[B-Greek] AGAPE in the NT
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 5 07:53:22 EST 2004
At 10:48 PM -0600 2/4/04, David Bielby wrote:
>In the GNT can someone have AGAPAW for an inanimate object (or does the way
>AGAPAW appears in the NT allow for this application? Is it correct to say
>that AGAPAW does not occur in the NT without at least an inference or a
>direct expression that it is coming from God either to or through a man?
I don't find any counter-indication in the usages of the noun AGAPH, but
there are some interesting instances of usage of the verb AGAPAW, of which
I'll only cite a couple.
I'll let you be the judge of these two instances:
Lk 11:43 OUAI hUMIN TOIS FARISAIOIS, hOTI AGAPATE THN PRWTOKAQEDRIAN EN
TAIS SUNAGWGAIS KAI TOUS ASPASMOUS EN TAIS AGORAIS.
Jn 3:19 hAUTH DE ESTIN hH KRISIS: hOTI TO FWS ELHLUQEN EIS TON KOSMON KAI
HGAPHSEN hOI ANQRWPOI MALLON TO SKOTOS H TO FWS ...
>Is it correct to say that PHILEW comes only from men and never from God?
Jn 16:27 AUTOS GAR hO PATHR FILEI hUMAS, hOTI hUMEIS EME PEFILHKATE ...
We've been through this discussion on more than one occasion on B-Greek,
particularly in discussions of the dialogue between the risen Jesus and
Peter in John 21. My sense of the upshot of that discussion is that, while
AGAPH does tend to be used in a distinct way, yet AGAPAW and FILEW overlap
in usage enough to falsify the sort of generalization you've made in the
opening paragraph above.
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list