97 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 ‣ Then there is a suggestion, based on inter-textuality, namely, that John 1,1a parallels Gen 1,119 where the sense is clearly not “a beginning” but “the beginning”. Frequently this grammatical problem receives no further consideration. There seem to be ample reasons, both grammatical and semantic, why the noun should be read as definite in spite of the absence of the article. 2.1.2 Comments on the status of research on ἐν ἀρχῇ in John 1,1a. Chrys C. Caragounis: The scholarly opinion presented above, although accepting the definite meaning in spite of the absence of the article, has not sufficiently and clearly explained the “why” question. In the main, each scholar has merely given his own personal opinion. We cannot add together these different opinions, since by their diversity they actually cancel each other out. A surer foundation needs to be laid. Thus, a fresh examination of the linguistic evidence is indispensable in order to decide the status of the anarthrous ἐν ἀρχῇ. The anarthrous expression ἐν ἀρχῇ occurs no fewer than 4,178 times in Greek literature from Homeros down to XVI A.D. The expression occurs in basically two main semantic fields: (1.a) “beginning” in a temporal sense, (1.b) “beginning” in a local sense and (2) in the sense of “power”, “command”, “authority”, “jurisdiction”, “reign”, “office”, etc. The sense of “in the beginning of” occurs in connection with a great variety of words20. On the other hand, the arthrous expression ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ occurs in the same body of literature 376 times. Of these, about 56 occurrences have the sense of “power”, “office”, “jurisdiction”, “authority”, “reign”, “domi- nions”, etc., while 320 instances have the general sense of “beginning”, “first”, etc. Comparing the 376 instances of the arthrous with the 4,178 instances of the anarthrous expression, we are forced to conclude that the Greeks had a predilection for using the anarthrous expression21. Brown, John, (see n. 9), 4. 19 E.g. ἐν ἀρχῇ συζητήσεως (Platon, Euthydemos, 291b), κατοικίσεως (Platon, Politeia, 20 453b), τῶν νόμων (Platon, Nomoi, 719e), τῆς νόσου / νούσου (Hippokrates, Prognostikon, 14.16), ποδῶν (Hippokrates, Epidemiai, 4.1.25.14), τοῦ λόγου (Demosthenes, Against Timokrates, 108), τοῦ ἔτους (Dionysios Halikarnasseus, Roman Antiquities, 9. 40.1), τοῦ προοιμίου (Dionysios, Hal. Thukydides, 25.15), τοῦ φθινοπώρου (Galenos, Commentary on Hippokrates’ Epidemiai, 163.12), τῆς γεροντικῆς ἡλικίας (Galenos, Commentary on Hippokrates’ Aphorisms, 402,19), τῶν παρθενίων ἀσμάτων (Ailios Herodianos, Katholike Prosodia, 131.3), στίχου (Ailios Herodianos, Odyssiake Prosodia, 156.18), τῆς ἐπωνυμίας (Flavius Claudius Julianus, Imperator, Peri Basileias, 17.30). The corresponding figures of 4,178 and 376 respectively are based on Version E of the 21 TLG. The latest, on-line version, may modify the above figures somewhat, but the relation can hardly be significantly different.