Apr 27, 2012 -- 9:26AM, Burnman wrote:

Tim Rice is an authority?

More than Anne ...

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:02AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

I find it very interesting that this part of John's gospel has been mistranslated in this matter. Consider the original Greek:  ^{. . .} In the original Greek Jesus tells Peter twice: "Simon, do you love me?" And Peter tells twice: "Yes Lord, you know that I like you ." On the third time Jesus asks Peter, "Simon do you like me? " And Peter was grieved that he was told the the third time "Do you like me?" and he answered "Lord you know everything, you know that I like you."

This juxtaposition of love and like is very obvious in the original but completely missing in all the translations. I have never seen it discussed anywhere.

I think that the word hasn’t been translated differently in English because the Church Fathers, for whom koine Greek was lingua franca, don’t delineate between the two as we do in the case of “to love” and “to like”.  John Chrysostom says of the second one, “If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love that you always show, and in which you rejoiced, show now; and the life which you said you would  lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.”

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:02AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

This may well be true.....but Jesus and the disciples didn't speak Greek. If it were translated into Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then back into English, what would it say?

Why should we assume they didn’t speak Greek?  I don't think we can assume that.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 11:30AM, jlb32168 wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:02AM, stardustpilgrim wrote:

This may well be true.....but Jesus and the disciples didn't speak Greek. If it were translated into Hebrew (or Aramaic) and then back into English, what would it say?

Why should we assume they didn’t speak Greek?  I don't think we can assume that.

It would seem that if the Hebrew scriptures had been translated into Greek 200 years earlier, that they may have been familiar with Greek.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:01PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:26AM, Kwinters wrote:

Was this story made up by some faction who opposed Peter's leadership, perhaps?

This is the approach I favor though, as an aside, I wouldn't characterize the process 'making things up'. Postulating a function for something in the text is a way to discern its meaning. That is, we look for the method of the implied author of communicating to the implied reader. In this case, I think what is being demonstrated may have been for the edification of catechumens, those for whom conversion was recent. It is demonstrating that they could stumble too and that this would come with deep regret. I do concede that the narrative veers off what exactly happens to Peter for the most part (this story as a whole isn't about Peter) and that may seem unsatisfying to us if we are predisposed to read it that way. As for it being an anti-Petrine polemic, I don't think that's true in this case though cases can be made that certain episodes in the gospels have their roots in such motivations (i.e. later factionalism). I think it more likely that this is a 'teaching' moment as in when the one that takes their eyes off the Lord sinks in the water rather than a direct, 'personal' barb.

Do you think that with the Pauline theologically influenced apostles there is a tendency to make the living disciples idiots, though?  In Mark, for instance, there is the theme that Jesus is not understood in his own day.

This then leads to the question, well, who did understand him?  Paul, of course, and the Pauline theology that expanded the scope of Jesus's teachings beyond the Jews (as existed in the oral tradition) to the theology preached by Paul - who was in conflict with James and Peter.

I think that if we saw a movie today, where Robin, for instance, denies knowing Batman and refuses to acknowledge his association with him, and then a few scenes later Batman leaves his estates and wealth to Robin without resolving the issue of Robin's betrayal, I think we would find that conclusion deeply unsatisfying.

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:28AM, Kwinters wrote:

Apr 27, 2012 -- 2:02AM, Hoppy393 wrote:

Perhaps the contrast is not unequal forgiveness, but unequal repentance.

Well, according to the text in Matthew, Judas repents, returns the money and confesses. 

Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”

Peter cries.  It is not explained why. And he never confesses or apologises in the texts.

Feeling guilty is not repentance.  Neither is trying to repay or recognizing that you're a sinner.