I appreciate your attempt to look at John 1:1 and related material from a
new angle. Your reasoning is logical and your conclusions are of course
possible, But I see some problems.
<But what one may find noteworthy is the use of the imperfect HN as applied
<to the Person of the Logos. John used this verb in John 1:1 and 1 John
<1:1. The imperfect has been discussed elsewhere (in grammar books, of
course!). This is what one book says: "The imperfect denotes an
<incomplete action, one that is on its course, and is not yet brought to its
<intended accomplishment. It implies that a certain thing was going on at a
<specified time, but excludes the assertion that the end of the action was
<attained." To add further, "Since its essential force is identical with
<that of the present, it follows that its uses should be practically
<parallel." The use of HN is therefore consistent with the use of EIMI in
<the statement of Christ in John 8:58: ...AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN, PRIN ABRAAM
<GENESQAI EGW EIMI... The literal rendering would be: Amen, Amen, I say to
<you, I am before Abraham became.
"To be" is a state, which by definition continues without an input of
energy. The existence of the Word in the beginning and its continuance is
NOT connected with the aspect of the verb but with its nature as a stative.
A use of an aorist instead of an imperfect in John 1:1 would indicate a
difference of stress, but would it show a difference in existence? (Jf Rom
5:14, death ruled, and continues to rule) To illustrate: Peshitta
(temporal, perhaps somewhat aspectual) uses a compound indicating a state
continuing in the past, the GeĞez version (aspectual) uses a pronoun as
copula, and the Hebrew DHNT (aspectual) uses the perfective form of "to
be", while the Hebrew MHNT (seemingly temporal) uses a nominal clause. The
Vulgate (temporal) has "erat" (imperfect)
Working with John 8;58 we have to take three different verbal systems into
account: The words were uttered in Hebrew (or Aramaic, both aspectual),
they were reported in Greek (aspectual and propably temporal) and we think
and translate in English (temporal). As spoken, the words were atemporal,
most likely as rendered by MHNT Ğani hu (I + pronoun as copula) or as DHNT
render them Ğani hayiti (I + the perfective of 'to be') or simply `ani. The
imperfective EIMI is time indifferent and can cover a state beginning
before a definite point in the past and lasting to the present.
English is temporal with no grammaticized aspects, so the nature of
English present is completely different from the nature of Greek present.
Thus "is" "have been","will be" and perhaps "was" can be literal renderings
of EIMI. I am not a native speaker, but it seems to me that the rendering
"before Abraham was born, I am" is ungrammatical" (please correct me if I
am wrong), and only can be defended if we introduce an element of
mystiticism. If this is not done, I can see only two alternatives for a
good rendering of the imperfective time indifferent Hebrew and Greek verbs
into English. "Before Abraham was born, I have been" (or "I was"). Peshitta
has the time indifferent particle of existens `it (= Hebrew yesh). The
GeĞez NT has the perfective form of "to be". DHNT has the perfective form
of "to be", MHNT has a nominal clause, and the Vulgate has "sum" (present).
My conclusion is that HN in John 1:1 signifies the existence of the Word.
the beginning and end of the state not stated, while EIMI in John also
signifies existence with the two anchoring points "before Abraham" and
speech time.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo