99 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 is beside the point. The important thing is that for these authors the anarthrous expression and the arthrous expression were equivalent. ‣ There is no doubt whatsoever that Jn 1,1 is a conscious echo of LXX Gen 1,1: ᾿Εν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν, in spite of the fact that while ἀρχῇ in Genesis refers to the beginning of crea- tion, in John it refers to a state that already existed in the beginning. In other words, the difference between Gen 1,1 and Jn 1,1 is that whereas the former passage refers to the beginning of created things, the latter goes further back, referring to eternity. But at all events, the use of the anarthrous expression at Jn 1,1 was given. ‣ The expression ἐν ἀρχῇ is found in the LXX 29 times, translating various Hebrew words/expressions. Almost all of them could have used the arthrous expression ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ without any change of mea- ning. And yet the arthrous expression occurs only once, namely in the Theodotion text of Dan 9,12: ὃν εἶδον… ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ (the LXX has ὃν εἶδον… τὴν ἀρχήν), where the expression could easily have been anarthrous: ἐν ἀρχῇ. In the NT ἐν ἀρχῇ occurs only four times24. Leaving aside the two ‣ Johannine occurrences, both Acts 11,15 and Phil 4,15 could have been served by the arthrous expression ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ. To make a distinction here between ἐν ἀρχῇ, as referring to the first days of the Gospel in Makedonia and a hypothetical ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ, as referring to the first beginnings in Jerusalem, is a hypothesis that is foreign to the genius and the evidence of the language. ‣ The anarthrous expression ἐν ἀρχῇ should not be understood as the indefinite would in English, i.e. “in a beginning”, since that would be nonsense. The terms ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’, if used at all in con- nection with this expression, should be understood in an analogous way to the two conjunctions ὅτε and ὅταν, which, although strictly distinguished, in later Greek including the NT, have come to be used interchangeably, while in Demotic Neohellenic in which this develop- ment continued, the less phonodynamic ὅτε has given place to ὅταν. In English translation both of them are rendered by ‘when’. In Demotic Neohellenic25, which has lost the dative form26, the prepo- ‣ sition ἐν is not usuable, except in certain set phrases. Jn 1,1a would be rendered by στὴν (= εἰς τὴν) ἀρχὴ(ν) ἦταν ὁ λόγος. This means that Demotic Neohellenic translates ἐν ἀρχῇ with a definite phrase, Twice in Jn 1,1-2 and in Acts 11,15 and Phil 4,15 24 The other form of Neohellenic, Katharevousa, has usually the same morphology as the 25 ancient form of the language. Not the dative case, which is expressed by εἰς + the def. art. (στόν, στήν, etc.), as in 26 English ‘to’ + acc. Cf. C. C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek, pp. 114 f.