[B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Jan 15 16:55:13 EST 2008


18 Ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ  
εἶπαν αὐτῷ· τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις  
ἡμῖν ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς;  19 ἀπεκρίθη  
Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· λύσατε  
τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν  
ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.  20 εἶπαν οὖν  
οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ  
ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος,  
καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς  
αὐτόν;  21 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ  
τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.  22 ὅτε  
οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐμνήσθησαν  
οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν,  
καὶ ἐπίστευσαν τῇ γραφῇ καὶ τῷ  
λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς.

18 APEKRIQHSAN OUN hOI IOUDAIOI KAI EIPAN AUTWi: TI SHMEION DEIKNUEIS  
hHMIN hOTI TAUTA POIEIS;  19 APEKRIQH IHSOUS KAI EIPEN AUTOIS: LUSATE  
TON NAON TOUTON KAI EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGERW AUTON.  20 EIPAN OUN hOI  
IOUDAIOI: TESSERAKONTA KAI hEX ETESIN OIKODOMHQH hO NAOS hOUTOS, KAI  
SU EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGEREIS AUTON;  21 EKEINOS DE ELEGEN PERI TOU  
NAOU TOU SWMATOS AUTOU.  22 hOTE OUN HGERQH EK NEKRWN, EMNHSQHSAN hOI  
MAQHTAI AUTOU hOTI TOUTO ELEGEN, KAI EPISTEUSAN THi GRAFHi KAI TWi  
LOGWi hON EIPEN hO IHSOUS.

Setting asside historical questions and assuming John's narrative  
framework where the question put to Jesus by hOI IOUDAIOI came in  
response to his action in the temple, it seems that hOI IOUDAIOI had  
every reason to understand Jesus statement LUSATE TON NAON TOUTON KAI  
EN TRISIN hHMERAIS EGERW AUTON as a reference to physical place where  
the action they are challenging took place. hOI IOUDAIOI response  
TESSERAKONTA KAI hEX ETESIN OIKODOMHQH hO NAOS hOUTOS indicates that  
hO NAOS had been understood according to the principles relevance as  
a reference to the physical structure. [setting asside the  
distinction between hO NAOS and TO hIERON, a distinction hOI IOUDAIOI  
didn't observe in their response.]

Beasley-Murray 1999:40 (John WBC) suggests that Jesus' reply can be  
understood as a mashal, "a riddle which is at the same time  
parabolic." In regard to the referential ambiguity with ON NAON in  
LUSATE TON NAON TOUTON  John implies that even hOI MAQHTAI were  
confused about Jesus' statement until HGERQH EK NEKRWN.

This misunderstanding illustrates clearly the principles of  
relevance. The cognitive and situational framework in which these  
words were spoken led to an improbable (not quite absurd) reading of  
Jesus' remarks. One could argue that this improbability should have  
should have suggested the parabolic nature of his statement. But hOI  
IOUDAIOI were a hostile audience who saw this as an opening to claim  
that Jesus was a dangerous lunatic.

Some suggest the use of the demonstrative TOUTON in LUSATE TON NAON  
TOUTON indicated a switch in reference from TO hIERON to TON NAON  
TOUTON  (to himself, his body?). However, this demonstrative spoken  
in this situational framework is just as ambiguous as TON NAON.  
Unless we picture Jesus indicating with a his hand (pointing to  
himself?) the demonstrative would be naturally understood as a  
reference to the physical structure. hOI MAQHTAI, who were not a  
hostile audience, didn't understand, so we can probably rule out  
Jesus pointing to himself or some similar gesture.


Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list