¹ tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C³ Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì⁷⁵ א¹ 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì⁶⁶ א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

² tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

³ tn Grk “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ sn Has made God known. In this final verse of the prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Logos, Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The unique One (John 1:14), the One who has taken on human form and nature by becoming incarnate (became flesh, 1:14), who is himself fully God (the Word was God, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like. As Jesus said to Philip in John 14:9, “The one who has seen me has seen the Father.”

⁵ tn Or (perhaps) “Stop making.”

⁶ tn Or “a house of merchants” (an allusion to Zech 14:21).

sn A marketplace. Zech 14:20-21, in context, is clearly a picture of the messianic kingdom. The Hebrew word translated “Canaanite” may also be translated “merchant” or “trader.” Read in this light, Zech 14:21 states that there will be no merchant in the house of the Lord in that day (the day of the Lord, at the establishment of the messianic kingdom). And what would Jesus’ words (and actions) in cleansing the temple have suggested to the observers? That Jesus was fulfilling messianic expectations would have been obvious – especially to the disciples, who had just seen the miracle at Cana with all its messianic implications.

⁷ sn Woman was a polite form of address (see BDAG 208-9 s.v. γυνή 1), similar to “Madam” or “Ma’am” used in English in different regions.

⁸ tn Grk “an hour.”

⁹ tn The verb is plural.

¹⁰ tn Grk “at that hour.”

¹¹ tn Grk “and makes them live.”

¹² tn Grk “the Son makes whomever he wants to live.”

¹³ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied to clarify that the following verbs (“heard,” “seen,” “have residing,” “do not believe”) are second person plural.

¹⁴ sn You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time. Compare Deut 4:12. Also see Deut 5:24 ff., where the Israelites begged to hear the voice no longer – their request (ironically) has by this time been granted. How ironic this would be if the feast is Pentecost, where by the 1st century a.d. the giving of the law at Sinai was being celebrated.

¹⁵ tn Or “you do not receive.”

¹⁶ tn Or “you will receive.”

¹⁷ sn The final condemnation will come from Moses himself – again ironic, since Moses is the very one the Jewish authorities have trusted in (placed your hope). This is again ironic if it is occurring at Pentecost, which at this time was being celebrated as the occasion of the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mt. Sinai. There is evidence that some Jews of the 1st century looked on Moses as their intercessor at the final judgment (see W. A. Meeks, The Prophet King [NovTSup], 161). This would mean the statement Moses, in whom you have placed your hope should be taken literally and relates directly to Jesus’ statements about the final judgment in John 5:28-29.

¹⁸ tn Or “drive away”; Grk “cast out.”

¹⁹ tn Or “attracts him,” or “pulls him.” The word is used of pulling or dragging, often by force. It is even used once of magnetic attraction (A. Oepke, TDNT 2:503).

sn The Father who sent me draws him. The author never specifically explains what this “drawing” consists of. It is evidently some kind of attraction; whether it is binding and irresistible or not is not mentioned. But there does seem to be a parallel with 6:65, where Jesus says that no one is able to come to him unless the Father has allowed it. This apparently parallels the use of Isaiah by John to reflect the spiritual blindness of the Jewish leaders (see the quotations from Isaiah in John 9:41 and 12:39-40).

²⁰ sn A quotation from Isa 54:13.

²¹ tn Or “listens to the Father and learns.”

²² tn Grk “And he said”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

²³ tn Grk “unless it has been permitted to him by the Father.”

²⁴ tn Grk “my judgment is true.”

²⁵ tn The phrase “when I judge” is not in the Greek text, but is implied by the context.

²⁶ tn The phrase “do so together” is not in the Greek text, but is implied by the context.

²⁷ tn Grk “They answered and said to him.”

²⁸ tn Or “Our father is Abraham.”

²⁹ tn Grk “Jesus said to them.”

³⁰ tc Although most mss (C W Θ Ψ 0250 Ë^1,13 33 Ï) have the imperfect ἦτε (hte, “you were”) here, making this sentence a proper second class condition, the harder reading, ἐστε (este, “you are”), is found in the better witnesses (Ì^66,75 א B D L 070 pc lat).

³¹ tc Some important mss (Ì⁶⁶ B* [700]) have the present imperative ποιεῖτε (poieite) here: “If you are Abraham’s children, then do,” while many others (א² C K L N Δ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 565 579 892 pm) add the contingent particle ἄν (an) to ἐποιεῖτε (epoieite) making it a more proper second class condition by Attic standards. The simple ἐποιεῖτε without the ἄν is the hardest reading, and is found in some excellent witnesses (Ì⁷⁵ א* B² D W Γ Θ 070 0250 1424 pm).

tn Or “you would do.”

³² tn Questions prefaced with μή (mh) in Greek anticipate a negative answer. This can sometimes be indicated by using a “tag” at the end in English (here the tag is “are you?”).

³³ tn Grk “Jesus answered.”

³⁴ tn Grk “is nothing.”

³⁵ tn The word “people” is not in the Greek text, but is supplied in English to clarify the plural Greek pronoun and verb.

³⁶ tn Grk “Because of this the Father loves me.”

³⁷ tn Or “die willingly.”

³⁸ tn Grk “answered them.”

³⁹ tn Or “the works.”

⁴⁰ tn Grk “Jesus answered them.”

⁴¹ tn Or “good works.”

⁴² tn Or “dedicated.”

⁴³ tn Or “they removed.”

⁴⁴ tn Grk “lifted up his eyes above.”

⁴⁵ tn Or “that you have heard me.”

⁴⁶ tn As a third person imperative in Greek, ἀκολουθείτω (akolouqeitw) is usually translated “let him follow me.” This could be understood by the modern English reader as merely permissive, however (“he may follow me if he wishes”). In this context there is no permissive sense, but rather a command, so the translation “he must follow me” is preferred.

⁴⁷ tn Grk “where I am, there my servant will be too.”

⁴⁸ tn Grk “I have not spoken from myself.”

⁴⁹ tn Grk “has given me commandment.”

⁵⁰ tn Or “his commandment results in eternal life.”

⁵¹ tn Grk “The things I speak, just as the Father has spoken to me, thus I speak.”

⁵² tn Grk “Because he knew”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁵³ tn Grk “had given all things into his hands.”

⁵⁴ tn Grk “Jesus said to him.”

⁵⁵ tn Or “I am the way, even the truth and the life.”

⁵⁶ tc There is a difficult textual problem here: The statement reads either “If you have known (ἐγνώκατε, egnwkate) me, you will know (γνώσεσθε, gnwsesqe) my Father” or “If you had really known (ἐγνώκειτε, egnwkeite) me, you would have known (ἐγνώκειτε ἄν or ἂν ἤδειτε [egnwkeite an or an hdeite]) my Father.” The division of the external evidence is difficult, but can be laid out as follows: The mss that have the perfect ἐγνώκατε in the protasis (Ì⁶⁶ [א D* W] 579 pc it) also have, for the most part, the future indicative γνώσεσθε in the apodosis (Ì⁶⁶ א D W [579] pc sa bo), rendering Jesus’ statement as a first-class condition. The mss that have the pluperfect ἐγνώκειτε in the protasis (A B C D¹ L Θ Ψ Ë^1,13 33 Ï) also have, for the most part, a pluperfect in the apodosis (either ἂν ἤδειτε in B C* [L] Q Ψ 1 33 565 al, or ἐγνώκειτε ἄν in A C³ Θ Ë¹³ Ï), rendering Jesus’ statement a contrary-to-fact second-class condition. The external evidence slightly favors the first-class condition, since there is an Alexandrian-Western alliance supported by Ì⁶⁶. As well, the fact that the readings with a second-class condition utilize two different verbs with ἄν in different positions suggests that these readings are secondary. However, it could be argued that the second-class conditions are harder readings in that they speak negatively of the apostles (so K. Aland in TCGNT 207); in this case, the ἐγνώκειτε…ἐγνώκειτε ἄν reading should be given preference. Although a decision is difficult, the first-class condition is to be slightly preferred. In this case Jesus promises the disciples that, assuming they have known him, they will know the Father. Contextually this fits better with the following phrase (v. 7b) which asserts that “from the present time you know him and have seen him” (cf. John 1:18).

⁵⁷ tn Grk “will know in that day.”

sn At that time could be a reference to the parousia (second coming of Christ). But the statement in 14:19, that the world will not see Jesus, does not fit. It is better to take this as the postresurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples (which has the advantage of taking in a little while in v. 19 literally).

⁵⁸ tn Or “does not keep.”

⁵⁹ tn Or “the message.”

⁶⁰ tn Or “keep.”

⁶¹ tn Or “reside.”

⁶² tn Or “kept.”

⁶³ tn Or “reside.”

⁶⁴ tn Grk “I said he”; the referent (the Spirit) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁶⁵ tn The words “what is mine” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

⁶⁶ tn Or “will announce it to you.”

⁶⁷ tn Grk “And in that day.”

⁶⁸ tn Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”

⁶⁹ sn This statement is also found in John 15:16.

⁷⁰ tn Grk “In that day.”

⁷¹ tn Grk “I do not say to you.”

⁷² tn The word “men” is not in the Greek text but is implied. The translation uses the word “men” here rather than a more general term like “people” because the use of the aorist verb ἔγνωσαν (egnwsan) implies that Jesus is referring to the disciples present with him as he spoke these words (presumably all of them men in the historical context), rather than to those who are yet to believe because of their testimony (see John 17:20).

⁷³ tn Grk “The cup that the Father has given me to drink, shall I not drink it?” The order of the clauses has been rearranged to reflect contemporary English style.

sn Jesus continues with what most would take to be a rhetorical question expecting a positive reply: “Shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” The cup is also mentioned in Gethsemane in the synoptics (Matt 26:39, Mark 14:36, and Luke 22:42). In connection with the synoptic accounts it is mentioned in Jesus’ prayer; this occurrence certainly complements the synoptic accounts if Jesus had only shortly before finished praying about this. Only here in the Fourth Gospel is it specifically said that the cup is given to Jesus to drink by the Father, but again this is consistent with the synoptic mention of the cup in Jesus’ prayer: It is the cup of suffering which Jesus is about to undergo.

⁷⁴ tn Grk “up, and brought.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

⁷⁵ sn Jesus was taken first to Annas. Only the Gospel of John mentions this pretrial hearing before Annas, and that Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who is said to be high priest in that year. Caiaphas is also mentioned as being high priest in John 11:49. But in 18:15, 16, 19, and 22 Annas is called high priest. Annas is also referred to as high priest by Luke in Acts 4:6. Many scholars have dismissed these references as mistakes on the part of both Luke and John, but as mentioned above, John 11:49 and 18:13 indicate that John knew that Caiaphas was high priest in the year that Jesus was crucified. This has led others to suggest that Annas and Caiaphas shared the high priesthood, but there is no historical evidence to support this view. Annas had been high priest from a.d. 6 to a.d. 15 when he was deposed by the Roman prefect Valerius Gratus (according to Josephus, Ant. 18.2.2 [18.34]). His five sons all eventually became high priests. The family was noted for its greed, wealth, and power. There are a number of ways the references in both Luke and John to Annas being high priest may be explained. Some Jews may have refused to recognize the changes in high priests effected by the Roman authorities, since according to the Torah the high priesthood was a lifetime office (Num 25:13). Another possibility is that it was simply customary to retain the title after a person had left the office as a courtesy, much as retired ambassadors are referred to as “Mr. Ambassador” or ex-presidents as “Mr. President.” Finally, the use of the title by Luke and John may simply be a reflection of the real power behind the high priesthood of the time: Although Annas no longer technically held the office, he may well have managed to control those relatives of his who did hold it from behind the scenes. In fact this seems most probable and would also explain why Jesus was brought to him immediately after his arrest for a sort of “pretrial hearing” before being sent on to the entire Sanhedrin.