Sheshbazzar

sometimes, all too often however, when both groups get to chanting Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!
that difference becomes too minuscule to detect.

Cesc

A declaration by whom? Thomas? What does the 'implied author' here mean? You can't say that "in gJohn Jesus is seen as God, but not so in gMark," because it's alot more complicated than that. In gJohn Jesus is not God as such, but what then is he? He talks of "the will of my farther." Jesus has been 'endowed' (if you will) with the spirit in order for God to draw people in via Jesus, so that they can "see" and believe (that the Kingdom is at hand.) Thomas may be declaring that he now understands ("sees") who is at work with regards to Jesus and is an example of someone who needs to see in order to believe as opposed to believing without seeing.
So part of the picture of gJohn's christology is that God is working through Jesus, throught the "signs," to have people come to belief. That Jesus is God period! is a categorial simplification that belongs to the much later creeds of Christianity...
In gMark it's obviously not the same as in gJohn, but Jesus also exercises the power of God in much the same way though perhaps not to the same end.

εγω ειμι would most likely be readily understood by anyone familiar with the Scriptures, that is the Septuagint, as the self-identification of God. The phrase standing on it's own is a bit of a pleonasm, and as such it's likely that there is an explanation for it other than it's apparant reason. That explanation is, I believe, that the author has Jesus refer to Ex 3:14, which is made more probable when you think of the three situations in which Jesus says "I am", εγω ειμι (Mark 6:50; 13:6 and 14:62.)

I am. Obviously I'm not referring to all the scrolls, but to the secterian texts such as the War Scroll or the Community Rule. And in the Habakkuk commentary scroll perhaps we find the same theology as gJohn, that if you "believe" in the teacher of righteousness (or Jesus in the case of gJohn) you are saved.

outhouse

None of what i'll call real scholars

I have never seen them show any bias

Sheshbazzar

But then we never know whom among religious scholars you are going to place into your personal 'real scholar' basket, and whom you are going to consign to your 'fake scholar' basket.

Most 'Christian scholars' will be found regularly attending Church services and singing their paeans of praise to Jebus.
I seriously doubt that they walk out of that door free from any bias.

I have never yet heard a Christian scholar that did not betray his religious biases.

outhouse

well thats a great question.


and if one has any education in this field, I would say it's all based on the work provided.


it would be like me saying Price is a myther and has nothing credible to offer. fact is, because I think his arrow is off, doesnt mean despite that, he doesnt offer anything i can learn.


ill agree to some extent but.

Some yes some no. If one knows the subject, one can spot the bias.




well thats the difference between a scholar and a christian


and in this case, others here are purposely confusing the two to promote mythicism, not holding the work for its own merit.

i look at it as a ignorant mistake

tanya

I am (not buying it!!)

When we find the same term used in John, obviously unrelated to LXX, or God, then one is obliged to challenge the notion that εγω ειμι does not simply mean "I am".

How else should Mark have written the dialogue of the High Priest with Jesus, so that Jesus replies to his question in the affirmative?

Are you the fella that published "Quirks and Quacks"?

I am

How else does one reply to an inquiry seeking assurance of identity?

DCHindley

In Mark 14:62, Jesus' response "I am" can indeed be taken as a circumlocution for the name YHWH, which in that period only the HP was supposed to utter on the Day of Atonement. The circumlocution is based on Exodus 3:14 Lxx ("ego eimi ho wn) = I am the Being), by using a part of the phrase as a substitute for the whole phrase. Obviously, had Jesus actually spoken God's name, the HP would have considered this blashphemy.

The circumlocution, which only works in Greek, not Hebrew, may have been introduced by the author of Mark, to downplay a real "blasphemy" on Jesus' part, because it could also mean simply "(Yes) I am (the Christ)."

The section of Jesus' response following "I am" is in my opinion clearly based on Daniel 7:13, where "one like a son of man" approaches God himself (maybe they were on a first name basis ).

The healed man in John 9:9 was not standing before the High Priest, just answering a question. In John 18:5, Jesus responds to the group seeking to arrest him with an "I am" which startles the group so much that they fall to the ground. This would be appropriate of they thought he was uttering the divine name, even in circumlocution.

In Mark, Jesus, when before the high priest, could have just as easily said "Yes, I am the Christ".

DCH

RSV Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

BGT Mark 14:62 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

LXA Exodus 3:14 And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.

BGT Exodus 3:14 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

LXA Daniel 7:13 I beheld in the night vision, and, lo (literally "behold"), one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man, and he came on to the Ancient of days, and was brought near to him.

BGT Daniel 7:13 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡμερῶν παρῆν καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ

--- Daniel (Theodotion's version) 7:13 ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράματι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν καὶ ἕως τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν καὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ προσηνέχθη

RSV John 18:5 They [the crowd come to arrest him] answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When he said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

BGT John 18:5 ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετ᾽ αὐτῶν. 6 ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσαν χαμαί.

stephan huller

I would even go one step further and theorize that the name Jesus might well be related to yesh ('being' in Hebrew, yahweh comes from a root which actually means 'to become'). But that's just speculation. I would add John 8:58 Peshitta to the list. Jesus is saying - I am the God who appeared in the burning bush to Moses, the Being of Plato not necessarily Yahweh - indeed according to the uber-Platonizing heretics (Marcion) certainly not Yahweh.

Cesc

Of course, but if it can be established that εγω ειμι at least in some places in the Gospels, or maybe just one place, refers to LXX Ex 3:14 (or indeed Is 43:25) instead of just meaning "I am" or "it is I," then the possibily is that εγω ειμι also carries extra-meaning in the other places as well such as Mark 13:6 or 14:62.
And I think it can be argued that in Mark 6:50 is one such place. Another place is John 8:58, "Before Abraham was, I am" where "am" (ειμι) obviously should've been in a different tense than the present tense such as imperfect, or a different wording all together for it to make sense. But what is the sense? It's either a grammatical error on part of the evangelist and copyists or something else is at play, i.e. εγω ειμι is a phrase with extra meaning. "Before Abraham was, I am" can only refer to the divine in some way, cf. the Prologue. There are more examples in gJohn also, such as 8:24 and 8:28 among others, also Stephan mentions Peshitta's John 8:58.
So if εγω ειμι has this extra meaning here, then it's certainly possible that Mark also has Jesus say alot more than just a flat "I am" to the high priest.

There could be a thousand ways in which Mark could have Jesus answer in the affirmative and he choses to have Jesus simply say "I am." Jesus is the most important narrative character by far in the story and everything he says carries loads of meaning. Therefore, having him respond with a mere "I am" would be a bit 'out of character' for Mark's Jesus character.
Also DCHindley has some good points.

Stephan, I believe C.F.Volney (the original MJ!) also proposed this in his Ruins. Or maybe it was something similar, in the chapter Christianity, or the allegorical worship of the sun under the cabbalistical names of Chris-en or Christ, and Yês-us or Jesus.

aa5874

Your assertion is absolutely erroneous and is completely unacceptable.

In gJohn, Jesus is introduced as the Word that was God from the very first verse.

In gJohn, Jesus was God from the very beginning.

John 1.1

Jesus was the Only begotten Son of God in gJohn.

John 3.16

Quote:

For God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY begotten Son...

John 10.17

Quote:

Therefore doth My Father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again.

Again, the Johanine Jesus and God was ONE.

John 10:30

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

This is an excerpt of the final prayer of the Johanine Jesus.

John 17:1 The Johanine Jesus was God the Creator who later became Flesh--God Incarnate.

The Jesus character was Son of God in the Entire NT Canon without a human father.