Logos for the Layman! Wow! Peter and Jesus and Love – Be Advised! – This is A Longer Post!
Comments
-
[Y][Y][H]Bohuslav Wojnar said:George Somsel said:The problem with quoting this passage is that when one does so he is generally NOT supporting simply the text of Paul's letters or even of the NT itself. What he is generally supporting is A PARTICULAR HISTORICAL VIEW of such propounded considerably later by someone other than the apostle. Let us remember that the bible is the founding document, not some particular understanding thereof. If we find that we have not been understanding a passage correctly we are free to change our understanding of that passage and, indeed, are even under obligation to do so. Otherwise, we might as well choose a translation which suits us (if we are limiting ourselves to one understanding then we aren't really dealing with the original text, are we?) and one commentary which suits us and avoid studying anything else. I guess we could sell our Logos program since we really wouldn't need it for that.
Fortunately, I think that the very thought of such an action would be intollerable to most. Why then do the same thing by the back door? Why do the same thing by cavalierly dismissing any thought which doesn't agree with our own understanding? A couple of closing passages from scripture:
And Judas went out and hanged himself.
Go thou and do likewise.
Both are in scripture. Would you care to follow them?Bohuslav Wojnar said:I can say for myself I met some people, who claimed those Paul's words concerning their own biased ideas about Biblical text, not to the text itself. I can say I am always very happy to be able to have an "aha" moment to see things more clearly. The thing is it is not always "aha" in the desired direction we would like. Sometimes I was preparing to preach on some text with certain idea, I believed was fascinating, but after doing my home work, I had to preach something else, simply because more thorough study discouraged me from doing that "fascinating" conclusions.
[Y] Well said Bohuslav. On the more substantive issue regarding there not being a difference in the meaning of Love used by John, I am with George. My own study has led me to the same conclusion.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Ted Hans said:
On the more substantive issue regarding there not being a difference in the meaning of Love used by John, I am with George. My own study has led me to the same conclusion.
Ted
Well, looks I have some work to do.
Bohuslav
0 -
Perhaps it will now be a little clearer why synonyms are so difficult to handle. In one sense, of course, two terms are virtually never strictly synonymous if by “synonymous” we are saying that wherever they are used the two terms mean exactly the same thing denotatively and connotatively, in their semantic components and in the cognitive information they convey and in the emotional freight they carry, to all people who speak the language. But a pair of words can be strictly synonymous in certain contexts; each case must be decided on its own merits. To illustrate with another commonly used diagram, figure 2, the terms A and B may be strictly synonymous in a particular context where they enjoy semantic overlap (i.e., overlapping meanings, indicated by the shaded area). For strict synonymy, of course, the semantic overlap must include not only referential meaning, but also all the aspects that go into meaning; for otherwise the terms A and B are “synonymous” at some levels and not at others.
FIGURE 2
We are now equipped to resume our discussion of ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō), introduced in the discussion about the root fallacy. There we saw that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) does not always refer to a “good” love or a sacrificial love or a divine love, and certainly there is nothing in the root to convey such a meaning. But the question arises whether the well–known exchange between Jesus and Peter reported in John 21:15–17, using the two different verbs, is intended to convey a distinction in meaning, or to provide an example of semantic overlap, of synonymy. The pattern is shown in figure 3.
FIGURE 3
Jesus’ question
Peter’s response
ἀγαπάω
φιλέω
ἀγαπάω
φιλέω
φιλέω
φιλέω
For various reasons, I doubt very much that there is an intended distinction. If I were setting out to prove the point, I would have to discuss the significance of “the third time,” exegete the passage in some detail, review the evidence that John regularly introduces expressions that are either precisely synonymous or roughly so,60 and so forth. But most of those who insist that there is a distinction to be made in John’s use of the two verbs do so on one of two grounds. First, they argue that translators of the Septuagint and New Testament writers have invested61 ἀγαπάω (agapaō, to love) and ἀγάπη (agapē, love) with special meaning to provide an adequate expression by which to talk about the love of God; and only this accounts for the word’s rapid rise to prominence in our literature. But this argument has been overturned by the diachronic study of Robert Joly, who presents convincing evidence that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from the fourth century B.C. on, and was not restricted to biblical literature.62 This development was fostered by a number of changes in the language (linguists call them structural changes) in which ἀγαπάω (agapaō) was becoming one of the standard verbs for “to love” because φιλέω (phileō) had acquired the meaning to kiss as part of its semantic range. The reasons for these developments need not detain us;63 but the evidence is substantial and effectively disqualifies this first ground.
The second ground on which many build their argument that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) is to be distinguished from φιλέω (phileō) in John 21:15–17—and the one that concerns us most directly at the moment—is well illustrated by William Hendriksen’s commentary.64 Hendriksen shows that although there is considerable semantic overlap between ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō), once one considers all the biblical passages in which these two words occur there is clear evidence for a little semantic “overhang” in each case. For instance, φιλέω (phileō) can be used when Judas kisses Jesus (Luke 22:47); ἀγαπάω (agapaō) is never used in such a context. On this sort of basis, then, Hendriksen concludes that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō) are not complete synonyms, and therefore that they preserve slightly differently semantic thrusts in John 21:15–17.
Whatever the outcome of the continued debate on this passage, it should by now be obvious that Hendriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy. The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context. But if we decide contextually specific questions of synonymy on the basis of the total semantic range of each word, any synonymy in any context is virtually impossible. Hendriksen’s treatment illegitimately forecloses the question.65
This particular example of a confused understanding of synonymy is a special instance of “illegitimate totality transfer,” discussed again under fallacy 13. Intriguingly, those who insist on two distinguishable meanings for ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō) in John 21:15–17 rarely observe that there are other subtle differences in the three sets of exchanges between Jesus and Peter. Note especially the three responses Jesus gives to Peter:
(v.15) βόσκε τὰ ἀρνία μου (boske ta arnia mou, “Feed my lambs”)
(v.16) ποίμαινε τὰ πρόβατά μου (poimaine ta probata mou, “Shepherd my sheep”)
(v.17) βόσκε τὰ πρόβατά μου (boske ta probata mou, “Feed my sheep”)
My somewhat pedantic translation, in parentheses, highlights the changes. But very few preachers judge these changes to be of fundamental importance to the meaning of the passage. One can show that there is some difference between “lambs” and “sheep” when the totality of their respective semantic ranges is taken into account; similarly, there is a difference between “to shepherd” and “to feed.” But in this context, it is difficult to see a fundamental theological or linguistic or syntactical reason for the changes. We seem to be in the realm of slight variation for the sake of vague things like “feel” or “style.” In any case, my point is that it is rather strange to insist on a semantic distinction between the two words for “to love” in this context, and not on small distinctions between other pairs of words in the same context.
Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed.) (50–53). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books.Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
1. The root fallacy
One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of ἀποστολος (apovstolos, apostle) is ἀποστέλλω (apostellō, I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent”? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the “literal” meaning of μονογενής (monogenēis) is “only begotten.”3 Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaō, to love), contrast it with φιλέω (phileō, to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) is used?
All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thiselton offers by way of example our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.”4 Our “good–bye” is a contraction for Anglo–Saxon “God be with you.” Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nescius generated “nice”; it is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be contracted to “good–bye.” But I know of no one today who in saying such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is “ignorant.”
J. P. Louw provides a fascinating example.5 In 1 Corinthians 4:1 Paul writes of himself, Cephas, Apollos, and other leaders in these terms: “So then, men ought to regard us as servants (ὑπηρέτας, hypēretas) of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God” (NIV). More than a century ago, R. C. Trench popularized the view that ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) derives from the verb ἐρέσσω (eressō) “to row.”6 The basic meaning of ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs), then, is “rower.” Trench quite explicitly says a ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) “was originally the rower (from ἐρέσσὤ [eressō]).” A. T. Robertson and J. B Hofmann went further and said ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) derives morphologically from ὑπό (hypo) and ἐρέτης (eretēs).7 Now ἐρέσσω (eressō) means “rower” in Homer (eighth century B.C.!); and Hofmann draws the explicit connection with the morphology, concluding a ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) was basically an “under rower” or “assistant rower” or “subordinate rower.” Trench had not gone so far: he did not detect in ὑπό (hypo) any notion of subordination. Nevertheless Leon Morris concluded that a ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) was “a servant of a lowly kind”;8 and William Barclay plunged further and designated ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) as “a rower on the lower bank of a trireme.”9 Yet the fact remains that with only one possible exception—and it is merely possible, not certain10—ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) is never used for “rower” in classical literature, and it is certainly not used that way in the New Testament. The ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) in the New Testament is a servant, and often there is little if anything to distinguish him from a διάκονος (diakonos). As Louw remarks, to derive the meaning of ὑπηρέτης (hypēretēs) from ὑπό (hypo) and ἐρέτης (eretēs) is no more intrinsically realistic than deriving the meaning of “butterfly” from “butter” and “fly,” or the meaning of “pineapple” from “pine” and “apple.”11 Even those of us who have never been to Hawaii recognize that pineapples are not a special kind of apple that grows on pines.
The search for hidden meanings bound up with etymologies becomes even more ludicrous when two words with entirely different meanings share the same etymology. James Barr draws attention to the pair לֶחֶס (leḥem) and מִלְחָמָה (milḥammâ), which mean “bread” and “war” respectively:
It must be regarded as doubtful whether the influence of their common root is of any importance semantically in classical Hebrew in the normal usage of the words. And it would be utterly fanciful to connect the two as mutually suggestive or evocative, as if battles were normally for the sake of bread or bread a necessary provision for battles. Words containing similar sound sequences may of course be deliberately juxtaposed for assonance, but this is a special case and separately recognizable.12
Perhaps I should return for a moment to my first three examples. It is arguable that although ἀπόστολος (apostolos, apostle) is cognate with ἀποστέλλω (apostellō, I send), New Testament use of the noun does not center on the meaning the one sent but on “messenger.” Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word messenger also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the New Testament suggests that ἀπόστολος (apostolos) commonly bears the meaning a special representative or a special messenger rather than “someone sent out.”
The word μονογενής (monogenēs) is often thought to spring from μόνος (monos, only) plus γεννάω (gennaō, to beget); and hence its meaning is “only begotten.” Even at the etymological level, the γεν (gen)–root is tricky: μονογενής (monogenēs) could as easily spring from μόνος (monos, only) plus γένος (genos, kind or race) to mean “only one of its kind,” “unique,” or the like. If we press on to consider usage, we discover that the Septuagint renders יָחִיד (yamhîd) as “alone” or “only” (e.g., Ps. 22:20 [21:21, LXX, “my precious life” (NIV) or “my only soul”]; Ps. 25:16 [24:16, LXX, “for I am lonely and poor”]), without even a hint of “begetting.” True, in the New Testament the word often refers to the relationship of child to parent; but even here, care must be taken. In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is said to be Abraham’s μονογενής (monogenēs)—which clearly cannot mean “only–begotten son,” since Abraham also sired Ishmael and a fresh packet of progeny by Keturah (Gen. 25:1–2). Issac is, however, Abraham’s unique son, his special and well–beloved son.13 The long and short of the matter is that renderings such as “for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son” (John 3:16, NIV) are prompted by neither an inordinate love of paraphrasis, nor a perverse desire to deny some cardinal truth, but by linguistics.
In a similar vein, although it is doubtless true that the entire range of ἀγαπάω (agapaō, to love) and the entire range of φιλέω (phileō, to love) are not exactly the same, nevertheless they enjoy substantial overlap; and where they overlap, appeal to a “root meaning” in order to discern a difference is fallacious. In 2 Samuel 13 (LXX), both ἀγαπάω (agapaō, to love) and the cognate ἀγάπη (agapē, love) can refer to Amnon’s incestuous rape of his half sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:15, LXX). When we read that Demas forsook Paul because he loved this present, evil world, there is no linguistic reason to be surprised that the verb is ἀγαπάω (agapaō, 2 Tim. 4:10). John 3:35 records that the Father loves the Son and uses the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaō); John 5:20 repeats the thought, but uses φιλέω (phileō)—without any discernible shift in meaning. The false assumptions surrounding this pair of words are ubiquitous; and so I shall return to them again. My only point here is that there is nothing intrinsic to the verb ἀγαπάω (agapaō) or the noun ἀγάπη (agapē) to prove its real meaning or hidden meaning refers to some special kind of love.
Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed.) (28–32). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paternoster; Baker Books.Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Jeremy said:
Matthew, do you believe that there is a difference between sheep and lambs in John 21? They are different words, so shouldn't they have different meanings?
I would say so.
edit, everything below has been added: Ted, your Carson quotes were posted before this post but since I read the thread.
Just because a bunch of preachers agree with Carson, and Carson is a distinguished and learned man do not mean they are right and God's word is fluid enough to subject to consensus. It all comes back to what one believes about inspiration. Does the Bible contain God's words? Is it God's word? or Does the Bible merely contain God's message? The way we handle the text will be determined by our perspective on what we are handling. Those basics ("fundamentals") are not likely to be swayed by debate. [;)] That is why I feel no danger reading William Barclay and Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, as well as the textual critics. If it ever comes down to choosing between the Bible & the commentator, there is no contest.
I still have my "Aha!" moments. I have been known to correct my stances in light of scriptural revelation quite often. But the doctrine has to come from the Bible.
Yet another edit: Carson's "root fallacy" is not an absolute. Carson would concede there are instances in scripture where it DOES matter and was obviously intended to matter. And it is presumptuous to assume I did not intend to call somebody ignorant when I labeled them "nice." [6]
As far as the differences in sheep/lambs, believe in/on, and φιλέω / ἀγαπάω: I know one can encompass the other and frequently be interchangeable, but there is a reason the different word is used.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
I still have my "Aha!" moments. I have been known to correct my stances in light of scriptural revelation quite often. But the doctrine has to come from the Bible.
You are absolutely right.
Bohuslav
0 -
I found an interesting article in Semeia on the subject:
3.131 Vv 15–19 consist of four clear parts: v 15, v 16, v 17, and vv 18–19. The first three of these parts are parallel to each other, each containing a question, an answer, and an exhortation. There are two verbal ways in which these parallel elements differ from one another. 1) Omission and addition. In v 15 Jesus states his question in terms of a comparison (“more than these”), while in vv 16 and 17 the comparison is absent. In vv 15 and 16 Peter’s answer is introduced simply by the words, “he said to him,” whereas in v 17 the narrator adds a comment informing us of how Peter felt and then adds a clause to Peter’s answer. 2) Substitution of one word for another. Phileō parallels agapaō; ginōskō, oida; poimainō, boskō; and probaton and/or probation, arnion. What sort of movement is dictated by these changes from one parallel element to the next? I shall discuss the significance of the omission and the additions below. Here it is necessary to say something about the alternation between agapaō and phileō.
3.132 Most ancient Greek commentators and Reformation scholars, as well as of most present-day commentators regard these two verbs as synonymous in the Fourth Gospel (Barrett: 486; Bernard: 702–4; Brown: 1103; Bultmann, 1971:711, n.5; Hoskyns: 558; Schnackenburg, 1982:363). But British scholars of the last century (Brown lists Trench, Westcott, and Plummer), as well as several present-day commentators (Marsh; Brown names Evans) and translators (J. B. Phillips), argue for a clear distinction between them. Some, in accord with the earlier, classical usage, see in phileō a higher form of love than in agapaō. Others argue for the reverse relationship between the two.
3.133 I think it is wrong to maintain a distinction between these two verbs in this passage with regard to the kind of love to which they refer. In other clearly parallel passages, the Fourth Evangelist uses them interchangeably. I cite only two examples. In 14:23 and in 16:27 Jesus teaches his disciples that, if a person loves him, the Father will love that person in turn. In the former passage the verb is agapaō and in the latter phileō. Likewise the Beloved Disciple is described as such using both verbs: in 20:2 using phileō, and in 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20 using agapaō.
3.134 In addition to this parallel use of agapaō and phileō, there is another passage in which nouns deriving from the same root as these two verbs are defined in terms of each other. In 15:13 Jesus teaches that the greatest love (agapē) which a person can express is to “lay down his life for his friends (philoµn).” We shall see below that the reason Jesus is questioning Peter’s love in 21:15–19 is precisely because Peter had promised to lay down his life for Jesus (13:37) and had failed to live up to that promise (18:15–18, 25–27). Therefore, when 15:9–15 is part of the context of our reading or hearing of 21:15–17, the use of both agapaō and phileō in the latter passage may prompt us to recall that, in the teaching Jesus gave to his disciples the night before he died, he defined both “love” and “friendship” in terms of being willing to lay down one’s life.
3.135 It was necessary to clarify the relationship of agapaō and phileō in 21:15–17 in order to describe the literary structure of that conversation. The fact that they are synonymous means that the content of Jesus question to Peter does not change at v 17 with regard to the kind of love he has in mind. Rather, the question remain the same throughout the entire sequence, except for the dropping of the comparison after v 15. He asks the same question for the third time; he does not alter the question on the third time. (Schnackenburg, 1982:362). Likewise Peter’s pain after Jesus’ third question results not from an alteration in Jesus’ question from one kind of “love” to another. He is pained because Jesus asks him the same question for the third time, after he has already answered Jesus twice in the affirmative! In other words, there is only one real question in this little conversation between Jesus and Peter, and Jesus is not satisfied with Peter’s answer to that question until the end of v 17, after which he lays it to rest.
Lou H. Silberman, e., Lou H. Silberman, e., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1986). Vol. 39: Semeia. Semeia 39. Semeia (75–77). Decatur, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.Bohuslav
0 -
So....We are now all "of one mind"?[:D]
Phil 1:27
~
0 -
Abi Gail said:
So....We are now all "of one mind"?
When I'm not out of my mind, I find commonality with all the family of God.
Bro. Ted has made the greatest number of resource suggestions I know of. That is a help to me.
I still disagree with Carson, George, and Wescott. But they would all say I'm out of my mind at that point. [:P]
A little Logos can be a dangerous thing in the hands of a layman. That is why I am trying to amass a LOT of Logos.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Abi Gail said:
Peace to you, Abi! *smile*
And! Peace to all my Brothers and Sisters on this Logos Forum! Many people I've learned to appreciate and respect, some over a number of years! *smile*
Abi, I hope so! Phil 1:27
A couple of times I have felt like apologising to you all for posting this matter in the first place! Really! And asking your forgiveness.
But, I've learned so much! Indeed. I really did sit at the feet of Dr. Fred Danker of BDAG fame in Seminary; however, it appears I didn't pay enough attention to his teaching!
It seems that over the years, I've just accepted the "general thrust" of preaching and teaching on agape and philos that I got into a false acceptance mode without checking it out thoroughly.
My studies now -- and those of some of your -- have helped me.
Logos Bible Software has helped me, and I've never been more grateful for Logos than right now.
Not going to apologise for starting this thread, because I think many of us have benefited from it -- and all in all -- we posted responsibly and with respect.
Let the thread then die -- when it does -- with that mutual respect! *smile*
I believe the Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and I still have much pondering to do as to why John - in his inspired writing - chose to use the two words in the way he did ........... which has been handed down to us for almost 2,000 years. I recall at the end of his Gospel why St. John the Divine stated , perhaps a teenager or just past when he walked with Jesus, ...... about the reason he wrote his Gospel! We would all do well to go to that last chapter and check it out again! *smile*
Am grateful to so many of you posters on this thread, but I particularly want to single out Ted for his posts here ... Although a couple of others of you ran a "close second" !!!
We celebrated Reformation Day this morning in my congregation. Our pastor did well indeed! Not only did we do "A Might Fortress is Our God"!
We also did the following: (thinking of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as I share this favourite hymn of maybe all of us!
[Did you notice that Logos uses the Apostles' Creed in every Issue of Bible Study Magazine? I'm glad they do! *smile* ]
The Church's One FoundationText: Samuel J. Stone, 1839-1900
Music: Samuel Sebastian Wesley, 1810-1876
Tune: AURELIA, Meter: 76.76 D1. The church's one foundation
is Jesus Christ her Lord;
she is his new creation
by water and the Word.
From heaven he came and sought her
to be his holy bride;
with his own blood he bought her,
and for her life he died.
2. Elect from every nation,
yet one o'er all the earth;
her charter of salvation,
one Lord, one faith, one birth;
one holy name she blesses,
partakes one holy food,
and to one hope she presses,
with every grace endued.
3. Though with a scornful wonder
we see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up, "How long?"
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
4. Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore;
till, with the vision glorious,
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great church victorious
shall be the church at rest.
5. Yet she on earth hath union
with God the Three in One,
and mystic sweet communion
with those whose rest is won.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
like them, the meek and lowly,
on high may dwell with thee.Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
Ted, your Carson quotes were posted before this post but since I read the thread.
Just because a bunch of preachers agree with Carson, and Carson is a distinguished and learned man do not mean they are right and God's word is fluid enough to subject to consensus. It all comes back to what one believes about inspiration. Does the Bible contain God's words? Is it God's word? or Does the Bible merely contain God's message? The way we handle the text will be determined by our perspective on what we are handling. Those basics ("fundamentals") are not likely to be swayed by debate.
That is why I feel no danger reading William Barclay and Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, as well as the textual critics. If it ever comes down to choosing between the Bible & the commentator, there is no contest. I still have my "Aha!" moments. I have been known to correct my stances in light of scriptural revelation quite often. But the doctrine has to come from the Bible.
Hi Matthew thanks for sharing. I hope I did not come across as being disrespectful to those who hold to an alternative opinion b/cos that was not my intention. Like you I do take a high view of the scriptures, fully believing it to be the inspired word of God. You seem to think that to hold the Carson's view on this subject, one has to believe that the word of God is fluid. That is not the case. I would not suggest that you choose Carson over the bible - we are speaking about the meaning of words as used in the bible (about interpretation and the understanding of certain words in the bible) and not the actual words in the bible
I am always willing to learn & to change my mind If the evidence is there. So far nothing I have read has convinced me from the other side. Let me say this politely, just b/cos you and others disagree with Carson does not make him wrong[:D][:)][;)][:P]. In the end the evidence is what matters.
Blessings
Ted
PS: I have read my post for any offending line. If any is present then I apologies.
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
I've been tracking this thread and have little to add beyond the obvious that (as you might guess from my first post) I think it's valid to distunguish the meanings of the agapao/phileo word choices here.
To add to what's already been said, I'd only say this: John has a strong preference for agape over philos, and does not usually use it interchangeably in passages/pericopes where agape occurs with a high density (14:21-24, e.g.), where one might expect some stylistic variation. Another issue, is that John's vocabulary is among the simplest in the NT; most 1st year Greek students start with John. Given John's very strong preference for agape, supposing he saw it as an identical term with philos, one must wonder why he would introduce an unusual term, when a more common one would seem more characteristic. And I suggest that those interested in this do their own direct studies of the text.
It seems likely to me that when John uses philos (and it's cognates), he does so with some kind of intentionality. What he intends to communicate by those choices we could debate. Yet, as I look at those passages where John chooses this class of words over the more common, where we can discern something from the emotional context, he seems to emphasize that side of love that delights in the object of that love. As I said before, to me the English word 'affection' gets at this emotional emphasis.
The differences I see are somewhat subtle, and might best be seen as differences of connotation vs denotation. But I would argue that his choice of the philos family of terms is exceptional and always intentional.That is, his choice here means something.
Rather than merely taking what the linguistic pundits say, or (even worse) what I might suggest, I encourage Logos to take advantage of Logos' search and word study capabilities and draw their own conclusions. After doing some work with these tools, look at what those pundits might say. Logos gives us some great tools to do this kind of work and draw our own conclusions.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
I really did sit at the feet of Dr. Fred Danker of BDAG fame in Seminary
I have only been able to sit at Dr. Danker's feet just once, and it is something that I will not forget. Dr. Danker is simply a genius when it comes to the Greek Language.
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Let the thread then die -- when it does -- with that mutual respect! *smile*
As you wish so I will comply[:)]. Grace to you.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
...while talking about the nuances in Greek, sometimes it helps to remember the actual dialog went most probably in Aramaic (if not in Hebrew, according to some scholars). Are we able to imagine a parallel synonyms/similarity/distinction in meaning when using 2 different words for love in those languages? I am not suggesting anything. Just asking.
EDITED: I wrote that question before I have seen the above post. OK, if it is to die, let it die. [:(]
Bohuslav
0 -
I don't think anybody spoke harshly. It has been an enlightening thread for me. And if I were a gambling man I would bet on Carson's pony to win in any race against mine.Ted Hans said:I hope I did not come across as being disrespectful to those who hold to an alternative opinion
What he said. (Richard is so much better speaking my mind.)Richard DeRuiter said:To add to what's already been said,
The popcorn is gone. The weekend feature is over. [~] Thank you Milford Charles Murray for sharing. My heart is blessed.Bohuslav Wojnar said:EDITED: I wrote that question before I have seen the above post. OK, if it is to die, let it die. Sad
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:Jeremy said:
Matthew, do you believe that there is a difference between sheep and lambs in John 21? They are different words, so shouldn't they have different meanings?
I would say so.
As far as the differences in sheep/lambs...,but there is a reason the different word is used.
What is that reason? I think it is odd that in a language like English which we understand very well, we recognize that using one word too often is repetitive and boring. But for some reason we throw that out the door when we are examining another language. The only way we learned how to differentiate between words in Greek grammar was that each word had a separate definition. But language does not always work like that. And I don't think it does here based on how John uses agape and phileo in his gospel, the context of the passage (in Peter's restoration he lets Peter succumb to a lesser form of love?), and the fact that John seemes to be stressing the threefold nature of Peter's denial and restores him using threes.
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
I've been tracking this thread and have little to add beyond the obvious that (as you might guess from my first post) I think it's valid to distunguish the meanings of the agapao/phileo word choices here.
To add to what's already been said, I'd only say this: John has a strong preference for agape over philos, and does not usually use it interchangeably in passages/pericopes where agape occurs with a high density (14:21-24, e.g.), where one might expect some stylistic variation. Another issue, is that John's vocabulary is among the simplest in the NT; most 1st year Greek students start with John. Given John's very strong preference for agape, supposing he saw it as an identical term with philos, one must wonder why he would introduce an unusual term, when a more common one would seem more characteristic. And I suggest that those interested in this do their own direct studies of the text.
It seems likely to me that when John uses philos (and it's cognates), he does so with some kind of intentionality. What he intends to communicate by those choices we could debate. Yet, as I look at those passages where John chooses this class of words over the more common, where we can discern something from the emotional context, he seems to emphasize that side of love that delights in the object of that love. As I said before, to me the English word 'affection' gets at this emotional emphasis.
The differences I see are somewhat subtle, and might best be seen as differences of connotation vs denotation. But I would argue that his choice of the philos family of terms is exceptional and always intentional.That is, his choice here means something.
Rather than merely taking what the linguistic pundits say, or (even worse) what I might suggest, I encourage Logos to take advantage of Logos' search and word study capabilities and draw their own conclusions. After doing some work with these tools, look at what those pundits might say. Logos gives us some great tools to do this kind of work and draw our own conclusions.
Excellent post, Rich! I guess I like your post because I basically agree with you! *smile*
Peace to you!
I'm really trying to stop posting on this thread, but had to share a thought I just had --
Did John know of 1 Corinthians 13 when he wrote his Gospel. Guess they didn't have internet there on the Isle of Patmos?
The Love or Agape chapter of the Bible comes way before the Gospel of John chronologically....
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Not going to apologise for starting this thread, because I think many of us have benefited from it -- and all in all -- we posted responsibly and with respect.
Please don't apologize. I am an avid supporter of respectful discussions. I learn so much more this way than being preached to, or reading a particular commentary.
When I don't agree with someone it motivates me to dig to substantiate my point of view...or admit that I may have been...GULP...wrong. Logos is a Bible study software. Their sole purpose is to help people better understand the Word of God. Sure, they have to require some degree of order, but I know in my heart that they have a sense of pride when they see that their software, and their website has facilitated such a productive discussion.
God Bless You All
~
0 -
Abi Gail said:Milford Charles Murray said:
Not going to apologise for starting this thread, because I think many of us have benefited from it -- and all in all -- we posted responsibly and with respect.
Please don't apologize. I am an avid supporter of respectful discussions. I learn so much more this way than being preached to, or reading a particular commentary.
When I don't agree with someone it motivates me to dig to substantiate my point of view...or admit that I may have been...GULP...wrong. Logos is a Bible study software. Their sole purpose is to help people better understand the Word of God. Sure, they have to require some degree of order, but I know in my heart that they have a sense of pride when they see that their software, and their website has facilitated such a productive discussion.
God Bless You All
Amen [Y]
Milford, this thread has been a blessing. Thank you.
Bohuslav
0 -
Jeremy said:
What is that reason?
I agree it is a common practice in English to substitute one word for another to avoid monotony. I do it myself. And I will not claim the Greek language is not ever used this way. I just figure the true Author knew the difference and used different words for reasons other than avoiding monotony. It is incumbent upon me to search out the why.
After all, the same Author was quite redundant in the Psalms and I don't find the repetition there monotonous.,
I could guess or propose why but I will rest with Richard's last post. Gotta go, church time!
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
PPS (Post PostScript!) *smile*
Brother Ted, you have cost me some money, and you have helped Logos' Profit and Loss column!
Because of your very proper use of this excellent book, I just downloaded it --- and will remember that I purchased this on Reformation Day when in my congregation John 8:31,32 is very prominent -- as it should be!
The Truth Will Set You Free
Looking forward to growing in the Grace and Knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!Peace to all
31
So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
31 ἔλεγεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους· ἐὰν ὑμεῖς μείνητε ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ ἐμῷ, ἀληθῶς μαθηταί μού ἐστε 32 καὶ γνώσεσθε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐλευθερώσει ὑμᾶς.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Brother Ted, you have cost me some money, and you have helped Logos' Profit and Loss column!
You are welcome and happy reading brother[:D].
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Bohuslav Wojnar said:
...while talking about the nuances in Greek, sometimes it helps to remember the actual dialog went most probably in Aramaic (if not in Hebrew, according to some scholars). Are we able to imagine a parallel synonyms/similarity/distinction in meaning when using 2 different words for love in those languages? I am not suggesting anything. Just asking.
EDITED: I wrote that question before I have seen the above post. OK, if it is to die, let it die.
I am sad that such an informative thread has come to an end[:(]. Woke up this morning to read Richard's comments & was going to ask the same question. Also I was going to ask If he Richard believes that agape exclude emotion/affection. He writes "where we can discern something from the emotional context, he seems to
emphasize that side of love that delights in the object of that love. As
I said before, to me the English word 'affection' gets at this
emotional emphasis."Sad we may not get the answer we want from his informative pen.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Let the thread then die -- when it does -- with that mutual respect! *smile*
I think we may need to do an original language study on the passage above. I didn't get the impression that Mel was calling for an immediate end to the thread. I understood him to be asking that it remain respectful until it Did Eventually End. ...Mel ...Your comments?
Won't it be wonderful when we can meet the Bible writers face to face and ask them to settle these petty little disputes...once and for all?
Praise God for that Promise.[:)]
P.S. ...Y'all do understand that folks above the northern border just talk funny....EH?
Da 7:10 Re 20:12
P.S. to my P.S....My question above made me think of a grand old song..."Won't it be Wonderful There" ... Remember it?
~
0 -
Abi, Good Morning!
Peace to you and to all! *smile*
I've said so much already .......
suffice it to say now "Yes, Abi, you are absolutely correct. What you perceived me to say is exactly what you understood!" *smile*
Strength for the Day!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
What you perceived me to say is exactly what you understood!
Thanks so much for that ... Ummm ... Clarification.[:P]
I have a personal question. Did you ever study Law?[:D]
~
0 -
Ted Hans said:
I am sad that such an informative thread has come to an end
. Woke up this morning to read Richard's comments & was going to ask the same question. Also I was going to ask If he Richard believes that agape exclude emotion/affection. He writes "where we can discern something from the emotional context, he seems to
emphasize that side of love that delights in the object of that love. As
I said before, to me the English word 'affection' gets at this
emotional emphasis."Sad we may not get the answer we want from his informative pen.
Ted
Thanks for your kind words, Ted. As this thread isn't locked yet, I can still squeak in a quick response.
Yes, I do believe that the word group from agape includes emotion and the concept of affection. As the preferred word for "love" in the Greek NT, it includes all the aspects of love the philos group includes. However, the agape group tends to emphasize love that extends from a loving heart, whereas philos tends to emphasize delight in the object being loved. These are not exclusive concepts by any means. Rather, it's a matter of degree.
If you make a casserole, that calls for cheese and you put all the cheese in before baking, as opposed to saving a little cheese to sprinkle on top for later, the ingredients (meaning) is the same but the flavor (connotation) is different. The philos group, as John uses it, is a little like sprinkling a part of the cheese on top; it emphasizes a particular flavor without adding anything new.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Abi Gail said:Milford Charles Murray said:
What you perceived me to say is exactly what you understood!
Thanks so much for that ... Ummm ... Clarification.
I have a personal question. Did you ever study Law?
Peace to you on this Beautiful Day, Abi! *smile* It is cold, sunny, and brilliant coloured autumn leaves are falling all over the place. Gorgeous!
The only law that I have studied really is : Psalm 1:2
2 but his delight is in the law of the Lord,
and on his law he meditates day and night.
And! God's Law (in the broadest sense- His Holy Word) shows me my sin like a mirror and also reveals and points me (and drives me!) to the Gospel of God's Love and Forgiveness in our Lord Jesus!)
(Logos Bible Software helps me meditate day and night and delight in the Law of the Lord!!!!)
But, although I've had the really great privilege of a tremendous education -- liberal arts and theological and even a bit of science thrown in -- I've never studied law as a profession or a possible profession. Many of my studies have some aspects parallel to law, though.
I'm very pleased indeed that one of my children is devoted to justice as a Prosecuter for the Crown. As a Crown Attorney he seeks the noble practice of true justice. His children are also pround of him. We think he may be asked to be a judge one of these days. It seems, Abi, that you might be an American, although I don't know that for sure. What we call "Crowns" here would be similar, I think, to District Attorneys in your jurisdiction.
Thank you much for your interest, and Blessings to you this day and Always! *smile*Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:
Thanks for your kind words, Ted. As this thread isn't locked yet, I can still squeak in a quick response.
Yes, I do believe that the word group from agape includes emotion and the concept of affection. As the preferred word for "love" in the Greek NT, it includes all the aspects of love the philos group includes. However, the agape group tends to emphasize love that extends from a loving heart, whereas philos tends to emphasize delight in the object being loved. These are not exclusive concepts by any means. Rather, it's a matter of degree.
If you make a casserole, that calls for cheese and you put all the cheese in before baking, as opposed to saving a little cheese to sprinkle on top for later, the ingredients (meaning) is the same but the flavor (connotation) is different. The philos group, as John uses it, is a little like sprinkling a part of the cheese on top; it emphasizes a particular flavor without adding anything new.
Thanks Richard for taking the time to respond, I have to look into this again. I will limit my research to John's usage & see what I come up with. God bless.
Ted
Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ
0 -
Thanks for sharing a bit about yourself. Yes, I reside south of the border. I retired in North Carolina (Smokey Mountains) I too have been blessed with an opportunity to spend more time in my Bible studies, since retirement. It sounds as though you have a wonderful family, and that you are very proud of them ...as you should be.
God's Blessings to you and yours.[:)]
~
0 -
When I took my ordination exams in ~ 2000, this passage in John was my assigned passage. My language skills were fresh. So using Logos (version 2 or 3) I lined up vertically all John passages & underneath all the NT passages that used words for love. I then looked to see if the context gave any clues on what was meant. This should enable others to see for themselves rather than just taking the word of experts--as invaluable as their input is.
When I lined them up, to me it looked like there was a diifference in intended meaning. In context, it looked like a love more like God's was somehow in view whenever agapao was used, & a more human love was somehow in view whenever phileo was used. That may be only $.10 worth of difference, but to me it was significant & made Jesus 3rd question (phileo) even more significant--meeting Peter where he was & not demanding more than Peter was able to claim.
Logos gives us the tools to do primary research in the text itself, not just secondary research on the work that others have done. So how about it? Who else has lined them up? What did you conclude? L4 has made it easier than ever to do this...
[:)]
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Ted Hans said:Richard DeRuiter said:
Thanks for your kind words, Ted. As this thread isn't locked yet, I can still squeak in a quick response.
Yes, I do believe that the word group from agape includes emotion and the concept of affection. As the preferred word for "love" in the Greek NT, it includes all the aspects of love the philos group includes. However, the agape group tends to emphasize love that extends from a loving heart, whereas philos tends to emphasize delight in the object being loved. These are not exclusive concepts by any means. Rather, it's a matter of degree.
If you make a casserole, that calls for cheese and you put all the cheese in before baking, as opposed to saving a little cheese to sprinkle on top for later, the ingredients (meaning) is the same but the flavor (connotation) is different. The philos group, as John uses it, is a little like sprinkling a part of the cheese on top; it emphasizes a particular flavor without adding anything new.
Thanks Richard for taking the time to respond, I have to look into this again. I will limit my research to John's usage & see what I come up with. God bless.
Ted
Yes, I like Richard's cheese analogy, good stuff. [:)]
Bohuslav
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:Richard DeRuiter said:
I've been tracking this thread and have little to add beyond the obvious that (as you might guess from my first post) I think it's valid to distunguish the meanings of the agapao/phileo word choices here.
To add to what's already been said, I'd only say this: John has a strong preference for agape over philos, and does not usually use it interchangeably in passages/pericopes where agape occurs with a high density (14:21-24, e.g.), where one might expect some stylistic variation. Another issue, is that John's vocabulary is among the simplest in the NT; most 1st year Greek students start with John. Given John's very strong preference for agape, supposing he saw it as an identical term with philos, one must wonder why he would introduce an unusual term, when a more common one would seem more characteristic. And I suggest that those interested in this do their own direct studies of the text.
It seems likely to me that when John uses philos (and it's cognates), he does so with some kind of intentionality. What he intends to communicate by those choices we could debate. Yet, as I look at those passages where John chooses this class of words over the more common, where we can discern something from the emotional context, he seems to emphasize that side of love that delights in the object of that love. As I said before, to me the English word 'affection' gets at this emotional emphasis.
The differences I see are somewhat subtle, and might best be seen as differences of connotation vs denotation. But I would argue that his choice of the philos family of terms is exceptional and always intentional.That is, his choice here means something.
Rather than merely taking what the linguistic pundits say, or (even worse) what I might suggest, I encourage Logos to take advantage of Logos' search and word study capabilities and draw their own conclusions. After doing some work with these tools, look at what those pundits might say. Logos gives us some great tools to do this kind of work and draw our own conclusions.
Excellent post, Rich! I guess I like your post because I basically agree with you! *smile*
Peace to you!
I'm really trying to stop posting on this thread, but had to share a thought I just had --
Did John know of 1 Corinthians 13 when he wrote his Gospel. Guess they didn't have internet there on the Isle of Patmos?
The Love or Agape chapter of the Bible comes way before the Gospel of John chronologically....
Rich, or anyone, please ....
......... do you have any knowlege of or a thought about the Apostle John knowing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians ........ Enough time was there, it seems to me, to have enabled Paul's Love Chapter - chapter 13 - to have reached most Christian communities by that time, although perhaps John's exile on Patmos was guarded by some opposing force.........
......... I have lots of resources, but at this moment I have "no clue" as to where to start //////// ??????????
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
......... do you have any knowlege of or a thought about the Apostle John knowing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians ........ Enough time was there, it seems to me, to have enabled Paul's Love Chapter - chapter 13 - to have reached most Christian communities by that time, although perhaps John's exile on Patmos was guarded by some opposing force.........
Hi Milford
You could try the search below - this should pick up any references in your resources which have anything in John 21 and 1 Corinthians 13 near to each other.
It didn't return anything - for me - which helped with your question but there is a chance it might in your library.
Graham
0 -
Thanks, Graham!
tried that same search ..........
........got 34 "hits" and was excited ......... and especially excited when I saw NICOT ........
but, they all turned out to be not relevant
Peace to you! And Joy!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Did John know of 1 Corinthians 13 when he wrote his Gospel. Guess they didn't have internet there on the Isle of Patmos?
The author of the GoJ and the Johannine epistles is fairly well established as being DIFFERENT FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. I rather doubt that it was the apostle John -- I rather suspect John the Elder (2 Jn).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:Milford Charles Murray said:
Did John know of 1 Corinthians 13 when he wrote his Gospel. Guess they didn't have internet there on the Isle of Patmos?
The author of the GoJ and the Johannine epistles is fairly well established as being DIFFERENT FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE APOCALYPSE. I rather doubt that it was the apostle John -- I rather suspect John the Elder (2 Jn).
George! *smile*
Must say that I'm quite shocked by your post. I have ALWAYS heard and believed that Revelation was from the Apostle John. Never have I some across anything that suggested otherwise. I have a lot of resource in Logos and I study a lot, but haven't come across that!
I know you have been working on writing a book on the Apololypse.......... Or, is that a commentary you are writing ???
Guess, then, I will look at a few of my many commentaries in my Logos Resources this evening and tomorrow morning as I have more time.
Can you suggest any Logos Resources that will help me see the claim that the author of Revelation is different from the author of John's Gospel!
Peace to you and Every Blessing!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Rich, or anyone, please ....
......... do you have any knowlege of or a thought about the Apostle John knowing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians ........ Enough time was there, it seems to me, to have enabled Paul's Love Chapter - chapter 13 - to have reached most Christian communities by that time, although perhaps John's exile on Patmos was guarded by some opposing force.........
I really have no idea about how Paul's letters may have circulated. Speculation here could be a bit of fun, but it wouldn't be much more than that. It could be interesting to study Paul's use of the philos group of words and compare them to John's use.
Actually, what would be really helpful would be to do searches on word stems, so that we could search for phileo, philos and all the other variations (kataphileo, philema, phile, philia, etc?), and do the same for the agape group. If you think so, put in a plug for stem searching at uservoice by clicking the link here: http://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-4/suggestions/682641-stem-cognate-search?ref=title
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Just looked at the ESV which I understand to be fairly up to date and fairly reliable. (That's an understatement! *smile* )
For Revelation the ESV Introduction says:
Revelation
Introduction
"The revelation of Jesus Christ" (
1:1) was probably written by the apostle John while in exile on the island of Patmos, off the coast of present-day Turkey. It was addressed to seven actual churches. Revelation begins with letters from Christ himself to these churches, letters that include commendation, criticism, and comfort. Then comes a long series of visions of judgment on the wicked, all in highly symbolic language. The church is depicted under great distress, but is assured of the final triumph of Jesus as "King of kings and Lord of lords" (19:16), bringing to an end the rebellion of humanity and ushering in "a new heaven and a new earth" (21:1), where God himself will reign forever and ever (11:15
). Revelation was probably written a.d. 95–96.
The Holy Bible : English standard version.
2001 (Re). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Richard DeRuiter said:Milford Charles Murray said:
Rich, or anyone, please ....
......... do you have any knowlege of or a thought about the Apostle John knowing of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians ........ Enough time was there, it seems to me, to have enabled Paul's Love Chapter - chapter 13 - to have reached most Christian communities by that time, although perhaps John's exile on Patmos was guarded by some opposing force.........
I really have no idea about how Paul's letters may have circulated. Speculation here could be a bit of fun, but it wouldn't be much more than that. It could be interesting to study Paul's use of the philos group of words and compare them to John's use.
Actually, what would be really helpful would be to do searches on word stems, so that we could search for phileo, philos and all the other variations (kataphileo, philema, phile, philia, etc?), and do the same for the agape group. If you think so, put in a plug for stem searching at uservoice by clicking the link here: http://logos.uservoice.com/forums/42823-logos-bible-software-4/suggestions/682641-stem-cognate-search?ref=title
Peace, Rich!
It might take me a few days to put in a plug at Uservoice. However, I most certainly will do so within a week. For sure!
Blessings
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
My Goodness! This researching is going to take a long time. Have to leave for a couple of hours and maybe until tomorrow morning.
Thought I'd share what I found so far, but I just starting ............ and that's all
I Looked at Lenski - he claims late Gospel of John - Apostle John wrote Revelation---------------------------------------------------------
Mounce - NICNT - Revelation
"On the other hand, the unusually strong and early external evidence supporting apostolic authorship should cause us to hesitate before accepting a conclusion based on subjective appraisal of internal considerations. Smalley holds that "the case for apostolic authorship, as such, appears to remain entirely plausible." Since internal evidence is not entirely unfavorable to apostolic authorship ands external evidence is unanimous in its support, the wisest course of action is to accept as a reasonable hypothesis that the Apocalypse was written by John the apostle, son of Zebedee and disciple of Jesus."
page 15
BTW - Mounce gives Revelation an early date - e.g. the time of Nero. If so, that answers the question I raised earlier about whether John knew Paul's ! Corinthian 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESV has John's Gospel around 85 AD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICNT - Leon Morris has Gospel of John at late day perhaps 85 or later AD
Leon Morris also concludes that in his opinion, John the Apostle was the author of the Gospel of John
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Aune - Word Bibliical Commentary Rev 1-5
............ says not possible to say for sure that it is the Apostle John as the author of Revelation
"
VI. Summary
While the final author-editor of Revelation
was named "John," it is not possible to identify him with any other early Christian figures of the same name, including John the son of Zebedee or the shadowy figure of John the Elder. The otherwise unknown author of Revelation in its final form was probably a Palestinian Jew who had emigrated to the Roman province of Asia, perhaps in connection with the first Jewish revolt in a.d. 66–70. He regarded himself as a Christian prophet and his composition as a prophetic book, and he was well acquainted with the Christian congregations in Roman Asia to which he addressed the final version of his book. Though Revelation has been linked with the other Johannine writings in the NT, there are in fact very few features that suggest that this author was part of the Johannine community in
So!
That's where I am, and will pursuing it with my Logos Resources!
*smile*
Peace to all!
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Must say that I'm quite shocked by your post. I have ALWAYS heard and believed that Revelation was from the Apostle John. Never have I some across anything that suggested otherwise. I have a lot of resource in Logos and I study a lot, but haven't come across that!
There are any number of works which distinguish the author of the gospel and epistles from the author of the Apocalypse. Swete in his commentary of the Apocalypse tends to be fairly conservative in his judgment while Charles in his commentary on the Apocalypse quite definitely rejects the equation of the two. In fact, Charles posits more than one author of the Apocalypse. I reject that notion. His understanding of the Apocalypse seems to rest upon a preconceived notion of what the author was attempting to state rather than upon what he actually does state. He posits a J(AP) and a J(R) to solve his dillema. I admit only one author of the Apocalypse. As regards the GoJ which was the subject of my reply to you in which I said that I did not think that John the apostle was its author. Attention should be paid, however, to his analysis in his introduction of the linguistic matters relating to the problem.
The authorship of the GoJ is what I was calling into question in my response to you. It seems unquestionable that the gospel and epistles could not have been written by the same person. Eusebius Pamphilius in his church history reports regarding the views of Dionysius of Alexandria
6 After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows:"Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For he says, ‘Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.’
7 Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistle were written.
8 For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book, that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle."
It is therefore not a new position that the works were not all written by the same hand. There is also evidence to suggest that both James and John were martyred in Jerusalem which would place John's death prior to 70 AD. The tradition fairly consistently associates the gospel with Ephesus. While I am not normally inclined to simply accept such simply because it is the tradition, it seems not improbable. The tradition that there was a grave of John the Elder at Ephesus (as well as John the apostle) is plausible. The tradition of a grave of the apostle at Ephesus is not as plausible since we have evidence of his demise prior to 70 AD (See also Mt 20.20-23 where Jesus tells of the martyrdom of both James and John).
george
gfsomselיְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
0 -
George Somsel said:
And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man.
That being said,my motivation to pursue this detour is minimal. We started out researching LOVE. Christ condenses the 10 commandments into 2. So, I can understand doing extensive research on The bedrock of the 2 commandments. For me...trying to determine which inspired man wrote Revelation, James, Hebrews, or the Pentateuch is a distraction. We all have our priorities ... This just doesn't happen to be one of mine.[:)]
Peace and Love to you all. Mark 12:30-31
~
0 -
Abi Gail said:George Somsel said:
And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man.
That being said,my motivation to pursue this detour is minimal. We started out researching LOVE. Christ condenses the 10 commandments into 2. So, I can understand doing extensive research on The bedrock of the 2 commandments. For me...trying to determine which inspired man wrote Revelation,James, Hebrews, or the Pentateuch is a distraction. We all have our priorities ... This just doesn't happen to be one of mine.
Peace and Love to you all. John 13:34-35
Peace and Love to you, too, Abi!
A Beautiful Word from Jesus that you shared! ........... the people around the earliest Christians thought, 'Behold, how they love one another'
And this thread is becoming too heavy for me also ........... I have been raised in a conservative denomination and I'm hearing things that I've never heard before, so am a bit shook-up and ......................... Am finding out that my priorities in studying God's Word are simply that ......... studying God's Word and allowing God to speak to me through the Power of His Holy Spirit ............. as I meditate .
So I wish you every blessing indeed. I appreciate your love for Jesus and your dedication to him. You, Abi, have a lot of Wisdom indeed, You have a wonderful child-like faith. Hang on to it! *smile* He will never let go of you! I pray also that I would always receive the Kingdom of God as a little child "
Mark 10:13 -- Let the Children Come to Me
13
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." 16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them."
I will promise you one thing, Abi ........... ..... I will take you to the Lord now and again in prayer in Jesus' Holy Name, and also when I next go down to visit my daughter who gives my wife and I trips to see her now and again in Grand Cayman, as I'm flying over your area in Air Canada (we fly along the Appalachian spine, and I try to memorise from Google Maps all the cities along the route as Air Canada's has a computer map display on the back of the seat before me and every 30 second or so tells us where we are in the route) ........... I promise that I will have some time in prayer for you and your loved ones when we are actually over your area.
Good-bye (God be with ye!) and Peace
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
You have a wonderful child-like faith.
That, Sir, may well be the greatest compliment I have ever received. But I don't hold a candle to some children I have seen.
I hope Y'all will be patient with me. I need to tell you a story. There is a young man at the Church I attend. He has Down Syndrome. The sweetest man I have ever known. The congregation decided to make him a deacon, Mainly so he can pass the plate. When they have taken the offering to the alter, The pastor prays over it. This young man holds the plate as high as he can for the entire prayer. No other deacon does that. No one told him to do it. He does it out of Love and Respect for God. I want to be like him.[:)]
God Bless
P.S. I guess my story has revealed the fact that I don't always have both eyes shut while the pastor prays.[:$]
~
0 -
Milford Charles Murray said:
Good-bye (God be with ye!) and Peace
I see my home on your map, just south of Greensboro on I-73 (Asheboro, home of the NC Zoo).
0 -
George Somsel said:
The tradition that there was a grave of John the Elder at Ephesus (as well as John the apostle) is plausible. The tradition of a grave of the apostle at Ephesus is not as plausible since we have evidence of his demise prior to 70 AD (See also Mt 20.20-23 where Jesus tells of the martyrdom of both James and John).
George, so what would be your date for Apocalypse that it was written at? Am I right your conclusion is that it was John the Apostle who wrote it before the destruction of the Temple?
Bohuslav
0 -
Jack, I remember you've sailed the "seven seas." Now you're home! *smile*Jack Caviness said:Milford Charles Murray said:Good-bye (God be with ye!) and Peace
I see my home on your map, just south of Greensboro on I-73 (Asheboro, home of the NC Zoo).
All of God's creation is beautiful, but I would think from what I've absorbed over the years that your "neck of the woods" is as glorious on this earth as it gets!
Next time I fly over your beautiful "digs," it will not difficult at all to remember to ask our Gracious God to bless you and your family and loved ones -- for now and Forever!
One can actually, using the computer display in the plane as a guide, see the "gist" of the geography below as much at night as in the daytime because of the lights of the towns and cities and villages and hamlets.
Obviously I always try to secure a window seat!
Peace and Joy in the Lord! *smile*
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
0
