[B-Greek] AGAPAN and FILEIN in John 21

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad2 at mac.com
Wed Dec 9 08:22:40 EST 2009


I have replied separately to Tony's query regarding searching the B-Greek archives; now, 
with regard to what he says regarding the matter of AGAPAN and FILEIN in John 21, I
have some comments.

 
On Wednesday, December 09, 2009, at 06:17AM, "Tony Pope" <borikayaama_tekiri at sil.org> wrote:
>I agree I don't think it has a lot to do with verbal inspiration. But it seems to be popular these 
>days to assume that different words that can be roughly translated into English by the same word are 
>actually fully interchangeable in Greek. I have a sneaking feeling that this attitude derives from 
>the observation by experts in the Greek of the Classical period that certain distinctions valid in 
>that literature are not valid in Hellenistic Greek. Mistakes have been made in interpreting the New 
>Testament as if it were classical, therefore it is no longer appropriate to make certain fine 
>distinctions, and before long it is open season on all sorts of semantic distinctions. But the fact 
>that false distinctions have been drawn by some does not mean there are no distinctions to be drawn.

I'm not sure whether it's being suggested that someone has stated such an un-nuanced claim 
regarding Classical Attic and Biblical Koine. What I have myself said repeatedly (yes, ad nauseam),
is that Koine Greek is a language in flux, the speakers and writers of which language are employing
constructions and usages that have been standard in an earlier era of the language as well as 
constructions and usages that we know will become standard in later eras of the language. That is
the proposition that Chrys Caragounis has argued at length in his celebrated book of a couple years
back, and I concur with a considerable portion of what he has argued there.

What has been argued regarding AGAPAN and FILEIN is not that they are semantically synonymous
but that their lexical usage overlaps in the GNT and in John's gospel to the extent that many think it
questionable that a meaningful distinction is intended in the usage of these verbs in John 21. With 
regard to the other two synonymous pairs, ARNIA/PROBATA and BOSKE/POIMAINE, I would not
argue so much that these are exact-synonym pairs so much as that they pretty clearly point to the
common Biblical metaphor of shepherding sheep as indicating leadership of the group; in this instance
it is the leadership role of Peter among the followers of Jesus that seems indicated by the usage.
Others may not find this convincing, but that's my understanding of the usage here.

>Regarding John 3.35 and 5.20, given that "the father X the son" and "the father Y the son", it does 
>not follow necessarily that X=Y. "I am sitting on M." "I am sitting on N." But M is not exactly 
>equivalent to N, because M = "a piece of furniture" and N = "an office chair". One word can be more 
>specific than the other but not fully interchangeable with it.
>
>I support the view that FILEI is used in John 5.20 because the context is like that of a human 
>father who is sharing intimate knowledge of his trade to his son, a social context entirely familiar 
>to Jewish society of the period. The idea of being close enough to share private information comes 
>also with the noun FILOS in John 15.15.
>
>The context is not quite the same in 3.35 and so FILEI is not used there. In the classical period, 
>AGAPAN was rare and had a rather specific meaning, but in later times it was evidently used more 
>generally. FILEIN seems to have a restricted meaning in later times, in contexts of close friendship 
>and family intimacy.
>
>This approach can also be applied in John 21, rather than the approach traditionally advocated that 
>AGAPAN is a special word for a divine sort of love, or the popular approach that says there is no 
>difference intended.

Earlier discussions of thequestion of AGAPAN and FILEIN in John 21, one may check out the
references indicated below:

http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&client=google-coop&cof=AH%3Aleft%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fbgreek%2F%3BCX%3AB-Greek%2520search%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fbgreek%2Fb-greek.gif%3BLH%3A72%3BLP%3A1%3BBGC%3A%23FFFFCC%3BVLC%3A%23663399%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3B&adkw=AELymgVyDZXdOryTm_wG8jmlIj2Hz_OMtHLdJBKpa8P5xKmdF5eZXpoPp0P0ByT_2CHVEdkF17n7qOMZO8RyaMwxdW8FMiF2wOB6sWOhnq2eNbl5UBEH1M-asgnfyalLpmltU9chWM2_DLdl2HSWk3Cp-BR43Rf0crE5tcBx5aHx8FZpiZNOA_w&boostcse=0&q=AGAPAW%2C+FILEW&btnG=Search&cx=012625948438005725972%3Auzqrf4eolla

But -- although either URL will get you to the same place, it would be easier to use:

http://tinyurl.com/yg9o376

>------------------
>I would hope that we could steer clear of talk for or against verbal inspiration in on-list 
>discussion; it's a quick way to bring a thread to an early halt. We have had several discussions 
>over the years of this question (the archives can be consulted) and there have always been 
>proponents of a real distinction between usage of the two verbs in John 21 and others dubious that 
>any such real distinction was intended by the author. As I recollect, key arguments against such a 
>distinction have been (a) other apparently synonymous pairs in the same sequence: POIMAINE, BOSKE 
>and ARNIA, PROBATA, and (b) usage of the verbs FILEIN and AGAPAN elsewhere in John's gospel where it 
>is clear that each verb gets used in a context where proponents of a sharp distinction might expect 
>the other verb. What underlies the view that the verbs are synonymous in John 21 (for those who hold 
>that view) is observation that such a distinction does not seem to be consistently maintained 
>throughout the text of John's gospel.


Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (ret)



More information about the B-Greek mailing list