105 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 on this Semitic basis πρός (+ acc.) should be seen as parallel for παρά (+ dat). ‣ De la Potterie58 argues that πρός (+ acc.) retained its strong dynamic sense and does not mean accompaniment. His argument is that verse 1 should be linked to verse 18 by way of inclusion and therefore πρός (+ acc.) should be paralleled with the εἰς τὸν κόλπον in verse 18. It is doubtful whether one can conclusively prove semantic identity from such an assumed structural feature. ‣ Brooks & Winbery59 mention the use of the phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν when discussing the adverbial accusative of measure. They remark that the substantive indicates how far the action of the verb extends and this category may even be called the accusative of extent of time and space. In some instances, especially with the use of prepositions, the idea of extension is not very prominent. In such instances, the accusative indicates time and place in much the same way, as does the locative, which is typical of Greek in the Hellenistic period. According to them, one of these categories is present in the phrase ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν in John 1,1. 2.2.2 Comments on the status of research on πρὸς τὸν θεόν in John 1,1b. Chrys C. Caragounis: In spite of a number of interesting and correct observations in the above discussion of scholarly opinion, certain inaccu- racies may be observed60. This circumstance makes it imperative to study the evidence for the use of πρός in the light of diachronic developments within the Greek language61. In Greek literature down to the XVI A.D. this preposition occurs about 400,000 times. It is not only impossible at this juncture to check all I. De la Potterie, Biblica 43 (1962), 366-387. 58 J.A. Brooks, & C.L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek, Washington DC: 59 University Press of America, (1979), 48-50, 140. 2 Cor. 5,8 is often used to prove that πρός could mean ‘face to face’, often translated 60 as ‘with’. 2 Cor 5,8 is, however, problematic in proving the point here. The verb ἐκδημήσαι does not really have the sense of a verb of rest. Since the force is ingressive (aorist inf.) the emphasis is more on the coming to be with the Lord rather than being with the Lord, just as πιστεῦσαι (= ‘to come to faith’) which is different from πιστεύειν (pres. inf.) = ‘to keep on believing’. The meaning of ἐκδημῆσαι and ἐνδημῆσαι, then, would be more “to leave the body ... and to come to [be with] the Lord”. Again Zerwick’s claim that πρός + acc. is more dynamic than παρά + dat. raises the question: “What kind of ‘active relationship’ does Mt 13,56 (= Mk 6,3): καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαὶ αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ πᾶσαι πρὸς ἡμᾶς εἰσιν… = “Are not all his sisters with us?” have which is absent from Ex 2,21: κατῳκίσθη δὲ Μωυσῆς παρὰ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, or Jdg 17,11: ἤρξατο παροικεῖν παρὰ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ?”. The importance of this will become obvious in the ensuing discussion, which is the 61 heart of the matter.