Earlier today Brian from Sunestauromai asked me to share my thoughts on John’s prologue, but then turned around and suggested just the first three verses:
Maybe not the whole prologue but at least the perhaps 1-3. I understand “In the beginning the Word already existed.” I just am not not entirely comfortable with the wording. Maybe it is just me. It might be a point I would make in teaching or preaching but I am not sure I would translate it that way.
Now here’s the John 1:1-3 in the NLT:
In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He existed in the beginning with God.
God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
Brian is uncomfortable with “In the beginning the Word already existed.” I believe the real issue is “already existed.” It sure sounds different than the traditional “In the beginning was the Word.”
Behind “already existed” (NLT) and “was” (traditional rendering) is the Greek ēn, 3rd pers. sing., imperfect active ind. of the verb eimi, “to be.” The imperfect, along with the present, refers to the imperfective aspect of an action. It views the action as incomplete and focuses on the process of the action. Professor Wallace lists three types of imperfect: instantaneous, progressive, and ingressive (Greek Grammar, 541).
So in respect to the beginning of creation, if we treat the imperfect ēn as progressive, “the Word already existed” and the NLT’s rendering is correct.
Here’s the grind: when you read John 1:1 in the Greek and take the time to parse, you’re going to come right back to the NLT’s rendering. 
Iyov, because en is considered a progressive imperfect “already” is a suitable gloss.
I suppose the reason why we have “already existed” in relation to “In the beginning” and not with “God,” is because the “beginning” had an actual beginning but not “God.”
Surely you must agree that the Greek shows a triple literary parallelism that is completely lost in the NLT2’s translation.
Yes, for forms but not meaning, because the first occurrence of en is different than the last two.
OK, I’m confused. “En” shows up three times in John 1:1. I cannot agree with you that “already existed” is a valid translation — where does the “already” come from?
But for the sake of argument, let’s say I did agree with you. Then why is it only translated as you suggest once? The translation is simply inconsistent.
Surely you must agree that the Greek shows a triple literary parallelism that is completely lost in the NLT2′s translation.
First, the subject of the “en” is not “the beginning” but the “Logos”. If the “Logos” had no beginning, then it should not require the “already” by your logic.
But the shocking implication of your interpretation is that you seem to be saying that although “the Word” has no beginning, apparently the “Word being God” and the “Word being with God” did have a beginning. Apparently, you view “In the beginning” as only modifying the first clause (although grammar argues otherwise) and not the other two — so your interpretation means:
“In the beginning the Word already existed.
[At some time after that] the Word was with God.
[And at some time after that] the Word was God.”
Now, I am sure this is not how you read the verse, but it is the logical conclusion of your statement above.
Since you find significance in the phrase “in the beginning”, because “the beginning has an actual beginning”? does this mean your translation of the verb would be different if the verse began “Last Thursday” instead of “In the beginning”?
By the way, your comments are showing up badly out of order.
Trying to fix them.
First, the subject of the “en” is not “the beginning” but the “Logos”. If the “Logos” had no beginning, then it should not require the “already” by your logic.
Logos must be viewed relative to “In the beginning.” In this way, “already” is acceptable.
But the shocking implication of your interpretation is that you seem to be saying that although “the Word” has no beginning, apparently the “Word being God” and the “Word being with God” did have a beginning. Apparently, you view “In the beginning” as only modifying the first clause (although grammar argues otherwise) and not the other two — so your interpretation means:
“In the beginning the Word already existed.
[At some time after that] the Word was with God.
[And at some time after that] the Word was God.”
Not at all! “Already existed” must be seen against the creation of everything in vv.3, 4 and not in reference to God.
Let’s allow the REB to resolve this:
In the beginning the Word already was.The Word was in God’s presence, and what God was, the Word was. He was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; without him no created thing came into being.
What do you think of:
- the NLT’s “God created” and “was created”
- the ESV’s “were made” and “was made”
- the REB’s “came to be” and “came into being”
Seems to be some disagreement over the active/passive nature of created/made/”came to be”.
I knew I was digging a hole….
so which is it? stay with my pretty little wording that I am comfortable with or allow the text to say what it means?
I guess it’s up to me….
Stan, Iyov thinks adding “already” once but not the other two times is inconsistent. I really don’t see it that way.
“Already” makes sense in relation to the “In the beginning” but not in relation to God.
What do you think of:
- the NLT’s “God created” and “was created”
- the ESV’s “were made” and “was made”
- the REB’s “came to be” and “came into being”
Seems to be some disagreement over the active/passive nature of created/made/”came to be”.
Each version is trying to translate the second aorist egeneto, from ginomai, “to come into being, become.” At the end of the day, it becomes a stylistic thing. I see no confusion.
Brian, it’s pretty much up to you…
I’ve only had about one year of greek. I know enough to be able to read/translate a very few number of passages. One could say I know enough just to be dangerous. That being the case I will not further comment on this interesting thread which, I must confess, is just a few feet over my confused head. I’ll stick to history…
Martin.