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.
128 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis
In view of these difficulties, it may be asked whether the structure is
not rather determined by semantics.
The sentence á¼Î½ á¼€Ïχῇ ἦν ὠΛόγος, καὶ ὠΛόγος ἦν Ï€Ïὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ
Θεὸς ἦν ὠΛόγος has the following deep structure:
1. In the beginning existed the Word
2. The Word was with God (related to God)
3. The Word was nothing less than God
The three clauses are connected by the conjunction καί. Whether this
is seen as a representation of the Semitic or as a real Greek connective,
the fact remains that the three clauses are connected by it154. What are
the mutual relations between the three clauses? I would like to suggest
that the three clauses are climactically constructed. John’s concern is to
introduce his book (the Gospel) by means of a prologue, which is con-
cerned solely/principally with a Person whose teaching and works are
going to occupy the pages of his book. To do this he has chosen quite
an unorthodox approach155, presenting his subject not in the familiar,
national-traditional way, which utilizes concepts from the Jewish back-
ground but rather employing alien concepts from Greek philosophy and
Greek literature. This concept, then, needs to be explained and property
anchored in Jewish tradition, i.e. in Jewish monotheism. I suggest that
the three clauses are doing just that. It is John’s concern to relate this
strange concept of Logos to his Judeo-Christian faith and to the One God
idea that bears up both the OT and the NT.
The three clauses are climactically structured, thus:
1. ᾿Εν á¼€Ïχῇ ἦν ὠΛόγος
2. καὶ ὠΛόγος ἦν Ï€Ïὸς τὸν Θεόν
3. καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὠΛόγος
According to this structure, the emphasis falls on the third clause.
Semantically this is the most highlighted clause in the sentence.
The first proposition states that the Word already existed in the begin-
ning. But the reader does not know who or what this Word is/was. The
second proposition, which is more highlighted than the first, relates this
so far unknown Word to God, by asserting that the word was with God.
Finally, the third proposition, which is the most highlighted of the three,
presents the identity, the character, the essence of this Word as being
nothing less than God. Here, at last, we know that John’s Word is no
Even if it is a Semitic element, it is not a waw-explicativum.
154
In contrast to the other evangelists.
155
FOLLOW US