[B-Greek] AGAPAN and FILEIN in John 21

Michael J Miles mjmorthotics0 at msn.com
Mon Dec 14 05:08:17 EST 2009


The discussion on the difference of nuance of AGAPAW and PHILEW reminded of 
a long forgotten tool that I used as a young Christian; so back to the 
internet and sure enough its there; and although the abbreviated digest of 
Trench's distinctions are found in his edition of the older popular lexicon, 
as well as many other works scattered about, I thought it best to share the 
full entry. Mike Miles.

§ xii. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. p. 41-44; from R.C. Trench, 9th 
ed.,1880; Google Books, pdf edited extraction ( The copy I used had this 
handwritten note: "The bequest Joseph Henry Thayer late professor in the 
school, 20 March 1902" ) [ Andover-Harvard Theological Library, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts.].


§ xii.{ 'agapao, phileo.} AGAPAW, FILEW

   We have made no attempt to discriminate between these words in our 
English Version.  And yet there is often a difference between them, well 
worthy to have been noted and reproduced, if this had lain within the 
compass of our language ; being very nearly equivalent to that between 
'diligo 'and 'amo' in the Latin.  To understand the exact distinction 
between these, will help us to understand that between those other which are 
the more immediate object of our inquiry.  For this we possess abundant 
material in Cicero, who often sets the words in instructive antithesis to 
one another. Thus, writing to one friend of the affection in which he holds 
another (Ep. Fam. xiii. 47) : 'Ut scires illum a me non diligi solum, verum 
etiam amari;' and again (Ad Brut. : 'L. Clodius valde me diligit, vel, ut 
{'emphatikoteron} dicam, valde me amat.' From these and other like passages 
(there is an ample collection of them in Doderlein's Latein. Synon. vol. iv. 
pp. 98 seq.), we might conclude that 'amare,' which answers to FILEIN 
{philein}, is stronger than diligere,' which, as we shall see, corresponds 
to AGAPAN {'agapan}. This is true, but not all the truth.  Ernesti has 
successfully seized the law of their several uses, when he says : 'Diligere 
magis ad judicium, amare vero ad intimum animi sensum pertinet.'  So that, 
in fact, Cicero in the passage first quoted is saying,—' I do not esteem the 
man merely, but I love him ; there is something of the passionate warmth of 
affection in the feeling with which I regard him.'
   It will follow, that while a friend may desire rather 'amari' than 
'diligi' by his friend, there are aspects in which the 'diligi' is more than 
the 'amari,' the AGAPASQAI   { 'agapasthai } than the FILEISQAI 
{phileisthai }. The first expresses a more reasoning attachment, of choice 
and selection ('diligere' = 'deligere'), from a seeing in the object upon 
whom it is bestowed that which is worthy of regard; or else from a sense 
that such is due toward the person so regarded, as being a benefactor, or 
the like; while the second, without being necessarily an unreasoning 
attachment, does yet give less account of itself to itself; is more 
instinctive, is more of the feelings or natural affections, implies more 
passion ; thus Antonius, in the funeral discourse addressed to the Roman 
people over the body of Caesar: {'ephilesati 'auton hos patera, kai 
'egapesate hos 'euergeten} (Dion Cassius, xliv. 48). And see in Xenophon 
(Mem. ii. 7. 9, 12) two passages throwing much light on the relation between 
the words, and showing how the notions of respect and reverence are 
continually implied in the {'agapan}, which, though not excluded by, are 
still not involved in, the FILEIN {philein}. Thus in the second of these, 
{hai men hos kedemona 'ephiloun, ho de hos 'ophelimous 'egapa}. Out of this 
it may be explained, that while men are continually bidden AGAPAN TON QEON 
{'agapan ton Theon} (Matt. xxii. 37; Luke x. 27; i Cor. viii. 3), and good 
men declared so to do (Rom. viii. 28 ; i Pet. i. 8; i John iv. 21), the 
FILEIN TO QEON {philein ton Theon} is commanded to them never. The Father, 
indeed, both AGAPA TON hUION {'agapa ton Huion} (John iii. 35), and also 
FELEI ton hUION {phelei ton Huion} (John v. 20); with the first of which 
statements such passages as Matt. iii. 17, with the second such as John i. 
18 ; Prov. viii. 22, 30, may be brought into connexion.
   In almost all these passages of the N. T., the Vulgate, by the help of 
'diligo' and 'amo,' has preserved a distinction which we have let go. This 
is especially to be regretted at John xxi. 15-17 ; for the passing there of 
the original from one word to the other is singularly instructive, and 
should by no means escape us unnoticed.  In that threefold " Lovest thou Me? 
" which the risen Lord addresses to Peter, He asks him first, AGAPAS ME 
{'agapas me;}  At this moment, when all the pulses in the heart of the now 
penitent Apostle are beating with a passionate affection toward his Lord, 
this word on that Lord's lips sounds far too cold; to very imperfectly 
express the warmth of his affection toward Him. The question in any form 
would have been grievous enough (ver. 17); the language in which it is 
clothed makes it more grievous still.1=(( 1 Bengel generally has the honour 
'rem acu tetigisse;' here he has singularly missed the point, and is wholly 
astray: AGAPAN {'agapan}, amare, est necessitudinis et affectus; FILEIN 
{philein}, diligere, judicii.' )). He therefore in his answer substitutes 
for the AGAPAS {'agapas} of Christ the word of a more personal love, FILO 
{philo se} (ver. 15).  And this he does not on the first occasion only, but 
again upon a second. And now at length he has triumphed ; for when his Lord 
puts the question to him a third time, it is not AGAPAS {'agapas} any more, 
but FILEIS {'phileis}. All this subtle and delicate play of feeling 
disappears perforce, in a translation which either does not care, or is not 
able, to reproduce the variation in the words as it exists in the original.
   I observe in conclusion that {'eros, 'eran, erastes,} never occur in the 
N. T., but the two latter occasionally in the Septuagint ; thus {'eran}, 
Esth. ii. 17; Prov. iv. 6; {'erastes} generally in a dishonorable sense as ' 
paramour' (Ezek. xvi. 33 ; Hos. ii. 5) ; yet once or twice (as Wisd. viii. 
2) more honorably, not as ='amasius,' but 'amator.'  Their absence is 
significant.  It is in part no doubt to be explained from the fact that, by 
the corrupt use of the world, they had become so steeped in sensual passion, 
carried such an atmosphere of unholiness about them (see Origen, Prol. in 
Cant. Opp. tom. iii. pp. 28-30), that the truth of God abstained from the 
defiling contact with them ; yea, devised a new word rather than betake 
itself to one of these.  For it should not be forgotten that {'agape} is a 
word born within the bosom of revealed religion : it occurs in the 
Septuagint (2 Sam. xiii. 15; Cant. ii. 4 ; Jer. ii. 2), and in the Apocrypha 
(Wisd. iii. 9) ; but there is no trace of it in any heathen writer whatever, 
and as little in Philo or Josephus; the utmost they attain to here is 
{philanthropia} and {phildelphia}, and the last never in any sense but as 
the love between brethren in blood (cf. Cremer, W. B. d. N. T. Gracitat,
p. 12).  But the reason may lie deeper still. {'Eros} might have fared as so 
many other words have fared, might have been consecrated anew, despite of 
the deep degradation of its past history ; 1=((1 ' On the attempt which some 
Christian writers had made to distinguish between 'amor' and 'dilectio' or 
'caritas,' see Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiv. 7: 'Nonnulli arbitrantur aliud 
esse dilectionem sive caritatem, aliud amorem.  Dicunt enim dilectionem 
accipiendam esse in bono, amorem in male.'  He shows, by many examples of 
'dilectio' and 'diligo' used in an ill sense in the Latin Scriptures, of 
'amor' and 'amo' in a good, the impossibility of maintaining any such 
distinction.)) and there were tendencies already working for this in the 
Platonist use of it, namely, as the longing and yearning desire after that 
un-seen but eternal Beauty, the faint vestiges of which may here be 
everywhere traced ; 2=(( 2 I cannot regard as an evidence of such 
reconsecration the celebrated words of Ignatius, Ad Rom. 7 : {ho 'emos 'eros 
'estaurotai}.  It is far more consistent with the genius of these Ignatian 
Epistles to take {'eros} subjectively here, 'My love of the world is 
crucified,' i.e. with Christ ; rather than objectively, 'Christ, the object 
of my love, is crucified.')) {'ouranios 'eros}, Philo in this sense has 
called it (De Vit. Cont. 2; De Vit. Mos. I).  But in the very fact that 
['eros} (={ho deinos himeros}, Sophocles, Track. 476), did express this 
yearning desire (Euripides, Ion, 67 ; Alcestis, 1101); this longing after 
the unpossessed (in Plato's exquisite mythus, Symp. 203 b, {'Eros} is the 
offspring of {Penia} ), lay its deeper unfitness to set forth that Christian 
love, which is not merely the sense of need, of emptiness, of poverty, with 
the longing after fulness, not the yearning after an unattained and in this 
world unattainable Beauty ; but a love to God and to man, which is the 
consequence of God's love already shed abroad in the hearts of his people. 
The mere longing and yearning, and {'eros} at the best is no more, has given 
place, since the Incarnation, to the love which is not in desire only, but 
also in possession.  That {'eros} is no more is well expressed in the lines 
of Gregory Nazianzene (Carm. ii. 34, I50, 151) :
{ Pothos d' 'orexis 'e kalon 'e me kalon, 'Eros de thermos duskathektos te 
pothos. }


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Alexander Ring" <akring at mac.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:23 AM
To: "bGreek Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] AGAPAN and FILEIN in John 21

>
>> Also, it is interesting that in the footnote it says this:
>>
>> “The Vulg. Differs from Bengel, and rightly gives the reverse
>> explanation to AGAPAS  and FELEIS respectively; ‘diligis,’ diligis,’
>> twice, to represent the twice repeated AGAPAS, the love of choice
>> and judgment, esteem; and ‘amo, amo,’ to represent FILW, the love of
>> affection and impulse. The word AGAPAS sounds too cold to the ear of
>> Peter, who was now burning with love. He therefore substitutes in
>> his answer the word of affection, FILW. At the third time Peter had
>> gained his point; for the Lord now, instead of AGAPAS, gratifies
>> Peter by using FILEIS.”  (Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New
>> Testament, Vol. 2, T&T Clark, Edinbrugh, 1877  pg. 500)
>>
>
> What I find really interesting is that this is the opposite of what I
> always heard via "urban legend" Greek; that the Lord was using a
> stronger word, and Peter falling back on the lesser.
>
>
> Rev. Alexander Ring
> 11221 Farwest Dr
> Lakewood, WA  98498
>
> akring at mac.com
>
> "Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
> - Eric Temple Bell, mathemetician
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> 



More information about the B-Greek mailing list