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.
118 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis
when he considered whether there really was any name belonging to
the living God, showed that he knew that there was none properly
belonging to him; but that whatever appellation any one may give him,
will be an abuse of terms; for the living God is not of a nature to be
described, but only to be.123 (Italics by JvdW).
Dunn124 and Haenchen125 argue on the basis of this remark by Philo
that the use or absence of the article is deliberate and would be significant
to any Greek reader.126 Schnelle127 also picks up Philo’s remark that the
article with θεός refers to the one true God: “Bewußt steht in V. 1v das
Prädikatsnomen θεός, um so gleichermaßen das göttliche Wesen des Lo-
gos und seine Untershiedenheit vom höchsten Gott auszudrückenâ€. The
Word is not identical with God, but also not a second God, “sondern der
Logos is vom Wesen Gottesâ€. In this way, the balance between monothe-
ism and “bitrinitarischer Gestalt†is maintained.128
This argument does not convince Carson129 who argues that the self-
conscious use mentioned by Philo is not to be compared with John’s
syntax. In the first place, the logos of Philo never threatens Jewish mo-
notheism, and the distinction he makes does not stand the test of Greek
grammar itself. The author of John is simply busy with common Greek
usage that includes the anarthrous use of the definite nominative pre-
dicate noun, which goes far beyond what Philo is arguing. Basing one’s
argument for the use of the article in John 1,1c on Philo’s argument is
therefore not plausible.
f) An idiom?
Moule130 asks if the omission of the article in John 1,1c is nothing
more than a matter of idiom. Middleton had already taken it as an ins-
tance of the article being omitted simply because θεός is ‘the Predicate of
a Proposition which does not reciprocate’.
Philo, o. A., (C.D. Yonge), The works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (385)
123
(Peabody: Hendrickson 1996), [c1993].
J.G.D. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins
124
of the Doctrine of the Incarnation ( London: SCM 1980), 241.
Haenchen, Johannesevangelium, (see n. 112), 116.
125
Haenchen, Johannesevangelium, (see n. 112), 116 also refers to Origen (Commentary
126
on John II 2,13-15) who uses the same argument. Within the Jewish monotheism only the
Father can be ὠθεός. The Son is distinguished from him by that absence of the article. The
absence of the article has serious theological implications according to this argument.
Schnelle, Johannes, (see n. 40), 31.
127
See also Keener, John, (see n. 54), 373.
128
Carson, John, (see n. 105), 137.
129
Moule, Idiom, (see n. 49), 53, 76, 115-116.
130
FOLLOW US