The Foliate Head From Paganism and the Green Man Tradition

 In all that follows, true Christians know why there is religious error in Christendom that has existed from the fourth century, and that because it became the policy of the Roman Catholic Church to let paganism indigenously exist as a “folklore religion” alongside the few remnants surviving from the earlier, apostolic Christianity. This policy was and is in defiance of the Bible’s requirement that worship of the God of the Bible must remain free of whatever smacks of paganism: “Therefore, get out from among them and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing’” (2 Corinthians 6:17).

 [https://blogs.loc.gov/folklife/2021/01/introducing-the-green-man/]

 “The Green Man, a character from traditional folk culture, has captured the imaginations of many in the modern world. Books, articles, and websites on the Green Man abound, each of them looking at the figure from its own perspective. Those who have commented on or employed the image of the Green Man range from historians to neopagan worshippers, from festival organizers to novelists, and from folklorists to participants in Renaissance fairs….”

 “. . . [T]he term “Green Man” . . .  had existed for hundreds of years” prior to scholars’ mention of the term in the twentieth century….

 “. . . [R]ituals common among the peasantry involve a character called “the green man,” . . . [e.g., ] . . . that the Green Knight of the great Middle English romance /Sir Gawain and the Green Knight/ could be a manifestation of this character from folk culture….

A theory of the Green Man folklore tradition may be stated this way: “. . . [M ]edieval Christians in Britain celebrated a ritual similar to the May Day ritual from 1901. The ritual itself had come down to them from pagan ancestors, among whom it involved the death and resurrection of a vegetation spirit, sometimes even including the sacrifice of the person portraying the King or Green Man. The ritual had been Christianized so that it no longer involved a sacrifice, but people revered the Green Man and recognized the symbolic equivalence of the figure with Christ. The ritual therefore symbolized for them the death and resurrection of Christ, the “focal point of [their] religious ideals.” Because of this, they decorated Christian churches with portraits of the man performing the ritual, as a symbol of Christ, the resurrected God. As years went on, such rituals lost more of their religious underpinnings, but they persisted in form, giving rise to the common name and image of the “Green Man” for inns and pubs. They were still being performed in 1901….

“This theory . . . comports well in a very general sense with what folklorists know about the religious lives of many people. Many of us adhere to religions that have official liturgies, approved beliefs, and established theologies; yet we also believe in ideas, and follow traditions, not officially approved by those religions. Much of the imagery surrounding Christmas in America involves Santa Claus, elves, Christmas trees, and reindeer, none of which is part of most official denominations’ Christmas beliefs. Even in many churches, these images are prominently displayed during the season, but observers from a foreign culture might search in vain for any explanation of these symbols within the official teachings of the church.

“Folklorists call such unofficial beliefs, images, and practices connected to religious observance “folk religion.”

“Don Yoder, in his book /Discovering American Folklife/, included the following definition:

““Folk religion is the totality of all those views and practices of religion that exist among the people apart from and alongside the strictly theological and liturgical forms of the official religion.”

“One interesting aspect of Catholic religion is the existence of folk saints, holy people or other beings revered as saints by groups of people, but not recognized as such by the church. Typically, the story surrounding a folk saint and the details of the saint’s following are referred to as that saint’s “cult.”  The “Cult of St. Guinefort,” for example, reveres a heroic French dog of the 13th century. By speaking of the Green Man or Robin Hood having a “cult” in the 16th and 17 centuries . . . [suggests] that the figure was an unofficial folk saint….

“The May Day ritual . . . [is] undoubtedly an aspect of English folk religion. [And the theory that] . . . it was an adaptation of a very old pagan rite, and that the foliate heads and the earliest “Green Man” pub signs were illustrations of the same folk-religious ritual as it existed among Christians [from the Medieval to modern times] . . . This theory will probably remain unproven, but it is not outlandish. It doesn’t require medieval English people to be “defiantly pagan,” or carvers to be “subversive" [i.e., heretics] [I]t requires them to be Christians whose folk religious practices included a seasonal ritual adapted from their pagan ancestors, and who understood the symbolic connection of that ritual to Christianity. Consequently, one of their important symbols was the Green Man, even though that symbol was not part of the official religion.

“ . . . Many folklorists and anthropologists have argued, and continue to argue, that aspects of Christian folk religion are derived from pagan practices. Some of these pre-Christian practices are quite obvious in today’s world, such as referring to the Christmas season as “Yule,” decorating eggs for holidays such as Easter, and depositing votive offerings at bodies of water. Doing these things doesn’t make one “defiantly pagan,” but it does demonstrate that, to some degree, “unofficial paganism subsists side by side with the official religion.”

“The foliate head, too, certainly seems to be based on pagan antecedents. It’s true that these pagan antecedents have not been found in Britain, but Britain has never been cut off from continental or global cultural influences. Unless we imagine that Green Men in British church architecture have nothing to do with the similar figures in French and German churches, limiting our focus narrowly to Britain doesn’t make sense, . . . [because there is abundant evidence] that the ritual was a British version of a ritual that was also Continental. Other, better examples [of such evidence] exist from elsewhere in the Roman world, including several from the palace of Diocletian in Split, Croatia . . .  [where we do find] "two foliate heads are from a pagan context: the Temple of Jupiter at the Palace of Diocletian in Split, Croatia, ca. 300 C.E. ….

“No one would deny that meanings change over time, but the principle that older meanings are “unhelpful” in understanding more recent ones would surprise any scholar who works with meaning over time, whether in history, linguistics, or literature. In any case, drawing a strict dichotomy between Christian and pagan iconography, and between British and Continental iconography . . . is unnecessary and misleading. The halos we see around saints’ heads in artworks are not original to Christian imagery, but were adopted into Christianity early in the church’s history from Classical and other sources. They are Christian but also pagan, and their pagan meaning may inform their Christian meaning. The same seems to be true of the foliate head [and, as the credible theory goes, the connection foliate head from paganism with British folklore religion's uses of ‘the Green Man’].”

Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to celebrate/honor Christmas, Easter, Valentine’s Day, May Day, and any other tradition that has the trappings of paganism. We have quit touching the unclean things from pagan/folklore religion.

 

Whose Prayers Does God Answer?

Not all who pray to God get a hearing ear from Him. Those who approach God in prayer should not expect God to favorably hear their prayers as long as they see no need to repent works of the flesh, such as sexual immorality, spiritism, fits of anger. If one refuses to become cut to the heart over his sins--if he refuses to let the spiritual and moral standards of God's Word the Bible convince him that he must repent his sinful way of life--, then he will not find favor with God even if he prays many times during the day. James 4:8-10 puts it this way: "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you indecisive ones. Give way to misery and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into despair. Humble yourselves in the eyes of Jehovah, and he will exalt you." If one sincerely desires to do the will of God no matter the cost to himself, then the God of the Bible will draw that repentant person to Himself; God will open wide his heart to accept His Son Jesus Christ as his ransomer from sin's wages, death. There cannot be a fine relationship with God if there is no fine relationship with Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:3). Jesus has told us this: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). And this: "[Jesus] said: What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or I speak of my own originality" (John 7:17). God Himself makes sure of it. So, if one truly has God-granted assurance that he is getting a hearing ear from God, then it is because he is a true Christian, a real disciple of God's Son Jesus Christ. Like Jesus, he will be delighted to be doing what is truly God's will. 

Materiality of Mind

My reflections on the subject.

 Gravity is a physical reality even though it is not extractable—cannot exist apart from that physical system we call the (physical) Universe, but nonetheless is a physical reality that emerged after the Big Bang. We know that gravity not only is an emergent reality—emerging within nanoseconds after the Big Bang—, but that it should manifest in a foreordained way for the existence of galaxies. This is so because gravity, as a physical constant, has a certain quantitative value given it by God for what should result from its power for “downward causation.” This is its power to participate in the organization of a constrained (finely tuned) system in matter as it moved away from “ground zero” of the Big Bang, the results of which include the existence of galaxies. Yes, this is materialism, but not atheistic materialism inasmuch as God is not only the Creator of matter, but He is the One who, by his power, imposed the critical values that the physical constants should need for the constitution of a physical universe able to support existence of human beings. 

 The human mind cannot exist apart from its being grounded in matter. It is an emergent reality, too; it necessarily, essentially emerges from the much more complex organization found in human brain tissues than is so for animals’; animals’ mentations also essentially emerge from their relatively less complexly structured brain tissues. Grounded in our brain tissues is the existence of certain experientials we know to be our own self-consciousness, conscience, at-will memory storage and recall, and “qualia,” etc.); these reside in a configuration of neuronal connections. A “snapshot” of an individual’s own brain (neuronal configuration) is the result of its “plasticity” for “recording” modifications in neuronal configurations that are layered for a circular (i.e., “downward and upward”) causation network. Thus no minds are identical. 

 Neither science nor the Scriptures give solace to proponents of dualism in human nature. True, the only alternative to anthropological dualism is materialism (physicalistic mind); however, the concept of atheistic materialism as sufficient explanation for human nature is as unscientific and anti-Scriptural as the notion that the Universe we live in came about by chance. Still, there is nothing that can logically contravene anthropological physicalism, nor is there anything scientifically known that requires us to scrap the concept of Big Bang cosmogony as it unfolded through power of holy spirit.

 

(Reply to a cousin) Answering Pro-choice Arguments for Abortion (Infanticide) Part 1

When does the life of a human being begin? Scientists have recognized that human life begins at conception, the fertilization of a woman’s ovum by a sperm cell. (See https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html.) That event means that a new human genome has naturally come into existence within, and for the life of, an independent being of the human kind. That being does not have a copy of its mother’s genome such as is found in any of the mother’s somatic cells. It follows that the fertilization of an ovum (for resultant presence of a zygote) is not, of course, like certain other developments in a woman’s body (e.g., that development that is the normative beginning of a programmatically timed appearance in adolescence for one of the functions in female bodies, namely, ovulation); fertilization of the egg involves two persons, but ovulation does not. The fertilized egg in a female’s body is not normatively present in her body like certain other things in her body that normatively and finally, by mitosis, became functioning existents (organs) in, and for the life of, her body as coded for in her genome alone. Nor is the zygote like the happenstance appearance of some unusual, unexpected, pathological tissue growth in her body. No, but from the beginning of its existence, the zygote is indeed a very specialized entity, a human being firstly resident—albeit for a very brief while—as that single (zygotic) cell in its mother’s body. That human being, however, after having come to term in its mother’s womb, will then be composed of about twenty-six billion diploid cells. So, from its first cell to its twenty-six billionth cell, that thing growing inside the woman has the sanctity of life belonging to a human being having both a father and a mother responsible for what unsurprisingly and recognizably is shown to be the parents’ child that had begun its growth in the child’s mother’s womb. Yes, it is, from its beginning of life, a human being, and thus not an appendage or organ naturally occurring as an integral constituent of the mother’s body. Therefore, the child in the womb is not like a kidney inside the woman’s body, a fact that supports this valid argument: although a woman may choose to have one of her two healthy kidneys removed for the sake of donating it in order to help a recipient of it to have better health, yet she will not remain free of bloodguilt in God’s eyes if she elects to remove (kill) the child growing in her womb, this also (ostensibly) for the sake of improving (her) health.  The kidney was part of her, as shown by the fact that its cells have the same genomic content as any other of her body parts’ cells. But the conceptus in her womb has its own genomic content different from either one of that child’s parents genomes, as appropriate to the fact that she has resident in her womb a human being. 

Scriptural Refutation of the Evangelicals' Two-Kingdoms Theology (Part 2)

When rulers persecute us, can we then be in accordance with God’s will for Christians if we seek to insinuate ourselves into civil government in order to bring about relief from the persecution? No, there is no such vision given in the Scriptures for us Christians.

Satan is the ruler of the world, and we come off victorious over him when we hold to our God-given, in-common vocation. And what is that? Peter, addressing first-century Christians, admonished them as follows: “You should declare abroad the excellencies of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. For you were once not a people [recognized by God], but now you are God’s people; once you had not been shown mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as foreigners and temporary residents to keep abstaining from fleshly desires, which war against you. Maintain your conduct fine among the nations” (1 Peter 2:9-12a). Because we Christians are no longer part of the world, then we no longer give uncritical obedience  to a people/nation into which we were by happenstance born; we obey God as ruler, not men. Moreover, it is our responsibility to make appeal to all nations’ citizens that any among them can choose to let God’s spirit enlighten them and motivate them to the fine conduct that is featured among those who are “God’s people,” an enlightened, spiritually minded people. 

The majority of any nation’s citizens will not benefit themselves by means of the witness God provides them through the activities of God’s people, “the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). That is of no moment to God’s people, for it was never foretold in the Scriptures that God’s people would ever become defined as a polity or polities in the world of mankind; God’s people have no geographically defined borders which they should jealously guard with fleshly weapons.  Jesus’ said that his disciples do not take up the sword to protect an earthly kingdom (see John 18:36). The greatest enemies God’s people have are “the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places, [in the invisible realm]” (Ephesians 6:10-19); fleshly weapons can never deliver us from their designs to shut down God’s people (cf. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5); our enemies cannot be held at bay with such weapons. Yet we are victorious against Satan, against those whom he controls, in that we keep our faith strong, and keep strong the witness we bear—strong “even in the face of death” (Revelation 12:11). Such a conquest seems foolish, unreal,  to those not God’s people. Still, the matter here is just as we read in the Bible at 1 John 5:4a-5: “And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith. Who can conquer the world? Is it not the one who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?” Does it seem to you that this man of God was chafing because Christ’s disciples had not become organized into some polity or survivalist group / cult having an earthly militia for the protection of its way of life amidst a hostile world arrayed against them? No, that man of God was not looking for the establishment by Christians of a civil administration which should protect their lives during their sojourn here on earth. 

Just the same, Christians can appeal to “Caesar” (secular authorities) that he should intervene in behalf of us, a people who have a God-given right to preach the good news of God’s Kingdom (cf. Philippians 1:7; Matthew 28:18-20). Philippi was a colony of Roman citizens jealous of their status as citizens. But Christians coming into Philippi had a God-given right to preach God’s good message, this although it  might have seemed to the secular authorities in Philippi that the newly-arrived Christians in their midst were in violation of the law De Legibus, ii.8, which stated, “No person shall have any separate gods, or new ones; nor shall he privately worship any strange gods, unless they be publicly allowed.” It may have been the case that Jews were proscribed from worship in a synagogue inside the gates of the city Philippi, but that their worship may have been permitted outside the city gates (cf. Acts 16:12, 13, 16). But as Paul and Silas were once again making their way outside the city of Philippi to be with Jews on Sabbath day, Paul then found occasion to use the name “Jesus Christ” as the basis of his authority for casting out a demon from a certain fortune teller who had been tagging along behind them for days prior to that Sabbath day. As a pretext for hiding the grief caused them by their monetary loss when they saw that the demonized girl was of no more use to them, the masters of that slave girl thought to use Paul’s invocation of Jesus Christ against him, for they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them back into the city, “into the marketplace to the rulers. Leading them up to the civil magistrates [inside the city], they said: “These men are disturbing our city very much. They are Jews, and they are proclaiming customs that it is not lawful for us to adopt or practice, seeing that we are Romans”” (Acts 16:19-21). Even though Christians could preach against idolatry, and preach against giving to Caesar God’s things, they certainly had no idea for establishing an earthly government that should supplant Caesar’s God-permitted rule, this no matter the divine punishment to which the Caesars made themselves liable for their wickedness and for their persecution of Christians. God is the One who judges those outside the Christian congregation; Christians do not involve themselves in such matters. 

Paul highly prized not his Roman citizenship, but rather his heavenly citizenship, and he highly extolled Jesus as the Philippian Christians’ savior and Lord to whom “every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground—and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10-11). Such a Lord and savior, of course, could be neither Caesar nor Moses. The apostle also wrote to the Philippians: “Our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). Jesus—not that Moses presented in an exaggerated, legalistic view of Moses’ worth as promoted by Jewry’s religious leaders, and who was wrongfully promoted by those Judaizers who were false Christians (cf. Philippians 3:2-11)—was the true, powerful, heavenly paradigm for their future life; he was the one to whom  Christians should look for guarantee that they would be saved for life, for life with the true savior in a heavenly body made like Jesus’ (q.v. Philippians 3:21). 

God would never supplement Christ’s sufficient rule over the Christian congregation by ordaining / commanding the appearance of another Leader in a political (man-concocted) arena for him to work alongside Jesus Christ for satisfying the needs of the Christian congregation. There is no such thing as a Two Kingdoms theology—no two Leaders (see Matthew 23:10). Nor does Jesus’ leadership stand divided into different dominions, the secular and the spiritual, this as though Christians may think of themselves as working with Jesus in their participation, alongside unbelievers, for administration of civil governance no matter the moral tone of that governance. The Scriptures record these telling questions for us to consider: “Further, what harmony is there between Christ and Belial [(Satan)]? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6:15). He has nothing in common with unbelievers for when he works alongside his Leader, Jesus. This is in harmony with 1 John 1:6, where we read: “ If we make the statement, “We are having fellowship with him,” and yet we go on walking in the darkness, we are lying and are not practicing the truth.  However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” Christ has no fellowship—nor do we—with those who are walking in the darkness, with those who are liars and not practicing the truth. His blood has not cleansed them for us to have fellowship with them.

Well, then, do we Christians have need of a “Caesar” for him to proscribe elective abortions? No, we Christians need only to keep our brotherhood free of the presence of murderers who would call themselves our brothers. Do we Christians have need of a “Caesar” for him to keep us safe from the presence in our midst of those who are practicers of pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, idolatry, thievery, etc.? No, for if there should occur in our midst any who take up a practice of such kinds of wickedness, then we trust that they will be discovered and we would then turn aside from fellowship with them. And we would not shield them from Caesar’s right to punish such evil doers. Can “Caesar” exact punishment against evil doers? Yes, that is presently his prerogative; he answers to God for his failures and mistakes. Do we Christians have need of a “Caesar” for him to protect the existence and work of the Christian congregation? No, for it is already given us in prophecy found in God’s infallible Word that He will miraculously deliver us whenever Satan’s scheme has taken shape for what he plans to be the violent removal of God’s people from off the earth. God will not allow the extermination from off the earth of his namesake people.  Can “Caesar” rightfully demand that Christians sacrifice their life in defense of his government? No, he oversteps his God-permitted authority when he so demands it on pain of punishment/persecution against Christians who will not comply; he will answer to God for that persecution (cf. John 19:9-11). Indeed, there is much that Caesar does that God permits but does not approve. Caesar’s representative Pilate was permitted his persecution of Jesus, but it was not approved by God for Pilate to thereby add to his bloodguilt. “Caesar” may increase his bloodguilt in God’s eyes when he commits genocide, but even so, God does not authorize Christians to bring punishment against any of the “Caesars” of this world for such heinous sins. Christians cannot be a constitutive element in Caesar’s rule presently permitted him.

Humans Are Not Naturally Totally Depraved

 What does it mean for us to say that a person has free will (free moral agency)? It means that God can make a spirit-empowered appeal to a person’s conscience so that he might choose not to resist God Who stands willing to help sinful humans to have their minds enlightened by God’s holy Word, the Bible. The Bible is a record of what God has revealed to us about Himself.

Our affirming free will in God’s rational creatures need not commit us to a doctrine that has it that the sinful world that resulted after God had declared all His creations good (see Genesis 1:26–31) is something that caught God off guard. He did not suffer defeat of His purpose to have a world of humankind, descended from Adam, living in perfect compliance to God’s will. God, as men’s contemporary, has made occur certain events in the world well after the rebellion in Eden such that they guarantee that He will in time certainly own a perfect world of humankind descended from Adam.

The idea that God actualized a world He foreknew would sin is a doctrine that is neither expressly given in Scriptures nor need we infer it from the Scriptures. In fact, it is contrary to the Scriptures. Some “exegetes” have made the doctrine that the best possible world God found that He could create was nonetheless one that He foreknew would fall into sin. Per this doctrine, God had to choose to actualize such a world because even though it would not remain sinless, yet it supposedly was the only one that offered God the maximum number of those being saved. The doctrine has it that in none of the possible worlds God surveyed did He just happen to find that the first human couple He would create (namely, Adam and Eve) would remain sinless and would procreate sinless offspring. One of the problems here is that such a theory of “possible worlds” still compromises God’s sovereignty because the theory portrays Him as One Whose will, as respects some matter, is a will He may have to abandon, even though it ideally (perfectly) suits His character. The doctrine devolves to the place whereby God had to settle for creating a world that He really did not want because He was trumped by a Second Principle beside Himself, a Principle able to specify/dictate to Him at least the range of His possible choices for the world He should have to actualize.

Certain Calvinists escape postulating a Second Principle beside God, but they know that they must hold that God freely chose some sinners to receive salvation, and that God has not done so for all the rest of sinful men. This idea of salvation is, in effect, presented as a thing that God does on the basis of no righteous principle that He be One Who exercises balanced, impartial judgment. That is a stripe of Calvinism that devolves logically—maybe even unwittingly?—to the position that God, who is our contemporary, does not look into the hearts of His temporal creatures before ever He would decide whether to intervene in behalf of a certain few members of a totally depraved world of men. Indeed, why would He intervene on such a basis since He would always find total depravity, so goes the theory, in any individual whom He would inspect? So, the doctrine of intervention held by some is that God intervenes sufficiently (unto eternal salvation), specially and miraculously in just some individuals’ behalf regardless of the total depravity supposedly in everyone’s heart at the time God would make any intervention for some of them. Therefore, such a doctrine has it that God is totally arbitrary in the matter of His deciding the “forever fate” of individuals because His decision to intervene specially and miraculously in the will of some few men is a decision He has made without any need for Him to be able to make logically meaningful distinctions among members of the fallen human race, and that all others who do not get such good will (favor) from God are individuals who had not been predestined, so goes the doctrine, to receive salvation from God. If Abraham had such a concept of God being a totally arbitrary God, then he would have not appealed to God as he did on the occasion narrated for us at Genesis 18:16-33. And God would have not entered into a soliloquy with Himself for asking Himself ‘Am I keeping hidden from Abraham that I am making an inspection of Sodom and Gomorrah to see if the report that has come to my attention about those cities means that I should destroy them?’ (See Genesis 18:16–21.) Really, Abraham’s confidence in God was that God would not act in a way that would mean an arbitrary disregard of what few persons there might possibly be in Sodom and Gomorrah whose conscience had not yet let them sink into totally depraved, abominable conduct.

In the case of Cain, God made powerful intervention in Cain’s behalf; however, He did not choose to disregard Cain’s free will by creating miraculously in a God-resisting Cain an absence of hatred for his brother. Was God being less than honest in His appeal to Cain? God said to him, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well [like your brother Abel does], will you not [also] be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin [(unconscionable, willfully depraved conduct)] is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7 NRSV). But why make appeal to Cain for him to do an impossible thing, for if it entirely depended on God’s miraculously creating in a God-resisting Cain the will for him to turn himself around−and yet God, so goes the false doctrine, had already decided before ever Cain had been born that He was not going to so create such a will in Cain−, then that means that God was not making in real (phenomenal) time, for sake of Cain’s conscience, an honest, sincere appeal to Cain for him to do something about his situation.

Scriptural Refutation of the Evangelicals' Two-Kingdoms Theology (Part 1)

The Bible tells us Christians that “in every way we recommend ourselves as God’s ministers . . . by truthful speech” (2 Corinthians 6:4, 7). None who declares himself to be ‘an ordained representative/minister sent forth from God from within a body of Christ’s disciples as a benefactor of a human government’s citizens’ has God’s approval for such a declaration; he is a liar. 

If it were possible for people comprising human government to be Christians doing the will of God, then their governance would certainly emanate from their government’s institutions which should then not differ in its moral character from that which obtains and is manifested in a religious community that truthfully claims to be Christian. There is not such a governmental phenomenon anywhere in the world. Christians are no part of what comprises human governments. We are, however, law-abiding sojourners, temporary residents among the nations (1 Peter 1:11, 12). So, then, it is as 1 Corinthians 5:12, 13 reminds us: ". . . what [do] we have to do with judging those outside [the Christian congregation]? Do you not judge those inside [the Christian congregation], while God judges those outside [it]?" True Christians do not inform the governmental structures/institutions invented by men; they do not seek to make straight that which God lets remain crooked for the time being (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:15). 

So, it is not God’s wisdom that one preaches for a denial of the Scriptures-supported facts being reviewed here. How do we know it? We know it because, among other things, the deeds of human rulers belie their claims about their knowing anything about the Kingdom of God, His heavenly government in the hands of His Son Jesus Christ. As the Bible says, “It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed their glorious Lord” (1 Corinthians 2:8). 

That Bible passage quoted immediately above is not reference to a past-time frame of mind owned just by the Jewish rulers who were chiefly responsible for Jesus’ execution. No, but the same murderous, anti-Christ frame of mind from the Devil, which operated in the Jewish rulers—see John 8:43-47—during Christ’s earthly ministry, operated and still operates in all “the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing” (1 Corinthians 2:6; cf. Acts 4:25-28), this despite the efforts of every human government to perpetuate, by whatever means at hand, its own claim of a right to sovereign control over the lives of its citizens. This, of course, is not according to God’s will, for Christians in the final analysis must be seen as those who “obey God as ruler rather than men” (Acts 5:29, 32). Yes, Christians obey secular (man-concocted) governments just so long as whatever they command does not infringe against God’s right of sovereign rulership over His servants (cf. Matthew 22:21). Our subjection to man-concocted governments that operate with God’s permission—but remember that they do not operate by His having commanded either their existence or their struggles for sovereignty—is a relative subjection. So, if a government calls for taxes, we pay the taxes. If they legislate for the common good of its citizens without targeting Christians for persecution, then we obey (Romans 13:1-7). If, however, they demand worship and sacrifice of our lives in support of their governments, then we must refuse to give to Caesar the things that belong to God, for our lives are dedicated to Jehovah God. This position is verified also by the history of early Christianity during the first three centuries of the common era. 

When governments frame mischief against us by decree, will we take up fleshly weapons against them in order to defend ourselves? We have no earthly government that needs such a defense (cf. John 18:36). In fact, if a Christian were to take up a fleshly weapon for bringing an end to another human’s life, then that would be an act directly forbidden by Jesus Christ. Matthew 26:52 says: “Then Jesus said to [Peter]: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.” Then what relief do we have? We are certain to experience the guaranteed relief promised us at 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10. So what, then, if our persecutions result in deprivations or martyrdom? So long as our faith remains in tact and not ship wrecked, then we are victorious because we stood stalwart with help of God’s holy spirit for vindication of God’s name and Kingdom, confident of the reward of everlasting life. Such is our joy made even greater during persecutions (Matthew 5:11, 12; 1 Peter 1:5-9; 3:14, 17; Hebrews 10:34); it is ours because of courage for which we pray for strength to possess and show even unto our last breath taken from us at the hands of Satan’s henchmen, if it should come to that, for then God’s enemies will not have succeeded in despoiling our faith and thereby taking everlasting life away from us. (Compare 1 John 5:4, 5, 11-13.) 

Jesus and his Father will mete out justice against the unrepentant wicked ones for their persecutions of  Christ’s brothers. And why not, since they deserve it?  The tribulations they cause against the righteous are born of the age-old, Satanically inspired designs that the rulers of this system of things have continually implemented against Christian disciples  ever since Christ took a seat at the right-hand side of his Father (see Revelation 1:7; Acts 2:32-36; 7:51-58). Yes, the Devil’s works carried out by the rulers of this world have meant persecutions and martyrdom for Christ’s disciples. That should not surprise us, for it was not just Jewry's government during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry which remained ignorant of God and morally and spiritually bankrupt so that they opposed Jesus and his disciples right up until the nation’s destruction in 70 C.E. Indeed, it ever has been and continues to be the case that every man-concocted government is similarly infected by Satan’s murderous spirit. 1 John 5:19 tells us how extensive is Satan’s rulership: “ . . . but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one”; see also Luke 4:6 and John 12:31. Christ’s spirit-anointed brothers, however, have the hope of sharing in the vengeance to be visited on the nations—all of the nations—when God and our Savior Jesus Christ gloriously manifest themselves for the realization of the Christian brotherhood’s happy hope. (See Titus 2:13; Revelation 2:24-27; and Revelation 19:11-16.)

All the above Scripturally refutes the evangelicals’ “Two Kingdoms Theology.” But more about this later.

Book Review: Dissent on the margins. How Soviet Jehovah's Witnesses defied Communism and lived to preach about it.

https://www.proquest.com/religion/docview/1854845783/2DAB0DC80694742PQ/12?accountid=13565

Dissent on the margins. How Soviet Jehovah's Witnesses defied Communism and lived to preach about it. By Emily B. Baran. Pp.xvi + 382 incl. 2 maps. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. £51. 978 0 19 994533 5

Reviews

Emily B. Baran's book on the Jehovah's Witnesses in the Soviet Union is one of the most revelatory books on religion in the USSR, the quality of her research being truly astonishing. She has not only recovered information from Soviet state archives, but she even learned Romanian in order to gain access to the local sources in Soviet Moldavia. As a result, this book reveals a great deal about Communist policy towards religious minorities in general, a subject which has not been fully researched before.

The period covered is relatively recent, because the Witnesses did not appear on Soviet soil in any significant numbers until the end of the Second World War, when territorial gains incorporated them into Transcarpathia (Western Ukraine), where they had flourished under an earlier regime. For a time, the policy to contain them was deportation to Siberia, where those that survived, not unlike Lithuanian Catholics, were convinced that God was directing their missionary efforts under persecution. It took some time before Soviet practice took this into account and prison camp after summary trial became the preferred option.

Even here the bravery of the Witnesses often came to the fore. By the early 1960s the infamous Dubravlag became a kind of seminary. Baran writes: 'One man, sent to Mordovia in 1963, described the camp as a "school for studying his faith"... Dubravlag made it much easier for elders to minister to their imprisoned flock and convert new members.' They even formed their own choir there.

Although always small in numbers (45,000 in the whole Soviet Union at the time of its collapse, according to an official publication from the Brooklyn headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses), their bravery and determination won out time and time again over brutal persecution. Baran's research bears testimony to the quality of their organisation, whether in the 'underground' (though this is truly a misnomer for their activities) or in prison. It has always been thought that the Baptists led the way in establishing clandestine and home-made printing presses in the early 1960s, yet in the 1950s, when control was more lax in Poland, men swam across the River Bug and back to obtain Polish copies of The Watchtower, which were then translated and secretly printed in the USSR.

Not all Witnesses held firm to the faith. A feature of the Soviet anti-religious campaign, which intensified under Nikita Khrushchev after 1959, was the printing of testimonies of believers who renounced their beliefs under interrogation and torture. Such a man was Konstantin Potashov, who was converted to the faith while in prison for hooliganism and theft. He oversaw major printing initiatives, but was arrested in Mukachevo, Western Ukraine, in December 1962. At his trial he buckled and betrayed many Witnesses by name, before continuing for years as their public critic.

His infamy was nothing compared to that of Aleksandr Dvorkin in the present day. This unspeakable practitioner of religious repression - a key figure in Putin's Russia who attempted to turn the clock back to Communist malpractice - coined the expression 'totalitarian sect'. Baran unmasks him, though eschewing words such as those in the previous sentence. She quotes him as leading the campaign against religious minorities, being encouraged so to do both by the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian State. For him, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a leading organisation that 'violates the rights of [its] members and inflicts harm on them through the use of certain methods known as "mind control"'. Thus Dvorkin led the way to yet another round of systematic repression of the Witnesses, an attempted reversal of the registered status which they acquired in the early '90s. Thus, in recent years, articles have appeared in the press accusing them, in true Soviet style, of ritual murder (p. 214). This book bears testimony to their lawyers' fighting such accusations in court.

Turning her attention away from the Moscow courts, Baran lifts the curtain on some less well-known corners of Europe. The accessible archives in the West Ukrainian region of Transcarpathia bear eloquent testimony to the vigour and fearlessness of the Witnesses in the post-war years, when this region fell under Soviet rule - and therefore violent political and religious repression - for the first time. Her attention moves on to Moldova, a former Soviet republic and now an independent country, another region where Witness activity has been strong. Here, as in Russia in post-Soviet times, they gained their freedom under the law, but this did not prevent attempts by clergy of the Orthodox Church to prevent them from preaching.

Much worse was what happened in Transnistria, that region of long-frozen conflict, where a thin strip of the original Soviet Moldavia is still occupied by Russian troops, forming a mini-state which has no outside recognition beyond Russia itself. Baran describes Petr Zalozhkov here as the 'Dvorkin of Transnistria', which is surely enough said. Not satisfied by persuading the state to violate its own registration laws, he even wrote a section on the Witnesses in the standard school textbook on religion, claiming that they were operating a 'pyramid scheme' to fleece converts of their money. Here, again, the Witnesses won in the courts, but they could not enforce their own decisions. To his credit, the local Orthodox bishop publicly excommunicated Zalozhkov, but disputed cases remain before the courts.

In her conclusion Baran quotes a story related by the exiled Vladimir Bukovsky. Wandering through the streets of London, he came across a simple sign outside a modest building saying 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. He required nothing more to prove that Western democracy offered true freedom of conscience.

Are there, then, no faults in this book? It is superbly written, entirely void of sociological jargon and beautifully produced by Oxford University Press. The reader would have been additionally enlightened by an account of what typically happened in a Kingdom Hall, at the times when such communal worship was possible. While not sharing their faith, as Emily Baran tells us, she cannot but admire the dedication and selflessness of generations of heroic figures whom she depicts in her pages.

AuthorAffiliation

Keston Institute, Oxford

Word count: 1056

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

                                                                                                       Ἐγὼ  εἰμί  in John  8:58

                                                                    by

                        Al  Kidd

Many today are confused about the identity of Jesus, the Son of God. Some say that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and has lived from eternity. Others say that Jesus is the same person as his Father. Still others claim that Jesus had a long prehuman existence in heaven, but that he himself was a created being. Clearly understanding Jesus’ words at John 8:58 will help clarify Jesus’ identity for us. Now, Jesus’ words in this verse, in context, are unequivocally his declaration that he has pre-Abrahamic existence. Other words of Jesus in the Gospel of John, however, tell us that Jesus had prehuman existence, too (e.g., John 1:1-3, 10; 17:5, 24). But does John 8:58 identify Jesus as the Jehovah of the Old Testament? Does it indicate that he has existed from all past eternity? Does it indicate that he is a divine person but one ontologically equal to the person of the Father? What exactly is Jesus saying and not saying at John 8:58? This paper explores the answers to these questions by extensive research. So, let us begin with the following observations.

“Am” is a finite English verb, a copula when used by the speaker for declaring the following kinds of predication: a non-absolute existential when modified by (1) an associative phrase, or (2) a locative phrase, as in “I am with you,” and “I am in the garden,” respectively. 

“Am,” however, can also be used in absolute existence statements, as in “I think; therefore, I am”; “I exist/am alive.” If I want to involve the verb “to live” as an absolute existential in a self-referential declaration that involves past time, then I may emphatically state the words “I have been living such a long time now.” English does not make a well-formed sentence in “I am alive a long time now”; Greek, however, idiomatically owned for ἐγὼ εἰμί, egṑ ’eimí (“I am”), when modified by the appropriate adverbial of time, the semantic I emphasized in my example with the verb “to live”: “I have been living such a long time now.” This is the idiom we see at John 8:58 Greek. 

In reading a Greek copulative use of εἰμι (e.g., when we see the simple sentence εγώ εἰμι), we who speak English may supply an anaphor (“I am he”), or else see a purely self-referential sense for it, for which we then discern the meaning “It is I.”

Jesus’ enemies’ remembrance of a moments-earlier part of their conversation with Jesus, wherein Abraham was referenced, prepared their minds as respects the contextually determinable tense of the infinitive that fell upon their ears following Jesus’ words “Before Abraham . . .” The completion of his declarative sentence was a statement of a comparison of his longevity over against that of the deceased Abraham’s. Jesus was telling his enemies that his longevity extends into a past anterior to Abraham’s day. He was declaring himself to be older and therefore greater than Abraham, words that, on the occasion, once again moved his enemies to attempt to murder him. Many translators ignore that the Greek at John 8:58 is presentation of Greek idiomatic use of εἰμί, that is to say, interlinear translation of the verb here must appear more or less for a somewhat unnatural sense to the English reader, although here—in this instance of use—it belongs naturally enough to the Greek language used to record the passage.

    Plato, Protagoras 317c¹, has the sophist Protagoras making this declaration with some emphasis: καίτοι πολλά γε ἔτη ἤδη εἰμὶ ἐν τῇ τέχνῃ, “And yet many years already I have been in the profession [, a sophist]” for an existential sentence, the verb having here the aspectual distinction ‘present of past action still in progress’ (PPA). (See below for discussion.) It is a use of the verb with an implied individual-level predicate (viz., the subject complement “a sophist”). So, even if Plato’s Protagoras had been answering the question, “Are you a capable teacher in the profession?” then would the answer Πολλά ἔτη ἤδη εἰμί, “I have been many years already,” have been use of εἰμί as an absolute existential? No, for then his answer again implies the predicative expression “a capable teacher (sophist) in the profession.” If, however, the context had been dialogue in which Protagoras was asked, not about his profession, but rather about his lifetime, and we read: “Protagoras, you haven’t lived a very long time yet, have you?” then the sentence Πολλά ἔτη ἤδη εἰμί, “I have been living many years already,” would have been use of εἰμί as an absolute existential, i.e., a use having no linkage either to an individual-level predicate or to a stage-level predicate whether expressed or implied. And if heightened emphasis on the subject had been wanted, then Πολλά ἔτη ἤδη ἐγὼ εἰμί, “I have been living many years already.” Jesus’ words in John 8:58 were recorded with use of the verb in such a way that shows us he made a ‘longevity comparison.’ His focus was on his existence/life. Accordingly, his use of the verb was as an absolute existential, i.e., one also without modification by prepositional locative phrase, and without an identificational or equative predicate expressed or implied. We should read in English translation for sense of a certain tense, that which grammarian Kenneth L. McKay calls “Extension from Past.” (We will shortly present his grammatical insight, his recognition for the correct aspectual distinction for εἰμί in John 8:58.) With that Greek idiom in mind, we see that Jesus’ words were not recorded for the effect that Jesus was introducing into the conversation his spoken use of an appellation/epithet or title properly belonging to God alone. Jesus did not use the verb εἰμί as a way for him to communicate to those hearing him that he was the God Who is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). Such a link will not be seen when there is accurate translation of those two passages. Accurate translation does not mistakenly link Jesus’ answer to that which Jerome’s Latin Vulgate at Exodus 3:14 attributes to Jehovah. Jerome’s translation has it that Jehovah was declaring to Moses that He (Jehovah) has static, immutable life. Exodus 3:14, 15 Latin Vulgate states ego sum qui sum; sic dices filiis Israel: qui est, misit me ad vos (“I am who I am; thus, you will speak to the children of Israel: he who is has sent me to you”). Ego sum qui sum (“I am what I am,” i.e., ‘I am always neither more nor less than what I am’) is a far cry from the Hebrew that records Jehovah’s emphatic answer to Moses’ question: אהיה אשר אהיה ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh (“I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be).” The answer Moses received speaks to Jehovah’s majesty, His sovereignty, and His pleasure to respond in whatever way was required of Him for satisfying the needs of His servants.

    Jerome’s Hellenism-inspired translation shows us that he was unduly influenced by the LXX’s take on the Hebrew, for the LXX’s rendering was made with a nod to Hellenistic philosophy when it has Jehovah explicitly declaring His immutable, eternal existence in the expression ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, I am the (one) being / I am the one who is. In this respect, we read this from David T. Runia²:

The textual foundation of Philo’s thought, and also of much of the New Testament and Early Christian literature, is the Septuagint. It too is a product of Hellenistic-Jewish literature, with as its focal point Alexandria. The Septuagint too is not impervious to the influence of surrounding Greek culture, as seen most strikingly in the choice its translators made when they rendered [their alleged meaning for] God’s self-revealed name in Exodus 3:14 as ‘I am he who is’. I for one do not believe that the translators were so naive that they did not know that in this rendition they were adapting Platonic language.

Jerome would have given us a considerably more accurate Latin translation of Exodus 3:14 Hebrew had he written ego erō qui ego erō (“I will be what I will be”). If he had done so, he would have produced another version in antiquity more faithful to the Hebrew for the passages under review here, a version like Aquila’s (c. 140 C.E.), which Jerome knew but ignored, and like Theodotion’s (c. 150 C.E). Theodotion’s and Aquila’s translations use ἔσομαι ὅς ἔσομαι, esomai hos esomai (“I will be who I will be”) for the construction in Exodus 3:14a אהיה אשר אהיה‎, ehyeh asher ehyeh, and ἔσομαι for the third occurrence of אהיה ehyeh, in Exodus 3:14b. Jerome, though, was too enamored of Platonism to give us a significantly better translation into Latin for the Hebrew, and that because his thought was to adopt translation that would suggest on its face that the Christian’s God was compatible with the Platonists’ God, the Being who was immutable in its substance.

If Jesus were telling his enemies that he was the God of Abraham, then he might have forthrightly and simply declared ‘I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham.’ The expression ἐγώ εἰμί, egṓ ’eimi, (“I am”) certainly does not echo the expressions אני הוא or אנכי הוא ’ă·nî hū or ’ā·nō·ḵî hū (“I [am] he”) in the Hebrew Scriptures, where the expressions were used by Jehovah for Him to make an emphatic assertion of His identity, character, or role such as we see in:

 

1. “I [am] He” [i.e., ‘always the same and only God, your real Rock’], Deuteronomy 32:39.

2. “I [am] He [i.e., ‘Jehovah that First One right on through to the last ones’], Isaiah 41:4. For translation of the Hebrew here, the LXX implies the predicate anaphor ὁ αὐτὸς, as in ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ αὐτὸς, I am the same.³ So, there is error in Brenton’s translation of the LXX at Isaiah 41:4 for his “exegetical” rendering “I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM”⁴; and the same error is found in commentaries that take John 8:24, 28 ἐγώ εἰμι for a divine appellation.

3. “I [am] He [i.e., ‘Jehovah, ever the One and only God Who chose you to become a people for my glory’], Isaiah 43:10.

4. “Ever I [am] He [i.e., ‘your Deliverer and God’], Isaiah 43:13a.

5. “I, [even] I, [am] He Who blots out your transgressions,” Isaiah 43:25.

6. “I [am] He [i.e., ‘the same One strong for you from your birth to your decrepitude’], Isaiah 46:4.

7. “I [am] He Who-speaks,” (a tripartite expression) Isaiah 52:6.

 

We do not see in Isaiah 43:13a that the speaker (Jehovah) is focused merely on the fact of His existence; the third person pronoun in context should be taken as the predicate in an emphatic declaration, which means that we look back in the soliloquy here for the antecedent identifiers Jehovah has just spoken for Himself. Is there any indication in the text whereby the word-form הוא hū (“he”) is better understood if we let go its function as an anaphor, this in order that we no longer take it as the object in copulative expression for recall of some property, role, or attribute owned by the subject—that it no longer might function for the concept of identification, but rather for the concept of declaring (divine) existence? No, but even if hū had ever become morpho-syntactically transformed into a verb, it should still lack believable sentence-level function for the semantic of an appellation as used by someone for himself when addressing somebody else. It is not so used as a divine name in a Jewish liturgical formula that would have God as the speaker of it.

Catrin Williams sees no firm evidence for use of the salient expression in the liturgy of Judaism⁵: 

 

Evidence for the setting of אני הוא  within the context of Passover is confined to an isolated, probably late Amoraic, tradition in the Passover Haggadah, and the association with Tabernacles only extends to [א] הוא אני (b.Suk 53a) and (m.Suk 4:5), two enigmatic designations whose relationship with אני הוא has not been clearly delineated.

 

Again, Catrin Williams, and note that Williams does not here use ‘bipartite or tripartite appellations’⁶:

 

No evidence can be adduced for the use of אני הוא in bipartite or tripartite constructions other than those declarations recorded in biblical scrolls, although this may be due to the fragmentary nature of texts discovered at Qumran. [Bolding for emphasis in this quote is mine.]

 

As to the thought that the Isaiah passages lay emphasis on Jehovah’s existence, Catrin Williams is not convinced of it. She states⁷:

 

The nature of the Deutero-Isaianic evidence has led some to interpret it as an expression of divine immutability and eternal steadfastness . . . [However,] The prophetic argument relating to the claim that Yahweh remains one and the same is, nonetheless, intended to substantiate the overall message that he is the only God.

 

Williams’ observations should really leave for herself only one conclusion about the salient expressions in the Isaiah passages: they are not existential sentences, but copulative for self-identification. However, almost all are agreed that John 8:58 does have absolute existential use of the verb—then no imitation of the style of usage for copulative, self-identificational expressions that Jehovah used in Isaiah. And nowhere do we see recorded Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι for expressing predicative identifiers that belong properly and only to Jehovah. Jesus never made identification for himself by declaring something like: ‘I am God Almighty,’ cf. Exodus 6:3; ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ cf. Revelation 1:8; ‘I am the Good One, God,’ cf. Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19; ‘I am the Only Loyal One,’ and ‘I am King of Eternity,’ cf. Revelation 15:3, 4; ‘I am the Creator, God,’ cf. Romans 1:25; ‘I am your God and Father,’ cf. Romans 1:8; or ‘I am the Only Lawgiver,’ cf. James 4:12.

Jesus’ emphatic answer at John 8:58 was rightly timed for the occasion, in view of the request his enemies had made for clarification of his relationship with Abraham. ‘Jesus, you are not greater than our deceased father, Abraham, are you? Who do you think you are?!’ (8:52, 53). So, they thought to twist Jesus’ words in effort to make the alleged madness more egregious, for they declared, in effect, ‘Jesus, you are not yet fifty years old; yet, you tell us that you have seen Abraham?!’ And yet Jesus’ demeanor betrays no consternation; so nonplussed is he that he startles and outrages them by, in effect, declaring that what they were now saying about him was finally something correct: (as a paraphrase) ‘Why, yes, I have seen Abraham, because I have been living since before Abraham.’ That they understood! Logically, it was not new information they heard Jesus declare in John 8:58, but it was new apprehension of Jesus’ meaning, one they were not going to tolerate. ‘This Jesus is declaring for himself a lifetime that he wants us to believe really makes him to be literally older than not just David, but now makes him to be older and greater than even Abraham our father, who Jesus believes is not his father because he is older and greater than father Abraham.’ “So, they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid. And went out of the temple” (John 8:59).

John 8:58 Greek does not have Jesus proclaiming Exodus 3:14 LXX’s mistaken translation of the Hebrew, although the LXX certainly has the arresting predicate nominative ὁ ὤν, ho ṓn (“the (one) existing”) declared by the copulative ἐγώ εἰμι. Such a meaning, had it been presented by Moses to Israel, would hardly have functioned for reassurance to Israel concerning the character of Jehovah, the God of their forefathers. Jehovah, through Moses, gave Israel that very reassurance in the words ’ehyeh ’ăšer ’ehyeh (“I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be”) when He linked that promise to His personal name Jehovah (q.v. Exodus 3:15), the name that would forevermore serve for remembrance of (majestic memorial to) His majesty, His sovereignty, and His love, things that a large population of people (Israelites) coming out of Egyptian slavery would experience. 

John 8:58 Greek in Bible Translation

 

So, keeping in mind those things reviewed above, we may turn our attention to a few of the many disappointing translations of John 8:58 produced as support for errant theology:

1. “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “Before Abraham was born, ‘I Am.’” Today’s English Version.

2. Jesus answered them: “I solemnly declare it: before Abraham came to be, I AM.” The New American Bible.

3. Jesus replied: ‘I tell you most solemnly, before Abraham ever was, I Am’. The New Jerusalem Bible.

4. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” New American Standard Bible New Testament Reference Edition, 1963. 

5. Jesus said to them, “In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.’ The New English Bible.

6. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” [study note “160”: “I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows).”] New English Translation, 2005. Sadly, then, the Vulgate-inspired error in translations of John 8:58 lives on.

We see below some renderings made in antiquity and later, renderings that do not record anything that has the semantic of an appellation at John 8:58. In fact, several of these translations pragmatically rendered Jesus’ answer as “I was . . .”, that is to say, the co-text (use of the adverbial of time) in a self-evidential way prevents the absurdity that the sentence presents a non-figurative, dead Jesus as the speaker; we need not take exception here to absence in translation for use of the present perfect continuous tense. And then there are translations that do use the present perfect continuous tense. Either way, we have recognition that John 8:58 Greek does not have Jesus declaring life from the eternal past for himself, nor declaring an appellation.

 

1. 4^th/5^th century: “before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith, London, 1894.

2. 5^th century: “before Abraham ever came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by Francis Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

3. 5^th century: “before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta—Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

4. 5^th century: “before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950. 

5. 6^th century: “before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . in Æthiopic, by Thomas Pell Platt, rev. F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

6. 1937: “Before Abraham was, I have been”—Dr. Franz Delitzsch [not ’ehyeh, but instead ’ă·nî hayithi, which in English translation in context here has the continuous present perfect tense.

7. 1968: “Before Abraham was born, I was—Sagrada Biblia, Nácar-Colunga, Madrid (Antes que Abraham naciese, era yo).

8. “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been”—New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Pennsylvania © 1961, 1981, 1984, 2013, 2019.

 

Linguistic Analysis of John 8:58

 

Kahn’s linguistic insight we may invoke whereby we make reasonable support of translations of John 8:58 Greek that make explicit and unambiguous the sense of a verb that has the aspectual distinction of a ‘present-of-past-action-still-in-progress’ verb (PPA) for an absolute, existential use of εἰμί. In the verb’s co-text, we see that the verb takes argument for meaning that is in addition to what we see is given in the semantic of εἰμί. We see that there is a more expansive tense involvement for that particular use of the verb, there being no constraint to present merely a moment in time, the moment of Jesus’ speech act. This is so because we see reference to a past time with the Greek clause prin Abraam genesthai. So, while we have Kahn in mind, let us review his insight on proper usage of ’eimi. Charles Kahn⁸:

Because the copula verb (like any verb in the indicative) carries an implicit claim of existence for its subject, the same verb, when properly emphasized, can serve to make this claim explicit. That is precisely the function of einai in existential sentences. We can see this happening in a variety of ways, corresponding to the diversity of the existential sentence types.” [Kahn then proceeds to list the existential sentence types, and about the first of the types, he states:]“Type I is an absolute construction of the verb [einai] with personal subjects. (By an absolute construction I mean that there is no nominal or locative predicate and no other complement such as the possessive dative, nor even an adverb of manner. An absolute construction may, however, admit adverbs of time.) This sentence type corresponds exactly with the vital nuance [i.e., “am alive,” “you/you persons live/are alive,” “those persons/gods live/are alive” nuance] mentioned in [sections] 3-4; that is, in every sentence of this type, ’eimi can be translated ‘am alive’ .... In this type the construction of ’eimi is ‘absolute’ in the sense just specified: namely, the verb takes no complement or modifier except for adverbs of time and duration (now, still, always) …. “Type I to be means ‘to live’, ‘to be alive’): The gods who are forever.”  [The emphases for the words in the quote are mine.]

Note well that Kahn does not state that the speaker’s use of adverbs of time need give us a measurable, discoverable extent of time determinable by the speaker’s words. The dependent adverbial clause in John 8:58 has modification for εἰμί that we discern for a past-time unboundedness (“unboundedness” here as ‘a fluidly interpretable meaning’ for aspectual comment on the stative verb εἰμί), just so long as the co-text has not expressly disallowed it. The co-text here, one given expressly by incorporation of an adverbial infinitival clause, just happens to leave unanswered the question whether or not there is inceptive aspect for the existential verb as used here, that is to say, it leaves unanswered the question, “Did Jesus, in his answer, indicate that his life, continuously in existence from before Abraham’s birth, was yet life that had a beginning and that he thereafter was continuously alive, or did his life never have a beginning?” Context answers.

An example of idiomatic use of εἶ, ei (“are”), second person singular indicative of the verb εἰμί, (substantive verb, “to be”), and used absolutely, and for the sense of a PPA, is found at Psalm 89:2 LXX (90:2 Hebrew): pro tou ore genethenai . . . su ei (interlinearily as: “Before the mountains came into existence . . . you have been living”). My reason for referring to the verse here is aside from the fact that the LXX does not reflect the Hebrew text for translation of אתה אל, āt·tāh êl (“you are God”) in the independent clause, a copular clause. My primary reason for referring to the verse is not for criticism of the LXX translator(s), but to illustrate the grammar of an absolute, existential use in the LXX for this particular inflection for εἰμι, namely, εἶ, in the independent clause “you are.” Of course, for better English translation we should read: “You have been living from before the mountains came into existence.” The aspectual distinction of a PPA for εἶ is established, and is easily understood because the adverbial clause that modifies εἶ clearly establishes a lifetime for Jehovah that extends back in time before the mountains came into existence. Does the text tell us how far back in time Jehovah has been living? Although the Greek verb as used here is an absolute existential, yet were it not for the additional adverbial “from everlasting to everlasting” for more argument supplied the verb εἶ, then we would have had no other indication in just such an LXX passage missing that additional adverbial that Jehovah has been living forever, and that because the lemma εἰμί does not present, across all contexts having present-tense meaning for the substantive verb, the lexeme TO-BE-ETERNALLY. “Continuously” and “eternally” do not express coeval duration of time. 

Consider another existential use of εἰμί with the PPA aspect, but is not an absolute existential. It is found in John 14:9. Rendered interlinearily, it is: “Is saying to him the Jesus, “So much time with you I-am.” Here again is idiomatic use of the verb for the meaning that can be rendered by an English present perfect continuous tense, and then for good translation into English we have: “Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you men?”” There is the same aspectual distinction of PPA for εἰμί here as is so for εἰμί at John 8:58, except that at John 8:58 there is no locative phrase, and at John 14:9 there is. This means that in John 14:9 there is not an absolute existential use of the verb. At John 8:58, there is use of a dependent clause, but at John 14:9 there is not. Both uses of this verb occur each in its own linguistic environment, and there we see existential use of the verb with the PPA aspect; those two uses of the verb put on Jesus’ lips accordingly do more than have him assert that he is (unsurprisingly) living at the moment of his speech act. Those particular adverbials of time supply argument that means that Jesus gave reports about a certain period in his life, which, perforce, extends from some time in the past to the present, to the time of the speech acts. True, at John 14:9 there is the predicate μεθ´ ὑμῶν (“with you”), but it is not a predicate nominative; it does not record Jesus’ words that would have been necessary in a grammatically intelligible use of them should he have wanted on that occasion to declare for himself a property essential to his being. His words do not present a specificational, identificational, or equative subject complement, either. In John 14:9, we find existential use of the verb with the PPA aspectual distinction, as revealed by Τοσοῦτον χρόνον . . . εἰμὶ, (“I have been so long a time . . .”).

Consider John 7:34, 36 where we find two of Jesus’ “I am” declarations: καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ, “And where I am . . .” They are not used for Jesus’ declaration of a metaphorical predicate of identification, but are probably used existentially⁹. If so, and were it not for the adverbial clause ὅπου . . . ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν (“where . . . you cannot come”), then the existential declaration would have presented to view an absolute existential use of the verb in the clause ἐγὼ εἰμί; however, it would have presented to view an illogical use of such an existential εἰμί—illogical because the verb needs modification by the adverb of place if it is not then to stand absurdly out of place in its context, namely, discussion of a place where Jesus will go and live. (In John 8:58, we see that the verb is an absolute existential because even were the adverbial of time there missing, Jesus’ expression ἐγὼ εἰμί would still intelligibly declare “I am”/“I live,” although, of course, without the aspectual distinction of a PPA. If, however, the adverbial of time in John 8:58 were missing, then the more likely thing would be that John had written an expression having an implied predicate, thus “I am [he, the Messiah].”) If, however, the adverbial clause of place were missing from the verses in John 7:34, 36, then we should suspect some inexplicable corruption in witnesses found in a textual tradition for presentation of the passages.

I present below all of Jesus’ “I am . . .” sayings in the Gospel of John where εἰμι is the copula for joining the subject Ἐγώ/ἐγώ to those predicates whereby Jesus expresses for himself metaphorical identifications. Not one of them, therefore, syntactically matches John 8:58. Moreover, not once do we see ascription by Jesus for identification that shows him to be Jehovah. 

 

1. John 6:35, 48, 51—Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος I am the bread: yes, but Jesus was bread given by Jesus’ Father, the real Source of that true bread that “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (v. 32, 33).

2. John 8:12—Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου I am the light of the world: yes, but Jesus was an agent from Jehovah for shining forth light from Him (Isaiah 42:6; 60:1, 3), and Jesus’ disciples are commissioned to be a light to the world, too, q.v. Matthew 5:14; Acts 13:47).

3. John 10:9—ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα I am the door: Jesus is the “door” into a new-covenant sheepfold for an Israel of God whose members are the declared-righteous sons of God; however, Jesus is their brother, not their Father. Jesus, the mediator between God and those entering into the new covenant (1 Timothy 2:5), is subservient to the Father (John 8:29), and access to the Father is through Jesus (John 14:6).

4. John 10:11—Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός I am the fine shepherd: yes, Jesus is the one who surrendered his life for the sheep, and is why his Father promised him that he would be raised back to life, q.v. 11b, 15, 17, 18. But the Owner of the sheep cannot die; He is from everlasting to everlasting (Habakkuk 1:12).

5. John 11:25—Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή I am the resurrection and the life: and for Lazarus, Jesus so demonstrated it after praying to his Father thanking Him for His power to restore life to Lazarus at Jesus’ request, q.v. 11:41-43.

6. John 14:6a—Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή I am the way, the truth, and the life: yes, Jesus is the way to the Father q.v. 14:6b; yes, he has sayings of everlasting life, but life-saving truth does not originate with Jesus, for he is its conduit/teacher and not its Source, seeing as how life-saving truth, from its Source, the Father, “came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17 American Standard Version).

7. John 15:1—Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ I am the true vine: yes, but the vine and branches belong to Jesus’ Father, for Him to cultivate, to His glory, q.v. 15:1, 2, 8.

 

I find nine occurrences of εἰμί for non-absolute existential use in the Gospel of John: 7:34, 36; 8:23bd; 14:3, 9; 17:14, 16, 24. Although the salient clause is used in those nine places, yet again we see nothing that gives indication that their uses reveal a divine language, a morpho-syntax that is exclusively the purview of the Supreme mind. (John 13:19 is not an absolute existential; an anaphor is implied; cf. John 9:9 where the salient clause implies an identificational predicate.) 

 

אני הוא Masoretic and Εγώ εἰμι LXX Isaiah Are Dissimilar to John 8:58 Greek

 

At Isaiah 43:13 Hebrew, there is a clause used by Jehovah for His Self-identification, and is rendered in NWT as: “Also, all the time I am the same One”; LXX kαι εγώ κύριος ὁ θεός έτι απ΄αρχής, as translated by Brenton, reads (across two verses, 12 and 13) as: “and I am the Lord God, even from the beginning”; the Vulgate reads (again, across verses 12 and 13): et ego Deus et ab initio ego ipse (“and I am God, and from the beginning I am the same”); and in Young’s Literal as “Even from the day I am He.” The expression in Hebrew has the pronominal subject אני, ’ă·nî (“I”), and הוא, hū (“he”) as the predicate pronoun, used here by Jehovah for His self-identification, as a way for pointing back—giving emphasis—to testimony that He has already given. hū is an anaphor; it points back to antecedently given information. The syntactical ordering of the words in 43:13 literally translates into English as “I [am] He,” because the third person pronoun hū assumes the predicate position for a copulative clause having no copula written—but understood—in Hebrew.

In the context of Isaiah 43:13 (vv. 9-17), Jehovah has His witnesses whom He has summoned to give testimony about His past deeds that prove His supremacy over “all the nations” (v. 9). His witnesses know and are in agreement with His testimony: none of the nations’ gods has been on the scene before Him, and none of their gods is with Him now; moreover, never will there be a time after Him for their gods to be/to become. Why not? “Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity. He never tires out or grows weary. His understanding is unsearchable” (Isaiah 40:28 NWT); therefore, there will never be gods acclaimed by their worshipers at a time ‘after Jehovah’s lifetime.’ The salient expression ’ă·nî hū does not present in the Hebrew Scriptures as an appellative syntagm (i.e., does not present as a unique lexical unit semantically standing alone, as though the words were at any time an appellation in the place where Jehovah might have stood).

1 Chronicles 21:17 Hebrew contradicts the assertion that הוא אני is a divine appellation, for King David used the salient when he declared to God: הלא אני אמרתי למנות בעם ואני הוא אשר חטאתי (‘Was it not I who commanded the people to be numbered? Yes, I am he [the one who commanded it], [ergo] the one who has sinned.’) The sentence has use of “he” as a subject complement, and has for more emphasis a predicate adjunct, the expression “the one who sinned.” (It is also possible to read הוא as a cataphor for “who has sinned.”) Did David misappropriate an appellation belonging to his God, an expression semantically the equivalent of the name Jehovah? Was he declaring, ‘Was it not I who commanded the people to be numbered, and [I,] Jehovah, the one who has sinned?’ Of course not. Consistency, however, in holding to this theory that ’ă·nî hū has the semantic of an appellation belonging to the God of the Bible should have to force into (mis)translation something entirely foreign to the way the phrase functioned in Hebrew. And what was that function? The thing that Jehovah’s uses of ’ă·nî hū and David’s use of ’ă·nî hū—which appear as clauses when reading English translation—have in common is that they used ’ă·nî hū for emphatically stating a self-specificational/self-identificatory predicate. As we have stated, the phrase (pronominal subject + predicate pronoun, although without a written copula for linking subject to predicate), is idiomatic Hebrew in that the copulative sense is understood: ’ă·nî hū is not an absolute existential expression; it is not to be translated as “I am”/“I live.” Catrin Williams¹⁰ brings to our attention an item of Hebrew grammar about how hū may function, and which we find pertinent to the issue of the meaning that ’ă·nî hū has in its context in 1 Chronicles 21:17. (Admittedly, what she brings to our attention is a point of grammar contested by some other grammarians.) She states: 

 

[A] firm distinction must be made between tripartite clauses and the bipartite expression אני הוא, for in the latter case הוא  cannot serve as a connecting link between subject and predicate; it may function as the predicate or even as the subject of the clause, but it is unlikely that it can be defined as a copula unless the expression simply means ‘It is 1’ (or ‘Ι am’), and, in order to determine whether this is the case, the actual contexts in which אני הוא  occurs must be examined….

The expression אני הוא  has been something of an enigma for commentators on the biblical texts,³⁶the long-standing debate on the exact function of הוא  in nominal constructions suggests that syntactic issues relating to the status of the bipartite expression cannot simply be resolved.

 

Unsurprisingly, a review of the Isaiah passages will not contradict her grammatical observations referred to above. We will undertake that review now, and her caveat “the actual contexts in which אני הוא  occurs must be examined” will be adhered to as we examine the passages. 

Isaiah 43:25 and Isaiah 51:12 have reduplications of the so-called ‘archaic’ personal pronoun ’ā·nō·ḵî, where the second occurrence of ’ā·nō·ḵî immediately follows the first occurrence, and each second occurrence is followed by hū. These we may render as “I— [even] I—[am] He.” We find ’ă·nî hū in Isaiah 43:10, 13; 48:12; and 52:6. In Deuteronomy 32:39 we find another reduplication of the personal pronoun written not as ’ā·nō·ḵî ’ā·nō·ḵî but as ’ă·nî ’ă·nî, and is followed by the third person pronoun hū. This, too, we may render as “I—[even] I—[am] He.” An appellation is not there in the Hebrew, nor is it there in the LXX when it translated the reduplication of the first-person pronouns at Isaiah 43:25 and 51:12 as ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι. Would an Israelite reader of Hebrew see what he takes to be an absolute (predicateless) use of the phrase, or would he not rather understand hū to be a predicate pronoun having an antecedent given in context? Yes, he would see the latter. In support, we read from Gesenius Hebrew Grammar¹¹:

 

1. The separate pronouns,—apart from their employment as the subject in noun-clauses (cf. §141a) and the idiom mentioned under d–h,—are used, according to §32 b, as a rule, only to give express emphasis to the subject; e.g. Gn 16:5, 2 S 24:17   אָֽנֹכִי  i.e. I myself, so also 2 S 12:28, 17:15   (after the verb), Ez  34:15, Ps  2:6; ¹   but 1 S 10:18, 2 S 12:7, Is  45:12  ֽאָנִֹכי  I and none else; cf. also אֲנִי אֲנִי , I I! Ho  5:14, &c.; אַתָּה   Gn 15:15, Ju  15:18, 1 S  17:56 (as in 20:8, 22:18, Ex 18:19, Dt  5:24, Ju 8:21, after the imperative); 1 K 21:7; אַתֶּם  Gn 9:7, Ex 20:19 (after the verb, Ju 15:12); fem. Gn  31:6; הוּא  1 S 22:18; הִיא  Gn  3:20, Ju 14:3; הֵ֫מָּה  Jer 5:5. — Sometimes, however, the separate pronoun appears to be placed before the verb more on rhythmical grounds, i.e., in order to give the statement a fuller sound than that of the bare verbal form (cf. the similar use of the infinitive absolute, § 113 o). Thus Gn  14:23, Ps  139:2, and most clearly in such passages as Gn  21:24, 47:30, Ex 8:24, Ju  6:18, 11:9, 1 S 12:20, 2 S  3:13, 21:6, 1 K  2:18 (in solemn promises). The same explanation applies to אֲנִי at the beginning of sentences, e.g. Gn  24:45, Ho  5:3, 10:11, 12:11, Ps  39:11, 82:6, Jb  5:3.²….

1 ¹ Also הוּא ,הִיא  he himself, she herself (of persons and things), e.g. Is  7:14 הוּא ֲאדֹנָי  the Lord himself; Est 9:1 מה   ה  היהודים  the Jews themselves. In the sense of the same (ὁ αὐτός) or (one and) the same, הוּא is used in Is  41:4, 43:10, 46:4, 48:12 (always אֲנִי הוּא), Ps  102:28 (אַתָּה הוּא), and probably also Jb  3:19 . . . [The bolding of the words is mine.]

 

So, we see in this reference work that הוא אני in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 13; 46:4; and 48:12 are in the copular construction; they do not have absolute existential use. As respects Isaiah 48:12 Hebrew, we read אני־הוא אני ראשׁו אף אני אחרון  and the LXX renders it as έγώ είμι πρώτος, και έγώ είμι εις τον αιώνα (“I am the first, and I am forever”). We see that the LXX did not even bother to translate the phrase אני־הוא but skipped over it in order to take up translation of אני ראשׁון as έγώ είμι πρώτος (“I am the first”). What happened to the putative divine bipartite appellation?! Apropos this issue of whether Isaiah used ’ă·nî in an absolute existentialist declaration, we do find in Isaiah 49:18 an occurrence of ’ă·nî in a declaration properly constructed for the absolute existentialist sense:
חי־אני (ḥay-’ā-nî) “I live,” and is rendered in the LXX as ζῶ ἐγώ, “I live,” for an absolute existentialist sense that, of course, is not conveyable by the copulative expression אני הוא. 

Still, we continue our examination of Isaiah apropos this issue, and will complete Isaiah’s uses of a first person pronoun juxtaposed with the third person pronoun that follows, although it follows a reduplication of that first person pronoun not as אני אני, but rather as אנכי אנכי. We do, however, see the reduplication in 48:15, and we may discern interesting reason for absence of הוא in that verse.

The Treatment of Isaiah 43:11a and 43:25a Hebrew in LXX Versions

Isaiah 43:11a and 43:25a have the device (reduplication of first person pronouns), which the speaker (Jehovah) again uses for heightening the emphasis on Himself, although it occurs there with a different first person pronoun אנכי אנכי הוא  ’ā·nō·ḵî ’ā·nō·ḵî hū  (“I— [even] I, [am] he . . .”) than the single use of  אני, ’ă·nî that we see one verse earlier (!) in 43:10b ’ă·nî hū, (“I [am] He [Jehovah]”; see 43:10a for that antecedent, Jehovah).

In Isaiah 43:25 LXX, the translator of the LXX Isaiah text, as represented in Alfred Rahlfs’ version, did not ignore the second occurrence of ’ā·nō·ḵî. He did not skip over it, but correctly saw it as a copular construction in which its subject (the speaker, God) placed emphasis on Himself by means of the first ’ā·nō·ḵî. So, for correspondence to that ’ā·nō·ḵî, the LXX translator, constructing here reduplication of ἐγώ εἰμι for sole purpose of using the first of the two clauses for emphasis, considered himself as having thereby accomplished it with his first use of ἐγώ εἰμι. So, the original translator for LXX Isaiah was not slavishly following Hebrew grammar. He felt that he could introduce the second use of ἐγώ εἰμι with no device for any heightening of that emphasis. Therefore, his translation is ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἐξαλείφων τὰς ἀνομίας σου, “I—[even] I am the one blotting out your transgressions” for conveying literalness and emphasis. He therefore did not follow after the lead in the Hebrew where we see that Jehovah made a more expansive predicate by His use of הוא hū before He spoke מחה, mō-ḥeh, the predicate participle: ‘I—[even] I [am] He who blots out your transgressions.’ No, the original LXX did not, but certain editors of the LXX did for a more literal translation of the Hebrew. I take this up in the next paragraph.

Now, here it really gets interesting as respects what we find from the hands of editors for their alteration of the original LXX at Isaiah 43:25¹². There are codices that present a variant to the original LXX here at 43:25, which was made by insertion of αὐτός after ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι. And then in that edited LXX, following after αὐτός, we find the participial phrase ὁ ἐξαλείφων τὰς ἀνομίας, and the result in translation is: “I—[even] I myself am the one who blots out your transgressions.” What grammatical effect was made by this addition of αὐτός? Ken Penner¹³:

 

Because pronoun Αὐτός is not exclusively a third person pronoun [e.g., Isaiah 54:5 LXX, which has the reading Σε Αὐτός  Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, God of Israel himself who rescues you, in manuscript witnesses A and B, and is followed by Alfred Rahlfs’, (q.v. Penner¹⁴)], here since it is nominative it emphasizes the subject, even though the verb is in the first person [for the typical emphasis it conveys], hence the translation “I myself” [for heightened emphasis]. (All bracketed material here is mine.)

 

So, to recap: what we find by comparison of the original LXX Isaiah 43:25 with an edited Isaiah 43:25 LXX, is this: for the phrase ’ā·nō·ḵî hū that follows the first ’ā·nō·ḵî, orginal Isaiah 43:25 LXX translated it by recording the second use of ἐγώ εἰμι: the translator saw the phrase ’ā ·nō·ḵî hū as copulative for joining the subject to its subject complement hū, and to its predicate adjunct, the Hebrew participle mō-ḥeh, “who blots out.” So, the original LXX sentence is: “I— [even] I, am the one blotting out . . .” But then came along certain editors of the LXX, and they knew that the first ’ā·nō·ḵî was for setting up the salient phrase that followed as device for giving it emphasis. But here in 43:25, the editors wanted to render a translation for further heightening the emphasis. They achieved it by inclusion of αὐτός as predicate after the second occurrence of the ἐγώ εἰμι, which second occurrence was already in place in the original LXX. So now the telling question is, “Why skew, by this addition of αὐτός, translation of the Hebrew phrase ’ā·nō·ḵî hū for its function as a divine bipartite appellation?” At this point, someone may remonstrate that’ā·nō·ḵî hū is not the divine appellation, but that ’ă·nî hū is. The LXX editors, however, saw no difference, because they have ἐγώ εἰμι for both forms of the Hebrew pronominal subject + predicate pronoun construction. Indeed, if either or both of the constructions had ever been recognized as appellative, then we should have to suppose a mighty ignorance on the part of those editors for their causing a supposedly sacrosanct bipartite appellation to read as a tripartite expression, and for which grammar had then destroyed it for its supposed sacral status as a memorialized, divine appellation. Who would have dared?! Why, likely they were the very educated Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila¹⁵; they are the ones who are named for editing the LXX here (43:25), by insertion of αὐτός. Assuming the likely thing that they did it, we have seen Penner’s explanation for why they did it, and it is not contradicted by Catrin H. Williams¹⁶:

 

‘The Three’ are said to add αυτός after the doubling of έγώ είμι in Isa. 43:25 and 51:12 (QSyh), a feature again reflecting their attempts at literalness. (Emphasis is mine).

 

They simply were attempting emphasis and literalness in their rendering of the Hebrew here, not preservation in Greek of a memorialized, divine appellation. Apparently, they knew nothing for it in ἐγώ εἰμι. Their edit of the LXX translates into English as: I—even I myself—am the one blotting out your transgressions, and thus ruination of an instance of ἐγώ εἰμι as a memorialized, divine appellation if ever it had achieved such sacral status, which, of course, it had not!

No Appellative Constructions in Isaiah 48:15; 51:12; Hosea 5:14a, b; et al. locis

We find this device (reduplication of אני) used again at Isaiah 48:15: ואני־אני דיברתי ’ă·nî ’ă·nî dib·har·tî (“I—[even] I, spoke”). The clause lacks הוא hū (“he”)—it does not have that predicate pronoun, nor any predicate nominative, either, and that because the clause here is not copulative. The speaker, Jehovah, could easily have inserted הוא hū (“he”) into the text here, if He had wanted to present before our eyes another occurrence of the putative divine appellation. But what was the apparent reason that there was no insertion of hū in the text? It was not inserted, and that because Jehovah scaled back on any further heightening of the emphasis that he might have given Himself had He followed the second ’ă·nî with הוא, hū in copulative construction, and then have followed it up for an even more expansive predicate, for this: ואני־אני הוא אשר דיבר (“And I—[even] I [am] He who spoke [when I prophetically announced Cyrus]” (cf. v. 14b, c).

The final occurrence of this emphasis-giving device (reduplication of a first-person pronoun) in Isaiah is 51:12: אנכי אנכי הוא ’ā·nō·ḵî ’ā·nō·ḵî hū (“I—[even] I—[am] he”). Note that the first-person pronoun here is ’ā·nō·ḵî, not ’ă·nî.) The emphasis Jehovah gives Himself may be conveyed in translation without supplying the adverb “even” before the second occurrence of the first-person pronoun, but rather by use of the reflexive pronoun “myself”: “I myself.” It is the translator’s choice. (We may, however, see hū in Isaiah 51:12 as a cataphor that co-refers with the participle that follows it: “I [am] he, (the one) comforting you”; see also Isaiah 52:7 for such use of hū as a cataphor.)

(N.B. In what follows in this paragraph, the reader should be attentive to which part of Hosea 5:14 is being cited, whether it is 5:14a, or 5:14b.) So, first as respects Hosea 5:14b Hebrew: the salient reduplication of the first-person pronoun ’ă·nî is found again. We read the following in Hosea 5:14b: אני אני, ’ă·nî ’ă·nî [“I—[even] I”]. The third person pronoun is not found in Hosea 5:14b because, unlike the copulative construction with use of ’ā·nō·ḵî in Isaiah 51:12, the text does not have the device in copular construction. The thing about Hosea 5:14a LXX, however, is this: it still used the salient construction ἐγώ εἰμι in copulative construction, and that because the Hebrew had used one of its first-person pronouns, אנכי, ’ā·nō·ḵî, as the subject of a copulative construction, too. 

Once again, then, the LXX gives no support to the theory that ἐγώ εἰμι had ever functioned in that translation for conveyance of a divine appellation; its uses of the construction were merely for literal rendition of the Hebrew text, and that regardless of whether the Hebrew text had used ’ā ·nō·ḵî or ’ă·nî in copulative construction—it did not matter to translators for the LXX. And once again, in Hosea 5:14, Jehovah used both ’ā·nō·ḵî and ’ă·nî in the same breath, as it were.

Consider concurring opinion respecting absence in the Masoretic text and in the LXX for a first-person bipartite appellation in the Bible as spoken by Jehovah for identification of Himself. Ken Penner states¹⁷:

 

The phrase Ἐγὼ εἰμι first appears here in Isaiah, and it will appear again 21 more times by the end of chapter 56. Almost always (except 45:19 and 47:10, because the Greek is doubled yet the Hebrew is not) it represents a Hebrew first person singular subject pronoun: 15 times the shorter אני, and 5 times the longer אנוכי. In six instances (41:4; 43:10; 43:25; 46:4; 48:12; 51:12), it is in conjunction with הוא; twice (45:18 and 48:17) the phrase represents אני יהוה. Ἐγώ εἰμι is almost always (except for 56:3 “I am a dry tree”) spoken by God. The phrase has a noun complement in 45:8; 45:19 “Lord”; 45:22; 46:9; 48:17 “God”; an adjective complement “first” in 48:12, a participle complement in 43:25 (“the one who wipes”); 51:12 (“the one who comforts”); 52:6 (“the one who speaks”); a prepositional phrase in 41:4 (“in the future”); 46:4 (“until old age” and “until you have grown old”); 48:12 (“forever”); and no complement (“I exist”) in 43:10; 45:18; 47:8, 10. Because the Greek simply represents the Hebrew, these are not instances of the translator injecting a theological point into his translation. Eusebius made no comment here (2.19) about the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι, even though Symmachus used the same expression, καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐσχάτων  ἐγώ εἰμι. (Emphasis by bolding is mine.)

 

Penner is correct, except that in 43:10; 45:18; and 47:8, 10 there is predicative expression implied; absence of an anaphor in those four places having the sentence Ἐγώ εἰμι does not mean that the salient expressions in those places are absolute existentials. Context for the salient sentences in 47:8, 10 strongly favors not emphatic assertion by ‘Lady Babylon’ that she is merely existing, but favors the understanding that there is an implied predicate, this to the effect that she is emphatically insisting that she really is the grand, incomparable “Mistress of Kingdoms.” At 47:8, 10, the predicate pronoun implied in the Hebrew text is הִֽוא, hî, (“she”); in the LXX text, the third person pronoun is missing, too, as I have indicated by bracketing the missing anaphor as follows: ἐγώ εἰμι [αὐτή], and I translate as follows: “I am [she].” (We have already seen in Isaiah 49:18 Hebrew how the absolute existentialist sense might have been constructed, namely, by use of  חי־אני (ḥay-’ā·nî) “I live.”)

Did One’s Hearing Read Jehovah’s Use of ’ă·nî hū Constitute His Hearing Pronunciation of a Divine, Personal Name /Appellation?

Now I present another observation that weakens argument that ’ă·nî hū is a bipartite appellation in the Isaiah passages discussed here. We see speculative, competing theories as to how one or the other of the first-person pronouns was selected by a speaker. Pertinent here is observation made by Charles W. Loder¹⁸:

 

Though insights are gained from a close reading of these texts through a different perspective, over-all, it [Systemic Functional Grammar, i.e., discourse analysis based on theme marked and unmarked; on the rheme’s word-order position “initial slot” or not; on clause-level morpho-syntax; and on pragmatics afforded by topicality and focus, which are above clause-level textual analysis] does not provide a helpful framework for differentiating between the two forms [of Hebrew first person pronouns when, for example and in the same ‘breath,’ as it were (!), Jehovah, the speaker of Hebrew, finds reason for use of both forms]. When used with finite verbs, it does often serve the purpose of representing either topic or focus. When used in nominal clauses, only the position of the pro. determines whether or not the clause is identifying or attributive. [The bracketed insertions are not Loder’s, but mine.]

 

Loder’s criticism here comes after his review of another theory for use of the first-person pronouns: Loder critiqued a theory by E. J. Revell¹⁹. In Loder’s opinion, Revell’s theory of socially status-marked/unmarked speakers/addressees is not as robust as it might have been. Why not? Loder considers Revell’s theory to be deficient because it requires us to invoke so often one or the other of the supposedly marked/unmarked categories descriptive of a certain relationship, there being a plethora of them with regard to the alleged nature of a relationship the speaker assumed between himself and his addressee, and whether or not the speaker wanted to focus on that relationship. About his own work on the subject of promoting his own theory that competes with Revell’s and other linguists’ theories for distinguishing between the first-person pronouns in Hebrew, Loder modestly admits²⁰:

 

Ultimately, while the thesis does not set forward a framework for discriminating between the usages of the two forms in biblical prose, it evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of previous methods and explores new avenues of insight.

 

Now, competing linguistic theories as respects explanation for synchronic usage of the two different forms of the pronoun is competition that does not build confidence in the theory that one of the salient first-person pronouns had ever become chosen for early on “freezing” out the other one. But such a thing would have to have been the case if an oral reading in Hebrew of the pertinent Isaiah passages should have alerted an Israelite audience to the unique pronunciation that Jehovah had supposedly used in His speech for instancing a memorialized, formulaic (bipartite) divine appellation for Himself. So, in answer to the question raised in the subheading above (“Did One’s Hearing Read Jehovah’s Use of ’ă·nî hū Constitute His Hearing Pronunciation of a Divine, Personal Name/Appellation?”), I see no basis for any other answer but “No!” The listener was not being alerted to pronunciation of a divine name when hearing ’ă·nî hū—no more so than was the case when he heard read Jehovah’s pronunciation of ’ā·nō·ḵî hū. And why not? Because both phrases are simply emphatic, copulative expressions for which there exists no compelling reason given us as to why we should view one them as having been given place in a divine lexicon by Jehovah wherein the semantic of the phrase is supposedly shown elevated to that of a divine, personal name/appellation for Jehovah whenever He speaks the phrase. 

Translating Hebrew First-Person, Copulative, Emphatic/Non-emphatic Declarations

We will now examine Masoretic text passages and the LXX translations thereof for the way emphasis may be expressed—or, better here, as emphasis not given in the Hebrew, yet given in the LXX—by a speaker when giving identification of himself. For example, consider 2 Samuel 2:20 New English Translation (NET): “Then Abner turned and asked, “Is that you, Asahel?” He replied, “Yes it is!”” The Hebrew has the lone pronoun ’ā·nō·ḵî as Asahel’s answer to Abner’s question. The LXX, however, has Asahel’s answer as ἐγώ εἰμι. If, in intertestamental Judaism, ἐγώ εἰμι had gained sacral status as a use by God for His declaring the words as an appellation or title He alone speaks for identifying Himself, then why did the LXX use expressly the two-word copular expression ἐγώ εἰμι alone for presenting Asahel’s answer to Abner’s question? The LXX as easily could have simply used ἐγώ. Perhaps if Asahel had been in a situation where he might have given his answer without ardor, then the translator for the LXX might have interpreted Asahel’s answer to have been one translatable, were it his opinion that context had thereby allowed it, with the lone word ἐγώ, instead of the copular sentence that the translator did use for emphasis: ἐγώ εἰμι. We may suppose so, because we see lone use of another first-person pronoun, ’ă·nî, in 1 Kings 18:8, but this time where evidently a LXX translator’s opinion was that he, too, could use a lone pronoun, because he saw lone use of ἐγώ could be justified instead of the copular sentence ἐγώ εἰμι. Brenton, though, for 1 Kings 18:8, translates the Greek as “I am,” noting by his use of the italic the absence of the verb. A better translation, however, in English is the simple self-referential “It is I,” New World Translation; and for another translation that recognizes the absence of emphasis in the Hebrew, we have “Yes,” New English Translation (NET)²¹.

In this vein, let us consider Judges 13:11—Are you the man who spoke to the woman? And he said, “I [am he],” ויאמר אני. Judges 13:11 LXX reads: καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος, ᾿Εγώ [εἰμι], “and the angel said, I [am he].” The identified, the speaker, is an angel, and the predicate identifier is not made explicit, but is to be inferred. Note the LXX text here: it does not have “εγώ εἰμι.” Omission of it in the LXX is owing to literal translation of the Hebrew. Is that not problematic for those who assert that a divine appellation is made by אני הוא? Then why is it absent here? One theory even has it that the angel was not really an angel, not really a spirit, but was a specially and temporarily produced ‘theophanic’ manifestation of God. If so, then why did Jehovah not find occasion to use here אני הוא, and then inspire prophet and judge Samuel, in his recording the Hebrew text for narration of the occasion, to use the salient expression? If the expression really were an appellation, and the occasion a (so-called) ‘theophany,’ then would not such an occasion have certainly been fitting for solemn use of it? Instead, Judges 13:11 Hebrew records the answer in such a way as to make the predicate pronoun implicit; it is an accurate record, which reveals that the angel referred to himself with brevity, because he had no reason for putting any emphasis on the self-referential affirmation of identity that he made. Considering this angel, we see that the childless couple eventually recognized him to be an angel, but his own name he would not divulge to Manoah and his wife, a couple who already knew God’s name; however, the angel did say that his own name was a wonderful one. Of course, his name could not have been one as wonderful as was so for his God’s name, Jehovah, the name of the One greater than was so for the name of the one who was sent by Jehovah (q.v. Judges 13:8) to Manoah and his wife. (Compare John 8:29 and 13:16 for Jesus’ recognition that he, too, was sent, thus perforce sent by the One greater than himself.) The Bible’s presentation of an actual visit of a real, supernatural creature (cf. Stephen’s witness to the Sanhedrin wherein he referred to angels who were used by God for interaction with Moses when transmitting the Law to Moses, q.v. Acts 7:53, and note the plural ἀγγέλων, angels) is ignored by some who wish to interpret the account as narration of a ‘theophanic manifestation’; however, exegesis of the account does not uncover a so-called ‘theophany.’ Such an assertion remains a theologoumenon, a thing born as part and parcel of an unbiblical (man-concocted) theology. 

And let us not forget that where the LXX uses ἐγώ εἰμι for translation of the seven occurrences of the salient Hebrew phrases expressed by Jehovah, not one of them is absolute, without predicate expressed or inferable from context; not one of them is an absolute existential. Moreover, the uses of ἐγώ εἰμι in the LXX are plentiful, and occur in recording the speech of humans in identificational, specificational, or equative copulative constructions. Very strange, is it not, if the translators for the LXX had ever presented any use of ἐγώ εἰμι as a divine appellation?!

Was ἐγώ εἰμι Ever Used in the Christian Greek Scriptures for One’s Declaration of Supreme Identity? 

If ἐγώ εἰμι were a divine appellation used by the Son, then why do we not see it prominently featured in the Synoptics? Where we might have expected to see it, it is not there. Matthew 24:23-26 does not put the sentence on the lips of false Christs for any appellative use of it, as though, according to the theory, we should then understand that they were thereby laying claim to being Jehovah. But why would Matthew? Use of ἐγώ εἰμι, namely, that use of it by Jesus in his prophecy concerning appearance of false Christs, was not that it should function as a divine appellation; Matthew does not show us that Jesus was concerned that false Christs might use ἐγώ εἰμι in order that they might lay claim to their being Jehovah. No, but what record we do have of Jesus’ words expresses his concern to alert us that others besides himself would, in time, be acclaimed as “the Christ” (Matthew 24:23, 24), but then for possibility that even a spirit-anointed disciple might be misled. (Judaism did not hold that the appellation “Christ” should have for its referent a ‘Jehovah-become-flesh’ person; such a thing would fly in the face of prophecies about the Messiah that distinguish him from Jehovah, such as we see in Isaiah 11:2, and Isaiah 61:1.) True, Mark 13:6 and Luke 21:8 have the false Christs saying “I am [he]”; however, if it were used by false Christs as expression of abuse against Jehovah by their misappropriation of Jehovah’s identity, then why did Matthew omit such grave expression of blasphemy made by false Christs who, supposedly, would be using “I am” as an appellation that belonged exclusively to Jehovah? When the mob came to arrest Jesus, we do not read in Matthew 26:48-56, Mark 14:43-49, and Luke 22:47-53 that Jesus used the sentence for identification of himself. If, however, it were an expression whereby Jesus made the supreme identification for himself, i.e., identified himself with Jehovah, then we should have to wonder, ‘Why do we not see it recorded in the Synoptics for account of the occasion?’ The Gospel of John, noted for its “high Christology” and deliberative uses of ἐγώ εἰμι for recording Jesus’ speech when he introduced predicative metaphors, in self-identificational contexts of great moment for Christ’s disciples, omitted the expression for when Jesus, at daybreak, is before Caiaphas in the Sanhedrin (John 18:24, 28), and that because John recorded nothing of the conversation—he left no record for Jesus’ use of ἐγώ εἰμι in conversation between Caiaphas and himself. Mark’s account (Mark 14:62) does, however, record Jesus’ answer to the high priest’s question by his own direct use of the salient expression. The predicate is supplied from the context, and so here εἰμι is not an absolute existential use of the verb. We see agreement in F. W. Danker’s Lexicon.²²:

 

To establish identity the formula ἐγώ εἰμι is oft. used in the gospels (corresp. to Hebr. אֲנִ֧י ה֑וּא 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 ἐγώ.—In a question μήτι ἐγώ εἰμι; surely it is not I? Mt 26:22, 25. [Emphasis is mine.]

 

(Notably absent here is citation of John 8:58. Writers for the Lexicon knew the verb in that verse was an absolute existential, not copulative.) Jesus, then, used the sentence clearly for answer to the question ‘Are you the Son of God?’ and not ‘Are you Jehovah?’ Matthew’s account (Matthew 26:63, 64), like John’s, did not record use of the expression ἐγώ εἰμι for the occasion when Jesus made affirmative reply under oath to Caiaphas’ demand that Jesus tell them whether he was “the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus’ reply was blasphemy in the opinion of the Sanhedrin, but their opinion did not rest on some supposed absolute (“absolute,” i.e., no identificatory predicate given or implied), existential use of the verb for Jesus’ reply ἐγώ εἰμι. At John 8:58, however, there is use of an absolute εἰμί as an existential, a use like it not found for occurrences of the sentence/clause ἐγώ εἰμι in LXX Isaiah, and that existential sense also unsurprisingly not found in Hebrew Isaiah’s expressions of ’ă·nî hū and ’ā·nō·ḵî hū.

Consider also the use of ἐγώ εἰμι at John 9:9. There we see that the expression is used to record the once-blind beggar’s emphatic assertion of his identity: “The man kept saying: “I am [he].” Again, the lone word ἐγώ might have been used to record his answer to a question if early on it had been put directly to him. Instead, an argument broke out over his identity with no one directly asking him, ‘Are you the man who was blind?’ So, he began speaking up with persistence and insistence for declaring his identity with the words ἐγώ εἰμι, so that finally someone became irked enough to address him directly with a question, “How, then, were your eyes opened?” The sentence he used for declaring his identity was one for placing emphasis on himself as the subject of a declaration he intelligibly, per context, made for his identity. The aspectual distinction of the verb εἰμι, “am,” spoken by the once-blind beggar, is that of a ‘present tense’ copula; it does not lexically denote ownership of life for the speaker from the eternal past. Certainly, then, the juxtaposed words ἐγώ εἰμι are understandable in all their occurrences, even though not one use of them properly belongs only in a ‘divine lexicon’ for entry as a divine appellation, as though it were peculiarly a formulaic expression by which the speaker declares his identity as a divine being/God.

Chrysostom on ἐγὼ εἰμί in John 8:58

At this point, we may test the remarks of an early theologian in Christendom, John Chrysostom (ca. 349-407), as respects his (mis)understanding of why Jesus used ἐγὼ εἰμί. John Chrysostom did not declare that Jesus’ use of the words ἐγὼ εἰμί was his use of an appellation that had infuriated the Jews. No, far from it! Chrysostom said that Jesus’ words about himself in comparison with Abraham “was but a trifling one”! His use of Jesus’ words in John 8:58 was an argument that Jesus had always been living, that the salient was an expression that necessarily denotes immortality, eternality, in his (mistaken) opinion. His commentary on John’s Gospel has been made accessible in the works of Philip Schaff, where we read Chrysostom’s thoughts on John 8:58²³:

 

But wherefore said He not, “Before Abraham was, I was,” instead of “I Am”? As the Father useth this expression, I Am, so also doth Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one [, in Chrysostom’s opinion], had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at him?

 

Chrysostom made appeal to ἐγώ εἰμι Exodus 3:14 LXX where he apparently assumed that the LXX’s translation by its use of ἐγώ εἰμι was in itself sufficient declaration made by Jehovah of a blatantly sterile beingness for Himself. Chrysostom thought he had the backing of Exodus 3:14, although he had already subscribed himself to Platonism’s ‘eternal beingness’ that was the philosophical underpinning informing Exodus 3:14 LXX. (By the way, where do we find declarations by Jesus that corroborate Chrysostom’s assertion that Jesus “continually made himself equal to the Father”? We do not; however, we have Jesus’ statement in John 14:28: “My Father is greater than I am.”) Platonist philosophy was also the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo’s concern; he was concerned not with a name by which God called Himself; rather, his concern was about God’s essence, His eternal beingness, and for which he enlisted: Deuteronomy 32:39 LXX (q.v. De Posteritate Caini 167-68²⁴), and Exodus 3:14 LXX (q.v. De Somniis I.231²⁵). We see in those references that Philo latched on to the subject complement ὁ ὤν, because Philo, unlike Chrysostom, knew which part of the sentence in Exodus 3:14 LXX he should latch on to for asserting purely an existentialist meaning. Chrysostom did not; he latched on to ἐγώ εἰμι, which did not function for mere expression of existence in Exodus 3:14. Why did he do so? He wanted his readers to see John 8:58 as presentation of that ἐγώ εἰμι in Exodus 3:14 LXX, not aware that ἐγώ εἰμι there is copulative, and not existential. His interpretation of the verb’s tense for being a tense “irrespective of all time” would, by his lights, also make the once-blind beggar to have been someone from the eternal past! Chrysostom’s ‘lexicon,’ here listing a place in the Scriptures that he imagined spoke to the Son’s ownership of life from the eternal past, apparently did not have for us any comment by him on John 15:27. We find there an inflection for the verb εἰμί (namely, ἐστέ, you-are) modified by an adverbial of time ἀπ´ ἀρχῆς, from [the] beginning, and the verb linking the subject (the speaker, Jesus) to an associative predicate (μετ´ ἐμοῦ, with you). This morpho-syntactical construction allows us pragmatic understanding of the verb in order that we know there was a terminus post quem—thus here, then, not for a past-time “unboundedness,” one ‘fluidly interpretable’—for the duration of time that Jesus and his disciples were together; theirs certainly was not an association from the eternal past. So, that verse rules out the so-called “eternality” ‘tense’ for inflections of εἰμί, as Chrysostom had it, i.e., rules out his thought that it meant in John 8:58 “continuous Being, irrespective of all time.” Probably most readers resist interpreting Jesus’ comment respecting association of himself with his disciples to be an association existing from the eternal past. 

Some Problematic Admissions by Modern-Day Theologians

We may consult works by modern-day theologians, although some of them are “hostile” witnesses, opposed to arguments I have presented here against what they purport to be Scriptural support for their errant theology. Yet, some of their admissions seem insuperably problematic respecting their effort to support their theology with use of John 8:58. They will speak for themselves, but I will repeat pertinent admissions by them respecting these issues. First up is Philip B. Harner, a hostile witness against my conclusion that there is neither that divine bipartite appellation ’ă·nî hū in the Hebrew Scriptures, nor a divine appellation as translation for it in the LXX; however, I may quote him where he at least admits that the salient is not present in non-biblical literature of the intertestamental period. Philip B. Harner²⁶:

 

It is frequently assumed today that John wrote his gospel around A.D. 100. If we accept this date as a working hypothesis, then it is chronologically possible that John was familiar with Jewish practices and writings from this period. Hence we may ask whether the Judaism of this time employed any expressions that could have served as the basis for an absolute ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel. In particular we may ask whether Judaism continued to show an interest in the phrase ’ă·nî hū from Second Isaiah or Deuteronomy 32:39. Perhaps the best known of the Jewish writings that derive at least in part from the period under consideration are the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the nonbiblical writings among the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Mishna. If we limit our interest specifically to the phrase ’ă·nî hū, then our conclusion must be negative.

 

Next, we have the words of C. K. Barrett²⁷:

 

It is not however correct to infer either for the present passage or for the others in which ἐγώ εἰμι occurs that John wishes to equate Jesus with the supreme God of the Old Testament (see E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (E.T., 1960), 102, 142-59; on this, Haenchen, Weg, 511). This is not demonstrated by the Jewish material (S.B. ii, 797; see however Isa. 47.8; Zeph. 2.15 for the blasphemous use of the words by men), and is in the contexts impossible. Note that in v. 28 it is followed by ‘I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me I speak these things ... I always do the things that are pleasing to him’, and in 13.19 by ‘He who receives me receives him who sent me’ (13.20). Jesus is the obedient servant of the Father, and for this reason perfectly reveals him. ἐγὼ εἰμι does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. ‘I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.’

Secondly, particular attention has been paid to LXX Isa. 43:25 and 51:12 both of which adopt the following translation technique: ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι έξαλείφων τὰς ανομίας σου (43:25) and ἐγώ εἰμι ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ παρακαλῶν σε (51:12). The two statements thus curiously render אנכי already doubled in the Hebrew text, as ἐγώ εἰμι . . . [W]ith regard to LXX Isaiah, it could be argued that it is the application of a translational device rather than specific theological concerns that explains this rather unstylistic rendering of Isa. 43:25 and 51:12,²² reminiscent of the later endeavours of Aquila and others to distinguish between אני and אנכי by translating the latter as ἐγώ εἰμι.²³ In view of the generally free character of the translation techniques adopted in LXX Isaiah,²⁴ it is possible that אנכי was translated as ἐγώ εἰμι in order to demonstrate that this pronominal form carries particular emphasis (‘Ι, Ι am the one who blots out your sins’). Even LXX Isaiah does not follow a fixed rule in this respect, for it presents some cases of אנכי as ἐγώ εἰμι (43:25; 46:9; 51:12) and others as ἐγώ (43:11; 44:24; 45:12-13; 49:25). (Emphasis is mine. The superscripted numbers “22,” “23,” and “24” are Barrett’s.)

 

It is difficult to imagine how the admittedly narrowly defined issues dealt with here could be better argued than by the way Barrett has argued the matter. I find his argument supports denial of the contention that the speaker Jesus for the words ἐγώ εἰμι, and the speaker Jehovah for the words אני הוא in the Isaiah passages, are words recorded in the Scriptures in order to show us that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Being. 

Catrin Williams, who accepts that Jesus used ἐγώ εἰμι in order to proclaim divine sovereignty for himself, nevertheless acknowledges that rabbinic evidence in antiquity does not support the contention that the expressions were ever used as exclusively divine expressions. Catrin Williams²⁸:

 

Examples of the bipartite usage of אני הוא, and especially אנא הוא, attributed to beings other than God have also been identified in rabbinic texts. These invariably function as statements of self-identification in which הוא performs an anaphoric role, for its referent is identifiable from the immediate context (b.Ket 63a: ‘I am he [that great man]’)…. Thus, while it cannot be claimed, on the basis of the rabbinic evidence, that הוא אני was interpreted as an exclusively divine expression in Tannaitic and Amoraic circles [, i.e., from 10 C.E. to 500 C.E.], it can function as a self-declaration of divine sovereignty, particularly in traditions where the relevant biblical statements are cited as decisive proof-texts.

 

I remind readers that the expression ἐγώ εἰμι on the lips of Jesus was never used by him as expression of “self-declaration of divine sovereignty,” nor did any of those expressions present the semantic of a divine appellation. 

Naturally, we are all self-aware that we have a life that extends into the past. Only one person, though, has a life from the past that really is from “before all the ages.” His life is apart from nature, without an origin that would have, in the event, afforded Him ability to tell us, in terms that a finite mind might then immediately grasp, how old He is. God, though, is before all such count of time that we use for measurement of time between sensible occurrences in a material cosmos: He is πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος, before all the ages (Jude 25). That means Jesus Christ is not that One. This One is “the only God our Savior,” the One Who has given His Son as a ransom sacrifice so that our salvation comes from God “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” God owns “glory, majesty, might, and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity.” Although Jesus did not make comment to his enemies about how long a time it was that he lived before Abraham did, yet we Christians accept that Jesus was not always living before Abraham; Jesus is an only-begotten/created god, the only person directly created by God the Father (John 1:18). Only Jehovah God has been living from all past eternity.

(Some) Grammatical Authorities’ Insight on John 8:58 Greek

 

A. T. Robertson, in the section of his Grammar that discusses “The Sentence,” stated²⁹:

Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in εἰμί (Jo. 8:58) and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι (Rev. 21:1). Cf. Mt. 23:30” [I bolded the citation of John 8:58.]

 

In a later section of his Grammar that discusses “Tense (XΡONOΣ),” Robertson stated³⁰: 

(β) The Progressive Present. This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. Gildersleeve³  calls it “Present of Unity of Time.” Cf. ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has. to be translated into English by a sort of  “progressive perfect” (‘have been’), though, of course, that is the fault of the English. “So in modern Greek, ἑξῆντα μῆνας σ’ ἀγαπῶ (Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 222). The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase” (Moulton, Prol., p. 119). Cf. Ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ’ οὗ, ἔρχομαι (Lu. 13:7); τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι (15:29); πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει (Jo. 5:6); τουσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμί (14:9); ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (15:27); πάλαι δοκεῖτε (2 Cor. 12:19). Cf. ἀπό βπέφοθς οἶδας (2 Tim. 3:15). It is a common idiom in the N. T. Cf. 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jo. 3:8. In Jo. 8:58 εἰμί is really absolute” (ibid. pp.779-80). [I bolded “present of past action still in progress,” “14:9,” and “15:27”; all other bolding is Robertson’s.] 

I combine Robertson’s two references to εἰμί in John 8:58 in his Grammar (pp. 394 and 879-80) in order that we can see his recognition that at John 8:58 we find the selfsame εἰμί not just as an existential, but as an absolute existential. He seems to have been on the cusp for including it here as example of “present of past action still in progress”; however, having so dismissed it without any argument in his Grammar in defense of his dismissal of it, then he ‘dismissed without prejudice’ reasonable appeal for re-examination of the issue for the aspectual distinction “present of past action still in progress.”  Before I move on from Robertson, however, I note in his comments in the paragraph labelled “(β) The Progressive Present” that he presented two uses of inflections (first person and second person, q.v. John 14:9 and John 15:27, respectively) of εἰμί that are both of them non-absolute and existential, and that qualify for categorization again under the name “present of past action still in progress,” (PPA). Yes, and why is that so for those two examples? They are not absolute because they have modification by locative prepositional phrases that are needed here in order that the verb not be read for an absolute PPA. This means that we do not read 14:9 and 15:27 as ‘I have been living for such a long time,’ and ‘You have been living from the beginning,’ respectively. How might modification of an absolute, existential use of the first and second person inflections of the verb be made? Recall that Kahn (see above) says, “Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb.” As Robertson recognized, that is true for εἰμί at John 8:58, that is to say, the adverbial of time does not rob it of its status as an absolute existential. My argument for John 8:58, though, is that its modification by the dependent adverbial clause of time supplies argument to the verb by which we do see it also as a PPA, a verbal aspect that does not conflict here with its linguistic environment (context).

Next, I list 9 more authoritative sources on Greek grammar for support of John 8:58 NWT:

 

1. William Watson Goodwin³¹:

The present [tense] with palai or any other expression of past time denotes an action begun in the past and continued in the present, and is translated by the perfect; e.g. (keinon ichneuo palai), I have been tracking him a long time, S. Aj. 20. [I emphasized “expression of past time” in the quote because it does not limit us to a one-word construction, but can be phrases or clauses, too.]

 

2. Ernest De Witt Burton³²:

The Present of Past Action still in Progress. The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek ... to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases. [Again, I emphasized “expression,” and for the same reason expressed above.]

 

3. J. N. Sanders³³:

To describe a state continuing up to the present Greek uses the present tense (echei) (“he is having”) where English uses the perfect; cf. viii, 58; xiv, 9.” [Citations are John 8:58, and John 14:9. Bolded emphasis is mine.] 

4. A. N. Jannaris³⁴:

Present Tense ... It often stands with adverbial expressions denoting past time, such as palai ‘long since,’·arti or artios ‘just (now),’ where in English the progressive present would seem to be required (I have been looking).” [And once again I have added emphasis to the expression “adverbial expressions.” I would not have thought it were helpful to use emphases for these quotes, except that someone has made linguistically preposterous declaration to the contrary, namely, that the verb in John 8:58 cannot accept argument from the expression of a clausal, adverbial of time sufficient for defining a tense for the verb, per use at John 8:58, for the aspectual distinction of the PPA.]

 

5. James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner³⁵:

The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress ... Jn. 8:58.

 

6. George B. Winer³⁶:

Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz, when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 απ’ ἀρχῆς μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐστέ, viii. 58 πρὶν Ἀβπαὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (cf. Jer. i. 5 πρὸ τοῦ με πάλσαι σε ὲν κοιλίᾳ, ἐπίσταμαι σε, Ps. Ixxxix. 2), 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; 1 Jno. iii. 8.

 

7. K. L. McKay³⁷:

4.2.4. Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative, for which see §4.2.5), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to present time: Lu 13:7 Ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ’ οὗ ἔρχομαι ζητῶν καρπὸν ... καὶ οὐχ εὑρίσκω it is now three years since I have been coming looking for fruit ... and not finding it; Lu 15:29 τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι, I have been slaving for you all these years; Jn 14:9 Τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ ...; have I been with you so long...?; Ac 27:33 Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτην σήμερον ἡμέραν προσδοκῶντες ἄσιτοι διατελεῖτε, today is the fourteenth you have been continuing on the alert without food; Jn 8:58 πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί, I have been in existence before Abraham was born. This is a form of the continuation realization of the imperfective aspect, and similar uses are found with the imperfect tense and with imperfective participles: see §4.3.4. [Bolded emphasis is mine. K. L. McKay has a fuller treatment of the grammar for John 8:58, but not quoted here.]

 

8. G. Abbott-Smith³⁸: 

εἰμί, with various uses and significations, like the English verb to be. I. As substantive verb. Of persons and things, to be, exist: Ac 17²⁸, Jo 1¹¹, 8⁵⁸, 17⁵, al. [Bolded emphasis is not Abbott-Smith’s, but mine.]

 

9. F. Blass and A. Debrunner³⁹: 

322. The perfective present…. The present is not perfective in those cases where the duration or repetition of an act up to and including the present is to be designated (a temporal expression indicates the intended period of the past [, which expressions are what we see for]): . . . Jn 5:58 εἰμί, [sic; the chapter number “5” is a typographical error for “8”] . . . and others; [but in] A 26:31 πράσσει [(“is practicing”)] [is] without temporal designation (referring to Paul’s whole way of life, especially his Christianity).”

 

In the Blass and Debrunner quote entered immediately above, we see citation of Acts 26:31, and we discern the reason for why we would not translate πράσσει by use of the English perfective present tense as in “ . . . has never done wrong.” Because, however, a past-time temporal designation is found in John 8:58, then we have there an example in the Greek of the “present of past action still in progress” aspectual distinction (PPA) for the verb εἰμί so that in English translation we use an English “perfective present” for the construction “I have been alive . . .”

 

I did not list above Martinus C. de Boer who held the chair of New Testament Studies at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam. He also taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in New Jersey and at the University of Manchester in England. He states what is syntactically sensible about the use of ἐγώ εἰμι, although he takes exception to use of sensible syntax in translation because his opinion is that it would be unfitting presentation of something “that fails to capture the idea that ἐγώ εἰμι may have been a name of God, a name now given to Jesus.” But we can review a handwritten letter dated October 17, 1988 in which he answered John D. Rosol’s inquiry about the grammar of John 8:58. See below a copy of the letter typed out for this paper; it is then followed by a photograph of the letter. 

 

Dear Mr. Rosol,

     The translation of ἐγώ εἰμι at John 8:58 depends in part on the use of the same expression in christologic claims elsewhere in John; see esp. John 8:28. An excellent discussion of the question may be found in an appendix of the commentary of Raymond E. Brow. [sic] (Anchor Bible, vol. 29). The best OT parallel is not Exodus 3:14 but Isaiah (e.g. 43:25 or 51:12 in the LXX translation). Syntactically it makes sense to translate John 8:58 “I was” (or “have been”) but [?] that fails to capture the idea that ἐγώ εἰμι may have been a name of God, a name now given to Jesus. 

Martinus C. de Boer

Asst. Prof. of N.T.

 

This concludes my defense of translators who do not imagine an appellative “I AM” in John 8:58.

ENDNOTES

¹Plato, Protagoras 317c, Platonis Opera, Greek and Roman Materials, ed. John Burnet (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1903)

 

²David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Thought, Alexandrian and Jew, Studia Philonica Annual 7 (Atlanta, GA: The American Scholars Press, 1995) 152-53

 

³Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar  (Translator) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910) 437 states: “In the sense of the same (ὁ αὐτός) or (one and) the same, הוא is used in Is 41^4.”

 

⁴Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English (Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd.: London, 1851; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 3rd printing June 1990) 875. Brenton read back into Isaiah 41:4 LXX for translation of it into English by use of what he thought was in John 8:58 Greek.

 

⁵Catrin H. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation of ’Anî Hû' in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 10

 

⁶Catrin Williams, ibid., 63

⁷Catrin Williams, ibid., 39

 

⁸Charles Kahn, The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek: A Return to the Theory of the Verb be and the Concept of Being, Ancient Philosophy 24 (Pittsburgh, PA: Mathesis Publications, Duquesne University, 2004) 241

 

⁹F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Robert W. Funk (Translator) (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961) §99 (1) 50.

 

¹⁰Catrin Williams, op. cit., 17, 22

 

¹¹Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar. Second English Edition (Emil Kautzsch ed., and translated by Arthur Ernest Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) 437. The Personal Pronoun. 1. The separate pronouns.

archive.org/details/geseniushebrewgr00geseuoft/436/mode/2up

 

¹²Frederick Field, Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875) 518:

“ יְהוָה אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי Ego, ego ipse. Ο´, ἐγώ είμι, ἐγώ είμι  . *※*   Οἱ Γ´. *αὐτός*   *⸔*  .29 ….29 Curter. sine aster. Comp., Ald., Codd. 22, 23, 36, alii. Syro-hex. in marg.” archive.org/details/origenhexapla02unknuoft/page/518/mode/2up?view=theater

 

¹³Ken M. Penner, Esaias7 in Codex Sinaiticus, Religious Studies (Antigonish, Nova Scotia: St. Francis Xavier University, 2016) 676 

academia.edu/36786214/Introduction_to_Esaias_in_Codex_Sinaiticus

 

¹⁴Ken M. Penner, ibid., 682

 

¹⁵When Origen edited the LXX text appearing in the fifth column of his Hexapla, he was producing a critical recension of it by adding material to make it better conform to the MT. This added material was marked with an asterisk in order to alert the reader that it was not in the original LXX. Origen, however, did not author the material he incorporated into his recension, but pulled it from other Greek translations of the Hebrew, notably from Theodotion’s because his was slavishly literal translation of the Hebrew.

 

¹⁶Catrin H. Williams, op. cit., 61

 

¹⁷Ken Penner, op. cit., 638

 

¹⁸Charles W. Loder, An ‘I’ For an ‘I’: The First-Person, Common, Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew (Collection: Graduate School—New Brunswick Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Rutgers University, 2016) 67-8

 

¹⁹E. J. Revell, The Two Forms of First Person Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew: Redundancy or Expressive Contrast? Journal of Semitic Studies Vol. 40, Issue 2 (2016) 199-217

 

²⁰Charles W. Loder, op. cit. iii

 

²¹New English Translation (NET ver. 2.1), 1 Kings 18:8 online version. Bible Gateway. [footnote g] “1 Kings 18:8 tn Heb “[it is] I.”” 

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018&version=NET

 

²²Walter Bauer and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, third. ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000) 283

 

²³Philip Schaff, ed., et. al., The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of John, 55th Homily, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (1886-1890) 703

 

²⁴F. H. Colson and G. H. Whittaker, Philo. De Posteritate, Loeb Classical Library Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929) 426

 

²⁵Leopold Cohn and Paulus Wendland, Philo. De Somniis Book I. (Berlin: Georgii Reimeri, 1894) 254

 

²⁶Philip B. Harner, The “I AM” of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Johannine Usage and Thought. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970)

 

²⁷C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John. (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1955; second edition 1978) 341-42

 

²⁸Catrin Williams, op. cit., 307

 

²⁹A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Third Edition, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919) 394

 

³⁰Robertson, ibid. 879-80

 

³¹William Watson Goodwin, revised by Charles Burton Gulick, Greek Grammar, (Boston: Ginn and Co. c.1930) 268

 

³²Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, third ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark) 10, section 17

 

³³J. N. Sanders, A Commentary of the Gospel According to St. John (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968) 158, footnote 4

 

³⁴A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar (London: Macmillan, 1897) 434, section 1833.2

 

³⁵James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, New Testament Studies (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1870, 1963) 10(2), 62

 

³⁶George B. Winer, A Grammar of The Idiom of The New Testament (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1870) 267

 

³⁷K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek (New York: Lang Publishing, Inc., 1994) 41-2

³⁸G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (London and Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922) 132

 

³⁹F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translator Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 168, § 322.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBOTT-SMITH, G., A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, London and Edinburgh: T. & T Clark, 1922; third edition, reprinted 1954, Aberdeen: University Press

 

BARRETT, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John, Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1955; second edition 1978

 

BAUER, WALTER & DANKER, FREDERICK W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, third. ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000

 

BLASS, F. & DEBRUNNER, A., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Robert W. Funk (Translator), Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1961

 

BRENTON, SIR LANCELOT C.L., The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English 3^rd printing, London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd., 1851 / Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990

 

BROWN, F., DRIVER, S.R. & BRIGGS, C.A., Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907, 1956 reprint

 

BURTON, ERNEST DE WITT, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, third ed., Edinburgh: T and T. Clark, 1898

 

COHN, LEOPOLD & WENDLAND, PAULUS, Philo. De Somniis Book I, Berlin: Georgii Reimeri, 1894

 

COLSON, F. H., & WHITTAKER, G. H., Philo. De Posteritate, Loeb Classical Library Vol. 2, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929

 

FIELD, F., Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus II, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875

 

GESENIUS, WILHELM, Hebrew Grammar, (Translator), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910

 

GOODWIN, WILLIAM WATSON, Greek Grammar, revised by Charles Burton Gulick, Boston: Ginn and Co. c.1930

 

HARNER, PHILIP B., The “I AM” of the Fourth Gospel: A Study of Johannine Usage and Thought, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970

 

JANNARIS, A. N., An Historical Greek Grammar, London: Macmillan, 1897

 

KAHN, CHARLES, The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek: A Return to the Theory of the Verb be and the Concept of Being,” Ancient Philosophy 24, Pittsburgh, PA: Mathesis Publications, Duquesne University, 2004

 

LODER, CHARLES W., An ‘I’ For an ‘I’: The First-Person, Common, Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew, Collection: Graduate School—New Brunswick Electronic Theses and Dissertations, Rutgers University, 2016

 

McKAY, K. L., A New Syntax of the Verb in NT Greek, New York: Lang Publishing, Inc., 1994

 

MOULTON, JAMES HOPE & TURNER, NIGEL, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax. New Testament Studies, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963

 

NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION, Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C., second edition 2017

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018&version=NET

 

PENNER, KEN M., Esaias 7 in Codex Sinaiticus, Religious Studies, Antigonish, Nova Scotia: St. Francis Xavier University, 2016

 

PLATO, Protagoras, Platonis Opera, Greek and Roman Materials, ed. John Burnet, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903

 

REVELL, E. J., The Two Forms of First Person Singular Pronoun in Biblical Hebrew: Redundancy or Expressive Contrast?, Journal of Semitic Studies Vol. 40, Issue 2, 2016

 

ROBERTSON, A. T., Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Third Edition, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1919

 

RUNIA, DAVID T., Philo of Alexandria and the Beginnings of Christian Thought, Alexandrian and Jew, Studia Philonica Annual 7, Atlanta, GA: The American Scholars Press, 1995.

 

SANDERS, J.N. & MASTIN, Β.Α., The Gospel according to St. John, Black’s New Testament Commentaries, London: A. & C. Black, 1968.

 

SCHAFF, Philip, ed., et. al. The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of John, 55^th Homily,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14, Edinburgh: T & T Clark, and Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1886-1890

 

WILLIAMS, CATRIN H., I am He: The Interpretation of ’Anî Hû' in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000

 

WINER, GEORGE B., A Grammar of The Idiom of The New Testament, Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1870