(previous)
No it is not. You fail to consider that John 8:58 is not structured like that. The occurrence occurs at the end of the passage.

Scenario:
And so does John 15:27, which nearly every translation reads as the KJV, “you have been with me from the beginning”. The “este” occurs at the end of the phrase, just like the “eimi” does at John 8:58, yet it is rendered at the beginning of the phrase. It makes no difference where the phrase occurs, “eimi”, the present, is used with an expression of past time, before Abraham came to be, and even in your own belief, the eimi therefore denotes an action begun in the past and continued in the present. Even you believe that. You just want to make it “eternal”, which you can’t force in any way. Therefore, it does fit the criteria of what is stated Goodwin and Gulick above. Therefore, it could be translated as demonstrated by the English perfect “I have been”.

ProveAll:
First of all the entire context of chapter eight has to be considered. John 8:58 cannot simply be separated from John 8:24 and 25 and the primary question on the mind of the Jews, "Who art thou?". Let's not forget that they also reiterated that question a little later in the dialogue. In verse 53 they said, "whom makest thou thyself". Also remember that they were the ones who brought up the issue of "age", so to speak. Christ gave the answer they were seeking all along, "Who are you?" which also effectively answered their secondary question concerning whether or not He had seen Abraham. He answered who He was in John 8:58 and that He was the same before Abraham as He was when He answered the Jews. They did not like the answer of who he was because it exactly parralled the use referring to God in various portions of the scriptures. Christ said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. This is what sparked the Jews to question about whether Christ had seen Abraham. The next question becomes, "Throughout all the references to Abraham in the Old Testament, who would be the one Abraham would rejoice in?" It is quite easy to say that Abraham looked forward to the Messiah, yet perhaps the only reference is when Paul spoke of the gospel being preached to Abraham. However in this context, the gospel is defined as all nations being blessed through him. This undoubtedly would have been a reference to his son Isaac. Now aside from getting into typology, the issue of John 8:58 is not that of type. Who was the one to promise Abraham that he would have a son with Sarah?(Genesis 18:10) Now who was the one who promised Abraham that He would return unto him according to the time of life and Sarah would have a son?(Genesis 18:14) Who was the one who visited Abraham at the set time when Sarah conceived?(Genesis 21:1-2) Do you think that Abraham rejoiced to see that day? Do you think that Abraham was glad? Realize that no matter what scholarly credentials one may have, a person cannot separate grammar from the context of the passage and it certainly has reference to Abraham seeing Christ's day as well as having Christ emphatically proclaim who He was. Before Abraham was, I am. Quite frankly, I am not impressed with your quotations of McKay and others. I am sure that a large number of Biblical and Greek scholars would agree with me. The fact is someone can look at a text separated from the rest of the context and then offer lexigraphical references which are supposed to demonstrate how such a text parallels other similar uses of a word or phrase, and they can do it without considering that the other uses stand on the respective merits of the separate contexts. Every other example you allude to does not rest within the same structure and framework that is built in John chapter 8. There was much more to the absolute and definitive claim of Christ in this passage then just His ongoing and continuous existence from before the time of Abraham until the time when he was talking with the Jews in the first century.

The question of whether the English translation "I am" accurately reflects the thought of the Greek must be considered in the light of the fact that Christ was dealing with a question about who He was, not just merely if He existed before, during and after the time of Abraham. When this is dealt with, the translation "I am" is definitely faithful to the continuity of the passage as a whole, while "I have been" presupposes that Jesus was only dealing with the Jews question about Abraham without considering what brought them to that point in the first place.

The reference to John 15:27 has to do with a context concerning the time the disciples had been with Jesus. The context has to do with them bearing witness since they had been with Him from the start of His ministry. It also cannot strictly be compared since it refers to the disciples, plural, as ye. This was not held in the context of who they were, or how long they had been in existence, but how long they had been with Christ in His earthly ministry. The two contexts are quite different. Another difference is that Christ is answering a question asked of Him. The reference in John 15:27 is Jesus speaking of His disciples. They certainly were not offering an answer. The issue of whether the use of "I am" appears at the end is relevant sense it is without a predicate and cannot simply be presumed to indicate mere continuous existence from a starting point before Abraham, but as an acknowledgement of who He was. His listeners would certainly be familiar with the rabbinic use of various appellations of God. Today there are many Jews who refer to God simply as "Ha Shem"--"The Name". When someone says "ha Shem" those familiar with the usage would automatically realize the significance. The same would necessarily be true of the Jews of 1st century Palestine and the various ways that God was reffered to in their writings and commentaries.

(previous)
ProveAll:
Besides, even if Christ was just referring to his preexistence "I am" would still be the most correct reading. There are clearly some scholars(i.e. C.K. Barrett) who do not see this passage referring to the Godhood of Christ, yet they still translate it as "I am".

Scenario:
Well, well, I appreciate the admission. Notice that “There are clearly some scholars who do not see this passage referring to the Godhood of Christ.” That should also certainly demonstrate that this “eternality” argument is far from a necessary interpretation. I would like to call attention to what a couple of other scholars have to say, including Kenneth McKay, who is quite impressive in the area of scholarship, I would think. I will post his article below and refer to it now and then.

ProveAll:
The fact someone doesn't believe this passage refers to the Godhood of Christ should not lead the reader to conclude that it primarily has to do with the grammar and larger context, but theological persuasion. The truth is that Barrett finds no reason to alter the text as it stands in the majority of translations. The truth is that there are a number of people and groups who would use the same kind of translations which render John 1:1 as "the Word was God" but still would not see this as a reference to the Godhood of Christ. The same would be true of other passages that have traditionally been held to refer to the Deity of Christ. Even Russell in volume 5 of Studies in the Scriptures-AT-ONE-MENT between God and Man accepted the reading of I Timothy 3:16 as "God was manifest in the flesh" and then proceeded to expound how this meant that Christ was the embodiment of God's characteristics. So the fact that someone does not see a reference to the Godhood of Christ in this(John 8:58) passage has more to do with theological issues than how it should be translated. Now let's take a look at what C. K. Barret had to say about "I am". Commenting on John 8:24 he starts by saying,

"Faith in Christ is the only escape from sin and its consequences. The difficulty lies in the clause which expresses the content of faith. ego eimi occurs several times in John with a predicate; for these uses see on 6.35. The absolute use of ego eimiat 6.20; 18:6 (see the notes) can be readily understood from the context; here however it seems impossible to supply an appropriate complement from the context. Morover the question that follows (su tis ei; v. 25) suggests that the words were not plain to the hearers, that is, the expression here anticipates v. 28 with a view to raising in the sharpest terms the question who Jesus is.

ego eimi without complement (see also vv. 28, 58, and 13.19) is hardly a Greek expression, and it is therefore natural to look into its Jewish background. The words occur not infrequently in the LXX where they render *** *** ('ani hu', literally 'I (am) he'), which occurs especially in the words of God himself, and there is a particularly close parallel to the present passage in Isa. 43.10, ina gnwte kai pisteushte kai sunhte oti ego eimi (*** ***). Similar passages occur at Deut. 32.39; Isa. 41.4; 43.13; 46.4; 48.12. In the Isaiah passages the meaning of the Hebrew is apparently 'I am (for ever) the same' with perhaps an allusion to the name **** (YHWH) given in Exod. 3.14-16; so G.K., 459, n. 1 and more recently K.B., s.v.***, 9. The context demands a similar meaning for the Greek, though ego eimi is in itself (as Greek) a meaningless expression. the Lord, the first and with the last, is the eternal one. The eimi, that is to say, is a properly continuous tense, implying neither beginning nor end of existence. This meaning is particularly appropriate to v. 58 (where see the note), and appropriate also to the present verse, where it reinforces the assertion that Jesus belongs to the eternal, heavenly world(ek twn anw). See G. Klein, Der alteste christliche Katechismus und die judische Propaganda-Literatur (1909), 44-55; cf. 55-61; Daube, N.T.R.J., 325-9; Dodd, Interpretation, 93-6 (especially for the related phrase **** ***, I and he); and Brown, Appendix IV, 533-8. It is not however correct to infer either for the present passage or for the others in which ego eimi occurs that John wishes to equate Jesus with the supreme God of the Old Testament (see E. Stauffer, Jesus and His Story (E.T., 1960), 102, 142-59; on this, Haenchen, Weg, 511). This is not demonstrated by the Jewish material (S.B. 11, 797; see however Isa. 47.8; Zeph. 2.15 for the blasphemous use of the words by men), and is in the contexts impossible. Note that in v. 28 it is followed by 'I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me I speak these things ... I always do the things that are pleasing to him', and in 13.19 by 'He who receives me receives him who sent me' (13.20). Jesus is the obedient servant of the Father, and for this reason perfectly reveals him. ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. 'I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.' This open form of words is better than 'I am the Christ. the one who can save you' (Sanders; cf. Lindars), just because it is open. more satidfactory is Bultmann: 'He is everything he has claimed to be.'

apoqaneisqe. Cf. Isa. 43.25 (Guilding, 108).

------------------

The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text by Charles Kingsley Barrett, Westminster Press, 2nd ed. 1978,(first published in 1955) pp.341-2

"58. prin Abraam genesqai. Before Abraham came into existence; perhaps, before Abraham was born, since ginesqai can have this meaning. cf. v, 56; Isa. 43.13 (Guilding, 108).

ego eimi . On the absolute of these words see on v. 24. the meaning here is: before Abraham came into being, I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be. Cf. Thomas 19: Blessed is he who was before he came into being. Cf. Ps. 90.2. Lindars is right in saying that there is no allusion here to Exod. 3.14.

59. liqous . Cf. 10.31-3; 11.8. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy (Lev. 24.16; Sanhedrin 7.4), but this does not mean that Jesus had claimed to be God. See the important note in Bultmann, 327f."

ibid., p.352

I do not fully know the complete details of Barretts theological views, but it appears that he assumes a Unitarian stance where only the Father is God and this is the reason why he views this passage the way he does. It is just like the WT when they say that a passage cannot mean that Christ is God because other passages show that He is distinct from the Father.

But note what Barrett goes on to say, "ego eimi does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. 'I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.' This open form of words is better than 'I am the Christ. the one who can save you' (Sanders; cf. Lindars), just because it is open."

Although Barrett does not believe that ego eimi points to Christ as God, he previously appealed to Old Testament passages where it identifies God and His eternal existence which closely parallel the usage in John 8. The truth is that Barrett still sees a reference to Jesus' identity, and in the strongest possible terms, as he puts it. Accordingly the passage has more to do with "who Jesus is" than just the fact that He was in existence before Abraham as I have pointed out above. He just does not want to see it that way. There is nothing he appealed to as textual evidence which would keep someone from accepting that Christ was claiming to be eternal. It appears that his position is almost like the WT when they deal with a scripture like Romans 10:13 which says, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". The obvious reference is to Jesus in the immediate context, yet because this is a quote from the Old Testament speaking of Jehovah, they say that Christ can only be referred to as such(or at least they used to) because he is the perfect representative of Jehovah but that he is not actually Jehovah. Barrett says that of Christ, "I am the one-the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God." If this is only what Christ intended to convey then the response from His audience was extreme since Christ had previously made similar claims without such an uproar. He later got the same kind of response when He said, "I and my Father are one"(John 10:30). Barrett also said concerning ego eimi, "On the absolute of these words see on v. 24. The meaning here is: before Abraham came into being, I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be . . .Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy . . .but this does not mean that Jesus had claimed to be God."

It appears that Barrett's comments are contradictory. I suppose one would have to look into what exactly he means by "eternal", perhaps as he stated before that Christ is of the "eternal world". It looks like Barrett is stretching something in order to get away from the apparent view that Jesus was indeed something much more.

Please note that McKay, which you refer to below, says that claiming to be older than Abraham would be sufficient to provoke a violent reaction from the Jews. I have to disagree and the fact that he may be a scholar holds no weight at this point, since other scholars who are far more qualified in research and teaching and have had more things published would disagree with him. I see JWs constantly attacking men who have had more years of experience and education than I have been alive, yet they wish to dismiss them as if their scholarship means nothing. So the appeal to someone who is "impressive in the area of scholarship" apparently should not be that impressive, right? The truth is that the Jews had already thought that Jesus was saying that He lived during the time of Abraham, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?"(v.57) They understood that Jesus had made a claim of contemporary existence with Abraham. They did not violently react to Christ's comments that Abraham had seen His day. They only picked up stones when He expressed that he existed before Abraham with the identity of ego eimi "I am".

As far as McKay is concerned, I will respond by saying that his main focus was the relationship between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58, something that I did not address. Dave Sherill, from whose website I quoted, was the one who mentioned Exodus 3:14, so I will let him defend himself. Be advised that there are a number of scholars who also disagree with McKay, Barrett and others about Exodus 3:14.

Scenario:
Please note that this honored scholar[McKay], who is certainly not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, says exactly the same thing that we say about this verse. His preferred translation is very close, and probably actually better, than the NWT’s. Notice that it does not matter where the “eimi” falls in the sentence. It made no difference in the outworking of the translation. After scholarly admissions of this nature, I find it odd that any one could find fault with the NWT’s treatment of John 8:58

. ProveAll:
I already mentioned the difference in context of John 15:27 and John 8:58. In the case of john 8:58 "ego eimi" is indeed pointing to an identification, in which case where it occurs does make a difference. You said, "After scholarly admissions of this nature, I find it odd that any one could find fault with the NWT’s treatment of John 8:58." Well there are numerous people who do, many of whom are scholars. Now if I went about quoting scholars and made the same kind of statement you just did, you would probably jump all over it and consider even the thought of such as ludicrous. You would be right. There are many scholars from different persuasions. Even scholars do not simply write articles to make money, they write about subjects which usually are of great interest to them. I could give you scholarly admissions, as you put it, until I'm blue in the face. The truth is when I was on an Atheist discussion group, the common response to quotations of "pulp apologists" as one gentleman liked to put it was that I was committing the fallacy of "appealing to authority". This gentleman would likewise be guilty. Actually he was far more guilty of the ad hominem fallacy. The difference is that appealing to scholarship is indeed appropriate at times and it opens up avenues of discussion and further research.

Now let's hear the views of another scholar and let everyone have a chance to consider an alternative scholarly view.

Dr. Philip B. Harner recently retired from teaching at Heidelberg University in Tiffin, Ohio. To the best of my knowledge he is still living. He is a "graduate of Princeton University, majoring in classics, he has done his further study at Yale (B.D., 1957; M.A., in New Testament, 1959; Ph.D., Old Testament, 1964). . . Dr. Harner has been a Rockefeller Doctoral Fellow, earned Phi Beta Kappa, and is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ." The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine Usage and Thought, p. iv(from the Introduction by John Reumann, Lutheran theological Seminary), 1970 by Philip Harner.

Dr. Harner has also been quoted out of context by the WTBTS in support of their rendering of John 1:1.

Speaking of Exodus 3:14,

"In this clause ego eimi ho on , the ego eimi is not used absolutely but merely to introduce the predicate<[i]ho on. Only this predicate can be regarded as a proper name. This is especially clear in the second half of the verse, where the Septuagint translates 'I AM has sent. . .' as ho on apestalken. These observations suggest that I AM of Exodus 3:14 can hardly be considered a direct source for an absolute use of ego eimi in the Fourth Gospel, especially in the light of the Septuagint usage. Nor is there evidence for any direct connection between this expression and the 'I am He' of Second Isaiah, either in the Hebrew or the Greek texts. J. Richter has correctly pointed out that the I AM of Exodus 3:14 functions as a theological definition or etymology of a name, while the 'I am He' of Second Isaiah is a formula of proclamation. In a more general sense, however, it is also true that both expressions represent forms of divine self-predication in the first person singular. It is also possible that the use of I AM as a divine name in the Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 influenced the Septuagint translators of Second Isaiah in their rendering of ani hu as ego eimi. In this case there would be an indirect connection between the two phrases. These factors indicate that we should not entirely exclude the I AM of Exodus3:14 as part of the more general background for the Johannine usage of ego eimi." p.17

(previous)
ProveAll:
Even those who cannot be deemed as scholars do not deviate from it. Even Benjamin Wilson who produced the the Emphatic Diaglott translated the passage as "I am he". The truth is that John 8:58 is not speaking of an "action" carried out in the past. The example you gave is totally different from that of John 8:58. The simple declaration of preexistence could have been made by simply saying "Before Abraham was, I was". It would not have detracted from the meaning since it would have been clear to His audience that such existence in the past continued to the present.

Scenario:
As I said before, merely saying I “was” would not convey the thought that this “existence” which was before Abraham, continued unbroken from then till the point spoken of.

(previous)
ProveAll:
Your argument does not hold to this kind of construction. The Jews were also familiar with the Septuagint and the usage of "ego eimi" with reference to Jehovah God. Isaiah 43:10-11 is a good example. This would be the reason why they wanted to kill Him.

Scenario:
I believe Kenneth McKay would disagree with your evaluation altogether. It certainly does hold to this kind of construction. Also, as he stated in his above article, “If we take the Greek words in their natural meaning, as we surely should, the claim to have been in existence for so long is in itself a staggering one, quite enough to provoke the crowd's violent reaction." There didn’t have to be a supposed connection with “ego eimi” in Exodus or “ani hu” in Isaiah to get the reaction he got.

ProveAll:
I already dealt with that above. The fact is if Christ wanted to reiterate that he had been in existence centuries prior to His discussion with the Jews in the 1st century, He very well could have said "Before Abraham was, I was." Actually the WT does not teach that Christ had unbroken existence from the time of Abraham down to the present. They teach that Michael's life force was transferred into the womb of the virgin Mary. They have also taught that a person is not a person without a body and a life force. Since they teach that a soul ceases to exist if the life force is not present, Michael ceased to exist in order to have the life force transferred. The WT has also taught that the life force is not living and does not possess personal attributes. They liken it to electricity which powers appliances, but does not take on their characteristics. So even if you continue to argue this way, the Jesus of the WT did not have continuous existence. What is even worse is that they teach that the same thing happened when Jesus died. He ceased to exist and the life force was combined with a spirit body that was named Jesus and Michael. Despite the rationalizations to avoid these inconsistencies, the Jesus of the WT is not the same "yesterday, today and forever". Now concerning whether "I was" could convey the meaning of continuous existence, it most definitely could and be understood that way by the Jews. "Before Abraham was, I was" would indicate that the speaker existed before Abraham and continued to exist since he was the one speaking at a time long separated from that of Abraham. It should not be assumed that the person speaking had lapsed into non-existence and then was recreated. To think that the Jews would have thought of such as a possibility is really stretching it.

Scenario:
Notice what these other noted scholars have to say:
A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J.H.Moulton which says about this;
"The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective,the only difference being that the action is concieved as still in progress(Burton§ 17).It is frequent in the NT: Luke 2:48; 13:7;15:29;Jn 5:6; 8:58;14:9;15:27;Acts 15:21;26:31;2 Cor.12:19,2 Ti.3:18;2 Pt.3:4;1 Jn 2:9;3:8."
When we look at Moulton's reference to Ernest De Witt Burton in his Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, 'The Tenses', par.17, p.10, we can read:
"17. The Present of past Action still in Progress.The Present Indicative,accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time,is sometimes used in Greek,as in German,to describe an action which,beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases."

This work was cited by J.H.Moulton in his "A Grammar of New Testament Greek" when discussing durative presents(PPA's) which included John 8:58 as one example.

On this William Loader in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Structures and Issues, says: "The dispute with the Jews heightens in the rest of ch.8. Again Jesus defends himself, using terms familiar to us from the central structure: 'What I have with the Father, I speak and what you have heard from the father you do not do'(8:38); 'now you seek to kill me, a human being,who has spoken the truth to you,which I heard from God'(8:40); 'If God were your Father, you would love me, because I came out from the Father and have arrived here; I have not come of my own accord, but he sent me'(8:42). Jesus does not seek his own glory, but God's(8:50,54). 'The Father is the one that glorifies me, of whom you say, "he is our God", and you have not known him, but I know him. If I were to say to you I do not know him I should be a liar like you. But I do know him and I keep his word'(8:54f). The conflict reaches it's climax when Jesus asserts his pre-existence: 'Before Abraham came into being, I am'(8:58). Again, the percise meaning of 'I am' will depend on factors outside the immediate passage. The attempted stoning(8:59) might suggest blasphemous utterance of the divine name, but need not either here or elsewhere. Need it mean no more than the stupendous claim: I am in existence since before Abraham?"-p48.

ProveAll:
The fact that Moulton cites John 8:58 as an example "The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking" does not alter the fact that context plays a part in this passage that differs from others. Such an inclusion by Moulton does not mean that John 8:58 should be rendered as "I have been", simply because of the context and Old Testament parallels. Besides I already said that John 8:58 does point to the fact that Christ's existence was continuous. I also pointed out that such an interpretation could have been derived solely from the indication that whover Jesus was, he was "before Abraham". This hardly required the expression "ego eimi" in this instance. The context alone demonstrates that the Jews already understood Jesus' claim to preexistence without throwing a hairy fit. They proceeded to throw that fit "after" his self-identification as "I am" which, in fact, does parallel the use for Jehovah in the Old Testament.

As far as William Loader is concerned, his conclusion also fails as a total and complete explanation for what happened. Despite the references to John 8:58 as a "PPA", the mere appearance of such should not indicate that the translation should parallel other passages because it denotes the identity of Jesus. It can not be assumed that the continuous existence of Jesus began at a certain point, just as it cannot be assumed that Jehovah's existence began sometime prior to the creation. Before the creation, "I He"(ani hu). The fact you wish to separate this claim from a "title" is of no difficulty since we are not trying to establish the Deity of Jehovah, as put forth in the Old Testament. We are discussing Jesus' usage which parallels that of Jehovah and identifies Himself in the same way. Jesus was indeed claiming something that the Jews knew applied to Jehovah. Besides, the use of "I" and "He" were used as substitutes by the Jews for Jehovah. This is also pointed out by Philip Harner in his book on the subject. The use of "aniwehu"(I and He) was also used for Jehovah. So the truth is that such an occurrence can and was thought of as a "title" for God.

Scenario said:
Could it not be said that the literal translation of "I am" at 8:58 would be ignoring the function of the Greek present tense serving as a perfect when accompanied by an adverbial expression of past time? Yousaid:
(previous)
ProveAll:
No. It was separated from that which distinguished Abraham's existence from His own. The same expression for Abraham's existence could likewise have been used to describe Christ, if prior existence was the only thing meant in the passage. Something more was intended as witnessed by the Jews' response.

Scenario:
Yes, something more was intended. It was intended to convey the thought that he had existed before Abraham and was STILL existing without interruption. As McKay said, that was enough to get a violent reaction to claim to have been alive for so long.

. ProveAll:
I already addressed this above. McKay's and Loader's conclusion are not sufficient to explain the Jews' reaction.

(previous) ProveAll:
Please notice that the present tense is distinct from the previous phrase describing the time element in relation to the beginning of Abraham's existence. It is an absolute expression. Now a question for you. If John had wished to say "Before Abraham was, I am" how would he have done that? You wish to say that the passage should not be directly translated, yet you must be able to show how he would have written it.

Scenario:
I am glad you asked that because that brings me to another point that I think dictates against this ‘eternality’ interpretation as well. In actuality, all Jesus would have had to say is “I am” or “I am eternal” and then there would have been no question as to what was meant. By simply stating that he was "eternal" they would have certainly known that he was around before Abraham and was claiming to be God. It really makes no sense at all to use an absolute expression intended to convey eternal existence with an expression of past time. Why would the expression and the contrast with past time even be needed in an absolute statement meant to convey eternal existence? All that would be needed is the statement, “I am”. If the use of “eimi” is meant to convey the eternality of the subject, then what is the point of using the expression of past time at all? I would like to ask, WHERE in classical or other Greek literature do we find an absolute use of “eimi” denoting eternality and used with an expression of past time, where “eimi” could not be construed as part of the “Extension from the Past” idiom? In fact, The use of the past expression “before Abraham came into existence” appears to be evidence that “eimi” is not used as an indication of eternalness. Rather, it is used with an expression of past time to communicate Christ’s existence from a time before Abraham was born, to the present. Please review McKay’s article above to verify this.

ProveAll:
Perhaps you should look at Isaiah 43:13 and then consider that God did the same thing Jesus did in order to emphasize who He was. When speaking to those who are subject to time, God contrasts His eternal existence with that which began to exist. Jesus did the same thing with Abraham, since he was the immediate subject the Jews were falling back to in order to justify themselves. You definitely need to revise your assessment of what can denote eternality.

Scenario:
Notice this as well: The Present of Past Action still in Progress. The Present Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek ... to describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress at the time of speaking. English idiom requires the use of the Perfect in such cases.” (e.a.)- Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods And Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 10, section 17.

(previous) and re-iterated for the present.
ProveAll:
There is nothing in the passage which denotes a beginning. You may see this because of your theological predisposition, but it is not found in the text itself. And as I mentioned above, there is no specific action being spoken of, unless you wrongly conclude that mere existence requires work to maintain, in the same fashion as "tracking" from your above example.

Scenario:
Sorry David, although not taking much effort, existing IS an action.

ProveAll:
You should note that the same would likewise be applicable to God in the Old Testament. If this is applied then one could conclude that God's existence(an action as you put it) began in past time and is still in progress. You would not accept this because you already believe that God is eternal, or at least from times "indefinite" as the WT has put it. What I was referring to, had nothing to do with actions which take place in a temporal frame. Yes God's existence may be viewed in a sense as continuous, but definitely did not begin. Other actions may be said to begin, but existence in the context of the "divine" is something quite different.

(previous)
ProveAll:
Your quotes may be legitimate, but they have nothing to do with the usage in John 8:58. They are disconnected and such misuse of scholarly material is without excuse. Some individuals may offer variant translations, but the vast majority of all New Testament translations are consistently translated along with other absolute uses of "ego eimi" as "I am".

Scenario:
I think we have seen from very notable Greek scholars that David’s claim about misuse of scholarly material is in itself a misuse of scholarly material. To claim that John 8:58 does not have the elements necessary for an “Extension from the Past” idiom is to ignore the fact that all the necessary elements are there as confirmed by Moulton and McKay and others. (Winer, Blass and Debrunner, Nigel Turner)

ProveAll:
Scenario has continually failed to consider that a passage which contains elements which are deemed "necessary" for a particular view may not in fact be intended to convey such. The context and related usage of an expression determines how a passage should best be translated. It cannot be claimed that translating the passage as "I am" is because of theological bias, since the context of Christ's identity indicates something more than a declaration of prior existence which continues into the present, although that is definitely involved. The translation should indeed stick with the literal meaning of the words and thereupon the full significance of the expression can then be determined. Any historical and textual background would also have to be considered which would shed light upon how Jesus' expression would have been viewed by His audience. Besides all of this, it is agreed that Jesus' existence is certainly continuous, but the passage indicates more than this as I have already indicated. You are the one who has continued to misuse scholarly material. You refer to Moulton and others, but aside from McKay, I have yet to see that such scholars believe that the passage should not be translated as "I am". I have already pointed out that Barrett accepts "I am". It should also be noted that Loader does likewise. As noted before, the passage is arranged differently from others and even the passage in John 15:27 differs because self-predication is not intended as in John 8:58.

I said:
ProveAll:
This describes the syntax of John 8:58. So how can you say the text doesn't warrant it?
You said:
(previous)
Scenario:
It does not descibe it, so that is how I can say it.

I and many noted scholars beg to differ.

ProveAll:
Please note that other "noted" scholars would beg to differ with you and the "noted" scholars you cite. Let's take a look at what R.C.H. Lenski had to say concerning John 8:58,

58) Not only does Jesus affirm what the question of the Jews asks, with the solemn formula of verity and authority he affirms vastly more. Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am. the aorist genesqai ( prin with the infinitive after a positive verb, R. 977, 1091) marks the historical point of time when Abraham came into existence as against the time prior to that point when Abraham did not exist. this aorist is in contrast to eimi; which Jesus predicates of his own person (eimi), here a finite verb not the mere copula (R. 394). As the aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense "I am" predicates absolute existence for the person of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all. That is why Jesus does not use the imperfect hmhn, "I was"; for this would say only that the existence of the person antedates the time of Abraham and would leave open the question whether the person of jesus also had a beginning like that of Abraham (only earlier) or not. What Jesus declares is that, although his earthly life covers less than fifty years, his existence as a person ( eimi) is constant amd independent of any beginning in time as was that of Abraham. For what Jesus here says about himself in comparison with any other man, no matter how far back the beginning of that man's existence lies. "I am"=I exist. Thus with the simplest words Jesus testifies to the divine, eternal pre-existence of his person. . .Yes, Jesus has seen Abraham-the deduction of the Jews is right in every respect, only it should go much farther.

59) As Jesus had made his meaning clear to the Jews in the first place, so also he did in this final word. they understand its full import, namely that, if the existence of the person of Jesus antedates that of Abraham in absolute continuation, he declares himself to be God. To them this is rank blasphemy.

The Interpretation of St. John's Gospel, Augsburg Publishing house, (first published in 1942), 1963 printing, pp670-1

(R=A Grammar of the Greek new Testament in the Light of Historical research, by A.T. Robertson, fourth edition.)

(previous)
ProveAll:
The examples you allude to are not arranged in the same fashion as John 8:58 and other passages where it stands without a predicate. There may be those who wish to render it as if the text was different(i.e. I was before Abraham came into being). I would say that many differing versions are paraphrased instead of conforming to the actual text. The truth is that paraphrase involves more interpretation than direct translation.(The New Living Translation is a paraphrase) Jesus could have easily said what I alluded to before, namely that he had the same kind of derivative existence as Abraham, yet this is precisely what he does not say. Besides this, your example(I have long been looking) indicates a predicate, or at the very least implies one which John 8:58 does not have.

Scenario:
And as mentioned before, nor does John 15;27 yet we have many translations that render the phrase as “You have been”.

ProveAll: I have ad
dressed the difference above.

(previous)
ProveAll:
I could say "I have been looking for a hammer." This would be correct. Now try to use this with "before". Would "Before Abraham came to see me I have been looking for a hammer" be correct? No. It should be rendered "Before Abraham came to see me, I was looking for a hammer"

Scenario:
But your example does not include the sense that you would STILL be looking for the hammer. Best again, is the way McKay would render it “Since before Abraham came to see me, I have been looking for a hammer. Your examples only deal with the past sense, not the fact that the action continues.

ProveAll:
The truth is that performing an action like that mentioned above is different from affirming an absolute continuous existence in comparison to an existence which had a beginning. The point I was making was the interpretaion which the WT and others give this passage has to do with something which began and continues to exist. The fact that the example of looking for a hammer which may be viewed as ceasing when Abraham arrived is not the same as "I am" without a predicate where existence is being spoken of. As I have previously pointed out, if mere preexistence was the claim intented by Jesus, all he had to do was say "I was", which would indeed indicate that He preexisted Abraham and with an assumed beginning.

(previous)
ProveAll:
This is not the same when viewing the text under consideration. This demonstrates that John 8:58 is trying to say something much more than that Jesus was before Abraham or that he was doing something before Abraham. It points to an existence radically different from Abraham, that which Jehovah spoke of in reference to Himself which the Jews undoubtedly were familiar with through the Greek Septuagint.

Scenario:
If you are in reference to “ego eimi” at Exodus 3:14, I think McKay and others do plenty do dispel that notion. If you are in reference to “ani hu” then maybe you should spell this out better and we could then analyze your connection.

ProveAll:
I believe I have done that above. I could quote James White and others where "ani hu", "ani" , "hu", and "ahiwehu" can be seen as referring to Jehovah which closely parallels that of John 8.

(previous)
ProveAll:
You fail to acknowlege that descibing a state which continues up to the present does not refute the reading "I am". You must also consider whether there is a predicate. Eternal existence continues throughout any possible state involving and surpassing time. "I am" not only correctly conveys the idea of existence before Abraham, as the text states, but that such existence not only continued into the present but points to why Jesus existed before Abraham, namely the identification with Jehovah(Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 46:4 Septuagint).

Scenario:
You keep referring to these “ani hu” connections without explanation. Below you elaborate on why you think this is a claim to being Jehovah, so that is where we will deal with it.

ProveAll:
Please note that John 14:9 is not parallel to John 8:58. It says, "so long a time with you am I, and not know me Philip?(The Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green(1985)) You see that this is in reference to the time Jesus had with Philip. This speaks of action in the past up to the present(being with Philip, teaching and preaching) This extended from the past to the present and included the context of speaking to the one He was with. The same is not the case with John 8:58.

Scenario:
And of course none of the grammarians stated anything about this being a requirment in relation to a syntax qualifying as an EP (Extension from Past) idiom. The grammarians cited simply mention an “expression of past time,” an “adverb of time”, and one (McKay) mentions both “an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” The stipulation you present is nothing more than your own “requirment” being imposed upon the situation without any warrant for doing so.

ProveAll:
You may feel that it is somehow my "requirement" but you are mistaken. What I said was true. The context must be considered and conversation with someone about the duration of their relationship is markedly different from that of expressing one's identity.

(previous)
Now if you would please provide quotations from these references where the text should be translated "I have been". No one has disputed that a Present may include a past tense. It all depends on the context and the grammar of the rest of the passage. There is nothing in the text which points to the existence of Christ commencing at a particular time, yet that is precisely what is said of Abraham. None of your quotes can be used to demonstrate that John 8:58 should better be translated as "I have been".

Scenario:
This has already been covered unless David thinks that he has the ability to prove Kenneth McKay to be in error, then I think his claims are entirely driven by his theology, certainly not by a necessity through the actual wording of the text.

ProveAll:
Perhaps Scenario has not considered that such a statement is theologically driven. He said that if I think I can prove McKay to be in error then my claims must be ENTIRELY driven by my theology. Actually the passage neccessitates more than either McKay or Scenario think it must. As I have continued to point out, scholars are also theologically driven. It would be interesting to find out the theological opinions of McKay. Scenario's statement proves that he is the one in this instance driven by his theology, or he would not have said something so ludicrous. Many scholars of necessity must be wrong, why must it be impossible that McKay cannot be wrong on this matter? I suppose Lenski, White, Robertson, even Barrett, and Harner must also be wrong when their scholarship reveals a connection between the use of "ani hu" with "ego eimi" and how John 8:58 and other passages refer to more than just continuous existence from a point in time before Abraham.

ProveAll:
What I said about John 14:9(which is in your list) applies to the rest. James White points out, "There are many instances in historical narrative or conversation where the Greek will use a present tense verb that is best rendered in English by the perfect. John 15:27 would be a good example: 'because you have been with me from the beginning.' the verb, este, is in the present tense, but the context makes it clear that it is in reference to both past and the present, or, as Moulton said above, 'it gathers up past and present time into one phrase.' Robertson correctly notes that this is a common idiom in the New testament, though he also adds the fact that, in his opinion, John 8:58 is 'absolute' and should be rendered as such (which he always does in his works). It should also be noted that it is the deficiency of the English that is to blame for the rendering - to place weight on the meaning of the English perfect tense when rendering the Greek present in this way would be in error."(Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ---http://aomin.org/EGO.html

Now I would think that one can see from the above and from consulting the other translations meant for general reading, the grammatical principle has been followed.
It has already been pointed out the various examples given above do not parallel that of John 8:58.
(remember the predicate?)

Scenario:
And in the mind of McKay, Moulton, Nigel Turner, Blass and Debrunner, Winer, Beduhn and others this “predicate” stipulation made absolutely no difference.

ProveAll:
You have yet to produce quotations where Moulton, Turner, Blass and Debrunner say that john 8:58 should not be translated as "I am". Please remember that scholars and grammarians also realize that grammar is not an entity unto itself, and that context can never be separated from the big picture. This is not automatically driven by ones theology either. Like I have pointed out, Barrett, who disagrees with me about the significance of John 8:58, clearly sees more to this passage because he is driven to it by the context, not to mention historical and textual analysis of relevant data concerning the usage of "ego eimi". Now the only one you have really appealed to, other than Loader(who agrees that the passage should read "I am"), is McKay.

Scenario:
The Greek present has been rendered into the English perfect when the Greek construction noted above is found in the sentence. Yet, when reviewing the renderings of most translations/versions, we find the grammatical principle has not been observed at John 8:58.
(previous)
ProveAll:
No, the principle has been followed. The fact is that you fail to accept that John 8:58 differs from the examples you listed above. You do not choose to see a difference based upon your prejudice. There is definitely a reason why most translations and versions correctly render John 8:58 as "I am". Even some Unitarians and antitrinitarians, although they disagree with the meaning of the passage, realize that it is certainly not incorrect to translate it as "I am".

Scenario:
And what has been presented should clearly establish that it is not incorrect to render it in the fashion we have rendered it, it meets the grammatical criteria for a PPA/EP although I would have to say that McKay’s suggestion (adding “since”) would probably be an improvement.

ProveAll:
It would indeed be incorrect if for the sake of existing elements which are common for past present action, one ignores the full context. I do not dispute that PPA is involved. The tuth is that John 8 deals more with the question of who Christ is and not just whether he continuously existed(which the WT does not teach) grammar cannot be separated from context and vice versa. This is precisely why I do not disagree that continuance of existence is indeed involved, but as Lenski and others have pointed out, there is more to it.

(previous)
ProveAll:
All you have done is quote scholarly sources which deal with a certain construction having nothing to do with the usage in John 8:58, especially since translating ego eimi as "I have been" with "prin"(before) even accompanied by a predicate is incorrect and awkward at best.(Before Abraham was born I have been working ??????????)

Scenario:
How you can say that after what has been presented by some noted scholars is beyond me. Through the addition of McKay’s “since”, the reading makes perfect sense and relates the correct thought behind the words.

ProveAll:
Now there you go again with your theologically driven rhethoric. You say that McKay relates the "correct" thought behind the words. I suppose this is supposed to imply that the scholars I have referenced must not have the correct thought. The truth is that context could also determine that the imperfect "was" could indeed denote that "work" had continued. An automatic cessation would not be warranted unless it was apparent from the context. Aside from that, I was specifically speaking of the "translation" into English. The English indeed would be awkward in the example I gave. You definitely should not be appealing to the addition of "since", because it implies as you put it, that McKay knows what the correct thought should be, and he would therefore, be in his rights to add words to make it fit better with the correct understanding. Sounds like McKay just maybe driven by his theology as well.

Scenario:
What is more, why could Jesus not simply have been making a distinction between his pre-existent temporal status and Abraham's "ordinary" temporal status? This is not out of the realm of possibility (either philosophically or exegetically).

ProveAll:
I and others have said, the use of "was" would indeed make such a distinction. If Jesus was simply making such a distinction, then it would have been more natural for Him to have done just that. However, this is not what he did. He intended to convey something deeper.

Scenario:
In this regard, Mckenzie writes: Jesus asserts his own innocence and the vindication which the Father will give him. This leads to a clear assertion of preexistence and his life is threatened for the first time. The preexistent Messiah actually does appear in rabbinical literature; and it was also rabbinical belief that the patriarchs and Moses saw the Messiah in a vision (Mckenzie 193-194). One of the foremost modern Catholic theologians therefore concludes that Jesus was not necessarily juxtaposing his eternality with Abraham's temporality, but rather boldly asserting his preexistence over against the comparatively mundane existence of Abraham.

ProveAll:
Now please quote the text of John 8:58 McKenzie was referring to. Does it say "I have been"? It is also granted that one can speak of preexistence without temporal assumptions. Please also remember that the Messiah--"Christ" was the one the Israelites were tempting in the wilderness(I Corinthians 10:9). The preexistent Christ would be none other than "JEHOVAH". Concerning your comments about what a Catholic theologian concluded, I would have to check the reference and context. I have already demonstrated that appealing to preexistence does not necessarily mean that such had to be temporal and not eternal. What you believe about Christ undoubtedly would lead you to read your assumptions into the work of others, however, the quotation you provide is insufficient to validate it.

Scenario:
Also, note the many translations that DO NOT translate the words as “I am”:
? The New Testament Or Rather The New Covenant-S.Sharpe: "I was before Abraham".
? A Bible,A New Translation-J.Moffatt: "I existed before Abraham was born"
? The New Testament in the Language of the Day-W.G.Beck: "I was before Abraham"
? The Simple English Bible: "I was alive before Abraham was born"
? The Twentieth Century New Testament: "before Abraham existed I was"
? The New Testament in the Language of the People-C.B.Williams: "I existed before Abraham was born"
? The Bible-An American Translation-E.Goodspeed(NT): "I existed"
? The Unvarnished New Testament-A.Gaus: "I have already been"
? The Authentic New Testament-H.J.Schonfield: "I existed"
? The Complete Gospels-R.J.Miller(Editor): "I existed"
? New American Standard Bible 1963-1970 editions: "I have been"-alternative rendering

ProveAll:
It should be noted that the majority of versions cited are the works of individuals. There are many scholars who can be considered liberal. Their personal viewpoints are often times reflected in their work. Now why don't you go and list as many translations as you can which translate it as "I am". Oh, and speaking of alternative readings, why doesn't the NWT offer the alternative reading "I am".

Ok here is a small list:

KJV: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am"
NKJV: "Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.""
ASV: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born, I am."
NIV: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
NASB: "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.''
RSV: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.""
Darby: "Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am"
Young's Literal Translation: "Jesus said to them, `Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;'"
21st Century King James Version: "Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am!""
Weymouth translation: "In most solemn truth," answered Jesus, "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am."
TEV: "I am telling you the truth," Jesus replied. "Before Abraham was born, 'I Am'."
Literal Translation Version: "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM!"
Douay-Rheims: "Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM."
Latin Vulgate: "dixit eis Iesus amen amen dico vobis antequam Abraham fieret ego sum"
Martin Luther's German translation: "Jesus sprach zu ihnen: Wahrlich, wahrlich ich sage euch: Ehe denn Abraham ward, bin ich." (bin=am/ich=I)
Reina Valera Spanish translation: "Díjoles Jesús: De cierto, de cierto os digo: Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy." (yo=I/soy=am)

(previous)
Now let's consider what some other scholar's have to say about the "I am" sayings. W. Robert Cook in his book The Theology of John, 1979, speaking of the absolute "I am" claims says,

"In three occurrences of this construction, the omission in the Greek of the predicate nominative 'He' may be explained in light of the contexts, since there are clearly identifiable antecedents (cf. 8:12,23 with 24; cf. 8:28a with 28b; cf. 13:13 with 13:19). The supplying of the pronoun 'He' in these cases is in order, since it is inferred from the context. This is not true in John 8:58. Here there is no antecedent in the context, and the obvious contrast intended between the two main statements('before Abraham was born' and 'I AM') is heightened by the fact that neither a predicate nominative nor a predicate adjective is used. By the use of ????(before), a word with unmistakable temporal meaning; by the reference to Abraham, a historical personage of paramount importance as the physical, natural, and spiritual progenitor of Israel; and by the use of the aorist infinitive ????????(was born), which emphasizes the historical fact of Abraham's existence, or, better, entrance into existence, one half of the great contrast is set forth. Then by a dramatic change of verb (from ??????? to ????) and aktionsart ()from puntiliar to linear) the second half is stated. While ???????? descibes entrance into existence from a state of nonexistence, ???? describes timeless being and essential existence (cf. John 1:1)."

Scenario:
Haven’t we heard this a hundred times over already? I believe this has been dealt with entirely.

ProveAll:
You simply dismiss other scholars who do not happen to agree wth those like McKay.

(previous)
Robert Kysar in The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemprary Scholarship, 1975 says,

"Two prominent studies of the sayings have been most concerned with the more problematic absolute use--Raymond Brown and Philip Harner. . .Both conclude that the key influence upon the formulations comes from the Greek translation of passages in Second Isaiah where Yahweh is made to say literally 'I He' ('ani hu), and the translators of the Septuagint have rendered the expression 'I am' ego eimi (e.g., 47:8, 10). Brown believes that the only examples of absolute use can be found in the Old Testament and points to Genesis 28:13 and Ezekiel 20:5 as well as the Isaiah passages. Harner finds the Second Isaiah passages alone the viable source of the fourth evangelist's thought. Both agree that in those passages the meaning of the absolute 'I am' is the emphatic assertion of monotheism and that in effect it came to be used as an abbreviation for the divine name itself. Hence, brown can conclude, 'Jesus is presented {in the fourth gospel} as speaking in the same manner in which Yahweh speaks in Deutero-Isaiah.' And Harner concurs, Second Isaiah supplied John with a solemn expression that was eminently suited for expressing the unity of the son and the Father and that had at the same time a strong connotation of monotheism which also served to express the Christian belief that God continued to be one. Moreover, both Brown and Harner affirm, in addirion to this influence from the Greek form of Second Isaiah, a knowledge on the fourth evangelist's part of the rabbinic use os 'I am he' ('ani wehu) as a surrogate expression for the divine name, especially in the liturgy for the feast of Tabernacles (e.g., Mishnah, Sukkah 4:5). Harner favors understanding that the fourth evangelist was influenced by both the Septuagint form of Second Isaiah and the rabbinic thought and practice, and Brown seems to agree. Brown goes on to conclude that the likely milieu for the evangelist's use of the 'I am' formula does not appear there. It is only the first person singular pattern used by wisdom which suggests some association with the 'I am' sayings of the fourth gospel.

Scenario:
Here we see the all-out attempt to connect the “ego eimi” statement of John 8:58 with the “ani hu/ego eimi” atatements of Jehovah in the OT, primarily Isaiah, much in the same manner that many Trinitarians used to try and still do, to connect the “ego eimi” of John 8:58 with the ”ego eimi” of Exodus 3:14. In each and every case where Jehovah uses “ani hu”, it is used in the sense of self-identification. Nothing in these verses can be used to show that this “ani hu” is some kind of title or name for God.

ProveAll:
Obviously there is considerable scholarship which disagrees with you and such cannot so easily be dismissed. As I have pointed out above, Harner devoted 65 pages to this subject in one of his books(The "I Am" of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Johannine usage and Thought, 1970). He also reaffirms what he said in a later work from 1993(Relation Analysis of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Reader-Response Criticism, pp.52-58) Despite what you wish to believe, the Jews were familiar with the surrogate expressions used to represent Jehovah.

Scenario:
Even humans use the expression “ani hu” in the OT. David uses the expression “ani hu” in reference to himself at 1 Chron.21:17. It is even translated by the LXX as “ego eimi”. Are we to conclude that David is Jehovah or claimed a divine title for himself? “Ani hu” is simply used as an expression of self-identification and context would determine what that identification would be. The identity of the speaker must be determined from the context in which the phrase is used. There is no evidence that this phrase is a “divine title” exclusive to God. Otherwise, David is God.

ProveAll:
No one ever said that the expression in and of itself should be considered as a "divine title" whenever it occurs. You present a haphazard treatment of this particular aspect of the subject. The man in John 9:9 who was healed confessed "ego eimi" when others were asking whether he was the one who had been blind. The answer lies in the context. Just look at Isaiah 43:13 as one example where your comparison fails, "Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?(brings to mind John 5:18) This does in fact closely parallel the structure of John 8:58. The Septuagint also translates it as "ego eimi". The truth is that this instance is a claim to eternal existence and the Jews fully understood this. Now if BeDuhn and others feel that John 8:58 as it is translated in the AV and other versions is awkward, then they must deal with this scripture. It would also have to be considered awkward. It certainly would not be an improvement to say "before the day was, I have been he." or "I have been he before the day" or "Before the day, I was he". As such an attempt would not do justice to the text. Besides, the Jews did consider the usage of "ani hu" as a divine title for God, whether you wish to believe it or not. The association Jesus made was for the purpose of self-identification and it just so happened to be in a similar context of the passages in Isaiah with parallel structure as used in reference to God. The same can not be said about David, the blind man or others. If they would have said "ani hu" in a different context, then a much different claim would have been assumed about the identity of the speaker. The difference Jesus makes is that his absolute existence is contrasted with the prominent figure being discussed at the time, Abraham, while Jehovah in Isaiah 43:13 contrasts His eternal existence with time. Both instances involve contrasting the infinite with the finite. Therefore "I am" can indeed be viewed as self-predication pointing to Jehovah.

(previous)
ProveAll (from Robert Kysar):
"A study of the saying in John 14:6 by the French scholar, de la Potterie, undertakes to establish the literary milieu of the saying and comes to a conclusion similar to Brown's. De la Potterie rejects all efforts at finding parallels for the saying in Greek or gnostic literature and claims instead that it is reflective of 'an ancient style or speech which is derived from Judaism.' he finds literary parallels in Genesis 24:48; Tobit 1:3; Psalms 118; Proverbs 5:5-6; 6:23, and elsewhere. In still later texts the parallels become even stronger, e.g., 4 Ezra 5:1 and the Qumran manual of Discipline 4:16-20. De la potterie stresses the form and style of the saying in these texts, not the content."

F.F. Bruce in The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes(1983), p.193 says, "In the Septuagint of Ex. 3:14 God's reply to Moses is , ' "Ego eimi ho on (I am the one who is)"; tell them that "ho on (The one who is)" has sent you'. If a direct reference had been intended to Ex. 3:14 in the present passage{John 8:24}, one might have expected ho on rather than ego eimi. It is more probable here that ego eimi echoes 'I am He' ('ani hu), used repeatedly as a divine affirmation in Isa. 40-55 and translated ego eimi in the LXX (e.g. Isa. 41:4; 43:10, 13, 25; 46:4; 48:12). This affirmation 'ani hu may be the origin of the unusual divine name ani wehu (literally 'I and He') which was used in later days as a substitute for the ineffable name Yahweh, especially in the processional singing of Ps. 118:25 at the feast of Tabernacles. The conjunction we ('and') was taken to convey the close association, amounting almost to identification, of the God of Israel and his people. It may well be that ego eimi here and in verse 28 below suggests that Jesus embodies the link binding God and his people together."

Scenario:
I think the language of “suggests”, “may well be” should dispel the notion that there is some kind of definitive attachment to this phrase. See above.

ProveAll:
Please note that it was said that "'ani hu may be the origin of the unusual divine name ani wehu(literally 'I and He') which was used in later days as a substitute for the ineffable name Yahweh". The truth is that it is stated that ani wehu IS a divine name which was used as a substitute for Jehovah. The fact that someone tries to trace the development of such and realizes that there may also be other factors which would have influenced the rabinnic usage of ani wehu is consistent. Scholars realize that there may be different avenues of influence which have not yet be realized and that is why caution is used when trying to determine the origin and development of an expression or saying.

(previous)
ProveAll:
In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, pp.206-7,

"eimi{to exist}, ho on {I am}
1. Already in the LXX ho on is used for God (Ex. 3:14). Philo has it too, and it is a divine predicate in Josephus. In the NT Revelation uses it in the formulas in 11:17; 1:4, 8; 4:8-formulas of worship, salutation, and self-predication. The non-declinability of ho on and the quasi-participial use of en preserve the sanctity of the divine self-predication. The formulas express God's deity and supratemporality. Similar formulas occur in Judaism. The Greeks also use two- and three-tense formulas to express eternity (cf. Homer, plato, and an Eleusinian inscription). These possibily came into Revelation by way of the Jewish tradition, though a common source may lie behind the Greek and Jewish traditions.
2. ego eimi as a self-designation of Jesus in Jn. 8:58 (cf. 8:24; 13:19) stands in contrast to the genesthai applied to Abraham. Jesus thus claims eternity. As he is equal to the Father (5:18ff.), what is ascribed to the Father is attributed to him too (cf. Is. 43:10 LXX). The context and the ego formulation are both Jewish. The point is not Jesus' self-identification as the Messiah )'I am he') but his supratemporal being."

Scenario:
In closing I would like to offer what has been offered by a noted greek scholar, Jason Beduhn, about John 8:58 and the NWT. More of his comments concerning the NWT are available if anyone wants to see them. If anyone wants to contact him to argue his words here, I can make his email address available to you, as he has given his permission to have his words repeated, and his email address is available online.

ProveAll:
I have e-mailed Mr. BeDuhn and am awaiting his reply [I received a response from Mr. BeDuhn since this was written and his reply is in line with what Scenario posted. This, however, does not change my view that Mr. BeDuhn is incorrect]. Now I would wonder why this man should hold any greater sway when it comes to the proper translation of a passage than someone else who just so happens to believe in the Trinity? It very well may be that BeDuhn is far a field when it comes to what he believes about the Bible and Jesus Christ. He just published a book in 2000 about the Manichaeans. So the very fact that he, as an individual, may have allowed himself to be swayed by the "dogma" in which he happens to believe has to be considered. When speaking of "glosses" in versions like the NIV and the NRSV he said, " These glosses often follow traditional renderings (deriving from the King James tradition) and conform to readings consistent with the dogma of the mainstream denominations (the NIV is more guilty of this than the NRSV)." Now please note that the same thing could be said about Socinian, Arian and other Unitarian glosses which conform to readings consistent with the dogma of these groups.

Scenario (from BeDuhn):
["]John 8:58. The traditional translation "Before Abraham was, I am" is slavishly faithful to the literal meaning of the Greek ("Before Abraham came to be, I am"). The result is ungrammatical English.["]

ProveAll:
I would say that such a result would only be considered ungrammatical if it is assumed that there is no significance to the expressed identity of Jesus. BeDuhn goes on to say, " We cannot mix our tense in such a way. The reason for this ugly rendering is the accident that, in English, the idiomatic "I am" sounds what God says about himself in the Hebrew/Old Testament. This is sheer coincidence. Jesus is not employing a divine title here." Now this is sheer presumption on BeDuhn's part. For him to say this, he must already believe that it is impossible for this to be the case. It sounds like BeDuhn and Scenario are just as dogmatic. BeDuhn just said that he believes that such a reading in English sounds like what God says about Himself in the Old Testament, but according to him this must be an accident. Just perhaps, as he has pointed out, the translation of "I am" is indeed faithful to the literal meaning of the Greek. He may think that this is merely an accidenct which must be remedied by translating it another way simply because it sounds like what God said about Himself, but that is something that the text does not afford. It is the opinion of Mr. BeDuhn. He then continues to say, "He is merely claiming that he existed before Abraham and, of course, he still exists whereas Abraham is dead." This is not brought out by the text and the surrounding context(see above). A mere claim to preexistence would have been more effectively conveyed by " I was" since it would be plain and obvious that the one claiming such continued to exist up to the time of speaking. He continues, "There is nothing wrong with the Greek, but we need to take account of the Greek idiom being employed and render the meaning into proper English." This is true, but as anyone knows, idiom may or may not convey the intended meaning depending on how and where they are used. The use of "ego eimi" without the predicate and in contrast to the temporal existence of Abrham, not to mention the emphatic declaration of Jesus concerning who he is, proves that the proper English translation should be "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am". This points to his identity as an object of faith, as John 8:24 points out. The Jews asked Him who He was and he finally gave his emphatic answer which effectively answered what he meant when he said, "If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." The Jews ask again about Christ's identity in v.53 and the truth is that Christ answered them to their disdain in v.58 as witnessed by their response in v.59. The issue was not just about existence but "who" was this one before Abrahm. The context itself points to the fact that Abraham actually did see Christ's day(John 8:56), not in a vision, but as was promised to him by Jehovah. It has already been pointed out that the children of Israel were tempting Christ in the wilderness(I Corinthians 10:9) so it is no great thing that Abraham saw the day of Christ as the context determines that Christ is equated with Jehovah.

Scenario (from BeDuhn):
"I am before Abraham" would be my choice to cheat our way out of it. Again, the inversion of the word order in the traditional English translation attempts to isolate "I am" as the divine title. But there's nothing unusual in the greek word order to induce us to deviate from normal English usage here.

ProveAll:
The choice that BeDuhn makes still involves the translation as "I am", albeit with an inverted word order The truth is that normal English usage still depends on context. The context seeks to provide an answer to questions in v. 53 and 57 involving not only the affirmation of what the Jews were already thinking, but of who Christ was claiming to be. There is no departure from proper English usage. Whether or not a situation descibed in English, or any language for that matter, should be rendered the same as another depends on differing factors.

Scenario(from BeDuhn):
I would have to prefer the NWT to both the NIV and the NRSV. The reason is simple. Both the NIV and the NRSV are more paraphrastic than the NWT. By that I mean that in both cases the translators work out what an entire passage "means" and then render the whole passage into English that conveys that meaning. The problem is that there are many passages of which we are not sure of the meaning. It is better to stick very close to the greek, rendering it as literally as possible without torturing English grammar.

ProveAll:
The truth is that English grammar has not been tortured. The most literal translation of the Greek into English is "Before Abraham was, I am". Contrast between absolute existence and derivative existence is made.

I have finished addressing this issue at this time. I wished to say more, but I have been too long in responding and I now have important personal issues which I must now give my undivided attention to. I appreciate your interaction. It has been educational.

Thank you,

David Race