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 .

Most translators and commentators agree that verses 16-18 once again introduce the statement of the author of the Gospel and do not continue the words of John the Baptist.

Out of the fullness of his grace he has blessed us all represents the Greek “because from his fullness we all received.” The word fullness was a frequent term among the heretical gnostic religions of the first century A.D. It referred to the full nature of the true deity as opposed to that which did not possess the divine nature. Paul took this term and applied it to God’s Son (see Col 1.19; 2.9; Eph 1.23; and 4.13). However, in John’s Gospel this word is used in a nontechnical sense and refers back to the phrase grace and truth in verse 14. Among the translations, only Good News Translation and Moffatt (“for we have all been receiving grace after grace from his fulness”) appear to make this connection explicit, though a number of commentators call attention to it. In the last part of this clause, the Greek “we all received” is restructured by Good News Translation to read he has blessed us all.

It is dangerous to attempt a literal translation of the clause “from his fullness have we all received.” In one language the people understood it to mean “we got what he stuffed himself on”! In some languages a far better rendering would be “because he was so gracious, he has blessed us all” or “because of his great love for us, he has been so good to us all.”

In this context the use of the pronoun “us” is probably best interpreted as inclusive. Undoubtedly John wrote his Gospel to Christians to whom he wished to explain more fully the significance of the incarnation and ministry of Christ.

Giving us one blessing after another is literally “grace for grace.” The phrase is ambiguous, and some translations (for example, New English Bible “grace upon grace”) prefer to remain ambiguous. The majority of modern commentators take this phrase in the same sense that Good News Translation takes it, that is, that the Christian life consists of one expression of God’s grace after another. Moffatt (“for we have all been receiving grace after grace from his fulness”) and Goodspeed (“received blessing after blessing”) follow this interpretation, and New American Bible (“love following upon love”) seems also to accept this viewpoint. At least two other interpretations are possible, and these are both represented by Jerusalem Bible, one in the text, “grace in return for grace,” and the other in a note, which points out that this phrase may mean that the grace of God revealed in the new covenant in Christ Jesus has now replaced God’s grace as expressed in the old covenant at Mt. Sinai. A third possible interpretation is that the grace of God in the Christian’s life is a result of and grows out of the grace of God in Jesus Christ (see Jerusalem Bible note, “a grace answering to the grace that is in Christ”). This interpretation seems to be the basis for Phillips (“there is a grace in our lives because of his grace”). Of the three interpretations, the first is most widely received, but there is no absolute argument in favor of any of them.

In some languages one cannot speak of giving us one blessing after another, but may use “blessing” as a verb in the sense of “to show goodness to” or “to cause goodness to happen to someone.” If “blessing” is rendered as a verb, it is possible to say “God has blessed us time after time” or “God has caused goodness to happen to us time after time.” In some languages the expression of one blessing after another is rendered “we received good things and still more good things.” In others the rendering is quite idiomatic, for example, “he was big-hearted to us time after time.” In one language this passage has been rendered idiomatically “all of us have received what his heart was full of. This happened many times.” In still another, the rendering is “we received what he has so abundantly; he has looked upon us for good and looked upon us for good more and more,”

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 .

For a formal translation of this verse, see Revised Standard Version.

The fact that this section begins with “and” indicates that we have here a form of Semitic Greek. In the Old Testament the “and” was a natural way of connecting one section with another. Good News Translation indicates this transition by beginning a new paragraph and including a section heading.

The clause “this is the testimony of John” is shifted in Good News Translation to verse 20 (saying), where it serves to introduce John’s words. But it is also preserved in the section heading of Good News Translation: “John the Baptist’s Message.”

The Jewish authorities translates “the Jews,” the phrase regularly used by John to refer to the official leaders of Judaism who opposed Jesus and his disciples. Here, of course, they stand in opposition to John the Baptist. See Appendix I, “the Jews in the Gospel of John,” by Robert G Bratcher, which discusses each occurrence of the word in the Gospel.

In many languages authorities are spoken of as “leaders” or “chiefs,” in others they may be simply “important men,” while in certain instances the closest equivalent may be “government officials.” Despite the fact that in New Testament times ultimate authority rested with the Romans, the Jewish authorities did have certain administrative functions and therefore can be regarded as “officials.”

The Levites were a lesser grade of priests whose primary function was to help in the temple services, especially as musicians. According to rabbinical sources, they sometimes served as temple police. In the New Testament Levites are mentioned elsewhere only in Luke 10.32 and Acts 4.36. In some languages one may speak of Levites as “helper priests” or even “second grade priests,” provided that “second grade” does not carry a wrong connotation of inferiority.

The Good News Translation rendering to John is supplied translationally, not on the basis of manuscript evidence. However, some manuscripts do have “to him” (that is, to John).

The question Who are you? must be understood in terms of the following verses. This same question is directed to Jesus in 8.25. In each instance the force of the question is to ask John or Jesus Who are you? in the light of the Jewish eschatological expectation. In translating this question, it is important to avoid the impression that the Jewish authorities had no information about John the Baptist’s name. What they were interested in was his role or ministry. In many languages the closest equivalent is “What sort of a person are 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 .

In Greek, this verse begins with the words “and he confessed and he did not deny and he confessed.” Good News Translation places the negative statement first and interprets the twice-used “he confessed” as indicating emphasis. Moreover, by the introduction of the name John, the pronominal reference “he” is made explicit: John did not refuse to answer, but spoke out openly and clearly. In New English Bible this entire clause appears as “he confessed without reserve and avowed,” and in Moffatt as “he frankly confessed—he did not deny it, he frankly confessed.”

In some languages did not refuse to answer may be appropriately translated “did not hesitate to answer” or “answered immediately.” In order to reflect as accurately as possible the emphasis in the Greek text (indicated by the repetition of “he confessed”), one can translate “he told them so clearly that everyone could understand” or “he said to all there and made it clear” or “he spoke out so as not to leave anyone in doubt.” In some languages one can simply say “he didn’t hide anything; he just told them all the truth” or “he did not mumble his words; he spoke right out.”

In John’s statement, I am not the Messiah, the pronoun I is emphatic. Accordingly, the force of John’s answer would probably be “I am not the Messiah, but there is one who is.” The Messiah (so also New English Bible, New American Bible) is literally “the Christ” (so most translations). “the Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term the Messiah (literally “the anointed one”); it refers to the future Davidic King who was expected to free the Jews from foreign oppression. In New Testament times most Jews believed that the Messiah would be a political-military figure, and we find this view expressed in the New Testament itself (Luke 1.71). To translate the Messiah as a proper name (Phillips “I am not Christ”) fails to convey the fact that this term is a title (see comments at 1.41). However, to translate as the Messiah requires a footnote or a glossary entry for most readers. Instead of “the Messiah,” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “the promised Saviour,” both here and in most other places. (In Matt 2.4 it has “the promised King,” but see Matt 2.2 for the reason for the shift.) Either “the promised King,” “the promised Saviour,” or even “the promised Saviour King” expresses accurately the meaning that the original readers would have received.

Most translations prefer to transliterate the term the Messiah, since they believe that a close connection exists between this statement and the prophetic utterances of the old Testament. This usage is more satisfactory than merely borrowing a form of the Greek term “Christ,” a term almost inevitable interpreted merely as a proper name. There is much to be said, however, for such a translation as “the promised Rescuer” or “the Savior whom God has promised.” A footnote can be employed to indicate that in the Bible this term referred to “the Messiah” (as in Hebrew), or “the Christ” (as in the Greek 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 .

On the basis of Malachi 4.5 (in the Hebrew text, Mal 3.23), many Jews also believed that Elijah would appear before the end of time to prepare the way for the day of the Lord. When asked, Are you Elijah? John replied emphatically, No, I am not.

In translating the sentence Are you Elijah? It is important not to suggest merely “Is your name Elijah?” In languages which require some specification as to whether a person is dead or still living, the introduction of such a marker would indicate clearly that the Jewish authorities were asking John the Baptist whether he was a kind of reincarnation of Elijah. Most languages, however, have no such convenient device and simply to ask one person whether he is someone else may not make sense. Therefore, in some languages the rendering is “Is your work the work of Elijah?” or even “Are you the same as Elijah?”

According to Deuteronomy 18.15, 18, Moses promised that God would continue to send Israel Prophets like himself. But by New Testament times the Prophet was a particular figure of Jewish eschatological expectation. In 7.40-41 also, the Prophet is distinguished from the Messiah. Evidently the author of the Gospel intends to make it clear to his readers that John the Baptist did not understand himself to be any of those persons expected in Jewish religious thought.

In some languages it may not be sufficient to use a definite article such as “the” in the question Are you the Prophet? Such a use of the article would be misleading in some languages, since “the Prophet” has not been previously identified in this particular context. Accordingly, in some languages such a phrase as “that special prophet” is justified, and it may be desirable to introduce a marginal note to indicate the relation of this question to Old Testament prophecies and to the views of Jewish religious leaders in New Testament times.

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 .