John 21:15-19

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1297022813' post='2209384']
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.

conseqently through all the editions of Sacred Scripture under God's providence from the originals to the present editions in all the traditions to whatever new editions translated into any and all languages to the end nothing is ever lost but only gained by way of subtlety and depth into what God is revealing. An analogy would be the develepment of doctrine, or evolution of species. All the editions put together are unlocking ever more depth and more subtlety simply because the Word of God cannot be contained by anyone language, by the original language the Sacred Authors used or by all languages put together cumulatively.
[/quote]


I can agree that cumulatively the scriptures may in some way express a wider expounding of scripture.. Individually there is a loss. Your response here is interesting. Does Sacred Oral Tradition find it's way at some level in to scripture through translations? Does development of doctrine find it's way back in to translations in some way. Probably not literal word for word translations but perhaps paraphrase translations. I don't know. I don't think so but it is an interesting question. I do agree that NOTHING of the Word of God is lost over the centuries and the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit prevents this from happening. THe Word of God however is not equal to scripture. Again here I see a huge advantage in Catholic theology with regard to translations.

Edited February 8, 2011 by thessalonian

[Chamomile]

[quote name='phatcatholic' timestamp='1297021802' post='2209375']
St. Josemaria Escriva makes an interesting additional observation: he suggests that Peter, after learning his lesson from the shame of his three-fold denial (remember, this is the guy who said, "Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!" [Mt 26:33]), now refuses to make rash or hyperbolic statements and so chooses the lesser kind of love to express his dedication to Jesus.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
[/quote]

What a beautiful thought! It seems to me to say that St. Peter learned something of humility and of trusting in God's grace rather his own will.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296738691' post='2208169']
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!
[/quote]


Right back at ya - welcome to the phorum

Hmmm. Not quite. He does use the more fraternal type of love the third time (phileis, the root being philo). There has been a lot written about the different types of love in Greek, agape, philo and eros (not sure if there are perhaps others? these are the three I'm aware of) so I won't labour the point.

I actually find the sentence structure of the beginning of verse 17 more remarkable (about the third time). The literal meaning of the sentence is really important and it IS apparent in the English but without the context of the two different loves in the two preceding verses, I think the subtlety of it is lost. I'll explain in a few minutes - I'll just finish reading what everyone else wrote, first.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1296738691' post='2208169']
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!
[/quote]


Right back at ya - welcome to the phorum

Hmmm. Not quite. He does use the more fraternal type of love the third time (phileis, the root being philo). There has been a lot written about the different types of love in Greek, agape, philo and eros (not sure if there are perhaps others? these are the three I'm aware of) so I won't labour the point.

I actually find the sentence structure of the beginning of verse 17 more remarkable (about the third time). The literal meaning of the sentence is really important and it IS apparent in the English but without the context of the two different loves in the two preceding verses, I think the subtlety of it is lost. I'll explain in a few minutes - I'll just finish reading what everyone else wrote, first.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296744717' post='2208192']
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!
[/quote]


spot on in terms of the gist of the first two verses! but thats only the first two of the four i cited, and the whole pericope is laden with meaning!

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296769269' post='2208309']
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.
[/quote]

There is a little around. I found Aquinas' Catena Aurea to be a helpful starting point - not sure if your'e familiar with the work. It gathers (but refrains from synthesising) the teachings of the Patristics on the Gospels. Both the Latin and Greek churches, represented primarily in this regard by Augustine and Chrysostom, have writings and preaching at some length about different aspects of the passage, and indeed that is where the traditional link with the denials seems to have its basis.


[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296769269' post='2208309']
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.
[/quote]
I find your expression of the third time interesting - rather than 'giving in' it seems to me that Christ, having accomplished what He had intended in asking the other question twice, now meets Peter where he is at. I don't necessarily believe that Christ really expected more than philo at this point in time from Peter, knowing what was to come and knowing that Peter had not yet received the gifts of the Holy Spirit that would embolden him to put aside his fears and be driven purely by agape. I think that Christ intended to help Peter come to the self-knowledge that would help him to recognise God at work in him later. (Someone who doesn't recognise his own weakness would wrongly attribute successes to himself instead of to God, and that wouldn't be very helpful in the first Pope!)

As for the entrusting of the flock to Peter - I think that it was important that Peter was shown to be weak and imperfect before this was done. The role needed to be received as an acceptance of service, not of power. Peter's self-knowledge was crucial to this. (Can anyone tell, with all this harping on self-knowledge, that St Catherine of Siena is my patroness?)


[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296769269' post='2208309']
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.
[/quote]

Haha we got there differently, but we arrived at the same place more or less. Jesus pretty much held a dirty great mirror up and Peter saw himself as he really was and wanted to be better. I think he truly did see in the exchange a promise from the Lord that he WOULD achieve what he sought - that perfect love of the God who first loved him.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1296771563' post='2208338']
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.
[/quote]

I totally think thats part of it, yeh

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1296772916' post='2208346']
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]
[/quote]

Not sure what he means by "[i]Note however that Jesus commandment to Peter does not change." ? [/i]Reckon you could get him to clarify?

[Catherine Therese]

[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]


IMHO the issue isn't whether or not Jesus spoke Greek.

From what I understand SPEAKING Koine Greek was probably something most of them could do at least stiltedly, the result of the prior 400 odd years of hellenized society. Writing may have been less common, but I'm pretty sure that at that stage most people could still manage the basic spoken Koine. That was more for trade purposes, however, I would think. Not 100% sure of those facts.

Really though, thats irrelevant. Even though Jesus most probably had that conversation with Peter in Aramaic, the Gospel was written in Koine Greek, and Scripture, though penned by man, was inspired by God. The Greek language of the time was used to record what may have happened in a different language. Had God wanted the Gospel to be written and subsequently studied in Aramaic, I'm sure He could have arranged that quite easily! There is, however, no primary source that I'm aware of that records the conversation in the language it was spoken.

Regardless of what MAY have been, we need to seek to understand what IS. To seek to understand the nuances of the Greek expression of the story is VERY relevant.


One more thing - given John's style, it would not at all be out of line to surmise that some things that appear in conversations are textual or even spiritual devices. It was LUKE who set about writing an orderly account. John's Gospel does NOT run in that neat, journalistic style of account. It is significantly more than pure narrative. A great many commentaries deal with the different structure and apparent purpose of John's Gospel as almost a different genre of Gospel to the others. The Sacra Pagina does a good write up on this if I recall correctly (although the last time I cast my eye over that would have been about 2 years ago... )

Anyway, the nuances of the Greek ARE helpful, valuable and relevant in understanding what has been revealed to us through Scripture about Christ.

[Catherine Therese]

[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]


IMHO the issue isn't whether or not Jesus spoke Greek.

From what I understand SPEAKING Koine Greek was probably something most of them could do at least stiltedly, the result of the prior 400 odd years of hellenized society. Writing may have been less common, but I'm pretty sure that at that stage most people could still manage the basic spoken Koine. That was more for trade purposes, however, I would think. Not 100% sure of those facts.

Really though, thats irrelevant. Even though Jesus most probably had that conversation with Peter in Aramaic, the Gospel was written in Koine Greek, and Scripture, though penned by man, was inspired by God. The Greek language of the time was used to record what may have happened in a different language. Had God wanted the Gospel to be written and subsequently studied in Aramaic, I'm sure He could have arranged that quite easily! There is, however, no primary source that I'm aware of that records the conversation in the language it was spoken.

Regardless of what MAY have been, we need to seek to understand what IS. To seek to understand the nuances of the Greek expression of the story is VERY relevant.


One more thing - given John's style, it would not at all be out of line to surmise that some things that appear in conversations are textual or even spiritual devices. It was LUKE who set about writing an orderly account. John's Gospel does NOT run in that neat, journalistic style of account. It is significantly more than pure narrative. A great many commentaries deal with the different structure and apparent purpose of John's Gospel as almost a different genre of Gospel to the others. The Sacra Pagina does a good write up on this if I recall correctly (although the last time I cast my eye over that would have been about 2 years ago... )

Anyway, the nuances of the Greek ARE helpful, valuable and relevant in understanding what has been revealed to us through Scripture about Christ.

[ExCorde]

Sooooo tell us what's hidden already!

Btw, you posted the last post twice (can edit to blank but not delete).

Edited February 8, 2011 by ExCorde

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1296930795' post='2209040']
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.
[/quote]

I think you're right to an extent in that I don't believe the original language is necessary to be able to encounter Christ in Scripture.
I DO think, however, that as we get drawn further and further in, seeking Him more and more, and wanting to know Him more and more, that the language of the original text can be immensely helpful in this regard. You can drill down even deeper amidst the limitless layers of meaning that exist there.

Thats actually part of the reason why I withheld MY reading of the text until I'd heard all of yours. I didn't want to 'colour the conversation' with my own influential shade... I wanted to hear what others had to say before offering my own reading of it.

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296884287' post='2208959']
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.
[/quote]
Not saying necessary - just saying helpful for providing further illumination, further food for prayer and reflection.


[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296884287' post='2208959']
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?
[/quote]

I actually disagree with you there. The reason being that Jesus did NOT ask the same question three times. He asked three questions, yes. But he asked the same question twice, and a different question the third time. I believe, based on the expression in the original text, that the reason for the grief, whilst there would have been SOME connection with the denials, was actually because of the nature of the third question and how it was different to the previous two. More from me on this when I've finished responding to everyone. So many people took the time to respond. I want to consider what everyone had to say before I go on my own speil.


[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296884287' post='2208959']
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.
[/quote]

There are a lot of different ways that the Church has traditionally looked at the interpretation of sheep and lambs here. I'll write a little about this now, given that in my later response I won't be dealing with this much (I focused on another aspect of the text is all, didn't really explore this much.

Theophylact in the 6th century highlights the differentiation between lambs and sheep - he suggests that perhaps the lambs were the newly baptized whereas the sheep were those perfected in faith. (You allude to this further down in your post.)

Augustine spoke more about the motivation for feeding the sheep. If one remembers they are CHRIST's sheep and feeds them accordingly then there is service rendered out of love for Him. If one forgets that they are Christ's sheep and feeds them as if they were one's own, then this is vainglory, it is power-hungry leadership and smacks of self-interest. Augustine concludes 'let us love therefore, not ourselves, but Him, and in feeding His sheep, seek not our own, but the things which are His. " Essentially Augustine makes it much more applicable to the way we interact with each other within the Church rather than simply pertaining to the Petrine Office.

He also ties this back to his traditional interpretation of the rectification of the denial - "Be it the office of love to feed the Lord's flock, as it was the resolution of fear to deny the Shepherd." (My GOSH Augustine is an orator and a half!!)

My point is - there are many different ways to back into this reading, all of them compatible with Sacred Tradition, true to the Scripture passage and complying with the Rule of Faith. Understanding the Greek is simply a way of gaining access to more and more that can be drawn out from the text.

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296884287' post='2208959']
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.
[/quote]
Not sure what you're trying to say here? I mean, the ORIGINAL text was written in Greek. The Latin and all other languages that you can find this passage in now are translations of the original Greek.

There are no primary sources to support the claim that any other language was used for John's original text. The original language of Matthew is still debated, I think, but no serious historian questions the matter for John's Gospel that I'm aware of?

However, very open to being shown I'm wrong, if you want to direct me to anything I can read to support what you're saying?

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1296884287' post='2208959']
So it is a complex situation but the point is that the two loves correspond to the two Natures of Jesus: Divine and human.
[/quote]
This is one I haven't thought about before. I think I can see the connection and want to sit with this one a bit and reflect some more... always exciting when you encounter something new that looks like it might hold water!!

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1296886387' post='2208970']
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.
[/quote]

I think the point is that whether or not Jesus spoke those words in any language is also irrelevant. As mentioned to another poster above, it was Luke who set about writing the orderly account, and Matthew's and Mark's Gospel's demonstrate a similar narrative trend, each with their own particular emphases. It is noteworthy, however, that John's Gospel is NOT chronological and is NOT structured so much as an historical account. It is rather more a piece of poetry than prose (almost, anyway). It is divided into a prologue that borrows heavily from Genesis and perhaps even from Sirach, followed by the two major books - the Book of Signs and the Book of Glory. John's Gospel is all about how Jesus Christ manifested Himself to us as He brought about our redemption.

Whatever your opinion on the nature of John's approach, however, as Catholics we believe that Scripture is inspired by God, and that it is through all of Scripture but most especially through the Gospels that Jesus Christ is revealed to us.

If the Gospel was inspired by God and reveals to us the Son, and it is written in Greek, then it is important. Because it is written in Greek? NO. But because that Greek text was penned as it was under Divine Inspiration.


[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1296886387' post='2208970']
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."
[/quote]

I LURVE this analogy!! It illustrates the importance of meaning. HOWEVER, it is the reverse of what we're actually trying to do when we're seeking to understand Koine Greek text in Scripture, IMHO. Precisely BECAUSE the original intended meaning of the author is important, due to its Divinely-Inspired status, we seek to understand what the words meant back in the time it was written. This is EXACTLY why 'love' is inadequate as a translation. It represents our modern meaning, and NOT the original.

Am I making any sense at all or am I tripping over myself here?

Edited February 8, 2011 by Catherine Therese

[Catherine Therese]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1296942914' post='2209089']
"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. "

I agree with this point. But what is the point. Not even a 1500 page book could capture it and that is why we have a living breathing Church and priests and bishops and popes.
[/quote]

Hehe so do I. And I also agree with your development of the point. I think the reality is that Jesus humbled Himself to become one of us, and He entered into our history knowing how inadequately He would be represented. He knew that interpretation of Divine Revelation in Scripture would cause all kinds of contention in future generations. So your point about the living, breathing Church takes on a whole new importance.

The Church provides all sorts of tools for engaging with and exploring Scripture, seeking to know Christ better through the use of it, inadequate though it is.

It is all our poor little human heads and hearts can contend with on earth! Scripture instructs us when we study it and it forms us when we pray with it. It might fall short because of our human expression, but it is still a beautiful and precious gift that can lead us closer to Him. We don't all have to learn the Greek. But for those of us who feel drawn to that sort of exploration, it can be a rich and fulfilling experience to find new meanings that we had missed in the vernacular.

Top notch point, chum.
(That comment wasn't so Australianized that it got lost in translation, was it? *tongue in cheek*)