Following the end of the discussion on the
translation of John 8.58 between Dr. Jason
Beduhn and Robert Bowman some questions were asked. Here are some
of these with Dr. Beduhn's replies. We hope they will answer the questions of others who
have read the above discussion and had the same questions come to
mind.
I'd like to ask you the following:
If Jesus had wanted to say, "Before Abraham came to be, I am!"
how
would he have said it in Greek? I realize that you believe this
would
have been an awkward sentence in Greek (as it is in English) and
(perhaps) Jesus would never have said such a thing, but supposing
He
did want to, how would He have said it?
Thanks and best wishes!
Robert Hommel
Hi Robert,
Yes, it is nice to hear from you. I thought our discussion --
what was
it, two years ago? (time goes so quickly) -- was constructive.
Now, to your question:
> If Jesus had wanted to say, "Before Abraham came to be,
I am!" how
> would he have said it in Greek? I realize that you believe
this would
> have been an awkward sentence in Greek (as it is in English)
and
> (perhaps) Jesus would never have said such a thing, but
supposing He
> did want to, how would He have said it?
From my perspective, the power of tradition is so great that many
people do not even recognize that this is a nonsense sentence in
English. You cannot say such a thing in English, or for that
matter
in Greek. I will talk now as if Jesus is speaking in Greek, just
as a
shorthand for what you are asking. If he wanted to say that he
existed before Abraham, he can quite easily do that with a past
tense;
the imperfect would have been suitable (just as it is in John 1:1):
EGW H (or HN) PRIN etc. If he wanted to say he currently exists,
he
would say EGW EIMI. If he wants to say both, then he can either
say a
compound sentence -- EGW H PRIN . . . KAI (EGW) EIMI -- or he can
make
use of the progressive use of the present, where mere
juxtaposition
with a past referent, such as the PRIN clause, automatically
conveys
both past and present sense to the verb. So the Greek works fine,
and
the problem has arisen only in translation.
Now suppose Jesus had wanted to say "I have always existed,
even
before Abraham was born." This is easy enough: EGW EIMI
PANTOTE PRIN
GE ABRAAM GENESTHAI or EGW EIMI PANTOTE KAI PRIN ABRAAM GENESTHAI.
But the Greek John has written is missing the distinguishing
features
that would signal this meaning, and a reader of the time coming
for
the first time to the sentence John did write would read it as a
progressive present "I have been" or "I have
existed since before
Abraham was born." I think you have heard me say this before,
but it
is essential to keep in mind that the New Testament texts were
written
in ordinary, average Greek for wide understanding, and so we
should
always give preference to the most obvious, ordinary meaning of
the
words over any special theological pleading. After all, 2000
years is
a long time to have an opportunity to read things into the text
that
just weren't there for the original readers.
My best wishes to you.
Jason B.
Hi, Jason,
Thank you for providing alternatives that Jesus could have said,
had
he wished to express Himself in the various ways you suggest. But
that wasn't really my question.
I had asked you how Jesus would have said, "Before Abraham
was born,
I am," even acknowledging that you think such a sentence is
awkward
or that Jesus would never have said such a thing.
You answered:
"You cannot say such a thing in English, or for that matter
in Greek."
This would appear to be a self-defeating proposition; just say the
following out loud: "You can't say 'Before Abraham was born,
I am,'
in English!
Instead, I take you to intend something like, "Before
Abraham was
born, I am" is a meaningless sentence in English. If not,
please
correct me.
So, granting that you believe this sentence to be meaningless,
how
would Jesus have said it in Greek?
Thanks for your time,
Robert
Oh, come on Robert. Of course I meant it is a meaningless or
nonsense
sentence, and I said so. So do you want to suggest that Jesus
spoke,
and/or John wrote, a nonsense sentence? That's quite a strange
proposition. I can see it now, the crowd saying, "Let's
stone this
guy because he speaks in ungrammatical sentences!" There is
no need
to resort to such a suggestion, since the sentence we have is
perfectly proper, understandable and sensible Greek. I can tell
you
how Jesus could have expressed any number of meanings you may
want in
Greek. And I have told you how he could have expressed the
meaning of
"always existing" even in the face of the PRIN ABRAAM
temporal
reference. But constructing a nonsense sentence is pointless and,
well, nonsense.
Jason B.
Jason,
I've have asked you twice now, granted you believe the English
sentence is awkward, that Jesus would never have said it, and
that it
is meaningless, how would Jesus have said, "Before Abraham
was born,
I am?"
You replied:
"So do you want to suggest that Jesus spoke, and/or John
wrote, a
nonsense sentence? That's quite a strange proposition. I can see
it
now, the crowd saying, "Let's stone this guy because he
speaks in
ungrammatical sentences!"
LOL! I suppose I left myself open to that one! ;-)
No, of course I don't think John wrote a nonsense sentence. More
on
this in a minute. The reason I'm asking this question is to point
out that there's really no other way to say, "Before Abraham
was
born, I am" in Greek than PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGO EIMI, as
least as
far as I can tell. Thus, if Jesus said something like this (whether
in Aramaic or Hebrew), John would have rendered it in Greek
exactly
as we have it.
As for your assertion that the English sentence is meaningless, I
would agree that translators should avoid rendering Greek into
meaningless English. But, with respect, I think you have defined
what is "ungrammatical" in a fashion that precludes
philosophic/theological allusion, metaphor, or paradoxical usage,
and
then used that definition to label any who disagree with you as
theologically driven or arguing nonsense. While this approach
may
be useful in a debate, it is not indicative of an even-handed,
inductive study of all the evidence.
The mere fact that commentators ever since Irenaeus have *not*
found
the present-tense EIMI following PRIN questionable demonstrates
that
it may be more sensible than you allow. Indeed, they seem to have
derived meaning from the sentence quite easily and consistently.
In your post to Frederick, you referred to Irenaeus and Ignatius
as
writing the "exact same original phrasing of the Greek."
But this is
not true of Irenaeus. The text of Irenaeus has come down to us in
Latin, not Greek. It was (according to Roberts & Donaldson)
a 'wooden' translation done near the beginning of the third
century.
The latin was, apparently, not very good (indicating the
translator
knew Greek but was not a master of Latin) - but the Latin of
Irenaeus' quotation of Jn 8:58 is very clear:
Antequam enim Abraham esset ego sum (PG, vii, p. 1009).
("Before Abraham was, he says, I am" - Roberts-Donaldson
translation).
Towards the end of the fourth century, we have Chrysostom writing
the
following:
"But wherefore said He not, "Before Abraham was, I was,"
instead
of "I Am"? As the Father useth this expression, "I
Am," so also doth
Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of all
time.
On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous.
Now
if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this
was
but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the
Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?"
_The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_; Volume 14: "Homilies On the
Gospel
of St. John," Homily 55.
As you know, Chrysostom was, arguably, the greatest Eastern
theologian of his day. Greek was his native language, and he
studied
deeply in the classics as well as in the Bible. I really don't
see
how a scholar of Chrysostom's stature could have been so blind to
this "obvious" PPA, and so deaf to the supposed "nonsense"
of the
present-tense reading.
As I recall in our dialog on Jn 1:1, you took the position that
the
broad theological\philosophical background of John's Greek and
Jewish
audiences must be taken into account. You suggested that John's
audience had certain associations with QEOS, for example. But, it
appears they may also have had such associations with the present-
tense EIMI. On the Greek side, we have Parmenides writing that
ESTI
is the only form of the verb "to be" that should be
used of the gods,
because it signified eternal "being," as contrasted
with "becoming"
(the very contrast Rob has argued for in Jn 8:58). On the Jewish
side, we have the well-known ANI HU verses in Isaiah (rendered
"ego
eimi" in the LXX) that Jesus may well have been alluding to,
and the
Greek translation of Ex 3:14 - "I am the one who is [ego
eimi ho
wn] ....Tell them the one who is [ho wn] has sent you". Are
these
sufficient to offset the apparent contradiction between the
present
tense and PRIN? I think they very well could be. They should at
the
very least be considered as part of any careful review of the
evidence.
There are other points I could raise, but I think these are
sufficient to illustrate that the traditional translation is far
from "meaningless" and "nonsense." If it is,
indeed, a
misunderstanding of a "garden-variety PPA," it is one
that arose very
early and which - at least according to the evidence so far
presented
in this debate and in your book - was only "corrected"
in the last
100 years.
Best regards,
Robert
Robert,
You wrote:
> The mere fact that commentators ever since Irenaeus have *not*
found
> the present-tense EIMI following PRIN questionable
demonstrates
that
> it may be more sensible than you allow. Indeed, they seem to
have
> derived meaning from the sentence quite easily and
consistently.
Yes, of course the Greek sentence is perfectly sensible (along
the
lines I have explained). It is the English translation that had
rendered it senseless).
> In your post to Frederick, you referred to Irenaeus and
Ignatius as
> writing the "exact same original phrasing of the Greek."
But this
is
> not true of Irenaeus. The text of Irenaeus has come down to
us in
> Latin, not Greek. It was (according to Roberts &
Donaldson)
> a 'wooden' translation done near the beginning of the third
century.
> The latin was, apparently, not very good (indicating the
translator
> knew Greek but was not a master of Latin) - but the Latin of
> Irenaeus' quotation of Jn 8:58 is very clear:
>
> Antequam enim Abraham esset ego sum (PG, vii, p. 1009).
Yes, this is what we would call a wooden translation, isn't it?
By
an unknown translator of an uncertain time of Irenaeus simply
repeating the Greek of John 8:58. Not much to hang your hat on
there, Robert.
> Towards the end of the fourth century, we have Chrysostom
writing
the
> following:
>
> "But wherefore said He not, "Before Abraham was, I
was," instead
> of "I Am"? As the Father useth this expression,
"I Am," so also
doth
> Christ; for it signifieth continuous Being, irrespective of
all
time.
> On which account the expression seemed to them to be
blasphemous.
Now
> if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although
this
was
> but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to
the
> Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?"
_The
> Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_; Volume 14: "Homilies
On the Gospel
> of St. John," Homily 55.
Thanks for the reference, Robert. You seem to have identified the
beginning of this interpretive tradition. As you well know,
Chrysostom and the other biblical exegetes of his time for some
real
linguistic howlers as they tried to come up with arguments in a
highly contentious atmosphere of theological debate. What is
missing
from the historical record, of course, are the answers and
criticisms
of their silenced rivals.
> As I recall in our dialog on Jn 1:1, you took the position
that the
> broad theological\philosophical background of John's Greek
and
Jewish
> audiences must be taken into account. You suggested that
John's
> audience had certain associations with QEOS, for example.
But, it
> appears they may also have had such associations with the
present-
> tense EIMI. On the Greek side, we have Parmenides writing
that
ESTI
> is the only form of the verb "to be" that should
be used of the
gods,
> because it signified eternal "being," as
contrasted with "becoming"
> (the very contrast Rob has argued for in Jn 8:58). On the
Jewish
> side, we have the well-known ANI HU verses in Isaiah (rendered
"ego
> eimi" in the LXX) that Jesus may well have been
alluding to, and
the
> Greek translation of Ex 3:14 - "I am the one who is [ego
eimi ho
> wn] ....Tell them the one who is [ho wn] has sent you".
Are these
> sufficient to offset the apparent contradiction between the
present
> tense and PRIN? I think they very well could be. They should
at
the
> very least be considered as part of any careful review of
the
> evidence.
This is all fine to consider in a commentary, Robert, though I
would
point out obvious problems (such as that in the LXX of Exodus it
is
HO WN that is used of God, not EGW EIMI, the Isaiah passages bear
a
closer resemblance in the Greek, but they are copulative 'i am he'
statements, and of course the Hebrew behind them has no verb at
all). But it doesn't belong imposed on the text in translation
because it is uncertain and because there is a more obvious way
to
read the Greek that does not preclude interpretations along the
lines
you are suggesting, but that leaves the sentence and its parts
functioning as they would in normal Greek of the time.
best wishes,
Jason B.
Jason,
Thank you for your reply.
You have argued that the PPA in Jn 8:58 would have been easily
understood by John's readers. That is, I think, a critical piece
of
your argument and one we need to keep in mind when we look at the
evidence. Indeed, I would submit that the evidence I presented in
my previous post demonstrates that the PPA in Jn 8:58 was *not*
commonly or easily understood, and either dropped out of Koine
usage
shortly after the Gospel was written, or never existed at all.
Regarding Irenaeus, you wrote:
>Yes, this is what we would call a wooden translation, isn't
it?
>By an unknown translator of an uncertain time of Irenaeus
simply
>repeating the Greek of John 8:58. Not much to hang your hat
on
>there, Robert.
The unknown translator was not working at an "uncertain time"
-
Tertullian apparently quoted from his translation in the early
third
century. The translator may not have been a master of Latin, but
he
certainly knew Greek, and to suggest that he understood Irenaeus'
quotation of Jn 8:58 as a common, garden-variety PPA, but
translated
it as 'ego sum' (which any first-year Latin student would
recognize
as a present-tense form of the verb) is extremely implausible.
On Chrysostom, you wrote:
>Thanks for the reference, Robert. You seem to have identified
the
>beginning of this interpretive tradition.
You're welcome, but it took me literally five minutes on Google
to
find this quote, and another 20 minutes or so in the library with
Migne to verify it. That's about all the research I've had time
to
do on this topic, so there may very well be other patristic
citations and allusions out there. I'm surprised that you missed
this quote in your research. I think this oversight is an example
of you being overly one-sided in your book and in this debate,
and
not really giving this topic the research and evaluation that an
even-handed treatment deserves.
You continue:
>As you well know, Chrysostom and the other biblical exegetes
of
>his time for some real linguistic howlers as they tried to
come
>up with arguments in a highly contentious atmosphere of
theological
>debate. What is missing from the historical record, of course,
>are the answers and criticisms of their silenced rivals.
Others have pointed out the weaknesses in your blanket dismissal.
It will not do to reject what Chrysostom has written on the basis
of
alleged "linguistic howlers" he or other fathers may
have written in
other contexts. You'll need to provide evidence that Chrysostom
made specific, grammatical errors when interpreting Scripture in
the
same way you allege he does, here. While Chrysostom may have
interpreted various verses according to his theology (or, more
charitably, derived his theology from his understanding of
Scripture), he was a native Greek speaker writing to other native
Greek speakers, and it is inconceivable that he would simply
ignore
a "commonly understood" aspect of the verb to make his
point,
*knowing that his readers would recognize his error immediately.*
As I said before, Chrysostom was a formidable scholar not only of
Scripture, but also of Greek classical literature. His witness
must
be given its proper weight in this discussion, and I think you
are
committing a Fallacy of Exclusion by so casually dismissing it.
Regarding the philosophical / theological background of the
present
tense EIMI, you wrote:
>This is all fine to consider in a commentary, Robert, though
I would
>point out obvious problems (such as that in the LXX of Exodus
it is
>HO WN that is used of God, not EGW EIMI, the Isaiah passages
bear a
>closer resemblance in the Greek, but they are copulative 'i
am he'
>statements, and of course the Hebrew behind them has no verb
at
>all). But it doesn't belong imposed on the text in
translation
>because it is uncertain and because there is a more obvious
way to
>read the Greek...
But why did you think it necessary to consider the background
when
translating John 1:1? Either theological / philosophical
backgrounds are necessary for proper translation or they are not.
You argued that they were for translating QEOS as "divine"
in Jn
1:1; it is, therefore, inconsistent for you to imply that they
are
only needed in a commentary, now.
These "obvious" problems have nothing to do with my
point that the
present tense EIMI had theological and philosophical associations
(hO WN is, after all, present tense, and if Jesus is alluding to
Isaiah, it is the present tense copula He is using).
You may not have been writing a commentary, but you were (I
thought)
writing a book you wanted Bible scholars and students to take
seriously. Such a work - especially one that undertakes to prove
that translations such as Jn 8:58 are not only incorrect, but
theologically biased - should demonstrate that the author has
interacted with most - if not all - the available evidence. Such
a
work need not be overly technical, and can be directed to a
popular
audience, but still show (through endnotes or excurses) the
necessary inductive study of all pertinent evidence. Examples
from
evangelical scholars are not hard to find (e.g., Larry Hurtado's
_One Lord and One God_), and even the best apologetic books do
this
(e.g., Beckwith, et.al, _The New Mormon Challenge_). The apparent
one-sidedness of your research is, IMHO, a significant deficiency
in
your book, and may be something you might consider addressing in
future projects.
Best regards,
Robert
Sorry, Robert, but you just aren't getting it. You wrote:
> If we have two Greek speakers within the first
> several centuries of John's Gospel that understood EIMI in
this
verse
> as a present tense, *they* did not understand it as a "common"
> or "clearly understood" PPA.
You seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are dealing with
a
Greek present tense form, and that is not at issue. What is at
issue is the range of meaning of this present tense form, and
which
exact usage is involved in the construction of John 8:58. You don't
seem to get the fact that a PPA has a progressive sense of
continuing existence that supplies the contrast to the past
existence of Abraham that sufficiently sets up the Christological
conclusions these authors wish to draw. They quote the verse
exactly as it was written, and how that verse is rendered into
English is what is at issue. By them quoting the original Greek
again, they do not help settle anything for us. They regard its
significance as fitting an interpretation they have about Christ
more generally, and there's nothing wrong with that. The wording
of
the original Greek does not preclude that, even as a PPA. The PPA
is, after all, a use of the Greek PRESENT. PPA sentences,
although
having a meaning that is progressive from the past, are still
within
the range of present meaning for Greek, and this allows for
comparison with other uses of the present form for interpretive
affect, as with Chrysostom. Neither ancient author says anything
about this sentence being at all ungrammatical or odd. They
simply
see its choice of expression as significant. There is nothing in
their remarks that rejects the PPA rendering. I am afraid that
what
is happening in many of the comments on this site right now is
the
idea that a Trinitarian application/interpretation of John 8:58
stands or falls with the traditional translation of the verse.
This
is not the case. The Trinitarian view of Christ developed among
Christians who were reading this verse in the original Greek as a
PPA and yet saw it as pointing, in conjunction with several other
passages, towards that view. What we see in Chrysostom is an
early
association of language between this verse and the language of
certain OT passages where God's ongoing existence is similarly
emphasized. What we see in the Latin translation of Irenaeus is a
particularly "wooden" translation (as recognized in the
literature
on the subject) of the Greek which walks roughshod over Greek
idioms. These kinds of developments form the background to what
happened when the traditional English translation was invented,
along that line of interpreting the verse. This has the effect of
locking in that single line of interpretation arbitrarily,
whereas
the PPA meaning of the original is open to both this line of
interpretation as well as others, which explains why historically
these divergent lines of interpretation arose from the original
wording of the verse.
best wishes,
Jason B.
Robert,
Wrong again. What you have with Chrysostom and Athanasius are
theologians constructing an interpretation. Looking again at
Athanasius:
> "And concerning the creation He says by Solomon, 'Or
ever the earth was,
> when there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there
were no
fountains
> abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled,
before the
hills,
> was I brought forth.' And, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' And
concerning
> Jeremiah He says, 'Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew
thee.'
And David
> in the Psalm says, 'Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever the
> earth and the world were made, Thou art, God from
everlasting and world
> without end.' And in Daniel, 'Susanna cried out with a loud
voice
and said,
> O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all
things
before
> they be.' Thus it appears that the phrases 'once was not,'
and
'before it
> came to be,' and 'when,' and the like, belong to things
originate and
> creatures, which come out of nothing, but are alien to the
Word.
> Athanasius, _Four Discourses against the Arians_, 1.4.13.
Here again, as with Chrysostom, you have someone writing in Greek,
with an English translation made on the basis of the KJV when it
comes
to the Bible verses quoted, so providing no testimony at all to
"am"
rather than "have been"; this goes for the translation
of Psalm 90:2
as well, of course.
There is no doubt about what Athanasius is arguing as an
interpretation of the meaning of these passages. But that
interpretation does not depend on translating the verbs with the
English present, or Athanasius understanding them in that sense.
His
argument is that since the Son is repeatedly said to be "before"
created things, Arian understanding of him is invalid. The
argument
is astonishingly weak: the Arians acknowledged that the Son
existed
before all other created things, just as these passages state;
Athanasius seems utterly unperturbed by the wording of Proverbs,
"I
was brought forth"; and some of his passages involve lines
that others
would regard as spoken by the Father.
But in any case, to sum up: Athanasius and Chrysostom are making
interpretations, not translations; only Chrysostom offers an
argument
of grammar, Athanasius does not; Chrysostom is fishing for
further
arguments in grammar to support the interpretation he and
Athanasius
share; Athanasius' argument does not depend on reading John 8:58
(or
Psalm 90:2) as a present rather than a PPA (note too the
adherence of
your translation to the KJV in Jeremiah 1:5: 'knew" rather
than
'knows' as you would have it), and he in fact is quite content to
quote lines employing past tenses, since the key is existence
before
creation, regardless of what tense is used to convey it.
It is not surprising at all that the OT texts you cited in your
argument
overlap to a large degree with those cited here: they represent a
line
of interpretation to which you adhere. I have never said you
could
not hold such an interpretation. You can, like Athanasius,
collect
these texts into a Christology and argue for it in such a way
that
does not depend on false grammatical positions and so is not
vulnerable to criticism on the basis of grammar. Athanasius'
position
does not depend on John 8:58 being read "am" rather
than "have been."
So of course Athanasius was never making any claim about "I
am" in
and of itself; Chrysostom was, and that was his mistake.
Jason B.
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason, you said:
"From my perspective, the power of tradition is so great
that many
people do not even recognize that this is a nonsense sentence in
English. You cannot say such a thing in English, or for that
matter
in Greek."
Jason, people can and do say such types of things in english all
the
time. For instance, many writers often play with grammatics in
such a
way as to color their discourse or make a specific point. I hope
you
aren't suggesting that just because the sentence may not have
been a
techniquely proper grammar that Jesus could not have stated such
a
sentence. On top of this, there are several notable Greek
scholars who
accept this particular grammatical structure. Whether or not you
accept it does not change the fact Jesus may have stated it as
such. I
at least hope you are open to this possibility.
Dear Whiddon,
In response to your remark, I wish to clarify once again that
nothing
is "not proper" about the Greek of this verse. It is
proper, clear,
ordinary Greek. It is Rob who has contended that the English
should
be "unusual" because the Greek is "unusual."
The Greek is not
unusual. The words used, the order in which they are used, and
their
relation to each other are both proper and immediately
comprehensible
for a Greek speaker in that time. Therefore there are no grounds
for
rendering it into an ungrammatical English sentence. I say all
this
in my book.
Jason B.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Frederick,
I appreciate your comments.
I would suggest that the "zen quality" you perceive in
"Pooh just is"
derives from its use of a non-standard idiom precisely meant to
evoke
that quality. Please note the presence of the adverb "just"
which is
a complement to the verb and makes it possible for verb to work.
Would it work as well to say "While . . . Pooh is"? No,
it wouldn't.
The "just" makes it work. We have nothing equivalent in
John 8:58,
nothing to signal us that EIMI is meant to be "just"
EIMI. In fact,
the presence of a temporal clause directly impinges on that EIMI,
keeping it from being "just" EIMI.
I believe you are mistaken in suggesting that it was my task to
establish a positive assertion about the verbal sense in John
8:58.
The standard Greek grammars agree with me. It is Rob who must
somehow
justify why we should think those grammars are wrong.
If you think it is crucial that the temporal clause be read
"before
Abraham" rather than "since" or "since before
Abraham," think through
what this means for the tense of the main verb in English. Can
you
compose a legitimate English sentence in which we have a "before"
clause referring to the past and a main verb in the present tense?
Try it, and see what you come up with.
Keeping in mind that we do not know what John thought, only what
he
wrote, it does seem that he employed language in an ironic way.
The
classic example of double entendre is "born again,"
"born from above"
in John 3:3. We suppose that there is irony in this scene because
Nicodemus does not understand "from above," but "again"
in a very
literal fashion. But actually nothing Jesus says definitively
indicates that "from above" is to be understood. Later
readers may
have read more into it than even John intended. The additional
problem of comparing something like this with John 8:58 is that
there
is no hint in the latter passage that irony is involved. But if
there
is a double entendre at work, one half of it is still a perfectly
valid PPA use of the verb with a "before" clause, and
the other is is
idiom of identification "I am he." Just as in John 3:3
translators
choose the more obvious meaning in context and translate it that
way,
so would we with John 8:58. The double entendre gets relegated to
a
footnote because English does not have a single term to cover the
double meaning in Greek. The traditional translation utterly
fails to
convey anything of the proposed double entendre here. We should
also
be clear that the pun in John 3:3 only works in Greek. Jesus
could
not have made such a pun in his own language. This is a
cautionary
note for those who try to read too much into the Greek.
Finally, you allude to going along with the Church Fathers on
this
question. Which Church Fathers would those be? I would be very
interested in any citation you could provide.
best wishes,
Jason B.
------------------------------------
Mr. Beduhn (and anyone else interested), let me start off by
saying you did a wonderful job representing your view of Jn 8:58.
The question that I have is dealing with your translation of Ps
89:1 you said...
"If that is the sense of the APO phrase, then the
translation of the rest of the verse is not significantly changed:
"You have existed from age to age, before the mountain came
to be and the earth and world were formed." or, more
poeticly,
"Before the mountain came to be and the earth and world were
formed, from age to age, you have existed."
Response: The only problem that I am having with the above
translation is that it is not faithful to the Hebrew. Now granted
the LXX does not always copy the Hebrew word for word, but in
this case, this seems to be a literal translation. The PPA simply
does not fit it.
WW:M"`OLAM `AD - `OLAM A'TTAH ' "L or V'MEOLAM AD OLAM
ATTAH EL.
From everlasting to everlasting you are God. The LXX follows the
same pattern of the Hebrew, one would not translate " From
everlasting to everlasting you have been God."
Normally, when constructions such as these pop up a simply B verb
(present tense) is used. For example 'ANI YHWH = I am YHWH. The
same construction is here, ATTAH EL You *are* God.
The LXX seems to be translating this word for word, except they
took the EL and made it a negation in verse three. The Hebrew EL
is translated as an AL which is the MH in verse three. So I would
argue that the idea is still the same as the Hebrew. From
everlasting to everlasting You are [God]. For this reason I don't
think the PPA translation fits.
--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938@comcast.net
Dear K. Graham,
Thank you for your interesting observation. You are, of course,
quite
right that the LXX does not follow the Hebrew exactly. The Hebrew
has
no verb at all in the final line of the verse, which means that
the
verbal sense is to be supplied from the overall sense of the
sentence.
Greek is perfectly capable of copying this exact idiom, and can
also
omit the verb: SU THEOS. If this had been what was written in the
LXX, one would tend to assume a reading as an implicit copula:
"You
(are) God." In that case the other clauses would be adjuncts,
since a
copula construction is complete with a predicate noun ("God").
There
would be some temporal tensions with the clauses that might lead
one
to propose "you have been," but it would be fair to
argue either way,
and I think that given the form of an identity statement (as
opposed
to a copula construction where the predicate complement is an
adjective that could be a passing state) the present tense would
be
favored.
But for some reason unknown to us the LXX translators either did
not
see in their Hebrew original or chose to omit the predicate noun,
EL
(your proposal for what happened is interesting, if not
unproblematic), while they either found or chose to add the verb
which
the Hebrew lacked. The result is SU EI, which is either the same
copulative idiom with implicit pronominal predicate found in John
8:28, etc. "You are he," or else an existential, in
which case the
verbal tense is modified by the other clauses as complements of
the
verb, because adverbials are an integral part of the verb in
intransitives such as the be-verb (this was discussed in great
detail
in the debate).
Obviously, since the Greek reconstrues the Hebrew, the one cannot
be
the guide to the meaning of the other. One cannot say that the
Greek
means "You are [God]" because the word "God"
is not there. If it had
been there, the similarity of this example to John 8:58 would be
reduced, because the complement of the verb in John 8:58 is an
adverbial clause, not a predicate noun.
best wishes,
Jason B.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hello Marvin,
I am not sure I understand your first question:
> Nevertheless, it
> seems to me when we examine language and meanings that usage
takes
> priority, and usage includes persons and numbers without
regard for
> scholarly credentials. Do you disagree?
I agree that usage determines meaning in language. I agree that
facts
and valid argument, not authority, determines what we can
establish as
a reliable guide to what is true on subjects such as I have been
debating here. "Scholars" prove their merit by their
use of fact and
argument, not by the degrees they hold or how many books they
have
written. The issues involved in the meaning of the original Greek
of
the New Testament, and in its accurate translation, need to be
considered within the context of the normal usage of language in
the
broader ancient Greek and modern English environment. And my
criticisms about how this verse has been handled have to do with
how
it has been construed in a way at odds with both broader language
environments.
> You have been careful throughout your debate with Rob to
point out
> that you are not defending the Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society's
> (WTS) New World Translation (NWT). Have you at any time
accepted any
> sort of compensation from the WTS in the form of money or
> merchandise?
I am not sure you realize the offensiveness of your question. I
am
not sure what calibre of people you are accustomed to dealing
with,
but my scholarship is not for sale.
I am a university professor, with a Ph.D. in the historical study
of
religion from a state university, specializing in ancient
Christian
origins; I also teach in a state university. I am by these
measures a
secular scholar. Not that it is anyone's business, but I also
happen
NOT to be a JW. I am happy to explain this to the degree it helps
to
see that the approach I take to these issues is historical and
academic, not partisan. But much more important than who I am is
the
validity of what I say, which is testable and demonstrable.
Attempts
to make this about me personally are just way off base. There is
not
some story of hidden motivations here that can be grabbed onto as
an
excuse to dismiss what I say. I think it is quite well known,
because
I have repeated the story on many occasions, how my involvement
at
this level of public debate began quite involuntarily, because
the
Watchtower published portions of a thankyou note I wrote to the
society for a box of interlinear Bibles donated to my university
class, after the society had adopted the policy of no longer
selling
its publications. The response to that publication drew a flood
of
inquiries about this verse and that -- which translation was
better?
what about the NIV? isn't the Amplified Bible the best authority?
what
does the Greek really say here? etc. etc. Some inquiries were
friendly, some hostile. From the file of those inquiries came the
book. And here I am today.
Jason B.
------------------------------------------
Barry Hoffsetter,
First, regarding the following remark:
>What Jason does not appear to realize, and what he may
realize if he
>extends his Greek studies to areas outside of biblical Greek,
is that
>this construction is just plain unusual.
Isn't it rather presumptuous of you to suggest my Greek studies
are in
need of extension "outside of biblical Greek"? For one
thing, Barry,
you have no knowledge whatsoever about my "Greek studies."
I am the
only one in this discussion to bring in examples from outside the
Bible. For another thing, there is no such thing as "biblical
Greek."
There is the Greek spoken and written at the time the books of
the
New Testament were composed. There are absolutely no distinctions
between the language used by the biblical writers and that used
at
large. And for yet another thing, you are the one who in your (wildly
inaccurate) review of my book showed no understanding of why the
Greek
words for 'child' or 'student' are neuters. If you are going to
criticize me, you had better know what you are talking about.
Then, in regard to your further comment:
>It calls attention to itself. Under no circumstances is it
the
normal >way to express the concept he wishes to see expressed.
The
simplest >way for the concept to be expressed would be:
>
> Ï€Ïιν Î`βÏααμ γενεσθαι
εγω εγενομην
>
> PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EGENOMHN
>
> "Before Abraham came into existence, I came into
existence..."
You haven't been paying attention. I have never said that I
understand or "wish" the verse to express this. All
along I have been
explaining the verb, as the grammars do, as a PPA. A PPA is not a
past tense; Jesus is not saying something about what WAS, but
what has
been and continues to be. He is talking about his ongoing
existence,
not his origin. It is Rob who has contended that the PRIN clause
makes the verbal action restricted to the time antecedent to
Abraham's
birth, not me. Your confusion about my position is similar to
that
found throughout your review of my book.
Jason B.
------------------------------------------
I had written:
> > If you think it is crucial that the temporal clause be
read "before
> > Abraham" rather than "since" or "since
before Abraham," think
> through
> > what this means for the tense of the main verb in
English. Can you
> > compose a legitimate English sentence in which we have
a "before"
> > clause referring to the past and a main verb in the
present tense?
> > Try it, and see what you come up with.
You replied:
> I can't, and I haven't been convinced that I can in Greek
using this
> type of construction either, and that IS the point. Because
I'm not
> convinced you can in Greek, it makes the sentence unusual,
it
> justifies the unusual English and I'm not convinced it
contains the
> temporal PPA marker.
Well, it IS the point, but not exactly in the way you think. The
Greek present form of the verb does not exactly line up in usage
with
the English present tense form. There are uses of the Greek
present
form that correspond to English past, imperfect, or progressive
tense
forms. The Greek use of the present we have been calling the PPA
is
one of these. So the point is that you are right, even in Greek
you
cannot have a present action precede a past action; the sense has
to
shift to the progressive, even though the verb form remains the
same.
I had written:
> > The traditional translation utterly fails to
> > convey anything of the proposed double entendre here.
You responded:
> If you admit there may be double entendre, then it is enough
for the
> English to cover one meaning, since as you say covering both
is
> usually impossible.
Right, but the traditional translation fails to cover EITHER of
the
two possible elements of the supposed double entendre: "I
have existed
since before . . ." and "I am he." "I am"
conveys neither of these
meanings.
I had written:
> > We should also
> > be clear that the pun in John 3:3 only works in Greek.
Jesus could
> > not have made such a pun in his own language. This is a
cautionary
> > note for those who try to read too much into the Greek.
You responded:
> I don't know about the one in John 3:3, but I suspect the
one in
> John 3:8 might possibly work in Hebrew and Latin, since the
word for
> spirit has the double meaning in all three languages.
You are certainly right about that one.
> And I don't know that you can rule out the possibility that
in a
> large group of Jews, some of them may have been Greek
speakers, and
> Jesus may have responded in kind. It's conceivable that the
Jew who
> happened to call out "You are not yet fifty years old,
and have You
> seen Abraham?", may have done so in Greek. We just don't
know. But
> anyway, I suspect Hebrew may be comparable on this point, I
can't
> remember if that came up in the debate.
But surely you see this is just special pleading. We have no
reason
to think Jesus ever spoke Greek. Even the traditional stories
about
how the Gospels were written acknowledge that a change of
language
from the original speech of the disciples was involved (e.g.,
Mark as
Peter's interpreter). But the Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) is not
comparable in this example and the pun could not be formulated in
that
language.
Finally, you provided quotes from Ignatius and Irenaeus, in which
John
8:58 is quoted according to the traditional translation. Well,
you
see, these are English translations that render the exact same
original phrasing of the Greek of the verse according to the
established traditional English translation of the verse. This
provides no independent check on the meaning, and their
respective
comments on the significance of the verse do not depend on "I
am" as
opposed to "I have been." Remember that I have never
said that an
orthodox Christology is ruled out by an accurate rendering of
this
verse. (By the way, Ignatius to the Tarsians is a very late
forgery).
Jason B.
------------------------------------------
You wrote:
> You posed the question to me about whether I could come up
with a
> normal English sentence along the lines of "before... I
am....", and I
> agreed that normally one wouldn't find that.
>
> But then I posed the question, whether you could find that
in Greek
> normally. I don't think you can.
>
> If someone were to say in English, "since before you
were born, I am
> the president", it would not be strictly correct, but
we would
> understand the point. The "since" would clue us in
to that he is using
> the present tense to say he is president from before that
time and is
> still president. In Greek this would be a valid PPA.
>
> But I'm not seeing the evidence that "before you were
born, I am
> president" would ever be valid Greek. As far as I see,
it is just as
> non-sensical in Greek as in English. If it is so normal,
surely
> someone can come up with another example.
Well, yes, it would be nonsensical in Greek, too. That's what I'm
saying. And what we know about the Greek present tense is that it
is
not "I am" in the kind of construction we are dealing
with; its
semantic tense shifts, even though the present form is retained.
So
in that sense it is "normal" to write it with the
present tense form,
even though it does not have a simple present tense meaning,
because
the Greek present tense covers more aspects than the English
present
tense, and the Greek present form is used for what in English is
expressed with a progressive form.
> You and Rob have argued back and forth over what constitutes
a
> temporal marker, but I haven't seen anything that I can
personally
> relate to, that would convince me that there is a temporal
marker here?
By temporal marker I mean the clause "(since) before Abraham
was
born," which is an adverbial clause modifying the main verb.
It
provides a fixed time in the past to which the main verb is
coordinated; in other words, the action or state of the main verb
is
relative in time to that marker.
Jason B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
> Yes sure, but if it is so obvious to a Greek speaker that
the tense
> is PPA, one should be able to come up with hundreds of
examples that
> say "before X, <present tense verb>" with no
other adornment or
> clues. It's a simple construction, if it contains the clue,
where
> are the other examples?
Several other examples were discussed in the debate. But the task
of
identifying other examples in the literature is a difficult and
tedious process, if you think about what it involves. There is no
easy way to do such a search. A chore for my retirement, perhaps.
> As far as I know, nobody has any clue what Jesus spoke,
other than
> when he appeared to Paul on the damascus road. So for you to
base an
> argument on what language he must have been speaking is
special
> pleading. We do know there were many Jewish Greek speakers,
we do
> know that Pilate found it necessary to put his sign on the
cross in
> Greek too. I've never seen any hard evidence of what the
ratio of
> Greek to Hebrew/Aramaic usage may have been.
We know he spoke Aramaic because there are occasions when the
gospel
writers preserve his original words. Anyway, you are really
swimming
upstream on this one.
> If, as is contended, that there is some reflection of the
"I am"
> sayings of Isaiah, I don't see why this double entendre
would not
> extend to Hebrew.
There are no "I am" saying in Isaiah. There are "I
am he" sayings.
> I did not claim that they did. The point is the overall
context.
> Ignatius seems to be saying that Jesus must be "God the
word"
> because of all the verses he quotes. Irenaeus is saying that
Jesus
> must be perfect from the beginning because "before
Abraham was born,
> I am". If all "I am" signifies is merely pre-existence,
it doesn't
> seem to seem to support the author's propositions.
Of course it does. They are writing against people who thought
Jesus
was a mere human. John 8:58 is a key passage that demonstrates
the
claim that he is superhuman. You read these texts with 21st
century
eyes, but the context in which they were written had different
concerns. Nowhere do these writers say that Jesus is using "I
am" as
a name or title; they simply say that his claim to have existed
"from
the beginning" and "before Abraham was born" shows
that he is no mere
mortal, and supports the writers' theology which, by the way, was
far
from contemporary Trinitarianism.
> >(By the way, Ignatius to the Tarsians is a very late
forgery).
>
> But it is by an early Greek speaker. When would you contend
that the
> false understanding came about? Do you admit that the Greeks
> themselves have the same understanding, and if so how would
you
> account for it?
I have not been able to pin down when this interpretation was
first
introduced. I suspect that it first developed in Latin, and was
read
back into the Greek afterward.
Jason B.
...................................
You need to actually do some reading in this material before you
assume that Chrysostom and other exegetes of the time would only
argue very reasonably and in accord with our standards of sound
argument. In fact, they concocted all kinds of outlandish
interpretations, built a lot on puns, on claims about how nature
works which we now know to be wrong, etc. And, in fact,
Chrysostom
here is not saying what several of the folks on this site have
been
assuming. He is certainly not saying that there is anything
ungrammatical or odd about the wording of John 8:58. He is only
drawing an interpretive conclusion from the fact that Jesus
employs
an expression that involves ongoing existence, in contrast to the
reference to Abraham confined to the past, and he sees
significance
in this in comparison to language used of God emphasizing ever-
present existence as a defining quality. This is interpretation
and
can be defended as such; but it should not be foisted on the
innocent reader as a literal rendering of the words of the Bible.
Chrysostom is only the beginning of an interpretive tradition,
and
does not help us at all in arguments about translation since,
writing in Greek himself, he does not address how it would most
accurately rendered into English (a point apparently missed
entirely
by some of the self-professed 'experts' on this site). As I said
in
my book and on this site, one CAN use John 8:58 in building a
Christology in line with Chrysostom and the Christian mainstream,
and one CAN draw associations between Jesus' ongoing existence in
John 8:58 and language used of God in the Old Testament. This is
part of the spectrum of interpretation that legitimately builds
on
biblical foundations. But one cannot impose one of those
interpretations back on the Bible and one certainly cannot read
the
awkwardness of the traditional English translation back into the
Greek, or cite any number of Greek writers, whatever their
interpretation of the verse, when they merely quote the Greek in
the
same form as it is found in John 8:58, as supporting the
traditional
English translation. That is utterly circular and anachronistic
and, may I say, more than a little clownish.
best wishes,
Jason B.
John 8.58 index
Main Index