From: Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
Date: Sat Apr 18 1998 - 22:39:37 EDT
Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:22:04 -0500 Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@historian.net>
> writes:
> >dalmatia@eburg.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul S. Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >> > Even though the passage is a Johannine construct, the actual
> >> > words spoken by Christ here seem especially germane to the argument.
> >> > Of course, we do not know exactly what those words in
> Aramaic/Hebrew >> > were. Nevertheless,
> >> > if it could be determined that the Aramaic/Hebrew knew of no such
> >> > equivalent distinction as found in the Greek AGAPAW and FILEW, and
> >> > if the same word would have been used for both, then this would
> certainly
> >> > support the synonymous interpretation of AGAPAS and FILEIS in Jn
> >> > 21:15-17.
> >>
> >> Hi Paul ~
> >>
> >> You are quite right here, if the assumption is that Christ did NOT
> >> speak Greek, or was not speaking Greek when these thoughts were
> >> spoken. Given the heterogeneity of His hearers ~ [Romans, Greeks and
> >> Jews] ~ And given the wide usage of Greek ~ I am very inclined to
> >> think that He did indeed speak it, at least publicly. This is,
> >> granted, a more private communication, so the issue seems rather
> >> flexible-plexible! I think, for starters, we can assume that Christ
> >> COULD speak Greek, eh?
> >>
> >> George
> >
> > I am going to render this is Greek and interlinear Aramaic
> >in case some may be interested in the Aramaic rendering. I agree
> >with George that Jesus could speak Greek with enough competence to
> >communicate but I do not think that Kefa spoke Greek...that's why
> >he needed Mark. If these words are historically Yeshuine, they
> >would have been in Aramaic. The difference between these two
> >languages is that Aramaic is a "practical" language that has
> >ONE word that could have several meanings (a very idiomatic
> >language) while Greek had numerous words for one concept but
> >several nuances, Therefore the love of reverence AGAPH vs. the
> >emotional FILEI. The Aramaic, however was ONE word RXM.
>
> > Given Ch 21 was not part of the autograph John, I believe
> >the Yohannine community had a purpose for this appendage..that's
> >another thread. I believe, however, the AGAPAJ/FILEI was a
> >deliberate theological "play" on the single Aramaic rxm for a
> >given purpose and would bow to George's theological expertise
> >on that...might be interesting to discuss. I have not
> >researched the various textual variants, that may be an interesting
> >one for Jim's special expertise.
>
> I surely hope we are open to the possible theological or textual input
> from others. Hmm, maybe not. At any rate, if I gather what you are
> saying, then from the same Aramaic word John may somehow be interpreting
> different nuances as reflected in his choice of the non-synonymous AGAPAS
> and FILEIS. If so, then can you buttress your argument by examples?
Although there are many examples of variant Greek renderings
that distill to a single Aramaic word (OFEILETAIS and AMARTIAJ for
xowbyn comes to mind), I would need to look at John 21: 15-18 a little
closer to see if I can detect signals of translational rather than
compositional Greek. A cursory first blush feeling, after examining
both the Greek and Aramaic, is that this is compositional Greek and
the sayings are really not original to Jesus. I think they were
a later interpolation, as was all of ch. 21) intended to soften
what what originally an anti-petrine gospel. This is accomplished
by having this triple affirmation to counter the triple denial.
>
> It seems at least as plausible, if not more likely, that the use of the
> same Aramaic word in the same context would be interpreted by John to
> mean the same thing. If so, then one would expect AGAPAS and FILEIS to
> be synonymous.
My first impression is that this had no Aramaic origin,
consequently, there is design between the use of the two different
words.
>
> Another possibility, I suppose, is that John may be changing the meaning
> by his choice of words. Examples of this would be the way NT authors use
> the LXX, i.e., change words for their purposes. But, this is a different
> scenario altogether, as in John's case we are talking about quoting or
> translating words spoken by Christ. Surely, one would not expect John to
> be changing the meaning.
I would expect later Yohanine redactors to alter the meaning.
Jack
--
Dâman dith laych idneh dânishMA nishMA
Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
http://www.historian.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:27 EDT