John 21:15-19

[Catherine Therese]

So I have only got beginners Koine Greek but I picked up John' s Gospel the other day and started reading the encounter of Jesus and Peter where Our Lord asks 3 times if Peter loves Him. I had no idea how much significance was wrapped up in the original language...

...based on what I discovered, I have a theory but before I share it I'd love to know if anyone out there has a theory they'd like to proffer on why Peter was grieved the third time that Our Lord asked him if he loved Him?

I DONT think it was because it took Peter's recollection back to his threefold denial (although that may have happened) and I DONT think it was because Peter couldn't believe Our Lord actually had to ask him three times. I think there is something else there... hidden in the Greek.

Anyone want to offer their view before I put my idea forward?


(I'm new to this phorum, hope i've posted this in the right area.)

[ExCorde]

Yeah I believe I've heard something about this before. Doesn't He ask him if he's "truly his friend" the 3rd time in the Greek? That's what I vaguely recall. But please go ahead and share your biblical spelunking.

And welcome to the forum, I actually joined 1 day later than you!

Edited February 3, 2011 by ExCorde

[Miss Hepburn]

Can't wait - I love Bible Study and learning deeper meanings!!
Welcome to both of you!!

Miss Hepburn

[TeresaBenedicta]

I've taken Greek, but I don't have my Greek bible on me right now to double check what I'm about to say... I'll come back and verify, I promise!

What I've heard preached a few times, by a trusted priest, is that Jesus asks Peter, do you "agape" (divine love) me? And Peter responds, "Yes, Lord, I "philo" (brotherly love) you."

I just looked it up in an online Greek bible. And it seems it's true. Twice Jesus asks Peter, do you "agape" me, and twice Peter responds with philo. The third time, Jesus uses phileis, instead of agape.

Oh how much we lose in English!

I know I haven't said much on the meaning behind this. I have to run to work now, but I'd like to return to this. Great topic!

[TeresaBenedicta]

I'm not finding much commentary on the Greek usage of "agape" and "phileis/philo", although it seems to me that these particular usages are important.

My cursory reading would say that Jesus twice invites Peter to a higher, more intimate love, and twice Peter replies with brotherly love. The third time, Jesus seems to give in and take what he can get from Peter, and accepts his offer of brotherly love. Jesus still uses Peter and appoints him to feed his sheep, even though he does not respond to Jesus' invitation to agape. Peter is still in need of further conversion, further perfection of love. So Jesus says to him, "Follow me." And with the foreshadowing of how Peter would die, perhaps an indication that perfect love, agape, will be achieved through the death he would undergo.

So as to why Peter would be grieved... perhaps it was because he recognized that he could not yet love Jesus and Jesus asks him. I just heard a homily that presented Jesus' beatitude, "Blessed are they who mourn", as mourning for our sins, for our unrighteousness. Peter greived because he knew he was yet still sinful and not yet capable of perfect love.

[CatherineM]

I've always interpreted as an attempt by Jesus to raise Peter up to his level, but in the end, Jesus came down to meet Peter where he was. I'd be grieved to know that Jesus had to basically talk down to me because I wasn't capable of reaching higher.

[TeresaBenedicta]

So I ran my reading/interpretation past a priest friend of mine, and here's his reply:

[i]Yes, I do think Jesus is inviting Peter to a more perfect love, and that Peter is using the weaker verb out of a sense of his inadequacy. Jesus calls him out on it by using the weaker verb and toning down the third request. This I believe is why Peter is distressed, that Jesus lessens the third request and Peter knows this is all he has to offer. Note however that Jesus commandment to Peter does not change. The command is not fulfilled through what Peter has to offer, but through the grace Jesus gives.

I ran this by a bishop who was giving us a retreat once, and he pointed out an explanation by Pope Benedict which offered an explanation that I thought at the time was similar to mine. I can't remember where it was from, but maybe Benedict's Wednesday audiences on the 12 Apostles.
[/i]

[Luigi]

Okay, so I have NO Koine Greek, and I do find this disucssion interesting, but.... neither Jesus nor Peter spoke Greek, right? So did Jesus actually use two Aramaic verbs meaning "to love (in a disinterested(?)/(charitable(?) way)" and "to love (in a brotherly way)" - does Aramaic even make the same distinction Greek does? Or is the choice of Greek verbs, with their distinctions & nuances, an additional layer of meaning added by the guy who transcribed Aramaic into Koine Greek?

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1296799092' post='2208551']
Okay, so I have NO Koine Greek, and I do find this disucssion interesting, but.... neither Jesus nor Peter spoke Greek, right? So did Jesus actually use two Aramaic verbs meaning "to love (in a disinterested(?)/(charitable(?) way)" and "to love (in a brotherly way)" - does Aramaic even make the same distinction Greek does? Or is the choice of Greek verbs, with their distinctions & nuances, an additional layer of meaning added by the guy who transcribed Aramaic into Koine Greek?
[/quote]

Jesus probably spoke some Greek. Not sure about Peter though.

Regardless, this Gospel was originally written [i]in[/i] Greek, and so there can be nothing lost/added in translation, since there was no translation (from Aramaic to Greek).

[kafka]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296843753' post='2208728']
Jesus probably spoke some Greek. Not sure about Peter though.

Regardless, this Gospel was originally written [i]in[/i] Greek, and so there can be nothing lost/added in translation, since there was no translation (from Aramaic to Greek).
[/quote]
that is the modern opinion, but not necessarily the correct one. I do not agree with it.

One does not need to acquire an understanding of the Greek to figure out the meaning of this passage. A little faith and reason should be sufficient.

Jesus asked Peter if he loved three times to give Peter an opportunity to do penance for his sin of denial. Peter offended God by denying Christ. God is Three in One. Peter offended the Father who revealed to him Jesus as His Son: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven." Peter offended Jesus who was present and looked at Peter at the third denial, who loved Peter, chose him to lead his Church, taught him, merited the grace to believe in him, died for him and so on. And Peter offended the Spirit who applied the grace Christ merited by his salvific death on the Cross even before Jesus actually died since His deed is united to the Divine Nature and so transcends all space and time.

Peter grieved after the third time Jesus asked him. What other reason did he have to grieve other than his threefold denial? Surely Jesus was reminding him of this so that he may make up for it. It is a tradition (small "t") that Peter wept ever day, for the rest of his life, after he denied Jesus, so much so that he developed welts underneath his eyes. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich remarks:

"After another pause and still walking Jesus said once more [third time] "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me?" I saw Peter grew troubled at the thought that Jesus asked him so often as if He doubted his love. It reminded him of his thrice repeated denial, and he answered "Lord Though knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love thee."

Jesus also took the opportunity to teach Peter (as well as the Apostles, disciples and us) about his leadership role of sanctifying, teaching and governing the Church. Lambs refer to the laity who Peter sanctified, taught and guided, the early Christians, who Peter baptized and cleansed and made into lambs. And this also refers to the successor of Peter through all times. Jesus said sheep perhaps to distinguish between new Christians-lambs and the more mature Christians-sheep, and then sheep a third time for the mature Christians who are clergy: the bishops and priests. A Bishop or priest comes from the laity. With Baptism he starts out as a lamb, he matures (or should mature) into a sheep, and then after ordination he is distinguished by his new role in which sheep is also a fitting metaphor. Or perhaps Jesus was distinguishing between, laity-lambs, clergy-sheep, bishops and cardinals-sheep.

Jesus, I think, also was teaching the threefold charism of Sacred Magisterium invested in Peter alone which is Papal infallibility.

As far as the two loves are concerned, I think the Greek translators, who were probably some of John's disciples added the insight in translation. The insight could have originally been John's, only John originally wrote in Aramaic, and then some of his disciples made additions which were also divinely inspired when they translated the Gospel into the Greek. So it is a complex situation but the point is that the two loves correspond to the two Natures of Jesus: Divine and human.

Jesus is the Son of God so he is worthy of the supernatural love of a person infused with sanctifying grace and assisted with actual graces, yet Jesus is also the Son of Man, he is one of us, and so he accepts human affection and little expressions of human love (which he also certainly gave to his Mother, disciples, friends, etc.) provided they are based in or informed by supernatural love which is pure, selfless, and detached even in human affection and expression. Perhaps when one is a lamb, a new Christian, these acts of human affection are often too human, imperfect, lacking in some way, because the lamb is not yet mature, but if the lamb is in the state of sanctifying grace and at least partially cooperating with actual graces, Jesus accepts these, because He is God who is Goodness itself.

Edited February 5, 2011 by kafka

[Luigi]

"Regardless, this Gospel was originally written in Greek, and so there can be nothing lost/added in translation, since there was no translation (from Aramaic to Greek)."

Yes, I understand that it was written in Greek, but WHAT DID [u]JESUS SAY [/u]?- and what did he intend by saying that? That's the part I want to know. The contention is that Jesus was saying more than the words indicate; the contention is based on the fact that Jesus used one particular verb (with its own denotation and connotations) in the first two questions and a different verb (with perhaps the same denotation but different connotations) in the last question; the contention is that the subtext of the conversation between Jesus & Peter is at least as meaningful as the surface text. And maybe it is - it could be, for all I know.

But my contention is that, if Jesus didn't speak these Greek words (admittedly the original words of the Gospel text) himself, then Jesus probably didn't intend the subtext to be there at all, since he didn't use either of the Greek verbs; the Aramaic verb(s) Jesus used probably had the same denotation ('to love') but would have been missing one or more of the connotations of one or more of the Greek verbs. If that's correct, then an interpretation of this text that emphasizes a significant meaning derived from the (connotations in the) subtext may be over-interpreting what the actual Jesus intended to express to the actual Peter when they were having their actual conversation in Aramaic.

For purposes of comparison - and it's not a citation, I'm just imagining something here: In our day and age, "lady" and "woman" share one denotation but (for many American English-speakers) they have different connotations. That wasn't necessarily so in the past. So suppose Jane Austen (just as an example) wrote: "The two ladies went to lunch and were joined by another woman." She means two adult females went to lunch and a third adult female joined them. But literary critics nowadays - or twenty centuries after the text was written - could interpret it to mean the the first two adult females were Let-the-man-decide types and the third adult female was much more the I-make-my-own-decisions-and-never-mind-the-man type. It would be an over-interpretation of what the author intended, but some critics might contend that "Austen was an early feminist who recognized and valued the differences in the self-determination, and economic & social influences inherent in ladies and women."

My point - and I do have one, but I feel like I might have lost it in all the examples - is that something always gets lost in the translation (from written Aramaic to written Greek or from spoken Aramaic/oral tradition to written Greek), and it makes me uncomfortable to base too much of my understanding of Jesus' teaching on such linguisitic nuances.

But I've been wrong about bigger things than this. I'm just asking - 'cause I don't know, but I wanna know.

[thessalonian]

"One does not need to acquire an understanding of the Greek to figure out THE meaning of this passage. A little faith and reason should be sufficient."

This has a protestant flair of there is one and only one interpretation of a passage to it. Some protestants believe this. Thankfully Catholicism sees scripture as a rich treasure trove of understandings that apply to our lives today. Sure we can get meaning out of the scriptures in english or the Church would never have allowed them to be translated. But English NEVER captures all of the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew languages. So I am simply not sure why you would make such a statement.

To me this fact of the insufficiency of an English translation is only more of an argument for an infallible interpreter of the scriptures and the need for tradition, where what is "lacking" in the scriptures is carried on in the traditions of the Church. We need not worry about the imperfect translation because we have the Church which holds in its bosom the understandings, whether written or unwritten. Before the Gospel of Matthew was written, the Word of God contained in the writings was already there.

[kafka]

no one language, not even the language the inspired writers used, not even all languages put together, could possibly capture or contain the width and length, and height and depth, subtelty and profundity of the deeds of God and His Word. The deeds wrought by God and words written by God assumes all languages.

So we have to approach Scripture with faith and reason. Intrepret it in light of all the teachings of Sacred Tradition and Magisterium. Humbly rely on the presence of the Holy Spirit "who will teach you all things" according to Jesus, and the gifts the Spirit effects in us such as the intellectual virtues: wisdom, understanding, knowledge. Use the reason God has given us. Use the writings of the Saints and Mystics for support.

I was just trying to make the point that one does not necessarily have to acquire knowledge of ancient languages to figure out the essence of what God is teaching. That is an elitist view. That would be placing acquired knowledge above and beyond actual grace and the virtues infused with sanctifying grace: love, faith, hope, gifts of the Holy Spirit. Study above prayer and meditation. In short placing reason above faith. Acquired knowledge of ancient languages may or may not help an interpretation depending on how the person uses it. It may assist a person to unlock a more profound or subtle meaning in some cases but it is not absolutely necessary. For example I do not need to understand the sense of the Hebrew word "yom" used in the creation account to come to the conclusion that the Sacred Author was using a day as a figure of speech for a vast period of time. Here a little grace and reason can penetrate the meaning without the supposed benefit of learning an ancient language.

We dont even have the originals of any of the books in Sacred Scripture as far as I know so it seems to me that God wills we not take on this attitude that we need to know these ancient languages and we are more enlightened by way of interpretation in having learned them. This elitist attitude discourages the poor, the simple, the uneducated from reading Sacred Scripture. It is burdensome. Jesus was not a learned scholar. So this is more or less my point.

And if you read my interpretation it is clear I am not reading it in the spirit of a Protestant. You do this over and over, accusing people of being like a Protestant, perhaps since you were once one yourself. But I was never one.

[Miss Hepburn]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296934126' post='2209053']
no one language, not even the language the inspired writers used, not even all languages put together, could possibly capture or contain the width and length, and height and depth, subtelty and profundity of the deeds of God and His Word. The deeds wrought by God and words written by God assumes all languages........
[/quote]

That's m' man!

Hug,
Miss Hepburn

[Archaeology cat]

That is very interesting. I don't know Koine, so I was unaware of that change in word choice. I don't know if there's that distinction in Aramaic or not. I have a friend who knows Aramaic, so maybe I can ask him sometime.