Greetings,
As usual, every argument criticizing the NWT demands ignorance from its hearers regarding biblical grammar, definitions and usage. They also require us to be ignorant of the context and resort to logical fallacies. This question commits several exegetical and Logical Fallacies (Appeal to selective evidence; incomplete research).
First, this argument is only effective if someone is completely unlearned in Greek, or grammar in general. Just a little research would show that EGO EIMI is grammatically used in a completely different way in Jn.8:58 from the other examples. In the other verses EIMI is used as a “copula” between the subject and predicate, but in Jn.8:58 EIMI does not function as a copula but it is part of the predicate. Unlike the other examples it also is used with a adverbial in the past tense which changes its import.
This argument requires us to be ignorant of the fact that scores of other Translations render EGO EIMI here exactly as the NWT has and also differently from everywhere else in their versions (I can provide a list of over 40). As soon as people are made aware of this fact, it is easy to see that there must be a grammatical reason and the criticism of the NWT is proved inaccurate and misleading.
There are versions which have translated EGO EIMI “exactly the same way it is translated in other verses” and the result is verbal nonsense on many levels. First, any translation which capitalizes “I Am” as if it were a title is ridiculous. EGO EIMI is not a title in Jn.8:58 (nor is it a title in Ex.3). It is the main clause (subject and verb) and is modified by the adverbial phrase “Before Abraham was born.” It is easy to see how nonsensical these translation are by substituting a name for EGW EIMI: “Before Abraham was born, Fred.”
Rendering EGO EIMI here with the present tense “I am” is also grammatically erroneous. When EIMI is not used as a copula it always describes a state and is the Greek imperfect form, both which denote duration and not a punctiliar event.
"I am (eimi) never has a punctiliar ending".—Edward Goodrick; Hebrew and Greek
Criticizing the NWT for rendering the Greek present tense EGO EIMI into the English perfect tense "I have been" is a common fallacy. Those who claim that "I am" is the more literal translation of EGW EIMI are promoting an ignorance of the Greek present tense. The choice of English tense has nothing to do with which rendering is more literal. "I have been" is just as literal a translation as "I am." In fact, since the Greek imperfect aspect denotes a continuing state the punctiliar rendering "I am" is much less accurate than "I have been" or "I existed."
At Jn 8:58 EIMI is not being used as a linking verb (I am) but stresses existence on the part of the subject. Thus, the translation of EIMI into English must convey this sense which “I am” does not do.
Further, when a Greek present verb occurs with a temporal clause it can throw the starting point into the past. In Jn 8:58 there is a temporal clause referring to past time "PRIN ABRAAM GENSQAI." Notice what Greek Grammars have to say:
E. D. Burton in, "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek:, section 17, "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."
Sanders and Masten in "Harper's New Testament Commentaries, p. 158: "To describe a state continuing up to the present, Greek uses the present tense where English uses the Perfect; cf. Jn 8:58."
A. T. Robertson in, "A Grammar of New Testament Greek in the Light of Historical Research:, p. 879, "The Progressive Present Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been')."
The Greek Grammars of Winer and J. H. Moulton also include John 8:58 where such a perfect is warranted as is done in the NWT:
"The present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress...it is frequent in N.T.: Lk. 2:48; 13:7; 15:29, Jn.5:6, 8:58".—Moulton; A Grammar of the N.T.
Therefore, many translators recognized that translating EGW EIMI with a perfect form (I have been) is in full accord with correct Greek grammar. In fact, as the above quotes show, Greek syntax demands that it be translated with a form of the perfect and not a present tense like “I am.”
The translation “I am” at Jn.8:58 is simply an unqualified case of theological bias–an illegitimate attempt to link Christ’s words with the “divine title” at Ex.3:14. Yet, in order to make this connection Trinitarians must require others to be ignorant of the Hebrew text and Greek Septuagint and rely upon mistranslations.
First, the translation "I Am that I Am" is a mistranslation of the Greek "EGO EIMI hO ON" which is in turn a mistranslation of the Hebrew "EHYEH ASHER EHYEH." A more accurate translation of the Hebrew would be "I will be what I will be" such as Rotherham's & the footnotes of the NRSV and NIV-1984.
The Hebrew word "EHYEH" (EGO EIMI, LXX) appears in Exodus over a dozen times, yet 3:14 is the only place it is rendered "I Am." Why are many translations so inconsistent in their rendering of this word?!! Where God uses these words at Ex. 3:12 it is translated "I will be" (KJV, NIV, NWT, etc.).
"The Hebrew word ehyeh (I Am, KJV) has generally been rendered "I will be". Ex. 3:12, Gen.26:3; 31:3".—Girdlestone, Synonyms of the OT (ftnt pg. 37).
Brenton's LXX renders ego eimi as "have I been" and "I have been" (Gen. 31:38,41, Judg.16:17, cf. Ex. 4:10).
Thus the Hebrew Word does not consistently have the rendering of "I Am", nor does it have the import of a "name".
On top of being misled by these mistranslations most people do not see that in the very next verse (Ex.3:15) God states that Jehovah/Yehowah is actually the name by which he will be known eternally, not "I Am."
This is why the Trinitarian argument linking John 8:58 with Ex.3 is invalid. It is based on a falsehood; It is based on the incorrect translation of the Septuagint, not the inspired Hebrew words. Further, the noun identifying God in the Septuagint was "hO ON" not "EGO EIMI/I am" which is a verb. Jesus did not use hO ON, which is something even Trinitarian scholars recognize. So Jesus only used a common verb, not some "name of God." "EGO EIMI" is never used as a title for Jehovah in Scripture.
Let me illustrate: If I said "I am Ron" which word identifies me? The noun "Ron" of course. Now if someone else uses the words "I am," does this mean they are identifying themselves as me? Of course not, totally illogical! What Jesus used was simply a very common verb, one that everyone used. For instance at Jn.9:9 when the healed man was asked who he was he said: "EGO EIMI". Was he indicating that he was God? And at 1Chron 21:17 David said (in the LXX) "EGO EIMI," or "I am." (Was David claiming to be God as well?)
Scholar A. B. Davidson said: "The translation ‘I am' is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being present; and the idea is wrong because ‘am' is used in the sense of essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the supposition that [I am] is a name of God...must be set aside...the nature of the [Hebrew] verb and the tense pre- emptorily forbid them."– The Theology of the OT, in "The International Theological Library" p. 55.
The Jews were asking Jesus how long he had been around, not who he was. Grammatically, it must be translated in a way that indicates existence that started in the past and continues to the present. "I am" indicates only the present, so it is more correctly translated as "I have been." Evidence for this can be found at Jn. 14:9 where most translators render EIMI as "I have been" or "have I been?" This done at Jn 14:9 but not at 8:58 because Trinitarian translators are desperately trying to find support for their belief and disregarding Greek (and English) grammar.
Many translations give the correct English understanding and so read "I tell you I existed before Abraham was born." See Goodspeed's Translation, The Living Bible, NASB's marginal note, Beck's, Williams, and Moffatt's.
You will notice when the Greek construction is correctly rendered there is no indication of an identification of Jesus with Jehovah. Jesus simply said he existed from "before Abraham," referring to his pre-human existence.
Yours,
BAR-ANERGES