From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Mon Jan 08 2001 - 23:04:30 EST
On 1/8/01 10:40 AM, Mike Sangrey wrote:
> This is an interesting observation. The position which suggests
> the variation is there for stylistic reasons has to explain why the
> (admittedly, I would think) EXTREME variety. I mean, the words are
> flipping around all over the place.
My definition of "extreme" must be extremely different than yours. ;-)
> Why? If the variety has so distracted exegetes (witness the amount of
> discussion which is had on John 21, it even happens in church meetings down
> under <chuckle> ;-), then why would an author intentionally utilize such
> significant variety? It doesn't relieve boredom, it distracts.
Someone on the list pointed out earlier that the distraction you point out
above is of relatively recent origin. He claimed, for example, that the only
Church Father who made much of the distinction between AGAPAW and FILEW in
Jn 21 was Origen (which is understandable given his hermeneutical method).
If this is true, it may be that this whole controversy is nothing more than
a product of the idiosyncrasies of relatively recent exegetical mindset.
You seem to be asking why the author would intentionally use a variety of
words that would drive exegetes to distraction. This assumes, rather than
proves, that the author MUST have meant a significant difference in the
words and that if he didn't, he should have known this would confuse people!
Yet if we look at the way he has used these two words throughout the Gospel,
I believe we see that there is nothing in the Gospel that could possibly
have prepared the reader to expect or see a significant difference between
these two words in John 21. This being the case, why on earth would would it
ever cross his mind that using these same words that he has used throughout
his work, together in the same context, would completely baffle his readers
unless they were able to see a significant difference between the two?
> I think Louw and Nida support the betrothal/marriage distinction.
> However, I would love to have some evidence of the use of AGAPAW and
> PHILEW in contexts of betrothal and marriage. Does anyone have any?
I understand the concept of proposing a hypothesis for the purpose of
testing it empirically. But shouldn't at least some of this evidence have
been collected and presented before the interpretation offered? I think this
reads enormously much into both words, especially since there is no
betrothal and marriage imagery at all in the pericope. All this must be read
into the very words in question. And on the contrary, the imagery is
agricultural, not nuptial.
Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT