Why Jesus did not openly say this: "I AM GOD'

[Peter_Plato]

Non-Trinitarians such as JW claim that Jesus was created before Abraham. Further, there have been questions raised about why the gospel of John is so much different from the Synoptic gospels.

Except that Jesus doesn’t say, “Before Abraham ever was, I WAS.”

He said, “Before Abraham ever was, I AM.”

The Gospel of John was written after much reflection by John concerning what John experienced in the presence of Jesus and many years under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The book of Revelation is also “so much different” from the other books of the NT. What is to be inferred from that?

 

[Tomdstone]

Except that Jesus doesn’t say, “Before Abraham ever was, I WAS.”

He said, “Before Abraham ever was, I AM.”

The Gospel of John was written after much reflection by John concerning what John experienced in the presence of Jesus and many years under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The book of Revelation is also “so much different” from the other books of the NT. What is to be inferred from that?

I don’t have the original source, but the non-Trinitarian JW say that the correct translation is I was or I have been , something like that. Further, there is a question about the gospel of John and why this phrase does not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t have the original source, but the non-Trinitarian JW say that the correct translation is I was or I have been , something like that. Further, there is a question about the gospel of John and why this phrase does not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

So, you want me to trust a sect that puts great stock in the name of God being “Jehovah" when that name came about as the result of a misunderstanding regarding how diacritical vowel points or niqqud were used by Jewish scribes?

I remember a professor of Hebrew explaining to the class that the Jews assiduously avoided saying the sacred name of God (the Tetragrammaton.) It was written יהוה‎ in Hebrew Scripture (transliterated YHWH,) but never pronounced. When reading Scripture, the name for Lord (אֲדֹנָי or Adonai) or G-d (אֱלֹהִים or Elohim) was used.

The scribes were in somewhat of a quandary when these vowel points were added in the early Middle Ages because it was unclear which niqqud should be added for the name of יהוה‎ since it was never pronounced anyway. Thus the vowel points for Adonai or Elohim were added wherever יהוה‎ appeared in the text. So the combination of יהוה with the vowel points for אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) or אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) produced יְהֹוָה (yehovah) and יֱהֹוִה (yehovih) – neither of which are Hebrew words.

Yet this error in understanding what was really going on with the Hebrew language and tradition eventually resulted in the Latinized spelling of Jehovah, which is, JWs insist, THE sacred name of God. (A Spanish monk named Raymondus Martini was likely the first to invent and use the name in error in the 1270s.)

You are telling me that I should take very seriously what JWs have to say with regard to Bible translations when they heavily endorse what amounts to a translation error as the sacred name of God and haven’t reconsidered their insistence even when the error is clearly spelled out for them?

 

[Tomdstone]

So, you want me to trust a sect that puts great stock in the name of God being “Jehovah" when that name came about as the result of a misunderstanding regarding how diacritical vowel points or niqqud were used by Jewish scribes?

I remember a professor of Hebrew explaining to the class that the Jews assiduously avoided saying the sacred name of God (the Tetragrammaton.) It was written יהוה‎ or YHWH in Hebrew Scripture, but never pronounced. When reading Scripture, the name for Lord (אֲדֹנָי or Adonai) or G-d (אֱלֹהִים or Elohim) was used.

The scribes were in somewhat of a quandary when these vowel points were added in the early Middle Ages because it was unclear which vowels should be added for the name of יהוה‎ since it was never pronounced anyway. Thus the vowel points for Adonai or Elohim were added wherever יהוה‎ appeared in the text. So the combination of יהוה with the vowel points for אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) or אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) produced יְהֹוָה (yehovah) and יֱהֹוִה (yehovih) – neither of which are Hebrew words.

Yet this error in understanding what was really going on with the Hebrew language and tradition eventually resulted in the Latinized spelling of Jehovah, which is, JWs insist, THE sacred name of God. (A Spanish monk named Raymondus Martini was likely the first to invent and use the name in error in the 1270s.)

You are telling me that I should take very seriously what JWs have to say with regard to Bible translations when they heavily endorse what amounts to a translation error as the sacred name of God and haven’t reconsidered their insistence even when the error is clearly spelled out for them?

I said I don’t have the Greek original of the text, and secondly that the phrase appears only in the gospel of St. John, and not in the Synoptic gospels. Since then, I checked the original Greek and it says: ειμι which can be translated as being present. So it seems possible to translate εγω ειμι as I was present. Still unanswered is why this does not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I said I don’t have the Greek original of the text, and secondly that the phrase appears only in the gospel of St. John, and not in the Synoptic gospels.

There is a great deal of new NT scholarship that makes a strong case that Jesus’ words, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times…, But I say to you…” is an implicit statement of his authority to redefine the convenant between Israel and God. Since those words “heard…in ancient times” included the words of God himself written by God’s own hand on the tablets {i.e., “You shall not murder.” (Matt 5:21) or "You shall not commit adultery.” (Matt 5:27),} no one but God would have that authority. Ergo, Jesus was claiming to be God by speaking the new words (the new commandments) which would define the new covenant between God and the new Israel – the everlasting Kingdom promised to the line of David.

There are many, many ways to make the case that Jesus claimed to be God in the Synoptic Gospels – some would even claim that the case is stronger in the Synoptics than in John. It doesn’t rely on the I AM statement.

Paul definitely thought Jesus was God and some of his writings predate the Gospels.

In Philippians 2:6, Paul says that Jesus “…being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”

That would appear very clear.

 

[Darryl_B]

I said I don’t have the Greek original of the text, and secondly that the phrase appears only in the gospel of St. John, and not in the Synoptic gospels. Since then, I checked the original Greek and it says: ειμι which can be translated as being present. So it seems possible to translate εγω ειμι as I was present. Still unanswered is why this does not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

It is not possible to translate ego eimi as “I was present”. I can understand the necessity for you to do this, but it is not possible to do that.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is not possible to translate ego eimi as “I was present”. I can understand the necessity for you to do this, but it is not possible to do that.

According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, there are several possibilities for the translation of the word: εἰμί
I. εἰμί has the force of a predicate (i. e. is the substantive verb): to be, i. e.

1. to exist;
   a. passages in which the idea of the verb preponderates, and some person or thing is said to exist by way of distinction from things non-existent:
   b. equivalent to to live
   c. equivalent to to stay, remain, be in a place
   d. equivalent to to be found
2. equivalent to πάρειμι, to be present; to be at hand; to be in store:
   II. εἰμί (as a copula) connects the subject with the predicate, where the sentence shows who or what a person or thing is as respects character, nature, disposition, race, power, dignity, greatness, age, etc.
3. universally
4. εἰμί, as a copula, indicates that the subject is or is to be compared to the thing expressed by the predicate:
   …
5. The formula ἐγώ εἰμί (I am he), frequent in the Gospels, especially in John, must have its predicate supplied mentally, inasmuch as it is evident from the context (cf. Krüger, § 60,
   …etc…
   According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
   am, have been, it is I, was.
   The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) – am, have been, X it is I, was
   From the appendix of the NWT:
   From the Fourth/Fifth Century:

before Abraham was, I have been
Syriac. Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Siniatic Palimpset, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1984.

From the Fifth Century:

before ever Abraham came to be, I was
Curetonian Syriac. Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

From the Fifth 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.

From the Fifth Century:

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

From the Sixth Century:

before Abraham was born, I was
Ethiopic. Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æiopice, by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

 

[adrift]

I said I don’t have the Greek original of the text, and secondly that the phrase appears only in the gospel of St. John, and not in the Synoptic gospels. Since then, I checked the original Greek and it says: ειμι which can be translated as being present. So it seems possible to translate εγω ειμι as I was present. Still unanswered is why this does not appear in the Synoptic gospels.

I checked the Greek and I did not find the meaning that you have here eyw is the meaning of I the other word which is eimi means to exist

 

[Tomdstone]

I checked the Greek and I did not find the meaning that you have here eyw is the meaning of I the other word which is eimi means to exist

Yes. Please scroll further down.

 

[Darryl_B]

According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, there are several possibilities for the translation of the word: εἰμί
I. εἰμί has the force of a predicate (i. e. is the substantive verb): to be, i. e.

1. to exist;
   a. passages in which the idea of the verb preponderates, and some person or thing is said to exist by way of distinction from things non-existent:
   b. equivalent to to live
   c. equivalent to to stay, remain, be in a place
   d. equivalent to to be found
2. equivalent to πάρειμι, to be present; to be at hand; to be in store:
   II. εἰμί (as a copula) connects the subject with the predicate, where the sentence shows who or what a person or thing is as respects character, nature, disposition, race, power, dignity, greatness, age, etc.
3. universally
4. εἰμί, as a copula, indicates that the subject is or is to be compared to the thing expressed by the predicate:
   …
5. The formula ἐγώ εἰμί (I am he), frequent in the Gospels, especially in John, must have its predicate supplied mentally, inasmuch as it is evident from the context (cf. Krüger, § 60,
   …etc…
   According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
   am, have been, it is I, was.
   The first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic) – am, have been, X it is I, was
   From the appendix of the NWT:
   From the Fourth/Fifth Century:

before Abraham was, I have been
Syriac. Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Siniatic Palimpset, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1984.

From the Fifth Century:

before ever Abraham came to be, I was
Curetonian Syriac. Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

From the Fifth 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.

From the Fifth Century:

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

From the Sixth Century:

before Abraham was born, I was
Ethiopic. Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æiopice, by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

Ego eimi is present tense. Greek has a means of expressing past tense, eimi is the verb and it is present tense. The translation “before Abraham was brought into being, I AM” is correct and can leave nothing to the question “you are not even fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” other than the Mosaic (not the mosaic a collection of tiles arranged as an image) “I AM has sent me to you”. That is the only reason why they took up stones. Misunderstanding, no, they did not misunderstand, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Do you?

 

[Darryl_B]

The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 says Ego eimi o wn. Justin Martyr circa 150 does pick up on this.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a great deal of new NT scholarship that makes a strong case that Jesus’ words, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times…, But I say to you…” is an implicit statement of his authority to redefine the convenant between Israel and God. Since those words “heard…in ancient times” included the words of God himself written by God’s own hand on the tablets {i.e., “You shall not murder.” (Matt 5:21) or "You shall not commit adultery.” (Matt 5:27),} no one but God would have that authority. Ergo, Jesus was claiming to be God by speaking the new words (the new commandments) which would define the new covenant between God and the new Israel – the everlasting Kingdom promised to the line of David.

There are many, many ways to make the case that Jesus claimed to be God in the Synoptic Gospels – some would even claim that the case is stronger in the Synoptics than in John. It doesn’t rely on the I AM statement.

Paul definitely thought Jesus was God and some of his writings predate the Gospels.

In Philippians 2:6, Paul says that Jesus “…being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped.”

That would appear very clear.

You have not explained why not one of the three Synoptic gospels records this particular event. John 8:58.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ego eimi is present tense. Greek has a means of expressing past tense, eimi is the verb and it is present tense. The translation “before Abraham was brought into being, I AM” is correct and can leave nothing to the question “you are not even fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” other than the Mosaic (not the mosaic a collection of tiles arranged as an image) “I AM has sent me to you”. That is the only reason why they took up stones. Misunderstanding, no, they did not misunderstand, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Do you?

The following disagree with you:
Syriac. Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Siniatic Palimpset, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1984.

Curetonian Syriac. Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Syriac Peshitta. Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Georgian. Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John”, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Ethiopic. Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æiopice, by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Septuagint of Exodus 3:14 says Ego eimi o wn. Justin Martyr circa 150 does pick up on this.

Although mostly all versions have this in the present (I am who am), I saw a Jewish Bible which translated this in the future and not in the present: I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.

 

[Darryl_B]

The following disagree with you:
Syriac. Edition: A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Siniatic Palimpset, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1984.

Curetonian Syriac. Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Syriac Peshitta. Edition: The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.

Georgian. Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John”, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Ethiopic. Edition: Novum Testamentum … Æiopice, by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

Ego eimi is present tense. Greek has a means of expressing past tense, eimi is the verb and it is present tense. The translation “before Abraham was brought into being, I AM” is correct and can leave nothing to the question “you are not even fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” other than the Mosaic (not the mosaic a collection of tiles arranged as an image) “I AM has sent me to you”. That is the only reason why they took up stones. Misunderstanding, no, they did not misunderstand, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Do you?

 

[Darryl_B]

Although mostly all versions have this in the present (I am who am), I saw a Jewish Bible which translated this in the future and not in the present: I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE.

You mean the King James bible?

 

[Tomdstone]

You mean the King James bible?

No, the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) gives two translations, one is an alternate. Also further checking shows that the Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The writer [of Exodus 3:14-15] … explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated I am that I am' or moreexactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or `I will be that which I will be .’” - p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12. And Moffatt’s translation gives it as “I WILL BE”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Ego eimi is present tense. Greek has a means of expressing past tense, eimi is the verb and it is present tense. The translation “before Abraham was brought into being, I AM” is correct and can leave nothing to the question “you are not even fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” other than the Mosaic (not the mosaic a collection of tiles arranged as an image) “I AM has sent me to you”. That is the only reason why they took up stones. Misunderstanding, no, they did not misunderstand, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying. Do you?

The NLT (New Living Translation) says in its footnotes for John 8:58: Or before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive; Greek reads before Abraham was, I am.

 

[Gorgias]

No, the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) gives two translations, one is an alternate. Also further checking shows that the Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The writer [of Exodus 3:14-15] … explains it [the meaning of God’s name] by the phrase EHYEH asher EHYEH (Ex. iii., 14); this can be translated I am that I am' or moreexactly ‘I am wont to be that which I am wont to be’ or `I will be that which I will be .’” - p. 995, 14th ed., v. 12. And Moffatt’s translation gives it as “I WILL BE”.

Not sure the point you’re think you’re making here – are you suggesting that this translation uses ‘will’ as a future tense? I would argue that “I will be that which I will be” isn’t future tense, but is a modal in present tense. In other words, one may take the original text and translate it in this way, but that doesn’t change the tense of the original expression (nor the tense of what’s being expressed itself).

 

[Tomdstone]

Not sure the point you’re think you’re making here – are you suggesting that this translation uses ‘will’ as a future tense? I would argue that “I will be that which I will be” isn’t future tense, but is a modal in present tense. In other words, one may take the original text and translate it in this way, but that doesn’t change the tense of the original expression (nor the tense of what’s being expressed itself).

Does εγω ειμι always denote something in the simple present tense? Some translators say it does not. This was indicated in translations above. Further, if you claim that I will be is not future, but is the present tense modal, this would seem to support the argument that εγω ειμι may denote something other than the simple present tense. The modal form I will be is different from the simple present tense I am. The present tense I am indicates certainty, whereas the modal form I will be expresses a very strong probability on the realization of the action “I am”, i.e., it is almost certain.