Good News Translation rearranges the order of the first three clauses in Greek. And now I am coming to you, which occurs first in Good News Translation, is in third place in the Greek text after the two clauses I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. This rearrangement does not alter the focus of the Greek, and it has the advantage of a more logical thought sequence. Elsewhere in the Gospel Jesus speaks of “going” to the Father, while here he speaks of “coming.” The shift of verbs is natural, both in English and in Greek. When Jesus speaks of “going” to the Father he is addressing others; when he speaks of “coming” he is addressing the Father.

There are two essential problems involved in translating the statement now I am coming to you. The first is the space perspective (coming or going), and the second is the temporal relation. If the spatial perspective shifts from where Jesus is to the location of the Father, then it is possible to say “I am coming to you.” However, in some languages this shift of perspective is impossible, and therefore one may have to translate “I am going to you.”

Since Jesus was not at that moment going from the world to heaven, it may be necessary in some languages to translate “I will soon be coming (or going) to you.” However, one may usually employ an expression which would suggest “I am already on my way to you.”

In verse 13 Jesus affirms that he is still in the world, but here he states I am no longer in the world. In both verses Jesus says I am coming to you. In a sense, Jesus speaks paradoxically when he says I am no longer in the world, for he is at that moment still on earth. The paradox may be marked in some languages by saying “I am, as it were, no longer in the world”; but in other languages it may be necessary to say, “very shortly I will no longer be in the world.” The statement about the disciples may be rendered “but they will continue to be in the world.”

In verses 1 and 5 Jesus addresses God as Father, and here he addresses him as Holy Father (note Righteous Father of verse 25) In the Old Testament and in Jewish prayers, God is frequently spoken of as “the Holy One,” meaning that he is unique and distinct from all others. In the present context to address God as Holy is particularly appropriate, since the verb “to dedicate” (hagiazō) in verses 17 and 19 is made from the same stem in Greek.

Several problems are involved in translating the phrase Holy Father. First, the term Father must often be rendered “my father,” or with a form of “father” never used with the attributive “holy.” In some languages, for example, one could never say “my holy Father,” for it would immediately suggest that the individual had another father who was not holy. In terms of syntactic structure, it may be necessary to say “my Father, you who are holy.” There is a further complication in selecting an appropriate term for holy. It may be difficult to use a word which, in other contexts, is satisfactory to translate holy, since the essential meaning of those terms in phrases such as “holy writings” or “holy mountain” focuses upon a meaning of positive taboo; that is, something so imbued with supernatural power that it must be avoided, or treated with particular respect. For Holy Father, it may be necessary to introduce a concept of “worship” or “reverence” as a way of indicating the underlying concept of “holiness,” for example, “my Father, you who deserve worship” or “… you who should be greatly reverenced.” Some translators use for holy a term which means essentially “separated,” but this type of expression involves difficulties, for it may suggest a separation made by someone else, namely, an agent, as implied by the use of the passive form. Moreover, a word meaning “separated” could imply that God is not interested in the world, and so wishes to be dissociated from mankind.

As the Good News Translation footnote indicates, the reading keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me appears in some manuscripts with the meaning “by the power of your name keep safe those you have given me.” In the Greek text the difference is only in a single pronoun, the object of the verb gave (or “have given”). In some manuscripts it is a dative singular, referring to the name, while in others it is an accusative plural, referring to the disciples. Almost all modern translations (New English Bible is an exception) take it as a reference to the name, as the UBS Greek text recommends. This reading has stronger textual support that the other.

Keep … safe (so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch; New English Bible; New American Bible “protect”) is translated “keep” in several translations. The verb used here (tēreo) is used elsewhere in the New Testament of keeping persons safe (see verses 12,15; Acts 16.23; 24.23; 25.4,21; and Jude 1). In 8.51 it is used with the sense “to obey.”

Good News Translation (so also Moffatt and New English Bible) makes “in your name” explicit by rendering it by the power of your name. Goodspeed and Phillips simply render “by your power.” Barclay renders the entire phrase “protect them with your personal protection.” There would seem to be no basis for rendering “keep in your name” with the meaning “keep … true to your name” (Jerusalem Bible). See comments at 14.13.

The name is the means by which the Son is identified with the Father. Since the Son bears the divine name (see comments on “I am” at 4.26), it can be said that whoever has seen the Son has seen the Father (14.9). In Greek, the verb translated you gave is in the perfect tense, indicating that Jesus possessed, and continues to possess, the divine name. One may say that by possessing the divine name Jesus possesses the divine character and authority. But what particular aspect is in focus in this context, and how is it best expressed? The power of the divine name seems to be in focus, and a number of translations make this explicit, as noted in the translations cited above. Barclay (see above) understands that the phrase “keep by your name” to mean “protect them with your personal protection,” and interprets “which you gave me” to mean “as you did me” (“protect them with your personal protection, as you did me”). However, no other translations go in this direction, and this exegesis has little support in the commentaries. Goodspeed, which omits mention of the “name,” seems to have the best solution as far as the modern reader is concerned (“keep them by the power which you gave me”). To make this meaning more emphatic, a translator may build in a little redundancy and render “keep them safe by your power, the power you gave me.”

Though it is relatively easy to say in English “keep them safe by your power” or “protect them by your power,” it may be difficult to produce a close equivalent in other languages, since some have no abstract noun for “power.” The closest equivalent may be “by showing how powerful you are, keep them safe,” or even “by your being powerful, keep them safe.” It may be difficult to relate the first part of this statement to what follows, namely, the fact that this same kind of power (or name) has been given to Jesus. However, it may be possible to say “protect them by showing how powerful you are; in the same way you have caused me to be powerful.” With this rendering it is important that the final clause, so that they be one just as you and I are one, express a purpose directly related to the initial request, Keep them safe. One may translate in some languages “Keep them safe, so that they may be one just as you and I are one. Do this by showing how powerful you are—powerful in the same way that you caused me to be powerful.”

The purpose of Jesus’ prayer for the protection of the disciples is that they may be one, just as he and the Father are one. So that they may be one just as you and I are one is omitted in one important Greek manuscript and in several ancient translations. New American Bible therefore places this clause in brackets. Since the theme of unity is more natural in the last part of the prayer (verses 21-23), it may have been omitted by a scribe as redundant and out of place here. All other modern translations evidently include it as an integral part of the text.

Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1980. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Good News Translation radically restructures the first sentence in verse 18. It reads literally “But the servants and the guards were standing, having made a charcoal fire because it was cold, and they were warming themselves.” Good News Translation (also Jerusalem Bible) introduces first in the sentence the information that it was cold, since this fact explains the actions which follow. Jerusalem Bible reads “Now it was cold, and the servants and guards had lit a charcoal fire and were standing there warming themselves.” The servants and guards refers to the personal servants of the High Priest and the temple guards (verse 3 and 10). The Greek word translated charcoal fire appears in the New Testament only here and in 21.9.

Since charcoal is known in almost all parts of the world, there should be no difficulty in translating a charcoal fire. In some instances it may be necessary to say “a fire of coals” or “a fire of burning embers” to distinguish it from a wood fire, which would give off a lot of smoke and not be suitable in a courtyard.

Peter went over and stood with them, warming himself also represents some restructuring. The Greek literally reads “But Peter was with them standing and warming himself.”

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 .

Pilate’s question You will not speak to me? may be expressed in some languages as “How is it that you will not speak to me?” or “Why will you not speak to me?” Pilate was evidently surprised that Jesus was unwilling to defend himself.

The word translated authority is the same word translated “right” by Good News Translation in 1.12. Although the word occurs twice in the Greek text, Good News Translation leaves its meaning implicit in its second occurrence: I have authority to set you free and also (the authority) to have you crucified. In languages in which it is difficult to speak succinctly of authority, a paraphrase, such as “the government has made me able to set you free,” may be employed or “the Emperor has caused me to be able to set you free.” However the simplest and most satisfactory equivalent in many languages is “I am able to set you free.” To have you crucified may be expressed as “to cause you to be crucified” or to “cause soldiers to crucify you.”

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 .

Since it was the day before the Sabbath is literally “because of the (day of) preparation of the Jews.” The noun translated day before the Sabbath is the same word used in verse 31 (see also verse 14).

In Greek the adverb there appears first in the sentence, but in restructuring Good News Translation places it last.

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 .

At this point it may be particularly important to render the Word as constituting a title, for example, “He who was called the Word became a human being” or “… a person,” or “… came to be really a person.”

Most translators render the Word became a human being “the Word became flesh.” Phillips, however, is close to Good News Translation (“so the Word of God became a human being”), and commentators generally realize that the meaning of “flesh” in this context is “a human being.” Goodspeed tries to capture this meaning by translating “so the Word became flesh and blood,” and Jerusalem Bible indicates it by a note, “the” flesh “is man considered as a frail and mortal being.” It is better to bring out the meaning in the text of a translation than to relegate it to a footnote, because in many languages “flesh” is understood merely as “meat,” like that sold in the marketplace.

For a discussion of the phrase grace and truth, see Appendix II, “Translating ‘In Spirit and Truth’ and ‘the Spirit of Truth’ in the Gospel of John,” section III.

The rendering of grace and truth is made even more difficult by the fact that these words are referred to as qualities of which the Word is full. In many languages it is simply impossible to speak of a person being “full of grace and truth.” Under such circumstances, the meaning of grace must be expressed in terms of the abundance of this feature of personality. For this particular context, the term grace is probably best understood as reflecting two important features of meaning: “love” and “kindness.” In face, a very useful equivalent in some languages is “kind love” or “love which is kind.” The use of such a term as “kind” helps to suggest love which actively seeks to help the object of love, and emphasizes the fact that this kind of love depends upon the personality of the individual who loves, rather than upon any merit in the object of his love.

If one translates truth in the manner in which some persons have traditionally understood this passage, it would be possible to say “one who very much reveals the truth,” but this rendering does not do justice to the real meaning of truth and does not seem to fit satisfactorily the context in combination with grace. It is also possible to understand “truth” in the sense of “faithfulness.” Therefore, the Word may be described as “one who showed his kind love abundantly and who could be completely trusted.” This last expression is one of the most common ways in which “faithfulness” can be satisfactorily rendered.

In rendering the expression full of grace and truth, there is, as noted, a problem involved in the phrase full of. In most languages one simply cannot be full of such qualities as “grace and truth.” Furthermore, if grace is rendered as “steadfast love” or “kind love” (in order to emphasize something of the undeserved character of such love), it is impossible to speak about a person being “full of this.” However, one can indicate the abundance of such love by saying “he showed kind love abundantly” or “he very much loved us,” or “he showed us his goodness.”

In rendering the meaning of full of … truth, one can say in some languages “he showed us the complete truth about God” or “he caused us to know completely the truth about God.” However, abundance may also be expressed in such a phrase as “he very much showed us the truth about God.” On the other hand, rather than translating full of … truth as being merely something which Jesus revealed about God, it seems preferable to indicate that Jesus himself was this true revelation of God. Therefore, one may translate “he himself was the true (or complete) revelation of God” or “what he was shows completely what God is.” This interpretation seems to be closer to the meaning and to the way in which truth is employed generally in the Gospel of John.

The word translated lived is literally “to live in a tent,” and it is taken by many to indicate temporary living (Goodspeed “lived for a while”; Moffatt “tarried”). Elsewhere this verb is used only in Revelation 7.15; 12.12; 13.6; and 21.3, and it is difficult to see in any of these passages the idea of “to live temporarily.” In light of the Old Testament usage of this word and of its usage in Revelation, the idea of “living temporarily” does not seem to be in focus. In Exodus 25.8-9 the people of Israel are commanded to make a tent, so that God can live among them. Thus “a tent” was looked upon as the dwelling place of God among men, and God’s presence could be spoken of as “setting up its tent.” If, in the present passage, John says that the Word “set up his tent” among men, then the meaning is that in the Word God has come to dwell among men. It is likewise the focus of the verb as used in Revelation 7.15 and 21.3: in the eternal Word, who became a human being, God came to dwell among men. Verse 14 is the very heart of John’s Gospel; everything else that John says must be understood in light of this verse.

The focus of “lived” is not upon “being alive” but upon “dwelling.” Lived among us is rendered in some languages as “he dwelt with us” or “he lived where we lived.” In some other languages it is literally “he had his house where we were” or even “his house was in our village.”

Though the pronoun us in the first sentence of verse 14 refers essentially to mankind in general, it is also a specific historical reference to the incarnation and the fact that Jesus lived on earth at a particular time. Even though us is, in a sense, a reference to mankind in general, in this particular context the pronoun must be in the exclusive first person plural in languages which make a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural forms. This usage makes the pronominal reference agree with the following use of we, which must apply to those who actually saw the glory of the Father’s only Son.

Perhaps it should be pointed out that even though Good News Translation begins a new sentence with We saw his glory, in Greek all of verse 14 is one sentence. Not only does Good News Translation make two sentences of what is a single sentence in Greek, but it reorders some of the elements in the last part, in order to make the concepts fit more naturally into English discourse structure.

Throughout his Gospel, John uses five different words meaning “to see.” Some commentators attempt to see in these words a varying scale of meaning, proceeding from mere physical sight to deep spiritual insight. However, the supposed differences in meaning are not maintained consistently. It is best to decide on the meaning of each verb in its particular context, rather than to insist that each verb has a fixed meaning, regardless of the context in which it appears. This means that the verb translated saw in this passage (Greek theaomai) does not necessarily have the meaning of “to look on with contemplation,” a meaning it clearly has in some other contexts. In fact, in the present context the meaning seems to be simply “to see,” in the widest sense of the word.

The concept of glory is likewise difficult. In the Old Testament the word glory is often used concerning the visible manifestation of the invisible God, especially as he made himself known through the mighty things that he did for his people. This Old Testament usage seems to be the clue for understanding John’s use of the term in his Gospel. For John, Jesus bears the glory of God, because he has the very nature of God and performs the works of God. From this basic use of the word other meanings are derived. These meanings will be discussed as they appear in their respective contexts.

In many languages it is extremely difficult to find a satisfactory work for glory, especially in a context like the present one, which has no specific reference to a “shining” or an “appearance.” A literal translation of “brightness” or “shining” (translations which have been recommended and used in some languages) gives rise to a notion of a halo or aura of light surrounding Jesus. This meaning is obviously not what is intended by the author. A more satisfactory rendering in some languages is “we saw how wonderful he is.” In other instances glory combines the components of prestige and importance, almost equivalent to “we saw how great he is.”

It may be difficult to translate in some languages the glory which he received, since this quality of “being wonderful” is not something which one can “receive” as one receives some particular object. However, it may be possible to speak of “causing a person to be wonderful,” and in some languages the second part of verse 14 must be translated precisely in this manner, for example, “this is how the Father caused him to be wonderful” or “… him who was his only Son to be so wonderful.” It is possible to see in the last phrase, as the Father’s only Son, a causal relation. Therefore, on may render the final part of verse 14 “The Father caused him to be so wonderful because he was his only Son.”

Only Son is the rendering of all modern translations. There is no doubt regarding the meaning of the Greek word used here (monogenēs); it means “only” and not “only begotten.” The meaning “only begotten,” which appears in the Vulgate, has influenced King James Version and many other early translations. This same Greek word is used elsewhere in the New Testament in Luke 7.12; 8.42; 9.38; and Hebrews 11.17.

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 .

It is possible that the words Can anything good come from Nazareth? was a proverb used by the people of Cana in reference to the nearby town of Nazareth (note that Nathanael was from Cana, 21.2). On the other hand, it is thought by some scholars that the real focus of attention is Galilee, rather than Nazareth in particular (see 7.41,52). In either case the words reflect the form of a proverb and are best translated with this idea in mind.

In this type of context “good” refers not to moral behavior, but to “beneficial event.” It is the equivalent in some languages to “Can anything helpful come out of Nazareth?” or “Can anything which is of benefit to people happen because of anyone from Nazareth?”

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 .

Jesus answered is literally “Jesus answered and said to him.” Again this phrasing represents the stylistic redundancy of Semitic Greek (see 1.50 and 2.18,19).

I am telling you the truth is the same expression discussed in 1.51.

In his reply to Nicodemus, Jesus picks up the same words Nicodemus has used: no one. However, in the Greek the wording of the two verses is not so close as in Good News Translation.

Good News Translation inverts the order of Jesus’ words. In the Greek the dependent clause (unless he is born again) precedes the independent clause (no one can see the Kingdom of God). This inversion is merely a matter of style; the same inversion occurs in New American Bible (“no one can see the reign of God unless he is begotten from above”).

In this verse as in the double negative conditional clause of verse 3.2, it may be necessary to modify the conditional expression, for example, “only if a person is born again can he see the Kingdom of God.”

The verb see in this passage has the meaning of “to experience” or “to share in,” as its parallel expression in verse 5 indicates (no one can enter the Kingdom of God). “To see” is used elsewhere in the Gospel of John with a similar meaning (see 3.36 and 8.51). In many languages it is not possible to use such a verb as “see” with the meaning of “to experience,” and therefore one must translate see the Kingdom of God “experience God’s rule” or “be a part of God’s Kingdom” or “have a share in God’s ruling.”

The Kingdom of God is mentioned only twice in the Gospel of John, here and in verse 5; but it is a familiar theme throughout the Synoptic Gospels. It has the significance of God’s rule in the lives of men, rather than of a territory over which God rules. The expression see the Kingdom of God is therefore often translated “experience God’s ruling over one” or “have God as one’s ruler” or “enjoying the ruling of God over one.”

The verb rendered by most translations born can refer to being born of a mother or to being begotten of a father. Most commentators and apparently most modern English translations prefer the meaning of “to be born.” However, the Johannine parallels (1.13; 1 John 3.9) refer to being begotten rather than being born.

The word translated again may also carry the meaning “from above,” as the alternative rendering of Good News Translation indicates. The use of a word with a possible double meaning is characteristic of John’s Gospel. It often serves as a means of transition in thought, on the basis of the misunderstanding of the person or persons with whom Jesus is speaking (see 3.4; 4.11; 8.22; 11.13; 13.36-38). Goodspeed attempts to incorporate both areas of meaning “born over again from above.” On the problem of such a translation see the comments on verse 4.

Expressions meaning “to be born” are often idiomatic, for example, “to see the light,” “to come into the light,” “to come from between,” or “to be dropped.” Because of the extraordinary implications involved in an expression meaning “to be born again,” it may be necessary to emphasize the meaning of “again,” for example, “to be born all over again” or even “to be born again, that is, twice.” Without such special emphasis, the implications of the statement may be missed.

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 .