John 8:58 (Does anybody have anything NEW to say?)
Rod Whitacre
rodwhitacre at home.com
Tue Dec 28 17:12:45 EST 1999
I havent noticed reference to Bultmanns analysis of EGW EIMI (forgive me
if I have missed it) and it is perhaps worthy of consideration.
He says, We must distinguish various forms of the EGW-EIMI formula,
although of course there are transitions between them: 1. The
presentation formula, which replies to the question: Who are you? By
the use of EGW EIMI the speaker introduces himself as so and so; here EGW is
the subject.... 2. The qualificatory formula, which answers the
question: What are you?, to which the reply is, I am that and that, or
I am the sort of man who.... Here too EGW is subject.... 3. The
identification formula, with which the speaker indentifies himself with
another person or object. Here too EGW is subject.... 4. The recognition
formula, which is to be distinguished from the others by the fact that here
EGW is the predicate. For it answers the question: Who is the one who is
expected, asked for, spoken to?, to which the reply is: I am he. (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 Johns Gospel.
In my view, while some on the list have suggested we have here an example of
what Bultmann calls a recognition formula (I am he), 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, I am the I-am, which is impossible since then EGW would have to
be both subject and predicate! (ibid.. 328, n. 5). If, however, the phrase
could be a form of the Divine Name then Bultmanns 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 Johns
Gospel uses agent language and prophet language to bear witness to Jesus
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 passages context and Johns 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
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list