prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Apr 26 00:55:51 EDT 2002


on 4/17/02 11:07 AM, awohili at aol.com at awohili at aol.com wrote:

Solomon:

Sorry it took so long to get to this issue. I have a habit of saving e-mail
messages in folders and then forgetting them until I stumble over them much
later.

> Peter, Kenneth L. McKay (cited in my previous post) gives several examples of
> the "Extension from Past" besides John 8:58. They are Luke 13:7, Luke 15:29,
> John 14:9, and Acts 27:33.
>
> In addition, here are some examples from the Greek Suptuagint (LXX), with EGW
> EIMI:
> 
> Genesis 31:38 TAUTA MOI EIKOSI ETH EGW EIMI META SOU.
> These twenty years *I have been* with thee. (Brenton's translation)
> 
> Genesis 31:41 TAUTA MOI EIKOSI ETH EGW EIMI EN THi OIKIAi SOU.
> These twenty years *have I been* in thy house. (Brenton)
> 
> Judges 16:17 hOTI hAGIOS QEOU EGW EIMI APO KOILIAS MHTROS MOU.
> Because *I have been* a holy one of God from my mother's womb. (Brenton)

It is one thing to contend that a present tense verb MAY convey or even
USUALLY conveys an "extension-from-past" sense when accompanied by a
temporal modifier or complement; it is quite another to prove that this is
ALWAYS the case, or that it is the case in John 8.58. So McKay's confident
assertion (quoted in your previous post) is ill-advised. Instead of saying
"the present tense *signals*," he should have said "the present tense *may*
signal" or "the present tense *usually* signals." Room must be left for
exceptions. A careful examination of all the above examples will reveal that
the semantic situation of those present tense verbs differs from that of
John 8.58, in that their temporal modifiers or complements are conducive to
the "extension-from-past" idea, while the temporal complement of EIMI in
John 8.58 does not easily lend itself to this idea. The resemblance of those
texts to John 8.58 is only a *structural* one, i.e., there is a present
tense verb with a temporal modifier or complement. But it is a superficial
correspondance that does not take into consideration the precise semantic
situation of EIMI in John 8.58, particularly its relation to the specific
temporal complement (PRIN) with which it is associated, a
modifier/complement that does not at all easily lend itself to the
"extension-from-past" sense. Though the above texts illustrate that, under
the right conditions, there IS such a sense as "extension-from-past," they
do NOT prove that EIMI with its specific temporal complement in John 8.58
conveys such a sense. Let me make a few points in this regard.

(1) In each of the above examples the idea conveyed by the verb and its
temporal modifier is of an ongoing duration of time during which the state
or activity indicated by the verb took place, beginning in the past and
continuing uninterrupted to the time of the speaker. When a preposition is
used to facilitate this idea, it is one that indicates the BEGINNING of the
period of time in the past during which the action or state of the verb
occurs (see Luke 13.7; Acts 15.21; 2 Pet 3.4; 1 John 3.8). Note that where a
preposition is used to convey this idea, it is either APO or EK, both of
which are conducive to such an idea. NO examples of "extension from past"
that I know of have PRIN (as a temporal conjunction or improper preposition)
or PRO introducing or governing an infinitival clause, and with good reason:
They are simply not very conducive to such an idea. The reason is that PRIN
and PRO (when introducing or governing an infinitival clause used to
indicate past time) indicate a point of time in the past BEFORE which the
action or state indicated by the verb occurs, NOT the time FROM WHICH the
action or state indicated by the verb occurs (cf. Matt 1.18; Luke 2.21; John
1.48; 17.5; Acts 7.2; 23.15; Gal 2.12; 3.23). In John (leaving aside 8.58
for the moment), PRIN/PRO with the infinitive ALWAYS indicates a point of
time BEFORE which the action or state of the main verb occurs (see John
1.48; 4.49; 14.29; 17.5). So PRIN/PRO with the infinitive is NOT conducive
to the idea of "extension from past." Ironically, the English gloss you use
for your examples of EIMI from the LXX only serves to illustrate the point I
am making. If we translate John 8.58 as "Before Abraham was born, I have
been," we do not at all get the idea of "extension from past"; rather, we
get the idea of a state of being that existed BEFORE Abraham came on the
scene. We certainly do not get the normal sense conveyed by "extension from
past," which would be something like, "I have been around from the time of
Abraham." Since PRIN in John 8.58 does not indicate that Jesus simply
existed FROM the time of Abraham, this construction is not indicative of the
"extension-from-past" sense of the present tense verb.

(2) I think it is equally clear that Jesus is not saying in John 8.58 that
he simply existed BEFORE the time of Abraham. In John 17.5, when Jesus wants
to convey the idea of his preexistence, he uses PRO with the genitive
articular infinitive modifying an IMPERFECT tense verb:

KAI NUN DOXASON ME SU, PATER, PARA SEAUTWi THi DOXHi hHi *EICON* PRO TOU TON
KOSMON EINAI PARA SOI.

"And now, Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I
*had* with you before the world was."

This is, in fact, what we would expect, since, in the GNT, when PRIN/PRO
introducing or governing an infinitival clause indicating past time is used,
the verb is never a present tense verb, but imperfect or aorist (see Matt
1.18; Luke 2.21; John 1.48; 17.5; Acts 7.2; Gal 2.12; 3.23), though I
suppose a pluperfect would work as well. So, if in John 8.58 Jesus had
desired to convey that he simply existed BEFORE Abraham, we would expect
HMHN rather than EIMI. So it seems that EIMI in John 8.58 not only fails to
be captured by "extension from past"; it also seems to defy the idea of a
state of existence before a point of time in the past.

I think the preceding two points are enough to at least call into question
attempts at pigeonholing the use of EIMI in John 8.58. It simply resists any
neat syntactical category such as "extending-from-past" or "historical
present" (even worse). EIMI here seems to be, for lack of a better word,
transcendent. The only parallel I can think of in the Greek Bible is one
from the LXX, oddly left off your list of LXX "parallels," though, unlike
them, it offers a close and genuine parallel:

Psa 89.2 (LXX): PRO TOU ORH GENHQHNAI KAI PLASQHNAI THN GHN KAI THN
OIKOUMENHN KAI APO TOU AIWNOS hEWS TOU AIWNOS SU EI.

"Before the mountains came to be, and before the earth and the world were
formed, from everlasting to everlasting, you are."

Note the parallel with John 8.58: PRO (equivelent to PRIN) governs two
infinitives (one of which is GENHQHNAI; cf. GENESQAI in John 8.58) and
complements a present tense form of EIMI (EI, "you are"). Here also it is
obvious that the present tense verb neither indicates "extension from past"
nor mere existence before the point in time indicated by PRO and the
infinitives.
============

Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
slovullo at mac.com
  




More information about the B-Greek mailing list