Although there are no difficult exegetical problems in this verse, there are some translational problems, particularly in the command Then tell us who you are. As we have noted, this is not a demand for John the Baptist’s name, but rather an insistence that he explain his role or function. It is almost equivalent to the colloquial expression in English “Then tell us who you think you are.” The focus in such a statement is not upon the name of the individual but upon his role and the justification for his activities.

We have to take an answer back may be rendered in some languages “We must give an answer to” or “We must reply to.”

The final question, What do you say about yourself?, indicates clearly that the questions posed by these representatives of the Jewish authorities were designed to find out how John viewed his ministry, equivalent to “Who do you really claim to be?”

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 .

This verse begins literally, “he said, I (am),” which is followed by the quotation from Isaiah and then the statement “as Isaiah the prophet said,” Most translations render “he said” literally, but Phillips omits it altogether and depends upon the English punctuation to carry its force. Many translations mistakenly include John the Baptist’s “I am” as part of the quotation from Isaiah. The Good News Translation distinguishes between John’s own words and the included quotation from Isaiah be setting off the second in single quotes.

The statement following the quotation (“as Isaiah the prophet said”) is probably not part of the word of John the Baptist (as in Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible), but rather those of the writer of this Gospel (as in Good News Translation, New English Bible, New American Bible, Zürcher Bibel, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), to identify the source of the quotation for its readers. John’s hearers, of course, would immediately recognize the source. The fourth edition of Good News Translation places this information at the beginning of the verse: John answered by quoting the prophet Isaiah, and New English Bible does likewise (see also New American Bible). Placing this statement at the beginning of the verse may indicate more clearly that the response of John the Baptist consists of a quotation from the prophet Isaiah. One can say “John answered by quoting what the prophet Isaiah said: I am ‘the voice…’ ” or “John spoke the words of the prophet Isaiah when he answered: I am ‘the voice…?’ ”

The quotation is from the Septuagint of Isaiah 40.3, where it differs slightly from the Hebrew text. Whereas the Septuagint connects the phrase “in the desert” with “the one who shouts” (that is, “Someone shouts in the desert, ‘Prepare a way…’ ”), the Hebrew text connects “in the desert” with the verb phrase “make a straight path” (that is, “Someone shouts, ‘Prepare a way in the desert…’ ”).

In some languages it is difficult to translate “I am the voice of someone shouting in the desert,” for it may be impossible to speak of a person being merely a voice. But one can say “My voice is like the voice of one who shouts in the desert.” In languages which have no noun for “voice” verbs must be used. An equivalent may be “When I shout, it is like one who shouts in the desert.”

The literal Greek expression “the way of the Lord” is explicit in Good News Translation: path for the Lord to travel.

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 .

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 .

Although the phrase with water (instrument) may be rendered “in water” (location), the former meaning seems intended in light of the parallel in verse 33 (with the Holy Spirit). All modern translations have with water.

I baptize with water must be rendered in some languages “I baptize people with water.” In other languages a special habitual form of the verb is required, for example, “I habitually baptize people with water” or “It is my custom to baptize people with water.”

In the clause you do not know, the pronoun you is emphatic. This statement must not necessarily be taken to imply that none of the people there knew Jesus, but rather that they did not recognize him for who he was. In some languages it may be useful to translate know as “recognize,” and even in a somewhat expanded form, “you do not recognize him for who he is.”

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 .

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 .

All this may need to be made more specific in some languages, for example, “this conversation” or “these questions and answers between the messengers and John” or even “the messengers and John said these things in Bethany.”

The exact site of the Bethany mentioned in this verse is not known. It was a town east of the Jordan River, not to be confused with the Bethany near Jerusalem.

The east side of the Jordan River is literally “on the other side of the Jordan,” but it is written from the viewpoint of one who is on the west side and so the equivalent is the east side. On the east side of the Jordan River may be rendered in some languages “on the sun rising side of the Jordan River.” In most languages “east” is most conveniently described in terms of the rising sun.

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 .

There is (Moffatt, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible “look, there is”; Goodspeed “there is”) represents a formula (Greek ide) used several times in the Gospel of John in this same sense (1.36,47; 19.26,27). The force of this expression is to focus attention on the person referred to and to follow with some description of that person.

Both the background and the precise meaning of the phrase the Lamb of God are difficult. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that scholars disagree as to whether the statement is intended to reflect the theology of John the Baptist or of John, the author of the Gospel. If this phrase is to be taken purely in the light of the thought of John the Baptist, then the best background seems to be the victorious lamb of Jewish apocalyptic, who would come and destroy the evil powers on the earth (see, for example, Rev 17.14). This picture is in harmony with the preaching of John the Baptist, as it is reflected in the other Gospels. Accordingly, the verb rendered takes away (so also New English Bible, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Phillips “will take away”; Moffatt, Goodspeed “remove”) must be understood in the sense of “to do away with” (the meaning which this same verb appears to have in 1 John 3.5).

On the other hand, if one sees in this passage the reflection of Johannine theology, then the reference may be to the Passover lamb. According to John’s Gospel, Jesus was crucified at the same time that the Passover lambs were being put to death in the Temple (19.14). The fact that the soldiers did not break Jesus’ legs (19.33) is understood to be the fulfillment of Exodus 12.46, which prescribes that no bones of the Passover lamb should be broken (19.36). Originally, the Passover lamb was not looked upon as a sacrifice, but since the priests had taken over the responsibility of killing the lambs, it is probable that in New Testament times many people would look on it as a kind of sacrifice. Although the Passover lamb was not looked upon as a sin offering in Judaism, it is easy to see why Christians would view it this way, on the basis of their understanding of Christ’s death. If one understands the Lamb of God on the basis of Johannine theology, rather than on the basis of what seems to have been the thought of John the Baptist, the meaning would be something like “the lamb that God provides to forgive the sin of the world.” The decision between these two possibilities is not an easy one to make, but most commentators lean toward the second view.

In the present passage, as in most places in the Gospel, John refers to sin in the singular, and so the focus is on the sinful condition of the world, rather than on particular sinful deeds. For the singular see 1.29; [8.3]; 8.21,34 (twice), 46; 9.41 (twice); 15,22,24; 16.8,9; 19.11; the plural occurs only three times, twice in the same structure in 8.24 and once in 9.34.

As already indicated, one may interpret who takes away the sin of the world as a reference to the destruction of evil powers on the earth. Therefore an appropriate rendering might be “who destroys the evil in the world.” However, it seems preferable to translate this expression in accordance with Johannine theology, for example, “who causes the sin of the world to be forgiven.” In some languages one can use a singular for “sin” in the sense of “sinful condition” or “sin as a principle of behavior.” In other languages it is not possible, and therefore a plural must be used. Otherwise the readers might think that the function of the Lamb of God was merely to remove one single misdeed. If it is necessary to use an active relation in the verb “to forgive,” one can say “the Lamb by which God forgives the sin of the world” or “the Lamb by which God shows that he forgives the sins of the people in the world,” or “the Lamb who forgives sinners.”

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 .