This verse presents no exegetical problems. However, in rendering the question why do you baptize? one should try to avoid the impression that the Messiah or Elijah or the Prophet was thought of in terms of a person who was coming to baptize.

As can be noted in discussions of the term “baptism” in other Translators Handbooks, a number of difficulties are involved in finding a completely appropriate term. The basic principle of the Bible Society is that one should not employ an expression which will specifically rule out the mode of baptism employed by any Christian constituency within the respective language area. For this reason preference is usually given to some form of transliteration of the term “baptism” or “baptize,” since such a form is obviously neutral in meaning. In essence, of course, it is a “zero term,” since it has a significant absence of meaning. However, in most languages the term has been borrowed by missionaries and others and is already widely used by the time a translation is made.

In some languages there are indigenous terms for baptism, For example, in Maya the term means literally “to enter the water.” This form of expression was first employed by Roman Catholics and later by Presbyterians and it is fully acceptable to Baptists as well. When all groups accept the indigenous term, there is certainly no need to revert to a borrowed form. The decision on a term for “baptism” should not be based primarily upon etymology. What counts is the meaning of a term in ordinary usage. For example, in some languages “to put water on” has become a standard term, widely used by various churches practicing different modes of baptism and even employed by churches which do not practice baptism in any form. What is important in the meaning of a term for baptism is not the quantity of water indicated, but the fact that it serves to identify the initiation ceremony by which a person affirms his faith in Jesus Christ and becomes a part of the Christian community. It should be a term which can be combined with such phrases as “with water” and “with the Spirit.”

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 .

Most translations continue the paragraph begun in verse 1 through verse 10. But Goodspeed and Good News Translation, in keeping with contemporary English style, begin a new paragraph whenever a new speaker is introduced (1-3,4,5). Moreover, a new topic is introduced at verse 6. A paragraph break is therefore logical from the viewpoint of discourse structure, especially since this verse is a remark by the author of the Gospel.

The Greek word order of this verse can be seen by consulting Revised Standard Version: “Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons.” In introducing new information in English, it is more natural to go from the general to the specific, and so Good News Translation reorders this sentence: The Jews have rules about ritual washing, and for this six stone jars were there, each one large enough to hold between twenty and thirty gallons. That is, Good News Translation mentions the general information about the Jewish religious rules, and then on the basis of this, it explains the purpose of the six stone water jars.

A number of complications may be involved in rendering the Jews have rules about ritual washing. In the first place, a phrase such as ritual washing may be equivalent to “being acceptable to God by washing,” but such an expression may be difficult to combine readily with the meaning of “rules.” One way of expressing these relations is “In the way in which the Jews worship God, they have many rules about how to wash themselves” or “In order for Jews to make themselves acceptable to God they must obey many rules about how to wash” or “The Jews must wash themselves and things very carefully, if they are to worship God in the way they think is right.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch renders “They (=the water jars) are used for the purification required by Jewish Law.”

Some scholars see a symbolic meaning in the number six (that is, the imperfection of Judaism), but such symbolic significance is not at all clear and for purposes of translation is unimportant.

The fact that the jars are stone, rather than earthenware, is important. According to Jewish law, earthenware jars, if contaminated, had to be broken, but contaminated stone jars could simply be washed.

The relation between the parts of the phrase six stone water jars must be made more explicit in some languages, for example, “six large jars made of stone and used for holding water.”

Between twenty and thirty gallons (see Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed) is literally “two or three measures.” Most scholars take a “measure” to be equal to about nine or ten gallons, but some understand it to be equal to about eight or nine gallons (New American Bible “fifteen to twenty-five gallons”; Moffatt “about twenty gallons”). It is entirely appropriate in some languages to adapt the measure of between twenty and thirty gallons to a rough equivalent in “liters,” for example, “between 80 and 120 liters.” It is important not to use an expression which would narrowly restrict the measure to twenty-five gallons. What is intended here is simply an approximate measure; therefore one may say in some languages “approximately twenty to thirty gallons” or “about twenty or thirty gallons.” In languages which do not use gallons or liters, one may translate by an appropriate measure, such as, “about (so-and-so) number of bamboos,” an expression occurring in a number of languages in Southeast Asia.

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 purpose of this verse is to emphasize the heavenly origin of the Son of Man. John is the only one of the Gospel writers to emphasize this truth; it is basic to his theology. What gives the Son of Man his authority is his heavenly origin. The Son of Man … came down from heaven to tell men on earth about the things of heaven (verse 12). That is, the coming of the Son of Man is an act of divine revelation. But more than revelation is involved, as can be seen from the following verses—it is also an act of self-giving which leads to the death of the Son of Man.

Some scholars maintain that the verb has gone up refers to the Son of Man, and so implies that he had already ascended to heaven at the time these words were written. That is, they assume that this verse contains John’s comments about the Son of Man and that it reflects the post-resurrection theology of John, rather than the words of Jesus. It is thus one way of explaining the use of the perfect tense (has gone up).

However, the statement no one has ever gone up to heaven is possibly intended merely to deny that up to that time anyone had gone up to heaven to learn about the things of heaven. If this is the meaning, no reference to the ascension of the Son of Man is intended. Moreover, just as the first half of the verse denies that anyone else knows about the things of heaven, so the second half affirms that only the Son of Man has knowledge about those things, because his origin is in heaven. It is possible that the verse is intended to carry this meaning. However, in John’s Gospel the verb tenses are not always those one would expect, and it may be that the perfect tense here does not imply that the Son of Man has already ascended to heaven. For example, in 4.38 the past tense is used (Good News Translation have sent) of an action which Jesus has not yet done, according to the time sequence of the Gospel. For translation it is suggested that the equivalent of a perfect tense (or even of a simple past tense) be used for has gone up, without the implication of “has gone up and is now there.”

Verse 13 involves a number of subtle problems for the translator. The use of the perfect tense “has gone up” would almost inevitably indicate this was a reference to the resurrection, and therefore would tend to be interpreted as a prophecy or an interpolation by the Gospel writer. To avoid such an implication the phrase except the Son of Man can be translated “except for the Son of Man, who will go up to heaven.” However, the focus of verse 13 is not on a future resurrection, but on the fact that the Son of Man has come down from heaven and is therefore in a position to reveal truth about God and his purposes for man’s salvation. In order to indicate this contrast vividly and in order to avoid the implication of an anachronism, it is possible to translate “but the Son of Man has come down from heaven.” Such a rendering avoids one difficulty by eliminating a possible interpretation. It seems best, however, simply to translate this verse, along with certain of its exegetical obscurities and ambiguities, and to leave the interpretation to commentators. Even though this solution might allow some slight confusion for the average reader, there is at least no serious distortion of the truth through a more or less “close translation.”

There is also a textual problem in this verse. Some ancient manuscripts read “and no one has ever gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven.” Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Moffatt, and Zürcher Bibel all accept the words “who is in heaven” as a part of the original text. New American Bible, however, places them in brackets, and Zürcher Bibel and New English Bible both have a footnote, indicating the absence of these words from some manuscripts. The other translations which include them give no note (except La Sainte Bible: Nouvelle version Segond révisée). This phrase occurs in a few Greek manuscripts, in the Latin, and in a few Syriac versions. The textual evidence in its favour is weak and diverse. Yet the phrase is so difficult that it is hard to see why any manuscript would include it if it were not an original part of the text. The UBS Committee on the Greek text supports the shorter reading because of the strong manuscript evidence. They believe that the words “who is in heaven” were added later as a further Christological interpretation of this verse.

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 woman answered is literally “therefore the Samaritan woman says to him.” Here again John uses his favorite particle (oun see the comments on oun on page 68), represented in the literal rendering by “therefore.”

Revised Standard Version represents a fairly literal translation of the next part of this verse. “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” For the sake of emphasizing the contrast between Jews and Samaritans, Good News Translation introduces this information first in the woman’s statement, you are a Jew and I am a Samaritan, The reader thus knows immediately that there is some significant difference between Jews and Samaritans, and so the woman’s question is readily understood.

If translated literally, how can you ask me for a drink? may suggest the wrong meaning in some receptor languages; for the source of the woman’s surprise is not the ability of Jesus to ask her for a drink, but the high improbability that he would do so. In some languages this question may be translated “How is it possible that you would ask me for a drink?” or “I cannot imagine your asking me for a drink” or “Isn’t it very strange indeed that you ask me to give you water to drink?”

Will not use the same dishes (New English Bible “do not use vessels in common”) is taken by most translators in the sense of “do not associate with” or “have nothing to do with” (New American Bible). The more recent commentaries on the Gospel of John seem to prefer the meaning Good News Translation gives this verb. If this is the true meaning, the account reflects a Jewish religious regulation in force around A.D. 65. According to this regulation, Samaritan women were in a state of perpetual ritual impurity from the time of their birth, and anyone who had contact with them would share this ritual impurity. The regulation adds that for this reason “the Jews do not use dishes in common with the Samaritans.” The more recent commentaries favor this interpretation, while the majority of translations follow the other one. No dogmatic conclusion is possible. Whether the reference was to using dishes in common with Samaritans or merely associating with them, Jesus ignored the custom.

Since there are two distinct interpretations of the Greek text, translators should indicate this fact by putting one interpretation in the text and the other in a marginal note. The interpretation followed by Good News Translation may be rendered “Jews do not eat or drink from the same dishes or cups that the Samaritans do” or “When Jews eat and drink, they do not use the same dishes that Samaritans use.” If, however, an interpretation relating to complete avoidance is employed, it is always possible to say, “The Jews will have no dealings whatsoever with the Samaritans.” It may be expressed idiomatically in some languages as “The Jews never join with the Samaritans” or “The Jews and the Samaritans never use anything together” or “There is nothing which Samaritans use which Jews would also use.”

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 .

In Greek this verse actually begins with “and,” but the conjunction marks the continuation of the discourse, and it is unnecessary to translate it.

It may be necessary in some languages to state specifically the nature of the contrast expressed in the comparative more. It may be made explicit by saying “Many believed because of what the woman had said, but many more believed because of what Jesus said” or “In comparison with the many who believed because of what the woman said, many more believed because of what Jesus said.”

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 .