prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi

weismann weismann at fibertel.com.ar
Fri Apr 26 08:32:34 EDT 2002


My new address is: amando9 at latinmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Lo Vullo" <slovullo at mac.com>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:55 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: prin Abraam genesthai egw eimi


> 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
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [weismann at fibertel.com.ar]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>




More information about the B-Greek mailing list