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.
A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 125
• A first possibility is:
᾿Εν á¼€Ïχῇ ἦν ὠλόγος,
καὶ ὠλόγος ἦν Ï€Ïὸς τὸν θεόν,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὠλόγος.
If this represents the correct syntactic structure, it would mean that
the basic statement is that the Word was in the beginning. This is a state-
ment about time location. Then two statements follow, expanding on the
position of the λόγος†and describing the relationship between the λόγος
and θεός.
• A second possibility is:
᾿Εν á¼€Ïχῇ ἦν ὠλόγος,
καὶ ὠλόγος ἦν Ï€Ïὸς τὸν θεόν,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὠλόγος.
In this case the basic statement is that the Word was in the beginning.
This is explained by the idea that the Word was with God (who obviously
was also there in the beginning). This idea is further expanded by the
idea that the Word was indeed divine (God). The subordination could be
paraphrased as follows: In the beginning the Word existed that made it
possible for (explains why) the Word to be with God, which implies that
the Word was divine.
In making a choice, the context and semantics should assist the inter-
preter. The real semantic significance of the καί phrases should be de-
termined. These phrases may be Semitisms or may reflect the paratactic
nature of lower forms of Hellenistic Greek147.
It might help to remind oneself that in paratactical constructions the
relationship is loose (three rather independent statements) while hypo-
tactical constructions are more closely linked. The one phrase should
be interpreted in terms of, or in close semantic relation to, the other.
In this light it should be noted that verses 1-5 are well structured and
especially verse 1 and verses 4-5 portray what could be called “staircase
parallelismâ€148. Although the sentences are linked through the use of καί
“Semitic languages are especially paratactic, as are the lower echelons of Hellenistic
147
Greek†(Wallace, Syntax, see n. 9, 667).
Brown, John, (see n. 9), 19; Haenchen, Johannesevangelium, (see n. 112), 117. See
148
also Bultmann, Johannes, (see n. 13), 2-3 who describes this structure with reference to
FOLLOW US