That which represents the neuter of the Greek relative pronoun. It is used here in spite of the fact that the Greek term it ultimately refers to, namely logos “word,” is masculine in gender. This grammatical incongruity serves a purpose. It suggests (but not more than “suggests”) that the situation and qualities of the word cannot clearly and unequivocally be described in human language. In languages with quite different grammatical categories, however, it usually is impossible to imitate this stylistic trait; attempts to express it in other ways tend to result in overtranslation or in change of meaning.
From the beginning. The use of from serves to indicate that the Word not only appeared at the moment mentioned (as expressed by “In the beginning,” Gen 1.1; John 1.1), but that it has existed and been active ever since. Thus the period concerned reaches from the earliest point of time to the present; hence, ‘from of old’ in one version. Compare also such a rendering of the clause as “which has always existed” (Phillips).
† The beginning: here (and in 2.13-14; 3.8; compare also on 3.11) the noun refers to the beginning of creation. At other occurrences the reference is to the beginning of the preaching of the gospel; compare 2.7. If the noun has to be rendered by a verb, one may say, ‘ever since the world began (or was created, or existed).’
The noun beginning is expressed in some languages by terms, or derivations of terms, which literally mean ‘origin,’ ‘root,’ ‘trunk,’ ‘place-where-the-canoe-point-rolls-first,’ etc.
Which we have heard, or, changing to a coordinate sentence, ‘we have heard it (that is, the Word),’ or, where one has to indicate the person who has been speaking, ‘we have heard him (speak),’ ‘we have heard his words.’ This and the two following clauses serve to express that the Word has been perceived through the use of these three senses: hearing, sight, and touch.
Which we have seen with our eyes: in some languages it would be redundant to say with our eyes in combination with the verb ‘to see.’ In such cases the emphatic function of this prepositional phrase must be expressed by other means; for example, ‘we ourselves actually have seen it/him,’ ‘our (own) eyes were fixed upon him.’
These two relative clauses together form the first part of verse 1b. The verbs are both in the perfect tense, showing that the reference is to an event in the past that is still effective in the present. The clause about seeing the word has a more elaborate form than the clause about hearing it.
The second part of verse 1b (which we have looked upon and touched with our hands) resembles the first in rhythm and structure. In this part also the second statement is more elaborate than the first, and the two verbs are in the same tense, which is the aorist, however. Since the meaning of this tense seems not basically to differ here from that of the preceding perfects, it was probably chosen for reasons of stylistic variation only.
Which we have looked upon. The function of this clause is more or less a transitional one. It leads to the fourth and strongest statement of verse 1b, which forms its climax: the object is not only heard and seen, but even touched. The Greek verb used here refers in some contexts to attentive seeing and observing, or has a somewhat solemn sound, but in the Johannine writings it is virtually interchangeable with the more common Greek verb for “to see” used in the directly preceding clause. Accordingly this variation seems again to be for stylistic rather than semantic reasons.
And touched with our hands, or (closer to the Greek) ‘and (which) our hands touched,’ which is a construction that is more natural in some receptor languages. The term hands is often used to refer to, or to emphasize, agency. Therefore ‘and which we ourselves (actually) have touched’ is a perfectly legitimate rendering of the clause. Such a rendering will be especially useful where the combination ‘to touch with the hands’ would be unduly redundant.
The verb have … touched is used to stress the reality and bodily existence of that which was from the beginning and was perceived by the eyewitnesses. In Luke 24.39 the same Greek verb is used to indicate that Jesus has risen, not as a ghost or spirit, but as a corporeal being. Other possible renderings of the verb are ‘to handle,’ ‘to feel all over,’ ‘to move one’s hand over (the body of).’ In some cultures touching has undesirable connotations. Therefore one Mayan language uses ‘we were close to him.’
The construction the word of life expresses that the first noun is equated with, or qualified by, the second; hence ‘the Word which is life,’ or ‘the Word which gives life,’ ‘the Word which causes people to live,’ ‘the Word, the life,’ are possible renderings of this phrase.
In this verse the word should preferably be interpreted along the lines of the Prologue to the Gospel of John. Taken thus it refers to the divine Word by which the world has been created and exists, which reveals God’s being and expresses his will, wisdom, and power, and has become man in the person of Jesus Christ (John 1.14). Accordingly it functions here as a descriptive name or a title and may be marked as such; compare several versions that use a capital (King James Version [King James Version], Good News Translation, Nieuwe Vertaling, Bible de Jérusalem, and others). Except for such a marker the rendering of word to be used here should not basically differ from the one used in “his word” and “the word of God” (1.10; 2.5,14).
† For word (also in 2.7; 3.18; 3 John 10) the receptor language may have a term that has a wider meaning than that of “a single word” and covers several related concepts, for example, ‘word/speech/message,’ ‘word/matter/idea,’ ‘speech/voice/sound/word/command,’ ‘phrase/sentence/statement,’ ‘utterance/saying/narrative/message,’ ‘word/speech/thought/action.’ There is no objection against the use of such a term as long as it includes a reference to meaningful expression.
In some receptor languages word must be modified to indicate possession, or its normal rendering is not a noun but a verbal expression. This may lead to the use of some expression that uses several words, such as ‘he who is (called) God’s word (or God’s voice),’ ‘he in whom God speaks.’ For the clash that may arise between grammatical categories for the inanimate and the animate, or personal, see above, the third general remark on verses 1-4.
† Life is in Greek zōē, occurring also in 1.2; 2.25; 3.14-15; 5.11 and following, 16, 20. It refers to vitality, the (not essentially personal) principle and force of life, animating man’s motion and action, his intellect and emotions. The Greek term is distinguished from the more personal psuchē (3.16; 3 John 2), that is, “(breath of) life,” “soul,” “principle of life,” referring to natural life, then to the seat and center of man’s inner life with its many and varied aspects, its desires, feelings, and emotions; and from bios (2.16f), that is, life on earth in its functions and duration, then also basic essentials of life, “livelihood,” “property.”
In the Johannine writings zōē is often used in a sense that is further developed, namely, real life, life seen as something which man does not possess by nature, but which God gives to those who believe in Christ. For John it is not an abstraction but a reality, as real as Christ himself, with whom it is equated (John 11.25; 14.6; compare also Paul’s “Christ who is our life” in Col 3.4). A fuller expression of the same concept is “eternal life,” see comments on 1 John 1.2b.
Several receptor languages employ two or three distinctive terms not unlike the Greek ones. Thus one Aztec language distinguishes between a word for ‘heart life’ (suitable here, since it is thought of as animating every part of man’s intellectual and emotional existence) and a term for physical existence, the type of life every animal has. In some other languages the rendering used literally means ‘strong breast’ or ‘undyingness,’ or it is associated with ‘having breath’ or ‘growth.’ The fact that this kind of life is not man’s by nature may make necessary the use of a qualifying term, as in ‘new life,’ or ‘new self/personality/innermost-being.’
Quoted with permission from Haas, C., de Jonge, M. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on The First Letter of John. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1972. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .