One little technical item here: apparently you have cut and pasted from the
article in Louw and Nida and the Greek shows on your screen as Greek even
in your message text because you have the font in your system. you should
be aware, however, that it shows up as gobbledygook that is decipherable
with some difficulty in the messages received by those of us not using your
system or having that font installed. When citing Louw and Nida I've tried
to use a conventional transliteration scheme, a tedious process, but it
makes it a lot easier to read.
>25.43 ajgapavwa; ajgavpha, h" f: to have love for someone or something,
>based on sincere appreciation and high regard - ‘to love, to regard with
>affection, loving concern, love.’ajgapavwa: ejntolh;n kainh;n divdwmi
>uJmi'n, i{na ajgapa'te ajllhvlou" ‘I give you a new commandment, that
>you love one another’ Jn 13.34; ga;r to;n e{na mishvsei kai; to;n
>e{teron ajgaphvsei ‘for he will hate the one and love the other’ Lk
>16.13; oJ path;r ajgapa/' to;n uiJovn ‘the Father loves the Son’ Jn
>3.35; o{ti aujto;" prw'to" hjgavphsen hJma'" ‘for he loved us first’ 1
>Jn 4.19.
>
>ajgavpha: hJ ajgavph oujdevpote pivptei ‘love does not fail’ 1 Cor 13.8;
>hJ ajgavph tw/' plhsivon kako;n oujk ejrgavzetai ‘a person who loves
>doesn’t do evil to his neighbor’ Ro 13.10.
>Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences
>of meaning between ajgapavwa, ajgavpha and filevwa, filiva (25.33), it
>does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and
>all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn 21.15-17 seems to reflect
>simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition.
>There is, however, one significant clue to possible meaningful
>differences in at least some contexts, namely, the fact that people are
>never commanded to love one another with filevw or filiva, but only with
>ajgapavw and ajgavph. Though the meanings of these terms overlap
>considerably in many contexts, there are probably some significant
>differences in certain contexts; that is to say, filevw and filiva are
>likely to focus upon love or affection based upon interpersonal
>association, while ajgapavw and ajgavph focus upon love and affection
>based on deep appreciation and high regard. On the basis of this type of
>distinction, one can understand some of the reasons for the use of
>ajgapavw and ajgavph in commands to Christians to love one another. It
>would, however, be quite wrong to assume that filevw and filiva refer
>only to human love, while ajgapavw and ajgavph refer to divine love.
>Both sets of terms are used for the total range of loving relations
>between people, between people and God, and between God and Jesus
>Christ.
>Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New
>Testament based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies)
>1988, 1989.
>
>Differences can be seen in the way these words are used. This raises a
>question: How do you know if this use is significant?
>
>I would suggest that context is the best indicator. In the context of
>John 21 we have the following:
>
>- the use of TO TRITON in v. 17 which may be significant as Randy
>pointed out.
>- the fact that the word change is in v.17 (the 3rd time)....why not
>v.16 or v.15?
>- the fact that Peter was grieved when Jesus asked a 3rd time
>- the fact that in the synoptic accounts of Peter's denial, he started
>off just denying the Lord and ended up calling down curses on himself.
>
>Now any of these in isolation could be easily diregarded or explained
>away but the fact that they occur together does make a pretty reasonable
>case for some intentional semantic difference.
While I THINK I see what you're asserting, I'm not altogether sure. You
seem to be asserting that the context is enough to prove that the
distinction between the two words is real here; that's a view that other
list members hold also. What I don't understand is why you cited the Louw
and Nida article unless you're trying to show that it was wrong in stating
that the words are more or less synonymous here in John 21 and that we have
a case of rhetorical variation rather than semantic distinction:
>of meaning between ajgapavwa, ajgavpha and filevwa, filiva (25.33), it
>does not seem possible to insist upon a contrast of meaning in any and
>all contexts. For example, the usage in Jn 21.15-17 seems to reflect
>simply a rhetorical alternation designed to avoid undue repetition.
Was it your intention to argue against L&N? I think it is perfectly
legitimate to do so--no reference work has been shown to be
error-proof!--but it really looks like you are endeavoring to use L&N as an
authority to make a point that runs counter to it. Have I misunderstood you?
Regards, cwc
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/