Thayer Thursday – Translations
Language is an ever morphing & sometimes difficult to understand reality. It often behaves erratically and is almost impossible to master. Throw a second language into the mix, try to translate it into the first language, and it becomes exponentially harder. It’s little wonder that Bible translators dedicate much of their life to understanding the nuances of Greek and Hebrew in order to faithfully communicate the Bible’s message into other languages.
For instance, take the paragraph you just read. The fact that it contains the idiomatic expression: “throw a second language into the mix” makes it difficult for a non-native English speaker to understand what is meant by those 7 words. They may know what each of the words mean separately – but put them together and it suddenly becomes unrecognizable. You can’t literally throw words into a mixer!
This is common to all language – and the Bible is no exception. It contains not only culturally conditioned idioms, but also different styles of writing, many more verb tenses than English, and other things that make it hard to understand sometimes.
So how can we know what the Bible means?
While it takes a lot of work – Bible translators, archaeologists, and other great scholars have helped us learn how to understand and translate other languages. One of the components of writing and speech they have recognized which helps us in today’s passage of scripture is this: people often vary their words in order to avoid repetition that is unpleasing to read or hear.
Let’s again visit the first paragraph of this post. As I was writing it, I originally wrote the word “difficult” in the first and third sentences. However, as I read back over it, I noticed that it was a little redundant for my taste. Therefore, I replaced the second “difficult” with “harder.” Even though these words can carry different nuances in their meaning, I’m using them for their shared meaning – not their differences. Sometimes I use different words for their nuanced meaning – but I often find myself replacing words I overuse in my writing simply as a stylistic tool to make it easier on the reader.
In the Gospel of John we see this very phenomenon in 21:15-19.
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
The first two times Jesus asks Peter whether or not he “loves” Him, He uses the Greek word “agapao” for “love.” In both of Peter’s responses, he tells Jesus that he loves Him and uses the Greek word “phileo” for “love.” Finally, the third time Jesus asks Peter whether or not he “loves” Him, Jesus uses the word “phileo.” Peter again responds that he does “love” Jesus, continuing to use the Greek word “phileo.”
So as you can imagine, this has caused many to wonder why the Gospel of John varies the Greek word used for “love.” Many Bible teachers have extrapolated from this variation in language that Jesus’s use of the term “agapao” is meant to convey a ‘true’ or ‘deep’ love. Peter, on the other hand responds that he simply ‘loves’ Jesus (not ‘truly’ or ‘deeply’).[1]
However, as many scholars (such as Craig Keener & Gary Burge) point out – the context of this passage doesn’t allow for there to be a difference in meaning. Peter’s response would have to be ‘no’ to Jesus’ first two questions if a difference in meaning is intended; however he replies ‘yes.’ In other words, the point isn’t in the varied use of terms. It’s in Jesus’ repetition. Peter isn’t hurt by the different word Jesus uses, he’s hurt by the fact that Jesus asked him three times (harkening Peter back to his triple denial of Jesus). So why is there a variation in terms then?
This is just like my usage of “hard” and “difficult” in the first paragraph. The writer of the Gospel of John is simply varying his words as we do in every day speaking and writing – avoiding repetition as a stylistic tool.
I tell you this because many of you likely use the 1984 version of the NIV (you can tell which version you have by looking on the copyright page and identifying the latest copyright date). When that translation was done, evidently the scholars who worked on it saw a difference in meaning between “agapao” and “phileo” and therefore tried to convey that in English. That is why the 1984 NIV says “truly love” for Jesus’ first two questions and simply “love” for Jesus’ third question and all of Peter’s responses.
However, after additional scholarly work on the passage, they recognized that it wasn’t the best translation and changed it so that in their TNIV and 2011 version, it simply says “love” for both “phileo” and “agapao”. This shouldn’t discourage us – but encourage us that people are faithfully striving to give us the best possible translation, so that we can rightly understand the message God has chosen to give us through the Library we call the Bible.
Categories: Biblical Scholarship, Blog, New Testament, Thayer Thursday
While I agree with the major premise about the nature of translations, I think simply attributing differences of language to simply reasons of “style” should not be something appealed to readily. There are times where there are differences in words for phrases for stylistic reasons, to be sure, but in my observation, these tend to be the words and phrases that are more peripheral, not central. The nature of Peter’s love is more central. OF course, this is a point of semantics and discourse analysis that is not appropriate here. But let me present why I do think the change in words has a subtle shift in meaning.
First off, the author of John is not one to use words for simply stylistic reasons; he employs various words and symbols that could be concieved of with multiple possible interpretations, and intentionally so (those who ‘believe’ would have the correct, would perceive a deeper interpretation, whereas those who do not ‘believe’ would get lost as a surface level). For instance, “born again/from above” in John 3 and Nicodemus response at the level of ‘again’ represents one such instance. Granted, John 21 likely seems to be a later, but still early addition (Chapters 1-20 seems to function as a whole from my perpsective). But whether it is a native part of the text or a later addition by the same witness/tradition (I think same witness), the Gospel of John shows a penchant for word selection and meaning.
But in getting to John 21, we are already aware that the thrice repeated questions from Jesus are a ‘reversal’ of sorts to Peter’s three denials. But if one investigates those three denials further, one sees a pattern where Peter’s third denial is subtly different from the first two. In the first two times, he denies being Jesus’ disciple (15:17, 15:25). However, in Peter’s third denial it is a denial of being with Jesus in the Garden. The first two times, Peter denies his affiliation with Jesus, but the third time he goes further and denies even being present with Jesus; he denies having anything to do with the man. This pattern of 2 repetitions and a third intensification also serves is also the possible pattern of John 21:15-19. The term ‘phileo’ may be used with the same technical definion, a connection of loyal love (simply ‘love’ can lose the distinctiveness at how the term gets used in the Gospel of John). But it can certainly contain a stronger connotation as it moves beyond a term that was about loyal love in broader sense, to a term that more directly conveys a connection of relational/familial love.
Furthermore, that the phrasing is important and not simply the third time is represented by the repetition of Jesus’s question with the same distinctive word ‘phileis’. Repetition in contexts where it isn’t necessary for basic communication generally serves to highlight and emphasize the idea presented. By referencing the “third time” the authors could be seen as highlighting the distinctive characteristic of the message in the third question, not simply assigning a reason for Peter’s hurt.
The point is, overall, yes, the three questions all have the same basic meaning at one level; but that does not preclude a basic, subtle shift that retains the same basic character as the previous questions but intensifies it.
by Owen on Nov 15, 2013 at 5:37 pm
LEt me add to this to say this to make a point more clear to the original purpose of this post: there is another layer we need to have in reading our Bible: that of emphasis and intensity. Where the words and phrases used may not really change that much in meaning, but there is a ‘depth’ of meaning that word usage and style may reflect. In our own native language, most of us automatically process and intuitively understand the tactics we use to provide emphasis and intensity. But in reading ancient texts, we sometimes lose that because a) we tend to read more for cognitive content than emotional content of the authors (different from our emotional responses to a text), b) we are not familiar with the forms other cultures use to embed emphasis and depth, and c) we generally do not seek to recognize those areas in other cultures because we are unaware of it in ourselves.
by Owen on Nov 15, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Hello Owen, thanks for your thoughtful response, especially since this is what the Disciple Dojo is all about – sparring in polite way so we can make one another stronger and sharper. Your second post is well stated and I definitely agree with it. I particularly like how you emphasize our cultural barrier when we come to the language of the Bible. It’s something we would do well to remember in all of our writing, thinking, and teaching on the text. (for clarity: when you say we can lose emphasis and intensity when reading ancient texts because “we are not familiar with the forms other cultures used to embed emphasis and depth” I’d like to add: though it is not necessarily ‘intuitive’ and requires a lot of work – we do have a strong understanding of Greek rhetoric and a large window into their writing and speaking which does provide us with familiarity with the language and culture of the Bible even 2000 years later)
To your original post: I agree with your initial point that appealing to “stylistic variation” as a primary argument, without any other reason to come to that conclusion, would be a poor argument indeed. However, due to the nature of my writings – I’m often forced to get to the heart of the matter for the sake of brevity rather than giving the entire explanation of what goes into the sausage, so to speak. The stylistic explanation is a secondary point – driven by what I believe to be solid exegesis of this passage. In other words, I believe the stylistic explanation of John’s use of ‘phileo’ and ‘agapao’ to be driven by a proper handling of not only the John 21 passage, but also from and especially because of the rest of the language used in the Gospel of John.
First: the author of the Gospel of John, in his 45 uses of ‘agapao’ and ‘phileo,’ gives no hint at a nuanced difference of meaning. This can be seen especially in his interchangeable usage of both phileo and agapao for the phrase: “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” In John 20:2 he uses phileo, and in 13:23, 19:26 and 21:7, he uses agapao. In addition, that he intends no difference can also be seen in his wording of the Father’s love for the son (16:27 – phileo; 10:17, 15:9, 17:23, 24, & 26 – agapao) – a central theme for the entire Gospel if there ever was one. So from a textual standpoint – we must ask ourselves: “if the author of John has not used agapao and phileo anywhere else in his Gospel to differentiate or provide a deeper meaning – then why would he suddenly shift and do so in chapter 21?” It’s my conclusion given the above evidence that he hasn’t, and has indeed used the terms interchangeably throughout his Gospel on phrases that are not at all on the periphery. So from a strictly linguistic standpoint – we see John interchanging his vocabulary without any intended underlying meaning without ever looking at the exchange between Jesus and Peter.
Second, (given the above information) the pericope in question does not lend itself to an understanding of difference in meaning or intended emotional significance/intensification based on the language (though the latter is much more plausible and intriguing than the former). The response of Peter to both the third question and the previous two questions were all yes. If Jesus had intended a different meaning – Peter would have had to say “no.” But he doesn’t, he says “yes” you know that I ‘phileo’ you. Then, Peter’s hurt was “because he had asked him a third time: ‘do you love me?’” Notice two things: 1.) the cause of Peter’s hurt was the “third time” (this is the most natural reading of the Greek in my opinion, rather than the change in Jesus’s wording being the cause for Peter’s hurt – especially since the “third” would be the natural referent to Peter’s triple denial in John 18 whereas your take on it would force the emphasis on Jesus’ wording rather than the triple repetition). Given this 2.) The author seems to consider this third question to be identical to the first two (hence it being called the third time Jesus asked him), even though he changes the language from agapao to phileo.
This all leads me to understand it as a stylistic variation of terms, rather than a nuanced difference or even as an intensification. The latter is certainly possible and definitely seen in scripture, though I believe as a whole, evangelicals tend to jump there a little too quickly to pull out a nice “nugget” from the Greek.
A few more points/questions:
First: I’m not sure I understand your correlation between John 3’s ‘being born again’ and this passage. This passage is two varying words – not words with an intended “deeper” meaning. (I realize that to say this is slightly circular given I assume my above argument in saying it…but I think it’s fair given that Jesus actually explains what He means to Nicodemus whereas in this passage the reader has to infer any nuanced difference with no direct support).
Second: I don’t think I would agree with your point about a phrase of periphery vs. a phrase of centrality. The underlying assumption of this statement immediately points you to your conclusion. Your assumption seems to be that an author’s phraseology – the actual words used to convey a ‘central’ topic – are what’s important to him, not the intended perception (or meaning) of those words. This is a subtle difference, and possibly a philosophical one – but the assumption does lead one to your conclusion at the get-go, rather than recognizing that throughout scripture, on what we would more than likely agree on as central topics, the authors frequently vary their language & style – coming at the topics from many different angles in order to get their points across. I think that for this specific topic, the above information on John’s usage of phileo and agapao deals effectively with this line of argumentation; but where might you see this done elsewhere in John? (I’m asking out of genuine curiosity, I’m not nearly as familiar with John’s Gospel as I am with the others). [If I misunderstood your point here, my apologies.]
Finally: I’ve never seen an escalation of Peter’s denial in John 18 (particularly when compared with the rest of the Gospel accounts), but have always read it as a continued denial of his being a disciple, especially since it was the disciples who were with Jesus in the garden (so – to deny being in the garden is essentially equal to denying being a disciple and vice versa – as we see in the other accounts of his denial). How would you answer this objection to intensification in the denial account?
Thanks!
by Thayer on Nov 16, 2013 at 3:12 am