I saw some discussion on John 8:58. I thought that the posters here would like to see what Dr. Jason BeDuhn has concluded with his research on the subject.

Conclusion and ranking of English translations of John 8:58

LB "I was in existence before Abraham was ever born!"

The LB comes out as the most accurate translation of John 8:58. The translator avoided the lure of bias and the pressure of the KJV tradition. The NW is second best i n this case, because it understands the relation between the two verbs correctly, even though the influence of the KJV has led its translators to put the verb improperly at the end of the sentence. The average Bible reader might never guess that there was something wrong with the other translations, and might even assume that the error was to found in the LB and NW. When all you can do is compare the English translations, and count them up like votes, the LB and NW stick out as different in John 8:58 . It is natural to assume that the majority are correct and the odd ones at fault. it is only when translations are checked against the original Greek, as they should he, that a fair assessment can be made, and the initial assumption can be seen to be wrong. [page 111]

John 9:9 - The blind man says ego eimi
One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translations we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,’’ let alone “I AM.” According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its “interlinear” form, the blind man is also God. We’ll leave that problem to them. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech [page 110]


TRUTH IN TRANSLATION

For orders and information please contact the publisher - UNIVERSITY PRESS of AMERICA, INC.
4501 Forbes Blvd. Suite 200 - Lanham, Maryland 20706 - 1-800-462-5220 www.univpress.com

Today @ 09:54 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

I saw some discussion on John 8:58. I thought that the posters here would like to see what Dr. Jason BeDuhn has concluded with his research on the subject.

John 9:9 - The blind man says ego eimi
One passage usually missing from the discussion of the expression “I am” in the Gospel according to John is John 9:9. I n this verse, the words egw eimi are heard from the mouth not of Jesus, but of a blind man cured by Jesus. He, too, uses the words to say “I am he,” the man who before was blind, but have been cured. If anyone needs proof that egw eimi need not be a quote from the Old Testament, and is not reserved as a title of God, here it is. Once again, our attention is drawn to inconsistency i n how words are handled by biased translators. If egw eimi is not a divine self-proclamation in the mouth of the blind man of John 9, then it cannot be such a proclamation in the mouth of Jesus just a few verses earlier. None of the translations we are comparing, of course, have the blind man saying “I am,’’ let alone “I AM.” According to the reasoning of those who insist that the phrase must be understood as a declaration of divine identity, and so preserved in its “interlinear” form, the blind man is also God. We’ll leave that problem to them. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to see in John 9:9 a clear example of the idiomatic use of the expression ego eimi in Greek speech [page 110]

Utter garbage! For a scholar this in inexcusable. The blind man was considered to be a sinner from birth by both the disciple's of Jesus (Jn 9:2) and the Pharisees (Jn 9:34). As a "sinner" he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, as long as he was blind, therefore no religious education. Since he was blind he could not read. Therefore he would NOT have known the customs or conventions of Judaism.

Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression.

Using this as a counter example is about on par with asking an undeducated homeless street person to decide a theological point. I do not intend to let my beliefs be decided by one uneducated blind beggar.

Today @ 07:08 PM post located here
OldShepherd:


Utter garbage! For a scholar this in inexcusable. The blind man was considered to be a sinner from birth by both the disciple's of Jesus (Jn 9:2) and the Pharisees (Jn 9:34). As a "sinner" he would not have been permitted in the temple or the synagogue, as long as he was blind, therefore no religious education. Since he was blind he could not read. Therefore he would NOT have known the customs or conventions of Judaism.

Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression.

Using this as a counter example is about on par with asking an undeducated homeless street person to decide a theological point. I do not intend to let my beliefs be decided by one uneducated blind beggar.

Dear OldShepherd,
You mean that beggars were exempt from being stoned for blasphemy? I don't understand.

If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 12:16 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear OldShepherd,
You mean that beggars were exempt from being stoned for blasphemy? I don't understand.

If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Did you read my post? Read it then ask your asinine quesions. I mean that those outside the congregation, would not know and would not be expected to know all the rules and practices of the congregation. For example, not only were gentiles excluded from the Sabbath, they incurred the death penalty if they did observe the Sabbath.

"If ego eimi is a common expression then what makes you think it is the name of God?" Asinine! READ THE POST! "Begging in the marketplace and other places where crowds gathered, he would have heard Greek spoken by many non-Jews, for whom "ego eimi" would have been a common expression." Can you see what I said now?

Dear Cal

The problem with John 8:58 / John 9:9 is not that both say EGO EIMI but that Jesus compares Abraham's coming into existance against His own existance (note that He says nothing about His own begetting here! Hmm.) and so the contrast is what causes the outrage.

No such contrast in John 9:9. Grammatical studies bear this one out, and for BeDuhn to miss this is well, what kind of research is this guy doing? Does he discuss the grammar in the chapter Cal?

thanks, from Guy

I am so saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob Christ of His rightful glory.

Dear Old Shephard,
Do you have to be so hateful in your replies? I'm not impressed with BeDuhn's arguments either, from what I've seen posted, but your writing style is almost embarrasing. Especially when Cal doesn't respond back in kind. You can be mild-tempered and modest while still being right. GHBearman (Guy) is still contesting Cal's scholar but do you see a difference in his method and yours?

Sorry, maybe the bold-font is getting to me. I do appreciate your efforts though.

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here
Reasonable:

Dear Old Shephard,
Do you have to be so hateful in your replies? I'm not impressed with BeDuhn's arguments either, from what I've seen posted, but your writing style is almost embarrasing. Especially when Cal doesn't respond back in kind. You can be mild-tempered and modest while still being right. GHBearman (Guy) is still contesting Cal's scholar but do you see a difference in his method and yours?

Sorry, maybe the bold-font is getting to me. I do appreciate your efforts though.

Please see my nic. that is not an affectation. I have been around more than six decades. I am not shouting, I use bold for one simple reason, so I can read my own posts a little easier.

Today @ 05:01 AM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

I am so saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob Christ of His rightful glory.

Dear DeeDee,
I am saddened by the lengths people will go through to rob the God and Father of Jesus Christ of his own rightful personal glory. (Is 42:8).

Regards,
Cal

Today @ 04:32 AM post located here
ghbearman:

Dear Cal

The problem with John 8:58 / John 9:9 is not that both say EGO EIMI but that Jesus compares Abraham's coming into existance against His own existance (note that He says nothing about His own begetting here! Hmm.) and so the contrast is what causes the outrage.

No such contrast in John 9:9. Grammatical studies bear this one out, and for BeDuhn to miss this is well, what kind of research is this guy doing? Does he discuss the grammar in the chapter Cal?

thanks, from Guy

Dear Guy,
The only instance of EGW EIMI that fits your criteria is John 8:58. Does that mean you do not see any special significance in the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus in the NT? If so, you do not agree with what I have read in Trinitarian circles.

It is one thing to exclude John 9:9 from being different than John 8:58, but that hurts you in the long run if you harmonize all of scripture.

Do you have an all-encompassing view on the use of EGW EIMI by Jesus?

Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 06:19 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:




Dear Guy,
The only instance of EGW EIMI that fits your criteria is John 8:58. Does that mean you do not see any special significance in the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus in the NT? If so, you do not agree with what I have read in Trinitarian circles.

It is one thing to exclude John 9:9 from being different than John 8:58, but that hurts you in the long run if you harmonize all of scripture.

Do you have an all-encompassing view on the use of EGW EIMI by Jesus?

Regards,
Cal

Well, now this is just a poor understanding of textual theory as it relates to hermeneutics. Words only acquire meaning as they are used in certain contexts. For example if I say the word "Trunk" you have no idea what I am referring to unless that word is used in a particular context. I could mean the trunk of a car, a piece of luggage, part of a tree or part of an elephant.

Thus to claim that EGO EIMI must carry the same meaning everywhere it occurs is simply a bad understanding of the english language.

Grace and Peace.

Today @ 04:11 PM post located here
Trinitarian:



Well, now this is just a poor understanding of textual theory as it relates to hermeneutics. Words only acquire meaning as they are used in certain contexts. For example if I say the word "Trunk" you have no idea what I am referring to unless that word is used in a particular context. I could mean the trunk of a car, a piece of luggage, part of a tree or part of an elephant.

Thus to claim that EGO EIMI must carry the same meaning everywhere it occurs is simply a bad understanding of the english language.

Grace and Peace.

Dear Trinitarian,
I did not make the claim that it must have exactly the same meaning everywhere. For example I think it has a different meaning in John 8:58 than in all the other occurences.

My comments were with respect to a particular argument given by another Trinitarian. He said that at John 8:58 it had a different sense than at John 9:9 because at John 8:58 Jesus was comparing his existence to that of Abraham.

My response is that many Trinitarians who have written on the subject consider all the EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus, particularly in John, to be a statement of his divinity.

My question to the poster was how can that be if in those examples Jesus not comparing his existence to anyone like at John 8:58.

So you see, we are closer with respect to hermeneutics that you thought. I demand that the same Trinitarian criteria be used on the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus as they use on the blind man of John 9:9. Let's see what happens then.

For a good summary of BDAG on the subject I just worked up for another Trinitarian, see how they view the EGW EIMI sayings in context at http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...629#post134629

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 12:23 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

So you see, we are closer with respect to hermeneutics that you thought. I demand that the same Trinitarian criteria be used on the other EGW EIMI sayings of Jesus as they use on the blind man of John 9:9. Let's see what happens then.

Of course EGO EIMI means something completely different in John 9:9 and it does in John 8:58. The issue is what it means in it's particular context. I certainly wouldn't consider every occurance of EGO EIMI to be an affirmation of diety. However in this context it clearly is, and that is the point that a Trinitarian Christian would affirm. You seem to be operating off of a false premise that all Trinitarians hold all of the I AM sayings of Jesus to be affirmations of the divine name (YHWH) or of deity. This is not an accurate assumption. Each one must be read in it's context befure such determinations can be made. However in the case of John 8:58, in view of the context, the claim to divinity is clear.

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here
Trinitarian:



Of course EGO EIMI means something completely different in John 9:9 and it does in John 8:58. The issue is what it means in it's particular context. I certainly wouldn't consider every occurance of EGO EIMI to be an affirmation of diety. However in this context it clearly is, and that is the point that a Trinitarian Christian would affirm. You seem to be operating off of a false premise that all Trinitarians hold all of the I AM sayings of Jesus to be affirmations of the divine name (YHWH) or of deity. This is not an accurate assumption. Each one must be read in it's context befure such determinations can be made. However in the case of John 8:58, in view of the context, the claim to divinity is clear.

Dear Trinitarian,
You are using language like "of course" and "clear" and you make statements of your belief but any real support is lacking. If you look at the link I gave for the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gincrich Greek lexicon year 2000 you will see that it is _clear_ to them that he is claiming to be the Messiah. I agree.

I have read James White and Rob Bowman on this subject and they both consider EGW EIMI when spoken of Jesus particularly in John to be a claim to divinity.

You, of course are free to form your own opinion, but I have not read many Trinitarians who limit the key EGW EIMI saying to John 8:58.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 12:57 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:




Dear Trinitarian,
You are using language like "of course" and "clear" and you make statements of your belief but any real support is lacking. If you look at the link I gave for the Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gincrich Greek lexicon year 2000 you will see that it is _clear_ to them that he is claiming to be the Messiah. I agree.

I have read James White and Rob Bowman on this subject and they both consider EGW EIMI when spoken of Jesus particularly in John to be a claim to divinity.

You, of course are free to form your own opinion, but I have not read many Trinitarians who limit the key EGW EIMI saying to John 8:58.

Kind Regards,
Cal

The Link you gave just opened up another window of this same thread.

You may have read White and Bowman, but have you done much reading beyond that? There is considerable diversity among Christian (Trinitarian) interpreters. Case in point, in my undergrad class on the Gospels the Prof. didn't consider the I AM statements of John to be claiming the divine name (although he did understand them as statements of diety).

You'll note that in BDAG, they say that the word is used in the gospels in such a way that the predicate must be understood from the context. This is what I've been saying. And I would argue that in this context the best understanding is at least a claim to 1) existance prior to the life of Abraham, 2) prior self existence/aseity (a divine attribute) as evidenced by the use of the present tense (I AM), and 3) the application of the divine name YHWH to himself.

This is not based on the fact that the term EGO EIMI occurs here, but because of the context in which occurs. The context is what requires that interpretation, not the term.

You may disagree, but do you have any reason other than the fact that BDAG says this word is sometimes (depending on the context which never seem to deal with) used by Christ to lay claim to Messiahship?

Today @ 05:21 PM post located here
Trinitarian:



The Link you gave just opened up another window of this same thread.

You may have read White and Bowman, but have you done much reading beyond that? There is considerable diversity among Christian (Trinitarian) interpreters. Case in point, in my undergrad class on the Gospels the Prof. didn't consider the I AM statements of John to be claiming the divine name (although he did understand them as statements of diety).

You'll note that in BDAG, they say that the word is used in the gospels in such a way that the predicate must be understood from the context. This is what I've been saying. And I would argue that in this context the best understanding is at least a claim to 1) existance prior to the life of Abraham, 2) prior self existence/aseity (a divine attribute) as evidenced by the use of the present tense (I AM), and 3) the application of the divine name YHWH to himself.

This is not based on the fact that the term EGO EIMI occurs here, but because of the context in which occurs. The context is what requires that interpretation, not the term.

You may disagree, but do you have any reason other than the fact that BDAG says this word is sometimes (depending on the context which never seem to deal with) used by Christ to lay claim to Messiahship?

Dear Trinitarian,
Sorry, it should have been this:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=6450

BDAG page 283d – 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 way that the predicate must be understood fr. 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; 18:5f and oft.; s. on EGW – In a question MHTI EGW EIMI; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22,25.

EGW in BDAG 275a – EGW EIMI it is I (in contrast to others) Mt 14:27; Lk 24:39; J 6:20; I am the man 9:9; w. strong emphasis: I am the one (i.e. the Messiah) Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8; J 8:24, 28; cp. Vs 58. … --On J 8:58 s. EFreed, JSNT 17,’83

EFreed, JSNT 17– “I should suggest, rather, that the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: “Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.”

As you can see, Both BDAG and Freed think it was a claim to Messiahship. Also CB Williams and the NET bible provide a object to John 8:24 of "the Christ."

Kind Regards,
Cal