[B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Wed Jan 16 13:57:55 EST 2008
Steve,
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.
On Jan 15, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Steve Runge wrote:
> 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.
I wonder if this is really an either/or. Could the near demonstrative
be used to point (a referential metaphor) as well as mark thematic
salience? With regard to hO NAOS hOUTOS in this context it seems that
more than salience is involved. Jesus just did something in TWi
hIEROWi which became the occasion for hOI IOUDAIOI asking TI SHMEION
DEIKNUEIS hHMIN hOTI TAUTA POIEIS;. Jesus answers LUSATE TON NAON
TOUTON and hOI IOUDAIOI naturally (relevance) understand TON NAON
TOUTON as a reference to TWi hIEROWi which took 46 years of
construction to reach its present state. It is hard for me to see how
TON NAON TOUTON could be not pointing (referential metaphor) to
something here.
>
>
> 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.
I will have to think about this one.
>
> 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).
>
RE: 21 EKEINOS DE ELEGEN PERI TOU NAOU TOU SWMATOS AUTOU.
EKEINOS often functions in Jn as a personal pronoun. I would be
somewhat hesitant to say that EKEINOS here has low salience. It is
clause initial and marks a contrast between different readings of
LUSATE TON NAON. Granted, ELEGEN PERI TOU NAOU TOU SWMATOS AUTOU is
the "new information" so if you are talking about relative salience
it has higher salience than EKEINOS. Anyway, salience analysis is a
particularly slippery topic.
thank you,
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list