Luke 24:19

How would you feel if someone changed the wording in your own writing?

The Greek verb ἐγένετο (aorist middle of γίγνομαι) is accurately rendered “became” or “came to be,” indicating entry into a state or role rather than its static continuation. English translations have all rendered it simply as “was,” conflating γίγνομαι with εἰμί (to be), whose imperfect ἦν denotes a state of being or existence over time. This semantic distinction is not trivial: ἐγένετο conveys an ontological or historical emergence—Jesus became (ἐγένετο) a prophet in the eyes of the people, aligning with narrative context and the nuance of change or recognition. Translating it as “was” simply erases the dynamic aspect of the role or status being described.

Interchanging the two obscures the semantic distinction between being and becoming, a fundamental contrast in both Greek grammar and philosophy. For instance, ἐγένετο φῶς (Gen. 1:3 LXX) means “light came into being,” not merely “there was light.”

This careless and dishonest swapping of this word happens repeatedly in all the translations throughout the NT:

Modern Translations and Rendering of ἐγένετο ("became")

• NIV (New International Version):
  “He was a prophet…”
  → Translates ἐγένετο as “was” — flattens the nuance of emergence.

• NLT (New Living Translation):
  “He was a prophet…”
  → Same as above; renders dynamic became as static was.

• ESV (English Standard Version):
  “A man who was a prophet…”
  → Retains "was"; no indication of transition or becoming.

• Berean Standard Bible:
  “This man was a prophet…”
  → “Was” again replaces “became.”

• King James Version (KJV):
  “Which was a prophet…”
  → Early precedent for using “was” in place of ἐγένετο.

• NASB (New American Standard Bible):
  “Who proved to be a prophet…”
  → Quite the crafty attempt to conflate the two. Who are they tricking here? Themselves?

• Legacy Standard Bible:
  “Who was a mighty prophet…”
  → Uses “was”; loses the aoristic “became” sense.

• Amplified Bible:
  “Who was a prophet…”
  → Again, stative rather than dynamic. Amplified falsehood?

• CSB (Christian Standard Bible):
  “Who was a prophet…”

• American Standard Version (ASV):
  “Who was a prophet…”

• Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic):
  “Who was a prophet…”

• New American Bible (Catholic):
  “Who was a prophet…”
  → Says the "true" church

• Aramaic Bible in Plain English:
  “A man who was the Prophet…”
  → Adds the definite article and title; retains “was.”

• Young's Literal Translation:
  “Who became a man — a prophet…”
  → Correctly reflects the Greek ἐγένετο as “became”; preserves the dynamic nuance, but notice the craftiness to limit the meaning to becoming a man only.

• Literal Standard Version:
  “Who became a man—a prophet…”
  → Faithful to the Greek's aorist and its implication of transition or emergence, but following the craftiness of Young's Literal.

• Smith's Literal Translation:
  “Who was a man…”

• Godbey New Testament:
  “Who was a prophet-man…”

By what authority do these translators tamper with the basic language fundamentals like this? Is this integrity? Honest?