Host: "You can't get a past tense out of EGO EIMI". The present tense in Greek can function in a way that is best reflected by the present perfect in English. Grammarian Kenneth McKay describes this idiomatic use of the verb as the "Extension from Past" present, which occurs when a present tense verb is "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications." [1]. He understands EIMI at John 8:58 as an example of this idiom, and offers this excellent translation: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born." McKay’s understanding of the Greek isn’t new, and sometimes when translators have broken away from committees and the unavoidable pressures such bodies sometimes exert out of allegiance to Church tradition, then they’ve offered renderings that attempt to capture the idiom. Note a few examples: “I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Edgar J. Goodspeed “I have existed before Abraham was born.” ~ James Moffatt “I am here - and I was before Abraham!” ~ Catholic James A. Kleist, S.J. (In the footnote he claims that the utterance intimates eternity, but that’s not a necessary implication of the Greek). “I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Charles B. Williams, whose translation was called “…the best translation of the New Testament in English,” in part because it surpassed “…all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs” (J. R. Mantey, comments on dust jacket). “before Abraham came into existence, I existed.” ~ The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, by Louw and Nida, All of these are fine attempts to capture the sense of the Greek, yet only McKay’s rendering truly does it justice, as only his rendering “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as George Benedict Winer put it [2], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Nigel Turner put it [3]. Footnotes: [1] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41 [2] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267 [3] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
@reddapologetics Hey James, I wanted to publicly apologize and make a correction on something I said today that was inaccurate. I mentioned you said in a past video that the LXX or Greek Septuagint is not always that accurate in its translation. It dawned on me it wasn’t you but someone else on your channel I was talking with on Proverbs 8:22 that the Greek Septuagint said create or made which he disagreed with. It was on your channel but realized it was not you. Again my sincerest apologies and if we ever talk again publicly I will also make this apology to you and those listening. It was unintentional. Please accept it. Sincerely, Nick 🤙🏼
@@NickHawaii No worries, Nick! All good! I appreciate your honesty and willingness to apologize. I know you weren't trying to misrepresent me. Totally understandable!
@ Thanks for accepting my sincere apology. Promise on a stack of bibles it was a mistake. Never would want to misrepresent anything you said. I had this on Knieshia’s channel too so anyone who watched the vid would know you never personally told me that. 😃🤙🏼
Regarding Exodus 3:14, Professor S.R. Driver, no little Hebrew scholar, wrote: “it denotes, in Delitzsch’s words, not the idea of inactive, abstract existence, but the active manifestation of existence. Secondly, the imperfect tense used expresses not a fixed, present state (‘I am), but action, either reiterated (habitual) or future, i.e. either I am won’t to be or I will be.” Quote from The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), 1918, Camb. UP, 40.
Good point! In its commentary to Exodus 3:14, the JPS Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Edition states: "God's proper name disclosed in the next verse is YHVH (spelled yod-heh-vav-heh. In Heb., in ancient times, the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning; ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, probably best translated as "I will be what I will be" meaning: "My nature will become evident from my actions."
Host: (Paraphrasing) "Jehovah's Witnesses tend to lean into the roles and forget the natures." Right, which is the biblical approach. As the late Larry Hurtado rightly pointed out before he died: "So, how can we say that 'ontological' categories don’t appear to be operative in earliest Christological texts? Negatively, there is the absence of the sort of philosophical terms that make their appearance in subsequent Christian texts. Positively, the Christological statements that we do have in NT texts seem to me to express claims more of a relational and transactional nature." (See his blog comment on September 26, 2016 entitled "Chronology and Ontology").
The Biblical approach to describing Jesus is to articulate both His nature and His roles. Even Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the Bible has much to say about the nature of Jesus. We just disagree on what that nature is. My point is that there's an emphasis on roles that overtakes the emphasis that the Bible also gives to His divine nature. So we end up with conversations about how a verse can't be saying that Jesus is God because Jesus says that the Father is greater than Him. We have to embrace the Biblical teaching on both the nature and the roles of Christ.
@@reddapologetics As the late Larry Hurtado pointed out, the biblical language is primarily relational and transactional, not ontological. The obsession with ontology came later, when the Jewish texts came to be interpreted by non-Jews from a later time and very different social-cultural 'place.'
There are a number of problems with the claim that "I Am" is God's name, based on Ex. 3:14. Firstly, the Hebrew at Ex. 3 has ehyeh, and a friend of mine took the time to look up every instance he could find of ehyeh with the pronoun, and the inescapable conclusion is that “I AM” is not a good translation. Notice that Ex. 3:14 is sandwiched between Ex. 3:12 and 4:12, and in both of the other texts it is rendered “I will be” not “I AM.” Moreover, it is rendered “I will be” or “I should be” or “I shall be” or “I would be” in the majority of such texts in which it appears (Ex. 3:12; 4:12; 4:15; Duet. 31:23; Jos. 1:5; 3:7; jdg. 6:16; 11:9; 1 Sa. 18:18; 23:17; 2Sa. 7:14; 15:34; 16:18; 16:19; Isa. 3:7; 47:7; Jer. 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 32:38; Ez. 11:20; 14:11; 34:24; 36:28; 37:23; Hos. 1:9; Zec. 8:8; etc.). It seems that Trinitarian translators mistranslate ehyeh at Ex. 3:14, perhaps because they want to establish a connection between Jn. 8:58 and Ex. 3:14, where no such connection seems to exist. Secondly, even in the LXX, which has the present tense “I am,” it doesn’t say “I am that I am” but rather “I am the being” or “I am the one who is.” The LXX reads: και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας Notice the words εγω ειμι ο ων, which mean “I am the being” or “I am the one who is,” and not “I am that I am.” Also notice the words, ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας, which mean “the being has sent me to you” or “the one who is has sent me to you,” and not “I AM has sent me to you.” Brenton’s translation of the text in the LXX reads: “And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.” The New English Translation of the text in the LXX reads: “And God said to Moyses, ‘I am The One Who Is.’ And he said, ‘The One Who Is’ has sent me to you.” If Jesus wanted to claim to be the God who spoke to Moses at Ex. 3 and had the LXX in mind, he probably would have said something like this: αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι ο ων = Abraham came to be, I am the being (or Abraham came to be, I am the one who is) Instead, he said this: πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι Thirdly, as it stands, the Greek we find at John 8:58 fits a known Greek idiom that grammarian Kenneth McKay calls the “Extension from Past,” which occurs when a present test verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42 McKay offers this excellent rendering of Jesus’ words at John 8:58: “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.” If we accept McKay’s observation that verse 58 is an example of the Extension from Past idiom (and I see no reason why we shouldn’t), then Jesus’ response (a) makes perfect sense, (b) constitutes a contextually-appropriate response in light of the question posed, and (c) would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue. Notice how the pieces fall in place under McKay’s view: Verse 56 - Jesus: “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” Verse 57 - Opponents: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?” Verse 58 - Jesus: “The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!” Jesus’ opponents inferred from his statement in verse 56 that Jesus had personally observed (firsthand) Abraham rejoice over seeing his day. Jesus’ opponents construed his stupendous claim to be a blasphemous lie, which is why they picked up stones to stone him. Jesus presented himself as God’s living, breathing power of attorney, and to utter a lie while fulfilling his commission as God’s agent would make God a liar. Why? Because as God’s agent, his words were God’s words, legally. Now that would be construed as blasphemous, especially by those who already sought his death!
Hello! Thanks for the comment! None of what you're saying changes the fact that Jesus responded to the Jew's question about His age with, "before Abraham was born (past tense completed action), ego eimi" (present tense). It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point. That is how John describes the logos in John 1:1. So I see no reason to assume that the "ego eimi" in John 8:58 should function as an "extension from the past". And while I recognize that the LXX isn't explicitly saying "I am who I am", "ego eimi" is still how the LXX identifies God as He speaks in Exodus 3:14. And “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be” are proper ways to translate the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. "Ehyeh" is in the imperfect tense which means it can refer to incomplete, ongoing, or repeated action. To reference one of the verses you included in your list, Deu 31:23 renders "Ehyeh" as "I will be". So there's no reason to assume that "I will be" is not a proper translation of "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14. So it makes sense that Jesus, in using such a grammatically odd phrase, is referencing Exodus 3:14 as He spoke to the Jews. I'll also add that Jesus' use of "ego eimi" was clearly a pattern in John that was meant to create emphasis around His identity. Why should we assume that John 8:58 was not a continuation of that pattern? God bless!
@@reddapologetics Hi Redd, you said: "It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point." It seems that way to you because you're a modern English-speaking person, and in English we don't typically use the present tense the way it could be used in Koine Greek. However, as grammarians such as Kenneth L. McKay, George Benedict Winer, and Nigel Turner have pointed out, in Greek a present tense verb could be used in contexts in which it “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as Winer put it [1], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Turner put it [2]. Both Winer and Turner list John 8:58 as an example of this usage. As McKay pointed out, present tense verbs that fit this idiom appear in contexts in which they are "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications," just as we have at John 8:58 [3]. Interestingly, McKay doesn't just list John 8:58 as an example of this usage, but he offers a superlative rendering as well: "I have been in existence since before Abraham was born." In other words, we need to keep in mind that ancient Koine grammar isn't modern English grammar, yet the translation process involves conveying the Greek in good English. The meaning that Winer and Turner describe is best expressed in English with the present perfect "I have been." Renderings such as "I am," "I existed," or "I was" only capture a piece of the verbal meaning, but not the entire verbal meaning, while the present perfect captures it all. Here's how Google AI described the present perfect: "The 'present perfect' is a verb tense in English that describes an action that started in the past and continues to have relevance in the present, often indicating an experience up to the current moment." Sound familiar? That essentially reiterates exactly what both Winer and Turner described with respect to EIMI at John 8:58. Footnotes: [1] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267 [2] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62 [3] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41
They never asked if he was God. They asked if he was the son of God or the messiah. He said before Abraham was I am. He is not using the devine name. In Hebrew, the saying son of man means a man around 50 considered to be wise enough to be a son of man. It's a term meaning to act like a grown man. It's really simple to understand. If jesus was saying he is God, he would have said it an obvious way.
Yes some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah. Trinitarian scholar William Barclay said this in his popular Daily Study Bible Series: "So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " page 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2 and the footnote for John 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
One thing i found out is that in Aramaic, there isn't a direct way to say i am, so if jesus was speaking Aramaic with the council he would have likely used Greek or Hebrew to substitute I am. As the others would have known either language Greek or Hebrew. And if he did use Aramaic he might have said I-I which isn't a canotation to God. And in Greek if he was saying the tetrgramaton he would likely say ego eimi ho on. Or In Hebrew eyeh asher eyeh. @NickHawaii
“I, Am” or “I, am” is a trinitarian biased mistranslation. It’s past-present tense. It’s speaking of the past right up to the present. Many scholars and translators have recognized this, including Edgar Goodspeed, and have translated John 8:58 as “I have been” or similar. Regardless, the question asked to Jesus was not about identity, it was about existence. How he could not yet be 50 years old and has seen Abraham. Even if Jesus existed before Abraham, that doesn’t necessarily mean he existed as Almighty God.
Are you saying that "ego eimi" is always "past-present tense"? Or is it just because of the context? I would agree that the Jews were asking about age, but Jesus responded with an identity claim that also answered their question of why He was there before Abraham. And His use of "ego eimi" as an identity claim was already a trend in John 8. But you're saying that in verse 58 Jesus switched to only referring to His existence by making this grammatically odd statement which involves a present tense verb now becoming a "past-present tense" verb. I see no reason to look at it that way. Thanks for the comment! God bless!
Well Exodus 3:14 clearly has God telling Moses to refer to Him as "Ehyeh" when speaking to the Sons of Israel. However you want to translate that, it's a name.
"Such a translation [in English] as 'I am what I am' appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. 'I am' is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect..." -J.Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretive Outline, 1977, pp 140-141. "The translation 'I am' [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. .." A. B. Davidson, "The Theology of the Old Testament" in The International Theological Library, 1920, page 55
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Host: "You can't get a past tense out of EGO EIMI". The present tense in Greek can function in a way that is best reflected by the present perfect in English. Grammarian Kenneth McKay describes this idiomatic use of the verb as the "Extension from Past" present, which occurs when a present tense verb is "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications." [1]. He understands EIMI at John 8:58 as an example of this idiom, and offers this excellent translation:
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
McKay’s understanding of the Greek isn’t new, and sometimes when translators have broken away from committees and the unavoidable pressures such bodies sometimes exert out of allegiance to Church tradition, then they’ve offered renderings that attempt to capture the idiom.
Note a few examples:
“I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Edgar J. Goodspeed
“I have existed before Abraham was born.” ~ James Moffatt
“I am here - and I was before Abraham!” ~ Catholic James A. Kleist, S.J. (In the footnote he claims that the utterance intimates eternity, but that’s not a necessary implication of the Greek).
“I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.” ~ Charles B. Williams, whose translation was called “…the best translation of the New Testament in English,” in part because it surpassed “…all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs” (J. R. Mantey, comments on dust jacket).
“before Abraham came into existence, I existed.” ~ The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, by Louw and Nida,
All of these are fine attempts to capture the sense of the Greek, yet only McKay’s rendering truly does it justice, as only his rendering “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as George Benedict Winer put it [2], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Nigel Turner put it [3].
Footnotes:
[1] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41
[2] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267
[3] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
Thanks again for having me on James! Really enjoy our time together.
Likewise, Nick! I enjoy the conversation greatly. :)
@reddapologetics
Hey James, I wanted to publicly apologize and make a correction on something I said today that was inaccurate. I mentioned you said in a past video that the LXX or Greek Septuagint is not always that accurate in its translation. It dawned on me it wasn’t you but someone else on your channel I was talking with on Proverbs 8:22 that the Greek Septuagint said create or made which he disagreed with. It was on your channel but realized it was not you. Again my sincerest apologies and if we ever talk again publicly I will also make this apology to you and those listening. It was unintentional. Please accept it.
Sincerely,
Nick 🤙🏼
@@NickHawaii No worries, Nick! All good! I appreciate your honesty and willingness to apologize. I know you weren't trying to misrepresent me. Totally understandable!
@ Thanks for accepting my sincere apology. Promise on a stack of bibles it was a mistake. Never would want to misrepresent anything you said. I had this on Knieshia’s channel too so anyone who watched the vid would know you never personally told me that. 😃🤙🏼
Regarding Exodus 3:14, Professor S.R. Driver, no little Hebrew scholar, wrote:
“it denotes, in Delitzsch’s words, not the idea of inactive, abstract existence, but the active manifestation of existence. Secondly, the imperfect tense used expresses not a fixed, present state (‘I am), but action, either reiterated (habitual) or future, i.e. either I am won’t to be or I will be.”
Quote from The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges), 1918, Camb. UP, 40.
Good point!
In its commentary to Exodus 3:14, the JPS Tanakh, Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Edition states:
"God's proper name disclosed in the next verse is YHVH (spelled yod-heh-vav-heh. In Heb., in ancient times, the "vav" was pronounced "w"). But here God first tells Moses its meaning; ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, probably best translated as "I will be what I will be" meaning: "My nature will become evident from my actions."
Host: (Paraphrasing) "Jehovah's Witnesses tend to lean into the roles and forget the natures." Right, which is the biblical approach. As the late Larry Hurtado rightly pointed out before he died:
"So, how can we say that 'ontological' categories don’t appear to be operative in earliest Christological texts? Negatively, there is the absence of the sort of philosophical terms that make their appearance in subsequent Christian texts. Positively, the Christological statements that we do have in NT texts seem to me to express claims more of a relational and transactional nature." (See his blog comment on September 26, 2016 entitled "Chronology and Ontology").
The Biblical approach to describing Jesus is to articulate both His nature and His roles. Even Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that the Bible has much to say about the nature of Jesus. We just disagree on what that nature is.
My point is that there's an emphasis on roles that overtakes the emphasis that the Bible also gives to His divine nature. So we end up with conversations about how a verse can't be saying that Jesus is God because Jesus says that the Father is greater than Him. We have to embrace the Biblical teaching on both the nature and the roles of Christ.
@@reddapologetics As the late Larry Hurtado pointed out, the biblical language is primarily relational and transactional, not ontological. The obsession with ontology came later, when the Jewish texts came to be interpreted by non-Jews from a later time and very different social-cultural 'place.'
Here to watch your awesome video brother!!!
Haha awesome! You may notice that you make an appearance. :)
@reddapologetics so I see 😏 hahah good working with you again brother
@TeachYHWH Likewise! Always a pleasure. :)
@TeachYHWH Thanks to you too Knieshia! Had a great time. 🤙🏼
@NickHawaii it was great!!!
There are a number of problems with the claim that "I Am" is God's name, based on Ex. 3:14.
Firstly, the Hebrew at Ex. 3 has ehyeh, and a friend of mine took the time to look up every instance he could find of ehyeh with the pronoun, and the inescapable conclusion is that “I AM” is not a good translation. Notice that Ex. 3:14 is sandwiched between Ex. 3:12 and 4:12, and in both of the other texts it is rendered “I will be” not “I AM.” Moreover, it is rendered “I will be” or “I should be” or “I shall be” or “I would be” in the majority of such texts in which it appears (Ex. 3:12; 4:12; 4:15; Duet. 31:23; Jos. 1:5; 3:7; jdg. 6:16; 11:9; 1 Sa. 18:18; 23:17; 2Sa. 7:14; 15:34; 16:18; 16:19; Isa. 3:7; 47:7; Jer. 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1; 32:38; Ez. 11:20; 14:11; 34:24; 36:28; 37:23; Hos. 1:9; Zec. 8:8; etc.).
It seems that Trinitarian translators mistranslate ehyeh at Ex. 3:14, perhaps because they want to establish a connection between Jn. 8:58 and Ex. 3:14, where no such connection seems to exist.
Secondly, even in the LXX, which has the present tense “I am,” it doesn’t say “I am that I am” but rather “I am the being” or “I am the one who is.”
The LXX reads:
και ειπεν ο θεος προς μωυσην εγω ειμι ο ων και ειπεν ουτως ερεις τοις υιοις ισραηλ ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας
Notice the words εγω ειμι ο ων, which mean “I am the being” or “I am the one who is,” and not “I am that I am.” Also notice the words, ο ων απεσταλκεν με προς υμας, which mean “the being has sent me to you” or “the one who is has sent me to you,” and not “I AM has sent me to you.”
Brenton’s translation of the text in the LXX reads:
“And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.”
The New English Translation of the text in the LXX reads:
“And God said to Moyses, ‘I am The One Who Is.’ And he said, ‘The One Who Is’ has sent me to you.”
If Jesus wanted to claim to be the God who spoke to Moses at Ex. 3 and had the LXX in mind, he probably would have said something like this:
αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι ο ων = Abraham came to be, I am the being (or Abraham came to be, I am the one who is)
Instead, he said this:
πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι
Thirdly, as it stands, the Greek we find at John 8:58 fits a known Greek idiom that grammarian Kenneth McKay calls the “Extension from Past,” which occurs when a present test verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42
McKay offers this excellent rendering of Jesus’ words at John 8:58:
“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”
If we accept McKay’s observation that verse 58 is an example of the Extension from Past idiom (and I see no reason why we shouldn’t), then Jesus’ response (a) makes perfect sense, (b) constitutes a contextually-appropriate response in light of the question posed, and (c) would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue.
Notice how the pieces fall in place under McKay’s view:
Verse 56 - Jesus: “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
Verse 57 - Opponents: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?”
Verse 58 - Jesus: “The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”
Jesus’ opponents inferred from his statement in verse 56 that Jesus had personally observed (firsthand) Abraham rejoice over seeing his day. Jesus’ opponents construed his stupendous claim to be a blasphemous lie, which is why they picked up stones to stone him. Jesus presented himself as God’s living, breathing power of attorney, and to utter a lie while fulfilling his commission as God’s agent would make God a liar. Why? Because as God’s agent, his words were God’s words, legally. Now that would be construed as blasphemous, especially by those who already sought his death!
Hello! Thanks for the comment!
None of what you're saying changes the fact that Jesus responded to the Jew's question about His age with, "before Abraham was born (past tense completed action), ego eimi" (present tense). It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point. That is how John describes the logos in John 1:1. So I see no reason to assume that the "ego eimi" in John 8:58 should function as an "extension from the past".
And while I recognize that the LXX isn't explicitly saying "I am who I am", "ego eimi" is still how the LXX identifies God as He speaks in Exodus 3:14. And “I am who I am” or “I will be who I will be” are proper ways to translate the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. "Ehyeh" is in the imperfect tense which means it can refer to incomplete, ongoing, or repeated action. To reference one of the verses you included in your list, Deu 31:23 renders "Ehyeh" as "I will be". So there's no reason to assume that "I will be" is not a proper translation of "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14.
So it makes sense that Jesus, in using such a grammatically odd phrase, is referencing Exodus 3:14 as He spoke to the Jews. I'll also add that Jesus' use of "ego eimi" was clearly a pattern in John that was meant to create emphasis around His identity. Why should we assume that John 8:58 was not a continuation of that pattern?
God bless!
@@reddapologetics Hi Redd, you said: "It seems to me that John could have used the imperfect tense to articulate Jesus existing in the past if that was the point."
It seems that way to you because you're a modern English-speaking person, and in English we don't typically use the present tense the way it could be used in Koine Greek. However, as grammarians such as Kenneth L. McKay, George Benedict Winer, and Nigel Turner have pointed out, in Greek a present tense verb could be used in contexts in which it “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…,” as Winer put it [1], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…,” as Turner put it [2]. Both Winer and Turner list John 8:58 as an example of this usage. As McKay pointed out, present tense verbs that fit this idiom appear in contexts in which they are "used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications," just as we have at John 8:58 [3].
Interestingly, McKay doesn't just list John 8:58 as an example of this usage, but he offers a superlative rendering as well:
"I have been in existence since before Abraham was born."
In other words, we need to keep in mind that ancient Koine grammar isn't modern English grammar, yet the translation process involves conveying the Greek in good English. The meaning that Winer and Turner describe is best expressed in English with the present perfect "I have been." Renderings such as "I am," "I existed," or "I was" only capture a piece of the verbal meaning, but not the entire verbal meaning, while the present perfect captures it all.
Here's how Google AI described the present perfect:
"The 'present perfect' is a verb tense in English that describes an action that started in the past and continues to have relevance in the present, often indicating an experience up to the current moment."
Sound familiar? That essentially reiterates exactly what both Winer and Turner described with respect to EIMI at John 8:58.
Footnotes:
[1] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267
[2] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
[3] A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, p. 41
They never asked if he was God. They asked if he was the son of God or the messiah.
He said before Abraham was I am.
He is not using the devine name.
In Hebrew, the saying son of man means a man around 50 considered to be wise enough to be a son of man. It's a term meaning to act like a grown man.
It's really simple to understand.
If jesus was saying he is God, he would have said it an obvious way.
Yes some trinitarian scholars have admitted that they believe that Jesus' statements at John 8:56 and 8:58 are statements proclaiming himself to be the Messiah.
Trinitarian scholar William Barclay said this in his popular Daily Study Bible Series:
"So when Jesus said that Abraham had seen his day, he was making a deliberate claim that he was the Messiah. He was really saying 'I am the Messiah Abraham saw in his vision.' " page 35, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2 and the footnote for John 8:56 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
One thing i found out is that in Aramaic, there isn't a direct way to say i am, so if jesus was speaking Aramaic with the council he would have likely used Greek or Hebrew to substitute I am. As the others would have known either language Greek or Hebrew.
And if he did use Aramaic he might have said I-I which isn't a canotation to God.
And in Greek if he was saying the tetrgramaton he would likely say ego eimi ho on. Or In Hebrew eyeh asher eyeh.
@NickHawaii
“I, Am” or “I, am” is a trinitarian biased mistranslation.
It’s past-present tense.
It’s speaking of the past right up to the present.
Many scholars and translators have recognized this, including Edgar Goodspeed, and have translated John 8:58 as “I have been” or similar.
Regardless, the question asked to Jesus was not about identity, it was about existence.
How he could not yet be 50 years old and has seen Abraham.
Even if Jesus existed before Abraham, that doesn’t necessarily mean he existed as Almighty God.
Are you saying that "ego eimi" is always "past-present tense"? Or is it just because of the context?
I would agree that the Jews were asking about age, but Jesus responded with an identity claim that also answered their question of why He was there before Abraham. And His use of "ego eimi" as an identity claim was already a trend in John 8. But you're saying that in verse 58 Jesus switched to only referring to His existence by making this grammatically odd statement which involves a present tense verb now becoming a "past-present tense" verb. I see no reason to look at it that way.
Thanks for the comment! God bless!
“I, Am” is not a name.
Certainly not God’s name.
God told us his name in Ex 3:15 and it’s YeHoVaH or JeHoVaH in English.
Well Exodus 3:14 clearly has God telling Moses to refer to Him as "Ehyeh" when speaking to the Sons of Israel. However you want to translate that, it's a name.
"Such a translation [in English] as 'I am what I am' appears to be ruled out completely by the fact that the verbs [in Hebrew] here are imperfects. 'I am' is the normal translation of the Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect..." -J.Wash Watt, Professor of Old Testament, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1930-1968, A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretive Outline, 1977, pp 140-141.
"The translation 'I am' [in English] is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong, because am [in such an incorrect translation] is used in the sense of essential existence. .." A. B. Davidson, "The Theology of the Old Testament" in The International Theological Library, 1920, page 55