John 8:58

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.
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen here are Robertson’s comments on infinitives with verbs:

f) The Infinitive with Verbs. This usage came to be, of course, the most frequent of all. It started as a dative or locative, then a sort of accusative of reference,2 then the object of verbs with whatever case the verb used. It is both anarthrous and articular. It is not necessary to go over again (see Cases of the Inf.) the varied uses the inf. with verbs, whether the object of verbs of saying or thinking in indirect discourse, verbs of commanding or promising, direct object of verbs (auxiliary inf.), verbs of hindering,3 etc. As a matter of fact they are all object-infs. whatever the case (acc., gen., abl., dat., instr.). Votaw4 notes that in the N. T. this use of the inf. is four times as common as any other. It is usually the anarthrous inf., but not always. Even δύναμαι and ἄρχομαι (not N. T.) are used with τοῦ and the inf. Jannaris5 has made a careful list of the verbs that continued for a while in late breek to use the inf. against the inroads of ἵνα. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 150) argues that in general the N. T. use of the inf. With verbs is like that of the κοινή. The inf. λαλῆσαι with ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα (1 Th. 2:2) is not a Hebraism, but a Hellenism. But surely it is not necessary to call this usage an Atticism. In the discussion of ἵνα (see pp. 430, 994) the displacement of the inf. by ἵνα even after verbs like θέλω was sufficiently treated. Schmid6 “shows how this ‘Infinitivsurrogat’ made its way from Aristotle onwards.”7 In the N. T. it is chiefly in the Gospel of John that we find this use of ἵνα. “The strong volitive flavour which clung to ἵνα would perhaps commend it to a writer of John’s temperament.”8 But after all, the inf. with verbs has not quite disappeared from John’s Gospel. Jannaris9 has worked out the situation in John’s Gospel as between this use of the inf. and ἵνα. [Page 1078] He finds ἵνα, about 125 times and the inf. with verbs about 129 times. Of these 57 belong to δύναμαι (37) and θέλω (20). There are besides, 10 with δεῖ and 12 each with ζητέω and with μέλλω. The rest are scattered with δίδωμι, ἔχω, ὀφείλω, δοκέω, ἀφίημι, αἰτέω, ἐρωτάω, ἄρχομαι, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the inf. with verbs is by no means dead in the N. T., though the shadow of ἵνα is across its path. As illustrations of the great wealth of verbs with the inf. in the N. T. note (Mt. 11:20) ἤρξατο ὀνειδίζειν, (27:58) ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδιοθῆναι, (Mk. 12:12) ἐζήτουν κρατῆσαι, (Lu. 16:3) σκάπτειν οὐκ ἰσχύω, ἐπαιτεῖν αἰσχύνομαι. Almost any verb that can be used with a substantive can be used with the inf. The use of the inf. with προστίθεμαι is a Hebraism. Cf. Ex. 14:13. See Lu. 20:11f., προσέθετο πέμψαι. It means ‘to go on and do’ or ‘do again.’ It is the one Hebraism that Thumb1 finds in Josephus, who is Atticistic. The articular inf. with verbs is much less frequent. But note τὸ ἀγαπᾶν after ὀφείλω (Ro. 13:8); παραιτοῦμαι τὸ ἀποθανεῖν, (Ac. 25:11); τοῦ περιπατεῖν after ποιέω (Ac. 3:12); ἐπιστεῖλαι τοῦ ἀπέχεσθαι (15:20); κατεῖχον τοῦ μὴ πορεύεσθαι, (Lu. 4:42). In 1 Ki. 13:16 we have τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι with δύναμαι. These are just a few specimens. See Cases of the Inf.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen,

Here’s a fine definition of what the absolute construction is:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_construction

In linguistics, an absolute construction is a grammatical construction standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements. It can be a non-finite clause that is subordinate in form and modifies an entire sentence, an adjective or possessive pronoun standing alone without a modified substantive, or a transitive verb when its object is implied but not stated.[1][2][3][4] The term absolute derives from Latin absolūtum, meaning "loosened from" or "separated".[5]
Because the non-finite clause, called the absolute clause (or simply the absolute), is not semantically attached to any single element in the sentence, it is easily confused with a dangling participle.[4] The difference is that the participial phrase of a dangling participle is intended to modify a particular noun, but is instead erroneously attached to a different noun, whereas a participial phrase serving as an absolute clause is not intended to modify any noun at all.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen,

Perhaps it will be helpful to quote Wallace on the controlling verb of an infinitive:

596]
3. Subsequent (πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + infinitive) [before . . .]

The action of the infinitive of subsequent time occurs after the action of the controlling verb. Its structure is πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + the infinitive. The construction should be before plus an appropriate finite verb.

There is confusion in some grammars about the proper labels of the temporal infinitives. More than one has mislabeled the subsequent as the antecedent infinitive.22 This confusion comes naturally: If we are calling this use of the infinitive subsequent, why then are we translating it as before? The reason is that this infinitive explicitly tells when the action of the controlling verb takes place, as in “the rabbit was already dead, before he aimed his rifle.” In this sentence, “he aimed” is the infinitive and “was (already dead)” is the main verb. The dying comes before the aiming, or conversely, the aiming comes after the dying. Thus the action of the infinitive occurs after that of the controlling verb.23

Matt 6:8 οἶδεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν

your Father knows what you need before you ask him

Mark 14:30 πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ

before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me thrice

John 1:48 πρὸ τοῦ σε Φίλιππον φωνῆσαι ὄντα ὑπὸ τὴν συκῆν εἶδόν σε
before Philip called you, while you were under the fig tree, I saw you

John 4:49 κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου

come down before my child dies

Cf. also Matt 1:18; Luke 2:21; 22:15; John 8:58; 13:19; 14:29; Acts 2:20; 7:2; 23:15; Gal 2:12; 3:23.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

I should add that I see πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι functioning as an adverbial dependent clause (I’ve been saying subordinate clause which is older terminology…maybe that caused some confusion). Here’s Wallace’s comments:

. Adverbial Clause

In this usage the dependent clause functions like an adverb in that it modifies a verb.

a. Structure

This function of the dependent clause can be expressed by the following structures:

1) Infinitival clause

2) Adverbial Participial clause

3) Conjunctive clause

4) Relative pronoun and relative adverb clause

b. Basic Uses

1) Cause (all four constructions)

a) infinitive (e.g., Jas 4:2)10

b) adverbial participle (e.g., Rom 5:1)11

c) ὅτι + indicative (e.g., Eph 4:25)12

d) relative pronoun οἵτινες (e.g., Rom 6:2)

2) Comparison (conjunctive and relative clauses)

a) καθώς + indicative (e.g., Eph 4:32)13

b) relative adjective ὅσος (e.g., Rom 6:2)14

[p. 663]
3) Concession (all four constructions except infinitive clauses)

a) adverbial participle (e.g., Phil 2:6)15

b) εἰ καί + indicative (e.g., Luke 11:8)16

c) relative pronoun οἵτινες (e.g., Jas 4:13-14)

4) Condition (all four constructions except infinitive clauses)17

a) adverbial participle (e.g., Heb 2:3)
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Eeli,

Carl Conrad picked up on the Parmenidian “dynamic” back in 2012:

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... 7163#p7163

My own take on the present tense of εἷναι in both Jn 8:58 and in LXX Ps 89:2 is that it is the Parmenidean "dynamic" being -- of which Parmenides says that, if you say ἔστι, then you cannot say either ἦν or ἔσται -- this εἶναι has no beginning and no end.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Also, Stephen has pointed to the English need for a word like “since” for πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι to properly be understood as a PPA. But I wonder what word the writer of the fourth gospel could have chosen? Is this possibly reading an English convention into the Greek?

Jason Hare wondered the same thing back in 2012

https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... t=Absolute

Hello, friends.

Of course, I'd like to keep this as theologically neutral as possible, so I would ask that no one reply with their opinion of how the verse applies to their views of the Trinity (though this is, unavoidably, the topic that's being discussed on another forum over this verse).

The phrase is:

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

This is my thinking and then I'll place my question:

Obviously, we have two phrases tied together with a preposition and Ἀβραάμ is the accusative subject of the infinitive of the first phrase that follows the preposition.

πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι - before Abraham was/existed/came into existence

I would assume that εἰμί here is supposed to be understood as we would render the present perfect in English: "I have been." This, since it refers both to the past and to the present together and there is no present perfect forms of εἰμί.

Now, the English sentence "I have been before Abraham was" doesn't sound good to my ears. It feels like bad English. "I have been in Tel Aviv before you were born" is just awful. I would say "I lived in Tel Aviv (or, I was in Tel Aviv many times) before you were born." In either case, I would use the past tense, and I think the same is true in this sentence. I would naturally use the past tense.

The way to create the present perfect from this would be to add the word "since" to the construction: "I have been in Tel Aviv since before you were born" makes perfect sense. Likewise, "I have been (existed) since before Abraham was born" is good English.

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?

(2) Would there be a better way to express this in Greek if it had been intended?

(3) Could the ungrammatical feel of the sentence (I cannot tell if it is as ungrammatical in Greek as it is in English, thought it still looks weird to me) be intentional as a way to pull in a reference from Exodus 3 with the ἐγὼ εἰμί?

Thanks,
Jason
Scott Lawson
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 7:40 pm Here’s a fine definition of what the absolute construction is:
And it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 7:32 pm Stephen here are Robertson’s comments on infinitives with verbs:
Nice, but irrelevant. He's talking about infinitive complements of certain verbs, which is not at issue in John 8:58.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 7:44 pm Stephen,

Perhaps it will be helpful to quote Wallace on the controlling verb of an infinitive:

596]
3. Subsequent (πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + infinitive) [before . . .]

The action of the infinitive of subsequent time occurs after the action of the controlling verb. Its structure is πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + the infinitive. The construction should be before plus an appropriate finite verb.
Usually, yes. Except that, here, Abraham's coming to be isn't after the present. Nothing in Wallace's treatment tells you how to resolve this clash.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Stephen,

Perhaps you can explain your 2012 comments below:

(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.”



‪Scott Lawson wrote: ↑‬
‪Here’s a fine definition of what the absolute construction is:‬
‪Stephen you said:‬

‪“And it has nothing to do with what you're talking about.”‬

See again the description of an absolute and tell me what syntactic connection there is between εγω ειμι and πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι. You seem to see εγω ειμι as harkening back to Exod 3:14 and God’s name. If that’s the case then I say again that J8:58 would mean something like, before Abraham came to be - the Eternal. In that sentence there is a clear disjunct between the adverbial dependent clause and εγω ειμι as a name.


In linguistics, an absolute construction is a grammatical construction standing apart from a normal or usual syntactical relation with other words or sentence elements.

Stephen please explain why my view that there is no syntactic connection between the dependent clause and εγω ειμι as a name as you suggest?



Do you deny that πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is an adverbial dependent clause? If it is so identified then what verb is it modifying?

‪Scott Lawson wrote: ↑‬
‪Stephen,‬

‪Perhaps it will be helpful to quote Wallace on the controlling verb of an infinitive:‬

‪596]‬
‪3. Subsequent (πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + infinitive) [before . . .] ‬

‪The action of the infinitive of subsequent time occurs after the action of the controlling verb. Its structure is πρὸ τοῦ, πρίν, or πρὶν ἤ + the infinitive. The construction should be before plus an appropriate finite verb.‬

‪Usually, yes. Except that, here, Abraham's coming to be isn't after the present. Nothing in Wallace's treatment tells you how to resolve this clash.‬

‪My point is that ειμι has the sense of a present perfect and is the verb which γενεσθαι completes. Of course Wallace’s comments aren’t about J:8:58 in that passage but what he does affirm is that infinitives with πριν have controlling verbs. My suggestion that ειμι here has the force of present perfect resolves your objection that it is in present tense form and so Wallace’s comments don’t apply.

‪We see the present tense form of ειμι at J14:9 with the sense of a present perfect. This is not an unknown phenomenon:‬

λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ̓ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα·
Scott Lawson
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”