In their latest book, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, Köstenberger and Patterson offer the following example as an instance of a fallacy of “improper construal of Greek” grammar or syntax.

“A New Testament example comes from John 2:20, a verse in which translations commonly render the Greek original as indicating that the temple had been under construction ‘for 46 years.’ This seems to make good sense in that Jesus then would be saying that he can tear down and rebuild the temple in three days rather than the 46 years that it had already taken to do so in his day. The problem with this, however, is that the expression ’46 years’ in the Greek is in the dative rather than the accusative case. Yet it is the accusative that would need to be used (an ‘accusative of time’) if the above-cited interpretation were valid. On the former reading, the dative suggests, not duration of time (‘for 46 years’) but location in time: ‘at [a point] 46 years [ago].’ Therefore what is most likely in view is the beginning of reconstruction of the temple 46 years ago in the past (location), not the extended period of construction (duration) of the temple.’ (637-38)

In his commentary on John Köstenberger fills in a couple of important details. He writes,

“The logic underlying Jesus’ statement may become clearer when his opponents question is understood as containing an ellipsis: ‘This temple was built forty-six years ago—and has stood all that time ever since then—and you want us to destroy it just so you can raise it up again in three days?’ To be sure, they had demanded a sign, but to ask them to tear down the temple just so Jesus could provide the requested sign by rebuilding it within three days—an obvious impossibility—was clearly beyond the pale of what they were willing to do. (110)

Köstenberger’s case rests on two arguments. 1) The temple complex was, in fact, not finished being constructed. But John uses a particular Greek word, naos, which he believes John uses to refer not to the temple grounds at large but to the temple building proper which was finished by this time.  (See his commentary for details and Harold Hoehner’s Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ pp 38-43.) 2) For the traditional translations to be correct we would need to see the accusative case rather than the dative case used. Since the latter is used a better translation would be “this temple was built 46 years ago.”

Köstenberger cites as support Daniel Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.  Although Wallace does support Köstenberger’s interpretation of the dative here he does say “although with ἔτοσ extent of time is a viable option.” (561n17) And in his discussion of the dative case Wallace says “Although the dative largely has the force of point, it occasionally overlaps with the accusative of time, and rarely with the genitive of time.” (156)

C. K. Barrett in his commentary on John writes “’This sanctuary was built in forty-six years.’ It seems impossible to translate otherwise. For the construction cf. Ezra 5.6. The dative (ἔτεσιν) is partly locative, the whole period regarded as a unit of time, and partly instrumental, time ‘by the lapse of which anything is brought about’ (Robertson, 527, cf. 523).”

As with Barrett most commentaries point to the LXX of Ezra 5:6 as support for the application of the aorist tense to something not yet completed. Leon Morris does admit “the application of the tense to an edifice that was not to be completed for many years is not easy.” (Gospel According to John, NICNT, 200n81) But this is another question unrelated to the use of the dative case. This does have application to Köstenberger’s first argument (see above).

I was unable to find any translation that supports Köstenberger’s interpretation. He does point to the ESV 2011 text which adds it as an alternate translation in a footnote.  The whole point of my discussion is to ask is this such an obvious fallacy that it warrants inclusion in his book as an example of such a fallacy? Köstenberger makes it sound like even a second year Greek student should be able to tell that the use of the dative case should make it obvious that the traditional translation is not an option at all. But such is not the case. Wallace says the dative of extent is a “viable option” although he does believe it is questionable.  In defense of Köstenberger I would say the nature of fallacies is that they are not always so obvious and need to be pointed out. Köstenberger’s translation does require some reading between the lines in order to make the connection between the time of the temple’s construction and Jesus’ statement that he will rebuild it in three days (even though he was not talking about the temple at all). I was initially impressed with Köstenberger’s case but as I looked at it more carefully it does not seem to be as strong as he implies.