding to Exodus 3:14. I think it was F.F. Bruce who first brought this to my attention (through his excellent commentary on John, that is. I never knew the man).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_love the logos
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: houston, tx
Is it possible that when Jesus actually spoke in his native language that he did allude to exodus 3:14. I know its widely recognized that even if he did not say the "I am " of God's given name to moses how can we base that on the study of the septuagint?
I always thought the idea was the original texts were Infallible not the copyed texts. So how can we base this on the understanding of the sept? I mean... for instance can't be say that the septguaint intended to allude to the "I am". I'm sorry I did not here your talk on it but I am still curious why it is not the same "I am" other than the septguaint reference or am I missing something?
For instance many times make references to the Petros, petra issue but then they say "Well in his native tongue Jesus would have said Kepha so it would not have mattered". Do you see what I mean? What would Jesus have said in Hebrew that is not the same thing stated in Exodus 3:14. And if it is not the same thing why is it worthy of being stoned? The jews obviously see the clarity in what jesus means that he is saying he is God. He doesn't say "i am God, the one who made you, fully man and fully God"[not in that exact way]. can you clarify then? Its possible you understand it better than I do.
Why do other scholars I've heard always refer to the john 8:58 as Jesus saying I AM. Are they inaccurate? And why do we not tell the Bible translators?
Thanks for your time.
In Christ,
Steven.
I always thought the idea was the original texts were Infallible not the copyed texts. So how can we base this on the understanding of the sept? I mean... for instance can't be say that the septguaint intended to allude to the "I am". I'm sorry I did not here your talk on it but I am still curious why it is not the same "I am" other than the septguaint reference or am I missing something?
For instance many times make references to the Petros, petra issue but then they say "Well in his native tongue Jesus would have said Kepha so it would not have mattered". Do you see what I mean? What would Jesus have said in Hebrew that is not the same thing stated in Exodus 3:14. And if it is not the same thing why is it worthy of being stoned? The jews obviously see the clarity in what jesus means that he is saying he is God. He doesn't say "i am God, the one who made you, fully man and fully God"[not in that exact way]. can you clarify then? Its possible you understand it better than I do.
Why do other scholars I've heard always refer to the john 8:58 as Jesus saying I AM. Are they inaccurate? And why do we not tell the Bible translators?
Thanks for your time.
In Christ,
Steven.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 john 1:12
We can't assume that the Septuagint (LXX) is always the most accurate translation of the Hebrew original, but we can assume that it is the Greek Old Testament with which the early Christians were familiar, and with which they would be expected to compare the wording used by John in his Greek translation of Jesus' words.
It is possible that, in Aramaic, Jesus may have used the same words as found in the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, but in choosing which Greek words to use in translating them, John (if he recognised Jesus' words as a quote of that passage) would most likely have used the Greek words that were already found in the popular Greek translation of Exodus.
There is no question that, whether Jesus was alluding to Exodus or to Isaiah, His words were an implicit claim that He was, in fact, Yahweh. This is why the Jews were disposed to stone Him. It need not be that they were thinking specifically of the words spoken at the burning bush.
As for whether the scholars are wrong or not, I cannot say. All scholars do not say exactly the same things about this, so some of them must be mistaken. F.F. Bruce is my favorite evangelical New Testament scholar, and it is he from whom I gleaned my own understanding of this passage.
It is possible that, in Aramaic, Jesus may have used the same words as found in the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14, but in choosing which Greek words to use in translating them, John (if he recognised Jesus' words as a quote of that passage) would most likely have used the Greek words that were already found in the popular Greek translation of Exodus.
There is no question that, whether Jesus was alluding to Exodus or to Isaiah, His words were an implicit claim that He was, in fact, Yahweh. This is why the Jews were disposed to stone Him. It need not be that they were thinking specifically of the words spoken at the burning bush.
As for whether the scholars are wrong or not, I cannot say. All scholars do not say exactly the same things about this, so some of them must be mistaken. F.F. Bruce is my favorite evangelical New Testament scholar, and it is he from whom I gleaned my own understanding of this passage.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve