Logos, Word

Click here to view graphically

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translation for “Logos” include:

  • Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “the one who is called the Word”
  • Sayula Popoluca: “the Word by which God is known”
  • Miahuatlán Zapotec: “one who revealed God’s thoughts”
  • Alekano: “God’s wise Speech”
  • Tojolabal: “he who told us about God” (Source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February, 1970, p. 1-125.)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “Jesus Christ the person who is the Word, he who gives eternal life”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “the Word that gives new life to our hearts”
  • Garifuna: “the one named Word, the one who gives life” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
  • Tzeltal de Oxchuc y Tenejapa (Highland Tzeltal): te C’opile: “the Word” (in a new, 2001 version of the New Testament to avoid the previous translation “the Word of God,” a term also used for “Bible.” — Source: Robert Bascom)
  • Mairasi: “The Message” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • German: 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 / BasisBibel 2021) / Zürcher Bibel, 2007 revision: “the Word, the Logos” (das Wort, der Logos — “Logos” is defined as masculine)
  • Polish: Just like in German, “Word” (Słowo) is neuter, whereas “Jesus” is masculine. The various translations switch to a masculine form in the John’s prologue at different points. (For more tap or click here.)

    The recent Przekład Otwarty translation switching in verse 14 with the masculine pełen: jaką jedyny ma od Ojca – pełen łaski i prawdy (“[glory] such as the only one has from the Father, full of grace and truth”). “The Greek form does not settle what ‘full’ refers to: πλήρης looks like a nominative, agreeing with ὁ λόγος at the start of the verse, but Abbott-Smith takes it here as indeclinable, and Codex Bezae has the accusative, agreeing with ‘glory.’ We chose the masculine because the fullness belongs to the Person: 1:16 speaks of “his fullness”, and 1:17 names Jesus Christ as the one through whom grace and truth came. The neuter pełne would agree with the noun Słowo, but in this sentence it could also be read with ciało (“flesh”), which is neuter too. The masculine pełen can go only with the Word as a Person or with ‘the only one’ just before it, and both are the same Person. The masculine that refers to the Word beyond doubt comes in 1:15 (To był Ten, ‘This was he’).” (Source: Piotr Szuszkiewicz)

  • 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.”
  • Tongan: Folofola: “Originally, the term is used in the kingly language and is related to the meaning of unrolling the mat, an indispensable item in Tongan traditions. The mats, especially those with beautiful and elaborate designs, are usually rolled up and kept carefully until the visit of a guest to the house. The term thus evokes to the Tongans the idea of God’s Word being unrolled to reveal his love and salvation for mankind.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Pitjantjatjara: Tjukurnga: “Dreaming” (“a form of religious mapping, an ideological construction whereby the universe is rendered understandable in religious terms; it is the collection of myths, stories, and practices by which the land is perceived and through which a person makes sense of the world.” For more tap or click here.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

woman (Jesus addressing his mother)

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

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

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

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

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

See also formal pronoun: Jesus and his mother, 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 1:25

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 .

Translation commentary on John 2:6

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 .

Translation commentary on John 3:14

Lifted up the bronze snake on a pole translates “lifted up the snake.” This verse refers to the actions of Moses described in Numbers 21.9. To translate “the snake” literally may leave a wrong impression with readers who have a limited knowledge of its biblical background. Good News Translation, intended for persons less familiar with the Old Testament account than were John’s readers, builds into its text information which makes explicit what Moses did. This solution is not adding to the text; it is merely an attempt to give present-day readers the same meaning that the original readers would have derived from the simple statement in John’s text. This information was made clearly implicit for John’s readers by use of the definite article “the” before “snake,” referring to a known entity. The point of comparison is the lifting up; the Son of Man is not being compared to a snake. In John’s Gospel the verb “to lift up” is used only of the Son of Man, and it always has a double point of reference—his being lifted up on the cross and his being lifted up to glory. Although the double reference is always present, each particular context has its specific emphasis, and the translator should attempt to see which aspect is in focus in any given verse. Here the lifting up on the cross is more nearly in focus than his being lifted up to glory.

Verse 14 involves a number of subtle problems in translation. For example, in translating lifted up it is necessary in some languages to distinguish between whether the bronze snake was lifted up and put on a pole, or whether it was attached to a pole and the pole lifted up. Ultimately, of course, the difference is not great, but if one wishes to maintain closely the analogy with the crucifixion, the second meaning will probably be preferred.

It may be difficult or awkward to translate precisely the meaning of bronze snake. It should be made clear that bronze was not simply the color of the snake or its name; the reference is to an “image of a snake made of bronze” or “… made of metal.” It may be necessary to indicate that this metal snake was attached rigidly to a pole, either “nailed to a pole” or “tied to a pole.”

It may be important to indicate as well the relationship of in the desert to on a pole. Was this a pole already existing in the desert, or did Moses lift up the bronze snake in a place which was desert? The second meaning is the correct one. Therefore in some languages the locative expression may better occur at the beginning of the clause; for example, “as in the desert Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole.”

Must be lifted up does not mean that an obligation is imposed to lift up the Son of Man in a similar fashion. It is a statement of emphatic prophecy, and therefore the equivalent expression may be “the Son of Man will be lifted up in precisely the same way” or “it is certain that the Son of Man will be lifted up in just this same way.”

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 4:44

Parallels to this proverb are found in Matthew 13.57; Mark 6.4; and Luke 4.24, but John uses it with a distinct focus. In the Synoptic Gospels it is used in connection with the rejection of Jesus in Galilee; John uses it to explain the reception of Jesus by the Galileans after he was rejected in Jerusalem. This use of the proverb is in keeping with the Johannine theology, whereby it is necessary for Jesus to suffer and to die at the hands of the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. Commentators have a difficult time explaining the inclusion of this verse at this place. Some translators attempt to handle the difficulty by making it a parenthetical statement (for example, Moffatt, Phillips, New American Bible). John does not indicate to whom Jesus had said these words, and the text gives no clue. This statement of Jesus may be introduced here to explain why the people of Samaria had received him more warmly than the Jews did; or it may refer to the way people from his own country apparently received him enthusiastically in Jerusalem, while they would not have been so likely to do so in Galilee, that is, in Jesus’ own home territory. However, the reference is obscure, and it is best for the translator not to make a specific connection.

If it is necessary, as in some languages, to indicate to whom Jesus uttered this saying, one can say “for Jesus himself had said to his disciples” or “… to his followers.” The passive expression, A prophet is not respected in his own country, may be changed to an active form, for example, “The people of a prophet’s own country do not respect him” or “The people of a man’s own country do not accept him as a prophet.”

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 .