John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Semantic Range, Lexicography, and other approaches to word meaning - in general, or for particular words.
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

I recently came across an article written by John A. Lee on the meaning of αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17. I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts
Ὅτε οὖν ἠρίστησαν λέγει τῷ Σίμωνι Πέτρῳ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με πλέον τούτων; λέγει αὐτῷ· ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. * λέγει αὐτῷ· βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου. 16 λέγει αὐτῷ πάλιν δεύτερον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, ἀγαπᾷς με; λέγει αὐτῷ. ναὶ κύριε, σὺ οἶδας ὅτι φιλῶ σε. λέγει αὐτῷ· ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου. 17 λέγει αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· Σίμων Ἰωάννου, φιλεῖς με; ἐλυπήθη ὁ Πέτρος ὅτι εἶπεν αὐτῷ τὸ τρίτον· φιλεῖς με; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε, πάντα σὺ οἶδας, σὺ γινώσκεις ὅτι φιλῶ σε. (NA28)
https://www.academia.edu/30792999/The_P ... 2017_27_30
This evidence leads to the conclusion that in early Koine Greek, and certainly by the time of the New Testament, φιλῶ was obsolescent in the meaning “love.” The standard word for the idea was ἀγαπῶ. Obsolescent words tend to carry greater formality. Thus we can say that φιλῶ was the slightly more formal word, while ἀγαπῶ had no extra connotation of that kind, but was “unmarked” for formality.
Is there a good case to suggest that φιλεω could be used as a more formal word for the emotion love than αγαπαω?
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Jean Putmans »

i read it on academia.edu as well.

After reading it I looked in my Vg-Jerome edition (Gryson) and checked the way, Jerome rendered these words:

αγαπαω > diligo,
φιλεω > amo

According to my Latin dictionaries (Georges, Lewis/Short):
amo = to like, to love, Passion, affection
diligo = designates esteem, regard

Jerome as well as the Vetus Latina (Jülicher) are rather consequent in rendering these words.
I suppose, them being almost contemporaries with the Greek autors/scribes, they knew very well, what these words in those days meant.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Jean Putmans wrote: February 23rd, 2023, 1:15 pm i read it on academia.edu as well.

After reading it I looked in my Vg-Jerome edition (Gryson) and checked the way, Jerome rendered these words:

αγαπαω > diligo,
φιλεω > amo

According to my Latin dictionaries (Georges, Lewis/Short):
amo = to like, to love, Passion, affection
diligo = designates esteem, regard

Jerome as well as the Vetus Latina (Jülicher) are rather consequent in rendering these words.
I suppose, them being almost contemporaries with the Greek autors/scribes, they knew very well, what these words in those days meant.

Interesting - I didn’t think to look at what other languages are doing with the words (not that I could competently). Do you know whether there is a distinction in other early translations in different languages?
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3351
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Stephen Carlson »

We've discussed this article before on B-Greek.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Jason Hare »

Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Jean Putmans »

@Matthew


John 21:15 is not part of the extant Gothic text.
The Gothic Version renders both words with frion = love, so without distinction.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Jason Hare wrote: February 24th, 2023, 12:49 am
Stephen Carlson wrote: February 23rd, 2023, 8:56 pm We've discussed this article before on B-Greek.
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... php?t=3933
https://ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4563
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... ?f=6&t=909 (started by me)
Sorry all. I will stop commenting any more on this thread
Jason Hare
Posts: 951
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Jason Hare »

Matthew Longhorn wrote: February 24th, 2023, 5:22 am
Jason Hare wrote: February 24th, 2023, 12:49 am
Stephen Carlson wrote: February 23rd, 2023, 8:56 pm We've discussed this article before on B-Greek.
https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vi ... php?t=3933
https://ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4563
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/vie ... ?f=6&t=909 (started by me)
Sorry all. I will stop commenting any more on this thread
That wasn’t my intention... just to give you the background of the discussion here so that you can know what was already said and perhaps build on it.
Jason A. Hare
The Hebrew Café
Tel Aviv, Israel
Matthew Longhorn
Posts: 772
Joined: November 10th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Matthew Longhorn »

Jason Hare wrote: February 24th, 2023, 1:21 pm That wasn’t my intention... just to give you the background of the discussion here so that you can know what was already said and perhaps build on it.
Ah understood, thanks for clarifying; I read through those thanks for linking to them.

So to take this down a route that hasn't been discussed on those then:
Grant Lee's premise for the sake of argument that φιλεω is being edged out by αγαπαω in usage for the emotion love, does anyone know of any support in modern linguistics for Lee's idea about formality? In the article he references himself from a 1985 paper
https://www.academia.edu/3698768/_Some_ ... _1985_1_26 Here he touches on it in pages 7, 10-11
An appreciation of the long-term trends of the language, and their rate of progress, is essential. This is because it seems to be a general axiom of language that archaism and formality go together: the use of an obsolete or obsolescent feature instead of its current equivalent suggest more formal speech. (Contrast is an essential element here. An old feature is noticeable, or" marked", as regards formality only if it contrasts with some other feature which has replaced it in normal use; otherwise inherited features, which in fact make up the bulk of any language, are unmarked.)This principle is especially applicable to post-Classical Greek, where concern with past forms of the language was a dominant influence. We can be sure that when a writer of this period wished to be formal he would tend to employ obsolete features
What sort of resources would a reader of the GNT need to look at to see whether a particular lexeme is becoming more obsolescent than another at a certain time to help make such a formality judgement. That coupled with the register of the sources it appears in. It strikes me that this sort of analysis is likely something outside my ability to assess properly and is something I will have to rely on others for, then hope I understood them, and that they are right.
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: John A. Lee on αγαπαω and φιλεω in John 21:15-17

Post by Jean Putmans »

My first lexicon would in those cases be Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
Kittel, Gerhard; Friedrich, Gerhard. A couple of years ago I bought a complete German Edition for 75 Euros. (11 big Volumes).

αγαπαω : 43 pages
φιλεω : 31 pages.

Every Item has a historical overview of the use of the words.
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “Word Meanings”