From: Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@www.plantnet.com)
Date: Wed Dec 22 1999 - 20:29:07 EST
<x-flowed>To: Charles C. Stevens,
<< It thus seems to me extremely likely that the implied predicate is
supplied by "common knowledge" between Jesus and the inquisitors, in
particular to the likes of LXX Exodus 3:14 "EGW EIMI hO WN" (IMHO echoed
several times in LXX Isaiah, for example 43:25, 45:18, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12).
The implied predicate in this case would be "hO WN", and the audience
knowing that reference would *reasonably* respond in the manner described.
In other words, ISTM the most probable explanation for the reaction of the
scribes and pharisees to Jesus' ambiguous statement is that *they* took the
implied predicate as "hO WN", and were outraged at the implications (a
claim to identity with the speaker in Exodus 3:14), whether Jesus could be
demonstrated to have meant it that way or not! >>
IMO your suggestion here is simply impossible. First of all, you seem to
assume that there is a predicate missing from the phrase EGW EIMI. That is
simply incorrect, the phrase EGW EIMI is a common Greek idiom meaning "I am
he" (assuming a male speaker, or "I am she" for a female speaker). One can
find this phrase used this way without any predicate in both Classical
Greek texts as well as the NT and LXX. Second, you seem to suppose that
these two words EGW EIMI could serve as an allusion to the LXX text which
reads: EGW EIMI hO WN (Ex 3:14 LXX). But this is simply impossible for a
number of reasons. The main reason is that the phrase EGW EIMI is just too
common for it to serve as a reminder for that particular passage. Even in
the LXX the phrase EGW EIMI is common. Why should Ex 3:14 pop into their
mind any more than lets say Judges 11:27: EGW EIMI OUC hHMARTON SOI "I have
not sinned against you" (2 Kgs 11:5 LXX)? I would guess that given that
Jesus was male, the phrase EGW EIMI EN GASTRI ECW "I am pregnant" would not
pop to mind. But why not: EGW EIMI HDIKHSA "I am unjust" (2 Kgs 24:17 LXX)?
Or why shouldn't it bring to mind: EGW EIMI SUNESTRAFHN EPI TON KURION MOU
"I conspire against my lord" (4 Kgs 10:9 LXX)? These last two passage could
then been seen as confessions of Jesus' guilt, and thus give ample reason
that he should be stoned. But given how common the phrase EGW EIMI is, it
is simply impossible for these two words by themselves to call to mind any
one passage in the LXX. Then there is the further problem, that if one
assumes that John 8:58 is historical, it is very likely that Jesus was
speaking in Aramaic and not Greek. It is hardly likely that Jesus'
opponents, or even Jesus, would be familiar with the LXX.
Actually, if one looks closely at these LXX examples, one will see that EGW
EIMI usually means nothing more than "I am the one" and is used for
emphasis. This also fits for the many passage you cited from LXX Isaiah
(43:25, 45:18, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12). For example:
EGW EIMI EGW EIMI hO EXALEIFWN TAS ANOMIAS "I am the one, I am the one who
blots out your lawless" (Is 43:25 LXX).
EGW EIMI EGW EIMI KURIOS hO LALWN DIKAIOSUNH "I am the one, I am the Lord,
speaking righteousness" (Is 45:19 LXX).
There is no grammatical justification to assume that EGW EIMI in these
passages of LXX Isaiah call to mind LXX Ex 3:14.
-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@www.plantnet.com
Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree),
what do I know?"
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT