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 »

Jonathan Robie wrote: August 9th, 2021, 6:09 pm
Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm I’d still like to get a response to my question about what verb the dependent temporal adverbial clause πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι modifies.
The main verb is εἰμί. πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι is an adjunct that establishes a temporal frame for the main verb.

+ πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι
s ἐγὼ
v εἰμί.
So two things:

1.) If it is an adjunct then it can be dispensed with without the main clause losing meaning.

2.) If it does modify ειμι then identity is not in view. So we can dispense with that possibility…unless it’s an adjunct in which case εγω ειμι stands alone and can best be explained as identity.

Or 3.) (I know I said 2 but I thought of something else) πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is about Abraham’s future coming into existence which is what some BUs would read…before Abraham comes to be (resurrected) I exist. Totally nonsense!
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Oh…and 4.) If πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is admitted to modify ειμι how does it modify it except in time so that γενεσθαι is subsequent to ειμι. In which case ειμι is signaling past time.
Scott Lawson
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 6:34 pm Oh…and 4.) If πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is admitted to modify ειμι how does it modify it except in time so that γενεσθαι is subsequent to ειμι.
Yes.
Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 6:34 pmIn which case ειμι is signaling past time.
Yes. Except ... no, ἐγὼ εἰμί would not normally signal past time. This is precisely the time clash we have been talking about for pages now. Do you understand what we have been saying now? That's the time clash.

And the lack of a predicate is the reason that ἐγὼ εἰμί raises the question - I am WHAT? That's what raises the identity question.

To me, these two points are the thread in a nutshell.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Yes I do understand that that is the time clash we’ve been talking about for pages. But do you understand that’s my point in asking these questions? If we admit that πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι modifies the verb ειμι it can only do so temporally. Therefore identity cannot be in view. And for it to sensibly modify the present tense form of the verb then the verb has to be past referring. And so yes this is not a normal use of εγω ειμι.

So Jonathan can we agree that the prin clause is modifying ειμι? If we do so then we can agree that identity cannot be in view no matter what.

Also can we agree that the prin clause isn’t an adjunct?
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

I think it’s more accurate to say there is a clash with tense form rather than a clash of time.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

I've been calling πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι a dependent temporal adverbial clause thinking you guys would pick up on the points that if it is dependent it can’t stand alone, if it’s functioning as a temporal adverb it is modifying the verb’s time….and which leads to the reciprocation of the infinitive’s relative time being governed by the controlling verb ειμι and the phrase πριν Αβρααμ which is influenced by our “encyclopedic knowledge” so that we can conclude ειμι is present in form but past referring.

So if it is a dependent temporal adverb, and it has to be, otherwise πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is not syntactically connected to the main clause and has no purpose, then ειμι cannot be a copula but has to be signaling time not linking a subject to a predicate.
Scott Lawson
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4165
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 7:06 pm Also can we agree that the prin clause isn’t an adjunct?
Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 7:34 pm I've been calling πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι a dependent temporal adverbial clause thinking you guys would pick up on the points ...
An adverb of time is also called a temporal adjunct or an time adjunct. Same thing. And seriously, almost everyone in this thread knows what a dependent clause is.

What is an adjunct?

For instance:
Time Adjuncts (Adverbs of Time)

Here are some examples of time adjuncts:

• The alarm went off again yesterday.
• In the morning, he will veto the bill.
Beyond that, perhaps a conversation would be more useful than going around again. I think we are talking past each other. This is just one example of that.

Of COURSE πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is an adverb of time. Nobody is denying that. Of COURSE it modifies εἰμί.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: August 9th, 2021, 8:09 pm
Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 7:06 pm Also can we agree that the prin clause isn’t an adjunct?
Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 7:34 pm I've been calling πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι a dependent temporal adverbial clause thinking you guys would pick up on the points ...
An adverb of time is also called a temporal adjunct or an time adjunct. Same thing. And seriously, almost everyone in this thread knows what a dependent clause is.

What is an adjunct?

For instance:
Time Adjuncts (Adverbs of Time)

Here are some examples of time adjuncts:

• The alarm went off again yesterday.
• In the morning, he will veto the bill.
Beyond that, perhaps a conversation would be more useful than going around again. I think we are talking past each other. This is just one example of that.
Jonathan note that both “yesterday” and “In the morning” are not necessary for the main clauses to express a complete thought. An adjunct adds information to but is not necessary to complete the thought of the main clause.
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/gra ... r/adjuncts

See the distinction between adjuncts and complements. Πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι completes εγω ειμι. It is necessary to the meaning of the sentence.
Scott Lawson
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Jason Hare »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 9th, 2021, 5:45 pm I’d still like to get a response to my question about what verb the dependent temporal adverbial clause πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι modifies.
It can only be dependent on the verb εἰμί.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”