.

Dear diver dan,

.

You suggest :

« Since Christianity is a sect with Jewish heritage, we could safely translate the meaning of love from the Hebrew »
.

It seems, indeed, that Christianity commenced as a Jewish sect but was elevated to the rank of religion in 312 when the Roman Emperor, Constantine, had a vision and ordered his troops to adorn their shields with a Christian symbol (the Chi-Rho), and won the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a bridge over the Tiber river.

Constantine’s Nicene Christianity became the state church of the whole of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 AD, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire's sole authorized religion.

Today, Christianity is the world’s largest religion, though it is predicted that Islam will become the number one in 2050 – not because people convert to it, but because of the higher birth rates in Islamic countries. People do not choose their religion or adopt it because they believe in it, they simply inherit it from their parents. Fertility rate – not faith – is the determining factor in the evolution of religions.
.

As for “translating the meaning of love from the Hebrew”, I think we need to take a more holistic approach to the question.

My understanding is that love is a faculty of nature that has been developed by a number of animal species to facilitate the mating process and stabilise the relationship for the survival of the species. As we human beings are the most highly developed and sophisticated form of life on earth, the nurturing period of our offspring is extremely long compared to that of most other species. Hence the need for a longer period of parental stability, facilitated by our natural faculty of love.

Mankind distinguishes himself from all other animal species, not only by his superior intelligence, but also by his greater propensity to cooperate and coordinate his activities with others. Sociobiologists point out that similar behaviour is displayed by other primates in relation to specific activities such as
.

(Continued …)

.

. (Continued …) . allomothering (foster mothering), cooperative foraging, and mutual protection. Mankind and other primates are also capable of self-denial, altruism and reciprocal kindness, to varying degrees. In his article on Biological Altruism for the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (winter, 2009 edition), Samir Okasha indicates: "Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen". Okasha warns, however, that contrary to human altruism, biological altruism does not constitute a conscious, voluntary act on the part of the benefactor. Religion integrated this compassion for others, or altruism, into its doctrine, associating it with so-called divine love. The Ancient Greeks identified four forms of love: kinship or familiarity (in Greek, storge), friendship and/or platonic desire (philia), sexual and/or romantic desire (eros), and self-emptying or divine love (agape). Two philosophical underpinnings of love exist in the Chinese tradition, one from Confucianism which emphasized actions and duty while the other came from Mohism which championed a universal love. When speaking of love, Bertrand Russell invoked the importance of tolerance if humanity is to survive : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg8YXVs4N_A .

.

(Continued …)

.

allomothering (foster mothering), cooperative foraging, and mutual protection. Mankind and other primates are also capable of self-denial, altruism and reciprocal kindness, to varying degrees.

In his article on Biological Altruism for the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (winter, 2009 edition), Samir Okasha indicates:

"Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen".

Okasha warns, however, that contrary to human altruism, biological altruism does not constitute a conscious, voluntary act on the part of the benefactor.

Religion integrated this compassion for others, or altruism, into its doctrine, associating it with divine love.

The Ancient Greeks identified four forms of love: kinship or familiarity (in Greek, storge), friendship and/or platonic desire (philia), sexual and/or romantic desire (eros), and self-emptying or divine love (agape).

Two philosophical underpinnings of love exist in the Chinese tradition, one from Confucianism which emphasized actions and duty while the other came from Mohism which championed a universal love.

When speaking of love, Bertrand Russell invoked the importance of tolerance if humanity is to survive :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg8YXVs4N_A

.

Dear Dan,

I had no intention to join this discussion about Christianity and Judaism and how they relate to love. However, while I was discussing something else with Banjo, I happened to see your comment and as I know my Hebrew I couldn't let your inappropriate letter-play go by.

I don't attempt to interpret the word "Ahavah" (love), but only to analyse it grammatically.

If this is what you Hebrew teacher told you, then I need to have a word with your teacher.

All Hebrew verbs have a root, which is almost always 3-lettered (except for a few late-comer 4-letter roots due to Greek influence or in modern Hebrew for verbs that did not exist at biblical times, such as "electrified"). Roots are inclined into verbs according to prescribed rules.

The root for "to-love" is A-H-B(V). For example:
"Ahav" - he loved.
"Tohavna" - they (female) will love.
"Ehavu" - you (plural) should love.
"Le-ehov" - to love.
"Ahavah" - [the condition of] love.

The root for "to-give" is N-T-N. For example:
"Natan" - he gave.
"Titena" - they (female) will give.
"Tnu" - you (plural) should give.
"Latet" - to give.
"Netinah" - [the act of] giving.

The root for "to come(direct)/bring(indirect)" is B-V-A. For example:
"Ba" - he came.
"Hevi[a]" - he brought.
"Tavona" - they (female) shall come.
"Tavena" - they (female) will bring.
"Bo[a]u" - you (plural) should come.
"Haviu" - you (plural) should bring.
"Lavo]a]" - to come.
"Lehavi[a]" - to bring.
"Biah" - coming.
"Havaah" - bringing.

Now "bring" and "give" are sometimes interchangeable and this must be where your teacher got the false connection between "Hav" (you should give/bring, or the order "bring [me]!") and "Ehav" (you should love, or the order "love [such-and-such]!"). As soon as you take these verbs to the plural or to future-tense, for example, you can see that they become quite different:

"Ehavu" - you (plural) should love.
and
"Haviu" - you (plural) should bring/give.

"Yohav" - he will love.
and
"Yavi[a] - he will bring/give.

Banjo Paterson.

It's seems to me I'm making an obvious point by defining the meaning and the sense in which the word “love”, is intended to be understood by Christian teaching.

What throws the stick in the spokes, is Christ's command, he be loved above all else on earth, by his followers.
There can be a huge price to pay for this love he implies, by stating; a love for me, will possibly sow seeds of discord among families, dividing family members and creating a fault-line in family relationships. So what love does Christ mean, when commanding love from believers, prioritised above all else?

So one could conclude from that, the love referred to that a Christian must exhibit, is not a familial one. It is a love with definite priorities.

Quite frankly, it is hard to find two Christians agreeing on the same interpretation of the meaning of love, in a Christian sense.
And the commandment to love thine neighbour as thine self is sketchy at best, if the highly confusing and vague English word “love” is to be given legitimacy.

What think you?

Yuyutsu,

Maybe we should be discussing the Greek interpretation of love, since it was written in Greek.

So, the New Testament was written for the followers of a Jewish Hebrew sect, which spoke Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, with a Galilean dialect, in Greek, and reinterpreted into English.

I've yet to be satisfied of anything believable and coherent, postured as an interpretation of the word “love”, which fits the bill.

Dear Dan,

While I know my Hebrew too well, whatever thou sayest about Greek, I can only nod and you can twist me on your little finger in that regard because it is Greek to me.