(0.20) | (Act 3:11) | 3 sn Solomon’s Portico was a covered walkway formed by rows of columns supporting a roof and open on the inner side facing the center of the temple complex. It was located on the east side of the temple (Josephus, Ant. 15.11.3-5 [15.391-420], 20.9.7 [20.221]) and was a place of commerce and conversation. |
(0.20) | (Act 2:36) | 2 tn Grk “has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” The clause has been simplified in the translation by replacing the pronoun “him” with the explanatory clause “this Jesus whom you crucified” which comes at the end of the sentence. |
(0.20) | (Act 2:30) | 2 tn Grk “one from the fruit of his loins.” “Loins” is the traditional translation of ὀσφῦς (osphus), referring to the male genital organs. A literal rendering like “one who came from his genital organs” would be regarded as too specific and perhaps even vulgar by many contemporary readers. Most modern translations thus render the phrase “one of his descendants.” |
(0.20) | (Act 1:16) | 1 tn Grk “Men brothers.” In light of the compound phrase ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί (andres adelphoi, “Men brothers”) Peter’s words are best understood as directly addressed to the males present, possibly referring specifically to the twelve (really ten at this point—eleven minus the speaker, Peter) mentioned by name in v. 13. |
(0.20) | (Act 1:11) | 2 tc Codex Bezae (D) and several other witnesses lack the words εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν (eis ton ouranon, “into heaven”) here, most likely by way of accidental deletion. In any event, it is hardly correct to suppose that the Western text has intentionally suppressed references to the ascension of Christ here, for the phrase is solidly attested in the final clause of the verse. |
(0.20) | (Joh 20:18) | 4 tn The first part of Mary’s statement, introduced by ὅτι (hoti), is direct discourse (ἑώρακα τὸν κύριον, heōraka ton kurion), while the second clause switches to indirect discourse (καὶ ταῦτα εἶπεν αὐτῇ, kai tauta eipen autē). This has the effect of heightening the emphasis on the first part of the statement. |
(0.20) | (Joh 19:14) | 2 sn For John, the time was especially important. When the note concerning the hour, about noon, is connected with the day, the day of preparation for the Passover, it becomes apparent that Jesus was going to die on the cross at the very time that the Passover lambs were being slain in the temple courts. Exod 12:6 required that the Passover lamb be kept alive until the 14th Nisan, the eve of the Passover, and then slaughtered by the head of the household at twilight (Grk “between the two evenings”). By this time the slaughtering was no longer done by the heads of households, but by the priests in the temple courts. But so many lambs were needed for the tens of thousands of pilgrims who came to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast (some estimates run in excess of 100,000 pilgrims) that the slaughter could not be completed during the evening, and so the rabbis redefined “between the two evenings” as beginning at noon, when the sun began to decline toward the horizon. Thus the priests had the entire afternoon of 14th Nisan in which to complete the slaughter of the Passover lambs. According to the Fourth Gospel, this is the time Jesus was dying on the cross. |
(0.20) | (Joh 18:3) | 4 tn These were lamps that had some sort of covering to protect them from wind and rain. In earlier usage the word meant “torch” but by NT times it apparently meant a lamp designed to be used outdoors, so “lantern” is a good contemporary English equivalent. |
(0.20) | (Joh 18:3) | 4 sn Mention of the lanterns and torches suggests a detail remembered by one who was an eyewitness, but in connection with the light/darkness motif of John’s Gospel, it is a vivid reminder that it is night; the darkness has come at last (cf. 13:30). |
(0.20) | (Joh 12:40) | 3 tn One could also translate στραφῶσιν (straphōsin) as “repent” or “change their ways,” but both of these terms would be subject to misinterpretation by the modern English reader. The idea is one of turning back to God, however. The words “to me” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. |
(0.20) | (Joh 12:26) | 1 tn As a third person imperative in Greek, ἀκολουθείτω (akoloutheitō) 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. |
(0.20) | (Joh 11:33) | 3 tn Or “greatly troubled.” The verb ταράσσω (tarassō) also occurs in similar contexts to those of ἐνεβριμήσατο (enebrimēsato). John uses it in 14:1 and 27 to describe the reaction of the disciples to the imminent death of Jesus, and in 13:21 the verb describes how Jesus reacted to the thought of being betrayed by Judas, into whose heart Satan had entered. |
(0.20) | (Joh 10:12) | 4 tn Or “seizes.” The more traditional rendering, “snatches,” has the idea of seizing something by force and carrying it off, which is certainly possible here. However, in the sequence in John 10:12, this action precedes the scattering of the flock of sheep, so “attacks” is preferable. |
(0.20) | (Joh 9:34) | 2 tn Or “From birth you have been evil.” The implication of this insult, in the context of John 9, is that the man whom Jesus caused to see had not previously adhered rigorously to all the conventional requirements of the OT law as interpreted by the Pharisees. Thus he had no right to instruct them about who Jesus was. |
(0.20) | (Joh 10:1) | 2 sn There was more than one type of sheepfold in use in Palestine in Jesus’ day. The one here seems to be a courtyard in front of a house (the Greek word used for the sheepfold here, αὐλή [aulē] frequently refers to a courtyard), surrounded by a stone wall (often topped with briars for protection). |
(0.20) | (Joh 9:22) | 1 tn Or “the Jewish religious authorities”; Grk “the Jews.” Twice in this verse the phrase refers to the Pharisees, mentioned by name in John 9:13, 15, 16. The second occurrence is shortened to “the Jewish leaders” for stylistic reasons. See the note on the phrase “the Jewish religious leaders” in v. 18. |
(0.20) | (Joh 9:15) | 1 sn So the Pharisees asked him. Note the subtlety here: On the surface, the man is being judged. But through him, Jesus is being judged. Yet in reality (as the discerning reader will realize) it is ironically the Pharisees themselves who are being judged by their response to Jesus who is the light of the world (cf. 3:17-21). |
(0.20) | (Joh 9:7) | 2 sn This is a parenthetical note by the author. Why does he comment on the meaning of the name of the pool? Here, the significance is that the Father sent the Son, and the Son sent the man born blind. The name of the pool is applicable to the man, but also to Jesus himself, who was sent from heaven. |
(0.20) | (Joh 8:19) | 1 tn Grk “Then they were saying to him.” The imperfect verb has been translated with ingressive force here because of the introduction of a new line of questioning by the Pharisees. Jesus had just claimed his Father as a second witness; now his opponents want to know who his father is. |
(0.20) | (Joh 7:52) | 3 tn This claim by the leaders presents some difficulty because Jonah had been from Gath Hepher, in Galilee (2 Kgs 14:25). Also the Babylonian Talmud later stated, “There was not a tribe in Israel from which there did not come prophets” (b. Sukkah 27b). Two explanations are possible: (1) In the heat of anger the members of the Sanhedrin overlooked the facts (this is perhaps the easiest explanation). (2) This anarthrous noun is to be understood as a reference to the prophet of Deut 18:15 (note the reading of P66 which is articular), by this time an eschatological figure in popular belief. This would produce in the text of John’s Gospel a high sense of irony indeed, since the religious authorities by their insistence that “the Prophet” could not come from Galilee displayed their true ignorance of where Jesus came from on two levels at once (Bethlehem, his birthplace, the fulfillment of Mic 5:2, but also heaven, from which he was sent by the Father). The author does not even bother to refute the false attestation of Jesus’ place of birth as Galilee (presumably Christians knew all too well where Jesus came from). |