6:10 Jesus said, “Have 1 the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.) 2 So the men 3 sat down, about five thousand in number.
10:40 Jesus 7 went back across the Jordan River 8 again to the place where John 9 had been baptizing at an earlier time, 10 and he stayed there.
1 tn Grk “Make.”
2 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author (suggesting an eyewitness recollection).
3 tn Here “men” has been used in the translation because the following number, 5,000, probably included only adult males (see the parallel in Matt 14:21).
4 map For location see Map1-E2; Map2-C2; Map3-C3; Map4-D1; Map5-G4.
5 tn Or “boats from Tiberias landed”; Grk “came.”
6 tc D 091 a e sys,c lack the phrase “after the Lord had given thanks” (εὐχαριστήσαντος τοῦ κυρίου, eucaristhsanto" tou kuriou), while almost all the rest of the witnesses ({Ì75 א A B L W Θ Ψ 0141 [Ë1] Ë13 33 Ï as well as several versions and fathers}) have the words (though {l672 l950 syp pbo} read ᾿Ιησοῦ [Ihsou, “Jesus”] instead of κυρίου). Although the shorter reading has minimal support, it is significant that this Gospel speaks of Jesus as Lord in the evangelist’s narrative descriptions only in 11:2; 20:18, 20; 21:12; and possibly 4:1 (but see tc note on “Jesus” there). There is thus but one undisputed preresurrection text in which the narrator calls Jesus “Lord.” This fact can be utilized on behalf of either reading: The participial phrase could be seen as a scribal addition harking back to 6:11 but which does not fit Johannine style, or it could be viewed as truly authentic and in line with what John indisputably does elsewhere even if rarely. On balance, in light of the overwhelming support for these words it is probably best to retain them in the text.
7 tn Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
8 tn The word “River” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for clarity.
9 sn John refers to John the Baptist.
10 tn Grk “formerly.”
sn This refers to the city of Bethany across the Jordan River (see John 1:28).
11 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.
12 tn Grk “was reclining.” This reflects the normal 1st century practice of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position.
13 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.
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.
14 tn Or “often.”
15 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
16 tn Or “the judge’s seat.”
sn The judgment seat (βῆμα, bhma) was a raised platform mounted by steps and usually furnished with a seat. It was used by officials in addressing an assembly or making official pronouncements, often of a judicial nature.
17 sn The precise location of the place called ‘The Stone Pavement’ is still uncertain, although a paved court on the lower level of the Fortress Antonia has been suggested. It is not certain whether it was laid prior to
18 tn Grk “in Hebrew.”
sn The author does not say that Gabbatha is the Aramaic (or Hebrew) translation for the Greek term Λιθόστρωτον (Liqostrwton). He simply points out that in Aramaic (or Hebrew) the place had another name. A number of meanings have been suggested, but the most likely appears to mean “elevated place.” It is possible that this was a term used by the common people for the judgment seat itself, which always stood on a raised platform.
19 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.
20 tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
21 sn See the note on Crucify in 19:6.
22 tn Or “an orchard.”
23 tn Or “orchard.”
24 tn Grk “been placed.”
25 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.
26 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.