96 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ (1,1) is anarthrous, yet it seems to be definite; why?11 The following suggestions are offered: ‣ Wallace12 states that when a noun is the object of a preposition, it does not require the article to be definite: if it has the article, is must be definite; if it lacks the article, it may be definite. In John.1,1 the noun is also monadic13, giving it an additional reason to be definite. ‣ Greenlee14 is more specific. He states that in some prepositional phra- ses, which are idioms of time, place, etc., the object of the preposition has no article but is nevertheless definite. John 1,1 is such a case. ‣ Dana and Mantey15 argue that the reason for the anarthrous use of ἀρχῇ is not because the noun is sufficiently definite without the article, although this could be a possibility as Greek nouns have an intrinsic definiteness. The real reason is that a prepositional phrase usually implies some idea of quality or kind. Here it characterizes Christ as pre-existent16, thus defining the nature of his person. Therefore, it is definite. ‣ Porter17 treats John 1,1a under the “individual” use without an article18 and indicates that “individual” items may be specified without the use of the article. He continues to point out that it is not the presence or absence of the article that determines whether the substantive is particular or non-particular. It depends on the context. Many commentaries and even some important grammars do not deal with this and 11 other questions in John 1,1. See for instance, F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R.W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1961); J.H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press), 2007. Wallace, Syntax, (see n. 9), 247. 12 A monadic noun is a one-of-a-kind noun, which does not require the article to be 13 definite. The linguistic principle that a word contributes a minimal meaning to a context, which should be associatively determined by the words in that particular context is relevant here. A word used in a particular context does not carry with it meaning from other con- texts (see Buth, Language, see n. 2, 432. The use of ἀρχή in this context is rather distinctive. For the reference of this word see Schnackenburg, John, see n. 10, 232; R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978), 15). Both authors of this article, however, question the statement by Wallace that we have a monadic use in this phrase. J.H. Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th Rev. ed. 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986), 21-24, 39. H.E. Dana, & S.R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the New Testament (New York: 15 Macmillan 1965), 110; 139-140; 148-150; 168. C.K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St John, 2 ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 152. 16 Porter, Idioms, (see n. 8), 105. 17 Again both authors of this article would like to challenge the remark by Porter that 18 we should read this expression under the category of “individual”. It is of course a matter of interpretation.