Yohanes 1:40

Andrew’s Declaration

1:40 Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two disciples who heard what John said ¹  and followed Jesus. ² 

Yohanes 6:70

6:70 Jesus replied, ³  “Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?” ⁴ 

Yohanes 8:41

8:41 You people ⁵  are doing the deeds of your father.”

Then ⁶  they said to Jesus, ⁷  “We were not born as a result of immorality! ⁸  We have only one Father, God himself.”

Yohanes 9:25

9:25 He replied, ⁹  “I do not know whether he is a sinner. I do know one thing – that although I was blind, now I can see.”

Yohanes 11:49-50

11:49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, ¹⁰  “You know nothing at all! 11:50 You do not realize ¹¹  that it is more to your advantage to have one man ¹²  die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” ¹³ 

Yohanes 12:2

12:2 So they prepared a dinner for Jesus ¹⁴  there. Martha ¹⁵  was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table ¹⁶  with him.

Yohanes 13:21

13:21 When he had said these things, Jesus was greatly distressed ¹⁷  in spirit, and testified, ¹⁸  “I tell you the solemn truth, ¹⁹  one of you will betray me.” ²⁰ 

Yohanes 13:23

13:23 One of his disciples, the one Jesus loved, ²¹  was at the table ²²  to the right of Jesus in a place of honor. ²³ 

Yohanes 18:22

18:22 When Jesus ²⁴  had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, ²⁵  “Is that the way you answer the high priest?”

Yohanes 18:39

18:39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner ²⁶  for you at the Passover. ²⁷  So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?”

Yohanes 20:7

20:7 and the face cloth, ²⁸  which had been around Jesus’ head, not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. ²⁹ 

[1:40]  ¹ tn Grk “who heard from John.”

[1:40]  ² tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[6:70]  ³ tn Grk “Jesus answered them.”

[6:70]  ⁴ tn Although most translations render this last phrase as “one of you is a devil,” such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil. This finds roots in the KJV in which the Greek word for demon was often translated “devil.” In fact, the KJV never uses the word “demon.” (Sixty-two of the 63 NT instances of δαιμόνιον [daimonion] are translated “devil” [in Acts 17:18 the plural has been translated “gods”]. This can get confusing in places where the singular “devil” is used: Is Satan or one of the demons in view [cf. Matt 9:33 (demon); 13:39 (devil); 17:18 (demon); Mark 7:26 (demon); Luke 4:2 (devil); etc.]?) Now regarding John 6:70, both the construction in Greek and the technical use of διάβολος (diabolos) indicate that the one devil is in view. To object to the translation “the devil” because it thus equates Judas with Satan does not take into consideration that Jesus often spoke figuratively (e.g., “destroy this temple” [John 2:19]; “he [John the Baptist] is Elijah” [Matt 11:14]), even equating Peter with the devil on one occasion (Mark 8:33). According to ExSyn 249, “A curious phenomenon has occurred in the English Bible with reference to one particular monadic noun, διάβολος. The KJV translates both διάβολος and δαιμόνιον as ‘devil.’ Thus in the AV translators’ minds, ‘devil’ was not a monadic noun. Modern translations have correctly rendered δαιμόνιον as ‘demon’ and have, for the most part, recognized that διάβολος is monadic (cf., e.g., 1 Pet 5:8; Rev 20:2). But in John 6:70 modern translations have fallen into the error of the King James translators. The KJV has ‘one of you is a devil.’ So does the RSV, NRSV, ASV, NIV, NKJV, and the JB [Jerusalem Bible]. Yet there is only one devil…The legacy of the KJV still lives on, then, even in places where it ought not.”

[8:41]  ⁵ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

[8:41]  ⁶ tc ‡ Important and early witnesses (א B L W 070 it sy^s,p co) lack the conjunction here, while the earliest witnesses along with many others read οὖν (oun, “therefore”; Ì^66,75 C D Θ Ψ 0250 ˹³ 33 Ï). This conjunction occurs in John some 200 times, far more than in any other NT book. Even though the combined testimony of two early papyri for the conjunction is impressive, the reading seems to be a predictable scribal emendation. In particular, οὖν is frequently used with the plural of εἶπον (eipon, “they said”) in John (in this chapter alone, note vv. 13, 39, 48, 57, and possibly 52). On balance, it is probably best to consider the shorter reading as authentic, even though “Then” is virtually required in translation for English stylistic reasons. NA²⁷ has the conjunction in brackets, indicating some doubt as to its authenticity.

[8:41]  ⁷ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) is specified in the translation for clarity.

[8:41]  ⁸ sn We were not born as a result of immorality! is ironic, because Jesus’ opponents implied that it was not themselves but Jesus who had been born as a result of immoral behavior. This shows they did not know Jesus’ true origin and were not aware of the supernatural events surrounding his birth. The author does not even bother to refute the opponents’ suggestion but lets it stand, assuming his readers will know the true story.

[9:25]  ⁹ tn Grk “Then that one answered.”

[11:49]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “said to them.” The indirect object αὐτοῖς (autois) has not been translated for stylistic reasons.

[11:50]  ¹¹ tn Or “you are not considering.”

[11:50]  ¹² tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anqrwpo") should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outo" Jo anqrwpo") has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.

[11:50]  ¹³ sn In his own mind Caiaphas was no doubt giving voice to a common-sense statement of political expediency. Yet he was unconsciously echoing a saying of Jesus himself (cf. Mark 10:45). Caiaphas was right; the death of Jesus would save the nation from destruction. Yet Caiaphas could not suspect that Jesus would die, not in place of the political nation Israel, but on behalf of the true people of God; and he would save them, not from physical destruction, but from eternal destruction (cf. 3:16-17). The understanding of Caiaphas’ words in a sense that Caiaphas could not possibly have imagined at the time he uttered them serves as a clear example of the way in which the author understood that words and actions could be invested retrospectively with a meaning not consciously intended or understood by those present at the time.

[12:2]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity and to conform with contemporary English style.

[12:2]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “And Martha.” The connective καί (kai, “and”) has been omitted in the translation because it would produce a run-on sentence in English.

[12:2]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “reclining at the table.”

[12:2]  sn 1st century middle eastern meals were not eaten while sitting at a table, but while reclining on one’s side on the floor with the head closest to the low table and the feet farthest away.

[13:21]  ¹⁷ tn Or “greatly troubled.”

[13:21]  ¹⁸ tn Grk “and testified and said.”

[13:21]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

[13:21]  ²⁰ tn Or “will hand me over.”

[13:23]  ²¹ sn Here for the first time the one Jesus loved, the ‘beloved disciple,’ is introduced. This individual also is mentioned in 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20. Some have suggested that this disciple is to be identified with Lazarus, since the Fourth Gospel specifically states that Jesus loved him (11:3, 5, 36). From the terminology alone this is a possibility; the author is certainly capable of using language in this way to indicate connections. But there is nothing else to indicate that Lazarus was present at the last supper; Mark 14:17 seems to indicate it was only the twelve who were with Jesus at this time, and there is no indication in the Fourth Gospel to the contrary. Nor does it appear that Lazarus ever stood so close to Jesus as the later references in chaps. 19, 20 and 21 seem to indicate. When this is coupled with the omission of all references to John son of Zebedee from the Fourth Gospel, it seems far more likely that the references to the beloved disciple should be understood as references to him.

[13:23]  ²² tn Grk “was reclining.” This reflects the normal 1st century practice of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position.

[13:23]  ²³ tn Grk “was reclining in the bosom (or “lap”) of Jesus” (according to both L&N 17.25 and BDAG 65 s.v. ἀνάκειμαι 2 an idiom for taking the place of honor at a meal, but note the similar expression in John 1:18). Whether this position or the position to the left of Jesus should be regarded as the position of second highest honor (next to the host, in this case Jesus, who was in the position of highest honor) is debated. F. Prat, “Les places d’honneur chez les Juifs contemporains du Christ” (RSR 15 [1925]: 512-22), who argued that the table arrangement was that of the Roman triclinium (a U-shaped table with Jesus and two other disciples at the bottom of the U), considered the position to the left of Jesus to be the one of second highest honor. Thus the present translation renders this “a position of honor” without specifying which one (since both of the two disciples to the right and to the left of Jesus would be in positions of honor). Other translations differ as to how they handle the phrase ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (en tw kolpw tou Ihsou; “leaning on Jesus’ bosom,” KJV; “lying close to the breast of Jesus,” RSV; “reclining on Jesus’ breast,” NASB; “reclining next to him,” NIV, NRSV) but the symbolic significance of the beloved disciple’s position seems clear. He is close to Jesus and in an honored position. The phrase as an idiom for a place of honor at a feast is attested in the Epistles of Pliny (the Younger) 4.22.4, an approximate contemporary of Paul.

[13:23]  sn Note that the same expression translated in a place of honor here (Grk “in the bosom of”) is used to indicate Jesus’ relationship with the Father in 1:18.

[18:22]  ²⁴ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:22]  ²⁵ tn Grk “one of the high priest’s servants standing by gave Jesus a strike, saying.” For the translation of ῥάπισμα (rJapisma), see L&N 19.4.

[18:39]  ²⁶ tn The word “prisoner” is not in the Greek text but is implied.

[18:39]  ²⁷ sn Pilate then offered to release Jesus, reminding the Jewish authorities that they had a custom that he release one prisoner for them at the Passover. There is no extra-biblical evidence alluding to the practice. It is, however, mentioned in Matthew and Mark, described either as a practice of Pilate (Mark 15:6) or of the Roman governor (Matt 27:15). These references may explain the lack of extra-biblical attestation: The custom to which Pilate refers here (18:39) is not a permanent one acknowledged by all the Roman governors, but one peculiar to Pilate as a means of appeasement, meant to better relations with his subjects. Such a limited meaning is certainly possible and consistent with the statement here.

[20:7]  ²⁸ sn The word translated face cloth is a Latin loanword (sudarium). It was a small towel used to wipe off perspiration (the way a handkerchief would be used today). This particular item was not mentioned in connection with Jesus’ burial in John 19:40, probably because this was only a brief summary account. A face cloth was mentioned in connection with Lazarus’ burial (John 11:44) and was probably customary. R. E. Brown speculates that it was wrapped under the chin and tied on top of the head to prevent the mouth of the corpse from falling open (John [AB], 2:986), but this is not certain.

[20:7]  ²⁹ sn Much dispute and difficulty surrounds the translation of the words not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. Basically the issue concerns the positioning of the graveclothes as seen by Peter and the other disciple when they entered the tomb. Some have sought to prove that when the disciples saw the graveclothes they were arranged just as they were when around the body, so that when the resurrection took place the resurrected body of Jesus passed through them without rearranging or disturbing them. In this case the reference to the face cloth being rolled up does not refer to its being folded, but collapsed in the shape it had when wrapped around the head. Sometimes in defense of this view the Greek preposition μετά (meta, which normally means “with”) is said to mean “like” so that the comparison with the other graveclothes does not involve the location of the face cloth but rather its condition (rolled up rather than flattened). In spite of the intriguing nature of such speculations, it seems more probable that the phrase describing the face cloth should be understood to mean it was separated from the other graveclothes in a different place inside the tomb. This seems consistent with the different conclusions reached by Peter and the beloved disciple (vv. 8-10). All that the condition of the graveclothes indicated was that the body of Jesus had not been stolen by thieves. Anyone who had come to remove the body (whether the authorities or anyone else) would not have bothered to unwrap it before carrying it off. And even if one could imagine that they had (perhaps in search of valuables such as rings or jewelry still worn by the corpse) they would certainly not have bothered to take time to roll up the face cloth and leave the other wrappings in an orderly fashion.