[B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22
Steve Runge
srunge at logos.com
Wed Jan 16 15:11:42 EST 2008
See the comments below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Kline [mailto:kline_dekooning at earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:58 AM
To: Steve Runge
Cc: greek B-Greek
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] misunderstanding and relevance Jn 2:18-22
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.
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.
Reply:
Elizabeth,
My comments were directed primarily at the pair of demonstratives that follow, not so much the one in hO NAOS hOUTOS. It is important to note that the lexeme hIERON is not used in the reported speech, just in the narrative proper (vv. 14, 15). If one accepts this distinction as salient, then Jesus is the one that is choosing the term, and not making a change from some previous term that hOI IOUDAIOI had been using. They in fact adopt the term that Jesus introduced: NAOS (cf. vv. 19, 20, 21. From a cognitive point of view, I think that the writer is seeking to clue the reader into the semantic confusion that hOI IOUDAIOI exhibit by using both lexemes, making the distinction clear for the reader. The participants only ever use the one lexeme.
Returning to your comment, whether the motivation for selecting a demonstrative is deictic or thematic, I would agree that it need not be an either/or. According to relevance theory, if the reference is not semantically required, the reader would then look for some super-semantic reason for including a redundant element. In this context, standing outside the hIERON/NAOS, I do not think that the demonstrative can be construed as semantically required to disambiguate which referent is the intended target. Instead, it is conveying some other information. This could well be deictic, with Jesus pointing to the temple. It nonetheless adds a layer of thematic prominence to the referent, since it is not semantically required, in my opinion. It is this final point that I would add to what your have concluded so far.
What meaning does the presence of the redundant demonstrative add that would NOT have been communicated by its absence?
The same kind of thematic prominence can be added in English using the near demonstrative by itself. Imagine I had presented a syntactic analysis on a white board in a Greek class, and then said something like, "Now I want you to take this analysis and apply it to the rest of the chapter for your homework..." I would probably include the demonstrative if I were pointing at the diagram. I could have also called it 'my analysis' or simply 'the analysis', and there would have been no ambiguity since there is no competing referent. So what is achieved or signaled by the inclusion of the demonstrative where it is not semantically required? I have chewed on this a lot in the last few years, and provisionally concluded that it attracts more thematic attention to the referent than it otherwise would have received. It signals that this element is particularly salient in the context. This is not emphasis, it is attracting attention to some element that the reader needs to pay particular attention to in order to get the point of the proposition.
THIS is the primary question: :-)
In contexts where the demonstrative is not required for disambiguation, what does its presence contribute to the context that would NOT have been communicated by its absence?
Regards,
Steve
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list