A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 137 ble and they show a true concern not to miss any possible nuances that the author might have had in his mind. The investigation of this clause in the light of a diachronic exami- nation of the evidence notes that this preposition (which occurs some 400,000 times in Gr. lit.) is found in an enormous number of senses and with many verbs. However, the real parallels here are only thirteen, all in the NT (none in earlier Greek lit. or the LXX), which use our structure: someone (nom.) is πρὸς + someone (acc.) in order to indicate the relation someone has to someone. Twelve of these texts describe ordinary human relations, i.e. that someone is/stays/dwells with someone. This shows that our clause is not unique, nor that the preposition describes a special rela- tion that exists only between the Son and the Father. In the NT there are twelve more instances of the same construction as Jn 1,1b and they refer to ordinary human relations. Thus, if we do not take into account the whole evidence, we are liable to succumb to theological speculation and produce unsound exegesis and in the end an unsound theology. Compa- risons of this structure with παρά + dative, indicate that πρὸς + acc. was a late formation which came to be used side by side with the older παρά + dative. The manuscript tradition, too, gives the two expressions πρὸς + acc. and παρά + dat. as varia lectiones.The two structures occur also in lit. after the NT to express normal human relations. c) The discussion of the third clause, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὀ λόγος has been concentrated chiefly on the anarthrous Θεός. It has been correctly pointed out that if Θεός had the article, then ὁ Θεός and ὁ λόγος would be inter- changeable; we would not know which was the subject and which the pre- dicate. Besides, John would have been guilty of Modalism (Sabellianism). It has further been speculated whether the anarthrous Θεός should not be translated indefinitely as “a God”. Although this translation has been rejected, its possibility in principle has been conceded. The discussion has concentrated on the definite meaning of Θεός supported by Colwell’s principle, which, however, some have applied beyond Colwell’s intention. Finally, the attempt to turn Θεός to a qualitative adjective (θεῖος) has also been entertained by some. The views expressed on this problem are so many and so varied that at times it appears that scholars argue at cross purposes. In the process views that are hard to square with the evidence are expressed. From the diachronic standpoint it must be said that there is nothing strange about the clause καὶ θὲος ἦν ὁ λόγος It is perfectly normal. The author wanted to emphasize Θεός, that is why he put that word first. It is anarthrous because it is predicate. But this for a Greek does not mean “a God” (which would have been Θεός τις or εἷς Θεός), nor does it mean “the God” (ὁ Θεός). It means simply “God”. The question of definite or indefi-