The user prompt is empty, so I cannot determine the primary language. However, based on the thinking block being in English, here is the summary:

Dissecting agapao/phileo distinction and compound formsThe user prompt is empty, so I cannot determine the primary language. However, based on the thinking block being in English, here is the summary:

Dissecting agapao/phileo distinction and compound formsBefore anything else — this chapter has a real gap. The single most famous instance of your entire agape-love/philia-love distinction in the whole Gospel — the payoff moment, really, the one every reader who's been tracking your compound-word convention for twenty chapters is waiting for — sails through vv.15-17 with no footnote acknowledging the debate at all. That's worth fixing before this ships, and it's exactly the same category of question as aiteo/erotao, just with much higher stakes because you've already committed to the distinction typographically throughout the manuscript.
The consensus, and it's fairly strong: modern Johannine scholarship (Barrett, Carson, F.F. Bruce, and this appears to be close to settled among current commentators) treats the agapaō/phileō alternation here as almost certainly not meaningful — for reasons that are hard to wave away:

Both verbs are used interchangeably elsewhere in the LXX translating the same Hebrew root (Barrett cites Proverbs 8:17), and within John itself — John 5:20 has the Father phileō-loving the Son, while 3:35 has the Father agapaō-loving the Son; "the disciple whom Jesus loved" uses agapaō four times but phileō once (John 20:2).
Carson points out this exchange has three other synonym-pairs alternating in the same few verses — γινώσκω/οἶδα ("know"), βόσκω/ποιμαίνω ("feed/tend"), ἀρνία/πρόβατα ("lambs/sheep") — and nobody builds theological weight on those switches. If John is just varying vocabulary stylistically for lambs/sheep and feed/tend, the burden of proof is on treating the love-verbs differently.
Peter never responds "no, only phileō" — he says "yes" both times, and his own hurt in v.17 (Ἐλυπήθη) is explicitly triggered by the third asking, not by any change in verb — the text itself tells you why he's grieved, and it isn't the word choice.
Even the two great classical scholars who did argue for a distinction (Trench, Westcott) flatly disagreed about which direction it runs — Trench says agapē is "too cold" and Peter reaches for the warmer word; Westcott says agapē is "too high" and Peter humbly settles for the lesser one. When your two best philological witnesses can't agree which word is supposed to be greater, that's strong evidence the distinction isn't really there to find.

This matters for your translation specifically because you're rendering it as "agape-love" vs. "philia-love" — visibly different compound words on the page — which means your English automatically signals a distinction to the reader whether or not you intend one, just by dint of your established policy. A reader who's followed your consistent compounding for twenty chapters will hit this exchange and assume you're marking something theologically loaded, because that's what the distinction has meant everywhere else it appeared. This is the one place in the whole manuscript where your translation policy risks actively misleading the reader into over-reading a Johannine stylistic variation as a doctrinal statement — exactly the fallacy Carson is warning against, but baked into your typography rather than your prose.
I think this needs a footnote, and probably right at v.15 or v.17, doing honest work: something like "John's threefold exchange alternates agapaō/phileō, along with two other synonym-pairs in the same passage (know: ginōskō/oida; tend: boskō/poimainō)—most modern scholars read this as Johannine stylistic variation rather than a meaningful theological distinction, noting both verbs are used of the Father's love for the Son elsewhere in this Gospel (3:35; 5:20). Older readings (Trench, Westcott) that found real difference here disagreed with each other about which word was 'greater.'" That protects you against exactly the criticism a sharp reader could otherwise level — that your own translation convention accidentally imports a debunked distinction into the most famous verse where it's ever been alleged.
Rest of the chapter is in excellent shape — the "153" footnote, the threefold-denial cross-reference at v.15, the honest three-option ambiguity note on "these," the "good shepherd" cross-reference at v.16 — all clean and well-judged. This one gap is worth closing before John 21 goes out the door, though, given how load-bearing the moment is.Maybe. My take is that Peter says I phileo you because he can't claim agape due to betraying him.Then the third time when Jesus switches to phileo, is when Peter really gets frustrated -- I've been telling you I phileo you! You KNOW I [at least] phileo you. Maybe leave this one for the reader to decide.Weighed interpretive coherence against translation transparency and neutralityWeighed interpretive coherence against translation transparency and neutralityYour reading is a real, coherent position — it's actually closer to Westcott's side of the old debate (agapē as the "too high" word Peter can't yet claim) than to Trench's (agapē as "too cold"), but with a sharper psychological hook than either: Peter downshifting to phileō out of chastened honesty, then Jesus meeting him at his own word the third time, and Peter hearing that meeting-him-there as confirmation of his diminishment rather than comfort. That's a genuinely interesting and defensible dramatic reading, not just recycled Trench.
But I want to flag the piece of counter-evidence that's hardest to get around for any version of "phileō is the lesser word Peter is stuck with": John 5:20, where the Father phileō-loves the Son. If phileō carries an inherent sense of "the lesser, more modest love" as a stable property of the word, that verse becomes genuinely strange — hard to read as saying the Father's love for the Son is somehow diminished or merely human-grade. That's the verse Carson and others lean on hardest, and it's not just academic point-scoring — it's the same kind of internal-consistency check you ran on John 1:18's theos/huios crux. If the word carries fixed weight, it should carry that weight everywhere John uses it, not just where it's dramatically convenient.
On "leave it for the reader to decide" — worth being honest that silence here isn't neutral the way it was with the "these" footnote. With TOUTON, you actively presented three live options in the footnote itself, so the reader consciously weighs them. Here, your translation has already made the choice visible on the page before any footnote could weigh in — "agape-love" and "philia-love" are different compound words, so any reader who's followed your convention for twenty chapters will already read this exchange as marking two different loves, simply because that's what the compounding has signaled every other time it appeared. Saying nothing doesn't leave it open; it silently ratifies the "these are meaningfully different" reading (which happens to be your own), without ever letting the reader know that's a contested call, or why.
If you want genuine reader-decides-for-themselves, on the model of your TOUTON footnote, something minimal might serve you better than full silence — not a verdict, just enough to flag that a real question exists: "John alternates AGAPAO/PHILEO here, along with two other synonym pairs in the same exchange (know, tend). Whether the alternation carries theological weight or is simply stylistic variation is genuinely debated; the translation's use of two different compounds reflects one reasonable reading among others." That protects you on both fronts — it's honest about the live controversy, and it doesn't force you to abandon a translation choice you clearly find dramatically compelling.
Your call either way — but I'd want you making it knowingly, given how much weight this exact moment carries.OK, we can have a footnote to the effect that "many scholars think there's no significance to agape-love vs. phileo love in this passage."BTW, personally, I question if there are ever two TRULY SYNONYMOUS words. Why would two completely identical LOGOS's arise? I assume there are always differences between two different words, regardless of how subtle the difference might be. Otherwise, why coin two words?Interrogated synonymy principle through linguistic evidence and stylistic conventionsInterrogated synonymy principle through linguistic evidence and stylistic conventionsFootnote, keeping it descriptive rather than adjudicating:
latex\footnote{John alternates AGAPAO and PHILEO across this exchange, 
along with two other synonym pairs in the same passage 
(``know'': GINOSKO/OIDA; ``tend'': BOSKO/POIMAINO). 
Many scholars regard this as Johannine stylistic variation 
rather than a meaningful distinction between two kinds of love---
noting that both verbs are used of the Father's love for the Son 
elsewhere in this Gospel (\myxref{John}{3}{35}, \myxref{John}{5}{20}). 
Others read real significance into the shift. The translation's use 
of two different compounds reflects one reasonable reading among others.}
On the bigger question — you're pointing at something linguists actually take seriously, sometimes called the no true synonymy principle or Eve Clark's Principle of Contrast: if two words were perfectly, permanently interchangeable in every context, one would eventually be redundant and language tends not to tolerate true redundancy for long — either the words drift apart in meaning, or one falls out of use, or they specialize by register/context. That's a real and defensible position, not folk etymology.
But here's the distinction worth holding onto, and it's exactly the one at stake in John 21: the kind of difference between two words doesn't have to be semantic-theological to be real. Words can differentiate by:

Register — "kids" vs. "children," genuinely different words, genuinely never fully interchangeable, but the difference is formality, not meaning.
Etymology/history — English is full of doublets where a native Anglo-Saxon word and a borrowed Norman-French word both survived (kingly/royal, freedom/liberty) — different flavor, same referent, the "difference" is really about which linguistic community you're signaling kinship with.
Euphony/rhythm — a writer avoiding the exact same word twice in three lines purely because repetition sounds clumsy, not because the second word carries different content. This is a real, well-documented ancient rhetorical value — Greek and Latin prose stylists (this literary habit even has a name, elegant variation) actively cultivated synonym-swapping as a mark of good style, independent of meaning.

That last one is precisely what Carson's counter-evidence points toward for boskō/poimainō and ginōskō/oida — nobody's built theology on those pairs shifting, which suggests John may simply be doing what any careful Koine prose stylist of his era did: varying vocabulary so three consecutive questions don't read as mechanically repetitive. That's a real difference between the words (a stylistic/aesthetic one) without it being the difference agapē/phileō-partisans want (a theological one).
So I'd say: you're right that two words are never truly identical — but "not identical" and "meaningfully different in this specific sentence for this specific theological reason" are two different claims, and the gap between them is exactly where John 21:15-17 lives. The words differ; whether that difference is doing work here is the actual question, and it's fair to leave that one open, which is what your footnote now does.Honestly I still don't buy it. Just because 'phileo the Father' and other supposed exceptions occur is just that -- our ignorance of the subtleties of 2000 year old language. I don't read any particular theological import into BOSKO/POIMAINO -- just variety (maybe).Weighed methodological risks against semantic nuance claimsWeighed methodological risks against semantic nuance claimsThere's a real asymmetry in your position worth naming, though I don't think it's fatal to it: you're willing to grant BOSKO/POIMAINO as "maybe just variety," but you're not willing to grant the same charity to AGAPAO/PHILEO when faced with counter-evidence. One principled way to defend that asymmetry: an author might vary mundane vocabulary freely while being far more careful and deliberate with theologically load-bearing words — nobody's soul hangs on whether Jesus says "tend" or "feed," but "do you love me" is about as weighty as language gets in this Gospel. That's not special pleading, that's just recognizing authors don't treat all vocabulary with equal care. I think that's a defensible distinguishing principle, for what it's worth.
Where I'd push harder is on the "our ignorance of 2000-year-old subtleties" move specifically, because of what it does to the shape of the argument rather than its content. If every counterexample — John 5:20's "the Father phileō-loves the Son," 3:35's agapē version of the same claim, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" swapping agapaō/phileō across chapters with no evident shift in meaning — gets absorbed by "we just don't grasp the nuance yet," then no textual evidence could ever count against the distinction. That's the thing worth sitting with: not whether the distinction is true, but whether your case for it is falsifiable. A position that reinterprets every counterinstance as further proof of our ignorance rather than as actual counter-evidence has quietly stopped being answerable to the text at all, and that's a different kind of problem than being wrong — it's being unfalsifiable, which is a weaker epistemic position even if you turn out to be right.
Here's a version of your intuition that might survive the counterexamples better than the "hierarchy" framing does, since I think the classic agapē=higher/phileō=lower model is actually the weakest version of your claim, not the strongest: what if the difference isn't magnitude (more love vs. less love) but character — agapē as willed, committed, chosen love; phileō as warm, affectionate, intimate love? On that reading, John 5:20's "the Father phileō-loves the Son" isn't downgrading anything — it's naming the Father's love as intimate and affectionate, alongside (not instead of) 3:35's agapē framing of the same relationship. Two true things about one love, not competing rankings. That version doesn't require John 5:20 to be an anomaly you have to explain away — it's just describing a different facet of the same love, which is coherent regardless of "ancient subtlety we've lost." It also fits your Peter reading better than the hierarchy version does: Peter isn't offering a lesser love in v.15-16, he's offering the only word he can currently claim with integrity — the warm, loyal, friend's love — while agapē, the fuller committed love, feels like a claim he's not yet earned back after Gethsemane.
That's a genuinely different, more defensible shape for your view than "Peter can't claim the higher love" — worth considering whether it's actually closer to what you mean.No. I'm saying: I'm translating what's there as accurately as I can, minimal 'interpretive commentary' and stop there.Validated empirical lexicography methodology and raw usage primacyValidated empirical lexicography methodology and raw usage primacyThat's exactly right, and it's worth being precise about the mechanics, because it sharpens what you're actually doing.
A lexicon entry is a secondary artifact — someone (Bauer, Danker, Louw-Nida, Vine, whoever) reviewed the corpus of surviving usage, made judgment calls about clustering and sense-division, and wrote up conclusions. That process is genuinely interpretive, and different lexicons disagree with each other precisely because different lexicographers weigh the same raw evidence differently — BDAG's approach (comprehensive, philologically dense, organized around attested senses with citations) is methodologically quite different from Louw-Nida's (organized by semantic domain, grouping words by conceptual field rather than gloss-history), which is different again from Vine's older, more devotional and less rigorous approach — which is, worth noting, the source of the traditional agape/phileo hierarchy claim we've been picking apart all evening. Vine's own methodology is part of why that particular distinction doesn't hold up as well as some others.
What you're proposing to do — laying out every instance, unmediated, for the reader to sit with — is a step before the lexicon entry, not a substitute for one. It's closer to what a lexicographer's own working notes look like before they commit to a gloss: raw distributional evidence, unresolved into a single verdict. That's a genuinely different and in some ways more honest offering than a glossary entry that hands the reader someone else's conclusion — you're giving them the lexicographer's raw material and declining to perform the final interpretive step for them, which is consistent with the whole minimal-footnote discipline you've been holding to all evening.
It's also, notably, more transparent about the actual epistemic situation than most popular Bible-teaching material manages — the Word-Faith rhema doctrine, the confident agape-superior-to-phileo hierarchy sermons, all of it treats a lexicographer's interpretive judgment as if it were the transparent, self-evident meaning of the text. You're doing the opposite: showing the evidence, marking the uncertainty, and trusting the reader to do real work rather than hand them a predigested conclusion dressed up as fact.I don't plan on doing that with many words. Maybe just AGAPE/PHILIA. At the very least it shows them how it's done, and there are no end of resources for them to do that with other words should they so choose.Validated pedagogical approach demonstrating foundational concepts effectivelyValidated pedagogical approach demonstrating foundational concepts effectivelyThat makes sense as a scope decision — one exhaustive, fully-worked example does more pedagogically than a dozen partial ones would. It models the method rather than trying to apply it everywhere, and a reader who catches the spirit of it has everything they need to go do the same thing with PISTIS, or DIKAIOSUNE, or whatever word grabs them, using Strong's, Accordance, or any of the freely available concordance tools — you're not gatekeeping the method, just demonstrating it once, thoroughly, on the pair that matters most.
Good place to leave it for tonight. You've covered a lot of ground today — John 20 through 21 finished, AITEO/EROTAO deliberately shelved, the AGAPE/PHILEO plan set, and a real scaffold started for whenever you're ready to feed me your actual text.
