Synonyms of the New Testament

14) than a]su; for, while the a]su need not be

more than intellectually deficient, in the a]no there is

always a moral fault lying behind the intellectual; the

vows, the highest knowing power in man, the organ by

which divine things are apprehended and known, being

the ultimate seat of the error (Luke xxiv. 25, w# a]no

bradei?j t^? kardi<%: Gal. iii. I, 3 ; I Tim. vi. 9 ; Tit. iii. 3).

@Anoia, (Luke vi. 11; 2 Tim. iii. 9) is ever the foolishness

which is akin to and derived from wickedness, even as

284 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXV.
sofi is the wisdom which is akin to goodness, or rather

is goodness itself contemplated from one particular point

of view; as indeed the wisdom which only the good can

possess. Ammon, a modern German rationalist, gives

not badly a definition of the sofo or ‘sapiens'; i.e. cog-

nitione optimi, et adminiculorum ad id efficiendum idoneo-

rum instructus.'

But fro, being a right use and application of the

frh, is a middle term. It may be akin to sofi (Prov.

x. 23),—they are interchangeably used by Plato (Symp.

202 a),—but it may also be akin to panourgi (Job v. 13;

Wisd. xvii. 7). It skilfully adapts its means to the attain-

ment of the ends which it desires; but whether the ends

themselves which are proposed are good, of this it affirms

nothing. On the different kinds of fro, and the very

different senses in which fro is employed, see Basil

the Great, Hom. in Princ. Prov. § 6. It is true that as

often as fro occurs in the N. T. (e]n fronh

Luke i. 17; sofi<% kai> fronh, Ephes. i. 8), it is used of

a laudable prudence, but for all this fro is not wisdom,

nor the fro the wise; and Augustine (De Gen. ad

Lit. xi. 2) has perfect right when he objects to the

‘sapientissirnus,’ with which his Latin Version had ren-

dered fronimw at Gen. iii. 1, saying, ‘Abusione

nominis sapientia dicitur in malo;' cf. Con. Guad. 5.

And the same objection, as has been often urged, holds

good against the "wise as serpents" (Matt. x. 16), "wiser

than the children of light" (Luke xvi. 8), of our own

Version.¹

On the distinction between sofi and gnw?sij Bengel

has the following note (Gnomon, in I Cor. xii. 8): ‘Illud

certum, quod, ubi Deo ascribuntur, in solis objectis dif-

ferunt; vid. Rom. xi. 33. Ubi fidelibus tribuuntur,

¹ The Old Italic runs perhaps into the opposite extreme, rendering

fro here by ‘astuti'; which, however, had not in the later Latin at

all so evil a subaudition as it had in the classical; so Augustine (Ep.

167. 6) assures us.

§ LXXV. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 285

sapientia [sofi] magis in longum, latum, profundum et

altum penetrat, quam cognitio [gnw?sij]. Cognitio est

quasi visus; sapientia visus cum sapore; cognitio, rerum

agendarum; sapientia, rerum aeternarum; quare etiam

sapientia non dicitur abroganda, I Cor xiii. 8.’

Of e]pi, as compared with gnw?sij, it will be

sufficient to say that e]pi<, must be regarded as intensive,

giving to the compound word a greater strength than the

simple possessed; thus e]pipoqe (2 Cor. v. 2), e]pimele:

and, by the same rule, if gnw?sij is ‘cognitio,’ ‘kenntniss,’

e]pi is ‘major exactiorque cognitio’ (Grotius), ‘er-

kenntniss,’ a deeper and more intimate knowledge and

acquaintance. This we take to be its meaning, and not

‘recognition,’ in the Platonic sense of reminiscence, as

distinguished from cognition, if we might use that word;

which Jerome (on Ephes. iv. 13), with some moderns, has

affirmed. St. Paul, it will be remembered, exchanges the

ginw, which expresses his present and fragmentary

knowledge, for e]pignw, when he would express his

future intuitive and perfect knowledge (I Cor xiii. 12).

It is difficult to see how this should have been preserved

in the English Version; our Translators have made no

attempt to preserve it; Bengel does so by aid of ‘nosco’

and ‘pernoscam,’ and Culverwell (Spiritual Optics, p. 18o)

has the following note: [ ]Epi and gnw?sij differ.

]Epi is h[ meta> th>n prw

pantelh>j kata> du. It is bringing me

better acquainted with a thing I knew before; a more

exact viewing of an object that I saw before afar off.

That little portion of knowledge which we had here shall

be much improved, our eye shall be raised to see the same

things more strongly and clearly.’ All the uses of e]pi<-

gnwsij which St. Paul makes, justify and bear out this dis-

tinction (Rom. i. 28; 20; x. 2; Ephes. iv. 13; Phil. i. 9;

I Tim. ii. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 25; cf. Heb. x. 26); this same inten-

sive use of e]pi is borne out by other similar passages

286 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVI.
in the N. T. (2 Pet. i. 2, 8; ii. 20) and in the Septuagint

(Prov. 5; Hos. iv. 1; vi. 6); and is recognized by the

Greek Fathers; thus Chrysostom on Col. i. 9: e@gnwte, a]lla>

dei? ti kai> e]pignw?nai. On the whole subject of this § see

Lightfoot on Col. i. 9.

§ lxxvi. lale).
IN dealing with synonyms of the N. T. we plainly need

not concern ourselves with such earlier, or even contem-

porary, uses of the words which we are discriminating, as

lie altogether outside of the N. T. sphere, when these uses

do not illustrate, and have not affected, their Scriptural

employment. It follows from this that all those con-

temptuous uses of lalei?n as to talk at random, as one

a]quro, or with no door to his lips, might do; of

lalia<, as chatter (a]krasi, Plato, Defin. 416)

—for I cannot believe that we are to find this at John iv.

42—may be dismissed and set aside. The antithesis in

the line of Eupolis, Lalei?n a@ristoj, a]dunatw,

does little or nothing to illustrate the matter in hand.

The distinction which indeed exists between the words

may in this way be made clear. There are two leading

aspects under which speech may be regarded. It may,

first, be contemplated as the articulate utterance of human

language, in contrast with the absence of this, from what-

ever cause springing; whether from choice, as in those

who hold their peace, when they might speak; or from the

present undeveloped condition of the organs and faculties,

as in the case of infants (nh

); or from natural defects,

as in the case of those born dumb; or from the fact of

speech lying beyond the sphere of the faculties with

which as creatures they have been endowed, as in the

lower animals. This is one aspect of speech, namely arti-

culated words, as contrasted with silence, with mere sounds

or animal cries. But, secondly, speech (‘oratio’ or ‘oris

§ LXXVI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 287

ratio’) may be regarded as the orderly linking and knitting

together in connected discourse of the inward thoughts

and feelings of the mind, ‘verba legere et lecta, ac selects

apte conglutinare’ (Valcknaer; cf. Donaldson, Cratylus,

453). The first is lalei?n=rBeDi, the German ‘lallen,'

‘loqui,’ ‘sprechen,’ ‘to speak’; the second=rmaxA ‘dicere,’

'reden,' ‘to say,’ ‘to discourse.’ Ammonius lalei?n kai>

len to> tetagmen

lo, to> a]ta u[popi


r[h

Thus the dumb man (a@laloj, Mark vii. 37), restored to

human speech, e]la (Matt. ix. 33; Luke xi. 14), the

Evangelists fitly using this word, for they are not con-

cerned to report what the man said, but only the fact

that he who before was dumb, was now able to employ

his organs of speech. So too, it is always lalei?n glw

(Mark xvi. 17; Acts ii. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 30), for it is not what

those in an ecstatic condition utter, but the fact of this

new utterance itself, and quite irrespective of the matter

of it, to which the sacred narrators would call our atten-

tion; even as lalei?n may be ascribed to God Himself (it

is so more than once in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as at

i. I, 2), where the point is rather that He should have

spoken at all to men than what it was that He spoke.

But if in lalei?n (=’loqui’) the fact of uttering articu-

lated speech is the prominent notion, in le (= ‘dicere’)

it is the words uttered, and that these correspond to

reasonable thoughts within the breast of the utterer. Thus

while the parrot or talking automaton (Rev. xiii. 15) may

be said, though even they not without a certain impropriety,

lalei?n, seeing they produce sounds imitative of human

speech; and in poetry, though by a still stronger figure,

a lalei?n may be ascribed to grasshoppers (Theocritus,

Idyl. v. 34), and to pipes and flutes (Idyl. xx. 28, 29); yet

inasmuch as there is nothing behind these sounds, they

could never be said le; for in the le lies ever the

288 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVI.

e@nnoia, or thought of the mind (Heb. iv. 12), as the corre-

lative to the words on the lips, and as the necessary con-

dition of them; it is ‘colligere verba in sententiam'; even

as lo is by Aristotle defined (Poet. xx.11), fwnh>

sunqeth<, shmantikh< (see Malan, Notes on the Gospel of St,

John, p. 3). Of fra in like manner (it only occurs

twice in the N. T., Matt. xiii. 36; xv. 15), Plutarch affirms

that it could not, but lalei?n could, be predicated of

monkeys and dogs (lalou?si ga>r, ou] fra, De Plac.

Phil. v. 20).

Often as the words occur together, in such phrases as

e]la (Mark vi. 50; Luke xxiv. 6), lalhqei>j lo

(Heb. 2), and the like, each remains true to its own.

meaning, as just laid down. Thus in the first of these

passages e]la will express the opening of the mouth

to speak, as opposed to the remaining silent (Acts xviii. 9);

while le proceeds to declare what the speaker actually

said. Nor is there, I believe, any passage in the N. T.

where the distinction between them has not been observed.

Thus at Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; I Thess. i. 8, there is

no difficulty in giving to lalei?n its proper meaning; indeed

all these passages gain rather than lose when this is done;

while at Rom. iii. 19 there is an instructive interchange

of the words.

lalia<, and lo in the N. T. are true to the distinction

here traced. How completely lali, no less than lalei?n,

has put off every slighting sense, is abundantly evident

from the fact that on one occasion our Lord claims lalia<

as well as lo for Himself: "Why do ye not understand

my speech (lalia)? even because ye cannot hear my

word" (lo, John viii. 43). Lalia< and lo are set in

a certain antithesis to one another here, and in the seizing

of the point of this must lie the right understanding of

the verse. What the Lord intended by varying lalia< and

lo has been very differently understood. Some, as

Augustine, though commenting on the passage, have

§ LXXVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 289
omitted to notice the variation. Others, like Olshausen,

have noticed, only to deny that it had any significance.

Others again, admitting the significance, have failed to

draw it rightly out. It is clear that, as the inability to

understand his ‘speech’ (lalia<) is traced up as a conse-

quence to a refusing to hear his ‘word’ (lo), this last,

as the root and ground of the mischief, must be the deeper

and anterior thing. To hear his ‘word’ can be nothing

else than to give room to his truth in the heart. They who

will not do this must fail to understand his ‘speech,’ the

outward form and utterance which his ‘word’ assumes.

They that are of God hear God's words, his r[h as else-

where (John iii. 34; viii. 47), his lalia< as here, it is

called;¹ which they that are not of God do not and cannot

hear. Melanchthon ‘Qui yen sunt Dei filii et domestici

non possunt paternae domils ignorare linguam.’

§ lxxvii. a]polu.
THERE are three grand circles of images, by aid of which

are set forth to us in the Scriptures of the N. T. the in-

estimable benefits of Christ's death and passion. Tran-

scending, as these benefits do, all human thought, and

failing to find anywhere a perfectly adequate expression

in human language, they must still be set forth by the help

of language, and through the means of human relations.

Here, as in other similar cases, what the Scripture does is

to approach the central truth from different quarters; to

exhibit it not on one side but on many, that so these may

severally supply the deficiencies of one another, and that

moment of the truth which one does not express, another

may. The words here grouped together, a]polu
¹ Philo makes the distinction of the lo and the r[h?ma to be that of

the whole and its parts (Leg. Alleg. iii. 61): to> de> r[h?ma me. On

the distinction between r[h?ma tou? qeou? and lo there are some

important remarks by Archdeacon Lee, On Inspiration, pp. 135, 539.

290 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVII.
or ‘redemption,’ katallagh<; or 'reconciliation,' i[lasmo or

‘propitiation,’ are the capital words summing up three

such families of images; to one or other of which almost

every word and phrase directly bearing on this work of

our salvation through Christ may be more or less nearly

referred.

]Apolu is the form of the word which St. Paul

invariably prefers, lu occurring in the N. T. only at

Luke i. 68; ii. 38; Heb. ix. 12. Chrysostom (upon Rom.

iii. 24), drawing attention to this, observes that by this

a]po< the Apostle would express the completeness of our

redemption in Christ Jesus, a redemption which no later

bondage should follow: kai> ou]x a[plw?j ei#pe, lutrw,

a]ll ] a]polutrw th>n

au]th>n doulei. In this he has right, and there is the

same force in the a]po< of a]pokatalla (Ephes. ii. 16;

Col. i. 20, 22), which is ‘prorsus reconciliare’ (see Fritzsche

on Rom. v. 10), of a]pokaradoki and a]pekde (Rom.

viii. 19). Both a]polu (not in the Septuagint, but

a]polutro twice, Exod. xxi. 8; Zeph. iii. 1) and lu

are late words in the Greek language, Rost and Palm

(Lexicon) giving no earlier authority for them than Plu-

tarch (Arat. 11; Pomp. 24); while lutrwth seems peculiar

to the Greek Scriptures (Lev. xxv. 31; Ps. xix. 15; Acts

vii. 35).

When Theophylact defines a]polu as h[ a]po> th?j

ai]xmalwsi, he overlooks one most important

element in the word; for a]polu is not recall from

captivity merely, as he would imply, but recall of captives

from captivity through the payment of a ransom for them;

cf. Origen on Rom. iii. 24. The idea of deliverance through

a lu or a]nta (Matt. xvi. 26; cf. Eccius. vi. 15;

xxvi. 14), a price paid, though in actual use it may often

disappear from words of this family (thus see Isai. xxxv.

9), is yet central to them (1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Isai. lii. 3).

Keeping this in mind, we shall find connect themselves

§ LXXVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 291
with a]polu a whole group of most significant words;

not only lu (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45), a]ntilu

(I Tim ii. 6), lutrou?n (Tit. ii. 14; I Pet. i. 18), lu

(Heb. ix. 12), but also a]gora (1 Cor. vi. 20) and e]cago-

ra (Gal. iii. 13; iv. 5). Here indeed is a point of con-

tact with i[lasmo, for the lu paid in this a]polu

is identical with the prosfora< or qusi is by which that

i[lasmo is effected. There also link themselves with

a]polu all those statements of Scripture which speak

of sin as slavery, and of sinners as slaves (Rom. vi. 17, 20;

John viii. 34; 2 Pet. ii. 19); of deliverance from sin as

freedom, or cessation of bondage (John viii. 33, 36; Rom.

viii. 21; Gal. v. I).

Katallagh<, occurring four times in the N. T., only

occurs once in the Septuagint, and once in the Apocrypha.

On one of these occasions, namely at Isai. ix. 5, it is

simply exchange; on the other (2 Macc. v. 20) it is em-

ployed in the N. T. sense, being opposed to the o]rgh> tou?

qeou?, and expressing the reconciliation, the eu]me of

God to his people. There can be no question that sunal-

lagh< (Ezek. xvi. 8, Aquila) and sunalla (Acts vii.26),

diallagh< (Ecclus. xxii. 23; xxvii. 21; cf. Aristophanes,

Acharn. 988) and dialla (in the N. T. only at Matt.

v. 24; cf. Judg. xix. 3; I Esdr. iv. 31; Euripides, Hel.

1235), are more usual words in the earlier and classical

periods of the language;¹ but for all this the gram-

marians are wrong who denounce katallagh< and katal-

la as words avoided by all who wrote the language

in its highest purity. None need be ashamed of words

which found favour with AEschylus (Sept. Con. Theb. 767),

with Xenophon (Anab. i. 6. 2) and with Plato (Phaed. 69 a).

Fritzsche (on Rom. v. 10) has effectually disposed of

Tittmann's fanciful distinction between katalla and

dialla.
¹ Christ according to Clement of Alexander (Coh. ad Gen. 10) is dial-

akth>j kai> swth>r h[mw?n.

292 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVII.

The Christian katallagh< has two sides. It is first a

reconciliation, ‘qua Deus nos sibi reconciliavit,’ laid aside

his holy anger against our sins, and received us into favour,

a reconciliation effected for us once for all by Christ upon

his cross; so 2 Cor. v. 18, 19; Rom. v. 10; where katal-

la, is a pure passive, ‘ab eo in gratiam recipi apud

quem in odio fueras.’ But katallagh< is secondly and

subordinately the reconciliation, ‘qua nos Deo reconcilia-

mur,’ the daily deposition, under the operation of the

Holy Spirit, of the enmity of the old man toward God. In

this passive middle sense katalla, is used, 2 Cor. v.

20; cf. I Cor. vii. All attempts to make this secondary

to be indeed the primary meaning and intention of the

word, rest not on an unprejudiced exegesis, but on a fore-

gone determination to get rid of the reality of God's anger

against the sinner. With katallagh< is connected all that

language of Scripture which describes sin as a state of

enmity (e@xqra) with God (Rom. viii. 7; Ephes. 15;

Jam. iv. 4), and sinners as enemies to Him and alienated

from Him (Rom. v. 10; Col. i. 21); which sets forth Christ

on the cross as the Peace, and the maker of peace between

God and man (Ephes. ii. 14; Col. i. 20); all such invita-

tions as this, "Be ye reconciled with God" (2 Cor. v. 20).

Before leaving katallagh< we observe that the exact

relations between it and i[lasmo, which will have to be

considered next, are somewhat confused for the English

reader, from the fact that the word ‘atonement,’ by which

our Translators have once rendered katallagh< (Rom. v.

11), has little by little shifted its meaning. It has done

this so effectually, that were the translation now for the

first time to be made, and words to be employed in their

present sense and not in their past, ‘atonement’ would

plainly be a much fitter rendering of i[lasmo, the notion

of propitiation, which we shall find the central one of

i[lasmo, always lying in ‘atonement’ as we use it now.

It was not so once. When our Translation was made, it

§ LXXVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 293
signified, as innumerable examples prove, reconciliation,

or the making up of a foregoing enmity; all its uses in our

early literature justifying the etymology now sometimes

called into question, that ‘atonement’ is ‘at-one-ment,’

and therefore = ‘reconciliation’: and that consequently

it was then, although not now, the proper rendering of

katallagh< (see my Select Glossary, s. ‘atone,’ ‘atone-

ment’; and, dealing with these words at full, Skeat, Etym.

Dict. of the English Language, s. v., an article which leaves

no doubt as to their history).

[Ilasmois found twice in the First Epistle of St. John

(ii. 2; iv. 10); nowhere else in the N. T.: for other ex-

amples of its use see Plutarch, Sol. 12; Fab. Max. 18;

Camil. 7: qew?n mh?nij i[lasmou? kai> xaristhri. I

am inclined to think that the excellent word 'propitiation,'

by which our Translators have rendered it, did not exist in

the language when the earlier Reformed Versions were

made. Tyndale, the Geneva, and Cranmer have "to make

agreement," instead of "to be the propitiation," at the first

of these places; "He that obtaineth grace" at the second.

In the same way i[lasth, which we, though I think

wrongly (see Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1842, p. 314), have

also rendered ‘propitiation’ (Rom. iii. 25), is rendered in

translations which share in our error, the obtainer of

‘mercy’ (Cranmer), ‘a pacification’ (Geneva); and first

‘propitiation’ in the Rheims—the Latin tendencies of

this translation giving it boldness to transfer this word

from the Vulgate. Neither is i[lasmo of frequent use

in the Septuagint; yet in such passages as Num.. v. 8;

Ezek. xliv. 27; cf. 2 Macc. iii. 33, it is being prepared for

the more solemn use which it should obtain in the N. T.

Connected with i!lewj, ‘propitius,’ i[la, ‘placare,’

‘iram avertere,’ ‘ex irato mitem reddere,’ it is by Hesy-

chius explained, not incorrectly (for see Dan. ix. 9; Ps.

cxxix. 4), but inadequately, by the following synonyms,

eu]me. I say

294 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVII.

inadequately, because in none of these words thus offered

as equivalents, does there lie what is inherent in i[lasmo.

and i[la, namely, that the eu]me or goodwill has

been gained by means of some offering, or other ‘placa-

men’ (cf. Herodotus, vi. 105; viii. 112; Xenophon, Cyrop.

vii. 2. 19; and Nagelsbach, Nachhomer. Theol. vol. i. p. 37).

The word is more comprehensive than i[la, which

Grotius proposes as covering the same ground. Christ

does not propitiate only, as i[la would say, but at

once propitiates, and is Himself the propitiation. To

speak in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in

the offering of Himself He is both at once, a]rxiereu and

qusi or prosfora<, (for the difference between these latter

see Mede, Works, 1672, p. 360), the two functions of

priest and sacrifice, which were divided, and of necessity

divided, in the typical sacrifices of the law, meeting and

being united in Him, the sin-offering by and through

whom the just anger of God against our sins was ap-

peased, and God, without compromising his righteousness,

enabled to show Himself propitious to us once more. All

this the word i[lasmo, used of Christ, declares. Cocceius:

’Est enim i[lasmo mors sponsoris obita ad sanctifica-

tionem Dei, volentis peccata condonare; atque ita tol-

lendam condemnationem.'

It will be seen that with i[lasmo connect themselves a

larger group of words and images than with either of the

words preceding—all, namely, which set forth the benefits

of Christ's death as a propitiation of God, even as all

which speak of Him as a sacrifice, an offering (Ephes. v. 2;

Heb. x. 14; I Cor. v. 7), as the Lamb of God (John i. 29,

36; I Pet. i. 19), as the Lamb slain (Rev. v. 6, 8), and a

little more remotely, but still in a lineal consequence from

these last, all which describe Him as washing us in his

blood (Rev. i. 5). As compared with katallagh< (= to the

German ‘Versohnung’), i[lasmo (= to ‘Versuhnung’) is

the deeper word, goes nearer to the innermost heart of

§LXXVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 295
the matter. If we had only katallagh< and the group of

words and images which cluster round it, to set forth the

benefits of the death of Christ, these would indeed set

forth that we were enemies, and by that death were made

friends; but how made friends katallagh< would not de-

scribe at all. It would not of itself necessarily imply

satisfaction, propitiation, the Daysman, the Mediator, the

High Priest; all which in i[lasmo are involved (see two

admirable articles, ‘Erlosung’ and ‘Versohnung,’ by

Schoeberlein, in Herzog's Real-Encyclopadie). I conclude

this discussion with Bengel's excellent note on Rom. iii.

24 [ i[lamo (expiatio sive propitiatio) et a]polu

(redemtio) est in fundo rei unicum beneficium, scilicet,

restitutio peccatoris perditi. ]Apolu est respectu

hostium, et katallagh< est respectu Dei. Atque hic voces

i[lasmoet katallagh< iterum differunt. [Ilasmo (pro-

pitiatio) tollit offensam contra Deum; katallagh< (recon-

ciliatio) est di
et tollit (a) indignationem Dei

adversum nos, 2 Cor. v. 19 (b), nostramque abalienationem

a Deo, 2 Cor. v. 20.’
§ lxxviii. yalmo.
ALL these words occur together at Ephes. v. 19, and again

at Col. iii. 16; both times in the same order, and in pas-

sages which very nearly repeat one another; cf. Ps. lxvi. I.

When some expositors refuse even to attempt to distinguish

between them, urging that St. Paul had certainly no in-

tention of classifying the different forms of Christian

poetry, this statement, no doubt, is quite true; but neither,

on the other hand, would he have used, where there is

evidently no temptation to rhetorical amplification, three

words, if one would have equally served his turn. It may

fairly be questioned whether we can trace very accurately

the lines of demarcation between the "psalms and hymns

and spiritual songs" of which the Apostle makes mention,

296 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXVIII.

or whether he traced these lines for himself with a perfect

accuracy. Still each must have had a meaning which

belonged to it more, and by a better right, than it belonged

to either of the others; and this it may be possible to

seize, even while it is quite impossible with perfect strict-

ness to distribute under these three heads Christian poetry

as it existed in the Apostolic age. ]Asma, it may be here

observed, a word of not unfrequent occurrence in the

Septuagint, does not occur in the N. T.

The Psalms of the 0. T. remarkably enough have no

single, well recognized, universally accepted name by

which they are designated in the Hebrew Scriptures

(Delitzsch, Comm. ub. den Psalter, vol. ii. p. 371; Herzog,

Real-Encyclop. vol. xii. p. 269). They first obtained such

in the Septuagint. Yalmo, from ya properly a touch-

ing, and then a touching of the harp or other stringed

instruments with the finger or with the plectrum (yalmoi>

to, Euripides, Ion, 174; cf. Bacch. 740, are the twang-

ings of the bowstrings), was next the instrument itself,

and last of all the song sung with this musical accompani-

ment. It is in this latest stage of its meaning that we

find the word adopted in the Septuagint; and to this

agree the ecclesiastical definitions of it; thus in the

Lexicon ascribed to Cyril of Alexandria: lo

o!tan eu]r tou>j a[rmonikou>j lo o@rganon

krou