Yohanes 1:10

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was created ¹  by him, but ²  the world did not recognize ³  him.

Yohanes 7:28

7:28 Then Jesus, while teaching in the temple courts, ⁴  cried out, ⁵  “You both know me and know where I come from! ⁶  And I have not come on my own initiative, ⁷  but the one who sent me ⁸  is true. You do not know him, ⁹ 

Yohanes 14:17

14:17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, ¹⁰  because it does not see him or know him. But you know him, because he resides ¹¹  with you and will be ¹²  in you.

[1:10]  ¹ tn Or “was made”; Grk “came into existence.”

[1:10]  ² tn Grk “and,” but in context this is an adversative use of καί (kai) and is thus translated “but.”

[1:10]  ³ tn Or “know.”

[7:28]  ⁴ tn Grk “the temple.”

[7:28]  ⁵ tn Grk “Then Jesus cried out in the temple, teaching and saying.”

[7:28]  ⁶ sn You both know me and know where I come from! Jesus’ response while teaching in the temple is difficult – it appears to concede too much understanding to his opponents. It is best to take the words as irony: “So you know me and know where I am from, do you?” On the physical, literal level, they did know where he was from: Nazareth of Galilee (at least they thought they knew). But on another deeper (spiritual) level, they did not: He came from heaven, from the Father. Jesus insisted that he has not come on his own initiative (cf. 5:37), but at the bidding of the Father who sent him.

[7:28]  ⁷ tn Grk “And I have not come from myself.”

[7:28]  ⁸ tn The phrase “the one who sent me” refers to God.

[7:28]  ⁹ tn Grk “the one who sent me is true, whom you do not know.”

[14:17]  ¹⁰ tn Or “cannot receive.”

[14:17]  ¹¹ tn Or “he remains.”

[14:17]  ¹² tc Some early and important witnesses (Ì^66* B D* W 1 565 it) have ἐστιν (estin, “he is”) instead of ἔσται (estai, “he will be”) here, while other weighty witnesses ({Ì^66c,75vid א A D¹ L Θ Ψ Ë¹³ 33^vid Ï as well as several versions and fathers}), read the future tense. When one considers transcriptional evidence, ἐστιν is the more difficult reading and better explains the rise of the future tense reading, but it must be noted that both Ì⁶⁶ and D were corrected from the present tense to the future. If ἐστιν were the original reading, one would expect a few manuscripts to be corrected to read the present when they originally read the future, but that is not the case. When one considers what the author would have written, the future is on much stronger ground. The immediate context (both in 14:16 and in the chapter as a whole) points to the future, and the theology of the book regards the advent of the Spirit as a decidedly future event (see, e.g., 7:39 and 16:7). The present tense could have arisen from an error of sight on the part of some scribes or more likely from an error of thought as scribes reflected upon the present role of the Spirit. Although a decision is difficult, the future tense is most likely authentic. For further discussion on this textual problem, see James M. Hamilton, Jr., “He Is with You and He Will Be in You” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 213-20.