BDAG on EGW EIMI/ani hu (was Isaiah 47:8,10)

Dan Parker stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org
Fri Mar 16 21:32:31 EST 2001


> >From: "Dan Parker" <stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org>
> >Reply-To: "Dan Parker" <stoixein at sdf.lonestar.org>
> >To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> >CC: b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
> >Subject: [b-greek] Re: EGW EIMI in Isaiah 47:8,10
> >Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:55:05 +0000 (GMT)
> >
> > > >Brian,
> > > >I would be interested in understanding why the writer of Isaiah would
> > > >consider that the use of the first person pronoun "ani" would be
> > > >recognized as related to the Hebrew verb "eheyeh" either on or off 
> >list.
> > > >
> > > >Sincerely,
> > > >Dan Parker
> > >
> > > Are there any other instances in the LXX or Classical Greek in which EGW
> > > EIMI, SU EI, AUTOS ESTIN or HMEIS ESMEN occur without a complement?  I 
> >don't
> > > have much chance to use TLG and besides I don't think it allows for 
> >searches
> > > to include "without a complement."
> > >
> > > My hunch is that AUTOS ESTIN without a complement would, in theory, be
> > > equivalent to YHVH.
> > >
> > > John C. Wilking
> >
> >John,
> >Consider the use of EGW EIMI at John 9:9. There is no complement but it
> >does not seem that anyone thought the blind man was calling himself YHVH.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >Dan Parker
> 
> Dan,
> 
> I think EGW EIMI in John 9:9 is an example of an incomplete sentence with an 
> implied complement.
> 
> OUC OUTOS ESTIN O KAQHMENOS KAI PROSAITWN;
> OUTOS ESTIN (O KAQHMENOS KAI PROSAITWN)...
> EGW EIMI (O KAQHMENOS KAI PROSAITWN).
> 
> John C. Wilking


John,
Well, certainly I agree with that!  

BDAG, page 283 2a under EIMI says that the constructions of both
EGW EIMI and ani hu function just like you have described John 9:9

	"--To establish identity the formula EGW EIMI is oft. used in
	the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. ani hu Dt 32:39; Is 43:10), in
	such a such a way that the predicate must be understood from
	the context: Mt 14:27; Mk 6:50; 13:6; 14:62; Lk 22:70; J 4:26;
	6:20; 8:24,28; 13:19; 185f..."

I suppose if there were a group who considered the blind man to be
God because of his use of EGW EIMI they might not find this lexical
information convincing, but that would be a topic for a list that is
intended for the discussion of theology and not grammar.


Sincerely,
Dan Parker



More information about the B-Greek mailing list