Chrys C. Caragounis - Jan Van der Watt, «A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1», Vol. 21 (2008) 91-138
This article is a pilot study on the feasibility of investigating the grammar, both in terms of words and sentences, of the Gospel according to John in a systematic manner. The reason is that in general the commentaries and even specialized articles have different foci, inter alia, focusing on the historical nature or the theological and literary aspects that the Gospel is so well-known for. In surveys of commentaries on the Gospel it becomes apparent that real grammatical studies are far and few between, and that there is a tendency among commentators to copy grammatical material from one another. More often than not, grammatical issues are simply ignored and the unsuspecting and trusting reader will not even realize that there is a dangerous dungeon of grammatical problems lurking beneath the surface of the text. Apart from that, the significance of grammatical decisions are often underestimated in studies of John’s Gospel.
109
A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1
It is no wonder then that the historical grammarian of the Greek
Language, A. N. Jannaris77, recognizes one of the uses of Ï€Ïός to be
to express what normally had been expressed by παÏá½± + dative. In his
usual Laconic manner, he writes: “Sometimes for παÏá½± + dative, like
Latin apud aliquemâ€, and cites as examples Ioannes Malalas (V-VI A.D.),
Chronographia, 451,3: διέτÏιψε Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„όν and 348,15: διατÏίψαντος
á¼Î½ ῾Ρώμῇ ᾿ΑÏκαδίου Ï€Ïὸς τὸν αá½Ï„οῦ ἀδελφόν. To this evidence I may
add a few more examples from early Christian authors: Acta Ioannes (II
A.D.) 100,11-12: γίνωσκε Î³á½±Ï Î¼Îµ ὅλον παÏá½° Ï„á¿· πατÏὶ καὶ τὸν πατέÏα
παÏ´ á¼Î¼Î¿á½·. The speaker here is Jesus, who in the context also calls himself
Logos. The relation to the Father may be an allusion to Jn 1,1b. In the
Acts of Paul and Thekla (II A.D.) 6,1 we read: μακάÏιοι οἱ τὸ βάπτισμα
τηÏήσαντες, ὅτι αá½Ï„οὶ ἀναπαύσονται Ï€Ïὸς τὸν πατέÏα καὶ τὸν υἱόν.
The thought here could easily have been expressed by ἀναπαύσονται
παÏá½° Ï„á¿· πατÏá½·, etc. In the Acts of Philip (uncer. date) 119,11: á¼á½°Î½ οὖν
θέλῃς παÏá½° σοί με εἶναι (Nikanora speaking to her husband) and 142,65:
καὶ νῦν δὲ á¼Î½ οá½Ïανοῖς á¼ÏƒÏ„ιν [sc. ᾿Ιησοῦς] παÏὰ; Ï„á¿· πατÏá½·. Here we
would spontaneously have expected Ï€Ïὸς τὸν πατέÏα, to harmonize with
Jn 1,1b78. But for our author these were equivalent expressions.
All these examples fulfill the conditions of a person (as subject) being
Ï€Ïός another person (as object). Some scholars, however, may still want
to argue that Jn 1,1b treats a unique relationship. If this is so, then we
have no way of saying anything about it, since this would be per hypothesi
a new category of which there are no other examples in Greek literature.
But here we have left the domain of Grammar and wander in the realm
of speculation. That the early Christian Greek authors did not unders-
tand this structure as constituting a unique relationship and standing
outside the bounds of ordinary grammar, is shown by the fact that they
sometimes used the alternative form παÏá½° Ï„á¿· Θεῷ. Thus, for example,
Kyrillos of Jerusalem (IV A.D.) in his Catechese to the Enlightened 1-18,
Catechesis 10, Ch. 8,2, writes: Ὁ Î³á½°Ï ÏƒÎºÎ¿Ï€á½¸Ï‚ ἡμῶν ἀποδεῖξαι, ὅτι ἦν
παÏá½° Ï„á¿· ΠατÏὶ ὠΚύÏιος ᾿Ιησοῦς ΧÏιστός. Here, as the absolute use
of ἦν shows, ὠΚ. ἡμ. ᾿Ι. ΧÏ. has taken the place of ὠΛόγος. Kyrillos
Alexandreus in his Commentary on John (MPG 3), 134,17, where Jesus
is spoken of as going back and being with the Father not by Ï€Ïὸς τὸν
Θεόν, but by παÏá½° Ï„á¿· Θεῷ, writes: ᾿Επηγγείλατο μὲν Î³á½°Ï ÎºÎ±Ï„Î±Ï€á½³Î¼ÏˆÎµÎ¹Î½
ἡμῖν á¼Î¾ οá½Ïανοῦ τὸν ΠαÏάκλητον, ὅταν ἄνω γένηται παÏá½° Ï„á¿· Θεῷ
and the accusative: Lev 25,6: Ï„á¿· Ï€Ïοσκειμένῳ Ï€Ïός σε and Num 15,26: Ï„á¿· Ï€Ïοσκειμένῳ
Ï€Ïὸς ὑμᾶς. The idea could have also been expressed by Ï„á¿· κατοικοῦντι παÏá½° σοί.
Jannaris, Grammar, § 1658, (c).
77
See also Acts of Thomas (III A.D.) 1554,15: Λέγει αá½Ï„ῇ Οá½Î¶á½±Î½Î·Ï‚· Ποῖος νεώτεÏός
78
á¼ÏƒÏ„ιν παÏá½° σοί…
FOLLOW US