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

[Stephen Carlson]

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.

The whole thing feels way too undertheorized for my taste. What’s “essential”? Apparently it means close enough to tell the question to not sweat the difference and stop asking questions.

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

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.

This is more convincing. εἶπεν is flexible enough to refer to the gist of the what is said, to the communication intent of the speaker, not to exact words. But still, what Pilate wants to communicate is the same three times.

And the same goes with Matthew. Different words may be used to mean the same thing. Notice it's τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον (word), not λόγοι (words). Λογος has wide semantic range and here means the content of the speech, not exact words.

[michaelwwww]

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

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.

Dear Eeli,
Thanks a lot for your reply.

Actually I donot forget John 21:17. It seems to me that the author repeats εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον to emphaize the reason why Peter was grieved, which is not that Jesus asked him three times the same question but that Jesus asked at the third time using the word Φιλεῖς that Peter used twice before. It seems to me that Jesus was questioning whether Peter really Φιλεῖς him. And that is why Peter replied with "πάντα σὺ οἶδας", which measn that you know that I was sincere. If I were questioned that way by the Lord, I would have felt very uncomfortable and grieved. I don't know whether this makes sense to you.

I do know what Jesus said the second time is almost the same as before but with important distinction. The first is "Do you love me more than these" which is kind of comparison. The second is "Do you love me" without any comparison. And if I were asked the two questions, I would not think it is exactly the same. When I think of ἀγαπᾷς and φιλῶ, I do know they are similiar in many ways but this donnot mean that they have no distinction anyhow or have no different emphasis in whatsoever the context.

Peter did answer twice in the exactly same way but this cannot prove that he was asked exactly the same question twice.

I understand you point but I need to know how exegesis of the text can come to that conclusion. I am still on my way.

According to your analysis of Matthew 26:44 do you agree that "the third time" doesnot guarantee that the content of the speech is the same? I think that is why Matthew added "λόγον εἰπὼν πάλιν (Mat 26:44 WHO)" because praying the third time is not the same as praying the same content at the third time.

Thanks again. Thank you for explain to me about the meanings of "εἶπεν" and "Λογος".Your any comment is welcome.

Blessings,
Michael

[michaelwwww]

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.

Dear Barry,

Thank you very much for your reminding and advice and explanation. I know I need to work harder on Greek.

You told me that "the third time " means that Jesus said the same content as before. But it seems to me otherwise when I look into the text and other related text. Could you see my last post about this?


Your any comment is welcome. Thank you for your forbearance with me.

[Jonathan Robie]

I have changed my mind on this passage several times over the years, I'm currently inclined to think the difference in words for love is significant and that the three questions really are different. First off, here are the three questions that Jesus asked, with Peter's responses:

1. J: Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων;
   P: Ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε.
   J: Βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου.
2. J: Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με;
   P: Ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε.
   J: Ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου.
3. J: Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με;
   P: Κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε.
   J: Βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου.

Each time, Peter answers the same - σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε.

But Jesus starts by asking for more than that, each time he seems to be asking for less:

1. Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων;
2. Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με;
3. Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με;

Each time, Peter says something like this:

Ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε.

The first two times, Jesus uses the word ἀγαπάω and Peter responds with the word φιλέω. That seems meaningful. If no distinction is being made, why doesn't Peter answer ἀγαπᾷς με; with the directly corresponding answer, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι ἀγαπῶ σε? If φιλέω demands less of Peter, then the three questions of Jesus really do start by asking for more, then asking for less each time. And clearly, the second question is asking for less of Peter than the first. In the third question, Jesus uses the same word that Peter used, asking φιλεῖς με; - questioning even Peter's claim: φιλῶ σε.

Which brings us to the question from the OP again:

ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον, Φιλεῖς με;

At the very least, the first question is different from the other two. Jesus did not ask Φιλεῖς με; three times, he started by asking ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; To me, the most natural reading of this question really is that Peter was upset that the third time, Jesus asked Φιλεῖς με; challenging even Peter's claim φιλῶ σε. And that implies that Peter understood these words to have different meaning.

The first two times, Jesus at least used different words. And the first question is definitely different from the next two: Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; I think the second and third were probably different, too.

[Jonathan Robie]

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 completely agree with your second statement: "the claim that αγαπαω and φιλεω are divine and human or lesser love respectively is demonstrably false". I think there is a tradition that went overboard with the distinctions between these two words, and claims like that cannot be supported.

But that doesn't mean there is no distinction between these two words. In this passage, I really do think both Peter and Jesus saw a meaningful distinction between these two words as used in the questions Jesus asked and the answers Peter gave (as I said in my previous post). The whole flow of this passage seems to rest on the distinction. I just wish I knew precisely what the distinction is.

[Stephen Carlson]

But that doesn't mean there is no distinction between these two words. In this passage, I really do think both Peter and Jesus saw a meaningful distinction between these two words as used in the questions Jesus asked and the answers Peter gave (as I said in my previous post). The whole flow of this passage seems to rest on the distinction. I just wish I knew precisely what the distinction is.

In an article I cited earlier in this thread, J. A. L. Lee thinks the difference is one of formality.

[Jonathan Robie]

But that doesn't mean there is no distinction between these two words. In this passage, I really do think both Peter and Jesus saw a meaningful distinction between these two words as used in the questions Jesus asked and the answers Peter gave (as I said in my previous post). The whole flow of this passage seems to rest on the distinction. I just wish I knew precisely what the distinction is.

In an article I cited earlier in this thread, J. A. L. Lee thinks the difference is one of formality.

It's behind a paywall and I am not part of an academic institution. Can you say more? What does he mean by formality and how does it apply to this passage?

[Stephen Carlson]

It's behind a paywall and I am not part of an academic institution. Can you say more? What does he mean by formality and how does it apply to this passage?

It's like the difference between "Do you wish to go?" (more formal) and "Do you want to go?" (less formal).

After briefly rehearsing the relevant lexicographic evidence, esp. in papyri, Lee applies this to John 21 as follows:

In the conversation in John 21, Simon Peter is being formal and polite. He draws back from using Jesus’s plain word, which might imply a certain familiarity. This does not mean that he loves any less, only that he feels unable to express it so directly. When Jesus the third time uses the same word as Simon, he accedes, as it were, to Simon’s level of formality, but without changing his meaning. Simon persists with his chosen politeness in his final answer.

B-Greek also discussed it here: https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... zle#p30838

[Barry Hofstetter]

But that doesn't mean there is no distinction between these two words. In this passage, I really do think both Peter and Jesus saw a meaningful distinction between these two words as used in the questions Jesus asked and the answers Peter gave (as I said in my previous post). The whole flow of this passage seems to rest on the distinction. I just wish I knew precisely what the distinction is.

In an article I cited earlier in this thread, J. A. L. Lee thinks the difference is one of formality.

That was a good article, and I think he makes quite a valid point.