Synonyms of the New Testament
Yüklə 3,52 Mb.
|
| § xxxvi. pe IN both these words the sense of poverty, and of poverty in this world's goods, is involved; and they continually occur together in the Septuagint, in the Psalms especially, with no rigid demarcation of their meanings (as at Ps. xxxix. 18; lxxiii. 22; lxxxi. 4; cf. Ezek. xviii. 12; xxii. 29); very much as our "poor and needy;" and whatever distinction may exist in the Hebrew between NOyb;x, and ynifA, the Alexandrian translators have either considered it not reproducible by the help of these words, or have not cared to reproduce it; for they have no fixed rule, translating the one and the other by ptwxo there are passages which show that they were perfectly aware of a distinction between them, and would, where they thought good, maintain it; occasions upon which they employ pe 3, 4), and where ptwxo Pe occasion in a quotation from the Old (2 Cor. ix. 9), while ptwxo pe ‘penuria,’ it properly signifies one so poor that he earns his daily bread by his labour; Hesychius calls him well
own necessities. The word does not indicate extreme want, or that which verges upon it, any more than the ‘pauper’ and ‘paupertas’ of the Latin; but only the ‘res angusta’ of one to whom plou What was the popular definition of a pe Xenophon (Mem. iv. 2. 37): tou>j me>n oi#moi mh> i[kana> e@xontaj
It was an epithet commonly applied to Socrates, and peni he claims more than once for himself (Plato, Apol. 23 c; 31 c). What his peni § XXXVI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129
bring five Attic minae. So, too, the Pene (if, indeed, the derivation of the name from pe stand), were a subject population, but not reduced to abject want; on the contrary, retaining partial rights as serfs or cultivators of the soil. But while the pe dicus;' he is the ‘beggar,’ and lives not by his own labour or industry, but on other men's alms (Luke xvi. 20, 2 I) ; being one therefore whom Plato would not endure in his ideal State (Legg. xi. 936 c). If indeed we fall back on etymologies, prosai text at John ix. 8), or e]pai equivalent to our ‘beggar;’ while ptwxo taken for one who in the sense of his abjectness and needs crouches (a]po> tou? ptw superiors; though it may be safest to add here the words of Pott (Etym. Forsch. vol. iii. p. 933), ‘falls dieser wirklich nach scheum unterwurfigem Wesen benannt worden, and nicht als petax.’ The derivation of the word, as though he were one who had fallen from a better estate (e]kpeptw-
ful: see Didymus, in Ps. xii. 5, in Mai's Nov. Pat. Bibl. vol. vii. part ii. p. 165. The words then are clearly distinct. A far deeper depth of destitution is implied in ptwxei which in mind will add vividness to the contrasts drawn by St. Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 10; viii. 9. The pe poor that he earns his bread by daily labour; but the ptwxo begging. There is an evident climax intended by Plato, when he speaks of tyrannies (Rep. x. 618 a), ei]j peni nothing superfluous, the ptwxo lein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p. 117). Tertullian long ago noted the distinction (Adv. Marc. iv. 14), for, dealing with 130 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXVII.
changes the ‘Beati pauperes,’ which still retains its place in the Vulgate, into ‘Beati mendici,’ and justifies the change, ‘Sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est;’ and in another place (De Idol. 12) he renders it by ‘egeni.’ The two, peni ii. 32: ‘Non est paupertas, Nestor, habere nihil’) and ptw-
will have them (Plut. 549); but if such, yet the latter far barer of the world's good than the former; and indeed
any such near relationship at all. The words of Aris- tophanes, in which he discriminates between them, have been often quoted ptwxou? me>n ga>r bi tou? de> pe perigi qumo N. T. (as at Rom. ii. 8; Ephes. iv. 31; Col. iii. 8; Rev. xix. 15); often also in the Septuagint (Ps. lxxvii. 49; Dan. iii. 13; Mic. v. 15), and often also in other Greek (Plato, Philebus, 47 e; Polybius, vi. 56. II; Josephus, xx. 5. 3; Plutarch, De Coh. Ira, 2; Lucian, De Cal. 23); nor are they found only in the connexion of juxta- position, but one made dependent on the other; thus qumo>j th?j o]rgh?j (Rev. xvi. 19; cf. Job iii. 17; Josh. vii. 26); while o]rgh> qumou?, not occurring in the N. T., is fre- quent in the Old (2 Chron. xxix. 10; Lam. i. 12; Isai. xxx. 27; Hos. xi. 9). On one occasion in the Septuagint all the words of this group occur together (Jer. xxi. 5). When these words, after a considerable anterior his- tory, came to settle down on the passion of anger, as the strongest of all passions, impulses, and desires (see Donald- § XXXVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131
pied not a little the grammarians and philologers. These felt, and rightly, that the existence of a multitude of passages in which the two were indifferently used (as Plato, Legg. ix. 867), made nothing against the fact of such a distinction; for, in seeking to discriminate between them, they assumed nothing more than that these could not be indifferently used on every occasion. The general result at which they arrived is this, that in qumo nected with the intransitive qu to Plato (Crat. 419e), a]po> th?j qu ‘quasi exhalatio vehementior’ (Tittmann), compare the Latin ‘fumus,’ is more of the turbulent commotion, the boiling agitation of the feelings,1 me calls it, either presently to subside and disappear,—like the Latin ‘excandescentia,’ which Cicero defines (Tusc. iv. 9), ‘ira nascens et modo desistens’—or else to settle down into o]rgh<, wherein is more of an abiding and settled habit of mind (‘ira inveterata’) with the purpose of revenge; ‘cupiditas doloris reponendi’ (Seneca, De Ira, 5); o]rmh> yuxh?j, e]n mele Reg. Brev. Tract. 68);2 the German ‘Zorn,’ ‘der activ sich gegen Jemand oder etwas richtende Unwille, die Opposition des unwillig erregten Gemuthes’ (Cremer). Thus Plato (Euthyph. 7) joins e]xqra<, and Plutarch dusme 39), with o]rgh<. Compare Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 99, sqq•
in Ps. lxxxvii. 8) is dissatisfied,with the application of this word to God, ‘furor' being commonly attributed to those out of a sound mind, and pro- poses ‘indignatio’ in its room. For another distinction, ascribing ‘ira’ and ‘furor’ alike to God, see Bernard, Serm. in Cant. 69, § 3; a remark- able passage.
ness to punish has the amendment of the offender for its scope. Certainly the one passage in the N. T. where a]gana does not refuse this meaning. 132 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXVII.
temporary, character of qumo Taylor, are ‘great but transient angers;’1 cf. Luke iv. 28; Dan. iii. 19) may explain a distinction of Xenophon, namely that qumo dealt much in definitions and distinctions, defined qumo as o]rgh> a]rxome and Ammonius: qumo>j me poluxro comparison of old age and youth, thus characterizes the angers of old men (Rhet. ii. II): kai> oi[ qumoi>, o]cei?j me and as quickly extinguished (cf. Euripides, Androm. 728, 729). Origen (in Ps. ii. 5, Opp. vol. ii. p. 541) has a discussion on the words, and arrives at the same re- sults: diafe the Latin: ‘ut si, verbi gratia, vulnus aliquod pessimum iram ponamus, hujus autem tumor et distentio indignatio vulneris appelletur:’ so too Jerome (in Ephes. iv. 31): ‘Furor [qumo indignatio. Ira [o]rgh<] autem est, quae furore extincto desiderat ultionem, et eum quem nocuisse putat vult laedere.’ This agrees with the Stoic definition of o]rgh<, that it is. timwri (Carm. 34. 43, 44)
agree. In his vigorous, but most unlovely picture of an old man, this is. one trait:— ‘He es lyghtly wrath, and waxes fraward, Bot to turne hym fra wrethe, it es hard.' § XXXVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 133 qumo>j me o]rgh> de> qumo>j e]mme And so too Theodoret, in Ps. lxviii. 25 (lxix. 24, E. V.), where the words occur together: dia> tou? qumou? to> taxu> dedh manner (B.J. ii. 8. 6) describes the Essenes as o]rgh?j tami di notes as one of the characteristic traits of Tiberius, w]rgi e]n oi$j h!kista e]qumou?to (Vita Tib.). Mh?nij (Isai. xvi. 6; Ecclus. xxviii. 4; ‘ira perdurans,’ Datum's Lex. Hom.) and ko inveterata' and ‘ira inveteratissima’ (John of Damascus,
several times in the Septuagint (as at I Kin. xv. 30; 2 Kin. xix. 3), is not=o]rgh<, though we have translated it ‘wrath.’ This it cannot be; for the parorgismo where only in the N. T. the word occurs; but parorgi Rom. x. 19; Ephes. vi. 4), is absolutely forbidden; the sun shall not go down upon it; whereas under certain conditions o]rgh<; is a righteous passion to entertain. The Scripture has nothing in common with the Stoics' ab- solute condemnation of anger. It inculcates no a]pa but only a metriopa suppression, of the passions, which were given to man as winds to fill the sails of his soul, as Plutarch excellently puts it (De Virt. Mor. 12). It takes no such loveless view of other men's sins as his who said, seauto>n mh> ta But even as Aristotle, in agreement with all deeper ethical writers of antiquity (thus see Plato, Legg. v. 731 b:
had affirmed that, when guided by reason, anger is a right affection, so the Scripture permits, and not only permits, but on fit occasions demands, it. This all the 134 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXVII.
Gregory of Nyssa a]gaqo>n kth?no logismou? u[pozu ix. 5): 'In discipline nostra non tam quaeritur utrum pius animus irascatur, sed quare irascatur.’ There is a "wrath of God" (Matt. iii. 7; Rom. xii. 19, and often), who would not love good, unless He hated evil, the two being so, inseparable, that either He must do both or neither;1 a wrath also of the merciful Son of Man (Mark iii. 5); and a wrath which righteous men not merely may, but, as they are righteous, must feel; nor can there be a surer and sadder token of an utterly prostrate moral condition than the not being able to be angry with sin—and sin- ners. ‘Anger,’ says Fuller (Holy State, iii. 8), ‘is one of the sinews of the soul; he that wants it hath a maimed mind, and with Jacob sinew-shrunk in the hollow of his thigh, must needs halt. Nor is it good to converse with such as cannot be angry.’ ‘The affections,’ as another English divine has said, ‘are not, like poisonous plants, to be eradicated; but as wild, to be cultivated.’ St. Paul is not therefore, as so many understand him, condescend- ing here to human infirmity, and saying, ‘Your anger shall not be imputed to you as a sin, if you put it away before nightfall' (see Suicer, Thes. s. v. o]rgh<); but rather, ‘Be ye angry, yet in this anger of yours suffer no sinful element to mingle; there is that which may cleave even to a righteous anger, the parorgismo exasperation, the embitterment (‘exacerbatio’), which must be dismissed at once; that so, being defecated of this impurer element which mingled with it, that only may remain which has a right to remain.'
the excellent words of Lactantius (De Ira Dei, c. 4): ‘Nam si Deus non irascitur impiis et injustis, nec pios utique justosque diligit. In rebus enim diversis aut in utramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in nullam.’ § XXXVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 135
between ‘oil’ and 'ointment;' and this on the very in- sufficient grounds that the Septuagint renders Nm,w, some- times by mu Am. vi. 6); though more frequently, indeed times out of number, by e@laion. But how often in a single word of one language are latent two of another; especially when that other abounds, as does Greek compared with Hebrew, in finer distinctions, in a more subtle notation of meanings;
this, both lying in the Hebrew lwAmA and this duplicity of meaning it is the part of a well-skilled translator to evoke. Nay the thing itself, the mu so naturally grew out of the e@laion (=’oleum’), having oil for its base, with only the addition of spice or scent or other aromatic ingredients,—Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. ii. 8) calls it ‘adulterated oil’ (dedolwme e@laion'),—that it would be long in any language before the necessity of differencing names would be felt. Thus in the Greek itself mu Archilochus (Athenaeus, xv. 37). Doubtless there were ointments in Homer's time; he is satisfied, however, with ‘sweet-smelling oil’ (eu]w?dej e@laion, Od. ii. 339), ‘roseate oil’ (r[odo them.
In later times there was a clear distinction between the two, and one which uttered itself in language. A passage in Xenophon (Conv. ii. 3, 4) turns altogether on the greater suitableness of e@laion for men, of mu last consequently being better pleased that the men should
(Georg. ii. 466): ‘Nec casia liquidi corrumpitur usus olivi.’ 136 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXVIII.
ment’ (e]lai h} mu other supposition our Lord's rebuke to the discourteous Pharisee, "My head with oil thou didst not anoint, but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment" (Luke vii. 46), would lose all, or nearly all, its point. ‘Thou withheldest from Me,’ He would say, ‘cheap and ordinary courtesies; while she bestowed upon Me costly and rare homages;’ where Grotius remarks well: Est enim per- petua a]ntistoixi Christi proluendis: Simon ne aquam quidem. Illa assidua est in pedibus Christi osculandis: Simon ne uno quidem oris osculo Christum accepit. Illa pretioso unguento non caput tantum sed et pedes perfundit: ille ne caput quidem mero oleo: quod perfunctoriae amicitiae fuerat.’ Some have drawn a distinction between the verbs a]lei between mu here. The a]lei or at any rate the superfluous, anointing with ointment, xri (Anim. in Atheneum, xv. 39): [a]lei tuariorum et mollium: xri et ex virtute viventibus convenit:' and Valcknaer: [a]lei<- fesqai dicebantur potissimum homines voluptatibus dedidi, qui pretiosis unguentis caput et manus illinebant; xri de hominibus ponebatur oleo corpus, sanitatis caussa, in- unguentibus.' No traces of such a distinction appear in the N. T.; thus compare Mark vi. 13; Jam. v. 14, with Mark xvi. 1; John xi. 2; nor yet of that of Salmasius (Exere. p. 330): ‘Spissiora linunt, xri A distinction is maintained there, but different from both of these; namely, that a]lei § XXXIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 137 profane, xri is used indiscriminately of all actual anointings, whether with oil or ointment; while xri nexion with xristo ing of the Son, by the Father, with the Holy Ghost, for the accomplishment of his great office, being wholly sepa- rated from all profane and common uses: thus see Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27; x. 38; 2 Cor. i. 21; Heb. i. 9; the only places where it occurs. The same holds good in the Septuagint, where xri and xri all religious and symbolical anointings; a]lei occurring in this sense, not oftener, I believe, than twice in all (Exod. xl. 13; Num. iii. 3). § xxxix. [Ebrai?oj, ]Ioudai?oj, ]Israhli ALL these names are used to designate members of the elect family and chosen race; but they are very capable, as they are very well worthy, of being discriminated.
back to a period earlier than any when one, and very much earlier than any when the other, of the titles we compare with it, were, or could have been, in existence (Josephus, Antt. i. 6. 4). It is best derived from rb,fe, the same word as u[pe allusion to the passing over of Abraham from the other side of Euphrates; who was, therefore, in the language of the Phoenician tribes among whom he came, ‘Abram
Septuagint (Gen. xiv. 13), being from beyond (pe river: thus rightly Origen (in Matt. tom. xi. 5): [Ebrai?oi,
plained, is not one by which the chosen people know themselves, but by which others know them; not one which they have taken, but which others have imposed 138 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXIX.
the 0. T. entirely consistent with this explanation or its origin. In every case it is either a title by which foreigners designate the chosen race (Gen. xxxix. 14, 17; xli. 12 ; Exod. i. 16, 19; I Sam. iv. 6; xiii. 19; xxix. 3; Judith xii. 11); or by which they designate themselves to foreigners (Gen. xl. 15; Exod. 7; iii. 18; v. 3; ix. I; Jon. i. 9); or by which they speak of themselves in tacit opposition to other nations (Gen. xliii. 32; Deut. xv. 12; I Sam. xiii. 3; Jer. xxxiv. 9, 14); never, that is, without such national antagonism, either latent or expressed. When, however, the name ]Ioudai?oj arose, as it did in the later periods of Jewish history (the precise epoch will be presently considered), [Ebrai?oj modified its meaning.. Nothing is more frequent with words than to retire into narrower limits, occupying a part only of some domain whereof once they occupied the whole; when, through the coming up of some new term, they are no longer needed in all their former extent; and when at the same time, through the unfolding of some new relation, they may profitably lend themselves to the expressing of this new. It was exactly thus with [Ebrai?oj. In the N. T., that point of view external to the nation, which it once always implied, exists no longer; neither is every member of the chosen family an [Ebrai?oj now, but only those who, whether dwelling in Palestine or elsewhere, have retained the sacred Hebrew tongue as their native language; the true complement and antithesis to [Ebrai?oj being [Ellh- nisth De Hellenistica, 1643, p. 12), and there employed to designate a Jew of the Dispersion who has unlearned his proper language, and now speaks Greek, and reads or hears read in the synagogue the Scriptures in the Septu- agint Version. This distinction first appears in Acts vi. 1, and is pro- bably intended in the two other passages, where [Ebrai?oj § XXXIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NETV TESTAMENT. 139 occurs (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5); as well as in the super- scription, on whosesoever authority it rests, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is important to keep in mind that in language, not in place of habitation, lay the point of difference between the ‘Hebrew’ and the ‘Hellenist.’ He was a ‘Hebrew,’ wherever domiciled, who retained the use of the language of his fathers. Thus St. Paul, though settled in Tarsus, a Greek city in Asia Minor, describes himself as a ‘Hebrew,’ and of ‘Hebrew’ parents, " Hebrew of Hebrews" (Phil. iii. 5; cf. Acts xxiii. 6); though it is certainly possible that by all this he may mean no more than in a general way to set an empha- sis on his Judaism. Doubtless, the greater number of ‘Hebrews’ were resident in Palestine; yet not this fact, but the language they spoke, constituted them such. It will be well however to keep in mind that this dis- tinction and opposition of [Ebrai?oj to [Ellhnisth distinction within the nation, and not between it and other nations (which is clear at Acts vi. 1, and probably is intended at Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 22), is exclusively a Scriptural one, being hardly recognized by later Chris- tian writers, not at all by Jewish and heathen. Thus Eusebius can speak of Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, who only once in his life visited Jerusalem, for so much I think we may gather from his own words (vol. ii. p. 646, Mangey's Ed.), and who wrote exclusively in Greek (Hist. Eccl. ii. 4): to> me>n ou#n ge Praep. Evang. vii. 13. 21; while Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14), makes continually the antithesis to [Ebrai?oi, not [Ellhnistai<, but !Ellhnej and e@qnh. Theodoret (Opp. vol. ii. p. 1246) styles the Greek-writing historian, Josephus, suggrafreu>j [Ebrai?oj: Origen, Ep. ad Afric. 5. Neither in Josephus himself, nor yet in Philo, do any traces of the N. T. distinction between [Ebrai?oj and [Ellhnisth as little (Plutarch, Symp. iv. 6; Pausanias, v. 7. 3; x. 12. 140 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XXXIX. 5). Only this much of it is recognized, that [Ebrai?oj, though otherwise a much rarer word than ]Ioudai?oj, is always employed when it is intended to designate the people on the side of their language. This rule Jewish, heathen, and Christian writers alike observe, and we speak to the present day of the Jewish nation, but of the Hebrew tongue. This name ]Ioudai?oj is of much later origin. It does not carry us back to the very birth and cradle of the chosen people, to the day when the Father of the faithful passed over the river, and entered on the land of in- heritance; but keeps rather a lasting record of the period of national disruption and decline. It arose, and could only have arisen, with the separation of the tribes into the two rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Then, in- asmuch as the ten trbes, though with worst right (see Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part i. p. 138), assumed Israel as a title to themselves, the two drew their designation from the more important of them, and of Judah came the name MydiUhyi or ]Ioudai?oi. Josephus, so far as I have observed, never employs it in telling the earlier history of his people; but for the first time in reference to Daniel and his young companions (Antt. x. 10. 1). Here, however, by anticipation; that is if his own account of the upcoming of the name is correct; namely, that it first arose after the return from Babylon, and out of the fact that the earliest colony of those who returned was of that tribe (Antt. xi. 5. 7): e]klh e]c h$j h[me h$j prw h[ xw Josephus is clearly in error. We meet ]Ioudai?oi, or rather its Hebrew equivalent, in books of the sacred canon com- posed anterior to, or during, the Captivity, as a designa- tion of those who pertained to the smaller section of the tribes, to the kingdom of Judah (2 Kin. xvi. 6; Jer. xxxii. § XXXIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 141
miah, and Esther; however in these, and especially in Esther, it may be of far more frequent occurrence. It is easy to see how the name extended to the whole nation. When the ten tribes were carried into Assyria, and were absorbed and lost among the nations, that smaller section of the people which remained henceforth represented the whole; and thus it was only natural that ]Ioudai?oj should express, as it now came to do, not one of the kingdom of Judah as distinguished from that of Israel, but any member of the nation, a ‘Jew’ in this wider sense, as opposed to a Gentile. In fact, the word under- went a process exactly the converse of that which [Ebrai?oj had undergone. For [Ebrai?oj, belonging first to the whole nation, came afterwards to belong to a part only; while ]Ioudai?oj, designating at first only the member of a part, ended by designating the whole. It now, in its later, like [Ebrai?oj in its earlier, stage of meaning, was a title by which the descendant of Abraham called himself, when he would bring out the national distinction between himself and other peoples (Rom. ii. 9, 10); thus ‘Jew and Gentile;’ never ‘Israelite and Gentile:’ or which others used about him, when they had in view this same fact; thus the Eastern Wise Men inquire, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews" (Matt. ii. 2)? testifying by the form of this question that they were themselves Gentiles, for they would certainly have asked for the King of Israel, had they meant to claim any nearer share in Him. So, too, the Roman soldiers and the Roman governor give to Jesus the mocking title, "King of the Jews" (Matt. xxvii. 29, 37), while his own countrymen, the high priests, challenge Him to prove by coming down from the cross that He is "King of Israel" (Matt. xxvii. 42). For indeed the absolute name, that which expressed the whole dignity and glory of a member of the theocratic 142 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTA:TIENT. § XXXIX. nation, of the people in peculiar covenant with God, was ]Israhli used by Josephus in his earlier history, as convertible with [Ebrai?oj (Antt. 9. I, 2); in the middle period of his his- tory to designate a member of the ten tribes (viii. 8. 3; ix. 14. 1); and toward the end as equivalent to
and difference to this last that we have to consider it here. This name was for the Jew his especial badge and title of honour. To be descendants of Abraham, this honour they must share with the Ishmaelites (Gen. xvi. 15); of Abraham and Isaac with the Edomites (Gen. xxiv. 25); but none except themselves were the seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they were declared to be. Nor was this all, but more gloriously still, their descent was herein traced up to him, not as he was Jacob, but as he was Israel, who as a Prince had power with God and with men, and prevailed (Gen. xxxii. 28). That this title was accounted the noblest, we have ample proof. Thus, as we have seen, when the ten tribes threw off their alle- giance to the house of David, they claimed in their pride and pretension the name of "the kingdom of Israel" for the new kingdom which they set up—the kingdom, as the name was intended to imply, in which the line of the promises, the true succession of the early patriarchs, ran. So, too, there is no nobler title with which the Lord can adorn Nathanael than that of "an Israelite indeed" (John i. 47), one in whom all which that name involved might indeed be found. And when St. Peter, and again when St. Paul, would obtain a hearing from the men of their own nation, when therefore they address them with the name most welcome to their ears, a@ndrej ]Israhli?tai (Acts ii. 22; iii. 12; xiii. 16; cf. Rom. ix. 4; Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 22) is still the language with which they seek to secure their good-will. When, then, we restrict ourselves to the employment § XL. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 143
proper to them there, we may say that Ebrai?oj is a Hebrew-speaking, as contrasted with a Greek-speaking, or Hellenizing, Jew (which last in our Version we have well called a ‘Grecian,’ as differenced from !Ellhn, a veri- table ‘Greek’ or other Gentile); ]Ioudai?oj is a Jew in his national distinction from a Gentile; while ]Israhli augustest title of all, is a Jew as he is a member of the theocracy, and thus an heir of the promises. In the first is predominantly doted his language; in the second his nationality ( ]Ioudai*smo vileges and glorious vocation. xl. ai]te THESE words are often rendered by our Translators as though they covered the same spaces of meaning, the one as the other; nor can we object to their rendering, in numerous instances, ai]tei?n and e]rwta?n alike by our English ‘to ask.’ Yet sometimes they have a little marred the perspicuity of their translation by not varying their word, where the original has shown them the way. For example, the obliteration at John xvi. 23 of the distinction between ai]tei?n and e]rwta?n might easily suggest a wrong interpreta- tion of the verse,—as though its two clauses were in near connexion, and direct antithesis,—being indeed in none. In our Version we read: "In that day ye shall ask Me nothing [e]me> ou]k e]rwth unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask [o!sa a}n ai]th Father in my name, He will give it you." Now every one competent to judge is agreed, that "ye shall ask" of the first half of the verse has nothing to do with "ye shall ask” of the second; that in the first Christ is referring back to the h@qelon au]to>n e]rwta?n of ver. 19; to the questions which the disciples would fain have asked of Him, the 144 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XL.
Him, if only they dared to set these before Him. ‘In that day,’ He would say, in the day of my seeing you again, I will by the Spirit so teach you all things, that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no longer wishing to ask Me questions (cf. John xxi. 12), if only you might venture to do so.’ Thus Lampe well: ‘Nova est promissio de plenissima, cognitionis luce, qua, convenienter oeconomiae Novi Testamenti collustrandi essent. Nam sicut quaestio supponit inscitiam, ita qui nihil amplius quaerit abunde se edoctum existimat, et in doctrina plene exposita ac intel- lects acquiescit.' There is not in this verse a contrast drawn between asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the Father, which shall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of one blessing, namely, that hereafter they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire; the second half of the verse begins the declaration of a new blessing, that, whatever they shall seek from the Father in the Son's name, He will give it them. Yet none will say that this is the impression which the English text conveys to his mind.
The distinction between the words is this. Ai]te Latin ‘peto,’ is more submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the seeking of the inferior from the superior (Acts xii. 20); of the beggar from him that should give alms (Acts iii. 2); of the child from the parent (Matt. vii. 9; Luke vi. 11; Lam. iv. 4); of the subject from the ruler (Ezra viii. 22); of man from God (I Kin. iii. 11; Matt. vii. 7; Jam. i. 5; I John iii. 22; cf. Plato, Euthyph. 14: eu@xesqai, [e@stin] ai]tei?n tou>j qeou times (as John xvi. 23; cf. Gen. xliv. 19) ‘interrogo,’ its only meaning in classical Greek, where it never signifies ‘to ask,’ but only ‘to interrogate,’ or ‘to inquire.’ Like § XL. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145
footing of equality with him from whom the boon is asked, as king with king (Luke xiv. 32), or, if not of equality, on such a footing of familiarity as lends authority to the request. Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the sin- gular accuracy in the employment of words, and in the record of that employment, which prevails throughout the N. T., that our Lord never uses ai]tei?n or ai]tei?sqai of Him- self, in respect of that which He seeks on behalf of his disciples from God; for his is not the petition of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that often as He asks, or declares that He will ask, any- thing of the Father, it is always e]rwtw?, e]rwth ing, that is, as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20), never ai]te contrary, plainly reveals her poor unworthy conception of his person, that she recognizes in Him no more than a prophet, when she ascribes that ai]tei?sqai to Him, which He never ascribes to Himself: o!sa a}n ai]th dw observes: ‘Jesus, de se rogante loquens e]deh xxii. 32), et e]rwth locuta est Martha, sed tamen Johannes exprimit impro- prium ejus sermonem, quem, Dominus benigne tulit: nam
his note on 1 John v. 16. It will follow that the e]rwta?n, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch as it has authority in it, is not proper for us; and in no single instance is it used in the N. T. to express the prayer of man to God, of the creature to the Creator. The only passage seeming to contradict this
viderer, quia familiaris esset meus.’ 146 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XLI.
ever of the various ways of overcoming its difficulty may find favour, it will be found to constitute no true exception to the rule, and perhaps, in the substitution of e]rwth the ai]th confirm it. § xli. a]na . OUR VERSION renders both these words by 'rest'; a]na at Matt. xi. 29; xii. 43; and a@nesij at 2 Cor. ii. 13; vii. 5; 2 Thess. 7. No one can object to this; while yet, on a closer scrutiny, we perceive that they repose on dif- ferent images, and contemplate this ‘rest’ from different points of view. ]Ana , from a]napau pause or cessation from labour (Rev. iv. 8); it is the con- stant word in the Septuagint for the rest of the Sabbath; thus Exod. xvi. 23; xxxi. 15; xxxv. 2, and often. @Anesij, from a]ni Yüklə 3,52 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|