Synonyms of the New Testament

§ LXXXVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 333

last word never rises higher in the Septuagint than to

signify a ceremonial purification (Josh. ii. 5; 2 Chron.

xxix. 5; cf. 2 Macc. i. 33); neither does it rise higher in

four out of the seven occasions on which it occurs in the

N. T. (John xi. 55; Acts xxi. 24, 26; xxi . 18, which is

also true of a[gni, Acts xxi. 26). [Agno, however sig-

nifies often the pure in the highest sense. It is an epithet

frequently applied to heathen gods and goddesses, to

Ceres, to Proserpine, to Jove (Sophocles, Philoct. 1273);

to the Muses (Aristophanes, Ranae, 875; Pindar, Olymp.

vii. 60, and Dissen's note); to the Sea-nymphs (Euripides,

Iphig. in Aul. 982); above all in Homer to Artemis, the

virgin goddess, and in Holy Scripture to God Himself

(1 John iii. 3). For this nobler use of a[gno in the Septu-

agint, where, however, it is excessively rare as compared

to a!gioj, see Ps. xi. 7; Prov. xx. 9. As there are no im-

purities like those fleshly, which defile the body and the

spirit alike (1 Cor. vi. 18, 19), so a[gno is an epithet pre-

dominantly employed to express freedom from these (Plu-

tarch, Praec. Conj. 44; Quaest. Rom. 20; Tit. ii. 5; cf.

Herzog, Real-Encyclop. s. v. Keuschheit); while some-

times in a still more restricted sense it expresses, not

chastity merely, but virginity; as in the oath taken by

the priestesses of Bacchus (Demosthenes, Adv. Neaeram,

1371): ei]mi> kaqara> kai> a[gnh> a]p ] a]ndro>j sunousi: with

which compare a]kh(Plato, Legg. viii.

840 e; and Euripides, Hippolytus, 1016); a[gneitoo some-

times owns a similar limitation (Ignatius, ad Polyc. 5).

If what has been said is correct, Joseph, when tempted

to sin by his Egyptian mistress (Gen. xxxix. 7-12), ap-

proved himself o!sioj, in reverencing those everlasting

sanctities of the marriage bond, which God had founded,

and which he could not violate without s nning against

Him: "How can I do this great wick dness and sin

against God?" he approved himself a!gioj in that he

separated himself from any unholy fellowship with his

334 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXXIX.

temptress; he ap proved himself a[gno in that he kept his

body pure and undefiled.

§ lxxxix. fwnh<, lo
ON these words, and on their relation to another, very

much has been written by the Greek grammarians and

natural philosophers (see Lersch, Sprachphilosophie der

Alten, part iii. pp 35, 45, and passim).

fwnh<, from fa noou (Plutarch,

De Plac. Phil. 19), rendered in our Version ‘voice’ (Matt.

ii. 18), ‘sound’ (John iii. 8), ‘noise’ (Rev. vi. 1), is dis-

tinguished from yo, in that it is the cry of a living

creature (h[ de> fwnh> yo, Aristotle),

being sometimes ascribed to God (Matt. iii. 17), to men.

(Matt. iii. 3), to animals (Matt. xxvi. 34), and, though

improperly, to insanimate objects as well (1 Cor. xiv. 7), as

to the trumpet (Matt. xxiv. 31), to the wind (John iii. 8),

to the thunder (Rev. vi. 1; cf. Ps. lxxvi. 19). But lo,

a word, saying, of rational utterance of the vows, whether

spoken (proforiko, and thus fwnh> tw?n lo, Dan. vii.

it) or unspoken (e]ndia), being, as it is, the correlative

of reason, can only be predicated of men (lo

mo de> a@lla fwnh?j, Aristotle, Probl. ii. 55),

of angels, or of God. The fwnh< may be a mere inarticulate

cry, and this whether proceeding from man or from any

other animal; and therefore the definition of the Stoics

(Diogenes Laertius, vii. 1. 38. 55) will not stand: zw

me a]h>r u[po> o[rmh?j peplhgme

e]stin e@narqroj kai> a]po> dianoi. They transfer

here to the fwnh< what can only be constantly affirmed of

the lo; indeed, whenever it sought to set the two in

sharp antithesis with one another, this, that the fwnh< is a

pneu?ma a]dia is the point particularly made. It is

otherwise with the lo, of which the Stoics themselves

say, lo shmantikh<, a]po> dianoi

§ LXXXIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 335

(ibid.), as of the le that it is to> th>n nooume

shmantikh>n profe. Compare Plutarch (De

Anim. Proc. 7): fwnh< ti a]sh

de> le.¹ His treatise De

Genio Socratis has much on the relations of fwnh< and lo

to one another, and on the superior functions of the latter.

By such an unuttered ‘word’ he affirims the Demon of

Socrates to have intimated his presence (c 20): to> de> pros-

pi
lo

a@neu fwnh?j e]fapto

Plhg^? ga>r h[ fwnh> prosen

lo tou?

krein eu]fua? yuxh

nohqe deome

The whole chapter is one of deepest theological

interest; the more so seeing that the great theologians of

the early Church, above all Origen in the Greek (in Joan.

tom. § 26), and Augustine in the Latin loved to transfer

this antithesis of the fwnh< and the lo to John the

Baptist and his Lord, the first claiming for himself no

more than to be "the voice of one crying in the wilderness"

(John i. 23), the other emphatically declared to be the Word

which was with God, and was God (John i. I). In drawing

out the relations between John and his Lord as expressed by

these titles, the Voice and the Word, ‘Vox’ and ‘Verbum,’

fwnh< and lo, Augustine traces with a singular subtlety

the manifold and profound fitnesses which lie in them for

the setting forth of those relations. A word, he observes,

is something even without a voice, for a word in the heart

is as truly a word as after it is outspoke in; while a voice is

nothing, a mere unmeaning sound, an empty cry, unless it

be also the vehicle of a word. But when they are thus

united, the voice in a manner goes before the word, for the

¹ On the distinction between lo and le, which last does not

occur in the N. T., see Petavius, De Trin. vi. 1. 6; and Lersch, Sprach-

philosophie der Alten, vol. iii. p. 45.

336 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LXXXIX.

sound strikes the ear before the sense is conveyed to the

mind: yet while it thus goes before it in this act of com-

munication, it is not really before it, but the contrary.

Thus, when we speak, the word in our hearts must precede

the voice on our lips, which voice is yet the vehicle by

which the word in us is transferred to, and becomes also

a word in, another; but this being accomplished, or rather

in the very accomplishment of this, the voice has passed

away, exists no more; but the word which is planted now

in the other's heart, no less than in our own, abides. All

this Augustine transfers to the Lord and to his forerunner.

John is nothing without Jesus: Jesus just what before

He was without John: however to men the knowledge of

Him may have come through John. John the first in

time, and yet who came after, most truly having been

before, him. John, so soon as he had accomplished his

mission, passing away, having no continual significance for

the Church of God; but Jesus, of whom he had told, and

to whom he witnessed, abiding for ever (Serm. 293. § 3):

‘Johannes vox ad tempus, Christus Verbum in principio

aeternum. Tolle verbum, quid est vox? Ubi nullus est

intellectus, inanis est strepitus. Vox sine verbo aurem

pulsat, cor non aedificat. Verumtamen in ipso corde nostro

aedificando advertamus ordinem rerum. Si cogito quid

dicam, jam verbum est in corde meo: sed loqui ad te volens,

quaero quemadmodum sit etiam in corde tuo, quod jam est

in meo. Hoc quaerens quomodo ad te perveniat, et in

corde tuo inside at verbum quod jam est in corde meo,

assumo vocem, et assumta voce loquor tibi: sonus vocis

ducit ad te intellectum verbi, et cum ad te duxit sonus

vocis intellectum verbi, sonus quidem ipse pertransit,

verbum autem quod ad te sonus perduxit, jam est in corde

tuo, nec recessit a meo.’ Cf. Serm. 288. § 3; 289. § 3.

§ XC. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 337

§ xc. lo.
Lo is quite as often ‘sermo’ as 'verbum,’ a connected

discourse as a single word. Indeed, as is well known,

there was once no little discussion whether Lo in its

very highest application of all (John ii. I) should not

rather be rendered by ‘Sermo’ than by ‘Verbum’; on

which controversy see Petavins. De Trin. 1. 4-6. And,

not to dwell on this exceptional and purely theological

employment of lo, it is frequently in the N. T. employed

to express that word which by supereminent right deserves

the name, being, as it is, "the word of God" (Acts iv. 13),

"the word of the truth" (2 Tim. ii. 15); thus at Luke i.

2; Jam. i. 22; Acts vi. 4. As employed in this sense, it

may be brought into relations of likeness and unlikeness

with mu?qoj, between which and lo there was at one

time but a very slight difference indeed, one however

which grew ever wider, until in the end great gulf has

separated them each from the other.

There are three distinctly marked stages through

which mu?qoj has past; although, as will often happen, in

passing into later meanings it has not altogether renounced

and left behind its earlier. At the first here is nothing

of the fabulous, still less of the false, involved in it. It

stands on the same footing with rh?ma, e@poj, lo, and, as

its connexion with mu sufficiently indicates,

must have signified originally the word shut up in the mind,

or muttered within the lips (see Creuzer, Symbolik, vol. iv.

p. 517); although of this there is no actual trace; for

already in Homer it appears as the spoken word (Il. xviii.

254), the tragic poets with such other as orm their dic-

tion on Homer continuing so to employ it (thus AEschylus,

Eumen. 582; Euripides, Phoen. 455), and this at a time

when in Attic prose it had nearly or altogether exchanged

this meaning for another.

338 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XC.

At the second stage of its history mu?qoj, is already in a

certain antithesis to lo, although still employed in a

respectful, often in a very honourable, sense. It is the

mentally conceived as set over against the actually true.

Not literal fact, it is often truer than the literal truth,

involves a higher teaching; lon

a]lh(Suidas); lo ei@dwlo (Plu-

tarch, Bell. an Pace clar. Athen. 4). There is a lo

mu (‘veritas quae in fabulae involucro latet,’ as Wytten-

bach, Annott. in Plutarch. vol. ii. part 1, p. 406, gives it),

which may have infinitely more value than much which is

actual fact, seeing that oftentimes, in Schiller's words,

'a deeper import

Lurks in the legend told our infant years

Than lies upon the truth we live to learn.'
Mu?qoj had already obtained this significance in Herodotus

(ii. 45) and in Pindar (Olymp. 29); and Attic prose, as

has been observed, hardly knows any other (Plato, Gorg.

523 a; Phaedo, 61 a; Legg. ix. 872 d; Plutarch, De Ser.

Num. Vin. 18; Symp. i. 1. 4).

But in a world like ours the fable easily degenerates

into the falsehood.

'Tradition, Time's suspected register,

That wears out truth's best stories into tales,'
is ever at work o bring such a result about; ‘story,’ ‘tale,’

and other words not a few, attest this fact; and at its

third stage mu?qoj is the fable, but not any more the fable

undertaking to be, and often being, the vehicle of some

lofty truth; it is now the lying fable with all its false-

hood and all its pretences to be what it is not: Eustathius

mu?qoj [ar ] [Omh de> toi?j u!steron, o[

yeudh>j kai> peplasme a]lhqei:

this being the only sense of mu?qoj which the N. T. knows

(in the Apocrypha it occurs but once, Ecclus. xx. 19; in

the Septuagint never). Thus we have there mu?qoi bebh

kai> graw (I Tim. iv. 7); ]Ioudai*kai<, (Tit. i. 14); sesofi-

§ XCI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 339

sme (2 Pet. i. 16; cf. mu?qoi peplasme, Diodorus Siculus,

i. 93); the other two occasions of the word's use (1 Tim. i.

4; 2 Tim. iv. 4) being not less slighting and contemptuous.

‘Legend,’ a word of such honourable import at the be-

ginning, meaning, as it does, that worthy to be read, but

which has ended in designating ‘a heap of frivolous and

scandalous vanities’ (Hooker), has had much the same

history as mu?qoj; very similar influences having been at

work to degrade the one and the other. J. H. H. Schmidt

(Synonymik, vol. p. 100) traces the history of mu?qoj

briefly and well: [Mu?qoj ist zu der Bedeutung einer er-

dichteten Erzahlung gekommen, weil man den naiven

Glauben an die alten Ueberlieferungen, die ihren herge-

brachten Namen behielten allmalig verloren hatte. So

wird denn mu?qoj wie lo der Wirklickheit entgegen-

gesetzt, jedoch so dass man zugleich auf die Albernheit

und Unwahrscheinlichleit der Erdichtung hindeutet.'

It will thus be seen that lo and mu?qoj, which begin

their journey together, or at all events separated by very

slight spaces, gradually part company, the antagonism

between them becoming ever stronger, till in the end they

stand in open opposition to one another, as words no less

than men must do, when they come to belong, one to the

kingdom of light and of truth, the other to that of darkness

and of lies.
§ xci. te

para.
THESE words have this in common, that they are all used

to characterize the supernatural works wrought by Christ

in the days of his flesh; thus shmei?on, John ii. 11; Acts ii.

19; te, Acts ii. 22; John iv. 48; du, Mark vi. 2;

Acts ii. 22; megalei?on, Luke i. 49; e@ndocon, Luke xiii. 17;

para, Luke v. 26; qauma, Matt. xx . 15; while the

first three and the most usual are in like manner employed

340 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCI.
of the same supernatural works wrought in the power of

Christ by his Apostles (2 Cor. xii. 12); and of the lying

miracles of Antichrist no less (2 Thess. ii. 11). They will

be found, on closer examination, not so much to represent

different kinds of trades, as miracles contemplated under

different aspects an from different points of view.

Te and shmei?on are often linked together in the N. T.

(John iv. 48; Act ii. 22; iv. 30; 2 Cor. xii. 12); and

times out of number in the Septuagint (Exod. vii. 3, 9;

Deut. iv. 34; Neh. ix. 10; Dan. vi. 27); the first =tpeOm,

and the second =tOx; often also in profane Greek, in

Josephus (Antt. xx. a 6; Bell. Jud. Proem. 11); in Plutarch

(Sep. Sap. Con. 3); in Polybius (iii. 112. 8); in Philo (De

Vit. Mos. i. 16); and in others. The ancients were fond

of drawing a distinction between them, which however

will not bear a moment's serious examination. It is

sufficiently expressed in these words of Ammonius: te

shmei?on diafe me>n ga>r te fu de>

shmei?on para> sunh; and again by Theophylact (in

Rom. xv. 19): diafe shmei?on kai> te me>n shmei?on

e]n toi?j kata> fu

oi$on e]pi> tou ? to> th>n penqera

i]aqh?nai, [Matt. viii. 15], to> de> te kata> fu

oi$on to> to>n e]k geneth?j tuflo>n i]aqh?nai [John ix. 7]; compare

Suicer, Thes. s. v. shmei?on. But in truth this distinction

breaks down so entirely the instant it is examined, as

Fritzsche, in a good note on Rom. xv. 19, has super-

abundantly shown, that it is difficult to understand how

so many, by repeating, have given allowance to it. An

earthquake, however rare, cannot be esteemed para> fu,

cannot therefore, iccording, to the distinction traced

above, be called a te while yet Herodotus (vi. 98) gives

this name to the single earthquake which in his experience

had visited Delos. As little can a serpent snatched up in

an eagle's talons and dropped in the midst of the Trojan

army be called beyond and beside nature, which yet

§ XCI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 341

Homer (Il. xii. 209) calls Dio>j te. I may

observe that the Homeric idea of the te is carefully

discussed by Nagelsbach, Homerische Theologie, p. 168, sqq.

On the other hand, beyond and beside nature are the

healing with a word of a man lame from his mother's

womb, the satisfying of many thousand man with a few

loaves, the raising of a man four days dead from the

grave, which all in Scripture go by the name of shmei?a

(Acts iv. 16; Joh vi. 14; xi. 47); compare Plutarch, Sept.

Sap. Con. 3, where a monstrous birth is style both a te

and a shmei?on.

It is plain then that the distinction must be sought

elsewhere. Origen has not seized it, who finds a prophetic

element in the shmei?on, which is wanting in the te (in

Rom. xv. 19): ‘Signa [shmei?a] appellantur in ouibus cum sit

aliquid mirabile, indicatur quoque aliquid futurum. Pro-

digia [te] vero in quibus tantummodo aliquid mira-

bile ostenditur.' Rather the same miracle is upon one

side a te, on another a shmei?on, and the words most

often refer, not to different classes of miracles, but to

different qualities in the same miracles; in the words

of Lampe (Comm. in Joh. vol. i. p. 513): ‘Eadem enim

miracula dici posunt signa, quatenus aliquid seu occultum

seu futurum docent; et prodigia, quatenus aliquid extraor-

dinarium, quod stuporem excitat, sistunt. Hinc sequitur

signorum notionem latius patere, quam prodigiorum.

Omnia prodigia sunt signa, quia in illum sum a, Deo

dispensata, ut arcanum indicent. Sed omnia signa non

sunt prodigia, quia ad signandum res caelestes aliquando

etiam res communes adhibentur.'

Te, certainly not derived from thre, the terrifying,

but now put generally in connexion with thre, as being

that which for its extraordinary character is wont to be

observed and kept in the memory, is always rendered

‘wonder’ in our Version. It is the miracle regarded as

a startling, imposing, amazement-wakening portent or

342 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCI.
prodigy; being elsewhere frequently used for strange

appearances in the heavens, and more frequently still for

monstrous births on the earth (Herodotus, vii. 57; Plato,

Crat. 393 b). It is thus used very much with the same

meaning as the Latin ‘monstrum’¹=monestrum (Virgil,

AEn. ii. 171: Nec dubiis ea signa dedit Tritonia monstris'),

or the Homeric sh?ma (Il. ii. 308: e@nq ] e]fa,

dra). Origen (in Joh. torn. xiii. § 60; in Rom. lib. x.

§ 12) long ago called attention to the fact that the name

teis never in the N. T. applied to these words of

wonder, except in association with some other name. They

are often called shmei?a, often duna, often te sh-

mei?a, more than once te duna, but never

te alone. The observation was well worth the making;

for the fact which we are thus bidden to note is indeed

eminently characteristic of the miracles of the N. T.;

namely, that a title, by which more than any other these

might seem to hold on to the prodigies and portents of

the heathen world, and to have something akin to them,

should thus never be permitted to appear, except in the

company of some other necessarily suggesting higher

thoughts about them.

But the miracles are also shmei?a. The shmei?on Basil

the Great (in Esai. vii. § defines well: e@sti shmei?on

pra?gma faneroj kai> a]fanou?j e]n e[aut&?

th>n dh: and presently after, h[ me ta>

para parastatika< tinoj mustikou? lo

kalei?. Among all the names which the miracles bear,

their ethical end and purpose comes out in shmei?on with

the most distinctness, as in te with the least. It is

involved and declared in the very word that the prime

object and end of the miracle is to lead us to something
¹ On the similar group of synonymous words in the Latin, Augustine

writes (De Civ. Dei, xxi. 8): ‘Monstra sane dicta perhibent a mon-

strando, quod aliquid significando demonstrant, et ostenta ab ostendendo,

et portenta a portendendo, id est, pneostendendo, et prodigia quod porro

dicant, id est, futura praelicant.' Compare Cicero, Divin. 42.

§ XCI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 343

out of and beyond itself; that, so to speak, it is a kind

of finger-post of God (dioshmei, signs from Zeus, is no

unfrequent word in later Greek), pointing for us to this

(Isai. vii. 11; xxxviii. 7); valuable, not so much for what

it is, as for what it indicates of the grace and power of

the doer, or of his immediate connexion with a higher

spiritual world (Mark xvi. 20; Acts xiv. 3; Heb. ii. 4;

Exod. vii. 9, 10; I Kin. xiii. 3). Lampe has put this

well: ‘Desigriat sane shmei?on nature sua rem non tantum

extraordinariam, sensusque percellente, sed etiam talem,

quae in rei alterius, absentis licet et futurae, significatio-

nem, atque adumbrationem adhibetur, unde et prognostica

(Matt. xvi. 3) et typi (Matt. xii. 39 ; Luc. xi. 29) nec non

sacramenta, quale est illud circumcisionis (Rom. iv. 11),

eodem nomine in N. T. exprimi solent. Aptissime ergo

haec vox de miraculis usurpatur, ut indicet, quod non

tantum admirabili modo fuerint perpetrata, sed etiam

sapientissimo consilio Dei ita directa atque ordinata, ut

fuerint simul characteres Messiae, ex quibus cognoscendus

erat, sigilla doctrinae quam proferebat, et beneficiorum

gratiae per Messiam jam praestandae, nec non typi viarum

Dei, earumque circumstantiarum per quas talia beneficia

erant applicanda.' It is to be regretted that shmei?on is

not always rendered ‘sign’ in our Version; that in the

Gospel of St. John, where it is of very frequent recurrence,

‘sign’ too often gives place to the vaguer ‘miracle’;

and sometimes not without serious loss: thus see iii. 2;

vii. 31; x. 41; and above all, vi. 26.

But the miracles are also ‘powers’ (duna=’virtutes’),

outcomings of that mighty power of God, which was in-

herent in Christ, Himself that "great Power of God" which

Simon blasphemously allowed himself to be named (Acts

viii. 8, 10); these powers being by Him lent to those who

were his witnesses and ambassadors. One must regret

that in our Version duna is translated now "wonderful

works" (Matt. vii. 22); now "mighty works" (Matt. xi.

344 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCII.

20; Luke x. 13) and still more frequently ‘miracles’

(Acts ii. 22; I Cor. xii. 10; iii. 5); in this last case

giving such tautologies as "miracles and wonders" (Acts

ii. 22; Heb. iii. 4); and always causing something to be

lost of the true intention of the word—pointing as it does

to new and higher forces (e]ne, I Cor. xii. 6,

10), ‘powers of the world to come’ (Heb. vi. 5), which have

entered and are working in this lower world of ours.

Delitzsch: ‘Jedes Wunder ist eine Machtausserung der in

die Welt der Scopfung, welche dem Tode verfallen ist,

eintretenden Welt der Erlosung.’ With this is closely

connected the term megalei?a, only occurring at Luke i. 49

(=’magnalia’) and at Acts ii. 11, in which, as in duna,

the miracles are contemplated as outcomings of the great-

ness of God's power and glory.

They are further styled e@ndoca (Luke xiii. 17), as being

works in which the do or glory of God and of the Son of

God shone manifestly forth (John ii. 11; xi. 40; Luke v.

25; Acts i. 13, 16). They are para (Luke v. 26), as

being "new things" (Num. xvi. 30), not hitherto seen

(Mark ii. 12), an thus beside and beyond all opinion and

expectation of men. The word, though finding place only

this once in the N. T., is of very frequent occurrence in

ecclesiastical Greek. They are qauma (Matt. xxi. 15),

as provoking admiration and astonishment (viii. 27; ix.

8, 33; xv. 31; Mark v. 20; Acts iii. 11). qau they

are never called in the N. T., though often in the writings

of the Greek Fathers. A word which conjurers, magi-

cians, and impostors of various kinds had so long made their

own could only after a while be put to nobler uses again.

§ xcii. ko.
Ko and semno are both epithets applied occasionally

to things, but mere frequently to persons. They are so

nearly allied in meaning as to be often found together;

§ XCII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 345

but at the same time are very clearly distinguishable the

one from the Other.

Ko, related to ko in its earlier sense as ‘orna-

ment,’ while kosmiko (Tit. ii. 12; Heb. ix. 1) is related to

it in its secondary-sense as ‘world,’ occurs twice in the

N. T., being rendered in our Version on one occasion

‘modest’ (I Tim. ii. 9), on the other, ‘of good behaviour’

(I Tim. iii. 2); and corresponds very nearly to the ‘compo-

situs’ of Seneca (Ep. 114), to the ‘compositus et ordinatus '

(De Vit. Beat. 81), of the same. The ‘ornatus,’ by which it

is both times rendered in the Vulgate, is strangely at fault,

though it is easy enough to see how the fault arose. It is

a very favourite word with Plato, and is by him and others

constantly applied to the citizen who is a quiet in the land,

who duly filfils in his place and order the duties which are

incumbent on him as such; and is in nothing a@taktoj

(1 Thess. v. 14; cf. 2 Thess. iii. 6, 7, 11); but tetagme

rather. It is associated by him, as by St. Paul, with

sw, (Legg. vii. 802 e)—this indeed is everywhere its

most constant companion (thus see Lysias, Orat. xxi.

163; Plutarch, Quom. Adul. ab Am. 36, and often); with

h!meroj (Plato, Rep. 410 e); with no(Gorg. 504 d); with

e]gkrath (Phaedr. 256 b); with eu]stalh (Menex. 90 a);

with fro. (Phaedr. 108 a; Plutarch, De Mul. Virt.);

with sta (Rep. 539 d); with eu]kolo (Ib. 329 d); with

ea]ndrei?oj (Ib. 399 e); with kalo (Ib. 403 a); with eu@taktoj

by Aristotle; with ai]dhby Epictetus (Enchir. 40); and

by Plutarch (De Garrul. 4); with gennai?oj; with

eu]a (Max. cum Princ. 2); opposed by Plato to

a]ko (Gorg. 494 a). Keeping company as ko

does with epithets such as these, it must be admitted that

an explanation of it like the following, ‘of well ordered

demeanour, decorous, courteous’ (Webster), dwells too

much on the outside of things; the same with still greater

truth may be affirmed of Tyndale's rendering, ‘honestly

apparelled’ (I Tim. iii. 3). No doubt the kois all

346 SYNONYM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCII.

this; but he is much more than this. The well ordering

is not of dress and demeanour only, but of the inner life;

uttering indeed and expressing itself in the outward con-

versation. Even Bengel has taken a too superficial view of

the word, when at I Tim. iii. 2 he says, ‘Quod sw

est intus, id ko est extra;' though I cannot refuse

the pleasure of quoting what he says in one of his most

characteristic notes, unfolding more fully his idea of what

in these two epithets is implied: ‘Homo novus festum

quiddam est, et abhorret ab omni eo quod pollutum, con-

fusurn, inconditu immoderatum, vehemens, dissolutum,

affectatum, tetricum, perperum, lacerum, sordidum est:

ipsi necessitati naturae materiaeque, quae ingerendo, dige-

rendo, egerendo agitatur, parce et dissimulanter paret,

corporisque corruptibilis tecta habet vestigia.' This, it

must be confesses, goes a good deal deeper than does Phile-

mon, the comic poet, in four lines preserved by Stobaeus,

describing who is ko, and who is not. I hardly know

whether they are worth quoting, but they follow here:
ou]k a}n lal^? tij mikro ko

ou]#d ] a}n proeu