120 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis commentators, who often combine grammatical and theological concerns. Recent discussions have not added much to what was already known in the XIXth century. Kühner’s sixty-page discussion136 of the uses of the article takes into account just about all possible cases in ancient Greek literature, while A. N. Jannaris’s much briefer discussion of the same covers most of what needs to be said, and adds relevant material from the later developments137. For a Hellene the construction of καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος is perfectly normal. It is exactly what he would have expected. The structure of the phrase emphasizes the word Θεός. If Θεός were not to be emphasized, then the clause would have been: καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν Θεός. For a Hellene a hypothetical καὶ ὁ Θεός (predicate) ἦν ὁ Λόγος (subject) would be unthinkable in this context, i.e. in the light of the previous two clauses138. If, in a different context, in which the definite ὁ Θεός as predicate and ὁ Λόγος as subject were gramatically possible, a clause with these two components were to be constructed, then the form it would have taken would have been of καὶ ὁ Λόγος (subject) of ἦν ὁ Θεός (predicate). But let us turn to the syntax of the predicate. Because the Greek article originally (in Homeros, etc.) was a demons- trative pronoun, which later came to lose much of its demonstrative force, and to that extent assume the meaning of the article—especially in Platon’s writings, where the article achieved its richest and most varied uses—it cannot be compared to nor can its uses be determined by the way in which the English article is applied. If we want to understand the ways in which the Greek article is used, it is important that we disregard the uses of the English, German, etc. articles, and that we study the Greek article against the background of its own usage in Greek literature. This does not imply that there are no parallel uses of the article between Greek and English, and German, etc., but that methodologically it is better to dispense with reliance on the English, etc. article for determining the meanings of the Greek article. The article ὁ, ἡ, τό has the quality of classifying and individualizing substantives. In other words, the article can turn a substantive from being general to particular and from being indefinite to definte. Already at this point we see how the Greek article is different from the English article. For example, whereas English would use the anarthrous “Man” or “Hu- R. Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache (Gr. tr. 1879, recent 136 rp.), Syntax, Vol. I, 605-68. Jannaris, Grammar, 318-25, §§1197-1242 137 The adduction of Philon, On Dreams I, 229-30, where Philon makes a point of the 138 articular ὁ Θεός, is irrelevant here, because in the OT text referred to by Philon, ἐγὼ εἰμι ὁ Θεός ὁ ὀφθείς σοι, entirely properly has the article, whereas in Jn 1,1, in which Θεός is a predicate is, again entirely correctly, anarthrous.