translation_id: net-engnet

book_id: JHN

label: NET translator note

text: The time reference indicated by μετὰ ταῦτα ( meta tauta ) is indefinite, in comparison with the specific “after eight days” ( μεθ᾿ ἡμέρας ὀκτώ , meq ’ Jhmera" oktw ) between the two postresurrection appearances of Jesus in 20:26 .


text: Grk “how he revealed himself.”


text: Grk “and Thomas.” The conjunction καί ( kai , “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.


text: Grk “and Nathanael.” The conjunction καί ( kai , “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.


text: For location see Map1-C3 ; Map2-D2 ; Map3-C5 .


text: Grk “and the sons.” The conjunction καί ( kai , “and”) has not been translated here in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use a coordinating conjunction only between the last two elements of a series.


text: Grk “they said to him.”


text: The word προσφάγιον ( prosfagion ) is unusual. According to BDAG 886 s.v. in Hellenistic Greek it described a side dish to be eaten with bread, and in some contexts was the equivalent of ὄψον ( oyon ), “fish.” Used in addressing a group of returning fishermen, however, it is quite clear that the speaker had fish in mind.


text: 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 “do you?”).


text: Grk “They answered him.”


text: The word “some” is not in the Greek text but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.


text: The words “the net” are not in the Greek text but are implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.


text: Grk “the disciple, that one whom.”


text: Grk “for he was naked.” Peter’s behavior here has been puzzling to many interpreters. It is usually understood that the Greek word γυμνός ( gumnos , usually translated “naked”) does not refer to complete nudity (as it could), since this would have been offensive to Jewish sensibilities in this historical context. It is thus commonly understood to mean “stripped for work” here (cf. NASB, NLT), that is, with one’s outer clothing removed, and Peter was wearing either a loincloth or a loose-fitting tunic (a long shirt-like garment worn under a cloak, cf. NAB, “for he was lightly clad”). Believing himself inadequately dressed to greet the Lord, Peter threw his outer garment around himself and dived into the sea. C. K. Barrett ( St. John, 580-81) offered the explanation that a greeting was a religious act and thus could not be performed unless one was clothed. This still leaves the improbable picture of a person with much experience around the water putting on his outer garment before diving in. R. E. Brown’s suggestion ( John [AB], 2:1072) seems much more probable here: The Greek verb used ( διαζώννυμι , diazwnnumi ) does not necessarily mean putting clothing on, but rather tying the clothing around oneself (the same verb is used in 13:4-5 of Jesus tying the towel around himself). The statement that Peter was “naked” could just as well mean that he was naked underneath the outer garment , and thus could not take it off before jumping into the water. But he did pause to tuck it up and tie it with the girdle before jumping in, to allow himself more freedom of movement. Thus the clause that states Peter was naked is explanatory (note the use of for ), explaining why Peter girded up his outer garment rather than taking it off – he had nothing on underneath it and so could not remove it. sn This is a parenthetical note by the author.


text: Grk “threw himself.”


text: Or “about a hundred meters”; Grk “about two hundred cubits.” According to BDAG 812 s.v., a πῆχυς ( phcu" ) was about 18 inches or .462 meters, so two hundred πηχῶν ( phcwn ) would be about 100 yards (92.4 meters).


text: The words “on the beach” are not in the Greek text but are implied.


text: Grk “placed,” “laid.”


text: Grk “said to them.”


text: The words “It was” are not in the Greek text. Here a new sentence was begun in the translation in keeping with the tendency of contemporary English style to use shorter sentences. For this reason the words “It was” had to be supplied.


text: Grk “said to them.” The words “to them” are omitted because it is clear in context to whom Jesus was speaking, and the words are slightly redundant in English.


text: ( א * only has “Simon” without mention of his father) B C* D L W lat co.


text: To whom (or what) does “these” ( τούτων , toutwn ) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3 , “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed ( John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12 ). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12 , seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37 , “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33 ; Mark 14:29 ). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.


text: Grk “He said to him.”


text: Is there a significant difference in meaning between the two words for love used in the passage, ἀγαπάω and φιλέω ( agapaw and filew )? Aside from Origen, who saw a distinction in the meaning of the two words, most of the Greek Fathers like Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria, saw no real difference of meaning. Neither did Augustine nor the translators of the Itala (Old Latin). This was also the view of the Reformation Greek scholars Erasmus and Grotius. The suggestion that a distinction in meaning should be seen comes primarily from a number of British scholars of the 19th century, especially Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. It has been picked up by others such as Spicq, Lenski, and Hendriksen. But most modern scholars decline to see a real difference in the meaning of the two words in this context, among them Bernard, Moffatt, Bonsirven, Bultmann, Barrett, Brown, Morris, Haenchen, and Beasley-Murray. There are three significant reasons for seeing no real difference in the meaning of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses: (1) the author has a habit of introducing slight stylistic variations in repeated material without any significant difference in meaning (compare, for example, 3:3 with 3:5, and 7:34 with 13:33 ). An examination of the uses of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in the Fourth Gospel seems to indicate a general interchangeability between the two. Both terms are used of God’s love for man ( 3:16, 16:27 ); of the Father’s love for the Son ( 3:35, 5:20 ); of Jesus’ love for men ( 11:5, 11:3 ); of the love of men for men ( 13:34, 15:19 ); and of the love of men for Jesus ( 8:42, 16:27 ). (2) If (as seems probable) the original conversation took place in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew), there would not have been any difference expressed because both Aramaic and Hebrew have only one basic word for love. In the LXX both ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used to translate the same Hebrew word for love, although ἀγαπάω is more frequent. It is significant that in the Syriac version of the NT only one verb is used to translate vv. 15-17 (Syriac is very similar linguistically to Palestinian Aramaic). (3) Peter’s answers to the questions asked with ἀγαπάω are ‘yes’ even though he answers using the verb φιλέω . If he is being asked to love Jesus on a higher or more spiritual level his answers give no indication of this, and one would be forced to say (in order to maintain a consistent distinction between the two verbs) that Jesus finally concedes defeat and accepts only the lower form of love which is all that Peter is capable of offering. Thus it seems best to regard the interchange between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in these verses as a minor stylistic variation of the author, consistent with his use of minor variations in repeated material elsewhere, and not indicative of any real difference in meaning. Thus no attempt has been made to distinguish between the two Greek words in the translation.


text: Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Grk “said again.” The word “again” (when used in connection with the phrase “a second time”) is redundant and has not been translated.


text: Grk “said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.


text: Or “was sad.”


text: Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Grk “said to.”


text: Grk “and said to him.” The words “to him” are clear from the context and slightly redundant in English.


text: includes the words in brackets, indicating some doubts as to their authenticity. Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Grk “Jesus said to him.”


text: Grk “Truly, truly, I say to you.”


text: Or “you girded yourself.”


text: Grk “others will gird you.”


text: Grk “he”; the referent (Peter) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Grk “After he said this, he said to him”; the referents (first Jesus, second Peter) have been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: The word “them” is not in the Greek text but is implied. Direct objects were often omitted in Greek when clear from the context.


text: The words “This was the disciple” are not in the Greek text, but are supplied for clarity.


text: Grk “his”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


text: Grk “and said.”


text: Grk “saw this one.”


text: Grk “to stay” or “to remain”; but since longevity is the issue in the context, “to live” conveys the idea more clearly.


text: The word “back” is supplied to clarify the meaning.


text: Grk “went out.”


text: Grk “the brothers,” but here the term refers to more than just the immediate disciples of Jesus (as it does in 20:17 ). Here, as R. E. Brown notes ( John [AB], 2:1110), it refers to Christians of the Johannine community (which would include both men and women).


text: Grk “written”; the word “down” is supplied in keeping with contemporary English idiom.


text: Grk “the world itself.”