[B-Greek] Jn 2:25 AUTOS DE IHSOUS OUK EPISTEUEN AUTON AUTOIS
Iver Larsen
iver_larsen at sil.org
Thu Feb 22 16:48:29 EST 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu>
To: "Webb" <webb at selftest.net>
> I've been puzzling over this for several days now. It must
> unquestionably mean "wasn't entrusting himself to them," mustn't it?
<snip>
> Considering alternatives from what BDAG indicates, I find:
>
> 1. to consider someth. to be true and therefore worthy of one’s
> trust, believe
> c. w. pers. and thing added π. τινί τι believe someone with
> regard to someth. (X., Apol. 15 MHDE TAUTA EIKHi PISTEUSHTE TWi QEWi)
> Hm 6, 2, 6.—W. dat. of pers. and ὅτι foll. (ApcEsdr 4:35 p. 29,
> 12 Tdf.): PISTEUETE MOI hOTI EGW EN TWi PATRI J 14:11a. Cp. 4:21; Ac
> 27:25.
>
> 2. to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe
> (in), trust, w. implication of total commitment to the one who is
> trusted.
> (several usages indicated here, including (a) dative of person, (b)
> with EIS and acc. of person, (c) with EPI and dat. of person, (d)
> with EN and dat. of person, (e) absolute, i.e. without a complement.
>
> 3. entrust TINI TI someth. to someone
> Here we find AUTON (so N. and Tdf.; v.l. hEAUTON) TINI trust oneself
> to someone (Brutus, Ep. 25; Plut., Mor. 181d ANDRI MALLON AGAQWi
> PISTEUSAS hEAUTON H OCURWi TOPWi=entrusting himself to a good man
> rather than to a stronghold; EpArist 270; Jos., Ant. 12, 396) J 2:24
> (EStauffer, CDodd Festschr., ’56, 281–99.—Diod. S. 34 + 35 fgm.
> 39a OU TOIS TUCOUSI FILOIS hEAUTON EPISTEUSEN=he did not trust
> himself to casual friends).
> Also here is Pass. PISTEUOMAI TI (B-D-F §159, 4) I am entrusted with
> something.
>
> What I'm having trouble understanding here is how the locution (BDAG
> #3) with the reflexive pronoun (hEAUTON PISTEUEIN TINI) is different
> in meaning from locution (BDAG #2) with all those alternative modes
> of indicating the complement of PISTEUEIN. That is to say, I'm
> wondering whether there is a real semantic difference between OUK
> EPISTEUEN AUTON AUTOIS and OUK EPISTEUEN AUTOIS. I'm wondering
> whether BOTH expressions don't really mean the same thing, namely,
> "he did not put his trust in them."
>
> And even IF there's an intent to emphasize that these Jerusalemites
> are dangerous and could very well turn on him and bring about his
> death, would that sense be less clearly indicated if our texts simply
> said OUK EPISTEUEN AUTOIS? Using BDAG #2 we could English this as "he
> would not entrust himself to them in complete confidence."
I would agree with Carl here. Although the two constructions have a different syntax, there does not
seem to be much semantic difference.
My problem is more the identity of AUTOIS, so the last paragraph above was helpful. When I look at
John's gospel as a whole, there is a repeated contrast between many of the common people, who
believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem who refused
to believe that. It seems to me that the AUTOIS must refer back to hOI IOUDAIOI in v. 18 rather than
the POLLOI in v. 23. When the "Jews" asked Jesus to show them a sign in order to support his right
to drive out the merchants from the Temple, he gave them a very cryptic answer, which no one
understood, and his disciples only understood it after his resurrection. If he had said to the
"Jews" that he was the Messiah or Son of God at this point, they would have hauled him off to prison
right away. He could not entrust his identity to them, because he couldn't trust them to believe it.
>From a discourse point of view, this rather strange pronoun reference can be explained by the
tendency to use pronouns for major participants, and in the drama of John's Gospel the two main
participants or antagonists are Jesus and those "Jews".
Iver Larsen
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list