136 Jan van der Watt & Chrys Caragounis widen our parameters. The language is a living organism without static boundaries; developing and changing but at the same time preserving its basic character and identity. Thus, when the semantics of John’s words and phrases are studied freely as Greek language phenomena, particularly with the great advantages that the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae places at our disposal, it should not cause surprise if some of the ways in which we have conceived John’s meaning may need revising. a) With regard to the first clause, ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, a lot of energy has been expended on whether ἐν ἀρχῇ is definite or indefinite. Taking their point of departure—whether consciously or unconsciously—from the English definite expression “in the beginning”, scholars have argued for the definite sense for ἐν ἀρχῇ, because this must be the first beginning of all, which is unlike any other beginning. However, since the Greek phrase is indefinite, the solution has been sought in the word’s being a “monadic” word, i.e. the only one of its kind, which, being unique is definite by default. The diachronic approach, on the other hand, with its control of the evidence throughout the history of the language shows that while the anarthrous ἐν ἀρχῇ occurs 4,178 times, the arthrous ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ occurs only 376 times. It would be impossible to argue here that the indefinite sense was demanded more than eleven times as often as the definite. Ἐν ἀρχῇ is, of course, indefinite, but the question is whether there is any difference in semantics between ἐν ἀρχῇ and ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ. Greek literature shows that Greeks did not make any appreciable distinction between them. They often use both indiscriminately, and there are also textual variants to both in the manuscript tradition. Thus, since in the context—socio-linguistics—the expression refers to the beginning when the Logos existed—before creation—it is obvious that the phrase assumes ‘definite’ sense, not because it is ‘monadic’—for it is not—but because it has become a kind of temporal adverb and on account of its context and the symphrazomena = “the co-text”. b) The second clause καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, too, has seen a lively debate among grammarians and commentators. In particular, the force of πρὸς has drawn much comment. The directional force of πρὸς has been noted, which, however, is thought to be overridden by the static meaning of the verb of rest (ἦν). Nevertheless, the English tr. “with God” has been seen as flat and a more dynamic redering such as, for example, “face to face” has been advocated. Other suggestions include the idea that the phrase bespeaks “active communion” with God, or that the Word was “in converse with God”, or “having regard to God”, i.e. living “in absolute devotion” to God, etc. These attempts at interpretation are understanda-