Greetings,
As usual, every argument denigrating 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).
This question’s argument is only effective if someone is completely unlearned in Greek, or grammar in general.
This questioner requires us to be ignorant of the fact that scores of other Translations render EGO EIMI here in the perfect tense just as the NWT has and also differently from everywhere else in their versions (I can provide a list of over 40). This fact demonstrates that there must be a grammatical reason for rendering Jn.8:58 with the English perfect tense, and the criticism of the NWT is proved false.
When versions translate EGO EIMI "exactly the same way it is translated in other verses" the result is verbal nonsense. 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 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."
First, those who claim that "I am" is a more literal translation of EGW EIMI are incorrectly mixing up the English present tense with the Greek "present." The Greek present is an "aspect" rather than a tense. It presents part of an action as occurring without a grammatical reference to time.
Rendering EGO EIMI at Jn.8:58 with the present tense "I am" is 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
Those who criticizing the NWT for rendering the Greek present tense EGO EIMI into the English perfect tense "I have been" while claiming that "I am" is the more literal translation are promoting an ignorance of the Greek present tense.
Second, comparing EGO EIMI in Jn.8:58 with the other N.T. occurrences is misleading. 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.
The other occurrences all have an explicit or implied predicate complement such as “I am [the Messiah]”, “I am [he].” Jesus uses the expression primarily as a means of identifying himself as the Messiah (Jn 4:26; 13:19), the Son of man (Jn 8:24, 28), as "Jesus" (Jn 18:1-6), and as a means of simple self-identification, "It is I" (Jn 6:20). Similarly, the predicateless EGW EIMI is used by the man born blind (Jn 9:9). There is nothing in the use of EGW EIMI which would identify the speaker as God.
Third, unlike the other examples it also is used with an ADVERBIAL IN THE PAST TENSE which changes its import. 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 says: "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."--"Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N T Greek: section 17,
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson says: "The Progressive Present- Often it has to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive PERFECT" ('HAVE BEEN')."--A Grammar of N T Greek in the Light of Historical Research, p. 879
Sanders and Masten in "Harper's N T 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."
The Greek Grammars of Winer and J. H. Moulton also include Jn 8:58 where such a perfect is warranted:
"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."
Both "I am" and "I have been" are strict literal translations of the Greek words. Since the Greek imperfect aspect denotes a continuing state and EGW EIMI never has a punctiliar sense only "I have been" accurately renders the meaning of the original Greek. The punctiliar rendering "I am" is much less accurate nor does it reflect the Greek "Extension from Past" idiom.
The Jews were asking Christ 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 "I have been" is a more accurate translation (cf. Jn. 14:9).
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 what is falsely claimed to be a "divine title."
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.
Trinitarians like to keep people in ignorance of the fact that 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.
The fact that these translations are by non-Jehovah's Witnesses and most are Trinitarians proves that the NWT rendering was not due to any theological bias. It provides evidence that there are valid translation principles behind this rendering.
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
EDIT:
The Trinitarian argument linking Jn 8:58 with Ex.3 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, Jesus only used a common verb, not some "name of God."
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, but as usual they leave their flock in ignorance allowing them to continue relying on such false evidence. So Jesus only used a common verb, not some "name of God." Neither "ego eimi" nor the corresponding Hebrew "ani hu" are ever used as titles for Jehovah in Scripture.
Let me illustrate: If I said "I am Fred" which word identifies me? The noun "Fred" 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 the healed man identified himself by saying: "ego eimi". At 1Chron. 21:17 David said (in the LXX) "ego eimi," or "I am." Were they claiming to be God?
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 the name 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 Old Testament, in "The International Theological Library", p. 55.