Does gibberish count as a valid "translation" re. John 8:58

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Does gibberish count as a valid "translation" re. John 8:58

Post by Isaac Newton »

Robert G. Bratcher in his One Bible in Many Translations, p. 115, gives the following criteria for a legitimate translation:
"At least it can be agreed that any translation, in order to be considered good, should satisfy three requirements : (1) It should handle textual matters in an informed and responsible way. (2) It's exegesis of the original texts should be theologically unbiased. (3) It's language should be contemporary, it should conform to normal English usage."
John 8:58 as found in most translations ("Before Abraham was, I AM") violates all of the above points IMHO. It especially is suspect in that it violates English rules of grammar in translation (point 3 above). Dr. Jason BeDuhn explains in a little more detail why such a translation is nonsense (Bedhun, Truth in Translation, University , p. 107-108) :
"On the matter of word order, normal English follows the structure we all learned in elementary school: subject + verb + object or predicate phrase. The order of the Greek in John 8:58 is: predicate phrase + subject + verb. So it is the most basic step of translation to move the predicate phrase 'Before Abraham came to be' (prin Abraam genesthai) from the beginning of the sentence to the end, after the subject and verb. Just as we do not say 'John I am' or 'Hungry I am' or 'first in line I am,' so it is not proper English to say 'Before Abraham came to be I am.'.. It is ungrammatical English for something referred to with a present 'am' to occur earlier in time than something described with a past 'came to be.' "
And
"Separating 'I AM' off as if it were meant to stand alone is an interpretive sleight-of-hand , totally distorting the role the phrase plays in the whole sentence, either in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 3:14 or in John 8:58. .. Think about it. If 'I AM' was a separate quote, there would be no subject or main verb to go with 'before Abraham came to be' "
The original is fine, idiomatic Greek : πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

To translate this pearl of a verse into what can at best and charitably speaking , be described as "pidgin", is to rend it into pieces.

I think professor BeDuhn's translation is reasonable : "..I have been since before Abraham came to be." (Truth In Translation, p. 106)

C.B. Williams's translation is also apt: "..I existed before Abraham was born."
(The New Testament translation by C.B. Williams)
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Isaac Newton
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:15 am

Re: Does gibberish count as a valid "translation" re. John

Post by Isaac Newton »

Professor BeDuhn is very instructive in this matter, see here:

http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/John ... %20One.pdf
He is not talking at all about his origins in John 8:58, but only about his superiority to
Abraham in the dual terms of priority and survival. That suits his immediate purpose. It
may frustrate us that he wasn’t more explicit about things we are interested in. But we
can’t pretend he addressed these things in John 8:58 when he did not.
Finally, let me provide two comparative examples from Greek literature outside of the
Bible to show how the present tense Greek be-verb often has a past meaning when
complemented by an adverbial prin clause, just as it is in John 8:58
:

Testament of Job 2.1: “For I was (ego eimi) Jobab before (prin) the Lord named
me Job.”

Menander, Dyscolus 616: “For I have been (eimi) a friend to you long before (prin) I
knew you.”

There are of course dozens of examples of the formally present tense be-verb used as a
PPA with or without a prin clause. But let me leave my remarks here and open the
dialogue with Rob. My position on translation is that eimi should be translated with an
expression conveying present continuance of past existence such as “have been.” My
position on interpretation is that the verse does not provide enough specificity for us to
claim that the passage asserts either a limited or eternal preexistence of Christ. It
precludes neither interpretation, and the context of the larger gospel is not sufficiently
explicit on this question to settle it. I look forward to your comments, Rob.
I was able to find the on-line Greek text for Testament of Job, http://ocp.tyndale.ca/testament-of-job#2-2

ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι Ιωβαβ πρὶν ἢ ὀνομάσαι με ὁ Κύριος Ιωβ.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν

Post Reply