From: Steven Cox (scox@ns1.chinaonline.com.cn.net)
Date: Sun Apr 19 1998 - 01:33:52 EDT
David
Valid point, and again I'd agree, but the issue is not
about lexical antonymy, but rather the dynamic in the
dialogue and the intent of the Author. Jack Kilmon just
pointed out (off list) that Jerome's use of diligis for
FILEW here is unique to the NT. That illustrates, to me
at least, that internal dynamics between these 3 couplets
(actually 3 triplets) were recognised by one early and
competent translator as an important part of the intent.
Yet, and this is where your point is proven, Jerome didn't
bother elsewhere in John [acknowledgements to Jack again].
Regards
Steven
At 15:07 98/04/19 +1000, McKay family wrote:
>So far, in the latest [but probably not last] discussion on this passage, I
>have not seen any citations of the way the 2 words for love are used in the
>rest of John's writings, and in the rest of Scripture. When I did a study on
>their use, I found that AGAPAW and FILEW are often used interchangeably in
>the Bible. The big distinctions people make between them are simply not
>sustainable. This is why many Bible translations choose to translate them
>both as simply "love."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:31 EDT