And he said to them is literally “And he says to him.” There is no problem in taking the present tense (“he says”) as the equivalent of a past tense (he said); the present is often used with this force in a narrative context. Good News Translation translates “to him” as to them to indicate to the English reader that the pronoun you (in I am telling you the truth) is plural in Greek, a fact which otherwise may be missed by the English reader. Some translations even omit “to him” so that the reader will not be led to think that Jesus was speaking only to Nathanael (Jerusalem Bible “and then he added”; New English Bible “then he added”). New American Bible handles this clause precisely as Good News Translation does (“he went on to tell them”).

I am telling you the truth is literally “Amen, amen, I say to you.” In traditional English translations this statement is generally rendered “Truly, truly, I say to you” (Revised Standard Version, for example). Only in the Gospel of John is the double “Amen” used, and here it occurs some twenty-five times. The Synoptic Gospels generally have either the simple statement “I say to you” or “Amen, I say to you.” In the Gospel of John this expression seems to serve a two-fold purpose: (1) it emphasizes the words of Jesus which follow; (2) it confirms the truth of what Jesus says. Needless to say, this expression appears in a variety of ways in modern translations (New English Bible “in truth, in very truth I tell you”; New American Bible “I solemnly assure you”; Jerusalem Bible “I tell you most solemnly”).

In some languages traditional renderings of “Truly, truly, I say to you” are misleading, since they can be interpreted as meaning merely “I am really talking to you.” Even a literal translation of I am telling you the truth can be misleading, since it is not always evident that the expression the truth refers to what is to follow. Therefore, in some languages one must say “What I am going to tell you is the truth.” But this kind of expression may be awkward, and it may be better to connect the phrase with the statement whose truth it is intended to emphasize, for example, “you will certainly see the heaven open….” In other languages a declaration of the truth of some statement is more likely to follow than to precede. In this case one may translate “You will see heaven open and God’s angels going up and own on the Son of man. This will certainly come true.”

Before the words you will see heaven open some ancient manuscripts have from “now on.” This is apparently a scribal error introduced from Matthew 26.64.

The words of Jesus in this verse are an obvious allusion to Genesis 28.12, the account of Jacob’s dream, but in this verse the Son of Man takes the place of Jacob’s ladder.

“Son of Man” is one of the most problematic of all New Testament phrases both to interpret and to translate. Except for its use in Acts 7.56, it is confined solely to the Gospels, where it is used only by Jesus himself as a self-designation, never by another person in reference to him, except, perhaps in Mark 2.10. In the Synoptic Gospels the title is used by our Lord in three ways: (1) as a reference to his earthly life, (2) to his suffering and death, and (3) to his exaltation and glorification. These meanings are closely related, and the first two are essentially synonymous. All three have in common the basic emphasis that “the Son of Man” is the one whom God has appointed to speak and act with divine authority. It is true that “the Son of Man” has accepted the limitations of human existence, and that he is misunderstood and rejected by men, but he is nevertheless the one who speaks and acts with God’s own authority. This meaning also is the basic understanding of “the Son of Man” in John’s Gospel: He has his origin in heaven (6.27,33), and he will return again to his place of glory (6.62) by way of the cross (3.14; 8.28; 12.23,34; 13.31). Accordingly, when this title is translated, some phrase should be selected that suggests at once the divine origin and authority of “the Son of Man.”

For the reader of English who does not have the theological training, “Son of Man” is generally either a zero term, or else it is misunderstood as a reference to Jesus’ human nature. It is unfortunate that English translations have not contributed something more dynamic toward the understanding of this most important term.

It is perhaps the parallelism between the two phrases “Son of God” and “Son of Man” which has tended to preserve the form “Son of Man,” even though it has relatively little significance for many readers. It is possible to insist that the focus upon Jesus’ acquired humanity is indirectly an emphasis upon his divine origin, but for most readers of the Gospels this fact is hardly recognizable. Therefore, in any translation of the Scriptures which preserves a more or less literal rendering of “Son of Man,” it is important to supply a note which will explain some of the historical and cultural background of this title.

The rendering of the phrase Son of Man into other languages poses a number of problems. First, the choice of such a phrase as “the Son of a man” causes complications, since it seems to deny the virgin birth. In order to avoid this complication, translators often use for Man a term which more or less designates “mankind”; but it is almost impossible to conceive of how Jesus could be called “the Son of mankind.” As a result, some translators use a phrase which renders Son of man “one who is (or “has become”) truly man.” This focus upon Jesus’ humanity is not a denial of his deity, but simply an indirect emphasis on his divine origin. Because it is often difficult to see how such an expression can also suggest deity, some translators use the expression “he who has become truly man.” This type of expression is particularly important in languages which have two words for “son,” one designating the son of a male, and the other, the son of a female. That is to say, when one speaks of a son as the son of his father, one term is used, but when one speaks of him as the son of his mother, the other term is employed. Obviously, to translate the expression Son of man by a term which would specify Jesus as the son of a male would be a complete denial of the virgin birth. It is therefore essential that some other type of expression be employed.

Going up and coming down on the Son of Man (an allusion to the dream of Jacob in which he sees the ladder extended between heaven and earth) can present a number of difficulties. It might seem to some readers that the Son of Man is merely some giant on which angels climb up and down. In order to show clearly that the meaning here is symbolic, some translations add the phrase “as it were.” Even in the use of the terms going up and coming down, one must be careful to avoid making the Son of Man into a sort of elevator. If one chooses terms which are too specific, the whole figure becomes absurd.

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 .