EGO EIMI, part I (was Re: Re: Two wills or One will?)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In your message of Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:55:12 -0600 (CST) you said:

To:  ormsbee@MIT.EDU
Subject:  Re: Re: Two wills or One will?
Date:  Fri, 8 Dec 1995 14:55:12 -0600 (CST)
From:  Mike Murphy <tes@moscom.com>

>>That's true in this particular scene.  However, "ego eimi" [I Am] also 
>>has 
>>a divine meaning as well. Refer to any decent lexicon. (Rudolf Bultmann 
>>lists at least four possible meanings from ego eimi. ) Context is 
>>especially key when dealing with greek.

>Still, the blind guy makes a valid point. What did Bultman say? Wasn't he 
>a
>total loser way-too-liberal theology type anyways?

Bultmann's personal theology really is irrelevent to the matter. I cited 
him only in regards to the semantic range of "ego eimi" in ancient greek, 
not as to his approach to the gospel of John.  There really is nothing 
partisan about categorizing the different connotations of a word or phrase 
from various sources. It's all quite boringly technical. But since you 
asked, I'll try to summarize.

Bultmann's categorization of the uses of ego eimi are drawn from several 
ancient greek sources - not just the Bible. He presents four possible 
shades of meaning (From Raymond Brown's commentary, Index IV, mentioned 
earlier):
a) *Introduction*, answering the question, "who are you?" ex. Gen. 17:1 "I 
Am El Shaddai" [also your "blind guy" before the Pharisees] 
b) *description* of the subject, answering the question, "What are you?", 
ex. Ez 28:2, the king of Tyre says, "I am a god." 
c) *Identifikationsformel*, where the speaker identifies himself with 
another person or thing. Bultmann cites a saying of Isis, "I am all that 
has been, that is, and that will be." The predicate sums up the identity 
of the subject. 
and d) *a formula*, separates the subject from others. It answers the 
question, "Who is the one who...?" with the response, "It is I." This is 
where the "I" is really a predicate.

Please note that it is the fourth formulatic meaning (d) which applies to 
the OT use of ego eimi as a "name" of YHWH in the LXX (e.g. Is 43:25). 

More concerning it's use by Jesus in John, in part II.

Regards,

Charles Ormsbee