Jesus and his disciples were at supper is more literally “during supper.” Good News Translation simply introduces information which is implicit from the remainder of the account. Jerusalem Bible has “they were at supper,” but with no antecedent to “they.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates as Good News Translation does. The phrase were at supper must be restructured in some languages as “were eating together in the evening.” The term supper involves two important components: (1) the fact of eating and (2) the time of eating. It is necessary in some languages to separate these components into two distinct expressions.
Put the thought into the heart of Judas involves at least two problems. First, the verb rendered put the thought into the heart is literally “had thrown into the heart,” and there is a question as to whose heart is intended. Some Greek manuscripts read “the heart of Judas,” but others have “Judas” in the nominative case and so may be translated literally “had thrown into the heart that Judas would betray him.” The reading of the genitive case (“the heart of Judas”) is obviously the easier reading, and it is much more likely that scribes would have changed the nominative to the genitive than the other way around. But the translator, after solving the textual problem, is still faced with the problem of ambiguity in the Greek text. What is meant by the phrase “had thrown into the heart that Judas should betray him”? Whose heart is intended? La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée and Zürcher Bibel understand the heart to be that of the Devil himself, but most translators apparently understand it to be the heart of Judas.
Put the thought … into the heart of Judas is often expressed idiomatically, for example, “whispered into the ear of Judas” or “touched Judas with the thought of” or “whispered to the mind of Judas.” The relation between the Devil and the mind of Judas is essentially causative, and it is so treated in some languages, for example, “the Devil caused Judas to think.” In some instances the content of the thought must be expressed in direct discourse, for example, “the Devil caused Judas to think, I will betray Jesus.”
Secondly, this sentence presents a textual problem connected with the phrase rendered Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot (so also New American Bible, New English Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Some translations render this “Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Phillips, Jerusalem Bible, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Zürcher Bibel). The evidence is not conclusive, but elsewhere (6.71 and 13.26) “Iscariot” is connected with Simon, the father of Judas, and so the UBS Committee prefers the reading adopted by Good News Translation. Because of the awkwardness of the appositional phrase the son of Simon Iscariot, it may be necessary in some languages to make this expression into a complete sentence, for example, “Judas was the son of Simon Iscariot.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .