Gospel of John 1:14

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your concept of "cogent and reasoned comments ~" seems to be flawed. You seem to think it means evidence that you can't hand-wave away.

What have you offered apart from speculations?

Peter's run-in with Paul did not take place in Judaea.

How do we actually know it took place at all?

There is an absence of attested evidence showing that he could not have done so.

Given the known situation at the time, that would be akin to suggesting that a peasant in 7th century Gaul was fluent in Old Frankish; or a peasant in 12th century England was fluent in Norman French.

I suppose in each instance the hypothetical peasant could have learned either language. The question is, would he have had the desire, means, or the opportunity?

There IS attested evidence suggesting that people of the region could certainly have done so.

Not from his background. Possibly a few words to buy something in the market but not fluency.

It is within the realm of reasonable possibility that he could have spoken Koine Greek even before he took up company with Jesus.

Why would he have needed to learn Greek? What purpose did it serve in his daily life as a peasant/artisanal fisherman?

And as I pointed out, I don't have to demonstrate that it did happen, only that it could have happened.

Once again we are back to anything is possible.

The available evidence suggests that it is not beyond the realms of reasonable possibility.

Such as what "available evidence"?

For the first century the epigraphic evidence is quite sparse and apart from coins there are only a very few Greek inscriptions. These include a warning against tomb robbing near Nazareth and the market weights from Tiberias. There is a likelihood of Greek loan-words and names and there may have been a degree of competence in Greek among some of those living in border regions, or some of those involved in trade with the coastal cities. A conversancy with Greek would be very likely among the educated civic elites. However, the epigraphic evidence does not lend itself to the notion that among the Galilean population [i.e. the lower orders and those in rural areas] that Greek was widely known.

Now you can speculate as much as you like about the "realms of reasonable possibility" but that is what we know.

I suppose I should take a look, so I did.

Interesting isn't it?

And I replied that you don't seem to understand the implications of Koine Greek being the official court language.

I am fully aware of the use of Greek at the Herodian courts. My question pertained to what Peter might be doing there.

Or was he delivering the weekly fish order?

My query addressed the availability of support for your comment.

You and others seem unable to comprehend the political and social situation prevailing in this region in late first century BCE and the first decades of the first century CE. Given what Josephus tells us there was a distinct animus towards cities [including things Graeco-Roman] among much of the rural and peasant population.

All you are doing is pitting your own speculation against that of another. Rogue's speculation though, at least takes into account the little that is known about circumstances of the time.

What precisely has rogue06 written that suggests he has any knowledge of the "circumstances of the time"? Do tell.

Nope. Magdala is not in a neighbouring region, it is in the Galilee region. Magdala was not in the Decapolis - well separated from it in fact - but had a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. Even without a similar situation existing in the cities of the Decapolis, mixed populations are confirmed by archaeology to have existed in the Galilee in the early first century. The findings in Magdala extend back to before the Roman period.

I assume you will be able to provide the date[s] for these findings that "extend back to before the Roman period".

[tabibito]

I assume you will be able to provide the date[s] for these findings that "extend back to before the Roman period".

David Fiensy and James Strange. Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. chapter 14.
Andrea Garza-Díaz. The Archaeological Excavations at Magdala.
Findings dating back to 2nd Century BCE

[NorrinRadd]

AFAIK, the "orthodox" proponents of kenotic Christology -- e.g. Gordon Fee, Walter Martin, Gerald Hawthorne, Roger Olson -- all hold (or did hold while alive, in the cases of the first three) -- that Jesus retained the personal "identity" He had before His human birth, but set aside all attributes of deity, and may not have even been consciously aware of them between His birth and death. *Functionally* He was a perfect human ambassador of God to earth, and a perfect representative of humanity to the Father.

(Out of curiosity, I've been trying to pin down Tom Wright's view. He seems to do a lot of hifalutin obfuscatory theologification, so it's tricky.)

I've been poking around in The New Testament in its World by Wright and Mike Bird. I'm fairly sure the Christology would be regarded as "kenotic," though I have not come across that word itself, and do not find it in the index. I'm certain they would say that Jesus was "God" while on earth, but their language is subtle, nuanced, and IMO unconventional. I regret that I'm not competent to explain or summarize it, and they did not provide the sort of pithy quotes given by other scholars I've cited in this thread.

[NorrinRadd]

Loose ends...

-- While explicitly affirming kenotic Christology, Hawthorne also explicitly affirmed that Jesus remained God while on earth:

But how does one go about holding together these two inalienable tenents (sic) of the Christian faith (neither of which I am prepared to surrender) without portraying a being who appears to be two distinct persons, one divine and one human, both existing side by side in one body, alternating in thinking and acting between the two -- a being unlike any other being in the world that we are familiar wit, certainly one that would not at all be like a truly human being as we know human beings to be?

The particular view of the person of Christ which seems to me most able to do this and which seems most in harmony with the whole of the teaching of the New Testament is the view that, in becoming a human being, the Son of God willed to renounce the exercise of his divine powers, attributes, prerogatives, so that he might live fully within those limitations which inhere in being truly human.

Divine attributes including those of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, are not to be thought of as being laid aside when the eternal Son became human but rather thought of as becoming potential or latent within this incarnate One -- present in Jesus in all their fulness, but no longer in exercise. Knowledge of who he was and of what his mission in life was to be were given to him as he developed by revelation and intuition, especially in times of crisis in his life, and during times of prayer and communion with his heavenly Father. ...(The Presence and the Power, pp. 208-209; this is in the chapter titled, "The Spirit as Key to the Kenosis")

-- People ask, "Well, if Jesus 'abdicated' His deity, what happened to 'God the Son'? Doesn't that destroy the Trinity?"

Why don't we first ask, "Where do we find the terms 'God the Son' and 'Trinity' in Scripture?" I agree they are valid concepts, but they are inferred and derived from Scripture, not stated. Apart from "Because Creeds!!!" why give *implicit* concepts the power to determine orthodoxy vs. heresy?


-- Apart from presupposition and eisegesis, where in Scripture do we find, "Ok, here Jesus is showing His 'human nature,' but over in this other place, it's His 'divine nature.'"? Scripture always portrays Him as a unity. The only "divine nature" showing acting with or through Him is the Holy Spirit.


-- Keener, on John 8:58, from the IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament volume:

If Jesus merely wished to imply that he existed before Abraham, he should have said, “Before Abraham was, I was.” But “I am” was a title for God (Ex 3:14), which suggests that Jesus is claiming more than that he merely existed before Abraham. This title of God may have been fresh on the minds of Jesus’ hearers at the feast: later tradition says that during the Feast of Tabernacles, the priests uttered God’s words in Isaiah: “I am the Lord, I am he” (Is 43:10, 13; the *Septuagint of Is 43:10 has ego eimi “I am”). (Although we cannot be certain of this tradition’s date, it certainly does not derive from this Gospel.)

-- "Hypostatic union" is a made-up term, and probably contradicts the vaunted (and over-rated) Athanasian Creed.

"Hupostasis" (more common current spelling of "hypostasis") occurs in Scripture. Most modern translations render it along the lines of "confidence" or "certainty" in most cases, but it has the literal meaning of "substance," which we get from the Latin cognate of hupostasis, "substantia." "Hypostatic union" literally means "union of substances," and it seems hard to square this with "One altogether, not by confusion of Substance..."


-----------------------


Defying gravity --

-- Jesus (Matt. 14:25)

-- Peter (Matt. 14:29)

-- Ax head per Elisha (2 Ki. 6:5-6)


Nature miracles by command or declaration --

-- Jesus vs. storm (Matt. 8:26 /Mark 4:39 / Luke 8:24)

-- Jesus vs. fig tree (Matt. 21:19, declaration / Mark 11:14, command)

-- Elijah commands fire from the sky (1 Ki. 1:9-12)

-- Elijah declares drought, then rain. (1 Ki. 17:1-18:45)

-- Anyone who has faith with no doubt (Matt. 21:21 / Mark 11:23), even faith as small as a mustard seed (Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6).

[tabibito]

Loose ends...

If Jesus merely wished to imply that he existed before Abraham, he should have said, “Before Abraham was, I was.” But “I am” was a title for God (Ex 3:14), which suggests that Jesus is claiming more than that he merely existed before Abraham.

Start with the easy one. The argument is based on the Koine Greek words εγω ειμι, used to translate "I am" from Hebrew to Koine Greek.
The argument:

In Exodus 3:14 God identifies himself as εγω ειμι
Jesus' use of εγω ειμι therefore identifies him as God

In Exodus 3:14 God says "εγω ειμι ο ων" I am the being/living one. By what name does he identify himself? "I am"? or "the living one"?
.

1	και	και　cnjnctn	and
3	ειπεν	vb: aor actv indctv 3ps	he.she.it 　 did say
	ο 0	def art: nom, masc, sgl	...
2	θεος	ο noun: nom masc sgl	‡ 　 god　 (subj)
4	προς	prepstn acc dtv gtv	to・with・from
5	μωυσην	τον noun: acc masc sgl	Moses (name, dir obj)
6	εγω	pronoun: nom masc 1ps	I
7	ειμι 1	vb: prs actv indctv	(I) 　 am
8	ο 1	def art: nom, masc, sgl	the (+ subj)
9	ων 2	ptcpl: prs, …, nom masc sgl	(‡ one) 　 being
10	και	και　cnjnctn	and
11	ειπεν	vb: aor actv indctv 3ps	he.she.it 　 did say
12	ουτως	advb	in this way, accordingly
13	ερεις	vb: ftr act indctv 2ps	you 　 will say
14	τοις	def art: dtv masc.neut pl	to? 　the
15	υιοις	τον noun: acc masc sgl	to? ‡ 　 sons
16	ισραηλ	indeclinable	Israel (name)
17	ο 1	def art: nom masc sgl	the (+ subj)
18	ων 2	ptcpl: prs, …, nom masc sgl	(‡ one) 　 being
19	απεσταλκεν	pfct actv Indctv 3ps	he 　 has sent
20	με	pers prnn: acc 1ps	me (dir obj)
21	προς	prepstn acc dtv gtv	to・with・from
22	υμας	prnn: acc masc 2pp	you (pl, dir obj)

In the critical sections, word order is happily the same in English as it is in Koine Greek.

The words that identify God
(6-9) "I am the living one:" By what name does God identify himself?
(13-20) "You will (or "are to") say to the sons of Israel, "the living one has sent me~'." By what name is God to be identified?

The argument that Jesus identified himself as God when he said εγω ειμι is based on the Koine Greek - it is not based on the Hebrew or English.

[tabibito]

Loose ends...



-- Keener, on John 8:58, from the IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament volume:

If Jesus merely wished to imply that he existed before Abraham, he should have said, “Before Abraham was, I was.” But “I am” was a title for God (Ex 3:14), which suggests that Jesus is claiming more than that he merely existed before Abraham.

To refer to something happening in the past, concurrent with something else happening in the past, in Koine Greek, the first verb is aorist, the second is present. "Before Abraham was born." So Jesus is talking about the past - "I am" BEGINS concurrently with "before" (Abraham's birth locates where in time the "before" occurs) and nothing like a finishing can be adduced. If the aorist tense is used for the second verb, "I was," it forms, if anything, a pluperfect (past of the past): I'm not even sure that it would form a comprehensible statement.

? "Before Abraham was born, I was." It would be interesting to see what Koine Greek word is proposed for serving as "was" here.

ημην? - imperfect - used to be happening. ("I was hungry, and you did/didn't give me something to eat.) not usable - it was happening, but is not happening.

That's it - no other past forms of ειμι are available.

ων - present participle - (the mind boggles).

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

David Fiensy and James Strange. Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods. chapter 14.
Andrea Garza-Díaz. The Archaeological Excavations at Magdala.
Findings dating back to 2nd Century BCE

Which illustrates that you have no knowledge of the length of time Rome had been involved in the region.

[tabibito]

Which illustrates that you have no knowledge of the length of time Rome had been involved in the region.

Summer Trentin and Debby Sneed The three centuries of Greek history between the death of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. and the rise of Augustus in Rome in 31 B.C.E. are collectively known as the Hellenistic period.
Various years are assigned to the "Roman period," depending on location (the date sometimes extends to before the Hellenistic period) but from memory, the Roman period in Judaea begins with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Summer Trentin and Debby Sneed The three centuries of Greek history between the death of the Macedonian king Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E. and the rise of Augustus in Rome in 31 B.C.E. are collectively known as the Hellenistic period.
Various years are assigned to the "Roman period," depending on location (the date sometimes extends to before the Hellenistic period) but from memory, the Roman period in Judaea begins with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty.

Rome was involved in the east from the early second century BCE. The Greek influence is, of course, of an earlier date.

[tabibito]

Rome was involved in the east from the early second century BCE. The Greek influence is, of course, of an earlier date.

I have no argument with that.
How does it change the (scholarly) recognised definition of the Hellenistic period? In addition to the aforecited reference.
Hellenistic age, in the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 bce and the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 30 bce.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I have no argument with that.

So what specific Hellenistic evidence and from what period prior to the second century BCE are you citing for Magdala?

[NorrinRadd]

To refer to something happening in the past, concurrent with something else happening in the past, in Koine Greek, the first verb is aorist, the second is present. "Before Abraham was born." So Jesus is talking about the past - "I am" BEGINS concurrently with "before" (Abraham's birth locates where in time the "before" occurs) and nothing like a finishing can be adduced. If the aorist tense is used for the second verb, "I was," it forms, if anything, a pluperfect (past of the past): I'm not even sure that it would form a comprehensible statement.

? "Before Abraham was born, I was." It would be interesting to see what Koine Greek word is proposed for serving as "was" here.

ημην? - imperfect - used to be happening. ("I was hungry, and you did/didn't give me something to eat.) not usable - it was happening, but is not happening.

That's it - no other past forms of ειμι are available.

ων - present participle - (the mind boggles).

Here is more extensive material from Keener's The Gospel of John, a Commentary, Volume One:

(I have omitted the numerous superscripts pointing to footnotes, and have transliterated the Greek as best I can, rather than try to figure out how to do Greek fonts. I've tried to fix typos made while copying.)

Thus they would die in their sins (8:24; see comment on 8:21, 34; cf. 9:41) unless they believed Jesus was "he" (824; cf. 3:18; 16:9). Some think Jesus' use of "I am [he]" in 8:24 (cf. 8:28; 13:19) means "I am the Messiah." More than likely, however, it reflects a theophanic formula from Isa. 43:10, as 8:58 confirms. If our traditions are accurate, this particular title revealing God's character was already in use at the festival of Tabernacles. The ambiguity of Jesus' language ("ego eimi" signifying "I am he" or "I am") fits the Gospel's pattern of double entendres inviting misunderstanding from those disinclined to persevere. The ambiguity is fully resolved in 8:58, however. Meanwhile, their failure to believe (8:24) announces to the reader their condemnation (3:18). -- p. 744

--------------

That Abraham foresaw Jesus' day probably implies Jesus' deity, but Jesus' opponents miss this point for the moment and notice only the chronological discrepancy, which demanded little insight: Jesus was born long after Abraham's death (8:57). John uses chronological priority as a mark of ontological superiority as early in the Gospel as 1:15, contrasting Jesus with another hero of the writer's contemporaries, John the Baptist. Jesus' chronological priority to Abraham, however, asserts his preexistence in some form. More strikingly, the language used to describe this preexistence breaks the bounds of merely usual Jewish conceptions of created but preexistent Wisdom; Jesus plainly identifies himself with the God of Scripture (8:58). Finally, his interlocutors understand his claim and respond with still greater hostility (8:59)

[Omitting paragraph discussing the possible significance of 50 years of age]

Ancient orators sometimes employed ambiguous language to stir (favorable) interest, but Jesus in 8:58 is far more provocative than that. Especially in its predicative form (6:35, 48, 51; 8:12; 10:7, 9, 11, 14; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1, 51), "I am" is a grammatically normal enough statement (8:18). Even in its absolute form, it does not necessarily imply deity when it contextually implies, "I am (the one in question)" (9:9, cf. 4:26; 6:20). When "I am" lacks even an implied predicate, however, it becomes unintelligible except as an allusion to God's name in the Hebrew Bible or LXX. In the Fourth Gospel both forms are significant (many of the predicates prove inappropriate for merely human bearers), and the absolute form is a claim to deity (see 18:5-8). Some dispute that claim in 8:24, 28; 13:19, arguing for an implied predicate there, but most scholars recognize the claim 8:58. Given the absolute use in 8:58 and John's propensity for double entendres, however, the implications of deity may carry over to the other uses as well. The implied deity of such "I am" statements would recall the implied reader to the introduction (1:1-18).

[Omitting paragraph about later gnostic uses and Hellenistic pagan and Jewish examples]

The absolute use of the expression in 8:58, contrasted explicitly with Abraham's finite longevity, clearly refers to a Jewish name for God. The most natural way to express simple preexistence (e.g. for divine Wisdom) would have been to have claimed existence in the past tense before Abraham; the use of the present, by contrast, constitutes a deliberate citation of the divine name. As in the prologue, eimi is opposed to ginomai in such a way as to imply Jesus' deity (1:1-3). Such a claim may function prominently in the Fourth Gospel; some connect "I am" as a divine name in Jewish and Samaritan usage to John's reference to Jesus bearing the "name." Some find the citation in Exod. 3:14; while such an allusion would probably remain in the biblically informed reader's mind, the LXX in Isaiah is much closer. Many scholars thus find a background in Isaiah (esp. 43:10) here. -- pp. 768-771

[Keener continues defending his position for several more paragraphs but IMO this covers the main points]

[tabibito]

Here is more extensive material from Keener's The Gospel of John, a Commentary, Volume One:

(I have omitted the numerous superscripts pointing to footnotes, and have transliterated the Greek as best I can, rather than try to figure out how to do Greek fonts. I've tried to fix typos made while copying.)

Thus they would die in their sins (8:24; see comment on 8:21, 34; cf. 9:41) unless they believed Jesus was "he" (824; cf. 3:18; 16:9). Some think Jesus' use of "I am [he]" in 8:24 (cf. 8:28; 13:19) means "I am the Messiah." More than likely, however, it reflects a theophanic formula from Isa. 43:10, as 8:58 confirms. If our traditions are accurate, this particular title revealing God's character was already in use at the festival of Tabernacles. The ambiguity of Jesus' language ("ego eimi" signifying "I am he" or "I am") fits the Gospel's pattern of double entendres inviting misunderstanding from those disinclined to persevere. The ambiguity is fully resolved in 8:58, however. Meanwhile, their failure to believe (8:24) announces to the reader their condemnation (3:18). -- p. 744



[Keener continues defending his position for several more paragraphs but IMO this covers the main points]

A couple of big problems: Keener is pointing to a culturally and linguistically, readily identifiable connect with "I am" and God - in Koine Greek. There is little probability that Jesus would have been speaking Koine Greek in that circumstance - he would have been in all likelihood speaking Aramaic. The translation uses "I am." First century Aramaic and Hebrew do not use "am" to connect noun or pronoun to a substantive noun or pronoun: that is, speaking Hebrew, one does not say "I am a (for example) baker," the wording is "I, a baker." Likewise, to the question, "Are you John Baker?" the answer is "I," not "I am." When the statements are translated into Koine Greek, they are translated as "I am." That is a regular feature of the Biblical Hebrew to Septuagint translations.
But the real difficulty arises with the claims that "I am" was readily understood to be a claim that Jesus was God; that the audience was primed to understand that he was declaring himself God, and on this point the argument falls apart. The argument cannot explain why this so readily understood meaning failed to impress the disciples so thoroughly that they thought Jesus was a prophet. It is only after the resurrection, and after the day of resurrection, that the disciples finally understood that Jesus was God. The claim was so patently obvious that even Jesus' opponents understood it - but the disciples did not.

[NorrinRadd]

It's my understanding that Keener is talking about how John's primary target audience -- Jews of the late First and very early Second Centuries who used the LXX, possibly living in Asia Minor -- would understand his Gospel. None of the Gospels are intended to be straight reportage; they edit, arrange, and "interpret" the facts for their particular purposes, especially John.

[tabibito]

It's my understanding that Keener is talking about how John's primary target audience -- Jews of the late First and very early Second Centuries who used the LXX, possibly living in Asia Minor -- would understand his Gospel. None of the Gospels are intended to be straight reportage; they edit, arrange, and "interpret" the facts for their particular purposes, especially John.

John is providing a translated report of what Jesus said to Jesus' target audience. As to what his audience understood: through all the argument in the early church, and by all the participants, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no call to Jesus' "I am" statements as evidence that Jesus claimed to be God, but supposedly they are a clear cut declaration that he was in fact God. A clear cut declaration that his disciples failed to understand.

John 10:33 can be used to better effect as a demonstration that Jesus claimed to be God. It actually takes a rather heavy duty reading comprehension exercise before it can be seen that Jesus denied the claim.