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: 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: (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.

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 1:27

He is coming after me (see 1.15,30) must be taken in a temporal sense. In rendering this clause it may be necessary to make a significant shift in the tense, since Jesus’ ministry was to take place after this statement by John the Baptist. Therefore, one may translate “He will be coming after me.” In many languages, however, just to employ a verb “to come” is not enough, for it is a matter not of movement but of coming into prominence. Therefore it may be necessary to say “He will become conspicuous after I am no longer conspicuous” or “He will come into prominence when I am no longer prominent.”

It was the task of the slave to untie his master’s sandals; John indicates that he is not good enough to perform even this humble task for the one who is coming after him. In most languages it is quite clear that untying another person’s sandals is a menial task and the significance of this statement of John the Baptist is readily understood. However, if this is not so in the language concerned, one can either introduce a marginal note or specify the humble character of such an act by saying “I am not even important enough to do such a humble thing as to untie his sandals for him,” or “… to be his servant.”

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 2:8

There is much controversy regarding the exact meaning of the verb rendered draw some water out, since technically this word means “to draw water from a well,” and the question is whether John uses it here with its technical meaning or in a more general sense. If it has the sense of “to draw water from a well,” then there is no indication that the water in the jars was changed into wine. That is, those who adopt this view say that Jesus left the six water jars filled with water (symbolic of the imperfection of Judaism), while he had the servants draw fresh water from a well, and that this latter water was changed into wine. Most modern commentators, however, believe the verb “to draw out” is used loosely in this instance; they understand that Jesus told the servants to draw water from the jars. The same verb is used in 4.7 of drawing water from a well, but that meaning does not determine its usage here, Accordingly, if the translator must be explicit, it is best to say that the water was drawn from the jars. Draw some water out may probably be best translated as “Dip some water out” or “Put in a small jar and take some water out of the stone jars” or “Put in a pitcher and….”

The Greek word rendered the man in charge of the feast (New American Bible “the waiter in charge”) is rendered “steward” by most translators. The Greek word probably refers to a slave appointed to be in charge of a banquet, though some commentators understand it to refer to one of the guests who was appointed “toastmaster” in charge of the banquet, chosen for this function because of his close relation with the bridegroom.

If one wishes to translate the man in charge of the feast as “the waiter in charge,” then one can say “the servant who directed the other servants at the feast” or “the servant who told the other servants what they should do in serving the guests.” If, however, one chooses to follow the interpretation of “toastmaster” or “master of ceremonies,” then one can employ the phrase “the guest who directed the feast” or “the guest who said what should happen at the feast” or “… what the guests should do during the feast.”

They took him the water is simply “and they took” in Greek. Very few translators render this clause literally; most seek to bring out the information implicit in the Greek (for example, New American Bible “they did as he instructed them”; New English Bible “and they did so”; Jerusalem Bible “they did 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 3:15

This verse tells why the Son of Man must be lifted up; it is so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. Good News Translation and most other modern translations take the phrase in him (Greek en autō) with the verb “to believe” and so render believes in him. A number of commentators point out that the preposition in (Greek en) is never elsewhere used in John’s Gospel with the verb “to believe.” The usual expression is literally “into him” (Greek eis auton). For this reason a few translations connect the phrase in him with eternal life rather than with believes. For example, Jerusalem Bible reads “so that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him” (see also New American Bible, Zürcher Bibel). But in New Testament Greek the preposition eis (“into”) is frequently used as an equivalent to the preposition en (“in”); and the construction “believes in (eis) him” is no more strange than “eternal life in (eis) him.” New English Bible makes the object of faith explicit, while connecting the phrase in him with the idea of eternal life: “so that everyone who has faith in him may in him possess eternal life.” If one is convinced that the phrase “in him” must be connected with the idea of eternal life, rather than that of believing, it may be necessary to render as New English Bible does, since some languages require that the object of faith be made explicit. New English Bible does not add to the text; it simply makes the object of faith explicit, while connecting “in him” with the concept of eternal life. For the one who believes, eternal life is a present experience; he shares now in the life that God gives. This idea, of course, does not exhaust the concept of eternal life. Eternal Life continues to be the possession of the believer, but one strong emphasis in the Gospel of John is the present experience of eternal life for those who believe.

The point has been made (see the comments on 1.4) that eternal life is primarily qualitative; it describes the quality of life a man has when God rules in his life. The phrase eternal life comes from a Hebrew phrase, literally “life in the (coming) age.” For the Hebrews “the coming age” was the age in which God would destroy the power of sin and evil in the world and set up his own rule of love and peace. In the earliest notions of this coming age, it was probably not looked upon as something that would never end; it was not “eternal” in our sense of the word. However, there is no doubt that by New Testament times “life in the age” was looked upon by many Jews as an everlasting experience. In the New Testament it definitely has this meaning, even though the main emphasis is always on the quality of life one experiences when God rules his life. That is, in the Gospel of John eternal life is basically qualitative, but it is also conceived of as life that never ends, because it comes from God.

The indefinite relative clause everyone who believes in him may be rendered in many languages as a conditional clause; for example, “if anyone believes in him.” It is also possible to express the meaning of the indefinite relative clause by “all”; for example, “all who believe in him.” As noted in other contexts, believes in him involves far more than mere intellectual assent. It is equivalent in most languages to “puts his trust in him” or “shows complete loyalty to him” or, expressed figuratively, “leans on him” or “hangs on him.”

In many languages eternal is expressed as a negative, “that which never ends,” but it may be expressed positively as “that which goes on and on.” However, since the meaning of eternal life certainly involves a qualitative distinction, and thus is not a matter of mere continued existence, some translations employ such qualifiers as “real” or “new”; for example, “will have real life that never ends.” Such a phrase tends to focus upon the distinctive features of this new life in Christ, and so helps to avoid the idea that those who believe in Jesus will simply never die.

In some languages, however, there is no noun for “life.” One must employ some verbal expression, since life really does refer to an event or state, and is not an object. In such languages one may be able to say “really live unendingly” or “never come to the end of real living.”

If one adopts the interpretation of “eternal life in him,” it is necessary to indicate that Jesus is the instrumentality or agent by which this eternal life is possible. This meaning is expressed in many languages as a causative, for example, “will have unending life because of him” or “he will cause such people to have unending 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 .

Translation commentary on John 4:11

The word translated Sir in Good News Translation (as in most modern English translations) may simply indicate polite address, or it may have the specialized Christian meaning of “Lord.” It is used again by the woman to address Jesus in verses 15 and 19. Though it is possible that the term translated in Good News Translation as Sir could have the meaning of “Lord,” this meaning would seem to be particularly inappropriate in verse 19, where the Samaritan woman acknowledges Jesus to be a prophet; it would be strange for her to acknowledge him as a prophet if she had already recognized him as “Lord.” The context would certainly seem to indicate that such a meaning as “Sir” is required. However, in some languages this type of formal address is not employed and the terms should simply be omitted in translation.

The reply of the woman to Jesus in this verse and in verse 12 reflects her misunderstanding—a technique John uses to further the discourse. In this verse the Greek word for well is different from the one used in verse 6. The word used in verse 6 (pēgē) technically means “spring” or “fountain,” and it is used again in verse 14 (Good News Translation spring). The Greek word used in verse 11 (phrear) comes closer to the meaning of “cistern” or “well.” On the basis of this distinction, some scholars conclude that in the discussion of natural water Jacob’s well is spoken of as a “spring” (verse 6), while in this verse, where the reference is to spiritual water, Jacob’s well is referred to as merely a “cistern” or a “well.” However, most translators and commentators do not make this distinction. Moffatt is one of the few who consistently maintain the etymological distinction; in verse 6 he has “spring” and here he has “well.” New English Bible refers in verse 6 to “the spring called Jacob’s well,” and then states that Jesus “sat down on the well.” Most other translations render both words as well, here and in verse 6, while giving the meaning of spring in verse 14.

In some languages the reference to a bucket implies “a bucket and a rope,” that is, a bucket typically used at the end of a rope to draw water from a deep well. It is also possible to use a general descriptive statement, for example, “You do not have anything with which you can draw water from the well.”

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 4:43

Verses 43-46 are transitional, referring again to the journey interrupted in verse 3. After spending two days there, Jesus left and went to Galilee is literally “But after the two days, he went from there into Galilee.”

In some languages it is essential that verbs of movement indicate clearly whether one is going to a new place or returning to where he was before. In such languages Jesus … went to Galilee must be translated “and he went back to Galilee.”

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 .