From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed Jan 17 2001 - 06:56:54 EST
Very brief response:
(1) I do think this has been one of the most fruitful exchanges we have
ever had on this particular issue of the "synonyms" in John 21, most
particularly AGAPAW and FILEW. Quite a variety of views has been expressed,
and I have had off-list some others, including one from Randy Leedy who has
long held a strong view on the distinction between the two verbs for "love"
and who has published an article on the subject; Mike Sangrey also sent me
an additional note on this to which I want to respond privately. I do hope
that we shall have no more full-scale interpretations of the pericope as a
whole because I think we've been going beyond the strict focus upon the
verb usage and engaging in fuller literary and theological interpretation
of the pericope as a whole.
(2) I think that Steve in his message, although he says he is relying upon
the distinction as set forth in Louw & Nida, has ignored one key statement
in the article by Louw & Nida on AGAPAW/FILEW which was included in my
earlier citation of that article, to wit:
Though some persons have tried to assign certain significant differences of
meaning between AGAPAW, and FILEW, FILIA (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 FILEW or FILIA, but only with AGAPAW and AGAPH. Though the
meanings of these terms overlap considerably in many contexts, there are
probably some significant differences in certain contexts; that is to say,
FILEW and FILIA are likely to focus upon love or affection based upon
interpersonal association, while AGAPAW and AGAPH 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
AGAPAW and AGAPH in commands to Christians to love one another. It would,
however, be quite wrong to assume that FILEW and FILIA refer only to human
love, while AGAPAW and AGAPH 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.
(3) On several occasions in the last two or three months we've tried to
urge list-members please to avoid using STYLED TEXT and to use only
plain-text ASCII which will appear in a standard screen font on anybody's
computer screen and will not clutter up the digests with HTML or other mime
coded texts. The message herebelow was sent in mimed text, but I am
altering it to plain text in this reply.
At 8:08 AM +0300 1/17/01, Steve Godfrey wrote:
>Dear Carl and list,
>
>I greatly appreciate the help you, Steven, and others have given me in
>thinking through John 21. I needed some time to percolate, and life
>always intervenes, so my response is probably coming well after everyone
>else has considered the horse dead and beaten. However, I thought it best
>to clarify my own thinking, and then offer this for considered review:
>
>I think we've reached general consensus on the following points:
>
>1) the synonymns, particularly AGAPAO / FILEO, are present for more than
>stylistic variation
>
>2) the general usage of AGAPAO and FILEO in the NT provide no
>justification for reading AGAPAO as a higher love and FILEO as a lower
>love. This is to commit a root fallacy, and with FILEO, to commit a
>semantic anachronism (by letting "Philadelphia", the city of brotherly
>love, guide the discussion).
>
>3) Context must be the primary factor in determining how we understand
>the differences intended in this passage.
>
>
>You suggested that reading FILEO as the stronger term provides a more
>satisfactory reading. Your justifications were that this provides "a
>positive climax of warm mutual acceptance," and that this reading fits
>well with Raymond Brown's suggestion of the NT as a working out of mutual
>understanding between the Petrine and Johannine communities. I don't yet
>find these justifications persuasive. First, the reading I offered seems
>to provide an even more satisfactory climax than yours does (grace
>resolving shame). Second, while I greatly respect Raymond Brown's
>scholarship, I don't see how this bears on taking FILEO as stronger than
>AGAPE. You might appropriately ask at this point, "What then are the real
>justifications for your interpretation?" I particularly at this point
>appreciate Steven De Vullo's sentiments. It is indeed important not to
>read our preconceptions and agendas into the passage. Here then are my
>justifications for taking AGAPAO as the stronger term:
>
>a) the semantic domain of AGAPAO centers around the idea of love based on
>unconditional high regard, while that of FILEO centers on love based on
>association (per Louw&Nida). (I base this not on my inherent regard for
>Louw&Nida, but rather on a review of the NT occurences of AGAPAO and
>FILEO, which in my view justifies their treatment.)
>
>b) I disagree, nevertheless, with Louw&Nida's argument that no difference
>of meaning between these synonyms is intended in John 21, based on your
>summary of John's style ("simplicity masking massive depth"), as well as
>the function of John 21 (as an epilogue), as well as Peter's urging in his
>first epistle to "shepherd the flock of God" (1 Pet. 5:2). Regarding this
>last point, these are the words of a man deeply committed to personal
>holiness and ministry inspired by shame resolved by grace.
>
>c) It is probable that Peter was experiencing significant shame at the
>beginning of John 21. He had betrayed Christ 3 times in front of a little
>girl. His friend John was there to see the whole thing. I believe this
>to be the implication John intends when he has Peter say in 21:3, "I'm
>going out to fish." Peter is going back to what he knew before, because
>he is confused about what he has come to know subsequently.
>
>d) If shame is the operative dynamic, then it makes more sense to treat
>AGAPAO as the stronger term. When Jesus moves from AGAPAO to FILEO, it
>seems most probable he is providing for the resolution of Peter's shame.
>
>Steven De Vullo voiced concern earlier that the implication of this
>interpretation would be to inflict on congregations ministers with
>defective love commitments, and therefore it can't be the correct
>interpretation. First of all, I am hesitant to revise an interpretation,
>if it is appropriately justified by inductive reasoning, merely because
>the implication might be uncomfortable. Uncomfortable implications are
>often the most helpful ones. Second, I don't think in any case that
>Steven's concern follows. The reading I'm suggesting in no way lowers the
>standard of love required for ministers. Rather, it compels ministers to
>the standard of love embodied in Jesus' gracious seeking out of Peter
>after a profound personal failure on Peter's part.
>
>With appreciation,
>
>Steve Godfrey
>Irkutsk, Siberia (via Milwaukee, WI)
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
>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
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
---
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 - 15:36:47 EDT