[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Agape & Phileo
On Sept. 30th Jim Hill wrote:
>monotony. A serious study of the relevant articles in Kittel's
>Theological
>Dictionary of the NT (Yes, the big one; the "little Kittel" is too
>abbreviated)
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