Re: Agape & Phileo

  On Sept. 30th Jim Hill wrote:
>monotony. A serious study of the relevant articles in Kittel's  
>Dictionary of the NT (Yes, the big one; the "little Kittel" is too  

   I fully agree with his position that in this case, agapao and phileo have no
significant difference in meaning most probably (not absolutely certain, but probably).  However, I thought it was recognized widely since Barr's work on the 
subject that the approach used in Kittel's was fatally flawed, which is also 
whyt I continue to be mystified that modern commentaries, e.g., Dunn on Romans,
make heavy use of Hittel's.  Is it becausewe all paid too much money for
a set of Kittel's so we hate to ignore that investment??

Ken Litwak
Richmond, CA