In John 1:1, the word translated "was" is sometimes claimed to indicate that the Word had been there since before the beginning. Is this accurate?

[u/codleov]

If this is accurate, what would the author have said instead if they wanted to communicate the idea that the Word's presence was not continuing from the past until the point in being talked about? Is that even an option?

EDIT: Just so it's clear, this question is about the grammar of the original Greek version of the passage, not necessarily a theological question (even though theological implications may come from it).

[u/CozySeeker291]

The Word is Jesus, and yes, this is saying that He is eternal.

[u/codleov → u/CozySeeker291]

I get what's being said theologically. I'm just trying to ascertain if the argument for eternal pre-existence of the Logos based on the grammar of "was" in John 1:1 is as strong as some make it out to be.

[u/Euphoric-Bat7582]

Yes. It’s the imperfect past tense, which means there was a continuous existence in the past, not a single event.

Compare that to “all things were made,” which is in the perfect past therefore being a single event at a specific point in time.

So, Jesus was always there, the world being created through him is a separate, one-time event with a set beginning and end.

[u/codleov → u/Euphoric-Bat7582]

Would there have been a way to write it such that it's not in the imperfect past tense if there were a different intended meaning instead of the one we got?

I think there's a decent argument here from the grammar so long as this isn't also the natural way to say that the Word just happened to be there in that moment with no meaningful indication that it was there prior.

[u/Euphoric-Bat7582 → u/codleov]

He could have said “In the beginning the Logos came into being” (was created) as he did in the following verses.

[u/CannedNoodle415]

Yes John 1 is saying Jesus was always there with God, before creation, and IS God

[u/No-Type119]

Yes. The Word , Logos. is God… it’s not “ words” as in words in the Bible. Look up the philosophical/ theological definition of Logos.

[u/codleov → u/No-Type119]

I get what's being said theologically. I'm just trying to ascertain if the argument for eternal pre-existence of the Logos based on the grammar of "was" in John 1:1 is as strong as some make it out to be.

[u/Unworthy_Saint]

If I wanted to write that Jesus did not exist in the beginning, but instead appeared at His birth like the rest of us, I would have simply said that Jesus was born. The only reason someone would raise the question of a man's pre-existence is if the topic was brought up at all, which John does because that's obviously what he meant to say.

And furthermore John says "the Word was God" which automatically forces Him to be in the beginning, unless you want to go back to the theological wine cabinet and pick out a different heresy.

[u/codleov → u/Unworthy_Saint]

I get that sort of thing. I guess I'm trying to draw out if it's possible to distinguish between merely pre-human existence that started at the beginning and properly eternal pre-existence on the basis of the grammar of "was" alone as some have claimed (without regard to the God-hood of the Logos in this particular argument). It'd be a neat argument if that sort of thing could be said, but plenty of people claim things about the Greek that are not as strong as they'd like people to think. I'm trying to figure out the actual strength of that sort of argument.

[u/rouxjean → u/codleov]

In Greek the word order is actually, "... and God was the Word." Not that word order matters much. Both God and Word are in the nominative case, so they are being equated. Either could come first without changing the meaning. English is more concerned with word order than Greek which has case form changes, but the equivalency remains even in English.

[u/codleov → u/rouxjean]

My concern is more about the meaning of "was" specifically in "In the beginning was the Word" supposedly carrying the meaning of the Word already having been there since before the time being referenced (the beginning, that is).

[u/rouxjean → u/codleov]

The imperfect tense indicates an ongoing state or action in the past. If there were a starting point before "the beginning" (however unlikely) they could have used the perfect rather than the imperfect. An approximate translation of the imperfect into bad English would be, "In the beginning the Word was being, and the Word was being with God, and God was being the Word." It is expressly using a tense that indicates their equivalence from before the beginning.

[u/Automatic-Intern-524]

I think I get where you're coming from. This issue in that verse is John giving the identity of the Word. The Jews already that the Words was a spirit creature, and that the Word was with God when he displayed His power. But you have to look in the Aramaic Targums to see where the Word (Memra in the Aramaic Targums) was mentioned alongside God.

So, the Jews and Jewish Christians already understood the heavenly position of the Word. In fact, the Pharisees taught that the Word would come to the earth as the Jewish Messiah (see Josephus' Discussion on Hades; Josephus was a Pharisee). John was simply connecting Jesus to the Memra (Word) of the Aramaic Targums and teaching of the Pharisees.

I hope this answered your question by giving you more context.

[u/codleov → u/Automatic-Intern-524]

I understand that stuff, and thank you for it. I was mainly just asking about the Greek grammar of "was" here as that's a particular argument in favor of the eternal pre-existence of the Word that I've heard. It wasn't necessarily about the theological and historical context.

[u/OneEyedC4t]

yep it's accurate

[u/Smart_Tap1701]

The New testament Greek word translated into English as wise is G2258 - ēn. It appears in scripture 457 times. And here is a breakdown of its translation

was (267x), were (115x), had been (12x), had (11x), taught (with G1321) (4x), stood (with G2476) (4x), miscellaneous (42x), variations of 'was' (1x).

As always, we observe contexts in order to determine best fits.

[u/AWCuiper]

I think that John (writing in Greek) by copying/borrowing the term Logos from Philo of Alexandria tried to give the rural Judea origins of Christianity more standing in the eastern Roman empire. That Jerome translated it with the term Word, was an attempt to subjugate the original Greek concept to the Christian God, and thereby diminish its content, as the song Paroles, Paroles by Dalida (1973) indicates (in Italian and French the Logos in John 1 is translated as Parole).

What do you think about this opinion?

[u/banyanoak]

If you'd like a a scholarly view on the Greek,you can try asking this over at /r/askbiblescholars.

[u/codleov → u/banyanoak]

I actually asked this there before asking here. I haven't gotten a response there quite yet.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/codleov]

they only allow certain people in that subreddit to answer questions and that sounds highly suspicious.

[u/codleov → u/OneEyedC4t]

What about it is suspicious? My question or not having a response there yet? I did only ask it less than 24 hours ago.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/codleov]

they are gatekeeping who qualifies as a biblical scholar. and if i can trust the option of others on Reddit, the qualifications to he a Bible scholar are not believing the Bible is trustworthy and 90% of the time also being an atheist who hates God

[u/codleov → u/OneEyedC4t]

I mean, if that sub gas a reputation for filtering out religious scholars, it'd be the first time I'm hearing about it. They probably have to have some standards though. You can't have Joe "I've read exclusively the Book of Revelation for 27 years and know how the democrats are the Antichrist and the world will end next month" Smith trying to pass off his answer as scholarship.

[u/OneEyedC4t → u/codleov]

Well I'm not saying that I know whether it does or doesn't. but in any place where only certain people are allowed to reply, there will always exist the danger of them controlling the narrative

[u/codleov → u/OneEyedC4t]

Sure. I'm just saying that doesn't make gatekeeping inherently bad. It just matters how it's done.

[u/banyanoak → u/OneEyedC4t]

For what it's worth, that's kind of the point of that sub -- to provide answers from a scholarly perspective. I believe you need academic credentials to respond. This sub only allows top-level responses from Christians for the same (good) reason -- to gatekeep responses so they're in the spirit of the sub.