[b-greek] Re: Synonyms (AGAPAW-PHILEW)

From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 00:16:19 EST


On 1/8/01 1:36 AM, RUSSELL RANKIN wrote:

> Since AGAPAW and FILEW were used in Greek society to designate nuances of
> love, it appears necessary to note the slight differences in Biblical
> writings as well. Rather than suggest one form is 'higher' and the other is

> 'lower' kind of love, one might better say each is a different standard of
> love -- love based on similar but different standards. By this one can
> notice the basis for which one word is used in a given context. Depending
> upon the context, the standard for each word is different because it is
> based on the participants described.

The problem here, as I see it, is that one "suggestion" has been replaced by
another "suggestion" and then the new suggestion has become the means by
which we can discern the basis for which word is used in a given context. So
the very suggestion that must be proved is the means by which we will prove
the suggestion! Once the suggestion is accepted, the evidence can do nothing
BUT fit. Part of the problem with the old suggestion was that it just didn't
work in numerous contexts and so had to be force-fitted by its adherents.
I'm afraid the new suggestion will run into the same problem.

> Therefore, AGAPAW designated a love shared by the standard of the
> individuals involved, e.g. publicans love each other [Mt.5] and sinners love
> each other [Lk.6]. That AGAPAW was selected to describe God's love only
> reflects that the writer felt it was the best of the three Greek words to
> describe a love which was based on the standard he defined as God [1Jn.4],
> or as God's standard [1Cor.13].
>
> As has been suggested, FILEW is used when a standard of family relationship
> is intended. So, father/son and brother/brotherhood are common to all
> societies, secular and religious. It is not out of the ordinary that this
> became applied figuratively by N.T. writers to shared 'faith' relationships
> as well as to the Father/Son relationship.

The problem with the above distinctions is that the only thing supporting
them is the suggestion itself (which is exactly what needs to be proven).
Once it is presupposed that AGAPAW must designate "a love shared by the
standard of the individuals involved" and that FILEW must designate "a
standard of family relationship" there is literally no way possible to read
the two words any other way. The assumption will always be that one
standard, not the other, is in view. This perspective will be read into
every occurrence of these two words encountered. Using the above suggestion,
whenever we saw AGAPAW we would say, "individual standard." Then when we saw
FILEW we would say, "family standard." So when we came to Lk 11.43 we would
read "individual standard" because we saw AGAPAW; when we came to Mt 23.6 we
would read "family standard" because we saw FILEW. This in spite of the fact
that they are parallel passages using these words synonymously and that
FILEW in Mt 23.6 can in no way be taken as a "family standard."

Steve Lo Vullo,
Madison, WI



---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:46 EDT