Re: Pros

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Thu Jun 03 1999 - 12:29:42 EDT

At 8:51 AM -0700 6/3/99, George Blaisdell wrote:
>>From: "Donald L. Shaffer"
>>It now seems clear to me that I need only research
>>that combination of EIMI and PROS.
>Carl's original posting on PROS is the one that was most helpful to me on
>this issue, where he referenced Aristotle's category of "relation[ship]" as
>having the formula TO PROS TI. This IS 'relation[ship', you see... In ALL
>its occurrences. And by the time of the writing of the GNT, it would have
>to have been pretty well imbedded in Greek language, as it probably was long
>before him.
>Now EIMI plus PROS plus accusative would seem to fit this formulation with
>great precision, indeed in such a way as to define it as virtually
>relationship itself [to Platonize Aristotle a tad!]. So when John 1:1 has
>hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, we can assume on this approach that it clearly
>means relationship, where hO LOGOS is TO in the formulation, and TON QEON is
>TI, and the HN is the very implied stative verb of existence in TO PROS TI.
>'Towards' as a gloss fails because there are relationships, clearly, that
>avoid, or are away from, what is being related.

No, the text does NOT say hO LOGOS HN TO PROS QEON EINAI. And that is what
it would have to say to yield the meaning you're suggesting.

The rest of this is theological speculation, which really doesn't belong on
this list. Take it to your "Theology of the Greek Bible" list where such
speculation appears to be right at home in that current thread with the
newly coined term, QEWSIS. Please, let's keep theological speculation off
of this list.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:29 EDT