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)
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.)
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.”
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)
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)
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.)
“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 LatinVerbum (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.
Scholars are divided in their opinions of the relation between this verse and the previous and following verses. Some make it the conclusion of the paragraph begun in verse 6 (Good News Translation, New English Bible, New American Bible, Moffatt), while others place it at the beginning of the following paragraph (Phillips, Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). On the other hand, the UBS Greek New Testament makes verses 6-13 into one paragraph. Two arguments favor placing verse 9 as a continuation of the paragraph begun in verse 6, rather than as the beginning of a new paragraph. First, verses 1-5 reflect a kind of poetic structure, which is picked up again in verse 10. From the viewpoint of the sentence structure, therefore, verse 9 fits more naturally with the prose of verses 6-8. Secondly, as the commentators point out, the pronominal reference in verse 10 (Greek “he”; Good News Translationthe Word) is the Word (see New English Bible alternative rendering), and not “the light.” It would seem, therefore, that it is better to place verse 9 with verses 6-8.
Another problem of translation in this verse grows out of the observation that the Greek text may be punctuated in two different ways. These alternatives are represented (1) in the Good News Translation text (the light that comes into the world and shines on all mankind) and (2) in the alternative rendering given in certain editions of Good News Translation (the light that shines on all men who come into the world). Most modern commentators and translators accept as their first choice the rendering represented in the Good News Translation text. Although both renderings are grammatically possible, at least two reasons favor this interpretation: (1) In the context the focus is on light, and not on mankind. (2) John elsewhere speaks of Jesus as “coming into the world” (6.14; 9.39; 11.27; 16.28), and in 12.46 Jesus says “I have come into the world as light”; but nowhere in John’s Gospel are men spoken of as “coming into the world.”
The adjective translated real (Moffatt, Goodspeed, New English Bible, New American Bible) refers to that which is real or genuine, as opposed to that which does not exist or is an imitation of that which is authentic. Elsewhere in John’s Gospel this adjective appears in 4.23,37; 6.32; 7.28; 8.16; 15.1; 17.3; and 19.35.
The precise connotation of the verb rendered shines on is difficult to determine. A number of translations understand it in the sense of “to enlighten” (Moffatt, Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible). It can have this meaning (see Eph 1.18; Heb 6.4; 10.32), but generally those who interpret the present passage in this fashion presuppose a Hellenistic background for the prologue of the Gospel. Two considerations oppose this interpretation. (1) Nowhere else in John’s Gospel is it implied that all men are given a divine illumination; in fact, it is often explicitly stated that men do not recognize the truth when it comes to them, and it requires a special act of God’s grace for them to become his children. (2) Elsewhere in this Gospel the function of light is “to show men up for what they are,” that is, to bring men under God’s judgment (see especially 3.19-21; see also Paul’s use of this word in 1 Cor 4.5). Most translators prefer either to remain ambiguous (Good News Translation, Phillips; and so it seems Goodspeed “sheds light upon”), or to render with the force of “to enlighten” (New American Bible “gives light to”; Anchor Bible also appears to go in this direction).
A number of translational problems are associated with verse 9. In the first place, there is a shift of tense between “this was the real light” and the explanation concerning the light, that it “comes into the world” and “shines on all mankind.” The first clause must often be rendered “this light is the real light,” in which the subject becomes a specific identification of the “light” just mentioned in verse 8. The rendering of “real” as a qualification of “light” is difficult, since a literal translation would suggest to many readers that it was a physical light: that is, a torch or lamp. In reality, John is using “light” in a spiritual sense, and therefore it may be necessary to translate “This light was surely true.” On the other hand, some languages express genuineness by a negation, for example, “There is nothing at all false in this light.”
Certain complications appear when one speaks about “the light coming into the world.” It might be interpreted almost exclusively in the sense of “the dawning of the morning.” In the present context, the “coming” is not so much the arrival of the light in the physical world as its coming to mankind. It may be appropriate, therefore, to translate the final qualifications of light as “the light that comes to the people in the world and shines on all of them.”
It is essential to understand the expression all mankind in the sense of “all people.” A translation of “men” which might be interpreted as not including women should certainly be avoided.
In some languages it is not sufficient to say shines on all mankind, which would imply merely the light of a lamp or a torch shining on people. The emphasis here is that people are caused to see the light, and so in some languages one may render the final expression in verse 9 as “causes all men to see the light.”
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 .
There is a textual problem in this verse, resulting in at least three choices: (1) The Good News Translation rendering at once (New English Bible “the first thing he did”) translates the Greek prōton, and is preferred by most translators because of its early and diverse manuscript support. (2) An alternate possibility is that the text should read prōtos, and so be rendered “Andrew was the first to find and tell.” Although this reading has the support of some Greek manuscripts, it is not accepted by any modern translators. (3) Jerusalem Bible reads “early next morning” (Moffatt “in the morning”; see New English Bible note “some witnesses read ‘in the morning he found’ ”). This reading assumes that the Greek text should read prōi, but this reading is not found in any Greek manuscripts and is supported by only two or three Latin manuscripts. Apparently it was introduced to avoid the ambiguities of the two other readings and to make the narrative read smoothly form verse 39. The reading in Good News Translation is to be preferred, on the basis of both the external manuscript evidence and the fact that it is the most difficult reading.
In some languages a clear distinction is made between two different meanings of “find.” One implies that the individual or thing involved is lost; the other means that one goes and locates a person or thing. Obviously the second meaning is involved in this context.
On Messiah see comments at 1.20.
Since the term Messiah is here identified as meaning Christ, it is important to retain the borrowed form. The explanation may be given in some languages that “this word has the same meaning as Christ.” In reality, both “Messiah” and “Christ” are borrowed terms: one from Hebrew, the other from Greek. The meaning of “Messiah” may be given as “the Chosen One” or “the Anointed One.” In order to retain the borrowed terms and, at the same time to give a clear meaning in the context, one might translate, “We have found the Promised Savior, the one we call ‘the Messiah.’ (In Greek ‘Messiah’ is ‘Christ’).”
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 .
Good News Translation and a number of others (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Phillips, Zürcher Bibel, La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée, New American Bible, Luther) take the first verb of this verse to be transitive passive when he was raised, with God as the implied agent (for example, “when God raised him from the dead”). Others take the verb to be intransitive, “when Jesus rose from the dead” (Jerusalem Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, Goodspeed). New English Bible is neutral and translates “after his resurrection.” The verb may be intransitive (compare John 10.17-18), since John’s Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ identity with the Father and consequently his unique power more than any other Gospel. In verse 19 Jesus said that he would raise the Temple up in three days. On the other hand, a number of passages in the New Testament state explicitly that God raised Jesus from the dead and that could well be the meaning here. No decision can be absolute, though most modern translators evidently accept the choice of rendering that Good News Translation has.
In some languages a neutral position between intransitive and transitive passive may be rendered “when Jesus came back from death.” The intransitive meaning would be rendered in some languages “when Jesus caused himself to live again.” However, translators generally employ either a passive form or an active form with God as the agent; for example, “when God caused Jesus to rise from death” or “when God caused Jesus to live again.”
He had said this is in the imperfect tense and so may imply that Jesus said it on more than one occasion. To reflect fully the possible implications of the imperfect tense, one may translate “he said this from time to time” or “he said this on different occasions.” In indirect discourse Greek retains the original tense of the verb, whereas English requires a change in tense, if the controlling verb is in the past tense, as here (“they remembered”). This explains the use of the English pluperfect by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation.
To point out the logical relation between the second and third clauses of verse 22, one may begin the final section “and as a result of this, they believed the scripture and what Jesus had said” or, as in some languages, “and therefore they believed what was written in the scriptures….”
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 .
The bridegroom’s friend is the nearest equivalent to the “best man” (New American Bible) of our day. This expression is not a technical term in Greek, but represents the “shoshben” of Jewish life. The “shoshben” was the groom’s closest friend and he took care of arranging the particulars of the wedding. In the context the primary focus is on John the Baptist, rather than on the bridegroom in the parable-like saying.
The bridegroom is the one to whom the bride belongs may be inverted (“the bride belongs to the bridegroom”). This clause may then form a contrast to the following clause, and one may translate “but the bridegroom’s friend stands by and listens, and he is glad….”
The exact picture portrayed by the words stands by and listens is not known. It is possible that the best man is standing guard at the bride’s house, waiting for the groom’s procession to arrive. On the other hand, it is possible that this expression describes the experience of the best man after the bride has been brought to the groom’s home. That is, he is happy to hear the bride and groom speaking joyfully with each other. In any case, the translator must be careful not to suggest any deed of impropriety on the part of bridegroom’s friend when translating stands by and listens.
Is glad when he hears the bridegroom’s voice translates a Semitism, “with joy he rejoices because of the voice of the bridegroom.” This sentence may be rendered “He is happy when he hears what the bridegroom says” or “… hears the bridegroom speak.”
This is how my own happiness is made complete is literally “This, therefore, my happiness has been made full.” Most modern English translations render “full” by complete. Elsewhere in the Gospel this same verb is used to describe happiness (15.11; 16.24; 17.13). This is how refers back to the previous statement, not to the following one. In some languages it is impossible to speak about “happiness made complete.” One can, however, say “Because of this I am extremely happy” or “… completely happy” or “Because of this there is nothing lacking in my happiness.”
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 .
On the meaning of the terms Messiah and Christ, see 1.20,41. The Samaritans looked for a “messiah,” and they referred to him as “Taheb,” which means simply “he who returns.”
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 .
