John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

GregStffrd at aol.com GregStffrd at aol.com
Thu Dec 23 16:50:32 EST 1999


In a message dated 12/23/99 11:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
scmiller at www.plantnet.com writes:

<< The problem I have with Dr. 
 Conrad's interpretation of John 8:58 is that he seems to be taking a 
 present tense EIMI and interpreting it as a historical present. Perhaps I'm 
 mistaken, but it seems to me that there is no real evidence (elsewhere) of 
 the present tense of EIMI being used in this manner. Where as my 
 interpretation of this passage interprets EIMI as a present tense. >>


Dear Steven:

I do not believe Carl views EIMI in John 8:58 as an historical present, but I 
will let him clarify his position, if he so chooses. However, even Wallace, 
to whom you make reference, admits that such a view of EIMI in John 8:58 is 
not impossible (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 530, note 47).

Still, I find that many who reject a preexistent sense for this verse tend to 
isolate EIMI from the adverbial clause referring to a past time. When a 
present verb (such as EIMI) is used with a past expression, it is quite 
legitimate to view the entire expression as conveying existence from the 
period denoted by the past expression, up to the present. Several grammarians 
have noticed this idiom involving EIMI in John 8:58, including: F. Blass and 
A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian 
Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 
1961), 168, sec. 322 (cited erroneously as John 5:58); McKay, A New Syntax of 
the Verb in New Testament Greek (SBG 5; New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 41-42; 
Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T 
& T Clark, 1963), 62, sec. 1(c); George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the 
Idiom of the New Testament, trans. J. Henry Thayer (Andover: Warren Draper, 
1897), 267.


McKay is the only one of these grammarians to actually translate John 8:58. 
He does so as follows, "I have been in existence since before Abraham was 
born."  As you allude to, Wallace considers McKay's classification of EIMI as 
a present extending from the past more "nuanced" than those who view EIMI as 
a historical present, but nonetheless he believes "John 8:58 lacks sufficient 
parallels to be convincing" (Wallace, Greek Grammar, 531, note 48). Wallace 
does not specify what kind of "parallels" he has in mind, though he likely is 
referring to other uses of EIMI as an extending-from-the-past present. If so, 
then we could cite at least two examples from the NT (Joh 14:9; 15:27) and at 
least four from the LXX (Ge 31:38, 41; Jg 16:17; Ps 90:2). 

But even if we had no other examples of EIMI functioning as part of this 
idiom, that is not grounds for dismissing such a use in John 8:58. If it 
were, then what would we say about the use of DOULEUW in Luke 15:29? Here it 
is surely an extension-from-past present, but nowhere else in the NT is it so 
used. What about DOKEW in 2 Corinthians 12:19? It is not used as a present of 
past action still in progress (PPA) anywhere else in NT, but who doubts its 
use as such in 2 Corinthians 12:19?  

It is also worth noting that the Peshitta uses the time-indifferent particle 
of existence ith, having the rendering  'ena 'ithai, which, similar to the 
English participle, must take its time from the context. However, the 
Curetonian has an excellent translation, which preserves the present and the 
past element found in the Greek, 'ena 'ith hawith ("I is was"). 

So, there is every reason to view EIMI in John 8:58, together with the past 
expression, as an instance of a well-known Greek idiom designed to gather up 
the past and the present in a single expression.

Best Regards,

Greg Stafford



More information about the B-Greek mailing list