[B-Greek] Follow up to Mitch's AGAPAW and FILEW
Jason Hare
jason at hareplay.com
Mon Aug 18 12:10:06 EDT 2003
Brent Williams wrote:
> I like the concept you give for the differences between essentially two
similar
> meaning words. I would like to add that what actually may be happening
between
> AGAPAW and FILEW is range of meaning the one covers versus the other. It
appears
> that FILEW has the idea of "regard with affection with care, concern,
> hospitality, etc."It is the word that is most frequently used by itself
and in
> compound words, i.e., FILOSOPHIA, FILOXENIA, etc., in classical Greek.
While
> AGAPAW seems to be rather late in arriving on the scene in classical Greek
(from
> Homer onward). It does not have any specific uses different from FILEW.
However,
> the LXX uses AGAPAW to translate the Hebrew " 'aheb" (Lev. 19:18; Deut.
6:5)and
> adds the additional connotation of "divine or the love of God and the life
based
> upon it to the point of death for the best interest of the one loved."
[Jason] Are you saying that FILEW is never used to translated /ahav/ in the
LXX? I find that very hard to believe, but I guess I could take the time to
actually do a comparison and let you know.
> So, in
> this sense, there is a distinction being carried out in the NT. FILEW
covers a
> range of meaning to fondness, care, concern, etc. not necessarily to the
point
> of death or the best interest for the other person, but AGAPAW adds the
element
> of death, sacrifice, best interest for the person and includes the idea of
> keeping contractual obligations even when the other person violate the
contract
> (this concept is added by its use in the LXX and continues into the NT).
[Jason] So, I guess these concepts are inherent in the fact that Shechem
loved (AGAPAW) Dinah in Genesis 34.3 even though he had just taken her and
raped her (verse 2). Do you see how forcing a word to mean something as a
general rule is really not appropriate? Do not be sold into the linguistic
slavery of dogma. Let the words mean what they mean rather than imbuing them
with "magical" tendencies. ;-)
> Thus, John 21 is not really making the distinction of this (FILEW)versus
> that(AGAPAW), but this (AGAPAW) in addition to that (FILEW).
[Jason] The discussion is as to whether there is any inherent difference
between "this" and "that." And more, if there is a difference at all, then
what is its significance? In other words, what is the intersection and its
complement of these two words' semantic domains?
Best regards,
Jason Hare
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list