Synonyms of the New Testament
e@laben e]f ] oi$j e@ptaisen, kai> mete, meta> tau?ta
Yüklə 3,52 Mb.
|
e@laben e]f ] oi$j e@ptaisen, kai> mete 258 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXIX. e@gnw: bradei?a ga>r gnw?sij, meta of Stobaeus, i. 14: ou] metanoei?n a]lla> pronoei?n xrh> to>n a@ndra to>n sofo of mind consequent on this after-knowledge; thus Tertul- lian (Adv. Marcion. ii. 24): ‘In Graeco sermone poeniten- ti nomen non ex delicti confessione, sed ex animi demu- tatione, compositurn, est.’ At its third, it is regret for the course pursued; resulting from the change of mind con- sequent on this after-knowledge; with a dusare displeasure wit oneself thereupon; ‘passio quaedam animi quae veniat de offensa sententi ‘prioris,’ which, as Ter- tullian (De Poenit. I) affirms, was all that the heathen understood by it. At this stage of its meaning it is found associated with dhgmo with ai]sxu cf. Lucian, De Saltat. 84). Last of all it signifies change of conduct for the future, springing from all this. At the same time this change of mind, and of action upon this following, may be quite as well ap change for the worse as for the better; there is no need that it should be a ‘resipiscentia' as well; this is quite a Christian super- addition to the word. Thus A. Gellius (xvii. I. 6): ‘Poe- nitere tum dicere solemus, cum quae ipsi fecimus, aut quae de nostra voluntate nostroque consilio facta sunt, ea nobis post incipiunt displicere, sententiamque in iis nostram demutamus.' In like manner Plutarch (Sept. Sap. Conv. 21) tells us of two murderers, who, having spared a child, afterwards ‘repented’ (meteno it; metame repenting of gold (De Ser. Num. Vin. 11); so that here also Tertullian had right in his complaint (De Poenit. i): ‘Quam autem in poenitentiae actu irrationaliter deversentur [ethnici], vel uno isto satis erit expedire, cum illam etiam in bonis actis suis adhibent. Poenitet fidei, amoris, sim- plicitatis, patientiae misericordiae, prout quid in ingratiam cecidit.’ The regret may be, and often is, quite uncon- § LXIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 259
of any moral law, may be simply what our fathers were wont to call ‘hadiwist’ (had-I-wist better, I should have acted otherwise); thus see Plutarch, De Lib. Ed. 14; Sept. Sap. Conv. 12; De Soler. Anim. 3: lu meta from pain, which we call repentance’ (Holland). That it had sometimes, though rarely, an ethical meaning, none would of course deny, in which sense Plutarch (De Ser. Num. Vin. 6) has a passage in wonderful har- mony with Rom. ii. 4; and another (De Tranq. Animi, 19), in which metame used.
It is only after meta of Scripture, or of writers dependant on scripture, that it comes predominantly to mean a change if mind, taking a
and out of all this a change of life for the better; e]pistrofh> tou? bi as Plato already had, in part at least, described it, metastrofh> a]po> tw?n skiw?n e]pi> to> fw?j (Rep. vii. 532 b) peristrofh<, yuxh?j periagwgh< (Rep. vii. 21 c). This is all imported into, does not etymologically nor yet by primary usage lie in, the word. Not very frequent in the Septuagint or the Apocrypha (yet see Ecclus. xliv. 15; Wisd. xi. 24; xii. 10, 19; and for the verb, Jer. viii. 6), it is common in Philo, who joins meta (De Abrah. 3), explaining it as pro>j to> be (ibid. and De Poen. 2); while in the N. T. metanoei?n and meta singular how rarely this in the writings of St. Paul is the case, metanoei?n but once (2 Cor. xii. 21), and meta four times (Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10; 2 Tim. ii. 25), are never employed in other than an ethical sense; 'die unter Schmerz der Rene sick im Personleben des Menschen 260 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXIX.
described it. But while thus metanoei?n and meta in depth and fulness of meaning, till they became the fixed and recognize words to express that mighty change in mind, heart, and life wrought by the Spirit of God (‘such a virtuous alteration of the mind and purpose as begets a like virtuous change in the life and practice,' Kettlewell), which we call repentance; the like honour was very par- tially vouchsafed to metame styled by Plutarch sw the N. T.; the second only five times; and designating on one of these he sorrow of this world which worketh death, of Judas Iscariot (Matt. xxvii. 3), and on another expressing, not the repentance of men, but the change of mind of God (Heb. vii. 21); and this while meta some five and twenty, and metanoei?n some five and thirty times. Those who deny that either in profane or sacred Greek any traceable difference existed between the words are able, in the former, to point to passages where meta- me claimed for meta as convertibleterms, and both to express remorse (Plutarch,
N. T. where metame have implied Matt. xxi. 29, 32). But all this freely admitted, there does remain, both in sacred and profane use, a very distinct preference for meta of the nobler repentance. This we might, indeed, have expected before hand, from the relative etymological force of the words. He who has changed his mind about the past is in the way to change everything; he who has an § LXX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 261 after care may have little or nothing more than a selfish dread of the consequences of what he has one (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. ix. 4. 10: metamelei that the long dispute on the relation of these words with one another may be summed up in the statement of Bengel, which seems to me to express the exact truth of the matter; allowing a difference, but not urging it too far (Gnomon N. T.; 2 Cor. vii. 10): ‘Vi etymi meta est mentis, metame haec solicitudinem vel potius studium mutatum dicat. . . . Utrumque ergo dicitur de eo, quem facti consiliive poenitet, sive poenitentia bona sit sive mala, sive malae rei sive bonae, sive cum mutatione actionum in posterum, sive citra eam. Veruntamen si usum spectes, metame me gulares: meta sumitur, quo notatur poenitentia totius vitae ipsorumque nostri quodammodo: sive tota illa beata mentis post errorem et peccata reminiscentia, cum om ibus affectibus eam ingredientibus, quam fructus digni sequuntur. Hinc fit ut metanoei?n saepe in imperativo ponatur, metamelei?sqai nunquam: ceteris autem locis, ubicunque meta metame Witsius, De OEcon. Foed. Dei, 12. 130 -136; Girdlestone, Old Testament Synonyms, p. 153 sqq. § lxx. morfh<, sxh?ma, i]de THESE words are none of them of frequent recurrence in the N. T., morfh< occurring there only twice (Mark xvi. 12; Phil. ii. 6); but compare mo 5); sxh?ma not oftener (1 Cor. vii. 31; Phil. ii. 8); and i]de only once (Matt. xxviii. 3). Morfh< is ‘form,’ ‘forma,’ 'gestalt'; sxh?ma is ‘fashion,’ ‘habitus,’ ‘figur'; i]de ‘appearance,’ ‘species,’ ‘erscheinung.’ The first two, which, occur not unfrequently together (Plutarch, Symp. 262 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXX.
of a thing would exist, were it alone in the universe, and whether there were any to behold it or no. The other (i]de thing implying some to whom this appearance is made; there must needs be a seer before there can be a seen. We may best study the distinction between morfh< and
of that great doctrinal passage (Phil. ii. 6-8), in which St. Paul speaks of the Eternal Word before his Incarnation as subsisting "in the form of God" (e]n morf^? qeou? u[pa servant" (morfh>n dou and during his walk upon earth as "being found in
Fathers were wont to urge the first phrase, e]n morf^? Qeou? u[pa 45; Ambrose, Ep. 46; Gregory of Nyssa, Con. Eunom. 4); and the Lutherans did the same against the Socinians, as a ‘dictum probans’ of the absolute divinity of the Son of God; that is, morfh< for them was here equivalent to ou]sior fu now generally acknowledged, be maintained. Doubtless there does lie in the words a proof of the divinity of Christ, but this implicitly and not explicitly. Morfh< is not=ou]si qeou? who was not God; as is well put by Bengel: ‘Forma Dei non est natura, divina, sed tamen is qui in forma, Dei extabat, Deus est;' and this because morfh<, like the Latin ‘forma,’ the German ‘gestalt,’ signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not ‘being,’ but ‘mode of being,’ or better, ‘mode of existence’; and only God could have the mode of existence of God. But He who had thus been from eternity e]n morf^? qeou? (John xvii. 5), took at his Incarnation morfh>n dou of his Incarnation is herein implied; there was nothing § LXX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 263
existence was now that of a dou?loj, that is, of a dou?loj tou? qeou?: for in the midst of all our Lord's humiliations He was never a dou?loj a]nqrw . Their dia have been, and from time to time eminently was (John xiii. 4, 5; Matt. xx. 28); this was part of his tapei mentioned in the next verse; but their dou?loj never; they, on the contrary, his. It was with respect of God He so emptied Himself of his glory, that, from that manner of existence in which He thought it not robbery to be equal with God, He became his servant. The next clause, "and being found in fashion (sxh as a man," is very instructive for the distinguishing of sxh?ma from morfh<. The verity of the Son's Incarnation was expressed, as we have seen, in the morfh>n dou labw outward facts which came under the knowledge of his fellow-men, with therefore an emphasis on eu[reqei was by men found in fashion as a man, the sxh?ma here signifying his whole outward presentation, as Bengel puts it well: [sxh?ma, habitus, cultus, vestitus, victus, gestus, sermones et actiones.' In none of these did there appear any difference between Him and the other children of men. This superficial character of sxh?ma appears in its asso- ciation with such words as xrw?ma (Plato, Gorg. 20; Theoetet. 163 b) and u[pografh< (Legg. v. 737 d); as in the definition of it which Plutarch gives (De Plac. Phil. 14): e]sti>n e]pifa kai> perigrafh> kia> pe in an instructive antithesis by Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 9). The distinction between them comes out very clearly in the compound verbs metasxhmati Thus if I were to change a Dutch garden into an Italian, this would be metasxhmatismo a garden into something wholly different; as into a city, this would be metamo metasxhmati 264 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXX. 14); he can take the whole outward semblance of such. But to any such change of his it would be impossible to apply the metamorfou?sqai: for this would imply a change not external but internal, not of accidents but of essence, which lies quite beyond his power. How fine and subtle is the variation of words at Rom. xii. 2; though 'con- formed' and ‘transformed’1 in our Translation have failed adequately to represent it. ‘Do not fall in,’ says the Apostle, ‘with the fleeting fashions of this world, nor be yourselves fashioned to them (mh> susxhmati undergo a deep abiding change (a]lla> metamorfou?sqe) by the renewing of your mind, such as the Spirit of God alone can work in you’ (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18). Theodoret, commenting on this verse, calls particular attention to this variation of the word used, a variation which it would task the highest skill of the English scholar adequately to reproduce in his own language. Among much else which is interesting, he says: e]di th?j a]reth?j to> dia a]reth>n de> morfh to> de> sxh?ma eu]dia rejects all this, and has this note: ‘Beide Worte stehen im Gegensatze nur durch die Prapositionen, ohne Differenz des Stamm-Verba;' with whom Fritzsche agrees (in loc.). One can understand a commentator overlooking, but scarcely one denying, the significance of this change. For the very different uses of one word and the other, see Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Amie. 7, where both occur. At the resurrection Christ shall transfigure (metasxh-
xv. 53); on which statement Calov remarks, ‘Ille meta- 1 The Authorized Version is the first which uses ‘transformed’ here; Wiclif and the Rheims, both following closely the Vulgate, 'transfigured,' and the intermediate Reformed Versions, ‘changed into the fashion of.’ If the distinctions here drawn are correct, and if they stand good in English as well as Greek, ‘transformed’ is not the word. § LXX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 265 sxhmatismo talem, non ratione quidditatis corporis nostri, sed ratione qualitatum, salva quidditatis, importat:' but the changes of heathen deities into wholly other shapes were metamor-
no absolute solution of continuity. The butterfly, prophetic type of man's resurrection, is immeasurably more beautiful than the grub, yet has been duly unfolded from it; but when Proteus transforms himself into a flame, a wild beast, a running stream (Virgil, Georg. iv. 442), each of these disconnected with all that went before, there is here a change not of the sxh?ma merely, but of the morfh< (cf. Euripides, Hec. 1266 ; Plato, Locr. 104 e). When the Evangelist records that after the resurrection Christ ap- peared to his disciples e]n e[te words intimate to us how vast the mysterious change to which his body had been submitted, even as they are in keeping with the metemorfw the transformation upon the Mount being a prophetic anticipation of that which hereafter should be; compare Dan. iv. 33, where Nebuchadnezzar says of himself, h[
The morfh< then, it may be assumed, is of the essence of a thing.1 We cannot conceive the thing as apart from this its formality, to use ‘formality’ in the old logical sense; the sxh?ma is its accident, having to do, not with the ‘quidditas,’ but the ‘qualitas,’ and, whatever changes it may undergo, leaving the ‘quidditas’ untouched, the thing itself essentially, or formally, the same as it was before; as one has said, morfh> fu the whole outward array and adornment of a monarch— diadem, tiara, sceptre, robe (cf. Lucian, Hermot. 86)—all
fond. La figure au contraire est plus independante des objets; se con- coit a part' (Lafaye, Syn. Fran. p. 617). 266 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXX. which he might lay aside, and remain king notwithstand- ing. It in no sort belongs or adheres to the man as a part of himself. Thus Menander (Meineke, Fragm. Com. p. 985):
pra?on kakou?rgo kekrumme Thus, too, the sxh?ma tou? kosmou? passes away (1 Cor. vii. 31), the image being here probably drawn from the shift- ing scenes of a theatre, but the ko is no te For some valuable remarks on the distinction between
out more fully by Bishop Lightfoot, their author, in his Commentary on the Philippians, pp. 125-131. The use in Latin of ‘forma’ and ‘figura,’ so far cor- responds with those severally of morfh< and sxh?ma, that while ‘figura forme’ occurs not rarely (‘veterem formae servare figuram’; cf. Cicero, Nat. Deor. 32), ‘forma figurae never (see Doderlein, Latein. Syn. vol. iii. p. 87). Contrast too in English ‘deformed’ and ‘disfigured.’ A hunchback is ‘deformed,’ a man that has been beaten about the face may be ‘disfigured’; the deformity is bound up in the very existence of the one; the disfigure- ment of the other may in a few days have quite passed away. In ‘transformed’ and ‘transfigured’ it is easy to recognize the same distinction.
xxviii. 3) is rendered ‘countenance,’ as at 2 Macc. iii. 16 ‘face.’ It is not a happy translation; 'appearance' would be better; ‘species sub oculos cadens,’ not the thing itself, but the thing as beholden; thus Plato (Rep. ix. 588 c), pla self the image of a manifold beast’; so i]de, the look of the countenance (Plutarch, Pyrr. 3, and often); i]de, fair to look on (Pindar, Olymp. xi. 122); xio § LXXI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 267 i]de 48). Plutarch defines it, the last clause of his definition alone concerning us here (De Plac. Phil. i. 9): i]den
the i]dei?n lying at its own base; oftentimes it is manifestly so, as in the following quotation from Philo, which is further instructive as showing how fundamentally his doc- trine of the Logos differed from St. John's, was in fact a denial of it in its most important element: o[ de> u[pera tou i]de i]de tinction between them at all, see Stallbaum's note on Plato's Republic, x. 596 b; Donaldson's Cratylus, 3rd ed. p. 105; and Thompson's note on Archer Butler's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 127.
it cannot be said to have a distinctly ethical employment; seeing that in them it is only the meanness of the sw?ma yu-
with the glory of the sw?ma pneumatiko bear (I Cor. xv. 44 bis, 46). On the other three occasions a moral emphasis rests on the word, and in every instance a most depreciatory. Thus St. Paul declares the yuxiko receives not and cannot receive, as having no organ for their reception, the things of the Spirit of God (I Cor. ii. 14); St. James (iii. 15) characterizes the wisdom which is yuxikh<, as also e]pi ‘devilish;' St. Jude explains the yuxikoi< as those pneu?ma mh> e@xontej (ver. 19). The word nowhere appears in the Septuagint; but yuxikw?j in the sense of ‘heartily’ (=e]k 268 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXI.
37; xiv. 24). It is at first with something of surprise that we find
the modern fashion of talking about the soul, as though it were the highest part of man, does not diminish this sur- prise; would rather lead us to expect to find it associated with pneumatiko of distinction between them. But, indeed, this (which thus takes us by surprise) is characteristic of the inner differences between Christian and heathen, and indicative of those better gifts and graces which the Dispensation of the Spirit has brought into the world. Yuxiko ally used as the highest in later classical Greek literature— the word appears first in Aristotle--being there opposed to sarkiko there is no ethical antithesis, to swmatiko Nic. 10. 2; Plutarch, De Plac. Phil. i. 9; Polybius, vi. 5. 7), and constantly employed in praise, must, come down from its high estate, another so much greater than it being installed in the highest place of all. That old philosophy knew of nothing higher than the soul of man; but Reve- lation knows of the Spirit of God, and of Him making his habitation with men, and calling out an answering spirit in them. There was indeed a certain reaching out after this higher in the distinction which Lucretius and others drew between the ‘anima’ and the ‘animus,’ giving, as they did, the nobler place to the last. Ac- cording to Scripture the yuxh<, no less than the da belongs to the lower region of man's being; and if a double employment of yuxh< there (as at Matt. xvi. 26; Mark viii. 35), requires a certain caution in this statement, it is at any rate plain that yuxiko 1 Hilary has not quite, however nearly, extricated himself from this notion, and in the following passage certainly ascribes more to the yuxiko than the Scriptures do, however plainly he sets him in opposition to the § LXXI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 269 more than sarkiko plied to this lower. The yuxiko whom the yuxh< is the highest motive power of life and action; in whom the pneu?ma, as the organ of the divine Pneu?ma, is suppressed, dormant, for the time as good as extinct; whom the operations of this divine Spirit have never lifted into the region of spiritual things (Rom. vii. 14; viii. i; Jude 19). For a good collection of passages from the Greek Fathers in which yuxiko see Suicer, Thes. s. v. It may be affirmed that the sarkiko alike, in the language of Scripture, are set in opposition to the pneumatiko they are predicated a ruling principle antagonistic to the pneu?ma, though they do not ascribe the same. When St. Paul reminds the Ephesians how they lived once, "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind" (Ephes. ii. 3), he describes them first as sarkikoi<, and then as yuxikoi<. For, indeed, in men unregenerate there are two forms of the life lived apart from God; and, though every unregenerate man partakes of both, yet in some one is more predominant, and in some the other. There are sarkikoi<, in whom the sa as there are yuxikoi<, in whom the yuxh<. It is quite true that sa entire domain of our nature fallen and made subject to pneumatiko hominem posuit, et animalem [yuxiko nalem, modo divina et humana negligentem, cujus vita corporis famula sit, negotiosa cibo, somno, libidine. Animalis autem, qui ex judicio sensus human quid decens honestumque sit, sentiat, atque ab omnibus vitiis animo suo auctore se referat, suo proprio sensu utilia et honesta dijudicans; ut pecuniam spernat, ut jejuniis parcus sit, ut am- bitione careat, ut voluptatibus resistat. Spiritalis autem est, cui superiors illa ad Dominum studia sint, et hoc quod agit, per scientiam Dei agat, intelligens et cognoscens quae sit voluntas Ejus, et sciens quae ratio sit a Deo carnis assumptae, qui crucis triumphus, quae mortis potestas, quae in virtute resurrectionis operatio.' Compare Irenaeus, v. 6. 270 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXI.
(Rom. vii. 18; viii. 5). Thus the e@rga th?j sarko v. 19-21) are not merely those sinful works that are wrought in and through the body, but those which move in the sphere and region of the mind as well; more than one half of those enumerated there belonging to the latter class. But for all this the word, covering at times the whole region of that in man which is alienated from God and from the life in God, must accept its limitation when the yuxh< is brought in to claim that which is peculiarly its own. There is an admirable discussion on the difference between the words, in Bishop Reynolds' Latin sermon on I Cor. ii. 14, preached before the University of Oxford, with the title Animalis Homo (Works, Lond. 1826, vol. iv. p. 349). I quote the most important paragraph bearing on the matter in hand: ‘Verum cum homo ex carne et anima constet, sitque anima pars homines praestantior, quamvis saepius irregenitos, propter appetitum in vitia pronum, atque praecipites concupiscentiae motus, sa sarkikou homines a praestantiore parte denominat, ut eos se intelli- gere ostendat, non qui libidinis mancipia sunt, et crassis concupiscentiis vel nativum lumen obruunt (hujusmodi enim homines a@loga zw?a vocat Apostolus, 2 Pet. ii. 12), sed homines sapientiae studio deditos, et qui ea sola, quae stulta et absurda sunt, rejicere solent. Hic itaque yuxikoi< sunt quotquot to> pneu?ma ou]k e@xousi (Jud. 19), utcunque alias exquisitissimis naturae dotibus praefulgeant, utcunque potissimam partem, nempe animam, omnigena eruditione excolant, et rectissime ad praescriptum rationis vitam dirigant. Denique eos hic yuxikou Sapientes, Scribas, Disquisitores, et istius seculi principes appellaverat, ut excludatur quidquid est nativae aut ac- quisitae perfectionis, quo naturae viribus assurgere possit ratio humana. Yuxiko § LXXI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 271
Chrysostomus: qui denique nihil in se eximium habet, praeter animam rationalem, cujus solius lucem ductumque sequitur.' I add a few words of Grotius to the same effect (Annott. in N. T.; I Cor. 14): Non idem est yuxiko>j
rationis luce ducitur, sarkiko natur; sed plerunque yuxikoi< aliqua, in parte sunt sarkikoi<, ut Grecorum philosophi scortatores, puerorum corruptores, glariae aucupes, maledici, invidi. Verum hic [1 Cor. ii. 14] nihil aliud designatur quam homo humara tantum ratione nitens, quales erant Judaeorum plerique et philo- sophi Graecorum.' The question, how to translate yuxiko easy to answer. ‘Soulish,’ which some have proposed, has the advantage of standing in the same relation to ‘soul’ that yuxiko the word is hardly English, and would certainly convey no meaning at all to ordinary English readers. Wiclif rendered it ‘beastly,’ which, it need hardly be said, had nothing for him of the meaning of our ‘bestial’ (see my Select Glossary, s. v.); but was simply='animal' (he found ‘animalis’ in his Vulgate); the Rhemish ‘sensual,’ which, at Jam. iii. 15; Jude 19, our Translators have adopted, substituting this for ‘fleshly,’ which was in Cranmer's and the Geneva Version. On the other three occasions they have rendered it ‘natural.’ These are both unsatisfactory renderings, and ‘sensual’ more so now than at the time when our Version was made, ‘sensual’ and ‘sensuality’ having considerably modified their meaning since that time; and now implying a deeper degradation than once they did. On the whole subject of the relations of the yuxh< to the sa ing, though not very easy to master, in Delitzsch's Psycho-
272 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. §LXXII. § lxxii. sarkiko A DISCUSSION on the relations between yuxiko naturally draws after it one on the relations between sar- kiko three, or perhaps four, times in the N. T.; only once in- deed in the received text (2 Cor. iii. 3); but the evidence is overwhelming for the right it has to a place at Rom. vii. 14; Heb. 16, as well, while a proponderance of evidence is in favour of allowing sa I Cor. iii. I. Words with the termination in –inoj, metousiastika< as they are called, designating, as they most frequently do, the stuff of which anything is made (see Donaldson, Cratylus, 3rd edit. p. 458; Winer, Gramm. § xvi. 3; Fritzsche, Ep. ad Rom. vol. ii. p. 46), are common in the N. T.; thus qu of glass, glassen (Rev. iv. 6), u[akinqinoj (Rev. ix. 7), der- ma these is sa antiquity recognized (sarkiko having been called out by the ethical necessities of the Church), and at 2 Cor. iii. 3 well rendered ‘fleshy’; that is, having flesh for the substance and material of which it is composed. I am unable to affirm that the word ‘fleshen’ ever existed in the English language. If it had done so, and still survived, it would be better still; for ‘fleshy’ may be ‘carnosus,’ as undoubtedly may sa as well (Plato, Legg. x. 906 c; Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. iii. 9. 3), while ‘fleshen’ must mean what sa here, namely ‘carneus,’ or having flesh for its material. The former existence of such a word is not improbable, many of a like form having once been current, which have now passed away; as, for example, ‘stonen,’ ‘hornen,’ ‘hairen,’ ‘clayen’ (all in Wiclif's Bible), ‘threaden’ § LXXII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 273 (Shakespeare), ‘tinnen’ (Sylvester), ‘milken,’ ‘breaden,’ ‘reeden,’ with many more (see my English Past and Pre- sent, 10th edit. p. 256). Their perishing is to be regretted, for they were often by no means superfluous. The German has ‘steinig’ and ‘steinern,’ and finds use for both; as the Latin does for ‘lapidosus’ and ‘lapideus,’ for ‘saxo- sus’ and ‘saxeus.’ We might have done the same for ‘stony’ and ‘stollen’; a ‘stony’ place is one where the stones are many, a ‘stonen’ vessel would be a vessel made of stone (see John ii. 6; Rev. ix. 20, Wiclif's Version, where the word is found). Or again, a ‘glassy’ sea is a sea resembling glass, ‘glassen’ sea is a sea made of glass. And thus too ‘fleshly,’ ‘fleshy,’ and ‘fleshen,’ would have been none too many; as little as are ‘earthly,’ ‘earthy,’ and ‘earthen,’ for each of which we are able to find its own proper employment. ‘Fleshly’ lusts (‘carnal’ is the word oftener employed in our Translation, but in fixing the relations between sarkiko ploy ‘fleshly’ and ‘fleshy’) are lusts which move and stir in the ethical domain of the flesh, which have in that rebellious region of man's corrupt and fallen nature their source and spring. Such are the sarkikai> e]piqumi ii. 11), and the man is sarkiko a place which does not belong to it of right. It is in its place so long as it is under the dominion of the pneu?ma, and receives a law from it; but becomes the source of all sin and all opposition to God so soon as the true positions of these are reversed, and that rules which should have been ruled. When indeed St. Paul says of the Corinthians (1 Cor. iii. I) that they were sa fault indeed with them; but the accusation is far less grave than if he had written sarkikoi<, instead. He does not hereby charge them with positive active opposition to the Spirit of God—this is evident from the w[j nh?pioi, with which he proceeds to explain it—but only that they were 274 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. §LXXII.
old of the faith (cf. Heb. v. 11, 12); making no progress, and content to remain where they were, when they might have been carried far onward by the mighty transforming powers of that Spirit freely given to them of God. He does not charge them in this word with being anti- spiritual, but only with being unspiritual, with being flesh and little more, when they might have been much more. He goes on indeed, at ver. 3, 4, to charge them with the graver guilt of allowing the sa ruling principle in them; and he consequently changes his word. They were not sa no Church can long tarry at this point, but sarkikoi< as well, and, as such, full of "envying and strife and divisions." In what way our Translators should have marked the distinction between sa so easy to suggest. It is most likely, indeed, that the difficulty did not so much as present itself to them, accept- ing, as they probably did, the received text, in which there is no variation of the words. At 2 Cor. iii. 3 all was plain before them: the sa given it well, the "fleshy tables"; Erasmus observing to the point there, that sa materiam intelligas, non qualitatem.' St. Paul is drawing a contrast between the tables of stone on which the law of Moses was written and the tables of flesh on which Christ's law is written, and exalting the last over the first; and so far from ‘fleshy’ there being a dishonour- able epithet, it is a most honourable, serving as it does to set forth the superiority of the new Law over the old—the one graven on dead tables of stone, the other on the hearts of living men (cf. Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26; Jer. xxxi. 33; Heb. viii. 10; x. i6). § LXXIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 275
here brought, it will be evident that it is proposed to deal with it in its natural and earthly, not in its supernatural and heavenly, meaning. Only I will observe, that on the relations between pnoh< and pneu?ma, in this its higher sense there is a discussion in Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xiii. 22; cf. De Anim. et huj. Orig. i. 14, 19. The first three words of this group, as they designate not things heavenly but things earthly, differ from one another exactly as, accord- ing to Seneca, do .in the Latin ‘aer,’ ‘spiritus,’ ‘ventus’ (Nat. Qu. v. 13): ‘Spiritum a vento motus1 separat; vehe- mentior enim spiritus ventus est; invicem spiritus leviter fluens aer.'
xlii. 5; lvii. 16; pnoh< conveying the impression of a lighter, gentler, motion of the air than pneu?ma, as 'aura' than ‘ventus.’ Compare Aristotle (De Mundo, iv. 10): ta> e]n a]e pne ferome distinction: Semper aer spiritu aliquo movetur; frequen- tins tamen auras quam ventos habet'; Philo no less (Leg.
Yüklə 3,52 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|