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."
7 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.
Post a Comment