John 8:58

George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Thu Dec 23 16:56:13 EST 1999


Steven Craig  Miller wrote:

SCM: << Perhaps, but EGW EIMI is just a common phrase which often in both
Classical Greek and the NT simply means nothing more than "I am he"
(assuming a male speaker). There is nothing in the Grammar of this Greek
text which necessarily demands understanding this text to suggests
pre-existence.

PRIN  + the infinitive clearly means before.  The passage *at least* means 
that "before Abraham was, I am"  We do not usually make too much of the 
temporal aspect of the aorist infinitive, but following PRIN the infinitive 
acts very nearly as a finite verb (cf Burton #380), thus its secondary 
tense implications should be noted.  The change from the secondary to the 
primary tense of EGW EIMI therefore becomes notable.  The context here, 
including verse 57, is one of time, not one in which an idea has been 
introduced that may be translated as an understood predicate to EGO EIMI.

SCM wrote further:

One could just as easily interpret this passage to mean
(something like): "before Abraham was, I was appointed to this task"

But the context is not discussing "this task."  The context is discussing 
the relative age of Abraham and Jesus.  This is explicit in verse 57.  It 
seems to me that to change this thrust requires reading into the text.  To 
supply an implied predicate requires that the predicate has been previously 
introduced in the context.  No such predicate appears in this context, only 
the discussion of the time.

SCM continues:

  Exactly what was before Abraham?

EGW EIMI !  Is the simple answer.

Of course, as I said before, our interpretations at this point are 
undoubtedly influenced by theological presuppositions, but looking at the 
Greek text alone I think Carl hit the nail on the head when he pointed out 
that there is a certain paradoxical sense that is being clearly portrayed 
here.  The translation "My existence antedates the birth of Abraham" seems 
to be the simple, and dare I say the obvious, point of the passage.

SCM also inquired as to the appropriateness of  translating EGW EIMI as a 
historical present.   ISTM that Exodus 3:14, LXX would be an appropriate 
example.

I fully agree that we may well encounter a text where two alternatives are 
grammatical, syntactically possible, and that they appear to have more or 
less "equal weight."  In such cases we generally all would choose an 
interpretation that best fits our theological construct.  Theology aside, I 
have difficulty finding such an "equal weight" in this passage.  I would 
personally estimate that to set aside what appears to be a "heavy weight on 
one side" of the Greek text would require a theological  imposition.

George



George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible and Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary
El Cajon, California

goolde at mtnempire.net



More information about the B-Greek mailing list