Logos, Word

Click here to view graphically

Newman / Nida describe some of the difficulties surrounding the translation of the Greek “Logos” which is typically translated as “Word” in English (click or tap here to read more):

“The term ‘the Word’ has a rich heritage, by way of both its Greek and Jewish backgrounds. For the Greeks who held to a theistic view of the universe, it could be understood as the means by which God reveals himself to the world, while among those who were pantheistic in outlook, the Word was the principle that held the world together and at the same time endowed men with the wisdom for living. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint), the Word could be used both of the means by which God had created the world (Ps 33:6) and through which he had revealed himself to the world (Jer 1:4; Ezek 1:3; Amos 3:1). Among certain of the Greek-speaking Jews of New Testament times, there was much speculation about the ‘wisdom’ of God, which God ‘made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began’ (Prov 8:22-23). (…) By the time that John writes his Gospel, the Word is close to being recognized as a personal being, and it has roles relating to the manner in which God created the world and to the way in which God reveals himself to the world that he brought into being. Moffatt [whose English translation of the New Testament was published in 1913], realizing the difficulty in finding a term equivalent in meaning to the one used by John, transliterates the Greek term: ‘the Logos existed in the very beginning’ [see also Hart’s translation below or The Orthodox New Testament, 2000)]; while Phillips [New Testament translation published in 1958] at least makes an effort to give his translation meaning: ‘at the beginning God expressed himself.’

“Though the Greek term logos may be rendered ‘word,’ it would be wrong to think it indicates primarily a grammatical or lexical unit in a sentence. Greek has two other terms which primarily identify individual words, whether they occur in a list (as in a dictionary) or in a sentence. The term logos, though applicable to an individual word, is more accurately understood as an expression with meaning; that is, it is ‘a message,’ ‘a communication,’ and, as indicated, a type of ‘revelation.’ A literal translation, therefore, more or less equivalent to English ‘word,’ is frequently misleading.

“In some languages there are additional complications. For example, in some languages the term ‘word’ is feminine in gender, and therefore any reference to it must also be feminine [or neuter — see German below]. As a result, the possible use of pronouns in reference to Jesus Christ can be confusing. Furthermore, in many languages a term such as ‘word’ must be possessed. One cannot speak about ‘the word’ without indicating who spoke the word, since words do not exist apart from the persons who utter them.

“Because of these and other difficulties, many translators treat the term ‘Word’ or Logos as a title, and that is precisely what it is. The very fact that it is normally capitalized in English translations marks it as a title; but in many languages the fact of its being a title must be more clearly indicated by some explicit expression, for example, ‘the one who was called the Word’ [see Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac below] or ‘the one known as the Word’ [see German below] In this way the reader can understand from the beginning that ‘Word’ is to be understood as a designation for a person.

“Therefore, this first sentence in John 1:1 may be rendered ‘Before the world was created, the one who was known as the Word existed’ or ‘… the person called the Word existed.’ In languages which employ honorific forms it is particularly appropriate to use such an indication with the title ‘Word.’ Such a form immediately marks the designation as the title of deity or of a very important personage, depending, of course, upon the usage in the language in question.”

Translation for “Logos” include:

  • Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac: “the one who is called the Word”
  • Sayula Popoluca: “the Word by which God is known”
  • Miahuatlán Zapotec: “one who revealed God’s thoughts”
  • Alekano: “God’s wise Speech”
  • Tojolabal: “he who told us about God” (Source for this and above: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February, 1970, p. 1-125.)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “Jesus Christ the person who is the Word, he who gives eternal life”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “the Word that gives new life to our hearts”
  • Garifuna: “the one named Word, the one who gives life” (Source for this and two above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)
  • Tzeltal de Oxchuc y Tenejapa (Highland Tzeltal): te C’opile: “the Word” (in a new, 2001 version of the New Testament to avoid the previous translation “the Word of God,” a term also used for “Bible.” — Source: Robert Bascom)
  • Mairasi: “The Message” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • German: Er, der ‘das Wort’ ist: “He who is ‘the Word'” — this solution circumvents the different gender of Jesus (masculine) and “das Wort” (neuter) (in: Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, 3rd edition: 1997) / Zürcher Bibel, 2007 revision: “the Word, the Logos” (das Wort, der Logos — “Logos” is defined as masculine)
  • Anindilyakwa: Originally translated as N-ayakwa-murra or “he having the properties of a word/message/language.” Since this was not understandable, it is now “Jesus Christ, the one who revealed God who was hidden from us.” (Source: Julie Waddy in The Bible Translator 2004, p. 452ff. )
  • Kwang: “He who is called ‘The reality (lit: the body) of the Word of God himself’” (source: Mark Vanderkooi)
  • Kikuyu: Ũhoro or “Affair”/”Matter” (source: Leonard Beecher in The Bible Translator 1964, p. 117ff. )
  • Dholuo: Wach: “Word” (but also: “problem,” “issue,” or “matter”) (source: Jim Harries)
  • Matumbi: Liyi’gi’yo or “spoken Word” (as opposed to yi’gi’ya or “the word to be heard”) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)
  • Assamese: বাক্য (bakya) / Bengali: বাক্ (bāk) / Telugu: వాక్యము (vākyamu) / Hindi (some versions): वचन (vachan). All these terms are derived from the Sanskrit vach (वाच्), meaning “speech,” “voice,” “talk,” “language,” or “sound.” Historically, “in early Vedic literature, vach was the creative power in the universe. Sometimes she appears alone, sometimes with Prajapati, the creator god. She is called ‘Mother of the Vedas.’ All of this suggest an interesting parallel with logos. From the Upanishads on [late Vedic period, the Vedic period overall stretches from c. 1500–500 BC), however, she retreats from her creative role and becomes identified with Saraswati, the goddess of speech.”
  • Sanskrit and Hindi (some versions): शब्द (shabda), meaning “speech sound.” Historically, “Shabda is of importance from the Upanishads on. As shabda-brahman it is eternal and is the ground of the phenomenal world.” (Source for this and above: R.M. Clark in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 81ff. )
  • Sinhala: ධර්මයාණෝ (dharmayāṇō), meaning “philosophy” or “religion.”
  • Tonga: Folofola: “Originally, the term is used in the kingly language and is related to the meaning of unrolling the mat, an indispensable item in Tongan traditions. The mats, especially those with beautiful and elaborate designs, are usually rolled up and kept carefully until the visit of a guest to the house. The term thus evokes to the Tongans the idea of God’s Word being unrolled to reveal his love and salvation for mankind.” (Source: Joseph Hong in The Bible Translator 1994, p. 329ff. )
  • Pitjantjatjara: Tjukurnga: “Dreaming” (“a form of religious mapping, an ideological construction whereby the universe is rendered understandable in religious terms; it is the collection of myths, stories, and practices by which the land is perceived and through which a person makes sense of the world.” For more tap or click here.)

    “Like many crucial terms [Tjukurnga] is thankfully untranslatable. Its possible meanings are: (1) story; (2) Dreaming or Law (with a capital; there is an emerging Aboriginal desire for this sense of the word not to be given an English equivalent any longer); (3) message; (4) news; (5) individual word; (6) what someone says, thing said; and (7) birthmark, wart, which is regarded as showing something that is distinct and personal.

    “It seems that with tjukurpa [the root form of Tjukurnga] is not so much the untranslatability of Christian and Aboriginal ideas but the potential for a word such as this to release the controls and spin out in all sorts of unexpected direction. For what takes off here is precisely the ‘Word.’ Not only does tjukurpa designate the Word, the logos, the meaningful expression or creative principle — or indeed story, saying, message, news, birthmark, Law … — but it is also used at times for ‘parable’ (Mark 4:13 et al.), for the translation of ‘word’ elsewhere (Mark 4:14), and for ‘gospel’ itself. Thus, Mark 1:1 has Tjukurpa Palya, ‘good Tjukurpa‘ (with a capital!) for ‘gospel.’ (…) Once let loose, it is as though tjukurpa cannot stop, for the whole mini-Bible, comprising most of the New Testament and sections of the Hebrew Bible, is itself Tjukurpa Polya: Irititja munu Kuwaritja, ‘The good Tjukurpa: old and new.’ (Source: Boer 2008, p. 154ff.)

  • Ajië: Nô (click or tap here to read an explanation by Maurice Leenhardt — in The Bible Translator 1951, p. 154ff. ):

    “There are other words that the learned translators of the West have in vain tried to render into rich tongues as French or Latin. They found obscure expressions for the common ‘word’ or ‘speech’ (…) It would seem that these words would present insurmountable difficulties for the translator in primitive languages. Missionaries of the Loyalty Islands could not find the word to translate ‘Word,’ nor have they imagined that there could be a corresponding term in the native language. They simply introduced the Greek word into the vocabulary, pronouncing it in the native fashion, ‘In the beginning the Logos’. These people are intelligent; and do not appreciate pronouncing words which make no sense whatsoever. However, when a Caledonian speaks French, he translates his thoughts as they seem to him the most adequate. He can easily express himself relative to the man who has conceived good things, has said them, or done them. He simply describes such a person as, ‘The word of this man is good’. Thought, speech, and action are all included in the New Caledonian term nô. In speaking of an adulterous man one may say, ‘He has done an evil word’. One may speak of a chief who does not think, order, or act correctly as, ‘His word is not good’. The expression ‘the Word of God’ is limited in our speech to meaning of the divine Scriptures, but in New Caledonian it includes the thoughts and acts of God, ‘God said and it was done’. The New Caledonian has no difficulty in seeing the Word becoming action, becoming flesh, the word becoming a physical reality. Our deceased colleague Laffay once said: ‘I prefer to read John in the Ajië rather than in French’.

  • Spanish / Portuguese / Italian: Palabra / Palavra / Parola vs. Verbo. In all of these Romance languages, there is an older version of “Word” (Verbo), that today primarily means “verb” or “action,” mostly used by older Bible translations, and a more modern word (Palabra / Palavra / Parola) which primarily means “Word,” mostly used by newer Bible translations. This not only creates two different historical translations for a major theological term in those languages but also opens up new semantic facets when taking the meaning of Verbo in a modern context. (See Mindy Misener in The Christian Century ). Note that La Biblia Latinoamérica (publ. 1972) has “el Verbo (la Palabra)” in John 1:1.

The recent English New Testament translation by David Bentley Hart (2017), that uses the transliteration Logos for the Greek Λόγος, says this about its translation (p. 549ff.): “In certain special instances it is quite impossible for a translator to reduce [Λόγος] to a single word in English, or in any other tongue (though one standard Chinese version of the Bible renders logos in the prologue of John’s Gospel as 道 (dao), which is about as near as any translation could come to capturing the scope and depth of the word’s religious, philosophical, and metaphoric associations in those verses, while also carrying the additional meaning of “speech” or “discourse”).”

Below you can find some background of this remarkable Chinese translation (click or tap here to read more):

Dao 道, which developed into a central concept of classical Chinese philosophy, originally carried the meaning of “path” and “(main) road.” From there it developed into “leading” and “teaching” as well as “say” and “speak.”

As early as the 7th century BC, however, dao appears with the meaning “method.” With this and the derived meaning of “the (right) way” and “moral principle,” dao became one of the central concepts of the Confucian writings.

In Daoist writings (especially in the Daodejing ), dao goes far beyond the Confucian meaning to take on creative qualities.

With this new compendium of meaning, the term became suitable for numerous foreign religions to represent central points of their doctrine, including Buddhism (as a translation for bodhi — “enlightenment”), Judaism (similar to the Confucians as the “right [Jewish] way”), and Islam (likewise the “right [Muslim] way”).

The Jesuits, who had intensively dealt with Confucianism from the 16th century on, also took over dao as the “correct (Catholic) way,” and the so-called Figurists, a group of Jesuits in the 18th century who saw the Messianic figure of Jesus Christ outlined in Chinese history, went so far as to point to the existence of John’s Logos in the dao of Daodejing.

In later Catholic Bible translations, dao was rarely used as a translation for Logos; instead, the Latin Verbum (from the Latin Vulgate) was transliterated, or yan 言 — “language”, “meaning” — was used, usually with the prefix sheng 圣 — “holy” (also used by the Russian Orthodox Church).

Protestant translations, however, began to use dao as a translation for Logos in the 1830s and have largely retained this practice to this day.

Some voices went so far as to describe Logos and dao as a point of contact between Christianity and the Chinese religions. By its gradual shaping in Greek and Jewish philosophy, Logos had become an appropriate “word vessel.” Similarly, dao’s final formation in Daodejing had also assumed the necessary capacity to serve as a translation for Logos.

The origins of dao and Logos have some clear differences, not the least being the personal relationship of Logos as the Son of God with God the Father. But it is remarkable that using dao as the translation of Logos emulates John’s likely intention with the use of Logos: the central concept of the philosophical and religious ideas of the target culture was used to translate the central concept of Christian theology.

This was not possible in the case of European cultures, which for the most part have offered only translations such as Word or Verbum, terms without any prior philosophical or religious meaning. Only advanced civilizations like China — or ancient Greece — were able to accomplish that. (Summarized version of: Zetzsche, Jost. Aspekte der chinesischen Bibelübersetzung. R. Malek (ed.) Fallbeispiel China. Beiträge zur Religion, Theologie und Kirche im chinesischen Kontext. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1996.)

Peng Kuo-Wei adds this perspective (in Noss / Houser, p. 885): “The Chinese term chosen for logos is not hua (‘word’ or ‘utterance’) but dao from which the term ‘Taoism’ is derived and which can denote a general principle, a way (concrete or abstract), or reason. Thus, Chinese readers can understand that the dao of God is not just words spoken by God, but it constitutes the guiding salvific principle underlying the whole biblical account, including his action in history and teaching and action of Jesus whom he sent. Jesus is the dao of God because his ministry, death and resurrection comprises the fulfillment and realization of God’s theological and ethical principles for humanity.”

For another use of dao in the Chinese Bible, see the Way.

The English translation by Sarah Ruden (2021) uses true account in John 1. She explains (p. lxiii): “Logos can mean merely ‘statement’ or ‘speech,’ but it also has lofty philosophical uses, especially in the opening of the Book of John, where it is probably connected to the Stoic conception of the divine reasoning posited to pervade the universe. The essential connotation here is not language but the lasting, indisputable, and morally cogent truth of numbers, as displayed in correct financial accounting: this is the most basic sense of logos.” (For other uncommon English translations, see Translation commentary on John 1:1.

Famously, Goethe also had Faust ponder the translation of Logos into German in the first part of the play of the same name (publ. 1808). The German original is followed by the English translation of Walter Kaufmann (publ. 1963) (click or tap here to read more):

Geschrieben steht: “Im Anfang war das Wort!”
Hier stock ich schon! Wer hilft mir weiter fort?
Ich kann das Wort so hoch unmöglich schätzen,
Ich muß es anders übersetzen,
Wenn ich vom Geiste recht erleuchtet bin.
Geschrieben steht: Im Anfang war der Sinn.
Bedenke wohl die erste Zeile,
Daß deine Feder sich nicht übereile!
Ist es der Sinn, der alles wirkt und schafft?
Es sollte stehn: Im Anfang war die Kraft!
Doch, auch indem ich dieses niederschreibe,
Schon warnt mich was, daß ich dabei nicht bleibe.
Mir hilft der Geist! Auf einmal seh ich Rat
Und schreibe getrost: Im Anfang war die Tat!

It says: “In the beginning was the Word.”
Already I am stopped. It seems absurd.
The Word does not deserve the highest prize,
I must translate it otherwise
If I am well inspired and not blind.
It says: In the beginning was the Mind.
Ponder that first line, wait and see,
Lest you should write too hastily
Is mind the all-creating source?
It ought to say: In the beginning there was Force.
Yet something warns me as l grasp the pen,
That my translation must be changed again.
The spirit helps me. Now it is exact.
I write: In the beginning was the Act.

See also this devotion on YouVersion .

Word of life

The Greek in 1 John 1:1 that is translated as “Word of life” in most English versions is translated as “the one named Word, the one who gives life” in Garifuna and “the one called Word that is in charge of all life” in Tzotzil.

Source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22.

See also Word / Logos.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1John 1:1)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the addressee).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

complete verse (1 John 1:1)

Following are a number of back-translations of 1 John 1:1:

  • Uma: “The contents of this letter talk of the Word who gives life. The one who gives life, he already was from the first. We(excl.) heard him, we (excl.) saw him with our (excl.) own eyes. We(excl.) really did see him, we (excl.) touched/held him with our (excl.) hands.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “I write to you (pl.) about Isa Almasi, he is/who is the Word/Message that gives life. In the beginning of time yet really beforehand he was. We (excl.) heard him speak and we (excl.) saw him with these our (excl.) eyes. Yes, we (excl.) saw him and we (excl.) touched him with these our (excl.) hands.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “I am writing to you about Jesus Christ. He was titled the Word which can give life forever. He existed before the world was created. But in spite of that, we (excl.) have seen Him, and we (excl.) have heard what He said. We saw Him and we took hold of Him.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “In this letter, we (excl.) have something to tell you concerning the one who is called Word/Speech who is the source of life that has no end. He already-existed where God the Father was since the very-beginning, but he appeared as a person on this earth, so we (excl.) saw him clearly (lit. properly). We (excl.) also heard his words and we (excl.) touched him.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “I am writing to you concerning Jesu-Cristo, he who is called Word/Speech who gives life which is without ending. He already existed long ago, when there was no world yet. And as for us (excl.) who are his disciples, we (excl.) really heard his words, and we (excl.) really saw him. We(excl.) got-to-take-a-good-look (at him) and got to touch/feel with our hands.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “I write here on paper about who Jesus Christ is, he who gives new life. This is the one who lived always, even before the things that are in existence were made. And we heard what he said when he spoke, and we stood where we could see him. Well, it is true that we saw him and touched him with our hands.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)
  • Yatzachi Zapotec: “We proclaim to you (pl.) about Jesus Christ the person who is the Word, he who gives eternal life. He was already present when the world began. We heard his words, we saw him and we looked at him and we touched him.”
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “I will tell you about the Word that gives new life to our hearts. The Word was already living at the very beginning. He is one and the same Jesus Christ whom we saw living here, and we heard what he said. Also we watched him with our eyes, and we touched him with our hands.”
  • Tzotzil: “The one whose character is he is, (was from the beginning) we heard his words. We saw him. Many times we looked at his face. We touched him. It is the one called word that is in charge of all life.”
  • Garifuna: “I write to you (pl.) concerning the one named Word, the one who gives life…” (Source for this and three above: John Beekman in Notes on Translation 12, November 1964, p. 1ff.)

Translation commentary on 1 John 1:1

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 .

SIL Translator's Notes on 1 John 1:1

Section 1:1–4

John explains his authority and his reasons for writing this letter

Read 1:1–4 carefully in both Berean Standard Bible and Good News Translation. Compare the two versions.

Section Theme: These verses form an introduction to the whole letter. In them John states the authority which he has for giving instructions to his readers. He also explains what his purpose is in writing the letter. His authority is the fact that he had personally been with Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God. His purpose in writing the letter is that the people he is writing to may truly share the fellowship he has with God.

1:1–3 (Sentence Breaks)

These verses are all one long and complicated sentence in the Greek and in some English versions such as Revised Standard Version. The subject and main verb of this sentence come in verse 3, “We proclaim,” but its topic is at the end of verse 1, “the Word of life.” So in translation these verses may need to be split into shorter sentences and the parts may need to be reordered to make the meaning clear. See 1:1–3 in the Display.

1:1

(Good News Translation) We write to you: (Discourse Feature) The fact that this is a letter is obvious from the way John writes. In the Greek, however, there is no formal beginning to the letter, naming the writer and the people he is writing to, as there is in Paul’s letters. In your translation it may be necessary to add some simple introduction such as “We write to you,” so that readers are not confused about whether they are reading a letter or a history or some other sort of literature.

(Good News Translation) We: (Pronoun System) This letter was written by only one person, John, but throughout chapter 1 he uses the plural, We, because he is associating himself in what he is saying with the other apostles who also lived with Jesus. If this meaning will not be conveyed by We in your translation, it would be better to say “I write…,” and then “the other apostles and I have heard…,” etc. As an alternative the book introduction could contain an explanation of who John means by We.

That which was: (Pronoun Reference) This refers to the “Word of life” (see the note below). Since the “Word of life” is really Jesus, it may be better to refer to it as “he/him” in your translation.

from the beginning: (Meaning) This refers to the beginning of the world. John is saying that the Word existed even before the creation of the world. He does not mean that the Word came into existence when the world was created.

with our own eyes: (Focus) All the four statements, “we heard…,” “we saw…,” “we looked at…,” “we touched…,” are emphasizing the fact that although the Word had existed from before creation, John and the other apostles had actually been with Jesus, who was the Word, when he was in this world. None of the four statements is more prominent than the others, so if phrases such as with our eyes are unnatural in translation they can be left implicit. But make sure that the emphasis on John’s personal experience is being clearly communicated.

gazed upon: (Meaning) What is meant here is deliberate, continual, detailed observing, rather than the simple “seeing” of the previous clause.

our own hands: (Focus) See note on “with our eyes” above.

Word of life: (Meaning) This means the word which is life, the word which is the source of life, as in John 14:6. It refers to Jesus, but it would be wrong to make his name explicit as John is not here emphasizing Jesus as a person. He is emphasizing the fact that Jesus is the one who causes us to be truly alive by showing us what God is really like.

Word: (Special Biblical Term) This is a Biblical technical term as in John 1:1. It refers to God’s words or message to people in which he shows them what he is really like. In translation it may be necessary to make it clear that this is the “Word of God.”

(The Jerusalem Bible) who is life: (Pronoun Reference) If you need to make “God” explicit in the phrase “the Word of life” (or, “the Word, who is life”), make sure that this phrase who is life refers to the Word and not to God. See Display.

© 2000 by SIL International®

Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible. BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.