Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis 104 support for this view: Young52 suggests that πρός in Jn.1,1 refers to active communion rather than passive association, a more theological than grammatical based view, or as Janse van Rensburg53 said it is “a marker of relation involving potential interaction.” If so, it is a ques- tion whether the decision of what “full justice” should be comes from the grammar of the word, or the context (i.e. who are the two objects that stand face to face, what are their symbolic values in the context, etc.). ‣ Also along these lines Abbott54, focusing more on the reality of the interaction, argues that πρός with a living object is frequently em- ployed to mean “in familiar intercourse with”, “close contact with”, sometimes hostile, but in any case close, communication, rather than ‘at home with’. The phrase in John 1,1 would mean ‘the word was in converse with God’, which prepares the way for the thought of a Me- diator. He, however, goes further by remarking that πρός (+ acc.), in classical Greek, is often used for expressions like ‘having regard to,’ as in πρός ταῦτα ‘having regard to these things’. Hence, πρὸς τὸν θεόν might be taken by Greek readers to mean ‘having regard to God.’ And this would agree with abundant instances of ζῆν πρὸς τίνα, in classi- cal Greek, meaning ‘to live in absolute devotion to anyone.’ According to him this sense suits the theology of John’s Gospel, which describes the Son as doing nothing except that which He sees the Father doing, so that the Logos is regarded as always, so to speak, [‘looking] toward,’ or ‘having regard to,’ God. He concludes that John probably combines this spiritual meaning (‘devoted to’) with the more local meaning (‘in converse with’) and, in his own mind, the former is predominant. ‣ Another angle of approach to the use of πρός was taken by Turner55 and Barrett56, for instance, who suspect that the Gospel may reflect Aramaic influences. This assumption makes it plausible that the Aramaic twl contributed to the free use of πρός which means that πρός (+ acc.), meaning ‘with’ in Jn.1,1, is a Semitism and should be interpreted within that particular framework. Bultmann57 argues that R. A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Ap- 52 proach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman 1994), 66,101. J. J. van Rensburg, “A new reference grammar for the Greek New Testament: Explora- 53 tory remarks on a methodology”, Neotestamentica 27(1), (1993), 143. C.S. Keener, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1 (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 370 emphasises the relational aspect expressed by προω†. E.A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar (London: Adam & Charles Black 1906(, 133-135, 54 273-275, 286, 413, 443-444. J .H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament, Vol. III and IV by N. Turner, Style 55 *Clark: Edinburgh 1976(, 71. Barrett, John, (see n. 16), 24, 27. 56 See also Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 16. 57