Logos, Word

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: Der, der ‘das Wort’ ist: “He who is ‘the Word'” — this solution circumvents the different gender of Jesus (masculine) and “das Wort” (neuter) (in: Neue Genfer Übersetzung, 2009) / 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: (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 . 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, Woman (Luke 13:12), and Woman (John 20).

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 5:28

Basically there are two problems of exegesis in the translation of this verse. First, do the words at this refer to what precedes (that is, that he is the Son of Man), or to what follows (the role of the Son of Man in the resurrection of the dead)? Most scholars today take these words as a reference to what follows. In most languages it is impossible to be ambiguous about the reference of this. One must either say “Do not be surprised at what I have just said to you” or “Do not be surprised at what I am going to say” or “… to these words which follow.”

A second problem revolves around the meaning of the Greek word hoti, the first word of the second clause in this verse. In Good News Translation this word is not translated. In some translations it is rendered “for” (Revised Standard Version, for example, “for the hour is coming…”). If taken in the sense of “for” or “because,” there is a causative connection between the two clauses. Most modern translations appear to follow this exegesis, because it gives cumulative force to the argument and seems to make better sense in the context. However, it is possible to take the Greek word hoti in the sense of “that.” The second clause would then explain the content of this. If this exegesis is chosen, the following translation may result: “Do not be surprised that the time is coming….” However, the context better suits the first possibility.

All the dead is more literally rendered by New American Bible “all those in their tombs,” but the reference is clearly to the dead. New English Bible translates “all who are in the grave.” In earlier editions of Good News Translation the phrase “in the graves” was included in this verse. But in the 4th edition the phrase is omitted, because of difficulties in translation. If “in the graves” is translated as a restrictive phrase, it would imply that the dead who are not in their graves (for example, persons who died accidental deaths and therefore were not buried) would not hear the voice of the Son of Man. Obviously, that is not intended, and therefore it is necessary in many translations to omit “in the graves,” as in the present edition of Good News Translation. The second part of verse 28 may then be translated “there will be an hour when all who are dead will hear my voice.” As in earlier verses, it may be necessary to change his to “my,” to avoid a misinterpretation of a third person reference to the first person.

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 6:13

So they gathered them all is literally “so they gathered,” with no expressed object. Most modern translations attempt in one way or another to indicate that the object is the pieces left over (of verse 12). It may be useful to render this first clause of verse 13 “So they gathered up all the pieces that had been left over.” It is also possible to translate “so they received back from the people all the pieces that were left over,” if one assumes that the food was gathered up in this manner (see comments on verse 12).

The size of the baskets referred to cannot be precisely determined. Elsewhere in the New Testament this word is used in Matthew 14.20; 16.9; Mark 6.43; 8.19; Luke 9.17. In Matthew 15.37; 16.10 and Mark 8.8,20, a different word for basket is used—the same word used of the basket in which Paul was lowered from the wall (Acts 9.25). These baskets were evidently fairly large. It is possible that the term in John 6.13 had a general meaning and was used for baskets of various sizes and shapes. In many receptor languages there is a term for a special type of basket used for carrying agricultural produce, and this word would be the one to use in this context.

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 6:45

The prophets wrote (literally “It is written in the prophets”) may suggest that John is referring to several prophetic books. Actually, Everyone will be taught by God is a free rendering of Isaiah 54.13. Rather than attempt to explain to the reader why prophets is the plural, it may be better to translate “One of the prophets wrote” or “The following words occur in one of the books written by the prophets.”

Anyone who hears the Father and learns from him comes to me is a slight restructuring of the Greek “everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me.” Moffatt, New English Bible, and New American Bible all restructure in essentially the same way. However, they differ from Good News Translation in translating the two Greek aorist participles in the past tense (New English Bible, for example, “has listened to” and “learned”). The Greek aorist participles may have either the force of a past tense or of a timeless tense, as in Good News Translation. The same verb tense is used of hearing the Father in 8.26,40, and 15.15, where Good News Translation has either a past (“I heard”) or a perfect (“I have heard”). In each case it is Jesus who hears the Father.

As in many other contexts, hears involves more than mere “listening to.” It is really equivalent to learns.

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 7:6

The right time for me (so also Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, Phillips, New American Bible) is more literally “my time.” The word translated right time by many (Greek kairos) refers to a particular moment or period in time, not to time as a chronological sequence. In John’s Gospel it occurs only here and in verse 8. It is used synonymously with the word translated time in 2.4 (Greek hora, literally “hour”). In many languages The right time is literally “the appropriate time” or, expressed in verbal form, “the time when I should go.”

Has not yet come may be expressed as “the day is not here yet” or “this is not yet the day.”

Any time is right for you is literally “your time is always ready.” Time is the same word translated right time in the first part of this verse; New American Bible renders this part of the verse “the time is always right for you”; New English Bible “any time is right for you.” The impact of this verse is to indicate that Jesus’ mission is determined by divine decree, but that his brothers can go to Jerusalem at any time, since it makes no difference when they go or do not go.

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 7:38

The last part of verse 37 and all of verse 38 present translational problems growing out of alternative possibilities of exegesis and punctuation. A literal translation of this passage will show some of the problems: “If anyone thirsts let him come to me and let him drink (38) the one believing in me as the scripture says rivers will pour out from his stomach of living water.” Basically, the possibilities are two, though these two alternatives offer various combinations within themselves.

1. A major stop (a period or a semicolon) may be placed at the end of verse 37. It will give the meaning that the one who is thirsty and comes to Jesus to drink is the one to whom the scripture refers, that is, the one from whom streams of life-giving water will pour out. This exegesis is evidently preferred by most translators. In its support is the observation that the invitation to drink is more naturally offered to whoever is thirsty than to whoever believes in me. Moreover, after the thirsty man has come and drunk, he can then be spoken of as the believer from whom streams of life-giving water will pour out.

2. Alternative translations are possible if one places a comma, or no punctuation at all, at the end of verse 37, and puts a major stop after “the one believing in me.” This exegesis is followed by Jerusalem Bible:
“If any man is thirsty, let him come to me!
Let the man come and drink who believes in me!”

New American Bible also followed this exegesis:
“If anyone thirsts, let him come to me;
let him drink (38) who believes in me.”

Those who argue in support of this exegesis see here a chiastic arrangement, in which the first half of the first line is equivalent to the second half of the second line, while the first half of the second line is parallel to the second half of the first line. That is, “If any man is thirsty” is taken to be parallel to “whoever believes in me,” while “let him come to me” is considered parallel to “let the man come and drink.” However, this parallelism is not perfect; in fact, the first alternative makes a much simpler and more easily recognized parallelism. That is, whoever is thirsty should come to me and drink is parallel with whoever believes in me, streams of living water will pour out from his heart. According to this interpretation, the one who is thirsty and drinks becomes the source of living water for others, so that the second line takes up the first and expands it.

The problem of translation is further complicated by the phrase as the scripture says, since no precise quotation from scripture is given here, and commentators are not agreed as to what passage or passages may be alluded to. Accordingly, the words whoever believes in me may be taken as a part of the scripture quotation, or they may be understood as being outside the quotation.

Those who accept the second alternative naturally exclude these words form the scripture quotation. Those who accept the first have the choice: either to include or to exclude these words. Good News Translation included them (whoever believes in me) as a part of the scripture quotation; that is, As the scripture says, “Whoever believes in me, streams of living water will pour out from his heart.” But the translation could also read, “Whoever believes in me, as the scripture says, ‘Streams of living water will pour out from his heart.’ ” The alternative followed by Good News Translation is more natural. It is also the one generally followed by translators and commentators who accept the first alternative discussed above.

As noted in other passages, it is not possible in some languages to say the scripture says, for one cannot speak of “writings” as “speaking.” This phrase may be rendered as “as one may read in the writings” or “in accordance with the words of the writings.”

The phrase living water means “life-giving water.”

Some commentators take the phrase from his heart as a Christological reference. That is, since these words are taken as a quotation, they understand these words as a reference to Jesus, from whom streams of living water pour out for the believer. The basis for this viewpoint is that throughout John’s Gospel Jesus is the source of living water and of life in general. However, it seems more probable that in this particular context the believer is the source of life-giving water. Once a man has come to Jesus to drink, he himself becomes the source of life-giving water for others. This also is a more natural reading of the grammar of the Greek text. If the receptor language requires the translation to be explicit, it is suggested that the reference be to the believer. If, however, the receptor language does not require the translation to be explicit, a third person reference (his heart) may be used, thus allowing either interpretation. However, the best solution may be to place one interpretation in the text and indicate the possibility of the other in a marginal note.

From his heart is literally “from his stomach.” Some translators render it literally. Others translate as Good News Translation does. Some have “from his body” and others “from within him.” In support of Good News Translation is the observation that in Hebrew thought the “stomach” was often considered the seat of emotions, but for English speakers the “heart” symbolically has that function. Others point out that the Hebrew word “stomach” is restricted to passages where strong emotions are involved, and so they believe that heart is not an adequate translation here. However, in the present context it seems doubtful that “stomach” has an emotive connotation. Since most commentators agree that there is a tie between this verse and 19.34, where blood and water poured from Jesus’ side, a more general phrase, such as “from within him,” would seem to be the best rendering.

The order of elements in the quotation ‘Whoever believes in me, streams of life-giving water will pour out from his heart’ is awkward in English. The introductory phrase Whoever believes in me is an element which should be in focus, but this arrangement can be misleading, especially if it is translated literally into another language. It may be more satisfactory to say “Streams of life-giving water will pour out from the one who believes in me” or “… from anyone who believes in me.”

As suggested above, streams of life-giving water may be rendered “streams with water which causes life” or “… causes people to really live.”

Since in some languages the idea of a stream flowing from a source would indicate a “spring,” it may be more satisfactory to say “springs of water which give life.”

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 .