From: Steven Cox (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Apr 17 1998 - 08:15:11 EDT
I'm very happy to see you say that AGAPAW and FILEW _do_
really mean something different (in this dialogue) after all.
Without wishing to get on Carson's case again, Fallacies p52
("For various reasons I doubt very much that there is an
intended distinction") has got lots of good citizens thinking
that the imperial old chestnut in this verse has no togs on,
but I cannot think of another word game in John that so
clearly screams out (p52 now has a big marmalade blotch on
it in my copy).
And the "third time" does not have to imply AGAPAW and FILEW
are synomous. LEGEI TO TRITON implies only three utterances
in approximately the same direction, as in any other language,
and the TO TRITON is part of the reason why Peter was sad
ELUPHQH hO PETROS OTI *EIPEN TO TRITON AUTWi* FILEIS ME
why did saying it TO TRITON make Peter want to cry?
Peter in Gethsemane?
KAI ERCETAI *TO TRITON KAI LEGEI AUTOIS* (Mark14:41)
Peter in the crowd?
hO DE *TRITON EIPEN* PROS AUTOUS (Luke 23:22)
Peter in the courtyard?
..hEWS OU ARNHSH ME TRIS (John13:38)
but then I just love parallels and symmetry
At 22:16 98/04/16 -0400, Jim West wrote:
>At 09:28 PM 4/16/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>I have two questions from this passage.
>>First, what is your take on the AGAPAS/FILEIS interpretation? Is there a
>>difference in meaning between the two words here, or should we see them
>>as being virtually synonymous, at least in this context?
>No, I take the differences to be significant. I.e., Jesus asks Peter, do ya
>love me. Peter says, yup, youre my friend. Jesus says again, do ya love
>me. Peter- yup, youre my friend. Jesus says, are you even my friend- Peter
>The use of agape by Jesus and philew by Peter means peter sees Jesus as a
>buddy; so the final question of Jesus is quite pointed.
>>I am tending towards the latter interpretation because of v. 17 where it
>>says Peter was grieved hOTI EIPEN AUTWi TO TRITON, FILEIS ME;
>I think you should translate this, "because he said to him the third time"
>not "because he said three times..."
>>Technically, Christ had said FILEIS only once, and AGAPAS twice. Thus,
>>John would be wrong, unless he understood AGAPAS and FILEIS to be
>No, I think your translation can be sharpened.
>>Second, if the same question is being asked three times, should we also
>>expect the resultant charges to be synonymous? Do they all mean the same
>No. See above.
>> BOSKE TA ARNIA MOU
>> POIMAINE TA PROBATA MOU
>> BOSKE TA PROBATA MOU
>>Is this just an emphatic way of driving home the point, i.e., if Peter
>>really loved Christ, then he would tend His flock, which includes feeding
>>and caring for the entire flock, young included?
>No, I think this is just a nice little piece of poetic parallelism.= a-b-c
>Jim West, ThD
>Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:31 EDT