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.
132 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis
and now their disciples), were here confronted with a teaching, which
although being solidly anchored in Jewish monotheism, yet made place
for One more (and later again One more = the Holy Spirit) all as One. But
at this point we are concerned with Two as One (the Father and Logos).
And that relationship is explained by the simple construction of Ï€Ïός +
acc. – an idea that earlier had been expressed by παÏá½± + dat. This linguistic
marker underlines the relationship which the Logos has to God. Had the
construction been á¼Î½ + dative the relationship would be wholly different:
it would be a question of only One (One in the One) in whom the Logos
was. But now the integrity of the Two is upheld. The Logos was with God.
They were Two (at this point of the Prologue) and yet they were both God.
c) The meaning of καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὠλόγος
Jan van der Watt: The issues in this case are more complicated than
the previous two.
‣ The first option is to translate καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὠλόγος as indefinite as
“and the Word was a godâ€. In the discussion in 2,3 this option was
shown to be very improbable. Wallace164states that the translation of
the anarthrous θεός as “a god†in John 1,1c is contextually and gram-
matically highly improbable and that it militates against the theology
of the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John does not teach polytheism
rather its arguments are firmly developed within a Jewish monothe-
istic framework. Jesus is not described as a second God, although
his divinity stands above any doubt in this Gospel. Translating this
phrase, “and the Word was a godâ€, reflects a dogmatic position, but
it does not reflect the theology of John. It need not be considered any
further, more so if one takes into account the doubtful grammatical
arguments pointed out in 2.3.
‣ The second option is to translate this phrase as “and the Word was
Godâ€. Contextually, as was pointed out, this creates tension with the
preceding phrase (1b) where a clear distinction should be made be-
tween the persons of λόγος and θεός. It therefore seems evident that
the θεός in 1b and 1c has different references, since the Word cannot
simultaneously be with God and also be God. On the other hand, in
1,18 and 20,28 Jesus is explicitly called θεός. This would support this
definite translation, but leaves it ambiguous. Keener165 notes that the
translation of θεός in 1c permits both “God†and “divineâ€. The context
however prescribes that Jesus is more than simply divine – he is deity.
Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 267.
164
Keener, John, (see n. 54), 374.
165
FOLLOW US