Replies

Keep in mind that John did not write in English.

Did I mention English? What does that have to do with John’s plain identification of the fulfillment of Zech. 12 with Jesus' crucifixion in John 19? And how does a commentary on the various Greek words for “love” get us any closer to a proper understanding?

You made a rather provocative statement which seemed to favor the rabbinic retranslation/interpretation of Zech 12 over and against the inspired word of God given through the apostle John. I don’t see these comments as addressing that issue.

Don’t get so stuck on the word Rabbinic which seems to be a sticking point for you. At the point of translation it is not a religious consideration as much as it is a language consideration. If you are simply translating a work from one language to another it doesn’t matter your thoughts on the matter. An accurate translation of words and usage of those words is primary. That was my point about the words translated into the English word love. Our understanding of the word love can vary. The specific Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words used were much more specific. The meaning of those words is very important to the understanding of the text involved.

>> retranslation/interpretation of Zech 12 over and against the inspired word of God<<

The “inspired word of God” was first written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. So it is the understanding of those languages that supercedes our understanding of the English language. When the word Agape was written it meant one thing but when the word Eros or Philia was used it meant something different but all three have been interpreted Love in the English which would give a much different meaning of the text when written in English. To use “inspired” to the English may not be accurate given the original “inspired” text was written in a different language. If the specific meaning of the original word was not conveyed the “inspired” part may have been lost.