[B-Greek] John 8:58 and Gen 17:1 (LXX)

Doug Hoxworth doughoxworth at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 18 14:11:05 EST 2005


after further reflection, i have some additional
thoughts that i would appreciate your comment on.

><Carl>
>Quite frankly, I think that the supposed similarities
are really superficial and wanting in significance.

<doug>
i agree that it is not "air-tight" by any means. what
has been wanting, in my mind, in the interpretation of
john 8:56ff is that it seems that rarely is the issue
of how the dialogue relates to abraham seeing Christ's
day (along with the discussion about abraham that they
initiated in v. 33 as a rebuttal to Jesus' challenge
for them to continue) dealt with. in my opinion, that
is a very important aspect of the text. when did
abraham "see" this? precisely what "event" is Jesus
referring to here?

so that's what i was looking for--something in the
context of abraham's life which might indicate what
Christ is referring to in John 8. and to me, what is
more important than the verbal parallels (which i
would probably limit to AGRAM and EGW EIMI and perhaps
what/who appeared (+) and what/who he saw (-)) is the
reference to the abrahamic event.

><Carl>
>(3) I'm not sure why the change of name should be
thought significant here; after Gen 17:5 the form
ABRAAM is standard in the LXX (210x) and it is
standard in the GNT (73x: the form ABRAM is NOT found
in the GNT).

<doug>
i didn't really think it was. i only noted it because
Gen 17.1 had ABRAM while John 8 had ABRAAM. and i
noticed that here was his name change. so i thought it
may be a bit significant though not central.

><Carl>
>(4) IDHi + acc. direct object/WFQH + dative: while
these forms are suppletions associated with the same
composite irregular verb built on three different
roots (hORA, wEID/wOID/wID, OP), the usages in these
two phrases are fundamentally different: hINA IDHi is
in effect an infinitive following upon HGALLIASATO and
does mean "to see" while WFQH with dative is the
standard formula for a supernatural vision ("appeared
to ...").

<doug>
i realized this as well. but they seemed to be the two
sides of the coin. YHWH appeared => ABRAM saw (thus
the + and - above). and since Jesus was referring to
something abraham "saw" i thought it may be helpful to
see what/who had "appeared" to abraham as recorded in
Genesis.

><Carl>
>(6) EGW EIMI; there continues to be dispute over
whether EIMI in John 8:58 is existential ("I exist")
or a copula with an implicit predicate-word ("I am
he"); in Gen 17:1 EIMI is unquestionably a copula
linking the speaker's EGW with the predicate nominal
expression, hO QEOS SOU, a rather weak (I'd say) Greek
formulation of the original Hebrew ANI EL-SHADDAY,
wherein the copula is implicit rather than expressed.

<doug>
what are your thoughts about it doing double-duty
here? for example, serving as a reference to existence
(contrasted with PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI) AND as a sort
of aposiopesis of Genesis 17:1 (EGW EIMI hO QEOS SOU).
does this sound unreasonable/far-fetched in your
opinion?

><Carl>
>(7) Is it supposed that either Jesus in the
confrontation narrated in John 8 or the evangelist who
composed the narrative had the GREEK LXX text of
Genesis 17:1 in mind in formulating the phrasing of
John 8:58?

<doug>
is that unreasonable though? would they not have been
familiar with the LXX text? does that not appear to be
the primary source for NT quotations of the OT? but i
think it is pretty apparent that we do not have a
quotation but an allusion here. so i wouldn't go to
the wall for this one. like is said before, to me, the
primary link between the two is the reference to the
abrahamic event. and i would propose that this is the
the appearance of YHWH in the abrahamic covenant which
in the minds of the listeners was the starting
point/focus/essence of their faith (e.g., that they
were children of abraham who received the promises of
the seed, the people, the land, the kingdom, etc.).
this event defined them as a people--the people of
YHWH.

><Carl>
>I'm sorry to be pouring cold water over this
hypothesis; others may find it appealing; I think it's
interesting but insubstantial in the face of the
critical questions.

<doug>
so if we do not focus on the verbal parallels (do not
employ them in the argument), what are your thoughts
about the conceptual parallels regarding what abraham
saw (john 8.56)? does that provide a link in your
opinion? do you think that this has no basis at all?

Doug Hoxworth
Luther Rice Seminary


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250



More information about the B-Greek mailing list