'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications

'I Am' in John's Gospel: Literary Function, Background and Theological Implications, by D. M. Ball. JSNTSup 124. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Pp. 309. L35. 50/52. 00. As the author states in his Introduction, it has indeed been over fifty years since the study of the ego eimi sayings in the Fourth Gospel by E. Schweizer. Although many have studied these sayings since, it is an appropriate time for a new monograph-length study. It is this that Ball seeks to undertake and it is his conviction that, by approaching the texts from the point of view of narrative criticism, it is possible to achieve a new perspective on the sayings as well as on their background. Ball's study is divided into four parts. In the first he surveys previous studies of the background; in the second he conducts a literary study of each of the texts in which the I Am statements appear; in the third, he revisits the background of the texts; and in the fourth he draws together what he sees to be the implications of such a study both for the meaning of the sayings themselves and for other aspects of Johannine scholarship. In addition to employing narrative criticism as the chief tool in the investigation, Ball also attempts to provide a more unified approach to the subject by rejecting any distinction between the use (without a predicate) and the others which have a predicate, in the conviction that the two uses are in fact more closely related than they would appear if studied separately. Ball sees several results coming from this investigation. First, both groups of sayings reflect a consistent portrait of Jesus and play a significant role in the Gospel's irony. Regarding the two groups of sayings, he concludes that while there are differences of form, the absolute use addresses the identity of Jesus in itself whereas the use with a predicate addresses his role with regard to humanity. Particularly he thinks 8: 18 (I am the one witnessing about myself. . . ) is the bridge between the two forms. He also confirms an OT (particularly Isaianic) background for both types of uses. While the study is helpful, some problems exist. First, there is the selection of texts to be studied. Although he means to exclude the use in 9: 9, he lists 9: 5 (presumably a typo). But 7: 36 and 17: 14 should also be on his list of excluded texts since they are in fact not treated in the book. Second, it is not clear whether Ball intends to include only texts where both ego and eimi are explicit. If he does, then he should exclude 9: 5. But on the other hand, it is difficult to imagine excluding that text since it seems basically to be so close in overall function to other predicate uses. If he does not deal only with texts where both words are explicit, then 14: 9 and 17: 11 should be listed as excluded from the study because they have to do primarily with geographical location. …