From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 20 2001 - 09:16:44 EST
At 11:59 AM +0300 1/20/01, Steve Godfrey wrote:
>Dear Harold, David, Wayne, and List,
>
>My apologies for gunking up the list with html. I trust this is coming in
>plain text. Human beings make mistakes, but it takes a computer to really
>foul things up.
>
>In response to my last post, Harold noted Louw & Nida's treatment of John 21
>once again, and suggested that I'm ignoring this. I am not ignoring it, but
>rather questioning it. I am stipulating that John intends something more
>then mere stylistic variation in the way he is using AGAPAW and FILEW (as
>well as the other synonyms). My previous post summarizes my reasoning. An
>underlying point may be that while L&N provide a helpful emphasis on
>semantics, an additional emphasis on literary dynamics will shed more light
>on John's intent here. To suggest that these synonyms ought to be read as
>mere stylistic variation because there is no strong grammatical or
>syntactical evidence to the contrary, is an argument from silence, and
>therefore presumptive, especially when there is literary evidence to the
>contrary (e.g. John's style, the function of this passage as an epilogue,
>Peter's subsequent reflections on this exchange, the theological
>significance of the lamb of God motif). Since biblical Greek carries
>meaning on a literary plane as well as on grammatical, syntactic, and
>semantic ones, I trust it is appropriate to raise such questions in the
>B-Greek forum.
>
>Much earlier in the discussion, I argued that the other synonym pairs are
>also likely to carry distinctions in meaning, and provided a brief proposal
>for understanding the interaction of the four pairs. I won't repeat that
>here, but it might provide a way forward if anyone is so inclined.
As Harold has already noted, it was I rather than he who suggested that
Steve Godfrey has ignored L&N's treatment of John 21. Now he asserts he is
not ignoring but questioning it; while I would never want to assert that
ANY such resource, be it a lexical or grammatical compilation, is to be
accepted at face value, particularly if evidence to the contrary can be
presented, I have to say that for my part I have developed a pretty strong
respect for L&N. They don't think there's any significant differentiation
between AGAPEW and FILEW in John 21. I've said that I agree with this, with
the slight qualification that there may be a slight shade or nuance, that
one might involve a somewhat deeper sense of personal warmth while the
other might be a more generic sort of deference of one person to another
(or to a thing) that has nothing to do with personal feelings. I will
confess that I have grown rather weary of chasing this differentiation
farther because, while I am perfectly ready to grant, hypothetically, that
there may be a real distinction, I'm no longer convinced that the
distinction is either (a) determinable with any reasonable degree of
confidence, or (b) of such importance that our fundamental understanding of
the message of this pericope hinges upon our understanding of such a
distinction. What that means for me is that it's an investigation yielding
diminishing returns and more edifying--but only slight more so--than
determination of the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead.
I agree with Steve that this passage may perhaps be open to literary
analysis more readily than to illumination from any pursuit of
lexicographical data. The problem with literary analysis is that, even when
it is brilliant and illuminating, as it often is (I think of Robert Alter's
writings on scripture as literary criticism that I have found particularly
illuminating), it cannot escape the suspicion that it is highly subjective
and grounded upon assumptions which can command no compelling consent. My
own judgment is that sort of hermeneutical (it is hermeneutical, isn't it?)
discussion on this basis is even MORE inappropriate on this list than
theological discussion, wherein we confront a similar boundless range
across a spectrum of theological presuppositions.
Quite frankly I am more than a little anxious at the prospect of attempting
to draw relationships between Jesus' admonitions to Peter in John 21:15-17
BOSKE TA ARNIA MOU, POIMAINE TA PROBATA MOU and BOSKE TA PROBATA MOU and
the twofold pointing of John the Baptist to Jesus in John 1:29 and 36 IDE
hO AMNOS TOU QEOU. Of course there can be no doubt that all of these draw
language and images from the nomadic sheep-herding traditions of Israel
whence much of the powerful metaphoric description of God's care for Israel
and Jesus' care for the church obviously derive: are we really going to try
to argue that Jesus' ARNIA are DIFFERENT designated concerns of Jesus'
entrusted to Peter's care from the PROBATA of the other two admonitions? or
that a different mission is being referred to be the middle imperative
POIMAINE from the outer imperatives BOSKE? I confess that I am too weak of
mind to conceive of a criterion whereby we could make such a
differentiation.
May I suggest that those interested in pursuing this line of inquiry
continue the discussion privately amongst themselves apart from the B-Greek
list? It is clearly a matter upon which there are a few, at least, who are
genuinely interested in pursuing it. I might even suggest that it would be,
I think, a perfectly appropriate topic for discussion upon the Johannine
Literature list (assuming that is, that the good Jesuit scholar, Felix
Just, who runs that list raises no objections):
SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
--
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 - 15:36:48 EDT