[B-Greek] Follow up to Mitch's AGAPAW and FILEW

Brent Hudson brent at riveroflifembchurch.com
Sun Aug 17 17:22:59 EDT 2003


On 8/17/2003 at 2:57 PM Dmitriy Reznik wrote:


I think it is a difficult matter to determine if words are used synonymously in some contexts and I think the usage of AGAPAW and FILEW in John 21 is one of those difficult texts.

>1) Other words already mentioned by Carl are used synonymously,

1) I don't question that AGAPAW and FILEW can be used synonymously.  I don't even question that they are most often used synonymously.  What I am questioning is whether these terms are used synonymously in this context.  Presently, I think they are;  but I still waver a bit from time to time.

>2) It was synonymous for Peter, who says, Yea, Lord; you know that I FILW
>you. He doesn't say, No, L-rd, I just FILW you. So using FILEW he
>confirms that he does AGAPA Jesus, because Jesus asked if Peter AGAPA
>Him, and Peter answered YES. 

2) If I say to someone: "Do you like fish?" and they answer: "yes, I love fish", the words "like" and "love" are not used synonomously and the word "yes" is perfectly okay.  Similarly, I don't see Peter's: NAI KURIE, SU OIDAS hOTI FILW SE as being a clear marker of synonymous usage.  If FILEW is taken as a more emotive term than  AGAPAW, I don't see why Peter would need to negate Jesus' words before saying FILW SE.

>3) AGAPAW is used in various places of the NT and Septuagint in a bad
>(even disgusting) meaning, so nobody would understand John if he decided
>to play on difference of these words. 

I don't understand what you mean by this.  

>4) AGAPAW is used interchangeably with FILEW, e.g. in one gospel Jesus
>FILEI "the disciple whom Jesus loved", in other He FILEI that disciple.
>In one place (Luke 20:46) Pharisees FILOUSI places of honor in
>synagogues, in the parallel place they AGAPOUSI those places (Luke
>11:43). 

I don't think anyone is saying that AGAPH and FILEW cannot be used synonymously.  I think one of the problems with determining synonymous relationship is that we tend to flatten things out so no distinction is ever made (i.e, 100% semantic overlap).  What I would like to see is componential analysis of the terms to see where these terms actually do overlap, or more importantly for this discussion, where they do not.  My guess is their semantic fields would be largely conjoined (probably 80-90%)).  It would be wonderful if there were some kind of a narrative marker when the terms differ, but alas, such discernment is usually intuitive only to a native speaker.

>5) Jesus didn't really speak in Greek, but in Hebrew or Aramaic, and
>those languages don't have such a pair of words. Thus in Peshitta same
>word is used in John 21.

I don't think it matters for this issue whether Jesus spoke Greek or not.  The question is not "what did Jesus originally say" but rather "what does John 21 mean by when employing AGAPAW and FILEW in this context".  Unless you are saying that John was not interested in literary form or that the gospel was translated from an Aramaic source. . .in either case, we cannot discuss in this forum.

It is interesting how we can agree on the overall question of John 21 and yet still have so many places for discussion.

best regards,

Brent Hudson






More information about the B-Greek mailing list