John 8:58

[Jason Hare]

I’d still like to get a response to my question about what verb the dependent temporal adverbial clause πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι modifies.

Scotty,

Could I ask that you use the quote button to make it easier for people to follow your discussion (who you're responding to and what you are thinking in response to)? Rather than hitting "reply," hit "quote" and then write your response as in-line answers to claims and questions. That would make the headache less palpable.

Thanks!
Jason

[Jason Hare]

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

This isn't true. Adverbials clearly change the meaning of main verbs. "He walked quickly," "he walked slowly," and just "he walked" all give different mental pictures to the hearer, but the same main verb is used in each. Prepositional phrases generally modify verbs in the same way that adverbs do. They tell us where, how, and when an action took place. It is, thus, not dispensable for the particular meaning of the verb.

The problem with this specific verse, of course, is that there is no expression of "since" (like ἀφ᾽ ἧς) that would allow "I am" here to make normal grammatical sense. The syntax is problematic; and it would seem that its problematic nature makes it intentional. The oddity of the expression makes the hearer stop and say, "Huh? That's weird. Why is it written that way?" and then you have to adjust your thinking.

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.

I have no idea what this means. How does it rule out identity? "I am him" and "He is me" doesn't seem to be ruled out by the fact that there is an adverbial expression attached to it.

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!

You can certainly rule out number 3. There is nothing to indicate that this is talking about the resurrection. It's clearly, obviously, and rightly understood to be speaking about Abraham and his lifetime in the Torah. Jesus even specifically says that Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἠγαλλιάσατο ἵνα ἴδῃ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν, καὶ εἶδεν καὶ ἐχάρη (John 8:56: "Abraham your father was filled with joy that he should see my day, and he saw and rejoiced."). It's talking about Abraham having seen and rejoiced in the past (aorist indicative, εἶδεν and ἐχάρη). It is absurd to think that this is talking about the resurrection day.

[Jason Hare]

Of COURSE πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι is an adverb of time. Nobody is denying that. Of COURSE it modifies εἰμί.

ὀρθῶς γέγραφας!

[Scott Lawson]

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

This isn't true. Adverbials clearly change the meaning of main verbs. "He walked quickly," "he walked slowly," and just "he walked" all give different mental pictures to the hearer, but the same main verb is used in each. Prepositional phrases generally modify verbs in the same way that adverbs do. They tell us where, how, and when an action took place. It is, thus, not dispensable for the particular meaning of the verb.

Yes, poor choice of words on my part. I should have said that an adjunct can be omitted without the main clause becoming an incomplete thought. That’s not true of πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι.

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.

I have no idea what this means. How does it rule out identity? "I am him" and "He is me" doesn't seem to be ruled out by the fact that there is an adverbial expression attached to it.

Jason, What I mean is that if εγω ειμι is a statement of identity then ειμι is a copula and the predicate is in ellipsis. My point is that a temporal adverb modifies the time of main verb. If the main verb is a copula and in this case stative then an adverbial clause can’t modify they main verb. These are mutually exclusive sentence structures. Only one of them can be true. Either εγω ειμι has an implied predicate and is Jesus identifying himself and the dependent clause has no connection to the linking verb or the adverbial clause is modifying the verb and telling us something about when Jesus is/was.

[Jason Hare]

It seems to me that ἐγὼ εἰμί in such a statement is trying to draw out eternity. Think about it... if you applied it to any other time, what assumption would you make?

"Before the creation of the world, I am."
"More than a million years ago, I am."
"At the end of all things, I am."

It's clear that this is supposed to bring out a concept that wouldn't be contained in "I existed before Michael was born."

[Jonathan Robie]

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.

You are throwing around a lot of grammatical terminology that comes from different places without taking the time to figure out which things are simply different names used for the same thing by different people. I find this confusing. I think you are also confused because you don't understand when other people are saying the same thing you are. And you are saying that your grammatical categories prove various things - I'm not convinced they do, you would have to provide a lot more evidence to convince me.

In your last few posts, you seem to be simultaneously saying that it is (1) a dependent temporal adverbial clause (the same thing as a temporal adjunct), and (2) a complement - perhaps an adverbial complement? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

If you are arguing for an adverbial complement, can you show me some Greek sentences that clearly have a phrase like that functioning as an adverbial complement? This definitely happens in Greek, and with this verb, but are there relevant examples that show the time relationships you are arguing for?

[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.

You are throwing around a lot of grammatical terminology that comes from different places without taking the time to figure out which things are simply different names used for the same thing by different people. I find this confusing. I think you are also confused because you don't understand when other people are saying the same thing you are. And you are saying that your grammatical categories prove various things - I'm not convinced they do, you would have to provide a lot more evidence to convince me.

Jonathan please note that you introduced the term adjunct not me. I was describing πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι as a dependent temporal adverbial clause. I differ with you on it being an adjunct because adjuncts are not necessary for the main clause to be a complete sentence. What I’m saying is you have mislabeled πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι as an adjunct. So we are not saying the same thing. I’m saying that the prin clause is necessary to complete the sentence. Neither εγω ειμι nor πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι can stand alone and make sense. Unless…εγω ειμι has an implied predicate and ειμι becomes a linking verb. But then what do we do with πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι? Can it modify ειμι as a linking verb? It doesn’t seem likely to me because (and here I’m afraid I’ll muddle things up) if ειμι is not being used as self identification by Jesus with an implied predicate noun then it is a non-copular use of the be verb expressing existence, an existential use of the be verb. In this latter instance it is signaling time (I think it’s past referring) and is being modified by the prin clause.

In your last few posts, you seem to be simultaneously saying that it is (1) a dependent temporal adverbial clause (the same thing as a temporal adjunct), and (2) a complement - perhaps an adverbial complement? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.

(1) I am saying it is a dependent temporal adverbial clause. And I’m saying that that is not the same as an adjunct, a term you introduced. (2) In the link I supplied I wanted you to see the distinction between an adjunct and a complement. The prin clause functions as a complement to εγω ειμι not as an adjunct. I’m sorry I thought these things would be self evident.

If you are arguing for an adverbial complement, can you show me some Greek sentences that clearly have a phrase like that functioning as an adverbial complement? This definitely happens in Greek, and with this verb, but are there relevant examples that show the time relationships you are arguing for?

Jonathan because J8:58 is so unique I don’t think I’ll find anything that parallels the construction.

[Scott Lawson]

Jonathan what I’m attempting to do is reason through the possible constructions of the sentence and show why it can’t be answering the question of identity, nor can it both answer identity and age at the same time. It can only be answering how old Jesus is and so ειμι has to be signaling time, past time at that, even though there is a clash of tense forms.

And my hypothesis is that because there is no Greek perfect for the writer to choose from then the present tense form was used to convey the idea of a state that began in the past and continued to the time of speaking. This use of the Greek present isn’t an unknown phenomenon and in Jeremiah we see a state verb used in a present tense form but signaling past time. And in it’s parallel line a perfect is chosen.

I ran this by Mike Aubrey and he said he’d give it some consideration after he finishes moving.

[Jonathan Robie]

Jonathan what I’m attempting to do is reason through the possible constructions of the sentence and show why it can’t be answering the question of identity, nor can it both answer identity and age at the same time. It can only be answering how old Jesus is and so ειμι has to be signaling time, past time at that, even though there is a clash of tense forms.

So far, I have not found this line of argument convincing. Why can't a sentence address both identity and time at the same time? Sentences often do address more than one thing. If Jesus is there right then and there, and he says that he was also before Abraham, that tells us more than just his age, it tells us something about who Jesus is. If I tell you that I am 36 or 62 or whatever, that tells you how old I am, if I tell you that I was there before Abraham, and it's obvious that I am there now, that tells you I am no ordinary person. The Jews picked up on it, that was enough to get him stoned. I don't think they were stoning him because they thought he was old.

And I don't see how εἰμί can refer only to past time. Why wouldn't he use a more appropriate tense for that? Clearly, Jesus is referring to himself as he is standing right there in front of them and using a present tense verb to do so.

And my hypothesis is that because there is no Greek perfect for the writer to choose from then the present tense form was used to convey the idea of a state that began in the past and continued to the time of speaking. This use of the Greek present isn’t an unknown phenomenon and in Jeremiah we see a state verb used in a present tense form but signaling past time. And in it’s parallel line a perfect is chosen.

Here I think you are on stronger ground - there are verses where present tense εἰμι has perfect force, starting in the past and continuing into the present, e.g.

• John 15:27 καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστε.
• John 14:9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· πῶς σὺ λέγεις, Δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα;

In fact, I think most people on this thread probably agree that John 8:58 also has a sense that refers both to the time before Abraham and the current time, implying continuous time in between. There's more than one possible way to translate that, but translation is not our problem here on B-Greek.

But this is not the same thing as referring only to past time. Just as a dependent temporal clause is not the same thing as an adverbial complement. Sometimes you seem to be taking more than one contradictory position at the same time.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Neither εγω ειμι nor πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι can stand alone and make sense. Unless…εγω ειμι has an implied predicate and ειμι becomes a linking verb.

εγω ειμι can be a complete sentence, πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι can't. It's as simple as that. I'm not sure if you understand the difference between a syntactic construction and a discourse. No example sentence or clause makes much sense in isolation but only as a part of some discourse. But syntactically εγω ειμι is a full complete sentence alone. This isn't peculiar to Greek; I'm not sure but I believe this phenomenon is common to all languages.

And I don't know what an implied predicate would have to do with it. If we take εγω ειμι out of context it's still a sentence in itself, no matter if it works as a predicate or a copula with ellipsis. "I exist" is a full sentence as much as "I am Christ".

why it can’t be answering the question of identity, nor can it both answer identity and age at the same time.

If someone asks "what question did Jesus answer" it's not clear what he means. I'm not sure at all the partakers here understand it in the same way.

"What question this answers" can be a way to understand a part of a discourse regardless of what is in the discourse; it doesn't necessarily have a question at all. Compare these:

"Where is the dog?"
"The dog is in the backyard."

"What is in the backyard?"
"The dog is in the backyard."

This can be a linguistic way to demonstrate different possible uses of a sentence in discourse when we think what an isolated sentence "The dog is in the backyard" can mean in a discourse. We can have a discourse like

The cat is in the street. The dog is in the backyard.

And we can say that "The dog is in the backyard" answers the question "where is the dog" even though there is no question in the discourse.

That's a different question than what the pharisees asked. Literally they asked if Jesus has seen Abraham; pragmatically they wanted to know if Jesus really meant he was older than Abraham. But when I ask "what question did Jesus' statement answer" I don't think about what the pharisees asked, but what would be the question which would be linguistically fitting for the sentence which Jesus said.

Because I think ειμι isn't a copula here, I think the question in this sense is "how old are you" - but only superficially. Part of the genius and fascination of human language is that it's not so simple that an utterance can "mean" only one thing at a time. If Jonathan, Barry, Stephen and I are right with the "clash" and its implications, it creates an effect that the hearers need to process it further. In another context, with different words and subject matter in a live discourse, this would go unnoticed as sloppy grammar. We all make mistakes all the time with our mother tongue and yet get understood. But for many reasons this one can't go unnoticed and needs an explanation. The explanation can be said to be another, deeper level question which Jesus' utterance answers. In the surface level the present tense is exceptionally used to refer to past time. In the deeper level the reader is forced to find a solution to the grammatical problem and answer the question: "why does Jesus say 'I am' so that 'I am' stands alone because it doesn't fit with the πριν clause?" The answer to that question is in turn the question which "I am" answers, and I happen to believe this final question is "who are you?". And the answer is really, simply, "I am". What does that mean is then the theological question and we won't go there.