Re: John 8:58
On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Carl W Conrad wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 1994, Travis Bauer wrote:
> > If John did mean a different tense, he would have used one. Neither him,
> > nor the later scribes who copied the texts seemed to want to resolve this
> > tension, as is evidenced by the lack of textual variants on this
> > passage. There seems to be an inconsistency in your argument when you
> > want to cite other instances of ego eimi in the New Testament as examples
> > that Jesus did not have a monopoly on this phrase, yet indicate that
> > Jesus (John's quote of Jesus :) ) used this phrase to mean something other
> > than anyone else did.
> I think it may be worth mentioning, just in case anyone is NOT aware of
> this fact, that the Greek verb EINAI for practical purposes has ONLY a
> present tense.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the verse could not be
rendered with a past tense for the verb to be, that a past tense for the
verb "to be" does not exist and could not be put into the text.
I think it may be worth mentioning, just in case anyone is NOT aware of
this fact, that the Greek verb )hmen is the imperfect of "to be" and could
have been put in the text. There is tensions between eimi and genesQai
because they aren't the same tense and there was a viable alternative.
Why wasn't it chosen? Why couldn't it be a reference to the Septuagint