[B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Tue Jan 15 17:42:45 EST 2008
Elizabeth,
I would agree with your analysis of the demonstrative ("this demonstrative spoken in this situational framework is just as ambiguous as TON NAON"). The near demonstrative of often used as a way of marking some non-spatial element as being thematically salient, and not necessarily to point to some near element. I did a paper on this kind of thematic usage by Mark in the parable of the Sower, available at the link below.
Keep tracking the use of demonstratives and you will find that John uses them in vv. 21-22 to set up a near/far opposition, drawing attention to an important proposition that follow.
Using Dik's framework to analyze vv. 21-22, notice that there is a redundant subject that likely could have been omitted since it is a pronoun and does little to disambiguate to whom it is referring. Notice that John uses the far demonstrative EKEINOS to refer to Jesus instead of no reference, AUTOS/hOUTOS, or a proper noun. It serves to make an explicit change of topic from hOI IOUDAIOI (i.e. a point of departure), and also functions as a foil for the next use of the near demonstrative in v. 22. It is not focal; the most important information in the clause is the prepositional phrase PERI TOU NAOU TOU SWMATOS AUTOU.
21 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.
22 ὅτε οὖν ἠγέρθη ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι τοῦτο ἔλεγεν,
Demonstratives are the only option of referring to a proposition pronominally. The use of both the near and far demonstratives in such close proximity establishes a contrast, with Jesus being the 'far' element, and what he said being the 'near' element. This is one of the means that John frequently uses to distinguish between what he considers athematic (the far element) and he considers thematic (the near element).
Do a search on the occurrence of hOUTOS and EKEINOS within one verse, and look at how the distinction is used. I think that the distinction here is to make sure more attention is given to what Jesus said than to Jesus himself. Based on Dik's framework, the near demonstrative hOUTOS could be construed as fronted for emphasis/focus in the subordinate clause hOTI TOUTO ELEGEN. Here again, the pronominal element likely could have been omitted and the clause still could have been unambiguously understood.
Regards,
Steve
Steven Runge, DLitt (Biblical Languages)
Scholar-in-Residence
Logos Research Systems, Inc.
http://www.logos.com/academic/bio/runge
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Kline
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 1:55 PM
To: greek B-Greek
Subject: [B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22
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
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek B-Greek mailing list B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list