Loading...One of the most talked about and least understood teachings within Christianity is the idea of love. Do you want some evidence of the misunderstanding? Read 1 Corinthians 13, the “love chapter,” in its original context (coming between, well, 1 Corinthians 12 and 14! A little consideration almost no one has thought about!), and then consider it in relation to the 498 times you’ve heard it in weddings. I’m all for it’s being read at weddings! But, uh, is Paul talking about marital bliss? Uh, nope, not at *all*…..
I am in the middle of a thread excerpting a sketch of my book (which I’m still researching; won’t start writing for a while). So far I’ve talked about what it’s about. Now I’m getting into some detail, by describing the book chapter by chapter — including the opening bit about Christian ethics and the opening section that deals with love in the Christian tradition.
******************************
The book will comprise
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
We sure heard a lot about “the agape love of the NT” in the Methodist Church in the sixties.
I thought and studied a lot on the subject. My conclusion is this:
ΑΓΑΠΑΩ means to value, to esteem, to have great regard or to hold in high regard.
ΦΙΛΙΑ is love, affection, friendship.
This is how the enigmatic conversation between the Master Iesous and his disciple Simon began to make sense for me. And the Law of Torah as well as the so-called Sermon on the Mount became physiological relevance to me. God’s Law is in the heart (inner constitution) of mankind. It is not something artificial, nor is it extreme, impossible, nor hurtful and damaging.
It isn’t sound advice to love someone who sets out to hurt or even destroy you.
Neither a reasonable God nor a Galilean carpenter expressed such devious “love” or demanded it.
One can’t do everything in a single book but I for one would be interested in comparisons of self-giving/sacrificing love to eastern notions of “no-self, “ and non-egoism.
I’ve often thought that self-sharing love is profoundly important but that self-sacrificing love, though sometimes very appropriate, goes too far in principle toward denying the valid and fair needs and desires of the self.
But I also have a growing sense that an ego is a very heavy burden to carry around, ie, building it up, worrying about it, protecting it, seeking to enhance it, etc. and that a more altruistic and outwardly focused approach to living would not only be beneficial to others but could be profoundly beneficial to the self.
My thinking on this comes largely from Buddhism and other eastern philosophies as well as from many self-help books that seem to be influenced by those philosophies in important ways.
Anyway, right now at least the idea of non-egoism seems to me to be a kind of integration of selfishness and unselfishness.
In John 21:15-17, does Jesus ask about eros, and is Peter’s response about phillia (you know I’m your friend)?
Yes, it’s a much discussed exchange! A lot of scholars argue they are synonymns there (they think it’s obvious). I’m not sure at all…
I was surprised to hear that some NT scholars are minimizing the influence of “love” in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. When I was an evangelical in college, I was student director of a summer project called “Agape Gatlinburg,” in which we evangelized tourists and locals in Gatlinburg, TN.
In all my experience as an evangelical (30+ years), I heard of “agape” and the importance of this kind of love for all mankind. Has this movement away from “agape” been a recent development? Or perhaps something found outside evangelicalism?
Looking forward to your new book a lot! Thanks!
Yes, I think it was the massive emphasis on agape in Christian teachings that led these scholars to say, “Well, actually, it’s not that key in the NT.” Too bad — they’re terrific scholars, but in my view, this just ain’t right.
I think ‘agape’ is occasionally found in classical Greek, mostly in its verb form, agapao, going all the way back to the Odyssey, where it means something like ‘treat with affection’. But it is true that the noun, agape, is mostly found in Christian writings.
The noun isn’t found in any pagan writings prior to Xty, and almost none after.
Re. Loving “the enemy”:
This sentiment exists in early Buddhism in various places. For example, in the Kakacūpama Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 21):
“Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb with a two-handled saw, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will remain unaffected. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of compassion, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.””
In the Mettā Sutta (Suttanipāta 1.8) the sentiment is a little different, we shouldn’t have enemies at all:
“With love for the whole world,
unfold a boundless heart:
above, below, all round,
unconstricted, without enemy or foe.”
(Translations from Bhikkhu Sujato at Sutta Central).
Thanks! Amazing. A lot like Greek Stocisim too (except without the love; the emphasis there is not to let any bad thing, no matter how horrible, disturb your inner being.
Here is the single difference between agapao and phileo. Phileo was used when there was some relationship (not necessarily a family tie) or between the lover and object loved. Agapao was available for when there was not a significant relationship or affinity between the lover and the object of the love.
In John 21:15-17, Jesus doesn’t rebuke Peter or in any way appear offended. When Peter was offended, John TELLS us it was because Jesus had asked him the same question three times. For those who think agapao loving is superior to phileo loving, Jesus did NOT ask the same question three times. Under their theory, Jesus asked one question twice (verses 15 and 16) and a different question once (verse 17). Why did both Peter and John think it was the same question three times? Because, in the setting and context provided, the verbs meant the same thing.
According to the Bauer-Gingrich Lexicon, the noun agape does appear in non-Christian writing of the early church period. The only thing unique to Christians was their use of “agape” for their own feast of bread and wine possibly celebrated along with ritual foot-washing in remembrance of Jesus.
There are a (very) few debated inscriptions (debated as to whether the missing letters are restored correctly). Do you know of any use in a literary writing before Christianity? I certainly wouldn’t say that the only unique thing about Christian usage was that it was used in conjunction with ritual. Look up its usage in the any of the major Greek Lexica (esp. Liddell-Scott and Cambridge Greek Lexidon) and then look it up in a NT concordance!
I’ve also read a lot about this, but less scholarly.
but these were fishermen & a carpenter, how can stuff be so complicated- over love and friendship!
I don’t think any of the authors of the NT were lowerclass manual laborers — otherwise they woudln’t have known how to write let alone to compose coherent treatieses in Greek!
Phileo is used for: the love of high places (Matthew 23:6, Luke 20:46), The Father’s love for the Son (John 5:20), Jesus’ love for his disciples (John 11:3, John 20:2), the Father’s love of disciples (John 16:27), love within families (Matthew 10:37), love among Christians (Titus 3:15), love of the world (John 15:19), God’s love for those he chastens (Revelation 3:19), our love for Jesus (1 Corinthians 16:22), and sinners being lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:4).
Agapao is used for: the love of high places (Luke 11:43), the Father’s love for the Son (John 3:35), Jesus’ love for his disciples (John 11:5, John 21:7), the Father’s love of disciples (John 14:21), love within families (Ephesians 5:25), love among Christians (John 13:34-35), love of the world (John 3:19, John 12:43, 1 John 2:15, 2 Timothy 4:10), God’s love for those he chastens (Hebrews 12:6), our love for Jesus (John 14:21), and our love of the Father (Romans 8:28, 1 John 4:10,19).
As to the objects loved, the uses are very similar. Also, Importantly, each word is used both for loving that is right and proper and love that isn’t right and proper.
Greetings Dr. Ehrman. Are you aware of the Vesuvius Challenge that’s been going on for the past year? The goal is to develop tech to be able to read the charred scrolls found at Herculaneum. Today they announced a huge milestone, being able to read 15 columns from one of the scrolls! The scroll appears to contain the lost work of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. That sounds like the kind of stuff you’d be interested in these days.
https://x.com/natfriedman/status/1754519304471814555?s=20
1 Cor 13: 9-10
9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.
What do these verses mean? What is “the complete” and what is “the partial?”
The “partial” is the access we have to God and understanding him we have now through the spiritual gifts of knowledge and prophecy; the “perfect” is Christ in his return to give us direct access to the knowledge of God.
1. It seems like a complicated way to state this. Would Paul’s readers have understood what he was saying?
2. Why did Paul put this between verses about love?
1. Yes, because this is what he would have taught them when he was with them. 2. Because 1 Cor. 12-14 is all about how the spiritual gifts were to be used for the sake of others in the community (AGAPE/Love), not for self-aggandizement.