From: Mike Phillips (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Aug 02 1996 - 13:03:55 EDT
The verse in question is not contrasting the two verb forms at all.
The first, agaph, is a noun -- love (acc. sing. fem.) while the last filwn, is
a noun -- friends (gen. pl. masc.). The verbs are EXEI (has) and QH (might lay
down). I don't believe this verse can be used for the poster's intended
purpose (for or against).
RSV "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his
life for his friends."
Love is being compared to action (laying down his life), not to
> From: Dave Haggard <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 8/2/96 8:26 AM:
> For as much of a "scholar" as I am <heh!>, I consider the use of the two
words in the same statement as being significant. If AGAPH is the Godly,
unconditional, sacrificial love that we usually consider it to be, and you
consider the context, then AGAPH and FILEW are sharply contrasted. I believe
John intended to make this contrast to illustrate the difference between what
we often _think_ love is, and what the love of God truly is.
> From: Jonathan Robie[SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 1996 5:18 PM
> To: b-greek
> Subject: AGAPH and FILOS in John 15:13
> There was a lot of discussion on AGAPH and FILEW in John 22 about a month
> just noticed that AGAPH and FILOS (closely related to FILEW) are used in the
> same verse in John 15:13:
> MEIZONA TAUTHS AGAPHN OUDEIS EXEI INA TIS THN YUXHN
> AUTOU QH UPER TWN FILWN AUTOU
> I'm not a Greek scholar or a linguist, but to me this looks like possible
> evidence that Koine Greek does not draw a strong distinction between AGAPH
> So what do the Greek scholars out there think?
Hebrew Union College - JIR
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
it is the skin of living thought and changes from day to day
as does the air around us. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:47 EDT