Synonyms of the New Testament
Yüklə 3,52 Mb.
|
| § xlviii. qeosebh deisidai qeosebh ii. 3), occurs only once in the N. T. (John ix. 31); and qeose xxviii. 28). Eu]sebh 16; xxvi. 7; x xii. 8), but common in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. xi. 22; xii. 2, 4), with the words dependant on it, is of more frequent occurrence (I Tim. ii. 2; Acts x. 2; 2 Pet. ii. 9, and often). Before we proceed to consider the relation of these to the other words in this group, a subordinate distinction between themselves may fitly be noted; this, namely, that in qeosebh very derivation, piety toward God, or toward the gods; while eu]sebh in the fulfillment of human relations, as toward parents or others (Euripides, Elect. 253, 254), the word according to its etymology only implying ‘worship’ (that is ‘worth- ship') and reverence, well and rightly directed. It has in fact the same double meaning as the Latin ‘pietas,’ which is not merely ‘justitia adversum Deos,’ or ‘scientia’ colen-
meaning, which deeply instructive as it is, yet proves oc- casionally embarrassing; so that on several occasions Augustine, when he has need of accuracy and precision in his language, pauses to observe that by ‘pietas’ he means what eu]se namely, piety toward God (‘Dei pietaten, quam Graeci vel
clxvii. 3; De Trin. xiv. 1; Civ. Dei, x. 1; Enchir. 1). At the same time eu]se § XLVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 173 and not therefore every reverencing of the gods, but a reverencing of them aright (eu#), is the standing word to express this piety, both in itself (Xenophon, Ages. iii. 5; xi. I), and as it is the right mean between a]qeo deisidaimoni daimoni manner opposes it to ei]dwlolatrei over against the a]no self filo qeou tiful remarks on eu]se see Nagelsbach, Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 191. Chris- tian eu]se i. p. 3) as h[ pro>j to>n e!na kai> mo What would have needed to be said on eu]labh been for the most part anticipated already (see § 10); yet something further may be added here. I observed there how eu]la carefulness in respect of human things to the same in respect of divine; the German ‘Andacht’ had much the same history (see Grimm, Worterbuch, s. v.). The only places in the N. T. where eu]labh Acts ii. 5; viii. 2; cf. Mic. vii. 2. We have uniformly translated it ‘devout’; nor could this translation be bettered. It is the Latin ‘religiosus,’ but not our ‘re- ligious.’ On all these occasions it expresses Jewish, and as one might say, Old Testament piety. On the first it is applied to Simeon; on the second, to those Jews who came from distant parts to keep the commanded feasts at Jeru- salem; and, on the third, the a@ndrej eu]labei?j, who carry Stephen to his burial, are in all likelihood not Christian brethren, but devout Jews, who avowed y this courageous act of theirs, as by their great lamentation over the slaughtered saint, that they separated themselves in spirit from this deed of blood, and thus, if it might be, from all 174 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XLVIII.
those murderers. Whether it was further given them to believe on the Crucified, who had such witnesses as Stephen, we are not told; we may well presume that it was. If we keep in mind that, in that mingled fear and love which together constitute the piety of man toward God, the Old Testament it placed its emphasis on the fear, the New places it on the love (though there was love in the fear of God's saints then, as there must be fear in their love now), it will at once be evident how fitly eu]labh chosen to set forth their piety under the Old Covenant, who, like Zacharias and Elizabeth, "were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke i. 6), and leaving nothing willingly undone which pertained to the circle of their prescribed duties. For this sense of accurately and scrupulously performing, that which is prescribed, with the consciousness of the danger of slipping into a careless negligent performance of God's service, and of the need therefore of anxiously watching against the adding to or diminishing from or in any other way altering, that which. has been by Him commanded, lies ever in the words
tion.1 Compare Pott, Etym. Forsch. vol. v. p. 369. Plutarch on more occasions than one exalts the eu]la of the Romans in the handling of divine things, as con- trasted with the comparative carelessness of the Greeks. Thus, after other instances in proof (Coriol. 25), he goes on: ‘Of late times also they did renew and begin a sacri- fice thirty times one after another; because they thought still there fell out one fault or other in the same; so holy
be here fitly quoted (De Nat. Deor. ii. 28): ‘Qui omnia quae ad cultum deorum pertinerent, diligenter retractarent, et tanquam relegerent, sunt dicti religiosi.' § XLVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 175
n eu]la | pro>j to> qei?on [Rwmai Paulus (c. 3) as eminent for his eu]la long, and I only quote a portion of it, availing myself again of Sir Thomas North's hearty transition, which, though somewhat loose, is in essentials correct: ‘When he did anything belonging to his office of priesthood, he did it with great experience, judgment, and diligence; leaving all other thoughts, and without omitting any ancient ceremony, or adding to any new; contending oftentimes with his companions in things which seemed light and of small moment; declaring to them that though we do presume the gods are easy to be pacified, and that they readily pardon all faults and scrape committed by neg- ligence, yet if it were no more but for respect of the commonwealth's sake they should not slightly or carelessly dissemble or pass over faults committed in those matters' (p. 206). Compare Aulus Gellius, i . 28: ‘Veteres Ro- mani in constituendis religionibus atque in diis immor- talibus animadvertendis castissimi cautissimique.' Euripides in one passage contemplates eu]la divine one, xrhsimwta (Phoen. 94).
| But if in eu]labh worshipper, who makes a conscience of changing anything, of omitting anything, being above all things fearful to offend, we have in qrh?skoj (Jam. i. 2 ), which still more nearly corresponds to the Latin ‘religiosus,’ the zealous and diligent performer of the divine offices, of the outward service of God. The word indeed no here else occurs in the whole circle of the profane literature of Greece; but working back from qrhskei its exact meaning. Qrhskei(=‘cultus,’ or perhaps more strictly, ‘cultus exterior’) is predominantly the ceremonial service of religion, of her whom Lord Brooke has so grandly named ‘mother of form and fear,’—the external framework or body, of which eu]se 176 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XLVIII. The suggestion of Plutarch (Alex. 2), deriving qrh?skoj from Orpheus the Thracian, who brought in the celebration of religious mysteries, is etymologically worthless; but points, and no doubt truly, to the celebration of divine offices as the fundamental notion of the word. How delicate and fine then is St. James's choice of qrh?- skoj and qrhskei seem to himself to be qrh?skoj, a diligent observer of the offices of religion, if any man would render a pure and undefiled qrhskei not in outward lustrations or ceremonial observances ; nay, that there is a better qrhskei rams and rivers of oil, namely, to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with his God' (Mic. vi. 7, 8); or, according to his own words, "to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world" (cf. Matt. xxiii. 23). St. James is not herein affirming, as we sometimes hear, these offices to be the sum total, nor yet the great essentials, of true religion, but declares them to be the body, the qrhskei godliness, or the love of God, is the informing soul. His intention is somewhat obscured to the English reader from the fact that ‘religious’ and ‘religion,’ by which we have rendered qrh?skoj and qrhskei once which they now possess no longer, and in that meaning are hire employed. The Apostle claims for the new dispensation a superiority over the old, in that its very qrhskei in that it has light for its garment, its very robe being righteousness; herein how much nobler than that old, whose qrhskei whatever inner truth it might embody. These observations are made by Coleridge (Aids to Reflection, 1825, p. 15), who at the same time complains of our rendering of qrh?skoj and qrhskei as obsolete; an explanation indeed which he has himself § XLVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 177
‘religion’ at the time when our Version was made as would bear our Translators out. Milton offers more than one. Some heathen idolatries he characterizes as being ‘adorned With gay religions full of pompand gold.' Paradise Lost, b. i. And our Homilies will supply many more: thus, in that Against Peril of Idolatry: ‘Images used for no religion or superstition rather, we mean of none worshipped, nor in danger to be worshipped of any, may be suffered.’ A very instructive passage on the merely external character of qrhskei our Translators saw in ‘religion,’ occcurs in Philo (Quod Det. Pot. Ins. 7). Having repelled such as would fain be counted among the eu]sebei?j on the score of diverse washings, or costly offerings to the temple, he proceeds: peplanhtai
declined into the meaning of superstition, service of false gods (Wisd. xiv. 18, 27; Col. ii. 18), of itself indicates that it had more to do with the form, than with the essence, of piety. Thus Gregory Nazianzene (Carm. ii. 34. 150, 151): qrhskei [H d ] eu]se Deisidai deisidaimoni =qeosebh sible that ‘superstitio’ and ‘superstitiosus’ had the same. There seem traces of such a use of ‘superstitiosus’ by Plautus (Curcul. 27; Amphit. I. 169); although, as no one has yet solved the riddle of this word,1 it is im- possible absolutely to say whether this be so or not. In 1 Pott (Etym. Forsch. vol. ii. p. 921) resumel the latest investiga- tions on the derivation of ‘superstitio.’ For the German ‘Aberglaube’ (=’Ueberglaube’) see Herzog, Real-Encyc. s. v. 178 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XLVIII. Cicero's time it had certainly left its better meaning be- hind (De Nat. Deor. 28; Divin. ii. 72); and compare Seneca: ‘Religio Deos colic, superstitio violat.’ The phi- losophers first gave an unfavourable significance to deisi- daimoni sense in a passage of Polybius (vi. 36. 7); but Jebb (Cha- racters of Theophrastus, p. 264) quotes a passage from Aristotle (Pol. v. 11), showing that this meaning was not unknown to him. So soon as ever the philosophers began to account fear not as a right, but as a disturbing element in piety, one therefore to be carefully eliminated from the true idea of it (see Plutarch, De Aud. Poet. 12; and Wyt- tenbach, Animadd. in Plutarchum, vol. i. p. 997), it was almost inevitable that they should lay hold of the word which by its very etymology implied and involved fear (deisidaimoni that which they disallowed and condemned, namely, the ‘timor inanis Deorum’ (Cicero, Nat. Deor. 41): in which phrase the emphasis must not be laid on ‘inanis,’ but on ‘timor’; cf. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, vi. 9): ‘Varro religiosum a superstitioso ea distinctione discernit, ut a superstitioso dicat timeri Deos; a religioso autem vereri ut parentes; non ut hostes timeri.’ Baxter does not place the emphasis exactly where these have done; but his de- finition of superstition is also a good one (Cathol. Theol. Preface): ‘A conceit that God is well pleased by over- doing in external things and observances and laws of men's own making.’ But even after they had thus turned deisidaimoni ignobler uses, defined it, as does Theophrastus, deili to> daimo polupa and altogether forfeit its higher signification. It re- mained indeed a middle term to the last, receiving its inclination to good or bad from the intention of the user. Thus we not only find deisidai § XLVIII. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 179 Cyr. iii. 3. 58) and deisidaimoni Josephus, Antt. x. 3. 2) in a good sense; but St. Paul himself employed it in no ill meaning in his ever memor- able discourse upon Mars' Hill. He there addresses the Athenians, "I perceive that in all things ye are w[j deisi-
superstitious," as we have rendered it, or ‘allzu aber- glaubisch,' as Luther; but rather ‘reliriosiores,’ as Beza, ‘sehr gottesfurchtig,’ as De Wette, has given it. For indeed it was not St. Paul's habit to affront, and by af- fronting to alienate his hearers, least of all at the outset of a discourse intended to win them to the truth. Deeper reasons, too, than those of a mere calculating prudence, would have hindered him from expressing himself thus; none was less disposed than he to ove look or deny the religious element in heathenism, however overlaid or obscured by falsehood or error this might be. Led by such considerations as these, some interpreter, Chrysostom for instance, make deisidaimoneste it altogether as praise. Yet neither must we run into an extreme on this side. St. Paul selects with finest tact and skill, and at the same time with most perfect truth, a word which almost imperceptibly shaded off from praise to blame. Bengel (in loc.): ‘deisidai huic aptissimam.' In it he gave to his Athenian hearers the honour which was confessedly their due as zealous wor- shippers of the superior powers, so far as their knowledge reached, being qeosebe 256), eu]sebe them; their land qeofilesta names it; compare the beautiful chorus in The Clouds of Aristophanes, 299-313. But for all this, the apostle does not squander on them the words of very highest honour of all, reserving these for the true worshippers of the true God. And as it is thus in the one passage where dei- 180 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § XLIX.
(Acts xxv. 19). Festus may speak there with a certain covert slight of the deisidaimoni worshipping God (‘Gottesverehrung’ De Wette translates it), which, as he conceived, was common to St. Paul and his Jewish accusers; but he would scarcely have called it a ‘superstition’ in Agrippa's face, for it was the same to which Agrippa himself was addicted (Acts xxvi. 3, 27), whom certainly he was very far from intending to insult.
on several occasions in the Septuagint, as for instance at Job xx. 18; Isai. xxxvii. 7; cf. xlix. 4; Hos. xii. 1; in Clement of Rome, 1 Ep. § 6; and not unfrequently in classical Greek as in Sophocles (Elec. 324); in Aristotle,
with them here solely in their ethical use; for seeing that ma only as ethicall employed that kayos can be brought into comparison with it, or the words made the subject of discrimination. The first, ke the second, ma ‘vanus.’ In the first is characterized the hollowness, in the second the aimlessness, or, if we may use the word, the resultlessne s, connected as it is with ma to which this epithet is given. Thus kenai> e]lpi his, Pers. 804; cf. Job vii. 6; Ecclus. xxxi. 1, where they are joined with yeudei?j) are empty hopes, such as are built on no solid foundation; and in the N. T. kenoi< lo (Ephes. v. 6; c . Deut. xxxii. 47; Exod. v. 9) are words which have no ner substance and kernel of truth, hollow sophistries an apologies for sin; ko , labour which yields no return (I Cor. xv. 58); so kenofwni § XLIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 181
plained matai e[autou? oi@hsij. St. Paul reminds the Thessalonians (I Thess. ii. 1) that his entrance to them was not kenh<, not unaccompanied with the demon- stration of Spirit and of power. When used not of things but of persons, keno and emptiness of good, but, since the moral nature of man endures no vacuum, the presence of evil. It is thus employed only once in the N. T., namely at Jam. ii. 20 where the a@nqrwpoj keno wisdom has found no entrance, but who is puffed up with a vain conceit of his own spiritual insight, ‘aufgeblasen,’ as Luther has it. Compare the a@ndrej kenoi< of Judg. ix. 4; Plutarch (Qua quis Rat. Laud. 5) tou>j e]n t&? peripatei?n e]pairome kenou kena> fronti But if keno is not filled with God, ma express the aimlessness, the leading to no object or end, the vanity, of all which has not Him who is the only true object and end of any intelligent creature, for its scope. In things natural it is ma Nyssa, in his first Homily on Ecclesiastes explains it, to build houses of sand on the sea-shore, to chase the wind, to shoot at the stars, to pursue one's own shadow. Pindar (Pyth. iii. 37) exactly describes the ma can issue in nothing (Plato, Legg. 735 b); that grief is ma ma obtain its fulfilment (Euripides, Iphig. in Taur. 633); the prophecies of the false prophet, which God will not bring to pass, are mantei?ai ma xxxi. 5); so in the N. T. ma cussion can lead to no advancement in true godliness; cf. mataiologi lo tend only to poverty, or to worse (Isai. xxxii. 6: LXX.); mataioponi nature is in vain. Mataio Greek; one too to which the old heathen world, had it possessed it, could never have imparted that depth of meaning which in Scripture it has obtained. For indeed that heathen world was itself too deeply and hopelessly sunken in ‘vanity’ to be fully alive to the fact that it was sunken in it at all; was committed so far as to have lost all power to pronounce that judgment upon itself which in this word is pronounced upon it. One must, in part at least, have been delivered from the mataio condition at all to esteem it for what it truly is. When the Preacher exclaimed 'All is vanity' (Eccles. i. 2), it is clear that something in him was not vanity, else he could never have arrived at this conclusion. Hugh of S. Victor ‘Aliquid ergo in a ipso fuit quod vanitas non fuit, et id contra vanitatem non vane loqui potuit.’ Saying this I would not for an instant deny that some echoes of this cry of his reachus from the moral waste of the old heathen world. From none perhaps are they heard so often and so distinctly as from Lucretius. How many of the most pathetic passage in his poem do but draw out at greater length that confession which he has more briefly summed up in two lines, themselves of an infinite sadness:
Semper, et in curis consumit inanibus aevom.’ But if these confessions are comparatively rare elsewhere, they are frequent in Scripture. It is not too much to say that of one book in Scripture, I mean of course the book of The Preacher, it is the key-word. In that book mataio<- § XLIX. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183
times; and this ‘vanity,’ after the preacher has counted and cast up the total good of man's lie and labours apart from God, constitutes the zero at which the sum of all is rated by him. The false gods of heathendom are emi- nently ta> ma x. 15; Jon. ii. 8); the mataiou?sqai is ascribed to as many as become followers of these (Rom. i. 21; 2 Kin. xvii. 15; Jer. 5; xxviii. 17, 18); inasmuch as they, following after vain things, become themselves mataio 11), like the vain things which they follow (Wisd. xiii. 1; xiv. 21-31); their whole conversation vain (I Pet. i. 18), the mataio of their moral being, to the nou?j itself Ephes. iv. 17). Nor is this all; this mataio 21), for the phrases are convertible, of which the end is death, reaches to that entire creation which was made dependant on man; and which with a certain blind con- sciousness of this is ever reaching out after a deliverance, such as it is never able to grasp, seeing that the resti- tution of all others things can only follow on the previous restitution of man. On this matter Olshausen (on Rom. viii. 21, 22) has some beautiful remarks, of which I can quote but a fragment: ‘Jeder naturliche Mensch, ja jedes Thier, jede Pflanze ringt uber sich hinaus zu kommen, eine Idee zu verwirklichen, in deren Verwirklichung sie ihre e]leuqeri volkommen entsprechende Seyn; aber die ihr Wesen durchziehemle Nichtigkeit (Ps. xxxix. 6; Pred. i. 2, 14), d. h. die mangelnde Lebensfulle, die darin begrundete Verganglichkeit und deren Ende, de Tod, lasst kein geschaffenes Ding sein Ziel erreichen; jedes Individuum der Gattung fangt vielmehr den Kreslauf wieder von neuem an, und ringt trostlos wider die Unmoglichkeit, sich zu vollenden.' There is much too excellently said on this ‘vanity of the creature’ in an article in the Zeitschrift 184 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § L.
Koster in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 755 sqq. § l. i[ma THE reader need not be alarmed here in prospect of a treatise de Re Vestiaria; although such, with the abundant materials read to hand in the works of Ferrarius, Braun, and others, might very easily be written, and need cost little more than the trouble of transcription. I do not propose more than a brief discrimination of a few of the words by which garment, are most frequently designated in the N. T.
like so many words of our own, as ‘pocket,’ ‘latchet,’ it has quite lost the force of a diminutive, is the word of com- monest use, when there is no intention to designate one manner of garment more particularly than another (Matt. xi. 8; xxvi. 65). But i[ma stricted sense, of the large upper garment, so large that a man would sometimes sleep in it (Exod. xxii. 26), the cloke as distinguished from the xitw inner vest; and thus periba called peribo Conj. Praec. 12 , but e]ndu Orat. vii. 111). [Ima under garment, occur constantly together (Acts ix. 39 Matt. v. 40; Luke vi. 29; John xix. 23). Thus at Matt. v. 40 our Lord instructs his disciples: "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat (xitw?na), let him have thy cloke (i[ma presumed to be in with the less costly, the under garment, which we have rendered, not very happily, the ‘coat’ (Dictionary of the Bible, art. Dress), from which 'he pro- ceeds to the more costly, or upper; and the process of spoliation being a legal one, there is nothing unnatural in such a sequence: but at Luke vi. 29 the order is reversed: L. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 185
take thy coat (xitw?na) also." As the whole context plainly shows, the Lord is here contemplating an act of violent outrage; and therefore the cloke or upper garment, as that which would be the first seized, is also the first named. In the AEsopic fable (Plutarch, Praec. Conj. I2), the wind with all its violence only makes the traveller to wrap his i[ma sun begins to shine in its strength, he puts off first his
had laid aside his i[mation, and was only in his xitw ‘naked,’ as our Translators have it (John xxi. 7), which suggests an unseemliness that certainly did not find place; but stripped for toil (cf. Isai. xx. 2; lviii. 7; Job xxii. 6; Jam. ii. 15; and in the Latin, ‘nudus ara.’ It is naturally his i[ma (Gen. xxxix. 12); while at Jude 23 xitw [Imatismo and belonging to the koinh> dia used except of garments more or less stately and costly. It is the ‘vesture'—this word expressing it very well (cf. Gen. xli. 42; Ps. cii. 26; Rev. xix. 13, E. V.), of kings; thus of Solomon in all his glory (I Kin. x. 5; cf. xxii. 30); is associated with gold and silver, as part of a precious spoil (Exod. iii. 22; xii. 35; cf. Acts xx. 33); is found linked with such epithets as e@ndocoj (Luke vii. 25; cf. Isai. iii. 18, do xrusoj (Ps. xliv. 10), polutelh Apoph. Lac. Archid. 7); is a name given to our Lord's xitw all of a piece (a@r]r[afoj), and had that of cost and beauty about it which made even the rude Roman soldiers un- willing to rend, and so to destroy it. The purple robe with which our Lord was arrayed in scorn by the mockers in Pilate's judgment-hall is a xlamu 186 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § L. word has its strictest fitness here. Xlamu signifies a garment of dignity and office, that xlamu peritiqe stracy (Plutarch, An. Sen. Ger. Resp. 26). This might be a civil magistracy; but xlamu (which, and not ‘sagum,’ is its nearest Latin equivalent), far more commonly expresses the robe with which military officers, captains, commanders or imperators, would be clothed (2 Macc. xii. 35); and the employment of xlamu in the record of the Passion leaves little doubt that these profane mockers obtained, as it would have been so easy for them in the praetorium to obtain, the cast-off cloke of some high Roman officer, and with this arrayed the sacred person of the Lord. We recognise a certain con- firmation of this supposition in the epithet ko St. Matthew gives it. It was ‘scarlet,’ the colour worn by Roman officers of rank; so ‘chlamys coccinea’ (Lam- pridius, Alex. Severus, 40); xlaumu tarch, Prcec. Ger. Reip. 20). That the other Evangelists describe it as ‘purple’ (Mark xv. 17; John xix. 2) does not affect this statement; for the ‘purple’ of antiquity was a colour almost or altogether indefinite (Braun, De Vest. Sac. Heb. vol. i. p. 220; Gladstone, Studies on Homer, vol. iii. p. 457). Stolh<, from ste robe; and as long sweeping garments would have emi- nently this stateliness about them, always, or almost always, a garment reaching to the feet, or trainlike sweep- ing the ground. The fact that such were oftenest worn by women (the Trojan women are e[lkesi in Homer) explains the use which ‘stola’ in Latin has predominantly acquired. The Emperor Marcus Antoninus tells us in his
his tutor, the famous Stoic philosopher Rusticus, was, not to stalk about the house in a stolh< (mh> e]n stol^? kat ] oi#kon
xii. 38; cf. Luke xx. 46), making this solemn ostentation of themselves in the eyes of men. Stolh< is in constant use for the holy garments of Aaron and his descendants (Exod. xxviii. 2; xxix. 2; stolh> do Ecclus. 1. 11); or, indeed, for any garment of special solemnity, richness, or beauty; thus stolh> leitourgikh< (Exod. xxxi. 10); and compare Mark vi. 5; Luke xv. 22; Rev. vi. 11; vii. 9; Esth. vi. 8, 11; Jon. iii. 6. Podh (of which the second syllable is short), is properly an ad- jective,=’talaris;’ thus a]spi>j podh (=qureo podh severally a shield, a garment, a beard, reaching down to the feet. It differs very little from stolh<. Indeed the same Hebrew word which is renderer podh ix, 2, 3, is rendered stolh<, ibid. x. 2, and stolh> a[gi 6, 7. At the same time, in the enumeration of the high- priestly garments, this stolh>, or stolh> a[gi whole array of the high priest; while the podh podh accurate chapter about the Jewish festivals, Symp. iv. 6. 6) is distinguished from it, and signifies one portion only, namely, the robe or chetoneth (Exod. x. 2, 43 Ecclus. xlv. 7, 8). There are other words which might be included in this group, as e]sqh assign severally to each of these a domain of meaning peculiarly its own. 188 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § LI. § li. eu]xh<, proseuxh<, de Yüklə 3,52 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|