I guess it depends on which definition of “imagination” you mean . . .

a) the act of forming mental images of what is not actually present

b) a foolish notion

c) the ability to understand and appreciate imaginative creations of others

d) resourcefulness in dealing with new or unusual experiences

e) an evil plan (an obsolete meaning today)

Personally, I think “an evil plan” is always behind the work of a linguist.

It is certainly probable that such “linguistic echoes” could be at play in the interpretation of John. My question is whether John intended such echoes.

Again, I can’t say “no” with certitude, but unless there is clear, incontrovertible evidence to support a “double meaning” . . . I can’t say “yes” either.

What a linguistic fuddy-dud I am!

“No one can grasp the meaning of the Gospel (of John) unless he has rested on the breast of Jesus, and unless he has received from Him Mary, who becomes his mother also.”

It’s interesting to me when the NT authors use Light and Dark formally – I always wonder if there’s an echo of the Essenes’ “War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness” eschatology, especially with John the Baptist presumably having spent some of his youth among that sect. By the time John the Apostle wrote his gospel, the sphere of that influence would have faded, but perhaps linguistic echoes remained such that an interpretation of “overcome” could be seen against this background.

Contextually, the entire Gospel of John demonstrates over and over that while Jesus spoke truth, many people did not understand (3:10; 8:43; 10:6; 12:16; 13:7; 20:9) or accept (3:11, 32; 4:48; 5:38, 47; 6:53-66; 8:45-46; 10:25-26; 16:8-9) what he said or did. John’s purpose in writing the book (as given in 20:31 . . . “these things are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”) appears to be in hopes that this lack of understanding and belief will nto be the case for his audience. So in the “big picture” of the book as a whole, favor seems to go toward understanding katelaben in John 1:5 as “appropriation of the truth (about Christ) through understanding and belief.”

Even in the immediate context of chapter 1, this kind of thrust seems to be in play. John the Baptist comes as a witness to testify to the light (1:6-8). The world did not recognize the Light even though he was in the world (1:10). In fact, the world in general did not receive him (1:11).

To be fair, John certainly pictures Jesus as overcoming the world (16:33), and Jesus is displayed useing the word “katelaben’ in the context of speaking of light and darkness in 12:35 (and several translation render the verb with some form of “overtake”). So Kraus’ interpretation is possible. Yet I would point out that John uses a different Greek word in 16:33 to speak of overcoming (nikao), and even in 12:35 katelaben does not carry the connotation of “overcoming” someone or something else (conquering them, so to speak) as much as “coming upon” people so that they do not know (again understanding/knowledge/belief seems to be in play here) where to go.