"Comprehended" is grammatically closer to the Greek word, but there doesn't need to be a gap in meaning. "Overcome" is implied by "comprehended". — Πετροκότσυφας

"To overcome" is rather ambiguous in that context, though. At least in modern language. "To overcome" can mean "to understand", but the word has also been translated as "overpowered" and "extinguished", implying that the darkness attempted and failed to challenge the light in some way.

Christianity initially developed as a marginalized and persecuted cult, and that is reflected in the tone of the scriptures, which is alternately grandiose, ingratiating, impatient, angry and despairing.

I think what it means is that you can shine a light into darkness to illuminate the dark areas but you cannot shine darkness into a light area to make it dark,

I am sure you can draw your own conclusions as to the significance of this.

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. — Tzeentch

καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

And the light in the darkness shone, and the darkness it not grasped.

The trick, or problem, is with the "comprehended." katelaben. This from Donald Kraus: "This verb means “to take (as in the hand) in such a way as to hold firmly or fully.” By extension it means “to understand, comprehend.” […] In the final phrase of this extract, “the light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not katelaben it,” there is a classic translator’s dilemma. The writer probably meant both “hold so as to extinguish” and “understand the nature of” — the darkness has not extinguished the light, and the darkness has not understood the real nature of the light. In English, however, it is not possible to convey both of these meanings at once, and therefore it is necessary to choose." (Choosing a Bible)

And we're off to the races. The seventh word, phainei, means shines forth. It also means appear.

For my money, the world of the Bible is sufficiently remote that it cannot be understood through translation. Its meaning, then, is what translators say it is. It can, however, be used to regulate the efforts of translators. It becomes an exercise akin to discerning the detail in newspaper photos - if you look too closely the photo dissolves into dots.

It calls the question as to the difference between translation and meaning - what, in short, a translation means.

In the case of the bible, I think it's useless to ask what it means. All you've got is what you think, and what others think; you choose from that. As a corollary, the entire Bible is properly up for question, every bit of it.

Much of the Bible deals with turning away from God who is also personified light, as in the light of the Spirit. For someone who has turned away from God, His light will not be comprehended by the person's soul's "darkness." Also, his or her darkness will not overcome the Light, which to me means that God's Light will always prevail.

Just my interpretation.

I'll share my exact thoughts on this later. For now I would like to hear what you have to say. Also, feel free to give your thoughts on other translations of the phrase. — Tzeentch

The preceding verses identified Jesus as the Logos and the light. Logos is kind of like divine mind or intellect. So I think the verse is saying that Divine Intellect took corporeal form. The darkness is matter. There are all sorts of gnostic echos and harmonics to it, mixed with stuff that came much later than this text was written.

A religion scholar's explanation of the text would be like the darkness in a way: it's like dead matter. It's the verbal debris of an historic event.

If reading the text blows the debris up into a living whirlwind, that's the light. It's alive, now.

I also take "light" to mean "knowledge." So, to be "in the light" would be to know God.

Isaiah 9:2 (KJV) says, "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."

"Light" and "darkness" are ancient themes, as is the shadow of death. Light is good, darkness is bad, generally. We stumble in the dark. Bad things lurk in the dark, waiting to pounce on unwary walkers. I won't go so far as to equate darkness with evil, however. More like a profound ignorance of God's goodness; an indifference.

The light, in this case, was seen. And then what? Were the people perpetually enlightened? No. But once, at least, they saw the light.

Here's G. F. Handel's setting; you can sing along!

It could mean 'there's non so blind as those that will not see'

Well, the Gospel of John is the last of the Gospels, and by the time it was written Christianity was absorbing pagan philosophy. So, we have reference to the Logos, which had been standard in pagan thought for centuries before Jesus lived, and the only reference I know of in the Gospels where it's claimed that the Word, or Logos, was made flesh--thus Jesus is God made flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity. "The Light" also was in common use as a metaphor for the divine or the good or wisdom. Maybe there are Gnostic influences involved in this Gospel; maybe the Mithras cult, which became popular in the 1st century and emphasized the light was influential; who knows? In any case, the divine light or good or wisdom is typically always present but generally unperceived by sinful, ignorant humanity. In this case, Jesus was the Light, ever shining, but unperceived until John the Baptist came along, etc. as in this Gospel.

Jesus was talking about the Sanhedrin when he mentioned that.

That's very insightful. Especially the dual meaning of the last part of the phrase.

I also like the "it means what you think it means"-approach. A phrase can make us see things which we hadn't before and be a source of wisdom, regardless of the intended meaning.

The preceding verses identified Jesus as the Logos and the light. Logos is kind of like divine mind or intellect. So I think the verse is saying that Divine Intellect took corporeal form. The darkness is matter. There are all sorts of gnostic echos and harmonics to it, mixed with stuff that came much later than this text was written. — frank

This I have noticed when reading certain passages. These sorts of influences are very rarely talked about, even though they are fascinating and make me look at Christianity and the Bible in an entirely different way. I am no church-goer, but I wonder how much time is spent by the average modern Christian on such topics.

What's your interpretation?

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." — Tzeentch

In reading it in a vacuum, not trying to contextualize it to the speaker or time or place, I read it as a metaphorical statement that when the good (the light) is presented to its opposite (darkness, or evil), evil is at a complete loss of how to respond, so much so that it cannot even comprehend the good.

The light is whatever one takes to be the highest good and darkness its opposite. In a Christian context, the light would be love perhaps (consider substituting "love" for "light" in the above quote). In an OT context, perhaps substitute "justice" or "wisdom" for "light."

God is light, darkness is absence of light - absence of everything = nothing. So a part of God only recognising the darkness is unable to recognise itself and stays in darkness.

"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." — Tzeentch

I think, from the previous verses in the chapter, the light is in reference to God's wisdom, the Word, and its influence on mankind.

It's like a riddle. On the one hand, the light/wisdom of God is ever upon our darkness/ignorance. And on the other hand, our darkness/ignorance prevents us from realising that light/wisdom. So, in our ignorance, we are blinded to the ever-present wisdom of God.

Thank you all for your various inputs. They have been helpful and insightful.

I've read some interpretations that are pretty close to my own, but I will share mine anyway;

"And the light shineth in darkness;"

Prior to the existence of human consciousness, humans were essentially animals. The darkness represents those animalistic parts of our being. Yet, at one point in our evolution mankind received consciousness; a gateway to truth and wisdom, and like a light it shines within us.

The light contrasts darkness, like the conscious contrasts the unconscious, like wisdom contrasts ignorance.

"and the darkness comprehended it not."

However, the animal parts of our nature predominate, and thus we remain largely ignorant of the light of truth that shines within us.

This interpretation probably needs some context, but I won't care to elaborate on that right now. I am open to refining my interpretation though, so feel free to ask questions or discuss.

Your view is typical of Gnosticism.

Consider the wording of the paragraphs in which "the light" appears here. "The Word" in this Gospel was at the beginning, and was God, but "He" was also "with God" in the beginning. In "him" was life, and that life was "the light" of all mankind. That light shines in the darkness, but is not overcome or perceived or whatever.

A man named John was sent by God as a witness to the light, to testify to the light. He was a witness to the light, not the light. The light gives light to the world. "He" (the light) was in the world, but the world didn't recognize him. "His own" didn't receive him.

"The light" is clearly Jesus. He came among us, but was not recognized for what he was. "His own" (maybe the Jews?) rejected him. But of course, being the light, his is not overcome even if not perceived.

Jesus is/was God, and God is more than one Person. It's the most definite statement to this effect you'll find in the Gospels

I don't know much about Gnosticism, but this particular interpretation was inspired by Hermetic philosophy. Hermeticism was influenced by Gnosticism.

Cool.

The Arguments, Logic, and Terminology that lead to this Conclusion will be found on the website at http://TheInterMind.com . The following is taken from the "An Interesting Conclusion" section :

The previous arguments I hope have shown that the Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are not in the Physical Mind so the conscious experience of these things must be manufactured somewhere in the Inter Mind to Conscious Mind segment of the Inter Mind Model. Even if someday the Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are actually found to be in the Physical Mind it is still true that they are inside us and part of what we are. If we can agree that Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are created totally internal to us then we can only conclude that we are the Conscious Light and the Conscious Sound. The Conscious Light and Conscious Sound are aspects of what we really are. We are the Light and the Sound that we have always experienced. The Inter Mind must paint that beautifully colorized high definition Conscious Light Scene onto some Conscious vaguely rectangular screen that we perceive as floating in front of our faces. The Inter Mind must also create that surround sound Conscious Sound Scene that seems to be all around us.

But the Inter Mind that does all that is part of what we are. Maybe the Physical Mind (and the whole Physical Body) are just one component of what we are. Maybe our Inter Mind and Conscious Mind components are really the larger part and the most important aspect of what we are. Our Physical differences become irrelevant because we are all made out of the same Conscious stuff in Conscious Space. Note that the experience of Light and Sound is emphasized in these arguments but all Conscious experience, Taste, Smell, Touch, Love, Hate, Pleasure, Pain, etc. are experienced in the Conscious Mind not in the Physical Mind. There will be Neural Correlates in the Physical Mind but the eventual experience is in the Conscious Mind.

Interesting thoughts, but could you explain a little more on how this relates to the quote?