A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 93 1.4 What about theories of language? Obviously any student of the language of the New Testament will be aware of the different theories of language, regarding the functioning of verbs and how to describe them, the different categories used to define the use of the different voices, or cases, etc.3 One might ask which of these theories one should adopt? The nature of this project is largely descriptive, except for the latter part where the final analysis is done. What will happen is that the different posi- tions will be described as we explain which possibilities were given to solve a particular grammatical problem. The reader will be able to identify and dis- tinguish between the different approaches and appreciate the contribution that each approach brings to the understanding of any particular problem. It should be noted that a point of departure we have adopted is that no single problem of interpretation can be limited or solved on the ba- sis of a grammatical issue only. Semantics includes the combination of grammatical, syntactical, literary (including structural), socio-linguistic, and theological insights. Our discussions will take place within such a framework of interrelatedness. Chrys C. Caragounis: In my own contribution to this article each one of the various grammatical problems in John 1,1 will be considered from the point of view of the diachronic understanding of Greek. In this perspective no chronological limits are set aprioristically as to the dates or types of evidence to be used. In a judicious manner evidence from the entire history of the language can be brought to bear on the problem4. It Grammatical rules may, for instance, be described in terms of traditional grammatical 3 approaches, or, more recently, structuralist or even functionalist approaches. Riddell, Lan- guage, (see n. 1), 431 describes the different approaches in the following terms. The traditional approach dominated until recently, when the structuralist approach that started with de Saussure at the beginning of the 20th century challenged the age old assumptions. Tradition- ally the focus was on written language. Words were used as point of departure, after which the rules for their combination to form acceptable sentences were considered. The structur- alists started with the correct sentence which was then dissected in order to determine the rules that were permissible for forming correct sentences. They had an interest in the rules of language that were built into the minds of language users. Chomsky (the father of TGG) argued that the surface structure of language was based on an underlying deep structure that was universal among languages. Functionalism focused on the social context as the driving force in determining the need for linguistic communication. External functions in- fluence the functioning of the linguistic system. See also Buth, Language, (see n. 2), 431 who remarks: “Along with this knowledge explosion has come a plethora of technical terms and specific theoretical perspectives that often bewilder those who begin to study linguistics”. In citing Greek names the Hellenic spelling will be adhered to as far as this is possible, 4 cf. C. C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament. Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (WUNT 167, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2004), (corrected rp. pb. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 12.