Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN/EGO EIMI

Expand Messages
  • Diana Fulbright
    Dear Malcolm, EGO EIMI does not equal or translate ANI HU . I am does not mean I am he. If you want to discuss why EGO EIMI implies that Jesus is in
    Message 1 of 7 , May 7 7:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear Malcolm,

      EGO EIMI does not equal or translate ANI HU’.   “I am” does not mean “I am he.”  If you want to discuss why EGO EIMI implies that Jesus is in these words (cf. Jn. 8:58) identifies himself with God, go for it.  But please stick to accurate translation. 

      Thanks,   Diana

       

      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mjriii2003
      Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:13 AM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN

       

      Wieland,

      >From a grammatical standpoint the use of THN ARXHN is unambiguous.
      It the non prepositional use of the accusative expressing "extent of
      space or duration of time." Hence the rendering "from the
      beginning..."

      But the context of Jesus' remarks are even more telling. His use of
      EGO EIMI = ani hu' is an unequivable self identification by Jesus
      Himself as YHWH = Yahweh.

      But even further the use of THN ARXHN echoes back to both the LXX and
      Masoretic texts in Genesis 1:1, EN ARXHi EPOIHSEN hO QEOS...

      Malcolm

      ___________________

      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Chrys C. Caragounis
      > "What Did Jesus Mean by THN ARCHN in John 8:25?"
      > Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 129-147
      >
      > After a detailed check of the thousands of occurrences in the Greek
      literature Chrys Caragounis (2007) comes to the conclusion that THN
      ARCHN is used as an adverb without accusative force. The meaning as
      such is then "the beginning". The preposition must be deduced from
      the context. The position of THN ARCHN at the beginning is for
      emphasis.
      > He further concludes that hO TI should be taken as "that
      which/what" and the KAI as "precisely" (Caragounis: "Needless to say
      KAI does not mean 'precisely'. This is only the force it assumes in
      the present context"). His final translation of the sentence is:
      >
      > "[I am] From the beginning! - precisely what I have been saying
      (speaking) to you."
      >
      > with the comment: "The English may translate it with '[I am] what I
      have been saying to you from the beginning', but this is only a
      functional reading deprived of the literary effect of the original."
      >
      >
      > Is this a textcritical issue?
      > Yes. We have variant readings here:
      > 01 adds EN (meaning?)
      > P66 adds EIPON hUMIN
      > 047 omits THN ARCHN
      >
      >
      > Best wishes
      > Wieland
      > <><
      > ------------------------------------------------
      > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
      > mailto:wie@...
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
      > Textcritical commentary:
      > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
      >

    • Jack Kilmon
      EGO EIMI translates into Judean Aramaic as ana itai )n) ).ty FWIW Jack Kilmon ... From: Diana Fulbright To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday,
      Message 2 of 7 , May 8 6:34 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        EGO EIMI translates into Judean Aramaic as ana itai   )n) ).ty
         
        FWIW
         
        Jack Kilmon
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:42 PM
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN/EGO EIMI

        Dear Malcolm,

        EGO EIMI does not equal or translate ANI HU’.   “I am” does not mean “I am he.”  If you want to discuss why EGO EIMI implies that Jesus is in these words (cf. Jn. 8:58) identifies himself with God, go for it.  But please stick to accurate translation. 

        Thanks,   Diana

         

        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mjriii2003
        Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:13 AM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN

         

        Wieland,

        >From a grammatical standpoint the use of THN ARXHN is unambiguous.
        It the non prepositional use of the accusative expressing "extent of
        space or duration of time." Hence the rendering "from the
        beginning..."

        But the context of Jesus' remarks are even more telling. His use of
        EGO EIMI = ani hu' is an unequivable self identification by Jesus
        Himself as YHWH = Yahweh.

        But even further the use of THN ARXHN echoes back to both the LXX and
        Masoretic texts in Genesis 1:1, EN ARXHi EPOIHSEN hO QEOS...

        Malcolm

        ___________________

        --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Chrys C. Caragounis
        > "What Did Jesus Mean by THN ARCHN in John 8:25?"
        > Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 129-147
        >
        > After a detailed check of the thousands of occurrences in the Greek
        literature Chrys Caragounis (2007) comes to the conclusion that THN
        ARCHN is used as an adverb without accusative force. The meaning as
        such is then "the beginning". The preposition must be deduced from
        the context. The position of THN ARCHN at the beginning is for
        emphasis.
        > He further concludes that hO TI should be taken as "that
        which/what" and the KAI as "precisely" (Caragounis: "Needless to say
        KAI does not mean 'precisely'. This is only the force it assumes in
        the present context"). His final translation of the sentence is:
        >
        > "[I am] From the beginning! - precisely what I have been saying
        (speaking) to you."
        >
        > with the comment: "The English may translate it with '[I am] what I
        have been saying to you from the beginning', but this is only a
        functional reading deprived of the literary effect of the original."
        >
        >
        > Is this a textcritical issue?
        > Yes. We have variant readings here:
        > 01 adds EN (meaning?)
        > P66 adds EIPON hUMIN
        > 047 omits THN ARCHN
        >
        >
        > Best wishes
        > Wieland
        > <><
        > ------------------------------------------------
        > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
        > mailto:wie@...
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
        > Textcritical commentary:
        > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
        >

      • Peter
        Wieland is surely right to ask, Is this a text critical question? People ask us, but what does the Greek say? The Greek uses Kyrios for Jahveh, but John avoids
        Message 3 of 7 , May 8 8:18 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Wieland is surely right to ask, Is this a text critical question?
          People ask us, but what does the Greek say?
          The Greek uses Kyrios for Jahveh, but John avoids using it.
          The translations we are subjected to at church are now deciding the
          meaning of EGO EIMI in favor of a solemn I AM--as though the "I" who
          spoke in the Jewish scriptures was not the Father but Jesus. At
          least, that's my problem with thinking the doctrine is Johannine.
          It is a text critical "issue," perhaps, to get the translators to
          leave ambiguous and pregnant with meaning or obscurity what was
          clearly obscure to the scribes and remains debatable to the exegetes.
          John can use an EGO alone, without verb, to mean "I am" (1:23), but
          he feels forced to use the verb for his Greek. I'll bet he's giving
          more Semitic color than Greek emphasis (on EGO) when he has "I" am
          the bread of life, etc. "I am he," also, works too often (esp. 18:8)
          to think it means the God who really is there.
          THN ARCHN is one of those places we fault scribes for trying to clear
          it up, so let's signal translators to let it remain ambiguous.
          I don't know what Sinaiticus had in mind, where EN could mean one and
          the same thing (as in, the Father and I are TO EN--one and the same
          (thing, not person--definitely not the same "I").
          The Latin, Qui et loquor, I can't help but see as an attempt to make
          the "quia et loquor" refer to the Lord Jesus as the ARCH.
          Even the O-TI separation may be the natural attempt to make it refer
          to Jesus, where That I speak to you at all! is rhetorical retort to a
          sarcastic question, Who are you? The fact that the question often
          calls for origin may miss the sarcasm behind, Whom do you make
          yourself to be? A question Jesus meticulously avoids answering for us.
          --Pete

          --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > EGO EIMI translates into Judean Aramaic as ana itai )n) ).ty
          >
          > FWIW
          >
          > Jack Kilmon
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Diana Fulbright
          > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:42 PM
          > Subject: [textualcriticism] Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN/EGO EIMI
          >
          >
          > Dear Malcolm,
          >
          > EGO EIMI does not equal or translate ANI HU'. "I am" does not
          mean "I am he." If you want to discuss why EGO EIMI implies that
          Jesus is in these words (cf. Jn. 8:58) identifies himself with God,
          go for it. But please stick to accurate translation.
          >
          > Thanks, Diana
          >
          >
          >
          > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mjriii2003
          > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:13 AM
          > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Jo 8:25 THN ARCHN
          >
          >
          >
          > Wieland,
          >
          > >From a grammatical standpoint the use of THN ARXHN is
          unambiguous.
          > It the non prepositional use of the accusative expressing "extent
          of
          > space or duration of time." Hence the rendering "from the
          > beginning..."
          >
          > But the context of Jesus' remarks are even more telling. His use
          of
          > EGO EIMI = ani hu' is an unequivable self identification by Jesus
          > Himself as YHWH = Yahweh.
          >
          > But even further the use of THN ARXHN echoes back to both the LXX
          and
          > Masoretic texts in Genesis 1:1, EN ARXHi EPOIHSEN hO QEOS...
          >
          > Malcolm
          >
          > ___________________
          >
          > --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Wieland Willker" <wie@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > Chrys C. Caragounis
          > > "What Did Jesus Mean by THN ARCHN in John 8:25?"
          > > Novum Testamentum 49 (2007) 129-147
          > >
          > > After a detailed check of the thousands of occurrences in the
          Greek
          > literature Chrys Caragounis (2007) comes to the conclusion that
          THN
          > ARCHN is used as an adverb without accusative force. The meaning
          as
          > such is then "the beginning". The preposition must be deduced
          from
          > the context. The position of THN ARCHN at the beginning is for
          > emphasis.
          > > He further concludes that hO TI should be taken as "that
          > which/what" and the KAI as "precisely" (Caragounis: "Needless to
          say
          > KAI does not mean 'precisely'. This is only the force it assumes
          in
          > the present context"). His final translation of the sentence is:
          > >
          > > "[I am] From the beginning! - precisely what I have been saying
          > (speaking) to you."
          > >
          > > with the comment: "The English may translate it with '[I am]
          what I
          > have been saying to you from the beginning', but this is only a
          > functional reading deprived of the literary effect of the
          original."
          > >
          > >
          > > Is this a textcritical issue?
          > > Yes. We have variant readings here:
          > > 01 adds EN (meaning?)
          > > P66 adds EIPON hUMIN
          > > 047 omits THN ARCHN
          > >
          > >
          > > Best wishes
          > > Wieland
          > > <><
          > > ------------------------------------------------
          > > Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
          > > mailto:wie@
          > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
          > > Textcritical commentary:
          > > http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          > >
          >
        • Wieland Willker
          Please keep comments regarding the meaning of EGW EIMI etc. off-list. Best wishes Wieland
          Message 4 of 7 , May 8 11:14 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Please keep comments regarding the meaning of EGW EIMI etc. off-list.


            Best wishes
            Wieland
            <><
            ------------------------------------------------
            Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
            mailto:wie@...
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
            Textcritical commentary:
            http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
          • A. Dirkzwager
            Dear Wieland, I am a little bit late, but time is lacking from time to time. Hereby I give a summary of an article I wrote in the Dutch language some time ago.
            Message 5 of 7 , May 9 3:00 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Wieland,


              I am a little bit late, but time is lacking from time to time. Hereby I
              give a summary of an article I wrote in the Dutch language some time
              ago. Persons who want to get the article can send me an e-mail.

              It is not difficult to read Dutch if you understand English and German
              (like most theologians).


              The discussion reported in John 8: 21-29 seems to lack unity. If we see
              such a lack there is probably a discussion between Jesus and his
              opponents by means of allusions. One person makes a statement using an
              allusion to a verse of the Old Testament. The other answers by means of
              another allusion taken from the same chapter of the Old Testament or
              from a chapter with the same theme. If we find these chapters, we find
              the unity of the discussion. This way of discussion was very normal
              between Jewish theologians.


              The theme behind John 8: 12-29 are the prophesies about the Servant of
              the Lord in Isaiah (42: 1ss., 49: 1ss., 50: 4ss., 52: 13ss.). Jesus
              claims to be that Servant.


              Light of the world (vs. 12) can be found in Is 42: 6 and 49: 6. The Jews
              don't accept the way Jesus presents Himself as the predicted Light (vs.
              13), for Isaiah says that God Himself declares who is the Servant (see
              Is 42: 5-6, 49: 6).


              In vs. 14 gives Jesus an answer based on Is 49: 5 and 7, where is stated
              that God knows the origin and the destination of the Servant. Jesus says
              that He Himself knows about his origin and destination. His opponents
              can conclude that Jesus means to say that He is God or that God had said
              to Him that He should be the Servant.


              Jesus says in vs. 15 that He does not judge anybody, according to Is 49: 4.


              In vs. 17-18 says Jesus that there are two witnesses indeed: the Father
              and Jesus. required


              In vs. 19 Jesus says that his opponents don't know the Father, like is
              stated in Is 50: 10.


              Vs. 21 gives a paraphrasis of Is 53: 8. "I am going away" represents "he
              was cut off from the land of the living" , " you will look for me" is
              the compliment of " who of his generation considered that he was cut off
              from the land of the living" and " you will die in your sin" is the
              consequence of the fact that people did not realise that " he was cut
              off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people".


              If you don't see that Jesus is speaking about Is 53: 8, his words " you
              will die in your sin" don't have any connection with the beginning of
              the verse. So Is 53: 8 gives the unity in the sentence of Jesus.


              Then we have in vs. 24 "that I am". I don't think that "I am" is
              equivalent with God's name. We should understand "that I am the Servant
              of the Lord".


              For the moment I skip vs. 25 and then comes vs. 26. "What I have heard
              from Him" comes from Is 50: 4.


              From vs. 28 begins Jesus to quote more directly: He sees that his
              opponents don't understand enough of the allusions. He calls Himself the
              Son of Man and claims to be the fulfilment of Dan. 7. But He combines
              that prophesy about his glorious future with Is 52: 13 ("lift up") about
              the suffering Servant. At the end of the verse He nearly quotes Is 50: 4.


              Vs. 29 contains a combination of Is 50: 7, 8, 9, 5.


              And now vs. 25 with THN ARCHN.

              R. Kühner B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache,
              II. Teil Satzlehre, 1. Band, Hannover Leipzig 1898, third edition (=
              Darmstadt 1966), p. 315, n. 15, tell us

              ARCHN, THN ARCHN, zum Anfange, dann omnino (von vornherein), in den
              letzteren Bdt. in der Regel in Verbindung m.e. Negat. .... cf.
              Andocides, 3, 20 EXHN GAR AUTOIS KAI THN ARCHN EWSIN ORCOMENIOUS
              AUTONOMOUS EIRHNHN AGEIN

              Our sentence in John 8 does not contain a negation. So the meaning
              "omnino" does not apply.

              J. Humbert, Syntaxe grecque, Paris 1960, third edition, p. 264,
              translates ARCHN with au début.

              The sentence of Andocides quoted above has been translated by G.
              Dalmeyda in his edition of the works of Andocides Andocide Discours,
              Paris 1960, as "car ils pouvaient, dès le début, laisser l'autonomie à
              Orchomène et vivre en paix".


              So we have as translation of our sentence "what I am saying you from the
              beginning". He points his opponents to a text of Isaiah in the
              neighborhood of the prophesies about the Servant of the Lord (Is 48: 3-6a):

              I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went
              forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they
              came to pass. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an
              iron sinew, and thy brow brass; I have even from the beginning declared
              it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest
              say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image,
              hath commanded them. Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye
              declare it?


              Arie


              A. Dirkzwager

              Hoeselt, Belgium
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.