Synonyms of the New Testament

n gh?n ble


o[ d ] h[lin h[ fu

mhde>n poiw?n d ] a@sxhmon ou$toj ko

But whatever may be implied in ko, and there is

much, something more is involved in semno. If the

ko orders himself well in that earthly politei, of

which he is a support and an ornament, the semno has a

grace and dignity not lent him from earth; but which he

owes to that higher citizenship which is also his; being

one who inspire not respect only, but reverence and

worship. In profane Greek semno is a constant epithet of

the gods—of the Eumenides, the semnai> qeai<, above all.

It is used also constantly to qualify such things as pertain

to, or otherwise stand in any very near relation with, the

heavenly world. All this will appear the more clearly,

when we entailer to some of the epithets wherewith it

§ XCII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 347

habitually is linked; which are these: a!gioj, (Plato, Sophist.

249 a; Rep. 290 d; cf. Clement of Rome, 1 Ep. § 1, where

it is joined to a[gno and a@mwmoj); o]rqo (Apol. 412 e); me

(Theaetet. 203 e); ti (Crit. 51 a); me(Clement of

Rome, 1 Ep. § i); basiliko (Plutarch, Quom. Aud. Poet.

8): e@ntimoj (Praec. Ger. Reip. 31): megalopreph. (De Def.

Orac. 30); qei?oj and fobero. From all his it is plain

that there lies something of majestic and awe-inspiring in

semno, which does not at all lie in ko although this

has nothing about it to repel, but all rather to invite and

to attract, malakh> kai> eu]sxh being Aristotle's

happy definition of semno (Rhet. 19 , making it as

he does the golden mean between a]reskei, or unmanly

assentation, at one extreme, and au]qadior churlish bear-

ishness, pleasing itself, and careless how much it displeases

others, at the other; even as in Plutarch semno is asso-

ciated with filiko (Quom. Am. ab Adul. 6); with h[du

(Conviv. 4, Proem.); with fila, with e]pieikh, and

other like words; so too with proshnh, in Josephus (Antt.

xi. 6. 9). But all this does not exclude the fact that the

semno is one who, without in as many words demanding,

does yet challenge and inspire reverence and, in our earlier

use of the word, worship, the word remaining true to the

se with which it is related. How to render it in

English is not very easy to determine. On the one occa-

sion that it qualifies things rather than persons (Phil. iv.

8), we have translated it by ‘honest,’ an unsatisfactory

rendering; and this, even though we include in ‘honest’

all which was included in it at the time when our Transla-

tion was made. Alford has here changed ‘honest’ into

‘seemly’; if changed at all, I should prefer ‘honorable.’

On the other three occasions it is rendered ‘grave’

(I Tim. iii. 8; iii. 11; Tit. ii. 2); while semnois once

‘honesty’ (I Tim. ii. 2), and twice ‘gravity’ (I Tim. iii.

4; Tit. ii. 7). Here too it must be owned that ‘grave’

and ‘gravity’ are renderings which fail to cover the full

348 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCII.

meaning of thei original. Malvolio in Twelfth Night is

‘grave,’ but his very gravity is itself ridiculous; and

the word we want is one in which the sense of gravity

and dignity, and of these as inviting reverence, is com-

bined; a word which I fear we may look for long without

finding.

[Ieropreph belongs to the best age of the Greek lan-

guage, being used by Plato (Theag. 122 d) and by Xenophon

(Conv. viii. 40), in this unlike o[siopreph and a[giopreph,

which are of later ecclesiastical formation. Like ko

it belongs to that large group of noticeable words, which,

being found nowhere else in St. Paul's Epistles, and indeed

nowhere else in he N. T., are yet found in the Pastoral

Epistles, some of them occurring several times over in

these. The number and character of these words, the new

vein of Greek which St. Paul in these later Epistles opens,¹

constitutes a very remarkable phenomenon, one for which

no perfectly satisfactory explanation has hitherto been

offered. Alford indeed in his Prolegomena to these Epis-

tles has made a valuable contribution to such an explana-

tion; but after all has been said, it remains perplexing

still.

It will follow from what has been already claimed for

semno that i[eropreph is more nearly allied in meaning to

it than to ko. It expresses that which beseems a

sacred person, thing, or act. On the one occasion of its

use in the N. T (Tit. ii. 3), it is joined with sw,

being an epithet applied to women professing godliness,

who shall be in heir bearing or behaviour i[eroprepei?j, or

¹ For instance, take the adjectives alone which are an addition to, or

a variation from, his ethical terminology in all his other Epistles; occur-

ring as they do no here else but in these Epistles: ai[retiko

a@maxoj, a]nepai

deutoj, a@rtioj, a]fila

eu]meta

nhfa

toj, filh

§ XCIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 349

"as becometh holiness" (cf. 1 Tim. ii. 10). That such

behaviour will breed reverence and awe we may reason-

ably expect, but this is not implied in i[eropreph as at is

in semno, and here we must find the distinction between

them.
§ xciii. au]qa.
THE etymology of these words holds out, perhaps, the

expectation of a greater nearness of meaning than in

actual use is the case. Yet they sometimes occur toge-

ther, as in Plutarch (De Rect. Rat. Aud. 6), nor can it be

denied that ‘the pleaser of himself’ and ‘the lover of

himself’ stand in sufficient moral proximity, and are suffi-

ciently liable to be confounded, to justify an attempt to

distinguish them one from the other.

Au]qa (=au]toaor au[t&? a[dw?n, as Aristotle informs

us, Ethic. M. i. 29), ‘sibi placens,’ occurs twice in the N. T.

(Tit. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 10), and three times in the Old (Gen.

xlix. 3, 7; Prov. xxi. 24); au]qanevev in the New, but

once in the Old (Isai. xxiv. 8).

The au]qa, who etymologically is hardly distinguish-

able from the au]ta,—but the word is of earlier and

more classical use,—is properly one who pleases himself,

who is so pleased with his own that nothing pleases him

besides: ‘qui nisi quod ipse facit nihil rectum putat’

(Terence, Adelph. iv. 2. 18). He is one so far overvaluing

any determination at which he has himself once arrived

that he will not be removed from it; for this element of

stubbornness or obstinacy which so often lies in auqa

see the Prometheus Vinctus of AEschylus, 1073: while Cicero

translates it ‘pervicacia.’ The man thus obstinately

maintaining his own opinion, or asserting his own rights,

is reckless of the rights, feelings and interests of others;

one indeed who with no motive at all is prompt rather to

run counter to these, than to fall in with hem: ‘selbstge-

fallig, selbstsiichtig, anmassend, frech, ich um keinen

350 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCIII.

andern kummernd, rucksichtlos, grausam' (Pott, Etym.

Forsch. vol. iv. p. 315). Thus we find au]qa associated

with i]diognw (Hippocrates, p. 295, 12. 29); with a@grioj.

(Euripides, Med. 102); with pikro (Ib. 223); with a]maqh.

(Plato); with xalepo(Id. Legg. 950 b); with a]mei

(Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 38); with sklhro, (Polybius, iv. 21;

Plutarch, Symp. vii. 2. I); with e]paxqh and au]qe

(Id. Praec. Ger. Reip. 31);—which last word does not

necessarily bear an unfavourable meaning; thus see Aris-

totle, Ethic. Nic. iv. 7. 4: and lines ascribed to the Stoic

Cleanthes, to be found in Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xiii. 3;

—with qra(Plutarch, Marius, 408; Prov. xxi. 24);

with a]ko (De Gen. Soc. 9); with i]tamo. (De Laud.

Scip. 16); with filo (Quom. Am. ab Adul. 32); with

skuqrwpo (Isocrates, see Rost and Palm); with a]lazw

(Prov. xxi. 24) with propeth (Clement of Rome, 1 Ep.

§ I); with tolhth (2 Pet. ii. 10): au]qawith qra

and to (Clement of Rome, I Ep. § 31); while the Greek

grammarians give such words as u[perh, qumw,

u[pero
as its nearest equivalents. Eudemus identifies

him with the du, and describes him as regulating

his life with no respect to others (mhde>n pro>j e!teron zw?n

Ethic. Eudem. 7. 4; cf. Ethic. Nic. iv. 6. 9). He is the

‘praefractus,’ ‘pertinax,’ ‘morosus’ of the Latins, or,

going nearer to the etymological heart of the word, the

German ‘eigeinsinnig'; au]qa is by Luther so trans-

lated; while our own ‘peevish’ and ‘humorous’ in their

earlier uses both represent some traits and aspects of his

character. He is opposed to the eu]prosh, the easy

of access or affable (Plutarch, Praec. Reip. Ger. 31). In

the unlovely gallery of portraits which Theophrastus has

sketched for us the au]qa finds his place (Char. § 3);

but this his rudeness of speech, his surliness, his bearish-

ness as we should now say, is brought too exclusively out,

as is evident from the very superficial and inadequate

§ XCIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 351

definition of au]qaby Theophrastus given, as being

a]ph.

Au]qa, which thus cares to please nobody, is by

Aristotle (Rhet. ii. 19) set over against a]re law, which is

the ignoble seeking to please everybody, the endeavouring

at all costs of dignity and truth to stand well with all the

world; these two being in his ethical system the opposite

extremes, between which semnoconstitutes the mean

(see p. 347). There is always something to be learned from

the hypocoristic phrases with which it is sought to give a

fair show to an ugly thing; and it is worth therefore

noticing that the au]qa is called by his flatterers semno

and megalopreph (Aristotle, Rhet. 9. 3), while on the

other hand a worthy freedom of speech (par]r[hsi) may be

misnamed au]qa by those who resent, or would fain

induce others to resent it. It was this fateful name

which the sycophants of the younger Dionysius gave to

the manly boldness of speech which Dion used, when

they desired to work his ruin with the tyrant (Plutarch,

Dion, 8).

Bengel profoundly remarks, and all experience bears

out the truth of his remark, that there are men who are

‘simul et molles et duri'; at once soft and hard, soft to

themselves, and hard to all the world beside; these two

dispositions being in fact only two aspects an outcomings

of the same sin, namely the wrong love of self. But if

au]qa expresses this sin on one side, fi expresses

it on the other. Having dealt with that, we may now

proceed to treat a little of this. It need hardly be ob-

served that when bad men are called fi, or ‘lovers

of themselves,’ as by St. Paul they are on the one occasion

when the word is employed in the N. T. (2 Tim. iii. 2), the

word can be only abusively applied; for, indeed, he is no

true ‘lover of himself’ who loves himself overmuch, more

than God's law allows, or loves that in himself which he

ought not to love but to hate, that which constitutes his

352 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCIII.
sickness and may in the end be his death, and not his

health. All this, when treating of this word, Aristotle

brings out with admirable clearness and distinctness, and

with an ethical feeling after, and in part at least anticipa-

tion of, that great word of Christ, "He that loveth his life

shall lose it," which is profoundly interesting to note

(Ethic. Nic. ix. 8).

The fi, is exactly our ‘selfish’ (Plutarch, Cons.

ad Apoll. 19; Quom. Am. ab Adul. 26), and filauti

‘selfishness’; but this contemplated rather as an undue

sparing of self and providing things easy and pleasant for

self, than as harshness and rigour toward others. Thus

fi is joined with filo, by Plutarch (Dion, 46),

this last epithet indicating one who so loves his life that

he seeks ignobly to save it. Before the English language

had generated the word ‘selfishness,’ which it only did

toward the middle of the seventeenth century, there was

an attempt made to supply an evident want in our ethical

terminology by aid of ‘philauty’; thus see Beaumont's

Psyche, passim, and other similar poems. ‘Philauty,’

however, never succeeded in obtaining any firm footing

among us, and ‘suicism,’ which was a second attempt, as

little; an appeal to the Latin proving as unsuccessful as

that to the Greek. Nor was the deficiency effectually

supplied till the Puritan divines, drawing upon our native

stock of words, brought in ‘selfish’ and ‘selfishness’ (see

my English Past and Present, 10th ed. p. 171). One of

these same divines helps me to a comparison, by aid of

which the matter of the likeness and difference between

au]qa, and fi may be brought not inaptly to a

point. He likens the selfish man to the hedgehog, which,

rolling itself up in a ball, presents only sharp spines to

those without, keeping at the same time all the soft and

warm wool for itself within. In some sinful men their

au]qa, the ungracious bearing towards others, the self-

pleasing which is best pleased when it displeases others,

§ XCIV. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 353
is the leading feature of their character; in others the

filauti, the undue providing of all which shall minister

to their own ease, and keep hardness aloof from them.

In each of these there is potentially wrapped up the other;

but as the one sinful tendency predominates or the other,

the man will merit the epithet of au]qa or fi.
§ xciv. a]poka.
]Apoka is only once found in the books of the 0. T.

canon, namely at I Sam. xx. 30; and therm in altogether

a subordinate sense, as =’denudatio’; three times in the

Apocrypha (Ecclus. xi. 27; xxii. 22; xli. 2); but as little

in this as in the other does it obtain that grander mean-

ing which it has acquired in the N. T. In this last it is

predominantly, though not exclusively, a Pauline word;

and, occurring; altogether some nineteen times, being ren-

dered sometimes ‘coming’ (I Cor. i. 7), so sometimes ‘mani-

festation’ (Rom. viii. 19), sometimes ‘appearing’ (I Pet.

i. 7), and once ‘to lighten’ (ei]j a]poa, Luke ii. 32),

has always that auguster sense of an unveiling by God of

Himself to his creatures, to which we have given the more

Latin term, revelation. The same auguster sense the verb

a]pokalu
in the N. T. commonly possesses; but not

there for the first time, this sense having been anticipated

in the great apocalyptic book of the Old Covenant (see

Dan. ii. 19, 22, 28). Nor does it always possess this, some-

times simply meaning ‘to uncover’ or ‘to lay bare’ (Luke

xii. 2; Prov. xxi. 19).

]Apoka, as St. Jerome would fain persuade us, is

nowhere to be fond outside of sacred Greek (Comm. in

Gal. i. 12): Verbum a]pokalu proprie Scripturarum

est; a nullo sapientum seculi apud Graecos usurpaturn.

Unde mihi videntur quemadmoduin in aliis verbis, quae de

Hebraeo in Graecum LXX Interpretes transtulerunt, ita et

in hoc magnopere esse conati ut proprietatem peregrini

354 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCIV.

sermonis exprimerent, nova novis rebus verba fingentes, et

sonare, quum quid tectum et velatum ablato desuper operi-

mento ostenditur et profertur in lucem.’ In thus claiming

the word as proper and peculiar to the Scriptures, and not

to be found in any writings of the wise of this world, St.

Jerome is in error; although the total absence in his

time of exhaustive Lexicons or Concordances of the great

writers of antiquity may well excuse his mistake. Not to

speak of a]pokalu
, which is used several times by

Plato (Protag. 352 d; Gorg. 46o a), a]poka itself

is far from unfrequent in the later Greek of Plutarch (see

Paul. AEmil. 14; Cato Maj. 20, where it is =gu;

Qum. Am. ab Adul. 32; and elsewhere). Thus far indeed

Jerome has right, namely, that the religious use of the

word was altogether strange to the heathen world, while

the corresponding ‘revelatio’ was absolutely unknown to

classical Latin, having first come to the birth in the Latin

of the Church. Elsewhere (Ep. cxxi. ad Algas.) he makes

a somewhat similar mistake in respect of the verb kata-

brabeu (Col. 18), which he claims as a Cilicism of

St. Paul's. It occurs in a document cited by Demosthenes,

Mid. P. 544.

The word in its higher Christian sense has been ex-

plained by Arethras as h[ tw?n kruptw?n musthri

kataugazome qei

o]neira Joined

with o]ptasi (2 Cor. xii. 1), it is by Theophylact (see

Suicer, s. v.) distinguished from it in this, that the o]ptasi

is no more than the thing shown or seen, the sight or

vision, which might quite possibly be seen without being

understood; while the a]poka includes not merely

the thing shown and seen, but the interpretation or

unveiling of the same. His words are as follows: h[

a]pokan ga>r mo

ble
kai< ti baqu

a]pogumnoi?. Thus Daniel's vision of the four beasts was

§ XCIV. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 355

seen but not understood, until one that stood by made

him know the interpretation of the things (Dan. vii. 15,

16, 19, 23; cf. viii. 15, 19; Zech. i. 18-21). On this

distinction see more in Lucke's Einleitung in die Offen-

barung des Johannes, 2nd ed. p. 26. What holds good of

the o]ptasi will of course hold good of the o!rama (Matt.

xvii. 9; Acts vii. 31; x. 19), and of the o!rasij (Acts ii. 17)

as well; between which and the o]ptasi, it would scarcely

be possible to draw any distinction that would. stand.

]Epifa, which Tertullian renders ‘apparentia’ (Adv.

Marc. i. 19), occurs only twice in the Septuagint (2 Sam.

vii. 23, megalwsu e]pifa [cf. do e]pifa,

Plutarch, De Tranq. Anim. 11]; Amos v. 22): but often

in the Second Maccabees; being always there used of

God's supernatural apparitions in aid of his people; thus

ii. 21 (e]c ou]ranou? e]pifa) iii. 24; v. 4; xii. 22; xv. 27.

Already in heathen use this grand word was constantly

employed to set forth these gracious appearances of the

higher Powers in aid of men; so Dionysius Hal. (ii. 68),

and Plutarch (Ne Suav. Viv. Posse, 22; Them. 30); e]pifai<-

nein, too, in the same way (De Def. Orac. 30); though

sometimes obtaining a much humbler use (Anim. an Corp.

Aff. 2; Polybius, ii. 29. 7). The word 's found only six

times in the N. T., always in the writings of St. Paul.

On five occasions our Translators have rendered it ‘ap-

pearing’; on the sixth, however (2 Thess. ii. 8), they

seem to have shrunk from what looked to them as a tau-

tology, ‘appearance of his coming,’ as in the earlier Pro-

testant Versions it stood; and have rendered e]pifa

th?j parousi, ‘the brightness of his coming,’ giving to

the word a meaning not properly its own. It expresses

on one occasion (2 Tim. i. 10, and so e]pifai, Tit. ii.

11; iii. 4) our Lord's first Epiphany, is ei]j a]nqrw

e@nsarkoj e]pifa: but on all the other his second ap-

pearing in glory, the e]pifa, (2

356 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCIV.
Thess. ii. 8), th?j do (Tit. ii. I3 ; I Tim.

vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8; cf. Acts xx. 20).

If we bring these two into comparison, a]poka

is the more comprehensive, and, grand as is the other, the

grander word. It sets forth nothing less than that pro-

gressive and immediate unveiling of Himself to his Church

on the part of the otherwise unknown and unknowable

God, which has run through all ages; the body to which

this revelation is vouchsafed being thereby designated or

indeed constituted as his Church, the object of his more

immediate care, and the ordained diffuser of this know-

ledge of Him to the rest of mankind. The World may

know something of Him, of his eternal power and Godhead,

from the things which are seen; which things except for

the darkening of men's hearts through sin would have

told of Him much more clearly (Rom. i. 20); but there is

no a]poka is save to the Church. We may say of the

e]pifa that they are contained in the a]poka, being

separate, points or moments therein. If God is to be

immediately known to men, He must in some shape or

other appear to them, to those among them whom He has

chosen for this honour. Epiphanies must be Theophanies

as well; and as sues the Church has claimed not merely

such communications made to men as are recorded at Gen.

xviii. I; xxviii. 13; but all in which the Angel of the Lord

or of the Covenant appears; such as Gen. xvi. 7; Josh.

v. 13-15; Judg.; vi. 11; xiii. 3. All these it has

regarded as preludings, on the part of the Son, of his

Incarnation; itself he most glorious Epiphany that as yet

has been, even as hi second coming is an Epiphany more

glorious still which is yet in the future.

Fane is only twice used in the N. T. (1 Cor. xii. 7;

2 Cor. iv. 2). Reaching far on both these occasions, it does

not reach to the very highest of all; it does not set forth, as

do the words we have just been treating, either the first

or the second appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; although

§ XCV. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 337

that it could have borne even this burden is sufficiently

plain from the fact that the verb fanerou?sqai is continually

employed of both; thus of the first coming at I Tim. iii.

16; Heb. ix. 26; I John i. 2; I Pet. i. 20; and of the

second at Col. iii. 4; I Pet. v. 4; I John iii. 2; and for

other august uses of it see John ii. 11; xxi. i; and

fane itself is not seldom so employed by the Fathers.

Thus Athanasius (quoted by Suicer, s. v.) calls the Incar-

nation h[ e]n sw. It is

hard to trace any reason why fane should not have

been claimed to set forth the same glorious facts which

these other words, to which in meaning it is so nearly

allied, have done; but whether by accident or of intention

this honour has not been vouchsafed it.

§ xcv. a@lloj, e!teroj.
@Alloj, identical, with the Latin ‘alius,’ is he numerically

distinct; thus Christ spoke we are told ‘another’ parable,

and still ‘another,’ but each succeeding one being of the

same character as those which He had spoken before

(Matt. xiii. 23, 4, 31, 33), a@llhn therefore in every case.

But e!teroj, equivalent to the Latin ‘alter,’ to the German.

‘ander’ (on which last word see an instructive article in

Grimm's Worterbuch), superadds the notion of qualitative

difference. One is ‘divers,’ the other is ‘diverse.’ There

are not a few passages in the N. T. whose right interpre-

tation, or at any rate their full understanding, will depend

on an accurate seizing of the distinction between these

words. Thus Christ promises to his disciples that He

will send, not e!teron, but a@llon, Para (John xiv.

16), 'another' Comforter therefore, similar to Himself.

The dogmatic force of this a@llon, has in controversy with

various sects of pneumatoma, been often urged before

now; thus by Petavius (De Trin. H. 13. 5): ‘Eodem per-

tinet et Paracleti cognomen, maxime cum Christus alium

358 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § XCV.

Paracletum, hoc est, parem sibi, et aequalem eum nominat.

Quippe vox alius dignitate ac substantia prorsus eundem,

et aequalem fore demonstrat, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus et

Ambrosius admonent.'

But if in the a@lloj there is a negation of identity, there

is oftentimes much more in e!teroj, the negation namely,

up to a certain point, of resemblance; the assertion not

merely of distinctness but of difference. A few examples

will illustrate this. Thus St. Paul says, ‘I see another law’

[e!teron no], a law quite different from the law of the

spirit of life, even a law of sin and death, ‘working in my

members’ (Rom. vii. 23). After Joseph's death 'another

king arose' in Egypt (basileu>j e!teroj, Acts vii. 18; cf.

Exod. 8), one, it is generally supposed, of quite another

dynasty, at all events of quite another spirit, from his

who had invited the children of Israel into Egypt, and so

hospitably entertained them there. The o[do>j e[te and

kardi which God promises that He will give to his

people are a new way and a new heart (Jer. xxxix. 39; cf.

Deut. xxix. 22). It was not ‘another spirit’ only but a

different (e!teron pneu?ma) which was in Caleb, as distin-

guished from the other spies (Num. xiv. 24). In the

parable of the Pounds the slothful servant is e!teroj (Luke

xix. 1 8). When Iphigenia about to die exclaims, e!teron,

e!teron ai]w?na kai> moi?ran oi]kh, a different life with

quite other surroundings is that to which she looks for-

ward (Euripides, Iphig. in Aul. 1516). The spirit that

has been wandering through dry places, seeking rest in

them in vain, takes ‘seven other spirits’ (e!tera pneu),

worse than himself, of a deeper malignity, with whose

aid to repossess the house which he has quitted for a

while (Matt. xii. 45). Those who are crucified with the

Lord are e!teroi du, ‘two others, malefactors,’

as it should be pointed (Luke xxiii. 32; cf, Borne-

mann, Schol. in Lucam, p. 147); it would be inconceivable

and revolting so to confound Him and them as to speak

§ XCV. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 359
of them as a@lloi du. It is only too plain why St. Jude

should speak of e[te (ver. 7), as that which the

wicked whom he is denouncing followed after (Gen. xix.

5). Christ appears to his disciples e]n e[te (Mark

xvi. 12), the word indicating the mighty change which

had passed upon Him at his resurrection, as by anticipa-

tion at his Transfiguration, and there expressed in the

same way (Luke ix. 29). It is xei, with alto-

gether other and different lips, that God will speak to his

people in the New Covenant (1 Cor. xiv. 21); even as the

tongues of Pentecost are e!terai glw (Acts ii. 4),

being quite different in kind from any other speech of

men. It would be easy to multiply the passages where

e!teroj could not be exchanged at all, or could only be

exchanged at a loss, for a@lloj, as Matt. xi. 3; I Cor. xv.

40; Gal. i. 6. Others too there are where at first sight

a@lloj seems quite as fit or a fitter word; where yet e!teroj

retains its proper force. Thus at Luke xxii. 65 the e !tera

polla< are ‘multa diversi generis convicia,’ blasphemous

speeches now of one kind, now of another; the Roman.

soldiers taunting the Lord now from their own point of

view, as a pretender to Caesar's throne; and now from the

Jewish, as claiming to be Son of God. At the same time

it would be idle to look for qualitative difference as in-

tended in every case where e!teroj is used; thus see Heb.

xi. 36, where it would be difficult to trace anything of the

kind.

What holds good of e!teroj, holds good also of the

compounds into which it enters, of which the N. T. con-

tains three; namely, e[tero (1 Cor. xiv. 21), by

which word the Apostle intends to bring out the non-

intellgibility of the tongues to many in the Church;

it is true indeed that we have also a]llo (Ezek.

iii. 6); e[terodidaskalei?n (I Tim. 3), to teach other things,

and things alien to the faith; e[terozugei?n (2 Cor. vi. 14), by

to yoke with others, and those as little to be yoked with

360 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCV.
as the ox with the ass (Deut. xxii. 10); cf. e[teroklinh.

(Clement of Rome, I Ep. § 11), swerving aside; e[terognw

(ibid.), an epithet applied to Lot's wife (Gen. xix. 26).

So too we have in ecclesiastical Greek e[terodoci, which is

not merely another opinion, but one which, in so far as it

is another, is a worse, a departure from the faith. The

same reappears in our own ‘heterogeneous,’ which is not

merely of another kind, but of another and a worse kind.

For this point also deserves attention, and is illustrated

by several of the examples already adduced; namely, that

e!teroj is very constantly, not this other and different, a@llo

kai> dia, only, but such with the farther subaudition,

that whatever difference there is, it is for the worse. Thus

Socrates is accused of introducing into Athens e!tera kaina>

daimo (Xenop on, Mem. i. I. I); dai (Pindar,

Pyth. iii. 61) is an evil or hostile deity; e!terai qusi

(AEschylus, Agamemnon, 151), ill-omened sacrifices, such

as bring back on their offerer not a blessing but a curse;

dhmagwgoi> e!teroi (Plutarch, Pericles, 3) are popular leaders

not of a differerent only, but of a worse stamp and spirit

than was Pericles. So too in the Septuagint other gods

than the true are invariably e!teroi qeoi<, (Deut. v. 7; Judg.

x. 13; Ezek. xli . 18; and often); compare Aristophanes

(Ran. 889): e!teroi ga. A bar-

barous tongue is e[te (Isai. xxviii. 11), the phrase

being linked with faulismo>j xeile.

We may bring this distinction practically to bear on

the interpretation of the N. T. There is only one way in

which the fine distinction between e!teron and a@llo, and

the point which St. Paul makes as he sets the one over

against the othe at Gal. i. 6, 7, can be reproduced for the

English reader. ‘I marvel,’ says the Apostle, ‘that ye

are so soon removed from them that called you into the

grace of Christ unto another (e!teron) Gospel, which is not

another’ (a@llo). Dean Alford for the first ‘other’ has sub-

stituted ‘different’; for indeed that is what St. Paul intends

§ XCVI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 361
to express, namely, his wonder that they should have so

soon accepted a Gospel different in character and kind

from that which they had already received which there-

fore had no right to be called another Gospel, to assume

this name, being in fact no Gospel at all; since there

could not be two Gospels, varying the one from the other.

Cocceius: ‘Vos transferimini ad aliud Evangelium quod

aliud nec est, nec esse potest.’

There are other passages in the N.T. where the student

may profitably exercise himself with the enquiry why one

of these words is used in preference to the other, or rather

why both are used, the one alternating with, or giving

partial place to, the other. Such are I Cor. xii. 8-10;

2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts iv. 12.

xcvi. poie.
THERE is a long discussion in Rost any Palm's Lexicon,

s. v. pra, on the distinction between these words; and

the references there given sufficiently attest that this dis-

tinction has long and often occupied he attention of

scholars; this occupation indeed dating as far back as

Prodicus (see Plato, Charmides, 162 d). It is there rightly

observed that poiei?n brings out more the object and end

of an act, pra the means by which this object is

attained, as, for instance, hindrances moved out of the

way, and the like; and also that the idea of continuity

and repetition of action is inherent in pra ‘agere’

or ‘gerere,’ ‘handeln,’ ‘to practise’; but not necessarily

in poiei?n=’facere,’ ‘machen,’ which may very well be the

doing once and for all; the producing and bringing forth

something which being produced has an independent

existence of its own; as poiei?n paidi, of a woman, poiei?n

karpou, of a tree; in the same way, poiei?n ei]rh, to make

peace, while pra is no more than to negotiate

with the view to peace (see Pott, Etyl . Forsch. vol. iii.

362 SYNONYM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCVX.

p. 408); that attaining what this is only aiming to attain.

Pra and poiei?n are in this sense often joined together

by Demosthenes, and with no tautology; thus of certain

hostile designs which Philip entertained he assures the

Athenians o!ti pra poih (Orat. xix. 373), he

will busy himself with the bringing about of these things,

and he will effect them.¹ (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop. ii. 2. 30;

Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. vi. 5): pra, in the words of a

recent German scholar, ist die geschaftige, poiei?n die

schaffende Thatigkeit.

How far can we trace the recognition of any such dis-

tinction in the Greek of the N. T.? There are two or

three passages where it is difficult not to recognize an

intention of the kind. It is hard, for example, to suppose

that the change of words at John iii. 20, 21 is accidental;

above all when the same reappears at v. 29. In both

places it is the fau?la pra, which is set, in the first

instance, over against the poiei?n th>n a]lh, in the second

against the poiei?n ta> a]gaqa<, just as at Rom. vii. 19 we have

poiei?n a]gaqo and pra. It would of course be

idle to assert that the poiei?n relates only to good things,

for we have poiei?n a]nomi (Matt. xiii. 41), a[marti

(2 Cor. v. 21), ta> kaka< (Rom. iii. 8); not less idle to affirm

that pra is restricted to ill things; for, to go no

farther than the N. T., we have pra (Rom.

ix. 11). Still it is not to be denied that very often where

the words assume an ethical tinge, the inclination makes

¹ These are some o their words : Auch Kruger und Franke (Demo-

sthenes, Olynth. 15 unterscheiden pra als die geschaftige, poiei?n

als die schaffende Thatigkeit. Zulanglicher wird es indess sein, diesen

Unterschied dahin fest ustellen, dass bei poiei?n mehr die Vorstellung von

dem Product der Thakgkeit, bei pra mehr die von dem Hinarbeiten

auf ein Ziel mit Beseitiguag entgegentretender Hindernisse, von den

Mitteln und Wegen vorherrschend ist, wodurch dasselbe erreicht wird.

Damit verbindet sich die Vorstellung einer wenigstens relativen Con-

tinuitat, wie aufgewadter Anstrengung. It may be added that in

pra the action is always more or less conscious of itself, so that, as

was observed long ago, this could not be predicated of animals (Ethic.

Eudem, vi. 2. 2); while the poiei?n is more free and spontaneous.

§ XCVI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363

itself felt to use poiei?n in a good and pra in an evil

sense; the latter tendency appearing in a more marked

way in the uses of pra, which, occuring six times in

the N. T. (namely at Matt. xvi. 27; Luke xxiii. 51; Acts

xix. 18; Rom. viii. 13; xii. 4; Col. iii. 9), has in all these

places except the first an evil signification, very much

like our ‘practices’; cf. Polybius, iv. 8. 3 (pra,

e]piboulai<); v. 96. 4.

Bengel, at John iii. 20, gives the proper explanation of

this change of words: [pra. Malitia est irrequieta;

est quiddam operosius quam veritas. Hinc verbis diversis

notantur, uti cap. v. 29.' There may be a busy activity

in the working of evil, yet not the less it is true that ‘the

wicked worketh a deceitful work,’ and has nothing to

show for all his toil at the end, no fruit that remains.

Then too evil is manifold, good is one; they are e@rga th?j

sarko(Gal. v. 22), for these works are any, not merely

contradicting good, but often contradicting one another;

but it is karpo>j tou ? pneu (Gal. v. 19), for there is

an inner consent between all the parts if good, a ‘con-

senslus virtutum,’ as Cicero calls it, knitting them into a

perfect and harmonious whole, and inv ting us to con-

template them as one. Those are of human art and de-

vice, this of Divine nature. Thus Jerome (in loco): ‘In

came opera posuit [Paulus], et fructus in spiritu; quia

vitia in semetipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus

pullulant et redundant.' Here is enough to justify and

explain the fact that the inspired reporter of our Lord's

words has on these two occasions (John iii. 21, 22) ex-

changed the fau?la pra for the poiei?n a]lh

ta> a]gaqa<, the practising of evil for the doing of good. Let

me add in conclusion a few excellent words of Bishop

Andrewes: "There are two kinds of doers: 1. poihtai<,

and 2. praktikoi<, which the Latin likewise expresseth in

1. ‘agere,’ and 2. ‘facere.’ ‘Agere,’ as in music, where,

when we have done singing or playing, nothing remaineth

364 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCVII.
‘facere,’ as in building, where, after we have done, there is

a thing permanent. And poihtai<,‘factores,’ they are St.

James' doers. But we have both the words in the English

tongue: actors, as a play; factors, as in merchandise.

When the play is one, all the actors do vanish: but

of the factors' doing, there is a gain, a real thing re-

maining." On the distinction between pra and e@rgon

see Wyttenbach's note on Plutarch's Moralia, vol. vi. p. 601.

§ xcvi. bwmo.
THERE was occasion to note, in dealing with the words

profhteu and manteu (§ vi.), the accuracy with which

in several instances the lines of demarcation between the

sacred and profane between the true religion and the

false, are maintainer in the words which, reserved for the

one, are not permitted to be used for the other, each

retaining its proper and peculiar term. We have another

example of this same precision here, in the fact of the

constant use in the N. T. of qusiasth, occurring as it

does more than twenty times, for the altar of the true

God, while, on the one occasion when a heathen altar

needs to be named (Acts xvii. 23), bwmo is substituted in

its stead.

But, indeed, there was but a following here of the good

example which the Septuagint Translators had shown, the

maintenance of a distinction which these had drawn. So

resolute were they to mark the difference between the altars

of the true God and those on which abominable things

were offered, that there is every reason to suppose they

invented the word qusiasth for the purpose of main-

taining this distinction; being indeed herein more nice

than the inspired Hebrew Scriptures themselves; for these,

while they have a word which they use for heathen altars,

and never for the altars of the true God, namely hmABA. (Isai.

XCVII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 365

xv. 2; Amos vii. 9), make no scruple in using HaBez;mi now

for the one (Lev. i. 9), and now for the ether (Isai. xvii.

8). I need hardly observe that qusiasth, properly

the neuter of qusiasth, as i[lasth (Exod. xxv. 17;

Heb. ix. 5) of i[lasth, nowhere occurs in classical

Greek; and it is this coining of it on the part of the

Septuagint Translators which Philo must have had in

mind when he implied that Moses invented the word (De

Vit. Mos. iii. 10). With all this the Greek of the 0. T.

does not invariably observe this distinction. I cannot

indeed accept Num. xxiii. 1, 2 as instances of a failure

so to do; for what altars could be more truly heathen

than those which Balaam reared? Still there are three

occasions, one in Second Maccabees (xiii. 8), and two in

Ecclesiasticus (1. 12, 14), where bwno designates an altar

of the true God; these two Books however, it must be

remembered, hellenize very much. So too there are occa-

sions on which qusiasth is used to designate an idol

altar; for example, Judg. ii. 2; vi. 25; 2 Kin. xvi. 10.

Still these are rarest exceptions, and sometimess the antago-

nism between the words comes out with the most marked

emphasis. It does so, for example, at 2 Macc. x. 2, 3; but

more remarkably still at 1 Macc. i. 59, where the historian

recounts how the servants of Antiochus offered sacrifices

to Olympian Jove on an altar which had been built over

the altar of the God of Israel (qusia to>n bwmo

o{j h$n e]pi> tou? qusiasthri). Our Translators are here

put to their shifts, and are obliged to render bwmo

‘idol altar,’ and qusiasth ‘altar.’ We may compare

Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 4, where relating these same events

he says, e]poikodomh t& ? qusiasthri<& bwmoj e]p ]

au]tou ? kate. Still more notable, as marking how

strong the feeling on this matter was, the fact of the

refusal of the Septuagint Translators to give the title of

qusiasth (Josh. xxii.) to the altar which the Trans-

jordanic tribes had reared—being as it was a piece of

366 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCVII.
will-worship upon their parts, and no altar reared ac-

cording to the will, or by the express command, of God.

Throughout the chapter this altar is bwmo (ver. 10, 11,

16, 19, 23, 26, 34), the legitimate divinely ordained altar

qusiasth (ver. 19, 28, 29), and this while the Hebrew

text knows no such distinction, but indiscriminately em-

ploys HaBez;mi for both.

I mentioned just now an embarrassment, in which on

one occasion our Translators found themselves. In the

Latin there is no such difficulty; for at a very early day

the Church adopted ‘altare’ to designate her altar, and

assigned ‘ara’ exclusively to heathen uses. Thus see the

Vulgate at Judg. vi. 28; 1 Macc. i. 59; 2 Macc. x. 2, 3;

Acts xvii. 23. Cyprian in like manner expresses his

wonder at the profane boldness of one of the ‘turificati,’—

those, that is, who in time of persecution had consented

to save their lives by burning incense before a heathen

idol,—that he should afterwards have dared, without

obtaining first the Church's absolution, to continue his

ministry—'quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei

fas sit' (Ep. 63). In profane Latin ‘ara’ is the genus,

‘altare’ the specific kind of altar on which the victims

were offered (Virgil, Ecl. v. 65, 66; cf. Tacitus, Annal.

xvi. 31, and Orelli thereupon). The distinction between

bwmoand qusiasth, first established in the Septua-

gint, and recognized in the N. T., was afterwards main-

tained in ecclesiastical Greek; for the Church has still

her qusi (Heb. xiii. 5), and that which is at

once her qusi and a]na, and

therefore her qusiasth still. We have clear testimony

to this in the following passage of Chrysostom (in i Cor.

Hom. 24), in which Christ is supposed to be speaking

w!ste ei] ai!matoj e]piqumei?j, mh> to>n tw?n ei]dwn t&?

tw?n a]lo to> qusiasth e]mo>n t&?

e]m&? foi (compare Mede, Works, 1672, p. 391;

Augusti, Christl. Archaol. vol. i. p. 412; and Smith,

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. 'Altar').
§ XCVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 367
§ xcviii. lao.
Lao, a word of rarest use in Attic prose, but occurring

between one and two thousand times in the Septuagint,

is almost always there a title reserved for the elect

people, the Israel of God. Still there are exceptions.

The Philistines are a lao (Gen. xxvi. 11), the Egyptians

(Exod. ix. 16), and the Moabites (Ruth i. 15); to others

too the name is not refused. Then, too, occasionally in the

plural oi[ laoi< are= ta> e@qnh; as for example at Neh. i. 8;

xi. 30, 31; Ps. xcvi. 6; Hos. x. 10; Mic. vi. 16. Or again

we find laoi< joined with e@qnh as a sore of exhaustive

enumeration to comprehend the whole race of mankind;

thus Ps. cvii. 4; Wisd. of Sol. iii. 8; Rev. v. 9; vii. 9;

x. 11; xi. 9; xiii. 7; xiv. 6; xvii. 15. It is true indeed

that in all these, passages from the Book of Revelation the

exhaustive enumeration is fourfold; and to laoi< and e@qnh

are added fulai< and glw?ssai, on one occasion fulai<,

making way for basilei?j (x. 11) and on another for fulai<

(xvii. 15). We may contrast with this a distributive use of

lao and e@qnh, but lao here in the singular, as at Luke

ii. 32; Acts xxvi. 17, 23, where also, being used together,

they between them take in the whole of mankind, but

where lao, is claimed for and restricted to the chosen

people, while go, includes all mankind outside of the

covenant (Deut. xxxii. 43; Isai. lxv. I, 2; 2 Sam. vii. 23;

Acts xv. 14). And this is the general law of the words'

use, every other being exceptional; lao the chosen people,

e@qnh, or sometimes more fully ta> e@qnh tou ? ko (Luke

xii. 30), or th?j gh?j (Ezra viii. 89); but always in the

plural and with the article, the residue of mankind (oi[

kata, Acts xv. 17). A the same time

e@qnoj in the singular has no such limitation; it is a name

which, given to the Jews by others, is not intended to

convey any slight, thus to> e@qnoj tw?n ]Ioudai (Acts x. 22);

368 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCVIII.

they freely take it as in no way a dishonorable title to

themselves, to> e@qnoj h[mw?n (Luke vii. 5; cf. xxiii. 2; John

xi. 18), to> e@qnoj tou?to (Acts xxiv. 3; cf. Exod. xxxiii. 13;

Dent. iv. 6; Wis.. of Sol. xvii. 2); nay sometimes and

with certain additions it is for them a title of highest

honour; they are e@qnoj a!gion (Exod. xix. 6; cf. I Pet. ii.

9); e@qnoj e]k me (Clement of Rome, I Cor. § 29).

If indeed the word is connected with e@qoj, and contem-

plates a body of people living according to one custom

and rule, none could deserve the title better or so well as

a nation which ordered their lives according to a more

distinctive and rigidly defined custom and rule of their

own than probably any other nation that ever lived.

Dh?moj occurs only in St. Luke, and in him, as might be

expected, only in the Acts, that is, after his narrative has

left behind it the limitations of the Jewish Church, and

has entered on an begun to move in the ampler spaces,

and among the more varied conditions of the heathen

world. The following are the four occasions of its use,

xii. 22; xvii. 5; ix. 30, 33; they all exemplify well that

fine and accuratd use of technical terms, that choice of

the fittest among them, which we so often observe in

St. Luke, and which is so characteristic a mark of the

highly educated man. The Greek dh?moj is the Latin

‘populus,’ which Cicero (De Re Publ. 25; cf. Augustine,

De Civ. Dei, ii. 2 1) thus defines: ‘Populus autem non

omnis hominum coetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed

coetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione

sociatus;’ ‘die Gemeinde,’ the free commonalty (Plutarch,

Mul. Virt. 15, in fine), and these very often contemplated

as assembled an in actual exercise of their rights as

citizens. This idea indeed so dominates the word that

t&? dh) is equivalent to, ‘in a popular assembly.’ It is

invariably thus sed by St. Luke. If we want the exact

opposite to dh?moj it is o@xloj, the disorganized, or rather

the unorganized, multitude (Luke ix. 38; Matt. xxi. 8;

§ XCIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 369
Acts xiv. 14); this word in classic Greek having often a

certain tinge of contempt, as designating those who share

neither in the duties nor privileges of he free citizens;

sues contempt, however, does not lie of necessity in the

word (Rev. vii. 9; Acts i. I5), and there is no hint of it in

Scripture, where a man is held worth) of honour even

though the only poli in which he may claim a share

is that which is eternal in the heavens (Phil. iii. 70).

§ xcix. baptismo.
THESE are exclusively ecclesiastical terms, as are bap-

tisth, and baptisth; none of them appearing in the

Sertuagint, nor in classical Greek, but only in the N. T.,

or in writings dependent on this. They are all in lineal

descent from bapti, a later form of ba

, and to be

found, though rarely, in classical Gree thus twice in

Plato (Euthyd. 277 d; Symp. 176 b), where bebaptisme

signifies well washed with wine; the ‘uvidus’ of Horace

(Carm. ii. 19. i 8); and often in later writers, as in Plutarch

(De Superst. 3; Galba, 21), in Lucian (Bacch. 7), and in

others.

Before proceeding further, a word or two may fitly

find place here on the relation between ords of the same

family, but divided from one another by their several ter-

ations in ma and moj, as kh and khrugmo

and diwgmo and dhgmo, with others innumerable.

It seldom happens that both forms are found in the N. T.;

that in ma being of the most frequent occurrence; thus

this has a]pau (Heb. i. 3), but not a]paugasmo;

se (Acts xvii. 23), but not sebasmo

(Matt. xxiv. 5), but not bdelugmo; r[h?gma (Luke vi. 49),

but not r[hgmo; perika (I Cor. iv. 13), but not peri-

kaqarmo. Sometimes, but more rarely, it offers us the

termination of moj; thus a[rpagmo (Ph 1. ii. 6), but not

370 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XCIX.
a!rpagma; a]partismo (Luke xiv. 28), but not a]pa;

katartismo (Ephes. iv. 12), but not kata

(Rom. vi. 19), but not a[gi. It will happen, but only

in rare instances, that both forms occur in the N. T.; thus

mi (2 Pet. ii. 20) and miasmo (2 Pet. ii. 10); and

these with which we have at present to deal, ba

and baptismo. There is occasionally, but not in the

N. T., a third form; thus besides seand sebasmo

there is se; besides a]pa and a]partismo there

is a]pa; besides pleo and pleonasmo there is

pleo; besides a!rpagma and a]partismo, there is a!rpasij;

and so too besides ba

and baptismo we have ba


tisij in Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 2) and others. There is

no difficulty in severally assigning to each of these forms

the meaning which properly belongs to it; and this, even

while we must own that in actual use the words are very

far from abiding true to their proper significance, those

with the active termination in moj continually drifting

into a passive signification, as is the case with pleonasmoj,

basanismo, and in the N. T. with a[giasmo and others;

while the converse, if not quite so common, is yet of fre-

quent occurrence; cf. Tholuck, Disp. Christ. de loco Pauli

Ep. ad Phil. ii. 6-9 1848, p. 18. Thus, to take the words

which now concern us the most nearly, ba

is the

act of baptism contemplated in the doing, a baptizing;

baptismo the same act contemplated not only as doing,

but as done, a baptism; while ba

is not any more

the act, but the abiding fact resulting therefrom, baptism;

the first embodying the transitive, the second the in-

transitive, notion of the verb; while the third expresses

the result of the transitive notion of the same—this last

therefore, as is evident, being the fittest word to designate

the institution of baptism in the Church, as an abstract

idea, or rather as a ever-existing fact, and not the same

in its several concre e realizations. See on these passives

in ma the exhaustive essay on plh in Lightfoot, On

the Colossians, pp. 323-339.

§ XCIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 371

How far is this the usage of the N. T.? It can only

be said to be approximately so; seeing that baptismo

has not there, as I am convinced, arrived at the dignity

of setting forth Christian baptism at all. By baptismo in

the usage of the N. T. We must understand any ceremonial

washing or lustration, such as either has been ordained of

God (Heb. ix. 10), or invented by men (Mark vii. 4, 8);

but in neither case as possessing any central significance:

while by ba
we understand baptism our Christian

sense of the word (Rom. vi. 4; 1 Pet. iii. 1; Ephes. iv. 5);

yet not so strictly as to exclude the baptism of John (Luke

vii. 29; Acts x. 37; xix. 3). This distinction is in the

main preserved by the Greek ecclesiastical writers. Jose-

phus indeed calls the baptism of John baptismo (Antt.

xviii. 5. 2); but Augusti (Christi. Archdol. vol. ii. p. 313) is

strangely in error, affirming as he does of the Greek

Fathers that they habitually employ the same for Christian

Baptism. So far from this, it would be difficult to adduce

a single example of this from Chrysostom, or from any

one of the great Cappadocian Father. In the Latin

Church it is true that ‘baptismus’ and ‘baptisma’ are

both employed to designate Christian baptism; by Ter-

tullian one perhaps as frequently as the other; while

‘baptismus' quite predominates in Augustine; but it is

altogether otherwise in ecclesiastical Greek, which remains

faithful to the distinctions which the N T. observes.

These distinctions are there so constantly maintained,

that all explanations of Heb. vi. 2 (baptismw?n didaxh?j),

which rest on the assumption that Christian baptism is

intended here, break down before this fact; not to urge

the plural baptismw?n, which, had the sne baptism of the

Church been intended, would be inexpl cable. If, indeed,

we take the baptismoi<, of this place in its widest sense, as

including all baptisms whatever with which the Christian

had anything to do, either in the ay of rejecting or

making them his own, we can underst nd a 'doctrine of

372 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § C.
baptisms,’ such a should teach the young convert the

definitive abolition of the Jewish ceremonial lustrations,

the merely preparatory and provisional character of the

baptism of John, and the eternal validity of the baptism

of Christ. We can understand too how these all should

be gathered up under the one name of baptismoi<, being

that they were all washings; and this without in the least

allowing that an other save ba

was the proper

title of that loutro>n paliggenesi which is the exclusive

privilege of the Church of Christ.
§ c. sko
OF sko it needs hardly to speak. It is the largest and

most inclusive word of this group; being of very frequent

occurrence in the N. T., both in this its Attic form, as

also in that of skoti, which belongs to the common dia-

lect. It is the exact opposite to fw?j; thus in the pro-

foundly pathetic words of Ajax in Euripides, i]w< : skon

fa: compare Plato, Rep. 518 a; Job xxii. 11; Luke xii.

3; Acts xxvi.

Gno, which is rightly regarded as a later Doric form

of dno, occurs nly once in the N. T., namely at Heb.

xii. 18, and there in connection with zo; in which same

connection it is fund elsewhere (Deut. iv. 11; Exod. x.

22; Zeph. 16). There was evidently a feeling on the

part of our early translators, that an element of tempest

was included in the word, the renderings of it by them being

these: ‘mist’ (Wiclif and Tyndale); ‘storm’ (Cranmer);

‘blackness’ (Geneva and Authorized Version); 'whirl-

wind' (Rheims, as ‘turbo’ in the Vulgate). Our ordi-

nary lexicons indicate very faintly, or not at all, that such

a force is to be found in gno; but it is very distinctly

recognized by Pott (Etyma. Forsch. vol. 5, p. 346), who

gives, as explanatory equivalents, ‘finsterniss,’ ‘dunkel,’

‘wirbelwind,’ and who with the best modern scholars sees

§ C. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 373

in ne and zo, a group of words

having much in common, perhaps no more than different

shapes of what was once a single word. It is joined, too,

in the Septuagint, where it is of frequent use, with nefe

(Joel ii. 2; Ps. xcvi. 2; Exod. xxxiv. 12), and with

qu (Dent. iv. 11; v. 22).

Zo, which occurs three times in the N. T. (2 Pet. ii.

4, 17; Jude 6), or four times, if we make room for it at

Heb. xii. 18, as it seems we should, is not found in the

Septuagint; once, however, namely at Ps. x. 2, in the

version of Symmachus. The zo may be contemplated as

a kind of emanation of sko; thus o[ zo

(Exod. x. 22; Jude 13); and signifies in its first meaning

the twilight gloom which broods over the regions of the

setting sun, and constitutes so strong a contrast to the

life and light of that Orient where the sun may be said to

be daily new-born. ]Hero, or the cloudy, is in Homer the

standing epithet with which zofo, when used in this

sense, is linked. But it means more than this. There is

a darkness darker still, that, namely, of the sunless under-

world, the ‘nigra Tartara’ of Virgil (AEn. vi. 134); the

‘opaca Tartara ' of Ovid (Met. x. 20); the knefai?a Tarta<-

rou baof AEschylus (Prom. Vinct. 1029). This, too,

it further means, namely that sunless world itself, though

indeed this less often than the gloom which wraps it

(Homer, Hymn. ad Cer., 338; Euripides, Hippolytus, 1434

cf. Job x. 21, 22). It is out of the zo that Ahriman in

the Egyptian mythology is born, as is Ormuzd out of the

light (Plutarch, De Osir. et Is. 46). It will at once be per-

ceived with what fitness the word in the N. T. is employed,

being ever used to signify the darkness of that shadowy

land where light is not, but only darkness visible.

]Axlu occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Acts

xiii. 11; never in the Septuagint, although once in the ver-

six). of Symmachus (Job iii. 5). It is by Galen defined as

something more dense than o]mi, less dense than ne.

374 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § CI.
In the single place of its N. T. use it attests the accuracy in

the selection of words, and not least of medical words, which

‘the beloved physician’ so often displays. For him it ex-

presses the mist of darkness, a]xlu>j kai> sko, which fell

on the sorcerer Elymas, being the outward and visible sign

of the inward spiritual darkness which should be his portion

for a while in punishment for his resistance to the truth.

It is by ‘mist’ that all the translations of our English

Hexapla render it, with the exception of the Rheims, which

has ‘dimness'; while it is rendered well by ‘caligo’ in

the Vulgate. St. Luke's use of the word in the Acts is

divided by nearly a thousand years from its employment

by Homer; but the meaning has remained absolutely the

same; for indeed it is words with an ethical significance,

and not those which express the phenomena of the out-

ward world, that change with the changing years. Thus

there is in the Odyssey a fine use of the verb a]xlu (xii.

406), the poet describing there the responsive darkness

which comes over the sea as it is overshadowed by a dark

cloud (cf. ‘inhorruit unda tenebris': Virgil, AEn. iii. 195).

]Axlu, too, is employed by Homer to express the mist

which clouds the eyes of the dying (Il. xvi. 344), or that

in which the gods, for one cause or another, may envelope

their favourites.

§ ci. be.
THE image which be, derived from bh?loj, a thresh-

old, suggests, is flat of a spot trodden and trampled on,

lying open to the casual foot of every intruder or careless

passer-by;—and thus, in words of Thucydides, a xwri

be (iv. 97). Exactly opposite to this is the a@duton, a

spot, that is, fenced and reserved for sacred uses, as such

not lightly to be approached, but in the language of the

Canticle, ‘a garden enclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain

sealed’ (Cant. iv. i 2). It is possible indeed that the ‘profane-

§ CI. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 375

ness’ which is predicated of person or thing to whom this

title is applied, may be rather negatively the absence of any

higher consecration than positively the active presence of

aught savouring of unholy or profane. Thus it is often joined

with a]mu