John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3355
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:But now some musings of my own. The best explanation to say that it's correct, normal grammar is the "extending from past" present (as Wallace names the category). The problem is that the clause is unlike the undisputed examples. There's no logic in that explanation. The deeper problem is that the EFPP category hasn't actually been researched very deeply and has been understood incorrectly, IMHO. I have been trying to write a some kind of essay or paper (very unofficial, never journal quality) about it, but it's in so bad shape that I don't want to publish it in any form. One of the biggest problems is that I don't have enough examples, so if anyone can find an EFPP in extrabiblical Koine literature I would be very thankful.
What an interesting proposal. I do hope you pursue it. Ordinarily, the reference time for a present is the utterance time of the speaker, but with adverbials, this reference time-frame can be extended back into the past. English, on the other hand, prefers to use a perfect progressive form for such "extended now" constructions, but the verb "to be" does not take a progressive form, so a rendering would be a perfect "I have been."

You might find Robertson's discussion of this helpful with good examples, though he unhelpfully rejects this reading for εἰμί in John 8:58:
Robertson, pp. 879-880 wrote:(β) The Progressive Present. This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. Gildersleeve [n.318] calls it "Present of Unity of Time." Cf. ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has. to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been'), though, of course, that is the fault of the English. "So in modern Greek, ἑξῆντα μῆνας σ' ἀγαπῶ (Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 222). The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase" (Moulton, Prol., p. 119). Cf. Ἰδοὺ τρία ἔτη ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἔρχομαι (Lu. 13:7); τοσαῦτα ἔτη δουλεύω σοι (15:29); πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον ἔχει (Jo. 5:6); τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμί (14:9); ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε (15:27); πάλαι δοκεῖτε (2 Cor. 12:19). Cf. ἀπὸ βρέφους οἶδας (2 Tim. 3:15). It is a common idiom in the N. T. Cf. 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jo. 3:8. In Jo. 8:58 εἰμί, is really absolute.
(As Robertson does not have an "absolute" category in his explanation of the present tense, I don't find this comment helpful.)

Wallace cites McKay's New Syntax, p.42, for this proposal but dismisses it for lack of parallels.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Two more things to note before this thread gets closed :)

First, Greek grammar/philology alone isn't enough to tell how we should interpret this, even if we are talking about grammar, not theology. Jesus originally said this probably in Aramaic, and LXX and NT Greek aren't decisive here, at least not alone. There was probably much more going on in Jewish theology about God's Name and "I am" formula than LXX form of Ex 3. John's account of discussion between Jesus and other Jews is translation, and it's especially important in John 8:58. There was something special going on in the original discussion and John wanted to put it in Greek.

Second, we can't say what this sentence means in Greek by linguistic considerations alone. All we can say is what this isn't – e.g. this isn't historic present, as has been suggested by JWs. I would also argue that this isn't EFPP as is nowadays suggested by many. There currently doesn't exist any good explanation about what it could grammatically be. But what it actually means (or doesn't mean) can be decided only by contextual, larger exegetical and theological considerations. And I have seen these discussions going on in circles. People take a stance and keep it. For me, it's contextually nonsense to claim that Jesus just repeat here that he actually existed before Abraham was born, or that he has existed continually since before then – if that explanation were true, why would they just laugh at him at first and then suddenly go mad and stone him? Some other people claim to see that explanation clearly and naturally in the context. So the case is closed. In two boxes.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Stephen Carlson wrote:What an interesting proposal. I do hope you pursue it. Ordinarily, the reference time for a present is the utterance time of the speaker, but with adverbials, this reference time-frame can be extended back into the past. English, on the other hand, prefers to use a perfect progressive form for such "extended now" constructions, but the verb "to be" does not take a progressive form, so a rendering would be a perfect "I have been."

You might find Robertson's discussion of this helpful with good examples, though he unhelpfully rejects this reading for εἰμί in John 8:58:

...

(As Robertson does not have an "absolute" category in his explanation of the present tense, I don't find this comment helpful.)

Wallace cites McKay's New Syntax, p.42, for this proposal but dismisses it for lack of parallels.
I have naturally read Robertson and Wallace about this. Also Turner, McKay from what I could take from Google books, the first page of McKay's one short article about this, many internet discussions and others. I have also analyzed all the examples I could find, including one new from LXX which was mentioned nowhere.

But if we want to discuss about EFPP, I suggest starting a new thread, because it's only tangentially related to John 8:58.
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by David Lim »

Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't see a reason for the assumption at all, because it seems to me that the phrase means "I am earlier than Abraham.", nothing to do with a present perfect "have existed".
Because πρίν doesn't mean "earlier than." This is not a temporal comparative phrase.
I never said that "πριν" by itself means "earlier than". I said that I think the phrase as a whole, including both "πριν" and the present "ειμι" suggests the most natural meaning as "I am earlier than Abraham.". Literally I would leave it as "I am before Abraham came to be.", but it is of course not correct English.
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:So, three questions:

(1) Can something like "since" be assumed from the πρίν preposition alone when it comes with a present perfect sense (even if not in form) in the second phrase?
I don't think it can be assumed without reference to the context. For example, John 14:29 has "και νυν ειρηκα υμιν πριν γενεσθαι ινα οταν γενηται πιστευσητε" = "and now I have said to you before [it] comes to be, so that you might believe when [it] comes to be." Anyway as I said, I don't believe "ειμι" in John 8:58 has any perfect sense.
Yes, before, as would be expected. This is not the same as the other verse.
You asked whether "πριν" could mean "from before" / "since before" when it modifies a verb with the present perfect sense. John 14:29 is a valid counter-example. It has the same syntactical structure:
[John 8:58] "... ( πριν { αβρααμ γενεσθαι } ) { εγω } ειμι ..."
[John 14:29] "... { ( νυν ) ειρηκα ( υμιν ) ( πριν { γενεσθαι } ) } ινα { ( οταν γενηται ) πιστευσητε } ..."
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't think John 8:58 is ungrammatical at all, because "πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι" adverbially modifies "ειμι" and it is placed in front so as to emphasize it. (It is not always the first clause; see John 4:49, 14:29, Acts 2:20.)
But how can εἰμί (present indicative) be modified by a past tense adverbial without it taking on some past tense or present perfect sense? It doesn't make sense.
That is why I am suggesting that the whole sentence amounts to saying: "You think I am after Abraham? No, I tell you, I am before Abraham!".
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:And for any suggested understanding for this sentence, I require clear parallels/examples. They must be of form "A + B" or "B + A" where A is a temporal clause with a word or phrase which semantically means "before" (usually πριν or προ του in Koine) and B is main clause where the main verb is in the present tense. [...] Only if examples can be shown I'm willing to believe that the sentence is grammatically normal.
Would these suffice?
[Thuc. 2.12.2] "... ἀποπέμπουσιν οὖν αὐτὸν πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἐκέλευον ἐκτὸς ὅρων εἶναι αὐθημερόν, τό τε λοιπὸν ἀναχωρήσαντας ἐπὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν, ἤν τι βούλωνται, πρεσβεύεσθαι. ..."
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... chapter=12)
[Xen. Cyr. 5.2.9] "... διὰ δὲ τὸ μηδένα αὐτοῖς ἠθεληκέναι προέσθαι μήτε χρήματα πολλὰ μήτε τυραννίδα μήτε τείχη ἐρυμνὰ μήτε τέκνα ἀξιέραστα, ἀποθνῄσκουσι πρότερον πρὶν δῆλοι γενέσθαι οἷοι ἦσαν:"
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=9)
No doubt you might say that these are "historical presents" or "generic presents", but as I said before I think all these are ordinary presents, denoting present time at the time in focus. Likewise "ειμι" in John 8:58 would mean a factual statement concerning his present state, that he is not after but before Abraham.

Anyway, I can't do much more because I have no resources. I found the above two by various time-consuming searches. I would be glad too if anyone with access to TLG can search for what Eeli requested.
δαυιδ λιμ
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

David Lim wrote:[
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:And for any suggested understanding for this sentence, I require clear parallels/examples. They must be of form "A + B" or "B + A" where A is a temporal clause with a word or phrase which semantically means "before" (usually πριν or προ του in Koine) and B is main clause where the main verb is in the present tense. [...] Only if examples can be shown I'm willing to believe that the sentence is grammatically normal.
Would these suffice?
[Thuc. 2.12.2] "... ἀποπέμπουσιν οὖν αὐτὸν πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἐκέλευον ἐκτὸς ὅρων εἶναι αὐθημερόν, τό τε λοιπὸν ἀναχωρήσαντας ἐπὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν, ἤν τι βούλωνται, πρεσβεύεσθαι. ..."
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... chapter=12)
[Xen. Cyr. 5.2.9] "... διὰ δὲ τὸ μηδένα αὐτοῖς ἠθεληκέναι προέσθαι μήτε χρήματα πολλὰ μήτε τυραννίδα μήτε τείχη ἐρυμνὰ μήτε τέκνα ἀξιέραστα, ἀποθνῄσκουσι πρότερον πρὶν δῆλοι γενέσθαι οἷοι ἦσαν:"
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... :section=9)
No doubt you might say that these are "historical presents" or "generic presents", but as I said before I think all these are ordinary presents, denoting present time at the time in focus. Likewise "ειμι" in John 8:58 would mean a factual statement concerning his present state, that he is not after but before Abraham.

Anyway, I can't do much more because I have no resources. I found the above two by various time-consuming searches. I would be glad too if anyone with access to TLG can search for what Eeli requested.
Thank you very much for these!

Unfortunately I didn't remember that the results must be restricted also semantically (although it doesn't affect the search phase). Namely, the Xenophon quote doesn't qualify because πρὶν δῆλοι γενέσθαι doesn't restrict the viewpoint or reference time to past, like "before Abraham's being born" does. Here the semantics of words/phrases and extralinguistic reality interact: we know Abraham was born earlier, therefore the main clause is also restricted to past. ἀποθνῄσκουσι is gnomic, it doesn't refer to past event.

The Thucydides quote may qualify, but I'm still trying to understand it. However, it's not Koine, and I have a feeling that especially with regards to EFPP the usage may have changed. Comparing with classical Greek is of course needed, but I want to find Koine examples first. I understand you didn't say this is EFPP, and if you can prove your point with Koine examples I'm satisfied and willing to say that John 8:58 is natural grammar, even though it's not EFPP.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

David Lim wrote:[Thuc. 2.12.2] "... ἀποπέμπουσιν οὖν αὐτὸν πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἐκέλευον ἐκτὸς ὅρων εἶναι αὐθημερόν, τό τε λοιπὸν ἀναχωρήσαντας ἐπὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν, ἤν τι βούλωνται, πρεσβεύεσθαι. ..."
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... chapter=12)
Is it possible that ἀποπέμπουσιν here is historic present?
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Jason Hare »

David Lim wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:Because πρίν doesn't mean "earlier than." This is not a temporal comparative phrase.
I never said that "πριν" by itself means "earlier than". I said that I think the phrase as a whole, including both "πριν" and the present "ειμι" suggests the most natural meaning as "I am earlier than Abraham.". Literally I would leave it as "I am before Abraham came to be.", but it is of course not correct English.
By stating that translating it this way is not correct English, you're just confirming my problem, not offering a real solution to it.
David Lim wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't think it can be assumed without reference to the context. For example, John 14:29 has "και νυν ειρηκα υμιν πριν γενεσθαι ινα οταν γενηται πιστευσητε" = "and now I have said to you before [it] comes to be, so that you might believe when [it] comes to be." Anyway as I said, I don't believe "ειμι" in John 8:58 has any perfect sense.
Yes, before, as would be expected. This is not the same as the other verse.
You asked whether "πριν" could mean "from before" / "since before" when it modifies a verb with the present perfect sense. John 14:29 is a valid counter-example. It has the same syntactical structure:
[John 8:58] "... ( πριν { αβρααμ γενεσθαι } ) { εγω } ειμι ..."
[John 14:29] "... { ( νυν ) ειρηκα ( υμιν ) ( πριν { γενεσθαι } ) } ινα { ( οταν γενηται ) πιστευσητε } ..."
Again, I'm not confused at all about the structure of the phrases and understand how they relate to one another. It is the timing that gives me problems, not the structure of the sentence as it is.
David Lim wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't think John 8:58 is ungrammatical at all, because "πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι" adverbially modifies "ειμι" and it is placed in front so as to emphasize it. (It is not always the first clause; see John 4:49, 14:29, Acts 2:20.)
But how can εἰμί (present indicative) be modified by a past tense adverbial without it taking on some past tense or present perfect sense? It doesn't make sense.
That is why I am suggesting that the whole sentence amounts to saying: "You think I am after Abraham? No, I tell you, I am before Abraham!".
"Before" here is ambiguous. Do you mean "before him in preeminence" (that is, "greater") or "before him in time" or "before him" in some other way? What does this mean? It doesn't help unless we get to the meaning of what you're saying.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by David Lim »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
David Lim wrote:Would these suffice?
[...]
No doubt you might say that these are "historical presents" or "generic presents", but as I said before I think all these are ordinary presents, denoting present time at the time in focus. Likewise "ειμι" in John 8:58 would mean a factual statement concerning his present state, that he is not after but before Abraham.
Thank you very much for these!

Unfortunately I didn't remember that the results must be restricted also semantically (although it doesn't affect the search phase). Namely, the Xenophon quote doesn't qualify because πρὶν δῆλοι γενέσθαι doesn't restrict the viewpoint or reference time to past, like "before Abraham's being born" does. Here the semantics of words/phrases and extralinguistic reality interact: we know Abraham was born earlier, therefore the main clause is also restricted to past. ἀποθνῄσκουσι is gnomic, it doesn't refer to past event.

The Thucydides quote may qualify, but I'm still trying to understand it. However, it's not Koine, and I have a feeling that especially with regards to EFPP the usage may have changed. Comparing with classical Greek is of course needed, but I want to find Koine examples first. I understand you didn't say this is EFPP, and if you can prove your point with Koine examples I'm satisfied and willing to say that John 8:58 is natural grammar, even though it's not EFPP.
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
David Lim wrote:[Thuc. 2.12.2] "... ἀποπέμπουσιν οὖν αὐτὸν πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι καὶ ἐκέλευον ἐκτὸς ὅρων εἶναι αὐθημερόν, τό τε λοιπὸν ἀναχωρήσαντας ἐπὶ τὰ σφέτερα αὐτῶν, ἤν τι βούλωνται, πρεσβεύεσθαι. ..."
(http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... chapter=12)
Is it possible that ἀποπέμπουσιν here is historic present?
I knew that you might have these two objections, which is exactly what I said just after giving those two examples. Anyway, notice the perfect infinitive "ἠθεληκέναι" earlier in the Xenophon quote that, in the "δια το ..." construction. corresponds to the perfect indicative. In English: "because no one has intended to give away to them either many possessions or sovereignty or sturdy fortresses of lovely children, they die earlier before what kind they were comes to be evident." Since "πριν ... γενεσθαι ..." is semantically restricted to the same era in which "no one has intended to ...", we must conclude that the perfect also is gnomic. These help to demonstrate that the conventional classification of presents into normal presents, historical presents, gnomic presents and so on is perhaps not really valid. Instead of anchoring everything with respect to that of the main verb or the speaker, they should be anchored to the time in focus, which are usually but not always one of these two. If that is so, it implies that there is nothing grammatically wrong with having a present tense verb with "πριν ...", just that it would be not so common of course. "αποπεμπουσιν" fits because the time in focus is the very time when the person in focus was sent away. "αποθνησκουσι" fits too because the statement is gnomic and thus the time in focus is the time that the person in question dies, thus also "ηθεληκεναι" fits nicely because it is the perfect tense with respect to the time in focus.

Back to John 8:58...
Jason Hare wrote:
David Lim wrote:That is why I am suggesting that the whole sentence amounts to saying: "You think I am after Abraham? No, I tell you, I am before Abraham!".
"Before" here is ambiguous. Do you mean "before him in preeminence" (that is, "greater") or "before him in time" or "before him" in some other way? What does this mean? It doesn't help unless we get to the meaning of what you're saying.
Yes I tried to make it as clear as possible by the preceding part of the same statement:
You think that I am after Abraham?
No, I tell you, I am before Abraham!
(You think that since Abraham died so long ago and I am not yet fifty, I can't have seen him. But I tell you the correct order; I do not come after Abraham but before him.)

I believe the statement implies not only existence in time before Abraham, but is focused on the relative order between Abraham and him, and not the past time. That is, his use of the present tense forces the time in focus to be in the past. Therefore at the start the translation I suggested for proper idiomatic English is:
Truly, truly, I say to you, I am earlier than Abraham.
δαυιδ λιμ
Jason Hare
Posts: 1016
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Jason Hare »

David Lim wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:"Before" here is ambiguous. Do you mean "before him in preeminence" (that is, "greater") or "before him in time" or "before him" in some other way? What does this mean? It doesn't help unless we get to the meaning of what you're saying.
Yes I tried to make it as clear as possible by the preceding part of the same statement:
You think that I am after Abraham?
No, I tell you, I am before Abraham!
(You think that since Abraham died so long ago and I am not yet fifty, I can't have seen him. But I tell you the correct order; I do not come after Abraham but before him.)

I believe the statement implies not only existence in time before Abraham, but is focused on the relative order between Abraham and him, and not the past time. That is, his use of the present tense forces the time in focus to be in the past. Therefore at the start the translation I suggested for proper idiomatic English is:
Truly, truly, I say to you, I am earlier than Abraham.
So, why not just say that and not say "before Abraham existed" coupled with the present tense? It could have made grammatical sense, but it doesn't! Your rendition doesn't take all of the pieces into account. You're simply eliminating the difficult part of the sentence to produce something that you think is logically consistent in English.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58 - Grammatical? πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

David Lim wrote:I knew that you might have these two objections, which is exactly what I said just after giving those two examples. Anyway, notice the perfect infinitive "ἠθεληκέναι" earlier in the Xenophon quote that, in the "δια το ..." construction. corresponds to the perfect indicative. In English: "because no one has intended to give away to them either many possessions or sovereignty or sturdy fortresses of lovely children, they die earlier before what kind they were comes to be evident." Since "πριν ... γενεσθαι ..." is semantically restricted to the same era in which "no one has intended to ...", we must conclude that the perfect also is gnomic. These help to demonstrate that the conventional classification of presents into normal presents, historical presents, gnomic presents and so on is perhaps not really valid. Instead of anchoring everything with respect to that of the main verb or the speaker, they should be anchored to the time in focus, which are usually but not always one of these two. If that is so, it implies that there is nothing grammatically wrong with having a present tense verb with "πριν ...", just that it would be not so common of course. "αποπεμπουσιν" fits because the time in focus is the very time when the person in focus was sent away. "αποθνησκουσι" fits too because the statement is gnomic and thus the time in focus is the time that the person in question dies, thus also "ηθεληκεναι" fits nicely because it is the perfect tense with respect to the time in focus.
I didn't read it carefully enough, sorry about that...:)

I find it difficult to get into your thought. It seems like you are willing to rewrite the grammar of Greek verb. There might be something in it, but it requires more than couple of internet posts. Until then I'll stick to the old one. I'll still try to understand your point, but right now I agree with Jason:
Jason Hare wrote:So, why not just say that and not say "before Abraham existed" coupled with the present tense? It could have made grammatical sense, but it doesn't! Your rendition doesn't take all of the pieces into account. You're simply eliminating the difficult part of the sentence to produce something that you think is logically consistent in English.
Although I believe you think it's logically consistent in Greek, too, I don't believe it is consistent. The present tense just doesn't work that way. You still haven't shown paralles which can't be explained by well-established categories. You only explained the perfectly good explanations away by saying that conventional classification is perhaps not really valid. Not very convincing.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”