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.
106 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis
these instances but also meaningless. I have made searches on a number
of forms of such verbs denoting rest as εἰμι, κεῖμαι, μένω, and διατÏίβω
both with Ï€Ïός and παÏá½±.
In the light of the exigencies of Jn 1,1b, most of the occurrences of
Ï€Ïός with the above verbs were irrelevant for the problem at hand. Ini-
tially we may say that the structure in Jn 1,1b is: someone/something is/
was Ï€Ïός someone/something. This means that the verb ἦν is not used
predicatively, as e.g. ὠΛόγος ζωὴ ἦν = “the Word was lifeâ€, but relatio-
nally, “the Word was Ï€Ïός Godâ€. Of the structures I examined, those
that initially were seemingly relevant, were: ἦμεν Ï€Ïός62, ἦν Ï€Ïόςâ€63,
μένω Ï€Ïός64, μένει Ï€Ïός 65, ἔμεινε Ï€Ïός66, ἔμενε Ï€Ïός67, διέτÏιβον Ï€Ïός68,
διέτÏιβες Ï€Ïός69, διέτÏιψε Ï€Ïός70, as well as the three structures with
παÏá½±: ἦν παÏá½±71, κεῖται παÏá½±72, and διέτÏιψε παÏá½±73. However, since in
Jn 1,1b it is a question of a person being Ï€Ïός another person, the only
strictly relevant examples are those that involve two persons (not things!),
the one of whom is Ï€Ïός the other (in acc.)74. Thus, an example such
as Mt 3,10 (= Lk 3,9): ἡ ἀξίνη κεῖται Ï€Ïὸς τὴν ῥίζαν (my word-order),
which has exactly the same grammatical structure as Jn 1,1b, will not do,
since it concerns things, not persons and personal relationships are often
different to relationships between things. Finally, the meaning of ἦν Ï€Ïός
lies within the field of meanings encompassing: with, near, at the side of,
etc. Thus, the structure of Jn 1,1b is: (1) a person (in the nominative) (2)
is/stays/remains/lives, etc. (3) with/near/at the side of/‘chez’/‘apud’, etc.
(4) another person (in the accusative).
E.g. Loukianos, Zeuxis, 11: Ï„á½· ἂν ἡμεῖς ἦμεν Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„ούς… (cf. 2 Th 3,10: ὅτε ἦμεν
62
Ï€Ïὸς ὑμᾶς).
E.g. Hippolytos, Demonstratio temporum paschatis (in catensis), 3,9: ἀλλ᾿ á½¥ÏƒÏ€ÎµÏ á¼Î½
63
Ï„á¿· ᾅδῃ ὤν, τῇ οá½Ïƒá½·á¾³ ἦν Ï€Ïὸς τὸν πατέÏα, οὕτως ἦν καὶ á¼Î½ Ï„á¿· σώματι καὶ á¼Î½ Ï„á¿· ᾅδῃ –
again an identical structure.
E.g. Life of Aisopos (Westermann) (recension 2), 26,10: á½¥Ïαν μίαν οὠμένω Ï€Ïὸς σέ.
64
Hegesippos, Fragments, (ex incerto libro), 212, καὶ ἔτι αá½Ï„οῦ ἡ στήλη μένει παÏá½°
65
τῷ ναῷ.
E.g. Chrysostomos, Commentary on Romans. Homilies 1-32 (MPG 60), 664,16: ἔμενε
66
Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„οὺς ᾿Ακύλαν καὶ Î Ïίσκιλλαν [sc. ὠΠαῦλος].
E.g. Chrysostomos, Commentary on John. Homilies 1-88 (MPG 59) 249, 26: ἔμενε
67
Ï€Ïὸς ᾿Ακύλαν καὶ Î Ïίσκιλλαν
E.g. Diodoros Sikeliotes, Bibliotheca Historica (lib. 1-20), 14.26.7.8: οἱ δὲ λοχαγοὶ
68
Ï€Ïὸς ταῖς θύÏαις διέτÏιβον.
E.g. Prokopios, Epistolai 1-166, 23.11: τοῦ χÏόνου ὃν παÏ᾿, ἡμῖν ἀναξίως διέτÏιβες.
69
E.g. John Malalas, Chronographia, 451.3: διέτÏιψε Ï€Ïὸς αá½Ï„όν.
70
E.g. Georgios Monachos, Chronikon (lib. 1-4), 160, 12: ἱεÏεὺς τις ἦν παÏá½° ᾿Ιουδαίοις
71
This structure is often used when mentioning a passage found in some author, e.g.
72
Eustathios, Commentary on Homeros’ Ilias, II, 575: κεῖται παÏá½° Ï„á¿· Σοφοκλεῖ.
E.g. Hellanikos, Testimonies, 1a,4,T. 1.2: διέτÏιψε δὲ ᾿Ελλάνικος ... παÏá½° ᾿Αμύντα.
73
On the personal nature of Logos, see below.
74
FOLLOW US