Was: "a question from a novice"
Joe A. Friberg
JoeFriberg at email.msn.com
Thu Mar 23 13:56:35 EST 2000
I realize this is late in the game, but I have a few thoughts that I think
have not yet been covered in this thread.
At the risk of being disapproved by some who are greater than I, and whom I
truly respect, I must raise my little voice in the dwindling chorus of those
who suggest there still may be some little nuanced distinction between
AGAPAW and FILEW!
Not that they are not largely or perhaps closely synonymous, and in many
contexts interchangeable, but just that they are not exact synonymous.
I believe it was Nida in _Componential Analysis_ who said exact synonyms
(almost?) never occur in languages. It is true that languages are not
always economical in their lexicons, and there are words which almost
completely overlap in meaning, but I have never yet found exact synonyms in
English, my first language. Saying this, I must acknowledge subtle
distinctions must be made at times: particular collocation distinctions,
differences in register, discourse distinctions.... But I always find there
are edges of meaning that stick out on this side or that, though there may
be almost complete overlap.
In my own vocabulary 'my Dad' is a third person reference, while 'Daddy' is
second person. Same referent, situational difference.
On a few of Wayne Leman's examples of close synonyms note:
1. > What's the difference between English "purchase" and "buy"? Do you use
both?
several:
-often register, situation: 'purchase' used more frequently in a business
purchasing department
-'purchase order' (business) is different than a 'buy order' (stock)
-you might 'purchase time' (or 'buy'?) for a computer service, but NOT in
the sense of allowing yourself additional time before the second boot drops.
-you 'buy favor'
-you can 'buy an explanation'
2. > What's the difference between "sack" and "paper bag"?
some:
-'lunch sack' is better than ?'lunch bag', and NOT *'lunch paper bag'
-'it's in the bag' works, but 'in the sack' does not
-a purse can be a 'bag'
-in hunting there is a 'bag limit'
-dialectal variations/distributions
3. > What's the difference between "regal" and "royal"? (Interestingly the
both
> go back to the same etymon, simply travel different etymology routes.)
-'regal bearing' is preferred
-'royal descent' is preferred
Regarding Carl Conrad's discussion of 'like' and 'love' as interchangeable
in some situations, that is true: cf. "I love ice cream." "I like it too!".
But also, note the distinction made/utilized in the oft-rehearsed
conversation: "Mom, I really like this guy; I think I want to marry him."
"But do you *love* him?" The mom is here using a distinct word to make a
distinction. I suppose the conversation could exchange the two words, but I
think the nuance would likely be different. Pragmatics might make the
meaning the same as in the conversation given here, but I note that the
*expected* distribution of the two words is as given.
There go the preliminaries.
Now what about AGAPAW vs. FILEW?
I suggest the distinction is to be found in the nuance of:
AGAPAW: focus in cognitive/voilition arena
FILEW: focus in emotive/affective arena
This would subsume, to a large degree, the suggestions made, or at least
pondered, that AGAPAW is an act of the will, and prone to action. To this
extent, this suggestion is largely not new. (**But keep reading for the
innovative stuff!**)
What must be kept in mind is that, even if there is a nuanced distinction,
there is a large amount of overlap in the referential realm, that is, in the
situations to which these two words can apply. Decisions/actions can follow
emotions, and vice versa, or they can simply coexist without causational
implications! Also, these words can, and do, span different senses. Also,
in some contexts they may be exactly synonymous. Any distinction may be
reserved for certain contexts.
This general proposal is in keeping with the distribution of AGAPAW for
commands 'love!'
(since emotions are not so readily on call for summons), and the
distribution of FILEW, which is pretty consistently found between close
acquaintances
In addition, there is a nuance of AGAPAW that I perceive in a great number
of contexts, which has to do with *choice* or *(strong) preference*. This
can be seen in "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Jn 20.2), "Now Jacob loved
Rachel" (Gen 29.18), and even (or perhaps especially) in the dreaded 2K
13.1,4,15 passage where Amnon 'loved' Temar, and 2 Tim 4.10, where Demas
loved this world. It is fitting where love contrasts with hate, and also
with the fact that love is commanded.
Now, the question of whether AGAPAW could be a technical term (special term,
jargon...) has cropped up. I think yes in certain contexts, but must
quickly note that it is also used as a common term (nontechnical) in others.
A technical term arises when an author/speaker has in mind a concept they
want to expound, and then they choose a common term to appropriate and use
to label their concept. Generally, they choose an appropriate common term
to appropriate!--that is, a common term which contains some of the nuances
they want to elicidate about their concept.
As Carl has pointed out, terms can be used to communicate only to insiders
while excluding outsiders. If an speaker/author wants to be inclusive,
*within* a message they will *define* the terms they want to use in the
message. This definition process is one of the keys, or perhaps the
main/most reliable key, to identifying technical terms.
1Cor 13 provides such a definitional context, IMO. Did AGAPH mean all of
these things in its common usage? I think not. Rather, Paul had a certain
concept of 'Ideal Christian Love' which he wanted to communicate to the
Corinthian Christians, seeing in it much of the answer they needed to reform
their competitive worship services, and he picked the common term AGAPH to
use in expounding his ideal concept. Someone suggested that FILEW could
have been used, and perhaps. Yet, if the nuances suggested above hold, then
AGAPH would have been the more *appropriate* term to appropriate. Not
because it already carried all of the baggage Paul loads on in this chapter,
but because as a cognitive choice, it can choose to carry all this baggage.
Does AGAPAW/AGAPH carry all of this baggage, which is to say, is it used
technically, elsewhere in Paul? In 1Cor 16.14 it very likely might hearken
back to its development in ch. 13. But in other letters, the case would
have to be made carefully and cautiously.
Another context in which AGAPAW may be developed into a technical term is
John, where it is developd as a motif/theme to love God (8.42, 14.15) and to
love Christians (13.34-35, 15.12,17, et al.). These pivotal commandments,
key to his gospel message, are appropriate contexts in which to find
technical terms defined. In these and other contexts, it will be noted that
John delineates what he means by AGAPH by various condition clauses,
comparatives, etc. It would seem that throughout the Gospel, he is in the
process of defining these terms. This may explain his preference for AGAPAW
over FILEW in discussing the love of the Father for the Son: it is not that
the emotive aspect of FILEW is inappropriate for the relationship, but that
he is setting the relationship up as an example to be used in his teaching,
which utilizes the technical term AGAPAW defined internally.
What about "difficult" passages?
First,
Jn 21 need not (and should not!) be the Waterloo for either "side" in this
discussion. Both sides make valid readings of this passage. The issue
cannot be decided here. Rather, whatever conviction you come into this
passage with can be read into it, so the battle must be won (and fought!)
elsewhere!
How might the above discussion feed into the reading of this passage (Jn
21)? Jesus first and second asks about a commitment/choice to love him, and
Peter asserts his faithfulness in his relationship to his friend and master.
For the clincher the third time, Jesus questions Peter's asserted
faithfulness, using the term intrinsically associated with relatedness,
bringing the betrayed relationship into needle sharp focus. The switch is
made for emphasis. In a certain sense, FILEW here would imply a *stronger*
sense of 'love'. Hence, there can be contrast, though all three repetitions
of the question Jesus asks are semantically mostly overlapping.
1Cor 16.22 (FILEW) can be read with emphasis on the expected affection, as
follows:
"If someone does not put their whole heart into loving the Lord, they should
be accursed."
Jn 12.43, Lk 11.43 w/ AGAPAW, vs. MT 23.6 w/ FILEW; these contexts refer
to the preference of the religious leaders for human accolades rather than
righteousness. In Jn and Lk, the choice to go for the human accolades is
emphasized; in Mt, the emotional rush obtained from such accolades is
emphasized.
Enough on the difficult passages for now. There are no great difficulties I
see. Instead, I do see the limited data on FILEW in the GNT corpus to
support statistically the emotive connotation in contrast with the
distribution of AGAPAW. I also see the technical/semi-technical usage
developed in some of the occurences of AGAPAW to find an appropriate
grounding in the distinctive nuance laid out above.
I realize that this is not conclusive, and may not be correct :), but I am
persuaded that there is some nuance of difference to be found in at least
some of the contexts, so I want to keep looking.
If someone who has access to TLG could send me some data to work with (if
that is permissible), I might be able to undertake such a task...sometime!
How large a corpus would it be to limit data to 1c. BC/AD?
God Bless all who have made it to the bottom of this post (and all the rest
too, I say in a decision to love)!
Joe A. Friberg
Arlington, Texas, USA
JoeFriberg at alumni.utexas.net
MA Linguistics
MA Theology
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list