John 21:17 "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με (Joh 21:17 BGT)"

[michaelwwww]

Dear the one who is concerned,

I am a beginer of Greek and wondering whether the greek grammar of John 21:17 "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με (Joh 21:17 BGT)" demands that Jesus said the same content at the third time as the first two? Or does the place of "the third time" make any difference for the meanning of the whole sentence?

Your help is very much appreciated. Thank you!
Michael

[Barry Hofstetter]

Dear the one who is concerned,

I am a beginer of Greek and wondering whether the greek grammar of John 21:17 "λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με (Joh 21:17 BGT)" demands that Jesus said the same content at the third time as the first two? Or does the place of "the third time" make any difference for the meanning of the whole sentence?

Your help is very much appreciated. Thank you!
Michael

I had to think about what you are asking here. "A third time" signifies that it is the same content as the first two questions. I don't know if I would use the word "demand" but you notice that John leaves us no doubt, as he quotes Jesus in full, and the question is the same as in the first two iterations. And no, the placement has no impact on the meaning of the sentence here.

[michaelwwww]

Dear Barry,
Thank you very much for your reply!
I check many English translations and find that this sentence is translated as "Jesus said to Peter the third time". I was told by English linguists that it just means that it was the third time that Jesus said to Peter and this sentence would be "Jesus said to Peter for the third time" if it means the content was the same as before. Is it ture? What is the funtion of "for" here? Does Geek has any similiar word as the "for" here?
This time Jesus used "Phileo" instead of "Agapeo". So I am not sure whether Jesus means the same thing as before and I realize that different scholars may have different opinions on this. That is why I want to learn more. In terms of etymology what do Agapeo and Phileo mean? What role does the etymology play in term of exegesis? I know grammar plays an important role in terms of exegesis. And I don't know Greek grammar very well. That is why I am asking Grammar questions here.

Thank you for you spending time helping me.

Other people are also welcome to give your comments on this.

Best,
Michael

[Barry Hofstetter]

Dear Barry,
Thank you very much for your reply!
I check many English translations and find that this sentence is translated as "Jesus said to Peter the third time". I was told by English linguists that it just means that it was the third time that Jesus said to Peter and this sentence would be "Jesus said to Peter for the third time" if it means the content was the same as before. Is it ture? What is the funtion of "for" here? Does Geek has any similiar word as the "for" here?
This time Jesus used "Phileo" instead of "Agapeo". So I am not sure whether Jesus means the same thing as before and I realize that different scholars may have different opinions on this. That is why I want to learn more. In terms of etymology what do Agapeo and Phileo mean? What role does the etymology play in term of exegesis? I know grammar plays an important role in terms of exegesis. And I don't know Greek grammar very well. That is why I am asking Grammar questions here.

Thank you for you spending time helping me.

Other people are also welcome to give your comments on this.

Best,
Michael

Michael, remember the flag warning at the top of the page: "This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed." Also, your questions seem as much about English as about Greek... Nevertheless:

1) There is no real distinction between "the third time" vs. "for the the third time." The first is the phrase used adverbially without a preposition, the second is the prepositional phrase used adverbially. They mean the same thing.

2) Greek uses the adjective τὸ τρίτον in the neuter accusative to express the same adverbial idea.

3) There is no such word as "agapeo." It's agapaō (ἀγαπάω). There are long discussions on this passage in the history of interpretation (a few even here on B-Greek if you search the archives). The modern scholarly consensus is that the two words are essential synonyms, and that John is simply switching for stylistic purposes. Both words are used in a variety of contexts in which the English word "love" is the best translation, and so here. As for etymology, it's irrelevant in determining the synchronic use of the word, i.e., what the word meant at the time of the document's composition. That is determined by context, both the local context and the use of the word in contemporaneous literature.

My advice is that you concentrate on learning and reviewing the basics of the languge in order better to be able to deal with these kinds of questions.

[Stephen Carlson]

The modern scholarly consensus is that the two words are essential synonyms, and that John is simply switching for stylistic purposes.

I’ve never found the language of “essential synonyms” and “stylistic” to be very helpful. Synonyms should have the same meaning, but “essential” negates that in some undefined way. And, if you squint right, anything and everything can be “stylistic.”

For what it’s worth, the leading living Koine Greek lexicographer J. A. L. Lee has recently argued that the difference between the verbs for love in John 21 is one of formality:

The alternation of the words for “love” in John 21:15-17 is a long-standing puzzle that has defied solution. It is suggested in this note that ἀγαπῶ and φιλῶ carry a slight difference of “formality” as a result of their history and that this can account for the interplay.

Lee, J. A. (2017). The Puzzle of John 21:15-17, Novum Testamentum, 59(1), 27-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341549

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

[
I’ve never found the language of “essential synonyms” and “stylistic” to be very helpful. Synonyms should have the same meaning, but “essential” negates that in some undefined way.

Sure, but on the other hand I don't find leaving out all talk about "synonymous" helpful, either. It's one thing to say some words are synonyms; it's another thing to say say they are practically semantically synonymous in some certain context so that changing the word would affect the semantics or exposition of the text at hand so much that it would have any practical consequences for normal people. (Although I'm not normal in that way.)

The normal people want to know if there are two kinds of love in this passage. The answer is "no", and the claim that αγαπαω and φιλεω are divine and human or lesser love respectively is demonstrably false.

[michaelwwww]

Thank you all for your input! I agree that etymology might helpful but context is the key to unlock the meaning of a word in its context.

It seems to me that "the third time τὸ τρίτον" just means that it was the third time that Jesus said to Peter and did not necessarily mean that Jesus said exactly the same content. The reasons are as the following:

1) John 21:16 uses "πάλιν δεύτερον·" to mean "the second time" or "a second time" but the content Jesus said to Peter this time "ἀγαπᾷς με (Joh 21:16 WHO)" is apparently different from the first time "ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων (Joh 21:15 WHO)".

2)Luke 23:22 has the similar expression "ὁ δὲ τρίτον εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς (Luk 23:22 WHO)" but it seems to mean that it was the third time that Pilate said to them. When I examine the context, Pilate said different words the third time compared to the first time.

3)Matthew 26:44 tells us that Jesus prayed the third time saying the same words "προσηύξατο ἐκ τρίτου τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον εἰπὼν πάλιν (Mat 26:44 BGT)". The author intentionally added "saying the same words" otherwise it seems that we don't know whether Jesus prayed the same words with "the third time" only.

4)Some noted scholars such as Dr. Marvin Vincent，Dr. Richard Trench，Westcott, Plummer and the leading living Koine Greek lexicographer J. A. L. Lee think that ἀγαπάω and φιλέω mean different things here. It seems too easy to let "the third time" to have final say for the meanings of these two words because ἀγαπάω and φιλέω would mean the same thing if "the third time" means that Jesus said exactly the same thing as before.

Any comment is welcome. I am a new hand.

Michael

[Barry Hofstetter]

The modern scholarly consensus is that the two words are essential synonyms, and that John is simply switching for stylistic purposes.

I’ve never found the language of “essential synonyms” and “stylistic” to be very helpful. Synonyms should have the same meaning, but “essential” negates that in some undefined way. And, if you squint right, anything and everything can be “stylistic.”

Well, that's essentially it, isn't it? By essential synonym I mean that at this point they have the same meaning, but that might not pertain everywhere, or that there might be a difference in "feel" or "tone". I agree that "stylistic" can be very vague. What really is style? Like art, we think we recognize it when we see it, but definition is a bit more difficult.

For what it’s worth, the leading living Koine Greek lexicographer J. A. L. Lee has recently argued that the difference between the verbs for love in John 21 is one of formality:

The alternation of the words for “love” in John 21:15-17 is a long-standing puzzle that has defied solution. It is suggested in this note that ἀγαπῶ and φιλῶ carry a slight difference of “formality” as a result of their history and that this can account for the interplay.

Lee, J. A. (2017). The Puzzle of John 21:15-17, Novum Testamentum, 59(1), 27-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15685365-12341549

So that they are essential synonyms... They mean essentially the same thing, but differ in "tone." Found the article on JSTOR so I didn't have to pay to see it.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

1) John 21:16 uses "πάλιν δεύτερον·" to mean "the second time" or "a second time" but the content Jesus said to Peter this time "ἀγαπᾷς με (Joh 21:16 WHO)" is apparently different from the first time "ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων (Joh 21:15 WHO)".

In the context of that passage you seem to forget what comes next.

λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον · Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον · Φιλεῖς με; καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ · Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε.

It would be clumsy to repeat εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον in the ὅτι clause if it meant only "spoke to him for the third time, [asking]..." or something similar. And the point in the discourse seems to be that Jesus asked for the third time.

Also what you say about the "second time" doesn't sound convincing to me. The content is essentially the same even though one is more detailed. Peter answers exactly identically "Ναί, κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε" to the two questions. The point in the whole is that Jesus asks three times about Peter's love for him, and Peter gives the same answer three times.

[Stephen Carlson]

The normal people want to know if there are two kinds of love in this passage. The answer is "no", and the claim that αγαπαω and φιλεω are divine and human or lesser love respectively is demonstrably false.

I agree, of course, with these two answers. And I agree this is the actual work “synonyms” are doing here, but it’s really a conservation stopper.