¹ Feneberg, Wolfgang, “φιλέω,” in Balz, Horst and Schneider, Gerhard, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 3. 425.Google Scholar

² Spicq, Ceslas, “άγάπη,” in Ernest, James D., eds., Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994) 1. 18.Google Scholar

³ Stauffer, Ethelbert, “άγάπω,” TDNT 1 (1964) 39.Google Scholar

⁴ Stählin, Gustav, “φίλοζ,” TDNT 9 (1964) 115.Google Scholar

⁵ 1 Cor 16:22.

⁶ Stählin, “φίλοζ,” 115.

⁷ Harnack, Adolf von, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902) 1. 435Google Scholar, quoted in Stählin, “φίλοζ,” 147, 162–63. Likewise, Apollonius of Tyana, a figure exhibiting many parallels to Jesus in the New Testament, called his disciples έταîροι, another Greek synonym for friends. (Philostratus Vit, Ap. 4.29.34; 5.21).

⁸ Clement, ТIΣ Ο ΣΩΙΖΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΠΛΟΥΣIOΣ (The Rich Man's Salvation) 31. Interestingly, in the Loeb text practically each term mentioned by Clement has a different Gospel as its reference in the footnote (trans. G. W. Butterworth; LCL; Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press, 1953) 334.Google Scholar

⁹ 1 Cor 14:20.

¹⁰ Bultmann, Rudolf, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 700–701.Google Scholar

¹¹ Koester, Helmut, “The Story of the Johannine Tradition,” Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992) 17–32.Google Scholar

¹² “The έκλήθη added to the title adopted from the Hebrew scripture a divine passive: God has given Abraham the title [friend of God.]” See Staählin, “φίλοζ,” 168–69.

¹³ Stählin, “φίλοζ,” 162. See also the reference to Michaelis, Wilhelm, “Die [Gefreundeten] des Apostels Paulus,” Der Kirchenfreund 67 (1933) 310–13, 328–34.Google Scholar To see this contrast more clearly, compare 2 Cor 11:9 and Phil 4:10,16, and 18 in which Paul's needs are taken care of by people referred to as άδελφοί and άγαπητοί in Phil 4:1, 8, 21, but never as φίλοι.

¹⁴ Only once does Luke employ the word φιλέω in a negative context and that occurs in Luke 20:46 in a description of the scribes that closely parallels Markan wording.

¹⁵ Luke's privileging of Peter is clear for a number of reasons especially considering the material that only Luke presents—the most significant of which is the fact that only this Gospel mentions Jesus making a resurrection appearance exclusively to Peter (Luke 24:34). Luke also offers a more developed account of Peter's call (Luke 5:1–11), as well as Jesus] special commissioning in which he promises to pray for Peter so that later Peter will strengthen the other brethren (Luke 22:32). Not only does the author add such material to Luke, but also removes or mitigates negative synoptic tradition concerning Peter. Significantly, Jesus does not rebuke Peter by referring to him as Satan in Luke as he does in Matthew and Mark (cf. Luke 9:22 with Mark 8:32–33 and Matt 16:22–23). In the Transfiguration, moreover, although Mark 9:6 states that Peter “did not know what to say,” Luke 9:33 rephrases it to say that he did not know what he had said. Although both Mark and Matthew portray Jesus as specifically rebuking Peter for sleeping at the garden, in Luke, Jesus merely addresses “them” (cf. Luke 22:45 with Mark 14:37 and Matt 26:40). Furthermore, in Luke Peter does not mistakenly deny that he will betray Jesus (cf. Luke 22:33–34 with Matt 26:33–35 and Mark 14:29–31). Nor is Peter portrayed as cursing or swearing during the denial in Luke as he is in the other two Synoptic Gospels (cf. Luke 22:60 with Mark 14:71 and Matt 26:74). Additional differences exist, some of which have been pointed out in Brown, Raymond E., Donfried, Karl P., and Reumann, John, eds., Peter in the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973) 110–14Google Scholar, 127, as well as in the dissertation by Smith, Terence V., Petrine Controversies in Early Christianity (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1985) 160–61.Google Scholar See also Bovon, Francois, L'Evangile selon Saint Luc 1, 1–9, 50 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1991) 228.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Epp, Eldon Jay, The Theological Tendency of Codez Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) 161.Google Scholar In the Cornelius incident of Acts 10:24b–25, the Bezae variant presents a particularly clear subordination of Cornelius to Peter. On the next page, Epp also cites Lagrange and Williams who have listed a number of Bezae variants displaying a special emphasis on Peter: Marie–Joseph Lagrange, Critique lextuelle: La critique rationnelle (Paris: Gabalda, 1935) 391Google Scholar, and Williams, Charles S. C., Alterations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Blackwell, 1951) 57.Google Scholar For more information on the theological tendancies of Codex Bezae, see also Menoud, P. H., “The Western Text and the Theology of Acts,” SNTS Bull. 2 (1951) 19–32.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Gos. Pet. 12.51. Stan, “φίλοζ,” 115.

¹⁸ Located in the last section of the Acts of Peter, in Martyrdom of Peter 10 (ed. Vouaux, Lepn; Paris: Librairie Letouzey & Ane; 1922) 454.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Acts of Peter 37.

²⁰ Since Paul himself states that Peter and James were his only apostolic contacts (Gal 1:18–19), it may be significant that the liturgical tradition that Paul transmitted in his epistle also contains φίλέω vocabulary, and incidentally it occurs in an epistle written to the Corinthians—a city that by Paul's own admission encompassed factions that called upon authority figures other than Paul such as Cephas and Apollos (1 Cor 1:12).

²¹ Bultmann, Gospel of John, 253.

²² Ibid., 589 n. 4. He refers as well to Becker, Heinz, Die Reden des Johannes-Evangeliums und der Stil der gnostischen Offenbarungsrede (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1956) 105.Google Scholar

²³ Bultmann, Gospel of John, 543.

²⁴ John 11:11 and 3:29, respectively. John 19:12 uses φίλοζ with reference to Pilate in a political relationship with the emperor. It is again the [Иоνδαîοι who make the reference.

²⁵ John 3:23.

²⁶ On only one occasion in John is a disciple described with the phrase ⋯νέφίλει ό Iησοûζ (John 20:2). In my opinion, there is no convincing reason to assume that this “other” disciple is identical with the beloved disciple ⋯ν ήγάπα ó ]Иησοûζ. In fact, there is good reason mitigating against that interpretation. Since the whole point of the Gospel is to bless those who believe without seeing in the conclusion of John (20:29), surely the authority figure of this Gospel would not need to run to the tomb to verify the news. Especially since the text in 20:8 specifically states that at the tomb this “other” disciple “saw” and then “believed” (ό ἄλλοζ μαθητ⋯ζ …εἶδεν καί έπίστευσεν). Such a statement places this “other” disciple in the same category as doubting Thomas who also needed to see to believe.

²⁷ Brown, Raymond(The Gospel According to John [2 vols.; New York: Anchor Bible, 1966] 1. 497–99)Google Scholar summarizes well the ways in which scholars have distinguished between these two verbs, frequently importing a certain superiority to άγαπâν. Wescott, Brooke Foss(The Gospel According to St. John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954] 303)Google Scholar, for instance, states that Peter responds with φίλοζιλεîν because “he does not venture to say that he has attained to that higher love (άγανâν).” Likewise, Evans, T.E. (“The Verb [agapari] in the Fourth Gospel,” Studies in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Cross, F.L. [London: Mowbray, 1957] 64–71)Google Scholar contends that Peter's humility keeps him from using άγαπâν. Other texts that imply different estimations of the two verbs are: McKay, K. L., “Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17,” NovT 27 ( 1985) 319–33Google Scholar; and Spicq, Ceslas, Agape in the New Testament (3 vols.; St. Louis: Herder, 1963) 1. 141.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ceslas Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, 3. 95; also quoted in Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2. 1103.

²⁹ Stauffer, “⋯γαπάω,” 35–38; Stählin, “φιλέω,” 114–24; Spicq, “⋯γάπη,” 8–22.