Re: A cautionary word on EHYEH/YHWH
Jack Kilmon (jpman@accesscomm.net)
Fri, 09 Aug 1996 23:58:06 -0600
> Jack Kilmon wrote:
> >
> This redactor was
> Greek and not Jewish, so they may not be related to early Jewish literature
> and probably
> not genuinely Yeshuine. I think Brown covers this in "Gospel of John."
> >
>
> I don't know the book by Brown you mentioned, but C.K. Barret (though
> perhaps a lot older, printed in 1975) still links the egoo eimi with the
> 'anie hoe/ I am He' sentences in the hebrew Bible. He mentions Isaiah
> 43:10, both in hebrew as in LXX as the closest parallel to John 8:24, on
> which John 8:58 seems to be based.
>
> Another thought: if the prin Abraam genesthai egoo eimi passage that you
> were debating refers to a pre-existence, this would not necessarily imply
> that Jesus equates Himself to God as in Pauline and Johannine teaching
> seems to be presupposed. I mean to say, that the verse could still be a
> genuine Jesus-saying, if it were to refer to the pre-existence of the
> Messiah, as was taught e.g. in the Midrasj Rabbah by texts of unknown date
> (to me that is): both the Torah and the messiah are counted among the
> things that were there before creation began in Gen 1. So what Jesus might
> be saying here is: before the covenantal history began with Abraham, I, the
> Messiah, was already there (begotten, not created as part of the 'maaseh
> beresjiet, the works of creation, but rather as a tool or direction or goal
> of creation), so the meaning of who Jesus is, [ if this hostircal Jesus is
> the Messiah] cannot be understood within the framework of the covenantal
> history that had Abraham as a father/principle. No Gnostic influence needs
> to be presupposed for that idea, but I must acknowl;edge some problems with
> this idea as well:
>
> 1. the assumption that the pre-existence of the messiah pre-dates John has
> no corroboration since rabbinic texts of the midrash are extremely late
> witnesses and have an inherent bias toward their first century materials
> 2. the assumption thatJjesus-sayings in John, that are not in the
> synoptics, have any possible historical relevance at all is but an
> hypothesis, despite C.H. Dodd.
> 3. the assumption that John, who is everywhere else clearly influenced by
> the debate with some kind of proto-gnostic Christianity, would here be
> focused on jewish tradition.
>
"I am" statements are common in the Graeco-Roman religions. According to Bultmann
(Gospel of John) they are:
1. The presentation Formula (Hey! Who are you?)
2. Qualification Formula (Well, WHAT are you?)
3. Identification with a particular god formula.
4. The recognition formula (Who do we expect?)
The "I Am" formula is used by the late redactor of John as an anti-gnostoc
device. In Gnosticism EVERY one is pre-existent. The Greek editor of John is saying
that ONLY Jesus is pre-existent and uses the recognition formula to state "who is the
bread of life, light of the world." 8:58 is then related to 8:25 and 8:28 as part of a
two part answer. 8:25 THN APXHN O TI KAI LALW UMIN (FIRST of all)...represented in Gosp
Thom 43...and John 8:28 is the second part. This careful use of the "I am" statements
to refute gnosticism is evidence to me that they are the creation of the Greek redactor
of John (somewhere around 110-120 CE) and not from the original Yohanon ber Zebediya
memoir and not vox ipsissima Yesu.
Dâman dith laych IDneh dânishMA nishMA
EHna eeTHAY
Jack Kilmon
JPMan@accesscomm.net