Chrys C. Caragounis - Jan Van der Watt, «A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 21 (2008) 91-138 page 98

Vol 21 (2008)

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.

See more by the same author

Page 98/138
‹
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
›

98 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis The question that arises is whether there is a semantic difference bet- ween the two expressions. â€£ Aprioristically it would be rather strange if in Greek literature 4,178 contexts demanded the indefinite form and only 376 contexts deman- ded the definite form. The sheer force of these figuresâ€”aprioristically againâ€”make it very difficult to argue that by the anarthrous form indefinite meaning was intended while by the arthrous definite. â€£ Comparing the anarthrous with the arthrous occurrences it is difficult to maintain such a distinction. For example, Platon, Symposion, 197b: á½¥ÏƒÏ€ÎµÏ á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Îµá¼¶Ï€Î¿Î½ functions in exactly the same way as Origenes, Comm. on Jeremiah 17,4.46: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ á½ Ï€ÏÎ¿ÏƒÏ†á½µÏ„Î·Ï‚ á¼”Î»ÎµÎ³ÎµÎ½ (see also 14.5.38: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ á¼Ï€ÎµÏƒÎ·Î¼ÎµÎ¹Ï‰Ïƒá½±Î¼Î·Î½). And again, Platon, Phaidros, 253c: ÎºÎ±Î¸á½±Ï€ÎµÏ á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿† Ï„Î¿á¿¦Î´Îµ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î¼á½»Î¸Î¿Ï… is similar to Origenes, Frg. on Psalms, 2 p. 2: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î¼Î±ÎºÎ±ÏÎ¹ÏƒÎ¼Î¿á¿¦. Compare, further, Platon, Alkibiades, 140d: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï…, Gorgias, Frg. 11,130: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï… and Hyperides, Frg. 171,2: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï… with Ailios Herodianos, Peri Syntaxeos ton stoicheion, 3,2, 393,38: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„á¿†Ï‚ Î»á½³Î¾ÎµÏ‰Ï‚22. These specimens seem to indicate that the anarthtrous instances could have been arthrous and vice versa. â€£ Nor would it be possible to argue that the one expression was more at home in the classical period while the other in the Hellenistic or By- zantine periods. For as a matter of fact, both expressions show about the same ratio of occurrences between their classical and post-classical instances, that is, both expressions occur in analogous proportion more frequently in the latter periods. â€£ Although our NT editions do not indicate this, some of the early Christian authors actually use the arthrous expression at John 1,1, e.g. Origenes, Frg. on Gospel of John, 1,49: Î´Î¹á½¸ á¼Ï€á½µÎ³Î±Î³ÎµÎ½ Ï„á¿· á¾¿Î•Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ á¼¦Î½ á½ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï‚23; Didymos Caecus, On the Trinity, e.g. 39,793.35: á¿Î—Î½ Î³á½°Ï, Ï†Î·Ïƒá½¶Î½, á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Î˜Îµá½¸Ï‚ Ï€Ïá½¸Ï‚ Ï„á½¸Î½ Î˜Îµá½¹Î½; Gregorios Nysseus, Refutation of Eunomos, 22,3Î‡ á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ á½„Î½Ï„Î¹ Î»á½¹Î³á¿³ (Îµá¼¶Ï€Îµ Î³á½°Ï á½…Ï„Î¹ ÎšÎ±á½¶ á¼¦Î½ Ï€Ïá½¸Ï‚ Ï„á½¸Î½ Î˜Îµá½¹Î½). That these are not all exact quotations of Jn 1,1 See also Aristoteles, Posterior Analytics, 27a: á½¡Ï‚ á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Îµá¼´Ï€Î¿Î¼ÎµÎ½; Origenes, Comm. 22 on Romans, 192.23: á½¡Ï‚ Î Î±á¿¦Î»Î¿Ï‚ Î±á½Ï„á½¸ á¼”Î¸Î·ÎºÎµÎ½ á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿†. Compare Demosthenes, Erotikos, 51.3: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Ï… with Hippokrates, De morbis 1.22.32: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„á¿¶Î½ Ï€Î±Î¸Î·Î¼á½±Ï„Ï‰Î½; Aristoteles, Athenaion Politeia, 5.3.11: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„á¿†Ï‚ á¼Î»ÎµÎ³Îµá½·Î±Ï‚ with Demetrios Rhetor, De Elocutione, 2.2: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„á¿†Ï‚ á¼±ÏƒÏ„Î¿Ïá½·Î±Ï‚. Galenos, Commentary on the First Book of Hippokrates on Epidemiai, 17a.163.12: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Î´á½² Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Ï†Î¸Î¹Î½Î¿Ï€á½½ÏÎ¿Ï… (cf. also Attalos As- tronomikos, 23.20: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„á¿†Ï‚ Î½Ï…ÎºÏ„á½¸Ï‚) with Cassius Dion, Roman History, 47.13.2.6.: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ á¼”Ï„Î¿Ï…Ï‚; Phil 4,15: á¼Î½ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ Îµá½Î±Î³Î³ÎµÎ»á½·Î¿Ï… with Pdeudo-Sphratzes, Chronikon, 478.5: á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ Ï„Î¿á¿¦ ÎºÎ·Ïá½»Î³Î¼Î±Ï„Î¿Ï‚. See further, Commentary on John, 1.39.289.5: Î½Î¿Î·Ï„á½³Î¿Î½ Ï„á½¸Î½ Î»á½¹Î³Î¿Î½ á¼Î½ Ï„á¿‡ á¼€ÏÏ‡á¿‡ and 23 1.39.289.8; 1.39.290.5; 3.6.21.8, etc.