GOSPEL OF JOHN: The Source New Testament With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning
Copyright by Dr. A. Nyland 2004, 2007.
SMASHWORDS EDITION
* * * * *
PUBLISHED BY:
Dr A. Nyland on Smashwords
Discover other titles by Dr. A. Nyland at Smashwords.com
This book is available in print at most online retailers.
GOSPEL OF JOHN: The Source New Testament: With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning
Translation and notes by Dr A. Nyland.
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person with whom you share it. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.
No part of this book may be stored or reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the publisher. The Source New Testament translation may be quoted in any form (written, electronic, audio, visual) up to and inclusive of 500 (five hundred) verses for non-commercial purposes without express written permission of the publishers, providing that the verses quoted do not compromise 25% or more of the total text of the work or do not amount to 25% of a complete book of the New Testament in the work in which they are quoted. The notes may not be copied under any circumstances.
Notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page of the work as follows: Scripture taken from The Source: With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning. Copyright 2004 by Dr A. Nyland. Used by permission of Smith and Stirling Publishers. All rights reserved.
It is not necessary to use the complete notice of copyright in non-saleable media, such as church newsletters, church bulletins, church handouts, orders of service, posters, transparencies, but the words “The Source” must appear at the end of each quotation.
The Source is based primarily on the Greek texts of the UBS Fourth Revised Edition.
********
Table of Contents.
Chapter 1. Preface
Chapter 2. Glossary
Chapter 3. Introduction
Chapter 4. Gospel of John
Chapter 5. Abbreviations of Bible Versions
Chapter 6. Abbreviations
Chapter 7. Bibliography
********
The Source New Testament with Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning is available as a whole book. In the Endnotes of these separate books of the New Testament, the Greek front is not used, and the original Greek words mentioned in the Endnotes appear in only English transliteration. However, in the whole book, The Source New Testament with Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning, the Greek words in the Footnotes also appear in Greek font as well as in English transliteration.
In this series of separate books of the New Testament, the Glossary is repeated, as is the Introduction.
********
Etymological Fallacy. This is the wrongful assumption that the etymology of a word is its actual meaning.
Grammatical gender. English is the only language in which masculine and feminine genders denote male and female persons. In other languages, grammatical gender is not related to biological (natural) gender. It is difficult for people who understand only English to grasp this basic point. Other languages assign grammatical gender to persons, inanimate objects, concepts, and in fact to all nouns, adjectives, and pronouns. The grammatical gender can be at odds with biological gender. The Greek word for a descendant (even a male descendant) is feminine gender as in Rom. 5.12, “a descendant of Jesse will come”. There are two Greek words for a group of persons eating together, one of which is feminine gender and the other word is neuter, even a group comprised wholly of men.
The Greek word for “fox” (even a male fox) is feminine gender. The Greek word for “eagle” (even a female eagle) is masculine gender. The Greek word for “old woman” is neuter gender. Even the word patris, which means one’s hometown, one’s homeland, commonly rendered in Bibles as “fatherland”, is feminine gender. The priestly class of Luke 1:5 (ephemeria) is feminine gender. Hegemonia, the complete rule, leadership, over another (as in Luke 3:1) is feminine gender.
The Hebrew word for “Holy Spirit” (Old Testament) is feminine gender, and the Greek word for “Holy Spirit” (New Testament) is neuter gender. The pronoun used to refer to the Holy Spirit in the original Hebrew language of Scripture is “she”, and the pronoun used to refer to the Holy Spirit in the Greek is “it”. In English, people choose to substitute “she” and “it” with the English pronoun “he”. Obviously, we do not think of the Holy Spirit as a woman when reading the Old Testament, and as a neuter thing when reading the New Testament. The gender is grammatical, not biological, and there is no necessary relation between the two.
Idiom. The idiomatic expression “pigs might fly” should not be translated it word-for-word, as “pigs” + “might fly” but by an expression to express an impossibility in the target language. The Greek, “You’re a bombustard bird!” should be translated by English idiom, “You’re taking nonsense!” The Greek, “a Tithonus of a person” should be translated by English idiom, “a senile person.” The Greek, “to put on the cap of Hades” should be translated by English idiom, “to become invisible.” The Greek, “garlic-primed” should be translated by English idiom, “very angry.” The Greek, “to have swallowed garlic” should be translated by English idiom, “to be ready to fight.” The Greek, “It’s gone to the polecat!” should be translated by English idiom, “It’s gone to the dogs!” The Greek, “to have Sisyphean wiles” should be translated by English idiom, “to be very cunning.”
In the New Testament, the Greek, “kicking against the goads,” should be translated by English idiom, “You’re whipping a dead horse!” or, “Pigs might fly!” In the New Testament, the Greek, “if your eye is evil” should be translated by the English idiom, “if you are stingy with money.”
That is correct basic translation procedure. Misunderstanding by people who speak only English, or by improperly taught beginner Greek students arises over the term “literal” translation.
Litotes. An example is “not undistinguished city”, typical Greek litotes (an ironic understatement using a negative of its contrary) which means in English “a most distinguished city”. “I am not a little tired” is the way a Greek would have said “I am completely exhausted!” For litotes see Rom. 1:16; 10:11; 1 Pet. 2:6; Rev. 3:5.
Metonymy. The substitution of a word describing the nature or significance of an object instead of the object itself.
Semantic Range. The range of meanings possessed by a word. It is important to note that all the English meanings possible for a particular Greek word do not apply at the same time. E.g. the semantic range of the English word “port”: a suitcase, a strong wine, a harbor, the left side of the ship. “Port” does not have all these meanings at the same time. Regard the following: “They were all very drunk in the morning. The police arrested them at the bar and put them in jail for the night. They became drunk after drinking numerous bottles of port.” The meaning of a word in a particular context does not extend to others in its semantic range. In the above passage, the word “port” always means a strong drink, and has nothing to do with ships. In the New Testament, adelphos (“fellow believer”, “fellow member”) when used of church members has nothing to do with membership of a family, just as the English word “port” when used of drinking the strong wine has no nuance of somewhere to put ships. There is no relationship between the two meanings. The English word “bear” can mean a large animal, to put up with something, or carry something. It does not have all meanings at the same time.
Synecdoche. A figure of speech in which the part is named but the whole is understood. The word “faces” in “We noticed new faces at school” is synecdoche for “people”.
Transliterate. To “transliterate” (noun, “transliteration”) means to put the Greek letters into English letters. The original has Greek letters. The transliteration is anoetos. The meaning is “loss of senses”. In the New Testament, the translators traditionally decided to transliterate certain words and not translate them, e.g. “angels” (a transliteration) rather than the translation “messengers”.
Translator’s Note. It is not the duty of the translator to correct or change the original writer’s grammar in any way, to do so would be a gross error. This is certainly not the job of the translator. I have retained the tone of the writer of each book. If the Greek is colloquial, I translate the colloquial tone, if the Greek is formal, I translate the formal tone. If the Greek repeats an adjective, I repeat an adjective. I certainly do not put the Greek into nice correct English if the original Greek is not nice correct Greek. To “correct” the original language is a most grave translation error. Note that much of the New Testament is dialogue, and people often do not follow formal rules of grammar when speaking. I translate such speech accordingly.
********
For centuries, the meanings of numerous New Testament words remained unknown, thus translators were left to guess. In the late 1880s and again in the mid 1970s, large amounts of papyri and inscriptions were discovered. These impacted our knowledge of word meaning in the New Testament to such a degree that scholars labeled the finds “sensational” and “dramatic.” The papyri were written at the time of the New Testament, and touched upon all aspects of life, comprising everyday private letters from ordinary people, contracts of marriage and divorce, tax papers, official decrees, birth and death notices, and business documents. Large numbers of previously uncommon words found in the New Testament now appeared commonly in everyday documents as well as on inscriptions. Many mysteries of word meaning were thus solved. (This has nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls.)
Yet nearly every New Testament translation of today follows the traditional translations of the earlier versions, which were published centuries before the evidence from the papyri and inscriptions revealed to us the meanings of numerous New Testament words.
In 1895, the celebrated German scholar Deissmann published a large body of papyri, and between 1914 and 1929 Moulton and Milligan published documentary (“documentary” or “non-literary” meaning papyri and inscriptions) vocabulary in eight volumes in their Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Although this was an enormous advance, Moulton and Milligan still had no entry for about 17 percent of New Testament words. Of the words they did include in their lexicon, there were 800 words for which they did not list documentary attestation. Due to ongoing discoveries, the work was out of date before the last volume had been published. Nearly every recent New Testament dictionary and concordance is based on this old work while older ones are based on work prior even to that of Moulton and Milligan.
In July 1910, James Hope Moulton made a statement that could be marked as one of history’s “famous last words”: “I do not think that papyrology will take us much further. New papyrus collections will only add details now.” (July 1910, James Hope Moulton. Quoted in W.F. Moulton, James Hope Moulton (London: Blackwell Press, 1919), 69.)
But this was not to be. Scholars had thought the previous finds of papyri sensational and dramatic, yet the subsequent discovery and editing of papyrus fragments revolutionized our understanding of words which appear in the New Testament. Several thousand Greek inscriptions and papyri were published for the first time, or reissued, in 1976. In that year alone, fifteen volumes of new papyri were published. Light was thrown on a large number of words previously unattested. Finds are ongoing: several thousand new inscriptions come to light each year. In the last two decades, four thousand inscriptions have been found at Ephesos alone. These discoveries have been largely overlooked by Bible translators, despite greatly exciting New Testament scholars and lexicographers. Laypersons and a significant number of Bible translators alike are unaware of the main body of scholarship as it is tucked away in technical journals. Thus the dictionary work we see in today’s Bible translations is based on a centuries-old view of word meaning, following Tyndale’s translation of 1534 and the King James Version of 1611.
Even in recent years, Greek documentary sources (i.e. papyri and inscriptions) have been neglected for the illustration of New Testament vocabulary. Three of the major lexical works which have appeared in the contemporary era are C. Brown (ed)., The New International Dictionary of NT Theology, 3 vols, Exeter, 1975-78, a translation with extensive revisions and additions of L. Coenen et al. (edd.), Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament (Wuppertal, 1965-71); N. Turner, Christian Words, Edinburgh, 1980; and C. Spicq, Notes de lexicographe nevo-testamentaire (2 vols, plus Suppl. vol; Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 22.1-3; Gottingen, 1978-1982. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5.68-69, states that while theological perspectives have not biased Spicq’s philological judgments, he has shown no appreciation of sociolinguistics or newer linguistic scholarship for New Testament studies. G.D. Kilpatrick, in his review of Turner’s Syntax and Style (at TLZ 104 [1979] 10), notes that Turner’s work ignores modern developments in research. On Turner’s work, Horsley, NDIEC 5.68, 71, states, “Turner...begins his entry with a bald and inaccurate statement... Turner’s decision to take little account of non-literary evidence is borne out strikingly by his bibliography...The impression left with the reader is that Turner’s reading of documentary texts had ceased before the Second World War.”
While the disregard of the documentary evidence for word meaning has had a profound impact on Bible translation, there are several other lesser, varied reasons for the inadequacy of available lexicon (dictionary) work. The old idea that Biblical Greek was in some way different from secular Greek has been discredited, yet did for many years adversely influence translation. The equally old view that New Testament Greek abounded in Semitisms no longer has credibility, yet is still pushed in some quarters. Well known scholar Max Wilcox left Australia as a young man to study for his doctorate in Semitisms in New Testament Greek, only to find there were scant few. However, this view is still perpetrated by several textbooks.
J.H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek singularly has exercised a significant influence upon New Testament scholarship for many decades. Yet the Syntax volume, for which N. Turner is responsible, is considered to be seriously deficient. It is surprising that Turner was appointed to assist H.G. Meecham (and to continue after Meecham’s death, Meecham being appointed after W.F. Howard who had assumed responsibility upon Moulton’s death), when his views were at odds with those of Moulton. Horsley, NDIEC 5.50, states, “…although the book was not begun until the mid-1950’s, the reader is left with the impression that it is an already outmoded product of the late 1930s which was not published for a further generation.”
Turner’s work displays serious errors, not surprisingly as his position is that the Greek of the Bible was different from secular Greek, and is “a unique language with a unity and character of its own”. (Syntax, 4.) Syntax has no basis in sound evidence, and Horsley, NDIEC 5.54,55,61, states, “…the proverb, ‘Out of sight, out of mind,’ unfortunately sums up the disregard which much of NT Studies has shown for documentary publications since roughly the 1930s.”
Horsley further points out, with J.A. Lee, Etlologia Neotestamenataria (1997) 62, “…the handling of technical terms has been a notable weakness in the NT lexicographical tradition, as in many others, lexicons have tended to provide a gloss rather than a description of the object or activity. In other words, their practice has been driven by the desire to offer a ready translation.” (Their emphasis.) For example, in the available translations, parresia has been reduced to a single word: “boldly”(KJV, NKJ) “openly” (KJV, JB, TEV), “plainly” (NIV, RSV, NEB), and arete likewise, to “virtue” (KJV, NKJ), “excellence/excellent” (NIV, RSV, NEB) “lovely” (TEV). For arete, BDAG lists three meanings: 1. moral excellence, virtue, 2. a synonym for doza, and 3. manifestation of divine power, miracle. This hardly does credit to the meaning of the word, which is puzzling as arete is a common word, one fundamental to Greek thinking. Perhaps it is a reflection of BDAG’s circular reliance upon the KJV, which in turn relied upon the Latin virtus to translate arete. For parresia BDAG’s entry is far better.
Many modern translators have followed the KJV, whether directly or through the lexicons (dictionaries). For example, the word paidarion in John 6:9 is translated as follows: “lad” (KJV, NKJ, RSV, NAS), “boy” (NIV, PME, Weymouth, TNIV), “small boy” (JB), “little boy” (Amplified). Yet, paidarion can mean “slave,” “young (free) man,” “young (free) woman,” “child,” “girl,” “manservant,” “soldier”. All these meanings have been well attested in the Septuagint alone. There is no evidence for the exclusive term “lad” or “boy”. For further reading, see commentary in G.M. Simpson, A Semantic Study of Words for Young Person, Servant and Child in the Septuagint and other early Koine Greek, Sydney, 1976, pp. 95, 182f.
BAGD’s (the predecessor of BDAG) entry disregarded the evidence from the Septuagint, and ignored BGU 2347.3 where paidarion is clearly shown to be an adult man. BGU was published three years earlier than BAGD.
Matthew 11:12 caused problems for translators and puzzled readers for centuries. Only in recent times was it discovered that bia refers to illegal forcible acquisition, and is a technical legal term referring to the delict of hindering an owner or lawful possessor of their enjoyment of immovable property. From the papyri, there is now firm evidence to show that both bia and harpage, together with their cognates, were used in legal terminology with reference to forcible acquisition. We now know the scripture has nothing to do with heaven suffering violence or forcefully advancing. The actual translation is, “From the time of John the Baptizer until now, Heaven’s Realm is being used or even robbed by people who have no legal right to it. This stops those who do have a legal right to it from enjoying their own property.”
Many faulty traditions have grown in the Christian community. Some of these have arisen from mistranslation, but some have not. The following traditions demonstrate the ease with which one can be misled simply by religious tradition. The popular belief remains that there were “three” “wise men” and that these people visited Jesus as a baby in a manager. However, the Bible does not mention the number, and in fact states that they visited Jesus in a house. (History tells us that Jesus was around two years of age at the time.) At no time does the Bible, in any translation, suggest or imply that the “wise men” were present soon after Jesus’ birth. Further, not one Bible version states the number “three”; this is purely unfounded tradition based perhaps on the number of different types of gifts, not even number of gifts. In another instance, there is much talk and speculation in some of the Christian community as to who the “Antichrist” could be, despite the fact that there is no mention of a single “Antichrist” figure anywhere in the Bible. The word only appears in the First and Second Letters of John, only briefly, and is identified as those people (plural) who do not agree that Jesus the Anointed One has come in human form. The word is not mentioned in Revelation. These misconceptions are all based on correct translation, so it is not surprising that misconceptions based on mistranslation are perpetrated. Turning to translation matters, in what is surely to be seen as censorship, the word Magos is translated widely as “wise man” in the context of the young Jesus, “sorcerer” in Acts, and as “astrologer” in Daniel.
Tradition, censorship and the tendency to use a one word translation instead of an extended definition likewise influence translation. In Hebrews 5:7 Jesus offered up the hiketeria to the Father. The hiketeria was literally an olive branch which the suppliant held in their hand as a claim for help and protection. In pagan terms it was always honored. If all else failed, the hiketeria could be offered. For example in Aeschylus, The Suppliant Maidens, 192, Danaus’ daughters are fleeing from Egypt, and when Danaus sees armed crowds approaching with horses and chariots, he advises the use of the hiketeria to ensure their safety. Herodotos 7.141 speaks of the Athenians sending their envoys to Delphi to consult the oracle, whereupon the priestess foretold a terrible fate. They were about to give up in dismay, when someone suggested they should approach the oracle the second time and offer the hiketeria. The priestess then gave a more favorable prophecy. The Greek in these examples is the same as in verse 7. For the entry on hiketeria, BDAG states, “the olive branch was the sign of the suppliant” and yet translates it as “supplication” and “prayer”, hardly near enough its meaning. Perhaps this gloss is the product of BDAG’s search for a ready single word translation, or perhaps it was influenced by the hiketeria having an otherwise pagan context.
Theological bias can influence Bible translators to err from the text. For example, the straightforward Greek sentence of 1 Cor. 11:10 which simply states that a woman ought to show her own authority on her head has been completely altered in most Bible versions to state that a woman must wear a covering (the word “veil” does not appear in the Greek) to show she is under a man’s authority. The Greek sentence does not mention a man or husband.
The NKJV, NIV, TEV, Phillips Modern English, RSV, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible and the Living Bible changed the female name Junia to a masculine name. The KJV, NJKV and Living Bible changed the female name Nympha to a masculine name and changed “the church that is in her house” to “the church that is his house”. The NKJV reversed the order of “mother and brothers”. The NJKV and KJV reversed the order of Priscilla (woman) and Aquila (man) when the couple was presented in a teaching context. The KJV, NKJV and Tyndale Bible added the words “a man” to a sentence about a woman being in a position of responsibility, and the Living Bible, New English Bible and Phillips Modern English changed it to a word to include both genders.
The translations of most New Testament versions are based on a lack of understanding of Greek word meaning. Available translations do not sufficiently regard the abundant evidence from the papyri and inscriptions and thus in many cases present a far from accurate translation of the New Testament.
********
John, the son of Zebedee (and the brother of James), knew Jesus very well. He had been one of the Twelve disciples, and had gone with Peter and James to the Jews after the Jerusalem meeting c. 47 AD. John’s Good News is clearly pre-war and written before 66 AD. John states that the pool has (not had) 5 porticoes, and describes the temple as still standing. Both were not standing after the catastrophic war of 66-70 AD between the Jews and the Romans in Palestine. In the war the temple was destroyed as were many parts of Jerusalem. The reference to Peter’s prophesied manner of death in John 21:19 possibly suggests that John’s Good News was written after 64 AD, the date of Peter’s death in the Neronian persecution.
The old view that John was a poor fisherman in a small boat is just a myth. He was a partner in a fishing corporation (Luke 5:10) with Peter, James, and Andrew, and the business employed workers. His family employed servants (Luke 15:18, 22, 26). He was of the middle or upper class, as shown by the reference to Joanna, the wife of Herod’s manager, Chuza. Further, the evidence suggests that John was the “other disciple” of John 18:15 who was a close friend of the chief priest. John’s mother Salome was one of the women who financially provided for Jesus (Mark 15:41). In fact, Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to John. John was bilingual, with his first language being Aramaic and his second language being Greek. The majority of the middle and upper class citizens were bilingual, and in fact, some preferred their second language. John could speak and write Greek very well.
John was most accurate in his description of the buildings and places in Palestine. He mentions twelve places not referred to in the other gospels. Many of the places he mentioned can be located precisely today.
It is often said that P52 (John 18: 31-33, 37-38) is the earliest fragment of any New Testament book found to date, having been assigned to the first half of the second century by its editor, C.H. Roberts. However, it is subject to ongoing scrutiny and has been dated to 170 AD by A. Schmidt. (A. Schmidt, “Zwel Anmerkungen zu P.Ryl. III 457”, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, 35 (1989) 11-12.) In the 1983, P90 was published: P.Oxy. L 3523 (Oxyrhynchos, II?) The text of P90 overlaps with that of P52, as with that of P66 and P60. P90 is dated to the first half of the second century by its editor, T.C. Skeat, and is generally considered to be close to date to P52. (See S.R. Pickering, Recently Published New Testament Papyri: P89-P95, (Macquarie: The Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1991). People also cite the Egerton papyrus as very early, but note Pickering’s comment (p. 13): “A fresh source of doubt arises from Gronewald’s re-dating (in P.Koln IV) of the Egerton-Cologne apocryphon to ca. 200.”)
The authorship of John has been widely undisputed from the beginning of the second century. The church fathers from Irenaeus onwards do not question John’s authorship. Irenaeus’ testimony has been called into doubt. Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been set forth in the Gospels, at the insistence of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.” (Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, cited in Eusebius, HE 6.14.7.) As for the title, early papyri and 5th c. papyri have “The Good News According to John”, while later manuscripts attest to the title, “The Sacred Good News According to John” Another title, “According to John” is also attested.
The traditional site for the writing of John’s Good News is Ephesos. Irenaeus (A.H. 3.1.1. c. 180 AD) says that John, “the Lord’s disciple”, wrote his Good News at Ephesos, after the writing of the other gospels. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho 81.4) speaks of John as having lived previously at Ephesos. John Martyr was in Ephesos c. 135 AD. Eusebius (H.E. 4.18.6-8) also records that John the Apostle lived at Ephesos. The Acts of John, written by Leucius Charinus c. 150 AD, speaks of the ministry of “John the Apostle” at Ephesos. Eusebius (H.E. 5.24.3) notes that Polycrates, bishop of Ephesos, writing to Pope Victor of Rome c. 190 AD, states that “John the Apostle” was buried at Ephesos.
According to John.
Ch.1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word stayed with God, and the Word was God. 2 In the beginning the Word stayed with God. 3 Everything came into being through him, and nothing came into being without him. 4 That which came into being, life, was by means of him, and the life was the light of humans. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not suppress it.
Notes.
Verse 2. With God. Pros with accusative in its meaning “stayed with.”
Verse 5. And the darkness did not suppress it. Aorist tense referring to a point-of-time event, rather than to a continual event.
6-8 A person appeared. He was sent out by God, and his name was John. 7 He came to testify about that light, so that everyone might believe because of him. 8 He himself was not the light - he appeared only as a witness to the light.
Notes.
Verse 6. By God. Para with genitive, movement from beside or emanation from.
9-14 The genuine light that gives light to all humankind was in the world. 10 And although the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to his own people, but they did not accept him. 12 To everyone who accepted him, to everyone who believed his Name, he gave the right to become children of God – 13 children not from a woman nor from the purposes of the natural realm nor from the purposes of a man, but born from God. 14 And the Word took human form and lived among us. We have seen his splendor, the splendor of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of favor and truth.
Notes.
Verse 9. All humankind. Rabbinic expression for “all people who came into the world”. Non gender specific.
Verse 13. Not from a woman. Literally, “not from streams of blood.” The Greeks referred to the human embryo being made up of the seed of the father and the blood of the mother. John is saying that God’s children were not born from a woman or a man, but from God. See Wisdom 7.2; 4 Macc. 13.20; Philo, de opif. mund, 45. Note the plural, rendered “streams of blood”, cf. LSJ, s.v. who cite Aesch. Ag. 1293; Soph. Ant. 120; Eur. El. 1176.
15-18 John spoke words of truth about him and has shouted, “This is the One about whom I said, ‘He comes after me, but was always more important than I am: he already existed before I was born!’” 16 We, all of us, have received one favor after another from the store of his abundant favor. 17 The Law was given through Moses - and favor and truth came about through Jesus the Anointed One. 18 No one has ever seen God at any time. The Only Son, the One who is closest to the Father’s heart - he is the one who led the way to the place of honor at the Father’s side!
Notes.
Verse 15. Before. Protos for proteros, “prior” (“before” of time), mou, genitive of comparison. That is, from the point he began to exist, he surpassed John.
Verse 18. No one has ever seen God. John repeats this statement in the (later) First Letter of John, but changes horao, “has seen” to theaomai, “has watched”.
Closest to the Father’s heart. Eis for en. “Intimately close”.
Led the way. Hexegeomai, to lead the way, to show the way. Can also mean “explain”. Most Bible dictionaries only list the latter meaning, although LSJ, s.v. expound the former.
This verse is most contentious. Metzger favors the Alexandrian monogenes Theos over the Byzantine monogenes huios. However, the internal evidence supports the reading monogenes huios, while the external is divided.
19-23 And this is the evidence from John’s life. This is what he said when certain Jews sent priests and members of the tribe of Levi from Jerusalem to ask him who he was. 20 He agreed with what they said and didn’t deny it. He said, “I’m not the one who’s the Anointed!”
21 They asked him, “So what are you then! Are you the Prophet?”
“No!” he exclaimed.
22 “Well, who are you?” they demanded. “We have to give an answer to the people who sent us! What do you say about yourself?”
23 He said, “I am, ‘The voice of one shouting in the desert, “Clear the road for the Lord!”’ as the prophet Isaiah said!”
Notes.
Verse 19. Certain Jews. Ioudaioi has 2 different senses: Judean and Jewish, Judean referring to the geographical area of Judea, and Jewish to the people who used to be called Israelites, the descendants of Jacob, place of abode being irrelevant. There are not separate Greek words, and one can only judge from the context. In the New Testament, “Jewish” is more common than “Judean”, and John also uses the word Ioudaioi to refer to those Jewish and Judean leaders who opposed Jesus. It is generally agreed that he is using metonymy, using a part to describe a whole, but the question is whether in his use of metonymy he is referring to Jews or Judeans. Some argue that he is using Ioudaioi in the meaning “Judean” stating that it is more probable for him as he was a Jew. Others argue that in John 7:1 and 11:8 the word Ioudaioi does not refer to Jews or Judeans but means: “Jewish leaders” / “Jewish authorities”. It is not always easy to determine from the context when John is referring to certain Jewish leaders antagonistic to Jesus, leaders who happened to be concentrated in Jerusalem (which in turn, is in Judea), or when he is referring to Judeans or Jews in general.
There are 3 schools of thought on the meaning of the Greek word Ioudaioi. The majority view is that Ioudaios (plural: Ioudaioi) means Jew and sometimes a special category of Jews (e.g. the leaders). Another viewpoint suggests that Ioudaios is connected with the Roman province of Judea and can on occasion mean “Jew”. The third point of view is that Ioudaios means the 10 tribes of the former kingdom of Judea who did not retain the religion of the other two tribes.
The translation “certain Jews” considers John’s use of metonymy. Many Bible versions translate “Jewish leaders” and it is clear in many instances from the context that the certain Jews in question were in fact leaders. Metonymy is also to be taken account in the case of the Pharisees. It is most important to note that not all Pharisees opposed Jesus, nor did Jesus take exception to all Pharisees – it was certain Pharisees only.
24-28 Now the people who were sent were members of the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, “If, as you say, you are not the Anointed One, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet, why then do you keep on baptizing?”
26 “I myself baptize with water,” John answered, “but there is someone standing with you and you don’t even know it! 27 He’s the One who comes after me. I’m not even good enough to undo his sandal straps!” 28 All this happened in Bethany which is across the Jordan River, where John was baptizing.
29-31 The next day John saw Jesus coming up to him. “Look!” he indicated. “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 He is the one I referred to when I said, ‘The one who comes after me is far more important than I am, because he existed before I was born! 31 I myself didn’t know him, but the reason I was baptizing with water was so that he would be revealed to Israel.”
Notes.
Verse 29. “Look!” he indicated. He said this either to himself pros auton, a disregard of reflexive pronoun), or to Jesus, or to an unannounced person.
32-34 Then John gave this evidence – “I watched the Spirit come down from heaven in the appearance of a dove and rest on him. 33 I sure did not know who he was, apart from the fact that the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The person on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the One who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I for sure have spiritually seen and have testified, that this person is God’s Son!”
Notes.
Verse 32. Heaven. Equally, “the sky”.
Verse 34. Have spiritually seen. Ophesthe future of optomai (but not horao, in the present or perfect tenses) is always used in John for the vision of the spirit, not the vision of the natural eyes.
35-39 The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 When he looked at Jesus going past, he said, “Look over there! The Lamb of God!”
37 When the two disciples heard him say that, they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around and saw them following. “What do you want?” he asked. They said, “Rabbi, (which means Teacher,) where are you staying?”
39 “Come and see!” Jesus said. So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent the rest of the day with him. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon.
40-42 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John said, and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah!” (which means the Anointed One). 42 He took him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John. You are going to be called Cephas,” (which translates as Peter).