[B-Greek] Question for discussion about EIMI

Hugh Donohoe Jr. justusjcmylord at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 27 13:28:08 EST 2007


This comment reminds me of a recent book I heard
about. The name of the author eludes me. The basic
premise of the books states that Christians have read
Platonic and Aristotelian ontology into the Ex. 3
pericope. The author says the point of the text is
covenant faithfulness and God's immutable nature.

While I would not say that Jesus did not know Hebrew
well (he certainly could read the text in a synagogue
setting, Lk.4). It is possible he knew Greek better
than Hebrew. Jesus had a substantial ministry in
Galilee which was heavily hellenized (Galilee of the
Gentiles). Porter has written an interesting  article
on the subject (I have it at home in my library, but
I'm travelling right now). The Syro-Phoenician woman
may have communicated with Jesus in Greek as a common
language between them. The use of iota in the Sermon
on the Mount may elude to Jesus teaching Greek,
Mt.5.18. Jesus' conversation with Pilate may have been
in Greek since it was the administrative language
inherited from the formerly Greek empire. No
translator is mentioned (silence is a weak argument I
know). Porter argues the pace of the conversation goes
against a translator being present. The evidence is
not conclusive. Reconstructing the linguistic milieu
exactly is not possible. But on a final note, the
funery inscriptions of Jews in  Galilee from the era
of Jesus are in Greek 60 percent of the time (if my
memory is correct). Even the tombs of Rabbis are found
in Greek! It seems natural enough that people would
want the lives of their loved ones commemorated in a
language that could be readily understood. This points
to how ubiquitous Greek was in the area.

Forwarded for: Tsialas Vasileios

Relevance between Ex 3:14 (LXX) and John 8:58 can
stand if Jesus was speaking in Greek and didn't know
Hebrew well. Otherwise, there is semantic and
syntactic difference between hayah in Ex 3:14 and EIMI
John 8:58. Hayah means "to become, to occur, to be
present" (not simply "to exist"). That is why Ludwig
Koehler and Walter Baumgartner have rendered ehyeh
asher ehyeh, "I shall be who I shall prove to be". In
order to avoid the semantic difference, many scholars
point Isaiah's use of ani (rendered also EIMI by the
LXX), which could be used in a Hebrew dialogue in the
contextual structure of John 8:58. Furthermore, the
syntactic difference has to do  with the absence of
any predicate in John 8:58, that, on the contrary,
exists in Exodus 3:14.
 
On the other hand, EGW EIMI of John 8:58 could be
simply taken as historical presence, a tense referring
to a situation existed in the past and still exist, in
this case referring to Jesus' existence, that was long
enough to precede Abraham's existence. The scenario of
historical present seems to be strengthened by the
Peshitta's version of the verse, which is translated
by Lewis (1896), "Before Abraham was, I have been."
 
Kind regards,
 
Tsialas Vasileios
 
Athens, Greece
 
P.S. Forgive me for my poor English.



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs



More information about the B-Greek mailing list