131 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 with John 1,1. The close intimate relation described in 1,18c (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός) might form a natural comparison with πρὸς τὸν θεόν and might even serve as defining and expanding the meaning of this πρός phrase. This argument relies on the structural argument. ‣ Theologically one of the major focuses in this Gospel is on the inti- mate relationship between the Father and the Son (10,30), but also the distinction between the Father (who is often referred to as θεός) and the Son. The Son does nothing on his own and does not seek his own will (5,30; 7,16; 8,28-29; 12,49; 14,10), but only what he saw his Father doing. The Father teaches and sends him (5,19ff., 30; 7,28-29; 12,49). It is therefore in line and consistent with the theology of this Gospel to argue that a distinction is made between the λόγος (= the Son) and the θεός (= the Father) in 1b162. What is said in the Gospel about this relation between the Son and the Father should therefore be seen as a reflection and development of the idea that Jesus was πρὸς τὸν θεόν. This would also lend some power to the preposition in this phrase, implying that the Son, in his very existence (the stative copulative verb), is orientated towards the Father in the sense that he does nothing out of his own volition that is not his Father’s will163. This would correspond with the metaphor of “Jesus that is the Word”, which has clear revelatory undertones. Chrys Caragounis: A detailed investigation of the uses of πρός with a personal acc. showed that this construction does not occur in earlier Greek literature nor in the LXX; it is a NT construction. It is, however, not unique to the NT or to the relationship described in Jn 1,1, since it occurs twelve more times elsewhere within the NT, describing ordinary human relationships as well as in later Gr. literature (which has not been influenced by Jn 1,1). A comparison with the similar construction of παρά + dative, which bears identical meaning with that of πρός + accu- sative, shows that our construction is a late development and a variation of the earlier παρά + dative. This means that the energy spent by some modern linguists and commentators in searching for ingenious meanings about the relationship between the Father and the Logos lurking behind this simple construction are simply over interpretations, betraying an unsure commerce with the Greek language. Socio-linguistically and theologically it is an advance on Greek theo- logy, in that serious Greek thinkers, who had left polytheism behind and stretched forward to the One or the Good (already Platon and the Stoics Haenchen, Johannesevangelium, (see n. 112), 116-118; Wilckens, Johannes, (see n. 162 43), 28. See the detailed theological argument of Schnackenburg, John, (see n. 10), 234 or 163 Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 15ff. on this point.