μια απόπειρα επιστημονικής προσέγγισης της ανθρώπινης θρησκευτικότητας
an attempt for a scientific approach of human religiosity "Sedulo curavi humanas actiones non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere" —Spinoza, Tractatus Politicus 1:4
⏳ ⌛ First post: October 30, 2008 / Πρώτη ανάρτηση: 30 Οκτωβρίου 2008
.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
John A. T. Robinson on Jesus's ἐγώ εἰμι sayings /
Ο John A. T. Robinson για τις φράσεις ἐγώ εἰμι του Ιησού
John Robinson, The Priority of John, 1985, SCM Press, p. 386.
Robinson tries to minimize the theological weight of Jesus’ ἐγώ εἰμι declarations by comparing them to mundane uses of self-identification, such as “It is I” in Mark 6:50 or Luke 24:39. But this ignores a crucial detail: in John 8:24, 8:28, and especially 8:58, Jesus does not complete the phrase with a predicate — he does not say “I am he” or “I am the Messiah” or “I am your man.” Instead, he uses the absolute phrase ἐγώ εἰμι without qualification, which is extremely rare and highly charged in Greek and Jewish religious contexts. In Exodus 3:14 (LXX), God reveals himself as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (“I am the one who is”), and this phrase became a powerful divine self-referential formula in later Jewish theology, especially in apocalyptic and sapiential literature. Jesus’ use of this phrase in John is not merely stylistic but theological.
Robinson downplays this by claiming even the hostile Jewish audience in John does not accuse Jesus of claiming to be Yahweh. This is historically and contextually false. In John 8:59, the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus IMMEDIATELY after his πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The response is unmistakable: they perceive it as blasphemy. According to Leviticus 24:16, the punishment for blasphemy — particularly for misuse of God’s name — is stoning. Their reaction speaks louder than Robinson’s speculation.
Robinson also invokes Barrett’s rhetorical comment that it would be “intolerable” for Jesus to say, “I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and being God I do as I am told.” But this sarcastic framing misrepresents Trinitarian theology. In orthodox Christianity, Jesus, as the Son, is distinct in person but consubstantial with the Father, and his obedience to the Father does not negate his divinity but expresses the harmony of will within the Trinity. The charge of absurdity falls flat once you cease imposing a unitarian metaphysic onto the text.
Further, Robinson asserts that John’s Gospel shows no signs that Jesus “arrogates to himself the divine name.” But in John 13:19, Jesus quotes Isaiah 43:10 — “so that when it happens you may believe that I AM” — using ἐγώ εἰμι in a way that mirrors the LXX’s rendering of God’s own words. This is not a generic self-disclosure but a conscious identification with the God who alone declares ἐγώ εἰμι in Isaiah. Moreover, in John 18:5–6, when Jesus says ἐγώ εἰμι to the arresting soldiers, they fall to the ground — a physical response that evokes the theophanic reactions of men confronted with the divine (cf. Ezekiel 1:28, Daniel 10:9). That this was not merely surprise or awe, but a sign of divine presence, is affirmed by the narrative tone and symbolic imagery throughout the Gospel.
Robinson’s dismissal of ἐγώ εἰμι as having at most “overtones” of divine identity ignores that the entire structure of John’s Gospel is meant to reveal Jesus’ divine status — not only as Messiah, but as the eternal Logos (1:1), who was pros ton Theon and theos en ho Logos. The author carefully constructs these I AM statements, especially the predicate-less ones, to echo God’s self-identification. They are not random idiomatic phrases but theological revelations, intended to provoke exactly the kind of reaction the Gospel records — either belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God or rejection as a blasphemer.
Finally, Robinson’s attempt to subordinate Jesus’ identity by citing John 17 (“I have revealed your name”) and Exodus 23:21 (“my name is in him”) actually supports a higher Christology. In both texts, the name represents divine presence and authority, not mere agency. The fact that God’s “name is in him” aligns with the idea that the Son shares in the divine identity. Robinson reads this as accreditation, but this misunderstands Jewish concepts of divine name theology, where possessing the Name is not just functional authority, but an ontological statement about divine presence.
6 comments:
Great information!
Thank you, dear Jim.
Can we get a summary of what Professor Athanasiosis saying about the Name of Jehovah in English?
Thanks great bloog
I find this perspective on priority insightful.
Robinson tries to minimize the theological weight of Jesus’ ἐγώ εἰμι declarations by comparing them to mundane uses of self-identification, such as “It is I” in Mark 6:50 or Luke 24:39. But this ignores a crucial detail: in John 8:24, 8:28, and especially 8:58, Jesus does not complete the phrase with a predicate — he does not say “I am he” or “I am the Messiah” or “I am your man.” Instead, he uses the absolute phrase ἐγώ εἰμι without qualification, which is extremely rare and highly charged in Greek and Jewish religious contexts. In Exodus 3:14 (LXX), God reveals himself as ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (“I am the one who is”), and this phrase became a powerful divine self-referential formula in later Jewish theology, especially in apocalyptic and sapiential literature. Jesus’ use of this phrase in John is not merely stylistic but theological.
Robinson downplays this by claiming even the hostile Jewish audience in John does not accuse Jesus of claiming to be Yahweh. This is historically and contextually false. In John 8:59, the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus IMMEDIATELY after his πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι (“Before Abraham was, I AM”). The response is unmistakable: they perceive it as blasphemy. According to Leviticus 24:16, the punishment for blasphemy — particularly for misuse of God’s name — is stoning. Their reaction speaks louder than Robinson’s speculation.
Robinson also invokes Barrett’s rhetorical comment that it would be “intolerable” for Jesus to say, “I am God, the supreme God of the Old Testament, and being God I do as I am told.” But this sarcastic framing misrepresents Trinitarian theology. In orthodox Christianity, Jesus, as the Son, is distinct in person but consubstantial with the Father, and his obedience to the Father does not negate his divinity but expresses the harmony of will within the Trinity. The charge of absurdity falls flat once you cease imposing a unitarian metaphysic onto the text.
Further, Robinson asserts that John’s Gospel shows no signs that Jesus “arrogates to himself the divine name.” But in John 13:19, Jesus quotes Isaiah 43:10 — “so that when it happens you may believe that I AM” — using ἐγώ εἰμι in a way that mirrors the LXX’s rendering of God’s own words. This is not a generic self-disclosure but a conscious identification with the God who alone declares ἐγώ εἰμι in Isaiah. Moreover, in John 18:5–6, when Jesus says ἐγώ εἰμι to the arresting soldiers, they fall to the ground — a physical response that evokes the theophanic reactions of men confronted with the divine (cf. Ezekiel 1:28, Daniel 10:9). That this was not merely surprise or awe, but a sign of divine presence, is affirmed by the narrative tone and symbolic imagery throughout the Gospel.
Robinson’s dismissal of ἐγώ εἰμι as having at most “overtones” of divine identity ignores that the entire structure of John’s Gospel is meant to reveal Jesus’ divine status — not only as Messiah, but as the eternal Logos (1:1), who was pros ton Theon and theos en ho Logos. The author carefully constructs these I AM statements, especially the predicate-less ones, to echo God’s self-identification. They are not random idiomatic phrases but theological revelations, intended to provoke exactly the kind of reaction the Gospel records — either belief in Jesus as the divine Son of God or rejection as a blasphemer.
Finally, Robinson’s attempt to subordinate Jesus’ identity by citing John 17 (“I have revealed your name”) and Exodus 23:21 (“my name is in him”) actually supports a higher Christology. In both texts, the name represents divine presence and authority, not mere agency. The fact that God’s “name is in him” aligns with the idea that the Son shares in the divine identity. Robinson reads this as accreditation, but this misunderstands Jewish concepts of divine name theology, where possessing the Name is not just functional authority, but an ontological statement about divine presence.
Post a Comment