A question from a novice!

Eric S. Weiss eweiss at gte.net
Mon Mar 20 10:10:08 EST 2000


Though I don't have the book with me, I believe Carson's point (and I only 
quoted from part of his discussion of AGAPAW/FILEW) was that the 
distinctions often made between these two words and their corresponding 
nouns, AGAPH and FILOS(?), cannot really be supported when one examines 
their usage and, as Joly apparently showed, the reason for AGAPH's 
increased prominence. The author of the Johannine literature seems to like 
to interchange synonyms or words with closely-overlapping semantic domains, 
perhaps only for stylistic reasons. That doesn't negate the fact that his 
usage of AGAPAW/AGAPH is, as I recall, much more frequent than his usage of 
FILOS/FILEW, but, e.g., in John 21:15-17, we have two words for "love," two 
words for "sheep," two words for "feed/pasture," and two words for "know." 
Earlier in the chapter we have two words for "fish."

On 03/20/00, ""Eric S. Weiss" <eweiss at gte.net>" wrote:
> D. A. Carson, EXEGETICAL FALLACIES, pp. 52-53 (1984 edition)

" ... First, they [i.e., those who argue for a distinction in meaning 
between agapao and fileo in John 21:15-17] argue that translators of the 
Septuagint and New Testament writers have invested agapao (to love) and 
agape (love) with special meaning to provide an adequate expression by 
which to talk about the love of God; and only this accounts for the word's
rapid rise to prominence in our literature [i.e., the New Testament]. But
this argument has been overturned by the diachronic study of Robert Joly,



More information about the B-Greek mailing list