102 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis is fore-grounded.37 The translation of πρός indeed varies according to the associative contextual influence. This is an important remark which highlights the influence of the context for the exact interpretation of πρός in Jn 1,1b. The problem lies with the question what exactly does πρός refer to in this case and in what sense of meaning it is used? Wallace38 mentions that a transitive preposition can occur with a stative verb (in which cases the preposition and verb do not match), like in John 1,1b, where πρός should be translated as “with”.39 Here the preposition’s force is overridden by the verb and that is not extra-ordinary.40 However, another problem is crea- ted by the associative context – the Λόγος41 is said to be πρὸς τὸν θεόν, but is then described as θεός (ἦν ὁ λόγος) in the next phrase. The Λόγος is πρὸς τὸν θεόν but also θεός – there seems to be a logical problem (if θέος refers to the same object): how could somebody simultaneously be orientated towards an object and simultaneously be the object itself?42 This seems to be a matter of semantics, including the context as a whole, rather than a grammatical problem. Let us see how this problem is dealt with in the literature43. ‣ The directional use (toward, in the direction of) of the word πρός is prominent in the New Testament. In the case of verbs of rest, the force LSJ, (see n. 33), 1498 offers several examples. 37 Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 359. 38 Schnackenburg, John, (see n. 10), 234 also denies that the idea of movement, inherent 39 to the preposition, is intended here. He sees it as equivalent with παρὰ τῷ θεῷ, which is according to him typical Koine. See also U. Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 1998), 31. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 359 gives a long list of similar instances in the New 40 Testament. The following exegetical problem should be mentioned. Although the common and 41 widely accepted idea is that the λόγος is a metaphor or personification of Jesus, the Son, (Barrett, John, see n. 16, 152) there are other views that could, if accepted, influence the interpretation of this verse. Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 6, for instance, asked the question whether a concrete person is meant here. Could it not be that the λόγος is “eine personifizierte Kraft Gottes”, yes, the personified “Wesen Gottes, sofern es in der Welt wirksam ist”? The elusive nature of λόγος might require such an interpretation. It might imply “eine göttliche Manifestationsweise oder ein göttliches Gesetz”. Herakleitus spoke in these terms of the λόγος. Supporting such an interpretation is the later references to the Son becoming flesh (1,14). There the Son appears on the scene. U. Busse, Das Johannesevange- lium. Bildlichkeit, Diskurs und Ritual (Leuven: Peeters 2002), 61ff. is also hesitant to see λόγος as a personification of Jesus. He prefers a broader reference to the power and spirit of God. If no person is referred to here, it might have some implications for the interpretation of this section. See U. Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup- 42 recht, 1998), 27. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel of John and Judaism: The Franz Delitzsch Lectures (Lon- 43 don: SPCK 1973), 24, 27 mentions that Burkitt suggested that the meaning was ‘the word was spoken to God’. This is an over-interpretation and will not be considered further.