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

David Hindley DHindley at compuserve.com
Sat Dec 25 10:42:54 EST 1999


Solomon Landers said:

>>But does not all of this imply that Jesus and the head religious leaders 
of the Jews in Jerusalem were speaking Greek, or thinking in Greek? And how 
likely is that? The Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 does not translate literally into 
EGO EIMI hO WN, that would be "Ani Hawayah." Rather, it says "Ehyeh asher 
Ehyeh, "I will be who I will be," (Botterweck, TDOT, vol. 3, p. 381; Propp, 
The Anchor Bible, p. 204) which is something else.<<

If the account used by the author of Mark (or Luke) was circulated in the 
Jewish diaspora, it would more than likely reflect influence from the LXX 
over that of the Hebrew when it comes to a choice of circumlocution for the 
Name. I am not trying to make any assumptions about the provinence of the 
source, only that it could be construed, like the LXX, render a *form* of 
the Name by means of the phrase EGW EIMI hO WN. That is why I said "however 
transformed the present passages are due to the tendencies of the authors 
of Mark or Luke." Perhaps I should have said "however transformed the 
present passages *may be* due to the tendencies of the authors of Mark or 
Luke".

>>In addition, the divine name YHWH was not uttered as a "circumlocution" 
on the Day of Atonement. That was the one day it was uttered as a "shem 
hammeforash," or distinctive name in its true letters, by the high priest 
in the temple, according to the Mishnah and Talmud.<<

I am not saying that a circumlocution was substituted for the Divine Name 
when the HP utters the name on the day of Atonement, only that the source 
used by the author of Mark (and/or Luke) recorded an utterance, by Jesus, 
of the Divine Name by means of a circumlocution. It is what I would expect 
from a 1st century Jewish source, whether composed in Judea (in Hebrew or 
Aramaic) or the Diaspora (in Greek).

In Luke the HP may have uttered an indirect circumlocution when asking his 
question of Jesus, and Jesus (in either account) may then have uttered the 
actual Name in his response. The author of the hypothetical source (a court 
transcriptionist if this represents a historical event, or a Jewish author 
of a tract making charges against Jesus) used by the author of Mark chose 
to represent by a more direct circumlocution.

That my suggested meaning of the phrase EGW EIMI as used by the author of 
Mark (and/or Luke) is problemetic is not necessarily fatal. If we were to 
exclude from consideration all interpretations that are problemetic, we'd 
be forced to throw out a good part of Christian dogma! However, let's not 
take a theological detour here. I only offered "circumlocution for the 
Divine Name" as an alternative to the positions outlined in my initial 
post. No challenge to Christian doctrine is intended.

Regards,

Dave Hindley



More information about the B-Greek mailing list