podcast 87 – Kermit Zarley on the deity and preexistence of Jesus

Sounds like you are using a variant of “what God said.” This is correct.

But what God says is predestined or pre-existent to the world’s beginnings AND the beginning of the ministry of Jesus.

This Word comes from the Father and Jesus was the mouthpiece. But all Jews knew that this Word is prophesy before it is spoken forth. All prophets WITH this Word of God who spoke forth of Messiah had to know this difference: Word not yet spoken forth, but that which will be spoken forth.

It has no direct relation to “coming down from heaven,” or “proceeding out from God as far as I know. But Hebraic understanding does have everything to do with these concepts, as well as what the Word is, especially for the Jew, John the Apostle.

But in the Prologue this BEGINNING has a liturgical alliance to the very beginning in Genesis, unless you think a liturgy was developed in so short a time, within the first generation.

I believe John did indeed speak of “the beginning” Word as the Word which Jesus spoke forth from his God. Through him this Word was disseminated among the Jews first and then the Gentiles.

But being both liturgical and at the beginning of John’s own gospel, plus the Jewish penchant for starting at the beginning of beginnings in their own diatribes, which by the way is exemplified in NT itself, by Paul and Peter themselves and Stephen before he was stoned…I believe this Beginning harkens to the beginning of beginnings. God spoke forth the world with 13 times specific DABAR Word and so John makes a definite link between Word in OT and Word in NT.

Although the Word was definitely not as expanded in meaning as modern theologians would propose…it did have for all Jews a “pre-existent” aspect…that Word which was determined but not yet spoken forth. So then the crescendo in the Prologue is v. 14. when the Word was actually spoken forth. I am not against your strict meaning so much as allowing for another concept included Semitically. Even if I am wrong here, I am right in general…and in general this Word included that which the prophets spoke, that which was to come, and that Messiah who was to come.

And John does in fact not make this link from OT Word to NT Word anywhere else in his gospel except at the beginning here, at least in his own words.

I consider that Word to be “Jesus” or “Jesus become.”

Then v. 14 is the point in time when the Word became flesh.

Maybe it don’t make no diff. We still have the same base definition which contradicts modern interpretations of the Word being gnostic and Greekish.

I take the harkening to Genesis from these words:

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

…and we see that Jesus is not the subject, rather God.

I’m sorry, “all things were made (by God) through him, and without him (Jesus) was anything made that was made (to again become ideal through him, Jesus). Grammatically the subject is him, Jesus. Conceptually the Word comes from the Father, God.

The liturgical aspect is the cadence of the first three clauses in Jn 1:1. And the three times the Word is repeated.

Even if we take the last clause “and God was the Word.”

Not so much purpose as something already known then.

This would mean that John is repeating a known liturgy.

If it was a purpose and John came up with it himself, then so much the better.

It would still harken to Genesis, when the Word made our cosmos.

GDunn,

I don’t think it follows that “the Jewish penchant for starting at the beginning of beginnings” demands that “the beginning” in John 1:1″ refers to Genesis 1:1.

There are many examples of where the apostolic writers used “beginning” to refer to the time when they were with the human Jesus (e.g. Mark 1:1; Luke 1:2-3; John 15:27; Acts 1:21-22). They also affirmed a time when the adult Jesus “began his public ministry” (Luke 3:38; Luke 24:19).

Thus, I would argue that, in the context of preaching the gospel, what you call “the beginning of beginnings” for the apostles went only as far back as their association with the human Jesus who came to dwell among them (John 1:14) after John the baptizer identified him as “the Christ” (John 1:15, 31).

GDunn,

Why do you think it’s necessary to introduce the Memra concept into John 1:1?

If you say that “the beginning” (John 1:1) should refer to Genesis 1:1, then why doesn’t “light” or “darkness” or “world” refer to Genesis in the same context? John the baptizer certainly couldn’t have been “sent to testify about the light” (John 1:6-9) before even Adam was created.

Doesn’t it seem more reasonable to think that all of the Genesis allusions in the Prologue would go together and be referring to the same period of time?

Jesus said “while I am in the WORLD, I am the LIGHT of the WORLD … I am the LIGHT of the WORLD and he who follows me will not walk in DARKNESS” (John 8:12; John 9:5). This sounds a lot more like John 1:4-9 than Genesis 1:1.

GDunn,

In the Genesis creation narrative, “light” is not something that is “spoken”. It is something that is generated by the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18) which “governs the evening and morning, night and day” (cf. Genesis 1:5). The ancient Hebrew writer understood that the “light” always came from the sun, moon, and stars (otherwise, there could not have been “evening and morning, the first day”).

In the 4th Gospel, the “light” refers to the human Jesus (John 1:7-10; John 8:12; John 9:5) because he was the man appointed to judge the works of men (John 3:19-21; 1 John 1:7).

I think we have to be careful with appealing to “Jewish understanding” because it can lead to numerous exegetical and logical fallacies. None of us can know for certain what every ancient “Jew” believed about anything. Thus, there’s no reason to assume that Jesus and the apostles would have agreed with everything that other Jews thought.

The best way to approach sound exegesis of the biblical testimony (which is all we know about what Jesus and the apostles were actually teaching) is to allow the apostolic writers to speak for themselves. Thus, we should be giving primary importance to internal, inter-textual evidence regardless of the uncorroborated extra-biblical material.

GDunn,

Thank you. My concern is that many scholars have missed the simplicity of understanding the meaning of LOGOS in the Prologue because they have become accustomed to entertaining definitions of the term that are based upon ocurences outside of the primary context of the writer’s own usage.

From a Biblical Unitarian perspective, I think an inter-textual definition of the noun LOGOS in the Johannine corpus suggests that it is the human Jesus who is the origin the “word” in John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1. Hence, there remains no implication of any notion of Preexistence or Incarnation.

The writer says “this one” (OUTOS) in John 1:2 because he is identifying “the word” (LOGOS) with “this one” (OUTOS) whom John the baptizer said was coming after him (John 1:15) and “this one” (OUTOS) who “baptizes with holy spirit” and “this one (OUTOS) who is “the son of God” (John 1:32-34).

GDunn,

What if the “all [things] that came [about] through him” (John 1:3) was imply referring to the “all [things]” the works and words that God gave the human Jesus to disclose during the time of his public ministry (John 3:35; John 4:25; John 5:20; John 15:15; John 16:25)?

He used the noun LOGOS over 40 times so there’s no reason to look outside of his own writings in order to restrict its meaning.

The Word which wrought forth Jesus as a created being was already well known by John and the other NT authors as pre-existent Word from these verses:

22″The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;” 23″I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. Pr.8:22-23 NIV.

22″The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.” 23″I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.” Pr.8:22-23 KJV.

22″The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old.” 23″I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Or ever the earth was.” Pr.8:22-23 Tanakh.

22The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old. 23″From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth.” 24I was created when there were yet no deeps, when there were no fountains replete with water.” Pr.8:22-24 Tanakh:

…and I think you are more against an EXPANDED definition of the Memra than your own gleaned from John’s gospel itself.

Roman,

Neither Colossians 1 nor Philippians 2 gives any “straight forward” indication that Jesus Christ was “together with” God the Father prior to being an human being. Both letters were written after the resurrection (Colossians 1:20; Philippians 2:9-11) and spoke of what Paul know of Jesus Christ after that time.

It’s just begging the question to suggest that your reading of John and Paul necessitates that they believed that Jesus existed as a person before being born on Earth. Not everyone agrees with your reading of theses texts because they are open to interpretation. 🙂

Roman,

I understand your point, but it depends upon the context. For example, I see the use of the Present Participle as an indication that Paul meant the text to be read this way … [brackets] are for clarification of how the syntax works:

Philippians 2:5 … “BE HAVING [now, on earth] THIS ATTITUDE AMONG YOURSELVES [Philippians] WHICH WAS [no verb] ALSO IN CHRIST JESUS

Philippians 2:6 … WHO [Christ Jesus] ALTHOUGH EXISTING [now, in heaven] IN THE FORM OF GOD, DID NOT REGARD [past, on earth] EQUALITY WITH GOD, A THING IN HIS GRASP …

Philippians 2:7 … BUT EMPTIED [past, on earth] HIMSELF, TAKING [past, on earth] THE FORM OF A SERVANT, AND BEING MADE [past, on earth] IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN

I think the critical problem with taking the Present Participle “existing in the form of God” as a past tense (i.e. “existed in the form of God”) is that it would have to mean the Jesus Christ had “the form of God” while he was on earth.

A Present Participle usually doesn’t work as a past tense unless it is in the context of an historical sequence of events. Present Participles don’t signify something that was going on prior to the sequences of those historical events.

Yeah, Rivers’s view of the account just doesn’t seem to flow naturally, and breaks what appears to me to be the clear progression of the passage.

I’ve suggested that he float some of his novel ideas on bgreek, because there are some extremely knowledgeable people there who have been writing about and teaching Greek for many years, but so far I haven’t seen him avail himself of this resource.

Another example of presupposition shaped “exegesis” that I’ve heard about recently (haven’t checked the source, yet), is apparently found in Anthony Buzzard’s NT, where I’m told by a trusted friend that he offers the following in a footnote to John 8:58:

“…It is also possible to translate the Greek, ‘Before Abraham comes to be
[in the resurrection] I am already alive.’ Thus Jesus proved his
superiority to Abraham by alone being resurrected on the third day.
Abraham will rise from death at the future resurrection when Jesus
returns (1 Cor. 15:23).”

Problems:

1. It’s “possible” to translate many Greek phrases in different ways, but that doesn’t make every possible translation a good option.

2. It simply isn’t possible that a claim to be “alive” could be twisted into a stoning offense, not even by Christ’s determined opponents.

3. In that view, an inference to Christ’s superiority hangs on an event that hadn’t even occurred yet when Jesus spoke those words, making it essentially impossible that Christ’s opponents would have inferred what Buzzard anachronistically reads back into the account.

When I read that I couldn’t help but be reminded of the uncomfortable contortions I went through playing Twister as a child. Granted, this was not Buzzard’s primary view (his primary view was more in line with standard Unitarian thinking, i.e. “I am” = “I am [he]” = “I am [the Messiah]”), but the fact that he even considers the alternative possible says a great deal about how the power of presupposition can shape our thinking.

“2. Yes, but that being said in the gospel of John the opponants
constantly missunderstand Jesus and constantly stone him for unjustified
reasons … so assuming they MUST be justified in stoning him is wrong.
The stoned him for claiming to be greater than Abraham.”

Well, frankly, both his opponents *and* his disciples often misunderstood Jesus. My point is that the Jews would not attempt to stone Jesus unless he uttered words that could at least ostensibly be construed as a stoning offense. If Christ’s opponents were willing to stone him without logical justification, then they would have already done so. Their problem was that they needed ***justification*** for stoning Jesus lest their positions be undermined and shown to be arbitrary.

So, they *certainly* couldn’t have justified stoning Jesus for merely claiming to be alive. He must therefore have said something other than “Before Abraham is resurrected, I am alive”, which, really is a rather silly reply to the question posed.

In the context of John 8:58, I would argue that Jesus’ opponents understood him perfectly. I offered the following on another forum recently:

Quote Self:
In my experience, the verse that the Socinian-type Unitarians (i.e. those who deny Christ’s preexistence) have the most trouble with is John 8:58….Here’s the argument in a nutshell:

The Greek at John 8:58 fits an idiom described by grammarian Kenneth McKay as the “Extension from Past”, which occurs when a present tense verb is “used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42

Based on this understanding of the Greek, McKay offers this superlative English equivalent of what Jesus meant:

“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”

If we accept McKay’s observation that verse 58 is an example of the Extension from Past idiom (and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t), then Jesus’ response (a) makes perfect sense and constitutes an exquisite response in light of the question posed, and (b) would have constituted a stoning offense if untrue. Notice how the pieces fall in place under McKay’s view:

Verse 56 – Jesus: “Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Verse 57 – Opponents: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?”

Verse 58 – Jesus: “The truth is, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born!”

Jesus’ opponents inferred from his statement in verse 56 that Jesus had personally observed (first hand) Abraham rejoice over seeing his day. For Jesus to say the equivalent of “I am God’s name-bearing agent” (which is what James McGrath and at least one other ‘scholar’ argues Jesus meant by EGO EIMI) as a response would be to utter a non sequitur. On the other hand, if we recognize the Greek idiom at work in the text and translate it the way we almost certainly would were it not for Church tradition, then Jesus’ response fits perfectly, even exquisitely in context.

One apologist (Bowman, if memory serves) attempted to dismiss this view by saying something to the effect of, “Claiming to be really, really old wasn’t a stoning offense.” While that may be true generally speaking, offering such as a response to McKay’s argument is really rather silly. Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him, not because a claim to be old was blasphemous, but because his claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born could only have been viewed as a preposterous lie by them, and for Jesus to present himself as God’s living, breathing power of attorney and then proceed to utter a lie while fulfilling his commission would make God a liar. Now THAT would be construed as blasphemous, especially by those who already sought his death!

McKay’s understanding of the Greek isn’t new, and sometimes when translators have broken away from committees and the unavoidable pressures such bodies sometimes exert out of allegiance to Church tradition, then they’ve offered renderings that attempt to capture the idiom. Note a few examples:

Edgar J. Goodspeed rendered vs 58, “I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born.”

James Moffatt similarly offered, “I have existed before Abraham was born.”

Catholic James A. Kleist, S.J. offered, “I am here — and I was before Abraham!” (In the footnote he claims that the utterance intimates eternity, but that’s not a necessary implication of the Greek).

Charles B. Williams, whose translation was called “…the best translation of the New Testament in English”, in part because it surpassed “…all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs” (J. R. Mantey, comments on dust jacket), offered this rendering, “I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.”

In their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Louw and Nida offer, “before Abraham came into existence, I existed.”

All of these are fine attempts to capture the sense of the Greek, yet only McKay’s rendering truly does it justice, as only his rendering “…expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues…”, as George Benedict Winer put it [1], or “…which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking…[which action is]…conceived as still in progress…” as Nigel Turner put it [2].

As William Loader asked, “Need …[the words “I am” at 8:58] mean more than the stupendous claim: I am in existence since before Abraham?” No, they needn’t mean *more* but they certainly mean that he WAS in existence since before Abraham was born.

~Sean

[1] A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, Seventh Edition, p. 267
[2] A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, Syntax, p. 62
[3] The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues, p. 48

Addendum:

Note also the translations based on the the ancient Syriac/Aramaic:

“Before Abraham was, I have been.” — Sinaitic Palimpsest

“Before ever Abraham came to be, I was.” — Curetonian Version

“Before Abraham existed, I was.” — Peshitta Version

“Before Abraham was born, I was.” — George M. Lamsa’s English version

“The verb GINOMAI doesn’t refer to birth or anything “coming into existence” […] The verb GINOMAI is in the Middle voice which is also never used to speak of anyone’s birth. In biblical Greek, the Passive voice (or Perfect tense) is always used when referring to being “born.””

What about Galatians 4:4?

Also, in regards to infinitive-phrase. Note the similar langauge in Testament of Job (2:1), where ????+aorist infinitive refers to a past action: ? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ? * ????? ? ????????? ??? ? ??????? ? ??? ?

Sean,

McKay’s preferred translation of TJob 2:1 settles nothing simply because the text can also be translated and interpreted without any implications of a PPA:

“For I am Jobab, from before the Lord was to name me, Job.”

In this case, the writer is using the “I am” (EGW EIMI) like an historical Present to speak of his identity before (PRIN) the Lord was going to name (ONOMASAI) him, Job, at a later time. This reading is probably more plausible since it doesn’t require forcing EGW EIMI to be “I have been” or adding “since.”

It’s understandable that McKay has to make a selective appeal to this particular extra-biblical text because his translation of John 8:58 only contradicts the way the biblical writers used the Aorist Infinitive verbs.

Hi Sean,

Instead of resorting to condescending rhetoric, why not demonstrate your own understanding of biblical Greek by presenting grammatical or contextual evidence that makes a stronger case for your particular viewpoint? That would promote a much more interesting “dialogue.”

From my perspective, all that matters is the exegetical evidence. I’m as capable of sorting through it as is anyone else. Thus, I don’t need to build a case by dropping names or parroting someone else’s research.

I understand that nothing compels you (or anyone else) to have to agree with what I’m suggesting in these conversations. Every person can consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. If I thought McKay’s bizarre interpretation of John 8:58 was plausible, I would have no problem agreeing with it. 🙂

Sean,

As I noted earlier, McKay’s attempt to force a PPA interpretation of the grammar in John 8:58 is critically flawed. If you’re willing to respond to the (6) summary points that I listed earlier in response to McKay’s theory, I’m certainly open to hearing how you would attempt to salvage his view.

I’m not the least bit surprised that a number of other scholars may follow the opinion offered by McKay. Scholars are no more immune to committing common exegetical and logical fallacies than you or I might be, if we are not careful.

Sean,

It doesn’t matter if most translations (not “every” … e.g. YLT) have used a “past tense” in John 8:58. It’s easy to prove that the Aorist Infinitive was used by the writer of the 4th Gospel like a future tense, and never to signify a past tense.

In fact, all translations render PRIN GENESQAI without a past tense in John 14:29. This shows that you need to acknowledge flexibility even when appealing to scholarship. I would have no problem dialoguing with any of your favorite scholars on the exegetical issues in this text.

I think you are simply begging the question when you suggest that “the Jews attempted to stone Jesus for saying he existed before Abraham” That is nonsense. According to the biblical testimony, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus Christ because he was a “man” who was claiming to be “the son of God” which made him “equal with God” (John 5:18; John 10:33-36).

The impetus to stone Jesus had nothing to do with any notion preexistence or incarnation. A “man” claiming to be the “son of God” would have been understood to mean that he is “the owner of everything” that belongs to his Father (Galatians 4:1-2). This is why a claim to be “the son of God” was also being “equal with God” and was understood as a claim to be “greater than Abraham and all the prophets” (John 8:53).

BTW, Par, in case you missed it, I FINALLY found where Dunn’s about face regarding whether Jesus was included in the Schema was discussed. Andrew Perriman discusses it on his blog, here:

http://www.postost.net/2011/09…

To partially quote Perriman:

“During a lively dialogue with Larry Hurtado at the British New Testament
Society conference this morning Jimmy Dunn put forward his well known
view that there is a significant functional differentiation—even subordination—between Jesus and God in the New Testament that should not be obscured in our efforts to safeguard a high christology…

…One particular comment stuck out. Dunn remarked that he used to favour the view that in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul incorporates Jesus as Lord into the
shema, effectively identifying Jesus with God or making him equal to
God.

[“]…yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things
and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deut. 6:4)[“]

He has since changed his mind. He thinks now that while the first part of
Paul’s statement is a reference to the shema and, therefore, a classic
affirmation of Jewish monotheism, the second part—“for us there is… one
Lord, Jesus Christ”—brings into focus Psalm 110:1:

[“]The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'[”]

This seems to me very plausible. The consistent story elsewhere in Paul is
that Jesus is given lordship—given the name kyrios—as a result of his
faithful obedience in suffering, and that this status will have future
consequences with regard to the nations and to the final enemy death
(cf. Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; Phil. 2:6-11).

So in 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul is not saying that Jesus must be assimilated into an essential Jewish monotheism. Rather he is setting out the fundamental “Christian” response to the challenge of the dominant pagan culture: for us as heirs of Jewish monotheism there is one God, but this one God has given authority over the enemies of his people to the one who suffered, died and was raised from the dead. It is through him—not from him, as Dunn stressed—that these communities of new creation now exist. So I would say that the two part confession reflects the fact that this new creation has come into existence under conditions of eschatological
conflict.”

~Sean

Try this one:

http://www.postost.net/2011/09/jimmy-dunn-one-god-one-lord-shema

Par,

With regard to Galatians 4:4, I think the use of the Aorist Middle of GINOMAI is related to EXAPOSTELLW (translated “sent forth”) in the same verse. We see the same thing in John 1:6 where the writer used the Aorist Middle of GINOMAI with APOSTELLW when he said “there came (GINOMAI) a man sent (APOSTELLW) from God, whose name was John.”

Nobody translates GINOMAI as “born” in John 1:6 because of the use of APOSTELLW refers to what God did at the time of John’s public ministry. Likewise, in Galatians 4:4, the use of GINOMAI with APOSTELLW occurs because of what God did at “the fullness of time” (and not the actual time of the birth of Jesus).

I don’t think TJob 2:1 is of any significance because it has no bearing (as evidence) of apostolic usage. I think it’s more significant that the writer of the 4th Gospel himself used PRIN + Aorist Infinitive again in John 14:29 where Jesus spoke of his own resurrection “before it happened.”

Sean,

When doing sound critical exegesis, it’s always a fallacy to force a particular writer’s use of language to conform to another source that cannot be corroborated with it. Moreover, the TJob 2:1 statement isn’t even comparable to John 8:58 because that writer is referring only to his own experience.

The purpose of trying to translate John 8:58 with a PPA is to substantiate the interpretation that Jesus Christ was claiming to have existed before Abraham “was born.”

I’m just putting forward the grammatical evidence that shows why McKay’s translation is implausible (and is ignored by most translators, for that matter).

I don’t think it’s necessary to read “preexistence” into John 8:58 so I’m looking for an interpretation that is more consistent with “before Abraham comes, I am” (YLT) which is the correct translation of the grammar.

Sean,

McKay’s translation of John 8:58 has been proven to be critically flawed at every point of grammar available for analysis in John 8:58. Please let me reiterate a summary of the evidence. If you have an exegetical response to each of these points, please put it forward:

1. GINOMAI is not the word for being “born.” When the writer of the 4th Gospel spoke of someone who “was born” he used the verb GENNAW. Thus, translating GENESQAI as “was born” is incorrect.

2. GENESQAI is an Aorist Infinitive form. The writer of the 4th Gospel used the Infinitive form of verbs to speak of things when had not happened yet from the perspective of the speaker. Thus, Jesus could not have been speaking about anything that happened to Abraham in the past.

3. GENESQAI is in the Middle voice. The writer of the 4th Gospel always used the Passive voice or a Perfect Indicative to speak of someone who was born. Thus, Jesus could not have been referring to the “birth” of Abraham.

4. Since GENESQAI is not a past tense verb, John 8:58 cannot qualify for the PPA idiom.

5. PRIN is an adverb that the writer of the 4th Gospel always used to speak of something “before” it had happened from the perspective of the speaker. Thus, Jesus could not have been referring to anything that happened to Abraham in his past.

6. EGW EIMI is never used as an “historical Present” with an Aorist Infinitive verb. Thus, there is no reason to translate it “I have been” in this passage. It should be translated “I am” just like every other place it appears in the 4th Gospel.

Sean,

You are simply dismissing all of the evidence showing that McKay’s translation is baseless. I can only presume that you aren’t able to counter it with any exegesis of your own since you continue to respond with nothing other than condescending rhetoric.

The “authoritative” reference is the usage of the grammar by the writer of the 4th Gospel himself, which is evident for all to reconsider. The Greek in the 4th Gospel is very simple. Thus, someone of your intellect should have no problem sorting through it.

I’ve done the best I can to help you. I respect your preference to look at it differently. It isn’t up to me to convince anyone. Everyone can consider the evidence for himself and make up his own mind. I’m just offering a different perspective on this very controversial text. 🙂

Even though I agree With you on this subject I’d be careful With appeals to authority, I mean how many scholars are totally ok With translating John 1:1 “In the begining was the Word and the Word was With God and the Word was God.” How many scholars will still to this day, Write commentaries saying Ego Eimi in John 8 is pointing back to Exodus 3:14 … unfortunately orthoxody colors some scholarship quite a bit.

Sean,

It doesn’t really matter whether or not QEOS is translated with the article in John 1:1 or not because it’s evident later in the 4th Gospel that the claim to be “the son of God” was understood to be “making oneself equal with God” (John 5:18) and “making oneself out to be God” (John 10:33).

Thus “the word was God” (John 1:1c) can be taken to mean the same thing as “the word was the son of God.” There is no implication of preexistence or incarnation in this language. As “the son of God”, Jesus was “equal” with God in the sense that the Israelites understood that a child was the “heir” who is “the owner of everything” (Galatians 4:1-2) even before the day of his appointment (Hebrews 1:2; Philippians 2:9-11).

Sean,

Like you, I’m also interested figuring out what the writer of the 4th Gospel actually meant by what he said. That is why I’m always careful to draw conclusions from the writer’s own use of the language in its own context.

I try to be as patient as possible with people who pride themselves in taking a different approach because every one should be convinced by the evidence for himself. If you prefer to follow the opinion of Kenneth McKay on John 8:58, I respect that.

I wish you had an exegetical response to the many flaws that have been exposed in McKay’s exegesis of John 8:58 because it would give me the impression that you actually have a working knowledge of the grammatical issues. I would like to be able to benefit from a substantial response from you sometime.

Sean,

I’ve seen McKay’s interpretation of John 8:58 thoroughly refuted and I’m sharing the information with you in our conversation. I gave a simple summary when I pointed out (6) of the mistakes that he makes in translation (based upon the rest of the grammatical evidence in the text of the 4th Gospel).

I realize that there are scholarly sources that consider the evidence from a different perspective. However, when I hear some people defending McKay’s translation, they build their case primarily on the assumption that GENESQAI means “was born.” This is where McKay argues that the required “past tense” verb is in place in order to qualify John 8:58 as a PPA idiom.

I’m simply pointing out why it seems implausible to make the Aorist Infinitive of GINOMAI infer a past tense, especially when it is used with PRIN and probably doesn’t even refer to being “born” by definition.

Sean,

1. I’m using “always” in the normal sense of the word. Thus, “always” would be limited to the usage by the writer of the 4th Gospel with respect to PRIN in this conversation.

2. PRIN occurs in three places in the 4th Gospel (John 4:49; John 8:58; John 14:29). In all three places, it is used with the Aorist Infintive form of a verb to preempt something that hasn’t happened yet from the perspective of the speaker.
In John 14:29, it is used again with GENESQAI to speak of the resurrection of Jesus Christ “before it happens” (PRIN GENESQAI).

Sean,

It is no contrived argument because three times constitutes all the evidence of usage that is available from this writer. Since there is no evidence that he used PRIN in any other grammatical units, we should assume that he didn’t need to.

Thus, it’s reasonable to conclude the PRIN + Aorist Infinitive meant that something hadn’t happened yet from the perspective of the speaker. Based upon all the evidence contrary to McKay’s translation, he is the one fabricating any qualifications for the PPA theory he is trying to impose upon the text.

“McKay doesn’t even establish that GENSQAI could mean “was born” and yet
it is the critical factor underlying his entire theory. He also seems
to overlook the fact that the writer used EGENHQH (from GENNAW) to mean
“was born” only a few verses later (John 9:19-20).”

That’s another contrived argument. Understanding GENESQAI to mean “was born” is not “the critical factor” in McKay’s exegesis. He doesn’t even mention it, except insofar as he offers it in translation. His compelling exegesis only needs the phrase PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI (e.g. “Before Abraham was”) to be “an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications.” (A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 41, 42

Verbals aren’t rigidly tied to their tense in Greek they way they usually are in English. There are plenty of instances of present tense verbals in Greek that have past and PPA reference. Certainly more than two! LOL

We know that PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI is an expression of past time because of the context in which it occurs, including but not limited to the question that immediately precedes it.

Truly remarkable. I understand McKay’s argument; McKay understands McKay’s argument; you do NOT understand McKay’s argument.

This means that every post you’ve offered accompanied by the delusion that you’ve refuted McKay has been contrived against a view that you don’t even understand.

Good place to end the discussion.

I told you that you need to end your exegesis-via-concordance approach, as it’s not helping anyone, especially not you. There’s a saying I heard a while back when I was studying semantics that went something like this: Words have no meanings, only contexts.

While I don’t fully subscribe to that approach, I do agree that it can help us snap out of our myopia and refocus on an important truth: Small samplings of usages in a concordance are more capable of revealing how words can be used in the specific referenced contexts, but they’re not good for dictating how words can’t be used in other contexts.

You’re confusing opportunities with restrictions.

No one here has any doubt that you’ll argue for your idiosyncratic view of this and other texts with anyone and everyone who will listen, and for just as long as they’ll let you, into all eternity. You’ll continue to make your arguments with everyone except the very people you should have started with, i.e. the experts in the relevant field(s).

If you wanted to behave responsibly in your effort to create a paradigm shift, you’d go back to school and present your novel views in the form of a doctoral thesis. If you can’t afford to do that or your situation doesn’t allow that commitment at this time, you could write an article and submit it to any number of peer reviewed religious journals, such as JBL, NTS, etc. You could use the title: Misunderstood Resurrection Texts: John 1:1 and John 8:58. Now that would grab people’s attention!

The problem is that once they got past the catchy title and read the actual argumentation, they probably wouldn’t recommend publication. They also might realize that what you’re really arguing for is a paradigm shift in the understanding of Koine, thus making a religious journal the wrong venue for presenting your case. Alas, a B.S. in Information Technology, an M.B.A. in Communications, and an an M.Div. in Biblical Forensics doesn’t qualify you to be published in the sorts of journals appropriate for recommending a paradigm shift in the understanding of a dead language.

Where can I obtain a copy of your masters thesis about misunderstood resurrection texts along with the interaction from the relevant authorities so that I can see how your thesis stood up in in the opinions of your peers? What are the the titles of your articles and in what journal(s) can they be found, and where can I read the responses from your peers?

So before we go any further, I want to apologize for upsetting you. I didn’t want to get pulled into a conversation that was sure to end as this one did, which is exactly why I bowed out a couple/few months ago. You tried to bully me into continuing then by threatening that my “credibility” would be in jeopardy unless I continued to address your arguments. Remember that? Sadly, while I originally stuck to my resolve not to participate in that discussion, I then let my guard down and found myself in the middle of the very sort of dialogue I sought to avoid for the sake of the dignity of the forum.

The truth is that I knew such a dialogue wouldn’t end well, and I just wanted to avoid what has now happened anyway. My “credibility” had nothing to do with it, because, unlike you, I don’t present myself as an authority in these discussions. I merely share things that I’ve learned over the years, and why I find this or that understanding more compelling than any competing views that I’ve encountered or that I encounter for the first time here.

I’d like to offer you an invitation and a bit of friendly advice.

Invitation: Please share a bit of your story here, or on your own blog if you have one. Since you’ve already done what I said you should have done vis a vis presenting your case to your peers, then why not inform members here where they can find and read your thesis? Why not share the responses you received from your thesis advisers, along with the reaction(s) of your peers? Since you’ve already submitted one ore more articles to theological journals, why not share the references if they were published, or the reasons given for the rejection if they were not? You could thereby set a good example of how to approach these discussions with humility and intellectual integrity.

Advice: I would encourage you to shift gears a bit and stop employing some of the odd approaches you’ve been employing here. What do I mean?

To start, you should stop trying to goad people into interacting with your views. Threatening that a person’s “credibility” is on the line if they don’t care to debate you on some point is really rather obnoxious.

Additionally, goading people by telling them that if they don’t address your every point in precisely the way you’d like to see it addressed somehow suggests that they aren’t able to adequately defend their own view is also rather unproductive. Even if the charge were true, YOU are the one who chose to take his case to non-specialists, and so you shouldn’t demean the very people YOU CHOSE to interact with for offering the sorts of responses that one expects from non-specialists.

Finally, try and resist the the temptation to resort to poorly veiled jibes, which is what your comment about approaching JW friends was obviously meant to convey. To finish the obvious intent of your remark, you really meant something like this:

“I have a couple of JW friends who appeal to McKay’s interpretation of
John 8:58 (just like you do) and are well-acquainted with it. I’m going to see if I can get either of them to give me any substantial exegetical response to the points I’ve demonstrated here [hint, hint, SINCE I CERTAINLY HAVEN’T RECEIVED ANY FROM YOU.]”

I’m as flawed a human being as anyone, and if you offer that sort of thing to me, then there’s a fair chance that you’ll receive a peevish response, just as you did in this case (again, for which I apologize).

On a positive note, you do have me ferreting around for discussions of GENESQAI. The late Abner Kneeland agrees with you, and offers another proposed rendering:

https://books.google.com/books?id=sj4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=genesthai,+past+tense&source=bl&ots=Z6YN4E_-Zg&sig=8-zu2Nc3IvG0BKrHp9hIhTtMtNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BeSFVebwCqbnsAT3sIOwBQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=genesthai%2C%20past%20tense&f=false

I don’t find his preferred rendering any more plausible than yours, but I can admit that I overstated matters when I said that you’re the only person to whom such an understanding has occurred.

Sean,
The facts show that GENESQAI is certainly not used as a Past tense by the writer of the 4th Gospel. There are 8 times the term is used in the John books and the Aorist Infinitive means “to happen” or “to come” (yet future).

Thus, John 8:58 simply means that something was “yet to happen” (GENESQAI) with Abraham because Jesus Christ was present at that time (EGW EIMI). This is the natural way of reading the grammar.

The Jews misconstrued the statement Jesus made about Abraham “seeing his day” (John 8:56) and thought that Jesus himself was claiming to have already seen Abraham (John 8:53) who had been “dead” for a long time (John 8:53).

Jesus corrected them by pointing out that he himself (EGW EIMI) had to be present “before” (PRIN) Abraham was “yet to come” (GENESQAI) in their day (John 8:58). This is because Jesus was the one who had authority to give life to the dead (John 8:36, 51).

I would recommend that you stop practicing exegesis via concordance, and start floating your novel ideas past those who have the experience to truly help you, such as the folks on b-greek, many of whom have been teaching and writing about Greek for years. If memory serves, McKay taught Greek for about 30 years, and he understands well how aspect works in Greek.

Most Unitarians even disagree with you. When you promote an understanding that hasn’t occurred to anyone else in the entire history of biblical studies/exegesis, then it’s time to stop and ponder that maybe there really is something missing from your understanding.

Well, I’d say that your opinion that they didn’t feel they needed some ostensible justification for killing Jesus is not only unjustified, but unsustainable in light of biblical presentations were stonings were attempted.

For example, if they were willing to kill Jesus without ostensible justification for such an action, then Jesus would have been dead in John 5. But they didn’t carry out their designs, because although Jesus uttered words that they felt they could twist into a justifiable excuse to kill him (Jn 5:17,18), his subsequent words included clarifications that negated their wicked design.

In John 8, verses 1-6 clearly tell us that Jesus’ opponents were trying to trap Jesus. Why? Because they were trying to get him to say something that could ostensibly justify their intent to kill him. If they didn’t need some ostensible justification, then they wouldn’t have bothered trying to trap him; they just would have stoned him and been done with it. Instead they were stymied, and so they continued to ask questions, present challenges, etc, in an effort to get Jesus to say or do something that they could use as their ostensible justification for stoning him. It wasn’t until verse 58 that they felt they had what they needed.

In John 10, again, Jesus utters words that those who sought his death felt that they could use as their ostensible justification for killing him. However, just as in John 5, Jesus subsequent words included clarifications that negated their wicket design, and so they were once again stymied and couldn’t carry out their objective.

No, it’s very clear that Jesus’ opponents felt that they needed to justify their objective to kill Jesus. From the questions designed to entrap, to the stymied responses, to the kangaroo court and sham of a trial, they obviously wanted Jesus dead, but they also needed to make that death ostensibly appear to be justified.

Roman,

The legal issue for the Jews in John 8 was that Jesus was making their “God” (John 8:54) his own “Father” (John 8:18-19, 26-29, 37-38, 40-44, 54) and claiming that God was going to “glorify” him as His own son (John 8:35, 54). This would have to make Jesus Christ “greater than father Abraham and all the prophets” (John 8:52-53).

Jesus indicated that the claim to be “the son of God” would certainly constitute “blaspheme” if he did not have the testimony of the Father to substantiate it (John 10:36-38; John 8:16-17). Since the Jews did not believe or understand what he was saying about the Father (John 8:27; John 8:43), they thought they had a valid reason to execute him for blaspheme.

They appeared before Pilot because according to John they were not permited to put him to Death … I don’t think he wasn’t killed prior because the opponents didn’t feel that they could justify it legally.
Even if that was the case, what legal justification did the “Prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi” statement give? I mean it simply doesn’t hold, I think it’s a stretch to say that they were looking to Catch him saying something blasphemous, and everything he said up until that point was not enough, but somehow “prin Abraam genestahai ego eimi” was the legal justification? Not calling them sons of the Devil, not saying that he judges along side the father, saying that they are from below and he is from above, just in the previous Chapter they sent out officers to arrest him.
I mean if you’re saying at that point they had some legal justification, what justification? According to what Law? what precedent? And where is that indicated? how is that precedent or legal justification, and nothing else Jesus said previously?
I just don’t see it.

Sean,

I don’t think that some of Anthony Buzzard’s translations are the best options either. However, I do agree with your point that there are different ways of translating and interpreting these passages (and that is why they are so controversial). What ultimately matters is how the original writer intended them to be understood by his audience. Thus, it is going to be the contextual evidence that is most likely to settle these matters.

Hi Par,

I agree. Unfortunately, most translators render “existing in the form of God” as a past tense when Paul normally did not use the Present Participle that way. This causes many people to “read preexistence” into Philippians 2:6 without any warrant from the context. Thus, I think it’s necessary to point out that there is a Present Participle in the Greek text.

I think there’s much more contextual support for reading “existing in the form of God” as a reference to the post-resurrection heavenly glory of Christ Jesus (in contrast to his earthly humility) because those are the only two aspects of his existence that the ensuing context develops (Philippians 2:7-11).

Those who “read preexistence” into a past tense rendering of the Present Participle in Philippians 2:6 have nothing but Philippians 2:6 upon which to “read preexistence” into the passage.

I think it’s more reasonable to think that only the human experience (Philippians 2:7-8) and the post-resurrection status of Christ Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11) that are explicitly mentioned in the context should govern the reading of Philippians 2:6 which fits perfectly with the post-resurrection description given in Philippians 2:9-11.

Roman,

I don’t think you’re following the exegesis correctly. Please let me try to further clarify it.

Paul was using the Present Active Participle in Philippians 2:6 (“existing in the form of God”) to speak of the Christ Jesus that he knew as presently “exalted” (Philippians 2:9-11) and “glorified” (Philippians 3:21) at the time he was writing the letter. He was exhorting the Philippians not to exalt themselves before the proper time.

Thus the point he’s making about Christ Jesus can simply be paraphrased like this … “You Philippians need to have humility of mind like Jesus had when he was in your situation before he was exalted. Even though Jesus is now exalted, he did not seek to glorify himself, but humbled himself until the time came that God exalted him.”

The difference between the Philippians and Christ Jesus was not a matter of preexistence, but a matter of humility before exaltation. It’s unreasonable to suppose that Paul was encouraging his disciples to follow the example of a preexisting person who became humble. Rather, it makes more sense to think he was telling them to follow the example of an humble person who became exalted at the proper time.