In a message dated 97-09-06 21:32:27 EDT, you write:
<<
Hello, Cindy:
<<
2. PROS necessitates the association of two units and excludes a
relationship within a complex unit. >>
Could you tell me what you mean by "complex unit," specifically in reference
to the Johannine Prologue, and where you find this unit (if not specifically
in the Prologue) elsewhere in John's Gospel?
>>
First, let me clarify that I was distilling two assumptions that I saw in
Rolf's argument with which I took issue. This was the second of the two
assumptions that I questioned.
It appears that Rolf maintains that PROS, by definition, must involve a
relationship between two distinct units. That is, that John could not or
would not use EIMI + PROS to associate or relate one member to a whole
entity.
On the other hand, I'm assuming that John could or would use PROS + EIMI to
associate parts or members of a unit to the complex unit (meaning a unit
composed of more than one part or member, like a complex organism).
I assume, for instance, if John had wanted to make a similar point about the
relationship between the branch and the vine, he might have said, TO KLHMA HN
PROS THN AMPELON without violating the fact that the branch and the vine form
a complex unit.
Or to go to a wider circle, I assume that if Luke wanted to make a similar
point about Gamaliel and the Sanhedrin, he could have said GAMALIHL HN PROS
TO SUNEDRION without implying that Gamaliel couldn't have been a member of
the Sanhedrin.
John quotes Jesus as saying EGW KAI O PATHR hEN ESMEN in Jn. 10:33. At least
one good option for the meaning of this clause is that Jesus and the Father
form a complex unit of which both are parts or members. I assume that the
use of PROS in 1:1b and 1:2 would not exclude the idea of Jesus as a member
relating to such a complex unit. This would be consistent with two of the
views suggested for Jn. 1:1c. That is, hO LOGOS could be taken as a "member"
of QEOS (a complex unit) whether the emphasis is on the quality of QEOS, or
QEOS is taken as definite.
If Rolf assumes that PROS necessitates two distinct units, he has a narrower
definition of PROS. I think the burden of proof would lie on the one who
holds the narrower definition, bearing in mind that in the Hellenistic
period, the distinctions between prepositions such as PROS and META had
blurred and were becoming interchangeable.