From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Sun Apr 19 1998 - 12:30:26 EDT
Paul S. Dixon wrote: [To George Blaisdell ~ [Snipped]
> I surely hope we are open to the possible theological or textual input
> from others. Hmm, maybe not.
!!!PAUL!!! [?!?!?!?!?!]
> 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.
>
> 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.
Hi Paul
I really do think that the text of John has an integrity that is
self-supporting, and that if some section of it is giving us
difficulty, we must seek resolution within the text itself, so I am a
bit wary of heading off into the boonies outside the text to solve
those difficulties. The suggestion that these three questions balance
the three denials seems reasonable. I think there is much more...
And I really don't know what it is.
If it is a counterbalance to the three denials, then the meanings of
both can be elucidated referentially to each other, and possibly even
the orders of the denials and the affirmations will have relevance.
I am blissfully unaware of the historical development of this text,
although I have read of it, and so I really cannot assign motive as to
inclusions that might have later origins. I simply try to let the
text speak...
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:28 EDT