True, and in fact, I still have that full argument on my hard drive. I
haven't looked at it dozens of times, but I have four or five, and I guess
I've been reluctant to declare myself upon it, but here goes (and do bear
in mind: I state only what I currently think is most likely; I might very
well repent of this position tomorrow or later).
> The
>view that the words are distinguishable (AGAPAW = self-sacrificing
>commitment to another's welfare; PHILEW = personal attachment)
>permits a reading that recognizes a very careful development to a
>climax. Any displacement of the key terms (the verbs and the
>use/nonuse of the article) destroys the development, and there are
>512 possible arrangements of them (9 slots [six verb occurrences and
>three ordinal numbers] to be filled with one of two options yields 2
>to the 9th, or 512, possible arrangements). So, while recognizing
>that the other synonyms in this passage may be interchangeable and
>that these verbs may be interchangeable in other contexts, I choose
>to believe that the verbs are not used in free variation in this
>passage, where we have so much context available to help us
>distinguish between them.
(1) I have to say first of all that, while I once felt quite confident that
this distinction between AGAPAW and FILEW in NT usage was both real and
important, I now doubt it seriously. Others have already shown that the
usage of the two verbs in the NT does not constate this distinction but
rather shows them overlapping in sense so far as to make them virtual
synonyms. I honestly believe that Gary Shogren is right on the mark in
asserting that one has to assume this distinction from the outset in order
to find the alternation of the verbs in sequence significant, a petitio
principii. If one doesn't make that assumption, but observes the actual
usage of the words in other passages in the NT, then the assumption seems
to have no support.
(2) Regarding TO TRITON in 21:17, let me cite the text first:
(17) LEGEI AUTWi TO TRITON, SIMWN IWANNOU, FILEIS ME? ELUPHQH
hO PETROS hOTI EIPEN AUTWi TO TRITON, 'FILEIS ME?' KAI LEGEI
AUTWi, 'KURIE, PANTA SU OIDAS, SU GINWSKEIS hOTI FILW SE. LEGEI
AUTWi [hO IHSOUS], 'BOSKE TA PROBATA MOU.'
Now Randy says:
>Part of my support was derived from the use/nonuse of the article
>with the ordinal numerals "second" and "third." John does not write
>that Jesus asked "a third time"; he writes that Jesus asked "the
>third time." I am not dogmatic about this, but an analysis of the use
>of the article with ordinals in the New Testament seems to support
>the idea that articular ordinals point out something unique or
>different about the given instance while anarthrous ones seem to
>signify that the given instance was simply another of the same kind
>as the previous ones.
While I quite agree that TO TRITON is different from TRITON, it really
seems to me that the fundamental difference is that TRITON points simply to
A third instance in a sequence of which there may be several more
instances, while TO TRITON points to this instance as somehow distinctive.
In what way, then, is it distinctive? Is it because the verb is different
this time, FILEIS rather than AGAPAS? I don't think so myself (rather I
think that if it was the verb, FILEIS would have to have been the verb for
three successive questions, and it isn't). I don't think that TO TRITON
underscores anything other than the fact that NUMBER 3 has been reached,
the climactic number, the very number of Peter's denials of Jesus back in
chapter 18. Peter's chagrin, embarrassment, pain is heavily underscored
here by the fact that the question has been put to him for THE THIRD TIME,
making a total number of times equal to the number of his denials. So I do
NOT think that the verb being used in this instance is the important
matter. Rather I think one has to make the assumption before one starts
this reckoning that the verb in question is the important thing about the
third question.
Moreover, if one really wants to say that the difference of the verb is the
important thing, then TO TRITON can't really refer to actual events
reported in the narrative as a whole. Peter is grieved BECAUSE he has been
asked for the third time "Do you love me," not because this is the third
time that the verb of the question is FILEIS. And the question may be asked
regarding the reference of TO TRITON in the first clause of the verse: is
it to LEGEI AUTWi: "He speaks to him for the third time" --or is it to the
WHOLE sentence: "He says for the third time to him, 'Simon son of John, do
you love me." Which is it: addressing him for the third time? or putting
this particular question for the third time? My own inclination is to say
that THE QUESTION is put to Peter for the third time, and that IT IS THE
SAME QUESTION EACH TIME, even though the verb is different.
In sum, I really don't think there's any more difference here between
AGAPAW and FILEW than there is between the "answering" formula-verbs,
AMEIBOMAI and APOKRINOMAI.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/