Is the NWT's translation of John 8:58 reasonable? It does not appear to be reasonable, that is to say, it does not appear to be based upon reasonable considerations. The New World Translation Study Bible offers the following reasons for translating the literal "I am" (ego eimi) of this passage as "I have been":
"I have been: The opposing Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he had 'seen Abraham,' although, as they said, Jesus was 'not yet 50 years old.' (John 8:57) Jesus’ response was to tell them about his prehuman existence as a mighty spirit creature in heaven before Abraham was born. Some claim that this verse identifies Jesus with God. They argue that the Greek expression used here, e·goʹ ei·miʹ (rendered 'I am' in some Bibles), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Ex 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. (See study note on John 4:26.) In this context, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb ei·miʹ 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.' In fact, at John 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: 'Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?' Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as 'have been.' (Other examples of rendering a present tense Greek verb using a present perfect tense verb are found at Luke 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; John 15:27; Acts 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1 John 3:8.) Also, Jesus’ reasoning recorded at John 8:54, 55 shows that he was not trying to portray himself as being the same person as his Father."
The first reason set forth by the NWT Study Bible above for translating "ego eimi" (I am) as "I have been" is that "the opposing Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming that he had 'seen Abraham,' although, as they said, Jesus was 'not yet 50 years old.'" Why would this claim provoke the Jews to such anger? The answer is apparently found in the NWT's rendition of John 10:31-36, wherein it is related:
"Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: 'I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?' The Jews answered him: 'We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.' Jesus answered them: 'Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called "gods" those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"
We are given to understand that in referring to himself as God's Son, the Jews considered Jesus to have blasphemed by making 'a god' of himself. However, the Study Bible presents a contrary interpretation when commenting upon why it was that the Jews had sought to kill Jesus as related in John 5:18, for here the Study Bible says: "the Jews...accused Jesus of attempting to make himself God’s equal by claiming God as his Father." So the careful reader is confronted with the following dichotomy when reading the NWT Study Bible translation and commentary in regard to these two passages: the Jews sought to kill Jesus for claiming that he was God's Son because they believed that by making this claim Jesus was making himself a lesser 'god' than God his Father, and they also believed that by making this claim he was claiming to be equal to God his Father. If John's text is saying both of these things, it becomes unintelligible to the reader. But if John 10:33 reads "we stone thee...for blasphemy, because thou, being a man, makest thyself God", then John 5:18 will harmonize with John 10:31-36. Otherwise it will not. The NWT Study Bible explanation for why the Jews had sought to stone Jesus as related in John 8:58, to wit, simply for claiming to have seen Abraham when he was not yet 50 years old, makes no sense whatsoever. Without the context of blasphemy as related in the other gospel passages, it would seem that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for making the apparently insane claim that he had seen Abraham before he had ever been born. This is not a reasonable interpretation of this passage, or rather, it represents only a partial and incomplete interpretation of this passage, which needs further clarification to make any proper sense of it. The blasphemy passages cited above provide the necessary context for interpreting why it was that the Jews had wanted to stone Jesus as related in John 8:58, but as was shown above, the Study Bible is inconsistent in representing to the reader why it was that the Jews had wanted to kill Jesus, on the one hand representing the Jews as believing that Jesus had claimed that he was a lesser 'god' than his Father, and on the other hand representing the Jews as believing that Jesus had claimed that he was equal to God his Father.
The second reason set forth by the NWT Study Bible above for translating "ego eimi" (I am) as "I have been" in John 8:58 is that "Jesus’ response was to tell them about his prehuman existence as a mighty spirit creature in heaven before Abraham was born. Some claim that this verse identifies Jesus with God. They argue that the Greek expression used here, e·goʹ ei·miʹ (rendered 'I am' in some Bibles), is an allusion to the Septuagint rendering of Ex 3:14 and that both verses should be rendered the same way. (See study note on John 4:26.) In this context, however, the action expressed by the Greek verb ei·miʹ started 'before Abraham came into existence' and was still in progress. It is therefore properly translated 'I have been' rather than 'I am'."
The best way to test the validity of this statement is to see whether the NWT follows this translation principle in equivalent passages in John's Gospel and in other places in the 'Christian Greek Scriptures', as the Watchtower Society prefers to call them. Let us look at a few examples, specifically in respect to the words of Jesus himself.
John 8:12: "I am (ego eimi) the light of the world." (NWT) Jesus was the light of the world before he had made this statement, and his being the light of the world was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read "I have been the light of the world" if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
John 10:12: "I am (ego eimi) the door for the sheep". (NWT) Jesus was the door for the sheep before he had made this statement, and his being the door for the sheep was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read "I have been the door for the sheep" if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
John 14:6: "I am (ego eimi) the way and the truth and the life". (NWT) Jesus was the way and the truth and the life before he had made this statement, and his being the way and the truth and the life was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read "I have been the way and the truth and the life" if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
The following passages are of even greater significance in regard to this matter, inasmuch as they involve the pre-existence of the Son of God:
John 10:36: "I am (ego eimi) God’s Son". (NWT) Christ was God's Son (i.e. the Son of God) before he had made this statement, and his being God's Son (i.e. the Son of God) was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read "I have been God's Son" if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
We further observe that the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating other passages from the 'Christian Greek Scriptures' relating to Christ's pre-existence as the Son of God:
Mark 14:61-62: “'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' Jesus said: 'I am' (ego eimi)." (NWT) Christ was the Son of the Blessed One before he had made this statement, and his being the Son of the Blessed One was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read: "'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' Jesus said: 'I have been' (ego eimi)", if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
Revelation 1:17: "I am (ego eimi) the First and the Last". (NWT) Christ was the First and the Last before he had made this statement, and his being the First and the Last was still in progress when he had made that statement. Nevertheless, the NWT does not follow its own stated rule in translating this passage, which ought to have read "I have been the First and the Last" if the NWT was being faithful to its own stated translation procedures.
A rule of translation procedure can only reasonably be described as a rule if it has general application in relevant cases. If it is applied only to one Biblical passage, and is not utilized when its terms of application are clearly indicated in reference to a number of other Biblical passages, it loses the character of a rule, and becomes nothing more than an arbitrary imposition upon the text on the part of the translator.
A last consideration in regard to the proper translation of John 8:58 is that of rendering the Greek into idiomatic English without losing the meaning of the original text. The NWT Study Bible appropriately references this translation concern in its discussion of John 8:58, but misapplies it to the passage in question. The Study Bible observes:
"In fact, at John 14:9, the same form of the Greek verb ei·miʹ is used to render Jesus’ words: 'Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me?' Most translations use a similar wording, showing that depending on context there is no valid grammatical objection to rendering ei·miʹ as 'have been.'”
In the passage cited above (Jn 14:9), the phrase "ego eimi" (I am) is connected to "with you men". In idiomatic English, "I have been" stresses the action of being "with you men" over a duration of time, i.e. "such a long time". It does not stand on its own in the sentence. As a general or even near universal rule, the phrase "I have been" standing on its own within a sentence does not constitute good idiomatic English. It is sometimes used in colloquial expression as a direct rejoinder to an accusatory statement, such as, for instance, "you have not been taking your medication" - "I have been", where the referent, i.e. "taking medication" is dropped in the response, and only implicitly acknowledged. To repeat, the phrase "I have been" does not stand alone in a sentence without a proper referent in English usage. The phrase "I have been" must relate to something, to a state or condition or to an activity: "I have been sick", "I have been working", etc. With reference to John 8:58, one cannot assert existence merely by stating "I have been" in good idiomatic English. On the other hand, to state "I am", is equivalent to stating "I exist", in idiomatic English. We observe this to be the case in Neil Diamond's famous song "I am, I said". This statement is recognizable English usage. "I have been, I have said" would not constitute idiomatic English usage. Now to relate this discussion with reference to English grammar to Jewish theology, which is the context of discussion for John 8:58, only a being who has eternal existence can state "I am" as a present state of affairs in all times and places. If Christ had intended to say that he had come into existence prior to Abraham's having come into existence, this notion of a prior origin on the part of Christ could not be rendered into idiomatic English by rendering the verse as "before Abraham came into existence, I have been". Anyone who is conversant in the English language upon reading this passage will naturally ask, 'I have been...what'? 'I have been communing with the Father'? 'I have been creating the world'? None of these activities are indicated within this gospel passage. Only that of prior existence. If Christ had meant to say, "I have been existing" in John 8:58, as the NWT Study Bible would have us believe, he would not have used the phrase "I am" in the Greek original, for "I am" is a present tense indicator. The fact that the NWT does not translate "ego eimi" (I am) as "I have been" in any of the passages cited above (and many more could be adduced), especially in regard to those where Christ makes reference to his pre-existence as the Son of God, is very telling, because to do so would make for a bad idiomatic rendition of the gospel in English usage.
To sum up matters, the NWT translation of John 8:58 is not reasonable, for three primary reasons:
The passages used to support the NWT translation of John 8:58, i.e. John 5:18 and John 10:31-36, as they have been translated and commented upon in the NWT Study Bible, present us with an unintelligible text, for they leave us with the contradictory notion that the Jews had sought to kill Christ for claiming to be the Son of God because this indicated to them that he was claiming to be a lesser god who was not equal to God (Jn 10:33), and also that he was claiming to be equal to God (Jn 5:18).
The translation rule advocated by the NWT Study Bible, which states that "ego eimi" (I am) should properly be rendered into idiomatic English as "I have been" whenever this phrase indicates that an action which had started in the past continues on into the present, is ignored on multiple occasions in the NWT of the Holy Scriptures, most strikingly in all other passages where Christ speaks of his pre-existence as the Son of God, i.e. (Mark 14:62; Jn 10:36; Rev 1:17). A rule that is observed primarily in the breach is no rule at all, and amounts to nothing more than an arbitrary imposition upon the text.
In English usage, the phrase "I have been" without a proper referent (i.e. "I have been...what"?) is poor idiomatic expression, and cannot be validly substituted in place of the original "I am" without distorting the meaning of the text. "Before Abraham came into existence, I am" informs the reader that Christ claimed present existence in all times and places. "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been" leaves the reader wondering what it was that Christ was claiming to have been up to prior to the time of Abraham - i.e. "I have been"...what - communing with the Father, creating the world, who knows? Once more, we are confronted with the problem of an unintelligible text.
In conclusion, inasmuch as the NWT Study Bible's translation of John 8:58 is based upon contradictory material presented to the reader at John 5:18 and John 10:31-36 of the NWT in regard to Jewish perceptions of Christ's claim to be the Son of God, and given the fact that the NWT Study Bible's stated translation methodology in regard to this passage is consistently flouted when translating equivalent passages of the 'Christian Greek Scriptures', especially those having to do with Christ's affirmation of his pre-existence as the Son of God, and given the further fact that the NWT Study Bible's translation of this passage renders the original Greek into non-idiomatic English, the passage in question, to wit, John 8:58, fails the test of constituting a reasonable and valid translation of the Greek original, for in the final analysis it presents the reader with an unintelligible text.