"The present tense is used to express timeless being. Jesus says, 'Before Abraham came to be [genesthai, aorist infinitive], I am' (egō eimi, present tense, and double nominative for emphasis). The aorist indicates a beginning for the existence of Abraham, but the present tense emphasizes the eternal preexistence of Jesus."
Blackwelder, Boyce W. Light from the Greek New Testament (Kindle Locations 1402-1407). Reformation Publishers Prestonsburg, KY. Kindle Edition.
My Reply: It's difficult to see how the aorist indicates a beginning all by itself or even if it's contrasted with the present tense verb. Aorist verbs are default words, and the aorist represents action as a whole. It is not the aorist alone that shows Abraham had a beginning, but also the occurrence of prin. Furthermore, Jason Beduhn has rightly challenged the view expressed here regarding the present tense: since when did the Greek ever indicate eternal preexistence by using present tense verbs? That is more of a theological assertion than a grammatical datum.
Friday, September 11, 2020
John 8:58 Assertions (Boyce W. Blackwelder)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Any time an argument for a specific reading with theological consequences rests entirely on a gramatical syntaxical case I always get suspicious. No lanugage (including Greek) is that precise, nor could it be that precise and still function as a language.
Just to give an example Mark often mixes present tense verbs with imperfect or aorist verbs, in a narrative form we all understand what's happening, it's a fast pace narrative (probably oral in origin), and speaking out loud one can easily understand how this happens. So having a hard and fast rule like that and arguing simply based on that rule makes no sense, there are so many other factors at play.
I agree. There are other cases where scholars try to read too much into cases or syntax. But I agree that we have to be careful about how we understand syntax or morphology. Compare Matthew 24:45 with Luke 12:42ff. Notice how the presumably same event is described with two different tenses.
interesting, I haven't noticed that before.
While it’s true that the aorist tense is a default form and doesn't inherently denote the beginning of something, in this context, the infinitive “genesthai” (to come into being) does imply a specific action: Abraham's origin. The verb “genesthai” itself inherently refers to coming into existence, which, combined with the temporal indicator “prin” ("before"), points clearly to a temporal beginning for Abraham. The contrast isn’t merely about verb forms but the theological claim made by juxtaposing Abraham’s finite beginning (genesthai) with Jesus’ timeless being (ego eimi). It’s not solely the aorist that shows Abraham’s beginning—it’s the combination of “genesthai,” its inherent meaning, and “prin.” Blackwelder’s argument is not overly reliant on aorist tense mechanics but on how it contrasts with “ego eimi,” which lacks any temporal qualification.
Greek present tense is flexible and, in certain contexts, conveys more than current action. In John 8:58, “ego eimi” functions in a timeless or existential sense, especially when contrasted with “genesthai.” This usage aligns with the broader Johannine style, where Jesus’ statements often carry theological weight beyond their grammatical surface (e.g., John 14:6, “I am the way”). “Ego eimi” without a predicate frequently conveys self-identification or existential presence, as seen in Exodus 3:14 (LXX, ego eimi ho on). Blackwelder’s claim about timeless being reflects this usage and the audience’s reaction in John 8:59 (attempting to stone Jesus for blasphemy). Critics like Jason BeDuhn often argue that Greek present tense cannot imply eternal existence. However, Greek does allow for present verbs to describe states that transcend time, especially in existential or philosophical contexts. Examples include Plato’s writings, where “eimi” denotes timeless existence (e.g., he gar aletheia esti—"truth is"), and Septuagintal usage of “ego eimi” in Isaiah, where it reflects divine self-existence (e.g., Isaiah 43:10, “I am He”).
While it’s true that languages like Greek have flexibility, this doesn’t mean grammatical distinctions are meaningless. The New Testament authors often employ specific tenses to convey nuanced meanings, especially in theological contexts. John’s Gospel, in particular, is known for its layered, deliberate style. The contrast between “genesthai” (Abraham’s coming into being) and “ego eimi” (Jesus’ timeless being) is not a trivial syntactical feature—it’s central to the verse’s meaning and reinforced by the audience’s hostile reaction (John 8:59). In narrative contexts like Mark, mixed tenses can reflect stylistic or oral traditions. However, John 8:58 is not narrative but part of a theological discourse. The use of ego eimi here carries a deliberate theological and existential weight, unlike typical narrative verbs.
Blackwelder’s theological interpretation arises naturally from the grammatical structure and the context of John’s Gospel. Jesus frequently uses ego eimi in ways that point to his divine identity (John 8:24, 28; 13:19). The audience’s reaction (John 8:59) underscores that they understood ego eimi as a claim to divinity. If ego eimi merely meant "I have been," it’s unlikely they would attempt to stone Jesus for blasphemy. Blackwelder’s interpretation aligns with the broader theological narrative of John, where Jesus is presented as preexistent and divine (e.g., John 1:1-3, 17:5). The grammar supports this reading rather than contradicting it.
Post a Comment