Logos, Word

Click here to view graphically

Newman / Nida describe some of the difficulties surrounding the translation of the Greek “Logos” which is typically translated as “Word” in English (click or tap here to read more):

“The term ‘the Word’ has a rich heritage, by way of both its Greek and Jewish backgrounds. For the Greeks who held to a theistic view of the universe, it could be understood as the means by which God reveals himself to the world, while among those who were pantheistic in outlook, the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the Word could be used both of the means by which God had created the world (Ps 33:6) and through which he had revealed himself to the world (Jer 1:4; Ezek 1:3; Amos 3:1). Among certain of the Greek-speaking Jews of New Testament times, there was much speculation about the ‘wisdom’ of God, which God ‘made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began’ (Prov 8:22-23). (…) By the time that John writes his Gospel, the Word is close to being recognized as a personal being, and it has roles relating to the manner in which God created the world and to the way in which God reveals himself to the world that he brought into being. Moffatt [whose English translation of the New Testament was published in 1913], realizing the difficulty in finding a term equivalent in meaning to the one used by John, transliterates the Greek term: ‘the Logos existed in the very beginning’ [see also Hart’s translation below or The Orthodox New Testament, 2000)]; while Phillips [New Testament translation published in 1958] at least makes an effort to give his translation meaning: ‘at the beginning God expressed himself.’

“Though the Greek term logos may be rendered ‘word,’ it would be wrong to think it indicates primarily a grammatical or lexical unit in a sentence. Greek has two other terms which primarily identify individual words, whether they occur in a list (as in a dictionary) or in a sentence. The term logos, though applicable to an individual word, is more accurately understood as an expression with meaning; that is, it is ‘a message,’ ‘a communication,’ and, as indicated, a type of ‘revelation.’ A literal translation, therefore, more or less equivalent to English ‘word,’ is frequently misleading.

“In some languages there are additional complications. For example, in some languages the term ‘word’ is feminine in gender, and therefore any reference to it must also be feminine [or neuter — see German below]. As a result, the possible use of pronouns in reference to Jesus Christ can be confusing. Furthermore, in many languages a term such as ‘word’ must be possessed. One cannot speak about ‘the word’ without indicating who spoke the word, since words do not exist apart from the persons who utter them.

“Because of these and other difficulties, many translators treat the term ‘Word’ or Logos as a title, and that is precisely what it is. The very fact that it is normally capitalized in English translations marks it as a title; but in many languages the fact of its being a title must be more clearly indicated by some explicit expression, for example, ‘the one who was called the Word’ [see Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac below] or ‘the one known as the Word’ [see German below] In this way the reader can understand from the beginning that ‘Word’ is to be understood as a designation for a person.

“Therefore, this first sentence in John 1:1 may be rendered ‘Before the world was created, the one who was known as the Word existed’ or ‘… the person called the Word existed.’ In languages which employ honorific forms it is particularly appropriate to use such an indication with the title ‘Word.’ Such a form immediately marks the designation as the title of deity or of a very important personage, depending, of course, upon the usage in the language in question.”

Translation for “Logos” include:

  • Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “the one who is called the Word”
  • Sayula Popoluca: “the Word by which God is known”
  • Miahuatlán Zapotec: “one who revealed God’s thoughts”
  • Alekano: “God’s wise Speech”
  • Tojolabal: “he who told us about God” (Source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February, 1970, p. 1-125.)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “Jesus Christ the person who is the Word, he who gives eternal life”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “the Word that gives new life to our hearts”
  • Garifuna: “the one named Word, the one who gives life” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
  • Tzeltal de Oxchuc y Tenejapa (Highland Tzeltal): te C’opile: “the Word” (in a new, 2001 version of the New Testament to avoid the previous translation “the Word of God,” a term also used for “Bible.” — Source: Robert Bascom)
  • Mairasi: “The Message” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • German: Er, der ‘das Wort’ ist: “He who is ‘the Word'” — this solution circumvents the different gender of Jesus (masculine) and “das Wort” (neuter) (in: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 3rd edition: 1997) / Zürcher Bibel, 2007 revision: “the Word, the Logos” (das Wort, der Logos — “Logos” is defined as masculine)
  • Anindilyakwa: Originally translated as N-ayakwa-murra or “he having the properties of a word/message/language.” Since this was not understandable, it is now “Jesus Christ, the one who revealed God who was hidden from us.” (Source: Julie Waddy in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 452ff. )
  • Kwang: “He who is called ‘The reality (lit: the body) of the Word of God himself’” (source: Mark Vanderkooi)
  • Kikuyu: Ũhoro or “Affair”/”Matter” (source: Leonard Beecher in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 117ff. )
  • Dholuo: Wach: “Word” (but also: “problem,” “issue,” or “matter”) (source: Jim Harries)
  • Matumbi: Liyi’gi’yo or “spoken Word” (as opposed to yi’gi’ya or “the word to be heard”) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Assamese: বাক্য (bakya) / Bengali: বাক্ (bāk) / Telugu: వాక్యము (vākyamu) / Hindi (some versions): वचन (vachan). All these terms are derived from the Sanskrit vach (वाच्), meaning “speech,” “voice,” “talk,” “language,” or “sound.” Historically, “in early Vedic literature, vach was the creative power in the universe. Sometimes she appears alone, sometimes with Prajapati, the creator god. She is called ‘Mother of the Vedas.’ All of this suggest an interesting parallel with logos. From the Upanishads on [late Vedic period, the Vedic period overall stretches from c. 1500–500 BC), however, she retreats from her creative role and becomes identified with Saraswati, the goddess of speech.”
  • Sanskrit and Hindi (some versions): शब्द (shabda), meaning “speech sound.” Historically, “Shabda is of importance from the Upanishads on. As shabda-brahman it is eternal and is the ground of the phenomenal world.” (Source for this and above: R.M. Clark in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 81ff. )
  • Sinhala: ධර්මයාණෝ (dharmayāṇō), meaning “philosophy” or “religion.”
  • Tonga: Folofola: “Originally, the term is used in the kingly language and is related to the meaning of unrolling the mat, an indispensable item in Tongan traditions. The mats, especially those with beautiful and elaborate designs, are usually rolled up and kept carefully until the visit of a guest to the house. The term thus evokes to the Tongans the idea of God’s Word being unrolled to reveal his love and salvation for mankind.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Pitjantjatjara: Tjukurnga: “Dreaming” (“a form of religious mapping, an ideological construction whereby the universe is rendered understandable in religious terms; it is the collection of myths, stories, and practices by which the land is perceived and through which a person makes sense of the world.” For more tap or click here.)

    “Like many crucial terms [Tjukurnga] is thankfully untranslatable. Its possible meanings are: (1) story; (2) Dreaming or Law (with a capital; there is an emerging Aboriginal desire for this sense of the word not to be given an English equivalent any longer); (3) message; (4) news; (5) individual word; (6) what someone says, thing said; and (7) birthmark, wart, which is regarded as showing something that is distinct and personal.

    “It seems that with tjukurpa [the root form of Tjukurnga] is not so much the untranslatability of Christian and Aboriginal ideas but the potential for a word such as this to release the controls and spin out in all sorts of unexpected direction. For what takes off here is precisely the ‘Word.’ Not only does tjukurpa designate the Word, the logos, the meaningful expression or creative principle — or indeed story, saying, message, news, birthmark, Law … — but it is also used at times for ‘parable’ (Mark 4:13 et al.), for the translation of ‘word’ elsewhere (Mark 4:14), and for ‘gospel’ itself. Thus, Mark 1:1 has Tjukurpa Palya, ‘good Tjukurpa‘ (with a capital!) for ‘gospel.’ (…) Once let loose, it is as though tjukurpa cannot stop, for the whole mini-Bible, comprising most of the New Testament and sections of the Hebrew Bible, is itself Tjukurpa Polya: Irititja munu Kuwaritja, ‘The good Tjukurpa: old and new.’ (Source: Boer 2008, p. 154ff.)

  • Ajië: Nô (click or tap here to read an explanation by Maurice Leenhardt — in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 154ff. ):

    “There are other words that the learned translators of the West have in vain tried to render into rich tongues as French or Latin. They found obscure expressions for the common ‘word’ or ‘speech’ (…) It would seem that these words would present insurmountable difficulties for the translator in primitive languages. Missionaries of the Loyalty Islands could not find the word to translate ‘Word,’ nor have they imagined that there could be a corresponding term in the native language. They simply introduced the Greek word into the vocabulary, pronouncing it in the native fashion, ‘In the beginning the Logos’. These people are intelligent; and do not appreciate pronouncing words which make no sense whatsoever. However, when a Caledonian speaks French, he translates his thoughts as they seem to him the most adequate. He can easily express himself relative to the man who has conceived good things, has said them, or done them. He simply describes such a person as, ‘The word of this man is good’. Thought, speech, and action are all included in the New Caledonian term nô. In speaking of an adulterous man one may say, ‘He has done an evil word’. One may speak of a chief who does not think, order, or act correctly as, ‘His word is not good’. The expression ‘the Word of God’ is limited in our speech to meaning of the divine Scriptures, but in New Caledonian it includes the thoughts and acts of God, ‘God said and it was done’. The New Caledonian has no difficulty in seeing the Word becoming action, becoming flesh, the word becoming a physical reality. Our deceased colleague Laffay once said: ‘I prefer to read John in the Ajië rather than in French’.

  • Spanish / Portuguese / Italian: Palabra / Palavra / Parola vs. Verbo. In all of these Romance languages, there is an older version of “Word” (Verbo), that today primarily means “verb” or “action,” mostly used by older Bible translations, and a more modern word (Palabra / Palavra / Parola) which primarily means “Word,” mostly used by newer Bible translations. This not only creates two different historical translations for a major theological term in those languages but also opens up new semantic facets when taking the meaning of Verbo in a modern context. (See Mindy Misener in The Christian Century ). Note that La Biblia Latinoamérica (publ. 1972) has “el Verbo (la Palabra)” in John 1:1.

The recent English New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart (2017), that uses the transliteration Logos for the Greek Λόγος, says this about its translation (p. 549ff.): “In certain special instances it is quite impossible for a translator to reduce [Λόγος] to a single word in English, or in any other tongue (though one standard Chinese version of the Bible renders logos in the prologue of John’s Gospel as 道 (dao), which is about as near as any translation could come to capturing the scope and depth of the word’s religious, philosophical, and metaphoric associations in those verses, while also carrying the additional meaning of “speech” or “discourse”).”

Below you can find some background of this remarkable Chinese translation (click or tap here to read more):

Dao 道, which developed into a central concept of classical Chinese philosophy, originally carried the meaning of “path” and “(main) road.” From there it developed into “leading” and “teaching” as well as “say” and “speak.”

As early as the 7th century BC, however, dao appears with the meaning “method.” With this and the derived meaning of “the (right) way” and “moral principle,” dao became one of the central concepts of the Confucian writings.

In Daoist writings (especially in the Daodejing ), dao goes far beyond the Confucian meaning to take on creative qualities.

With this new compendium of meaning, the term became suitable for numerous foreign religions to represent central points of their doctrine, including Buddhism (as a translation for bodhi — “enlightenment”), Judaism (similar to the Confucians as the “right [Jewish] way”), and Islam (likewise the “right [Muslim] way”).

The Jesuits, who had intensively dealt with Confucianism from the 16th century on, also took over dao as the “correct (Catholic) way,” and the so-called Figurists, a group of Jesuits in the 18th century who saw the Messianic figure of Jesus Christ outlined in Chinese history, went so far as to point to the existence of John’s Logos in the dao of Daodejing.

In later Catholic Bible translations, dao was rarely used as a translation for Logos; instead, the Latin Verbum (from the Latin Vulgate) was transliterated, or yan 言 — “language”, “meaning” — was used, usually with the prefix sheng 圣 — “holy” (also used by the Russian Orthodox Church).

Protestant translations, however, began to use dao as a translation for Logos in the 1830s and have largely retained this practice to this day.

Some voices went so far as to describe Logos and dao as a point of contact between Christianity and the Chinese religions. By its gradual shaping in Greek and Jewish philosophy, Logos had become an appropriate “word vessel.” Similarly, dao’s final formation in Daodejing had also assumed the necessary capacity to serve as a translation for Logos.

The origins of dao and Logos have some clear differences, not the least being the personal relationship of Logos as the Son of God with God the Father. But it is remarkable that using dao as the translation of Logos emulates John’s likely intention with the use of Logos: the central concept of the philosophical and religious ideas of the target culture was used to translate the central concept of Christian theology.

This was not possible in the case of European cultures, which for the most part have offered only translations such as Word or Verbum, terms without any prior philosophical or religious meaning. Only advanced civilizations like China — or ancient Greece — were able to accomplish that. (Summarized version of: Zetzsche, Jost. Aspekte der chinesischen Bibelübersetzung. R. Malek (ed.) Fallbeispiel China. Beiträge zur Religion, Theologie und Kirche im chinesischen Kontext. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1996.)

Peng Kuo-Wei adds this perspective (in Noss / Houser, p. 885): “The Chinese term chosen for logos is not hua (‘word’ or ‘utterance’) but dao from which the term ‘Taoism’ is derived and which can denote a general principle, a way (concrete or abstract), or reason. Thus, Chinese readers can understand that the dao of God is not just words spoken by God, but it constitutes the guiding salvific principle underlying the whole biblical account, including his action in history and teaching and action of Jesus whom he sent. Jesus is the dao of God because his ministry, death and resurrection comprises the fulfillment and realization of God’s theological and ethical principles for humanity.”

For another use of dao in the Chinese Bible, see the Way.

The English translation by Sarah Ruden (2021) uses true account in John 1. She explains (p. lxiii): “Logos can mean merely ‘statement’ or ‘speech,’ but it also has lofty philosophical uses, especially in the opening of the Book of John, where it is probably connected to the Stoic conception of the divine reasoning posited to pervade the universe. The essential connotation here is not language but the lasting, indisputable, and morally cogent truth of numbers, as displayed in correct financial accounting: this is the most basic sense of logos.” (For other uncommon English translations, see Translation commentary on John 1:1.

Famously, Goethe also had Faust ponder the translation of Logos into German in the first part of the play of the same name (publ. 1808). The German original is followed by the English translation of Walter Kaufmann (publ. 1963) (click or tap here to read more):

Geschrieben steht: “Im Anfang war das Wort!”
Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
Ich muß es anders übersetzen,
Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.
Geschrieben steht: Im Anfang war der Sinn.
Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile,
Daß deine Feder sich nicht übereile!
Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft?
Es sollte stehn: Im Anfang war die Kraft!
Doch, auch indem ich dieses niederschreibe,
Schon warnt mich was, daß ich dabei nicht bleibe.
Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh ich Rat
Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat!

It says: “In the beginning was the Word.”
Already I am stopped. It seems absurd.
The Word does not deserve the highest prize,
I must translate it otherwise
If I am well inspired and not blind.
It says: In the beginning was the Mind.
Ponder that first line, wait and see,
Lest you should write too hastily
Is mind the all-creating source?
It ought to say: In the beginning there was Force.
Yet something warns me as l grasp the pen,
That my translation must be changed again.
The spirit helps me. Now it is exact.
I write: In the beginning was the Act.

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

woman (Jesus addressing his mother)

Stephen Hre Kio reports on the translation of the Greek word into Falam Chin that is translated as “woman” in English, specifically when it refers to Jesus addressing his mother (see The Bible Translator 1988, p. 442ff. ):

“No child would call his parents by their names, either half name or full name, in private or in public. To do so would show disrespect of a high degree. It would be an open insult. The only possible situation where the children might address their parents by name would be where a combination of an endearment title and the name was used as a form of introduction, and the listeners were people not familiar with the parents. For example, the son Za Hu can introduce his father to an unfamiliar audience by saying, ‘This is my father U Kaw Kaw. . .’ If he does it without saying ‘my father,’ Za Hu is creating a distance between himself and his father, but not disrespect. If he addresses his father as ‘Man!’ and his mother as ‘Woman!,’ he is in real trouble. He would be creating an image of being uncultured, disrespectful and downright contemptuous.

“That is precisely the situation we find in John 2:4 and 19:26, where Jesus addressed his mother as ‘woman’ (Greek gunai). To translate this utterance literally would be Nunau in Falam Chin, and this would be offensive to Falam readers. Although we find the same utterance in John 20:13, by two angels who say to Mary, ‘Woman, why are you crying?,’ this is not as offensive as the other uses. The difference lies in the person who said it. For the angels to say to the woman “Woman,” is acceptable. But for the son to say ‘Woman’ to his mother demonstrates utter disrespect and contempt or even extreme anger. That is precisely what we found the text of John put in the mouth of Jesus. But is that actually what Jesus meant when he said ‘Woman’? Fortunately, we are told that ‘Jesus’ use of ‘woman’ (RSV) in direct address was normal and polite. . . It showed neither disrespect nor lack of love. . .’ (quoted from: Newman / Nida 1980). In Falam, the word ‘woman’ Nunau, will have to be avoided and replaced by Ka Nu, meaning ‘My Mother.’ This is the only choice possible in the situation. ‘Woman’ (Nunau) would be insulting, and ‘mother’ Nu Nu would be childish.”

Abel Tabalaka (in: Scriptura 81 (2002), p. 453ff. ) reports something similar from the translation into the apparent semantic equivalent mosadi into Tswana. Readers found this also unacceptably rude and it might therefore distort the meaning of the Greek text (even though it’s used in all Tswana Bibles except the the 1993 paraphrase by Biblica where the word is just skipped.)

In Elhomwe and Matumbi it is translated as “mother,” because “woman” would be impolite. (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

See also formal pronoun: Jesus and his mother.

mixture of myrrh with aloes

The Greek in John 19:39 that is translated as a “mixture of myrrh with aloes” refers a mixture of “a fragrant resin used for embalming the dead” (myrrh) and a “powdered aromatic sandalwood, spoken of as providing perfume for the bed or clothes” (aloes) (source: Newman / Nida),

Ojitlán Chinantec translates it as “fragrant powder, resin powder and wood powder mixed” and Chol as “a wood that gives a fragrant smell when it is rotten.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)

See also myrrh and aloe.

Translation commentary on John 1:5

In Johannine thought darkness is everything that light is not. It is evil and sin and death. The present tense of the verb shines is in direct contrast to the aorist tense in verse 11 (he came). The present tense refers to an eternal quality of the light (that is, it always shines), while the aorist tense in verse 11 (see also in verse 3) refers to a specific moment in time.

Has never put it out is difficult, in regard both to the meaning of the verb itself and the tense. The original meaning is “to grasp,” and it may be used either in a hostile sense (“to overcome”) or in an intellectual sense (“to grasp with the mind,” that is, “to understand”). Good News Translation (has never put it out; so also Goodspeed and Phillips), together with Revised Standard Version (“has not overcome it”) and Jerusalem Bible (“could not overpower”; see also New American Bible), accepts the first of these two interpretations. Few translations, in fact, follow the second.

It is difficult to tell what Moffatt (“but the darkness did not master it”) and New English Bible (“and the darkness has never mastered it”) intend. Either they take the first of these possibilities, or they attempt to combine the two, trying to bring together both meanings in the one phrase “to master.” The Zürcher Bibel rendering (“the darkness did not receive it”) is possibly based on the assumption that the verb (katalambanō) is equivalent to the Greek paralambanō (Good News Translation receive) in verse 11.

Not only is the meaning of the word difficult, but the significance of the tense is also disputed. A number of translators assume that the aorist tense here signifies a timeless truth (Good News Translation the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out; see also New English Bible, Goodspeed, Phillips, Revised Standard Version). Others see in the aorist as used here a reference to a specific event in the past (Moffatt “amid the darkness the light shone, but the darkness did not master it”; see also New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible).

In some languages the translation of verse 5 is particularly difficult because of clear distinctions in the use of words designating light. One term or set of terms refers to particular sources of light (fires, torches, lamps, and so forth), while another term or series of terms may refer to daylight, shining, brightness, and so forth, without indicating the particular instrument or the source of the light. Moreover, in some languages all terms for light are verbs rather than nouns. Therefore, “light shines” may be equivalent to “there is shining” or “it lights.” The abstract term the darkness may be rendered in some languages only as a general term for space, plus a characterization of that space as being “dark,” for example, “in places where it is dark.” Accordingly, the first clause of verse 5 may be rendered “There is shining in places where it is dark.” The second clause is even more difficult than the first, since in some languages one cannot take such an abstract term as the darkness and make it an instrument of “putting out the light.” The relation, however, may often be expressed as a kind of negation of cause and effect, for example, “Just because it is dark does not mean that the light has been put out” or “… that the light has been caused to go out.” Rather than being the direct agent of some activity, darkness only identifies a condition which has not succeeded in causing the light to go out.

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 .

Translation commentary on John 1:37

The verb went with means literally “to follow.” In several New Testament passages (including some in John’s Gospel), it has the meaning of “to become one’s disciple.” However, at least in verses 37 and 38, this verb seems to be used in its literal sense.

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 .

Translation commentary on John 2:18

This verse begins in the Greek with “So then the Jews answered and said to him.” The words “so then” represent the Greek particle oun, sometimes referred to as “John’s favorite particle,” because it is found in this Gospel much more frequently than in any other part of the New Testament. John uses oun over 200 times, whereas the three Gospels together use it only 111 times. Furthermore, John’s use of this particle is confined to the narrative portions of his Gospel; it is seldom found in discourse material.

A particle is a small word with rather limited grammatical force and often does not need to be translated. John sometimes uses oun to indicate either a transition or a climax in the narrative, but often it carries no real grammatical force; it merely represents a trait of John’s style. Good News Translation and many other modern translations vary in their treatment of this peculiarity of style. Sometimes oun is rendered by actual words in the translation, for example, so then. At other times the introduction of a new paragraph represents sufficiently John’s use of the particle. Occasionally it is passed over and not represented at all in the translation. A translator should not assume that oun must always be represented in translation.

To show the relationship between Jesus’ action and the question posed by the Jewish authorities, verse 18 may begin with such a phrase as “As a result of what Jesus had done” or “Because of what Jesus did in the Temple.”

Jewish authorities translates “the Jews.” See the discussion at 1.19 and Appendix I, “The Jews in the Gospel of John.”

“Answered and said” is again an example of Semitic Greek style, which frequently uses two verbs to introduce direct discourse where English only uses one. Good News Translation translates came back at him with a question, and New English Bible has “challenged Jesus.”

The word translated miracle is literally “sign,” (see the comments at 2.11). In the present passage it refers to the Jewish leaders’ demand that Jesus perform a miracle as proof to them of who he is. The Greek term here translated “miracle” is not used precisely as in contexts in which Jesus’ deeds are spoken of as signs of his power and glory. Nevertheless, the Jewish authorities are concerned with a miracle which would not merely demonstrate his supernatural power, but would indicate as well a corresponding right to act in a way which seemed a gross violation of the existing tradition. In a sense, therefore, the use of the special Greek term meaning “sign” is appropriate in this context.

To show us that you have the right to do this? is literally “do you show us, that (or “because”) you do these things?” The question clearly concerns the right or authority Jesus has for his actions in the Temple. A number of translations make this information explicit. Note, for example, New English Bible “What sign … can you show as authority for your action?”; New American Bible “What sign can you show us authorizing you to do these things?”; Jerusalem Bible “What sign can you show us to justify what you have done?” A literal rendering, by failing to make the question of authority explicit, may fail to convey the significance of the question.

It may not be easy to find precisely the correct wording for the expression to show us that you have the right to do this. In some languages an equivalent may be “prove to us that your doing this was all right.” Since, in a sense, the right to cleanse the Temple could come only from God himself, it may be appropriate in some languages to say “to show that God has given you the right to do what you have done” or “to show that God said that you may do this.”

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 .

Translation commentary on John 3:25

A strong term such as “argument” (New English Bible, Moffatt “dispute”; New American Bible “controversy”) should be chosen to describe what happened between John’s disciples and this man; “discussion” (Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible) or “question” (Phillips) is too weak.

For a Jew some manuscripts read plural, “Jews,” as Good News Translation footnote indicates. Both readings are supported by strong ancient manuscript evidence, by the singular is the more difficult reading. Since John regularly uses the plural and since the singular causes a problem in the present context, it is easy to see why a scribe would change from the singular to the plural, but not the other way around. For this reason, most modern translators consider “a Jew” to be the original reading.

About the matter of ritual washing is literally “concerning purification.” Although commentators are divided in their opinions as to the precise reference involved, it seems best to take this expression as referring to the matter of Jewish purification in general (it is used in this sense in 2.6), rather than as reflecting a controversy about the relative value of the baptisms performed by Jesus and John the Baptist. Good News Translation takes it as a reference to Jewish purification in general, and at the same time makes clear to its readers that a kind of ritual washing is meant.

In some instances ritual washing may be translated as “religious washing” or “the kind of washing one does in his religion” or “… because of his religion.” However, this phrase may also be expanded in some languages as “washing to make one religiously pure” or “washing to eliminate taboo.” However, it is possible to avoid specific reference to “washing” by saying “how one becomes clean from taboo” or “how one removes taboo.” Note, however, that in these instances “taboo” must be understood in terms of “negative taboo” that is, defilement from contact with unclean objects or events. In some instances, one may actually translate “how one may remove uncleanness.” However, this expression is likely to be understood only in the sense of “washing away dirt.”

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 .

Translation commentary on John 4:21

In this context, believe should not be understood in the sense of “to trust in” or “to be loyal to,” but simply “to accept as true what one says.” This meaning may be made explicit in some languages as “believe what I am going to tell you.”

The verb phrase people will … worship is literally “you (plural) … will worship.” The use of “you” in such a context is generic; it refers to all people, not merely to the person or persons addressed. Thus Jesus is not referring merely to the woman herself or to her Samaritan countrymen; rather, he is making an all-inclusive statement.

Woman is the same form of address used in 2.4 and 19.26. It is a polite form of address (see notes at 2.4) and in this context seems to fit well. In some languages, however, it would be inappropriate, as depreciatory or derogatory. However, in some languages the word “woman,” when used in direct address, is equivalent to “wife.” In such instances a different expression must be employed, or the term must be omitted.

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 .