Steve Godfrey said (referring to the variety of words used in John 21): > I doubt very much they are there merely to protect the reader from > boredom. This is an interesting observation. The position which suggests the variation is there for stylistic reasons has to explain why the (admittedly, I would think) EXTREME variety. I mean, the words are flipping around all over the place. Why? If the variety has so distracted exegetes (witness the amount of discussion which is had on John 21, it even happens in church meetings down under ;-), then why would an author intentionally utilize such significant variety? It doesn't relieve boredom, it distracts. "Bill Barton" said: > It's been shown here that it's hard to prove that a semantic > difference is necessarily implied based strictly on the terms, > since the terms overlap in semantic domain. Likewise it's hard to > prove that a semantic difference is not implied, since the semantic > domains are not identical; that is, the terms can be used with the > intent of expressing a different meaning. I think this is a very good point, too. If the lexical semantic overlap exists but is incomplete AND people construct their arguments for their positions by limiting themselves to the semantic domains, then the discussion is interminable. Gosh, I think we got some solid evidence here. :-) Seriously, I point out my agreement with Bill B. in order to say that, IMO, the significant part of the answer will lie in a consensus on the semantics of the pericope (paragraph). The words are part of the evidence, but the resolution lies in the larger text. We likely won't get there, but stretching in the effort will be rewarding. Lastly, I'll offer an hypothesis. Which has its base in recognizing the 1st century Israel was a society which practiced arranged marriage. Since most cultures represented by the people on this list do not practice such an arrangement, we would not be tuned to view things in this light. In other words, our cultural framework exacerbates the polarization over the two words--we don't readily see it. In my experience I've seen anecdotal evidence to support what I'm about to propose, at least the actions even if we have no words for such. That is, there are two types of love in an arranged marriage and the one type of love precedes the other. Here's the hypothesis: AGAPAW was used to describe the love one has at the start of the engagement period. That is, an agreement has been made and now is the time to start building the relationship. The sense of this word is totally foreign to the Western mind. PHILEW was used to describe the love which builds between two people as the relationship improves and matures. Our modern method of `dating' preceding `engagement' has inverted the 1st century model. We don't think in terms of choice preceding love, we think of love as generating choice. This inversion IMO impacts our ability to understand the two terms. This hypothesis suggests a natural flow in the discussion between Jesus and Peter, and might suggest Peter believed he was using a more intense word. That is, Peter did NOT use a watered down term, but a term which conveyed that he believed the relationship was maturing. I think Ted Mann's observations support this view as well as Carl Conrad's viewpoint. I also think this does NOT mean the one kind is superior to the other; if the criteria is `choice' than AGAPAW is superior. If the criteria is `maturity of relationship' than PHILEW is the winner. One can't compare these two words along a single cline. "Steve Godfrey" said: > Louw & Nida distinguish the two terms this way: AGAPAW tends to > refer to love based on unconditional high regard. FILEW tends > to refer to love based on association. This, rather than a > distinction between high love and lower love, is what I would > like to serve as the basis for my supposition of Peter's shame. > It's not that Peter was falling short of Christian love, so much > as he was painfully aware that he had fallen short of unconditional > high regard of his Lord in the great betrayal. I think Louw and Nida support the betrothal/marriage distinction. However, I would love to have some evidence of the use of AGAPAW and PHILEW in contexts of betrothal and marriage. Does anyone have any? "RUSSELL RANKIN" said: > [The Greek words for love are extensively analyzed in Kittel's > Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, including biblical > and non-biblical usage with correlations to the Hebrew words and > the LXX]. Thanks, I'll try to review this. Also, I question the assumption that at this point Peter was unsure of the relationship between himself and Jesus. 1 Cor. 15:5 seems to indicate Jesus met with Peter alone and perhaps immediately after the resurrection[1]. Jesus was obviously VERY concerned about Peter: Luke 22:31-32 shows this. Also, Mark 16:7 has an angel specifically single out Peter as one who needs to be told that he (Jesus) is again alive. And, Luke uses a specific word connoting at least some studious interest in describing Jesus look at Peter in the courtyard denial (EMBLEPW-Luke 22:61). From all this, though I can't prove it, I suspect that Jesus and Peter had a private meeting and at that point the relationship was restored. This, however, is NOT to deny the (to my mind) obvious reflection of Peter's triple denial here in John 21 (failure is frequently the backdrop to successful ministry). It is to suggest that John 21 is something else other than the restoration of the relationship; the commissioning of Peter seems to me to be most obvious and would appropriately be done in public. The responsibility being given to Peter--different types of ministry to different types of groups--would require, I would think, a very clear understanding by Peter that this form of ministry must be based on a deeply committed and mature relationship with Jesus. John's use of both AGAPAW and PHILEW would convey that (at least it does to me, or at least from a perspective of betrothal love and marital love--both thought of in relational terms). To conclude: my take on this passage (currently) is that there is a vague distinction between AGAPAW and PHILEW which highlights the relational maturity between Jesus and Peter, and the vague distinctions between the ministry verbs and people-group nouns are John's way of broadly brush stroking the breadth of activity and people Peter is going to have to be involved with. I'm forced into this conclusion since I feel I must explain the distinctive words--John is obviously using an extreme variety here. However, I must allow the context to disambiguate the words. The words are too close in meaning to disambiguate themselves. ---- [1] I'm well aware that Paul might not be giving a chronological order but a logical one. In either case, Peter is prominent, so my point holds. --- B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu