This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Munkay]

At the end of the Gospel of John, which Yeshua asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring Peter's three denials. I am not good at quoting scripture numbers, because I use a 1611 Commissioned King James writ in old english, and there are no scripture numbers or markers. I have other Bibles, but I tend to ignore the scripture tags.

It's not always the word it self that is important, but how it is used in the whole text. That's the problem translating in to English.

Some times, depending on how the word is used, it can mean an entire train of thought compressed in to a single word.

In particular, philia, a deep and powerful love between friends, which is one of the words used in this exchange.

Storge is also implied here, a familial love. Just because a word is not actually used doesn't mean that it is not there. Some times, you have to read between the lines and understand all of what is being said to gather the sense of what is being talked about. Descriptions of what is being said are just as important as actual words. People at that time would have known that anybody conversing would know what was being implied or intended... What they would not have known is that one day, it would lose so much in translation. And here is a great source of debate... We do not know all of the slang, all of the implications, all of the subtle nuances of what was being said way back when. So there is endless debate on what is actually being implied for so many conversations, and so many controversial Bible translations like the New Aplified Versions which take some (but not all) of these implied read between the lines concepts in to consideration.

Eros can also have many distinct meanings, meaning a passionate love toward God, toward family, toward a lover, and toward a platonic friendship. If you take eros at face value with out taking the rest of the conversation in to context, it can cause a lot of problems, and some very nasty scholars have used this particular angle to imply homosexual relations between the Twelve. Some times, it is not what is said, but how it is said as a whole conversation that is important.

Agape is of course used here.

A good read is CS Lewis The Four Loves.

It is also interesting to note, and most people do not know this, but Eros and Agape both have been used for sexual implications. Eros is of course the common, which is why it has a reputation, but the other is often a suprise for many. Neither are actually sexual or physical unless otherwise implied in supporting conversation.

Storge = affection friend family
Philia = brotherly love
Agape = All consuming love, a love worth dying for.
[right][snapback]97977[/snapback][/right]

Where are you getting your information about the ancient Greek Language, and specifically your information about the new testament in ancient Greek?

Storge, as you said, does not appear in the New Testament at all. But to say that it is "implied" in places appears to be a bit of a stretch. A search of the word Storge over the entire breadth of known ancient Greek texts reveals only 21 instances in which it was used. It's also rather ambiguous as to when Storge is used in place of philea, since philea also takes on the 'assumed' meaning of Storge in certain contexts.

In some senses you are correct about Agape, but I feel you may be a little off the path. Agape is a verb that like Storge, is barely used in ancient Greece. More or less it was given a specialized meaning by the authors of the New Testament. It seems that it is only after the proliferation of the New Testament that Agape is used more commonly throughout the Med. In other words, when understanding what was ment by Agape one can only look as far as its use in the Biblical text, not so much what it was used for afterwards. The usage of Agape in the Bible is the love of God. And you are correct that the love of God can share both aspects of being desirous/erotic as well as being Platonic/brotherly. But Agape in the biblical text is only desirous or Platonic love directed towards God. It is only in the sense that you can love God so much it is physically tangible that Agape is erotic.

So in sum, I generally agree with your summaries of the different types of 'love' used, with only the above mentioned... qualifications, if you will.


But as far as the problem with the word Love in English, I believe you contradict your own point:

You seem to say that in English much is lost, since our use of the word 'love' does not properly convey the three distinct types of love that occur in the New Testament.

But at the same time you criticize the translators who make literal translations of the verb without taking into context its usage (which I agree is a great criticism). There are cases where Eros is used to describe the relationship between the Apostles, and it is ment very differently than say the Eros that is used to describe the homosexual sinners in Corinthians Book I. The key is all in the context.

I'd argue that the English word love maintains the many different aspects of the ancient Greek words for love. I can say 'I love my brother' and I can say 'I love my girlfriend' or I could say 'I love having sex' and in each case the word Love is ment very differently. But how it is ment is understood through context.

The beauty of the ancient Greek in this specific case is lost not when it is translated into the English word for Love, but rather it is lost when the reader fails to take into account both the many meanings of love and the context in which it is being used.

True, hints about context can be better understood by using Agape, Philew, or Eraw, but as you said yourself, they can also be misleading (certainly the twelve Apostles did not lustfully desire eachother).

So to summarize my point: As I said in my first post, I agree that much is lost in the English. But I do not believe this is a great case for such a scenario. Love in English continues to contain, more or less, all the same meanings of the ancient Greek words for love. It's only when meanings shift or get lost that the beauty and the meaning of the original text gets lost.

If you want a great example, do some research on the word used to describe the "virgin" Mary. :wacko:

Cheers,

Munk