In John 8:58 a few Bibles have renderings of *eimi* in past tenses to say that "I have been" or "I was" and that this I am statement is not the absolute form. [[Wallace1996-pz|Daniel B. Wallace]]") shows that if that the intention of John was to state "I was" then the text should instead contain the corresponding past tense form which is *ego ?n* "I was", as in English and elsewhere in the New Testament. [[noauthor_undated-ed|Jehovah Witness's]] have changed this to read "I have been", justifying it a few ways. This reading is supported by a minority of modern scholars ([[Wikipedia_contributors2024-oh]]) and the JW have tried to give three different reasons over the years to defend the claim. **Reasoning** 1. **present of past action still in progress** In the NWT study bible, the following reason is given. > In this context, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb *ei·mi?* started “before Abraham came into existence” and was still in progress. It is therefore properly translated “I have been” rather than “I am,” and a number of ancient and modern translations use wording similar to “I have been.” ([John 8:12-59 | The New World Translation (Study Edition) | NWT Study Bible (jw.org)](https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/john/8/#v43008058)) 2. **Because it is the perfect indefinite/indicative tense**: In the 1950 edition of the NWT, there is a footnote referring to the “I have been” rendering, which states: > “I have been— ??? ???? [*eg? eimi*] . . . properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense. . . .”. ([[noauthor_undated-jp|NWT 1950]]) however, there is no such tense as a “perfect indefinite” in biblical Greek. > It is difficult to know what the translator means since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars... The term “perfect indefinite” is not a standard grammatical term and its use here has been invented by the authors of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant. ([[noauthor_undated-yp|Walter Martin]]) The footnote to John 8:58 in the NWT was changed in later editions, so that the term "perfect indefinite tense" was altered to "perfect tense indicative," "perfect indicative," or simply "perfect tense." Here the watch tower argued that the verb *eimi* was a “perfect indicative” (KIT, 1985 ed. 451). While there is a perfect indicative in Greek, the verb *eimi* takes no such form. 3. **Based on the verb ei·mi being a historical present**: This was rejected for the second in 1957 where the Watchtower claimed it was a "historical present." And currently, the WT asserts that eimi is a “historical present”[9] explaining that “The verb ei·mi’, at John 8:58, is evidently in the historical present, as Jesus was speaking about himself in relation to Abraham’s past” ([[Bible1995-ck]]). Thus, the JWs see Jesus as merely claiming that He pre-existed Abraham, which, according to the JWs, enraged the Jews to the point of wanting to kill Him (cf. v. 59). This assertion, however, is flawed both grammatically and contextually. **a historical present tense occurs primarily in narrative literature** **and only in third person.** In this context, Jesus was arguing with the Jews—He was not narrating. Secondly, the equative verb *eimi* is not used as a historical present. As the recognized Greek scholar, Daniel Wallace, points out, “The historical present is used fairly frequently in narrative literature to describe a past event” (Wallace, GGBB, 526).. Wallace also comments: If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that uses the equative verb eimi. The burden of proof, therefore, lies with the one who sees eimi as ever being used as a historical present. . . If this is a historical present, it is apparently the only historical present in the NT that is in other than third person (ibid., 530). The weight against the historical present view is massive. The reason for these various assertions of eimi postulated by the WT throughout the years (viz. the phony perfect indefinite; perfect indicative, and historical present) is, of course, obvious. The single most damaging fact against the JW's is that of the 28 times "I am" is used in John, the NWT only renders it "I have been" once in 8:58. | Year | Term/Claim | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | 1950 | Perfect indefinite tense | NWT, 1950 edition, at John 8:58 | | 1957 | Historical present | Watchtower, [Questions from Readers](https://paperpile.com/app/p/3f76af28-1d60-02c0-854c-13dab894b45b "Questions from Readers"), 1957, p126 | | 1963 | Perfect tense indicative | NWT, 1963, large print edition at John 8:58 | | 1969 | Perfect tense | Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1969, at John 8:58 | | 1977 | The tense is English, not a Greek tense in the 1950 NWT | JW's defense after 1977 | | 1978 | Perfect indefinite tense | Nelson Herle's first attempt to justify the 1950 footnote, 1978 (personal letters) | | 1978 | Perfect indefinite tense changed to perfect indicative tense | (Official letter from Watchtower Society, Feb 7, 1978, addressed to Firpo W. Carr, a faithful JW at the time) | | 1978 | 1950 use of 'perfect indefinite tense' explained | (Official letter from Watchtower Society, Feb 7, 1978, addressed to Firpo W. Carr, a faithful JW at the time) | | 1978 | Historical Present | Official letter from Watchtower Society, Feb 7, 1978 "Questions from Readers", p126. where they said, "the Greek verb eimi must be viewed as a historical present." | | 1978 | Present of Past Action in Progress (PPA) | This was first argued by Herle. Letter from Herle to Walter R. Martin, April 2, 1978 | | 1979 | Use of 'perfect indefinite' claimed to be 'standard grammatical terminology' | he first is Crowell's Dictionary of English Grammar and of American Usage, by Maurice H. Weseen, published in 1928; the second, A New English Grammar Logical and Historical, by Henry Sweet, was published in 1900. (Nelson Herle, in letter to Walter Martin, March 7, 1979) | | 1983 | perfect indefinite and perfect tense indicative are identical synonyms and have been used in more recent editions of the NWT for the sake of using a more common term, not a more correct one." | Nelson Herle, The Trinity Doctrine, p50, 1983 | | 1983 | present of past action still in progress (PPA) | Nelson Herle, The Trinity Doctrine, 1983 | | 1984 | present of past action still in progress (PPA) | Reference edition of NWT, 1984 | | 1985 | perfect indefinite tense defended as valid by Society | Letter from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, December 26, 1985. Mr. Jack Tolland, Sweet and Weseen are both cited as indicating "that there is a perfect definite tense and a perfect indefinite tense." | | 1985 | Perfect indicative | KIT, 1985 revised edition, at John 8:58 | Table based on [[noauthor_undated-yx]|The Interactive Bible]] and [[Bowman1989-fb|R. M. Bowman]]. This streamlined view focuses on the terms used over the years and their respective sources, providing a concise historical overview of the terminology changes related to John 8:58 as presented by the Watchtower Society. Not only is this not supported by a majority of scholars, even there own interlinear bible shows the correct translation for John 8:58; > [!quote] [John 8 | Kingdom Interlinear | Books of the Bible (jw.org)]([John 8 | Kingdom Interlinear | Books of the Bible](https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/8/)): > 58 εἶπεν Saidαὐτοῖς to them > Ἰησοῦς Jesus᾿ > Αμὴν Amenἀμὴν amenλ έγω > I am saying > ὑμῖν, to YOU > πρὶν Before᾿ > Αβραὰμ Abrahamγ > ενέσθαι to become > ἐγὼ Iεἰμί > One doesn't need to be able to read Greek to read the words "I AM - Ego Eimi -??? ??????" for themselves. In other passages of the New Testament where Jesus uses "??? ????" to indicate His pre-existence or divine status (e.g., John 8:12, John 10:12, John 14:6), the NWT does not translate it as "I have been." This inconsistency shows a selective translation approach in John 8:58.