While we were living in Berlin, many years ago, during the Cold War, I recall being confused by a rather common question:
How long are you in Berlin?
The phrasing of this query, at first, sounded to me as if the person wanted to know how long I would be staying in Berlin, not how long I had been living there. What does this odd concatenation of English words mean? It’s actually a word-for-word translation of the original German question, and it reveals a difference in German versus English when it comes to the expression of verbal tense and aspect.
In German, the following sentence is completely normal:
Ich bin seit einem Jahr in Berlin.
Literally, that says: “I am since a year in Berlin.” But that translation doesn’t just sound wrong; it is wrong. A native English speaker would express the durative (i.e., progressive) aspect with a different construction, namely:
I have been in Berlin for a year.
A brain thinking in German does not hear the strangeness of the present indicative in this situation. Similarly, a brain thinking in English has a great deal of difficulty hearing “ich bin” as correct in this context.
Tense and sensibilities
It turns out Greek has a similar sort of construction. In his Greek Grammar, Herbert Smyth explains it succinctly:
The present, when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time, is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present. The ‘progressive perfect’ is often used in translation. (Smyth 1956, p. 422)
Here’s an example in the Gospel of John:
λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ⸂Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ⸃ μεθʼ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· (John 14:9a, SBLNT)
Typical translations look like this:
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? (NIV)
Jesus saith unto him, Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? (KJV)
Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? (NASB)
The Greek uses the present tense, but the English does not. A word-for-word translation in this case wouldn’t be merely stilted or awkward — it would be wrong.
We can find examples in the Septuagint as well. For example:
ταῦτά μοι εἴκοσιν ἔτη ἐγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ· τὰ πρόβατά σου καὶ αἱ αἶγές σου οὐκ ἠτεκνώθησαν· κριοὺς τῶν προβάτων σου οὐ κατέφαγον·
I have been with you for twenty years; your sheep and your goats have never miscarried; nor have I eaten any of the rams from your flock;
We can see that sometimes ἐγώ εἰμι means “I am,” while on other occasions, it means “I have been.” How can we tell the difference? Context.
And now we come to a verse with tremendous weight in orthodox Christianity. John 8:58 reads as follows in the original Koine:
εἶπεν ⸀αὐτοῖς Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. (SBLNT, emphasis mine)
Practically every English translation of the NT renders the verse with “I am” — the present tense. In fact, some capitalize the verb, while others use all capital letters. The International Standard Version, “the most readable and accurate modern English language Bible ever produced,” translates the verse like this:
Jesus told them, “Truly, I tell all of you emphatically, before there was an Abraham, I AM!” (ISV)
I wonder, where do those capital letters come from?
Other “accurate” translations
Here are some other examples:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” (NASB)
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (NIV)
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.” (New American Bible)
The NIV gives us an eye-popping exclamation point. Bang! The Catholic NAB gives us all caps. I’m beginning to suspect they’re trying to tell us something.
On the other hand, the Jehovah’s Witness translations have consistently rendered this verse with the present perfect progressive. For example:
Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” (emphasis mine)
And in their study Bible notes, they explain:
Some claim that this verse identifies Jesus with God. They argue that the Greek expression used here, e·goʹ ei·miʹ (rendered “I am” in some Bibles), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Ex 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. (See study note on Joh 4:26.) In this context, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb ei·miʹ started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress. It is therefore properly translated “I have been” rather than “I am,” and a number of ancient and modern translations use wording similar to “I have been.” In fact, at Joh 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?” Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as “have been.” (Other examples of rendering a present tense Greek verb using a present perfect tense verb are found at Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.)
See the online reference here.
Now immediately we have to wonder, is the rendering of this verse hopelessly shackled to the translation team’s christology? I can’t say for sure. I’m an unbeliever; I have no dog in this fight. And yet what the Jehovah’s Witness translators are saying here seems logical.
Consider this — Is it appropriate to translate what appears to be good Greek into bad English? Jason BeDuhn puts it this way:
What is going on here? You may think that there is a particularly difficult or convoluted Greek clause underlying this mess of English. But that is not the case. The Greek reads: prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi. What Jesus says here is fine, idiomatic Greek. It can be rendered straightforwardly into English by doing what translators always do with Greek, namely, rearrange the word order into normal English order, and adjust things like verbal tense complementarity into proper English expression. These steps of translation are necessary because Greek and English are not the same language and do not obey the same rules of grammar. Leaving the translation at the stage of a lexical (“interlinear”) rendering, which is one way to describe what most translations do here, simply won’t work. That is because Greek has more flexibility with word order than English does, and it can mix verbal tenses in a way English cannot. (BeDuhn 2003, pp. 104-105)
So if we wanted to write good, ordinary, modern English that reflects the meaning of the original Greek, we could do a lot worse than:
I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.
We still maintain the sense of preexistence — which is clear and obvious — but without the stilted word order and without smuggling in the doctrine of the Trinity. And to me it looks like a normal, neutral translation.
That’s where I’m leaning at present, but maybe you have a different take. I look forward to your comments.
BeDuhn, Jason. 2003. Truth in Translation : Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
Smyth, Herbert Weir, and Gordon M. Messing. 1956. Greek Grammar. Revised. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
I don’t see how translating It as “I AM” means anything like the Trinity. I am also not sure how It would fit in regarding the blasphemy claim.
Commentators, by and large, connect the “I AM” to Exodus, where Moses asks what he should call this god who’s talking to him out of the burning bush. In fact, most translators have assumed this, which is why so many put it in all caps.
The question boils down to: Is Jesus saying he’s God, or is he saying he’s a preexistent (divine? semi-divine?) being?
Biblical scholars would probably ask us, “If he isn’t claiming to be God, then why are the people accusing him of blasphemy?” I would ask, “If he was claiming to be God, why didn’t it come up at his trial?”
Of course the statement of Jn 8 is an identification of Jesus as an (ultimate) theophany, encompassing all other theophanies of the jewish deity as they appear throughout the Septuagint. The one involving Abraham especially refers to the appearance of El Shadai at Abraham’sd forest camp to announce the birth of Isaac., according to the Book of Genesis 18. This identification allows Jesus to state in Jn 5 that Moses had written about him, so the Jews better believe him. Further, Jesus states in Jn 12 that Isaiah had seen his glory.
Some of the epistles of the apostles make the same identification of Jewsus as the theophany par excellence. For example, Saint Paul, in a post-Marcionite interpolation in 1 Cor 10, which employs a midrash on the book of Numbers 17. The Epistle of Jude extorts the Jewish Christians by threatening divine revenge comparable to the punishments of misdeeds described in various places of the Old Testament, such as the rebel angels of Gen 6, and the Sodomites of Gen 19, and the worship of the golden calf in Ex 32. Jesus is there made the punisher and enforcer.
The same thing is confirmed multiple times by traces in the Patristic literature, such as the dispute of Justin the Martyr with Tryphon the Jew; Theophile of Antiochia against Autoluko; Tertullian against the Jews; The Epistula Apostolorum; and even as late as Eusebius, Ephraim, and the (pseudo-)Ambrosian Sacramentis and Mysteriis.
Even more impressive are the however hastily veiled traces in liturgical chants such as the Sanctus of the Roman Catholic Church.
False dichotomy and for whatever reason, my previous comment was not approved.
Does not Yahweh in Genesis (?) say that his name is “I AM”? And therefore Jesus might be proclaiming oneness with Yahweh.
There are scholars who challenge this translation. In fact, many Hebrew experts say it’s more like “He who causes to be” or something like that.
I read Vridar to get information on things that is difficult to get from other places. That being said, though, there is a certain amount of personal agenda that clouds some of the articles, especially the ones from this author, and makes it obvious that what one is reading is not impartial dissecting of information but rather the promotion of a certain agenda. That does not necessarily make the articles useless, but one does have to be cautious to separate the scholarship from the agenda promotion. That is especially true with articles from this author.
It’s quite amazing you would say this given the fact that this is one of the rare times in which I’ve said I’m only leaning to one side and I explicitly asked all readers to provide their own opinions on the matter. It’s as if my unwelcome, brazen call for a re-assessment of John 8:58 has brought out readers with — shall we say it? — an agenda.
Again I say, I have no dog in this fight. Tell me why you think the plain sense of the Greek is not the correct translation. I’m listening, and I can be persuaded.
I am a fan of Greek. I appreciate the nuances you see in this construction. But as a reader of these “I AMs” for a long time, I see little new in the points made. I read this in the context of the whole of John and see them as references to the preexistence of the divine Logos. That is John’s thesis.
OK, the “present perfect” seems to be a reasonable grammar based on what you have provided and without further fact checking in certain instances.
However, where I bail out is this last paragraph –
“We still maintain the sense of preexistence — which is clear and obvious — but without the stilted word order and without smuggling in the doctrine of the Trinity. And to me it looks like a normal, neutral translation.”
I would ask first though – what is the implied predicate nominative?? You did not address – but do we ever find εγω ειμι without the related predicate nominative – explicit or implicit? See Jn9.9 as a classic example. Certainly there is a predicate nominative in Jn8 – literally shouting from the rooftops.
Then in respect to the paragraph at issue I have to ask – in what sense “pre-existence”? Presumably this same author – or some near “companion” identifies Jesus’ crucifixion as occurring before the foundation of the world…. Talk about a “present perfect”!!
Tim,
Ah but you do “have a dog in this fight.” By your own admission, in comments on other articles, you have said that “there is no supernatural.” That is your preconceived notion that dictates how you look at everything. How in the world could you “know” there is no supernatural? Are you omniscient?
I thought Vridar was supposed to be based on fact, not supposition or preconceived notions. You may try to present the image of an impartial researcher but in actuality you are no different than a fundamentalist with the preconceived notion that the Bible is true word-for-word, it’s just that your preconceived notions are 180 degrees opposite from theirs.
You need to look within yourself and see why you hate Christianity so much that you have gone on a campaign to destroy it, which is actually what you’ve done. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do. Just don’t present yourself as an impartial scholar. You’re not fooling anyone.
Tim will speak for himself, but till then you should read https://vridar.org/2016/12/18/atheism-vridar-and-blogging-research-in-religion-history-politics-science/ — If you want to check an anti-Christian blog read John Loftus’s efforts. If our interest is in “hating Christianity” or “destroying Christianity” we are doing a very inept job. We are simply not interested in of engaging argumentative believers. We simply ignore those who come where saying we are biased if we don’t admit a priori the possibility of the existence of Thor or Apollo or Markuk or Ishtar. Yes, a historical study of Christianity or any religion can be done critically on scientific principles. We have addressed religious beliefs generally and understand the science enough to have respect for believers — we have no interest in arguing with them.
If you are biased against those posts and think we should also allow for the real possibility of miracles and on that basis accuse us of “bias”, so be it — but this is no place for you. You are welcome to your supernaturalist beliefs and assumptions and beliefs in invisible spirits lurking here and there and we have no interest in trying to talk you out of them. We each have our own journey. Let’s respect each other’s without malice or innuendo.
Odd that you condemn me for “knowing” there is no supernatural in the first paragraph, while in the last paragraph you appear to know all my inner motivations. What a special gift! Quick — what color socks am I wearing?!
Neither Neil nor I care to destroy anything, and even if we did, I have firsthand experience that demonstrates my complete lack of ability to change anyone’s mind. Many years ago, my brother asked me for advice on buy a PC. I told him he could trust pretty much any vendor out there, but for heaven’s sake, don’t buy a Packard Bell. At the time I was an actual IT expert, but naturally, he ignored my advice and bought a Packard Bell machine. It was cheap. And the salesman seemed knowledgeable.
I’ve had a lot of training on persuasive writing, but I’m not sure I’ve ever actually persuaded anyone to change his or her mind. People would usually rather find confirmation of things they already believe.
Anyway, when I wrote about having no dog in the fight, I meant this: The J.W. translators have doctrinal reasons for wanting 8:58 not to say “I am.” On the other hand, orthodox Christians very much want Jesus to say, “I AM!” I’m not in either camp, but I would love to hear more arguments by qualified linguists on all sides. My goal is to have a sense of what the author and early readers thought it meant.
Neil and I are both interested in the history of the Jesus movement, which includes the reception history of the texts, as well as the evolving body of theology within the movement, which is incredibly vast and complex. That’s what drives us. I have neither the time nor the inclination to change anyone’s mind about religion. I’ve always considered belief in God to be like falling in love. You don’t follow a series of logical propositions to reach the point at which you say, “Now I’m in love.” It just hits you. Similarly, gaining or losing belief is a matter of the heart.
To the question of bias, we are all biased. You can’t be human without biases. The goal is to strive to be fair, and that’s why I’m answering you with the assumption that you are engaging in an honest debate.
Finally, let me say something nice about Christianity. People always say that almost every religion has some variation of the Golden Rule. Maybe so, but I think Christianity has a unique take on it. Should you treat people the way you’d like to be treated? Sure. But Jesus said when we do things to or for others, we’re doing it to him. So the people who are dismantling programs in our federal government are not only starving poor people, leaving them without healthcare, denying them a living wage, and blaming them for their condition — they’re also doing it to Jesus. It reminds me of the Jefferson quote: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
To Neil,
I did not state that I have supernatural beliefs. That is an assumption you made. But yet you advertise Vridar as dealing in facts, not assumptions.
To Tim,
You and I do not disagree that Bible translations are often made to support the preexisting beliefs of the translators. You and I both seem to have an interest in getting behind the various interpretations of Christianity to the event or events that started it all. But when you do that with the preconceived notion that “there is no supernatural,” one has to wonder how objective you are able to be. In other words, if you start with the preconceived notion that it was all made up, are you really being objective? Maybe it was all made up, or maybe it wasn’t, but if I’ve already made up my mind that it was, am I really being objective?
I’m well aware that so many who bear the name of Christian favor things that are opposed to the things Jesus (whether you see him as real or as a creation) is said to have taught. But do we let the failings of those who claim to be his followers today cloud our judgment to the point where we confuse the situation now with whatever happened (or didn’t happen) to begin it all?
Of course I agree with you that we’re all biased. We all have a unique bias dictated by our own unique past. Sometimes, though, I think we forget that and instead try to project bias only on others…not of course that we intend to, but it just works out that way.
The purpose of my comment was simply to remind you that just because you are an atheist does not mean you have no dogs in the fight of the translation of “ego ami.”
As always, more than a little humility is in order.
Just give me the facts: (a) Do you think a genuine scholarly approach to Christian origins should be open to a real-world possibility of supernatural events and miracles as part of the explanation of historical events? (b) Do you assume that I reject such an approach or openness to the supernatural on mere assumption and that I lack a reasoned argument and justifiable method for rejecting the same? (c) Have you read the post I linked to earlier: https://vridar.org/2016/12/18/atheism-vridar-and-blogging-research-in-religion-history-politics-science/ ?
As for your call for more humility, I repeat: Let’s respect each other’s journeys without malice or innuendo.
Per the author, it does come up in Luke’s version of the trial, where Jesus gives indirect acceptance to the claim. Luke 22:70, which is of course not John:
>>All of them asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” He said to them, “You say that I am.”<>The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has claimed to be the Son of God.”<<
NRSVUE translation.
And, to go back to the Exodus 3:14 in the LXX:
ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, I Am The One Who Is.
That said, Johannine Christology in general is considered to be different from that of the Synoptics in general, even though I cited Luke as well as John.
Non-English translations? Vulgate uses "Ego sum" in both Exodus and John.
That said? Luther? Different. "ICH WERDE SEIN," or "I will be," in Exodus, vs. "bin ich" in John. All modern German bibles are the same on John; I am not sure on Exodus.
I personally have no problem with it being understood as a riff on Exodus 3:14. That doesn't necessarily make it "Trinitarian" in today's terms. Arianism existed in Christianity and before that, the folks at Qumran knew of the likes of Metatron.
So, Trinitarian vs non-Trinitarian is a binary that really isn't the only way of viewing it, perhaps.
For origins of GJohn and Genesis usage look to Egypt. – https://www.brepols.net/products/IS-9782503618005-1
Several scholars suggest that if John is making a theological allusion to the Hebrew Bible here, the primary source isn’t actually Exodus, but the Book of Isaiah (LXX). See Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; 46:4; 48:12. I note this merely as an aside, and not as a criticism of anything in your post.
It bothers me more that ἐγώ is not rendered as reflexive. “I myself am” / “I myself have been” / “I myself was.” Commas optional.
Interesting that translators would have Jesus quote LXX. Did they have Greek schools in Nazareth?