Marcan Priority and its Inadequacies!

Marcan Priority and its Inadaquecies.
This short paper is simply designed to raise questions as to Markan priority in the solution of the synoptic puzzle. It gives a short and by no means comprehensive outline of the synoptic problem, and asserts that while there is no present day academic consensus regarding an alternative hypothesis to Markan priority, it does not mean Markan priority is a satisfactory theory explaining the data in the three gospels. It is not and many of it inadaquecies are explained in this paper. The first half of the paper outlines some of the hypotheses put forward which attempt to explain the data, this culminates with Markan priority. The second half is a critique of the hypothesis based on the work of Farmer on the Griesbach hypothesis. The final conclusion is by no means certain.


The Synoptic Puzzle

The phrase "synoptic puzzle" refers to the relationship between the three gospels of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark and Luke, which present a very similar outlook on the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The fourth gospel presents the life from a different angle. The common factors are outlined by Myers The Eerdmans Bible Dictonary (1987,975) as their "common structure, perspective, and contents". The outline of Jesus life and activity, and the style and language of the gospels are similar. Grant in the article “Gospels”, Encyclopedia Americana (1972) notes the details of the common pattern are:
1 A ministry of Jesus in Galilee, 2 A journey to Jerusalem, 3 A short public ministry there, 4 A crucifixion and 5 Post Easter Manifestation.


Westcott's work An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, (5th ed [New York: 1875], p. 191) gives an analysis of the material common to two or more of the gospels or particular to each one.
The similarities and pecularities are presented by Meyers:
Peculiar Shared
Mark 07% 93%
Matthew 42% 58%
Luke 59% 41%
[John] 92% 08%

It is clear from looking at the three synoptic gospels that they are in some way related. The Synoptic problem is to discover how the gospels are related. The issue has a long history, Augustine (354-430) suggested that Matthew was primary and Mark and then Luke were dependent on Matthew. Myers outlines four main modern hypotheses seeking to understand the relationship.[1]
J.C.L Gieseler[2] (1818) and the Oral Tradition Hyptothesis
This hypothesis posits that the gospels have no literary dependence, but rather they are linked by a common oral tradition.

F. Schlieiermacher[3] (1817) and the Fragment (Diegesen) Hypothesis
This theory posits that fragments of Jesus teachings and sayings circulated and were later collected in various categories by different apostles. These then later grew into the gospels as we have them.

J. G. Eichorn[4] (1804) and the Primitive Gospel Hypothesis
This posits an original Aramaic gospel, which was available to the gospel writers. They each used it as they willed.

These theories were abandoned because the relationships between the synoptics were so close that a literary solution was seen to be necessary.
Mutual Usage Hypothesis
This hypothesis assumes a literary dependence between the gospels and the problem is to discern what the exact relationship between the three books is. According to Kummel (1966, 39) three hypotheses have held their ground regarding the literary relationship between the three gospels.
Firstly the order posited by Augustine and maintained by Church tradition. The sequence is Matthew, Mark and Luke.[5] Here it is often posited that Mark is dependent on an early version of Matthew.
Then we have the hypothesis of J.J. Griesbach[6], which attempts to show that the gospel of Mark was extracted from Matthew and Luke. Evidence of this hypothesis is presented in F. Bleek's An Introduction to the NT [7].
Finally since the time of H. J. Holtzman (1863) it is held that Mark[8] was written first and used by Matthew and Luke independently. This hypothesis was supported in the 18th century by J.B. Koppe (1782) and G.C.Storr (1786). Kummel[9] notes that Lachman had observed that Matthew and Luke agreed with each other in order only when they agreed with Mark. He also notes that C. G Wilke and H. Weise asserted independently of one another that Mark represented the common source for Matthew and Luke's narrative material. This last hypothesis usually posits another source shared by Luke and Matthew to explain the data they share which Mark does not have.

The Second Source Quelle
The term Quelle is a German word meaning source. The posited extra source has been labeled Q by modern scholarship. Thus scholars who hold to this position posit two main sources as the solution of the Synoptic problem. Matthew and Luke however have blocks of information which is peculiar to both and these have been labeled L for Luke's source and M for Matthew's source.
This is considered a variant on the two-source theory and is called the four-source theory.
The State of the Problem
Myers considers the basic two-source theory to be the dominant paradigm in synoptic studies up until 1987. It does however raise some difficulties.
The Priority of Mark
For Myers this is the main issue, Mark has 661 verses of which 601 are used by Matthew and Luke. Matthew uses 51% of Marks words and Luke uses 50%, other supposed indicators that Mark has priority is that Matthew and Luke tend to use the order of Mark. When either one departs from this order the other tends to agree with Mark against the departure. Other arguments suggested for the priority of Mark include the difficulty of explaining why Mark left out so much of the sayings of Jesus if he had access to Matthew or Luke's gospel[10]. Others have argued that Mark style and language are original. Sometimes it can be shown that Luke appears to be clarifying issues, which Mark left unclear.[11] It is also asserted that Mark's Greek is far less polished than Matthews, so why would he not have used Matthew’s better Greek if he had access to it.

Challenging the Two Source Theory
The Markan priority hypotheses, has never been seen as a complete solution to the relationships between the synoptic gospels. It has a number of weaknesses at least one of which can be seen as its Achilles heel[12].
Indeed Mann suggested in 1986 "The majority view that Mark was first and that Matthew and Luke are substantially dependent upon Mark cannot be adequately proved"[13]
It has come under attack by those who were in favor of it but on closer inspection discovered it to be inadequate.[14] And by those who maintain that there were never any evidently scientific or logical reasons for holding to Markan priority and all it really did was to support the unsupported theories of liberal protestant and catholic scholars of the 19th century and on.[15]
In 1964 W. R. Farmer revived a theory dating back to 1789. This was the hypothesis of Griesbach who argued that Matthew wrote first and that Luke used Matthew. Mark then extracted from both of them to write his gospel. As for Q, no such document was mentioned in the early Church[16] hence there is no external evidence as to its existence. It is then a hypothetical construct to try to explain the common data of Matthew and Luke beyond Mark. The Q material is mainly made up of sayings of Jesus and contains little narrative. Farmer posits five main elements of the synoptic problem that the Two Document or Four Source theory fails to explain:

A Why is Mark missing so much?
If Luke and John had included many things Matthew had omitted[17] and since the Evangelists had noted that they had passed over many wonderful things for the sake of brevity[18], it meant there was a vast store house of knowledge available to Mark. Why was it that he did not use more of this great store house of omitted items but kept himself largely to the same items that Matthew and Luke took from that same source? The elements in Mark which are not in Luke and Matthew add up to less than 24 verses[19]. Griesbach concluded. “Mark's purpose was to select from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the items most useful for his intended readers, and to narrate them in the manner appropriate to them"[20] The issue of what Mark left out e.g. the Sermon on the Mount is a secondary issue for Griesbach.[21]

B Why does Mark have no independent Chronology?
If Mark wrote first how is it that he has no independent chronology? The other synoptics have a chronology in agreement with and independent from the other evangelists. Farmer asserts that this is best explained if Mark drew on the chronologies of Luke and Matthew. Farmer continues that "Bishop Butler refuted the argument for Marcan priority based upon the phenomenon of order (Butler proved that this argument did not support Marcan priority, only that Mark's order is in some sense a middle term between that of Matthew and Luke)".[22] For Farmer the fact that Mark is shown to be a "middle term" in terms of order shows that he must have been written third. [23] Farmer concludes
It is an inadequacy of the view of Marcan priority that it can [not] explain…the pattern of order Mark gives to the items he selects in relation to the pattern of selection and of order that we find in Matthew and Luke[24]

C Marcan priority assumes Matthew and Luke are independent of one another
The problem with this assumption is that there are numerous cases where Matthew and Luke agree with each other against Mark when they are supposed to be independently copying Mark. Allen, who although arguing for Marcan priority notes:
Mt. and Lk. Often agree against Mk. In omission and in substitution of a word or phrase, and (rarely) in an insertion. [25]
There are a number of areas where Matthew and Luke agree in distinction to Mark:
(i)Luke like Matthew does not use words characteristic of Mark like kai evthus, palin, polla, and hoti after verbs of saying and uses de when Mark often uses kai. Interestingly both Matthew and Luke have de where kai stands in Mark, twenty six times.[26]
(ii) Statements about many crowds are more popular with Mark than with Luke and Matthew. We can see this in Mark 1:33, 45, 2:2, 3:9,10,20, 6:31 and the parallels.
(iii) Matthew and Luke do not use the historic present popular with Mark.[27]
(iv) Both Matthew and Luke often use aorists where Mark uses imperfects[28].
(v) Matthew and Mark do not use eerxanto-avto (they began-him) where Mark uses it in the parallel passages Mk 5:17,20, 6:34, 8:31, 10:28, 32, [29]47, 13:5, and 14:69. However Luke does use this construction 27 times.
(vi) Certain phrases which Allen considers redundant are used by Mark but not by Matthew and Luke.[30]
(vii) Luke and Matthew sometimes agree in a certain words where Mark has a different word. [31]

These are just some of the examples where Matthew and Luke have one thing and Mark has another where they are supposed to be independently copying Mark. There are so many of these agreements that to explain this phenomena some have suggested "that Mt. and Lk. Had in addition to Mk a second source, containing parallel matter to almost the whole of Mark"[32] Farmer asserts from this evidence:
If Matthew and Luke are independently copying Mark, there ought not to be so much agreement between them and against Mark as in fact there is.[33]
This has led some scholars to argue that Luke knew Matthew which is clearly a fundamental change in the Two Document Hypothesis where Mark and Q are supposed to be the sources[34] and Matthew and Luke are supposed to be working independently of each other. And others have given up Q completely and assert that Luke used Matthew and Mark.[35] In the latter case the Two Document Hypothesis is abandoned but for some scholars Marcan priority is maintained[36].
The next set of facts which the Marcan priority hypothesis fails to adequately explain is also against the supposed independence of Matthew and Luke. Here it is shown that they have a very similar form. "Each is more like the other than either is like any other document"[37] They have asserts Farmer at least 20 topics which they have in common.[38] Mark misses some of these topics and so can not explain the phenomenon. The topics include: birth narratives, genealogy, a temptation story, the Sermon on the Mount, and large collections of parables. Matthew has seven separate discourses which are represented in Luke and apart from one difference they occur in the same order. This data is considered a "remarkable concatenation of compositional agreement"[39]
D The Two Document Hypothesis is contrary to external evidence
The first clear usage of the gospel of Mark is said not to be until the middle of the second century with Justin Martyr, whereas Matthew is said to be known by Ignatius. The letter of 2 Peter refers to the incident of the transfiguration and the story recorded appears to be closer to the Matthean record. The importance of external evidence is also supported by C Mann Anchor Bible commentary, The Gospel of Mark. The Church fathers who deal with the order of gospels put Matthew first. "Those who defend Marcan priority ignore their responsibility to account for the fact that there is little or no support for it from external evidence"[40]
E It does not Explain the Historical Movement of the Gospel from Jewish to Gentile
Here Farmer focuses on the fact that Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, followed by Luke and then Mark which is the one most well adapted for a Gentile audience. We would historically expect the Jewish to come first and the Gentile to branch out from this. But in the assumption that Mark is first the situation is reversed. Matthew who is writing a gospel for Jews is assumed to wait on a writer among the Gentiles as a source. Although this is not impossible it is unlikely. The reasoning has not focused on the historical but rather on the theological. Mann has made a number of pertinent observations on this issue.
From the beginning of this century up to the present, the acceptance of Markan priority in synoptic relationships has led to a torrent of critical work on Mark. It is not too much to say that it has been emphasis on the theological concerns of the evangelists which has lead to skepticism in many quarters as to the possibility of knowing anything at all of the life of Jesus…in some circles the specific theological contributions of Matthew and Luke are seen as reactions against, or modifications and developments of, theological concerns thought to exist in Mark.[41]

I believe this is a very important point, and illustrates the lack of focus on the historical development, which would clearly make it very unlikely for a writer for Jews in the Palestinian tradition to wait for a writer for Gentiles to use as a model for writing on the Jewish Jesus. Mann went on to emphasize the theological motivations "of those who first proposed solutions to the synoptic problem"[42]
The fifth inadequacy of Farmer then is that there is no explanation as to why the "more Jewish and Palestinian Gospel, Matthew, must be perceived as coming after and as dependent upon the less Jewish and less Palestinian Mark. This is a historical difficulty of very great consequence."[43] The arguments of Farmer when taken together appear to me quite formidable. I do not think they are all as strong as one another.
Lindsey does not hold the Griesbach hypothesis on all points. His argument agrees with the fact that the agreement, in order, points not to Markan priority but to the opposite. Regarding the phenomenon mentioned above regarding the order of the pericope, Lindsey asserts:
Unfortunately, Markan Priorists have misunderstood this phenomenon and supposed that it strengthens the Markan hypothesis
He cites Streeter on the agreements:
Whenever Matthew departs from Marks order, Luke supports Mark, whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark[44]
However since they were working independently the problem comes down to:
Mark's failure to ever stand alone as due to the authors deliberate change of the order of his source synoptist and the subsequent decision of the third evangelist to follow Mark's order against any other he may know"[45]
He like Farmer takes the issue out of the hands of chance and into the hands of the evangelist. His conclusion although agreeing that Mark did not write first, disagrees with Farmer on who wrote first. For him it has to be Luke. He understands that Mark translates very well into Hebrew except for a number of "non Hebraisms". Matthews retains a number of these non Hebraisms and Luke has none of them. So Luke was the closest to a written source which Lindsey posits which he calls a Proto Narrative[46], parallel to Mark but different.[47] For Lindsey the order is Luke, Mark and Matthew.

He reviewed and evaluated the Griesbach hypothesis and concluded that its strength was its explanation of the minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.[48]

Developing a sound hypothesis as to the solution to the Synoptic Problem
External Evidence
In Eusebius a tradition is handed down that Clement of Alexandria received it from the Elders that:
" The gospels were first written which included genealogies" (H.E. 6:14:5)[49] This testimony of Clement takes us into the second century and clearly indicates that Matthew and Luke preceded Mark. The character of Clements witnesses might help us get closer to the first century:
This work is not a writing composed for show, but notes stored up for my old age …and a sketch of those clear and vital words which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and true and notable men. One of these the Ionian, was in Greece, another in South Italy, a third in Coele-Syria [Lebanon]
The external evidence all points to a Matthean priority. If we compare the coincidence of Matthew to Mark as compared to apocryphal gospel parallels, we find a very strong witness for the Matthean priority. Of just over 150 citations in Gospel Parallels we find that only about 5 citations parallel Mark and more than 120 parallel Matthew. The traditions represented in the gospel of Matthew by the second century are used far more widely and regularly than those in Mark. This would suggest that they go back to an earlier time, giving them greater opportunity to spread abroad and find there way into apocryphal gospels.[50]
This all leads on to a basic assertion, From the internal evidence of the Synoptic Gospels it is very difficult to come to a position of certainty regarding who wrote first and who was dependent on whom. This being the case we look to develop the best possibility and the most likely relationship between the three documents. To ascertain this we have to develop some criteria for looking at the relative dating of the three Synoptics. I also believe it necessary to develop some external independent criteria by which the dating of the gospels can be measured. This would be linked to the historical and cultural context of the life of Jesus and the early Church. In this context I believe the suggestions of David Daube on "The Dating of Rabbinic Material in the New Testament"( Daube 2000,8) can help shed light on the relationship of the three gospels.
We know that the life of Jesus took place in a Jewish context. It was then later adapted for presentation to Gentile audiences. I believe then it is safe to assume that all things being equal, a Gospel that reflects the actual context of the life and ministry of Jesus, is likely to precede one that has been adapted for a new context. If we apply this to our gospels, all things being equal we would expect the Jewish oriented Gospel of Matthew to precede the far more Gentile oriented Luke and Mark. If this hypothesis were true we would predict that in the second century there would be more sources using this original tradition than the adapted gospel which applied to Gentile audiences. And this is exactly what we find. Matthew’s gospel is cited far more regularly than Mark and Luke put together. This does not mean we can be certain as to who wrote first but can go to helping us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light of the complexity of the issue and the paucity of evidence.











Bibliography
A Bibliography which may help us approach the status of the subject would include:
Allen, W. C. Matthew, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Edinburgh: ICC, 1912)
Butler, B. C., The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis, (Cambridge: University Press, 1951)
Daube, New Testament Judaism, 2000
Farmer W. R. The Synoptic Problem, London and New York: Macmillan, 1964
Farmer, W. R., "A Skeleton in the Closet of Gospel Research," BR 6,1961, 18ff
Farmer, W. R. Jesus and the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982)
He is convinced of Matthean priority.
Farmer, W. R., "State Interesse and Marcan Primacy"p2477-2499 in The Four Gospels (Leuven: LUP,1992)
Goodacre, M.,"A Monopoly On Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2000 (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 2000)
Lindsey, R., The Gospel of Mark, 1973
Mann, C., Mark A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1986)
Parker, P., The Gospel Before Mark, 1953
Stanton, G.N., Jesus and Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 2004)
" " The Gospels and Jesus, (Oxford, OUP, 2002)
Streeter, B. H The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. (London: Macmillan, 1924)
Wenham, J., Redating Matthew, Mark, & Luke (Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1992)
Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, (5th ed [New York: 1875]


[1] Wenham in his Redating Matthew Mark and Luke outlines 8 different synoptic problem hypotheses scenarios: Oral theory, Two Document, Four Document (Streeter), Markan Priority, no Q (Goulder), Successive Dependence (Chapman), Two Gospel (Griesbach), Multiple Source (Boisnard), Oral Theory with some measure of successive dependence (Wenham).
[2] Historisch-kritischer Versuch uber die Entstehung und die fruhesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evv., 1818. see Kummel (1966, 38)
[3] Schriften des Lk., ein kritischer Versuch See Kummel (1966, 38)
[4] Einl. In das NT I see Kummel (1966, 37)
[5] This finds support with Zahn, Schlatter, Butler and Farmer.
[6] Treatise in Which the Entire Gospel of Mark Is shown to Be Extracted from the works of Matthew and Luke, 1789. see Kummel (1966,39)
[7] Tr. William Urwick from 2nd edition [1866] (1869,I, 259). He argues that Mark 1:32 opsas de genomenees, hote edusen ho heelios is composed from Mt 8:16 opsas de genomenees and Luke 4:40, dunontos de tou heeliou. This idea was followed by De Wette, Bleek and Baur's school.
[8] In fact Holtzmann posited an Ur Marcus a work similar to what we have today but not the same. This idea was abandoned by later Markan apriorists for the idea that the canonical Mark we have today was the one which Matthew and Luke worked on independently. See Lindsey 1973 Introduction
[9] Kummel (1966,39)
[10] As I understand this problem remains even if Mark did not have access to Matthew and Luke, for the sayings if they existed from the time of Jesus would have been present in the Churches.
[11] The treatment of the Gadarene Demoniac is one example is cited in this line of evidence. Luke is held to expand on Marks treatment of the story.
[12] For me this is the argument from order. The Triple tradition contains 78 pericopae when we follow Albert Huck's Synopsis of the First Three Gospels (ninth edition, 1976) of these 77 Matthew, Mark and Luke agree in the order for 60 of them. Luke goes his own way in 8 and Matthew in 9. Where ever Luke and Matthew supposedly independently go there own way, the other agrees with Mark. What then is the most logical explanation of this process? Not that it happened by chance but that Mark wrote with Matthew and Luke in front of him. When they diverged in order, he went with one and then with another as he felt was right. So it not so much that they agreed with Mark but he agreed with them.
[13] Mann (1986, 51)
[14] As Robert Lindsey in his A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark 2nd Edition 1976
[15] See Farmer (1992)
[16] Some see the form of Q as perhaps hinted by Papias reference to Matthew collecting Logia or Sayings of Jesus in Hebrew, as mentioned by Eusebius.
[17] Here we note that Farmer has noted that Griesbach was remaining with in the bounds of Church tradition that Matthew was written first.
[18] John 21:25
[19] Allen (1912, xiii) who holds to Markan priority notes "Almost the entire substance of the second Gospel has been transferred to the first." The omissions he notes are Mk 1:23-28, 1:35-39, 4:26-29, 7:32-37, 8:22-26, 9:38-40 and 12:41-44, these are considered the substantial omissions. Clearly from the perspective of Matthean priority Mark has almost taken his whole gospel from Matthew.
[20] Griesbach cited in Farmer 1982,3 from J. J. Griesbach, "A Demonstration that Mark was Written after Matthew and Luke, " in J.J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies, 1776-1976, Society for New Testament Studies Monographs 34, trans. Bernard Orchard, eds. B. Orchard, T.R.W. Longstaff (Cambridge: CUP,1978, 111)
[21] To me we may add that Mark, whenever Mark wrote whether the conservative 40 AD or the later 70 AD, he must have had access in an oral manner to some of the sources of Matthew, Luke, and John for that matter. The idea of Mark not being aware that Jesus taught the Church to feed their enemies when they were hungry, after the Church had been in existence for between 10 and 40 years is unreasonable. Paul referred it in AD 57 to the Church of Rome (Rom 12: 20) and Matthew referred to it in Matt 5:44. Could Mark have been interpreter of Peter and never heard this saying? This is very unlikely. Therefore Mark's omission does not mean he did not know but that he did not feel this particular thought needed to be directly passed on to his readers. Nor does it stand against him writing second or third, the fact that he did not mention these things for he knew them one way or another, orally or in writing.
[22] Farmer (1982, 4) We might find evidence for this is B.C. Butler, The Originality of St Matthew, 1951
[23] For me it seems very unlikely that the phenomenon of Matthew and Luke never agreeing in order or chronology against Mark could have happened by chance. This is especially the case if they had used Mark independently of one another. It seems far more likely that someone went systematically through the data and selected one point of order or another and decided himself "I will go with Matthew on this one", or "I will go with Luke on this one". This would then explain how Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark in order, he had designed his gospel order on to make this the case.
[24] Farmer (1982,4)
[25] Allen (1912, xxxvi) Examples can be seen in the omissions from Mark. !:13, 1:29,2:26, 3:17, 4:38, 5:13, 6:37, 6:39, 6:40, 9:3, 14:51, 15:21 and 15:44 by both Luke and Matthew. Clearly now if we look from the perspective of Matthean priority, these are all additions by Mark in order to give more detail in each situation. For example Matthew and Luke tells us that Jesus came to Peter's or Simons house but Mark adds it was also Andrews house and that they were with James and John.
[26] Allen, (1912, xxxvi)
[27] Luke shows only one example of this in Luke 8:49 and Mark 5:35. Clearly if Mark was using Matthew and Luke he would be changing many.
[28] See Mk 1:32, 4:2, 5:13,17, 6:7, 12:18, and 14:72 and the parallels for examples.
[29] Farmer (1982,5) refers to Morgethaler
[30] For examples see parallels to Mk 1:32, 1:42, 2:15, 2:16, 2:19, 2:25, 5:12, 5:19, 6:35, 10:27, 10:46, 11:28 and 12:14.
[31] See for example Mark 1:10, 1:12, 2:11 for more example see Allen (1912, xxxvii)
[32] Allen (1912, xxxix) He cites this but considers it unsatisfactory. Linsey on the other hands is favourable to a parallel Markan tradition (1973, 16-18)
[33] Farmer (1982, 5)
[34] Farmer ibid, refers to Morgenthaler.
[35] Austin Farrer is the champion of this approach See A. M Farrer " On Dispensing with Q," StG 1957, 55ff. A revival of his hypothesis is now supported by Mark Goodacre of Birmingham University. See "A Monopoly On Marcan Priority? Fallacies at the Heart of Q" Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 2000 (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), pp538-622
[36] See Goodacre (2000)
[37] Farmer 1982, 5
[38] This issue is treated by Bernard Orchard in Matthew, Luke, and Mark: The Griesbach Solution to the Synoptic Question, vol 1 (Manchester : Koinonia, 1976)
[39] Farmer, (1982, 5)
[40] Farmer 1982, 6)
[41] Mann (1986, 48)
[42] Mann (1986, 49)
[43] Farmer (1982, 9)
[44] Streeter, (1924, 161)
[45] Lindsey (1973,XIV)
[46] Allen doesn't like the idea of theis proto narrative at all see Allen 1912, xxxix
[47] This is seen as Holtzmans Ur Marcus
[48] It has been pointed out a number of times that this so called "minor agreements" are in no sense minor for they are the arrow in the Achilles heal of the Two Document hypothesis, it does not explain them adequately.
[49] Cited in Wenham (1992, 188)
[50] See Gospel Parallels Introduction

John, Jesus and the Name Yahuwah

The name of God is applied to Jesus in the gospel of John in the light of Scripture

I I Am applied by Jesus to himself
II The use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
II Yahuwah applied to Jesus by John


Introduction

Has the name of God been applied in the Gospel of John to Jesus Christ of Nazareth?
And if so, Is it the proper name considered by some to be ineffable or a derivative of it? The eyewitness of the gospel testifies that Jesus used the term Ego Eimi for himself. The term “I am” or “Ego eimi” appears in the Greek of the Septuagint in places where it is referring to Yahuwah, God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The first case of this is in Exodus 3 where Moses is told that the name of God is “Eheyeh asher Eheyeh” or “Ego Eimi Ho On” in the LXX and he is told the name is “Yahuwah”.[1]
The other way the term “I am” is used of God in the Old Testament is in the prophecies of Isaiah. Here we see the Septuagint translating such phrases as “Ani Yahuwah” as “Ego Eimi”[2]. Brown presents evidence that in so called Second Isaiah the LXX used Ego Eimi as a name. An example is given from Isaiah 43:25 where “ I, I am he who blots out your transgressions” sees the LXX using “Ego Eimi” twice for I. Which could therefore be interpreted as “ ‘I am I AM’ who blots out your transgressions”. “Ego Eimi” is then used in the LXX as a name peculiar to the God of Israel.
The name Yahuwah in the later manuscripts of the LXX and in the writings of Philo is often substituted by kurios. In the Hellenistic synagogues it would also be read kurios when the Torah was read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbats. Again we can see evidence in the Gospel of John of this name Yahuwah in translation being applied to Jesus of Nazareth and this name according to the Old Testament is the eternal and proper name of the God of Israel[3]. This being so, such a name being applied to Jesus by an eyewitness of his ministry will have very serious theological implications as to the faith of the earliest church. It is important in reviewing our evidence to recognize the importance of the fact that the writer of the gospel is evidently an eyewitness.[4]
Let us now turn to our subject, did Jesus really claim the names of God, Eheyeh, Ani Hu and Yahuwah, the God of Israel according the John the eyewitness.

Analyzing “Ego Eimi” in John
The clause ego eimi is quite a common clause in koine Greek of the first century. It basically means “It is I” or “I am the one”. Eimi is the first person present indicative of Greek verb to be, to exist. It is used in Greek literature in as a contrast to appearing to be for example as the true story not the apparent one.[5] As a finite verb it is used to connect the subject to the predicate they being in the same case[6]. Ego is the first person pronoun, I, usually expressed for emphasis.[7] However because of the clauses relationship to being and existence it took on a religious use in the Greek speaking world. This was especially in the case of the LXX, pagan Greek religious writings and Gnostic literature.[8] These were some of the worlds surrounding the gospel of John but it is what the eyewitness John[9] claims to have heard from the lips of Jesus, which interests us right now. Did this phrase take on a more than common meaning in the translation of the sayings of Jesus?
Because of the variety and the significance of the way the clause is used various scholars have analyzed its use. Bultmann classified it into four distinct uses. Firstly simply as an introduction answering the question “Who are you?” eg “I am (Ego Eimi) Jesus”, secondly as descriptive, “I am a prophet” that is according to Brown answering a second question “What are you?” Thirdly where the person is identified with something else, so Jesus says “I am the bread of life’[10], finally there is the form which help recognition of a person, i.e. “Who is it?”, “It is I” as can be seen “I” in this case is the predicate.[11] So we have four classes of use according to Bultmann: Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition.
We are really interested in analyzing the use in John into two classes “I am” as applying a divine title to Jesus and “I am” as used in other ways, which are not our particular concern at this time. Does the Gospel of John apply the term “I am” in its meaning as a divine title of God to Jesus?
This clearly begs the question how will we know that Jesus is applying the title to himself in this way? And the answer has to be through the language, the context of the situation which the saying is set in, and allusions to other literature circulating in the first century particularly the Old Testament which Jews of the first century would have been familiar with. If Jesus says “I am” And the audience cry out blasphemy, we can ascertain from their reaction that he was probably alluding to a title of God, illustrating the later Mishnah idea that a blasphemer had to actually say the name of God to be blaspheming.[12]
There are many uses of “I am” in John, but, clearly, where it is being used as the subject with a separate predicate there is no question of it referring either the appelative eheyeh or the title Ani Hu directly to Jesus. In these cases the phrase is simply a way of pointing to the roles of Jesus.[13] When Jesus says
I am…the bread of life…the light of the world…the gate…he good shepherd…the resurrection and the life…the way, the truth and the life…and the vine, he is clearly using the verb to establish his role. This in relation to those who believe in him or to the world, and he is using a metaphor in this respect. In saying he is all these things he is not using the clause ego eimi as an proper name for himself, rather he is pointing to the roles he plays in relation to life, the world, the sheep, the dead, man and the Father. He is definitely connecting it with the meaning of Yahuwah’s statement to Moses eheyeh asher eheyeh translated as “I am he Who is”[14] but not in its Greek form with the focus on existence but in its Hebrew form with the focus on Yahuwah being whatever he chooses to be. Thus even as eheyeh asher eheyeh in the context of Exodus 3 probably means “I will be whatever I will be”, this is expressed concretely in the Old Testament with Yahuwah later saying to Israel “I will be to you an Elohim and you will be to me a people”[15]. Or saying to David regarding his son “I will be to him a Father and He will be to me a Son”[16]. So Jesus comes in that spirit but not potentially but in actually. Instead of Jesus saying I will be, imperfect, he says “I am”, this is a present reality. We might compare the Gospel of Luke where Jesus says of a scripture “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing”[17]. It was potential until that day. The Law was potential until Jesus came to fill it out. The fact that Jesus is using this mode of speech points more to his role in relation to various things not to his absolute identification with God and his title, so all these sayings do not show us that the name of God was applied to Jesus, absolutely.
The next group we could look at is the sayings where it is possible he was applying the name to himself but it is possible he was just speaking in the mode of recognition. These tend to be the places where I became the predicate. When Jesus speaks we expect him to finish his sentence but he leaves us hanging because he has finished. You might say he has identified himself absolutely with the verb to be. It is in this arena that we will find John claims to have heard Jesus applying the title of God to himself absolutely.
Background in John to I AM as Divine Title

Jesus coming in his Father’s name
The build up to these sayings which can help us discern that Jesus was saying more than simply “I am the person referred to” is perhaps started with Jesus’ statement in John 5:43:
I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive
This saying is in a context where we are driven to look at various scriptures and characters to see what Jesus alludes to. The section runs from John 5:17 to John 5:47. He first calls God, his Father and was in doing so “making himself with God”[18] so it is perhaps alluding to the promises of Yahuwah to David about his son. For Yahuwah said to David about his seed
He will be a Son to me and I will be to him a Father
There is also perhaps an allusion to Psalm 89:
He shall cry unto me “My Father My God[19]

The Psalm describes how Yahuwah spoke in “vision” to David, that is David saw something and perhaps to mirror this Jesus says that he does what he “sees” his Father (God) doing.
Jesus then goes on to refer to the resurrection, which could point us to, Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Daniel. In Ezekiel the prophet, called the “son of man”, prophesies unto the bones and the dead men live. So the Son in John “give life to whom he wishes” . His connection in the speech with the title Son of Man and judgment points to Daniel 7:13ff where the son of man, Bar Enosh receives the judgment.
As the speech progresses we come to his Mosaic role. Moses too judged as he heard when there was a problem in the wilderness. Not only so but we see Jesus say a number of things which place him in line with the prophet like unto Moses from Deuteronomy 18.[20] Firstly the works that he does testify of him[21], even as Moses was given the sign of the water to blood so Jesus was given the sign of the water to the blood of the grape, wine. Secondly, Jesus says of the Father to the group of Jews he was talking to “Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his shape”.[22] This allusion to seeing his shape or form parallels a reference to Moses seeing Yahuwah’s form in a dispute about his role in Numbers 12. Here Miriam and Aaron dared to challenge the authority of Moses and Yahuwah said a distinctive role of Moses was that he speaks mouth to mouth and he sees the form or shape of Yahuwah. The ordinary prophets had visions and dreams and learned through dark sentences or parables. The prophet like Moses would also see the shape or form of Yahuwah. After all these allusions Jesus tells them to search the scriptures for they testify about him, and refers to the fact that the life which the scriptures promised come through him.[23] It is at this point that the name of the Father is first mentioned. The fact that they reject him as the prophet Moses prophesied means they will come into judgment with Moses as a hostile witness for Moses wrote
I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him[24]
We see here some parallels with the language of Jesus in John. He says often this commandment I received of my Father, and we have just seen him say that he came in his Father’s name. Coming in his Father’s names in first century Israel would be difficult. For although the name was in use possibly daily at the temple[25] by the priests and possibly even in some groups greeting one another with “Yahuwah imqa”[26] there were groups of Jews who considered that naming the name Yahuwah could be a blasphemy worthy of death.[27] Jesus in his speech appears to be combining the role of the prophet with the role of the Messiah for in Psalm 89 where the allusion is to “my Father” the writer also emphasizes the name Yahuwah and what can only be described as eternal life
My faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him
And in my name shall his horn be exalted…
He shall cry to me “Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth. My mercy I will keep for him forever more and my covenant shall stand fast with him, His seed I will make to endure forever, and His throne as the days of heaven[28]
Allusions to these scriptures are possibly the background to the usage of ego eimi pointing to the name of God being applied to Jesus[29].
So John alludes to the Father’s name being connected uniquely with Jesus in his generation, in the context as described. The idea of the Father’s name being the driving force behind all of Jesus activity is confirmed by the later references to it.

The Use of Onoma in the Gospel of John
Now before we go on to the actual application of the name to Jesus an analysis of the use of the term name (onoma) in the Gospel of John will be helpful again in helping us to see if the name is actually applied to Jesus and in what form.
We find the word is used in various ways according to whom is speaking whether Jesus or the author. Of the approximately 24 uses of the term onoma, translated as name, it seems that all are speaking of an actual proper noun as opposed to a reputation. The five times the term does not refer to the Father or the Son it refers to John the Baptist (1:6), Nicodemus (3:1), another coming in his own name as opposed to the Father’s name (5:43), (which makes it clear we are not only dealing with name as a reference to reputation), the sheep of the good shepherd being called by their names and, finally, the name of the High Priest’s slave (Malchus).
The rest of the uses are referring to the Father’s name and the Son’s name.
John (Narrator) on Jesus Name
Believe on his name (eis to onoma autou) 1:12
Believed in his name of him “ “ 2:23
Believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (eis to onoma) 3:18

These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God
And that believing you might have life through his name 20:31 (en tooi onomati autou)


Jesus to the People about the Father
I am come in my Father’s name (5:43) (ego eleelutha entoo onomati tou patros mou)
The works that I do in my Father’s name they bear witness of me (10:25)
( ta erga ha ego poio en too onomati tou patros mou, tauta marturei peri emou)

Jesus claims to come in his Fathers name and this is evidenced by the works he does in his Fathers’ name. The name is not given.

The People to Jesus
Blessed is he who comes in the name Yahuwah (12:13)

The crowds who heard of Lazarus resurrection and the works of Jesus claim Jesus came in the name Yahwuah (kurios is substituted in manuscripts of John). They believe then the name he came in was Yahuwah and presumably that his Father was Yahuwah.

Jesus on his Name to the Disciples
Whatsoever you shall ask in my name that will I do that the Father may be glorified in the Son (14:13)
If you ask anything in my name I will do it (14:14)
The Comforter the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my name (14:26)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he may give it to you (15:16)
All these things they will do to you for my name’s sake (15:21)
Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it to you (16:23)
Hitherto you have asked nothing in my name ask and ye shall receive (16:24)
At that day ye shall ask in my name (16:26)

It is clear that until this speech the disciples had asked for nothing in Jesus name. The verbs ask (aiteo) is connected with the name of Jesus five times. They disciples are given permission to ask the Father in the name of the Son so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. What they ask in his name Jesus will do (14:13,14). However what they ask the Father in the Son’s name, He would give it to them. When you ask the Son in the Son’s name He does (poio) it. When you ask the Father in the Son’s name he gives (didomi) it. Up until that time they have asked nothing in the Son’s name. This suggests perhaps that something new is occurring here. The Son had been acting in the Father name but the disciples will acts in the Son’s name, these names are perhaps distinct.

Jesus to the Father on the Father’s Name
Father glorify thy name (12)
I have manifested thy name unto the men that thou gavest me (17:6)
Father keep through thine own name: those whom thou hast given (17:11)
Holy Father keep them in thy name, the name which thou hast given me (17:11)
I kept them in thy name those that thou gavest me (17:12)
I was keeping them in thy name which thou has given me (17:12)
I have declared unto them thy name and will declare it that the love which
Wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them (17:26)

The Father’s name has been manifest and declared to Jesus disciples. Jesus prays that the Father would glorify his name. A voice came from heaven saying that “I have glorified it and will glorify it again”. The name was used by Jesus to keep or guard his disciples and Jesus asks that the Father would keep them in the Future through the same name. The verses 17:11 and 12 represent a difference in manuscripts. The change in relative pronouns decided whether they should read “Those whom you gave me” or “that (name) which you gave me”. Bernard considers three possible readings in his understanding the most difficult to retain is that retaining the reading as the name. The reading in the received text is ous dedookas moi. This would be the ones whom you have given to me. The reference is to the disciples and gives an “excellent sense” of the disciples in being given to the Son by the Father. This phrase is also used in five other times in the prayer of Jesus. It occurs in verses 2, 6, 12, 24 and so it would be quite natural for it to be here also. However the main objection noted against it is that it is “poorly attested”[30]. Considering how naturally it fits the context the fact so poorly attested weighs heavily against the possibility of it being the right reading.
The second alternative is ho dedookas moi. Bernard notes that at times this has the same meaning as the latter example and actually occurs twice in verses 2 and 24. Here the neuter single (ho) of the relative pronoun is used in a collective sense. However all things considered:
The harder reading, [hooi], has such strong attestation that it must be accepted. It is supported by the great bulk of MSS and vss…[hooi] must refer to onomati, so that “in thy name, which Thou hast given me” is the only possible rendering.[31]
Survey of the Uses of Onoma
For example Jesus says to the Jews that he came and did his work in his Father’s name. He says to the Father “I have manifested thy name (17:6)… I have made known to them [the ones given to him by the Father] thy name (17:26), I have kept them in thy name (17:11). So in the second person he speaks to the Father about his name. But in the whole Gospel we never see any one being told to believe into the Father’s name. We see the name is manifested by Jesus, made known by Jesus and used to guard the disciples by him. We are reminded, especially by the term “made known”, of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They often used to say “And you shall know that “I am Yahuwah”[32] or “Therefore my people shall know my name this time they will know my might and my power”[33]. So Jesus is witnessed as coming to fulfill these repeated messages of the prophets.
We also find Jesus praying to the Father to “glorify his name”[34], that is the very name in which Jesus came, worked in, manifested and made known. When Jesus is speaking to the Jews in general he speaks of them rejecting him although he came in his Father’s name.
John himself explains the benefit to those who actually receive him and that they receive the power to be children of God (1:12), and receive life in his name (20:31). These two references act almost as an alpha and omega of the purpose of the Gospel. The name they believe in is that of Jesus Christ (Messiah), the Son of God.
Finally we have Jesus talking to the disciple, given to him by the Father and here he never tells them to believe in the Father’s name but rather to ask the Father in his name. First they are taught that if they ask anything in his name he will do it (14:13-14). The Holy Spirit will come in his name and finally if they ask the Father anything his (the Son’s) name he will do it (15:16, 16:24, 16:26). The name then is quite important in terms of prayer in relation to the disciples. There is a development in the relationship of the disciples to the name. In chapter 16 Jesus says that they had not asked anything in his name to that point. This would have been right up until near the end of his earthly ministry in AD 30[35]. Then he tells them to “ask and receive that their joy might be complete”. The context of their asking is the fruitfulness of the disciples in producing believers. They would bear lasting fruit and so they could ask for anything and it would be done for them.[36]
We still need to look at the passage linked with name or onoma, which might tell us what the actual name was that they were to believe in and ask in. It was according to Jesus “my name” according to John “his name” or “the name”. Then we have to wonder was “my name” distinct from “my Father’s name”. Unfortunately we only have one passage based on onoma, to help us clarify what the name was which was being referred to. Here we are looking at the difference between the name of so and so and the name so and so. To make it clear we can see an illustration. Is the name Iesous Christos the name above every name or is the name of Iesous (that is the name he as a person bares) the name above every name? In the first case we are dealing with the name written, Iesous, in the second case we are dealing with a name owned by the person Iesous which could be Yahuwah or kurios, Lord or Son. The passage in John which seems to clarify the situation is John 12:13.
In the first passage we find that John fills out Jesus statement that he came in his
Father’s name. For the crowds in Jerusalem sang:

Blessed is the King of Israel who comes in the name Yahuwah[37]
Eulogemenos ho erchomenos en onomati Kuriou

The text refers, with slight addition to Psalm 118:26[38] and in that Psalm the name which kuriou replaces in the text is definitely Yahuwah. So Jesus says he comes in his Father’s name and “much people” sang that he came in the name Yahuwah. This is consistent with everything we have discovered so far. The Father’s name is Yahuwah in Exodus 3:15, Psalm 89, Jer 16:21 and that is the name Jesus came in. That was the name he manifested and made known and worked in. There are other hints in John that one name being applied to Jesus in the gospel was Yahuwah. Later in John chapter 12:41 John said “These things Esaias said when he saw his glory and spake of him” The context of the things Isaiah said point us to Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw Adonai sitting on a throne high and lifted up and the Seraphim crying
Holy holy holy, is Yahuwah Tzevaoth : the whole earth is full of his glory

Yahuwah’s glory in Isaiah 6 is referred to Jesus in John 12, making himYahuwah Tzevaoth.

According to some scholars Yahuwah is related to an ancient form of the verb to be either hayah or hawah. Eheyeh is a form of it. We come now to the scriptures, which appear to indicate ego eimi as a divine title applied to Jesus:
Unless you believe that [ego eimi], you will die in your sins (8:24)…
When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that ego eimi (8:28)…
Before Abraham was, [ego eimi ](8:58)
When it does happen, you may believe that [ego eimi ](13:19)
Jesus saith unto them [ego eimi] (18:5)
As soon then as he had said unto them [ego eimi] they went
backward and fell to the ground (18:6)
The first statement stands out because of the serious consequences of not believing or should we say the amazing consequences of believing. Jesus is saying that to die without believing he was ego eimi meant that they would die in their sins. The reverse implies that to believe that he was ego eimi would mean they would live in their righteousness. The statement gives one condition as to the difference between death and life, belief that Jesus is ego eimi.[39] Here is one place where he does not give the expected predicate. They expect him to say “Believe that I am the…” or some other things but he simply says “Believe that ego eimi”. This ego eimi could represent either ani hu or eheyeh both are translated by the term in the LXX. The context of John 8:24 with Jesus saying he was from above and that when they have lifted up the “Son of Man” seems to point to the writings of Moses. This would put weight on eheyeh over ani hu. In 8:32 the theme of freedom is brought in pointing to his role as a deliverer like Moses.
There is of course problem here, which will need resolving at some point. No where in the gospel of John is ego eimi called a name. Nor is ego eimi said to be that name in which Jesus came in. We have noted that Jesus said he came in the name of his Father. The only time this name is verbalized is in John 12:13 when Psalm 118:26 is being sung. The name in this Psalm is clearly Yahuwah, not eheyeh or ani hu. If we accept that this is a problem and consider which of these three ways speaking of Jesus is the name of the Father’s which Jesus came in, then we need to look at the evidence of the gospel as a whole to come to a probable conclusion. If we review our evidence leading to the use of the Father’s name in the first instance, all of that evidence points to the name Yahuwah as being the name. The allusions to Moses, David, Ezekiel all point in that direction. If we review the uses of onoma regarding the Son we that the Father has given the Son His name. The Son used the Father’s name to protect the disciples, and he manifested and declared it to them. Since it is apparent that Yahuwah is the name the people perceived he came in, it is apparent that this is the name referred to as the Father’s name. If it is the Father’s name it is the name he gave to the Son. If this conclusion is sound then it is necessary to ponder the meaning of the five “ego eimi” statements noted above which imply more than Presentation, Qualification, Identification and Recognition. They imply identification with Yahuwah but does this necessarily have to be identification with his name. Could it not be identification with his nature? Of the two main alternatives meaning for ego eimi, ani hu seems to have the greater weight of evidence. Ani hu means I am he as does ego eimi. If you place ani hu in any of the five ego eimi statements above it fits perfectly without out having to strain the meaning. When the soldiers asked for Jesus of Nazareth he replied I am He which is equally, ani hu as it is ego eimi. Eheyeh would not fit so well in this context. The same is true of all five statements. So ani hu can answer very suitably for all the ego eimi statements in the Gospel of John. And even accepting that this is not the name of the Father, does not change the Facts that it is used as a divine title in the LXX. So it is not that it has lost any weight by not being the proper name of the Father for it is a divine appelation of Yahuwah. At least two places represent hu as a possibly divine title.
The answer then to our query does the Gospel of John apply the name Yahuwah to Jesus is a very clear yes.. Divine titles are applied in more ways than one.






Appendix 1
The idea of Jesus being God has been disputed ever since Jesus came to earth. One of the greatest witnesses for the case of Jesus being God is that of the author of the gospel of John[40]. Felt almost unanimously to be written by John brother of James by the early Church witnesses, his position as author of the gospel has been challenged by many modern scholars.[41] Most scholars agree that the gospel was written by an eyewitness to the events of the life of Jesus and was then redacted by the later community in being brought into the form in which we have it today.

Appendix 2
There is much evidence in the Gospel supporting this position. The big dispute is, how much did later ideas influence the writing of his gospel? This is not our issue but I believe that the fact of him being an eyewitness needs to be given a lot of weight in deciding whether what he says was really said by Jesus or was an interpretation of a later Church generation. And all things being equal it should be assumed that the words he says he heard from Jesus were heard unless there is clear evidence calling that position into question. We are not of those like Randel Helms who think
The Gospels are, it must be said with gratitude, works of art, the supreme fictions in our culture, narratives produced by enormously influential literary artists who put their art in service of a theological vision[42]
No, as one scholar has shown the limitation of literary criticism in ignoring historical reality and its influence on the story means they can miss the point entirely. Westcott has shown how brilliantly historical John is and how accurate is his presentation of Jewish practices and customs of first century Jerusalem, so accurate is he that they believe he is a priest who knows Jerusalem and Jewish customs very well . And it is this very point, his accuracy on these very points which makes it clear that we need to take his record of the sayings of Jesus seriously and not merely a vague later interpretation of a later community. He was 60 years and a number of countries away when he wrote the details of Jerusalem’s geography and Jewish customs accurately and there is no reason to believe that his recollection of the sayings of Jesus are not accurate as well. Whereas the Synoptics are focused mainly on the Galilean ministry, John is on the Jerusalem ministry as the teaching in the two cases may be expected to be different. It is clear that any teacher will adapt his teaching according to the audience he is communicating with and so we see this is the case with the teacher of teachers in the Gospels.













[1] Some scholars see in the Theophany of the burning bush an attempt to avoid applying a name to God, by the authors or redactors. For Yahuwah answers Moses with a verb. The verb to be in the 1 common singular imperfect “Eheyeh” usually translated “I will be” an in the beginning of Exodus 3 where Yahuwah says to Moses “Ki eheyeh imaqa” “Certainly I will be with you”. These people also argue that Yahuwah the name given second is actually an ancient for of the verb to be but now in the third person, Yihweh which was either a corruption of yihyeh he will be or an ancient form of the meaning to cause to be, either from the root hayah or ancient root hawah.
[2] Isaiah 45:8 from Brown, R., p536
[3] Exodus 3:14-16. Kurios is not used as a substitute for Yahuwah in the earliest manuscripts of the LXX which are dated to before 150 BC.
[4] John 19:35, 21:24
[5] Liddel and Scott An Intermediate Greek English Lexicon, (1889, 229)
[6] ibid p229
[7] Strongs 1473
[8] p533 Brown, R., Anchor Bible Dictionary
[9] For convenience sake we will call our author John
[10] The predicate sums up the identity of the subject. I am not clear how this class is truly distinct from the second class they appear to me to over lap.
[11] These are all listed in Brown p533
[12] Tractate Sanhedrin 7:5 “The blasphemer is not culpable until he pronounces the name”
[13] This kind of used can be seen in Hellenistic religious literature of the period. Brown cited Bultmann as citing Isis “I am all that has been , that is and that will be”, p 533 Anchor Bible Commentary
[14] Exod 3:14
[15] Exod 6:7
[16] 2 Sam 7:14
[17] Luke 4:21
[18] John 5:18
[19] We see a clear reference to this in John 20 :17 where Jesus refers to my father and my God. We also find parallels with the development of the promises in the Psalms and the speech of Jesus in John
[20] We must remember it was Moses to whom Yahuwah revealed the name “Eheyeh” and a prophet like Moses would at least have that level of revelation.
[21] John 5:36
[22] John 5:37 cf Deu 4:12, John 1:18
[23] cf. Deu 30:15
[24] Deu 18:19-20
[25] Mishnah Tamid 7:2
[26] Mishnah Berakoth 9:
[27] The crime of the blasphemer in wilderness is translated not as blasphemy but as naming the name of Yahuwah in the LXX. This kind of attitude is also reflected in the Mishnah with Abba Shaul who said that he whe spoke the name Yahuwah as it is written would have no place in the world to come.
[28] Ps 89:24-29
[29] We must remember that Eheyeh is tied to the verb to be as is Yahuwah.
[30] Bernard (1985, 569)
[31] Bernard (1985, 569)
[32] We have already noted, above, one place where “I am Yahuwah’, is translated as Ego Eimi in the LXX, Jer 16:21 Exod 11:10, 16:10, 17:9, 29:46, cf.Is 52:6
[33] Jer 16:21
[34] John 12:28
[35] In the Synoptic Gospels we see the disciples casting out demons the his name but we do not see this ministry in John. It is clear however that John being an eyewitness saw many deliverances but he clearly does not see that executing a deliverance is the same as asking in Jesus’ name.
[36] It appears to me that the asking is really an allusion to the Messiah, son of God in Psalm 2. There the Messiah is told to “Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession”, the disciples then are being encourages to ask to be fruitful and to be more fruitful. The connection between fruitfulness and perhaps the possession of the earth goes back to the promises to what Luke calls the ‘the son of God” Adam. There in Genesis 1 he is told to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” perhaps prayer to the nations and the earth in Psalm 2
[37] Yahuwah is the way the name is transliterated in cuneiform inscriptions of ancient of the 5th or 6th century BC, Babylon, according to David Weisberg from Hebrew Union College, Cincinnatti Ohio,in a lecture at Jerusalem University College, on may 4th 2000, “The Impact of Assyriology on Biblical Studies”. Vetus Testamentum has and article “Det Gottename Yahwa” from some in year 2000 or 2001.
[38] This event and this song is referred to in all four of the gospels eg Matt 21:8ff, Mark 11:8ff, Luke 19:35ff
[39][39] We are reminded of the choice Yahuwah gave to Israel in Deuteronomy between life and death in the covenant at Nebo. Deu 30:19
[40] I will call the author John but there is nothing in the gospel which tells us directly the name of the author but the early Church was all but unanimous in asserting that a John was the author, whether John the Apostle or John the Elder or even John the Priest as Schonfield will have it.
[41] See Raymond Brown in Anchor Bible Dictionaries for the case against the Author being John the Apostle, see Westcott’s commenatary on John for the case for the author being the Apostle John.
[42] p 11 Helms, R., Gospel Fictions

Free Book

If you would like a free book on a Biblical View of Islam write mishpatyahuwah@hotmail.com