02_Feník Lapko_498-524_498-524 10/12/15 10:15 Pagina 520 520 JURAJ FENÍK – RÓBERT LAPKO 520 of two questions (ti, o[ti evzhtei/te, meÈ ouvk h;d| eite o[ti evn toi/j tou/ patro,j mou dei/ ei=nai, meÈ), with the logic between them captured as follows: the knowledge that he is evn toi/j tou/ patro,j should have spared the parents the pain experienced while searching for him. Jesus’ question ouvk h;|deite o[ti evn toi/j tou/ patro,j mou dei/ ei=nai, meÈ is in fact an annunciation — Jesus announces to his per- plexed mother that he must be evn toi/j tou/ patro,j mou. On this understanding, Jesus is not so much questioning their past failure to understand his whereabouts as he is revealing an aspect of his iden- tity. The double use of a case of the personal pronoun evgw, (mou, me) and of the verb “to be” with Jesus as the implied subject in accusativus cum infinitivo ei=nai, me indicates that the words in his mouth have strong personal — and therefore christological — coloring. Despite the enigmatic character of Jesus’ pronouncement in gen- eral and the exact referent behind ta. tou/ patro,j in particular, the basic telic force of Jesus’ sentence resides in the affirmation of his filial relationship to the Father. The ambiguity of ta. tou/ patro,j is commonly noticed 40. With acknowledgement of the gamut of vary- ing appraisals of the exact translation of the phrase 41, the proposal advanced by Radl, who follows Mayser, may be adopted here 42. These authors point out that the neuter plural article ta, followed by the genitive of a person indicates “house” or “property, posses- sion”. On this understanding, Jesus would be informing his mother that he must remain completely in the possession of his Father. A similar proposal would be to understand the Father’s business or affairs as the referent behind toi/j 43. The words would mean that “the claims of Jesus’ heavenly Father outrank any human attach- ments […]” 44. The necessity of Jesus’ remaining in the possession of his Father is communicated by the first occurrence of the word dei/, “terminus technicus for the inexorable course of sacred [and 40 H.J. DE JONGE, “Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy: Luke II. 41-51a”, NTS 24 (1978) 317-354, here 335, notes: “The ambivalence of the sentence […] is probably not susceptible of a satisfactory rendering in any language”. 41 An overview of translation proposals, including additional bibliography, may be found in DE JONGE, “Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy”, 331-337; HEININGER, “Familienkonflikte”, 65-66; R. LAURENTIN, Jésus au Temple. Mystère du Pâques et Foi de Marie en Luc 2,48-50 (EB; Paris 1966) 38-72. 42 See RADL, Der Ursprung Jesu, 245. 43 Advocated by DE JONGE, “Sonship, Wisdom, Infancy”, 335. 44 BROWN, The Birth of the Messiah, 465.