Question on John

[Guest]

Hi Dane,

Thanks for not being upset. Here's a summary of what they answered over there:

1. No one answered the basic question, which I took to be: Are there two different Aramaic words which correspond to agape and phileo?

2. One person said that John used the different words for stylistic reasons, and that he does that often in the Gospel of John. He felt that "The differences between the two words is irrelevant in this case."

3. Another person agreed and pointed out that within the same passage there are two other pairs of synonyms: lambs/sheep and to feed/to shepherd.

4. One guy, who says he has studied the epistles more than the gospels, noted that John is usually pretty precise in his language and therefore believes that there is something implied by the change there. He also said that it's impossible for us to know if there was a widespread understanding of the nuance between these words existing at the time the gospel was written which has been lost now.

5. The first answer I got said to be aware that 21st century sensibillities about the importance of accuracy in eyewitness reporting didn't exist in the 1st century.

6. Twice I got the usual discussion about the difference between agape and phileo.

[Guest]

Doesn't Jesus go from using agapao in verse 15 & 16 to using phileo in verse 17? So why the change in words by Jesus and why does Peter keep using phileo? Doesn't this have to do with Peters 3 denials in someway which is possibly why Peter is saddened the 3rd time Jesus asked the question. Jesus uses phileo the on the last question did that make a diffrence in Peters reaction?

[Guest]

Hi Feather, My understanding from what i've heard many times is that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and that it's likely that John used two different words to highlight the fact that Jesus was trying to get Peter to understand the difference between "agope" (Godly sacrificial) love and human love"phileo" which tends to put ourselves first.

Hey Steve .. thanks for the reply. If what you've heard is correct then it sounds like John was inserting his own commentary into the text, rather than saying what Jesus actually said. I guess that isn't too unusual for John .. but it might be taken by a critic as a less-than accurate reporting .. I don't know ...

dane

[Guest]

[quote="Michelle"]
4. One guy, who says he has studied the epistles more than the gospels, noted that John is usually pretty precise in his language and therefore believes that there is something implied by the change there. He also said that it's impossible for us to know if there was a widespread understanding of the nuance between these words existing at the time the gospel was written which has been lost now.

Thanks Michelle .. if I were to "pick" an answer, it would be number four - it seems to make the most sense to me. I take that to mean that even if Jesus did not use those exact words in his speech, John sensed something about the conversation that was related to us in his gospel. Therefore, any critic of that section would have the burden of disproving John - with a lack of any good evidence indicating anything other.

That helps me anyway ...

Thanks!

dane

[Guest]

Hello, Dane,

My Aramaic skills are insufficient to give you a comprehensive answer to your initial question. I have found two terms for "to love" used in Aramaic documents, but there could be other terms that I have not found. I've only included verbs, given your discussion.

The definitions below are gleaned from Marcus Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targums, Talmuds, and Midrashic literature.

1) chebab - [// Hebrew chabab] to love, honor; to make beloved

2) recheym - [// Hebrew racham] to love; the root appears to carry connotations of mercy/compassion

Good luck!
Emmet


P.S.: For what it's worth, it looks like in one Greek version of the OT and/or another, both chabab and racham were rendered with some form of the agape root, while only racham was rendered with something similar to the phileo root. [See Muraoka's Index to the Septuagint.] But it might be a mistake to make too much of this.

[Guest]

I kind of agree with Jim here. I don't think it's a coincidence that Peter denied Christ three times and was later asked to confirm his love for him three times. I take this as Jesus saying, "Peter, you denied me three times.... now I'm letting you acknowledge me three times." I think this was a symbolic gesture by Christ to Peter to say, in a sense, "no hard feelings."

[Guest]

Emmet,

Great info! Thanks!

Your research would seem to suggest that it is certainly possible for there to be Aramaic equivalents to the Greek words used. That might support the idea that John did not insert commentary into the text, but tried to give us an accurate account of the conversation.

peace,

dane

[Guest]

Hi, Dane,

Thank you for your kind response. I will say, though, that I think the matter involves a number of issues beyond Aramaic vocabulary.

For what it is worth, I'm including a quote here from D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies:

...although it is doubtless true that the entire semantic range of agapao and the entire range of phileo are not exactly the same, nevertheless they enjoy substantial overlap.... In 2 Samuel 13 [in the Septuagint], both agapao and the cognate agape can refer to Amnon's incestuous rape of his half sister Tamar. When we read that Demas forsook Paul because he loved this present, evil world, there is no linguistic reason to be surprised that the verb is agapao. John 3:35 records that the Father loves the Son and uses the verb agapao; John 5:20 repeats the thought, but uses phileo - without any discernible shift in meaning. The false assumptions surrounding this pair of words are ubiquitous; and so I shall return to them again. My only point here is that there is nothing intrinsic to the verb agapao or the noun agape to prove its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet ... again, thanks .. very helpful indeed.

peace,

dane