Richard Young uses the terminology "durative present" whereas McKay seems to prefer "present of past action" (1994:41-42). Both types of nomenclature describe an action that begins in the past and continues up until the present. Young lists Jn 14:9; 15:27; 1 Jn 3:8 as examples of durative presents. Wallace (1996:519-520) cites Lk 13:7; 15:29; Jn 5:6; Acts 15:21; 27:33; 1 Cor 15:6 (possible); 2 Pt 3:4; 1 Jn 3:8. I consider Jn 8:58 to be a durative present as well. Ego eimi in that verse accordingly can be translated, "I have been." Rolf Furuli argues that the translation, "Before Abraham came into being, I have been" (NWT), is somewhat "ungrammatical" (1999:237). He prefers K.L. Mckay's handling of the verse with the word "since" used. Nevertheless, both Furuli and other Norwegian linguists whom he consulted think the NWT rendering is superior to the common rendition, "I am" (1999:238). Also compare Brooks and Winbery on the durative present (1979:84-85).
McKay proposes the rendering, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
10 comments:
Well McKay seems to know what he is talking about, it just isn't as ungrammatical as many other translations, I will go with McKay.
It seems that it isn't about so much who Jesus is but his existence, since that the case the I am is ungrammatical as well.
Philip, just to clarify a point here, Rolf Furuli actually says the rendering is slightly ungrammatical because it does not contain the word "since." However, McKay does render John 8:58 with "since" and he rejects the common translation, "I Am."
McKay's remarks are worth reading. He wrote an article some years ago in which he took the Trinitarian reading of John 8:58 to task.
I would have liked to have seen the NWT 13 have "I have been before Abraham came into existence." Grammatically better English
Maybe one day :)
What are your thoughts on a Unitarian who does not believe in the pre-existence of Jesus saying this of John 8:58?
"eimi needs a preterite or other past time indicator, as in John 14:9.
In John 8:58, there are no past time indicators. genesthai is qualified by a finite verb to give it a timeframe, that verb is eimi a present indicative, so you have a present / future time frame not a past. prin before does not reference time, past or present. eimi will need a past time indicator, there is none in this text. MacKay uses John 8:58 as an example of PPE, but it falls down because he says that a past to present extension needs a preterite to qualify it.
Ego eimi is neither a Historical present or a PPE.
Ego eimi is prepositional, it identifies the one before Abraham becomes, the Messiah."
I spot so many flawed ways of thinking in the Unitarian's remarks that it's hard for me to address his claims. For instance, who says eimi must have a preterite to be a PPA? Maybe he's got a point but I'd like some proof.
Secondly, he claims that prin does not reference the last (or present). Prin doesn't refenece the past? Really?
He's got the syntax all mixed up: prin goes with Abraham genesthai, not with ego eimi.
Robertson's WPs: "Usual idiom with πριν in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist middle of γινομα) and the accusative of general reference, 'before coming as to Abraham,' 'before Abraham came into existence or was born.'"
While Burton does not classify John 8:58 as PPA, here's what he writes about such constructions (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, page 10):
The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial
expression denoting duration and referring to past time,
is sometimes used in Greek, as in German, to describe
an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires
the use of the Perfect in such cases.
While there are cases where the present tense is used for past actions continuing into the present (PPA), this requires explicit adverbial qualifiers indicating past duration, such as "for a long time" (polys chronos in Greek). In John 8:58, there is no such adverbial marker. “Prin Abraam genesthai “("before Abraham came into being") does not qualify ego eimi as a past-time indicator. It simply sets the temporal framework: Jesus claims existence before Abraham. “Ego eimi” as a present tense verb contrasts Abraham’s origin in time (genesthai, "came into being") with Jesus’ timeless existence.
Robertson confirms that the structure with “prin” and an aorist infinitive (as in John 8:58) is "usual idiom" in Greek and emphasizes the contrast between “genesthai” (aorist) and “eimi” (present). This distinction is vital. Aorist describes Abraham's temporal origin, while present indicative (ego eimi) conveys eternal existence, not past-to-present continuity. Wallace (1996) explains that “ego eimi” in John 8:58 cannot be classified as a PPA because it lacks adverbial modifiers that delimit duration (e.g., "since," "for"). The absence of these markers strengthens the argument for Jesus' timeless self-identification. Burton’s examples of PPA consistently include adverbial qualifiers (e.g., John 14:9: "I have been with you so long a time"). John 8:58 lacks these, making the "I have been" interpretation unsupported grammatically.
In Greek, “prin” followed by an aorist infinitive (as in prin Abraam genesthai) establishes a clear temporal framework referring to the past. It places the action of genesthai (Abraham's coming into existence) in a past context relative to ego eimi. The temporal relationship is explicit: "Before Abraham came into being (past event), I am (present existence)." This does not require additional past-time indicators because prin inherently references time relative to the main verb. The syntax does not "mix up" the relationships between “prin,” “genesthai,” and “ego eimi.” Instead, the sentence structure clearly contrasts Abraham's temporal existence (genesthai) with Jesus' eternal self-existence (ego eimi).
In the context of John 8, Jesus repeatedly refers to himself using “ego eimi” (e.g., John 8:24, 28, 58). The audience's question in John 8:25, "Who are you?" directly connects Jesus' statements to his identity. By claiming “ego eimi” without a predicate, especially in 8:58, Jesus echoes the divine self-identification in Exodus 3:14 (ego eimi ho on, "I am the One who is"). The hostile reaction—attempting to stone him (John 8:59)—underscores the audience’s understanding of “ego eimi” as a claim to divinity, not mere pre-existence. The assertion that "I am" is ungrammatical ignores the linguistic norms of Koine Greek. Present indicative verbs like “eimi” are grammatically valid in timeless, existential statements. This usage aligns with divine self-revelations in the Septuagint (e.g., Isaiah 43:10, ego eimi).
Scholars such as A.T. Robertson, Daniel Wallace, and C.K. Barrett overwhelmingly support "I am" as the correct rendering, emphasizing its theological and grammatical coherence. McKay’s proposal ("since before Abraham was born, I have been") still acknowledges Jesus' pre-existence, a significant concession that undermines strict Unitarian theology. The traditional rendering "I am" aligns with the broader theological themes in John’s Gospel, where Jesus repeatedly claims a divine identity (e.g., John 10:30, 14:9-10). The rendering "I have been" diminishes the theological weight of Jesus’ statement and fails to account for the audience’s reaction in 8:59.
I question the stipulation or qualifies that are being placed on John 8:58 in connection with PPAs. The grammarian Moulton apparently knew nothing about these so called requirements. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/11/jh-moulton-and-greek-present.html?m=1
@Edgar Foster
Moulton's discussion on the Greek present tense provides a general framework for understanding its uses, including its rare application to express the continuation of an action from the past into the present. However, the excerpt does not directly discuss John 8:58 or the specific syntactical and contextual requirements for understanding it as a PPA. Moulton's work serves as a foundational reference for Greek grammar, but it must be applied carefully to individual passages, where context and syntax play crucial roles. While Moulton acknowledges the present tense being used to describe ongoing action that began in the past (what is now referred to as PPA), he does not delve into specific textual or contextual markers that determine when such usage applies. This gap leaves room for debate, but it does not invalidate the idea that PPAs often require temporal markers to clarify the ongoing nature of the action.
John 8:58 lacks explicit temporal markers like "for a long time" or "since," which are often present in clear examples of PPA usage (e.g., John 15:27, 1 John 3:8). Instead, it introduces πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ("before Abraham came to be"), which shifts the temporal frame into a timeless or eternal category. This temporal structure distinguishes John 8:58 from typical PPA examples, where the context indicates a clearly bounded past-to-present action. In standard PPAs, there is often an explicit connection between the action's past initiation and its present continuation, marked by temporal phrases (e.g., "I have been teaching for years"). John 8:58, however, transitions the statement into a pre-Abrahamic timeframe, suggesting an eternal, timeless existence rather than a continuation of action initiated in the past.
The statement πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι sets up a contrast between Abraham's finite existence ("came to be") and Jesus' eternal existence ("I am"). The present tense ἐγώ εἰμι functions existentially here, contrasting temporality (Abraham’s existence with a starting point) with timelessness (Jesus' eternal existence). In PPAs, the present tense verb generally describes an ongoing activity. In John 8:58, however, the present tense ἐγώ εἰμι asserts existence, not an action in progress. This usage aligns more with existential or timeless declarations rather than a durative action tied to the past.
The broader context of John 8:58 and its surrounding dialogue must also be considered. Jesus' use of ἐγώ εἰμι (I am) echoes divine self-identification passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g., Exodus 3:14, Isaiah 43:10-13). The absence of temporal qualifiers, combined with the audience's reaction (attempting to stone Jesus for perceived blasphemy in John 8:59), strongly suggests that the statement transcends a PPA framework and points toward a theological claim of divine preexistence and identity.
Post a Comment