135 A Grammatical Analysis of John 1,1 forth the very delicate relation of the Logos to the Father in such a way that we become conscious that, while underlining the full Godhead of the Logos, he gives a fine hint, at the same time, to a relationship in which God (i.e. the Father) is, shall we say (?), ‘greater’ than the Son. His formulations then, and the balance that he achieves between these two in themselves seemingly contradictory statements, can hold together such statements that he will make later in his Gospel as “I and the Father are one” (10,30) and “the Father is greater than I” (14,28). Thus, semantics, i.e. these fine theological nuances, are made possible by the grammatical and syntactical choices that Greek grammar places at his disposal. Form, syntax, and se- mantics are all combined to give expression to John’s theological thought. 5. Conclusion: Reconsidering and integrating the material Chrys C. Caragounis: The above presentation of the scholarly occupa- tion with this verse and its problems has indicated a rich and nuanced discussion. In the course of this discussion many fine points and correct observations have been made in detail and the attempt is recognizable to present an interpretation that does justice to the whole message in the light of the concerns of the Fourth Evangelist172. At the same time the diachronic investigation of the semantics of words and their syntax has revealed that earlier studies, confined as they were to largely NT (and sometimes LXX) material with little attention paid to the linguistic evidence outside the biblical boundaries, are flawed with some serious shortcomings. It is impossible to cut up the Greek lan- guage into various periods and to investigate each period to the exclusion of the others. For example, the fact that a linguistic phenomenon fails in the literary remains of a certain period need not imply that it had become obsolete, for it may turn up a century or so later. Thus, we need to Jan v.d. Watt: A question that is surely worth pondering is whether this apparently 172 easy Greek that proves quite complex in the end is not purposely written in that way? To me it seems as if this is a riddle/Maschal-like construction that requires additional information to be understood properly (which is supplied in the rest of this Gospel). For instance, that God in 1,1b and 1,1c is not the same God; that the Logos is Jesus and that Jesus is therefore described with the noun θεός. At the first reading one is not supposed to understand fully what is going on and is left guessing, but as the Gospel unfolds, the meaning becomes more transparent. A similar technique is used in 1 Cor 8,1-2 that only becomes understandable as chapter 8 unfolds. In support I would like point the views held by the Relevance theorists. This is a cognitive theory that stipulates that all statements are encoded and decoded with maximum relevance assumed. “An encoder uses as much processing energy as is neces- sary for the intended audience. An audience assumes that the author thought he had used enough information so that they can reach appropriate strong and weak implicatures about the message” Buth, “Language”, (see n. 2), 434