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.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 8:58

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

A similar discussion is archived from the old mailing list: https://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-g ... html#33092, and there are others, too. It also points out that one should read all available material first, which I haven't to my shame done properly. Actually I have read that discussion but didn't remember it. It refers to some things which have been brought up here now as if they were newly found information.

I had also read some of the DeBuhn - Bowman debate referred to in the wikipedia article, but not all of it. On the other hand, who has read it entirely? Anyway it has much discussion about PPA. As far as I can remember it wasn't anything groundbreaking, and maybe neither of the participants was very convincing.

The big question, directly related to understanding Greek, is still, after all these detailed discussions which can be found about this passage, whether there's something grammatically weird or unusual going on or not. I'm still convinced there is, and that this can't be a PPA.

As for PPA, the way forward would be to actually find examples from extrabiblical Koine literature so that it could be analyzed. I would be thankful for any examples.

The way forward to know if the grammar is unusual would be to analyze all possible πριν and προ του instances from Koine, or at least from some considerably large corpus than just Biblical literature. If, say, 300 examples could be analyzed, it would already tell something. We have found 3 parallels from LXX, are there more?

General linguistics applied to Koine can also shed new light on this. As far as talk about this grammatical construction and PPA goes, most of the discussion seems to happen in a superficial level of grammatical talk instead of explaining linguistically why or why not it is something and how the constructions actually work. To understand this in deeper level one must understand verbal semantics in modern linguistics.

Another path, the "word order", or constituent order, would also need linguistics. It's totally inadequate to discuss about order of the words or clauses if one doesn't understand the basics of information structure. Othwerwise we are mostly stuck with statistical and feeling based arguments.

Constituent order and cognitive linguistics could help us deciding whether the main verb here is a copula or a predicate. Which one it is doesn't affect other grammatical questions asked here - i.e. if it's a PPA or not, and what it is if not - but it's important on its own right.

To be honest, I don't think any of this would be needed to understand the passage in question well enough. Why it's needed is that there are several opinions about the grammar which are brought forth, claiming they are crystal clear and that contrary opinions are plain wrong (I have done that myself). Not all of them are right. And we want to know what we can say about the grammar so that what is said is really true. If we can say something new which can be proved we could avoid going circles with the same old arguments. (We would go circles with new ones instead, I bet!)

Even if we can solve these grammatical problems for good, it doesn't yet prove anything final theologically. There's always a way to explain things in another way if one wants to think in some way about what is said. I wan't to focus on grammatical questions here. Luckily we have avoided the worst pitfalls this far.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 7th, 2021, 6:41 pm
I had also read some of the DeBuhn - Bowman debate referred to in the wikipedia article, but not all of it. On the other hand, who has read it entirely? Anyway it has much discussion about PPA. As far as I can remember it wasn't anything groundbreaking, and maybe neither of the participants was very convincing.
The debate was essentially done in an online forum of which I was a member at the time. When it was done, I had criticisms of both Bowman and BeDuhn, but especially of BeDuhn who simply does not know Greek very well at all for what he was trying to do.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: August 8th, 2021, 9:11 am
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 7th, 2021, 6:41 pm
I had also read some of the DeBuhn - Bowman debate referred to in the wikipedia article, but not all of it. On the other hand, who has read it entirely? Anyway it has much discussion about PPA. As far as I can remember it wasn't anything groundbreaking, and maybe neither of the participants was very convincing.
The debate was essentially done in an online forum of which I was a member at the time. When it was done, I had criticisms of both Bowman and BeDuhn, but especially of BeDuhn who simply does not know Greek very well at all for what he was trying to do.
Back in 2011 I took Intro to OT from BeDuhn when I worked at NAU in the Plumbing Department.

In 2016 I had an email exchange with Dr BeDuhn about his skill with Greek because some apologists had questioned his ability with it.

Here’s my opening email to him and his response:

Dear Dr BeDuhn,

Some anti-JW apologists are questioning your skill with Koine Greek, saying you only have an intermediate level. Can you please help us to give an authoritative response? As I remember it you have at least 4 years of formal training in Koine Greek which included working/translating through a number of Koine texts.


Best regards,

T. Scott Lawson


Hi Scott,

It's been awhile. "intermediate" is a very loose term. How do they define it? Once we nail that down, it can be answered.

But, of course, what specifically in my writings are indicative of an "intermediate" level? The whole topic is a red herring, to avoid dealing with the specific arguments I make.

best wishes,

Jason BeDuhn
Professor and Program Coordinator, Comparative Study of Religions
Chair of the NAU Liberal Studies Committee
Comparative Cultural Studies, Northern Arizona University
Scott Lawson
Scott Lawson
Posts: 450
Joined: June 9th, 2011, 6:36 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 6th, 2021, 11:19 am Maybe here: https://archive.org/details/patrologiae ... 1/mode/2up
It’s actually on page 305 and Chrysostom doesn’t change the phrase at all. It reads πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. 
Scott Lawson
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Daniel Semler »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 8th, 2021, 12:09 pm
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 6th, 2021, 11:19 am Maybe here: https://archive.org/details/patrologiae ... 1/mode/2up
It’s actually on page 305 and Chrysostom doesn’t change the phrase at all. It reads πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. 
I think Jonathan wanted to know what Chrysostom was suggesting as an alternative.

διατί δὲ μή εἶπε, Πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγῶ ἦμην· ἀλλ᾽ Ἐγώ εἰμι; Ὡσπέρ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ χέχρηται τῇ λέξει τῇ, Εἰμί· οὔτω καὶ αὐτός. Τοῦ διηνεχῶς γὰρ εἶναι σημαντιὴ αὔτη, παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένη χρόνου· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ βλάσφημον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ῥῆμα.

I had to type the above from the images on archive.org so there are no doubt issues with the scan and my typing but hopefully its intelligible enough. It's probably not enough of his text but the rest is in the archive.org doc.

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

Re: John 8:58

Post by Scott Lawson »

Daniel Semler wrote: August 8th, 2021, 2:04 pm
Scott Lawson wrote: August 8th, 2021, 12:09 pm
Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: August 6th, 2021, 11:19 am Maybe here: https://archive.org/details/patrologiae ... 1/mode/2up
It’s actually on page 305 and Chrysostom doesn’t change the phrase at all. It reads πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. 
I think Jonathan wanted to know what Chrysostom was suggesting as an alternative.

διατί δὲ μή εἶπε, Πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγῶ ἦμην· ἀλλ᾽ Ἐγώ εἰμι; Ὡσπέρ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ χέχρηται τῇ λέξει τῇ, Εἰμί· οὔτω καὶ αὐτός. Τοῦ διηνεχῶς γὰρ εἶναι σημαντιὴ αὔτη, παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένη χρόνου· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ βλάσφημον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ῥῆμα.

I had to type the above from the images on archive.org so there are no doubt issues with the scan and my typing but hopefully its intelligible enough. It's probably not enough of his text but the rest is in the archive.org doc.

Thx
D

Daniel here’s what I’ve gotten so far…I’m sure Barry can help out:

διατί δὲ μή εἶπε, Πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγῶ ἦμην· ἀλλ᾽ Ἐγώ εἰμι;
Why didn’t he say, Before Abraham came to be I was?

Ὡσπέρ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ κέχρηται (not χεχρηται) τῇ λέξει τῇ, Εἰμί· οὔτω καὶ αὐτός.
Just as it is necessary to use the word ειμι with his father, so too with him.

Τοῦ διηνεχῶς γὰρ εἶναι σημαντικὴ αὔτη, παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένη χρόνου·

I couldn’t find διηνεχῶς and σημαντιη has to be σημαντικὴ.

διὰ τοῦτο καὶ βλάσφημον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ῥῆμα.
For this reason the saying even seemed to be a blasphemy.
Scott Lawson
Daniel Semler
Posts: 315
Joined: February 18th, 2019, 7:45 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Daniel Semler »

Sorry about the typos. Corrected, I note including διηνεκῶς :

διατί δὲ μή εἶπε, Πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγῶ ἦμην· ἀλλ᾽ Ἐγώ εἰμι; Ὡσπέρ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ κέχρηται τῇ λέξει τῇ, Εἰμί· οὔτω καὶ αὐτός. Τοῦ διηνεκῶς γὰρ εἶναι σημαντικὴ αὔτη, παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένη χρόνου· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ βλάσφημον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ῥῆμα.

διηνεκῶς I would take to be the adverb of διηνεκης.

διηνεκής, Dor. δια̅νεκής (v. infr.) Supp.Epigr. 1.327.10 (Callatis, i A.D.), ές:— continuous, unbroken, ἀτραπιτοί τε διηνεκέες Od. 13.195; νώτοισι . . διηνεκέεσσι with slices cut the whole length of the chine, Il. 7.321; ῥίζαι, ῥάβδοι, 12.134, 297; εἰ ὦλκα διηνεκέα προταμοίμην Od. 18.375; so δ. σώματα Pl. Hp.Ma. 301b, cf. Anaxandr. 6, BGU 646.22 (ii A.D.); ὄρος δ. Str. 3.1.3; κανών IG 7.3073.108 (Lebad., ii B.C.); τὸ δ. regularity, Gal. 2.355; of Time, perpetual, δ. νυκτί Luc. VH 1.19; δικτάτωρ εἰς τὸ δ. App. BC 1.4 . Adv. διηνεκέως in phrase δ. ἀγορεύειν to tell from beginning to end, Od. 7.241, 12.56 (distinctly, positively, 4.836); ἅπαντα δ. κατέλεξε Hes. Th. 627; cf. τὰ ἕκαστα διηνεκὲς ἐξενέποντα A.R. 2.391; Boeot. and Dor. διανεκῶς without ceasing, εὕδειν Corinn. 9 (dub.), cf. SIG 793.3 (Cos, i A.D.); διηνεκῶς once in Trag., A. Ag. 319, Com.Adesp. 382, M.Ant. 2.17, OGI 194.12 (Egypt, i B.C.), D.Chr. 49.8, etc.; so διηνεκές h.Ap. 255, Call. Fr. 158; also εἰς τὸ διηνεκές in perpetuity, Hebr. 7.3, PRyl. 2.427 (ii A.D.), JHS 33.338 (Macedonia, ii A.D.); -κῶς invariably, opp. πλεονάκις, Gal. 18(2).315.—The Aeol. and Dor. form δια̅νεκής is used also in Att., as Pl. Hp.Ma. 301b, 301e (cf. Diogenian. ap. Sch. ad loc.), Anaxandr. l. c., IG 2.1054.81; but νόμος διηνεκής a perpetual law is read in Pl. Lg. 839a.

So something like : So, to be perpetually this is significant (perhaps substantivally "the significance"), being free/d of all time.

I dunno, something like that. I'm trying to avoid translating much if I can at the moment, which is really hard.

Thx
D
Philip Arend
Posts: 61
Joined: October 14th, 2018, 1:15 am

Re: John 8:58 Full Greek text surrounding Chrysostom's John 8:58 commentary

Post by Philip Arend »

The full Greek text of Chrysostom's Abraham section of Homily 55 section βʹ:
(with translation from the "Fathers of the Church" series)

Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν 59.304 ἠγαλλιάσατο, ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμὴν, καὶ εἶδε, καὶ ἐχάρη. Πάλιν δείκνυσιν αὐτοὺς ὄντας ἀλλοτρίους ἐκείνου, εἴ γε ἐφ' οἷς ἐκεῖνος ἔχαιρεν, οὗτοι ἀλγοῦσι. Τὴν δὲ ἡμέραν ἐνταῦθά μοι δοκεῖ λέγειν τὴν τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἣν ἐν τῇ τοῦ κριοῦ προσφορᾷ καὶ τῇ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ προδιετύπωσε. Τί οὖν ἐκεῖνοι; Τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας; ΩὩς ἐγγὺς τῶν τεσσαράκοντα ἐτῶν λοιπὸν εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν. Λέγει αὐτοῖς· Πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. Καὶ ἔλαβον λίθους, ἵνα βάλωσιν ἐπ' αὐτόν. Ὁρᾷς πῶς τὸ μείζονα εἶναι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ κατεσκεύασεν; Ὁ γὰρ χαρεὶς, ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν, καὶ περισπούδαστον αὐτὸ θέμενος, εὔδηλον ὅτι τὴν ἐπὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ γενομένην, καὶ ὡς μείζονος. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἔλεγον· Ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱὸς, καὶ οὐδὲν πλέον ἐφαντάζοντο, κατὰ μικρὸν αὐτοὺς ἐνάγει πρὸς ὑψηλὴν διάνοιαν.

‘Abraham your father rejoiced that he was to see my day. He saw it and was glad.’ Once again He proved that they were estranged from Abraham, if they were displeased by things that caused him to rejoice. Further, ‘my day’ in this context seems to me to mean the time of the crucifixion which Abraham had prefigured in the offering of the ram and in that of Isaac.
What, then, did they reply? ‘Thou art not yet forty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?’

Ὅτε μὲν οὖν ἤκουσαν, ὅτι Οὐκ οἴδατε τὸν Θεὸν, οὐκ ἤλγησαν·
Now, when they heard: ‘You do not know God,’ they did not become offended,

ὅτε δὲ ἤκουσαν, Πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι, ὡς τῆς εὐγενείας αὐτῶν ταπεινουμένης, ἠγρίαινον καὶ ἐλίθαζον. Εἶδε τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμὴν, καὶ ἐχάρη. ∆είκνυσιν ὅτι οὐκ ἄκων ἐπὶ τὸ πάθος ἔρχεται, εἴ γε ἐπαινεῖ τὸν ἡσθέντα ἐπὶ τῷ σταυρῷ. Τοῦτο γὰρ σωτηρία τῆς οἰκουμένης ἦν. Οἱ δὲ λίθους ἔβαλλον· οὕτω πρὸς φόνους ἕτοιμοι ἦσαν. καὶ δι' ἑαυτῶν ταῦτα ἔπραττον, μηδὲν ἐξετάζοντες.
but when they heard: ‘Before Abraham came to be, I am,’ they became wildly indignant and began to stone Him,
as if their nobility of family were being belittled.
‘He saw my day and was glad.’ Christ was showing that not unwillingly did He come to His Passion if He actually praised the one who rejoiced at the vision of the cross. This, indeed, was the salvation of the world. The Jews, on the contrary, began to stone Him, so prone were they to commit murder, and they acted in this way of their own accord, with no one bidding them do so.

∆ιατί δὲ μὴ εἶπε, Πρὸ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγὼ ἤμην· ἀλλ' Ἐγώ εἰμι; Ὥσπερ ὁ Πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ταύτῃ κέχρηται τῇ λέξει τῇ, Εἰμί· οὕτω καὶ αὐτός. Τοῦ διηνεκῶς γὰρ εἶναι σημαντικὴ αὕτη, παντὸς ἀπηλλαγμένη χρόνου· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ βλάσφημον αὐτοῖς εἶναι δοκεῖ τὸ ῥῆμα.

But why did He not say: ‘Before Abraham came into being, I was,’ but, ‘I am?’ He did so in the way in which His Father used this expression: ‘I am.’ For it meant that He has always existed, since it is free from all limitations of time. And therefore the phrase seemed to the Jews to be blasphemous.

Εἰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς Ἀβραὰμ σύγκρισιν οὐκ ἤνεγκαν, καίτοι γε μικρὰν οὖσαν· εἰ συνεχῶς ἑαυτὸν ἐξίσου τῷ Πατρὶ, ἆρα ἂν διέλιπον αὐτὸν βάλλοντες;
Now, if they resented the comparison to Abraham, though it was a trifling matter, if He had often declared Himself equal to the Father, surely they would not have ceased from stoning Him.
Barry Hofstetter
Posts: 2159
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 1:48 pm

Re: John 8:58

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Scott Lawson wrote: August 8th, 2021, 10:47 am
Back in 2011 I took Intro to OT from BeDuhn when I worked at NAU in the Plumbing Department.

In 2016 I had an email exchange with Dr BeDuhn about his skill with Greek because some apologists had questioned his ability with it.

Here’s my opening email to him and his response:

Dear Dr BeDuhn,

Some anti-JW apologists are questioning your skill with Koine Greek, saying you only have an intermediate level. Can you please help us to give an authoritative response? As I remember it you have at least 4 years of formal training in Koine Greek which included working/translating through a number of Koine texts.

Hi Scott,

It's been awhile. "intermediate" is a very loose term. How do they define it? Once we nail that down, it can be answered.

But, of course, what specifically in my writings are indicative of an "intermediate" level? The whole topic is a red herring, to avoid dealing with the specific arguments I make.

best wishes,

Jason BeDuhn
Professor and Program Coordinator, Comparative Study of Religions
Chair of the NAU Liberal Studies Committee
Comparative Cultural Studies, Northern Arizona University
Except that people actually engaged his arguments and his use of Greek in particular. Scott, I believe you've seen my review of his book defending the JW's translation that was published in the WTJ. Enough said.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter, M.A., Th.M.
Ph.D. Student U of FL
Instructor of Latin
Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”