Luke 2:46-49
Και εγενετο μεθ’
ημερος τρεις, ευρον αυτον εν τω ιερω, καθεζομενον εν μεσω των διδασκαλων, και
ακουοντα αυτων, και επερωτωντα αυτους.
Εξισταντο δε παντες οι ακουοντες αυτου, επι τη συνεσει και ταις
αποκρισεσιν αυτου. Και ιδοντεςαυτον, εξεπλαγησαν. Και προς αυτον ειπε, Τεκνον, τι εποιησας ημιν
ουτως; Ιδου ο πατηρ σου καγω οδυνωμενοι
εζητοθμεν σε. Και ειπε προς αυτους, Τι
οτι εζητειτε με; Οuκ ηδειτε οτι εν τοις του πατρος μου δει ειναι.
After three days they found him in the temple seated in the
midst of the teachers listening and questioning them. Now, he was amazing all those who heard him
because of his understanding and his answers.
When they saw him, they were shocked, and his mother said to him,
“Child, why have you done this to us? Your
father and I have been distressed, searching for you.” But he said to them, “How is it that you were
searching for me? Did you not realize
that I must be in the precincts of my father?”
Syriac NT of Luke 2:49 (in Hebrew characters)
אמר להון מנא בעין הויתון לי? לא ידעין דבית אבי ולא לי דאהוא?
He said to them, “Why
were you searching? Did you not realize
that my father’s house is where I must be?”
Deilitch Hebrew translation of Luke 2:49
ויאמר אליהם למה זה בקשתם אתי? הלא ידעתם כי עלי להיות באשר לאבי?
But he said to them, “Why
did you search for me? Did you not
realize that I must be in my father’s place?”
Modern Hebrew
למה חפשתם אותי? השיב להם. האים לא ידעתם כי עלי להיות במה ששיך לאבי?
“Why did
you search?" he responded to them. "Did
you not realize that I must be in what belongs to my father?"
The common English
translation from Greek of Luke 2:49 is "Did you not know I must be about my
father’s business." This is based on a
rendering of the elliptical phrase εν τοις του πατρος μου. The element omitted from the text is a
masculine/neuter dative plural, but the only likely antecedent in the prior
context is τω ιερω, which is neuter
singular. If this is the correct
understanding, then why the shift from singular to plural? One possible explanation is that the singular
term during the second temple period referred both to the temple proper as well
as to the entire complex of buildings whose construction at the time of this
story had not yet been completed. The
first reference would be a generic reference to the entire temple complex. However, Yeshua, who was neither a priest nor
Levite, could not have been in the temple proper, so the second reference is to
the complex of buildings surrounding the temple structure. The Syriac translation and the two Hebrew
translations favor this interpretation.
Undoubtedly, the shift from singular to plural constitutes
the rationale for the common rendering in English, but what is the source for
‘my father’s business’? Presumably, this
comes from ‘answering and asking questions,’ as mentioned in the previous
verse. The remaining interpretive
question, then, is ‘How does this constitute my father’s business?’
From a Jewish perspective, Yeshua was 12 years old at the
time, and so he was too young to seriously undertake his role as messiah or any
other adult pursuit. Consequently, the
common interpretation of English readers cannot be taken too seriously. Rather the purpose of the entire passage is
to demonstrate that even at this young age Yeshua possessed a self-awareness
that surpassed that normally expected. Typically,
a child of 12 years who is suddenly separated from family and everyone familiar is likely
to panic and become hysterical. Rather,
Yeshua was aware of his unique relation with Adonai, and he knew that he could
safely await his parents return at the temple.
His interaction with the teachers there demonstrates the care with which
he had been taught by his parents as well as the unique scope of his insight
into God’s revelation.
No comments:
Post a Comment