THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY

NEW TESTAMENT

EDITED BY

GERHARD KITTEL

Translator and Editor

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY, D. LITT., D. D.

Volume I
A-T

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
 THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEw TESTAMENT
Published by
Wm, B Eerdmans Publishing Company
255 Jefferson, S.E.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, U.S.A.

COPYRIGHT @ 1964 BY WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING Co.

All rights reserved
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-15136
Translated from
THEOLOGISCHES WORTERBUCH ZUM NEUEN TESTAMENT
Erster Band: A-I, herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel
Published by
W. KOHLHAMMER VERLAG
Stuttgart, Germany

First printing March 1964

Second printing, April 1965
Third printing, January 1968
Fourth printing, February 1969
Fifth printing, February 1972
Sixth printing, May 1974
Seventh printing, May 1976
Eighth printing, August 1977
Ninth printing, August'1978

PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY CUSHING MALLOY, INC.

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
To Adolf Schlatter
 Preface

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament stems from the great labours
of Hermann Cremer and Julius Kogel. The goal before its contributors cannot be
better formulated than in the introductory words of Cremer's preface to his
Biblico-Theological Dictionary of New Testament Greek Usage (1883) in which
he refers to the new force and impress and energy given to Greek words as "the
horizons of those who spoke and wrote them changed with the point of departure
and termination of all thinking." The true aim of the present book is to bring out
in our discussions this new content of individual terms.
For all our inner agreement with Cremer's aims, and our astonishment at his
achievement, we are forced to say, of course, that there have been great changes
in the standpoints and methods of modern lexical research. Kogel could still devote
many years of unassuming labour to re-editing the work of his teacher. After
mature investigation it has seemed better to us to abandon the original idea of a
fresh edition and to try to create a new work in every respect. It is in this way
that I myself think we may best and most justly redeem the pledge once given to
Kogel not to abandon the dictionary. When I recall the unimpeachable integrity
of our departed friend, I am confident that We should have his full approval in
doing this in a different way from that first intended. It has been a particular joy
to me that Mrs. Kogel placed at our disposal the papers gathered by her husband
and assured us that in our present work we are genuinely preserving the heritage
bequeathed by these men.

In the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament we plan to treat every

word of religious or theological significance. The number is much greater than
that handled by Cremer and Kogel. We have included many proper names from
the Old Testament borne by men of theological importance (e.g., Abel, Abraham,
Adam etc.); and also some of the theologically more important_prepositions (dvtl,
B1&, Ev, Els, ouv etc.) and numbers (els, trr&, 808sxa etc.). Under A we have
also included such words as abBa, &8w, ip, aive∞-alvos, aivyua, aloxovn,
aiXuaAOtOS, & as, anouia, &UTEA0S, avaryKn-dvayKato, ovip, aviato-
Soua, &ioc-dei6w, anatad-&tatn, atop8éyyoual, apKEo, doE yela, domip,
dotpath, dapalela-dopains, auTapKela-aiTa Ks, auto s
External lexicographical matters are either taken for granted or treated very
briefly. This may be done the more readily as students may now be assumed to
have such excellent aids as the Preuschen-Bauer Dictionary and the ssehmolle
Concordance. Our own task begins in some sort where these break off, namely,
with internal lexicography. Nov Bour/-Danker
The order of words is generally by roots. But this principle has been interpreted
with some elasticity, SO that derived words with independent meanings are often
treated at their own place in the alphabet. Since the limit is hard to define, it has
seemed best in practice to include at least a reference to every word treated in due
alphabetical order.
VIlI Preface

A distinctive feature of the work is the large number of contributors. It is in-

evitable that individual style should thus characterise the articles, and this the
more so the more seriously the articles seek to penetrate to the inwardness of the
New Testament words. Nevertheless we are confident that it is possible to create
a work which is rounded and unitary for all the variety, not merely in the sense
of a certain agreement in form, nor of a common application of historical and
philological methods of scholarly work, but in a deeper sense. The unity arises as
each contributor does not seek to write an individual monograph but to make a
contribution to a total work which as a whole has its norm only in the New
Testament.
The historical study of New Testament terms is at the moment a highly
specialised one. The co-operation of many workers from other than the New
Testament field has been sought to safeguard the standards of the work. According
to a selection made by Rudolf Kittel shortly before his death, the more important
Old Testament terms were independently treated by colleagues in this field. In
addition, all the manuscripts have been sent to specialists who have weighed and
added to them from their own particular standpoints : Gottfried Quell and Gerhard
von Rad in that of the Old Testament ; Georg Bertram in that of the Septuagint ;
Albert Debrunner and Hermann Kleinknecht in that of philology, secular usage
and Hellenistic religion ; Hans Heinrich Schaeder in the field of Persian and
Semitic studies ; Gerhard Kittel, Karl Georg Kuhn and Karl Heinrich Rengstorf
in that of Rabbinics. The resultant annotations have been placed at the disposal
of the main contributor prior to printing, though naturally he himself has carried
full responsibility for the final form of his article. From the materials amassed
by Kogel the contributors have had access to two further important manuscript
aids. Adolf Schlatter added parallels from Rabbinic literature and Josephus by
hand to extensive parts of an interleaved copy of Cremer-Kogel, and he has
allowed us to make free use of these. In addition, Erik Peterson has found varying
numbers of references for almost every word from his own collections of material.
It is essential that we should express our particular gratitude to these fellow-
workers, since much of their work does not appear on the surface. This gives
us all the more reason to mention here how great is the part played by these
colleagues in the work.
In addition, we owe may literary references to Stephan Losch of Tubingen in
the sphere of Roman Catholic literature, to Otto Weinreich of Tubingen in that
of philological literature, to F W. Grosheide of Amsterdam and Arthur Nock of
Cambridge (Mass.) in that of foreign literature. We express to them our grateful
thanks for help already received and hope for further help in the future.
The list of abbreviations in the first edition was prepared by Gerhard Delling
and Walter Grundmann, and in the final edition by Hermann Kleinknecht and
Albrecht Stumpf.
Loyal service has been rendered in proof correction by W. Grundmann,
C. Horovitz, H. Kleinknecht, O. Ruhle, G. Schlichting, A. Stumpff and W. Vogel.
Finally, a special word of thanks is due to our publisher, Dr. Walter Kohl-
hammer. The work could hardly have been begun in these days, let alone executed
in the present form, if it had not been that his material interest, his outstanding
generosity scorning all pettiness, and his constant readiness to help, had seen us
through every difficulty and smoothed the way for us at every turn. Sir Edwyn
C. Hoskyns justly wrote in the English journal "Theology" (26, 87, 1933): "In
Preface ~ Editor's Preface

conclusion, it is difficult not to be envious of a country possessed of a publisher

willing to print the book so magnificently at a time when its production can hardly
be an economic adventure.'
Our work has thus far met with a friendly response in scholarly and ecclesiastical
criticism. If what has sometimes been said should prove true, namely, that it should
not only advance research but also help the pastor in his study of Holy Scripture
and pulpit ministry, this would be the finest reward that could be given us.
The dedicatory page, bearing the name of Cremer's friend, indicates the re-
lationship with the older work referred to at the outset. It also reminds us that
Der Glaube im Neuen Testament is a model for the investigation of biblical theo-
logical terms. And it perhaps expresses to this eighty year old scholar the thanks
which the Church and theology and especially New Testament scholarship owe to
his life's work.
Kittel
Tubingen, New Year 1932, July 1933.

Editor's Preface
From the publication of the first volume, and during the years of its long and
arduous composition, the Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament,
familiarly known as Kittel or abbreviated as TWNT, has secured for itself a solid
place in biblical scholarship, not only as a reference work or a starting-point for
further research, but also as a formative contribution to theology.
There has, of course, been some misunderstanding of its role. While it is not
a simple lexicon, it obviously cannot replace either the full commentary or the
biblical theology. Its task is to mediate between ordinary lexicography and the
specific task of exposition, more particularly at the theological level. For this
reason attention is concentrated on theologically significant terms, and on the
theologically significant usage of these terms.
When this is understood, Kittel is safeguarded against the indiscriminate en-
thusiasm which would make it a sole and absolute authority in lexical and exe-
getical matters. It is also safeguarded against the resultant criticism that it involves
an illegitimate task for which it uses improper means. Its more limited, yet valid
and invaluable role, can be appreciated, and its learning and insights incorporated
into the great task of New Testament interpretation.
Hitherto access to the great bulk of TWNT has been only in the original
language. Some of the more important articles have been translated in the Key
Words series, and by virtue of the significance of the words selected this series
has performed a most useful service. Yet even the chosen articles have undergone
some abridgment and editorial redaction, quite apart from the fact that the main
part of Kittel has not been translated at all.
By contrast, the present rendering aims to present the whole of TWNT in a
faithful reproduction of the original. At the cost of less felicity, for German
scholarship is no guarantee of stylistic elegance, the rendering is more closely tied
 Editor's Preface

to the German. Quotations are fully given in the original Hebrew, Greek and
Latin, and the references are left as they are apart from essential changes. For
scholars who may wish to consult the original, even the pagination is retained
except for a slight fluctuating variation of no more than two or three pages either
way. The external size of the volumes has been much reduced, however, and costs
have been trimmed so as to provide the student with maximum material at minimum
price.
It need hardly be said that the translation and publication of Kittel is no neces-
sary endorsement of everything contained in it. Written by many scholars over
a long period, Kittel naturally contains articles of unequal value and varying
outlook. Indeed, there are internal disagreements as regards basic presuppositions,
historical assumptions and specific interpretations. The ultimate worth of the
undertaking lies in its fundamental orientation and its objective findings ; for these
it is now presented in translation.
In the preparation of the volumes particular thanks are due to Professor
F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester for his many valuable suggestions
and corrections in the course of laborious proof-reading. Also deserving of mention
in this instance are the publishers for the courage and helpfulness which they have
displayed in so monumental an enterprise, and the printers for the skill with which
they have handled such difficult material. In spite of every effort, it would be
presumptuous to suppose that all errors have been avoided, and the help of
readers will be appreciated in detecting and eliminating those that remain.

Pasadena, California, 1963.

G. W. Bromiley
 Contents
Page
Preface VII
Editor's Preface IX
Contents XI
Contributors XV
Abbreviations XVI
AQ (Kittel)
"'Aapoov (Kuhn)
ABa886v (Joach. Jeremias)
aBBa (Kittel)
"ABel-Kaiv (Kuhn) (o

*ABpaau (Joach. Jeremias) 8

aBuoooc (Joach. Jeremias) 9
& yat6s, dyal0epyE∞D, dryaloTolEd, -6c, -fo, dyatwoin, pilayalos, dould-
yaloc (Grundmann) 10
dyalAi&ouai, dyalAlaouc (Bultmann) 19
dyar&o, dryarin, dryamtoc (Quell, Stauffer) 21
'Ayap (Kittel) 55
dyyella, dyyEllo, dv-, dn-, &1-, 48., KAT-, TpoKaTayyEAAd, KATayYEAEUC
(Schniewind) 56
GyyE/os, apxaryyelos, laayyelo (Grundmann, von Rad, Kittel) 74
&yios, dyiao, dy aou6s, dyl6ins, dylwoln (Procksch, Kuhn) 88
dyvoÉo, dyvonua, &yvoia, dyvwola, &y (Bula 115
dyvos, dyvizo, dyvela, dyvois, dynaubs (Hack) 122
dyopa(w, LEaryopaga (Buchsel) 124
aywyh, tap-, mpo-, mpoadrya, mpooarywyh (K. L. Schmidt) 128
cybov, dyavigouat, ovt-, ET-, kataywvigouai, dywvla (Stauffer) 134
'A86u (Joach. Jeremias) 141
&6EAo66, abEAoh, adenooms, piladelpos, piladelpia, wEuOdd doc (
Soden) 144
gons (Joach. Jeremias) 146
&81Kos, ddirla, X6IKEd, aolxnua (Schrenk) 149
&8w, Q8n (Schlier) 163
ap (Foerster) 165
dOÉUITOC (Oepke) 166
&0equor (Oepke) 167
dOXE∞, ouvatrEw, X0Anois (Stauffer) 167
atoioc (Sasse) 168
al&oc (Bultmann) 169
alua, atuatekyuola (Behm) 172
alved, alvor (Schlier) 177
alvyua (Eoortpov) (Kittel) 178
alpeouai, alpeaus, alpEtikoc, alperliw, BuaipÉo, Bia( i 180
 Contents

Page
alpo, Éralpo (Joach. Jeremias) 185
alofavouai, alolnows, alo0nthpiov (Delling) 187
aloxuvo, Ei-, kataloyvo, aloyuvn, aloxp6s, aloxpoms (Bultmann)
altew, almua, ATT-, fEaltE, Tapaiteouat (Stahlin)
alXuXAwtos, -wTl(w, -TE0w, -wala, auvaixuAat (Kittel)
aldv, allnioc (Sasse)
axÉpaios (Kittel) 20
&Kodou0w, É8. Ent-, itap-, auvaKorou0éG (Kittel) 210
aKO0w, axon, Els., ÉT-, taparouw, tapaKon, UraKouw, intakon, OTh Koog
(Kittel) 216
xxpoBuoria (K. L. Schmidt) 225
gla(ov, ala(ovela (Delling) 226
ala alo (Peterson) 227
& ac (Hauck) 228
alEIow (Schlier) 229
dAndela, a\nons, aln0ivoc, xindebw (Quell, Kittel, Bultmann) 232
a AgGoG, avia^Aayua, ATT-, 81-, KaTa Agogo, kata Aayh, aTtoKat-, ueta^-
AGOG (Buchsel) 251
& AnyopE∞ (Buchsel) 260
dAn^ovi& (Schlier) 264
alos, ahlorpios, ararotpibw, anloyevi, a uc) 264
duaptavo, quapiua, duaptia (Quell, Bertram, Stahlin, Grundmann) 267
quaptwlbs, avauapintos (Rengstorf) 317
aunv (Schlier) 335
cuvos, aphv, apvlov (Joach. Jeremias) 338
XUTTEAOC (Behm) 342
dvaylvoakw, avaryvwaic (Bultmann) 343
avayKagw, &vaykaios, avaykn (Grundma) 344
317
avaloyla (Kittel)
348
avaunous, inbu nais (Behm).
350
avatain, avaTauois, Éntavattaun (Bauernfeind)
351
avatellw, avatoln (Schlier)
&va-, pooavatlinul, avaleua, Onua, kataleua, &va-, katadeuatio
(Behm) 353
&vÉyKAntos (Grundmann) 356
IvEEEpEOvntoc (Delling) 357
dveEixvlaatog (Peterson)
avexo, avext6s, dvoxn (Schlier)
358
avAKEL (Schlier)
dmp, avipliouat (Oepke)
&voparos, dvipinivoc (Joach. Jeremias)
dvinut, &vEols (Bultmann)
dv., HEavlomul, dva-, LEavaaTagIs (Oepke)
dvrl (Buichsel)
dvrl81Koc (Schrenk)
dvrilauBavouai, dutiinupis, avav auB&1 (Dli
&vo, AVOTEDOV, &vo0ev (Buchsel) 80808geggas
Bioc, AvaEiog, dei6w, katae,i6g (Foerster)
ATavinols (Peterson)
Contents XIlI

Page
&Traf, EO&Tae, (Stahlin) 381
384
drataw, tgatataw, aTatn (Oepke) .
386
dAo0g, AtA6ms (Bauernfeind)
387
dok aflomui, amorataatagic (Oepke)
393
grokapadorla (Delling)
394
atro^Auui, dolela, 'ArronAiay (Oepke)
ATTOOTEAIO (TEUTIO), LEATOOTEATO, aTbOTO OC, DelbaTbOTONOG, dTootOAn
(Rengstorf) 398
aTtoo0ÉyyouaL (Behm) 447
& TOOED (K. L. Schmidt) 448
apa, katapaouai, katapa, Etikatapatog, Entaa (Bich) 448
py6s, apyÉo, katapyew (Delling) 452
ApEaKo, IVOPOT&PEOKOS, APEOKEIA, ADEATOS, EDAP, DTécS
(Foerster) 455
apeti (Bauernfeind) 457
apiouÉo, &pioubc (Ruhle)
461
aprÉo, apKEt6s, aitXpkela, autapKns (Kittel)
"Ap Maye8oov (Joach. Jeremias)
apveoua1 (Schlier)
apna<o, aprayuos (Foerster).
appapov (Behm)
aptios, tf., katapritw, kataptiou6s, katptio (Delling).
aptoc (Behm)
apxo, apxh, crapxh, apxaios, apxnyos, &pxwv (Delling)
coÉlyeia (Bauernfeind)
doOEVNS, &OOÉVEIA, GOOEVED, dobevnua (Stahlin)
GOREO (Windisch)
496
dona(ouat, draonarouai, dotaouoc (Windisch)
goTtioc (Oepke) 502
GOTaTéw (Oepke) 503
dothp, &atpov (Foerster) 503
dotpatth (Foerster) 505
COOKEIX, soqains, dopandg, dopar(a (K.L. Schmidt) 506
&awTOS, dowtla (Foerster) 506
aiyago, atal yaoua (Kittel) 507
a00&8ns (Bauernfeind) 508
coinut, apeois, napinut, napEoIs (Bultmann) 509
solomui, gootaola, bixootaola (Schlier) 512
BaBulov (Kuhn) 514
Balos (Schlier) 517
Balva, dva-, kata-, uetaBalvo (Schneider) 518
Balaqu (Kuhn) 524
Banavtiov (Rengstorf) 525
BaXA©, Ex-, ÉTiBarAd (Hauck) 526
BaTto, Bartlgw, Bartiou6s, Bantioua, Battons (Oepke) 529
BapBapoc (Windisch) 546
Bapos, Bapic, Bapéo (Schrenk) 553
Baoavos, Bacavi(a, Baaanaubc, Baaaoths (Schneider) 561
BaoileUG, Baoiela, BaalAiaaa, BaaiEUG, UNBALAN, BaTI ELO
 Contents

Page
561
K6c (Kleinknecht, von Rad, Kuhn, K.L. Schmidt)
594
Baokalvo (Delling) 596
Baota(o (Buichsel)
597
BartaoyEd (Delling)
poeAoaoouai, poÉAuyua, Boeluxtos (Foerster)
BÉBaioc, BEBai6w, BeBalwois (Schlier)
BEBnAos, BeBnAow (Hauck)
BEECEBoUN (Foerster)
BEAlap (Foerster)
Bélos (Hauck)
profouat, Blaoths (Schrenk)
BipAos, BiBAlov (Schrenk)
BAaopnuÉw, plaapnula, Braaonuoc (Beyer)
BogG (Stauffer)
628
BondEw, Bon06s, Bondela (Buchsel)
Boulouai, Boun, Bou nua (Schrenk)
BpaBeiw, Bpapeiov (Stauffer) .
Bpaxiov (Schlier)
porth (Foerster)
Bpuxo, Bpuyu6c (Rengstorf)
Bpiua, Bpooic (Behm)
yaAa (Schlier)
yauÉo, yauoc (Stauffer)
yÉevva (Joach. Jeremias)
YEA&M, KATOYEA&O, YEAGC (Rengstorf)
YEVE&, YEVEROyIa, 0yEw, dyEVEaA6YnTo© (Buchsel)
YEW&®, yÉwnua, YEWNTOS, APTIYEWNTOG, &VayEW&@ (Buchse, Rento)
yeooua1 (Behm)
yn, EnlyEioc (Sasse) AGGBBGBGGE
ylvouai, yÉvEoIS, yÉvos, yÉvnua, & oylvouai, TaAlyyEveola (Buchsel) 681
ywbokw, yvoais, Etlyioaxo, Enlyvwais, katayioaKw, akatyVwato,
"poylvoaKd, "poyvoois, ouyyvoun, yvoun, yvoplyo, yvootoc (Bultm) 689
yAGooa, Étep6yAwaoos (Behm) 719
yvno1os (Bichsel) 727
yoyyugw, Buayoyy (w, yoyyuoubs, yoyyuor (Rent) 728
yons (Delling) 737
yov, yOvuTEt@ (Schlier) 738
ypau atEUc (Joach. Jeremias) 740
ypaoo, ypaoh, ypauua, enti, ipoypaoo, broypauuos (Schrenk) 742
yvuv6s, yuuvois, yuuvagw, yuuvaola (Oepke). 773
yuvh (Oepke) 176
Foy kal Maryiy (Kuhn) 789
yovla, axpoywvaios, kepaih yovias (Joach Jers 791
 Contributors
Editor :
Gerhard Kittel, Tubingen.

Contributors :
Otto Bauernfeind, Tubingen.
Friedrich Baumgartel, Greifswald.
Johannes Behm, Gottingen.
Georg Bertram, Giessen.
Hermann Wolfgang Beyer, Greifswald.
Friedrich Buichsel, Rostock.
Rudolf Bultmann, Marburg.
Albert Debrunner, Jena.
Kurt Deissner, Greifswald.
Gerhard Delling, Glachau (Saxony).
Werner Foerster, Munster.
Ernst Fuchs, Bonn.
Heinrich Greeven, Greifswald.
Walter Grundmann, Oberlichtenau (Saxony).
Friedrich Hauck, Erlangen.
Johannes Herrmann, Munster.
Joachim Jeremias, Greifswald.
Hermann Kleinknecht, Tubingen.
Karl Georg Kuhn, Tubingen.
Albrecht Oepke, Leipzig.
Erik Peterson, Munich.
Herbert Preisker, Breslau.
Otto Procksch, Erlangen.
Gottfried Quell, Rostock.
Gerhard von Rad, Leipzig.
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, Tubingen.
Oskar Ruhle, Stuttgart.
Hermann Sasse, Erlangen.
Hans Heinrich Schaeder, Berlin.
Heinrich Schlier, Marburg.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Bonn.
Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
Julius Schniewind, Konigsberg.
Gottlob Schrenk, Zurich.
Hans Freiherr von Soden, Marburg.
Gustav Stahlin, Leipzig, and Gurukul Theological Seminary, Madras, India.
Ethelbert Stauffer, Halle.
Artur Weiser, Tubingen.
Hans Windisch, Kiel.
 Abbreviations
The editions mentioned in this list indicate where citations are to be found as quoted in the
Dictionary. Wherever possible the latest are used, but the reader may consult more recent
philological editions for himself. As a rule two editions are mentioned only when a fresh
edition has begun to appear but is not yet completed.
AAB Abhandtungen der Kgl. Preussi- of Aesculapius, one of the best known
schen Akademie der Wissenscha[ten zu representatives of later Hellenistic plety
Berlin (Phil.-hist. Klasse), 1804 ff. in literature (cf. his prose hymns to
different deities), ed. W. Dindorf, 1829 ;
Ab. = Pirge Abot, ed. B. Keil, 1898.
Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmudtractate
Sayings of the Fathers (Strack, Einl., Or. = Orationes.
54). Or. Sacr. = Orationes Sacrae.
Ab RNat = Abot of Rabbi Nathan an Aen. Tact. Aeneas Tacticus, contempo-
extracanonical Rabbinic tractate (Strack, rary of Xenophon, who wrote his tech-
Einl., 72). nical military work (TQKTlkov Unou-
ua) c. 360 B.C., ed. H. Schone, 1911.
Ac. - Acts of the Apostles. Aesch.
acc. accusative. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens
Achill. Tat. Achilles Tatius of Alexan- (525-456 B.C.), the first of the three
great Attic dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamo-
dria (4th. century A.D.), sophist and witz, 1915 ; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in
Christian, the last novelist of antiquity, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, 1889.
ed. G. A. Hirschig, in Erotici Scriptores,
1856. Ag. - Agamemnon.
Choeph. = Choephori.
Act. = Acta, apocryphal Acts of the Apos- Eleg. Fragmenta Elegiaca.
tles, consisting in part of writings which Eum. Eumenides.
go back to the post-apostolic period and Pers. = Persae.
try to invest highly heretical traditions Prom. Prometheus Vinctus.
with apostolic sanction, ed. R. A. Lipsius Suppl. Supplices.
and M. Bonnet, 1891 ff. Sept. c. Theb. Septem contra The-
Act. Andr. - Acts of Andrew. bas.
Andr. et Matth. - Acts of Andrew and Aeschin. = Aeschines, Athenian orator and
Matthias. politician (c. 390-314 B.C.), who gained
Barn. = Acts of Barnabas. fame by opposing Demosthenes. The
In. = Acts 'of John. letters ascribed to him are not authentic,
Phil. = Acts of Philip. ed. F. Blass, 1896.
Pl. = Acts of Paul. Ep. Epistulae.
Pl. and Thekl. Acts of Paul and Fals. Leg. De Falsa Legatione.
Thekla. Tim. Oratio in Timarchum.
Pt. = Acts of Peter.
Pt. Verc. - Acts of Peter of Vercellae. AGG = Abhandlungen der Kgl. Gesellschaft
Thom. Acts of Thomas. der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen (phil.-
adj. = adjective. hist. Klasse), 1838 ff., 1893 ff.
adv. - adverb. Agr. Agraphon.
Ael. = Claudius Aelianus (c. 175-235 A.D.), Alciphr. Alciphron, Sophist of the 2nd
Roman author, writing in Greek, of the century A.D., distinguished for his epis-
so-called Second Sophistic school, ed. tolary sketches of Attic life, ed. M. A.
R. Hercher, 1864 ff. Schepers, 1905.
Ep. Epistulae. Ep. = Epistulae.
Nat. An. De Natura Animalium. Alex. Aphr. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, of
Tact. Tactica. Aphrodisias, peripatetic and author of
Var. Hist. = Varia Historia. commentaries on Aristotle, as also of
Ael. Arist. - Aelius Aristides, of Adrianu- some independent works (2nd and 3rd
therai/ in Mysia (129-189 A.D.), cele- centuries A.D.), ed. J. Bruns in Supple-
brated rhetorician and credulous votary mentum Aristotelicum, 1887,
Abbreviations XVII

An. = De Anima. large sections of whose chief work Truth

Fat. De Fato. have recently been discovered on papyri
Am. = Amos. at Oxyrhynchos, ed. H. Diels in Die
Ambr. Ambrosius of Treves (340-397), Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 1I4, 1922.
Bishop of Milan. Anz Subsidia = H. Anz, Subsidia ad cog-
Amm. Marc. - Ammianus Marcellinus, of noscendum Graecorum sermonem vulga-
Antioch, born c. 332 A.D., officer under rem e Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina
Julian, and the last great historian of repetita, 1894.
imperial Rome (from Nerva to Valens), AO -Der alte Orient, 1900 ff.
ed. L. Traube and W. Heraeus, 1910 ff. AOB H. Gressmann, Altorientalische Bil-
Ammonius, v. Pseud.-Ammon. der zum AT2, 1927.
Anacr. = Anacreon, of Teos, early Greek aor. - aorist.
lyric poet, of the middle of the 6th cen- AOT E H. Gressmann, Altorientalische
tury B.C., ed. E. Diehl, in Anthologia Texte zum AT2, 1926.
Lyrica, I, 1925. Ap. = Apostle.
Anal. Boll. Analecta Bollandiana, con- ap. = apostolic.
tinuing series of sources of ecclesiastical Apc. Abr. - Apocalypse of Abraham.
history prepared by the Jesuits, 1882 ff. Elias - of Elias.
Anax. Anaxagoras of Klazomenae (500- Mos.= of Moses.
428 B.C.), mediator of Ionic philosophy Pt. of Peter.
to Athens, where he belongs to the circle Apcr. = Apocrypha.
of Pericles, ed. H. Diels, in Die Frag- APF Archiv fur Papyrusforschung,
mente der Vorsokratiker, 14, 1922. 1901 ff.
Anaxim. = Anaximenes, of Miletus, Ionic
natural philosopher of the middle of the Apollon. Dyscol. Apollonius Dyscolus,
6th century B.C., ed. H. Diels in Die important Greek grammarian of the
Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I4, 1922. Hadrian-Antoninus period in Alexandria,
ed. R. Schneider and G. Uhlig in Gram-
Anaximand. Anaximander, of Miletus, matici Graeci, II, 1878 ff.
Ionic natural philosopher of the 6th cen-
tury B.C., ed. H. Diels, in Die Fragmente Apoll. Rhod. Apollonius Rhodius, of
der Vorsokratiker, I4, 1922. Naucratis or Alexandria (c. 295-215
B.C.), called after his main place of
Andoc. Andocides, one of the ten Attic residence and a famous exponent of the
orators of the end of the 5th century Hellenistic epic, ed. M. Gillies, 1928.
B.C. The most interesting of his four Appendix.
extant speeches is that On the Mysteries App.
(399 B.C.), ed. F. Blass, 1906; W.J. Appian. = Appianus, of Alexandria, im-
Hickie, 1915. perial governor, who in 24 volumes
Anecd. Graec. - Anecdota Graeca, ed. I. wrote Roman history up to his own
Bekker, 1814 ff. times (c. 160 A.D.), much of which is
lost, ed. L. Mendelssohn, 1879 Ff.
Angelos Angelos, Archiv fur nt.liche Rom. Hist. Romanae Historiae.
Zeitgeschichte und Kulturkunde, 1925 ff.
Apul. = Apuleius, of Madaura in Numidia,
Anth. Pal. = Anthologia Palatina, a collec- novelist, rhetorician and philosopher with
tion of minor Hellenistic poetry based strong religious interests (2nd century
on ancient collections of epigrams, as- A.D.), ed. R. Helm, 1907.
sembled by Konstantinos Kephales in Met. - Metamorphoses.
Byzantium in the 10th century A.D., and Ar. = Arachim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
so called because the only MS. is in mud tractate Appraisals (Estimates of
Heidelberg Library, ed. H. Stadtmuller the Basis of a Vow) (Strack, Einl., 57).
and F. Bucherer, 1906.
Arab. Arabic.
Antike = Die Antike, Zeitschrift fur Kunst
u. Kultur des klassischen Altertums, Aram. = Aramaic.
1925 ff. Arat.= Aratus, of Soloi in Cilicia (c. 310-
Antiph. Antiphanes, of Athens, signifi- 245 B.C.), Stoic, later at the Mace-
cant comic dramatist of the 4th century donian court, the author of a didactic
B.C., ed. T. Kock in Comicorum attico- epic in astronomy on heavenly pheno-
rum Fragmenta, II, 1884. mena, ed. E. Maass, 1893.
Lyc. Lycion. Phaen.== Phaenomena.
Antiphon Antiphon, of Athens, at the Archiloch. Archilochus, of Pharos, early
end of the 5th century B.C., Sophist, Greek lyric poet of the 7th century B.C.,
XVIII Abbreviations

ed. E. Diehl in Anthologia Lyrica, Rhet.= Rhetorica.

1925.
Spir. De Spiritu.
Ar. Did. Arius Didymus, of Alexandria, Pseud.-Arist. Pseudo-Aristotle.
Stoic of the age of Augustus, doxograph, Mund. De Mundo, a popular work of
ed. H. Diels in Doxographi Graeci, 1879. philosophy written by later author
Aret. = Aretaeus Medicus, of Cappadocia, under the influence of the Syrian Po
physician in the Roman Empire, pro- sidonius of Apamea (c. 135-51 B.C.),
bably in the 2nd century, A.D., ed. C. the main representative of Middle
Hude in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, Stoicism.
1923. Rhet. Al. Phetorica ad Alexandrum,
Arg. Argumentum, written by the historian and rhetori-
Aristid. Aristides, the first Christian cian Anaximenes of Lampsacos at the
time of Alexander the Great,
Apologist, who addressed his defence of
Christianity to Antoninus Pius 140 v. Arnim J. v. Arnim, Stoicorum veterum
A.D., ed. E. Goodspeed, in Die altesten Fragmenta, 1921 f.
Apologeten, 1914. ARPs Archiv fur Religionspsychologie,
Apol. = Apologia. 1914 f.
Aristoph. Aristophanes, of Athens (c. Art. Articles.
446-385 B.C.), the main representative Artemid. = Artemidorus, of Ephesus, inter-
of the older Attic comedy, who reached preter of dreams in the days of Hadrian,
his height during the Peloponnesian War, author of a book on dreams with exam-
ed. V. Coulon and H. van Daele, 1923 ff. ples of fulfilled dreams, ed. R. Hercher,
Ach. Acharnenses. 1864.
Av. E Aves. Oneirocr. = Oneirocriticum.
Eccl. - Ecclesiazusae.
ARW = Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft,
Eq. = Equites. 1898 ff.
Lys. Lysistrata. Asc. Is.
Nu. Nubes. Ascension of Isaiah, Christian
Pax version of an originally Jewish legend
P1.= Plutus. (Schurer, III, 386 f.), ed. R. Charles,
Ra. Panae. 1900.
Thes. Thesmophoriazusae. ASG = Abhandlungen d. Kgl. Sachsischen
Vesp. = Vespae. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften (phil.-
Aristot. Aristotle, of Stageiros (c. 384- hist. Klasse), 1850 ff.
322 B.C.), with his teacher Plato the Ass. Mos. Assumptio Mosis, Jewish apo-
greatest of the Greek philosophers and calypse of the time of the death of Herod
the founder of the peripatetic school, the Great (Schurer, III, 294 ff.), ed. R.
quoted in each case from the compre- Charles, 1897.
hensive edition of the Academia Regia Athen. Athenaeus, of Naucratis, at the
Borussica, 1831 ff. end of the 2nd century B.C., whose
An. De Anima. Feast of Sophists is a formless but valu-
An. Post.- Analytica Posteriora. able book of extracts of the type of
An. Pri. Analytica Priora. variegated writing so common in later
Cael. = De Caelo. antiquity, ed. G. Kaibel, 1887 ff.
Cat. - Categoriae. Athenag. Athenagoras, of Athens, Chris-
Eth. Eud. = Ethica Eudemia. tian Apologist, who came over from Pla-
Eth. Nic. = Ethica Nicomachea. tonism and wrote a defence of Christian-
Gen. An. = De Generatione Anima- ity to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in
lium. 177, ed. E. Goodspeed in Die altesten
Gen. Corr. - De Generatione et Cor- Apologeten, 1914.
ruptione. Suppl. = Supplicatio.
Hist. An. Historia Animalium. Ath. Mitt. Mitteilungen des Kaiserlich
Metaph. Metaphysica. Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts,
Meteor. = Meteorologicum. Athenische Abteilung, 1876 ff.
Mot. An. = De Motu Animalium.
Oec. - Oeconomica. Audollent. Def. Tab. A. Audollent, Defi-
Part. An. De Partibus Animalium. xionum Tabellae, 1914.
Phys. = Physica. Aug. - Aurelius Augustinus, of Thagaste,
Poet. Poetica. Numidia (354-430 A.D.), ed. in MPL,
Pol. Politica. 32-47, 1845 ; ed. by different editors in
Probl. Problemata. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum La-
Abbreviations

tinorum, 1887 ff. BFTh = Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher

Civ. D. De Civitate Dei. Theologie, 1897 ff.
Cresc. - Contra Cresconium. BGU - Agyptische Urkunden aus den Kgl.
Ep. = Epistulae. Museen Zu Berlin, 1895 ff.
Faust. = Contra Faustum Manichae- BHK2, 3 - Biblia Hebraica, ed. R. Kittel?,
um. 1909; 3 1929 ff.
In Joh. Ev. Tract. = In Johannis
Evangelium T'ractatus.
Bibl. Bibliography.
Sct. Virg. De Sancta Virginitate. Bik. Bikkurim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
Serm. = Sermones. mud tractate First-fruits (Strack, Einl.,
AZ= Aboda Zara, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, 36).
Talmud tractate Idolatry (Strack, Einl., B1.-Debr.- F. Blass, Grammatik des neu-
54). testamentlichen Griechisch, revised by
b. ben, when between the personal and A. Debrunner5, 1921; $ 1931.
family names of rabbis. BM = Baba Mezia, Mishnah-, Tosefta-
b. Babylonian Talmud when before trac- Talmud tractate Middle Gate (Lega
tates from the Mishnah. Questions concerning Movables)
Bacchyl. Bacchylides, of Ceos (505-450 (Strack, Einl., 50).
B.C.), the most important writer of BMI Collection of Ancient Greek In-
Greek odes after Pindar, ed. F. Blass, scriptions in the British Museum, 1874 ff.
1904.
Boisacq = E. Boisacq, Dictionnaire étymo-
Bar. Baraita (in quotations from the logique de la langue Grecque?, 1923.
Talmud), Extra-Mishnaic Tradition of
Tannaites (Strack, Einl., 2). Bousset-Gressm. = W. Bousset, Die Reli-
Bar. gion des Judentums im spathellenistischen
Baruch, disciple of Jeremiah and Zeitalter, ed. H. Gressmann*, 1926.
supposed author of many works (Schu-
rer, III, 305 ff.), BQ - Baba Qamma, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
Bar. The Book of Baruch, apo-
'Talmud tractate First Gate, (Legal
Questions concerning Injuries) (Strack,
cryphal work in the LXX. Einl., 49).
Gr. Bar. = The Greek-Slavic Apo-
calypse of Baruch, a description BrthR K. Barth, Kommentar Z. Romer-
of Baruch's journey to heaven brie[5, 1926.
(2nd century A.D.), ed. M. R. Bruder - C. H. Bruder, Concordantiae Novi
James in Greek, 1897 and St. No- Testamenti5, 1900.
vakovitsch in Slavic, 1886. Bss. Apk. W. Bousset, Kommentar 2.
S. Bar. Syrian Apocalypse of Apokalypse6, 1906.
Baruch, originally Hebrew and BSt. - Biblische Studien, 1896 ff.
strongly dependent on Esdras
(c. 100 A.D.), ed. R. Charles, BuJ (1, 2,3) = F. Bichsel, Kommentar z. d.
1896. Johannesbriefen, 1933.
Barn. L Epistle of Barnabas. Bultmann Trad.= R. Bultmann, Die Ge-
schichte der synoptischen Tradition*,
Bas. = Basil of Caesarea (330-379 A.D.), 1931.
one of the three Cappadocian fathers and Buttmann - A. Buttmann, Grammatik des
an outstanding representative of early
Christian culture, ed. in MPG, 29-32, nt.lichen Sprachgebrauchs, 1859.
1886. BW = H. Guthe, Kurzes Bibelworterbuch,
Ep. = Epistulae. 1903.
Spir. Sct.
De Spiritu Sancto. BWANT - Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom
Bau. J. = W. Bauer, Kommentar z. Johan- Alten und Neuen Testament, 1908 ff.,
nesev.~ 1925; 3 1933. 1926 ff.
BB = Baba Batra, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- BZ = Biblische Zeitschrift, 1903 ff.
mud tractate Last Gate (Legal Ques- C (1,2) = Corinthians (1,2).
tions, Immovables) (Strack, Einl., 51). c. = chapter.
BCH - Bulletin de Correspondance Hellé- C. = circa.
nique, 1877 ff. CAF Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta,
BchmK P. Bachmann, Kommentar z. d. ed. T. Kock, 1880 ff.
Korintherbriefen 12, 1910; II, 1909. Callim. Callimachus, of Cyrene (c. 310-
Bek. Bekorot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- 240 B.C.), typical representative and
mud tractate Primogeniture (Strack, acknowledged master of Hellenistic poe-
Einl., 32). try, called by Ptolemy II to direct the
 Abbreviations

library in Alexandria. There is no single

Mil. = Pro Milone.
Nat. Deor. De Natura Deorum.
edition, but for individual pieces, cf. Off. = De Officiis.
Liddell-Scott, XVIII. Or. = Orationes.
Hymn. Hymni.
Orator Orator ad M. Brutum.
Cant.= Song of Solomon. Rep. De Re Publica.
Cant. r. Canticum rabba, Midrash on Som. Scip. = Somnium Scipionis.
Song of Solomon (Strack, Einl., 213). Tusc. Tusculanae Disputationes.
Catal. Cod. Astr. Graec. = Catalogus Codi- Verr. In Verrem.
cum Astrologorum Graecorum, 1898 ff. CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum,
Cath. Ep. Catholic Epistles. 1828 fF.
Ceb. = Cebes, the name adopted by the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
author of a book "mlvaE," moralising 1862 ff.
and allegorical description of life in the
Neo-Platonic spirit, probably 1st century CI (1, 2) Epistle of Clement (1.2).
Ps.-Clem. Hom. Pseudoclementine
A.D., ed. K. Prachter.
Tab. Tabula. Homilies, a narrative describing
A. Cornelius Celsus, wrote a com- and defending the doctrine of the
Cels.
apostle Peter, ed. P.A.de Lagarde,
prehensive encyclopedia in the reign of 1865.
Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), of which we still
Ps.-Clem. Recg. = Pseudoclementine
have
in 8 books
Corpus on medicine,
Medicorum ed.1915.
Latinorum, F. Marx Recognitions, the title of a novel
Med.= Medicina. which is partly made out of the
Acts of Peter and which tells the
CGF = Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, story of a Roman family called
ed. G. Kaibel, 1899 ff. Clemens, ed. P. A. de Lagarde,
Ch. (1,2) = Chronicles (1,2). 1861.
Chag, = Chagiga, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- CI. Al. = T. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus,
mud tractate Feasts (in relation to pil- of Athens, but doing his main work in
grimages) (Strack, Einl., 44). Alexandria (150-215 A.D.), leading
Chant. de la Saussaye = P. D. Chantepie representative of Christian culture, ed.
de la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religions- O. Stahlin, 1905 ff.
geschichte+, 1924 ff.
Ecl. Proph. = Eclogae Propheticae.
Chrys. John Chrysostom, of Antioch Exc. Theod. - Excerpta ex Theo-
doto.
(344-401 A.D.), bishop of Constanti-
nople, whose sermons mark the climax Paed. = Paedagogus.
of early Christian homiletics, ed. in Prot. = Protrepticus.
MPG, 47-64, 1862 ff. Quis Div. Salv. = Quis Dives Sal-
Hom. in Hb., Col., Mt., Phil. = Ho- vetur.
milies on Hebrews, Colossians, Strom. Stromata.
Matthew and Philippians. Class. Philol. Classical Philology, Chi-
Liturg. Liturgy of Chrysostom, in cago, 1906 ff.
Liturgies Eastern and Western, Class. Rev. H Classical Review, London,
ed. F. E. Brightman, I, 1896. 1887 ff.
Sacerdot. = De Sacerdotio.
Chul. Clemen
Chullin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- C. Clemen, Religionsgeschicht-
mud tractate Profane (the killing of non- liche Erklarung des NT2, 1924.
sacrificial animals) (Strack, Einl., 56). Cod. - Codex.
CIA = Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum Col. = Colossians,
(- IG, I-III), 1873 ff. col. column.
comm. _ commentary.
Cic. = M. Tullus Cicero, of Arpinum (106- conj. = conjunction.
43 B.C.), orator, politician and cultural
philosopher of the last days of the Ro- Const. Ap. Constitutiones Apostolorum,
man Republic, Teubner-Leipzig edition, a collection of early Christian writings
1925 ff. (3rd-4th century A.D.), ed. F. X. Funk,
Att.Ad Atticum. 1905 ff.
De Orat. = De Oratore. Const. Porphyrog. Constantinus Porphy-
Divin. = De Divinatione. rogenitus, Byzantine Emperor of the
Fam. Ad Familiares. 10th century A.D. (912-959), who caus-
Fin. De Finibus Bonorum et Ma- ed collection of excerpts to be made
lorum. from the classical Greek historians, ed.
Lael. = Laelius. in MPG, 112-113, 1864.
Abbreviations

constr. construction, DCG Dictionary of Christ and the Gos-

Copt. - Coptic. pels, ed. T. Hastings⅔, 1923 f.
Debr. Griech. Wortb, A. Debrunner,
Corn. Nep. Cornelius Nepos, of Upper
Italy (c. 99-27 B.C.), friend of Cicero, Griechische Wortbildungsehre, 1917.
antiquary and author of historical bio- Def.- Definition.
graphies with a strongly moralising and Deissmann B. = A. Deissmann, Bibelstu-
panegyrical flavour, ed. K. Halm, 1871. dien, 1895.
Att.= T. Pomponius Atticus. Deissmann LO = A. Deissmann, Licht vom
Vit. = Vitae. Osten4, 1923.
Cornut. = L. Annaeus Cornutus, of Leptis Deissmann NB _ A. Deissmann, Neue Bi-
in Africa, at the time of Nero, who in belstudien, 1897.
his Hellenistic Theology gives us a pic-
ture of later Stoic theology and allegory, Demetr. Eloc. Pseud.-Demetr.
ed. A. Nock, 1926. Demetr, Phal. Pseud,-Demetr.
Theol. Graec. Theologia Graeca. Democr. Democritus, of Abdera, in the
Corp. Gloss. Lat. = Corpus Glossariorum second half of the 5th century B.C., the
Latinorum, 1888 ff. leading representative of atomism in an-
Corp, Herm. = Corpus Hermeticum, col- cient philosophy, ed. H. Diels in Die
lection of Hermetic writings (Poiman- Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 11, 1922.
dres and others), late anonymous pro- Demosth. Demosthenes, of Athens (384-
ducts of Hellenistic-Egyptian mysticism, 322 B.C.), ed. F. Blass, 1903 ff.
the teachings of which may be found Or. Orationes.
already in the 1st century A.D., ed. W. Ep. = Epistulae.
Scott, 1924. Dep. = Deponens.
Corp. Ref. Corpus Reformatorum, 1834 ff. Dessau Inscr, Lat. Select. Inscriptiones
Corp. Script. Christ. Or. = Corpus Scripto- Latinae Selectae, ed. H. Dessau, 1892.
rum Christianorum Orientalium, 1903 ff.
Dg. Epistle to Diognetus.
CPR Corpus Papyrorum Raineri archi- Dib. Gefbr. M. Dibelius, Kommentar z. d.
ducis I, ed. C. Wessely, 1895. Gefangenschaftsbrieten?, 1927.
Cr.-Ko. H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologi- Dib. Jk. = M. Dibelius, Kommentar z. Ja-
sches Worterbuch des nt.lichen Grie- kobusbrief", 1921.
chisch, revised by J. Kogel11, 1923. M. Dibelius, Kommentar z. d.
Dib. Past.
CSEL = Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiastico- Pastoralbriefen~, 1931.
rum Latinorum, 1866 ff.
Dib. Th. = M. Dibelius, Kommentar z. d.
Cyt. : Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386 Thessalonicherbriefen?, 1925.
A.D.), ed. in MPG, 33 (1857), Did. - Didache.
Cat. Myst.-= Catechesis Mystago-
gica. Didasc. Syrian Didascalia, a comprehen-
Hom. - Homiliae. sive pre-Constantinian Church order con-
d.= died. tained in Const. Ap. (q.v.).
Da. = Daniel. Didym. • Didymus, of Alexandria (c. 309-
DAC = Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, 344/5 A.D.), one of the last instructors
ed. J. Hastings, 1915 ff. and principals of the Catechetical School,
Dalman Gr. G. Dalman, Grammatik des posthumously condemned (680) for his
judisch-palastinensischen Aramaisch?, Origenistic tendencies, ed. in MPG, 39,
1924.
1863.
Trin, De Trinitate. _
Dalman WJ -c G. Dalman, Worte Jesu, 12, Dieh1 = E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Grae-
1930.
ca, 1925.
Dalman Wort. E G. Dalman, Aramaisch- Diels = H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vor-
neuhebraisches Worterbuch, 1901. sokratiker4, 1922.
Damasc. 1 - Damascus Document, : Hebrew
work discovered in 1910, partly admo- Dio C. = Dio Cassius Cocceianus, of Ni-
cea in Bithynia (c. 155-235 A.D.), a high
nitory and partly legal (Halacha) in Roman official, the author of a history
content, possibly originating in Hasmo- of Rome in 80 books from Aeneas to his
nean or Roman times, ed. S. Schechter, own time, ed. P. Boissevain, 1894 ff.
1910. Dio Chrys. E Dion, of Prusa in Bithynia
dat. dative.
P. Dausch, Kommentar Z. (c. 40-120 A.D.), later called Chrysosto-
Dausch Synpt. mus, the most important representative of
d. alteren drei Evangelien', 1930.
 XXII Abbreviations

the so-called Second Sophistic school in Emped. Empedocles, of Acragas in Sicily

the Roman Empire, ed. H. V. Arnim, (c. 495-435 B.C.), a philosopher who
1893 ff. with his doctrine of the elements is to
Or. = Orationes. be placed among the physicists and
Diod, S. = Diodorus Siculus, of Agyrion in mystics of the 5th century B.C., ed.
Sicily, in the days of Augustus, author H. Diels in Die Fragmente der Vorso-
kratiker, I, 1922.
of a popular history of the world in
40 books in his Historical Library, ed. En. - Enoch, patriarch, introduced into
F. Vogel, 1888. many later Jewish writings, the oldest of
Diog. L. Diogenes Laertius, author in the which date from the 2nd century B.C.
3rd century A.D. of a not very critical (Schurer, III, 268 ff.).
history of Greek philosophy in 10 books, Eth. En. Ethiopian Enoch, ed. A.
ed. H. G. Huebner, 1828. Dillmann, 1851; R. Charles, 1906.
Dion. Hal. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Gr. En. Greek Enoch. containing
from 30 B.C. a teacher of rhetoric in 32 chapters of the former in a MS
Rome, Atticist and historian, author of discovered, 1886-7,
an old Roman history, ed. C. Jacoby, Hb. En. Hebrew Enoch, ed. H.
1885. Odeberg, 1928.
Ant. Roma. = Antiquitates Romanae. S1. En. - Slavic Enoch, ed. St. No-
Compos. Verb. - De Compositione vakovitsch, 1884.
Verborum. ep. = epistulae.
Pseud.-Dion. Hal.= Pseudo-Diony-
sius Halicarnassensis. Ep. Ar. - Epistle of Aristeas, apocryphal
Art. Rhet. = De Arte Rhetorica. Jewish account of the origin of the LXX
(2nd or 1st century B.C.), ed. P. Wend-
Dion. Thr. = Dionysius Thrax, Greek land, 1900.
grammarian and rhetorician in Rhodes
Ep. Claud ad Alex. Epistula Claudii ad
(170-90 B.C.), ed. G. Uhlig, 1883. Alexandrinos, ed. H. Idris Bell, 1924.
Art. Gramm. De Arte Grammatica.
Diosc. _ Dioscurides, of Anazarbos in Ci- Eph. = Ephesians.
licia, contemporary of the elder Pliny Ephr. Ephraim,
(1st century A.D.), author of a phar- Epic.= Epicurus, of Samos (341-270 B.C.),
macological work TEpi tAns latpikis, established a philosophical school in
ed. M. Wellmann, 1907 ff. Athens in 306, ed. H. Usener, 1887,
Mat. Med. De Materia Medicina. (Ad) Men. = Ad Menoeceum.
Diss. Dissertation. Epict. Epictetus, Phrygian slave of Hie-
Diss. phil. Hall. - Dissertationes philologi- rapolis in the days of Nero (50-130
cae Halenses, 1873 ff. A.D.), freed at the imperial palace, Stoic
Ditt. Or.= W. Dittenberger, Orientis Grae- of the younger school and preacher of
cae Inscriptiones, 1902 ff. ethics tinged with religion. From his
Ditt. Syll. = W. Dittenberger, Sylloge In- lectures his pupil Arrian collected 8 books
scriptionum Graecarum?, 1898 ff.;3, of diatribes which have been preserved,
1915 ff. ed. H. Schenk12, 1916.
Diss. Dissertationes.
DLZ - Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 1880 ff. Ench. - Enchiridion.
Dob. Th. - E. Dobschutz, Kommentar 2. d.
Thessalonicherbrieten', 1909. Gnom. Stob. Gnomologium Sto-
baei.
Dt. = Deuteronomy.
Dt. Is. - Deutero-Isaiah, Ep. Jer. = Epistle of Jeremiah, Jewish apo-
Dt. r. = Deuteronomium rabba (_ Debarim cryphal writing, in LXX attached to the
Book of Baruch as the sixth chapter
rabba), Homiletic Midrash on Deutero- (3rd-2nd century B.C.), probably origi-
nomy (Strack, Einl., 206). nating in the Babylonian diaspora.
Dtsch. Ev. Bl. = Deutsch-evangelische Blat- Epigr. Graec. - Epigrammata Graeca ex
ter, 1876 ff. lapidibus conlecta, ed. G. Kaibel, 1878.
E. - Elohist. epil. = epilogium.
EB Encyclopaedia Biblica, ed. T. K. Epiph. Epiphanius, of Eleutheropolis in
Cheyne and S. J. Black, 1899 ff. Palestine, bishop of Constantia in Cy-
Ed. = Edujot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud prus (298-403 A.D.), opponent of 80
tractate Witnesses (later teachers on of- Christian, Jewish and Gnostic heresies in
der authorities) (Strack, Einl., 53). his rich and comprehensive work flava-
E] = Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1928 ff. plov kata taodv tov aiptoedv, ed.
Eka Eka rabbati, Midrash on Lamenta- K. Holl, 1922.
tions (Strack, Einl., 212). Haer. = Haereses.
Abbreviations XXIII

Er(ub) = Erubin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340

mud tractate Interminglings (evasions of A.D.), ecclesiastical historian, ed. by
the Sabbath commandment) (Strack, different scholars in Die Griech. christl.
Einl., 38 f.). Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte,
1902 ff.
ERE = Encyclopaedia of Religion and Dem. Ev. Demonstratio Evangeli-
Ethics, ed. . Hastings, 1908 ff. ca.
esp. = especially. Hist. Eccl. Historia Ecclesiastica.
Marc. Fragm. Marcelli Fragmenta.
4 Esr. = 4 Esdras (arranged as in the Vul-
gate), a most important Jewish apoca- Praep. Ev. - Praeparatio Evangeli-
lypse which originated at the end of the
1st century A.D. under the shattering Theoph. = Theophania.
impact of the destruction of Jerusalem, Vit. Const. = Vita Constantini.
ed. B. Violet, 1910. Eustath. Thessal. Eustathius Thessaloni-
Est. - Esther. censis (1175, archbishop of Thessaloni-
ET or Exp. T. The Expository Times, ca), the last allegorical commentator on
Edinburgh 1900 ff. the Iliad and the Odyssey, ed. G. Stall-
baum, 1827 ff.
Etym. Gud. = Etymologicum Gudianum, Comm. in Il., Od. C Commentarii in
etymological compilation of the Middle Homeri Iliadem, Odysseam.
Ages (c. 1150 A.D.), named after Gude,
the former owner of the Wolfenbuttler Euthymius Zig. = Euthymius Zigabenus,
MS, ed. F. W. Sturz, 1818; E. A. de Byzantine theologian of the 12th century
Stefani, 1909. A.D. (died after 1118), author of exe-
getical and polemical dogmatic works,
Etym. M. Etymologicum Magnum, ety- ed. in MPG, 128-131, 1864 ff.
mological compilation of the Middle Commentary on the New Testament
Ages (c. 1100 A.D.), ed. T. Gaisford, Epistles, ed. N. Calogeras, 1887.
1848. Ev. Eb. - Gospel of the Ebionites.
Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens Hebr. Gospel of the Hebrews.
(480-406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and Naz. Gospel of the Nazarenes.
philosopher of the stage, ed. G. Murray, Pet. Gospel of Peter.
1901 ff. Remains of non-canonical and mostly
Alc. = Alcestis. heretical Gospels of the 2nd century
Andr. = Andromache. A.D. existing only in fragments or
Antiop. = Antiope. quotations in the fathers, ed. E. Preu-
Archel. = Archelaus. schen in Antilegomena?, 1905.
Ba.= Bacchae. Ew. Gefbr. P. Ewald, Kommentar z. d.
Cret. = Cretes. Gefangenscha‡tsbrieten?, 1910.
Cyc. = Cyclops. Ex. = Exodus.
El. - Electra. Exp. The Expositor, London, 1882 ff.
Epigr. l Epigrammata.
Hec. Hecuba. Exp. T. v. ET.
Hel. = Helena. Ex. r. Exodus rabba (Shemot rabba),
Herac. = Heraclidae. Midrash on Exodus (Strack, Einl., 208).
Herc. Fur. = Hercules Furens. Ez. = Ezekiel.
Hipp. Hippolytus. Ezr. = Ezra.
Hyps. Hypsipyle.
Ion fem. feminine.
Iph. Aul. = Iphigenia Aulidensis. Festschr. = Festschrift.
Iph. Taur. = Iphigenia Taurica. fig. etym. - figura etymologica.
Med. = Medea. Firm. Mat. Julius Firmicus Maternus, of
Melan. Capt. Melanippe Captiva. Syracuse, Latin author of the 4th cen-
Melan. Sap. Melanippe Sapiens. tury A.D., converted from Neo-Platonism
Oen. Oeneus. to Christianity and a sharp opponent of
Or. = Orestes. the ancient cults and mysteries, ed. W.
Phaet. Phaéthon. Kroll, F. S. Kutsch and K. Ziegler, 1897
Phoen. Phoenissae. ff.
Pirith. Pirithous. Err. Prof. Rel. & De Errore Profa-
narum Religionum.
Rhes. = Rhesus.
Sthen. Sthenoboea. Fr. (fr.) = Fragmenta (-um).
Suppl. - Supplices. FRL = Forschungen zur Religion und Lite-
Tro. C Troades. ratur des AT und NT. 1903 ff.
XXIV Abbreviations

fut. future. padocians, ed. in MPG, 44-46. 1863.

Gal. Claudius Galenus, of Pergamon Apoll. = Contra Apollonium.
(129-199 A.D.), the most renowned and Beat. Or. C De Beatitudinibus Ora-
from the literary standpoint the most tiones.
(Ctr.) Eunom. Contra Eunomium.
productive of all the physicians of im- Virg, = De Virginitate.
perial Rome, ed. C. G. Kuhn, 1821 ff.;
H. Diels in Corpus Medicorum Graeco- Gk. - Greek.
rum, 1914 f. Hab. = Habakkuk.
GDI - Collection of Greek Dialect Inscrip- Had. Apk. W. Hadorn, Kommentar Z.
tions, ed. H. Collitz and F. Bechtel, Apokalypse, 1928.
1884 ff.
Hag. = Haggai.
Gelas. Gelasius, of Cycicus, compiler Harnack Dg. A. v. Harnack, Lehrbuch d.
(c. 475 A.D. in Bithynia) of an eccle- Dogmengeschichtet, 1909 f.
siastical history only partially extant, ed. Hastings DB J. Hastings, Dictionary of
G. Loeschcke and M. Heinemann, 1918. the Bible, 1898 ff.
Hist. Eccl. - Historia Ecclesiastica.
gen. obj. objective genitive. Hatch-Redp. = E. Hatch and H. Redpath,
A Concordance to the Septuagint, 1897
gen. subj = subjective genitive. ff.
Geogr. Graec. Min. Geographi Graeci
Minores, ed. C. Muller, 1855 ff. Haupt Gefbr. E. Haupt, Kommentar z. d.
Ges.-Bergst. W. Gesenius, Hebraische Gefangenschaftsbriefen7, 1902.
Grammatik, revised by G. Bergstrasser29, Hb. -Hebrews.
1918 ff. Hbr. Un. Coll. & Hebrew Union College
Ges.-Buhl W. Gesenius-F. Buhl, Hebrai- Annual (Cincinnati, 1924 ff.).
sches und aramaisches Handworterbuch Hck. Jk. F. Hauck, Kommentar z. Jako-
zum A716 1915. busbrief, 1926.
Ges.-K. W. Gesenius, Hebraische Gram- Hck. Mk. F. Hauck, Kommentar 2. Mar-
matik, revised by E. Kautzsch28, 1909. kusev., 1931.
GGA & Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484-
1739 ff. 425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian,
Git. = Gittin, described as early as Cicero as the father
Gl. = Galatians. of history. His work deals with the con-
flicts between the Greeks and the bar-
Glotta = Glotta, Zeitschrift fur griechische barians from earliest times to the Persian
und lateinische Sprache, 1909 ff. Wars, ed. H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.
Gn. Genesis. Pseud.-Hdt. = Pseudo-Herodotus.
Gnom. J. A. Bengel, Gnomon NT8 (1887). Vit. Hom. De Vita Homeri.
Gn. r. = Genesis rabba (Bereshit rabba), Heb. = Hebrew.
Midrash on Genesis (Strack, Einl., 209 Helbing = R. Helbing, Grammatik der Sep-
ff.). tuaginta, 1907.
Gorg. = Gorgias, of Leontini in Sicily (c. Heliodor, Heliodorus, of Emesa (3rd
483-375 B.C.), one of the main represen- century B.C.), writer of stories, his Ae-
tatives of classical sophistic and rhetoric thiopica consisting of Ethiopian tales of
in Athens (cf. Plato's dialogue Gorgias). Theagenes and Charicleia, ed. I. Bekker,
From his rhetorical handbook two model 1855.
speeches have come down to us, the Aeth. - Aethiopica.
deliverance of Helena and the defence Hennecke = E. Hennecke, Nt.liche Apo-
of Palamedes, ed. H. Diels in Die Frag-
mente der Vorsokratiker, II⅘, 1922. kryphen?, 1923 f.
Hel. Helena. Heracl. Heraclitus, of Ephesus (535-475
Pal. - Palamedes. B.C.), pre-Socratic philosopher, ed. H.
Greg. Naz. Gregory Nazianzus (c. 330- Diels in Die Fragmente der Vorsokra-
tiker, I, 1922.
390 A.D.), one of the three great Cap-
padocian fathers and the most important Heracl. - Heraclitus, Stoic philosopher,
Christian poet of his day, ed. in MPG, perhaps of the age of Augustus, author
35-38, 1857 f. of 'Ounpikai 'A nyopla, ed. Soc.
Or. Theol. - Orationes Theologicae. Phil. Bonn, 1910.
Greg. Nyss. L Gregory of Nyssa, brother Hom. All. = Homeri Allegoriae.
of Basil of Caesarea (d.c. 394 A.D.), the Herm. = Hermes, Zeitschrift fur klassische
most profound thinker of the three Cap- Philologie, 1866 ff.
Abbreviations

Herm. - Pastor Hermae. Ref.- Refutatio Omnium Haeresium.

m. mandata. Hippocr. Hippocrates, of Cos (c. 460
S. = similitudines. B.C.), the founder of the scientific medi-
V. visiones. cine of the Greeks. The authenticity of
Herm. Trismeg. Hermes Trismegistus, the many of the works handed down under
godhead of the corpus of 18 mystical his name is disputed, ed. E. Littré, 1839
and syncretistic writings known as the ff.; J. Ilberg and H. Kuhlewein, 1899 ff.;
Hermetica (v. Corp. Herm.), ed. W. J. L. Heiberg in Corpus Medicorum Grae-
Scott, 1924 ff. v. Reitzenstein Poim. corum, 1927.
Herodian Herodianus, of Syria, official
Acut. = De Ratione Victus in Mor-
and historian under Septimius Severus,
bis Acutis.
wrote 8 books from the death of Aure- Epid. - Epidemiae.
Morb. = De Morbis.
lius to 238 A.D., ed. K. Stavenhagen, Mul. = De Morbis Mulierum.
1922.
Progn. - Prognosticum.
Hist. Historiae. Vet. Med. _ De Vetere Medicina.
Herond. Herondas, Greek poet, probably Vict. - De Ratione Victus Salubris.
of Cos (c. 250 B.C.), who gives Hist. Aug. v. Script. Hist. Aug.
realistic scenes from everyday life in his
Mimes, of which eight have recently Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical
been discovered on papyri, ed. R. Her- Greek epic poet, around whose name
zog, 1926. were grouped the older epics of the
Mim. - Mimiambi. Ionians in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.,
ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908 fF.
Hes. = Hesiodus, of Ascra in Boetia (c. Il. Iliad.
700 B.C.), the oldest Greek poet to Od. = Odyssey.
emerge as a tangible figure. In his Pas- Hom. Hymn. Homerici Hymni, deriving
toral Calendar épya Kai juepal he from the 7th century B.C., regarded by
proclaims the pastoral ideal of life. His the ancients as Homeric, and used as an
Theogony is a speculative work on the introduction to the recital of Homeric
origin and descent of the gods, ed. A. poems, ed. T. Allen, 1911.
Rzach, 1913. Hymn. Ap. = Hymnus ad Apollinem.
Op. Opera et Dies. Bacch. = ad Bacchum.
Theog. Theogonia. Cer. = ad Cererem.
Hesych. - Hesychius, of Alexandria (5th Mart. ad Martem.
century A.D.), lexicographer, ed. M. Merc. - ad Mercurium.
Schmidt, 1858 ff. Pan. ad Panem.
Hier, Hieronymus (Jerome), of Dalmatia Ven. ad Venerem.
(c. 340-420 A.D.), who after study in Hor. Horajot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
Rome lived as a monk in the Near East
mud tractate Decisions (erroneous)
and engaged in extensive scholarly work, (Strack, Einl., 54).
particularly on the text of the Bible, ed.
in MPL 22-30, 1865 ff.; Epistulae, ed. Horat. Q. Horatius Flaccus, of Venusia
J. Hilberg, 1910 ff. (65-8 B.C.), with Vergil the best known
(Comm.) in Is. Commentarii in and most important representative of the
Isaiam Prophetam. great Augustan era in Roman poetry.
Sat. Satirae.
(Ad) Gal. = Ad Galatas.
(Ad.) Pelag. Adversus Pelagium. Hos. & Hosea.
Hierocl. Hierocles, of Alexandria, distin- HT = Hebrew Text.
guished Neo-Platonist and contemporary Iambl. Iamblichus, of Chalcis in Syria,
of Proclus (410-485 A.D.), author of a at the time of Constantine the Great,
long explanation of the Golden Sayings founder of the Syrian school of Neo-
of Pythagoras, ed. F. W. A. Mullach, I, Platonism, and reputed author of a
1853. work on the Egyptian mysteries, ed.
Carm. Aur. - In Aureum Pythagorae H. Pistelli, 1894; De Mysteriis, ed. G.
Carmen Commentarius. Parthey, 1857.
Comm. Math. Scient. De Communi
Hipp. Hippolytus (c. 160-235 A.D.), Mathematica Scientia.
disciple of Irenaeus. His main work A
Refutation of all Heresies in 10 books is Myst. = De Mysteriis.
directed against Greek philosophy as the Protr. = Protrepticus.
mother of all heresies, ed. by different Theol. Arithm. Theologia Arith-
scholars in Die griech. christl. Schrift- metica.
steller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1897 ff. Vit. Pyth. - Vita Pythagorae.
Philos. Philosophumena. IG = Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. Preussische
XXVI Abbreviations

Akademie d. Wissenscha[ten zu Berlin, London, 1880 ff.

1873 ff. J1. - Joel.
Ign. = Ignatius. Im. Epistle of James.
Eph. = Epistula ad Ephesios. Jn. = John's Gospel.
Mg. = ad Magnesios.
Phld. = ad Philadelphenses. In. (1, 2, 3) = Epistles of John (1,2, 3).
R.= ad Romanos. Joh. = John.
Sm. = ad Smyrnaeos. Joh. = Johannine.
Tr. = ad Trallianos. Joh. Lyd. Johannes Laurentius Lydus,
imp.= imperative. court official under the emperor Justi-
impf. imperfect.
ind. indicative. nian, after 522 devoted to antiquarian
indedl. indeclinable. studies of a chronological and astrolo-
inf.- infinitive. gical nature (e.g., De Mensibus), ed.
Inscr. Hierap. Hierapolis Inscription, ed. I. Bekker in Corpus Scriptorum Histo-
W. Judeich, 1898. riae Byzantinae, 1837.
Joh. Mosch. Johannes Moschus, Byzan-
Inscr. Magn. = Inscriptions of Magnesia tine monk (6th century A.D.), whose
on the Meander, ed. O. Kern, 1900.
work Aeluoov (Pratum Spirituale) is a
Inscr. Perg. = Inscriptions of Pergamon, ed. collection of anecdotes intended as a
M. Frankel, 1900. contribution to the ascetic life in the
Insc(h)r. Priene Priene Inscriptions, ed. form of a description of the exemplary
F. Hiller V. Gartringen, 1906. works of famous men, ed. in MPG, 87, 3,
int. = interdum. 1865.
intr. intransitive. Joh. W.1 K. Johannes Weiss, Kommen-
IPE Inscriptiones Orae Septentrionalis tar Z. 1. Korintherbrief° (1910).
Ponti Euxini, ed. B. Latyschev, 1885. Jon. = Jonah.
Iren. Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, bishop of Jos. - Joshua.
Lyons, martyred 202 A.D. during the Jos(eph). Flavius Josephus, Jewish author
persecution under Severus, ed. in MPG, (c. 37-97 A.D.) in Palestine and later
7, 1882. Rome, author in Greek of the Jewish War
Epid. L Epideixis. and Jewish Archaeology, which treat of
Is. Isaiah. the period from creation to Nero, ed. B.
Isoc. Isocrates, of Athens (436-338 B.C.), Niese, 1887 ff.
originally a barrister and writer of po- Ant. Antiquitates.
litical pamphlets, later in connection with Ap. - Contra Apionem.
the Sophists an outstanding representa- Bell. Bellum Judaicum.
tive of general culture in the 4th cen- Vit. - Vita.
tury, ed. F. Blass, 1913 ff. JPOS - Journal of the Palestine Oriental
Aréop. Areopagiticus. Society, Jerusalem, 1920 ff.
J= Jahwist. JQR Jewish Quarterly Review, London-
Jad. Jadajim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Philadelphia, 1905 ff.
mud tractate Hands (uncleanness and IRS Journal of Roman Studies, London,
washing of the hands) (Strack, Einl., 1911 ff.
64).
Jbch. f. Phil. - Neue Tahrbucher fur Philo- JThSt. = Journal of Theological Studies,
London, 1899 ff.
logie und Padagogik, 1831 ff.
Jbch. pr. Th. Jahrbicher fir protestanti- Ju. = Judges.
sche Theologie, 1875 ff. Jud. = Judaism.
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature, New Jud. Lex. Jidisches Lexikon, 1927 ff.
Haven, 1881 ff.
Jul. = Julian the Apostate (361-363 A.D.),
Jd. = Epistle of Jude. who attempted by a fusion of polytheism
Jdt. = Judith. and Neo-Platonism to restore decaying
Jeb. - Jebamot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- paganism, Orationes, ed. F.C. Hertlein,
mud tractate Marriage of those related 1875 ff.; Epistulae, ed. J. Bidez-F. Cu-
by Marriage (Strack, Einl., 45). mont, 1922.
Jer. = Jeremiah. Conv. Convivium (= Caesares).
Ep. - Epistulae.
Jew. Enc. Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1901 ff. Gal. Contra Galilaeos.
JHS The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Or. = Orationes.
Abbreviations XXVII

Julicher G1. J. = A. Julicher, Die Gleichnis- Kuhner3 I, 1890; II, 1892; rev. F. Blass,
reden Jesu?, 1910. 1898; rev. B. Gerth.
Just. = Justin Martyr, executed c. 165 A.D., Lact. - Lactantius, probably of Africa (3rd-
author of an apology against the attacks 4th century A.D.), later called by Dio-
on Christians, and also of a discussion cletian to Nicomedia as a teacher of
with Judaism in the Dialogue with Try- rhetoric and the most widely read Latin
pho, ed. E. Goodspeed in Die altesten father, ed. S. Brandt, 1890 ff.
Apologeten, 1914; ed. G. Kriiger, 1915. Inst. C Divinae Institutiones.
Apol. Apologia. Lat. = Latin.
Dial. (c. Tryph.) = Dialogus cum Levy Chald. Wort. = J. Levy, Chaldaisches
Tryphone Judaeo. Worterbuch tber die Targumim, 1867 f.
Epit. = Epitome.
Pseud-Just. - Pseudo-Justinus. Levy Wort. - J. Levy, Neuhebraisches und
Quaest. et Resp. ad Orth. Quae- chaldaisches Worterbuch tiber die Tal
stiones et Responsiones ad Ortho- mudim und Midraschim, 1876 f., new
doxos. imp. 1924.
Juv. = D. Junius Juvenalis, c. 58-138 A.D., Lex. Th. K. Lexikon fur Theologie und
the last great Roman satirist, ed. O. Jahn, Kirche1, 1907 ff.; 2 1930 ff.
F. Bicheler and F. Leo3, 1910. Lib. = Libanius, of Antioch (314-393 A.D.),
K (1,2) = Kings (1,2). teacher of Julian, one of the 4th century
Sophists, of whom we have the auto-
Kassovsky H. J. Kassovsky, Concordan- biography, a comprehensive collection of
tiae totius Mischnae, 1927.
letters and many addresses, ed. R. For-
KAT E. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften ster, 1903 ff.
und das Alte Testament3, ed. H. Zim- Ep. Epistulae.
mern and A. Winckler, 1903. Or. = Orationes.
Kautzsch = Die heilige Schrift des Alten Liddell-Scott H. Liddell and R. Scott,
Testaments, tr. E. Kautzsch, ed. A. Ber- Greek-English Lexicon, New ed. by H.
tholet, 1921 ff.
St. Jones, 1925 ff.
Kautzsch Apkr. u. Pseudepigr. Apokry~ Lidz. Ginza M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, 1925.
phen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Lidz. Joh. M. Lidzbarski, Das Johannes-
Testamentes, tr. E. Kautzsch, 1900. buch der Mandaer, 1915.
Kern. Orph. v. Orph. Fr. Kern. Lidz. Liturg: = M. Lidzbarski, Mandaische
Ket. Ketubbot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Liturgien, 1920.
mud tractate Rules for Marriage (Strack, Lit. - Literature.
Einl., 46). Liv. Titus Livius, of Padua (59 B.C.-
Kg. Pt. Kerygma Petri. 17 A.D.), the great historian of Augustan
Khl. R. = E. Kuhl, Kommentar Z. Romer- Rome, ed. G. Weissenborn and M. Mil-
brief, 1913. ler, 1926 ff.
Kid. v. Qid. Lk. = Luke's Gospel.
Kil. = Kilajim, Mishnah-, Tosefta, Talmud Loh. Apk. E. Lohmeyer, Kommentar z.
tractate Two Things (unlawful mixture Apokalypse, 1926.
of things of a different kind) (Strack, Loh. Kol. E. Lohmeyer, Kommentar 2.
Einl., 33). Kolosserbrief%, 1930.
Kittel Probleme G. Kittel. Die Probleme Loh. Phil. E. Lohmeyer, Kommentar 2.
des palatinensischen Spatjudentums, Philipperbriefs, 1928.
1926.
Loh. Phlm. E. Lohmeyer, Kommentar 2.
KI Lk. E. Klostermann, Kommentar Z. Philemonbrieps, 1930.
Lukasev.2 1929.
Longus - Longus, of Lesbos (end of the
KI. Mk. E. Klostermann, Kommentar z. 2nd century A.D.), Greek novelist, ed.
Markusev.2 1926. R. Hercher in Erotici Scriptores, 1858.
KI. Mt. E. Klostermann, Kommentar z. Ltzm. Gl. H. Lietzmann, Kommentar Z.
Matthausev,2 1927. Galaterbriers, 1932.
KI. T. = Kleine Texte fur Vorlesungen und Ltzm. K. = H. Lietzmann, Kommentar z. d.
Ubungen, ed. H. Lietzmann, 1902 ff. Korintherbriefen*, 1931.
Kn. Pt. R. Knopf, Kommentar Z. d. Pe- Ltzm. R. H. Lietzmann, Kommentar Z.
trusbriefen?, 1912. Romerbrie[*, 1928.
Kuhner-Blass-Gerth = Aus[uhrliche Gram- Luc. = Lucianus, of Samosata in Syria
matik der griechischen Sprache, by R. (120-180 A.D.), best-known, though re-
 XXVII Abbreviations

negade, representative of the Second tamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque

Sophistic School, rhetorician and lively Chaldaicae?, 1925.
satirist of his epoch, ed. C. Jacobitz, M. Ant. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, em-
1836; W. Dindorf, 1858. peror and philosopher (161-180 A.D.),
Alex. = Alexander sive Pseudoman- influenced by Epictetus and one of the
tis. younger Stoics. His Meditations (to Elc
Demon.= Demonax. Eaurov) in 12 books are the last signi-
Dial. Mar. Dialogi Marini. ficant product of Stoicism, ed. H. Schenkl,
Eun. = Eunuchus. 1913).
Hermot. Hermotimus.
Icaromenipp. = Icaromenippus. Marin. - Marinus, Neo-Platonist, successor
Indoct.- Adversus Indoctum. of his teacher Proclus (410-485 A.D.),
Jup. Conf. = Juppiter Confutatus. whose biography he wrote, and teacher
Jup. Trag. - Juppiter Tragicus. of philosophy at Athens, ed. J. F. Boisso-
Nec. Necyomantia. nade, 1814.
Pergr. Mort. = De Peregrini Morte.
Vit. Procl. Vita Procli.
Pseudolol.= Pseudologista. Mark Liturg.= Liturgy of Mark, in Litur-
Salt. De Saltatione. gies Eastern and Western, ed. F.E.
Soloec. = De Soloecismo. Brightman, 1896.
Syr. D. v. Pseud. Luc. Mart.- M. Valerius Martialis, of Spain,
Tim. - Timon. the most famous Latin epigrammatist in
Tyr. Cataplus sive Tyrannus. the 1st century of imperial Rome, ed. W.
Vit. Auct. = Vitarum Auctio. Heraeus, 1925.
Zeux. = Zeuxis sive Antiochus. Mart. Martyrium.
Pseud. Luc. = Pseudo-Lucianus. Is. lesaiae (v. Asc. Is.).
Asin. = De Asino. Mt. = Matthaei.
Ocyp. Ocypus. P1. - Pauli.
Syr. Dea = De Syria Dea. Pol. = Polycarpi.
Lv. = Leviticus. Pt. Petri.
Lv. r. = Leviticus rabba(- Wajjikra rab- Mas. - Masora.
ba), Midrash on Leviticus (Strack, Einl., masc. masculine.
204). Maxim. Conf. -' Maximus Confessor, of
Lyc. Lycurgus, Attic orator and states- Constantinople (580-662 A.D.), monk,
man (338-327 B.C.), ed. C. Scheibe and theologian and mystic, who played a
F. Blass, 1899. prominent part in the christological con-
Lys. Lysias, of Athens (445-380 B.C.), troversies of his day, being condemned
belongs to the canon of the 10 Attic and silenced for his Dyotheletism, ed.
orators, ed. T. Thalhelm, 1901. MPG, 90, 1865.
Quaest. ad Thalass. = Quaestiones
Maas. = Maasrot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- ad Thalassium.
mud tractate The Tithe (Strack, Einl.,
35). Max. Tyr. = Maximus of Tyre, in Rome
Maccabees (1, 2, 3,4). at the time of Commodus (180-192 A.D.),
Macc. (1, 2, 3, 4)
Macrob. = Macrobius Theodosius, an anti- Sophist and wandering philosophical ora-
tor, an eclectic Platonist with Cynical
quary concerned in the movement of pa- and Stoic tendencies, author of philoso-
gan restoration c. 400 A.D., ed. F. Eys-
senhardt2, 1893. phical essays in the style of diatribes
Sat. = Saturnalia. (BiarÉEeic), ed. H. Hobein, 1910.
Mak. Makkot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Mayser = E. Mayser, Grammatik d. Griech.
mud tractate Scourging (Strack, Einl., Papyri aus der Ptolemaerzeit, 1906.
52). Meg. Megilla, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
Mak. - Makarios, Alexandrian, monk in mud tractate Esther Scroll (reading for
the Nitric Hills (4th century A.D.). The the feast of Purim) (Strack, Einl., 43).
homily ascribed to him was perhaps Meinertz Gefbr. = M. Meinertz and F Till-
written by another monk, ed. in MPG, mann, Die Gefangenscha[tsbriefe des hl.
34, 1848. Paulus+, 1931.
Maksh. Makshirin, Mishnah-, Tosefta Meinertz Kath. Br. = M. Meinertz and W.
Talmud tractate What Qualifies (on Vrede, Die Katholischen Briefet, 1932.
becoming unclean) (Strack, Einl., 63). Meinertz Past.= M. Meinertz, Die Pastoral-
Mal. Malachi. briefe des hl. Paulust, 1931.
Mandelkern = S. Mandelkern, Veteris Tes- Mek. R. Sim. E Mekilta of Rabbi Simeon
Abbreviations XX1X

ben Jochai, reconstruction of an old Mi- mud tractate Plunge Baths (Strack, Einl.,
drash on Exodus (Strack, Einl., 200). 62).
Men. Menachot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Mithr. Liturg. A. Dieterich, Eine Mithras-
mud tractate Meat Offerings (Strack, liturgies, 1923.
Einl., 55 f.). Mitteis-Wilcken te L. Mitteis and U. Wil-
Menand. Menander, of Athens (343-290 cken, Grundzige und Chrestomathie der
B.C.), recognised master of the new Papyruskunde, 1912.
Attic comedy, ed. T. Kock in Comicorum Mk. Mark's Gospel.
Atticorum Fragmenta III, 1888; C.A. Moore G. F. Moore, Judaism, 1927 ff.
Jensen, 1929.
Cith. Citharistes. Moult. Mill. = J. H. Moulton and G. Milli-
Col. = Colax. gan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Tes-
Con. = Coneazomenae. tament, 1915 ff.
Epit. Epitrepontes. Moulton J. H. Moulton, Einleitung in die
Fab. Inc. = Fabula Incerta. Sprache des NT, 1911.
Georg. = Georgos. MPER Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung
Her. -Heros. d. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, 1887 ff.
Mis. = Misumenae.
Mon. Monostichi. MPG = Patrologia, Series Graeca, ed. J. P.
Per. - Perinthia. Migne, 1844 ff.
Peric. = Periciromena. MPL Patrologia, Series Latina, ed. J. P.
Phasm.-= Phasma. Migne, 1844 ff.
Sam. = Samia. MQ Moed qatan, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
Method. Methodius, bishop of Olympus, Talmud tractate, Intervening Festivals
martyred 311 A.D. Of his writings the (Strack, Einl., 44).
only one that has come down to us MS = Maaser Scheni, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
complete in Greek is the Symposion, Talmud tractate The Second Tithe
though others exist in translation, ed. (Strack, Einl., 35).
MPG, 18, 1857. Mt. a Matthew's Gospel.
Resurrect. = De Resurrectione.
Muson. = C. Musonius Rufus, of Volsinii
Symp. Symposion. in Etruria at the time of Nero, Stoic
M. Ex. - Mekilta Exodus, Tannaitic Mi- with cynical tendencies, ed. O. Hense,
drash on Exodus (Strack, Einl., 201). 1905.
ed. J. Rabin, 1929 ff. Nahum.
Na.
Meyer Ursprung E. Meyer, Ursprung Nageli T. Nageli, Der Wortschatz des
und Antange des Christentums, 1921 Apostels Paulus, 1905.
MGWJ Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und NAMZ Neue Allgemeine Missions-Zeit-
Wissenschaft des Judentums, 1869 ff. schrift, 1924 ff.
Mi. = Micah, Ned. = Nedarim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
Mid. Middot, Mishnah-, Tosefta, Tal- mud tractate Vow (Strack, Einl., 46).
mud tractate Measures (of the temple) Neg. Negaim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
(Strack., Einl., 59). mud tractate Leprosy (Strack, Einl., 61).
mid. = middle.
Neh. = Nehemiah.
Midr. - Midrash, Jewish expositions or Nestle Novum Testamentum Graece,
homilies on books of the Old Testament
(Strack, Einl., 196 Ff.). curavit E. Nestle, elaboravit Erwin
Nestle15, 1932.
Midr. HL Midrash on the Song of Solo-
mon (Strack, Einl., 213). Nestle Dobsch. =E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in
das griechische NT, ed. E. Dobschutz4,
Midr. Prv. Midrash on Proverbs (Strack, 1923.
Einl., 216). neutr. neuter.
Midr. Ps. Midrash on Psalms (Strack, New Heb. = New Hebrew.
Einl., 215). NGG = Nachrichten von der Kgl. Gesell-
Midr. Qoh. Midrash on Ecclesiastes schaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen,
(Strack, Einl., 213). 1894 ff.
Mimn. Mimnermus, of Colophon, Ionic N. Jbch. KI. Alt. = Neue Jahrbucher des
poet of the second half of the 7th century Klassischen Altertums, 1898 ff.
B.C., ed. E. Diehl in 'Anthologia Lyrica, N. Jbch. Wiss. u. Jugendbildung - Neue
I, 1925. Jahrbucher fur Wissenschaft und Jugend-
Miq. = Miquaot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- bildung, 1925 ff.
 Abbreviations

Nicand. Nicander, of Colophon (3rd/2nd Gnostic collection of songs of the 2nd

century B.C.), Hellenistic poet, gramma- century, extant in Syriac, ed. J. Rendel
rian and author of medical writings, ed. Harris, 1916 ff.
O. Schneider, 1856. Ostraka U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostra-
Alexipharm. Alexipharmaca. ka, 1912.
Nk. Z. = Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1890 OT = Old Testament.
ff. Ovid. P. Ovidius Naso, of Sulmo in
No. (no.) = number, Italy (43 B.C.-18 A.D.), the great ele-
Nonnus - Nonnus, of Panapolis in Egypt, glast of Augustan Rome, ed. C. Postgate,
Christian, but author in the 4th cen- 1894.
tury A.D. of a Dionysus epic in 48 Fast. - Fasti.
books, ed. A. Ludwich, 1909 ff. Palaeph. Palaephatus, author of a work
Dionys. = Dionysiaca. on the rationalistic interpretation of
N. Ph. U. = Neue philologische Untersu- myths somewhere between the 4th and
chungen, 1926 ff. 2nd century B.C., ed. M. Festa in Mytho-
N. pr. = proper name. graphi Graeci, 1902.
NT = New Testament. Pall. & Palladius Helenopolitanus, of Gala-
NT Deutsch Das Neue Testament tia (368-c. 431 A.D.), monk and bishop
Deutsch, ed. P. Althaus and J. Behm, of Helenopolis, later of Aspruna (Gala-
1932 ff. tia), close to Origen in outlook. He
dedicated a collection of edifying bio-
Nu. - Numbers. graphies of monks to a chamberlain
Nu. r. = Numbers rabba ( Bemidbar rab- Lausos (Historia Lausiaca), and was
ba), Midrash on Numbers (Strack, Einl., possibly the author of a Vita Chry-
207). sostomi.
Ob. Obadiah. Hist. Laus. Historia Lausiaca, ed.
obj. object. D. C. Buttler, 1898 ff.
Oestr. Thft. Jahreshe{te d. Osterreichi- Pap. - Papyrus, shortened to P. when
schen Archaologischen Instituts, 1898 ff. specific editions are quoted.
Orientalistische Literatur-Zeitung, P. Amh. - The Amherst Papyri, ed. B.
OLZ Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1900 ff.
1898 ff.
P Eleph. = Elephantine Papyri, ed. O.
opp. oppositum. Rubensohn, 1907.
Oppian Cyn. v. Pseud.-Oppian. P. Fay. = Fayim Towns and their Pa-
Or, Oratio (nes). pyri, ed. B. Grenfell, A. Hunt and D.
Orig. Origen, of Alexandria (185-254 Hogarth, 1900.
A.D.), pupil of Clement of Alexandria, P. Flor. Papyri Florentini, I, ed. G.
and most learned and fruitful representa- Vitelli, 1906; II, ed. D. Comparetti,
tive of ancient Christian scholarship and 1908 ff.
culture, ed. by different scholars in Die P. Gen. Les Papyrus de Genéve, ed.
griech. christl. Schriftsteller der ersten J. Nicole, 1896 ff.
3 Jahrhunderte, 1899 ff. P. Giess. = Griechische Papyri zu Gies-
Cels. = Contra Celsum. sen, ed. O. Eger, E. Kornemann and
Comm. in Joh. = In Johannem Com- P. M. Meyer, 1910 ff.
mentarius. P. Greci e Latini = Papyri Greci e La-
Comm. in Ps. L In Psalmos Com- tini, Pubblicazioni della Societa Ita-
mentarii. liana, 1911 ff.
Hom. in Ex. Jer. Jos. Lv. Homilies P. Hal. Papyrus-Sammlung d. Uni-
on Exodus, Jeremiah, Joshua and versitat Halle, ed. Graeca Halensis
Leviticus. in Dikaiomata, 1913.
Orat. = De Oratione. P. Hamb. Griechische Papyrusurkun-
Philocal. _ Philocalia. den der Hamburger Stadtbibliothek,
Princ. De Principiis. ed. P. M. Meyer, 1911 ff.
Orph. (Abel) Orphica, Orphic hymns, P. Herm. Corpus Papyrorum Hermo-
of which 88 have survived, belonging to politanarum, ed. C. Wessely, 1905.
later antiquity but containing many older P. Hern. Papyruspublikationen, ed. C.
materials, and cultic in character, ed. E Wessely in Jahresberichte d. K.K.
Abel, 1885.
Staatsgymnasiums in Hernals, Vol.
Orph. Fr. (Kern) = Orphicorum Fragmen- XIV, XVI.
ta, ed. O. Kern, 1922. P. Hibeh = The Hibeh Papyri, ed. B.
O. Sol. - Odes of Solomon, Christian- Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1906.
Abbreviations XXXI

P. klein. Form. = Griechische Papyrus- Langobards at the court of Charlemagne,

urkunden kleineren Formats, ed. C. formerly a monk at Monte Cassino, and
Wessely, 1904 ff. particularly significant for his historical
P. Leid. = Papyri Graeci Musei anti- works (Geschichte der Langobarden).
quarii publici Lugduni-Batavi, ed. C. His writings have never been collected
Leemanns, 1843 ff. into a complete edition (cf. RE3 15,
P. Leipz. Die griechischen Papyri p. 88).
Sachsens, ed. C. Wessely, 1885. (Pauli) Exc. (ex lib.) Pomp. Fest.
P. Lille Papyrus Grecs Lille, ed. P. Pauli
Jouguet, P. Collart and others, 1912. Diaconi Excerpta ex Libro Pompei Festi.
ed. M. Lindsay, 1913.
P. Lips. - Griechische Urkunden der
Papyrussammlung zu Leipzig, ed. L. Pauly-W. A. Pauly, Realencyclopadie
Mitteis, 1906. der klassichen Altertumswissensc{,
rev. ed., commenced by G. Wissowa, ed.
P. Lond. - Greek Papyri in the British W. Kroll and K. Mittelhaus, 1892 ff.
Museum, ed. F. G. Kenyon and others,
1893 ff. Paus. = Pausanias, the Periegete, probably
P. Magd. = Papyrus de Magdola, ed. of Magnesia by Mt. Sipylos, author un-
Lesquier in P. Lille (q.v.). der the emperor Commodus of his Tour-
P. Masp. 1 Papyrus Grecs d'époque ney through Greece (Tlepinynois 'EX-
Byzantine, ed. J. Maspéro, 1911 ff. Ag8oc) in 10 books, ed. J. Schubart,
P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. 1881; F. Spiro, 1903 ff.
B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff. PEFQ = Palestine Exploration Fund Quar-
P. Par. = Les Papyrus Grecs du Musée terly Statements (London), 1911 ff.
du Louvre, ed. W. Brunet de Presle Pent. = Pentateuch.
and E. Egger, 1866. perf. = perfect.
P. Petr. - The Flinders Petrie Papyri, pers.= person.
ed. J. P. Mahaffy and J. G. Smyly, Pes. Pesachim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
1891 ff.
P. Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek Pa-
mud tractate The Passover (Strack,
pyri in the John Rylands Library at Einl., 39).
Manchester, ed. A. Hunt and others, Pesikt. - Pesikta (de Rab. Kahana), col-
1911. lection of homilies (Strack, Einl., 202 f.).
P. Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri, ed. B. Pesikt. r. i Pesikta rabbati, collection of
Grenfell, A. Hunt and others, 1920 ff. homilies (Strack, Einl., 205 f.).
P. Tor. Papyri Graeci Regii Tauri-
nensis Musei Aegyptii, ed. A. Peyron, Phil. Philippians.
1926 ff. Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.-
Pape W. Pape, Griechisch-Deutsches 50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
Handworterbuch3, ed. M. Sengebusch, Abr. = De Abrahamo.
1880. Aet. Mund. De Aeternitate Mundi.
par. = parallel. Agric.= De Agricultura.
Cher. = De Cherubim.
Paral. Jerem. Paralipomena Jeremiae,
Jewish writing revised in a Christian Conf. Ling. = De Confusione Lin-
guarum.
sense (Schiirer, III, 393 ff.). De Congressu Eruditionis
Congr.
Parm(en). Parmenides, of Italian Elea Gratia.
(c. 500 B.C.), pre-Socratic head of the Decal. = De Decalogo.
Eleatic school, ed. H. Diels in Die Frag- Det. Pot. Ins. Quod Deterius Po-
mente der Vorsokratiker, I, 1922. tiori insidiari soleat.
part. participle. Deus Imm. - Quod Deus sit Immu-
pass. = passive. tabilis.
Pass. (-Cr.) = F. Passow, Worterbuch der Ebr. = De Ebrietate.
griechischen Sprache5 1841 ff., com- Exsecr. = De Exsecrationibus.
pletely revised by W. Cronert, 1913 ff. Flacc. = In Flaccum.
Pass. Perp. et Fel. Passio Perpetuae et Fug. = De Fuga et Inventione.
Felicitatis, ed. J. A. Robinson, 1891. Gig. = De Gigantibus.
Pass. Sct. Scilit. Passio Sanctorum Scili- Jos. De Josepho.
tanorum, ed. A. Robinson, 1891. Leg. All. = Legum Allegoriae.
Leq. Gaj. = Legatio ad Gajum.
Past. Pastoral Epistles. Migr. Abr. - De Migratione Abra-
Paul. Pauline. hami.
Paul. Diac. Paulus Diaconus (c. 720-799 Mut. Nom. - De Mutatione Nomi-
A.D.), the most important of the learned num.
 XXXII
Abbreviations

Omn. Prob. Lib. Quod omnis Pro- tant author of Greek odes, and preacher
bus Liber sit. of the ideal of nobility still held at the
Op. Mund. = De Opificio Mundi. beginning of the 5th century. His most
Plant. De Plantatione. important surviving poems are the Epi-
Poster. C De Posteritate Caini. nicia, in praise of victors in the national
Praem. Poen.= De Pracmiis et Poe- games, ed. O. Schroeder, 1930.
Isthm. = Isthmia.
Quaest. in Ex. = Quaestiones in Nem. e Nemea.
Exodum. Olymp. = Olympia.
Rer. Div. Her. -Quis Rerum Divi- Pyth. = Pythia.
narum Heres sit. Pist. Soph. = Pistis Sophia, original Gnostic
Sacr. AC. = De Sacrificiis Abelis et work in Coptic (3rd. century A.D.), ed.
Caini. C. Schmidt, 1925.
Sobr. = De Sobrietate. P1. Paul.
Som. = De Somniis.
Spec. Leg. = De Specialibus Legibus. Plat.- Plato, of Athens (428/7-348/7 B.C.),
Virt. = De Virtutibus. ed. J. Burnet, 1905.
Vit. Cont. De Vita Contemplativa. Alc. v. Pseud.-Plat.
Vit. Mos. - De Vita Mosis. Ap. = Apologia.
Philodem. Philos. Philodemus Philoso- Ax. 9. Pseud.-Plat.
Charm. Charmides.
phus, of Gadara (c. 110-28 B.C.), po-
pular philosopher of Epicurean tenden- Clit. = Clitopho.
cies. There is no complete edition. For Crat. Cratylus.
Critias.
individual writings, v. Liddell-Scott, Crito.
XXX. Def. v. Pseud.-Plat.
Philol. & Philologus, 1846 ff. Ep. - Epistulae.
Philol. Wochenschr. Philologische Epigr. = Epigrammata.
Wochenschrift, 1882 ff. Eryx. v. Pseud.-Plat.
Philostr. Flavius Philostratus, of Lemnos, Euthyd. = Euthydemus.
representative of the Second Sophistic Euthyphr. = Euthyphro.
School, author as commissioned by the Gorg. Gorgias.
empress Julia Domna (d. 217), wife of Hi. = Hippias, 1 Maior, II Minor.
Septimius Severus, of a life, containing Hipp. v. Pseud.-Plat.
many marvellous happenings, of the Neo- Ion.
Platonic philosopher and thaumaturge, Just. V. Pseud.-Plat.
Apollonius of Tyana. His Heroicus is La. = Laches.
written in the same strain, ed. C.L. Kay- Leg. - Leges.
ser, 1870.
Lys. = Lysis.
Heroic. - Heroicus. Men. = Meno.
Menex. = Menexenus.
Vit. Ap. = Vita Apollonii. Min. v. Pseud.-Plat.
Vit. Soph. Vitae Sophistarum. Parm. Parmenides.
Phlm. = Philemon. Phaed. Phaedo.
Phot. Photius, patriarch of Constanti- Phaedr. Phaedrus.
nople (858-886 A.D.), author of a lexi- Phileb. - Philebus.
con (^é&EGv ouvaywyn) to aid readers Polit. - Politicus.
of the classics and the Bible, ed. S. A. Prot. Protagoras.
Naber, 1864 f. Resp. = Respublica.
Lex. Lexicon. Sis. v. Pseudo.-Plat.
Phryn. Phrynichus, of Bithynia, lexico- Soph. = Sophista.
grapher and Atticist, at the time of Com- Symp. = Symposion.
modus. Only small fragments of his great Theaet. Theaetetus.
work in 37 volumes (odiotikn tta- Theag. v. Pseud.-Plat.
paOKEUñ) have come down to us, ed. Tim. Timaeus.
G. Rutherford, 1881. Tim. Locr. - Timaeus Locreus.
Ecl. = Eclogae Nominum et Verbo- Virt. v. Pseud.-Plat.
rum Atticorum. Pseud.-Plat. Pseudo-Plato.
Ph. U. Philologische Untersuchungen, Alc. 1 Alcibiades, I Maior, II Minor.
1880 ff.
Amat.= Amatores.
PJB = Palastina-Jahrbuch, 1905 ff. Ax. - Axiochus.
Pind. - Pindar, of Cynoscephalae, near Def. = Definitiones.
Thebes (518-446 B.C.), the most impor- Demod. - Demodocus.
 XXXIII
Abbreviations

Ep. E Epistulae. Comm. Not. De Communibus No-

Epin. = Epinomis. titiis.
Eryx. Eryxias. Cons. ad Apoll. Consolatio ad
Hipp. Hipparchus. Apollonium.
lust. Justus. Crass.= De Crasso.
Min. Minos. Def. Orac. - De Defectu Oraculo-
rum.
Sis. - Sisyphus.
Theag. Theages. De Isid. et Os. 11. Is, et Os.
Virt. - De Virtute. Demetr. De Demetrio.
Ei (ap.) Delph. = De Ei apud Del-
Plaut. = T. Maccius Plautus, of Sarsina in phos.
Umbria (c. 251-184 B.C.), the most im- Fab. Max. - De Fabio Maximo.
portant Roman comic dramatist, ed. M. Fac. Lun. -De Facie in Orbe Lu-
Lindsay, 1904 f. nae.
Plin. (The Eld.) = C. Plinius Secundus, of De Galba.
Comum in Upper Italy (23]4-79 A.D.), Galb.
historian, natural scientist and geogra- Gen. Socr. = De Genio Socratis.
Is. et Os. De Iside et Osiride.
pher, ed. S. Mayhoff, 1875 ff. Lat. Viv. = An recte dictum sit la-
Hist. Nat. = Naturalis Historia.
tenter esse vivendum.
Plin. (The Y.) = C. Plinius Caecilius Se- Lib. Educ. De Liberis Educandis.
cundus, of Comum (61/2-c. 113 A.D.), Lucull. = De Lucullo.
Roman official and author, his only sur- Mar. = De Mario.
viving works being his letters and an Non Posse Suav. Viv. Sec. Epic. U.
address to Trajan. Suav. Viv. Epic.
Plot. Plotinus, of Lycopolis in Egypt Pelop. De Pelopida.
(204-270 A.D.), the last great thinker of Pericl. = De Pericle.
antiquity who brought Neo-Platonism to Philop. e De Philopoemene.
systematic completion, ed. R. Volkmann, Phoc. = De Phocione.
1883 ff. Pomp. = De Pompeio.
Enn. Enneads. Praec. Coniug, = Praecepta Coniu-
plur. plural. gialia.
Praec. Ger. Reip.= Praecepta Geren-
Plut. Plutarchus, of Chaeronea (c. 50- dae Reipublicae.
120 A.D.), best known for his parallel Pyth. Or. De Pythiae Oraculis.
biographies, but emerging in his ethical Quaest. Conv. Quaestiones Con-
and religious writings as an eclectic with vivales.
predominant Platonic and Neo-Pythago- Quaest. Graec. Quaestiones Grae-
rean tendencies. The Vitae are indicated cae.
by I, ed. T. Doehner and F. Dubner, Quaest. Nat. = Quaestiones Natura-
1877 ff., and the Moralia by II, ed. D. les.
Wyttenbach, 1796 ff. Quaest. Rom. Quaestiones Roma-
Adulat. _De Adulatore et Amico. nae.
Aem. De Aemilio. Septem Sapien-
Sept. Sap. Conv.
Ages. De Agesilao. tium Convivium.
Alex.- De Alexandro. Ser. Num. Pun. De iis qui sero a
Alex. Fort. Virt. = De Alexandri
Fortuna aut Virtute. numine puniuntur.
Amat. Amatorius Liber. Stoic. Rep. De Stoicorum Repug-
Amat. Narr, E Amatoriae Narratio- nantiis.
nes. Suav. Viv. Epic. = Non posse sua-
Anton. - De Antonio. viter vivi secundum Epicurum.
Superst. = De Superstitione.
Apophth. Apophthegmata Regum Them. = De Themistocle.
et Imperatorum. Thes. = De Theseo.
Apophth. Lac. = Apophthegmata La- Tib. Gracch. = De Tiberio et Gaio
conica. Gracchis.
Aud. = De Recta Ratione Audiendi. Tit. De Tito.
Aud. Poet. De Audiendis Poetis. Trang, An. = De Tranquillitate Ani-
Carn. Es. = De Carnium Esu. mi.
Cato Maior, De Catone Maiore. Vit. Dec. Orat. Vitae Decem Ora-
Cato Minor. = De Catone Minore. forum.
C. Gracch. De Gajo Graccho. Pseud.-Plut. Pseudo-Plutarchus.
Cim. De Cimone. Vit. Poes. Hom. - De Vita et Poesi
Col. = Adversus Colotcm. Homeri.
XXXIV Abbreviations

Pogn. Inscr. Sém. - H. Pognon, Inscriptions Prellwitz, Etym. Wort. W. Prellwitz,

Sémitiques, 1907. Etymologisches Worterbuch der grie-
chischen Sprache?, 1905.
Pol. - Epistle of Polycarp. prep. = preposition.
Poll. = Julius Pollux (Polydeuces), of Nau- Pr(euss). Jahrb. Preussische Jahrbicher,
cratis in Egypt (178 A.D.), professor of 1858 ff.
rhetoric in Athens, Atticist lexicographer Pr. M.- Protestantische Monatshe‡te,
and grammarian, ed. I. Bekker, 1846; E. 1897 ff.
Bethe, I, 1900. Procl. - Proclus, of Constantinople (410-
Onom. = Onomasticum. 485 A.D.), the last great representative
Polyaen. Polyaenus, of Macedonia, of Neo-Platonism in Athens, his main
author of a curious work on the arts of works being his Elementary Theology
war dedicated in 162 A.D. to Marcus
Aurelius, ed. E. Woelfflin, R. Schoell and Commentary on Plato's Timaeus:
and F. Melber, 1887. there is no complete ed. and for indivi-
Strat. Strategica. dual works cf. Liddell-Scott, XXXII.
In Eucl. in Euclidem Commen-
Polyb. = Polybius, of Megalopolis, in Ar- tarius.
cadia (c. 210-120 B.C.), hostage of Ro-
me in 167, general and statesman, and in Rem Pub. in Platonis Rem
the greatest historian of Hellenism. In Publicam Commentarius.
40 books he depicts in essentials the rise
in Tim. _ in Platonis Timaeum
of Roman world dominion in the period Commentarius.
221-168 B.C., ed. T. Buttner-Wobst, Inst. Theol.= Institutio Theologica.
1905. Procop. Gaz. = Procopius of Gaza (495-
Porphyr. Porphyrius, of Tyre (232-304 557 A.D.) one of the three heads of the
A.D.), Neo-Platonic philosopher, the oratorical school of Gaza and final
most important pupil of Plotinus, ed. A. representative of ancient Sophism, ed.
Nauck2, 1886. MPG, 87, 1-3, 1860.
Abst. De Abstinentia. Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. = Proceedings of the
Antr. Nymph. = De Antro Nympha- Society of Biblical Archaeology, Lon-
rum. don, 1878 ff.
Christ. = Adversus Christianos. pron. pronoun.
(Ad) Marc. Ad Marcellam. prooem = prooemium.
Vit. Plot. Vita Plotini. Prop. Sextus Propertius, Roman poet
Vit. Pyth. = Vita Pythagorae. of the Augustan era, ed. C. Hosius, 1932.
Pos. = Posidonius, of Apamea in Syria, Prot. Ev. Jk. = Protevangelium des Jako-
(c. 135-51 B.C.), natural scientist, geo. bus.
grapher, historian and philosopher of Prud.
Middle Stoicism, ed. J. Bake and D. Aurelius Prudentius Clemens, Spa-
Wyttenbach, 1810. nish by birth (c. 348-405 A.D.), official
praef. praefatio. under Theodosius, then Latin poet of
remarkable originality. Spanish and Ro-
Pr. Ag. - E. Preuschen, Kommentar z. man martyrs are honoured in the collec-
Apostelgeschichte, 1912. tion Peristephanon, ed. A. Dressel, 1860.
Pr. Bauer E E. Preuschen, Griechisch-deut- Prv. Proverbs.
sches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Prv.r. v. Midr. Pry.
NT und der ubrigen urchristlichen Lite-
ratur, rev. W. Bauer?, 1928, Ps. - Psalms.
Preisigke Fachworter = F. Preisigke, Fach- psdepgr. pseudepigraphical.
worter des offentlichen Verwaltungs- Ps. or Pseud. Pseudo, often grouped un-
dienstes Agyptens in den griechischen der the names of the supposed authors,
Papyrusurkunden, 1915. e.g., Ps.- or Pseud.-Plat. under Plato.
Preisigke Namenbuch F. Preisigke, Na- Pseud.-Ammon = Pseudo-Ammonius.
menbuch, 1922. Adfin. Vocab. Diff. = De adfinium
Preisigke Sammelbuch = F. Preisigke, Sam- Vocabulorum Differentia, diction-
melbuch griechischer Urkunden aus ary of synonyms, C. 100 A.D., ed.
Agypten, 1915 ff. R. Valckenaer, 1822.
Preisigke Wort. F. Preisigke, Worter- Pseud.-Apollod. Pseudo-Apollodor, ed.
buch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, R. Wagner in Mythographi Graeci, 1926.
1925 ff. Bibl. Bibliotheca.
Preis. Zaub. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Pseud.-Aristid. Pseud-Aristides, ed. L.
Graecae Magicae, 1928 ff. Spengel in Rhetores Graeci, I, 1856.
Abbreviations XXXV

Pseud.-Callisth. Pseudo-Callisthenes. In Rgg. Hb. = R. Riggenbach, Kommentar z.

the name of Callisthenes of Olynthus, Hebraerbrief, 1913.
nephew of Aristotle, who accompanied RH - Rosch haschana.
Alexander the Great, we have a his- Rhet. Graec. Rhetores Graeci, ed. L.
torical novel on Alexander which has a Spengel, 1853 ff.
colourful and interesting history, ed. J. RHR Revue de 1' Histoire des Religions,
Kroll, 1926.
1880 ff.
Pseud.-Demetr. Pseudo-Demetrius. De-
metrius of Phaleron, peripatetic, brought
Rom. Mitt. E Mitteilungen des Kaiserlich
Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Ro-
Greek learning from Athens to Alexan-
dria 308/7 B.C. He is not the author of mische Abteilung, 1886 ff.
the work which has been handed down Rohr Hb., Rohr Off. I. Rohr, Der He-
in his name (Ilept Épunvelas, On Ora- braerbrief und die Geheime Offenbarung
torical Expression), but it probably dates des hl. Johannes‡, 1932.
from c. 100 A.D., ed. L. Radermacher, Roscher W. H. Roscher, Ausfuhrliches
1901. Lexikon der griechischen und romischen
Ps. Sol. E Psalms of Solomon, Pharisaic Mythologie, 1884 ff.
collection of the 1st century B.C., con- Rt. = Ruth.
sisting of 18 songs, ed. O. Gebhardt, Rt. r. Ruth rabba, Midrash on Ruth
1895.
(Strack, Einl., 213).
Pt. (1, 2) = Epistle of Peter (1, 2). RVV- Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche
Ptr. Petrine. und Vorarbeiten, 1903 ff.
Qid.- Qidduschin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, RW Biblisches Realworterbuch, by G. B.
Talmud tractate Betrothal (Strack, Einl., Winer3, 1847 f.
49).
Qoh. - Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. 5 (1, 2) - Samuel (1, 2)..
Qohelet rabba, Midrash on Ec- SAB Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Qoh. r. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin
clesiastes (Strack, Einl., 213).
(phil.-hist. Klasse), 1882 ff., 1922 ff.
Quint.- M. Fabius Quintilianus, of Cala-
gurris in Spain (c. 35-95 A.D.), rheto- SAH - Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger
rician and author in Rome in the early Akademie der Wissenscha[ten (phil-hist.
days of the Empire, ed. L. Radermacher, Klasse), 1910 ff.
1907. Sallust. Sallustius, contemporary and
Inst. Orat. = Institutio Oratoria. friend of the emperor Julian (361-363
R. (before the names of rabbis) Rabbi. A.D.), who in his book flapi Oeov kai
R. = Epistle to the Romans. Koouou has left a catechism of the theo-
Rabb. = Rabbis. logy of the Neo-Platonists, ed. A. Nock.
Sanh. Sanhedrin, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
Rabb. Rabbinic. Talmud tractate On the court of justice
Radermacher L. Radermacher, Neutesta- and its procedure (Strack, Einl., 51 f.).
mentliche Grammatik1, 1911;2 1925. SBE = Sacred Books of the East, ed. M.
RE3 Realencyclopaedie fir protestanti- Muller, 1879 ff.
sche Theologie und Kirche, ed. J. Herzog, S(c) hab. = Shabbat, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
rev. A. Hauck3 1896 ff. Talmud tractate Sabbath (Strack, Einl.,
Reinhold = H. Reinhold, De Graecitate Pa- 37).
trum Apostolicorum Librorumque Apo- S(c)hebi. - Shebiit, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
cryphorum Novi Testamenti quaestiones "Talmud tractate Seventh Year (Strack,
Grammaticae, 1898. Einl., 34).
REJ = Revue des Etudes Juives, 1880 ff. S(c)hebu. Shebuot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
Talmud tractate Oaths (Strack, Einl.,
Reitzenstein Hell. Myst. = R. Reitzenstein, 52).
Die Hellenistischen Mysterienreligionens,
(1927). S(c)heq. Sheqalim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-,
Talmud tractate Shekel Tax (Strack,
Reitzenstein Ir. Erl. R. Reitzenstein,
Einl., 40).
Iranisches Erlosungmysterium, 1921. Schleusner = T. F. Schleusner, Novus The-
Reitzenstein Poim. R. Reitzenstein, Poi- saurus philologocriticus in LXX et reli
mandres, 1904.
Rev. - Book of Revelation. quos interpretes Graecos ac scriptores
apocryphos Veteris Testamenti, 1820 f.
Rev. Byz. - Revue Byzantine, 1915 ff.
Schl. Gesch. d. erst. Chr. = A. Schlatter,
RGG = Die Religion in Geschichte und Die Geschichte der ersten Christenheit,
Gegenwart1, 1909 ff.; 2, 1927 ff. 1926.
 XXXVI
Abbreviations

Schl. Gesch. d. Chr. A. Schlatter, Die I. Bekker, 1842; H. Mutschmann, 1912 ff.
Geschichte des Christus2, 1923. Gramm. - Adversus Grammaticos.
Math. - Adversus Mathematicos.
Schl. Gesch. Isr. - A. Schlatter, Die Ge-
schichte Israels von Alexander bis Ha- Pyrrh. Hyp. = Pyrrhoneae Hypoty~
poses.
drian3, 1925.
Sib. Sibyllines, the Sibylline Oracles in
Schl. J. = A. Schlatter, Kommentar 2. Jo- 14 books, collected in the 5th or 6th cen-
hannesev., 1930.
tury A.D. for the propagation of Judaism
Schl. Jk. A. Schlatter, Kommentar 2. Ja- or Christianity, composed at various
kobusbrief, 1932. periods, and predominantly Jewish but
Schl. Lk. A. Schlatter, Kommentar 2. partly Christian in derivation.
Lukasev., 1931.
Sickb. R., Sickb. K. = J. Sickenberger, Die
Schl. Mt. A. Schlatter, Kommentar 2. Briefe des hl. Paulus an die Romer und
Matthausev., 1929. Korinther‡, 1932.
Schl. Theol. d. Ap. A. Schlatter, Die sing. = singular.
Theologie der Apostel2, 1922.
Sir. = Jesus Sirach.
Schl. Theol. d. Judt. A. Schlatter, Die S.Lv. - Sifra Leviticus, Tannaitic Midrash
Theologie des Judentums nach d. Bericht
d. Josefus, 1932.
on Leviticus (Strack, Einl., 200).
S. Nu. Sifre Numeri, Tannaitic Midrash
Schn. Euang, = J. Schniewind, Euangelion, on Numbers (Strack, Einl., 201), ed.
1927 ff. H. G. Horovitz, 1917.
Schol. = Scholion (-a).
Soph. = Sopherim, extra-canonical Talmud
Schriften d. NT Die Schriften des Neuen tractate Scribes (Strack, Einl., 72).
Testaments, ed. J. Weiss and others3,
1917 ff. Soph. Sophocles, of Athens (496-406
B.C.), the real poet of the Athens of
Schurer - E. Schiirer, Geschichte des judi- Pericles, ed. A. C. Pearson, 1924.
schen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi3, Ai. = Aiax.
1901 ff.
Ant. = Antigone.
Script. Hist. Aug.- Scriptores Historiae El. = Electra.
Augustae, collection of biographies in Oed. Col.= Oedipus Coloneus.
Latin of Roman emperors from Hadrian Oed. Tyr. Oedipus Tyrannus.
to Numerian (117-284 A.D.), a series Phil. = Philoctetes.
of excerpts by different authors 330 Trach. - Trachiniae.
A.D., later revised, ed. E. Hohl, 1927. st. abs. status absolutus.
S. Dt. Sifre Deuteronomium, Tannaitic st. C. - status constructus.
Midrash on Deuteronomy (Strack, Einl., Stob. Johannes Stobaeus, named after his
200 f.). home-town Stoboi in Macedonia (5th
sec. Gk. secular Greek.
century A.D.), author of an anthology
Sen. L. Annaeus Seneca, of Cordova in of extracts from Greek poets and prose
Spain (c. 4 B.C.-65 A.D.), politician, writers, ed. C. Wachsmuth and O. Hen-
poet and moral philosopher of the later se, 1884 ff., quoted by the volumes (I-
Stoa, ed. C. Hosius and E. Hermes, IV) and pages.
1914 ff.
Ecl. = Ecloge.
Ben. = De Beneficiis.
Marc. = Dialogus ad Marcellam. Strack, Einl. - H. L. Strack, Einleitung in
Talmud und Midrasch,5 1921.
Sen. Rhet.- Seneca Rhetor, father of the
well-known philosopher, whose Contro-
Str.-B. = H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck,
Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und
versiae give us an excellent picture of Midrasch, 1922 ff.
Roman rhetoric in early imperial Rome, Stud. Or. Studia Orientalia ed. Societas
ed. A. Kiessling, 1872. Orientalis Fennica, 1925 ff.
Contr. = Controversiae.
Sess. Sessio. subst. substantive.
Sext. Emp. Sextus Empiricus, originally Suet. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, high Ro-
a physician probably practising in Alex- man official under Hadrian, historian and
andria (c. 200 A.D.), who summed up author of biographies of the emperors
the whole development of ancient scep- from Caesar to Domitian, ed. R. D. Ro-
ticism in his Pyrrhonic Elements and in binson, 1925; J. R. Rietza, 1928.
11 books against the mathematicians, (Aug.) Caes. - De Vita Caesarum.
directed against individual sciences and Suic. Thes. - J. C. Suiceri, Thesaurus Ec-
the dogmatic philosophical schools, ed. clesiasticus e Patribus Graecis, 1728.
Abbreviations XXXVII

Suid. Suidas, author in the 10th century to their descendants, ed. R.H. Charles,
A.D. of the most comprehensive Greek 1908.
lexicon, ed. G. Bernhardy, 1853; A. Ad- Test. Testament of Asher.
ler, 1928 ff.
Suppl. Com. Supplementum Comicum, ed. Dan.
J. Demianczuk, 1912. Gad.
Joseph.
Sus.= Susanna. Issachar.
S.v.= sub voce. Judah.
synon. synonym. Levi.
Napthali.
Synpt. = Synoptist. Reuben.
synpt. synoptic. Simeon.
Syr. = Syriac. Zebulon.
Test.
NOTZFEE@OUPP
69466 464644 Benjamin.
Test. of Abraham.
S. zutta Nu. Sifre zutta Numeri, frag-
mentary Midrash on Numbers (Strack, of Adam.
Einl., 200 f.). of Solomon.
T. Tosefta (Strack, Einl., 74 ff.), ed. Tg. = Targum, Aramaic translation or pa-
G. Kittel-H. Rengstorf, 1933 ff. raphrase of the OT.
Taan. = Taanit, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- Tg. I Est. - Targum I on Esther.
mud tractate Fasts (Strack, Einl., 43). Tg. II Est. Targum II on Esther
Tanch. Tanchuma, collection of homilies (Targum sheni).
named after R. Tanchuma (Strack, Einl., Tg. J.I Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.
204 f.). The edition by S. Buber in 1885 Tg. O. = Targum Onkelos.
has important textual variations from Tg. Pal. Palestinian Targum of
other editions. the Pentateuch.
Tg. Pro. = Targum of the Prophets.
Tat. - Tatian, of Syria, won to Christianity
in Rome by Justin, author c. 152 of an TGF - Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta,
address to the Greeks in which he sharp- ed. A. Nauck, 1889.
ly attacks Greek culture, ed. E. Good- Th. (1, 2) = Thessalonians (1,2).
speed in Die Altesten Apologeten, 1914. Thackeray H. St. J. Thackeray, A Gram-
Or, Graec. - Oratio ad Graecos. mar of the Old Testament in Greek ac-
Teh. Tehorot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- cording to the Septuagint, 1909.
mud tractate Purities (euphemistic for Thackeray Lex. Jos. = H. St. J. Thackeray,
impurities) (Strack, Einl., 61). Lexicon to Josephus, 1930 ff.
Tem. Temura, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- ThB1 = Theologische Blatter, 1922 ff.
mud tractate Substitution (of a sacrifice)
Thdr. = Theodorus Lector, Church histo-
(Strack, Einl., 57). rian (6th century A.D.), who in his
Ter. = Terumot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal- history in three parts deals with the
mud tractate Heave Offerings (Strack, period from Constantine to 518 A.D., ed.
Einl., 34). MPG, 86, 1865.
Tertullian = Q. Septimius Tertullianus Flo- Thdrt. = Theodoretus, author in 448/9 A.D.
rens, of Carthage (160-220 A.D.), ed. of a Church history in 5 books and one
A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, of those who thus continued the work
1890 ff. of Eusebius, ed. L. Parmentier, 1911.
Bapt,= De Baptismo. Themist. e Themistius, the Paphlagonian
Marc. = Adversus Marcionem. (c. 317-388 A.D.), city prefect of Con-
Mart. = Ad Martyras. stantinople, a pagan Sophist with a
Nat. - Ad Nationes. strong interest in the philosophy of the
Praescr. Haer, = De Praescriptione ancients, ed. W. Dindorf, 1832.
Haereticorum.
Pud. De Pudicitia. Theocr. Theocritus, of Syracuse (born
Scapul. Ad Scapulam. 305 B.C.), celebrated Hellenistic poet
Val. Contra Valentinianos. and master of bucolic poetry (the idyll),
Virg. Vel. = De Virginibus Velan- later at court in Alexandria under Ptole-
dis. maeus II Philadelphus, ed. U. Wilamo-
Test. XII - Testaments of the Twelve Pa- witz in Bucolici Graeci, 1905.
triarchs, Jewish work, slightly revised Idyll.= Idyllia.
in a Christian sense, dating from the Theod, Stud. Theodorus Studita, of By-
2nd or 1st century A.D. and consisting zantium (759-826 A.D.), monk and ec-
of addresses of the twelve sons of Jacob clesiastic, consistent advocate of the free-
 Abbreviations
XXXVIII

dom of a Church separated from the Tib. = Albius Tibullus, Roman poet of
state, ed. MPG, 99, 1860. the Augustan era, ed. W. Levy, 1927.
Enc. Theoph. Encomium in Theo- Tillm. Gefbr. M. Meinertz and F. Till-
phanem. mann, Die Gefangenscha[tsbriefe des hi.
Theogn. = Theognis, of Megara (c. 500 Paulus+, 1931.
B.C.), poet and preacher of a definitely Tillm. = F. Tillmann, Das Johannesevan-
aristocratic ideal. Many later works have gelium+, 1931.
been added to the collection of poems
Tm. (1,2) = Epistle to Timothy (1,2).
grouped under his name, ed. E. Diehl in Tob. Tobit.
Anthologia Lyrica, I, 1925. tr, = translation.
Theol. Quart. t Theologische Quartal- trans. transitive.
schrift, 1819 ff. Trench = R. C. Trench, Synonyma des NT.
Theophan. = Theophanes Confessor, By- 1907.
zantine monk (c. 757-817 A.D.), whose Tr. Is. Trito-Isaiah.
Chronography deals with the period 284- tt. (term. techn.) - terminus technicus.
813, ed. C. de Boor, 1883 ff.
Chronogr. Chronographia. Tt. = Epistle to Titus.
Hom.- Homiliae. TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Ge-
Theophil. = Theophilus, Christian Apolo- schichte der altchristlichen Literatur,
gist (167-177 A.D.), of Antioch, author 1883 f.
of a controversial work against Auto- UNT - Untersuchungen zum NT, 1912 ff.
lycus some time after 186, ed. J. Otto, v. (V.) = verse.
1861. v. - vide.
(Ad) Autol. = Ad Autolycum. Vergil. P. Vergilius Maro, of Andes near
Theophr. Theophrastus, of Eresos on Mantua (70-19 B.C.), the greatest epic
Lesbos (c. 372-287 B.C.), pupil of Aris- and national poet of Rome in the Au-
totle and important scholar, succeeding gustan era.
him as head of the peripatetic school in Aen. Aeneis.
Athens, ed. F. Wimmer, 1854 ff.; Char- Ecl. - Ecloge.
act., ed. O. Immisch, 1923: De Igne, ed. Buc. Bucolica.
A. Gercke, 1896. Vett. Val. Vettius Valens, later Greek
Char. Characteres. astrologist (2nd century A.D.), ed. W.
Ign. = De Igne. Kroll, 1908.
Thes. Ling. Lat. Thesaurus Linguae Lati-
nae, 1604 ff. Vis. Esr. = Visio Esrae, 5/6 book of Ezra
H. Stephanus, Thesaurus two small apocalypses of the 2nd and
Thes. Steph. 3rd centuries A.D.
Graecae Linguae, 1831 ff.
ThLB1 Theologisches Literaturblatt, Vis. Is. Visio lesaiae (v. Asc. Is.).
1866 ff. Vit. Ad. Vita Adae et Evae, Latin work
ThLZ T Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, from the Jewish-Christian group of writ-
1876 ff. ings on Adam (Schurer, III, 396 ff.), ed.
W. Meyer, 1878.
Thom. Mag. Thomas Magister, really
Theodulus of Thessalonica (?), a teacher vl. (vl.) = varia lectio.
of rhetoric and monk in the 14th century
Vol. - Volume.
A.D., ed. MPG, 145, 1904. Vrede Kath. Br. M. Meinertz and W.
Thr. Threni L- Lamentations. Vrede, Die Katholischen Briefe4, 1932.
ThR Theologische Rundschau, 1898 ff., Wbg. Mk. G. Wohlenberg, Kommentar
New Series, 1929 ff. Z. Markusev., 1910.
ThSt Theologische Studién, Utrecht, Wbg. Past. G. Wohlenberg, Kommentar
1883 ff. Z. d. Pastoralbriefen, 1906.
ThStKr Theologische Studien und Kri- Wbg. Pt. = G. Wohlenberg, Kommentar Z.
tiken, 1828 ff. d. Petrusbriefen3, 1923.
Thi Theologisch Tijdschrift, Leiden, Wbg. Th. G. Wohlenberg, Kommentar z.
1867 ff. d. Thessalonicherbriefen, 1903.
Thuc. Thucydides, of Athens (c. 460- Wdt. Ag. = H. H. Wendt, Kommentar Z.
396 B.C.), the classic historian of the Apostelgeschichte°, 1913.
Greeks, who as a contemporary wrote Weber F Weber, Judische Theologie auf
a history of the Peloponnesian War, ed. Grund des Talmud und verwandter
C. Hude, 1898 ff. Schriften?, 1897.
Abbreviations XXXIX

Wendland Hell. Kult. = P. Wendland, Die sium, the party political work of
hellenistisch-romische Kultur2, 8, 1912. an Athenian oligarch (end of the
5th century B.C.).
Wettstein = Novum Testamentum Grae-
cum opera et studio J.J. Wetstenii,
Yr. = Yearbook.
1752 f. Zahn Einl. - T. Zahn, Einleitung in das
Wilke-Grimm. 4 C. L. W. Grimm, Lexicon NT, 1906.
Graeco-Latinum in Libros NT4, 1903 Zahn Forsch. = T. Zahn, Forschungen zur
Geschichte des nt.lichen Kanons, 1881 ff.
(G. Wilcii Clavis NT Philologica.).
Zahn Kan. = T. Zahn, Geschichte des nt.-
Wilcken Ptol. = U. Wilcken, Urkunden der lichen Kanons, 1888 ff.
Ptolemaerzeit, 1922 ff. ZAW Zeitschrift fur die at.liche Wis-
Winer (Schmiedel) G. B. Winer, Gram- senschaft, 1881 ff.
matik des nt.lichen Sprachidioms', 1867, ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mor-
rev. P. Schmiedel, 1894 ff. genlandischen Gesellschaft, 1847 ff.
Wis. = Book of Wisdom. ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pala-
H. Windisch, Kommentar Z. stina-Vereins, 1878 ff.
Wnd. Hb.
Hebraerbriet2, 1931. Z. d. Z. Zwischen den Zeiten, 1923 ff.
Wnd. J. (1, 2, 3) = H. Windisch, Kommen- Zeb. Zebachim, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Tal-
tar 2. d. Johannesbriefen (1, 2, 3)2, 1930. mud tractate Sacrifices (Strack, Einl.,
H. Windisch, Kommentar Z.
55).
Wnd. Jk. Zech. Zechariah.
Jakobusbrief2, 1930.
Zeph. Zephaniah.
Wnd. 2 K. H. Windisch, Kommentar Z.
2. Korintherbrie[s, 1924. ZhTh Zeitschrift fur die historische
Theologie, 1832 ff.
Wnd. Kath. Br. -H. Windisch, Kommentar
2. d. katholischen Briefen2, 1930. ZKG = Zeitschrift fir Kirchengeschichte,
1877 ff.
Wnd. Pt. H. Windisch, Kommentar z. d. ZMR _ Zeitschrift fur Missionskunde und
Petrusbriefen?, 1930. Religionswissenscha[t, 1886 ff.
WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fir die Zn. Ag. T. Zahn, Kommentar 2. Apostel-
Kunde des Morgenlandes, 1887 ff. geschichte, 1919 ff.
Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430- Zn. Apk. T Zahn, Kommentar z. Apo-
354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of kalypse, 1924 ff.
various historical, philosophical and Zn. Gl. - T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Galater-
scholarly works, ed. E. C. Marchant, brief2, 1907.
1900 ff.
Zn. J. - T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Johannes-
Ag. Agesilaus. ev.3, 4, 1912.
An. Anabasis. Zn. Lk. = T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Lukasev.,
Ap. Apologia Socratis. 1913.
Ath. v. Pseud.-Xenoph. Resp. Ath.
Cyn. v. Pseud.-Xenoph. Zn. Mt. T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Mat-
Cyrop. - Cyropaedia. thausev.2, 1905.
Ep. v. Pseud.-Xenoph. Zn. R. = T. Zahn, Kommentar z. Romer-
Eq. De Equitandi Ratione. brief, 1910.
Eq. Mag. -De Equitumn Magistro. ZNW Zeitschrift fur die nt.liche Wis-
Hier. Hiero. senschaft und die Kunde des Urchristen-
Hist. Graec. Historia Graeca. tums, 1900 ff.
Mem. Memorabilia Socratis. ZPK Zeitschrift fur Protestantismus und
Oec. - Oeconomicus. Kirche, 1838 ff.
Resp. Lac. Respublica Lacedaemo-
niorum. ZSTh = Zeitschrift fur systematische Theo-
Sym. Symposion. logie, 1923 ff.
Vect. = De Vectigalibus. ZThK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und
Venat. De Venatione. Kirche, 1891 ff.
Pseud.-Xenoph. Pseudo-Xenophon. ZWL E Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissen-
Cyn. Cynegeticus. schaft und kirchliches Leben, 1880 ff.
Ep. == Epistulae. ZwTh = Zeitschrift fur wissenscha[tlche
Resp. Ath. Respublica Athenien- Theologie, 1858 ff.
N.B. 1. Where verse references from the Septuagint differ from those of the Hebrew, they
are usually preceded by an indication in Greek. Thus Y 18:9 = Ps. 19:9 ; 'lEp.
 Abbreviations

25:15 - Jer. 49:35; ¢ Bao. 16:4 - 2 K. 16:4. In many cases the other reference
is also given in brackets.
2. Most textual critical annotations are borrowed from BHK3 and Nestle15 and are
not therefore noted in the list of abbreviations.
3. always indicates reference to a passage or article within the Theological
Dictionary.
4. Only the page numbers are given where the reference is to the same volume of the
Theological Dictionary.
5. + before the heading of an article indicates that all the New Testament passages
are mentioned in it.
6. Names of contributors in I] indicate reference to unpublished oral or written
material.
tA9- mpitos, Eoyatoc).
The juxtaposition of the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet peculiar to
Rev. It is used on the lips of God in 1:8 : Eyo elul to a/ox' kal to &, 2 AÉYEL
Kupios 6 0e6s, 8 ov kai 6 nv Kal 8 €pXouevoc, 6 TaVTOK paTop, and also in
21:6 tyi to dloa kai to ©, h xpxn Kai to TÉloc; and on the lips of Christ in
22:13 : €yo to a oa kai to &, 6 potos Kai 6 foxatos, h apxh kal to TÉAoC.
It is also applied to Christ in 1:17 : £y∞ slu 6 mpiroc kal o Éoxatos kai 6 giov,
and 2:8 : TaoE LEYEI & Tptos Kai 6 foxatos.
The meaning of alo is fixed by its conjunction with apxñ/tÉlos and Ttporoc/
oxatos. It shows us that God or Christ is the One who begins and the One who
ends, the Creator and the Consummator, the One from whom and to whom are all
things. It is probable that the alphabetic designation may be traced back to Hel-
lenistic speculations, the echoes of which came to the Apocalyptist either directly on
the soil of Asia Minor or, as some think, indirectly through the mediation of
Palestinian Judaism. Of the content of these speculations (the predicates of the
Aeon-God) there is hardly anything present or at least discernible in his work. For
him the al∞ is nothing more than a useful, pregnant and striking alternative to the
OT poros/eoxatos. It corresponds to the basic view of the early Christian
author that he can use of both God and Christ this predicate of divine majesty
developed from the view of God found in the OT prophets. No less striking is the
fact that the thought of the "potos/eoxatos lying in the alo can be further ex-
pressed in the phrase o hv kai 6 €pyouEvos as an extension of the OT divine
name o ov. Here, too, an early Christian note is struck with the reference to the
pxouevoc. The reference to the parousia gives to the more general religious
notion of Godhead eternally existing as beginning and end 4 a dynamic quality
peculiar to the early Christian conception of God and Christ.
upotos kai Eoxatos is an OT expression, but not its indication by the use of the
first and last letters. Is. 41:4 LXX : €yo Geoc potos, kal elc To ETepXoueva Lyd
elur; 44:6 Mas.: "I am the first, and I am the last (pogx "22 riox, 20); and beside
me there is no God" ; LXX : Eyo mpitos kal tyo uerd taita, nihv kyot ook

AQ. Commentaries on Rev.: Bss., 190, 458 ; Charles (1920), I, 20 ; II, 220 ; Zn., 178 ;
Loh., 11, 165, 176; Str.-B., I, 156, 814 f. ; II, 362, 546, 693 ; III, 157, 789. F. Boll, Sphaera
(1903) 469 ff.; F. Boll, Aus. d. Off, Joh. (1914), 26 f.; Reitzenstein, Poim., 256 ff.; Iran.
Erlos., 244 : F. Dornseiff, Das Alphabet in Mystik u. Magie2 (1925), 17 f., 122 ff., A.
Schlatter, Das AT i.d. joh. Apk. (1912), 13 ; K. Kohler, jE, 1 (1901), 438 f.
It is written thus (&oa as a word and & as a sign) in all the early tradition
H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, II (1929), 36 ; since the name &
ueya only arose much later, at the time of the NT it could only be written as w. Cf. E.
Nestle, Philologus, 70 (1911), 155 f.
rec + apxn Kal téAos.
3 Cf. 1:11 (on the lips of Christ) rec + Ly∞ elut to A kal to Q, & "potos kai 8
Eoxatoc.
Cited as an ancient or Orphic saying in Plat. Leg., IV, 715d and the accompanying
scholion (Charles, II, 220). A Palestinian form, though obviously borrowed and not native,
is found in Jos. Ap., 2, 190 : Ant., 8 280. For Indian parallels to this widespread thought,
cf. Weinreich, ARW, 19 (1916/19), 181.
 fativ 0e6c; 48:12 Mas. : "I am he am the first, I also am the last"; LXX: kyo
Elul ipotos kal kyd Elui eis rov aliva. The LXX certainly has "potos, but does
not venture to link #oxaroc with God as given by the Hebrew minx. It uses a para-
phrase instead. Thus the Apocalyptist returns to the original text with his goxatos
(Schlatter), as do most of the Rabbinic passages which quote Is. 44:6 in connexion with
the symbolism of numbers (infra).
Reitzenstein points to the Mandaean parallels in Lidz. Lit., 130 f.: "Thou art the first,
Thou art the last. Thou art the future One who is to come".' But the reference is super-
fluous in view of the plain OT link. For the rest, the literal form of the Mandaean
saying ("who is to come") seems rather to suggest dependence on the NT. 7
The symbolism of numbers is to be found in Hellenism as well as Rabbinic Judaism.
Hellenism denoted the religious 12 or 24 hour day of the Egyptians by the letters of the
Greek alphabet, and also established a link with the 12 signs of the Zodiac. Since the
Greek alphabet has 24 letters, 2 have to be devoted to each sign. Two systems thus
arise. In the first 1 and 13, 2 and 14 etc. are conjoined (ram = av, steer = B/E etc.),
and in the second is linked with 24, 2 with 23 etc. (a/w, Blu etc.), the latter combina-
tion being also applied by the Gnostic Marcus to the &AnOeIa (head - a w, neck
Blu etc.). The whole system thus denotes the totality, the xoouos, the Aloov. The
apocalyptic application of the letters to God and Christ may thus be regarded as an
application of the predicates of the Aeon-God. 8
Rabbinic thought used the first and last letters in four different ways. 1. We have the
turn of speech: "To keep the Torah from to n i.e., "to keep it fully". In bShab. 55a
the introduction of 901 27 n shows that R. Joseph (d. 333) is quoting a Tannaitic
tradition. Since the Apocalyptist does not equate Christ with the Torah, there is no
possible connexion here. 2. Men. 8, 1 ff.; T. Men., 9, 5 : Alpha (K92N), is a place, i.e.,
the best, with abundance of oil, flour, wine etc. Since the Greek name for the letter is
used here even in a Hebrew setting, the turn of speech must either originate with the
Greek alphabet or in discussion with Greeks. 9 Both expressions show that a symbolical
use of the first and last letters was not strange to Judaism of the Tannaitic period.
3. In the 3rd century A.D. we have the letter systems of Albam and Athbash. The
former equates 1 and 12 (x/5), 2 and 13 (2/m), 11 and 22 (3/n) ; the latter 1 and 22
(x/n), 2 and 21 (a/vi), 11 and 12 (3/5), cf. Shab. 104a ; Nu. r., 13 on 7:19 ; 18 on
16:35. Here the use of letters for numbers is simply for the purpose of secrecy or even
perhaps of exercising the memory, and there is no astrological content ; yet in form we
notice an exact correspondence to the existing Hellenistic astrological systems. The two
systems can hardly have arisen independently of these Hellenistic systems, especially
as the tradition itself refers to their foreign origin. 10 4. A speculation that nox "truth
is the seal of God because it consists of x, the first, 7, the middle and n, the last letters
of the alphabet, all found in Is. 44:6, can be traced back only to the 3rd century A.D.,

5 On the meaning of N97, cf. Ges.-K. § 135a, 1.

8 "The first" alone quite often in Lidz. Ginza, 6, 16 f. ('He is the high King of light. ..
from the beginning to all eternity, the first from all beginnings, the Creator") etc.
Similarly there is obvious dependence on Rev. 22:13 in the Manichaean Fragment M, 10
cited by Andreas in Reitzenstein, Das Mandaische Buch (1919), 47.
Boll, Sphaera, 469 ff.; Reitzenstein, Poim. 261.
To this there corresponds the fact that, when the Greek letters and numbers XUDN NO
NOSIN NO'N were used as proof in a discussion on the seventh and eighth month of preg.
nancy, they were expressly introduced by the formula: "I will prove it from your own
lips", thus indicating that the discussion was with those who spoke Greek (Gn. r., 14 on
2:7; 30 on 3:16 ; Nu. r., on 3:40 : jJeb., 5d n.).
10 bShab., 10ta "The Rabbis said to R. Joshua b. Levi : 'Children have come into the
house of instruction and said things which were not said even in the days of Joshua the
son of Nun'.' Cf. also Dornseiff, 17 f.
"Aapov

though this does not prove that it might not be of earlier origin (Gn. r., 81, on 35:1;
Cant.r. on 1:9; jSanh., 18). The use of the letter m, which is the middle only of the
24 letter Greek alphabet and not of the 22 letter Hebrew, shows that elements have here
been borrowed from Hellenistic speculation, including the interpretation, not offered by
Is. 44:6 but present in Greek, of the "middle" interjected between the "first" and the
"last". As against this, the connexion with Is. 44:6 is Jewish, as is also the reference of
alphabetic speculation to the "truth" the similarity being only applicable to the Hebrew
form of the word. The Gnostic Marcus, a contemporary of Irenaeus, who is responsible
for the Hellenistic application to a ñOela, is thus necessarily dependent either directly
or indirectly on Jewish or Christian linguistic usage. We may conclude that Jewish
nox. speculation is older than Marcus, and therefore older than the fixing of the tradi-
tion as it has come to us.
The a/w symbolism probably came to the early Christian Apocalyptist, not directly
from Hellenistic sources, but through the mediation of Palestinian thought. In favour of
this view it may be argued : 1. that as in Jewish speculation there is a connexion with
the Ttpotoc kai #oyatos of Is. 44:6 ; and 2. that the reference is to the Hebrew rather
than the LXX text of this saying. Kittel

•Aapiov
1. Hb. 5:1-9 : Christ is High-priest. This is indicated by the comparison with
the high-priesthood of Aaron and his descendants. a. Aaron does not have this
office of men, but by the call of God (5:4).1 b. The Aaronic high-priest can
LETPLOT&OEIV toic dyvooialv kal TAIOUÉVoIC, giel kal aiTOC TEpIKEITOL
&60éVELaV (5:2).2 Yet Christ's high-priesthood is much higher than the perishable
(Hb. 7:23 ff.) and inadequate (7:27) Aaronic priesthood. Indeed, it is quite dif-
ferent in character, not being kata thy taiv 'Aapov, but Kard Th TaElV
MEAXL0É8EK (7:11, cf. 4 109:4).
2. Hb. 9:4 : The rod of Aaron, which miraculously budded (Nu. 17:16-26) lay
beside the pot with manna and the tables of the Law in the ark of the covenant
within the Holiest of all. Its position within rather than alongside the ark is based
on Nu. 17:25 (nitya 7159). Yet this expression simply tells us that the rod of
Aaron was placed in the Holy of Holies before the ark.

This at least is how it was understood by Jewish tradition (T Yoma, 3, 7; Str.-B., III,
739). In the exact description of the contents of the ark, i.e., the tables of the Law and
the roll of the Torah, and in the list of these objects within it (bBB, 14 a/b), there is
no mention of the rod or the pot with manna, It may thus be concluded with certainty

'Ax pov. Article "Aaron" in ET, I, 11 ff., esp. 13-21.

Cf. Ex. 28:1, Nu. 18:1; also for the same thought Tanch. mp 218a (Par: Midr.,
Ps.2 §3 (13a), Str.-B., III, 304, 688); also Jos. Ant. 3, 190 : 6 GEoc ' Axpoova ms tuns
KELOV EKDIVE kal toUtov hipntai lspÉa.
This thought is lacking in Judaism ; it acquires significance for the author only because
of the comparison with Christ (Heb. 5:8 f.).
'A. is indeclinable in LXX and NT (BI.-Debr., § 53, 1; Helbing, 58).
 "Aapov ~ t ABa886v

that they were not in the ark according to Rabbinic opinion. It is only with mediaeval
Rabbis that discussion arises whether or not they were in the ark. 6

3. Lk. 1:5 : Elisabeth EK tov Buyatépov 'A. = of priestly descent. The ex-
pression is formed analogously to the OT turn of speech thax 22 the priests
(Lv. 1:5 and passim). It is found neither in the OT nor in Philo, Josephus or the
Rabbis, and is not therefore in line with Jewish linguistic usage.

Rabbinic literature uses either 7012 ha (e.g., Ter., 7,2; cf. Lv. 21:9) or ninis (e.g.,
Sota, 3, 7). Similarly Philo in Spec. Leg., I, 111 has lepéov uyatépe alongside tÉpeia
(110). bEr. 53b nP217x 'Aaronidin" cannot be adduced in this connexion, since
there is here a play on words.
Kuhn

+ 'ABa66iv
In NT found only in Rev. 9:11. The name of an angel of the underworld, of the
king of the scorpion centaurs who will plague men in the last days. The name is
rendered *AntoAAoov "the Destroyer" in Greek. It is part of the cryptic style
of the Apocalyptist to use the Hebrew name in the Greek text.

The name is taken from the OT. In Job 26:6; 28:22 ; Prv. 15:11 and Ps. 88:12 1172%
(the "place of destruction", from 728) is used to describe the world of the dead
(- X8ns):1 LXX &TNEIC. The personification of fity, found in Job 28:22, where
mi2x and mp are introduced as speakers, has given rise to the notion of an angel of
hell who in Rev. 9:11 is identified with the prince of the underworld (Eth. En., 20, 2 ;
Apc. Elias, Steindorff, 10, 7 ff.; bSanh. 52a ; bShab. 104a ; bAr. 15b). 3
The Greek rendering of the name as 'Arto Aoov is influenced 1. by the LXX an&-
AEIa and 2. by the thought of Apollyon in his quality as the God of plague and the
destroying angel; already in Aesch. Ag., 1082 the name of the God is derived from
arronout.
Joachim Jeremias

T. Sota, 13, 1 (Par. bYoma, 52b ; bHor. 12a ; Ab. of R.N. § 41) says nothing about its
being kept either in or beside the ark ; but see Rgg. Hb. 246, n. 85 and F. Delitzsch, Comm.
2. Briefe a.d. Hebr. (1857), 361.
The former view is championed, e.g., by Levi b. Gerson (13th century); cf. the com-
mentary on 1 K. 8:9 in Rabbinic Bibles.
'ABa866v. Comm. on Rev.: Bss., 301; Loh., 77 f., Str.-B., III, 809 f., IV, 1088, 1091 f.
In Rabbinic literature TiT2% as appellative signifies "destruction" and as proper noun
the "place of destruction" Gehinnom (Str.-B., III, 810, IV, 1078).
TU, 17, 3a (1899).
8 Str.-B., III, 809 : IV. 1088, 1091f.
& BB q. Zn. R., 395, n. 93 Schl. Mt., 383, 479, 670; Str.-B., I, 393 ff., 918 f.; II, 49 f.; A.
Geiger, Lehrbuch z. Sprache der Mischnah (1845), 50 ; Dalman, WI, I, 156 ff.
 appa

aBBa - tamp).
A. x2x in Judaism.
An Aramaic determination kax from x "father", which in the more settled
usage of the period of the Mishnah and the Targum takes two forms, first with
the pronominal suffix of the 1st person singular ("my father"),1 and second with
that of the 1st person plural ('our father"). The word also serves as a title 2 and
a proper name. - It is almost never used, however, in relation to God, the form
*28 -> tomp) being used in the formula "My father, who is in heaven".

The secular use of XON is so strong that it is not merely found in the rendering of
the Hebrew "2x by the Aramaic Targums (Tg. O. Gn. 20:12 etc.) but has even pene-
trated into the Hebrew of the Mishnah 4, e.g., in the mouth of the Rabbi Gamaliel etc.:
xax nrg "house of my father" (Pea, 2, etc.). It is particularly striking that in direct
proximity to *58 there may be found not merely the Hebrew 2xn, without suffix, but
also the forms Mx, ;12, max with the usual suffix. Ned., 11, 4 : "That I do nothing
for my father (*2N) or thy father (728), for my brother (778) or thy brother (9pm8)4
Git., 7, 6: "There is a bill of divorce with the condition that thou servest my father
(*3x) and carest for my son ("22) If the son 721 dies, or if the father (3X7)
dies The Mishnah also shows that NON can also be said in the name of several
children and can thus have the meaning of "our father". BB, 9, 3 : "They said. 'See
what our father (N2N) has left us', Sheb., 7, 7: "We swear that our father (X3X)
did not direct us (in his will), nor did our father (X2X) tell us earlier, nor have we
found instructions in the papers of our father (XEN), that this promissory note should be
paid".
The use of wax in religious speech is attested only in few and later passages, and
even so it is always accompanied by an addition which emphasises the distance of man,
namely, "who is in heaven" (NIW2T MEX, Tg. Job, 34, 36 ff. 5 or diwaw NaN, Lv.r..
32 on 24:10). 6

1 Aram. 728 in Dan. 5:13.

For a list of Rabbis who bore the title, cf. Str.-B., I, 918 ff.; cf. also the title "Sayings
of the Fathers"
3 Examples are given in Strack, Einl., 230. According to W. Bacher, REJ, 36 (1898),
103 ff., Abba as a proper name is contraction of Abraham, which is not found among the
Rabbis. But Moses is not found either. In reality both names are avoided out of reverence.
In any case the proper name Acha (NAX brother) is also found (cf. T. Jeb., 14, 4;
b Ar., 22b etc., Strack, loc. cit.).
4 Cf. Kassovsky, 5. In the same way Mex for "my mother", Ned., 2, 1.
5 Cf. Levy, Chald. Wort., I, 1; Str.-B., II, 50.
6 Characteristically only in a later addition to the original Midrash. As the parallel
M. Ex., 20, 5 shows, the original tradition consists in the following sentence of Lv. r., which
like M. Ex. has the customary g"owat ½3N.
 + "ABEA ~ Kaiv

B. aBBa in Early Christianity,

As concerns the usage of Jesus, the probability is that He employed the word
R9* not merely where it is expressly attested (Mk. 14:36) but in all cases, and
particularly in address to God, where the Evangelists record Him as saying o
nathp, TXTED,' tamp you, TaTEp you, 10 and even perhaps TOTED
nuov.11 In so doing He applies to God a term which must have sounded familiar
and disrespectful to His contemporaries because used in the everyday life of the
family. In other words, He uses the simple speech of the child to its father". 12
When the Aramaic term is used in the Greek Epistles of Paul (R. 8:15; Gl. 4:6),
there may well underlie it a liturgical reminiscence, 13 possibly the beginning of the
Lord's Prayer. 14 In any case there can be no doubt that the use of the word in the
community is linked with Jesus' term for God and thus denotes an appropriation
of the relationship proclaimed and lived out by Him. Jewish usage shows how this
Father-child relationship to God far surpasses any possibilities of intimacy as-
sumed in Judaism, introducing indeed something which is wholly new.
Kittel

"ABEA - Kaiv
A. The Tradition of Judaism.
The account of Cain's murder of Abel in Gn. 4:3 ff. contains no hint of any
difference in the piety or moral conduct of the two brothers. It simply says that
God accepted Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's, and that Cain was so angry that he
slew his brother. Nevertheless later Jewish exegesis always understood the story
in terms of some such distinction, Abel being regarded as religious and Cain as
ungodly. The story is thus brought into the dominant dualistic schema of later
Tudaism which divides men into the D21Y and the ayo) (8lkaio1-tornpot). 1
So Jos. Ant., 1, 53 : "ABEAOS HEV Sikaiooovns ÉTEUEAEITO KalG SE T& TE
a Aa ToI poTaTOs nv. Tanch. (Buber) p52 16, p. 140 f. : "There were 7 righteous
men who built 7 altars from Adam to Moses, and they were accepted: 1. Adam,
2. Abel Similarly, T. Sota, 4, 19 includes Cain in a list of the ungodly. This
distinction is also deduced from the dispute between the two which preceded the

7 Mt. 11:26: Jn. 5:36. Cf. Mk. 14:36 ; R. 8:15 ; Gl. 4:6.
8 Mt. 11:25 Lk. 11:2 ; 23:34 ; In. 11:41; 12:27 f.; 17:5.
3 Mt. 11:27; 26:53.
10 Mt. 26:39, 42.
11 Mt. 6:9.
12 Dalman, 157. According to Chrys., Thdr., Thdrt., who were Syrians, little children
used to call their fathers "Abba" (Zahn).
13 Ltzm. R. on 8:15.
Since &. can imply "our father" as well as "my father", it is no argument to the
contrary that, as in other sayings of Jesus, Luke has here given us the beginning of the
Lord's Prayer literally and Matthew more freely though correctly. Cf. Kittel, Probleme,
53 ff. Cf. also Ephr. and Jer, acc. to Zn. on Gl. 4:6.
"ABEA. V. Aptowitzer, "Kain und Abel in der Agada, den Apokryphen, der hellenist.,
christl. und muhammed. Literatur", Publication of the Kohut Memorial Foundation, I, 1922.
Article "Abel" in EJ, I, 207 ff., esp. 210 f.
v. Bousset-Gressm., 183 ; Moore, I, 494.
+ "ABEA - Kaiy

murder according to J.I. Gn. 4:8 (and similarly J.II).2 In Philo it is interwoven
into the system of Stoic ethics (Abel is apETH, Cain is kakla, Sacr. AC, 14 ; Det.
Pot. Ins., passim). The question how acceptance and rejection were known is also
left open in Gn. 4:4. Only in Theodotion and then in the fathers are we told that
fire came down from heaven and consumed Abel's sacrifice but not Cain's (e
Gn. 4:4 f. 30?1 EVETOPIOEV) . The Rabbinic writings, Philo and Josephus do not
know this explanation, and it is not found until mediaeval Jewish exegetes. 3
Why did God accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's? Jos. Ant., 1, 54 gives a
rationalist answer: God has more pleasure roic aitouatols kai KaT dUoIV
yE yoVool than toic kat' frivoiav Ave pOTtou TAEOVEKTOU Bla TEDUK6OLV, Gn.
r. 22 on 4:3 has a different solution : "Cain brought of the fruits of the earth, which
were of less value". 4 Phil. Sacr. AC, 88 takes a similar view: Abel brought a dif-
ferent sacrifice from Cain avil uev aulywv Eupuxa, dvIl 8É VEGTEPOV kal
dEUTEpElAy TDEO BuTEpa Kal tpiTa, avti BE MODEVNKO Ep l6
TEpa. The quality of the sacrifice is thus regarded as determinative in relation to
its acceptance or rejection, and this implicitly involves the quality of the one who
offers it (cf. supra). That the religious and moral attitude of the one who offers
it is decisive is stated explicitly only in J.I. Gn. 4:8, in which Abel says to Cain:
"Because the fruits of my actions were better than thine, and preceded thine, my
offering was accepted as well-pleasing".

B. Cain and Abel in the NT.

In accordance with the Jewish understanding, Mt. 23:35 and par., in which
there is reference to the righteous Abel, conceive of the contrast in purely ethical
terms, the brothers being Sikaloc or Topos in virtue of their works. The same
is true of Jd.11, which says of the errorists: tn 886 TOU Kaiv Értopsilnoav.
As against this, there is a profounder metaphysical dualism in 1 Jn. 3:12: Cain was
Ex tou fovnpot; in the Epya novnpa or Slkaia of the two there was expressed
only their true nature. With a similar absolute contrast between faith and unbelief,
Hb. 11:4 lists Abel among the witnesses of faith : "By faith Abel offered unto God
a more excellent (Thelova) sacrifice than Cain" ; in virtue of his faith (&t fc)
God bore witness that he was righteous by accepting his offering. (How God did
this, we are not told.) 5 The concluding words of the verse : antofavov *tl laket
point back to Gn. 4:10 : pov aluatos tou XOEADOU Fou Boo Tpoc HE EK Ts
yñs. The blood of the murdered Abel cries for vengeance until the murder is ex-
piated by the death of the murderer. & This basic thought is explained by Hb. 11:4
to mean that AbelT still (fru) $ appeals to the righteousness of God until he shall
have attained to full redress for his innocent death in the consummated kingdom of

2 In many Rabbinic writings the distinction is dropped again. Abel and Cain are simply
mentioned together without any judgment on them, possibly in apologetic answer to the
magnifying of Abel in Christianity (Aptow., 23 f.).
Aptow., 41 f.; Str.-B., III, 744.
4 For similar Rabbinic references v. Aptow., 39, n. 162, 163.
As Gn. 4:4 ; cf. supra.
6 In Rabbinic Judaism we find the notion that the blood of an innocent victim of murder
is in movement, welling up and not being absorbed in the ground, until the murderer is dead
(i Taan, 69a, 56 and par. ; Dt. r., 2 on 4:41; v. Str.-B., 1, 940 ff.
7 i.e., his wuxh, cf. Rev. 6:9, though also his blood (Gn. 4:10).
Boo (Gn. 4:10) is thus understood as a constant present.
 "'ABpaxu

God (cf. Rev. 6:9-11). 9 Similarly in Hb. 12:24 the blood of Abel can serve as an
OT type for that of Jesus. The alua paytiouou of Jesus, which makes atonement,
speaks more strongly than that of Abel (Tapa tov "A.), which demands expiation.
Kuhn

"Appaou
A. Abraham in Judaism.
1392N D7728 1 in later Judaism is the celebrated national and religious hero of
the people. His figure is surrounded by innumerable legends and miracle stories '
in his honour, and his grave in lebron is revered as a holy place. : Descent from
Abraham is the pride of Israel. 4

Abraham's religious significance is manifold. a. Within an idolatrous race he

saw the enormity of idolatry and disseminated worship of the one true God. 5
He is thus the first proselyte and missionary. b. He is the illuminating example of
perfect & obedience to the commands of God 1 rendered out of love 8 He keeps the
whole Torah, as yet unwritten, and belongs to the righteous who have not sin-
ned. 10 Hellenistic Judaism also likes to depict him as a fulfilment of the Greek
ideal of virtue. 11 c. In particular he is a model of unshakeable believing trust in
God maintained in ten temptations 12 and imputed to him by God as meritorious
achievement. 13 d. In reward for his merits he is made, as God's friend, 14 the
recipient of the promise and the covenant on which the prerogative of Israel
stands. 15 His merit avails representatively for Israel in the present and helps
Israel to eternal life, descent from Abraham being of decisive significance in this
connexion. 16

9 A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im NT3 533, n. 1.

'Appaau. P. Billerbeck, Abrahams Leben und Bedeutung fur das Reich Gottes nach
Auffassung der alteren Haggada, Nathanael (1899), 43 ff., 118 ff., 137 ff., 161 ff., (1900).
33 ff., 65 ff.; O. Schmitz, "Abraham im Spatjudentum und im Urchristentum", in Aus Schrift
und Geschichte, Theol. Abhandlungen A. Schlatter dargebracht (1922), 99 ff. ; Dib. Jk.,
157 ff.; Str.-B., Index under Abraham, esp. III, 34 ff., 186 ff., 212 ff.
1 Thus already Jochanan b. Zakkai, bChag., 14b.
2 Tub. 11:18-22 ; deliverance from the fiery furnace of the Chaldees, bPes., 118a and par.;
victory over enemies by dust and chaff, bSanh., 108b and par., etc.
3 Jos. Bell., 4, 531 f. Pilgrimage to the patriarch's grave in Hebron, bBB. 58a.
4 Ps. Sol. 9:17, 3 Macc. 6:3 etc.
5 Tub. 11:16 ff.; 12:1-21; 20:7-10 ; 21:3-5, 21-25; 22:6 ; Jos. Ant., 1, 155 ; Hebr. Test. N.,
8-9 ; Apc. Abr., 1-8 Gn. r., 38 on 11:28.
6 Jub. 23:10 : "Abraham was perfect in all his dealings with God"
1206:.e Sir. 44:20 ; Jud. 8:26 ; 1 Macc. 2:52 Jub. 6:19 ; 18; 21:2 etc.; 4 Macc. 16:20 : Syr. Bar.,
57, 1 ff.
Ab., 5, 3 ; S. Dt., 32 on 6:5.
Jub. 16:28 ; Syr. Bar., 57, 2 ; Qid., 4, 14.
10 Pray. Man. 8; bBB, 16b/17a; Str.-B., III, 187.
11 Wis. 10:5-6 ; 4 Macc. 16:20 ; Jos. Ant. 1,256 ; Philo Abr., 52-54 ; Sib., III, 218 ff.
12 Jub. 19:8 ; Ab. 5, 3 etc.
13 Str.-B., III, 186 ff., esp. 200 f.
14 Is. 41:8 : 2 Ch. 20:7; Jm. 2:23 : CI., 10, 1; cf. LXX, Da, 3:35 ; Str.-B., III, 755.
t aBuoooc

B. Abraham in the NT.

In the NT Abraham is next to Moses the most frequently mentioned OT figure.
1 . In the Gospels his significance in salvation history is conceded (Mt. 8:11 and
par.; Mk. 12:26 and par.; Lk. 16:22 ff.; 19:9 and all early Christianity). On the other
hand, the panegyric glorification of Abraham is contested. Jesus is superior to
him (Jn. 8:52-59), and Peter as the bearer of revelation takes his place 17 as a
cosmic rock (Mt. 16:18).18 The Abrahamic descent of Israel is granted by Jesus
and the early Christians (Lk. 13:16 ; 16:24 ff.; 19:9 etc.), but it is argued that the
appeal of unrepentant Jews to it is self-deception (Jn. 8:33 ff. and Mt. 3:9). It is
also denied that Abraham can save his children from Hades (Lk. 16:26), and above
all table fellowship with him is also promised to the Gentiles (cf. Lk. 16:22 ff.).
2. Whereas in Jn. 8:39 f. and Jm. 2:21-24 Abraham is mentioned as an example
of obedience to the will of God, Paul in his conflict with judaising Christianity
finds in Abraham an example of the man who is justified by faith alone (R. 4:1 ff.;
G1. 3:6 ff.), and can thus see in Christians both of Jewish and Gentile descent the
true children of Abraham and heirs of the Abrahamic promise (R. 4:1, 12; 9:7 f.;
Gl. 3:7, 9, 29; 4:22 ff.; and cf. Jm. 2:21; Hb. 2:16; 6:13 ff.). The decisive thing is no
longer physical but spiritual descent.
Joachim Jeremias

+ apuoooc(- q6ns).
A description of the underworld as a. the "place of imprisonment for disobedient
spirits" (Lk. 8:31; Rev. 9:1, 2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1,3) and b. the "realm of the
dead" (Rom. 10:7).
h &Buocos (originally adj. to a yñ which is to be filled up but is never com-
pletely covered= "unfathomably deep") is used in later Greek to describe the
depths of original time (Preis. Zaub., III, 554; IV, 2835; Corp. Herm., III, 1, XVI,
5), the primitive ocean (Test. Sol., II, 8, B. C. MacCown, 15*), and the world of
the dead (Diog. L. 4, 5, 27). In LXX it is mostly used for oinn, which in the OT
describes the original flood or floods of water, and is once used in the plural to
denote the realm of the dead (Ps. 71:20). In later Judaism ainn signified 1. the
original flood: 2. the depth of the earth, or interior of the earth, in which are
corpses causing defilement ;2 and 3., under the influence of Persian and Hellenistic
conceptions, the place in which runagate spirits are confined (Jub. 5:6 ff.; Eth.
En., 10:4 ff., 11 ff.; 18:11 ff. etc.; Jd. 6; Pt. 2:4).

15 Sir. 44:21; Jub. 1:7; 12:22-24; 13:3, 19-21; 14; 15 etc. ; 4 Esd. 3:13-15 : Syr. Bar.,
57, 1 ff.
16 Str.-B., I, 116-121.
17 For Abraham as a cosmic rock, Yalqut Shimoni, I, §766 on Nu. 23:9.
18 J. Jeremias, Golgotha (1926), 68 ff.
& Bugaos. Pr. B., 3 ; Str.-B., III, 281 f., 809 ; A. Schlatter, Das AT i.d. joh. Apk.
(1912), 85 f.
1 For references, cf. Jeremias, Golgotha (1926), 54-58, 62-64, 74.
2 Cf. Mishnah, e.g., Pes., 7,7, and passim.
8 Beer, in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen (1900), 242 ; Loh. Apk., 158.
 dya06c

In the NT 1. &Buoooc is thought of as "prison for spirits" (Rev. 9:1; 20:1, 3

Kiels; cf. Pray. Man. 3). A well-like abyss+ forms the entrance, from which
when it is opened there ascends the smoke of hell-fire (Rev. 9:1-2)."5 Its inmates
until their release in the tribulation before the end are Antichrist (Rev. 11:7; 17:8
Onplov cf. Act. Thom., 32), the prince of the underworld (Rev. 9:11 'ABa6-
8@v), demons (Lk. 8:31) and scorpion centaurs (Rev. 9:3 ff.). 6 After the parousia
Satan will be shut up in it during the millennial kingdom (20:1,3). The fact that
God has power and control over the world of hostile spirits is clearly expressed in
this idea of a spirit prison.
2. R. 10:7 the term nininn (LXX &Buoot, U 106:26) signifies the "realm of
the dead", descent into which is contrasted with ascension into heaven ; here, as
in bGit., 84a, Bar., 8 tlc katqBnoetal elc Thy &puaoo is an so for some-
thing which is impossible.
Joachim Jeremias

dya06s, cyalospyÉw, cyalonolÉw, -6s, -io,

ryalwaivn, puldyalos, doulayaloc
dya06s
Kai unv To yE dyalov, TOUTO THE QUOEDC TooNs to ayaord BoulEtal to
&voua ETlKElo®a Plat. Crat., 412c. As an adjective or substantive &ya06s or to
dya06v expresses the significance or excellence of a thing or person. This is made
plain by the punning etymology of Plato.

Accordingly, 1. as an adjective it means excellent" or "fine" or "good". As a purely

formal concept, it is given its content by the substantive with which it is linked. Applied
to persons, it signifies the excellence of the person in his existing position dyalouc
TEKToVaC, xa\kEas dyalous, gwypapouc ayatouc, avE piavtotoIoug, Kal To
& Aa to tolaita Xenoph. Oec., 6, 13, or in the NT, e.g., SOUAE &ya0É (Mt.
25:21). Applied to things, it implies the quality of the thing referred to. e.g., dya0n
yn, often used in the LXX of the land given to Israel, or 8Évopov &ya0ov (Mt. 7:17),

4 Cf. 6377) 19 bMen., 99b/100 ; Str.-B., IV, 1087 ff.; also S. Nu. 88 on 11:6-7.
5 bMen., 99b : the smoke at the entrance to Gehinnom.
6 Cf. the description of the plague of mice which overtook the Philistines (1 Sam. 6:4)
as given in S. Nu., 88 on 11:6-7. The destroying beasts come from the abyss (binn) as in
Rev. 9:1 ff. Cf. also the Egyptian plague of frogs in Ex. r., 10 on 7:29.
7 According to the Rabbinic view She'ol lies under Tehom: Tanch. (Buber), nbu2
15 p. 62 no 8 p. 33.
8 Str.-B., III, 281.
dya96 s, O. Dittrich, Geschichte der Ethik (1926), I, II, v. Index ; K. Praechter, Die
Philosophie des Altertums12 (1926), 387 ff.; C. Ritter, Die Kerngedanken der platonischen
Philosophie (1931), 18 ff., 55 ff.; J. Stenzel, Platon der Erzieher (1928), 249 ff. ; Strack-
Billerbeck, Zur Bergpredigt Jesu; Der gute und der bose Trieb Die altjudische Privat-
wohltatigkeit ; Die altjudische Liebeswerke, IV, 1 ff., 466 ff., 563 ff., 559 ff. ; A. Juncker,
Die Ethik d. Apostels Paulus (1904), I; W. G. Kummel, Romer und die Bekehrung des
Paulus (1929), 56 ff. ; G. Kuhlmann, Theologia naturalis bei Philo und Paulus (1930), 84 ff.
dyadoc

or Souaia dyala (Mt.7:11). The worthiness or excellence can be more closely

defined by the added accusative of relation.. €yÉvovto Kal texvas kal Abyouc Kal
TOAÉuouc &yalol Xenoph. Venat., 1, 14. 2. Substantively, TO ryalov or t& dya0a
denotes "the good" or "goods", i.e., things which relate to man's well-being. The
formal concept is in such cases filled out according to the understanding of existence.
In Lk. 12:18 valuables from the standpoint of a materialistic understanding are described
as to dya0& (cf. Xopa. LEOT oldy kal alyov kal Boiv kal ITtov kal
altou kai TovtwV dyalov. Xenoph. Cyrop., IV, 4, 4). The humanistic outlook of
Greek philosophy declares to yÉvog tov TEpI odua ayalov oc un dyalov, Sext.
Adv. Math., XI, 46, and applies the terms to spiritual and moral magnitudes. The reli-
gious outlook of Hellenism and the biblical writings uses them with the significance of
salvation. With these basic meanings the words oyal6s and To dya0ov may be found
over the whole Greek-speaking world.

A. ryal6s in Greek philosophy.

In Greek philosophy with its humanistic attitude the concept of the ayal6v is
most important. The concern of the philosopher is to understand it as the magni-
tude which gives meaning to existence. Democritus makes the statement: ov0po-
TOIS TOol TWUTOV dyalov Kai cAnOÉs' 160 SE &1Gt &1o (Diels, II, 77, 1) an
insight which is adopted by Plato in his search for the good. In his struggle with
the Sophists, who equate the good with the pleasant, Plato comes to formulate the
idea of the good as the central idea Ev TO yvOFto TE auTaIa n tou ayaloi
18Éa kai poyis opaolai, bp0eioa 8É OUMoyIOTÉa Elva iC apa Tool TaVtoV
att op0iv TE Kal Kaldv aitla, Ev tE opato poc kal tov toutou Kuplov
TeKoioa, EV TE vont@ ait Kupla &^n0Elav Kai youv TapaoyouÉvn, kal &TL SEi
tautny lEiv Tov uÉ Aovta Éuopovos TORE ELV n iolg f onuooia, Resp., VII,
517bc, and : Oiko0v el un uua Suvqula i8ÉQ to ayatov Onpeigai, ovv tpiol
laBOVTEG, K& EL Kal Evuuerpla kai alndela, Phileb., 65a. Art attacks the
Platonic notion of the good. On the basis of his doctrine of categories, he raises
the objection that the good as well as the existent is manifold rather than single.
Thus in the category of essence it is divinity or reason, in that of quality virtue, in
that of quantity measure, in that of relation the necessary, in that of time kairos
etc. (Eth. Nic., I, 4, p. 1096a, 11 ff.). Thus the good is clearly recognised to be a
formal concept. With the rejection of the good as a unitary idea, the humanistic
view of life triumphed ; the religious note still sounded in the Platonic doctrine of
ideas is lost ;1 the supreme good is determined from within the human sphere. ..
TEAOC TOV cyalov Kal TEAEI6TaToV elvai, n Evoaluovia, Kai TOUTO TaUTo
oqUEV Elval tO E8 TEP&TTELV Kai E6 giv (Eth. M., I, 3, p. 1148b, 7 ff.). As E08a1-
uovia the good is the goal of life: Ilaoa Téxvn Kal Ttaoa ut0o8og, ouoloc 8t
pois tE Kai mpoalpeais, ayaloi rivoc Épleadal BOei' 810 kalds ateonvov-
to toyalov ou TOVT' EplETaL (Eth. Nic., I, 1, p. 1094a, ff., also Eth. M., I, 1,
p. 1182a, 32 ff.).2
The same basic humanistic tendency is to be found in Stoicism. The Stoic defini-
tion of the ayalov is given by Sextus : noav be ol paaKovTEs dryalov OT&PyELV

The humanistic attitude emerges in a statement such as this AEKTÉov onep

dyalot ou tou aloc alla ToU nuiv ou •yap tou (EGv dya0ot. (Eth. M., I, 1,
p. 1182b, 3 ff.), a statement which separates the world of deity from that of man. It is also
to be seen in the synonyms, To KaAov, to xpñowpov, to 186.
Cf. esp. Rhet., I, 6, p. 1362a, 15 ff., where the different possible definitions of the dya.
foy and the resultant dya0a are expressed.
 dya06c

TO 8t' auTo alpErov. of 8' OfTos "&yal6v eot TO GUAAauBaVOLEVOV TPOC EO-
Sauuovlav", TIVEC Se "To avurAnpwrikov subauuovias" Eidau 8É EOTIV,
oc of TE TEpl Tov Zhvova kal Kleavinv Kai XPUOLTTTOV xtE6ooav, EUpoia Blou
(Adv. Math., XI, 30); and also by Diogenes Laertius: dya0ov 8É Koloc LEV TO
ti 6pElos, iblos bE frot tautov h O8X {TEpOV GOE Elas (VII, 94) From the
concept of the good, whether conceived as idea or accepted as a formal principle,
there derives the doctrine of goods. In Stoicism the &ya0a corresponding to the
dya06v are divided into three classes: to Tepi puxñv® apetal Kal antoubaial
TIP EELS (opovnois, awopoauvn, 8ikaioouvn, avopela kai Trav 8 LOTIV ApETH
LETEYOV apETnS (Stob. Ecl., II, 57, 19 W) to EKT6C' oilos kai 6 antoubaioc
ave patroc kal to onoubaia teKiva Kal yoveic kai td Suoia, to OUTE TEpi twxnv
OUTE EKTOC' autoc o anoubaiog &ve patioc oc tpoc Éautov (Sext. Adv. Math.,
XI, 46). 4 The first class is thought to be necessary to Eibaquovia (kal toov dya.
Oov To uev avayxaia Elvai itpoc Ei8aquovlav, ta 8É un. kai ovayaia uev
tas TE apetas Taoas kai tac Evepyelas tac xpnotikac aurdv, Stob. Ecl., II,
77, 6). Whoever disposes of these goods is good. aya0ov of rapovtos dya.
Ool louev 'A^Ad unv ayatol yE €ouev kai queis kai talla ttavta 86a
ayala ÉXTIV, XpEtñc tivoc TapayevouEvs (Plat. Gorg., 506cd). The way there-
to is by instruction, which has as its goal the mediation of opovnols from which
action springs quite naturally. It belongs to the humanistic understanding of ex-
istence that the one who has insight into oya06v becomes aya06c. Of this man
alone can it be said that he is happy. Tov uev yap kalov kayalov avipa Kal
yuvaika E Baluova Elval onut, Tov 8É XolKov Kai rtovnpov &eAlov (Plat. Gorg.,
470e). This humanistic attitude was threatened by the aristocratic tendency of
Greek life which Heraclitus expressed as follows: ... OUK EL&6TEC ott of To Aol
kakol, 8Al you 6É dyalol (Diels, I, 98, 8 f.), and also by the thought of heimar-
mene, the influence of which on Stoicism is attested in the following sentence:
of BÉ OXOKOVTES ÉE avayKns nuac Elval tE Kal ylvefal TOLOUTOUC (sc.
cyalouc f KaKoug) kal uh katalltoVtes nuiv thy LEovolav tou raita tpat-
TEIV TE Kai un, ot' ov dv TOLOUTOL yEVoluE0 (Alex. Aphr. Fat., 28, p. 199, 7 ff.,
ed. Bruns).

B. dya0oc in Hellenism.
With the general shattering of the ancient attitude, the concept acquires in
Hellenism a religious flavour in which &ya0ov signifies "salvation" 5 and cya06c
"pleasing to God" as applied to man, or "kind" and "good" as applied to God.
Closer definition is provided by that in which salvation is sought or what is
pleasing to God perceived. For the Hermetic writings, which constitute one
significant literary deposit of Hellenism, salvation is divinisation. TOUTO got
To cya06v, < TOUTO to> tÉlos tois yvoow eoxnkoou, [lec Ofivai] (Corp.

3 In the statement of Chrysipp. handed down by Plutarch we have evidence of this

humanistic understanding of existence DOTTED TO All Toon KEl oEuViVE OaL gmt'
AUTO TE Kai to Blo kal ueya opoveiv, kai, El SEI OUTOS ELTEIV, bwauxeiv kai
Kou&v Kal ueya nyopeiv, dEloc Buouvtl ueya nyoplas' oftoc roic dyaloic Tao
tauta IPOOKEL, KAT" OUGEV TIPOEXOUEVOIC UTO TOU Albc (Stoic. Rep., 13).
4 Cf. Plat. Leg., I, 631bc ; Arist. Rhet., I, 6, p. 1362b, 3 ff.
5 Where Greek thinking has a religious character, the terms dya06v and dyala are
also used with this meaning, e.g., 8T BokEi thi BouAnt, to uev dyala deyeatat
tov Snuov & & taryyÉ loual 8 lEpE0c kal of lsportoiol yeyovÉval Ev toic lepois ols
g0vov (Ditt. Syll.3, 289, 11 ff.
dyaloc
Herm., I,26). The nous helps towards this o yap vouc buyov EOTIV EDED-
yéTs dvpinav® Epyaletai yap ai<a>is [els] id ayal6v voooc 88
HEy An Yuxis dOEOis" ETEl ta<ic tov A0ÉWV> 86Ea[E]LC stavia to kakd
eraKoroulei, kai dyalov oibev. &p' obv 6 voug, dvtitpaooov auth, to aya-
OOV TEPITTOLEITAI T uxi (XII, 2 ff.). & The humanistic view is here overthrown
to the extent that salvation is not proper to any earthly being, nor is the quality of
being pleasing to God immanent in any such (II, 14ff. ; uovov otv TO Evoua
tou dyalou Év avO pOToIs, TO 8É Épyov oubauou o yap Koouoc tAnpoua
fot tis kaklas, 6 SE GEOC TOU drya000, VI, 3 f.). The good strictly appertains
only to the Godhead : 8 odv OEdg <TO> &yalov, Kai to dya0ov 6 0E6c (II, 16).
It is the Godhead which creates salvation : 088É 8 Oedc Suvatai un TOLv TO
ayal6v (XI, 17c). He is ayal6c (I, 17) who mortifies the operations of matter.
This overthrow of the humanistic attitude derives from a cosmological dualism.
In Hellenism there is a pantheon of gods and demons, personal beings to which man
is delivered up. The deities from which he expects salvation are given the title of
dyal6s; hence the expressions dya0oc 0e6c (Ditt. Syl1.3, 526, 1; 685, 1; Act. Andr.
et Matth., 6, in which Jesus is called dya06s 0e6c), dyaloc Saluov (Ditt. Syll.3,
985, 10 ; 1044, 35 ; Corp. Herm., XII, 1, 8 as a deity of revelation), and dya0ñ Toxn
(Ditt. Or., 214, 30). Behind these formulae there stands the yearning of humanity
threatened in its existence and seeking salvation.

Philo shares the Hellenistic attitude, but imparts Jewish elements. To him divinity
is the supreme good. "I, the Lord" means : Éyo TO TEEIOV Kal aolaptov Kai
spoc airdElav dyalov (Gig., 45). Beside the neutral Greek form there stands
the personal Jewish : cyaloc yap Wv 8 BE6S (Leg. All., I, 47; Som. I, 149). The
activity corresponding to this understanding follows with the attainment of the
goods corresponding to the supreme good : Éyxpateia, the supreme and most
perfect good which man can achieve (Spec. Leg., I, 149); 8 EiéBEIo, the cause
of the highest of goods, since it brings us knowledge of the service of God (Spec.
Leg., IV, 147); n Ttpos OEOV THOTs, the one infallible and certain good (Abr.,
268); coola, the good by which the soul moves up from the world to its master
and father (Rer. Div. Her., 98). The possibility of such activity is assumed by
Philo with his trust in the help of God.

C. cya06c in the OT and Judaism.

The OT and Judaism share with Hellenism a religious attitude to life. But in
them its structure is completely different. Everything is now determined by know-
ledge of the personal God who reveals Himself to His people in its history and
has elected it in this revelation. Accordingly, the use of the terms dya06c and
To dyalov, which in the LXX are the normal equivalents of zit, is quite different.
The idea of the good in the Greek and Hellenistic sense is not present. The basic
confession which constantly recurs and corresponds to the personal concept of

6 Cf. also XIII, 9, where To dya06v is linked with & nOela in accordance with the
Greek tradition. The whole of the 13th tractate deals with the mystery of divinisation.
v. Reitzenstein, Iran. Erl., 191, n. 2 ; 193, n. 1; Poim., Index ; Roscher, I, 98 f. (Agatho-
daimon); Pauly-W., I, 746 f. (Agathodaimon), Suppl. III, 37 ff.; Ditt. Syll.¾, p. 116, n. 11.
In the high estimation of EyKpaTEIa there is revealed the Hellenistic foundation of the
attitude, which is determined by cosmological dualism.
 dya06c

God is as follows : 310 9 M).792 1717 LEouoloyeio0E tO Kuplo 8tl dya-

fov . . . (1 Ch. 16:34 ; 2 Ch. 5:13 ; 2 Es. 3:11 f.; Ps. 118 [w 117:1 ff.] etc.). 9 The
Rabbis have the constant formula : 20291) 3107 (e.g., Ber., 9, 2). This confession
expresses the perfectly good being of God which consists in His goodness. 10 By
revelation the understanding of existence is so determined that it has its roots in
the salvation experienced in history, that it has its goal in the final salvation which
is still awaited, and that it orientates its activity by this salvation under the di-
rection of the Law as a manifestation of. the will of God. The exodus from Egypt
and entry into the promised land, as well as the preservation experienced in history,
are sometimes expressed in the words Jib or 7710 (Ex. 18:9; Nu. 10:29 ff.; Hos.
8:3; 14:3). The expression is particularly common in Jeremiah, for whom it sig-
nifies both national and personal salvation in relation to Yahweh (8:15; 14:11, 19;
17:6 etc.). It is Jeremiah, too, who gives the term an eschatological flavour. It is
said of the promised new covenant a7a22! anb 2ob ("For the good of them,
and of their children after them", 32:39), and he is given the solemn assurance :
"I will bring upon them all the good" (32:42). The term is used in a similar way
in Is. 52:7, where there is reference to the zv 7i722, the "good messenger". Both
passages have been understood Messianically: no = dyalov conceived as Mes-
sianic salvation.
Between these two given factors there takes place activity determined by the
Law enshrining God's will. In unequivocal terms the well-known saying of Micah
tells us what God requires of man and therefore what is good, namely, to do justly,
to love mercy and to walk humbly before the Lord (6:8). As a revelation of the
will of God the Law is that which brings salvation (Dt. 30:15). The Rabbis de-
scribe it quite simply as the good : "The upright shall have good things in
possession" (Prv. 28:10). "The good simply means the Torah" (Ab., 6, 3 etc.).11
The resultant ethic is simple. Those who do the will of God as contained in the
Law do good, and are therefore good, and will receive blessing and salvation from
the Lord (Ps. 34:14 f.; 37:27; 2 Ch. 19:11). The possibility of keeping the Law is
presupposed. There is division of opinion whether the help of Yahweh is necessary
for this purpose, the OT and the Pharisees thinking that it is but the Sadducees
rejecting such necessity (Jos. Bell., 2, 163-165).

The Wisdom literature, in which the terms dya06s, TO &ya0ov and to &yala are
the most numerous from the purely lexicographical standpoint, introduces Hellenistic
ideas which are linked with Jewish thoughts, and forms a bridge to Philo. It is thus in
this literature especially that the question is raised what is good and evil, and what is
good for man. In Qoh, which strips off every human illusion, the insight occurs that
there is no other good for man than laiv niogby) mint?, (to rejoice in what is given

9 Except in 117 the Hebrew adj. 210 is translated by the subst. &ya0ov in the LXX.
This translation has its origin in the Greek and Hellenistic spirit, for which Yahweh the
good (adj.) becomes Yahweh the good (subst.).
10 v. n. 16.
11 The connexion between the Law and the good, as also between the concept of Law
on the one side and those of wisdom and power on the other, may be traced back to Prv.
4:2 (cf. Str.-B., I, 809 III, 238). Cf. Neh. 9:13 : mpoatayuata Kal evrolas ayalac...:
Jos. Ant., 4, 295 : . . . vouoic ofg ayaloug dokiuaoac o §eoc tapa8i& wal
12 We often have the conjunction "good and evil" in different forms with the signifi-
cation of everything as opposed to nothing ; cf. Gn. 3:5 ; 31:24, 29 ; Nu. 14:23: 32:11 (these
two are only in the LXX): Dt. 1:39 ; Zeph. 1:12.
dyad6c

[and to do good]; 3:13; 5:17; 8:15), but also the insight, which brings the same shatter-
ing to Jewish existence as is found in Hellenistic, that "there is not a just man upon
earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (7:20).
Rabbinic theology pursues further the ethical problems. It describes man as the theatre
of conflict between good and evil impulse. His goal in life is to overcome the latter by
the former. The control of the evil impulse by the good is the prerequisite for participa-
tion in the life of the future world. The good impulse is simply the conscience of the
Israelite as this is bound to God. Its norm is the will of God consisting in the commands
of the Torah. 13 In this theory there is disclosed the Judaistic view of life as particularly
fashioned by the Torah. 14 In addition Rabbinic theology has a developed theory of
good works set alongside the fulfilment of the command. 15 These Rabbinic good works
are works of love done to the neighbour. They are valued very highly. Only those
who perform them may be called good. 16 "Only the man who is good both to God
and to creatures is a good righteous man: the man who is good to God but not to
creatures is a righteous man, but not good (bQid., 40a).

D. dya06c in the NT.

a. The NT shares with Hellenism and Judaism a predominantly religious
basic attitude. This is determined by God, to whom are referred by Jesus the
most important words enshrining the OT declaration: Elc Eotlv 6 aya06c (Mt.
19:17, or : oibeic ayaloc et un als 6 Oe6s, Mk. and Lk.). The personal concept
of God makes it impossible to use neutral expressions. ayal6c expresses the
essential goodness of God which consists in His goodness or kindness.
It is from this God that there comes the salvation which is the central point of
NT thinking, namely, the revelation of the salvation of God in Jesus Christ. aya-
Gov is used in this sense in Hb. 9:11: XPLOTOC TaPAYEVOLEVOS OPXLED Tov
ue^ovtov ayalov,17 and 10:1: OKldv yap Exov 6 VoLO© TOV MEAAOVTOV
dya0iov. The uÉ ovia ayala or goods which belong to the future world, and
which are related to those mediated through the Torah as the reality to types and
shadows, are now given to the community in Christ. They consist in alovia
AUTpooIs and the possibility of NATDEUEIV OEG YOVTL, i.e., of being delivered
from the dominion of sin and death and set in the fellowship and service of the
living God. In R. 10:15 the Deutero-Isaianic prophecy of the zit nwap is adopted
and applied to the apostolic office. The content of apostolic proclamation is Mes-
sianic salvation.
The much debated question of the sinlessness of Jesus is linked with Mt. 19:17 and
par. 18, As against Mark and Luke, which run "Why callest thou me good ?", Mt. has
the altered form "Why askest thou me concerning the good ?" It must be admitted that

Cf. Str. -B., III, 92 f.

14 Cf. the excursus in Str.-B., IV, 466 ff.
15 Cf. the excursus in Str.-B., IV, 536 ff. : also in 559 ff.
16 In this there is revealed the basic insight that kindness is part of goodness, and that
true goodness is achieved in the I-Thou relationship. This insight is also to be found in
passage like the following: TpÉTElv avopaaw dyalois un uovov UUBOULEUEIV, &AAd
BonOstv, Jos. Vit., 288. We also find it in Greek literature of TtAEiatol opifovral
touc EUspyÉtas Éautov avopas dyaloug elval, Xenoph. Cyrop., VII, 3, 12. Cf. Lk.
23:50 : dvp &ya06c kal Slkalos.
17 This reading is to be preferred to the other. Cf. Rgg, Hb. ad loc.
18 Wb. Mk., 162 ; KI. Mk., 114 Hck. Mk., 122 ; Dalman, WJ, I, 277; W. Wagner, "In
welchem Sinne hat Jesus das Pradikat gya06c von sich abgewiesen ?" ZNW (1907), 8,
143 ff. F. Spitta, "Jesu Weigerung sich als 'gut bezeichnen zu lassen", ZNW (1908), 9,
12 ff. ; K. Bornhauser, Das Wirken des Christus (1921), 147 ff.
 ayal6c

Mt. alters the tradition maintained in the other two, since the opposite course is in-
conceivable. Mt. is concerned in his version to avoid the misunderstanding that Jesus is
repudiating His own sinlessness or goodness as compared with that of God. Even if he
does amend the wording, he surely interprets correctly the intention of Jesus, who is not
raising the question of His own sinlessness but rather of the honour of God. That is
to say, His answer to the questioner is conditioned by the message of the lordship of
God. The questioner is to be referred to God as the One who alone is good, bowing
before Him and giving Him the glory.

b. The two statements, 1. that God alone and no other is &yaÉ6c and 2. that
the uÉAAovta dya0& are the only real dya0g because in them sin and death are
done away, give us the insight that strictly speaking there is nothing in this world
that deserves the predicate &ya06v, and that there is no one who has the predi-
cate dya06s. This insight is completed by the statement of Paul which deals a
mortal blow to every other humanistic or religious conception of life : ot6a yap
8tL OUK oiKEi Év Éuol, toot fotiv kv th oapki uou, gyalov ou yap 8 (ÉAG
TOLO dya06v, & Ad o 00 BEAG KAKOV TOUtO TEpXOO0 (R. 7:18 f.). The natural
existence of man is excluded from the good, and cannot attain it in spite of every
longing. What it does attain in its TOLEiv and T POTTELV is KaKoV, i.e., favatos.
In the Law an dya06v is certainly given to man: f ÉvroAn aya0n TO
ayalov, says Paul in agreement with Judaism (R. 7:12 f.) . But the quaptia which
possesses and controls man, which is the reality of his existence, works lavatoc
for him through the Law. The NT view of life sees man hopelessly delivered up
to death and sin, and therefore to the sphere in which there is no possibility of
goodness or salvation. This dualism, however, is not cosmologically grounded as
in the case of Hellenism. It arises in face of the revelation of God in Christ, and
is religious and ethical. It is no argument against this insight that moral distinctions
remain in the NT. Jesus does, of course, perceive that there are good and bad on
whom God causes His sun to rise (Mt. 5:45) . He distinguishes between what is
good and what is evil (Mt. 12:34 and par.). He acknowledges the keeping of the
commandments to be an dya0ov to the extent that in them there is revealed the
will of God which is good. Paul invests the powers that be with the task of being
GEOT S1AKOVOS Eig To &yalov (R.13:4). Yet beyond these moral distinctions of
this cosmos the insight remains that they are relative and disappear before God.
C. With the revelation of salvation in Christ a radically new possibility of life
is introduced: uerquopooiole th avaKaIooEl TOU vO6G, Elc TO BOKLUOYELV
Duac Ti to BÉAnua TOU OEOU, to iyalov kal EUXPEOTOV KAL TEEIOV (R. 12:2).
The testing insight into the will of God which is the good carries with it the real-
isation of this insight. It may be said of the Christian : KTIO0EVTEG Év XP10T®
'Inoou Erl Épyois ayalois, olc pontoluaoev 6 Oeog iva Ev aUTois TEDITOTH-
OWUEV (Eph. 2:10). ... Tsputathoal ev navti epyo aya0@ KaptooopotvtEs
(Col. 1:10 etc.). Paul demands the realisation of this possibility of existence:
TOVTOTE TO &YAOOV BIKETE §ic & Anouc Kai EiC TaVTaS (1 Th. 5:15). This
formulation shows us clearly in what the &ya0ov consists. It is the love which
the Christian is enabled to exercise and which is the innermost purpose of the Law.
The good is achieved in concrete I-Thou relationships. This new possibility of
existence is the meaning of the life of the Christian. It is the purpose which it must
realise. There thus obtains in all its fulness that which Paul formulates as the clear
Law of God : 86&a kai tiun kai siphyn navi to €pya(ouÉvo To ayalov
(R. 2:10).
dya0oEpyed - ayatoTolew

In this self-fulfilling life the Christian who grasps this new possibility has the
dyaln ouvelonous. Paul can say of himself : Eyo naon ouVELonoaL dya0n TETTO-
AltElual TO OE& (Ac. 23:1). There is reference to the dya0n ouvelonaus in 1 Tm.
1:5, 19 and 1 Pt. 3:16, 21. At the same time the Christian has the certainty that
salvation is the goal and determinative magnitude of his life : oiquev 8É &TI toic
AyaTWOLV TOV LEOV Ttavta OUVEPYEL [6 GEOc] Els [to] &ya0ov (R. 8:28). This
certainty, which is proper to all Jewish piety 19 and derives from its consciousness
of God, acquires here its fulness from the action of God. Hence we are given an
expression which fully comprehends this whole understanding of life when Paul
proclaims his confidence to the Philippians 6 EvapEquevoc Év ouiv Epyov aya-
GOV ETITEAÉDEI &XPI NUEPAC Xpiotoi 'Inoou (Phil. 1:6).

* dya0ospyÉo.
This is a rare word, which is not found in the LXX or Josephus. In the admoni-
tion to the rich in Tm. 6:18, it signifies a demand for good action consisting in
the demonstration of love to others. It refers to God in Ac. 14:17, in which He is
described as the One who acts kindly. In this verse the contraction &ya@oupyÉo
is used.

dyq0oToLÉw, aya00t016s, dyafonoia.

The verb and adjective are found as astrological terms. In a London papyrus (ed.
Kenyon, P. Lond., p. 66, 48), it is said of an astrological constellation: uera &yalo-
TOLV. Kenyon has the following comment: "An astrological term, used also by Artemi-
dorus and Proclus, for stars of benign influence; Proclus specifies Jupiter as being
such." Cf. Plut. • De Iside et Os., 42: "Oaupis ayalotol6c® kal toovoua ToAAd
opa(el, oox firlota 6É kpatos Evepyolv Kal cyalorto 8 eyouo1, a passage
which indicates the connexion between astrology and contemplation of the gods. Hermes
is called dyaforoioc in a papyrus (Wessely, Neue gr. Zauber Pap., p. 55, 16). It is
not unlikely that the use of the words in Pt. is influenced by this application.
dya0onolÉw corresponds rather to the Hebrew no7 which expresses the realisation
of the good by action (cf. 2"0727) 207 Ber., 9, 2). It is often used in this sense in the
LXX, where it is the consistent rendering of awom It is not found in Josephus or
classical Greek. It passes from the LXX into the NT and the language of the Church,
e.g., Lk. 6:9, 33.

ayalOTtOLÉd is particularly common in 1 Pt. (2:15, 20; 3:6, 17). John describes
the dyalortoldv as coming from God (3 Jn. 11). Sometimes it suggests the demon-
stration of love which will not suffer any restriction.
cyalonol6s is the one who performs good actions. In the NT (1 Pt. 2:14) it
is used with KaKOTOL6C to indicate the two different categories of men distin-
guished by their ethical quality and not by their being in Christ. The view of the
author is that Christians belong to the dyalonowol.

19 We find this insight in the OT Joseph says to his brethren : "Fear not; for I am
under the Lord. But as for you, ye thought evil against me ; but God meant it unto good
(gait2)" (Gen. 50:19 f.). In Rabbinic literature, in which frequent use is made of the
formula : "This or that happened unto me for good" (cf. Str.-B., III, 255), there occurs the
statement : 'A man should always be in the habit of saying, 'All that the All-merciful does.
He does for good' (bBer., 60b).
 dya0 wouvn - apiaryaloc

cya0orotta is good action (1 Pt. 4:19). In it alone consists the one possible
preparation of Christians for final deliverance.

* dyatwoun.
This word has come down from the LXX into the NT and the Greek of the
Church. It indicates the quality which a man has who is dya06c and therefore
moral excellence as well as goodness. It is Kaptoc tou TIVEOLATOC (Gl. 5:22). It
belongs with Sukaioouvn and a\r0eta to the kaptoc tou out6s (Eph. 5:9). Its
possession constitutes the content of the life of the Christian kal autol
LefTol toTE dyalwoinns (R. 5:14; cf. also 2 Th. 1:11). This use is controlled
by what we described above as the Christian's radically new possibility of life.

t oudyalog.
This is a quality demanded of the bishop in Tt. 1:8. According to the inter-
pretation of the early Church it relates to the unwearying activity of love.
Aristotle calls oudya0oc the man who, in contrast to the ollautos who is paulos,
places his ego under the good (Eth. M., II, 14, p. 1212b, 18 ff.). Philo demands ouAa-
yalov of the law-giver together with the qualities of piAov0 portov, oilo8 kalov and
uto0novpov (Vit. Mos., II, 9). The word plays a greater role in the Hellenistic period
in the Greek societies 1 on the north coast of Asia Minor and the Bosphorus. It is "a
title of honour to describe the disposition of the worthy brother in the society" (Ziebarth).
It thus corresponds to the much more common oiA6t S. But unlike the latter it is
perhaps related to an official function (cf. kal 18lq kal kolvEi ouayaloc ov ty
tavti kapo, CIA, IV, 2, 623e). We have no information concerning the function of
the one who bears the title oi ayalog. Hence the question of a possible relationship
of this usage to Tt. 1:8 must be left open.

t douayaloc.
A hapaxlegomenon. In 2 Tm. 3:1 ff. the seriousness of the last time is depicted
by express reference to the attitude of men towards it. To this attitude it belongs
that they are douoyalot. This word is distinguished from ollautos (the opposite
of piAayalos), the term which introduces the description, in the sense that it
says of the plautol that as men who know only themselves they seem to have
no knowledge of love or pity. It is part of the NT description of the last time
that in it lovelessness celebrates its triumph.
Grundmann

pilayalos. Cf. Ziebarth, Das griechische Vereinswesen. 1896, 155; Poland,

Geschicht des griechischen Vereinswe, 1904, 411 ff.
dyaiicouat

cyanicouai, dyaiAiaois
A. dryaald in Greek literature.
'AyalAlaw, or the much more common mid., is a new construct from cy&^c
or dya^oual, 1 and is found only in the language of the Bible and the early
Church (with the single exception of P. Oxy., 1592, 4, 4th century A.D., possibly
under Christian influence). The word dyaAw, and esp. the mid., is of long
standing in Greek poetry and prose (with &ya\ua and composites), and may be
found also in P. Masp., 3, 8, 6th century A.D. In ancient Christian literature the
term dya^oual occurs as a variant in CI., 33, 2. Otherwise the word is replaced
by cya Alcoual under LXX influence, the sense of the latter term being deter-
mined by that of the Greek &ya^Aeo0ai.
As aya^o means "to make resplendent" or "adorn," so the mid. means "to
preen or plume oneself", "to be proud". Thus what the term denotes is not so
much a mood of satisfied joy as a consciousness of joyful pride expressed in the
whole attitude. The expression of this joy, to which there does not have to be
any reference in the word, has the character of demonstration rather than im-
partation. Thus &ya leofal appears as the opposite of aloyuveoau in Hdt., I,
143; Thuc., III, 82; Xenoph.,. 1g., 5, 5, or alongside uEya^0veo@au in Xenoph.
Oec., 21, 5. But as &ya^o is specifically the celebration of god (Eur. Herc.
Fur., 379; Aristoph. Pax, 399; Thesm., 128; Plat. Leg., XI, 931 ad ; Eleusin. Law in
Porphyr. Abst., IV, 22), so yx^^oua is cultic and perhaps ecstatic festal joy
(Eur. Ba., 157; Tro., 452).

B. cya^^icoual in the LXX and Judaism.

Accordingly, in the LXX dya Aloolal or its derivative dya^Alaos (and
&yaiiaua) seems to be used as a rendering for 5 (possibly selected because
of the similarity of sound) and 722, rather less frequently of other verbs like 524
(Hitp.) and traw or of the related substantives. But this use is almost entirely
restricted to the Psalms and the poetic parts of the Prophets. The meaning of the
word is the cultic joy which celebrates and extols the help and acts of God,
whether shown to the people or community or to the individual (cf. Y 50:14:
& t680c Hol thv dya Alaoly tot owmplou cou).1 Even when it is no longer a
question of cultic rejoicing in the narrower sense, the word still retains its "re-
ligious" meaning and indicates either joy in God or joy before Him. The praise

dya lidoua K TA. 1 According to Debrunner &ya Alov is a variation of

drya Ael after the pattern of "verbs of sickness" such as opea^uiov, dywviav, SEIAIOv,
iAAtyytav etc. (Debrunner, Gr. Wortb., 92). Hence the basic meaning is "to be self-
satisfied in a pathological way, "to be gay to the point of madness." It is obviously a
popular word used in jest.
A good parallel is the use of prangen in the Austrian Alps to signify the arrangement
or a procession.
 dyaAi&oual
of God and the pride of the community or the pious individual constitute a
distinctive unity. As the ueyaruvenval of God attained by dy. ($ 34:27; 91:5 f.)
is also a HEyaAuveñval of the pious individual (y19:6); as God's buwfvat
(1 96:8 f., Is. 12:6) corresponds to the ow0ñval of the community ( 88:17),
SO dy, can be referred to God Himself (Is. 65:19; Tob. 13:13). Like SuwOnvat
and ueyaruvenvai, edopalvelai, Kauai and related r anon--
joined with dy. Especially striking is the linking up with it of #Eouo oysio0a
(for 17in) and E&- (dv-) ayyEnElV. The dy. declares the acts of God. Antonyms
are aloxuveñvai, taTElvoU OaL, klaulu6s, &xxpua, etc. The demonstrative
character of dy. finds particular expression in the fact that in poetic language
cosmic magnitudes like heaven and earth and mountains and islands are summoned
to participate in dy. (w 88:3; 95:11 f. etc.; also Test. L., 18, 5). Finally, dry. is
used as an eschatological term. It denotes the joy of the last time represented as
cultic festivity (Y 95:11 f.; 96:1, 8; 125:2, 5 f.; Is. 12:6; 25:9 etc.; also Test. L.,
18, 14; Jud. 25, 5; B. 10, 6). Thus even on the Rabbinic view perfect joy and
rejoicing characterise the future world. 3 If dy. is lacking in Jos., who has dya^-
AEoOaL = "to plume oneself" (Ant., 16, 64; 17, 112; 18, 66; 19, 191), and also in
Aristeas, it is found in Sir. (in the profane sense) and Test. XII (v. supra).

C drya^^idoua in the NT.

In the NT drya^^lao0al (and the act. in the same sense in Lk. 1:47 and Rev.
19:7 v.l.) and dya^Alaois are used in the same way as in the LXX. The term
signifies profane joy supremely in In. 5:35 hOEAnoaTE dya Alaiival tpos Sparv
Ev TO outi autol. God's help is always the theme of the &y. which is a jubilant
and thankful exultation. As related terms we find xalperv (Mt. 5:12; Lk.1:14;
Jn. 8:56; 1 Pt. 1:8; 4:13; Rev. 19:7), 8166vai &6Eav (Rev. 19:7), and ueya^OvElV
(Lk. 1:46 f.). It is indeed the eschatological act of divine salvation which is
supremely the theme of rejoicing, as is seen most clearly in the song of Revelation
19:7: yalpo ev kal dya^AIWuEV kal 8oo0uEV Thy 86Eav aUTS 8TI HAOEV 8
yauoc TOU xpviou. When the 86ga of Christ is manifested, we shall rejoice:
dya^iuevol (1 Pt. 4:13), and according to Jd. 24 we shall stand before the
86&x of God : &uouou Ev dya^Al0EI. But this &y. is anticipated in faith. That
there may be hesitation whether the dya^ la00E of 1 Pt. 1:6, 8 is meant to be
present or future is grounded in the character of faith ; both are possible. Mt. 5:12
is to be understood in the same way, and perhaps also In. 8:56 : ('ABp.) hyalAia-
oato, iva ton tv nuÉpav thy tunv (infra). Even when &y. is the individual
joy of Zacharias and Elisabeth at the birth of John (Lk. 1:14), it is still eschato-
logical joy; for John is the fore-runner, and therefore he rejoices (ÉoK[ptoeV
Ev dy.) in his mother's womb when he meets the mother of the Messiah (Lk. 1:44),
as does also Elisabeth that the divine work of salvation begins in her (Lk. 1:47).
The word thus characterises the consciousness of the community that it is the
community of the last time constituted by the saving act of God. If the word is
not found in Paul, this is because kauyaola (q.v.) is sometimes used instead
The thing itself is perhaps to be found in 1 C. 11:26, where KarayyÉAELV perhaps
corresponds to ay.
dya Alcouat - ayatad
In connexion with the eschatological sense dy. has a cultic. Nor does this mean
only that the time of salvation has the aspect of cultic festival. In the cultus
the community actually celebrates and acknowledges the divine act of salvation.
It celebrates its meals gv ay. (Ac. 2:46; cf. 16:34; on 1 C. 11:26 supra). It is said
in Ac. 2:26 (following 15:9) and Hb. 1:9 (following t 44:8) that the person of
Christ Himself is characterised by dy. Worthy of note is Lk. 10:21: gv auth Th
opa nya^Alagato to TVE LaTI tO dylo kal elitev, where dy. seems to have
the meaning of inspiration (cf. also Jn. 8:56 ?).

Analogies may perhaps be seen in Eur. Ba., 157, and Tro., 452, in which the feasts
of Phoibos or Dionysus might be regarded as ecstatic. Above all we may refer to
jSukka, 55 and other Rabbinic passages in which ecstatic joy at the feast of the
drawing of water within the Feast of Tabernacles is related to the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit (following Is. 12:3).

D. rya^Alaoual in the early Church.

'Ay. is often used by Ign. to characterise the eschatological community and its living
expression, as in Phld., passim ; Eph., 9, 2 ; Mg., 1, 1; but cf. also 1 Cl., 63, 2 ; Barn.,
1, 6, and esp. Herm., where dy., like tlapoms, belongs to the very essence of the
TVEDua of the pious man, m., V, 1, 2; 2, 3 ; S., IX, 24, 2. The cultic sense emerges in
M. Pol., 18, 3, the eschatological in M. Pol., 19, 2. The word bears a more general sense
in Cl. A. Paed., 1, 8, 70, 1: 06 yap to TOO NTOV KUPIOU ETIBAETEI, Elpñin kal
&ya^ laos, 0f 8t ateotpattal, Tapeloouaic yivetal tovnplas.
Bultmann

ryanaw, drya, OLEG

dyamt6s
A. Love in the OT.
1. Lexical analysis shows that the main word employed to express the concept of
love in the OT is the root a70 1 with its derivatives 27%, 07278, 7278 Like the English
word, this is used with reference to persons as well as things and actions, and there is

Str.-B., I, 643 ; II, 804 p, 805 ff.

AyaTaO KTA. OnA: J. Ziegler, Die L. Gottes bei den Propheten (1930); G. Winter,
ZAW, 9 (1889), 211 ff. On B : W. Lutgert, Die L. im NT. (1905); B. B. Warfield, "Love
in the NT," Princ. Th. Rev., 16 (1918), 153 ff.; P. Batiffol, Etudes d' histoire et de theologie
positive, I (1926), 283 ff.; H. Preisker, Die urchristliche Botschaft von d. Liebe Gottes
(1930); A. Nygren, Eros und Agape (1930); E. Stauffer, "Sittlichkeit des Urchristentums,"
RGG, V, 530 ff. Maximus Confessor, KegdAaia TEpI dryds., MSG, 90, 960 Ff.; S. Kier-
kegaard, Leben und Walten d. Liebe, tr. Dorner-Schrempf (1924); M. Scheler, Wesen und
Formen der Sympathie (1926); K. Koepp, Panagape, I/II (1927 ff.); H. Scholz, Eros und
Caritas (1929); L. Griinhut, Eros und Agape (1931).
The etymology is obscure cf. the list of various
op. cit., 13 f. attempts at elucidation in Ziegler,
 dyaraw

a most informative religious as well as a profane use. LXX mostly renders it &yatov, 2
and only seldom and in a secular context pAiv (10 times QuAla 5 times for 7270),
Épaolai (twice) or DIAL&gElv (once). The next term which calls for notice is the
common Semitic root ong which is used as a verb in the OT with one exception in
the piel. In most cases this restricts the concept of love to that of pity for the needy, 4
and it is often used, therefore, to denote the love of God. In almost every case God
alone is called bing ("merciful"). 5 In translation of bug the LXX uses dyatov only
times, in other cases using fAeEiv as the most common rendering (26 times) or
oIKTE[pEIv (10 times). To this circle also belong the roots ron' (in the LXX mostly
£OÉAELV, otherwise BoUAEGÉaI, Bou EUEO®&I, EUBOKEiV and dyatov) and 7397 (LXX
EoboKelv, mpoodeye lal, tapadexe lai, Enoyl, and aya) ee cause the
person or thing by which the emotion is evoked to be followed by - "to have pleasure
in." Mention may also be made of Stin 8 "to adhere to someone in love" (LXX, TE po-
a psiotai, tvoupsiolal, Elil(elv), and 2n which in the OT is found only in
Dt. 33:3, but which is common in Aramaic. Limited to the secular sphere is 219 which
denotes the sensually demanding 10 love of the female, being used of the male only in
Jer. 4:30. So, too, are the nouns 09719 and n77. 77 "beloved" is used only in the phrase
1171 77 "beloved of Yahweh." 11

From this analysis we learn that love in the OT is basically a spontaneous

feeling 12 which impels to self-giving 13 or, in relation to things, to the seizure of
the object which awakens the feeling, or to the performance of the action in which

2 This word, which is widely used in the LXX, is in the overwhelming majority of cases
a rendering of 37N and derivatives, being used only seldom for 009 (5 times), for PD
(twice), for 839 (once) or for other roots which sometimes stand in partial connexion
(e.g., n10 hi, Tha pi, 93t pilp), sometimes in no connexion at all (e.g., ~12 2 Bao 7:18,
Ch. 17:16, where a theological interpretation is given, Kon and Ty) with the thought ex-
pressed by the translation. The noun dyar occurs some 20 times along with dyamois
(some 10 times), and the two are often interchanged in MSS. Both are renderings of 97278
except in Hab. 3:4, where cya nois is a theological or erroneous equivalent for Tiran
"cover." A Hebrew equivalent is lacking in Wis. 3:9; 6:18; Sir, 48:11.
Ps. 18:2 qal of love for God.
4 The relation of the verb to the noun br? "mother-love" and the abstract plural D220)
"mercy" is obscure and debatable, cf. Ziegler, op. cit., 36 ff. It is certainly not possible to
draw from this any conclusions as regards the interpretation of individual passages.
5 Ps. 112:4 is an exception. Much favoured is the conjunction 713m) 47.
8 In the erotic sense Gn. 34:19; Dt. 21:14; Est. 2:14; for friendship S. 19:1 etc. For the
religious use, v. n. 55. In 1 S. 18:22 there is interchange with 27x.
7 In 729 there is strong emphasis on the element of recognition. 13) is less "loved" than
"liked" or 'favoured" (Dt. 33:24; Job 20:10; Est. 10:3); cf. hitp. "to gain for oneself favour"
(1 S. 29:4). Hence the aptness of the word for cultic usage, cf. n. 54.
8 In the erotic sense Gn. 34:8; Dt. 21:11. With the subject God only in Dt. 7:7; 10:15,
where it is near to h2 "to elect." Of the pious Ps. 91:14. Otherwise more weakly in the
sense of "desire" in 1 K. 9:1, 19; 2 Ch. 8:6. For pi and pu constructions, v. Ex. 27:17;
38:17, 28.
8 LXX ÉpEloato. oh "bosom" becomes inf. in metonym. use, cf. E. Konig, Worterbuch.
10 LXX ÉritiOeo0at, "to entice.'"
11 V. n. 52 and 53.
12 Cf. e.g.. Jer. 31:20 : ½p 107. Also Ex. 33:19: amx 0x ny pm) can be understood
in this most untheological way.
13 Cf. Lv. 19:18, 34 : 7122 ...n9787.
ayatod
pleasure is taken. Love is an inexplicable power of soul given in the inward
person : Tip (Dt. 6:5). One loves "with all one's heart and soul and strength"
(Dt. 6:5; 13:4) if one does justice to the feeling of love. Love and hate are the
poles of life (Qoh. 3:8; 9:6). To the natural basis residing in sexuality 14 it best
corresponds that the power of love is directed to persons, so that the numerous
statements about love for things or actions seem at once to belong to a weaker
or more metaphorical usage. 15 Indeed, it may be concluded that only where there
is reference to the love of persons for persons does the living basis emerge on
which the concept rests. This is present, of course, in the religious use. For the
authors of the OT the love of God is always a correlative of His personal nature,
just as love for Him is quite strictly love for His person, and only for His Word
or Law or temple etc. on this basis of love for His person. Nevertheless love is
such a powerful expression of personal life that even the metaphorical use of the
term in relation to things hardly ever loses its passionate note except perhaps in
the case of lesser objects. 16
In the OT the thought of love is both profane or immanent and religious or
theological. The former usage relates primarily to the mutual relation of the sexes,
then to parents and children, then to friends, to masters and servants and society
generally. It is natural that we should use this group to interpret the numerically
less frequent but for that very reason much more significant passages in which it
is used religiously. For it is easier to grasp the content of the thought in the im-
manent sphere, and to judge the scope and bearing of the religious statements
accordingly.

2. The Profane and Immanent Conception of love.

a. The most obvious passages calling for notice are those in which love un-
ambiguously signifies the vital impulse of the sexes towards one another. For here
we can see at a glance the impelling element behind it and its uniqueness, especially
its complete difference from law. Sexuality is often strongly emphasised, and most
strongly by Ezekiel, who uses x almost exclusively in the piel to denote sexual
desire. 17 Hosea and Jeremiah, too, often speak of love in this sense, 18 and when
the imperative 271 occurs in Hos. 3:1 it is simply denoting the sexual act even if
in an obviously euphemistic form. 19

14 For lack of any sure indication of its etymology, this may be concluded in the case of
J7N from its more extended use in the erotic sense.
15 Of the many instances, cf. Gn. 27:4 : Isaac loves a savoury dish ; Is. 56:10; Prov.
20:13 : there is love of sleep ; Prv. 21:17: of wine ; 18:21: of the tongue ; 15:12 : of correc-
tion ; 29:3 of wisdom ; Ps. 109:17: of cursing 11:5 : of violence ; Am. 4:5: of idolatry;
Hos. 9:1: of the reward of whoring etc. Even the love of good or evil may be mentioned in
this connexion (Am. 5:15; Ps. 52:3 etc.).
16 This certainly applies in the case of ran and aya for which numerous examples might
be cited.
1T Qal only Ez. 16:37, otherwise always pt piel : 16:33, 36, 37; 23:5, 9, 22. The use of
219 is also restricted to Ezekiel 23 (Ohola and Oholiba) except for Jer. 4:30.
18 Hos. 2:7; 3:1; 4:18; 9:10 etc. Jer. 22:20, 22; 30:14; gal 2:25. Cf. 72mx t'p? = "to follow
the impulsion" (Jer. 2:33).
10 Similarly in the same sentence y7 A274.
 dyata©

But even where there is no emphasising of its unrestricted nature, the love of
man and woman, 20 and particularly of husband and wife, 21 is generally recognised
quite simply as a given natural reality, and the fact that in Israel, too, it con-
tributed to the ennoblement of life may be seen from its elevation to the theme
of poetic glorification. 22 The most forceful expression of the passion of love,
almost hymnic in style, is to be found in the Song of Solomon 8:6 : 7278 m1e? T419
Love is the positive power which in the erotic sphere is confronted by negating
hatred as a primitive force of equally unknown origin. The story of Amnon and
Tamar presents the brutal nature of both impulses with undisguised clarity (2S.
13:1-22), and in the hysterical words of the bride of Samson: 930279 899 1082t P)
(Ju. 14:16; cf. 16:15; Gn. 29:31, 33), the same element finds haunting expression.
Finally, even the Law has had cause to concern itself with the erotic symptoms of
love and aversion (Dt. 21:15 ff.; 22:13 ff.; 24:1 ff.).
b. We seem to be dealing with something quite different when the same words
2770, AY7 or PEn are used to denote personal relationships which have no connexion
with sexuality. Parenthood, blood relationship, friendship and legal partnership are
the spheres in which the love which is free of the libido applies. Their connexion
with sexual love is admitted to be very difficult to explain psychologically, and
it may be that OT usage, like our own, relates under these modes of expression
things which intrinsically have nothing to do with one another, so that in the
analysis of such expressions we are rightly forced to speak metaphorically. That
is to say, using the same words for sexual love and for non-sexual social re-
lationships, we necessarily compare the latter with the love which bears an erotic
emphasis. Yet this is perhaps going too far when we remember that in Hebrew,
so far as we can see, there is absolutely no possibility of expressing, even though
it may be felt (2 S.1:26), the distinction between the two magnitudes of Epos
and dryon. This means that the element common to both must have controlled
the conceptions of the OT authors so strongly that they did not feel any need
for verbal variation. Hence we should find particularly instructive for a per-
ception of this normative element in the content of the word those passages which
indicate the spontaneous and irrational nature of love as a feeling which wells up
from personality. Jonathan loves David itps nanx, i.e., with the love which is
proper to his own soul and which flows out from it (1 S. 20:17). Saul loves David
n, i.e., after the manner of a force which asserts itself in him (1 S. 16:21). Or
Jonathan loves David iton? ("as his own soul,' 1 S. 18:1,3), i.e., his relation to
David was not merely close, but just as much impelled by and necessary to life
as his relationship to his own soul. He was identical with David in the same way
as a man is identical with his soul. If it would seem that there could be almost no
way of emulating this simple comparison as an expression of spiritual communion,
the poetic form of the same thought in David's lament for his friend is the more
impressive : $5 7n37x anx3p1 28 ("thy love to me was wonderful"). For here the

20 Cf. e.g., Gn. 29:18, 20, 30, 32; 34:3; Ju. 16:4 etc. The account of Solomon in 1 K. 11:1-3,
if it is not meant to be a mild caricature, reveals in the enumeration a shallow and juristically
coloured conception of love in the sense of legal sexual intercourse.
21 E.g., S. 1:5, 8.
22 The famous praise of the virtuous woman in Prv. 31:10 ff. has, of course, a quiet
undertone of irony, since the real answer to the question where a virtuous woman is to be
found is that strictly no such woman is to be found anywhere.
23 2 S. 1:26.
 dyatad

irrational element in the experience is more strongly emphasised, though there is

not strictly any religious connexion. 24
C. We cannot always gather from the language the same intensity of feeling,
nor perhaps is it always present, when the friend 25 or relative 26 is simply de-
scribed as 27R.21 But it constitutes the greatness of the OT ethos that it can always
orientate itself by the thought of love. Love is regarded as the inalienable con-
stituent of humanity, and for this reason it is declared to be the norm of social
intercourse and set under the impress and protection of the theonomic law. Ba-
sically, it is of little consequence that such regulations apply only to compatriots
and fellowcitizens. The legal character of the statements, their claim to validity
within a definite circle of jurisdiction, makes it necessary that there should be
specific reference to certain legally defined persons- a form which is necessarily
felt to be an alien restriction when the living basis of the term ax reminds us of
the inner paradox of attempting to apply a non-legal word in a legal direction. 28
Hence a statement like Lv. 19:18 : 7m2 122 037M), although couched in the legal
style of the usual demand, and containing the legally very closely circumscribed
term rn, is not really a legal statement, because the attitude denoted by the word
JAR is one of natural feeling which cannot be legally directed. If the statement
were really to have the force of law, then the word JAR would have to be taken
purely phenomenologically as an injunction to act as one usually does in love.
It is obvious, however, that even on this side it cannot be taken seriously as a
legal ordinance, and in the analogous command to hate 2 the observation 72232
reveals that what is envisaged is a disposition. Hence all claim to legal competence
must be renounced, and we are not to see in the legal form any more than an
oxymoron designed to make the reader sharply aware that the ultimate concern
of social legislation is to protect, foster and sometimes awaken the sense of
brotherliness. This should be the basis of the legal relations, and to fulfil the com-
mand of love can only consist in not hindering the feeling of love, the rise of
which is not connected with any act of will, but rather in accepting it in relation
to the yn as though dealing with oneself: zinz. 30 If the concern of the legislator
is to order social life, he knows that all his ordinances in this direction can only
be half measures if they are purely legal, and that the thought of power will
always have a disruptive effect on society. Hence, whether or not he perceives
its legal incongruity, he formulates the paradoxical command to love.

24 The author of Qoh. 9:1 prepares the way for such a connexion when, having pointed
to the hand of God which ordains the action of the righteous and the wise, he reverently
maintains that man's most elemental feelings of love and hate remain mysterious to himself.
25 E.g., "try 278 in Prv. 14:20 means hypocrisy. But sayings like 7o2n 019m9-52.5y m37x
in Prv. 10:12 or AND P27 27% 0. in Prv. 18:24 show how the Wisdom literature maintains
a high level in its handling of the concept.
26 Cf. conjunctions like "27) 727% in Ps. 38:11; 88:18.
27 Especially the assertion of gradations of love occasions a serious weakening of the
concept, cf. Gn. 37:4 (and its sexual counterpart in Gn. 29:30).
28 The use of 71.79 N to give force to the theonomy hardly alters the fact, since it
characterises the style of the so-called Holiness Code and does not usually influence the
substance of the statements.
20 Lv. 19:17; cf. also Zech. 8:17.
30 This motive is found in Sir. 34:15 (31:18) even in a simple rule of conduct fixing
good manners at table : voEL To tot tinolov ex JEAUTOU.
 ayatad

There is the obvious danger that in this way there might be established a much
weakened and therefore legally competent concept of love in the sense of fa-
vouring etc. 31 But if we tried to interpret it along these lines, we should have great
difficulty in proving it from analogous legal expressions. For Lv. 19:34, which
gives us in the same form a command to love in relation to resident aliens (T9),
is burdened with the same difficulties. 32 It seems rather that the conception of
Jesus, namely, that this is one of the two commands on which the whole Law
depends (Mt. 22:40), does more justice to the meaning of what is said. Jesus
isolates the command to love from the other legal materials, and protects it from
all attempts at juristic interpretation, which in any case can only be forced. For
a command to love arrayed in the garb of law reduces the law ad absurdum, since
it indicates the limit at which all divine or human legislation must halt, and demands
a moral direction of life transcending that of law.
This observation leads us to definite judgment concerning particularism,
which lies in a restriction to fellow-nationals rather than to fellow-residents. In his
apparently exclusive concern with the wholly concrete relations of law, the
legislator introduces into his definitions thought which presses rather beyond
the actual wording when he specifically envisages as neighbours not merely those
who are such by law but simply men who are worthy 'of an act of love. The
LXX translator is hardly guilty of a material error when he greatly weakens the
legal sound of 122 with his rendering o rAnolov oou. The real concern is in fact
with men who live in the most immediate vicinity.
On this basis the interpretation can move confidently to the conclusion that the
92 or 72 can from the human standpoint signify an enemy or hater and yet the
attitude to him must be determined by love. The remarkable mutual interrelation
of the two passages Dt. 22:1-4 and Ex. 23:4 f. seems at any rate to be concerned
with and to give grounds for some such consideration. The passage in Dt. imposes
an obligation of assistance in the case of a brother, i.e., a fellow-national, that
in the book of the covenant in the case of an enemy. Whether we understand
Ex. 23:4 f. as a development of Dt. 22:1-4, or the latter conversely as a weakening
of the former, there can be no doubt that a comparison of the passages indicates
the possibility of love of enemies as well being incorporated into the command
to love in Lv. 19:18. The 27 may be a friend or a foe, but he is to be the object
of the feeling of love and not of legal definition. This implies a primacy of the
man over the legal person. In this form the demands of Ex. 23:4 f., and perhaps
to an even higher degree' the basic statements in)Prv. 25:21: 12N 70200 22) DR
51 112W1 M2Y-DM bn2,38 are designed to serve the practical inculcation of love for
enemies, not being concerned directly with the disposition towards them, but
making obligatory a specific line of conduct. The example of Joseph in the Joseph

31 Mt. 5:43 refers to "popular maxim" (Str.-B. ad loc.): "Thou shalt love thy neighbour
and hate thine enemy." In this the unfortunate possibility is actually realised.
32 Similarly Dt. 10:19. 37x in imp. only in Prv. 4:6.
33 The following words in v.22: ivxitby anit hr 0*202, deal ironically with the natural
desire for revenge. Food and drink are the coals of fire which the wise and self-controlled
man will heap on the head of him that hates him in order to destroy him. Prv. 24:17 may
be cited in the same connexion: "Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine
heart be glad when he stumbleth," although v. 18 shows that this is perhaps more a rule
of prudence.
 ayattad

stories provides a practical illustration of the repayment of evil with good which
also calls attention to Joseph's obedience to God (Gn. 50:19).
It is also true, of course, that the OT indicates the limits of love towards
enemies, 34 most impressively in the anguished 109th Psalm. The petitioner re-
members his love, 35 but this can only serve to nourish his hate in dreadful illustra-
tion of the sentence in Sir. 37:2: 7½ 72.73 093) 977 n1979 9%2 7'7 *2. Even to the
poor it often happened as described in the cutting saying in Proverbs (14:20), 3é
and it seemed almost impossible to attain a personal and human relation to the
foreigner in view of the tribal organisation and cultic exclusivism. 37 Yet the
occasional visible clashes between theory and practice cannot destroy the great-
ness of the ethical demand, especially when it is recalled that it is proclaimed
with divine authority and that there is also a place in the OT for the living value
of love in religious experience as well.

3. The Religious Conception of Love.

a. From what we have seen already of the nearness to life of the concept of
love it is surely obvious that it must have high theological value once it comes
to be used in the language of religion. This is generally true even in the OT,
although it is applied here only in statements concerning the mutual relation
between God and man which are either very restrained or constricted by thelogical
speculation and therefore easily underestimated. This restraint has its basis in
the powerful predominance of the concept of the covenant, which asserts itself
so strongly in the theological thinking of the biblical writers that they can seldom
free themselves from the legal way of thinking which conditions this theory, and
represent in its religious significance and with its unique force the thought of
love as an expression of physical reality alien to the legal world. Nevertheless,
there can be no doubt that the thought of the covenant (- Bua0/kn) is itself an
expression in juridical terms of the experience of the love of God. Hence the
concept of love is the ultimate foundation of the whole covenant theory. 38 It is
a mark of Israelite religion that this connexion is for the most part only tacitly
recognised, as though there were a fear of finding so typical a creaturely emotion
and its resultant power in the nature of God, or of estimating too highly such an
experience in dealings with God. No less striking are the attempts to approximate
the thought of love to such concepts, imported into theology from law, as 751,
Dawn, 272, ho%, etc., which are preferred to describe ethical and religious conduct.
These do, in fact, bring about a levelling of the whole heritage of religious thought,
and effectively hinder the fruitfulness of the concept of love in the OT. Yet they

34 Cf. Joab's honest if rough remark to David in 2 S. 19:7.

35 In Ps. 109:4 f. v.4 b. is corrupt. 'But I pray for them is a rendering contrary to
the sense. At most it could only be retained in the preterite.
36 m x10? A7952 22.
37 Elisha's advice concerning the captured Aramaeans in 2 K. 6:22 might be regarded as
an upsurge of human feeling against the ban. That it is a Cushite, i.e., a ger of inferior
rights and estimation, who out of impulsive sympathy rescues Jeremiah (Jer. 38:7-13) when
the latter is abandoned by his own people is perhaps a kind of prior illustration of the
parable of the Good Samaritan.
38 The same is to be noted in respect of the related concept of election and also the
religious use of the legal term 70n (= xapic), which affords the widest possible scope
for the thought of love.
 cyanaw

do not block it so completely that it cannot emerge in its full greatness in oc.
casicnal statements.
These statements tell us on the one side that man loves God, and on the other
that God loves man. Rather strikingly, no logical relationship is established
between the two groups, and only the teacher of Deuteronomy attempts anything
along these lines, sometimes demanding Israel's love for Yahweh on the ground
of Yahweh's love for the fathers (Dt. 10:14-16), and sometimes promising Yah-
weh's love as a reward for covenant faithfulness (Dt. 7:14). It is not advisable,
however, to investigate a thought in the light of its hortatory evaluation. Hence
in what follows we shall take each group alone irrespective of any order of rank.
b. Love as a basic feeling of the pious in relation to the Godhead is accepted
in the OT without any attempt to define the content of this feeling by way of
instruction. If sometimes it is brought into connexion with fear, 39 this is obviously
an improper use for the sake of plerophory of expression. For love in the OT is
a contrary feeling to fear, 40 striving to overcome distance 41 and thus participating
as a basic motive in prayer. 42 To love God is to have pleasure in Him and to
strive impulsively after Him. 43 Those who love God are basically the pious
whose life of faith bears the stamp of originality and genuineness and who seek
God for His own sake. If, then, Abraham is called a 07779 271 on account of his
intimate intercourse with God, he is a model of piety. 44 As men of a distinctive
inner life, members of the community of Yahweh in general can then be called
m79 927ix 45 This designation embraces religion on its active side, although without
slipping over into the cultic and ethical. Quite evidently it is not in any sense a
mere theologoumenon, but its origin lies in simple experience. It attempts to
describe a vital religious process 46 of an active kind which leads beyond or even
apart from passive creaturely feeling to the distinctive joy of faith which the
pious man needs and to which he gives expression in every hymnic motif. 41 Love
finds salvation in the Godhead, and is the strongest basis of confidence. 48 The

89 In Dt. 10:12 0278 with 1277-522 no2 and 739 is one of the elements of 7872. The
terms are already wellworn and tend to intercross. Classical expression is given to the
conflict between love and fear in David's words in 1 S. 24:14.
40 Cf. in the NT 1 n. 4:18; 2 Tm. 1:7.
41 Cf. Dt. 11:22 etc.: iz-mp272.
42 Typical is FOOD in Ps. 18:1, also the absolute aN in Ps. 116:1, which it is better
not to replace by our own poetry, however fine (cf. Gunkel, ad loc.), in spite of the
difficulty of the text.
48 Cf. Jer. 2:2 : 7:019152 n27x Ps. 91:14 ptn.
44 Is. 41:8. The LXX takes this passively: 8v hyamoa. Cf. 2 Ch. 20:7: 727X nyom-
uÉvoc (but Im. 2:23 ploc); Jdt. 8:22 Vlg.: amicus.
45 278 even in heathen religion, Jer. 8:2.
48 Unfortunately there are objections against using for analysis the grandiose comparison
in Ju. 5:31: 1n 21s dnwn nxxp W2nx, since it is an antithesis to the destruction of the foes
of Yahweh. But the image of an irresistible process of nature is perhaps broken by the poet
by the use of the slogan 19278
17 We are concerned with one form of the experience of the so-called fascinosum, cf.
R. Otto, Das Heilige, c. 6.
48 Ps. 40:16; 70:4. Whether the frequent recollection in Psalms of complaint that the
fathers had already experienced this salvation (Ps. 40:5) awakens this confidence or
simply supports the emergent feeling cannot be decided, since in the life of prayer both
possibilities alternate with the moods.
dyatao
wealth of hymnic motifs which we find in the OT allows us to deduce the high
significance and rich cultivation of this form of piety in the religion of Yahweh,
which we might otherwise fail to appreciate in view of the fact that when the
formal concept of love occurs, especially outside the prophetic books, it is almost
always turned to exhortatory or confessional use and thus seems to be more of
a rational product than is really the case. Thus we find such favourite combinations
as to love Yahweh and keep His commandments, 49 or to love Him and serve
Him (Dt. 10:12; 11:13; Is. 56:6), or to love Him and walk in His ways (Dt. 10:12;
11:22; 19:9; 30:16; Jos. 22:5; 23:11). These powerfully link love with cultic and
ethical conduct and thus militate to some degree against a deeper understanding. 60
As against this, Dt. 30:6 impressively teaches us to understand love for God as a
deeply inward and finally God-given experience. Yahweh circumcises the heart
of Israel so that Israel loves Him with all its heart and soul. The prophetic
picture (Jer. 4:4), which is in every respect a polemic against the secularisation
of the concept of the covenant, serves, with a characteristic modification in sense
of Jer. 31:33 (and also of Ez. 11:19), to indicate the irrational origin of the most
powerful vital forces of the community.
But often the usage, as our examples have shown, is utterly alien to this thought.
When the love of God is considered, the tendency in most authors is for the act,
i.e., the ethical expression, to be ranked above the feeling, so that the impression
is left that man himself decides whether or not to love. This impression is most
strongly left by the command which Jesus calls the greatest in the Law : nxnanx)
77kp-5321 7002-332 72a3-52a ahibx mm. (Dt. 6:5). The paradoxical element is the
same as in the commands of Lv. 19:18, 34, and what we said in relation to these
applies here too. There is ordered as a law 51 that which cannot be the subject of
legal enactment. This cannot, of course, be understood by those who lack the
spiritual power to which the command refers. The command presupposes and
demands this in order to be raised. All the emphasis is placed on the threefold 5
(totality), and we may rightly paraphrase as follows: Thou shalt recognise the
totality of the power indwelling thee, producing from the emotion of love a
disposition which determines the total direction of thy life, and placing thy whole
personality, 335 and tpt in the service of the relationship to Yahweh. It is true
that this relationship already exists as a wholly personal (7bx) one. Man loves
his God. But the concern of the law-giver is to make clear that there is contained
therein a demand and a duty. As an instructor and leader he realises that whatever
does not issue in action is worthless. He thus seeks by paradoxical formulation
to make the most positive power in religio fruitful for covenant faithfulness.
Yahweh Himself will test the seriousness of love (Dt. 13:3). In such thoughts the
Deuteronomist is at one with Jeremiah, who bases the new fellowship between
God and the people, the covenant of the coming age, on the law inscribed upon
the heart and therefore on a law which is no true law any more (Jer. 31:33). He
means nothing other than the free impulsion of love for God.

49 E.g., Ex. 20:6; Dt. 5:10; 7:9; 11:1; 1 K.3:3; Da. 9:4; Neh. 1:5.
60 In such cases one is tempted to take the conjoining waw as an explicative : To love
Him is to keep His commandments etc. May it be that this is the true meaning
51 Dt. 30:16 emphasises 71XD '91%. The thought is easier as poetically expressed in
Ps. 31:23.
 dyat ad

C. The message of the love of God takes on a national and an individual form
in the OT. If chronological priority must be ascribed to the former, the nature of
love finds purer and more instructive expression in the latter. It is striking how
seldom the OT says that God loves a specific person. Only on two occasions do
we meet with the expression m7 7'72, loved of Yahweh, 52 while turns of phrase
with a71 are to be found only three times, and they are there used in relation to
the rulers Solomon (2 S. 12:24; Neh. 13:26) and Cyrus (Is. 48:14?), so that they
may well be linked with the theory of the divine sonship of kings which came to
be accepted in Israel but which had an indisputable origin in pagan mythology in
spite of the purification of its form. 53 For this reason these passages can hardly
be explained from within the circle of ideas proper to the religion of Yahweh.
Elsewhere x is completely avoided in statements concerning God's love. Instead,
77 is used, which as a sacrifical expression does not indicate anything like the
same immediacy of feeling, 64 or ron, which does at least carry within it the
element of recognition. 65 It may thus be concluded that basically the love of
Yahweh is not usually related to individuals. For even those who pray prefer the
thoughts of Yahweh's majesty, power or kindness to that of His love when they
seek favour in respect of their personal affairs, or else in addresses like "25p 56 they
conceal as it were in the suffix "my" their desire for the loving remembrance of
their God.
To this there corresponds the fact that for the most part only collective objects
of the love of God are mentioned. On the borderline there stand the designations
in the singular of certain types of persons such as fellow-citizens, the pure in
heart, those who seek after righteousness etc., 5T whom God loves or directs as
does a father his son (Prv. 3:12). Behind such instructive statements there may
perhaps stand certain experiences of faith such as emerge in the motifs of con-
fidence in the Psalms, but their true religious content is hard to fix, since in them
love approximates so closely to recognition or even to patronage in the case of
the people of the land. 58 Again the pedagogic debasement of the father-son re-
lationship in its more pedantic application 59 militates against a deeper conception

52 Ps. 127:2 of a private individual, Dt. 33:12 as an attribute of the tribe of Benjamin
(plur. Ps. 60:5).
53 Cf. 2 S. 7:14; Ps. 89:27 f.; 2:7 (v. Gunkel, ad loc.). Perhaps even the name Solomon
7?77? (2 S. 12:25) is meant to stress his ordination to succeed to the throne.
64 Cf., e.g., Lev. 7:18; Am. 5:22; Jer. 14:12; Ez. 43:27. Similarly the courtly formula
7179 747: in 2 S. 24:23 desires a successful offering. In Job 33:26 7 7 is hearing of prayer.
In Prv. 16:7 the pious life is a merit which Yahweh recogniscs.
65 In Ps. 18:19 $2 rap, as we learn from the following verse in which the petitioner
alleges his righteousness, is meant in the sense of ren? 1907 in Ps. 37:23. Cf. also Ps. 41:11
with v. 12. The courtly formula of the queen of Sheba : 72 ron 7090: 7992 9177 972, in 1 K.
10:9 and 2 Ch. 9:8 is to be adjudged like the passages adduced above on p. 29. Cf. also
2 Ch. 2:10 (Hiram of Tyre to Solomon).
56 Ps. 5:2; cf. Hos. 2:23.
57 Dt. 10:18; Prv. 22:11 LXX 15:9. Yet Wis. 7:28 000EV yap cyana o OEOC El un
rov copia auvolkoovra, plainly indicates the trend towards exclusivism which charac-
terises many such sayings.
58 Ps. 68:6 may be quoted here. Yahweh is a Father to orphans and a Judge to widows,
Ps. 103:13.
59 Cf. the same teaching in the mouth of Eliphaz, Job 5:17.
dryattad

of love in such a connexion. The thought of fatherhood does not penetrate to

the private piety of ancient Israel. 60
d. What the OT has to say about the love of God moves for the most part
in national trains of thought, where it finds its natural soil. Love as a basic motif
in Yahweh's dealings with His people seems first to have been experienced and
depicted by Hosea, so far as we can see. To be sure, the thought of the Father-
God is also found in Isaiah (1:4;. 30:1,9), but for him the emphasis falls rather
on the element of authority than on the inner feeling of attraction, as may be seen
in the bitter words of Yahweh concerning the ingratitude of His sons. 01 As against
this, Hosea clearly perceives at the depths of the thought of the election and the
covenant the spontaneous love of the acting God. Seeing that the forms and
guarantees of law are inadequate to express the way in which Yahweh is bound
to His people, he depicts this God as a man who against custom, legal sense and
reason woos a worthless woman (Hos. 3:1). Hosea has to love the adulteress as
Yahweh loves the children of Israel. This means that the whole of official religion
has long since disintegrated, and that only an unfathomable power of divine love,
apparently grotesque to sound common-sense, still sustains the existence of His
people. Even the experience with Gomer, if we do not include chapter 3 in this,
expresses something of the same. The prophet is to take a harlot to wife, for only
a marriage which is nonsensical in the eyes of men and dishonouring to the
husband can really give a faithful picture of the relationship of Yahweh to the
land of Israel (Hos. 1:2) . The threatening character of the names of the children,
Not-beloved and Not-my-people, gives us an insight that the attitude of the
husband is, of course, far from passive or supine, that the adulterous wife is
lightly playing with fire, that she is unsuspectingly (2:8 : "she did not know")
moving towards the fate of one who is accused by her own children (2:2). She
becomes an object of pity. The One who stands over the whole miserable situation
knows her wretched plight better than she does herself, and takes her under His
legal protection (2:19 : w) for ever (m1pm3?). Then she will "know" Him in
the full sense (2:20). This is how Hosea seeks to understand the rule of God. He
pulls down the structure of the covenant theory in order to lay bare its foundation
in the love of God and then to build it again with pry, bathn, 10n and 71178. But the
foundation stone is b'20 or mercy. 62
With the same tenderness and depth Hosea introduces the thought of God's
love in other motifs which cause us to think of fatherly love, although the actual
terms father and son are perhaps deliberately avoided and we are simply given a
picture of the fatherly instructor who is disappointed but who for this very reason

00 If in Jer. 2:27 we have a caricature of the Canaanite form of address in prayer (P7*),
it may be suspected that under prophetic influence private piety came to repudiate
consciously the idea of God as Father on the ground that this necessarily implies naturalistic
conceptions when related to the individual relationship of prayer. Cf. J. Begrich, ZAW,
NF 5, (1928), 256.
61 Of a different category are passages like Ex. 4:22 : "Israel is my firstborn," or Dt.
14:1: "Ye are the children of the Lord your God," since these statements set aside the
emotional content of the words and establish the claims of Yahweh on the basis of family
rights.
62 It must always be an open question how far a peculiar emotional sensibility may have
predisposed Hosea for the task of symbolising dyann by Epoc. Cf. A. Allwohn, Die Ehe
des Propheten Hosea in psychoanalytischer Beleuchtung (1926), 5t ff.
 dyatad

loves the more passionately. 68 Israel has had a time of childhood and has thus
won the love of Yahweh (11:1). Ephraim has learned to put its arm in His (11:3),
and thus to be drawn by cords of love, $4 with no calling nor direction. Hence
when he stands before a destruction brought upon himself, and it seems to be for
Yahweh almost a duty to fulfil His righteous wrath, the love of God breaks
through in terms of lament : "How shall give thee up, Ephraim? how shall
deliver thee, Israel ? ... mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled
within me. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not turn to
destroy Ephraim : for am God and not man ; the Holy One in the midst of thee"
(11:8-9). In this basic statement we may justly see the final fulfilment of the OT
thought of love. A precedence of divine love over human is affirmed. It is to be
found only in the fact that divine love does not let itself be affected by emotions
or doubts which threaten it. It works irresistibly as an original force in the nature
of God. When He acts in love, God demonstrates no less than His proper
character as the holy God. Hence He suffers under the lovelessness of His people,
whose covenant faithfulness is only like the morning dew which quickly dispels
(6:4). In face of its sin He is overcome by a kind of helplessness 'O Ephraim,
what shall I do unto thee ? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee?"
This motif of the suffering love of God gives a peculiar note to all the threats in
Hosea. It helps us to understand the degree of comfortlessness in such sayings
as 9:15 : anax noix *7 "I will love them no more." 65 They have for him the
significance of God's ceasing to be God, and therefore of absolute chaos. If the
concluding chapter withdraws all these threats with the saying : 7273 0278 (14:4),
there can be no doubt that this is spoken in the sense of the basic tendency of
his message, whatever may be the relation of this chapter to the rest of the
prophecy.
In a rather different and, as it seems to be, somewhat weakened form, the motif
of the suffering love of God is also used in Jeremiah (12:7-9). Yahweh hates His
heritage because it roars against Him like a lion. Nevertheless He calls it wwpz 0977}
and the whole poem is a lament. Yahweh Himself cannot say why Ephraim is to
Him such a dear son that He is inwardly moved when He thinks of him and has
to have mercy on him. 66 He loves His wife Israel with an eternal love, and this
love is the basis of His faithfulness (31:3). In other places, too, Jeremiah adopts
the motif of Hosea whether consciously or unconsciously we need not decide.
He thinks of a youth of Jerusalem-Judah celebrated with Yahweh in love like a
honeymoon, and in this connexion he describes the Word of Yahweh as the
fountain of living water (2:2 ff., 13). He shows how Yahweh waited in vain to
hear from His beloved the tender word "my father" (3:19), and how He must
feel it that she speaks to Him only hypocritically (3:4), and yet how He does not
cease to call her to repentance (4:1).

63 In fixing the meaning of the image less depends on the uncertain word "33 (11:1) than
on the expression 392320 (11:3): "to teach little child to go. This does not fit in too
well with 732 etc.
04 11:4. Textual corruption makes it difficult to interpret the picture with any certainty.
Perhaps the mention of 5y "yoke" suggests that it is based upon the "span." But this is
not very satisfying.
65 Cf. 1:6 : 020) x2 and 13:14 : "yp 70o! omi.
66 Jer. 31:20 ; cf. also 31:9.
dryanads

Deutero-Isaiah, too, takes up the theme of the beloved of youth adopted again
by God with eternal mercy (Is. 54:5-8), but he distinctively rejects the motif of
the harlot. Instead, the wife of Yahweh has been left by her Husband for a
097 022X22 720g, a moment. It is not she who has left Him; He has left her in
wrath, as is now sadly interjected, though without specifying the reason for this
wrath. The conception of Zion as the wife of Yahweh is perhaps also in the
background when Deutero-Isaiah gives his emotionally most effective description
of God's love in comparing it to, and even rating it above, motherly love. It may
be, says Yahweh to Zion, that mothers sometimes forget their children, "yet will
not forget thee." 67 The theme of the father and son is also introduced as a
variation when Yahweh addresses Israel in the masculine and declares to him his
redemption: "I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee, since
thou wast precious in my sight, and art worthy, and I love thee" (Is. 43:3 f.).
IF in spite of varying estimates of their originality the prophetic passages all
prove to be elemental expressions of piety untrammeled by theorising, ®8 the
sayings in Deuteronomy concerning the love of God display a different character.
They attempt to make the lofty thought fruitful by pedagogic presentation, though
this necessarily entails a certain weakening, since the fulness of experience out of
which the prophets speak is obscured by the style of Torah. The experience is
transformed into dogma. As we have seen already, the thought of love in Dt.
serves predominantly to undergird the thought of election and the covenant. The
irrational singularity of love is presented, therefore, in a way which is strictly
formal and ineffective. Thus we are told that Yahweh has chosen Israel of all
the nations on earth as His peculiar people. It was not because Israel was more
numerous than others, on the contrary, it is the smallest of all peoples - but
because He loved Israel that He bound Himself (pun) to it (Dt. 7:6 ff.). In the
same breath, however, We go on to read of the oath which Yahweh swore to the
fathers, so that the impression is only too easily given that the legal guarantee
given in the oath is the truly valuable and estimable feature, and the expression
can thus become and be used as an exhortation to perceive from all this that
Yahweh, the true God, is also the faithful God, who binds Himself by covenant
to all those who for their part love Him and keep His commandments. Indeed,
Dt. 7:13 links the love of God with blessing as a reward which Yahweh will give
for covenant faithfulness. Hence the thought of love unintentionally acquires a
note of Do ut des which it does not have in the prophets. It is integrated into the
way of life of the pious man, and thus robbed of its best part, of its freedom. The
integration is more happily made in Dt. 10:14 ff., because there the thought of the
oath is dropped and it is simply stated that Yahweh had a delight in the fathers
to love them, and that He elected their seed after them. 89 If the circumcision of
the foreskin of the heart is demanded, this seems to be more in keeping with the
message of the love of God, since it does not enter the sphere of law. The thought
of the father best corresponds to the educative purpose of Dt. "Consider also in

67 Is. 49:15. The same motif recurs in 66:13 : "As one whom his mother comforteth, so
will I comfort you. Dt. 32:18 "the God who hath borne thee, seems to belong to a
different tradition.
68 Zeph. 3:17 is highly corrupt and therefore not very clear. Ezekiel inclines to a cultic
mediation of the good-pleasure of Yahweh, cf. 20:40 f.; 43:27. Cf. also Ps. 147:11; 149:4.
69 Similarly the note in Dt. 23:5.
 cyanog

thine heart," we read in Dt. 8:5, "that, as a man brings up (70° pi) his son, SO
Yahweh will bring up thee." But obviously even in this form the thought is rather
different from what we find in Hosea. 70
The clear development of the concept of love into a dogma in Dt. has some
most important consequences. This fact is bound up specifically with the close
interrelating to the dogma of election, so that it is involved in the process of
hardening which the latter doctrine undergoes. We can see this by way of example
in the use made of the thought in Malachi. At the beginning, we have a statement
which startles us by its very simplicity: "I love you, saith Yahweh" (1:2). This
message, however, is not understood with the depth and consequent breadth to be
found in the word 370, but it provides the occasion for a remarkable discussion
of the question how this love works itself out and what is its basis. 71 This can
hardly be meant as a question of truth, but only as a question of law. Enquiry
is made into the circumstances which have the fact whank as consequence or pre-
supposition. Thus the tenderness of the thought is violated and its force shattered.
As the continuation shows, the good news is unfortunately estimated according
to its legal implications. These are shown to consist in the privileged status of
Jacob as compared with Esau. The misfortune of Esau-Edom discloses that he is
hated by Yahweh, whereas Jacob should learn to regard the fact that he is spared
the same fate as a proof of the "love" of Yahweh. If the use of the usual marital
terms m7x and mxww may have had some influence in producing this antithesis, 72
there is still every reason to deplore the distortion of the thought of love in the
argumentation : Yahweh loves because He hates. Even the thought of the father
is mutilated in this book. It is expounded as a legal claim against the priests:
"If then be a father," says Yahweh to them, "where is mine honour?" (Mal.
1:6) . Or it is almost completely reduced to a relationship of service such as ob-
tains between a father and the son who works in his business (Mal. 3:17).
e. Yet the prophetic concept of the love of God is powerful enough of itself
to be able to paralyse such distortions. To the same degree as the prophetic
thought of God, it ultimately bears within itself the tendency to universality.
Naturally, we do not find in the OT any direct expressions of a love of God
which reaches beyond Israel. To interpret it in this way we should have to try
to see it against Messianic contexts in which it may perhaps be presumed. 73 Yet
this would mean wresting our exposition, since even where Messianic conceptions
escape from particularism and lead to the idea of humanity they are too pale and
general to find a place for such a vital motif.

The short statement in Dt. 33:3 : D1y ooh gx can in itself, according to Mas. and
most versions, be interpreted in an absolutely universalist sense. But the context shows
that it is not intended in this way, and that there is thus some corruption in it. In any
case it is questionable whether awey can mean "nations." Again, the international
question of Malachi 2:10 : "Have we not all one father ?", does not refer to the love of

TO It is to be found also in Dt. 32:6, but only with the emphasis on God's creation.
71 M1027N 1702 can mean: "On what basis dost thou love us?" or : 'How dost thou show
thy love to us ?" The following verses show that the second meaning is correct.
72 Cf. Dt. 21:15 ff.
73 Possibly Is. 42:6 is the least open to objection. by*n'2) means "covenant of humanity,"
as may be seen from the use of by humanity in v. 5. 79"*2% in Is. 9:5 is rather too obscure.
 God but to His creative work, as is shown by the second question : "Hath not one
God created us ?" The story of the tower of Babel in Gn. 11:1-9 indicates actual op-
position to the idea of humanity.
Quell

B. The Words for Love in Pre-biblical Greek.

Basically, there are three expressions for love in pre-biblical Greek: #pav,
OLAEiV, and cyanav. 1. €pov is passionate love which desires the other for itself.
In every age the Greeks sung glowing hymns to sensually joyous and daemonic
pos, the god who is compelled by none but compels all. This god played a great
role in the cult, became in philosophy from the time of Plato the epitome of the
uttermost fulfilment and elevation of life, and was completely sublimated and
spiritualised in the mysticism of Plotinus to signify desire for union with the Ev.
What the Greek seeks in eros is intoxication, and this is to him religion. To
be sure, reflection is the finest of the gifts which the heavenly powers have set
in the heart of man (Soph. Ant., 683 ff.); it is the fulfilment of humanity in meas-
ure. More glorious, however, is the eros which puts an end to all reflection, which
sets all the senses in a frenzy, which bursts the measure and form of all humanistic
humanity and lifts man above himself. The great tragic dramatists estimate it with
no less horror than enthusiasm: Époc &vikate poryav... 6 8' Exov pELNveV.
Zo kal bikaliv aolkouc opevas Tapaatac Eri loBa (op. cit., 781 ff.). It is
a god, and he is powerful even above the gods : tupayor DedVv TE KOVIpOTov
(Eur. Fr., 132, Nauck). All the forces of heaven and earth are forces of second
rank compared with the one and only supreme power of eros. No choice is left,
nor will, nor freedom, to the man who is seized by its tyrannical omnipotence,
and he finds supreme bliss in being mastered by it.
Where the daemonism of sensual intoxication is celebrated with religious en-
thusiasm, there conversely religion itself seeks the supreme point of experience
in this ecstasy. Creative eros stands at the heart of the fertility rites, and prostitu-
tion flourishes in the temples of the great goddesses, often under oriental influence.
The sexual unions of gods and men narrated in mythology find current actualisa-
tion in the cultus. In the lspoc yauos (-) yauoc) the devotees experience physical
union with the world of the gods. Religion and ecstasy come together in
religiously transmuted eroticism.
But the intoxication sought by the Greek in eros is not necessarily sensual.
Already in the Greek mysteries, as sO often in mysticism, erotic concepts are
spiritualised in many ways as images and symbols for the encounter with the
suprasensual. Plato works in this direction, devoting a whole dialogue to eros.
For him, too, eros is an ecstasy which transports man beyond rationality (cf.
Phaedr., 237 ff. 242 ff.), which has its source in an elemental need, and which
finally issues in creative inspiration (Symp., 200, 206). But corporal beauty, which
enkindles eros, is only a signpost to the auto TO OEiov kalov which is intended
and sought in all loving, to eternal being and the true good (Symp., 210 f.). Plato
decisively lifts eros above everything sensual. Similarly, Aristotle frees it from
the merely experiential and understands it as a cosmic function. It is the power

74 O. Kern, Religion der Griechen, I (1926)., 53 ff.; Griech. Mysterien der klassischen
Zeit (1927), 71 ff.; A. Dieterich, Mithrasliturgie3 (1923), 121 ff., 244.
 dyataw

of attraction in virtue of which the original principle maintains all being in order
and movement : KIVE &E OC Épouevov. This loving which inwardly holds the
world together has nothing more to do with intoxication. It is an act which is
strictly volitional in character. The Tptov KIVouv is not EntiBuun tov but BouAn-
tov ipiirov, just because to 8v kalov (Metaph., XII, 7, p. 1072a, 27 £.).
In later Platonism, too, there is a tendency to purge eros of its original daemonic
characteristics, and to subject it to the ideal of humanity. In typical fashion, the
tractate tic n Ewkparous EpotiKn by Maximus of Tyre, who is more Platonic
than Plato himself (Symp., 181 f., 208/9), contrasts the desire of the senses and
the desire for beauty: Éxeivor 'EXnuK6c, BapBapiKoc outoc. 6 HEV &Kov
VOgEi, 6 8É Exov ep& (Max. Tyr., XIX, 4, Hobein); and more fully: Epoc...
forlv xpjua. . . É EU0EpOv (XX. 2). The mystical understanding of eros recurs
in Plotinus (Enn., III, 5 Tt. Epotos, Volkmann), in whom it finds its fullest ex-
pression. For him the true eros, the meaning of all love, is the impulsion of the
soul beyond the world of sense and reason to the iTepBaNov and inepoyov
(cf. V,5,8), beyond all limitations to the point of coincidence : Épaouiov kal
Epoc 6 autoc kal autoi Époc (VI, 8,15). The eros which celebrated its orgies
in the social life of the time, which was on the look-out for piquant adventures in
the myths of the gods, and which led to adventures in the temples, was developed
humanistically by Maximus and sublimated mystically by Plotinus. Nevertheless it
is the same eros, the natural impulse to the transcending of one's own life. Hence
the original form of erotic religion is sensual intoxication and the supreme form
ecstasy.
2. pileivloiala, on the contrary, signifies for the most part the inclination or
solicitous love of gods for men, or friends for friends. It means the love which
embraces everything that bears a human countenance; the love of Antigone's ovu-
oilEiv gouv. 75 Here we see most clearly the nobility of love. It is not an impulse
or intoxication which overcomes man, but an order or task which he may evade
(- oLAEiv).
3. In the word dyanav the Greek finds nothing of the power or magic of
Epav and little of the warmth of pileiv. Its etymology is uncertain, and its
meaning weak and variable. Often it means no more than "to be satisfied with
something: 76 often it means "to receive" or "to greet" or "to honour," i.e., in
terms of external attitude. It relates more to the inward attitude in its meaning
of seeking after something, or "desiring someone or something." 1t The verb is
often used to denote regard or friendship between equals, or sometimes sym-
pathy. T8 Particularly characteristic are the instances in which cyanov takes on
the meaning of to prefer, 'to set one good or aim above another," "to esteem
one person more highly than another." Thus dyanav may be used of the pre-
ference of God for a particular man. 79 The nyamuevos ono tou 0eou has a

75 Soph. Ant., 523. Here QAla is used, in 683 ff. eros, and both in the name of an
dAnDEla which gains the victory over impulse and reason.
76 Suid., s.v. dyatav : apreiolal tIv kal undev TAÉOV Ergnteiv.
77 Themistios, fepl pilavipomlas, 9a (Dindorf), oliol yap a Anlov of tx aird
dyatovtes.
78 Hierocles, Carm. Aur., p. 56 (Mullach).
TO Cf. also Dio Chrys. Or., 33:21: (Zeus) TOv Ond rov filiov TAEGY ÉKelvny ton
ualiora dyamnoal.
cyanad

position of preference before God. He is blessed by God with particular gifts and
possessions. 80
The specific nature of dryanav becomes apparent at this point. "Epoc is a
general love of the world seeking satisfaction wherever it can. *Ayatov is a love
which makes distinctions, choosing and keeping to its object. "Epoc is determined
by a more or less indefinite impulsion towards its object. 'Ayanav is a free and
decisive act determined by its subject. *Epav in its highest sense is used of the
upward impulsion of man, of his love for the divine. 81 'Ayanav relates for the
most part to the love of God, to the love of the higher lifting up the lower,
elevating the lower above others. 82 Eros seeks in others the fulfilment of its own
life's hunger. 'Ayanav must often be translated "to show love" ; it is a giving,
active love on the other's behalf.
The use of dyaunt6s, too, moves for the most part in the same sphere and
enables us to trace the nuances of meaning of the verb. 'Ayanntos can be applied
to a thing which is right or a person who is dear. It is used above all of an only
and precious child.
Yet the meaning of ayatav etc, is still imprecise, and its individuation still
tentative, as may be seen when it is conjoined or interchanged with Épov or piAEiv.
For in these cases ayanav is often a mere synonym which is set alongside the
other two for the sake of emphasis or stylistic variation. 83 To be sure, in Plotinus
dyatav seems to be consciously used for condescending and Épov for upsoaring
love. 84 But whereas eros consistently engages the thinking of poets and philoso-
phers from Homer to Plotinus, &yanav hardly ever emerges as a subject of radical
deliberation. It is indeed striking that the substantive ayatn is almost completely
lacking in pre-biblical Greek.

The examples of dyorn thus far adduced are few in number, and in many cases
doubtful or hard to date. The reference in older indexes to Plut. Quaest. Conv. VII, 6, 2
(II, 709e): pulas kai dyains, cannot be sustained, Wyttenbach already having found
the correct solution to ANANHEQN: ToUTo giAlac TOINObuEVOC apxnv kai dya-
Thowv (instead of dyanns ov) to pabloc. coLKÉ OaL (finally adopted in Plut.
ed. Dubner, p. 865). The scholion on Thucydides, II, 51,5 (Hude, p. 142): xpers:
ouavipannlas, dyamns, is obviously late. Late and uncertain, too, is the appearance
of drydri on a heathen inscription from Pisidia : TÉVUEL &' Elc dya[™]v DE piou-
MELONS 'Aopodeltn. 85 Pre-Christian, but by no means certain, is Philodem. TEpi

80 U. Wilcken, Chrestom, I, 109 (Ptolemaios, IV): alwvoBloc hyamuÉvos onto the

"1ol8oc; Or. 90:4 (The Rosetta dedication, Ptol., V): hyamuÉvos onto toO 00& together
with al@vobioc (cf. 90:8 f., 37:49). Constant. Porphyrog., De ceremoniis, I, 97 cd, Reiske,
p. 443 (greeting of the president of the senate at the Byzantine court): kaldc fA0EC, 6
TELOTOC 800 oc kai olios tou Baaitoc avaoavelc... hyannuÉvE to Baoei...
AyaTuEVE TO Kaloapt.
Dio Chrys. Or., 12:60 : loyupoc Epoc... EyyB0ev t&v To Oeiov. Cf. 12:61: av-
Epcol dyaTOVtEs Sikalos.
Plotin. Enn., V, 1:6: TOOEi 8t Tov to yEWñoav [to yEyEWnuÉVov] kat Touto
dryang, kai u&Alota 8tav Baw u6vol TO yEWñOaV kai TO yEyEWnuÉvoV.
Xenoph. Mem., II, 7:12: oc Knoeu6va epliouv, ic dpealuouc hyatta. Corp. Herm.
I, 19 : 6 dyathoas Ek mAavns Epwtoc oQua. Dio Chrys. Or., 13:32: Oavua(elv kal
dyattav to Salubviov.
84 Cf. VI, 7:31 passim, but also VI, 5:10 : o "Epoc dyanov del oftoc oc Sovatal
HETXOYElV to yap Bov fy to epouevov.
85 Papers of the Americ. School, 2,57; W. H. Hatch in JBL, ZI, 2 (1908), 134 ff. reads
drydinv; others read ayal6v; v, Deissmann, LO. 17 n. 3.
 dyatad

stappnoias, 13, 3 : 8t aly]ans. 86 Most important 87 is the recent discovery of a

papyrus from the early 2nd century A.D. containing an ancient Isis litany. It lists the
cultic names with which Isis is invoked at different points: 1. 27 f. : Elv Gov cya-
T [nv . . . Go, 1. 109 f. zv 'Italla &[ya]7nv 0Eov (so P. Oxy., XI (1915), 1380. In
the second passage, of course, revised collation gives us the reading &[ya]0nv, 800 ov
(A[. ..JTHN Ae-OAON), 88 cf. cya0nv, 1.95. But there can be little doubt that
dyain v is used as a cultic name for Isis in 1. 28, cf. 1. 94, oilav. 89 On the other hand,
dryarnou6c and dya nois are more numerous, obviously older and at any rate more
certain than dyann. These both mean love or the demonstration of love. 90

C. Love in Judaism.
1. The picture changes completely when we turn to the OT (- A.). 37N, the
main word for love in the Hebrew text, applies to the passionate love between
man and woman (Cant. 8:6 f.), to the selfless loyalty of friendship (1 S.20), and
to resolute adherence to righteousness (Ps. 45:8). The Hebrew word thus covers
all the wealth of the three Greek terms. But there is lacking one feature, i.e.,
religious eroticism, and this lack distinguishes OT religion no less sharply from
the fertility cults of surrounding nations than from the Greek world. The love
of God for Israel (Dt. 7:13) is not impulse but will; the love for God and the
neighbour demanded of the Israelite (Dt. 6:5; Lv. 19:18) is not intoxication but act.
The distinctive characteristic of Israelite m2x is, of course, its tendency to
exclusivism. Greek eros is from the very outset a universal love, generous, un-
bound and non-selective. The love extolled in the OT is the jealous love which
chooses one among thousands, holds him with all the force of passion and will,
and will allow no breach of loyalty. It is in 7x#p that there is revealed the divine
power of 7278. Not for nothing does Cant. 8:6 link in its parallelism the love which
is as strong as death with the jealousy which is as hard as hell. Jacob has two
wives, but his love belongs only to the one (Gn. 29); he has twelve sons, but he
loves one above all the rest (Gn. 37:3). God has set many nations in the world,
but His love is for the elect people. With this people He has made a covenant
which He faithfully keeps and jealously guards like a bond of marriage (Hos.
ff.). Transgression of the provisions of the covenant is a breach of faith, and
the worship of false gods is adultery provoking the passionate 78‡p of Yahweh.
For He is a jealous God, punishing guilt, but showing grace (7on) to those who
love Him and keep His commandments (Ex. 20:2 ff.).
The same exclusive motif asserts itself in the principle of love for the neighbour.
It is a love which makes distinctions, which chooses, which prefers and overlooks.
It is not a cosmopolitan love embracing millions. The Israelite begins his social

86 Philodem., c. 60 B.C., from the charred papyri of Herculaneum, ed. by Olivier (1914),
52.
87 Cf. also Berliner Klassikertexte, 2 (1905), 55, P.Par., 49. For A.D. v. Reitzenstein,
Poim., 297; NGG, (1919), 18, 138 f.: P.M. Meyer, Jurist. Pap. (1920), 30; Preisigke
Wort., S.v.
88 G. de Manteuffel, in Revue de Philologie, 54 (1928), 163, no. 10.
89 R. Reitzenstein, NGG (1917), 130 f. compares with this IG. XII, 5, 217: Lyo [Isis]
yuvaixa kal tvipa ouvyaya . . . tyd orepyeot on' avopiov hvaryxaoa.
90 Sutd., s.v. dyarrmouos : dyamnouov Afyouai kal dyaiinowv Thy poopoounny
Cf. also Pass.(-Cr), s.v.
ayatol
action at home. He loves his people with the same preferential love as is shown
it by God. He extends his love to foreigners only is so far as they are incorporated
into his house or nation (Ex. 20:10; 22:20 etc.). Even the enemy (x30) is to have
my assistance when in difficulty, and is expressly referred to my help (cf. Ex.
23:4 f.). It will be seen that the organic relationship and concrete situation are
always normative for social responsibility. The general love of the Hellenistic
cosmopolitan is eccentric. Neighbourly love for the native Israelite is concentric.
The LXX almost always renders the anx of the Hebrew text by dyanav
(- p. 21). 91 To the substantive manx there corresponds the Greek &yam, which
now comes into use. "Epoc and pilla and derivatives are strongly suppressed.
The harmless ayatav carries the day, mainly because by reason of its prior
history it is the best adapted to express the thoughts of selection, of willed address
and of readiness for action. But the true victor in the competition is the ancient
377x, which impresses upon the colourless Greek word its own rich and strong
meaning. It was once thought that dyamn was a completely new word coined by
the LXX. This no longer seems likely. Much more significant, however, is the
fact that the whole group of words associated with ryanov is given a new
meaning by the Greek translation of the OT.

2. Hellenistic Judaism.
a. In the wide circle of the Jewish world the predominant influence of the
OT intermingles with modes of thought and expression partly from a Greek and
partly an oriental background. 92 There is much reference to the love of God.
God loves His creation more than any man can do so. Above all, however, He
loves Israel : f dryann oou Éni orépua 'A Bpaau. 93 His particular good-pleasure
again rests on the pious (fyamuÉvos, Da. 3:35 etc.). In Greek fashion, Josephus
uses the good" for "the pious, 94 but when his thought takes more biblical lines
he says "the penitent" (Ant., 2, 23). In the Wisdom literature and related writings
the fulfilment of the commandments and mercy are the way to earn God's love.
He who treats orphans like a father will be loved by God like a son (Sir. 4:10 f.;
cf. Test. N. 8:4, 10). Supremely, however, &yarn is a relationship of faithfulness
between God and man. Of Ttlotol Év ayatn "poouEVoiGLV auto. The martyr
who decides unconditionally for God and accepts all kinds of torments for His
sake will experience the more deeply in all his sufferings the faithfulness of God,
and will receive eternal life in the future world. $5 Ttlotoc Kiplos tois ayanoow
autov tv dandela tois untouÉvouglv. . . rtai8Elarv aitod. 88 Hence the love of

91 2787 in Zech. 13:6 by dyatn tos.

92 Cf. for what follows, Kauffmann-Kohler in JE, VIII (1904), 188 ff.
93 Ps. Sol. 18:4. Cf. Jos. Ant., 173 BEov dyarhouvtat. : thv Xoparv. A. Schlater
in Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910), p. 63 ff., compares with Josephus' use of cyanav
the Rabbinic Jan.
94 Ant., 8, 314 : To Geiov... dyara touc dyalouc uLoEi 8E TOUG rovnpoUG. How
Greek is the spirit of this sentence may be seen from a comparison with Julian Ep., 89 b,
p. 129. 4 (Bidez-Cumont).
95 Wis. 3:9; Da. (LXX) 9:4; Bel 37 (38); 4 Macc. 16:19 ff.; 15:2 : Thv EdÉBElaNv ugA-
AOV HyaTNOE (more than the saving of life).
96 Ps. Sol. 14:1, as a formula : cf. 4:29; 6:9. On love for God cf. also Tob. 14:7.
 &yatao

God includes love for God. The source, however, is to be found in God, as is
emphasised in the epistle of Aristeas. dyann, which constitutes the power of piety,
is the gift of God (Ep. Ar., 229) . Similar references are made to the love of wisdom
or truth as to love for God (Sir. 4:12). He who loves wisdom keeps the com-
mandments (Wis. 6:18 f.). Love wisdom, and it will protect you (Test. R. 3:9).
Josephus in particular loves descriptions which have a metaphysical ring, and
speaks eloquently of the Stovoia... To Beiov dyatdoa. 8T This echoes the Greek
religion of culture. Philo speaks in mystical tones of aya, the turning to true
being, in which man overcomes all fear and attains to true life (Deus Imm., 69);
ovaBn0u, & puxn, Tpos Thy tou Evtos eÉav, apoBoc... ayamtkoc (Migr.
Abr., 169; cf. Cher., 73 : rov vouv nyankÉvai).
b. Love for one's neighbour is a favourite theme of Hellenistic Judaism. This
is not merely the command of God ; like love for God, it is rooted in God Himself.
Hatred derives from the devil. love from God. Only the man who loves God is
secure against the assaults of Beliar (Test. G. 5:2; B.3:4; cf. 8:2). Hatred leads
to death, love by forbearance to deliverance (Test. G. 4:7). In many cases, the
reference here is to family love, 98 but more frequently to neighbourly love in the
more general sense, as when "Menander" introduces the Golden Rule. 99 Even
love for enemies is expressly enjoined (Ep. Ar., 227). For the rest, the synthesis
between the older Jewish concept of love and the Hellenistic ideal of humanity
caused many difficulties to the Jews of the Dispersion. Philo in Virt., 51 ff. devotes
to this problem long chapter with the distinctive title: TEpi oiAaviponias;
and comparison with Josephus Ap., 2,209 ff. makes it probable that we have
before us here a solid Totoc of Jewish apologetic. All that deliberate exegesis can
glean from the OT by way of philanthropic motifs is here picked out by Philo
and fused into a systematic presentation. In the centre stand compatriots, including
proselytes, 100 and fellow-residents, then in widening circles (109 ff.) enemies, slaves,
animals and plants, until love embraces all creation. This must have been im-
pressive even to the Greeks. Yet consciously or unconsciously there still emerges
in this structure the singularity of Jewish neighbourly love, its fundamentally
concentric character. For all the desire for adaptation in externals, even Hellenistic
Judaism remains on the soil of the older Jewish understanding of love.
In any case there is a full differentiation from the Époc of the "unchaste Greeks"
(Sib., 3, 171) . 101 Eros is not a god, but a corrupter (Phokylides, 194). The most
powerful enemy of all passion or eroticism is the purity of dyai (Test. B. 8:2).

®T Ant., 7, 269 ; Ap., 296: &Anelarv &yartov. Rather differently Ant., 16, 158 : JUVE(-
Olatal to Skaiov avil tot rtpoc 868av nyamkÉval (cf. uanov dy,. supra, n. 95).
Typically Greek in Bell., 5, 438: dyaintov, something which causes satisfaction. Occa-
sionally Josephus like the secular Greek authors uses dya&v promiscue with Epiv, pileiv,
or one of their derivatives cf., e.g., Bell., . 319: 'Avavoc... hyatTnkoc To lootluov
kal TEPOC TOUS TOTEIVOTOTOUG PIE EUOEPOC TE kal Snuoxparias ‡paomc.
98 Test. S. 4:7. Cf. also dyatn toi kal y6vou Tta186s, Philo Som., I, 194; Abr., 168
Vit. Mos., I, 3,
99 Men., 40 in the negative form. Also Tob. 4:15 and Philo in Euseb. Pr. Ev., VIII, 7, 6 ;
for hints of the positive version, e.g., Ep. Ar., 207. Cf. Kittel, Probleme, 109 f.
100 103 : KEAEUEI &n roic dro tou EOvous dyantav tous EnAotas un uovov oc
louc Kai guyyEVEiC dAd oc ÉaUTouc.
101 Josephus loves piquant stories, but he recites them to his readers in a tone of moral
edification, e.g., Ant., 18, 72 ff.
d yaritoroo

The substantive dyain is more common in Test. XII (G. #:7; 5:2; B. 8:2; R. 6:8 f.),
but it occurs only once in Ps. Sol. (18:4), in Ep. Ar. (229) and in Philo (Deus. Imm., 69),
and not at all in Josephus, who also does not use dyarmouc. 102 Cf. also Wis. 3:9;
6:18 f.; Sib., 6, 25.

3. Rabbinic Judaism.
a. In the Hebrew-speaking world 17x remains the basic term for love. Alongside
it there establishes itself in Rabbinic texts the Aramaic 231 103 The energy of will
and religious strictness are maintained in both words, being much deepened indeed
by the suffering endured in times of persecution and the centuries long discipline
of will and action.
Love determines the relationship between God and man, but especially between
God and the people of God. "Man is loved (aran) because he is made in the
image of God . . . Israel is loved because they are called the children of God, and
loved especially because it is declared to them that they are called the children
of God.' This is how Akiba puts it (Ab., 3, 14; cf. also bJoma, 52a). Other
depictions bring out even more clearly the inwardness and fidelity of this love.
God's steadfast and merciful love for Israel is like the love of a king who after
a short time seeks out again with grace his repudiated but favourite wife (Ex. r. 51
on 38:21). God is the Beloved of the Song of Solomon, always near, and a ways
ready to pardon (bShab., 88b). Hence Israel must love its God with all its heart
and soul and strength (Dt. 6:5). The Schema® plays just as great a role in later
Jewish piety as in Rabbinic exegesis and theology. 104
A striking proof of God's love for His people is given by the Torah: "Beloved
is Israel, because He gave them a gift by which the world was created; and
beloved especially because it is declared to them that He gave them this gift . .
Indeed, it is said : I gave you good doctrine ; do not forsake my Law" (Akiba in
Ab., 3, 15). The Torah is the patent of Israel's nobility, but like all the gifts of
God's grace it carries with it obligations. God and the people of God (Jan in
bMen., 99b) meet in love for the Torah, and love for the Law of God, which
finds classical examples in men like Moses or Jethro, 105 is a powerful incentive
to self-sacrificing fulfilment of the commandments and unconditional faithfulness
to the Law (bShab., 130 etc.).
The point at which love between God and the people of God is particularly
revealed is that of suffering and especially martyrdom. "Dear are the chastise-
ments.' 106 For sufferings are the correction of the man who loves God, and must
be understood as loving chastisements (M. Ex. 20:23; bBer., 5b). Indeed, sufferings
are a means to earn the good-pleasure of God, atoning for sin and being a pledge
of participation in the coming world of God. 107 Above all, they are the decisive

102 Cf. Thackeray, Lex. Jos.

103 Cf. already the blessing of Moses in Dt. 33:3 brey 29h Ax. With 378 and an also
ong, etc. Cf. Levy Wort.
104 Cf. Tg. O, Dt. 6:5 (here ann) S. Dt. 32 on 6:5 (Kittel, 54 ff.); Str.-B., IV, 189 ff.
105 bSota, 13a etc.
106 S. Dt. 6:5. 2"2m); as a formula in Ex. r. 27 on 18:1; Dt. r. 5 ; bJoma, 52a etc.
107 Lv. r. 32 on 24:10 : "These blows are the reason why am loved (271) of my Father
 dyataw

fiery trial of our love for the Law of God and for God Himself. "Concerning
those who are humiliated without humiliating others, who listen to insults without
replying, who fulfil the commandments out of love and rejoice in chastisement,
the Scripture says that those who love Him are as the sun rising in its glory." 108
It is obvious that this faithfulness to God cannot fail to have its influence on the
future destiny of the martyrs. Yet the decisive thing is that God wills to be loved
for His own sake. Tradition tells us that Akiba was controlled his whole life
long by the thought that love with all one's soul as required by the Schema® can
find its final attestation and fulfilment only in martyrdom. He taught the Law
untroubled by any fear of death. It was in the hour of the reading of the Schema'
that he was brought to the place of judgment, and he died under the iron wheel
with the x of the conclusion of the first sentence of the Schema' on his lips
(bBer., 61b). Nowhere do we have more glorious expression than in this story of
the strength of will, the purity and the unreservedness of the love of suffering
Israel for its God.
But the thinking of the Rabbis constantly returns to the love of God. This
stands supreme. It is perhaps concealed in this age of stress, but it will the more
gloriously manifest itself in its own time. It is strong as death. Only the victorious
words of the Song of Solomon are adequate to convey the elementary force of
this love. And in a broad exposition of the Song of Solomon there is expression
again of all the needs and experiences and truths which stand before the trampled
people of God when it speaks of the love of God. The love of God is strong as
death for a generation undergoing religious persecution. His jealousy is as hard
as hell in the hour of idolatrous worship. Many waters cannot quench love, nor
can the nations pluck Israel away from the love of its God. If a man would give
all the substance of his house for love, he would be scornfully rejected. The love
with which Akiba and his fellows sacrificed themselves is more precious than all
the treasures of the world. 100 Romantic love has always sought mystical sensa-
tions in the Song of Songs. Judaism has made of it a hymn to the defiant and
faithful love between God and His maltreated people.
b. Another note is sounded by the Judaistic expressions for love when it refers
to the relationship between man and man. 110 If love for God finds fulfilment in
suffering, love for fellow-men does so in active and helpful work "To exercise
love is to do beneficent works.":
Who is the neighbour who has a claim to the help of the Israelite? First, it is
the compatriot or the full proselyte in the sense of the concentric conception of the
duty of love in ancient Israel. 112 Again in the sense of the OT, a readiness to help
is demanded in the case of enemies who belong to the people, or even sometimes

in heaven." Also M. Ex. 20:6 (Winsche, 213), and M. Ex. 20:23 : "Beloved are sufferings,
for they procure the Torah, the land and the future world..." Also S. Dt. 6:5 (Kittel,
54 ff.) and bSanh., 101 a/b. Most striking is the answer to the question : "Are chastisements
dear to thee? Neither they nor their reimbursement (bBer., 5b, 2an). Cf. O. Wichmann,
Die Leidenstheologie (1930).
108 bSchab., 88b; cf. also M. Ex. 20:33 (Winsche, 227 f.).
100 Cant.r., 8:8 f. (Winsche, 183 f.); cf. also Pesikta, 28 (Wunsche, 262).
110 Sexual love, e.g., bKet., 56a (737n).
111 bSukk., 49b; cf. d*7on nib1 in bBer., 5b etc.
112 Numerous instances are given in Str. B., I, 353 ff.; cf. also IV, 536 ff., 559 ff.
 dyata®
in the case of national enemies (M. Ex. 23:4). 113 Yet this last demand was con-
tested by some. The neighbourly love of which Judaism speaks does not for the
most part extend beyond the borders of the people of God. It is thus consistent
that the love for God's creatures so finely expressed by Hillel should be an in-
centive to the spreading of the Law and therefore the extension of the people of
God: 'Love (17x) peace. Seek after it. Love creatures lead them to the Law"
(Ab., 1, 12). The concentric reference is thus preserved again.
In its original sense Jewish neighbourly love is the attitude which the members
of the people of God owe one another. But there is accorded to it as such the
highest significance. "The world stands on three things, the Law, the service of
God and works of love" (Simon the Righteous in Ab., 1,2). Akiba declared
neighbourly love to be the great and comprehensive general rule in the Torah
(S. Lv. 19:18) . 114 Hillel did the same when he summed up all the commandments
in the Golden Rule: "Do not do to thy neighbour what is hateful to thee. This is
the whole Law. All else is explanation.' 115
Yet the Rabbis are by no means content to estimate the significance of neigh-
bourly love and to set up a formal canon for it. They also speak of the motives
and reasons for the command to love. "Discharge the duties of love that men may
discharge them to thee. . ." 116 More profound is the thought that love itself rather
than prudent calculation should inspire our action. Love itself gives decisive
meaning and content to the duty of love. "Al1 that ye do should be done only out
of love." 11T Clearly something is here demanded which cannot in fact be de-
manded. This love cannot be regulated or enforced by legislation. It must have a
deeper basis. The Rabbis discovered this basis, and gave neighbourly love a founda-
tion in which the understanding of love came to fruition in later Judaism.
C. The love of which the Rabbis speak is neither love between God and man
exclusively, nor love between man and man exclusively, nor the two alongside,
but both together and at the same time. It is the basic principle of the threefold
relationship of God, man and man. "As the Holy One, blessed be He, clothes the
naked, visits the sick, comforts the sorrowful and buries the dead, so do thou clothe
the naked, visit the sick, comfort the sorrowful and bury the dead" (bSota, 14a).
And again : "He who has mercy (ann) on his fellow, heaven has mercy on him." 118
Hence mercy between men is no other than emulation of the mercy of God, 118
or entry into the form of the divine action. Again, God Himself acts towards man
according to the principle followed by man himself in his dealings with his fellows.
Love is the principle laid down by God for the relationship between God, I and
Thou. It must determine all dealings within this threefold relationship, or the

113 For this and other important passages, v, Kittel Probleme, 110 ff. Historical material
may be found in H. Haas, Feindesliebe i.d. ausserchristl. Welt (1927).
114 But. cf. the parity of all the commandments in 4 Macc. 5:20.
115 bSchab., 31a; J.I.Lv. 19:18. Positive formulations in Ab. R. Nathan, 15, 1 f.; 16, 2,
cf. Kittel Probleme, 110.
116 Cf. G. Klein, D. alteste christl. Katechismus (1908), 86, n. 1; cf. for the thought of
reward, Str.-B., IV, 562 ff.
117 S. Dt. 41 on 11:13, Str.-B., III, 306.
118 bShab., 151b; cf. bBer., 5b. Works of love (a"on mibrn) serve to wash away sin.
In this sense they are comparable to the sufferings of martyrs.
110 Cf. also A. Marmorstein, "Die Nachahmung Gottes," in Jud. Stud. f. J. Wohlgemuth
(1928). 25 ff.; G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, 109 ff.
relationship is snapped. First and finally it is God who asserts the principle. But
it can also be man's affair to assert this divine principle, the measure of goodness,
before God. This is, perhaps, one of the boldest thoughts thus far conceived by
Judaism. Yet it is no mere thought it is a cry of need.

Thus "Ezra" raises his voice at the climax of the powerful third dialogue with the
angel of God : 'Yet I know that the Most High is. .. the Merciful God, for He has
mercy on those who are not yet come into the world... If He did not ordain in His
goodness that sinners should be released from their sins, not even a ten thousandth
part of humanity would attain to life" (4 Esr. 7:132, 138). It makes no difference that
the angel repulses him : Thou art still lacking in much to love creation more strongly
than I" (8, 47). The fact remains that it is Ezra who must appeal to God's mercy.
declaring that the greater part of humanity would inevitably perish if God were to
weigh by the standard of justice and not of love. 120 In Rabbinic Judaism, too, we meet
with the same insight or attitude. The pious man, who loves righteousness and hates
iniquity, intercedes for God's creatures with confidence that the mercy of God will be
greater than the sin of Israel, and with the clear recognition that God cannot order the
world aright without love. 121

This insight could not establish itself in its full scope without shaking the
foundations of the Jewish view of God, the world and life. It did not do so. The
lofty sayings about love remain isolated. The underlying basis of Judaistic theology
and ethics is still righteousness in spite of everything. 122 Jesus alone broke
free from the old foundations and ventured a radically new structure.

D. Jesus.
1. The New Demand.
a. Jesus summed up in two sentences the meaning of the old and new right-
eousness : &yaThOELS TOV DEOV, dyaTOEIC tov tAnolov Mk. 12:28 ff.; Mt. 22:40.
Both are well-known OT sayings, frequently and impressively emphasised by the
Rabbis. And the new formula advanced by Jesus for the practice of neighbourly
love is only distinguished by its positive conception from Hillel's famous rule. 123
Jesus stands plainly and consciously in the moral tradition of His people. But He
demands love with an exclusiveness which means that all other commands lead
up to it and all righteousness finds in it its norm. For Jesus, too, love is a matter

120 Cf. the obvious echoes and developments in Apc. Sedrach, 8, Texts and Studies, II
(1893), 2, 3, p. 133 ; Apc. Elias, 17, TU, 17 (1899), 3a, p. 63.
121 Pesiq., 16 f. (Winsche, 171f., 178). For another turn of the thought of intercession
for the wicked, cf. bSanh., 37a.
122 Rather strikingly, the same is true of the Parsee religion. "The best good known to
man is that of Zarathustra . . . : that Ahura Mazda will invest him with splendours by Asa
(righteous order) and so, too, those who exercise and observe the words and works of
his good religion . .." "All those who in future will disregard the daevas and men who dis-
regard him, to them will the helper's holy daena be a friend, brother or father." Gathas
(Bartholomae), 17, 1: 10, 11; cf. 4, 14 ff. Yasna (Wolff, Avesta), 52, 3 f.; 70, 2 ff. Videvdat
(ibid.), 3 #f. Minokherd, 37; 63 (SBE, Vol. 24, p. 73 ff.; 113).
123 U. n. 115.
 dryattao
of will and action. But He demands decision and readiness for God and for God
alone in an unconditional manner which startles His hearers.
The possibility of love for God stands under a radical Either/Or: oubelc
S6vatal Suolv Kuplois 124 SOULEUELV® yap Toy gva ionoe1 Kal tov gtepov
dyaThoel, Ar Évoc &v0EEETaI kal tou ÉrÉpoU KaTaopoVhOEL (Mt. 6:24 ff.). To
love God is to exist for Him as a slave for his lord (cf. Lk. 17:7 ff.). It is to
listen faithfully and obediently to His orders, to place oneself under His lordship,
to value above all else the realisation of this lordship (cf. Mt. 6:33). It also means,
however, to base one's whole being on God, to cling to Him with unreserved
confidence, to leave with Him all care or final responsibility, 125 to live by His
hand. It is to hate and despise all that does not serve God nor come from Him,
to break with all other ties, to cut away all that hinders (Mt. 5:29 f.), to snap all
bonds except that which binds to God alone.
Two forces particularly are mentioned by Jesus as forces which man must
renounce and fight against if he is to love God, namely, mammon and vainglory.
He who would heap up riches is a heathen of little faith who is of no use in the
kingdom of God (Mt. 6:24b, 30 ff.). And Jesus pronounces a woe on the Pharisees
8tt dyat&te Thy "poroxale6plav gv tais auvayayaic kai TOuC cotaououc
tv taic dyopaic. 128 The love of prestige is incompatible with the love of God.
Yet there is also a third danger which threatens this love, i.e., the stress of per-
secution. Like the great Jewish martyr theologians, e.g., Akiba, Jesus sees that
the assaults and afflictions, the insults and sufferings, which will necessarily
break over the heads of His disciples, will be a decisive fiery test of their loyalty
to God (cf. Mt. 10:17 ff.; 5:10 ff.). When the great and final agony of death
comes on humanity: totE oKav6aAlo0oovtal 127 To Aol kat... buynoetal n
dyann tov Tto/Aov. 6 6É OTTOUEIVaS glc TELOS, oUtoC ow0oetal. 128 In these
words the character of love for God is clear and conclusive. It is a glowing
passion for God, the passion of a little flock which perseveres faithfully and
unshakeably, in spite of every puzzle, power or threat, until He is manifested
whom it loves.

b. Love for God is the great and basic demand made by Jesus. SeutÉpa Spola
airi : dyathosis rov rinolov oou dc oeautov (Mt. 22:39). Jesus, too, accepts
the Jewish sobriety which is neither an extravagant universal love of humanity
nor a high-flown love STEp Th yuxnv FoU (so Barnabas, 19,5), but which re-
quires loving one's neighbour as oneself. Yet He frees neighbourly love once and
for all from its restriction to compatriots. He concentrates it again on the helpless
man whom we meet on our way. He makes the legal and contentious question a
question of the heart with an urgency which there can be no escaping.

124 N.B. dy. kuptov in Mt. 22:37.

125 On the problem of dyorn and u€puuva cf. W. Koepp's debate with Heidegger in
Seeberg-Festschrift (1929), 99 ff.
126 Lk. 11:43. In Mt. 23:6 ousiv. In any case the underlying word is 27x cf. 37%
in Ab. 1, 10: "Love work and hate office."
127 Cf. Mt. 5:29 f. and ^ aKavoaAov.
128 Mt. 24:10, 12 f. On the absolute use of dyamn, cf. also Ep. Ar., 229 (supra, 41).
 & yatia®

By itself, the Golden Rule (Mt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31) might be misunderstood in terms of
general philanthropy, and it has in fact been wrongly evaluated along such lines
throughout the whole course of humanistic ethics from Aristotle to Kant. But the story
of the Good Samaritan makes such an understanding impossible (Lk. 10:29 ff.). The
scribe asks : "Who is my neighbour ?" Jesus does not answer by giving a systematic
list of the various classes of men from my fellow-national who is nearest to me to the
foreigner who is farthest away (Philo, supra, 40). Nor does He reply by extolling
the eccentric love of those who are most distant, to which all men are brothers. He
answers the question of the voukos by reversing the question: "Who is nearest to
the one in need of help ?" This means that He shatters the older concentric grouping
in which the I is at the centre, but maintains the organising concept of the neighbour,
and by means of this concept sets up a new grouping in which the Thou is at the
centre. This order, however, is not a system which applies schematically to all men and
places. It consists only in absolute concreteness. It is built up from case to case around
a man in need. Whoever stands closest to the man in need kata ouyxuplav, the same
has neighbourly duty towards him. Three men are equally near to the man who has
fallen among thieves in his distress. Which of them fulfils his neighbourly duty? The
alien Samaritan. Why? '18ov tonAayxvioon. The heart makes the final decision. He
fulfils his neighbourly duty whose heart detects the distress of the other. At the decisive
moment the two others hold back and thus violate their neighbourly duty. The introduc-
tion of this Éonayxvio0n, however, does not imply emotional extravagance in neigh-
bourly love. What is demanded is the most unsentimental imaginable readiness to help.
The Samaritan does in all sobriety what the moment demands, taking care for the
immediate future, no more and no less. He is an Eleoc tOlñoas, who neither throws
everything aside nor wastes words on the duties or guilt of others. He is one who does
what has to be done, and what he can do. This is what gives to the story its inescapable
urgency : TopEoou kal g0 TO(EL ouolos.

C. In one demand Jesus consciously opposed Jewish tradition, namely, the

demand to love one's enemies. Even in the brief words of Mt. 5:43 f. and Lk.
6:32 f. the threefold determination of the demand is clear. First, it is the new
demand of a new age ("it was said by them of old time... But say unto you,
Mt. 5:21, 43). Second, it points to a xapis (uol6s, reploobv, Mt. 5:46 f.). Third,
it applies to a host of &KoUovtec (cf. Lk. 6:27) sharply distinguished from quap-
rodol (teNivai, É0viKoI, Mt. 5:46 f.). The love of enemies which Jesus demands
is the attitude of the children of the new people of God, to whom the future
belongs, in relation to the children of this world and age. They should show
love without expecting it to be returned, lend where there is little hope of re-
payment, give without reserve or limit. They should accept the enmity of the
world willingly, unresistingly and sacrificially (Lk. 6:28). Indeed, they should do
good to those who hate them, giving blessing for cursing and praying for their
persecutors (Lk. 6:27 ff.; Mt. 5:44). To some of these demands individually we
can find isolated parallels in the Rabbinic world. But these are of no significance
as compared with this full and resolute programme. Even the martyr spirit of the
Jewish community, of the ancient people of God, is far surpassed by this unheard
of will for martyrdom. A new intercession is here made the task of the martyr,
namely, intercession for the hostile world, which hates God and destroys His
faithful people.
There have always been Utopians. But here speaks the One who without
illusion or sentimentality has introduced the ideal of neighbourly love into reality.
He speaks of these impossible demands with the same tone of steady seriousness
and sense of reality as of that which every man should and can do. There have
ayatiad

always been enthusiasts for brotherly love and a better world. Jesus knows this
world, and He thus calls for a life within it wholly grounded in love. He does
so with sober realism and certainty. The fact that it is now so self-evident is
what is so strange about His demand for love. This is where its secret surely lies.

2. The New Situation.

a. The fact that His demand for love is now so self-evident is an indication
that He has more to proclaim than a new demand. He proclaims and creates a
new world situation. He proclaims the mercy of God, not as a disposition which
God always and in all possible ways expresses pardonner, c est son métier
but as an unheard of event which has the basis of its possibility in God alone, but
which now places man in a completely different situation. Jesus brings forgiveness
of sins, and in those who experience it a new and overflowing love is released.
It is in this sense that Jesus says of the woman who sinned much : doeovtal ai
quaprial auts ai To^Aal, 8t HY&TNOEV TOA6. 120

It is striking that in this passage dyanov is twice used without any precise indica
tion of object, the more so as this absolute use of the verb is otherwise confined to the
First Epistle of John. It brings out the more clearly what is at issue in Lk. 7:47, namely,
that a new life is awakened and the person now has love, is filled with it, and is guided
by it in all his actions, rather than that he is to show it to such and such people. Love
here is a spontaneous movement up to the One by whom it is released (cf. also the
absolute use of dyarn in Ep. Ar., 229 and Mt. 24:12, where the orientation on God is
also dominant). But this is not the decisive element in the story, and it is certainly not
the final goal of the divine act of forgiveness.

By His act of forgiveness God has instituted for humanity a new order which
removes and supersedes the old worldly order of rank and thus creates as many
new tasks as possibilities. The new relationship of God to man lays the founda-
tion for a new relationship of man to man FivEolE oiktipuoves, kalis o
romp duov oiktipuov gotlv (Lk. 6:36). Peacemakers are called the children
of God. 130 But those who judge their fellows place themselves outside the new
order and thus fall victim to the merciless judgment of God. 6 yap LETDO
LETpEiTE, dviuerpnenoeral Ouiv. 131 The constantly s retth
forgiveness of sins presupposes a constantly new readiness to forgive Tavri
opE [ovTL quiv. 132

The synoptic Jesus hardly ever 133 uses of the love of God either the substantive
ayatn or the verb &yatav (or indeed QuAla or Qieiv). He proclaims and brings
& EDIS and speaks of God's fleeiv, olktipuwy elvau). Accordingly, in all passages
where it is a matter of following God in the threefold relationship of God, man and man,
primary emphasis is placed on the call for mercy and a spirit of reconciliation.

129 Lk. 7:47. The following sentence provides the noetic basis : v. KI. Lk., ad loc.
130 Mt. 5:9; cf. ulol in Mt. 5:45.
181 Lk. 6:38; cf. Mt. 5:22 ff.
132 Lk. 11:4; cf. also Mt. 5:7; 18:21 ff.
133 With Lk. 11:42 : Thv xplow kal Th dyATny TOU 0EOD, we might perhaps compare
Ps. Sol. 18:3 : To xpluata. .. kal n ayarn oou. But v. Mt. 23:23 : Thv Kplow kai To
EXeoc.
 dyat&
b. The love of God which in this great historical moment is directed to the
world of humanity is pardoning love. But Jesus also knows a different kind of
divine love, namely, the preferential love which includes separation and special
calling. This is God's love as directed exclusively to Jesus Himself. It is in this
sense that in the parable of the wicked husbandmen Jesus speaks of the utoc
ayat6s (Mk. 12:5; cf. Mt. 12:18). The calling of the only Son (- ut6s) is
a calling to tread to the end the way which the prophets took and on which
they met their deaths. The dyanntoc ulbc is the one Martyr 184 at the turning
point of the times whose death is an exercise of judgment on the whole world
and lays the foundation of the new order of all things (12:8 ff.). Jesus Himself
thereby becomes the Founder of the new people of God, so that it is by re-
lationship to Him that membership of the coming world is decided. Hence the
love which is ready to help even the least of brethren is equivalent to readiness
to help the Son of Man, whereas lovelessness is the same as contempt for Him.
Both will be judged by the Son of Man in His day (Mt. 10:40 ff.; 25:31 ff.). For
this reason, Jesus can call blessed the disciples who must suffer persecutions for
His sake (Lk. 6:22 f.). For the same reason He can demand unconditional attach-
ment to Himself even to death with the same radicalism as He calls for readiness
for God: 6 piAiv natepa f untépa UTEP Lue oUK foTV you agioc. kal
8c of AauBovEl Tov otaupov auToi Kal &KONOUlEi aTlOw HOU, OUK fOTIV HOU
gEioc (Mt. 10:37 ff.; cf. Lk. 14:26 f.).
At this point everything that Jesus says concerning love is finally clarified and
unified. God sends the cyamtos vioc into the world xnpugau Éviautov kupiou
SEKTov. The Son brings the remission of sins to which man replies with grateful
love and to which he should respond with an unconditional readiness to help and
forgive his fellows. The Son calls for unreserved decision for God, and gathers
around Him a band of "storm-troopers" (Mt. 11:12) who leave everything, follow
Him and love God with passionate devotion. He creates a new people of God
which renounces all hatred and force and with an unconquerable resolve to love
treads the way of sacrifice in face of all opposition. And He Himself dies, as
the ancient traditions tells us, with a request for the hostile world (Lk. 23:34).

The synoptic tradition uses dyamt6s wholly in the sense of Jesus when it places
the saying about the dyamntos ut6c at the beginning of His ministry and then again
at the commencement of His passion (Mk. 1:11; 9:7). And Mark makes clear at a single
stroke the relationship between love. election and heightened demand in the short
phrase introduced in 10:21: EupAevwas aito hyannoev aitov kai glitev. Jesus
loves the rich young ruler with the love of God which summons men to the very
highest. But the one who is called starts back. For the rest, the Synoptists use dryarav
only once 185 outside the sayings of Jesus, and dyon never. Acts is even more re-
served, for in it we find only dryamntoc (15:25),186 p[os used in the same sense
(27:3), and especially &8Elo6C (1:16). Neither dryarmm nor dyanav occurs at all,
though we do find &pinu (8:22 ff.), negatively expressed in the prayer of the first
Christian martyr for his enemies in 7:60 : KOpLE, un otons autois taumy Thy
duaprlav.

134 We seem to have here echoes of ancient ideas of the last martyr, cf. ZSTh, 8
(1930/31), 212, n.4.
185 Lk. 7:4 f.: &E1oc Botiv dyata yap to LOvoc juv (cf., however, Mt. 10:37).
136 In the same section, the Golden Rule is later applied (15:29).
dryattaca

E. The Apostolic Period,

1. Paul.
a. Paul clearly sees and sketches the new situation created by the loving work
of God. The great argument of Romans the theme of the new epoch which
has now dawned rightly culminates in a hymn which, beginning with the love
of the elect for God, moves on to the love of Christ, and finally closes with the
assurance ths ryanns tou OEOU ThE Ev Xproti 'Inooi To uplo nuov (R. 8:28,
31 ff.). This assurance rests on three facts. The first is that God has sent His
only Son 131 and that this act of love found fulfilment on the cross in the self-
offering of the Son, tou cyanhoavtos nuac. The second is that God has called
the apostle and continually calls those whom He has chosen; His loving will is
directed to them ; they are nyauÉvol, ryain tol. The third is that the dyatn
of God is shed abroad in our hearts and is thus the decisive reality in our existence.
As Jesus did not distinguish His activity from that of God, but did what only
God can do, forgiving sins, so Paul regards the love of God as basically one
with that of His Christ (R. 8:37; 2 Th. 2:16). The loving action of God is revealed
and executed in that of Christ : ouvlomowv... thv Éautou dydnny sis nuac
6 OE6G, 8TL Xplotoc UTtép nuov &TEOaVEV (R.5:8). The eternal love of God
becomes in the love of Christ a world-changing event of which Paul usually
speaks in verbal forms and then always in the aorist. 138
The love of God implies election. Paul quotes OT passages which refer to
God's unconditional sovereignty in loving and hating, electing and rejecting
(R. 9:13, 25), and he uses ayanntol and kAntol, or even ÉkAekTol kal hyar-
LÉvou in formal parallelism (R. 1:7; Col. 3:12). It is natural that in the concept
of electing love there should also be expressed the two basic thoughts of pre-
temporal ordination 13° and temporal calling in the sign of the Christ event:
aBEAdoi iyannuevo ino kuplou, 8tu Ellato ouas 6 Geoc & nt' apxis Elg
oomplav Év dylaou© TvEDLaTos... Elc 8 Kai ÉKALEFEV buAc bid tou Ebay-
yEA(oU juov eic TEpITtoinow (2 Th. 2:13; cf. also Eph. 1:4 f.).
The community of the elect which God in His xpnotoms and grotoula has
now separated from the mass of quapto ol stands in indissoluble fellowship
with the God ths yains kai elpñvns. In its midst He is at work in living power
(R. 8:35; 2 C. 13:11 ff.). Love holds us captive (2C. 5:14), or rather, i dryom
TOU DEOD EKKÉXUTAL Ev taic kapblaic nuiv bid TVE uatos dylou TOU SOOÉVTOS
quiv (R. 5:5). The reality of this new and vital power could hardly be more
forcefully expressed than in these words of Paul.
The meaning of the Pauline concept of drydTn 0EoU is plain. It is the orientation
of the sovereign will of God to the world of men and the deliverance of this world.
The work of love is God's goal from the very first. From the days of Abraham
God has foreseen a people free from the bondage of the Law. He has created
this people by the sending of the Son and finally the Spirit. This Spirit, however,

131 to10c utoc (R. 8:32); vios this dyanns (Col. 1:13); cf. Eph. 1:6: o nyamuévos.
Paul never uses dyamtos of Christ.
138 *Ayatoavtos (R. 8:37; 2 Th. 2:16; also G1. 2:20). The outworking is seen in Eph.
5:2 etc. On Eph. 2:4 : &yom Av hyamoeV, cf. A27XD 70278 (T. Ber., 3, 7).
130 Cf. ÉkAoyh in 1 Th. 1:4 (hyanuavou); R. 11:28 (dryamtol): R. 9:11 ff.
 ayatao
is represented in the great closing section of Galatians (5:2-6:10) as the Spirit of
love (5:22). Thus the thoughts of the Epistle leave the path of history.
b. The goal of the work of divine love is the new man. But this goal is not
attained without man and his work of love. For all God's work, whether in
creation or redemption, presupposes both the possibility and the necessity of
human action. God's will does not exclude human volition. It includes it, finding
its purest fulfilment in its fullest exercise. The imperious call of God is a call to
freedom. This basic law, which is most clearly visible in the fact of Jesus and
which according to Paul everywhere determines the relationship between divine
and human work (cf. also Phil. 2:12 f.), is decisive for an understanding of what
the apostle says concerning the relationship between divine and human love.
God has the first word. He establishes the relationship. This is laid down
once and for all in R. 8. His resolve, election and calling are decisive. From Him
proceeds everything that may be called &yonn. The love of the &yaTOUTES TOV
Oeov is nothing but the direct flowing back of the heavenly love which has been
poured out upon the kAntos. More accurately, it is an act of decision, like the
basic act of love itself. In it there is fulfilled the covenant which God has concluded
with His elect and which defies all the powers of heaven and earth: rois dya-
TOOLV Oeov Tavta OUVEPYEL Els ayalov tois KaT TOO EOLV KAntoic oBoL
(R. 8:28, cf. 37).
The same fundamental relationship brings Paul in 1 C.8:3 to the pregnant
formulation : El 8É Tic cyano tov OE6v, OUTOC Eyvootal UT' aitot. We are
capable of active orientation on God only to the extent that we are passive
before Him. The same schema of passive and active is used in the service of the
same guiding thought in Gl. 4:9; 1 C. 13:12; Phil. 3:12.
God creates for us the life which first makes us in any true sense men of will
and action. God awakens in man the faith in which he is wholly referred to God.
But plots only comes into action and finds true actualisation 8t cyans
(GI. 5:6). God pours forth the TVE ua into His elect (v. supra R. 5:5; 2 Th. 2:13).
Again, man is passive. But the TVE ua liberates man for supreme activity in love.
Freedom constrains and completes itself in love.
That the TvEOux precedes dyom, which is thereby liberated, is classically expressed
in Gl. 5:22 KaTOC tou TVE uaTOS dyarn but also in combinations like dyatn
TIVEQUATOG (R. 15:30) and dyorn €v TVEduaTI... (Col. 1:8), and more elegantly in
C. 4:21. For the relation of TVEQua and freedom, cf. R. 8:2; and for dyann as the
measure and goal of freedom, cf. Gl. 5:13. It is decisive that in the liberation for love
the Law is fulfilled, transcended and overcome, and a new order set up which cannot
suffer any retrogression or violation.
However, it is not the goal of love that our love should respond to God, 140
nor that we should attain freedom for our own sake. Its goal is that the man
who is called should place his life in love and freedom in the service of his
neighbour: BLd THE AyXINs SOULEDETE AAANAOIC. 6 yop tac vouos tv Evi
Aby© TETAmpoTaI® dyaThoEIs TOy tAnolov GOU oc FEAUTOV, 141 Paul takes up

140 Paul speaks only rarely of love for God. Apart from R. 8:28 and 1 C. 8:3, cf.
2 Th. 3:5. In the verse 2 Th. 2:10, which is strongly influenced by tradition, we have dry ain
the dAndelas (-+ 40, 3 ff.). In Phlm. 5 the dyorm is to be chiastically related to the
&yiot, Finally, cf. Eph. 6:24 (4:15).
141 Gl. 5:13 f. For neighbourly love, v. also R. 13:8 ff. (cf. 1 Th. 3:12).
 ayatao
the command of Jesus that we should love our neighbours, and establishes it in
the same way as the Lord. But his true interest is concentrated on brotherly love :
‡pya(oue0a to dyalov tpoc TovtaS, uallota bE Tpoc touc oikelous tis
TOOTEGC (GI. 6:10). The organic principle which is given once and for all with
the orientation of love to the neighbour is here worked out in terms of organisa-
tion. Neighbourly love, once a readiness to help compatriots in the covenant
people of Israel, is now service rendered to fellow-citizens in the new people
of God. It implies making the welfare of the brotherhood the guiding principle
of conduct. 142 'Ayanntos and doeAo6c become interchangeable terms (1. Th. 2:8;
Phlm. 16).
Decisive definition is given to brotherly love, however, by the cosmic, historical
Ka\pos (cf. G1. 6:10; R. 13:11) which demands it. Brotherly love is the only
relevant and forward-looking attitude in this time of decision between the cross and
the TEos. It stands under the sign of the cross. It is a readiness for service and
sacrifice, for forgiveness and consideration, for help and sympathy, for lifting
up the fallen and restoring the broken, 143 in a fellowship which owes its very
existence to the mercy of God and the sacrificial death of Christ. 144 The highest
possible goal for the apostle himself is imitation of Christ for the good of the
Church. He is ready to suffer what is still lacking of the sufferings of Christ. 145
But this also means the requirement of even the most unassuming work of human
love in the service of the great work of divine love according to the basic re-
lationship between divine and human action which is fundamental for Paul. In
love the work of God and the work of man unite. Love builds up (1 C.8:1).
It builds the work of the future. 'Ayamn stands under the sign of the teloc. This
is the great truth of 1 C. 13. For this reason love is the heavenly gift surpassing
all others, the kae' UTtEPBOAnv 686¢, which not only stands at the heart of the
trinity of faith, love and hope but is also greater than the other two. Faith and
hope bear the marks of this defective aeon. 'H dyam OUBETOTE TITITEL. 146 With
love the power of the future age already breaks into the present form of the
world. As for Jesus, so for Paul dyaTn is the only vital force which has a future
in this aeon of death.

The triad faith, love and hope seems to be a formula ; cf. plots, drydrn, Elitis in
1 Th. 1:3; 5:8; Col. 1:4 f. 147 In all cases dya™n is in the middle. Always where the
interrelationship of the three is given with any precision, the emphasis falls wholly
on dyann. Thus on the one side in Gl. 5:6 : lotic 8t' dyanins Évepyou tvn, and
on the other in R. 5:5 : n gAnic ou KaTaloyUvETaI, 8tl n dyamn... £kkeyutal...
TOotIs and Entic are both unequivocally and naturally ascribed by Paul to this present
era, as in 2 C. 5:7: 81d TLOTEGS yap TEpITaTOD EV, 00 810 E(ooug, and R. 8:25 : 6

142 For brotherly love, v. 1 Th. 4:9; Col. 1:4; Phlm. 5, cf. Eph. 4:2; 6:23. 'AyaTov is
used for marital love in the household tables, Col. 3:19 (Eph. 5:25). Cf. Delatte Anecdota,
(1927). 423, 11: dy7nv dvopoc tpoc pillav tov yuvaikov.
143 Gl. 5:25 ff.; R. 12:9 f.; I'C. 13:4 ff.
144 Phil. 2:1 ff.; 1 C.8:11; Col. 3:14 f. (Eph. 5:2, and also marital love in this connexion,
Eph. 5:25 + yauos).
146 2 C. 1:3 ff. (8:7 f.); Col. 1:24 ff.
146 Only for the mode of expression should we compare Ab., 5, 18 : The love which does
not have a sensual object "never ceases.
147 On the triad, A. Harnack, Pr. Jahrb., 164 (1916), 1 ff.; R. Reitzenstein, in many places,
esp. NGG, 1917, 130 ff. : P. Corssen, in Sokrates 7 (1919), 18 ff.; Ltzm. K. ad loc. ; A.
Brieger, Die urchristl. Trias G.L.H., Diss. Heidelberg (1925).
 dyata©

00 BreTOuEV EATIYouEV. As against this, the triumphant love of God delivers us in

every distress and our own love for God overcomes every assault (R. 8:28, 35 ff.). In
C. 13 it is brotherly love which gives value and content to all other action or gifts.
With n dyAnn OUSETOTE TInTEl in v. 8 the train of thought fixes on the last time
when all other gifts will be pointless. The transitory and ultimately perishable nature of
gnosis is brought out in similar expressions, as is also the temporary character of plotic
and gAnic. The conclusion begins with the typically eschatological concept of LEVEIV,
which, e.g., in 1 C. 13:13 has the sense of outlasting. vvl 8É pÉvEl after all that has
preceded, and all that Paul has said elsewhere, we should expect this to be followed
by dyan, since this is the leading thought in the chapter which the whole hymn is de-
signed to extol. Instead, there follows the favourite triad, which is stylistically most im-
pressive but which is hardly justified materially nor prepared syntactically with its in-
clusion of three subjects in a singular predicate. To all appearances Paul has here sacri-
ficed precision of thought to loftiness of expression. But he must then save his culminating
thought by a subsidiary clause which forms a fine stylistic conclusion but which is
overshadowed materially by the originally cosmic-historical opening: uelgwv 82
TOUTOV n dyan. However, even if what was originally intended is temporarily ob-
scured by the triad, it is adequately safeguarded, for love alone is seen to be no longer
of this world but to stretch into the future aeon. 148

2. James.
Faith acquires living force to the extent that it is active in love. This is per-
ceived in essential necessity by Paul in G1. 5:6. James translates this truth into
practical commands which in sober yet unambiguous fashion prevent any pious
or comfortable escape. Love implies primarily fulfilling immediate duties to our
neighbours and not withholding rights from labourers (5:1 ff.). It means taking
seriously the basic affirmation that all who love God are my brothers and are not
to be put in the background even though they come shabbily dressed (2:14), since
God has thought them good enough to be called into His Baciela (2:5). Love
is indeed the Law of the new kingdom, the vouos BaoiAiK6s (2:8). This love is
the work of faith, demanded by it, made possible by it, and counted for right-
eousness on account of it (2:14 ff.). The love for God which stands behind all
brotherly love is also a work of faith. It holds fast to God, to His commands in
the warfare against passions and to His promises in the long periods of tribulation
and affliction. It is strong in intouovn (1:2 fE.) .

3. John.
For Paul &yor is the principle of the future ; for John it is the principle of the
world of Christ which is being built up in the cosmic crisis of the present. OBtoC
hyanoEV 6 OEdC TOV koouov, toTE TOV ulov TOV LOVOYEVñ E6WKEV Iva (Jn.
3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9 f.). In this basic thought John and Paul (R. 8:32) are at one. But
there is a difference in the way in which John constantly speaks of the love of
the Father for the Son. 140 All love is concentrated on Him. He is wholly the
Mediator of the love of God. In contrast, John hardly ever speaks of the love of
the Son for the Father (Jn. 14:31). He emphasises the more strongly, however,

148 On 1 C. 13 : 1 CI., 49 f.; Apc. Sedrach, 1; Augustine, Sermo 350 de caritate (MPL,
39, 1533); Melanchthon's Comment. (C.R., XV, 1134 ff.); Calvin's Comment. (ed. A.
Tholuck, V, 1834): A. Harnack, SAB, 1911, 132 ff.; E. Lehmann-A. Fridrichsen, Th. St. Kr.,
94 (1922), 55 ff.
148 Jn. 3:35; 10:17 (dyamav). 'Ayauntos is never used in this connexion.
 dyatao
the love of the Son for those whom the Father has given Him, for His
"friends." Through the Son the love of God reaches the world of men. 150 This
love is at once crowned and released by His death. Through the death of the
Son God reaches His goal of salvation for the world. 131
Johannine dryatn is quite explicitly condescending love (-> 37), or rather a
heavenly reality which in some sense descends from stage to stage into this world.
This heavenly reality, however, achieves revelation and victory in moral action.
It is thus that John sees that which Paul clarifies in terms of the interrelation of
divine work and human. The world of light and life is expressed in this world
in the form of love. Hence John not only can but must emphasise the active
character of oyarn both in the life of Christ and in that of Christians.
It is quite of a piece that John, too, allows love for God or for Christ 152 to
be overshadowed by love for the brethren which has its origin in God and its
example in Christ. 163 In brotherly love the circle of the Father, the Son and the
people of the Son constitutes a fellowship which is not of this world. The love
of God is the final reality for the life of this fellowship, and abiding in His love
is the law of its life. 154 'O ur ayatov LEVEL Ev T& 0avaTo. 155 'Ayatav remains
without any definition of object, and not merely in this verse. The absolute
positing of cyanov, of which we have an isolated instance in Lk. 7:47, is in
common use in the First Epistle of John (3:18; 4:7 f., 19). This love is a vital
movement, a form of existence, an actualisation of God in this world.
To this there corresponds the fact that the law of love has drawn into itself
all detailed requirements and is constantly repeated and set before the reader
with magnificent monotony. Only occasionally is the demand for love more
precisely defined by such expressions as to "love in deed and in truth." 158 More
commonly in the Johannine Epistles exhortations are interrupted and emphasised
by the urgent call dyantÉ and dyamntol, which here has nothing to do with
the thought of election but refers quite simply to the relation of brother to brother
(3 Jn. 5; 1 Jn. 4:7).
In Revelation the demand for brotherly love (cf. 2:19) is completely over-
shadowed by the passionate call to cling fast to God in this hour of division and
distress, even to death. Here the understanding of what love means is completely
determined by the thinking of a theology of martyrdom which has come to new
life in the needs of the day. At the beginning of the book there is hymn to the
faithful witness, t@ dyanovi nuas (1.5), followed by an alternation of
eschatological pictures of the beloved city (3:9; 20:9) and the glory of those who
have maintained tlotic and cyan and loved not their lives to the death (12:11)
with threats against the enemies of God and the complaint thy oyomv OOu thy
rpoinv doñkas (2:4). The time has come when the love of many has grown
cold (Mt. 24:12).

150 Jn. 17:23 ff.; 14:21 ff.; 1 Jn. #:19. For the affective, V. Jn. 11:5; 13:23; cf. oi/Eiv.
151 On Jn. 13:1, A. Debrunner in Gnomon, 4 (1928), 444. On In. 15:13, Dibelius in Fest-
schrift £. Deissmann (1927), 168 ff. Cf. also 1 Jn. 4:9 f., 3:16.
152 Jn. 5:42; 8:42; 14:28.
158 Jn. 13:34 f.; 14:15 ff.; 21:15 ff. (dy.-ousiv); 1 Jn. 4:20 (dy.-uosiv).
154 Jn. 15:9 f.; 1 Jn. 2:10; 3:10; 4:11 ff.; cf. R. Schutz Die Vorgeschichte d. Johanneischen
Formel Oedc dyann forlv, Diss. Kiel (1917).
155 So 1 Jn. 3:14 with B xA. Cf. also 2:15 ff.; 3:17; Jn. 3:19.
150 1 Jn. 3:18; cf. 2 Jn. 1; Test. G. 6:1.
 &yartad

F. The Post-Apostolic Period.

In the post-apostolic period the early Christian formulae are partly handed
down in authoritative fashion and partly transcended by bold speculations. Under
the old name of ryann ideals which are partly stricter and partly freer have found
entry. The unity of breadth of theological outlook with stringency of demand,
achieved in the Johannine writings, is now broken. But for all this there remained
alive in the developing Church a respectful awareness, Tg uÉya kal lauuaotov
EaTIV n dryarM, and an earnest practical sense of the significance of &yarn for the
community and the world. The hymn in Clement (49 f.) is the finest testimony
to this.

dryartin and &yanav become basic terms for the attitude and action of God
towards man, for the work of Christ. 157 nyammuavos and dyamntos are favourite
terms for Jesus, sometimes linked with utoc or nais, sometimes used as an independent
title, the Only-Beloved. 158 The Church and Christians are also loved and elected by
God, and His good-pleasure rests upon them. 159
Again, dyarn and dyatov are often used in this period to sum up Christian
piety. 100 This is the response of love to the "poayaroas and the imitation of His
oilaviparla; dyaTQuEv & HYXTNOEV, &TTEXO EVOI . . . 161 Love for God demands
scorn and hatred of the world. This tension can invite to martyrdom, which here, as in
Judaism, is highly estimated as an extreme expression of piety and love of God. 162 In his
most passionate epistle Ignatius seizes on the Greek term Eros to force it in abrupt anti-
thesis to serve the thought of martyrdom: gov. . . ypaow ..., Épov TOU or tofaveiv.
8 tuoc Epoc foraupwral. 103 In another form the tension between God and the
oxiua tou koo ou toUtou, between heavenly and earthly love, can lead to asceticism.
&yatiov becomes a term for the disciplined and sometimes even abstemious life, or
indeed for ascetic exercises. dya™ dyvh is more powerful than erotic love. 164
The most common use of ayatn and its derivatives, however, is in the sense of
brotherly love. 105 The ancient sayings concerning faith, love and hope, concerning the
meaning and fulfilment of the Law and concerning the love of enemies, are highly
esteemed and applied. 168 OU ULOñoEIC TaUTa &vOpTov, aAAx oug LEV ELEYEELS,

157 Ign. R., 7, 3; Tr., 8, 1; Act. Thom., 132, p. 239, 26.

158 2 Pt. 1:17; Herm. s., 5, 2, 6; 9, 12, 5; 1 CI., 59, 2 f.; M. Pol., 14, 1; Dg., 8, 11; Barn., 3, 6;
4, 3; Asc. Is., 1, 4; Act. Phil., 4 p. 3, 19.
150 Jd. 1; 1 Cl., 8, 5 etc.
160 Ign. Mg., 1, 1; 1 Pt. 1:8; C. Schmidt, "Gespr. Jesu," TU, 43 (1919), 121, 4. dryatrov
abs. in the Agraphon (?) in Didym. Trin., I 16. MPG, 39, 333b, and in Ps. Clem. Hom., 3
p. 38, 6.
161 Pol., 2, 2; Herm. m., 5, 2, 8; Dg., 8, 7; 9, 2; 10, 2 Ff.
162 2 Tm. 4:8 ff.; Hb. 1:9; 1 Pt. 3:10; 2 Pt. 2:15; Jn. 3:16 (1 Jn. 4:9 f.).
163 Ign. R., 7,2 (cf. 2,1; ad Pol., 4, 3). Ad loc., v. Origen, Comm. on Cant. Prol.
(Baehrens, p. 71, 25); on the problem pilla, dyorn, Epws, v. also Justin Dial., 8, 1;
Cl. Al. Strom., VI, 9, 73, 3; Orig. Comm. on Lam. 1:2, Fragm., XI (Klosterm.). Cf. also Har-
nack, SAB (1918), 81 ff.
1 Cl., 21,8; Pol., 4, 2; Herm. s., 9, 11,3 (cf. on this Hier., Ep. 22, 14, Pp. 161, 17, Hil-
berg : agapetarum pistis); Act. Joh., 29; 63 ff.; 68; 109; 114; Act. Pls., 6; 9 ff. But asceticism
without dyan is valueless : Act. Gr. S. Melaniae lun. Anal. Boll (1903), p. 30 f. § 43.
185 Cf. Pt. 1:22; 2 Pt. 1:7; 1 CI., 47, 5; 48, (oilade\pia); Pt. 2:17 (&6EA06ms):
Test. of the 40 Mart., 2, 4.
168 Did., 1, 2 f. (Gold. Rule in negative form); Pol., 3, 2 f. (triad); Dg., 5, 11; 2 Cl., 13, 4
(love of enemies, cf. CI. Al. Strom., IV, 13, 93, 3); 2 CI., 16, 4 (alms, cf. J. Nicole, Pap. d.
Geneve, I [1896], 14,7); 2 Cl., 4,3 (cy. Éautoug, cf. Test. of the 40 Mart., 1, 6): Dio
Chr. Or., 74, 5, 11, p. 194, 8: 47,20, II, 86, 12 ff.; Barn., 1, 4; 19, 5 (inep rhv wuxnv):
Herm. v., 3, 8, 5; 7; S., 9,15,2 (*Ayamn); Did., 16,: (dy. otpapñostal...).
 "Ayap

<00g 8É ELEñOEIS > , TEPI SE DV TOO EVEN, OUC BE &yaThOEIC OnTEP Thy yuxnv
GoU (Did., 2, 7). In all cases to love the brethren means: uh povov taurov Of elV
o (EF0xL, &Ad kal TrovtaS TOUG &8EADOUC (M. Pol., 1, 2). The leaders of the
community are unwearyingly concerned to strengthen the will for brotherly fellowship
in service, in conciliatoriness and in the overcoming of evil with good. 167 'Ayamntoc
is a current form of address. 108 'Ayam becomes a technical term for the fraternal
love-feast which develops out of the beginnings of table fellowship and finds significant
outworking even in a social sense. 169

*Ayatov in the Greek sense is respect and sympathy between equals. Christian
dyon derives from a consciousness of equal unworthiness before God and
His mercy. By this spirit of caritas the attitude and intercourse of the brethren
are determined. These young brotherhoods thus grow up within world which
perishes through Eros and which vainly seeks to transcend itself by means of a
sublimated Eros. In other words, there grows up a Church which knows of a love
that does not desire but gives. The twilight of the sensual and suprasensual mystery
cults yields before the clarity of the uvompla ths ryanns. 170
Stauffer

+ "Ayap
The name 72.7 of the maid of Sarah, the mother of Ishmael. introduced in Gn. 16.
is used in Gl. 4:24 f. as an allegory of the Law-giving on Sinai and of the as-
sociated Jewish race (tn vov 'Iepouaa nu). Over against her there stands
Sarah, the free wife of Abraham, in whose person there is typified the mother
of believers of the new covenant (n &vo 'lepouoarnu). In the Pauline allegory
there is reflected the unparalleled conversion of the onetime Pharisee to the extent
that for the pure Jew the relationship is the exact opposite. Sarah as the mother
of Isaac is the ancestress of pure Judaism and Hagar as the mother of Ishmael
(the wrong-doer) 1 the ancestress of the depraved descendants of Abraham. In
the fact that Hagar allegorises the viv 'Iepouoa^nu may be seen a thoroughgoing
change in the understanding of true Judaism.

Pt. 4:7 ff.; 1 Cl., 49 ff.; Barn., 1, 6.

188 "A yarntol esp. in 1 Cl. &iayaunto© (not vocative) in Cl. 1; 21, 7. topoontas
dyaTuEv, Ign. Phld., 5, 2. Cf. esp. M. Pol., 17, 2 f. (against the suspicion of cult of
martyrs): tov Xpl6Tov.. T POOKUVOOLEV, TOUC 8& uaptupac oc paintas kai pAn-
Toc TOU xuplou dyatouev.
169 Cf. the much discussed verses Jd. 12; 2 Pt. 2:13; Ign. Sm., 8, 2, and on this point
Leclercq in Dict. d' archéol. chrét., (1907), 775 ff.; R. L. Cole, Love Feasts, History of the
Christ. &yarmn (1916); R. Schutz, ZNW, 18 (1918), 224; Lietzmann on C. 11:23; K. Vol-
ker, Mysterium u. Agape (1927).
170 Reference to uvompia g. is found in Cl. Al. Quis Div. Salv., 37, 1. The Stromata
are particularly rich in discussions of the spontaneous love for true being which finds fulfil-
ment in the true Gnostic. Various motifs are at work here which are also found in Philo,
Plotinus, the Hermetic writings, the Odes of Solomon and Mandaean Liturgies. There
emerges a typical Alexandrian synthesis between mystical dyan and pneumatic apos
- a synthesis which recurs in all Romantic religion.
"A YaI J. B. Lightfoot, Gal. (1910), 193-200; Zn. Gl., 230-235, 296-299 (Excursus II);
Ltzm. GI., 29; Michel, Pls. u. s. Bibel (1929), 98,
1 So, e.g., Gn. r., 62 on 25:12 ff.
 Ayap dyyeAla

In Judaism Hagar herself is esteemed to some extent for the revelation given to her
(Gn. 16:13), e.g., by R. Samuel b. Nachman, Gn. r. 45 on 16:13 : "It is like the matron
to whom the king said : Pass before me. So she passed before him, leaning on the maid
and with covered face, sO that only the maid and not she herself saw the king." 2 By
contrast the judgment on the descendants of the two is unanimous, as, e.g., in R. Jizchaq,
Gn. r. 47 on 17:20 f., who explains that the descendants of Isaac as descendants of the
mistress Sarah are the twelve tribes, whereas those of Ishmael as descendants of the
maid Hagar are twelve puri; (Gn. 17:20), which according to Prv. 25:14 means
twelve clouds full of wind but with no rain. To this there corresponds exactly the
estimation of Philo according to his own particular outlook: coplav LEV 'loaak,
ToplOTElav 6E 'TouanA KEKInpuraI, Sobr., 9. 3
So far as can be determined from the rather uncertain text,1 the equating of Hagar
with Sinai is suggested either by the location of Sinai in Arabia, the land of Ishmael
and his progeny, 5 or by the linguistic similarity of an Arabian word hajar (rock or
cliff), with which certain place names on the Sinaitic peninsula seem to be related. 8
Kittel

dryyelia, dyyfnno, dv., dn,

8t-, EE., Kat-,
TtpokartayyEA^w, KaTayyELEiC

In view of the strong emphasis placed upon the concept of message as a sacral
concept in NT days it is necessary to subject the individual words deriving from
the root ayyel- to a close historical examination. Only then can we appreciate
the distinctive pregnancy of the NT words. To be sure, ETaYYEA-, EUayyEA- are
in a different category. These central terms are most strongly individual. In the
other dyyel-words the important thing is that which is common to them for all the
differences.
The words are to large extent interchangeable, both in general and in detail. 1
Common to all is the main signification of "telling" or "declaring" or "pro-
claiming."2 In the linguistic usage of Hellenistic religion there is a relationship

2 The text of current editions is corrupt, though there can be no doubt as to the meaning.
Cf. the tradition given in J. Theodor, Ber Rabba (1912 ff.), 458 n.
For the Philo material, cf. Lightfoot, 198 ff.
Cf. on the one side Ltzm., on the other Zn., ad loc. The most solid reason for the
assumption that the second "Ayap is secondary is Zahn's statement (233, n. 42): "The
fact that in the Onomastika Hagar and Sinai are not brought into any personal relationship
confirms the fact that this combination has penetrated into Gl. only from the time of Origen."
Jos. Ant., 1, 220 f. says that the possessions of the Ishmaelites extend from the Euphra-
tes to the Red Sea, the Sinaitic peninsula being thus obviously included.
Baedecker, Palastina® (1904), 163, 179; cf. also Lightfoot, 193 ff. Rather curiously,
Tg. O. Gn. 16:7, 14 (and J. I. Gn. 16:7) replaces the names Tt and 779 by Kun.
ayyexla ktA. J. Schniewind, Euangelio, I (1 !I9
1 gEaryyElAo cf. dvayyEllo; diaryyEAA®, KatayyElAw cf. SiayyEAAd, Entary-
yEAAG. TapayyE^∞ stands alone.
2 Liddell-Scott translates all the words by "proclaim."
 dyyeAla

a. to sacred agones and sacrifice, b. to the cult of the ruler, often ¢. to aretalogy,
and sometimes d. to the Hermes belief.
The words are all synonyms of EiayyEAl(eo0a1, from secular usage to the
supreme sacral use in the cult of the ruler. In Hellenism as in the NT Edayye^-
is the central concept and the others are satellites. Yet it is from the synonyms
that we gain our understanding of EdaryyE\iov. The Word of God is message,
not ratio, ecstasy, dogma, nor speculation. The terminology is taken neither from
the language of philosophy, 3 nor from that of high religion nor mysticism, but
from the language of public life, the games and government. The rule of God and
the rule of the Messiah is proclaimed. In the Word of God there breaks in the
lordship of God. The apostolic word is the message of the risen Lord as Kurios.
The sacral evaluation of the messenger derives in Hellenism from the high
estimation of government. 4 In the cult of the ruler we thus have a direct anti-
thesis to the lordship of God and Xpior6g. Even in the religious awareness of
mission to be found in both Socrates and Epictetus (&yyeAoc kai KaTagKoTtOC
Kai kipue, TOU 0E00), 5 and in the missionary word of the aretalogies, the parallel
to NT speech is plain. Yet the miracle stories of aretalogy may be distinguished
from the NT message in the same way as the Kopiot therein proclaimed (- ovay-
yÉ^Aw, 62f.). And the mission of the prophetic philosopher is quite different
from that of the Messiah and His messengers.
Expectation of the coming divine messenger, of the one coming divine messenger,
seems to be known to Hellenism. & This hope is presupposed in the NT (- dy-
yeAia, av-, atayyÉ/Ao). Nor is it any accident that it is nowhere directly
related to Jesus, but only indirectly. Jesus as the Messiah cannot possibly be
called &yyEAos, since He is exalted above all &yye ou (Hebr. 1:4 ff.; 2:5 ff.
-&YyEAog, 85) . The ayyeloc hope is presupposed esp. in the Johannine writings;
the difference between expectation and fulfilment is to be seen at a glance in the
Johannine picture of Christ (=> aayyÉA©, 66).
The picture of expectation becomes richer and the history of early Christianity
clearer if we may also assume a pre-Christian Gnostic Jewish hope. The Mandaean
writings speak time and again of the high messenger of heaven or messenger of
light etc., and the latest work on this question (Peterson, Lietzmann) does not
preclude the possibility that early Christianity was antedated by this expecta-
tion.

3 Socrates and Epictetus ( n. 5) do not speak here as philosophers but as prophets.

4 Schn. Euang., II, 130 ff., 147 ff.
5 Epict. Diss., III, 69 p. 306, 19 f. Sch.2; also III, 1, 37 p. 238, 2 and III, 22, 23; 38, p. 298,
7 and 301, 6. Epictetus appeals in these passages to Socrates: III, 1, 19; 42, 234, 8 and
238, 16; III, 22, 26, p. 298, 21. On Socrates' mission (Xen. Ap., 12 f.) - StayyEAAo, tay.
yE^Aw 66, 27; 68, 15.
6 The material has been best assembled by G. P. Wetter, Der Sohn Gottes (1926), 26 ff.
There should be added ( also anayyÉAAo, n. 11, 15) Or. c. Cels., II, 70 p. 192, 12 f.,
Koetschau (Bau J.2, 206). Celsus says TIC SE TOTOTE TEUPOEIS &YYEAOG, SÉov dyyEA-
AEIV TO KEKELEDGUEVA, KPUTTETA, as Jesus did. Al Is. 9:6 : peyoAnc Boulic
&yyE Os, as a title of the Messiah would be most important (Mas. P9i x29) if we could
detect a definite view behind it ; but perhaps the LXX is only "guessing" (Duhm, ad loc.).
At any rate Volz (Jid. Eschat., 1903, 217) can refer to En. 46:1, where the face of the
Messiah is "like that of a holy angel."
7 Bultmann, ZNW. 24 (1925), 100 ff.: he defends his dating in ThLZ, (1931), 577 ff.
against
55 ff.). Lietzmann, SAB, (1930), 596 ff. (cf. Peterson, ZNW, 25 [1926]. 236 ff.; 27 [1928],
 dyyeAia

At any rate, there are points of contact between the OT and Palestinian
Judaism on the one side and Hellenism on the other. Sending and mission stand
behind the OT. There is a direct parallel between the piety of the Psalms and
aretalogy (- gvayyEXA©, 62). In virtue of their sending the prophets can
be given the title j8bp (&yyeAoc). 8 Moses is called magnus nuntius in the As-
sumption. ® Deutero-Isaiah at least speaks as though in declaration of a message. 10
The expectation of a coming messenger, presupposed in the OT, 11 remains alive
in Judaism in the form of hope for Elias, the coming prophet, the future mebasser.
The thought of the "Word" is always associated with it. 12
In this connexion it is wrong to ask whether the language of the NT derives
from Judaism or Hellenism. Message and mission are known in both. The real
question is who sends and who is sent, and what is signified by the sending and
message. The NT gathers it all up in the &voua Jesus. It may be asked, of course,
whether the individual terms can be divided between the two spheres. We find
the strongest LXX attestation for the words (arv-, dit-, fgaryyEA^o) which are
least prominent in the NT, but the Hellenistic attestation is no stronger, and there
seems no evident reason why the main emphasis in the NT should fall on
KaTayyE/Ad. What is finally clear is that in the NT as in earlier usage the verbal
form of expression heavily outweighs the substantive. 13 This is in keeping with
the dramatic nature of the whole idea, which grows directly out of living action,
i.e., the action of proclaiming.

+ dyyelia.
A. dyyelia in the NT.
1 Jn. 1:5 : kai fotv atm i dyyelia, hv axnkoauev an' aitou kal avay.
yÉAAOUEV Ouiv, oTt o BEOG OOG EaTIV KTA.; 1 Jn. 3:11: aom Éotlv n ayye^ia
AV AKOUOATE &T apxns, tva dyanouev arlnious.
We bring these two passages together, although according to Bultmann's analysis
they belong to different strata, the former to the original document and the latter to
the author. For it is impossible to distinguish two theologies. The original and the
author share in common the attestation of God, the antitheses Xon/O&vatos and
&AñOEIX/UE080s, the antithesis to antinomian Gnosis, the conjunction of self-judgment

8 Hag.
1:13 (&yyeAoc Kupiou);
passages are Mal. 3:1 (&YyEAoC Hou, dyy. 81a0nknc). These
disputed, but the meaning given is possible in the light of n. 10. Similarly
the priest in
MYYE/ou Mal. 2:7 is ayy. Kuplou. An incontestable passage is 2 Ch. 36:15 f., where
tpoof tal (also Mas.). The LXX alone (2 Ch. 36:15 f. =) Ezr. 1:48
(Gy yeAoc)
and 1:49 (&yyenot).
Ass. Mos., 11, 17 (p. 14, f., Clemen): quomodo Monse erat magnus nuntius.
10 L. Kohler, Beih. ZAW (1923), 102 ff. M. Noth in a verbal communication traces this
further through the prophets.
11 Mal. 3:1, 23 f.: Is. 40:3. On Is. 40:9 etc. ejayy. Zech. 12:8 (the house of David
oc olkos deot, ig &yyelos Kupiou Evintiov autov) does not signify with any cer-
tainty a specific form of Messianic expectation (Is. 9:6 LXX), for cf. Mas. and 2 Sam.
14:17.
12 2 Ch. 36:16 : uuxtplZOvTEC toUc dyyÉlouC aitoi kal LEOUSEVOUVTEG TOUG A6-
yous a8to0. Ass. Mos., 11, 16 (p. 13, 25; 14, 1, Clemen): dominum uerbi fidelem in omnia.
Also Mal. 2:7 (yelin yvoais, atoua vouoc).
On enayyella, EDayyEALOV S.v.
dyyeAta

and non-sinning, LÉvElV, dyann, etc. Thus any stylistic peculiarities in the passages
adduced may be explained in terms of a basic form of the dyysAla entrusted to the
readers which for some fresh reason is worked out either by the same author or in the
same school (?).

The use of dyyeAla is striking, since the koine prefers compounds to simple
forms. Above all, the majority of dyyeA- verbs and substantives, at any rate
after classical times, are in their most pregnant use variants of EDayyEAt-
LeFOaI, EdayyÉlov. There has grouped around E0ayyEX- a self-enclosed world
with a particular outlook reflected in the usage of the remaining dyye^- words. 2
Thus in 1:5 ayyeAia & EDayyÉAlOv, the only point being that the Gospel and
Epistles of John apparently avoid EoXyyEA-. It is hard to see any reason for
this. Perhaps it is to be explained by the fact that the conflict against a Gnosis
which hoped for a coming messenger (+ 57 f.) made it advisable not to use
EDayyE^-. 4 The reading Érayye^la (1:5: Cminn :; 3:11 * Cminn) is a mistaken
commentary. In 3:11 we should expect Tapayye^la (command); but -> rapayy.
can have much the same content as Ebayy., and in John vrolac mpeiv is a
development of tov A6yov ipeiv. Hence it is no accident that in 3:11 the same
sonorous word is used as in 1:5. Proclamation includes both news about God
and command. In 1:5 it is the Word of Jesus that is meant, in 3:11 the preaching
(uaptupia) which underlies the community (gpxñ). The two coincide for the
author. There is explicit statement in 1:5 (axnkoauav ar' aitoi kal avay-
YÉAAOUEV outv), whereas in 3:11 there is no more than indication through the
parallels in 2:7 f. and Jn. 13:34.
In view of what has been said, it might be asked whether we should not prefer the
reading ÉnayyeAia in 3:11. The attestation is better than in 1:5, especially since the
S- group C 1739 etc. is here strengthened by x (in 1:5 there is only C 33). Again, the
explanation attempted above is more difficult than in 1:5, for ÉnayyeAla would have
to have the sense of tapayyelia (- supra), which is, however, linguistically rare
(-* tapayyeAla), and a mechanical adoption from 2:25 (Soden) is unlikely. It would
be quite different, however, if ÉntayyEAia were the original reading. Then the com-
mand to love would be defined as promise, and this would correspond to the basic view
of Aoyos, which accomplishes what it commands (2:14; 5:3 f. etc.), and to the parallels
in 2:7 f. (&An0éc kv aiT) and Jn. 13:34 (Koloc nyamnoa).

B. The Linguistic History of dyyelio.

The linguistic history confirms and extends what has been noted. According to Liddell-
Scott N.E. S.v. it already signifies in classical usage "announcement" or proclamation"
no less than "command" or "order". 5 The word can signify the act of declaring & (and

gyyEAla. R. Bultmann, "Analyse des ersten Johannesbriefes," Julicher-Festschr.

(1927), 138 ff.
1 Moult.-Mill. s.v. &vayyÉ^EIV; this is even more true of the verbs.
Schn. Euang., II, 249.
3 We can see from Rev. 10:7; 14:6 that all the Johannine writings consciously avoid
edayy.
With - EdayyEAlgeo0al, EiayyÉAiov there is primarily bound up expectation of
the coming messenger with glad tidings.
For the first meaning cf. Hom. Od., 5, 150; 7,263 etc.; for the second, cf. Pind. O1., 8.
81 f. (106 f.) p. 136 Schroder. Angelia is personified as the daughter of Hermes. The
following examples are confined to the Hellenistic field.
Jos. Ant., 7, 247; Bell., 4, 230 and 232 (:EL toyous Els thy dyyeAlav).
 ayye la - dyyEAAG

specifically rhetorical art 7) no less than what is declared, though the latter is more
frequent (cf. 1 Jn. 1:5). 8
The same duality of meaning is found in the case of > giayyÉiov; The re-
lationship to EbayyE^lov may be seen from the common addition dyye^la dyaon, 10
as also from the content, dyyeAla being used like EuayyÉAlov of political news and
favourable incidents. 11 It is hard to prove any distinctive religious use. 12
In the LXX it is used for good news (dyyeAla dya0n, Prv. 12:25; 25:25), 18 but
also for very bad news, 1 S. 4:19 (the loss of the ark); 2 S. 4:4 (death of Samuel and
Saul); 2 K. 19:7 = Is. 37:7; Ez. 7:26; 21:7. Except in Prv. 12:25 (737) it is always used
for agow. It is significant in the verses from Proverbs that good news is always of
value in itself, this corresponding again to the conception of Euangelion. 14 The other
passages approximate to a religious use in the sense that disaster comes from Yahweh.
In Is. 28:9 we finally have the same use as in 1 Jn. 1:5 avayyÉ ElV ayyeAlav
(737 7217) of the message of the prophets. Is there a direct influence ?
Schlatter 15 thinks it possible to affirm that dyyeAla in 1 Jn. 1:5 is an equivalent
for Aggada : "The theologians of M(ekilta) have for the doctrine of Scripture, which
includes the sacred history, the fixed formula : 'God or Scripture proclaims 737'.' 7927
however, is the equivalent of ovayyEA^w, which in 1 Jn. 1:5 seems to be linked
with ayyeAla. "From this there developed the substantive" ; Schlatter translates it
"proclamation" 16 and gives examples from the Tannaitic Midrashim: S. Dt., 49 On
11:22 1 (syn. "to know God" cf. John); M. Ex., 15:26 : "proclamations heard by the
ears of all" (cf. 8 xknkoxuEv, 1 Jn. 1:1, dyyeAla AV AKNKOXuEV, 1:5). If this under-
standing of 0721 and the Johannine passages is right, 18 then the author has chosen a
supreme expression of Judaism as his master concept for the Christian message. The
word dyyeAla resembled in sound the Hebrew equivalent, and was already stamped
in advance (cf. Josephus). 10 Its relationship to EbayyÉAlov thus commended it if the
latter had to be avoided.

+ dyyEAw.
In In. 4:51 Nestle and Soden read with BL: of 80io UTAviNaav aiT@ AÉYOVTES,
8TI o Taic autou gi. Against this x Dlat. : omvt. aut. Kal fyyelAav ott, ACR:
xal dvyyElAav (A 33 kal aThYYELLav) AEYOVTES 8Tl. Tischendorf VIII (I, 782)
pleads for D : the rare hyyeilov is replaced either by XÉyovtes or by oviyy- or
anyy-, and thus both emendations are blended. But neither Tischendorf nor Soden
knows any text which offers avayy. or dayy. without the elucidating A€yovIES:

Nepl twouc, 43, 3 p. 78, 1 Jahn-Vahlen Th lauuaor,.. dyyello, is an incredible

combination. Toupius conjectured dmtayyeAia, "expression,' "style."
Jos. Vit., 380 : Tñc &yyEAlas AKOUGaVtEG.
Noted of dyyeAla since Thes. Steph.
10 Schn. Euang., II, 250 n. 1 • n. 13.
11 Jos.
Ephes. Ant.C.18,
inscript., 325 SaB: thistapurepa
ed. Kell: kedin die Osterr.
dyyella Jahresh.,
comes 23 (1926),
from Rome. Beibl. Sp., 2
Jos. Bell.,
3, 144 (uÉyiorov soroxnua). Schn. Euang., II, 130 ff., 145 ff. 151 ff.
12 One might adduce Ael. Arist. Or., 53 (55), 3 (II, p. 468, 16 Keil), where an &yyeAla
is owed to Zeus (Schn. Euang., II, 202 ff.). But no particular significance can be attached
to the word dyyeAla.
13 In early Christianity, only Herm. v., 3, 13,2.
14 Schn. Euang., I, 31 ff.; II, 122 ff., 168 ff.
15 Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), 145.
16 Cf. also the definition of Haggadoth in Str.-B., I, 561.
17 Kittel, Sifre, 131 f., and n. 6,
18 Yet there is room for doubt, cf. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten, 12 (1903), 451 ff.
19 > n. 6 ff.
dyyE© - dvayyÉA^©

hence the rise of deviations is more readily explained from the Nestle text. In any case,
whether originally or by way of correction, the hyyeiAav indicates a solemn develop-
ment. It is to be explained by what has been said about dvayyE^EIV and dayyE ElV
in accounts of miracles, and it thus denotes the proclamation of miracles.

The only sure attestation of dyyÉ in the NT is in In. 20:18. It is never used
in the apostolic fathers. Its rarity is to be explained by what we have noted con-
cerning gyye^la. Indeed even in this one passage dvayyÉMAELV and arayyE^-
AELV occur as variants. Is the rare and intentional word felt to be sacral? It is
in an Easter story that we read : Épyetai Mapidu f May6aln dyye^Aouaa
toic uaentais 8Tl Edpaka tov Kuptov Kai taita ElTEV aiTn. Mary Magdalene
proclaims "what she has seen and heard" : cf. 1 Jn. 1:1, 3, where the reference is
also to the risen Lord and the word - dTayYE^Aw, which often occurs in the
resurrection narratives. Resurrection and proclamation belong closely together
- EiayyEAlov (R. 1:3 f.; 10:9; C. 15:1 ff. etc.) and uaptuc, uaproplov. '1 The
thought of Gospel also seems to be present in ayyÉ^ Elv (as in the dyyeAla of
1 Jn. 1:5).

This is confirmed by the history of the term. Schlatter gives instances of its secular
use in Josephus, in whom "running" (Bell., 6,254) and QuAaKEg (Bell., 6, 294) again
remind us of the resurrection narratives, as also an dyyE OUTES autoic tovta
(Bell., 4, 196; cf. Lk. 24:9). "Running" is a constant feature in secular giayyE^-, and
the announcement of the birth of Moses (a hierogrammateus dyyÉAI) in Ant., 2, 205
corresponds to both secular and sacral Euangelion. 8 The LXX has the verb only
5 times, and only in individual MSS, always corrected by dvayy., dtayy., Baryy.
and always used in a secular sense. In 2 Bao. 18:11 it occurs in the context of
delivery of a message, in which s0ayy. is repeatedly used. 4
The word has a religious tone in an ancient Eleusis document, in which the approach
of a solemn procession is announced (220 A.D.; Ditt. Syll., 3 885, 17). In a magic
papyrus the name of the one cursed is "named." 5 Above all, in the Giess. Hadrian
papyrus we find dyyÉAAElV used poetically instead of the cultic Eiayye^i(e0a for
the "proclamation" of the rule of the new divine lord. & Jesus, however, is instituted
Messiah-King and Lord in the resurrection, and the EayyÉAtov proclaims Him.

* dvayyÉ^^w.
A. avayyEllw outside the NT.
This is commonly used in the koine instead of the classical &yyÉNAELV, though the
equivalent aTayyÉ^ElV is more common. In the MSS tradition the two words seem
to be interchangeable in many authors. In the NT the only passage which has come
down without variants is Jn. 16:13-15.2 In Attic &ayyE AELV is preferred ; hence in

dyYEAAG. 1 dvayy. EG, 33 al, drayy. AD pm, dyy. BAA pc.

2 Photius (MPG, 101, 989, 11 f.) can still call Mary Magdalene an EbayyeAlotpia the
AVatagEwG.
3 Schn. Euang., I, 98 f.; II, 141, 154 ff.
4 Op. cit., I, 30 f., 64 f.
5 Audollent Def. Tab. No. 198, 15 f.: is [o]apic dyyÉ[Ao] with the textual note of
the editor on p. 274.
6 P. Giess, I, 3, 4 (p.19): avanta kalvov 'A8piavov dyye o[v]; Schn. Euang., I, 88 ff.
avayyf w. Moult.-Mill. s.v.
In Mk. 5:19 both alongside BiayyEAELV, in In. 4:51 alongside dyyEAElv.
 ovaryyE^Ad

non-Attic koine MSS, as also in the LXX and NT, we should always decide for
avayyE elv. 3
The verb is frequently used in a secular sense. With the meaning of "proclamation"
it is used of the proclamation 4 or declaration 5 of king of the reports of envoys ; 6 of
an unconcealed message of sorrow ; 7 of communications. 8 But in a weaker sense it is
often used in letters simply for "to tell,' and it almost = ElmEiv. 10
It can take on a sacral tone : a. avayyÉ elv xpnouous, Aesch. Prom., 661 f.; though
this is not a technical term for the pronouncements of oracles 11 (unlike the word group
EDayyEl- 12). b. as used in connexion with Hellenistic divine festivals in Asia Minor
the kipue dvayyÉAEl (proclaims) the rewards of EUEPYETaI, rewards for the
ow™pla of the T6Aus, 13 and esp. wreaths of honour. Synonyms can be used for both
avayyE AElV and kipue. But the fact of sacral proclamation remains, and it is an
important parallel to the NT development of the term in relation to the common
root dyye-; c. the same anangelia in the Diadochi period at the honouring of divine
rulers whose own message can have the force of divine ovayyeAia; 15 proclamation
in honour of a Magna-Mater-priest (Samos, c 100 B.C., Ditt. Syll.3 1047, 23; 27; 30),
there being no reason to suspect a special usage in connexion with the Mysteries. 16

It is very common in the LXX, being used predominantly for 7727. 17 In religious
18 it occurs most frequently, like many biblico-theological terms, in Ps. and Dt.

3 Moult.-Mill.; H. Anz, Subsidia ad cognosc. Graec. serm. e pentateuchi versione Alexan-

drine repetita (Diss. Hal., 1894), 283 f.
4 Liddell-Scott, N.E. s.v.: "proclaim." Jos. Ant., 17, 274 BaGILEUS AVAYYEADEIS (of
the rebel Simon).
BCH, 20 (1896), p. 506, 13 f. (Delos, c. 300 B.C.): Damaratos qvayyÉ El... Thv
TOU Bacilews Auaiuayou Elvolav.
E.g., IG, XII, 5, 532, f.: ÉTeion dvayyE^ovow oi mpÉopeIc of ATtOOTaAEVTES,
GDI, 4254, 10 f.: ÉTELOr dvayyENAov ol MpEOBEEs ol Es POu TODOÉ. The
circle of ideas (TpÉoBels, &TOOT& ÉVTEG) corresponds to the missionary language of the
early Church, v. Wnd. 2 K, 195 f.
Test. N. 7: Exauouny Ev on dyxvois avayyeilal ("to publish," Schnapp): that
Joseph is sold, Zn. Lk. 725, n. 68).
ai npon you evau pavtaoial avayyÉAAouolV, M. Anton, 8, 49, 1, p. 104, 9 f.
(Schenkl).
9 P. Petr., II, No. VIII (3), etc. (v. Moult.-Mill.).
10 Such is the usage, says H. Anz, in Gn. Ex., "ut plerisque locis nihil intersit inter
dvayyE^ ElV et ElTtEiv
11 Schn. Euang., II, 254, 257 f. The only comparable passage is Hom. Hymn. Apoll., 394.
12 Schn. Euang., 1, 83 f., 98 ff.; II, 194 ff., 254 ff.
13 There are many examples in inscriptions from the end of the 4th to the 1st century
B.C., 37 alone being found in those of Magn. and Priene. Similarities to NT synonymous
constructions with (EU)dyye^- are found in IG, XII, 5, 714, 10 (4th cent. B.C.), cf. 6
EDEpY., apet; IG, XII, 5, 802, 6 f. (3rd. cent. B.C.), cf. 4 dTtaryyEial, 8 • EntayyeAla;
Inscr. Magn. 53, 30, cf. 10 gUEpY., 19, 58 ETtIO&VEIa, 20 Taparaleiv, 30 CTOOT AEVTES,
35 f. owmpia; Priene, 108, 330 f., 342 f. (after 129 B.C.), cf. 339 f. owmpla sispyeola,
115 E tary yeAia.
Ditt. Or., 6, 30 (Antigonus): avayyeial OTEO&VOUG; but there is a reminiscence
here of the EiayyEA-concept of the imperial cult, EiayyÉ^io being offered (31 f.) for
the word of peace (8, 16) of the divine ruler. For an understanding of the inscription,
Ditt. n. 6; Schn. Euang., If, 132 ff. Similarly Ditt. Or., 332, 43 f. (Attalus III), where we
find cultic honouring 6-13; he is EdepyEis, 22; 24 f.; 30; 44 f.
Cf. the inscription quoted in n. 5: Lysimachos is divine ruler, and his govoia (1 ff.)
applies to a lepov.
16 Cl. Al. Protr., 8,80, 1: tl aot coplas dvayyt^ld uuamipia kal proeis IK Talooc
'EBpalou Feoopiouevou.
17 In Hatch 4 columns altogether : 184 times (including Da. ©) for 7?27.
18 The secular use is very common in the history books (cf. n. 10, Anz).
 ovayyE/Aw

Is. 19 a. The Lord declares (6 Aaliv Bikaioou nv Kai avayyEAAov aAñ0Elav)

that which is to come (Is. 42:9; 46:10 etc.) as false gods cannot do (t erepxo-
uava... avayyEl atwoav, 44:7 etc.). God's message through the prophets to
Israel, e.g., Is. 53:1 f.: KupLE, tic ÉTlOTEUgEV Th aKon nuov avnyyElAquev
oc ralblov Évavtiov aiToU, Jer. 16:10 (&avta ta pnuaia taira); 20 Is. 21:10;
Mi. 6:8 (el *yyÉAn 20 Got, &vOpTe, rl karov); Is. 58:1 (duapinuata), cf.
Ez. 23:36; 20 also to the nations, Is. 2:3 (179 hiph); 12:5; lep 26:14; (synon. Ta-
payy.); 27:2; Is. 52:15 (directly before Is. 53:1 f.), oic ouk avyyeAn repi aitou
%wovtal, Kai ol oik axnk6aotv auvnoouoiv; and to the prophets, 43:3. 20 Note
especially Am. 4:13 : AvayyENAWv Eis avepdTOUG Tov XpLOTov aUTo0. 20 b. Cultic
proclamation in the Ps.: There is declared God's Sikaloobvn (y 21:31 f.; 70:15); 20
His aAñ0ela (29:10); His pya (63:10, cf. eauuaor& 70:17); His #AEOC (91:3,
cf. 16); His 8voua (101:22); His alveoic (50:17); to the nations (95:3, cf. Is.
42:12 : tag apetas aitou av taic whools avayye1o0av).
This religious usage is distinguished from the Hellenistic by the reference to
God's command and to His historical or eschatological act, as also by the fact that
the latter is declared in the cultus in connexion with a list of synonyms all of
which are alien to Hellenism (&ikai0ouvn, Xlndeia, favuaat&, HAEOC, Evoua).21
The Hellenistic parallel is aretalogy (- apEt), in which the mighty acts of a
god are recounted. It has not been fully elucidated whether there is terminological
affinity. 22 The similarity lies in the matter, which may derive from a common
oriental source or perhaps develops spontaneously. But there is a great difference
between the historical plan of Yahweh leading to the judgments of the last day
and, e.g., the individual miracles of Aescul. Even the avayyÉ^ ElV of the Ps. is
not merely the recounting of miracles, since the narration is retrospective re-
collection of a long divine history. 23
In later Judaism these thoughts seem to return. In Test. L. 10. 1 : 24 ooa kyo
nKouga TaPa TOV TATEDOV Hou (Jn. 15:15) avnyyeux bulv reminds us of the
concept of rap&ooous. With reference to the proclamation of eschatological
occurrence, Gr. Bar., 1, p. 84, 20 (James): the angel is sent STOC OVayyElAG kai
UTTO ELE,O OOI TOVTA LTA> TOU OEOU. Similarly the recurring adnuntiare of
4 Esdras 25 is direct proclamation rather than mere promise. 26

19 Ps. 23 times ; Dt. Is. 27; Trit. Is. 2, Is. 1-39, 19; Jer. 23, but more than half of these
are secular. &ayyÉ^A©, n.21.
20 Much textual variation as between ovayy. and atayy., and sometimes EEayy.
21 The proclamation of the acts of Yahweh (Dt. Is.) and its echoes in the cultus (Ps.),
are even more closely linked in 172 (-) EoXyyEA[(EOaI).
22 The word is not used technically for aretalogies. KnpUgoEL, ATtayyEAE, Katay-
yEElv seem to be preferred. For other verbs, cf. E. Peterson, Elc ée6c (1926), 191 ff.,
though he does not have ovayyÉElV. The strongest affinity is in Is. 42:12 (supra). But
there is reason to ask whether here and in Is. 43:21 apetal is not to be translated "laudes.'
Unique is Da. 3:99, LXX €: aretalogy through an opponent; avayy. used as elsewhere
olayy.
23 Cf. the whole tenor of the historical Psalms.
24 Wnd. on 1 Jn. 1:5.
25 At any rate in 7:99 (3, 12, 13 V): ordo animarum, ut amodo ("&r' apti" Rev. 14:13,
Violet., II, ad loc.) adnuntiatur. Similarly 2, 10; 48 (from the Christian Esdras), like
ovaryy. in the prophets, while in 8, 36 like the Ps. (11:16: EDayy A (E 0a).
26 So Gunkel on 7:99.
 dvayyÉAd anaryyEA
B. dvayyÉAAd in the NT.
In the NT Mt. 28:11 inclines more to the secular use (x D pc read dvayy.),
whereas Jn. 5:15 27 and Ac. 16:38 28 incline strongly to the religious.
1. Mk. 5:14 : oi Boakovtec. .. dvhyyellonv 20 belongs to the category of mira-
cle stories, 30 and Mt. 28:11 and Jn. 5:15 might perhaps be regarded in the same
way.
2. Not far removed is the usage in Ac. 14:27; 15:4, which reminds us both of
aretalogy and the Psalms (63:10; 70:17). The apostles recount what God has
done through them a knowledge of the present act of God corresponding to
that of the prophets. To the same group belongs 2 C. 7:7, in which Titus "tells"
(ci. 1 Th. 3:6; -> EiayyeA (ouai) the #pyov of God. In 1P. 1:12 it is used
synon. with Eiayye^((e@au to record that Christ has appeared (in contrast with
the mere expectation of the prophets and angels). A similar use may be seen in
R. 15:21. Here Is. 52:15 is quoted (- 58, 63) in the context of a great say-
yÉAIov passage (15:14 ff., 18-20). In Ac. 20:20 f., 27 it is synon. with 8186Ea1
and biquaptopeo0al, having as its content OUUOÉPOVTA, LETOVOLC and TElOTIs,
the whole Bouln of God. Here we have the strongest analogy to its use in the
prophets.
Under the same OT influence - 1 Cl. quotes Is. 53:2; Ps. 51:15 31 the post-
apost. fathers almost use the word as a t.t. for divinely ordained proclamation. 32
3. An isolated case is Ac. 19:18 (ÉEouoAoyou evol Kai avayyE^OVTES TOS
ipaels aitov) where it is used of the confession of sins (cf. Is. 58:1; Ez.
23:36 ?).
4. In 1 Jn. 1:5 &vayyE^AEIV (synon. with paptupEiv, dayyÉ ELV, 2 f.) is
the verb for &yyeAla, which declares the Abyos ths Zons as it has now become
visible and audible (1:1, 3). Anaphorically repeated three times in In. 16:13-15,
it is used of the speech of the Paraclete. The proclamation of the Paraclete is
prophetically eschatological (cf. OT and apocalyptic): 33 ro EpxouEva OVayyElEi
(16:13, cf. Is. 44:7); He leads gy Th xln0ela ndon (son D, cf. 29:10?); He
takes only of the things of Jesus (16:14f.). In the coming &pa, says Jesus in
16:25, rappnola tepi tot starpoc dvayye^d duiv. Do we not have in all
these cases an indefinite use of the verb ? The Samaritan woman says of the
coming Messiah (Ta'eb) in 4:25: dvayye^ei quiv antavta. Is the coming
messenger ( 57 f.) meant Or is there a direct reminiscence of Dt. 18:18 ?

t anayyÉllo.
A. artayyE^@ outside the NT.
Meaning the same as dvaryyÉA@, and often replaced by it in the koine. A messenger
brings news; the following of an order or a secret plan is recounted ; 1 or it is used

27 ELTTEV NC al, dvñyy. BA al, amyy. Do 33 al.

28 We read dvoryy. rather than dontayy. in spite of poor and meagre attestation.
29 With Soden the A reading dvaryy. is to be preferred to the "better" attested antayy.
It maintains the rougher non-Attic quality. Cf. also Jn. 16:25.
To be sure, Bultmann, Trad., 236 ff. and Peterson, op. cit., 193 ff, call this declaring
rather than telling. But it has all the features of aretalogy indicated by Peterson.
31 CI., 16, 3; 18, 15. Moreover W 18:3 =1 CI., 27, 7: WE, WKTI avayyÉAEL Yuibow.
32 Herm. v., 2, 1, 3; 3, 3, 1; M. Pol., 15, 1: 1 Cl., 17, 7.
33 H. Windisch, Julicher Festschrift (1927), 121, cf. the Comm.
amayyEAAd. 1 Jos. Vit., 51: ExTEUTEL WET' ETOTOAKV... Tov antayyeloivra
 diary yEAAG

of reports, 2 of information given in letters etc., 8 often in official 4 or judicial 5 style

-> TaparyyE^Ad, EntayyE^Aw). On the whole the word is more official than dvay-
yEAAG, e.g., to signify the activity of envoys: TIPÉOBEIS, cf. the image in
2 C. 5:20; Eph. 6:20. Already in classical secular use EoayyeA- and aTayyeA- occur
as synonyms. T dayyÉAAElV can have much the same meaning as "to speak," whether
generally, 8 or more particularly to speak a noos, Aoyous dindeis, thy CAñDELary,
Ttavta EE cAnOeias.
There is an approximation to religious speech when what is announced is liberation
from a cultic katoxn, 10 or magic, 11 or favourable time to make war, 12 or a decree
from the "God" Trajan. 13 Directly religious is its use a. to characterise Hermes
(Phrygian inscript. from 1st cent. A.D.): 'Epuñv TE... aTtaryyE^ovta Bpotoiow
"Oooa Zeuc opové[EL].14 Similarly dyyeiog dyyEnAElv and even Eidryyeloc
EiayyEAlgeo0au are used of Hermes. 15 b. In honours lists (esp. from Athens in
3rd to 2nd cent. B.C.) the success of sacrifice dispensing compla is declared by
solemn &TayyÉAAElV. 16 c. Occasionally in aretalogies, 17 esp. P. Oxy., XI, 1381, ex-
tolling Imouthes-Aesculapius (beginning of the 2nd cent. A.D.): aTtayyÉNElV
SUvquEIS, synon. &nyeio0a1 SuvquEIc, KnpUG0ElV EoEpyEOlas, TEPOONTEDELV EI-
volarv. 18 d. In Epictetus' sense of mission: the gyyelog TOU Al6c should dray.
yeilal taAnOn, synon. EEayyÉAElV. 10
In the LXX the word is almost as ommon as avayyE^ELV, 20 usually as a
rendering of 72277. From this we may see that the terms are equivalent. Yet the

ti to ovupeBnkos gin TO & toota evil (recalling the NT Epistles); Ant., 9, 49

(= 4 Bao. 4:7); Ant., 15, 47: Sabbion aTtayyE el to Herod the plan of Alexandra.
Herm. s., 5, 2, 11; also (8 To ouyy papév aTyye ueva) Jos. Bell., 1, 13.
3 P. Petr., II, No. II (3) 5 etc., as elsewhere dvayyE AElv (-+ n. 9). Men. Peric., 298,
p. 61, Jensen.
4 P. Oxy., I, 106, 4: &yyela Oueiv (a declaration of Trajan).
5 H "to appeal," P. Oxy., I, 33, V (2nd cent.), 2; 8; "to intimate" (death), P. Magd.,
8.9 f.
® Explicitly, e.g., Ditt. Syll.3, 206, 10 f.; 17 f.; 370, 43 f.: 46. Cf. Schn. Euang., II, 249, n. 1.
7 Schn. Euang., II, 250, n. (Demosthenes, Lycurg.).
8 Alciphr. Ep., 1I, 17 (11I, 20), 2 p. 38, 11, Schepers: touaira kal eldÉvai Kal ontary-
YENAElV KaK6G; Philo Leg. All, II, 62 : buxns tooThy gEo dithyyele; and the whole
discussion in Philo Leg. All., III, 118- 121 (anayyeilai, 120).
Philo Leg. All., III, 120, p. 140, CW; cf. p. 139, 26 and 139, 19 (Ex. 28:26); Men.
Peric., 77 f., p. 50, Jensen ; Polyb., I, 14, 1 (1, p. 17, 22, Buttner-Wobst); P. Lond., 46
(= Preis. Zaub., V), 302
10 P. Lond., 42, 26 (168 B.C.).
11 P. Lond., 46 (-> n. 9 ; 4th cent. A.D.), 302 f., synon. EEayy., 294 ; cf. Eyo elu
&yyeloc tof darpo, 113 f.
Alciphr. Ep., 14 (I,11), p. 16 Schepers: uaotpes ("investigators") utAAouot
antary yÉAEIV &TE SE1 ATTLEvaI To sunooviac: oracles? Even if the verse is a gloss
(Hermann), the point remains.
13 P. Oxy, I, 106, 4 (- n. 4) "Oe6c", line 11.
14 Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, (1895), 308, No. 120/1.
16 Schn. Euang., I, 86; II, 197 ff., 218 ff. Hermes is the Abyos dyyEAtIKOS, says Justin.
16 Syll.3, 289, 2 ff.; 299, 11 ff. etc. (cf. index): TEpI Av antaryye ouat those hon-
oured, onep tov Ovalov ov gQuov etc. Similarly Herodian, VIII, 3, 7, p. 209, 21. Stavenh.
(Syria, 3rd cent. A.D.): lspo alaia & ayyEA ovtov. Cf. Axel Boethius, Die Pythais
(Uppsala, 1918), 120. The AayyÉ^ovies are there 0e∞pol (119 ff.) whose task is other-
wise that of ErrayyÉ^go0au (or katyyÉAelv).
17 - avayyE^Aw, 62.
18 Lines 88-90, 215-222; cf. 42, 137, 145, 170.
19 III, 22 (23), 25; on roAn0ñ n. 9; on the parallel III, 21, 16 > LEaryyÉAAd.
20 Hatch, 4 cols.
 aTayyEAAd

secular use easily predominates. 31 The religious use is wholly analogous to

dvayyENEIv. 22 It refers a. to God's message: Is. 44:8; w 147:8: rov Abyov
a0To0, cf. 7 (aTOoTE Ei) ; to oracles S. 9:6,8 ; to prophetic proclamation
1 S. 9:19; 12:7; Mi. 3:8; Sir. 44:3; also Wis. 6:22; Sir. 16:25 (a Hellenistic aware-
ness of inspiration ?); b. To cultic proclamation: God's Sovapic (y 144:4), arm
(70:18, synon. dvayy. eauu&ona, 17), XAnlela (88:2), Epya (104:1, twice for
97> hiph), SiaAoyiouol (39:6), and alvÉoEIc (77:4, 70) are all declared. Synonyms
are bunyElofau in 54:18 and also edayye l{eolat in Na. 1:15 (both times woun).
Here again we have terminological echoes of aretalogy (&inyeio0a1, SU queIS).

B. ArtayyÉl in the NT.

The word is found 25 times in Lucan writings, and about 14 times elsewhere (Mk. 16
twice). Litcrary style is an influence in Luke, 23 esp. in substitution for AÉYEIV, v. what
follows. Secular usage is found at: Mt. 2:8; 14:12; cf. Lk. 13:1; 14:21 (to narrate
or report"); Lk. 8:20 (= AÉyEIV, Mk. 3:32); 18:37; Ac. 5:22; 25 (infra); 16:36; 22:26;
23:16 f., 19; 28:21.

Religious use is found in the NT 1. in accounts of miracles, Mt. 8:33 = Lk. 8:34
(= Mk. 5:14, dvayy.); cf. Lk. 8:36 (= 8inyeio@a, Mk. 5:16) and 8:47 (= El-
TElv... &AñOELaV, Mk. 5:33). Similarly, Ac. 11:13; 12:14, 17, in association witn
the thought of God's work dvaryy.), as in Ac. 4:23. Hearers record the im-
pression of the Word of God in I C. 14:25; 1 Th. 1:9. As with dvaryy., the
usage remains much the same in the post-apostolic period, cf. 1 CI., 65,1. In Ign.
Phld., 10, 1 a solemn account is given of the "peace" of the communities, with
perhaps an echo of the thought of the Gospel, Eoayy.. and siphvn having been
synon. since Is. 52:7.
The resurrection accounts are similar. In view of Lk. 9:36 (006Ev AThYYELAOV
Ev Ékeivaic taic ju€pais), Mt. 28:8, 10 = Lk. 24:9 (Mk. 16:10, 13) might almost
suggest the message of the resurrection in a specialised sense (- gyyÉ Ao).
To be sure, in the same (Mt. 28:11 dvayy.) or similar contexts (Ac. 5:22, 25)
the word seems to be secular, but it might well be asked, as with dvayy., whether
even the report of the neutral or the opponent is not thought to be sacral in a
miracle story.
2. The message of God in the narrowest sense is also meant in Mt. 11:4
Lk. 7:22 : ATAYYELaTE 'Iwawn, 24 cf. EiayyeAgeofa (
as it certainly is in Ac. 26:20 : toic LOVEOIV ATHYYEAAOV LETOVOEIV Kai ITtLOTpé-
DELV Érl Tov 0E6v (cf. 20:20 f. dvayy. 818gEau Siataptupeolau; Mk. 1:4 Kn-
piooe1v). Similarly Ac. 17:30 tells us that God Himself dray yEA^El (napayyE^-
el in 8 pm is a softening) tois aviponois... HETOVOEIV. In 1 Jn. 1:2, 3 we have
a highly specialised use: o ÉopaKqEv kal AKnKOQLEV, diayyE ONE Kai
ouiv (- dvayyE^Aw, dyyeAla).

21 Dt. Is. only twice (in Is. 48:20 read dvayy.); in Ps. only 9 times.
22 Since in principle we prefer avayy., some references given in Hatch are omitted. As
the words are interchangeable, this makes no material difference.
23 The certainty of this conclusion is restricted by the fact that dvayy. and anayy.
appear very seldom in Philo. We owe the passages quoted to H. Leisegang : they are not
listed in the Index.
24 In the same connexion Lk. 7:18: aThy yELAarv '1wav. of uaintai aut. (secondary
in D); the passage would belong to 1. (the work of God"), but all "dispositions" are
fleeting.
 aTayyÉAAG - SIayyEAAG

3. Jesus Himself is the Messenger of God kat' tEoyhv according to Mt. 12:18;
Hb. 2:12 : two loose quotations from the LXX, first from Is. 42:1: plou
TOIC EOVEOIV ATAyyE Ei (= gi, LXX Egoloe), and then from Ps. 22:22:
aTtayyE d to 8voud COu 25 toic doelooic you= 20, LXX &unyhoouau).
We probably have here the influence of Palestinian tradition, i.e., that the
Messiah will be the prophet of Dt. 18:15, 18 26 and the EXyyEA (ouEvoc of
Is. 52:7; cf. Jn. 4:25 aVayyelei, Hb. 3:1 drooroAoc. The Hellenistic (Jewish-
Gnostic?) expectation of the coming divine messenger ( 57 f.) derives from the
same root. The difference lies in the estimation of the 'Word." Will the final
Word of God, and therefore His last message, mean judgment and remission (OT,
Palestine, NT), or will it mean an overflowing of the divine substance (Hellen-
ism)? As distinct from both expectations Jesus signifies not merely fulfilment but
also ax&v8aAov. Mt. 11:5 f. applies to the Jewish hope, and the whole of John's
Gospel is in opposition to the Gnostic-Hellenistic hope, Jesus the Son being sub-
ordinate to the Father and not a OEioc.

t BiayyÉAAo.
A. SayyÉlw outside the NT.
Rare in Hellenism, but shares with E&ayyÉAAElV, KaTayyÉAEIV and E0ayye-
geofat the solemn use of the dyye^-verbs. The word is used in Josephus for an
important military announcement (Vit., 98, also Ant., 7, 201) and a solemn "proclama-
tion" of the emperor (Bell., 6, 96). In Philo as in Josephus it is synon. with EDGyyEAl-
geOa, 2 in both cases in purely Hellenistic contexts. It is linked with knpuyua 3
and Abyog. 4
Religiously, the word is used a. of the herald ministry of Iris and Hermes, 5 Hermes
occurring repeatedly with (EU)ayye^-, knpuy-, loyos. 6 It is also used b. of the
Pythia: ta TEpI TOU DEo0 SlayyÉAEI; though Socrates under the power of the
daemon can proclaim x nÉorEpa, tois pilois tayyEllac To tov Oedv oupi Bou-

25 Cf. W, 101, 22 dvayy.

26 The paucity of Rabbinic examples (Str.-B., II, 479 f., 626) is to be explained by the
frequently recognisable tendency (Str.-B., IV, 452 ff. on Ps. 110; IV, 1223, Index S.v. Elias
etc.) to expunge traditions welcome to Christianity. The attempt to explain the expectation
of the one + pooiins solely from Hellenism (Fascher, Prophetes, 1927) leaves open
many questions. No strict derivation can be given, but the quotation from Dt. 18 and its
appearance in non-Hellenistic contexts, e.g., the primitive community, call for explanation.
27 Wetter, op. cit., 172-180 ; Lutgert, Die joh. Christologie? (1916).
SayyÉ Ad. Used stylistically (instead of avayyEAElv etc.) in Philo Som.,
I, 27: ayyelol Suavolas elal (the senses) BuayyÉ^ouaal xpa K/. De . Ins.,
13 : viov. . . SayyÉ^ovta TEpI rov aXlov naldwv.
Philo Leg. Gai., 99 : dyala SayyEAAElV synon. EiayyEAi(Eofa1 (Schn. Euang., I,
85 f.); Jos. Bell., 4, 618 : 8iñyyeov al ojual tov aitoxpatopa, where ÉOpTa(EIV
EiayyÉ^ia follows at once, and where the whole outlook is determined by the EoayyÉAlov
of the imperial cult (ibid., I, 104 ff.).
3 Herodian, II, 6, 6, p. 51, 11, Stavenhagen.
4 Plat. Tim., 37b. 8rav... 6 TOU BaTEDOU KOKAOG aploc tov Elg tacav autou thy
puxnv Buayyelin. The whole treats of the Abyos TEpI TE latEpov ov kai TEpI TO
tautov. The text and meaning are doubtful (Taylor, A Comment. on Plato's Timaeus,
Oxf. 1928, 180 f.). The -> a nOela concept recurs repeatedly in the context.
5 Etymologicum Gudianum, p. 71, 51 f., Sturzius Cornut. Theol. Graec., 16, p. 21 (18)
19 f., Lang (Wetter, op. cit., 35). Similarly Philo Leg. Gai., 99 ff. (-+ n.2; the passage
treats of Hermes). Also to be noted in this connexion is Philo's application of the verb to
heavenly dyyEloi, Som., I, 141; Abr., 115.
6 Schn. Euang., I, 85 ff., II, 197 ff., 218 ff.
 BiayyEA
Aebuara (Xenoph. Ap. 12 f.). Similarly we find in popular Greek religion 7 the psalm-
catena : Bpovth . . . f Herd to BaTtioua TOU EaryyeAiou BiayyeAla. Josephus 1s
moving in the sphere of Hellenistic religion when in a biaryyeAla (address against
suicide) he seeks to declare the tpootayuata Tou OEO0 before threatening death
(Bell., 3, 361; 362-382), or when he uses the verb in the sense of EbayyEA- to proclaim
the enthronement of the divine emperor (Bell., 4, 618).

In LXX it is always sacral (9 times). A miracle is reported to the Persian king

(2 Macc. 1:33); the sabbatical year (n2y hi, Lv. 25:9) and the shouting at Jericho
(Tx Jos. 6:10) are announced. The dominion of the Kurios is proclaimed to the
whole world. In Ex. 9:16 Suemphons (Pharaoh) that I may show my toxic kal
STToC SlayyEAn To Evoud you gy Toon m Yi. Similarly of Heliodorus in
2 Macc. 3:34 : ou 8É HEMaCtIyWuEVoc SIKYYEALE TOOL TO UEYAAEION TOU
0eo0 xportoc; also 58:13 : 8uayyeAjoovta (14) awrour
ott o GEoG TOU 'IAKOB BEOTOMEL TOV rEpaTOV ThS yins. Above all, Ps. 2:7:
SiayyEAAov (SLayyEAv, A) to "pootayua 10 Kuplou. Kupios ElTEV stpoc
LE Ytoc YOU EL oU rt1. We are again reminded of the Hellenistic cult of the
ruler ; the same connexion, even of the Hebrew text, with this cult is found in
the case of > EdayyeAl{,eolai. 11 The lordship of Yahweh and the coronation
of the king are proclaimed. In Ps. 2:7 with its reference to the Messiah and its
formula of adoption, the parallel is even stronger. 12

B. SayyÉAG in the NT.

In the NT it is used for "cultic announcement" in Ac. 21:26 : StayyÉ^Awv (in
the temple) thy EKttAnpwowv tov nuspov tou dyniouot (the Naziritic vow).
In the other three instances it has much the same sense as in the LXX. Ex. 9:16
is quoted in R. 9:17. 18 In Mk. 5:19: SigyyE1 ov14 autois, Box 6 Kup6s Gol
TETOINKEV, the miraculous act of the God of Israel is proclaimed in the heathen
land. In Lk. 9:60 : ou SE. . . SIXYyEAE Thy Bacilelav toU 0e00, 15 corresponds
to the Lucan EiayyeAlfe tal Thy Baoielav TOU 0EOU, which has its roots in
the Palestinian Jewish tradition. The meaning is not simply that the disciples
announce the imminent Banela t.0., but that the eschatological lordship of God
is proclaimed, beginning in the word of proclamation. Thus it is said expressly
of the word of the disciples in Lk. 10:9 : Hyyikev to' ouas A Bacilela TOU (EOD.
In the same sense we are to understand such sayings of the Lord as in Mt. 11:5 f.
(troyol Edayye lfovtal kal uaxapibc botlv 8c edv un okavoalio0n tv

Alongside the Pythia are birds, thunderings, voices : ouat (-; n. 2, Jos.), Bpovtal,
Xenoph. Apol., 12.
Cf. the catena in Ps. I, 491, 19.
9 Cf. the obscure Sir. 43:2 : Hilloc ev oTtaola SuaryE^Awy Ev 1&68Q. Smend: The Sun
when it arises radiates warmth (ion 9"a). How wonderful is the work of the Lord!
10 Supra, Jos. Bell., 3, 361, either mere coincidence or imposed by the matter itself.
11 Schn. Euang. I, 25 f., II, 180 ff.
12 The content is the same in Mas. even though the text be emended (Gunkel, ad loc.).
own way.
So, 18 too, tia th in Ear aston lda the cherhand inen seililf the LiXX goos
14 So. Dminn, against &raryye^. $ and dvayye^. 8. Synon. KnpiGoELV in v. 20.
15 "Simply a Greek variant for KnpUo0Env" (Dalman W. J., 1, 86 p228 or 22).
In view of the parallel indicated in the text, this seems happier than Dalman's second
suggestion, 9T, "to make known.
 BiayyE AG - LEaryyEAAo

quol); 16 Lk. 9:26 (8s av entaloyuv0ñ uE 16 kal toug Euouc Abyouc); and Mk.
4:2-32. Indeed, this is the significance of the word in the sayings of the synoptic
Jesus generally. Only along these lines can we perceive the parallel to the LXX
as well as to the imperial cult, the whole of Jesus' preaching of the kingdom con-
stituting an antithetical parallelism in the case of the latter. 17 All the dyye^-
words, however, signify proclamation.
Early Christian echoes of this synonymous usage are still to be found in the supple-
ment to Dg. (11,5): ooroc 8 &el, 6 "onuepov utoc" loyto0Els (Ps. 2:7) by whom the
xapis atAouuevn ev dylois TtAnBvetat. .. 81ayyÉAouoa kalpouc (the fulfil-
ment of the promises), 18 This is conjoined with such terms (1-8) as Aoyoc, uuotpia,
Kn PUG0ELV and EdayyÉ^ia (the Gospels), all in characteristic reshaping of original
Christian contents.

t tgayyÉild.
This is found only in Pt. 2:9 in the sense of "publishing abroad" 1 or solemn
dyyÉ AEIV: STOS TOS opEras EEayyelAntE TOO... ou&c karÉoavroc. The
style is that of aretalogy, 2 and there is allusion to Is. 43:21: Aa6v YOu Bv TEPLE-
"tolnoqunv toc apetac you binyelolat. It is mere chance that it does not occur
elsewhere in the NT or the apostolic fathers. In view of the uniformity of the
whole dyye^-stem, the history of this term is also given.
We see its secular use in tragedy, the tEayyEAos being a messenger who proclaims
abroad . . . what is concealed from the gaze of the spectators. 3 The particular meaning 1
of imparting something unknown or declaring something concealed is illustrated by
Schlatter from Jos.; 5 cf. also Pseud.-Call., Hist. Alex, Magn., I, p. 16, 18 (scroll from
the jar of Nectanebos).
Religiously, a. the latter notion is seen in the 8pkos inscriptions of early Hellenism,
perjured transgressors of the nomos or unravelled conspiracies being published. &
b. Both Socrates (Xenoph. Apol., 13) and Epictetus think of themselves as prophetic
declarers of what is secret; Epictetus compares a bad philosopher to a poor knoue
of mysteries: ÉgayyEAEIC auto Trap& kaipov (Diss., III, 21, 16, p. 293, 9, Sch.7).
Philo uses the word of the Aoyoc tpooopixoc (Migr. Abr., 73 cf. 71), and a magic
papyrus of the 4th century A.D. uses it of the proclamation of "poyeyovota.1 c. It is
also used in much the same sense as in aretalogy (Aelius Aristides), the epiphany,
parousia and Su quels of Aesculapius being extolled. 8 d. It is used of the sayings of

16 Jesus is the autoBaoilela (Feine, Theol., 4 (5) 80). But in most recent studies it is
recognised that the B.T.O. is present. This is the significance of the "Word."
17 Many observations might be made such as those of Windisch, ZNW, 24 (1925),
240 ff.
18 Bauer, S.v. Blaryye^.
EEayyEAA©. Bauer, S.v.
_ avayy., n. 22.
Pape, s.v.
Examples can be found of its use in the sense of "betray" from the time of Homer.
5 It is used of "'betrayed" court intrigues (Bell., 1, 443: Ant. 17, 5; 44); of strategic situa-
tion (Bell., 3, 317) or a threatening danger (Vit. 137) which is perceived.
Ditt. Or., 226, 34 ff.; Syll.3, 145, 26; 360, 16 ff. (equivalent to EloayyE^ElV, "to in-
dicate," 35); 527, 73. All these are from the 4th to 3rd cent. B.C.
P. Lond., 46 (Preis. Zaub., V), 294 ATaYyEIAw, 302 f.; cf. &yyelos tou dampo,
113 f. (&ayyÉAAw, n. 11).
Ael. Arist. Or. Sacr., II, 20, p. 399, 8, Keil: EEnyye On to ths Enipavelas, ibid., 30,
p. 401, 20 f. ÉEMYyEAAEV lepdv kal rapouolav kal Sugusic tivac tou 0∞00. Perhaps
we should cite in the same connexion Jos. Ant., 10, 35 : ToUtov LEV a8016 LEayyEAoD EV
Exaotov, i.e., the acts of the prophets.
 EEayyEAAc - KaTyyÉAA

rulers. Thus EoayyÉlia are offered for the announcement of the victory (LEnyyEA-
uÉva) of Demetrius Poliorcetes, the message itself being clearly regarded as sacral.'
Again, Antiochus of Commagene thinks of himself as the prophetic enunciator 'of a
divine nomos. 10 In both these cases we have approximations to the use of EiayyÉAtov
in the cult of the ruler (- dyyeAla, dyyEAAw, dvayyÉ Aw, SlayyE^Ao).
In the LXX we have only one case of the secular use of ZEayyElEwv (in Prv.).
It is used 8 times for cultic declaration in the Psalms (= 990) and 3 times in Sir. The
meaning is much the same as that of ovayy. or anayy. : alveo(E)Ic W 9:15; 72:28;
Sir. 39:10 = 44:15 (gOvn, copla, Ékk^nola); #pya U 106:22 (par. Quola alveoEGc);
Sir. 18:4; Bukalooovnv (x dvayy.) #70:15 (par. owtpiav); 8600c 118
connexion with ÉrayysAla, pjua and Abyoc U 55:9, 11.

T KOT-, ipoxatayyÉAAw, KaTXYYE EUG.

A. katayye^lw outside the NT.

In the secular field the word can be used of official reports 1 or the process of
cognition. 2 It can signify "maintaining" (Epict. Diss., IV, 8, 26, p. 429, 9, Sch.2) or
"pronouncing" (Jos. Ant., 11, 222, cf. 229) something about oneself (on both Entary-
yÉAouau). As with all the dyye^-verbs, however, it has the constant sense of pro-
claiming."
This can be used religiously a. in the sense of the intimation of sacral agones. The
usual term for this is ÉnayyÉ^Aso0at, but there are many examples of KATaYYyÉ^AELV
in both earlier and later Hellenism, 3 especially in the proclamation of a sacred festival.
It is very occasionally used of general promises to the deity 4 like the regular Énay-
yEA sofaI. b. Philo thinks of his philosophical or religious proclamation (Omn. Prob.
Lib., 71: Evdelav doplas katayyE^ ovtEs), as does also Cl. Al. in relation to the
corybants (Protr., II, 19, 4 : TEAETHV KABELPIKNV KaTayyÉ^oualv). Do we have here
a distinctive usage of the mysteries? 5 It is used in honour of the emperors (37 A.D.) : 6
r KaT' Eixnv roow dvepinois flnioleioa.. . Kala nysuovia KaThVyEA-
tal. This is the proclamation of imperial rule more usually described in terms of

Ditt. Syl1.3, 352 (Ephesus 302/1 B.C.), 2-6 : ouvnoé [fivau Eri toic #nylyE^uÉvois
dyalois . . kal otepannpopaiv... Enl tois ebtuxnuaolv toic eEnyyeAjvo: LOBBI
Se kai Eb]ayyflia. In exposition, v. Schn. Euang., II, 134, 171, 168 ff. Sacral in the sense
of the avaryyé^AEtv-inscriptions is GDI, 3092 (Megaris, date unknown): the nomination
of an g0epyétns (lines 7; 11 f.); the Psephisma, 15, LEayyE1 avtOV the polemarchs.
10 Ditt. Or., 383 (1st. cent. B.C.), 121 f.: vouov 8é toUtoy poun uEV LENYYELAEV tuñ.
VOUC SE NEGV EKUPWOEV.
KatayyEAAG KTA. 1 P. Oxy., X, 1274, 6 : news of death : Jos. Ant., 20, 72 : decla-
ration of wars.
2 Philo Op. Mund., 106 : rov #phouov apl0uov .. . xupotepac tas loomtas katay.
yEAAovta.
3 Boesch, ©EQPOE (Ditt. Zuir., 1908), 11,2 for examples from the 2nd century B.C.
To be noted are Ditt. Or., 319, 13: KatayyEAla = Emnyye^uÉva, 14. Similarly later,
Epict. Diss., I, 29, 36, p. 105, 12 Sch.2 ( cryov metaphorically): Plut. Quaest. Conv., I,
(II, 622a): with Kipue; this throughout. An dyov of the gods 'Ounpe KaTayyE ETAI
on account of his despising of the gods, Pseud.-Heraclit. Quaest. Hom., 4 f. ed. Soc. Phil.
Bon.
4 P. Oxy., XI, 1381, 150 : KaTyyEAuÉvny UT6oyEOlv of an oath. In the same context
drayy. (q.v., n. 18) and other words of sacral intimation.
This is open to question, like the ovaryy. passage in Clement (q.v., n. 16). Reference
might be made to Heliodor. Aeth., III, 1, p. 78, 16 f., Bekker: aulot TEAEOtIKoV TE
uÉloc kal katayye/tikov ts Ouolac; but what has been said under a. is enough to
explain this, as also Philo.
Ditt. Syll.3, 797, 5 f. The inscription is also found in Wendland, Hell. Kultur, 2, 3 410,
No. 11.
 katayyÉ^Ad

EiayyA(( Oal, but also denoted by dyyE^ ElV and SayyÉAElV (- 61, 62, 67
and 68).
The LXX makes no contribution. The only certain instances are in 2 Macc. 8:36 and
9:17, where Nicanor and Antiochus must declare the divine omnipotence. 1 Here we
have a form of aretalogy usually conveyed by &iayyÉAELV, in which the opponent
must be the messenger. Origen's Sexta has katayyÉ^AElv for the important ota-
yEAEIV of LXX w 2:7. 8
In Josephus KatayyÉ^Elv is used of God's promise to Abraham and through the
prophets. Here, too, the usage is synonym with ÉrayyÉ^0xt, but there is no
case of a promise of God in Hellenism. This idea (-* enayyeAla) is first found in
Judaism.

B. KatayyÉAd in the NT.

In the NT the term is found 6 times in Paul and 11 in Acts. It is also used twice
in Ignatius and once in Polycarp. It is always sacral.
The sense of promise is as infrequent as in Hellenism or Judaism. Only in
Ac. 3:24 could it have this meaning: the prophets katyyelAav tos nuÉpas
TaUTac (v. n. 12). In Ign. Phld., 5, 2 ; 9, 2, where we are to love the OT prophets
81& to kai autouc eic TO EDayyEALOV KaTYYEAKÉVaL, and where we are also
told: npoontal Katyyel av Elc aurov, the word seems to mean "prophesy,"
as suggested by the context of 9, 2. 10 All the same, the intransitive use is striking ;
the thought of solemn proclamation is uppermost. 11 We should also construe
Ac. 3:24 along similar lines ; "promise" is tpoKatayyÉ^Ad in v. 18. 12 The pro-
phets are thought of as -> KaTayyEAEiC or heralds.
This seems to be the usual sense. The language of mission 13 loves such ex-
pressions as tov Xpl0Tov KaTayyE^AEIV (Phil. 1:17; Col.1:28), or Xplotoc
katayyE^etal (Phil. 1:18). These are equivalents of Xpltov knpooelv (Phil.
1:15 etc.) and EDXYYEA gEO0 aL (GI. 1:16 ff.). Similar phrases are to EoaryyE^lov
kaTayyÉAAEIV (1 Cor, 9:14), Tov Aoyov TOU OeOU (Ac. 13:5 and 17:13), to6
Kupiou (15:36), 14 in the sense of To uaptoptov 15 TOU éE00 (1 Cor. 2:1, synon.
with Aoyos, kipuyua, v.4, cf. 1:18,21) . We should not distinguish a "weaker
missionary meaning" in 1 C. 9:14 from the emphatic meaning in C.2:1 etc. 16
KaTayyÉ^AElV shares with > EiayyÉAlov and Aoyoc "the emphatic meaning
of solemn religious message or teaching.
This sense is that of the proclamation or declaration of a completed happening
rather than instruction marked off from others by distinctive formulations. The

7 8,36 : KaTyyEAAEV irtépuaxov EYEIV TOV BEOV TOUC '10US. (ToV Oeov V; om A,
supported by the context) 9, 17: katayyeAovta to TOO 0E00 potos.
KatayyE^Gv sic feov 8a0 Knv. In t 39:6 I has katayyÉ^d instead of tA&-
Anox (LXX).
Jos. Ant., 1, 183 : raloa aut yEVjoE {al KaTayyEAEI; 10, 61: 008Év EWE DETO
TOUTOV Sv aitoc bid tHv mpoontov KATYYELAE.
ol yap dryamntol itpooital KaTyyEiAav lc autoy to 8É Edgy yEAlov aTtap-
tioua Eativ &olapolas. The antithesis, however, is not KATaYYÉAEIV/EDaYYÉAIOV,
but elc airovlaraptioua.
11 Kriger in Hennecke? renders "prophesy" in both cases, W. Bauer in Hdbuch only in
9:2, but in WB in both cases "direct their proclamation to.
12 C2pc Kosmas introduce it in v. 24 as well.
13 Joh. W. K. 45.
14 ExnpiÉauev C minn. cat.
15 > uaprupiov like uvotpiov (vl) is a synon. for ) EDayyÉ lov.
16 Joh. W., op. cit. He links with C. 2:1 the verse 1 C. 11: 26 and 6 passages in Acts.
 katayyÉAAG

synonyms make this clear in Paul, and in Acts KatayyE ELV reflects directly
the language of mission. In 4:2 : katayyE^EIV Ev to 'Inoot Thy avaataoiv Thy
Ex VEK pov:17 the expectation of the dvdotaols veKpiv has become a reality
"in Jesus" and is now declared. Similarly when Paul preaches to the Jews in
17:3: StL OSToC EOTIV 6 Xpiot6s, 6 'Inoouc, ov #yo katayyE^d ouiv: the
expected Messiah is now present. In both cases expectation is fulfilled in the
name of Jesus. Synonymous is knpuooetv or EjayyEAL(EFDaL TOV "Inootv, twice
used in Acts. 18 In 13:38, too, GOEGIC quaptiov means that the supreme ex-
pectation of the OT is fulfilled (cf. 10:43 etc.).19 Similarly, when Paul preaches
to the Gentiles in 17:23, that which is honoured in yvota, tooto kyo katay-
yÉAAo Duiv. It may thus be deduced that the formulae 66ov awmplas in 16:17 20
and #On KaTayyE^ElV (Jewish) in 16:21 do not imply instruction on religious
rules of life, but declaration or preaching. 21
Christian liturgical language is seen in Ac. 26:23 (Is. 42:6, 9?):22 8 Xp...
TpOTOC t& IVAOT&OENS VEKPOV OKS HÉAAEL KATaYYENEIV TO TE Aa6 kal
TOIC gOVEOIV. With the eschatological raising of the dead commencing in Xplot6s
(R. 1:4), the intimation 28 goes out to all men that light has appeared, cf. 4:2. In
C. 11:26: Tov Bavarov tou Kuplou KatayyEAAETE (indicative) does not refer
to the Lord's Supper as an action. 24 This would be in keeping neither with the
meaning of KATaYYE^AELV nor with the Passover and mysteries. 25 We are rather
to think of the words proclaimed in the Lord's Supper ; the death of the Lord is
solemnly intimated. 26 A similar church usage is to be found in R.1:8 : n lotic
Opov KaTay yE NETALL EV 810 TO KboNO (cf. Pol. 1, 2);27 karayy., like qvayy.,
anayy. and EiayyE^. in other places (- 64; 65) means the declared work of God.
If katayyÉ^ElV does not imply teaching of Christian content, nevertheless it
does also include paradosis as in C. 11:23 (- n. 26), or voulETElv and ot-
SaCKEIV as in Col. 1:28.28 This corresponds to the basic OT view. Teaching and
tradition are taken up into the word which proclaims the Kurios Christos. By its
very nature, declaring the unique historical reality of Jesus, this word must also
be instruction, admonition and tradition. But it is teaching which participates in
the eschatological and dramatic character of the message.

1T dvayy. rov 'Inootv Ev Th &VaOTKOEI TOV VEKPOV in D is a twofold softening.

18 xnp. 9:20 (as Son of God): 19:13 euarry. 5:42 (rov Xp. "I.); 8:35. Only once knp.
rov Xp., 8:5 and edaryy. tov Kopiov 'Inootv, 11:20.
10 Kat METovola D al., certainly a weakening (context !); derives from 5:31 etc.
20 EDGYYEAI(OVtES D*
21 + KATAYYE EUC. Joh. W. also reckoned these passages emphatic.
22 6 leg. Elc poc t0vov (despite B); 9 avaryyEAo avaryyellal.
28 The Comm. all relate KaTayyEAAEIV to the Gospel message But perhaps 8 Xp.
Himself as the risen Lord is the message. Cf. Eph. 2:17: BAlov EunyyeAloarto Kt. The
Exalted, of course, speaks in the apostles (- EoaryyEAiov
K. Xploto).
24 This has mostly been accepted since Ltzm, Joh. W.
25 The Passover formulae (Str.-B., IV, 67 ff.), like the ancient liturgies (A. Dieterich,
Mithrasliturgie⅜ 1923, 213 ff.) prove that there is nowhere a 8pouevov without a signifi-
cant word. Paul alludes to such a liturgy, traces of which may be seen again in the axpt
of ExOn of v. 16.
26 We then undersland rtapÉAaBov, Tapé&wka (v.23) of true paradosis, with Joh. W.
ad loc.; Kittel Probleme, 63 f.; cf. H. Lietzmann, Messe und Herrnmahl (1926), 255.
BeBala Tis nloteoc ouov pica, g& apyalwV KatayyE AQuEN XPOVOV.
28 8v nueic KatayyE^ oueV VOUDETOUVTES TAVTA AVOPHTOV KAL SISGOK
rovia &vipwnov.
 katayyÉA^

C. "poxatayyEld, KaTayyEAEUG.
ttpoxatayy#llo is found in the NT only 20 in Ac. 3:18: o... OEC a Ttp0-
KATYYELAEV Bid otouatos... toov ipoontiov, TaBEiv TOv Xp. autod, EnAn-
PW6EV and Ac. 7:52 : aTTEKTELVaV TOUG TpoKaTayyE( avias TEpI ThS ELEVEGS
Tou 81ka1o. In both cases the word of the prophets is tpoKatayyEAAElv. 30
In 3:18 it is God Himself who gives prior intimation. Cf. - Enayye^eolal and
-> elayyeAl<eolal, though neither verb would be suitable here (TaOeiv Tov
Xp.).
Josephus, too, uses the phrase TPOKaTYyE^uéva 01O TOU 0EOU (of the birth of
Moses). 32 It is also used of the ayye/os message to Hagar, 33 and of Joseph's pro-
phecy to the cupbearer. 34

KATAYyE EUC is found in the NT only in Ac. 17:18 : EÉvov Sawuovlov ka-
TayyE EUC BOKEI ElvAI. These words repeat "what the Greek may often have
said about the similar declaration of a new belief." 85 Yet KaTayyE EUS is one
who declares in the sense of a herald rather than a teacher. 36 Deissmann has shown
this from a decree honouring Augustus, which calls those who declare the
sacral agones katayyeAeic. 31 Similarly, on an inscription from the 1st century
A.D., the kara[y]ye[^]euc of a sacred agon for the distribution of wreaths is
call a pious initiate." 38
Our conclusions concerning katayyE^AEIV are thus confirmed. In its Hellenistic
sacral usage, it is preponderantly agonistic. 39 It rises to a higher status when it
is adopted for the imperial cult 40 and the mysteries. 41 The messenger of Christ
is also a herald. The word thus signifies the self-declaration of Christians
(- kipue), and is taken in this sense by contemporaries. Thus Ac. 17:18 confirms
all that we have noted in the dyye\-articles as a whole.
Schniewind

29 In Ac. 3:24 and 2 C. 9:5 the attestation is poor and the true reading ( katayyeA-
AelV, n. 12, * TPOETaYyENAELV) is obvious. Though infrequently attested, the term seems
to be a favourite one in ecclesiastical Greek, cf. examples in Thes. Steph and the dictionaries
of Sophocles and Herwerden.
30 Can we in 7:42 (Bengel, ad loc.) oppose the Ttpo- to the viv (oo Oueic viv tpo-
86tat...)?
31 Synon., however, mpouaprupeo@a in 1 Pt. 1:11.
32 Ant., 2, 218. Here God Himself is the speaker (Traum, 212 ff.); previously (205
dy yEAAelv) a lepoypa uarteus.
33 Ant., 1, 219 (ayala, owmpla, rpoxatyye^ eva).
34 Ant., 2, 68 (mpoKartary yE ^avroc aol to dryala).
38 Reitzenstein, Nachr. Ges. Gott. (1917), 134, 5.
38 Deissmann, LO,4 77; cf. Liddell-Scott, s.v.; "one who proclaims," "herald."
37 Ditt. Or., 456 (= IG, XII, 2, 58; Mytilene), 10: KaTayyEAEic TOv TpOtov a(x).
Onoo [levoov dry ovov].
38 IG, XII, 8, 190, 39 f.; cf. 37 f., 40-45.
39 Cf. here too the relationship with ÉrayyE AEOBal: KaTayyE EUC btayyEATp,
v. Boesch, op. cit.
40 In Ditt. Or., 456, 35-48: 86Ex, tuyn, QUGIC, Geonoletv.
41 &ydv TOv TU0[(]wv, IG, XII, 8, 190, 13-45.
 AYYEAOG, apyayyElos,
loayyE/os

$ ayyEAos.
A. &yyeloc in the Greek and Hellenistic World.
1. The dyyeAos is "one who brings a message," a "thessenger." This meaning
is clear already in Homer (e.g., 8TE T' KAUGE ayyeros as eipac, 11., 5, 804,
cf. 18, 2) . And in the time of Homer the role of the messenger is sacral. He stands
under the special protection of the gods (e.g., Xa[pEtE, KApUKEs, Aioc &yyelot
AbE kal dvopiov, I1., 1, 334, cf. 7, 274).1 It is for this reason that Achilles does
not vent his wrath on the messengers of Agamemnon (II., 1, 334 ff.). The task of
the messenger is to deliver messages. Since this is the only possibility of inter-
course between men, he is accorded special divine protection.
'AyyEAot continue to play an important role in Greek life. Sophocles gives in
the Trachiniae a depiction of the work of the messenger. As the messenger of joy
he appears KaTaOTEoñs (178). He delivers his message and answers question
associated with it (180 fE.). He then asks for his reward (190 f.). On the mes-
senger of joy, cf. also Xenoph. Hist. Graec., VI, 4, 19 : Étuyav. . . &yyelov
ÉOTEO VOUÉVOV, Kai qua wev tis vikns to ueyeloc fopatov, xua ot Bonleiv
ÉKÉAEUOV. &yyelos is also a technical term for an emissary, cf. Hdt., I, 36; Xenoph.
Hist. Graec., II, 1, 7 (ATETÉUOONOXV TPÉOBEIG, giv airois kai tapo Kopou
tauto AEYOUTES &yyElou): I, 4,2. The inscriptions give information on his
functions. He concludes treaties and delivers official messages (Ditt. Syll.3, 273,
24 f.). He receives the tribute (ibid., 330,26) and also the oath of the contracting
party (ibid., 229, 19 f., 25 : opkioal É dyyÉlous.. ouboa 8t ayyÉlwv Bon-
Onoelv, and 581, 93 : 6 BÉ aipeleic (sc. ayyeloc) . . . opki(aT airouc). The
last function brings out most clearly the sacral character of the &yyeAog. In both
public and private dealings there is place for this office.
As messengers sent to men by the gods, birds play a great part, cf. Hom. Il.,
24, 292 : altel 8' olwvov, taXuv &yyElov, Theogn., 549 f. : "Ayyeloc &ployyos
TONEWOV TONUSXKPUV EYE[pEI, KopV, aTto ilauytos OXLVOUEVO aKOTUINS,

&YYEAOC. On the whole article, O. Everling, Die paul. Angelologie u. Damonologie

(1888); E. Cremer, RE,3 V (1898), 364 ff.; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt i. Glauben d. Pls.
(1909); Cr.-Ko., 19 ff.; F. Andres, Die Engellehre d. griech. Apologeten d. 2. Jhdts. u. ihr
Verhaltnis 2. griech.-rom. Damonologie (1914); G. Kurze, Der Engels- und Teufelsalaube
d. Ap. Pls. (1915). On A, J. Schniewind, Euangelion, II (1931), 218 f.; F. Andres, Pauly-
W. Suppl. IlI (1918), 101 ff., T. Hopfner, Griech.-agupt. Offenbarungszabr (1/,
v. Index; F. Cumont, RHR, 72 (1915), 159 ff. On B, R. Smend., At.liche Religionsgesch.⅔
(1899), 122 ff., 449 ff.; G. Holscher, Gesch. d. isr. u. jud. Rel. (1922), 151 ff., 164, 183 f.;
W.H. Kosters, "De Mal'ach Jahwe" ThT. (1875), 369 ff., 10 (1876), 34 ff., 113 ff.;
A. Jirku, Die Damonen u. ihre Abwehr im AT (1912); H. Duhm, Die bosen Geister im AT
(1914). On C, A. Kohut, llber d. jud. Angelologie u. Damonologie in ihrer Abhangigkeit
v. Parsismus (1866); P. Volz, Jid. Eschatologie (1903), Index, 384 B. Stade-A. Ber-
tholet, Die jud. Religion von d. Zeit Esras bis zur Zeit Christi (1911), 374 ff.; Meyer,
Ursprung, II, 106 ff.; Bousset-Gressm., 320 ff.; Moore, 401 ff., III, 123 f.; Str.-B., v
Index, IV, 1223 f.; A. Marmorstein, "Anges et hommes dans I' Agada," REJ, 84 (1927),
37 ff., 138 ff.; ET, VI (1930), 630 Ff.
On the synon. nature of - > Kipue, and dyyelos cf. Hom. Od., 16, 468 f.; Xenoph. An.,
II, 3, 14.
Plut. Pyth. Or., 22 (II, 405d): Oedv &yyelol Kai KApuKEs (sc. Épobiol Kal tp6-
XiAou kai kopaxec), and cf. also Xenoph. Symp., 4, 48 : (feot) EUTOVTEC dyye-
Aouc onuas, kai Evinnia Kal olovous. In Epictetus the philosopher himself
appears finally as the &yyelos kal KAT&OKOTIOC KAL KADUE, TOV OEGV (Diss.,
III, 22, 69, p. 306, 19 f., Sch.).
2. "The earthly sacral ayyEAos is the prototype of the heavenly &yyelou."2
The heavenly &yyelos in the strict sense is Hermes. Plato attempts to bring his
name into relation with his function: fOLKE itEpi A6YOV TL ElvaLl 6 ""Epuñs,"
kai to £punvea Elvau kal to &yyelov.. . (Crat., 407e). In Homer he is addressed
by Zeus as follows : ou yap aUTE TO T' XA& TEP &YYEAOS ÉDOT, Od. 5, 29, 3
cf. Hom. Hymn. Cer., 407: aproivioc &yyeloc OKbc, Hymn. Merc.3: &yyeoc
alavatov Épiouvios cf. Kern Orph., 297a, 1: 'Epuñs 6' £punvedc TOv TdVtoV
&yye 6s LOTI. Alongside Hermes other divine messengers are occasionally men-
tioned.
There are chthonic as well as heavenly &yyeAoi. Plato mentions the messenger
from the underworld (6 ÉxEleV &yyelos, Resp., X, 619b). As psychopomp
Hermes is given the title &yyeAos, cf. "AYyEAE DEPOEDOVAS, 'Epun . . . 5 Nemesis
is called by Plato Alkns... ayyE/os, Leg., IV, 717d. Similarly, Hecate herself,
who is linked with Artemis, is described as ayyelos. & Together with these, there
are the ayyelot of the underworld. They are found on the Attic curse-tables,
e.g., kataypap kai katatild avyeAois Katay@oviois 'Epun Kataylovld Kai
'Exarn Katayeovia Mouton kai Kopn (another has baluoo for &vyÉlois).1
Frequent mention is also found on the gravestones of Thera, where &yyelos is
everywhere present. 8 These final examples brings us into the time of post-
Christian Hellenism, with its syncretistic character, and there is always the possi-
bility here of Christian Jewish influence. Schniewind remarks on the whole evi-
dence : "The basic view of divine messengers must be very old. It spread over
the whole of the Greek world with no spatial restrictions." ® Greek and Hellenistic
religion thus felt itself to be in connexion with divinity through the divine mes-
sengers.
The magic papyri belong to the syncretistic field, which was strongly permeated
by Christian Jewish influences. On magic incantations we find 8v EKolEaaC
&yyEAOv TEUpOéVTA FOI, OEKV 8É Boulas auviouas yvoon, it being even said
of the &yyelos: AÉyE taUta 1poc Toy &yyE ov® AaAhOEl YAp FOL OUVTOLIGS,
Tpoc 8 Édv Bouln Preis. Zaub., I, 76 ff. Some &yyelos is conjured up: opkigo OE,
tov §v t6 toto tOUTO LEV &yyelov kpataiov kai loxupov tot goou TOUTOU
(III, 71 f.) This &yyeos, too, is to accomplish his task. In the Mithras liturgy
there is reference to Beol f &yye^ot (IV, 570) and apxayyeAos (IV, 483). Clear
Jewish influence may be discerned in I, 206, III, 339 and especially IV, 2357.
3. Thus far we have been concerned with popular religion. We must now turn
to that of the philosophers. It has a developed logos theology. The connexion

2 Schn. Euang., 216.

3 Elsewhere in Homer Iris is the dyyelog of the gods (II., 2, 786; 3, 121).
4 Cf. Schn. Euang., 222 ff.
5 On a stone in Naples, v. Schn. Euang., 226 the only example.
6 Cf. Schn. Euang., 225, where there are other references.
7 Cf. Dibelius, 212 for examples.
8 IG, XII, 3, 933-974; cf. on this Schn. Euang., 233 f.
9 Schn. Euang., 237.
 &yyeloc

- A6yocaryye^os 10 is present. This is brought about by the relating of the logos

theology to Hermes. The link is fully made by Philo, to whom it is suggested by
his allegorising of the Hebrew 732 which is, however, divested of its Jewish
character : TOV 8É &YyElov, 8 Eot. Aoyos, Horep latpov KaKdv, Leg. All., III,
177; cf. Som., I, 239 : THI TOU BEOU ElKova, tOV ayyelov autoi A6yov and Mut.
Nom., 87: ayyelor oupeins leot, Abyoc... Thus, where a single angel is
introduced in the Bible, he can be identified by Philo with the logos. Philo adopts
Jewish angelology in general and links it with Greek and Hellenistic demonology.
Angels and demons are depicted as powers and movements of the universe. Cf.
Gig., 16: puyac ouv kal Salpovas kal dyyelous ovouata fEv 6ia¢Épovta,
§v 8É kal TaUTOV OTTOKELUEVOV Savondels (v. also Gig., 6); concerning their
function, cf. Plant., N14.. . a (sc. puyal kaeaxpd tarai) oi HEV Trap' "EXno
oiloaopnaavtes Mpwas kaloial, Maunis 88 ovouat E00uB6A@ XPOLEVOS
dy yEAOUS TPOGayopEUEL, IT PEO BEVOUéVAC kal BiayyeAougas to TE Tapa tou
nyeuovoc toic umnkooic &ya0& kal TO Barlei Bv elow of inhkool xpEioL.
Spec. Leg., 1, 66 : .. LEpEXC SE TOUG UTO8 aKOVOUC aiTOU THOV SUNQUEDV gyyé.
Aouc... and Conf. Ling., 28 : katd Tov Beloy Kai lepov 16yov... o0g KaAEiv
HOos dyyEAous.
4. Josephus, the Greek speaking Palestinian, uses the term GyyeAos in the
twofold sense of "messenger" and 'angel.'
In the first sense it is used in, e.g., Ant. 7, 249 : TOU 8' &yyelov elval
oñoavroc ayaliv. . . dyaliv &yyelov toUtOV LoNGEV EIl. When eo
the messenger delivers his message : kal nulouÉvo repl this uaxns vixny EU-
ayyeAlgetal kal kpotos, 250. This is wholly in accord with Greek custom. Yet
the agreement does not arise so much from dependence as from the necessities
of intercourse.
But the word is also used in the sense of angel. Here Josephus adopts OT
views, but he also contributes his own thoughts, as when he calls the angel
(ayyelos Oeioc) which met Balaam Oeiov TVEDua (Ant., 4, 108), when he causes
Agrippa solemnly to declare : paptopouai . . . td &yia kal touc lepouc &yyEo
TOU (sot kai natploa thv kowhv (Bell., 2, 401), or when, following Palestinian
tradition, he introduces angels at the giving of the Law: . .. juov to kaNAlota
TOV Soyuatov kal td balotata tov Ev tois vouous or' dyyÉ^wv tapa Tou
(eot ua06vrov... (Ant., 15, 136). Some speculations concerning angels are alien
to him (- 80), though he attributes them expressly to the Essenes (Bell., 2, 142).
"Josephus shows . how firmly in the case of the Jews the term Gyyelos was
bound up with the notion of angels . Hellenistic rationalism resists this notion...
and in his evaluation of angels Josephus is dominated by the Hellenistic outlook." 11
Grundmann

B. 7892 in the OT.

7822, which is found also in Phoenician, is a nominal construction from the root 7.2
of which there are no examples in Hebrew (Arab. (a'aka "to send with a commission").
The basic element of meaning in the nominal is that of one who is sent, though originally
the thought was perhaps abstract.

10 Cf. Kal Thy dTOOTEAQUEVNV "1 piv GyyElov tou Atoc Tov alpovta A6yov
bolotatal. Pseud.-Heracl. Quaest. Hom., 28, p. 43, 8 (cf. Pauly-W. XIII, 1065).
A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910), 33 f.; on Josephus' conception
of angels, ibid., 32; cf. also Schl. Lk., 633 f.
dyyeloc

Hence 7870. is a. the "messenger" sent by a man, or less frequently God. 12 Any
man who has a special commission to fulfil is a 'p. Concerning the use of the term
for a man there is no need for further discussion. The word also signifies b. a "heavenly
being charged by God with some commission," i.e., "an angel." In this sense, too, the
word retains its inherent meaning of being sent with a commission. 18

1. The most important angelic form, most frequently mentioned, almost always
attested in the OT in distinction from other angelic beings who occur only oc-
casionally and collectively, 14 and supremely sent by God with a commission, is the
7822 the angel of Yahweh. The ' is the one figure in the angelic world of
the OT which is more personal, and sketched in more precise religious terms. To
gain a clearer picture it is best to start with the more popular attestation rather
than with passages which betray a theological tendency. In the faith of older
Israel this angel is not a terrifying being, but a friendly and helpful messenger
of God (2 S. 14:17, 20; 1 S. 29:9) in whom one may confide (2 S. 19:28). He smites
the foes of Israel (2 K. 19:35), helps Elijah (1 K. 19:7), resists Balaam (Nu. 22:22),
protects Israel at the Red Sea (Ex. 14:19), guides the people (Ex. 23:20), and
fulfils many other commissions (Ju. 6:11 ff.; 13:3 ff.; 2 K. 1:3, 15). This older idea,
which was certainly very popular, is retained in even the most complex theological
passages. In Zechariah the " "p has basically no other task 15 than in the earliest
periods. He helpfully represents the interests of Israel (1:12 and esp. 3:2).
The " 'p. however, is not a messenger, like other angelic beings in different
circumstances. His significance is to be an express instrument of the particular
relationship of grace which Yahweh has with Israel. He is the personification of
Yahweh's assistance to Israel. Only in exceptional circumstances does he have to
turn against Israel (2 S. 24:17), the prospering of Israel being otherwise his
exclusive office.
In some stories, especially in Genesis, there is such striking reference to the
n ' that these passages deserve special mention. We refer to Gn. 16:7 ff.; 21:17 ff.;
22:11 ff.; 31:11 ff.; Ex. 3:2 ff.; Ju. 2:1 ff. What distinguishes these passages from
the others is that it is impossible in them to differentiate between the 19 '7 and
Yahweh Himself. The One who speaks or acts, i.e., Yahweh or the " '2, is ob-
viously one and the same person. Yet in the apparently haphazard alternation
between the two there is a certain system. When the reference is to God apart
from man, Yahweh is used ; when God enters the apperception of man, the '
is introduced. Thus in Gn. 21:17 ff. God hears the cry of Hagar, the angel calls
to her, and God opens her eyes. This obvious trend explains the peculiar facts.

12 E.g., prophets, Hag. 1:13; Is. 44:26; 2 Ch. 36:15, or priests. Mal. 2:7, Ecc. 5:5.
13 Babylonian religion, too, speaks of divine messengers, the son of the existing god
usually being his messenger. However, the Accadian word does not correspond etymologi-
cally to the Hebrew 7872. There are serious linguistic and material objections to the attempt
by Schroder (ZAW, 34, 172 f.) to understand 7820 as an Amorite name for God.
1* The attestation becomes rare only in post-canonical writings, though there is none at
all in pre-exilic prophecy.
15 However, there is here a certain broadening in the sense that in Zechariah the 7822
797; stands at the head of the entourage of Yahweh as well as having his particular office
in relation to Israel.
16 The parallel in Chronicles shows that at this later date he was thought to be of
superhuman size (1 Chr. 21:16), standing betweer heaven and earth with his sword stretched
out over Jerusalem. In distinction from 2 S. 24 he also blossoms out here as angelus inter-
pres.
 &yyEAos

Originally the stories probably referred quite naively to purely sensual theophanies.
The editors then softened this primitive tradition in the interests of strict tran-
scendence by interposing the figure of the " n as Yahweh's mode of manifesta-
tion. 17 This speculative reshaping of older traditions, which is so striking in the
OT, is an important literary theologisation, but it does not express any widespread
belief, and cannot therefore be claimed as the specific conception of the 'p
current in Israel.
In yet another form theological reflection has taken control of this otherwise
simple figure of popular belief. When Yahweh was angry at Horeb, He refused
to guide Israel through the wilderness in case His holiness consumed the people.
He thus sent His angel as guide (Ex. 33:2 f.). Here, too, the 19 'p is an executive
of the covenant of grace; Yahweh conceals His glory from Israel and sends the
mediator for the preservation of the people. 18
2. In addition to the "'p the older Israelite view introduces other heavenly
beings, though it is only rarely that these are called b'2x22. Nevertheless, it is
justifiable not merely to refer to the passages which expressly speak of arachp
but also to discuss those which mention heavenly beings which might be called '7,
or which obviously are, even though the term itself is not used. The beings seen
by Jacob in his dream ascending and descending the ladder, or the members of
the heavenly court coming in and going out before Yahweh, 10 may be described
at once as anxbp even though they are called buibxn "23, which roughly means
heavenly beings. 20 The notion that Yahweh is surrounded by a host of heavenly
beings who assist in His world governance and praise Him etc. is quite current
even in pre-exilic Israel, though it is only at rare moments of vision that they
enter the perception of man. A distinctive feature of this heavenly entourage of
Yahweh is its warlike character.21 Perhaps the nixay mh; refers to these beings.
The fact that especially stories which contain older lspoi A6you of shrines treat
sO readily of the entry of such heavenly beings leads us to suspect that there is
at least an enrichment of the heavenly court from the Canaanite religion native
to Palestine prior to the conquest. It is thus the more surprising that in no case
do these angelic beings have autonomous functions or spheres of influence alongide
Yahweh, and that they are never objects of worship. Belief in the overpowering
uniqueness of Yahweh has reduced these beings, who must surely have played
a much more significant role in the older stories, 22 to little more than super-
numeraries, yet with no violation of the absolute transcendence of Yahweh.
3. A strange phenomenon, for which there is as yet no adequate explanation
from the standpoint of the history of religion, is the development of the previously

17 The Elohist goes a step further in this direction by causing the 19 'D to call down
from heaven (Gn. 21:17; 22:11), whereas in the Jahwist men meet him on earth.
18 It is impossible to decide whether Malachi's 0'727 ' (3:1) is meant to be the "'2.
In view of the fact that he is called '2879 i.e., 'p, and that the conclusion of a covenant
is ascribed to the 19 'D in Ju. 2:1 ff., this is quite likely. In any case, this figure, too, is an
executive of Yahweh's particular relationship of grace.
19 Job 1. The framework of the Book of Job, the popular tale, is almost certainly pre-
exilic.
20 12 is never used in this connexion in the physical or genealogical sense, but in that of
"belonging to." Cf. 0'0"239 239 for disciples of the prophets rather than sons.
21 Cf. Gn. 32:1 f.; Jos. 5:13; Ju. 5:20; K. 22:19; 2 K. 6:17.
22 E.g., in Gn. 18 f.; 28:12; 32:1 f.
 ayyE/os

restricted belief in angels after the exile, leading ultimately to a veritable angel-
ology. We are faced by the fact that for a long period, under pressure from
polytheism, Israel had had no angelology. In exilic and post-exilic times the belief
in angels then became more prominent. More intensive contact with outside
religions undoubtedly had some influence, yet hardly explains the matter. We
have also to reckon with the fact that in a unique religious situation suppressed
illegitimate gods or demons may sometimes have re-emerged in harmless forms. 23
In Israel itself the increasingly austere transcendentalising of Yahweh may have
favoured the interest in concrete mediatorial beings. Yet when we investigate the
attestation in exilic and early post-exilic Scripture, we are hardly justified in
speaking of an angelology in the narrower sense. We must be careful not to
construct a system where there is no need for it.
An insight into the new outlook is afforded by the Book of Job, which speaks
of the angelic world with no dogmatic pretensions. The verdict as to their nature
is expressed in their description as antjp 24 Yet their holiness is limited ; they are
not pure compared with God (Job 4:18; 15:15). They were witnesses of creation,
which they greeted with songs of joy (Job 38:7). They could be called upon in
times of need (Job 5:1), some of them possibly being intercessors (Job 33:23). The
angel of death came to the dying (Job 33:22; Prv. 16:14). Similar references may
be found in the Psalter. 25
The prophets, in whose proclamation so many fused mythologoumena have
been retained, give full attestation of the change indicated, though one should not
generalise from their detailed statements. Ezekiel is the first prophet in whose
visions an interpreting mediatorial being (vx) is introduced (40:3 ff.). A distinctive
world opens up in Zechariah, in whom the 7797? a82n blossoms out as an angelus
interpres and who also introduces heavenly riders, smiths and winged creatures,
all at the command of Yahweh. Nevertheless these visions bear a strongly in-
dividual imprint. Even some of the later Psalms know nothing of such sharply
delineated heavenly figures, and the priestly code, in whose theology there is no
place for angels, stands as a possible bulwark against the growing incorporation
of heavenly beings into the faith of Israel.
Concerning the period immediately following the first post-exilic age we know
very little in certain respects. For instance, we cannot say how long interest in
the angelic world remained slight in theological circles. The apocalyptic trend
already emerging in Ezekiel and Zechariah indicates a different outlook. Yet the
angelic beings in whom the speakers in Job believe do not in any sense belong to
the sphere of the religious problem discussed. In Daniel there is unfolded a picture
which indicates the operation of opposing heavenly forces. To the partly in-
creased interest in these forces there corresponds the fact that here for the
first time the angels are named. 28 Directly under God stand the archangels (70)):
Michael is the guardian angel of Israel, and there are references also to the
guardian angels of other countries (Da. 10:13,20), to guardian angels generally
(Da. 4:10, 14, 20), and to hundreds of thousands of angelic servants surrounding
the throne (Da. 7:10). There thus opens a new phase in the history of the Jewish

23 Esp. angelic beings which betray some connection with the stars may embody such a
heritage, cf. Is. 24:21; Job 38:7; Da. 4:10.
Job 5:1; 15:15; Ps. 89:6, 8; Zech. 14:5; Da. 8:13.
25 Ps. 78:49; 89:6, 8; 9:11; 103:20; 148:2.
26 Da. 10:1321; 12:1, Michael:; 8:15 f.; 9:21, Gabriel.
 ayyeloc

belief in angels. Though there are still variations in detail, a constant doctrine of
the heavenly hierarchy begins to take shape, and here at last, in the final book
of the OT canon, we can speak of OT angelology.
Externally, these heavenly messengers are depicted by the Hebrews in human form
and without wings. 21 In OT literature there are also references to beings in the form
of animals, the seraphim and cherubim, though these are not to be counted as ar2x22.28
The cherubim, mixed creatures like birds which are known to the whole of the ancient
Orient, indicate where they occur the proximity of the Godhead. 29 Even more clearly
outside the sphere of the present discussion are the earthly demonic beings 30 sometimes
mentioned in the OT. Quite apart from the fact that they are not to be thought of as
heavenly beings, they do not have the slightest religious significance. At this point,
in contrast with Babylonian and Egyptian religion, in which everyday life was a
tormenting struggle with demons, we are confronted by a distinctive element in OT
belief, namely, that Yahweh is the only creative causality in nature and history. In
principle, therefore, the belief in demons is strangled. Israel attributes to Yahweh
happenings which other religions attributed at once to demons. 31 This is ultimately a
result of the OT concept of creation, which is never violated at any point : even the
OT belief in angels bears strong witness to it in its specific form and more par-
ticularly in the circumspection with which it is developed. von Rad

C. The Doctrine of Angels in Judaism.

1. The development within Judaism is not uniform. To be sure, the tradition
concerning the angel of Yahweh is present, and hardly anywhere is it completely
set aside. But while the OT tradition on the one side was being broadened and
refashioned into a full-scale angelology, under the influence of Greek rationalism
influences were asserting themselves which so fully suppressed the idea of angels
as almost completely to destroy it.
The OT apocryphal writings, with the exception of Tobit, remain for the most
part within the limits of what was passed down from the OT. In them we still
find the &YyyEAOC tOU 0EOD (kupiou) 32 which elsewhere tends to be submerged un-
der the individualising and naming of angels. In the free-thinking of the Sadducees
speculations concerning angels certainly played no part, even though the charge
in Ac. 23:8 may be a little exaggerated. 33 Josephus was no Sadducee, and basically
he did not deny the existence of angels (= 76), but in many of the OT stories
he substituted visions (pgviaqua) for angelic appearances. Thus in him, too,

27 They need a leader (Gn. 28:12) and can be described quite easily as Tor (Jos. 5:13;
Ez. 40:3; Da. 10:5).
28 The distinction is hard to make, of course, for in Is. 6 the seraphim have the same
essential function as the Dubnn 222.
20 Only later Judaism incorporated these beings and other things (ophannim) into its
angelology.
30 077ti, a gyu etc.
31 Any recollections of demonic beings and operations which still survived from pre-
Israelite tradition were absorbed into the Israelite concept of Yahweh ; cf. Gn. 32:25 ff.
32 Sus. 55, 59; Bel. 34. In Ex. 3:2 the Tg. J.I. introduces the name Zagzag'el (to be read
for 5R3732T) Ex. r., 2 on 3:2 (R. Jochanan and R. Chanina) bring in the names Michael and
Gabriel: Str.-B., II, 680.
83 There is no direct evidence that the Sadducees completely denied the existence of
angels
Bell., 5, 381: Ant., 1, 331; 5, 213 (Schl. Lk.. 634).
dyyeAoc

we can see rationalistic influence. It is worth noting that he reports preoccupation

with the names of angels to be an inner concern of the Essenes. 35
It is in apocalyptic from the days of Daniel 38 that we find the starting-point
and centre of more developed angelic speculation. Once the immediacy of early
prophecy comes to an end, the angels serve to mediate the secrets of nature, the
heavenly world and the last age. At the same time the example of the heroes
of other religions may have strengthened the inclination to describe the intercourse
of such figures as Enoch with members of the heavenly world. 37 Above all, the
influence of dualism, which contributed so strongly to the nature and character
of apocalyptic, helped to develop the fact of the divine n4290 in terms of the
counter-notion of the other kingdom. In this as in other connection the Essenes
participated in the dualistic movement. 85 There can be little doubt that this, and
the associated development of the doctrine of angels, may be traced back to
oriental and particularly Parsee influence. 38 Even Rabbinic tradition preserves a
recollection that at this point there is an outworking amongst the Jews of the
exile in Babylon. 39
It appears that contemporaneously or very shortly afterwards the new angelic
doctrine became part of popular piety as reflected, e.g., in the Book of Tobit.
The syncretistic belief in spirits and demons may have helped to further this
process. Nevertheless, the strength of the development can be explained only by
the fact that the new aspects were not thought to be new or strange, but rather
to fulfil the meaning of OT teaching. Only in this way at any rate can we under-
stand the ease with which the Rabbis accepted angelology. It became a general
possession of pious circles maintaining biblical belief. This sense was undoubtedly
strengthened by the contrary tendency of the rationalism which they contested to
dissolve the whole belief in angels. In this antithesis lay further legitimation for
the Rabbis to affirm angelology even when the original interest in its acceptance
had long since disappeared.
2. For the Rabbis the test of the acceptability of a doctrine is its relation to
belief in God. Aversion to Gnosticism has its basis in the fact that this can lead
to the theory of second god. 40 The doctrine of angels is recognised to be a
legitimate development of OT ideas because it never entails the independent
divinisation of angels, nor even seems to show tendencies in this direction. Here,
indeed, we see the basic difference from the good spirits met with in other religious
circles. The angels of Judaistic angelology are always a naive representation of
the omnipresent and omniscient Word and will of Yahweh. "Wherever Michael
appears, is the Shekinah glory," Ex. r., 2 on 3:2. Even in the most developed
angelology the angels only serve to execute and reveal the power and deity of
Yahweh : 41 they are His court, and train, and ambassadors.

35 These names were kept secret within the sect.

36 Many examples from Enoch, Baruch and Test. XII are given in Bousset-Gressm.
37 Cf. EJ,631 for a reference to the Babylonian legends concerning the intercourse
between gods and heroes.
88 Cf. esp. Meyer, Holscher, op. cit.; also Moore, I, 404.
30 RH, 56d E: "Even the names of angels are brought back with them from Babylon";
Str.-B., II, 90.
40 Esp. plain in the story of the 4 Rabbis who entered Paradise (bChag., 14b/15a);
Acher comes to exclaim that perhaps there are two deities.
41 So esp. Moore, I, 404 f.
 &yyeloc

Hence in much of Rabbinic literature 12 the angels are simply introduced to give
colour to the OT stories without any sense of modifying the sense or meaning.
God consults them at the creation of man;* they express doubts at the offering
of Isaac (Gn.r., 56 on 22:9); they appear at Sinai and take part in the giving of
the Law. 44 They rule nature and the natural orders, 45 and guide the nations. 46
They accompany and protect man, 41 having a role in his death and final judg-
ment. 46
But Rabbinic teaching always sees to .it that they do not detract from God and
His rule. Even the angels of the foes of Israel must bow to His will. 48 The fact
that they are thought to have taken part in creation does not alter the truth that
they themselves were created in the course of creation, 49 and indeed that God daily
creates or destroys angels to His own praise (Gn. r., 78 on 32:26; bChag., 14a).
Everywhere, for all the strong differences of opinion, we see the attempt to keep
angels subordinate in relation to God. Along with the view underlying Mt. 18:10,
i.e., that angels see the face of God, 50 the contrary view is represented (S. Lv.
1:1) in Tannaitic discussion in the circle of Aqiba. Sometimes it is emphasised
that they know what is concealed and future, 51 sometimes that they do not know
it, 62 and in part that they learn it from the righteous, 53 so that the latter are
above angels. The reason for such vacillation is obviously the constantly felt need
to stress their subordination to God.
This concern expressed in all angelic speculation naturally works together with
the common concept of God to affect the relation between angels and men. In
large measure the guiding or guardian angels are representatives and executors of
the divine care and direction, especially in the case of the pious. 4T They speak on
behalf of God, 54 especially Michael. 35 They convey prayers from all the syna-
gogues to God, and set them like crowns on His head. 58 But nowhere in true
Judaism 61 is the awareness lost that in reality the prayer of the pious is ultimately
matter between God and man alone. "When necessity arises, a man should not call
on Michael or Gabriel, but he should call on Me and I will answer him" (jBer., 13a).

42 If angels do not appear in the Mishnah, this is because of its essentially halachic
character, They are not avoided in the contemporary tannaitic Midrashim.
bSanh., 38b, etc.; Str.-B., I, 203; III, 249, 681, 782.
44 S.Nu., 102 on 12:5 (the reference to the giving of the Law derives from quotation
from Ps. 68:17, in which Sinai is mentioned). Cf. also M. Ex. 20:18; Pes. r., 21 (p. 104a)
etc. 83; n. 64. Further examples are given by Marmorstein EJ, 643.
45 Str.-B., III, 819 f.
46 Str.-B., IV, 1224 (Index).
47 On the idea of the guardian angel, cf. Str.-B., I, 781 ff., III, 437 ff.; Schl. Mt., 551.
Cf. also 86.
48 Gn. r., 56 on 22:9; God binds but also releases them.
49 For the creation of the angels before Eden, Gn. r., 21 on 3:24; on the second day of
creation, Ex. r., 15 on 12:12; Gn. r., 11 on 2:3.
60 Schl. Mt., 551 compares the angel who is 0'397 79 = apxov TOU TEPOO TOU, Tanch.
(Buber), 73mnx), 6, p. 12.
61 bSanh., 38b; jSanh., 18 (Str.-B., I, 961).
62 4 Esr. 4:52; bSanh., 99a.
53 Tanch. P22 14; Tanch. (Buber) p52 23, p. 145; Shab., 8d M.
54 Tg. Job 33:23; Test. XII: L, 5; D, 6; iQid., 61d M; bShab., 32a (Str.-B., 560 f.).
55 W. Lueken, Michael (1898).
56 Ex. r., 21 on 14:15. Cf. also good works, gBar., 11 ff.; misdeeds, En. 99:3.
57 Cf. the conclusions on the cult of angels in popular religion in Bousset-Gressm., 330 f.
 gyye os
D. Gyyelos in the NT.
1. The meaning of human messenger plays only a very small role in the NT.
The scouts sent out by Joshua to Jericho in Jm. 2:25, the men sent by John to Jesus
in Lk. 7:24 and by Jesus to the Samaritan village in Lk. 9:52, are the only cases in
which men sent by other men are called &yyelo in the NT.
Jesus in Mt. 11:10 par. (cf. Mk. 1:2), applying the OT promise, 58 interprets
John the Baptist to be the messenger of the covenant preceding the day of the
Lord. Originally the expectation may have been focused on either a human
messenger or a heavenly angel, 59 but it is now linked with the concrete person
of the Baptist as the messenger of God. The passage shows how the different
meanings may merge into one another. The possibility has also to be considered
that the application of the promise to the Baptist is conditioned by the various
influences on the conception of message discussed in the earlier article on the
root dyyeA-. This ayyelos is a predecessor to prepare the way, bearing the
proclamation of Christ (+ 57 f.).
If there are no other instances in which the term is used of human messengers,
this is not accidental. It simply derives from the fact that &yyelos is now mostly
used for angels. In many cases messengers are now denoted by such simple alter-
natives as TEU OE(s in Lk. 7:10 or &teota\uÉvoc in Lk. 19:32. Those sent are in
many cases identical with men elsewhere described as oboto o and uaental
(Mt. 10:5, 16; 11:2; Mk. 6:7 etc.).
2. a. The OT Jewish view of angels as representatives of the heavenly world
and messengers of God is taken over quite naturally by the men of the NT. The
angels represent the other world ∞0 (Hb. 12:22; 1 T'm. 5:21). To be like them is to
reflect this world (Ac. 6:15). To be compared with them is to be compared with
what is divine (Gl. 4:14). To be a spectacle to them is to offer such to all who
dwell in heaven (1 C. 4:9). 61
As in Judaism, there is reference to OT scenes involving angels, e.g., the visits of
the angels to Abraham (Gn. 18) and Lot (Gn. 19) 62 in Hb, 13:2; or the appearance of
the angel to Moses (Ex. 3:2) 63 in Ac. 7:30, 35; ar the part of the angels in the giving
of the Law in Ac. 7:53, Gl. 3:19 and Hb. 2:2.
The latter tradition is intimated already in LXX Dt. 33:2. Pes. r., 21 traces it back
to an early tradition. The task of the angels is variously explained, 64 but always in
such a way as to stress the importance of the process. The application of the idea in
Gl. 3:19 and Hb. 2:2 to prove the inferiority of the Law which is given "only" by angels
is not Jewish, but indicates the specific Christianising of the tradition (- n. 44),
strengthened perhaps by recollections of non-Christian and non-Jewish dyyElot
(-* 57). In contrast, Ac. 7:38 brings out the uniform estimation of the role of angel
probably characteristic of pre-Pauline, Jewish Christianity. Jd. makes use of another
Jewish tradition 65 concerning the conflict between Michael (-* apxayyelos) and the

58 It is obvious that the quotation from Mal. 3:1 stands under the influence of Ex. 23:20.
59 > n. 18; cf. now O. Holtzmann, ARW, 29 (1931), ff.
60 The world in which there is no marriage, Mk. 12:25 and par.
61 The thought present in Sl. En., 62, 12 intertwines with a favourite Stoic picture, Sen.
Prv., 2, 9; Ltzm., ad loc.; A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik d. Ap. Pls. (1930). 149.
62 Cf. Philo Abr., 107 ff.; Josephus Ant., 1, 196; For the discussion of the rabbis at the
marriage of the son of R. Gamaliel II, bQid., 32b.
Cf. Ex. r., 2 on 3:2.
64 For various instances and interpretations of the tradition, v. Str.-B., III, 554 ff,
65 For the connection with Ass. Mos., cf. Schurer, III, 294 ff.; Wnd. Jd., ad loc.; Lueken
120 ff.
 dyyeAog

devil over the body of Moses, but this reference is already suppressed in 2 Pt. 2:11,
probably because it does not derive from the canonical OT. The true interest in Jude
is to emphasise that even the archangel does not anticipate the judgment of God (ÉTCI-
runoai Fol rupios). In the parable of Jesus, too, we find the idea of the angels as
God's messengers bringing the dead to Abraham's bosom (Lk. 16:22).

b. Jesus is for early Christianity the presence of God and His lordship. This
view finds expression in the fact that the early Christian narratives see an angelic
accompaniment of the story of Jesus. Angels appear particularly in the birth and
resurrection stories. Otherwise their ministry is mentioned only at special points
such as the temptation (Mt. 4:11 and par.) and Gethsemane (Lk. 22:43), though
it was always regarded as possible (Mt. 26:53). For the Evangelists it confirms
and expresses the nature of Jesus. This is shown in In. 1:51 by the comparison
with Jacob's ladder ; ∞ the Son of Man is surrounded by angels signifying His
union with God. The restraint of the accounts is equally striking. Only in the
later strata (Mt. 28:2 f.) do we find any tendency to speak of the independent
activity of angels or to describe their figures. 67 There is no permeation of the
Gospel narrative as a whole with angelic appearances of different kinds. In so far
as they do not serve Jesus directly, the angels are simply heralds the divine
action. The infancy stories, in which angelic appearances play the strongest role,
are content to introduce only Gabriel (Lk. 1:26 ff.) or the angel of the Lord known
to the OT (Mt. 1:20 ff.; 2:13; Lk. 1:11 ff.; 2:9), who in Lk. 2:13 is simply ac-
companied by the rAños otpatias oupaviou. In these accounts we find no
trace of individual angels, nor is there any interest in angelology in abstraction
from God.
The active participation of angels seems to be most strongly assumed in relation
to events of the last time. Here Jesus Himself ascribes to them the role of ac-
companying hosts who come with the Judge, who act with Him and for Him, 68
and who are present at the judgment (Lk. 12:8 f.). Paul presupposes the same
view (2 Th. 1:7; cf. 1 Th. 4:16). The Revelation of John thus paints on a broad
canvas that which is common to all early Christianity when in the description of
events of the last days it introduces angels at many points and in many ways,
describing in a most varied manner both their appearance and function.
In Rabbinic literature there is an almost complete absence of any thought of the
co-operation of angels in the judgment. 69 It seems to be crowded out by the rather
different thought of the participation of Israel. 70 In the Apocalypse, however, it is not
merely emphasised that God will be accompanied by angels at the judgment, but that
they will also assist in it. Yet in the Apocalypse there is no mention of the angels
accompanying the Messiah 71 as emphatically presupposed elsewhere in the NT, where
the angels can be called the angels of Christ the Son of Man as well as the angels of

66 Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Angelos 3 (1928), 2 ff.; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (1929),
33 ff.; H. Windisch, ZNW, 30 (1931), 215 ff.
87 The white robes of Mk. 16:5; Lk. 24:4; Jn. 20:12 and Ac. 1:10 are not so much de-
scriptive as an expression of the transcendent character of their 86Ex. Cf. Lk. 2:9; Mk. 9:3
and par.
68 Angels as reapers, Mt. 13:39, 49; the Son of Man comes with His angels, Mt. 16:27;
with the holy angels, Mk. 8:38 (cf. Lk. 9:23); Mt. 25:31; sends His angels (Mt. 13:41; 24:31;
Mk. 13:27.
69 So also Str.-B., I, 672 f.; only Tanch. O"D 9 = Tanch (Buber) Do, 10, p. 32
T0 Midr. Ps. 8 §1; Pes. Kah., 187a (Str.-B., I, 672 n.).
T1 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 973 f.
Gyyeloc
God (Mt. 16:27 etc. n. 68; also 2 Th. 1:7: Ev Th d oKaA WEl tou kupiou 'Inaot
dt' oupavou uet' gyyÉAwv the Suv&uEC autou).
Thus to early Christianity the action of the angels is essentially action for
Christ and in the service of His history. They are leitoupylKd TTVEDuaTa eic
Siakovlav XTOOTE DUEVOL Bid toUG uÉ ovtas KAnpovoueiv owmplav (Hb.
1:14), 72 aUvbou OL TOv AOEAODV TOV EXOVTOV THU uaptuplav 'Inooi (Rev.
19:10). They thus take a dynamic part in the processes of this salvation history.
which is described not merely in the nativity anthem (Lk. 2:14) or the eschatolog-
ical anthems (Rev. 5:11 ff.; 19:1 ff.) corresponding to Is. 6:2 ff., but also as xapa
at the development of the individual within this history (Lk. 15:10).
The participation of angels in the activities of the apostolic community assumed
by the narrative in certain parts of Acts is based on the same presuppositions as
their participation in the nativity and resurrection. Here, too, it is only the ay.
YEAOS TOU OEOU or tot kuplou who acts on behalf of the apostles (5:19; 12:7 ff.),
or declares to them the will of God or of the Kurios (8:26; 10:3 ff.; 27:23), or
punishes the enemy of the community (12:23). The extent to which the angel has
ceased to play any autonomous part is hown, e.g., by a comparison of 18:9 and
27:23; the &yyeAos simply takes the place of the Kopioc whose message he has
to bring.
c. It is thus self-evident that throughout the NT there can be no question of
any equality of the angels with Christ. The Messiah is not an angelic being. As
the Son He has a radically different origin and position (IMlk. 13:32 and par.;
Hb. 1:4 ff.). This fact, as shown by the spatial proximity in Hebrews, is not over-
thrown by the further fact of the Bpaxu ti tap' dyyÉlouc Élatrouolat which
is accomplished in the death of Jesus (Hb. 2:5 ff.). On the contrary, this declaration
only serves to emphasise the absolute otherness and superiority of commission. It
is indeed possible that the peculiarly strong emphasis in Hebrews on the essential
distinction between Christ and the angels is given added point by the antithesis
between the NT Gospel of Christ and the many ideas of messengers and messages
current in the surrounding world of religion (- 57).
To this there corresponds a tendency, particularly evident in Paul, to emphasise
the comparative unimportance of angelology. The positive thought of the angel as
the messenger of God, as found in the Gospels and also in Acts, is relatively little
used in his Epistles. For him the whole stress falls on the complete overshadowing
of angels by the fact of Christ. Thus he comes to attach a lesser significance to
what was originally thought to be the significant participation of angels in the
giving of the Law (G1. 3:19; cf. also Hb. 2:2; + 83), the point being that he
measures this now by the all-normative action of Christ. Along the same lines,
there arises from his union with Christ a consciousness of his own superiority to
angels as an apostle. His mission, for example, is superior to any possible mission
of an dyyeloc t8 of parvot (G1. 1:8), and his charismatic endowment fulfilled in
dydri is superior to all yAdooal TOv ayyEA@V (1C. 13:1) . As the Son is more
and other than all categories of angels, so is the believer with and by Him. What
is allotted to him, É0vuoiou &yye^ol tapakiwau (1 Pt. 1:12) ; it is to human
flesh and blood rather than to angels that the redemptive act of Christ has reference
(Hb. 2:16).
 dryyeloc

3. This depreciation of angels in comparison with the fact of Christ is strength-

ened in Paul by his opposition to Gnostic teaching concerning them. We can
hardly take Col. 2:18 to mean anything other than that a cult of angels had to be
contested in the early Pauline communities. In the world of syncretism the belief
in angels seems to have been partly divorced from the belief in God with which
it has been indissolubly bound and to which it had been subordinate in its first
beginnings. The &yyeAol can be reckoned with the Opovot, KUPLOTNTES, apyal
and &€ovolau (Col. 1:16). They can thus be regarded as among the forces which
threaten man (R. 8:38). What are in view are the elemental or natural angels
which were widely accepted in Judaism 78 and which might in isolation become
ungodly and demonic powers. Also in view are the earlier pagan gods, which in
part came to be identified with the guardian angels under which God placed the
nations. 74 Paul is not concerned to contest their reality. His only concern is to
assert the full and definitive overcoming of their influence in Christ. What is to
be consummated eschatologically, *tav katapyion t&aav apxnv kai itaoay
Égouolav kal Suvquv (1 C. 15:24), is, like all eschatology, the present possession
of the believer as atapxh in his TETELOuaL (R. 8:38).
4. Fallen Angels > Saluov.
5. The idea of the guardian, or better the directing and ministering angel, is
taken over from Judaism, 15 which had long since forgotten the animistic roots of
the notion. 76 Ac. 12:15 assumes a likeness in appearance and voice between the
gyyelos and the man concerned. 1T In Mt. 18:10 recollection of the angels tov
uiKpv toUty who constantly behold the face of God serves to describe the all-
embracing love of God to which these utkpot are important, and thus to drive
home our human responsibility to regard them as important too. 78 In the verse
concerning the ≥govola on the head of the woman demanded &1d touc dyyÉ.
loug (1 C.11:10), we perhaps have a warning against the erotic desires of angels
based on Gn. 6:1 ff. 79 More probably, however, it implies that regard should be
had to the propriety required by accompanying angels. 80 Similar regard is had to
accompanying angels in Judaism (bBer., 60b), which portrays the angels as guard-
ians of good manners (bShab., 119b).
A particular exegetical question is posed by the &yyeAol tov ÉTro EkkAnolov
of Rev. 1:20 and Rev. 2 f. The only explanations which demand serious considera-
tion are those which see a reference to bishops 81 or to real angels. 82 Since else-
where in the Apocalypse dyye o are always angels, the latter seems more likely.
This is supported by the fact that in NT days the Énlokotos was always regarded
as a member of the community and never exalted above it, as would be de-
manded by the conjunction of images, i.e., community-candlestick, ayyeAos-star.
On this ground, too, the reference would seem to be to angels representing the
78 Str.-B., III, 819 ff.
74 Ibid., 48 ff.
75 Ibid., 1, 781 ff.; III, 437 > n. 47.
78 Bousset-Gressm., 324.
77 For parallels, v., Str.-B., II, 707. Zn. Ag., 391, n. 49 contests any reference to guardian
angels, but he gives no reasons.
A. Schlatter, Erlaiterungen zum NT, ad loc.
marianata
79 So already Tert. Virg. Vel., 7; Ltzm. ad loc.; Everling, 32 ff.
B0 Cf. G. Kittel, Rabbinica (1920), 17 ff.; Str.-B., III, 437 ff.
81 Above all Zn. Apk., 209 FE.; Nk. Z., 37 (1926). 758; Had. Apk., 38 f.; Str.-B., III, 791.
82 Comm. Bss., 200 f.: Loh., 18; Charles, I, 34 f.; A. Schlatter, Erlauterungen zum NT,
ad loc.; Gesch. d. ersten Christenheit (1927), 329; Cr.-Ko., 19 f. (hesitantly).
 apxayyeAos lodyye/os

communities. These correspond to the angels of the nations already found in

Judaism, 83 and to Michael as the angel of Israel, 84 but also to the description of
angels, common to the whole Book of Revelation, as mediators of the divine
action.

* dpxayyeloc.
The OT has an early reference to the apylotpamnyos buvouews kuplo Jos.
5:14. In Da. 10:13 and 12:1 Michael is the elc tov apxovtov or 6 dyyelos (e:
apxov) 6 uÉyas. The first mention of seven special angels is found in Ez. 9:2 ff., 1
then in Tob. 12:15; Test. L. 8; Gr. En., 20; Tg. JI, Gn. 11:7; Rev. 8:2, 6 (cf. 1:4, 20; 3:1;
4:5; 5:6). Six are also mentioned in Eth. En., 20; Tg. JI, Dt. 34:6; and four in Eth. En..
9, 1 etc.; Sib., 2, 215; Pes. r., 46, Str.-B., III, 806. The term is not found in the LXX,
but occurs in Gr. En., 20, 8; 4 Esr. 4:36; Proseuche Joseph (bOr. Joh., II, 25), as also in
Philo, who uses it to describe the logos (Conf. Ling., 146; Rer. Div. Her., 205). If both
name and thing also play a role in the Gnostic magic literature 3 and Iamblichus the
Neo-Platonist (Myst., 2, 3, p. 70, 10, Parthey), there can be no doubt that they derive
from Jewish Christian sources. The Milesian theatre inscription CIG, 2895 has an in-
vocation of the apxayyeAot as a late Christian protective charm. 4
The development of the doctrine of archangels has its basis in the tendency to
give prominence to certain leading and individualised angels. It is worth noting,
however, that there is virtually no interest in this aspect in the NT. The paucity
of occurrences is striking. The majority, though without the term apxayyeAot,
occur in the Book of Revelation (- 84): ÉvOov TOU 0EOU, i.e., as part of the
divine manifestation and in execution of the divine will. Paul mentions only once
in 1 Th. 4:16 the oomn apxayyeou which will ring out at the parousia, and since
this is brought into connection with the coming of the Kopios (the Év of ac-
companiment), it has no more significance than the OXATLY&, (EO0 which will be
sounded at the same time. Even the archangel, then, is simply an accompanying
manifestation of the eschatologically returning Christ. On Jd. 9 83.

+ loayyelog.
This rare word corresponds to such analogous constructions as l060soc and loo-
BaoAEuc. It is found in Iambl., ept uyns; Stob. Ecl., I, p. 457, 9 W; Hierocles
Carm. Aur., 49, p. 44, 9, Mullach ; Christian epitaph, Kaibel, 542, 6 f. Materially equiv-
alent are looc dyyelous yeyovoc (Abraham after his death), Philo Sacr. AC, 5;
BOTED &YYENOC 0EOD, P. Greci et Latini, I, 26, 10, cf. 18 (5th century A.D.).
In the NT the only occurrence is in Lk. 20:36, which tells us that the resurrected
will know neither mortality nor sexual intercourse, since they are like angels (Mt.
22:30; Mk. 12:25 : os ayyelot ev t. oop.). But cf. also Ac. 6:15 : doei 1tp6aG TtOV
dyyÉ ov. Kittel
83 Str.-B., IV, 1224 (Index).
84 Bousset-Gressm., 327; Str.-B., III, 813; Above all, Lueken, ad loc.

11 R.M G. NI.O O rs. Nageli, 48, 72, Lueken, ad loc.; Everling, 79 ff.; Bous
Six men and a seventh dressed as a scribe. H. Gunkel, ARW, 1 (1898), 294 ff., traces
this back to the stellar deities of Babylon, in the midst of which was the scribal god Nabu.
For the traditional names of the archangels, cf. Bousset-Gressm., 325 ff.: Str.-B., III,
805 ff.
3 Preis Zaub., IV, 1203; VII, 257; XIII, 744, 929, 973.
4 So Deissmann LO, 393 ff.
 dyioc

dyEvEaA6ynToc yEVEd.

dyioc dyid(w dylaquoc

drywoms dry woun

The Ar-family of Greek words is most extensive. In biblical Greek it is found

not only in words like &yios, dyiafelv, dyiaompiov, dylors and dyiwoon,
but also in such words as dyvos, dyvlgelv, dyniqua, dyvioubs, dyla and
dyvoms. Here, indeed, it enjoys its most significant history.
dyios.
A. In Greek and Hellenistic Writings.
The old Greek word &yoc signifies the object of awe (Williger, Pass.-Cro.), whether
in the sense of reverence (Hom. Hymn. Cer., 479: ueya yap tu Beav &yor loxarvei
adorv), or in that of aversion (Aesch. Choeph., 154 f.: ATTOTPOTTOV &yOe ATEUXETOV,
cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr., 1426). The adjective dyns (Diels,+ I, 160, 12 f.; 244, 3) approxi-
mates to the sense of kalap6c, "clean." From the time of the Attic tragic dramatists
this sense came to be less attached to the &yioc stem than to the dyvoc stem, which is
linked with the verbal adjective. 2 The verb ago, "to shrink from, usually found in the
medial &gouai (Soph. Oed. Col., 134 etc.), does not occur at all in the Bible.
The first certain attestation of the adjective &ylos is in Herodotus, who brings
it into close relationship with the sanctuary (5,119: utya tE Kai &ylov alooc,
and also 2, 41; 44). Plato distinguishes Kaxd SIa0Epoutos at uEyala, Stav
els Snuboia kai &yia <sc. ylyvovtal> (Leg., X, 884a). It is used of sanctuaries
(Demosth., 59, 77: UTTEP Tolvv drylov Kal oEUVOV tepov), a distinction being
made between Bouol, ot uev ka^llorol kal dyitatol tv aut th wuxi th
ÉxXotou kal th QUEL, of 82 kal kolvn toic ntaal tluav i8puuÉvo1 (Demosth.,
25, 35), so that the most beautiful and sacred things are not accessible to the public.
Similarly Isocrates speaks of the dywtata tov lepiv, Areop. 29. 3 The Hellenistic
inscriptions confirm this usage, particularly for oriental sanctuaries (IG, XII, 1, 694,
14 : Év TO lepo TO dyItato, Ditt. Syll.¾, 768, 16 : rov lepov rov dyitotov).

&yioc. J.C. K. v. Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 12 (1857), 81 ff.; G. Menken, Schriften

(1858), 1II, 305 ff., VI, 46 ff.; L. Diestel, Die Heiligkeit Gottes," Jbch. pr. Th. (1859), 3 ff.;
W. W. Graf Baudissin, Studien z. semitischen Religionsgeschichte, II (1876); G. Wobber-
min, Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (1896); A. Fridrichsen, "Hagios-Qados,' Skrifter av
Videnskaps Selskabet, II, 3 (1916); E. Williger, "Hagios," RVV, 19 (1922); H. Leisegang.
Der Heilige Geist, (1919); Pneuma Hagion (1922); R. Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Ur
christentum (1930); U. Bunzel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im AT (1914); E. Issel, Der Be-
griff der Helligkeit im NT (1887); J. Hanel, Die Religion der Heiligkeit (1931); Cr.-K8..
34 ff.; Pass.-Cr8., s.v.
In Indo-germanic, though this is disputed (cf. Boisacq, S.v. dyioc), a related term is
found in the old Indian yaj "to sacrifice" (cf. &l Etal Skt. yajati, "he sacrifices.
gyioc Skt. yajyah, "worthy of reverence." dyvos = yajfiah, "sacrifice, Debrunner).
While the sacrificial meaning predominates in Indian, it is the sacramental which comes to
the fore in Greek.
2 Brugmann-Thumb, Griechische Grammatik (41913), 223.
8 Pausanias (Wobbermin, 62 ff.) says of the Kabira sanctuary at Thebes : 06TO uev
To lepov tOOt6 Eativ EE apxfic &ylov (IX, 25, 8); of the sanctuary at Tithorea : lepov
"1o18oc dylltatov (X, 32, 13); as against Herodotus he makes much use of the super-
lative (Williger). His dependence on Herodotus (Kroll) is contested. Fridrichsen (44) gives
other examples.
 ayios

In the Hellenistic period &yios is used as an epithet of the gods as well, +

preferably in the case of Egyptian and Syrian, and therefore again oriental deities,
such as Isis, Serapis and Baal (e.g., Ditt. Or., 620, 2: Atl dylo BEEAPEOpO
[Gerasa], 590, f.: OE6 dylo BdA kai Oe& "Hpa [Beirut], just as in the Roman
cultus Syrian deities are given the predicate sanctus &yios. 5 From the oriental
deities the phrase &yioc dylitatos seems only at a later date to have been
transferred to the Greek gods. 6 On the other hand the word ayios never seems
to have been applied in pure Greek to men connected with the cultus, its place
being taken by cyvos in this respect.
It may be added that it was used of customs connected with religion, especially
the mysteries (e.g., Aristoph. Nu., 304: €v TEAeTaic aylais, Demosth., 25, 11:
tac dyl totas quiv TEleT&C kaTadElEac etc.).
Only in the Hellenistic period does aytoc come into more common use. Probably
this is due to the influence of the oriental concept of holiness, as best seen in the
LXX. Here &ylos is used as the equivalent of the Hebrew in all applications of
this Hebrew term, so that in the usage of the Bible we must everywhere recognise
the Semitic background.

B. The Use of the Term Holiness in the OT.

The root WIp is probably not originally Hebrew but Canaanite, being thus taken
over from an alien religious circle, while the native Hebrew bon acquires the significance
of "what is banned" and thus becomes predominantly negative. The actual meaning of
wT is hard to determine etymologically. We cannot accept the earlier theory of its
kinship with ww, which contradicts the Semitic laws of sound. Fleischer, on the other
hand, has rightly pointed to the basic 72, "to divide," I which would cause us to think
of what is marked off from the secular. The antithetical term is 2n or "profane" (1 S.
21:5 f.; Ez. 22:26; 42:20; 44:23), i.e., that which is not under the ban of holiness. In
contrast to 07 this appertains to ordinary life, and thus self-evidently comes to mean
"common" (kowov) as distinct from the cultic. Most closely related materially to wi
or holiness is the term n7o ("purity"). The substantive (godes: tohar), adjective
(qados : tahor) and verb (qades taher ) all show the same basic forms. 77 is related
to 77b like gyios to dyvos. Yet while v7p is the basic cultic term, nab is the ritual.
There is always an energy in the holy which is lacking in the pure or clean. If both
wop and 77b may be brought under the concept of the religious, both are distinct from
the ethical, with which the religious is not to be equated. The ethical has its root in
the human sphere rather than the divine. It is only with the increasing spiritualisation
of thought that the two great vital streams come together.

From the very first 07 is very closely linked with the cultic. Anything related
to the cultus, whether God, man, things, space or time, can be brought under the
term 172.
In analogy to the nominal construction ab, ojx, 37h the substantive t always
denotes a state and not an action. In Genesis, where the cultus does not play any

4 Williger, 81.
5 Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen (31931), 266, n. 65. Fridrichsen, 30. Delehaye,
Sanctus (1927), 22 ff.
8 Williger, 82 f. It is only in mockery that aytos is used of animals (Aristoph. Av., 522;
Antiph. Lyk., 147, CAF, II, p. 80).
Baudissin, I, 19 ff.
 &yloc

significant role, it is not found ; but it occurs only the more frequently in the story
of Moses. Already at Sinai the source has the expression (Ex. 3:5, tep nox).
The ground around the burning bush is holy ground, as is also Gilgal before
Jericho (Jos. 5:15), and esp. Jerusalem (Is. 48:2; 52:1; Neh. 11:1,18), the site of
the temple (Is. 11:9; 56:7: 07 pn 77), the temple itself (Is. 64:10; Ch. 29:3 : tpn ne
cf. Ps. 5:7; 79:1; 138:2: m7p_ 320) and everything appertaining to it, the holiest
of holies (Ps. 28:2 : pn 797), the chambers (Ez. 42:13; 46:19 wpn miocy) and the
courts (Is. 62:9). In relation to the temple wp comes to mean sanctuary rather
than holiness, and within it a distinction is made between the sanctuary (Ex.
26:33; Lv. 4:6: 0791 and the holiest of holies (Ex. 26:34; Nu. 18:10). The holy
time as well as the holy place is called tip (Is. 58:13; Neh. 10:32: t7pm Dit, cf.
Ex. 16:23; Neh. 9:14: ipn n2t). Reference is also made to holy offerings, and
therefore to sacrifices (1 S. 21, 5-7; cf. Lv. 22:12; 3:11: tp omb) and tithes (Dt.
26:13). The more deeply we penetrate into the priestly literature of the Pentateuch,
the more common the word becomes, evidence being thus given of an increasing
"catholicising"' of the OT concept of holiness under priestly rule. The status
merges more and more into the matter of the cultus, so that the Law no less
than the cultus itself comes under the threat of a purely material conception of
holiness.
The adjective We is more fluid than the substantive vip. Whereas tap is a
material concept with no personal element, vim can be used outside the place and
time of the cultic (Lv. 6:9, 19 ff. etc.) of persons. Characteristically it is not ap-
plied to things like sacrifices, garments or vessels etc., 8 and in regard to cultic
status God can be called vip as well as man. To be sure, the cultic nature of
m is somewhat evaporated when it is used of God, since the angels, who have
no cultus, can sometimes be described as 010872 (Job 5:1; 15:15). As a predicate
of God, dip comes to have the meaning of divine, and thus becomes an adjective
for God (Is. 5:16; 6:3; Hos. 11:9 etc.; cf. bant: die Is. 1:4 etc.). But the personal
character of God gives a spiritual turn to the whole concept, a development chiefly
attributable to the prophets. Even as a human predicate vi acquires a new sense,
for in man the holy comes into contact with the ethical, though there is no simple
equation. The relationship of God and man thus gives to the adjective 097 a his-
torical element as distinct from the impersonal tip.
Finally, the verb wop is the most versatile form of the root. The relatively
infrequent qal form denotes exclusively cultic holiness with no moral element. In
contrast the niph'al form, of which God alone is the subject, denotes the self-
representation of His holiness (Is. 5:16; Ez. 20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16; 39:27;
Nu. 20:13) in Israel in face of the Gentile world. What is indicated is not so much
entry into a state of holiness as the expression of the essence of divine holiness.
In contrast again, the comparative stem is inchoative: "to set in a state of holiness.'
The subject here may be God, who sanctifies in the eyes of the nations His name
defiled by Israel (Ez. 36:23), or who restores the holiness of Israel itself (Ez.

8 In Nu. 5:17, according to the LXX 88∞p kalapov giov, we should read oun orino on
instead of 01097p b22.
A distinction should be made between the Hebrew adjective milp and the Canaanite
w72. which became a proper name in place-names, and was also used of the hierodules,
thus being brought into connection with pagan cults.
 dyioc

20:12; 37:28), or who declares the Sabbath to be holy (Gn. 2:3); but it may also
be Moses, who sanctifies the people (Ex. 19:10, 14), or Joshua (Jos. 7:13), or Job
(1:5), or Samuel (1 S. 16:5), as they sanctify either the nation or individuals.
When the people as such enters a state of holiness, the middle hitpa'el is found
(Jos. 3:5; 2 S. 11:4: apn). In this case the concept never implies more than cultic
qualification. Finally, the causative has the sense of 'dedicate," not with the im-
plication of cultic qualification, but rather of transfer to the possession of God,
to whom the person or thing dedicated now exclusively belongs.

C. The History of the Term in the OT,

1. The Pre-prophetic Period.
The history of the term is linked with the substantive tp, though not so much
in the sense of sanctuary with reference to the centre of the cultus, old though
this use is (Ex. 3:5; Jos. 5:15), as in that of holiness with reference to the name
of God. For God's name is an expression for His personal essence as present in
the sanctuary and people. Taken up into the personal being of Yahweh, however,
"p acquires a moral bearing alien to it by nature. Amos already causes Yahweh
to swear by His holiness (4:2), and therefore by His innermost essence, which is
different from everything creaturely, let alone unclean or sinful. Similarly he finds
a mortal human sin in the defilement of the name of Yahweh's holiness even within
the sphere of the cultus (2:7). The phrase mo vab ot is particularly common in the
priestly literature, whether in the pre-exilic holiness code of P (Lv. 20:3; 22:2)
or in the priestly prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 36:20 ff.). In the Psalter, too, where we
again encounter the holiness of the name of Yahweh (Ps. 33:21; 103:1 etc., cf.
also Chr. 16:10, 35), it is used in connection with worship. Here the cultic element
has certainly not disappeared, since the theological feeling of priestly circles is
cultically emphasised. Again, the name itself is prescribed for invocation in the
cultus; for the cultus is possible only where the name of God is acknowledged,
the name in some sense taking the place of the cultic image in the OT. Never-
theless, with the emphasising of the name holiness becomes far more personal than
cultic, as may be seen particularly clearly in Ezekiel and the Psalter.
In the process, however, the concept of holiness merges into that of divinity, SO
that Yahweh's holy name contrasts with everything creaturely. The phrases
107 727 (Ps. 105:42) and 107 199 (Is. 63:10 ff.; Ps. 51:11) follow the same pattern.
The name, Word and Spirit of God are all forms of His revelation, but as t they
are set in antithesis to everything worldly or creaturely, so that even the cultic is
almost consumed by the divine. God's holiness thus becomes an expression for
His perfection of being which transcends everything creaturely. As we have seen,
the revelation of His holiness is expressed by niph'al vap}; "to sanctify oneself,"
God alone being the subject (Lv. 10:3; 22:32; Ex. 29:43; Is. 5:16; Ez. 20:41). Even
in the Lord's Prayer, the request dyiao0hto to ovoua oou corresponds to the
Hebrew vap, so that it is God Himself who demonstrates His name to be holy.
As the name of Yahweh is disclosed at Sinai, so it is at Sinai that Israel as
His people has its origin in the divine covenant (Ex. 24:4-8). Thus the concept of
holiness is linked with the relationship between God and His people, with the
national religion. Because God dwells in the midst of the people, Israel, too, is
to be wite by (Dt. 7:6; 26:19; cf. Jer. 2:3). It must have no contact with the
cults or rites of other nations. It must worship Yahweh as its only God (Dt. 6:4).
In the concept of the wip ny (cf. Ex. 19:6: v1 ") the cultic and national elements
 dyior

are indissolubly merged. Probably developing out of a holy amphictyonic league, 8a

centred upon the ark, Israel is in Deuteronomy the people of God in an absolute
sense, established on the basis of the divine covenant (Dt. 17:2) and election
(7:1 fÉ.) in contrast to the heathenism of other nations. Indeed, within the one term
tip Israelite and heathen conceptions of holiness are brought into mortal combat,
since in the th ay there must be neither t nor 70772 (Dt. 23:18). These hierod-
ules belong to the Canaanite cultus, the holiness of which cannot be better
characterised than by the fact that it includes "holy" licence. The thought of the
holy people emerges even more clearly in the Holiness Code (Lv. 17-26) than in
Deuteronomy. Here everything derives from the basic statement in Lv. 19:2:
Ye shall be opnbe mir ½2% 012 99 anjp. Yahweh's holiness demands the holiness of
His people as a condition of intercourse. If the cultic character of holiness is
prominent in this code, c. 19 shows us that cultic qualification is inconceivable
without purity. Cultic purity, however, demands personal purity. The xylol must
be dyvol. Hence the sphere of ethics is taken up into that of religion.
This form of the concept of holiness is thus determined by the cultus. At its heart
stands the ark, which from Sinai on is linked with the sanctuary, like a mobile house in
which God is thought to dwell. After a long detour by Shiloh it comes at length to
Jerusalem, finding a permanent abode in the holiest of holies in Solomon's temple (1 K.
8:13), so that the sanctuary which shelters it is filled with its holiness, and the presence
of God is thought to be enthroned above the ark, which is screened by the cherubim.
It is worth noting that Yahweh appears for the first time as vi7p] 09bx7 (1 S. 6:20) in
connection with the ark. In stories like 1 S. 5 and 6, and 2 S. 6, the holiness is still im-
personal and natural in character. The ark is as it were charged with sacred electricity
which strikes what is profane like lightning. Only those in a state of mp may touch it.
On the older Hebrew view, such a state is the holy war in which the ark originally
found its sphere of operation (Nu. 10:35 f.; Jos. 6). That God's war, which the ark
symbolises, is holy, derives also from the fact that the warrior is in a state of tp,
being allowed to eat the consecrated temple bread which otherwise only the priests as
holy persons may eat (cf. Mt. 12:3 ff. and par.). It is along such lines that we are to
understand the formula ann22 U7p ("to declare holy war," Mi. 3:5; Jer. 6:4). Similarly,
the camp is holy (Dt. 23:15), since Yahweh dwells in it (v. 10 ff.). He Himself is
described as a man of war by Moses (Ex. 15:3 : 7mb wIx m7). The holy war under
the sign of the ark is the origin of the history of Israel.
Yet the ark is also the centre of national worship in time of peace, for Shiloh its
first dwelling-place (Jos. 18:1; cf. Jer. 7:26), and Jerusalem to which David brought it
permanently (2 S. 6), as the places where Yahweh causes His name to dwell (Dt. 12:5
etc.), are centres of the national cultus which Deuteronomy alone sanctions as compared
with the tribal or family shrines, or the nature shrines on the "high places.'

2. Prophetic Theology.
a. If in the national religion the holy still has a natural as well as a historical
element, this disappears completely in prophetic theology. God as thp is now
contrasted with the human and creaturely in all the fulness of His divine per-
sonality. It is noteworthy that it is in Hosea, who breaks completely with the
cultic element in religion, that Yahweh as 07172 appears in moral antithesis to the
nature of man : "I am God, and not man, holy (tip) in the midst of thee" (11:9).
Israel has followed the cult of Baal, and in favour of Baal has become Kadesh

9a M. Noth, System der zwolf Stamme Israels (1930), 61 ff.

&yioc

(677p, 4:14; 12:1) . In this holy licence it commits mortal sin against Yahweh, who is
vi in the opposite sense. But if the destruction of Israel must follow from this
collision of timp with 70972 (cf. 14:1), this destruction will itself be destroyed by
God as time. In the holiness of God there is the deathdealing element which must
destroy (cf. 5:3; 6:10; 9:4) uncleanness (78pp; cf. 2 S. 11:4), but there is also the
creative element which makes God a tree of life (14:8). Hosea finds the essence
of God in suprahuman love (- dyaraw, 31 ff.).
The opposition of God's holiness to Israel thus works itself out in His love
which is quite incomprehensible to human nature. In Hosea, therefore, the concept
of holiness takes up into itself as the fulness of deity the thought of love an
insight never again attained in the OT. As Hosea himself in his shattered happiness
learned to know love as the indestructible force which could save even his lost
wife, so Yahweh's holiness as the sum of His being must contain the creative love
which slays but also makes alive again (cf. 6:1 f.). In the older Hebrew concept
the divine stands in mortal opposition to the human and especially the sinful. This
opposition remains in Hosea's view of God, but it is absorbed into the opposition
of holy love to unholy nature. What God in virtue of His holiness may do to love
unholy nature, no man may do, and therefore the antithesis between God and man
consists in the very love which overcomes it.
b. The concept of holiness is central to the whole theology of Isaiah. The
Trisagion of his initial vision (Is. 6:3) remained normative for his picture of God.
It shows that Yahweh Sabaoth is as it were thrice holy. Whereas Yahweh's 725
His gravitas, is the pavepov tOU 0E00 which appears in all the world as in a
transparency, His holiness denotes His innermost and secret essence. The fear-
fulness of the holy God, the numen tremendum, is inimitably expressed in the holy
awe of Isaiah. His trembling seems to shake the threshold on which he stands at
the entrance to the sanctuary, and in the manifestation of the divine he feels the
mortal contrast to his own nature, since he is xpp, aka0aptog, unclean, and he
thinks that he must perish. The continuation of the vision shows that this is a
moral rather than a physical uncleanness, for there is reference to the taking away
of guilt and the purging of sin (6:7). Atonement (D2) is needed; the thought of it
occurs here in the setting of the holy. To be sure, atonement is always implicitly
demanded where there is question of the cultic encounter of man with the holy
God. But here the atonement does not come from man's side by the offering of
sacrifice. It comes from God's side, God Himself effecting it through the seraph
by means of a coal from the altar used as a holy means. When in the state of
reconciliation, Isaiah does not actually call himself vi1p, but we may thus describe
him, since in his prophetic role he stands in direct contact with God (cf. 2K. 4:9).
At any rate, he himself calls the final state of the redeemed on Mount Sion thi1p
(4:3), and it is characteristic that this is a state of life (own2 215), whereas the
contemplation of what is holy in a state of axa0xpola brings death (6:5).
From the concept of holiness Isaiah forged the expression 78 7t th for Yahweh.
As is well known, it occurs only in Isaiah apart from a few dependent passages
(e.g., 2K. 19:22; Jer. 50:29 etc.). It is distributed more or less equally through
the two parts, and is also highly esteemed by the editors (12:6; 17:7; 29:19). The
expression is obviously paradoxical, for as wit Yahweh stands in antithesis to
both natural and historical creation. If Yahweh as hntr bip binds Himself to
Israel, He sets up a relationship which must have as its goal a 012 by obviously
 dryios

seen (4:3) only in a remnant of the people (ath 7*w 10:21). To all the unholy,
the light of Israel will be a fire and the Holy One a flame (10:16) by which it
will be consumed and destroyed. In itself supreme grace, the establishment of the
beat: the in His people will be judgment destroying the mass and purifying a
remnant. Thus in face of the unholiness of the people it is supremely the divine
Judge who is introduced in the hant thip. Once he is called thipr bxn (5:16), in a
corrupt passage in which, however, the thought of judgment is again present. As
thip h* Yahweh shows Himself to be holy (tryp; 10).
C. Along the lines of Isaiah, the concept of the nt: th is further developed
in Deutero-Isaiah. But whereas the name was formerly linked predominantly with
judgment, the contrast between Yahweh and Israel being thus expressed, it is now
brought into connection with the thought of redemption. For now the Holy One
of Israel has executed His judgment, and behind it stands redemption as the final
goal. Yahweh as th is quite incomparable (Is. 40:25; cf. 57:15). As in Hosea,
He is God and not man. In His holiness lies His divine mystery (45:15). This
mystery is disclosed, however, in redemption (45:18 ff.). As Soir: thp Yahweh is
the Creator (41:20; 45:11) and the Redeemer (41:14; 43:3,14; 47:4) of Israel. As
½xi, He acknowledges Himself to be bound and committed to Israel, thus guarantee-
ing the freedom of Israel. Thus the thought of redemption is central to the theology
of Deutero-Isaiah, and the Holy One of Israel is to be seen in the light of it.
A connection is here established between salvation and holiness, though there is
no linguistic relationship (as in German). The train of thought is similar to that
of Hosea. For since Yahweh as time is God and not man, since He stands in
antithesis to the natural law of creation, since His thoughts and ways are different
from those of men (55:8 f.), His holiness corresponds to a kalvn kriois in which
He is all in all, the ninjor to apxaia having passed away and all things become

3. The Post-exilic Period.

a. In post-exilic Judaism the concept of holiness gives evidence of two inter-
mingling streams, the priestly and cultic on the one hand and the prophetic and
ethical on the other, The former is predominant in the legal literature, the latter
in the poetic. In the Jewish priest-state, the Israelite Law became more and more
a ceremonial Law in which the popular elements were overshadowed by the cultic.
In consequence the thought of holiness with its various derivatives plays a domi-
nating role. At the head of Israel, which is to be a vi >2) o"b nappn (Ex. 19:6),
stands the high-priest as 7779 tip (Ps. 106:16), bearing on his breastplate the
inscription : mn5 map (Ex. 28:36). But in descending degrees not only he, but all
the priests are holy (Lv. 21:6 f., cf. Nu. 16:5, 7), as are also the Levites who are
offered as a wave-offering to Yahweh, and then the whole people (Lv. 11:11 f.
etc.; Nu. 15:40). The power of holiness is imparted to men and things dwelling
within the radius of the sanctuary, and there is a difference between thp and
01072 0. The danger of a materialisation of the concept is obvious, and Jesus
had later to combat this (Mt. 23:17, 19).

10 The addition 12713 certainly suggests a prophecy of salvation, for ap1y "righteous
ness" always implies favour. But the train of thought (v. 15; v. 16) and the metre require
the excision of 727.3.
dyios
On the basis of this cultic system, however, there is built in the Psalter a more
spiritual world which has drawn from the riches of prophecy and especially
Deutero-Isaiah, and in which the holy is conceived personally, whether in the
person of the Holy One of Israel (Ps. 71:22; 78:41; 89:18) or of the saints of
Israel (34:9; 89:5). Yet there is still frequent mention of the sanctuary of God
(5:7; 138:2). And if the priesthood remains relatively in the background, it is easy
to see that the collection of the Psalter belongs to the same period as the formation
of the priest-state. The cultus was the envelope of faith, though without any sense
of conflict between them. Indeed, we can see what power cultic festivals in the
temple could exercise on pious minds, for in the sanctuary God could be seen
(Ps. 27:4; 42:2; 63:2 etc.) and His presence enjoyed. The sacrifice in its many forms
was the sign of reconciliation between God and the people. It did not express
human invention, but divine institution, and as such it could be a source of comfort.
The Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:11; cf. 143:10 [LXX] tp7 19) was present within Israel
(Is. 63:10 f.) as the Spirit of reconciliation shed abroad by God in the heart
(Ez. 36:26 f.) whose withdrawal was to be feared (Ps. 51:11).
b. The cultic basis of the ayioc-concept, however, is maintained not merely
in the canonical literature but also in the apocryphal writings of Hellenism. The
holiness of Jerusalem (1 Macc. 2:7; 2 Macc. 1:12; 3 Macc. 6:5; Tob. 13:9), of the
temple (1Esr. 1:53; 2Macc. 1:29; 5:15 [&yubtarov lepov]; 3 Macc. 3:16), of the
sanctuary (ro &yia, 1 Macc. 3:43, 51, 58 f. etc.; Jdt. 4:12 f.), of the altar (2 Macc.
14:3; Sir. 50:11), of the Sabbath (2 Macc. 5:25; Tob. 2:1), of holy objects such as
garments (Sir. 45:10), candlesticks (26:17), oil (45:15), swords (2Macc. 15:16),
and books (1 Macc. 12:9), of the priesthood (1 Macc. 2:54), of the people (1 Macc.
10:39, 44; Wis. 18:9) and of the covenant (1 Macc. 1:15, 63) is firmly rooted in
the OT. The same is true of the referring of ayioc to God (2 Macc. 14:36;
3 Macc. 2:2; Sir. 23:9; Tob. 12:12,15), even if the address "Thou Holy One" is
striking, as also to the divine names (Tob. 3:11; 8:5 f. etc.), to heaven (Wis. 9:10),
to the angels (Tob. 11:14; 12:15), and to the Spirit (Wis. 1:5; Sir. 48:12), though
the Wisdom of Solomon, plainly under the influence of Stoic philosophy, under-
stands by TVEOua &yiov something rather different from what is meant by
<1>0 m (Is. 63:10 f., Ps. 51:11).
In general we may conclude that the apocryphal literature remains within the
canonical conception of &yios. This is supported by the almost invariable usage
of the LXX translators, who rightly employed the relatively little used Greek
&yioc as a rendering of the Hebrew thp. Nor did they allow the Hebrew thp to be
coloured by the Greek meaning of &yios, but impressed &yios wholly into the
service of the Hebrew tp. This is particularly obvious in the translating of the
temple sanctuary by to &yiov or to dyia, whereas the normal Greek word lepov
does not occur at all in the LXX. Hence "we may see a conscious attempt to
avoid the usual term for heathen sanctuaries," 11 though it is to be noted that
already under Ptolemy III TO gytov is used for a pagan sanctuary. 12 The plural
&yia is found only in Hebrews outside the LXX, 18 except that Josephus uses it
for the Jerusalem temple an obvious Hebraism. It has been suggested that
&yior sometimes emphasises what is exalted or worthy of reverence, 14 and that

11 M. Flashar in ZAW, 32 (1929), 245, n. 2.

19 Ditt. Or., 56, 59; Flashar, op, cit.
13 Flashar, op. cit.
14 Asting, 37.
 dyioc

it is much used in this sense in the NT; but this rests on a misunderstanding.
To the extent that what is exalted or worthy of reverence contains an element of
the *713 or awful, it might sometimes be expressed by aytoc 0 but hardly in
the sense of 7129 majestas.
4. Philo and Josephus.
In post-biblical Judaism the authors to claim our attention are Philo and Jo-
sephus. Both these went beyond the frontiers of legal Judaism into the Hellenistic
world, the one as a philosopher, the other as a historian. Both were much in-
fluenced thereby.
Philo starts with the Pentateuch as the basis of his theology, but he everywhere
interprets it allegorically. His view of God is taken from Judaism. Hence God
appears to him as dyios (Sacr., 101; Som., I, 254; Praem. Poen., 123), and he also
knows to dyiotatov Kai Ogiov &voua (Vit. Mos., II, 208) and describes the divine
wisdom (coola) as dylc (Fug., 196). He realises that &yioc has its basis in the
Hebrew vp. Hence the whole sphere of the cultus is brought under this term as
in Hebrew, including the temple (Leg. Gai., 278: o tOt tylorou 0:00 VEGC ayios;
Leg. All., III, 125: to &ywov), the holiest of holies (Mut. Nom., 192: td &yia toy
dylov), the forecourt (Vit. Cont., 81: Év TO dylo itpovao), the precincts (Rer.
Div. Her., 75: Tov TELEVOV To dylotepov), but also including the actions
(Post. C., 96: &yiov "payua Som., I, 82: tE etaic Som., II, 34: AEI-
toupyla), which in the OT are not called vim. Similarly he knows the sacred
number (Vit. Cont., 65) in relation to the Sabbath (Spec. Leg., II, 194) and other
things (Vit. Mos., II, 80), and the Law (vouos), like the cultus, is holy (Spec.
Leg., III, 119), this being counted among the &yiai ypacal by Palestinian Jews
also. Among Israelites Moses is lepotatoc te kal &yioc (Spec. Leg., IV, 105).
Yet Israel as such is ordained a holy people (Praem. Poen., 123), and the firstborn
are to be counted as &yio1 (Sacr. A.C., 134), so that the whole people is to be
reckoned holy as in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Code.
For Philo, of course, the Law is an allegory of the philosophical world, and
the Hebrew root of his concept of God is indissolubly intertwined with a Greek
derivation from Hellenistic philosophy. There thus ensues a transfer of the Hebrew
predicate of holiness (&yios) to philosophical concepts with which it has no
basic connection. The cosmos is as to mpeoputatov Kal telelb tatov Epyov &ylov
(Rer. Div. Her., 199). It is a reflection of the Holy One (Plant., 50: dylov & tau-
yaoua). And as heaven is holy in the macrocosm, sO is vouc in the microcosm
(Som., I, 34). The &yiov has here lost its original sense and come to mean the
lofty aspect (oeuvov, Som., II, 251: FEUVOTEDOV KaL XYIOTEDOV olkov) borne
by the creation of God. Hence Philo can arrive at his own distinctive view of
the soul as the sanctuary of God (Som., I, 149: 0e06 olkov yEveolaI, lepov
&yiov). There cannot be found for God any DEUVoTEpOV Kal dylotEpov . . . olkov
than piAolequova Storvotarv (Som., II, 251). Like the Stovoua, the yvQual (Leg.
All., III, 125) and kIVoEls at Kat' apETiv (Sacr. A.C., 109) can be called holy
(&yiau). Here the Philonic meaning of &yios merges into that of dyvoc or "pure"
(Exsecr., 159: wuyh dyvi taplÉvoc), but loses that of mp.
The usage of Josephus is quite different. In distinction from Philo, who does not
avoid &yioc but gives it a different meaning from that of the OT, Josephus uses
it sparingly, no doubt because &yios "must have sounded strange in Greek
ears. '15 This is revealed by a comparison of the third book of the Antiquities,
15 Schl. Mt., 12.
dylos

which deals with the cultic arrangements under Moses, with the relevant sections
of the source in Leviticus. In the latter the term dryios the is extremely
frequent, the so-called Holiness Code (Lv. 17-26) being named after it. But in
Josephus it loses its prominence, and the same is true in all his writings. 16 He
uses it most frequently of the Jerusalem temple, saying of the vaoc that it &ywov
Éka EiTo, to 8É aBatov Too dylou to &yiov (Ant., 3, 125). He also uses it
of the holiest of holies (Bell., 1, 152: xoparov &yiov), and of the sanctuary with
the forecourt and walls of the temple (Bell., 4, 171; 6, 95; Ant., 12, 413). The holy
land is also called &yrov (Bell., 4, 163; 5, 400). Whereas TAños is used of people
of every kind, only the people of God is called ineus; 11 to it alone can the
predicate &ylos be applied (Bell., 6, 425) as a precondition of its participation in
the cultus. Josephus is much more liberal in his usé of ryvos and its cognates
(Ant., 15, 418; Bell., 6, 425 [&y1oc]). The verb gy1&(ElV, which is mostly re-
stricted to biblical Greek, though it is found also in Philo, he replaces by dyvigelv
(Ant., 3, 262; 9, 272). As an intransitive we find XyVEdELV (Ant., 3,152) in ap-
proximation to Greek usage. Here, too, Josephus shows that for the sake of his
readers he has weakened the basic Jewish terms and ideas which sought expression
in gyros and dy a(elv, as is most evident, of course, in his way of speaking of
God. 18
Procksch

D. The Concept of Holiness in Rabbinic Judaism.

a. In Rabbinic Judaism the application of the root v7p is for the most part
controlled by the OT. Thus, in accordance with OT custom, the following are
called holy: the temple (tzpe); the priests; the sacrifices (distinguished as
01072 072, most holy offerings, and ap avp, offerings of a lesser degree of hol-
iness); the feast-days ; the Sabbath ; the people Israel; Palestine etc. Yet in this
usage the term 07p is never given any precision of content. Often there is evidence
of an attempt to systematise the OT statements. Thus Kel., 1, 6 ff. offers a series
of ten items of increasing holiness, including the land, Jerusalem, 19 the temple
hill, the courts of women, men and priests, and the temple itself. Meg., 3, 1 offers
the following series : 1. the city square, where divine festivals might be held;
2. the synagogue ; 3. the ark of the Torah within it: 4. the veils of Holy Scripture
within this ; 5. the scrolls of Nebtim and Ketubim ; and 6. the scroll of the Torah. 20
Occasionally the Rabbis venture new constructions within the framework of the
OT concept of cultic holiness. Thus S. Nu., 25 on 6:5 speaks of the holiness of
the hair to indicate that the Nazirite must cut off his hair because it is dedicated
to God (Nu. 6:5, 18), and of the holiness of the body to indicate that there must
be no defilement by corpses (Nu. 6:6 f.).
Mention should also be made of a secular use tip c. acc. mul. et % viri = "to
espouse a wife," 21 lit. "to select or separate to oneself a wife." For this is the

16 Brine, Flavius Josephus (1913).

17 Ibid., 118.
18 A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910).
19 Jerusalem 'the holy city, v. Str. B., I, 150.
20 99.
21 For references, v. Kidd, pass.
 dyior
basic meaning of up, 2 which is here secularised and apparently restricted to the
selection of a wife.
This more or less exhausts the main occurrences of the root 009 in Rabbinic
literature. For apart from this traditional and secular use wp is not very frequent
in passages of any theological relevance.
b. God is called holy as the pitilessly stern Judge, as the lofty King, as rex
tremendae maiestatis, whom one may approach only with fear and trembling. The
Jew prays daily to Him, the "great, powerful and dreadful God." 23 "Holy art
Thou, and fearful is Thy name." 24 Thus the Rabbis speak much of the fear of
God, 25 and frequently call God a'ben "abp a2p, in indication of His majesty tran-
scending everything earthly. This emphasis on the majesty and transcendence of
God does not mean, however, that God is distant, unapproachable or remote for
Judaism. 26 He reveals Himself to be holy majesty specifically and indeed ex-
clusively when one draws near to Him. It is constantly said that God is present
among His people (onpy myad). Later Judaism also knows well enough a direct
relationship of trust in God. But where there is genuine piety and not unworthy
calculation, this believing confidence is always sustained by fear and trembling
before the holy God. 21 Hence the Holy One is one of the commonest designations
for God in Judaism, as in Sir. and En., 28 and later in Rabbinic texts from the 3rd
century onwards (usually now with the eulogy : x17 7172 vhpn). 20 Rather strangely,
it is almost completely lacking in the older strata of Rabbinic tradition (1st and
2nd centuries A.D.). 30 Alongside it there is still found vapa (abstr. pro concreto)
in the formula mipn "92, e.g., S. Nu., 112 on 15:31: "The whole Torah was spoken
by Moses from the mouth of Holiness,' i.e., exactly as God spoke it to him.
The Spirit of God is also called holy. Indeed, vapn 14981 has become almost a
fixed formula, and we never have instead sipen 11 (which would correspond to
the OT m7 mn),
Above all, the name of God is holy. This explains why in later Judaism the
proper name (741p1 bd)82 of God was never pronounced except in temple worship. 33
After the destruction of the temple it was not even known how to pronounce it.
It was replaced by "27x in the reading of Scripture and by art in more general
use. But even these substitutes eventually became taboo. The reading "317k for m7
was restricted to liturgical use. In private reading d07 or "the name" was used.
Similarly aipw came to be replaced by the very general bipen or "place" (i.e.,
heaven C God). 34

Baudissin, II, 20 ff.

23 Schemone-Esre, 1. Benediction.
24 Ibid., 3. Benediction.
25 E.g., Ab., 1, 3; bBer., 28b; 30b; Midr. Ps. 100 3 (213a).
26 This view prevailed for many years, but it has been exploded by Moore, Judaism
(1927), I, 423 ff.
27 Cf. the prayer of Raba in bBer., 17a (bjoma., 87b): the words of Johanan b. Zaccai
in bBer., 28b; and esp. the passages from a prayer on the great day of atonement cited by
Moore, op. cit., II, 214.
28 For examples, v. Str.-B., III, 762.
20 Ibid., II, 310, under k.
30 A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God (1927), 1, 97,
31 In the OT, only Is. 63:10, 11; Ps. 51:11.
32 W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie (1905), I, 159.
33 Str.-B., II, 311 ff.
34 Ibid., II, 308-319.
dyioc
The holiness of the name of God, i.e., of God Himself, is particularly charac-
terised by the expression 'to hallow the name (of God)." This is often found in
prayers with God as subject : "Hallow Thy name" (Tanna de-bé Elijjahu, 21, E),
or, the same in substance though not in expression : "Hallowed be Thy name,
synonymous with "Glorified be Thy name." 35 The two latter terms are found
together at the beginning of the Kaddish prayer: X22 700 572n! vipn:"Hallowed and
glorified be Thy great name." "God sanctifies His name by showing His holiness
to the world," 30 and by forcing men to acknowledge His name. Quite often,
however, it is said of men, though usually only of Israelites, that they hallow the
name of God. They do this by "so living that men must see and say that the God
of Israel is the true God,' 37 and especially by obeying the will of God in keeping
the commands of the Torah and studying to achieve a blameless walk in the eyes
of the world. Thus the hallowing of the name (bw mup) is "the chief principle
and motive of ethical action in Judaism." 37 In a special sense it is martyrs who
by their constancy to God's commands sanctify the name of God at the cost of
their lives. 38

c. Scripture is holy as the Word of God, the Torah being more holy than the
rest because it is more strictly God's Word. 38 Cf. the mounting succession of
holiness from Meg., 3, 1.
To be sure, the description of the Torah or the rest of the OT as t7p1 "ans
is relatively infrequent in Rabbinic literature. 40 It is usually called quite simply
ning or 21091. But the matter itself is plain enough. The holiness of the Torah is
seen supremely in the fact that the reading of it stands at the heart of synagogue
worship encircled by a series of prayers referring to it. 41 The reading of the Torah
is a sacred, cultic action. But concern with it apart from worship is also felt to be
in some sense a sacred action : "If two sit together and occupy themselves with
the Torah, God's presence is among them" (Ab., 3,2). The same is true of
solitary study of the Torah (Ab., 3, 6 par.). 42 The same thought is reflected in
the miraculous accounts of certain rabbis being encircled with fire as they studied
the Torah. 43
Because Scripture is holy, so, too, are the individual scrolls, especially of the
Torah. The writing of them is itself sacred task. We see this from the saying
(bEr., 13a) of R. Jishma'el to R. Meir, himself a copyist of the Torah: "My son,
be careful in thy work, for it is a work of God." For the same reason, R. 'Akiba
(S. Nu., 5, 23, § 16,E) demands that scrolls copied by heretics should be burned
"because they are not written in holiness," i.e., by a strict Jew and with sufficient
care.

35 "Glorify thy name, cf. In. 12, 28.

36 Str.-B., I, 411. The demonstration may also be given by a miracle, as in the case of
the three in the burning fiery furnace in Da. 3:24 (cf. S. Lv., 18, 6 in Str.-B., I, 413 etc.
Cl. also Moore, II, 102).
37 Moore, II, 103.
38 Ibid., 105 f. Cf. esp. Midrash on Ps. 16:2 (61a).
30 Str.-B., IV, 435 ff.
40 For examples, ibid., III, 14.
41 Ibid., IV, 154 ff.
42 Ibid., I, 794.
Ibid., II, 603. Fire is the sacred element. Hence also Midr. Ps., 90 § 12 (196a): The
Torah as pre-existent with God was written with black fire on white fire (Str.-B., I, 975).
 &yioc

The particular expression for the holiness of the scrolls in the Rabbinic writings
is that 'they make the hands unclean" (Zab., 5, 12; bShab, 13b etc.), i.e., a cultic
washing of the hands is necessary after touching them, #4 the hands having become
holy through the holiness of Scripture and needing to be made unclean again after
contact.
d. Men are often called holy in Rabbinic literature. The man who fulfils God's
commandments and leads a pious life pleasing to God is holy : Tanch. nhwg 31
(37b); S.Lv., 20, (91d) niven 13 ntp: "The holiness which consists in keeping
all the commandments." Study of the Torah also belongs essentially to a life
pleasing to God. Hence students are called th by (bMeg., 27b; bJeb., 105b;
bSanh., 7b). Jose b. Meshullam and Shim'on b. Menasia are called ndi 779
"a holy community," because they lead a life which is to some extent the ideal
of Jewish piety, dividing the day into three parts, one third for the Torah, one
third for prayer and one third for work. 46 The righteous of the OT are also
called holy, as the early patriarchs in Tanch. 212, Isaac in Gn. r. 65 and Abraham
in Gn. r., 45.
Particular emphasis always falls on the negative side of the concept of holiness.
To be holy is to be separated, S.Lv., 11, 44 (57b) etc. In the first instance this
means separation from the Gentiles and their idolatry (S. Lv., 20:7; M. Ex. 19:6).
Often, however, to be holy means to refrain from sin, especially from licentious-
ness. Thus Lv. r. 24:6 (34d), Jehuda b. Pazzi: "He who refrains from licentious-
ness is called holy." Similarly, Nu. r. 9 (151b).48 Similarly, Rabbi Jehuda is called
holy "because not once in his life did he look on the place of his circumcision"
(jMeg., 72b, 50), and Nahum b. Simai is called most holy because he never looked
on naked heathen statues, nor on any image on a coin. 47 For later Judaism holy
and chaste come to be synonymous. Maimonides (12th century) calls 771p the
portion of his Mishnah Torah which contains definitions of sexual matters, and
Nachmanides (13th century) entitles his missive on the same commandments
70017p nox.
Kuhn

E. &yios in the NT.

1. The Holiness of God.
In the NT, which everywhere rests on an OT foundation, the material element
largely yields before the personal. As already in the OT, e.g., in the prophets, the
dyios predicate is referred to the person of God. Indeed, it contains the innermost
description of God's nature (Is. 6:3). Thus the Trisagion recurs in the song of
praise of the four beasts in Rev. 4:8. The vision of Isaiah is here filled out with
elements taken from the vision at the call of Ezekiel (Ez. 1), but with the song of
the heavenly creatures, who are to be thought of as holy like the ayye/ot gyiot
(cf. Rev. 14:10), it retains its basic character. The scene is set in heaven, and

14 The reason given for this definition in bShab., 14a, and followed in Str.-B., IV, 433 f.,
is a late construction of no historical value.
45 Str.-B., II, 692, under d.
46 Str.-B., III, 632.
17 Ibid., II, 692, under e. For further examples, v. Fridrichsen, 60, n. 3.
cytoc

therefore in the supra-creaturely realm of the worship of God, who Himself belongs
to the holy sphere. Yahweh Sabaoth is rightly regarded as ntavtoxpatop, so that
omnipotence is the external aspect of the holiness of God, to which eternity also
belongs (8 fiv kai o oy xal o epxouevoc, cf. 9 f.). Holiness and glory thus com-
bine to express the essence of the Godhead, and a holy awe permeates the whole
scene. If God is invoked by martyrs as the avenger of innocent blood (Rev. 6:10),
in His attributes as o aylos kal alnewos there is found a guarantee of the
detection of religious crimes which constitute sacrilege.
As in the Apocalypse, so in John's Gospel the holiness of God emerges in the
TOTEP ayIE of Jesus (Jn. 17:11), which Jesus uses to describe the innermost nature
of God. 48 Elsewhere &yuos is applied to God in Pt. 1:15 f.: katd TOV KaXé-
oavra uas gylov, in which reference is made to Lv. 19:2 to deduce from the
holiness of God a demand for holy conversation in His children to the extent that
they are taken out of the world and await the AToK&^uVIs 'Inoou (v.13).
Finally, in the Lord's Prayer petition is made that God's name should be hallowed
(Mt. 6:9; Lk. 11:12: dyiao0nto to 8vou& oou). Here TO ovoua means the person
in which God reveals Himself (cf. Mt. 28:19), but in which He is also distinct
from the creaturely world. In the name of God the holy shows itself to be some-
thing personal which thus requires of the one who prays a personal attitude to the
divine world. Thus the holiness of God the Father is everywhere presumed in the
NT, though seldom stated. It is filled out in Jesus Christ as the &yios TOU 0EOU,
and in the TIVEULa aytov.

2. Jesus Christ as gyios.

The description of Jesus Christ as &yioc is rare (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 1:35; 4:34;
Jn. 6:69; Jn. 2:20; Rev. 3:7; Ac. 3:14; 4:27, 30). On the other hand, it is ancient
and full of content. In Luke it is grounded upon His miraculous birth when the
TVE0ua gyiov came on Mary and the Suvaus onlorou overshadowed her (816
Kai to yevouevov &yiov kinenoetal uloc 0E00, 1:35). With TO YEVOUEVOV,
&yiov here belongs to the subject, for the predicate is uloc 0eo0; but the ex-
pression to yEWOLEVOV &ylov is to be explained by the supranatural origin of the
new life, which is called uloc 8eot because of its origin, so that uloc 0eof is here
a predicate which is not grounded in the Messianic office of Christ but in His
origin. Immediately alongside, Luke sets the establishment of the divine sonship
of Christ by the reception of the Spirit (kataBival to TIVEDua To &yiov) at
baptism. 49 In Luke, Jesus can in any case be called &yios as a bearer of the Spirit.
This is also the thought in the old Synoptic scene (Lk. 4:34; Mk. 1:24) where the
avi pattoc Ev TVE aTI aKal&pT® (Mk. Exoov nIvEDpa Sauuoniov arataptov)
says to Jesus : olo& [olquev] OE tic El, & &ylor TOU 0EOD. Jesus plainly confronts
the unclean spirit as a bearer of the rIVEDua gylov; there is a mortal antithesis

18 The name which the "tarp &yloc has given the Son (v. 11 f.) can only be the divine
name itself (Mt. 28:19), in which the Father and the Son are one, this being the basis of
the unity of Christian faith : tva Gow ev Kali nueic.
40 uloc HOU EL av, Eyd ON Epov yEy€wnk& OE (Lk. 3:22, D latt.). This text, which
as against the Marco-Matthean (Mt. 3:17; Mk. 1:11) that has mostly penetrated into Luke,
we must regard as the older Synoptic (cf. Zahn), does not refer to the natural but to the
Messianic birth of Christ (cf. Ps. 2:7), which is followed by the reception of the TVEOuc
dyiov at baptism (onuspov).
 dyioc

between TIVEOua &ylov and TvEDua arafaptov which the demons recognise. 50
The predicate 6 ayios Tou Oe00, however, implies more than that Jesus is the
popular Messiah, for there is no reference here to His national position, but to His
pneumatic nature. As &yios TOU OEOU He is the Firstborn and Inaugurator of the
pneumatic age which will destroy the kingdom of demons.
In John, too, Jesus is called 6 &yloc Tou 0E00 (6:69), this time in the con-
fession of Peter and therefore in an extraordinary place. The recognition of Jesus
as 8 &yios rou 0eo0 is here called a confession of faith (nueic TETLOTEUKQUEV
kai ÉyvoxquEv), so that again more is at issue than the recognition of the popular
Messiah. 51 As 8 dyios Tou OEo0 Jesus is set by John at the side of God whom He
addresses as mathp &yios (Jn. 17:11). The One whom the Father has sanctified
(Rylaoev) and sent into the world, is rightly called uloc TOU 0E00 (Jn. 10:36).
As the Holy One Christ is also in John the Dispenser of xpioua, namely, of the
anointing of the Spirit (1 Jn. 2:20) . 62 Similarly in Revelation Christ as o dyios
Kal 8 ahn0w6s (3:7) bears the same predicates as God Himself (6:10). Thus in
all the passages adduced gyroc is used to describe the deity of Christ.
The case is rather different in the early Christian application of the predicate
6 &yioc tais (Ac. 3:14; 4:27, 30) to Jesus. It is evident that in the expression
8 taic, which elsewhere is used of Jesus only in Mt. 12:16 ff., we have a play on
the 797? 129 of Deutero-Isaiah, whose counterpart Jesus clearly showed Himself to
be in Lk. 4:16 ff. and Lk. 22:37. If Jesus bears the ancient predicate of 6 gyioc
itaic [6E00] in the primitive community, this is less a reference to His divine
origin, for which taic is hardly appropriate, than to His cultic mission ; for the
Servant of the Lord of Deutero-Isaiah is obviously a Messianic figure, since he
is anointed with the Spirit of God (Is. 42:1; 61:1), to which there is reference in
Ac. 4:27: 8v Exploas, and yet His Messianic sending is accomplished in vicarious
sacrifice for others (Is 53:10) and thus acquires a cultic content. The same
meaning is indicated in the primitive community by emphasis on the suffering of
the ayioc Kai Sikaioc maic (3:14; 4:27). As the Servant of God Jesus is the holy
sacrifice which, itself innocent, is offered vicariously for the guilt of the people
of God (cf. Pt. 1:18 f.) to open up access to the sanctuary.
This train of thought comes out most clearly in Hebrews (c.9), except that
the one Jesus is now both priest and victim. As the high-priest, who is here the
figura Christi, went once a year into the holiest of holies (9:3 : &yia dylov), not
without blood, to make atonement for himself and the people, so Christ has done
Rid pust

50 It is arguable whether gyios tou 0:00 is vocative or predicate in relation to tic

El. It seems to be that the second is the case, for the former would leave it open who the
ayioc TOU 0EOT is. whereas the whole point is that the demons feel themselves to be
mortally assailed (fAOES aTtoAÉaa fuas) in the &yloc TOU 0EOU.
31 If we compare the Synoptic confession of Peter : GU El 8 XpIaT6c (Lk. + TOU 0:00),
in Mk. 8:29 and par., and the Matthean addition & uloc Tou 0E0U TOU LOVtoG (16:16),
to which there corresponds in Matthew the 6 Tatp o v toic oipavoic of v. 17, so that
Mt. 16:16b, 17-19 at least derive from a special source, the Johannine & &yios TOU 0:00
is undoubtedly better explained by the Matthean o utoc TOU DEOT LOVtOG than by o
Xptor6g, as 6 vioc TOO 0E00 COvios also corresponds better to the Matthean question
who 6 ufos toU &vi poTou is (16:13 The uloc too oviponou as vioc tOO 0E00 is
8 xylos Tou 0e06 (cf. Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34) not merely in the cultic (Ps. 106:16: ayioc
kuplou) but in the supraterrestrial sense (cf. Da. 7:27: 1"329 v972 : Da. 7:13).
52 The play on Xplot6c in xpioua is so obvious that the question, which is often left
undecided, whether & &yior refers to God or to Christ, is surely to be answered in the
latter sense.
&yiog

by His own blood as both priest and victim (9:25 ff.). The holiest of holies is an
antitype of heaven as the dwelling-place of God which Jesus has entered by His
death and where He now represents Christians as a Priest, so that the new
testament (v. 15, Sla0nxn kalvñ) is now valid for the Christian world. In this
connection it is to be noted that instead of dyvigelv = 172. which signifies the
self-sanctifying of the layman with a view to his cultic status (Jn. 11:55; Ac. 21:24,
26; 24:18 etc.), the verb. dy1&(ELV (Hb.2:11; 9:13; 13:12 f.; cf. 10:10, 14, 29) is
here used, which expresses expiatory sanctification by the sacrifice here offered
in Christ. Only he who himself is dyios, whether it be God, priest or victim, can
exercise dy a(elv. Hence Christ as dyo(wv (Hb. 2:11) must Himself be &yioc.
3. The Holy Spirit.
a. The holiness of the Spirit (- TVEQua) is inseparable from that of Christ.
The OT root is obviously the pn 19 (Is. 63:10 f.; Ps. 51:11).
Though the expression is infrequent in the OT, its substance is common. In David
09 has Messianic as well as prophetic content (2 S. 23:2) ; in Isaiah the Messiah is a
bearer of the Spirit (Is. 11:2), and in Deutero-Isaiah the 7179 729 is anointed with the
Spirit (42:1; 61:1). As the Spirit is here possession of the Messiah, so elsewhere of
the prophets. Elijah bears the Spirit (2 K.2:9), and Elisha asks of his master a double
measure of the firstborn's portion of the Spirit (cf. Dt. 21:17). If Elisha is depicted as
a holy man of God (2 K. 4:9), his holy character presumably rests on his possession of
the Spirit. Hosea, too, is called 7)71 "x (Hos. 9:7), and both Isaiah (30:1) and Micah
(3:8) are conscious of being filled with the Spirit. In Ezekiel the Spirit of God becomes
a possession of the community in the Messianic future (36:26 f.), and in Joel He is
poured out on all flesh as a prelude to the last time (3:1), this passage being adopted
by Peter in his preaching at Pentecost (Ac. 2:17 ff.). Yet the post-exilic people of God
is already aware that it is indwelt by the Spirit of Yahweh (Hag.2:5; Zech. 4:6; 7:12),
as was also the Israel of the time of Moses (Is. 63:10 f.). The Psalmist is unmistakeably
thinking of this common possession of the Spirit when in relation to Ezekiel's promise
of a new heart and spirit (Ez. 36:26 f.) he prays for a clean heart and right spirit, and
asks that he should not be expelled from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 51:10 f.).
b. In the NT there is the textual difficulty that in the Synoptics and Acts
TIVE ua aylov is often an emendation of TVEua alone (i.e., without &ywov). 63
In both Matthew and Luke TO TVEULa dylov is the principle of the derivation of
Christ even on the natural side (Mt. 1:18, 20; cf. Lk. 1:35) as distinct from Tvedua
as an immanent potency. Above all, however, TIVEDua &ylov plays an important
role in the baptism story (Mt. 3:11 and par.); for according to the old Synoptic
conception the Messiah is to baptise Ev TVE uaTI dylo (cf. Ac. 1:5), with a clear
forward reference to the fulfilment at Pentecost. 54 With the baptism of Christ the
age of the Spirit begins in the full sense (Mt. 3:13 ff. and par.). As the dove of
Noah after the flood indicates the dawn of a new epoch (Gn. 8:8 ff.), so the

58 Luke especially loves the formula to TVEDua to gyiov in both his books, though this
weakens to some extent the original sense of &y1ov. Yet Mark, too, shows the same tend-
ency (cf. 3:29 : Mt. 12:31; 12:36: Mt. 22:43; 13:11: Mt. 10:20), so that Matthew seems to
have here the earliest Synoptic text.
54 John uses the expression TVEDua &yiov only in relation to the event of Pentecost,
which he attributes directly to the risen Lord (20:22); for in In. 14:26 To dylov is an
addition lacking in Syr. sin. The Hebrew concept of the holy comes out in this saying to
the extent that there is binding and loosing of sin in the power of the TVEua gylov. The
TVEDua &yiov excludes the hardened sinner but pardons the penitent.
 dyioc

dove-like form of the Spirit indicates the dawn of a new creation rising with
Christ from the baptismal waters (cf. 1 Pt. 3:19 ff.). In the first instance the Spirit
of God is linked exclusively with Christ; He is freed to be the Spirit of Christianity
only by the resurrection of Christ (Jn. 20:22; Ac. 2:1 ff.; 4:27 ff.), being then im-
parted to the disciples as the Spirit of Pentecost. The promise of the TIVEDLa
&ylov undoubtedly goes back to Jesus and is referred back by Him to John the
Baptist (Mk. 1:8 and par.).
Even the obscure saying concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost (Mt. 12:32 f.
par.) has a Pentecostal content. 55 In the uloc tou oviptotou God is present in
hidden form. Hence sin against the Son of Man is committed in ignorance and may
be pardoned. In the TVEOua &yiov of the Pentecostal age, however, God manifests
Himself through Christ. Hence he who is apprehended by the TvEdua &yiov, but
resists His power and thus blasphemes Him (Baoonuet), commits unforgivable
sin. The possibility of this sin thus arises only with the Pentecostal era when the
Holy Spirit has been poured out by Jesus on the disciples and has become their
indwelling possession. 68 Even the Trinitarian baptismal command, in which we
have the divine name as ntotp, ul6s and &ywov ivedua, is linked with the
Pentecostal age.
It thus follows that in the primitive Gospel TIVEDua &ylov == DIp] m is used
only of the Pentecostal period, though Jesus Himself often enough spoke of TVE ua
alone. The absolute Pneuma was fully adequate to express the matter, especially
on Hebrew soil. Yet the &ylos tou 0Eo0 added the attribute &ylov in order to
differentiate the Spirit from all xxa®apola.
C. Among the Evangelists Luke is most fond of the expression TVEua &yrov,
whether he uses the definite article and thus selects the formula TO TVEDuC to
&yiov, or whether he has the indefinite TVEDua &yrov. 51 In general it may be said
that the definite form reveals the Pentecostal Spirit manifested at the baptism of
Jesus (Lk. 3:22), who at a supreme point broke forth from the lips of Jesus in
rejoicing (Lk. 10:21), but only became the possession of the Christian community
in the event of Pentecost (Ac. 4:31) in which He now works with sovereign
creativity. On the other hand, the indefinite TIVEDua &yiov works less as conscious
will than as unconscious power of a creative (Lk. 1:35; 4:1) or prophetic nature
(1:15, 41, 67 etc.), although this cannot be pressed too hard. In both cases Luke
lays special emphasis on the attribute gyiov, though the liberal use perhaps weak-
ens the material force of the expression. As the Holy Spirit, He is everywhere
thought to be grounded in God, so that &yiov takes on almost the meaning of
divine. The antithesis to demonic or natural spirit is thus underlined.
As a Greek nurtured on the mission field rather than in the homeland of the
Gospel, Luke had particular reason to distinguish the Spirit of God from other
spirits active in the pagan world. There can be no doubt that his conception of the
Spirit corresponds to popular ideas in early missionary Christianity rather than
Jewish Christianity, in which the cultic element is never completely lost, as shown
by Matthew and Hebrews. His conception of the Spirit is shaped by the char-

55 H. v. Baer, Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (1926), 75 f.

56 The form of the saying in Mark and Matthew (Mk. 3:28 f.: Mt. 12:31) suppresses the
contrast between & uloc tou oviponou and to Tveiua TO dyiov.
to TVE ua [to] &yiov Lk. 2:26; 3:22; 10:21; 12:10, 12; Ac. 1:8; 2:33; 4:31; 5:3;
7:51; 9:31; 10:44; 13:4; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:6; 20:23, 28; 28:25; TvEGua gytov Lk. 1:15 (17),
35, 41, 67; 2:25; 3:16; 4:1; 11:13; Ac. 1:2: 4:25; 6:5; 7:55; 8:15, 17, 19; 10:38; 11:24; 19:2.
ayios

ismatic processes in the early Christian communities which found expression in

the gift of tongues and the prophetic stimulation so dynamically depicted by Paul,
especially in the Corinthian Epistles. The Holy Spirit in Luke often bears the
character of eschatological unrest as described by Joel (JI. 3:1 ff.) and as un-
doubtedly most frequently found in early Christianity in view of the expected end.
His descriptions are thus more rewarding for investigators of the Pentecost move-
ment in the broad strata of the apostolic age than for those who seek more clear-
cut theological concepts.
d. Far more personal and noble is the conception of the Spirit in Paul, which
has many points of contact with the Johannine view except that Paul makes far
more use of the attribute &ylov, to which he gives a specific sense. Thinking in
terms of the temple (1 C. 3:16; 6:19; Eph. 2:20), the sacrifice (Eph. 5:2) and the
liturgy (R. 15:16), Paul maintains but spiritualises the cultic character of the holy.
In Christ there is established a holy temple (Eph. 2:21) in which Christians are
built up as living stones, God Himself dwelling therein Év vE uati. The founda-
tion of this building consists of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) to whom
the mystery of Christ is revealed EV TVEOUATI (Eph. 3:5). The integration of this
living organism, in which the body of Christ is built up, is explicitly described
(4:11 ff.). In Corinthians this thought is individualised (6:19 : to aGua buov
vaoc tou Év Outv dylou nveluatoc toTiv, cf. 3:16). To the temple there corre-
sponds the sacrifice which is brought in Christ and which has the character of
holiness (1 C. 5:7). In Romans Paul compares himself as Aettoupyos 'Inoot
Xpioto0 with the priest who handles the Gospel (tepoupyoivta to EbayyE^lov
TOU 0E00) in order that the Gentile world may be accepted as a sacrifice (Ttp0 po-
pa) by God, AyiaquÉvn Ev TVEUpaTI dylo (R. 15:16). Everywhere it is a matter
of building the holy temple and setting up the holy cultus whose holiness consists
in the TveOua &ylov, in which the fellowship of Christianity is also grounded
(2 C. 13:13; R. 5:5). As once in the Israel of the time of Moses (Is. 63:10 f.; cf.
C. 10:1 ff.), so now to TVEDua to &yiov dwells in Christianity (1 Th. 4:8; 2 Tm.
1:14) to the extent that it consists in a state of cy aoubs (2 Th. 2:13).
The signs of the new cultic community, of Christianity, created in the death of
Christ, are baptism (1 C. 12:13 : Év ÉVI TIVEULL&TL NHEIC EIS Ev odua #Bartloon.
wev), in which the Holy Spirit effects the Ta^lyyeveola and avakalvaois of
creation (Tt. 3:5), and the Lord's Supper (1 C. 12:13: TOVTEC EV TIVEDUC ETTO-
tloonuev). Baptism as a fellowship with Christ in death signifies the death of the
old life and the raising up of the new (R. 6:3; Col. 2:12). Similarly the communion
of the Lord's Supper expresses fellowship with Christ in death (1 C. 11:26) from
which there springs the new creation (2 C. 5:17: El TIS Ev Xpiord, Kauh ktlas).
Hence in the death of Christ there is advanced the thought of a cultic fellowship
of Christianity. The cultic element in its spiritual form is contained in the concept
of reconciliation (Kata^ayh), which is effected by the sacrificial death of Christ
(R. 5:9 ff.; 2 C. 5:18 f.).

4. The Holiness of the Exk^nola.

The connection of the holy with the cultic may be clearly perceived in the NT,
as we have already seen, not merely in the name of God but also in fellowship in
divine service.

Here, too, the OT origin is obvious. Jerusalem is h dyla T6Ais (Mt. 4:5; 27:53;
Rev. 11:2) where the great King dwells (Mt. 5:35). Like Sinai (Ac. 7:33) and the Mount
 dyloc

of Transfiguration (2 Pt. 1:18), the Jerusalem temple is a toTos &yioc (Mt. 24:15;
Ac. 6:13); even Paul, if in a higher sense, calls the temple holy (1 C. 3:17; Eph. 2:21).
As &yiog, it lends holiness even to the gold (Mt. 23:17), just as the altar does to the
offering (Mt. 23:19 : ayia(ov, cf. 7:6 : &yiov). Along with the cultus, Scripture as the
constitutional foundation of the people of God is reckoned holy (R. 1:2 : Ev ypaoaic
dylaus); the Law of Moses is the basic Scripture as developed in the commandments
(evtoAn) on the basis of the divine testament (Lk. 1:72; R. 7:12: 6 uEV vouos ayioc
kal h Evtoln dyla kal 8ikala). At this point the doctrine of the priests and scribes
is taken over in the NT.

In the kalh Kilous, however, the OT cult which is the starting-point is only
unobelyua kal okid tov Érrouparviov (Hb. 8:5), so that the "Aylov in the NT
takes on a pneumatic sense. Christ as 8 &yios taic (-> 102) becomes the centre
of a new sanctuary in which He Himself is the Priest, Sacrifice and Temple of
God. His priestly character is especially emphasised in Hebrews (- 102 f.).
The NT view as a whole corresponds to the brilliant sketch of Hebrews. Al-
ready the early Jerusalem community is constituted by the &yios nais (Ac. 4:27,
30) a temple of the Holy Spirit (4:31: EntAno0noav XTTXVTES TOU dyiou TIVEU-
uatoc). 58 There thus arises a new people of God within the old (cf. Hb. 13:12 ff.),
which with reference to Ex. 19:6 is described as BaolEIoV lepoteuua, gOvoc
&yiov (1 Pt. 2:9), and to which the old saying applies : "Aylo ÉOEO0E, 8TI Éyo
&yloc (1 Pt. 1:16).50 In the powerful historical sweep of Paul the concept of the
people of God has burst its national limits and come to be equated with the Church
of Christ. On the holy stump of the OT people of God the new branches from
the Gentile world have been engrafted (R. 11:17), and they are sanctified by the
stump. The stump is obviously Christ as i plga TOU 'eGaI (R. 15:12) ordained
to rule over the Gentiles. He has given Himself for the ÉxKAnola, tva aimv
xyi&on iva h dyia kai quouos (Eph. 5:26). By Him it is sanctified not
merely in the Jewish Christian trunk but also in the Gentile Christian grafts ; these
are nylaouÉvou Ev Xpiotd 'Inoot (1 C.1:2; cf. 6:11), a itpoapopa nyiaouÉ.
vn Ev TIVE UaTI dylo (R. 15:16). The TOAITEla TOO "Iopan^ together with the
Bialf kal ths eTtayyEliac (Eph. 2:12) is extended by Christ to the whole
Christian world, so that now Gentile Christians are no longer EÉvou Kai TraPOLKOL
(= 02w1n) 017a) but ouutolital tov dylov kai OlkEiol TOU 0E0 (2:19), built
on the corner-stone Christ over the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here
the ayot are to be sought in the noAltela tou *Iapan^, except that we are now
dealing with an 'lapan^ Katd IvE ua. Originally contained in Jewish Christianity,
with which the ayiot are often equated even in Acts (9:13, 32, 41; 26:10), the holy
people of God now extends to the Gentile world.
We may thus understand quite simply Paul's frequent application of the term
both to the mother community in Jerusalem (R. 15:25 f.; C. 16:1, 15; 2 C. 8:4 etc.)
and also to Gentile Christianity (R. 1:7; C. 1:2). As members of the ExkAnola

68 Here we perhaps have the oldest form of the Pentecost story which later came to be
accompanied by the familiar one ; cf. A. Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte (1908), 142 ff.
59 K. Holl, "Der Osten" (Ges. Auf. 2. Kirchengeschichte, II, 1928), 60, takes &ylou to
be a synon. of ttoxol, both becoming standard names for the Christians at Jerusalem. He
also equates &yiol with EkAEKTol TOU 0eo0. But this is to empty gyios of any specific
content and to ignore the distinctive cultic element (cf. Asting. 154, n. 2). It is not in virtue
of election but rather in virtue of the atonement that the Jerusalem Christians are called
&ytot. They are related as aytot to the ayloc TOO 0800 in the same sense as they are
related as Xpiatiavol to XpIaT6c (Ac. 11:26).
&yioc

dyla xal quouos (Eph. 5:27), individual ÉxkAnoiai are holy together with their
members. Basically there is no distinction in Paul between the &ylol of the mother
community and those of the missionary Church, for in each case the holiness
derives from Christ even though the rpirov 'loubaiou kal "EXANVES remains as
a historical relationship. The same order obtains for all ÉxxAnolau tov dylov
(1 C. 14:33), since they are all partial organisms in the organism of the ExkAnola.
A distinctive phrase is kAntoi &yio in the address to the communities (R. 1:7;
1 C.1:2), an apposition to Exx/nola in which we may seek the individualisation.
of kAnth dyla = 079 *72? 60 Yet while in the OT expression the stress falls on
to, in Paul it falls on KAntol (R.1:6: kal nueic kintol; 1 C.1:24 : autoic Se
tois kintois, 'loubalous TE kai "Elnou; cf. Jd.1). For it is not by nature but
by divine calling that Christians are &ylot; they owe their membership of the holy
cultic community to the call of divine grace in Christ (Phil. 1:1: rois dylows ev
Xploto).
As &yiou they are members of a cultic circle grounded in the sacrifice of Christ ;
as ExAEKTol TOU DEOD &yio Kal hyanuÉvou (Col. 3:12), a phrase in which the
parallel terms ayiol and hyamuÉvou belong to the ÉnAekTol as attributes, they
are selected by God for this circle. If Acts 20:32 speaks of the KAnpovoula gv
rois nyraouÉvous ToolV, it refers to the inheritance of God (KAnpovoula
72n3, Dt. 9:26; 12:9; 19:14; 32:9) which is distributed among the saints so that each
receives his portion. 61 Similarly Eph. 1:18 speaks of the KAnpovoula autou Ev toic
dylous whose glorious riches are to be known by Christians. Inseparably related
is the verse in Colossians in which the Father enables Christians Els Thy uepioa
TOU xAnpou tov dylov Ev to oorl (Col. 1:12); for KAmpos like KAnpovoula is
the usual rendering of 0202, and P20 "share" is the Hebrew equivalent of uepic.
The defining Ev tO potl is set in opposition to tÉovala tou aK6toug and thus
refers to the light of grace (cf. Eph. 5:7) rather than to that of heavenly glory; 02
for the translation into the Bacidela tou vlou tis ayarns aitoi, the heavenly
inheritance, is already achieved (LETéOTOEV). Everywhere in the relation of the
&ylol to the KAnpovoula we are concerned with the birthright of the people of
God on the Deuteronomic pattern. 03
5. The Holy Life of Christians.
As the Church is a vaoc &yioc (1 C. 3:17; Eph. 2:21), so the life of Christians
should be a Ovola (ioa dyla to OE® (R. 12:1; 15:16). Paul describes himself as
a drink-offering poured out at the sacrifice and service of the faith of his com-

60 In the OT U.p xOp0 is the cultic assembly, usually translated in the LXX, with con-
cretum pro abstracto, by Kinth dyla (Ex. 12:16; Lv. 23:2 ff.). Paul has the concept KAnois
dyla even with God as the Subject of calling (2 Tm. 1:9).
61 The reference of fylaouÉvou (Ac. 20:32) cannot be to angels but only to men and
therefore to members of the Church of Christ. Eph. 1:18, then, can hardly be interpreted
in any other way, so that we have to think of the saints in heaven. Thus according to the
hy aou vou of Ac. 20:32 the dyiol are to be understood as Christians in whom the glory
of the allotted inheritance will be manifested.
62 As against Asting, 104 f. 138.
83 In Dt. Israel is ordained to be thing ay Aaoc &yioc (7:6; 14:2 etc.) - a highly
characteristic expression reflected in Ex. 19:6 : 072 ix= #Ovoc &yrov, along with na20p
01275 C PaolAEIOV lepatu ua (cf. Pt. 2:9). Similarly the term "202 - KAnpovoula
KAñpos (for examples, v. the text) emerges strongly in Dt., and the verb no11 =
KAnpovousiv is also a distinctive Deuteronomic word.
 dyloc

munity (Phil. 2:17: OTtEVoQuaL gil Th Evola Kai ^ettoupyla this Tlotews duiv),
the reference being to his death as a martyr. Yet not merely the death but the
life of the Christian in the body counts as a @vola. Here again the cultic element
emerges in the thought of ayios as applied to the individual Christian (Phil. 4:21)
as well as to the whole community. In Christianity the material offering, distinct
from the giver, is replaced by the personal offering of the body, of the earthly
life, inseparable from the existence of the one who offers. It is at this point that
the holy impinges on the ethical, with which it may so easily be equated. Yet on
the basis of the thought of sacrifice the ethical is here to be thought of, not as
PTY = 81Ka10o0vn), but as 7270 purity (Lv. 13:7; 14:23; Ez. 44:23), so that the
cultic element is not lost. 64 In the personal offering of the Christian life, the
dyiaou6s logically precedes the kalapiouoc; Pindar's law is valid : yÉvou oloc
foo. 65 Already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus fills out the concept of purity
with ethical content (Mt. 5:8 : of kalapol th kapoia), and this became normative
for primitive Christianity (1 Tm. 1:5; 2 Tm. 2:22; Tt. 1:15; Jm. 1:27; cf. Mt. 23:26
etc.). Purity is innocence (Ac. 18:6; 20:26), i.e., static morality as opposed to the
active, which appears as Sixaioa0vn. Christian morality does not arise on the basis
of new action but on that of a new state which is best expressed as dylaou6s. 66
As &yiol Christians are ordained for a evola gooa dyla to GE which is
fulfilled in the bodily life of each, yet also for the mutual service of love. The
loyalty owed to Christ is also normative between Christians as &ylot (Eph. 1:15
**AB; Phlm. 5); it is the mous &r' dyonns Evepyouuévn (G1.5:6) with which
they should serve one another (5:13; cf. Col. 1:4). The Church of Christ is built
up itpos tov kataptiouov tov dylov Elc Epyov StaKovlac KTA. (Eph. 4:12):
Paul constantly emphasises the Buakovla rois dylous (R. 15:25; 1 C. 16:15; 2 C.
8:4; 9:1; cf. Hb. 6:10). We are to receive the &yiot suitably (R. 16:2) and to
become participant in their needs (12:13 : rais xpelais tov AyIKV KOLVO VOUVTES,
cf. 2 C. 9:12). The communion of saints is that of the reconciled in Christ mutually
serving one another (2C. 5:17), and the holy kiss (otAnua &yiov) is the seal of
this fellowship (1 C. 16:20; 2 C. 13:12; 1 Th. 5:26). The man who is nylaouÉvos
in Christ (1 C. 1:2) becomes the holy centre of his own immediate circle, so that
the husband is sanctified in the wife and the wife in the husband, and the children
of Christian parents are not &ka0apta® but &yia. Here, too, &yios implies
moral state in the sense of xafapoc. The same is true of the virgin, iva f dyla
Kai to oduat kai to TVE uati (1 C.7:34; cf. 1 Pt. 3:5). To the same effect is
the expression xapblai &pELTTOL Ev dyiwoovn (1 Th. 3:13), as also the parallel-
ism &yios kai quouos (Eph. 1:4; 5:27; Col. 1:22), since &uouoc is used of the
sacrifice which is without cultic blemish (1 Pt. 1:19; Hb. 9:14) and thus denotes
cultic qualification.
The opposite of this moral state is cralapola (Mt. 23:27; R. 1:24; 6:19 etc.),

64 Purity (Hb. 9:13 : kafap6ins, cf. Mk. 1:44; Lk. 5:14; Jn. 2:6 : kalapiouos) is
strictly cultic qualification, the clean beasts (Gn. 7:2 ff.) being those which may be sacri-
ficed, and which become 0.7 by sacrifice.
65 Cf. Asting, 217.
6 Certainly one and the same person may be S(kaloc kal gytos, as is said not only of
God (Jn. 17:25, v.11) but also of Christ (Ac. 3:14) and of his prophet John (Mk. 6:20);
yet the two concepts belong to different orders of life which are to be basically distinguished
(1 C. 6:11: &^A& hyiaoente, dAd tolka ente), so that there can be no question of the
Hellenistic
atonement.
8lkai0s kal &yioc (cf. Williger). They are related like justification and
dyios
which is revealed particularly in the sexual sins of the Gentile world, among whom
the cxa0aptov is at home (Ac. 10:14, 28; 11:8; Eph. 5:5), the OT already speak-
ing of 7718:220 ro* (Am. 7:17; Hos. 9:3). 61 These passages show us again that,
whether under Hellenistic influence or not, the reference of holiness is always to
the static morality of innocence rather than to ethical action. But this static
morality is closely linked with cultic qualification. For this reason we should never
translate dy16ms or &yioc as morality or moral, since this is to lose the element
of the religiosum.
Finally in the last judgment the principle of holiness is normative ; for of &ylot
TOV Koouov xpivoiouv (1 C. 6:2). Since the reference is to men and not angels,
we are to think of the ÉxkAnola TOU 0EOU as the judge to whom are committed
the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 16:17 ff.; 18:18; Jn. 20:23) with power to
bind and to loose. Hence faith can be described as dyltat (Jd. 20). The be-
liever stands outside the nexus of the world and will not be judged (cf. Jn. 12:47).
6. The Ecclesia triumphans.
a. Like the Ecclesia militans, the Ecclesia triumphans stands under the concept
of holiness. To it belongs the world of angels, already called holy in the OT.
&yyelol &ylo is an apocalyptic term found on the lips of Jesus (Mk. 8:38;
Lk. 9:26; cf. Rev. 14:10; Jd. 14: Ev dylais uupiaow aitou); the reference is
to the return of the Son of Man with the holy angels, with suggestions of the
picture of the last judgment in Da. 7:9 ff.
The angels are also intended in ! Th. 3:13; cf. 2 Th. 1:7: Ev th napouoia tou
Kupiou nuiv 'Inoot Xpiotot uerd TavtwV dylov aitoo; for the saints often
mean angels in apocalyptic literature. 68 It is not impossible that the departed souls of
the pious are included among the ayiot as well as angels (4 Esr. 6:26; cr. Mt. 27:52 :
aquata tov keKolunuévov dylov). 69 More difficult to decide is whether 2 Th. 1:10:
Evoo≤ao0ñval Ev tois dylou aurol refers to angels or to Christians. Since the
genitive, of &yiol aitot, seems to contain a differentiation from TOTES of TLOTEU-
OAVTEG, already found in the verbs ÉvooEao0nval and favuao0fval, the term gyiou
(cf. Th. 3:13) more likely denotes the angels who will accompany Christ at His final
appearing to be adored by all the faithful. In the passage quoted from the Psalms
( 88:8): EvoogaLouevoc Év Bouln dylov, angels are obviously meant. Finally, it is
clear from the Book of Revelation that heavenly creatures are numbered among the
&yiot. For in the invocation in Rev. 18:20: :0opaivou tr' ait, oupave kal of
&yio kal ol arooto o kal of poof tal we have a natural sequence if the gyiot
who come after heaven and before the apostles and prophets, the pillars of the earthly
theocracy (Eph. 2:20; 3:5), are regarded as the p"iy 37;372 (Da. 7:18, 21 ff.) and there-
fore as heavenly beings. 70 God vindicates against the world power of Babylon His own
hierarchy represented by the saints in heaven and the apostles and prophets on earth.

67 Naturally the holy state is to issue in a holy walk (avaotpoon) even outside the
sexual sphere (1 Pt. 1:15, 22; 2 Pt. 3:11; 2 C. 1:12). Nevertheless, it is to be emphasised here
that in Pt. 1:15 the holy state is stressed as opposed to Entievulal which affect the sensual
sphere, just as the parallel terms dvaotpooh kal eoogBeIa in 2 Pt. 3:11 and dy16mc(?) kal
ElAiKpivia in C. 1:12 suggest the meaning of the Hellenistic dyvos, since EDoéPELa
(Is. 11:2, 33:6; Prv. 1:7 = 717 n8??) and ElAikpivia (Wis. 7:25) in the LXX hardly have
any Hebrew equivalents, unless in 2 C. 1:12 we ought to read diomns for dyLoms.
68 Bousset-Gressm., 321.
69 It is not said of departed saints that they go up to heaven some day to return with
Jesus, so that we do better to restrict the heavenly &yiou to angels.
T0 As against Asting, 292.
 dyioc

b. To the Ecclesia triumphans of the Apocalypse there also belong men as

ayol. We are certainly to think of such in regard to the poosuyal toov dylov
offered by the 24 elders (Rev. 5:6 ff.) and later by an angel (8:3, 4). In 11:18 they
come between the prophets and the popouuevot to ovoua, and therefore are
obviously men. Since the reference is to the judgment of the dead (6 kaipoc tov
vekpov), we best equate the pooñtau with the OT prophets, after whom the
&yiol signify the narrower circle of primitive Christianity and the poBoouevor
(= M7 *72) the wider circle of Gentile proselytes. Again, the saints are obviously
Christians in the reference in 14:12 (cf. 13:10) to the inouovn toov dylav, of
inpoivtes tas evrolds tou eEof kal thy rlotv 'Inoot. The untouovn indicates
afflictions to which the dyiol are exposed, as previously there is mention of their
subjection to the beast (13:7). The bloody drink of Babylon-Rome refers to the
martyrs of Jesus who have entered the Ecclesia triumphans by death : ue0bovoav
EK Tou aluatos tov dylov kal Éx tou aluatoc tov uaptpav "Inoou (17:6).
In accordance with the division of the martyrs we are to distinguish two circles,
the previously mentioned &yiou being apostolic martyrs like Peter and Paul, and
the uaprupes those who suffered under Nero's persecution ; the city depicted is
thus simply Rome.
Less precise is the combination without the article in 18:24 : alua ipoon toov kai
dylov kai navtov tov eopayuavov enl tis yñs, as also in 16:6, where there
is no spatial link with Rome. The varying position held by tpoon tai and gyiot
does not support any order of rank (cf. 18:20) or time ; we may think of either
the older or the newer prophets, beside whom the &ylot are named as Christian
martyrs and the EooayuÉvot as martyrs of every kind. 11 In the interval after the
first resurrection comes the attack of Gog and Magog on thy stapE BoAnv TOv
dylov kai th TtoAlv Thy nyanuévnv (20:9). According to the pattern set by
Ezekiel (38 f.) the camp of the &yiot can only be in Jerusalem _ EKOKAEUGaV),
sO that we are reminded of early Christianity. Finally, in the separation of the
good and the bad we have the statement (22:11): kal 6 Bikaioc 8ika10ouvnv
TOINO&TO ETI® Kai 6 &yioc ayia onto Eti. 12 According to the usage of ay a(Elv
sanctification by God is meant rather than self-sanctification. In the alkaloc and
dyioc there is contained the essence of the Christian as he moves towards the
last time.
We thus see that neither in the OT nor the NT is the cultic basis of the &yioc
concept ever denied. In both cultic element is retained in the people of God.
This is spiritualised, but can never disappear. For it is present in the worship of
the supramundane God, in reconciliation by Jesus Christ and in the new creation
as the temple of the Holy Spirit. The nature of Christianity is thus centrally deter-
mined by the concept of the holy.

71 Also witnesses of Christ are the &yiol whose ikaiouata are the robe of the bride
(19:8); yet it may be that we here have gloss in To yap Buaaivoy ta SikaiQuata tOv
dylov (Loh. Apk., ad loc.). To the interval after the first resurrection in the millennial
kingdom belongs the beatitude of 20:6: uakapios kal dyios Exov uÉpoc tv m dva-
aT&0El th ttpom. But the predicate dyios is lacking in the other six beatitudes of
Revelation (1:3; 14:13; 16:15; 19:9; 22:7, 14). Indeed, &yios never elsewhere occurs as a
predicate in Revelation, but only as subject, so that kal dyios may be an addition following
Jub. 2:23 f. (cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc.).
72 Characteristically we again see here the difference between o(kaioc and &yios; the
former is active (8ikaioolvnu Toioato) and the latter passive (dyiao0nto Etl).
dy1a( a

The verb dyiaw belongs almost exclusively to biblical Greek or Greek in-
fluenced by the Bible (Phil. Leg. All., I, 18; Spec. Leg., I, 167),1 the form -a(ELV
occurring after instead of •(gelv. We probably have here a denominative of
077, tipp = dyiog.
In the LXX dyL&(ELV is the usual rendering of the root v7p, sO that we are every-
where concerned with a cultic state, not only in the qal (Ex. 29:21; 30:29 etc.), and
niph'al (Ex. 29:43; Lv. 10:3 etc.), but also in the causative (Ex. 28:34; Lv. 22:2 f. etc.)
and comparative (Gn. 2:3; Ex. 13:2 etc.) of all three classes. Yet according to the
Hebrew stem forms there is also a shift of meaning, so that in the causative we have
mostly to translate "consecrate" and in the comparative 'sanctify," by which the LXX
sometimes understands the ritual of expiation (Ex. 29:33, 36). Sanctifying can be
achieved by cultic practices (Ex. 19:10, 14; Jos. 7:13 etc.), but also by celebration (Ex.
20:8; Dt. 5;12; cf. Is. 30:29); with divine subject and object it can also be thought of
declaratively (Gn. 2:3; Ex. 19:23; Nu. 20:12 f.), though we are always to think of
effective operation.
In the derived stems of the verb the subject is always personal, whether God, judge
or people; only in the qal can there also be a material subject of the taboo (Nu. 17:2, 3;
Dt. 22:9). As object God is rare (Nu. 20:12; 27:14; Is. 29:23; cf. 8:13), and it can only
be a question of acknowledging what God is in Himself. Mostly the objects are priests,
people, and holy places and vessels. By sanctification they are separated from what is
profane and set in a consecrated state. Sacrilege, or the violation of what is holy, does
not come under human jurisdiction but under the judgment of God which normally
means death.

In the NT we think supremely of the saying in the Lord's Prayer (Mt. 6:9;
Lk. 11:2): dywaoeito To &vou& oou." The logical subject of sanctifying is God
alone and not man. This may be seen by comparison with the petitions which
follow. God's name is as little hallowed by men as His kingdom comes or His
will is done. His name is His person, which is holy in itself and is to be revealed
in its holiness (cf. Ez. 20:41; 38:16 : [on]yg5 J9w2p)) etc.). The revelation takes
place eschatologically in the last judgment and historically in, though not by, be-
lievers. When God's deity is revealed to man in the mystery of worship (cf.
Is. 6:3), then God is sanctified to him. The cultic element is here absorbed in the
adoration in which God's deity is felt in contrast to all creatureliness.
When Jesus sanctifies Himself (Jn. 17:19 : trep airiov dyiato Éuaurov) or
sanctifies the Church (Eph. 5:26 : iva authv dyi&on kalaploas), this is a proof
of His deity, and the same is true of the Holy Spirit (R. 15:16 : ñyiaouÉvn Év
TVE uaTI dylo). The sanctification of Christ by the Father (8v 6 ntathp nylaoev

dyla(o. 1 But v. the Mithras liturgy, dylois dylaolelc dy douaol &yioc (Preis.
Zaub., IV, 523).
2 Bl.-Debr., $ 108.
3 The occasional equivalents 773 (Da. 12:10), 702 (Ex. 29:33, 36), 713 (Lv. 25:11 etc.)
do not affect this.
4 For Rabbinic usage, - 99.
Elsewhere in the NT, too, sanctification is exclusively of God; for even when the
temple (Mt. 23:17), the altar (Mt. 23:19), or the sacrifice (Hb. 9:13) dyla(el, the sanc-
tifying power rests exclusively on the holiness of God.
Kal ATEOTELAEV, Jn. 10:36), as shown by the context, is achieved prior to the
incarnation, as Jeremiah is also sanctified prior to his birth (Jer. 1:5). To it there
corresponds the self-sanctification (Jn. 17:19) of the Holy God (cf. 6:69) with
a view to the sanctification of the disciples (17:19 : tva bow hyiaquÉvou), which
is sanctification in truth (Ev alneéla), and which is accomplished in the atone-
ment.
Christ's atoning sacrifice is very clearly depicted as a means of sanctification
in Hebrews. Hb. 2:11: 8 dyiaoov kal of dyia(ouevol tE, ÉVOC TOVTES, tells
us that Christ and Christians derive from one as children of common flesh and
blood (v. 14). As the emphasis on physical relationship shows, this one is not
God but Adam. Christ, however, is also &yios, and He is thus dy a(wv to the
ayia(ouevol. He achieves sanctification for the sanctified by His offering (10:10,
14). His blood is the means of reconciliation (10:29; 13:12) for them: Iva dyi&on
Sid TO6 llou aluatoc Tov Aaov (13:12). There is here a clear connection between
the concept of atonement and that of sanctification.
In Paul the thought of justification overshadows sanctification (dy1a(erv) as a
function of God. He applies the concept passively rather than actively, speaking of
the sanctified. In him, too, the ny aouÉvou have their root Ev Xploto (1 C. 1:2);
the Gentile Christians are a itpoooopd, nylaouavn EV TIVEVLATL dylo (R. 15:16),
so that again the concept of sanctification is linked with that of reconciliation.
Sanctification is not moral action on the part of man, but a divinely effected state
(1 C. 6:11: &AAx ATE OUGK OE, &A& HyLKOONTE, diAd E8IKalGOnTE), the bap-
tismal washing showing that in the baptismal fellowship of Christ (R. 6:4 ; Col.
2:12) lies the basis of sanctification and justification (cf. Cor. 1:30). That sanc-
tification is a state emerges with particular clarity in the fact that a Christian
partner effects a character of holiness in the pagan partner and also the children
(1 C.7:14), who are not themselves Christians. In the later Pauline literature, e.g.,
Ephesians (5:26 : dyu&on xa0aplaac) and the Pastorals (1 T'm. 4:5; 2 Tm. 2:21)
the concept of holiness approximates to that of purity in wholly Jewish style
(cf. Eph. 1:14; Col. 1:22).
In Acts the expression fylaouÉvo is twice set on the lips of Paul (Ac. 20:32:
KAnpovoulav tv rois nylaouÉvois taoiv; 26:18 : KAñpov €v toic nyiaouÉvois),
and both times in allusion to Dt. 33:3: TTOVTES of nyiaouÉvo1 01to tac yeipac
GOU. This corresponds to the Pauline thought of the share of the Christian in the
KAñpos tov aylov ev t6 outi (Col. 1:12; cf. s.v. &yios), except that the passive
nyiaouÉvou causes a heavier stress to fall on the setting up of the state of holiness.
Finally, in Pt. 3:15 Christians are summoned to the sanctification of Christ:
Xpiorov dyifaate kv tais kapolaic. The presupposition here is that they are
&yiot (1:16), so that Christ dwells in them as His temple, and will not suffer any
impurity. Again, therefore, purity of heart is a condition of sanctification.

6 Christians as &yuou should continue to let the process of sanctification proceed in them
(Rev. 22:11: & dyios dylaooito fti) even when they have been set in a state of holiness
by Christ.
dyiaouoc

dyiaou6s.
While dyiato is developed from the noun &yios, the noun dylaouos derives from
the verb dy agelv as a nomen actionis. 1 Hence it signifies "sanctifying" rather than
"sanctification," as we learn from the corresponding constructions Battiouos, Évta-
piaoubs, oveibioubs, tapopyiou6s, etc. It is, of course, conceivable that a nomen
actionis like Baoavouos or TAeovaouos might acquire a passive meaning, but philolo-
gical investigation must begin with the active.
In the LXX gyuaouoc is rare and has no clear-cut Hebrew equivalent (Ju. 17:3:
dylaoué hylaoa: ntrp, vapl: Am. 2:11: Elc dylaouov: b77112 : Jer. 6:16; Ez. 22:8;
45:4; Sir. 7:31; 17:10; 2 Macc. 2:17; 14:36; 3 Macc. 2:18). So far as sound comparisons
suggest, the LXX knows dyiaou6c both as "sanctifying" (Ju. 17:3) and also as "sanc-
tification" (Sir. 7:31; 3 Macc. 2:18), and there is a strong connection with the cultus.

In the NT dyiaou6g occurs only in the Epistles, preponderantly in the field of

Gentile Christianity. The term "sanctifying' fits it better than "sanctification,' in
accordance with its construction. It must be remembered, however, that the opera-
tion of dyiaouos can be accomplished only by a holy person (cf. the verb dya-
gEIv), so that in the case of self-sanctifying it is always assumed that it is ac-
complished on the basis of the state of sanctification attained in the atonement
according to the standard of the statement in Revelation 22:11: & dyios dylao0h-
TO ETL. In dylaouos we thus have a process which has as its presupposition the
religious process of atonement. dylaou6c is the will of God (1 Th. 4:3), and it
consists again in purity of physical life, SO that marital fellowship is fulfilled gv
dyiaou6 kal tuuñ (4:4). The opposite of dy aouoc is &xa0xpola (4:7), except
that &kafapola is a moral state which cannot possibly be linked with calling,
(oi . . . erl axalapola), whereas dyiaou6s is the moral form in which it is worked
out. The body is to be serviceable to Sika100uvn Elc dyiaouov (R. 6:19), so that
dylaou6c is again the moral goal of purity (cf. R. 6:22 : EXETE tov kaprov duov
Elc dyiaouov). In Christ is made possible Sika10o0vn TE Kal dyiaou6s kai
drtolu™pwois (1 C.1:30), and it is by Him or by the Spirit (2 Th. 2:13; 1 Pt. 1:2 :
€v dyiaouo tve uatos) that it comes into effect in Christians, so that the
dyiaou6c or sanctifying effected by the Spirit is the living form of the Christian
state. In the phrase tv dylaoud TVeUuato© the emphasis does not fall on the
character of the Spirit described as TIVEDux &yiov, but on His operation, which
consists in sanctification. Similarly, in the sequence EV TOTEL Kai dyorn Kai
dyiaou@ (1 Tm. 2:15) what is expressed is not the state but the conduct of
children, and in Hebrews again (12:14 : 8tOKEtE . .. rov dyiaouov) 6 dylaou6s
is a moral goal. If atonement is the basis of the Christian life, dylaou6s is the
moral form which develops out of it and without which there can be no vision of
Christ. The term gytaouos is always distinguished from gyloc and dy agElv by
the emphasis on the moral element.

dyiaou6r. Bl.-Debr., § 109.

 dyi6ms - dylwoovn

* dy oms.
This rare word (2 Macc. 15:2; 2 C. 1:12; Hb. 12:10; cf. Cl. Al., Strom., VII, 5, 29, 4;
VI, 7, 57,4) is in line with a favourite later construction 1 of adjectives and substantives
of the second declension, 2 in this case of &yios. The meaning is sanctification 3 as
distinct from sanctifying (dyiaouos).

In the NT the holiness of God is thought of as His essential attribute in which

the Christian must share and for which the heavenly Father prepares him by His
instruction (Hb. 12:10 : Eic to Hera aBEiv the dyi6itoc aitoi). The goal is
the same as in 1 Pt. 1:15: &yiou EOEOOE, &TI Eyd &yiog.

A difficult verse is 2 C. 1:12 : Ev dyibiil kal elAiKpivig TOU (eo0 aveotpa-

oNuEV Ev to koouo. If the text is correct, dyiors and ElAikpivia must be attributes
of God by which Paul also orders his own conversation. Yet since dyl6ms denotes
state, but ElAukpivia (as sincerity) disposition (1 C. 5:8; 2 C. 2:17) never elsewhere
ascribed to God (cf. Phil. 1:10; 2 Pt. 3:1), the well-attested reading is questionable. The
text is clearer if we read Ev amlomil kal ellikpvia for Ev dylomt kai ElAiKpivia
(D min sy, cf. Chr. Thdt.). Then Paul speaks of walking in the simplicity and sincerity
of God, i.e., as they correspond to God. If this is the case, the term dyi6Ts occurs in
the NT only in Hebrews.

t cywwov.
This rare word, formed from the adjective &yioc by extension of the O to w after
a short syllable as an abstract term of quality, 1 in the same way as 6tka1000vn is
formed from SiKaI0s, is not found in pre-biblical Greek. It means "sanctification" or
"holiness" rather than sanctifying, but as a quality rather than a state. In the LXX
it is found only in U 29:5; 95:6; 96:12; 144:5; 2 Macc. 3:1 In these verses the element
of glory (1y - 71) is introduced together with that of holiness (171)), though the two are
not interchangeable.

In the NT only Paul uses the word (R. 1:4; 2 C.7:1; 1 Th. 3:13). The best
known verse is R. 1:4: TOU OpLOEVTOC uloi 0E00 Ev SuvauEl KaTa TIVEDua dyI0-
OUVNS HE, IVAOT&GEWS VEKDOV. Here Katd nVEDua dylwoovns is obviously set
in antithesis to katd axpka. According to the natural order (kato aapka), Jesus
Christ is a descendant of David; according to that of the nVEDua dymwoovns
indwelling Him, He is declared to be the Son of God on the basis of the re-
surrection. The TVEDua dylwouvs is not a stronger form of TVEDua &yrov, 2 but
an exact rendering 3 of the Hebrew tapa mn (Is. 63:10 f.; Ps. 51:11), which signifies

dyiotns. 1 C. A. Lobeck, Phrynichus (1820), 350.

Bl.-Debr., $ 110.
In 2 Macc. 15:2 n TpoTetunuÉvn uE0® dyioitos juÉpa, the Sabbath is de-
scribed as the day characterised by holiness.
dyiwoovn. 1 Bl.-Debr., § 110.
2 As against Pr.-B., s.v.
8 Thus Cr.-Ko.
dy woovn - dyvoeo

the creative principle of life within the people of God in virtue of which this
people does not belong to the natural order but to the kalvh ktlous. The deity
of Christ is disclosed by the resurrection in which the new creation finds ex-
pression according to the principle of the TvED a dywwouvns. Hence dywwoon
is here identical with deity.
In 2 C. 7:1: ETIITEAOUVTEC dyiwouvny Ev DOBY OEOD, dytwounn is a human
quality. Its basis is to be found in the atonement, in the power of which the E0voc
&yiov exists. Yet this divinely created condition demands completion (ÉTITe-
Aeiv) in the moral dedication which is only possible on the basis of the fear of
God (Ev DOB6 0E00), fear being the normal attitude in the environs of the holy.
The dywouvn awakened in this way bears the form of Kafapois, which as
pneumato-physical purity (oapkoc kai TvEuatoc) stands opposed to all gxa-
eapola, especially in sexual matters. Hence dywwouvn like dylaou6s has an
ethical character. The same is true in 1 Th. 3:13: Elc to om pleat Ouov toc
kapbias auturtous €v dywwoun. The aim of God is the strengthening of the
heart in holiness. Here, too, holiness shows itself in purity of heart ; it is the
gywwoovn which is completed in ethical dedication and the origin of which is
found in the atonement, wherein lies its cultic character.
Procksch

dyvoed, cyvonua, ayvola,

dyvwaia, ayvwatoc

dryvoÉw, dyvonuo.
&yvoElv(= "not to know") can be used with all the nuances of the Greek
concept of knowledge (- yiooKw). Especially it can denote "being mistaken"
or "in error" as the character of action. 1

Polyb. XXXVIII, 9, 5: Tornaaolai tiva Bi6plwot tov hyvonuevov (cf. 1, 67, 11).
So also in the LXX Macc. 11:31: ovdelc aitv kat' oudeva tponov tapevoyAn-
DETAI TEpi Tov hyvonuÉvwv. Da. 9:15: juaprouev, hyvon kauav (cf. Test. Jud. 19:4:
ITUDAWOE YaP LE o apxov tis Tavs kai hyvonoa ic avipanos [kai oc
oxpé 2] tv quaptiai peapeis; Jos. Ant., 4, 263). Similarly dyv. can be used for 10
(Lv. 5:18; Ez. 45:20) and7m (Lv. 4:13, arouolwc being added in 1 S. 26:21), while
in Nu. 15:22-24 QuaptovElV is used for ap. 'Ayvoov or nyvonkos can in fact mean
"innocent" (Gn. 20:4; 3 Macc. 3:9).
"Ayvonua especially is used in this way. It signifies not merely "error" (in the LXX
being used only in Gn. 43:12 for 7,t9) but "unconscious mistake." 1 As in P. Par., 63,
XIII, 3 (2nd century B.C.) and P. Tebt., 5,3 (118 B.C.) dyvoñuata is linked with
quapinuata, so in Sir. 23:2, 1 Macc. 13:39 and Tob. 3:3 it is linked with quaptia
(cf. Jdt. 5:20; Sir. 51:19). In this sense we have dyvonuata in Hb. 9:7; Herm. s., 5, 7,
3 f. (par. &yvoia). 2

dyvoeo K TA. 1 Cf. L. Wenger, APF I1 (1902). 483-485; P. M. Meyer, Jurist. Pap.
(1920), 236 f. (No.
2 Ct. Trench, 15969); K. Latte, ARW, 20 (1920/21), 287, 1.
 dyvoeo cryvoia

A firm linguistic usage is established especially in Stoic writings (> &yvoia), and
there are no problems in the NT. It is used with reference to personal acquaintance
(as in Wis. 14:18; 19:14) in Gl. 1:22; 2 C. 6:9 ( dyvoobuevot, meaning "obscure"
rather than "unknown"); Dg., 5, 12. It signifies "not to understand" in Mk. 9:32 par.;
Lk. 9:45; 1 C. 14:38 (El TIC dyvoei, infra) and perhaps 2 Pt. 2:12, and "not to know"
(as Wis. 7:12) in R. 2:4; 2 C.2:11; Ac. 17:23 and perhaps 2 Pt. 2:12. The form found
in 2 C.2:11 is also common elsewhere (Wis. 12:10; 18:19, also Pap.), and is also to be
found, corresponding to the h ooK olSatE, in the epistolary formulae 00 BÉAG (6É)
Duac dyvoriv (R. 1:13; 11:25 etc.) and (f) dyvosite (R. 6:3; 7:1).
"Erroneous ignorance" characterising action is meant by dyvoov Entolnoa
(v. infra) in 1 Tm. 1:13; and in Hb. 5:2 dyvoeiv has the sense of ignorance of
self." In 1 C. 14:38 (El TiC dyvoei, i.e., "does not understand"; dyvosital, namely,
of God), we are to take the word in the OT sense in which knowledge means
election and ignorance rejection, unless the true reading is dyvoeltw, which would
signify that he should remain without understanding.
In accordance with the Jewish and Christian use of yivooko and yvoois
(- yiooKo), dyvosiv can also relate to the "knowledge of God" (-> &yvoia),
as in Wis. 15:11; Philo Spec. Leg., I, 332; Jos. Ant., 2, 172; 10, 142, and also R. 10:3:
xyvoouvtes yap thy tou Deot Sukaloolvnv. It can also be used of knowledge of
and 5; 53, 6; Dial., 136, 3; and again
Christ in Ign. Sm., 5, 1; Just. Ap., 31, 7; 49,
of specifically Christian knowledge in Ac. 13:27; Ign. Eph., 17, 2; M. Pol., 11, 2;
2 C1., 10, 4; Just. Ap., 13, 4; 52, 2. This meaning is also suggested in 1 Tm. 1:13
(- &yvoia). As in yIvooKElV (- yIVOOK©) the practical element in this know-
ledge can be more or less strongly emphasised, R. 10:3 making it plain that igno-
rance is also disobedience. In the OT sense such &yvosiv is not merely "lack of
information," which is excusable, but a "misunderstanding" which stands under
the &pyñ of God and needs forgiveness, as expressed in 1 Tm. 1:13 f.: &XAd hAeh-
Onv UTE PETAE6VIOEV SE n xapis. Accordingly the knowledge by which dyv.
is removed does not derive from human reflection or enquiry, but from the pro-
clamation which demands faith (-* &yvoia).

ayvoia, cyvwola.
1. The Philosophical and Legal Usage.
&yvoia, meaning "ignorance" in all the difference nuances of the Greek concept
of knowledge (- yivooKw), is used in the first instance of ignorance of something
Up TINDE! IO M Gr ON
specific. Yet the term was obviously used in Greek earlier than yvoous in an
absolute sense to denote ignorance generally in the sense of not knowing essentials
and therefore of being "uncivilised.' In this sense it was either linked or parallel
with qualia and anaibeugia, and found its opposite not merely in yvoos
(Plat. Theaet., 176c; Resp., V, 478c) but especially in coola (Plat. Prot., 360b ff.)
and EnoTun (Plat. Resp., V, 477a). 2 This usage, and occasionally that of the

3 Cf. R. Bultmann, Der Stil der paul. Predigt (1910), 13, 65; cf. 4 Macc. 10:2; Jos. Ant.,
7, 266; 13, 354; Philo Op. Mund., 87; Rer. Div. Her., 301; Fug., 168; Abr., 26 and 53; Spec.
Leg., I, 302; 2 Cl., 14, 2; P. Tebt., 314, 3 (2nd cent. A.D.): TIOTEUG OE un dyvosiv.
dyvola KTA. Plat. Prot., 360b; Theaet., 176c: Epict. Diss., 1, 11.14: 11, 1, 16.
Occasionally opovnaic as antonym (v. Arnim, III, 166. 27 ff.; M. Ant., V, 18, p. 57, 11,
Stich), or yvoun (M. Ant., IX, 22, p. 119, 16).
ayvoia

verb, is especially found in the Stoa, &yvoia being remote from the coo6c who
has euorhun. ⅜ It is not infrequently emphasised that Éaurov gyvoEiv is part
of this &yvota. + If according to Diog.L., VII, 93 the Stoics teach: Elvau 8t cyvolas
tac kaklac, v ai aperal enioruat, this means that ignorance is the basis of
wickedness ; v. Arnim, III, 23, 32 ff.; Epict. Diss., I, 26, 6 f.: tl oov éot to aitioy
TOU QUaPTOVEIV uE; i ayvoia etc. But &yvoua itself, since Enothun belongs to
the £o' juiv, can also be described as the true kakla (v. Arnim, III, 60, 28 ff. etc.).
That the knowledge of God also belongs to the essential knowledge concealed by
ayvola may be seen under &yvootos.
We should also mention the legal usage, which rests on the antithesis of ayvola
and tpoa[peous. ' In this &yvoia (anal. to xyvonua - 116) signifies ignorance of
law, as in the formula kaT' ayvolav per ignorantiam. 6
The LXX adopts this legal usage when it translates muti2 by Kat' ayvoiav
(Lv. 22:14),' but it extends it when it uses dyv. (like dyvonua) for uninten-
tional sin" in Lv. 5:18, Qoh. 5:5; cf. also 2 Ch. 28:13 and Esr. 8:72, where it is
linked with auapria. This usage is also found in Test. Jud. 19:3 (€v cyvola, vi
£v dyvwola); L. 3:5; S. 1:5; G. 5:7; and also in Jos. Ant., 6, 92; 11, 130 (in both
cases kat' &yvolav) and Ap., 2, 174 (in' &yvolac). Philo uses &yvoia in this
sense in conjunction with Siquapria in Plant., 108, and in such expressions as
kara &yvolav (Leg. All., I, 35), on' ayvolas (Vit. Mos., I, 273) and dyvola (Leg.
All., III, 91; Flacc., 7). If occasionally (Deus Imm., 134 f.) &ualla appears along-
side dyvoia and as the opposite of enothun (Flacc., 7), this is an indication of
Stoic influence. The antithesis &yvowa-Élothun is frequent in Philo.* Above all
Ebr., 154-161 (cf. already 6) treats of cyv. and Éntomun in the sense of the
Aristotelian-Stoic enlightenment, and in 162-205 in that of scepticism. In 160
ayv. has the force of tavtwv quapiuatav aitia, as in the corresponding Stoic
Leg. Gaj., 69 : paoi 8É Thy uEV eTtloThunv sobauuovias, Thy 8É &yvolav KaKO-
Sauovias aitiav elval. God is specially thought of as the object of ayvoia, as
in Decal., 8; Spec. Leg., I, 15; cf. Fug., 8. But the Stoic usage has also penetrated
the LXX in the modified sense that absolute &yvoia is used of the state of
heathenism, God obviously being the object of dyv. (cf. Wis. 14:22; 2 Macc.
4:40; 4 Macc. 1:5; 2:24; and cf. also Jos. Ant., 10:142 : Thv Tov dvopitov &yvolanv
kai otiotlav). Judaism could adopt this usage, for among the Rabbis we find the

8 v. Arnim, I, 20, 10 f.; II, 41, 12; III, 60, 28 ff.; 150, 15; 164, 31 ff. etc.
+ Ibid., III, 150, 15; 166, 27 ff.; Epict. Diss., II, 14, 20; 24, 19 etc.
5 Cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., III, 2, p. 1110b, 17 ff.; V, 10, p. 1135a, 16 ff.
6 Polyb., XII, 12, 4 and 5 - ouyyvoun; Pap., cf. Preisigke Wort; P.M. Meyer, Jurist.
Pap. (1920), 201 f. 331, 334 f.; F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der
sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike (1913), 43.
The LXX also uses dyvota for OUR in Gn. 26:10; Ez. 40, 39; 42:13 (in the latter two
in conjunction with duaptia) etc., while, e.g., in lep. 28:5 it has aikla, and in Nu. 5:7
and Y 67:22 TAnuueAla, for the same word. In w 24:7 dyvoia is used for yve (together
with duaptia), whereas the rendering in Gn. 31:36 and Ex. 22:8 is aolxnua, in 1 S.24:12
and Ps. 5:10 coÉBela, and in W 88:33 and Prv. 10:19 duaptia. In Da. 9:16 we have
dyvoia for hiy (together with quaptia and aikia), Gn. 15:16 and Is. 65:7 translating
the same term by quapria, Gn. 44:16 and Ez. 21:30 by a8ikla, and J 35:3 and 50:7 by
avoula. On 710a nog in Rabbinic literature, cf. Str.-B., II, 264 on Lk. 23:34.
8 Agric., 161 f.; Plant., 98; Fug., 8; Vit. Mos., I, 222; Spec. Leg., I, 15; IV, 70; Virt., 172,
180 etc.; cf. also dyv.-quafla, Poster C., 52; Gig., 30.
Cf. W. Bousset, Judisch.-christl. Schulbetrieb in Alexandria u. Rom (1915), 94 f.
 dyvoia

view worked out that education and knowledge, i.e., knowledge of the Torah and
tradition, are the presupposition of piety. 10
In early Christian literature the legal usage is found in Herm. s., 5, 7, 3, though
in the NT we only have the formula katd &yvolav in Ac. 3:17. More common is
the Stoic and Jewish usage (- ywookw; dyvotw, 117), e.g., in Ac. 17:30: TOuC
UEV oUv xpovouc tic dyvolac inepibiv o 0E6c Eph. 4:17 f.; 1 Pt. 1:14; Kg.
Pt. Fr., 1; Ign. Eph., 19, 3; Just. Ap., 61, 10 (as also &yvwola in the Christian addi-
tion to Test. L. 18:9, and cf. 1 Tm. 1:13).11 What we said concerning dyvoeo on
p. 116 applies to the guilty aspect of dyvoia. Wholly Stoic is e.g., Cl. Al. Strom.,
VII, 16, 101, 6 : 800 elolv apxal Toons quaptias, &yvola kai do{EvEIa, or the
definition of ayvoia in Strom., , 35, 3 as daisvola and qualia.

Often &yvwola is given the same force as &yvola. This word also means "ignorance"
in its various nuances (cf. Pap., and Preisigke Wort.). It seems to have the same
meaning in e.g., Plat. Resp., V, 477a (cf. 478c). It was not developed terminologically,
and seems to be completely lacking in the Stoa and Philo. But it is found in the LXX,
though with no distinctive features, at Job 35:16 and 3 Macc. 5:27, and cf. in the NT
1 Pt. 2:15. In Wis. 13:1 it is used, like dyvoia elsewhere, to describe the state of the
Gentile world: ryvwola 0E00.

2. The Dualistic Gnostic Usage of Hellenism.

Both &yvoola and &yvoia (also dyvoeiv) are used quite characteristically in
the dualistic, Gnostic language of Hellenism, which offers a parallel to the Stoic
usage and is obviously influenced by it. 12 The term dyvoola now signifies lack
of the knowledge essential to the salvation of the soul, i.e., the knowledge of God,
of the fate of the soul and of true direction for life (- yIooKw). Men are
entangled in such dyvoola before they receive revelation, i.e., before they be-
lieve, and so long as the Aron and intoxication of the senses holds them captive.
Hence dyvwola is again kakla (tis puyic), except that now this is not equated
with lack of culture, and we thus have a parallel to the Jewish modification of
Stoic usage.

So Corp. Herm., I, 27: & MAOI, &VODES YNYEVEIS, oU uÉOn kai UTVO Eautouc
Ende&wkotEs [kal ?] Th XyVwola TOU DEOU, IñUATE, TAUGXODE SE KPAIT&A
< kal?> BEAYOuEVOl UTVO &16yQ. Thus those drunk with dyvooia (VII, 1) are
summoned to sobriety when f ths dryvoolas xaxia is described. Again, dyvwola is
described as kakla puxns (X,8), and the dyvonoaoa Eaumhv (uxi) warned ; cf.
XI, 21: A yap tEAEla KaKia to &yvoEiv to<V> 0E[1]6v. Cf. O. Sol., 11, 8 : 'But my
intoxication was not that of supreme ignorance." The K6pn koouou thus describes the
state prior to the revelation of the supreme God: dyvwola KaTEIXE T §outtavta
(Corp. Herm., 4, p. 458, 11, Scott; cf. 53, p. 486, 10). This ignorance is described in
Plot. Enn., V, 1, 1 as gyvoia tou yevouc (of the origin of the soul), as a forgetting of
God and our heavenly derivation (cf. Hieroclis Carm. Aur., p. 26, 21 ff., Mullach, and
the mythological side-piece in Iren., I,21,5; 30, 5 and 8 f. etc.). According to the
Marcosites Dotepnua and ta0oc derive from ayvoia (Iren., I, 21, 4). As Mart. Pauli,

10 > yioaKo and Str.-B., I, 191 f.

11 Cf. Dib. Past. on 1 Tm. 1:13 f.
12 Cf. R. Reitzenstein, Hellenist. Mysterienreligionen3 (1927), 65, 2; 292 f.; E. Norden,
Agnostos Theos (1913), 64, 67 f., 96; J. Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos (1914),
353, 376 f., 412.
dyvoia ayvoatos

4, p. 114, 4 f. warns : ovopes of OVTEC Ev Th dyvwola kal th mAdvn taUTn. HETa-

Bainole kal oWOñTE, so Cl. Al. Paed., II, 9, 80, 1 explains the HEOoOKE @al of 1 Th.
5:7: toureoTI, Ev to ths dyvolas OK 6 TO (cf. on dyv. as OKoto^ Strom., VII, 7, 43, 6
and cf. Protr., XI, 114, 1: AOEAQUEV THU Anonv tis aindelas Thy &yvorav kal to
axotoc). Similiarly Or. c. Cels., VI, 66, p. 136, 24, Koetschau, links &yvoia and &ok.
BEla, and Porphyr. Marc., 13, p. 283, ff. teaches : Eo' 8o0v tIS to oW a ToOEL Kai
to ToU O uatoc ouuqula, Énl TOoOUToV dyVOEL Tov §eov kal The ÉKEIVOU Évopa-
OEDC ÉAUTOV ATTEAKOTIGE Yet in him the dualistic Gnostic view is conjoined with
the Stoic (ibid., p. 283, 1: Kakia SE Taoa OT' cyvolac blEwEuotal and Abst., II, 53,
p. 178, 21: Tov Oelov cualla). Stoic also is Cl. Al. Strom., V, 14, 140, 5 : (Empedocles)
yvootv kai dyvoolav 8pouc subauuovlac kal KaKO&aLLOVIaG TE DEIWC LORAWOEV,
and again Corp. Herm., XIV, 8: 0 tic mons avolac kal ayvwolas this tEpi Tov
OE6v, and notably the combination Añon and &yvoia in 4 Macc. 1:5; 2:24.

In the NT Stoic influence has been seen in the passages already quoted from
Ac. 17:30, 1 Pt. 1:14 and especially Eph. 4:17 f. It is also plain in 1 C. 15:34 :
EK WaTE Sikaloc kai n quaptavete® dyvwolav yAp DEOD TIVES EXOUOIV.
Early Christianity could accept this usage to the extent that it expresses the destiny
of the world's alienation from God, its fallen estate, and its dependence upon
revelation, and therefore to the extent that it rests on a view of man in which the
idealistic Greek understanding of man is broken. But the Christian usage is
naturally not the same as the Gnostic, since the ideas of sin and grace are very
different, as emerges in the conception of the positive correlative of yvoois
(-> ywooKo). For this reason it is characteristic that early Christianity, like
Hellenistic Judaism, could appropriate the language of the Stoa, in which man's
responsibility for his knowledge is asserted.

ayvwotog.
gyvoatos is found in the NT only in Ac. 17:23, and simply means "unknown" in
terms of the Jewish and Christian assumption that the heathen do not know God
(- &yvoia). The term ayvootos as such raises no problems. It can mean unknow-
able or unrecognised in all the nuances of dyvoeiv or YIVooKElV (q.v.). In the sense
of "unknown" it is found in the LXX (Wis. 11:18; 18:3; 2 Macc. 1:19), and often in Philo
and Josephus.

The phrase &yvootoc 0e6c (Ac. 17:23) is alien to the OT, the LXX and Philo.
The idea of God being unknown is certainly possible in the OT so far as concerns
the heathen who know not God (Ps. 79:6), but it is not explicitly formulated, and
to the extent that it is present it is accompanied by the thought of the acknow-
ledgment of God (- yIVOOK© C.). Israel knows God from its history; it does not

ayvoatoi F. Pfister, "Der Reliquienkult im Altert.," RVV, V, 1/2, 465, n. 83; P.

Wendland, Die Hellenist.-Rom. Kultur,2 (1912), 128; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913);
A. Harnack, TL, 39, 1 (1913); R. Reitzenstein, Neue Jahrb. d. klass. Altert., 31 (1913),
146 ff. 393 #f.; W. Jaeger, GGA, (1913), 569 ff.; O. Weinreich, DLZ (1913), 2949 ff.; De
dis ignotis (1914); ARW, 18 (1915), 1 ff.; Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altert., 45 (1920), 185 f.;
P. Corssen, ZNW, 14 (1913), 309 ff.; T. Pliss, Wochenschrift f. klass. Phil., 30 (1913).
557; Festgabe f. H. Blimmer (1914), 36 ff.; T. Birt, RM, 69 (1914), 342 ff.; H. Lietzmann,
RM, 71 (1916), 280 f.; W. Schmid, Wochenschr. f. klass. Phil., 35 (1918), 256 ff.; L. Deub-
ner, ARW, 20 (1921), 422, 1; A. Wickenhauser, "Die Ag. u. ihr Geschichtswert," Nt.liche
Abh., VIII, 3-5 (1921), 369 ff.: Meyer, Ursprung, 1II, 96, 2. E. Fascher, "Deus invisibilis,'
Marburger theol. Studien, (1930); R. Bultmann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 169-192.
 dryvootoc

know other gods (Hos. 13:4; Dt. 11:28; 13:3). The Rabbis, too, do not develop
any theory of the knowledge of God, since it is obvlous to them that Adam and
the early human race, especially Noah and his descendants, received 6 or 7 com-
mandments from God, sO that knowledge of God either is or might be present
among the heathen. On the other hand, they are familiar with the idea of the ways
or rule of God being unknown ; 1 the OT also speaks of His will as unsearchable
(- yivbako). The case is otherwise in Hellenistic Judaism and primitive Christi-
anity, in which missionary preaching of monotheism contains an element of theo-
retical instruction-> yIvooK∞, dyvoÉw, tyvoia).
As against this, the thought of the unknowability of God is necessarily alien
to the OT, as indicated by the lack of the verbal adjective (as, e.g., for doparoc).
It is also more or less completely absent in Hellenistic Judaism and primitive
Christianity. Except in Philo, we find it only in Jos. Ap., 2, 167: Moses aitov
(sc. T. Oe6v) deonve Kai ayewntov kal ttpoc tov alotov xpovov avaltolutov,
toons idEas Ovnins KaMEl BiapEpovra kal buvquel uev pui yupi
ontoloc SE KaT oiolav ayvwotov. In Philo the phrase §eoc a yvootos does not
occur, but the thought is often expressed by him, Gnostic influence being ob-
viously at work. For the idea is alien to the Greek world as well. Later Greek
philosophy after Plato certainly calls the deity xopatos, dkataanttos etc. It
means, however, that it is not accessible to the senses, not that it is radically
unknowable. For if it is hard to know God (Plat. Tim., 28c), he may still be known
by the vouc or A6yos (Tim., 28a; Ps. Arist. Mund., 6, p. 399a, 31). Otherwise he
would not be existent, for only the non-existent is unknowable (Diels, I, 152, 12 f.;
Plat. Resp., V, 477a). This is contested by scepticism (sophistry), but this doubts
the possibility of any objective knowledge at all; thus Gorgias says of the oy that
if it exists at all it is &xarainrov avepono or ayvootov Kal avertivontov
(Diels, II, 243, 5 f.; 244, 30).
For the rest, a yIVOOKElV can also have deity as its object in different senses.
When Achilles pursues Apollos without recognising him, the latter says OU8É VO
TTO uE gyvos, oc DE6c Elui (Hom. I1., 22, 9 f.); and Heraclitus (Diels, I, 78, 11 f.)
says with reference to the nature of the gods : oUtE yIVOaKwv GEoUg 008' Apoas
oftIvec flol (cf. Diels, I, 95, 1 f.). Similarly Pausanias can often speak of Bouoi
dyvootov OeGv; they are obviously altars of which it is no longer known to
which gods they were once dedicated. Perhaps in some cases they bore the in-
scription : dyvoorois Oeoic, $ but if so the meaning can only be the same as that
of inscriptions like éEd or itpoonKovtl OE6, i.e., that it is not certain to which
special god the altar should apply. Yet such expressions are rare, and the phrase
yvoois Oe00 is completely lacking in the earlier period. Only when the existence

Cf. Str.-B., III, 33-36 and 294

Cf. R. Bultmann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 189-192, esp. 191, n. 1.
Cf. the works already mentioned, and also A. Deissmann, Paulus (1925), 226-229. The
inscription here mentioned : Geoic dy[vbotou], might also be: Geoic ay [latatois],
and is thus no proof. E. Norden is hardly justified in arguing from the expression in a
speech of Apollonios (Philostr. Vit. Ap., VI, 3, 5): kal taura "Aenvnow, 06 kai dyvo
orav Sayovov Bauol (opuvtal, that Apollonios was referring to such inscriptions, and
that the author of the Areopagite address in Ac. 17 depends on him, except that he changes
the plur, into a sing.
Cf. the exposition of Ac. 17:23 in Dionys. bar Salibi Corp. Script. Christ. Or., II, 101,
Versio (1910), 75.
 ayvaatos
and nature of God became a problem in philosophical disputation against the
sceptics and Epicureans did phrases of this kind become more common.

Already in the followers of Socrates we find the theory of the natural knowledge of
God (Xenoph. Mem., IV 13 f.) which became so important in Stoicism. 6 In his dia-
logue on philosophy Aristotle adduced a teleological proof of God translated by Cicero
in Nat. Deor., II, 95. The first point is to prove the existence of God, but then also,
where this is resisted as in Epicurus, Ep. ad Men., p. 60, 4 f. Us.: Oeol uev yap elow
evapyns yap autov totiv yvoois, to demonstrate his nature as the governor of
the world in order to prove a ntpovola. Cf. Zeno in Diog. L., VII, 147; Epict. Diss., II,
14, 11: AÉyouowv of otA6oopot, 8TL uadEiv SEi npOToV tOUto, gtL foT GEOG Kal
TIPOVOEL TOV 8Awv (combined with OT ideas by Philo in Op. Mund., 170-172). Since
the nature of God is essentially Ttpovola for Stoicism, the proofs of his existence and
nature sometimes coincide. It is self-evident for Stoicism that a right knowledge of God
is essential for man and that knowledge of God and piety belong together. Cf. Musonius,
p. 134, 5 f., Hence : ÉxKoov to teOvnKos ths puxns kal yvoon rov 0eov. Epict.
Ench. 31,1: the rept BEOUg EdgeBelas lO01 &TI To KUpIOTATOV EKIV LO
OTTOANWEIC TEpi autov Eyelv oc EvTWV Kai BIOLKOUVTGV T& 81x KaAGc kal
Stkaloc. Cic. Nat. Deor., II, 153: cognitio deorum, qua oritur pietas. . . Sen. Ep., 95,
47: deum colit qui novit : 50 : primus est deorum cultus : deos credere, deinde reddere
illis maiestatem suam, reddere bonitatem, sine qua nulla maiestas est. scire illos esse, qui
praesident mundo. Also in Plut. Praec. Coniug., 19 (II, 140d) we see how closely con-
joined are the FÉBeolat and yIVOoKEIV (EouG. Cic. and Sen. often say agnoscere or
nosse deum, and the former also notitia and cognitia dei or deorum (to which ‡wola
as well as yvoots may correspond). 6

Nowhere, however, is the Gnostic idea of the &y WOTOc 0E6S, i.e., the idea of
the irrationality of God, and the corresponding idea of His supranatural revelation,
either the presupposition or the cause of discussion, so that we cannot follow
E. Norden in trying to trace back these thoughts or words to oriental influence
mediated by Poseidonios. It is only in Plotinus, the Christian Alexandrians and
the Corp. Herm., where such influences are undoubtedly present as in Philo, that
God is irrational in the strict sense.
Bultmann

5 Cf. Ltzm. R. on R. 1:20 (with further literature); E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 24-28;
T. Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos (1914), 37-43; K. Gronau, Das Theodizee-
problem in der altchristl. Auffassung (1922); G. Kuhlmann, "Theologia naturalis bei Philon
und bei Paulus, Nt.liche Forschungen, I, (1930), 65 ff.: + YIVOOKO.
6 Cf. also Max. Tyr., III, 6a, p. 36, 14, Hobein: f Tou Oelou yvoois; lambl. Protr.
III, p. 11, 14 ff.: f yvoaic tov OEOv. Similarly Myst., 10, 5.
On the &yvootoc 0Eoc in Gnosticism, cf. N. Bousset, Hauptprobl. d. Gnosis (1907),
83-91; Pauly-W., VII, 1507 ff. For Plotinus God is eTEKEIVa ovoiac (so also in Plat.
Resp., VI, 509b) kai vonoewg (Enn., V, 3, 11-13). For Cl. Al., cf., e.g.. Strom., V, 1, 1,5
QuEis apa louev of Ev TO aTlOToUueVo itlotol kai of tv to dyvwato yvootikot,
TOUTEOtIV Év TO Taot dyvoouuÉvo kal atlorouuevo, bAfyors 8€ TIOTEUQUEVO TE kal
yivoorouÉvo yvootixol. yvootiko 8t 00 Aby@, Epya atoypaoouevot, anX' auth
Th leopla. For the Corp. Herm., cf. J. Kroll, op. cit., 18-21 and 406. On Philo, v. n.
 dyvoc

dyvos, dyvitw, dyveia

dyvorn s, dyviouoc

r dyv6s.
dyvos, like &yioc, is a verbal adjective of aqoual. It originally signifies "that which
awakens religious awe." Etymologically it is linked with the old Indian yaj E "to
reverence" or "sacrifice," and not with the Latin sacer.
It is the proper term for "taboo.' Thus the sanctuary is dyvog : AEluEIc t68® dyvov
TÉMEVOC EvaAlac (eou, Eur. Andr., 253. It is an epithet for the gods, especially avenging
gods (cf. Hom. Od., 12, 386 : Persephone). But the original meaning is soon softened.
It comes to be used simply for things connected with deity. It then comes to signify
"ritually clean" and in contrast to the positive synon. 8(kaioc it refers negatively to the
lack of defects arising, e.g., from bloodguiltiness (cf. 'Ayvas uev, & nai, yEipac
atuatos pÉpEIS, Eur. Hipp., 316 ; povou 8É dyvov kai TaUTWV TOV TEpI TO tolauta
glc Ta Oia guaptavouÉVOv Plat. Leg., VI, 759c), contact with corpses, or
according to primitive ideas sexual intercourse (cf. AyVEUELV® KAOaPEUEIV XT6 TE
sopobiolov kai &TTO VEKpOU, Hesych; Jos. Ap., 2, 198). This gives rise to the mean-
ing "chaste." The originally purely externally religious concept now acquires a more
ethical and inward significance. dyvoc means "morally blameless" (cyvoc yap Elul
yEipas, & X' of tac opÉvas, Eur. Or., 1604 ; ovopoc felou n foo kal f extoc
dyvela, Porphyr. Abst., II, 44). In this sense it is much used in Hellenism. In civic life
dyvoc is a term of honour denoting the blameless discharge of office (cf. cyoparvoun-
cavta TErpaunvov cyvis, OGIS, 524, 5).

The proper term for cultic purity in the LXX is kalapoc. In contrast,
dyvoc ("clean") is used only 11 times (in translation of nt and 77p): of cultic
things (Tup, Fto66g, 2 Macc. 13:8); of divine words (w 11:7; Prv. 15:26); of
inward disposition (kapéla, Prv. 20:9); and of chastity (4 Macc. 18:7 f.).
In the NT, too, it is not very important. We do not find it at all in the Synoptics,
Hb. and Rev., and with its cognates it is more frequent only in the more lin-
guistically Hellenistic Pastoral and Catholic Epistles. In the NT it never signifies
cultic cleanness (though - dyvigelv), but has the following meanings.
1. It signifies "moral purity and sincerity,'" as in relation to Christ in 1 Jn. 3:3.
It is demanded especially of those who bear office in the community (1 Tm. 5:22 :
oeautov dyvov tipel; Tt. 2:5); of the conversation of Christian wives (1 Pt.
3:2); of the pious wisdom which avoids all self-seeking (Jm. 3:17). As a moral
ideal ryvoc is linked with Slkaioc in Phil. 4:8. In Phil. 1:17 it seems to be used
of the blameless discharge of office, as in the Greek inscriptions.
2. It has the meaning of "innocence" in regard to a matter (2 C.7:11).
3. It implies "chastity" in the narrower sense (2C.11:2): rtap0Évov dyvhy
Tapaotioal T& XpiT6, chastity here being an expression of wholehearted in-
ward dedication to Christ (11:3 : amA6is elc Xptorov).

ayvos K TA. E. Fehrle, "Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum," RVV, VI (1910),

42 ff., 235 ff.; E. Williger, "Hagios, RVV, XIX, 1 (1922), 37 ff.; E. Giertz, De verborum
&(e OaI, cyv6c, &yioc usu pagano (unpublished Diss. Muinster, 1920); G. Gerlach, Grie-
chische Ehreninschriften (1908), 58 ff.
dyvigo - dyvela

t cyvigo.
In the LXX frequent only in Ch; 17 times, for 77b pi hithp in 2 Ch. 29:18; 30:18;
wip hi hithp in Ch. 15:12, 14; 2 Ch. 29:5, 15, 34 etc. Otherwise rare, 14 times, esp. for NON
hithp in Nu. 8:21; 19:12 etc.; 0 pi in Ex. 9:10; hithp in Nu. 11:18; Jos. 3:5; Is. 66:17;
Jer. 12:3 etc. The word means to set in state of cultic qualification,' and thus applies
to the various measures serving this end (e.g., washing garments in Ex. 19:10).

In the NT dyvigo is used in Jn. 11:55 of the cultic purification of the Jews
prior to the passover. It is then used of cultic purification within the Jewish
Christian community in Jerusalem which kept to the OT Law and laid on Paul
demand of this kind in Ac. 21:24, 26; 24:18. The ongoing participation of the
primitive community in the temple cultus made observance of the traditional ex-
ternal cultic regulations unavoidable. In particular, visiting the temple after re-
turning from the Gentile world demanded additional cultic purification. NT re-
ligion did not fashion any such rules of its own. Hence this aspect drops away as
NT religion attains fuller understanding of itself. However, the term occasionally
finds a new use to denote full moral purity as the decisive presupposition for the
reception of salvation (Jm. 4:8; 1 Pt. 1:22; I Jn. 3:3).

t dyveio.
In secular Greek dyvela denotes partly the "state of purity" according to the different
meanings of the word &yvoc, and partly the "action of purifying" (expiatio,
lustratio : dyvelac fri taic Qualaic bLE[pnKEV o vouos anto Kibouc, aTto AÉXous,
& to kolvovias tis ipos yuvaika kai To/AGy & Aov, Jos. Ap., 2, 198 ; gyvela
8' fori opoveiv 80iq Porphyr. Abstr., II, 19 ; &vopoc &pa (eiou i tow kai f EKToc
dyveia, gitooltou uEV Ta0ov yuxis anoubafoutoc elvai, atooltou 88 kai Bpo-
TEGV at to Ta0n KIVo0olV 2, 45; and again Jos. Ap.,1,199; Cl. Al. Strom., IV, 22, 141, 4;
142, 1-4; VII, 4, 27, 4. 1

In the few OT and apocryphal passages the reference is to "cultic purity," e.g.,
in Nu. 6:2, 21 (7)) the vow and dedicated state of the Nazirite, in 2 Ch. 30:19
(67270) the purity required for the sanctuary, and in Macc. 14:36 the cultic purity
of the sanctuary.
In the two NT references (1 Tm. 4:12; 5:2) the cultic element has disappeared
and what seems to be meant is "moral purity and blamelessness" > dyv6c).

dyvitw. 1 For examples of the non-biblical use, v. Williger 48 f.; dyvos is, e.g., a
technical term for the expiation of murder along with katalpetv (Eur. El., 794; Herc. Fur.,
940).
Str.-B., II, 757 f.
dyvEla. For the difference from kalapu6s, v. T. Wachter, Reinheitsvorschritten
im griechischen Kult (1910), 1 ff.; Fehrle, 42 ff.
 dyvoms - dyviouoc - dyop6(, w

* dyvorns.
This term, used neither in classical Greek 1 nor the LXX, denotes the quality
dyvoc in the general sense of "moral purity and blamelessness" (2 C. 6:6).

* dyviouoc.
This is a cultic word for "purification" or "consecration." In the OT it has
negative reference to the purification of that which is cultically disturbing (Nu.
8:7 for nxon 7), but also a positive for the dedication thereby achieved (Nu. 6:5).
In the NT it occurs only in Ac. 21:26 (Nu. 6:5): juepov tol dynouoi, in the
OT sense of cultic purification linked with the acceptance of a yow.
Hauck

cryopa{w, Éaryopatw

A. The Sacral Manumission of Slaves.

In sacral manumission, as particularly attested by the Delphic inscriptions, the
god buys the slave to freedom from his owner. For the legal establishment of the
liberation a purchase by the god is pretended. The owner actually receives the
purchase price from a man, even if only mediately. The god does the slave no
real favour, but simply mediates the freedom which he has mostly won for him-
self. Sacral manumission is for the most part only a legal form of self-manumission.
A typical document is as follows : "Item, on behalf of the Pythian Apollo, NN
purchased a male slave called XY, at price of so many mina, to freedom (or,
on the condition that he should be free). There then follow special stipulations
and the names of witnesses. Particularly instructive is the Delphic inscription of
200/199 B.C. 2 in which Apollo is called the buyer but in which it is expressly said

dyvbins, 1 Forit is
In 2 C. 11:3 non-biblical use, to
an old addition V. the
IG, text
IV, 588.
(Cl. Or. vg sy in the narrower sense of
chastity, cf. 11:2).
ayviouo( Str.-B., II, 757 ff. For non-biblical use, v. Ditt. Syll., 1219, 19.
ayopato ktA. On the manumission of slaves, cf. Pauly-W. VII, 95 ff. s.v.
"Freigelassene"; XIV, 1366 s.v. "manumissio.' On sacral redemption, cf. Ditt. Syll.?, 844 ff.
(the inscriptions are not given in the 3rd ed.). Cf. also K. Latte, Heiliges Recht (1920),
109 ff.; Deissmann LO, 271 ff.
1 Deissmann, 274 f.
2 Ditt. Syll.3, 845.
dryopa( wo

of the redeemed slave at the end : rdv 8t ovdy ETlotEUDE NiKala TO 'AT6AV
Er' EAEUDEpIa. Here it is evident that the purchase by Apollo was a mere fiction.
In reality, the slave bought her own freedom, depositing the price with the priests
who secured her freedom thereby. Apollo simply lent his name for the freeing of
Nikaia, thus protecting her from any future demands that she should return to
slavery. The importance of this sacral redemption, however, should not be over-
estimated. Alongside it there was also secular manumission, probably much more
practised. Hence we are not to think always of sacral manumission when we read
of the purchase of a man to freedom.
The Jewish world too, though there is no evidence of sacral manumission in the
temple, is familiar with the religious application of the thought of redemption.
We may refer to S. Nu., 115 on 15:41: "When (the king) redeemed him (his
friend's son), he did not buy him as a free man but as a slave, so that if he should
order something and the other be unwilling to undertake it, he should be able to
say, Thou art my slave. .. Similarly, when the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed
the seed of Abraham His friend, He did not buy them as children but as slaves,
so that if He should order something and they be unwilling to undertake it, He
should be able to say, Ye are my slaves" (- 8001oc). 5

B. dyopa{w.
From dyopo, "market," this means "to buy," and is often used in the NT in relation
to commercial life.

1. The almost verbal repetition of 1 C. 6:20 : ñyap&a0nte yap tuuns, in 7:23 :

tuns hyopaoente, and the rather abrupt way in which the phrase is introduced
in both cases, shows that it is a kind of slogan of Paul's. In both verses the
main point is that Christians are not free (6:19) but are the possession of Christ
(7:23). Intentionally it is not said who has bought them, or from whom they are
bought, or at what cost. The reference is simply to the fact of their redemption.
The reverse side of Paul's consciousness of freedom, which does not permit of
bondage to any man (7:23), is his consciousness of being bound to God and to
Christ, and this is sharply expressed. Behind this slogan, though not expounded
in it, is Paul's doctrine of salvation (- #Earyopa(o). Since in these verses
Christians are not thought of as free men but as slaves, so that no purchase Er'
fAeU0epla has taken place, it suffices by way of exposition to compare it with
the usual manumission of slaves. 1 The details of sacral manumission need hardly
be applied, though a comparison may be seen with the passage already quoted
from S. Nu., 115 on 15:41.
In Rev. 5:9 (cf. 14:3, 4) the word celebrates the greatness of the achievement
of the Lamb. It is thus indicated how, from what and for whom the Lamb has

8 On manumission in the synagogue (Eni tis npoosuxic), i.e., before the assembled
community as witnesses, cf. Schurer, III, 93
Cf. also K. H. Rengstorf, Jebamot (1929), 89 ff.
5 On the continuation of sacral redemption in the Church, cf. E. Dobschutz in RE, 18
(1906), 430.
ayopo™o. Comm. on 1 C. ad loc. Joh. W.; Bchm; Ltzm.
XtEAEUéepOs Kuplou in 1 C.7:22 does not mean every Christian, but only the
 dyopa(o - Egaryopai, ws

purchased men (- Autpov). But no doctrine of salvation is to be sought in the

hymn.
2. In Rev. 3:18 the community should dyopaoai gold etc. from Christ. The
thought here is not so much that of accepting what is given as in Is. 55:1 ('buy...
without price"), but rather of the presence of sham possessions instead of real
ones (3:17).

C. + LEaryopa(w.
1. The LXX does not use E{ayopa(w for "redeem," but it is found in secular speech,
e.g., Diod .S., 362, Dindorf, V, 213 : ÉEny6paoev (a Roman knight) aurv (a slave).
No examples have been found in non-Christian cultic speech. Nor is it found in Josephus.
On the Jewish estimation of the suffering of the pious as an expiation, • tAaom plov
and Autpov. Among the Jews the particular image of manumission is lacking in this
connection.

In the NT the word is used of the redeeming and liberating act of Christ (G1.
3:13; 4:5). The idea is the same as in the case of dyopa(ElV, except that now the
purchase does not transfer to the possession of God or Christ, but to freedom.
Standing under the Law and its curse is thought of as slavery (4:1, 3, 7). To this
extent, the idea corresponds to the contemporary practice of sacral manumission.
In Paul, of course, the divine Purchaser does not pay only in appearance as in
sacral redemption, but in the most bitter reality, so that the parallel breaks down
at the decisive point and there is thus a great difference. In respect of the serious-
ness of the purchase, Christ is to be compared to the one who actually pays and
not to the Delphic god who merely makes a fictional payment. And everything
depends on this. In this liberation from the curse of the Law, the essential point is
that it confers both an actual and also a legally established freedom ensuring
against any renewal of slavery. The claim of the Law is satisfied. It can be dis-
solved because the Law is neither the first nor the last Word of God to man,
and has thus only conditional validity (4:2; 3:17). The relationship of man to God
which God willed earlier, and therefore properly, is justification by faith (3:6-14)
and therefore sonship (3:24 f.; 4,1-5).
Nevertheless, the transition from status under the Law to divine sonship and
justification by faith is not accomplished merely by a declaration of God, but by
redemption (3:13; 4:5). For the curse of the Law is an ordinance of God which
truly corresponds to His holy will towards the sinner (- katapa, eTilkatapa-

Christian slave, whereas the Christian freeman is 800 oc Xp6t00. These concepts are
correlative. Hence &TTEAEUOEpOS has no bearing on the meaning of dyopa(ElV, as against
Joh. W. on 1 C. 6:20.
#gayopato. Comm. on Gl.: Zn., 155 f.; Ltzm. ad loc.; Sieffert (1899), 184, 244
(with good material on earlier exegesis). J. C. K. v. Hofmann, Die hl. Schrift d. NT, II, 12
(1872), 71. Also NT theologies by A. Schlatter, II (1910), 277 ff.; P. Feine6 (1931), 194 f.;
J. Kaftan (1927), 119.
#ayopa(w
ToC), as is shown by the fact that it remains eternally valid and effective in rela-
tion to the lost (R. 2:5-10 etc.). The fact that the holy will of God expressed in
the Law and its curse finds true and full recognition in the transition to divine
sonship and justification by faith, so that no man can find forgiveness in Christ
unless the judgment on his sinfulness is also revealed in the experience of Jesus
as the Crucified, 1 is what Paul expresses in his metaphorical use of redemption.
There can be no doubt that the use is metaphorical, since no mention is made of
any recipient of the purchase price.
If we take the ÉÉnyopaoev quite objectively, loosing it from any connection
with the "we" who by this act are brought into fellowship with God in penitence
and faith, then we make of it a commercial transaction between Christ and God
which affects us only in so far as we are the object of it. This raises, however,
the question of the necessity and possibility of any such transaction. Paul, how-
ever, does not answer this kind of question. His statements and thought are not
moving along the lines of objectivisation. He sees the process as something which
took place towards us and in our favour, not as something which took place
towards God and in His favour. If for him the cross of Christ is also the service
of God by the Crucified, His obedience towards God (Phil. 2:8), the revelation
of God's righteousness and love (R. 3:25; 5:8), nevertheless for Paul God is not
the One who receives but the One who acts in the cross of Jesus (-> kataA-
Agoo0).3 Thus, even though the significance and force of the LEnyopaoev are
not to be found in human piety as a conscious attitude or historical process, even
though it has also validity before God and for Him, the service of Jesus being
rendered both to God and man, yet in the strict sense it is the execution of a
divine action towards man. Hence it is not service to God and man in the same
sense. We should not make of the #Enyopaoev a myth, a word concerning
process of some transcendent reality which only subsequently has significance for
us ; it speaks of an action of God towards us in the history of salvation. Paul has
it in common with myths that he évidently speaks of divine fellowship. But he
does not speak of the transcendent God of religious fantasy ; he speaks of "our"
God, i.e., of the God who acts towards us.

The predominance of an objectivising understanding of ÉEnyopaoev has led most of

the exegetical and biblico-theological work on the passage astray. If we are to ob-
jectivise, however, the orthodox form found in Lietzmann, in which the redeemed are
all men, is better than the Hofmann form present in Sieffert, Zahn and Kaftan, in which
the redeemed are the Jews. For the orthodox form does at least give us a living relation
to the first and all subsequent readers, whereas the Hofmann view excludes this and
thus impoverishes the passage.

Cf. Schlatter, op. cit.

GI. 3:13 : ñuas t&nyopaoav. Formally, 4:5 speaks objectively (lva TOUG OTTO vouov
#Eayop&on), but materially subjectively. For those under the law are "we"; cf. v. 3:
oftoc kal jueis and v. 5: iva thy ulofsolav arro aBouev. For Paul, all men stand
under the curse of the Law, since this is God's curse (cf. R. 1: 18 ff.).
Obviously action and the experiencing or receiving of effects cannot be absolutely
separated, since Paul thinks of God as in relationship of fellowship with man. But it makes
a great difference whether we think of God's acting as the primary and essential aspect,
or His receiving.
katapa and the bibliography there given.
 tEcryopal, o - dryaoryh

2. tEayopa(o also means, in accordance with the sense of the EK in many

composites, ' an "intensive buying, i.e., a buying which exhausts the possibilities
available. & It is used in this sense in Col. 4:5 and Eph. 5:16: TOV Kalpov tEaryopa-
<ouEvol. Kalp6c here stands for the opportunities offered by time. These are to
be tirelessly snapped up and used at the expense of effort.

There is no thought of making time empty. 7 Da. 2:8 : 1321 7A2* X379, is translated
in the LXX and G by kaipov Dueis BEayopalete: "that ye would buy the time,"
i.e., seek to win it. Possibly we have here the hint of a proverbial saying. But no matter
how the Greek translators understood the Aramaic, their use of #Earyopa(o is different
from that of Paul.
Buichsel

dypUnvEd > Eyelpo, ypnyopég.

dywyh, napryw, npodryw

poodryw, "pocaywyñ

+ dywyh.
In the NT this occurs only in 2 T'm. 3:10 : napnko^ouenoac Hou Th 818aoka-
Ala, in dyoyn, Th TPOOEDEI, TH TlOTEL KTA. The context shows that dyoyh,
which literally means 'guidance" or "direction," refers to the orientation of the writ-
er, which is to be appropriated no less than 81aokaAla etc. by his readers. "Man-
ner of life" thus seems to be the best translation. 1 The word can be both transitive
and intransitive. In the sense of manner of life or conduct the word dyoyh is
found in Attic prose, 2 in inscriptions, papyri, the LXX, and especially the later
philosophy of antiquity and Jewish and Christian literature. A particular extension
of the term dywyh is to those who are to be guided or educated, i.e., children. 3
Cf. the title of the writing of Plut. : TEpi nalowv dywyns. The instructor is thus
called 6 ma 8aywy6g, and instruction n naibaywyla, from which is derived
Ta 8aywy€o and other similar constructions. The Greek lexicographers have
more closely defined ayoy in this connection.+ Suid. quotes from Polyb. (I,
32,1): Aarebauubnov &vopa mis Aakanikis dyn uten. Hesychius
interprets &. by tpotoc, avaotpooh. Julius Pollux relates: r& 8 itparyuata,
Siaokarla, naldevais, Lenynais, tphyo, nyeuovia, aywyh, coplorikn.

5 CE. LEOTAIZELV = "to arm fully;" Ék0eplgelv "to finish harvesting," etc.
6 E.g., Plut. Crass., 2, 5 (II, 543e): ÉEnyopa(e To KALOUEVA, Kal yElTVIOa roic
KalouÉvoic.
Loh. Kol., 4:5.
dywyn. 1 So Dib. Past. etc.
Pass.: "The word occurs in Attic prose in every shade of meaning."
The verb &yw often has the pregnant sense of "educate. There is reference to the
good or bad training of animals (Xenoph. Mem., IV, 1, 3: Tc Kaloc dy delaas kovac).
but especially to the upbringing of men (Plat. Leg., VI, 782d): dvOpToiG cyouÉvois
8p06c).
Cf. the detailed instances in Thes. Steph.
dywyh max pary oo

As these examples show, the reference to education may be decisive for an

understanding of &. even in the sense that it refers to the results of education rather
than to education itself, 5 i.e., to the way in which the man who is guided conducts
himself in life, to his breeding, behaviour, mode or manner of life. Hence there is
frequent reference to Blou aywyh. And even without the addition &. can have
this significance. Cf. Xenoph. Eq., 3, 4; Polyb., VI, 2, 13 : n ÉK Tal8oV dywyh.
There is particularly frequent reference (cf. the passage from Suid. already
quoted) to the Spartan d.; cf. Ax0n Thv Aeyouavny dywynv kv Acke6aluov,
Plut. Ages., 1, 2 (I, 596c), and more generally 'EXnuikn dywyh (e.g., Strabo).
The philosophical schools are palpably distinguished by their &.: EKETTIKN
dryayh, Kupnvaikh aywyh, Ipotayopsi dyn DiL,I on
gether aipÉosis kai oyayac.
In the world around the NT we find the same usage though not with the preciseness
finally mentioned : palveole yap ka061ou dyoyi taum xpño0a1, Ditt. Or., 223, 15;
479, 9; 485, 3; P. Tebt., I, 24, 57; P. Par., 61, 12; 63, col. 9, 38. Ps.-Heracl. Ep., I, 16 (Ber-
nays), where &. is set alongside Slaita (it is also used in medical terminology in the
sense of Slaita). Jos.: Thy natpiov dywyhy tov £06v ATTOOOYEIV, Ant., 12, 10 ; gh-
mais repl ths 'loudatov dywyns, 14, 1958.
The LXX uses it in the same way: kal 'Eotnp oi HET AA&EEV THY dyaynhv
autns, Est. 2:20; Sinysito Th dywyny navti to LOvEl aUToo, 10:3; fgflouv tas
drywyars, 2 Macc. 4:16; thy authv dywyhy kard tov 'loubalov &YyELV, 6:8; thy
tautov ayoynu alperifovias, 11:24; dywynv eTiBou dv AxuB ovEIV, 3 Macc.
4:10.

The Jewish writers finally mentioned (Jos., Ps.-Heracl. and LXX) thus apply
a common Greek expression.
Since the Pastorals use other popular philosophical terms, the use of ayoyh
in 2 Tm. 3:10 may well testify to this background. In similar reference to Timothy,
who is addressed in 2 Tm. 3:10, Paul says in 1 C. 4:17: T&s 8800g you tac Ev
Xpl0T. As here the obol (= S18aaka^la) are Christianised both in form and
content by the addition of Ev Xplor@, so 1 CI., 47, 6 refers to tis Ev XploTo
dyoyns and 48, 1 to thy oeuvhy ths pilade^plas nuov dyvhy dyoynv.

t raparyw.
This transitive and intransitive word is found in the NT only in the latter sense;
Mt. 9:9; 9:27; 20, 30; Mk. 1:16; 2:14; 15:21; Jn. 8:59;1 9:1; C. 7:31. The passive
or middle is found in 1 Jn. 2:8, 17. Apart from Mk. 15:21, it is always emphasised
in the passages in the Gospels that Jesus "passes by." The similar kai Taparyov
in Mk. 1:16; 2:14; In. 9:1 might be regarded as the introductory phrase to a
pericope.
C.7:31: napoyel to oxua ToU koouou TOUTOU, reminds us of 1 Jn. 2:17:
o Koou0s tapa yetal Kai n enOvula aUTo0. Perhaps the Johannine phrase echoes

5 In modern Greek &. means "education" or 'discipline" : Sty ExEL dywyhv "he has
no education.'
6 Further examples from ancient Greek and the contemporary NT world may be found
in Pass.-Cr., s.v.
mapayw. Not in all MSS.
 Tapayo - ttpodry@

the Pauline. But perhaps the recurrence of the rare and almost technical Trapd yEl
(rapayerau) suggests reference to an apocalyptic commonplace. Both passages
(cf. 1 ]n. 2:8) have the nuance of "passing away" or "disappearing. With the
same eschatological significance there perhaps corresponds the pertransire of
4 Esr. 4:26. A similar sense is found in Mt. 5:18; 24:34 f.; 2 Pt. 3:10, napÉpyeo0ai.

The relevant Hebrew 12y is translated napdryelv in w 143:4 : at ju€pal airoo

doEl aKId Tapayoual =5219 72 12:. Cf. Is. 24:11, where mpo-ss 72y is rendered
TeTautal taoa siopooovn. If in 1 C.7:31 we give oxñua the theatrical sense of
"part" or "role," then tapayElv might mean introducing to the stage." We might
then take Paul's meaning to be that the role of this world is played out and another
oxnua has appeared on the scene. The present is to be noted ; it tells us that the great
eschatological change is already taking place.2

ipodryw.
As elsewhere, ipodyo is used in the NT both transitively and intransitively.
It is often said of Jesus that He "precedes" His followers. This is perhaps a
Christological expression. To the Christological event there corresponds on the
part of men an aKolouleiv which means following in the deeper sense of dis-
cipleship. Cf. especially in the sense of following Christ's passion fiv Ttpoor ywv
aUtouc 8 'Inoous, kai EeauBouvto, oi 8É aKonouloi apo Boit, M. 10:32;
Ipodw Juas eis thy Falilaiav, Mk. 14:28 ( Mt. 26:32); and cf. Mk. 16:7
(= Mt. 28:7). What applies in this way to the following of the death and re-
surrection applies also to the apostolic words of prophecy which go before (1 T'm.
1:18) and to the commandment which goes before (Hb. 7:18). Yet it may be we
are reading too much into the two latter passages, and the Ttpo simply denotes
temporal precedence. The same problem whether the itpo in "poaryo is to be
understood spatially with reference to those who follow or in a more general
temporal sense1 arises in relation to the contested explanation of 1 Tm. 5:24:
ai duaprial . . . 1po&youaai Eic kplolv. In the former case we are reminded of
parallels like Is. 58:8 : TPOTOPEUGETAL EUTPO DEV OOU Y SIKALOG V OU or Barn.,
4,12 : £ov h dyalos, f SIkal0o0vn autoi rtponyhoetal aUTo6. A separate
question is raised by 2Jn.9 : Tac tpooywv kai un uÉvov Év Th 816axñ Tou
XpIOTOU HEOV OUK EyEL.

The reading tapaBalvov for podywv makes quite good sense. In favour of this
view, tpoayElv trans. means "to seduce or mislead"; to this there corresponds an
intrans. poayelv as a synon. of Tapa BalvElv in the sense of "going astray" in con-
trast to TEPITXTELV Ev th Evtoln in v. 6 and as a predicate of TAdvol in v.7.2 On
the other hand, it is more likely that the reading TapaBaivoy is simply an alternative
for a genuine ipoaywv which it was found impossible to understand apart from the
situation actually envisaged in the epistle. In this case, it may be that the reference is
to a slogan of docetic or libertine opponents who like to think of themselves as advanced

Cf. Joh. W. 1K. ad loc.

ipoxyw. The general temporal significance is, of course, intrinsically possible, as
illustrated by, e.g.: STEp gy taic mpoaryouaaic ypapaic TapESouEV, Jos. Ant., 19, 298;
TpOd YELV APXaLoTtL, JOS, Ap., 2, 154.
So Cr.-Ko.
"tpodryo spooaryo

or progressive in their teaching.* Polemically the expression is thus used in malam

partem.

t spoodyw.
Three times used transitively in the NT (Lk. 9:41; Ac. 16:20 and Pt. 3:18), and
once intransitively (Ac. 27:27). 1
It is only in 1 Pt. 3:18 that elucidation is needed and particular interest arises.
In a kerygmatic statement, the meaning of the death of Christ, who died the Just
for the unjust, is described as follows : tva ouac (or quac) tpooaydyn To DEG.
Both the expression and the context suggest that we have here a cultic term.

a, The word is used of gifts that are brought: Sip& TIVI. We may thus understand
its sacrifical usage in the sense of "offer"
offerre. This is common to the whole range
of Greek. Cf. Guolac ol mpoogyovtes, Hdt., III, 24; Ekatov poonyE ovuuryn
Booknuata, Soph. Trach., 762; ÉkatouBag TpooXyouEV, Luc. Jup. Conf., 5; Éxatou-
Bnv ipoodyelv, Pollux, 1, 26; lEpEia TPOOGYELV rois Bouois, ibid., 1, 27; kayo 00'
rov Bouv TOv uÉyav npooayayo Eic Edyny, Theophanes Confessor, 283, 19 f. Simi
larly two passages from the post-apostolic fathers: 'loacn TtpOOñ yETO Quaia,
1 Cl., 31, 3; Thy Opnokelav 1tpooayoualv ait (sc. To OE®), Dg., 3, 2. In most of
these instances the idea of offering is quite plain. Occasionally, esp. when the gift is an
animal or even a man, we may wonder whether the original precise meaning of "bring"
is not adequate or even more suitable. 2
The LXX usage is exactly the same as elsewhere. The term occurs esp. in Ex., Lv.
and Nu. in a cultic sense, usually for the hiphil of 71p, 3 more rarely for *13. From the
many examples we may select the following: TpO gEEIC tov uooyov tri tas 00pas
the oxnuns tou uaptupiou, Ex. 29:10; &POEV &UWUOV TPOF E,EI, Lv. 1:3; npooa-
gouow anto the Quaiac tot awmplou Kaprwua Kuplo, to oTeap kai touc
VEOPOUS, Lv. 3:3; TpO g EEL n auvaywyh uboxov EK Boiv quouov tepi the
quaptias, Lv. 4:14; "pooayayn thy Quolav aitoi, Lv. 7:6 (cf. 2 Ch. 29:31 [here for
wal; 1 Esr. 1:18; Sir. 31:20; 2 Macc. 3:22; 12:43 etc.); TE POO& EETE cAokautouata
to Kuplo, Lv. 23:8; "poopopac Kuplo deloc ipboaye, Sir. 14:11; tpoonyar yov
to uvnubouvov tis "poosuxis ouov EvOniov tou dylou, Tob. 12:12. It is indicative
of the great range of application of "poo&yElv that it corresponds to a dozen Hebrew
word stems. That the metaphorical sense of "offer" or "sacrifice" is present is plainly
shown by the passages last mentioned, in which there can be no question of an animal
which is to be brought.

3 An analogous situation is perhaps depicted in C. 1:6.

"pookyw. 1 Here instead of tpoogyelv we also have rpooayeiv, resonare, Ttpoo-
aVEXELV, TPOOEYY[(EIV.
"Thes. Steph. says of the Lk. passage: Sunt tamen qui interpretantur Adducunt. And
D. Tabachovitz, Sprachliche und textkritic Studien zur Chronik des Theophanes Con-
fessor (Phil. Diss. Upsala, 1926), 39 f. contests the view of K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der
byzantinischen Literatur? (1897), 792 f. that we ought to read : "Then will I offer Thee the
great ox" (in satirical reference to a Byzantine emperor), suggesting as the true rendering
"Then will I bring the great ox to prayer." In this connection Tabachovitz postulates
special use of tpoogyelv for the leading of the emperor in procession, the usual words
in such cases being SIKO&(ELV, "to conduct, or diplyevelv, "to escort." If this not
particularly obvious assumption is correct, it might help to explain 1 Pt. 3:18, or at least
to give a distinctive shade of meaning to it.
8 There are examples of the sacrificial of 27 even outside the OT, as in the
Elephantine-Pap. and epigraphically on consecrated gifts (Aramaic and Nabataean).
 ipoodryw

Yet the conjunction of ;poodyetv with a personal object points in a specific

direction which alone suffices to explain 1 Pt. 3:18. 'Aapov kai toug ulouc itp00-
aleis Enl tas 00pac this axnyis tou uaptuplou (in relation to the consecration
of priests, Ex. 29:4 and cf. 29:8); cf. 40:12 (in relation to cleansing from sin);
Ttpoonyayev Mouons toug ulous "Aapoov (Lv. 8:24); "poo EEIS TOUC Aeultac
(Nu. 8:9, 10). In this 8th chapter of Numbers as in other chapters the object is
sometimes the priest to be consecrated and sometimes the animal to be offered.
At any rate a Christian reading 1 Pt. 3:18, and at home in the sacrificial termi-
nology of the OT, is reminded by the parallel mode of expression of the approach
of the cleansed priest to God, for Christians themselves are called to be a holy
priesthood according to 1 Peter.'
b. We do not leave this circle if we affirm that ntpoodylv also seems to be a
legal term : T poo&EEl auTov o Kupioc (sc. of the slave) pos to xptmpiov tou
GE00 (Ex. 21:6); Tpoon yayev Toy ASEADOV aitou ttpoc THY MiSLavEiTIV Évay.
tlov Mouon kal Evavti taons auvaywyis viov 'lapar\ (Nu. 25:6); mpl-
yayev Mauons thy kplow aitov Evavtl kupiou (Nu. 27:5). In this connection
we are also to think of Ac. 16:20, which we should not in the first instance connect
with 1 Pt. 3:18. If in Ac. 16:20 we are concerned with a normal human judgment,
so in 1 Pt. 3:18, as in the old covenant with its covenant people, in which the
judgment of God is constantly worked out, we are concerned with the judgment
of God to which Christ leads men, though at this point there is no cleavage
between judgment and grace, since by His death Christ has reconciled God with

Christ is thus a tpooayoyeus in special sense. There are only a few in-
stances of this word, and it is used both generally and specially and in malam as
well as in bonam partem. On the one side the agents, messengers and spies of the
Sicilian tyrant are pooaywyeic as reported by Plut. But the title is also given
to those who make friends of others, and therefore to mediators or reconcilers
(cf. Demosth., 24, 161). Hence Christ could be given as a mark of honour the
title of npooay@ysus, as also of taparAntos, a word which derives from a
related circle of ideas. In fact Greg. Naz. applies the term Ttpooa yo yEuc to Christ
in his polemic against Julian.
Our final discussions suggest, however, that we are now using the word stpoo-
ayelv more in the sense of courtly ceremonial than of law. Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 3, 8
(with which we should connect VII, 5, 45, where we find rpooay@yh, - 133)
uses TpooayElv for the admission of ambassadors to audience with the great king.'

4 This deduction is drawn by B. Weiss in his Handausgabe des NT, and in spite of the
refutation by Cr.-Ko. there is much to be said for it.
5 In the papyri the word ipooayElV is sometimes used of bringing someone before
judge either as defendant or witness; cf. Preisigke Wort. The legal term is also extended
to things (cf. the German beitreiben). A. Steinwenter, Studien zum romischen Versaumnis-
verfahren (1914), 189 f.: "The "poodyElv of BGU, 2, 388, II, 14 and Lips., 38, II, 1 I take
to mean bringing to judgment; cf. citato et inducto Capitone in P. Lips., 38, I, 12. Other in-
stances of spooaywyeic and "pooayoyi in this sense may be given Xenoph. Cyrop..
7, 5, 45; Paul to the Ephesians 2:18; Philostr. Vit. Soph., 2, 32
This is the meaning of
TtpoogyElV in modern Greek.
It is hard to see why this reference is as superfluous as it is inappropriate" in ex-
planation of 1 Pt. 3:18 (Cr.-Ko.). If Christ is here thought of as the One who brings men
to the King of all kings, this in no way affects the decisive sense of the passage with its
reminder of the reconciling death of Christ.
"poodryo - tpooaryayh

Finally, Tpoo&yelv in Pt. 3:18 may be given another shade of meaning by

the fact that we have ultimately to think always of the act of God. And the point
here is that God reconciles man to Himself. This is expressed by means of ipoo.
dryeolat. This sense of bringing to one's side, whether in a good way or in a
bad, is found in Greek generally, and it is specially, i.e., positively emphasised in
the LXX: stpoon yaryounv ouas ipoc tuaurov, Ex. 19:4; 00g ENEgaTO EauTo
tpoonyaryeto Ttpos #aurov, Nu. 16:5 (cf. 16:9, 10).
d. Materially the statement that God leads and reconciles men to Himself is
identical with the statement in 1 Pt. 3:18 that Christ leads and reconciles men to
God. That the word tpoodyElV can still gather shades of meaning from sacrificial,
legal and courtly usage without any disruptive intersecting of the various images
is due not so much to the vagueness of the expression, or the overloading of a
simple term by exegetes who do not observe the limits of the lexicographer, as to
the event itself in its simplicity from above and its multiplicity from below, i.e.,
in the complexity which demands different images set alongside or superimposed
on one another if it is to be properly grasped. What is true of the person of
Christ, who is both subject and object, is also true of His work, which as the
work of Xplot6c ("pooayo yeus) has the aim tva juac "pooaryaryn TO 0E6,
and which is thus the work of the Oeoc npooaryouevos nuac ipoc taurov.

+ tpooarywyn.
The significance of this word, which occurs 3 times in the NT (R. 5:2; Eph.
2:18; 3:12), is for the most part expounded in our discussion of poodyw, and all
that is essential to explain the relevant passages has been said already. Is it not
necessary, however, that we should consider the much ventilated question 1 whether
it is used transitively or intransitively Does not this question have some bearing
on exegesis !

Like the basic &yelv and its various derivatives, the verb "poodyelv is sometimes
used transitively and sometimes intransitively, and the same is true of the verbal sub-
stantives. Cf. what was said above concerning dywyn. Thus, transitively the sense is
that of "introduction" and intransitively of "access.'
The lexical battle which of these is predominant and which is older is hampered by
the inconclusiveness of statistical analysis and the difficulty of deciding which is the
true meaning in many passages. This is particularly true in the oldest example in Hdt.,
II, 58 TONN YUPELS 8É apa kal routas kal npoaaywyas tpitol Alyuntol Elo1
of TolNoquevol kal "tapa TOUT@V "EXAnves ueuaihkaot. Here an intransitive use
yields the sense of 'approaching," and particularly of the sacred approach to a sacrifice
or other festival, i.e., a "procession" (Attic "poooooc). A transitive use yields the
sense of "bringing up, particularly in the case of a sacrifice (> "poodyw, 131), and
therefore again of a religious "procession." The word is used in another connection in
the passage from Xenoph. Cyrop., already quoted (VII, 5, 45): gyo bE hElouv TOUC
TOLOUTOUS, El TIC TI QUOU SÉOITO, SEPATEUELV ouac toug spoic olioue beouÉvous
itpoorywyns. Here the transitive sense seems most likely. The reference is to an

tpogayoyh. Cf. in relation to R. 5:2, H. A. W. Meyers (1859), and H. A. W.

Meyer-B. Weiss® (1881), also Zn. R.
 "pooarywyh - cybov

"audience." A good example of the intransitive is found in Plut. Aem., 13,3 (I,261e):
t8puuÉvoc Enl xuplov outau6lev rpoaayy £xovtwv; as also in Polyb., X, 1, 6:
EKEIVOL yAp SEPIVOUC EXOUTES Epuouc kal BpaxEidv TIVA TOVTEA C "pooaywyhv.
Thus a "landfall" or "haven."

In the NT we have an absolute use of the term in Eph. 3:12, whereas R. 5:2
emphasises the relation to something Elc Ti, and Eph. 2:18 the relation to a person
Ttpos tiva. The lexical question whether it is used transitively or intransitively
has no importance from the standpoint of exegesis and biblical theology. For
materially it makes no difference, nor could it possibly do so, whether the Christian
moves towards grace, towards God the Father, or whether he is led. For the
Christian does not in any case go of himself. He is led by Christ, so that his own
movement is accomplished in Christ. We may prefer the possibly better attested
and widespread translation access." But we must always keep in view the fact
just emphasised that, quite apart from any question of transitive or intransitive use,
we are dealing concretely with what takes place in Christ. If it is access, then it
is an access which is simply Christ Himself, who in Jn. 10 is called the door.

Thes. Steph. : Gregor. Christum Servatorem nostrum pooaywyÉa Dei patris, Emis-
sarium, Conciliatorem et interpretem, vocavit, alludens ad verbum "pooaywyns, quo
Paulus utitur, ap. quem quidam, ut mox dicam, ttpooaywynv Admissionem verterunt :
in qua interpretatione, Admissio passive dicetur, qua admittimur : at Ttpo∞ayoyeuc est
Ille qui admittit, et aditum praebet. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam 2 : the idea is
that of introduction to the presence-chamber of a monarch. The rendering "access' is
inadequate, as it leaves out of sight that we do not come in our own strength but need
an introducer' Christ." On the other hand, A. Pallis 3 lays all the emphasis on an
intransitive rendering. He has a useful comment: "It has been a commonplace both in
ancient and modern times to liken salvation to a haven" - a view which is not in-
compatible with the exegesis stressed above.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt

ryov, dywvizoual, t dvt., T ET-,

t karaywvizouai, dyavia

This is a group of words much used in relation to the Greek stadium. They are
rare in the LXX and NT, and are almost always used in writings tinged with
Hellenism.

2 The International Critical Commentary (1895) on R. 5:2.

3 To the Romans (1920), ad loc.
dy 61 K TA. J. Juthner, s.v. "Gymnastik, Pauly-W. XIV, 2030 ff.; E. Norden, Fleck-
eisens Jahrb. f. klass. Philol. Suppl., 18 (1892), 298 ff.; L. Schmid, Der ayov bei Paulus
[unpublished Diss. Tubingen, 1921); F. J. Folger, "Gladiatorenblut u. Martyrerblut, Eine
Szene der Passio Perpetuae in kultur- und religionsgeschichtlch Beleg Vorte. d.
Bibl. Warburg, III (1924).
ayov

dywov, cyvizoual and Compounds.

A. Hellenistic Usage.
a. &yoov originally means a "place of assembly," then a "place of contest"
"stadium, then the "contest" itself (including litigation and debate), and finally
any kind of "conflict," Lat. certamen. The word is often used metaphorically.
The diatribe compares exercise in virtue and the moral struggle of life with the
exertions and self-denials of the dyoov. 2 The prize before the victor is ultimately
beyond this life. Thus Plut. Gen. Socr. 24 (II, 593e): ol TETIQULÉVOI tov TEpi TOV
Biov dydvav 8t' apethv yuxns YEVOUEVOL SaLLOVES. In similar vein Philo speaks
of the ayov tou Blou, 3 and 4 Esr. refers to the conflict with the sensus malus in
which man is to conquer.' Life is a deadly struggle the outcome of which will
decide our future destiny: Hoc est cogitamentum certaminis. quod certabit, qui
super terram natus est homo, ut si victus fuerit, patiatur ..., si autem vicerit, reci-
piet, quod dico. 5 The image of the xpETh, its conflict and reward is particularly
worked out in Wis. 4:2, where it is said of the ateKvla uet& apEtns: Év to
alin otedavopopoioa TOUTEUEL TOV TOV AuLavtOV &0AGV dyova vixñoaaa.
In this passage we can see quite clearly the Hellenistic origin of this whole out-
look.
ryovigoual means "to carry on a conflict, contest, debate or legal suit." Plut.
Non Posse Suav. Viv. Sec. Epic., 28 (II, 1105c): &0 ntai ayovloqueVOI;
2 Macc. 13:14 : yevaloc cywvloao0al HEXPI BaV&TOU TtEpi VouGV .6 Even
when linked with avti, Guv, etc.,' the verb has the same shades of meaning as the
noun, and is sometimes used literally, sometimes figuratively : Éos lavorou ryo-
vioal TE pi ths a ndeias, kai Kupios 6 (eoc TO EUMOEL UTTEP 000, Sir. 4:28.
b. Alongside these occasional metaphorical uses of the idea of the contest, in
the literature of Hellenistic Judaism there are many examples of the use of this
whole imagery and terminology of the arena in relation to the heroic struggle
which the pious has to go through in this world. Philo likes to think of the ascetic
achievements of the heroes of virtue, as in Agric., 112, 119 : Tov eri0vulas xai.
doiklac TtPOTEOÉvta dyiva, & leatai Kai &0^00ÉTaL VEVIKNKE of tool
O toivuv 'ONuutiakos gyov uovos &v AÉyoITo ÉVoIKos lsp6s, ovx ov
TIOÉaoIV of Thy "HAiv oikoUvtEs, d1^' TEpI KTHOEKC TOv DELGy Kai SAuption

Herodot., IX, 60 : &yovos mpoKElLÉvou. 2 Macc. 4:18 : &youÉvou 8É TEVTAET PIKOU

&yovoc (game or tourney) Ev Tupo; 15:9 : dyovac (battles) odg joav EKTETEAEK6TEC.
Jos. Bell., 1, 426 f 86Éa tov 'Oluurlaaw gyovov.
2 R. Heinze Philologus, 50 (1891), 458 ff.
3 Som., II, 145. Cf. Jos. Ant., 17, 150 : EdEBElas dywviquara. 4 Macc. 12:15: apetnc
ayonotal.
Esr 7:92. CE. also 4 Macc. 3:5: 6 Noyiouoc tov nalov avtaywnous; 15:29: 6
unme Evous ToU 8d on ayyvov dyovos de\odopE!
5 4Esr. 7:127 f. We also have a psychologising use in 4 Macc. 13:15: uÉyac yap toxins
drydv kal KIvouVoc Ev alovia Baaave KEluEvo© tois tapaBaow thy EvtoAnv Tou
(Eov.
Cf. Test. J. 2:2: Jos. Ant., 7:14 etc.
"Avraryavitouau - "to meet in contest, Jos. Ap., 1, 56. katay∞vi(oua, "to
"to fight for or
defeat, Jos. Ant., 16, 8. Erarywvtouat, "to take up the fight again,
against," Plut. Cim., 13 (I, 486e), Comm. Not., 31 (If, 1075d). ouvayovigoual, "to fight
with," "to help with all one's power," Test. A. 6:2.
 ayov

os anodc apErov. Elc TOUTov Toy dyava ol GolEVE TaToI To o pata, Ep-
POLEVEOTATOL SE toc wuydc Eyypapovtal TOUTEC. Praem. Poen., 5 f. : ot pev
d0 ntal apEts BpaBelov kal knpuyuatov kal tov &nAwv Boa viKDoL
8(80taL LETEA&uBovov. of 8≥ O0K dotEpavwtol u6VOv &THEGOV & Ad kal hittav
ETOVEISITTOV EVSEE&UEVOL TOV EV TOis yuuniKoic aymar apya EnTE® EKE
uev yap x0^ntiv oquata KAIVETOIL Evtaila 8É 81o1 Blol TliITouolV.
A counterpart to these graphic pictures of the struggle for virtue is offered by
4 Macc. with its comparing of the passion of martyrs to the contests of athletes.
The comparison is the more relevant as the torturing and execution of martyrs
often took place in the same arena and before the same spectators as the yuuvikol
dyoveg. 8 Hence the picture and the reality frequently merge T TEpOTPETtOiC
dyovoc, calls the sufferer, Éo' Sv 81d Thy EDGEBEIXV Elc yuuvaolav TOVOV
KANOEVTES OUK ÉVIKNOnMEV.' And in 17:10 ff. the author paints the picture in all
its fulness : ÉEe8lknoav to yÉVog Els OEOV &OOPOUTES Kai LEXPL lavatou toc
BaG&VOUC UTTOLEIVONVTES. a\ndos yap hiv ayov Oeioc 6 8t' autov yeyevnuÉvos®
HONOOETEL YOP TOTE OPETH 8t' intouovis bokiu&gouga. to vikoc colapola Ev
Yon trouxpovlo. 'Elea(ap 88 "ponyovigeto, h 8É unip ÉVñONEI, ol 8t
aoelpol hyavigovto 6 topavos avinywvigeto' 6 8É Koouoc tOEDEL.
BEO EBELa S& EvIKa, 10 TOUC Éautis d0lntac areoavoiaa. TIvEc oiK £0aouaoav
autov thy inouovhy, 8t' Av kai to Oelo VOV TXPEOTY KAOLV 0p6vo. 11
The Hellenistic type of the struggling hero of virtue and the Jewish type of the
martyr fighting unto death seem to come together in the picture of the divine
warrior Job as sketched in the Testamentum Iobi. 12 In the war of orouovn and
uaxpo0uula Job stands manfully against all the OAWEIC which break upon him,
like a boxer : Ag X0ANTnS TUKTEUOV Kal KAPTEPOV TOVOUC Kai EKdEXOuEVoC
TOV OTEDOVOV (Test. Iob. 4). But now the opponent who would knock him out
is not merely the sensus malus, nor Éneuula, nor even a godless topavos, but no
less than the devil himself. Yet Satan must finally give up the struggle against the
unconquerable divine hero, and confess: ÉyÉvou yap ov tp6nov dentis werd
&0 ntot kai els Tov #va Kateppaeav kal of, 'IOB, UTOKaTO fS kal Év
TAnyn. a 1' Evlknoas to TAeutpiK& (sic, vi. Talalotpik&) HoU & Enhyayov
o01 (Test. Iob. 27). Literature of this kind obviously helped in large measure to
fix the sense and application of ayov and its derivatives in early Christianity.

B. dyov, dyavifouat in the NT.

Under the sign of the cross, the thought of the fight to which those who
are faithful to God are called acquires a new seriousness. It is thus hardly

8 Thus we are told concerning the martyrs of 3 Maccabees that they awaited their fate
Ev to Ttpo ts ToAEOG imtoopoup, which seemed to be particularly adapted spoc
Tapabetyuertioubv (4:11); We are also told concerning a gymnasium in Jerusalem in
1 Macc. 1:14; cf. 2 Macc. 4:12 ff.; t Macc. 4:20 etc. n. 18.
9 11:20, cf. 16:16.
10 KaNOTLEP yewaios d0lntis Tuttouevos Evika touc Baravi 6 yÉpv,
6:10.
11 81x thobe tie Kakotalelac Kal UTouovic to ths aperis dola otoouev, kai
tooue0a Tapa DE6, 8t' 8v kal T&oXojEv, 9:8; ouv m d0^006po untol ElS TATEDOV
yopov ouvaye/a(ovtat, 18:23. On the idea of the martyrs around God's throne, also
bPes., 50a; Qoh. r., 3 on 9:10.
M. R. James, "Apocrypha anecdota," II. Texts and Studies, V,1 (1899), 106; 120.
dyoov

accidental that Paul particularly likes and brings into use the various dyoov
terms. 13 Five motifs of thought seems to be expressed by primitive Christianity
in these concepts.
First is the thought of the goal which can be reached only with the full
expenditure of all our energies. Thus already in the saying of the Lord in Lk. 13:24
dywv[(Eo0E ELOE OEIV is opposed to impotent Knteiv; the struggle for the kingdom
of heaven allows of no indolence, indecision or relaxation. Only those who press
into it can attain entrance (cf. Lk. 16:16). In full accordance with this, Paul likes
to add an-> elc and occasionally a * Iva to &yavigeofal and related verbs. His
work for the Gospel is more than the faithful daily fulfilment of duty ; it is an
ayov (1 Th. 2:2), a tense exertion, 14 passionate struggle, constantly renewed
concentration of forces on the attainment of the goal, as in Col. 1:29: iva
TXPXOTHOQUEV TOUTA &VOOITIGV TELELOV EV XPLOTO® ElG 8 kal K01L& dyavigo.
LEVOC katd Th EvÉpyElav autoi Thy ÉvepyouuÉvnv Ev quoi kv buvqueL. The
whole life of the apostle stands under this sign, and acquires value and meaning
only from the final victory, It is thus that the master speaks according to the
Pastorals : ToV KaAov dyova nyoviqual, tov 8p6 ov TETEAEKa 15 lotTov
& tokeltal Hot o this Bikalootvns ateoavos (2 T'm. 4:7 f.) . And the follower is to
take up the same conflict, to run the same race to the same goal : &yovigou rov
kalov ryova ThE TLOTEDS, ETi aBoi the aloviou gonc, elc Av exAnons kal
Quolbynoas thy Kalnv ouoloylav Evoitlov 16 To Adv uaptopov (1 Tm. 6:12).
Here already we can see the development of Hellenistic Jewish influence in later
Pauline literature.
b. The struggle for the reward does not demand only full exertion but also
rigid denial: Tac . . . 6 &y∞VZouEVOs tavta EYKPATEUE, ÉKE1 uEv oov iva
p0aprov otepavov Aapwor, nueic BE & laptov (1 C. 9:25). The final assault is
so exacting that all forces must be reserved, assembled and deployed in it. The
final goal is so high and glorious that all provisional ends must fade before it. If
the > Bpapsiov does not mean everything, nothing will be attained. If a man
is not ready to set aside his egotistic needs and desires and claims and reservations,
he is not fit for the arena UTEGTEL&Y GO you to odua Kai Soulayayw, un TOS
&66kluoc yÉvoua (1 C. 9:27). This is not the asceticism of the monk suppressing
the body ; it is the manly discipline of the fighter controlling the body. The
admonitions : VñdE Ev TXoI (2 Tm. 4:5), and: youva(e EqUTOV 1tpoC EUGé-
BELOV® n yap aquatikh yuuvaola rpoc &1lyov Earlv doello, are both deter-
mined by regard for the supreme goal: glc touto yap KOTI LEV kai dyango-
MEOa, ST AATlkquEV ETI OEG LOVTI (1 T'm. 4:7 ff.). This is not contempt for the
world. It is insight into the law of life that the better is the enemy of the best, so
that even what is right and good may have to be renounced.
C. The thought of the antagonists, which is important in 4 Macc. and occasion-
ally in the Test. of Job, is seldom expressed in the NT. Phil. 1:28 speaks of avti-
KE(uevol, Hb. 12:3 f. of dvtiloyla and avraywv((eolal. Hb. 11:33, in the style

13 Apart from Lk. 13:24 and Jn. 18:36 the use of this group of words is restricted to the
Pauline corpus.
14 TOVOC U. 1 Cl. 5:4; Mak. Homil., XV, 224b. k6TtoC and KOTO are more common.
v. J. B. Lightfoot, The Ap. Fathers, II, 2 (1889), 351 on Ign. Pol., 6.
15 Cf. Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porphyrli p. 82:12 : rov kaddv dyova TETEAEKOS.
16 Cf. 4 Macc. 12:16; 17:14.
 dyov

of the books of Maccabees, refers to heroes of faith : kamywvloavto Baoilelac,

though here the place of conflict seems to be the battleground rather than the
arena - 135, n. 1). Nevertheless there seems to belong to the whole concept of
dywvigeofal the thought of obstacles, dangers and catastrophes through which
the Christian must fight his way. The missionary work which Paul calls an &yov
in 1 Th. 2:2 is beset by a hundred perils, and full of outer and inner storms:
"gOEV porxat, :o00Ey o6Bot (2 C. 7:5). And when the field is won, the watch-
word must be : Érraryovigeolal th & ae, ntapadolelon tois dylois nloteL (Jd. 3).
d. The sharpest form of &yov which the man who is faithful to God must
undergo on earth is the battle of suffering fulfilled in martyrdom. These are
familiar Jewish conceptions which make a powerful impact on early Christianity
in the age of the Pastorals and Hebrews. 'Eyo yop fion onevoouau, is the saying
of Paul in the Pastorals, speaking of the warfare and victory of his own life
(2 Tm. 4:6; cf. Phil. 2:17); and he Summons Timothy: kakoT&tnoov, 11 8lwKE
irouovnv, upainallav. cywviyou (1 Tm. 6:11). Hb. 10 ff. is shot through
with the thought of martyrdom. In 10:32 f. we have a backward glance at the
OVEL-
QuÉpaI, Ev alC POTIOBEVTES TOAANV XONNOLV UTEL[ TOON ATAV
Souoic TE kai BALUEOIV HEATpI(OUEVOI, 18 in 11 a consideration of the great
victors of the past, 19 and in 12:1 ff. an exhortation to supreme resistance with
the gaze fixed on Christ. Here, as in 4 Macc. 17, the motifs of conflict are found
in profusion EXOVTES véoos uapropov TPEXOLEV TOV ipoKE(uavov quiv
dyiova GOOPOVTES And here the thought of the avriloyia of the quaptolol
is alive and powerful : OUTto Hexpis aiuatos AVTIK&TÉOTITE it pos thy quapriav
dvraywni(ouevol. 20
e. The supreme goal for which we fight and work and suffer is not our own
salvation alone; it is the salvation of many. The late epistles, which otherwise
speak a great deal about the heavenly reward, are silent on this point. Yet it is
intimated already in 4 Macc., and it finds clear enunciation in Paul. Paul cannot
attain the goal of his own life vithout throwing in everything and sacrificing
himself for the salvation of the people of God (Col. 1:29). Hence he does not
link with the term &yovigeclal only a iva, but also quite frequently a -> OTÉp.
His struggle is for his communities : ñAlkov ayova Eyo OTep buiov, iva (Col.
2:1 f.). The one stands for the many, TAVTOTE gywvLouevos in both work and
prayer (Col. 4:12 f.). Hence all must stand for the one, mustering around him in
a loyal fellowship of battle. The &ywv(gea0al is extended by a - OUV: Ttapaka^G
8É Duas auvayavioaolal uot Ev taic "poosuxaic intep Éuot (va puc06

17 2 Tm. 4:5; cf. 2:3 ff.: OUyKaKOTaOElV with d0 eiv and KaKona@siv; cf. also 4 Macc.
9:8 : 81x KaKoTatelac kai untouos.
18 Cf. 1C. 4:9: Geoc nuac ATE SELEEV Oc Enlavatious, 8ti Oeatpov ‡yev-
ONUEv TO koou0 kai dyyÉlois kal dvipiouc, and on this passage Lietzmann. 4 Macc.
17:14: 8 8& Koou0s kal tov dvopinov Bloc €0E&pEL, and the Gerasa inscription in
H. J. Cadbury. ZNW, 29 (1930), 61: &yovi(ouevol kai DEatpiZOVTEG, Év ayov
leoplq. Theatrum and spectaculum in Aug. Civ.D., 14, 9. Cf. also napadeiyuatito
in Hb. 6:6, and rapadetyuatiou6s in 3 Macc. 4:11; 7:14 > n. 8.
19 Cf. 1 Macc. 2:49 ff.; 2 Macc. 15:9; 4 Macc. 16:16 ff. etc.
20 On 12:2: avri ths TPOKELUEVS auti yapac ittuEIvey otaup6v, cf. 11:26,35 and
+ Macc. 15:2 f.: SUETV TPOKELuEVwV, EioEBelas kai owinpias tpoakaipou Ty
EUÉBEIaV ua ov nyaTnoE; also Aug., op. cit., 13, 4. On Ev de&iq .. . T00 Op6vou Tou
0:00, cf. 4 Macc. 17:17 f.: -> n. 11.
ayov

aTtO TOV &TELOOUVTON (R. 15:30).21 Again the form of battle is prayer. In prayer
there is achieved unity between the will of God and that of man, between human
struggling and action and effective divine operation. In prayer, too, there is fulfilled
the fellowship of conflict and destiny between man and man. In prayer one man
becomes the representative of the other, sO that there is here opened up the
possibility of one standing in the breach for all and all for one.
As Paul speaks in Col. 4 and R. 15 of the alliance of those who pray, so in
Phil. 1:27 fE. he speaks of unity in the Spirit OTHKETE ÉV Évi TVE uaTI. And here
all the motifs come together which are elsewhere treated in isolation in the image
of dyoov. There is need to stand together, ulg yuxi ouval^oUvtES th TOTEL Tou
EBayyeAlou. Where the Gospel is, there will be conflict and division (v. Lk. 2:34).
There is thus need to resist the adversary, uh TTUpOLEVOL EV undevi oTto tov
&VTLKELLÉVOV. Already those who are unafraid can see the approaching final
victory, and they thus concentrate all their forces for the last effort, hrs forlv
autoic (i.e., your adversaries) Evoel&is &nwAelas, buiv be owiplac. The form
of the conflict, however, is supremely suffering, and the meaning of suffering is
sacrifice : *tt ouiv Exaploen To STEp XplOTO0 TXOXELV, rov autov ayova
EXOUTES OlOV ELSETE Év Éuol. Paul here uses the image of ayoov along the lines
of the martyr theology of later Judaism. But he no longer thinks of the battle
waged by the martyrs in the stadium to God's glory. He thinks of the conflicts
and sufferings of the Christian life itself as a life which in its totality stands under
the sign of the cross and in this sign carries the cause of Christ to victory.

C. drywv, dywvigoua in the Early Churc®

The early Church took up with particular enthusiasm the theme of the warfare and
triumph of the Christian, and applied it in new ways. Pauline modes of thought and
expression are most faithfully reproduced in 1 Cl.: the thought of the goal in 35,4:
dywvioQuE0a STOC METaA&BOUEV; 22 that of discipline in 7, 1 f.: Ev yap to
aito LouEV arqu at (!), kai 6 auros nuiv ayov fnlkeItaI. 810 aTtOAITOUEV;
that of intercession and representation in 2,4: aywv hv ouiv juapas tE kai vuktoc
UTTEP TE&ons ts dOEAOOTNTOS EIC TO ooZEOBaL. Barnabas brings his apocalyptic
message of the &vouoc kaipos and the final onslaught of darkness to a climax in the
summons to conflict: dyav(ouela! (4. 11). 2 Cl., 7 offers a clear picture of dyoov in
the ora8iov, of gywvlfealal for righteousness, primarily in the style of the Hellenistic
diatribe, but finally culminating in an eschatological admonition. According to the later
conception, the warfare of the Christian deserves particular renown and reward where it
takes ascetic forms. 23 But the truly decisive battle is seen in martyrdom, since the
victor in this conflict does not merely attain his own blessedness like the self-sufficient
ascetic, but reveals and accomplishes the triumph of the Church over all forces inimical
to God. The young martyr Church quickly developed to their logical end the suggestions
made by the martyr literature of Hellenistic Judaism and especially by the Epistle to
the Hebrews. The picture of the victorious contestant became in all its individual features

21 For actual warfare we also have nywvigovto iva un rapado0i in In. 18:36 f., cf.
Mt. 26:52
Cf. in 37, 1 the analogous aTpaTEUOQUEOa leto itaons EKTEVElaG. Similarly in
2 Tm. 2:3 aeNeiV with atpaTEUEO0aI.
23 doxntikouc dyivas, Theod. Stud. Enc. Theoph., Anal. Boll., 31 (1912), 22, 9 (- &0.
Aeiv).
 dyoov - dywvla

the glowing symbol of the heroic Christian martyr. Christ Himself came to be celebrated
as the great d0Anths and Martyr who endured the contest of suffering on our behalf:
8 elc tollouc ayovas UTED nudv dyavigouevos. 24 It is for us to continue His
conflict. Those who gain the victory here overthrow Satan himself: &d this intouovs
katarywvloguevog tov &81Kov &pyovta Kal ottoe Tov Ts &peapolac oTeoavoy
arto laB oov. 25 The full terminology of the stadium is used to depict the martyr and his
contest and triumph. And the full range of these specialised Greek terms is taken up into
the vocabulary of the Latin literature of martyrdom. Thus it is a Latin writer who is
our most valuable witness for the spread and significance of this group of words, Tert.
Ad Mart., 3 : Bonum agonem subituri estis, in quo agonothetes deus vivus est brabium
angelicae substantiae Itaque epistates vester Christus Jesus, qui vos spiritu unxit et
ad hoc scamma produxit, voluit vos ante diem agonis ad duriorem tractationem a liberiore
conditione seponere. Nempe enim et athletae segregantur ad strictiorem disciplinam, ut
robori aedificando vacent; continentur a luxuria coguntur, cruciantur, fatigantur :
quanto plus in exercitationibus laboraverint, tanto plus de victoria sperant Carcerem
nobis pro palaestra interpretemur, ut ad stadium tribunalis bene exercitati incommodis
omnibus producamur.

dywvia.
IF this word can sometimes denote "conflict," originally it means "inner tension" or
"anxiety," and most strictly it indicates the "supreme concentration of powers" in face
of imminent decisions or disasters. popos TTOOEOC A hrms eni TOU ic dyoova
uÉrovtos gteval. 2 To this there corresponds the usage in 2 Macc. 15:19 : hv
dyovia tapacoouevois ths tv oralpo ipooBolns, and the impressive image in
3:14 ff. : hv 8É ov uixpa kae' 8Anv Thy ToAlv dyovia n yap &YIs EvEpaIVE
Thy Kato puxnv cyaviav (8Éos, &yoc) gleely 8' nv thv tou tAndouc
squpryh TO6TTWOIV THU TE TOU HEyaOS Buaryoviovroc 3 dPXLEpEd© tpoodo-
kiav.

It is in this sense that oyovla must be understood in Lk. 22:44 : yEVOUEVOC §v

&yovia ÉKTEVÉOTEDOV TPOONUE. This is not fear of death, but concern for
victory in face of the approaching decisive battle on which the fate of the world
depends. Hence it is not to be compared with the EiA&BeIa of Hb. 5:7, but with
the saying of the Lord in Lk. 12:49 f.: Tt0p hiA0ov Bareiv Erl thy nv, kai Tl
BEAo El hon dunpon. Bantioua 8É EXco Bantio0nval, kal Toc oUVéXOuaL gos
STOU TELEOOñ.
Stauffer

tmi1 tY:080 820

24 Act. Thom., 39, cf. also Act. Ptr. et PI., 5, 84, p. 218, 11.
25 M. Pol., 19, 2, cf. Pass. S. Scilit., p. 117, 18; Pass. Perp. et Fel., 18, 2; Act. Thom., 39;
Test. of the 40 Mart., 1, 1; 1, 5; Aug. De Agone Christiano, MPL, XL, 289 ff.
dywvla. 1 Hence the prevalent significance of mortal conflict or anguish.
Lex. Rhet. Pros., p. 663. Closely related are the definitions in Aristot. Probl., II 31,
p. 869b, 6 f. (p6Boc tIC ipoc dpxhv Epyou) and Diog. L., VII, 1, 13 (¢6Boc doniou
"poryuartoc). Cf. also Aristot. Rhet., 1, 9, p. 1367a, 15; Suid., s.v. p6Boc; Etym. M.,
p. 15, 46.
A reads dywvdvtos. dyanad, "to be concerned for," v. Pass.-Cr., S.v.
Cf. also Jos. Ant., 11, 241 and 326. Philo Leg. Gai., 243.
*Abou

'A6ou vloc tot avopinou).

A. Early Christian Usage.

1. Adam as the First Man.
La
Adam (b7x) as the first man is mentioned in 1 Tm. 2:13-14 in connection with
the order of the community set out in 1 Tm. 2:1-3:16. In the section which deals
with the right conduct of the woman in the service of God (2:9-15) the demand
that she should be subordinate to man (2:12) is given a basis in early biblical
history. This establishes the supremacy of man at creation by the fact a. that he
was created first (2:13), and b. that Eve was first deceived (2:14),2 in which
there is perhaps a hint of the legend that Eve was sensually seduced by the
serpent. The order of God at creation is still His will for the community (cf.
Mk. 10:6).

2. The NT Typology Adam/Christ.

Adam is an antitype of Christ in Mk. 1:13; R. 5:12-21; 1 C. 15:22, 45-49. The
account of the temptation in Mark (1:13) shows how Jesus as the new man
(-> utoc tou oviponou) overcame the temptation which overthrew the first man.
Jesus, like Adam, is tempted by Satan. Again, as Adam was once honoured by
the beasts in Paradise according to the Midrash, so Christ is with the wild beasts
after overcoming temptation. He thus ushers in the paradisial state of the last days
when there will be peace between man and beast (Is. 11:6-8; 65:25).5 As Adam
in Paradise enjoyed angels' food according to the Midrash, & so the angels give
heavenly food to the new man. Jesus reopens the Paradise closed to the first man.
This typology Adam/Christ perhaps underlies the tracing of the genealogy of Jesus
back to Adam in Lk. 3:38 (as against Mt. 1:1-17). The fact that the temptation
story follows immediately in Lk. 4:1 ff. seems to support this ; it may well be that
as a follower of Paul Luke knew the Pauline typology Adam/Christ.
Paul uses this typology a. to show the universality of grace in R. 5:12-21; Adam,
through whom sin and death came on the race, is the TUTOC Tou uÉ^otoc
(5:14), of the elc &vopantos 'Inooic Xpioroc (5:15), who brought life and grace
to humanity ; b. to establish the certainty of the resurrection (1 C. 15:22 : GOTTEP
yap gv TO 'A8ou T TOVTES gto0 horovolv, outoc kai EV TO XPLOTO TOVTES

' A 8 & u. B. Murmelstein "Adam, ein Beitrag zur Messiaslehre," WZKM, XXXV
(1928), 242-275; XXXVI (1929), 51-86; Ltzm. 1 K., Exc. on 1 C. 15:45-49; Str.-B., Index
under Adam.
1 Cf. S. Dt., 37 on 11:10 : "All that is worthy precedes all else."
Cf. SI. En., Bonwetsch, 31, 6: "He (the devil) seduced Eve, but did not approach
Adam.'
Gn. r., 18 on 3:1 etc. Cf. 4 Macc. 18:7-8; Philo Leg. All., III, 59 ff.; B. Murmelstein,
op. cit., 284, n. 4.
Apc. Mos., 16.
5 Str.-B., III, 254; IV, 892, 964 f.
6 bSanh., 59b par.; Vit. Ad., 4.
7 Ev t6 'Abau is perhaps simply an analogous construction to ev tO Xpiors.
 gworoin Onaovtau; C. to demonstrate the certainty of the spiritual resurrection
body (1 C. 15:44b-49 : kaloc LOOPÉCQUEV THI ElKOVa ToU XOIKOU, DOPEOQUEV
kai thy Elkova tou Errouparviou, v. 49).
The latter of these two certainties, namely, that at the resurrection of Christians
the image of Adam (the physical body) will be transformed into that of Christ
(the spiritual body), is based by Paul on the Bible. He finds his Scripture proof
in LXX Gn. 2:7: EyEveto & &VOpOTOS ElS puxnv (Goav. In a paraphrase after
the manner of the Targum he adds to this verse the two words pitos and
'Abau : ÉyÉVETo 6 Tpitos &vipattoc 'Abdu Elc truxhv gooav. From the text
as thus amplified, in conjunction with his common Messianic interpretation of the
creation story (Col. 1:15 : LXX Gn. 1:26 f.; C. 6:17 and Eph. 5:31 f.: LXX Gn.
2:24), and with the help of a nom) 3p conclusion 8 e contrario, ° he achieves the
statement : 8 foyatos 'A8du Elc TVE Dua ( 00Tt0lODV. Paul thus gives us the anti-
theses (1 C. 15:45, 47 f.):

v. 45 : 6 spotos 'A8xu 8 #oyaTo© 'Aou

tuxn gooa TVEDua Y WOTOIOUV
v. 47: 6 ipotos avOpTios 6 BEUTEpOS &vE POTtOC
v. 47 f.: ÉK yins, Xoikos #8 oupavou, Érroupoviog.

According to their earthly bodies, Christians are like the first Adam; according
to their resurrection bodies they are like the last Adam (1 C. 15:48). Hence the
historical sequence of the creation of the first man and the resurrection of the
second 10 has a typical significance ; it is a type of the destiny of believers who,
when they have first borne the image of the earthy, will then be transformed into
the image of the heavenly. (1 C. 15:49 ; cf. 44b, 46, 48).

B. The Origin of the Typology Adam/Christ.

As regards the origin of the idea, assumed to be familiar in this argumentation,
that Adam is the prototype and antitype of Christ, we may first maintain that,
although the designation of Adam as juxa D7X or 2212727 'N (in distinction from
the appellative a7x = man) is current in later Rabbinic literature, we never find
the Redeemer described as the last Adam. Yet though the term does not occur,
there are certain material similarities between the Pauline conception of the last
Adam and Jewish ideas. In both Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaism we find traces
of an Eastern redeemer myth which finds in the first man partly the redeemer
himself and partly a type of the reedemer (- ulos tou dvopinou). Points which
call for particular notice are a. the very widespread notion in Judaism in the NT
period that the first man was an ideal man, together with the doctrine of the

8 On this conclusion from the easier to the harder (a minori ad maius), very common in
Rabbinic exposition, cf. Str.-B., III, 223 ff., IV, 1255 (Index).
A similar conclusion is found in 1 C. 6:16 f. on LXX Gn. 2:21.
10 And not, of course, the creation of the last Adam (-> 143), since the last Adam comes
first (Col. 1:15).
Str. B., III, 477 f.
'Abou

restitution by the Messiah of the glory which he lost at the fall; 12 and b. the
doctrine of the pre-existent Messiah *17: 12, which resulted from a fusion of
Messianic expectation with the doctrine the first man as redeemer (-> utoc tou
avepirou).
Both theologoumena were known to Paul, and related by him to Christ. As
regards the former idea of the first man as ideal, Philo used this also to explain
the two Genesis accounts of the creation of man (Gn. 1:27; 2:7). As he sees it.
in Gn. 1:27 we are told of the creation of ideal man in God's image = the Logos),
and in 2:7 of the creation of Adam. 13 In similar fashion Paul finds in Christ the
divine image (Col. 1:15, cf. Gn. 1:27), while he refers 2:7, like Philo, to the crea-
tion of Adam. He also agrees with Philo as to the priority of the heavenly man
(Col. 1:15 : 1pOT6t0KOC Toons KtioEwc); the statement in 1 C. 15:46: & X' ou
Ttpotov to TIVE LATIKOV & Ad To YuXiKov, ETElTa TO TVEULATIKOV, does not
mean that Adam was created prior to Christ, but with odua as the subject,
cf. 1 C. 15:44b is really dealing with the bodily nature of the Christian, who
first bears the physical body and will then receive the spiritual at the parousia.
The main difference between Paul and Philo arises in relation to the eschatologi-
cal role of the firstborn heavenly man which also underlies the Pauline phrase
foyatos 'Abdu. This eschatological interpretation of the heavenly man in Paul is
explained by the fact that in the light of Jesus' own description of Himself as
> bloc tou av0ponou Paul finds in Jesus the pre-existent Messiah bar nasha.
Now it is true that in preaching to Gentiles and Gentile Christians Paul avoids this
misleading expression, preferring to render the substance of bar nasha by o av-
OpGTOs (R. 5:15; C. 15:21; Eph. 5:31 f.; cf. 1 Tm. 2:5). Nevertheless, there can
be no doubt that he knew the self-description of Jesus, as appears plainly in his
Messianic interpretation of Psalm in C. 15:27.
With his Adam/Christ antithesis Paul expresses the same thought as underlies
Jesus' self-description as bar nasha, namely, that Jesus is the firstborn of the new
creation of God. As Adam stands at the head of the aldv oftos as the first man,
so the risen Christ stands at the head of the alov uÉwv as the Initiator of the
perfect redeemed creation of God 14 (- alov).
J. Jeremias

12 Vit. Ad.; Sl. En., Bonwetsch 30, 12 f. etc.; B. Murmelstein, op. cit., 225-258; 271-275;
Bousset-Gressm., 352 ff.; Str.-B., I, 19, 801 f.; II, 173 f.; III, 247, 325, 478, 851; IV, 181, 405,
667 f., 887 f., 940 f., 943, 946 f., 1126 (Adam as ideal man); III, 10 (Adam as the first to
be awakened by the Messiah).
13 Philo Op. Mund., 134 : Buapopa TauusyÉOns tori TOU TE vov (Gn. 2:7) TAao0Év-
toc avipoou Kal tou Katd Thy ElKova OEOU yEyOVoToC Ttp6TEpOV (Gn. 1:27). Leg.
All., I, 31 ff. Conf. Ling., 146 : cpxn xal 8voua 8eou kai Aoyoc kai 8 KaT' ElKova
avepwntoc • tpooayopeietal o mparbyovo; autoi royc)
14 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 53-57.
 doEAg6s

a5Elo6s, X5EAOH, ASEAP6INS, PIA&BEAPOS,

oilabe pia, WEU6&BEAPOC

In the NT &deloos and &oelph denote either "physical brotherhood" in the

strict sense or more generally the "spiritual brotherhood" of Israelites or Christians:
the derivatives and compounds GOEAD6TNS, DIAGOEAOOS, OILGOEADIA, WEUS&8-
pos bring out the figurative significance of the basic term.

1. Physical Brotherhood.
References are found to the physical brothers of the patriarch Judah in Mt. 1:2, of
Joseph in Ac. 7:13, of Jechoniah in Mt. 1:11, and of Herod in Lk. 3:1 and Mk. 6:17 and
par. Among the disciples Simon and Andrew are also blood relations in this sense
(Mk. 1:16 and par. = Jn. 1:41 f.; Mt. 10:2), as are also the sons of Zebedee James and
John (Mk. 1:19 and par.; 3:17 and par.; 5:37; 10:35 and par.; Mt. 17:1; Ac. 12:2). The
sisters Mary and Martha (Lk. 10:39 f.; Jn. 11:1 £.) have a brother Lazarus (Jn. 11:2 ff.).
There is also mention, though no name is given, of a son of Paul's sister (Ac. 23:16),
and Nereus and his sister appear in the list of those greeted in R. 16:15.
goEAoof of Jesus are mentioned in Mk. 3:31 ff. and par.; In. 2:12; 7:3, 5, 10; Ac. 1:14;
C. 9:5; 1 Gl. 1:19, names being given in Mk. 6:3 and par. doEAoal are also referred
to in Mk. 3:32; 3 6:3 and par.; aoeAon this untpos autoi, Jn. 19:25.4 On account
of the perpetual virginity the older Catholic Church would not allow that these were

&8EA06C K TA. Ltzm. R. on 1:13; Reitzenstein Poim., 154; A. Dieterich, Mithras-

liturgiea (1923),
benam, Zur 149
Gesch. f.; G. Wissowa,
u. Organisation des Religion und Kultus(1890),
rom. Vereinswesens der Romer2
185; F. (1912), 561; W. Lie-
Poland, Ge-
schichte des griech. Vereinswesens (1909), 54 f.; Deisman B., 82 f., 140; Nageli, 38;
W. Otto, Priester und Tempel, I (1905), 142, n. 3; A. D. Nock, "The Historical Importance
of Cult-Associations," Class. Rev., 38 (1924), 105 ; H. Sedlaczek, "oiladelola nach den
Schriften des hl. Apostels Paulus," Theol. Quart., 76 (1897), 272-295.
Mr oUk Eyouev LEovolav delonv yuvaika TEPI&YELV, OC kal of AolTol &TtoaTO-
lot kal ol &oeApol tou kuplou kal Knoac; to interpret &ogldol ToU kuplou in the
more general sense of "brothers in the Lord" is excluded both by the linguistic form and
the material context, though this view has been championed by those who would deny the
historicity of Christ, e.g., A. Drews, Christusmythe, II (1911), 125 ff. In any case, brothers
in the Lord or in Christ is not really a NT formula: in Phil. 1:14 the Ev kuplo belongs to
TETTOL(6TaC (cf. Gl. 5:10; Phil. 2:24; 2 Th. 3:4), and in Col. 1:2 Ev Xpot6 is to be linked
with dylois kat noroic (cf. 1 C. 1:2; 4:17; Eph. 1:1).
The names are '1akwBos, 'lwons, Zluov, 'loudac; the first two are the sons of
another Mary (cf. the Comm.), James being distinguished as "the Less.' We meet the first
two names again in Mk. 15:40 (47) and par. In Mt. 13:55 "'lwoho is better attested as a
variant of Twons, and it has penetrated into the secondary texts of Mk. 6:3; 15:40, 47;
Mt. 27:56, 2019 is simply a short form of noir, Both forms are common in Rabbinical writings
and seem to be used without distinction of one and the same person. In Mt. 13:55 alone
"1wowns also appears as a variant of 'lwons, an unhappy conjecture possibly based on
Jn. 19:26. Jude calls himself X8EAOOC 'IaK OBOU in Jd.1, and James is called &8EAdoc
toU Eyouevou Xplotoi in Josephus Ant., 20, 200. On historical and extracanonical tradi-
tion, n. 5.
In Mk. 3:32 kal al a6E/oal GOU is not found in the Alex. and Caes. texts, nor in
Mt. 12:47, which is no part of the original text; Lk. 8:20; Mk. 3:31 and par. The words are
an addition on the basis of delon in Mk. 3:35; Mt. 12:50 (as against Lk. 8:21).
On the problem of the identification of the different designations of the women under
the cross, cf. the Comm.; Bibl. n. 5.
A6EAQ6C

brothers and sisters in the full sense, arguing that they were elther children of Joseph
by a previous marriage or cousins.
Further references to physical brothers may be seen in the question of the Sadducees
as to marriage in the resurrection (Mk. 12:19 f. and par.), the parable of the Prodigal
Son (Lk. 15:27,32), the parable of Dives and Lazarus (Lk. 16:28), the story of the
disputed inheritance (Lk. 12:13), the saying about hating brothers and sisters for Jesus'
sake (Mk. 10:29 f. and par.; Lk. 14:26), and the sayings about the betrayal of brother
by brother (Mk. 13:12 f.) and the inviting of guests (Lk. 14:12).

2. Spiritual Brotherhood.
In a more general sense &8EAo6c in the NT denotes "fellow-Christians" or
"Christian brothers." Many instances may be given from all parts of the NT;
there are some 30 in Acts and 130 in Paul. The usage plainly derives from
Jewish religious custom. The old Israelite lament Mx in (Jer. 22:18) seems to
contain a regular spontaneous address to fellow-Israelites. In Judaism, too, &8EA-
o6c means a co-religionist, who historically is identical with a compatriot. Yet the
latter as such is also called 15 = Anolov, and in Rabbinic writings this is some-
times explicitly distinguished from nx a6EA06c. $ There can be no doubt, how-
ever, that goEAo6s is one of the religious titles of the people of Israel taken over
by the Christian community.
The Jewish usage is itself attested in the NT, not merely in OT quotations
(Ac. 3:22; 7:37; Hb. 2:12; 7:5), but also directly (Mt. 5:22 f., 47; 7:3 ff. and par.;
18:15 ff. and par.; Ac. 7:23 ff.; R. 9:3; Hb.7:5).7 In accordance with this the
apostles, like the synagogue preachers, address Jews as a6E/ool in Acts (2:29;
3:17; 7:2; 13:15, 26, 38; 22:1; 23:1 ff.; 28:17; cf. R.9:3), and are themselves ad-
dressed in the same way (2:37); the usual form &vopes a8e DOI is a rendering of
the Jewish 12708.8 In Mk. 3:33 ff. and par.; Mt. 25:40; 28:10; Jn. 20:17 Jesus calls
His hearers or disciples His brethren, and He also uses the same term to describe
the relations of the disciples to one another (Mt. 23:8; Lk. 22:32). As an address
aEAp6c does not, of course, occur on the lips of Jesus, and it may be asked
whether there is some significance in this. Christians are certainly to see them-
selves as His brethren or people (R. 8:29; Hb. 2:11 ff.).9 The specific relationship
of brothers is that of love (1 Jn. 2 f.). yaunt6s or nyanuévos is thus the most
common name for them, though occasionally we have iot6c (Col. 4:9; 1 Tm. 6:2;

5 Cf. T. Zahn, "Brider und Vettern Jesu,' Forschungen, VI (1900), 225 ff.; W. Bauer,
Das Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der nt.lichen Apokryphen (1909), 7 f.; A. Meyer, in E. Hen-
necke, Nt.liche Apokryphen,2 (1924), 103 ff. On official Roman Catholic doctrine, which
maintains the virginity of Joseph too, and therefore regards the brethren as cousins of Jesus,
cf. J. Pohle, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, II6 (1915), 287 ff.; A. Schafer, Die Gottesmutter in der
Heiligen Schrife (1900), 79 ff.
6 S. Dt., 15, 2 § 112, 97b; Dt.r., 6, 203c; cf. Str.-B., I, 276.
7 The Heb. equivalent for doeAp6s in each sense is always AN. In Gn. 43:33 and Jer. 31
(38) :34 the LXX has &8E/o6s for g. The meaning is physical brethren (i.e., the sons of
Jacob). In Jer. 31 (38):34 1722 is equated with the I* which follows immediately, but there
are variants in this passage (rto^lins, TAnolov, v. Swete). In 2 Ch. 35:14, where we have
&8E/o6c for 77.5 we may have a variant, an error, or perhaps even a free translation
according to the sense.
Cf. the instances given in Str.-B., II, 766.
9 On the other hand, the later usage "brothers in the Lord" rests on an understanding of
Phil. 1:14 which is to be rejected; > n. 1.
 d6EAo6c - gone

Pt. 5:12), &yioc (only in Hb. 3:1), or the two together (Col.1:2). Paul refers
sharply to an Evoua(6UEVOC GOEAO6C in C. 5:11.1
According to instances found in Josephus Bell., 2, 122, the more general sense
of doeAo6c is also found among the Essenes ; indeed, it was common outside the
Jewish and Christian world. Plato uses it for compatriots : ñusis 8É Kai of nue-
TEPOI, HIOS UNTPOS TOVTES a5EApol DUVtEC (Menex., 239a); Xenophon for
friends : UTtloXvouuevoc FE pIAG xpñoeo0a1 Kal doE1OS (An., VII, 2, 25);
&OEADOUS YE Tornoouai . . . kotVVOuC aTdt@V (38); Plotinus calls all the things
in the world &8eApol (Enn., II, 9, 18, p. 211, 7 ff., Volckmann). It is often used for
members of a religious society, both in the papyri and inscriptions and also in
literature : e.g., Vett. Val., IV, 11, p. 172, 31: OPKI(W OE, GOEADE HOU TIHIOTATE,
kai touc uuataywyouuÉvouc Ev anoxpupous tauta ouvmpijoai kal tan
uETadoUvaI TOiG ATtaLdEUToIC.
The general meaning underlies the compounds OLA&SEADOS (in the NT only in
Pt. 3:8), 11 and puladelola (R. 12:10; 1 Th. 4:9; Hb. 13:1; 1 Pt. 1:22; 2 Pt. 1:7), 12
as also YEU8&6EApoc (2C. 11:26; G1. 2:4). From this there also derives the de-
signation &oeA@oins for the Christian brotherhood in the concrete sense of denot-
ing the goE pol (1 Pt. 2:17; 5:9). The same term appears in the LXX in the
primary sense of physical relationship (so 4 Macc. 9:23; 10:3,15; 13:19,27), but
also in that of the brotherhood established by covenant fellowship (1 Macc. 12:10,
17). d6Elo6ms in the sense of brotherly disposition also occurs in the lists of
virtues. 13 There are no examples of this more general use of olAade/pia and
DIA&OE DO outside Christian writings.
In a weakened form the biblical usage is taken over by the Church ; cf. among many
examples Luc. Mort. Peregr., 13 : 6 vou00Éis 8 TEPOTOS ETEIOEV AUTOUC (sc. TOUC
Xpiatiavouc), oc ABEADOL TOVTEC ELEV & Anov. It is worth noting that it sometimes
acquires an ascetic significance: in Cl. Al. Strom., VI, 12, 100, 3 the yuvn is, for the
YVoatlK6G, &8EAoH ueto thy taibo ollav TOTE U6VOV TOU &vopoc avautuvn-
aKouevn, omnvika av TOiC TEKVOIC "poop.e™n; then in Greg. Nyss. Virg., 23 we
read: yuva el aUVOLKOUVTE Kai dOEAQ6TNTa Th tolaumv auuftoat ovoua-
gOvtEC. In Palladius Hist. Laus., 43, 2, D. 130, 10, Butler, etc. all the monastic brethren
are called &6eAo6rns.
von Soden

aons (= &ucoos).

A. g6ns in Later Judaism.

In the LXX gons is almost always a rendering of hixw. In the OT this signifies
the dark (Job 10:21 f.) "realm of the dead" which is set beneath the ocean (26:5)
and which consigns all men indiscriminately (Ps. 89:49) behind its portals to an

10 In a few cases the attestation is uncertain. In R. 15:15; 1 C. 15:31; Eph. 6:10 more or
less reliable authorities leave out the address &osAool; in C.7:14 &v8pl for &8EA06 is
doubtless a secondary correction (in accordance with 14a).
11 Cf. also the LXX 2 Macc. 15:14; 4 Macc. 13:21; 15:10; and again Sophocles, Xenophon,
Plutarch. Cf. too the epithet Qui&8eAooc ascribed to Ptolemy II.
Thus also 4 Macc. 13:23 26; 14:1.
13 Hermes m., 8, 10; Vett. Val., I, 1, p. 2, 28; 4, 5.
98 n.S. Str.-B., IV, 1016-1029; G. Dalman, in RES VII, 295 ff.: G. Beer, "Der biblische
Hades," in Theol. Abhandlungen fur H.J. Holtzmann (1902), 3-29; Schurer, II, 639-613;
 gonc

eternal (Job 7:9 f.; 16:22; Qoh. 12:5) shadowy existence (Is. 14:9), cf. 38:10; Job
38:17. This OThixn idea is in essential agreement with the conception of the future
world found in popular Babylonian belief.
After the Exile this notion went through a sequence of incisive changes. 1
a. Belief in the resurrection> dvaatadic) resulted in a temporal limitation of the
sojourn in the underworld for the souls of those to be resurrected, ⅜ the earliest
instance of this being seen in Is. 26:19. b. Then under the influence of Persian and
Hellenistic ideas concerning retribution after death the belief arose that the
righteous and the godless would have very different fates, and we thus have the
development of the idea of spatial separation in the underworld, the first instance
being found in Eth. Enoch, 22. According to Jos. Ant., 18, 14 the Pharisees held
this view. c. The penetration into Palestine, through the mediation of the Diaspora,
of the belief in immortality 4 led to the idea that the souls of the righteous proceed
at once to heavenly felicity after death, there to await their resurrection (=> rtap&-
BEloos). In consequence the term gons/bixt came to be used only of the "place
of punishment" for ungodly souls in the underworld.
This third development was still taking place in the time of Jesus, as may be
seen from the fact that Jesus Himself knows the second conception according to
which the souls of the righteous are in the underworld as well as those of the
ungodly (Lk. 16:23, 26), 5 and yet is also familiar with the third conception now
in process of penetration, namely, that the souls of the righteous are in Paradise
(Lk. 16:9; 23:43). A similar conjunction is to be found in Josephus, who tells uS
that the Pharisees locate the souls of both the righteous and the ungodly in Hades
(Ant., 18, 14; Bell., 2, 163), and yet who also, himself a Pharisee, espouses the
modern view that the souls of the righteous live in the heavenly world until the
resurrection, and only the souls of the ungodly are to be found in Hades (Bell.,
3, 375). To this co-existence of two conceptions of Hades in the time of the NT
there corresponds a twofold use of the word gonsixt. On the one side, in ac-
cordance with the older view, it denotes the whole sphere of the dead; 6 on the
other, it denotes only the temporary sojourn of the souls of the ungodly.7
In respect of the duration of this sojourn, there can be no doubt that it was
originally thought to be everlasting ( n. 2). Independently of the changes in the
conception of Hades mentioned, this view lived on where only a partial doctrine of
the resurrection was taught. 8 On the other hand, where a general resurrection

Stade-Bertholet, Biblische Theologie des AT, II (1911), 397 f.; A. v. Harnack, "Der Spruch
uber Petrus als den Felsen der Kirche," in SAB, 32 (1918), 638-641; W. Bousset, Kyrios
Christos2 (1921), 26-33; H. Meusel, "Zur paulinischen Eschatologie" in NKZ, 34 (1923),
689-701; A. v. Gall, BaGLEIA TOU HEOU (1926), 348-351; Bousset-Gressm., 293 ff.; Joach.
Jeremias, Golgotha (1926), 70-77; Wnd. Pt., 71 f. Cf. also under n. 17.
A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte des Alten Orients* (1930), 67.
2 Str.-B., IV, 1016 f.
3 On the two views of the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of all the
dead * avaaTaoIs.
Str.-B., IV, 1017, 1020-1022.
5 [bid., 1019 f.
8 Eth. En. 22:1-14; 51:1; 102:5; 103:7; 2 Macc. 6:23; the Pharisees acc. to Jos. Ant.,
18, 14; Bell., 2, 163; 4 Esr. 4:41; 7:32; Syr. Bar., 11, 6; 21, 23.
7 Eth. En. 63:10; Ps. Sol. 14:6; 15:11; Wis. 2:1; 17:14 (21); Philo Som., I, 151; SI. En.
10; 40:12-42:2;: Jos. Bell., 3, 375; Gr. Bar.,
E.g., the whole of the apocal. and pseudepigr. literature except in the passages mentioned
in n. 9; the Pharisees according to Jos. Ant., 18, 14; Bell., 2, 163; and in part the older
Tannaites, cf. Str.-B. IV, 1166, 1182 ff.; W. Bacher, Die Agada der Tannaiten⅔ (1903),
133 ff.
 gons

was expected, the stay in Hades was thought to be limited in time, as everywhere
in the NT.
The fact that there were these different views as to which souls are in Hades,
and for how long, meant that there were great variations on this question in the
Judaism of NT days.

B. aons in the NT.

1. The Link with Judaism.
The NT conception of Hades is closely linked with that of later Judaism. This
comes out most clearly in Lk. 16:19-31, for here a conception of the time underlies
the whole parable, 10 and even in detail, as a comparison with Eth. En., 22 reveals,
the depiction of Hades corresponds to the average popular view.11 This link with
Judaism means that certain ideas of Hades are common to the whole of the NT.
a. The notion of a soul-sleep is just as foreign to the NT as to Judaism; the
image of the sleep is introduced (Mk. 5:39 and par.; 1 Th. 5:10; Jn. 11:11-12 etc.
KolL&~) simply as an euphemistic description of death. The SOul is certainly
separated from the body in death, but it experiences temporary retribution in the
time between death and the resurrection. When the NT refers to Hades, the
reference is to the abode of souls loosed from their bodies (cf. Ac. 2:26 f., 31).
b. The NT is also in agreement that Hades lies at the heart of the earth. In
contrast to heaven as the highest height it signifies the deepest depth (Mt. 11:23;
Lk. 10:15); it is the heart of the earth (Mt. 12:40); one goes down into it (Mt.
11:23; Lk. 10:15; cf. R. 10:7); it is called oularn as the underground (cf. Rev. 20:7
and 20:2 f.) prison of the souls of the ungodly (1 Pt. 3:19). The image of the
TUAal goou (Mt. 16:18; cf. Is. 38:10; Ps. Sol. 16:2; Wis. 16:13; 3 Macc. 5:51; 11
and cf. also the "keys of Hades" in Rev. 1:18 KAeic) is to be understood in
terms of the ancient oriental and biblical cosmology according to which the under-
world, located in the hollow earth, is enclosed by sacred cliffs. 13 c. Finally, the
NT agrees that the stay in Hades is limited, as may be seen from the sharp
distinction between qons and yéewa. Throughout the NT Hades serves only an
interim purpose. It receives souls after death, 14 and delivers them up again at the
resurrection (Rev. 20:13). The resurrection constitutes its end (20:14), and it is
replaced by yÉevva (19:20; 20:10, 14 f.: Aluvn tou Tupos) as the final place of
punishment.
On the other hand, in another respect we seem to have a double view in the
NT. In Ac. 2:27, 31 gonc seems to be thought of as a place of assembly for all
souls, and in Lk. 16:23 (cf. 26) all the dead are pictured as in the underworld,
though Hades itself is used only of the place of punishment of the wicked. Yet
there are other passages according to which only the souls of the ungodly are in
the underworld (1 Pt. 3:19), whereas the righteous are in "everlasting habitations"

9 E.g., the images used in Eth. En. 51:1 f.; Test. Benj. 10; Sib., IV, 178-190; 4 Esr. 5:45;
7:32 Ef.; Syr. Bar. 50:2-51:3; Apc. Mos. 13, 41; and in part the older Tannaites, cf. Str.-B.,
IV, 1172 ff.; Bacher, op. cit., 133 ff.
10 H. Gressmann, "Vom reichen Mann und armen Lazarus," SBA, 32 (1918).
11 Str.-B., IV, 1019 f.
12 For Rabbinic parallels, v. Str.-B., III, 790; IV, 1087, 1089 f.
18 Joachim Jeremias, Golgotha, 68-77, 87
14 Lk. 16:23; hence Rev. 1:18; 6:8; C. 15:55, together with lavatos in a variant reading.
 gons - GoLKOC

(Lk. 16:9), in Paradise (23:43), with the Lord (2 C. 5:8), united with Christ
(Phil. 1:23), in the heavenly Jerusalem (Hb. 12:22), under the heavenly altar
(Rev. 6:9, with reference to the souls of martyrs), and before the throne of God
(Rev. 7:9 referring to martyrs and 14:3 to the unspotted). To this twofold con-
ception, analogous to that found in Judaism of the NT period (- 147), there
corresponds the twofold use of Jons in the NT. In some cases the term denotes
the place of all the souls of the dead until the resurrection (Ac. 2:27, 31), whereas
in others it denotes the place only of the souls of the ungodly (Lk. 16:23) or non-
Christians (Rev. 20:13 f.).15
2. The Early Christian Reconstruction.
If the detailed conception of Hades in the NT is closely linked with con-
temporary views, these are basically altered by faith in Jesus and His resurrection.
Two points are to be underlined.
In virtue of the promise of Jesus His community knows that it is secure from
the powers of Hades (Mt. 16:18) because by faith in Him it has access to the
kingdom of God (16:19 ; KAeic).16 In particular it knows that its dead are not
in Hades, but in the presence of Jesus. This certainty, first declared in the saying
to the dying thief on the cross (Lk. 23:43 : HeT' <uoo), is most sharply expressed
by Paul in the phrase owv XpLOT Elva (Phil. 1:23).
The Christian community also knows, however, that Jesus is the Lord of Hades.
This certainty, which has its roots in the preaching of Jesus (Mt. 16:18) and in
faith in His resurrection (Ac. 2:31), is expressed in the doctrine of the descent to
Hades 17 in the time between the death of Christ and His resurrection. This theolo-
goumenon has points of contact with one aspect of ancient redeemer-mythology.
Analogies may be found in Babylon (the descent of Ishtar), in Greece (descents
in the mysteries), and among the Mandaeans (the descent of Hibil-Ziwa).18 But
there are two distinctive points in the NT, first, that Christ preached the Gospel
to the souls in Hades (1 Pt. 3:19 ff.; 4:6), and second, that He has the keys of
death and Hades (Rev. 1:18), in which there is reference to the preceding over-
throw of the powers of death in conflict.
Joachim Jeremias

d6 AKpItos pivo.
a6iKoc, doixia,
&6IKEw, doixnua

A61Koc.
A. The Development of the Concept &5ixoc.
1. The X8lkoc is the "violator of law" in the widest sense. This is shown by the
definition of Aristot. Eth. Nic., V, 2, p. 1129a, 32 ff. : SOKE 8É 8 TE itapavouoc &8Ikoc

15 The dead who belong to Christ are resurrected already at the beginning of the
millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:4-5).
16 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 63.
17 W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), 26-31; Wnd. Pt., 71 f. (For bibliography of the
descent to Hades, v. Pr.-Bauer, 1081 f.; Wnd. Pt., ad loc.)
18 Wnd. Pt., ad loc.
&8IKOS. E. Riggenbach, "Zur Exegese und Textkritik zweier Gleichnisse Jesu" in
 a01Koc

elval kal 6 TAEOVEKTNS Kal avioos, dOTE onlov 8tl kal 6 alkaloc Eatal 8 TE
vouluos kal 6 loog. The definition of Xenoph. Mem., IV, 4, 13 is along the same
lines & LEV apa vouuos 8lkaloc forlv, 8 8t &vouoc &81koc. Cf. also Hdt., VI,
137: ElTE BKalos ElTE &8(Kwc iure an iniuria, and also Phil. Vit. Mos., I, 45 and
the prayer for vengeance of Rheneia. 1 Similarly Plut. Apophth. Lac. Ag. Ult. (II, 216d)
sets rapavouwc alongside &8(ko©. What is in view, as in the case of * 8( KaL0s, is
the relationship to law and rule and custom. To &8IKoy is not merely that which is unjust
in the general sense (Jos. Bell., I, 215)., nor that which is inimical (Jos. Ant., 5, 55), but
more exactly that which is against law (Epict. Diss., I, 29, 17; II, 2, 9) and rule (Epict.
Diss., II, 10, 26), i.e., that which comes up against the E0og. The opposition to custom is
expressly stated in Epict. Diss., I, 6, 32 : &51Kol TIVEC ave portot kal Inpiobeic,
where &8tkoc also means that which is uncivilised.
A distinction is made between what is against custom and what is impious, e.g.. in
Xenoph. Cyr., VIII, 8, 5: To dOEBEC kal to a8lKov; Hist. Graec., II, 3, 53 : nepl av-
{porous aolkotatol, alAd kal TEpI GEouG doEBÉotatol; Ap., 22: TrEpI GEO0G
do Broa TEpI dviponous adiKoc pavivai. The differentiations in these passages
show that X8ikoc can imply the iolation of what is socially right as distinct from
what is religious. Cf. also the distinction in Xenoph. Mem., I, 4, 19 : dréXeo0al tov
dvoolay kai &8lkwv kal aloxpov. This distinction discloses the view of the morally
religious this formula is in substance good Greek in Hellenic spiritual life. The
relationship to God is not sovereignly determinative in the field of ethics.
As in the case of SIkaI0s, the rootage of the concept of a8iKoc in the legal world
links the general usage with the biblical. In the LXX, too, aoikos is used as a synonym
for avouos, as in Job 5:22 : &8(kov kai avouav KaTayE/aon, and IE(. 21:3
(Mas. 21:8): &81Kov kai avouov. This grouping is later adopted especially by the
apostolic fathers. 3 Even in Wis. 14:31 it is TapaBacis which characterises the &81Kot.
Similarly in Philo Conf. Ling., 83 : Év Th tov A8IKGV TPAEEWV KOIVGVIG, the aolkol
TP& EELS are unlawful actions, except that in Philo and others we have the concept of
natural law, as in Spec. Leg., IV, 204, where the &8IKoc perversely violates the vouos
DUCEC. In accordance with the doctrine of virtue in the case of Sikai0g, the doctrine
of vices comes to be linked with &81Kos. Together with &opov, axpains, Ax6AXOTOS
and overlothuwv, a8wkos is included in the list of offences in Abr., 103, Sobr., 42,
Gig., 2 etc., and appears as the opposite of * Sikaios.
2. In spite of what has been said, &81koc does sometimes have a religious
connotation. We see this already in Plat. Leg., IV, 716d : 6 8É un adopav avo-
por6s (opp. OEd plA0S) TE kai 81&p0poc kai X81Kog. What &8ikoc implies here
is dissimilarity from God or conflict with Him. Cf. also the religious application
of a8lkoc (synon. goeBhs) in inscriptions as early as the 2nd century B.C.
But these traces cannot in any sense be compared with the basic religious signifi-
cance of the term acquired in the Jewish and Christian sphere under the influence
of the OT. The essential difference from the Greek sphere is that now the main
impulse derives from the strict application of the relationship to God in the
assessment of human conduct. Even where there is an intermingling of Judaism
and Hellenism, this OT influence is palpable. Thus we read in LXX Job 16:12:
TOPE&GKEV yap uE 6 Kupios Els XEipac golkou (a free rendering of 92),
ETi Be doeBEoIv EppupÉv ME, aolKos being synon. with doEBrs. Again, in Sir.

Aus Schrift und Geschichte, Thig. Abh. f. A. Schlatter (1922), 17 ff.; R. Bultmann, ZNW,
27 (1928), 130 f.; BCH (1927), 380, 32 and 36 f.
1 Deissmann LO, 354, 356.
2 The Hebrew text (907? P'7Y) gives no grounds for this.
3 Pr.-Bauer, 27.
4 Deissmann LO, 92.
GoIKoc

10:7 the &81Kov is related both to God and man. The Hellenistic Jews, in spite
of their attachment to Greek ethics, were plainly influenced by this view. In Jos.
Ant., 8, 251 &8ikoc and doeBns are synonyms. Again, in Ant., 10, 83 : (Jehoiakim)
Thy pool &81KOC kal karoupyoc Kal urte ipoc leov Soios unte "poc avopo-
TOUG ETTLELKNS, &81KOg in conjunction with kako0pyoc is a title for B010c (against
God) and éTlelKnS (against men). We do, of course, have a similar equation of
6010v, &voalov with &81kov, 8ikaiov, e.g., in Epict. Diss., I, 29, 54. Philo relates
a8lKoc and doEBés in Spec. Leg., III, 209, and the two in the superlative in Rer.
Div. Her., 90. The strongest religious significance is found in Conf. Ling., 129:
nothing is GOLK OTEDOV than uetakAl0ñval Starvolav aTo the Tou OEOD tuns.
The same basic outlook is found in Vit. Mos., II, 107: the Ovolal of the a81koc
are ineffective. Even in Wisdom we find the same wholly religious use. The
&8Ikol are not subject to the Creator like the Krious innpEToioa (16:24); they
are Év copoouvn goñis (12:23) and their race will come to a bad end (3:19).

B. The Special Use of a6tKos, especially in the NT.

The more forceful the influence of the OT, the more clearly the &8lKoc is the
violator of divine law. That this fundamental view is adopted by the NT may be
seen quite clearly from the fact (1) that the NT use is determined in the first
instance by the OT antithesis of righteous and ungodly.
To be sure, we can see from Epict. Diss., II, 11, 5; III, 1, 8, that this is to some extent
a common Greek view, though not with the religious concentration referred to under
n. 2. In the LXX a8ikoc often stands for yon the ungodly or transgressor, as in
Ex. 23:1; Is. 57:20; Sir. 40:13. Josephus, too, has the antithesis Sikaloc/&olKos in Bell.,
2, 139; 5, 407; and also Philo in Abr., 33 etc.
In the NT the antithesis o{kalol (0*2972) and do1ko (anyo)) is to be found in
Mt. 5:45 : BpÉxel Érti Sikalous kai &8(KOUg, cf. LXX and ^ passages listed under
alkalos. We might also refer to Ac. 24:15 : &vaataalv Sikalov TE kai &81K∞V,
cf. again &lkaloc, where the relationship to Lk. 14:14 is discussed. In the oxymoron
in 1 C. 6:1: Kpiveo@aL ini tov &8lkov kai odyi éni tov dylov, the Gentiles are
described in this way because as despisers of the divine law they cannot be ex-
pected to do justice. In 1 C. 6:9 : &81kou (eod Baoielav oi kAnpovounoouatv,
the word means servants of iniquity or ungodly. The reference back to &8LKEITE in
6:8, and the contrast to the 0Eo0 which follows, give it its distinctive flavour in this
verse. It is hardly a satisfactory explanation to say that the doctrine of justification
is here left out of account in a return to the Synoptic preaching of repentance ; 6
we are rather brought up against the whole problem raised by the presence both
of justification and of thoughts of judgment (- 81ka10ouvn). In 1Pt. 3:18 we
read of Christ : ATElaveV Elkaloc UTTEP &8{Kov. Here the thought of the sub-
stitution of Christ controls the schema 8lkaloc/aolKos. We may also refer to
2 Pt. 2:9 : ot8EV KUpIOC EDGEBEIC EK TEIPXOYOU DUED0, ABI 8É Elc juÉporv
plosg Kolatouevoug mpeiv. Here the dolKot, in contrast to the EDGEBEIC,
denote the world which persists in wickedness and is ripe for the day of judgment
(-* also n. 2).
It is also plain (2) that a8LKoC means "unjust" in the specific sense, especially
with reference to rulers and judges, and in the negative to God. In Ps. Sol. 17:24

K., 146; Ltzm. ad loc.

K., 153.
 aoLKoc

it is said of the Messiah: €pauaal &pyovias A6(KOUG. In R. 3:5 we read: un

golKoc 6 (eoc 6 EntIpÉpov thy opynv; the suggestion that God falls short of
the norm of righteousness is repudiated. Similarly Hb. 6:10 : of yap aolkoc 6
Geoc £ iAa0Éa0al tot Epyou buov, emphasises that God will not be found
wanting in His judicial righteousness, which recognises the labour of love.
Some other specific meanings may be mentioned. Thus it denotes "deceivers" in
Sir. 19:25 : foriv navoupyla axpiBns kal aum &8iKos, cf. Epict. Diss., I
III, 17, 2; IV, 1, 2; "calumniators" in Sir. 51:6 : BarEi SiaBoln yAwoons d8(kou;
"unusable" (e.g., servants or horses etc.) in Xenoph. Cyrop., II, 2, 26; the opp. of
bikaloc in Mem., IV, 4, 5.
In Lk. 16:10 : o Ev flayloto &8IKoc kal zy ToAd aolK6s EoTIV, the q81Koc
is the "dishonest man" who is unfaithful to the trust laid on him, and is thus
contrasted with the jtloros as the one who is reliable or faithful. In the prayer
of the Pharisee in Lk. 18:11 the &8IKol are "hypocrites" in a more specialised
sense.
3. As an attribute of concrete or abstract things, we find &81Koc in the LXX, e.g.
in t 118, 128 : 680c Xoikoc; 118, 104 oboc doilac (for au nai). It is linked with
Eluapuav in Jos. Bell., 1, 628; with gñAos in 1 Cl., 5, 4; with xplois in Pol., 6, 1; with
EnOvula frequently in Jos. Ant., e.g., 1, 16+; 6, 279; 7, 168. apXeLV XELpOv &8ikov
("to mount an attack") is found in Lys., 4, 11; Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 5, 13; Philo Vit. Mos.,
I. 142 and 311. We find reference to unlawful possession in Eur. Fr., 56, Nauck:
&8lkov 6 TAOUTo. Cf. also Sir., 5:8 : xpnuaouv a8[KoIc (720 7021) ; Sir. 31:21: Ovoid-
Lov $8 &8(kou; Eth. En. 63:10: "our soul is satiated with unlawful goods. In Jos.
Ant., 2, 128 we have KÉpooc &8iKov (unlawful gain), as also TAOUto &81KOC in
Isocr., I, 38. Along the same lines, cf. also Philo Spec. Leg., I, 104 : to vouloua kad'
aUto ooK voyov. A rather different use is found in Jos. Ap., 2, 216 : TpaaIc a6lKoG,
signifying dishonesty in business. voun &8lkoc in P. Tebt., 2, 286, 7 (121-38 A.D.)
means unlawfully acquired possession. Many other uses are found in the papyri, e.g.,
unjustifiable, incompetent, incorrect, false etc.
Lk. 16:19 Da has EK Too &8 kou uauova instead of ÉK tou uauova the
&81klas, rather along the lines of Sir. 5:8. In Lk. 16:11 we have the phrase : El ky
TO d6 Ko uauova Ttlotoi OUK ÉYEVEOOE, adj. f. aolkiac, gen. qual. An exact
parallel for the change (cf. supra) may be found in o8oc doikoc or doilas in
t 118:128, cf. also v. 104. The probable contrast here is between solid and illusory
goods, for with the a8IKOS uauovas there is contrasted to dAn@wvov as the true
and essential good. 8
4. On A8 KOC cf. Jos. Ant., 2, 50 : Ttafelv aolkwc (Joseph by Potiphar's wife);
1 Pt. 2:19 : TtaOXGV A8(KOG, opp. Sikaloc TIXOXELV in Test. Sym. 4:3 (- Sikaioc).
5. The neut. To X81kov, Td &8ika, is the opp. of blkaiov. It is frequent in Philo:
Jos., 143; Ebr., 187; Poster. C., 32. It is also found in Epict. Diss., IV, 1, 133 and 163.
The contrast to XAndela is worth noting. 8 In Sir. 27:8-10, it is the opposite of bikalov,
which corresponds to & ñdela. The use of these two words as antonyms is particularly
common in Esr. 3:1-4, 63. The latter term contains a reference to the revelation dis
closed in the Jewish religion. The same antithesis is found in Jos. Ant., 11:55 with its
reference to the superior power of truth Kai undev upoc aimv TO &81Koy Suvd-
UEVOV. In Ant., 11:56 we read: i dAndela Siaxplvouaa an' autov (namely, ta
Slkaia kal ta voutua) To golka Kal dite Éyyouoa.

7 Preisigke Wort., 23 f. 21, 23.

8 E. Riggenbach, Zur Exegese, 130 f.
9 R. Bultmann, ZNW, 27 (1928),
golKla

aikia.
A. g8ikla outside the NT,
1. A81kla signifies (a) in abstracto "unrighteous action" or "unrighteousness" in
general. In Plato Resp., X, 609c &81Kla rovnpla puxis; Polyb., XV, 21,3 : 81d
thy Tov TElac doiKlav; Sir., 7:3 : un OTE pE fr' adlaKas &6iklas. It also signifies
(b) concretely an unjust act or "transgression. The concrete meaning derives from
the plural. 1 We may refer to Plat. Phaed., 82a : TOUg 8É yE ABIKiaS TE Kai tupawi-
Bag kai apmayas upotetlunkoras. The definition of Aristotle in Rhet. Al., 5, p. 1427a,
31 f.: To uev EK TPOVoias KaK6V TI TOLEiv &IKlav TICEL, relates to the concrete
sense and hardly sums up the current usage to the extent that the ÉK itpovoias is not
always in view. Aristotle is followed by Cl. Al. Strom., II, 15, 64, 5 : ctuxia SÉ LOTIV
A AOU ElG LuE TpaEs aKouGlos, n 8e &8tkia uovn EUPIOKETAI EKOUOIOC EITE
Eun ElTE &AoU; 64,3 : &toxnua uev obv napaloyoc totv quaptia, n 8É
quaptia akovaioc aoikla, adikia 8& EKOUGLOG karia. Thus in Sir, 14:9 covet-
ousness is aoikla, or theft in Jos. Ant., 16, 1, or deception in Jos. Ant., 1, 301, or the
wrong treatment of parents in Ap., 2,217 or incest in Ant., 3, 274. The plural is very
common in this respect, with the meaning of "unjust acts" or "transgressions," as in
LXX, Jer., 38:34 : MEGC fooual taic ddiklais aitov ((arig2) quoted in Hb. 8:12),
IwnA 3:19 opn) ; ½ 139:3 : oftLves floyioavto adiklac Év kapoia (niyn). Sir. 17:20 :
OoK Expupnoav ai doiklal aitov or aitot, and also in Philo Conf. Ling., 21:
copoauval kai SeiAlal &kolarial TE kal &8ikial, Migr. Abr., 60 : copoauval kai
aoikial, etc. The term also signifies (c) "injury" or "harm,' as in Test. Sol., 13:4 :
bo0aAuov coiia (var. -(ac), injury to the eyes esp. pap. : ÉT' aikia, to the hurt :
P. Oxy., 9, 1203, 24 (1st century A.D.), or BGU, 4, 1123, 11 (1st century B.C.). 2
2. The content of the word is further defined (a) by the stressing of the element
of "lawlessness" or "transgression.' Thus &8ikia and ovoula are often synonyms,
e.g., in Epict. Diss., II, 16, 44 : Hercules TEPIñEL kalaipov aoiklav kai dvoulav
(cf. III, 26, 32), and also Is. 33:15: uioiv avoulav kai ddiklav (niptun yyaa oxb).
In Sir. 41:18, too, Tepi dvoulac is linked with Epi doikias. We may also refer
to Philo Conf. Ling., 108. The relationship of concepts gives rise to variant read-
ings. Thus in 44:8 we find nyamoas 8ikai0o0nv Kai Éulonoas dowlav (for
ovoulav) in A, and cf. also Hb. 1:9 in N A. Again, in w 88:33 S 1098 LA have
&8iklac for v pop6o avouias (trig): Cf., too, w 6:9 of Epya(ouEVOL Thy dvo-
ulav (7)%), with which we should compare w 13:4 oi Épyagouevou thy adiklav
(1 Macc. 9:23). In Lk. 13:27, where 6:9 is quoted, D Just. Or. have Épyatai
dvoulac. In 2 Macc. 10:12 we have &8ukla as a violation of To 8lkalov. Similarly
Jos. Ant., 8, 314 links doila with rapavoula, and cf. Philo Abr., 242. 3
Further definition is also given (b) by the opposing of aoikia to Sikaloodv.
Cf. Isocr., 8:35 : {EOpI ÉOTEOS h BiKaloouvn tis adikias; Corp. Herm., XIII, 9:
foiKaldinuev doiklas atouos; LXX Dt. 32:4: ook totiv aoikia (313), and
Sikaioc kal baloc kupioc; u 51:5: d81klav (120) OTEp TO Aa ñoa Sikal0oUvnv
(P72), Prv. 11:5 : Stka10o0vn a8ula (nyvn). Prv. 16:8 (LXX 15:29): petd
Sikal0oUvns (777D), LET& A8IKIaC (bAtn N93). Test. D. 6:10: ATOOTNTE &TTO TooNs

&8 kla. E. Riggenbach, Zur Exegese usw. ( under goikoc), 21 ff.; Andronicus
Rhodius (1st century B.C.), De Passione, ed. K. Schuchardt (1883), p. 20, 13 f.; Defin.
p. 30, 6 ff., 14 ff.
1 Cf. Kuhner-Gerth, II, 1 (1898), 17.
2 Moult.-Mill., 10.
8 For the ap. fathers, cf. Pr.-Bauer, 26.
 aikia

aoiklac Kai kol^nente th 81ka10o0vn TOU 0E00 ; and cf. 4Esd. 12:31-33, where
the Messiah in judgment will speak with them de iniustitiis. In Philo, where the
doctrine of virtue is determinative, &8ikla as kakla is set over against otkalo-
ouv as apetn, e.g., in Rer. Div. Her., 162 and 209 ; Gig., 5 ; Op. Mund., 73. We
find the same antithesis in Jos. Ap., 2, 291: a8iklac ty0pol, Bukaioouvns titi-
peAEic. In him, too, apeth is the opposite, as in Bell., 5, 414. a8ikla is also a link
in the chain of offences, being linked with copooonn, axolaola, beiAia, and the
KaKIoV yÉvos in Philo Conf. Ling., 90. Cf. also Rer. Div. Her., 245 ; Op. Mund.,
79 etc. The list often closes with the phrase kal toc glac kaklas. For Philo
in Spec. Leg., II, 204 aviaoms is called i &£ doiklas apyn tE kal Tyn, or in
Rer. Div. Her., 161 &81kla is called i anobmtos tis Exoloms onuioupy6s.
Important also (c) is the opposing of &8ikia to a nOela. In this case dAndela
is usually the antithesis of To X81Kov (to &81Ka), as in 1 Esr. 4:39 (- 152). It
is significant that in the LX.X t in the sense of lying or untruthfulness in speech
is often translated &8ikla, as in w51:5; 118:69 and 163; 143:8 and 11; and even
more often &8lKoc or &6lkwc ( 152) . In Lk. 13:27 &8txia is translated falsehood
in sys.c.
3. We now turn to the express religious use, and here we must first consider (a)
&8inla and coEBeIa. Outside the Bible (-> Sikaloc and X8IKoG, 150) we again
find the separation and distinction between "what is against ethics" and "what is
against religion," &8iKla signifying "unlawful conduct towards men" and doeBeia
the "despising of God." This is seen in Xenoph. Cyrop., VIII, 8, 7: TEpi LEV CEOUC
GOE BELOV, TEpi 8É avepitouc &diKlav. The mutual absorption of the two finds
expression in Prv. 11:5 : goÉBeIa TEpITITTEL &8IKIq. As against this we find in
Jos. Bell., 7, 260 : al TIpOC OEOV &O BEIALI kal al Eis tous nAnolov goikiai,
mere conjunction as in Xenophon. Cf. Jos. Ap., 1, 316, in which Lysimachos gives
laws repl Bedv kal this mpoc avepinous aoiklac. The two words often occur
together in Philo, as in Spec. Leg., I, 215; Deus Imm., 112; Praem. Poen., 105. The
Rabbis compare bipe? D78 ra0 niv2y (sins between man and God) and P30 nip22
inan2 onx (sins between man and his neighbour), as in Yoma, 8, 9 (Str.-B., III, 31).
Yet the Rabbis have only this one word for coéBeia and doikla. For them the
ethical and religious elements are indissolubly linked.
We have also to notice (b) the influence of the OT conception of God on
goiKia, It is a basic note in the OT that &8kla is sin against God. Thus in
Is. 43:24 f. &oukiau (rig) are equated with quaptiau (AxON). The same is true in
Jer. 31:34 (LXX 38:34); 33:8 (LXX 40:8) ; Lam. 4:13; Ez. 28:18. It casts nets
which sinfully entangle, as in Is. 58:6 : A0e Ttavta oUvdE uov aowklas (1h8
yo) niayam) cf. Hos. 13:12 : ouotpoohv doulas (rig 7973). The fact that a8ikla is
the usual translation of ris or "guilt" shows impressively how the term is affected
by the conception of God. Cf. Jer. 2:22; 3:13; 11:10; 13:22 (in all cases rip). This is
not contradicted by statements in which &8ixia - 512 ("dishonesty" or in-
justice"), as in Ez. 18:18, 24; 28:18; 33:13), nor by those in which it is the equiv-
alent of 120 ("'disloyalty" or "unreliability"), as in u 118:29, 101. In Ez. it can
also stand for byn ("apostasy" or "breach of faith, as in 17:20 A; 39:26. And
elsewhere it stands for yo): (Is. 58:6) or y7: (Prv. 8:13). The same basic shade of
meaning is found in Sir. 17:26 : Cleave to the Highest and ATOOTDEDE anto dol-
klas; in 32:5 : drootival dTto &8iklac as a sin-offering; in Bar. 3:8, where
douKla means "apostasy from God." In Josephus, too, this religious sense is
 Goikla

strongly to the forefront in addition to that already mentioned, as in Ant., 1, 45,

where Adam hides from God ouveioig aitd thy adiklav; Ant., 2, 293, where
Egypt and Pharaoh kindle God's wrath by &81Kla; in Ant., 5, 168, where it is
iniquity punished by God ; and in Ant., 11, 103, where the hindering of the building
of the temple is &81kla.
4. Particular note should be taken of the apocalyptic use of the term. The
whole period preceding the final Messianic revelation is viewed as a time of un-
righteousness, as in 4 Esr. 4:51 ff.; En. 48:7, which speaks of this "world of un-
righteousness"; 91:5 ff.; Mk. 16:14 W: o altov ottoc the &voulas. Relevant also
are Corp. Herm., VI, 4: o yap koouos rAnpoua foT ths kaklas; and Jn.
5:19: 6 Koouos 8Aoc Ev TO TOMPO KEiTaI; Dg., 9, 1 f.: to the a81klac ka1po.
The Messiah will then destroy the roots of iniquity, En. 91:8; Ps. Sol. 17:29: ral
OUK AphoEL dEIKiav Év ucow autov; 17:36 : kai ouk foriv adikia tv taic
nuÉpais autot Ev peoo aitov. The phrase urolos tic aoilas (- 156) is
also eschatological.
5. We may refer finally to the Hebraic gen. of definition (Lk. 16:8; 18:6). 5 The
gen. qual. takes the place of the adjective, cf. 2 S.3:34; 7:10 : ulot (-oc) aoikias
(7212-733). Rabbinic parallels to 6 xpiris tis doikias (Lk. 18:6) may be found in
Str.-B., II, 239. On uauovas ths atkiac (Lk. 16:9), 157 and the parallels there
adduced.

B. &8ikia in the NT,

In the NT the word &8kia is first related to basic NT conceptions in Paul,
then in John. The use of the term without the force of inner accentuation in 2 C.
12:13 : xaploao0e 8É Hot Thy adiklav tautV, is exceptional. Here there is
ironic reference to the concrete wrong or unjust action ( 153), or the unjust
nature of the action, that Paul has not burdened the Corinthians with his personal
needs. Otherwise almost all the instances add something to the content of aoikla
(-> A.2).
1. a. It is an antonym to 8ikai0o0vn (- A. 2b). In R. 1:29 &8ikia is put first
in the list of offences as "violation of the divine law and its norm" (TETAnpo-
LÉVouC r&on doikla, tonpla, TAeOVE&iq, kaKia).8 The list itself is a new one.
In similar lists in Philo we hardly ever miss copooumn, nor is golkia so much
emphasised as in the Romans group, where it always comes first in spite of many
textual variants. 7 In R. 9:14 : un A8ikla tapo TO BEG, it is to be thought of as
"legal injustice" or "partiality in judgment," and therefore as the opposite of the
ElKa10o0vn demanded in a judge. In R. 3:5 : El 8€ n goikia juov 0E00 81Ka10-
of/nv ouviomow, it is again opposed to Sikaloolvn, but this time (cf. 3:3) with
special emphasis on the element of unfaithfulness in contrast to the righteousness
of God as His abiding faithfulness in the fulfilment of promise. It is in R. 6:13
however antAa A8lklac/oT a SiKalooUIs that we reach the height of
contrast to the solemn basic concept of the Bukaloolvn 0Eo0. We do not have

Cf. Str.-B., IV, 978 ff., where Rabbinic parallels are given : bSanh., 97a; Midr. Cant.,
2, 13 (101a); Midr. Ps. 92 § 10 etc.
Kihner-Gerth, II, 1 (1898), 264; Moulton, 113; Bl.-Debr., § 165.
On the old Hebrew and Stoic lists, cf. Ltzm. ad loc.
7 Ltzm. ad loc.
8 But cf. Khl. R., 324 f.: "deviation from the norm.
 doikla

here a gen. qual. ® but a gen. auctoris &8ikla and 81ka1000vn as two objective
powers controlling man present their instruments or weapons.
b. It is also the opposite of arhOELa (-> A. 2c). According to Jn. 7:18: 6 Se
entiov thy 86Eav Tou reupavios aitov, oitos ainons fotl kal d81kla ty
aitd oik Éotlv, &8iKla is present when we do not seek God's glory but our own
reputation. Truth on the other hand consists in desiring the glory of the One
who sends. Paul, too, makes great use of this contrast. In 2 Th. 2:10 the aTatn
doiklac to which the groAouevol are subject is contrasted with salvation by
receiving love of the truth. In 2 Th. 2:12 the contrast is between believing the
truth, i.e., the Gospel and delighting in dowkla as wrongdoing. In both cases re-
ception of the Gospel (cAnOela) means a break with a8ikla, In C. 13:6: 08
yalpel tmi th doila, oUyXa[pEL 6É th indela, the antithesis is conceived in
such a way that we see the relation between a\nela and Sikaiooovn ; for
obedience to the truth is dyann, which is the direct opposite of ao1la. Again, in
R. 2:8: ATELBOUOL IN XANDELa TE BOLEVOIS SE TH GoIKIa, &8ikia as transgression
of the divine law is set in emphatic contrast with the truth. Like the truth (cf.
6:13), it is a power which is obeyed. Hence in unrighteousness the truth is sup-
pressed (1:18). Again, in 2 Tm. 2:19: &Ttootto &nto &81klac (a partial quotation
from Is. 26:13), we have the same antithesis (cf. with repl thy alndelav hoto-
xnoav in v. 18), the reference here being to denial of correct doctrine.
2. a. We find again the relationship to dogBela (- A. 3a). In the thesis of
Paul in R.1:18: & toKa UTTEtal yap opyn Deol kri Taoav doaBElav kal
doulav aveponov, which stands at the head of the two sections VV. 19-23 (a
perverted cultus colBeIa) and VV. 24-32 (sexual and social perversion
a81Kla), a distinction is made between them. Yet the context as a whole makes
it evident that &8ukla arises out of the perversion of worship, and already in
TOv Thu alndElav Év aBIKIa KatEXovtov it is clearly stated that the nature
which is against the norm and opposed to the will of God is fundamentally linked
with the suppression of the truth. Thus the statement transcends the distinction
between moral and religious to which we referred earlier ( 150).
b. doikla is also defined as "sin against God" (-* A. 3b). In Ac. 8:23 : oov-
Sequov colKlac (- 154), where the gen. is either poss. or auct., it obviously
casts nets after the manner of sinful enticement. In 1 Jn. 1:9 &81kla is expressly
linked with quaptia as unrighteousness against God. A definition along these
lines is given in 1 Jn. 5:17: T&oa a8ikla quapila torlv. Thus in 3:7 ff. TOLEIV
Thy duaptlav is the opposite of TOLElv Th SiKaloouvnv.
3. The term is also used apocalyptically (- A. 4). In 2 Th. 2:10 mention is
made of the anarn goiklac in depiction of the operation of Antichrist. 10 Here
we again have the Hebraic gen. instead of the adj. (on the relation to a nOELa
- ) B.1b). In Jm. 3:6, though the text is corrupt, the tongue is linked with the
eschatologically conceived Koouoc thc aoulac. 11 Another eschatological concept
is found in Ac. 1:18: poloc tis douklas ("reward of iniquity"). In 2 Pt. 2:13
AiKofuevol ulolov doiKlas 12 means being harmed by the reward "paid for

9 So Khl. R., 210.

10 On the reading tis doiklas, assimilated to Lk. 16:8 f.; 18:6, cf. Dob. Th., 288.
11 A. Meyer, Ratsel d. Jk. (1930), 144, takes xoouoc here to be simply a place of
assembly (Prv. 17:6), but the expression is rather too distinctive, cf. Wnd., ad loc., Hck.
Jk., 160.
12 Br* P arm against KOULODLEVOI &,
dolla - X8IKÉG

unrighteousness" (cf. Rev.2:11: d81xn0n €k).18 The phrase in 2 Pt. 2:15 : 8c

uto0ov doiklac hyanoev (with reference to Balaam) is to be understood in
the same way. 14
4. We find the Hebraic gen. of definition - A. 5.) in Lk. 16:8, where olkovouos
aoikias (for a8ikoc) means a steward who is "guilty of official unfaithfulness"; or
again in 18:6 : xpiins ths doiklas a judge who "perverts justice." Lk. 16:9: ua-
uwvas tis &diklas, 15 raises serious problems. The idea that possessions as such are
necessarily linked with a moral defect 16 is rather a crude conception which is open to
the objection that in dealing with questions of meats and purification Jesus established
the rule that nothing is unclean of itself. The parable certainly describes riches as an
#AdXloTOV (v. 10), as the opposite of a\n0wv6v (v. 11), as an 1otptov (v. 12),
and as not in the true sense nu€tepov. Yet it does not actually characterise possession
as aoikov, even though the particular attitude of Lk. to earthly goods may have
fostered a certain carelessness of expression. The Targums should be especially noted in
this respect. In Tg. Hab. 2:9 we have y7)7 finn "mammon of iniquity" (Str.-B., II, 220).
Again, in Tg.1 S. 12:3 and Tg. Hos. 5:11 we have 1209 rion (usually a rendering of
the Heb. y1> "'dishonest gain"). Hence we might see in the phrase uauvas ths
&8iklac a reference to the tax-gatherers of the time who had amassed their fortunes
by lying and trickery. 17 Such a reference hardly fits the context of Lk. 16, but possibly
a saying originally addressed to the publicans is here given a wider application. On the
other hand, the many different renderings of 70 in the LXX 18 as a8ikia it might
be either lying or deception in speech or unfaithfulness or unreliability (+ 154)
suggest at least the possibility of various meanings in the original Semitic. Thus the
original sense might well be that of possessions which deceive their owner, or which
are illusory and transitory, as in Mk. 4:19: aTratn TOU TA0U Tou. 19

&8LKÉG.
A. &8LKÉO outside the NT.
1. &8lkÉo means to be X8IKOC, "to do wrong in the sense of transgression."
It is found in Arist. Rhet., I, 10, p. 1368b, 6 f.: foto To GOIKEIV TO BAXTTELV
ÉKovta Tapo rov voyov; Rhet. Al., 5, p. 1427a, 36 f.: TO HEV aoLKEiv Elval TOV
rovn piov avipioiov tolov (- &olxnua, 161). It is also common in Herodot.
and the Attic. In the sense of "wrongdoing" it is found in Epict. Diss., II, 10, 28
a8 Knoas, and IV, 1, 167: touc doukouvrac; in Jos. Ant., 2, 26 : oc GOEADOV 086E
A8LK OATA KTEIVELV 8O1OV, Ant., 2, 146 : ot holKnK6tES, and Ant., 4, 297, of un-
just aggression ; and in Philo Vit Mos., I, 54, Gig., 46, and Agric., 92 etc. The pres.
el a6IK6 means "if I am in the wrong.' Cf. LXX Ex. 2:13: AÉyEL To &81-
Ko0vtl. In Plat. Charm., 156a El un a81kd means "if am not mistaken.'

18 Thus correctly Wnd. Pt., 95. Kn. Pt., 298 offers the improbable "spoiled for the re-
ward.'
Grammatically this might also be a gen. auct. (Kn. Pt., 301; Wnd. Pt., 97), or a gen.
qual.: an unrighteous reward.
15 Riggenbach, Zur Exegese etc. (- 149, n.), 21 ff.
16 Zn. Lk., 578. Cf. S. Nu., 119 on 18:20 "Gold and silver take men out of this world
and out of the future world." But cf. also Philo Spec. Leg., I, 104, and 152.
17 Lightfoot, Horae Hebr., I (ed. Carpzov Lips., 1864), p. 843 ff.; A. Merx, Die vier kan.
Evgl., I1, 2 (1905), 327 ff.
18 Riggenbach, 25. apun ripp is obviously the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew 2W 702)
in Sir. 5:8 (xphuaaiv dolkois).
19 Thus already Druslus, Michaelis, Wieseler, and more recently Riggenbach and others.
 do1keo

2. Relationship to God is also envisaged, as in Eur. Phoen., 958 : &6IKEi id

tov OeGv; Xenoph. Mem., I, 1, 1: &8iKEt Zokpoins, OUC LEV A TONIC VOUIGEL
OEOUC ou voulgwv- naturally violating the honour of the gods is also a trans-
gression of national duty.
In the LXX &8uKgiv is unconditionally used for the OT words which denote
"sinning against God." Sometimes it is the rendering of xpn. Thus David in 2 S.
24:17 says 1800 Eyo elul, nolknoa ("xoN). The meaning is religious rather than
legal or social. 1 Or it sometimes stands for byp: as in 2 Ch. 26:16 : ho(KnoEv (2909)
with reference to the offering of Uzziah as a sin against God. Or it may signify
the breach of an oath, as in y43:17 (Mas. 44:17): kal oUK AolKnoquev Ev oiq-
OnKn oou (117p0 Pi). It is often used to translate my, as in Jer. 3:21: The children
of Israel holknoav ev taic ddoic autov (9127). The continuation : "They have
forgotten the Lord their God," shows the Godward reference. We might also
refer to Iep. 9:5 : Israel is unwearying in wrongdoing (ñolknoav, 927). or 3 Bao.
8:47 (= 2 Ch. 6:37), where it is synon. with suaprovelv and ovousiv: quapto-
HEV, polKnoquev, nvounoquev (1130) 9299279 13Non). A changes the order to 1/3/2,
and this suggests that all three Hebrew words might well be rendered &81Keiv.
In this connection note should also be taken of u 105:6 (Mas. 106:6), where we
find the same verbs in the sequence 1/3/2, and 409077 is translated ñowknoquev.
Da. 9:5, however, uses the Hellenistically apprehended ñoeBroquev together with
quaptouav and nolknoquev (1197)) as does also Bar. 2:12.
Josephus follows the usage of the LXX when he employs goLKEly to denote
violation of the Law and disobedience to God. When Zambrias marries a foreign
wife in Ant. 4, 150, this is called an g8IkElv because it is contrary to the Laws
cf, in the same connection 4, 155: &8lKElv TO OEG SOKOUVTES, and also 4, 211.
Saul's disobedience to God (Ant., 6, 151) leads to his admission : &81keiv uo\6-
YEL Kai thy quapriav ouK mpveito. Both views are found in Ant., 20, 44 : rd
LEylota toug vououc Kai bt' autov tOv lEOv &8IKov. Philo, too, links ñolkouv
and quaptavov in Leg. All., II, 68. In Gig., 47 a8lKEiv means sinning against the
God who is close to hand and fills all things, and it results in the departure of the
divine Spirit of wisdom. Philo devotes particular attention to JUVaOIKEiV as the
common transgression of man, as in Decal., 123; Conf. Ling., 9 f.; Ebr., 25. For
him the opposite of golKEiV is SIKaL0TtpayEiv (Ebr. 26; Agric., 123). Within his
teaching on offences (Det. Pot. Ins., 73) &81KEiv is linked with &opov and copo-
ouvn (Deus Imm. 181; Conf. Ling., 119; Sobr., 69). The Sodomites are guilty of
goIKElV, Conf. Ling., 27: foTEIp uEvous colav kai tuplous biavotav. It is
distinctive feature of Philo's ethics that the root of dolkelv is found in a lack of
the sense of decorum and moderation.
3. Also envisaged is relationship to the social sense. In the LXX there is no
cleavage between the social and the religious meaning, though there is a distinction.
In Gn. 42:22 : un &6lKnoaTE tO Tai6xpiov (axonA7x), Ex. 5:16 (the yPaULaTEIC
to Pharaoh): doiKjoglc tov Aaov oou (nxom), lep. 44:18 (Mas. 37:18, Jeremiah to
the king): ti nolknoo OE Kai touc naibac 00U, a8 KEiv takes place towards men,
but is a rendering of ron. Elsewhere in Greek there is not the same interfusion of
the two standpoints; the constant reference to the divine command is specifically
Hebrew. Thus & &81kdv (Jos. Ant., 1, 318; plur. Epict. Diss., II, 20, 23) is for the

c8 KÉW. 1 Thus Cr.-Ko., 339.

GOIKed

most part simply the wrongdoer, the one who is set in the wrong; and &8IKElV
is wrongdoing : Soph. Ant., 1059; Philo Poster. C., 82; Conf. Ling., 25 and 69; Spec.
Leg., II, 11. Sometimes in legal terminology X8lKEiv means to have an unjust
cause in the eyes of the law : Plat. Ap., 19b; Xenoph. Mem., I, 1, 1; Epict. Diss., II,
5,29 : kplvo OE GOIKEIV. In Ditt. Syll.3, 635, 22 we read : &ToTEIOXTO 6 A81Kov
BayiAious otampac. There is a reference to warlike hostilities in Jos. Ant., 1, 327
El BEAOLEV &8LKEIV.

4. Other points may best be arranged in order of syntax. a. With acc. of object : 2
BGU, IV, 1138, 13 : 6 jolknoev Éuapropno(Ev) (1st century B.C.); Jos. Ant., 6, 238
(Jonathan asking Saul concerning David): t 8 A61KOUvta KOAKCKI OEAEIS; with
TEpI, Philo Jos., 156 (concerning the chief baker): TEpI TO uÉyiotov doixnoavra.
un8Ev AOLKEiV (Epict. Diss., II, 15, 11: arollowv avepwnov undev j8lknkora);
frequently in Jos. in protestation of innocence, as Jacob to Laban in Ant., 1, 319; the
witch of Endor to Saul in Ant., 6, 331; or Antipater in Bell., 1, 639 : (goc gotiv uou
TOU undEv &8IKEIV uXptUs etc. b. Transitively with acc. of person3 = "to do wrong
to someone, "to treat someone unjustly" or "to do him an injury." In the LXX we
may refer to Jdt. 11:4 : 00 yap fotiv 8c GOIKNOEI OE, dAA' EU gE TOLnOEI; Tobit
6:15 : ott Baluoviov ollei authv 8 OUK GoIKEI OU8Éva TANV TOV TtpooayovtoV
aurn; Test. Sol. 18:3, where the 36 oTolXia say to Solomon : oo Suvacal juds
aomknoau; ibid., MS, D, III, 8 (MacCown, 92): &oikñoa TOUC dveponous; Corp.
Herm., X, 19a: undéva avopinov &oiknoai; Epict. Diss., III, 24, 79 : undEic gE
doiKn, cf. II, 17, 20 IV, 1, 95 ; Ditt. Syll., 635, 8 f.; &81KEiV undÉva; amulet in
Reitzenstein : 4 tou un dolknoai i Blawal i upoosyyioal tOv 80UAOV TOU 0EOU ;
Jos. Ant., 4, 50 : toU rov oov adikñaal Oe naavtoc 1aov; 11,281: aolKnoava
autouc; 17, 109: &81KEiV TOUC EOEpYÉTaG; though sce 2. 245 and 15, 144 where it
means "hurt" without accusative of either person or object. It is used in the sense of
hostile operations in Ant., 13, 275 and of insult in Ap., 1, 98, where Rameses forbade
Thy Baculoa untÉpa dolKEiv and Philo Leg. All., I, 51: ÉXUTOV &8IKEL. In Rabbinic
usage the one who injures is 242, and the injured party P12. C. Transitively with
accus. of object in the sense of "damaging something." & In this form it is mostly active,
as in Thuc., II, 71: d. yñv; Xenoph. Eq., 6, 3 : innov; Test. Sol. 18:7 f.: 60a\uouc
a81K&; Ditt. Syll., 3 635, 8 ff.: Thv 8É Aouny xopav thy lEpov tou "ATto Awvoc
ToU Arotou un dolkeiv undeva; BCH (1902), p. 217: É6v tiS tv onanv A6IKñOEL.
d. With a double accusative in the sense of "hurting someone in some matter": Demosth.
21, 129 : & ToAAoic buiv nolknoev; in the LXX Lv. 6:2 : ñ8lknoÉv Tl Tov TAni;
Prv. 24:44 : a uE hoiKnoev; in Jos. Ant., 2, 138, of Joseph : oubev yap aitov doIKEiv;
Ant., 3, 271, where the suspected adulteress must swear : undev hoiknkÉval tov avopa.
Cf. Ant., 6, 297; 10, 2; Epict. Diss., III, 24, 81: Ti HE MEIKNOE XPUOLTTTIOS.
e. Passively, in the sense of "suffering wrong or injury or damage," of "being
wronged. Cf. Plat. Gorg., 509c, where &olKeiv is the greater and golKeia0al the
lesser evil ; 7 Polyb. XI, 28, 8 onto yoveds iblou paoKav eis apyupiou Abyov
goIKEio0ai; Corp. Herm., X, 21: slander, murder, maltreatment 8t ov avipantol
dowkoivtal. Very frequently for pmy in the LXX in the sense of "oppress" or "defraud,"
as in Dt. 28:29, 33 : dolKoouevoc ()103); 1 102:6 (Mas. 103:6): Totov 6 Kopios xpiua

2 Many examples from the classical period are found in Liddell-Scott, 23; Pass.-Cr., 94 f.
3 For classical examples, Liddell-Scott and Pass.-Cr., op. cit.
4 Poim., 294, 6 f. Cf. further JRS, XIV (1924), p. 47, No. 37, 7 ff.; Audollent, Def. Tab.,
No. 2b, 4 f. Cumont-Anderson, Studia Pontica, III (1903 ff.), p. 20, No. 10g, 15.
Schl. Mt., 590, where there is reference to jRH, 58a, BQ, 1, 2.
6 Cf. H. B. Swete, Rev. (1907) on Rev. 2:11.
7 Quoted from Philo Jos., 20.
 GoIKED

Ttaol tois daikouuÉvois (apiog-bab), W 145:7 (Mas. 146:7); Is. 1:17: pooaote
&6LKOUUEVOV for pinn mgx. Is. 25:3 : TO AEIC drOpTv doiKovuEvoy (ar7iny bna)
The douKoduevos as "the one who suffers wrong" is often found in Sir. 4:9
13:3; 32:16 (Heb. 35:16). In Jos. Ant., 2, 22 we have ouvadIkEitaI, the father and
mother being hurt by the death of Joseph ; Ant., 2, 260 : a8 KovuÉvac of the girls badly
treated by the shepherds at the well ; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 56. For doIKeio0a, cf. Ant.,
5, 258; 6, 144; 8, 27; Bell., 1, 124; 2, 351 f.; 5, 377. In Philo Abr., 96 God is the OTEp-
payog tOv adiKouueveav. In Vit. Mos., I, 40 Ao1Koouavou is used of oppression by
forced labour; and in I, 67 the burning bush is a obupolov tov aolKou Évov. In
the pap. we often find o holknuÉvos, dolKovuevos used for "wronged or injured
parties" in petitions, as in P. Tebt., I, 42, (c. 114 B.C.); P. Eleph., 27a, 25 (3rd cent.
B.C.). 8 But the transitive use with acc. of object, "to hurt something, also carries with
it the corresponding passive, as in Wis. 14:29: &uxous yap TETOLBOTEC El&/Aoic
kakig bubaavtes aoikn0nval of mpoo8exovtal; or Jos. Ant., 4:76, where in respect
of transit through Edom Moses gives the guarantee: STep TOO un8ev aolKnOnogolai
Sorely ouoloyov. A peculiar use is found in Corp. Herm., VI, lb, where the impas-
sibility of God is depicted as follows : O0TE kpeirtov aitou foriv 006Év, 00' of
doIKNOElS TOAEUñOEL.

B. &LKÉW in the NT.

It is a striking fact that apart from Col. 3:25 and Rev. 22:11, which are early
exhortations shaped by the LXX, the NT usage does not reach this LXX level
(- A.2), and is little affected by any spirit of fresh evaluation. This is obviously
due to the victory over adlkeiv of its LXX rival quapt&vElv. &8IKEIv is thus as
it were relegated to mundane speech to express what is usually signified by it in
everyday affairs. In this respect the NT usage conforms to that of Greek in general.
a. The absolute use in the active (- A.1) is found in 2 C. 7:12: OUX ÉVEKEV
too &8 joavtos, "he who has done wrong.' 9 We may also refer to Ac. 25:11: El
UEV O8V 881KG, "I am in the wrong." Finally we may quote the words of ex-
hortation in Col. 3:25, which are obviously applied in a religious sense as already
mentioned : o yap (DEKL: o 88) &81KGv Kouloetal 6 no{Knoev. Of the last
verse, as of Rev. 22:11: 8 &8LKGv a81KNoato Étl, it has been rightly said 10 that
the form of expression seems to derive from an early hortatory tradition. In
Col. 3:25 we have final warning in the address to slaves that all &81keiv should
be set aside in view of the final judgment. 11 This saying is also an example of the
use of the verb with acc. of object.
b. The use with acc. of person -> A. 4b) occurs in Mt. 20:13: Éraipe, oK
JOIKG FE a milder, negative form of the thought that the conduct of the olko-

Cf. Moult.-Mill., 10; Preisigke Wort., 23.

The arguments of Zahn (Einl., I, 248) against the common rendering as the one who
has offered insult are supported by the use in the pap. cf. Preisigke Wort., I1, 37 and
631 where Aoi8opEo and aBpigo are used for "insult" and "libel.'
10 Loh. Apk., on the ground that elsewhere in Rev. doiKEiv means to injure rather than
to sin. Rev. 22:11 reminds us of the dvounowow avouol in 6 Dan. 12:10 (LXX: duap-
Tool ol quaptolol), cf. Bss. Apk., 457.
11 The particular application to slaves is shown by the context. But the translation
"wrong" in the sense of wronging the master cannot be justified (cf. Ew. Gefbr., 432) by
the fact that Paul does not elsewhere use A8iKEiv in a religious sense. The extraordinary
usage is explained by the adoption of the pulpit style of exhortation. But A. Debrunner
comes down on the opposite side : "As in judicial life the rule obtains : & dolkov kouloe-
tal 6 AoIknoEV, without "pooro nupia, so it is before God.
&8IKE© doixnua

SEOTtoms is wholly according to law and custom. 12 It is also found in Lk. 10:19 :
kai 008EV ouas of Lan downoal in which 008ÉV is the subject and ouas the
acc. of person.18. Ac. 7:26 : ivatl &8lKEiTe:; 6 8É &81KGv tov rtAnolov, conforms
to the LXX with its allusion to Ex. 2:13 : EyEI TO &61KOUVTI. In 1 C. 6:8 : DuEis
dolKEITE Kal tOUto dOeAdouG and 2 C.7:2 : 008Éva holKnoquev it is a question
of wronging by hurting or making sick. The demonic locusts of Rev. 9:10 are
given power doikjoa touc avipinous unvas TEVTE, a similar construction
being found in Rev. 11:5: El tus Beaion autouc doijoat.
c. With acc. of object in the sense of "hurting" (- A. 4c) dolKEiV is a favourite
term in Revelation as applied to acts of judgment on the cosmos. We may refer
to 6:6: to gaiov kai toy olvov un &.; 7:2 f.: &. thy yhv kal thv lalaooay;
9:4 : iva un d. Tov xoptov tis yis; 9:19: ly aitaic i.e., their tails, doiKojor
i.e., the horses.
d. The double acc. (- A. 4d) is perhaps found in Lk. 10:19 (cf. supra), but it
is certainly present in Ac.25:10: 'loubalouc ooev jolknoa; Gl.4:12: 008Év
HE folknoate; Phlm. 18: El BE TL joIKnOÉV OE, "if he has wronged thee in
anything.'
e. For the passive (- A. 4e) we turn to Ac. 7:24 : 186v TIVa GOIKOULEVOV,
"the one who suffered wrong or violence" 1 C. 6:7: && tl ovyi ua^/ov &81-
KEIOOE; Vg.: quare non magis iniuriam accipitis ? 2 C.7:12: EvEKEV Tou a81Kn-
0ÉVtOG, "the one who has suffered injustice." 15 For &8lKEi faI EK, "to be injured
by," cf. Rev. 2:11: o0 un doinon EK TOU BavaToU TOU SEUTEpOU. For XIKEioBat
with acc. of object, cf. 2 Pt. 2:13 : &81K00UEVOL (Bx* P arm) 16 wolov aoiklas,
"to be wronged or deceived by" a very rare construction. 17

doixnua.
A. doixnua outside the NT.
aoixnua in secular Greek is the concrete term corresponding to d6IKEiv. It denotes
the "completed act of wrong.' This is expressed as follows in the definition of Aristot.
Eth. Nic., V, 10, p. 1135a, 10 ff.: aolkov uEv yap EATIV TH QUOEL n TREEL, auto 88
TOUTO, 8tav ipaxen, colxnua got, itpiv 6É mpaxenvai, OUTtGd xXX' &81Kov. Un-
like &8tkla, it cannot also denote wrong in the abstract. In this respect Xenoph. Mem.,
II, 2, 3 is instructive : al roeIs fml rois ueylorows doiknuaal gnula
TEETTOIN KAOLV oc ouK ov pelovos KaK00 P6Ba Thu Adiklav TauGavtEs. And as
distinct from duapiua ("failing" or "defect") and droxnua ("unintentional fault")
it implies predominantly a "deliberate act of wrongdoing.' Cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., V, 10,
p. 1135b, 20 ff.; Rhet., I, 13, p. 1374b, and cf. Eth. Nic., V, 10, p. 1135a, 21 ff.: 8 tov
yap Éxovaiov h, pEyerai, Gua 8E Kal dolknua tOTE totly dot' Eatal tl dolkov
uev dolknua 8' OUtw, gov uh to Exouoiov ttpoon 1. Thus dolknua is often used

12 Cf. KI. Mt., 161.

13 Zn. Lk., 422. However, the double acc. (KI. Lk. ad loc.) is also possible ("in nothing").
On the negations of the saying, cf. B1.-Debr., § 431, 3.
14 Loh. Phlm., 190, whether by theft, neglect of duty, or poor work.
15 Cf. Zn., n. 9; Ltzm. K., 133.
16 AC a 33 vg syb have the weaker KOuIOVUEVOI.
17 &81kla, n.13.
&8lknua. Trench, 155. In defin., Themist. Or., 1 (15c).
1 This is the basis of Philo Leg. All., 1, 35 : et yE To &kovaia kal katd Gyvoiay
 dolxnua

for misdeeds such as those of indisciplined troops (Polyb., 1, 66, 6 and 8), the oppressions
of foes (Philo Rer. Div. Her., 289), acts of violence (Vit. Mos., I, 149), the ill-treatment
of a wife (in the pap. BGU, IV, 1098, 22 [1st cent. B.C.]: Els authy doixnua), fraud
and embezzlement (in the pap. P. Amh., II, 33, 13 c. 157 B.C.). 2 This usage in the pap.
shows us that the normal reference is to concrete violations of law. 3
The word is comparatively rare in the LXX, and it mostly implies "breach of the
Law" or "misdeeds against God." It is often a rendering of jig "misdeed" with a
predominant reference to God as in Is. 59:12 : Kal td dounuarra niign juov
KyvoueV; Jer. 16:17: oik Expopn ia doinuara (by) autov &nevavtl tov 600a1-
uov you; Ez., 14:10 : kato to dolknua (7ig)) tot Enepotovtos. It is also used for
bown : in Zeph. 3:15: nEpLEIAEV Kupios td AoiKquara oou; + for yua "offence" or
"fault" in Prv. 17:9 : os KpUTTEL AIKnUaTA, YnTEI oAav. It is found in the special
sense of the rustling of cattle in E& 22:9 (Mas. 22:8); in parallelism with quapiua
or quaptial in Gn. 31:36; Lv. 16:16; for rig in 1 S. 20:1: tl To doixnu& you kal Tl
juapika EviTiov tou natpoc oou; explicitly for offences against one's neighbour
in Sir. 10:6 : frl navil doiknuati un unvaons to ranolov; 28:2 : goeg aolknua
tO TAnolov oou; and more generally in ep. Jer., 53: 088É un poorviat doixnua. 6
The word dolxnua is plentiful in Josephus and Philo. It denotes for Josephus "action
contrary to the law." But we could not say that this is meant only in the social sense.
Thus, for the Pharisees it is an dolknua or violation of the Law for the priests at a
time of famine to eat meal during the feast of unleavened bread (Ant., 3, 321). Again,
in Bell., 1, 35 there is reference to taic untepBoAaic toov dowxnuatov of Bacchides
because he executes the unlawful orders of Antiochus. We may also refer to the acts
of violence of Felix against the Jews (Ant., 20, 182); to the real wrong done to Joseph
by his brothers (Ant., 2,145); to the supposed wrong done to Saul by David (Ant.,
6, 209); and then to such concrete matters as the theft of the cup (Ant., 2, 140; cf. also
Philo Jos., 216); theft, plunder and robbery (Bell., 2, 581) ; perjury (Ant., 8,20); unjust
violations of agreements (Ant., 13, 265). All these correspond to the basic meaning
indicated.
In contrast, we might refer to the passages in Jos. and Philo in which, as in Bell.,
4, 150, ta Elc avepinous adiknuata is opposed to oppis enl To Oeiov; but here
the reference is to violation of the cultus. Similarly, in Philo Decal., 2 there is distinction
between ta Tpoc tO DElov avoaioupyñuaia and To itpoc anAnious doiknuarta,
as also in Conf. Ling., 114 between To qv pTEia doiknuata and then successively
doEBeIa and 80E6Ts; yet here again this amounts to little more than the difference
between the two tables of the Law. If adultery is called TO uÉyLOtOV TOV A8LKNU6TOV
in Jos., 44, the same is said of the 8^ty∞pla of God in Spec. Leg., II, 38. For Philo

OUSE A&LKNUATOV EXELV A6yov paol TIVES. But occasionally he can refer without diffi-
culty to aKovaia aaiknuata, as in Poster. C., 48; Deus Imm., 128; Agric., 180. Indicative
of the conscious differentiation between adixnua and croxnua is the textual alteration
in Polyb., (II, 20, 6, where Cod. C has dounuatos for gtuxnuatos.
Cf. Moulton-Milligan, 10; Preisigke Wort., 23.
3 Concerning the prepositions (ipoc tiva, EIG Tt, TEpi Ti) linked with dolknua in
classical usage, and other material not very relevant to the NT, cf. Liddell-Scott, s.v. under
I; Pass.-Cr., s.v.
* Mas. popup is vocalised by J. Wellhausen, Kl. Proph. (1898)3: Tobop. On this, cf.
the comment of H.H. Schaeder : "That he is right in this may be seen with certainty from
the corresponding 73* = 7?72%. The translation of Tooun by to gotknuarta oou in the
LXX is an attempt at exact rendering on the basis of an obvious misinterpretation of the
relevant consonants expressed in the Mas. pointing."
Within the OT no distinction can be made between the religious and the social sense
(Cr.-Ko., 339).
aolxnua - 886

pouxela is self-evidently a despising of God. In Conf. Ling., 15, he can also describe
sins Elc to Ogiov as aoixnuata. In Deus Imm., 138 it is parallel with quapinuata.
'Adiknua is, in fact, used quite generally for sinful action, Thus in Decal., 173 EmuOvula
is n tov doIn aTov myn; in Spec. Leg., I, 229 the high-priest intercedes for the
aunnotia xoixnuatov; in I, 243 the Law comforts those who do not walk Thy tov
doiknuatov 886v. Indeed, Philo's pronouncements concerning universal sinfulness
seem to make particular use of this expression. Thus in Ebr., 73, the life of man is filled
with an overflowing mass of doinuata; and in Det. Pot. Ins., 170 the soul needs
Kalapois tOv quitov donnuatov. In Leg. All., II, 107 they occur O0K aVEU
Travoupylas tis loxams. The viewpoint (Decal., 91) that dOe6TS is the Tyn
tavtwv doixnuatov might also be described as dominant in Philo. God is wroth
(Abr., 40 f.) concerning it; it is subject (Jos., 170) to the judgment ths ‡oopou 8(kns
tov avoponelov npayuatov; the Judge of all things (Abr., 133) condemns the
Sodomites because of it. 'A8iKnuara Conf. Ling., 30) stand in contrast to the fotoc
cEl OE6G. But God redeems from them too (Rer. Div. Her., 186). Gratitude and rever-
ence (Deus Imm., 7) are not affected by them. Finally, an important part is played by
the psychological consideration that ouveionous convicts concerning them (Det. Pot.
Ins., 146; Spec. Leg., II, 49). Their beginning is awu&tov noovn (Op. Mund., 152).
They produce (Sobr., 5) an intoxication which leads to possession. They overwhelm
the soul and throw the vouc overboard (Agric., 89).
B. d6ixn a in the NT,
The word dolknua occurs only three times in the NT. It has the same meaning
as that stated under X8KEiv (B). In Rev. 18:5 it is said of Babylon: Exonan-
Onoav auris ai quaptial &xp tot oupavot kai EUVNU6VEUOEV 6 OEOG ta
aolxnuata autns. In this case, as in the LXX (- 162), it is synon. with
quaprial. Yet the LXX text of lep. 28:6 (Mas. 51:6), of which there is a re-
miniscence in the image and in which we read Ev in abikla aums, undergoes
an alteration by the use of the plur. xoiKnuata, which serves to emphasise much
more strongly than the abstract a8ikia the blatant concreteness of countless open
and unlawful misdeeds. 6
In Ac. 24:20 (Paul before Felix) we read: oorol EiTatooay tl sopov doixnua.
Here what is meant is violation of the Jewish law. Again, in Ac. 18:14 (Gallio
to the Jews) we have: El uev nv aolknu& T h pqotoupynua frovpov. The
meaning here is conscious and criminal violation from the standpoint of Roman
law, whereas paotoupynua signifies frivolous action. Schrenk

a66xupoc > Soktuos.

duvatos, aouvatew - bivaual.

65w, Q6n

t 466.
"To sing." a. Intr. LXX #56:8 etc.; Herm. s., 9, 11, 5; Tat. 1, 1; 22, 2. b. Trans.
LXX Ex. 15:1; Nu. 21:1 etc. "To sing of" (tivi): Ex. 15:21; ½ 67:5; Philo Agric., 79.
"To celebrate something or someone in song": Tat., 33, 2; Ign. Eph., 4, 1; Mg., 1,2;

6 Zn. Apk., 572.

7 Cf. ibid., 658.
$86 KtA. J. Kroll, Die christliche Hymnodik bis 2. Cl. Al. (1921); "Die Hymnen-
dichtung des fruhen Christentums,' Antike, 2 (1926), 258-281.
1 Pass.-Cr.: Liddell-Scott, s.v.
 Dg., 11, 6. In this sense &8EIV is the opposite of AÉyelv, as in Philo Som., I, 256 (cl.
Xenoph. Cyr., III, 3, 55), though occasionally it can be used for AÉyelv (Max Tyr.,
XXXV,3), just as carmen can mean a formula as well as a song. and conversely,
dicere can also mean "to sing." 2 Between the spoken word and song the distinction is
fluid. As "to sing," &8ewv approximates to Ouvjoat, WENDELV and alveiv. Indeed, it
can be used interchangeably with these terms Themist. Or., 1 (4a); Epict. Diss., I, 16,
15 f.; Ael. Arist. Or., 50 (26), 38 ff. (II, 435, 11 ff., Kell); LXX 1 Ch. 16:7-10; 20:13;
and later Or. c. Cels., 8, 67.

In the N'T we have the phrases: XSELV (trv) 68nv (Rev. 5:9; 14:3; 15:3), and
also : &6ewv . to BEG (ti xuply) (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19). The same idea is also
conveyed in Revelation by AÉyElV, as in Rev. 5:13: LEyELV ooVi peya^n (cf.
also AaAeiv in Eph. 5:19). There is no distinction from tAMElV in Eph. 5:19 (Just.
Dial., 74, 3).

t 46n (- pa^pos, ouvoc).

a. "Song" as such, or b. "a song" of any kind, accompanied by xl0apa and au6c. 1
In the LXX what is meant is almost always, though not fundamentally, a "religious
song" (or the Gon Tarpioc in 3 Macc. 6:32). Hence the very free alternation between
ooh, Waluoc and buvos. $ 47 tit B valuos Gans, S oon palpou. In Philo Agric.,
81 there is first mention of rapaioc don, then buvoc, in relation to Ex. 15:1 ff. Cf.
Epict. Diss., I, 16, 15 ff.; Philo Flacc., 22; Const. Ap., III, 7, 7; Mart. Mt., 25.
In the NT there is still no precise differentiation between on, yaluos, and
buvoc, e.g., in Col. 3:16 or Eph. 5:19, in contrast to a later time, when on
(canticum) came to be used only for biblical songs (apart from the Psalms) used
in the liturgy. From the NT passages we may gather the following elements in the
concept of the Christian oon as also illustrated and confirmed from other sources.
a. Goal are the cultic songs of the community. They are not sung by the
individual, but by the community gathered for worship. In this respect they differ
from the personal songs of the Gnostics most clearly illustrated in the Odes of
Solomon. Of a piece with this is the anonymity of the early authors, as also the
attachment to OT tradition. Only in the 2nd century are the authors sometimes
mentioned. In the Didascalia, 2, p. 5, 29 f. we can still read: "If thou desirest
hymns, thou hast the Psalms of David."
b. The on is inspired.2 This is shown by the epithet TVEU aTIK6s, though
this does also indicate more generally its religious character. Hymns are to be
numbered with heavenly things (Act. Thom., 76; Just. Dial., 118b). With the in-
spiration of hymns is linked their improvisation, e.g., in 1 C. 14:26 (cf. Ac. 4:24);
Tert. adv. Marc., 5, 8; Apolog., 39, 18.
¢. In virtue of its inspiration, the Gon is not regarded as the "attempt at a
fairly adequate expression of the lofty religious mood, at a representation of
the new disposition of soul," ⅗ but as Abyoc toU Xploto6 (Col. 3:16). It is also a

2 F. J. Dolger, Sol Salutis@ (1925), 124. Cf. Act. Thom., 6.

98 h. 1 Pass.
The character of inspiration is also indicated in the T kapbia ouiv of Eph. 5:19, of
By Th xapiti &80VtEC Ev tais kapblaic ouiv of Col. 3:16. N. v. Arseniew, "Das innere
Lied der Seele. ARW, 22 (1924), 266-283; on
Kindes (1924). 104; H. Schiter, Rel.qesch. Linden sispliree
Ignbriefen inspired
(1929), 144 f. singing, cf. E. No
J. Krol, in Antike, 2 (1926 .258
mode of the Word in which Christ makes Himself heard. Cf. the fine expression
in Ign. Eph., 4, 1: 'Inoouc Xporos &Etai. This does not exclude a participation
of the members of the community. On the contrary, Christ finds utterance in the
hearts of members of the community (aovtes tv tais Kapblaic ouGv tO 0EQ)
who then express with their lips what is said by Him in the heart. The A6yoc tou
Xpiotoi means that 6al Tveluatixal are mostly songs about Christ, or about
the saving acts of God enacted in Him. An example may be seen in 1 Tm. 3:16.
d. The distinction between this Abyos to0 Xpioto0 and the Abyos TOU kuplou
which the apostle imparts in his kerygma and then in his 88axh consists in the
fact that in oal the community mutually instructs and admonishes itself (818&-
OKOVTEC Kal VOU{ETOUVTEC ÉaUTOUC valuoic ktA. Col. 3:16; or according to
Eph. 5:19 it shares in Axloivtec Éaurois valuoic kal buvois kal @8aic TVEU-
uatikais goovtEs kai UXAOVTES) . The spiritual song of the Church is the Word
of Christ uttered in the cultus in the form of alternating and reciprocal address.
In this sense it fills the community with the Spirit.'
e. It is conceived as an eschatological process in the Apocalypse, e.g., 5:9;
14:3; 15:3, where there is also reference to an oon kawh. If it was true in
Judaism "Israel will sing a new song only in the days of the Messiah in praise
of the wonders of His redemption," these days have now come for the Christian
community, and there sounds out on earth as in heaven thanksgiving and praise
for the fulfilled wonders of God.
Schlier

afuuos-> coun.
app

According to the ancient conception of the earth, the sphere of the air reaches
to the moon, where the ethereal region of the stars commences. The Greek made
a distinction between the impure element of air and the purer ether, thus finding in
the former a place of abode for imperfect spirits. 1 Like all animism, popular Greek
belief peopled the air with all kinds of spirits, who had to be taken into account.
Later Judaism sharply distinguished between angels and demons, and found in
the air the abode of the latter.' In line with early Christian thinking, Paul links
with this the idea of an organised kingdom under the single ruler Satan: Quap-
tlaic Ev alC ToTE TE PLET TOUTE Katd tov apxovta ths ÉEovolac tou
depos (Eph. 2:2) .3

+ The singing of the community is set a level with prophecy in Conf. Cypriani, 17
(v. Dolger?, op. cit., 132 f.).
5 Str.-B., III, 801.
an p. Yet there are many Greek conceptions. On this as on what follows baluav.
So far as concerns popular belief, it is worth noting that even to-day evil spirits are still
called depiko in Greece, F. Pfister, Philologus, 69 (1910), 427.
2 Str.-B., IV, 515 ff.
& There is no kingdom of evil demons in the air according to Judaism. Test. B. 3:4 : Tou
GEpIOU TIVE LATOS ToO BEAlap, is textually uncertain, and we cannot adduce Asc. Jes.,
81& Boloc. v. the Comm. ad loc., and O. Everling, D. pl. Angelologie u. Damonologie
(1888), 105 ff., 111 f.; M. Dibelius, Geisterwelt im Glauben d. Pls. (1909), 156 f.: G. Kurze,
Engels- u. Teufelsglaube d. Ap. Pls. (1915), 86/91.
 amp ~ dOEUITOS

Because of its middle position, the air in 1 Th. 4:17: Els antovmow tou kuplou Elc
cepa, is the sphere where believers will meet Christ on his coming to set up on earth
the millennial kingdom." We find a proverbial use of the term in 1 C. 14:9 : Éoeo0e
yap EIG dEpa AaAOUVTEG "to speak into the air" (of those who speak with
tongues). 5 In the declaration of Paul in 1 C. 9:26 : oUtwe TUKTEUW OC OOK depa
8Épwv, the metaphor seems to imply that Paul is not engaged in sham conflict but in
a true fight, & or that he is not striking aimlessly but hitting the target. 7 Both are
linguistically possible. 8
Foerster

deavaola BavaToc.

dOÉpITOS

Extra- and post-Attic = A0Éu otog. Opp. to feul(o)t6C, whence "contrary to

statute," "illegal," or 'criminal," always with the idea of a higher will. a. Cultic. veKpa
aouata are dlQuita before Hera and Demeter, P. Turin, I, 2, 22 (2nd century B.C.).
To the Jews unlawful sacrifices (2 Macc. 6:5), eating swine's flesh (2 Macc. 7:1), and
leaving the doors of the temple open at night (Jos. Ap., 2, 119) are X0ÉuLToV. b. Moral
and Religious. In this sphere we may refer to Eevoktovial Glfuiotol, Dion. Hal. Ant.
Rom., 1, 41; to the smell of a roasted child, Jos. Bell., 6, 209; to prayer without the ful-
filment of duty, Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 6, 6 (synon. tapo toug toov 0EGv (Eououc and
Tapavouos); to eiyai doÉultot, Plut. Aem., 19 (I, 265c); to ungodly speech, 2 Macc.
10, 34; to shameless sexual intercourse, Vett. Val., 43, 27 Kroll; to anger, 1 Cl., 63, 2; to
the works of Antichrist, Did., 16, 4. There is no sharp distinction between a. and b.
Of persons : Orph. Frg., 232, Kern: Aoois mpoyovov d0sulotov.1 d0Éuirov gotlv
with infin. : Plut. Sept. Sap. Conv., (II, 150 f.); Jos. Bell., 1, 650; Ap., 2, 119.

In 1 Pt. 4:3 we find doÉuITOL ElBwAoAatplal numbered with GoÉAyElol, ÉntI-

Ovulat etc. as truly pagan evils. 2 In Ac. 10:25, with a reference back to the
Pharisaic standpoint overcome in Christianity, we read: x0guirov fotv dvipi
"loubalo TtpooÉpxeolat allopulo.
Oepke

aT& INaLC. Cf. E. Peterson in ZSTh, 8 (1930), 682 ff. It follows from the context
that the reference is to the coming of the millennial reign.
For examples, v. Pr.-Bauer, S.v. op.
So Bchm. K., ad loc.
So Joh. W., 1K., ad loc.
8 On the one side Theophil. Ad. Autol., III, 2, (MPG, VI, 1121b): rpomo ydp TIV ol
to anla auyyp&povtes xepa SÉpouot, and on the other Greg. Naz. Hom., XXI, 389
(MPG, XXXV, 10886): rov dolntov tois dreipois, ot TOy REPA TAEIA TALOVTES f
to aquata...
dOE ITos. Glotta, 4 (1913), 23, n. 2, 27; R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes
(1907), 1-56 (contestable).
Tannery, Revue de Philol., 23 (1899), 126 ff. expiation of the wrong done in previous
births.
3 cE Jos. Bell., 1, 650: offence against the prohibition of images.
cOEDuOS dOXED

XOEOC - 0E6G.

+ CREOLOS

"Apart from or contrary to statute,' "illegal," "impious" (rarely exlex, Hesych.):

in a general sense in Plut. Caes., 10 (I, 712b); more specifically of neglected offer.
ings, Sext. Emp. Pyr. Hyp., III, 220, 223; unlawfull sexual intercourse : XOsouo ya-
uo1, Iambl. Vit. Pyth., 17,78; ulEeus &eouot, Philo Spec. Leg., 1I, 50; unsuccessful
attacks on the Jews as G0eouoc Tp6ÉEOIS, 3 Macc. 5:12; &eouoi alkiai, 3 Macc.
6:26; or the foods not allowed to Levites, Jos. Bell., 7, 264 : TPXTTEx XOEOUOS. The
word is not really popular but a term in philosophical ethics. Instances in the pap.
(P. Oxy., 129, 8; P. Lond., 1678, 5) are late (6th cent. A.D.) and probably stand under
Christian influence. Of persons: Sib., 5, 309 : &v8pES X8lKot kal Xeouol. Subst.:
"the malefactor," Philo Praem. Poen., 126.

In the NT it occurs only as a subst. and is peculiar to 2 Pt., being used in 2:7
of the Sodomites and in 3:17 of heretical leaders.
Oepke

GOETÉW tienut.

coxto, auva0XEd,
x0 nois
GONEG, "to engage in competition or conflict," whence later &0^nols, dUvabAÉo,
often used metaphorically in diatribes. 1 In- the LXX it is found only in later
writings such as 4 Macc., where it denotes the conflict of martyrs. In the NT it
is found only in the Pauline writings.
Go £∞ occurs in 2 Tm. 2:5 : Éov 8E kai &0Añ TIG, ou otepavoitai tov un
voutuos a0 ñon. The fight in which the leader of the community is engaged
demands not only extreme exertion and readiness for sacrifice, but also discipline
and ordered conduct (vouluos).'
auvae eo is found twice in Phil., both times in connection with the Gospel,
which is the source of the community and of opposition to it. In 1:27 those who
fight together are companions in suffering, in 4:3 they are labourers together. The
Gospel triumphs in the passion and action of the auvathouvtec.
&0Xnaic is used in Hb. 10:32 f.: TOAAhV &0ANoIV OTELE[VATE TAOnuTov. The
final Oeatp gouevol evokes the image of the crowd of spectators in the arena
watching the spectacle of abuse and persecution. The image and reality merge into
one another, as in 4 Macc. 17:14 ff.
d0 nuns is the term used by Ignatius in his epistle to Polycarp to describe the leader
of the community who is tested by battle and equal to every demand or conflict. The
burden of the many rests on his strong shoulders (1, 3). For him, as for Timothy,

&0AÉW K TA. 1 Themist. Or., 17 (213d). Wis. 4:2; Philo Congr., 165; Spec. Leg., II,
183; Jos., 82. For important examples, > dydov, 135.
2 The overcoming of the world in CI., 20, 2 (&0 OO EV kai yuuva(buela); flight
from it in Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 11, 67, 4.
 GOXÉG atotoc

sobriety is a special duty (2,3). He must defy all blows like an anvil: ueyalou foriv
d0 ntoi to Sépeolai kal vIKaV (3, 1). In 1 CI., 5, 1, in a passage which in the style
of Hb. 11 speaks of the persecution of the &(kalo by the gilos, the apostles are
called d0intal who goc farvatou f0\noav.1 The obvious decisive step is made in
the Acts of Thomas (39), in which Christ Himself, our dentns, is the model of the
perfect athlete.
Stauffer

4 &16toc

"Everlasting," "eternal." Ps.-Plat. Def., 411a: &t81ov To Kata Tavta xpovov kal
itp6TEpov ov kal viv un £•0apuévov. Frequent in Arist., e.g., Cael., Il, 1, p. 283b,
26 ff. of the oupavos: at610g, apxnv Kal TEAEUTV oik Exov; Eth, Nic., VI, 3,
p. 1139b, 23 f.: ta yap iE avaryxns bvta atlis Tavta at81a, to 8' dio1a dyevnta
kal a lapta. It is of the essence of the di616is (subst. in Aristot. and Philo) to
be without beginning or end. The term at8woc is very important in Philo. God is
atoi0c because He is dyevntoc kal &peaptos (Jos., 265) and ov ovtos (Spec. Leg.,
I, 28): Spec. Leg., IV, 73; Virt., 204; &t81oc can be used for God without 0e6c: Spec.
Leg., I, 20, II, 166; Decal., 41, 60 and 64 etc. 1 The Logos, too, is &t810c (Plant., 8, 18),
as also everything which is aopatov kai vontov. Sometimes aloovioc is used with
ato10c as a synon. : Abyog 8: 8 at81os GEot TOl alwviou (Plant., 8). di8tos is also
used with Loon (Fug., 97). On inscriptions we find: rov diotov xpovov, Ditt. Syll.,
46; xtola ovaypapd, ibid., 622 B. 10; Soped. atoi0r, ibid., 672, 10 f. etc. We find it
used of God in Corp. Herm., passim; Stob. Ecl., I, 34, 6 W; Julian Ep., 89b, p. 128, 14
Bidez-Cumont: Sib., V, 66, VIII, 429. In the LXX it is a philosophical rather than
popular term found only in Wis. 7:26 : &ra6yaoua yap loT owToc di8lou (of
wisdom ; on poc aibiov cf. Clem. AT. Paed., I, 6, 32) and 4 Macc. 10:15 S: rov &t81ov
(AR Golb1HoV) TOV EDGEBOV Blov.

In the NT at610s in the sense of "eternal" occurs only in two passages. The
first is R. 1:20 in a context which reminds us of Stoic ways of thought and also
of Philo: to yap dopata aitou tois nomjuaolv voolueva kalopatal, f
TE atbioc autoi bivauls Kai Delois (His eternal power). The second is Jd. 6: elc
plow peydinG quepas beouoic diSloic UTO YOOOV TETHONKEV (in everlasting
chains). Cf. for this expression Jos. Bell., 6, 434 : beouoic aloviois (of the lifelong
imprisonment of John) and Philo Aet. Mund., 75 aionios beou6s (of the eternal
bond which holds the cosmos together).
In the apostolic fathers we find atoioc only in Ign. Eph., 19, 3: Els kaiornta
&iblou goons.
Sasse

dryoov, n. 19.
Cf. also Test. of the 40 Mart., 1, (801ov); Eus. Hist. Eccl., VII, 12 dyova binean.
IOD Snail MIL
KEvat; the Index to Eus. (ed. Schwartz, II, 3, p. 159), s.v. d0Anis.
at8iog. Cr.-Ko., 80.
Cf. Index of H. Leisegang in Cohn-Wendland, VII,1 S.v.
aloos

alooc (- aloxovn).
A. The Greek Terms for Shame and Disgrace (aiois, aloxon).
a. aloos was originally a basic concept in the Greek understanding of exist-
ence. It became rare in the time of Hellenism, 1 but was brought back into use by
the late Stoics. aldeia0a1 was always in current use. aldic comes on man because
his existence stands in more than individual connections which surround and bind
it with divine authority. It is regard for these connections, the bashful fear of
breaking them. It is his attitude in face of the SELvov, the awful, wherever and
however manifested. It is dread of Alav, of the violation of the uÉtpov. Its opposite
is UBpic. It is thus "reverence" before God, the priest, or an oath, so that aldoc
can mean the same as EoÉBela and aldsiolal as o€Be lat. It is respect for the
one who is visited by the xapis of God and who is thus aloioc and SELVoG.
It is reverence for the king, for singers and orators, for parents and elders, for
§Évol and ikÉtal, the meaning here being much the same as that of -> gLEOG. It is
respect for the law of hospitality and for the sanctity of the home and marriage.
Above all, it expresses respect for the 9 Elkn which binds society together, for
the TOAIS and its -vouos. Hesiod complains (Op., 197 ff.) that Aldoc and
NÉueous have left men, and the myth of Protagoras (Plat. Prot., 322b ff.) tells us
that Zeus through Hermes sends Alooc and Alkn to men tv' ElEV TT6AEV Koouot
TE Kai Seouoi oiAias ouvayo yot. In what is said about education, instruction in
al86c plays a most important part, the Stoics setting the - Koouos, -> QUoLS,
or the - Abyoc either in place of or alongside the n6AI. aldeiola can thus be
synon. with tuuov, and to the extent that in all aldoc there is an element of fear
it is used as a parallel of 8e81EvaL or poBeio0al (- o6Bos), by which it is later
delimited (Plat. Euthyphr., 12a ff ; Arist. Eth. Nic., IV, 15, p. 1128 f., 10 ff. etc.),
just as in definitions of the Platonic and Stoic school altoc is defined as a specific
form of popoc or EUA& BEIa (e.g., aboflas or 6plot w6you, cf. Ps.-Plat. Def.,
412c; v. Arnim, III, 101, 29 ff., 105, 15 ff. 107, 20 ff.). Yet these definitions are ar-
tificial and do not correspond to the older usage of which living examples may
still be found in Musonius, Epictetus and Philo.
The true development of the use of alooc corresponds to that of Greek ethics,
namely, that terms which first denoted the position of the individual in society
or in specific situations came increasingly to describe the gus of the individual
and therefore his attitude towards himself, his disposition of soul. One can thus
have alolc without being confronted by an aldotov. Or rather it is in such
confrontation that alooc comes to expression. This is a very early conception,
for already from the time of Homer aldoc is used for pudor or the "feeling of
shame." 2 Yet there is a widening of usage, and alooc also comes to signify a

al8 6s. Trench, 42-47; R. Schultz, AlAQz (Diss. Rostock, 1910); U. v. Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff, Euripides Herakles, II (1895), 129
1 In prose we do not find alooc between 300 B.C. and the time of the Empire (Nageli,
16); albeiafal belongs to more carefully chosen speech (ibid., 57). In the pap. alooc is
rare, aldeiofal being more frequent, cf. Preisigke Wort.
2 Especially as applied to women; cf. Hdt., I, 8: xua bE KitovI EK&uouÉvo OUVEKOUE.
rat kal thy alo6 yuvh. This has its basis in the fact that aldoia in the sexual sense are
bearers of a Servov, but also in the fact that the fate which has overtaken one is a Setvov
which one is reluctant to display publicly. kadutte fal is frequently the symptom of
alooc.
 albioc

feeling of honour and becomes synon. with o∞opoouvn. An attempt at differen-

tiation is made in Arist. Eth. Nic., II, 7 p. 1108a, 30 fE.; IV, 15, p. 1128b, 10 Ff., but
the later Stoa again uses the terms promiscue. 3 aloic is thus the "attitude of the
worthy man," and it is characteristic of the Greek conception of existence that
alooc is closely linked with > fAgU0&pla and therefore with Tappnola (Philo
Jos., 107 and 222). Its opposite is ovaldela, the shamelessness of the robber of
temples, the lack of shame of the avaricious, or even sometimes expooc (- Bap-
pÉ@) in the sense of insolence.
b. At an early stage aldos came to be linked with aloxivn, from which it
was originally distinct 4 both in signification and also etymologically. 5 The Stoic
distinction between alooc as poBoc Eni poodokia u6you and aloyivn as
poBos ET' aloxpi TETIPXYUÉVO (v. Arnim, III, 101, 34 ff.), repeated by John of
Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa, 2, 15, does not really correspond to the proper
usage, in which aldoc, too, can signify shame after an action, and aioyivn can
mean shame at doing something as well as having done it, and indeed need not be
related to an action at all, but may be motivated by a specific aloxos, e.g., a
lowly origin or a humiliating destiny. For aloxovn in the subjective sense is fear
of the aloxos or aloxpov, or shame because of it. The aloxos is that which is
repugnant, primarily in the external sense; the aloxpov is that which in 86&a
must be regarded as disgraceful in words and deeds or in appearances and afflic-
tions. Thus aloyovn is fear of the aioxpov and therefore of one's 80Ea. & If
aloo might be described as originally a religious term, aioxivn might be regarded
as a sociological. Yet we can understand how the two came to be equated. For
the SeLvov to which alooc refers is primarily found in society. Again, the Sophists
reduced religious concepts to the level of sociology by interpreting religious bonds
as social. Hence the verbs especially soon came to be used interchangeably.'
Yet the original distinction may still be seen in the fact that aioyovn can have
the objective meaning of disgrace" as well as the subjective of "shame," so that
it may well be identical with the aloyos or ovEL8oC which brings shame to the
aloyuvouevoc. $ Similarly, aloyvo, which originally means "to disfigure" or "to
make repugnant," can also mean "to bring into disgrace." Since the shame which
clings to a man may be caused by his own shameful action, it seems as though

3 In Epict. and M. Ant. we often find aitnuwv with adopav, EooXiuV, KoouIoG,
flotos, yevvaios etc. to denote worthy moral attitude.
4 Cf. Boisacq, s.v.
This is seen already in the fact 1. that there can be no derivatives from aloxoc
corresponding to alboioc or aloÉoluos from aldoc; 2. that there is no analogy in the
alooc root to the act. aloyuvElv. Attention may also be drawn to the fact that Alooc
as a goddess has cult, whereas Aloyovn is never honoured cultically, though sometimes
described as 0e6c. The difference was plainly detected by Demetrius in Nept •punveias,
114 (p. 27, Raderm).
There is frequent reference to ABn or ovElboc as the object of aloxvn. In contrast
Democrit. (Diels, II, 78, 14 f.) admonishes Éaurov aloyiveofai, but for him aloyive fal
and aldsiolat coincide in the opposite way (Diels, II, 114, 1 ff.). Cf. also Hierocl. Carm.
Aur., p. 59, 1 ff., Mullach.
7 It is also impossible to make any priori distinction between ovatons and dvaloxuv
TOG. On dvatoxuvtla cf. Theophr. Char., 9.
8 Here we have aloxovn where previously aloxos was used. The subst. aloyovn
comes into use only in the 5th century (cf. u.v. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, op. cit., 281).
It is formed from aloxuveoeat, and originally has the meaning of To aloyoveofal.
alooc

aloxivn can sometimes mean "ignominy" or an "'ignominious act," though this

rendering does not correspond precisely to the Greek conception.

B. The Hellenistic Jewish Use of aiolc.

In the literature of Hellenistic Judaism we find alooc (or aldeia0a1) particularly
in Philo in the Greek and esp. the later Stoic sense. In the LXX alois, for which there
is no Hebrew equivalent - m4-ANT perhaps corresponds to the original sense in
passages like Gn. 20:11; Is. 11, 2; Prv. 1:7 is rather strangely found only in 3 Macc.
1:19 (= pudor) and 4:5 ("respect" for age). In Sir. 29:14 we have aloxovn instead
(no Heb.). In Jos. Ant., 9, 226, again, aloxivn (tot oupBeBnkotos Beivou) is used
for aloic (opp. rappnola). aldelofa is more frequent. Prv. 24:38 uses it as a fairly
suitable rendering of arap"127, the obj. being mpoownov. In 28:21, however, aloxu-
VeGal is used instead, and it is in fact mostly replaced either by aloXUve laL (Job
32:21; 34:19) or poBeiafai. Elsewhere with no Heb. source it is used for fear of God
(4 Macc. 12:11, 13); reverence for the king (4 Macc. 3:12, katal6.); respect for age
(4 Macc. 5:6); respect for what is olkalov or fear of its violation (2 Macc. 4:34, cf.
Idt. 9:3); fear of one's enemies, @oBeio0at being a parallel (1 Macc. 4:8, and cf.
SeiAoia0a1). In other words, it bears the Greek sense: Typical Stoic uses of alonuov
may be seen in 2 Macc. 15:12 and 4 Macc. 8:3 (with yevvaios). A common word in the
LXX is avalons = insolent, often with mp6ownov, 6p0a u6s or wuxn.
Ca The Early Christian Use of aloic.
In the NT aldic occurs for certain only in 1 Tm. 2:9 in the admonition to
wives Ev kataotoln kooulo, ueto aloouc kai anopootvs KOOUEIV Eautac.
It thus denotes the "modest demeanour" of the wife, as in Greek, and the linking
with aWopooun and KoOuElV is wholly in line with Greek usage.° The older
sense of alooc may also be seen in the K reading of Hb. 12:28 : aTpEUELV Heto
aiooic kai EUaBelac. 10 aldeia0al is not found at all, ) EVIDÉTtEO0 aL being
used instead in Mk. 12:6 and par.; Lk. 18:2, 4; Hb. 12:9. Ign., Eph., 11, 1 and R., 9, 2
prefers aioxoveo0ai. The word alooc is not found at all in the apostolic fathers,
aloxuvn being used instead in Did., 4, 11 and Barn., 19, 7. We find aldeo0nval
in the Greek sense in 1 Cl., 21, 6 (touc mponyouuévouc) alongside Évtpamnvau
(tov kupiov 'I. Xp.) and tupav (toUC tpEoButépouc); and again in M. Pol., 9, 2
(thy fAlklav old age). The apologists use aldeio0a more frequently, but
aloc occurs only in Athenagoras, 30, 2.
The most notable point, therefore, is that aldoc (like a∞opoouvn) does not
really play any part in early Christianity. The reason for this is not merely that
it had become a highbrow term, but especially that in Greek it had come to be
used primarily of a É&ig. The essence of the believer, however, is not a relationship
to himself, a #is or apet, but a being before God and towards his neighbour.
To the extent that at86c does, of course, include an attitude of respect and reserve
towards others, this is very different from the Christian being towards the other.
For the latter does not rest on a conception of the TtoAls or Koouos, but on the
claim of the other as a neighbour. Hence the term aldos is robbed of its funda-
mental significance atonuov is replaced by TIOTEUOV and dyatov.
Bultmann

v. Dibelius, ad loc., and Kaibel, Epigr. Gr., 648, 12.

10 For uerd EUlaBElas Kal bÉoUG in the H recension.
 alua

atua, alpatexxuaia

alua.
1. The basic physiological meaning is "blood," i.e., the blood of man. In this
sense there is reference to the blood 1 of Jesus 2 in Jn. 19:34 : ÉgñA0EV goO0c
alua kal 18∞p. In the light of this fundamental sense the NT agrees with Jewish
literature in describing man, according to the constituents of his body, as odpe,
Kai alua -> oxpÉ) . Man is flesh and blood as a frail creature of earth in contrast
to the majestic God : acpé, kal alua OOK &TEKQ UNEV FOL & X' 8 tamp you
6 Ev toic oupavoic, Mt. 16:17. He is flesh and blood in his inability to oppose his
own authority to the revelation of God : ou TtpoaavE0Éunv oapri kai aquati,
Gl. 1:16. He is flesh and blood in his impotence and impermanence : odpé, kal
alua Baornelav deod Kinpovouñjoat of 86vatal, 1 C. 15:50; in his littleness in
face of the spirit world: oOK goriv nuiv n Tan Ttpoc alua kai oapka, dild
ttpoc tac apxac, Eph. 6:12; in his material and mortal nature To TOL6Ia KEKOI-
VOVN KEV aluatos ai aapros, Hb. 2:14. Only in the last passage does the phrase
seem designed to emphasise even more sharply the material aspect of man's earthly
and corporeal nature. 3

aap& kal alua 07) 702: an established Jewish (though not OT) term for man,
whether as individual or species, in his creatureliness and distinction from God, Sir.
14:18 : Oc pu1ov 0& Aov OUTAS YEVE& OXPKOC KaL atuatos [67 702 01717
n HEV TEAEUTQ, ÉTEpO SE yEWOTAI, Gr. En. 15:4; T. Ber., 7, 18 : 571 702 779 a human
as distinct from a divine king (cf. Mt. 18:23); S. Nu., 78 on 10:29; 84 on 10:35, 36 etc.
Greek authors who bring the words together think more of the actual constituents of
the human body: Polyaen. Strat., III, 11, 1: dv0 pintoic alua kai oapras exouor;
Porphyr. Abst., II, 46 : Th axalapala ti ek aaprov kal aluarav; also Philo Rer.
Div. Her., 57: atuat kai axproc foovn govrov; Justin Dial., 135, 6 : rov uÉv LE
aluatos kal aapKOC, TOV 8É EK TLOTEWG, Kal TVE uaTOS yEyEWnuévov; Athena-
goras, 27, 1: uovov alua kal oapE, OUKÉtl TVE ua kafxpov; Herm. in Stob. Ecl.,
I, 68, p. 461, 12 W: TXOXOUOLV (souls) oapri kal aluati BeBantiouÉval.
The notion that blood is the material of conception, "the bearer of the ongoing
life of the species," 5 underlies the expression in Jn. 1:13: HE aluotov Eyewn-
Onoav, "'born of blood," the distinctive plur. atuata $ indicating the union of the

alua. Cr.-Ko., 82 ff.; W. Oesterley, DCG, I, 214 ff.; C. A. Beckwith, DAC, I, 153 f.;
J. Hempel, RGG, I, 1154 ff.; H. L. Strack, Das Blut im Glauben u. Aberglauben der Mensch-
heit,5/7 (1900); E. Bischoff, Das Blut im jud. Schrifttum u. Brauch (1929); F. Rische,
"Blut, Leben u. Seele" (Studien z. Geschichte u. Kultur des Altertums, Suppl. V, 1930),
esp. 358 ff.
On the early Christian ideas concerning the baptism of blood (martyrdom) which
clustered around this verse, together with Lk. 12:50 and 1 Jn. 5:6, cf. F.J. Dolger, Antike u.
Christentum, II (1930), 117 ff.
2 In answer to Docetic ideas, Zn. Jn., 633.
8 Rgg. Hb., 55, n. 35.
For further Rabbinic examples, v. Str.-B., 1, 731; Zn. Mt., 537, n. 58; Schl. Mt., 505.
5 Zn. Jn., 76, n. 68.
6 Eur. Ion, 693 : XXAwv 28 aluatov; plur. elsewhere of mass bloodshed > alua, B4
Soph. Ant., 121; Aesch. Suppl., 265; Polyb., XV, 33, 1; 4 Bao. 9:26; Jer. 19:4; Ez. 24:6 (for
027); 2 Macc. 14:18; Ep. Ar., 88 and 90; 1 Cl., 18, 14; Aristides Ap., 4, 3.
alua

lifebearing blood of both parents in the child. " The same thought is found in
Ac. 17:26RD: Énolnoev t&, Evoc aluatoss Tov gOvoc avi ponov KATOIKEiV
enl tns yis, the blood of the progenitor of the race being the bond which
unites humanity.
alua denotes "'descent" or "family" from the time of Homer: IG, XIV, 1003, 1: Atoc
'AAKuns tE alua; Jos. Ant., 4, 310 : ric TOv LE aluatos; 20, 226 : Tov $& aluatos
TOU 'Aapiovoc; 2, 102 : €ouev abelpol kal Kolvoy nuiv alua; P. Leipz., 28, 16:
ulov yvjowov Kal TPWT6t0KOV oc 18 tolou aluatoc yewn0évta ool; P. Masp.,
67097, 1I, 59 of a disinherited daughter : EÉvnv SuaKEX∞piouEvnv aTto TOU quot at-
uatos kal yévoug. With reference to the act of conception, Gr. En. 15:4 : Év To
aluati Tov yuvaiKov euiaventE kal Ev to aluat oaproc Lyewhoate Kal ky
aluati avoponay Eneluunoate.
2. The OT belief in the sanctity of blood is the basis of the prohibition of
eating the blood of animals in the Eastern text of the apostolic decree in Ac. 15:29
aTe yeo0al aluatos (cf. 15:20; 21:25). # When an animal is sacrificed, its blood
as the bearer of life is a means of expiation before God, Lv. 17:11. Hence the
general prohibition of eating blood, Lv. 17:10, 14; 7:26 f.; 3:17; Dt. 12:23; Gn. 9:4.
The validity of this prohibition is attested by such passages as 1 S. 14:32 ff.;
Jub. 6:7, 12 ff.; 7:28 ff.; Damasc., 4, 6; Eth. En., 98:11; 7:5; Jos. Ant., 3, 260. 10
3. To shed blood is to destroy the bearer of life and therefore life itself. Hence
alua signifies "outpoured blood," "violently destroyed life," "death" or "murder.'
In this sense it is used of the slaying of Jesus in Mt. 27:4, 24; Ac. 5:28, and of the
prophets, saints and witnesses of Jesus in Mt. 23:30, 35; Lk. 11:50 f.; Rev. 16:6;
17:6; 18:24; 19:2. Along the same lines the OT, Jewish and Greek expression
alua EKyÉElV or EKXUVVELV is also used for "to kill,' though with no specific
reference to the actual shedding of blood, Lk. 11:50; Ac. 22:20; R. 3:15; Rev. 16:6.
God avenges the blood shed in murder, Rev. 6:10 : §KolKEic To alua nuov; 19:2;
Lk. 11:50 f.: Ex<nmon to atua aTo the YEVEOS taurns; Mt. 27:25 To alua
autoo Éo' nuas Kai eni to téxva nuiv; 23:35; Ac. 5:28; 18:6. According to the
Western version of the apostolic decree the prohibition of murder: aTtéXEO0aL
aluatos (Ac. 15:29), is one of the basic principles of Christian conduct. The
saying in Hb. 12:4: o01o uexpis aluatos AvtlKatEOut ("ye have not yet
resisted unto blood") can hardly refer to the forfeiting of life in martyrdom, but
denotes extreme resistance to sin in the military image of a conflict with its
wounds. 12 In Ac. 20:26 : Kalap6s Elul ato tou aluatos TavTV (18:6), alua
is used in the sense of lavatoc or eternal death as judgment on the sinner (-* e&-
vatos).
For alua ExXÉEIV, "to kill," cf. Aesch. Eum., 653 : to untpoc alu' Suatyov ExxÉac
TEO L. It is often found in the LXX as a rendering of ng 1.0 e.g.. Gn. 9:6: 37:22;

7 Aug. in Joh. Ev. Tract., II, 14: ex sanguinibus homines nascuntur maris et feminae.
Zn., op. cit. refers to Sanh., 4, 5, where the plur. 708 197 in Gn. 4:10 is taken to signify
"his own blood and that of his descendants.'
8 Maluatog. For the authenticity of aluatos, Zn. Ag., I, 613, 69.
9 K. Six, Das Aposteldekret (1912), 44 ff.; Zn. Ag., II, 528 ff.; Str.-B., II, 734 ff.
10 Rabb. material : Str. B., II, 734 ff. Mand. par. : Lidz. Ginza, 20, 4: "Eat not the blood
of animals."
11 G. Resch. Das Aposteldekret (1905); A. v. Harnack, Ag. (1908), 188 ff.; Zn. Ag., II,
546 ff.
Rgg. Hb., 394, referring to 2 Macc. 13:14 : drywvloaolal uÉxpi Bavtou, and Helio-
dor. Aeth., VII, 8: tis . . . MEXPIC aluatoe OTaOEDG.
 alua

Dt. 19:10; 1 Bao. 25:31; Is. 59:7 (= W 13:3) . Cf. also Ditt. Syll.3, 1181, 5 f.: ExxÉavtas
autis to dvaltiov alua (a Jewish prayer for vengeance from the 3rd cent. B.C.); 18
79t3 t 0997 Sanh., 6:5 : "If God is so concerned at the blood of the ungodly shed (in
execution), how much more at the blood of the righteous!" 14 For the deity as the
avenger of murder, cf. Plat. Leg., VIII, 872e: f Toov guyyevov aluatov tlu∞poc
81kn ; Dt. 32:43 : To alua tov ulov aitoo Exoikatal; 4 Bao. 9:7; (78:10; Ditt.
Syll.3, 1181, 12 : iva Éroixñons to alua TO avaltiov. For 72 o7 tipa the LXX often
has Exinteiv alua EK XeIp6s. For the curse of bloodguiltiness, cf. 2 Bao. 1:16: To
alu& oou gri thy KEQaAnv cou; lsp. 28:35; Ez. 18:13; Test. L. 16:3 : TO &03ov
alua enl this keoalns buiv ovadexouEvoL; T. Sanh., 9, 5 : 172 -1193 71hn in7
cf. also jSanh., 23b. 15 For the Rabbinic phrase iunis in (cf. S. 1:16; 1K. 2:33),
v. jBer., 11 c E; bPes., 112a.

In Hebrews alua often denotes the blood of animals shed in the sacrificial
cultus and rites of the OT to ward off the destroying angel (11:28), to institute
the divine order of the OT (9:18), to consecrate the tabernacle and the cultic
vessels (9:21), and to effect atonement and purification (9:7, 12 f., 22, 25; 10:4;
13:11).16
4. In the NT alua achieves its greatest theological significance in relation to
the death of Christ : 17 alua tot Xploro0, C. 10:16; Eph. 2:13; Hb. 9:14: 'Inoot,
Hb. 10:19; 1 Jn. 1:7; '1noot Xplorov, 1 Pt. 1:2; TOO xupiou, 1 C. 11:27; TOU xpvlou,
Rev. 7:14; 12:11. The interest of the NT is not in the material blood of Christ, but
in His shed blood as the life violently taken from Him. Like the cross (-* otau-
pos), the "blood of Christ" is simply another and even more graphic phrase for
the death of Christ in its soteriological significance. According to the eucharistic
words of institution the blood of Christ is a guarantee of the actualisation of the
new divine order (- Bwa0nkn): C. 11:25 touto to ttotplov n kaln 81a0hkn
fotlv Ev TO LuG atuati, 18 "This cup is the new divine order in virtue of my
blood"; Mk. 14:24 : TO To jativ To aluc you ts Bia0nknc TO ÉKXUVOLEVOV
UTTED To^wv (cf. Mt. 26:28), i.e., the violent death of Christ establishes and
assures the validity of the new divine order promised in Jer. 31:31 ff., according to
which God writes His will on the hearts of men and forgives their sins. As the
old divine order of Sinai was sealed and inaugurated by blood (Hb. 9:18 ff.,
Ex. 24:8 : n*737 b7), so the new with its gifts is established and set in force by the
blood of Jesus.
The same thought of the death of Christ as the guarantee of remission, one
of the gifts of the Baenkn, underlies the statements of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and
Revelation concerning the blood of Christ : 8v TE poÉOETO 6 (eoc - laothplov
gy tO aitoi atuati, R. 3:25; -> BIK&I@0ÉVTEG EV TO aluati aitov, 5:9; -> el-
pnvonouñoas bic tou atuatos tot otaupoi aitot, Col. 1:20; Th -> antonitpo-
ow Bid Tou aluato© aito0, Eph. 1:7; EyEviOnTE - Eyyis tv to aluat tou
13 Deissmann LO, 351 ff.
14 Always plur. 0207, whereas in the OT sing. Gn. 9:6; Ez. 18:10. Plur. 1 Ch. 22:8 :
012) 5197 "the blood of many men."
15 Trans. Str.-B., I, 1033.
16 O. Schmitz, Die Op[eranschauung des spateren Judentums und die Opferaussagen des
NT (1910); Wnd. Hb., 82 ff., 90 ff.; Str.-B., III, 176 ff.
17 J. Behm, RGG,2 I, 1156 f. In addition to the bibliography there given, cf. Wnd. Hb.,
83 ff., 90 ff.; Rgg. Hb., 260, n. 19; C. A. Anderson Scott, Christianity according to St. Paul
(1927), 85 ff.; J. Schneider, Die Passionsmystik des Pls. (1929), 28 ff., 120 ff.
alua
Xpl6Tov, 2:13; 18 paytiouov aluatoc 'Inoot Xpioroi, 1 Pt. 1:2; * Eutpo-
ente tuuio aluati oc - auvot cuouou kai -> domilou Xpiotoi, 1:19; to
alua 'Inooi > Katap[ZEl nuas aTto TooNS -quaptias, 1 Jn. 1:7; 8 :10ov
8t 88aT0c (baptism) kal aluatos (death), 5:6; cf. 5:8; to Aboavtl
(R P - Aobaavti) quas Ex Tov quaptiov quov gv To aluati autoi, Rev. 1:5;
#LEUKaVav airac (Tag aTolac aUTOv) Ev to aluat Tou -> apviou, 7:14; TEPI-
Pepinuévoc luatiov BBauuevov aluatl, 19:13; ny6p to De Ev tO
aluati HOU EK TRONC ouAñs, 5:9; -• Evlknoav aitov Bid To alua tot apviou,
12:11. These varied expressions include simple references to the fact of Christ's
death, images taken from the sphere of law (acquittal, ransom and the conclusion
of peace), and concepts which belong to the language of sacrifice (expiation,
sprinkling, purification, lamb without spot or blemish). The presence of the latter
does not mean, however, that cultic notions of sacrifice are bound up with the
blood of Christ. Already in later Judaism the idea of sacrifice is weakened and
spiritualised, so that it appears to be little more than a symbol of personal and
ethical processes. Similarly, the early Christian representation of the blood of
Christ as sacrificial blood is simply the metaphorical garment clothing the thought
of the self-offering, the obedience to God, which Christ demonstrated in the
crucifixion (Phil. 2:8; R. 5:19; Hb. 5:8). The history of belief in the atoning and
purifying power of blood, esp. among the Israelites and Greeks, does not help
us to understand the ideas which the NT links with the blood of Christ, since the
latter is simply a pregnant verbal symbol for the saving work of Christ. Even
in Hb., which compares the attributes of the old and new Sia0nkn as type and
antitype, and in which the blood of the heavenly High-priest Christ is thus the
counterpart of the blood of animals (- 174), the language is metaphorical : 006É
8t' aluatos tpayov kai u6oywv, 8uc SE TOU iblou aluatoc EloñA0EV to&TaE,
Elc to &yia, alwviav AUTPwOl EUp&uEVOG, 9:12; to alua tpaywv Kai taupov
dy a(El ipos thy Ts aapkos kalapoita, to alua tou Xplotoi, 8c
81d Tveduatoc aloviou Éautov TpoonvEyKEV aLouov tO OEd, Kalaplei Thy
auvel&now fuov &to veKpov Epyov EIC TO NATPEUEIV OEQ MOVTI, 9:13 f. (cf.
v. 25 f.); ÉXOVTES rappnoiav sis Tv Eloobov tov dylov Ev to aluat 'Inoot,
10:19 ; aluat pavtiouot, 12:24; €v aluat Sta0nkns alwviou, 20 13:20 (cf. v. 12).
The real point is the religous and ethical significance of the blood of Christ
cleansing the conscience from dead works (9:14, cf. 10:22). Again, when Paul in
C. 10:16 describes communion with the exalted Lord in the Lord's Supper as
-> Kolovia tou aluatos and TOU > oQuatos tou Xptotou, and when John in
Jn. 6:54, 56 (53) speaks of the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of
Christ: 6. ilvov you to alua; v. 55 : to alu& you anons EOTIV * TOOLS,
the blood is only a graphic term for death ; the Lord's Supper unites Christians with
the Christ who gave up His life to death. There can be no question in either Paul or
John of the kind of blood mysticism we find in the mysteries. The enhanced
realism of sacramental thinking in John is to be explained in the light of the anti-
docetic trend common to both the Gospel of John and the First Epistle (= 172 on
In. 19:34, and also tpoyw, oape).
For the atoning power of blood in the OT, v. Lv. 17:4; the cleansing power, Lv.
14:1 ff., 10 ff. (leprosy); the sanctifying, Ex. 29:20 f. (dedication of priests); apotropaic,

18 Cf. Lk. 22:20 $

10 Cf. Ac. 20:28 : thv ekkAnolav toU 0E0T * TEPLETOLOTO 81X TOU aluatos
TOU 18lou.
20 On alua 8a0ixns, cf. Zech, 9:11; Test. B. 3:8.
 alua - aluaterxuala

Ex. 12:22 f.;: 21 in Greek religion, Eustath. in Od., 22, 494 and 797: 81 aluatoc fiv
Kalapoic kai f TOv povedv, of aluatl vittouevol Katapolov Elyov auto;
atuati uialouevor. 22
Heracl. Frg., : (Diels, I, 78, 6 ff.): kalalpovtal
For a mystico-material view of Christ's blood, v. Cl. Al. Paed., 11, 2, 19, 4 : 8iTtov To
alua Tou Kuplou ... aapxikov, & this plopas AEAUTp uEOa, TVEULXTIK6V, .
© KEXplouE0a® Kal ToOT' EOTI TIEIV TO alua TOU 'Inood, this kupiakns METa-
AqBeiv apapolac. Hellenistic blood mysticism is to be seen in the Dionysus-Zagreus
cult, in which union with the god is achieved by eating the divine animal torn and
consumed in a wild frenzy (Scholion on Cl. Al. Protr., 318, 5 : ouc hoftov xpÉa of
uvobuevol Atovio), and esp. in the taurobolium and criobolium of the Attic mysteries,
with their regeneration and divinisation of the devotee through the blood of the sacred
animal sprinkled over him (Prudent. Perist., 10, 1011 ff.; Firm. Mat. Err. Prof. Rel.,
27, 8). 23
5. In the language of apocalyptic alua signifies the red colour 24 similar to blood
which indicates eschatological terrors in earth and heaven, such as war (Ac. 2:19),
hail and fire, HEuLyuÉva Ev aluati (Rev. 8:7), the changing of water (Rev. 8:8; 11:6;
16:3 f.), the colouring of the moon (Rev. 6:12; Ac. 2:20), the judgment of the nations
(Rev. 14:20 : ÉEjA0Ev alua ex tis Anvot axpt tov yalivov tov lfov).
Ex. 7:17 ff. underlies the use of alua (red colour) as sign of disaster in the OT.
This apocalyptic use is found in JI. 3:3 f. (LXX 2:30 f.); Sib., 5, 378 : Top Kal alua;
Ass. Mos., 10, 5 : (luna) tota convertit se in sanguine ; 4 Esr. 5:5 : de ligno sanguis
stillabit ; Barn., 12, 1; Herm. v., 4, 3, 3. Wine = alua otapuAñs in Gn. 49:11; Dt.
32:14; Sir. 39:26; 50:15; 1 Macc. 6:34; alua Botporv: Achill. Tat., 2, 2; alua surelou:
Cl. Al. Paed, II, 19, 3; 29, 1; Strom., V, 8, 48, 8. 25 The wine harvest is also an escha-
tological picture in Is. 63:3; J1. 4:13. On Rev. 14:20, cf. En. 100:3 : "The horse will wade
up to the breast in the blood of sinners"; jTaan, 69a, 7: 26 "Until a horse sank in blood
up to its nostrils ;" Lidz. Ginza, 417, 16 f.: "His horse strides up to its saddle in
blood, and the swirl of blood reaches up to the sides of its nose.

+ aluaterxuoia.
This is found only in Hb. 9:22 : xopis aluatekyuolas Oi yIVETaL &,
"without the shedding of blood there is no remission." As abs. alua ÉxyÉelv
(= alua, 3) denotes "to put to death (by blood shedding)" in the LXX and NT
(corresponding to Exyuous aluatos in 3 Bao. 18:28; Sir. 27:15), so the word
alpateryuola, found here for the first time, refers to the shedding of blood in
slaying, and esp. in the offering of sacrifices under the OT cultus (v. 18 ff.). There
is no specific reference to the pouring of blood at the altar (Lv. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34;
8:15; 9:9; Ex. 29:12), nor to the sprinkling on the altar (Ex. 24:6; Lv. 1:5, 11;
9:12), for which the LXX always has alua ek- or TPOoXÉELV with prep., since

21 Stade-Bertholet, Bibl. Theol. des AT, II (1911), 32 ff.; G. Holscher, Geschichte der
israel. u. jud. Religion (1922), 16, n. 8; 28 ff.; 76 ff.
22 E. Rohde, Psyche®/10 (1925), I, 271 ff., II, 77 f.; O. Gruppe, Gr. Mythologie u. Reli-
gionsgeschichte (1906), 891, 1552 f.; P. Stengel, Kultusaltertumers (1920), 127 ff.; K. Latte,
ARW, 20 (1921/22), 254 FE.
23 Rohde, op. cit., II, 14 ff.; H. Hepding, Attis (1903), 196 ff.; O. Gruppe, op, cit., 1552 ff.;
F. Cumont, Mysterien des Mithra3 (1923), 169 ff.; Bau. Jn. ad loc.; R. Reitzenstein, Die
hellen. Mysterienreligionen's (1927), 45 f.; H. Gressmann, Die oriental. Religionen im hellen.
rom. Zeitalter (1930), 105 ff.
24 E. Wunderlich, "Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Romer,"
RVV, XX, 1 (1925), 4 FF.; 10 FE.
25 K. Kircher, RVV, IX, 2 (1910), 32 ff.
28 Trans. Str.-B., III, 817.
aluatEkxuala. Cr.-Ko., 84; Wnd. Hb., 82 f.: Rgg. Hb., 280 f.
aluatexxuola - alvEd - alvoc

such reference to particular rites, which would include the "pooyuaus Tou aluatoc
of Hb. 11:28 (Ex. 12:7, 13, 22 f.), would not fit the more general content of v. 22
as the conclusion of the train of thought from v. 18 ff. The main point is that the
giving of life is the necessary presupposition of the remission of sins (- &oEoIs).
This was prefigured in the animal sacrifices of the OT, but what could not be
actualised in the OT (Hb. 10:4) has now been established as an eternal truth by
the death of Christ (alua, 4 174 f.).
Apart from Hb. 9:22, aluatekyuola is found only in the fathers. It signifies the
"shedding of blood" or "murder" in Tat., 23, 2; Epiph. Panar., 39, 9, 2, where aluatek-
quola is numbered among the major sins ; Georg. Al. Vit. Chrys. (Chrys. Opp., VIII,
1612, 184,26 : popn0els untos kal alpatexxuolai yévovtal Elc toy Aaoy etc.,
and cf. Thes. Steph., s.v.). It is found in the same sense in Joh. Mosch., 3005c; Theophan.
Chronogr. (Bonn, 1839), 510, 16. Relevant also in 072 *2* 7282 7' in bYoma, 5a; bMen.
93b; bZeb., ba.
Behm

aivew, alvoc

t alvew.
There are two main meanings in secular use : 1 a. "to praise or extol" (Arist. Fr., 673;
Hdt., V, 102; Corp. Hermet., XIII, 21); b. "to tell or commend" (Soph. Phil., 1380).
Only the former, however, is relevant to our purpose. It occurs frequently in the LXX
in religious sense with reference to God: with acc. in W 148:1 ff. TOv Kuplov, or
dat. 9 with n7in and 927 in Jer. 20:13; 1 Ch. 16:36; 23:5; 2 Ch. 20:19; 2 Eo8p. 3:10 f.;
Ps. Sol. 5:1. It is often used with SOEAGEIV, LXX Da. 4:34; U 21:22 f. and DuvEiv
(Buvoc), Neh. 12:24; Ju. 16:24 (BS juvnoav instead of fiveaav) and also with LEouo-
AoyEio0al in Ch. 16:4.
There are eight occurrences in the NT, six in Luke and Acts, one in R. 15:11
p 116:1, and one in Rev. 19:5 dat. It denotes the joyful praise of God expressed
in doxology, hymn or prayer, whether by individuals (Lk. 2:20; Ac. 3:8 f.), the
group of disciples (Lk. 19:37), the community (Ac. 2:47; Rev. 19:5) or the angels
(Lk. 2:13).
Related or similar terms are found in M. Pol., 14, 3 : ... TE alvo, FE Evoy®,
TE 60EQ (1 Act. Joh., 77: SoEa(ouÉv oE Kai alvoluev kal EiloyoU Ev kai
euyapiotobuev; Act. Ptr., 39 : alvoluÉv oE, EdyapÉ o1 viouno-
youuela, boEagovtEs FE Cf. Lk. 2:20; 24:53 A pl lat.; Just. Dial., 106, 1; Ap.,
13, 1; Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 7, 35, 2.

+ alvog.
a. "Story" or "fable," Aesch. Suppl., 534; Hes. Op., 202; b. "resolve," IG, IV, 926;
C. "praise," Aesch. Ag., 1547; Hdt., VII, 107. In the LXX transl. of ry and 227 pi, 8:2;
94 tit.; 2 Ch. 23:13: ouvoivtes alvov; 3 Macc. 7:16 : €v alvois kal Tap eAÉowv
buvoic.
It occurs twice in the NT (Mt. 21:16 W 8:2 and Lk. 18:43) signifying "praise"
in the religious sense.

alveo. 1 Thes. Steph.; Liddell-Scott. S.v.

 alvoc - alviyua

In 2 C1., 1, 5; 9, 10 we find alvov 8i86vaL = IVoV IVATEUTELV in Just. Ap., I,

65, 3; Orig. De Orat., 13, 3. alvoc is also found with suxaptoria, buvos and 86&a
in Just. Ap., I, 13, 1; 65, 3; Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 7, 49; Const. Ap., VII, 48, 3. Cf. Act.
Joh., 109 : tlva alvov h Trolav ipoooopdry Ai tiva sixapiorlav ÉTTOVOU&OQUEV
alvoc is the only praise which is worthy of God and the only sacrifice ap-
propriate to Him in Just. Ap., I, 13, 1; Dial., 118, 2. Origen comments on Ps. 148:1 2:
alvoc Eotiv buvoc Elc OEOv ÉTi OeMpla tov yEy0votov. Schlier

T aiviyua (‡oortpov)

In the NT this occurs only in 1 C. 13:12, which contrasts our present (&pt1)
imperfect seeing with perfect eschatological (ToTE) seeing: BAÉTOUEV yap aptI
8t' gob1tpou Év xivtyuatl, TotE S& Tpoowtov rpoc mpoaw tov. To understand
this, we need to analyse the two terms atviyua and goontpov.
ainy a first means "riddle.' Since the mysterious elements in religious utter-
ances can also be interpreted and understood as riddles, there is a material link
between the concept and oracular or prophetic pronouncement. This is true in
the case of the Sphinx : Soph. Oed. Tyr., 1525; Eur. Phoen., 1688; the Pythia : Plut.
Pyth. Or., 25 (II, 407b), 30 (II, 409c); the Sibylls : Sib., 3, 811. We may also refer
to S. Nu., 103 on 12:8, which tells us that according to Ez. 17:2 the prophets speak
to men, and according to Nu. 12:8 God speaks to the prophets, in riddles (ninn?,
LXX 8t ainiyuatov), the only exception being Moses. Among both Greeks and
Jews the essence of prophetic utterance is thus speaking in riddles in the sense of
saying things which require elucidation.
footpov. "To see in a glass" also means "to see prophetically." The Rabbis,
when they compare Moses' knowledge of God with that of other prophets, ex-
plain that the latter saw God with the help of nine mirrors (Ez. 43:3) whereas
Moses needed only one (Nu. 12:8),2 and that the latter saw Him in clouded
mirrors, but Moses in a clear one (Lv. r. 1 on 1:1).' Or it is maintained that
God revealed Himself to the prophets according to Nu. 12:6, and again in distinc-
tion from His impartations to Moses according to 12:8, not in a clear glass but
(only) by dreams and visions (Tanch. 12 143a). It is thus clear that seeing in a

2 MPG, 12, 1677d.

aivly a. On 1 C. 13:12 : H.A. W. Meyer, Komm. 5 (1870), 370 f.; G. Heinrici, Send-
schreiben (1880), 424 f.; Joh. W. 1K., 319 f.; Bchm. 1 K., 402 ff.; Harnack, SAB (1911).
150. 157 f.; R. Seeberg, Ewiges Leben (1915), 103 ff.; S. Basset, JBL, 47 (1928), 232 ff.;
J. Behm, Reinhold-Seeberg-Festschrift, I (1929), 314-342. On foot pov: R. Reitzenstein,
Historia Monachorum (1916), 243-254, 262; Festschr. f. F.C. Andreas (1916), 48 ff.; NGG
(1916), 411; H. Achelis, Festschr. f. Bonwetsch (1918), 56-63; K. Bornhauser, Bethel, XVIII
(1926), 45 f.; Str.-B., III, 452 ff.; W. Theiler, "D. Vorbereitung des Neuplatoni," in
Problemata, I (1930), 148.
On the material links, v. A. Jolles, Einfache Formen (1930), 139 (ref. of Peterson).
2 The starting-point is found in the noun 717, which in the vocalisation 772 in the OT
(Ex. 38:8) and also in Rabbinic writings (cf. Str.-B., III, 452 for examples) signifies mirror.
The idea of the one and nine mirrors is deduced from the fact that in Nu. 12:8 7872 occurs
only once, whereas in Ez. 43:3 this and other forms of nxn are found nine times.
For a similar statement, cf. bJeb., 49b; Mek. Sim. b. J. on Ex. 20:21, p. 114, Hoffmann.
A rather different view is found in bSanh., 97b, bSuk., 45b. Most of the relevant passages
may be found in Str.-B., op. cit. They usuallv rest on the mistranslation referred to in n. 5.
alvyua
glass can denote participation in the divine revelation in a very lofty sense, as
shown by the example of Moses.
The Rabbinic word N?72PB0R = TEK&piov means "glass" (esp. Muscovy glass)
as well as "mirror." There can be no disputing the fact that both meanings occur, 4 nor
that this alien term alone is used to denote the wonderful mirror which points into the
future or the beyond. This is the basis of the erroneous view, remarkably prevalent
among Christians, that in the Rabbinic passages mentioned x772ppox is to be rendered
"glass" or "pane" or "window." 5 As against this, there can be no question that at
least in Lv. r., 1 there is a plain link with the 7 of Nu. 12:8 which is always taken
to be a "mirror." Again, it is hard to see any point in the comparing of the divine
revelation to seeing through a window, and esp. through nine windows. On the other
hand, we can see at once how the image of looking in a mirror arises from Hellenistic
magical practices, particularly in view of the use of the alien word. If the number nine
is more than an exegetical play on Ez. 43:3 - n. 2), it may well be linked with the
fact that consulting mirrors was often unsuccessful at the first attempt, and had to be
repeated until a clear picture was seen.
Light is shown on the origin of the image by the fact that in all the relevant Rabbinic
passages the only word used out of all the possible terms for mirror is the alien
xinprox. While this is applied only figuratively to the divine revelation, there can be
no doubt that it is basically linked with the mirror gazing found in Hellenism. & There
are many passages to show that this was known to Judaism, e.g., 7 Gn. r., 91 on 42:1 E:
(Jacob) saw in a mirror that his hope (i.e., Joseph) was in Egypt.
In this image of looking into and seeing in mirrors there is no stress on the fact
that the mirror gives only an indirect and clouded picture. The latter notion occurs
only where less clear mirrors are distinguished from clear. 8 It is thus incorrect
to maintain that one of the characteristics of the mirrors of antiquity was to give
indistinct pictures. 9 Similarly, in the Rabbis as in Philo, we do not find the idea
"that the mirror does not show us the thing itself, but only a reflection." 10 Moses
is indeed extolled as the one who received the supreme and most direct revelation
of God when he saw Him in a clear mirro1
From the examples adduced, it may be seen that both terms, i.e., the mirror and
the riddle, are given their distinctive point as applied to prophetic revelation. The

Cf. Str.-B., III, 452 f.

5 Thus already Lambert Bos, Schottgen etc. (cf. Meyer, Bchm.); more recently Born-
hauser, Str.-B. As above, S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie (1910), 68, 399; Bacher,
Tann., II, 214.
6 For bibl. on the mirror magic of antiquity : Pauly-W., XI, 27; F. Pfister, Die Rel. d.
Griech.u. Rom. (1930), 317; ERE, IV, 351 ff.; examples in Achelis, op. cit. The most com-
prehensive discussion of the figurative usage of "mirror" in Hellenism and Gnosticism is
found in Behm, 326-335.
Cf. Str.-B.; esp. M. Ex. 18:21, where we do not have astrological practice (Str.-B.,
Behm, 325) but genuine consultation of mirrors. It might be that the word "mirror" is used
for a rough piece of glass or polished stone. All that is needed for the magical practice is
a bright surface, so that a dish of water or coloured vessel might serve. In the later usage
the nature of the mirror was of no importance.
8 -; 178 and n. 3.
9 Thus, e.g., BW, 634: "whose image was never wholly clear" ; cf. Meyer, Heinrici, etc.
But J. Weiss, 319, n.1 and Achelis, 62, n. show the archaeological unsoundness of this
view. Cf. further Pauly-W., op. cit. Bornhauser rightly points out that even Jm. 1:23 f. says
nothing about any lack of clarity in the picture reflected ; nor does 2 C. 3:18.
Thus J. Weiss argues that this is 'always" the case in Philo, but in most of the in-
stances adduced, as in the passages listed in Leisegang's Index, 299, 447, we find no trace
of this idea. Cf. e.g., Abr., 153; Spec. Leg., 219. Behm might have been even sharper in his
criticism on p. 332.
 alviyua - aipÉouai - alpeois

expressions thus signify that to see (- BAÉTELV) in the Spirit is to see pro-
phetically. Yet, though their basic meaning is the same, the two words have
different nuances, as appears very clearly in the Rabbinic discussion concerning
Moses. Ev alviyuat PAéTELV is always used of the obscure seeing, hearing and
speaking of the prophets, among whom Moses is not included. As against this,
ot' £obtpou does not imply any depreciation of the revelation, and may be used
of Moses as of all other prophets, the only difference being that his mirror is
better than those of others. To this extent the two terms are not tautological, 11
but tv alvlyuat is a more precise form of the general &t' Éaontpou to indicate
what is less clear. Our pneumatic seeing is "only" kv alvlyuat (not "only" 8t'
foottpou).
The quotations also show that in relation to Nu. 12:8 Rabbinic exegesis spoke of the
prophets speaking in riddles as well as seeing in a glass. To this there corresponds the
clear connection of the Pauline statement with Nu. 12:8, 12 the relationship not being
with the LXX but with the Mas. and Rabbinic exegesis. 18 Even the much discussed
Ev in conjunction with aiviyua is not to be explained in terms of a Greek prepositional
construction, 14 but in terms of the 2 of the Heb. text which Paul followed. Kittel

aipÉouai, aipEoIS, alpetixos,

aiperigw, braupew, Staipeoic
+ atpÉoual.
alpeo act., means "to take,' "win," "seize," and also "comprehend'; mid. "to take
for or to oneself," "to select." 1 The mid. meaning of "choose" or "elect," which is the
only use in the NT, is common both in the LXX and secular usage. Hebrew equivalents
are 7n3, ren, PIT, 790 hi and 728 hi. 4 Synonyms are ÉxAÉyEo0aL, EUBOKEiV, Bou-
leolai, BENE(V.
1. In Phil. 1:22 and Hb. 11:25 (p&^ov aipeialai . . . f) it indicates selective
preference as between two possibilities.
2. In 2 Th. 2:13 alpsiolaL indicates the election of the community by God.
Cf. Dt. 26:18 : kal Kopios Elato TE On Epov YEVEOOXI OE AUT& AaOv TEpI-
OUTlOY
(cf. Herm. s., 5, 6, 6). There is no instance of this kind of religious
election outside the biblical circle.

T atpeaic.
A. aipeLs in classical Usage and Hellenism,
alpeois, from aipeiv, is used in classical Greek to indicate : a. "seizure," e.g., of a
city (Hdt., IV, 1); b. "choice" (aipÉouai mid.), in the general sense of choice of a

11 For this reason there is no ground for eliminating the €v alv., as suggested by
E. Preuschen, ZNW, I (1900), 180 f. and favoured by J. Weiss. Cf. on this point already
Maxim. Conf. Quaest. ad Thalass., 46 (MPG, 90, 420b): tis Siapopd tou foontpou
pos to alviyua.
Cf. already Tert. Adv. Prax., 14.
18 Thus esp. Harnack, 158; as against Reitzenstein, 253.
14 Achelis, 62.
alpeoual. 1 Pass.; Liddell-Scott, s.v.
The introduction of 1 Ch. 21:10 under alpÉo in Hatch-Redpath is an oversight. It
should really come under alpo.
alpeots

possibility or even to an office ; "inclination" (opp. puyñ); and c. "resolve" or "enter-

prise," "effort directed to a goal," almost tpoa[peoic (Plat. Phaedr., 256c). The last
meaning persists in Hellenism and occasionally in Christian literature (Ditt. Syll.3, 675,
28; Herm. s., 9, 23, 5).
From this there develops in Hellenism the predominant objective use of the
term to denote a. "doctrine" and especially b. "school." The alpeois of the
philosopher, which in antiquity always includes the choice of a distinctive Bios,
is related to boyuata to which others give their itp6okloIs. It thus comes to
be the alpeois (teaching) of particular alpeois (school).1 Cf. the title of a
work by Antipater of Tarsus (2nd century B.C.) kard tov alpÉoeov, and the
writing of Chrysipp. alpsous mpos Topyutlony (Diog. L., VII, 191); also the
description of the philosophical schools as alpéogis in Polyb., V, 93, 8 (Peri-
patetic), Dion. Hal. Compos. Verb., 19, p. 134, 3 f. (f y' 'lookpatous Kal tov
EKElvo yvapluwv alpeoic); Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp., 1, 16; Diog. L., I, 19 (tot 8€
heukou [sc. uÉpour this pilocoplac] yeybwaow an 'k quaalKri
Kupnaukh KTi.). For the concept of such fellowship - as well as aipÉoels
kard oiloooolav (Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp., I, 185) we also have kato latplknv
aipÉoeis (ibid., I, 237) the following aspects are important : the gathering of
the alpeous from a comprehensive society and therefore its delimitation from other
schools; the self-chosen authority of a teacher ; the relatively authoritarian and
relatively disputable doctrine ; and the private character of all these features.

B. aipsois and r in the LXX and Judaism.

In the LXX alpeois is found occasionally in the general sense of "choice":
f&, aipeoewg or kata alpeoiv, of or by free choice, or voluntarily: Gn. 49:5;
Lv. 22:18, 21; 1 Macc. 8:30.2 The Hebrew equivalent is 7272. More important is
the signification in Hellenistic and Rabbinic Judaism. We need not be surprised
if in Philo it is used on the one side to denote a Greek philosophical school, as,
e.g., in Plant., 151, and if on the other it is employed to depict what Philo calls
the august philosophical society of the Therapeutics, as, e.g., in Vit. Cont., 29.
In Josephus, too, alpeouc is used of the religious community of the Essenes (Bell.,
2, 118). Indeed, Josephus sees all the Jewish religious schools in terms of the
Greek philosophical schools, the Essenes, Sadducees and Pharisees being the
tpEis Tap® nuiv aipÉoeic. After his investigation * of all three, Josephus resolved
ToAITEUE BaL th rov dapuaalon aipéaEl KataKorouldv, f tta houb fort
th stap® "EXnow Etoixn Aeyouavn (Vit., 12). Cf. for the linguistic usage Vit.,
191 and 197; Ant., 13, 171 and 293. If the choice of the term is partly due to
Josephus' bias towards assimilation, it was justified by the material relationship
between the Palestinian Jewish and Greek schools in basic structure. The u6p16v
T 'Ioudaixov (Ant., 17, 41) or auvrayua T1 'Jovdalov (Bell., 1, 110) found a
suitable designation in alpeois.
The corresponding term in Rabbinic Judaism is 72,* which can mean both

alpeaic. 1 alp. organised school or class in Ditt. Or., 176 : of EONBEUKOTES

tis Aupoviou alpeoews. alvÉoEoc as in v. 31, 38, otherwise
Neh. 12:40: al dio this alpéoeos, perhaps
division. Cf. Ps. Plat. Ax 367a, commission: IG, IV, 937, embassy.
8 Contested by G. Holscher, Pauly-W., IX, 1936.
On the etymology, cf. W. Bacher, REJ, 38, 45 f. What follows is substantially in
accordance with the findings of K. G. Kuhn. Cf. his' Excursus I ("Giljonim and Sifre
minim" in Sifre Numeri.
 alpeois

alpeais and alpetik6g. " Like xipeois in Josephus, 1'> denoted in the first instance
the trends and parties within Tudaism. But soon, when certain minim separated
themselves from the orthodox Rabbinic tradition, it came to be used only of
trends within Judaism opposed by the Rabbis, and therefore sensu malo. The
term thus stigmatised certain groups as "heretical." This sense is found in Rabbinic
writings belonging to the end of the 1st and the early part of the 2nd century
A.D., e.g., in the birkat ha-minim which was probably incorporated in the Prayer
of Eighteen Petitions towards the end of the 1st century (bBer., 28b).' At the
end of the 2nd century the term acquired a new meaning, being applied not sO
much to the members of a sect within Judaism as to the adherents of other faiths,
and esp. Christians and Gnostics. Rabbin. npibnp can also be compared (TSota,
14, : ff.; T. Sanh., 7, 1). 9 But this corresponds rather to the Greek oxloua with its
main suggestion of personally motivated disputes, whereas 19 is the exact equiv-
alent of alpeois.

Ch aipsous in the NT.

The NT statements concerning aipeous are to be understood against the Hellen-
istic and Jewish background.
1. The usage in Acts corresponds exactly to that of Josephus and the earlier
Rabbis. Cf. alpeaic tiv Zao8ouralov in Ac. 5:17; alpeais tov Dapiaa in
15:5; 8tl Kara Thy XxpIBEotaTtV alpeolv ths ñuetÉpas Opnokelas Egnoa
Oapioaioc in 26:5. Christianity, too, is called a aipeoic by its opponents in 24:5 :
It pOTootaTs ths tov Na(apalov aipéoeoc. Cf. 24:14; 28:22; also Just. Dial.,
17:1; 108, 2; Act. Phil., 15. In these passages the term has the neutral flavour of
"school."
2. Against this background, it is impossible to solve the problem of the deriva-
tion of the special Christian sense of heresy. For the development of the Christian
concept is not wholly analogous to that of the Rabbinic rp, as though, in the
process of the separation of non-orthodox groups, the heterodox parties came
to be designated heresy. On the contrary, the word seems to have been suspect in
Christianity from the very first, and when it is used as a Christian technical
term in conscious or unconscious connection either with the Greek philosophical
schools or the Jewish sects it denotes at once societies outside Christianity and
the Christian Church. 10 Hence it does not owe its meaning to the development
of an orthodoxy. The basis of the Christian concept of alpeois is to be found

h does not usually mean "sect," but "member of a sect"; hence aipetiK6s and not
a[pedic. Cf. Ign. Tr., 6, 1.
Including Jewish Christians, but not exclusively Jewish Christians (as against Bacher).
Cf. Str.-B., IV, 330.
The nosrim are mentioned as well as the minim. Since the former are Christians, it is
obvious that the latter are not necessarily so.
8 Cf. A. Buichler, "Uber die Minim von Sephoris und Tiberias im 2. u. 3. Jhdt.", Cohen-
Festschrift Judaica (1912), esp. 293 f. The conclusions of B. are not in complete agreement.
The many parallels which he shows between the subjects discussed between the Rabbis and
the minim and those debated in the Dial. of Justin indicate that the minim are for the most
part Christians, and indeed Gentile Christians.
Cf. Str.-B., III, 321 f., 443.
10 When we read in the Edict of Milan (Eus. Hist. Eccl., X, 5, 2): KEKEAEUKQUEV TOiC
Xpioriavois ths alpEoEos kal this Opnoxslas tis Éautov ThE THotiV QUAaT-
TELV . . .. alpeois has just as much the sense of choice as of society, as the context shows.
alpeois

in the new situation created by the introduction of the Christian £kkAnoia. Ex-
kinola and alpeoic are material opposites. The latter cannot accept the former ;
the former excludes the latter. This may be clearly seen in G1. 5:20, where alpeoic
is reckoned among the Epya this oaproc along with Épis, Ex0pai, Gilos, Ovuol,
Épileia and bixootaolai. Yet neither here nor elsewhere in the NT does alpeois
have technical sense. In C. 11:18 f. we see even more clearly the impossibility
of alpeous within Christianity. Mention of the cultic assembly in which the com-
munity gathers as Ekk^nola brings Paul back to the oxlouata of C. 1:10 ff.
oylouata are splits in the community caused by personally motivated disputes.
Paul believes in part the accounts which have come to him of such divisions in
the community. He does so because there must be (kai) aipéoes tv ouiv in
order that the tested might be made manifest. It makes no difference whether Paul
is here using an apocryphal saying of the Lord (cf. Just. Dial., 35, 3; Didasc.,
118, 35). The statement is for him an eschatologico-dogmatic statement 11 in which
alpeais is understood as an eschatological magnitude. In this respect it is distin-
guished from oyloua, 12 and obviously indicates something more serious. The
greater seriousness consists in the fact that aipÉouis affect the foundation of the
Church in doctrine (2 Pt. 2:1), and that they do so in such a fundamental way as
to give rise to a new society alongside the ÉxkAnola. This the Church cannot
accept, since as the lawful public assembly of the whole people of God the Church
embraces this people exclusively and comprehensively. By its very nature, how-
ever, alpeous is a private magnitude with a limited validity. It is, in fact, a school
or party. If the Church accedes to alpÉoslc, it will itself become a alpeois and
thus destroy its comprehensive "political" claim; the concept of party to
mention a close analogy necessarily excludes that of the people or state.

D. aipsrc in the Early Church.

In the age which followed alpeois was still understood as an eschatologically
threatening magnitude essentially opposed to the ÉkkAnola. This may be seen
clearly in Ign. Eph., 6, 2; Trall., 6, 1; Just. Dial., 51, 2. Here the term has already
become technical. It is worth noting however and this confirms what we have
said about the material difference between ÉxkAnola and aipeois that within
Christianity alpeois always denotes hostile societies, and there is always con-
sciousness of an inner relationship between heretics and the secular philosophical
schools or Jewish sects (Justin Ap., I, 26, 8; Dial., 80, 4), which they also describe
by the term alpeouc. 18 What the Church usually has in view is Gnosticism. As
seen by the Church, the Gnostics form schools. 14 It is worth noting that when
Celsus raises the charge of multiplicity against Christianity, the only defence that
Origen can make (c. Cels., III, 12) is to point to the fact that oudevos ntpayua-
TOS, ou uh ontoubaia gotiv h apxn kal to Blo xprouuos, yEyovaow aipÉoeis

11 Cf. Mk. 13:5 f. and par.; Ac. 20:29 f.; 2 Pt. 2:1; 1 Jn. 2:19.
12 The distinction is here implicit which is made explicit in Iren., IV, 26, 2 and 33, 7,
namely, between haeretici et malae sententiae and those qui scindunt et separant unitatem
ecclesiae.
18 Cf. Just. Dial., 62, 3; Theoph. Ad. Autol., II, 4 (MPG, 6, 1052a); Cl. Al. Strom, I, 15,
69, 6; VI, 15, 123, 3 etc.; Hipp. El., I, 2, 1 etc.; Orig. c. Cels., III, 80, in Joh. II, 3, 30.
14 Cf. M. Pol. epil., 1 f.; Test. Sol., 6, 4 P; 8,5; Iren., II, 19, 8 (de schola eorum, qui sunt
a Valentino et a reliquis haereticorum); Theoph. Ad. Autol., II, 14 (MPG, 6, 1076c); Hipp.
El. praef., 11; IV, 2, 3; X, 23, etc.; Cl. Al. Strom., I, 19, 95, 6 (aitai [sc. alpEoeIc] E
flowv al Thy E& apxis dTo elTouoal txkAnolav).
 alpeois - alpetikoc ~ alpetigo - Sia pEc

8t&opou; as it is in medicine, Greek philosophy, and Jewish exegesis, so also in

Christianity. Origen, therefore, has lost sight of the material distinction between
the Exk^nola and a alpeois.

+ alperixoc.
In view of what we have said, this word need not detain us. It is found already
in Greek usage in the sense of "one who can choose aright" (Ps.-Plat. Def.,
412a).1 It does not occur, however, in Josephus. In Christianity it seems to have
been used technically from the very first, and denotes the "adherent of a heresy." 2
In the NT it is found in Tt. 3:9 f.: Hopds SE YIThOEIC Kai yEveaoyias kal Epiv
kai payac vouikas rteptlotaoo' Elaiv yap dvmpeleis kal udralol. alpEtikov
ave piTov uerc pilav kal beutéparv voubeolav tapait0, EloGg 8tL EEEoTpaTtaI
6 toloutoc kai quaptavEl v auToKaT&K pITOs. For the early Church, cf. Didasc.,
33, 31; 118, 33; Iren., III, 3, 4 (Polycarp TOAouG XTO TOV TPOEIPNUEVOV aipeti-
KIV ETEOTPEYEV EIS THV EKKANGIAV TOU 0EOD, ulav kai uovv taumv arrdelorv
xnpvfas ino tov a TootoAwv tapEL nEvaL, THY OTtO ths exkAnolac itapa-
8E6ouEvnv); Cl. Al. Strom., I, 19, 95, 4 etc.; Hipp. El., IV, 47,5 etc.

t alperito.
Predominantly Hellenistic, act. and mid., meaning the same as alpsiolai, but stronger.
Common in the LXX for 703 but also for 750, 70, $21, xt72, 738 pi, 5pm. Cf. also 2 Cl.
14.1: GotE oov alpetioQuela ano tis exkAnolas ths gons, Iva GW0GUEV.
In the NT it occurs only in Mt. 12:18 in a quotation from Is. 42:1 (Mas. 72h,
LXX ovti auBaveolai). Possibly in Mt. 12:18 it reflects the specific meaning of
alperizo in 1 Ch. 28:6 (not v. 10); 1 Ch. 29:1; Hag. 2:23; Mal. 3:17 = "to adopt.'
This is also found in secular Greek. Cf. JPE, 2,299 : aipetloas tamip; of God,
IG, III, 74.

+ StampEd, + SaipEdic.
Bia ped has at least five meanings in secular usage: "to dissolve or break"; "to
distinguish" both generally and logically ; "to decide"; "to distribute"; "to apportion."
The last two are most common in the LXX. Cf. Gn. 4:7; 15:10; 32:7; Lv. 1:12 and
Jos. 18:4 f.; Jdt. 16:24; 1 Macc. 1:6; 6:35 etc.
In the NT it obviously means "to apportion and distribute," as in Lk. 15:12:
tov Blov; C. 12:11: To Ev kal to autd nvedua, biaipoiv lola trdoto kaloc
BoulEtal. The TVEOua allots the gifts of the Spirit to the various members of the
community according to His will.
Sta[peaic has three important meanings in secular Greek: "separation or dissolu-
tion"; "division" either generally or logically; and "distribution," as the apportionment
of property or an estate in the pap. In the LXX it means "distribution" in Jdt. 9:4;
Sir. 14:5; or "what is distributed": a. a part in U 135:13 (parts of the sea), or Jos. 19:51

a PETIKOG. 1 Cf. Pr.-Bauer.

The leader of a secular alpeois, e.g., a medical school, is called a alpeo apyns, IG,
XIV, 1759; Galen, 6, 372. The title then passed to the leader of a Christian heresy : Hipp.
El., VI, 27, 1 etc. The member of a sect is also called alpetiats in Jos. Bell., 2, 119; Iambl.
Protr. 21 ka' (in secular usage also the founder of a philosophical school, Diog. L, IX, 6)
or alpeoioms, Just. Dial., 80, 3 ; Porphyr. Abst., IV, 11.
S aIDEd K TA. Preisigke Wort.
 alpa
- 19:8 f. (an inheritance); or b. a 'division,' as in Ju. 5:16 : Elc Bia pEosis 'PouBhv
5:15 : Elc toc ueploas 'PouBnv clan; Ch. 24:1; 2 Ch. 8:14; 35:5, 10, 12; 2 Esr.
6:18: courses of priests; 1 Ch. 26:19: Suaupois tdv TuAwpibv, 1 Ch. 27:1-15: divisions
of the army.
So far as concerns C. 12:4 ff., this can be decided only from the context. The
plur. Bia pÉoEIS, the opposition to TO SÉ auTo TIVE ua, and the parallelism with
the basic concept of n oavepwois toU TIVEUUXTOS (v. 7) all favour "distribution"
rather than "distinction.' The one Spirit is manifested in apportionments of gifts
of the Spirit, so that in the community the one yapis of God is experienced by
charismatics in these distributions (of xaplouata). The one concept Sal peoic
here includes both distribution and what is distributed.
In early patristic writing we find the peculiar use of Saipsoic to denote the distinc-
tion in the intertrinitarian relationship. Cf. Athen. Suppl., 10:3: Thy Ev Th EVoEL
Suvautv kai ty Ev T taEEl Bialpeoi of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Cf. 12, 2;
Tatian, 5, 1 f.; Orig. in Joh., II, 10, 74.
Schlier

aipa, Énaipo
aipo.
a. "to lift from the ground": Test. Sol., 23, 3, McCown, 69; b. "to lift with view to
carrying": LXX, Gn. 40:16; 45:23 etc.; C. "to carry off or put away": LXX, Gn. 35:2;
44:1 etc.; P. Tebt., II, 417 etc. Figur. in LXX Bao. 15:25 : alpeiv duapiua, and
25:28 : alpatv dvounua, to signify remission.
1. The basic meaning of "to lift up" is used in the religious language of the
NT to signify the raising of the hand in an oath : fipev Thy Xeipa aitoi thy
SEEiov (Rev. 10:5, cf. Dt. 32:40; Da. 12:7), the raising of the face to heaven in
prayer : fipev toug - 6p0a^uouc avo (Jn. 11:41),1 and the raising of the voice
in prayer : fipav - povny ipos tov ée6v (Ac. 4:24, cf. Ju. 21:2).
2. The sense of "to take up and carry" is found in Mt. 11:29 : *Apate Tov >
guyov uou, in which it is contrasted with taking up the yoke of the Torah, the
commandments etc. (Ac. 15:10; Gl. 5:1) 2 and signifies obedience to the will of
God declared by Jesus. 'Apato tov otaupov autoi in Mk. 8:34 and par. is
a picture signifying readiness for self-denial and martyrdom in following Jesus
gil yelpiv apoiolv gE (Mt. 4:6 and par. > w 90:12) implies protection by the
guardian angel.
3. The idea of "to carry off" occurs in many connections in the religious
language of the NT, being used of death : alpetal & to this yns n gon autou
(Ac. 8:33 = Is. 53:8, cf. Jn. 10:18) ; again of death 3 rather than snatching away

alpw, amalpw. Pr.-Bauer, 35 ff., 437 f.; Str.-B., II, 363-370.

Ct, Mk. 6:41 and par.; 7:34; Jn. 11:41; 17:1. Also Lk. 18:13; Ps. 123:1; 1 Esr. 4:58; Jos.
Ant., 11, 162; Gn. r., 33 on 8:1; bJeb., 105b.
Str.-B., I, 608-610; Buechler, Studies in Sin and Atonement (1928), 52-118.
So A. Schlatter, Sprache u. Heimat d. vierten Evangelisten (1902), 134.
4 Rabbinic usage is against this, cf. Schl. J., 323.
 alpo - Erraipo
or rapture : $ o0k Époro iva apns aUTOUC EK tOU Koouou (In. 17:15); of the de-
priving of salvation : aperjoetau do' ouiv h paoineia tot 0E00 (Mt. 21:43); of
the depriving of knowledge : pate ThV KAEiSa ths yooewc (Lk. 11:52); of the
taking away of judgment n xplois autoo tp0n (Ac. 8:33 Is. 53:8); of the
removal of guilt by the cross: to kae' nuov XElp6ypaoov fipkev EK ToU
uéoou (Col. 2:14); of the expiation of sin : tva tos quaptias apn (1 ]n. 3:5).
It has long been disputed whether the second or the third is the true meaning
in the phrase : 6 aipav thy quaptlav tot Koopou (Jn. 1:29). 6 In both cases it
is a matter of setting aside the guilt of others. In the former, however, the means of
doing this is by substitutionary bearing of penalty; 7 in the latter sin is removed
by a means of expiation.* If the reference in In. 1:29 is primarily to the Servant
of the Lord (XA2NT X3v), then what is meant (-> xuv6c) 8 is the representative
bearing of the punishment of sin (cf. Is. 53:12 LXX: kal aitos quaptias to\-
AGv aVIVEYKEV, he took to himself the sins of many; cf. also Is. 53:4, 6, 11). But
the Evangelist, who renders "N7 w2p by cuvoc tou 0E00, is thinking of the setting
aside of sin by the expiatory power of the death of Jesus, so that we should
translate the statement as follows : "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world" (i.e., by the atoning power of His blood, cf. Jn. 1:7).

Éntaipo.
In the LXX mostly used for N002 a. "to set or lift up"; and by extension pass. b. "to
lift up oneself against someone" (Kato tIvos): LXX, 2 Esr. 4:19 with Enl, or "to exalt
oneself" (abs.): LXX y 36:35; 3 Bao. 1:5.
1. In the sense of "to lift up" Éntalpelv is used religiously to denote the gesture
of prayer : Értaipelv dolous xeipas (1 Tm. 2:8), 1 Énaipeiv toug 8p0aAuous
sic tov oipavov (Lk. 18:13; Jn. 17:1 -) 185); the gesture of blessing at departure
ÉntaipElV toc XEipas Lk. 24:50, and elsewhere of the priest who blesses);2 and
in a figurative sense the gesture of hope : Éralpelv tac KEO AdS (Lk. 21:28; cf.
UN) xt) in Zech. 2:4 etc.; LXX. alpelv KepaAnv).
2. In the figurative pass. sense of "to raise up oneself" or "to oppose" : Trov
poua ETalpouEvov Kata This yvooewc TOU 0E06 (2 C. 10:5), or "to exalt
oneself" : ovéyeo0E E1 TIC ÉntaipETaI (2 C. 11:20) . In both cases we have to
do with human pride arrogantly asserting itself against God (2 C. 10:5) or man
(11:20).
Joachim Jeremias

So Pr.-Bauer, 36.
Cf. Str.-B., II, 363-370.
LXX, Is. 53:12: quaptias TOAAOV dVIVEYKEV.
LXX, Lv. 10:17 of the eating of the flesh of the sin-offering : Iva aptAntE Thy duap-
tlov. The eating of the priest counts as an expiatory, cultic act. S. Lv. 10:17; cf. Str.-B.,
II, 366.
Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922), 107 f. For greater detail,
cf. ) cuvoc.
traip 0. 1 LXX, 2 Esr. 18(8):6 vl.; U 133:2; Str.-B., II, 261: Dib. 1 Tm. ad loc.: >
EntElvo.
Lv. 9:22; Sir. 50:20 (22); Str.-B., IV, 238-249; II, 76: 1II, 456, 458, 645.
alolavouai - alainais - alo0nptov

$ aloldvouai, aiolnois,
alo0nthplov

A. The Linguistic Usage outside the NT

If we are to understand the word, we must see how wide is the range of possible
meanings of alolavouai. It is used to denote a. "sensual perception"; b. "per-
ception" generally, esp. "spiritual discernment"; and C. "intellectual understanding.'
Under a. there is an original sharp distinction from > auvinu (cf. c.). Man
alone understands (Euvinou), whereas other creatures perceive by the senses
(aio0avetaL) but do not understand (Diels, I, 135, 8). On b. cf. Jos. Ant., 18, 148
(247) etc. But C. is also found in Plat. Gorg., 479c: ap' alolavel ia ouuBaivovta
ex tou Aoyou. The person questioned is summoned to a decision which is first
logical but which approximates closely to being ethical, and not finally in con-
sequence of the totality of the Socratic dialectic. Cf. Thuc., I, 71: oi alo0avo-
uEvoI = those who have insight ; Jos. Ant., 19, 168 : oi xpetns aio0a vouEVoL
those who direct their inner attention to virtue.
alo0nois. a. In original distinction from Aoyos, alolnous is & lotov (Heracl.
in Diels, I, 74, 38) as "sensual perception. Thus also in the Hermetic literature
aloinois is an organ of the oua whereas gnosis is an organ of the voug: 6 8é
vOUC to oouati £vavtlos, Corp. Herm., X, 10a. In its most general meaning
alo0nos denotes "sense." Along these lines alofnous can be understood rather
less precisely as an "organ of sense" (as already in Plat.). b. Though the Stoics
do not equate - vouc and alolnous, they regard them as two different ways of
considering the same capacity of soul (v. Arnim, II, 230 [849]). With this there is
bound up on the one side the assertion of the trustworthiness of aioliosc (v.
Arnim, II, 27 [78]), and on the other the clear division between aiotñoels and
moral acts (III,16 [63]). Jos. in the first instance understands by atolnos a
capacity of soul. In Ap., 2, 178 Bell., 7, 343 it is the "power of recollection"
(hence Ant., 19, 119 where it is almost "news" or "information"). In Bell., 1, 650
it is the power to enjoy the good things of the last time, c. In Epictetus "judgment"
concerning the moral valuelessness of an EntOvuia can be called alotnous (Diss.,
II, 18,8).1
There is variety in Philo's use of the term, but in general it is regarded in later
Platonic fashion as the cause of passions (Leg. All., II, 50). It deceives and pollutes
(Cher., 52), and is thus resisted by those who love wisdom (Cher., 41, although
Philo concedes the possibility of training aloenois in Vit. Mos., II, 81 f. etc.). In
Philo it is predominantly "sensual perception," but along the lines of b. it can
also be "consciousness' with even a hint of moral consciousness (Som., II, 292).
It is often opposed to voug, and above all to the processes of religious awareness
(Migr. Abr., 5). At best, it can only mediate to man a sense of his own littleness
(Spec. Leg., 1, 293). But these are not consistent deductions from the later Platonic

alainals. Isolated observations on the history of the term may be found in O. Im-
misch, Agatharchidea," SHA, Phil.-hist. Ki. (1919), 98-100; Meyer8 on Phil. 1:9.
aloenth piov. P. Linde, De Epicuri vocabulis (1906), 32; Rgg. Hb. 5:14.
Dib. Phil., 1, 9.
 alolavoual - alolnois - alo0nthplov
idea, fairly widely developed in individual works of Philo, that alo0nous is to
be rejected along with matter because of its connection with it. When in Leg. Gaj.,
21 the decision of vouc in action is made dependent on correct alolnois, Philo
is following the usage of the day, or possibly Palestinian usage, which in general
does not see any distinction between spirit and experience. He is not speaking
in the stricter terms of philosophical theology.
alo0ntplov. a. "'instrument of sense," 2 as always in Philo. On the other hand,
Plut. can call vouc an alo0nmplov or "organ" of the uxh in Non Posse Suav.
Viv. Sec. Epic., 14 (II, 1096e). This shift of meaning goes rather beyond anything
found in the NT or 4 Macc.
In the LXX alo0&voua occasionally means purely a. "sensual perception" (Ep.
Jer. 19, 41; cf. Job 40:18). Mostly, however, it indicates not merely b. "reception
into a state of knowledge" (Job 23:5) but also c. a "judgment," whether moral
(Prv. 17:10), religious (Is. 49:26) or general (4 Macc. 8:4). It thus means a con-
scious affirmation (Wis. 11:13), an actual understanding (Is. 33:11), which finally
presses towards or even includes decision. We can thus understand how it is
that in the LXX ato0nois (always used for nyT except in Ex. 28:3; Prv. 14:7)
signifies conscious apperception and is mostly equivalent to wisdom (Prv.), with
an emphasis on the element of moral discrimination. Particularly striking is Prv.
1:7: EDOÉBELX 8É Eic Oedv apxh alo0ñoE∞G, in which alo@nows is compared with
oopla and rabela. alo0nihplov thus denotes the "organs of the soul' which
mediate between vouc and (@u ol) ToOn and hOn, and which constitute the
psychological point at which moral decision becomes actual (4 Macc. 2:22).

B. The Word Group in the NT.

In Lk. 9:45 alo06voua obviously has the meaning C. The disciples have no
inner understanding of the prophecy of the passion.
In Phil. 1:9 alolnois also has the meaning C. It indicates the power of moral
discrimination and ethical judgment as distinct from religious, and as further
developed in v. 10.
In Hb. 5:14 alo0nthpiov has much the same sense as c. and 4 Macc. 2:22, except
that the point of view is different. The aio0nipia are the organs which are
capable of, or at least susceptible to, discrimination between good and evil, the
TÉleioc having SO trained them by exercise that they have become a corresponding
habitus. Here the pneuma has replaced the vouc of 4 Macc. 2, and aloenthpia
indicates a plurality of capacities for moral decision which through f&is have
already developed into specific qualities.
It is only to Christians of this developed moral character that the doctrine of justifica-
tion by faith can be preached (v. 13), since vhitlol so easily misunderstand it after the
manner of the Judaising opponents of Paul. The Abyoc Sixaioaivns seems almost to
be an esoteric doctrine (5:13) . But it cannot lead the TÉAElO into moral danger, for they
cannot attain to a second repentance (6:4 ff.). If the picture were further developed
in 5:14b, and if doctrines were meant by Kalo0 TE Kal KaKoU, the view of the author
would be quite distorted. 3
Delling

Examples may be found in Linde.

3 As against Rgg. and Meyer-Welss, ad loc.
aloxuva

aloyivo, Ertaloyiva, KaTaloXovd, (- aldoc).

aloyiv, aloxp6s, aloxpoins

A. The Linguistic Usage in the LXX.

In contrast to ) alooc and aldeiola, aloxovn and aloyivo (or aloxuvouau)
remained in common use even in the lower strata of Greek, and must often have
replaced the less usual terms. As in all the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, they
are thus common in the LXX (mostly in translation of tia and nt). Nor are they
used in special sense, except that there is a one-sided application which gives
them a certain nuance.
The verb aloyovo, fully interchangeable with ÉT- and esp. kataloyivo, is
often found act. in the sense of "to shame" or "to bring to shame" (mostly for
via). Most frequently God is the subject, and the shame to which He brings is His
judgment ( 43:9, v.1. 40u8EVoo; 118:31, 116). The mid. is relatively uncommon,
and has the common Greek sense of "'being ashamed" (i.e., of doing something,
2 Esr. 8:22 etc., or of having done something, 2 Ch. 12:6). Mostly aloyoveo0au
denotes experience of the judgment of God; and it is usually difficult to decide
whether the form is mid. or pass., i.e., "to be shamed or confounded," or "to be
ashamed" in the sense of "having to be ashamed." What is in view is not so
much the state of soul of the aloyuv0els but the situation into which he is brought
and in which he is exposed to shame and has thus to be ashamed. That the thought
is primarily of one's own despair rather than the 86ga of others is shown by the
fact that dya^ iao0al and s0opalve lai are the most common opposites
(y 34:26 f.; 69:3-5 etc.); indeed, when Sofa(eo0aL (-> 86%x) and > Kauxaolal
are the opposites (Is. 45:24 f.; U 96:7 etc.), they do not have their Greek sense,
but indicate pride rather than good repute. Characteristic are the combinations
and parallelisms of aioyuv0ñval with €vtpannval, tapax0nval, gtluwenval,
ove olo0nval, Katayelaolival, Eilotpaoñ, gootpaonvai Eic To ortiow,
EKAEITELV, itraolai, uatalweñval, ATto ÉaBat, ouvp Bria etc., which illustrate
the breadth of meaning. Since the reference is mostly to the aloxuveñval of those
who are full of proud confidence and expectancy, or to the fact that those who
trust in Yahweh will not be confounded, aloyuveñvau often has almost the mean-
ing of "being disillusioned" (e.g., Jer. 2:36).
Accordingly, the subst. aloyuvn is very seldom used for the "feeling of shame." 1
It mostly denotes "disgrace," though sometimes with an emphasis on the fact that
this also means being ashamed. Its primary reference is to the shame brought by
the divine judgment. Here, too, the range of meaning is shown by the combinations
with Eviporh, oveibiou6s, cruula, etc. It is also characteristic that aloxu is
used for bya or for the equivalent nua.

B. The NT Usage.
This is primarily determined by that of the LXX or Judaism. The verb, again
used interchangeably with ET- and kataloyUvo, is found in the act. in the older
sense of "to shame" (1 C.11:4 f.: Thy KepaAnv; cf. v.11: druia auto fotiv).

alaxivn. Bibliography as for al&oc, where the Greek use of aloyivn is also
treated.
aloyuvn is used in the sexual sense for 792 in Is. 20:4 etc.
 aloxova

Mostly, however, it means "to bring to shame." If the Greek sense of "to shame"
is found in 1 C. 11:22 (touc un Exovtas, cf. Jm. 2:6 : gtu&(elv), we are wholly
on OT ground in 1 C. 1:27: tva kataloxuvn (sc. God) tOG 00000C To
loxupo, as is plainly shown by the parallel expression in v. 28 : tva katapyton.
The same is true of R. 5:5 : r 8É E\tic of KataioxUvel.
The mid. is found in the older sense of "being ashamed" of doing something in
Lk. 16:3 (ÉéTaITEiv); Hb. 2:11; 11:16; cf. Herm. s., 9, 11, 3; or of something bad
in R. 6:21 (Éo' ofs VOV ETALOYUVEO0E), or of a dubious person or cause in Mk.
8:38 and par. (us kai TOUG uouc Abyouc); R.1:16 (to EdayyÉlov); 2 Tm.
1:8, 16. It is found in the absol. in 2 Tm. 1:12; 1 Pt. 4:16 and 1 Jn. 2:28 : iva
OXO EV rappnolav kai un aloyuv0 uev ant' aUtoi, If the word were not used
as the opposite of stappnoia in JIn. 2:28, we might well put it in the following
group, in which aloyuveo0au bears the partly mid. and partly pass. sense of being
ashamed as found in the OT. This sense is found not merely in the quotation
from Is. 28:16 in R. 9:33 (cf. 10:11) and in Pt. 2:6, but also in 2 C. 10:8 ÉXV TE
yOp TEPIOTOTEDOV TL KauxhouaL ook aloxuvéñoouau (=; 189); and again
in 2 C.7:14 : El Tu kEkauxnuai, oi karnoxovenv (cf. the continuation i
Kauxnois arnOela ÉyeviOn). There can be no doubt that aloxuv0ñval in-
cludes an enforced sense of shame in these passages, and cf. Phil. 1:20, where we
find the sense of being disillusioned : katd thy g tokapaooklav kai ÉArl&a yOU,
8Tl Év oU8evi aioxuvenooual, cAX' Ev itoon Tappnola ueyaAuvenoetal
Xplot6s. Similarly in 2 C.9:4: pn TIC KataLOXUVOGuEV queis Ev Th
UtootaoEl tauTn, where in view of the typical correspondence of expectation and
being ashamed the contested UTootadIs must surely be understood as con-
fidence. Finally, in 1 Pt. 3:16 and Lk. 13:17 katai6yuv0ñval has the sense of
being put in a situation in which one has to be ashamed.
The subst. aioxovn, which in Did., 4, 11 and Barn., 19, 7 is used for alooc
with poBos, is found in the NT only in the sense of "disgrace," or at the most
"shame" in Lk. 14:9: &pin uet' aloyivns tov foxatov tonov Katexe.
in Hb. 12:2 : UTÉ ELVEV ataupov aloyovns kataopovnoas, aioxuvn is the dis-
grace brought on one by others, in Id. 13 : Éntaoplyovta tac £autov aloxuvas,
it is the disgrace one brings on oneself by one's own action. This is perhaps the
meaning in 2 C. 4:2 also : &TElTquE0a to putra this aioxins, i.e., either hidden
things which bring shame (gen. qual., aloyuvn thus corresponding to the grula
of R. 1:26), or hidden shameful things (gen. subj.). Otherwise, it might have the
sense of things which shame hides (gen. subj.). Reference may also be made to
Phil. 3:19 : ov h 80&a Év th aloyivn autov, and Rev. 3:18: iva TEp1BaAn
Kai un DavepwOn f aloyuvn ths yuuvointos oou, where we find the meaning
of disgrace, but in such a way that there is a play on the sexual sense of aloyivn.
From the root aloy- we also find aloxp6c in the NT in the sense of "that
which is disgraceful" in the judgment of men (1 C. 11:6; 14:35), especially as
expressed in words (Eph. 5:12, cf. Herm. v., 1, 1, 7) or in relation to filthy lucre
(Tt. 1:11). This corresponds to Greek usage, as does the use of the compounds
aioxporoyia (Col. 3:8; Did., 5, 1), aioxpo\oyoc (Did., 3, 3) and aloxpoKepons
(1 Tm. 3:3 51 8; Tt. 1:7; Adv. 1Pt. 5:2) words which are typical in the lists
of vices, c. 30 of the Characters of Theophr. being devoted to aloxpoxspons. Per-
haps aiaxporoyla and aioxpoxÉpoe1a may be described as more choice.' The

2 Cf. Nageli, 18.

alteo

rarer aloxpoms, 3 which is attested only in Attic literature, is found once in Eph.
5:4, where it occurs with popoloyia and EitpaTTEAla in the sense of aloxpo-
loyla. Bultmann

alted, aimua, ATTAITED, (- eUyouai).

tEaltéw, Tapait opaL
alted (airÉouau).
Constructions 1 (act. and mid.): tt (Lk. 1:63), Tuva (Mt. 5:42), ti Tiva 4 (Mt. 7:9),
t &n6 tivos (only act., Mt. 20:20), 3 Tl Tapa TIVOG (Ac. 3:2), with inf. (Eph. 3:13),
acc. c. inf. (Lk. 23:23), with iva (only mid., Col. 1:9). The Heb. equivalent in the OT
is mostly Saw, the Aram. ay2 (e Da. 2:49; 6:7, 12 f.),4 both with the same twofold
sense of "to demand" and "to request."
1. aitew (aiteoual) as "to demand."
Jos. Ant., 1, 224. LXX (mostly mid.): Dt. 10:12; Ju. 8:24, 26 (B: act.). NT: Lk. 1:63 :
aitoas tivakiblov Eypaue; Ac. 16:29 : altñoac 8É pita EloETñnoeV.
In the NT concrete demands are often given a religious application. Thus
payment is demanded in financial transactions (P. Oxy. 54, 15); ' in Lk. 12:48 8
this is transferred to the sphere of ethical obligations © TOPÉOEVTO TtOAU, ITE-
PLOT6TEDOV aitnoouowv' autov. Again, in public life accreditation is required
(Jos. Ant., 19, 85); similarly in C. 1:22 the Jews demand oueia in proof of the
Messiahship of Jesus. 8 Again, as Aoyov altelv tiva means to exact an account of
someone (P. Hamb., 6, 8 f.). so it is in Pt. 3:15 : Érouou dei ipos atoloylav
mavti TO aitoovtl e ouas A6yov TEpi the Ev ouiv gATtlooc.
In Judaism, too, it was required that a man should be able to give an account
of his religion; 10 cf. S. Dt., 34 on 6:7: "If man ask thee ought (from the Torah),
thou shalt not give a stammering or uncertain answer." 11
2. aitto (alteouai) as "to request."
a. For the transition from the former meaning to the latter, cf. Xenoph. An.,
II, 1, 10 : eauua(w, TotEpa oc KpaTov Bao EUg aitEi to oTtAa A ig Bid
piAiav 8ipa. In the NT there is vacillation between the two meanings in the
par. passages Mt. 5:42 and Lk. 6:30 : 12 TO altoovil oE 86c. In the sense of "to
request the act. is found as early as Homer, and the mid. from Herodotus.
Cf. Nageli, 14 and 85.
aitew. Bengel, 383 f.; Trench12 (1894), 143 ff., and cf. E. Abbott, in North Ameri-
can Review, 114 (1872), 171-189, esp. 182 ff.; Cr.-Ko., 91 f.; EB, 3824; Bl. Debr. $ 316, 2;
Moulton, 251 f.; Mayor, Jk. (1892), 128 f.; also Exp., VIII, 3 (1912), 522-527; Dalman, WJ.
I, 99 f.; on the Lat. par. rogo : Abbott, op. cit., 196 f.; on oro F. Heerdegen, Unters. z. lat.
Semasiologie, III (1881). On the forms and contents of early Christian prayer - s0xoual.
Buttmann $ 131, 6; B1. Debr. § 155, 2; 392, lc.
2 Also in the mid. : Jn. 11:22 (overlooked by B1.-Debr. § 155, 2).
3 N rec: tap', so A rec in 1 Jn. 5:15.
4 Cf. Dalman, WJ, I, 99 f.
5 F. Preisigke, Girowesen i. griech. Agypten (1910), 136 f.
6 Zn. Lk., 511; Julicher, Gleichnisreden, 112 (1910), 156 f.
7 D: ditaltoouowv (- ATTAITEw, 194).
8 Zn. Mt., 467 f.; Schl. Mt., 413 ff.; Str.-B., I, 640 f.
A: AaltoOvtl (> x taItEw, 193).
10 Str.-B., III, 765 f.
11 Cf. S. Nu., 119 on 18:20; Ab., 2, 14; esp. bSan., 38b.
12 A. Tholuck, D. Bergrede Christi5 (1872), 249: an unjustifiable request amounting
almost to confiscation.
 alteo

The NT knows this usage both in the secular and the religious sense. There is
no striking distinction between the act. and the mid. The many distinctions sought
by older grammarians 13 and more recent exegetes 1+ are not for the most part
supported by the sources. On the other hand, the mid. seems to be preferred in
commercial 15 or official relationships.
As regards the former, the LXX uses the term in connection with things which are
requested as a dowry (Jos. 15:18, though cf. Ju. 1:14 act.), as an inheritance (Jos. 19:50
21:40 [LXX, 42b]), as a condition of alliance (2 S. 3:13), or as the gift of a host
(which is a transaction in the orient, cf. 1K. 10:13). In the NT cf. Mk. 6:24 f. with
v. 22 f.; the transaction began with the promise of Herod : a(mobv LE 8 EGV BEANS,
kal 8660 601. 16 As regards official relationships, cf. in the LXX 3 Bao. 2:16, 20, 22 of
Adonijah and Solomon; 1 Ea6p. 4:42, 46 (8:51 A : act.): 2 Ec8p. 8:22 of Ezra and the
emperor. In the NT cf. Mk. 15:6 (rec), 8 and par. (Ac. 3:14) ; Lk. 23:23 (Ac. 13:28) of
the people and Pilate ; Mk. 15:43 and par. of Joseph of Arimathea and Pilate (Jn. 19:38,
Epotao); Ac. 9:2 of Paul and the high-priest ; 12:20 of the representatives of the cities
and Herod. Cf. also Mt. 20:22 and par. with v. 20 and par. where Jesus speaks to the
mother of the sons of Zebedee as the future King.
b. In religious usage it is almost impossible to distinguish between the mid.
and act. 17 Such a distinction is often attempted on the basis of Jm. 4:2 f., the
act. signifying prayer with the lips and the mid. prayer with the heart : 18 OUK
ÉXETE BId to un alteiolal Duas® aitEiTE kai of AauB&VETE, Bi6tl KakGg al-
TEio0e. The variation is certainly striking, but the distinction is not borne out by
the rest of the NT (cf. esp. Jn. 5:15; Jn. 16:24, 26; also Mt. 21:22/Jn. 11:22).
Hence we have no option but to explain it in terms of the formal structure of the
sentence, i.e., the linking of its components into a kind of chain. 19
The use of aitÉoua for petitionary prayer is naturally the most important
theologically in the NT. But sometimes requests to men and to God are brought
into juxtaposition, as in Mt. 7:9 ff.; Lk. 11:10 ff. The request of the human child
brings out the unconditional nature (Tas) both of what we may ask and of its
certain fulfilment by God.
Jesus uses alteo only of the prayer of others, not of His own (cf. Jn. 16:26),
which is always for Him an Éporav (Jn. 14:16 etc.) or beio0al (Lk. 22:32), 20
though Martha thinks nothing of applying the term aiteiv to Him too (Jn. 11:22).
Perhaps in explanation we might suggest that the basic meaning of aitÉo is to
want something, in the first instance for oneself. When Jesus prays, however,
there is no question of His wanting things for Himself, but only for others. Again,
Mid. "to request as a loan" (act. as gift); so Suidas, s.v. aito uevos; cf. also
Valckenaer, Animadv. ad Ammon. Grammat.2 (1822), §§ 12 ff. Mid. "to ask beseechingly";
so Favorianus, s.v. aitouual; cf. also Mayor and Hauck on Jm. 4:2 f. Artemidor, 4, 2: act.
requests to man ; mid. requests to God.
14 Mid. (usually) "to ask for oneself"; so Cr.-Ko., 92, Radermacher,2 146, 2 (on Mk.
10:38). Act. : (usually) with the acc. of pers.; mid. : with the acc. of things ; so Hort,
Jm. (1909), 90 f.; cf. Mayor Exp., VIII, 3 (1912), 523 ff.
16 B1.-Debr. § 316, 2; Moulton, 251 f. and also Grammar, IS (1908), 160 f.
16 B1.-Debr., op. cit.
17 For other usage, cf. Ps.-Plat. Eryx., 398e : TpooEuXouEvos alteis tapd tov GEOV
botval ool &yal&; Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 6, 5 : alteiolai Toyaéa Tra pa TOV OEv. Cf.
also Jos. Ant., 9, 70; Herm. V., 3, 10, 7; m., 9,4; Cl. Al. Strom., VI, 8, 63, 1f.
18 Mayor, Exp., 525; Jm., 128 f.: mid. "a certain special diligence and earnestness';
act.: "without the spirit of prayer" (cf. Moulton, 251 f.). Similiarly Hauck Jk., 192.
Cf. Dib. Jk., 201; also Bl.-Debr. § 316, 2: Powell Class. Rev., 28 (1914), 192 f.; Ropes
Jk., 259; Wnd. Jk., 25.
20 Bengel, 383 f.; Trench, 145.
 alteo - altua - OTaITED

aiteo might easily suggest a far from humble demanding, whereas Jesus never
demands (Schlatter). Again, aittw seems to presuppose a lesser degree of in-
timacy than Époraw; hence altd is used of the requests of the disciples to
God, but Epotao of the requests of the disciples to Jesus, and of those of Jesus
to God. 21
In Mk. 10:35 aitéo is also used of a request of the disciples to Jesus, but codd
D 1 rightly have Epo tads here too cf, also Jn. 14:13 f., where we have real prayer
to Jesus in analogy to prayer to God.

t aimha.
Verbal substant. of altÉo with -ua 1 in the passive sense 2 of "what is demanded
or requested." 1. "Demand" : Plat. Resp., VIII, 566b : aimua tupavvikov, "demand of
a tyrant"; cf. Plut. Demetr., 3 (I, 890b); Lk. 23:24 : IAaTOG ETEKDIVEV YEVEBaL TO
aimua aitdv, i.e., the popular demand for the crucifixion, and therefore spec. a
verbal substant. for official alrÉoual (before the procurator, 9 aitéw 192).
2. "Request," "petition" or "desire." Outside the NT it is found in this sense
in Aristot. Rhet. Al., 20 p, 1433 b. 17 ff.; P. Flor., 296, 16 (a written petition);
LXX, 3 Bao. 12:24 d; Est. 7:2 f.: aitua Kai dgloua. The transition from requests
to men to requests to God is illustrated in ODa. 6:7, 12. For requests to God, cf.
LXX U 36:4; 105:15; ODa. 6:13; Ps. Sol. 6:8; Jos. Ant., 8, 24; Herm. m., 9, 2, + and
5; S., 4, 6.
In the NT it is esp. used of the individual petitions which constitute a prayer
(ttpooeuyh).3 In distinction from bÉnous, aimua points to the content of the
request. 4 So Phil. 4:6 : Ev Tovti th itpooeuxi kai in SEnoEL ueto sixapiotiac
ia aitquata ouoov yvapiZeolw ttpoc tov lEb; 1 In. 5:15 : ot6xuev 8tl #youeV
To aimquata & nTkauEv aT'" autou.
The fig. etym. aitew (E NT) or aiteoual (LXX) 1 aimua has Semitic roots. 8
Cf. Ju. 8:24; 1 S. 1:17,27: 73NW SNW:; M. Ex. 17:14: nwpa wpa; S. Nu., 105 on 12:13:
nib*w 0022. In the LXX: "to place a demand" in Ju. 8:24 B; or "to direct a request"
(to men) in 3 Bao. 12:24d; (to men and God). ODa. 6:7, 12; (to God) 1 S. 1:17, 27;
1 K. 3:5; Jos. Ant., 11, 58; Herm. m., 9, 7 and 8.

+ Anaited.
1. "To demand." Plut. Def. Orac., 14 (II, 417c); Jos. Ant., 6, 203; 7,64: atal-
TéW A6yov = aitew Abyov (-> altéw, 191). "To demand an account" : Plat.
21 On the distinctions between altew, bÉouai, Epwrad and itpoosuyoual, as also on
the presuppositions and objects of petitionary prayer, > euXh, Elyouat.
altnua. Trench, 115 ff. (Eng.12, 1894, 188 FE.); Cr.-Ko., 92.
1 Bl. Debr. § 109, 3.
Of course, almnolc is often used in the same sense, as in Ju. 8:24 A; Job 6:8; Ign. Tr.,
13, 3.
In the Lord's Prayer it is possible to distinguish 7 altquata or 3 E0xai and 4 alti-
uata, cf. Trench, 191 (118).
A. Klopper, Phil. (1893) 236, 1; Loh. Phil., 169 f.
5 For altua with TpoosuXn, though with no distinction, cf. also Ps. Sol. 6:8.
6 A rec: Tap' (as Mt. 20, 20).
1 Cf. here in the same sense altouat almaw (Ju. 8:24 A; K. 2:16, 20).
8 A. Schlatter, Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), 151.
& KITEW. Schleusner, NT-Lex., s.v.; Cr.-Ko., 92. On the difference between anal-
téo and altÉo, cf. Andoc. 2, 22 : & yap uol airol. ESOTE, BOTEpOV 8É COELEOOE,
TaGO' buac EL UEV BOULE GE alTd, El 86 un BOULEDIE ATAIT. Cf. also Arist. Rhet.,
1I, 6, p. 1383b, 29 f.; Favorinus. S.v. ATAITILo.
 & CITEd ~ REaLtEd

Resp., X, 599b; NT: 1 Pt. 3:15 A etc.: groluol del spoc antoloylav tavti to
graitouvii Juas Moyov repl this Ev ouiv E\ilboc.
2. "To demand back," e.g., what has been stolen: Menand. Epit., 87, 97 and
100; Jos. Ant., 8, 29; Lk. 6:30 (=> aitɩ, 191): ano too aipovtos to og un
analtel. b. "To call in debts" Dt. 15:2 f.; BGU, 183, 8. Hence in the parable
it is used for the demand of God on man, Lk. 12:48 D (; aitéw, 191): i TapE-
DEVTO TONS, TAEOV aTtaiThooualv? autov. Again, according to the ancient view
life is a loan of nature 3 or of God which has to be paid back at death. Cf. Lk.
12:20 : &opov, tautn ti wkti Thy puxny oou anaitouotv 5 (B: altotaly anto
000).

+ LEXITED.
"To demand of." a. "to require": (act.) BGU, 944, 8 ; b. "To demand the freedom
of": (mid.) Plut. Pericl., 32 (I, 169e); C. "To demand the surrender of": (act.) Jos. Ant..
5,152 (= aitew itpoc trumplav, 5, 153); (mid.) Jos. Ant., 16, 272.
Lk. 22:31: o oatavis #Entroato buac tou alvidaal ig tov ditov. A case
may be made out here for a.1 or b. 2; but C. is more likely in the sense that the
devil demands the test, 3 as in Job 1 f. to which Jesus clearly alludes. The devil is
the anti-Messiah who winnows (cf. Mt. 3:12) or sifts the wheat. 4 He has the
right to bring to light the evil in men 5 and to recall their guilt before God. He
plays the role of the kauyopos (q.v.), 6 just as in Zech 3:1 ff. he is portrayed
as a heavenly official, and as an instrument of ethical detection 7 in Job 1 f. 8 In
later Judaism, too, the devil is the accuser hirop katyop. ., 10 Jesus opposes
His request (éoen0nv, v. 32) to the devilish demand (Bengel). The latter is con-
ceded, but Jesus sees to it that Peter survives the test. 11

Cf. Test. B 3:3 tov to TVELuaTa TOU BEAlap eis taoav trovnplarv TOU OAIBELV 12
HEalthowvtai ouac Plut. Def. Orac., 14 (I1I, 417d): loxupol kai Blaiot balLovEs
LEXITOULEVOL wuxhv avopontivnv.

Cf. L. Wenger, Die Stellvertretung im Rechte d. Papyri (1906), 189 ff.

2 D obviously has in view the parable of the talents (in the Mt. form). Because of the
parallelism it is probably to be preferred to the usual althoouo.
Cic. Resp., 1, 4 (5).
Cf. Wis. 15:8 : to ths yuxns dmarmeeic xpéoc (also Epict. Diss., IV, 1, 172).
5 Pers. plur. - "one" (God being intended); cf. on this use Str.-B., II, 221, and in the
NT also Mt. 7:2; Lk. 6:38; 16:9.
HEXITED Zn. Lk., 683, n. 62; Cr.-Ko., 92.
So Hofmann, 8, 529; KI. Lk. ad loc. (trans.); Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
2 So ad loc. Zn. ("to ask for"); Bengel; Holtzmann Hand-Comm.; J. Weiss, Schriften d.
NT. Also Cr.-Ko., op. cit.
Wiinsche, RE,3 19, 565.
4 Metaphor of the hostile neighbour cf. Mt. 13:25, 39.
5 Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, 434.
6 Cf. Schlatter, Nt.liche Theol., I (1910), 583; P. Fiebig, ZNW, 9 (1908), 311.
7 Clemen, 112; Winsche, op. cit.
8 Cf. also the designation 719 7212 for Egypt and Babylon in Ez. 21:28 f.; 29:16; and
also the aversion from the man of God as the one who reminds of guilt in 1 K. 17:18.
9 Cf. Str.-B., I, 136, 141 ff.
10 Cf. also BEE(A)ZEBoUX.
11 Godet, Lk. (Germ., 1872), 437.
12 ci Charles, codd: CALYEOC.
TrapaitÉoual aixu&Atos 195

t napaiteouai.
1. In all Greek the word can be used in the sense of "begging" (LXX, Est. 4:8)
or "begging off" (Plut. Demetr., 9 [I, 893a]; Mk. 15:6 ** B* etc.).1 It can thus
signify begging to be excused, e.g., an invitation: LXX,: S. 20:6, 28; Jos. Ant., 7,
175; and in the NT in the parable of the guests excusing themselves from the
supper : Lk. 14:18a (mid.); 18b, 19 (pass.).
2. More important in the NT, however, is another group of meanings in which
the prefix nap- gives a nuance of aversion or repudiation. a. "To seek to turn
aside by asking" (with inf. and pleon. pri)2: Plat. Resp., III, 387b; Jos. Ant., 10, 203.
In the NT Hb. 12:19: of arougavtes rapnthoavto un ipoote0nv autoi
Abyov. The request (Dt. 5:25; 18:16) originally dictated by humble fear of God
and recognised by God to be justifiable (Dt. 18:17) is here understood to be a
sinful repudiation of the divine revelation. 3 Similarly in Ac. 25:11 Paul will not
try to avert punishment by entreaty. 4
b. "To reject or repudiate" P. Oxy, 1252 B, 28 (something); Jos. Ant., 7, 167
(someone). In the NT the word is used in this sense in relation to different
actions in the the supervision of doctrine and the exercise of congregational disci-
pline. It is noteworthy that it occurs only in the Pastorals. In Tm. 4:7 it signifies
the rebuttal of BEBnAo Kai ypaodeis uo0ou, in 2 Tm. 2:23 the rejection of
•) KIThoEIS, and in 1 Tm. 5:11 the refusal to accept widows under 60 years of age
on the list of Evtoc xipal. 5 From this rather forceful application there arises the
meaning of expulsion in the sense of putting out disruptive elements and possibly
of excommunication, as in Tt. 3:10 : aipEtIKov &vépoTov uet& ulav kai SEUTé parv
voueeolav tapaitou. & This is clearly linked, however, with the meaning already
found elsewhere.
c. "To disdain," "to spurn" : Plut. Them., 3, 4 (I, 113b); Dg., 4, 2. In the NT
this is used of turning from God T in Hb. 12:25 (cf. v.19): BAÉTETE un rapaith-
JEO0E toy Aalouvra. Stahlin

aiqualtroc, t aixualatitw,
taiyualwtEuw, taixualwoia,
+ auvaixuaAdtos

1. Proper Use.
In both OT and NT the "prisoner of war" is a miserable person who stands in
special need of God's help (Ps. 79:11 etc.), having been swallowed up by a terrible
enemy (Lk. 21:24; Rev. 13:10 ; par. to Ev paxaipn gtoKtov0ñnval). The national

tapaiT OuaL. Cr.-Ko., 93; Koelling, 1 Tm., II (1887), 274, 320; Wbg. Past., 159,
n. 1.
CDGW rec: alteouat; > 192, as also Bl. Debr. § 367.
2 B1.-Debr. § 429.
3 Wnd. Hb., 113.
Cf. 4 Macc. 11:2. Deissmann (in Kautzsch) translates "to give way to constraint,"
referring to C. 6:7 and Blass, Grammatik (1896), 181. But comparison with Ac. 25:11
suggests "to try to evade.
Koelling, 298 ff.; Dib. Past. on 1 Tm. 5:3-16; B. Weiss,5 203 takes a different view.
6 Cf. Diog. L., VI, 82.
7 Synon. the even stronger • anootpt peolat; cf. Rgg. Hb., 423, 51.
 alxuaAwtoc

disaster of the exile made the alyua^wola Etov a destiny which was particularly
understood in religious terms (Ps. 126:1 etc.). Hence the knpifau alyua^otois
&OEOIV (Mas. 7197 59202 *122)1 is one of the tasks of the messenger in Is. 61:1,
and is accepted by Jesus in Lk. 4:18 as a Messianic function. In the same way,
visiting prisoners (Év qurakn ov) is one of the duties of discipleship in the exer-
cise of love according to Mt. 25:36 ff. (Hb. 10:34; 13:3: puVhoKeDlE TOV SeoUloV
Oc OUV6ESELÉVOI).
In the OT the thought of imprisonment is always self-evidently linked with
prayer for liberation. The same principle is illustrated by the Rabbinic anecdote
about a great sinner who gained merit by helping a prisoner to freedom (jTaan.,
64b). Josephus journeys to Rome (Vit., 13 ff.) to secure the liberation of im-
prisoned priests. In the NT, too, the freeing of prisoners is sought sO earnestly
that sometimes it is attributed to divine miracle (Ac. 5:19; 12:7; 16:26) 2 and is
made an object of prayer (Phlm. 22). At any rate, Paul can raise the question
whether avaliaal kal adv Xplatd elvai is not to be preferred (Phil. 1:23). On
the other hand, a new outlook arises when the idea of merit comes to be associated
with martyrdom. Thus Ignatius passionately declines liberation (R., 2, 2; 4, 1).
2. Figurative Use.
The thought of imprisonment in war is carried over into the inner moral and
religious struggle of man and for man. This use is not found in the OT 3 In the
NT it occurs only in Paul, who shows a partiality for military images (-) OTPATEU-
oual etc.). Paul applies it in different ways, e.g., to those who lead astray:
alXualtifovtes yuvaikapia CEO PEVLEVa suapriais (2 Tm. 3:6); to express
subjection to sin : (Étepov voyov) aixualorifovia ue Év To vouo ths quaptias
(R. 7:23); but also, along the lines of the SOUEDELV EV KAIVOTNTL TIVEDuATOC of
R.7:6, to illustrate the subjection of our thoughts to Christ : aixuaAwtifOvtes
Tov vonua Elg Thy bnakonv toi Xpiotoi (2 C. 10:5); and also to express the
subjection of spirits + to Christ : AXHaAOTEUOEV alxuaAwola (Eph. 4:8, quoting
Ps. 68:18) . 5

The same figurative use is found in the LXX at Jdt. 16:9. It occurs occasionally in
the post-apostolic writings, Ign. Eph., 17, 1 referring to imprisonment by the apyov
Tou aldvoc tourou, Phld., 2,2 to imprisonment by wolves, Ir., I, praef. 1 by false
teachers, 1. Hist. Laus., 69 (p. 165, Butler) by temptation, O. Sol. 10:3 f. to the fact
that Christ takes souls and the world captive, and Lidz. Ginza, 49, 33 to the fact that the
tempter makes prisoners in the world and leads men astray by introducing to them his
own wisdom.

In connection with this metaphorical use of aixualotiga we should also note

the description of Paul's individual helpers as ouvaixuaAwTos in R.16:7, Col.

alxudAdtos. In the original the thought of liberation from captivity is even more
strongly emphasised by the final part of the verse : mp mpe 0*710821 ("and liberation to
them that are bound"); but this is paraphrased in LXX and Lk. by kal tupAois ava-
BAe. Similarly the Tg. paraphrases "And the revelation of light to those who are
blind." This allegorisation is traditional in the Synagogue, probably on the basis of Is. 12:7.
Ct. O. Weinreich, Gebet und Wunder (1929), 281 ff.
The image in Jer. 16:16 (followed in Mk. 1:17 and par.) has nothing to do with military
service and is therefore quite different (as against Wnd. 2 K., 298).
The interpretation in v. 9 ff. does not elucidate the NXHaA&TEUOEV alxua\walav, but
in the context it is only possible to think of spirits, cf. Dib. Gfbr., 61.
For the Rabbinic interpretation of the quotation, cf. Str.-B., III, 596.
alxuaAatos - alov
4:10 and Phlm. 23. If he really meant literal imprisonment with him, ouvÉouioc
or ouvoEouoms would be more likely, since Paul in his imprisonment never
describes himself as alyualwtos, but always as > SÉoulos. Once again we most
likely have the military image. This is suggested by Paul's recollections of battles
and persecutions, and it is no accident that it is during his prison days that he
uses it. Warfare and captivity carry with them a hint of the higher warfare and
captivity along the lines of 2 C. 10:5 and Eph. 4:8: The one who has a particular
part in the external conflict can be called > auatpatiois from the one stand-
point and > ouvaixua^wtos from the other. The latter, however, is wholly
equivalent in content to the auvoouloc (Ev kuplo) of Col. 1:7 and 4:7. The
three ouy- constructions are not applied to all fellow-workers, but have a special
emphasis which singles out individuals.
Kittel

aliv, alovioc
alov.
A. The Non-Biblical Use.
a. "Vital force," or "life" in Hom. I1., 9, 415; Od., 5, 152 etc.; cf. wuxn tE kai alov,
I1., 16, 453; Od., 9, 523; Pind. Fr. 111, 5 (Schroeder). b. "Lifetime" aiov Blowo, Hesiod.
Fr., 161, 1 (Rzach); aidv uopoqos, Pind. Olymp., II, 11; Hdt., I, 32; Thuc., I, 70, 8;
Xenoph. Cyrop., VIII, 7, 1. "Age" or "generation' in Aesch. Sept. c. Theb., 742 and
771; Soph. Fr., 1021, 1 (Nauck); plur. Emped. Fr., 129, 6 (Diels, I, 272, 20). d. "Space
of time" or "time,' with ref. to the past in Demosth. Ep., 2,7: Ev & ovil TO alon;
Or., 18, 203 : ravia tov aliva; to the future in 18, 199 : 86&x h tpoyovov f tou
uÉ lovios alovos; to the present in Psephisma of Assos Ditt. Syll.3, 797,9: alov
EVeOTOG; plur. uaxpouc al@vas, Theocr., XVI, 43. e. "Eternity,' since Plat. (infra);
hyperbol. €€, alivos, "from eternity," Lycurg., 110, Diod. S., 1, 63, 5; 8t' alovoc,
Ps.-Demosth. Or., 60, 6; Diod. S., III, 8, 5; katd alovos, Lycurg., 7; Eis alva,
Lycurg., 106; Eig &ravta rov alova "in eternity," loc. cit.
From the days of Heraclitus (aliv taic fotl nal(@v, Fr. 52, Diels, I, 88, 1)
and Empedocles the philosophers made use of the term in discussions of the
problem of time. The high-water mark of such discussions is found in Plato's
Timaeus. Whereas Greek in general distinguishes between xpovos and alov,
using the former for time in itself and the latter for the relative time allotted to

6 But cf. Hb. 13:3: Ac aUVSESELÉVOL - 196).

alov. C. Lackeit, Aion. Zeit u. Ewigkeit in Sprache ut. Religion d. Griechen, I (1916);
C. Clemen, "Aion,' RGG?, I, (1927), 171; Reitzenstein, Poim. v. Ind.; Iran Erl. v. Ind.;
R. Winsch, ARW, XII (1909), 32 ff.; K. Holl, "Ursprung d. Epiph.-Festes," SAB (1917),
402 ff.; O. Weinreich, 'Aion in Eleusis," ARW, XIX (1916/19), 174 ff.; H. Junker, "Uber
iranische Quellen d. hellenist. Aionvorstellung," Vortrage d. Bibliothek Warburg, 1921/2
(1923), 125 ff.; H. Sasse, Aion erchomenos (unpub. Diss., Berlin, 1923): L. Troje, "Die
Geburt des Aion," ARW, XXII (1923/4), 87 ff.; E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (1924);
R. Kittel, D. hellenist. Mysterienrel. u. das AT (1924); R. Reitzenstein and H. H. Schaeder,
"Studien z. antiken Synkretismus. Aus Iran u. Griechenland." Studien d. Bibliothek War-
burg. VII (1926); E. Meyer, Ursprung u. Anfange des Christentums, II (1921), 83 ff.;
F. Cumont, Textes et Monuments relatifs aux mysteres de Mithra (1894-1900), I, 76 ff.;
Die Mysterien des Mithra (Germ. transl. Gehrich)3 (1923). 96 ff.; A. Christensen, Etudes
sur le Zoroastrisme de la Perse antique (1928), 45 ff.; H. Schaedel, Die nt.liche Aonenlehre
(1930).
 aloy

a being, Plato distinguishes between alov as timeless, ideal eternity, in which

there are no days or months or years, and xpovos as the time which is created
with the world as a moving image of eternity (Elko Kivntov tiva alovos, Tim.
37d). From this view, which is rather singular in the Greek world, and which
reminds us of the later Persian distinction between zrvan akarana ("endless time"
or "eternity") and zrvan daregh6-chvadhata (a "long period of time" with its own
fixed span, i.e., the duration of the world), Aristotle returns to the conception of
alov as the relative perlod of time allotted to each specific thing. In accordance
with his doctrine of the eternity of the world, the alov of the world coincides
with Xpovoc gtsipoc: 8tu uev oUv oUtE yeyovev 6 rac oupavoc out' ÉvdÉXETaL
plapñvau cAX' LOTIV lG kal dibtos, apxnv uev kal TEAEUTHV OUK EXWV tOU
tavtoc alovos, lyov 8É Kal TE PLEXOV Ev aitd tov &TtElpOV xp6voV, Cael., II,
1, p. 283b, 26 ff. To this there corresponds the definition in Cael., I, 9, p. 279a,
23 ff.: to yap telos To TEPLEYOV TOV mc ÉKaotou gons xpovov alov
ÉKaotou KÉKAntal. Kata Tov autoy SE Abyov kai to tou navtos oupavou
TEloc kai to Toy Tavta xp6vov kai Th arelpiav TTE PLEXOV TÉlos, allv Éotlv,
q tO TOU &El Elvai ellnoos thv Enowulav, 1 alavatoc kai OEioc.
Under Plato's influence, Philo gives the following definition of aliv: to xpovou
rapdoelyua Kai apXÉTuntoV, Mut. Nom., 267; Deus Imm., 32; cf. Rer. Div. Her.,
165. xpovoc is the Blos of the Koouoc alo0ntoc, allv the Bioc of God and the
Koouos vontog. It is of the nature of alov to be the eternal to-day, Fug., 57. It is
arepatos (Fug., 57), &TElpOC (Leg. Gaj., 85). In the sense of eternity or un-
ending time both Plutarch (Cons. ad. Apoll., 17 [II, 111c]; Ei ap. Delph., 20
[II, 393a]) and the younger Stoics2 are familiar with the term alov. 3
In the Hellenistic age the word acquires religious significance in virtue of the
fact that Alov becomes the name of a god of eternity whose mysteries are known
to have been celebrated in Alexandria from C. 200 B.C. 4 (Ps.-Callisth., 30, 6, p. 27;
Epiph. Haer., 51, 22). The aloov speculations of Alexandria, where Judaism also
picked up the Greek word altv, had a profound influence on syncretistic Gnostic-
ism. Behind the Greek Alov stands the Persian Zrvan akarana or unlimited time,
which Eudemos of Rhodes already recognised to be the supreme principle of
Persian theology above even Ahuramazda and Ahriman (Damascius, I, 322, & ff.,
Ruelle) and which, personified in Persian fashion, occupied an important place
among the later Parsee deities, esp. in the cult of Mithras.
B. aldy in the Sense of Prolonged Time or Eternity,
1. The Formulae "from eternity" and "to eternity."
a. The concepts of time and eternity merge in the formulae in which alov is
linked with a preposition to indicate an indefinite past or future, e.g., o' alovoc
(Lk. 1:70; Ac. 3:21; 15:18) and EK Tou alovoc (Jn. 9:32) in the sense of "from
the ancient past" or "from eternity, or glc alova (Jd.13) and Els Tov alova
(27 times, esp. common in In. e.g., 4:14) in the sense of "for ever" or "to all
eternity." Only in the light of the context can it be said whether alov means
"eternity" in the strict sense or simply "remote" or "extended" or "uninterrupted

1 This etymology is naturally false. alov and del go back to the same root aivo, aju
(cf. Lat. aevum, Sansk. ayu), which means "life," or "life force" or "lifetime"; v. Lackeit,
op. cit., ff.
Epict. Diss., II, 5, 13; Marc. Ant., 2, 12; 4, 43 and 50 etc.
3 On aloy in the Neo-Platonists (esp. Plotin. and Proclos), v. Lackeit, 69 ff.
4 Thence spreading to Eleusis, cf. Ditt. Syl1.3, 1125, 8 (inscr. 73/74 B.C.) n. 20.
alov

time." Thus in Lk. 1:70 and Ac. 3:21 of &yiou aT' aloovoc poontai means "the
holy prophets of old time." The meaning is particularly weak when we have an
alov formula in a negative statement. Thus Jn. 9:32 : &k to0 aiovoc ouk nkooo0n,
simply means that "it has never been heard." and of (un) lc tov alava
merely signifies "never" (cf. Jn. 13:8; 1 C. 8:13). The full significance of "eternity"
is perhaps to be found in passages like Lk. 1:55; Jn. 6:51; 12:34; 14:16; 2 C. 9:9
(y 111, 9); Hb. 5:6; 7:17,21 etc.; 1 Pt. 1:25; 1 Jn. 2:17; Jd. 13, if the question can
ever be answered with any certainty.
In order to bring out more fully the stricter concept of eternity, religious usage
generally prefers the plur. Esp. in doxologies we find elc touc alovac (Mt. 6:13
[Rd]; Lk. 1:33; R. 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 2 C. 11:31; Hb. 13:8; and also elc TovtaS toug
alovas with it po TEaVtOS Tou aloovoc, Jd. 25). This plur. use is simply designed
to emphasise the idea of eternity which is contained but often blurred in the sing.
alov. Thus in Hebrews the Elc tov alova used under the influence of the LXX
(e.g.. 5:6; 7:24) is materially identical with els touc alovas in 13:8. The plur. is
also to be found in formulae which refer to the past. In C. 2:7 it is said of the
Beot copla : fv tpodpiosv 8 Oeoc ttpo tov aiovov ("from all eternity"); simi-
larly in Col. 1:26 : &1o tov alovoy kal & ito ToV YEVEV, and Eph. 3:9 & To Tov
alovov, cf. Eph. 3:11: kato 1tp60E0IV TOv aldvov fv enoinoev (= katd Ttp6-
Geolv fiv groinoev ttpo tov alovov). In these cases the sing. atto or Ttpo TOU
alovos might well be used instead of the plur. But the plur. presupposes knowledge
of a plurality of aloves, of ages and periods of time whose infinite series con-
stitutes eternity. Thus the idea of prolonged but not unending time is also present
in the aiov formulae. Noteworthy in this respect is the parallel alvec/yeveai in
Col. 1:26. The concepts of limited and unlimited time merge in the word alov.
The implied inner contradiction is brought to light in the expression xpovou aid.
viol which is used as an equivalent of the plur. in R. 16:25; 2 Tm. 1:9; Tt. 1:2; for
eternal times is strictly a contradiction in terms.
Also designed to emphasise the concept of eternity is the twofold use of the
term in the formula glc tov alova tou aiovoc (Hb.1:8, w 44:6). In 21 passages
this twofold use is linked with the plur., thus giving rise to the distinctive formula
of the Pauline Epistles and Revelation (cf. also Hb. 13:21; 1 Pt. 4:11; 5:11): Eic
touc alivac tov alovov. Finally, there are cases in which the alov formulae
are united with similar expressions. Thus in the phrase : Elg ntooas TOS YEVEAS
too alovoc TOv alovov Eph. 3:21 (cf. Col. 1:26), we can pick out the com-
ponents Elc T&oaC ToC yEVE&C and elc toy alova rov alovov; and elc nuÉparv
alovoc (2 Pt. 3:18) can be dissected into the two constituents eic nuÉpav (sc.
kuplou) and elc Tov alava.
b. These formulae contain nothing peculiar to the NT. From the time of the LXX
they form part of the common usage of Hellenistic Judaism. The LXX uses alov to
translate different Hebrew terms, among which the most important are bbiy and 73.
While alov always contains the idea of a prolongation of time, in the first instance
abiy means only hidden or distant time belonging to the remote and inscrutable past or
future from the standpoint of the present. 5 The chronological distance is relative. Thus
Amos in 9:11 can refer to the time of David as 0219 12: "days of old" (LXX : nuÉpau
ToU alivoc). If the thought of distance is to be expressed by ably, expressions like
aligh, bbi9g etc. are often used. Only at a later time (demonstrably after Deutero-

5 "A concept which takes over where our comprehension ceases," C. v. Orelli, D. hebr.
Synonyma d. Zeit u. Ewigkeit (1871), 70.
 aloy

Isaiah) does abig begin to have the sense of endless time or eternity in the true sense.
At the same period we begin to find the plur. orpbig (Is. 45:17), which was unknown
in earlier writings, and which signifies eternity, but on the assumption that the sing.
means a long period of time. The idea of a stretch of time belongs from the very first
to the word jy,6 which is a poetic term and, except in Job 20:4, denotes unlimited
future. In translation of such Hebrew expressions as bbiyp, b2iy5 and 792 (or occasion-
ally my}2 etc.), the LXX offers an incalculable wealth of examples of eternity formulae
with the simple sing. aiov, e.g., &1to (tou) alovos, tpo (too) aiovos, eis (tov)
alova etc.
The LXX can also afford examples of the twofold use of aloy in these formulae.
In a passage like y 44:6 (cf. Hb. 1:8) Els (rov) aliva (tot) alovos is given as the
translation of 79) b219. It is harder to explain why the simple 7g5 should be predomi-
nantly, though not exclusively, rendered elc alova alovos, and 79) 52195 Eig rov
alova kai Elc tov alova tou alovoc. We need hardly follow R. Kittel in detecting
here the influence of the aion theology of Alexandria. The most likely explanation is
that 73 as the strongest Hebrew term for an infinite future, demanded a special transla-
tion, and recourse was therefore had to the expression alov alovos. 8 This is to be
understood in terms of linguistic psychology, possibly being suggested by the Hebrew
7y-"7, which is often rendered els (tov) alova (too) alivoc (y 82:18; 91:8; 131:14).
The name Alov Aloovoc, which occurs in the Hermetic writings for the god of eternity
Alov, 9 certainly developed out of these formulae as found in the LXX. Whether the
translators coined the expression or found it cannot be decided. The plur, use of alov
in such formulae does occur in the LXX, though infrequently. 10 The basis of this con-
struction seems to be the Hebrew plur. ampliy, though this is not usually rendered
alives, and never in Is. The combination of the plur. and a twofold use is extremely
rare in the LXX, but there are a few examples, such as eic toug alovac tov alovoy
for gig in w 83:5, and cf. Tob. 14:15 S; 4 Macc. 18:24. Similarly there are one or two
instances of the interfusion of alov and yeveo formulae.

Hence it may be seen that the usage of the NT is distinguished from that of
the LXX only by an intensification of the tendency already displayed in the LXX
to replace the simple formulae by more complicated. 11
2. The Eternity of God.
a. alov has the full significance of eternity when it is linked with the concept
of God. Apart from the doxologies, this is the case in the description of God as
the eternal God. In R. 16:26 we find this in the form 6 alovios 0E6s (- alonioc).
The phrase occurs already in the LXX : Gn. 21:33; Is. 26:4; 40:28; Bar. 4:8, 10 etc.;

"If a219 is the dark abyss which swallows up time, 73 is the direct way to it," ibid., 88.
7 D. hellenist. Mysterienreligion u. d. AT, 73.
Cf. the LXX formulae Elc YEVEd kal yEVE&v and elc YEVE&S YEVEGV, and the
multiplication of a?iy in the doxologies of later Judaism, e.g., Kaddish, 4: x?292 19992 0292.
B Reitzenstein Poim., 23, 270; E. Peterson, EIZ OEOZ (1926), 320.
10 Ttpo Tov alovoy for 072 in o 54:20; els touc alivas for nip?iy in 2 Cb. 6:2; y 60:5;
for nubig) in w 76:8; for 122.22 in Da. 3:9; cf. also Sir. 45:24; Wis. 3:8; Tob. 3:11; 8:5,
15 B; 11:14 AB; 13:1, and esp. the apocryphal addition to Daniel 3; Elc TAvTAC tOUG
alovas in Tob. 13:4; 8:5 S; 8:15 AS: 11:14 S; 13:16 S; 13:18 A.
11 On the non-biblical use of eternity formulae, v. Lackeit, op. cit., 32; Peterson, op. cit.,
168 ff. Examples from the inscriptions are Elc alova, Ditt. Or., 515, 56; elc tov alova,
ibid., 566, 21 f.: Els tov &ntavia alova, 332. 33. The plur. is infrequent and late, cf.
Peterson, op. cit., 169.
alov

Sus. 42; 2 Macc. 1:25; 3 Macc. 6:12; cf. Philo Plant., 8 and 74 and 89 (-* at8woc).
We also find 6 BaoLEUg tov alovov in 1 Tm. 1:17.
However we understand this expression, it originally means the eternal king cf. the
common Jewish description of God as abig a2p (first found in Jer. 10:10, lacking in the
LXX), and similar expressions (e.g., 5npliy7-53 7129 bBer., 60b). As in many similar
cases, the gen. is modelled on the Heb. stat. constr. Other examples of this use of alou
are Oeoc toU alovoc in Eth. En. 1:4; Oeoc Tov alovoy in Sir. 36:22; CI., 55, 6 (cf.
alovov 0E6¢, P. Paris, 174, 629, Wessely); BaaAEUS tOU alovoc in Eth. En. 25:3, 5,7,
cf. "the eternal king" in Slav. En. 64:3 AB); Bacilsic tov aldvov in Eth. En. 22:14.
Cf. also "the eternal Lord" in Slav. En. 1:8; dominus saeculorum in Jub. 31:13; beTtota
Tavtoc alovos in Jos. Ant., 1, 272 (cf. alovav BaalEd kal KUpIE, Preis. Zaub., XII
[P. Leid.] Col. VII, 36). Originally these Judaeo-Christian formulae were simply de-
signed to express the eternity of God, but later all the other meanings of alov were
read into them. Thus Baoieis tov alovov is also taken to mean "the King of the
aeons," i.e., the One who rules over the alavec understood as periods of time or
spheres of the cosmos (-> 204 on Hb. 1:2; 11:3), or perhaps even as personal beings.
This is shown by expressions like tathp tov alovov in Just. Apol., 41, 2 (quoting
Ch. 16:28 in a text which deviates from both Mas. and LXX), or 6 Snutoupyos kal
Tatp Tov alovov in 1 Cl., 35, 3, in which it would be impossible to substitute alo-
vioc for Tov alovov.
b. But how are we to understand the eternity ascribed to God in the term
aloy?
In the older writings of the OT there is a very simple concept of eternity. The
being of God reaches back into times past computation. God has always been.
Hence He is the God of old, as we are really to construe the abiy 5x of Gn. 21:33
(GEoc aloovios, LXX).12 Again, He always will be. In contrast to men, who are
subject to death (Gn. 6:3), He is the living God (e.g., Dt. 5:23; 32:40).
This primitive idea of eternity changes at later date. In Deutero-Isaiah obiy "ibe
really means leoc alovios (Is. 40:28), abiy no longer signifying merely the remote
past, but unending time or eternity. In addition to the important description of
God as abis "bx, which in similar forms is also used outside Judaism for Baalsamin
as the god of the world and heaven, 18 Deutero-Isaiah also introduces a formula
which is of great significance in religious history, namely, "I am the First and the
Last.' This, too, serves to describe the eternity of God (- AQ). As the Creator
and Consummator God is the eternal One. His eternal being stretches beyond the
time of the world. He is from eternity to eternity (ano toU alivos goG TOU
aloovoc, 89, 2). Before the world was created, He was (y 89:2); and when
"heaven and earth have vanished, He will be (w 101:26 ff., quoted with reference
to Christ in Hb. 1:10). Thus the unending eternity of God and the time of the
world, which is limited by its creation and conclusion, are contrasted with one
another. Eternity is thought of as unending time for how else can human

12 Cf. 072 14% Dt. 33:27 etc.; "the Ancient of days," Da. 7:9.
13 N22y xh: inscription in Palmyra, De Vogué, Inscriptions Sémitiques (1868-77),
No. 73, (cf. M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, I, 257; Cooke, North Semitic Inscriptions, 295);
another inscription from the vicinity of Palmyra bearing the same designation of God is
given by Lidzbarski, loc. cit. x25y 8722 : inscription from the Diocl. camp of Palmyra, ibid.,
II, 298. With N279 NO there is also found >> Na ibid., II, 296. N599 can mean either
eternity" or "world." The former is attested by the frequent occurrence of mabgh ibid.,
II, 296; cf. De Voguié, op. cit., No. 74-88.
 aiov

thought picture it? - and the eternal being of God is represented as pre-existence
and post-existence. Yet in later Judaism there are also attempts to make eternity
the complete antithesis of time. Thus Slav. En. 65 describes the creation of time
along with that of the world. "But when all creation comes to an end the
times will be destroyed, and there will be no more months nor days nor hours 14
they will be dissolved and will be reckoned no more ; for the one aion will begin."
Here eternity is thought of as timelessness, as in Plato. 15
The NT took over the OT and Jewish view of divine eternity along with the
ancient formulae. There was new development, however, to the extent that the
statements concerning God's eternity were extended to Christ (cf. Hb. 1:10 ff.;
13:8; Rev. 1:17 f.; 2:8; 22:13) . In the NT, too, eternity is thought of as the opposite
of this cosmic time which is limited by creation and conclusion. Statements con-
cerning the eternal being and action of God are thus expressed in terms of pre-
and post- (cf. jpo and atto tov alovov, 1 C. 2:7; Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:9; ttpo kata-
Bolns Koouou, Jn. 17:24; Eph. 1:4; 1 Pt. 1:20). To this context there also belongs
the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ.
C. aloy in the Sense of the Time of the World.
1. alov as the Time of the World; the End of the alov.
In the plur. al⅒v formulae the meaning of alov merges into that of a long but
limited stretch of time. In particular, alov in this sense signifies the time or dura-
tion of the world, i.e., time as limited by creation and conclusion. At this point we
are confronted by the remarkable fact that in the Bible the same word alov is
used to indicate two things which are really profoundly antithetical, namely, the
eternity of God and the duration of the world. This twofold sense, which aiov
shares with the Heb. abiy, points back to a concept of eternity in which eternity is
identified with the duration of the world.
Parseeism, too, uses the same word zrvan to denote both concepts. It may be
assumed that both the zrvan concept and the new use of abiy which we suddenly
find in Deutero-Isaiah have a common origin in an oriental and probably Babylo-
nian concept of time and eternity. 16 In both cases, however, belief in creation
brings about a separation between the concepts of eternity and duration. In
distinction from the biblical usage, Parseeism also introduced a terminological
differentiation. The distinction between zrvan akarana as eternity and zrvan
daregho-chvadhata as the duration of the world (- 197 f.) is first found on the
epitaph of Antiochus of Commagene (34 B.C.; Ditt. Or., 383, 44), where we may
recognise the former in Elc rov antelpov alova, whereas xpovoc aTTELPOS is an
incorrect rendering of the latter. It is not possible to trace back zrvan speculation
beyond the 4th century B.C. Yet there can be little doubt that, even before the
terms came to be fixed, the thought of creation as an absolute beginning had in-

14 It is to be noted that the week is not mentioned as a measure of time; cf. also Plat.
Tim., 37e : nuÉpas yap kal viktac kal unvac kal EvIaUToUc, OUK ovtac piv ou-
parvov yevé fat; and Philo Op. Mund., 26 xpovos yap ouk fv Tt po koouou, Xh^' f
ouv aird yeyovev f uer' aurov, which is explained by the fact that time is Buxomua
ths tou koouou kivoeoc.
Cf. also Ps. 90:4 and 2 Pt. 3:8, as also the destruction of the concept of time in the
saying in Syr. Bar. 74 (E. Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen [1900], 440) concerning the future
aeon : "Because this time is the end of what is destructible and the beginning of what is
indestructible . it is far from the wicked and near to those who do not die.'
16 Cf. on this problem, H. H. Schaeder, "Parsismus und Judentum,' RGG, IV, 1085 ff.
aiov

troduced a distinction between eternity and the duration of the world in Parseeism
no less than Judaism. Only in Slav. En. 65 (- 202) do we detect any direct in-
fluence of zrvan speculation on Jewish thought.
In the NT alov is used in the sense of the time of the world in the expression
ouvtÉlela tou alovos ("the end of the aeon") which Mt. 17 uses for the end of
the world. The expression is to be explained by the penetration of the term into
eschatological formulae (- ÉoxaTo, OUVTÉXEIC) in place of other temporal con-
cepts like quapai, xpovot, kalpol, Ém. 18
For other examples of guVtEleIa TOU alovos, cf. Sir. 43:7 S (a misunderstanding
of the original); Ass. Mos. 12:4 (exitus saeculi); 4 Esr. 6:25 (finis saeculi); S. Bar. 54:21;
69:4; 83:7; cf. loc tinpoliow xaipol alovoc, Tob. 14:5 BA; LEXPI TEPUATOS
alivos, Sib., 3, 756 f. For the use of alov in the sense of "the time of the world," cf.
4 Esr. 14:11: saeculum perdidit iuventutem suam et tempora appropinquant senescere.
Duodecim enim partibus divisum est saeculum ...; Wis. 13:9 : otolxaoao0a Toy
alova ("to search out the course of the world"); 14:6 : ATTEALTEV TO alon arepua
("left seed to the later time of the world"); 18:4: To alon ("to the course of the
world"). There is an odd use of 6 alov 6 uéyac ("the great aeon") for the duration
of the world in Eth. En. 16:1. But cf. the concept of the ueyac Éviautos, the Platonic
and Stoic cosmic year : Cic. Nat. Deor., 2, 20 and 52 ; Arat. Phaenom., 458 etc.
This clear conception of aloy as the time or duration of the world is obscured
by the irruption of the plur. into such expressions. It hardly need be demonstrated
that Émi ouvtEAela tov alovov in Hb. 9:26 (cf. auvtÉlEla tov alovov, Test.
L.10) is identical with the sing. GUVTÉXEIa Tou alovoc. The plur. has been formed
here in analogy with the eternity formulae and other eschatological expressions.
The same is true of to TÉAn tov alovov in 1 C. 10:11.18 These phrases naturally
suggest that the course of the world, the great alov (supra), is made up of
series of smaller alovec. Thus we read in 4 Esr. 11:44 : respexit Altissimus super
sua tempora et ecce finita sunt et saecula eius completa sunt (cf. 14:11) . On the
other hand, alov has not yet become a fixed term for a specific portion of the
course of the world.
2. alky as World.
The sense of "time or course of the world" can easily pass over into that of
the "world" itself, so that alov approximates closely to Koouog. In Mk. 4:19 and
the par. Mt. 13:22 the phrase at uÉpuuvai tou alivoc means "the cares of the
world" (cf. 6 yaunoas uepluva to tou koouou, 1C. 7:33). Paul uses as equivalent
expressions oopia tou Koouou, oopla tol alivos toitou and coola tou koouou
TOUTOU (1 C.1:20; 2:6; 3:19). To the description of the end of the world as
OUVTÉNEIA TOU aldvos there corresponds the description of its beginning as
KaraBoln koouou (=) Koouoc).
The equation of alov and Koouos, also found in the Hellenistic mysteries, 30

17 Mt. 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20. In the latter case the expression is used instead of an
eternity formula.
18 Cf. Em' Boyatois aidow ("in the last times"), Eth. En. 27:3.
19 The eschatological significance of TEloC counts against the view of Joh. W.1 K., 254
and Pr.-Bauer that To TEAn signifies the end of the present and the beginning of the
future aloov.
20 Ditt. Syll.3, 1125, 8: Aliy o atos ay toic aitois alel quaal BElat uevwv Kbouos
TE E[c kard td aita, oroios fot kal fiv kal total, aPYhV HEabita tElOg OUK EXOV
(Eleusis). This identification goes back to the zrvan conception if it is implied by Eudemos
of Rhodes that the original being (Zrvan) is called either space (toTos) or time (xpovoc).
Cf. also the conjunction of aldy and Koouos in Philo Spec. Leg., I, 170.
 alov

is to be explained in the NT by Jewish linguistic usage, Only at a later stage did

Hebrew develop the concept of the universe, and for it, in addition to the para-
phrase "heaven and earth,' it fashioned the terms 351 (the "universe") and abig
(Aram. xp9y). Both occur in Qoh. 3:11, but in such a way that o3y probably still
has temporal significance. 21 Later the sense of "world" accrues to obiy as well.
In 4 Esr. the spatial significance is just as definite as the temporal, as in expressions
like habitantes saeculum (3:9 etc.) or qui in saeculo seminati sunt (8:41) etc. Both
meanings are also found in the Greek version of S. Bar. In the Rabbinic writings
there is only sparse attestation for azi9 or a2y in the sense of the spatial world
prior to the 1st century A.D., but there are several examples later. Indeed, in the
later Rabbis the "world" in the spatial sense becomes the main meaning of
xpby 22 a process for which there are parallels in Syriac and Arabic. Even the
eternity formulae are interpreted by the Rabbis in this sense. 23
The plural aloves shares the change of meaning. Hence the aloves of Hb. 1:2
(8t' 06 Kal étolnoev touc aiovac) and 11:3 (Kamptiolau tous aiovas phat
0eo0) are to be understood spatially as "worlds" or "spheres.'
In the case of Hb. 1:2 we should compare the reading &c dwdoe novtas TOUC
alovac (Tob. 13:18 B) for alc alovac A (cf. also 3:2 S ou Kp[VEIC [AB elc] tov
aliva). For Rabbinic examples of amp2iy in the same sense, v. Str.-B., III, 671 f.).
It is often said that God has created the pbiy (877) cf. Hb. 11:3; Tg. Dt. 33:28 :
A22y Taynx map ("by his word is the world made"). There is even reference to the
creation of more worlds (niaby). 24 Thus it is said in Gn. r., 3 on 1:5 that the Holy
One, before He created the present world, created others (nimby x73), but then destroyed
them again because He took no pleasure in them. 25

3. The Present and Future alov.

a. If aloy means the time or duration of the world, and the plur. is firmly
established, there is an obvious suggestion that the alov is not unique, but that
there is a series of aloves in which all things flow in eternal recurrence. On this
view, creation and conclusion are not to be taken in the sense of absolute be-
ginning and end, but rather in the sense of transition from one aeon to the other. 26
Eternity would then be coincident with the infinite series of such aloves, just as
in Aristotle it is identical with the time of the world. This is the doctrine of
eternity found in oriental astrology with its thought of eternal recurrence. It can
hardly be doubted that this view had some influence on that of the Bible, especially
on its eschatological ideas. 27 In Ecclesiastes, in which the clear-cut statement
19: 532 (3:1) gives classical formulation to the oriental view of the determination
of all occurrence by time, the thought of recurrence is also expressed, namely,

21 In favour of the correctness of this disputed text, and the sense of "the time of the
world," we may refer to the mention of beginning and end in the same verse.
Cf. Dalman, W], 120-27 and 132-46.
23 Thus the fathers of the remote past become the fathers of the world (iChag., 77d,
Dalman, 141) and the eternal King (God) becomes the King (God) of the world (Tg. O.,
Gn. 21:33, Dalman, 142).
24 On the plur. v. Levy Wort., III, 656.
25 Bereshit Rabba, ed. f. Theodor (1912), I, 23
26 This view is found in Ps.-Arist. Mund., 5, p. 397a, 9 ff.: jAlOu TE kal DEAnvns,
KIVOULÉVOV EV dxpiBeoTatols uÉr et, aloos ElG ÉTEpov alova. Cf. also Sir. 39:20.
27 Cf. the eschatological principle to Eryata oc to ipota, Barn., 6, 13 (> Eoxatos),
the concept of TraAlyyevedla etc.
alov

that there is nothing new under the sun, and that what seems to be new has already
taken place in the epochs (a"by?, LXX tv tois aldowv) before us (1:9f.). The
alOvEs here are the periods of the world 28 in their infinite succession. It was
under the influence of such ideas, probably Babylonian, that the Heb. plural
came to be used, and there can be no doubt that the same ideas influenced the
understanding of aloov and aloovec.
Nevertheless, even though the alovec were often understood in this way in the
eternity formulae and other expressions, this understanding is contrary to the
biblical doctrine of time and eternity. The idea of eternal recurrence cannot be
united with the understanding of the creation and end of the world as absolute
beginning and absolute conclusion. The biblical view of the uniqueness of the
course of the world, which is also the view. of Persian religion, stands in antithesis
to the pantheistic and astrological doctrine of recurrence with its confusion of
God and the world, of eternity and time.
b. A combination of the dualistic doctrine of time and eternity with the ter-
minology of the doctrine of recurrence is to be found in the inwardly self-
contradictory view of the two aeons, the present and the future. The present
alov is identical with the time of the world whose oUVTÉAEIa has come. The future
alov, the future time of the world, is the new which follows. It is something
inconceivable, to be represented only symbolically, e.g., as "the kingdom of God"
in a historical image, 20 or as "the new heaven and the new earth" in a spatial, 30
or as "the new time of the world" in a temporal. The inward contradiction consists
in trying to picture in the category of time that which stands in antithesis to it.
For the present aiov is related to the future as time to eternity.
In the NT the present and future aeons are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels,
in the Pauline writings, and in Hebrews. In Mk. 10:30 (Lk. 18:30) we read : Édv
pn A&Bn viv Év TO kaip® touto oiklas kal Ev to alon TO €pxouÉvo
gonv aloviov, now in this time and in the coming aeon." In Lk. 16:8 the
sons of this aeon (ol ulol rou aldvoc toutou) are contrasted with the sons of
light, and in Lk. 20:34 f. with those who are counted worthy to take part in that
aeon (TOu alivoc exelvou tuyEiv) and in the resurrection. The saying in Mk.
3:29, according to which those who blaspheme against the Holy Ghost can never
be forgiven, is reproduced in Mt. 12:32 in a form in which elc rov alova is
replaced by OUTE EV TOUTO to alon OUTE EV TO HEAOVTL, "neither in this aeon
nor in that which is to come." In Paul the phrase 6 ally oftoc occurs seven times
(R. 12:2; 1 C. 1:20; 2:6 twice ; 2:8; 3:18; C. 4:4), and 6 aliv 6 IVEOTOS TOUPOS
once (Gl. 1:4). This Tovnpoc is characteristic of the way in which Paul speaks of
the present aeon as that of sin. 81 In the Synoptics (apart from Lk. 16:8) and
Eph. 1:21 this additional sense is lacking, though it is found again in the references
to o viv alov in 1 Tm. 6:17; 2 Tm. 4:10; and Tt. 2:12. For o alov ofroc there
can be substituted o kalpoc 0 toG (Mk. 10:30; Lk. 18:30); 6 voy kalpoc (R. 3:26;
8:18; 11:5; 2 C.8:14); or & koauoc oitoc (1 C. 3:19; 5:10; 7:31; Eph. 2:2). In the
Johannine writings this expression is normally used instead of & alov oftos, which
does not occur (Jn. 8:23; 9:39; 11:9; 12:25, 31; 13:1; 16:11; 18:36; 1 Jn. 4:17). In the

28 With this may be linked the view that the earth is everlasting (Qoh. 1:4). It is the
theatre of world occurrence, as is also assumed in 4 Esr.
29 Cf. the train of thought in Da. 7.
30 I.e., as the new cosmos -> yi, koouog.
81 Cf. 8 GEoc Tou alovoc toutou (2 4:4) and ol apyOutEs tou aldvos toutou
(1 C. 2:6).
 alov

Pauline writings the future aeon is found only in Eph. in the expression (1:21):
00 uovov Ev to alin rout alld kal Év to ue^Aovtl (cf. Mt. 12:32), and in
the remarkable phrase: Év toic aloow toic ETtEPXOLÉVOIS, in which the plur.
is to be understood in the light of the plur. eternity formulae. In Hb. 6:5 there is
reference to the BuvquEIs LEAAovtos alovos, i.e., the pneumatic powers of the
future world which believers have already experienced.
C. The NT borrowed the doctrine of the two aeons 32 from Jewish apocalyptic, 33 in
which we find the same expressions from the 1st century B.C. onwards: Eth. En. 48:7
(prior to 64 B.C.): "this world of unrighteousness" ; 71:15 (pre-Christian): "in the name
of the future world." For "world" we are here to assume alov in the Gr. text. In
Slav. En. (prior to 70 A.D.), originally written in Greek, Koouoc and alov seem to be
used alongside one another. Along with the spatial dualism of this world and that (cf.
42:3) there are the two temporal alovec: "this aeon of woes' (66:6); "this aeon'
(e.g., 66:7); "that aeon" (e.g., 43:3); "the one aeon" (65:8); "the great aeon" (e.g.,
61:2); 34 "the endless aeon" (50:2; 66:6 A, 6 &TELPOC aiov zrvan akarana ; cf. Eic
Tov aTELpOV alova in the sense of "until the dawn of the zrvan akarana on the day of
the resurrection," Ditt. Or., 383, 44, >202) . 35 The two alovec here are the time be-
tween the creation and conclusion of the world and the endless eternity which follows
(65:3 ff.), though this temporal dualism is interfused with the spatial dualism between
the visible world and the invisible, between this world and the world to come. The
doctrine of the two aeons is found in its complete form in S. Bar. and esp. 4 Esr (at the
end of the 1st century A.D.). In 4 Esr. the two aeons confront one another as hoc
saeculum (e.g., 4:2), hoc tempus (7:113), hic mundus (9:19), praesens saeculum (7:112)
and futurum saeculum (8:1), saeculum venturum (7:47), seculum sequens (6:9); sae-
culum maius= alov uÉyas, 7:13). The alternation between saeculum, mundus and
tempus corresponds exactly to the alternation between alov, Koouos and kalpoc in
the NT. Here, too, there is an intermingling of temporal and spatial ideas, though in
4 Esr. the temporal conception of the two aeons, separated by a seven day silence
(7:30 f.) and the ensuing day of resurrection and judgment (7:32 f., 113), is predominant.
Syr. Bar. agrees with this view of the aeons, except that the spatial dualism is made
more prominent by making heaven (instead of the earth as in 4 Esr.) the theatre of
life in the coming aeon.
Among the Rabbis the two aeons are m a?iy "this aeon" and *27 obiy "the coming
aeon." Prior to 70 A.D. the attestation is limited and uncertain : jBM, & (Shimeon b.
Shetach, 90-70 B.C.): xp?y 777 32 max "the winning of this whole aeon" (cf. Mk. 8:31
and par.); Ab., 2:7 (Hillel, 20 B.C.): x2n abigg w"the life of the coming aeon" ; Gn. r.,
14 on 2:7 (school of Shammai) on the training of man, i.e., of his body : 711 a?i93 "in
this aeon", and *21 a2192 "in the future aeon; T. Pea., 4, 18, on the heaping up of
riches : 7 02192 "in this aeon, and N57 a2ig3 "in the coming aeon" (according to a
saying of King Monobazus, a proselyte, 50 A.D.). That xan obiy) is said instead of
aziya shows the influence of the Heb. eternity formulae in these expressions. The Rabbis
themselves brought the idea of the two ambiy into connection with these formulae, as is
shown by the story that originally b2igg 7y was said in benedictions, but then, in opposi-

32 Cf. for what follows the excursus "Diese Welt, die Tage des Messias und d. zu-
kinftige Welt," Str.-B., IV, 799 ff. On the Semitic position of OStos, cf. Bl.-Debr.6 306
(suppl. to § 292)
38 The LXX does not have these formulae except in Is. 9:5, where A and S have namp
TOU uÉ^Aovtos alovoc for 19-28
34 Cf. 4 Esr. 7:13; Sib., 3, 92; Eth. En. 16:1, where the great alov is the duration of the
world (if the text is sound).
H. Gressmann, 'D. hellenist. Gestirnreligion,' Beihefte z. AO, 5 (1925), 23; H. Junker,
op. cit., 152.
 alov

tion to those who denied the resurrection and thus accepted only one o213, the form was
introduced : a2197 79) o2197 7 "from eternity to eternity" (T. Ber., 7, 21). 3 With vlot
Tou aldvoc toutou we may compare the common Rabbinic phrase "son of the future
world* (e.g., S. Dt. § 333 on 32:43). 37 That the Rabbis understood the two aeons in
the temporal sense is shown by the many attempts to integrate the old concept of the
last time, "the days of the Messiah," into the framework of the doctrine of two aeons.
In accordance with the change in meaning of the Aram. xp2½, however, the spatial
aspect becomes more and more prominent, the dualism of present and future merging
into that of the visible and invisible worlds, of the present world and the world to come,
as also happened in the history of Christian eschatology.
The origin of this Jewish mode of speaking of the present and future abiy is quite
obscure. It is true that the Persian distinction between zrvan daregho-chvadhata and
zrvan akarana lies behind the Jewish view of the aeons, but there are no parallels in
Parseeism for speaking in terms of present and future aeons.
In connection with the oriental expectation of a redeemer and the doctrine of a rebirth
of the world, we find the expression saeculum venturum in Vergil Ecl., IV, 52 : adspice,
venturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo (cf. 4f.: ultima Cumaei venit iam carminis aetas
magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo). Again, in the language of emperor worship
from the time of Augustus we find similar expressions, e.g., Ditt. Syl1.3, 797, 8 f. (Pse-
phisma of Assos, 37 A.D.): TO6 folatou ovepatoic alovoc viv EVEaToTOC (cf.
GI. 1:4); Dessau Inscr. Lat. Select., II, 1, 6043 : felicitati saeculi instantis ; Tacit. Agric.,
44 : beatissimi saeculi. Here oriental forms intermingle with the Roman or Etruscan view
of the saeculum as the highest conceivable age that man can attain to in his life-time,
i.e., about 110 years. 38

In its view of the two aeons the NT is in essential agreement with 1st century
apocalyptic. The framework of eschatological notions is broken only by the fact
that the alov HEAAGV is no longer merely in the future. Believers are already
redeemed from this present evil aiov (G1. 1:4) and have tasted the powers of the
future aloov (Hb. 6:5). If according to the teaching of Jewish and early Christian
eschatology the resurrection of the dead implies the transition from the one aeon
to the other and the beginning of the new and eternal creation, the new aeon has
begun already, though as yet concealed from the eyes of men, in and with the re-
surrection of Christ, inasmuch as this is the beginning of the general resurrection
(1 C. 15:20, 23).
There is an echo of the original Christian view of the two aeons, or a bit of
secularised eschatology, in the western view that world history is split into two
periods by the coming of Jesus Christ.

D. The Personification of Aloy.

The idea of a personal Aloov or personified aioves (-> 198), so important in
Hellenistic syncretism, is alien to the NT. It may perhaps be found only in Eph.
2:2 : katd tov aliva tou koouou TOUTOU (cf. the continuation : kata Tov &p-
xovra tis kgovolas tot aepoc), but certainly not in passages like Col. 1:26 or
Eph. 2:7 or 3:9, as suggested by Reitzenstein. 30 On the other hand, we seem to
have reference to personal aloves in Ign. Eph., 19, 2: ito Éoavep iOn rois alwolv
(cf. 19, 1). Here, as in Eph. 2:2, we may perhaps see a penetration into Christian

36 Dalman, WJ, 122 f.; cf. Str.-B., IV, 816.

87 Str.-B., II, 219; IV, 837.
38 Censorinus, De Die Natali, 17.
39 Iran. Erl., 86, n. 3; 255 f.; and after him Pr.-Bauer, 42.
 alov _ alovios

thinking of a mythological conception of syncretism which came to play a most

important part in Gnosticism. In Judaism there is a personification of the two
alooves in Slav. En., 25 f.

alovios.
Adj. with 2 and 3 endings: "eternal." Orphic. Hymn., 87, 5 (Abel); Plat. Leg., X, 904a;
Resp. II, 363d; Tim., 37d and 38b : Geov rov alloviov, Tim. Locr., 96c. In later poetry
and prose aldovios is also used in the sense of "lifelong" or 'enduring," in accordance
with the basic meaning of ) alov: Callim. Hymn., 3, 6; 4, 130; Philodem. De Deis, III,
8, 22, Diels (AAB, 1916, 4); Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., X, 36; Diod. S., I, 1, 5; IV, 63, 4; Max.
Tyr., XLIII, 43, Dubner, 1 Cf. the distinction between volooc xpovin and alovin in
Aretaios of Cappadocia (181, 7 Ermerins). Inscriptions : f alonioc kal atavatoc TOU
TaVTOC QUGIS, Inscr. Brit. Mus. (inscription in honour of Augustus from Halicarnass.);
Elc xpovov aloniov, Ditt. Or., 383, 11; Tpoc 86gav kal uvnunv alovov, ibid., 438,
13 2 and many similar formulations. 3 In the later empire aloovioc (aeternus) is applied
to the emperors like many similar divine predicates, e.g., toy aloviov Abyouotov,
ibid., 580, 3; 619, 2; 722, 6. 4
In the LXX abiy is often rendered adjectivally by allnios, the sense being thus
affected, e.g., in W 23:7: Tt0Aal aldoviol ("everlasting doors") instead of "ancient doors";
w 76:5 : Ém allnia ('eternal years") instead of years long past"; Gn. 21:33 : Geoc
aiovioc ("eternal God") instead of "God of old."

In the NT alovios (with the rare atoi0c) is used in the sense of eternal in
three ways.
1. It is used of God: T00 aiwviou 0Eo0 (R. 16:26, aloov, 200). As a pre-
dicate of God alovioc contains not merely the concept of unlimited time without
beginning or end, but also of the eternity which transcends time.
2. In the latter sense it is used also of divine possessions and gifts. In 2 C. 4:18
the things which are seen (ro BeTouEva) are compared to the things which are
not seen as things temporal (mpbaxalpa) to things eternal. 5 The same view is
developed in Hb., e.g., in 9:14: the TVE ua is the TVEDua aloniov ("eternal
Spirit") because divine. In the same connection we should mention ailvioc &6Ea,
2 T'm. 2:10; 1 Pt. 5:10; alonov Bapos 868ns, 2 C. 4:17; cf. Wis. 10:14; Tuun xai
kpatos aloviov (doxologically), 1 Tm. 6:16; E0ayyé^lov aio viov, Rev. 14:6;
rapakinais alavia. 2 Th. 2:16; Satixn alonos, Hb. 13:20 (very common in
the LXX, as in Gn. 9:16; 17:7; Ex. 31:16; Lv. 24:8; 2 Bao. 23:5); owmpla aionos,
Hb. 5:9; Mk. 16 (short ending); cf. Is. 45:17; alovia Autpwais, Hb. 9:12; aiovos
KAnpovoula, Hb. 9:15.

allvioc. Cr.-K8., 99; C. Lackeit, Aion, Zeit u. Ewigkeit in Sprache u. Religion d.

Griechen, (1916), 35 f., 106 ff.; B. Laum, Stiftungen in d. griech. u. rom. Antike, (1914),
I, 46 ff.; Pauly-W., 1, 694 ff. S.v. Aeternitas, Aeternus; F. Oertel, Liturgie (1917), 323;
H. Major, JThSt, 18 (1917), 7 ff.; F. Tennant, ET, 29 (1917/18), 265-267; H. Linssen, Jahrb.
#. Liturgiewiss., 8 (1928), 73 ff.
For further examples, v. Ind. in Lackeit, 106 ff.
2 Cf. Elc unnuoauvov aloviov, w 111, 6.
3 v. Index of passages in inscr. and pap., Lackeit, 106, 107.
Cf. Bacileis NroAquaios alwvoBios, Ditt. Or., 90, 10 and the oriental royal greeting:
gito o BagEus Elc tov alova, 3 Bao. 1:31; Da. 2:4 etc.
Cf. Philo's equation of dopatoc and + a1810c, and the contrasting of the visible and
invisible, the temporal and eternal, in Slav. En. 24 etc.
allovios - arÉpaios

3. The expression aldnioc Baoilela (2 Pt. 1:11) 6 forms a transition to the

use of alovios as term for the object of eschatological expectation: gom alo-
vIOC, alovioc <Anpovoula, Hb. 9:15; allno axnval of the place of blessedness,
Lk. 16:9; olkla aloovioc Ev toic oupavoic of the heavenly body, 2 C. 5:1.8 If in
such expressions alonios has the full sense of divine eternity, in TO TUp to
aloviov, Mt. 18:8; 25:41; Jd. 7 (cf. 4 Macc. 12:12), kolaaus alonog, Mt. 25:46;
8E0poc alonios, 2 Th. 1:9; alonov quapiua, Mk. 3:29 (eternally unforgivable
sin) it has in the first instance only the sense of "unceasing" or "endless.' But an
expression like xplua alonov, Hb. 6:2 (cf. alwviou xploes, Mk. 3:29, AKMN)
shows that here, too, it extends beyond the purely temporal meaning.
4. The concept of eternity is weakened in xpovo alono, R. 16:25; 2 Tm. 1:9;
Tt. 1:2. This expression is simply a variant of al@ves in the eternity formulae.
The phrase in Phlm. 15 : iva aloviov aUtov aTExns ("that thou shouldest receive
him for ever") reminds us of the non-biblical usage (- 208) and of olkeis els
Tov aiova (a2ig 132) "slave for life" in Dt. 15:17.
Sasse

axalapoia,
xxa0aptos = Kalapoc xxalpos Ka1p6c
aKaKoc KaKoc aKapTtOc Kapitos
axaT yvwaTos - yIvOoKo akataxpItoc pivo
axaTalutos > AUG axataotacla, axatdatatos - Kaliomu

• axÉpaios
"Unravaged" or "unharmed" (cf. Kepati,a "to ravage" or "destroy"), 1 used
of a country, city or walls : Demosth., 1, 28; Ditt. Syll.3, 210, 13 ; Jos. Ant., 5, 47; Bell.,
3, 257. b. Thence in a figurative sense "that which is still in its original state of intact-
ness, totality or moral innocence." Thus "undivided attention" in Jos. Bell., 1, 621; the
"incorruptibility of a judge" in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., 7, 4; "innocent harmlessness" as
opposed to deceit and cunning : LXX St. on Est. 6:6; Jos. Ant., 1, 61. 2 c. In the Hellenist.
period there arises the combination with olvos, xpuo6c, etc., and therefore the sense
of "'pure" : Athen. II, 45e etc. 8
In the NT it is always used in the figurative sense. In Phil. 2:15 it is set along-
side queutos and > Ququos* in definition of the TEKVa OEOU LÉOOV YEVEAS

6 Cf. Da. 3:33; 7:27; 1 Macc. 2:57; Philo Som., II, 285 in another sense.
7 * gon: cf. Da. 12:2; 2 Macc. 7:9, 36; Ps. Sol. 3:12; Eth. En. 37:4; 40:9; in Philo Yon
is found in conjunction with alovioc only in Fug., 78: 00 gon LEV totiv alovios.
8 Cf. Qoh. 12:5 : Elc olkov alovos airoo (inby na) and Semitic epitaphs with 029 19,
as also the description of the temple as bmpbigg n12, jSota, 24b; S. Nu., 10 on 5:17.
ak fpaloc. Boisacq; Pass.-Cr.; Moult.-Mill. s.v.; Zn. on Mt. 10:16; Schl. Mt., 338.
1 Also Knpalvo "to harm," xxnpatos, "unharmed." Cf. Boisacq, 35 as against the
older dictionaries, many of which derive it from kepawul. This derivation is formally
impossible; "unadmixed" is &xpato (Debrunner). Pass,-Cr. rightly compares yepaioc
cynpatos.
Not in Philo.
3 Debrunner thinks it possible that there may sometimes have been a secondary influence
of the like-sounding kepowuul; but cf. n.
1 Par. with Ellixpivs, Cl., 2, 5.
 arÉpaioc - &xo ouéÉo

OKOAIaC KTA. In R. 16:19 Christians are to be arÉpaio eis TO Kakov, possessors

of an integrity 5 which they have kept in face of evil, the symbol of which is the
sacrificial 8 dove (Mt. 10:16).
Kittel

aK0 OUGÉw, EE., ET-, Top-,

JUvaKo^OUOEW

aK0 ou0Éo.
A. AKo ousiv and ÉreFfa in Greek Usage.
Already in secular Greek the ordinary sense of "following" or "going behind"
someone has given rise to that of following in an intellectual, moral or religious
sense. Thus one follows an orator in thought (yvoun), Thuc., III, 38, 6; or the
wise man, Aristot. Eth. M., II, 6, p. 1203b, 19 f.; or a friend, BGU, 1079, 10 and 26.
Similarly the servant (&k6 ouloc) or slave follows, Ps.-Aristid. in Rhet. Graec.,
II, 519, 11, Spengel; or the lover, Plat. Phaedr., 232a.
In religious and philosophical use we find &KoNouBEiv pUOEI, Epict. Diss., I,
6, 15, or EG, M. Ant., 7, 31; Epict. Diss., I, 30, 4. More commonly for the following
of God, however, we find gteolai, which does not occur in the NT.1 This tells
us that we become like God by acting as He does. 2 Plat. 3 Phaedr., 248a : n LEV
aplota (yuxn) ded Enouey kal Elkaouév, cf. Symp. 197e; eq., I, 636d.
Xenoph. Cyrop., VII, 1, 3: ÉW6W20& 00I, & ZEd. It can be maintained by Epict.:
TElos foTl To greolal Deois, Diss., I, 20, 15; 12, 8. This religious goal of g teo0aL
is expressed particularly finely in the Stoic + verses which Epict. has preserved
at the end of his Encheiridion (53, 1);
ayou 8É u', & ZEv, Kal ou y' n Hempouévn,
8Ttol Ttoe' Ouiv Elul SlaterayuÉvos®
os groual y" &OKvoc' Riv 8f YE un BEA,
KAKOC YEVOLEVOS, OUDEV firiov tyoual.

5 Not "unadmixed with evil,' (Zn. R., ad loc., as an alternative). Cf. Plat. Resp., III,
409a : drepaiol kakov h0ov. At the same time the usual translation "simple in respect
of evil, to counterbalance the preceding oopot, is a misunderstanding with no foundation
in the true signification of the word.
6 Cf. Cant. r. 2:14, Str.-B., I, 574 f.: 0'9p amih sys Mt. 10:16, A'h.
& o OUOÉw. E.G. Gulin, "Die Nachf. Gottes," Stud. Or., I (Helsingfors, 1925),
34-50; A. Marmorstein, "Die Nachahmung Gottes in der Agada, Jidische Studien, Festschr.
f. J. Wohlgemuth (1928), 144-159; M. Buber, "Nachahmung Gottes," Morgen, I (1926),
638-647; W. Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, II2 (1887), 184 ff.; Weiss, D. Nachfolge Christi u. d.
Predigt d. Gegenwart (1895), Part A : F. Bosse, Prolegomena z. einer Geschichte d. Begrifts
d. Nach‡. Christi (1895), 83-104; A. Fischer, "Uber Nachahmung u. Nachf., ARPs I
A. Runestam, Liebe, Glaube, Nachf. (1931), 147-183; Cr.-K8., 101 f.; Schi. Mt., 119; Str.-B.,
I, 188, 528 f.
Only auvertouai, Ac. 20:4; in the LXX only 3 Macc. 2:26; 5:48.
Cf. Gulin, 451
3 &K0 Ou(ELV, EEXKoAOulEiv of following God is not found in Plato. In Epict. it occurs
only in the passage quoted, Diss., I, 30, 4.
According to Simplicius the verses derive from the Stoic Cleanthes, the pupil of Zeno
and teacher of Chrysippus.
&KoAou0Éc

B. Discipleship in the OT and Judaism.

The Hebrew term corresponding to &kolouleiv and Éreo0au is "708 727. The LXX
usually gives a literal translation: TOPEE OaL OTtIOW. From the Hebr. expression,
however, there arises in the few cases where &KoloufElv is used the construction with
oniow:1 3 Bac. 19:20; Hos. 2:5 (7); Is. 45:14 : onlow oou axo ou0noouoiv. This
is found neither in secular Greek nor in Josephus, who, e.g., out of 1"77x 722*) = LXX
&Kolou0ñaw (Elisha) onloo ou (3 Bac. 19:20), makes the usual Gk. dative : ñko-
Aou0noev 'HAia, Ant., 8, 353. 8 On the other hand, in Mt. 10:38 we have &Ko ou0El
onloo uou, which is a parallel and equivalent to #pyeo0e onloo you in Mt. 16:24
and par.

1. The Following of God by the Righteous.

In the OT 9 the expression vonx 727 acquires its distinctive meaning from the
fact that, esp. in Hosea, Jeremiah and the Deuteronomic writings, it is used as a
technical term for apostasy into heathenism. Going after other gods is the basic
sin of the people and the cause of all visitations, Ju. 2:12; Dt. 4:3; 6:14; 1 K. 21:26;
Jer. 11:10 etc. In Hosea 10 the expression is bound up with the picture of adultery
which dominates his preaching. Israel follows the paramour and forgets the hus-
band, Hos. 1:2; 2:7, 13. 11
The idea of following Yahweh is much less prominent. It occurs occasionally
in a Deuteronomic context, Dt. 1:36; 13:5; 1 K. 14:8; 2K. 23:3; 2 Ch. 34:31. The
main Deuteronomic call, however, is not that Israel should go after Yahweh but
that it should walk in His ways (Dt. 5:30 etc.). Only in K. 18:21 is there any
emphasis on the former picture. Here the relating of 17778 195 to Yahweh arises
out of the simultaneous reference to Baal and the demand of Elijah that a choice
should be made between them. It is remarkable that no part is played by the
suggestive thought of Ex. 13:21 f. that the Israelites followed Yahweh as He
preceded them through the wilderness. The only occasion when there is reference
to this following in the wilderness is in Jer. 2:2, and here the emphasis does not
fall on the preceding of Yahweh but on the idea of the bridal relationship, so that
the statement is reminiscent of Hosea, yet with a positive application : "I remember
the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness.
It almost appears that there are reservations against using the otherwise obvious
picture of following in relation to Yahweh because of its particular sense of
walking after other gods. 12 Possibly there were still lively recollections that the
expression took its origin from the processions of the devotees of pagan cults
behind the preceding images of the gods. 13 This perhaps explains why there is
never any reference in a strongly religious sense 14 to following the ark, though

5 On the other hand, #Eanoloulgtv is always construed with the dat., even as a transl.
of 08 721, Jer. 2:2; Am. 2:4.
B: Topedoouai orion tov
Here, as often, Jos. more strongly hellenises the Palestinian usage than the Evangelists.
8 Cf. M. Johannessohn, D. Gebrauch d. Kasus. u. d. Prépos. in LXX (1910), 215 f.
9 Cf. Gulin, op. cit., 39 ff.
10 But cf. also passages like Dt. 8:19; Jer. 2:2, 23, 25, which approximate to the thought
of Hosea.
11 P0M8 727 as applied to the erotic passion of the lover, Prv. 7:22.
12 Gulin, 42.
13 So P. Volz, Jeremia2 (1928), 17. With qualifications, Gulin, 35.
14 Jos. 3:3; 6:9, 13 have no cultic importance, as rightly observed by Gulin, 43, n. 3.
 &KoAOU0ed

the ark certainly went on before in the wilderness journey (Nu. 10:33 ff.) and
formed the focal point in the cultic processions in Jerusalem (1 S. 6:12 ff.). 15
Our findings in relation to the Rabbis correspond to those in the OT field. The
realism of this type of thinking cannot grasp concretely the thought of following
God, which is strongly felt to be opposed to the idea of transcendence. If the
image is suggested by exegesis, e.g., of Dt. 13:5, it is immediately explained and
diverted along the rather different lines of imitation. "Is it then possible for a man
to go behind the Shekinah ? We read: 'For the Lord thy God is a consuming fire'
(Dt. 4:24)," bSot., 14a. "Is it then possible for flesh and blood to go behind the
Holy One, blessed be He? It is written of Him : 'Thy way is in the sea...
(Ps. 77:19) And is it then possible for flesh and blood to mount up to heaven
and to cling to the Shekinah? Of this it is written : 'For the Lord thy God is a
consuming fire' (Dt. 4:24)," Lv. r. 25 on 19:23. The true answer to the question is
that we should "follow the qualities of God," bSot., 14a. This is expounded either
in historical terms, e.g., that Israel should plant the land as God planted the
Garden of Eden (Lv. r., 25), or in ethical terms, that the righteous should clothe
the naked as God clothed Adam, visit the sick as God visited Abraham, comfort
the sorrowful as God comforted Isaac, and bury the dead as God buried Moses,
bSot., 14a. Thus the following of God is a mere imitatio for which other ex-
pressions (e.g., 107 "to resemble") 16 are normally used. The resultant problem for
Rabbinic theology is the very different one whether man can really be like God
already in this world, or whether this expression should be reserved for the world
to come. 17

Philo, on the other hand, is in full agreement with Gk. usage in his application of
aKoloulalv and f sofal. For him, as for Epictet., the thought of following is domi-
nated by the reference to God and to ovals. ouuBrosolal tois ÉrouÉvois Oe®,
Praem. Poen., 98; tis Eyol (sc. 0ed) kal rois tuois BoulnuaGi ETOITO, Abr., 204;
ETUEVOC &KOAOUBIa DUOEWG, Spec. Leg., III, 180 ; pUdEl yap ETe laI kaAbv, aKo-
LOU0Ia DUGERC 8' dvtliaiov 8xAou popa, IV, 46. 18 Migr. Abr., 128: &xoAoufc
th oUoal Kiv, identical with ITEOO&I OEQ. In Josephus, however, no very significant
role is played by the special use of &Kolouleiv. The only mention of discipleship 18
is in the case of Elisha on the basis of the OT narrative, Ant., 8, 354. 20 The most
common feature in Jos. is the linking of &Koloulla and &x6Aouloc with the vouog
in the sense of "obedience to the divine Law,' Ap., 2, 220; Ant., 9, 187; 11, 124 etc. 21
2. The Following of the Disciple.
In the OT a following which in the first instance has no religious significance
is following of a respected person. Thus the warrior follows a leader as the people
followed Abimelech in Ju. 9:4, 49. Again, the wife follows her husband or the bride

15 S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, II (1922), 112 ff.; Gulin, 43.

16 Cf. e.g., the saying of Abba Shaul, M. Ex. 15:2 : 'Be like Him. As He is merciful and
gratious, so be thou merciful and gracious. The starting-point for the use of 727 is always
provided, of course, by recollection of the 097 of Gn. 5:1.
17 Cf. Marmorstein, op. cit., 155 ff.
18 For further examples, cf. Leisegang, Index, 74, 265.
10 At most the saying in Ant., 20, 188, that the akoAovfoateg of a false prophet
grovra uExp thc epnulas, only approximates to a more specialised use.
There is perhaps a certain deeper significance in the dxoovleiv of the wife behind
her husband, e.g., Ant., 1, 318, v. infra.
For further examples, cf. Thackeray, Lex. Jos., 18.
 &KoAoudE©

her bridegroom in Jer. 2:2 (- 211). The prophetic disciple Elisha follows his
master Elijah in 1K. 19:20 f.: a7b8 "n7x 72: = LXX kal ÉtopEUOn ortloG 22
'Helou. Even this following expresses little more 23 than a relationship of respect.
This is fully confirmed by the phrase which follows: "and ministered unto him.
The disciple follows his master as a servant in the strict sense.
This last type of following passed over into Rabbinic custom to the extent that
this received its impress from the master-pupil relationship. In many stories handed
down by tradition we always perceive the same order, the rabbi or rabbis going
ahead, perhaps riding on an ass, and their pupils following on behind at an ap-
propriate distance (wonx pabn vnahn wm S. Dt., 305 on 31:14). The form is fixed
right through from the earlier 24 to the later texts, whether the master is one of the
great figures of the first century like Gamaliel 25 or Jochanan ben Zakkai, 24 or
whether it is one of the third century teachers like Eleazar ha-Qappar 26 or Rab
Uqba. 27 Even when it is the son who follows the father as a pupil, it makes no
difference "R. Ismael, R. Eleazar ben Azarja and R. Aqiba went on the way, and
Levi the director and R. Israel the son of R. Eleazar ben Azarja went on the way
after them" (M. Ex. 31:12). At no point do we detect any impulse towards giving
this notion any fuller significance or making it a theological concept.

C. aroovfeiv in the NT,

In the NT the idea of following is never applied to God (though - ulusiola,
punths). This was not suggested by Palestinian usage, and early Christianity
had all the less reason to coin the expression in view of the fact that from the
root of the pupil relationship there arose within it the wholly new and distinctive
concept of following after Christ. Even when Christianity entered the sphere of
Hellenism, which was familiar with the religious and philosophical notion of
following God, the verb &koloullv and the whole idea of following were so
fully influenced by the thought of following Christ, and indeed of following the
historical Jesus, that it was no longer possible to turn the words to any other
religious use.
The distinctive statistical evidence shows that the special use of &kolouleiv
is strictly limited to discipleship of Christ : 28 apart from a single reference in
Revelation it is found exclusively in the four Gospels® To some extent it connotes
an external following, as when the multitudes accompany Jesus in Mk. 3:7 and
par., Mt. 8:10 and par., or the disciples in narrower sense in Mt. 8:19: &Kolou-
Grow Fo1 STou Eav arépyn. The disciple leaves everything to go after Jesus
(Mk. 10:28; cf. 1:18; Lk. 5:11). This implies, however, that &Ko/ou0eiv signifies
self-commitment in a sense which breaks all other ties (Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:61 f.). The
disciple does what the pupil of the rabbi does, externally in the same forms as the

22 Jos. Ant., 8, 353 AkoA0u0noev 'HAlq (-211).

23 As against Gulin, p. 42 f.: "Following makes the pupil like the teacher, the godliness of
the teacher passing quasi-physically to the pupil."
24 S. Dt., 305 on 31:14 : "It happened that R. Jochanan ben Zakkal rode on an ass, and
his pupils went after him," cf. bKet., 66b.
25 Gamaliel rides on an ass from Akko to Kesib. His slave Tabi goes before him and
his pupil R. Elai behind. T. Pes., 1, 27; Lev. r., 37 on 27:2.
28 bAZ, 43a.
27 bKet., 72b.
28 All other occurrences of &x. in the NT speak of a following which has no religious
significance.
 &KoAovééd

latter, but internally in attachment to Jesus. Hence the word still has the sense of
discipleship, but in relation to Jesus it acquires a new content and impress. The
exclusiveness of the NT use arises from the fact that for primitive Christianity
there is only one discipleship and therefore only one following, namely, the re-
lationship to Jesus. The demand &K0A0U0EL Hot in Mk. 2:14 and par. is a Messianic
demand (+ OUVAKO\OUOEG).
Because it signifies following the Messiah, this discipleship is essentially a
religious gift. dro^ou0iv means participation in the salvation offered in Jesus.
In Lk. 9:61 f. only he who sUETOS fotlv th Baoela toU 0:00 can achieve
arolouleiv. In Mk. 10:17, 21 and par. &ko\ov0el pou is an answer to the question
concerning gon alonos. Similarly in In. 8:12 : o aKo1outiv tuol ov un TEPI-
mathon kv th arotia, dAX' KEEl TO oOc tis gons. The same thought is found
in Rev. 14:4 : of aKoAouoDvtec To xpvio hyopaolnoav to OEd kat to
xpvlo.
Yet akoAoulsiv also implies participation in the fate of Jesus. In Mt. 8:19 f. the
answer to the aKoloulnow cot is 8 utoc TOU &VOPOTOU OUK EXEL TOU Th
KEoaANV KAlvn. In Mk. 8:34 and par. : El TIC BÉAEL onloo YOU ÉAOEiV, drapin-
odola tautov kai apoto tov otaupov aitoi, kal &Ko ouOeIto Yot. We see
the same connection in Jn. 12:25, 26. These statements show clearly that this is
not in any sense an imitation of the example of Jesus, as later ecclesiastical inter-
pretation assumed, 29 but exclusively fellowship of life and suffering with the
Messiah which arises only in the fellowship of His salvation. 30
How strong the figurative use of the term can be is revealed by the following
consideration. On the one side the tradition quite naively retains sayings like
Mt. 10:38 : 8c ou &kolou0et onloo HOU, OUK EOTIV YOU aioc; Lk. 14:27:
SOTIS oU EpyEtal onloo uou, ou Suvatal Elval you uaentns. On the other
it equally naively presents the fact that there are disciples who do not exercise
&KoloulElv in the sense of going around with Jesus. All the more remarkable is
the third distinctive feature of the tradition, that the connection of the word with
the concrete processes of the history of Jesus is so strongly felt and retained that
no noun ever came into use corresponding to the concept of discipleship. 31 The
NT simply has the active term, because what it is seeking to express is an action
and not a concept. On this basis it is no accident that the word grolou(giv is
used only in the Gospels, that there is agreement as to its use in all four Gospels,
and that they restrict the relationship signified by it to the historical Jesus. In the
Epistles other expressions are used (- oUv, Ev) in which the emphasis falls on
relationship to the exalted Kuplos and His TvEua. The only exception outside
the Gospels (Rev. 14:4) is obviously an application of Mt. 10:38 to a specific class
of believers. 32

29 Aug. Sct. Virg., 27: quid est enim sequi nisi imitari? Theophylact J., 21, p. 845 : of
uuo ueVol aUToU Thy Ev TaGl &xpIBElov, Ofrol &KoAouliol autd; Theophanes
Hom., 41, p. 293 to arolouenaal autd to Thy Exeivou tolitelav, oc -
Opino utunoaalai, 8c Enolitelaato Erl this yñs yEVOUEVOS avOpaTos.
'30 A. Klostermann, Mk. (1867), 179: Discipleship as participation "in the inheritance of
Christ" is "not the activity of going as such, but achievement with Him of the goal to which
He goes."
31 axoloulnous might have been used for this purpose (Ps.-Plat. Def., 412b). Cf. also
the use of taparoloulnois in Stoic writings (Epict. Diss., I, 6, 13 etc.).
82 Hence it is no surprise that this formed the starting-point for the concept of imitatio
Agni, which was so important in the early Church and beyond ; cf. Loh. Apk., 120.
 &KoAOU0ÉD ~ EEXKOAOUOEG #taKo^ou0Éo TaPaKO OU0EG

Equally distinctive of the new content here given to the concept is the fact that
in the apostolic period the picture of following never seems to have been applied
to any but the disciples of Jesus. At any rate, Acts 33 as well as other sources
avoids this kind of expression, though it is not unfamiliar with the master-pupil
relationship, e.g., in the case of Barnabas and Mark, or of Paul and his circle.

+ fEaKo^OU0EG.
Like the simple form, this is used in both the literal and the figurative sense. In
the NT it is found only in 2 Pt. in the latter sense : 0EO0OIOLÉVOIC uo0ots, 1:16;
doE^yElaus, 2:2; Th 666 tot Balacu, 2:15.
Cf. taic ooic aurov, Is. 56:11; uo0o1s, Jos. Ant., 1, 22; Baluoau Toms, Test. Jud.
23:1; Tovpois 6taBouA(ous, Test. Iss. 6:2.

+ ÉraKo Ou0Ew.
This is partly used a. in the true sense of following, sometimes metaphorically
Mk. 16:20 : 81& TOv Énako10uloUvTov (ensuing as a result) onuelov; Pt.
2:21: Tois tyveaIv autou (i.e., Christ's, expressing the fact that He is an example);
1 Tm. 5:24 : the sin which follows after, i.e., which only manifests itself in the
future, 2 in contrast to that which declares itself from the very first ; and partly
b. in the figurative sense of pursuing a matter, or concerning oneself with it:
Tm. 5:10 : navti Epyo aya06.
As regards a. cf. LXX Jos. 6:8 : f kiBwroc tic Biadikns kuplou; Polyb., 30, 9, 10:
ueuwis; BGU, 2, 14 : gnula; Philo Virt., 64 : lyveov. As regards b. cf. LXX Jos. 14:9 :
onlow kupiou Too Geo0 nuGv; 14:14: ro npootayuati Kuplou; Jos. Ap., 1:6:
uatalais 86Ea1c.

$ TapaKo^ou0Ed.
a. The strict meaning is "to go along with (rap-)" or "to accompany." Thus
in Mk. 16:17 the miracles which accompany believers are InuEia TOIS TLOTEUOXOLV
taita raparoroulhoel. b. A first figurative meaning is that of "pursuing or
investigating a matter," as in Lk. 1:3: TapnKolouenK6t OVGOEV TIGGIV &KPIBC.
C. A second figurative meaning is that of "not letting a matter slip," of "con-
centrating" (either abs. or on something), of "following a teaching which has been
grasped,' as in 1 Tm. 4:6; 2 Tm. 3:10 : Si8aaka^la, xywyi, npo{éOEI, TIOTEL.
In both figurative meanings a strong emphasis is laid on the exactness or con-
stancy of agreement indicated by the prefix.
With regard to a. toyn, Demosth., 42, 21; Éx0pa, 59, 98; 8(Kn), 2 Macc. 8:11; 'Avtl-
statpos n ToU OT6OEOIG, Jos. Bell., 1, 455; Papias in Eus. Hist. Eccl., III, 39, + and 15

88 Ac. 13:43 hardly has any significance beyond that of accompanying in order to make
themselves known.
ETaKoAOUDE©. 1 As against Pr.-Bauer, 438; cf. Preisigke Wort., 526.
2 Bengel : interim patienter exspectandum, dum res aperiat.
tapa COAOUBEG. Zahn, Einl., II, 388; A. Bonhoffer, "Epiktet u. das NT." RVV,
X (1910), 210; Moult.-Mill., 485 f.; H. J. Cadbury in Jackson-Lake, The Beginnings of
Christianity, I, 2 (1922), 501 f.; Ropes, JThSt, 25 (1923), 70 f.
 TapaKo OUlEG ouvaKo outed &KoUG

for accompanying Jesus. With regard to b. 1paÉeotv, Polyb., III, 32, 2; yeyovoo, Jos.
Ap., 1,53; querépoic ypauuaowv, 1,218; Vit. 357. With regard to C. this is one of
the most important technical terms in Epictetus" (Bonhoffer). Cf. esp. quiv 8' ols kal
thy tapaxolouentixny SUvaulv ESWKEV, Diss., fma Aby∞ un8®
drodelgel undd codlouati, Diss. I, 7, 33; also Th rEpi TO feloy Ins ToEGC epa-
TEla, Ditt. Syll.3, 885, 32.

$ auVaKooutÉd.
In the NT this refers only to those who accompany Jesus, though in two
passages (Mk. 5:37; 14:51), and perhaps the third (Lk. 23:49), it signifies only
"external accompanying." The pregnant sense of following as discipleship is re-
served for the simple form &KOAOU0Éw. This is perhaps surprising in view of
the fact that in secular Greek the compound outaKoAou0Éo can acquire the
figurative meanings of "understanding" and "obeying" (Plat. Leg., I, 629 etc.). It
is a further sign that in the use of the simple form there begins to develop a special
term with particular religious significance.
Kittel

arovw, aron, elc., fi., taparoiw,

tapakon, inarouw, intaxon,
On Koos

&K00G (- BAETG, 6p&o).

The class. rule of the gen. (or prep. napa, mp6s, Ex) for the persons whom we hear,
and the acc. for the persons or things about whom or which we hear, is applied even
more systematically in the NT, where the acc. tends to replace the more common class.
gen. even in the case of hearing a sound, though the latter still occurs. The position is
similar in the LXX. Cf. 1 K. 10:8, 24 : Mas. inpbrnk gioub/apeanns auptn = LXX
&KoVOVTeC. Thy oponawv / axoioal tis opovnoeg. Ac. 9:4, 7; Rev. 14:2, 13 : aK.
poviv1 ax. povis.
A. The Hearing of Man.
The use of arouo and its derivatives in the NT reflects something of the
significance of the Word as it is spoken and as it is to be heard in the reciprocal
NT relationship between God and man. The hearing of man represents corre-
spondence to the revelation of the Word, and in biblical religion it is thus the
essential form in which this divine revelation is appropriated.

dKOUG KTA. W. W. Graf Baudissin, " 'Gott schauen' in d. at.lichen Rel.," ARW,
18 (1915), 173 ff.: J. Hanel, Das Erkennen Gottes bei d. Schriftpropheten (1923), esp. 19 ff.;
193 ff.; J. Hempel, Goft u. Mensch im AT (1926); F. Haussermann, Wortemptang u. Symbol
in d. at.lichen Prophetie (1932). E. v. Dobschitz, "Die funf Sinne im NT," JBL. 48 (1929),
378 ff.; R. Bultmann, SEOV OUBEIC EOPAKEV TOTOTE, ZNW (1930), 169 ff.; E. Fascher,
"Deus invisibilis," Marburger Theol. Stud., (1931), 41 ff.; G. Kittel, Religionsgesch. u.
Urchristentum (1932), 95 ff.
On the syntax, cf. Bl.-Debr., 103 236; Zn. J., 357 f., n. 2; R. Helbing, Die Kasus-
syntax der Verba bei den LXX (1928), 150 ff.
 &KouG

1. The Hearing of Revelation outside the NT.

a. In the Greek mysteries and oriental Gnosticism 2 great stress is laid on the
fact that man apprehends God by seeing. It is not as though there were no religious
hearing : but the phenomena of sight are the more essential. For Philo the inter-
relation of hearing and seeing is strikingly determined by the fact that the former
can lead astray and deceive as distinct from the latter. Fug., 208 : &kon 8' 6p&-
GEOC To SEUTEPXIX DEPETAL &KOUEIV HEv yap kal DEUOKV og dineiv
EVEOTIV, &TL AtaTAOv &Kon, & EUSEC 8' opaois, i ta 8vta 8vtgC katavOEITaI.
In Apuleius many revelations of God are imparted which must be received by
hearing. + At the point, however, where the true mystery is achieved, the reference
is to vision, access and worship, with no reference to the fact that the devotee has
heard a verbal revelation : accessi confinium mortis et calcato Proserpinae limine
per omnia vectus elementa remeavi, nocte media vidi solem candido coruscantem
lumine, deos inferos et deos superos accessi coram et adoravi de proxumo, Met.,
XI, 23. The content of revelation consists in seeing rather than hearing. Similarly
in the so-called Mithras Liturgy all the emphasis is placed on the fact that ulti-
mately God appears. Contemplation makes the devotee a TOALVYEVOUEVOC. 5 Al-
ready in the Eleusinian mystery the climax was the moment when the bright light
shone into the dark telesterion from above and a divine spectacle was witnessed. 6
The monuments which have come down to us with pictures of religious acts
also make it clear that the sacred moment of the mystery or cult is one of vision.
If on the well-known terracottae and the picture in the Villa Item 7 the mysterious
contents of the winnow are in the first instance covered with a cloth which is
withdrawn at the solemn climax, this implies that the significance of the action
depends upon the devotee seeing the symbolism of these contents.&
b. The emphasis is quite different in OT religion and in Judaism, which stems
from it. These are religions of the Word which is either heard or to be heard.
To be sure, the OT, too, speaks of seeing God and His face, especially in relation
to the temple and its worship, but also in relation to the experience of God's help
in daily emergencies. This form of speech, however, although it arose outside
Israel in cults which had images, became so much a part of the religion of Israel,
which had no images, that it no longer contained any serious emphasis on seeing
in the strict sense. Hence it hardly enters into the present problem. ® The true
vision of God increasingly becomes for OT religion something exceptional and
dangerous (Gn. 19:26; 32:31; Ex. 3:6; Tu. 6:23). When it takes place, its unusual
nature is always underlined (Nu. 12:6 ff. aiviyua). Even in the case of Moses

2 Cf. esp. for what follows v. Dobschutz, 396 ff. Concerning healings by "direction in
dreams" amongst the Greeks and Romans, cf. O. Weinreich, "Antike Heilungswunder,
RVV (1909), 110 ff.
3 Cf. e.g., the very dramatic representation by &kon demonstrated by Zingerle (- 222).
Met., XI, 5, 22 and 29.
5 Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 695-723. That the continuation of the pap. causes God to
prophesy merely shows us that we have here the voice of the revising magus, cf. A. Diete-
rich-O. Weinreich, Mithrasliturgie3 (1923), 82.
6 Cf. F. Noack, Eleusis, I (1927); Ill., 111.
Cf. the ill. in J. Leipoldt, Die Religionen in der Umwelt des Urchrts. (1926), 170-172.
On the Hanoverian terracotta it appears that the devotee is covered by the contents
of the winnow (cf. Leipoldt, 171). Here too, however, the hanging cloth indicates the
earlier disclosure of contents not previously seen, and the veiled eyes of those still to be
initiated indicate that these may see only from the moment of dedication.
opac; cf. G. Kittel, op. cit., 100.
 &K0Uw

this is felt so strongly that the tradition that he saw the face of God and talked
with him "face to face" (Ex. 33:11; Nu. 12:8) is toned down to suggest that he
could only see His back (Ex. 33:20). Earthly and therefore unclean human eyes
cannot see the holy God without perishing (Is. 6:5). Seeing God is an eschatologi-
cal event which takes place when Yahweh comes to Zion and men are no longer
of unclean lips (Is. 60:1 ff.; Job 19:26 f.; 6 pac).10
The more seeing fades into the background, 11 the more hearing is emphasised.
It is significant that the theophany of Moses is rather in the nature of speaking
face to face (Ex. 33:11). Where there are accounts of seeing God, they simply
provide the setting for the revelation of the Word (Is. 6:1 ff.; Ez. 1 f.; Am. 9:1 fE.;
cf. also Ex. 3:1 ff.). When God appears, it is not for the sake of the theophany,
but in order to send the prophet that he may pass on His Word, and consequently
in order to cause Himself to be heard either indirectly or directly. The decisive
religious statement is : "Hear the Word of the Lord" (Is. 1:10; Jer. 2:4; Am. 7:16);
"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth : for the Lord speaketh" (Is. 1:2). The
decisive accusation is that of failure or unwillingness to hear (Jer. 7:13; Hos. 9:17).
This prevalence of hearing points to an essential feature of biblical religion. It
is a religion of the Word, because it is a religion of action, of obedience to the
Word. The prophet is the bearer of the Word of Yahweh which demands obe-
dience and fulfilment. Man is not righteous as he seeks to apprehend or perceive
God by way of thought and vision, but as he hears the command of God and
studies to observe it. It is thus that he "seeks the Lord" (Jer. 29:13). "It hath
been declared to thee, O man, what is good, and what doth the Lord require of
thee, but to do justly, and to exercise love..." (Mic. 6:8).
C. There are two lines in Judaism. In Apocalyptic the eschatological contempla-
tion of symbols naturally comes to the forefront, though these are often bound up
with words which are to be heard and which help to bring out the meaning (Da.
7:17 ff.; 8:16 ff.; 4 Esr. 4:26; 5:32; 9:38; 10:38) . In the Rabbinic literature hearing
is related in the first instance to the Word of God given in the sacred book. Since
the text is not read quietly but recited and elucidated aloud, even externally its
study involves hearing, for which the terminology of exegesis has several ex-
pressions: 12 738 grit "I hear (a text and its exposition)"; 13 gti (- axon), "what
is heard," i.e., the meaning of a passage ; ypun "hearing,' i.e., the meaning of a
passage recognised in hearing 14 714720 (- axon), "what is received," i.e., the
Halachic tradition.
The strength of the underlying awareness that all hearing is referred to God
and His will emerges most clearly in the use of the schema, the "Hear, O Israel," 15
as a daily confession. 16 The three portions to be heard (Dt. 6:4-9; 11:13-21;

10 Cf. R. Kittel, Psalmen‡ (1921), 59 (on Ps. 17:15; Job 19:26 etc.).
11 A seeing of a very different kind is that whereby God is perceived in nature, which
leads on at once to history as the action of God ; cf. Is. 40:26 ff.; Job 38 ff.; Mt. 6:26 ff.
) BAETO, opao.
12 N. Bacher, Die exeget. Terminologie d. jud. Traditionslit., I (1899), 189 f. On the
Amorean use of ynw cf. II (1905), 219 ff.
13 In this expression it is alway presupposed that the exposition appended is false its
untenability is always shown from another passage. Cf. Bacher, 198; K. G. Kuhn, Sifre
Numeri, 69, n. 4.
14 Bacher, 191.
15 For material on the schema, v. Str.-B., IV, 189; Schurer, II, 528 f.; 537 f.
16 Even the fringes of Nu. 15:39 are merely to remind of the commandments.
 &KoUo

Nu. 15:37-41) treat of the way in which God's commandments are to be observed.
The seeing of God is reserved for the hour of death and the life beyond. 17 It is
an impossible thought that any man, apart from Moses (Nu. 12:8), should presume
to see Him on earth. 18 In this life, God's coming is simply by the study of the
Torah and the fulfilment of the Law. The man who is righteous in the Law is
"as (!) he who greets the face of the Shekina" (M. Ex. 18:12).10 That seeing is
here used for comparison shows more plainly than anything else how little it can
be the theme of direct statement. Hence even when the "Palestinian soul" 20 does
have immediate and physically perceptible apprehension of deity, there is no
question of seeing but of hearing the voice from heaven, the Bath Qol. 21 This
is what replaces the now extinct prophetic endowment. In it men experience
decisions, warnings and consolations through hearing the echo of the voice of
God (hence "daughter of the voice").
2. The Hearing of Revelation in the NT.
a. It is against this background that the use of &Ko ElV and &kon in the NT
acquires its force. The NT revelation, too, is a Word to be heard. It is message,
proclamation. We must remember, of course, that events themselves are now a
Word in a very different sense from that of Judaism with its exclusive emphasis
on teaching. This is true of the Synoptic no less than the Johannine presentation,
Mt. 11:4 ff., 20 ff. (- Sovauis, Abyos, op&o, onueiov). On the other hand, there
can be no doubt both that the OT word was heard by early Christianity in exactly
the same physical sense as already described (Mt. 5:21 ff.: nKOUgaTE 8t1 Éppeen;
also Gl. 4:21: tov VoLOv OUK &KOUETE), and also that the mission of Jesus and the
disciples was first regarded and treated as something to be received by way of
hearing. Throughout the NT hearing is strongly emphasised, to some degree
almost more so than seeing (Mk. 4:24; Mt. 11:4; 13:16; Lk. 2:20; Ac. 2:33; I Jn. 1:1).
In the &KOUGavte© of Hb. 2:3 we simply have another expression for the autottal
of Lk. 1:2. There is no record concerning the appearance of Jesus, in which the
first Christians showed no interest. The accounts tell of what He said and did,
i.e., of what was heard. Even when there is reference to seeing, it is to the seeing
of His acts, in which the nature of His mission in revealed. The parables of sowing,
in which the actualisation of the Baoela tov oipaviv is described (Mt. 13:1 ff.;
Mk. 4:26), are parables of hearing. The NT often tells of things seen, but these
usually acquire their true significance in what is heard, as in the case of the
message of the nativity, the voice at the baptism, the voice at the transfiguration
(Mk. 9:7: &KOUETE a0TO6), the visions of Paul (2C. 12:3 : KKouoev appnta
pjuata, Ac. 18:9 etc.) and the visions of the Apocalypse.
As in prophetic usage, &KOUElv in the absolute can express the appropriation
in which external hearing becomes true hearing, or which may be lacking in spite
of external hearing: oc EXEl OTa AKOUEIV OKOUéTO, Mk. 4:9 etc.; dKoOoVtEs

17 Cf. Str.-B., 207 ff. Seeing in the hour of death naturally anticipates the vision of
God both as the destruction of the guilty and the bliss of those called to salvation, esp.
martyrs ( 6pao).
18 In the apocalyptic story of the four rabbis who penetrated to Paradise (bChag, 14b),
their analogous experience is expressed in the word 9'7, "he saw. This is Gnosis, and
thus the experience of the rabbis is characteristically regarded as suspect and dangerous.
19 For further examples, cf. Str.-B., I, 207.
20 So Schl. Mt., 92 in connection with the Bath Qol at the baptism of Jesus.
21 For material, cf. Str.-B., I, 125 ff.
 aKou0

anoiwalv kai un ouvidor, Mk. 4:12 and par.; bra EXOUTEC OUK AKOUETE, Mk.
8:18 (cf. Jer. 5:21; Ez. 12:2). In the apostolic era, however, gron becomes a
technical term for the preaching without which there can be no faith, for the
xpuyua of Christ (- axon).
As is only natural, the content of hearing is determined by the content of the
message. In the New Testament this is always the offering of salvation and ethical
demand in one. Hearing, then, is always the reception both of grace and of the
call to repentance. This means that the only marks to distinguish true hearing from
purely physical hearing are faith (Mt. 8:10; 9:2; 17:20 etc.) and action (Mt. 7:16,
24, 26; R.2:13 etc.). This is not the place to treat of the interrelationship of the
two. It is surely evident, however, that NT hearing as reception of the declared
will of God always implies affirmation of this will as the willing of salvation and
repentance by the man who believes and acts. There thus arises, as the crowning
concept of the obedience which consists in faith and the faith which consists in
obedience, intakon TloTEos, R. 1:5; 16:26 (- intaKon).
b. It is in keeping with the OT model that throughout the NT eschatology is
described in terms of seeing rather than hearing (Mt. 5:8; Mk. 14:62; C. 13:12;
Hb. 12:14 ff.; Jn. 3:2; Rev. 22:4). The same holds good, however, of the accounts
of the risen Lord; He is "seen" (1 C.9:1; 15:5 ff.; cf. Mk. 16:7 and par.). In this
respect, as in the general view of the NT, the Easter event proves to be eschato-
logically evaluated. 22 This explains why John can set alongside his strong em-
phasis on hearing (8:43; 18:37; 1 Jn. 2:7) an equally strong emphasis on seeing
(Jn. 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1). At this point, too, the Johannine picture of Christ arises as
the earthly Jesus is seen and described in the light of the Easter experience.
This aspect is emphasised particularly strongly and thematically in John. Yet
it is materially present in the other Evangelists as well. The message of Jesus to
the Baptist runs as follows: XTayyE[AXTE & &KOUETE kal BAÉTETE (Mt. 11:4).
The blessing of Jesus extends to bola^poi 8tL PAÉTtouGlV as well as ota otl
&kobougiv (Mt. 13:16). The condemnation is Iva BÉTOVTEC BAETWOW Kal ur
towow as well as crovovtes aroiwal kal un ouviow (Mk. 4:12) . Hearing is
always to the fore, no less emphasised than in one of the prophets. But seeing also
comes into account, and in the intermingling of hearing and seeing in relation to
the person of Jesus there is expressed the fundamental distinction of the situation
depicted by the Evangelists both from pedagogic Judaism and also from prophecy
with its reception and proclamation of the revelation of the Word. When Jesus
describes unrepentant cities, this is not merely in terms of their failure to hear His
preaching but also of their failure to see the essential elements in His acts (Mt.
11:20 ff.). Already in His earthly presence with its Word and work there has
come the dawn of eschatology in which seeing has a place alongside hearing. Thus
in the use of the verbs denoting the sense-process described there is reflected the
early Christian understanding of the revelation given in Jesus. The influence which
here asserts itself as a new factor does not derive primarily from the motifs of
Gnostic or Hellenistic theophany, but from the eschatological understanding of the
fact of Christ. 28

22 Cf. v. Dobschtitz, 402.

23 What falls to be said concerning seeing is developed and established more fully under
the relevant words, q.v., esp. opao.
&K000 - &kon

B. The Hearing of God.

&KOUELV (-> ElOqKoUw, ÉTaKoU∞) also means God's hearing of the prayers
which man undertakes to address to Him. It is not used very often in this sense
in the NT. Possibly the purely passive use of gloakouo in this sense is the result
of some scruple against ascribing "hearing" to God Himself. It is remarkable that
there is almost no use of É aKoUw, and none at all of ÉnKoos, the word most
commonly used in Hellenism for the hearing deity. 24 The attribute of the heathen
OEol ÉThKooL is avoided ( 222).
Yet the underlying thought is completely in accord with the NT concept of God,
and it is thus used quite freely in relation to Jesus (Jn. 11:41 f.; -) EloXKOUw,
Hb. 5:7), in quotation from the OT (Ac. 7:34 Ex. 3:7; -) ÉmaKooo in 2 C. 6:2
- Is. 49:8), and even in relation to the God who hears man (Jn. 9:31; 1 Jn. 5:14 f.:
of quav STL &KOUEL NUOv).

axon.
This is a common word in every period of secular Greek, and also in the LXX
(= yp0, 7y10t, VA00).
It has 1. the active signification of the "sense or organ of hearing" (Mk. 7:35
etc.).
It has also 2. the passive sense of a "rumour" or "report" which is heard (Mk.
1:28 etc.). In this sense axon approximates closely to dyyeAia (LXX
1y120) and kipuyua, and can be a technical term for "proclamation" or "preach-
ing (cf. also royor akoñc, 1 Th. 2:13; Hb. 4:2). The emphasis always falls, of
course, on the one who hears the proclamation (R. 10:16 ff.: n TloTs ÉE, arons
& Ad AÉy∞, un ouk Axougav; Hb. 4:2: axons ... xxouaaaiv). With this
signification there is a return to the prophetic usage (R. 10:16; Jn. 12:38 = Is. 53:1:
TIc ÉnloTEUgE Th axon juov). Again, there is no doubt as to the meaning
of G1. 3:2 : $€, Epyoov VOLOU TO TIVEDUX EXXBETE f EE, AKoñs TIotEws (cf. v.5).
The true reading is not plots aKoñs2 but &Kon TloTEws, and in correspondence
with Épya vouou this does not mean "believing hearing" 3 but the "preaching of
faith, i.e., proclamation which has faith as its content and goal.
3. In many cases &Koal seem to be the ears which are fixed on the walls of sanctua-
ries or on altars and which symbolise "hearing" deity. 4 This custom started in Egypt
and thence spread over the whole of the ancient world, for which it proved an eloquent
representation of the Geog EThKoog. Hence in the temple of Isis in Pompeii two stucco
ears were modelled on the wall behind the statue of Dionysus Osiris. 5 We also find
similar ears on altars from Delos (Atargatis), & Arles (Bona Dea), T etc., as also on
numerous votive tablets, on which they may very occasionally be offerings for restored
ears. This also seems to be the reference of an inscription from Apollonia on the

24 O. Weinreich, Geol e Kool, Ath. Mitt., 37 (1912), 1-68.

*Kon. Zn. Gl., 140, 83 : "Since one comes to hear only that which is said by others."
2 Hofmann, Gl.2 (1872), 49 : "Belief in a report.
3 Zn., op. cit. Bengel: ex auditu fidei.
4 Esp. ©. Weinreich, Ath. Mitt., 37 (1912), 46 ff.; 57 ff.; Herm., 51 (1916), 624 ff. In re-
lation to the examples cited, cf. also P. Wolters, Herm., 49 (1914), 151.
Weinreich, Ath. Mitt., 49; A. Mau, Pompeji* (1908), 181.
6 BCH, 6 (1882), 311, 487, 499.
7 W. Altmann, Rom. Grabaltare d. Kaiserzeit (1905), 185, Fig. 151; Weinreich, Ath.
Mitt., 37, Ill. 4.
Weinreich, Ath. Mitt., 52.
 akon - Elaakoug - ÉTaKoUG

Rhyndacus : 9 dyadi tuxn® taic aroaic tis Deot 'E<p> ulavoc ATTEO0K<EV>
Eixapiotplov to Bra kal tov Boubv; and also of an inscription from Aquileia :1
auribus 11 b<onae> d<eae> d<edit> Petrusia Proba magistra. Again, the term
axon sometimes denoted places in the temple where mysterious voices might be heard
as described by Psellos Elg to Ev Nikoundela Axeiov (p. 58, Boiss). 12 In this sense
there is a relative approximation to the biblical concept of the proclamation which
derives from God. Cf. Ditt. Syll.3, 1170, 15 : ÉgiÉval Kard tac groac ek tou aBatou
(cf. 10); and esp. Orph. fr., 249, Kern: ofat& yol Kalapds axo&s TE TET&O AC
KEKAUOL TAEIV &tATaV, SOnV TEKunpato Aal.

$ ElagKoUw.
(LXX - got; my etc.), "to hear something or someone," "to consent to" or
"to gratify." a. "to obey" (secular Gk. and LXX): 1 C. 14:21 (cf. Is. 28:12);
b. "to hear or answer" (LXX), always used passively in the NT (- 221): Lk.
1:13: slonroven i BÉnolc oou; Mt. 6:7; Ac. 10:31; Hb. 5:7: (Christ) Elog-
KoUG0E(C.

+ ÉnoKoUd.
This word occurs in secular Gk. from the time of Homer. In a religious context
it is the established technical term in the ancient language of prayer for the hearing
deity. Aesch. Choeph., 725; Wilcken Ptol., 78, 23 f.: É0É you lea OEGv
énd-
KOUG6V yOU, É1Énoov; Philo Det. Pot. Ins., 93. In the LXX it is used for 9000, 739

The word Énhkoos was a common epithet for oriental and Egyptian, Greek and
Roman deities. First used in laudation, under oriental influence it came to be
applied specifically to gods who answer prayer. There are not many literary
examples, 2 but all the more on inscriptions. 3
In the NT the only instance is 2 C. 6:2 (cf. LXX, Is. 49:8): ÉThKouog GOU,
4*7 have heard thee." In view of the evidence in secular Gk., it is surprising that
neither the adj. nor the verb occurs in the NT except in this one verse which is
obviously influenced by the OT. There can be no material reason for avoiding
the popular term, since early Christian piety unconditionally accepts the fact that
God answers prayer (- 221). The only explanation is an awareness of the need
to differentiate from the Geol EThKoo of popular syncretism.

9 BCH, 25 (1901), 326, No. 4.

10 CIL, V, 759. Cf. the similar inscription in CIL, III, 986.
11 In Thes. Ling. Lat., II, 1505 the first word is incorrectly and misleadingly given as
aures. Cf. Weinreich, Ath. Mitt., 53, n. 3.
12 Wolters, Herm., 149 Ff.; J. Zingerle, ARW, 27 (1929), 53 ff. Cf. also Marinos Vit.
Procl., 32.
ElgaKoUG. Often like the simple form : LXX, Ex. 16:7: ElonKouaev Tov yoyyu-
ouov; Eur. El., 416 : gOvt' eloakouaag, "hearing, that he live."
ETaKOUO. C. Ausfeld, "De Graecorum precationibus quaeston," Jbch. f. klass.
Phil. Suppl., 28 (1903), 503-547; O. Weinreich, ©col EriKoot, Ath. Mitt., 37 (1912), 1-68.
F. Poland, Griech. Vereinswesen (1909), 238.
On the grotesque description in Lucian, /karomenippos, 23 ff. of the En Kootatov tou
oupavoi the place in heaven where Zeus as OEos EThKoos listens to prayers at
specific time of the day, and of the way in which he conducts himself in this place, cf.
O. Weinreich, Gebet und Wunder (1929), 200 ff.
Weinreich, Ath. Mitt., 5-25 gives 138 examples.
TaPaKOUG - OTaKOUG

t napaxouw, t rapaxon (- XTEL0É).

The verb means "to hear aside," either in the sense a. of "to overhear," i.e., "to
hear something not intended for one" : Plat. Euthyd., 300d; Aristoph. Ra., 750 ; or b. "to
hear incorrectly" (par. Tapioeiv): Plut. Philop., 16 (I, 365c); LXX, Est. 4:14; E Ps.
39:13 (wam); Act. Jn., 17; or, in the Hellenistic period, "not to be willing to hear,' i.e.,
"to be disobedient" : Polyb., III, 15, 2; P. Hib., 170; Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 3037: 81&
TO TapaKoUElV aUtov; LXX, Est. 3:3 523); 3:8 (t vy TN; Is. 65:12 (anypy b); Tob.
3:4. The noun is rare in secular Gk., and has the sense of b., though it acquires also
the sense of ¢. in post-Christian usage. The noun is not found at all in the LXX, but
the content of the NT term is fully given by the verb TapaKoUElV and by un onta-
KOUELY.

TapaKoud occurs in Mk. 5:35 f., when in the Jairus incident there comes to the
latter the message : n Buyamp YOU &TTEB&VEY (v. 35). 8E 'Inoouc TapaKOU-
aac 2 Tov A6yov Aa oULEvov AÉyEl to apylouvayo un p o
TOOTEUE (v. 36). Since Jesus did not ignore the message, but referred to it in His
un poBoU, there can be no question either of His not hearing it properly in the
sense of b., or of His disregarding it in the sense of c., 3 and therefore it must mean
that He overheard it as under a. The word also occurs in Mt. 18:17: Édv 8É
Ttapakoion autov Eav SE Kai this ÉxkAnolac naparoion, but here it ob-
viously has the sense of unwillingness to hear as under c.
tapakon in the NT alway means "bad hearing" in consequence of unwillingness
to hear (c.), and therefore in the guilty sense of disobedience which does not
and will not proceed to the action by which hearing becomes genuine hearing
- 219). A dramatic example of tapakon is given in Ac. 7:57: OUVEOXOV TO ota
autov. In this sense the word is par. to tapa Baais: Hb. 2:2 (tapakon to the
larneic Aoyoc, i.e., the Law), and is the opp. of UntaKon: R. 5:19 (the Tapakoñ
of Adam); 2 C. 10:6 (Tapakoñ in the congregation).

+ UntaKoU0 (-> TELOxpye∞).

In secular Gk. with the gen. or dat. of person or thing ; in the LXX more often with
the gen., more rarely with the dat., and very occasionally the acc. (Dt. 21:18); in the
NT only the dat.
1. "To hearken at the door," i.e., "to open, t.t. of the eup∞p6s, Ac. 12:13
(cf. Plat. Phaed., 59e ; Xenoph. Symp., I, 11).
2. "To obey." This obedience first relates to persons such as children, slaves
or wives who stand in a divinely willed relation of subordination (Eph. 6:1, 5;
Col. 3:20, 22; 1 Pt. 3:6) . It can thus also describe the relation of demons (Mk. 1:27)
or nature (Mk. 4:41 and par.) to the omnipotence of Jesus and the authoritative
faith of the disciples (Lk. 17:6) . In the same sense, however, the term expresses the

TaP KOUW, K TA. Trench, 155 f.

1 Preisigke Wort., s.v. : 2 Byzant. pap. of the 8th century A.D.
2 The early correction in ACD rec, which substituted the simple &kouaac, is an attempt
to avoid the dilemma that Jesus might either have heard something not intended for Him
or have missed something : cf. Cr.-Ko., 108.
Wbg., Mk 165 (neglexit); Moult.-Mill., s.v.
TaKOUO. Loh. Phil., 101; Helbing, op. cit., 155 f.
Pr.-Bauer, 1339.
 UTaKoUw - UTtaKon - OTh KOog

position of man in relation to dominant moral or religious powers, whether in the

good sense or the bad: R. 6:16 (Boi^ol EOTE & UT&KOUETE): Énti0vulaus, v. 12;
to the TUTtoC 816axns, v. 17; TloteI, Ac. 6:7; E XYyEAlo, R. 10:16; 2 Th. 1:8;
16yo; 2 Th. 3:14; aird (to Xpioto) in Hb. 5:9 (cf. 11:8: TlOTEl KaAOULEVOS
"Appadu OThKOUGEV LEE OEIV). Similarly at Phil. 2:12, in connection 2 with the
obedience of Jesus in v. 8 (infra), recollection of the iaKOUElV of the community
can describe its positive religious state : KaOg TOUTOTE UTNKOUGATE, just as be-
lievers in Ac. 5:32 can be called : of TELCXpXOUUTES (0EG).

The frequent use of SnaKOUELV for yow in the LXX shows how strongly the idea of
hearing is still present for the translator in the Gk. Onakovelv. Hence Snakoualv and
OTtakon as terms for religious activity are always to be thought of within the sphere
of a religion which receives the divine Word by hearing and then translates it into
action (-> AKOU®, 1): innkouoas the tuns povns, Gn. 22:18; Lv. 26:14; touc un
BourouÉvouc STAKOUEIV TOV A6YOV you, Jer. 13:10; OnaKoogetal (mopnb) oopiac
TO ouc oou, Prv. 2:2. Cf. also Test. Jud. 13:1: iaKoUEIV ÉvroAdc 0E00; 18:6 : 0E
sTakoGoaL ou ouvatal.

t intakon, t orn Koog.

In the LXX the noun is found only in 2 Bac. 22:36 (7032). It is rare and late in
secular Gk. 1 The adj. is common in secular Gk. and occurs several times in the LXX.

Except in Phlm. 21: uttakon to the injunction of the apostle, Unakon is always
used in connection with religious decision, as in R. 6:16 : & TapIOT&VETE gautouc
bou ous eis intakonv. In general, however, this is measured by the attitude of
obedience to God ; it is the opp. of quaptia (R. 6:16), and of tapakon (R. 5:19;
2 C. 10:6), and it is filled out positively as the Snakon the aindelac (1 Pt. 1:22)
and the OTaKON TOU XpITT00 (2 C. 10:5).2 The act of Christ Himself is unakon
(R. 5:19); UTaKoN TOU Évoc (Hb. 5:8). When used alone, however, the word also
signifies the believing state of Christians as this consists in obedience: R. 15:18;
16:19 (n yap Duov intakon Eis Tavias dolketo); 2 C. 7:15; 10:6; 1 Pt. 1:2.
In the first instance itakon does not denote an ethical attitude but the religious
act from which this self-evidently prings (1 Pt. 1:14). It is in this sense, and
therefore as gen. epexeg., that OTtaKon TloTEo© is to be understood in R. 1:5;
16:26, i.e., the message of THotS which consists or works itself out in imakon.4
Christians are TÉKva unakons in the sense that the essence of their sonship is to
be found in otaKon (1 Pt. 1:14).5
UTn Koos means "obedient," whether to God (Ac. 7:39) or the apostle (2 C. 2:9).
In Phil. 2:8 it is used of the act of Christ (- itaxon, R. 5:19), though here the

2 Although cf. Ew. Gefbr., 118.

OTaKOn KTA. J. C. K. Hofmann, 1 Pt. (1875), 8 f.; Kn. Pt., 33 f., 63 f.
1 Preisigke Wort., 11. 639 for examples from the 6th cent. A.D.
2 Gen. obj.; on Elc cf. Lk. 21:24.
3 There is no need to make the rather difficult (cf. Knopf ad loc.) connection of UTtaKon
with 'Inoot Xpioro0, since in any case we have an abs. use in V. 14.
4 Gen. epexeg.; Bengel : obedientiam in ipsa fide consistentem.
6 Gen. qual.; as Eph. 2:2 : uloic THS ATtELOE(aS; also Eth. En. 91:3; 93:2; "children of
righteousness.'
OTH KOoS - axpoBuotia

HExpi lavotou of v. 8 and the popohy 8oflou Aapov of v. 7 set it in the context
of the thought of fulfilment orientated to Is. 53.
Kittel

t axpoBuotia (-* epitoun).

1. The Etymology of the Word.

axpoBuotia (signifying "foreskin" or praeputium),1 axpoBuatoc and &xpoBuotÉd
are formed from the adj. &xpoc (which denotes "running up to a point," or "that which
stands on the outer edge" "extreme" or "supreme") and the relatively infrequent verb
Bow (meaning "to stop up" or "close"), with the related forms Bugo and BUVEG (the
latter being specifically Attic).
Although this etymology seems to be clear and meaningful, it is rendered uncertain
by the fact that elsewhere in Gk. the same thing is denoted by a much more pregnant
term of similar sound. In Hippocrates, Aristotle and Pollux the foreskin is &Kpotoo0ia
(or gxpor6o0iov) derived from &xpos (as above) and Troo0n (or toolia, 1oo0wov),
which is used by the doctors of antiquity like Hippocrates and Galen, as also by
Aristotle, to denote the "foreskin" or "male organ. Hence xxporoofia comes to
signify the "extreme foreskin" or the "foreskin" itself. The possibility has thus to be
taken into account that axpoBuotia really derived from &xporoo0ia,2 the link with
BuG 3 playing a primary, or more likely secondary, role. Perhaps the Greek Jews, who
first used axpoBuatia for axpontoolia, had special reasons for so doing.
Cr.-Ko., 109 f.: "It has thus to be recognised with Winer 4 that &kpoBuoria arises
as an intentional reconstruction of &xporoo0ia with a view to expressing the matter
in a decorously indirect and veiled manner, The term is obviously fashioned by the
Jews in opposition to tepitoun and perhaps in reminiscence of the Gk. &xporoolia,
as also with the Heb. nt2 in mind. It is used only by them (cf. Eph. 2:11: OUEic to
E0vn Ev oxpki of AEY6uEVol xxpoBuoria into Ths AEyouavns nepitouns Év
axpki)." In the attempt to establish a vox mere biblica, Cr.-Ko. seems at this point to
read rather too much out of Eph. 2:11. Winer, to whom appeal is made, says of this
passage among others : "Like all euphemistic expressions, it remains general; 5 those who
used it knew what was meant."
E. Weidner : 6 "It may be that the word baltu bultu bustu contributed to the
NT &xpoBuotia ('foreskin'). This term might signify the membrum virile." Weidner
also lists &xpoBuotia as one of the Semitic words which came into Gk., seeing behind

6 E. Lohmeyer, "Kyrios Jesus," SHA (1928), 41 f.

axpopuatia. So in Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, II, 157 etc.
2 The thesis of K. F. A. Fritzsche on R. 2:26, which is disputed by Cr.-Ko., namely,
pronuntiarunt Alexandrini Thy Buarny quam Graeci dixerunt Thv ir6o0nv,' is far from
certain. Pass.-Cr. thinks that axpopuotla is perhaps a dialect form of axportoofia.
3 So Bl.-Debr. $ 120, 4 and Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
G. B. Winer, Gramm. d. nt.lichen Sprachidiomst (1867), 16, n. 4.
5 By this means Winer overcomes the difficulty of the not very specific significance of
Buo.
OLZ, 34 (1931). 209.
Glotta, 4 (1913), 303.
 dxpopuotia - alatov - d a(ovela
it the Babylonian bustu ("shame"). The Heb. ndia corresponds to the Babylonian bustu.
My own suspicion is that the similarity of sound played some part for Greek speaking
Jews as in other cases like 52 EkkAnola.

2. The Occurrence of the Word.

The word is found only in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek.
Comparison of the different Gk. versions of the OT shows that &xpoBvotia
and axpoBuoroc are used both in a literal (physical) and a metaphorical (spiritual
and ethical) sense, and that they are the opposites of Tepitoun and TE PITETYN-
LÉVOS.

In the LXX it is used 13 times for n2n9 in Gn. 17:11, 14, 23, 24, 25; 34:14; Ex. 4:25;
Lv. 12:3; Jos. 5:3; Bao. 18:25, 27; 2 Bao. 3:14; Jer. 9:25 (24, also 'A). It also occurs
in Gn. 34:24; Jdt. 14:10; 1 Macc. 1:15. In 'AZe it is found in Lv. 19:23 (LXX aka-
Éxpola) in conjunction with the verb axpoBuorigw, which is not found elsewhere.
In 'A it occurs at Dt. 10:16 (LXX : akAnpoxap&la); Ex. 6:12 : &Kp6BUatoC yE(E0
(LXX : &1oyos); Is. 52:1: axp6BUOTOS (LXX: drtepituntos [kai axalaprosl):
Ez. 32:26 (ar#pituntos), 27,29 (also ZO).

In the NT it occurs 20 times. Except for Ac. 11:3, it is found only in Paul,
R. 2:25, 26 (twice), 27; 3:30; 4:9, 10 (twice), 11 (twice), 12; 1 C. 7:18, 19; G1. 2:7;
5:6; 6:15; Eph. 2:11; Col. 2:13; 3:11. In early Christian literature it occurs in Barn.,
9,5 and 13,7, in both cases in quotation of the OT, and more frequently in Justin;
aKp6Buotos is found in Ign. Phld., 6,1; Just. Dial., 19, 3.
The true range and biblico-theological sense of axpoBuotia in the linguistic
usage of the LXX and NT can be worked out only in connection with its opposite
TEpITOUN, and demands rather more than the lexicographical discussion given in
this article.
K. L. Schmidt

xxpoywiaioc - yovia axup6w Kupo∞ aKoy - Ékoy

+ xlativ, xlafovela
The Alaloov is the one who "makes more of himself" than the reality justifies,
"ascribing to himself either more and better things than he has, or even what he does
not possess at all" ;1 who "promises what he cannot perform" ; 2 OUK Ev T Su quEL
& catov, aXX' EV th TpoaLpéOEI, Aristot. Eth. Nic., IV, 13, p. 1127b (cf. 1 C.

8 Cf. K.L. Schmidt, "Die Kirche des Urchristentums,' in Festgabe fur Adolf Deissmann
(1927), 263 f.; and also the comments of G. Stahlin, Skandalon (1930), 44 : a con-
sideration which takes into account the similarities in sound rather than the sema-
siological relationship of the Hebrew and Greek equivalents. It has long been recognised
that the translators of the LXX allowed themselves to be guided in their choice of words
by formal similarities as well as by meaning.
 alov. O. Ribbeck, Alazon (1882),
1 Ibid., 4; Aristot. Eth. Nic., IV, 13, p. 1127a, 21 f.
Ribbeck, 4; Xenoph. Cyrop., II, 2, 12.
datov - glagovEla - da a(o 227

4:20). Very often the orator, philosopher, poet, magician, doctor, cook or officer is
called aAa(ov, and especially the last of these (cf. the Miles gloriosus of Plautus).
Theophrastus defines &^aloveia as "arousing of the expectation of certain &ya0x
which are not in fact there" (Char., 23, 1). A religious connotation is suggested by the
link with UBpts, which is always punished by the gods.
This line of thought is sometimes pursued in the LXX. Thus in Wis. 5:8 glagovela
is something which separates from God ; in Hab. 2:5 (acc. to N etc.) the &laloov is
the man who does not put his confidence in God. In 4 Macc. 8:19 &^a(ovela is made
parallel of kEvo8oEla, and in Prv. 21:24 the &aoov is connected with the aulaons.

In R. 1:30 and 2 Tm. 3:2 the &^a(oves appear in lists of 12 or 184 ethological
terms which show traces of arrangement at least in R. (cf. 4 Macc. 1:26; 2:15).
In both cases the term gla(ov is set directly alongside inepnoavos, which seems
to be a kind of equivalent (e.g., Wis. 5:8). In 2 Tm. another corresponding word
is TETUOWUÉVOL, the cognates of which are elucidated by lexicographers together
with those of &1. Yet &X. has its own special sense as declared above, and perhaps
with the particular application made in the LXX.
This is certainly true of aa(ovela. In 1 Jn. 2:16 this denotes the attitude of
the cosmic man who does not ask concerning the will of the Father but tries to
make out that he himself may sovereignly decide concerning the shape of his life,
whereas in actuality the decision lies with God, as is seen in the passing away of
the world (v. 17). This is worked out with an example in Jm. 4:16, where glato-
veial are expressions of the alalovela which acts as if it could dispose of the
future, whereas this is really under the control of the will of God (v. 15).
Delling

glalato
The word group alara(w, ÉleAiyw, boA0(w etc. probably belongs to the cultural
world preceding the Greek. As terms of a past and foreign world they serve in the
Gk. period to denote alien and extraordinary expressions of joy, applause, 2 or sorrow
in which man transcends himself. In an attack in war we have the same phenomenon, so
that the datai cry is the battle-cry (cf. & aNalElV in this sense in Jos Ant., 6, 191;
8, 283; 12, 372 and 427). 3 Such self-transcendence may also take place at a sacrifice, 4
and it may be linked with a hymn or lament.

1. The word refers to "lamentation" in Mk. 5:38. We are not told whether the
cla^agovtEs are men or women. In Heliodor. Aeth., III, 5 a distinction is made

3 Both of whom pretend a knowledge which they do not possess, Ribbeck, 13.
4 In 2 Tm. of these are the same as in Philo Sacr. AC, 32. Such lists are very popular ;
there are about 150 of them in Philo.
& alatw. C. Theander, Eranos, 15 (1915), 99 ff., 20 (1921/22), 1 ff.
Cf. esp. Herond. Mim., VIII, 46 f., ed. Headlam ; Plut. Aud., 15 (1I, 46c).
On & aAatElv as Don ErivIKioG cf. Orig. in Ps. 88(89):16 in Pitra, Analecta Sacra,
III, 163, and also in Jos. Hom., VII, 2, p. 328, 13 ff., Bahrens.
. Eitrem, Beitr. z. Ge. Religionsgesch, IlI (Videnskapsselskaes Skier I 1
Kristiania), 44 ff.; F. Schwenn, Gebet und Opfer (1927), 38 ff.
ala a(elv for lament : v. Orig. In Jer. Hom., V, p. 47, 13 fE.
 da aCo - glac

on the occasion of a cultic bloluyh : ^6 Éav uev al yuvaiKes, hAd afav 8É

of avopes. But we cannot be sure that such a distinction is of general applica-
tion. 8
2. 1 C. 13:1 refers to a koppalov dia^afov. Here the "ecstatic noise" in
orgiastic cults is linked with the KouBalov used in these cults (esp. that of
Cybele). " We may compare the use of the term gla^a(elv for the noise of the
Dionysiac winepress in Nonnos Dionys., XII, 354. 8

dAalo(ELV has persisted in the Orient right up to the present time, cf. Konstantini-
des, s.v.: Kal viv Eti tv Nalaiorivn kal AlyUTTo al yuvaiKes kal gy xapq
Kai EV TTEVOEL OAOAULOUOL, EKTTEUTIOUOL 81d tou Axpuyyos BEEic soluyuoug.

Peterson

In the ancient world salt has religious significance. Because of its purifying and
seasoning (Job 6:6) and preserving qualities it is a symbol of endurance and
value. It is linked with God, 3 as putrefaction and corruption are linked with
demons. For this reason it was much used in worship, as in the OT. It was
sprinkled on or mixed into the sacrifices (Ex. 30:35; Lv. 2:13; Ez. 43:21). Newborn
children were rubbed with it (Ez. 16:4). It was used by Orientals to drive away
evil spirits. + Lasting covenants were made by eating bread and salt, or salt alone
(Nu. 18:19; 2 Ch. 13:5 : the covenant of salt). 5
In the NT its cultic significance is lost. & The sacrificial ritual is simply a means
to convey the truths of the religious and moral world. This seems to be the point

6 For the oAoAoZel of a woman, cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom., XII, 22; Act. Pl. ThcI., 35.
7 On the KouBarov in such cults, v. F.J. Dolger, Antike u. Christentum, 1 (1929),
184 ff. might also refer to Mart. Ariad. (Studi testi, VI, p. 124): The heathen festival
was tv ailoic Kai ruupalois kal Abaic araktois kai fixois glalayuov.
8 MONULELY (B : & aNa(ELV) used of the sound of the anlyE, v. Ps.-Callisth., Hist.
Alex. Magn., I, p. 20, 2, Kroll.
9 A. Konstantinides : MÉya AEgIKov TnG 'EXA. yAwoons (1901/4).
& xc. M. J. Schleiden, Das Salz (1875); V. Hehn, Das Salz2 (1901); S. Krauss, Tal-
mudische Archaol.. I (1910), 119 f.; Str.-B., 1, 232 ff.; W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme d. Gnosis
(1907), Index, s.v.: Julicher, Gl. J., II, 67-79; RW, II, 366.
Philo Spec. Leg., I, 289 : ic yap altla tou un Siaplelpeolal ro oouata puxh,
kal of Hes Enl TAEjOTOVthe aird auveyOvtes kal tpbrov tiva deavati{o.
world cannot endure without salt," Soph., 15, 8, Str.-B.,
"The Torah is like salt
I, 235; as a symbol for what is witty or clever, Corn. Nep. Att., 13, 2.
8 Plat. Tim., 60e : dAdv GEODLAES aQua. Plut. Quaest. Conv., V, 10, 1 and 3 (II,
684 f., 685d): GeopiAéc kai Oeiov Thy autry Exov TO DElo Sovaulv stupi Beiov
STelaBov of nalaiol.
T. Canaan, Damonenglaube im Land d. Bibel (1929), 42.
Cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., VIII, 4, p. 1156b, 27 ff.; Cic. Lael., 19, 67.
8 Also in Rabbinic Judaism; cf. the reinterpretation in S. Nu. 8 118 on 18:19 : "This is
an eternal contract with the Lord concluded with salt.' Scripture thus concludes a contract
with Aaron by means of something which is powerful, and which even more can make
other things (e.g., the contract) powerful.'
alac - dAE ow

of the obscure saying in Mk. 9:49. The disciple must be seasoned with salt like
the sacrifice. This will take place through trials (cf. the fire of C. 3:13), and
everything contrary to God will be purged away. Salt also typifies the religious
and moral quality which must characterise the speech of the Christian (Col. 4:6),
and esp. the quality which is an inner mark of the disciple and the loss of which
will make him worthless (Lk. 14:34 f.; Mt. 5:13; Mk. 9:50).
Lk. gives us the original wording, linking the saying with serious demands made on
the disciple. Mt. gives us, secondarily, a direct application to the disciples themselves.
The saying seems to have in view conditions in Palestine. Salt from the Dead Sea,
which is mixed with gypsum etc., acquires easily a stale and alkaline taste (cf. Plin.,
31,34: tabescit). There seems to be a scoffing reference to this saying of Jesus in
bBek., 8b : '(R. Joshua b. Chananja (c.90) was once asked to tell a story). He said:
There was once a mule which had a foal. On this was hung a chain with the inscription
that it should raise 100,000 Zuz from its father's family. He was asked: Can then
mule bear offspring ? He said : These are fables. He was then asked : When salt loses
its savour (x170), wherewith shall it be salted ? He answered : With the young of a mule.
He was then asked : Does then the unfruitful mule have young ? He answered : Can salt
lose its savour ?" 8
Hauck

+ CAEIO@

In the LXX &AEIEIV (&AEIoE @au) is used for three Heb. words : a. 710 "to anoint,
Rt. 3:3 : 0 SE Aoion kai aelwn kal TEpIOñoEs tov luatiouov oou erl FE; cf.
2 Bao. 12:20; 14:2; 4 Bao. 4:2; 2 Ch. 28:15; Mi. 6:15; Jdt. 16:7: MAElato To TpbaTOV
auts Ev pupiouo; b. m90 "to rub" or " to wash over": Ez. 13:10 ff.; C. non Gn.
31:13 : otAny dA. = to pour an offering of oil over" ; Nu. 3:3 : of lepeic of helu-
uÉvou; Ex. 40:13 (15): kal GAEWVELs auToUs (the sons of Aaron) kai lEpatEU-
gougi uol. In this as in other contexts, however, nujn is usually rendered xpid, with
which the religious and theological significance of the concept of anointing came to be
generally linked.

This is confirmed at once in the NT, where CAELpELV is used only of external,
physical anointing and xplerv in the figurative sense of anointing by God. Yet
the external action has its own inner meaning.
1. In Mt. 6:17 anointing is linked with bodily comfort, and according to Jewish
custom expresses a mood of joy and festivity. Cf. LXX, Jdt. 16:7; 2 Bao. 14:2.
For Judaism anointing could not go hand in hand with fasting, but Jesus demands

7 The text acc. to XBW sys; OLZ, 7 (1904), 111; ZNW, 19 (1919), 96.
8 Cf. Str.-B., I, 236; Schl. Mt., 147,
& ELOW. Dib., Wnd. on Jm. 5:14; Str.-B., I, 426-9; II, 11 f.; III, 759; F. Kattenbusch,
RE 3 14, 304 ff., S.v. Olung: W. Heitmuller, RGG,1 IV, 874f., s.v. Olsalbung; L. Fendt,
RGG,? IV, 641 f., s.v., Olung : J. Hempel-E. Wissmann, ibid., V, 80 ff., s.v., Salbung W.
Bousset, Hauptprobleme d. Gnosis (1907), 297-305 ; F. J. Dolger, Der Exorzismus im altchr.
Taufritual (1909), 137-159; F. Fenner, D. Krankheit i. NT (1930), 92.
Pr.-Bauer, S.v.
 gAElow

that the sacrifice in fasting should be made so secretly that it should be an occasion
of joy and festivity for others, and even for the one who fasts.
2. In Mt. 26:7; Lk. 7:38, 46; Jn. 11:2; 12:3 anointing is a mark of honour shown
to a guest, as in Judaism. 2 In the first of the instances quoted it is also a prophetic
action in the Gospels. By anointing the head (v. 7) of Jesus the woman has
honoured Him in a deeper sense, anointing His body (v. 12) for burying. This
anointing is a proleptic anointing of the Crucified in death. Reference is made to
the anointing of the body in Mk. 16:1.
3. The Anointing of the Sick.
To understand Mk. 6:13 and Jm. 5:14 we must recall the practice and meaning
of anointing with a view to healing in Hellenism and Judaism. Oil is applied
a. medicinally to alleviate and cure various sicknesses Jos. Bell., 1, 657 Ant.,
17, 172; Philo Som., II, 58; Is. 1:6; and Rabbinic examples of the use of oil for
sciatic pains, skin afflictions, headaches, wounds etc.; 3 b. magico-medicinally, and
especially as a means of exorcism. It is hard to draw the line between a. and b.
Since sickness is ascribed very largely to demonic influence, it is easy to see why
medicinal anointing should come to have the character of a victorious action in
expulsion of demons. This is especially so in the case of afflictions with psychic
manifestations or causes. Anointing against possession is mentioned by Celsus
Med., III, 23, 3. In Test. Sol. 18:34 we read : tov tic BalEi g ac eic galov Kai
ETOAE VEL TOV &00EV AÉyov® xepouiu, repaolu, Bondeite, Eilis ovaxopis
(sc. the demon). Anointings at conjurations are found in jMS, 53b, 48 4 and for
the healing and release of one who is bewitched in Midr. Qoh., 1, 8, (9a). 5 c. A
further step is taken when there is ascribed to oil a heavenly power to change or
to dispense life. On this point, cf. esp. Vit. Ad., 36 and 40-42, and also Slav. En.
22:8 ff. (8,5): "And the Lord said to Michael, Come forth, and divest Enoch
of his earthly garments, rub him with a goodly salve and clothe him in the garments
of my glory. And he did so and the appearance of that salve was more than a
great light, its creaminess as the dew, its perfume as myrrh, and its shining as the
rays of the sun. And beheld myself, and was as one of His glorious ones.
This is the salve which in Iren., I, 21, 3 is called a tuTtoc the uTep to 8a EDG-
Slac. Cf. also Euseb. Hist. Eccl., V, 1, 35.
In the Christian sphere, too, we find the use of oil both as a medicine (Lk.
10:34) and for the combined purpose of medicine and exorcism, oil being conse-
crated for these uses. Cf. Act. Thon., 67, where Jesus is asked to come and anoint
those who are troubled by demons : Kai deluac aurv flalo Ayio HEPaTtEu Ov
ATO TOv ÉKov kal Stampnoov aUTn aTo TOv AUKaV tOv Biapia(ovtov.
The restoration of the Emperor Antoninus by Christian by means of consecrated
oil is described in Tertullian Ad Scapul., 4. Cf. Chrys. Hom. in Mt. 32 (33), 6
(MPG, 57, 384). One who is possessed is healed by means of anointing in Palla-
dius, Hist. Laus., 18, p. 55, Butler. Naturally there is the same use in magic, as
we learn from the great Paris magic papyrus (Preis. Zaub., IV), 3007 f. Alongside
this magico-medicinal use there also developed a sacramental, a. in the form of a

2 Cf. Str.-B., I, 427 and 986.

v. Str.-B., I, 428 f.; II, 11 f.
Str.-B., I, 429.
Ibid., III, 759.
dElow

baptism in oil which is found among the Gnostics ® either in place of T water
baptism or alongside it ; 8 b. as an exorcism prior to the act of baptism in the
Church ; and c. in the form of a sacrament of death, though this is found only
among the Marcosites in Iren., I, 21, 5 and with Heracleon in Epiph. Haer., 36, 2,
4 ff., and it is uncertain whether "what is meant is really a sacrament for the dying
or a consecration of the dead." A Outside Christianity the Mandaeans have a final
anointing of the dying as well as a consecration with oil, cf. Lidz. Lit., 114 ff.,
Ginza, 326 f., 591, 12 f. and 28 f.

What conceptions of anointing and its effect here predominate may be seen from the
different prayers over the oil. Cf., e.g., the prayer for healing oil in the euchologion of
the Serapion of Thmuis : 10 "a means to drive away this sickness and weakness, to
act as an antidote to the demon, to expel the unclean spirit, to exclude every evil spirit,
to drive away the heat and cold of fever and all weakness, to mediate grace and re-
mission of sins, to be a means of life and redemption, to be the health and portion of
body, soul and spirit, to bring full strengthening Or, in relation to baptism in oil
(Act. Thom., 49): "Apostle of the Highest, give me the seal, that no foe may again
turn against me O most Merciful, thou that glowest through the force of words,
power of the wood, clothed with which men may overcome all their adversaries. Thou
that crownest the victor, sign and joy of the sick (kauvovtov) Jesus, may thy
victorious power descend and rest on this oil as thy power rested on the related wood
may the gift with which Thou blewest on its enemies, and made them yield and fall,
come to dwell in this oil over which we repeat Thy holy name. Or, in relation to the
oil used before baptism (cf. Cyr. Cat. Myst., II, 3): so may this exorcised oil, by
the invocation of God and prayer, not merely burn away and destroy the traces of sin,
but repel all the invisible powers of evil." Or, in relation to extreme unction (cf. Iren.,
I, 21, 5): "That they may not be grasped nor seen by principalities or powers, and that
their inner man may soar above the invisible The conquering of supraterrestrial
forces and the possession of heavenly goods are also guaranteed by extreme unction
for the Mandaeans, as we see from Lidz. Ginza, 326 f. Cf. also Lidz. Lit., 35 ff. for the
oil of baptismal consecration.

In the NT anointing with oil is used on the sick for purposes of both medicine
and exorcism. In Mk. 6:13 the apostles heal in connection with their preaching
of repentance and their expulsion of demons, and in this regard they are messengers
and bearers of the inbreaking kingdom of God. In Jm. 5:14 the same kind of
anointing is carried out by Church officials, and in the situation of the Church it
brings healing of body and soul, i.e., the remission of sins, as in Mk. 6:13 health
was mediated to make fit for the kingdom of God. The whole action is envisaged
in Jm. 5:14 f. Anointing takes place in invocation of the name of God and is en-

6 Tert. Adv. Marc., 1, 14, Marcionites : Iren., I, 21,4, Marcosites ; Or. c. Cels., VI, 27,
Ophites ; Act. Thom., 26 (?), 49.
Hipp. Elench., V, 7, 1; 9, 22, Naassenes ; Kopt. Schri@ten, II, Ieu 43; Act. Thom., 121,
132 and 157 in the present arrangement.
8 It is doubtful whether we have true prayer for the consecration of healing oil in the
prayer over the oil of anointing in the Copt. fragment appended to the Didache, Ch. 10 ff.
(cf. JThSt., 25 [1924] 225 ff.; ZNW, 24 [1925] 81 ff.). It might also be a prayer over the
oil of baptism, esp. in the version of C (cf. K. Bihlmeyer, Ap. Vater [1924] XVIII f.). We
should then have evidence in the Didache of the confluence of water baptism with baptism
in oil, as in Act. Thom.
K. Holl, Epiphanius, II (1922), 45.
10
G. Wobbermin, "Altchristl. Stucke aus d. Kirche Agyptens, TU, XVII, 3b (1898),
13 f., No. 17.
 GAELOW - dAnOELC

closed by prayer, which as the EdXh ThS TlOTEGs brings healing and forgiveness.
Here the oil has the character of the matter of a sacrament.

From the anointing of the sick for purposes of medicine and exorcism there developed
in the Eastern Church the anointing called E0xÉ^aiov and in Roman Catholicism ex-
treme unction. The customary emphasis on the thought of the remission of sins 11 and
the reference to the dying, in conjunction with a sacramentalisation of the process, 12
produced extrema unctio or the sacramentum exeuntium. The title itself was used in the
12th century. Attempts at theological definition may be found in Hugh of St. Victor and
Peter Lombard. At the Council of Florence in 1439 the sacrament was sanctioned by
Eugenius IV. According to Trent Sess., XIV, 1 the sacrament, which removes the relics
of sin and strengthens the soul, and which may sometimes be followed by recovery, is
"insinuated" in Mk. 6:13 and "promulgated' in Jm. 5:14.
4. In Ignatius Eph., 17, 1 XAEloECOaL is given a figurative sense in a pneumatic
exegesis of Mk. 14;3 ff. The uopov is the true gnosis with which we must be anointed
in order that we may be led by its perfume to immortality. In similar passages 13 in
CI. Al. Paed., II, 8, 61 uupi(Elv or xpiEtv is used for delpEF(aI. A variable use of
&A. is to be found also in Act. Thom., in which it is used 27 times for sacramental
sealing in the literal sense ; 67 #Aalov GAELELV, a means of healing for sickness, i.e.,
possession ; and 25 "bring them into thy flock," katapioas aitoug ti 06 Aoutpé
(baptism) kal gelyas autouc to o@ falo (marking with oil) &no TAS TEpIE-
xouons autous tAavns (cf. 157).
Schlier

d nOEla, a^nons,
dinfiv6s, dAndEun

dAñdELa.
A. The OT Term
1. The Word nox
The word nrx. occurs about 126 times. It is used absolutely to denote a reality
which is to be regarded as 128 "firm," and therefore "solid," "valid," or "binding."

11 Already in Orig. In Lev. Hom., II, 4 (MPG, 12, 419a) infirmitas is given a moral sig-
nificance, as also in Chrys. Sacerd., III, (MPG, 48, 644).
Innocent I, Ep. 25, 11 (416 A.D.) calls the anointing of the sick a genus sacramenti.
13 Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 39, 6 f.; H. Schlier, Relgesch. Untersuch. zu Ign. (1929), 84.
cAnOEIa tA. On A cf. V. Ryssel, Die Synonyma des Wahren und Guten in
den semit. Sprachen (Diss. Leipzig, 1872); J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture (1926),
338 ff. On B: cf. Moore, II, 188 ff.; Str.-B., II, 361 f., 522, 572; Ill. 76. On C and D
cf. R. Herbertz, Das Wahrheitsproblem i. d. griech. Philosophie (1913); G. Storz, Gebrauch
u. Bedeutungsentwicklung von dAniela u. begriffsverwandten Wortern in d. griech. Litera-
fur vor Plato (unpub. Diss. Tub., 1922); H.H. Wendt, ThStKr, 56 (1883), 511-547; Die
Johannesbriefe u. das johann. Christentum (1925), 15 f., n. 2; F. Buchsel, Der Begriff d.
Wahrheit in dem Ev. u. d. Briefen des Joh. (1911) ; H. v. Soden, Was ist Wahrheit (1927);
R. Bultmann, ZNW, 27 (1928), 113-163; E. Hoskyns-N. Davey, The Riddle of the NT
(1931), 35 ff.
1 The Hebrew says 128 ("firm" or "sure") to denote that he accepts as authentic what
is laid before him (1 K. 1:36; Neh. 5:13). It is then predominantly used in cultic situations
cAnDELa

It thus signifies what is "true." When used of persons, it sometimes expresses

that which predominantly characterises their speech, action or thought. The
nex t* is one whose conduct falls under the norm of truth and therefore a man
of integrity, a TO%? (- plots).

The noun is usually in the feminine (on Dt. 13:15; 17:4, > n. 6). Deriving from the
root 728 ('amin), "to be firm or sure, it is constructed in the manner of fem. segolata,
being assimilated to a fem. n afformative. The process may still be seen in suffix
constructions like iAnx. The Hexapla transcription nuE0 (Ps. 31:6) seems to indicate
a quantity on the first syllable lost in the Mas. It is probable that the vocalisation of
the final syllable with segol is meant to differentiate it from nix, st. C. of nox "maid,"
so that when the term is used in religious speech there should be no confusion with a
purely secular word. 3 In the LXX a hOela is mostly used for NOR (87 times), gAn-
Owvoc being also used (12 times), and occasionally anons, x noos, and XANOEUEIV.
The equivalent in Gn. 24:49; Jos. 24:14; Is. 38:19; 39:8; Da. 8:12 and 9:13 is &ikaioouvn,
Sikaios also occurring 4 times, and tlotc only in Jer. 35 (28):9; 39(32):41; 40 (33) :6,
while in Prv. 3:3; 14:22; 16:6 the plur. TlotEIC is used for the combination nON! 7om.
On TLOT6C n. 2. In Is. 38:18, 19 there is alternation between Éenuoou and Sikalo-
oun ; it is possible that this derives from an original deviation from the Mas. 4

A related term is 73x (-) plotic). 5 Both are close to the terms for wholeness,
aibu (- Elphvn) and a'pn (- amo0c) and the legal terms Tom (- xopic) and
P72, A27Y (- 8lkn), and they are often used to elucidate these in the OT. They
all indicate a "normal state,' and nor especially serves to express its "certainty
and force." In detail the usage is rich in nuances, but the material does not allow
us to fix exactly the historical development of the term.

2. nox as a Legal Term.

a. hox basically describes the "actual truth of a process or cause," most clearly
in legal terminology. Thus we read in Dt. 22:20 : 1377 727 nx-Dx) "if the matter
rests on authentic facts,' on truth, and not on calumny, as in the previous case.
In the same sense there is reference to ji2: nox, to something which is confirmed
by enquiry, in Dt. 13:14 and 17:4.6 An nox nix (Jos. 2:12) is a pledge for the
validity of a promise, and nox! aibt "727 "words of peace and truth,' is used

whether of the community (Dt. 27:14 ff., cf. Jer. 11:5; Neh. 8:6; 1 Ch. 16:36; Ps. 41:13 etc.)
or of the individual (Nu. 5:22), or with a distinctly religious accent (Jer. 28:6). The ex-
pression 1?8 128 (Is. 65:16), "God of the Amen," derives from this liturgical use, if it is
correctly pointed.
The translation "faithfulness" nowhere commends itself, > n. 12. The LXX sometimes
has 8(Kaios (Ex. 18:21), sometimes &lnOns (Neh.7:2), but TIOT6C only in Prv. 14:25. It
uses TLOT6C rather more frequently for 1ON}.
3 Bauer-Leander, Hist. Gramm. der hebr. Sprache des AT, I (1922), § 77 i A.
4 Cf. B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesajas (1914), ad loc.
5 In the full poetic expression in Is. 25:1 TN is used side by side with it as a synonym.
The masc. behind the fem. is to be understood as permutative apposition (Ges.-Kautzsch
§ 131 k). E. Konig (Komm., 123) interprets hex as an accusative of manner or mode, though
this is hardly to do justice to the usage in expressions like an heM and 1217 71 NON.
on which both passages recline,
 & nOela

(Est. 9:30) for a valid report. Again, the legal term appears in the paraphrase:
937 hok, "it is really as have heard" (1 K. 10:6; 2 Ch. 9:5, LXX: &^newvoc 6
Abyos). The same words are used to affirm that a revelation has really happened
and is incontestable (Da. 10:1, cf. 8:26). In cases where nok is applied to things,
we are probably to see a metaphorical use of the legal term. In Gn. 24:48 the
right way is the nok 777, i.e., the one which proves to be successful among the
many which offer. In Jer. 2:21 we have the same picture of judicial decision; the
NON 92! is a genuine plant as distinct from 74791, the degenerate growth.
But the use of the term is not restricted to such simple cases. An example like
Gn. 42:16 (E): "Your words shall be proved" opx nox, indicates a tendency to
abstract the concept from the concrete processes which it is supposed to elucidate,
for it is open to question whether we should translate : "Whether the truth is as
you say,' or : "Whether there is any truth in you," i.e., veracity. Yet it is only
rarely that there is any such explicit ambiguity, since nox usually refers to a matter
which is either described or indicated by the context and which is to be denoted as
factual, impressive and beyond cavil, or else it occurs absolutely with a very
different emphasis. In the former sense the Word of the Lord in the mouth of a
prophet is called nox, i.e., truly and indisputably present and therefore operative.
Thus in 1 K. 17:24 the mother of the child who is delivered by Elijah sees from
this event that the Word of Yahweh is in the mouth of Elijah. In Jer. 23:28 the
prophet "which hath my word, speaketh my word as NON" i.e., as a fact which
shows itself to be such in operation, and not as a dream. 1 A nox 79 is a witness to
the true facts which are to be disclosed by judicial trial, and as such he is a
deliverer of souls (Prv. 14:25); or a 12%¾, one who has proved to be reliable:
Jer. 42:5 (spoken of Yahweh). If in Is. 43:9 the nations speak nox the context
makes it plain that here again the thought is that of a judicial process of enquiry
to establish the former things, so that Dox is here also the convincing "state of
affairs." 8 We are to take in the same way the cases in which Zechariah insists
that regard for hen is an indispensable principle in the process of judgment. Thus
in Zech. 7:9 we have wobu nox bawp "pronounce judgment according to the true
facts" ; or in Zech. 8:16 : "Speak ye every man the truth in process with his neigh-
bour judge truth, and salutary judgment in your gates." The latter passage brings
out particularly well the connection between judicial findings and the judicial norm
in the concept of noR ..
b. Not always, however, are the particular facts which count as npx, and which
are indicated by the term DON, either supplied or specifically made known by the
context. In such cases the word indicates general and indefinite validity extending
rather beyond the sphere of law. It has reference to facts which always demand
recognition by all men as reality, to the normal state which corresponds to divine

T LXX : ÉT' alnOelas, understands hf here adverbially as an indication of the attitude

of the prophet - a softening which can hardly be right. Cf. also Da. 8:26.
8 In 1K. 22:16 (2 Ch. 18:15) also we have an official hearing, and the king demands
that Michaiah should say in the name of Yahweh only that which is actually so (nor p2),
8 At least in the mind of the author of the gloss, who possibly inserted the second Dex.
if such a vague assumption is really necessary.
X nOela

and human order, and which is thus to be respected, 10 as it is similarly reflected

in related terms such as vatp, 7272, big etc. In accordance with the sense it may
then be rendered quite generally by "truth," or even by "veracity" as a normative
concept.

3. h% as a Religious Term.
a. Like other expressions important in the legal sphere, the concept of truth is
particularly at home in the religious terminology of the OT. Yet it is more difficult
to decide whether nox is adopted as a rational legal concept than is usually the
case with words which bear a strong legal impress. The religious use of nox does
not always have to be understood metaphorically, but may also have arisen out
of religious perception. At any rate, there are many cases in which it unambigu-
ously denotes a religious reality without any need to explain it in terms of its
forensic use. The pious man, who is often juridically described as the righteous
(- 8(kn), grounds his attitude to God on the incontestable fact of truth, and
exercises truth, just as truth is the foundation in God's own acts and words. The
truthfulness of God requires the truthfulness of man : Ps. 51:6: ayon nox. The man
who may dwell on the holy hill of Yahweh, i.e., who is cultically qualified, is the
one who speaks nx in his heart (Ps. 15:2), and who thus has a mind which is
set on truth in the sense of the order of life pleasing to God. This mind is practi-
cally expressed in social life in Ez. 18:8: "He hath executed true judgment between
man and man" yet, as indicated in Ez. 18:9, he does this in commitment to the
will of God : "He hath maintained my standards, as he hath executed truth.'
When Hosea (4:1) complains that there is no nox in the land, by linking the
concept with the knowledge of God (anibx hy,) he maintains the line of thought
along which he understands npx (and ion), namely, that in every sphere of life
truthfulness grows out of unerring knowledge of God's will, and that such know-
ledge is for its part an actualisation of truthfulness.
Although poetic plerophory employs in its description of the pious such ex-
pressions as P72 byb and oron abh synonymously with nox 727 (Ps. 15:2), and ai-
though legal norms give precision to nox (Ez. 18:9), yet in the last resort the
rational element in the concept of nox is not the essential feature, and there are
many passages in which it should not be emphasised. In such cases nox serves
rather to express the reality immediately accessible to religious feeling, something
which all unsought for impresses itself upon a man, the attitude corresponding to
it, and then the result of apperceptive reflection, towards which the word has an
unmistakeable bias. For with other words taken from the same forensic field it
shares the partly advantageous and partly disadvantageous quality of stimulating
and schooling religious thinking by its conceptual precision. This rational and
pedagogic tendency of the word, which is linked with its legal nature, is plainly at
work when it is said by way of instruction that the Word and Law of Yahweh
are for man both the truth and the source of knowledge of the truth. In Ps. 119:160

10 Pedersen, op. cit., 339 : "Truth is that which can be maintained by the soul, that which
has the strength to exist and act in the entirety of the soul." The root of the concept is here
rightly seen to be in the conception of the soul. Yet so far as the relation of np* to this
conception is concerned, the latter is rather too weak to serve as an interpretative key to
all the evidence.
 x nOela

the sum Or quintessence of the words of God is NON; in Ps. 19:9 His judgments are
hOn. It seems that the reference here is to Holy Scripture, and this conjecture is
supported when an apocalyptic book may be simply described as heN 2n2, the
"record of truth" (Da. 10:21). Even expressions like walking in Thy truth (Ps.
25:5; 26:3; 86:11) may be reduced to solid rules of life which are called truth and
which are the theme of divine instruction (cf. Ps. 86:11: "Teach me thy way,
O Lord"). Along the same lines, there are times, especially in the Wisdom
literature, when the rational element leads to an emphasising of the concept of
truth by setting it in antithesis to ]pu "deceit,' or ab1 "that which is corrupt,"
etc. (cf. Mal. 2:6; Prv. 11:18; 12:19; Jer. 9:4), while the contrast with ywn (Neh.
9:33) inclines more definitely in a religious direction. A poet may speak of npx
symbolically (Ps. 85:11: 'npx shall spring out of the earth, and pfy shall look down
from heaven"), or personify it (Is. 59:14 : nON is fallen in the street"), or appraise
it as merchandise (Prv. 23:23). Symbolically we read in Da. 8:12 that truth is
dashed to the ground, this passage being also noteworthy for the fact that nox
in its most pregnant sense seems to be used here as a kind of catchword for the
true, i.e., the Jewish religion. 11 With the same rational emphasis the Chronicler
speaks of Yahweh as hOr ThA (2 Ch. 15:3) in the sense of the true, i.e., the
absolute and exclusive God.
b. It indicates the multiple use of the term nox, and its adaptability to the
context in which it is set, that an almost identical expression in Ps. 31:5 (nox 5)
is used in an essentially different sense to denote trust or confidence. This passage
is one of several in the OT which bring out the supreme signification of nex
by linking the legal with the ethical meaning or by going beyond both to make it
a mark and goal of the divine action. Appeal is made to God as DON1 701 2) "rich
in faithfulness and truth" (Ex. 34:6), as 12837 287 (Dt. 7:9), as nOR 3x (Ps. 31:5),
as the Guarantor of moral and legal standards. As such, God is worthy of the
absolute confidence both of the righteous and of man generally. The thoughtful
man sees his own littleness before the truthfulness of God which is declared in
His promises (Gn. 32:11). God as 7972 has always done np* (Neh. 9:33). On Sinai
He gave nox ninin, laws which establish the truth and are themselves truth (Neh.
9:13). The works of His hands are truth and right, and all His commands are
unconditionally valid (Ps. 111:7). He swears npx, i.e., irrevocably (Ps. 132:11),
and keeps the norm of truthfulness for ever (Ps. 146:6).12 Those who go down
into the pit cannot hope any more for God's nox (Is. 38:18;13 cf. Ps. 30:9), for
there is for them no divine promise to which they can appeal. If many of these

11 Cf. Marti, ad loc. Da. 9:13 can be understood in the same way.
12 The much favoured translation "faithfulness" is materially justifiable, since it is in
fact a matter of proving the covenant faithfulness of God (cf. A. Dillmann, Handbuch der
at.lichen Theologie [1895] 270). Yet in order that there should be differentiation from 70n
which is the proper legal term for faithfulness to a compact (-* xapis), do not think it
really suitable. This view is further supported by the frequent use of the expression
nOx) 70m. For although this seems to make the terms almost synonymous, they are not
synonymous. God confirms 70n by acting according to the norm of nox. Truthfulness is thus
the presupposition of faithfulness. Hence to use the latter term for nG% always implies a
measure of refining and retouching, and ought to be avoided.
18 Yet the LXX gives us grounds to contest the Mas., 233.
dAnOELa

statements include a more or less clear and conscious appeal to the thought of
national election (- 8160ixn), they all give evidence of the strong moral feeling
which characterises the Israelite's faith in God and which finds its simplest ex-
pression in an older verse : nok 97 717371 012*7 x1778 (2 S. 7:28): "Thou art the
God, namely, thy words be truth.'
Quell

B. nox in Rabbinic Judaism.

The Rabbinic use of npx (or KWp) follows essentially the same lines as that of
the OT. In the first instance, the word denotes a human attitude, and on this basis
it serves to express a divine mode of being.
In a popular legend traced back to Raba (4th century), NOW is defined as
follows that a man should make no alteration in his word (bSanh., 97a), other-
wise he is as an idolater (bSanh., 92a). Where Nox is maintained in this sense,
there is peace (jTaan., 68a). A well-known statement of R. Simeon runs as
follows : "The world rests on three things, on righteousness, on noR and on peace"
(Ab., 1, 18). As in the OT, Dox is the basis of all legal judgment; nor should
we ignore the fact that this involves a religious statement, since the execution of
law is a religious function. "The man who on the basis of nox reaches a verdict
which is noR attains to the life of the world to come" (Tanch. ap)w 7, p. 31,
Buber), and "causes the Shekinah to dwell in Israel" ; whereas a judge who
judges without nox "causes the Shekinah to depart" (bSanh., 7a).
It is self-evident that the judgment of the divine Judge rests on the same founda-
tion. "The judgment (of God) is a judgment of npx" says Akiba Ab., 3, 16; or
again : "He judges all thing according to nnx " M. Ex. 14:28; or again : "All should
recognise and bear witness that His judgment is a judgment of nox, Ex. r. on 6:2.
Beyond this, however, the very essence of God is nok, sO that it may be said
conversely that nox has its essence in God. The "God of nrx" is the "Judge of
npx" (bBer., 46b). "As Thou art nox so is Thy Word Nox, for it is said : 'For
ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven' (Ps. 119:89)" (Ex. r. on 29:1). Hence
the Torah as the expression of the divine Word and essence is nnx (Midr. Ps. 25
§11). This thought of the divine nox finds powerful symbolical expression in the
image of God's seal. "God's seal is nox. What does nox mean? That He, God,
lives, and is an everlasting King"' (jSanh., 18a). 14 nox is formed from the initial
letters of Thn 72> and Dub*. From this process, and from its prior history (-> AQ,
2), it is obvious that what we have here is not an infusion of content from the
concept of God, but formal exegetical play which gives occasion to link with
what is said about God a concept which is felt to be suitable for the purpose.
There is an obvious difference at this point from Greek x^hsla and the infusion
of content essential to it.
When the term is used of God, an exegetical question arises concerning the
relationship between non and non, i.e., concerning the God who is kind but who
also judges. The real antithesis is between the words 70j and 77, but nox can also

14
For further examples, cf. Str.-B., II, 262, 431; cf. also AQ, 2, where there is also
a review
of the rise of the notarikon.
 dAnDELa

be involved, and it thus comes to be synonymous with 77. There are different ways
in which the divine attributes may then be related. The two may sometimes be set
alongside (bBer., 46b), 15 but sometimes it may be emphasised that nox comes
first and then, and therefore definitively, 7on (bRH, 17b). Yet it is always the
concern of the Rabbi who interprets the Old Testament to show that both elements
are essential in his view of God.
Kittel

C. The Greek and Hellenistic Use of dAñela.

The NT use of dAndela is partly determined by the Semitic use of nox and
partly by the Greek and Hellenistic use of arnOeia. That the basic meanings of
noN and dAndela are not coincident is shown already by the fact that the LXX
has to use iloTIG, 16 Sikaioouvn, etc. as well as alr0ela to translate nox. If cAn-
Oeia is often selected, this is to be understood in the light of the Greek usage,
which came to enjoy a high degree of flexibility in the course of its development.

1. The Original Greek Usage and its Differentiations.

Etymologically X nEla has the meaning of non-concealment. 17 It thus indicates
a matter or state to the extent that it is seen, indicated or expressed, and that in
such seeing, indication or expression it is disclosed, or discloses itself, as it really
is, 18 with the implication, of course, that it might be concealed, falsified, truncated,
or suppressed. &^ñela, therefore, denotes the "full or real state of affairs.' From
the time of Homer the subst. and neut. of the adj. have been normally used as the
acc. obj. of a verbum dicendi, and the adv. &lnooc usually means "really" or
"truly." As in judicial language the aArOela is the actual state of affairs to be
maintained against different statements, so historians use it to denote real events
as distinct from myths, and philosophers to indicate real being in the absolute
sense,

The adj. xAn0nc declares that a thing really is as it is seen or represented, and can
take on, like a noivoc especially, the force of "proper" or "genuine." 18 If on the one
side to oaoÉs as that which is truly seen, and on the other To ov, or in philosophy also
n ouals, as that which truly is, are equivalents of i a joeia or to dAnOÉS, the most
common antonyms are YE0Goc ("deception") and 86&a ("appearance" or "mere
opinion"), which conceal or replace the truth. In opposition to these the a nOela must
be sought and investigated, 20 and in philosophy the question arises whether the dAn-
Gela is Anith or antios (Emped., Fr. [Diels, I, 223, 16 ff.]), and how far the
senses or the understanding suffice to grasp it.

15 In the house of the sorrowing there is an appeal both to the Merciful and to the
Judge of hok.
10 On this point, cf. A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im NT4 (1917), 551-561.
17 Note the negative construction as in the related words dipekns, apsuons, nueptis.
18 Cf. Xenoph. An., IV, 4, 15 : &An0e0oat Ta OVTa TE OG OVTA, kat to un ovta
Oc OOK ovta.
There is no comprehensive investigation of dAnOwvoc and &AnOEUEly outside the OT
and NT.
20 E.g., kp(vELv raAnOÉs, Anaxag., Fr. 21 (Diels, I, 409, 14); h gitnois this dandelac,
Thuc., I, 20.
a nOela

Since in the practice of history, and in historical and philosophical enquiry, it

is essentially the task of the Abyoc to reveal and indicate, d^ñdela can also
denote an aspect of the Abyos which is proper to this as anooavoic to the extent
that it causes that which is to be seen either it is &An0EUwv or ainens ("true"),
or it is the opposite. Hence a\nOns and -op0os can be synonyms (e.g., Soph.
Oed. Tyr., 1220), and in as much as we may be convinced by the a neela itself
as by true words, and may thus rely on it, there results a connection between
a nOela and * mlous; alieia underlies lotis a\nons (Parm., Fr. 1, 30; 8, 28
[Diels, I, 150, 9; 156, 14]). If ilots ("conviction" and "demonstration") is never
synonymous with a ndela, TloT LEYELV can mean the same as a\non AÉYELV
(Hdt., I, 182; II, 73), and, like jloT6s, x^nens as a personal attribute can denote
"trustworthiness." Thus &^nela acquires the meaning of "truthfulness" (Mimn.,
Fr. 8 [Anth. Lyr., I, p. 42, Diehl]: a^n0eln 8É rapeoto ool kal quot, TOVTOV
xpñua 8ikal6tatov), and the adj., synon. with EU0UG, can characterise a man
or the vouc (Homer II., 12, 433; Pind. O1., 2, 101).
It is thus understandable that xinesla can serve as a rendering of nox in the
sense of "veracity" or "reliability," even though nox is not like aAn0eia under-
stood as apeth, as a personal quality. Further differentiations of the concept of
a nOEla make this even more possible, though in the first instance they bring out
an ever greater distinction. For if there are intrinsically as many "truths" as there
are facts, in the Greek world the question of the truth was raised (Plat. Phaedr.,
248b i rolln orouon to aineelac ibeiv TESlOV 0F ÉoTv). This is the question
of true being in the absolute sense, which man must know if he is to find his way
in his puzzling existence; cf. Plat. Gorg., 526d : xalpelv oiv taoas tas tluac
toc TOV To AGv avOpitav, Thy ANndElav OKOTOV TELpAOQu TO Evil dc
av Sovo uaL BEAtIOTOS WoV Kai giv kai ETELSAV ATOOVIOKO ATOO OKEIV. This
question of the truth is alien to the OT. Nevertheless, by means of it &Anjdela
does acquire a significance related to that of nox, since in the question: What is
truth ?, it is used to denote a norm, and according to the Greek understanding of
existence it is self-evident that action should follow true knowledge or self-under-
standing. 21 For this reason dAneela can also have the sense of "correct doctrine,'
for this shows what the truth is. 22 Hence &\fOela can be synon. with Entlomhun, 23
and can be used to denote the teaching of a religious proclamation.

2. The Usage of Dualism.

If in philosophy x ñ0ela is understood as true being in distinction from the
worldly phenomena which in the first instance appear as being, and if in Plato
especially this true being is understood as the world of ideas which is immune
from becoming and perishing, which is concealed from the senses and which may
be comprehended in thinking, &^h0ela takes on more and more the sense of "true
and genuine reality," and its opposite becomes Ei8@ov ("reflection" or "ap-
pearance"). The only thing which is truly &^ndes is that which always is, the

21 Plat. Prot., 345d, e; 361b; Soph., 228c, d; Resp., III, 413a; Epict. Diss., I, 17, 14; 28, 4;
II, 26, 1-5.
22 Epict. Diss., I, 4, 31; III, 24, 40.
28 Plut. De Isid. et Os., 1 (II, 351c, e); cf. Hierocl. Carm. Aur., p. 21-23, Mullach.
 dAndela

divine, the auto kat' aito uE0' AUTOU MOVOELSES del 8v. 24 If Plato stilll uses
a neia formally to denote genuineness, or that which truly is, in Hellenism it
comes to imply the "eternal" or "divine" in the sense of a cosmological dualism.
It still retains the sense of genuineness, since the divine being is that in which man
must come to share in order to be saved (-> owipla) and thus to attain to his
own genuine or proper being. Yet to different degrees in different strata the pre-
supposition is abandoned that the &AnOela is accessible to thought, since the true
being of man is no longer seen in thinking. The &^rela is closed to man as such,
and he comes to share in it only when the limits of humanity are transcended,
whether in ecstasy or by revelation from the divine sphere. In this sense &\ñOela
becomes an "eschatological" concept, and this dualistically eschatological under-
standing of a neela is developed by Gnosticism, Philo and Plotinus.

In certain Herm. fragments handed down by Stob. (Scott, Hermetica, I, 380-392) an

attempt is made to combine the Gnostic concept of dAndeia with the Platonic. The
Gnostic view is found in a pure form in individual parts of the Corp. Herm. and in the
literature of Christian Gnosticism. There has obviously been some Persian influence the
Gnostic &Anbela corresponds to a large extent to x0t12 in the Mandaean writings. 25

Since Godhead is here represented as an eternal diaphanous substance, and at

the same time as the miraculous power which effects - &o0apaia, aAndela be-
comes synon. with oiola ( divine substance) and buvauls, as with Oe6ms
generally. And since gAndela has also the sense of revealed doctrine, doctrine
itself is understood as the mighty efficacy and power of God. Since again yvoos
corresponds to divine revelation, the yvooic effected by divine revelation also
appears as divine power, so that there is a resultant equation of a n0ela and
yvoos. The usage is made even more complicated by the fact that the divine
revelation both is and effects gon and > ooc. To the extent that a ñoela
means the divine essence, it is the equivalent of gon, and to the extent that this
gon as ooc is the divine power of revelation a n0ala and (on are also coter-
minous. Indeed, since the divine sphere can also be described as -* TVEULa,
x neivoc comes to mean the same as TVEUUXTIK6S, and since + voic is often
understood according to the analogy of TVE ua, it can also mean the same as
vontoc and VOEp6c. Finally, XAn0iv6c or alnOns is synon. with ovaloons
(= essential or divine), aopatos, goouatos, ayewntos, &plaproc, and there-
fore with all the attributes which are intended to describe the divine side of cosmic
duality.

As regards the richly variegated usage, 26 the following is the essential material. The
character of g nela as divine Sovquis is shown esp. by Corp. Herm., XIII, which
treats of rebirth (-* TaAlyyEVEOla). The & nOÉg, the being opposed to the evnrov,
grows out of rebirth, which is described as yÉvEaIc TS BEOTNTOS. This takes place in
such a way that the divine Suvausis draw together in man, the first being yvoois and
the last a^josta, which completes regeneration: Th 8 dAndeia Kai To dyalov

24 Plat. Symp., 211b; 212a; Resp., X, 596d-605c; cf. 508d.

25 Cf. Lidz. Joh., II, p. XVII f.; R. Reitzenstein-H. H. Schaeder, Studien zum antiken Syn-
kretismus (1926), 327.
26 Cf. the examples in R. Bultmann, ZNW, 27 (1928), 151-163.
 aArOela

ÉTEyÉVETO qua gon kai OwTi. 27 According to Corp. Herm., VII revelation leads to
the gates of yvoaIs, and from p0opo and eavatos to the vision of a ñOsta. God's
"word" brings "light" and "truth" to "those who know,' and assures them of victory
over darkness, falsehood and death, according to Od. Sol. 18. Similarly for Philo the
a newn Lon is divine and incorruptible life (Leg. All., I, 32 and 35; III, 52); Ignatius
uses much the same terminology (Eph., 7, 2; Sm., 4, etc.). Heaven is the place of
a nEla, which is declared only by onAwoic. The revelation of God causes its pEyyoc
to stream forth, and the atyn ric aindelac shines forth DÉyYEL vonto kai dowuato
(Spec. Leg., 89; Migr. Abr., I, 76; Vit. Mos., II, 271). To the one who is filled with
striving for the &ElÉpaatoc arnoela, the Spaoic 0E00 is granted as yÉpac ÉÉaipetov
(Praem. Poen., 36; cf. 46: & nOELAV SE uETlaolv of (Eov OEQ DAVI&OIWOÉVTES,
poti p6s, cf. Leg. All., III, 45 ff.). Led by a nOela, the soul is enticed by heavenly
Époc and strides to 8vtwc 8v (Rer. Div. Her., 70). The human voic could not tread
this way el un kai OEiov nv TVEUUX TO TOONyETOUv ipoc authy thy dAndelav
(Vit. Mos., II, 265). And in the same sense Plot. (Enn. VI, 9, 4, p. 513, 12, Volkmann)
speaks of the odc ain0wvov by which the man is filled who soars up to the vision of
Godhead (cf. I, 6, 9, p. 95, 28) . He thus extols the a nown gon in which genuine ‡pos
participates (VI, 9, 9, p. 522, 7). And the older Gk. concept of truth is completely set
aside when according to V, 3, 5 (p. 184, 6 f.) the one who views has that which he
views in such sort that he is one with it, and he thus has the truth in such a way that
he actually is the truth : thy &pa aindELav o0X ÉTEpOU dEi Elvai, AAX', & AÉYEI,
TOUTO kai Elval. In this sense we read in Porphyr. Ad Marcell., 13, p. 282, 24 ff.,
Nauck: Kaloc yap Ékeivou (of God) To axnpatov (kai?) oos TO YOTLKOV dAn-
Ogia SiaAaUTtoV (cf. Abst., II, 52). In Vit. Pyth., 41, p. 38, 16 ff. he advances the specu-
lation: knel Kai TOO 0EO0 8v 'Qpoua(nv Kaloiow ÉKEivo1 (sc. ol udyou)
ÉolkÉval to uEV o ua pOTI, THY 8É puxnv ain0eiq. For the Neo-Platonist Hierocles
Carm. Aur., p. 21-23, Mullach, the &AnOela is on one side the ToV Oeiov yviois which
leads to buolwa tpoc 0Eov, and on the other it is the divine essence itself ; for
yvoai leads here to to tis alndelac Evontpiaaalal ka^og. Alin (Albinos)
Isag., 10, p. 164, Hermann, defines the Ttpotoc Oeoc as OEL6TNS, ova bins, dandela,
ounuetpia, dya06v. Corp. Herm., XIII, 6 defines the a^n0éc as To un BoAo Evov,
to un Stop CouEvov, to gxpouatov, To dOXnuatIoToV, To &TpETTOV, To yuuvov,
TO oaivov (?), TO aitd kata nttov, To dvailolotov (&ya06v), to doduarov.
And in the language of magic feoniouat' a^n0ñ are words of magical potency (Preis.
Zaub., II [Berlin] 7); the cAnEla is here the divine essentiality (Preis. Zaub., III
[Paris], 156; IV [Paris], 1014); yet the use of dAndela in magic is also under Semitic
influence (Preis. Zaub., III [Paris], 156; V [London], 148 f.: kyo elul i cAndela, o
utowv abiKnuata yive lal Ev tO Koouo), as also under Egyptian (Preis. Zaub., XII
[Leiden] Col. VIII, 10, in which there is the invocation of the Most High God 6 Exov
THY & EUGTOV dAnDELaV).

D. The Early Christian Use of dAñdELa.

Having considered the possibilities of use in the NT, we can now group the
actual usage systematically. The meanings of the subst. XAn0sla may be arranged
as follows, although sometimes the exact classification is open to question.

27 Cf. Reitzenstein, Hell. Myst., 383-393. Cf. also Cl. Al. Strom., I, 7, 38,4: X AWE TIS
TEpI &Andeias AÉyEI, GAGS n AAñDEIX ÉQUTHV ÉPUNVEUEI. ITEPOV oroyaouoc din-
Delas, "repov n anndeia, aNto ouolwois, &10 auto To ov, kal f uev uadnoel Kai
GOKn7El TEPIYIVETaL, 8É SuvquEl kal ToTEL. We have here a clear formulation of the
distinction between a nOelo as the divine reality and cAñOEia as a given state of things
in the world which is amenable to investigation. In this case the relationship between the
two is. of course, interpreted Neo-Platonically through the term ouolwous.
 & nOEla

1. x heela as that which "has certainty and force" (in the sense of nox).
a. & ñOela seems to be used in the OT sense in Eph. 4:21: Katoc Éotiv XAneEIa
Ev To 'Inoot as this is so in Jesus. We are to understand in the same way
G1. 2:5 iva f a nOela tou EdayyEAlou Stauelvn spoc ouac, and Gl. 2:14: ott
ouk opborobodau mpoc thy alidelav tol Eigyy/lo The truth is the "valid
norm, with perhaps a hint of the Gk. idea of what is "genuine" or "proper";
cf. Gl. 1:6 : Elc ÉTEPOV EDGyyÉAIOV, 8 ouk fotlv & Ao. The demand of God is
the dAniela in R. 2:8 toic aTE BUaL th a ndela (1), and R. 2:20 : . . . Exovta
Thy uoppwotv ths yvooeos kai ths a\ndelas ev ro vouo, yvidaic here being
undoubtedly the equivalent of m17-ng7 (on 2 C. 13:8 244).

This is in line with the Rabbinic conception of God's NOx as the demand incorporated
in the Torah (-> 237); cf. the meaning of AGR, as the seal" of God as a notarikon
which means "God the everlasting King" - 237. Cf. also Philo Vit. Mos., II, 273. In
Herm. m., 10, 1, 4-6 a nela is combined with DEoTnc to denote the irrefragably valid
demand of God. The older meaning of "sureness" or "certainty" is also seen clearly
in Herm. v., 3, 4, 3 : tauta tavta Éotiv anon kat 000Év EGOEV LOTIV TNC XAn-
Belas, Xlld ftavia loxupa Kai paBala Kal TEOEUEALOUÉVa fotlv. The characterisa-
tion of God as the feoc tic alndelas (y 30:5) recurs in 2 CI., 19, 1, and in 2 CI., 3, 1;
20, 5 we have the corresponding stamp tis xlndelac. On the other hand, (oÉBetau)
Toy Kat' daneelav (gov in Ep. Ar., 140 belongs under 3.

b. Like nON, & nOEla can also have the meaning of 81kal0oUvn as "judicial
righteousness"; cf. Da. 3:28 : God's judgments are pluata alndelas, for He acts
ain0ela kai KploEl (cf. Tob. 3:2).28 In the NT this sense is found only in the
case of - a nowos; yet in Did., 16, 6 the onueia tis xlneelas are the signs of
eschatological judgment. On R. 2:2 >243.
c. Quite often &^ndela, like Nok, takes on the weaker sense "uprightness, as
in the expression TOLEiv dAneelav (Tob. 4:6; 13:6; Jn. 3:21; 1 Jn. 1:6; 1 Cl., 31,2),
which corresponds to the Rabbinic X0tP 723 (Tg. Hos. 4:1). Similarly, we have
TOPEUEOO&I EV a neela (3 Bao. 2:4; Tob. 3:5) or TEPITATELV Ev xAn0ela (4 Bao.
20:3; 2 Jn. 4; 3 Jn. 3 f.) in the sense of acting honestly. Along the same lines,
a nOela is the opposite of ) &8lkla in the NT (1 C. 13:6; R. 1:18, though = 243;
R. 2:8, though supra), and it is also combined with Bikaloobvn (Eph. 4:24; 5:9;
6:14; cf. Tob. 14:7; Philo Vit. Mos., 237), and is perhaps sometimes to be under-
stood in terms of it (Jm. 3:14; 5:19). Cf. also perhaps 1 CI., 35, 5 (68oc ts
cAndelac); 60, 2; Herm. v., 3, 7, 3 (i cyvoins ths alndelas); s., 9, 19, 2 (KaPTOS
a ndelas par. Kapoc Sikaloouvns).

For the Jewish usage, cf. again Tob. 8:7 (opp. Topvela): Wis. 5:6 (par. Sikaio-
ouvn); Sir. 27:8 f. (opp. v. 10 quaptia): Test. G. 3:1. In the song of praise to X nOela
in 1 Eo8p. 4:36-40 this meaning is asserted within the total range of significance of
DOR, as also in the version of the story in Jos. Ant., 11, 56.

2. XAnOElx is also that "on which one can rely" (in the sense of nox). a. It
signifies "reliability" or "trustworthiness." How closely this meaning is linked

28 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), 94; Schl.J..
206: 237.
X nOela

with the former may be seen in R. 3:3-7, in which God's &\nOela, opposed to
man's weioua (- yE08o) in v. 7 (cf. v.4), is nothing other than His plots
faithfulness (v. 3), and between the lots and dAndela of God there again
stands His Sikai0o0n (v. 5) in opposition to human &81kla, the 81tos av Sikalo-
Ons corresponding to the YIVE00∞ 8É 6 Deoc dAnOns (v.4). This can be under-
stood only in the light of the nox concept. In the same connection we might also
refer to R.15:8 : onep ins aindelas 0eot Eic to BeBatwoal tos ÉntayyeAlas
Tov taTéDOV.

On the Jewish use, cf. Sir. 7:20; 1 Macc. 7:18 and the Rabbinic use of Xp71p.

b. It also signifies "sincerity" or "honesty" in 2 C. 7:14 (navia Ev cAndela

£ x hoauev ouiv); 11:10 (in the oath forlv &lndela XpLOTOO EV Éuol 8T1). It
is thus linked with ElAlKpivia in 1 C. 5:8, and opposed to ipooaois in Phil. 1:18.
Cf. Herm. m., 8, 9; s., 9, 15, 2. This is also how we are to take the formula Év
& neela (1 Bac. 12:24; w144:18), though xAnOela has a broad sense in this case,
being sometimes linked with a related term to form a hendiadys as in Tm. 2:7
(Ev TOTEL kal x neela, cf. also C1., 60, 4); and cf. Ev poBo kai a ndela in
CI., 19, 1; OTEPYELV Ev TOon a neela in Pol., 4, 2; TtopEUE aL Ev &nOela in
Herm. m., 3, 4 (in a different sense from supra). There is play on this use in
2Jn. 1 and 3 Jn.1: ayatov Év x ndela, with which we should compare the
epistolary formula oileiv ipoc arhdelav (P. Fay., 118, 26; 119, 26 f.).
3. & noela implies the "real state of affairs" as disclosed (in the Gk. sense).
The obvious usage in Wis. 6:22 (enoo eis to guoaves thy yvoow aurns [sc.
tis coplas] kal oi un TX pOSEUGG Thy dAn0Elorv) 29 gives us the sense in
R. 1:18: Enl Taoav toeBelav kal doilav ave pontov tov Thy a nOelav Ev
aolKia katExovtov. To be sure, in this case we might understand dAndela either
as the divine claim (- 242) or as uprightness (8ikai0∞6vn, -* 242), but we can
see from v. 19: 81ott TO YVOATOV tOU SEO0 DOVEDOV gotlv gy autoic, that what
is really meant is the "revealed reality" of God. R. 1:25 : LEThAAaEav thy dAn-
Belay Tou 0:00 €V'TO WEUDEL, is to be understood in the same way, unless ani-
Bela TOU OEO0 simply means the true or real God as opposed to the wau8os, i.e.,
an idol. Similarly Ev &ndela signifies 'real" in Ju. 9:15, lep. 33:15, Ign. Eph., 6, 2
and even Col. 1:6, as does also tn' a neelas in Ac. 4:27 and 10:34, and kat'
arnoelav in Ep. Ar., 140, while Kara thu dAhlelav in R. 2:2 means "in accordance
with reality" (as opposed to 1tpoow roanuia in v.11). The contrast in 1 Jn. 3:18:
(un AyatouEv) Aby© undÉ th yAooon dild Epyo kai cAndela is a common
one in Greek, cf. Thuc., II, 41; Isoc., 3, 33; and also Jos. Ant., 14, 68. Again, the
old Greek expression "to tell" or "to show the truth" etc. is found, not only in
the LXX (2 Ch. 18:15; Prv. 8:7; Tob. 7:10 etc.) and Jos. (Ant., 10, 124), but also
in the NT (Mk. 5:33; R. 9:1; 2 C. 12:6 etc.). In Jn., too, we find AÉyEIV ThU dAn-
felav at 8:40, 45 f.; 16:7, and the corresponding HapTupElv in andela at 5:33;
there is an intentional ambiguity at 8:40, 45 and 5:33, the discerning reader being
meant to interpret the XAnlsla also as the divine revelation (- 245).

29 Cf. Jos. Ant., 1, 4; Herm. v., 3, 3, 5.

 CAndela

4. aXnOela as "truth of statement" is found in the expression pnuata dinlelac

in Ac. 26:25 (cf. Jdt. 10:13) and in the expositions in Herm. m., 3, 1 ff. The Gk.
formula eT" xlneelas, which commonly means "in accordance with the truth" in
the pap., 30 has this sense in connection with AÉYElV (Lk. 4:25), EiTEiv (Mk.
12:32), 818&OKEIV (Mk. 12:14); in this sense it can also correspond to 128 (Lk.
22:59, where Mk. 14:70 and Mt. 26:73 have alneis; and CI., 23, 5; 47, 3).
5. d neela can also be used for "true teaching or faith." As in Da. 8:12 nON
means the true faith or the Jewish religion, so the proselyte is described in Philo
Spec.Leg., IV, 178 as METavaotaS Eic a neelav kal thy toU Évos tuiou tiunv
anto uvlikov taouatov kai no uapylac. It is in this sense that the righteous
are called the children of truth in Eth. En. 105:2, and there is a similar use in
Eoop. 4:36-40 ( 242). We are to understand 2 C. 13:8 along the same lines :
of yap &wvquela t Katd ths alndeias & Ad urep this aindelas; a^ñeeia
here means true doctrine as opposed to a gtepov EiayyÉAlov (cf.11:4), as in
Philo Poster. C., 101 etc. 31 unless we take it in the sense of a. For this reason,
Paul can call the Gospel in general the a n0sla which he makes manifest by his
activity (2 C. 4:2 : th DAVEPOEL tic alneelas). a\rlela in this case subsumes
the concept Aoyoc tou 0800 in terms of what precedes ; cf. the objects of pavE.
pouv: in 2 C. 2:14 : Thy bounv tis yudoeds autot; in Col. 4:3 f.: TO poth plov
TOU 0EOU; Tt. 1:3: Toy Aoyov. In the formal parallel in Jos. Bell., 1, 627: 861o1c
Thy XAnDELaV ETIKa^UYELV, XAñDEIa has only the formal sense of truth. Just as
Paul can say UTtaKOUElV to EoxyyEAlo (R. 10:16), he can also say th dAndela
(un) TE(0e0al (Gl. 5:7), and the Christian faith can be called UTtaKon this
a nOelas (1 Pt. 1:22). Again, the preaching of the Gospel can be called A6yoc
a ndeias (2 C. 6:7; Col. 1:5; Eph. 1:13 etc.), and to become a Christian is Eic
Énlyvoow alndelac É OeiV (1 Tm. 2:4; 2 Tm. 3:7; cf. Tm. 4:3; Hb. 10:26; 2 Jn.
1). In 2 Th. 2:10-12 the a neela is the Christian revelation as opposed to the
revelation of Antichrist, which is called we0ooc and golkia. 32 In 1 Tm. 3:15 the
ÉxkAnoia is described as the otuios kai £8palqua tic alndelas; and in 2 Pt.
1:12 the a^neua is simply Christianity. Harder to determine is cAndela Ev rap-
pnola, which in CI., 35, 2 is enumerated with THOTIS EV TETOLO OEL as one of the
S@pa t00 0Eo0; but the implication seems to be the true faith which we possess
with confidence, as also, perhaps, in the list of divine gifts in Act. Joh., 109,
p. 208, 3. It is especially against error that a ndela is "true teaching"' (1 Tm. 6:5;
2 T'm. 2:18; 3:8; 4:4; Tt. 1:14; and also Ign. Eph., 6, 2; Pol., 7, 3). Yet this usage is
still determined by the hox concept (cf. G1. 5:7; 1 Pt. 1:22). As the concept of
- plots is determined by the thought of obedience, so a ndeia is "authoritative
teaching." The way is thus prepared for the historical development which fashions
the concept of dogma, in which truth and law are conjoined. 33

30 Preisigke Wort.
31 Cf. Wnd., ad loc.
32 To 2 Th. 2:10 : Thy dyamv Thic cAndelas, there are formal parallels in Jos. Ap., 2,
296; Bell., 1, 30 : dyatiov Thy & nOelav, yet in these &Agfeix has the formal sense of
truth (the "real state of affairs"), and the contrasting of dAndela with yoovh is common
in older Gk. On the other hand, in the similar expression in Bell., 2, 141 GAñOela means
'probity.
33 Cf. v. Soden, 23-26.
a nOEla

6. XAnOela can also mean "genuineness," "divine reality," "revelation." Devel-

oping out of Hellenistic dualism (-* B), this usage determines the use of aAn0iv6s
in Hb. -> 250) and the highly individual terminology of John. In John dAndela
denotes "'divine reality" with reference to the fact 1. that this is different from the
reality in which man first finds himself, and by which he is controlled, and 2. that
it discloses itself and is thus revelation. If there is here a good deal of agreement
with Hellenistic dualism, John is distinguished from this by the fact that for him
the antithesis between & nOela as divine power and wE0oc as anti-divine is not
cosmological, in spite of the mythological form in which it is sometimes clothed
(Jn. 8:44). a nela and weuooc are understood as genuine possibilities of human
existence rather than substances. It is in keeping that revelation is determined by
the thought of the Word and of hearing the Word, so that we again have a
genuine possibility of existence. X heela is thus the reality of God which is, of
course, opposed and inaccessible to human existence as it has constituted itself
through the fall from God, i.e., through sin, and revelation is a miraculous occur-
rence beyond the reach of the being which is alien to God. Yet in revelation there
is disclosed to man the true possibility of his own being when, in face of the Word
of revelation which encounters him, he decides to surrender himself. Thus the
reception of a^neela is conditioned neither by rational or esoteric instruction on
the one side nor psychical preparation and exercise on the other ; it takes place in
obedient faith. 34
A distinctive feature is that almost all the elements infused into the a neela
concept by tradition can sometimes be combined, and yet in such a way that one
of them is particularly emphasised. The antithesis between divine and anti-divine
reality emerges at 8:44 in a formulation which derives from Gnostic mythology:
ÉKeivoc (the devil) avepomoktovoc hv an apxis, kai Év th xin0ela OOK
EOmKEV, 8TL O0K EOTIV AAHOELA EV aUTS. But indirectly this asserts that the
aArOeLa gives life, and that what is not determined by it leads to death. It is also
asserted that when the a ñOEla is present it shows itself to be a determinative
power in concrete conduct. Again, in what follows : 8tav Aa^ñ To WEUSOS, ÉK
ToV tolwv Aalei, we08os has the first and provisional meaning of a "lie" or "un-
truth," but the context shows clearly 1. that both divine and demonic reality is ex-
pressed in words, and 2. that these realities are actual as active modes of being,
or conversely that every active mode of being is determined either by divine or
demonic reality. The determination of being by the revealed reality of God is thus
indicated in 1 Jn. 1:8 and 2:4 by the expression : "The a nOela is (or is not)
in This also means that such a determination must show itself in concrete
action.
For this reason there can arise for John a distinctive ambiguity. When Jesus
speaks the & n0ela, this has first the formal meaning of "speaking the truth,' but
it also means "bringing the revelation in words" (8:40, 45; cf. v. 46, where in place

34 Perhaps the usage is also determined by the fact that John thinks of the dAndela as
the revelation given by Jesus in contrast to the Torah. To the best of my knowledge, the
latter is not described absolutely as the NOW): the most that can be said is that in the
exegesis of the OT God's hOk is referred to the Torah (Str.-B., II, 361 on Jn. 1:14; > 237).
Yet things are said of it analogous to what Jn. says of the dAndela : it gives life (Str.-B.
III, 129 ff. on R. 3:1 f.); it is to be compared with light (Str.-B., II, 357 on Jn. 1:4): it makes
free (Str.-B., II, 522 f. on Jn. 8:32).
 a neela

of the antithetical concept veU8oc the more general quaptia is used, and esp.
v. 47, where the term &lrOeia is replaced by to pruata TOU 0E0U). The same
twofold sense is present when it is said of the Baptist : uepaptopnkev th alndela
(5:33) . 35 It is also found in 18:37: kyo Eis touto £Anula Els TOv Koouov,
iva uaptupnow th ainiela, where Pilate's question gives emphasis to the word,
and the continuation shows again that d^ñela is the self-revealing divine reality,
and that its comprehension is not a free act of existence, but is grounded in the
determination of existence by divine reality : nas 6 tv EK Tis dandelas AKouEI
you tis owvis. 36
As revelation X\hdela is the object of YIVOOKElV (Jn. 8:32; 2 ]n. 1) or ElÉvaL
(1 Jn. 2:21). What is primarily expressed is the character of the determinative
power of revelation as a word which can be understood (Jn. 8:32 : yvioeolE Thy
a neelav, kal n dAnDELX ELEVIEP OEL buac). For &lneeia naturally does not
mean the formal truth of the facts in question (as in Jos. Ant., 13, 291: yvovai thy
arielav; cf. Ant., 2, 60). It would be a gross misunderstanding to take it here
in the general and formal sense. What is meant is not knowledge generally, but
the knowledge of revelation, just as ÉAEU0epla does not mean the freedom of the
human mind but freedom from sin (cf. 8:34). The same is true of Jn. 17:17, 19:
dylaoov airouc Ev th a nOela® 8 A6yoc 6 ooc (i.e., the proclamation of Jesus
entrusted to Him by the Father) AMjOe& (i.e., revelation) Éotlv iva Gow
Kal airoi nylaouÉvol kv x neela (i.e., taken from the "world" through revela-
tion). The fact that the Word of revelation is not a complex of statements or
ideas, that it is not cosmological or soteriological speculation, but an address
fulfilled in concrete encounter, is shown by the fact that it cannot be separated
from the person of Jesus and the events fulfilled in His history (17:17-19). He
brings the aAROEIa, not simply as an impartation mediated by His Word, but as
He sanctifies Himself for them, so that it can be said : €yo elu n 680c kal f
aln0ela kal n gon (14:6). Hence revelation is not the means to an end ; it is
itself both the way and the goal (gwn). In other words, it is taken seriously as
a divine occurrence. That God is disclosed in revelation is stated in 1:14, 17,
where the 86Éx of the uovoyevns is described as tAmpns xapiios kai dAndeias,
i.e., God's reality is given in it. 37
We are to understand the demand for TPOOKUVElV EV TVE LATI kai a ndela
(4:23 f.) along the same lines. For Jn. TVEua as well as alfoeix denotes the
sphere of divine essence and occurrence as distinct from human (3:6-8). Hence
the meaning is not that true worship takes place in spirituality and pure knowledge
on the basis of a concept of God purged of anthropomorphic conceptions, but that
it takes place as determined by God's own essence, i.e., by the TVE ua. If dAn-
Oeta is added, this is an indication that such worship can take place only as deter-
mined by the revelation accomplished in Jesus (v. 25 f.), and consequently as deter-

35 There is a characteristic difference from Jos. Vit., 367: Thv aAneelan ÉuaptupEl, in
which &AñOela simply has the unequivocal formal sense of truth ; cf. Ant., 4, 219 : toAn0n
uaptupnoat.
38 Instructive again is the difference from Jos. Ant., 8, 33, where Solomon Értyvouc toc
Ékatepwv povdc (3 Bao. 3:26) ano tc dAndelas yEyEVnuÉvaG, i.e., that the state-
ments were based on the actual facts.
87 I think it possible that in 1:14 there is a play on the nex) Ton of Ex. 34:6, but this is
not very likely, for we must remember 1. that the LXX rendering is TOLUE EOC kai aAn-
Oivos, and 2. that Jn. does not bring out the idea of faithfulness which nox has in this verse.
dAndela - cAnons

mined by the Revealer who is the only way of access to God (1:18; 14:6). The
Paraclete promised by the departing Jesus is interpreted in 14:17; 15:26; 16:13, as
the TIVEDua tic & neelas, 38 and there can be no doubt that this is how Jn.
intends to understand the traditional concept of the TVE ua &yiov granted to the
community (cf. esp. Mk. 13:11; Ac. 1:8). He himself selects the term Paraclete in
14:16. The Tveua tis gindelas is primarily just the Spirit of God, for
the sphere of God is denoted no less by &yios than by & nOela (cf. 17:17-19;
- 246). But when it is said of this TVEDua: onyñoel Duos sis ThV a nOelav
taoav (16:13), this shows us that for John the divine truth is always that which
works in revelation, so that the function of the raparAntos who works as the
TVEDua tis alndelas is described as the revelation which continues to work in
the community, and in Jn. 5:6 the witnessing TVEUua is simply equated with the
gAneela. In the same sense there is reference in Jn. 4:6 to the TIVEDua the dAn-
{Elas in contrast to the TVEDua tis Tovns, and the criterion for knowing
whether something is of God or of anti-godly power is actual conduct, i.e., the
hearing or non-hearing of the Word proclaimed in the community. Thus a nOela,
in so far as it is proclaimed, can be right doctrine, and WETSOG error (1 Jn. 2:21),
while TOLEIV ThU & nOelav in In. 1:6, as the opposite of weubgo@at, characterises
a way of life (- 242), just as &^n0ela in 3 Jn. 3 denotes the way of life deter-
mined by revelation. Indeed, in 3 Jn. 12 the witness which one has OTto To VTO
can be called the witness onto aits tis aln0elas, since revelation is the power
which determines the community. 30 Along the same lines we might refer to 3 Jn. 8,
where the community motivates its concrete Christian action by the admonition,
iva ouvepyol yuousla th dineela. This determination unites individual be-
lievers, so that the author of 2 Jn., using an epistolary expression (- 243), speaks
of his readers thus : o0c Éyo &yano Ev aln0ela, kal ouk Eyo uovoc &lAd kal
TOVTES of byvokbies thy alidelav, Budx thy alndeiav thu e Év quiv,
Kai ue0' nuov foral els tov aliva, and he also greets them Ev din0ela kal
dyarn (2 ]n. 1-3).

d nons.
1. a. a\nOns means "constant" or "valid," as in 1 Pt. 5:12 : raUrnv elvau &Ann
XOpIV TOU 0EOU, ElG AV oTiTE (ct. Is. 43:9). As an attribute of God, Andivoc
is more commonly used (- 249), but a\nOns is sometimes found (Jos. Ant., 8, 337
and 343 ; 10, 263 : uovov autov Elval anen kai to Tantov Kportoc Exovta;
Sib., V, 499; Fr. 1, 10). Yet we cannot be sure that in such cases it does not have
the sense discussed under 6.

38 The TIVEOua tis candelas of Herm. m., 3,4 is no true parallel. The mode of con-
ception in this phrase is animistic dAndela signifies "truthfulness.'
39 Thus Papias seeks guidance (in Eus. Hist. Eccl., III, 39, 4) from those who hand down
tac tapa tou kup(ou Th TlOTEL Sedouevac Kal on autis paparyiouevas ths din-
Delac (EvtoA&s). On the other hand, in the formal parallel to 3 Jn. 12 which Windisch
(Handbuch 2. NT) finds in Demosth., 59, 15, aAnOela has only the formal sense of the
actual state of affairs. Similarly in Jos. Ant., 16, 246 : tov UEV On' autis tis dAndelac
dvaitiov (proved innocent by the actual facts), and Ap., 2, 287: Tooc tpos authv
dval86c thy AAñOELAV TEPLAOVEIKNKOTAS, wE have only formal parallels.
248 dAnons

b. T describe the "judicial righteousness" of God, X newvos is used in the

NT (- 249).
In the sense of "upright," anOns occurs in Phil. 4:8 : 8oa éotiy anon, Soa
C.

osuva, 8aa SiKaia

2. a. XAnOhs means "trustworthy" or "reliable" in R. 3:4 ( 243). According
to 1 CI., 45, 2 the ypaoal are alnoeis. Cf. Neh. 7:2; Prv. 22:21.
b. In the sense of "sincere" or "honest" it is found in Mk. 12:14 : oloquev ott
anons El kai ou uÉ EL FOL TEpi 006Ev6c; 2 C. 6:8: tc TavoL kai & nOeis;
In. 3:33 : Éaopayl0EV 8TL 6 Beoc a nons forwv ( infra); cf. 7:18; 8:26. See also
Did., 15, 1; Pol. 1, (dAnOns cyan), as also Jos. Ant., 13, 191 (To yvouns
aln0ouc).
3. arnOns means "real" in Ac. 12:9 : OOK KEEL STI &ANOES EOTIV TO YEVOLEVOV;
Jn. 10:41; 1 Jn. 2:27 (as distinct from wE08oC); cf. Jos. Bell., 1, 254 (opp. itpo-
oaais). In this sense we have AÉyEIV &AnOEC in Jn. 4:18; 19:35; I In. 2:27; cf.
Jos. Ant., 8, 404 etc. The adv. ain0oc ("really") is found in Mk. 14:70; Mt. 26:73
etc, In 1 Jn. 2:8 we have TaAlv Évtonv Kaihy ypaoo buiv, 8 Eotiv a^nles Ev
aitd kal fv duiv, i.e., "which is really new," or, as the continuation shows,
"which is reality, or has become real.'
4. &^n0ns in indication that a statement is "true" is found in Tt. 1:13; Jn. 5:31
etc.; 3 In. 12 (of uaptupia, cf. Jos. Ant., 4, 219); 2 Pt. 2:22 (rrapoquia). Cf. Da.
10:1; Herm. m., 3, 3; 11,3 (pquata); also pap. 40
5. x^n0hs in indication of "correct doctrine" is never found in the NT.
6. xAn0ns in the sense of "genuine" or proper" (of the divine reality) occurs
in Jn. 6:55 : f cape MoU anons (or alnoos) foriv ppoois, where we can hardly
think of it in terms of 3. This also seems to be the more obvious sense in Jn. 3:33
(= supra under 2. b.), i.e., that the believer, by affirming the truthfulness of God,
confirms that He gives revelation. Cf. also Jn. 7:18 : o 8t gntov thy 86Eav tou
reppartos aurov alnens fotlv, where the point is, not merely that as One who
is truthful He declares what is real, but that He Himself is genuine, that He is
determined by the & ñOsla, and that He is therefore the Revealer. This is con-
firmed by what follows: Kal &81Kla Ev aiT OUK fOTIv, i.e., He belongs to the
sphere of God. Again, Jn. 8:26: o TE a uE cAnOns Eotlv, does not mean only
that He is truthful, but also that He (alone) is the One who is real and who
brings revelation, as is shown by the par. in 7:28 : d1^' foriv alnOivoc o TEL aS
HE > 249; 250). If in 8:13 xAnOns (with uaptupia) has the customary sense
(- supra under 4.), in v. 14 it immediately assumes on the lips of Jesus the further
sense that My witness is revelation. This is plainly shown by the otherwise in-
explicable argument.

That we have here distinctive Johannine modification of Hellenistic usage may be

seen from parallels such as Philo Leg. All., II, 93 : iva gron tov dAnon Blov;
Leg. Gaj., 347: Els TOV OvtoC 8vra & non 0E6v. 41 Cf. also Mart. Ptr., 8, p. 92, 10 ff.:

40 Cf. Preisigke Wort. S.v.

41 On Jos. Ant., 8, 337; Sib., V, 499; Fr., 1, 10 -> 247.
a nonc - a newoc

mavioc aloeniplou yuplaatE Tag EauToV yuy, Tave paIu€ un 8vtoc

dineoic; Corp. Herm., XIII, 6 : the anoéc is the coduatov; Stob. Ecl., I, 275, 18:
088EV gy ouati ain0es, Ev dowuato to Toy &YEUSÉG.

dAn0wv6s.
1. an0wos is often used in the same sense as a nOns, sometimes with the
meaning of sincere," as in Hb. 10:22: LeTO a nowns kapoias, or upright," as
in Herm. v., 3, 7, 1: thv odov auriv thy alnewnv. In respect of words xln0woc
first means "true" or "correct," as in Jn. 4:37 (Aoyoc), 42 19:35 (uaptupla); cf.
Da. 10:1 (loyos). This is how we are first to take it in Jn. 8:16: n pious (the
verdict) i Eun aln0wn (or ainens) fotiv; in v. 17 a nOns is used instead, as
in Soph. Oed. Tyr., 501: plots oiK fotiv alnOns "this is not a correct verdict."
On the other hand, when the Aoyou of revelation are called TlaTol kal dAnewol in
Rev. 21:5; 22:6, we have a hendiadys : sure and certain.' Rev. 19:9 might perhaps
be taken in the same way : ofrou of Aoyol & n0ivol [too 0E00 ?] glow, but it is
better to translate : "These words are the real words of God.' In Rev. 15:3; 16:7;
19:2, where God's 88ol (His rule) and KpiosIc are called a^nvai and Sikaial,
a nowvos is wholly controlled by BOx in the sense of God's valid demand or
righteousness ; cf. "18:9; Tob. 3:2, 5; Da. 3:27 (©), where &^nfvos occurs as an
attribute of KploEls or Kpluata (for Rabbinic par., - a neela, 237).
2. As an attribute of God, d^n0wvoc is again controlled by nox in the Judaeo-
Christian sphere, Ex. 34:6; Ch. 15:3; w 85:15; M. Pol., 14,2: 5 awevons kai
& neros GEoc (Herm. m., 3, 1 as an attribute of kupioc), where the meaning
hovers between "trustworthy," "truthful" and "righteous" ; cf. alongside one an-
other, 1 Eoop. 8:86 : KUpLE aln0woc el, and 2 Esr. 9:15 : KUpIE Sikaloc
of; cf. Jos. Ant. 11,55 : God as &\noivos and 8(kaL0c. As against this, a\newvoc
is also used of God in the sense of "real" or "true" in contrast to the vanity of
idols. This usage, too, is determined by hoR thus Is. 65:16 (for 12x "72x2): 3 Macc.
6:18; Philo Spec. Leg., I, 332 (cyvooutes tov Eva kai a newov BEov To Aouc
weubovbuouc ivatAdtTOVtES); Leg. Gaj., 366 (the same antithesis); Sib. Fr.,
1, 20; 3, 46; and cf. also 1 Th. 1:9: TOC éTEOTPÉUITE Ttpos tov Geov anto tov
ELS&AWV BOULEUEIV OES YOVII KaL aXn0wo ; 1 C1., 43, 6 : Eic to BoEao0nval to
voua tou alnoivou kai uovou 0eot. In Rev. the word a\newos is sometimes
used of God (6:10), sometimes of Christ (3:7, 14; 19:11). The same usage is found
in Jn. 7:28; 17:3; 1 Jn. 5:20, as also in Christian pap. 43 But the Gk. sense of genuine
might give rise to the same usage, as when the Athenians greet Demetrius Polior-
ketes ic Ein uovos dedg alndivbs, ol 8' anlol Kalauboua f atonin
n OUK Elotv (Athen., VI, 62, cf. 63, p. 253c, e). At this point the Semitic usage
approximates very closely to the Gk. use of &\n0wvoc. The use of nox obviously
underlies Lk. 16:11: El oUv Ev tO & IKo uquova = 120n Tinna) nlotoi ouk Lye-
VEOOE, to aAnerOv ('ANT nA) 44 tic OutV TLOTE GEL (cf. Philo Fug., 17; Praem.

42 The classical par. to Jn. 4:37 have dinOns: Soph. Ai., 664 : dAA' Éot alnons
Bpotov rapotula; Plat. Leg., VI, 757a : talaids yap Abyos alnons ov.
48 Cf. Preisigke Wort. S.v.
14 So F. Delitzsch, Hor. NT, ad loc.
 & n0wos

Poen., 104). In the case of the spoonins and 818aokaAoc in Did., 11, 11 we see
the same influence, though we are almost tempted to give the rendering "genuine."
Orig. correctly finds the Gk. sense of &ln0wvos in Joh. II, 6, 48 : rpoc avtiotaoto-
Anv oKlas Kal TUTOU kai Elkovos; cf. P. Oxy., 465, 108 : &yalua kuavou an-
Ovoi (an image of real lapis lazuli"). In this sense the LXX has dAnOn
quelos in Jer. 2:21.
3. Yet in Hellenism &An0ivoc no longer means genuine in the general sense.
In relation to divine things it has the sense of that which truly is, or of that which
is eternal, and in relation to human conduct or being it signifies their more than
earthly character as mediated by revelation or contact with the divine.

Cf. Philo Leg. All., I, 32 f.: 6 8É vouc outoc yedons Loti TO ovil Kai plaptos,
El un GEOg EUTIVEDOELEV AUT SUvquIN &nOwnS gons® totE yap yivetal . . . Eis
voEpov kal (ooav Evtwc (wuynv); for God has honoured the vouc of the Belov
TVEQua. Vit. Mos., I, 289 : onolv 6 &vé paToc 6 a nowvig opiov, batis kae® unvov
Évapyn pavtaoiav Elde 0:00 tois tis wuxis arouuntois &puaow. In the same
sense Plotin. Enn., VI, 9, 9 (II, 522,7, Volkm.) speaks of the anown Zon, and Corp.
Herm., I, 30 of the &^nOwn 8paauc. Similarly, in Corp. Herm., XIII, 2 regeneration is
described as & n0wvov &ya06v. So, too, in magic xin0ivoc means genuine in the sense
of magically potent: Preis. Zaub., VII (London), Col. XIX, 634 ff.: nÉuwov yot tov
a nOwov 'AokAntiov 8lxa TIVoc &VTLoeou TAavodaluovos, VI (London), 20 and
46 : olo& ou kal to Bap Bapika ovouara® TO 88 a nOwov ovou& FOU.

This usage is found in Hb. 8:2, where the tabernacle in heaven is described as
a newn oxnuh in contrast to the earthly, and also in Hb. 9:24, where the earthly
cultic ordinances are called &vtituna tov a neriov. 45 In Act. Thom., 88, p. 203,
15 the heavenly marriage is called the a^n0wn Kolvovia. 46 In a characteristic
development of this usage, the Johannine use of xAn0wos again introduces a
distinctive ambiguity. If the formal sense of genuine is to be seen in In. 4:23 (of
aln0iol itpookuvntal), it is with reference to the fact that such true worshippers
are determined by revelation. In the images in which Jesus is described as the
pic alnewvov (1:9) and the &unelos a\nown (15:1), ain0wvos has in the first
instance the sense of "true" or "'genuine, but genuine here means "divine" in
contrast to human and earthly reality, and it also implies "containing" & noela and
therefore "dispensing revelation." The oic alnowov of Jn. 1:9; 1 Jn. 2:8, is the
same as the pos tis gons of Jn. 8:12; and the quelos alnown is materially the
same as the &proc ths gons of Jn. 6:35, 48, with which we should also compare
Jn. 6:32 : tov &prov EK tou opavot tov ainewov. If in In. 7:28; 17:3, God is
called xlnoiv6s, in addition to the usual sense -> 248, under 6.) this implies that
He is the One who effects revelation. And when the xpios of Jesus is called
& nOwh (Jn. 8:16), this does not mean only "true" or trustworthy," but "proper
and "definitive.' That is, the judgment of the event of revelation itself is fulfilled
in it.

45 The description of the earthly as akio in distinction from xAn0wov (Hb. 8:5; 10:1)
is also found in Philo (Dibelius on Col. 2:17; Windisch on Hb. 8:5; 10:1 in his Handbuch
z. NT), and in Plotinus (Enn., 6, [1, 94, 24 ff. Volkm.1).
46 Cf. 12, p. 118, 7 f.: toy yquov tov aplaprov kal dindiov.
& n0E0G - & AGooO

+ XANOEUw.
In G1. 4:16 : GotE Ex0poc ouov yéyova dineuwv bulv, this has perhaps the
original Gk. sense of "speaking the truth, which is frequently found in jos. (e.g.,
Vit., 132 and 338), cf. also Gn. 42:16; Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 9, 53, (opp. wEu-
SeF0a1). Yet it is more likely that it means "to preach the truth,' i.e., the Gospel
(-* 244). On the other hand, XAnOEUELV Ev dyaun in Eph. 4:15 means "to be
sincere in love," unless it means "to live by true faith in love." 47
Bultmann

Good, dvra^ayua, oi-, 8t-,

kataiadoow, katailayn,
ATtOKaT., LETO^ YOOG

• dAAg000.
The basic meaning is "to make otherwise" (from a los). Outside the NT we find
both act. and med. in the trans. signif. of "to alter," "to give in exchange," or "to take
in exchange," as also in the intrans. signif. of "to change." 1 In the NT we find only the
trans. act. and pass., not med.

1. In the sense of "to alter or change" 2 it occurs at Ac. 6:14 : (Jesus) AAAgEEL
to On & TapÉ6GKEV juiv Moions; and also at Gl. 4:20, where Paul wishes that
he could & agau thy oovnv you; his passionate complaint is about the manner,
not the substance, of his speech. It also means "to change" at 1 C. 15:51 f., and
we might refer to the eschatological a^ aynooue0a of Hb. 1:12.
2. In the sense of "to exchange" 3 we find it at R.1:23 : hAagav thy 8oEav
tou dolaprou OEOU Ev ouoiouati Elkovoc peaptoi oviponou, where there is
allusion to y 105:20 : hAAaEavto Thy B6Eav aitdv av ouowuat uooyou, and

47 Dib., ad loc.: Die Wahrheit treiben in Liebe.

& A&0OG. Pass.-Cr., s.v.; Zn. R. (1910), 94 f.; Str.-B., 1II, 47 f.
Cf. Pass.-Cr., 286 f.
Also in Jos. Bell., 2, 113 etc. : thy Xopay d AaOElV, in ploughing.
3 P. Oxy., 729, 43 : dAAXOOEIV KThn TOAEiV.
 & laoo0 - dvta^ayua atta A&ooo

Jer. 2:11: o 8É Aaos you mideato thy bofav aUtoo.4 The construction with
Ev 5 in both the LXX and the NT derives from the Hebrew : 3 724.

t dvia layua.
Like the simple &^ayua (from & AGGGEly in the sense of "to exchange"), this
means "purchase-money," or abstr. "equivalent" or "substitute. Eur. Or., 1157: &6
yiorov 8É Tl To TAñdos avia ayua yewalou oliou. Jos. Bell., 1, 355 Ant., 14,
484 : Kai dc Enl toooutWV TtOAITOv povo ppaxi Kal thy ths olkovuevns hysuo-
viav dvrallayua kpivot. The LXX generally uses it to translate on> ("purchase-
price"), as in 3 Bac. 20:2; Job 28:15; Jer. 15:13; cf. also Sir. 6:15 : pi/ou TIOT0i ouK
fotiv dvraiayua; 26:14 : 00K EotIv dvta^ayua TETTOLSEVLÉVNS suxns. It is
also used for 5109 ("bribe") in Am. 5:12; for nib n (meaning uncertain) in y 54:19; for
7240 ("substitute") in Heb. Sir. 44:17; and for mnn ("exchange") in Tu. 4:7.

In the NT ovra^ayua is found only in Mk. 8:37 Mt. 16:26 : tl yap boi
&vopantos avtaMayua mis wuxns aitoi. The saying is drawn from Ps. 49:7,
and expresses the infinite seriousness of the divine judgment which takes from
man his life and therefore absolutely everything, so that any exchange is im-
possible. It does not treat of the infinite worth of the human soul as such, and
certainly not of the soul in distinction from the body." But it makes ridiculous
the avaricious desire of man for possession and enjoyment.

t aralA&oow.
The basic meaning (> a Agoow) is "to alter by removal," "to do away." Outside
the OT and NT there is a varied and developed usage : in the act. a. trans. "to dismiss
or "liberate," b. intrans. "to absent oneself" or "retire"; in the med. "to withdraw,"
"to retire." 1 In the LXX &Ta Aaood is used for 9o, "to remove" (Job 9:34; 27:5;
34:5; lep. 39:31; for 7907 "to conceal" (Job 3:10); for g00, to carry or sweep away"
(Job 9:12); and also in a looser or mistaken rendering for various other words in Ex.
19:22; Bao. 14:29; Is. 10:7; Job 7:15; 10:19.

In the NT it occurs 1. in the trans. act. in the sense of "to liberate" in Hb. 2:15,
according to common usage.2

4 On the Rabbinic exposition and amendment of the text of both passages, cf. Str.-B.,
III, 47-48.
5 Outside the LXX and NT we find only the dat., gen. or mp6c, cf. Pass.-Cr., 286 f.
avia Aayu a. Zn. Mt.2, 557, n. 87; Str.-B., I, 750 f.
The Lucan par. has Éaurov for wuxnv.
2 Cf. on this whole subject S. Dt., 329 on 32:39 (perhaps drawing on Ps. 49:7, like
Mt. 16:26): "The soul is of great value, for if a man sins against it there is no payment
for it" (571500 72 18).
ATalAaaGG. Pape, Pass., Preisigke Wort., s.v.; Rgg. Hb., 56, n. 41.
Numerous examples are given by Pape and Pass.
2 Cf. Wis. 12:2: maXAayEVTES tis kaklas (the divine chastisement), cf. v. 20; Jos.
Ant., 3,83 : alAdo0El (Moses) rou SÉOUg aUtoUc (the Israelites): 11,270: dentaa&-
Eat tou rEpl This twis ooBou to tdv "Ioubalov E0voc: 13, 363 : tis ond toic exOpoic
aita bourelas oftoc antanAdttelv hvayxaouÉvot; Isoc., 14, 18 : SouAslas ariAd-
ynoav; Phil. Spec. Leg., I, 77: Soulelas anallaynv.
anal gogo ~ Sia Agaod

It is also found 2. in the med. in the sense of "to withdraw" in Ac. 19:12:
a a GoFEoOaL tas vooous at' aitov, 3 or "to escape" in Lk. 12:58 8oc
Epyaolav anni axla d' autoi.
ain Aldy®au here is not perf, pass. but med., and therefore means "to break free"
rather than "to be freed." Cf. P. Oxy., 889, 26, 31 (3rd century B.C.): dgioi anna-
ay@at, "he proposed to break away, to be free." The perf. used here, as in Lk. 12:58,
is stronger than the aor. or pres. Jos. Ant., 6, 198 also has the med. in the sense of "to
escape" or "to become free": ata aynooual (Saul) (&T') auto0 (David) 80
gAy aitov, XXX' Ovyl &' Luautol KTEIvaS. In relation to marriage the med. is
used as a technical term for the withdrawal of the wife from her husband on the occasion
of divorce.' In this case anta^^gacoual signifies the breach of a two-sided relationship.
This may be one-sided but it has consequences for both parties (-> KaTaAAaood,
254).

t Sua^ doow.
The usage varies so much that we cannot trace it back to a single basic meaning.
a. It signifes "to alter or exchange" (like &AA&TTO) in the act. and med. b. It means
"to distinguish oneself or "surpass," sometimes with the acc. of person. c. It means
"to reconcile" in the trans. act. and pass. and the intrans. med. Cf. Xenoph. Oec., XI, 23
Sia AaTTH TIVAC THV ETLTNOELOV, TELPOUEVOC SI8 KOKELV, OC FUUpépEL auTOic
pious elvai ualdov f rolsulous; Hist. Graec., I, 6, 7: SanAagelv 'Aenvalouc kal
Aakeoatuovious; Jos. Bell., 1,320 : Tov BaailÉa TolA& Sendeic taurd Bianlattel
etc.; Eur. Hel., 1235 : 81a^^ax0ntl wou; Thuc., VIII, 70, 2 : éTEKNPUKEDOVtO AÉyov-
TEc Sia Aaynval Boule @ai. P. Giess., 17, 13 (2nd century A.D.): Bia^oryn0r Quiv;
Jos. Ant., 16, 125 'Hpo8nv SE TAPEK EL (the emperor) raoav unovolav ÉkBaAov-
ta Sia attea0at toic talolv; Ant., 7, 295 etc. On the reconciliation of God with
man, cf. Ant., 7, 153 : OKTELPEV o (eoc kal SIa attEtal. Jos. refers in Bell., 5, 415 to
To Belov Eid a Aaktov Éouo oyouuevois kal uEtavo . A distinction be
SaAA&TTElV and kaTaAA&TTEIV cannot be demonstrated. At the time of early Christi-
anity kaTa^ aTtElv had become the more common word.
In the LXX 81x Agao0 is used at Job 12:20, 24 for 7707 "to remove"; at Job 5:12 for
007, "to destroy"; at Ju. 19:3 (A): 81alaEal autnu tauto, for non, "to lead back";
at Bac, 29:4 we have Sia^Aaynoetal for 7220% "to make oneself pleasing'; at
Eo8. 4:31: gnos Bia^layi aito.

In the NT it occurs only at Mt. 5:24: Sua Aayne1 tO &8EAOO GoU. Here
Sia^aynval means "to reconcile" in the sense of seeing to it that the angry
brother, who neither seeks nor envisages reconciliation (v.23), renounces his
enmity. On the other hand, in BGU, 846, 10, 2 the letter of an errant son to his
angry mother, the Balaynti HOL denotes the action of the mother renouncing

3 Cf. Ps.-Plat. Eryx., 401c: El al voool arniayelnoav Ex tov owuatov. Jos., too.
has the med. in the sense of "withdrawing" (Vit., 131: anaxAayevov . airov) and
aita layh in the sense of "going away" (Vit., 206 : mpl tris anallayns; Ap., 1, 104 :
thy EKEiOEV anaAAaynv), and even of "dying" (Ant., 2, 150 : h EK too thv dra^layn).
Mitteis-Wilcken, II, 2, 284, 12; P. Tebt., 104, 31; P. Oxy., 104, 26 f. In the latter it is
the opp. of kata^ayñval. Cf. Preisigke Wort. under &talA&oow, 11.
8 aAAGGGD. Za. on Mt. 5:2t.
1 There are many examples in Pape and Pass.
2 Cf. Deissmann LO, 154 f., esp. 155, n. 13.
 Sia goo0 - kata dooo

her anger against the son who seeks reconciliation. Bia^ayñivaL is thus a two-
sided process in which the hostility is overcome on both sides.

t kaTa^ goon (- 81-, Antorata^^aoow, kata^layh).

It is no more possible to find a basic meaning than in the case of SalAaood, Yet
the thought of change predominates. It means a. "to change" as reflex. act.: lep. 31:39:
Toe KaThAAaEEV; TOS EOTPEWEV Vitov Mwab; b. to exchange" as trans. act. and
mid.: Plat. Phaed., 69a: poBov Tpoc poBov kata latteolal; Herod., II, 13, 12 : €T'
apyuplo kamaldeaole; C. "to reconcile" as trans. act.; Aristot. Oec., II, 15, p. 1348b,
9 : kathilagev aitous itpoc a Anous; "to reconcile oneself" as intrans. mid. (with
pass. aor. KatA^dyny); Xenoph. An., I, 6,2: kata^layelc to Kopo; Jos. Ant., 7,
184 : to JEqUTOU TaLol "porov karaliaynei, 11, 195 : kata^ayival auri
ouk :86vato, also with "pos, 5, 137: KaTaXaTTEtaL poc airnv. In the LXX
kata laooo is rare, occurring only in lep. 31:39 (supra) and 2 Macc. 1:5; 7:33; 8:29
(infra).

A. The Religious Use of kata goon outside the NT.

KaTaAA&TtEIV and kata latte fal play no essential part in even the
piatory rites (=> tAxoKouai) of Greek and Hellenistic pagan religion, though they
are used in a religious sense in e.g., Soph. Ai., 744 : feoiov oc kara^ax0f
yo^ov. The relation between divinity and humanity does not have this personal
nearness.
In Greek speaking Judaism kataNA&oFE OaL occurs, but infrequently. If, as a
result of the prayers or confession or conversion of men, God renounces His
wrath and is gracious again, this is called a kata^aynval of God. Thus in
2 Macc. 1:5 : He might hear your requests and be reconciled to you (kata^a-
yeln ouiv); or in 7:33 : if He has been wroth for a time, He will again be re-
conciled to His servants (kata^ayjoetal), cf. 8:28. In Jos. Kata atteo0aL
is similarly used of God in Ant., 6, 113 : (Samuel) Tapakareiv Hipfato TOv SEOV
KaTa A&TTE aI TO Zaoild Kai un X& ETTaIVELV. o 8É Thy ouyyvouny OOK
ETEVEUOEY. Elsewhere Jos. uses biaXAattE {al of God.
In the language of the Rabbis kaTa\ AgElv corresponds to 7y, and 5228. 1777,
Aram. *9, means "to make benevolent or well-disposed," "to placate"; 72207: "to
reconcile oneself," "to be reconciled or appeased"; ™* Aram. "to be kindly dis-
posed or reconciled." onD, Aram, one, means "to appease" or "reconcile"; owen,
Aram., ougnx to let oneself be, or to be, reconciled." 2 These words refer to the
relations between men, and between God and men. God is subject to the re-
conciling action of men in prayer, sacrifice, etc. (supra).

KatanAdaaw. A. Ritschl, Rechtfertigung u. Versohnung, II4 (1900), 231 ff. NT

theologies of P. Feine5 (1931), 234 ff., A. Schlatter, II (1910), 283 ff., H. Weinel4 (1928),
238 ff., J. Kaftan (1927), 122 f., Cr.-Ko., 129-133. Comm. on 2C: Bchm., 252-274; Ltzm.,
124 ff., Wnd., 191-199; on Romans Zn., 257 ff., Ltzm., 57, Sickbg., 213; Str.-B., III, 519 f.
On the concept of atonement in the OT - MEGG, KTA.
Not once do we find either ot-, or KaTa A&TTEIV in the inscriptions collected by
F. Steinleitner in Die Beicht im Zshg. mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der Antike (1913).
though there is reference to the chastisement of God and His becoming gracious again.
2 Str.-B., III, 519, cf. II, 365.
kata good

B. katallgoon in the NT.

1. Husband and Wife.
As in Gk. marriage records dna gooeofat is a technical term for the separa-
tion of married couples, so kata aogealaL is used for their "reconciliation" in
P. Oxy., 104, 27: édv ataayn Tou avopoc Katai ayn. As in C. 7:11
Kata^ ayfival is here an action on the part of the wife separated from her hus-
band, and not merely something which happens to her, just as in Mt. 5:24 and
BGU, 846, 10 8ia^^aynival (253) is something which is done by, and not merely
something which happens to, those who are estranged. There is no reason to
suppose that in 1 C. 7:11 the wife has left her husband more or less in a spirit
of ill-will.

2. God and Man.

a. In the NT it is only Paul who uses the word of the relation between God
and man, and KATa AGGELV is used only of God, Kata^aynval only of man.
God reconciles us or the world to Himself in 2 C. 5:18 f. He is not reconciled. Nor
does He reconcile Himself to us or to the world. On the other hand, we are re-
conciled to God in R. 5:10, or reconcile ourselves to Him in 2 C. 5:20. Thus God
and man are not on equal terms in relation to reconciliation. Reconciliation is not
reciprocal in the sense. that both equally become friends where they were enemies.
The supremacy of God over man is maintained in every respect.
KATa A& gEIV denotes a transformation or renewal of the state between God
and man, and therewith of man's own state. In 2 C. 5:18 it is introduced as the
basis of the most comprehensive renewal possible for man, namely, that he has
become a new creature, that old things have passed away and that all things have
become new. In R. 5:10, too, it denotes an incisive change. We are no longer
Exopot, doepeic, toleveic (v.6), quapto ot (v. 8), but the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts (v. 5). There is a change, not merely in the disposition of man
or his legal relationship to God, but in the total state of his life. On the other
hand, it cannot be maintained that there has been any change of mind on the part
of God, since His gracious will had been revealed long before in the OT.
b. We are reconciled by the death of Jesus (R. 5:10). As He was made sin for
us, we were made the righteousness of God in Him (2 C. 5:21). To this extent
reconciliation is parallel to justification (cf. also R. 5:10 in relation to 5:9). This
is why Aoyigeo0al, which is vital to Paul's view of justification (R. 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 10, 11, 23, 24) occurs again in 2C.5:19: un Aoyiouevos aitois to Tapa-
Trouata autov. Yet there can be no question that in reconciliation more takes
place than a mere removal of the relationship of guilt. God has sent to men His
messengers through whom He addresses men and who beseech them for Christ's
sake : "Be ye reconciled to God" (2 C. 5:20). Through the revelation of the super-
abounding love of God which did not find the sacrifice of the Son too great, and
which does not regard it as too humiliating to plead with men, we are renewed in
the total state of our life. The love of Christ controls us, according to 2 C. 5:11.
We no longer live for ourselves, but for the One who died for us and was raised
again (v. 15). We judge that we have died like all others and are new creatures
By reconciliation our sinful self-seeking is overcome and the fellowship with God
is created in which it is replaced by living for Christ. These are for Paul present
 kata^/aoo0

realities which are revealed to the conscience and which can be adduced in answer
to opponents (2 C. 5:11-15). They cannot be asserted in respect of a psychology
abstracted from the conscience. But the fact that Paul speaks of the conscience,
and makes this the basis of his self-vindication (v. 11, 12), shows that perception
of these realities is more than a mere projection of faith on an object which in
reality is not led to love by the love of God. If the new reality is both basically
and continuously brought about by God's action towards man, and if man himself
never ceases to be a sinner and carnal, nevertheless man is no mere point of
transition of the divine activity. He is a person who is visited by the love of God
and who is thus awakened to love.
This is particularly clear in R. 5:5. In us (the reconciled), the love of God has
become a present and active reality, whereas previously we lived apart from it,
and simply of ourselves. This has taken place through the Holy Spirit, who is
given to us men who still live in the flesh. Thus both the old and the new are to
be found in man, both his own heart and the Holy Spirit; yet considered in
totality he has become new through the Spirit, and he is enabled to walk in the
Spirit (R. 8:4).
It is often asked whether men are active or passive in reconciliation. The true
answer is that they are made active. By the Buakovia this kata^layns, which
conveys to them the loving act of God, God Himself makes them active, giving
them both the right and the power to reconcile themselves to God. It is true that
kat^ aynuev and Kata ayÉVTES are undoubtedly to be taken in the pass.,
and not the mid., in R. 5:10. This is demanded by the parallel to the pass. olKalo-
OÉvtES in v.9, as also by the context, which speaks of the work of the Spirit
towards uS, and not of our action. We have received reconciliation, yet not as
blows are received, but in such a way that God has besought us (2 Cor. 5:20).
The activity of a man cannot be conceived of in any higher way than in terms
of causing him to ask for the acceptance of a gift. The fact that Paul speaks of
the word of reconciliation as a request excludes any possibility of regarding man
as merely passive in reconciliation. In reconciliation, too, man is a person. It is
only because he is a person, and consequently an active being, that there can be
any reconciliation for him at all. The analogy between the KATa RYNTE of
2 C. 5:20 and the kata^ayhto of Cor. 7:11 also excludes any mere passivity
of man in reconciliation. kata^Aayñval could not be enjoined on the wife if she
were purely passive in relation to it. Even if she is not to attempt reconciliation,
she must at least agree to the attempt of the husband. If she were purely passive,
there could be no new fellowship, and therefore no reconciliation between herself
and the husband.

C. Paul always speaks of reconciliation in the form of personal confession,

namely, that "we" are reconciled (k.2:y, 10; 2 C.5:18) . He refers to the recon-
ciliation of the world only in 2 C. 5:19-20, and even here the world is not opposed
to the "we," but represents precisely the same thing in its widest possible range.
We and the world are the same in kind, because, apart from reconciliation, we,
too, are simply weak and sinful and ungodly, and reconciliation is ordained for
all without restriction. So long as reconciliation is thought to be engaged in an
ongoing progress, it is the reconciliation of the world. This is how Paul conceives
of it in 2 C. 5:19-20. For he could hardly think of his own work as Sakovia The
kata^layns, nor of the content of his message as: "Be ye reconciled," if he
believed that reconciliation was concluded in the death and resurrection of Jesus
kata agood

in such a way that what followed no longer formed any part of it. Since the
Slakovia this kata^layns has not yet come to an end, and the world has not yet
heard the Abyos tis kata layns in all its members, reconciliation itself must
not be thought of as concluded. Obviously there can be no question of any con-
tinuation or repetition of that which underlies reconciliation, i.e., the death and
resurrection of Jesus. But the ministry of the divine messengers through whose
work there is accomplished the renewal of the individuals who constitute the
world, is the ongoing execution of reconciliation. "Our" reconciliation is concluded,
and Paul can speak of it in the aorist (R. 5:9, 10 [11]; 2 C. 5:18) . But this is not so
with the reconciliation of the world. The phrase hv kata ^&0ov in 2 C. 5:19
does not denote a concluded work : "He was present to reconcile the world to
Himself"; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under con-
sideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that
Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that recon-
ciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt
between man and God, since the world as whole is not a new creation etc. This
would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconcilia-
tion and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does
not say that the world is reconciled (kata^ayels). The reconciliation of the
world is as little finished as the anoBo^n of the Jews. Both have been begun in
the cross of Christ, and both are in course of fulfilment (-258). We can call the
world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that
which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation. 3
d. The state of hostility which precedes reconciliation is not mentioned at all
in 2 C.5, and it is only alluded to in R. 5. But there is no reason to understand the
Exopol of v.10 unilaterally, to limit it to man's enmity against God. For in R. 1:18-
32 Paul speaks quite plainly of the wrath of God as a present and manifest reality,
though His patience is also manifest and operative (2:2, 5; 3:26). Indeed, in R. 11:28
the 8t' Ouas and the parallel ayain tol show us that ExOpoi is to be taken
passively, i.e., "standing under the wrath of God." Paul never ascribes to man
any lack of harmony or trust in relation to God. If something of the sort may
perhaps be deduced from the analogy of 2 C. 5:10 to C.7:11, this is only secon-
dary. In R. 8:7 the essential expression of hostility to God is disobedience, which
in 2 C. 5:15 is called living to oneself. The essential features of man's state prior
to reconciliation are his entanglement in a self-seeking which cannot fulfil the
divine command of love (R. 8:7c) and his consequent standing under the divine
displeasure (R. 8:8), wrath and judgment.
Reconciliation comes about through the death of Jesus (R. 5:10), which is ob-
viously not merely something which takes place to our advantage, nor simply
the revelation of the love of God (R. 5:8), but representative substitution for us
(2 C. 5:20, 14 f.; inep, EEayopa(o, tAaompiov). The God who reconciles us
to Himself is always at the same time the God who judges us. For this reason
reconciliation includes justification both in 2 C. 5:21: iva jueis yEvOueOa olkalo-

3 OÉUEVOS in 2 C. 5:19 is not to be subordinated to nv kaTa/gaowv, along with

un loy gouEVos ra tapatitouata aitov. The change in tense is in itself an argument
against this. Grammatically, it is continuation of the finite verb by a part.; cf. B1.-Debr.
468, Materially, the OÉUEVOC EV nuiv rov Abyov ris karaiayns denotes another
part of reconciliation, since the word is called & Abyos ms kata^ayns.
 KaTaA&ooG - Kata^ayn - & okata^ gooo

TUv 0Eot Év aitd, and in 1.19: un Aoy gouevos autoic ro napattouata

aitov. Yet as the kindling of love it embraces more than the removal of guilt in
forgiveness. If 8IKQIW0ÉVTES and KaTa^AayEVtEC are parallel in R. 5:9, 10 (cf.
the repeated nol d uarov ... owlnobuela), this does not constitute any reason
to reduce katailaynival to BiKal0ival. For to kata aynval there belongs
the kindling of love which does not lie in Sikalo0ñvat. It is in keeping with this
that, although Paul brings faith into the closest connection with justification, he
does not mention it in relation to reconciliation in either R. 5 or 2C.5, just as
he does not derive love from justification.

* katailayñ.
The meaning of kataiayn corresponds to that of KaTa aogElV, i.e., "ex-
change," and then "reconciliation." 1 In the canonical books the LXX uses it only in
Is. 9:5 (4), where there is deviation from the Mas. and the sense is obscure : 8tt itaoo
otoAnv ÉniouyuÉvnv 861@ kai luatiov uera katallayns anotelooua. The
meaning reconciliation" can be illustrated from non-biblical Gk.: Demosth. Or., 1, 4:
Ttpos on TAg Kata layas, AC &V EKEIVOC TOIMFAITO XOUEVOS "poc 'OAuvblous;
Jos. Ant., 7, 196 : uET& Thy TOU maTpoc aitd kata^laynv etc. Yet the usual term
for reconciliation elsewhere is Siallayn or ouvallayñ. In 2 Macc. 5:20 kata^Aayñ
is the opp. of the wrath of God, namely, the attitude of God turning to man again in
His grace : o KaTa El OEiC Ev T ToU Tavto<patopos opyñ TOALV Ev I tOU ueya-
lou BeattotOU KaTaAAayn uero BoEnc Értavoplion.

In Paul, who alone uses the term in the NT, it always denotes a disposition or
economy of God. Paul denotes the significance of his own word and work by
calling it the word and ministry of reconciliation (2 C. 5:18, 19). It brings before
men the action by which God takes them up again into fellowship with Himself
(cf. v. 20 : oc Too OE0U TtapaKaAoUVToc 81 nuov). Those who have allowed
this action to reach its goal in them, opening themselves to it, have received re-
conciliation (R.5:11). In R.11:15 the kara^layn Kbouou, like the droBoAn
aitov (of the Jews), is an action of God on the world which does not belong
only to the past but still continues (-* 257).

anokata agood,
diokata gooo is found in the NT only in Col. and Eph., where kataA-
lacao does not occur. Since it is never found prior to Paul, it is perhaps coined
by him. Its meaning and use are essentially the same as those of kaTa AgooG.
A difference is that in addition to God or the TAñpoua (Col. 1:20) Christ is also
the Subject of g tokata^ doow (Col. 1:22; Eph. 2:16), whereas God alone is the
Subject of kaTa Aaaoo. Yet in the case of atokata gooo as well as kata/-

katallayn. For bibl. > kataAAaoow.

1 Cf. Pape and Pass., who give examples.
Perhaps "to pay back deposit" (cf. Preisigke Wort., s.v.),
&TOKaTalAgGOd. For bibl. > KataAA&ooG. Cf. also Haupt, Ew., Dib., Loh.,
Gefbr., ad loc.
aTtokata aa W ~ UETaALGOOG

1&660 God is never the acc. obj., but only men, or they and spirits. In Col. 1:22
also reconciliation is unmistakeably of God, since He is the Subject of aTto-
KAT XGGEIV in v. 20. In men aTtOKaTa A& GEIV is preceded by alienation and
enmity (Col. 1:22). This enmity does not consist in discord or mistrust. It is "in
the mind by wicked works." If & tokaTa^&ooElv applies to the one addressed,
it is a completed fact. Its purpose is that he might stand in the last judgment
(Col. 1:22). Col. 1:20 speaks of the gracious purpose which God had demonstrated
(E886KN0EV, v. 19) to reconcile the whole world to Himself; it does not speak
of a reconciliation of the world already concluded. &okata^gau cannot refer
merely to the removal of a relationship of guilt by God, since it is plainly ex-
pounded as a conclusion of peace in Col. 1:20 and Eph. 2:15, and as a new creation
in Eph. 2:15. Hence it is not something one-sided. It embraces the total life situa-
tion of man. It does not refer merely to his guilt before God. In Eph. 2:16 re-
conciliation to God also brings reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, and in
Col. 1:20 the reconciliation of men to God also carries with it that of supra-
terrestrial beings.

In Col. 1:20 & tokatal agau has often been given a wider significance. Ewald takes
it to imply a restoration of orderly, right and original relationships ; the object is
creaturely being rather than conscious creatures. Dibelius finds in it the subjection of
all things to Christ. All such attempts are shattered by the elucidation of & tokata Ag-
Eat by Eipnvoromñoa©. In 1:20 aTtoKaTa^aEau means exactly the same as in 1:22
and Eph. 2:16. The sic autov is most simply related to God, as in 2 C. 5:19 : K6ouov
kataiAaaao Éauto. If this means that in the same sentence autoc is referred in one
case to God and the other to Christ, this is in exact correspondence with v. 22, where
the first autou can refer only to Christ and the second only to God. If we refer the
Eic autov in 1:20 to Christ, this yields the thought that the beings created in Christ
(1:16) have found in Him their Head (2:10), so that the reconciliation of all things
leads to their subjection to Christ, even though it does not consist in it.

t LETOAAdOOW.
"To alter," "to change," "to exchange,' also intrans. 1 In R. 1:25 HET AA EaV
("they changed") is the equivalent of ffaf av in v. 23, as is shown by the same
construction : "for" tl Ev tivi, which goes back to the Hebrew (= glA6cow, 252).
n a nOEla Tou 0e00 is here the self-revelation of God (v. 18-21), and therefore
the truth about God which derives from God, whereas to wE08oS is the idolatry
which sets other beings in the place of God (v. 23). HeThA^aE,arv in v. 26 takes
up again the uEThAAaEav in v. 25. The construction with Eic corresponds to the
usual tpoc construction with &aoo0. The terrible perversion of the natural in
the sexual field is a just punishment for the sinful perversion of facts in the reli-
gious.
Buchsel

Cf. the aor. in Col. 1:22; Eph. 2:16.

UETa AgOGW. Cf. Pape, Pass., S.v.
 a Anyopéw

+ a Anyopio

A. The Use of the Term.

The verb is first found in Philo and Jos., the Gk. subst. & Anyopla in Cicero
Orat. 94. Plutarch tells us in Aud. Poet., 4 (II, 19e), cf. De Isid. et Os., 32 (II,
363d), that onovola used to be the term for what is now called xinyopla.
arAnyopia and xiAnyopeiv thus derive from the Hellenistic period and probably
from Cynic-Stoic philosophy. &^^nyopeiv means a. to speak allegorically," and
b. "to explain or denote allegorically." Philo Cher., 25 : to uev on XepouBip Kae'
Eva tpoTtov oitig alAnyopeiral. 1 Plut. De Isid. et Os. ib. : ol "EXAnves Kpovov
arAnyopoiat tov xpovov, "Hpav 6É tov dépa. The former meaning fits Gl. 4:24 :
&tivg jotv a1nyopo ueva® aftai yap Eloiv 8uo Staenkat. That is, the OT
story of Sarah and Hagar is allegorical.

B. The Application of Allegorical Exposition.

1. The allegorical exposition of ancient tradition is found among the Indians,
Mohammedans, Greeks, Jews and Christians. It occurs with a certain regularity
where an authoritative tradition is outstripped by development but is neither dis-
carded nor interpreted historically. Among the Greeks? the myths came to be ex-
plained allegorically because many of them, esp. the Homeric tales of the gods,
caused offence (Xenophanes, Pythagoras, Plato). Allegorical interpretation was
supposed to constitute an antidote' or a "healing" of myth, and was practised
by Antisthenes, the Stoics and the Pergamenes. In method, e.g., in the handling
of names, which plays a great role in Philo, 5 the Jewish and Christian interpreta-
tion of the OT is dependent on this allegorical exposition of Homer.
2. The first representative of Gk. Judaism whom we can certainly demonstrate
to have undertaken the allegorical interpretation of the OT to any large extent is
the Alexandrian Aristobulus about the middle of the 2nd century B.C. 8 It can
hardly be doubted that he took over the allegorical method from the Greeks, for
he is saturated with Greek culture and uses the same method to interpret Greek

d Anyoped. On A, cf. Pass.-Cr., 288. On B, K. Muller in Pauly-W. Suppl., IV,

16 ff. (where fuller bibl. is given); C. Siegfried, Philo (1875); Schuirer, Index, S.v.,
"Allegorie'; Bousset-Gressm., 160-161; E. Stein, "D. allegor. Schriftauslegung d. Philo v.
Al," ZAW, 51 (1929); H. Heinemann, Philons griech. u. jud. Bildung (1932), 138 ff.,
454 ff.; A. Schlatter, D. Theol. des ]dts. nach d. Bericht des Josephus (1932), 235 f.; Steinm.
on Gl. 4:24; Str.-B., III, 385-399.
Cf. Mut. Nom., 67; Som., II, 207.
2 Pauly-W. op. cit. Relics of the resultant literature are to be seen in Heracl. Hom. All.,
Ps.-Plut. Vit. Poes. Hom., Cornutus De Natura Deorum,
Heradl. Quaest. Hom., 22, p. 32, 18 (ed. Soc. Phil. Bonn).
4 TOU ubfou ÉepaTieuua, Eustath. Thessal. Comm. in Hom. II., p. 1504, 54.
6 Cf. Stein, 53-61.
& Schurer, III, 384-392; A. Schlatter, Gesch. Isr.3 (1925), 82-90; Stein, 7-11.
& Anyopeo

poetry. Self-evidently the method would not have been adopted by the Jews if
they had not been long accustomed to understand Scripture in all its parts as the
fount of mysterious divine wisdom concerning this world and the next, the tasks
of the present and the events of the future, in short, as supratemporal divine
Word. Against a Greek derivation the argument has little weight that there are
genuine allegories in the OT 8 which must have taught the scribes the art of inter-
pretation. The ingenious skill with which cosmological or moral lessons are ex-
tracted from texts which do not seem to offer them is far too refined to be ex-
plained simply as a development of the exposition demanded by OT allegories.
Judaism owes it to its contact with the Greeks. The allegorical interpretation of
Scripture established itself in the time between Aristobulus and Philo. In the
Epistle of Aristeas (148-171) it makes possible the extraction of profound ethical
wisdom from the ritual definitions of the OT.9 On the other hand, Philo himself
tells us that before him there were expositors who accepted only the literal sense
and rejected all allegorising. 10 Yet he also tells us that there were others who
accepted only the allegorical sense and rejected the literal observance of the Law,
so that Judaism was dissolved altogether into philosophical ethics and cosmology. 11
Against this background Philo personally emerges in his allegorising as a theologian
of the centre who avoids extremes and can combine diverse elements. His signifi-
cance is to be found in the main in his fruitfulness, though many of his actual inter-
pretations may well be older. The breadth and depth with which he worked over
the Greek cultural heritage made possible and natural this fruitfulness in the
allegorical interpretation of the OT. 12 Rightly to evaluate his allegorising, we must
not forget that, for all his arbitrariness in interpretation, Philo never surrenders the
literal validity of the text. The Law is to be observed literally, and he accepts the
factuality of what is narrated in the OT. For all his Greek culture and mystical
piety, Philo is a convinced Jew ready to sacrifice himself for his faith. To maintain
that the literal sense 13 of the OT commands and narratives is not essential in
Philo, but that he is concerned only with the allegorical meaning, is to make deduc-
tions which he himself rejected.
Naturally, Philo was influenced by rationalising criticism of the OT. He rejected
its anthropomorphisms and even criticised individual historical accounts. 14 Never-
theless, he maintained expressly and in all seriousness that those who could not
bear the full truth declared by allegorical exposition should keep to the literal
sense (Som., I, 231 ff.). Thus, those who could not love God as pure being should
fear Him as the One who threatens and punishes (Deus Imm., 69). The literal

7 Schlatter, Gesch., 86 f.
8 Cf. Gunkel, RGG?, I, s.v. "Allegorie."
9 The dating of Aristeas is much contested. Schuirer, III, 48 argues for C. 200 B.C.;
E. Bickermann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 280 ff. for 145-100; Wendland in Kautzsch, Apokryphen,
II. 3 for 96-63 (as also P. Riessler, Altjid. Schrifttum [1928], 1277); Bousse-Gres., 27 for
40 B.C.-30 A.D. The most commonly accepted date is c. 96 B.C. (cf. RGG2, I, S.v.
"Aristeas").
10 Som., I, 92 ff.
11 Migr. Abr., 89 ff.; Cf. Heinemann, 454.
12 Cf. the material assembled on the basic principles of Philo's allegorising and their
application in Siegfried, 166-199.
Naturally, it is quite another question that in all probability Philo knew only the Gk.
and not the Heb. text of the OT, cf. Schlatter, Gesch., 31, n. 43; Heinemann, 524 ff.
For examples, cf. Siegfried, 165-168.
 a^AnyopEd

sense has only a subordinate significance. Yet it is still essential, since those for
whom it is present are always the majority. 15
In this matter we should bear in mind the highly complicated nature of Philo's
theology. It maintains an artificial balance between a legal and literalistic Judaism
on the one side and an intellectual and spiritualistic mysticism on the other, never
inclining too much to either the one or the other, but keeping the two in equi-
librium.

3. The early vindication and practice of allegorical exposition even in scribal

circles in Palestine is shown by the canonicity of the Song of Solomon. Only by
means of allegorising could this collection of love songs be understood as a re-
presentation of the love which binds Israel to God. 16 The only question is whether
there is a difference of degree or of principle between the Alexandrian and
Palestinian theologians. The difference of degree is unmistakeable. Among the
Palestinians allegorical interpretations 17 are both rarer and less arbitrary ; the
distance between the literal meaning and the allegorical is much less. In general,
the Palestinians are not so well instructed as Aristobulus and Philo in cosmology,
psychology and similar achievements of Greek learning.18 Their concern is with
questions more closely linked with the natural sense. For this reason they are less
capable of allegorising, and have less need of it. Nevertheless, they applied it as
needed, even in relation to the OT commands. 19

The older contention 20 that allegorical interpretation is found in Palestine only in

exceptional cases is now outdated. Similarly, attempts 21 to distinguish between the
allegorical interpretation of the Alexandrians and the typological of the Palestinians
in terms of an acceptance of historicity on the part of the latter and indifference to it on
the part of the former, miss the decisive point. On the whole, Philo himself intends to
maintain the historicity of what is narrated.2 The decisive point is the attitude to the
Greek Enlightenment and its biblical criticism. Philo was open to this, though not
without reservations ; the Palestinians were closed to it, though not completely. There
is thus the same broken attitude on both sides ; consequently a distinction only of degree
and not of principle is to be discerned. 23

15 This is not sufficiently taken into account in Str.-B., III, 397 f.

16 Schlatter, Gesch., 356.
17 On 122, cf. Schurer, II3, 348 f. and F. Weber, Jud. Theol. auf Grund d. Talmud-
(1897), 118 ff.
18 Cf. e.g., Schlatter, 356. The criticism of OT anthropomorphisms was not without its
effect on the Palestinian Rabbis, as may be seen from the restriction of anthropomorphisms
in the Targums, in which traces of other Gk. influence may also be detected, Schlatter,
Gesch., 306-308. On the other hand, they consciously and powerfully resisted such in-
fluences.
10 Str.-B., III, 391 ff. shows that the application of allegorical methods to the pronounce-
ments of the Law was often undertaken as kind of "harmless, homiletical pastime, yet
sometimes with serious intent. Schlatter, Theol. d. ]dts., 235 also recognises that allegory
seemed to be indispensable to the Jerusalem teachers in their interpretation of prophecy,
and that they also applied it to the historical part of the Pentateuch.
20 Bousset, 185 f.; E. Bréhier, Les Idées philos. et relig. de Philon? (1925), 45 f.
21 Cf. EJ, II, 338; O. Michel, Pls. und seine Bibel (1929), 110.
22 Cf. again Siegfried, 163.
23 Michel correctly observes (111) that it is "obvious that there are many links between
Philo and Palestinian exegesis."
arAnyopéG

The conception of Scripture is in essentials the same. For the Palestinians, toc,
it is in keeping with the dignity of Scripture that it has many meanings. "As the
hammer causes many sparks to fly, so the word of Scripture has a manifold
sense. 24 In view of all this, it seems overwhelmingly probable that the allegorical
exposition of Scripture came to the Palestinians from the Alexandrians, so that in
the last analysis it derives from Greek influence even in its Palestinian form. 25
There might well have been first steps in this direction in local Palestinian scholar-
ship, 2 but further development came only under Greek influences by way of
Alexandria.
Most instructive is the position of Josephus, who was writing for the Greek
world, but was originally a Palestinian. As a historian he has little occasion to
allegorise, Ant., 1, 25 ; and he can sometimes (Ap., 2, 255) speak sharply against
tac puxpac "poogoels tov a Anyopiov among the Greeks. Yet he unhesitat-
ingly accepts the legitimacy of allegorical interpretation. Moses spoke allegorically
HET& oEUV6ItO© (Ant., 1, 24). Accordingly, he himself interprets allegorically the
tabernacle and its furnishings (Ant., 3, 179-187). His allegorising is wholly along
Alexandrian lines. Because Moses gave TOOO0tOV outoloyias in his giving of
the Law and narration of history (Ant., 1, 18), the tabernacle and its furnishings
must be evaluated as a representation tov 8Aov (Ant., 3, 180). He did not, of
course, allegorise the halachot of the OT.21 What we see in Josephus does not
indicate, therefore, that there was any essential difference between Palestinian and
Alexandrian allegorising.
4. There is no allegorical handling of Scripture either in the Synoptic sayings
of Jesus or in John, but we find it in Paul in C. 5:6-8; 1 C. 9:8-10; 1 C. 10:1-11;
G1. 4:21-31. Paul's allegorising is closer to the Palestinian than the Alexandrian,
since he does not use it to extract cosmological, psychological or similar lessons
from the text. Yet formally the distinction from Philo is only one of degree. He
allegorises in the true sense. 28 If there is a distinctive feature as compared with
Jewish allegorising, both Palestinian and Alexandrian, it is that he expounds
Scripture as one who lives in the time of its fulfilment (1 C. 10:11), as one for
whom the veil is thus removed which had previously lain over its reading (2 C.
3:14), so that the true sense of the OT may now be seen. Allegorising is thus a
means to carry though his understanding of Scripture in terms of the centrality of
Christ or the cross. In this regard Hebrews continues the work of Paul (7:1 ff.).
Hence, for all the formal dependence of Christianity on Judaism and Hellenism,
we really have a new beginning in this field which demonstrates the independence
of Christianity.
Bichsel

24 bSanh., 34a; bShab., 88b; M. Ex. 15:12. Cf. Kittel Probleme, 94 f. The much quoted
statement : "The meaning of Scripture does not go beyond the sphere of the literal" (iShab.,
63a), cannot be used in opposition, since the 7 rules of Hillel and the 13 of Ishmael (cf.
Strack, Einl., 96 ff.) show what can be gleaned from the literal wording.
25 Cf. Kittel, op. cit., 85, who thinks it likely that Gk. philosophy had some effect on
Palestinian Judaism.
28 Schirer, III3, 548, n. 22.
21 If Josephus interprets dreams allegorically (e.g., Ant., 17, 345) as quo BoAts into
TOU OEloU AEyOuEVa (Bell., 3 352), this is simply along the lines of the OT itself. Cf.
Schlatter, Theol. d. ]dts., 235
As against Michel, op. cit., 110.
 xiAnovia ~ gos

* x Anouic
Heb. 723551, "praise Yahweh,' found in the LXX in u 104-106, 110-112, 113-118,
134-135, 145-150.1 It is doubtful whether it is a heading or a conclusion.' In favour
of the latter view we might refer to a. Midr. Ps. 104 27 (224b), which attaches Halle-
lujah to v. 35 of Ps. 104 (Heb.) ; 3 b. the Odes of Solomon, which always conclude with
Hallelujah ; c. the liturgical use in Jewish (Hellenistic) worship, which has it sung by
the congregation and makes it an independent acclamation (Tob. 13:8; 3 Macc. 7:13).
Christian worship adopted the same practice: Mart. Mt., 25 : J&XAEIV TO d^Anovid,
and after a Psalm : TOVtEG brexpat,av" 'Anlouia. 'AnAouia is also a song of
the angels (ib., 26).

In the NT it occurs only at Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6, where it introduces or merges into

a hymn of victory and forms with ourv (19:4) an independent response.
Schlier

ailos, aal6tpi0s, anta^otplow,

dAloyevns, diAbouloc

a loc.
If even in ancient Greek it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between
O ETEPOS (the other where there are two) and &^os (another where there are
many), since the latter shades into the former and the former into the latter, 1 in
the Koln and the NT this kind of distinction becomes quite impossible. "Both
words deny identity." 2 Neither Heb. nor Aram. has more than one word for
"other" : x, 17mx. gtepoc is never found in the genuine Mk., the Epistles of Peter,
or Rev., and only once in John (19:37). & os is often used where only two are
in question, as in Mt. 5:39 (Lk. 6:29); 12:13; 27:61; 28:1; Jn. 18:16; 20:3, 4, 8; 19:32.
a^os and Étepos are also used interchangeably with no recognisable difference,
as in Mt. 16:14; 3 1 C. 12:8-10; 2 C. 11:4; Hb. 11:35-36. In Gl. 1:6,7: Elc gtEpov
EBayyÉAIOV, & o0k Éotiv &110, we again find the two in the same sense: "Unto

ailnlouid. 1 n instead of E: cf. Dalman Gr., 191, 2.

2 It is probable that no general decision can be made. Cf. also H. B. Swete, An Introduc-
tion to the Old Testament Greek (1900), 250 f.
3 Str.-B., III, 497.
A oS. Bl.-Debr. § 306; Zahn on Gl. 1:6, 7.
Cf. Pass.-Cr., S.v. & os; and other dictionaries on &^Aoc and Étepoc.
2 Zn., op. cit.
3 Schl. Mt., 503 compares ol LEV HYYEAAov, ol 8€ ETEPOI SE BEYOV, Jos. Bell.,
6, 398.
aAAoc & Aotpioc - arta lotpiow

another gospel which is not another, i.e., which is really no gospel at all, but + a
human teaching.

$ d^^6tpioc.
"What belongs to an &Xos," and therefore "strange," also "alien," "unsuitable,"
and even finally "hostile." 1 The LXX normally uses it to render >73}, and some-
times Tt.

In the NT it is mainly used to denote "what belongs to another": olkÉins

(R. 14:4), K6tol (2 C. 10:15), kavov (2 C. 10:16), quaptia (1 Tm. 5:22), atua
(Hb. 9:25), yñ (Ac. 7:6; Hb. 11:9). Substantively, To ^Aorpiov is used as the opp.
of to Outtepov in Lk. 16:12.2 It can also denote that which does not form part
of the subject in question, ¾ and it is thus used in opp. to vlo[ in Mt. 17:25 and
"tolunv in Jn. 10:5. Finally, it has the sense of "hostile" in Hb. 11:34. In the NT,
however, it is never used in the sense of alien to God.

* d tallotpi6w.
"To estrange or alienate." 1 aranAorpiodaal and ata otpi 0fvai usually have
pass. rather than a reflex. significance. Polyb., I, 79, 6 : h Eapoo arenAAotpioon
Kapxnoovoc, is not reflex. but pass., as shown by the context, cf. I, 82,7. As against
this it must be conceded that in Ps. 58:3; Hos. 9:10; Is. 1:4 (Qmg) a1n AAotp@lnoav
has the meaning that "they have estranged or alienated themselves." In the LXX the
word renders 9717, 772, 711, 722. It is also found in Jos. (Ant., 4, 3; 11, 148).

In the NT we find only the part. perf. pass. and the word occurs only in the
Prison Epistles at Col. 1:21 and Eph. 2:12; 4:18. It denotes the state prior to re-
conciliation. The parallel expressions make it plain that in all three passages it
applies only to this state. Col. 1:12: 8vrac & orpiwuevous kai ty@pous th
Siavola Ev toic #pyois tois rovn poic; Eph. 2:12: *nAAorpiouÉvo this ToAl-
TElac tou 'lapai^ kal Eevoi Tov Biaenkiv ths EnayyEAlas KtA.; Eph. 4:18 :
€OKOTOLÉVOI Th Bravola Bvtes amilotpiouÉvo ths gois TOU OEOU.' There

4 Examples of this meaning of et un may be found in Ditt. Or., 201, n. 33.

dAAbTpios. Pass.-Cr., Pr.-Bauer, Cr.-Ko., s.v.
1 The fullest examples are given in Pass.-Cr. Under no. 4 there are examples of the
sense of "alien,' and under no. 5 of "'hostile.'
Although there is good attestation for juÉtepov BL Orig. or Éuov 157e i1 Mcion, we
must keep to the usual reading ouÉtEpov. To describe the eternal good as divine by means
of nuÉtepov (€u6v) is only to weaken the profound thought that the true possession of
man is the eternal good ascribed to him by God ; cf. Zn., ad loc.
Correspondingly we find in Jos. Bell., 2, 409 that no sacrifice of xrAotpiot should be
accepted ; and in 7, 266 & otpiol is the opp. of olkelotatol.
aTa TOTPIOG. Cr.-Ko., s.v.
Examples may be found in Pape and Pass.
Cf. y 68:9 : annAotpiwuevos Eyeviony roic aoe/poic you kai §evoc toic uloic
ths untpoc you; Ez. 14:5 : katd tac xapblac afrov tac annilorpiouavas & Tr® quot
Ev tois Evouunuaow airdv; Ps. Sol. 17:15 : tv arAotpioin ti 8 ExOpoc kro(noav, Ev
irepnoavlg: kal i kapola adtoi arlorpla dnd tou 0:00 quov. The meaning ex-
cluded" or expelled" is possible (Jos. Ant., 11, 148: oc Tov
OOK drain aaviav
 atalAotpi6o - X^oyevc
is reference to a process or act which has brought about this state, whether we
think of the judgment of God or the guilt of man, only to the extent that this state
is culpable and worthy of condemnation ; the presuppositions of the state are no
longer expressly in view. As the parallels €x0p6s and EÉvos show, &1n^otpio-
uÉvos means almost the same as &lorpioc. Aristot. Pol., II, 8, p. 1268a, 40 : &1A6-
tplov the ToAITElac is a striking parallel to Eph. 2:12. Light is also shed on
Eph. 4:18 by Pol., II, 8, since ovdevoC HETéXOv in the latter is parallel to &^A6-
tptov, and ain^ otpiQuévos in the former means "without a share in (the life
of God).'

-f dAloyevns.
"Alien" or "foreign," the opp. of Éyyevns and OUYyEvñs, also E0YEvnS, and par.
to AAA6qUAoS, AMAOEOING, ÉTEPOEOVNS, also andan6, anop The word is
found only in Jewish and Christian Gk.; there are no pagan examples. The LXX uses
it for 1 Ex. 29:33; Nu. 16:40 (17:5); Lv. 22:10 (not of priestly descent); JI. 3(4):17;
Jer. 51 (28):51; Ob. 11 (not of Israelite descent); or for 19307)-12 ("son of an alien land"):
Ex. 12:43; Lv. 22:25; Is. 56:3. 6; 60:10; Ez. 44:7, 9; also for 7172 ("bastard"):1 Zech. 9:6.
Philo has it in Som., I, 161; Spec. Leg., I, 124; IV, 16; Virt., 147, but it is not found in
Josephus.

In the NT it is used only of the Samaritan who gives thanks in Lk. 17:18.
Elsewhere it is found only on the inscription on the barrier in the temple at
Jerusalem :2 un0Éva aMoyevn ELOTOPEUEOOaL Evtoc TOU TOUPXKTOU KAi TEPI-
Bolov, 8c 8' &v Anpen, Éautd altios foral 81& TO EEXKONOUOEIV BOVATOV.
With the help of the hypothesis that this inscription comes from the Roman govern-
ment, 3 attempts have been made to show that d^loyevs also occurs in secular
Gk. But since this hypothesis is palpably mistaken, we must accept the fact that,
even if anoyevns was not coined by the Jews, it was given its meaning by them.
This is in full accord with the fact that genealogy, not in the sense of nationality
but of descent from Abraham, had a significance for the Jews hardly paralleled
among any other people.'

The inscription has come down intact ; cf. the illustration in Deissmann and quotations
in Jos. Bell., 194; 6, 124 f.; Ant., 15, 417. Its commencement is thus un0éva aMoyevn,
i.e., xl0yEvns is used in the absolute. Consequently the inscription speaks from a
Jewish rather than a Roman standpoint, and is thus Jewish in derivation. If it were
Roman, the use of the absolute a^loyEvns for non Jews would be quite inexplicable.
It would have run somewhat as follows: Access for Jews only, no alien may In
addition, the Jews themselves, i.e., the priests and their officers, had control of the
temple. 5 According to Jos., Titus says expressly that, as the Jews built the barrier, so

arta/Aotpw0noouÉvov Tou TAndouc), but seems less likely in view of the parallels.
cAloyevns. Cr.-Ko., 237; Deissmann, LO, 61; Dausch Synopt., 528.
1 In the sense of mixed descent, cf. Ges.-Buhl, s.v.
Ditt. Or., 598; Schuirer, II, 272 f.; Deissmann, LO, 61.
T. Mommsen, Rom. Gesch.4 (1894), 513, also Dittenberger and Deissmann.
+ Cf. the emphasis placed by the Jews on genealogical records, 1 Chr. 1-9; Mt. 1 etc.; on
this point cf. G. Kittel in ZNW, 20 1921), 49 ff. Even the full proselyte could never
describe the patriarchs as 11'012X.
Schurer, II, 271 ff. Mommsen and Dittenberger seem not to have considered this point.
&^AoyEvns - & A6QUA0S - quaptavo

they set up the Gk. and Lat. inscriptions (Bell., 6, 124 f.); the right to execute those who
violated the prohibition was guaranteed by the Romans (126). The ox Dueis in 124
and 125 (the Jews) and the oox queis in 126 (the Romans) correspond too plainly to
leave any doubt that the Romans invested the Jews with the right referred to but did
not themselves put up the inscriptions. The use of Lat. shows regard for the Roman
government but does not prove that the Romans were responsible for the inscriptions.
It is striking that Jos. does not use a^AoyEvns in any of his three versions of the
inscription. He has no equivalent in Bell., 6, 125, &^A6ouAoc in 5, 194 and AAAOEOvéC
in Ant., 15, 417. His reason for avoiding x^loyevns is that he is writing for non-Jews.
Perhaps he or his revisers feared that the word might offend non-Jews by seeming to
deny them E0yÉvela. It is improbable that it was avoided on literary grounds, since
Philo, who writes a cultured and not a popular Gk., does not avoid it in writing for
Jews.

"Of alien descent," "foreign." It is found from the time of Aeschylus and Thucy-
dides. 1 In the LXX it is used for 921 12 in Is. 61:5; for "731 in Is. 2:6; for 0°0ti28
in S. 13:3; Ps. 108:10 (cf. 1 Macc. 4:22). Jos. uses it in Ant., 9, 102 and 291; 11, 150;
Bell., 5, 194.

In the NT it is found only at Ac. 10:28 to denote the Gentiles from the stand-
point of the Jews. According to Dg., 5, 17 the Jews treat Christians as &1A6ou ot.
Biichsel

AAAOTPLETIOKOTIOS > ETtlOKOTtos gloyos AÉyG

suapravo, cuapiua, quaptia

A. Sin in the OT.
1. The Words used in the OT.
a. The concept of sin is linguistically expressed in many ways in the OT.
Indeed, justice is hardly done to this variety either in the LXX with its summary

diAbou^os. Pr.-Bauer, Pape, S.v.; Cr.-Ko. under X^oyevs.

Examples are given by Pape and Pass.-Cr.
d apTavd, KTA. It is to be noted that the authorship of these articles on the
word group quapt- is particularly complex. Examples from the OT and LXX were pro-
vided by G. Quell and G. Bertram. The basis of the MS. was provided by G. Stahlin, but
in his absence on a journey to India this was worked over by W. Grundmann and K. H.
Rengstorf. Section D. was left virtually unaltered; sections C. and E. were much revised
and extended by Grundmann, with contributions from H. Kleinknecht and K. G. Kuhn and
section F was completely recast by Grundmann. The articles on quaptw^oc and avauap-
itos, which were not originally planned as separate articles, were contributed by K. H.
Rengstorf.
On A: K. Umbreit, Die Sunde, ein Beitrag z. Theologie des AT (1853); J.C. Matthes,
ThT, 24 (1890), 225 ff.; J. Koberle, Sunde u. Gnade im relig. Leben d. Volkes Israel (1905);
 quaptovo

use of quaprla, quapiua, quaproros, xuaptovo, or ad1kla, &8IKOG, &8IKEw,

or dvoula, &oÉpela, kakia and their derivatives, nor by our modern translations,
which neither express the richness of the original nor even catch the decisive point
in some cases. In English, for example, some Heb. expressions like bUx and riy,
and sometimes others, are usually rendered "guilt" as indicating a distinctive aspect
of sin, but in the Gk. Bible the same words (e.g.,ry)1 are usually translated by
the terms adduced or sometimes (e.g., Dox) by other equivalents which are even
less appropriate. The following examination will indicate both the most important
LXX usage and also the rich variety of the Heb. mode of expression.
duaptia is mostly used for ANgL (238 times) and rig (70 times). Of the other deriva-
tives of NoM, NON is translated by it 28 times, axon 8 times, and axon, Nion, and the inf.
xon once each. In the case of other Heb. equivalents, it is used for yue 19 times, for
the verb yuE twice, for Dox, apox and box 4 times, twice and once. In addition, it is
used twice for ym, and maviA, and in what often seems to be a "theologisation" it is
used once each for w5n (Is. 53:4), munp (Is. 65:2), 42102 (Jer. 14:7), 7315g (Ez. 36:19),
Aram. T22 (Da. 6:5). myn f (Prv. 26:26), 7xnb (Lv. 14:19), 127 (1 K. 22:53): Aram.nb12g
(Da. 6:23) and yws in hi (Da. 11:32). quapmua is mostly used for nxon, rig and
yoe (8 and 4 times). It is also used once each for Non, 902, 777 (Hos. 10:13) and
7#2 (Nu. 1:53 incorrectly). xuaptoA6s is used 72 times for 977 and twice for y77,
also for nom (11 times), 78on and xoh (once each), and for the verb kom (twice); also
once each for 527, 92 and winn (y 128[129]:3 in a "theologisation"). quaptavo occurs
162 times for Non qal and twice for hi. It also represents the verbs §the (Lam. 3:42),
DUN (3 times), byn, nnwi pi (once), nivy (in expressions like Nu. 5:7: 1009 ON anxon)
and 909 hi (each 3 times). It is only mistakenly or in intentionally free translations
that nouns are rendered quaptovo, e.g., nxom (in Gn. 4:7 Quaptes incorrectly for
r2 '1; S. 20:1 tl juapika for S9xo0 7 etc.), xon, Non and yue (each 3 times);
also oox, aptx, and 907 (each twice) and rig (once). &8ikla has 36 equivalents, of
which 19 (50 times) is the most common, whereas yue is found only 7 times and Axon
Da. 9:24) and DUx (lep. 28 [Jer. 51]:5) only once each. We also find 7229 (14 times),
513 (9), 118 and bog (8), 220 (7, confined to Psalms), nyn f and pus (4). The only

W. Staerk, Sunde u. Gnade nach d. Vorstellung d. alteren Judentums, bes. d. Dichter der
sog. Busspsalmen (1905); F. Bennewitz, Die Sunde im alten Israel (1907); H. Seeger, Die
Triebkrafte d. relig. Lebens in Israel u. Babylon (1923), 87 ff.; J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life
and Culture (1926), 411 ff.; S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, I (1921), 39 ff.; J. Hempel,
"Sinde u. Offenbarung nach at. u. nt.licher Anschauung," Z. syst. Th., 10 (1932), 163-199.
On C : F. Weber, Jidische Theologie2 (1897); Moore, I, 445-552; Bousset-Gressm., 399 409;
F.C. Porter, The Yecer Hara, A Study of the Jewish Doctrine of Sin, Bibl. and Sem.
Studies of Yale Univ. (1902), 93-156; A. Bichler, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the
Rabbin. Literature of the First Century (1928). On E: K. Latte, "Schuld u. Sunde in der
griechischen Religion,' ARW, 20 (1920/21), 254-298; O. Hey, Apaptia, Philologus, 83
(1927). 1-17, 137-163; J. Stenzel, "Metaphysik des Altertums," Hdbch. d. Philosophie (1929/
31), 17 ff.; H. Weinstock, Sophokles (1931): F. X. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zshg. mit
der sakralen Rechtspflege in d. Antike (Diss. Munchen, 1913). On D to F: Cr.-Ko., 136 ff.;
Trench, 152 ff.: Ltzm. R., 75 ff.; E. de Witt-Burton, Crit. and Exeg. Comm. on the Ep. to
the Gal. (1921), 436 ff.; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt in Glauben des Pls (1909). 119 ff.;
R. Otto, Sinde und Urschuld (1932). Cf. also the NT theologies.
Only Gn. 4:13 is rendered by the most appropriate altia (- 280).
a TAnuuelsia, -Aeiv ("mistake in singing") is most commonly used (22 times); other
equivalents are gyvoia (5), Bacavoc (4), even lAaouos (Am. 8:14 fem.) and Kata-
plouos (Prv. 14:9). suapria is used only in Lv. 5:7: Nu. 18:9 (pl.); 2 K. 12:17: Is. 53:10;
and &8ikla in Jer. 28(51) :5.
auaptove

other equivalents of material interest, and occurring only once or twice each, are 907
992, 717, 712, (Ez. 21:32), 513, Aram. N712 (Da. 4:24), 92, 707, 7277 and 7729, together
with the name of the well in Gn. 26:20 (pry) and the abbreviation for ⅔pn n72 (Ez.
12:2). aoixnua, too, is mostly used for 112 (5 times) and ye (4) and also P09 (twice)
and oon, 721g, 33, 795 and ootp (once each). goikoc occurs 33 times for pm (as
nomen rectum), 10 times for bon, and 8 for ay. It is also used for 512, yu) (4 each),
512 (3), 72%, 7972, P79, 92 (2 each), M2107n, 7321, 799) and thh (1 each). &8IKE© is
used for NON (3 times), yue, gyn and 909 hi (1 each). On the other hand, it is used
14 times for piry, 3 for byn, (Da. 9:5 6 [A] for 712). Of relevant nouns, we may cite
ogn (twice) and nan (once). dvoula is used for 24 Heb. equivalents: 63 times for
ny, 26 for 11x and mavin (only in Ez. apart from Jer. 16:18), 20 for yoe (Is. 53:12 verb),
8 or 5 for agon and yui7; 7 each for net, bon, T21g and nAbn. More rarely it is used for
byre, yy2, 137, 797, bye, 2222, aby, 7233, nato (Is. 5:7), 776, 3g3, agi (Ps. 139:24 per-
haps for 217-727 "injurious word, Gunkel), pny, ribp and 727, also once for the verb
now hi. &vouos is used 31 times for yun, but only once for Nom (Is. 33:14). It is also
used for n2* (5 times), for 920, 593, 53., and twice for 719. The infrequent ovbunua
occurs sometimes for 713, 909 (3 times each), ner, nxon (twice each) and 7222, agin
and thon (once). dvousiv translates yon (qal and hi 8 times), ywp and nnti (pi and hi)
three each. It is also used for my, Syn, Non (©Da. 9:5 ?) and some nouns. dotBela,
which with quapria has the strongest religious accentuation of all the equivalents, is
most commonly used for yua, (27 times), then for yon and myt;) (4 times), more rarely
for Th, 7171, ne1, bon, 7272, 720, 42122, my3, magin etc. It occurs only twice each for
nxon and fig, and even in these cases there is some textual doubt. GoEBns is mostly
the equivalent for ymn (14 times), other terms being of little significance. The case is
much the same with GoEBeiv, except that now yup is strongly represented (10 times)
and Nom does not occur at all. Worth noting is 777 in Lam. 3:42. kakia corresponds
for the most part to the derivates of yyn, but also, though the MSS differ, to ny,
in Ch. 21:8; Jer. 16:18; 13:22 (A), to 714 in Is. 29:20 and to hADn in Jer. 15:13 (A).
The same is true of kak6g, for which, with yg etc., the following equivalents deserve
mention : 1;* (3 times), npt (Prv. 10:23), bpy (Job 16:2), yt) (Prv. 16:12), 1219 (Job
22:23). KQK00V is used in Is. 50:9 for 907 hi, KQKOTOLEIV in 2 S.24:17 (A) for 009
hi. As equivalents for 77 or fn in the religious sense we often find GOETEIV, &OIOTX.
vol (both also for yuo), queleiv (Jer. 4:17), Épicelv (1 K. 12:14 f.), TapaBaivElV,
TXPOEUVELV (for im9 B"08 a Nu. 20:24), un EloaKoUEIV (Is. 1:20), and esp. rtapa-
TLKpaIVEIV (Ez.2:3 for jhn and 18 times for ap: in Ez. olkos TtapattiKpaivov
9 times for 379 n2).

The reasons for these defects in translation are not to be sought only in the
methods of the translators but also in the peculiar difficulty of the Heb. usage. It
is obvious that among the many words to be considered none was exclusively
devoted to religious and theological use and therefore none constitutes an exact
equivalent to the English "sin." All the Heb. words in question had a secular as
well as a religious sense, and, disparate though the relation often is, the very fact
of this twofold usage constitutes a warning not to overestimate the purely religious
content of the term. On closer inspection all seem to be more or clearly the results
of rational reflection which is religious in content. They are theologoumena rather
than original terms of spontaneous experience, and the meaning falls into different
groups. This explains why the subjectivity of the translator plays a more important
role than is helpful. Sometimes a religious emphasis is imported where none was
 quaptovo

meant, 3 and sometimes a secular word is used which weakens the religious con-
tent. + At any rate, the relatively rich linguistic differentiation in the Hebrew may
be very largely discerned of itself by reason of the fact that only with the strongest
reservations, if at all, can we count on a uniform and self-contained concept of sin
in the authors of the OT; the problem of sin is complicated by a series of
detailed questions of linguistic history.
b. The language of the OT gives us four different roots to which the concept
of sin is usually attached and which we have usually to render as "to sin" or "sin"
without being able to bring out the etymologically derived nuances of the Hebrew.
These roots are as follows.

Non. This verb is used 177 times in the qal including the infin. and part. forms,
32 times in the hiphil and 9 in the hithpael. We also find 15 forms of the piel, which
always have denominative significance in the privat. sense "to put away sin." 5 Even
some of the hithpael forms are reflexive in relation to the privat. piel : "to free oneself
from sin." On the whole there are thus 233 examples of the verb, predominantly in a
religious sense. 6 Of the nouns formed from xom the most common is nxwn (fem., only
Gn. 4:7 masc. > n. 28), which occurs 289 times and seems to be strongly preferred to
nouns from other roots. In large part, 7 of course, nxbn follows the intensive constructions
of the verb and has thus the privative significance of means to avert sin or its conse-
quences. It thus denotes in many cases a specific form of sacrifice the occasion and
ritual of which are described in Lv. 4:1-5; 13.8 Elsewhere it simply means "sin" un-
less in certain cases we prefer a legal term like "misdemeanour" or "negligence." The
various plural and suffix constructions of nxon can all be traced back to the sing.
ANOT, which in the absol. form occurs only twice (Ex. 34:7; Is. 5:18). We find axon
8 times 9 and the masc. Non 35 times. 10 The nomen agentis Non ("sinner") is found in
the sing. only as a fem. (Amos 9:8); but the plur. either with or without suffix occurs
18 times.
y905 ("to rebel") is found as a verb 41 times, including 10 instance of the part. gal ;
as the noun ythe it is found 92 times (sing. and plur.).
my as a verb occurs in 17 forms, of which 6 (niph and pi forms) have either directly

3 Cf. e.g., Prv. 1:31: &oÉBeta for ayyin etc.

4 Cf. e.g., Job 9:22 : Suvaoins for 1th) etc.
5 Cf. Bauer-Leander, Hist. Grammatik d. heb. Spr., I (1922), 291; G. Bergstrasser, Hebr.
Gramm., II (1929), 94.
For exceptions > Za.
7 B. Baentsch (Komm. zu Ex. 29:14) counts 101 instances.
8 This meaning, and the corresponding meaning of btx, are perhaps to be explained
from the fact that AxWn and oux were catch-words in the priestly theology of the cultus and
were thus adapted to serve as principles of classification in drawing up rubrics for the
sacrifices. The oldest examples seem to occur in Ez. (cf. 40:39 and R. Smend, Komm.
ad loc.). Baentsch (Lv., 321) sees a connection with the penal and penitential offerings
already found prior to the Exile (nixon 992 2 K. 12:17; perhaps this was the term for what
was done by those who were expiated in Am. 2:8): yet these instances give us only analogies
of the transference of meaning and do not provide stepping-stones in the development of
technical cultic terms.
8 Ps. 40:6, where ANOL, seems to mean sin-offering, as elsewhere nxon and axon, must have
been pointed by someone who had in view a combination like 02322 18 (Is. 1:13).
10 It often seems to merge into the concept of guilt, cf. XON x7} Lv. 19:17; 20:20; 22:9:
24:15; Nu. 9:13; 18:22; Is. 53:12; Ez. 23:49. 279 ff.
quaptavo

or metaphorically the secular meaning of "to bend" (+ 279). The use of the noun
nig11 is much greater ; this is found in the sing. and the plur. (niig)227 times and it has
a stronger religious emphasis, the thought of guilt being forcefully asserted 12 (-> 3. and
SuKaioa0vn) . niriy are faults which establish guilt.
mat to err") occurs 19 times as a verb, with the par. construction a10i (4 times),
and also 19 instances of the noun mut Together these bring out a further characteristic
of sin as creaturely conditioned error. 13

Apart from Thn and aho, which are particularly close in meaning to yur, many
of the roots mentioned under a., and esp. yvi1, y or dux (-iAgoKE Oal and 279 f.)
might be added to these four. And the four themselves, for all that they are used
in what is essentially the same or a similar theological and religious way, give
evidence of such strong qualitative differences among themselves that they alone
are enough to prove the rich and varied nature of the thinking about sin either
consciously or unconsciously expressed in their use. Hence a comparison of the
content enclosed in these four main strands of usage will help us to a more or less
accurate understanding of what the Hebrews meant by sin.

2. The Legal and Theological Content of the OT Concept of Sin.

a. As we have learned from the above statistics, the root Nom with its deriva-
tives is the main word for sin. This seems to be in harmony with the fact that this
root can give an obviously formal definition which suits well the conceptual
significance. That is to say, the widespread religious and theological use of the
root does not touch the motive and inner quality of sinful action but simply its
formal peculiarity. The root is basically metaphorical, and all who used and heard
it must have been aware of this. For in a limited way the OT uses the same word
Non in a secular sense as a verb of movement to indicate "missing the right point."
Now it is impossible to think that this usage derives from the religious, legal, or
ethical; on the contrary, it is basic to the latter. Thus it can be said of the way-
farer in Prv. 19:2: xoin 0:2332 rx ("he that hasteth with his feet goeth astray").
Again, in Prv. 8:36 NOM, "to miss," is the opp. of x1n, "to find." We also read in
Job 5:24 : ronn x5 (.'thou shalt not miss, i.e., fail to find what thou art seeking).
The same meaning is to be found outside the Wisdom literature. Thus Ju. 20:16
says of the Benjamite slingers that they could sling stones at an hair breadth:
x007 x21 ("and not miss"). 14 There is an instructive example of confusion of mean-
ing in Ps. 25:8. The Mas. reading puon understands those who are to be guided
by Yahweh as "sinners," whereas there can be little doubt that the poet simply
had in view those who had lost their way (7372 anon, cf. LXX : quaptavovtas Év
686), i.e., those who even with the best intentions were in difficulties. The one
who supplied the pointing purposely introduced a theological significance in order

11 Constructed with the afformative -an on the concluding vowel, cf. J. Barth, Die Nomi-
nalbildung in den semit. Sprachen (1889), 326.
12 Other derivatives like ⅔, 01999 and "yo have little connection with religious speech,
unless we appeal to Is. 19:14 : 09999 117 (LXX: TVEua Tlavjoeos).
13 Also 7X10 in Ps. 19:12, 19009 in Gn. 43:12 and 73170 in Job 19:4 may be cited in this
connection.
14 LXX: 00K #EquaptavovtEc.
 duaptova

to make it clear to the reader that even circles which follow closely the guidance of
Yahweh still have a sense of sin. This subtlety could be easily introduced into the
text, however, only because the verb of movement used by the author was already
associated metaphorically with the "way." Although there are only a few instances
of this secular usage, 15 they give us good grounds for concluding that xom never
quite lost in Hebrew its sense of erroneous action, and therefore that the most
common Heb. term for sin did not have the predominantly religious emphasis
proper to the English "sin.'

This conjecture is strengthened by a comparative survey of the numerous passages

in the OT in which *tn is used as a legal term either in judicial terminology or more
popularly. If it is correct that basically the verb ron is a verb of movement denoting
erring or straying, it was well adapted to be used of all kinds of misdemeanours. We
can see its adoption for this purpose in all cases where Nom denotes a missing of the
legal norm which ought to obtain in the mutual dealings of men. The law about witnesses
before the judgment in Dt. 19:15-21 uses the term nxon as well as 7ig in the comprehen-
sive sense of offence against established practice. Thus we read that only many witnesses
can be accepted nxb1-5251 rig-b25 (in respect of any iniquity or misdemeanour"). The
addition NoM 708 100-522 ("in respect of any offence of which he may be guilty,"
v. 15) expressly widens the reference to embrace all legal categories. There is certainly
no thought of a purely religious or cultic transgression, since the authorities concerned
are secular. 16 Similarly Dt. 21:22 includes xon without restriction under the concept of
yawn ("case of law").1 A specific reference to legal processes is also to be found in
the threatening saying in Is. 29:21 concerning persons who force others to make false
statements : 2272 078 rome. Again, legal terminology is plainly recognisable when
Hezekiah confesses to the king of Assyria his breach of the treaty in the word 20NDn
(2 K. 18:14). 18 The law of custom in the dealings of nations is certainly meant when
Jephthah says to the Moabite king who attacks him : 72 ½0xpm N5 2338? (Ju. 11:27). In-
dividual legal relationships are in view when it is said of the Egyptians whom Joseph
met in prison : D722782 NON (Gn. 40:1, E? J?), i.e., they had failed in their duty ; there
had been axon or "'failings" (Gn. 41:9). 19 In the same sense it is said of David, who
had done nothing amiss as the vassal of Saul : Non 82 (1 S. 19:4). David himself, when
he might have spared Saul but did him no harm, cried to him : 72 anxon k2 (1 S. 24:12).
On the other hand, Saul admits his disloyalty to David: ½nxtn (1 S. 26:21). There
are other cases where the forensic reference is strong even though it is to faults
which are against an ethical rather than a strictly legal norm. Reuben warns his brothers

15 Various interpretations are possible in the case of xoing in Is. 65:20. What is meant
is the one who has "missed" the full measure of his life, cf. the old man who has not yet
filled his days. He is a sinner only to the extent that premature death is dogmatically
thought to be proof of sin.
16 v. 17 has been unskilfully edited to give a spiritual character to the legal court, cf.
the Comm. ad loc.
17 Cf. also Dt. 22:26. On the other hand, in Dt. 15:9; 23:22; 24:15, the reference to the
making of complaint to Yahweh gives the term XOn a religious emphasis. Yahweh is the
Guardian of the legal relationship and is thus affected by a breach of the norm which
protects it.
18 The obviously incorrectly pointed words in Ex. 5:16 (read: 7p9 ARoM [Z]) also
express a complaint at unlawful conduct on the part of officials.
19 It is self-evident that the Heb. author is not alluding here to the supposed divine
dignity of Pharaoh.
quaptavo

against doing violence to Joseph : 73;2 1on-bx (Gn. 42:22 E), 20 and similarly Jonathan
warns Saul against murdering David : *2! 072 xomn np2 (1 S. 19:5). If odd or ungracious
treatment is suffered at the hands of someone, the dispute with him is opened with
question like that of Jacob to Laban : ½xo 712 rytiprng (Gn. 31:36) or Abimelech to
Abram : 72 anxon p (Gn. 20:9). Here nxon (or yup) is simply that which a reasonable
person does not do, for "actions which are not done" is on the lips of Abimelech a more
stringent formulation of what he had already described as Nom and of what he could
not affirm in respect of his own conduct. In this sense Non can even denote a lasting
state of guilt or moral boycott, as when Judah pledges the safety of Benjamin with the
words : 'If I bring him not unto thee," av1-by ah anxom (Gn. 43:9 J; cf. 44:32), i.e.
will always count as disloyal before thee. It is self-evident that the speaker has in
mind here certain unfavourable consequences for himself in the case envisaged.

b. This limited aspect of the usage of *on 21 is fundamental to an understanding

of the religious meaning of the term, and in essence of the whole thought of sin
in the OT. For in the case of the other roots mentioned a theological and more
generally religious usage has also developed from the content of secular usage in
regard to interrelationships and law, though it is impossible to fix with any
historical precision either the beginning or the progress of this development in the
literature of the OT. The transference of the secular content to the processes of
religious life is particularly instructive in this instance because the assumption must
have been that this life was seen as one which was either ordered, or to be ordered,
by legal norms, or at least by certain generally binding rules. If the religious life
is accepted as one which is predominantly ordered, i.e., if the basic principle is
accepted that the dealings of man with God must follow a prescribed pattern and
no other, this is a specifically theological consideration. From it one can if one
wishes deduce the process of a transference of meaning without any possibility of
conflict with the declarations of the OT. There will remain, however, a certain
basic suspicion against making theological reflection responsible for giving such a
distinctive meaning to terms which were used so realistically by the authors, espe-
cially when roots like yun ("to rebel") are not merely formal like xom and 59
but express human volition.
Certainly 9t5 is the most active and the least formal of all the terms used for
sin and sinning. It has been excellently equated by E. Konig22 with "rebellion.'
In its secular and not necessarily forensic use it denotes the wilful breach of a
relationship of peace or alliance, e.g., Israel's renouncing of the dynasty of David
(1K. 12:19), or the revolt of vassal peoples against the "hand" of their overlords
(cf. esp. 2K. 8:20 : 77172-72 noon biTk yue). If, then, in Is. 1:2 the image of sons re-
belling against parental authority is applied to the opposition of Israel to Yahweh,
or if in Jer. 2:29 the revolt against God is compared with a legal process initiated
against Him, this shows clearly that the origin of such conduct, i.e., of sin, is to

20 Cf. the self-accusation of the brothers in v. 21: 0120g 1202%.

21 A similar picture is presented by the use of yu), which has an even stronger legal
character. In legal terminology (e.g., Ex. 23:1 etc.) 90) denotes one who is in the wrong.
This is the starting-point for all further shades of meaning. Cf. G. Marschall, Die "Gott-
losen" des ersten Psalmenbuches (1929), 49 ff.
22 E. Konig, Wort., S.v,
 quaptorvo

be found in a decision of the human will. 23 Along the same lines Amos (4:4) need
only say 1yva ("transgress") without any further explanation to denote this chal-
lenging and almost impetuous attitude towards God. There is unmistakeably re-
flected in this attitude towards God, and hence also in the corresponding ex-
pression, a basic "numinous" element in sin. Rebellion is a conscious and in-
tentional "violation, not of purely arbitrary will, but of an actual object of numi-
nous value, no matter what this may be." 24 Sin is thus a spontaneous human
reaction to the holy and the divine.
The same thought, though with emphasis on an almost tragic element in human
conduct, is to be found in the concept of man's going astray in his dealings with
God. In a way which is often overlooked, this touches on the genuinely theological
problem of sin and should not be omitted in the present context. Unfortunately,
in the OT it mostly occurs with some degree of distortion in ritual terminology,
or, conversely, we are to assume that it achieved its full development only as a few
religious thinkers lifted it out of its relatively innocuous ritual setting. For, so far
as the actual wording goes, my ("to err") with its derivatives seems to be the
mildest expression for the reality of sin. This appearance is easily given because
the root is predominantly used in the cultic and ritual sphere. In this sphere it
denotes a misguided but not unconditionally negligent or culpable offence on the
part of a "simple" person (ne, Ez. 45:20) against ritual regulations which are
concealed, i.e., which are not present to his consciousness (Lv. 4:13; cf. 7107? NoN
"to sin through ignorance," Lv. 4:2 etc.). To this there corresponds in law an un-
premeditated offence on provocation (ny] "332, Jos. 20:3; cf. Nu. 35:11). When the
word is used in this way, however, full justice can hardly be done to the thought
concealed in it. TW is not really a mild expression. Its content is in fact much more
serious than that of the formal "to be at fault" or the emotional "to rebel." For
we can speak of error only on the assumption of the good will of the one who acts.
If there is error, this is because of the circumstances. Or, in religious terms, of
God. Thus, the moment error is referred to as a religious concept outside the
sphere of the cultic, there emerges an element of daemonic dread, which cannot
indeed be entirely overlooked even when it is weakened by the possibility of cultic
adjustment. When Job coins the statement (12:16) that the deceived as well as the
deceiver is God's, he does not have in view an apparently innocuous thought, but
the terrifying and tormenting one that man cannot attain to God by his own
striving because God withholds from him the ability to do SO. This bitter poet,
pitilessly analysing his soul's life, ascribes decisively to God responsibility for
the restricted destiny of man. Job thinks that he is quite right to complain against
God on the point. The same thoughts seem to have been present in Isaiah too,
though in him there is no such titanic outbreak of unrest. Is. warns against those
who speak professionally of error and yet go astray themselves in frivolous in-

23 Further examples may be found, e.g., in Hos. 7:13; 8:1 (rebellion against the Torah
of Yahweh); Jer. 2:29; 3:13; Ez. 18:31; 20:38; Is. 43:27 (par. with kon). The relationship of
9tD to and, and the distinctive emphasis on will in both terms, emerges particularly clearly
in Ps. 5:10. The plans of the adversaries which have led to their downfall correspond to
their rebellions, and both are summed up in the concluding expression: 72 an "they bade
thee defiance.'
24 Cf. R. Otto, op. cit., 4.
quaprovo

toxication. With uncanny realism he draws out (Is. 28:7 f.) the twofold sense of
mw as drunken wandering and as going astray on the way to God. He shows that
the irresistible wandering of the drunken seer in exercise of his calling to serve
the declaration of the will of God is partly culpable and partly brought about by
God. For him Tt implies a clouded mind which is incapable of comprehension and
therefore of dealings with God. God will speak to those who are in error "with
stammering lips and another tongue" which they cannot understand. They will
experience the same plight as Job, who, in spite of every human consolation, can
find no way out of his error, but must suffer the pain of the divine riddle (Job
19:4; 6:24). To be sure, many have not seen or wished to see the threatening
depths of the thought present in T00. A quiet and simple man of prayer like the
author of Ps. 119 safely skirts such abysses, like the friends of Job. He realises
that he was once in error, but he is confident that the study of the Torah has in-
structed him and brought him out of his affliction (v. 67).
If, then, there is not lacking an irrational element in the thought of sin, as
indicated by yun, in and mv, yet we should not underestimate the importance of
the observation that in Hebrew usage apart from yup this element, while it is in-
contestable, is not predominant. It is in the concept of "unclean" that the thought
of sin in the OT seems to have been most fully divested of this element. Basically,
the latter concept is not quite so "primitive,' for it is at root theological, and it
is linked with a conception of God which has already attained to a certain stability.
To be sure, except in texts which are distinctively theological, like the Penta-
teuchal Law, we cannot say how far, if at all, rational theological ways of thinking
are consciously present in the authors. The logical structure of the concept usually
retreats in the measure that the term expresses lively personal feeling. Yet even
then we can recognise its content to be failure or opposition in respect of an im-
posed norm, and the corresponding theory can be easily reconstructed. The ex-
egetical difficulty which lies in the danger of exaggeration, to use a typical phrase
of Gunkel, has thus to be taken seriously into account in all the OT passages
which speak of sinning or sin. Yet in the OT itself the addition 792 72, "with a
high hand" (Nu. 15:30), sometimes betrays a need to give more body to the term
Non and to rescue it from a more definitely formal sphere. The sin which, e.g., the
people of Sodom and Gomorrah committed (Gn. 18:20) was not sin in their own
eyes. It was first recognised to be such by the Israelite narrator on the basis of
a theological judgment. There are also many other statements about sin which
are more easily explained by the rational and theoretically ordered considerations
of the author than by basic feelings of a numinous kind. This must be taken into
account even in our interpretation of prayers in which sin is confessed. Thus in
Ps. 32, for example, we are taught that the one who prays was led to see and to
confess his sin by suffering. The thought suggests itself that such considerations
identify as sin much that was not really directed against God. It is presupposed
that God scrutinises sharply the opus operatum and the technical cultic ritual.
C. Scepticism in relation to the specifically religious character of the prevalent
OT concept of sin is further increased by the fact that Israelite wisdom usually
has a decidedly intellectual understanding of sin. If this is predominantly for
pedagogic reasons, we are still left with the impression that this teaching fell on
particularly fruitful soil, and that this way of thinking about the living questions
of religion was already scoffed at by the 122 12 and 122 12 of Isaiah (28:10). A
 duaptarvo

31325 or fool is one who does not know what is fitting in relation to God, or who
has this knowledge but does not see its applicability to his life (Ps. 14:1 f.). The
sense of superiority enjoyed by the righteous then works itself out in a way which
itself arouses suspicion even though such trains of thought are occasionally found
in Jeremiah (4:22; 5:21), and even though there are warnings against this kind of
folly in the song of Moses (Dt. 32:6). In spite of pastoral sympathy for a "foolish"
people, the impulse and the distinctive character of sinful conduct hardly attain
here to full and correct expression.
A profounder insight is to be seen in the phrase used in the augmented Decalogue
(Ex. 20:5; Dt. 5:9) which describes those who resisted the directions of Yahweh
in terms of hatred. For here it is brought out most forcefully that in sin we have
a process which in the last resort cannot be explained, since the impelling forces
of hatred are beyond human understanding. brytin 26 and D"y? both seem to be
filled with hatred against God like many other kinds of ungodly whose designa-
tions are for the most part both etymologically and materially obscure. 27 It can
hardly be denied that terms like nvin ("abomination"), not ("device"), 1x (mostly
very colourlessly equated with "evil"), opn ("act of violence"), 722), mop ("de-
ception"), 5y:32, 28 015217 etc. go back to conceptions of sin which have nothing to
do with the typical concepts of the schools.
At any rate, they lack the distinctive pregnancy which is proper to the latter
and which helped to make terms like Non, ymp, and riy the common property of
pious speech as simple metaphors unburdened by theological speculation. If this
presentation seems to lead us to the conclusion that the developed and unmis-
takeable concept "sin" is a late growth on Israelite soil, this is not necessarily an
argument against the correctness of the construction. 29 On the contrary, it testifies
to a high maturity of the religious form of expression, which was grounded in
firm and unshakeable categories whose validity no one in ancient Israel could
contest with the instruments of current thought. The simple man could not be told
more simply or clearly what was the significance of the unrest of his heart in the
presence of the holy than by such terms as transgression, deviation from a re-
quired norm, repudiation of every norm, or error which is to be corrected thereby.
Criticism of human conduct, the assertion of guilty action and above all the in-
escapable knowledge of a demanding will of deity all meet in these pregnant con-
cepts and give them the force of powerful formulae which exhaustively interpret
the significance of all the situations of human destiny controlled by creaturely
feeling. If the religion of Israel recognised the will of God to be the supreme law

25 Cf. also 3302 in Prv. 3:35 etc.; he is dumb like the brutes (722, Ps. 92:6; 49:11); 2123
(Job 11:12). It is striking that the "simple" ("na) can also be religiously well-disposed when
under the influence of the Law (Ps. 19:7; 119:130). If on the other hand the same group is
often described as "cunning" etc., this is either in a purely tactical sense or it perhaps
reflects more "primitive" views.
26 The book of the covenant (Ex. 23:7) already emphasises Yahweh's aversion to the
972, which must correspond to the aversion of the latter to Him (cf. also Ex. 9:27).
Cf. on this point Mowinckel and Pedersen, op. cit., and Marschall, op. cit.. esp. 125.
28 Cf. esp. Ps. 18:3, where the reference is to a demon in Sheol. Similarly ANon in Gn. 4:7
indicates demonic being, cf. H. Duhm, Die bosen Geister im AT (1904), 8f. and the
Comm. ad loc.
29 That the term "sin" is lacking in the oldest accessible parts of the OT literature may
be accidental, and cannot be used as a historical proof.
quaprovo

which determines every creature, then it had to try to express the apostasy of
man from God, and his ungodly actions, in concepts which establish their claim to
binding validity by indicating the lines along which human life ought to move.
In a way which is inescapable for the Hebrew sense of language, such indication
is given in the verb of movement NOn, or in m9, in the thought of error, or in the
legal conception which underlies ym. Undoubtedly, the theological thinking of a
whole series of generations was needed at least theoretically to establish this
validity, and there can be no question that this development was narrowly linked
with the thought of the covenant (-* 81a0nxn) which is the basic pillar of
Israelite religion. 30 In both cases the feeling of terror retreats before the awareness
of responsibility, which grows with the greatness of God and extends to every
area of life with the confession ½XDm 7725 a2 ("against thee, thee only, have
sinned," Ps. 51:4).
At this point it emerges plainly what sin is as distinct from all other defective
action. If sin is to be asserted, then we must exclude both our own and all other
human opinion as to the significance of what has been done. Whether the trans-
gression is slight or serious by human judgment, for the author its character as
transgression is set beyond all possible doubt simply by the thought of God and
of the order which is subject to His will. It is to Him and to no other authority
that he must render an account. This is his "hidden wisdom" (v. 6). That he has
violated the norm of God is the substance of his knowledge of sin. He has done
that which is done in all sinning and which constitutes sinful action as such. In
order to bring this out more sharply, he augments his confession with a final saying
which is almost blasphemously bold : "I have sinned that thou mightest be
justified and pure." The result of his action in terms of the knowledge of God
is here described as the purpose of the sinner. His knowledge culminates in the
insight that the objective fact of his sinning seems to serve a purpose by leading
him to a recognition of the unconditional validity of the divine norm. If he now
makes of this thought a rather unhappily negative and flattering motive: "I have
sinned to the glory of God" (the positive motive is given in the following verse),
this may seem repellent, and yet it has high theological value as a ruthless attempt
to set human failure within the divine order and consequently to interpret it re-
ligiously as sin.

The view expressed by H. Gunkel 31 in his exposition of the Ps. can hardly be correct:
"David, who has seduced a married woman and shamefully betrayed her husband to
death, cannot truly say that he has sinned against God alone." To be sure, David did
Uriah a great wrong. Nevertheless, it was only as an act against God that this Sultan-
like action was sin. We cannot read with any certainty from v. 4 what the poet has
either done or not done. For this reason we cannot use the statement as an argument
against the correctness of what the heading describes as the occasion of the Psalm.
If the heading does not prove suspect on other grounds, it might well be correct in
relation to v.4, since in this verse all significance is denied to what has actually been
done, and only the religious situation created by the act is recognised to be essential.
To weaken 32 the self-exculpation boldly expressed in the final clause by referring it
to v. 3 rather than v. 4a ("I acknowledge or confess in order" etc.) is a vague

30 Cf. the expression 0972 r"on ("such as do wickedly against the covenant," Da.
11:32), and cf. Pedersen, op. cit., 415 : "The breach of the covenant is the kernel of sin.
81 H. Gunkel, Psalmen (1926), 226, following B. Duhm, Psalmen- (1922), 211.
32 Cf. Duhm, 211: Gunkel, 222
 suaptavo

exegetical device which convinces no one, since it does not take the author seriously
and throws doubt on a perfectly good text. Those who "take pleasure in the pro-
fundity" 33 of the author ought to ask themselves whether his statement is really quite
so confused as this hypothesis supposes. The theory of an "elliptical manner of speak-
ing" 34 avoids having to recognise the blasphemous element in the flattering motive
and proclaims an understanding which many an Israelite or Jewish reader must have
introduced into the passage. Yet it is unquestionably an emendation, and if the author
had really had this in view he would surely have expressed himself more clearly. The
simplest and therefore the correct interpretation is given by W. Staerk. 35 How Paul
views this final statement is to be seen in R. 3:5a.

d. Taking the OT as a whole, we may thus maintain that for the authors of
the OT sin is a legal and theological term for what is contrary to the norm. If
in the main the theological use is very prominent, yet great significance must be
attached to the fact that it is not the only use of the expressions available. Simi-
larly, attention should be paid to the circumstance that in its rational form the
concept belongs far less to religion itself, to the living dealings between God and
man, and far more to theology, to the theoretical clarification of religious pro-
cesses. It is this which makes its impress on a term like sin, and which attempts
therewith to denote symbolically distinct religious situation or psychical event,
explaining it as best it can in this way. For this reason it is in the very nature of
the case that the OT has a long series of different linguistic modes of expression
for sin. We best understand these as different theological formulae mediating
different basic theological insights. They are attempts to represent a religious
phenomenon whose roots escape human understanding.
The concept of sin itself, which emerges from all these formulae and gives both
cause and justification for bringing them together, acquires many shades of meaning
from this varied usage, yet there is not lacking a certain unity. This is emphasised
indeed by plerophoric expressions in the OT itself, which partly seem to stress the
synonymous nature of the words (cf. the poetically fashioned Ps. 32:5 "I acknow-
ledged my nxon unto thee, and my riy have I not hid. I said, I will confess my ants"),
partly seek to impress by conscious cumulation (cf. esp. Ex. 34:7: Yahweh remits
700 9701 7g), 36 and partly serve either intentionally or unintentionally to bring
out certain nuances (as, e.g., in the development indicated in Job 34:37: "He addeth
909 unto his ANoNY, or Lv. 16:21, also v. 16 etc., where the explanatory addition
anxon3) draws attention to a particular aspect of the preceding terms rig and
yua). 37 It is obvious that fundamentally all the variations indicate one and the
same thing, namely, the deviation from a required norm which is the sense of the
predominant root non. By the use of various roots, however, account is taken of
the many possibilities of viewing and assessing this basic content. Sometimes the
emphasis is put on the process of the soul itself, sometimes on the act described

33 Gunkel, 225.
34 R. Kittel, Psalmen3, 4 (1922), 190.
35 W. Staerk, "Lyrik" (Schriften des AT, III, 1)2 (1920), 231.
and36 Da.Cf.
9:24also
; cf. onEz.
all 21:29 : these b27niby pass2geb 352 L. MORL ZAW.1
87 Less clear is Hos. 12:9 : Non x, 12 where the pointing does not seem to be right,
cf. the Comm. ad loc.
quapt&vo

as sinful, sometimes on the state which results from sinning. But as a rule it is not
so much from the root selected as from the context in which it is used that we
can fix the intellectual or emotional content of the individual statements, or place
the religious accent which is not immediately obvious in itself.
In analysing these statements, therefore, we have to differentiate a whole series
of possibilities ranging from sober intellectual assertion to the unmistakeable ex-
perience of being divinely seized. But even where the theology seems to be almost
entirely eliminated from a religious expression, the term always retains a certain
theoretical flavour. For it is always a concept, and as such it leads easily to 3
purely rational and legal conception of the matter. This is no doubt of pedagogic
value, but it is always in danger of reducing to a common denominator the manifold
phenomena of religious life which are so finely indicated by the alternation of
forms of expression. A metaphorical nature which can hardly do justice to the
religious process denoted is particularly characteristic of roots like kon, my, also
90, m9n, etc., which indicate deviation from a norm. They point to this process
only as they factually denote the disorder incurred. On the other hand, a root like
9th ("to rebel") brings us closer to the heart of the true problem of sin, i.e., the
question of the origin and significance of the religious process, since it unmis-
takeably describes the motive which determines the sinner. Yet even in this case,
as in all others in which one of the usual terms occurs and there is thus express
reference to sin, a certain intellectual order is imposed on an experience which
was wholly irrational, so that retroactively a stronger or weaker irrational impulse
is conveyed to intrinsically clear metaphorical concepts. Thus in prayers especially
the irrational problem behind the concept emerges the more clearly, the further
removed the language is from that of the schools and the more fully it takes the
form of confession or complaint. In this connexion it is particularly instructive that
in the story of the fall in Genesis, i.e., in the one great passage in the OT which
deals thematically with the religious problem of sin, we do not find at all the
customary terminology for sin, unless we are to count the very general term for
evil. What sin is, is indicated in other ways in this passage.

3. Sin and Guilt.

Before we analyse this story and assess its contribution to the conception of sin
in detail, we must first return to a point already mentioned, namely, that many of
the Hebrew words for sin allude to it in such a way that the translation "guilt"
seems to be justifiable or even necessary (- 81ka10o0vn) . This is always the case
when the terms occur in passages in which it is plain that in his use of NoN, 712, 907
etc. the author is not thinking of an action but is speaking of the consequences of
a sinful, i.e., a negative, erroneous and disruptive action, of the state which is
brought about and determined by sinning, or of the inner attitude which stems
from the sinful action. The promiscuity of usage in this respect teaches us that
the Hebrews never attained to any sharp terminological distinction between sin
and guilt, since there was not the slightest doubt as to the causal connection be-
tween abnormal action and the abnormal state.
In a plain and unequivocal way, the only religious terms to denote the state of
guilt, or the guilt which burdens man, are the nouns oux and mptix, to which there
correspond the verb btx (to incur guilt" or "to be guilty") and the verbal ad-
jective ou* ("guilty"). This root is mostly used in the language of sacral law
 quaptavo

(-> tAgOKE @a1), and there are few examples of secular use. 38 The use which
the priestly legislation makes of the concept underlying the root bux makes clear
the material and objective character of sacral guilt. It is identical with uncleanness.
To incur guilt one does not have to be a sinner in the sense of a man who rebels
against the divine order on the basis of a decision of the will. Guilt is incurred
unintentionally through a mistake. The only point is that the ritual concept of
error is essentially weakened in the sphere of casuistry, as already indicated
(- 274). Nevertheless, the consequences of such error are taken no less seriously
than in the case of other sins. A transgression committed mutz ("through igno-
rance"), i.e., unintentionally, whether out of negligence (Lv. 4:13, 22) or some
other misapprehension (Lv. 4:2; 5:15, 18; Nu. 15:22 etc.), incurs no less guilt than
misdeed committed 7097 172 i.e., with a high hand, or intentionally (Nu. 15:30, cf.
m2 and n95, v. 31) . Even if the nature of the matter is concealed from the one who
does it, he becomes unclean and guilty : box) NOD 0771 men 02992 (Lv. 5:2). To set
aside his guilt, the same ritual is used as that which restores cleanness (- il&-
OKEO OaL) . 30
The expressions which refer to guilt without using the technical term bux are
further removed from this dynamic circle of conception. In such cases the thought
of guilt is usually linked with rig, and quite unequivocally when there is reference
to bearing or taking away, both denoted by *iv. 40 The expressions brought to-
gether in Ps. 32:1 are particularly instructive: 82 D7X-UN 7800 9909 yog-nio; "0x
nig i2 m 20m?. We again encounter the three words VUD, NOM and 719 (-* 278), the
emphasis now falling unmistakeably on the element of guilt. Guilt is a "heavy
burden" which man cannot bear (Ps. 38:4). It is the sum of debts incurred by
individual acts of sin. In substance it is identical with the sufferings which may
plague a man, and it is manifested in these afflictions. When Cain says (Gn. 4:13):
xian 212 5172, the thought underlying 713, as in many Psalms of complaint, is that
the misfortune which is suspended as a punishment is linked with the state which
opposes the divine norm. Sorrow at the guilt of sin is evoked by, or is identical
with, the sorrow of suffering. In the construction of theories of expiation and
retribution which have this view as a basis, the rational theological character of
the OT concept of both guilt and sin comes out very strongly, since such con-
struction is mostly undertaken from standpoints which are dominated by legal
thinking. When legal thinking was applied to the relationship between God and
the sinner, so far as concerned the idea of the righteousness of God and that of
man the religious concept of guilt derived from a numinous root. For this reason,
its full effect on the thinking of the OT authors is purposely developed in con-
nection with these complexes.

38 The reference in Gn. 26:10 is to marital rights. Guilt is brought (*12 hi) upon a man
when he is led to violate another's marriage, cf. also Ju. 21:22. In the law of property ex-
pressions are used which are quite alien to the religious concept of guilt, e.g., X72, 772,
002, aim.
39 Cf. A. Bertholet, Das Dynamistische im AT (1926), 36 f.
40 Rather strangely, this seems to be almost completely ignored in the LXX (> n. 3),
where &8ikla (80 times), auapria (69) and avoula (64) are excessively used as equiv-
alents.
quaprovo

4. The Story of the Fall (Gn. 3).

The treatment which J has accorded to the problem of sin within the framework
of the Paradise story in Gn. 3 stands aloof from all theories which are basically
orientated to legal thinking, and is without influence on them. Perhaps making use
of ancient mythological materials, 41 with no fear of their strangeness, subjecting
them by the force of his own thinking, the author tells us with a simplicity which
even children can understand, and therefore with absolutely convincing power,
of the way in which sin originated, what it is and how it works itself out. As
already noted, it is striking that in this story of the so-called Fall no use whatever
is made of the usual technical terms apart from the particularly difficult 90
(- kakos). Only from the matter itself do we know that the reference is
to sin. 42 Because the author seeks to mediate a view and to describe processes
of a typical kind, he must set aside these terms. Their pedagogic nature would be
out of place in an attempt to observe and portray life rather than to give a theo-
logical presentation of the results. The latter is left to the theologically inclined
reader ; only a few cautious indications are given of the lines along which his
thinking should proceed if it is to be fruitful. The primary interest lies elsewhere.
The attention of the hearer or reader is directed to the peculiar event itself which
the pedagogic terms are designed in their own way to comprehend and explain.
The point of the portrayal is to make it clear that our whole destiny as men is
supremely shaped by this event. What is commonly called sin is thus integrated
into a series of tense processes which bring out more clearly than any conceptual
reflection the living and sinister reality of the matter with which theology, the
cultus and piety are for the most part unsuspectingly concerned as they make use
of the concept of sin.
If we dismiss all conjectures or possible conclusions concerning the history of
the material, the basic ideas of the narrative may be presented as follows. A
prohibition, sharpened by the reference to serious consequences, unequivocally
expresses the will of Yahweh for man. In the first instance this remains inviolate,
since the authority of deity would seem to be beyond human assault. Only the
clever serpent perceives the disproportion between the seriousness of the conse-
quences, i.e., death, and the triviality of the forbidden action. In order to initiate
discussion of the point, it puts to the woman a leading question as to the scope
of the prohibition. The loyal answer betrays as yet no trace of scepticism, but it
does reveal a readiness for it, and the serpent goes on to entice her, creating the
desired opportunity resolutely to renounce her literal conception of the prohibition.
The thesis of the serpent is that the warning of Yahweh is not to be taken
seriously. It is simply purposeful threat. The prohibition and warning are not in
man's interests but in those of Yahweh. God aims to restrain man by fear from

41 For an analysis of the motifs, cf. the Comm., and esp. H. Gressmann in Festgabe fur
Harnack (1921) 24 ff.; R. Kittel, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, I 5, 6 (1923), 220 f.; J. Feldmann,
Paradies und Sundenfall (1913).
42 It can hardly be correct that this was first seen by Deuteronomists and later scholars,
as assumed by H. Schmidt, Die Erzahlung von Paradies und Sundenfall (1931), 49 f. The
narrator and all his readers were surely aware that sin lay at the very heart of the story.
Cf. K. Budde, Die biblische Urgeschichte (1883), 72 : "If the author were to ask his readers
what spiritual magnitude was brought before them, for my part believe that there can be
only one possible answer, namely, sin." On the whole complex of questions, cf. also
K. Budde, Die biblische Paradiesesgeschichte (1932).
 duaptavo

something which he might easily and safely take by transgression of the command.
In so doing, man would become as God, knowing good and evil. The woman is
already attracted by the external appearance of the forbidden fruit. Therefore like
a fool she listens to this partially understood saying about becoming wise, and
she violates the prohibition. The man silently participates in her act of wrongdoing.
He, too, has heard about knowledge and becoming wise, for he is present with his
wife. The first consequence of the forbidden action is that they become aware of
their nakedness and try to cover it. The second is that they hide at the approach
of Yahweh. The third is that, when examined, the man resorts to subterfuges in
explanation of his action. The fourth is that all concerned fall under the penalty
of Yahweh.
It is evident that in this fatal chain of events the emphasis falls on inner pro-
cesses mysteriously indicated by the formulae "being as God" and "knowledge of
good and evil." Men are as God when they set aside His prohibition. They do
this the moment when they begin to doubt, first, that God's overruling is in their
interests, and second, that God's will is unconditionally binding. In this context
we need not pursue the fact that in the story these considerations seem to apply to
varying degrees in respect of the man and the woman. The essential point is that
they both perceive that they have only to decide and they can infringe the divine
mandate. This is possible, however, only by a convincing material consideration
from the authoritative standpoint of their own persons, to which the serpent helps
them by an illuminating utterance which characterises the obedient attitude of faith
as hopeless stupidity. If, therefore, sin is transgression of the divine order, the
force which impels thereto is here perceived and described. The root of sinful
action is the understanding and the need to exercise it, i.e., practical reason exalting
man to be lord and God in his own personal life. This understanding is capable
of despising all correctives, even those of religion, and of performing actions which
do not ask concerning the judgment of God, though they are in fact subject to it.
For alongside this picture of the man who boldly asserts himself, and who is
called to maturity of will, there is set the further picture which shows how that
which is brought about by this self-assertion against God tries to avoid being
called to account by God. The self-will of man is not strong enough to resist the
summons to give account. It collapses miserably, and the man who would be as
God finally stands there like a schoolboy who has been found out, defiant and
full of evasions, yet also convicted.

The delicate sarcasm of the presentation is directed against these same men to the
extent that they are 972 210 19711. This appositional expression, with its intentionally
selected syntactical imprecision, seems essentially to be chosen to convey the same thing
as "being as God," and there can be no doubt that, like the latter phrase, it is meant
sarcastically to veil rather than instructively to reveal. For this reason we cannot say
finally what its meaning is. The conjecture that there is play on sexual maturity seems
to rest mainly on the fact that the discovery of nakedness was the first consequence of
the violation rather than on any connection of 97 with the terminology of sex. 43 It is
quite impossible to bring tob and ra' into the sexual sphere. Nor is it readily conceivable
that the Hebrews would immediately see a sexual meaning in the words ; neither Prv,
31:12, Dt. 1:39, nor even 2 S. 19:36 offers any real proof in this regard. Hence the view

43 Gressm., 46. Cf. E. Konig, Genesis, ad loc,

 quaptavo

that the story iS a depiction of the "rise of sensual love" 44 does not really help to
explain it. The corresponding translation "full of desire and suffering" is much too
strongly sentimental. It hardly does justice to a writer of the stature of J and smacks
rather of the Klarchen of Goethe's Egmont. All things considered Wellhausens's robust
explanation of tob and ra' in terms of what we usually call culture 45 still seems to be
nearest the mark, and it has not yet been superseded by a better one.

The impression can hardly be avoided that the evident Prometheus motif is
finally reduced ad absurdum by being linked with the sorry spectacle which fol-
lows. Yet it is part of the imperishable greatness of the story that, in spite of its
clear recognition of the grotesquely misguided nature of the desire to be as God,
it does not regard this as outrageous or disgraceful, but acknowledges it with the
painful gentleness of an expertus. The formulations 11b*2 ohm and 9207) mn)
serve to bring out the tragic situation of man, attempting in his own power to
transcend the narrowness of his existence, with a clarity which awakens motifs
of longing in the simplest as well as the most mature, and which thus gives rise
with shattering compulsion to an kind of apology of sin for itself. Nevertheless,
as this effect is attained, with needle-like certainty there is a probing of the reli-
gious kernel of the problem of sin which is concealed from all conceptual thinking.
This is found in the incontestable immanent right of the ungodly attitude of man
in his hostility to God. There can be conviction of the reality of sin only as it is
psychologically justified. None of the biblical authors has done this in so masterly
or pregnant way as the Jahwist. The human desire for culture, the work of
creative thought obeying immanent laws, bold and compelling sensual desire seek-
ing theoretical support all these are positively apprehended by the narrator and
set in the pitiless light of the concept of God. Two worlds meet, and the reader is
left in no doubt that in every act which deviates from obedience to God there will
take place the same encounter with the unfathomable distress to which it gives
rise. The way of man as it is opened up by the possibilities of his being will always
entail his venturing on to the heights with bold or clumsy audacity, and his final
attempt at concealment from the glance of God. His divine likeness is a cause
of anxiety when God calls him.
b. Thus we need do no violence to the story to see that it opens up a per-
spective on the totality of human existence. There are uneven passages, and it is
subject to the cultural limitations of the period, for it is strongly shot through with
mythologoumena. But for the kind of theological interpretation which we are
attempting the unmistakeable unity of the whole complex must be normative. The
story as we now have it is aetiologically fashioned and yet this orientation does
not obtrude, nor does it weaken the convicting force of the content. We perceive
it in the curses on the serpent (v. 14 f.), the woman (v.16) and the man (v. 17b-
19), and in the distinctive significance attached to nakedness. The curses relate to
conditions which may be seen from simple observation and everyday experience.
They thus explain the presence of inescapable difficulties as a consequence of the
curse which the first pair brought down by their conduct. It is thus shown why

44 H. Schmidt, op. cit., 22.

46 Prolegomena, 305 ff. (Gesch. Isr., [1878], 344 ff.).
 s apravo

the serpent is such a remarkable and detested animal, why the woman suffers in
childbirth and lives in dependence, and why the man must toil for his bread and
finally be reduced to dust. The sinning of the first couple against God is the
explanation. 46 But if they come under something which is of general validity, and
if they adopt a common custom like the use of clothing, the explanation given can
carry conviction only if the underlying basis is not a contingent event outside
normal experience, but if all men in the same circumstances can be trusted to act
in exactly the same way as the two in Paradise. If, then, the two are types of
humanity generally to the extent that they must take upon themselves what is
borne by all, and learn the shame which is known by all, this typology becomes
the more compellingly clear to the reader the more he begins to understand that the
manner in which they act towards God mutatis mutandis is exactly the same as
that in which all men become guilty in thought and action towards God. The
aetiology of the story thus extends beyond the explanation of sorrow and labour
and death as punishments inflicted by God, or of shame as the result of transgres-
sion, to the most important theme of the explanation of sin itself as the primum
movens of all the unrest and unhappiness of man. 47

The doubts expressed by Weiser 48 (following Gressmann) as to this aetiological

conception hardly do justice to the relevance of the story. In it the field is cursed
for man's sake, and therefore it is man himself who is indirectly cursed. Nor should we
be so affected as to question the townsman's poetic fancy that the serpent eats
dust. The concealing of nakedness is also to be understood aetiologically. The help-
less perplexity of man when he has become unsure of himself is to be recognised
as a feeling which is just as typically a consequence of sin as shame is the normal,
impulsive reaction in a state of nakedness. The words: "They knew that they were
naked," are in the style of the story a way of saying that the wrongdoers were
suddenly conscious of a feeling of insecurity. This feeling the narrator thinks he can
best interpret by the feeling of shame. At the same time he incidentally answers the
question of the origin of this remarkable feeling by showing that it is a consequence
of sin and very close to, although not identical with it. Without sin the man and woman
would have had nothing to hide from one another. Because they transgressed, they lost
this state even in the physical sphere. This train of thought makes it clear that the
writer is operating with a specific, culturally conditioned view of nakedness, namely,
the Israelite and Jewish, which is marked by a "wholly ritual fear of purely physical
divestiture.' 49 Yet this cannot weaken the impression that here, too, the purpose of the
narrator is to say and explain something of general validity, and that in the last resort
he is thus dealing with a living problem which naturally arises in all cultured society,
namely, the sexual question in its widest sense.
c. The aetiological interpretation justifies us to some extent in building on the
story of the fall a theory of original sin in the sense of the general sinfulness of
man. 50 At any rate, a theological deduction of this kind does not run counter to

46 The view of A. Menes (ZAW, NF 2 [1925], 39) that the creation of the woman
is perhaps an act of divine wrath in "consequence of sin" has no more value than can
ever be ascribed to products of an unbridled delight in hypotheses. When J. Hempel (ZSTh.,
9 [1931] 223) speaks of "tolerable certainty" in relation to this view, this seems to me to
be a rash and distorted judgment.
47 Though cf. M. Weber, Ges. Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie, III (1921), 242.
48 A. Weiser, Religion u. Sittlichkeit in der Genesis (1928), 36 f.
49 Weber, op. cit., 205, cf. 234, 245.
50 The same author actually expresses this at the beginning and end of the flood story
in Gn. 6:5; 8:21.
quaptovo

the meaning of the story. When the narrator motivates the fall of the first man by
a general human impulse capable of a thousand variations, namely, the demand for
knowledge and the desire to be clever, he is vitally impelled by the recognition
that in virtue of this urge all normal men to-day will not merely be tempted along
similar lines but will in fact be guilty of the same act. He sees that the uncontrolled
intellect is in conflict with religion and that the freedom of the will and of thought
prepare the ground for sin. If all share in the intellect and its destructive possi-
bilities, all are participants in the act which brings guilt, and all are thus afflicted
by the misery of existence.
By making the dramatic figure of the clever serpent the representative of the
unrestricted and penetrating intellect, the narrator consciously emphasises the
demonic nature of the thought which derives from doubt, which strives fanatically
for knowledge and which for the sake of it tears down everything that would
hamper it. He uses this genre of fable to stress the unfathomable duality which
marks all sinful conduct. He gives us to understand that kind of alien power
comes over the man who sins, which he must obey against his better judgment be-
cause it convinces him by its assured manner and its correspondence with his own
feeling. At any rate, no deeper purpose is served by the mythologoumenon of the
serpent within the context of Gn. 3. The dualism concealed in it serves here only
as a practical stylistic device to portray analytically the development of a very
delicate process of the soul. For the fable motif is abandoned at once when it has
fulfilled its purpose of expounding and explaining the origin of the novel action of
the woman. The reader can now appreciate how the cold power of doubt, which
proceeds from the understanding as thus personified, reinforces the existing sensual
and intellectual feeling, and he is not at all surprised when an impulsive movement
finally overthrows uncritical obedience.
The impossibility of making against this movement any thoroughgoing opposi-
tion grounded in experience, the overwhelming impression that the deviation of
the human will and the corresponding action from the divinely established norm is
a kind of necessity of the structure of man, compels every theological consideration
to recognise the general validity of the phenomenon presented in the story. Be-
cause man seeks to be wise irrespective of God's authority, because he seeks to
penetrate behind the thoughts of God and to anticipate them, because he not only
wills to do this but is also able to do so within certain limits, a sphere of mistrust
is opened up in which it is both possible and tempting for man to renounce the
attitude appropriate to him as a creature, to regard the Creator with criticism
and to think and act as himself God, unhampered, and in responsibility only to
himself. Because reason and the ability to form his own judgments on man and
the world are native to him, the motive for sinning is present and active with the
same necessity and to the same degree as life generally.
The more strongly, however, this interpretation is theologically emphasised, the
more clearly it must be stated that the aim of the author is not to give a correct
theological account, but rather, if we may use the phrase, to popularise a basic
theological concept. He attempts this without displaying any tendentiousness
beyond that of the simple aetiology indicated. What is expressed in his sponta-
neous and uncomplicated representation is not so much theology as true and pro-
found piety. An unsparing desire for truth gives it its unforgettable impress. Hardly
anywhere else in the OT do we encounter discussion of a religious question which
is so penetrating and yet sustained by such piety. From the manner in which
introduces the statement that humanity necessarily entails sinfulness one may
 duaptavo

easily detect that he is not spinning a theory. With a sense of vocation he is

speaking out of the compelling experience of inner tension. Through this simple
story he is trying to lead his readers to a knowledge of the fateful power of this
serious situation which is inseparable from human existence, and consequently to
self-knowledge. To the question which finally suggests itself because it is so much
in line with the penetrating scrutiny of this observer, namely, why God so arranged
it that the decision of activity either for or against God is laid upon man, he
returns no answer. His religion is to be found in this silence.
Quell

B. Theological Nuances of quaptia in the LXX.

In sections A and D (267 ff.; 293 ff.), and in section B of the art. on quaptwros
(+ 320 f.), there are reviews of the general usage of the LXX which it is the purpose
of the present section to supplement by reference to theologically important nuances.
These were partly due to misunderstandings and difficulties of the Heb. text, partly to
the intentions of the translators.
In 4 128:3 oran is altered into 0>9077 in the light of the following verse. Similarly
in the second half-verse the metaphorical language of the Mas. is changed by using
vouia 51 for nigg, as often occurs in the LXX. There is a parallel to this in Dt. 29:18
(19), where the Mas. speaks of "the watered and the dry being rooted out. A similar
image is used by Gk. translators outside the LXX. The latter replaces the image by the
matter represented: iva un dUVaTO ÉoN 6 quaptwlos tov avauapi tov. We may
also refer to J 140:5, where the Mas. reads: "My head shall not refuse head ointment," 52
but the LXX changes tn5 into yun: #Aaiov Se quapralot un Altavato Thy Kepa-
Anv you; it thus issues a warning against fellowship with sinners.
Greater prominence is given to presumption as a characteristic of sinners in the LXX.
Thus in Sir. 11:9 1 ("arrogant"), and in 15:7 jint ("arrogance") are rendered Quapto-
A6c. In 11:9 the LXX expresses ligious wisdom (cf. Ps. 1:1), whereas the Heb. is
quite secular. If in Sir. 3:27 we ought to read ½nn for ½3mnn (Smend), 53 then here,
too, arrogance is regarded as the sin par excellence. The sinful attitude thereby pre-
supposed is depicted in Sir. 5:4, (cf. also 10:12 f.). Again, in 35(32):12(16) the LXX
merges the concepts of sin and presumption without any sure basis in the Heb. The
latter reads : "And there speak what cometh into thy mind in the fear of God and not
in ignorance." 54 But the Gk. writes : ExEi TaiCe kai nolel to Évouunuara GOU,
Kai un Quapis (r: quaptia kai) Abyq bnepnodvo. A unitary view of sin is also
asserted when Sir. 47:23 has 886 quaptias for ivan, and when quaptwAos is
used for bom wax in 15:12, for 91, in 16:13 and for 5y:22 in 11:32. That the rich and
powerful man is a sinner is a view occasionally found in the OT and NT (cf. Qoh.
2:26; Prv. 23:17), but in Hab. 3:14 this is forced into a translation of unknown origin
when 1199 toNS is rendered rouc apxnyoic tiv uaptorov. Sin is also sickness
and this genuine OT insight causes 19 to be rendered quaptia in Is. 53:4, so that the
thought of v. 12 is anticipated. It is worth noting that 2 has a formulation which seems

51 Deriv. from :739 pi, "to oppress" :

52 So A. Bertholet in Kautzsch, II4 (1923), 269; H. Gunkel, Psalmen (1926), ad loc.
corrects the Mas. in accord. with the LXX.
So R. Smend, Die Weisheit d. Jesus Sirach erkl. (1906), 32.
54 Smend, 290 f.
duaptovo

to be determined by the NT concept of the sufferings of the Messiah as developed on

the basis of the LXX: 8vrac ras quaptias nuov autoc avÉ aBE, Kai TOUC THOVOUC
UTTÉLEIVEV, NUEIC SE EOYIOQUEOa aUToV Ev don Bvta, TETANYOTA UTO OEOU Kai
TETATEIVWUÉVOV. According to Procopius of Gaza, 'A and E had the same text. The
idea of the healing of sin, which corresponds to the equation of sin and sickness, is
introduced by the LXX in Dt. 30:3. The Mas. reads: zna0-nx 1ibx 717; 20) ("Then
the Lord thy God will turn thy destiny"). 'A attempts a literal translation: Kal Éil-
OTPEUEL kupios, o 0e6c ooU, Thy Entiotpooñy oov. E introduces a reference to
salvation history: KaL ETIOTDÉVEL Gol KUpIOg, 6 0E6C OOU, thy aixua\wolav
o0. 56 The LXX on the other hand independently emphasises the thought of the
forgiveness of sins from the standpoint of a hamartologically determined piety: Kai
laoetai kipios tas quaptias oou. 'A and LXX here derive navi from the verb
310 so also E at Jer. 33:26), whereas Z and O, and usually the LXX, have 72tj in view.
The negative understanding of niavi by the LXX is important for the development of
the concept of sin. This is also found in Ez. 16:53, where ni2w is translated anootpoon
('apostasy"). In Jer. anootpoon occurs 4 times for 171n (5:6; 8:5; and 6:19 and
18:12 where it is wrongly read for niztng). The word op for its part underlies
quapria in Jer. 14:7, where it is in keeping with the context. Similarly the LXX
usually takes both niat and antin in the negative sense of apostasy. According to
Dt. 30:3 and Jer. 14:7 apostasy is the basic sin from which deliverance and healing are
expected and besought.
The LXX often seemed to avoid translating the formula niaw aw. We may refer to
Job 42:10, where one of the reasons is perhaps that the LXX is less interested in the
restoration of the former wealth of Job than in the offence which the friends of Job
have committed by their false accusations against (v. 8 : kata) Job (- 288 on w 108:5).
Thus in Job 42 the LXX stresses the thought of forgiveness, which is only indicated
in the Mas. In 42:7 the Mas. has: "My wrath is kindled against thee, but the LXX
substitutes : ñuaptes oU. In this way, it also avoids the anthropopathic view of God
of the Mas. There is a similar change in v. 9, where the Mas.: "The Lord had regard
unto Job,' is paraphrased : kai EUGEV THI quaptiav autoic 81& '1oB. Again, in
v. 10 the LXX introduces the thought: EiÉquÉvou 8t auto0 Kai TEpi tov pilov
dONKEV airoic thy quaptiav. The translation of xivs by EAUOEV thy quaptiav in
v. 9 is perhaps due to the fact that Ki is a technical term for the remission of sins. This
would also explain the change in Is. 1:14 : OUKETL avnow tac quaptias ouov. 2 un-
derstands the technical term thus: ÉkonOnv iaoKouevos. 56 As in Job 42:7, so in
Nu. 1:53 "sin' (quapinua) is substituted for "wrath" (M#D). Instead of speaking
theologically (Ju. 1:18), if also anthropopathically, of the wrath of God which the
congregation might provoke, the LXX speaks psychologically of the transgression which
it should avoid. According to Sh E (opyñ) and e (@vuos) translated literally. The
same alteration occurs in Is. 57:17 (ipo22e unnoa aitov). God sends as a punish-
ment for sin Aomn Eic MET&VOIaV (2K. 7:9 f.). A comparison with Eo8p. 6:14 is
interesting, for here 117 (hafel), "to provoke to anger," is rendered TaPXTLKP&VAVTEC
quaptovElV, although in 2 Eo6p. 5:12 the same word is translated lit. napopyi(w.
Even here, however, care is taken not to ascribe the emotion of wrath to God. Tapa-
Tulkpaivo without object is intrans. In 2 Ch. 12:2 the verb 5yn ("to be unfaithful") is
translated quaptavelv. In 2 Ch. 30:7 dolomu is used for the same verb, so that here

55 So also e, except that the Gol is lacking; 'A, E, O have been trans. back by Field
acc. to Masius.
56 'A, followed by Jerome in the Vulgate, had a lit. trans. Cf. also the addition to the
LXX tac quaptias ouov, in Is. 55:7. The Mas. simply has n26.
 suaptavos

again sin seems to be thought of as apostasy in accordance with the Chronicler's view
of history (cf. Ju. 10:10). The same is true of Eodp. 8:89. Here, too, quapT&VEIV
is used for byn, whereas the corresponding passage 2 Eo8p. 10:2 has soUveETELV, which
is used 6 times for zyn and which indicates faithless conduct towards God (cf. v. 3 in
contrast). The LXX rendering of Na. 3:6 is meant in the same sense. The Mas. reads :
paban orpo uby "no2wm (pi of 521 "to revile"). "I (Yahweh) will cast filth upon
thee and revile thee." 57 The LXX derives the form 79>3) from the subst. 01223 and
translates : kal Eriplyo éiti o€ p8eAuyuov Katd tag quaprias (r* axalapoias B)
oU. The fact that B has &kalapoias (as also the LXX in Hos. 2:12, the only place
where n172) occurs in the Mas.) points to the sin of idolatry for which &xalapola
is the tech. term in the LXX. In Prv. it is found in a more psychological and ethical
sense as a rendering of mayin, which is for the most part used cultically and often with
reference to idols. A, which here has the original, uses quaptia for mavin in Ez. 8:6
and 16:51, whereas B has gvoula according to the usual translation. In both cases the
reference is to the sin of idolatry or of a-whoring from Yahweh (Ez. 16:41 ff.). The
Heb. stem Mnw, mostly rendered aralapola or ulaivElV, indicates cultic uncleanness.
In Lv. 14:19, which refers to the uncleanness of a leper, the LXX intentionally replaces
the cultic term by the moral and religious concept of sin. 58
That folly is sin and wisdom piety is a familiar thought in OT wisdom. It is perhaps
in this light that we are to understand the combination of quapria and kakia in
Prv. 26:11 as a twofold rendering of n?ix. x218 often has the additional sense of a
defective knowledge of God which is guilty, and therefore of ungodliness. In the sphere
of the OT doctrine of wisdom and the Law ignorance can imply sin generally (-> 274),
as, for example, in Prv. 24:9 'A©: vvoia copoouins quapria. As previously in
v. 8, the LXX here reads net as hid and thus translates the Mas. : nxon nz1x net
as follows : &700vhOKEL 8É aopov Ev quaprials.
In 3 Bao. 5:18 B and 1 Bao. 22:17 AB duapiua or quaptovElv has been inten-
tionally or mistakenly introduced into the LXX as a rendering of y15 in place of
anavinua or atavtav. In 3 Bao. 5:18 guapiua is thought of in terms of Ch. 22:8
as an obstacle to the sacred work of building the temple. In Is. 66:4, again, the LXX
introduces the thought of sin into the text. The Mas. reads: 6n2 x'28 aninp (I will
bring that which they fear upon them"). Thus in the Mas. the reference is to punish-
ment. But the LXX speaks of the cause of punishment: kai tas quaptias &vtato8o-
ow aitoic. Here, too, idolatry or ostasy is the sin in question. Similarly in Is. 24:6
the Mas. reads: ""Therefore a curse devours the earth, and they that dwell therein
suffer (BUx). The LXX, however, runs as follows: 81d toUTo apa #etal thy ynv,
8TL nuaptooav of KaTOIKOOVTEC aiThv. A deepening of the consciousness of sin
may be seen in 139:8 : yon 202 mhn 1An-2* ("Grant not, O Lord, the desires of the
ungodly," cf. £). Out of consciousness of one's own sinful desires, the LXX formulates
the request: un Tapaooc UE, KUPIE, aTto tic Enti8vuiac uou quaprals. Cf.
• 108:5, where quapto^oc and B&poloc are used metaphysically by the LXX but
not by the Mas. (2 Th. 2:3). A spiritualisation may be found in Ez. 23:49, where for
the Heb. 127215s rom ("the guilt incurred by your idols") the LXX has tas quaptias
tov Evevunu&twv. According to Jer. 50(Iep. 27):7 the foes of Judah do not incur any
guilt by attacking and destroying the Jews because the people sinned. According to
the LXX they fulfil the will of God : un dviuev aitous, dvd' dv nuaptov. In
independence of the Mas. the LXX formulates Job 15:11: &^tya, Sv juapinkas,

57 H. Guthe in Kautzsch, II4, 70.

68 Cf. the relationship between sickness and sin in the NT (Mk. 2:5; Jn. 5:14; 8:11).
quapravo

usuaotlywoai. What is here read into the text is the thought of the school of suffering
sO dear to Hellenistic Judaism. The piety of suffering expressed here presupposes
very strong consciousness of sin. This gives rise to the need to confess sins as, e.g., in
Sir. 4:26, where in independence of the Heb.: 7130 2105 winn k ( Be not ashamed
to turn from sin"), the LXX coins the expression: un aioxuvens ouo oyñoal E•'
quapriais OU. To the consciousness of sin there also corresponds the hope of divine
grace. In Is. 27:9, where the Mas. refers to the destruction of pagan altars as the full
fruit of purification, the LXX finds an entry for the religion of grace : Kal TOUTo gotlv
n Eiloyia aitoi, otav &oe oual thy auaptiav aitou.
Thus the LXX creates a unitary concept of sin. And the unity of word inclines to a
unity of matter. Against the division of the sinfulness of man into individual sins, which
is still characteristic of later Judaism, there are attempts to press forward to the basic
sin which separates man from God as a power (Sir. 21:2; 27:10) which controls man
so long as he does not allow God to save him.
Bertram

C. The Concept of Sin in Judaism, 59

1. The concept of sin in Judaism is determined by the law (-* vouos). The
transgression of each individual command of the Torah is sin. For the Torah is
the revelation of the will of God. Therefore all its definitions, including the civil
and judicial which we might regard as secular, are ius divinum. On this basis all
transgressions have a religious character. They are all rebellion against God. They
are all sin.
To the sphere of sin as transgression in the religious sense there thus belong
not only the sins more properly directed against God, but also cultic violations and
errors, and criminal offences. G0 All these have a religious character and are offences
against God. Judaism thus takes up the OT idea of sin as an outraging of God
and makes it a constitutive element. In the religiously conceived Jewish concept
of sin two opposing trends are at work, the one to level down and the other to
differentiate. The first is inspired by the casuistry of the scribes, for whom even
the slightest infringements, and certain religiously indifferent customs, are offences
against the Law and therefore sins. 61 The second derives from the OT distinction
between sins with a high hand and sins of ignorance. On the basis of Lv. 16:21
S.Lv. 16:6 distinguishes three kinds of sin: nizly which are flagrant misdeeds ;
arryUs, which are acts of rebellion ; and anion which are unwitting offences (cf.
also T. Joma, 2, 1; bJoma 36b). £2 According to the differentiating trend, the sever-
ity of a sin depends upon knowledge of the Law. In bBM the first part of Is. 58:1b :
"Shew my people their transgression," is related to those who are instructed in

59 Cf. Moore, I, 461. T. Shebu, 3, 6.

60 The concept of crime or violation in the legal sense is not yet distinguished from that
of sin in the religious sense. At most we have only the germ of this distinction in later
Judaism. The reason for this is that the OT is the unconditional Word of God in both its
functions, i.e., as a book which contains religious demands and as a valid code of civil
law and penalties.
61 For an example of such Rabbinic statutes, cf. Shab 12, 3 ff.: "He who writes two
letters (on the Sabbath) .. is guilty. He who writes on his body is guilty. He who writes
with other fluids (which do not serve as ink), or on something on which the writing does
not remain, is innocent." Cf. Schurer, II, 471 ff., Shebu, 1, 2-2, 5.
62 Cf. Moore, I, 464.
 quaptovo

the Law, so that "their unwitting faults are equal to serious sins," and the second
part : "And the house of Jacob their sins, to those who do not know it, so that
"their serious sins are equal to unwitting faults." 63 From this differentiation there
derives even in the OT an isolation of mortal sins such as idolatry, licentiousness
and bloodshed. These sins must not be committed in any circumstances. 6 The
worst of all is idolatry (777 7712%). "It is of the very essence of rebellion, violating
not only the first commandment of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me, but the fundamental principle of the divine unity, the profession of
faith solemnly pronounced by the Jew every time he repeated the Shema." 85 To
commit this sin is to commit every sin (S. Nu., 111 on 15:22). While there is the
possibility of expiating 66 other sins by rites of purification, good works, 67 and
sufferings, 6 these serious sins can be atoned only by death (bSanh., 74a). 69
2. Closely related to the concept of sin as orientated to the Law is the dominant
tendency in Judaism to eliminate the idea of collective responsibility for sin and to
link it firmly with the individual. This tendency begins with Ezekiel, who rejects
the connection between the sins of the fathers and their children expressed in the
saying: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on
edge," and who establishes the basic principle : "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"
(Ez. 18:2-4). Sin is thus the current offencé of the individual against the command
of the Torah, with consequences for the man concerned both in this world and the
next. The Law, the theory of merit and the concept of sin form an indissoluble
whole. The resultant dismissal of the connection between the sins of the fathers
and the fate of the children is expressed in the following passages from the Targum.
Ex. 20:5 (Mas.) reads: "I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.' The Tg., however, has
the alternative : requiting the guilt of sinful fathers on their refractory chil-
dren." Dt. 5:9 is even clearer. The Mas. is the same as Ex. 20:5, but the Tg. reads
when the children proceed to sin according to their fathers." 70 Yet the idea
of general responsibility is not completely dead. This may be seen from the
comparison of the sinner with a man who bores a hole in a boat on the sea. When
asked what he is doing, he says to his companions: "What is that to you Am
not boring under myself?" And he receives the answer: "This is our affair, for

63 Cf. also bTaan., 11a.

84 Cf. the discussion at the conference of Rabbis at Lydda during the persecution under
Hadrian, which decided that there could be no redeeming of life on the committal of one
of these three sins (jSanh., 21b; bSanh., 74; cf. Moore, 467). Cf. also the apostolic decree
in Ac. 15:29 and the preceding discussion.
65 Moore, I 466.
66 -; i&aKE OaL; cf. Moore, I, 497 ff.
67 Cf. A. Schlatter, Jochanan ben Zakkai (1899), 39 f., esp. 41: ... with the confidence
that the gift earns forgiveness as reward."
68 Cf. W. Wichmann, Die Leidenstheologie (1930).
69 For expiation by death, as for other expiations, there applies the conclusion corre-
sponding to the factor discussed in n. 60: When a man who commits an offence which
comes under the death penalty according to Jewish law, i.e., the Torah (e.g., idolatry,
bloodshed or licentiousness), is sentenced to death by a Jewish court, this is not merely
punishment for his offence, but the fulfilment of the penalty is also an expiation for his sin.
70 L. Baeck, RGG2, V. 883.
duaptavo

the water will come in and the boat will go down with us" (Lv. r., 4 on 4:1). 11
As a whole Judaism accepts the view that sinning is general. 72 All men are
sinful, cf. 4 Esr. 7:68 f.: "Fot all who are born are marred by ungodliness, full of
sin and laden with guilt. And it would be better for us if after death we did not
have to go to the judgment"; 9:36 : 'We who receive the Law must perish because
of our sins, along with our hearts in which they are committed." Ex. r., 31 on
22:24; Lv. r., 14 on 12:2 (on Ps. 51:5): "Even if a man were the most pious of the
pious, he would still have one page of sin"; Philo Vit. Mos., II, 147: ravil yevnt©
OULQUES TO quxpravelv fotlv; also Fug., 158. The Gentiles, too, come under
this sinfulness as religious responsibility and guilt before God. According to Jewish
theory they have the Adamic and Noachic commands in respect of theft, licen-
tiousness, idolatry, blasphemy and the shedding of blood, S. Lv., 18, 4. Indeed, the
Torah has been offered them, but they have refused it. R. Jochanan has stated :
"This teaches (i.e., Dt. 33:2; Hab. 3:3) that God has published the Torah to every
nation and language, but it was not accepted until He came to Israel and Israel
accepted it' (bAZ, 2b). 73 For this reason they are not without guilt in their sin.
On the other hand, this basic principle is not so sharply applied as might have been
expected. 4 Esr. 7:48 says that almost all are sinners, Especially distinguished
saints like Abraham, Moses and Elijah are accepted as without sin (cf. Test. Zeb.,
1; Jos. Ant., 7, 153; Pesikt., 76a, ed. Buber). 74 This postulate of sinlessness is pos-
sible because of the individual freedom of the will and the gift of the Law. The
observance of the Law makes possible a pure life. "Thus God has said to the
Israelites, My children, I have created you with an evil impulse, but I have given
you the Law as a means of salvation. So long as you occupy yourselves with it,
that impulse will not rule over you" (S. Dt., 45 on 11:18). The testimony of Paul
may be cited in this regard : kard 81Kal00UVNV THV ÉV vOUO YEVOLEVOS &UET
(Phil. 3:6). 75 If the sinlessness of isolated saints is maintained, and the possibility
of a sinless life is provided by observance of the Law, it can almost be taken for
granted that the sinlessness of the Messiah will be assumed. We read already of
the Servant of the Lord in Dt.-Is.: he had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in his mouth" (53:9). In Ps. Sol. 17:41 it is said of the Messiah : kai autoc
Kalapos anto quaptias; and in Test. Jud. 2:4 (A): kai ttaog suaptia ody
EUPEOñOETAL EV aiT; cf. also Test. L. 18:9. Linked with this is the expectation
of Jewish eschatology that sin will be set aside and the sinlessness of man estab-
lished in the Messianic kingdom (cf. En. 5:8 f.; Ps. Sol. 17:32; Test. L. 18).
3. The rise and the consequences of sin are considered in post-biblical Judaism.
A historical answer is given to the former question. Sin derives from Adam 78 or
from Eve, and has spread from them and established its dominion over the whole
race. Cor malignum baiulans, primus Adam transgressus et victus est, sed et
omnes, qui de eo nati sunt. Et facta est permanens infirmitas et lex cum corde

71 Cf. Moore, I, 471.

72 Cf. Weber, 233 f.; Str.-B., III, 155 ff.
73 Cf. Str.-B., III, 38-43. Cf. esp. Esr. 7:20-24 vias eius non cognoverunt et legem
eius spreverunt, et sponsiones eius abnegaverint, ef in legitimis eius fidem non habuerunt, et
opera eius non perfecerunt.
74 Weber, 53 ff.; 224.
7 quaptwos. Cf. also Ab. R. Nat., 59, where it is said of Jochanan's son: "He
departed this world without sin" (cf. A. Schlatter, Jochanan ben Zakkai [1899]. 20 f.).
 quaprovo
populi, cum malignitate radicis : et discessit quod bonum est, et mansit malignum
(4 Esr. 3:21 f.). Cf. also Sir. 25:24; 4 Esr. 3:26; 7:48 ff., esp. 118: "Alas, Adam,
what hast thou done? When thou didst sin, thy fall came not upon thee alone, but
upon us thy descendants." Cf. also S. Bar. 48:42, where sin is derived from Eve ;
and esp. Bar. 54:15 : "If Adam first sinned and brought premature death on all,
each of his descendants has incurred future pain.' In these apocalyptic passages
there is a view of sin, largely shared by the NT, as a power which profoundly
shapes the world. A variation from the view which attributes sin to Adam is to
be found in En. 10:4 ff.; 64:1 ff. and Mart. Is., 5, 3, in which its origin is found in
the fallen angels of Gn. 6:1 ff. Alongside this historical explanation we should set
the more basic view that the root of man's sin, the fomes peccati, lies in the evil
impulse implanted in him by God. Cf. Sir. 15:14; 37:3; 4 Esr. 3:20; 4:4; 7:48 (cor
malignum); 11 Pesikt., 38b-39a, ed. Buber; Vit. Ad., 19 (ÉnOuula foti KepaAn
Toons quaprias).
It is this evil impulse which entices man to sin. Its overthrow by the observance
of the Torah is the task of man. He who does not overcome it must bear the conse-
quences of sin which consist in all kinds of suffering. The thought developed by
Paul in R. 1:18 ff., namely, that God punishes sin with sinning, is known to Judaism
in the form that sin begets sin : o suaprwlos ipoafhoel quaptlav to quaptiais
(Ps. Sol. 3:12). It belongs to the consequences of sin that one sin gives rise to
another, so that once a man begins sinning he will finally commit mortal sin
"To-day the evil impulse says to someone: Do this, and to-morrow : Do that,
until it finally says: Pray to other gods, and he goes and does it" (bShab, 105b;
cf. Ab., 4, 2; S. Nu., 112 on 15:30). To the consequences of sin there belongs
separation from God. The worship of the golden calf made it impossible for the
Israelites to see the glory of God. 18 Sin makes impossible any direct dealings with
God face to face 79 (- &Kouw, 218). Sin constantly disrupts the gracious purpose
of God for man. "When I desire to do you good, the heavenly power weakens in
you... (examples are given from the history of the people in the wilderness),"
S. Dt., 319; cf. Pesiki., 166a-b (ed. Buber). To the consequences of sin there
belongs the punishment of sin. Between this and sin there is a close connection
(cf. Ps. Sol. 2:17: 8tl &Trebwkac toic cuaptoloic, kard ta Epya aitov kai
katd tac quaptlac autiv tdc rompas ap68pa; Philo Leg. All., I, 35: kola(6-
Hevoc to" ols nuapiavev; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 96; Sacr. AC, 131). Sickness is a
punishment for sin ; there is a formula that the sick man does not recover until
all his sins are forgiven (by God), bNed., 41a. Death is another penalty ("no death
without sin, and no chastisement without guilt," bShab, 55a; cf. Sir. 25:24; Wis.
1:13; 2:23 f.; Bar. 23:4; 4 Esr. 3:7; S. Dt., 305 on 31:14; Gn. r. 16:6, where death is
brought into close connection with the fall). A further penalty is eternal damnation
(n aTolela tou quaptoloi ElG Tov alova, Ps. Sol. 3:13). But in respect of all

76 Cf. Tanch. Bereshith § 29, Hukkat § 39, ed. Buber. These passages express obvious
annoyance at Adam for the trouble occasioned by his sin.
77 Moore, I, 479 ff.; Weber, 221 f., 225 ff.; Porter, op. cit.; Buchler, op. cit.; K. Stier,
"Pls uber d. Sunde u. d. Judentum seiner Zeit," Prot. Monatsh., 11 (1907), 104; Bousset-
Gressm., 402 ff.; cf. also Tom pos.
78 Cf. the exposition of Ex. 24:17 and 34:30 by Simeon b. Jochai in S. Nu., 1 on 5:3.
78 Gn. 3:8; Ex. 34:30; 2 S. 17:2; Cant. 3:7 f.;
also, with a rather different application, R. 3:3 S.28:5; cf. Pesikt., 44b-45a (ed. Buber);
ts 86Enc TOU OEOU. udvtes yap huaptov kal botepouvtai
suaptovo

these penalties man has the opportunity to repent and to return to God. This is
expressed with particular clarity in Tg. Qoh. 7:20, where in addition to the cate-
gorical statement: "There is none righteous on earth to do good and not sin,' we
have the further statement : "But God shows to the man who is guilty before him
the way of conversion before he dies." 80
Stahlin/Grundmann

D. The Linguistic Usage and History of quaptovw, quapinua and cuaptia

before and in the NT.
1. quaptavo ("not to hit" or "to miss") is synon. with &TtoTyXovelv (Suid.)
and the opp. of TUYX&VELV (cf. Hom. II., 5, 287: Huppotes 008° ÉTUXES, Hdt.,
I, 43). The word is found in the concrete sense from the time of Homer (Suid.:
&OKOTO TOEEUEIV), but it is also used metaphorically, esp. in the sense of "in-
tellectual shortcoming" (Thuc., I, 33, 3; Philo Omn. Prob. Lib., 133 : yvouns), and
thence in the abs. sense of "error" (Dio Chrys. Or., 53, 3). The 0000 is the opp.
of the quaprovov (cf. Gorg. Pal., 26, Blass); the quaptivooc is "the one who
is in error" (e.g., Hes. Theog., 511). But already in Homer it denotes "erroneous
action" (Od., 22, 154; Xenoph. Cyrop., V, 4, 19: to yap quaptovElV ave pinous
ovtac 01dev Oauuaotov; cf. errare humanum est). There is also the beginning of
moral evaluation in the sense of "doing wrong" (1I., 9, 501: 8TE KEV TIS iTepBin
xai quapr; cf. Od., 13, 214).
The LXX (- 268 ff.) occasionally uses quaptavelv for yu, DUN, yun hiph., but
mostly for roh in accordance with the sense. Beyond its basic meaning of "missing"
and its metaphorical sense of "going astray" or "not finding,' Nom had come to
have the predominant religious sense of "aberration" or "sinning." Only by its
use for rom in the LXX did Quaptia itself become a distinctively religious term.
2. As a verbal subst. with -ua, quapinua denotes the result of quaptOvElV,
i.e., "fault" or "mistake," at first more in the sense of folly or blindness than
wrongdoing, as in Soph. Ant., 1261 (-) ouvel6nous with its analogous history).
Aristotle (Eth. Nic., V, 10, p. 1135b, 18; Rhet., I, 13, p. 1374b, 5) defines quap-
mua as a middle case between adlknua and croxnua, since it does not take
place unexpectedly (un napa oy∞c), yet &VEU kaklac. In general usage and esp.
in legal terminology, 81 however, it comes more and more to mean an offence
which is committed with evil intent and which therefore occasions guilt (P Tebt.,
5, 3; Antiph., 1, 27: Éxoola kai &K itpovolas doinuata Kai quapmuata).
In the LXX quapinua is used esp. for nxwn though also for rig, yue and 90).
It is particularly common in Wis. (2:12; 4:20 etc.), and always as an ethical and
religious concept for the "sinful act, or "sin." It is set alongside &olxnua in
Gn. 31:36; &81kla in Dt. 19:15; Jer. 14:20; &oÉBnua in Dt. 9:27; ovounua in Jos.

80 ) n. 70. With the thought of a change of heart there arises, alongside the dominant
tendency to identify crime and sin, punishment and expiation, another tendency to con-
centrate on the purely religious concept, i.e., that sin is. something which cannot be removed
by judicial punishment but only in the relationship of the individual to God, i.e., by re-
pentance, good works, suffering, death, or as God punishes it in the future life.
81 Cf. R. Taubenschlag, D. Strafrecht im Rechte d. Papyri (1916), 8; L. Wenger, APF,
II (1902), 483; Hey, 'Auaptia (- Bibl.).
 quaptavo

24:19; &voula in Is. 58:1. It can also mean the "punishment of sin" (Is. 40:2).
While it is more common in the secular sense than duaptia, it is far less frequent,
significant or comprehensive in the Bible than the latter.
In the NT duapmua ("the sinful act") is rare ; it is found only in Mk. 3:28 f.;
4:12 Rec.; R. 3:25; 5:16 DG It Pesch (AB: guapmoavtos); C. 6:18; 2 Pt. 1:9.
3. guaptla, like suapiua, is used from the very first (since Aeschylus) in
a metaphorical sense, but in contrast it is often taken to denote the "nature of
an act" (cf. Cl. Al. Strom., II, 15, 64, 3) . 82 The term was at first used to describe
the fact of duaptovelv, but since the fact can be known only from the defective
act it is natural that this distinction should be effaced even in the known be-
ginnings of its use. Already in Aeschylus (Ag., 119' Talaidc tovo' duaptias
Souv, SC. of the house of Atrides) quaptia is an "offence." As in the case of
quapmua, however, the question of guilt is not posed in the modern sense
(-293). Even acts done out of good motives, if they are punishable and need to be
atoned, are called quapria, e.g., the robbing of Philoctetus in Soph. Phil., 1225 or
the white lie in Trach., 483. It is of a piece with this that in the language of law
and philosophy quaptia is a compréhensive and collective term, as in Pseud.-
Plat. Def., 416a : Tpagic rapa tov oplov Aoyiouov, in which 8p06s may be
taken ethically but also in the more formal legal or even intellectual sense. As the
counterpart of ope6tnc (Plat. Leg., 1, 627d : 6p06mt6c tE kai quaptias nepi
vouov, also II, 668c), quaptia means the nature of an unrighteous action
(- supra), but it is more often used for the action itself over the whole range
from a simple error to a crime (Plat. Gorg., 525c; Aristot. Pol., IV, 16, p. 1336a, 1:
atiula {nutobo0w pettouon itpos thy quaptiav, "licentiousness").
Aristotle also defines quaptia (- quapiua) as a "missing of virtue, the
desired goal, whether out of weakness, accident or defective knowledge" (- ay-
vola), Eth. Nic., II, 5, p. 1106b, 25 ff. This means "wrong without kakia" (III, 13,
p. 1118b, 16 ff. etc.). It is thus intellectual deficiency working itself out morally
according to the intellectual character of Greek ethics (III, 1, p. 1110b, 18 ff.). On
the other hand, at a later period the thought of guilt, which is excluded by
Aristotle, 83 is sometimes linked with quaptla, as in P. Lips., 1119, 3; Ditt. Syll.3,
1042, 15 : pElo quaptlav.
In the LXX quaptia is for the most part a synon. of duxpinua, and it is
normally used for nxon and nxon, often for riy and occasionally for yue, Dtx, 92.
In contrast to the indefinite, general and "tragic" use of Aristotle, quaprla, like
quaptovw, becomes a moral and religious concept of guilt in the LXX ; there is
seen in it an evil will and intention, i.e., a conscious apostasy from and opposition
to God (synon. &61kla). Because this most general and least sharp secular word
for wrong was selected as the main bearer of the pitiless biblical thought of sin,
and partly by reason of its concrete relationship of meaning with xon, quaptla
became the most pregnant term among all its numerous synonyms, $4 being cal-

82 Cr.-Ko., 139; Trench, 154 f.

83 O. Hey, op. cit., shows how quaptia became a catch-word in the Aristot. theory of
drama, but no true starting-point for the theory of "tragic guilt. When we compare the
Aristot. exclusion of the thought of moral guilt in the modern sense with the biblical in-
clusion, we can see that "the word quapla as variously conceived reflects the profound
difference between two worlds of culture" (Hey, 163).
84 Cf. Trench, 152.
duaptovo

culated to express the divine reference of sin much more purely than, e.g., such
primarily ethical concepts as doikla and kakia. 85
The NT follows the LXX in the meaning of the various quapt- constructions. 86
It is almost always a matter of "offence in relation to God with emphasis on guilt,"
i.e., of "sin." Three main forms of quapria are to be distinguished in the NT,
a. sin as an individual act (= duapiua), b. as a determination of the nature of
man, and c. as a personal power. All three have earlier stages outside the NT,
but the NT understanding of esp. b. and characterises the NT concept of sin.
In the NT, in contrast to all earlier forms, sin is a magnitude which determines
man and humanity in the sense of distance from God and opposition to Him.
a. duapria is understood as an individual act (for earlier forms of this aspect
294) consistently in the Synoptics, in Acts (2:38; 3:19; 7:60; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38;
22:16; 26:18), in the Past. (1 Tm. 5:22, 24; 2 Tm. 3:6), in Revelation (1:5; 18:4 f.),
mostly in Hb. (1:3; 2:17; 5:1 etc.) and in the Cath. Ep. (Jm. 2:9; 4:17; 5:15, 20;
1 Pt. 2:22, 24; 3:18; 4:8; 2 Pt. 1:9; 2:14; Jn. 1:9; 2:2, 12; 3:4 f., 8; 4:10; 5:16 f.).
In the Synoptics it is almost always used (Mk. 1:5 and par. Mt. 1:21 being ex-
ceptions), and in Acts exclusively, in relation to the remission of sins (Mk. 2:5 and
par.; Lk. 11:4 etc.; sing. only in Mt. 12:31; Ac. 7:60). Paul uses quapria of in-
dividual sins for the most part only in quotations (R. 4:7 f. w31:1 f.; 11:27 =
Is. 27:9) and borrowed formulae (1 C. 15:3 : Xplotoc &TE0XVEV UTED ToV quap-
Tiov nuiv kata tac ypapac; Gl.1:4: tou Sovtoc gautov OTTEP TOV quap-
TIGV juov; Col. 1:14: &oEoIS Tov quaptioov). R.7:5; 2 C.11:7; Eph. 2:1 are
exceptions. The plur. is used in all these passages except R. 4:8 (a quotation) and
2 C. 11:7. In the Gospel John uses duaptia in this sense only in 8:24 (twice), 3ta;
9:34 (an allusion to Ps. 51:5), but it is more common in the First Epistle, which
in this respect also is nearer than the Gospel to the common world of Christian
ideas and concepts. 81
b. quaprla is used already to denote the defective nature of man in Plato
(Leg., I, 627d, II, 668c), who speaks of the op0oms and quaptia (- 294) of
laws or of works of musical or poetic art. A complete transformation takes place
when the NT uses quapria to denote the determination of human nature in
hostility to God, esp. in In. in the synon. formulae "XELV duapriav (9:41; 88 15:22,
24; 19:11; 1 Jn. 1:8) and quaptia Ev tivi foTv (1 Jn. 3:5; cf. Jn. 7:18), and simi-
larly, though with a reversal of the spatial relationship, gtofaveiv Év th quaptla
(8:21) .89 We also read in In. 8:24 : ano0aveiv tv taic quapriaic (also Ez. 18:24);
in 9:34 : yewao0a tv quaptiaus; and again in C. 15:17: gTl ÉaTe ev taic
quaptiaus buov. Man lives outside Christ and dies in sins. In these expressions
the plur. is a comprehensive term similar to the sing. elsewhere in Jn. (also 9:41;

85 Cf. Cr.-Ko., 137 f.

88 Steinleitner (- 268 n.), 85 : "Nowhere do we see more clearly the difference between
paganism and Christianity than in the conception of sin.
Here, too, the lig. etym. quaptarvo quaptiav which derives from the LXX:
Ex. 32:30 f.; Lv. 4:23; 5:6, 10, 13; Ez. 18:24; and Philo Mut. Nom., 233, Herm. v., 2, 2, 4.
Secular Gk. usage prefers the more exact &. quapmua: Soph. Phil., 1249; Plat. Phaed.,
113e: Dio Chrys. Or., 32, 3. Cf. M. Johannessohn, Der Gebrauch der Kasus u. der Pra-
positionen d. LXX (Diss. Berlin, 1910), 56 f.; Winer § 32, 2.
88 Cf. Pesikt., 5, p. 55b (Buber) in Schl. J., 232.
89 Cf. lEp. 38:30; bShab., 55b in Schl. J., 208,
 duaptavo

1 Jn. 1:7) and also frequently in the Pauline literature (R. 3:20 : Étlyvwous quap-
tias; 5:13, 20; 6:1: emu&velv rn quaptlq; 6:6a : To o@ua the quaprias; 7:7;
8:3 : oape duaptias; Hb. 4:15; 9:28,26 : Elc d0ÉTnoIv tis quaptias; 11:25;
1 Pt. 4:1: nenaiolal quaptlas; esp. 2C. 5:21 shows quaptia to be a pregnant
expression for the whole sinful nature of man.
C. Personifications of sin are found in the Paris Gk. magic papyrus and also
in Judaism, the one referring to 'Auaptia x06viau (Preis. Zaub., IV, 1448), a
species of demons of the underworld, and the other to the woman of sin as in
Zech. 5:5 ff. 90 and also to quaptial lurking like lions (Sir. 27:10), both within
the framework of the currently developing view of a cosmic power of sin. 91
A similar idea is originally presupposed by the personal conception of quapria
(mostly with the art.) 92 which is often found in the NT, esp. in R. 5-7.03 The
initial reference is simply to the personal appearance of sin ; it came into the world
(R. 5:12). Originally it was VEKp& (7:8), but n auaptia ave(noev through the
avion or the vouoc (v. 9). It receives from this the impulse (v. 7,11) to deceive
man (v. 11; also Hb. 3:13) and to "beset" him (Hb. 12:1, EoTEpioTaTos); it dwells
in him (R. 7:17, 20); it brings forth naijuata (v. 5) and ÉniOvula (v.8); and it
thus becomes a demonic power ruling over him. Man is 0¢" quaptiav (R. 3:9;
Gl. 3:22; cf. R. 11:32); he is sold to it as a slave (R. 6:16, 20; 7:14; also In. 8:34;
cf. G1. 2:17); he serves according to its law (6:6; 7:23,25; 8:3) ; he loans it his
members as ott/a doiklac (6:13). Its sphere of power is the oape, where it
exercises its dominion (KUPLEUEI, 6:14; BacEUEl, 5:21; 6:12), which culminates
in its giving man the wages (6:23) of death (5:21; 7:11; cf. Jm. 1:15). But through
and with Christ man dies to sin (R. 6:2, 10), and is thus vekp6c for it (v. 11) and
liberated from it (v. 7, 18, 22). Sin itself is condemned (8:3). Nevertheless, the
battle against it must not cease (Hb. 12:4).
It is hard to say how far what we have here is the concrete notion of a demon
"sin" (Dibelius) standing in place of Satan, who is not mentioned at all in R. 6 f.,
and how far it is simply poetic imagery (Feine). How fluid are the boundaries
between these NT forms of the quapria concept may be seen from John (cf. esp.
Jn. 8:34; Jn. 3:5; and e.g., In. 8:21 with v. 24).
Stahlin

E. Sin and Guilt in Classical Greek and Hellenism.

1. The Christian view of sin is not found in classical Gk. In this we have no
sin in the sense of man's enmity against God consisting in his refusal to understand
and will the right. ¾ In this section, therefore, it is as well not to use the term sin,

90 Cf. R. Smend, Lehrbuch d. at.l. Rel.-Gesch.2 (1899), 402.

81 Cf. Koberle, 473
92 On the whole, the use of the art. with duapria, which e.g.. Cr.-Ko. selects as
principle for co-ordinating the meaning, is not very common ; cf. R. 6:6 with 8:3; 6:16 with
v. 17 etc.
93 Cf. Ltzm. R.2, 65; M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt i. Glben. d. Pls. (1909), 119 ff.;
P. Feine, Theol. d. NT5 (1931), 200 f.
94 S. Kierkegaard, Die Krankheit z. Tode (H. Gottsched and C. Schrempf?, 1924), 89,
where in the chapter "The Socratic Definition of Sin" we are given an analysis of the
Gk. and Christian conceptions of sin.
quaptavo

but to introduce the Gk. conception of defect and guilt, since the stem duapt-
(- 293) means "missing a definite goal," whether mistakenly or guiltily, or by a
mistake which is itself guilt.
The terminology has a wide reference. It covers everything from crime to harm-
less faults. 05 It includes moral actions but also intellectual and artistic failings. The
same writers use it in many senses. 96 "quaptavelv came to be purely negative
term for doing something which is not > 6p06v, the word oplov being used in
the sense of morality, of formal law, or indeed of that which is intellectually or
technically correct." 9T
For a full grasp of the thought of guilt interwoven and expressed in the Gk.
quapt-concept, other terms had to be introduced. Thus in early Gk. we have a,
a word which combines the thought of destiny and one's own act. 98 In the post-
Homeric period we also find the a81K- group. "Developing from the personal
experience of the poet (sc. Hesiod), the belief that all unrighteousness is sin con-
stitutes the critical point of the 'works' of Hesiod." 99 On the basis of the life of
the state and society, which cannot exist without law, doikla came to be under-
stood as a violation of the norm of existence. Noté should also be taken of the
cultically orientated &yos and ulaoua, of UBpus, and finally, in relation particu-
larly to the philosophical literature, of KaK6G, kakla.
2. The concept of guilt in the earliest period is determined by an attitude to
life which has no distinctive awareness of self or freedom but gives itself joyfully
to what is given in the form of destiny and divine ordination (cf. Hom. 11., 19,
83 f.). 100 An incurred guilt is known from resultant misfortune (ouveionous).
Guilt or misdemeanour is one's own action. In the Homeric period it consists in
cultic neglect, perjury and violation of the law of hospitality in opposition to divine
and human tuuñ; in Hesiod the circle is widened to include the wounding or dis-
honouring of parents, divorce, oppression of orphans and social injustice generally
(Hes. Op., 327 ff.). Such things evoke the wrath of the gods who are the guardians
and guarantors of law and order. Cf. Hom. Od., 13, 214 : ZeuC ave pintous
toopa kai telvutal SoTIc quapi. In relation to this early period of the Gk.
spirit the statement of Rohde is in every sense true : "They were hardly susceptible
to the infectious sickness of consciousness of sin in their greatest centuries.
3. Into this Homeric world there flows in the 6th and 7th centuries B.C. a
broad wave of oriental religiosity and other feeling. The Greek becomes open to
the recognition of the sinful and mortal state of the world. 102 "Behind that which
is close to hand and of the day, man experiences night and the unfathomableness
of existence." 103 The questionable nature of human life, the inscrutability of fate

95 Hey, 'Auapria, 11.

96 Cf. the many examples given in Hey, 7 Ff., esp. from Thucydides and legal terminology
(14 f.) and from Aristotle (141 ff.).
97 Hey, 15 f.
98 Cf. W. Jaeger, "Solons Eunomie," SAB (1926).
99 Latte, op. cit., 266.
100 Cf. on this point Stenzel, op. cit., 17 ff.
101 E. Rohde, Psyched 10 (1925), I, 319.
102 Cf. Weinstock, op. cit., 275 ff., esp. 279 f.
103 Ibid., 280.
 duaptavo

and the inevitability of guilt enter the Greek field of vision. The mysteries, esp.
the Orphic, are linked with this experience. They rise everywhere, and men who
see their very existence threatened take refuge in them. In such circles life is felt
to be a consequence of guilt. "It is in expiation of fault that the soul is exiled in
the body ; the payment for sin is earthly life, which is the death of the soul.' 104
Original guilt prior to life, and the sentence of death after it. 106 take a central
place and exert a wide influence in art and philosophy. Threatened in this way,
the Greek spirit wrestles with itself and is deepened and enriched. "The visible
and lasting result, with which the Greek spirit bears witness to the removal of the
threat in blessing, is tragedy."108 The concept of guilt, which previously found it
in pure acts, is now understood in such a way as to denote by guilt an inward
factor in man (- 299).
Human guilt is the confusion of the existing order, the disruption of an ob-
jectively given state, which man must make good by his suffering and the mis-
fortune which strikes him, and sometimes by his destruction. This is not the quilt
of a man who has freedom to choose between good and evil. It is the guilt of a
blindness which in the last resort is posited with his existence. 107 Guilt is in-
evitable. It is at this point that the term > dyvoia, which is so essential to the
Gk. understanding of existence, attains its final depth of meaning. All guilt derives
from &yvoia, but this &yvola is the limitation of human existence, which would
cease to be human existence if it possessed omniscience. The deep meaning of the
Oedipus tragedy, for example, consists in "the tragic limitation of human know-
ledge, which as such must remain fragmentary" and "with which there is posited
the tragedy of human action," "which is action in the full sense of the word only
when it is consciously directed to goal and fashioned in clear knowledge." 108
Human guilt follows from the limitation of human knowledge, not as personal
moral guilt, but as guilt given with existence itself. Since man in his ignorance
is set to act, and by his action to have a part spatially and temporally in the un-
limited nexus of cause and effect, with unforeseeable consequences for which he
is thus not responsible, all action is quilt. 109 In face of this situation, all that man
can do is to accept his guilt, 110 as Oedipus does, who takes from the gods his guilt
in his own existence and fate 111 and confesses himself guilty in his suffering. In
this suffering, however, there is disclosed to man the final meaning of his existence
generally. For like everything else, man's becoming guilty is set aside in the will

104 Rohde, II, 126.

105. Cf. Latte, 281 ff., where examples are given.
106 Weinstock, 280.
107 Cf. the scene in Soph. Ant., in which Creon comes out of the house with Haemon's
corpse. The chorus uvñu' Énionuov Si& Xeipoc Exov OOK dAAotpias ains, aAA'
autoc suaptov. Creon ID ODEVV BUGOPOVIY QUAPTALATA OTEDEG {avaToEVT'
Év 8' EuG Kapa HEOg toT' apa tote Heya Bapoc H' EXOV ETAIOEV, EV &' fOEIOgV
cyplais 680ic (1258 ff.). Not long before we have the words of Teiresias : Évépo-
ToOlol yap toic Taol KOLVO1 ÉaTI toiEauapr&velv (1023 f.).
108 Weinstock, 149 ff., esp. 172 ff., and again 230 ff. The quotations are from 151.
100 Ibid., 175.
110 Cf. also the analysis of Sophocles' Ajax in W. Schadewaldt, "Sophokles, Aias und
Antigone," in Neue Wege zur Antike, 8 (1929), 70 ff., and esp. the concluding section with
what is said about greatness and guilt on p. 100 ff.
111 Cf. Soph. Oed. Col., 974 : El 8' ai pavelc buomvos, oc Eyo cony
quaptovo

and counsel of the gods. For the Greeks, therefore, to become guilty and to suffer
in consequence is simply to come to a deeper understanding of the world. (Aesch.
Ag., 176 f.). This is Greek religion.
From the necessity of guilty action given with this understanding of existence,
there arises the possibility of voluntary guilt confessed by Prometheus in Aeschy-
lus' work of this name, when to the question of the leader of the chorus oux
opac ETl AuaptES; Oc 8' MuaptEs oUT" Epol AÉyEIv Kal® Abovny ool T' &^ yog'
(259 ff.), he answers ÉKov Éxov fuaptov, OUK apvñoouat® Ovntoic xphywv
autoc nopounv tovouc (266 f.). We here find a concept of guilt in accordance
with which human existence is determined by existential guilt, and with it is set
in a nexus of suffering.
In tragedy the thought of existential guilt is brought into connection with an-
other line of thought which begins in the later Homeric period and which is clearly
expressed in the acknowledged later part of the Odyssey, in which the following
statement is put on the lips of Zeus: o Torol olov on v lEoic Bpotoi altoov-
Tal' E& queov yap Paol KaK"' EuuEval. of SÉ Kai autoi opjow araofa^inow
UTteP uopov &lyE' Eyouow (Hom. Od., 1, 32 ff.). Within the suffering which
arises from fatal guilt and which is poised with fatal necessity, there is also mis-
fortune incurred through personal guilt and self-created, even though warning is
given by the gods and there is advance knowledge of the destruction which
threatens for wrong-doing; Hom. Od., 1, 37 f.: Eloc almov BEOpov, ETEi Ttp6
of ELTTOUEV fuEiC. Here man gains an insight into the working of an immanent
process of visible law a thought which is first formulated by Solon : "According
to immanent laws of developing reality; according to the law of time, the bad
withers and the good flourishes and establishes itself." 112 The concept of ayvola
evoked by guilt is here a failure to know the good which leads to blessedness
according to this immanent process of law. These thoughts were developed by
philosophy. Democritus could already say: quaprins aitin i qualin tou KpÉ000-
vos (Fr., 83, Diels, II, 78, 13). Socrates based his work of instruction on the prin-
ciple that ignorance is at the root of guilt and evil. It is thus self-evident for Greek
philosophy that right understanding will lead to right action. Knowledge is an
existential insight and not just an intellectual magnitude. The man who really
understands and knows 118 acts rightly. Behind this assumption stands belief in the
goodness (- apet) of man. 114 This idea that insight fashions action underlies

112 Stenzel, 27 acc. to Fr. 3, 30 ff. (Diehl, 24); 24, 3 (I, 35); 10 (1, 28 f.).
113 On the inner dialectic of this Socratic ayvoia concept, cf. Kierkegaard : "If a
does not do right, he has not understood it; his understanding is illusory; his certainty that
he has understood it simply proves that he misunderstands what he thinks he has under-
stood But then the definition is correct. If man does right, he does not sin ; and if
he does not do right, he has not understood it ; if he had truly understood it, it would
have moved him to do it and made him a representative of its truth ; ergo sin is ignorance
(87).
114 Kierkegaard shows that the Socratic definition of sin is no definition: "If, therefore,
the Socratic definition of sin is correct, there is no sin" (84). And Kierkegaard goes on to
ask very pertinently, disclosing the underlying belief in the natural goodness of man:
"What is lacking in Socrates' definition of sin ? The will, the defiance. Greek intellectualism
was too happy, too naive, too aesthetic, too ironic, too witty, too sinful, to be able to
grasp that all of us consciously refrain from doing good and consciously, i.e., with know-
ledge of the good, do evil. The Greek world lays down an intellectual categorical im-
perative' (84 f.).
 duaptoves

tragedy. Its strength lies in belief that there is a unitary and intelligible world
order in which it may be expected that evil and arrogance will co-operate but in
which it is still possible to regulate one's action according to the definite, re-
cognisable relationship between guilt and punishment, and therefore to achieve
insight through the paradigms of great suffering in the mythical past or through
one's own experience of its operations." 115 It is thus orientated to "the idea of
polity and the thought of the state embodied in it. 116 This line of thought is, of
course, intersected by that of existential quilt (- 298) which can disturb all under-
standing, since there is a necessity about this guilt and dyvoia is blindness (&m).
But the two lines come together in the deepening of the idea that tragedy has a
purpose of instruction by mediating the thought of ignorance and reverence before
omniscient deity.11T Plato's thinking concerning guilt is developed in terms of
-> a8ikia, which is more or less equivalent to quapria (cf. e.g., Gorg., 525c;
Phaid., 113e; Leg. X, 906c), and of > kakov. For him the thought of guilt in
connection with that of destiny is urned in the very different direction already
indicated in Hom. Od., 1, 32 f., namely, that men choose their own destinies. The
quilt in misfortune concerns only those who choose, while deity is innocent (...
airla ÉlouÉvou® feoc avaitios, Resp., X, 617e). A new and sharp definition of
what quaptia is in relation to aikia is presented by Aristotle. 118 got atuxn-
uata LEV 8a tapaloya kai un anto poxenpias, quapiuata dE 8oa pr
Tapa/oya Kat un anto rovnplas, adiknuata bÉ, 8oa unte papaloya ato
rovnpias tE Éotlv (Rhet., I, 13, p. 1374b, 7 ff.). What are quapiuata in this
context ? The word group auapt- is used with a wider reference but unambiguous
meaning to denote artistic and intellectual defects, 119 technical and hygienic fail-
ings, 120 errors on the part of a legislator or judge, 121 and political blunders. 122
Finally it has an ethical significance. In the ethical field a quaptia is not an
&8ukia but a mistake made in an ethical action performed in good faith that it is
right. It is the result of non-culpable &yvola. Virtue for Aristotle is the mean
between two extremes, while quaptia is deviation on the right hand or the left. 123
to LEV quaptavelv Tolayic ÉTI to 8É Katoploiv uovaxoc paolov
LEV yap28To
p. 1106b, ff.).ATOTUXE{V tOU OOrTOD,
No matter what the y committed.
it is CaNETTO y oquapta-
such E. TO ÉTITUX
VElv always rests on &yvoia (for the ethical field, cf. Eth. Eud., VIII, 1, p. 1246a,
32 ff.; Pol., III, 11, p. 1231b, 28). The word group is totally divested by Aristotle
of its association with moral guilt. "The word or word group does not belong

115 For this and the following quotation, v. Stenzel, 87.

116 Cf. on this point the analysis of Aesch. Eum. in Stenzel, 84-87, where it is shown
that the order of the state is a divine order "The decisive development to the immanence
of the suprasensual in the sensual, which was achieved by philosophy only after a long
and severe struggle, was anticipated in poetry.'
117 Cf. the conclusion to Soph. Oed. Tyr. tote Ovntov 8vta KE(vy thy TEgutaiav
LEiv nuEpav EitlOKOTtOUvta undEv O^Blgelv, rpiv &v tepua tot piou TEp&on undev
aAyelvov Ta(Gv, 1528 Ff. Cf. also how in the oracle - on this point v. Weinstock's inter-
pretation (184 fE.) - the thought of the immanent system of law manifested in it recurs.
118 Cf. esp. Hey, 137 ff.
110 Hey, 141.
120 Hey, 141 f.
121 Hey, 143.
122 Hey, 145.
123 Hey, 147 ff., with many examples.
quaptovo

at all to the moral sphere, but to the intellectual." 124 But this is of a piece with
the general rationalising of Greek thought present in Aristotle and developed in
post-Aristotelian philosophy.
4. Thus the two lines in the Greek concept of quilt which were previously held
together by the ayvola concept and the thought of immanence, namely, existential
guilt which is fate and the thought of error which takes place out of &yvoia and
brings suffering, now fall apart. Rationalism becomes predominant in philosophy.
All guilt derives from ayvoia, which can be removed by education. By opovnois
man who is regarded as good can attain to the actualisation of good. to SE quap-
TAVELV EK TOU dyVoEiv KpiVElV 8 Tu xpn TOlEiv ouviotaTal (CI. Al. Strom., II, 15,
62, 3; cf. Epict. Diss., I, 26, 6). The rationalistic concept of knowledge of later
philosophy destroys the serious concept of guilt of the classical period. 125
Yet the concept of fate remained. It no longer attained the height of the classical
period with its idea of the identity of fate and guilt. It now became an experience
which disrupts the thought of guilt and delivers up human existence to caprice.
The mystery religions, which in the Hellenistic period crowded into the Greek
world in great numbers, are all designed to break through the barrier of fate and
mortality. To the same context belongs Hellenistic mysticism, which finds ex-
pression in the Corp. Herm. and which regards the world as the theatre of * kakia
interpreted as a cosmic power, and man as one who has fallen victim to vices
from which he can be rescued only by the gracious gift of yvoous. dyvoia and
yvoos have here become metaphysical opposites. The result of this dominant
thought of guilt is the retreat of guilt as personal responsibility ; cf. e.g.: toxn
VOUv EXOvta &VE POTOV QUAPT&VELV AVOYKAOEV (Lib. Ep., 1025). Here the deci-
sive factor in existence is no longer man's knowledge or ignorance ; it is his
foreordained destiny, which is also the cause of his guilt. In consequence there
is also a change in the quapt. concepts. "How far the intellectual colouring of the
word quaptavelv is lost is shown by the 'amnesty' of Euergetes II, which supple-
ments yvoñuata by quapiuata in its attempt to give a comprehensive de-
scription of all offenders." 126 Under the pressure of fate quaptavElV is simply
human destiny in general. 12f
5. An exception to Greek and Hellenistic thought in general is to be found in
the inscriptions from Asia Minor gathered by Steinleitner from the field of
Phrygian and Lydian religion. 128 In these primitive religions we find a belief in
God as the absolute lord of his devotees who wills their good and himself punishes
every violation. quaptia or quapt&vElV, which can be conscious and inten-

124 Hey, 160; cf. 161: "There is no adequate equivalent in our language for the concept
of quaptia with its many nuances. In Aristotelian terms, it is for us an dvovouov. We
can render it blunder, failure (but not fault), miscalculation, misunderstanding, oversight
(but not transgression), misjudgment, aberration, absurdity or folly according to the
character and severity of the 'Hamartia'.
125 There can be no serious question of a rise of the idea of sin. ""The word (sin) is not
in keeping with the Stoic system (Bonhoffer).
126 P. Tebt., I, 5, 3 (cf. Latte, 287).
127 Cf. ook fatlv &voponos, 8c gnostal Kal oix quaptioel, Preisigke Sammelbuch,
4949, 17 ff.; 5716, 17.
128 F. S. Steinleitner, Die Beicht i Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Reche in der
Antike (Diss. Munchen, 1913). also quaptw^os, 318.
 quaptarvo

tional or the reverse ([ÉE] elbotov Kai un Elo6twv, No. 11 in Steinleitner ; kat'
dyvoiav No. 14), is a violation of deity. It is called kataopoveiv TOU 0:00
(No. 22). The religious significance of this sin is thus clearly brought out. 129 Sin
consists 130 in gratitude withheld from deity (No.7), in insulting speech (No. 12),
in transgression of regulations for cleanness (No. 13), in violation of the sanctuary
(No. 14), in non-observance of required cultic chastity (No. 22, 23), in cultic
misdemeanour (No. 25, 33), and in perjury (No. 3, 6,8). A whole series of sins is
ethical in character. The godhead reacts to each offence with some punishment.
Sickness especially is regarded as a punishment for sin. Sin is a kind of "substance
which brings sickness." 131 So far as the character of these sins is concerned, it is
excellently described by Steinleitner in the words: "Since the concern in this
conception of sin and guilt is only with cultic and ritual offences, not with laws
of basic ethics, the objective fact of the sinful act alone constitutes the essence
of sin. No regard is had to the moral quilt or innocence of the doer." 132 The aim
and goal of the related act of expiation is "to make the sinner physically and
cultically normal again.' "It is not directed to the inward disposition of the man,
but only to his outward habitus.' 133 The KATXOPOVELV TOU 0EOU is not an ex-
istential determination of man, but one of the acts described above. 134 Here too,
then, there can be no question of any true consciousness of sin.
With this we should perhaps link what is said by Plutarch 135 on one occasion :
ga ME &VOPATE, 8166vaL BIKNV, TOV GOEBA, TOV ÉTAPATOV, TO DE kai
Saluoo1 uELionuévov, Superst., (II, 168c).
Stahlin/Grundmann

F. Sin in the NT.

1. The Synoptic Gospels and Acts.
a. In the Synoptic Gospels it is striking how slight is the role of terms for
sin as compared with their application in other parts of the NT. If we investigate
the terms and their place in these Gospels, we find certain significant features

129 The religious connection is naturally present in the classical Greek world as well
(Plat. Phaedr. 242c; Leg., X, 891e; Aesch. Prom., 945; Xenoph. Hist. Graec., I, 7, 19; later
Muson, p. 78, 9 and 13). Greek humanism is religious. The deities are equated with the
immanent system of law. They are forms of reality. But this is rather different.
130 Cf. on this point Steinleitner, 83 ff.
131 lbid., 99.
132 Steinleitner, 92.
133 Ibid., 121.
134 This concept of sin is also found in the examples quoted from the mysteries of
Samothrace in J. Leipoldt, Das Gotteserlebnis Jesu (1927), 35 and "Der Sieg des Christen-
tums uber die antiken Religionen," Festschr. f. L. Ihmels (1928), 81 f. Cf. Plut. Apophth.
Lac. Antalcidas, I (II, 217c d), Lysandros 10 (II, 229d), where confession for sin is de-
manded. Leipoldt comments: "Thus sinners, and sinners specifically, were welcomed at
Samothrace, and undoubtedly their sins were remitted. We can hardly say, however, how
far we are to think of cultic sin or of sin ethically understood. Those who know Gk. religion
will see the difficulty. The attitude of Christianity is unambiguous. Jesus and Paul are
indifferent to cultic matters ... ("Sieg des Christentums," 81 f.). Cf. also Steinleitner,
118 f.
135 Latte, 294.
quapravo

which may be reduced to the twofold statement, first, that Jesus did not speak of
sin and its nature and consequences, but was conscious of its reality (e.g., in the
Sermon on the Mount) and acted accordingly, and second, that in His acts and
sayings He was conscious of being the Victor over sin. These features may be
illustrated from the Gospels.
b. The mission of Jesus is the proclamation of the divine lordship fulfilled in
His Word and action. The event achieved by this lordship is the overcoming of
sin. As Jesus proclaims the Father in His proclamation, and declares His goodness
in His works, there arises a recognition of the distance of God and the impurity
of man, and a desire for God. This event achieved by the coming of Jesus is
described in the parable of the Prodigal Son, who goes to his father and con-
fesses : TOTEP, Kuaptov ElG tov oupavov kai ÉVdTtioV OOU (Lk. 15:18,21). The
parable shows us what Jesus understands by sin. It is going out from the father's
house, i.e., godlessness and remoteness from God working itself out in a life in
the world with all its desires and its filth. The event achieved through the coming
of Jesus is recognition of this sin and conversion to God. Thus Jesus shows what
penitence is as well as sin, namely, the way to God as the Father who receives the
sinner with love. kÉyc Duiv 8tl OUTO© xxpa Év to oipavo gotal Éti Évi quap-
TwA© uEtavoodvtl h ÉTi ÉVEVAKOVIa ÉVvéa BIKI, S 0i xpeiav gyouarv
ueravolac (Lk. 15:7, cf. v. 10). On the basis of this twofold knowledge Jesus does
not speak of sin but proclaims God as the Father in His lordship, conscious that
this proclamation goes right home to the sin which consists both in godlessness
and in guilt towards one's neighbour, 136 and thus brings about the event of peni-
tence. This sin is guilt towards God. Hence its bitter seriousness. 137
The basic insight is confirmed in the attitude of Jesus. He describes His task
to the Pharisees in the words : oi yap hAlov karÉoal SiKaious alAx guapto-
Aouc (Mt. 9:13). 138 He knows that He is sent to those who live in guilt far from
God in order to call them to God. From this task springs His attitude as described
by the Evangelists: Kai €yÉVETO aUTOU OVaKELuÉVou Év th olkla, kai 18o0
To ol TEAGval Kai quaptoloi E OOVTES ouvavEKElvto to 'Inoot kal toic
ua0ntais 10to6 (Mt. 9:10; cf. v.11 par.; Lk. 15, 1, 2; 19:7). From this attitude
derives the judgment TEAGVIV piOS Kai quaptolov (Mt. 11:19 and Lk. 7:34).139
This attitude consists in acceptance of the closest fellowship known to the oriental
world, i.e., table fellowship. In this attitude He is the Victor over sin, not merely
by overcoming. the gulf between the righteous and sinners, but by forgiving sin
and thus overcoming the gulf between God and sinners and establishing a new
fellowship with God by drawing sinners into fellowship with Himself. 140 This is
the effect of the word of forgiveness which He speaks and which shows Him

136 Cf. Mt. 18:23 ff.; 5:21 ff.; 6:14 f.; also rtovnpoc.
137
opEl nua, BOELAETNS, Mt. 6:12; 18:24.
138 It is true that Jesus finds both Slkaiot and quaptwlol in His people. It is true that
He thus sets alongside the prodigal son another who remains in his father's house and
to his brother a trait obviously based on experience.
trembles at the eveleo that Jesus mesulivente sees the universality of sinfulness. This em
to the Sixaios. From this insight derive such verdicts as that of Mk. 8:38 (-3 Tow pos);
Lk. 6:32 ff.; 13:1-4. Cf. RGG2, V., 885, 3.
139 On the formula teAovai kal quaptwlol, cf. Joachim Jeremias, ZNW, 30 (1931),
293 ff.
140 Cf. esp. Schl. Mt., 304.
 quaptavo

to be the Christ sitting on the right hand of God and endowed with omnipotence
(= aOEOIS, EEovola, cf. Mt. 9:2; Lk. 7:47 ff.). How the event described in the
parable of the Prodigal Son is brought about by the attitude of Jesus, we see
clearly from many narratives, such as that of the draught of fishes (Lk. 5:8), or
of the woman who sinned much (Lk. 7:37 ff.), or of Zacchaeus (Lk. 19:1 f.). That
God meets with fellowship this conversion to Himself is shown by Jesus in His
verdict on the publican in the temple who confesses : iAaoenti Hot to quaptolo
(Lk. 18:13 ff.).
Neither Jesus' word of forgiveness nor His attitude can be taken for granted.
They are in fact quite extraordinary. They constitute the overcoming of sin and
therefore the irruption of the divine lordship. They are eschatological. This
emerges particularly clearly in the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is the de-
claration of the new covenant promised for the last time (Jer. 31:31-34). This new
covenant is concluded with the coming of Jesus and set in force with His death.
His blood is the blood of the covenant (to alua ths duxeikns), of which it is
said : to TEPI TOAAV ÉKXUVVOLEVOV EIC &DEOLV quaptiov (Mt. 26:28).141 With
it is fulfilled : Meoc Eaoual taic doiklaic aitov Kai Tov quaptiov aitov 00
un umolo ETI (lep. 38:34 = 31:34 Mas.). But with it there is also fulfilled what
Dt.-Is. writes concerning the Servant of the Lord: kal aitos quaprias toAAov
VIVEYKE (Is. 53:12).142 Jesus is the Servant of the Lord who by His death and
passion bears away the sin of humanity. This is how He understood His mission.
It means that by His coming, death and resurrection, sin is overcome and the
foundation laid for the new world of God.
In this light we can understand the saying about the unforgivable sin (-> 104),
irrespective of whether we regard it as a saying of Jesus, a product of the theology
of the community, or a genuine saying refashioned by the community. The saying
is as follows: taoa quaptia Kal Braoonula doElnoetal tois aveponois, f
8É TOU TIVE uaTOS Baoonuia oiK doEBhoETaI. OUTE ÉV TOUTO tO alov OUTe
Év To UE AOVT, Mt. 12:31 f. par. (Mk.: Évoxos Éotiv alaviou quapihuatos,
3:29). This sin is committed when a man recognises the mission of Jesus by the
Holy Spirit but defies and resists and curses it. The saying shows the seriousness
of the situation. It is the last time, in which the lordship of God breaks in.
c. Jesus as the Victor over sin this is the Synoptic kerygma derived from
the story of Jesus. This kerygma comes out with particular clarity in the saying
of the angel to Joseph in the introductory story in Matthew a saying which
interprets the name of Jesus: autoc yap FOGEL TOV LaOv aUToG &TO TOV quap-
TOv aitov (Mt. 1:21).
The history of Jesus was prepared by the emergence of the Baptist, which on
any view must be seen as preparation. In the Baptist the thought of sin is central.
We can see this from his preaching, which had the effect £Eouo^oyovuevou
tac quaptias aitov (Mt. 3:6). We can see it also from his baptism, which Mk.
and Lk. both call BaTtioua uetavoias sic apEoI quaPtIGv (Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3).
In the song of praise of Zacharias his mission is described in the words: too

141 The addition gic aoeolv quaptiov is found only in Mt., yet it is a meaningful
interpretation of what is at issue.
142 Cf. also Is. 53:5, 6. The Tool of the words of institution in Mt. and Mk. un-
mistakeably reflects Is. 53:12.
 quapravo

806val yvoow oumplas TO Aad aiTOU EV &OéOEL quaptiov aitov (Lk. 1:77).
Thus in the Baptist, under the impress of the coming kingdom of God, sin, re-
pentance and remission are central. If things are otherwise with Jesus, we have
seen that this is because, in distinction from the Baptist, He is the Fulfiller, i.e.,
the One who overcomes sin, who in every word and deed acts as the Forgiver of
sins, and with whom the kingdom of God breaks in.
The history of Jesus is continued in the work of the apostles. Their proclamation
is the proclamation of Christ as the gift of God's salvation to men. In clear agree-
ment with the action of Jesus and its operation, they demand : uetavoñoate, kai
Bartolnto EKaaTOC Outv imi To ovouarti 'Inoot Xplotot EIC &OEOIV TOV
quaptiov buov (Ac. 2:38). 143 The distinction from Jesus is that there is now a
summons to receive the remission of sins, whereas Jesus gave it directly in His
action by drawing into dealings and fellowship with Himself. In this way we may
distinguish the auboto^ol and the Kupios. The distinction from the Baptist is that
the latter summoned to such reception in the light of a future event, whereas the
disciples speak on the basis of an event which has already occurred : Émi to ovo-
uati 'Inoot Xptotoi. In Him sin is overcome and forgiveness is present : cf. esp.
Ac. 5:31: to0tov GEOC apxnyov kai owipa tywrev th bagig aitou tou
Souval uetavolav to 'opanl kal &DEOLV quaptiov. The Baptist and the
apostles differ in respect of the situation in which they stand (cf. Ac. 10:43;
> &EoIs).
It has already been pointed out (295) that in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts
quaptia is always understood as an individual act. For this reason we have the plur.
quaptial rather than the sing. quaptia. This lexicographical finding confirms our
conclusions (302). Neither Jesus nor the primitive community asked concerning the
nature of sin they saw men in the reality of sins which were very definitely individual
sins. The work of Christ is based on this reality. As shown again by the lexicogra-
phical findings, it was the theologian Paul who raised the theological question of sin
as power which determines the nature of man and the world, and who saw its
actuality as such (295 and cf. also 308). John is nearer to the first group than to Paul.

2. John.
In the Christ kerygma of John 144 we again see the fact of the overcoming of
sin by Christ as it is first displayed in the picture of the historical Jesus presented
by the Synoptists. The significance of this fact is further developed by John. The
mission of Jesus consists in the overcoming of sin kai OldaTE 8Tl ÉKeivoc ÉdavE-
poon iva toc quaprias apn, kai quaptla kv aird ouk fotiv (1 Jn. 3:5). Christ
is the One who takes sin to Himself and bears it away. The reference here is
primarily to His death, and the overcoming of sin is seen in terms of the picture
of atonement deriving from the Jewish sacrificial system. This is brought out by
the > aipetv which both occurs in the verse quoted and is also found in the
picture of the Lamb of God 145 with its reference to sacrifice and its great thematic

143 v. also Lk. 24:47; Ac. 3:19; 13:38; 22:16; 26:18.

144 Cf. R. Seeberg, "Die Stinden und die Sundenvergebung nach dem ersten Brief des
Johannes," Festschr. f. L. Ihmels (1928), 19 ff.
145 Cf., however, Burney's explanation of cuvoc as a mistranslation of "Servant of the
Lord" ; ) 186, and cuvoc.
 quaptavo

significance : t6E 6 QUVOC TOU 0EOU o aipov Thv quaptlav tou Koouou (Jn. 1:29).
It is also brought out vividly by the expressions : kal autoc Maouoc botlv tEpI
tov quaptiov nuiv (1Jn. 2:2; cf. 4:10), and: to alua 'Inoot XpLTTO0 TOU
ulot aitou Katapl(el nuas ato itaons auaptias (1 Jn. 1:7). The overcoming
of the sin of the world by Christ consists in the fact that He makes atonement,
and is the One who atones. This mission of His bursts all human limits, whether
of nation, race or sex : [aoubs Éotiv repi tov quaptiov nudv, of repi Tov
nueTépov 8É uovov alAd kai repi 8ou TOU Koouou (1 Jn. 2:2). This mission of
Jesus to the whole of humanity has its presupposition in His being quaptia Ev
aiTd OUK EOTIV (1 Jn. 3:5). As it makes and is atonement, His mission rests in
His sinlessness in which He is the man after the will of God, who is one with the
Father and who is therefore the Son. He can thus put to the Jews the question
TIC BE, ONOV ÉLÉYXEL LE TEpI Quaprias (Jn. 8:46). In face of the signs which
reveal His Messianic glory the Jews must confess Toe Suvatai avipanoc duap-
TWAOE TOLAITa MUEIX TOLEIV (Jn. 9:16).146
The two sides of Christ's mission, the overcoming of sin by atonement and the
general human significance of this event, correspond to the Johannine concept of
sin. In two passages he gives a precise definition of what he means by sin: TaS
& nolov thi quaptiav kai Th avoulav tolEi, Kai n quapria totiv n ovouia
(1Jn. 3:4); Taoa ddixia quaptia forlv (5:17). Sin is action opposed to the
divine ordinance, which corresponds to the right. It is thus ovoula and &8ikia.
As aoukla it is contradiction of what is right, and therefore of God's will, so that
it is also &voula. It has its origin, therefore, in opposition to God, derives from
human godlessness, and finds expression in sins against one's neighbour. Thus the
basic character of the universality of sin is established. It is not merely a human
state. It involves guilt and brings about separation from God. The statement:
OiSquev 8T 6 Geoc quaptolov OUK &KOUEL, cAX' EXV TIS DEODEBIS n kai to
0É nua aitot Tto, TOUTOU KOUEl (Jn. 9:31), necessarily implies that sin sepa-
rates from God. This separation is absolute: 8 Totov thy quaptiav ek Tou
SaBolou Éotiv, ot on apxns SiaBolos quaptovEl (1 Jn. 3:8) . In the opposi-
tion to God there is manifested the demonic character of man's sin as it binds him
to the buapoloc. We can thus understand quite well the familiar saying : opny
qunv Aeyw ouiv ott TaC o TOLOV Thy quaptiav 8006c gotlv tic quaptias
(Jn. 8:34). This is not a general sentence, as we see from the twofold - cunv,
but a perception of human existence in the light of Christ, namely, that human
sin is servitude to demonic power 147 and therefore complete separation from God.
The mission of Christ brings with it an entirely new situation best denoted by
the word kplous = division and decision. El un hAlov kal Élainoa autoic,
quaptiav ouk etyooav® viv 8É Ttpopaatv ouk gyoualv repi tis auaptias ai

146 We can see both unity with and distinction from the Synoptists. The unity consists
in the kerygma. As Christ, Jesus is the Victor over sin. But while the Syn. bring this out
in His attitude and acts among the Jewish people, and thus give a living picture of His
coming, John forms the kerygmatic thesis of the propitiation of the sin of the world by the
death of Christ, and he thus stresses the final basis of the attitude of Jesus as this emerges
in the Lord's Supper.
147 To understand these sayings we must note that Jesus shatters the Jewish prerogative
of being the onépua 'ABpaau and shows to the Jews their demonic bondage.
 quaptovo
Tov. & EUE ULOWV KAL TOV TXTÉPA MOU MIOEI. EL to Epya un Enomoa Ev autoic
& oU8Eic &AoC entolnoev, quaptiav oik Eiyooav (Jn. 15:22-24). The coming
of Jesus Christ means the revelation of sin as hatred of God. Before Him there
is taken the decision concerning men and there is accomplished the division be-
tween them : El tup^oi ATE, OUK &V ELXETE Quaptlav® Viv BE EYETE 8T BAe-
TOLEV® i duaptia ouov LéVEl (Jn. 9:41); cf. also 8:24: Elmoy ofv quiv 8Tl
drolaveiolE Ev taic quaprlaic Ouov® Eav yap un IoTEUONTE 8tl Eydo elut,
atobavEiols Ev tais quapriaus buov. The man who refuses to bow to Christ
or to believe in His Eyo slul remains and dies in his sin and is excluded from the
mission of Christ. All the sin of man is blindness as compared with this sin ; it is
thus described as adikla Kai fotv quapria ou ipoc é&vatov (1 Jn. 5:17).
But the sin which arises in the presence of Christ is quaptia ipos {avatov
(1 Jn. 5:16). 148 This is the xplos which has come into the world with Christ.
The situation of the last hour which means decision either for life or death could
not be more plainly declared. The one possibility is seen in the Jews who reject
Jesus with hatred, the other in those who believe in Him : Éav ouo^oyuev tac
quaptias nudv, totos fotlv kal Sikai0s, iva con nuiv tas quaptias kal
kalapion juas ano TooNS aolklac (1 Jn. 1:9). The man who confesses his
guilt before God receives the word of forgiveness. The man who does not cannot
receive it because there is no truth in him and he makes God a liar. The diabolical
character of sin is herein expressed (1 Jn. 1:8, 10; cf. Jn. 8:44). 140 This situation
has not come to an end but still continues. For in the Paraclete Christ is present
to His community. The work of the Paraclete continues the work of Christ : Kal
/10∞v Ékeivoc EXEYEEl TOV Koouov repl quapriac Kal TEpi Sikalooovns kai
TEpi KpioEws® rEpi duaptias uÉv, OTI OU TIOTE OUGLV ElG tuÉ (Jn. 16:8 f.).
The mission of Christ to aiperv Tac quaptiac attains its goal in the community
which is delivered from sin. This deliverance from sin is basically maintained and
is established by birth of God. The man who belongs to the community is born
again of and by God in the fact that God has given him faith, and in faith the
knowledge of God and His Christ. The new birth takes place with reference to
Christ. For this reason the basic statements are true TOS 6 Ev aUTO uEvov oUx
quaptovel® TOC o quaptavov OUX ÉOPAKEV aUTOV OUSE KyVOKEV QUTOV
Tac 6 yEyEVIUÉVOS EK TOO BEOU Quaptiav oi TOLEL, 8tl onepua aitou Ev
aUTO LEVEL® Kai of Sovatal quaptovElV, 8TL ÉK tou 0E00 yEyÉvnral (1 Jn.
3:6, 9). 150 The new situation becomes effective in love, which is the total opposite
of quaptia (- gyarn) . These basic statements are guaranteed and made serious
by the attitude of Jesus, cf. Jn. 5:14 : unket duaprave, iva un Xeipov ool Tu
yÉvntau. 151 But they contain a contradiction to the reality of the Christian com-
munity, which in practice is not without sin. Here is a serious problem. There is
opposition to the new energy of love striving against sin. John, however, does not
reflect on this problem, but, emphasising the fundamental sinlessness of the com-
munity, he present two points for consideration. First : taita ypooo quiv iva

148 As against Seeberg, op. cit., 23 ff.

140 Cf. Hempel, op. cit., 183 in relation to Jn. 8:44 : "The effect of revelation, however,
is to bring the facts to light and thus to commence with the destruction of the kingdom of
Satan.
150 Cf. W. Grundmann, Begriff der Kraft in d. nt.lichen Gedankenwelt (1932), 113, n. 8.
161 The XEipov which can come on the one who is healed is lavatoc from the sin tpos
 duaptavo

pan quapinte® kal Eav TIC auxpin, mapaKintov Exouev ipoc tov tatepa,
'Inootv Xpuorov Elkaiov, kai aitoc iaoubc loti TEpi tov quaptiov nuov..
(1 Jn. 2:1 f.). Christ's atonement relates to the sin of the community. The com-
munity has a napakintos to make possible its situation in problematic tension.
Again, there is a brotherly ministry of love : Edv tIc ton TOV &6EADOV autou
quapravovia suapilav un ipoc eavatov, althoel, Kal Bioe1 auto gwnv, tois
duaptovouoi Lan T poc Oavatov (1 Jn. 5:16). The community can engage in
intercessory prayer which will be heard. This is its second prop in that dubious
position of tension. We can see from this how seriously John takes sin and how
plain is its decisive significance for man in the light of Christ.
In the Book of Revelation, which bears John's name, the work of Christ is
described as a work of love which has as its content His delivering of us from the
sinful world order :. TO ADavt Nuas EK TOV quapriov nuov Ev TO aluati
aito0 (1:5). The blood of Christ has atoning power. The task of the people of
God in the last time is to keep themselves from the increasing power of sin :
(va un ouyKoI oaTE taic quaptlaus aurns (sc. Babylon), for the divine
punishment destroying both sin and sinners is passed on all the sin of the world:
Éxo^An0noov airs ai quaptial &xpi tou oupavoi, kai É VNLOVEUOEV 6
ledc ia adiknuata auris (18:4,5). By final and definitive act of God the
universal dominion of sin, from which Christians are liberated, will be destroyed.
This is the view of the author of Revelation.

3. Paul.
a. What Paul has to say about sin is orientated to the revelation of God in
Christ. Hence it is not an empirical doctrine of sin based on pessimism. It is the
judgment of God on man without God as this is ascertained from the revelation
of Christ and revealed in full seriousness in the cross of Christ. This presup-
position is essential for an understanding of what Paul says about sin. His view
may thus be summarised in two propositions. 1. The Christ event comes upon
man in a specific reality, i.e., his reality as a sinner. 2. It comes upon him as an
event which rescues him from this reality and reconstitutes him. What was for
Jesus Himself simply an event is here described and developed. 152 This is the
difference between Jesus and Paul in the matter of sin.
b. The Pauline concept and understanding of sin are determined by Paul's own
experience under the impress of the act of divine revelation accomplished in Christ.
Paul said of himself: kard 8ikal0o0vnv thy Ev vouo YEVOLEVOS QUEUTTOC
(Phil. 3:6; cf, G1. 1:14; - 291 and also quapto\6c, 330). This was his Jewish
self-awareness. Under the impress of the revelation of Christ on the Damascus
road there arose the confession: Eyo yap Elul 6 EAdXloToC tov aTtooToAov,
8c oUK Elui ikavoc kaleiofat abotolos, biot f8lwga thy ExkAnolav tou
Geot (1 Cor. 15:9; cf. 1 Tm. 1:15). His sin is the persecution of the Christian

0avatov (cf. Schl. J., 145). Thus the connection between sin, suffering and death is
maintained. But the dominant schema which finds a guilty source for individual suffering
1s shattered (Jn. 9:2, 3), since it blinds us to the work of God as the One who blesses and
endows.
152 Cf. G. Kittel, Die Religionsgeschichte und das Urchristentum (1932), 154 ff., n. 350.
Here the general view is worked out of which we have given the particular application.
duaptovo

community (1 C. 15:9; G1. 1:23; Phil. 3:6). But this persecution was simply the
final result of his attempted self-justification through the works of the Law, of his
zeal for it. This zeal was also judged in the judgment on the persecution of the
community of God. With this judgment, he came to realise that his whole activity
in Judaism was opposition to God's will and consequently active hostility to God.
Both the persecution and the underlying zeal for the Law sprang from the tendency
of man to assert himself against God and to try to will in independence of Him.
This desire of man to dispose concerning himself 163 is opposition to the will of
God. Once this became clear, he was insistent that sin is not merely a violation
of the divine majesty, as he had already learned as a Jew, but active hostility to
God and resistance to His will on the part of the man who wills to be independent
and to rule his own life. This thought of hostility is the constitutive element in
Paul's doctrine of sin.
How does Paul see the reality of sin in detail ?
This question leads us to a presentation of the thoughts contained in R. 5-8,
where from the purely lexical view we have the most frequent occurrence of the
terms for sin in the NT. The Christ event is first depicted in the words : ouvion-
OL 8É thy EaUTOO AyaTNV Eis nuac O Deos ST ETl quaptwlov ovtov quov
XpLoTOS ontep nuoov &TÉOXVEV (R. 5:8) . What this means we are told in 5:12 ff.
in connection with what precedes : 154 BoTEp Br' Evoc avipi iou n quaptia
EIG TOV KOOWOV EINAOEV, Kal Bid ins quaptias 6 (oVaToc, kal OUTOC ElG
Tavias vepotous o lavatoc SURABEV E' & TOVTES HUaPTOV. To the question
of the origin of sin Paul gives the answer of Judaism that sin entered the world
through Adam. The act of Adam in opposition to God is the beginning of sin.
Sin thus derived from the freedom of man. With sin death also came into the
world, as we read in the short statement : td yap opona ths quaptlas lavatos
(6:23). Sin as the master gives its paid underlings the wages of death. Thus the
dominant power of death in the world is attributed to sin (cf. 1 C. 15:56). The
world in its being is not determined only by its creatureliness (R.1:20) but also
by sin. Paul differs from the Greek and Hellenistic world in the fact that, though
he, too, can talk of the power of fate, for him the power of fate is closely linked
with that of death, 155 and human sin is the basis of death's rule. Sin is the author
of all evil: . . . ÉBaolEUGEV i Quxpria Ev to lavato. Here we have a Christian
rather than a Greek understanding. But from the sway of death there may also
be discerned the universality of sin as hostile striving against God (3:9, 23; 5:9, 10;
8:7; G1. 3:22). At this point Paul differs from Judaism. For Paul sin does not
consist only in the individual act. Sin is for him a state which embraces all hu-
manity. The individual is always in this all-embracing state of sin, and thus he

153 R. Bultmann, "Romer 7 u. d. Anthropologie des Paulus" in Imago Dei, Festschrift

f. G. Kriiger (1932), 53 ff.; esp. 60 f.: "Sin is the desire of man to dispose concerning
himself, his raising of his own claim, his will to be as God."
154 The context of the chapter consists in the thought of endurance in affliction. This is
demanded by the a minori ad maius conclusions (ToAAG ua^ov) from the community's
situation of salvation (5:7-11) and the new situatic of the world (5:12-21).
155 At any rate we should not overlook the fact that in Gk. and Hellenistic dualism
to use the phrase of E. Rohde (- 297 f., esp. 104) life is the wages of sin, sO that
a very different view of life is present from that of Christianity with its consciousness of
sin and the statement that death is the wages of sin.
 quaptovo

does not have the Jewish freedom of choice which constitutes the Jewish con-
ception of sin (... 8d The Tapakons tou Evoc ovepintou cuaptolol kateata.
enoav of To ol. 5:19). There is an indissoluble connection between the act
of Adam, the fate of death and the general state of sin. This does not mean that
a doctrine of inherited sin is presented. It means that a judgment is pronounced on
men in their being as such a judgment which is certainly shaped by human
reality but which is possible only in the light of Christ.
In what does this state consist ? Paul continues : &xpt yop vouou quaptia fiv
gy Koouo, duaptia 8e ofK E^oyeital un 8vtos vouou (R. 5:13). This state-
ment, with its relating of sin and Law, corresponds to Jewish thinking. The state
of sin already present (quaptla fiv Ev Koouo, cf. also X∞pic yap vouou duapria
VEKpa in R.7:8) is actualised through the command of the Law in transgression
(cf. G1. 3:19: tl oby 6 vouos; Tov TapaBaoewv xapiv TUpOOETÉOn - rapa-
Baois). Thus the nature of sin becomes clear. Sin is the rejection of God by self-
assertive man (cf. R. 1:21 : . . . yvovtec tov (eov 0UX ic DeOv E6Eaoav i nixa-
plotnoav this is the original sin). In this respect the sin of man in general
corresponds to the sin of Adam. This sin, however, arises only in relation to the
command as a declaration of the will of God. For this reason, between Adam and
Moses sin is a un quaptavelv ETi to quoiouat the tapa Baoeoc 'Abou
(5:14). For this reason it may be said: O0K ÉMoyeitaL Un 6vtoc vouou. The
function of the Law, therefore, is to actualise the sinful state in transgression and
thus to reveal the character of sin, to show it to be Éyépa sic Oeov (R. 8:7), or,
metaphorically, to transform the potential energy of the sinful state into the
kinetic energy of the individual action, and thereby to bring into play the sentence
of death passed on sin and to represent sin as responsible guilt before God. The
reason why sin is for Paul the determinative reality of man is that it is guilt before
God. At this point the element of truth in the Jewish concept of sin is adopted, but
it is essentially deepened and brought into a new perspective. In agreement with
this concept it is maintained that sin is action in the interrelation of sin and Law.
But the Law now has the very opposite function from that ascribed to it in
Judaism.
Paul speaks expressly of the interrelation of sin and Law in R.7. The experience
of Paul is stated generally in the sentence : 8tE yap huev §v th oapki, to Taon-
uata tiv quaptidv To 81d tOU vouou Évpysito Év toic uÉAEOLV MUOV EIs to
kap-topopñoa ti lavato (7:5). The carnal reality of man is his sinful reality,
yet not for Paul in such a way that sin and the flesh are identical and sinfulness
is constituted with corporeality (-* oape, oua), but rather in such a way that
man is determined by sin in his carnal being, and has firmly linked himself to it.
This union is disclosed by the Law: thy quaptiav OOK Eyvov El un 81d
vouou* The tE yop entiBvulav OUK KOELV EI un 8 Vouog #LEYEV OUK ETIBUYñOEIC®
coopunv 8É AxBoiaa f quaptia 8ig tis Evtolns Kampyaaato tv quol raoav
EntiOvulav® xopic yap vouou quaptia vexp&r® kyo 8E #gov yopis vouou TOTE'
£ Dovonc 8t this EvtoAns quaptia ovEgnoEV, EyG bE ameoavov, Kai sOpEOn
wou h EvtoAn Els gwnv, aum els lavatov (7:7-10). Different expressions are
used to bring out the one fact that actual sin is by way of the Law. The Law
awakens slumbering desire. At this point * enOuula is not to be taken as merely
a specifically carnal, i.e., sexual desire, but in a more comprehensive sense (Tooa
er0vula) as the yearning of man, kindled by the Law but opposed to it, for self-
assertion against the claim of God. This is the nerve of every individual sin from
quaptorvo

the failure to acknowledge God, which is for Paul the original sin (R. 1:21), to
that in which he sees the punishment of sin on the part of the God who punishes
sin with sinning, i.e., to sexual perversity and expressions of the hatred which
destroys fellowship (R. 1:24-31; 1 Th. 2:16). From this standpoint every individual
sin committed by and against men acquires its significance before God and has
before Him the character of guilt. 156
It has already been noted that sin is here personified as a demon (- 296). Sin
has a demonic character. This demonic character emerges quite clearly in the fact
that it uses the holy will of God to increase its power : n quaptia, iva pavi
quapria, Sid toU dya0of uol KatEpyagouÉvn lavatov, iva yÉvntal ka0'
irepBolhy quaptolos n quaptia bid ths Evroli (7:13). That is to say, the
function which We assert the Law to have in the divine plan for the world is
finally achieved when sin is unmasked in its demonic character as utter enmity
against God. The state of the world and each individual since Adam has a demonic
character as directed against God. Hence the situation of man is quite adequately
described when Paul says of him #yo SÉ OXPKIVOC EluL, TETpAUÉVOS U1tO THU
duaprlav (7:14). Man is a slave sold under sin, and therefore even before his
physical death he is delivered up to the power of death (Kai Juac ovtas vEKpouc
tais quaptiaus oudv, Eph. 2:1). This situation of man emerges clearly in
the inner conflict of man in his action a conflict which is to be explained by
the fact that he is possessed by demonic power: . o HIOG TOUTO TOIG EI 86
6 OU BEAW TOUTO TOIG, ouou to vouo 8t1 Kalos El 8é 8 00 0EAG EyG
TOUTO TOI, OiKETI Eyo Katepyagoual airo aiAa n oikofoa Ev époi quaptia
(7:15, 16, 20; cf. also v. 17). Man is under the Law as God's claim. But he cannot
fulfil the Law. He is possessed by the demonic power of sin. Sin controls him and
finally gives him the reward of death. 157 This train of thought introduces an
essential feature in Paul. As we have seen above that the dominion of death is
based on the reality of sin, so we now recognise that the demonology and satan-
ology of Paul is not dualistic speculation, but a way of expressing the fact of sin.
The demonological and satanological statements are all determined by the view
of sin.
c. It is in this reality that the Christ event strikes man. 158 This event is the
overcoming of sin 6 GEOC TOV EXUTOU vloy TEuwas Ev buoiduat aaproc

156 The drawing out of desire and the disclosure of its inner being are the function of
the Law, as we are told in 7:7: Thv quaptlav ouk Eyvov el un 8id vouou, and 3:20
81& vouou flyvoais quaptias. Yet we do not have here the functions ascribed
to it in the dogmatic construction of a fourfold purpose of the Law, but a cosmic and
historical function.
157 On the question of R. 7 we share the thesis formulated by R. Bultmann in RGG?,
IV, 1022 : "Rather Paul describes the situation of the Jew under the Law in its material
sense as seen by the believer." We only ask whether it is the situation of the Jew alone.
Bultmann has repeated this view more recently in his Romer 7 und d. Anthropologie d. Pls..
53 wThe situation of mea undin the la i on here pencrally, chaac same the
by W. G. Kimmel, Romer u. d. Bekehrung des Paulus (1929). Arguments and bibliogra-
phy may be found in these places and also in the commentaries ad loc.
158 Cf. Hempel, op. cit., 181: "By this knowledge of sin in its awful form there is created
a way to thankful acceptance (xapis R. 7:25) and a distinctive background for the
work of Jesus Himself."
 duaptovo

duapiag kal repl auaptlac katekpivev thy quapta tv m capri

(R. 8:3). The aim of Christ's sending by God is to judge and destroy sin. This is
the meaning of the incarnation. Paul states this graphically in the words: rov Lan
yvovta quaptiav inep nuiv quapilav Enolnoev.. (2 C. 5:21). The sinlessness
of Jesus is the presupposition of His mission. According to Paul's description of
the mystery of the Christ event, this sinless Jesus became sin. All the sin of man
rests on Him, whether past or present : 8V TEPOÉOETO 6 (eoc tAaot plov Els
EVOELEwV thS Sikaloolvns aitou &1& Th TapEOI TOv TpOyE yovotOV suapm-
LaTOV EV th dvoxi TOU 0E00 (R. 3:25). For the sake of Christ and His victory
over sin there has been and is the day of God's grace and the postponement of
judgment. Christ's victory over sin is described as expiatory or propitiatory atone-
ment. For this reason His death is essential. It was on the cross that there took
place, in a way which is valid for all ages, the conquest of sin : 6 yap & EdavEV,
th quapria aTt£0avey Edamae (R. 6:10; cf. C. 15:3; GI. 1:4). For this reason
the cross is the sign of triumph over sin, over the dominion of death and demonic
power. Hence the preaching of the cross is the Suvauic 0:of and the ooola tou
0a00 (1 C. 1:18 f.). The cross cannot be separated from the resurrection. The
mission of Christ would have been in vain without the resurrection : el SE XPLOTOS
OuK EynyeptaL, ETL fOTE Ev taic quapriais ouov (1 C. 15:17). This total
event is representative or substitutionary (inep nudv, 2 C. 5:21; 1 C. 15:3; G1.1:4).
Because in virtue of the deed of Adam there is a fatal nexus of sin and death
within humanity ; because for Paul men are not individuals who can be considered
in isolation but a society with a common destiny, this representation or substitution
on the part of Christ is possible. The Christ event means for humanity the over-
coming of sin and the beginning of the dominion of life. This is the cosmic altera-
tion brought about by Christ : . . . STEp éBao[EUOEV i quapria EV to lavato,
oUtc kai h xapis Barilsion 81d StKai0oUvnc Eic gonv aloniov 8 "Inoot
Xpioroi tol xuplou nuov (R. 5:21).
This Christ event comes to man as an event which releases him from the reality
of sin and constitutes him anew. The content of the Gospel is that man is justified
by faith and baptism, that he is made a new creature risen with Christ, that he is
redeemed and reconciled, in short, that he has attained the remission of sins 159
(cf. Eph. 1:7). Through fellowship with Christ in His destiny -> oov), which is
fulfilled in baptism and of which there is awareness in faith, it may be said of the
Christian: ATeO&vouev Th quaptiq (R.6:2). This is the theme of Romans 6,
which deals with the question of Christ and sin. There is first laid down the basic
insight that the Christian is freed from sin. This is brought out in different ways
throughout the chapter. Christians are dead with Christ and have thus died to sin.
In this the Christ event achieves its purpose : tva katapyn0ñ To oua Ts
quaptlas (6:6). There is fulfilled in Christians the old and familiar thesis : 6 yap
anolavoy Selkalatal anto ths quaptias (6:7) . 160 Moreover : quapria yap

189 The thought of goEdic is found only in this passage (and perhaps also in the quota-
tion in R. 4:7). On the question of redemption > Battitw, Sikaiow, kaTa good,
antolutpwais, ouv etc. In the present context only certain aspects can be expressed.
160 K. G. Kuhn, ZNW, 30 (1931), 105 ff.: "Once we see that Paul is using Rabbinic
theologoumenon in R. 6:7, the train of thought in this passage becomes simple and clear.
Our old man is crucified with Christ, and thereby the body of sin is destroyed, so that, in
accordance with the principle that those who die are freed from sin in virtue of their death.
we do not need to serve sin any longer."
quaptavo

Duv oi KUPLE gEI® 00 yap ÉoTE OTtO vouov diAd 0nt0 xapiv (6:14). Redemption
is simultaneously liberation from the Law and from its function as that which
evokes sin. Finally, Christians are ÉEUOEP@OÉVTES aTto tis quaptias (6:18,
22), i.e., they are freed by Christ from the bondage to sin in which they found
themselves BOU OL ATE ThS quaprlas (6:20). The Christian has to realise
this fact : 0y[(EOOE ÉXUTOUC EIVAL VEKPOUC LEV Th quaptiq (6:11). He must
draw the deductions from it according to the insight: B00 ol EOTE & OTXKOUETE,
frot quapriac els lavatov fi unakons eic aukaloatvv (6:16). h is no more
possibility of remaining in sin and sinning as if nothing had happened (6:1,15).
The only possible conclusion is to this effect: un oiv BaciEUEto f Quaptia
§v TO Ovnto Juiv oouat Eic To UTaKoUElv taic friQvuiaus airou (6:12). By
liberation from sin, man is given the possibility of resisting the claim of sin, of
not living to it and thus asserting himself against God, but rather: oyi(eole
fauTOuC govtac to OE Ev XpIT& 'Inoou (6:11). To live to God is
to be dead to sin and liberated from it. Paul describes this. new possibility in
various ways : unde TTXPLOT&VETE TO ue n buiv onla doiklas th quapria,
aNAX TaPAOTHOATE ÉAUTOUC TO 0EG GoEI éK VEKpov govtas kai tg uÉAn
ouov oma SiKaloo0vns t6 0E6 (6:13; cf. v.18 : É8ou w0nte th Sikalooovn;
19: TXPaOTñOaTE TO LÉAN Ouov 8001a Th alkalooovn Elc dylaouov etc.).
- xy aou6s, the life dedicated to God, is the goal of the Christ event (cf. the
iva in R. 8:3 f. and 2 C. 5:21). This gyaou6c is the life of faith. Freedom from
sin is fulfilled in the obedience of faith (R. 14:23 : nav 8É o OUK EK TOOTEDC
quapria forlv). The life for God as life of faith is manifested in love for the
brethren which is the fulfilling of the Law, for: AUXPT&VOVTES EIS TOUS AOEA-
pouc. Eic XPLOTOV qUaPT&VETE (1 C. 8:12).
The Christian stands in the tension of a double reality. Basically freed from sin,
redeemed, reconciled and sinless, he is actually at war with sin, threatened,
attacked and placed in jeopardy by it. He must be called to dy aouos. 161 The
tension of this double reality is finally manifested in his life as follows Ei SE
Xpiotoc Év duiv, to LEV oua veKpOv BId Thi quaptiav, To 8É TIVEDLa gon
8id 81Kal0GUvnv (8:10). In his somatic life the Christian is given up to death.
This is the final outworking of sin. But the Christian has also a new pneumatic life
deriving from the pneuma of Christ and received by death and resurrection with
Him. He now lives his life in a new and pneumatic possession (81d TOU ÉvoLKoUv-
TOC AUTOU TIVEUUaTOC ev ouiv, 8:11; cf. in contrast 7:18,20). This pneumatic life
has overcome death and derives from the dominion of life which has commenced
with Christ and which will be consummated with His coming again, when sin in
its final outworking in death will be completely abolished (R. 8:11; C. 15:26).
The tense double reality is thus a state of expectation rtpos thy uÉ ouoav 86&av
atonaluo0nval Eic nu&s (8:18).

4. The Other NT Writings.

a. In Hebrews the question of sin is treated from the twofold standpoint of
the high-priestly ministry and sacrifice, and consequently of the institution set up
under the old covenant to make atonement for sin: nac XPXLEPEUC UTTEp

161 On this situation, cf. Grundmann,

 quaptavo

ovipinov kallotatal to it poc tov BEOv, Iva Tp0GEon 80pa TE Kai {volac
ortep quaptiov (5:1). The proclamation of Hb. is that Christ is the eternal High-
priest who has offered Himself as a sacrifice and thus made atonement and taken
away sin. As such a High-priest He is distinguished from human high-priests (E8
dvO pitv AxuBaVo EVOC, 5:1) by His sinlessness. Whereas the human high-
priest needs mp6repov intep tov iotiv suaptiov Quolac AVaDEPELV (7:27; cf.
5:3), Christ is KEy∞piouÉvos ano tiv auaptwliov (7:26); TETEIpaé© Ka
Ttavta xooplc quaptlac (4:15). And His offering is different from all cultic
offerings. Whereas it must be said of the cultic offering: aoovarov yap alua
taipwv kai tpaywv doa peiv quaptiac (10:4; cf. 10:2, 3, 11), it may be said
of His self-offering: vovi 8É & ae fnl OUVTE Ela tov allvov eis doetnowv the
duaptias bid ths evolas aitoi TEoaVE pATaL (9:26). With this offering the
cultus has been abolished, for through the Christ event salvation consists in
ADEOIC : 8TTOU TE &QEOIC TOUTV (sc. quaptiiv kal avoui@), outl s
TEpi quaptias (10:18). With the sacrifice of Christ the beginning of the Mes-
sianic age has come (Enti OUVTEEia TOv alovov) and this now moves to its
consummation : . 8 XPLOTOS, &TTAE, TPOOEVEYBEIC EIG TO TOAAGV OVEVEYKEIV
quaptias, Ék SeuTépou xopic duaptias bpljoetal toic aitov XTEK SEXOLÉVOIC
gic Owmplav (9:28). With His victory over sin, depicted in priestly and cultic
terms (cf. again 10:12 : ulav inep quaptiov Quolav sic To SINVEKEC 1:3;
2:17), the Messianic age has come as promised by the prophets (8:12; 10:17).
To the community which now passes through the affliction of persecution there is
directed the admonition to set aside thy EoT&plotatov quaptiav and to fight
it poc th quaptiav with a resistance even unto blood (12:1,4), i.e., not to yield
in different temptations and not to be afraid even of martyrdom (cf. 3:13: iva
pan oxAnpuvOn TIs tE Duov & tartn ths quaptias). The warning is underlined
by a reference to the unforgivable sin which involves all the difficulties and dis-
putes concerning penitence in the early Church : Ékouolog yap quaptavbvtov
nuov uero to Aa Beiv Thy Enlyvwow tis alndelas, OUKÉTL Tepi quaptiov &Tto-
eletal Quala (10:26). The unforgivable sin is here equated with wilful apostasy
from the faith a rather different conception from the sin against the Holy
Ghost in the Synoptists, or the understanding in terms of kplais which we find in
John. In this passage there thus emerges the readiness for martyrdom which
characterised primitive Christianity.
b. The Epistle of James follows the lines of Judaism. The element which incites
to sin in man is EniQvula, which corresponds to evil impulse. The rise of sin is
described in terms of conception and birth. By ÉntOvula man is enticed to sin.
The consent of the will to temptation signifies conception : elta h Eni0vula oul-
laBoiga TIKTEI suaptiav. But the process does not end here, for n be quaptia
&ToTENE OEioa &ToKUEI Oavaro (1:15). There is a connection between desire,
sin and death, and this is represented as a natural process. Sin is an isolated act.
This emerges in other passages. Thus, when the wealthy man is preferred to the
poor, quaptlav Epy (ED0E, ÉEYXOUEVOI ITO TOU vouou i rapaB (2:9)
this is a thoroughly Jewish concept of sin ElooTi OUv Kalov TOlEiv Kai un
TOLODVtI, duaptla aitd #otiv (4:17). Failure to do what is good is also sin. At
the end of the Epistle James gives some instructions on the practice of penance.
Prayer brings forgiveness by God, confession before the brother is recommended,
in the case of the sick this is seen to be a prerequisite of healing, and the keeping
or rescuing of the brethren from sin is the task of the Christian and has atoning
quaptovo

power (Jm. 5:15, 16, 19, 20) . Here, too, we have evidence of the practical bent of
the author.
c. In the First Epistle of Peter the sinless Christ is understood and proclaimed
as the Victor over sin according to the Isaianic picture of the Servant of the Lord
(2:22, 24; 3:18). It is also stated that separation from sin is manifested in the
voluntary suffering of Christ, since here the desire which strives against God is
subjected to the will of God.
Surveying the way which we have taken, we recognise that the most significant
feature in the NT kerygma is that Christ is the Victor over sin, the final cause of
eternal ruin. Thus a new situation has arisen. The decisive feature in the NT
message is to be found in its eschatological consciousness of history, i.e., its
realisation that Christ is the Victor over sin and that a new world has thus
dawned. 162 It is not accidental, however, that the decisive statement is to the
effect that Christ is the Victor over sin. R. Reitzenstein and K. Latte have shown
us from the standpoint of religious history, and K. Holl and G. Kittel from that of
theology, that what distinguishes Christianity is its attitude to sin.

Reitzenstein, Poim., 180, n. 1: "That this redemption is not a mere curbing of evil
passions and vices, nor a mere liberation from death and assurance of eternal life with
God, but primarily a remission of sins, seems to me to be the new element. So far as
can see, the great seriousness of preaching about guilt and atonement is quite lacking
in Hellenism It was only as the first community linked the death of Jesus with this
profound feeling of guilt and faith in the remission of even the heaviest fault, that the
Christian oGthp doctrine acquired its distinctive and world-conquering force,
that its Hellenistic rivals could only prepare the way for it through a world which had
again come to have a consciousness of sin.
K. Latte, op. cit., 298 : as in Paul especially an exclusively ethical conception of
sin comes to be clearly distinguished from all other evil, and the divine act of grace
which covers human guilt and weakness is set in the forefront, redemption from evil
becomes in the first instance the remission of sins In spite of all impulses in this
direction, paganism had never clearly attained to this view. The new religion owed
to it an essential part of its power of persuasion.' By way of criticism we might point
out esp. that the expression "exclusively ethical conception of sin" hardly does justice
to the NT. The NT conception of sin is theological ; it is ethical only to the extent
that conduct towards one's neighbour stands under the claim of God. On this ground
we might go on to criticise the rest of the terminology, even though it encloses
correct insight.
K. Holl, "Urchristentum und Religionsgeschichte," ZSTh, 2 (1924), 399 ff.; cr. esp.
425 : ,A puotnplov serving EIC &OEOIV TOV quaptiov would have been a monstrosity
to the Hellenistic world."

162 This point of view receives prominence in the debate between K. Holl and R. Bult-
mann, and has helped to clarify the relationship between early Christianity and the history
of religion (R. Butmann, "Urchristentum u. Religionsgeschc," h R., NF, 4 [1932].
ff.). Cf. also Kittel, Probleme, 130 f.; Relgesch. u. Urchr., 151 F., n. 315, where the thought
more generally applied by Bultmann is claimed for Jesus and the Synoptists. This thought is
in fact decisive, yet perhaps it does not need to entail such a radical rejection of Holl's
concern as we find in Bultmann. For the eschatological consciousness of history found in
the NT was expressed in a view of God, the world and man, which was wholly distinctive
and which made full allowance for the consciousness of history on the basis of truth.
 quaptavo

G. Kittel, Die Lebenskrafte der ersten christlichen Gemeinden (1926), 19 ff.: "In
Christianity the leading problem is one which is absolutely and a limine different.
Christianity is the religion of the sinner. The sinner stands before God, and God wants
the sinner ...': cf. also Kittel's Spatjudentum, Hellenismus (1926), 27; ThLB, 50 (1929),
373 f. in answer to the objections raised by J. Leipoldt, Das Gotteserlebnis Jesu (1927),
35. Leipoldt himself, however, confirms this insight, -> n. 134. His work is orientated
to the history of ideas and lacking in eschatological perspective (-> n. 162); it thus
leads to relativisations. More recently Kittel has worked out the point afresh in his
'work Die Religionsgeschichte und das Urchristentum (1932), 118 ff. "Though this
religion does not cease for a moment to be ethical, it emphasises non-fulfilment (sc.
of the demand of the divine commandment). It is the religion at whose heart stands
the consciousness of not having done what one ought to have done, i.e., the conscious-
ness of sin" (120). "The primary thing is... the overcoming of guilt or sin, and of
death as the wages of sin" (122). "The message of forgiveness is always for early
Christianity the message of Christ. In Christ we have both the holiness of God's
judgment on sin and the love of God's saving of the sinner" (124).

Our deliberations have confirmed this view in three respects. We have seen
(1) that sin is the reality which, with creatureliness, determines the nature of the
world ; (2) that essentially sin is the rejection of the claim of God by self-assertive
man, not merely in certain Promethean figures, but by its very nature and in a way
which is generally determinative for all men; and (3) that redemption is summed
up in the remission of sins. This is what distinguishes the NT in relation to
Hellenism and Judaism. This is the form in which the Christ event is known.
Grundmann
apaptoloc

duaptwl6s, dvauapintoc

spaptwloc - reAovns, doepns, doikos.

The matter itself suggests that we should devote a special article to the "sinner"
along with sin. For this term can be used in the sense of a general value judgment
from the human standpoint as well as in the sense of a conclusive description of
the natural relationship of man to God on the basis of the fact and experience of
sin as a power hostile to God. The NT evidence inclines us in the same direction,
for in addition to the way in which Paul speaks of "us" absolutely as sinners from
the standpoint of the concept of quaprla, there is also "naive" use of this
pregnant word in the Synoptic Gospels to describe not so much those who resist
the proclamation and claim of Jesus as a narrow segment of the people with whom
He has constant dealings (teA vaL kai quaprwlol; e.g., Mt. 9:10; Mk. 2:16;
Lk. 7:34). How is this divergence possible What is its basis ? Or is it only an
apparent divergence: At any rate, it needs to be noted and clarified both in the
interests of the word quaptol6s and also of the NT view of sin generally.

A c aptol6s in the Greek and Hellenistic World,

1. In the adj. Quapto^6s, -ov, which, like quaptla, is formed from quaptovelv
(quapteiv) and is not a further construction of quaptia1, there is contained, as in
the verb,2 the thought of "not hitting" or "missing." quaptol6s is thus "the man
who misses something." That is to say, he is quapto^oc "when he misses something.
This gives us a twofold meaning of the term, which is usually restricted to the sphere
of mental or spiritual life. It denotes a. intellectual inferiority and failure, e.g.. by
reason of deficient education (cf. Plut. Aud. Poet., 7 [II, 25c]: TOVTOC uEv Év TROLV
quaptolov elval tov qualn, repi navta 8' at Katoploiv s TOv gotElov); and
b. moral failings (cf. Aristoph. Thes., 1111 f.: QuaptoAn yÉpov Kai KAÉTTO kai
Tavoupyo).4 The word is extremely rare ; there are only three known instances in
Gk. literature 5 apart from those cited, namely, Aristot. Eth. Nic., II, 9, p. 1109a, 33,

duaptolos. Cr.-Ko., 140; Pr.-Bauer, 68; Trench, 155; Deissmann, LO 91 f.; A. Bon-
hoffer, Die Ethik des Stoikers Epictet (1894), 133 ff.; I. Abrahams, "Publicans and Sinners'
in Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, 1 (1917), 54 ff.; Moore, I, 445 ff.; Joach. Jeremias,
"Zollner und Sunder," ZNW, 30 (1931), 293 ff.; and cf. quaptavo, 267 n.
A. Debruner, Griechische Wortbildungl (1917), 164.
2 293.
On katoplouv as the opp. of qUaptavElV in Stoicism the two words first occur
together in Aristot. Eth. Nic., II, 6, p. 1107a, 14 f. cf. Bonhoffer, 193 ff. passim; H. Win-
disch, Taufe u. Sinde im altesten Christentum bis auf Origenes (1908), 51 f. Cf. also Philo
Leg. All., I, 93 and Josephus Ant., 2, 51 and 10, 50 (where 610p000v is used).
This is intentionally "barbaric" Gk.
6 Liddell-Scott, 77.
 duapto^oc

where its meaning is general (tov yap axpwv 8 To uÉv fotiv guaptwlotepov, to
8' firtov); Philodem. Philos. De Ira (p. 73, Wilke), where it has the second meaning
(800Aot quaptwol, i.e., slaves of bad character); and Eupolis, 24, Demianczuk Suppl.
Com., where the adv. is used in a condemnatory sense, since Photius interprets it by
Eruppnuatikc, T though without giving the basis of the judgment.
2. In none of these passages can duaptwroc be given a deeper sense. On the other
hand, the question of a religious tinge becomes vital when it is used in curses on the
violators of graves, as on many Lycaonian inscriptions from imperial Rome : 8 duap-
toAoc foTd BEDic Kataylovios (CIG, III, 4307); duaptwloc Hoto OEKV TaVtOV
kal Antois Kai tov TEKVOV auTic (CIG, 4259); duaptwlOc LOTO ElC Thy Anto
kai Elc TOUG LOITOUC SEOUG TOVIAS (CIG, 4303) . 8 A similar usage is found in
decree from Telmessus in Lycaonia dating from the time of Ptolemy III Euergetes
(247-221 B.C.): Éov [6:] Un JUVTEAñt 6 apxov kai oi nolital thy [0uol]av kat'
‡viautov, quaptwAoi EaTWoav [0EG]V TAVEGV. 10 Steinleitner thinks that in this
whole group quapto\6s is used to denote "the sinner in the religious sense," 11 and
his judgment is typical. 12 But the context in which the term is used seems to be against
this. With the curse there is usually put on the inscriptions a statement of the debt
of the owner of the grave in the form of a specific sum which the community may
exact. Often this reckoning is found alone, 13 and it occurs also on the Telmessus
decree, where in place of the ordained yearly sacrifice for Zeus Soter, prevented
perhaps by war, the apxov has to make a payment of 1000 drachmas. This makes
it doubtful whether in all these cases quaptw^oc has a definitely religious sense. It
is tempting to see first in the formulae the general thought of an offence against the
dead, which is a violation of the underworld to which he now belongs and which is not
prepared to allow such intrusions. At any rate, there is no reason to take quaptooc
substantively as "sinner' in the sense of a qualitative declaration ; nor should it be
overlooked that on the inscriptions it is a matter of threats. Yet it is a striking fact
that we have this frequent occurrence of the term in a narrow field and a sacral or
equivalent context. It is impossible to explain this fact, however, and therefore we
should not attach too great importance to these inscriptions in relation to the prior
history of the NT quaptwAoc. 14 In any case, the word as used in these formulae
bears no relation to quaptia in the sense of sinfulness. It is also striking, and an added
reason for caution, that Quaptw^6s has not yet been found where it might be ex-
pected as distinct from these burial inscriptions, namely, on the penitential inscriptions

& The reference is to the extremes which threaten the Apetn h0ixn, and of which the
one stands closer than the other to the desired uEo6Tns.
This might mean "in the manner of the Entippnua." The Enippnua is the part called
parabasis in ancient Attic comedy (i.e., "the main work of the chorus interrupting the
action and in part becoming a dialogue of the author with the spectators," Pauly-W., 11,
1242), which originally "consisted exclusively in the accusation of an individual"
form which Eupolis seems to have maintained faithfully as distinct from Aristophanes
(ibid., 1246). At any rate, in suaproln yÉpwv the word quaptwlos seems to be used
as a term of opprobrium. (Acc. to Debrunner ÉntippuaTiKOs is here to be taken as usual,
i.e., as an adv.; but if so we could make no deductions from this passage.)
Cf. F. S. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in
d. Antike (Diss. Munchen, 1913): Deissmann, op. cit.
Many other instances are given by Steinleitner, 84.
10 Ditt. Or., 55, 30 ff.
11 Op. cit., 84.
12 Cf. Cr.-Ko., 140; Pr.-Bauer, 68; Deissmann, op. cit.
13 For instances, E. Petersen-F. v. Luschan, Reisen im sudwestlichen Kleinse, 11
(1889), 41, No. 77; 51, No. 91; 58, No. 113 etc.
14 As against Deissmann, op. cit.
quaptwroc
of Lycaonia, 15 although there is no doubt that in Asia Minor, and esp. Lycaonia,
there was a vital if primitive, cultically orientated and magically tinged concept of
sin. 16
3. The Stoics do not use the term in their derogatory estimates of a man. Epictetus
uses paulos when he wishes to describe one who is not clear as to the importance or
bearing of his action in contrast to the percipient because educated (GOTEIOS, OTOU-
Saioc) man. 17 In so doing he follows the usual Stoic pattern. 18 For the Stoics the
oau os is one who stumbles from one. failing (quaprovelv) to another, proving
himself to be oatlos by his failings, even though he may occasionally give signs of
rising above the level of utter worthlessness. 19 If there had been for Epictetus any
connection between quaptwioc and the idea of specifically religious and moral in-
feriority, he could hardly have failed to make considerable use of it in his Diatribes.
Yet the term is not found either in Epictetus or other Stoics. Nor does it occur in
Philo ; this is the more remarkable in view of his linking of the Stoic idea of the wise
man with OT conceptions of sin and penitence, 20 his acquaintance with quaptw^6c
in the Gk. OT21 and his regular use of duaptovelv and the derived substantives
quaptia, quapiua, etc. The word is also lacking in Josephus, although he uses the
formulae of quaptavovtes 22 and ol nuapinkotes 23 in a wholly religious sense.

4. We thus have the anomalous situation that the matter is there, and also
the word which seems designed to express it, but the word is everywhere ignored,
and it is ambiguous even when used (Lycaonia).24 Is this to be explained by the
content of the word or its history ?
Concerning the content, the only point to be noted is that whenever we find
quaptw^6s the element of failure is the basis of the meaning.25 This does not
seem to help us. But further light is perhaps shed by a discussion of the wider
context in which the term is used in the few available instances.
The first conclusion to be drawn from the material regarding the history of the
word is that from the 5th century B.C. (Eupolis) 26 at least the word was known
to the Greeks, though not extensively used in literary speech. The reason for this
can be found only in the character of the term. Whenever it occurs in literature,
a light is cast on it by the context. 27 Except perhaps in Aristotle, it always has
an ironical and rather disreputable flavour. This emerges most clearly in Plutarch,
who in the sentence quoted mounts a polemical and ironical attack on the Stoic

15 Cf. Steinleitner, 84.

16 > 301. This is perhaps influenced by oriental religions with their strong sense of
sin ; v. F. Cumont, Die orientalischen Religionen im romischen Heidentum3 (1931), 36 ff.
Diss., IV, 1, 1 ff.; cf. Plutarch 317.
18 Cf. Bonhoffer, 216 ff.
10 Ibid., 222 ff.
20 Cf. Windisch, 54 ff.
21 > 320.
22 Ant., 7, 266 (rising ag. David); 16, 376 (opp. to the good); Bell., 7, 12 (opp. to
apEr) etc.
28 Ant., 5, 50 (rebellion of Korah); Bell., 2, 303 (part in a rising).
24 The word has not so far been found on pre-Christian papyri, and it is rare in any
case. For a possible occurrence in the Byzantine period, v. Preisigke Wort., I, 65; for a
definite example from the 4th century, ibid., 64.
25 317.
26 318.
27 317.
 duaptolos
doctrine of the wise and the simple. He is obviously selecting a strong expression
to make his opponents ridiculous, though the context does not suggest that he used
the word with any thought of guilt. The manner in which it appears in Aristo-
phanes indicates plebeian origin, for it occurs alongside other vulgar terms. It
thus appears to be a non-literary word used for the instinctive characterisation
of a man who either in fact or hypothetically is the very opposite of everything
that is right and proper, in disposition as well as in other respects. So far as
concerns the meaning of the word, this implies that materially as well as linguis-
tically 28 we can find no connection with quapria in the Greek world.
This thesis is confirmed not only by the Stoics but also by Philo and Josephus ;
for when it is a matter of positive ethical deliberations, or of judgments which
have the aim of moral demand, there is naturally no place for this kind of term. 29
Along these lines we can also explain the Lycaonian inscriptions with their avoid-
ance of the word in propitiatory and penitential inscriptions and its frequent oc-
currence in curses against possible violators of tombs ; for no one would describe
himself as a guapto^6s, whereas it is natural enough for the defenceless dead
to use the word in delivering up the disturber of his rest and the violator of his
property to the sentence and punishment of the gods, who like all right thinking
men will want no dealings with him. When we see it in this light the character
of the curses is safeguarded and yet the forced introduction of even a primitive
awareness of the sinfulness of man is rendered superfluous. It is really only in
Asia Minor that the "barbaric" force of the word is confirmed.
In the Greek world, therefore, quaptoloc as an adj. is always used with a
strongly derogatory meaning, if not as an actual term of abuse. To give a summary
translation is hardly possible. On the other hand, it is firmly established by the
examples that the content of the word is determined by the idea of the negation
of right and order and custom to an inordinate degree. Nor should it be over-
looked that in right and order and custom divine intentions are ultimately ex-
pressed.

B. quaptwlos in the LXX and Its Hebrew Equivalents.

1. In the LXX (+ 268) quaptoloc is common both as an adj. and a subst., and
it is predominantly used for the Heb. 907. This is true of no less than 72 of the 94
occurrences, and since in 2 others it is used for 90) (y 83:11; 124:3), 30 this means
that in more than 3/4 of the whole it relates to the stem 907. In addition, it is often
used for the subst. NUT, (11 times), and once in the expression Baoela tov quapto-
Aov for nxonn maben (Am. 9:8), 3 times for the part. Nwin (Is. 1:4; 65:20; Prv. 11:31,
the text here is uncertain), and then once each for qam (Prv.11:9 N, c. a), 0 20
(p 128:3) 31 and yn (Prv. 12:13). The total picture becomes even more uniform when
we remember that duaptwlos occurs 68 times in the Psalter alone, and that in only 5

28 ) supra and also 317 and 321.

29 Apart from some basis in exaggerated polemics against Stoicism Such as those of
Plutarch.
30 In neither case, of course, is the Heb. text intact; cf. BHK?, ad loc.
31 The rendering partly blurs the picture in the original. Cf. also Aeut. 29:19; y 140:5:
Is. 1:31, where again there is no equivalent for quapto^6c and we are thus dependent
on the exegesis of the translator,
quaptwA6s

of these occurrences is it not used for 977 (or y07); in 3 cases it is used for xon
(1:1,5; o 103:35), and on one occasion it has no equivalent in the original (y 140:5). 32
It should be noted that duaptoAo is not the only LXX term for 907; doeBns is also
very common, being used for 90) in 120 of its 180 occurrences. We may also mention
avouos, used in 32 of its 73 cases, and &8ikos, used in only of its 95 cases. It is
interesting that in the Psalter GoEBrs is used 16 times for ym7, avouos only once
(w 103:35) and golKoc not at all an indication that there were perhaps special
reasons for finding in quaptwios the most suitable rendering of a"yo in the Psalms. 33
Finally, it is not unimportant that xon is often rendered literally as (oi) quaptovovtes
(cf. the plur. Bao. 15:18; y24:8; 34 and Prv. 13:21). This shows us that xom and
auaptwl6s are not full equivalents, and that here, too, there is some difference between
quaptw^oc and quaptovElV.

2. The statistics show us that the anyti of the Psalms for the most part under-
lies the quaptoAos of the LXX. But the Dwyw7 are a definite religious type.
Throughout the Psalter 35 they are the opposite of the pious, righteous and godly,
in short, of those who with the author of Ps. have made it the goal and content
of their lives to serve God in His Law day and night with all their heart and soul
and mind. It is evident that to a large extent they are Jews no less than the
righteous. 36 Thus the 90) boasts of his portion in the Law of God and in God's
covenant with Israel, but he does not regard or follow the Law as an absolutely
binding expression of the will of God (Ps. 50:16 f.). He persistently breaks the
commandments (10:7), shows no signs of repentance and boasts of his wicked-
ness and ungodly folly (49:13), trusting in his own wealth and power instead of
in God (49:6), and perhaps even going so far as to ignore God completely in his
life (10:4; 36:1 etc.). Social oppression is particularly emphasised.
In this connection we need not ask who the avyv) are in detail. But we may
make two points. The first is that the statements of the Psalmist concerning them
are undoubtedly polemical, and even very severely and unfairly so in their gener-
alisation. There were obviously others besides rascals and saints in Israel. The
basis of the distinction, however, is not to be found in the immoral or ungodly
mode of life, but much deeper. This brings us to the second point. The basis of
the distinction is the fundamentally different religious attitude. In the case of the
pious this is regulated by the Law, whereas the argon, though they do not repudiate
the Law, adopt towards it a liberal attitude verging on laxity. From the time of
the Exile, however, the Law had become the shibboleth of Israel and Judaism,

32 The figures are all based on Hatch-Redpath, s.v. and do not take into account other
Gk. renderings of the OT.
33 It is also to be noted that dosBis occurs for y) only in Ps. 1-57 and occurs in
17 Psalms; that while &8lKoc is used only once for yt? in the Ps. it is the usual rendering
in Ez., where there is only one firm attestation of quaptor6s, and where doeBhs is also
unimportant. On the other hand, quaptolos is used for 902 in 37 Psalms scattered over
the whole book.
34 Ps. 25:8 is textually uncertain; cf. BHK? ad loc. Perhaps &UaprovElV Év 886 means
"to miss the way," or to be in danger of so doing (=) 271).
35 Cf. W. Staerk, "Die Gottlosen in den Psalmen, ThStKr, 70 (1897), 449 ff.; J. Koberle,
Sunde und Gnade im rel. Leben des Volkes Israel bis auf Christum (1905), 338 ff.; G.
Marschall, Die "Gottlosen" des ersten Psalmenbuches (1929).
36 Cf. Staerk, 468 ff.
 quaptoroc

and therefore the people were necessarily divided into two religious groups. So
far as the meaning of yun is concerned, this implies that from the very first it is
negatively determined, i.e., by negation of the Torah as the only practical standard
of Israel's life and thought. The xoin, then, is one who does not have the right
attitude to the Torah. But the man who has a wrong attitude to the Torah has
wrong attitude to God. For the Torah is the revelation of God's will. Even the
one who tries to keep the Law in all things may sometimes be a yo). and as such
he, too, needs divine forgiveness, which he seeks through repentance (- ueT&-
vola), the bringing of sin offerings and the fulfilment of the rites of penance and
purification. But on this account he is not by a long way a yon. He becomes this
only when he basically alters his positive attitude to the Law. For 972 denotes
a man for whose life the Torah has no existential significance, so that his sin is
not simply his actus peccandi but embraces his life as such. For the rest we gather
from the Psalms, Proverbs etc. the impression that for the pious yun approximates
closely to a word of reproach, just as the opposite pry is an honourable self-
description which plainly expresses the positive attitude to the Torah conceived
as -> vouos.

The usage here depicted continued into later Judaism. *tn is found only once in the
Mishnah, namely, in the explanation of Gn. 13:13 (Sanhedrin, 10, 3), so that it has
virtually disappeared. 37 It is replaced by xuin, which often seems to mean quapravov
or even more often nuapmikos (cf., e.g., Challa, 2, 7; Shebi, 9, 9; Men., 1, and 2;
Sheq., 1, 4 etc.). 38 In contrast yon is now exclusively a description of man's attitude
before God. There is a good example in Ed., 5, 6. Here it is reported that the re-
presentatives of the Halacha wanted to make Akabia b. Mahalalel (in the time of
Paul) judicial president of Israel 30 on the one condition that he revoked four statements
of his which were in opposition to accepted teaching. 40 His answer was: "I would
rather be called a fool 41 for the rest of my life than become for a single moment 42 a
yu, before God, 43 44 on the ground of revoking for the sake of position. Here we
have the typical attitude of the righteous man of the Psalms (73:25).

37 In its other occurrences N01 generally means guilty as opposed to innocent ((21);
cf. Pesikt., 16 (128b, 2 ff. Buber).
38 Sheq., 5, 3 is no exception in its usage. To be sure, it refers to the xin absolutely,
but the context shows that behind the Mwin there lurks the leper who is characterised as
*01 i.e., as nuapinoc by his leprosy. Leprosy is particularly a penalty for sins of the
tongue (b. Ar., 16a : "There are seven reasons for leprosy, namely, evil gossip, bloodshed,
perjury, incest..."). Cf. also the play on words in b. Ar., 15b: 9732= 90 (00) NYM,
and also relevant is Jn. 9:2.
30 5*7092 777 092 x, i.e., acc. to Chag., 2, 2 vice-president of the Sanhedrin.
40 These are appended.
41 noit; - uwpos. Cf. the antithesis between 2169 and yun in T. Jeb., 1, 13, where along
the same lines the student is called yw) if he uses the differences between the schools to
alleviate the demands of the Law,
42 N7x n9w; ; Opa.
43 dipen + 0E6c.
44 Implying that he would thus deny his teachers and act against his conscience, cf.
Ab., 2, 13. Acc. to Ab., 4,7 he who takes halachic decisions lightly is regarded as 977
quaprolos

In the definition of the yu) regard for the Torah was even more important for the
Rabbis that in earlier periods. This is natural enough as Judaism became a pure
religion of Law. The best illustration of the trend is to be found in Ab., 5, 10-19. Here
the 7om is the correct seeker of the house of instruction and the no less correct re-
presentative of its ideal of life, in contrast to the 9t7, who is the despiser of the
Torah (v. esp. 5:14).45 In the first part of the no 9th 7a7, the liturgy for the evening
of the Passover, which in its present form dates from the time of the completion of the
Talmud (c. 500 A.D.), the yo7 among the "questioners" is the opposite of the bon,
who is the representative of young people dedicated to the Torah : 46 this is wholly in
accordance with the usage of the Rabbis for whom omag (= 0096g) is a general
term for scribal authorities. Only constant study of the Torah keeps from sin (Kid.,
1, 10). For this reason the man who will not give himself to this is the seat of evil.
This is also true of the am ha-ares: 8 ByAos outoc 8 un YIVOOKoV TOv vouov
Énrapatol Elowv (Jn. 7:49 : spoken by the Pharisees). 47 Such a man is bound to sin
whether he wants to or not, and therefore it is best that he should die young in order
to be kept from further sin which would increase his guilt (Sanh., 8, 5). It corresponds
to his relationship to God - which for the Rabbis is the same as that to the Torah 48
that after death he will inevitably go to hell and thus be far from God (Ed., 2, 10; cf.
Gr. En., 22, 10 f.; cf. S. Dt., 357 on 34:5 etc.).
For the rest it naturally results that for the Rabbis the word 902 has lost nothing of
the contemptuous accent that it has in the OT. Indeed, we are forced to say that, under
the influence of a developing religious self-consciousness, this accent has become even
more marked,

3. When we consider this history of the term on Jewish soil, it is obvious that
no Gk. term was sO well adapted to render yo) as quaptwA6c. Both words denote
an attitude which by its very nature is a basic negation of the order and custom
either attained, or recognised and sought as a goal. It belongs to the nature of the
case that in the Jewish world this attitude is conceived more in relation to its
volitional and therefore guilty aspects. This is connected with the fact that Judaism
had in the Torah a historical revelation of the divine will which forces each
individual to decision, 49 whereas even at best the Greeks had as a corresponding
factor only the purely humanistic ideal of Kalok&yalia. It is also connected
with the fact that only as it was adopted by Hellenistic Judaism and came under
the influence of 977 could the word become a religious term, but that in this
sphere it was bound to do SO, since, once it was linked with the Torah, 50 it was
brought into relationship with the idea of God in Judaism and integrated into the

45 Cf. the old classification 09272-09907 (Sanh., 6, 5; 8, 5; 10, 5).

48 This section dealing with the four questioning sons is old, however, and belongs to
the time of the Tannaites (before 200 A.D.); cf. M. Ex. N3 18 on 13:14 (p. 73, 8 ff.,
Horovitz-Rabin) and D. Hoffmann, "Die Barajtha tiber die vier Sohne,' in Magazin fur die
Wissenschaft des Judentums, 13 (1886), 191 ff.
47 Every non-Pharisee is regarded as such by the Pharisee ; cf. Str.-B., II, 491 ff.
48 The word "thoralogy," coined by K. Bornhauser, characterises this outlook very well ;
cf. Das Joh. Ev. eine Missionsschrift fur Israel (1928), 6 ff.
49 For the view that we have here the basic presupposition of the antithesis between the
righteous and the ungodly in older Judaism (Psalms etc.), v. Koberle, 345 ff.
50 On this point, cf. the correspondence between duapto^os and dvoula already found
in y 124:3; 128:3 etc.
 quaproloc

religious and moral linguistic heritage of Greek speaking Jews. This inter-relating
with the idea of God, however, is the starting-point for its further development.
By means of this the term acquires for the first time the character of a positive
declaration by coming to denote the man who is in opposition to God and in
league with, or even helpless in the hands of, ungodly forces (- quapria).

The text shows that quaptwlos is always used as a religious term in the LXX.
It has no secular use. The same is true of the Gk, pseudepigrapha (e.g., Gk. En. 22:
10 ff., p. 54, Fl.-Raderm.; 61 Ps. Sol. 2:17; 4:9, 27 etc.). In the Ps. Sol. the polemic
associated with the word is directed against the Sadducees, but here too, quite outwith
the sphere of the Jewish people and its religious divisions, a foreign ruler or general
may be called a quaptw^os because he attacks Jerusalem and thus sets himself in open
opposition to God (2:1).52 How fixed the term has now become is shown by the use
of quaptwlol doeBeic (Gk. En. 1:9, p. 20 Fl.-Raderm.), as though duaptoot alone
were not strong enough.

C. The Development of the Concept of the Sinner in Later Judaism, 63

1. a. What we have already said about the Rabbinic period (-> 322) by no
means exhausts its significance for the history of the word quapto^6c. A second
and most influential factor has also to be taken into account. This, too, is con-
nected with the Torah as the religious centre of later Judaism.
For the Rabbis the Torah is not merely a code of behaviour for individuals
or a collection of liturgical directions and ritual prescriptions which apply to the
individual only in cases of need. It is also a manifestation of God to the whole
people and, once completed to Israel, to the whole of humanity (- vouos). Israel
has received the Torah according to the will of God, who in this way made it
His people with the aim of sanctification (Ex. 19:5 f. etc.). He Himself is the Holy
One, and therefore those who belong to Him are to be holy (Lv. 19:2). For the
Rabbis, therefore, the thought of sanctification bound up with the Torah acquires
a strong sociological element. Only the Jew who has the possibility of sanctification
through the Law can be holy (- &yios). The Jew not only can be holy, but is
already holy. Even though he neither is nor can be holy as an individual, he is
holy as a member of the people to whom God has given the Law as an expression
of the will of the holy God, and whom He has thus sanctified by this historical
act of election. This thought is carried so far linguistically that the entry of a non-
Jew into Judaism can be described as an entry into 772, into the state of holiness
(- dywauvn; Jeb., 11, 2; T. Jeb., 12, 2).84 Hence it is quite impossible to be holy
outside Judaism. Those who are without are by their very nature non-holy, since
they are not in fellowship with the holy God as mediated by the Law. In the
consciousness of 7072 Israel's consciousness of election and its conviction of being

51 Here we have again the old antithesis quaptwlol-olkaiol * n. 45.

52 The reference is probably to Pompey and to the destruction of the temple by him in
63 B.C.
53 Cf. on the view of sin in later Judaism and the Rabbis Moore, I, 415 ff. and > 289 ff.
64 Cf. on this point K. H. Rengstorf, Jebamot (1929), 137 ff., where further material is
adduced, the full range of the view is sketched, and its significance for early Christian
thinking is indicated.
a aptwAos

essentially different from the Gentiles (= vos) reached its climax in the Rabbis.
If the Jews are by nature holy, the Gentiles are by nature sinners. 65
b. The legal element behind these sociological ideas is amplified by the religious
and moral. It is the firm conviction of Rabbinic teaching, and the basis of its
perfectionism as an ethical postulate, that those who have and keep the Torah
are kept from sin in the sense of transgression of the ordinances (7)22; - napa-
Baais) willed by God and fully revealed in the Law (- 8ikaloouvn) .

This is not merely true of the righteous of an earlier period (the patriarchs, Elijah
etc.); 66 the Rabbis do not think it to be excluded in their own case. Thus the sick
R. Eliezer (c. 90 A.D.) is not conscious of any sin to which to attribute his sickness
(bSanh., 101a), and T.B.Q., 8, 13 tells of R. Jehuda b. Baba (d. c. 135) that on his
deathbed he remembered only one sin, namely, that contrary to Rabbinic statute he
had small cattle in the land of Israel, though in his favour this prohibition was still
in dispute as late as 100 A.D. 57 The only sin of David was thought to be his adultery
with Bathsheba, 38 and it was regarded as possible to purify him from this. 59 At any
rate, Rabbinic Judaism was firmly of the view that it was possible to remain without
sin with the help of the Torah. 60

Those who did not belong to Israel had no such possibility. This was primarily
their own fault, for the Torah did not come to Israel so self-evidently as might
be supposed; it became the distinguishing mark of Israel only when the Gentiles
had refused to accept it. 81 Nevertheless, the Jewish sense of difference from the
Gentiles did not lay any particular stress on this point of guilt. More important
to the rational piety of Judaism was the result of the rejection of the Torah by the
non-Jewish world. By this rejection it forfeited the possibility of a life according
to the will of God. This is shown in its idolatry. It is also shown in the inability
of the Gentiles to fulfil the Jewish rites of purification which rest on the Law of
God as such, and their consequent disqualification from table-fellowship with the
Jews. 62 It is shown again in their supposed lack of any sexual ethics and their
classification with slaves in this regard. 63 It is shown in their complete absence
of any good qualities. 64 For the Jews, therefore, the Gentiles were to be equated
quite simply with "sinners,' i.e., with those whose basic attitude in no way cor-
responded with what God expects, and must expect, of man. To speak of Gentiles
was to imply at once both the thought of uncleanness in external things and also
that of a final personal impurity before God. Thus it came about that the word
quaptw^6s, destined in the Jewish sphere to describe a radical or practical aliena-

55 For the distinction and separation of Israel from all other peoples, v. the passages in
Str.-B., III, 126 FF.
56 Cf. Str.-B., I, 815.
57 Cf. T. Jeb., 3, 4 and my comm, ad loc.
58 b. Shab, 30a, 56a; Jos. Ant., 7, 391. It is obviously felt to be serious, cf. b. Pes., 113a.
50 b. Ket., 9b - b. Shab., 56a Bar.; a second attempt, b. Kid., 43a.
60 For further material, cf. Str.-B., I, 814 ff. Rather strangely, this does not decide the
question of assurance of salvation, as the dying Jochanan b. Zakkai shows (b. Ber., 28b);
owmpla. Cf. also A. Marmorstein, "Paulus und die Rabbinen, ZNW, 30 (1931), 271 ff.
61 Cf. Str.-B., III, 36 ff.
62 lbid., IV, 374 ff.
63 Cf. T. Jeb., 2, 6; 12,2 and my comm. ad loc.
64 Cf. Str.-B., III, 43 ff.
 duapt@los

tion from the Jewish Law as a declaration of the will of the one holy God, 85
inevitably became. technical term for the Gentile. The Gentile was a duaptw\oc
in virtue of his not being a Jew and his failure to regulate his conduct according
to the Torah. 66

quaprwloc is occasionally used in the LXX in the sense of Gentile, yet not as a
translation of D?is, but of b"yt) (Is. 14:5). In other places, too, we can see how the
literal application of yo to the heathen forms a transition to the equation of quapto-
Aol and Gentiles (e.g., Ps. 9:15 ff., esp. v. 17); cf. also Macc. 1:34 : kai tOnKav
EKEi gOvoc quaptwlov, avopas Trapavouous [!]. In Macc. 2:48, 62 (cf. 1:10)
quaptwoc denotes the Gentile king Antiochus as a personification of the heathen
world in its hostility to God and to Israel (cf. &vopwos tns avoulas, 2 Th. 2:3 f.).
As against this, it is uncertain in !Macc. 2:44 whether the phrase quaptwAouc
kal &vopas avououc is used of Gentiles or apostate Israelites.

2. A question which demands brief consideration is whether our presentation

thus far is not one-sided and exaggerated in so much that it makes possession of
the Torah a hindrance to the development in the righteous of a personal conscious-
ness of sin in the sense of being absolutely sinners. A review of all the available
material, however, suggests that, in spite of apparent evidence to the contrary, the
idea of being absolutely sinful before God is fundamentally alien both to earlier
and probably also to later Judaism. This is proved both by extra-canonical Jewish
writings and by the NT in certain Jewish testimonies therein preserved. In any
case, even the sin of the Gentiles, which is plain enough from what we have al-
ready seen, is not regarded as a kind of fate to which they are abandoned, but
as guilt historically grounded and working itself out right up to the present. This
is also the view of Paul (Rom. 1:18 ff.).

The pseudepigrapha do in fact refer to a general sinfulness which none escapes or

can escape. 67 In so doing, they use the term sinner not so much of individuals as of
certain national or religious groups, and perhaps even of man as such. Yet the con-
sciousness of election $8 dominates even the author of 4 Esdras (5:23 ff.; 6:55 ff. etc.)
to such a degree that he obviously differentiates himself and those like-minded with
him who in the last analysis represent Israel because they keep the Law and are
righteous ~ from the impii (7:17, 102 etc.).
In the Rabbis, too, we can find the view that there are no men without sin, i.e.,
transgression of the divine commandments. 8° But this is found alongside the opinion
already cited concerning the actual sinlessness of certain righteous and the possibility
of this state for all. If no compromise was made between the two trends, 70 this was
perhaps due to the fact that the events of 70 A.D. gave added vigour to the collective

65 Cf. what is said about the LXX!

66 Later Judaism has no word corresponding to duaptolos in this sense unless this is
the meaning of KNiD1 as applied to the heathen queen Vashti in Est.r., 4, 10 on 1:20. In
character, however, "1% corresponds exactly to the Gk. term even to the extent of an under.
tone of contempt. No need of a new word was thus felt.
67 Cf. the passages from 4 Esr. and Slav. En. in Str.-B., III, 156.
88 On the relationship of this to the view of the sinner 324.
69 Cf. Str.-B., III, 156 f.
70 Cf. b. Shab, 55a and Str.-B., III, 157,
quaptw^6s

sense of the sin and guilt of Judaism, 11 but that leading religious circles could not be
shaken by this judgment on the people from their conviction that the Torah has absolute
saving significance, since they adopted the prophetic scheme of causal connection
between national decline and unsatisfactory service of God or even apostasy, except
that they now thought more consistently in terms of the relationship of Israel to the
Torah rather than to God.
As a typically Jewish figure in the NT, standing beyond personal sinfulness, no less
a man than Paul must be set alongside the Pharisee praying in the temple (Lk. 18:11 f.).
The terse depiction of his self-consciousness prior to conversion in Phil. 3:6 (kato
81ka10ouvnv thv Ev VOUQ YEVOLEVOS QUEuTtos) agrees to the letter with what we
have just said concerning the practical relationship of Rabbinic teaching to sin. It is
thus both materially and methodologically unsound to try to adduce R. 7:14 ff. in favour
of the opposite opinion. 72

D. The New Testament.

1. The Lexical Evidence.
The different meanings of quaptolos in the NT are easily explained by the
history of the word. As in the LXX, the term is used both as adj. and subst., and
always in expression of a derogatory judgment. The subst. means the "sinner"
as a man who forfeits a correct relationship to God by his culpable attitude to
the Jewish Law.
a. This may be in the sense of the ungodly of the OT, i.e., a man who lives
in conscious or witting opposition to the divine will (Torah) as distinct from the
righteous who makes submission to this will the content of his life. 73
It is in this sense that we have the formula TEAovaL Kat quaptwot (Mt. 9:10
etc.), in which quaptolol partly means those who live a flagrantly immoral life
(murderers, robbers, deceivers etc.), and partly those who follow a dishonourable
vocation or one which inclines them strongly to dishonesty.74 The woman who
anointed the feet of Jesus in the house of Simon is called a quapto^6c (Lk. 7:37,
39) 75 because she was a harlot (- rt6pvn), Te though not an adulteress. 77 From
sinners of this kind we are to differentiate not merely the Pharisees but ordinary
people who maintain personal respectability (Mt. 11:19; Lk. 7:34, 39; 19:7).78 We
find the same usage in 1 Tm. 1:9, where it seems to be adopted without delibera-
tion. It is also given a distinctively Christian form in James, for whom a man is a
quapro^os if he does not uncompromisingly (-* aluyos) subject himself to God
and accept no other motives for conduct (4:8; 5:20). HorxaAic, -> Koouos.

71 The Rabbinic statements all come after 70 A.D., and the apocalypses are quite un-
thinkable in their present form apart from the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
72
xuaprovo, 308, also n. 153 and 157.
73 Cf. at any rate the recurrence of the old antithesis 8lkx101quaptwol (-* 322, with
n. 45 and 51).
74 For fuller proof, cf. Jeremias, 295 ff.
75 In any case, the word is to be taken here as a subst.
78 In view of Rabbinic terminology, this is more likely than the view that her conduct
did not conform to Pharisaic claims (- n. 47); cf. Str.-B., II, 162.
77 It is true that in Lk. 18:11 adulterers are mentioned as sinners (-* pouxor), but the
Pharisees would stone an adulteress (Jn. 8:7); cf. on the point Schl. Lk., 258
T8 Jeremias (294) draws attention to this.
 duaptw^oc

b. For the Pharisee, however, a quaprolos is one who does not subject
himself to the Pharisaic ordinances, i.e., the so-called am ha-ares. T9 He is not a
sinner because he violates the Law, but because he does not endorse the Pharisaic
interpretation. 80
Since more or less the whole people is to be numbered among the am ha-ares,
and since Jesus addresses the whole people rather than individuals, He necessarily
has daily contact with quapr@lol (Mt. 9:13 par.; Lk. 15:2 etc.). But according to
the judgment of the Pharisees, Jesus and His disciples are also quaptolol, since
they refuse to follow the Pharisaic 81 washing of hands before meals, which is not
prescribed in the accepted Torah (Mt. 15:2; Mk. 7:5; Lk. 11:37f.), and do not
accept Pharisaic casuistry in relation to the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1 ff. par.; Jn. 9:16,
24 £., 31). 82

C. According to the Jewish view derived from the vouoc (- 325), of quapto-
Aol can also mean Gentiles in Mt. 26:45 (cf. Mk. 14:41): 6 vioc tot dvOponou
Tapaoiootal Eic yeipac quaprolov, 83 where the reference can hardly be to
Jewish sinners, but is obviously to the Roman soldiers who carry out the crucifixion
for the Jews (Ac. 2:23). 84 The same usage is found in Paul, e.g., in Gl. 2:15, where
the antithesis to QUoel 'loudaiot shows that tE É0viov quaptwAol is a single
concept. Lk. 6:32 ff. has quaptolot where the par. in Mt. 5:47 has £Ovikol; if
Jesus was speaking of a?s, as is very possible, 85 then in both Evangelists we have
a similar situation to that of Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20. Acts avoids the word and always
uses > #0v when speaking of the Gentiles.
d. We find some development beyond the pre-Christian history when the term
is used to describe men from the standpoint that, apart from action on God's part,
all without exception are separated from Him by sin, so that the reference is to
guilty humanity which is without Christ and therefore unreconciled. Though we
cannot trace a historical connection 86 with - quaptla at this point, it is obvious
from the matter itself. R. 5:8: att quaptalov ovrav nuav Xpioroc OTtép
nudv & TtéOaVEY (cf. inep doeBov, v. 6; exépol, v. 10; 8IKal@OÉVTES, v. 1,9;
kat^Adynuev, v. 10); 5:19: quaptoloi kateorabnoav of ToAol; 87 and
most clearly G1. 2:16 ff., esp. 17: EL SE INTOUUTEC SIKaLWOñVaL EV XPLOTO, EupE-
Enuev Kai aitol quaptlol, &pa Xpiotos quaptla SiKor cf. also 1 Tm.
1:15, where quapto oi might be defined in terms of Jn. 3:16 as those who do
not believe. 88 Also of material relevance are R. 3:23: ToVteC yap huaprov, and
R. 5:12 : É0' & T&vtES huaptov.

79 323.
80 Note the YIVoakwv of Jn. 7:49.
81 Ed., 5, 6; cf. Jeremias, 294, n. 1; _)Ttap&8001s.
82 Cf. Str.-B., I, 615 ff.
83 There are OT models for this expression, cf. y 70:4; 81:4; 96:10.
84 Cf. KI. Mk. on 14:31 and 15:15.
85 Cf. Schl. Mt., 196. On quapto os and £0vikos as equivalents, v. also A. Meyer,
Jesu Muttersprache (1896), 135 f.
86 317.
87 Here the old antithesis quaptwAoi/8lkaiot is formally adopted, but filled with new
meaning by the belief in justification.
88 We should probably include in this group the quaptwol doEBeiC of Jd. 15, the
OT derivation of which is plainly to be detected. The same pleonasm may be seen in
Gr. En. 1:9; -> 324.
quaptwAos

e. A special group is formed by instances in which suaptwr6s signifies one

who has fallen into concrete guilt, so that the word is not such a technical term
as in a.-d. but is already stereotyped and seems to mean much the same as
juapinKos. 80

This usage seems to be independent of d. and secondary. It is found esp. in Lk.; cf.
13:2 : quaptwloi tapa Tavtas alongside the par. opEl Éral Tap& Ttavtac in
13:4; again 15:7, 10; 18:13; Hb. 7:26. Yet in all these cases the religious character of the
term is preserved by the context and it does not become a mere formula.

f. As an adj. quaptos means "guilty" or "sinful," always with a nuance

corresponding to the various meanings of the subst. already listed : Mk. 8:38 (cf.
9:19; Mt. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17 etc.): €v tn yEvEd tauTn th worxa^lot Kai quap-
ToAd (= d.); Lk. 5:8 : dvp quaptoloc elu (Peter = b. 90 or e.). The word
is sometimes used synon. with rov pos (cf. Mt. 12:39, 45; 16, 4 etc.). It is striking
that it is never self-applied in Matthew, Mark or John, but twice in Luke (5:8;
18:13; - 330).

Some difficulty is posed by R. 7:13 : iva yÉvntai Kal' inepBoAny quaptalos

quaptia Sid tic ÉvtoAñc. This is solved when we understand the peculiar mode of
expression. Personified quaptia (- 296; 311) only becomes aware of itself and its
power through the §vtoAn; but in the same way there is given the possibility of
recognising it as such and of seeking liberation from it. 91

2. The Attitude of Jesus.

a. It has been pointed out already (+ 303) that there are no pronouncements
of Jesus on sin as such. He gave His disciples no doctrine of sin, nor did He
engage in profound speculations concerning it. He never once told us what He
meant by it. On the other hand, He reckoned with its reality, and undoubtedly
referred all His work and teaching to it. Yet this reality was not the result of
penetrating investigation. It was always present in the reality of the man who
had fallen short. The attitude of Jesus to sin is closely linked with His attitude
to the sinner.
This attitude is first characterised by the fact that He took over the con-
temporary formulae and used them to describe His goal. 92 He never contested
nor avoided the distinction of the people into sinners and righteous which He met
at every turn and in which He Himself was implicated according to the view of
His opponents. 93 He did not even treat it ironically. #4 "We cannot understand
what Jesus did if we devaluate the concept 'righteous' and thus divest it of its full

89 Materially we might compare the question of the disciples to Jesus in Jn. 9:2.
90 Cf. Schl. Lk., 232.
91 Cf. A. Schlatter, Erlauterungen zum NT, ad loc.
92 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus (1921), 190; O. Schmitz, "Stinde und
Schuld im NT" in RGG?, V, 885 f.
03 Cf. Mt. 15:2; Mk. 7:5 or Mt. 12:1 ff. par.; Jn. 9:16, 24 f., 31; 328.
®4 So H. Weinel, Biblische Theologie des NT4 (1928), 149, and with some reservations
KI. Mk. on 2:17 etc.
 duaptwlog

seriousness as moral fitness. If it is made ironical, then the condemnation of the

sinners whom Jesus opposes to the righteous is also robbed of its sting. The sick
of whom He spoke were in His view seriously sick, and the healthy seriously
healthy. Jesus admitted that the righteous genuinely obeyed God and did what He
commanded If we weaken this judgment, we are involved on the other side of
the antithesis in an idealisation of sin which is very far from the intention of
Jesus.' 95
Jesus thus accepted as such those who were regarded as sinners by the com-
munity. It was just because they were sinners that He drew them to Himself. How
little they understood such conduct is shown by Peter when, after the miraculous
draft of fishes, he confesses to Jesus that as an dip duaptw1oc he is not worthy
to have dealings with Him (Lk. 5:8), 06 and Zacchaeus makes the same confession
when he joyfully (xalp∞v) welcomes Jesus (Lk. 19:6). Jesus Himself, however,
acted on the assumption that men needed Him at this very point, and that the
way to Him was open, since man's self-awareness does not bar the way to God,
before whom alone man comes to an awareness of his guilt. It is rather the
"righteous" who are hindered (-> Slkaioc), for they do not let themselves be
placed before God, but measure themselves by a standard which finally derives
from their own intuition, in face of which they have nothing to fear or renounce,
and against the correctness of which they cannot entertain any doubts. 97
b. It was the aim of Jesus to set men before the total reality of God and to
mediate to them total fellowship with Him. 98 For this reason, however, He took
them in their totality as He found them, and not just in accordance with certain
appealing or repellent aspects. It is of a piece with this attitude that the Evangelists
all agree in linking a confession of sins 90 with the baptism of John (-> Bantizo),
but that nowhere in the dealings of Jesus with sinners do we read of any con-
fession of specific sins. 100 Even where He Himself depicts sinners in contrast to
the righteous (Lk. 18:9 ff.), He does not put any special confession in their mouth,
but simply causes them to express their neediness before God (Lk. 18:13). 101 In
this trait, which more clearly perhaps than any other brings out the unity of the
complete devotion of Jesus to God on the one side and His complete devotion to
sinners on the other, we detect the same attitude which underlies His rejection of
Pharisaic casuistry in relation to the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1 ff. par.), which causes Him

05 A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus, 190; cf. more expressly Schl. Mt. on 9:13;
also Zn. Mt. on 9:13; H. J. Holtzmann, chrbuch der nt.lichen Theologie? (1911), I, 218 f.
etc.
96 As shown by the miracle, Jesus encounters him as "the prophet" (-> *poohis) who
reveals God: for this reason it is inconceivable to Peter that He should seek his 'fellowship
and not that of the righteous. We find the same attitude in the centurion (Mt. 8:8; Lk. 7:6).
97 Cf. the judgment of Jesus on the Rabbis (Mt. 23:12; Lk. 14:11; 18:14). The procedure
on the death of Rabbi Jochanan b. Zakkai (bBer., 28b) provides striking confirmation.
98 Cf. Mt. 22:10 ff.; Lk. 15:11 ff., where table-fellowship (- SEiT vov) is a picture of
total fellowship. The Fourth Gospel is very relevant in this connection.
99 Mt. 3:6; Mk. 1:5; Lk. 3:3; cf. Jn. 1:29; 3:25.
100 Zacchaeus never says what he has done, but what he is doing, or will do, to make
restitution ; but this is not confession.
101 I. Abrahams, 57 completely misses the point of Lk. 18:9 ff. when he argues that the
prayer and gestures of the publican are typically Pharisaic, and on this interpretation finds
in the parable a curiously grounded attack on ritualism.
quaptw^oc

to reject any concession to Pharisaic custom (Mt. 15:2; Mk. 7:5; cf. Mt. 23 passim)
and which enables Him to accept the verdict of being Himself a "sinner" (Jn. 9:16,
24, 31 f.; > 328) without any violation of His direct relationship to God. By the
very fact that He accepts no compromise, and does not even consider the possi-
bility of exculpation, He shows Himself to be the One who helps His people out
of its sins (Mt. 1:21). Those who are truly set before God are no longer able to
speak of themselves as though they could lay the foundation of the new re-
lationship to God with their own judgment on themselves. This foundation is laid
when in the presence of God the impress of His kindness as well as His holiness
and majesty causes them to renounce their own will and awakens them to readiness
for absolute obedience (Lk. 15:17 ff.; 18:13), and Jesus is their Saviour to the
extent that in His person, word and work God and His manner and goal are
made clear to those who need such a new relationship to Him.

This conception is predominantly based on the Synoptists, but it is in full agreement

with what John causes Jesus to say about His task of witnessing to the Father (cf. in
this connection esp. 8:21 ff.) and also with what Jesus here says about the presupposition
of a pure relationship to God (9:41).
For the rest, John does not use the term in relation to men or groups, but only in
relation to Jesus (- 328) on the lips of the Pharisees. John's acquaintance with
Pharisaic terminology is thus illustrated. quapAoc is used in self-description only in
Luke, though even here it is rare (5:8; 18:13) and is hardly to be given any special
emphasis (cf. 15:18,21). This fact is important in our estimate of the situation, since it
shows us how false it would be to see in the sayings of Jesus about sinners, and
especially in the parables peculiar to Luke, the• demand for a strongly accentuated
awareness of sin in the sense of the most profound self-contempt and self-condemnation.
This is obviously not the Christian ideal. To think and act in this way is to make
oneself the centre of thought and action, and therefore to remain in the very position
from which Jesus seeks to bring liberation when He sets the sinner in the presence of
God and under the overpowering impress of His being.

C. Among those who need the new relationship to God Jesus also and especially
numbers the righteous. 102 In so doing He does not dispute their righteousness
(- 330) or call it sin. But He judges it in respect of its nature. 103 In this regard
He shares the outlook of the Baptist, who in hard words warns the pious of the
impending judgment of God. 104 The reason for this is to be found in the egotistic
nature of this righteousness, which is satisfied with the fulfilment of the divine
commands and which thus becomes inwardly self-confident, 105 and outwardly
proud 108 and pitiless. 107 Such emphasis on oneself and one's achievements in-
evitably leads to an attitude in which one does not bow before God but treats
with Him, 108 leaving it to human perception to determine what is legitimate and

102 Cf. for what follows, esp. A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus2 (1923), 186 ff.
103 Cf. Mt. 5:20 (-> 8tkaloouvn).
104 Mt. 3:7 ff.: cf. Mt. 21:32; Lk. 7:29 ff.
105 Lk. 18:11 ff.
106 Mt. 6:1 ff.; 23:5 ff.; Lk. 14:7 ff.; 20:46; Mk. 12:38 f.
107 Mt. 23:14, 23; 25:41 ff.
108 Lk. 15:28 ff.
 duaptwros
what is sinful before Him. 109 This profanation of the service of God Jesus casti-
gates severely, and His struggle with the Rabbis was designed to expose and
overcome it. 110 His ultimate accusation was that there is not here the serious
opposition to sin which is meet and proper for the sake of God, 111 so that a true
righteousness is achieved, but it is a righteousness which measures up only to
human standards and does not satisfy the divine judgment. 112 This insight leads
Jesus sharply to call the pious and righteous as well to repentance, 113 not for
their sin, but for their righteousness, which prevents them from seeing clearly
either the greatness of God or their own situation. 114
Thus we can see already how Jesus transcended the view that only certain
individuals or groups are sinners, replacing it by the conception which regards the
emphasising of human autonomy, even under the guise of service of God and
devotion to Him, as that which makes man a sinner who needs divine forgiveness
and grace. But we also find in Him already the universal offer of forgiveness, and
therewith the establishment of a new relationship to God, in submission to His
will and judgment without regard to human assumptions, 115 to the degree that
there is a readiness for this attitude which is alone appropriate to the situation
(- wetovoia).116 Since Jesus is the One who is sent by God to the guilty, the
removal of sin knows no limit apart from unwillingness that it should be re-
moved. 117

3. The Attitude of the New Testament Writers.

This can be summed up in a few sentences, since there are no basic differences
between the authors of the NT and Jesus as regards sinners. Only the standpoint
is different, since none of them can look away from himself and speak of the
sinner as a third person. From such apostasy they are kept by the cross of Jesus,
which is set up for them as well as for others. 118 It is perhaps connected with this
that outside the Synoptists the term quaptoos is infrequent and does not occur
at all in Acts. On Jewish soil the history of the word had given it too strong an
overtone of superiority over sinners to allow of its general use in preaching to
non-Jews. Thus it is to be noted that in John it appears only on the lips of the
Pharisees as one of their theological terms, 110 and that it is rejected at once as
unjustifiable. Paul, too, uses it only as a particularly strong expression and always
in relation to himself. 120 The underlying matter is there, though not in the Jewish

109 Mt. 15:3 ff.; 23:16 ff.

110 Cf. esp. Mt. 23 par. ontokpits.
111 Mt. 23:23; cf. Mt. 21:29.
112 Lk. 18:14; cf. Mt. 23:13.
113 In spite of 9:13, Mt. 23 is really an address calling for the repentance of the right-
eous ; cf. also Mt. 21:32.
114 Mt. 25:44; cf. Mt. 9:11 f. par.; Lk. 10:40 ff.; 15:25 ff.
115 Mt. 22:9 ff.; Lk. 15:11 ff.
116 Mt. 19:21; cf. 18:3 ff.
117 Mt. 21:32.
118 R. 4:25; 1 C. 15:3; 2 C. 5:21; Gl. 1:4; Col. 1:14: Pt. 3:18; 1 Jn. 2:2; Hb. 2:17: Rev.
1:5 etc.
119 Jn. 9:16, 24, 25, 31; + 328.
120 R. 3:7; 5:8, 19; Gl. 2:15, 17.
quaptwlos avau pitos
formulae (- auapria). The basic description of the sinner has not changed. The
sinner is the man who does not allow God supreme authority over his life and
who withholds from Him total dedication and obedience. 121 If new words are
found to state this, 122 no change in respect of the fundamental judgment is implied.
The new feature, however, is not simply that outside Jesus there is no longer
any frontier between the sinners and the righteous. It really emerges in full force
when the reference is to man prior to or without Jesus on the one side and the
man who is united with Him on the other. Paul, although he is a man and in
temptation and under sentence of death, is no longer conscious of sin in his state
of union with Christ, 123 and he presupposes the same of all those who belong to
Him and have a share in His work. 124 The same is true of John, who can already
attest deliverance from involvement in the world of sin. 125 It need hardly be said
that this implies a new gulf of unfathomable depth right across humanity. This
is the gulf which separates those who are Ev Xpioto, and who are thus rescued
from the power of quapria 126 ard brought into His possession 127 and the service
of God, 128 from those who are still "under sin" 129 or "in their sins, 130 neither
knowing God 131 nor serving Him. 132 This gulf is deeper than that which existed
between the righteous and sinners prior to the coming of Jesus, for it is not created
or maintained by men, but has arisen and continually arises from the act of God
in Christ. 133 From the same act of God, however, there also results the fact that
in the NT the righteous or the justified have no consciousness of themselves as
such, 134 but simply magnify the grace which has genuinely made sinners right-
eous, 135 and are full of zeal to point all men to this way of grace. 136

* dvauapintos.
This word is found in Gk. from the time of Herodotus (V, 39, 2), and in contrast to
quapto^os (-* 317) it is quite common. The etymon is again quaptovelv or quap-
TEIV, so that we are not to regard the word as a negation of quapto^os.' The basic

121 Cf. with R. 12:1 f.; C. 1:19 f. etc. in Paul, Im. 1:27.
122 Cf. in Jn. expressions like > ayataw, Koouos, mpElv tov A6yov (you) etc.
123 Cf. 1 C. 4:4, and the discussion of T. Schlatter, "Fur Gott lebendiq in Christi Kraft,"
in Tahrbuch der Theolog. Schule Bethel (1930: 116-144), 121 ff. Cf, Jn. 3:6.
124 Cf. esp. R. 6:1 ff.; also 5:1.
125 Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14 etc.; ton (alonios).
126 R. 6:10 f.; Hb. 9:26 ff.; gEayopa(o.
127 R. 14:7 ff.; 2 C. 5:14 f. etc.
128 R. 6:13, 22 etc.; > SOU EUG.
129 R. 3.9; Gl. 3:22; cf. R. 6:17; In. 8:34.
130 1 C. 15:17.
131 1 Th. 4:5; 2 Th. 1:8; G1. 4:8.
132 Gl. 4:8. These statements really need to be discussed in a separate chapter.
133 > akavoalov, popia.
134 It is striking that the self-declaration avauapintos is never found in the NT,
though the presuppositions are present; cf. T. Schlatter, 141 ff.
135 R. 5:1; 6:17 f.; 7:25; 8:1 etc.; > xapic, Tve ua.
136 1 C. 9:16 ff.
avau *pintoc. Pr.-Bauer; Liddell-Scott, 112; Thes. Steph. s.v.; Bau. Jn., 113 f.
1 Many examples are given in the dictionaries.
2 Ling. quapiua is closest :> n. 9.
 dvaudpin toc

meaning is "without fault," primarily in a very general sense, as of the constitution of

a city (Aristot. Pol., III, 1, p. 1275a, 38 ff.: TOC 8& TOAITElaS opiuev E(dEL ota-
pEpouoas alAnAwv, kal TOS uEv DoTEpaS tac 8e mporepas olaas ias yap
quapmuevas kal TapEKBEBnxulac dvayx DotEpac Elval Tov avauapthtov,
or of a project (mpoaipgois; Aristot. Eth. Eud., II, 11, p. 1227b, 12 f.: AÉyQuEV
TOTEOV i apeti avauapitov tOlEi ThI itpoaipeowv). In a figur. sense it means
one who is without fault, though with no necessary restriction to the moral sphere in
the narrower sense (Plut. Adulat., 33 [II, 72b]: oc auroc anaons ov on' opyns kal
avauapintos), 3 or one who has not failed (Xenoph. Hist. Graec., VI, 3, 10 : 8pQ yap
TOv av0 pov 0U8Éva avauapintov blateloivta), or finally one who does not
need to fail (Plat. Resp., I, 339c: ToTEpOv 8É avauapintol slow oi apxovtes Ev
taic To EolV ÉKaotaIS h olol Ti kai quapTEiv). + Independent Christian develop-
ment, more esp. on the basis of Paul, is again found in Cl. Al. (Strom., VI, 12, 101, 3;
VII, 12, 80, 2), who equates avauapintos with yvwotik6s in the sense of one who
cannot fail (or sin). 5 Such a religious use, coloured by the conception of God, is
foreign to the word in secular usage sO far as the evidence goes. This is true even in
the case of Epictetus, for whom avauapintov is a definition of the philosopher's
humanistic and purely ethical ideal of personality (Diss., IV, 8, 6; 12, 19). 6
In the LXX there are three occurrences. In 2 Macc. 12:42 the reference is definitely
religious in the sense of remaining free from guilt before God. 2 Mace. 8:4 (tov ava-
uaptitov1 vnrlov rapavouia aTolEia) is doubtful. In AeuT. 29:19 ( 320, n. 31)
it is the opposite of quapto^6s within a theological interpretation of the verse by the
translator. In Symmachus it also occurs in w 58:4 as a self-declaration on the part of
the righteous Psalmist (LXX : &vEU &voulas).8
Philo uses the word with dvuitaitiog in Mut. Nom., 51 in exposition of Gn. 17:1
(YiVou > & EuTtos), and with op06s, quÉNTTOS, IVETIANTTWG, &VUTEUOUV,
a(nuios (adverbially) in Omn. Prob. Lib., 59. In neither case is there any special
reference to God. 9 There is such reference, however, in the only case in Jos. noted by
Thackeray 10 (Bell., 7, 329 : Évauapintol "poc rov §eov yEVouEVO).

In the NT the only occurrence is in the challenge of Jesus in the story of the
woman taken in adultery: o ovauapintos SuOv ipotos fn authv Bareto
At0ov (Jn. 8:7). What is meant is very generally the one who is not burdened by
any guilt (- quaptw^6s); reference to God is the self-evident presupposition.
The history of the word gives us no grounds for taking it to mean those who are
after the pattern of a specific interpretation
not guilty of sexual sin, i.e., adultery,
of auaprwloc in Lk. 7:37 and eti quaptia in Jn. 8:3 D (instead of gv uorxeig).

In Plut. &vau&pintos takes on a distinctive flavour due to its frequent association

with & taOns in the sense of freedom from emotion; e.g., Aud. Poet., (II, 25d); Pyth.
Orac., 21 (II, 404c); Def. Orac., 16 (II, 419a) etc. Cf. also Jer. Adv. Pelag., Prolog., 1
(MPL, 23, 517a).
4 This usage is still found in Jerome, though in a distinctively Christian sense (Adv.
Pelag., II, 4, MPL, 23, 562b; II, 23, 587b). For him avauapintos expresses in Gk. what
Pelagius was saying in Latin with his posse hominem, si velit, esse sine peccato.
5 As pointed out by G. Stahlin.
6 Materially, v. already Aristot. Eth. Nic., IX, 1, p. 1155a, 13 ff.
7 At least in the sense of those who have not yet failed.
8 On this point > 323, n. 50; 324.
9 Materially, cf. also yuuvoc quapiuotov in Fug., 158.
10 Lex. Jos., 39,
11 Bau. J., 114; H. I. Holtzmann in his Hand-Commentar z. NT, ad loc.; and many older
commentators.
avauapitos cunv

Indeed, the context forbids this, for Jesus is dealing with the scribes and Pharisees,
against whom the charge of adultery could hardly be levelled, 12 and no other
sexual sin seems to be in question. 13 The best explanation of qvauapintos in this
passage is thus the general but concrete &veu dvoulac of w 58:4 -> supra).
It is striking that the word is not used elsewhere in the NT. especially in relation
to the asserted sinlessness of Jesus. 1 If it was not applied to Him, this was
probably to avoid any suggestion of non posse peccare, and thus to safeguard the
whole greatness of his ministry and sacrifice, though without throwing any doubt
on the uniqueness of His relationship to God as free from any sin or guilt. 15

Rengstorf

QUEUTTOS uÉuoouaL quetovontos WET&VOéG

ounv

128 in the OT and Judaism.

In the OT 1 the word is used both by the individual and the community (1) to
confirm the acceptance of a task allotted by men in the performance of which
there is need of the will of God (1 K. 1:36), (2) to confirm the personal applica-
tion of a divine threat or curse (Nu. 5:22; Dt. 27:15 ff.; Jer. 11:5; Neh. 5:13), and
(3) to attest the praise of God in response to a doxology (1 Ch. 16:36; Neh. 8:6),
as at the end of the doxologies of the first four books of the Psalms (Ps. 41:13;
72:19; 89:52 : 7287 728 106:48 : 92-3921 TO8). In all these cases mx is the acknowl-
edgment of a word which is valid, and the validity of which is binding for me

12 Cf. Str.-B., I, 297 f.

13 The reference in Lk. 7:37 is to prostitute (- 327), but here to one who is affianced ;
on Rabbinic terminology, cf. Str.-B., I, 297.
14 V. esp. Jn. 8:46; 2 C. 5:21; 1 Pt. 2:22.
15 The fellowship of Jesus with sinners, and yet His radical difference from them, are
expressed in single phrase in R. 8:3 : tv buoiouat (- ouoloua) aaproc quaptias;
cf. also 2 C. 5:21; Phil. 2:5 ff. (- popoh, axjua); Hb. 4:15; 9:28.
dunv. Dalman WJ. I, 185 ff.; Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua (1922), 27 f.; Str.-B., I, 242 ff.:
III, 456 ff.; E. Peterson, Elc Og6c (1926), Index; Dausch, Synpt., 128.
1 On the Heb. root ]x ("to be firm or sure") > 232 f.
 curv

and then generally in this acknowledgment. Thus i28 means that which is sure and
valid.
In Judaism the use of Amen is widespread and firmly established. An extra-
ordinary value is attached to its utterance. 2 In synagogue though not in temple
worship it occurs as the response of the community "to the detailed praises which
the leader utters with the prayers or on other occasions,' and "to each of the
three sections into which the priests divided the Aaronic blessing of Nu. 6:24-26." 3
It was the confession of the praise of God which was laid on the community and
which the community was to affirm by its answer. And it was the confession of
the blessing of God which was pronounced to the community and which the com-
munity was to make operative by its Amen. Apart from divine service it was to
be used in response to any prayer or praise uttered by another. The concluding
Amen signified concurrence. Amen to a VOW meant engagement to fulfil it. Amen
to a curse implied either the cursing of what the other cursed or placing oneself
under the curse. The same is true of Amen to a blessing (jSota, 18b).+ If in these
cases Amen retains its character as the response to a word spoken by another,
and as a confirmation of it, there is a shift in meaning in the few instances in
which it is a concluding wish at the end of one's own prayers (Tob. 8:7 f.; Taan.,
4, 8 etc.).5 In such cases it is not so much a confirmation of what is, but rather
hope for what is desired.
This tendency is strengthened when the LXX mostly translates 728 by yÉvoIto
(once in lep. 35:6 with a\noos). In this way the inner dialectic of the concept is
concealed to the degree that the yévouto still signifies what endures, or is true, of
the spoken Word of God in the sense of its standing fast, but no longer brings
out the fact that this "truth" constitutes a claim which binds me in my Amen.
There are no material grounds why the Amen should be retained in Ch. 16:36;
Est. 9:47; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; Tob. 8:8; 14:15; 3 Macc. 7:23; 4 Macc. 18:24 (as often
in 2). Note should be taken of the rendering of 128 AS TETTLOTQUéVOS in 'A (lEp.
35:6 : ItlOt0 to). This shows that x for him approximates closely to "sure"
or "reliable."

B. cunv in the NT and Early Christianity.

In the NT and the surrounding Christian world the Heb. is usually taken over
as it stands. It is used in three ways.
1. It is a liturgical acclamation in Christian worship (1 C.14:16). As in the
heavenly worship of Rev. 5:14 the four beasts respond to the praise of all creation
with their Amen, so the congregation acclaims the Exal and sixapiorla of the
president with theirs (Just. Ap., 65, 3). 6 The Amen thus retains its character of
response, since it is to another that the people (the i6t/tal of 1 C. 14:16) reply
with their cunv (Did., 10, 6; Act. Thom., 29 to the apostle ; Act. Phil., 146 to the

2 Str.-B., III, 457, 460 (under n.).

3 Str.-B., III, 456.
4 Str.-B., I, 242.
5 Ibid., I, 243.
8 Cf. Prot. Ev. Jk., 6, 2.
 cunv

heavenly voice ; Act. Joh., 94 to the Christ-Logos). To say Amen is the right
of the baptised Aaoc (Act. Phil., 147). And the Amen first makes the 1tpoapopa
perfect (Act. Phil., 143). Sometimes the president himself joins in this Amen
(M. Pol., 15, 1 ; Act. Phil., 117 f.).
2. Christian prayers 7 and doxologies themselves mostly end with Amen. Cf.
for prayers M. Pol., 14, 3; 1 C1., 45, 8; 61, 3; 64; Mart. Ptr., 10; Act. Joh., 77; for
doxologies R.1:25; 9:5; 11:36; 16:27; Gl. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tm. 1:17;
6:16; 2 Tm. 4:18; Hb. 13:21; 1 Pt. 4:11; 5:11; Jd. 25; 1 CI., 20, 12 etc.; 2 Cl., 20, 5;
M. PoI., 21, 1; 22, 3; Dg., 12, 9 etc. This does not mean, however, the self-con-
firmation of the one who prays. It expresses the fact that in divine service prayer
and doxology have their place before the people whose response they evoke or
anticipate. We are to understand the cunv in the same way when it comes at the
end of a prophetic word (Rev. 1:7) or an epistle or book (R. 15:33; Gl. 6:18;
Rev. 22:20) . The last instances shows how a liturgical use can be turned to literary
account. From the use of qunv at the end of a doxology, in which it becomes
part of the doxology or prayer, we can understand how it can come to have a
place at the beginning as well, especially when it forms the link between a pre-
ceding doxology and that which follows (Rev. 7:12; Mart. Mt., 29). The combina-
tion with dinovi& (Rev. 19:4; Mart. Mt., 26) may be explained by the accla-
matory character of both terms and the tendency of acclamations to become more
extensive.'
That this Christian Amen has retained its original inward meaning may be seen
from three passages in the NT In Rev. 1:7 it occurs in close proximity to val =
Yes. But Rev. 22:20 shows that it is the answer of the ÉKkAnola to the divine
Yes. The Yes does not here introduce the eschatological petition but acknowledges
the divine promise which is the basis on which the petition can be made. The
Amen of the community makes the divine Yes valid for it. The Amen of 2 C. 1:20
is to be seen in the same light. Because the val of God, the fulfilment of His
promises, is declared in Christ, by Him (= by the exknola) there is uttered
the Amen or response of the community to the divine Yes, so that the divine
Yes forms a sure foundation for them (Be Batov, v.21). In the same way, in
reminiscence of Is. 65:16, Christ Himself can be called 6 'Auny in Rev. 3:14, and
the meaning of this 6 'Aunv is brought out by the addition: poptus o TtlOToC
kai a neivos, n xpxn ths KTiOEGC TOU 0EOU. He Himself is the response to the
divine Yes in Him. And to the extent that in Himself He acknowledges and
obediently responds to the divine Yes which is Himself, He is the reliable and
true Witness of God.

3. If, however, this meaning of Amen is retained in the Christian community,

it is best preserved in the aunv which Jesus places before His sayings in the
Synoptic Gospels ® (30 times in Mt., 13 in Mk. and 6 in Lk., though the latter
also uses &^neos at 9:27; 12:44; 21:3 and Ér' a\n0elas at 4:25), and also in John's
Gospel (25 times, liturgically doubled). That Jesus' command not to swear played
any part in its use 10 is nowhere indicated. For kyw7 or A77 m might also have

7 As also Jewish prayers, cf. Dalman WJ, I, 185, 3.

8 On the apotrop. use of cunv, cf. Peterson, op. cit.
9 Schl. Mt., 155.
10 Dalman WJ, I, 186 f.
 durv - duvbs

been adopted. The point of the Amen before Jesus' own sayings is rather to show
that as such they are reliable and true, and that they are so as and because Jesus
Himself in His Amen acknowledges them to be His own sayings and thus makes
them valid. These sayings are of varied individual content, but they all have to
do with the history of the kingdom of God bound up with His person. Thus in
the dunv preceding the Atyo ouiv of Jesus we have the whole of Christology
in nuce. The one who accepts His word as true and certain is also the one who
acknowledges and affirms it in his own life and thus causes it, as fulfilled by him,
to become a demand to others.
Schlier

duiovtos - uialva

suv6s, aphy, opviov

+ duv6s.
Attested from classical times, it is mostly used in the LXX for the Heb. i, though
occasionally for 5?x, 72x, ai2, nag, I*k, norp, 302, nty.

In the NT it occurs 4 times (Jn. 1:29, 36; Ac. 8:32; 1 Pt. 1:19) and it is always
applied to Jesus, who is compared with a lamb as the One who suffers and dies
innocently and representatively.
The description of the Redeemer as a lamb is unknown to later Judaism ; the
only possible occurrence (Test. Jos. 19) falls under the suspicion of being
Christian interpolation. The question of the derivation of the description of Jesus

duvos. F. Spitta, Streitfragen zur Geschichte Jesu (1907), 172-224; O. Procksch,

Petrus und Johannes bei Mk. und Mt. (1920), 125; C. F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of
the Fourth Gospel (1922), 107 f.; A. Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus (1923), 108 ff.;
Str.-B., II, 367-370; Schl. J., 46-49; H. Wenschkewitz, "Die Spiritualisierung der Kultus-
begriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer in NT,' Angelos, 4 (1932), 70-230.
Test. Jos. 19:8 according to the Armenian version is as follows: "7 saw in the middle
of the horns (of the fourth beast) a virgin wearing a brightly coloured vestment, and from
her went forth a lamb. On her right hand was the likeness of lion. And all the wild
beasts and serpents raged ; the lamb conquered and destroyed them." F. Spitta, op. cit.,
187-194 and Loh, Apk., 51 regard the designation of the Messiah in this passage as a
pre-Christian Jewish tradition.
duvoc

as quvoc or apvlov thus arises. Two influences have perhaps been at work.
The first is that both Jesus Himself and the primitive community of the very
earliest period saw in Jesus the Servant of the Lord of Is. 53. The early nature of
the designation of Jesus as > aic 0Eo0 in the primitive community (Ac. 3:13;
4:27, 30) is guaranteed by the fact that offence was quickly taken at this title and
it thus came to be avoided.' In Is. 53:7, however, the Servant who suffers patiently
is compared to a lamb, and this comparison is expressly related to Jesus in Ac. 8:32
( Is. 53:7): oc auvos Évavtlov tou KElpavtos aitov &owvos. Thus Is. 53:7
might well be the origin of the description of Jesus as xuvoc. Yet a second in-
fluence is also to be seen. The crucifixion of Jesus took place at the Passover.
First Paul and then John (19:36) thus compared Jesus to the Paschal lamb: To
taoya nuiv trv0n Xpioroc (1 C. 5:7). To be sure, kids as well as lambs might
be offered at the Passover ; 3 yet it was more usual to sacrifice lambs. Thus the
comparison of Jesus with the Passover sacrifice might well have resulted in His
description as cuvos. More likely the two lines of influence interacted.
Yet it might well be that the adoption or even the derivation of the description
of Jesus as the Lamb of God should be seen against a wider background. For the
expression 6 auvoc TOU 0:00 (In. 1:29, 36) gives us a highly singular genitive
combination which can be explained only in the light of the Aramaic. In Aramaic
the word xby has the twofold significance of a. lamb and b. boy or servant.
Probably an Aramaic X72*7 1:2p in the sense of mi 122 underlies the Greek o
suvoc TOU Oeof, + the original reference thus being to Jesus as the servant of God.
The translation of wbu as auvoc (instead of Taic) thus gives us the strange con-
struction o auvos TOU OE00. If so, the double meaning of 8220 has some part in
the adoption, or even the origin, of the designation of Jesus as cuvos or cpvlov.
The designation could thus arise only on bilingual or Greek speaking territory;
this is supported by the fact that it is found exclusively 5 in the Johannine litera-
ture.
In the designation of Jesus as quvoc we thus have a creation of the community.
This consideration has a bearing on our estimate of the historicity of the saying
of the Baptist in In. 1:29, 36 : 188 6 cuvoc tou Beot, including in v.29 : o xipov
Thy quaprlav tou Koouou. If in the basic Aramaic the reference was to the servant
of God, the most serious objections to its historicity are dispelled. In terms of
Is. 53 the Baptist was calling Jesus the Servant of the Lord 7 who takes away the
sin of the world, and thus thinking (- alpo) of the substitutionary suffering of
the penalty of sin by the Servant of God.

A. v. Harnack, "Die Bezeichnung Jesu als 'Knecht Gottes' und ihre Geschichte in der
alten Kirche," SAB (1926), 212-238.
Ex. 12:3, 5; Pes., 8, 2; T. Pes., 4, 2 tarya.
Burney, op. cit., 107 f.; cf. Loh. Apk., 52.
5 Ac. 8:32 and 1 Pt. 1:19 merely give us the comparison of Jesus with a lamb, but not
His title as Lamb. The latter is found only in the Johannine writings; auvos occurs
twice (Jn. 1:29, 36) and xpviov 28 times (in Rev.).
8 Cf. Is. 53:12: xt D'23-xon 877),
7 Cf. the reference to Is. 42:1 in the voice from heaven at the baptism (Mk. 1:11 par.).
8 On the Messianic significance of Is. 53 in pre-Christian times cf. J. Jeremias, "Erloser
und Erlosung im Spatjudentum und Urchristentum," in Deutsche Theologie, II, Der Er-
losungsgedanke (1929), 106-119. Cf. also maic.
 auvoc - apnv - cpvlov

In the community the saying of the Baptist acquired a new significance when
the Evangelist John, or the underlying tradition, rendered *72*7 x59 by 6 cuvoc
Tou 0e00 and thus described Jesus as the true Paschal lamb (cf. Jn. 19:36). At
the same time aipeiv (Jn. 1:29) took on the new meaning of blotting out by a
means of expiation which removes guilt (= xipw). The saying of the Baptist was
thus taken to mean that Jesus as the Lamb of God blots out the sin of the world
by the expiatory efficacy of His blood. The community expresses three things in
describing Jesus as cuvos: 1. the patience of His suffering (Ac. 8:32); 2. His
sinlessness (1 Pt. 1:19); and 3. the efficacy of His sacrificial death (Jn. 1:29, 36 ;
1 Pt. 1:19). With the patience of a sacrificial lamb, the Saviour dying on the cross
went as a Substitute to death, and by the atoning power of His innocent dying
He has cancelled the guilt for this is the meaning of suaptia in Jn. 1:29
of the whole of humanity. Thus His dying means the dawn of the time of salvation
(1 Pt. 1:20). As once the blood of the Passover lambs played a part in the re-
demption from Egypt, so by the atoning power of His blood He has accomplished
redemption (ÉAutpoente, 1 Pt. 1:18) from the bondage of sin (EK the uataias
buiv avaotpooñs tatportapa66ToU, 1 Pt. 1:18) . But the atoning efficacy of His
death is not limited to Israel like that of the Paschal lamb. As agnus Dei He
makes atonement for the whole world, which, without distinction of race or reli-
gion, has come hopelessly under the judgment of God (In. 1:29 * Koouos).

t apnv.
LXX for 973, T2e, "20, i22, 202, 12, N'92, 7A9.
In the NT &pny occurs only in Lk. 10:3 aTootE w Bu&s os apvac (par.
Mt. 10:16 : Tp6Bara) Év uÉOo AUKGV. The antithesis lambs/wolves expresses
1. the dangerous position of the defenceless disciples; cf. Ps. Sol.8:28: kai of
SOLO1 TOU BEOD oC - apvia Ev aKakla ev LÉO autov (the nations of the earth);
2. the certainty of divine protection ; cf. Tanch. A17n 32b: "Hadrian said to
R. Jehoshua' (c. 90 A.D.): There is something great about the sheep (Israel) that
can persist among 70 wolves (the nations). He replied : Great is the Shepherd
who delivers it and watches over it and destroys them (the wolves) before them
(Israel)."

apviov.
xpvlov is originally a dimin. of xpnv with the significance of a little lamb (Philip-
pides, Fr. 29 [CAF, III, 310] apviou ualakotepoc);: but it no longer has this force in
NT times.

9 Schl. J., 48.

apnv. Schi. Mt., 336 f.; Str.-B., I, 574; Dausch Synpt., 486.
pvlov. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT (1905), 8-18; F. Spitta, Streitfragen zur
Geschichte Jesu (1907), 172-224; Clemen, 382-384; Loh. Apk., 51-53; Had. Apk., 76-78; H.
Wenschkewitz, "Die Spiritualisierung der Kultusbegriffe Tempel, Priester und Opfer im
NT," Angelos, 4 (1932), 213 ff.
Cf. F. Boll, Aus der Off. Toh. (1914), 45, n. 6:; Moult.-Mill., 78a.
xpviov

Apart from In. 21:15 apvlov is found only in Rev., where it occurs 29 times.
The Jewish Greek usage is important for the NT. In the LXX it occurs 4 times,
and always denotes "lamb" : Jer. 11:19 for ta: lep. 27(50):45 : td apvia tov
ttpoBotov for ]xin 179y y 113:4, 6: apvia mpoBatov for 7 '32. The same holds
good in Aquila (Is. 40:11 for bvbo), Ps. Sol. (8:28 - supra) and Josephus.2
There can be no doubt about the meaning "lamb" in Jn. 21:15 : BooKE td apvia
you, in view of the parallel word tpoBatia 3 in v. 16 f. and the Syriac under-
standing.+ What is meant by my lambs is the community as an object of the
loving care of Jesus.
In Revelation, in which the exalted Christ is 28 times called the Lamb, and once
(13:11) Antichrist as His anti-type,' the meaning of xpvlov is disputed. On the
one side & it is argued that "ram" is the correct translation, since what is depicted
is the wrath (6:16 f.) warfare and triumph (17:14) of the &pviov. Along the same
lines reference is made to the 7 horns (5:6; cf. 13:11), and there is a common
inclination7 to identify the apriov of Rev. with the zodiac and to explain its
individual features astrologically. But reminiscence of Da. 8:3 (cf. Eth. En. 90:9,
37 and the number 7 in Zech. 4:10) might easily give us the 7 horns, and in any
case the philological justification of the translation "ram" is highly doubtful. In
Jewish Greek usage (- supra) the only significance is "lamb,' as also in Jn. 21:15
and 2 CI., 5,2-4. In addition the fact that the apvlov is also described as "slain"
(5:6; cf. 5:9, 12; 13:8) shows that we cannot separate the statements of Revelation
from what the NT says about Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb (- cuv6s).
The statements of Revelation concerning Christ as &pviov depict Him as
Redeemer and Ruler, and in so doing bring out all the most important elements in
His title as Deliverer. 8 a. The Lamb bears (on His neck) the mark of His slaugh-
tering (5:6, 9, 12; 13:8); His blood flowed in atonement for sin (5:9; 7:14; 12:11).
b. But the Lamb overcame death (5:5-6) and is omnipotent (- KÉpac) and om-
niscient (5:6). c. He takes over the government of the world by opening the book
of destiny in the heavenly council (4:2 ff.; 5:7 ff.), receiving divine adoration
(5:8 ff. etc.), establishing the rule of peace (7:9) on the heavenly mountain (14:1),
overcoming demonic powers (17:14), exercising judgment (6:16 f.; 14:10) and
making distinction on the basis of the book of life (13:8; 21:27). d. As Victor He
is the Lord of lords and King of kings (17:14; 19:16), celebrating His marriage
festival with the community (19:9) and ruling His own as partner of the throne of
God (22:1,3).
J. Jeremias

2 Jos. in Ant., 3, 221, 251 renders the OT te2 (Nu. 7:15; 23:12) by apvlov and distin-
guishes the ram as Kptos.
3RD rec TtpoBata.
Syr. sin pesch philox arm Ta: v. 15 : lambs (= children) v. 16-17: sheep and rams
= women and men in the community); cf. A. Merx, Das Evg. des J. (1911), 466-468.
5 B. Murmelstein, WZKM, 36 (1929), 83.
6 Spitta, op. cit., 174; Cr.-Ko., 167; K. Bornhauser, Wirken des Christus (1921), 244 ff.
7 Boll, op. cit., 44 ff.
8 Cf. A. Jeremias, op. cit., 8-18.
 GLUTEAOS

OLLTTEAOC

"Vine,' applied metaphorically by Jesus to Himself in the NT (Jn. 15:1: kyo

EluL i ALTEAo A anOwh; v.5: Eyo elut h AUTEAOS, ONEIC TO KAnuata). The
allegory of the vine tended by the gardener, from which the sap flows into the
branches, denotes in the first instance the inner fellowship of the disciples with
Jesus, which rests on their utter dependence and in which they must abide and
bring forth fruit (v. 4ff.). It then denotes the intensive nurture of the community
of disciples by God (v. 1 FE.). If Jesus is the true vine which alone is worthy of
the name (- dAn06c), this is hardly in distinction from literal vines, but rather
from others to whom the image had already been applied. It cannot be decided
with any certainty whether or not the metaphor of In. 15:1 ff. should be linked
with the saying at the Last Supper concerning the yÉvnua tis qureiou (Mk.
14:25 par.; cf. the dyla Xurteios AaBl8 in Did., 9, 2).
The metaphor of the vine is common in Israelite and Judaic literature. It is used
for the people of Israel in Hos. 10:1; Jer. 2:21 (&ueAov aAn0why); Ez. 15:1 ff.;
19:10 ff.; Ps. 80:9 ff.; bChul., 92a; Lv.: 36 on 26:42 (Str.-B., II, 495, 563); for the
Messiah in S. Bar., 36 ff. (39:7: "the dominion of my Messiah, which is like a
vine"); for wisdom in Sir. 24:17; for the wife in Ps. 128:3. In view of this usage
the conception and execution of the image in In. can be regarded only as "new
building on old foundation." 1 Indeed, in later texts the image is a common one
throughout the Orient, as in the Dionysus cult (Eiotaquloc) 2 and esp. in the
Mandaean religion, where not merely the heavenly messenger but a whole series
of beings from the light world are spoken of in terms of the vine, and we find
what is almost a metaphysics of the vine.

Lidz. Ginza, 181, 27: "Manda dHalje revealed himself in Judea, a vine appeared in
Jerusalem"; Lidz. Lit., 68, (to Manda dHalje): "Thou art the vine"; Lidz. Ginza, 301
11 ff.: "1 (Hibil) am a soft vine and the great (life) was for me the planter" ;
Lidz. Lit., 218, 9 ff.: "On the bank of the great Jordan of the first life there stands the
wondrous vine before which my daily prayers and praises ascend"; cf. 180:11 ff.

aUTEAOS. Zn. J., 576 ff.: Bau. J., 183 ff.; Tillm. J., 273; Clemen, 282 f.; F. Buchsel,
Joh. u. der hellenist. Synkretismus (1928), 52 f.
Bichsel, op. cit., 53.
2 R. Knopf on Did., 9, 2; W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos (1921), 274; J. Grill, Unter-
suchungen tber die Entstehung des 4 Ev., il (1923). 106; H. Weinel, Bibl. Theol.d. NT4
(1928), 427; J. Leipoldt, Dionysos (1931), 51 f. etc. On the golden vine which plays a role
earlier in the Phrygian Zeus myth, cf. A. B. Cook, Zeus, Il (1925), 281, n. 4 and 1394
s.v. "Vine, golden.'
Lidz. Joh., Lit., Ginza, Index S.v. "Weinstock." Cf. W. Brandt, Jbch. pr. Th.. 18
(1892), 433 ff.; M. Lidzbarski, Oriental. Studien Noldeke gew. (1906), 538. Gnostic Act.
Thom., 36 : TOTOC this duneiou tis alnowns. Also Actus Petri cum Simone, 20 (p. 68
Lipsius)?
CUTEAOS - avayivoak@

In some cases Jn. may well have provided the details of the conception, e.g., Lidz. Joh.,
204, 34 ff.: "The vine which bears fruits arises, and that which does not is cut down
whosoever will not be enlightened and instructed by me will be cut off"; Lidz. Lit.,
253, 1: "Thy pure shoots shall be united with thee and shall not be cut off"; Lidz.
Ginza, 24, 14 f.: "Root up the bad vine and bring good and plant it instead." All
these seem to be either paraphrases or applications of Jn. 15:2, 4 Ff.

There are contacts between the Johannine use of the image and oriental anal-
ogies. The Johannine Jesus claims for Himself alone the symbolical predicate of
other divine figures of that syncretistic period : "I am the true vine," and He
develops the thought with creative depth.
Behm

auwuos, auduntos uQuos dva Baive - Baiva

dvayyÉllw - 61 ff. dvayewaw ¾ yEwad

avayiwokw, dvoryvwaic

avaylvooko in Gk. means "to know exactly" or "to recognise," and for the
most part it is used with the sense of reading or public reading (cf. both older
usage and the pap.). In this sense it is by no means uncommon in the LXX, mostly
for *p.
In the NT &vaylvooKElV is used of the reading of a letter (Ac. 15:31; 23:34;
2 C 1:13; 3:2; Eph. 3:4) and esp. of public reading in the congregation (1 Th. 5:27;
Col. 4:16). In Jn. 19:20 it is used of reading the titlos on the cross. It is mainly
used of the reading of the OT: Mk. 2:25 par.; 12:10 par.; Mt. 12:5; Ac. 8:28;
Gl. 4:21 (vl) etc.; cf. esp. Mk. 13:14: 6 Avary1iaxwv voeltw (whosoever reads
the apocalypse in question Daniel ?). We find the same use in Jos. Ant., 4, 209;
10, 267; 20, 44 f. and later Christian literature. There is particular reference to the
cultic reading of the OT in Lk. 4:16; Ac. 13:27; 15:21; 2 C. 3:15. In Rev. 1:3 the
reference is to reading of the prophecy presented, and since the Epistles were
already being publicly read in the early communities it is evident that the apostolic

AVXYIVOOKW K TA. Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; Str.-B.,IV, 154 ff. (Exc. 8); R. Knopf, ZNW,
3 (1902), 266 ff.; also on 2 Cl. 19, 1 in Hdb. z. NT, Erganzungsband (1923); P. Glaue, Die
Vorlesung heil. Schriften im Gottesdienst, 1 (1907). Also A. Harnack, "Uber den privaten
Brauch der hell. Schriften in der alten Kirche" in Beitr. Z. Einl, in d. NT. V (1912).
 avaylviakd - dayK a( o
literature was also an object of IVEYyLVOOKEIV as well as the OT (cf. 2 Cl., 19, 1;
Just. Ap., 67, 3 f.).1
avaryvoois means "knowledge" or "recognition" and it is particularly used for
reading or public reading (as in the pap.), esp. in law courts and other assemblies.
In Judaism it was used for the public reading of the OT, cf. Philo Rer. Div. Haer.,
253 and the synagogue inscription in Jerusalem: ouvaywyhv Els avaryvwow
vouou.2 We find the same usage in early Christianity : Ac. 13:15; 2 C. 3:14; 1 Tm.
4:13; and cf. also Cl. Al. Paed., II, 10, 96, 2; Strom., I, 21, 146, 1; VI, 14, 113, 3.

Bultmann

avayra(w, avaykaios,
dvoryxn

A. dvaryK- outside the NT,

The question bound up with the root ovayk-1 is pursued by Aristotle in his
Metaphysics when he explains what is meant by to avayalov. It is of aVEU
O0K Ev6ÉXETaI (ñv. and therefore "all that which is part of the conditio sine qua
non of being and life"; it is Evavtlov th kato thy rtpoalpeolv KIVñoEl Kai KoTa
rov Aoyiouov, and therefore all that which is apart from the true fashioning of
life and which constricts and opposes it.2 Both these meanings are rooted in a

1 If in the LXX avaylooKElV is sometimes used for N'7> when this can only mean "to
call" or "proclaim" (Jer. 3:12; 11:6; 19:2), this perhaps rests on the fact that AVayIVOOKELV
already has the sense of cultic reading.
Deissmann LO, 379.
& ayKaL K TA. R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (1907), 426-428; R.
Winsch, Sethianische Verluchungstafe (1898). 94-96;
Str.-B., Die Vorzeichen und Berechnung der Tage des Messias (Excurs.), IV, 977 ff.:
K. Benz, "Die Eveotdoa dvayKn in iK. 7:26," Theol. u. Glaube, 10 (1918), 388 ff.;
P. Tischleder, "Nochmals die Eveotdoa avaykn in 1 C.7, 26," ibid., 12 (1920), 225 ff.;
Rohr, Hb. 33 ff. Def. to 8E avaykaiov kal dvtItutov (sc. to the Éxouoiov), napd
Thy BouAnow ov, to TEpI THV quaprlav &v eln kal quafiav, aTElkaotal 8& t kata
to &yKn rtopela, 8tl Boomtopa Kal tpaxÉa Kat Agaia ota loyEl TOU levaI. EVTE6OEV
obv towc EkAnen avaykaiov, th Sid Tou gyKouC ATTEIKAOBEV TOpEI (Plat. Crat.,
420d, e).
No sure light is cast on the meaning by etymology. The Platonic definition quoted
is of little worth. More probable is the connection with a Celtic word for "need" or
"necessity"; cf. Walde-Pokorny, Etym. Wort. d. indogerm. Sprachen, I (1930), 60.
The Platonic definition embraces only this part of the concept.
 avayka(o

third and general meaning : to un ÉVOEXO EVOV a Acc EXELV avaykaiov SquEV
oUtoC Eyelv, Metaph., IV, 5, p. 1015a, 20 ff.

Thus the different meanings of the terms are given. ovayxn is compulsion or
necessity and therefore the means of compulsion or oppression; Évayraioc is that
which compels or makes necessary; avay Kago is to cause or compel someone in all
the varying degrees from friendly pressure to forceful compulsion. 3

In relation to the Greek and Hellenistic understanding of avayKn we have thus

to take into account two different views. 1. As a conditio sine qua non it is re-
cognised to be a cosmic principle. It has a divine character and is even a per-
sonification of the most forceful divinity of being. With the increasing rationalisa-
tion of Greek thinking it loses this character and becomes the rational concept of
an immanent necessity. In Hellenism, ananke is identified with other deities and
reemerges as a hypostasis or personified concept. <patEpn 'Avayxn controls being
(Parmen. Fr., 8, 30, Diels, I, 157, 2). It is supreme power (K DELOOOV OUBEV 'Avay-
Kac nopov, Eur. Alk., 965). In his myth of the hereafter in the Politeia Plato
thinks of it as seated at the heart of the world (Resp., X, 616 ff.). It plays a great
part in magic, e.g., ÉEOpKigo oE kata ths 'Avayxns TOv 'Avaykaiov (Preis.
Zaub., III, 120 f.). Its role is comparatively subordinate in the Hermetic litera-
ture : . . . uÉpn fori < TOO 0EOT Elua< puévn> Kai avaykn kai Ttpovola
kal TUaLG (Corp. Herm., XII, 21). What Philo says of the Chaldeans is true of
the Greek world generally : Eluapuavnv tE Kal ovayxnv BEOTTAaOTñOaVTES
(Migr. Abr., 179). Ananke is thus a force which defies all knowledge, which
controls all things and which conditions reality. 2. In the cosmological dualism of
spirit and matter it is felt to be a constraint which is opposed to and resists the
spirit. The rise of the world is conceivable only ÉE, avayKns tE kai vot ouota-
JEGC (Plat. Tim., 48a).4 From &vaykn derive the many different avoyKal: Épo-
Tikal avaykal (Plat. Resp., V, 458d); ai this qUoeC avayral (Aristoph. Nu.,
1075; Philo Jos., 264; Leg. All., III, 151). These are hindrances to the soul. The
main point in ethical and religious life is to control them and to bring them under
the dominion of reason. The final basis of avaykn is the destiny of death (6
avaykaiog tp6ioc, Eur. Herc. Fur., 282 f.). Of the immortal soul after physical
death it may be said: poxi unKéti taic oduatos avayKaic ÉVoE8ELÉVN
(Philo Jos., 264) .
The situation of man as thus understood may be described in terms of ovayxn.
The so-called Mithras Liturgy from the great Paris magic papyrus speaks of
eveatGoa Kal KaTETElyouod uE TIKp& avayKn (Preis. Zaub., IV, 526 f.), and
the reference is obviously to the natural situation of man.
Both in the OT and Josephus &vayKn has the meaning of constraint. In the OT
it is usually a rendering of 7 722, word which expresses narrowness and con-
straint. In contrast to the Greek and Hellenistic understanding, however, the situa-
tion of constraint does not lie in the natural condition produced by the dualism of
spirit and matter, but in the afflictions and oppressions, divinely caused and inter-
preted as divine visitations, either of the people or of individuals in the form of

3 On the individual meanings, cf. the lexicons.

4 CF. the very similar view of Philo with regard to the individual: &voley aTt'
oupavot katapac 6 vouc tvdeli taic oduatos avaykaic (Rer. Div. Her., 274).
 dvayka(w

persecution, enmity, subjugation or sickness. It is in this sense that ovayxn is

used both in the OT and in Jos. (Bell., 5, 571; cf. also Test. Jos. 2:4). The meaning
of ovarykai for the individual Israelite is made clear by the following verse: Kai
Expatav tp0 Koplov Ev TO BA[Be BaL aUTous, kal fk tov avaykov autov
EOWOEV aUTOUG. kai #EnyayEV aiToUc EK OKOTOUC kal Ex OKIAC BaVaTOU Kal
touc SEQuOuC aitiv BLÉppnEev (y 106:13 f.). When Zephaniah speaks of a
quÉpa O\IWEDS Kai dvayKns, his reference is to the day of Yahweh as a day
of judgment (1:15).

Apocalyptic and Rabbinic theology speaks expressly of a Messianic tribulation known

as the "sorrows of the Messiah.' This tribulation consists in "commotion and war,
pestilence and hunger, scarcity and famine, apostasy from God and His Torah, the
inversion of all moral orders, the failure of even the laws of nature." 5 Cf. also the
enumeration of dvory Kal (7794), given by R. Akiba in S. Nu., 76 on 10:9 : 6 "And when
you go to war against the enemy who oppresses you (77xn 727), and blow the alarm
with the trumpet, you shall be remembered (i.e., helped) before God." He expounds
as follows : "I have (there) only war, drought, failure of crops, and whence is difficulty
in childbirth or helplessness in a storm at sea ? We find instruction in the phrase
9729 989 59 (understood pleonastically): In face of every emergency (77X. dvory.
kn) we should blow the trumpets and thus invoke God's aid that it should not afflict
the community.

B. avayk- in the NT.

In the NT, as in the OT, there is no deification of avoykn. Recognition of God
as Creator and Preserver of the world leaves no room for this. Except in sO far
as the general meanings already noted are conveyed, avarykn is used in the NT
as in the OT.
1. It expresses a situation of need : a. the Messianic tribulation, Lk. 21:23:
Éotai yap avarykn uEyaAn éni the yns b. such afflictions as those ex-
perienced by the apostle Paul, or afflictions which derive from the tension between
the new creation in Christ and the old cosmos (2 C. 12:10; 6:4; 1 Th. 3:7), or the
afflictions of the community (1 C. 7:26) which consist in the same tension as
characterises the Christian situation.

2. At one point Paul uses avaykn to describe his apostolic office : dvorykn
yap uo1 ETIKEITaI (1 C. 9:16). In this office Paul has the same experience as the
prophets ; he is under a divine constraint 8 which he cannot escape. The content

5 Cf. Str.-B., IV, 977 ff.

Ct. K. G. Kuhn, Sifre Nu., 195.

on Éveotooa
dvaykn, 3 is "present"
Macc. 1:16; distress ; cf., e.g.,
Preis. Zaub., thef.;
IV, 526 parallel expressions
and finally katd Bondeiv th Eveotin
KAG06, Ps.-Aristot. Mund., 7, p. 401b, 21. TO EVEOToc

8 Contemporary Judaism knows the same divine constraint in its religious life :
(4 Sepulav Macc. ovaykny
Thy katd TOUToUG5:16); Bialote
(sc. vououc) pav Elval vouIgouEv thiS Toor T
tapadESOLEVTy
avaykal otatov TaVtoC Tou Blou TETOINuÉvoi (Jos. Ap., 1, 60). EDOÉBEIav Epyov
avayka(w avaloyia

of this compulsion is that a part of the divine plan of salvation is committed to

him, and its seriousness consists in the fact that he cannot evade it if he is not
to bring on himself the woe of eternal perdition.
3. ovarykn is used to denote the divine order of the world and its subjection
to law (R. 13:5; Mt. 18:7) in the sense: It is necessary, or it must be.
Grundmann

dvaryvwa1s - 343 AvadEiKvUuL SEEK voLL

dva(o0 gon avo0sua,
avaxaivi(w, avateuatigw, avalnua - ovationut
dvaka unto ) KaAUTTo
avaxalvow, avaxaivwois - Kalvoc
AV&KEL OL -> KEipal &VaKE a aiow® KEoaAn
dvaxpa(w - xpago avalauBovo, ovalnuuis -> AauBavo
avaxpivo, avaxpiaus - xpiva

+ ovaloyia
qvaloyos: corresponding to Abyoc, or concurring with given factor. Hence
dvaloyla, the "correspondence of a right relationship," or "proportion.' Kata Th
avaloylav (Plat. Polit., 257b; P. Flor., I, 50, 91 Kata (to) avaloyov: P. Amh.,
II, 85, 17 f.; Philo Virt., 95 legal fees kata to avaloyov THe KThOEWG. Field,
Hexapla on Lv. 27:18 Alius : 1 kata avaloyiav Tov ÉTOv tov OTTOAELDOÉVTOV
(LXX: fml To Ern To Éloita).

In the NT statement in R. 12:6 it is clear at least that in its representative the

xapioua ths upoontelac should stand in right "correspondence" to tlots: KaTa
avaloylav this itlotews. The TriotIc which underlies this correspondence,
however, is not the regula fidei of the objective content of Christian faith or the
doctrine of faith (quae creditur).2 This is proved beyond dispute by the parallelism
both of ÉKAOTO 6 Oeoc E LÉpIOEV uÉtpov 3 TOOTENC (v. 3) and of kato thy xaptv

&valoyla. 1 Field, 1, 217.

2 For champions of this old and widespread view, cf. Meyer and B. Weiss, R. ad loc.
3 syp uses the same word for &valoyla (v. 6) and uÉtpov (v.3). Cf. also Plat. Tim.,
69b : dvaloya kai §luperpa.
 ovaloyia - avaunnois

thy b00eioav quiv (v. 6). Only the believer can exercise the xxploua; the power
of the xxpioua stands in avaloyia to the power of the faith appropriate to each.
This is true of all yaplouata. But in others, e.g., the healing of the sick, the
correspondence is externally visible, since the power of the xapioua disappears
with the cessation of faith. In the case of tpoontela, however, which needs other
special tests of its genuineness (1 C. 12:10; 14:29), there is the inherent temptation
to exercise it without "lots. 4 The reminder is thus needed that it is truly possible
only kato avaloyiav TOOTEDG.
Kittel

ovErvals, avaloo - A00 avauapintos

t dvouyois, + unou nois

avauvnois means "remembrance" "recollection." Synon. irouvnous; cf. Philo

Plant., 108. avau ois is philosophically distinguished from uvnun ("memory") as the
"reliving of vanished impressions by definite act of will"1: cf. Plat. Phileb., 34b;
Leg., V, 732b: &vauvnois & fotiv Entrppon opoVnoE AnoleITOUonS; Aristot.
Hist. An., I, 1, p. 488b, 88; Philo Leg. All., III, 91-93; Congr., 39 f.; Virt., 176; Berliner
Klassikertexte, 2 (1905), Index, S.v. avauvnous. The active element in avau nois
(ToLE™v dvquvnotv, e.g., burial inscription in Nicomedia from the imperial period)
leads on from the signification of a. "recollection in the consciousness" (Philo Vit. Mos.,
I, 21; Congr., 111; 1 CI., 53 1; Just. Ap., 44, 11) to that of b. "recollection by word" or
"commemoration" (commemoratio), Lys. Or. 2, 39: Quatov avau noels, and C. "re-
collection by act, i.e., "an action whereby the object is re-presented in memory" 3
(cf. Nu. 10:10, where tinpt before God is accomplished by the blowing of trumpets ;
and Wis. 16:6).

Hb. 10:3 : tv aitais (rais Ovalaic) avaunois auaptiov kat' Eviauo

them there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. The annual sin
offerings made on the day of atonement are inadequate to remove sins (v. 1 f.),
but serve rather to remind of them by the very fact that they are offered. To the
members of the community they make sins present in actu as a hindrance to

1 Cf. Zn. R. ad loc.

& vauvnaIs ktA. 1 Trench, 38, n.
B. Laum, Stiftungen in der griechischen u1. romischen Antike, II (1914), 141, No. 203.
8 Bchm. 1 C., 369.
dvauvnaic

fellowship with God. This estimate of the sacrifice of the day of atonement is
wholly opposed to the Jewish view in spite of Nu. 5:15 : Ovoia unuoouvou
avau u horouaa auaptlav (cf. Jub. 34:19; Philo Vit. Mos., II, 107: [of the sacri-
fices of the unrighteous] 0i Abai quapiuatov, dA^" inou now epya{ovtal,
Plant., 108). +
1 C. 11:24 (Lk. 22:19 SR): TOUTO TOLEITE EIG ThV Lunv avauvnow, v. 25: ToUto
TOLEITE, DOXKIC EAV TIVNTE, ElS thY *unv ovauvnowv. Christians are to enact
(-* TOLÉ∞) the whole action of the Lord's Supper this is the reference of the
twofold tooto in recollection of Jesus, and this not merely in such sort that
they simply remember, but rather, in accordance with the active sense of orvau-
vnols and the explanation in v. 26, in such a way that they actively fulfil the
avaunois. The making present by the later community of the Lord who in-
stituted the Supper, and who put the new 81x0nxn into effect by His death,
is the goal and content of their action in which they repeat what was done by
Jesus and His disciples on the eve of His crucifixion. 5

Linguistically Eis avauyow = you?: 37 tit.; y 69 tit.; Wis. 16:6; Just. Dial.,
27:4; Lv. 24:7 for mb1*2, whereas in Ex. 12:14, where the Passover is appointed a day
of remembrance of deliverance from Egypt, 1512 is rendered uvnuoouvov. Materially,
we may refer to the endowment of a feast of the dead alc thy nuov TE Kal Mntpo66-
pou uvnunv in the testament of Epicurus in Diog. L, X, 18. On anamnesis as an act of
recollection of the death of Christ in the celebration of the eucharist in the early
Church,' cf. already Just. Dial., 41, 1: sic avauvnow tou nalous; 70,4: TEpi ToU
aptou ov TAPÉOKEV o XPLOTOC TOLEiV ic avaunolv TOU TE oNUaTO-
Totnoaolal aUTOv B1& TOUC TILOTEUOVIAC EIC airb, 8t' oic kai TaOntoc yÉyove,
kal TEpi toU torpiou, 8 Eic avauwnow tou aluatos aitol TapEoWKev eixa-
PLOTOUVTaC TOLEIV; 117,3: k' avauvnoEl ts tpoons autoy tv n Kai TOU
Tabouc usuvnyrai.

onou nos in 2 Tm. 1:5; 2 Pt. 1:13; 3:18 is substantially identical with ovau-
mois in the active sense.
Behm

+ Rgg., Wnd. on Hb. 10:3.

6 Bchm. C. 368 f.; Ltzm. 1 C. ad loc.; D. Stone, DCG, II, 74a; cf. Sickbg., 1 C., 54.
€ Older examples of such endowments are given by Ltzm. 1 C., 93 f.
G. P. Wetter, Altchristl. Liturgien : Das christliche Mysterium (1921), 66 ff., 143 ff.;
F.J. Dolger, IXOYZ, II (1922), 549 ff.; H. Lietzmann, Messe u. Herrenmahl (1926), 50 ff.;
O. Casel, Jahrbuch hir Liturgiewissenscha[t, 6 (1926), 113 ff.
8 Wbg.. Past., 274, n. is only true up to point.
 avatauo - & aTtaUgIC - entava taud

VEVE00 - VEOC avag loc )

avantaiw, avaTaUols, -* KATXTQUO, KaToTaUGIS).

gravanauo

t avantauw.
a. "to cause to cease," Hom. II., 17, 550; Gr. Sir. 18:16; mid. "to cease with something,"
Xenoph. An., IV, 2, 4. b. "to give someone rest" or "to refresh someone," Xenoph.
Cyrop., VII, 1, 4; LXX 2 Bao. 7:11; Ch. 22:18; Prv. 29:17; Gr. Sir., 3:6; Mark Lit.,
129, 11 (Brightman); mid. to rest from something," Plat. Critias, 106a; LXX Est. 9:16
(& Tto Tov ToAsulov). c. mid. "to rest, LXX Ex. 32, 12; of the dead, Gr. Sir. 22:11;
IG, XIV, 1717; Act. Andr., 15 (83,7); Anth. Pal., 12, 50; d. mid. 'to remain at rest,'
LXX Da. 12:13. e. mid. "to rest on' (- eavataiouai), LXX Is. 11:2 (the permanent
resting of the Spirit of God in distinction from temporally limited filling with the
Spirit); CI. Al. Ecl. Proph., 56, 6 f.; Iambl. Comm. Math. Scient., 8, p. 33 (of the shadow).

In the NT &VaTaUELV sometimes means corporal rest (c) in the usual sense, as
in Mk. 6:31: avatauaao0e 8Alyov; Mk. 14:41: KaOE SETE TO AOLTOV Kai ava-
TabeOE; Lk. 12:19: Xvataiou oayE TtlE (reproachfully in the last two cases).
More commonly it denotes the refreshment (b) of the inner man, 1 as in C. 16:18:
&véTtauaay yap to gyov TvEDua; Phlm. 20 : &vTqUG6v HOu ta aT1ayxva
pass.; 2 C.7:13 : avaenautal to TVElua aUTOU; Phlm.7: to otAayxva TOV
dyiov avateiautal. In Rev. it is used in relation to the hereafter, as in 14:13:
avatanoovtal EK TOV KOTWV aiTGv, to rest (b) from their labours :; 6:11: iva
avatauanvtal ftl xpovov HulKpov, to tarry at rest (d), to await. In Pt. 4:14 the
Spirit of God is the subject: TO TVE uA 0EOU Éo' Juas dvanauetal (e). Finally,
in Mt. 11:28 the word comprehends the whole saving work of Jesus (b; dv&-
itauaic b.).

+ AvaTaUGIc.
a. "Cessation" or "interruption," Plut. Lib. Educ., 13 (II, 9c); b. "rest," common in
the LXX, Gr. Sir. 6:28, cf. 51:27, promised to the disciple of wisdom; Gr. Sir. 30:17
variant; 38:23, rest of the dead. "place of rest" (like dvatauua), LXX Gn. 8:9;
Nu. 10:33; Gr. Sir. 24:7, sought by wisdom; Ru. 3:1; 1 d. "day of rest" (Sabbath), Jos.
Ap., 2, 174.

In place of the rest promised to the Jewish disciple of wisdom, Mt. 11:28 f.,
while it retains the older form of promise, emphatically sets the genuine rest (d)

avaiadd. Schl. Mt., 385 f.

1 Str.-B., III, 486; Plot. Enn., VI, 9:9 . avanadetal wuxn.
2 On the form, cf. Winer (Schmiedel) § 13, 9; BI.-Debr. 8 78.
3 How slight is the connection here with the Rabbinic conception of the Messiah is shown
by Str.-B., 1, 607.
&vamauGIs. Schl. Mt., 388; Dausch, Synopt. on Mt. 11:28 f.
Cf. E.L. Hicks, JHSt., 12 (1891), 230.
&vatÉ Ao - avatoan

which Jesus brings with the Gospel. To this rest are invited whose who in truth
have found in Judaism only a burden (=> doptlov, guyoc) and no rest, Mt. 11:29 :
EuphoeTE dvotaualv taic puyaic ouiv (11:28 -) avataiouai). In Rev. 4:8,
cf. 14:11: avaTaualv oik Exouow nutpas kal vuktos means without cessation
(a). Mt. 12:43 : gntotv avanaualy means seeking a place of rest (c).

Cf. Ev. Naz. (Jer. on Is. 11:2), where the words of the Holy Ghost at the baptism of
Jesus are as follows: Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis exspectabam te, ut venires et requies-
cerem in te. Tu enim es requies mea

* £ avatauw.
A late and rare word. Act. Ju. 16:26 A : Éavatquoov uE, synon, with GOES;
elsewhere only in Ael. Nat. An., V, 56 and Procop. Gaz. (v. Ps.-Choricius, 1 ed. Boisso-
nade, p. 170) in the sense of mid. a. Mid. a. "to rest on" (-* dvaraio e.), Jos. Ant.,
8, 84; LXX Is. 11:2 * Nu. 11:25 f. : ÉTavEnaUXTO TO TVED a ET' aUTOUC. b. "to
lean on," LXX 1 Macc. 8:12: ueTd 8& TOV pIlav autov kai tov ÉTavaTtaUouÉvV
auroic; Mi. 3:11: ETi TOV KUpIOV ITAVETQUOVTO. Cf. Epict. Diss., 1, 9,9 : TOV 82
plAboopov quiv benoet a lois @appoivra Kal Éravataubuevov gnoonueiv.
"to rest" (a); Ev. Hebr.
(Cl. Th Al. losh Strom., : Enavcrnct II, 9, 45, osray 5; V, ait 14, ga 96
oneself to rest" (a); R. 2:17: El 8É Énavattaun vouw, "if thou restest in thy
possession of the Law" (b).
Bauernfeind

ovaranpow - tanpow avaatagic • &vlomut

ovaataupow > araup6s avaatpiow, dvaotpooh - OT PEDO

dvatelAw, ovatoln

* dvatÉlAo.
Trans. "to cause to come forth or arise; intrans. "to come forth or arise." This general
meaning varies according to the relevant subject. There is no difference in this respect
between Christian and secular usage. Aesch. Fr., 300 (Nauck, cf. Gn. 3:18) otayus:
Pind. Isthm., 6,75 88∞p; 1 CI.,20, 4 tpoof; Dg., 12,1 gilov; LXX 2 Ch. 26:19 f
AÉmpa; Lv. 13:37 Ople; Lk. 12:54 VEEAn (rise); also abstr. w 71:7 81ka1ooov ;

TavaiaUo. 1 Cf. C. Kirsten, Quaestiones Choricianae, Bresl. phil. Abh., 7 41895),

46 ff.
AvatEAAd KtA. Str.-B., II, 113; A. Jacoby, 'AvaroAn gE EYOU, ZNW, 20
(1921), 205-214; F.J. Dolger, Sol salutis® (1925), 149 ff.
 avatoan

Philo Conf. Ling., 14 etc.; persons : &vÉTELAE ootp Epigr. Gr., 978; but mostly light:
Mt. 4:16 = 96:11; the stars LXX Job 3:9; Is. 14:12; Aristid., 4, 2; 6, 3; the sun Hdt.,
I, 204; IV 40; LXX Gn. 32:31; Gr. Sir. 26:16; Mt. 5:45; 13:6; Mk. 16:2; Jm. 1:11. Preis.
Zaub., IV (Paris), 2989 ff.

The Christian term &VaTÉAElV is a translation of the subst. of ny "to sprout"

(nay "sprout"), and of mot "to arise," and in connection with Jer. 23:5, Zech. 3:8
and 6:12 in the former case, and Nu. 24:17 (737) in the latter, it is used of the
Messiah. In the process the two meanings merge, so that it is difficult to fix the
precise sense. In Hb.7:14: ég 'louda dvatÉTaAKEV 6 Kupios nudv, we must
translate "sprout" or "spring forth" as in Test. G. 8 and Test. D. 5 (though in
Test. Jud. 24 we have "arise"). Elsewhere, however, it is more in keeping with
Christian usage to render arise" or "shine forth" in relation to Christ : 2 Pt. 1:19;
Ign. Mg., 9, 1: Ev fi (sc. juÉpa) kai n gon nuov (Christ _ our life) &véTELAev
ot' a tou Kai tOU eavaToU autoO. Like Christ and the sun, the martyr, too, rises
up to God (Ign. R., 2, 2).

Similarly in O. Sol. 7:15 : "It shone forth in the son." On the other hand in O. Sol.
15:10 it is said of the Lord (i.e., the singer himself) as the sun (v.1): "Immortal life
grew in the land of the Lord." Cf. Lidz. Lit., 192 : "The man of proven righteousness
sprang forth and shone in the world.'

+ ovatoan.
1. The "rising of the stars" : Eur. Phoen., 504; Plat. Polit., 269a; Mt. 2:2, 9; P. Tebt.,
276, 38.
2. The "sunrise as a quarter of heaven," the "morning," or the "east." Sing. Rev.
7:2; 16:12; Act. Thom., 18 with ñliou; Rev.21:13; CI., 10, 4; Mithr. Lit. (Dieterich),
4, 16 Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 514; Act. Thom., 105. Anton. 80o1, 1 CI., 5,6 : Ev
TE in avatoln kai tv Th 8UgEl. Plur. more common, Hdt., IV, 8; Polyb., II, 14, 4;
Nu. 23:7 etc.; Mt. 2:1; 8:11; 24:27; Lk. 13:29 "'from the whole world." ovaroln
"the orient" : Act. Thom., 108 ff.; Jos. Bell., 3, 3.

Often the east is the predominant quarter of the heavens in mostly good but
sometimes a bad sense. On the one side it is the location of Paradise acc. to
Gn. 2:8; Eth. En. 32:2; of the Messiah, Sib., 3, 652 ; of the Kupia, Herm. v., 1, 4, 1
and 3 ; of the son of the king, the redeemed redeemer, Act. Thom., 108 ff. On the
other side it is the point from which Antichrist comes (Act. Thom., 32) and the
location of the headless demon (Test. Sol. 9:7 P).1 In Rev. 7:2 avaroAn is the
good locality from which there comes the angel with the seal, but in Rev. 16:12 it
is the bad from which the kings proceed.
3. The term avaroln is difficult to render in Lk. 1:78. In itself and according
to the variously construed context, gvaroln t& twouc might be equated with
min ngy and rendered "Messiah of God.' For in LXX Jer. 23:5 and Zech. 3:8
and 6:12 avatoAn is used for ny and on the basis of these passages this became

1 Cf. BHK,2 ad loc.

avatoln. On the antique conception, cf. Cl. Al. Protr.,
(=_ 11, 114, 4);
Stahlin in F. Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Joh. (1914), 20.
avatoln - ovationu

a name for the Messiah in the Synagogue. Yet it might also mean a "star shining
from heaven." This usage is found in Philo Conf. Ling., 14, and in connection with
Zech. 6:12 Philo understands the Aoyoc as avatoln. 2 In favour of this view we
might refer to v. 79, where &vatoAn must be light (and not merely a bright
shoot as Moy might be). We might also refer to the exposition of Zech. 6:12 in
Justin and Melito. Justin always understands the &varoln of Zech. 6:12 (Dial.,
100, 4; 106, 4; 121, 2; 126, 1) in terms of the &vatEXAElV of LXX Nu. 24:17, so that
for him the advent of Christ is the rising of star. And Melito construes Lk. 1:78
as follows : kai povos HALOs Oftos &vETELAEV &T" oupavoi. The visitation of the
mercy of God has come with the dawn of heavenly light in the Messiah Christ as
the sun of the world.
Schlier

ovationul, rpooavationut,
dvalsua, xviinua,
karate a, avalepatigw,
kata euatigo
t ovarienu (t ipodavationu).
ovationu is found in the NT only in the mid. with dat. of person and acc. of
object : "to set forth, impart or communicate one's cause" (Ac. 25:14 : T& Baoei
ovelEto to kata toy I.); "to expound with the request for counsel, approval or
decision" (G1. 2:2 : aveleuny airois to EayyÉAiov).
This meaning and construction are alien to class. Gr. but common in the koine, e.g.,
Mi. 7:5; Plut. Amat. Narr., 2, 1 (II, 722d): THV TPGEIV AVEOETO TOV Éraipov Trolv;
Alciphr. Ep., 3, 23, 2: Tpos TE oc oilov avalealal TO KAIVOV TOUTO paoua;
P. Par., 69 D, 23 : &va(ÉuEVOL to Tpayua &kÉpatov; Act. Barn., 4 (293, 10, Bonnet):
ovE0 unv to uuompia.

Anal. is pooavarifnul mid. (originally "to present one's cause, i.e., something
of oneself, to another"). G1. 1:16 : 00 tpocaveleunv oapri Kai aluati, "I did
not expound it to men (-* alua, 172 f.) for their approval or submit it to their
judgment." Also Gl. 2:6 : Éuoi oi SOKOUUTES OUSEV IPOOKVEOEVTO, "Those who
seemed to be somewhat did not impart anything to me, i.e., submit anything to
my consideration or judgment." Only Paul gave an account and asked for decision
(2:2); there was no question of the leaders of the first community giving any
account to him or making him their (partial ?) judge.

2 CE. the inscription on a gem: E(s ZEug Eapatls, &yiov &voua, gaBad, poc, ava-
toAn, x0ov in E. Peterson, Etc Geoc (1926), 238 and 238, n. 2, where qvatoln is the
rising sun.
avarienut K TA. Cr.-Ko., 1059; Pr.-Bauer, 97; Nageli, 45; Zn. G1.3, 65, n. 78;
99 f.; J. Weiss, Urchristentum (1917), 202; E. de Witt Burton on Gl. 1:16 and 2:2, 6.
Euthymius Zig. (Calogeras, I, 511): 008EV TPOFE8I8E&V uE.
2 Cf. Zn. (who appeals to Thdrt.) and Weiss, ad loc.
 ovationut dvaleua

The usual rendering that they added nothing to him ⅜ is linguistically insecure and
hardly fits the context, where there is no question of mere impartation (as distinct from
Ac. 15:28). The meaning "to expound or recount with the desire for counsel or decision"
is supported by Chrysipp. De Divinat. (II, 344, 31 ff., v. Arnim): ovap itpooava-
BÉo0al ovelpoxpitn ; Diod. S., XVII, 116,4: toic uavtEal Tpooava®ÉuEvo (TEpi
TOU onueiou); Luc. Jup. Trag., 1,3: €uol Tpoavalou, AaBÉ ME OU BouAOV T6vOV.
The meaning "to impose an additional burden" is not supported by Xenoph. Mem.,
II, 1, 8 : mpooavalÉafai to Kai toig XOIS TOAITAI OV BEO TO since
here we really have the mid. "to take on an additional burden.'

* dvoleuo, + avainua, T kataleua.

avaleua is a new Hell. constr. for the Att. dva0nua with no change of meaning. 1
It denotes " 'something dedicated or consecrated to the deity. It is used a. of the
consecrated offerings laid up in the temple : CIG, 2693d, 12; Plut. Pelop., 25, 7 (I, 291b);
Macc. 2:13; Jdt. 16:19 A; elsewhere in the LXX we have ovalnua, cf. also Philo
Migr. Abr., 98; Rer. Div. Her., 200. It is also used b. of "something delivered up to
divine wrath, dedicated to destruction and brought under a curse.' In the latter sense
avaleua (more rarely ova0nua) is found only in IG, III, 3, App., XIVb, 17 (a table
of curses from Megara dating from the 1st or 2nd century A.D.) 2 outside the LXX
etc., where it is used for the Heb. 09 (Lv. 27:28 f.; Dt. 7:26; 13:17; Jos. 6:17 f.; 7:11 ff.;
Zech. 14:11 etc.). What comes under the 'ban" 3 is taken out of ordinary human
circulation and given up to destruction. Hence in the LXX we find such variants for
b70 as aTtO EIa (Is. 34:5), ÉgoAÉ0pEVua (1 Bao. 15:21), ÉK0ABn (Mi. 7:2) and
coopioua (Ez. 44:29).
1. In the NT it is used in the sense of offering only in Lk. 21:5, where the Jerusalem
temple ovalñuaow (xD avalÉuaoi) KEKoountaL.
2. The Pauline use of avolsua is along the lines of the LXX. For Paul the
word denotes the object of a curse. C. 12:3 : 008eic €v TIVE LATI 0Eo0 AaAGv
AÉyEl' &valeua 'Inoous, "Accursed be Jesus!" It would be a self-contradiction
for the Christian pneumatic to curse Jesus, i.e., to deliver Him up to destruction
by God. The curse formula is also used in C. 16:22 : E{ tIc OU pLAEI TOV Kuplov,
fitw avaleua, cf. Gl. 1:8 : dvaleua toto; R. 9:3 : noxouny avale a Elval auTos
Eyi ano tot XploToU, "I could wish myself accursed from Christ and expelled
from fellowship with Him." The controlling thought here is that of the delivering
up to the judicial wrath of God of one who ought to be avalsua because of his
sin. We can hardly think of an act of Church discipline, since the apostle uses

3 Still found in Ltzm. Gl.3, 12.

avalEua KtA. L. Brun, Segen u. Fluch im Urchristentum (1931); Schenkel, I,
351 ff.; Heinrici, RE3, I, 493 ff.; XXIII, 40 f.; Cr.-Ko., 1059 ff.: Pr.-Bauer, 84 f.; Zn. R.s,
430 f.; Gl.3, 50 f.; Sickbg., R. 248; 1 C., 87
1 Moeris, Lex, 188, 30, Bekker (1833); Moulton, 68; Bl.-Debr. § 109, 3; Ditt. Syll.3, IV,
208 s.v. Artificial attempts at separation are of a later date (cf. Thdrt. on R. 9:3).
2 On this point, cf. A. Deissmann, ZNW, 2 (1901), 342; LO, 74; Nageli, 49; Moult.-
Mill.. 33. For indications of earlier non-Jewish use, cf. C. T. Newton, Essays on Art and
Archaeology (1880), 193 f. On ovalsua in modern Gk. = a cursing cairn, v. Philol.
Wochenschr., 46 (1926), 133.
Cf. H. Gressmann, RGG,2 I, 754 f.
1 Cf. the use of excommunication in the Synagogue (-> dtoouvdrywyoc) and the
anathema of the later Church against heretics, which may be traced back to Gi. 1:8 f. and
1 C. 16:22.
avaleua - avaleuatigw

the phrase oTo tou Xplotoi (R. 9:3) and also considers that an angel from heaven
(Gl. 1:8) or even Jesus Himself (1 C. 12:3) might be accursed. That he would
willingly see himself separated from Christ and given up to divine judgment ontep
THV GOEAOOV you ToV OUyyEViDV HOU KaTd aapka (R.9:3) is a supreme ex-
pression of the readiness of Paul for redemptive self-sacrifice for the people which
excludes itself from the divine revelation of salvation (Ex. 32:32).

ovaleua corresponds to the Rabb. 7x.5 For the thought of R. 9:3, cf. Neg..2, 1:
"The children of Israel ~ will be an expiation for them 70232 3.," and other passages &
where we do not have the bon of the Synagogue ban. 7 Cf. also Jos. Bell., 5, 9 : ^xBstE
urolov tis Eauiov oompias toouov alua® Kdyd EVOKEI ÉTOLLOG, El HeT" Que
AWOPOVEIV LEAETE.

Equivalent to avaleua is the kat&leua of Rev. 22:3 (= Zech. 14:11, though

this has ovaleua): kal Tav Katoleua OUK EoTal gti, there will no longer be
"anything accursed" in the New Jerusalem, the Paradise of the last time (as there
was in the shattered first Paradise according to Gn. 3:17 ff.). Cf. Did., 16, 5:
awW noovtal UT' autot tou kata{ÉuaTOS, i.e., from Christ Himself, the Accursed
(G1. 3:13), believers will receive the blessing of salvation in the last days.
The rare kato0sua, which is probably another and sharper form of ovalsua (the
kat-frequently indicating a hostile influence), or which may be a contraction of
katovolsua, is not found outside early Christian texts (Act. Phil., 28, 15, 12, Bonnet)
except on a Cyprian magic tablet of the 3rd century A.D.: OqWaTE tov "poysypau-
uEvov ETI TOUSE TOU PLuOTIKOU KatalÉuaTOs = curse (Audollent Def. Tab., 22, 23;
cf. IG, III, 3, p. XVII). There is an artificial distinction between ovalsua and kata-
OEua in Ps.-Just., Quaest. et Resp. ad Orth., 121 (III, 23 [1881] 198, Otto), 8

3. In Ac. 23:14 : &va0Éuatl aveleuaTloquev tautous, avaleua has the sig-

nificance of a curse in the sense of a vow or solemn obligation the breach of
which will bring under the ban (cf. infra).

t ovaleuatigw, * kata euatigw.

"To bring under the avaleua, "to curse." Of the oath taken by the Jews
against the life of Paul in Ac. 23:12, 21: &veleuatioav autous, we read in v.14:
&vaDÉUXTI &VEIEUXTIOQUEV EXU (- supra), "they accursed themselves, or
"wished for themselves the curse of God," or "declared their lives forfeit," if
they did not bend every effort to fulfil their voluntarily accepted obligation to
kill Paul. Again, it is said of Peter in Mk. 14:71: ApEato avalepatifenv kai ou-
vival; ovaleuatigelv is here intentionally left without object to denote both that
he curses himself if he lies and also the people if they make out that he is a
disciple. 1 In the parallel passage in Mt. 26:74 we have KaTaOEuaTIEl in the
same sense. 2

Str.-B., III, 446.

Ibid., 261.
Ibid., IV, 327 ff.; Schurer, II, 507 f.
8 Cf. Bryennios in A. v. Harnack, Die Lehre der 12 Apostel (1884), 63 (n. on 16, 5).
avaleuatlgo KtA. Cr. Ko., 1061.
1 Wbg. Mk., 365, n. 31; cf. Schl. Mt., 764.
2 On KaT&OEua - supra. katale at((w is not found in the LXX, but only in Christian
 avaleuatiyw - dveykAntoc

dvaOE LaT (ELV, strengthened by &vatÉuati in Dt. 13:15 and 20:17, is often used in
the LXX for the Heb. byn (perhaps also on the curse tablet of Megara, IG, III, 3,
App. XIII f.: a5 and 8 and b8), but never of conditional self-cursing. There is a par. to
Ac. 23:14 in Tanch. P92 9 30, p. 149, Buber, where Pinchas the zealot resolves to catch
the wrongdoer Zimri red-handed and destroy him: "Then he stood forth from the
assembly, i.e., the Sanhedrin, which was discussing the possibility of condemning Simri
to death, and made the vow (373n11)."
Behm

dvapépw pÉpG dvo eis-> puxh

dv5pigouai - ovip

aveyKintos

This term denotes a person or thing against which there can be no EyxAnuo and
which is thus "free from reproach," "without stain," "guiltless" ; cf.: ovEyKAntoug
yap oat rac oialac rpoc drAnious kataoKeua(EOBa, Pa,V
relates of Epicurus that he pledged himself un KaT&AITEIV &VEYKANtoV Thy kaklav,
while n HEV yap kakia TOVTOC aveykAntoc gotl Kata Tov tOt XpualTTOU Abyov,
Stoic. Rep., 34 f. (II, 1049 f.). The word is common in everyday speech and thus comes
to be more formal, e.g. : ÉveykAntov Exéto thy ÉtepoyvouooUvnV, Jos. Ant., 10, 281.
It is found in assertions of guilt or innocence, as in the sparing of Samaria by Varus
8d To oveyKAntov €v tois vewTEpIouois EIval, Jos. Ant., 17, 289, and also in the
same sense in 3 Macc. 5:31: &vtl TOv &vEyKAntoV 'loubaiov. The papyri esp.
prove its common use, e.g.: SEPATEUELV AVEYKANTOC ("without blame"), P. Magd.,
15, 3 (3rd century A.D.); iva aveykAntoc Ov ("irreproachable") rov Blov Exo,
P. Soc., 541, 6 (3rd century B.C.); ovtoc you autol dveykAnTou ("blameless"),
BGU, 1347, 8 (2nd century B.C.).1

1. In the NT there are three examples of ordinary usage in the Pastorals. In

Tt. 1:6 it is demanded that Titus should see to it in presbyters : El Tic lotiv
avEyKAntos Bei yap tov EntloKoTov avÉyKAntov Elval oc dEot olkovouov
(v. 7). The predicates which follow show us that in relation to these offices we
have a demand for the blamelessness (in the sense of civic ethics) which they must
have for their work as that of a (eot olkovouos. In 1 T'm. the same demand is
made in relation to deacons: Kai OUTOL SE SOKLUACEONWORV TEPTOV, EITA 8IA-
Koveltoav aveyk^ntot BUTEC (3:10).
2. The word has a religious character in two other instances in Paul: kal
BE Baldoet Buac LIS TEAOUC AVEYKANTOUS Ev th quepg tou kupiou nuow Inoot
[Xporo0] (1 C. 1:8); vovi 8É atokat^al,ev Tapaotoal buas dylouc Kal
quououc Kai dvEyKAntous KATEVTLOV AUTOU (Col. 1:22). The situation of the

writers (Iren., I, 13, 4; 16, 3; Act. Phil., 17 (9, 23, Bonnet) = Katavaleuatito (Just. Dial.,
47). Dubious reflections on the difference between ovaleuatielv in Mk. 14:71 and kata-
lEuati(Elv in Mt. 26:74 may be found in Ps.-Just. Quaest. et Resp. ad Orth., 121 (III, 23
[1881], 196, Otto).
avEykAntos. 1 For further examples, v. Preisigke Wort., S.v.
dveykAntos - &VE EEPEUVNTOS

last judgment is in view.2 In it Christians will stand as such, and they will be
dvEyKintol even before God. They are this in Jesus Christ. Yet this is not the
whole story. 1 C. 1:8 includes a movement which finds its teAoc at the last judg-
ment (BeBaldos ouac goc TÉAouc), and Col. 1:22 stands under a vuvl. "This
Now reaches to the day of Christ. As the work of reconciliation will only then
come to fulfilment, so also the work of this representation. It is thus a Now as
seen from the standpoint of God, before whom even the time which still runs on
to the parousia is eternally present." 3 On the basis of the justification effected by
the death and resurrection of Christ, Christians are spotless and irreproachable
before God. No accusation can be brought against them. This will be disclosed at
the last judgment. In this declaration we have a clear expression of the power of
grace creating a wholly new situation. How the ovÉykAntos is to be understood
is made perfectly plain by the question of R. 8:33 £.: tic fykaréoEl KaTo ékAEK-
tov Geod; edg & Bikaiov; tic o kataxpivov; Xpioroc "Inoous o & tofavov,
U&NAOV SE ÉYEPOELS, 8C ÉOTIV EV SEEIA TOU GEOD, oc Kai ÉVTUYX&VEL UTEP NuGv.
No reproach can be made against Christians. The presupposition according to
1 C. 1:8 is the help of God : 8c BeBaidoel Ouas, or according to Col. 1:22: El yE
éTLLLéVETE TH TLOTEL TEOEWEAIQUÉV KaL £8paiol Kal un LETaKIVOUUEVOI &TTO
the #Attioos TOU EOXYYEAIOU, i.e., a life of faith willed and effected by God.
Grundmann

dVEKT6C - avEXo OVE ENLGV, AVÉAEOC > ElEoC

OVEEEpEUVNtOS

dveEepedvntos (or aveéspauvnto in post-classical Gk.) 1 means "inscrutable"

(Heracl. Fr., 18 [Diels, I, 81, 17], of the way to the mystery), from Épeuvaa "to track"
(also of an animal) or "to search out." It is not found in the LXX.
It is used in R. 11:33 of the unsearchable mystery of God's way of judgment
with Israel as this leads to grace. The exact connotation of the term implies the
abandonment of all attempts to solve theoretically the question of the meaning of
the judgment on Israel, so that Paul describes even his own answer as an attempt
for which he cannot claim absolute validity.
Delling

2 This is true in both passages, though Haupt Gefbr., 49 f. strongly maintains that the
reference in Col. 1:22 is to the present. He fails to consider C. 1:8, which is perfectly plain.
8 Loh. Kol., 71.
AVEEEPEUVNTOS 1 On the change from EU to av, cf. Bl.-Debr. §30, + and
Br. Olsson, Papyrusbr. (Diss. Uppsala, 1925), 65.
 ave&uxviaotoc

AVEElKaKOC KaKOS

+ avefrxviaotos

"Indetectable." Thus far this word has been found only in biblical and biblically
dependent usage. Suid. S.v. dve{eupntov of undt lyvoc £otlv copEiv (p. 205,
no. 2280, Adler), rightly emphasises the rhetorically mounting character of the con-
struction. In the LXX we find the term in Job 5:9; 9:10; 34:24. It is also found in the
apocr. Prayer of Manasses (Const. Apost., II, 22, 12 etc.). 2

In the NT the word is used by Paul at R. 11:33 and Eph. 3:8. In the first passage
the parallelism : os AVE EPEUVNTa to xpluata aitoi kal dve&rxvlaotol ai 88ol
autoU, suggests a poetic source. The terminology of the verse, however, indicates
that this source was perhaps coloured by Gnostic terminology.3 Eph. 3:8 : To
ovefixviaotov TAoutos, points in the same direction, in conjunction with the
verses which follow. In any context the term must be related to the divine olkovo-
uia.
The word was used by the Valentinians of the flatp (Iren., I, 2,2 : To aveErxviao-
Tov tou flatpos), and it was also known to the Marcosites (Iren., I, 15, 5). In Iren.,
IV, 20, 5 : is yap To uEyeloc aurot ovefixvlaatov, ottoc kai f dya06ms
oveEyntos, the anti-Gnostic bias of the source of Iren. at this point 5 brings out
even more clearly the connection with Gnosticism. Even the quotation from R. 11:33 in
Iren., I, 10, 3 is linked with anti-Gnostic polemics. At an earlier period we find the term
in CI., 20, 5 and Dg., 9, 5; cf. also Bas. Ep., 265, 1 (MPG, 32, p. 984b); Greg. Naz. Or.
Theol., 2, 12 (MPG, 36, p. 40c). Its liturgical appearances are worth noting, e.g., in
Sacrament. Serap., XIII, 2 (F.X. Funk, Didasc. et Constit. Apost., II [1905], p. 172, 6),
Mark Lit., 137, 14 f. (Brightman), and the dependent Catal. Cod. Astr. Graec., VIII, 2
(1911), 156, 16. It plays a further role in the Eunomian controversy ; cf. Greg. Nyss.
Eunom. MPG, 45, 604a and Beat. Or., 6, MPG, 44, 1268b and C, where it is said in
reference to R. 11:33 : &veEuxviaotous tas abouc aitoi & utyas ovoua(el attboto-

AVEEIXVlaOTOS 1 It is to be noted that dve&ixviaotos, HELXvia(Elv (for

LEIXvEUElv) and Eigviaou6s (for LEIXVEUOIS) are found only in the LXX. This indicates
a common point of origin.
Ps.-Callisth., II, 28, MS.C. (ed. C. Miller) causes Alexander the Gt. to revere uovov
gva 0eov aeopntov, avefixvlaotov. F. Pfister, "Eine judische Grindungsgeschichte
Alexandrias" (SAH, phil.-hist. KI., V, 1914, p. 4) has tried to trace back this chapter to
1st century Jewish tradition. do not think that he has proved his case. The textual evidence
is against him, and when in II, 28 MS. C makes God out to be tpaaylo povi bofa(o-
uEVov we can see the influence of the Byzantine liturgy (cf. Chrys. Lit., 369, 24, Brightman).
Hence we cannot cite Ps.-Callisth., II, 28 as a Jewish example of the use of the word
avefixviaaros. On the other hand it is very likely that in Const. Apost., VII, 35, 9, in the
collection of Jewish prayers discovered by Bousset, we have an original use of the word
and not a Christian interpolation as Bousset supposed (NGG, 1916, 440).
E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913), 243, n. 3.
We have reference to a Bouln ove&uxviaatos of God in the Gnostically coloured
and related prayer given by c. Schmidt W.'Schubart, Altchr. Texte (1910), 113, 63 f.
V. F. Loofs, ""Theophilus von Antiochen Adversus Marcionem und die anderen theol.
Quellen bei Iren.," TU, 46 (1930), 20.
aveEixviaotoc - aVE X Go

Aoc, onualvov &i& tou Abyou to avert(Batov elval loyiouoic Thy 880v EKElvny,
h pos thy yvoow ths Gelac ovalac ayet.
Peterson

averilnurios -> AquBovo.

OVEOLS> ovinul.

t avexw, OVEKTOS,
avoyñ
In secular Gk. &vex∞ is found with various shades of meaning in both act. and mid.,
trans. and intrans. In the NT and related literature it occurs only in the mid., and
in conjunction with ovekt6Ñ and ovoxn it has two main senses.

1. "To receive, take up, bear and endure With a material object the reference
is especially to receiving, e.g. the hearing of a word (Hb. 13:22; 2 Tm. 4:3; 2 C.
11:4), or more generally the receiving of To oxBBata from God (Barn., 2, 5;
15, 8 = LXX Is. 1:13), of smell from men (2 Macc. 9:12), of punishment (Dg.,
2, 9), of ToOn (4 Macc. 1:35 SR), of AlwEIC (2 Th. 1:4), of Torra (1 CI., 49, 5).
More important are the cases when there is a personal object. Here the meaning
ranges from accepting someone (2 C. 11:1, 19; Herm. m., 4, 4, 1) to the true bearing
and taking to oneself of one's neighbour in the sense of tolerating his life. &ve-
XEO®aL is used of Jesus in this sense at Mk. 9:19 and par, in relation to the yEVEd
& totos. His being with men involves His putting up with them. In Eph. 4:2 and
Col. 3:13 &véxeolau a^AhAov Ev ayatn is an admonition to the community to
apply to one another the love or the election which is theirs in Christ. Without
object ave yeo0a1 has the absolute sense of "endure," as in LXX Job 6:11 and
C. 4:12. This endurance (in persecution) does not have the negative significance
of a heroism which retreats into itself but implies a constant acceptance of the
claims of others, as shown by the parallel EiAoyElv and tapakaleiv in the latter
reference. In the absolute sense we also have the verbal adj. avEKToC in Lk. 10:12
and par. and 10:14 and par. a construction not found in the LXX. On the day
of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon and Sodom and Gomorrah
than for the cities of Israel which do not believe in Jesus.
2. "To restrain oneself." God restrains Himself either to man's destruction
(LXX Is. 64:12) or out of mercy (LXX Is. 42:14; Dg., 9, 1 f., par. Éuakpo0o-
unoev). That this sense easily merges into the former may be seen from LXX
Is. 63:15, where it is said that God forbears with us. The substantive dvoyn in
R. 2:4 and 3:26 may be mentioned in this connection. gvoxn, which is put between
the xpnotoins and the uaxpoeuuia of God in R. 2:4, is God's restraint in the

avEX G KTA. 1 Pass.; Liddell-Scott, S.v.

2 In Ac. 18:14 &vEye laI is a technical legal term for accepting a complaint or accusa-
tion for further treatment.
 dvEX© - dvñKEl - duip

outworking of His wrath, which with Christ has ceased to be an essential deter-
mination of the world.
Schlier

dViKEL

(ka0ñxov) imp. from the pers. avñKG "to refer to" (Ditt. Or., 763, 36; Ign. Phld.,
1, 1; Sm., 8, 1; 1 Cl., 62, 1 etc.) in the sense of "to be fitting or seemly," To avi kov
being that which is suitable or proper. In the LXX it is almost always (1 Bac. 27:8)
found in the legal or political sense (1 Macc. 10:42 : 81d to dvA KEI aUTd tois lEpEiot
roig Aaitoupyouot, 11:35; 2 Macc. 14:8. Cf. P. Tebt., 6, 42 : Tov avnkovtov toic
lepois
In Phlm. 8 in the NT to dvikov (with éntItaG0EIV) denotes not merely that
which is fitting but that which is almost legally obligatory, although in a private
matter. In Eph. 5:4 the a ouk dviKEv1 (DGKL min : to o0K avnkovta) is that
which does not belong, which is opposed to kaodc TtpéTtEl dylois. The unsuitable
nature of an action is shown by the fact that those who perform it are &yiou
acting Év Kupio. This unsuitability may concur with the judgment of the world
(Col. 3:18) or it may contradict it (Eph. 5:4 : eotpTEAia, for example, is accepted
by the world, cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., II, 7, p. 1108a, 23 ff.).
Schlier

dip, t avopiyouaL
A. rnp outside the NT.
1. The word is common as the gener: designation of a man with adjectives
and substantives denoting the function, e.g., dvip pavils, but also avopes Anotal.
2. The word is also used for the human species. This may be a. in distinction
from fabled monsters like centaurs (Od., 21, 303) or gods. Zeus namp ovipov
TE OEGV TE (II., 1, 544 etc.); the heralds are Atoc ayyE/ol A8É kai ovopiov
(11., 1, 334). We see a distinctive Hellenic self-awareness in the formula: EvaDES
nuleso (II., 12, 23). But the phrase also occurs : Ovntoi dvipes (Od., 10, 306).
Man should not strive against God (Eur. Ba., 635). b. The general equation of

AVAKEL Liddell-Scott, Moult.-Mill., s.v. Cf. also Meinertz Eph., 93, Kol., 42.
On the impf., BI.-Debr., 358, 2; though cf. Loh. Kol., ad loc.
avn p. Fick-Bezenberger-Stokes, Vergl. Worterbuch der indogermc Spah.
(1890), 98; W. Prellwitz, Etym. Wort.? (1905), 40; J. Wackernagel, Uber einige antike
Anredeformen (Universit. Progr. Gott., 1912); P. Kretschmer, Glotta, 6 (1914/15), 296 f.;
Philol. Wochenschr., 46 (1926), 131; Bl.-Debr., $ 242, > yuvn.
male and man is Homeric and poetic, but not Attic ; nor is there any instance in
the pap. + The original is discerned, however, when &vopes is used for inhabitants
or people. P. Oxy., IV, 719, 24 (2nd century A.D.): olkia kalapa ano artoypa.
oñs avipov 'a house that shelters no unreported dwellers" ; BGU, 902, 2 (2nd
century A.D.): etc. : &vopac ek TOU TAElaToU EKAEAOITTEVAL "for the most part
the inhabitants are no longer there." It is found with the gen. of place in Ju. 9:18 ;
of Gentiles : Dolvkec avopes etc. It is also frequently found (- 1.) with adj. in
general statements (dup CUVETOG, Prv. 12:23), or in such phrases as kaT &vopa,
viritim, or in such expressions as we meet in Job 41:8. In the OT and NT such
phrases betray Hebrew influence but cannot be regarded as simple Hebraisms.
3. The word signifies man as opposed to woman. Philo Abr., 137: toc LEV
Kato ouaiv ovipiiv kai YUValKov auvodouc; ibid., 135 : &VopEC OVTEC aPPEOIV
ÉnlBalVovtES. Male posterity is preferred: tov dvopiv aTtais (Plat. Leg., IX,
877e). Philo too emphasises the distinction of sexes. Cf. esp. Ebr., 59 ff.: queis
8É ET OTO ThS avovopou kal yuvalkobouc ouvn0eiac ths TEpi taS aio0hoels
kal td TE&On kal to ai 0nTX VIKOUEVOL TOV DAVEVTV OUSEVOC KATEava toa
SuvauE0x (63). Woman's clothing is forbidden to man in order that he should
not be tainted with anything feminine. The state for man, the house for woman !
(Virt., 18-20). > yuvh.
4. The word also denotes the husband (LXX for 9y2, Ex. 21:22 etc.). TOTIC
refers to the legal, omp to the actual position (Soph. Trach., 550 f. : un TOGIC
HEV 'HpakAns Éuos kalitai, ths vewTÉpac 8' dvip). In antiquity marriage was
less personal (- yuvn). If the passage adduced reflects unhappiness in marriage,
happiness is also seen. Od., 6, 182 ff. : of uEv yap tou yE KpEIFOOV Kai XPELOV
h 80 ouoopovEovtE vonuaalv olkov Exn tov 1 cun A8É yuvn. To the burial
inscription of Otacilia Polla in Pergamon (2nd century A.D.)2 we have a counter-
part on the Roman gravestone of Claudia Piste : 3 coniugi optimae sanctae et piae
benemeritae. In Judaism the wife is strongly subordinated to the husband : "The
power of the husband is on her" (T. Qid., 1, 11); 4 he is her "lord" (cf. Pt. 3:6).
On the other hand, the husband should "love his wife as himself, and honour her
more than himself" (bJeb., 62b) . 5
5. The word can also denote an adult man as distinct from a boy (LXX for 122,
Ex. 10:11), dmp TEnEIOC (Xenoph. Cyrop., VIII, 7, 6; Philo Cher., 114 of the age
of life: Sobr., 9 in terms of worth).

In 6. The toword
contrast can also
the eunuch amp tEbe used
KOOK cypof full manhood (LXX to 8É EuvoU
p. 452c ; cf. Cl. Al. Protr., 1, 3, 1). We can see from Priapus & and Hermes 7 how
antiquity absolutised the natural force of manhood. On the ideal of manhood, cf.

1 For the distinction of the male > infra.

2 Deissmann LO, 267 f.
3 Vatican Museum of Antiquities, No. 295.
4 Str.-B., III, 436c.
6 For further passages, ibid., 610a.
6 H. Herter, "De Priapo," RVV, 23 (1932).
For examples, v. A. Rumpf, "Die Religion der Griechen" (Haas' Bilderatlas zur Rel.
Gesch., 13/14, 1928), 29. 30, 32, 67 On ancient pederasty, v. F. Lubker-J. Geffcken-E. Zie-
barth, Reallexikon$ (1914), 751; E. Bethe, Rhein. Mus., 62 (1907), 438 ff.; W. Kroll, Freund-
schaft und Knabenliebe (1924).
 the satirical sayings in Aristoph.Ach., 77 ff.: of BapBapou &vopac nyouvrat
HOVOUS TOUC TAELOTa SUVQUÉVOUC kataoayeiv queic SE AXIKaOT&S TE kal
katatuyovas, the Homeric &vEpEC ÉOTE, oliou (11., 5, 529 etc.), the Attic 3
avopec *Aenvaion. Philostr. Vit. Apoll., I, 16 (p. 17, 2, Kaiser): Apollonius avoids
frequented places, saying: oik dviponov ÉaUTS SEIV, dAA' &vOpov. In later
usage dvip approximates to our "lord." BGU, 1022, 7 (2nd century A.D.) : &v6pEs
Kp&TlOTOL (Boursutal); P. Oxy., 1, 133, 6 (6th century A.D.): o "taveUonuos
dvip.

B. dvip in the NT.

In the NT avip is most common in the Hellenistic Luke. Even elsewhere,
however, it occurs in most of the senses mentioned. For 1. cf. Ac. 18:24 : dvp
Abytos; Mk. 6:20; Lk. 24:19 : cvp tpoonins; Ac. 3:14 : &v6pa povea.
2. is more influential than sometimes supposed. Under a. Lk. 5:8 : dvip quap-
TOoc and Im. 1:20 opyn avipos, are comparable, though there are obvious
differences. For the most part the only contrast is to pure spirits (or animals)
- &v0pantos (Ac. 14:15; R. 1:23) or corresponding to a[:hel or the Rabb. 07 1?
[taoa] - oxpf, or axpé, Kal alua (Mk. 13:20 and par. ; In. 17:2; R. 3:20; 1 C.
1:29; Gl. 2:16; C. 15:50; Gl. 1:16; Eph. 6:12). The pride in manhood is lacking
and the sense of distance is stronger. 8 Statistics show that there is a more common
use simply for men as under b. (Mt. 14:21; 15:38; Ac. 4:4; not Mk. 8:9, but cf.
6:44). [oi] avopec frequently denotes more or less the totality of population
(with gen. TOU TOTOU ÉKEIvou, Mt. 14:35, of Gentiles, Mt. 12:41 and par.; Ac.
10:28; cf, 11:20, though cf. also 8:3, 12; 9:2). cvp with adj. in general statements
occurs frequently in the Epistle of James (1:8, 12, 23; 3:2), cf. Mt. 7:24, 26. Paul
gives the order (1 C. 11:3 ff.) God, Christ, man, woman, each preceding link being
the - KEpa\n of that which follows, and each that follows the -+ 86&a of the
preceding.
Emphatic sexual differentiation (3.) is mostly expressed in biblical Gk. by
&pOEV and eñAu (722.39 npr, Gn. 1:27; Mk. 10:6 and par.; cf. R. 1:26 ff.), though
&v6pa [ov] YIVOOKELV is also used in correspondence with tox 97; (Ju. 11:39;
Lk. 1:34). A new feature of Christianity is the equality of the sexes before God
(G1. 3:28; 1 Pt. 3:7). Yet this does not mean that they are put on the same level
(- supra).
Examples of 4. are found in Mk. 10:2, 12 and par.; R. 7:2, 3; 1 C. 7; 10 14:35;
in the house-tables in Eph. 5:22 ff.; Col. 3:18 f.; 1 Pt. 3:1 ff.; in the passages dealing
with office-bearers in the Pastorals (1 Tm. 3:2, 12; 5:9; Tt. 1:6).11 In marriage

8 J. Hempel, Gott und Mensch im AT (1926), passim and esp. 1-27, 174.
£ Since man and woman are here consider in relation to creation, we do not have
meaning 4. So Bruder, s.v.; Bchm. 1C. In favour of this view we might quote v. 10
(- f§ouoia), though v. 8 f. seem to be clearly against it. Joh. W C. tries to excise v. 3.
But this is indispensable. Vv. 5b-6 and 13-15 seem to be of Stoic derivation, but a double
interpolation is surely unlikely. The difficulty remains.
avEp is for the most part used only as the wife's address to her husband (unlike
> yovai). 1 C.7:16 is an easily understood exception. See further Wackernagel, op. cit.,
24-26.
11 puas yuvauoc avip, Evoc avopoc yuvn. This is a prohibition of immoral conduct,
and especially an exclusion from office those who have remarried after divorce. It does
Christianity demands thel subordination of the wife (UnoTao E aI toic tolois
dvopaolv, Eph. 5:22, 24, Col. 3:18; 1 Pt. 3:1,5 [v. 6: kupios]) but also unselfish
love from the husband such as that shown by Christ for the Church (Eph. 5:25, 28;
Col. 3:19; 1 Pt. 3:7). In accordance with Jewish marriage law, 12 the fiancé is
already referred to as dvip (Mt. 1:19; Rev. 21:2; cf. 2 C. 11:2; Dt. 22:23 f.).
Meaning 5. underlies 1 C. 13:11: o thios &tE yÉyova dvip. 18 The NT
uses dump tÉEIos only metaphorically (e.g., Eph. 4:13 : péxpu KaTaVThOQ EV
ic avopa TEAEIOV, in spite of Mk. 10:13 ff. and par.; Mt. 18:3; 1 Pt. 2:2, -minios).
We find it in Jm. 3:2 without regard for age (-> 2b.) 5509 Prv. 10:19.
Meaning 6. does not occur in the NT in the sexual sense (Ac. 8:27 uses dunp
primarily with Ailloy, - 2.), but in a higher sense. Lk. often refers to avopEs
Palilaio, 'loubaiot, 'Aenaiot, AbeApot (Ac. 1:11; 2:5; 17:22; 1:16; 7:2 etc.).
He emphasises the dignity of the honourable and mature man (Lk. 23:50; Ac.
6:3, 5). The word ovipela is not found in the NT. CI., 6, 1 is the first emphatic
reference to the apostles as men. But in face of the powers of darkness Paul
admonishes &vopi(eo0e, Kpatalouo0E (1 C. 16:13). In this respect, as in so many
others, he is echoing the LXX ($ 30[31]:25; 14 2 Bao. 10:12; 1 Ch. 22:13 etc.).
He might have used the same expression in Eph. 6:10 ff. and 1 Th. 5:8.
dvopeia occurs in the LXX only in books strongly influenced by Hellenism, like
Prv. (21:30); Qoh. (2:21; 4:4; 5:10); Wis. (8:7); Macc. (1, 9:10; 4, 1:4 etc.; 5:23; 17:23).
The equivalents 7312m and 11909 are perhaps themselves translations of terms for the
Gk. cardinal virtues.
Oepke

not forbid second marriage for clergy. This is correctly stated in Dib. Past. on 1 Tm. 3:2,
where there is a review of the whole discussion. The opposite arguments are not convincing
as stated by J. B. Frey, "La signification des termes MONANAPOZ
work which et univira,"
contains much relevantRecher-
material
ches de science religieuse, 20 (1930), 48 ff.
from the inscriptions and G. Delling, Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe (1931), 136 ff.
12 Str.-B., II, 393 ff.
13 Cf. Sickbg., 1 C., 66.
14 dvopiteols kal kpataiouolo f apola Duov = 02297 roxn pin (established
terminology); cf. Dt. 31:6 etc.; Jos. 1:6 etc. (avopigeolat = POx).
 ave pantoc

oveouo\oyfw > ouo oyÉo. ave pw napEoKos ; apÉOKo.

ave pantos, dvo pidnivos

avepwntos.
1. "Man" as species a. as distinct from animals (Mt. 12:12), angels (1 C. 4:9),
Jesus Christ (Gl. 1:12) and God (Mk. 11:30 and par.); b. with special emphasis
on the transitoriness and sinfulness of human nature as subject to physical weak-
ness (Jm. 5:17) and death (Hb. 9:27), as sinful (R. 3:4; 5:12), full of evil (Mt.
10:17; Lk. 6:22), loving flattery (Lk. 6:26) and subject to human error G1. 1:1, 11 f.;
Col. 2:8, 22). Thus Kard &v0 pantov does not merely introduce the general analogy
of human relations 2 and considerations of human logic (Gl. 3:15 in introduction
of the figure of the human testament, or C. 15:32 : Ei Katd &vl pontov ÉOnpto-
poxnoa §v 'EpÉoQ, where the Kard &ve pontov might be amplified by a AÉyo).
In the NT it almost always expresses well the limited nature of human thinking
and conduct in contrast to God and His revelation. Thus Paul in R. 3:5 introduces
Kato avepo ov AÉyo as an epidiorthosis, in C. 9:8 kata avopoTov AaAG is set
over against 6 Vouos AÉYEI, and in Gl. 1:11 To EGGYyÉ^lOV OUK EOTIV KaTa
&v0 potoV is set over against Bu' atokalupEc 'Inoot Xpiotou in 1:12. There
is a particular emphasis on the sinful disposition of man in the Katd avepatov
of C. 3:3 : KaTO &VE PITON TEPITOTELTE (par. oapkiKoi ÉotE), as also in the
plural form in 1 Pt. 4:6 : tva kpi0a uev kata &vpoouc (as they have deserved
as men) oapki, (wol bE kata OEov TVE uaTI, being delivered from the judgment
of the intervening state.
2. The word is also used with the gen. in Semitic fashion to express relationship
to something abstract or a relationship of possession. Thus &vo pa nol Ei8oKiac
in Lk. 2:14 signifies men of the divine good-pleasure and is used to denote the
elect Messianic community of salvation. Again, 6 avepotos ms ovouias,'
the lawless one, denotes Antichrist in 2 Th. 2:3. Again, 6 &VOPATOC TOU 0E0D,
the man of God, is used of the Christian standing in the service of God (1 Tm.
6:11; 2 T'm. 3:17). 6

avi PaTios tou 0800 is found a. in the LXX for auburox, originally a prophet of
God (3 Bao. 12:22; 13:1; 17:18,24 etc.), used also of Moses (Dt. 33:1), but more
generally applied later to signify the elect of God (e.g., David in 2 Ch. 8:14). It also

&ve pTos. Pr.-Bauer, 106-108.

Common in the OT, e.g., Ps. 8:4; 2 S. 24:14. Cf. avepanos tv fuaptov (Menander
Fr., 499, CAF, III, 143), also Herond. Mim., 5, 27; Eur. Hipp., 615; Philo Spec. Leg., I, 252.
2 Cf. Diod. S., XVI, 11, 2: HELLOVOS KaT' &v0pwov, Plut. Stoic. Rep., 17 (II, 1042a).
3 In syrsin pesh bo £ we find the nomin. EuBoKla (tristich arrangement of the Gloria in
excelsis in Lk. 2:14).
4 Joachim Jeremias, "Ave pTOL EoBoKias, ZNW, 28 (1929), 13-20.
5 ADGK Quaptlac.
6 The rec. of 2 Pt. 1:21 (& A Avg. syph) calls the prophets &yio DEOD &VO PITTOL.
7 P. Jouon, Biblica, III (1922), 53-55.
& vOPaTtoc

occurs b. in Hellenistic Judaism, e.g., in Ep. Ar., 140 to designate a worshipper of the
true God. Philo uses it of Abraham (on the basis of Gn. 17:1), as also of the lepeic
kai ipoontal as types of the citizens of the vontos Koouos (Gig., 60-63), of Moses
as a type of the TELEIOC on the basis of Dt. 33:1 (Mut. Nom., 24 ff.; 125 ff.), of Elijah
and the prophets as types of the Logos on the basis of Bao. 17:18 (Deus Imm., 138 f.),
and of the Logos as the ideal man created after the divine image 8 (Conf. Ling., 41-43,
cf. 146). It is obvious that where &vopotoc tOU 0e00 is found in Hellen. Judaism, it
is not an independent construction, but has developed out of LXX usage. C. There are
no exact parallels outside Hellen. Judaism. An echo is heard in the cry of the regenerate
mystic in Corp. Herm., XIII, 20 : o0 El o OE6c* 6 oos avipanoc taita Boo. On the
other hand, Preis. Zaub., IV, 1178/9 is not an instance, for with Preisendanz we should
put a comma after &voponoc: 8t EYo Elul &vopoos, 0Eo0 Too zv oupavo
Taoua kalAlotov. Hence the usage of the NT is not to be explained from mysticism,
but from OT Judaism.

3. In the anthropological terminology of the Pauline literature &vépoos is

used in the following expressions with antithetical adjectival or adverbial attributes.
a. o "∞ &vOpaTios and 6 fow &vopanoc: 6 #%w &vOpatos according to his
physical and mortal side; 6 fow &vpanos (or o xpuntos this kapblac avopo-
THOS, Pt. 3:4) = man including the non-Christian (R. 7:22) 9 as well as the
Christian (2 C. 4:16; Eph. 3:16; cf. Pt. 3:4) according to his Godward, im-
mortal side.

Already in Plat. Resp., IX, 589a we find the expression TOU ave pOTou o §vtoc
avepaTios Resp., IV, 439d : to Aoylotlkov ts puxns the capacity of thought
identical• with moral disposition; cf. Plot. Enn., V, 1, 10 (II, p. 173, 24 f., Volkm.): olov
LEYEI TIAXTOV TOV ELOG avoponov. Later Plato calls the vous: 8 Ev quiv Ttpoc
CAnOElav avopoitos (Plant., 42) or : & &vepaos Ev &vopoto (Congr., 97); in Det.
Pot. Ins., 22 f. he defines the Aoyikn Slavoia as 8 Tpoc alndelav &vopotos and o
IVO PATOS EV ÉK&oTOU th puxn. In the Hermetic literature there is distinguished from
Adam, the earthly body of the first man, 6 Éow aitoi &vOpaTtos o TVEULaTIKOS
called ois; the E& Go &vopatoc (Adam) is its prison (Zosimos, in Reitzenstein Poim.,
104 f.).10 Thus each man bears in himself a divine being: 6 ovalonc avepanos
(Corp. Herm., I, 15) or & Ewouc avepattos (I, 18 and 21) or & EvOLGOEToc &vopos-
TOS (XIII,7) which languishes in the body as in a prison. Finally, we should compare
the anthropology of the Marcosites, who believe that the interior homo of the redeemed,
the filius a Patre, ascends at death to the higher world, while the body remains in the
world and the soul (anima) falls to the demiurge (Iren., I, 21, 5). Paul thus follows an
idea widespread in the Hellenistic Gnosis and mysticism of his day, 11 though also known
in Hellenistic Judaism.
b. Rather different is the antithesis of Talaioc avoponoc and 6 > kalvoc
or o - veoc ave paTios: o ntalaloc &vO paTtoc (R. 6:6; Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22) denotes
the sinful being of the unconverted man, 6 kaloc (Eph. 2:15; 4:24) or o véoc (Col.
3:10) avepontoc the renewed being of the convert to Christ. The picture of the

8 H. Leisegang, Der Heilige Geist, I, 1 (1919), 80.

9 Cf. Sickbg, R., 231.
10 Similarly we read in the preaching of the Naassenes (Hipp. Ref., V, 7, 35 f.) that the
goo & vO paTtoC (= Adamas-Hermes) is as it were imprisoned in the TAgoua the AñOns,
i.e., the body, fashioned from earth and clay (cf. Gn. 2:7).
Cf. Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 54; Hell. Myst., 354 ff.; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im
Eph. (1930), 35, 2.
 avi poTos ~ dv0 pinivoc

old and new man is first used in interpretation of baptism ; the old man is crucified
in baptism (R. 6:6). The picture is then transferred from the sacramental sphere
to the ethical; the Christian has to put off the TaAaIOS &vO paTios, i.e., the
offences and lusts of his heathen past (Col. 3:5-9; Eph. 4:22), and to put on the
KalVoc avepanoc created after the image of God (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24; cf. Dg.,
2, 1: yEVouEVog TOTED E%, cpxic kawoc avepantoc). The picture is finally used
of the Church ; Christ unites Jews and Gentiles Eic Eva kawov avepontov (Eph.
2:15; cf. 4:13 : Eic avopa TEAEIOV ). In this case the identifying of the Redeemer
with the totality of the redeemed corresponds to the language of oriental and
Hellenistic teaching concerning the redeemer God-man. 12 In all these different
uses of the image it is assumed that Christ is the absolute kawvoc &vepaos
(-> uloc TOU ovipoou; cf. Ign. Eph., 20, 1), the Initiator of the consummated
creation of God. 13

C. YUXiKOC &VOpTOC/TIVEDLATIKO & PINTOS (1 C. 2 -> puxik6c, TVEU-

latiK6g.
4. o avipanos as a Messianic designation of Jesus (R. 5:15; C. 15:21, 47;
Eph. 5:32; 1 Tm. 2:5; Hb. 2:6; perhaps also Mt. 4:4 and par.) - vioc tou ovipo-

6 TPTOC/SEUTEDOC &VOPIUTIOS (1C. 15:45, 47) -> 'A8qu and vios TOO gy-
Opi tou.

* avopinivos.
1. This is used generally of man as part of the created world, as in Im. 3:7 :
i poois n ovo pontiv, where it signifies human as distinct from animal nature
(cf. Da. 7:4, 8). In this connection we might also mention 1 Pt. 2:13. Since there
is no instance of ktloic in the sense of order or authority, inoraynte Toon ov-
Oponivn KtloEl must be understood with the Syr. and one part of the Lat. attesta-
tion as a comprehensive admonition to be subject to "every human creature."
2. It is used to mark off man from God (i1to yelpov ave ponlvov, Ac. 17:25), 2
with a strong emphasis in Paul on the corporal limits of human nature. 3 Thus
R. 6:19 : dv0po tivov LÉYG BIX THU GOOÉVEIAV TAS aapkos oubv = kata av-
OpGTOV - 364; 1 C. 2:13 : &vopwtivn goola (antith. TVE ua in 2:13 or 0:00
goola in 2:7); 4:3 : av0ponivn nuépa (antith., the judgment day of the Messiah);
and 10:13, where &vOponivos does not refer to the origin of temptation (i.e., its

12 Reitzenstein Ir. Erl. and Hell. Myst., loc. cit.; H. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtliche Unter-
suchungen zu den Ignatiusbrieten (1929), 88 f., 173; also Christus und die Kirche im Eph.
(1930). On the other hand, the extra-Christian provenance (Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 153, n. 2;
Schlier, Religionsgesch. Untersuchungen zu den Ign.-Briefen, 88, n. 2) of the image of the
old and new man has never been proved. To be sure, we meet the image in Manichean
literature (Aug. contra Faustum, 24, 1, p. 717-721, Zycha) but Mani borrowed it from Paul
(K. Holl, Urchristentum u. Religionsgeschichte- [1f H. H. Schaeder, "Urform und
Fortbildung des mandaischen Systems," Vortr. Bibl. Warburg (1924/5 [1927]). 93, N. 1.
13 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 53-57.
&vOp TIvos. 1 O. Holtzmann, Das NT (1926). 847.
2 Cf. Jos. Bell., 5, 400 : KATAOPOVEIV XEIPOS dvi partlvns ETITPETELY
OE 81kaZElv; Bell., 5, 387 of Sennacherib : pa XEpolv VEpTIVais EREOBY Tota TO
3 Cf. Jos. Ant., 5, 215 : thv dvoponlvnu piai pilautov oboav.
dvo pintlvos - ovinu

derivation from man, which would be contrary to v. 13b), but to its puny strength,
i.e., that it may be borne by the weakness of human nature.
J. Jeremias

t ovingt, + AVERIC

The basic meaning of the word avinut is the relaxation of tension, e.g., Xop6ov
(Plat. Resp., I, 349e; opp. Énltaos); the usage has many nuances in both the literal
and figurative senses. Both the verb and the noun are rare in the NT, as also in the
LXX, where &vinu is more common and varied.

ovinut occurs in the true sense of "to release" or "loose" (Ac. 16:26 : to deop&;
27:40 tac yeuktplas); in the fairly common LXX sense of "to forsake" or
"give up" (Hb. 13:5 : 00 un OE Avid 008 o0 un FE EykataliTto; cf. Dt. 31:6); in
the metaphorical sense of Eph. 6:9 (THV &TEIANV a choice expression, though
often found in Gk., e.g., Thy Éx0pav, Thuc., 3, 10). The legal sense of "to remit,
which occurs in Gk.2 and the LXX, is not found in the NT.
&VEGIC in the strict sense occurs in Ac. 24:23 as "mitigation, i.e., of imprison-
ment (IpEiOaL XUTOV EXELV TE &VEOIV, cf. Jos. Ant., 18, 235 : oulakn uev yap
kal thpnois fiv, METo uÉvtol AVéOEOC). Elsewhere it is found only in the meta-
phorical sense of "refreshment" or "rest," which is also common in Gk. (e.g.,
Plat. Leg., IV, 724a : opp. ontouon; M. Ant., I, 16, 6 : opp. Évraais). Cf. 2 C. 2:13 E
oik EoxnKa &vealy to nve uati you; 7:5 : oubeulav KOXnKEV &VEOIV A adp
judov, gAX" Ev Tavti OAIBoueVoI; 8:13:00 yap IVa XAAOIC &VEOLC, ouiv Olivs;
2 Th. 1:7: avtarodoivai roic flipouau buac OAturv, kal buiv rois e\iBouÉvous
&VEGLV uE0" nuoov. In the last passage we might speak of an eschatological
significance, comparing &veois with avauugic (Ac. 3:20), with the eschatological
avaTauGIc (2 CI., 5, 5; 6, 7 found in Gnosticism but not in the NT) and with
- atolutpwois (cf. Schol. on Thuc., 1, 76, where the &vieval of the text is ex-
plained in terms of &noAdelv).
It is worth noting that &VETIC is not used for forgiveness (- XOEOIS, TAPEOIC), as
might have been expected from the use of dvieval in the LXX (e.g., Jos. 24:19; Is.
1:14). The fairly common Gk. sense of "self-abandonment" or "license" is found in early
Christian literature only in Barn., 4, 2.
Bultmann

Pollux, III, 131: 8 00K &v Tic OTOUÉVOLEV, 8 oUk av tic €vÉyKol TO 8É evayrlov
KoUoov, elpopov • • • dv0po ivov.
avinui. Nageli, 85.
2 Pap., cf. Preisigke Wort.
 dvlornut

avITtoc > vinto.

oviomut, + Egavionut,
Eyelpo, gon.
avaotaois, $ igavaoraois

avionut, t kEaviomuu.
A. Meanings of dvotaval and ÉEaviotoval.
In respect of the trans. and intrans, use the words follow the simple form, and the
meaning in the Bible is in accord with general usage. a. trans. of persons (since Homer);
"to raise up, e.g., one who is lying down or crouching (Ac. 9:41) ; "to awaken" one
who is asleep "to institute or instal" someone in a function, to 'institute" a high-
priest (Hb. 7:11, 15); "to deport" people ; of objects (post-Homeric): "to set up
pillars or altars ; "to repair" walls. b. Intrans. "to rise up" or "to waken" from sleep
(Ac. 12:7), from bed (Lk. 11:7); esp. of the sick (Lk. 4:39) and the lame (Mk. 9:27;
Ac. 14:10); "to recover" Ék The vooou; '"to rise up to speak" (Lk. 10:25; Ac. 5:34;
13:16; ɧaviotao0al, 15:5) in judgment as a judge or witness (Mk. 14:60 and par. 57);
"to rise up in enmity" (Mk. 3:26; Ac. 5:17).
The following meanings are unique, or at least bear a unique emphasis, in biblical
usage : a. the use of the intrans. in Hebrew fashion to mark the beginning of an action :
Gn. 21:32: 13039 "N D279 oveorn 8É "A Kai ÉtEotpe av; Ju. 13:11; 3 Bao. 19:21.
The part. is particularly common for this purpose : Kai dvaotac nko\0v0noev aio
(Mk. 2:14 and par.; 7:24; Ac. 8:27). We also find imperatives with the sense of "Up
(-> Éyeplelc and Éyslpe). Gn. 13:17:a2mn1 t1p avaotac 8168guoov; 19:15; Nu. 22:20:
K. 17:9 72 o1p avaot01 kal TOpE oU ; Jon. 3:2; Ez. 3:22; Lk. 17:19: &vaotac
TOpEUOU; Ac. 8:26 : avaoi0l Kai TOPEUOU ; 9:6. b. (éE)avotaval onÉpua is a
Semitism for 97; apn. LXX Gn. 38:8, cf. Ju. 4:5, 10 (also y2) 72p LXX Gn. 19:32, 34),
i.e., to raise up seed to a dead brother by Levirate marriage, as in Mt. 22:24 and par.

dviornul KtA. On the general usage, cf. Liddell-Scott s.v. On the resurrection of
the dead, RGG?, I, 623-634 and RE3, II, 219-224. Apart from the works there mentioned,
EJ, III, 665-667; Jidisches Lexikon, I, 566-568; Schurer, II, 458 ff., 638 ff.; Bousset-Gressm.,
Index, esp. 269-274; F. Weber, Jid. Theol. auf Grd. d. Talmud2 (1897), 390 ff.; Str.-B.
passim on the NT passages adduced, also IV, 1166-1198 (Excursus : Allgemeine oder teil-
weise Auferstehung der Toten ?); G. Quell, Die Auffassung des Todes in Israel (1925);
P. Volz, Jidische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (1903); R. H. Charles, A Critical
History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (1899); G.F. Moore, II, 279-395. On questions of
religious history : E. Boklen, Die Verwandtschaft der judisch-christlichen und der par-
sischen Eschatologie (1902); A. Bertholet, "Zur Frage des Verhaltnisses von persischem
und judichem Auferstehungsglaube," Festschr. fur F. K. Andreas (1916), 51 ff.; E. Sellin,
"Die alttestamentliche Hoffnung auf Auferstehung und ewiges Leben," NkZ, 30 (1919),
232 ff.; E. Albert, Die israelitisch-judische Auerstehungshon in hrenumm
Parsismus (1910); Meyer, Ursprung, II, 58 ff.; Bousset-Gressm., 478 ff.; 506 ff.; E. Ebelig,
"Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier," I, Texte (1931); E. Rohde,
Psyche®-10 (1925); E. Benz, Das Todesproblem in der stoischen Philosophie (1929); F. Cu-
mont, Die orient. Rel. im rom. Heidentum3 (1931) passim (the presentation of Cumont shows
particularly impressively how close to the centre of Hellenistic religion is the thought of the
future life - gon).
1 Cf. on this point K. H. Rengstorf, Jebamot (1929), 28 ff.; 38 f.; also Str.-B., I, 886 f.
avionul
(a free quotation from Dt. 25:5 ff., which also borrows from Gn. 38:8). On the meaning
of the term cf. Jos. Ant., 5, 46 : eml thy uaxny kEaviomow. c. ovotova Tivo to
introduce a personage (in history). LXX for a'p, with acc., Dt. 18:15, 18: npoohmv
dviotavai, cf. 1 Bao. 2:35; 3 Bac. 14:14; Jer. 23:4; 37 (30):9; Ez. 34:23. In quotations
Ac. 3:22; 7:37; Ac. 3:26 of the sending of Jesus. Comparable is Plut. Marc., 27 (I, 314a):
aviataval tiva erti thv kamyoplav, to raise up someone as an accuser. Theologically
the most important meaning is d. "to raise from the dead,' or intrans. to rise from
the dead."

B. Resurrection in the Greek World.

Apart from transmigration of souls, for which &vapidaKsofa is used in Plat.
Phaed., 72d, the Gk. speaks of resurrection in a twofold sense. a. Resurrection is
impossible. Hom. II., 24, 551 (Achilles to Priam of Hector): 0U8É ulv ovoThoEIC;
cf. ibid., 756; 21, 56. Hdt., III, 62: El oi TEOVEGTEC &VEAT&GL, 1t0008ÉKE6 Tol kai
•Actuayea tov MAoov ÉTavaoTOEBa. Aesch. Ag., 1360 f. : Kayd tolo0t6g
Elu', Éntei Suounyavi Aoyoiol tov eavovt' avioraval T&Alv. Soph. El., 137 ff. :
& X' OUTol tov y' E& *Alda TayKolvou Auvac TaTep' AVaTKOtIC OUTE YOOI
OUTE AlTalalv. Aesch. Eum., 648 : & aE, EaVoUTOs OUTIC tot' &vaotaois. With a
transition to b. Eur. Herc. Fur., 719 : 00k, El YE HN TIS DEGV OVAOTHOELE vIV.
b. Resurrection may take place as an isolated miracle. Plat. Symp., 179c : £6ooav
touto yÉpas of Oeot, EE 'A.8ou aveival TtaAlV Thy yuxnv. Luc. Salt., 45 : kai thy
Tuv6apEd avaaTaalv, kal thy Aloc ETi tOUTO kat' 'AokAntlou opynv. Aescu-
lapius the physician is also one who raises the dead. So in Ps.-Xenophon's work
on dyeing (Cyn., 1,6): 'AokAnuioc SE <KaL> MEICoVoV ETUXEV, OvOTovaL LEV
TEOVEOTAS, vOgOUvTaC 8E laofai. According to Paus., II, 26, 5 the shepherd who
recognises the foundling Aesculapius in the lightning proclaims: ott avionnol
TEOve&tac (cf. II, 27, 4). The raising of an apparently dead girl in Rome by
Apollonius of Tyana is recounted in Philostr. Vit. Ap., IV, 45, 150,000 denarii being
contributed as additional endowment. The raisings reported in such apocryphal
Acts as Act. Petr. Verc., 25-28 3 are also essentially Hellenistic.
The idea of a general resurrection at the end of the age is alien to the Greeks.
Indeed, it is perhaps attacked on a Phrygian inscription: [o]t En 8 [El^]alot
Tov [Ec] Els &V&OTaGIV (BAÉTOVTEC?).4 In Ac. 17:18 avaotaaic seems to be
misunderstood by the hearers as a proper name (cf. 17:31 f.).

C. Resurrection in the OT and Judaism.

The OT recounts individual resurrections in K. 17:17 ff.; 2 K. 4:18 ff.; 13:20 f. B
There was inward preparation for the hope of general resurrection in its
eschatological form (Ez. 37:1-14; Is. 53:10; Tob 19:25 ff.; Ps. 73), but this did not
come to formulation apart from Persian influence. & It first becomes palpable in
Is. 26:19 : &vaathoovtal oi vekpoi (LXX for ann 142, synon. Éyepinoovtal

2 Wdt. Ag., ad loc.

3 E. Hennecke, Neutestamentl. Apokryphen2 (1924), 244.
4 W. M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, No. 232 (Eumeneia). There is
not sufficient evidence to prove that the author was an Epicurean Jew.
For Jewish accounts of resurrections, cf. P. Fiebig, Judische Wundergeschichten (1911),
16; Str.-B., I, 560, 1I, 545.
* Bibl. and - Yon/lavatos.
 avionut

for 121P?) and Da. 12:2 : noAol tov Kadeubovtov Eyepinoovtal (#*'7:). and is
then more comprehensively developed in Apocalyptic.' Where the doctrine of an
intermediate state obtains, the more immediately interesting resurrection of the
righteous comes at the beginning and that of the wicked at the end.
The Sadducees and Samaritans rejected this hope (Mk. 12:18 and par.; Ac.
23:8; Jos. Bell., 2, 165; Ant., 18, 16).8 The rejection constantly recurs: Ber., 9, 5:
"The Minim say that there is only one world" jChag., 77b, 4: Elisa ben Abuja
said : "There is no resurrection of the dead." Sanh., 10, 1 is directed against it :
"Whosoever says that the resurrection of the dead cannot be deduced from the
Torah has no part in the future world." The whole of later Judaism includes the
hope of the resurrection as a firm and necessary part of its faith : Sch®mone Esre,
2.9 In T. Ber., 7, 5 the doxology to be pronounced in a graveyard is as follows:
"He will cause you to arise. Blessed be He who keeps His Word and raises the
dead !" In Hellenistic Judaism the hope of the resurrection is spiritualised. Neither
Josephus nor Philo uses ovaoraoic in the sense of resurrection. Josephus interprets
his hope of immortality in terms of Pharisaic dogma (Bell., 2, 163). Philo does not
understand immortality as continuation of life but mystically as liberation from
particularity, as the new birth (Quaest. in Ex. 2:46, Harris, p. 60 f.) . 10 He describes
the ascent of the soul in Sacr. AC 5. Hell is separation from God already effective
here and now (Cher., 2).

D. Resurrection in the NT.

1. The NT tells of individual resurrections from the dead. As one customarily
calls someone who is asleep or sick, and takes him by the hand and raises him,
so the miracle-worker does with the dead, and they arise (Mk. 5:42; cf. with 9:27;
Ac. 9:40 f. with 9:34). As the NT itself teaches, such procedures are not strange
to the thinking of the world around (Mk. 6:14; Hb. 11:35). Nevertheless, Ac.
20:10 ff. reveals a capacity to distinguish. The records from the life of Jesus in
particular (Mk. 5:21-43 and par.; Lk. 7:11-17; Jn. 11:1-44) are marked by serious-
ness, sobriety and solemnity. The awakenings are signs of the Messianic age and
are not therefore isolated miracles (Mt. 11:5; Jn. 11:25,26, cf. 5:20 f.; 6:39, 40,
44, 54). Mt. 27:53 must be cited in the same connection.
2. The resurrection of Jesus (often, though not always, with the addition
£K VEKpOv) is announced by Jesus Himself 11 (Mk. 8:31 and par.; 9:9 and par.;
9:31 and par.; 10:34) and is described in the earliest proclamation as the work of
the Father whereby the Crucified is exalted to Messianic SoEa 12 (Ac. 1:22; 2:24,

Cf. esp. Str.-B., IV, 1166-1198.

8 On the Samaritans, cf. Str.-B., I, 551 f.
Schuirer, II, 539; Str.-B., IV, 211.
10 E. Bréhier, Les idées philosophiques ef religieuses de Philon d' Alexandrie (1908),
240 ff.; R. Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (1929), 111; H. H. Schae-
der, Gnomon, (1929), 353 ff.; Reitzenstein, ARW, 27 (1929), 241 ff.
11 According to W. Michaelis, Taiifer, Jesus, Urgemeinde (1928), 100 f., the saying of
Jesus about His resurrection cannot be clearly distinguished from that concerning His
parousia. On the tendency for the resurrection, the sending of the Paraclete and the parousia
to merge in John's Gospel, cf. the comm. and NT theologies.
12 Acc. to G. Bertram, "Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuze," Festgabe fir Deissmann
(1926), 187 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus (1928), 48 f., the accent fell variously on the
resurrection and the exaltation in Paul and the rest of the NT. Acc. to E. Fascher, ZNW,
avionut - &vaataaic
31 f.: 4:33; 10:41; 13:33 f.; 17:3,31 ; R. 1:4; C. 15:1 ff.). On such questions as the
significance of the resurrection for the kerygma, the dying and rising again of
gods in Hellenism etc.,> Éyeipo, out&o.
3. The general resurrection has that of Jesus as its first-fruits (Ac. 26:23:
TOOTOC EE, OVaOTXOEDC VEKpOV; C. 15:20 : Étapxh TOv KEKoLNuÉvoV; v. 21
8t' ave poTou ovaataaLS VEKPiv; Col. 1:18 : pXA, IpOTOTOKOC T vEKpov.
In the NT, too, the inner logic of faith is towards the resurrection to life (1 C.
15:22; R.8:11; Jn. 6:39, 40, 44, 54 : vaathow aitov ev th Éoxain ñuepa). Never-
theless, the predominant view is that of a double resurrection (Jn. 5:29 : avactagIc
Tons, Kploeos; cf. R. 14:9; 2 C. 5:10). Possibly in Lk. 14:14 : f AVaaTaGIC tov
Sikalov, and certainly in Rev. 20:5, 6: i ovaotaois f tpom, Jewish tradition
is followed and the resurrection to life is seen as a prior act in time at the be-
ginning of the millennium. We are to take C. 15:23 f. in the same way if To
TEAoc does not signify the end of the world but the "rest" of the dead. 13 Similarly
in 1 Th. 4:16 f. the union of resurrected believers and of those who are still alive
with their Lord seems to take place without judgment. A different view seems
to prevail in R. 2:16; 2 Th. 1:9, 10; 1 C. 4:5; 2 C. 5:10. The conceptions are fluid,
as in Judaism.
Though it is already for believers a present possession, 14 the resurrection to
life is still the goal of their hope and striving (Phil. 3:11: ÉEavaotaais, found only
here in the NT). On the Gnostic error combatted in 2 Tm. 2:18: avaotaolv hon
yeyovÉval, cf. Menander in Iren., I. 23,5 : resurrectionem enim per id, quod est
in eum baptisma, accipere eius discipulos, et ultra non posse mori, sed perseverare
non senescentes et immortales. 15 There is a strongly figurative use in Eph. 5:14:
&vaata EK TOV VEKPOV, KAL ETTIOQUGEL ool 6 Xpiotog.
Those who denied the resurrection in Corinth (1 C. 15:12) were probably
repelled by the materialism of Jewish expectation 16 (-) Eyelpo, oQua).

avaataais, t igavootaois.
The two words are equivalent. 1. Trans. a. the "erection" of statues, dams etc. : ep.
Claud. ad Alex.; 1 Jos. Ant., 17, 151; 14, 473; 11, 19; cf. Bell., 5, 205; BGU, 362, VII, 3
(215 A.D.) ; b. "expulsion" from one's dwelling: Hdt., IX, 106; Polyb., II, 21,9: Thy
tov 800 oulav avaaraaiv; Jos. Ant., 10, 185; 2, 248; 16, 278; Bell., 6, 339. 2. Intrans.
a. "arising" : Aristot. Spir., 8, p. 485a, 18 f.; from sleep : Soph. Phil., 276; from bed in
the morning: Porph. Vit. Pyth., 40; mid. "to go to stool" : Hippocr. Epid., VI, 7, 1;

26 (1927), 1 ff. the only essential thing was the &TO 0Eo0, all the rest being merely
'ideogram.
13 This interpretation has gradually gained acceptance, cf. Joh. W., Bchm., Ltzm. C.
The older view that we should render : "Then cometh the end of the world," is to be found
in Heinrici C., ad loc. and K. Deissner, Aufertehungshoffu und Pumd bei
Paulus (1912), 23 ff.
In R. 6:5, 8 we do not have a futurum resurrectionis (Barth R.2, 175 f., 182 ad loc.)
but logicum, Col. 2:12 f.; 3:1; cf. Khl. R., 204; Sickbg. R., 219.
15 An essentially fuller version is found in Demas and Hermogenes, Act. PI. et Thecl., 14
(E. Hennecke, Nti. Apokr.2 200), namely, that the resurrection has taken place in children.
16 A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (1930), 93 f., has in view the re-
presentatives of an ultra-conservative eschatology who could offer hope of glorification at
the parousia only to the living.
AV& TAOIG KTA. 1 H. Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (1924), 23 ff.,
line 31. 45.
 &vaataoic - ovil

Progn., 11.2 There is no instance of its use for "recovery." b. "rising up" Thuc., II, 14,
or "departure" : Strabo, II, 3, 6. C. "rising" or "insurrection": Demosth. Or., 1, 5.

Of these meanings, we find only 2a in Lk. 2:34 : OTTOC KEITAI EIC TITHOLV kal
&vaataaly 3 (for the fall and rising, i.e., the judgment and salvation). For the
image, cf. Ps. 118:22, 23; Is. 8:14, 15; 28:16; R. 9:33; 1 Pt. 2:6; Mk. 12:10 and par.;
Lk. 20:17 f.; for the fact, cf. 1 C. 1:18 ff.
Otherwise the term is used exclusively of the resurrection (of Christ) from the
dead (Mk. 12:18 and par.; Jn. 5:29; Ac. 1:22; R.1:4; Hb. 6:2; Rev. 20:5 f. etc.
#Eavaotaois with the latter meaning is found only in Phil. 3:11. On all
material points -ovionu, Éysipo.
Oepke

avoia - vouc. dvouia, avouos - vouog.

avoaioc > oolos. ovoyñ 359 f.
dvraywvigouaL *134 ff. avta^ayua -252
avtavattAnpow TXnpbo. dvtano6i5wut, avtanoboa, autar6 - 8(6ut.
avtartoxpivouai - Kplva. AVTÉX Exo.

dvti

dvti is one of the prepositions whose use goes back to the Hellenistic period.
In its basic meaning of "over against" it does not occur in the NT, but is mostly
used in the sense of a. in place of,' often in figures like kakov dvti KaKo0
(R. 12:17; 1 Th. 5:15; 1 Pt. 3:9); xoplv avti yapitos (Jn. 1:16).1 In this respect
it makes little difference whether the word denotes an actual replacement, an
intended replacement, or a mere equivalent in estimation (Hb. 12:16: &vri Boo-
FEWC LLAC ATESETO TO TOWTOTOKIa), or similarity (1 C. 11:15 : Koun avil TEPI-
Bolaiou). From the meaning a, there develops b. "on behalf of" UTtép
Mt. 17:27: S00val &vt' guot Kal 000, "for" "to the account of" and also
C. "for the sake of" in &vti robrou "for this cause," Eph. 5:31; ave' ov
"for the reason that" or "because,' 2 Th. 2:10, and frequently in Lk. (Lk. 12:3
in the main clause, thus signifying "therefore").

2 Do we have here the explanation of the strange use of #Eavaataaic to denote a piece
of furniture in BGU, 717, 11? It follows akaoiov (chamber-pot ?). Cf. Berichtigungen und
Nachtrage zu BGU, III, 4.
The suggestion of J. Weiss and Gressmann (KI. Lk., ad loc.) that the words kai
avaotaol should be deleted as an addition has little to support it.
atl. B1.-Bebr. $ 208; Radermacher, 138; Ditt. Syll.8, IV, 218, S.v. dvi; W. Kuhring,
De praepos. Graec. in chart. Aegypt. usu (Diss. Bonn, 1906); K. Rossberg, De praep. Graec.
in chart. Aegypt. Ptolm. aet. usu (Diss. Jena, 1909).
Cf. Philo Poster C, 145 : 810 tag tpotas xapitas ÉTÉpas avt' #Kelvay kal
tpltas avil tov SEUTÉPOV Kal dEI veaG anti malalotÉpwv /118{8wal.
avil - avtlolkoc

In Mk. 10:45 and par. : So0val Thy puxnv aitou Autpov avtl no^^ov, the
position of gvrl no^iv shows that it is dependent on Autpov and not So0val.
It thus has the meaning of a. and not of b. in the sense of Mt. 17:27. The sacrificed
life of Jesus is a sufficient price to redeem many. Even if we relate the ovti
to Adv to 8o0val and understand it in the sense of b., the saying still contains
in substance the thought of representation or substitution. For the Tool have
not merely forfeited a favourite possession but their very lives, themselves ; and
what Jesus gives them is His very life, Himself. What He does on their behalf is
simply to take their place.

In Jos. Ant., 14, 107: Thv SoKov aut thy xpuonv Aitpov dvil TdVtoov KOOKEV,
it is incontestable that ovil means in place of." For the priest is not merely intending
to give something for the good of the treasury. He is seeking to satisfy Crassus that
the latter may take this ingot of gold instead of the treasury.
Buichsel

* avtiolkoc
A. &vtioKos outside the NT.
1. ovriolKos is the opponent at law" (plaintiff or defendant). Aeschin. Fals. Legat.,
165. Plat. Phaedr., 261c.: £v Sikaotpious of avribikol ti 8poot; 273c: EAEYXov
tapaooin To avt8lko; Leg., XI, 937b: TOV AVTISIKOV ÉKaTEDOS, both parties
in a suit. Cf. also Epict. Diss., II, 2, 10 : OKETTOU Kal Thy pool TOU 81kaotou kai
Toy &vti8lkov; III, 9, 5 : Ap' OUV TOVTEC #youev byin b6yuata kai ou kai 6 dvii-
8tkoc oou; though &vtl8lkos can also mean the defendant : Antiphon Or., 1, 5; P. Oxy.,
37,1, 8 (1st century A.D.) or the plaintiff: Lys., 7, 13. The opponents or parties in a
legal dispute may be either individuals or groups (esp. common in the pap.). For
opponents in a private suit, cf. P. Lips., 33, II, 4 (368 A.D.), where at the head of
record of proceedings we find avil8i[ko]is yaipet[v] after the names of the litigants.
In Ditt. Syll.3, 656, 24, it is used of the party in a civic action, the citizens of Abdera
in their appeal to Rome calling the Thracian king Kotys, who was trying to annex their
city, ovilolkoc.:
We find this direct sense in the LXX at Prv. 18:17: 8ikaioc ÉquToi KaThyopos
Év tpwtoloyia® ic 8' av EniBaln & avtlolKos (17y)) EXÉyXEtal. Cf. also Jos. Ant.,
8, 30 : To SE THE AVTISIKOU TEOVNKEVaI, the women contesting for the staL8lov before
Solomon. In Philo Aet. Mund., 142 the judge does not pronounce his verdict nplv
[tapa] tov dvtidlkov akotaal. Similarly in Leg. Gaj., 350: ÉKaTép∞0EV oval
TOUG dvt8lkouc uetd Tov auvayopEua6vTwv (advocates); 361: yElwc EK TOv
avtl8lkov kateppayn. Cf. 362. The Rabbis simply borrowed the foreign word and
described opponents at law as bipyyoix; Pesikt., 122b.; Dt.r., 5 on 16:18 of the con-
testing parties. 2 But in Heb. the contestant is also 1"7 bya (Aram. x337 5g3): bScheb., 31a;
bBer., 16b; Ab., 1, 8. 3

& TIBIKOS. 1 For further examples, Moult.-Mill., 47; Preisigke Wort., 133.
2 Str.-B., I, 288.
3 Ibid., II, 238.
 dvtloikos

2. This image of the court action is then applied in such a way that, originally with
a conscious retention of the image, it is used metaphorically of any contesting parties.
LXX: Bao. 2:10 (the song of Hannah): Kopios dolEVi TOLOEL aviolkov autou
(1227) : 4 Is. 41:11: anoAouvtal TaVtec of dvtibikol oou (72") 9020) ~ the enemies of
Israel as opponents in a dispute. Iep. 27:34 : Kplow xpIvEi TpOC tous dvtioikouc
aotou (b")) - Yahweh conducts Israel's case against its opponents at law. The same
use of the image is found at Jer. 50:34, except that the Mas. has Israel's opponent in
view, the LXX (27:34) Yahweh's. The image is also found in the Rabbis : 5 Ab., 4, 22 :
God is both litigant and judge ; Gn.r., 82 on 35:17: God is advocate in the judgment of
the nations.
3. Very generally, the image having slipped into the background, avI81Koc simply
means opponent, esp. in poetic usage. Aesch. Ag., 41: Ipiauou utyas dvriolkos
MevEAaos &vaE. LXX : Est. 8:11: xpñobal tois dvTi8iKOI aUTov of the adversaries
of the Jews. Sir. 33:9 (Heb. 36:7): LEapov avi(8lkov in a liturgical passage. Jos. Ant.,
13, 413 : El aPKEOOEiEV toic dvpnuÉvois of dvti8ikot. Philo Leg. All., I, 87: bikalo-
auvn oubevoc otoa avtl8IKog. Virt., 174 : God as avtI8IKoc. In the Rabbinic field : 5
Gn.r., 100 on 50:21. 6

B. dvtiolkoc in the NT.

In the NT we never have dvrl8lkos in the direct and concrete sense of a
litigant (1). On the other hand, we have the use of the image (2) in Mt. 5:25 :
1001 EOVOGV TO &vTI8lKO GOU UnTOTÉ OE rapaod o avtibikoc to kpit.
This is not a prudent maxim of middle-class morality ; the avridiKoc is the brother
with whom one must not squabble on the way to the judge the background is
eschatological. " The same eschatological content is to be found in the parable in
Lk. 12:58 : oc yap inayeic wera tol dvti8lkou oou tn &pyovta The only
point is that in Mt. the relationship to the neighbour is predominant, whereas in
Lk. it is the relationship to God. 8 It seems that the comparison was contained
in Q, but could be interpreted differently. °
The usage in 1 Pt. 5:8 : 6 avrloikoc buiv &1&Boloc, hovers between 2. and 3.
As the TEpITOTEI shows, the image of a court action is abandoned. Yet in the
background there stands To7, Aram. xot, A3916, 106, which also means opponent,
esp. at law (-> 81&Bolos, catavas). It is as such that Satan in Job 1:6 ff. and
2:1 ff. is prosecutor before the judgment seat of God, just as noob tou ovtl-
KEia(al auto at Zech. 3:1 signifies the action of the accuser. The role of Satan
is the same in Rev. 12:10 as in Job: 6 kaT yopov aitouc ÉVOTIOV TOO 000
nuov nuepac kai vKt6g. The Si&poloc is the calumniator. Thus in 1 Pt. 5:8

4 The later use of TOLElv xplua and KPIVEL shows that the image is retained.
5 Str.-B., I, 288 f.
The verb : LXX Ju. 6:31 A: 8C AVTE6(KNOEV; 12:2 A: OvTI8LKOv, Pap. Preisigke
Sammelbuch, 2055, 2 (4th-5th centuries A.D.). Concerning the point of the action, lEp.
28:36 (Mas. 51:36) has: €yd kpivi thv dvtl8ikov oou (1277-nx 22.) In Philo Leg. All.,
II, 92 neutr.: To aviloikov this noovns.
Schl. Mt., 174
as Godet rightly observes.
The 8 God dvrlowkoc is here can torti hardlyasnas,. irepasmihisi
the Carpocratians be Satan
believed ac- n midlal i
cording to Iren., I, 25, 4.
Cf. Julicher, GI. J., 240 ff.
avtioikoc - avtiAauBavoual

we no longer have the picture of the opponent at law ; yet this picture originally
gave colour to the expression.
The word is used very generally in the sense of opponent (3) in Lk. 18:3:
Ék8lknoov HE XTO TOU &vt18(kou you, for in this case there is no opponent in
court, but the widow is pleading with the judge alone.
Schrenk

avtikelual Keluai.

t avtiAauBavouau, dvrianuuis
auvavti auBovoua

avri auBavoual in Att. prose means to grasp, "to take up a matter," "to master" :
Xenoph. Cyrop., II, 3, 6: EppouÉvoc avtianpoutal tov ipayuao; "t take up
helpfully" (Eur. Tro., 464). In the pap. it is often used for "to help" (cf. further Diod.
S., XI, 13, though we do not find this meaning in Philo), as also in the more basic
senses. &vtlXnuus originally means "grasping" or "appropriation" (App. Rom. Hist.
even uses it in the sense of 'import," VIII, 89); and it is thus used in Plato and still in
Philo. It takes the sense of "help" in Iambl. Myst., 7, 3 and frequently in the pap. (as
early as the 2nd century B.C.). Deissmann's explanation 1 that the LXX application to
religious relationships is based on its reference to rulers, who are honoured as divine,
is materially unnecessary; in any case the cultus in Egypt has the invocation : avil-
laBoU, KUplE (CIG, 4712b = Ditt. Or., 697). auvavtiAauBavouau has the sense
of "to take up with, cf. Diod. S., XIV, 8, 2, where Liddell-Scott again sees the thought
of help. This sense seems to be at least possible, and even more probable, in the in-
scriptions and pap. quoted by Deissmann.
In the LXX we often find the proper sense of "to grasp" ; and the metaphorical sense
of "to keep to (Is. 26:3), or "to enter into alliance with" (Mi. 6:6), is also found. In
2 Macc. 11:26 &vtlAnuus means "taking up something." Yet the idea of help is pre-
dominant. In relation to one's neighbour, dvriAauBovouau is used about 14 times : of
God ovtilau Bavouat is used 20 times, mostly in the Psalms, as also aviAnuwis
(plur. "assistances"). auvavtlAauBovouai a. "to share a task with someone" (Ex.
18:22; Nu. 11:17); "to help someone in his work" (w 88:22 = R. 8:26).

In the NT avt auBavoual is used 1. more in the original sense (v. Xenoph.
Cyrop., II, 3, 6, -> supra) of serious concern for a right relationship to the brother,
esp. one's own Christian slave (1 Tm. 6:2), or of regard for the weak (Ac. 20:35).
2. It is also used in the LXX sense (Is. 41:9) for "divine help" (Lk. 1:54).
In 1 C. 12:28 ovtlAnuus is not to be understood as the assumption of office
(as in P. Oxy., 900,'13), since we have here a list of specific offices; what it
means is "help," the gift or capacity being differentiated from those that precede

1 Deissmann B, 87.
Deissmann LO, 68.
 avtiAauBavoual

by the fact that it does not have a miraculous character, and thus leads on to
those that follow. The reference is obviously to the activity of love in the dealings
of the community (cf. Ac. 6:1 ff.).
auvavti auBavouai means "to take up with." It is used in a secular sense in
Lk. 10:40 and of the pneumatic prayer of the Christian assisting or replacing the
noetic in R. 8:26. Here the pneuma is not thought of as tertia persona but as having
become one with man. It has entered into union with the human kapola and there
fashions prayers which cannot be grasped by the human understanding and are
not immediately adequate before God, but must first be searched out by Him.
This pneumatic prayer is a charismatic dealing with God like speaking with
tongues, whether with or without the corresponding forms (v. 26, OTEvayuoic
alaintois).
Delling

dvilutpov ) Ao. ovipolia ; urol6c.

dvtituttoc TUTOC. dvrixplotos - XPLOT6C.
dvuroxpitoc - broxplvo. avutotaKtos > 18660.

ovo, dVO TEDOV

1. Adv. of place with the twofold meaning of "above" and "upward," and of
time with the meaning of "earlier" (anton. KaTo); avo denotes land (as opposed
to sea), mountains, the atmosphere, heaven and its gods, and even the earth as
opposed to the underworld. 1 In the NT it is normally used of heaven in its
material (Jn. 11:41; Ac. 2:19) or religious sense (Jn. 8:23; GI. 4:26; Phil. 3:14;
Col. 3:1, 2).2 For early Christianity, as for Judaism and Hellenism, it is natural
to think of the Deity in heaven and thus to equate divine and heavenly. Thus
expressions like the substant. to avo (Jn. 8:23; Phil. 3:14; Col. 3:1, 2) or the
attribut. &vo (G1. 4:26; Phil. 3:14) may be regarded as traditional. Similar ex-
pressions may be found both in Hellenistic: and Palestinian Judaism. The distinc-
tion between above and below (1bye)/ moo)) plays an important role among the

a vo. Lohmeyer on Col. 3:1; Str.-B., II, 116, 430.

1 Cf. Pape, Liddell-Scott, s.v.
2 The two cannot be separated. In prayer God is sought with an upward glance (Jn.
11:41; 17:1).
3 Jos. Bell., 5, 400 : toy avo 8ikaotnv; Gr. Bar. 4: Ev autd HEMAouotv Thy avo
KAnow tpoolabeiv; Philo Rer. Div. Her., 70 : (ths puxis) av tpoc aird (to Ovtoc
8v) ElAkuouÉvns etc. (cf. the index to Leisegang).
Rabbis. A large measure of parallelism is maintained between what is and takes
place above and what is and takes place below.
2. In Philo the religious antithesis between God and the world is linked with
a speculation which distinguishes an upper and a lower world. God is put in the
upper and the lower is sub-divided so as to produce a varied but integrated whole
with God at the head and matter at the foot. 5 Similar cosmological constructions
are common in Hellenism, especially in Gnosticism.& To the degree that the
thought of God remains weak, such metaphysical speculation may understand
To avo as a higher world, until God is finally thought of as emanating from this
world in a theogonic process.
There is no similar doctrine of the two worlds behind either Judaism or the
NT. In both cases it is excluded by the concept of God in which the position of
God as Creator and Lord of the world is unconditionally maintained. In the NT
the antithesis between above and below is essentially religious. Above is God and
His perfect revelation, below the world which is His creature but which stands
in personal antithesis to Him. Thus the &vo KAñois in Phil. 3:14 is the call of
God in Jesus Christ : the to avo of Col. 3:1,2 can be more precisely defined:
Where Christ is at the right hand of God ; the opposite of this world denoted by
the to &vo of Jn. 8:23 is not that world but the Father (13:1). The nature of
the Jerusalem which is above (G. 4:26) is not described in cosmological but in
religious terms, and rather strangely its opposite is that which now is rather
than a lower Jerusalem (v. 25). Naturally the NT has no doctrine of creation
and consummation which establishes the relationship of the avo to the present
world. There are materials for a doctrine of two worlds. Indeed, we are given
plastic descriptions of heaven, the new Jerusalem. The air is the place of spirits
where those who are perfected will meet Christ (- aTaViNols, 380).10 Yet in
spite of these points of contact with the doctrine of two worlds, or with its
mythical basis, the total view of the NT is determined by the religious antithesis
between God as the holy and eternal and the world as the sinful and therefore
transitory (-* Koouos). There is no NT cosmology in the Philonic or Gnostic
sense.

4 E.g., Chag., 2, 1: Whoseover considers what is above and what is below, cf. Str.-B.,
II, 116, 430. A2g2 50 030172, bTaan., 5a. S. Nu., 84 on 10:36 : As the Shekinah above is
always surrounded by thousands and tens of thousands (Ps. 68:17), so it is below (Nu.
10:36). S. Nu., 84 on 10:35 : As the Israelites had to make bricks in Egypt, so they will
also be made above.
5 It is worth noting that Philo uses qvoTépw and ovototo together with ovo (Leise-
gang, Index). Neither word, however, is used in this sense in the NT (&votEpov is used
in Lk. 14:10 of the better place at table, and in Hb. 10:8 of the first part of a passage of
Scripture). The air has special significance for Philo, since as a light material it moves
upwards (Gig., 22), as do also souls (Som., I, 139).
Plotinus often speaks of to dvo in this sense Enn., I, 6, 7: dvaBaivouat ttpoc to
&vo; V, 9, 1: &6UVaTHOaVTES 8É leiv TO ovo.
8 Koouoc ÉKEiVoc and similar expressions are not found in the NT, where we
uÉ Awv
simply have & koouos oftos and, of course, alov etc.
Even in the Pauline antithesis of flesh and spirit the decisive contrast is not cosmological
but religious and ethical.
9 Cf. Rev., also Lk. 16:19-31, but also 1 C. 15:35-49.
10 Eph. 2:2; 1 Th. 4:17.
 & olEV

+ aVOOEV.
Both in and outside the NT a. an adv. of place "from above" Mt. 27:51: &T' & wOEv
EWC KaT (the veil of the temple). b. adv. of time "from an earlier period' (Ac. 26:5;
cf. Ditt. Syll.3, 685, 81: vouois yap lepoic kal ÉTITulals &GBEV BLEKEKAUO iva
undelc ... ; jos. Ap., 1, 28 : Éx uakpotatov &vw0EV Xp6vov etc.). c. "'From the
first" (Lk. 1:3; cf. Epict. Diss., II, 17, 27: &vw0ev &pEaolai). d. "anew" (Gl. 4:9; cf.
Artemid. Oneirocrit., 1, 13 : &v00ev1 aUToC S6EELE yEWaGlaI; Jos. Ant., 1, 263 : pl-
Aiav &vwlEv TOlEITaI TpOC aitov, of the renewal of an original friendship).
As regards Jn. 3:3, 7 the original usage does not help us to decide, but inclines in
favour of a. "born from above." For it is only with a. that we can link Job 3:4 : un
avaintnoal airv o KUpIOC &VOOEV (Jm. 1:17; 3:15, 17), and in Philo 2 a strong
religious sense "of God." 3 It is decisive that elsewhere Jn. always uses &vo0EV in the
sense of a. (3:31; 19:11,23), and he always describes birth in terms of its origin, i.e.,
of God (1:13; 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:18), of the Spirit or flesh (3:6), of water and the
Spirit (3:5). To presuppose an originally purely formal description of birth in the sense
of d., and thus to make the misunderstanding of Nicodemus more pardonable, may
correspond to modern sensibility but not to the dealings of Jesus with Nicodemus
according to John. Recourse to an underlying Hebrew would suggest a., since abypbp
has this meaning.4 Declension from d. to c. 5 gives a dreadful pleonasm. For at birth
a life always begins at the beginning and not at some point in its course. The suggestion
that both a. and d. are meant is both superfluous and unprovable. Distinguished re-
presentatives of ecclesiastical tradition testify that &vwlev here means "from above.'
Orig. Fr., 35 (p. 510, Preuschen) and Chrys. Hom. in Joh. 24, 2 (MPG, 59, p. 145 f.)
mention both a. and d. in relation to Jn. 3:5, and come down more or less decidedly in
favour of the former. Cyr. does not consider any other meaning. The Syr. versions are
overwhelmingly for a. syrc syrpal syrP ; though the Lat. and Copt. favour d., as also
Tert. and Thdr. Just. has the form : &v un gayEVnOñTE 00 un EloÉ ONTE EiC ThY
Baotelav tov oupavov (Apol., I, 61), similarly Ps.-Clem. Hom., XI, 26, Recg., VI, 9
and Iren. Fr., 35, Stieren.

Bichsel

avo V. 1 So the MSS adduced by R. Hercher in the apparatus of his edition (1864).
Hercher substitutes a mere dv.
Rer. Div. Her., 64 6 KATATIVEUGIEI &VWlEV, oupaviou TE kai §eiac uoipas ÉTI-
layov etc., e.g. Fug., 138; Mut. Nom., 260.
Cf. also bYoma, 39a : The man who sanctifies himself below will be sanctified above
abynb (= God), and S. Nu., 45 on 7:5: Their purpose agreed with the higher purpose
9397597 0975.
4 Gn.r., 51 on 19:24: byob 7712 97 727 P'N and Tanch. gnrn 9:43 : bann 970000 KIn 93*
abynbn (I purify you from above, i.e., I, God, purify you, so that there is no possibility of
relapse into uncleanness). The Aram. x?rybp is also unambiguous.
Zn. J., ad loc.
ag10c

d&ioc, dvagios,
dEi6w, katag iow

aios, dvogioc.
Properly, "bringing up the other beam of the scales," "bringing into equilibrium,"
and therefore "equivalent" : Philo Leg. All., III, 10 : dEloc yap oubels tov OEdv tluG,
& Ad Sinaio uovov® oTt6tE yap oi6é toic yovEUol loas droooUval xapitas
€v6Éyetal avilyevñoal yap oix olbv te toUTouC -, THC OUK AOUVaTOV TOV
Oedv queivaclat. KaTa ThV dElav tov to 81a quaTnoquEVOV; so R. 8:18 : OOK
K&ia to ainuata tou viv kalpoi Ttpos thy uellovoav 86Eav anoraAuplival
"they are not of equal weight." &iov fotlv "it is appropriate or reasonable" (1 Cor.
16:4; 2 Th. 1:3). The use of gloc or ova&los shows that two distinct magnitudes are
equal or equivalent ; an act "deserves" praise or punishment : Jos. Bell., 5, 408 El kal
Th NuETEDaV YEVE&V ELEUDEpIaC A 'PWuaioU KONG EDG dElous EKDIVE; so in
the NT: wolou, tuuns, tpoons, rAnyiv, Seoudv, BavaTOu &g1os, Mt. 10:10,
Lk. 10:7; 12:48; 23:15, 41; Ac. 23:29; 25:11, 25; 26:31; R. 1:32; 1 Tm. 5:18; 6:1; Rev. 16:6.
As Inschr. Priene, 59, 3 : Élotpooñc XEIOC, "worthy of consideration," so 1 Tm. 1:15;
4:9 : Toons atoboxis &gios, "worthy in any wise to be received." Supremely, God
is worthy to be praised : Rev. 4:11; 5:12, or the Lamb to open the seal : Rev. 5:2, 4, 9.
Yet the context suggests that in the latter passages &gtos almost has the sense of "in
a position to" (cf. 1 C. 6:2). Figuratively we have kapToi aglou this uetavoias
corresponding to repentance" (Mt. 3:8 and par.; Ac. 26:20).

The thought of merit in later Judaism found expression in "at (721) which cor-
responds to &toc. Thus Gn.r., 8 on 1:26: n907 "28502 now An 1½ DIAIN DTR NON DR. 2
In contrast the self-judgment in such passages as Lk. 15:19,21; Jn. 1:27 and Ac.
13:25 is in terms of unworthiness. 3 A man is worthy of the Gospel of Christ as
and because he receives it; all thought of merit is excluded by the nature of the
Gospel (Mt. 10:11, 13; 22:8; 10:37 f.; Ac. 13:46; Hb. 11:38; Rev. 3:4).
In a series of expressions the gen. or infin. is linked with dEloc to indicate the
sphere in which there is correspondence. We see this esp. in many pagan ex-
pressions like TOUTEU AS 8: afloc uev tOv natpw[lwv 0EOv] dEloc 8€
kal tov nolitov (Inschr. Priene, 109, 195),4 cf. R. 16:2 : poo6Égnole . dEloc
tov dylov. To the extent that this sphere has binding force for the man who
acts, the expression "to act accordingly" can express living self-determination.
In pagan inscriptions the judgment dElos is passed on action, and sometimes

&&10 Dob. Th. on 1, 2:12; Joh. W. 1 K. on 11:27; Loh. Phil. on 1:27.

The form shows affinity with the so-called acclamations, v. E. Peterson, Etc 0E6c
(1926), 176/180, Loh. Apk. on 4:11. It is worth noting that 'A translates 970 5 by dElos
Kai lkovoc (Str. B., III, 491g).
For further passages, v. Str.-B., I, 129, 8; II, 254; Dalman WJ, I, 97 f.; Schl. Mt. on
10:13; 24:35; also F. Weber, Jud. Theol.2 (1897), 277, 279. On the exact sense of n91,
cf. K. G. Kuhn, Sifre Nu. § 119, n. 68.
3 Positively, only Lk. 7:4 (the Jews of the centurion at Capernaum).
4 For further examples, v. index of Inschr. Priene (ed. F. Hiller v. Gaertringen [1906],
s.v. dElos.
5 The expressions with dfloc are here fairly formal.
 GELOC - &&160 - dr torinois

in Epictet. ton dioc tOv OEAv OuuToins (Ench., 15) can be asserted as the
motive of action. Paul uses the expression only by way of admonition TEPITOTEIV,
TONITEUE BAL dEIIG TOU EDXYYEAIOU, TAS KANOEDG, tou kuplou (1 Th. 2:12;
Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; Eph. 4:1; cf. also 3 Jn. 6), and therein links the motive and
goal of all Christian action. Its motivating power lies only in the preceding action
of God, which alone determines its content and thus distinguishes it from all
legalism. Hence the warning not to receive the Lord's Supper TOU Kupiou avaf loc
(1 C.11:27) does not denote a moral quality but an attitude determined by the
Gospel.

dEtow, t kata& low.

1. "To make worthy." This meaning must be accepted in the case of 2 Th. 1:11: iva
buas altoon ts kAnoe o 0E6c, in view of the significance of KAño.
2. "To regard as worthy" and to act accordingly = "to value or appreciate"
(even punishment, e Da. 3:97; 2 Macc. 9:15; Lk. 7:7; 1 Tm. 5:17; Hb. 3:3; 10:29).
Epictetus describes the calling, position and destiny of man as "being regarded as
worthy of a post by Zeus",2 whereas the NT with the exclusive use of the com-
pound kata&i6w expresses unworthiness of the divine gift of grace : Lk. 20:35:
of 8É KATOEIWOEVTES TOU alivoc ekelvou tuyeiv; and similarly Ac. 5:41; 2 Th.
1:5. 3

3. "To regard as right" (Ac. 15:38); "to ask" (Ac. 28:22).

Foerster

dopatoc > opac dayyÉ^ - 64

anaibEutoc * TOI8EUG AnaITE - 193 f.
dita Agoow > 252 f. atalAotpi6w > 265 f.

dravinoic
According to 1 Th. 4:17, at the second coming of the Lord, there will be a
rapture elg xtovinolv tou kuplou els dépa. The word aTavinois (also ontov-
TaIG, DG) is to be understood as tech. term for a civic custom of antiquity
whereby a public welcome was accorded by a city to important visitors. Similarly,

& &16 w. Dob. Th. on 2, 1:11.

Cf. the same meaning in Dg., 9, 1.
2 Diss., IV, 8, 30 : TOIOUTOC yap tis forlv 6 KUVIKOC TOU OKNTTPOU helouÉvos
Tapo tOU Al6c; II, 1, 39: T@ &&lov mis xopas tautns KexpikotI. Similarly 1, 29, 47
and 49; III, 22, 57,
Vett. Val., IX, 1, p. 329, 20 fF., Kroll: hon TOTE TTE/ayoopouroas kal TOAAny
Epnuov blobelaac rEid0nv aTto GEOV ALLEVOC AKIVOUVOU TUXEIV.
ATaVINGIs. E. Peterson, "Die Einholung des Kyrios," ZSTh, 7 (1929/30), 682 ff.,
where the evidence from antiquity is given.
ATtaVtnaIC - & tae

when Christians leave the gates of the world, they will welcome Christ in the dip,
acclaiming Him as Kopios.
P. Berol, II, 362, p. 7; Ditt. Or., 332; Polyb., V, 26, 8 etc.; Jos. Bell., 7, 100. The Gk.
word was also adopted by the Rabbis as loan word, e.g., Tanch. "x 178a: "The
great of the city moved out to meet the king" The 30 P1DKY 7*31.4
Peterson

t antae.
1. & taE "once" a. as a strictly numerical concept.
anae EAi0&a0nv (2 C. 11:25); with a temporal definition: & a( toU Évautou1
(Hdt., II, 59; cf. IV, 105; LXX, Ex. 30:10; cf. 3 Macc. 1:11; Jos. Bell., 5, 236; Philo Ebr.,
136; NT, Hb. 9:7). The expression & tae kal dic "repeatedly" (LXX, Dt. 9:13, cf.
1 Cl., 53, 3; Macc. 3:30; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., VIII, 56, 1: oix & af, diAd [kal]
Bic; in the NT, Phil. 4:16; Th. 2:18; cf. Tt. 3:10 : uer& ulav Kal SEUTÉparv vouOE-
alav "after more than one admonition").

The basic meaning of & tae in the NT is acquired when it refers to the un-
iqueness of Christ's work as something which cannot be repeated. Hb. 9:26 : vuvi
SE &Ttae, gl OUVtEAEla tov alovov Els doemow tis suaprias. ITEOOVE-
putal. As the uniqueness of Christ's appearing in the world is emphasised here,
sO is the unique birth of Nous in Plotinus (Enn., VI, 8, 21 [II, 506, 16 f., Volkm.]).
Cf. also the divine name ATae ETEKElva with the (ambiguous ?) Aid ETEKElVO
in one of the triads of Procl. (in Tim., 94c.; in Crat., 64, 3; 56,8).2 The once-
for-all offering of Christ is contrasted with the annual visit of the Jewish high-
priest to the Holiest of Holies (v.25). The &a(, is even more strongly em-
phasised 1. by the reference to the last time, when only that which is definitive
will take place, 2. by the twofold repetition of & tae in v. 27 f., and 3. by the
application of the thought of v. 26 in v. 28 : & ta& T POOEVEYOEiC Eis To TtoAAov
AVEVEYKEIV duaptlas. Christ is not merely the unique High-priest but also the
unique sacrifice (cf. Hb. 10:12, 14, > E(c). Both in V. 26 and v. 28 the aim of the
& ta& of Christ in relation to sin is underlined. By His one coming and death sin
is finally set aside (-> gOETED, avaoépw). The parallel to this passage is an
argument in favour of XPLOTOC & tae, TEPi duaptiov aTelorvev at Pt. 3:18
(instead of ETaOev); for according to Hb. it was meaningful for Christians to
emphasise the once-for-allness of Christ's death 4 (- 383 on R. 6:10). Indeed,
in the light of it they could point expressly to the general human analogy of the

1 Cf. Levy Wort., I, 145.

&Ta&. Rgg. Hb., 155, 8; Kn. Pt., 144; Zn. Einl., 86, 3; Preisigke Wort. s.v. & tae.
Cf. Rgg. Hb., 248, n. 91.
2 Cf. W. Kroll, De oraculis Chaldaicis, Bresl, Philol. Abh., ' (1894), 16 £.
3 Bengel, ad loc. suave antitheton : semel multorum, qui tot saeculis vixerunt.
+ As opposed to Kn. Pt., 143.
 one experience of death (Hb. 9:27: ka0® 860v & ToKEltaL tois dvopinois antal,
grtolaveiv). 5
As in relation to Christ's first coming, so in relation to His second & tae
acquires a radical meaning in the NT ; for eschatological events are unique in the
strict sense and cannot be repeated. In Hb. 12:26 the words of Hag. 2:6 are
referred to the final catastrophe : fri &tae Eyi oelow of povov thy yñv & Ad
kai toy oupavov. The phrase "yet once more," i.e., "for the last time," & denotes
a final transformation of the world (v. 27) which will leave only that which cannot
be transformed(- supra on Hb. 9:26).
b. anae as an indefinite concept of time: ("when," "after" etc.) "once," and
therefore esp. after tov, EntEl, 8TE, etc., or in conjunction with the part. praet. : Aesch.
Eum., 648; Ag., 1018; Amphis, (CAF, II, 238): &v & taE tIC d tolovn, P. Oxy.,
1102, 8; 471, 77; Jos. Ant., 4, 140; Herm. v., 3, 3, 4; Julian Or., 2, p. 91d. In the NT this
form is found only in d cod. 69 at Pt. 3:20 (?): &TE &TAE, ESEXETO 1 TOU 0E00
uaxpoluula, and perhaps in the part. constructions in Hb. 6:4; 10:2 (- infra).

2. & tae "once-for-all" 7 (- toXTae, 2).

Mostly (and exclusively in the NT) before part praet. (in contrast v. ÉpaTae).
P. Form., 1281: &aE So0évra "final reckoning," P. Leipz., 35, 19: To &TTGE TUTtO-
OÉvta to' STou uatov, "that which is laid down once and for all by protocol" ;
Philo Ebr., 198; APF, 2 (1903), 433 (21, 14); possibly LXX U 88:36.

In the NT it signifies the definitiveness of the Christian state and the once-for-
allness of the one baptism : 8 aouvatov yap ToUs XTGE, POTIOOEVTAC yEUoquÉ-
VOUC TE tis Sopeas this troupaviou kai taPaTEo6 vIaC naAlv avaraivi(elv
elc HET&VOlaV (Hb. 6:4). The enlightenment and reception of the Holy Spirit 9
in baptism (- ootigo) are so essentially unique that if they are lost there can
be no repetition or restoration. The expression &TtaE, YEUOUEVOC undoubtedly 10
derives from a proverbial saying similar to that about those who have once tasted
blood; hence the thought is also present that it is quite unnatural for anyone to
let go again the heavenly gift.
In the & af, KEKa®xpiouÉvol of Hb. 10:2 what is actually true of Christians
is hypothetically stated of the Jews. In Judaism there was no once-for-all purifica-
tion because no once-for-all sacrifice ; but Christianity has both 11 (- coaTat,
384).

5 The truth that man dies only once had often been stated from the time of Homer :
Od., 12, 22 &Tae, OvhaKouo"® avepontol; Soph. Fr., 64 (TGF, 114, Nauck): laveiv yap
OUK HEEATI TOiC aroio 8fc. Cf. Wis. 25.
"Ett & tae, "for the last time, is found already in Aesch. Ag., 1322; LXX, Ju. 6:39;
cr. also gtl TO & aE TOUTo, "yet one more time,' Ju. 16:18, 28. On this subst. &ra&, cf.
P. Jernstedt, "Sur la forme substantive & TAE" (Russian), Rev. Byz., 2 (1916), 97-105
(numerous examples being given); APF, 6 (1920), 379 f. (on P. Ry.. 435);: Ditt. Or., 201, 2, 4
with n. and 10, and on this Radermacher,2 13, 2; Deissmann LO, 185. 8 (on P. Lond
417, 8 and 12).
Semel is used in the same way, e.g. Horace Sat., II, 8, 24.
8 Cf. Wnd. Hb.2, 52 ff.
9 Ibid., ad loc.
10 As in Jos. Ant., 4, 140; Bell., 2, 158, though here the once-for-allness is not stressed.
11 In the reading & c Or Tert the washing only of the feet in In. 13:10 symbolises the
once-for-all purification by Christ.
& ae - LOaTae

The Epistle of Jude 12 formulates the thought of Christian once-for-allness in a

more rigid and intellectual manner. Christianity is now &naf, ntapaoo0eioa toic
dylous TloTIs (Jd. 3). The &rae underlines the concept of fides, quae creditur.
Thus Christians are ElS6TEC & tae Tavta, i.e., men who know everything necessary
for salvation and who therefore, according to the author, possess it. Here there is
no danger of loss. The thought is thus quite different from that of Hb., and we
recall that Paul knows nothing of a slots given once and for all in this sense.
It is interesting that Philo on one occasion (Ebr., 198) censures TLOTEUEIV TOIC &TTAE
Tapaoo0eial (i.e., believing as if laws were given once and for all).
If in Jd. 5 the reading of x 1739 Cl. Al. Pesh etc. is right, 13 the unique redemption
of Israel out of Egypt is here advanced as a prototype of the one definitive redemption
by Christ.

+ tooraf.
1. EO&TaE, "at once" (= "together"). P. Lond., 1708, 242 : 00k 00' EV EDTaE,,
"not individually but together"; 483, 88 : ÉoaTaf, buo oysiv, "to agree in the
lump"; P. Flor., II, 158, 10.2 In the NT C. 15:6.
2. €oaTae, "once and for all." 3 In the NT this is a technical term for the
definitiveness and therefore the uniqueness or singularity of the death of Christ
and the redemption thereby accomplished : R. 6:10 : in quaptia ATélavEv tpd-
ToE where tognag, prepared and emphasised in v. 9 by OUKETI ATOO OKEL,
O&VATOC OUKETI KUPLEUEL, sharply expresses the basic significance of the death of
Christ, namely, that sin and Christ are quits, and Christians with Christ, since
His one death is of paradigmatic and dynamic effect for us. To the &no0aveiv
Th quaprig toaTaé, in the case of Christ there corresponds veKpOuC Elvau (dead
once and for all) th quapria. There here rules divine causality mediated through
baptism (-> BaTtito on R. 6:3). Like Christ, man can die this death only once
(as he can rise again only once, 383 on Hb. 6:4); there is a turning from sin to
God which cannot subsequently be reversed. 4 The man who has died this death
lives once and for all according to Paul, i.e., in eternity like Christ.
The same thought is expressed under the image of the sacrifice in Hb. 7:27:
TO TO yAp ETOInEv EpaTat EaUuTOV OVEVEYKaC. The EpoC acquires its force
here from comparison with the (daily?)5 sacrifice of the high-priest, for, quite
apart from the fact that He is both Priest and offering, Christ is distinguished
from the high-priest by the once and once-for-allness of His sacrifice ; the LoaTat,
excludes both the necessity and the possibility of repetition. Hb. 9:12 uses the
same imagery: EionOEv EOXTaE Els to &yia, alaviav Autpwatv sipauevoc.

12 Cf. Zn. Einl., ad loc.

13 Cf. Wnd. Jd. ad loc. a contrary view is found in Kn. Jd., 220.
EO&Tag. Winer, 393 f.; Zn. R., 306, 6; Preisigke Wort., S.v.; G. Schrenk, "D. Ge-
schichtsanschauung d. Pls.,' Jbch. d. Theol. Schule Bethel, (1932), 61, n. 8.
Bl.-Debr., 12, 3: €o' & taE.
2 In the MS itself we find croatag, which according to Vitelli (in Preisigke, Be-
richtungsliste d. griech. Papyrusurkunden aus Agypten, [1913/22], ad loc.) is a mistake
for to' & tae,.
Similarly KaanaE, Elc &naE, P. Oxy., 1294, 14; TOO &TaE, P. Oxy., 1138, 13.
4 Brth. R2, 188 f.
5 Cf. Rgg. Hb., 212 on this error (3).
 LoaTaé, & natao

Here goanae corresponds to alovios. The priestly entry into the sanctuary
accomplishes a transitory AutpwoIs, but the definitive entry of Christ a definitive.
Thus the LoaTae not only of Christ's death but of its efficacy is emphasised in
Hb. 10:10 : ñyaouévou touev 6id this poopopas tof aquatos "'Inoot Xpiotoi
ÉOaTaE, (EQaTaé, relating to nyiaouÉvol rather than tpoopopo). There is here
a more direct linking of the once-for-allness of the death of Christ with the once-
for-allness of the sanctification of Christians than in R. 6. The sacrifice of Christ
accomplishes our sanctification directly and gives it the same definitiveness as it
has itself.
Stahlin

arapa Batos } "tapa Baivo arrapviouaL - xpveouatl

dapxñ - apXo

anatow, tEararaw,
orotn
t anataw, t Éganataw.
aTat&d, common since Homer : in the pap. found only in P. Greci e Latini, 152, 24
(2nd century A.D.) in connection with YE060g, then not until P. Lond., 1345, 13 (8th
century A.D.); not attested in the inscr., but found in Epicur., p. 298, 29, Usener : Édv
un tis tais Kevaic b6Eaic tautov antata; in Plut. and Epictet. Diss., IV, 5, 32 :
hitamuÉvol TEpi Tov ueyiotov. gatotao was more common : Hippocr. Vet. Med.,
2 : #Ennointal Kai gEanatarai; P. Oxy., 471, 42 (2nd century A.D.: #gatot-
[envai] f Kai Swpea[c AaBeiv] phoels (deceived or corrupted ?); Ditt. Syll.3, 364, 37
(3rd century B.C.): ÉEATATñOAUTES TOUC DATEDOUG SAVEIOTAS; ibid., 884, 46 (3rd
century A.D.): El 8É TIC LEanatiaa[s Tov] opELAov[tov EEvO UTO0EIn tt TOv
xoplov tolv bnuoolov
Common in the LXX "to deceive" or "entice" ; of the wives of Samson, Ju. 14:15;
16:5; of the instigation of God, 3 Bao. 22:20 f.; cf. Jdt. 13:16; of God Himself as
Deceiver, Jer. 4:10; 20:7: MT&TO&S HE, KOpLE, Kai inathonv (profound temptation);
but also in hostility to God, Gn. 3:13 : 6 6019 homofv ue; of the temptation to
idolatry, Job 31:27 : El nation Aa0pa i kapoia you ; of the deceitfulness of
sensual desire, Sus. 56 : TO KAMAOS IE HITHTNOEV (O LENTXTNOEV), I uIKp& ETIOvY a

The NT mostly uses the word in the last sense : 2 C. 11:3: o boIs E ENTATNOEV
Elav; 1 Tm. 2:14 : * A8a.u oUk pration, n 6e yuvn tEanamdeioa. R.7:111
speaks of the deception of sin repeated in the life of each of us ; Eph. 5:6 warns

amatao K TA. According to W. G. Kummel, Romer 7 und die Bekehrung des

Paulus (1929), 74, this passage is not to be interpreted either biographically or with
reference to the Jewish people or the fall, but purely rhetorically (-> duaptia, 311, n. 157).
citatao -

against being deceived : undeic juas aTarto, cf. R. 16:18; 2 Th. 2:3; 1 C. 3:18
speaks of sinful self-deception : unbeis Eautov EEattatato; cf. Jm. 1:26 : &TaTov
kapblav tautou.
t anot.
a. "Deception" or "enticement." Pind. Fr., 213, Schroeder: akoAial & atai; P. Oxy.,
1020, 8 (2nd century A.D.): dyov ths aTais, an action because of deceitful conduct ;
Luc. Tim., 27; Ceb. Tab., 5,2: &nat, Tavtas toug &vOpoTous Taviaa; 6,2:
'Anorn personified ; 14, 3; Corp. Herm., XIII, 1: aTta^ otpiouv TO opo nua ato ms
TOU KoO oU a ams (cf. 7). b. "(Pleasant) illusion," e.g., (in the theatre etc.). Gorg.
Fr., 23 (Diels, II, 265, 32 ff.): (Tragedy) Tapaoyoioa tois uilois kai toic TaOEGIV
aT&Tv, hence more generally "pleasure": Moeris, p. 65, Pierson: xtatn h TAovn
Trap' 'AttiKOic n TÉPYIS nap® "EXXnow; Inschr. Priene, 113, 63 (84 B.C.):'
ka[tatio]Eic 8É un uovov ta upoc noov[nv, alld kai Bourbuevoc] EK[t]os
aTtain xopnyñoa [toic §eatais, adlnihv?]. "He did not provide only what
ministers satisfaction, but, aiming also to delight his audience, he caused a fluteplayer
to come (?)"; Polyb., II, 56, 12; IV, 20, 5. Even the woman's name *Atatn might well
mean "delight." The evil connotation is not found in Hellenism, though cf.> supra
Cebes, Corp. Herm., etc.

In the NT we have the meaning a. in Col. 2:8 : "Beware lest any man spoil you
8a the piogopias kal Kennc anams; Hb. 3:13; 2 Th. 2:10. The meaning b. 3
is most likely in Mk. 4:19; Mt. 13:22: n uÉpuuva tol alivoc kai n onom tou
TAOUTOU (Lk.8:14: Aoovov) and 2 Pt. 2:13 : EVTPUOOVTEC Év taic gitataic
(altern. reading ayatais) autov, as also Eph. 4:22 : ("Put off the old man")
DIELDOLEVOV KaTO tas Er0vulas ths atais. In distinction from Hellenism the
NT lays great stress on the evil aspects of b. It is thus more strongly affected by a.
Oepke

artotop } Tathp arauyaoua - aiyagw

ATELOELA, ITELOÉW, XTELONS TE10 creipaotoc TELP&(
OTEK6 youa > SExouaL ATTÉK6UGIG, XTEK6UW > 800
OTTE EU0EDOS #AEO0EpOS XTEATICO * EATiCo
crEpiTuNtos TEpITOuñ drÉx© Exco
ATLOTEW, guloTia, ATtlaTOs TLOTEUO

2 Cf. on this J. Rouffiac, Recherches (1911), 38 f. The Latins translate onat delecta-
tiones, voluptas, delectamentum.
A. Deissmann, Neue Jbch. f. d. klass. Altertum, 6 (1903), 165, 5.
 aTt ouc - artois

itious, arAoins
* onlouc.
In addition to the original meaning a. "simple": LXX, Wis. 16:27; Philo Congr., 36,
there is a whole series of derived meanings : b. "open," "without ulterior motive":
hence the adv. antioc, "unambiguously,' 'wholeheartedly" : M. Ant., V, 7, 2: EUXEO-
Oat ATTAOG Kal ELEUOÉPOS; cf. II1, 6, 6; X, 8, 5; XI, 5, 6; then in addition to these
more positive senses, the more intellectual ¢. "simple" in the negative sense Isoc., 2, 46 :
diAoic nyoivral toug vouv oik Exovtag. The verb anAow, common only after the
imperial period, thus means to "make simple," i.e., "to expound" (Lucillius, Ant. Pal.,
XI, 107), but then comes to signify amongst other things "to disseminate" (Dg., 11, 5:
8t' of mourleral f exkAnaia kal xapic aniouuÉvn Ev dylois TAn OUVETaI.
In Gk. translations of the OT antioic or atloins (or anAooovn) are equiv-
alents 1 of d n0ivoc, Xumuos, doloc, elpnuk6c, kalapa kapbi etc. in transl. of
on, an, 70, g; and 73. Here as in Greek-speaking Judaism generally the word-group
is most used to express such positive values as "free from inner discord,' "innocent,'
•upright," "pure." The adj. anouc is found in the LXX only at Prv. 11:25 : puxn
EiloynuÉvn Taoa aTAñ= 1470 7272 09), where it is synon. with eooxjuov.
The intellectual depreciation of the "simple" was no less foreign to early
Christianity than to Judaism. Hence in the NT the word-group is either neutral
or expresses positive values as in Jewish literature. Mt. 6:22 : Éov ouv th 6 600aA-
uos oOu aTtAois, 8ov To oua GoU OOTEIVOV ÉOTAI® ÉAV 8E 6 800a^u6s oou
Trov pos h, 81ov to odu& Jou aKOTEIVOV EOTaI. If the words aniouc and * to-
ipos here describe physical states, as seems most likely, then &Ao0c must
have the meaning of "healthy" as in Prv. 11:25. 3 If, however, the terms have
ethical significance, then we must translate aAo0c "pure" in the sense of a
purity which is ready for sacrifice. In favour of this is the sense d. of athois
(perhaps the meaning of att od mentioned above), as also the possibility of
taking opla^poc aTAous to be a specific antithesis to 800a^uos rompoc
(= evil eye). In Jm. 1:5 : aite(to "tapa TOU BISOVTOC GEOU TAOLV attAoc kai
un ove olgovtos, the meaning might well be "kind" or "generous." Yet the sense
f "wholehearted" is perhaps nearer the mark, cf. Herm. m., 2,4: TOFIV DOTEPOU-
LÉVoIC 8(8ou aTAoc, un bota(ov tiv bos h Tiv pan 8@¢. aT ovatatol in
Mt. 10:16 D (sense b.) is not original.

anoins.
Here, too, the basic meaning is "simplicity" : 2 Bao. 15:11; 3 Macc. 3:21; Jos. Bell.,
2, 151. And again this leads to such value concepts as b. "noble simplicity,' *character-

atlodc K T A. W. Brandt, "Der Spruch vom lumen internum," ZNW, 14 (1913),

esp. 189 ff.; Dib. Jk., 76 f.; Sickbg. R., 124; Bousset-Gressm., 418 ff.; K. Brugmann, Indo-
germ. Forsch., 38 (1917/20), 128-135.
Brandt, op. cit., 189.
2 Cf. esp. Julicher Gl. J., II, 98 ff.
3 Heb. of or dipn, as used in bBQ, 12b; M.S., 1, 2; bTem., 107b for unblemished sacrificial
animals.
Cf. Jos. Ap., 2, 190 : the commandments are anai te kai yvoptuot.
5 7210 7! and 732 1:2, cf. Ab., 2, 9 and 11; 5, 13 and 19; Ter., 4, 3 etc. (Str.-B., I, 833 ff.):
also earlier Prv. 22:9; 23:6.
dit bins - anoxaliomul
istic of the psyche of heroes," 1 ¢. "purity" or "singleness of heart" : Jos. Bell., 5, 319
and often in M. Ant., related to XAñOEIa, 2 and d. "sufficiency" which has something
to spare for others, i.e., "generosity" : Jos. Ant., 7, 332; Test. Iss. 3:8 : mdvta yap
revol kai 0iBouÉvois tapeixov Ev d thornt kapoias Hov.
In the NT the usual meaning is c. : Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22: OTaKOUETE §v
at biti kapolas, 3 "with pure hearts": 2 C. 11:3 : .. and tis at ointos ths
Els Xplotov, "sincere dedication to Christ. In R. 12:8, 2 C.8:2 and 9:11, 13,
however, we have sense d. sacrificial "liberality."
In Cl. Al. Prot., 106, 3 (from the Apoc. Petr. ?): taxa Tou & kupios ATAbTtoc
outv Sw prostal Trepov, diAoins leads to heaven. It is mentioned particularly by
Herm.
Bauernfeind

dnoyiyvouai ylyvoual ATO6EKTOG, anto6ÉyouaL -) SExouai

arto616w t > 8160ut antoboklua(w -• 86Klu0s
arto0 viokw lavatoc
dit06oxi > SÉxoua

anokafiomut, AToKaTaoTaols

+ anorafiout.
The basic meaning is "to restore to an earlier condition." From this derive the
following main senses: 1. "to restore" or "return" a leasehold estate, P. Oxy., II,
278, 17 (17 A.D.); something borrowed, Xenoph. Resp. Lac., 6, 3 : lepov aTtoxataota-
Onvai aitois: 2 Macc. 11:25; with a personal obj., P. Oxy., I, 38, 12 (49/50 A.D.):
00® 06 Kai & toKaTEoT&ON uol 6 utoc; so also Hb. 13:19 : iva TaXiov aTtokataota-
06 Outv, "that I may be restored to you the sooner.
2. "To restore" a. buildings etc., Inschr. Priene, 12, 8: omAn viv anokalotquÉv;
a canal, Ditt. Or., 672, ibid., 90, 18 &TTEKATÉ TOEV EIS THU KAOnKOUGAV TREV;
b. mid. "to heal," Diosc. Mat. Med., I, 64, 4; esp. in the Bible, e.g., of lepers : Ex. 4:7;
Lv. 13:16; Job 5:18; Mk. 3:5 and par.: &TEKaTEOT&On i xElp, Mk. 8:25; cf. also the
Mithras Liturgy in Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 629 f. : &tav q tokataota0ñ GOU n
buxn; c. cosmologically "to renew the world,' Herm. Trismeg., in Lact. Inst., VII, 18
(the demiurge of the first and only God after general expiation and purification)
myayev Eni TO apxaiov kal ATOKaTÉOTNOEV toy fautou Koo ov; d. politically

ATAOTnS. W. Schmid, Philolog. Wochenschr., 46 (1926), 131, 144 (with examples).

R. Hirzel, Themis, Dike und Verwandtes (1907), 113, 3.
3 omioms xapblas, also in 1 Ch. 29:17; Wis.1:1; Test. XII : R. 4:1; S. 4:5; L. 13:1;
Iss. 7:7.
anokadlatnu On Elijah as the Restorer Schurer, II, 592, 610 ff.; Bousset-
Gressm., 232 f.; the best collection of material is in Str. -B., IV, 764-798; B. Murmelstein,
"Adam, ein Beitrag zur Messiaslehre," WZKM, 35 (1928), 242 ff.; 36 (1929), 51 ff., esp.
65 ff.; V. Aptowitzer, Parteipolitik (1927), 96-104, 244 f. A. Merx, Der Messias oder Taéb
der Samaritaner (1909); for the older literature on this, cf. Schurer, II, 608 f. On Taxo,
.cf. Clement in Kautzsch, Pseudepigr., 326. O. Procksch, "Wiederkehr und Wiedergeburt,"
Ihmels-Festschr. (1928), 1-18; J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930). attoko-
taotagic.
 antoxablomu

"to reconstitute a state" : Antiochus Epiphanes, 1 Macc. 15,3: 8TtWg AToKataoThow

authv (the kingdom of the fathers). Cf. Jos. Ant., 13,261 and 408; Vit., 183.

From 2. d., and probably with some influence of 2.c., there developed the
specific Messianic and ethical biblical usage. The term becomes a technical one
for the restoration of Israel to its own land by Yahweh: Jer. 16:15: aTtokataot.
OW aUTOUC ElS thv ynv autov; 23:8; 24:6 (Jos. Ant., 11,2); Hos. 11:11, cf. Jer.
15:19; Ez. 16:55; with dat. and acc. J 15:5; Ax. 4:33. This was increasingly under-
stood in a Messianic and eschatological sense. On the other hand, under prophetic
influence it was more fully perceived that inner restitution is the condition and
crown of the outer. The people must work for this (Am. 5:15). Yet from the
time of Mal. 3:24 (4:5) the returning Elijah seems to have been expected as its
true representative: dokataotñoel (a10) Kapblav natpos rtpos lov ktA. 1
There is a notable parallelism between the Heb. and the Gk. terminology. Both
go back to an ancient oriental doctrine of the dissolving aeons and the saving
restoration of all things to their original condition as created. Offshoots of this
mythical conception of the world may be traced right up to the Fourth Eclogue
of Vergil and the Metamorphoses of Ovid. The OT expression mad 210, not
understood in the LXX, means technically "to execute a turn" or "to bring about
a change of times" (Dt. 30:3; Jer. 31:23; Ps. 14:7 etc.). It no doubt comes from
the hiphil of 310. Usually the LXX renders it atoKaÉIoTaval, which would
suggest _ amokataotadis to the Gk. ear.
From the corresponding Aram. gun the Samaritan Messiah derived his name
Taheb. Although we have only later attestation of it, this expectation of the
Taheb seems to be very old. It is possibly a relic of the Messianology which was
not systematically connected with the house of David and which found an echo
in Jewish expectation of Messiah ben Joseph. For the antiquity of this expectation
of the Taheb we may refer not only to In. 4:25 but also to the legend of the con-
cealment of the sacred vessels of the tabernacle in Gerizim as found in Samaritan
texts and mentioned in Jos. Ant., 18, 85. Later Samaritan texts2 attribute the name
Taheb to the fact that the one who is expected will convert men, or even himself,
as the "one who leads back" or the "penitent." Since, however, there is no in-
stance of a causative significance for part. gal 270, and since the figurative use of
Jin is highly uncertain, the basic meaning is simply he who returns ; the reference
is to one of the princes of the past, usually Joshua. + Kingly and prophetic functions
are ascribed to the Taheb, but he is subordinate to the priesthood. He will subdue
eleven peoples and powerfully protect the true cult of Yahweh, also teaching and
building a synagogue. After 110 years he will die and be buried, leaving his throne
to his descendants. Only later did the doctrine of the resurrection, still denied by

We need not decide at this point whether the second Elijah of later Jewish expectation
fused with the Messiah and the returning original man to produce the World-redeemer,
Prophet, Priest and King. Murmelstein has shown that there are many things pointing in
this direction (op. cit.).
2 Merx (op. cit.), 42, 72, 80, 82.
3 nt 210 is acc. of inner object. Thus 210 is not caus. but intr. The rendering of Taheb
as Restorer on the basis of the erroneous causative interpretation was never fully accepted
(Bousset-Gressm.) and has been exploded by the researches of Merx.
Here, then, we perhaps have the much sought for pre-Christian Saviour Joshua-Jesus.
To contest the historicity of Jesus on this ground would be ridiculous in view of the fact
that the name Jesus was so common in the NT period.
& orallotul attokataatagic

the Samaritans, and a cosmic eschatology come to be linked with this belief in
the Messiah. In the interpretation of the name in terms of conversion we see a
more inward turn of thought which reminds us of the twofold meaning of
antokaflataval in the Bible.
The name Taxo in the Ass Mos., 9, 1 may be traced back to tagwv and
signifies the "one who puts in order.' Since he is of the tribe of Levi he is not
the Messiah but His direct predecessor in the sense of Mal. 3:24, though without
any reference to the prophet Elijah. 5
The original politically Messianic sense of & tokaf ataval may be clearly seen
in the question of the disciples to the risen Jesus in Ac. 1:6: El kal &TOKaOIOToVEIC
Th Bacilelav to 'lopan^. The answer is worth noting, for, though it forbids
inquisitive investigation of the times and seasons, it does not repudiate the ex-
pectation as such, but simply deprives it of political significance and refers it to
the pneumatic sphere. We should also note that in all the other passages in the
NT in which it occurs (though cf. &ntoxataoraaic in Ac. 3:21), the concept
of gnokaflotaval is not applied to the Messiah coming in power but to his
forerunner, to John the preacher of repentance, in whom Jesus recognises the
promised Elijah (Mk. 9:12 and par., cf. 6:15 and par.; 8:28 and par.; 1:2; Mt. 11:10,
14; Jn. 1:21). The Ttavta in Mk. 9:12, which in itself is to be taken as comprehen-
sively as possible in connection with the expectation depicted, is in fact restricted
to the religious and ethical field. 6

+ AToKaTaotaols.
The only passage in which this word appears in the NT is Ac. 3:20 f.: STOC
&v ElOWGIV KaLpOi AVaYLEEW &TTO TE POO TOU tot kupiou kai *Ttootelin tov
TpOKEyE\piouÉvov ouiv Xpiorov 'Ino, Ev be LEV SÉEaolau axpu
XP6VGV ATOKXTXOTOOES TOVTOV DV ENGANOE 6 ledg old otbuatos ToV
dylov oT' alovoc aitot ipoontoov. On rather dubious grounds this statement
has been the basis of the theological use of the word from the time of Origen.

A. arokatootaolc in Secular Usage.

The basic meaning is restitution to an earlier state" or "restoration" (e.g., of a
temple, Ditt. Syl1.3, 695, 13 and 23 ; of way, Ditt. Or., 483, 8> 387). From this

5 For other theories and the objections to them, v. Kautzsch, Pseudepigr., 326, ad loc.
6 Though cf. 4 Esr. 13:26 of the Messiah : ipse est qui per semetipsum liberabit
creaturam suam, et ipse disponet qui derelicti sunt. On the misunderstanding of the Latin
writer in the second half of the sentence, cf. H. Gunkel in Kautzsch, op. cit., 396.
ATOKatdOTaUIS. RGG2, V, 1908 ff.; RE3, I, 616 ff.; XIV, 467 ff., esp. 488; Wdt.,
Zn., Pr. on Ac. 3:20 f.; Zn., Khl., Ltzm. on R. 5:18; 11:32; Joh. W., Bchm., Ltzm. on 1 C.
15:22 f. NT theologies of Holtzmann2 (1911), II, 190, 227 f.; Feine5 (1931), 136, 302, 433;
Weinel4 (1928), 235, 255; Schlatter?, II (1922), 365; Bousset-Gressm., 278, 502 ff.: A. Jere-
mias, Handb. d. altorientalischen Geistskultu2 (1929), 25 ff., 165 ff., 239 ff., 313 ff.; H.
Brandes, Abhdlgen z. Gesch. d. Orients (1874), 123 ff., J. Lepsius, "The Symbolic Language
of the Revelation, Exp. Ser., 8, IlI (1912), 158 ff.; A. Harnack, Dogmengesch.*_(1909),
Index, esp. 681 #f., 693; F. Loofs, Dogmengesch.4 (1906), 201 f.; R. Seeberg, Dogmen-
gesch., 112 (1910), 451 f.; L. Atzberger, Gesch. d. christi. Eschatologie (1896), 409 ff.:
451 ff.: E. R. Redepenning, Origenes, II (1846), 335 f.; 399 f.; 447 ff.; C. Bigg, The Christian
Platonists of Alexandria (1886), 227 ff.; 292 ff.; E. de Faye, Origene, sa Vie, son Oeuvre,
sa Pensée, III (1928), 249 ff., esp. 261 f.; O. Riemann, Die Lehre von der alov.
Apokatastasis
(1889); P. Althaus, Die letzten Dinge¾ (1926), 203 ff. -• anorafio,
 atokataotagic

derive specialised uses: 1. in medicine, Aret., I, 10, 4, p. 13, 13; VII, 5, 16, p. 159, 14,
Hude: ths puaioc is to apyaion aTtokatotaolv (-> 387); 2. in law (the returning of
hostages to their own cities, Polyb., III, 99, 6; or tech. in pap. the restoration of property,
P. Leid. B., 3a, 15; P. Oxy., I, 67, 9 [338 A.D.]; P. Flor., I, 43, 12 [370 A.D.1, etc.
> 387); 3. in politics, the reconstitution of the political order, Polyb., IV, 23, 1; Preisigke
Sammelbuch, 4224, 3 (1st century B.C., >387); also more generally of personal better-
ment, P. Par., 63, VIII, 40 f.: ueto Thv & to tov tpayuatov VUVEL &TOK&T& TaGEIV
(sic).

4. Also significant is the astronomical usage to describe the return of the

constellations to their original position (- anok @lornut, 387). Vett. Val., II, 2,
p. 57, 5, Kroll; Ps.-Plat. Ax., 370b: The shining again of the sun or moon after
obscuration. Esp. AtokataotaoIS is a technical term for the restitution of the
cosmic cycle, whether by the conjunction of Sirius and the sun after every 1461
years as in Egyptian chronology, 1 or by the reattainment of the original relation
between the points of the equinox and the zodiac in consequence of the so-called
procession of the sun, which the Babylonian astronomer Kidinnu had already
worked out fairly accurately in 314 B.C. to involve the period of 25,800 years
fixed by modern astronomy, 2 or finally in connection with the variously calculated
periods of the Phoenix. 3 In Corp. Herm., VIII, 4 the maintenance of the order of
the oipavia oouata is attributed to aTtokataotaoIc. In Corp. Herm., XI, 2 aTTO-
KataotaGIC and aviaTokataoTaoIs are called the EvÉpyela tOU Koouou. A
period of time of this kind was called the great year (Arius Did. Fr., 37 [II, 184,
35, v. Arnim]: rov uÉylorov Eviautov, Plin. Hist. Nat., X,2: cum huius alitis
sc. Phoenicis] vita magni conversionem anni fieri prodit Manilius). The charac-
teristic feature of this view of time, often advanced with political and Messianic
expectations, is the fact that it entails belief in endless recurrence. This is the
Stoic doctrine : yiveolau thu qioKataotaolV tOU TavT© ou aTtae, & Ad
TOAAaKIC' U& AOV SE Eic &TELpOV Kai aTE UINTOV to aito gnoraliota lal.
Everything is restored exactly as it was before (II, 190, 19 f., v. Arnim).' Parsee
belief seems to be the only exception with its hope that after the destruction of
Ahriman there will be a new creation of all things (frashokereti, frashegerd,
"transfiguration"). This stimulated Judaism to the development of its teleological
eschatology (-> dviornu, 368 f.).
5. &nokatotauI, is finally used of the individual soul, though rarely in the
soteriological sense. Among the Neo-Platonists it seems to denote the new entry
of not yet redeemed soul into the cycle of generations. To be sure, Joh. Lyd.,
IV, 149 says of Iamblichus : Ev To Tpto TiS TEpi Ka®o8ou wyns "pay atEias
kai ric amokataotaoenc autov ueuvntal. Here aiokataotaols is reached by
way of kalapuos. Yet the reference is not too precise. Iamblichus says (Myst.,
I, 10): tl beital aurn (h puxn) ths gy th joovn yEVÉOE (conception) h the
EV airn Els oUal AToKaTaOTIGE freturn to earthly life) ortepouns otoa kai
Th dyevntov gonv Sial@oa. To the same effect is Procl. Inst. Theol., 199:

For examples and notes, U. H. Brandes, Abhdlgen zur Gesch. d. Orients (1874), 123 ff.
Bousset-Gressm., 502 ff.
RGG?, IV, 1236 f.
The expression "great year" occurs also in Poseidonius-Cicero. For more detailed
account of the Stoic doctrine of ekpyrosis, cf. F. Schubert, Die Eschatologie des Posidonins
(1927), esp. $7 f.
& toKataotaGIC

maaa yuyh tyKbouioc reploboic xpital the oisi tons rai atona-
GEO, if here too we are to think of reincarnations. Redemption in the Neo-
Platonic sense is not so much the restoration of the soul as its release from matter.
Yet the SigAUTIc of the material body is called in Corp. Herm., VIII, 4 the aTtO-
Kata TaOIS of earthly beings and set in parallelism with the &mokataotaoIC of
the heavenly bodies. Clement of Alexandria knows this soteriological sense
(Strom., VI, 9, 75,2): yvwotikn &yann, bt nv kai i kAnpovouia kai f TIAVTE•
Ans EnEtal ATtOKaTaOTaOIC.

B. CTOKato TaOIC in Judaism.

The LXX does not use the word. It is rare in Judaism generally, and its technical
meaning is weakly developed. In Ep. Ar., 123 the most that can be said is that certain
religious yearnings intermingle with the reference to the return of Jewish emissaries to
Jerusalem. When Josephus speaks of the anokataataaic tov 'loudaiov he means
the return from exile (Ant., 11, 63). Philo first thinks of the redemption from Egypt,
but links with it a mystical reference to the atokataotadic puxis (Rer. Div. Her.,
293). These meagre results may to some extent be accidental. The technical meaning
of the verb is much more strongly attested (-> antokaéiornu, 387); and in any case
the concept of Messianic restitution is current in Judaism. It is debatable whether the
cosmological speculations of the world around exercised an influence on the expecta-
tion and the linguistic usage. 5 Mention should be made of the fact that the beginning
of a new "great year" was imminent at the time of the Barcochba revolt. There is no
record, however, that this helped to heighten the Messianic expectations of the Jews."

C. antokataotaals in the NT.

Ac. 3:20 f. should be translated as follows : "That times of refreshing may come
from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah Jesus ordained for you, whom
heaven must receive until the time of the restitution of all that of which (or, the
establishment of all that which) God has previously spoken through his holy
prophets."
Grammatically ov cannot be related to xpovov but only to TavtoV. This means
further that novt∞v can only be neut. and not masc. This also means that aTto-
katactaGIc cannot denote the conversion of persons but only the reconstitution or
establishment of things. For the concept of restoration, which is sO strong in the term,
does not strictly refer to the content of the prophetic promise, but to the relations of
which it speaks. These are restored, i.e., brought back to the integrity of creation,
while the promise itself is established or fulfilled. The difficulty arises from, but is also
solved in, the fact that the two thoughts set out in the translation are linked in pregnant
brevity. Kalpoi avav fews and Xpovov ATOK Ta TOGES stand in correspondence
and mutually explain one another, but are not tautological. ka\poi marks the beginning
of the transformation, whereas xpovov conveys the thought of the lasting nature of
the renewed world. ovawleews denotes the subjective, ATOKaTXoToOEW the ob-
jective side of the matter. The technical meaning of ATtOKataotaoIC ToVtGV is limited
by the dependent clause, yet also speaks through it. 8

5 Maintained by J. Lepsius, op. cit., 158 ff., and with reservations by Bousset-Gressm.,
502 ff.
6 Traditionally dated 139 A.D. Brandes (op. cit., 130) favours a year rather nearer the
revolt, namely, 136 A.D.
On the causes of the Jewish revolt under Hadrian (132-135), cf. Schurer, I, 671 ff.
8 Cf. the comm. listed, and esp. Wdt. Ag.
 ATtoKaTagTaOIG

Fundamentally we thus have the concept of the new Messianic creation which
was current in Judaism. On the very different question whether the NT teaches
a final restoration of all fallen sinners, and even of Satan, to the harmony of all
created things in God, no light is shed by this particular text. In general such an
idea is just as remote from the NT world of thought as the Jewish. Indeed, the
latter thinks that the blessedness of the just is heightened by seeing the torture of
the rejected (Ass. Mos., 10, 10; 4Esr. 7:93, though cf. S. Bar. 52:6). Punishment
is often declared to be unalterable (S. Bar. 85:12 ff.; also alovos Da. 12:2; Mt.
18:8; 25:41, 46; 2 Th. 1:9 and cf. Is. 66:24). The thought of destruction or the
second death does not point in the opposite but in a similar direction (Eth. En., 97;
Ps. Sol. 3:11; Rev. 20:14 > antoiAvut, &ToAela). Paul sometimes emphasises SO
strongly the comprehensive saving work of the second Adam as to give rise to the
appearance of a final restoration of all (R. 5:18 : elg navtas avipinouc Eic
Sikalwow (wns, 11:32; 1 C.15:22 : Ev TO XPI0T6 TOVTES gooroinenoovtal, cf.
Eph. 1:10; Col. 1:20). Yet in truth the reference is only to a final hope, or perhaps
only to a final tendency of the divine work of salvation. It is Paul who also
emphasises most strongly the election of grace (R. 8:29; 9:11, 17; Eph. 1:4, 11 etc.).
He knows that judgment will have a twofold outcome (R. 2:7 ff.; 2 C. 5:10), and
expects the actualisation of the 6 Oeoc Tavta Év aol by means of the powerful
overthrow of all opposition (1 C. 15:25 ff.). Thus there remains a strong tension
throughout the NT, and, even if there is an underlying universalism, for reasons
of admonition the main emphasis falls on the fact that few will be saved (Mt.
22:14; 7:13 f.; Lk. 13:23 ff.; C. 9:24 ff.). 9

This thought is stated rather more speculatively in 4 Esr. (8:3 : "Many are created
but few saved" ; 8:41). In Parseeism the original dualism seems to have been partially
replaced by an optimistic doctrine of apocatastasis which can find a place for the
salvation of the evil serpent Azi Dahaka. 10

D. Apocatastasis in the History of the Church.

From the time of Origen the term has been understood theologically to refer to
the restoration of all created beings. In spite of several premises pointing in this
direction, Marcion and Irenaeus do not draw such a conclusion, and at most
Clement of Alexandria only hints at it. But it became a favourite teaching of the
great successor of Clement. His ontological idealism equated the beginning and
the end, and he could not, therefore, accept any end which does not lie wholly in
God. An end of the world process is conceivable only if it means that all hostile
voluntas is taken from that which is against God, even death and Satan, and
that the substance which derives from God returns to Him. There are infinite
possibilities of development both good and bad. Like aberration from God,
theopanism is finally a fluid state. The author was not unaware that the philosophi
shared this view, but he believed that their knowledge finally derived from
the divine Scriptures (Princ., III, 6, 1). Exegetically he relied mainly on 1 C.
15:25 ff. (6 Oeoc ToVT& EV THROlV, Princ., III, 6, 1; 6, 2; 6,6; 6,8; in Joh., I,
16, 91); and also on In. 17:11 (tva Bow Ev Kaods nueis, Princ., II, 3, 5). He

Cf. apart from the works mentioned, A. Oepke, Allg. ev.-luth. Kirch.-Zeitg. 60 (1927),
485, 499.
10 Bousset-Gressm., 512.
& tokataataoic - arrokapaookia

took the term from Ac. 3:21, being influenced mainly by the current medical
and political senses rather than the astronomical (Hom. in Jer., XIV, cf. also
Princ., II, 3, 5 : . . . in restitutione omnium, cum ad per[ectum finem universa per-
venient omnium consummatio ...). There is a good summary in the not very
literal citation of Leontius of Byzantium from Princ., II, 10, 8, p. 182, 16 ff.,
Koetschau : ylvEtal VEKPov AVASTaOIS, kai ylvetai K6laaIg, X1^' oik aTtéparv-
tos. Kola(ouayou yap toi aduatoc kata ulkpov kalaipea n puxh, kal
ottoc dtokablotatal Elc thy apxalav toelv TAVTGV GOEBiN OVOpTOV
Kai Ttpos YE Sauuovov i KonaaIs TEpaC Eyel. kal dtokataotalñoovtal dOE-
BEiG TE Kai baluoves els thy rpotepav autov taglv. Longer expositions in
spite of the rule that it is dangerous to write such things, since most people do not
need them and can be kept from evil only by fear of hell (c. Cels., VI, 26) may
be found in Princ., I, 6, 1-4; III, 6, 1-9; c. Cels., VIII, 72; cf. also Princ., II, 3, 1-5).
Though rejected by official theology, esp. Western and particularly in respect of
this doctrine, Origen has found disciples in many great Eastern theologians and
even in such Westerners as Scotus Erigena, Hans Denck, J.A. Bengel, F. C.
Oetinger, J. M. and P. M. Hahn, F.D. Schleiermacher and more recent Univer-
salists, though not J. Bohme.
Oepke

antonalunto, AroKaAIs > kandtto

+ antoxapabokia

This word is made up of xapa "head" and &Ékoual (Ion.) - 6Éxouai (Att.) "to
take" (perhaps origin. "to stretch," cf. 80KEUw/80Ea( "to spy on, "to give heed
to, and thus kapa66k0g (not attested) "stretching the head forward," whence -kfo,
-xia (Debrunner). There are no instances of the term except in Christian literature.
The rare verb a tokapaOoKÉw, hardly ever found prior to 200 B.C., means "to await"
(either calmly or tensely). The simp. is class. It is not found in the LXX but cf.
y 36:7 'A : "to wait humbly.'

Linked with gATic in Phil. 1:20, the word 1 expresses confident expectation ;
the ExTic denotes well-founded hope and the attokapaookla unreserved waiting.
The same is true in R. 8, where the former word is used of Christians in v. 24 f.
and the latter of the rest of creation in v. 19. It may be that Paul is here conscious
of the anxious waiting of creation under the stress of the inner and reciprocal
conflict of creatures and elements. Or it may be that he is simply drawing
theological conclusion from the dominion of anti-godly power over this aeon in
consequence of the fall. 2
Delling

a
2 Cf.oka
Zn.aborla. 1 The simp. is poorly attested, cf. Comm. ad loc.
R. on 8:20.
 ar6 Avut

anoxata &oo0 - 258 f. aTtoKataotaGIc - 389 ff.

AT KELUAL > KEiual anokonto - KoTtO
drroKpuua, droxpiva, aroxpiois - xpl doxpintw, atoxpuyoc -* KpOTTo

dro^ ut, ddlela,

"ATtoAowy

Aro^Aul.
In exact correspondence with the Lat. perdere the word has two trans. meanings.
There is also an intrans. mid., and note must be taken of the figurative NT use
and its roots in the literal.

A. The Literal Use.

a. "To destroy or kill"': in battle, Hom. II., 5, 758 : &TO EGE Aaov 'Axalov; in
prison, P. Petr., III, 36a (verso) 28 : Lun LE aTtoréon tot Aquot; by .torture, Macc.
8:9 81& TOv Bacavav arrolÉoai; Mt. 2:13; 27:20; Mk. 3:6 and par.; 11:18 and par.;
9:22; Lk. 6:9; infrequ. with impersonal obj.: groAd Thy copiav tov o0pov, Is. 29:14 F
1 C. 1:19. b. "To lose or suffer loss from" P. Oxy., IV, 743, 23 (2nd cent. B.C.): Éyo
SAW SaToVOUuaI EI "ELEVOS ya\KOuc aT6EOEV (agitation about a lost penny ) ;
Lk. 15:4, 8; Mk. 9:41 and par.: 00 un aTroAÉon TOv uto0ov (freely quoted in P. Gen.,
51, 11 [4th cent. A.D.]). C. Mid. with strong aor. mid. and strong perf. act. serves as
intr. of a. and b. and hence "to perish" : P. Petr., II, 4 (1), 4 (3rd cent. A.D.): vuvi 8É
gro^ oue0a (stonebreakers complaining about their heavy work); inscript. on a
Thracian sarcophagus :1 &v tic SE taurny avien, 8n TavolAn anoloito; Mk.
4:38 and par.; Lk. 11:51; 13:3, 5,33; 15:17; Mt. 26:52; 1 C. 10:9 f. etc.; of things, In.
6:12, 27. d. "To be lost,' P. Masp., 166, 18 (6th cent. A.D.): SiX To AnoAwAéval tO
TvaKiov (because the record is lost). Lk. 15:4, 6, 24, 32 of the lost sheep and the lost
son (opp. E{pEOñvai). Passages like Mt. 5:29 f.; Mk. 2:22 and par.; Lk. 21:18; Ac. 27:34
show that these two meanings cannot be sharply distinguished but merge into one
another

B. The Figurative Use.

It is impossible to trace back the figurative use to any one of the meanings
listed. In general we may say that b. and d. underlie statements relating to this
world as in the Synoptists, whereas a. and c. underlie those relating to the next
world, as in Paul and John. Yet there are exceptions, the more so as modifications
are demanded by the Heb. background.
1. In the first case the soul of man is an object of value in which both man
himself and God and His commissioned representative are interested. Underlying
the saying of the Lord in Mk. 8:35 and par.; Mt. 10:39, is the familiar Jewish
expression 10) 73%, which has the sense of "to trifle away one's life.'
In 72x there is always an active element which may be lacking in "to lose" and which
is not always present in the Gk. dto^Aovat, namely, the thought that the loss is

1 Jahreshe{te des Oesterr. Arch. Inst. in Wien, 23 (1926), Beiblatt, 136.

ano Avut

attributable to the will or fault of the one who suffers it. Cf. S. Nu. § 131, which refers
to the execution of a disloyal centurion and a priest's daughter who became a harlot.
Both spoiled their lives through their own acts (ps, cf. Mt. 16:26: puxnv), bringing
themselves (inyy, cf. Lk. 9:25 : Éautov) to destruction.

This is what gives the Lord's saying its pregnant significance. He who seeks
to save his life, i.e., to secure his existence (lÉAn owoat, Mk. 8:35 = inton
TEpITtoIñoaola, Lk. 17:33 = sopoov, Mt. 10:39 oilov, Jn. 12:25), like the rich
fool in Lk. 12:16 ff. or the denier in the storm of persecution, brings about his own
destruction thereby (ATO ÉDEL _ T3x), whereas he who gives his life (72X), not
seeking any such security (in the sense of Mt. 8:19 ff. and Mt. 16:24), will
thereby safeguard it in a deeper sense (ooEI, Mk. 8:35; Lk. 9:24 gooyovoet,
Lk. 17:33 EopñoEI, Mt. 10:39; 16:25 = QUAGEEI, Jn. 12:25).2 The profundity
in comparison with ordinary speech lies in the ambivalent concept "life," with
whose help the irreplaceability which is felt to be elemental for earthly existence
is referred to eternal existence (Mk. 8:36 and par.; gnuw0ñvau is not fully synon.
with &TO ÉOEL but emphasises its fateful consequences). The exposition of the
saying in terms of a humanistic cult of personality contains an element of truth
but is an undoubted softening.
The three parables in Lk. 15 are told from God's standpoint. The image of the
sheep which is lost, far from the pasture and without a shepherd, is found already
in the OT: y 118:176 : Éravh0nv boei mtp6 Batov grolwloc (72ix a9), YAmoov
Tov 80016v oou; Ez. 34:4 (against the shepherds): to droloc ook egnthoate.
The basic word (72x, "to wander around," "to perish") and the synon. (To holevn-
KOC, KAKOC EXoV, OUVTETPILÉVoV, tavouevov) show how close is the thought
of destruction here too. This is important for the NT passages. Mt. 10:6; 15:24 :
to "poBata to anolwlota olkou 'lopanA, forms the transition to the simple
TO antolwAoc of Lk. 19:10 (Mt. 18:11?), cf. Ez. 34:16: to anto wAoc gnoo.
As Jesus must seek what is lost, on the other hand He may not lose any of those
whom the Father has given Him (Jn. 6:39, a Hebraism : Tav 6 8:8OKÉy HOl Hun
ATONE D EE aitoo; 18:9).
2. In addition there is a specifically NT usage which cannot be explained in the
light of what has been said but which derives from sense a. or c. C.8:11: &T6A-
Autal o doOEVOV ev Tn on yvioel; R. 2:12 : dvouoc atoloivrau (synon. KOl-
Onoovrau); 1 C. 1:18; 2 C. 2:15; 4:3; 2 Th. 2:10 : oi anoxAouevol (anton. of oo(6-
LEVOL); 1 C. 15:18 : of Kolpn0ÉVTES Ev Xpioti aolovto; Jn. 3:16 : Iva Tac o
TLOTEUGV Elc autov un anointal dAd' Exn Lonv alonov; Jn. 10:28 : 8l80ut
autoic gonv aio viov, kai o0 un anoAovtal eis Tov aliva; cf. 17:12; 2 Pt. 3:9:
Han Boulouev6e TiVac aTtolEaBal AAAd TXVTAS EIS LETdO XOñ Luther
here used the familiar and meaningful "be lost," $ but the synon. and anton. make
it probable that what is really meant is "perish." This is suggested further by the
active use in sense a. as this is found in other NT writings. The subject may be
a human or demonic destroyer of souls (R.14:15, or the allegory in Jn. 10:10:

2 Cf. > supra acc. to K. G. Kuhn, Sifre Numeri, § 131, n. 18. Cf. also Str.-B., I, 587 f.;
A. Schlatter, Sprache und Heimat des vierten Evangelisten (1902), 118 f.; Schl. Mt., 351.
Cf. also Weizsacker, ad loc.
4 The active element in T5k mentioned above (-+ 394) should be noted in this connection ;
the transl. in some cases might well be "to bring oneself to eternal destruction."
 AT6 Avut - antonela

(va luan kai ao eon), or someone commissioned by God (Mk. 1:24: TABES
goreoal nuac, and the textually uncertain Lk. 9:56, anton. oboai), or finally
God Himself, who in such a case does not play the passive role of One who loses
something, but exercises the supremely active function of Judge (= 72%), 1 C.
1:19: anod thy coplav tov cop@v; Jd. 5: TOUC un TOTEUgavtaC ATTOAEOEV,
anton. oo(w; and more specifically of eternal destruction, Mt. 10:28: anto foal
Ev yEÉvvn; Jm. 4:12: 6 Suvauevos odoat kai anoléoau; and in the parables in
Mt. 22:7 and Mk. 12:9 and par.). This usage has some links with the OT, the act.
(e.g., 'lep. 29[47]:4, (32:10 etc. being also relevant), but also the intrans. (Ps.
9:6,7; w36:20 : ot quaprolol aTolouvtat; 67:3; 72:27 etc.; Is. 41:11; 60:12).
Yet in the OT the concept is in the first instance an immanent one to the degree
that an earthly destruction is in view. It becomes increasingly transcendent as the
concepts > gons, > davatoc (-* also np), anGEla and - 'ABa8oov take
concrete form. The antithesis between life and death becomes a hostile one,
and in this form it has a central place in NT religion, esp. in Paul and John. In
contrast to offe lal or to gwh alonios, atoAuolaL is definitive destruction,
not merely in the sense of the extinction of physical existence, but rather of an
eternal plunge into Hades and a hopeless destiny of death in the depiction of
which such terms as opyh, Ovuos, eAtis and otevoy∞pla are used (R. 2:8 f.).
This is pre-dated in Jd.11.
The word is not found in this sense in the apocr. and pseudepigr. Nor are there real
equivalents in the Rabbis. 5 Yet the idea is present. & Even in Epict. we find the anti-
thesis &ro^Aoval (ano^Avo0aL)/0 (ELV, as also the combination &TOAGAEY f tuxn,
though in a purely immanent sense. Cf. also Ceb. Tab., 6, 2.

$ aNG Ela.
Rare in secular Gk., a. from the act. (-> aro^Avut, sense a.) "destruction," "ruin,"
BGU, 1058, 35 "wearing out, also by misuse (= "squandering"), Polyb., VI, 11a : of
uev kinoquevol ipos thy thpnow, of 8' Étolua Tapa aBoUTEC TpOc Th aTd
AELAV EUQUEIC ElaIv; Mk. 14:4 and par. Elc ti f droleia autn (tou uopou yé-
yOvEV); b. from the intr. ( ano Avut, sense c.) "'perishing," "destruction," Aristot.
Eth. Nic., IV, 1, p. 1120a, 2 f.: SoKEi &' ATAEl& TIC AUTOU Elval kal n ts ovalac
plopa, oc TOU (nv Sid TOUTOV ovtos; c. (from ano Avut, sense b./d.), "loss,' Ditt.
Or., 229, 4 (246-226 B.C.); P. Lond., 1404, 5 (8th century A.D.): dioleia Ts wuxis
kal UTooT&gEGG; also in Plutarch and Epict.
Common in the LXX in sense b. The concepts Odvatos, aons, anwhela etc. are
all used together for it, being often personified as man's worst enemy. Job 26:6 : aons
(Pixt) and aT eIa (rim2X) : 28:22 : n antoeia kai 6 Bavatoc (n)p) 71-2N) ; cf. 31:12;
4 87:12: raooc (722) and ATGAEIA (7172N) cf. w 15:10; Prv. 15:11: aons kai did
Asia; 1 C. 15:55; Rev. 20:14 'ABa8dov; bShab., 89a: 0121 mu2x : Qoh.r. 5:9 : the
soul of Titus escaped p?iy 78772 717282. Similarly Lidz. Liturg., 67, 10. Preis. Zaub., IV,
1247 f.: japa8[8wul FE (the demon) Elc to uÉav xaos ev tais ATWAElaIC, betrays
Jewish Christian influence.

It is striking that there are so few parallels in Str.-B. to the NT passages quoted.
8 Schl. J., 98 on Jn. 3:16.
A. Bonhoffer, "Epiktet und das Neue Testament," RVV, 10 (1911), 173 f.
&TOAELA. Nageli, 35.
aT& EIa - 'ATtoAOGv

The strictly NT use links up with that of the OT. Thus Elval Elc anoleiav in
the curse of Ac. 8:20 has almost an OT ring. The term is used for eternal destruc-
tion in the Synoptics : Mt. 7:13: i 680g Elc aT elav (anton. gon), and esp.
in Paul and John: R. 9:22 : OKEUN Elg XTOAElav (anton. 86ga); Phil. 1:28
EVoELEIC aTtAElas; 3:19: DV TO TEAOC ATONEIa; 1 Tm. 6:9: Elc 8AE0pov kal
xTt&AElarv; Hb. 10:39; one who has fallen victim to destruction is called in Semitic
fashion 6 vios this attoelas, as Judas in Jn. 17:12, Antichrist in 2 Th. 2:3. ato-
hela is a favourite word in 2 Peter (2:1, 3: aipÉoEIs aTtWAElas taXIvhy aTto-
LElaV, n aT EIa ou WoTa(EL; 3:7: nuÉpa xplosoc kal atolelac; 3:16).
Rev. 17:8,11: glc dolelav Ont&yElV. What is meant here is not a simple ex-
tinction of existence (- dmo^Avpl, 396), but an everlasting state of torment and
death.

t 'AnoX0wy (-*'ABa88ov).
Rev. 9:11: (the demonic locust-scorpions from the abyss) Exouotv en' autov
Baci ex tov ayyeAov tic apoooou, Evoua aitd 'Eppatori 'ABaobdv, Kai
Ev th 'ElAnvikn Svoua EXEl 'ArtolAuwv. 'ATtoAOov is a transl. and personifica-
tion of 11728 (- 'ABadoov, 4:11) "destruction," for which the LXX uses > anto-
Aela. It means the Exterminator or Destroyer, and from the time of Grotius has
usually been taken as a play on Apollo, which is the actual reading in syph,
The name of the god of pestilence is often linked with aro vut or aToA Ud:
Aesch. Ag., 1081: 'ATt6^Aov aT6 Awv tu6s, aTtAEoas yap ou u6Ais TO 8E0-
TEpOV ; Archiloch Fr., 30 (Diehl, I, 219); Eur. Phaeth. in v. Arnim's Suppl. Eur. (KI. T.
112), p. 75, 12; Menand. Peric., 440, Jensen. That this was usual is shown by Plat. Crat.,
404e, 405e, though there are other derivations. Cf. also Firm. Mat. Err. Prof. Rel., 17, 3 :
Solem etiam quidam Apollinem dicunt, quia cottidie in occasu constitutus splendorem
luminis perdat : perdere autem Graeci apollin dicunt. From the time of the victory of
Octavian at Actium under the temple of Apollo which was later enlarged by him,
Apollo was especially regarded as the god of the empire. 2 The locust is his creature. 3
If the Apoc. is directed against the empire, there is thus a whole range of connections.
Oepke

antolovo - louw Arodi™pwais -; A0G

cookiaoua * OKLa a tootacla - dolomut

'AToAAUGV. Comm. on Rev.: Bss., 301; Charles, I, 245 ff.; Zn., 400; Loh., 77 ff.;
Had., 107; Rohr, 102; Str.-B., III, 810. W. Schmic Philol. Wochenschr., 47 (1927), Sp. 230;
F. Boll, Aus d. Off. Joh. (1914), 68 ff., 71 f. : "The second half of the zodiac from Libra,
i.e., the shears of the scorpion, is the Hades half of heaven according to a doctrine which
Macrobius (Saturn., I, 21, 1) ascribes to the Assyrians and Phoenicians.'
According to Charles and Lohmeyer there are linguistic and metrical grounds for re-
garding the second half of the verse as gloss.
Hence the swan on the Ara pacis of Augustus (Rome, Thermes museum), cf. J. Durm,
Baukunst der Romer (1905), 738; E. Petersen, Ara pacis Augustae (1902), 28; H. Lucken-
bach, Kunst und Geschichte, grosse Ausgabe, I (1913), 110
3 L. Preller, Griech. Mythol.4, I (1894), 292 : "Feldmaus, Heuschrecke, Zikade" (no
examples given). O. Gruppe, Griech. Mythol. u. Rel. Geschichte (1906), II, 1229, n. tells
us that Apollo protects the crops against locusts. This can also imply that he is one of
those who sends them. Perhaps connected with Apollo is the locust on the coin of Sinope,
F. Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiat. Minzen (1901), 7. Against the totemistic interpretation of the
locust and mouse god by A. Lang, Myth, Ritual and Rel., II (1887), 201, cf. Class. Rev., 6
(1892), 413.
 attootello

&TOOTÉXAG (TEuTO),
fEatootellw, arborolos,
vEuBatborolos, anooroln

ATTOOTENAW (TEUTTO).

A. aTtootElAd and neunto in Secular Greek.

1. &TOOTÉAAELV in its basic meaning "to send forth," together with the simp. OTÉA-
AELV and along with TÉUTELV, is well attested both in the literature and the common
speech of the classical period as well as Hellenism, and it is often used of the sending
of persons as well as® things. 1 As a compound of OTÉAAEIV, it has an additional em-
phasis as compared with it. This emerges esp. when it is used figuratively 2 or almost
technically. 3 Thus it is more sharply accentuated in relation to the consciousness of a
goal or to effort towards its attainment. There is also a significant difference from
TEUTTELV. In the latter the point is the sending as such, i.e., the fact of sending, as in
the transmission of an object or commission or the sending of a man. &TOOTÉ AELV,
however, expresses the fact that the sending takes place from a specific and unique
standpoint which does not merely link the sender and recipient but also, in virtue of the
situation, unites with the sender either the person or the object sent. To this extent it
is only logical that ATOOTÉ AEIV should also carry with it the significance that the
sending implies a commission bound up with the person of the one sent. This emerges
more clearly in Hellenistic Gk. The expression: of ATTEOTOAUÉVOL UTTO Tou BaGAÉOs
(3rd. century B.C.), in Dikaiomata ed. Graec. Hal., 1, 124; cf. 147 and 154, gives us
already an interesting example of this development, the more so as the construction is
purely verbal. 4 To be sure, the rulers of provinces sent from Rome are sometimes
referred to as of TEUTTOUEVOI (Ael. Arist. Or., 24 [14], 37 [II, p. 102, 12, Keil]); but
the context is sufficient to show that what is in view is less the goal of their coming,
i.e., the assumption of the office for which they are commissioned, than the fact of their
coming from Rome as an impressive concretion of the empire. In relation to the distinc-
tion between TEUTIO and &TOOTÉ Ad the different meanings of Tourh are also in-
structive, as is the fact that this word is never used in the NT and only once in the
LXX in a very doubtful passage (w 43:14) which is attested only by Chrysostom
(Field, Hexapla, ad loc.) and has no MS support. In general the word rouTh is only
externally related to the basic term TEUTO, and in content it is closer to * 0Éatpov,
C. 4:9. Compounds in the LXX are anonouh, Lv. 16:10; tapatouTn, 1 Macc. 9:37;
it porouTh, 1 Eoop. 8:51.

&TOOTEAAO. Cr.-Ko., 1018 f.; G. Heine, Synonymik des Nt.lichen Griechisch (1898),
180.
1 Numerous examples may be found in Pass. S.v.
2 Cf., e.g., Thuc., III, 89, 5 : altiov 8' yoye voulgo tou toloutou, f layupotatos
8 OEIOUOC EYEVETO, KAT& TOUTO &TOOTEAAEIV TE Thy 0aAaaaav Kai tEarlvns ty
ÉrikAualv TOLEiv.
Cf. e.g., Wilcken Ptol., 15, 24 (2nd cent. B.C.), where the meaning is "seconded." For
other instances of this sense, cf. Dikaiomata ed. Graec. Hal., p. 86.
4 The formula persisted, and thus shows itself to be different in content from - gyyeAoc.
Thus in Jos. Bell., 4, 32 Titus is an ATTEOTAAUÉVOS of his father, i.e., according to the
context, one who is on the way with commission' and in Cl. 65, the messengers
from Rome to the Corinthian church are called ol ATEOTOUÉvOI do' nuov (+ aTtooTO-
Aoc, 443 f.). But v. also Lk. 19:32.
a tooTE/Ao

2. Already the formula &tE Ta\uÉVOI OTO tOU BaoLAEGS links with the
thought of sending the further thought of the associated authorisation of the one
sent. The men thus described are representatives of their monarch and his author-
ity. 5 Yet the use of &TOOTE AElV in this sense is not in any way restricted to the
legal sphere. On the contrary, it takes on its full sense when used, if we may put
it thus, to express the impartation of full religious and ethical power. This takes
place in the diatribe of the Cynics and Stoics, & though in this réspect it is simply
following a common usage of philosophical religion. " The Cynic knows himself
to be an &yye^og kai KaTaOKOTOC Kai kipue tov OEv (Epict. Diss., III, 22, 69),
not because he is ordained such by himself or his pupils, but because he is certain
that he is one who is divinely sent, an ATOOTaLEIs, like Diogenes (I, 24, 6).
Epictetus can lay it down as a rule (III, 22, 23 : Tov rais alneelaic KuviKov
EIÉVAL BEI, OTI &YYEOS ATTO ToU Atoc aneotaltal...) that the ultimate pre-
supposition for genuine Cynicism is awareness of being divinely sent. In all these
cases 8 &TTOOTENELV is a technical term for divine authorisation, whereas TE UTTELV
is used when it is a matter of the charging of the Cynic with a specific task on
human initiative (I, 24, 3 : Kai viv queic YE Eic Th "Pounv kataoKoTOV TEu-
TOuEV. 008iC 8É bEtov KaTagKOTOV TEUTEL ibid., I, 24, 5).10 Even lin-
guistically, however, it is another matter, and goes beyond the awareness of
mission expressed by &TOOTé^ EOBaL, when Epictetus alleges as the only author-
ity, even in face of the emperor and his representative, the KataTETouoos aitov
kai 6 AaTPEUEL, & ZEUC (III, 22, 56, cf. 59). This brings us close to a view which
represents the divinity of the true philosopher and which is first emphatically
proclaimed by the Cynics (@ioc &vepantos) in adoption of a thought of Anti-
sthenes. We need not pursue this in the present context, but we must mention
it because, in spite of the use of KAT&TÉUTELV, it is better explained and under-
stood in terms of XTTOGTÉ^EIV than TÉUTELV. The use of ATTOOTE EIV for en-
trusting with a religious commission is not confined, of course, to Epictetus. Thus
Irenaeus summed up as follows the claim of Menander, the disciple of Simon
Magus : Éaurov uev os apa Ein 6 owthp Eri th TOv avOpOToV &VOOEV TTOOEV
gE, coparav alonov ateotaluevoc owmpla (1,23,5; cf. Eus. Hist. Eccl., III,
26, 1), and he can hardly have used the term unless it was suggested by the matter
itself. Again, Philo knows and uses it in the same sense, as in Migr. Abr., 22. Here
it is said of Joseph : to pavai un Tpo© Avé pOToN ATEOTXABAL, UTtO 8É Tou 0:00
KEyelpotonñolai mpoc thy tou oouatos Kal TOV EKTOC Ewouov Énlotaolav.
We thus have a religious use of the word in three men in widely varying circles
of life and even in very different locations. We can hardly overestimate the

5 Cf. Preisigke Fachworter, 29;

8 For material on this point, cf. E. Norden, "Beitrage z. Gesch. der griech. Philosophie,"
Jbch. f. Phil. Suppl., 19 (1893), 377 ff.; Holl, "Die schriftstellerische Form des griech.
Heiligenlebens," N. Jbch. KI. Alt., 29 (1912), 418 f.; K. Deissner, "Das Sendungsbewusst-
sein der Urchristenheit, ZSTh, (1929/30), 783.
-> 76, n. 10.
8 v., e.g., III, 23, 46; IV, 8, 31 (1800 #yo duiv rapadelyua ind tol 0eoi dneotal-
pott, words of the Cynic to his hearers).
P It is to be noted that on an inscr. discovered in Kefr Hauar (Syria) a slave praying
for the protection of the Syrian goddess described himself as TEU OEIS by his mistress
(BCH, 21 [1897], 60). Can we conclude that this is only a matter of commercial authorisa-
tion and not also of religious
10 Note that in. I, 24, 6 gnoaTaAElc is stated quite absolutely of Diogenes.
11 Norden, 380.
 attootÉnAo

significance of this fact for the linguistic expression of the early Christian aware-
ness of mission (- dooroloc). Naturally, the original meaning of &TO TENELY
did not come to be restricted to the exclusive significance of the divine sending
and authorisation of a man. Nevertheless, this constitutes the climax of the history
of the term, even though alongside it the original secular use continued well into
Christian times, as attested amongst other things by many non-literary sources. 12

B. XTOoTÉ Aw and TE TO in the LXX (OT) and Judaism.

1. In the LXX &ToTE EW occurs more than 700 times, in many cases with the
variant ÉEaTootÉ^AelV. With few exceptions it is a rendering of the root nbw, usually
in its verbal forms. Similarly nbw is predominantly 13 translated &TOOTÉNELV or 1&.
@TOOTEAAEIV. In contrast, the simp. STEAAEIV and TEUTELV are almost completely
absent. Indeed, oTÉ El does not occur at all, but only aTEAE0at, which we shall
ignore in this context. TEUTELV is found about 26 times, 14 but only in 6 cases does it
render a Heb. original ; 15 the other instances are in texts which exist only in Gk. The
compounds of TÉUTElV are SO infrequent 16 that they do not affect the picture. In the
LXX &TOFTENAELV is the Gk. term for the OT n5w. There is no need to expound the
meaning of now, since our present concern is with the Gk. equivalent. In brief, however,
we may say that &itOoTEAAELV in the LXX corresponds to the original to the extent
that it is predominantly used where it is a matter of commissioning with a message or
task. 792 and nt are conjoined in numerous instances, irrespective of whether the
task committed to the messenger is human 17 or divine. 18

Moreover &TO TE EInSD alone is a technical term for the sending of a

messenger with a special task ; the messenger himself does not have to be named. 19
In other words, the emphasis rests on the fact of sending in conjunction with the
one who sends, not on the one who is sent. This aspect reaches its climax in the
description of the call of Isaiah. Here (6:8) God can ask : aa2 a22 7724 12R M-08.
meaning that He needs someone whom he may send as His plenipotentiary, even
though this does not have to be stated and is not actually expressed in Isaiah's
brief declaration of readiness ("112t 7237). At this point we can see most clearly
what is the characteristic feature of nbm in all its meanings, namely, the volitional
and conscious element in a planned action of any kind. Thus nbw is less a statement

12 So Preisigke Wort., I, 194.

13 Exceptions are those cases in which the equation of nbw and &TO TENAELY would be
contrary to the sense, e.g., in the formula 72 n20 "to stretch forth the hand," where n?w
is usually rendered EKTEIVELV (Gn. 3:22 etc.) or ÉrtuPaNAEIV (Gn. 22:12 etc.) according to
the detailed sense. > n. 16.
14 As counted by Hatch-Redp., and once in Symmachus at Jer. 16:16.
15 Gn. 27:42; Bac. 20:20; Ezr. 4:14; 5:17; Neh. 2:5 for nw; Est. 8:5 for ane, since here
the reference is to written communication.
16 Of compounds XTOTELTELV occurs once, SIXTEUTTELV 6 times (Prv. 16:28 = no,
ELOTÉUTELV once, ExTEUTELY 9 times (= nw in Gn. 24:54, 56, 59; 1 Bao. 20:20 [as var.
of TÉUTTELV]; 24:20; 2 Bao. 19:31; Prv. 17:11), ETITEUTTELV 3 times (Prv. 6:19 n20),
TOPaTEUTEIV twice, TE POTENTELV 5 times, mostly in cases where there is no original Heb.
In all these instances on Prv. 17:11 1. 34 it would distort the sense to replace by
OTEA ElV or one of its compounds.
17 Gn. 32:4; Nu. 20:14; Jos. 7:22; Ju. 6:35; 7:24; 9:31 etc.
18 2 Ch. 36:15; Mal. 3:1.
10 Gn. 31:4; 41:8, 14 etc.
attooteAAd

concerning the mission than a statement concerning its initiator and his concern : 20
the one who is sent is of interest only to the degree that in some measure he
embodies in his existence as such the one who sends him. In principle, it does not
matter who it is that sends, whether God or man, or who it is that is sent, whether
a heavenly or an earthly messenger. Even in the consciousness of the bearer of the
commission, the emphasis lies on its author, as we can see from such cases as
Abraham (Gn. 12:1 ff.), Eliezer (Gn. 24:1 ff.), Moses and above all the prophets
(- atr6atoios, 414).
2. The usage of the LXX is marked by the consistency with which it pursues this
thought. This emerges in the fact that there is no mechanical rendering of now by
ATTO TEAAEIV, 21 and yet that contrary to the literal sense XTTOOTÉNAEIV is sometimes
used for nw in order to emphasise the purposive and authoritative element in the action
concerned and the position of the one who acts.
Thus n50 as well as 7? nbw can denote stretching forth the hand. According to the
sense the LXX ought to choose one of the renderings listed under n. 13 when it en-
counters this short formula. But it does not always do so. Thus Ps. 18:16 says of God:
392! ninen n2o;, and Ps. 144:7 makes it indisputably clear that He is stretching out
His hand to deliver the Psalmist. In y 17:17 the LXX has: ÉEXTéOTELAEV (-> £&-
aTTOOTE AG) EE Byou 22 kal #aBEv uE, although, as " 143:7 shows, ÉaTéotelAev
thv xeipa autol would have met the data. In contrast, it is quite according to the
sense that in 2 Bao. 6:6 a simple mbun is rendered: Kai ÉEÉTEIVEV mv xEipa,
while in Ob. 13 JUVETITiOeo(al is used for now, quite in accordance with the context
and the shade of meaning. Apart from U 56:4; 143:7, [ÉE]XTOOTÉAAEIV ThV XE{pa
is used elsewhere for 7 nhw only at Ex. 9:15; Job 2:5 and Cant. 5:4. Only in the last
instance is it used of man, and in this case it has the special sense of putting one's
hand through the hole in the door. Conversely, EKTElvElV ThV XEipa is used only in
relation to man. 23 Behind this distinction there stands more than a spiritualised view
of God. The limitation of ATTO TENEW to God expresses an essential feature of God,
namely, the absoluteness of His will. It also brings out the fact that aTOOTE ELV is
not merely linked externally with nw but has taken on its characteristic element of the
awareness and the raising of a claim. In contrast ÉKTElvElv simply affirms the fact
without any further interest in its subject. We thus have similar situation to that of
the purely Gk. relationship between ATTO TENAEIV and ITE LTtELV. 24

Self-evidently the &TOOTÉAAEIV of the LXX cannot deny its linguistic origin.
That which characterises the term in secular usage is not lost in biblical Greek
but passes into it and links up with what is contributed by the OT equivalent.
We may thus say that in the LXX the word is as little given a specifically
religious flavour as nw in the Heb. OT. Even in the accounts of the sending of

20 It is to be noted that the basic meaning of the stem is to "let go" (cf. the dictionaries
s.v.). Only in the intensified figurative sense does it come to mean "to send." This meaning
gradually becomes predominant, yet the word can never wholly refute its origin, and even
in the sense of to send" this gives it its emphasis ; the acting subject stands in the forefront
rather than the object.
21 - n. 13.
22 Cf. also y 56:4.
23 There are no exceptions acc. to Hatch-Redp.; where EKTEIVELV THV XEipa is used of
God in the LXX, the original is 00 (Ex. 7:5; Zeph. 2:13), or 11001 (Ex. 6:8), not nbw.
24 > 398.
 antootead

the prophets 25 we do not have a purely religious use. In such contexts the word
simply denotes sending: it acquires religious connotation only to the extent
that the situation is religiously conditioned and the obedience of the one to be
sent is seen as a self-evident attitude before God as the One who sends an
obedience not to be distinguished in its practical results from that which might be
rendered, e.g., to a king. It is of a piece with this, and ought to be noted, that in
the OT sphere there neither is nor can be any use of n200 or &TOOTE AELV to
describe a consciousness of mission such as that which is the climax of the self-
consciousness of the Cynic ; 26 for alongside the unconditional subordination to the
will of Him who sends, which n2w and &TOoTÉAAElV here presuppose in the
messenger, there is no place for this kind of exalted emotion. This may also help
to explain why there is no need to restrict the significance and use of ATtOaTE ElV
to the purely religious field, though the term has an assured place in most im-
portant religious contexts and there is a tendency to use the word only for divine
sending. 27

3. Rabbinic Judaism keeps within the sphere delineated in its use of nbw. Nowhere
does it go beyond the secular use. A special position is occupied only by the derived
subst. 112m or mobo (> arbotoAoc, 414). Josephus uses the word about 75 times. 28
On the one side he employs it more or less synon. with TEUTELV; 20 on the other it is
used to denote an official mission as such. 30 In many cases TEUTELV is for Josephus
a rather colourless omnibus word like the German lassen. 31 This never happens, how-
ever, in the case of &TooTE EIV. Even where this word is used interchangeably with
TEUTEL, it still carries with it a reference to awareness of the action denoted. It is thus
understandable that Josephus, too, uses ATOOTE^EIV when the reference is to sending
by God, anal. to the usage of the LXX. 32 The same seems to be the case in 4 Esr.,
where the missus est (4:1; 5:31; 7:1; cf. misit, 6:33; misi, 14:4 etc.) with reference to
the angel presupposes an aTeotan etc. in the Gk. We have already said 33 that in
Philo, as in the Cynic-Stoic diatribe, we find an absol. use of ATOTÉ EIV or
& TOFTE AE OaI: 3 in his case, as has now been shown, there is isolation from both

25 Is. 6:8; Jer. 1:7; Ez. 2:3; cf. Hag. 1:12; Zech. 2:15 (11); 4:9; Mal. 3:23 (4:4); Ex. 3:10;
Ju. 6:8, 14.
26 399.
27 Cf. also n. 34.
28 Thackeray, Lex. Jos., 76. In many cases in Ant. Josephus simply takes over & oOTEA-
Ael from the LXX, which he uses as a source.
29 Cf. e.g., Ant. 7, 191; 11, 190 f.; 12, 181-183. Stylistic reasons explain the interchangea-
bility of EKTEUTEIV and ATTooTEMELV in Ant., 20, 37; Vit., 51 etc.
30 Cf. also Bell., 4, 32 : Titus as an ATE TOAUEVOG of Vespasian ; 7, 17 f. and 230 : the
sending of troops from specific standpoints Ant., 12, 193 : doora noouevol = possible
messengers.
a1 Cf., e.g., Ant., 13, 23.
32 Bell., 7, 387: ToUtw Thy avoryKnu Bedg ATEoTalKe Ant., 7, 334: o yap §Eoc
tov upoontn XTtootEllas upoc airov (David) (God's promise that Solomon would
build the temple planned by David in his place).
33 399.
34 Cf., e.g., Poster C., 44 : 800 6' EK taUtns napiotatal tis povis, Ev uev kat'
o TIVI ETITEUTETAL SAVATOS, ITEDOV S& Kae' 8 ATTO TIVOS ATTOOTEAETaL Here, too,
the religious element lies in the use of the pass. In this connection it is to be noted that
throughout the OT nbw in the nif al occurs only at Est. 3:13, and even here in such a way
that God is not hidden behind the pass. In the pu'al nw occurs in the OT 10 times (Gn.
44:3 is missing in Mandelkern), but in the LXX it is translated in the pass. only twice, i.e.,
at Gn. 44:3 in a secular context (Joseph : brothers qiteota noav, i.e., were sent away)
and at Da. 10:11 as a statement of the angel to Daniel (dteoTaAnv), where God may
&TOOT AA©

the Rabbis and Josephus, and in his use of &TOaTENAElV he has not been influenced by
mw, since it is characterised by the fact that there is in it no religious note.

C. aTootE Ad and nÉuto in the NT.

1, In the NT &TOGTENElV occurs some 135 times. The distribution is such that
outside the Gospels and Acts it is found only 12 times, 3 times in In., 3 in Rev., 3 in
Paul (R. 10:15; C. 1:17; 2 C. 12:17), or if we include 2 Tm. 4:12, once in Hb. 1:14
and once in 1 Pt. 1:12. In the Gospels and Acts the occurrence is more or less even in
relation to the scope of the individual writings, and the word is obviously an acknowl-
edged part of the vocabulary. Of the compounds, apart from ÉEXTTOOTEAAELV we
find only JUVXTO TE EL in 2 C. 12:18.
Alongside ITTOOTÉ^AELV, TEUTELV occurs some 80 times. Of these 33 are in the
Fourth Gospel and 5 in Rev. There are 10 occurrences in Lk. and 12 in Ac., while
only 4 in Mt. and 1 in Mk. (5:12), the form in Mt. being always nÉuwas with the
following fin. verb. In contrast with &TtOaTEAAEIV the distribution is thus most uneven
in the historical books.

When we review the material we first note that there is a special occurrence
of TÉuTtElv in the Fourth Gospel which demands separate treatment (- 2.) . Other-
wise the Lucan writings predominate. This is even clearer when we take into
account the compounds of TEUTElV and their distribution in the NT. Thus we find
IVaTTÉ UTELV (4) times, 3 of which are in Lk. and 1 (?) in Ac.; ÉKTTEUTTELV twice
(Ac.); uetate tEoBal 9 times (Ac.); TpOTÉLTEIV 9 times, 3 of which are in Ac.
and none in the Gospels ; OUUTÉ UTELV twice (Paul). Thus of 27 instances no less
than 18 are in Lk. and Ac., none in Mt. and Mk. and only one in the whole
Johannine material (3 Jn. 6: TPOTE UTTELV). The full bearing of these statistics
only emerges, however, when we investigate the detailed material. Even for Lk.,
unlike Josephus, TÉUTElV cannot be described as "the normal word throughout"
for "to send" • 35 for even statistically &TOOTÉAEIV is more common. Yet Lk. may
be compared with Josephus to the extent that in addition to a specific usage of
aTTOOTÉ EIV and TEUTELV he also seems to use the words as synonyms (-> 402). 36
Like Josephus, he thus seems to stand between a Semitic use of aTTOATEAELV
under the influence of the OT nb0 (as in the LXX), and therefore its sharp
distinction from TEUTELV, on the one side, and the less sharp and ultimately non-
essential distinction from it in Hellenism on the other; yet always in such a way
that he is nearer to the common NT usage than to Josephus.
We may also see kinship between Lk. and Josephus in the fact that for stylistic
reasons both seem to use TEUTELV Tivo Eyovta or TE UTTELV AÉyov promiscue

seen behind the pass. as the One who sends. In Da. 5:24 the pass. part. 112d (n2o) is also
kept in the pass. aeotain: the hand which the king saw writing is given by this ex-
pression the significance of an angel. Of the other passages n90 is not translated &TooteA-
AElV in Job 18:8; Is. 16:2; 27:10; Prv. 29:15. In Prv. 17:11 n2m; seems to be clearer than
6 KUPIOC EKTELYEL in the Gk. The reason for the selection of EKTEUTElV here is probably
to be found in the fact that the reference is to the sending of an gyyeloc ovE enuoV,
and the translator did not wish to bind this so closely to God, either in the matter itself
or its results, as he would have done by using &TTOOTÉAEIV, and as is done in the basic
text. In Ju. 5:15 (where the text is uncertain), Ob. 1 and Is. 50:1 we have secular contexts
for which the LXX has chosen the act. form.
85 Thackeray, Lex. Jos., 76.
36 Cf., e.g., ol TEUGOEVTEC (those sent by the Capernaum centurion) in Lk. 7:10 after
&TEOTELAEV in 7:3 with Jos. Vit., 180 f.
 aTtoatEXAd

with &TooTEAAeL. If this is SO, then this formula denotes in them the giving of
commission (AÉYELV) in spite of TEUTELV, though according to the sense more so in
the first form than the second, This would support the view that neither Lk. nor Josephus
has any true feeling for the special nature of ATTOOTE EIV. Cf. Lk. 7:6 with 7:3
(aTtEOTElAEV); 7:19 with 7:20 (ATTEOTaAKEV nuas tpoC gE AÉyov); Ac. 15:22 (TEu-
wal. avopac ypauavtEs 8id yElpoc autav, cf. 25) with 15:27 (creaTaAka-
HEV obv ...) and 15:33 (aTte1v0noav Tpoc tOUg aTtoaTE lavtac autouc): Jos.
Ant., 18, 325 (kal TEUTEL TOV TIOTEUOTATOV AÉyovra) with 326 (BaotAeic
ATTE TELAEY HE).

For the rest, the varying frequency and unequal distribution of the two terms
in the NT may be explained by the religious character of this literature and there-
fore of its material, and by the difference in orientation resulting from their
linguistic development (- 398). Sometimes this may be seen even where there
seems to be no difference in the use of ATOOTEAEIV and TEUTELV. 31 At any rate
we can say in general that when TÉUTTELV is used in the NT the emphasis is on
the sending as such, whereas when &TOOTÉAAElV is used it rests on the commission
linked with it, no matter whether the one who sends or the one who is sent claims
prior interest. To the development of the usage as already noted in the LXX and
Josephus there also corresponds the fact that the Synoptists never use TEUTTELV
but only ATTOFTENEIV of God, 38 and that Paul seems to follow the same pattern,
unless we prefer to suspend judgment in his case in view of the infrequency of
occurrence. 39
2. A special position is obviously occupied by John's Gospel. Here ATOOTÉ AELV
seems to be used quite promiscue with TEUTELV. Thus, to denote His full authority
both to the Jews 40 and the disciples 41 Jesus uses ATOOTEAAEIV, since He thereby
shows that behind His words and person there stands God and not merely His
own pretension. Again, in prayer He uses the same term to describe His re-
lationship to God. 42 Yet in close proximity to it He uses TEUTELV as well in such
a way that there is no self-evident distinction. Closer investigation, however,
shows us that when the Johannine Jesus uses TEUTTELV in speaking of His sending
by God He does so in such a way as to speak of God as the réuwas HE. This usage
is wholly restricted to God, being sometimes amplified to o rE vas uE tomp;
when speaking of Himself He uses other forms of TEUTELV. Except on the lips of
Jesus the formula occurs only once, namely, in 1:33 on the lips of the Baptist
(8 TE wac LE BaTTIZELV EV B8aTI . ..). Of the 33 TEUTELV passages in Jn., apart
from the last mentioned no less than 26 fall into this category. 44 As against this,
in Jn. God is never called & ATtootElac uE, but whenever &TtOOTEAAELV is used
of the sending of Jesus by God it occurs in a statement.

37 Perhaps the distinction is not impossible even in a passage like Mt. 21:36 ff./Mk. 12:4 ff.
as against Lk. 20:11 ff.
38 Mt. 10:40; Mk. 9:37 Lk. 9:48; Mt. 15:24 (pass. self-declaration of Jesus); cf. Jn. 1:6.
39 Of the two not wholly unambiguous passages, R. 8:3 certainly stresses the coming
rather than the sending of Jesus as the act of God, so that there is here good reason for
TEUTEIV. On the other hand, a case might be made out for &TOaTENAEIV at 2 Th. 2:11.
40 5:36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36.
41 3:17; 20:21.
42 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25.
43 5:37; 6:44; 8:18; 12:49; 14:24. The formula is so complex that in the course of textual
history the simple 6 reuwas HE has in many cases probably had tomp added ; cf.,
e.g., 5:30; 6:29; 8:16.
ATtOOTÉ Ad

At first sight this usage is extremely odd. It is to be explained as follows. In

John's Gospel &TTOOTE ELV is used by Jesus when His concern is to ground His
authority in that of God as the One who is responsible for His words and works
and who guarantees their right and truth. On the other hand, He uses the formula
8 TE ya LE (mathp) to affirm the participation of God in His work in the actio
of His sending. This explanation is in full accord with the Johannine view of Jesus
as the One whose "work originates in God's work" and by whom "God's work .
reaches its goal." 45

Purely linguistically we have in this usage a fairly striking parallel to that of Epic-
tetus in his statements concerning the sending of the Cynic by Zeus. As on the one
side ATTOTEAEL is used to characterise the sending as a mission, SO on the other
Zeus is for the Cynic the Katanerouowc aurov (Diss., III, 22, 56; 399). But we
should not overemphasise the parallel. For one thing, the formula occurs only once in
Epictetus and is not to be given a false significance. Again, though there may be an
external kinship, the drift is quite different from that of the & TENUxs UE (namp) of
the Johannine Jesus. For the Cynic it gives him a claim to exemption from all human
authority : as the messenger of God he must give account to Him alone. This is a
thought which necessarily lies outside: the mode of thinking of the Fourth Gospel. It is
excluded by the fact that between Jesus and the "Father" ( natp) is a unity in will 46
and action (10:30; 14:9) which leaves no room for "responsibility." And it is wholly
and utterly excluded by the fact that alongside the formula 6 nathp ME antEaTaAKEV
(5:36) Jesus with equal justification can use the formula 710ov (10:10; 12:47) or
#AnAu0a (Elc Toy K6ouov) (12:46; 16:28; 18:37), which finds the basis of this unity
in the time preceding His earthly life. We have here ideas which cannot possibly apply
in the case of the Cynic.

As there is reflected in these findings the history of the terms outside the NT,
so there is also disclosed the specifically Johannine Christology which emphasises
as strongly as possible the essential unity of Jesus with God by describing Him
absolutely as the Son (- ut6c). It is in the light of this that in some passages
ATOOTÉ AEIV and TEUTEIV acquire their distinctive meanings in the Fourth Gospel.
We are not to say, however, that the terms themselves have helped to shape
Johannine Christology. For, quite apart from what we have already stated, even
in John the words are not fundamentally essentially theological terms. They
are rather taken out of their ordinary meaning by the specific context in which
they are used very forcibly so in this Gospel and filled with religious
significance.
Thus the view falls to the ground of itself that in Jn. ATOOTEMAEIV is designed
specifically to reveal "the divine sonship of Christ prior to His coming into the world." 47
It is not this which is confirmed in the sending of Jesus. On the contrary, it is from the

41 With these we should also reckon 7:18 and 13:16, even though o neuyac aurov
refers very generally to a human sender ; for both statements grow out of the situation of
Jesus characterised by the O TELUAS HE stamp, the first as an illustration, the second
as consequence for the inner and outer attitude of the apostle."
46 Schl. J., 130 on 4:34 (-) tAElow). This distinction between ATOOTEAAEIV and TEU-
TIELV is confirmed in such passages as 5:36 ff. and 7:28 It is to be noted, esp. also from
the standpoint of Christology, that TETTELV and not &TOOTENAElY is always used of the
sending of the Spirit by Jesus (15:26; 16:7; cf. 14:26).
16 In this connection we should note the version of the Gethsemane story in In. (18:1 f.)
and esp. 18:11 in comparison with Mt. 26:38 f. and par.
47 Cf., e.g., Cr.-Ko., 1018.
 & TOOTEAA - LEaTTOOTEAAG

fact that Jesus is for John the utoc that in this Gospel His mission acquires its ultimate
meaning and pathos in its demand for the decision and division of men.

3. In relation to the general use of &TOOTE EV in the NT we must say finally

that the word does begin to become a theological term 48 meaning "to send forth
to service in the kingdom of God with full authority (grounded in God)." Yet
this does not imply any real departure from its proper sense. 49 What we see here
is rather the influence of the NT use of &trootoloc. In the NT field the history
of ATOOTENEL thus merges into that of -> attoot0los.

+ LEATOOTÉNAO.
First found in the "Epistle of Philip" in Demosthenes Or., 18, 77, this word became
common in Gk. from the time of Polybius 1 with essentially the same meaning as
& TOOTEAAELV. 2 In the LXX it is fully interchangeable with, though not so common as,
the latter, as the many variants show. In Philo, too, there is no distinction between
them, as may be seen from his explanation of Malouoala E moanp (Gn. 5:21 ff.)
partly as dnooroln favatou 3 and partly as LExTOOTOAn lavatou. + The word also
occurs in Josephus (Vit. 57, 147) 5 without having any special significance.

In the NT LEXITOOTéAAELV occurs 13 times, 11 in Luke (Lk. 1:53; 20:10, 11;

24:49; Ac. 7:12; 9:30; 11:22; 12:11; 13:26; 17:14; 22:21) and 2 in Paul (Gl. 4:4, 6).
The verses in Luke's Gospel, apart from 24:49, give us the formula LEXTTOOTENAEIV
tiva KEvov, which is common in the LXX (Gn. 31:42; Dt. 15:13 etc.) but which
does not give any special significance to ÉEXTOOTéAAEIV. & In all the other passages
what we have said concerning the simple &TtOOTÉ AELV applies to ÉEaTOOTEAAELV.

Linguistically there is no support for the thesis of Zn. 7 that in Gl. 4:48 the EE. in
#EXOOTEAEIV indicates that "prior to his sending the one sent was in the presence of
the one who sent him," i.e., in this case "that prior to His sending, or prior to His birth,
as the YEVOUEVOV EK yuvaikos tells us, Jesus was tapa TO 0E6 (Jn. 17:5) or Tpoc
Tov Oe6v (Jn. 1:1)." The truth is that in this passage in Paul, which reminds us of
John, the verb for sending (-) ATTOOTEAAELV, C.2) does not in itself make any christo-
logical statement, but rather derives its christological flavour from the christological
context in which it is used. We might also make the very pertinent observation that
in Gl. 4:4, 6 Paul is not so much speaking of Christ as of God and of the event of
salvation willed and in due time accomplished by Him.

48 Mt. 10:5, 16; Lk. 22:35; R. 10:15; 1 C. 1:17.

49 This is shown by the fact that in all the Gospels and throughout the NT the original
usage persists alongside the beginning of restriction in the manner indicated. It is hardly
necessary to give examples.
EEATOOTEAAW. Anz Subsidia, 356 f.
Anz, 356.
2 Cf. also the examples in Preisigke Wort., I, 509.
8 Poster C., 73 : Mafouaaia, 8c €punveueels hv aroatoln lavatou.
+ Poster C., 41: épunvedetal. Malouaaia 8 EgantootoAn lavatou; 44 : Madou-
ogAa, 8c NV LEaTIOOTOA, lavatou.
5 Schl. Lk., 121.
6 In the parallel pass. to Lk. 20:10, Mk. (12:3) has &TTOOTÉ AELV KEVoV.
7 Zn. Gl., 199 ad loc., as also many other older and more recent commentators.
8 Mutatis mutandis the thesis would also apply to 4:6 : EEQTLEOTELAEV To TVE ua
tou ulou autoi,
 attoato/oc

antooto oc (- 8∞8eKa, uaenins).

A. The Word and Concept gooto^os in Classical Greek and Hellenism.
1. The Greek Usage.
Only occasionally in the Gk. field does anborodoc have a meaning related or
apparently related to that which it bears in the NT. For the most part the similarity is
only external. The background of usage is basically different in the two cases. In the
older period atoatoloc is one of the special terms bound up with sea-faring, and more
particularly with military expeditions; it is almost a technical political term in this
sense. Originally it was an adj., as shown by Plat. Ep., VII, 346a (Ev Toic &TtOaToAOIC
TAOIOIC TAEIV). It was often combined with TAolov to mean a freighter or transport
ship, though sometimes it could be used as a noun, i.e., without TAoiov, for the same
purpose (to aTT6OT0Aov, Ps. Hdt. Vita Hom., 19). As the formula TO antoatolov
(TAoiov) shows, the word obviously cannot be separated from &TOOTEAELV. The
close material connection emerges in the common expression 6 aTtooToAos. In the first
instances this simply denotes the dispatch of a fleet (or army) on a military expedition,
being simply a stronger form of the simp. atoloc (Lys. Or., 19, 21; Demosth. Or., 18,
107).1 It then comes to be applied to the fleet itself and it thus acquires the meaning of
a naval expedition (Demosth. Or., 18, 80; cf. 3, 5).2 In this way it comes to be applied
on the one side to a group of men sent out for a particular purpose, e.g., not merely
to an army but to a band of colonists and their settlement (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., IX,
59), 3 and on the other to the commander of an expedition, e.g., the admiral (Hesychius,
S.v.; Anecdota Graeca, ed. Bekker, 217, 26).4
A common feature of all these meanings is their predominantly passive character. In
none of them do we find any suggestion either of initiative on the part of the &Tooto-

AT FTolos. On the whole field, and C. and D.: W. Seufert, Der Ursprung und
die Bedeutung des Apostolates in der christlichen Kirche der ersten zwei Jhdte. (1887);
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians,10 (1890), 92 ff.; P. Batiffol, "L'Apostolat,"
Rev. Bibl., NS, 3 (1906), 520 ff.; J. Wellhausen, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evv.2 (1911),
138 ff.; G. P. Wetter, "Der Sohn Gottes,' FRL, 26 (1916); R. Schutz, Apostel und Junger
(1921); Meyer, Ursprung, I, 264 ff.; III, 255 ff.; K. Holl, "Der Kirchenbegriff des Pls. in
seinem Verhaltnis zu dem der Urgemeinde," SAB, 1921, 920 ff. = Gesammelte Aufsatze zur
Kirchengeschichte, II:•"Der Osten" (1928) 44 ff.; E. de Witt Burton, Crit. and Exeget.
Comm. on the Ep. to the Gal. (1921), 363 ff.; F. Kattenbusch, "Die Vorzugsstellung des
Petr. u. d. Charakter der Urgemeinde zu Jerusalem," in Festgabe, Karl Muller zum
70. Geburtstag dargebracht (1922), 322 ff.; F. Haase, "Apostel u. Evangelist. in d. orien-
talischen Uberlieferungen" Nt.liche Abhandlungen, IX, 1-3 (1922); A. Harnack, Die
Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in d. ersten 3 Jhdten, I4 (1923), esp. 332 ff.;
J. Wagenmann, Die Stellung d. Apostels Pls. neben den Zwolf in d. ersten zwei Jhdten
(1926); Ltzm. on R. 1:1; W. Mundle, 'Das Apostelbild der Apostelgesch.," ZNW, 27
(1928), 36 ff.; K. Deissner, "Das Sendungbewusstsein der Urchristeh," ZS, (9
30), 772 ff. On A.: E. Norden, "'Beitrage Geschichte d. gr. Philosophie," Jbch. f. Phil.
Suppl., 19 (1893), 365 ff.; K. Holl, "Die schriftstellerische Form d. gr. Heiligenlebens,"
N. Jbch. KI. Alt., 29 (1912) 406 ff. - Ges. Aufsatze z. KG, II (1928), 249 ff.; C. Clemen,
"Die Missionstatigkeit der nichtchristl. Religionen," ZMR, 44 (1929), 225 ff. On B.:
S. Krauss, "Die judischen Apostel,' JQR (1905), 370 ff.: H. Vogelstein, "Die Entstehung
und Entwicklung des Apostolats im Judentum, MGWJ, 49 (1905), 427 ff. and "The
Development of the Apostolate in Judaism and Its Transformation in Christianity," Hbr.
Un. Coll. Ann., (1925), 99 ff.; S. Krauss, EJ, III (1929), 1 ff.; Str.-B., III, . ff.
Cf. also the definition of Suid.: aTtoatolol SE at toV VEAV EKTouTaI.
In Demosth. Or., 3, the expression apieval tov afooToAov can be taken to signify
either failure to send the triremes prepared or postponement of the expedition.
3 It thus becomes almost a synon. of goikla, which is the technical term for a colonising
expedition ; cf. Aeschin. Fals. Leg., 175, where there is reference to the &TOOTEAAEIV of
the anolkia.
Pr.-Bauer, 156.
 arbotoloc
Aoc or of authorisation linked with the mission. The most that can be said is that the
word denotes the quality of being sent, unless we are to regard it as no more than
a stereotyped term. In this basic passive element the adj. derivation remains dominant
long after its application as a noun. Apart from the impersonality of its fundamental
meaning, it could not become the usual term for an emissary in the Gk. world, since
the Greeks had many others words which they could use for this purpose (- &yyEAos,
- KApuE, TPEOBEUTHS etc.). Thus its later Christian usage was an innovation to Gk.
ears or to those familiar with Gk.; this is shown by the fact that the Latins did not
translate it but took it over as a loan word into ecclesiastical Latin (apostolus).5 Even
in the two isolated passages in which abatoloc occurs, or seems to occur, on Ionic
soil in the sense of one who is sent (Hdt., I, 21; V, 38), the basic element is obviously
the quality of being sent ; the idea of authorisation is not the point at issue and is quite
secondary. & Hence we are not to see any approach to NT usage in these passages.
Against such a thesis the LXX, Josephus and Philo all bear strong witness, since they
do not play in this respect the important role of links between secular and NT usage
which they frequently do elsewhere ( 413). Instances of groorolos in the sense of
messenger belong to much later period and obviously presuppose the Christian usage.
How far normal usage differed from that of the NT in the first Christian period and
the time of the Early Church is shown by the papyri. 8 Here we find it in the technical
sense of an accompanying bill or invoice, e.g., for shipments of corn (P. Oxy., IX,
1197, 13 etc.), 9 as also in the sense of passport (BGU, V, 64; cf. VI, 1303, 26). These
senses go rather beyond those mentioned above, yet do not refute kinship with them.
They rather develop more consistently the abstraction from the personal already noted,
so that we might almost speak of a complete mechanisation of the term. It is not
irrelevant that even in this final stage of its history we can still see evidence of the
background in maritime commerce from which the word derives or by which it is
originally characterised.

2. Religious Messengers in Hellenism.

a. If the connection between the ordinary Gk. and the early Christian qtooto-
Aoc is limited to the mere word, the material points of contact between the
apostolate and the Greek world are also very slight.
The earlier period has no parallel to the NT apostle. The Greek mpooñtal are
proclaimers of a truth, and in so far as they belong to a sanctuary they are thus
mouthpieces for the deity which they serve. 10 This is true of the Pythian, who
is simply an intermediary between the deity and the believer who is anxious for
knowledge. 11 The very fact that she is anonymous and timeless shows that no
independent significance is attached to her. The whole problem of the authorisa-
tion of the intermediary remains in the background. This is self-explanatory, how-
ever, in view of her role, even when the mediation is accomplished through one

6 > also 414.

6 1, 21 of the kipue whom Alyattes sends to Miletus
and approximates : o uEv
in meaning on dnootolog
to the És Thy
part. diteoTaA-
MIntov fiv is here a pred.
LEVos (cf. K. W. Kruger in his ed. of Herodotus, Berlin, 1855 f., ad loc.). The case is much
the same in V. 38.
Preisigke Wort., I, 195 furnishes only one example, which dates only from the 8th
century A.D. (P. Lond., IV). I do not know of any others.
Cf. Preisigke Wort., I, 195; Fachworter, 30.
8 E& ATTOOTOAOU or tE amtooroloy corresponds to our "as per bill of lading" ; examples
may be found in Preisigke Wort., 195.
10 On this whole complex, v. E Fascher, [popins (1927), passim.
11 Ibid., 14 and 68.
 antoatoios

of the messenger-gods, as is usually the case in post-Christian Hellenism (-* 75).

The words > ayyE os and -> Kipue, which usually occur along with T pÉo BuS,
TEPEO BEUTNS etc. in this connection (cf. Tm. 2:7; 2 Tm. 1:11), are a purely ex-
ternal expression of the fact that what is at issue is not a commission which must
always be linked with a person, but the message which mediates fellowship as
such, and in relation to which the bearer has only the significance of a super-
numerary. This fact has its ultimate basis in the close relationship which Greek
religion, so far as it is concerned with human intermediaries, sees between the
divine office of the messenger and inspiration. 12 This also explains why it is that
in the religious messenger of Hellenism there is no development of an awareness
of mission or of a claim to full personal authority but there necessarily results a
surrender of one's own consciousness and personality to the deity.
b. An exception is to be found to some degree in the representatives of Cynic-
Stoic philosophy in so far as Epictetus 13 describes for us the reality and not
merely the ideal of the true Cynic. For here we have a strong consciousness of
mission and a related self-consciousness. The Cynic realises that he is "sent by
Zeus," and Epictetus can even say that it is only this awareness of divine sending
that makes the taic dandelauc Kuvikov (Diss., III, 22, 23) . 14 To be sure, > dy-
yEAoC and > kipué, are here, too, the words used to describe this mission as
regards its content (-* 399); but in addition, quite apart from the important part
played by A &TOFTENAELV as a technical term for commissioning and authorising
by the deity, 15 there emerges as a third function that of the katagkotoc tov
Oeov. 16 As such he has to investigate (KaTaOKÉTTE Oa) quite exactly (cxpiBic,
III, 22, 25), and therefore as a true kataokotoc (I, 24, 3), how matters stand
with men, and then atayyeilal talnen to them (III, 22, 25), as none has done
but Diogenes, the first katooKofos and the great example of the Cynic (I, 24, 6;
III, 22, 24) . 1T The Cynic thus observes men and seeks to fix on the points in
their lives at which he can help as "doctor of the soul, moral support and
deliverer." 18 In so far as he does this, he becomes the ETtICKOTov, 10 so that
Epictetus can call true Cynics the ÉTILOKOTOUVTES Tavtas kaTd SUvauLv av0p-
TOUS, Ti TOLOUOIV, THE BIGyouGIV, Tivos ETlueAOUv, tic lo ttd

12 Cf. for the Pythian, Dio. Chrys. Or., 72, 12.

13 Diss., III, 22 TEpi kUviouoU. Cf. on this pt., Wendland, Hell. Kult., 75 ff.
14 on this pt. and what follows 399 (s.v. &TOGTEAA∞).
15 -> 398.
16 The Cynic is &yyEAOs Kai KaTAOKOTOS kal Kipue TOV OEGv (III, 22, 69); as
kat&oKOTOc he is sent out into the world by his brethren in the order, e.g., to Rome
(I, 24, 3 ff.). For further materials, cf. Deissner, 783 and esp. Norden, 377 f. (where we also
have passages from Diog. L. and Plutarch).
This self-designation is already found in Antisthenes, who links with it popular ideas
of intermediaries between the gods and men (Norden, 373 ff., esp. 381).
18 Holl, Ges. Aufsatze, II, 261; ibid. n. for many examples, as also Pauly-W., XII, 14.
19 Cf. on this point Norden, 378. For all their kinship KaTaOKOTIOC and gTtloKonov
should be distinguished, as emphatically shown by Norden, 378, n. 1. This emerges in the
fact that the verb ÉTLOKOTE{V is always used and never the subst. > ETlOKOTOG. EntioKo-
TELV is thus to some extent a function of the KATAAKOTOS, while KaTaOKOTOC is essentially
more than the designation of a function (supra). To be sure, in Diog. L., VI, 102 the Cynic
Menedemos (c. 300 B.C.) is sometimes called an gmlokonoc tov quaptavouÉvov
who has come from Hades; but this instance is late (3rd century A.D.), and the term
derives from ideas which differ at essential points from those of the older representatives
of Cynicism (cf. Norden, 379).
 attootoloc

to 1pooñ Kov (III, 22, 77) . 20 The Cynic brings help as the kipue tov OEdv; 21
in his KnpUGGEIV, however, he shows himself to be ETtlOKOTGv, which can only
have meaning if he is truly a KAT&OKOTOS.
Hence the Cynic as ayyelos is the messenger of Zeus who sends him and
stands behind him. 22 This is the purely passive side of his being as such. In
addition, however, we see in the designation KaTXOKOTIOS the initiative of the
messenger which derives from his commissioning by Zeus (- aTTOOTE AO, 399)
and which expresses itself in the relevant kerygma in which the Cynic kipue to
some extent proves himself to be the representative of the deity to men in the
sense of their instructor in the divine standard (ÉTlOKOTEIv). Hence we can no
longer speak of a purely passive attitude as in the case of the Greek prophets.
This is clear from the relationship of the Cynic both to the one who commissions
him and to those to whom he is sent. There is no doubt that he does not reckon
himself among men. He sees them before him as a massa perditionis. He knows
that he is exalted above them by his task and by his related freedom from worldly
goods. It is not for nothing that he calls himself Bacisus kai beaToTns (Epict.
Diss., III, 22, 49). He is controlled by a clear awareness of his remoteness from
other men. Yet his distinguishing feature is not isolation ; it is a strong sense of
commitment to the kerygma, a strong sense of responsibility for humanity. 23 It
seems almost an accident that the formal boEI Eins by which Paul describes his
relation to the non-Christian world (R. 1:14) is missing in Epictetus; the idea
itself is there. 24 The strong sense of responsibility for humanity, however, is
linked with a strong sense of responsibility towards Zeus. As the Cynic is abso-
lutely free in relation to men, he is bound and committed to Zeus (399). He is
his orn pétns (III, 22, 82 and 95) who must hearken to him. 25 He is his + 818-
KOVOC (III, 22, 69). The sense of commitment by God and to men is the basis of
the rappnoia of the Cynic, of his candour (III, 22, 96), of his right always and
everywhere to occupy himself with the affairs of others as with his own (III,
22, 97 ff.; cf. Horat. Sat., II, 3, 19), and of the certainty that he need not fear
even the emperor when it is a matter of the cause represented by him (III, 22, 56).
The word in which his commission and responsibility merge is KaTaOKOTOC.
Here the initiative of the Cynic is both demanded and limited. If we want a term
in which there is a material parallel to the NT use of gtoatoloc, it is offered
only by this word. The parallelism is emphasised by the fact that the terminology
linked with the two words is very much the same, 26 even though in essentials the

20 ÉTIOKOTEiV again in III, 22, 72 and 97.

21 The Cynic as KApue, tov OeGv, Epict. Diss., III, 22, 69 (- n. 16), knpiooelv, III,
13, 12; IV, 5, 24 (Deissner, 783): and cf. also III, 21, 13. For examples of similar usage
outside Stoicism, cf. Pr.-Bauer, 674 f. and + Kipue.
22 Diogenes seems to have emphasised his divine mission even in connection with his
name (Norden, 380, n.1).
23 Cf. on this pt. Deissner, 786 f. Important in this connection are the metaphors and self-
designation taken from the medical world, esp. III, 23, 30 ff., Diog. L., VI, 6; cf. also Wend-
land, Hell. Kult., 82, n. 2; also V. Harnack, 129 ff. and> ooto, owtp.
24 Deissner, 786.
25 Cf. the passages in Deissner, 784, esp. Diss., IV, 3,9: ÉAEU0spos yap Elul Kai
oloC TOU 0E00, iv akov TEl0uaL aUTo.
26 The hints given above should be enough in this context. Cf. further the individual
terms as discussed in this dictionary.
ambatoloc

identity is again limited to form. 27 We can at least say that the Cynic-Stoic sage
in his role as KaTaOKOTIOC is the figure of the period which we can set in closest
proximity to the apostle.
The Cynic's consciousness of mission has its prototype in Socrates as depicted by
Plato in the Apology. 27 Socrates traces back his whole Blos and "payua to the god of
Delphi (too Beoi latpela, Plat. Ap., 23c) who has given him his life's task and to
whom he owes obedience (Ap., 29d: TElooual bE uG^ov TO 0EG f Quiv). For this
reason his enemies and judges incur heavy responsibility, especially before God, when
they seek to do away with him un t1 HEqu&puNTE TEpI THU Tou 0:00 86o1v ouiv
Edv yap ELE ATOKTEIVNTE, OU PATIE ANNOV TOLOUTOV EUPHOETE ATEV, El kai
yEA016TEPOV ELTIEIV, TPOOKE LEVOV TH TOAEL UTO tou GEOU, tOTEP InTO uEy&\O
LEV kai yewaid, 0to ueyÉoouG 6t vo0EaTEpO kai SEOUEVO LYE[PEOBaL onto
uUwToC Tivoc® olov on you SoKEt 6 Geoc gue th ToEI TPOOTEDElKÉvaL, T0100tov
tiva, 8c buac Eyelpov Kai TEIOov kai ovEI8igov §va {kaotov oubEv naioual
Thy juÉpav 8nv mavtayoi mpoakaligwv Elta Toy lolttov Blov KadEU8OVtEC
SLATENOITE &V, El un Tiva &NOv 6 OEDS Suiv ETImÉLyelEv KnOoMEVoc Duov (Plat.
Ap., 30e-31a). Here, too, is the basis of the Stoic terminology, though &TOOTE EIV is
not found. Yet perhaps there is a certain distinction between Socrates and the Stoics in
the fact that for him the source of the mission is far less important than its goal, whereas,
e.g., Epictetus claims the authority of the God who sends him ( 399).
The same is true of the external aspect of the Cynic, for like the apostle he
goes through the world and tries to commend his doctrine, relying on the gener-
osity of his hearers and well-wishers for support. The visit of Paul to Athens
(Ac. 17:16 ff.) is fully after the manner of Cynic and Epicurean philosophers in
their appeal to the public, as also of other wandering preachers trying to commend
their convictions. 28 Because of this external similarity Paul himself after his
departure from Thessalonica seems to have been suspected by ill-disposed elements
of being a preacher of this type, and indeed of being one of the less reputable
who for the sake of gold and fame were more interested in attaching followers
to themselves than to their cause. 20 On Greek soil the apostles were not a new
type but simply the champions of one religion alongside the innumerable mission-
aries of other cults and philosophies in this classical age of religious propaganda. 30
Nevertheless, there is no true parallel, for although these others used ATtOotEA-
Aeo0x1 to denote their authorisation, they never gave linguistic formulation to
the sense of mission and the related claim. This happened only in the case of the
Cynics with their term KataoKotoc.
This term, however, is most apt to denote the nature of the awareness thus
described. To the extent that in it the Cynic himself is the acting subject, and not
God 32 as in the case of ayyEAos, this awareness is shown to be a consciousness
of self rather than God. Externally this finds expression in the arrogant bearing

27 For what follows, cf. the account given by H. Kleinknecht. Cf. also P. Friedlander,
Platon, II (1930), 165 f.; E. Wolff, Platos Apologie = Neue philologische Untersuchungen,
6 (1929), 25 ff., 39 ff.
28 Cf. Wendland, Hell. Kult., 92 ff.
29 The so-called apology in Th. 2:1-13 is perhaps occasioned by this.
30 For a brief sketch cf. Dob. Th., ff.; cf. H. Gressmann, "Heidnische Mission in der
Werdezeit des Christentums," ZMR, 39 (1924), 14 ff.
81 399.
82 We can say this in view of the way in which Epictetus speaks of 6 0e6c.
 artbatolos

of the Cynic, which often caused offence ; 33 internally in the need for religious
assurance of his own authority beyond the mere fact of being sent. This was done
by the adoption of the formula Beioc ave patios as a self-designation (- 399),
especially by the Stoics. 34 This rests on the old Cynic tradition 365 but with
mystical echoes which it has as a constituent part of the language of the Mystery
religions. ⅜8 In the language of the philosophers this cannot be separated from
their consciousness of mission (-> 399). Yet we can see from its presence that
the latter had no ultimate metaphysical foundation, since it brought into rational
philosophical piety an irrational element in which there is even a certain ap-
proximation, within the limits of the rational, to the enthusiasm of the Greek
prophets. Yet since this element, too, gives clear evidence of its origin in Pantheism,
which finally entails the absorption of the divine in the ego, we can see that it is
not along these lines that the self-consciousness of the Cynic-Stoic philosopher
passes over into a consciousness of mission which manifests its theonomic character
in the uniting of an unlimited claim in the name of the sending God with a re-
nunciation of any significance of the man who is highly favoured with this
mission. The tension which necessarily results between the sense of mission and
the person of the missionary could never be overcome by the Cynic-Stoic diatribe,
since in the last resort this was always a human programme even when its re-
presentatives advanced a religious claim. That it was itself aware of this may be
seen in the description of the messengers as KataOKOTOL. This is an admission
that at the decisive point, namely, at the moment when the &yye^os 0Eov be-
comes the Knipue, OeGv, the accent is still laid on human initiative and human
judgment. For, although the &neota\uÉvos belongs to the deity as orn péins, he
is never absolutely dependent on it as its 8001oc; 31 he rather stands alongside
it as BaoiEig kai bEAToTNS (-> 410), and he is thus almost equal to it in rank
and dignity (BEioc & vO poToc). 38 Hence the relationship of the messenger to the
deity never has the character of an unconditional appointment to which he is
subject ; it is more like an agreement between two partners. 39 This is only possible,
however, because in these circles there is no clear concept of God nor certainty
of a definitive revelation of the will of God. But this is also the explanation why,
for all its consciousness of mission and self-consciousness, the philosophical
religion of the period never attains the claim to absoluteness which is the mark
of all genuine religion and its messengers. 40
Especially in view of the last point, we can finally add quite briefly that it is quite
consistent that in the Gk. world no essential role, and perhaps no role of any kind, is

33 For greater detail, cf. Pauly-W., XII, 14 f.

34 A typical example is Dio. Chrys.; cf. Holl, 262.
35 400 and n. 19.
36 Holl, 262.
37 8001oc Tou 0E00 etc. is never used by the Cynics or Stoics as a self-designation
and would be quite impossible from their standpoint. v. on this pt. Deissner, 787.
38 Thus, like Zeus, he is some sense the father of all men (Epict. Diss., III, 22, 81).
30 It is symptomatic that when the Cynic is scorned and insulted he always regards it
as an attack on himself and not on the one whom he ostensibly represents (cf., e.g., Epict.
Diss., III, 22, 53 ff.); the formula n TpOc BEouc ouilla (III, 22, 22) is also relevant in
this regard.
40 This shows how appropriate is the choice of the term katagkomos as the typical
self-designation of the Cynic. It should be noted that KaTaaKOTTOg (from KaTaOKETTEOOAL)
and abatolos (from &ntoote e 0ai) are basically analogous constructions.
diroatoloc

played by legal elements in the dealings of the gods with humanity through human inter-
mediaries. This is quite obvious in the case of the Cynic (> n.39), but it applies
no less to others. Again, this results logically from the lack of a clear conception of
God and of a historical revelation as determinative factors. Mythical notions of God
and mystical divine union leave no place for concrete categories like the legal, nor for
the content of proclamation, whether in respect of those who execute it or of those
who are won by it. Further discussion of this point is thus unnecessary.

B. drooroocl 150 (mbo) in Judaism.

1. atrootoloc among the Greek Jews.
In Gk. Judaism the term aTtoatoloc was not widely used. This is perhaps because
the sphere in which it arose (> 407) was largely closed to Judaism. The Palestinians
had no direct access to the sea and were thus under no necessity of equipping or even
planning maritime expeditions. But even the Egyptian Jews never seem to have under-
taken sea voyages to any great extent. At any rate we do not find the word in Philo.
The term occurs twice in Josephus, though the attestation is poor in one case.
First (Ant., 17, 300) it has the sense of the sending of emissaries, 41 and it thus stands
midway between the original sense ( 407) and the NT meaning, but is quite different
from the usage of the papyri (- 408). We can thus speak of an adaptation to the
particular background of Josephus, though it should not be overlooked that the reference
is to a Jewish embassy to Rome which would necessitate a sea-journey. Two elements
in the usage of Josephus call for notice first, the strengthened influence of XTOOTEAAELV
on the word, as seen in its special application to the sending of men ; and secondly,
that he retains the traditional collective use. We cannot know how far Josephus was
here in line with the usage of the time. In the second passage (Ant., 1, 146) attoatoloc
is synon. with > grootoan, 42 though it may not be the true reading. 43 In any case,
this sheds no light on the usage of Josephus.
The LXX 44 has the word only at 3 Bac. 14:6 in the passage 14:1-20 which is missing
in the Vaticanus 45 and which is thus usually given according to the Alexandrinus
Ey∞ Elul aTroatolos spoc FE aKAnp6s. These are the words of the prophet Ahijah
to the wife of king Jeroboam when she comes to ask concerning the fate of her sick son.
The Hebr. original is : 70p 7:2% 190 793x. It should be noted first that airbatoloc
is the rendering of mbw, which is obviously taken as a noun, though it is really a pass.
part., 46 for only on this assumption is the translation gtboto^oc. oxnpos possible.
doT0 og thus attains an individual character in this passage. It makes no difference
that in the Antootodos tpo oE we still have an echo of the verbal form of the original.
More important is the fact that antoatoloc is here the messenger of God in the technical
sense, since the word expresses the fact that Ahijah is commissioned to deliver a divine
message to the wife of the king. 4T Here we see the influence of myp, which describes
the authorisation of the prophet by God (-+ nbw, 400). The secular meaning of mo
&TOOTÉ ELV has thus given place to the theological, and it is this which gives its
meaning to arboro os. It should also be particularly noted that the word is used of a
0722 ("poonins), and furthermore that it is used in a concrete situation in his prophetic

It has here almost the sense of "embassy."

42 This is also attested as a variant.
Perhaps we should read a tobaou6s.
14 Based on the findings of Hatch-Redp.
This shows that the text is of more recent date.
18 On the construction of the Heb. sentence, cf. Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebr. Gramm.27
(1902), 393, n. 3.
It should be noted that she comes to the prophet and not vice versa.
 artoatoAoc

life. The addition of axinpos shows that the term has not become static but is
materially the same as aTEFTa\uEvoG, which would be the usual rendering of why.
When this is taken into account, the usage is seen to go far beyond what we find in
the two instances of the use of ditoatodos for "messenger" in Herod. -> 408). For the
rest, Aquila also has xtrootoAoc 48 at 1 Bao. 14:6, thus underlining the equation of
1120 and dootolog. Finally, Symmachus gives us a further instance in Is. 18:2 by
rendering b"gy 9;2 n207 aTto tElAov ATtOaT6AOuC tv Balaoon. This is an isolated
case, however, for the equation of drootolos and q, is not attested elsewhere. 40

2. The Later Jewish Institution of the who.

We are led a decisive step forward by Rabbinic Judaism. Here the term nb;50 has
an assured place as a noun, and in such a way that we have in it the closest parallel
to the NT grootoloc. The material kinship was recognised by the fathers. Jerome 61
tells us that Slias is a title borne by Jews who may be compared to the aToaToAol, and
this is simply a Latinised form of xmbn.32 The terminological agreement is proved by
the fact that in the Syr. Church an apostle is called xnt, while on a Jewish inscription
at Venosa dating from the 5th or 6th century A.D. there is reference to duo apostuli
with duo rebbites. 53 The relationship between dootolos and m2w is thus recognised
by the non-Christian world as well ; otherwise the use of the Latinised apostulus would
be impossible. 54 The Rabbis, however, did not adopt the Gk. word themselves 56 a
sign that the Semitic term was firmly rooted among them. Another possible reason was
that from the middle of the 1st century the Gk. word has become a constituent part of
the distinctively Christian vocabulary, and could not therefore be considered for Jewish

a. The legal institution of the mumbt is old. It may be proved from the time
after the Exile (2 Ch. 17:7-9), but is probably older still. 56 Yet it is only around
the 1st century that it takes distinctive shape. What characterises the aubt of all
periods is their commissioning with distinctive tasks which take them greater or

Acc. to Wellhausen, 143, n. 2 Aquila is here the source of the LXX.

49 For an assessment of this exegesis of Is. 18:1 f. in the early Church, cf. Lightfoot,
93, n. 2.
50 This is the usual form. In the plur. and with suffixes 7w is used (Str.-B., III, 2);
X090 is the corresponding Aram.
51 Ad Gal. 1:1; there is here a full equation.
52 Slias from Knw as Messias from NMOD, Krauss, JQR, 17 (1905), 370, n. 4.
53 CIL, IX, 648; cf. REJ, 6 (1882), 205 f.
54 S. Krauss (JQR, 17 [1905], 370 ff.) was the first to develop the connection between
goato oc and 179900 in detail, following Lightfoot and in opposition to A. v. Harnack.
Yet neither he nor H. Vogelstein (MGWJ,49 [1905] 427 ff.) went beyond a comparison
with individual forms of the institution. P. Billerbeck (esp. III, 2 ff.) first made a com-
parison with its essential nature and thus made possible a theological investigation in the
light of Judaism. Holl's scepticism (Ges. Aufs., I1, 51, n.1) about the introduction of the
Jewish parallel was refuted by B.
65 M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim etc., I (1903), 101 has argued that in
Taan., 4, 6 (.. minn Ax o12DODK 927 men? 10 79202) an drootoloc is denoted by
the biaboox (?) who burns the Torah, and he finds in the passage a reminiscence of the
event recorded in 2 Macc. 6:1 f. Yet in spite of obscurities in detail other explanations seem
to be nearer the mark. Cf. S. Krauss, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 25 (1903), 222 ff.; Jew. Enc.,
II, 21 f.
66 Krauss, JQR, 382: post-Exilic. Vogelstein (Hbr. Un. Coll. Ann., 2 [1925], 100) traces
it back to 419 B.C. (Elephantine Pap.).
aTroaTolos

lesser distances away from the residence of the one who gives them. Thus the
point of the designation 597120 is neither description of the fact of sending nor
indication of the task involved but simply assertion of the form of sending, i.e.,
of authorisation. This is the decisive thing. The task as such is of no significance
for the quality as jbu. Fundamentally, therefore, it matters little whether the task
is to proclaim religious truths (2 Ch. 17:7 ff.) or to conduct financial business
(T. Kid., 4,2). The term is legal rather than religious, and if the m"w has religious
significance this is not because he is a 1720 but because as such he is entrusted
with religious task. In other words, we simply have a consistent application of
the sense (-) 400) of nhw (ATtooTE^AEIV) irrespective of certain theological
contexts in which it is given particular flavour by the situation. The Rabbis
traced back the institution to the Torah (bNed., 72b; - infra).
The legal element in mbt thus lies in the very nature of the matter. None can
be sent but one who is under orders or who places himself under orders. Thus
with the commission there goes the necessary responsibility for the one who
receives it. The man commissioned is always the representative of the man who
gives the commission. He represents in his own person the person and rights of
the other. The Rabbis summed up this basis of the mb0 in the frequently quoted
statement: inime D7x 5t inbt, "the one sent by a man is as the man himself"
(Ber., 5,5), 57 i.e., the m5u is as good as the mai in all that he says and does in
execution of his commission.

Thus one may become betrothed through a mt (Kid., 2, 1; T. Kid., 4, 2; T. Yeb., 4, 4).
In such a case the one commissioned validly performs all the ceremonies in place of the
bridegroom concerned. 58 Similarly there may be a valid execution of the ceremonial of
divorce through a commissioned representative : the powers of the latter are so ex-
tensive that the divorce accomplished or initiated by him cannot be reversed by the
husband (Git., 4, 1). Mutatis mutandis the same is true of any legal transaction (e.g.,
a purchase, T. Yeb., 4, 4, or the killing of the Passover lamb by a slave, Pes., 8, 2 etc.).

That the one sent should act in accordance with his commission is naturally
an unconditional presupposition. At this point there might be sabotage of the
commission by abuse of the plenary power entrusted, and this could not be
prevented or its effects arrested (Kid., 3,1). In other words, the transaction could
not be properly conducted without a resolute subordination of the will of the
representative to that of the one who commissioned him. In the Rabbinic institu-
tion of mbu, therefore, we do not finally have the mechanistic fulfilment of an
order but a conscious, active decision for the plan and commission of another. 58
It makes no difference that this takes place wholly in the legal sphere. This does
not secularise the institution. On the contrary, it implies its religious confirmation
and purification. On Jewish soil law and religion constitute an indissoluble unity.
This is shown by the fact that it can sometimes be said that God is well-pleased
with a 1"70i who sacrifices his life for the cause in hand. 60 But it also emerges
clearly in the further use of mw.

57 For further instances, cf. Str.-B., III. 2.

58 Incisive reasons are given in bKid., 41a-b.
50 This rather exaggerated formulation is indispensable for a clear understanding of the
facts.
60 Nu.r., 16 on 13:2 (a reference given by H. Bornhauser).
 airbatodoc

In its legal basis the whole circle ot ideas bound up with the 120 goes back to the
Semitic law of the messenger as presupposed in the OT. Here the messenger fully
represents in his person the one who sends him, usually the king ; and this is the original
meaning of the sending of a plenipotentiary. The honour which belongs and is to be paid
to his lord is paid to him. We see this in the case of Abigail, who, when the servants
of David come to take her to him as his wife (7x2 19 7002? 7:2%% an20 797, washes
their feet and thus shows that she is ready to perform this wifely service to him (1 S.
25:40 f.). On the other hand, shameful treatment of a messenger is not so much directed
against him as against his lord, and cannot be ignored. Thus in 2 S. 10:1 f. the shaming
of the messengers of David by the Ammonites is the cause of a war of extirpation
against them. In these and similar cases we have practical applications of the theory
of the 130 as later formulated by the Rabbis (-+ 415). Cf. on this point bBQ, 113b:
"The emissary of a king is as the king himself" (Str.-B., 1, 590); also S. Nu., 103 on
12:9 : "With what is the matter to be compared With king of flesh and blood, who
has an epitropos in the land. And the inhabitants of the land spoke against him. Then
the king said: You have not spoken about my servant, but about me.
b. Thus far the reference of the institution has been to the relation between
two men, i.e., to a purely private transaction. But the institution has a wider
scope. On the same foundation the m5w may represent in the same sense a number
of individuals. Here the connection between law and religion in the person of the
emissary emerges far more clearly than was hitherto possible, for in addition to a
definite group he may represent the community as such or local congregations
if empowered to do so. In some cases, therefore, it is a question of the inter-
pretation or religious confirmation of existing offices with the help of the in-
stitution of the nu.
It is not unusual for court to charge an individual with the conveyance or
even the execution of its decisions. What is important is that the one who bears
this commission is called whei (Git., 3, 6; cf. BQ. 9, 5 and Yoma, 1, 5) . 61 Again,
it is as plenipotentiaries of the great Sanhedrin that certain rabbis go to the diaspora
with the task of regulating the calendar, i.e., of executing the intercalation made
in Palestine by official decree (Yeb., 16, 7: Akiba ; T. Meg., 2, 5 : Meir). 62 Similarly,
the beginning of the new month is made known by ambu (RH, 1, 3 and 4; 2, 2) to the
Syrian diaspora, who pass on the news to Babylon by fire signals (RH, 2, 4). Again,
it is as an authorised representative of the local community (may 1530) that the leader
prays for the assembled congregation in the individual synagogue, and any lapse is
bad sign for those whom he has to represent before God (Ber., 5, 5). 63 Again, the high-
priest acts as a fully accredited representative of the priesthood, which for its part is
charged by the Sanhedrin to see that he correctly carries out the prescribed actions,
and then on the Day of Atonement he represents the national community as a whole
(Yoma, 1, 5). It is in this light that we are to understand the care which the Pharisees
and their adherents among the priests displayed in following the ritual according to
Pharisaic tradition (Yoma, 1, ff.; cf. bYoma, 19b).
Sipin181. unt inle 91p ve

61 77022 07w thus comes to mean an "agent of justice" (Mak. 2:2). In cases in which
knowledge of the Halacha was necessary for the execution of the commission as well as
trustworthiness, these agents were themselves scribes and they might alone constitute court
capable of pronouncing sentence (e.g., Men., 10, 3).
62 The word 070 is not used, but the thing itself is present ; for Akiba does not journey
on his own authority. That only an acknowledged scribe could make the intercalation is
easily explained by the importance of common calendar for Judaism.
83 The same is true mutatis mutandis of the intercessor in relation to the sick for whom
he intercedes ; cf. the anecdotes about Chanina b. Dosa, bBer., 34b; jBer., 9d, 21 ff.
& toaToAos

As representatives of the scribes, and in their name again of all Israel, we have
to mention supremely the rabbis who were sent out to the whole diaspora by the
central authorities ; for them the designation 01130 became an official title in the
true sense (- 414). Their commission was many-sided enough, but it was always
made possible by the authority which stood behind them in the person of those
who sent them. After 70 A.D. they made voluntary collection for the Palestinian
scribes, who could not have carried on without this help, so that the continued
exposition of the Halacha, and therefore the achievement by the people of a life
well-pleasing to God, would have been threatened with destruction. To this extent
the gathering of money is a distinctly religious office. 61 Otherwise Akiba and
other great rabbis would not have been willing to undertake it (jHor., 48a, 39 ff.).
Their main task, however, was the visitation of the diaspora. According to jChag.,
76c, 31 ff. and other passages 05 the patriarch Jehuda II (c. 250 A.D.) sent three
leading rabbis to the districts of Palestine to appoint teachers of the Bible and
the Mishna. Similar attempts to maintain through envoys the connection between
the motherland and the diaspora, between the spiritual authorities and the con-
gregations outside Palestine, seem to date from an earlier period. It is as one
such mb of the central authorities that Paul, for example, goes to Damascus in
Ac. 9:1 ff. His carrying of letters from those who commissioned him is fully in
line with the custom of giving abo letters of accreditation.
We have one such document in jChag., 76d, 3 f. (cf. jNed., 42b, 22 f.) . 66 It refers to
R. Chijja bar Abba (c. 280) and commends him to the patriarch Jehuda II "Lo, we send
(13m2v) you a great man (Gi7 D78) as our envoy (13j120), equal to ourselves until he
come to us. Naturally, more details were given of the person and tasks of the nbu.
Their nature was not unimportant even from the standpoint of the * YEUSaTI6ATOAOL
who competed with Paul (2 C. 11:13); this phenomenon could hardly be unknown in
Judaism if accrediting letters were thought to be necessary.
Moreover the amby, who were usually ordained rabbis, were specially set apart
for their task by the laying on of hands in the name of the community which sent
them. Their mission thus acquired a religious as well as an official character
(-2 XELPOTOVEG). 61 Perhaps this final element is also specifically expressed in the
fact that omb were not sent out alone but usually two or more together. 68
Just. Dial., 108 refers to "selected men on whom hands have been laid" (xelpotovñ-
oavtec), meaning Jewish numbu (cf. also 17). 69 The laying on of hands (73120), with

$4 In time there developed a regular tax of the diaspora, the so-called patriarchal tax,
which linked up with the earlier temple tax and replaced free will offerings (cf. Vogelstein,
MGWJ, 438 ff.). Yet the collection still remained in the hands of scribal abo with the
support of local authorities (ibid., 441 f.), which had previously imposed and gathered the
temple tax (cf. also Str.-B., III, 316 ff.).
65 Cf. Krauss, JQR, 375 ff.; EJ, III, 5; Vogelstein, MGWJ, 437.
66 Krauss, EJ, III, 3; Vogelstein, 435, n. 2.
6T We also find XELPOTOVEd with &TTOATÉAG in quite a different connection in Philo
Migr. Abr., 22 (- 399).
48 Cf. the Venosa inscription (- n. 53): duo apostuli et duo rebbites, but esp. the
passages in Schl. Mt., 325 f., and in the NT Mt. 11:2: two sent by the Baptist ; Mk. 6:7:
the sending out (&TOOTE^AEIV) of the disciples 600 800; and Lk. 10:1: the sending out of
the 70 (ATTÉOTELAEV) dvo 800.
88 Cf. v. Harnack, 65, n. 2, where we also have patristic references to Jewish anoarolot.
But cf. what follows.
 artbotolos

which, e.g., the representative high-priest on the Day of Atonement was designated for
his supreme office (Yoma., 1,1), but which was above all customary in ordination
(T. Sanh., 1, 1), seems to have been later abandoned by the Jews in view of its adop-
tion by Christians (Str.-B., II, 653 f.). Its earlier link with the institution of a"mbu
emphasises the importance of the latter.

On the other hand, it must be emphasised most strongly that Jewish missionaries,
of whom there were quite a number in the time of Jesus, TO are never called omb,
and that in relation to them the words 'nbu and ATOOTéAEIV play no part. Their
work took place without authorisation by the community in the narrower sense,
and it thus had a private character, though without detriment to its scope and
significance. 11
Even in Justin ( 417) we still do not find anootoloc used of Jewish missionaries
(Dial., 108) , though it would have been natural to use the term as &TO TENAElV came
to be increasingly used of their authoritative sending by the spiritual authorities in
Jerusalem (17). 72 We may thus conclude that anoatodoc was not regarded as the
obvious Gk. equivalent of 0720, and particularly that the Jews did not make this equa-
tion. 73 Against such a view we may mention, not only the failure of the Jews to use
anoatoloc in the sense of "apostle" prior to NT usage, but also the fact that Jews as
well as Christians came to use attooto oc as a loan word in Latin (inscription of
Venosa), 74 which would not have been necessary in the case of hy. 75

Thus we cannot really speak of Jewish "apostles" at the time of Jesus ; the only
suitable term is "authorised representatives." If "apostles" is used, it is due to a
mechanical transfer of Christian usage to Judaism in spite of the lack of any
grounds on which to justify it ; for, although older Judaism knew many different
kinds of auwbw, it never linked the word with the missionary activity of its
members. This was because the office of mbu grew out of everyday needs within
the community, and did not extend beyond its frontiers. By its whole nature and
origin the institution was secular and not religious, sO that even where it takes
a religious form (-* c.) this is only by way of application. In relation to the
provenance of the Christian apostolate the result is that we must be careful not
to link it with Jewish missionary work. We are certainly guilty of error if we
think of Paul as a missionary prior to his conversion, especially in the sense of
one who was regularly called to preach the religion of his fathers. 76
The fact that there were no authorised missionaries in Judaism prior to 70 A.D. may
be explained by the Jewish consciousness of election as this found expression in the
subordination of the concept of God to religious self-awareness and therefore in the very
trait in Judaism which Jesus attacked, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. From
this assured position the Jewish world had no interest in fostering the spread of its faith ;
it could let others seek it, but not propose it to them. Where missions were conducted,

70 Cf. Mt. 23:15; on the question of origins, U. Str.-B., I, 926.

71 A striking example is the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene through the
Jewish merchant (a Pharisee : Str.-B., I, 926), Eleazar (Jos. Ant., 20, 17 ff.).
72 On Justin's usage, 424.
73 As held by Harnack, 340, n. 1, mainly on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of
Jos. Ant., 17, 300 (+413).
74 414, with n. 53.
75 Legatus would have been a suitable rendering.
78 Cf. E. Barnikol, Die vorchristliche und fruhchristliche Zeit des Paulus (1929), 18 ff.
aitoatolos
they were backed by Pharisaic groups whose action in this respect, too, was grounded
in the concept of merit rather than in a universalism of salvation. 77 The people or
community no more thought of missions as a concern of Israel than the spiritual leaders
and priests. 78 Even after 70 A.D. this still essentially true. 79

C. Further light is shed on the last statements by the fact that the Rabbis often
used the term mbm of one who was commissioned and authorised by God. Two
groups might be mentioned in this connection, first, the impersonal one of the
priesthood in the priest as such, and second, a small number of outstanding
personalities, especially Moses, Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel. 80
In offering sacrifices the priest was the commissioned minister of God and not of the
Jewish community (Rab. Huna b. Jehoshua, c. 350 A.D.; bKid., 23b). Behind this state-
ment stands the whole 1120 idea that the one authoritatively commissioned is as the
one who commissions him (≥ 415). If the priest were the 0*3m of the community, the
latter might also offer sacrifice. But if so, the priest would be superfluous. Hence the
priest can be only the 1ho of God. He is thus called x92777 ,bt "accredited representa-
tive of the Merciful" (cf. bKid., 23b; Yoma, 19, a-b). There is here no contradiction of
Lv. 16 (cf. 4:5 ff.) in as much as his action on behalf of the people is not hereby pre-
judiced; on the contrary, it is shown to be possible.

Moses, Elijah, Elisha and Ezekiel are called armbw of God because there took
place through them things normally reserved for God. 81 Moses causes water to
flow out of the rock (bBM, 86b); Elijah brings rain and raises a dead man ;
Elisha "opens the mother's womb" and also raises a dead man and Ezekiel
receives the "key to the tombs at the reawakening of the dead" according to
Ez. 37:1 ff. (Midr. Ps. 78 5; cf. bTaan. 2a; bSanh., 113a). 82
These four were distinguished by the miracles which God empowered them to perform
and which He normally reserved for Himself. Thus here too (> supra) there is
deduction from cause and effect, with no very profound reflection on mhy. In the back-
ground there may even be a tendency to clear the four of any violation of the divine
prerogatives by showing them to be instruments.
In Ex. r.. 5, 14 on 5:1 Moses and Aaron, when asked by Pharaoh who they are, style
themselves N9 7172 vien bo ybw. At a first glance the formula seems to be far-
reaching and to demand some such rendering as "accredited agents of God." But the
context shows that it is simply a passive form of "God has sent us" as demanded by
the question of Pharaoh (Gr. ATeotaluevol ind 0EO0). The situation is similar in the
case of the angel of death (- n. 82).

77 Midr. HL, 1 on 1:3 : "'If anyone bring a creature (i.e., a man) under the wings of the
Shekinah (i.e., makes him a proselyte), it is reckoned unto him (i.e., by God) as if he had
created and formed and fashioned it.
78 Under the Maccabees and their successors (cf. A. Schlatter, Geschichte Israelss
[19251. 132 ff.) special motives were operative.
79 Cf. Str.-B., I, 926, where the reasons for the failure of missionary enterprise after
70 A.D. are found in the external situation of the Jews.
80 Cf. the instances given in Str.-B., III, f.
81 Cf. on this pt. the Prayer of Eighteen Petitions, where God is especially extolled as
the Raiser of the dead and the Giver of dew and rain. It is to be noted that in 1 Cl., 17, 1
only the first three of these are mentioned specifically along with the prophets generally.
82 Naturally the angels are Dibw, as the angel of death in Dt. r., 9,1 on 31:5
(nipp 5g imbu); but this is another question.
 atroatoloc

As missionaries do not count as anaby of the community (- 418), SO the

prophets are not reckoned as armbw of God. Nowhere do the Rabbis describe a
prophet as the ,ho of God, 83 though this might have been a good way of denoting
his special commissioning by God and his representation of God, which was the
only content of his life and result of his calling. Perhaps the reason is to be sought
in the tendency of the Rabbis to lay increasing emphasis on the divine transcend-
ence ; yet this is hardly adequate, for in respect of the call of the prophets
no was a technical term for authorisation by God (- 400), and therefore 130
was the obvious term to use. We can hardly avoid the conclusion that for later
Judaism the sending of a man (nby by God did not have to imply that he is a
who. In other words, for the Rabbis jhw was obviously not the proper word to
express the ultimate meaning of the prophetic office. If we take missionaries and
prophets together, we are thus forced to the view that the term was avoided in
these cases because, although they speak about God and in the name of God, they
are not His representatives in So far as they perform no action. The essence of
the why is that he should actively represent another.
The thesis that the prophet cannot be a mw because he merely speaks is in
some sense confirmed by the fact that later Judaism interposed the Holy Spirit
between the prophet and God ; the Holy Spirit is, of course, a mere hypostasis of
God and serves to emphasise His transcendence. But if the prophets are made a
possession of the triph m9, 84 they become mere instruments and forfeit their own
initiative. 85 which is essential to the nature of the 17 even though he unites his
own will with that of him who sends him. We need hardly say that with this
mechanisation of prophecy in the interests of speculation the Rabbis grossly mis-
understood it, and they did so in such a way that it finally became impossible to
understand that the essence of this mission consists in the commissioning of a man
to represent the divine Word and will in his whole person. Here we reach the
rationalistically determined limit of the Jewish conception of the mho, and it is
here that, for all the formal kinship, the NT anooroloc both opposes and tran-
scends this view.

C. The Use of aroatoloc in the NT.

1. Statistical Findings.
There are 79 fully attested occurrences, and some others. esp. in Lk. (-> 422; 428),
where it is a secondary reading (Lk. 9:1; 86 Ac. 5:34 87). It is found only once each in
Mt., Mk. and Jn., but 29 times in Paul (if we include 4 times in Eph. and once in Col.,
but exclude 5 times in the Past.), and 34 in Lk. (28 in Ac. and 6 in Lk.); the remaining
occurrences are once each in Hb., Pt. and Jd., twice in 2 Pt. and 3 times in Rev. It

83 Ezekiel is not reckoned a mhm because he is a prophet, but because he possesses

miraculous power ( 419).
84 Cf. esp. T. Sota, 13,2 : When Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, the last prophets,
died, the Holy Spirit disappeared from Israel.
85 Cf. the common Rabbinic formula : "This is what the Holy Spirit has said through . . .
(Str.-B., I, 74 f.).
88 Here it is fairly certainly an Alexandrian gloss (J. Weiss, Das Ev. des Lk. 9 [1901],
ad loc.),
87 V. Soden accepts anoot6 OuG, but v. Wdt. Ag., 53 and F. Blass, Acta apostolorum
(1895), 88 ad loc.
attootoloc

will be seen that four-fifths of the occurrences are to be found in Paul and his pupil
and companion Luke. Thus they are of particular importance in fixing the meaning.
Another important feature is the use of the term at the head of epistles, 6 times in Paul
and 3 times in Past., 1 Pt. and 2 Pt. In this regard we have to reckon with the possibility
that the non-Pauline greetings were influenced by the Pauline both in the use of the
formula xapic kai slpñvn and also in that of the title of "apostle." 88

2. The Meaning.
From the total material the following meanings emerge, partly in connection
with the history of the word and concept, partly in anticipation of the results of
our later deliberations, which in this case are indispensable even for those whose
interest is purely lexical. 89
a. There is now no trace of the common use of groatoloc outside the Bible
and in Josephus (- A.1 and B.1). In the NT anootoloc never means the act
of sending, or figuratively the object of sending. It always denotes a man who is
sent, and sent with full authority. Thus the Gk. gives us only the form of the NT
concept ; the mb of later Judaism provides the content.
We can say this quite exclusively because throughout the NT the word is used only
of men, although according to the course of things ( 430) women might also have
been called apostles. Yet this would have been a self-contradiction, since 1'20 is a legal
term and women have very restricted legal competence in Judaism. Above all, they
cannot act as witnesses (cf. S. Dt., 190 on 19:17). They are also inferior to slaves in
the sense that the latter are the possession of their masters and may legally represent
their will (e.g., in the representative slaying of the Paschal lamb, 415). It is typical
of the situation that with uaenths we also find uaentpia for the woman
Christian, although Judaism did not recognise women paintal. In this case, however,
the presuppositions were very different.

b. There is full identity between anoorolos and mbu at Jn. 13:16 : ook gatv
800/oc ueigwv tou Kupiou aUToU, OUBE ATOOTOAOS HEIGOV tOU TE LUaVtOS
airov. Here anooroloc is simply a rendering of the legal term in its purely legal
sense of one who is lawfully charged to represent the person and cause of another
(-* B 2a.).
This meaning is confirmed by the juxtaposition of the two pairs 600 oc/kupioc and
&tootoloc/rupag. The 8001oc stands fully under the jurisdiction of his master and
derives from him all that he is. But this is also a mark of the mm. Cf. Gn.r., 78 on
32:23 : R. Shim'on (c. 150) has said : 'From the fact that it is written 'Let me go'
(v3nbw, Gn. 32:27), deduce that the one who sends is greater than the one sent." 90

88 On the problem of the Pauline superscription and its development, cf. O. Roller, "Das
Formular der paulinischen Briefe," BWANT, 4. Folge 9/10 (1933). On Paul's self-designa-
tion as an apostle in the salutation 441 f.
89 The situation is such that the meaning can be stated precisely only at the end and
as the result of the enquiry which follows. But this would involve very extended ex-
position. It is thus anticipated, and the later discussion of the origin of NT usage must
serve as detailed corroboration.
90 Str.-B., II, 558. It makes no difference that here have nbnwn (part. hithpael), with
no mention of m9w. It is also worth noting that the Rabb. statement goes beyond the saying
of Jesus in a way which throws typical light on the self-awareness of Jesus (-* TATEIV6S).
 arboroloc

c. Like 120 (- 416), anootoloc denotes the "commissioned representative of

a congregation."
Here we may refer to the phrase arbotolol ExkAnaiov in 2 C. 8:23. This is used
by Paul of the men who at his request were to accompany him to Jerusalem with the
collection which he had organised among the Greek congregations for the poor "saints"
(- Aoyeia). 91 Along the same lines Epaphroditus is an arootolos of the Philippians
to Paul (Phil. 2:25). In these instances the nature of the task, i.e., the conveyance of
proofs of love, gives to the a botoAos a religious rather than legal significance.

d. Finally, drooto/ot is a comprehensive term for "bearers of the NT mes-

sage." The name is first borne by the circle of the twelve, i.e., the original apostles
(including Matthias brought in as a replacement in Ac. 1:26; cf. ol - 8%8eka,
1 C. 15:5). Their sending by Jesus is presupposed.

This use dominates the presentation of Lk. in the Gospel and esp. Acts. The twelve
are here almost a closed college alongside that of the ) TOEOBUTEPOI (Ac. 15:2, 4, 6,
22 f.; 16:4). Among them the figure of Peter is pre-eminent (2:37; 5:29). Jerusalem is
expressly stated to be their centre (Ac. 8:1). In Mt. 10:2 and Mk. 6:30 also the anoato-
lot are the first twelve disciples of Jesus. In all these cases the term is absolute and
self-explanatory; and it is always in the plur. (> on this pt. 435).

Yet the name is also applied to the first Christian missionaries or their most
prominent representatives, including some who did not belong even to the wider
groups of disciples.
Even in Acts we find this usage at least in 14:4, 14, where Paul and Barnabas are
called anooro ol without any sense of impropriety on the part of the author, 92 Thus,
although the twelve are anooto ol for Luke, they are not the only antootolol. Paul
esp. is an & botolos in this sense, and he constantly uses the word of himself, esp.
in the salutations to his epistles. James, the Lord's brother, may also be mentioned
(Gl. 1:19), 93 and like Paul he joined the community only after the death of Jesus. In
R. 16:7 the word is used of Junias and Andronicus, two otherwise unknown fellow-
workers of Paul of Jewish origin. A wider circle (including James, the Lord's brother)
is mentioned in C. 15:7.

In this connection we have side by side both sending by a congregation (e.g.,

Paul and Barnabas by Antioch in Ac. 13:2 ff.) and the more precise description of
the ditootoloc as an atoatoloc 'Inoot Xpl0t0i in the Pauline salutations. In
both cases a link may be seen with the Jewish mw. Yet at this point the difference
from the first group is also clear. If it is not expressed in the term, or in different
estimations of the wider and the narrower circle, the reason must be sought in a
basis of apostolate which is common to both and which cannot be anything other
than encounter with the risen Lord and reception of the commission from Him
personally ("sending"; 430).

91 Cf. Holl, Ges. Aufsatze, II, 60.

92 Later readers found the term awkward, as the textual tradition of vv. 4, 14 shows. Yet
there are no good reason for omitting aootoot ( Wagenmann, 76, n. 1; cf. Mundle, 38,
n.1), as we shall see on material grounds from what follows.
03 That is, if we may link the El un with aTtootoAwv, and if a completely new state-
ment does not follow in 19b. On Junias and Andronicus cf. Zn. R. on 16:7. On 1 C. 15:7 cf.
A. Schlatter, Erliuterungen zum NT, ad loc., where special emphasis is laid on the commis-
sion of the risen Lord : - 423.
attoatoloc

It is to be noted that although Barnabas of the original community (cf. 1 C. 9:5 f.), 94
James the Lord's brother and Paul's compatriots Junias and Andronicus (R. 16:7) are
called attoato/ol as well as Paul, this is not true of Apollos, although it would have
been natural for Paul to give him this title in 1 C. 3:5 ff. Again, Timothy is not an
atroato/os, although he is actively and successfully engaged in missionary work
(e.g., in Thessalonica). Instead he is called an &6E106c (2 C. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Phlm. 1),
8001oc Xpiotoi 'Inoot (Phil. 1:1), and even OUVEPYOC TOU 0EOD (1 Th. 3:2). 95
But these are no substitutes for the title of apostle. Again, the common enjoyment of
direct commission prevented a breach between Paul and the Jerusalem group represented
by James, in spite of the serious differences between them (Ac. 15:1 ff.; cf. Gl. 2:9).
That basis of the apostolate is commissioning by the risen Lord is expressly stated in
C1., 42, 1 ff. For Paul, too, the sense of apostolate is linked with recollection of his
encounter with the living Christ (1 C. 9:1 and esp. 15:8 ff.). 96

According to Paul the &nooroou (1 C. 12:28 f.) are not officials of the con-
gregation, let alone the chief of such officials ; 97 they are officers of Christ by
whom the Church is built. In this respect they may be compared with the prophets
of the OT (Eph. 2:20; 3:5), whose office, on the basis of their commission, was
to prepare the way for the One who was to come (- ATOOTE^AO, 400; tpoohins).
Here, then, a climax of apostolic awareness is reached which was only possible
on the soil of early Christian eschatology, as we can see esp. in Paul - D. 3).
The context makes it quite plain that in the phrase Év Th ÉKkAnoia (1 C. 12:28)
Paul means the Church and not the Corinthian congregation. 98 For just before he refers
to the > Qua Xpiotoi. He never does this, however, in respect of the individual
congregation, but always of the total organism whose Head (-> KEpaAn) is Christ
(Eph. 1:22; cf. 2:11 f.; Col. 1:18 etc.; cf. R. 12:5). In any case, to interpret ÉxkAnoia
as the individual congregation would stamp Paul as the teacher of an interim ethics,
which he never was, just as he never wrote of man or the community apart from
Christ, but always considered their state and significance in relation to Him (> EK-
kAnoia). Cf. also Eph. 4:11.

In Hb. 3:1 Jesus Himself is called o artootolos kai apXiepEuc tis ouolo-
yias nuov. Here the only possible meaning of gnooroloc is that in Jesus there
has taken place the definitive revelation of God by God Himself (1:2).
Omission of an art. before XPXLEPEUC 98 shows that the phrase constitutes a unity.
It gathers up what has been said about Jesus from the standpoint of the decision of the
readers (- buoloyla), namely, that He is the Son (-) uioc) in whom God has finally
spoken (1:1 ff.), and that He is the High-priest who has finally expiated the sins of
His people (2:5 ff.). In this case gnogtoloc goes far beyond poonis, which is
not used of Jesus and in terms of the absolute & vioc (1:2) it is best explained by the
later Jewish n0, i.e., that in the Son there speaks and acts God Himself (the term
Father is avoided in Hb.; tamp). We have seen already > 419) that the idea of
the mbu was applied to ordinary priests. We are here in the presence of analogous
thoughts (3:5 ff.) which justify our adoption of the same conception. If this line of

94 So Ltzm. K., ad loc. and esp. J. Wellhausen, NGG, 1907, 5, n. 1, as against Bchm. K.,
ad loc. and esp. Holl, Ges. Aufsatze, II, 51, n.
95 There are strong internal reasons for this reading, which is attested by D* 33 Ambst
(cf. C. 3:9 and ¥ 442); it is much too bold to be a later intrusion.
96 C. 15:8 ff. is stronger than 9:1; this was overlooked by . Harnack, 335, n. 5.
97 So Pr.-Bauer, 156.
98 Which many have taken to be self-evident.
 atroatoloc

reasoning is sound, the same thought, differently applied, lies behind the two parts of
the one expression. This is the thought of absolute authority (ouoAoyia) on the basis
of absolute authorisation for word (&tootoAoc) and work (XPXLEpEUC). The usage
is unique, and yet it develops organically out of the customary usage of NT times.
If a different view is taken, then the only possibility is that in arborolos Jesus,
"as the One uniquely sent by God, is contrasted with Moses, the greatest bearer of
revelation in the OT," and in ApXlEpEog "with Aaron, the leading representative of
the priesthood under the Law."09 This would give us, however, a usage never found
elsewhere in the NT and found only in Justin throughout the whole range of early
Christian literature. Justin does sometimes call Jesus atroatoloc as well as ayyeAos
and Si8aakaloc (Apol., I, 12, 9 etc.), 100 adopting terms from the Gnostic myth ac-
cording to which the final Redeemer is simply the One who is sent. It is worth noting,
however, that the word is not used in John's Gospel, where we have echoes, or apparent
echoes, of such ideas, 101 whereas it does occur in Hb., which gives no evidence of
connection with this speculation. Above all, this view entails inevitable disruption in
the description of Jesus (-* supra), since it involves the isolation of anootoloc from
APXLEpE0s, whereas the author is concerned to bring out their indivisibility and thus to
show that the revelation accomplished in Jesus is characterised neither by Word alone
on the one side nor by priestly office alone on the other, but by both in conjunction.

D. The Rise and Nature of the Apostolate in the NT.

1. Jesus and the First Circle of Disciples.
a. Quite apart from the fact that the group of disciples was the germ cell of
the future community, and was viewed by Jesus Himself as such, 102 the question
of the rise of the apostolate must begin here. It is to be noted first that from the
purely external standpoint there was nothing to distinguish this group from similar
groups gathered around other teachers. This is expressed even in the name
uaental, which was used for the followers of Jesus as well as for the pupils of
other rabbis. The difference consists in the way in which the circle came into
being (-> KaNEW, &Koou0É∞) and in what developed out of it it was created
and formed neither by a special spiritual endowment nor by a special decision of
the members, but solely on the initiative of Jesus. It is characteristic of Jesus that
in the first instance He did not transfer this initiative to His adherents, but that
they first became ua0ntal, and thus had to listen, even though the situation itself
was crying out for action. 103 If the disciples nevertheless renounced all initiative,
this was because "they sincerely and resolutely accepted His call to repentance."104
They thus learned what obedience is, learning it from the fact that Jesus showed
them God both as the Holy One and as the Father. 105 We can hardly understand
the inner nature of the NT apostolate if we do not see this above all else. Here
are the final reasons why it could not harden into an office even when Jesus died
and the time came to establish a community with clear-cut ordinances. 106 This

99 Rgg. Hb., 67 ad loc.

100 Wetter, 28.
101 Bau. J., 55 on 3:17; R. Bultmann, ZNW, 24 (1925), 105 ff. - E.
102 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus2 (1923), 406 f.
103 This is constantly shown by the behaviour of the disciples right up to the incident
of Peter's sword (Jn. 18:10 and par.).
104 Schlatter, op. cit., 312 and esp. 313, n. 1.
105 Cf. the whole of the Sermon on the Mount and the great parables, esp. in Lk.
106 The account of the transactions in Jerusalem in Ac. 15 gives clear evidence of a
properly constituted community (- IpEOBuTEpos), though cf. also Ac. 6:1.
attootoloc

was not possible because it arose among a circle of believers who knew that they
were under God's orders and who realised that the rule of love had become the
only rule for dealings with their neighbours. 107 The result is that only those who
belonged to the uaental of Jesus in the full sense of the word could have this
authoritative part in His work.
Materially, this is the essential point in the relation between ol uaentai, oi & too to-
Aol and ol 868 ka. The ua0ntal are the larger fellowship because they are the
more general group 108 without which there can be neither grootodot nor 866EKa.
Presupposing the legitimate use of the term, an grootolos must always be a paints,
whereas not every paentns need be an afootoAos. There are thus no material
reasons for surprise at the use of the phrase ol Swdeka anootolol (Mt. 10:2). On
the other hand, it does not force us to identify ol 808eka and ol toorolot. Indeed,
any such identification is ruled out by the conjoining of the two expressions, the more
so as we have no grounds for suspecting a pleonasm in Mt. 10:2.

b. The activity of the disciples begins when Jesus determines to make them His
fellow-workers. 108 The Synoptists agree in giving no reasons for this decision.
Indeed, we cannot even speak of a specific decision in the strict sense, but only
of the fact that Jesus called "the twelve" to Himself and "sent them out. Only
Mk. uses &TOGTENAELV to describe this act, while Mt. and Lk., and Mk. in a
later saying, emphasise the fact that endowment by Jesus with #ovola is the
characteristic feature of the act. This shows us that we have here an authoritative
sending in the sense of full delegation. From the way in which their mission is
described, the men thus sent out are to be described as bbt in the legal sense
of the term. It is in full agreement that they later return and give an account
(- aTayyÉ^Aw, Mk. 6, 30; SinyÉoual, Lk. 9:10) of what they have done.
At this point we cannot discuss in detail whether the sending out of the twelve is a
historical act of Jesus, or whether it is to be regarded as the invention of a later age
designed to prove that the college of the 868EKa a tootolol in the original com-
munity was authorised by Jesus Himself in His own life-time. 110 But in this form the
question is perhaps wrongly put, since it presupposes the possibility, and perhaps even
the necessity, of identifying of 868EKa and ol groatolol, and apart from the for-
mulae adduced, which can be explained differently, there are no reasons for this. We
may only say that the historical relationships are made even more obscure if we do
not accept a sending out of the twelve by Jesus, not least because there is no motive
for the sending apart from the will of Jesus.

The derivation of the apostolate from Jesus Himself, however, is not linked
only with the contested issue of the genuineness of the sending of the twelve. For
apart from the account of the sending in the strict sense, there are two additional
testimonies to an apostolate after the manner of the Jewish institution of the
mot; and while these do not render the account superfluous, they form a welcome
addition to the material on which to base a judgment.

107 Cf. Mt. 22:37-40.

108 Bultmann Trad., 390 f. refers esp. to the usage of Lk.
109 Mt. 10:1; Mk. 6:7; Lk. 9:1.
110 So again in recent times, following many earlier scholars, Schutz, 72 ff.; a brief sketch
of the history of the problem is given on 71 f.
 arbotodoc

The first testimony is to be found in Mk. 9:38 ff.; Lk. 9:49 f. Here John complains to
Jesus about an exorcist who is casting out demons in the name (- *voua) of Jesus
without being one of His uaintai, and who will not allow the disciples to stop him.
John could hardly speak as he did if it were only a matter of prestige or competence
affecting Jesus Himself. He is obviously incensed that an outsider should arrogate to
himself what is not his. The formula Év tO ovouatl oou (Mk.) or Eri to ovouati
Gou 111 shows us that in his miracles the stranger was using the power available to
Jesus as if it were his own, but without authorisation. Only the disciples were authorised
to use it. This is at least the view of John, and it is only possible if the authorisation
of the disciples to work miracles 112 was not merely wishful thinking but a reality
hitherto restricted to them and deriving from authorisation by Jesus Himself.
The second testimony is the saying of Jesus concerning the significance of the treat-
ment of the disciples by men (Mt. 10:40 ff.; Mk. 9:41; Lk. 10:16). This presupposes the
validity of the statement that the 120 of a man is as the man himself, and what is
done to the m2o is done as to him (-> 415). Hence the saying is only possible if there
has already been an authorisation of those addressed. It makes little difference that in
this context, as distinct from Mk. 9:38 ff., there is no reference to miracles or to other
special acts which might show that those addressed are authorised by Jesus. Lk. speaks
only of preaching, Mk. of belonging to Christ or discipleship (cf. Mt. 10:42). There
is no mention of groatooc in any of the three passages, or in Mk. 9:38 ff. par.
Indeed, even &TO TENEIV is used only of the relationship of Jesus to God and not of
the disciples. Nevertheless, the matter is wholly as we have learned to see it in the
legal discussions of the Rabbis concerning the m2.

The two passages support an authorisation of the disciples which is linked with
the person of Jesus, the more so as they take it for granted and do not seek to
establish it. 113 They acquire added significance from the fact that, particularly in
the first passage, Jesus has to correct the ideas of the disciples. Although the legal
foundations of the apostolate are unmistakeably present, Jesus does not advance
the claim that might be based on them. If the disciples are given full power "in
the name of Jesus," i.e., to speak and act as He does, this does not give them a
new right but implies the duty of serving the One who confers the power, The
choice of examples in the second passage shows further that commissioning to
represent Jesus and His cause means humiliation rather than exaltation. Thus in
the sayings of Jesus we do not see only the apostolate as such. We also see its
conjunction with service and humility and consequently the purification from any
legal claim which is so characteristic of the view of the apostolic office found in
Paul. We are thus prevented by the sayings of Jesus Himself from trying to
deduce from His authorisation for word and action an official congregational
office fulfilled in terms of law. To be precise, we should not use the word office

111 On the usage cf. par. from Josephus in Schl. Lk., 109.
112 In accordance with the mode of expression of the two Evangelists it is better to take
this as generally as possible. The exorcist is not a rival of specific disciples such as the
twelve, but of all of them as such: cf. Lk.: 8t ouk aroloueet LEO' nuov.
113 In the light of these passages the rson of Jesus, and His relationship to His disciples
during His ministry, are grossly misunderstood if we assume that "Jesus gathered around
Him disciples who should go out to preach the kingdom of God and work miracles,'
without even considering the concept of the personal authority of Jesus, let alone making
this authority, or the concept of God represented by it, the only standard of the conduct
of the disciples as such (as against Schutz, 72). At very best, this could produce only a
group of philosophical adherents but not a religious fellowship. Cf. on this pt. Wagenmann,
5 f., who refers to Judas as one of the twelve.
attoatoloc
at all in this context; we should speak of commission in the sense of the authorisa-
tion which is limited in time and space, and which is conditioned materially rather
than personally, as in the Jewish concept of m5t.
How little we are concerned with office is shown by the fact that the authorisation
was not restricted to the twelve, nor was any such restriction even suggested in the
interests of the first apostles ; otherwise the account of the sending of the 70 (paintal,
Lk. 10:1) could hardly have been tolerated in the tradition. On the other hand, even
this story 114 makes it self-evident that the task of proclaiming the coming kingdom
(-* knpiooo) was first committed to the immediate circle of the twelve who were
closest to Jesus, though He obviously did not grant them any special position or
personal privilege (-> 426). The fact that there is no office is also brought out by the
obvious conclusion of the task with the return to Jesus. In Lk. 9:49 f. and par. the band
of disciples is not at work, because it is with Jesus. We never hear of any activity of
the disciples in His immediate presence. They are always "sent out" (ATTOOTEAAEIV) by
Him. 115 When they are with Him, it is as hearers and ministers, 116 after the manner
of the pupils of the rabbis. This is of decisive importance in relation to the early
Christian view of the apostle, and it is obviously linked with g90. On this point, see
what follows. 117

It should be obvious that the apostolate as such has no religious character, but
is simply a form. These apostles receive their religious impress from the One who
gives them their commission, and always in such a way that the commission itself
is the main thing and the apostles are only its bearers, according to the Rabbinic
principle : inina bux 5t inbt (-> 415; 421).
c. A more difficult question than that of the presence of authorisation is that
of the presence of the name of "apostle" in the first group of disciples. The word
gitoatoloc is occasionally used in the Gospels of the men sent out by Jesus
(-> 422) with the task of proclamation. In Mt. 10:2 the 868Eka uaintai of 10:1
are called the So8eka anootolot. Between the two different terms for the same
men 118 lies the commissioning or the endowment with - ÉEouoia. This shows us
why gootoloc is used. The uaental have become dootolou by the decision
of Jesus. The case is much the same in Mk. 6:30. This tells of the return of the
&Tto tolol to Jesus ; the terms &TtOOTÉ^EIV and 81oval lEoualav have been
used to describe their sending (6:7). But then both Matthew 119 and Mark revert
to the word uantal for the rest of their Gospels. 120 This excludes the possibility
that they saw in anootoloc a description of office in the sense of a character
indelebilis. 121 Yet this is not to say that Jesus did not use the word or refer to
what it denotes, 122 as though the term implied the importation of a later status and
title into His dealings with His disciples.

114 Cf. on this Schl. Lk., 274 ff.

115 Cf. also Lk. 10:17.
116 Cf. Mt. 19:13 par.; 21:1 ff. par.; 26:17 ff. par.; but also In. 12:20 f. It is only in this
light that we can see the full significance of the foot-washing (Jn. 13:1 ff.).
117 On the sending of the apostles two by two, for which there are Jewish precedents,
417 and n. 68.
118 On their material relationship, + 425.
110 Matthew does not describe the return.
120 The account given by Wellhausen, 140 can only be described as caricature.
121 From this standpoint critical objections to the appearance of the word in the two
passages would be quite justified.
122 _ 428.
 arbotoloc

There is perhaps something of this in Luke. In the Gospel the word is found
6 times. At 24:10 it is a fixed term for the first group of disciples, as also at 22:14,
where it is used of the identical circle which gathered for the Last Supper. 123
In neither of these cases is there any reference to a mission. We thus have a fixed
usage, and this is corroborated by the absence of the limiting 124 8wdexa. In the
other passages, however, those called &tootoou are truly sent out.
In 11:49 the word appears with Tpopñtal in a quotation, and has no reference either
to the uoontal of Jesus or the twelve. In 9:10 it refers to the return of the twelve as
in Mk. 6:30 (supra). In 17:5 it cannot be separated from the story of possession in
Mt. 17:14 ff.; Mk. 9:14 ff., and it thus presupposes a general authorisation to heal 125
which is rendered nugatory by their y oAtyonoria. 126 Finally, the election and
designation of the twelve as apostles in Lk. 6:12 f. is obviously with a view to their
mission (9:1: ol 868EKa), 127 from which they return as of &Ttoato ol in 9:10 (supra).

In Lk. we thus have on the whole a usage in which the inner connection between
antoatoloc and aTTO TENELV is maintained. This usage is only conceivable in a
situation in which &TOTE Eo0al and not & EFT& OaL or gTtooraAñval is ap-
propriate ; this is shown by the later fixing of the term. Yet from this standpoint,
too, there can be little doubt that the word anootoloc goes back to Jesus, ob-
viously not in the Greek form, but in the Aramaic original r15w. The latter point
is not unimportant, for the Aramaic word does not have the suggestion of office
which later came to attach to atoatodoc in consequence of the position of the
twelve in the primitive community. Lk. 6:13 says expressly: kai ÉKAEExuEVoC
&Tt® autoy &∞8EKa, oUc kai aTtootoious ovouaoEv. The relative clause is
usually taken to be anachronistic. Some see assimilation to a similar phenome-
non in the Synagogue, though others dismiss it altogether as an intrusion. 128
Yet neither view is necessary if we see in antootodoc no more than a purely
objective term to denote a fully accredited representative with a specific com-
mission. Our preceding deliberations (-* 427 f.) have made this interpretation not
merely possible but necessary, since otherwise we are involved in a serious mis-
representation of the relationship of the disciple to Jesus which inevitably leads,
and has actually led, to glaring contradictions in the accounts. In any case,
however, this interpretation has the support of the Gospel tradition itself.
When we compare Lk. 6:12 f. and Mk. 3:13 ff., we find that the words ofc kai
&TOOT6 OUS OVoUaOEV in Lk. correspond to iva &TootE An autoic KnpUGgEIv Kai

123 The reading of 868EKa atoatolol (22:14), attested by AC and the imper. text, is
definitely secondary.
124 425.
125 So also Schl. Lk., 384 f.; cf. H.J. Holtzmann, Die Synoptiker3 (1901), 391 ad loc.
Amongst other objections to the attempt to anchor the saying at any price in the context
given by Lk. (Zn. Lk., ad loc.) we may mention that it is customary for Lk. to give his
own introductions to sayings of Jesus (Bultmann Trad., 384 ff.). In this case, v. Schl. Lk.,
385.
126 The event takes place in the absence of Jesus (Mt. 17:1 ff.; Schl. Lk., 385), with which
the > oAlyonlotia is possibly connected, since it is preceded by the first intimations of
the passion (Mt. 16:21 ff.).
127 In the light of 6:12 f. this is the only possible comprehensive designation, for they
are selected from the uaental but cannot yet be called aTtoatoAol since they have not
actually been sent out. In general the usage is thus very similar to that of Mt. 10:1 f.
(supra).
128 As, for instance, in KI. Lk., ad loc,
diroatoloc

EXELV tEouolav in Mk., just as EKEEQUEVOC ATT' aUTo in Lk. correspond to Kal
Érrolnoev 866EKa, iva boL MET' autoo in Mk. In both Evangelists what follows
shows that the true appointment as arborolol comes later, at 6:7 in Mk. and 9:1 in Lk.
Thus the creation of the inner circle of the twelve and their appointment as a oatoAol
are not coincident in time. Mt. is in full agreement on this point (Mt. 10:1;> 427). The
selection made by Jesus is with a view to their future participation in His work. This
is brought out expressly by Mk. in a final clause which points to the future. But the
relative clause in Lk. can have only the same meaning unless the word attooto/oc
which here has no article is completely divorced from the situation of the disciples
as this is indicated by a comparison of 6:13 and 9:1 ff. It is even possible that the
sources used by Lk. suggested that when Jesus selected the twelve He spoke to them
about His plan, and that this is what is meant by the Ovoua(elV aitoic antoatolous;
but this is pure conjecture.
Moreover, the relative clause in Lk. has a full par. in the textual tradition of Mk.
3:14 in as much as it is excellently attested (xBC*WOo sah min Tatian) for this
passage after HET' autoi, though on count of Lk. 6:13 it has never been accepted
as canonical in textual criticism. Possibly the difficulties created by the term &ntboroAot
have also had something to do with its rejection. If it were interpreted as here proposed,
the reading would perhaps command more confidence than it has thus far received.

It may thus be accepted not merely that the apostolate itself derives from Jesus
but also that the name apostle is used by Him. If He did not use the Greek term,
or speak in terms of an office, at least He applied the mu institution to the re-
lationship between Him and His disciples at the time when, assigning them His
full authority, He brought them into full participation in His work.
d. A further point from the Gospels which is significant for the later period
is the linking of no ldnootolos with the proclamation of the Word as the act
of Jesus. Mk. tells us that the supreme task of the attooto/ol according to the
will of Jesus is Knpicoetv (3:14), and on their return they tell Him Ttovra
Sox Ertoinaav kal £818afav. According to Lk. Jesus sends them out KnpUGGELV
Thy BacilElav TOU 0EOU Kai la fal (9:2), and they are given the same task in
Mt. in a rather fuller form and with closer reference to the work of Jesus (10:7 f.).
The implication of this feature is that a supremely objective element is made the
content of the apostolate. The dootoloc has no personal influence on the inner
form of his commission. When the saying Myyikev i Bacileia tov oupaviov is
given to the disciples as the theme of their proclamation they are placed at the
side of Jesus. They are thus brought under the will of God which destroys their
autonomy 129 and leaves them no option but full and obedient dedication to their
task. 130
Indissolubly bound up with the commission to preach the Word is Jesus'
empowering of His messengers to act (supra). Action, too, is essential, for in it
the messenger has and gives proof that he is really the commissioned representative
of Jesus. It is a characteristic of the disciples who take part in the first mission,
and of their inward sobriety grounded in the Word and example of Jesus, that
the miracles which they perform are never a subject of boasting, let alone of

120 Cf. Mt. 10:9 ff. par. In this regard we might point to many things spoken to the
uaental as such and not as anootolol, esp. Mt. 18:1 ff.
180 Mt. 25:14 ff.; Lk. 19:12 ff. It is to be noted that the reference is to the departure of
the man and to a commission given to his ervants during his absence.
 drooro^oc

assessment according to the standard of individual performance. 131 Of the seventy,

too, Lk. tells us that on their return they reported petd xapac: Kal to baquovia
Stotaooetal fuiv ev to ovouati FoU (10:17). Here is a complete ignoring of
the person of the one commissioned and a complete absorption in the task. Here
is the xap& which obtains when man leaves the field to God and finds the
meaning of life in serving Him (- yapa). Obviously Lk. was not here giving
his own ideal of the apostle, but simply following his source. It is the more
significant that here already the returning messengers joyfully extol their success
as the success of Jesus, and that, like all other returning messengers in the Gospels,
they say nothing at all of the difficulties which they have had to face when
working in the name of Jesus, and of which Jesus has quite clearly warned them
(cf., e.g., Mk. 6:11). This is important because it means that a decisive element
in the attitude of Paul is already found among the first disciples of Jesus in re-
lation to this appointment to responsible service.
2. The Early Christian Apostolate as a Gift of the Risen Lord,
a. The usage of the term and the situation of the disciples during their contact
with Jesus show us that their task of preaching the imminent kingdom of God
was limited to a set period (-> 427). Since we do not read of the twelve being
sent out again, or of any continuing commission to represent Jesus, the departure
of Jesus found them at loss rather than ready for service. All that they had was
the promise that death would not hold Him 182 and that His fellowship with them
would continue. 133 Even this promise, however, did not keep them from flight, 134
denial, 135 fear, 136 and hopeless grief. 137 The Gospels and Acts make it quite
clear that it was exclusively the act of the risen Lord that this scattered group
became a community full of hope and ready for action. 138 The act of the risen
Lord, however, was the renewal of the commission of the disciples in their
definitive institution as anootodou. 130
Keeping to essentials, we may ignore the historical details, and also the geo-
graphical problem of Galilee or Jerusalem. 140 What matters is that the apostolate
was not carried over into the developing community from the pre-Easter period.
It was after His resurrection that Jesus, in the apostolate, made the community
possible as a preaching community. 141 The apostles are witnesses of the resurrec-
tion, though not all witnesses of the resurrection are apostles. 142 The circle of

131 It is a moot point whether such thoughts perhaps occasioned the conversation in
Mt. 18:1 ff. par.; we hardly need assume this to understand the passage, since the question
treated was always a live issue in the Synagogue (Schl. Mt., 543 f.).
132 Mt. 16:21 par.; 17:23 par.; 20:19.
133 Mt. 18:20; 26:29 par.
134 Mt. 26:56; Mk. 14:50.
125 Mt. 26:69 ff. par.
136 None of the disciples takes part in His burial (Mt. 27:57 ff.). A few of the women
close to Him come to see where He is laid (Mk. 15:47; cf. Lk. 23:55 f.; Mt. 27:61). The
situation in Jn. 20:19 is typical.
137 Lk. 24:4 (&nopeia0al), 13 ff.
138 Cf. esp. Lk. 24:36 ff.
130 Mt. 28:16 ff.; Lk. 24:48 f.; Ac. 1:8.
140 Cf. J. Weiss, Das Urchristentum (1917), 10 ff., and for bibl. on the problem of
"Galilee on the Mt. of Olives" Pr.-Bauer, 236.
141 v. A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte der ersten Christenheit (1926), 10; P. Feine, Der
Apostel Paulus (1927), 222.
142 Cf. Lk. 24:49 with 46 and esp. C. 15:8 ff., but also Holl, Ges. Aufs., I1, 51.
attbotodoc

apostles does not seem to have been particularly large. It still did not include any
women, though women were the first to see the risen Lord 143 and there were also
women prophets. 144

Thus it is very doubtful whether the "more than 500" of 1 C. 15:6 became apostles
as a result of Jesus' appearance to them, though in C. 15:8 f. the apostolate is linked
with personal encounter with the risen Lord and the thought of the founding of the
apostolate is prominent in the whole passage. 145 On the other hand, James the Lord's
brother, who was never a > uaentns but was a witness of the resurrection according
to 1 C. 15:7, was one of the leaders of the Jerusalem church (Gl. 1:19; 2:9, 12) and was
obviously regarded by Paul as one of the attoatoot, 146 though not actually given
the title. 147

With personal encounter with the risen Lord, personal commissioning by Him
seems to have been the only basis of the apostolate. That this commission was
given primarily to the twelve is connected with their participation in the history
of the earthly Jesus, who specifically prepared them to take up and continue His
preaching, yet now as the proclamation of Jesus as the One who had come in
fulfilment of OT prophecy. 148 Materially, therefore, two elements are linked with
the apostolate in the first community. By the commission of Jesus a number of
men, especially those who were closest to Him during His life, became His re-
presentatives in the sense that they took His place and thus assumed an authorita-
tive position in the little company of Christians. Yet the altered situation meant
that they also became missionaries, and this form of their work was what really
characterised their office.

We do not know how large was the circle of the first &moatolot. It cannot have
been too small. Paul and Acts show us indirectly that the missionary task dominated its
life right into the inner circle of the twelve. At the time of Gl. 1:18 ff. there were no
attoatolol in Jerusalem except Peter and James, who was not one of the twelve,
although by now the scattering of the community in connection with the martyrdom
of Stephen was long since past (Ac. 8:1 ff.). 140 At Ac. 15:1 ff. we have only of
grootolol, not the twelve, and it must be remembered that James, the son of Zebedee,
had been executed prior to the so-called Apostolic Council (Ac. 12:1 f.). Paul speaks
especially of the misionary activity of Peter in C. 9:5, if we are to take it that the
TEPI&YElV refers to apostolic journeys ; 150 the same verse speaks not only of the
lottol arooto ot but also of the &Apol tou kuplou, who cannot be simply equated
with the gnootolol. Perhaps Peter as a missionary was particularly connected with
the Babylonian Jews. 151 It is striking that we know very little about most of the

143 Mt. 28:1 ff. par.; Jn. 20:11 ff.

Ac. 21:8 f. The Ac. PI. et Thecl. give Thecla the title of apostle (n TOU 0e00
Tpwiouaptus Kai antoatoloc kal TtXPOÉVOC OÉKAa, p. 272, 20 f., Lipsius), but this is
simply an approximation to the picture of Paul.
145 "In Paul the Easter event is viewed exclusively from the standpoint that through it
Jesus created His messengers' (A. Schlatter, Die Geschichte des Christus? [1923], 532).
146 Cf. the emphatic toic STOaT6 OIC ToOl in 1 C. 15:7b.
147 Gl. 1:19 is not decisive, since linguistically it is hard to tell whether the El un refers
to the whole preceding clause or only to afootowv (v. Lightfoot ad loc.).
148 Cf. the addresses in Ac. but also the Kata tas ypaoas of C. 15:3 f.; also R. 1:2;
3:21.
140 Ac.8:1 states expressly that the gooro ot remained in Jerusalem at this period.
150 Joh. W. 1 C., ad loc.
161 Cf. 1 Pt. 5:13 and A. Schlatter, Erlauterungen zum NT, ad loc. ;: Einleitung in die
Bibel4 (1923), 448 f.; but BaBu ov.
 aTtoTOAoG

apostles after Pentecost. From Mt. 28:19 f. we can see clearly that they must have
engaged in missionary enterprise, for the developing Church would hardly have kept
this saying in the Gospel if it had not corresponded to the facts, 152

This missionary element is something which radically distinguishes the NT

apostolate from the Jewish Thu institution. The same is true even of the form
which it had assumed in the intercourse of Jesus with His disciples and in their
participation in preparation for the coming Baciela of God (- 427). Here
the basis was the same, but in the post-Easter situation it led to very different
consequences from those prior to Easter. With the post-Easter situation, which
cannot be separated from the experience of the absoluteness of Jesus in the circle
of the disciples, there is linked the lasting character of 'the commission which
they are now given. The risen Lord does not now appoint His representatives
merely for a limited span but for the whole period, of unknown duration, 183
between Easter and His return. Yet He makes only the one appointment, and
therefore it is only logical that the apostolate should be limited to the first genera-
tion and should not become an ecclesiastical office. For the rest, we have a
repetition of what took place at the first commissioning of His messengers, namely,
the endowment with - fougla 154 and also the imposition of a duty to render
an account when the commission is given back into the hands of the One who
gives it. 155 In both these points we can see that what counts is not the initiative
of the apostle but his obedient observance of the line followed by Jesus Himself.
This is classically fulfilled by Paul (- 437).
Did., 11, 1 ff. 156 is no argument against the limitation of the apostolate to the genera-
tion of Paul in the technical sense of NT usage. For in the phrase aTtooToAoL kai
"poontal the concern of the passage is only with the latter ;15T no warning is issued
against false arboro ot. The term &tootoloc seems to be used merely to indicate
that the true prophet does not come in his own name but in the name of Jesus 158 and
in His Spirit, 159 i.e., as a member of His Church and its order, 160

Because of the thought of God which works itself out in obedience, the Spirit
is indispensable for the renewed apostolate. In the Spirit the community and
especially the apostles receive assurance of the presence of Jesus and therewith
the power of Jesus. 161 It is of the very essence of the early Christian apostolate

152 But cf. also Paul at R. 1:5 ff.; 1 C. 9:16 (-* ovaykn, 346).
153 Ac. 1:6 f.
154 Cf. the miracles in Ac., but also the formula onuEia TOU &TOFT6 OU in 2 C. 12:12
and the material par. in 1 Th. 1:5.
165 Mt. 25:14 ff. par.; C. 4:4 (- olkovouos).
156 Seufert, 119 sees in the itbotodol of the Didache "independent missionaries restlessly
wandering from congregation to congregation to spread the yvoois kupiov; cf. also
v. Harnack, 347 ff. This view, however, is impossible, since d tootolos and independence
are mutually exclusive ( 415).
157 Seufert failed to see this (119)" -+ "popims.
158 Did., 12, 1.
139 A prophet is a true prophet tov Exn toug tpotouc kupiou (11,8); it is thus, and
not merely by his words, that one may perceive whether he has the Spirit.
160 Cf. 11, 11. It is to be noted in this connection that the envoys from the Church of
Rome to the Church of Corinth in CI., 65, 1 are not called arooto ou but &neotaquevot.
161 Cf. on this pt. W. Grundmann, Der Begriff der Kraft in der nt.lichen Gedankenwelt
(1932). 92 ff. Power cannot be considered in itself, as Grundmann tends to handle it in his
chapter on the disciples and apostles (92 ff.): is always linked with a person,
antoatoloc

that the missionary activity of the disciples should begin with Pentecost. 162 In
the Spirit, however, the apostle is also given a standard of what he himself is and
does, and of what is done through him by God or Christ, 163 who has called him
to be His instrument, though in full and conscious surrender of his own will and
not in ecstatic abandonment to divine power. 164 For this reason, in the preaching
of the apostles and evangelists 165 in Acts no less than in Jesus Himself, the central
point is the faith of the hearers in Jesus and not the achievement of the preacher
or worker of miracles. 166

We completely misunderstand the significance of the possession of the Spirit, and

especially the nature of the apostolate in primitive Christianity, if we explain the
miracles of Acts 167 solely as later legends of the community told in maiorem gloriam
of individual apostles, e.g., of Paul as compared with the acts of Peter in the first part
of the book. At all points there is firm belief that Jesus Himself stands behind the
miracles, that in them He displays His power through His messengers and that He thus
endorses His messengers as such. If the messenger of a man is as the man himself, and
if the NT apostolate is based on this principle, the absence of miracles would signify
no less than the invalidity of the apostolic claim. It would show that the proclamation
of the risen Christ is simply a human theorising and not a message concerning the
divine act which transcends all human thought. To this extent the onueia tou ATTOOTo-
1ou (2 C. 12:12) are indispensable for the sake of the cause itself, for Jesus' sake,
rather than for the sake of His messengers. Those who think they may dispense with
them must also interpret the miracles of Jesus as legends, or at least try to reduce them
to natural processes which took on legendary form in the tradition. But this would also
be to disclaim the apostolate as a religious, indeed, as the basic religious institution in
the primitive community. It would leave only an institution which is a legal office,
even though founded by Jesus. This the true apostolate most definitely was not 168
either in its history or in important aspects of its outworking. 180 Naturally these
considerations do not render superfluous an exact critical investigation of the miracles
in Acts ; on the contrary, they make it genuinely necessary. 170
The whole complex of ideas bound up with the idea of the onusiov of the &16 TO-
Aos has its final model in the Semitic office of messenger (-; 416). Moses is the typical
divine messenger endorsed by signs; in Ex. 3:12 we find nbU /EEXOoTE EIV accom-
panied by nix lonueiov in the sense of legitimation by God. It is in keeping that
Jannes and > Jambres, the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses, should also
display oueia (Ev. Nicodemi, 5, p. 235, ed. Tischendorf, 2nd. ed.; cf. Ex. 7:11, 22).
But cf. also Is. 7:11 (Isaiah as envoy to Ahaz), or Ju. 6:17, where Gideon asks of the
17: 7852 (- &yyelos, 76) an nix /ousiov in confirmation of his authority to appoint

102 Ac. 2:14 ff.

163 Ac. 10:26; 14:15; 19:11, but also as early as 3:11 ff.
164 Ac. 4:19 f. > rappola.
165 Ac. 8:5 ff., 37 f.
166 Ac. 3:16; 5:14 f.; 14:9 f. etc.
107 The only miracles we read of are those of ATI6aTOAo1, including Paul and perhaps
also Stephen, who seems to have belonged to the community from the very first (Ac. 6:3, 8).
We are also told of musia Kai SuvquEIc ueyaal (8:13) in connection with Philip,
though we do not know whether he bore the name of an apostle.
168 At this pt. Holl is guilty of a grave error in his essay on the concept of the Church
in the first community ; he does not fully recognise the pneumatic character of the
apostolate.
100 In this connection we may refer above all to the transmission of the Spirit (Ac.
8:14 ff.: 10:44 ff.; 19:1 ff.).
170 Cf. Grundmann, op. cit., 98, n. 7.
 attoatoloc

him a judge. 171 Appeal might be made even to Jesus Himself in this connection (Mt.
16:1 ff. par.; Jn. 6:29 ff.).

In any case, we must be on our guard at this point against schematically limiting
to specific circles the powers at work in primitive Christianity. In this connection,
too, it is indispensable to recognise that the community rather than individuals
is the sphere where Jesus works as the risen Lord, and that His antoatolol can
be His fully accredited representatives only as members of it. Yet we must also
appreciate their close connection with Him and their significance as leaders of the
movement linked with His name. As Jesus is exalted above all, and His goal is the
all-embracing community, so their office is also universal. 172 It is in the universality
of their commission, and the universal claim of those thus sent, that we may see
finally how the new and definitive commissioning of the disciples by the risen
Lord transcends their pre-Easter apostolate. He Himself stands behind all that they
say and do. But because He has ascended to God, miracles cannot be separated
from His messengers ; yet in the last resort not they, but He who has sent them,
must be the subject of the preaching of the Gospel to the world. 173
b. Our findings thus far concerning the renewal of the apostolate by the risen
Lord, its final and conclusive institution, and its linking with the possession of
the Spirit, have been based especially upon the Synoptic Gospels and Acts. They
are confirmed, however, in John's Gospel. This is the more significant because the
word gnboroloc does not occur in this Gospel except for one passage in which
it is used in the proper sense and with no restriction to the messengers of Jesus
(-> 421). "In John the main part of the Easter narrative serves directly his central
purpose ; he shows how the risen Lord united the disciples to Himself by faith,
and gave them full authority for their work." 174 This is true of Thomas (20:24 ff.),
but especially of Peter, who also receives with the apostolate forgiveness for his
denial (21:1 ff.).
Here, too, the point at issue is not independent achievement. It is authority to
represent Jesus, and it is thus obedience and service. The community is not com-
mitted to Peter as such but as To xpvia you (21:15) and to "poBatia you
(21:16 f.), and his work is not described as that of ruling and deciding but BooKelV
and roqualvelv. Yet here, too, the one commissioned does not become a mere
instrument; he is burdened with •a full load of responsibility which he can carry
only where there is absolute commitment to Jesus (21:15, 16,17: piAEiv). The
parallel with the first three Evangelists, however, goes even further. In John, too,
possession of the Spirit is the indispensable prerequisite for the discharge of
apostolic functions. He thus causes reception of the Spirit and commissioning to
take place simultaneously (20:21 ff.), formulating his statements in such a way
as to leave no doubt that those commissioned go out with full authority as re-
presentatives (20:21).
Special attention should be paid to the form of 20:21. Jesus says: ka0oc
aTtEaTaAkEy LE 6 natp, koyo TEUTO DuAs. In relation to this we should re-
member what was said earlier (-> 403) about the relationship between &TOTEA-

171 > onuEiov.

172 Cf. Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 534
178 Mt. 10:18 ff.; Lk. 12:11 f.
174 Schlatter, Geschichte des Christus, 532. On the next sentence cf. also E. Hirsch,
Jesus Christus der Herr (1926), 39 f.
 airbatoloc
AELV and TEUTELV in the Fourth Gospel. On the lips of Jesus ATTOSTÉAELV is used
to describe His mission when He wishes to ground His authority in that of the
Father, whereas TÉUTElV is used when He wants to establish the participation of
God in His work This usage is followed exactly in 20:21, except that it is here
applied to the relationship of Jesus to His messengers. The work which they have
to do is finally His work, for He sends them. 175
Thus in John the thought of the authorisation of the messengers is subsidiary
to that of the part of Jesus in their work, or rather to the consideration that it is
He who sustains both them and their apostolic office. This is why the figure of
the > TapaKAntos comes to have fundamental significance in the commissioning
of the disciples. It is in Him that the presence and participation of Jesus in their
work are effected. He, too, is sent to take His place with them (TÉUTtELV, 14:26;
15:26).178 Nor does Jesus represent His coming merely as an act of the Father
(14:16, 26). In the light of His own exaltation to be with the Father (map& Tou
tatpos), He can say that He Himself will send the Spirit to His own (Teubo,
15:26). In Him as the > TVEDua Tis anndelas (14:17) He Himself, who is the
x nOela in person, is still with them, though physically removed from them
(14:5 f.; 16:7). Thus in the Johannine picture of an apostle, the Evangelist combines
his basic christological belief that the Son stands alongside God and works beside
Him (-vibs), with the Jewish view of the fully accredited messenger. In so doing
he subordinates the latter, but only in so far as he may do so without making the
office of the messenger a mere matter of enthusiasm. John has no desire to do
this. On the contrary, his interest is to see the Son, and to cause his readers to
see Him, as the One who works from the beginning of all things to the end of
all things (- A6yoc). Perhaps on this account the word dnootoloc did not seem
to be suitable to him, since he saw in it at least the danger that by his own
assumption of power the -> uaenins might become a ¾ Kupios instead of a
800 os, and that the doorolos might forget that behind him there stood
a repyas who was also before him (13:16).
C. It is impossible to say definitely when the Greek term afooTooc came
into use for mbu. All that we can say with certainty is that it was not the Jews
who selected the term, since otherwise it would be better attested among them.
It is particularly strange that a term originally used for an act or a group with
no religious connotation should have come to be used for an individual with
expressly religious functions. Perhaps the word first began to be used in this way
in Antioch, being originally applied to the missionary expedition as such, then to
its individual members, 177 and finally, as a masculine noun, to the accredited
representative, as a recognised translation of The. It is even possible that Paul had
some hand in this process of transition, which might have been much quicker
than suggested. Certainly he is the first in whom we find the term clearly used
of an individual messenger of Jesus in the singular ; the Synoptists always use it in
the plural. In no case, however, is artooroloc as a rendering of mh0 to be sepa-

175 In Mt. (10:16) and Lk. (10:3) it is appropriately said of the sending of the disciples
by Jesus: ATtoatEAAo Suas; for here they are to represent the earthly Jesus, not the
exalted Jesus.
178 Cf. on this pt. H. Windisch, "Die finf joh. Parakletspriche" in Festgabe fir
A. Julicher (1927), 132 ff., esp. 134.
177 Possibly linked with this is its exclusive use in the plur. except in Paul.
 arbotolos

rated from ATtOOTé AELV/m; it was possible at all only on the basis of the long-
standing relationship between these two words. This relationship was to a large
extent determined by the concept of God. If this was true from the very first in
the early Christian use of AT6otoA0, it is a direct fruit of the existing re-
lationship.

A certain difficulty of terminology arises from the fact that our sources do not
enable us to distinguish between grogtoo in the absolute and the groorolol of the
churches (cf. Ac. 13:1 ff.) who also preached the Gospel with full authority. Yet such
a distinction is not unconditionally necessary, inasmuch as the Spirit, i.e., Jesus Himself
as the Giver of the apostolic commission, is for primitive Christianity the normative
principle of its action. It is significant that in Antioch the two set apart for the mission
are not any two of the group called pooñtal Kai 818aaka ol in Ac. 13:1, but Paul
and Barnabas, of whom the first had certainly seen the risen Lord and most probably
the second also -> 422). Again, -> goopl elv rather than &TootE EIV is used to
describe the act of the community, and the initiative is found in the prior decision of the
) TVE ua TO &ylov, 178 so that the community has simply to give outward authorisa-
tion (13:2 f.). It is also conceivable that the two had apostolic touola for a long
time without exercising it. Moreover, we also see here the universal character of the
NT apostolate, coupled with the universal claim of the community. The form of com-
missioning or ordination, i.e., with fasting, prayer and the laying on of hands, is Jewish
( 417). Paul, however, quite distinctly did not regard himself as an apostle of the
Christians of Antioch, but solely as an apostle of Jesus Christ (-* 437).
d. Our deliberations have now led us to the assured result that the basis of
the NT apostolate as a whole is the will and commission of the risen Lord. Yet it
should not be overlooked that from the very first this was not the one exclusive
basis of the office in the primitive community. The account of the election of
Matthias to the inner circle of the twelve in place of Judas shows us that together
with the direction and will of the Spirit, who represented Jesus, another element
played a decisive part, namely, the qualification of the one selected as an eye-
witness. Luke tells us expressly that the substitute for Judas had to fulfil the
condition of having been with the apostles "all the time that the Lord Jesus went
in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that
he was taken up from us' (Ac. 1:21 f.). Closest contact with Jesus during His
life is thus the most important prerequisite for assuming the apostolate. In practice
this means that the primitive community did not see in commissioning by the risen
Lord anything radically new. Though lack of materials prevents us from fixing
the relationship with any precision, we are perhaps nearest the heart of the matter
if we say that for the early Church the new commissioning was simply a repetition
or continuation of the first in the life-time of Jesus. We may thus conclude that
the primitive community did not fully perceive the radical change in the world
situation which consists in the fact that the risen Lord appointed men His re-
presentatives. Yet we may also see that from the very outset the history of Jesus
was most important as history both for the content and the specific form of early
proclamation. 1T0 The apostle of Jesus is always the witness to historical facts
rather than to myths, and consciously and necessarily so in view of the fact that
what he proclaims contradicts all human experience.

178 Cf. also v. Harnack, 348, n. 1.

179 Cf. on this pt. G. Kittel, "Der 'historische Jesus' in Mysterium Christi (1931), 49 ff.
attoatoloc

This connection of the apostle with personal participation in the history of Jesus
affects Paul in two ways, First, the objection to his claim to be an equal of the
twelve -> 441 f.) seems to have here at least some relative justification. Paul was
in fact inferior to the twelve in the sense that he had not had the contacts with
the historical Jesus which they had been privileged to have. On the other hand,
this led him to establish his apostolate in way which saved him from a verdict
of inferiority and at the same time proved to be of basic importance for the whole
conception and claim of the early Christian apostolate (- infra). Secondly, Paul
attached himself to the primitive community in this respect by resolutely entering
the stream of early Christian tradition concerning Jesus (1 C. 11:23 ff.; 15:1 ff.
etc.). This bears witness to his inner commitment to the history of Jesus as the
only foundation and content of his proclamation too, and the historical form of
this proclamation shows us what constitutes the unity between Paul and the original
apostles for all the differences between them (Ac. 15:12; cf. Gl. 2:9 and especially
1 C. 15:11).
3. The Classical Form of the Apostolate in the Person of Paul.
Paul is the classical representative of the apostolate in the NT. He is the only
apostle who is to some extent known to us in his apostolic position; the others
leave us no direct information concerning the manner of their apostolate. The
reason is to be found partly in his special position in relation to the other & toato-
lot and partly in the extraordinary range of his activity. He belonged neither to
the original circle of disciples nor to the first company of Christians who had
intercourse with the risen Lord between Easter and the ascension. Yet he could
say that he had laboured more than all others in the service of Jesus (1 C. 15:10).
He was sustained in these labours by a strong sense of office which did not grow
of itself but which was based on his experience of calling and which developed
in conflict with those who disputed his right to be called an apostle of Jesus or to
advance a claim to apostolic authority. Hence, when we undertake to depict the
apostolic consciousness of Paul, we have to take two factors into account, namely,
the peculiarity of his mode of life prior to his entry into apostolic work, and the
peculiarity of his position as an apostle among the other accredited messengers
of Jesus.
a. The first distinguishing mark of the Pauline apostolate is the break in the
life of the apostle which accompanied his entry upon it. He himself could compare
the process of his calling with the shining of the first ray of light at creation
(2:C. 4:6); he indicated thereby that it transcended all human possibilities and
could not be viewed from an autonomous standpoint. Paul as a Christian saw
behind him the will of God from all eternity awaiting only the hour of its fulfil-
ment (Gl. 1:15). The fact that his calling meant a complete upheaval in his life
constitutes a basic difference between Paul and the other disciples of Jesus, who
were certainly called away from their homes and families, but who hardly came
to see the sharpest conceivable antithesis between their past and their ministry
as Paul always did when he had occasion to speak of the beginnings of his
apostolate (1 C. 15:9; G1. 1:13, 23; Phil. 3:7 f.). In Paul's case, this is the more
significant because in such contexts he is never a "sinner" who sharply condemns
himself and his pre-Christian past; rather he speaks highly of his Jewish past
(- xuaptor6c, 327), as he may well do, seeing that he was then just as obedient
to God as at the moment of his conversion and afterwards as a Christian and
apostle.
 arbotoloc

It thus follows that the apostolic consciousness of Paul is essentially determined

by his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus road. In this, and in his immediate
response to it, 180 lies the uniqueness of his apostolate as compared with the other
apostles, who came to full dedication to Jesus only after much vacillation and a
long course of instruction by Him. In the case of Paul we find no evidence of
either vacillation or instruction. On the contrary, there is a sudden and yet no less
resolute committal to the Messiah Jesus whom hitherto he had passionately per-
secuted. The reason for this is that the concept of God had from the very first
determined the thinking and action of Paul, 181 and yet only outside Damascus
did it attain to an absolutely dominating position. Only in this light can we under-
stand the distinctive nature of his self-awareness and assurance of apostolic
mission.

In this connection it does not matter exactly what took place on the Damascus
road ; 182 the important thing is how Paul regarded it in retrospect. It was for him
quite unconditionally an act of God, an objective event, 183 not a visionary experi-
ence. 184 The subject of the process, however, was God rather than Christ, 185 though
it was certainly Christ who encountered and addressed him. We can agree with Alfred
Jeremias 186 that Paul became the apostle instead of the persecutor of Jesus at the
moment when in the 5ip n2 (the divine voice of revelation since the extinction of
prophecy with Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi) 187 he recognised the voice of Jesus,
and was thus persuaded and cured of his error in relation to Him. Paul himself classically
expresses this by describing himself as the &noatodoc 'Inoot XpIaToU but with the
addition that he is this (as kAnt6s) Bud leAnuatoc 0Eo0 (1 C. 1:1; 2 C. 1:1; Eph. 1:1;
cf. 1:5; Col. 1:1). 188 It is to be noted that, so far as the sources go, Paul seems to be the
first to trace back the apostolate to God Himself: Pt. 1:2 (-> "poyvoais) is
dependent on Pauline trains of thought.

The dominant role of the concept of God in Paul's sense of apostolic mission
is particularly emphasised by the fact that he recognises himself to be cooploue.
voc Els EDayYEALOV DEOD (R.1:1) and that he calls God the coopioas us éK
KotAlas untpos you (GI. 1:15). In these formulae he integrates himself into the
world plan 'of God as a significant and indispensable member ; his indispensability

180 GI. 1:16 : Ed0Éoc of rpooavelsunv aapki kal aluati

181 On his attachment to the vouoc in Pharisaic Judaism (cf. Gl. 1:14; Phil. 3:6), > 324
s.v. duaptwros. It should not he overlooked that to the best of our knowledge Paul as
distinct from the twelve was the only apostle who came from learned circles and not from
the am ha-ares (- quaptaios, 322; 327).
182 Similarly it makes no difference which of the three accounts in Acts is the most
reliable (9:1 ff.; 22:5 ff.; 26:12 ff.). On this pt. cf. E. Hirsch, "Die drei Berichte der Ag.
uber die Bekehrung des Pls.," ZNW, 28 (1929), 305 ff.
183 Gl. 1:15; R. 1:1.
184 C. 9:1; 15:8 are assertions of objective fact rather than impartations of ecstatic
vision -) opao.
185 Gl. 1:15 f.: STE 8€ E086KNOEV 6 cooploas UE grokaliual tov uldy aitoo
tv quol. Cf. the way in which Pl. uses GoOn for the appearances of the risen Lord
(1 C. 15:5 ff.), and how his disciple Luke follows him in this (Lk. 24:34; Ac. 13:31).
186 In an address at the Fourth Conference on the Jewish Question at Nuremberg, Feb. 27
to March 1, 1929.
18T T. Sota, 13,2. Materially, - povh (Ex tov oipaviv).
188 In the Past. the apostolate is constituted by > Enitayn 0E00 (1 Tm.1:1; Tt. 1:3);
2 Tm. 1:3 has the more familiar Pauline formula.
attoatoloc

derives, not from himself, but from God (1 C. 3:5). 180 For this reason he has no
option but to see in his apostolate (- anooto n) a proof of divine grace
(= yapis) which is not linked to any presuppositions but which leads man to
obedient subjection to God (1 C. 15:10).100 It is at this point that Paul's sense
of mission links up with that of the prophets, especially of Jeremiah and Deutero-
Isaiah. This takes place in a way which can be understood only in terms of the
particular mode of life of Paul. It can be regarded only as his own act, and in it
the self-awareness not merely of the apostle but of early Christianity generally
reaches its supreme point.
The parallels between Paul and Jeremiah have long been noted, 191 but pre-
dominantly from external angles 192 rather than from that of apostolic self-con-
sciousness. Yet it is in this respect that Jeremiah was Paul's great predecessor.

The significance of Jeremiah in the history of OT prophecy consists in his radical

rejection of any significance of man and his utter devotion to the given message, in
clear recognition of the hopeless situation of the prophet. It is thus to be found in the
absolute predominance of the concept of God. 193 This is expressed in the complete
disappearance of the ecstatic element which had characterised the earlier prophets, 194
and even Isaiah, 195 and which reappeared in the successors of Jeremiah, 198 though
less in revival of the older Israelite Nabiism than under the influence of incipient
oriental and Hellenistic syncretism and its enthusiastic tendencies. Even when Jeremiah
has visions (1:11 ff.: 4:19 ff.) it would be more correct to speak of visions of faith rather
than of ecstatic rapture, just as it is characteristic of him to speak and act in symbols
and parables which presuppose rational deliberation and a clear insight into the situa-
tion. "At first prophecy is quite passive in relation to its object." For this reason the
persons of the prophets "are lost in the object; where they reflect upon it, they do so
purely objectively and in such a way as only to impart the results of what they have
seen." 197 In Jeremiah the prophetic ego awakens for the first time to a degree which
makes him a religious thinker. This takes place so strongly that conflict cannot always
be avoided between God and his own individuality. At any rate, we find incipient
movements in this direction in the case of Jeremiah (20:7 ff.), e.g., when he resists the
divine calling and commission ; though it is only in Deutero-Isaiah that the ego really
comes between God and the prophet to such a degree that in the ensuing period a new
person must be introduced to mediate between them in the form of the angelus interpres
of Zechariah." 198
From this standpoint Jeremiah marks a high point even in comparison with Deutero-
Isaiah. This is fully apparent when we consider his consciousness of calling and study
the manner of its execution. Just because there is in him no ecstatic element, the whole
emphasis falls on his union with God and subjection to His will (20:7 ff.; cf. 15:19 ff.).

189 The same thought underlies the formula kAntos arootoloc (R.1:1; 1 C.1:1) and
also Gl. 1:15 (ka\Éoac).
100 Cf. also the EO0ÉWC at G1. 1:16.
191 Cf. most recently E. Lohmeyer, Grundlagen paulinischer Theologie (1929), 201.
102 As suggested by the allusion to Jer. 1:5 in Gl. 1:15.
193 Cf. for what follows R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II5, & (1925), 336 f.
194 Elijah might be mentioned as well as Amos and Hosea.
103 Isaiah still offers king Ahaz a miracle (nix/onusiov, Is. 7:11) in attestation of his
mission ; God is naturally the one who will perform it in vindication of His messenger
as such (cf. Elijah in 1 K. 18:21 ff.).
196 On Ezekiel, cf. R. Kittel, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, III (1927). 151 ff.
107 Ibid. II, 336. Cf. also J. Hempel, Altes Testament und Geschichte (1930), 65 f.
198 R. Kittel, op. cit., II, 337 and n. 1.
 droo toloc

Hence his whole work is to proclaim the divine will, which does not have to be revealed
to him from case to case but is continually present in his union with God. 199 There are
two consequences. The first is that the prophetic calling embraces the whole life of
Jeremiah and, since the people resists God and the prophet is faithful to Him, his whole
life is consequently marked by suffering (e.g., 11:18 ff.; 15:10,15 ff.; 20:14 ff., and also
the actual sufferings in 20:1 ff.; 26:1 ff.; 37:1 ff.; 38:1 ff.). The other is that the Word
alone determines the activity of the prophet and gives him power and authority
(15:16 etc.). This restriction to the Word constitutes the true greatness of the prophecy
of Jeremiah. In it his office coincides with his life and there is displayed the overriding
power of the concept of God. God is everything, and man is what he is through God
and to bear witness to God as such (1:9; 15:19 etc.).

It is difficult and perhaps even impossible to say whether Paul consciously

or unconsciously followed Jeremiah in his sense of mission. Yet there is no doubt
that he did so even in his evaluation of suffering as a divinely willed element in
the life of the apostle, 200 his exclusive concentration on the preaching of the
Word, 201 and his renunciation of any ecstatic basis for the apostolate.

We see this renunciation in 2 C. 12:1 ff., 202 where Paul distinguishes himself from
opponents who preen themselves on their ecstatic experiences and seek to supplant and
outbid him on this ground. The problem was acute only in the Greek congregations
where enthusiasm played a great role (cf. esp. 1 C. 14:1 ff., but also 12:1 ff.). Here
there was a danger that the divine authorisation of the apostle would be replaced by
ecstatic experience with its exaltation of the individual, and consequently that the cult
of man in terms of his piety, which Jesus had discarded -> 329), would be revived
in a new form, namely, in the veneration of the pneumatic or the pretended pneumatic. 203
It is essential that Paul should in fact be able to boast of ecstatic experiences of an
extraordinary nature, 204 but that he should regard them as a purely personal concern
and take strong steps to prevent them from being organically linked with his apos-
tolate, 205 lest God and His act in Christ should again be set under the shadow of man
and xapis obscured as the only principle which has unconditional validity, 206
To the same context belongs the depreciation of the musia tou ATTOOTo1ou (2 C.
12:12) in Paul. He speaks of them only when forced to do so or for pastoral reasons
(R. 15:19; 1 Th. 1:5), never for their own sake or to give prominence to himself. Even
in 2 C. 12:12 they serve only to demonstrate the justice of his cause and not the
significance of his person.

The connection between the apostle's sense of mission and the prophetic sense
of calling is no less significant for the cause represented by him. In it the revelatory
character of his proclamation is very strongly emphasised and safeguarded against
all human corruption. For this reason, whenever he has reason to speak authori-
tatively to his churches, Paul stresses in his salutations his apostolic authorisation

199 Cf. the attack on visionaries in 23:25 ff.

200 Cf. 2 C. 11:16 ff.; 12:10; Phil. 3:10 ff.; Gl. 6:17; but also 2 C. 4:6 ff.; 1 Th. 3:3 f. and
Dob. Th., 135, ad loc.
201 1 C. 1:14 ff.; 2:1 ff. etc.
202 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Theologie der Apostel? (1922), 261 f.
208 Cf. the spiritual gift of S1AKpIOEIS TIVEULXTOV (1 C. 12:10) and the conflict of Paul
with inepAlav dmootolol (2 C. 11:5; 12:11; -• DEUBTOOTOAOS).
204 2 C. 12:1-4; 1 C. 14:18.
205 2 C. 12:5.
206 2 C. 12:9.
anoatolos

by Christ. What is at issue is not his own person but the cause for which he
stands. Like the prophet, Paul as an apostle serves only his message, i.e., the
preaching of the - Aoyoc tot otaupoi (1 C. 1:18) which as such is the A6 yoc
tic katallayis (2 C. 5:19). This explains his passionate attack on partisanship
in Corinth, not in spite of, but just because of the involvement of his own name
against his own will and against the meaning of the Gospel (1 C. 1-4, esp. 3:5 ff.).
It also explains the lack of any tendency towards an imitatio Christi in his own
life or in the life of Christians who imitate him (1 Th. 1:6), 207 though this quickly
made its appearance in the early Church. 208 If Jesus in His earthly life and calling
was in some sense an example for Paul in respect of his office as an apostle, 209
this was because he was His & baroloc. He was thus pledged to Him in every-
thing he did. His apostolate had not to be mere empty talk (-> 415). Nevertheless,
the point at issue was the obedience which the -) 8001oc owes his lord, not a
meritorious action. 210

The parallel between the apostles and the prophets which we see in Paul rests on
the fact that both are exclusively bearers of revelation, the prophets of revelation still
in progress and the apostles of completed revelation. Perhaps the different temporal
relationship to the same thing 211 explains why the NT preaching office could not use
the ancient title for God's messengers "poohins) to describe the messengers of
Jesus. It needed a new term corresponding to the new and altered situation and yet still
referring to the commission which Jesus gave to His disciples. Yet here, too, we
probably have the explanation of the linking of the two from the standpoint of their
historical significance for the origin of the community as presented in Eph. 2:20. In the
circumstance as we have outlined them, this mode of expression is possible not only on
the lips of the first generation of Christians but also of Paul himself. 212
It should be obvious that the NT poontal (1 C. 12:28 etc.) do not correspond at
all to those of the OT. It should also be clear why they do not play very prominent
part, though they are highly respected in the time of the great Pauline Epistles.

b. The special nature of Paul's position among the other apostles of Jesus
cannot be separated from his recovery of the prophetic sense of calling in the
predominant position of the concept of God. It is not originally determined by
this, but by his calling to be a messenger in the sense of the Jewish m5w institution,
as in the case of the other arogT0 ot. If this aspect and basis of his office came
to be more strongly accentuated by Paul, one of the main contributory factors
was the fact that opponents challenged his equality of status and dignity with the
other apostles.
As we can see from the opening of Galatians, this had happened in Galatia ; his
authorisation was traced back either to the church (Antioch) from which he had come

207 > &KO OU0ÉG ; -> utueouat.

208 214, n. 29.
209 Cf. on this pt. P. Feine, Der Apostel Paulus (1927), 407 ff.
210 1 C. 4:1 f.
211 In R. 10:15, quoting Is. 52:7 (ait 7020). Messianic deliverance is expressly made the
subject of apostolic proclamation. Cf. also R. 1:15; 1 C. 1:17; 9:16; 15:1 f.; 2 C. 11:7 etc.
212 For this reason the phrase is no decisive argument against the genuine Pauline nature
of Eph.: all that it tells us is that the Epistle belongs to a period when a close relation was
seen between the NT apostles and the OT prophets, and this is the time of the Pauline
Epistles (> 439).
 atroatoloc

(Ac. 13:1 ff.) or to Barnabas, who according to the tradition (Ac. 9:27) had introduced
him into the original community. This is why Paul in Gl. 1:1 calls himself an afooto-
Aoc oik aT' dvOpOTwv oUbé 8t' dvO pOTou, dAd Bid 'Inoot Xptotoi, and then
demonstrates in v.10 f. the independence of his apostolate of men, and in 2:1 ff. his
equality with the other apostles as recognised in Jerusalem.

Another important factor was the strong conception of his apostolic office in
relation to the experience of Jesus as Messiah and to recognition of the significance
of the Spirit (- TVE ua) as the Spirit of Jesus 213 whom all Christians that are
found in Him (- tv Xpiot) possess without exception (1 C. 3:16; 6:19 etc.j.
This leads Paul to the bold statement that in virtue of his apostolic office he can call
men to reconciliation with God OTEp XpI0T00 in the full sense of representing Christ
(2 C. 5:20), or that this may be more precisely described as ouvepyeiv with Christ
(2 C. 6:1).

Once again it is the concept of God which leads him to this climax. Paul traces
the hand of God in his whole life. But the life and passion and death of Jesus,
and the proclamation of Jesus, are also grounded in the will of God. 214 This is
why Paul can call himself a ouvepyoc 0Eo0 (1 C. 3:9) 215 and thereby affirm his
own participation in the divine goal, not in the sense of an achievement, but as
one who stands in the service of God and thus has a share in His work (1 C. 3:8,
11 ff.). Any breach at this point would be a breach with Christ and would imply
contempt for the divine work of salvation in Him (Gl.1:6 ff.; 5:1 ff.). Yet the
basis does not lie in his own person. Only in virtue of his commission, and of the
Kopios who stands behind it, is Paul "anything" . 216 yet through Him he is
everything that a man can be by the grace of God. 217 If he is not proud of this,
it is because he considers himself His -8001oc for the sake of the cross, and
recognises the apostolic responsibility laid on him with the grace given (1 C.
3:11 ff.), yet all in such a way that, because God is the Ruler of all history and
Jesus is the Lord, there shines over all that the apostolic office involves as the
apostolate of the Crucified, 218 the triumphant joy which is a mark of the apostle
of the risen Lord. 210

The idea that suffering and poverty are essential marks of the divine messenger is
found in the Socrates of Plato's Apology (23b-c). Genuine in this case, it becomes
almost a pose among the Cynics. Paul takes up the same thought, but it is now
occasioned and determined by the particular basis of his apostolate ( supra). It is thus

213 R. 8:9 etc.

214 Cf. simply the kata tas ypapac of 1 C. 15:3 f., and also the fact that, except in
1 Th. 4:14 : 8t1 "Inooug ATÉ0aVEV Kai dvior, Paul always says that Jesus was raised
again by God (Gl. 1:1 etc.).
215 Cf. also 1 Th. 3:2 and > 423, n. 95.
218 Note the Tl of 1 C. 3:5; the kopios is naturally Jesus as the One who sends and
authorises. Cf. also 1C. 1:13.
217 Instructive is the relationship between drooto n and > xapis, which Paul uses
almost synon. ( 446).
218 For the apostolate as the link between Paul's sufferings and those of Jesus, cr.
Phil. 3:10.
218 Cf. ouvepyol ÉouEv ths xapac ouov in 2 C. 1:24 and also 2 C. 6:9 f.; 7:1. These
verses occur in a strong letter in which Paul must struggle for recognition of his apostleship.
atrootoloc

a bitter reality which is only tolerable because it, too, attests the close bond between
the apostle and the kupios who gives him his commission. This enables us to under-
stand the paradox of 2 C. 12:10. The attitude of the early Church to suffering and
poverty shows how very quickly the attitude of Paul is developed into a system of
human merit. There thus takes place the same degeneration as from Socrates to Cynicism,
except that the misconception is now more serious and inevitably has more serious
consequences.

E. Jesus as One who was sent.

1. Only once is Jesus called gnootoloc in the NT, namely, in Hb. 3:1, which
we have already considered (- 423). Yet the question arises whether the reality
is not present even though the actual term is not used. This is especially so in the
case of John's Gospel. For here the statements of Jesus concerning His relation
to God are very largely governed by the verb ATtOoTEXAElV. 220 This gives rise
to the question whether we may here detect the influence of oriental myths con-
cerning the redeemer sent down from heaven, who is also the original man. The
opening up of Mandaean sources 221 has made this burning question, 222 and
it may be briefly discussed from the linguistic standpoint.

In the Book of John, 66 there is a conversation at the moment of the sending of

Manda d'Hayye to earth. Here we read: "My son, come and be my messenger
(N72NXON), come and be my bearer (i.e., of commissions) This envoy is then more
precisely called "the ambassador of light" (Lidz. Ginza, 58, 17 and 23 etc.) or the "true
ambassador" (ibid., 59, 1) or the "ambassador of life" (ibid., 59, 15). He himself says
that he is sent into the world"' in the Manichaean Zarathustra fragment. 223 In the
Mandaean source the messenger is always called xTiwx in these passages, and 7*7xt
is always used for his sending. This root is a common word in the Aramaic of the
Babylonian Talmud and corresponds to TEUTEIV rather than &TOTÉ EL in the Gk. 224
Yet in the Gk. texts relating to the ambassador &TOOTÉ EIV is used to denote his
sending, as in Gk. Christian texts like the Acta Thomae. 225 Thus in the Gospel of
Peter & tOOTE AEIV is used of the sending of Jesus, and it is logically followed by His
return to the place of sending ; the young man at the grave on Easter morning here
gives to the women the reply : tiva gnteitE; dvEor yap kai Anñ OEv EKEi
80EV &TEAT&AN (56). 228 In this case the question even arises whether the thought of
authorisation is predominant, as in LXX usage, or whether the reference is simply to
spatial movement. Jesus is expressly called attoatolos by Justin; 227 he is thus given
a title which by this time has acquired solid content, as may be seen from CI., 65, 1,
where the messengers of the Roman church are not called groato ol, as in early

220 For examples 403 and also Wetter, 49.

221 Lidz. Joh.; Lidz. Lit.; Lidz. Ginza.
222 R. Bultmann, "Die Bedeutung der neuerschlossnen mandais und anhi
Quellen fur das Verstandnis des Joh. Ev., ZNW, 24 (1925), 100-146; Bau. J., 55 on 3:17;
H. H. Schaeder in R. Reitzenstein und H. H. Schaeder, Studien zum antikn Sykes .
Aus Iran und Griechenland (1926), 203 ff., esp. 306 ff.; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel
(1929), 117 ff.; G. P. Wetter ( - Bibl.).
228 Cf. Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 3; Bultmann, 106 and n. 7.
224 Cf. the examples in Levy Wort., IV, 513b.
225 Cf. the examples in Bultmann, 106.
226 V. also Const. Ap., VIII, 1, 10 : dveAnoen "poc roy gnootellavta autov.
227 > 424.
 artootoloc

Christian usage (+ 398, n. 4; 432, n. 160), but XTEOTa\uÉvoL. It is just conceivable,

therefore, that Justin is here borrowing the idea of the ambassador from oriental myths
and applying it to Jesus. Its popularity is attested not merely by the fact that Mani
was the absolute ambassador for his followers 228 but that in Gk. Arab. papyri Moham-
med is also sometimes called &nooroloc. 228 Indeed, a later age, following the example
of Apollonius of Tyana, linked the person of Alexander the Great with the myth of
the ambassador and accorded him special reverence. 230
In all these cases the one who is given the name of divine messenger is also the
preacher of truth. 231 Above all, he is the one who unites the divine and human worlds
by speaking and leading men out of error. This is what Jesus does in the passages in
which Justin calls him grooto os. As the &yyelos of God He has the task of
imparting true knowledge to His hearers. His whole life and work serve this end. 232
The goal is perhaps different from that of the Mandaean or Manichean ambassador,
and So, too, is the person, but there is still a material parallel. Thus neither in Justin
nor in the Mandaean records nor Manichean fragments is the thought of authorisation
predominant. When the ambassador appears, it is not that he speaks and acts as one
who is commissioned by, or as a representative of, the one who sends him. What matters
is that he comes from another sphere. This is the most important presupposition of his
redemptive work. And it is finally his own mystery of which he gives only hints even
to his followers. 233 It may be added that the selection of ATtOoTE AElV (&TrboToAoc)
in Justin and other Christian writings plainly rests on a linguistic dependence on the
Gospel of John.

2. The Gospel of John, however, is plainly opposed to this whole view, mate-
rially if not formally. Certainly Jesus is sent by the Father (+ 405). Nevertheless,
this sending is designed simply to bring out the significance of His person and of
the history enacted in Him, namely, that God Himself speaks by Him and acts
in Him.

This is shown in three ways. a. In the > onusiov of the Johannine Jesus God
manifests Jesus as the promised One and also manifests Himself as the One who works
in and through Him - pyov).234 b. The destiny of those who encounter Jesus is
decided by the person of Jesus and their attitude to Him rather than to the doctrine
taught by Him. 235 This is possible only if God is present in Him and He literally
represents the Father in person. 236 Like all the other Epya effected by God, the
death of Jesus cannot be separated from His Word. Indeed, in John His death and
glorification (SoEa(w), i.e., His exaltation to the side of the Father to participate in

228 Wetter, 15 ff. There are, of course, other ambassadors as well (cf. Bau. J., 55).
229 Preisigke Sammelbuch, No. 7240, 5.
230 Cf. on this pt. W. Bacher, Nizimi's Leben und Werke und der zweite Teil des
Nizamischen Alexanderbuches (Diss. Leipzig, 1871), 90.
281 This is true even of Alexander, who is depicted as the representative of true religion
(Bacher, op. cit., 90 and 94 ff. passim).
282 Ap., I, 63, 5 (p. 54, 4 ff., Kriger): God's Son Kal &yyeloc Se Kaleital kal aToato-
Aoc® autoc yap aTayyE^el 80a bEi yvwoliva,, xai aTtoote etal, unviawv 8aq
dyyE etal Justin also uses Gyyelos for Jesus (Wetter, 28 f.).
233 Cf. on this pt. more generally, and not with special reference to Jn., G. P. Wetter,
'Ich bin es,'" ThStKr, 88 (1915), 224 ff. esp. 235.
234 Cf. Jn. 4:34; 5:36; 9:3 f.; 10:37 etc.
235 3:18; cf. 3:17; 12:47, and in general the strength of the thought of judgment in Jn.
288 8:16, 29; cf. 5:36 f.; 8:18; 10:25; 12:49; 14:10 etc.
 airbatoloc tEuBattbotooc

His > 86ga, and consequently His full manifestation as the Son (> utoc), constitute
an indissoluble unity. 237

What is said about Jesus in this Gospel is left hanging in the air if He is here
analogous to the ambassadors of oriental Gnosticism. Jesus is essentially more
than these, even though ATtooté^Elv is one of the most important words which
He uses to describe His office. This word is not identical in significance with
the term used by the Mandaeans when they speak of the sending of Manda
d'Hayyé (-> 443). In any case, it should be noted in respect of the Jesus of the
Fourth Gospel that TEUTELV as well as &TOFTÉAELY is used to express His
consciousness of mission, and in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the re-
lationship between the two terms (&TTOOTENA@, 404). Hence it must be stated
that, in so far as the idea of the ambassador plays any role in John, it does not
influence the Christology but is rather coloured by it. In this respect the whole
complex is linked in John with the sending of the prophets, and derives its
distinctive character from the fact that this ambassador is not a man, not even a
pre-existent or primal man, but the Son in whom the Father attests His presence
and Himself offers salvation or judgment.

f WEUSaTI6OTOAOS.
This word is one of the compounds with yEu6(o) of which * YEU8&6EAoOS,
->11EUSOBI8&GKKAOS, + VEUB6UapTU etc. are also found in the NT.1 It does not
occur elsewhere.

In the NT it occurs only at 2 C. 11:13, where Paul himself adds the explanation
LETATYNLATLEUEVOI EIS &TOOTO OUC Xpo. By wauSat6aTo ol he understands
those who pretend to be apostles of Christ without being authorised by Him. The
lack of authorisation is seen in the fact that they are not wholly and exclusively
committed to Christ or God ; they seek their own ends instead of offering un-
selfish service (cf. Épyptal 86A101, 11:13). Not knowing that it is of the essence
of the apostolate of Jesus that the one commissioned by Him should be lowly and
suffer, they acquire the air of irrepAlav xbotolo (11:5,11), an expression which
even linguistically brings out the impossible nature of such apostles, since
atootolocly (- 427) of Jesus already has a position which is quite in-
comparable. In both expressions Paul had in view his Judaistic opponents who
either disputed his apostleship (cf. Gl. 1:1 and 441 f.) or set about to drive him
from his churches by their own claims, though they had not any inner right to pass
sentence on him.

237 12:23 ff. from this standpoint 18:1 ff. should be compared with Mt. 26:36 ff. par. and
+ 0066.
VEUS&TOOTOAOS. ON such compounds cf. the bibl. given by Pr.-Bauer, 1120,
s.v. wEvo6uaptus, and on their history cf. Debr. Griech. Wortb., 37. More particularly on
WEUSAT6OTOAOg cf. K. Holl, DEV O ApTUc in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur KG, II: Der
Osten (1928, 110-114), 114; Sick. K., 145.
1 For their basic understanding, cf. esp. Holl, 110 ff.
 EubaTtoaTooC - atootoln

The fact that the word is attested only in this passage is an argument not merely
for the view that it is Christian and even a Pauline construction but also for the
conclusion that dnootoAoc itself is coined in the Christian or Pauline vocabulary to
meet the need for a new term for the new institution of messengers authorised by
Jesus Himself ( 435). Though Revelation does not have the word, it has its substance
in 2:2 : kal trelpacas tous AÉyovtas Éautous afootoou kal OUK glolv.

cooto^n (- xapic).
This word is relatively common in secular usage. It has many different senses corre-
sponding to XTOoTEAAEIV. Thus it is used a. for the "despatch of ships" (Thuc., VIII, 9:
aTtooTon veGv); b. for any "sending," including the discharge of a missile (BEAOUC
d tootoln : Philo Mechanicus Belopoica, p. 68, 33, Diels-Schramm [AAB, 1918, No. 13,
46]), but also active "separation from a man" (Aristot. Rhet., II, 23, p. 1400b, 11 f.:
quapte yap f MAdela TEpI Thy aTtoato nv tov naldwv) or the "entombment of
mummy" (P. Oxy., 736, 13: attoato.n taons). On the basis of aTTOaTE AET0aL the
word can also signify "expedition" (Thuc., VIII, 8 ; - ) aTt6ot0oc, 407 and n. 3). In
all these cases it is a noun of action.
In the Jewish sphere we find the usual meanings (cf. Ep. Ar., 15, where pos th
drooto nv TOOS TO ATOOTEAEIV). But the strongly developing influence of
nbu lATOoTÉAAElV in the techn. sense (* 417) can also give it the meaning of "tribute"
in connection with the Jewish office of anoatolol (cf. Jul. Ep., 204, p. 281, 4, Bidez-
Cumont).1 It is found 12 times in the LXX, 2 always in connection with the root
nbw when there is an original except at lep. 39:36 ( Jer. 32:36). In this case
72721 32231 2772 is rendered gv payaipg kai Ev Aluo kal Év antooto n. The trans-
lator, on the basis of his historical knowledge, has here amended to read 727 (pesti-
lence) as 127 (the divine address). In K. 9:16 arootoln almost signifies gift" or
"present," but elsewhere it is simply "sending" (w 77:49), 3 including more specifically
the despatch of gifts. Josephus uses it in Ant., 20, 50 for "ceremonial escort" (cf. Vit.,
268). 4

In the NT the term occurs 4 times. In Ac. 1:25 it is used with Siakovia, in
R. 1:5 with ¾ yapis, in C. 9:2 and G1. 2:8 without addition. In all cases it clearly
refers to the office of the antoatodoc of Jesus, technically conceived and dis-
charged. In the NT, then, it is fully controlled by anootoloc. It thus occupies
a distinctive position in the history of the word and shows that the new term
anootoloc has a powerful tendency to make use of related concepts.
The way was perhaps prepared to some degree for this development. Thus the
Armenian version of Test. N.2 : "My father Jacob ordained me for this mission and
message," presupposes a Gk. afooto ny kal dyyeAlav; there may be in drootoAnv
an allusion to the 7?t of Gn. 49:21; 5 yet the Gk. as edited by R. H. Charles simply

anootoan. Cr. Ko. 1020; Preisigke Wort., I, 195; Liddell-Scott, 220.

Cf. S. Krauss, JQR, 17 (1905), 375.
2 Of these are only partially attested (1 K. 4:34; 9:16; Cant. 4:13) : cf. also 3 Macc.
4:4 : #gaToaTo n.
The fig. atooto^n yelpos is found in Aquila Is. 11:14, where Symmachus and Theo-
dotion read EKTaOIC and the LXX has neither (tac Xeipas entiBaloiawv).
1 For these instances, cf. Thackeray Lex. Jos., 76.
5 As suggested by F. Schnapp in Kautzsch Apkr. u. Pseudepigr. ad loc.
ditoatoan - & toolEyyoual

has elg naoav dyyeAlav. & In any case, grootoln and ayyeAla are here related. In
Rabbinic sources the word nobo is occasionally found with reference to the despatch of
messengers (angels: ooxbp ).7 This corresponds materially to dootoln, but we
cannot be sure that it is not derived from it.
Rengstor[

aTtOoTpE.w *OTDEOG antoouvorywyos auvayoyn

aRot&ood , tagad

* git0o0Éyyoual

"To speak out loudly and clearly," "to speak with emphasis." w 58:8; Luc. Zeux., 1;
Iambl. Vit. Pyth., 11, 55. Cf the philosopher, Philo Vit. Mos., II, 33; Diog. L., I, 63, 73,
79; Luc. Alex., 25 : xpno ov ATE OEYEaTO. Of the ecstatic, whether the giver of
oracles, Diod. S., XVI, 27, 1; Plut. Pyth. Or., 23 (II, 405e), the diviner, Mi. 5:12; Zech.
10, Ch. 2; 25:1 Vett. or bhia6.
Val., the
& II,
l12i loane73124t1i
ds.: 1132 C hcoi
16,hip.
inpier.
73, 24singer,
(often sensu malo).

In the NT it is found only in Ac. sensu bono of Christians who, filled with the
Spirit, are ecstatically transported (2:4: pEavto Aaleiv Érepaic yAdoaais,
KaOGC TO TIVEDua 28[8ou atoplÉyyeolal airoic) or inspired to speak pro-
phetically (2:14; 26:25 : a nOelac kai awopoouvns pjuata atool€yyouau).
Its opposite is uaivouau (cf. 2C. 5:13 : BEEOTMEV . .. OW POVOOLEV).
Behm

The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), 145.
Gn.r., 50, 1 on 19:1. For further information v. S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei
Flavius Josephus (1930), 105 and Levy Wort., IV, s.v.
 &TOOEG apa - katapaouai

dupookontos KoTTO
ATTOWUX w > yuxn
ApoG To ñUTOs Tpoo to mpla

$ ARGOEG

Used in Gk. poetry and prose from the time of Homer to the pap. with both the
literal and figur. meaning of "to repel" or "reject." It occurs 6 times in the NT at
Ac. 7:27, 39; 13:46; R. 11:1, 2; 1 Tm. 1:19, always in the mid. aor.1: atwoaunv.

The only passage of significance for biblical theology is R. 11:1, 2 : un atooato

o GEoc TOv ladv aitoi; The form of this question necessarily carries with it a
negative answer. The decisive feature is the combination of 6 Oeoc and tov Aaov
autou. Israel is God's people and therefore He cannot finally repudiate them.
The reading of Codex G, which has thy xAnpovoulav (LXX) for Tov Aabv, is a
correct interpretation (- Aaoc).1 Three times in the LXX (1 Bac. 12:22; w 93:11;
94:4) we have the promise O0K XTHFETAL KUPIog TOV Aaov autoi. Paul reminds
us of this promise when in R. 11:2 he expressly gives us the negative answer:
ooK ATE GaTO 6 OEOg TOV Aaov auToo.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt

apo, katapoouat, kortxpa,

ÉrikaTapatOs, Ertopatos

apo.
Originally "wish" or "petition," though used in the sense of "curse" from the
time of Homer. In the NT found only at R. 3:14 in free quotation of y 9:28.

$ katapaoual.
Since the simple form does not occur in the NT, and other compounds occur only as
verbal adj., katapooual is with avade uatiga the usual word for "to curse." In the
NT it is found only with the acc. of person (Lk. 6:28 and par. vl.; Jm. 3:9), and

ATWOEW. 1 Cf. Bengel, ad loc. : Ipsa populi eius appellatio rationem negandi continet.
Katapaoual. Cf. Pr.-Bauer, S.v.; Bl. Debr. § 152, 1.
karap&oual katapa

therefore also in the pass. (Mt. 25:41: of kampxuÉvot; and absol. katapao0E in
R. 12:14). In non-biblical Gk. the dat. of person is more common than the acc. 1 With
one exception the LXX always has the acc., but Jos. has the dat. (Bell., 3, 297; Ant.,
1, 142; Ap., 1, 204), though also the pass. (Bell., 5, 401). Philo has the dat. (classically)
and the acc. when following the LXX.

T katopo (-* LEaryopa(w, 126).

katapa, from katapaaeal "to enchant" or "bewitch," 1 means "curse.' In the LXX
it is a common rendering of A32p.

1. Curse (and Blessing).

Cursing and blessing are customs which can be traced through almost all religious
history. A curse is a directly expressed or indicated utterance which in virtue of
a supernatural nexus of operation brings harm by its very expression to the one
against whom it is directed. 3 For true cursing there is thus needed the special
endowment possessed by priests, wizards, chiefs etc., a special situation like that
of the dying man or someone unjustly persecuted, the use of special formulae such
as the naming of names, or the observance of particular customs like the recording
of the curse on leaden plates or in holy place etc. The curse can overlap with
prayer if its fulfilment is thought to be so dependent on a deity that it must be
committed to this deity, and it may even become a prayer if it is requested from
the deity. It can also find blatant expression, perhaps poetically, in a passionate
surge of ill-will. For true cursing, however, faith is essential ; fulfilment is implied
in the act of cursing. This fulfilment may be thought to come in virtue of a
mysterious nexus of operation independent of God, as amongst primitive peoples,
or of a compulsion which he who curses exercises upon spirits, gods, etc., as
amongst wizards of a higher type, or of an authority allegedly given him by God,
as in the anathematising of the Synagogue or Roman Catholicism (-> avateua,
avaleuatigo). In the judicial procedures of ancient peoples curses play a signifi-
cant role, e.g., in the execution of punishment, the enforcement of law etc.; the
oath is originally a pledge or declaration on the condition of self-cursing. Jesus
forbade His disciples to curse as an act of revenge (Lk. 6:28 and par. and cf.
Jm. 3:9-12). Nor did He give them any authority to curse, but only to withhold
remission (Jn. 20:23; Mt. 16:19; 18:18). The cursing of God, or of those whom He
has authorised, of the prophets and Scripture, is designed to reveal the divine
judgment in such a way that it is already initiated. The curse is thus a judicial
action of God, or a consequence of human sin, as in Gl. 3:10, 13; Hb. 6:8; 2 Pt.
2:14. The emphasis here is not so much on the fact that the curse is pronounced
as on the ineluctability of this consequence of sin, which is determined once and
for all by the divine judgment.

katapa. L. Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (1932). For bibl. on cursing
as a phenomenon in religious history n. 2; for bibl. on Gl. 3:10, 13 > €Eayopagw,
126 n.
1 Debr. Griech. Wortb., 21.
Cf. A. Bertholet-E. Lehmann, Lehrbuch d. Rel. Gesch. (1925). Index, S.v. "Fluch" :
also J. Hempel, "Die israel. Anschauungen v. Segen u. Fluch im Lichte altorient. Parallelen,"
ZDMG, 79 (1925), 20-110; R. Winsch, Antike Fluchtafeln, KI. T. 20 (1907): Pauly-W.,
VI (1909), 271 and Suppl., IV (1924). 454; K. Latte, Heiliges Recht (1920), 61-96.
The common definition (e.g., H. Gunkel, RGG1, II, 921) that a curse is the wishing
of harm is incorrect : the wish must be expressed etc.
 karapa
2. G1. 3:13.
In Gl. 3:13 the curse is the curse of the Law, since the Law expresses it (Dt.
27:26; 21:23). Yet it is also the curse of God, for the Law is the revelation of God.
This is in no sense affected by GI. 3:19, 20. For Paul humanity stands under the
wrath of God (R. 1:19-32) or the judgment of God (R. 5:18). For this reason we
take away the foundation and destroy the very nerve of the passage if we restrict
the "we" of Gl. 3:10, 13 to the Jews or to Jewish Christians. Paul speaks per-
sonally or subjectively. If we make this personal confession objective, we rob it
of its essence. According to Gl. 3:10, 13 no man is exempt from standing under the
curse, for all men are sinners (R. 3:23) . 5 To be a sinner is to stand already under
the wrath and condemnation of God, not just to move forward to it. This is
expressed in the saying about the curse of the Law.
In the curse of the Law opyh and kataxplua already press on man ; hence
there is forgiveness only through strict release from the curse. Jesus accomplished
this by becoming a curse on our behalf (= orep), i.e., by dying the death of the
accursed on the cross. The distinctive mode of expression used by Paul in G1. 3:13,
i.e., abstractum pro concreto, is also found in the OT and in the literature of
Jewish tradition. & Thus the key to the concept of substitution in G1. 3:13 is not
to be sought in the recurrence of the same formulation at 2 C. 5:21: UTTED muov
quaptiav Éntoinoev. This phrase expresses neither the inward nature of the union
between the one who bears and what is borne, nor does it relativise the substitution
to the divine ordination that He "should suffer what men did to Him in fulfilment
of the curse which He had not brought down and which did not apply to Him.'
The key is to be sought in the UnEp nuov which occurs in both passages, and
especially in the insight (- Éayopa<o, 127) that Paul does not objectivise the
thought of substitution. It is thus beside the point to differentiate between the
curse which Jesus became and that which God in the Law decreed on transgressors
of the Law. 8 For whatever may be the correct interpretation of the mubk ny7p
of Dt. 21:23, ° both the LXX and Paul have here, not the abstract katapa, but
the concrete, passive Éilkatapatos or KEKaTapquÉvog. The one who is hanged
is thus regarded as accursed in the sense that, as "a publicly exposed example of
the pitiless severity of the Law," 10 he stands under the very curse which the
Law brings on those who transgress it. 11 Obviously, then, Paul is stating a view

+ Hofmann, Sieffert, Zn., Kaftan etc.; #Earyopa(w, 126, n.

5 On the question whether and in what way all men, including the Gentiles, stand under
the Law, cf. R. 2:12-16.
6 Jer. 24:9; 42:18; Zech. 8:13; Ex.r., 38 on 29:1: "As Thou, God, art truth ..."; S. Nu.,
161 on 35:34 : "I am your atonement b29792. Str.-B., III, 261 gives many examples of the
expression : "I am an atonement for someone," e.g., Neg., 2, 1: "The children of Israel,
I am their atonement This singular but recurrent assurance of love shows how deeply
rooted in Judaism is the thought that by voluntarily accepted sufferings one may free
others from sufferings which are divinely imposed.
Sieffert, ad loc. according to Hofmann.
Zn. acc. to Hofmann, and even more clearly Sieffert.
0 Cf. Zn. Gl., 156, n. 9.
10 Ibid., 157.
11 Zn. himself shows that to distinguish between the curse which Jesus became and that
which rests on transgressors of the Law obscures rather. than elucidates the passage. But
he also finds in the passage no statement concerning the way in which Jesus redeemed us
from the curse by becoming a curse.
karapa - ÉriKatapatos

of substitution. Yet it is not the orthodox view which views the cross in the light
of a purely objective legal transaction between God and Christ that does not
concern man nor embrace him personally. Nor is any help to be found in the
restrictions of a mediating theology which derives the curse only from the Law
and not from God, or which applies it only to the Jews and not to "us." For Paul
substitution is part of God's dynamic action towards us. It is the establishment
of the new fellowship between God and us. It does not merely make this possible
legally and objectively. It is also the effective creation of this fellowship sub-
jectively in us. These statements of Paul can be understood only in the light of
the new divine fellowship which is twosided, which is both objective and sub-
jective, and which thus manifests itself in the workings of faith and conscience
that are produced in us by the cross. It is not for nothing that Paul speaks of our
redemption (G1. 3:13), of our justification (R. 3:21 ff.), of our reconciliation (2 C.
5:17 ff.), in short of our new fellowship with God, before he speaks of Jesus
as the One who became a curse, as the tAxomplov, as the One who was made
sin. This recurrent formal structure of his statements can hardly be accidental.
If not, however, it shows us that He does not think in the purely objective manner
of orthodoxy. That Jesus was made urse for us implies, then, that He is set by
God in our alienation from God in order that He might bring us Out of it to
fellowship with God (-> inép).
The question whether and for what reason this penal substitution was necessary is
neither raised nor answered in the Pauline Epistles. Paul accepts the fact that Jesus has
died the death of the accursed and that He is thus the Initiator of new fellowship with
God. He states this fact, but does not speculate on its necessity. Nevertheless, the
punishment of sinners, as he sees it, is not merely threatened by the curse of the Law ;
it is already initiated, if not completed. Thus there can be no new divine fellowship
for those who are accursed, i.e., for those who stand under punishment, except by way
of penal substitution.

+ Entlkatapatos, t Énapatos (- karapa).

Érlkatapatos is common in the LXX but in the NT it occurs only at Gl. 3:10, 13.
Older non-biblical Gk. uses &patoc, Enxpatos, 1 Karapatoc. 2 Outside the Bible
Éitlkatapatoc is found only from the 2nd century A.D.: Ditt. Syll.¾, 1240, 2 f. : ETI-
kaTapatoc Satis un dElBoIto KaT TOVOE TOV yipov To06E tOU Epyou, CIG, 2664.
It is possible that it came into secular use by way of the LXX and NT. Yet it can
hardly be accidental that this double rather than single compound is first found in the
LXX, from which the NT takes it. For the older period was not SO fond of double
compounds as the later. 4 On Gl. 3:13 Katapa, 450. The judgment on the people in
Jn. 7:49 (Enapatoc) is in keeping with the inordinate scorn of the scribes for the
unlearned : it is based on Dt. 27:26.
Bichsel

ETikatapaToS. 1 Jos. Ant., 1, 58; 7,208; Philo passim. Jos. does not have Ent-
Katapatos, though it is found in Philo Leg. All., 3, 111 and 113.
Jos. Ant., 4, 126.
Nageli, 60.
Deissmann LO, 74.
5 Materially cf. Str.-B., II, 494-519, esp. 514-516; Deissmann LO, 74.
 spyoc - katapyeo

apy6c, apyew, KatapyEw

* dpy6c, $ apyew.
apy6s (= a-epy6s, Hom. II., 9, 320) means "inactive" or "inoperative." It is used
a. in the sense of "indolent" (Sir. 37:11), "unemployed," "useless," "unserviceable"
(viES, Thuc., VII, 67), or pass. "unused" (Wis. 14:5) or "unworked," i.e., 'raw" or
"crude" (3 Bao. 6:7; Sir. 38:28). It is also used b. in the sense of incapable of action
or of live operation. Thus in Emped. (Diels, I, 208,7) it is used of the matter of the
cosmos to signify its lack of potential energies ; cf. Philo Spec. Leg., I, 21 with reference
to the material of idols (cf. also on this pt. Wis. 15:15). It is used of the souls of lower
animals, which have few functions (Op. Mund., 65; cf. Leg. All., I, 32). Corp. Herm.,
XI, 5 states that it is not proper to God, i.e., God is always active. It can also be used
of a philosophical theorem (the apyoc Aoyos, v. Arnim, II, 277 f.; the context actually
treats of this apyoc Abyoc) which blunts the (moral) power of action. It is also used
of the enOvulal which are not capable of good - "bad" "(Plat. Resp., IX, 572e).
xpyéo is intr.; it can be used in the LXX for "to rest" (on the Sabbath, 2 Macc.
5:25), but also for "to be idle," or "to pause" (1 Esr. 2:25; 2 Esr. 4:24; Qoh. 12:3).

apy6c in the NT is used in the secular sense of "unemployed" (Mt. 20:3),

"inactive" (Mt. 20:6; 1 Tm. 5:13), or "idle" (Tt. 1:12) . It is also used in the moral
sense of "not accomplishing good," i.e., "bad" -* supra, Plat. Resp., IX, 572e),
of human words which come under judgment (Mt. 12:36, where it is obviously
identical with -> Ttovn pov in v. 34, though cf. Stob. Ecl., III, p. 684, 8 f.). It is also
found in the religious sense at 2 Pt. 1:8 (par. to aKapTos) of those who will stand
before Christ in the judgment with nothing to attest their Christian standing either
in their individual life or the life of the community. What the author has in view
is the expression of "lots by apeth. In Jewish rather than a Greek phrase,
this is most explicitly demanded in Im. 2:20. According to this verse a faith which
consists merely in convictions is unserviceable or worthless to the believer ; only
when it achieves in works the dynamic of oUVEPYEL (v. 22) does its attain the
necessary fulness. Faith which is understood only intellectually is in some sense
? mere cloak, and as such it is worthless, xpyñ.
apyÉG is used at 2 Pt. 2:3, o0k apyei intrans. to signify the latent activity of
judgment.

r katapyéw.
Trans. in the sense of "to render inactive,' "to condemn to inactivity" (xÉpo, Eur.
Phoen., 753), "to put out of use" (Corp. Herm., XIII, 7: Katapynaov tot aquatoc
tac alo0nosc). In the LXX it occurs only at 2 Eo8p. (4 times) with the meaning
"to destroy.'
In the NT it is used with the secular meanings a. "to condemn to inactivity" (Lk.
13:7); b. "to destroy" (1 C. 13:11); and c. "to remove from the sphere of activity"
(R. 7:2).1

spyos K TA. 1 Better attested than the variant vekp, which misses the subtle play
on words.
KatapyEw. 1 Cf. Sickb. R.*, 225.
katapyed
In the religious sense, which is almost exclusive to Paul, it means 1. "to make
completely inoperative" or "to put out of use." As applied to God and Christ (a.),
it signifies a religious benefit or liberation ; as applied to men (b.) it denotes
offence against a religious order or ordinance.
a. Since the world view of Paul recognises several real destructive elements,
it is radically refashioned by the new religion, so that the concept of katapyeiv
in the objective sense plays no inconsiderable role in the totality of the cosmic
and extra-cosmic development theologically interpreted by him.
The remarkable observation of Paul in relation to the Corinthian church, i.e.,
that it is not composed of those who are noteworthy in the eyes of the world,
leads him to the judgment that God's purpose is obviously to "render insignificant,"
"to set aside," "that which is," i.e., the values which count for the psychic (1 C.
1:28), in order that those who think that they count for something and make
themselves out to be important should be deprived of their significance in His
judgment. Thus the way of the Greeks to God, their "wisdom, is made totally
inoperative by God, as is also the vouoc tov Évroiv (Eph. 2:15). And it is
stated expressly that a new valuation has been set up by the work of Christ.
Christ Himself by His physical death has set aside the Jewish and OT Law with
its detailed provisions and the expository pronouncements of the Rabbis. The way
to God has thus been opened up for the Gentiles. To be sure, Paul does not wish
to invalidate the Law as an ethical demand (cf. R. 2:14, or as given to the Jew)
with his preaching of faith (R. 3:31). The point is that it cannot advance any
claim which would make of none effect the promise of the righteousness of faith
given to Abraham (G1. 3:17). Behind all this there stand for Paul very real powers
which control this aeon, the apxai, ÉEourial, - SuvquEIS. Yet these, too,
are robbed of their power for the Christian ; they have no more power over him
(1 C. 2:6). Using katapyEiv, Paul says this expressly even of death, which is
curse resting on the physical and intellectual and moral life of the natural, i.e., the
carnal or psychic man (2 Tm. 1:10). The Epistle to the Hebrews fills out this
declaration by stating that through the death of Christ even the one who has
power over death, the Su&Bolos (2:14), is condemned to inactivity or ineffective-
ness in relation to the Christian.
In individual terms, these Pauline statements concerning the new estimation of
the existing world order apply with even greater precision to the carnal man.
The crucifixion of this man with Christ implies that he is released from his
bondage to sin, or more exactly and here we see clearly the strong tension
which can also be for Paul the tension between ooua and fIvEDua that the
body of sin, the form of man's appearance in subjection to sin, is robbed of its
power to affect the religious and moral attitude and development of man (R. 6:6).
For the moment this liberation according to the will of God is not definitive ; the
religious life of the Christian still assumes forms which will be ended, such as
the prophetic utterances of the pneuma and indeed the gnosis which is highly
estimated by Paul (only dyamn will remain, 1 C. 13:8). For by these it is in-
evitable that only portions of the divine reality may be apprehended. With the
fulfilment, this partial work loses its point (v. 10).
b. Subjectively, i.e., for himself and his sphere of activity for Paul expressly
denies the possibility of any objective operation of such disobedient KatapyElv
man can render these divine acts of liberation ineffective by his disobedience to
the resultant demands of faith, e.g., by maintaining that the fulfilment of the Law
according to a Judaistic understanding is necessary for heirs of the Baoi ela
 katapyeo

(R. 4:14), for instance, in such matters as circumcision (GI. 5:11). The scandal of
the cross is thus robbed of its effect, i.e., the offence which the Jew takes at
justification, not by works, but by the cross of Christ.
2. The provisional disarming of demonic powers and the carnal man will
obviously end with their complete destruction at the parousia (1 C. 15:24, 26;
2 Th. 2:8; 1 C. 6:13).
3. The deliberative use of the term, "to take from the sphere of operation,"
is found with the two references treated under 1a. : &to tou vouou (R. 7:6) and
aTto XploT0i (G1. 5:4).
4. The use in 2 C. causes difficulties. In v. 7 and v. 13 we seem to have un-
equivocal examples of 2. The external glow on the face of Moses, caused by the
mediation of the Law, was transitory (pres. part. pass. as adj., formally as in
v.11). Again v. 14 may belong to 2. if we are to fill out the subj. of katapyeital
to To ka^uuux (which conceals the passing nature of the 86ga of the service of
the Law). Thus the deceptive appearance that the &6ga of the service of the
Law still remains is destroyed in Christ. On the other hand, we get a clearer sense
if we take na^aid Bua0hkn as the subject here. This is invalidated or devalued
in Christ, i.e., by the given fact of Christ. In this case the katapyouuevov of
v. 11 refers to the service of the Law as well. This was subjected to later devalua-
tion ; it was deprived of its original value ( supra 1.). It thus has only a borrow-
ed 86Éa and not one of its own, not even as the gift of faith. We see, therefore,
that KatapyEiv often means "to put out of action" or "to deprive of power" in
cases where there has been relative value and validity in the pre-Christian period.
It is from the vacillation between the meanings 2. (v.7, 13) and 1a. (v. 11, 14)
that the train of thought in 2 C. 3:7-14 derives its cogency.
Delling
apEaK~

ApÉOKO, IVOPITXPEOKOS, XpEOKEIa,

APEOT6S, EDGPEOTOS, EUOPEOTEDD

apéaxw implies the establishment of a positive relationship between two factors

and therefore "to make peace" or "to reconcile." From the original legal sphere
the term passed into the aesthetic in the sense of "to please" someone. The various
constructions from the present stem, e.g., &PEOKOS, aPEOKEOW and xpeoKeia,
express the action of trying to please, and easily come to have, though not ex-
clusively, an unfavourable sense. Constructions from the general verbal stem, e.g.,
opEoT6C, Eiapeotos and Expeotew, denote something which positively evokes
pleasure.

+ xpfoxo.
a. Originally with the acc. "to make peace with" or "to reconcile" someone, 1 mid.
"to be well disposed" to someone, as in Xenoph. Mem., IV, 3, 16: lspois Oeoug
&peokeo0at, and similarly Jos. Ant., 6, 67; Bell., 1, 321; 5, 503. Hence pass. "to be
satisfied by" or "to take pleasure in, M. Ant., III, 4, 9 etc. Then with the dat. b. "to
take a pleasant attitude" to someone, Xenoph. Mem., II, 2, 12 : oikoiv Kal to
YE[ToV BOUlEl ON ApEOKEIV, Iva Fol Kal nup Evain, 8tav toutou SÉn; similarly
Eur. Fr., 93 and often on inscriptions, as CIG, 4479, 5 : &pÉoavtac th Tortpiol kai
toic matplois Oeois, also Epict. c. "to please' someone, as often in secular usage.
In the LXX ApéoKo always means "to please," and the compound EUXDEOTEG is
used to translate biny where this denotes the walk before God: Gn. 5:22, 24; 6:9; 17:1
(edapÉotel Evavriov quol kal yivou queUTto); 24:40; 48:15; Ps. 26:3; 35:14;
56:13; 116:9; Sir. 44:16.2 In Gn. 39:4 it is used for not. This shows that the LXX
uses E{XPEOTEG for an attitude. 3

In the NT we have the meaning "to please" at Mk. 6:22 and par. and Ac. 6:5, 4
as also perhaps at 1 C. 7:32 ff. and 2 T'm. 2:4. In Paul, however, it mostly signifies
to 'please oneself," as in R. 15:1-3, where the opp. is not "to detest oneself" 5 but
"to deny oneself.' Similarly in 1 C. 10:33 the part. clause : ka0oc kayo Tt&vta
TOOL ApEoKo un Intov to kuautou obupopov, suggests that the reference is to
an attitude. The same holds good in Th. 2:4 and Gl. 1:10: A into dvi po Toic
SPEAKEIV; EI ETL &VOPITOIS MPEOKOV, XPIOTO 8 Aunv, where
serving men and being the slave of Christ are brought into contrast. 1 Th. 2:15
and 4:1 are to be taken in the same way, and the context shows that the reference
is to an attitude in R. 8:8.

& PEAK G. Nageli, 40; Joh. W. 1 K. on 10:33; Dob. Th. on 1 Th. 2:4; A. Robertson-
A. Plummer, Cor. (1911), on 10:33.
Cf. the words &peotp (savour of an expiatory offering) and apeompia lapo (ex-
piatory offering).
Exceptions are 4 Bao. 20:3 (7tEPITaTEiv) and Is. 38:3 (topeueo0at).
3 Rgg. Hb. on 11:5.
4 On the construction with evotiov cf. 3 Bac, 12:24: Jdt. 7:16, often whith #vavrlov.
Ejapeoteo occurs with Evobrtlov in 55:14. The MSS sometimes vacillate between Evo-
TOV and vavrlov.
This is how the expression is used in Epict. Diss., II, 18, 19.
 AVO PMTDEOKOS apEOKEla - XpEOT6C - E{XPECTOC

$ dv0P naPEOKOc.
Only in w 52:6 and Ps. Sol. 4:8, 10, 21, according to the context in the sense of one
who reckons only with men and their power and who therefore seeks to please men
and does not take God into account (y 52:6 : ÉKEi poBninoovtal poBov, oi OOK
nv poBos). Outside the Bible we have only &PEoKOg. Def. in Aristot. Eth Nic., II, 7,
p. 1108a, 28; IV, 12, p. 1126b, 12 ff.: of uev &pEOKOI BOKOUGIV ElvaI ol tdvia "tpc
noovhy fraivoovteg Kal OUBEV OVTITEIVOVTES, XAX' olouevot SEiv AUTOI TOic
EvTUYXaVOuaLV Elval; cf. also Theophr. Char., 5. The word describes an attitude
rather than a relation. It is to be distinguished from ko^af, which denotes one who
seeks his own advantage by his attitude. In itself, however, &PEOKo≤ too is vox media.

AvE POTXpEOKOC is the opposite of an incipient (EXPEOKOS and denotes in

Col. 3:22 and Eph. 6:6 one whose final norm, born of fear and quite natural in
slaves, is striving to please those who are in superior authority. For Paul the
service of men and the service of God are quite distinct, though the service of
God points us back to calling.

+ opeoKeia.
This denotes the attitude of an &pEaKos, and like the latter it is often used sensu malo.
Yet there are examples of a favourable sense in secular Gk. and Philo. 1 In the LXX it
occurs only in Flapous. 29:48 parallel with kalos yuvaik6g.

Col. 1:10 : TEpuatñoal aflos tou kupiou EiC TOOXV XPEOKEIaV "to every
kind of pleasing attitude" ; towards whom is not clearly specified.

$ apeor6c.
"Acceptable" (used of the quality of goods 1 in the pap.), "pleasing," "agreeable,"
is found as early as Pythagoras in secular Gk. 2 In the LXX it denotes what God (or a
man) accepts as pleasing, and it can thus be an expression of full freedom, Tob. 3:6:
kata to apeotov oou toinoov uer' guoi.
In the NT it means "pleasing" as in Jn. 8:29; Ac. 6:2 (to God); 12:3 (to the Jews);
1 Jn. 3:22, where we have the par. tos Évtolas autou inpeiv and to apeoro evi-
TEloV QUTOU TOLEIv. Elsewhere in the NT the compound is used.

• EUXPEOTOS, + EUOPECTED.
E XpEOTOC, "well-pleasing," a term of the koine, common on inscr., Inschr, Priene,
114,15: yev0ais &e soapeo[tos] tv tois the yuuvaoiapxias ava ouaoi. In
Epict. it also means "content." As a note of quality it means acceptable." In the LXX
it occurs only in Wis. 4:10; 9:10.

av0 POTAPE KOS. Nageli, 61.

1 Theophil. Ad. Autol., III, 14: TOUG 8E TOLOUVTAC TO dyalov 818gOKEL (sc. Jesus)
un Kauxaolai, Iva un avopwnapEaKol Golv, has rather a different slant.
& OKEla. Deissmann NB, 51.
P. Oxy., 729 24 : Toinoovtal toUg TotiouOuC tpos apsari[av] TOU Zapa-
lovos. Philo Fug., 88: EVEK& APEOKEIAS OEOU; cf. Op. Mund., 144; Spec. Leg., I, 176
and 317.
X PEOT6C. 1 P. Amh., II, 48, 8 (106 B.C.) of vessels.
2 Stob. Ecl., IV, p. 277, 13 f.: ou yap XMAa WEV &PETA TOLEI TO OPEOTO To OEQ.
EUOPEOTE. Rgg. Hb. on 11:5; Sickb. R.+, 273.
E XPEOTOS - apeth

In the NT it is used only once of acceptance by men, i.e., at Tt. 2:9 : Sou ouc
L8l0Is BEATt6TXIC EoapÉotouc elval. Otherwise it is always used of God's
attitude towards human conduct. It is characteristic of the NT, however, that
only once is the judgment ED&PEOTOS used retrospectively, i.e., at Phil. 4:18 :
SEEQUEVOC QuIav BEKTHV, EDXPEOTOV TO 0EG. For Paul EDXDEOTOC TO OE&
(EvOTiov autoi [Hb.], Év kuplo) is a goal of the Christian walk, as in R. 12:1 f.:
rapaotiaal to onuata buov evolay. tO DEG ED&PEOTOV; R.14:18 : o
EV TOUTO BOULEIGU TO XPIOTS EIKPEOTOC TO OEQ; COl. 3:20 : UTOK toic
YOVEUOLV TOUTO yAP ED&PEOTOV fotiv Ev Kuplo; cf. Hb. 13:21: Ttolov Ev
quiv to EU& PEOTOV EvOmiov aitoU. What is well-pleasing is affirmed in no
casuistical sense to be what is &&iov tot kuplou. In both expressions Paul com-
prises both the goal and the motive of the Christian life, and he admonishes us
in vital and continually new seeking to "test" what is EUXPEOTOV, Eph. 5:10 : os
TéKVO OOTOS TEPITOTEITE BoKIua(ovtES Tl EOTIV EDXDETTOV TO KUpIo, cf.
2 C. 5:9: piAoTILOULE0x ED&PEOTOI AUTO EIVaL; cf. also Hb. 12:28.

EUXPEOTé~ (koine) in a sense often par. to apEaKo. a. "to be well-pleasing"

(secular Gk., Philo). b. "to take pleasure in something (tivi)," also "to be satisfied,'
as &pÉoKeo0al TIV, Diod. S., III, 55,9 : thv untépa TOV OEKV EBXPEOT (Eloav t
woo. C. "To walk well-pleasing" (in the LXX sometimes for T2nn7 > xpéaro).

Hb. 13:16 : tolaUtaic Ovalaic EDXPEATEITAL 6 (eoc, as b. "to take pleasure

in." Hb. 11:5 f. : usuaptopnta (Enoch) EiapEoinKÉvaL TO OE6 = C. "to walk
well-pleasing," as shown by the continuation Xopic 8& TloTERe doIVaToV ED.
apEotñoat® TLOTE OKI yap SEI TOV TPOOEPYOUEVOV HED, 8TL EOTIV Kai toic
EKIntouolv airov urolatoootns yiveral.
Foerster

+ xperi
A. apern outside the NT.
At the time of the NT the word apetn had so many meanings that it gave rise
to misunderstandings. When, e.g., we read Hesiod Op., 313 : TAo0to 8' XpEt

a peth. Deissmann LO, 270; B, 90 ff., 278; Clemen, 365 f.; U. V. Wilamowitz-Moellen-
dorff, NGG (1898), 214 ff. and on this J. Ludwig, Quae ruerit vocis apET vis ac natura
ante Demosthenis exitum (Diss. Leipzig, 1906); . Stenzel, Studien zur platonischen Dia-
lektik, Arete und Diairesis (1917). Art. "Sokrates," Pauly-W., 2 Reihe, III, 830: A.
Kiefer, Aretalogische Studien (Diss. Freiburg, 1929), esp. 18 ff.; Nageli, 69; A. Bonhoffer,
Epictet und das NT (1911), 108 f.; L. Schmidt, Die Ethik der alten Griechen, I (1882),
295 ff.; E. Schwartz, Das Geschichtswerk des Thucydides (1919), esp. 351 ff.; also Gnomon,
2 (1926), 75 ff.; S. Reiter, Apeth und der Titel von Philos 'Legatio' in Epitymbion,
Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht (1928), 228-237; Comm. on Phil. by Dib.2 (1925) and Loh. A
(1928). Def. : Aristot. Eth. Nic., II, 4 f.; cf. esp. p. 1106a, 14 ff.: r TOO dviponou apeth
ein ov TEs ao Ais yatoc & VO PITTOC yiveral kal ao' nis E8 TO tautoi Epyov dito-
8&FEL. Chrysipp. in Alex. Aphr. Fat., 26 (A. Gercke, Jbch. f. klass. Phil. Suppl., 14 [1885],
740); Plut. Aud. Poet., 6 (II, 24d). On the history of the meaning, M. Hoffmann, Ethische
Terminologie bei Homer, Hesiod, Jambikern und Tragikern (Diss. Tubingen, 1914).
 aperi

kal Kibog oTnel, we might take it to mean that wealth and virtue are inseparably
connected. Plutarch 1 at least credits such ideas of the young patrons of letters in
his day. That later generations, for whom Greek was no longer their everyday
speech, should be exposed to errors is obvious, and to this very day it is still
difficult to decide in individual cases.
Yet in spite of the ambiguity of the term we can pick out a single basic meaning.
It might be rendered a. "eminence, quaelibet rei praestantia. ' It can refer to ex-
cellence of achievement, to mastery in a specific field, on the one side, or to
endowment with higher power on the other, or often to both together. Thus a
happy destiny is the result of fine achievement (Plut. -n.1), and conversely
achievement is a precondition of the good which is sought by all, of good fortune.
The subject of achievement may be lands, animals, objects, parts of the body,
but mostly it is man. Just as the ways in which the Greek world reflects on human
achievement, on specifically human achievement, and indeed on man, are manifold
and distinctive, so are the different contents of the word apet. Already in the
time of Homer it is used to denote one particular human achievement, namely,
b. "manliness" 6 or martial valour. In relation to the goal which it serves, this
often comes to denote C. merit, as in apETñs Eveka with reference to rolls of
honour. 7
At the time of the Sophists the intellectual aspect of the term on the one side,
and the ethical, dating from Socrates and Plato, on the other, achieve a prominence
unknown in ancient Greece. It is now that the word acquires the particular meaning
which becomes predominant and which primarily influences our own impression
of it. apetn becomes a leading tool in the language of Greek moral philosophy in
the sense of d. "virtue." This is not the place for an evaluation either of this
extraordinarily significant development or of the Greek concept of virtue. It
should be pointed out, however, that the concept could not be a matter of in-
difference to Hellenistic Judaism. It formed an important medium in the dealings of
Judaism with the Hellenistic world, in its struggle for it and proselytising within it.
Philo made frequent and emphatic use of it. In his case the concept remained

1 In section 6 of the work Aud. Poet. (II, 24d), which is most instructive for the word
apetñ.
Cf. the excellent art. by Pass. and Pape in their more recent dictionaries.
3 So also Cr.1-3. The word ape-Th is etymologically connected with apÉ-akw, Aipe-oa,
ap-IOT0S, cf. A. Walde, Vergleichendes Worterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen,
(1930), 69.
4 F. W. Sturz, Lex Xenophonteum (1801 ff.) S.v.
5 Hes. Op., 313 and in general 274-326, as also in the well-known statement: The 8'
aperis 18p6tx fEol TOOT& pOLOEV EOnxarv (289), cf. esp. Wilamowitz, op. cit. Cf. also
apetov, Hom. Od., 8, 329; 19, 108.
Common also in Jos. (Bell., 3, 380; 4, 325 etc.).
IG, I12. 107 etc.; cf. Xenoph. An., I,4,8: TAS TPOOOEV EVEKA TEOL QUE aperc.
Reference should be made particularly to the hymn of Aristotle : 'APET&, ToAduox0E
yÉVEL BOOTEW Diehl, Anth. Lyr., 101, 16; here we have a grand and comprehensive
review of the nature of Greek &pet generally, both heroic and philosophical ; cf. U. V.
Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, Il (1893), 405 ff.; W. Jaeger, Aristoteles (1923), 119.
On the whole theme, U. R. Eisler, Worterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, III, 4th ed.
K. Koretz (1930), 274 ff.; L. Schmidt, E. Schwartz, op. cit.
0 v. Index in Cohn-Wendland, VII. Cf. also Jos. on the content of the Baptist's preaching:
touc 'loudaloug KElE OUTa apEThV traoKoiutac Battiou@ ouvieval, Ant., 18, 117,
apeth
wholly within the limits set by Greek use. Yet this is hardly characteristic of
Hellenistic Judaism generally. In other circles there are movements towards a
more strongly religious use with more distinctive Jewish colouring. apetn ap-
proximates to - dikaloolvn, which elsewhere is logically subordinate to it as
one of the four cardinal virtues. Indeed, the two words become almost equiva-
lents. 10 Moreover recollection of the great age of the Maccabees made apet a
useful term to describe the fidelity of the heroes of faith in life and death.
In 2 Macc. 10:28 apeth, together with grl tov kupiov katapuyh, is esp. a guarantee
of victory as sheer Ovu6c (unless we are to take it as under f.); in 4 Macc. 7:22 we
have the par. Budx Thy apethv Ttavta TTOvoV UTOUÉVElV and ... TEPIKPATHOELEV TOV
TAEWV B1A THI EDGÉBEIAV. 4 Macc. 9:8: Sid thobe tis kakoradelac kal UTO-
Lovns ta tns aperis 801a oloouev; cf. 1:8; 12:15; 9:18 : 81& naoiv yap buas
TElow tiv Baodvav, 8T uovol ol paidec 'EBpalwv unep aperis elow vixntol;
10:10 : queic Sid maldelarv kal apethy 0e00 Ta0Ta TXOyOuEV. 11 For apeti
without this special flavour, cf. 2 Macc. 15:12 : 'Oviav &vipa kaldv kal gyalov
Ek ital8oc EKueueletnKota TO tnc apetis olkeia; 4 Macc. 1:2 : the LEyioTs
aperns, AEyo 8€ opoVñOEO; cf. Heracl. Fr., 112 (I, 99, 10, Diels): To opoveiv
aper ueyion. For divine apet in contrast to the impurity of pagan gods, cf. Jos.
Ant., I, 23 : xxpalovñ thy apethv Eyovta TOV GE6V.
In the last resort the fidelity of the martyr is just as much a divine gift as a moral
achievement. Though the concept is not uniform, and is perhaps more easily appreciated
than stated, we undoubtedly have here a distinctive use which must have had quite a
considerable influence, the more so as Wisdom and Maccabees, the books in which
we find it, became biblical writings.

If meaning d. became the main meaning, others could still maintain themselves
and develop alongside it. Religiously it is important that from a very early stage
reference could be made to the apeth of the gods. 12 Later the apeth of a god
often came to signify in particular e. his "self-declaration" as such. 13 &peth thus
came to be linked with * bovauls, as a more comprehensive synonym, 14 in
relation to powerful divine operation. This meaning was in view 16 when apeta-
Aoyia was used in the religious sense.

and on this passage R. Eisler: 'Inoouc Baaileds of Baaieloas, II (1930), 59; Ap.
2, 151.
10 Esp. Wis. 8:7: El bikaioaovny ayato TIC, of Ttovol taUTns (scil. coolas)
Elalv apetal, and there then follow anopoaivn, opovnois, 8ikaioolv (here as one of
the cardinal virtues alongside others) and &vopela; 4 Macc. 13:24 : vouo yap to auto
TALSEUDEVTES, kal TAC aitdc LEaAKñOAUTES APETXC, kal TO BiKald OUVTPAQEVTES
Big In Wis. 5:13 apet is the opp. of kakia; cf. also apETh biKal0oDvns, Herm.m.,
2 etc. (v. Pr.-Bauer).
11 Cf. Cr.-Ko., 163.
12 Hom. II., 9, 498. Apeth is proper to supernatural beings; the continuation of the verse
quoted on p. 457 f. is as follows : Saluon 8 oloc Enola.
13 Ditt. Syll.3, 1151,2 : 'A0nvaal MÉVEIa dveinkev oywv ibo0aa apEthv ts 0:00
acc. to Kiefer, op. cit., 21 at the latest from the middle of the 4th cent. B.C.; 1172, 10
(Note 8); 1173,5: tooal apetal; CIG, 2715: aya^uata itapÉyovta Tis BElac
SUVqLEDs &PETAC from the earliest imperial period, cf. Deissmann B, 277 ff.; P. Ory.,
XI, 1382; Philo Som., I, 256; Jos. Ant., 18, 266 : 0:o0 TEIOOEVTES apETñ: 17,130; Prels.
Zaub., V, 418 ff.: 5ppa tE HavtoaUvac taic aaic apetaial AdBoqul.
Philo Spec. Leg., 1,209 : TOv BElov Suvduedy Kal apetiv; Vit. Cont., 26 : ToV
Oelov apetoov kal SuvauEwv.
15 Probably without corresponding in this respect to the true sense of the word apera-
loyla, v. Kiefer, op. cit., 37.
 apeti

apet also means fortune, success (Hom. Od., 13, 45), a good worth seeking,
especially in the sense of special prominence among men, i.e., f. "fame.' 16 It thus
comes to be synon. with 86&x. The Greek translation of the OT uses it only
in this sense. It is the equivalent of 7i% 18 and 727h.19 From the simultaneous
existence of meanings d. and f. we can see the extraordinary range of the term.
The man of true virtue is above what others say ; virtue and praise are radically
different and even conflicting : 20 yet the one word can signify both.

B. apeth in the NT.

To understand the few passages where xpet is used in the NT it is important
that the LXX applies the Greek concept of virtue in a distinctive way. Even more
significant, however, is the negative fact that the LXX use is purely tentative
and that there is no real place for apeth virtue in the translation of the OT.
For a world in which man constantly saw himself morally responsible before
holy God the Greek concept of virtue could not finally fulfil its apparent promise.
Though not irreligious, 21 it was far too anthropocentric and this-worldly in
orientation. What both the OT and NT attest is not human achievements or merits
but the acts of God. Thus in the whole of Pauline literature with its wealth of
exhortation the word occurs only once and quite incidentally in Phil. 4:8 & . . . El
TIC ApETI Kai El TIC EraIVos, TaIta AOyi(E0E. Here the proximity of apetn
and #nalvo© is perhaps Greek, 22 but hardly their ¢o-ordination. And if the pre-
ceding concepts, aAneñ oEuVa etc., are co-ordinated with aperi rather than
subordinated to it, there is a clear distinction between what Paul has in view and
Greek apet (= sense f.). The precise understanding depends upon whether we
think the series has a more secular or a more religious ring. B3 If the latter, then
we have an echo of the usage noted in the LXX. apeth is the attitude which the
righteous must maintain in life and death. The same is true in relation to the only
other passage in which there is reference to human apet, i.e., 2 Pt. 1:5 :.. ÉTI-
xopnyñoaTE Ev th riotel ouov thy APETHV, Ev 8€ th xpeti Thy yvoowv. Here
a notable formal analogy points us to the secular world, 24 to the sphere of "virtue."
Yet it is almost certain that in this passage loTIc is more than the secular parallel
("fidelity") and consequently a similar distinction is likely in the case of aperi.

16 > the passages mentioned on 457 f., and n. 1; Soph. Phil., 1420 : Alovatos apeti.
17 v. Wettstein on 1 Pt. 1:3.
18 Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13.
10 XpETaI = 727h, Is. 42:8, 12; 43:21: Axov uou ov TTE PLETTOIN XUNV TAS &PET&C HOU
&inyei fau (cf. Ea0. C. 21). &petai = nib, Is. 63:7: Toy EAeov Kupiou Éuvno0nv,
tag apetas Kuplou Ev Taol oic Kupiog nuiv avta1o8(8wawv. In the two last
passages the translator may also have had sense e. in view. In Sir. 36:19 the word apera-
oyla is used for 717 synon. with 86Ex (-* n. 15) and here, too, we probably have a
suggestion of both e. and f.
20 Although naturally, in different words, they often occur together, e.g., Aristot. Eth.
Nic., I, 13, p. 1103a, 4 ff.; Eth. M., I, 5, p. 1185b, 5 f.; Eth. Eud., II, 1, p. 1220a, 5 f. Cf. Loh.
Phil., 175.
L. Schmidt, op. cit.
22 n. 20. Cf. also the series in Cic. Tusc., V, 23, 67: bonum autem mentis est virtus
hinc omnia, quae pulchra, honesta, praeclara sunt plena gaudiorum sunt.
28 Cf. the comm. of Dib. and Loh.
24 Ditt. Or., 438: &vopa dyalov yEVouevov Kai BLEVEVKavta tloTEl Kal apetn kal
8tkal0ouv kal EUGEBElal Kal Ty TAELOTNV ELOEVVEYHEVOV onOUONV.
apeth - *piQued

In the same chapter we read just before with reference to God (v. 3): TOU naxf.
oavtos juac 18lq 66€n kal apeth. Here again there is a parallel 25 which points
to close contact with the non-Christian world; in both cases the term is to be
rendered according to sense e. In Pt. 2:9 : STOC tos apETaS EEayyelAntE toO
EK OKOToUg ouac Ka édavtOC, this is again the most likely meaning, though f.
must also be considered in view of the clear echo of Is. 43:21 LXX (-> n. 19).
In the period after the NT Hermas especially used the term in sense d. ( n. 10).
Bauernfeind

opñv -y 340

apiuÉd, xpi0uos
In the NT these words are often used in the literal sense of to count" or "to reckon,"
and 'sum" or "number" (Mt. 10:30; Ac. 11:21; R. 9:27; Rev. 5:11).

1. Only in one passage in the NT (Rev. 13:17, 18) does api0uoc have special
theological significance. These verses, which are variously interpreted, raise the
difficult problem of sacred numbers. This cannot be discussed in detail in the
present context some brief remarks must suffice. In spite of all the efforts of many
investigators, no satisfactory solution has been found. There can be no doubt,
however, that originally numbers are purely secular in character. They are a
means of mastering many everyday matters. Counting is not originally an act of
thought, but a process in concrete reality. Primitive man can count only when
he uses his fingers and toes or such material aids as stones, sticks, knots, or
notches. Before an abstract system of numbering was invented, man simply took
as many pebbles as he had objects in view. The Lat. calculus, from which our
word "to calculate" derives, points us back to this primitive sphere. It simply
means pebble, or figuratively a stone for counting. In some way, however, man
came to sense either a power or a regularity behind numbers, perhaps because
some of them recur in definite sequences. Because he could not properly grasp this
regularity, that which he could not comprehend in numbers was for him a mystery.
He read a potency into them, as in the case of the letters of the alphabet. Thus

25 CIG, 2715 (1st cent. B.C.); cf. Deissmann LO, 270. There too, before the passage
quoted in n. 13, as also in Ditt. Or., 438 (+ n. 24), and cf. 2 Pt. 1:5, we have the ex-
pression : OTtouonv Ttaoav ElooépEFOaI.
& piOueo KtA. 1 The vast literature is briefly reviewed in O. Ruhle, RGG2 V
(1931), 2068. Some of the most important books may be mentioned: E. Fettweis, Das
Rechnen der Naturvolker (1927); W. Wundt, Volkerpsychologie, I, 2 (1900), 25 ff.; II, 3
(1909), 530 ff.; also Elemente der Volkerpsychologie (1912), 304 ff.: E. Cassirer, Philo-
sophie der symbolischen Formen, III (1929), 396 ff.; ERE, IX, 406 ff.; RES, XXI, 598 ff.
F. Dornseiff, Das Alphabet in Mystik und Magie? (1925), where further bibl. data may
be found.
 apiQued

we have the sacred numbers which meet us at every turn in magic and religion
even though it cannot be said why individual numbers like 3, 7, 9 etc. should be
given such preference.
The individual numbers which occur in the NT are treated in special articles
(-> ElG; tpEis; * EnTo; > Sexa; -+ 868EKa; -£BoounKovta). In general
there are three characteristic features of the use of numbers in the NT. First,
a new content has been given to them by NT events (1[Lord] and [days]).
Secondly, in accordance with the total situation of early Christianity as a fulfil-
ment and yet also an offshoot of the religion of the OT, the inherited symbolism
is refashioned (12). Thirdly, the symbolism has become predominantly formal,
So that the numbers are either "round" numbers or purely stylistic (7 and 3½2 ;
10 and 5).3 In the present article our concern is with the meaning of Rev. 13:17,
18. In Revelation there is a strong and distinctive symbolism and mysticism of
numbers. 4 The number 7 is particularly dominant (- ÉTIT&), 5 but 10 (- 8Éka),
and also 12 and its multiple 144 (> 8&8EKa) may also be mentioned.
2. The special problem of Rev. 13:18 is the solving of the "gematric" puzzle
behind the number 666. Gematria is procedure in which the letters of a word
are given numerical values which together give the apieuos of the word con-
cerned. Conversely the word can be replaced by a numerical value and the
gematric art consists in calculating it. This is a difficult task since every number
presents us with a variety of possibilities. For this reason it was a favourite
procedure in the ancient world to present numerically a name that one wished
to keep secret. T. Zahn gives us an excellent and instructive example. In ex-
cavations at Pompeii a wall inscription was found with the declaration of love
OtA6 fis apiQuos QUE. "The name of the lover is concealed ; the beloved will
know it when she recognises her name in the sum of the numerical value of the
3 letters oue, i.e., 545 (¢ 500 + u 40 + &= 5). But the passing stranger
does not know in the very least who the beloved is, nor does the 19th century
investigator know which of the many Greek feminine names she bore. For he
does not know how many letters there are in the name which gives us the total
of 545 when added numerically."7 It may also be recalled that in Sib., I, 326-330
the number 888 appears as a symbol for Jesus (L 10 + n 8+ a 200 +
O 70 + U 400 + O = 200). In gematria a good deal depends on correct
guessing. Hence it is well adapted for riddles, as shown by countless examples
from classical and Hellenistic 8 and indeed Rabbinic literature. The most im-
portant riddle of this kind is posed by Rev. 13:18 with the number 666.

Cf. G. Kittel in Rabbinica (1920), 31-47. Instances from Roman literature may be found
in T. Birt, Rhein Museum fir Philologie, NF, 70 (1915), 253 ff.
Apart from the comm., cf. esp. F. Boll, "Aus der Offenbarung Johannis," Stoicheia, 1
(1914).
5 It is going too far to make 7 the formal principle of Rev., as Lohmeyer does.
6 Cf. esp. Dornseiff, op. cit., 91 ff. (§ 7).
Zn. Apk., 461. Zn. gives many other pertinent examples from classical literature. Cf.
esp. Dornseiff, op. cit., 96 ff.
8 Dornseiff, op. cit., 108 ff.
9 Weber, 121; Zn. Apk., 459 f.; A. Wuensche, "Pesikta des Rab. Kahana," in Bibliotheca
Rabbinica, 30-32 (1885), 299 f.; EJ, VII (1931), 172 f.; JE, V, 589 ff. Some observations on
numbers in older Judaism may be found in L. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen (1898),
44 ff., 73 f., 137 ff.
&p Qued

Interpretation is made more difficult by textual variation. C and some minusc. have
616 instead of 666. Yet the latter is better attested and is thus to be preferred. 10 Indeed,
apart from textual evidence ÉEakoolol kEnkovta E& is more in keeping with the style
of Rev. On the other hand, 616 is not a scribal error, as Iren. suggests (V, 30, 1). It is
a deliberate correction with a view to linking the number with a particular emperor.
Gaius Caesar, usually known as Caligula, is identified therein as antichrist. The
numerical value of his name in Greek (Taloc Katoap) gives us 616 (y = 3 + g
+1= 10 +0 = 70 - a =200 + K = 20 + a =1+ = 10 + o 200 + a:
+ p= 100, total 616). 11 Caligula reigned from 37 to 41 A.D. and was an archetype
of cruelty, an arrogant blasphemer and irreligious tyrant, so that the champions of the
reading 616 had material grounds for finding antichrist in him. 12 On the other hand,
this interpretation would give us an impossibly early date for Revelation, and we must
accept the reading 666.
Theologians have given free rein to their imagination in relation to this number.
There can be no certainty whether it is based on the Gk. or the Heb. alphabet, and an
infinite number of names can be deduced from it. Most of the more or less phantastic
suggestions may be ignored;13 we can only refer briefly to some of the most important.
Irenaeus 14 vacillates between Eiaveac (no longer identifiable), Aateivoc (the Roman
empire) and Telrav (Titus). His vacillation shows that there was no fixed tradition at
the end of the 2nd cent. Taitav is orthographically impossible for Titus, and a collective
like the Roman empire is quite out of the question, since the text tells us plainly that
this is an api0uoc ovoporou. The latter consideration enables us to dismiss the con-
jectures of Gunkel, 15 who suggests the chaos of primeval time, and Deissmann, 10 who
sees in the Onplov the institution of Roman imperialism. It is true that Onplov in Heb.
gives us exactly the numerical value of 666 (n = 400 + = 200 4 = 10 +
6 + 1 = 50), 17 but this in itself is not enough, since the text plainly indicates a human
figure. Hugo Grotius 18 suggested the emperor Trajan, whose family name Ulpius,
written in Gk., gives us the requisite 666. 10 There is greater intrinsic probability in the
reference to Nero, which goes back to Hitzig and Reuss and is still supported by many
scholars, including Hadorn. 20 If we use the Heb. alphabet, 702 7173 gives us the
following addition : 1 - 50 + = 200 + 1 = 6 + = 50 + 100 + b
60 + 200, total 666. It is incontestable that by his character and evil actions Nero
makes a realistic antichrist. Yet there are objections to this view. Even to write N0p
for kaloap is open to criticism on the ground that the omission of is arbitrary.
Above all T. Zahn 21 points out that it was only in the 2nd cent. A.D. that the legend
of Nero redivivus 'arose.

10
11 As against F. Spitta, Off. Joh. (1889), 392, who argues that 616 is original.
Cf. Zn. Apk., 474.
12 Ibid., 475 'ff.
13 Lists may be found in Zn. Apk. and Bss. Apk., 370 ff. Where mere guessing may take
us is satirically shown by G. Salmon (Historical Introduction to the Books of the NT
[1885], 298 [quoted in Zn. Apk., 472, n. 93]) when he points out that the name of the
Irish patriot Parnell gives us the number 666 if only we double the 'r' and write the name
in Gk. flappvE^^oc.
14 Iren., V, 30, 3.
15 H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos (1895), 375 ff.
16 Deissmann LO, 238.
17 Had. Apk., 146.
18 H. Grotius, Annotationes ad NT (1641). Cf. Zn. Apk., 502, n. 52.
19 Hadorn originally took this view independently of Grotius (ZNW, 19 [1919/20],
11 ff.), but abandoned it in his comm. on Rev. on the decisive ground that the book could
not have been written as late as the reign of Trajan (98-117).
20 Had. Apk., 147.
21 Zn. Apk., 490 ff.
 api0ued - apKeG

A very different solution has been proposed by G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga 22
on the basis of the so-called triangular number. This is the number which results as the
Sum of consecutive numbers from 1. Thus 10 is the triangular number of 4, since the
Sum of 1-4 is 10. On this reckoning 666 is the triangular number of 36 and 36 of 8.
Now it belongs to the nature and symbolism of the triangular number that it has the
same meaning as the last of the consecutive numbers which constitute it. Thus we have
the equation 666 = 36= 8. And there can be no doubt as to the meaning of 8 in the
Apocalypse : it is the number of the beast from the abyss. Thus 666 is simply a
symbolical way of referring to antichrist. 28 This explanation is not unattractive in view
of the fact that the symbolism and magic of triangular numbers were common enough
in the Hellenistic period. 24 It breaks down, however, on the simple requirement of the
text : api0uoc aviporou.

In conclusion, it may be said that all the solutions proposed are unsatisfactory.
Indeed, it may be asked whether it is worth proceding along these lines, since
all such attempts must be hypothetical. Ought we not to accept the fact that the
divine was writing for his own age and that we are thus confronted with a puzzle
which could be solved only by a few initiates from his own circle who were
acquainted with his lines of thought Or may it be that the whole passage is to
be taken purely eschatologically in the sense that copia, the divine wisdom which
we need for understanding in addition to vouc, will be given to believers only at
the supposedly imminent end of the days, when they will see the mystery directly?
Rihle

apKéd, APKETOS,
autapkela, autapxns

APKÉW, aPKET6C.
In the first instance this is an external 1 expression of "satisfaction" or "con-
tentment". In philosophical and religious reflection, however, it has within itself
the tendency to become a radical demand or admonition. This can take place in
various ways.
1, The demand is that man should be content with the goods allotted to him
by fate or by God ; that he should exercise apksioal toic Topoio; that he
should ask no more than he is given. Such statements may be either Christian or
non-Christian maxims. The difference lies in the general view which gives rise
to them. Thus we may have merely the prudent suppression of passion and desire,
as when Josephus, to avoid bloodshed, warns the rebels: xprouuÉvous toic

22 ZNW, 13 (1912), 293 ff.

23 More recently approved by Lohmeyer, cf. Loh. Apk. (1925), 114 f.
24 Examples from Philo etc. may be found in Loh. Apk., 202 (App.9).
& ked xrA. Wnd. 2 K., 390 f.; Schl. Mt., 342, J., 294; G. A. Gerhard, Phoinix V.
Kolophon (1909), 56
E.g., Mt. 25:9: (to #aiov) 00 un apxÉon; Aesch. Pers., 278 : O0bev yap ApKEl
ToEa.
XpKÉG5

ÉQUTOV ÉDOBI0IS, Vit., 244. Or we may have the freedom from want of the
philosopher to whom external goods are incidental. A favourite expression is as
follows: apkeiofau toic tapoia (e.g., Teles, p. 11, 5; 38, 10; 41, 12, Hense ;
1. Ant., VI, 30,9: ig aAlyors ApKodueVOs, olov oiknoet, otpouvn, £o0nti,
tpoon, impeala. Stob. Ecl., III, 273, 2 : (Epaminondas) & TOUTo$ apro evo
For the NT this freedom from want is grounded in God; His provision is
sufficient. Hb. 13:5 : aprobuevo toic tapoiawv (- supra), "for he hath said,
will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" ; 1 Tm. 6:8; cf. also Mt. 6:34 : apKerov th
juspa i karia airns (on the basis of v. 32 oldev yap o tamp buoov ...).
The thought of content is underlined by reference to imminent retribution, as in
the preaching of the Baptist in Lk. 3:14.

Between the philosopher and the eschatological believer of the NT stands the teacher
of the Torah who from Sabbath to Sabbath is satisfied with a carob-bean, bTaan, 24b. :
R. Jehuda in the name of Rab: "Every day a voice (hip-ne) 2 rings out and says:
the whole world is nourished for the sake of my son Chanina, and my son Chanina is
satisfied (i> 27) 3 with carob-bean from the evening before the Sabbath to the next
evening before the Sabbath.'

2. The admonition to be content can easily change into a warning against

becoming secure and complacent in the illusion of sufficiency. Epict. Diss., I, 6, 14
ÉKEIVOIS LEV ApKEI TO foOlel kai TAVELV quiv 8' OUKÉTL taut' atapKEi.
Biblical statements are numerous but for the most part they do not use the stem
&pk-. Cf. Hos. 12:8 f.; 13:6; Sir. 5:1 (- autapkns); Lk. 6:25; 12:19; Rev. 3:17
(- EuTETANouÉvos, TAoiaios etc.).
3. The religious connection is brought out when contentment is linked with a
supreme philosophical or religious good. For here the statement concerning what
suffices expresses particularly clearly the profoundest character of the underlying
view of life. For the philosopher supreme content is to fashion his life in ac-
cordance with his pools or Saluwv. M. Ant., II, 13,1: 8tt apkei tpoc uovo to
#voov fautou Baluon elvai kai toutov yvnolus {EpaTEUEIV. VIII, 1,3: &p
KÉ00nt SE, El Kay to AOLTtoy too Blou os h ouais YOU OÉAEL, Stoon, IX, 26:
ApKeio0aL TO O& MYELOVKO. To the degree that the force working in the
philosopher is regarded as gift of deity, the aprei ou is related to it and the
statement of content becomes a concentrated expression of religious union with
God and the spirituality implanted in man by Him. Epict. Diss., I, 1, 12 f. (Zeus
speaking to the philosopher): £8@KquÉv Fol HÉpos Tt nuÉrepov, Thy Sovaurv
tautnv thy opuntikny tE Kai doopuntiknv apki odv autois, IV, 10, 14 ff.:
as ElaBov apopuas tapa aou to" *00v Expnoaunv toic aoic, apKEi Yol
ax yap nv TOVTa, oU uol aitd 8É8wKac. O0K apKEi OfTOC EXOuta EEEADEiV.
Iambl. Vit. Pyth., 1: ExpkEi nuiv f TOv Beav Boulnois.
At certain levels OT piety knows similar moods, cf. Solomon's prayer in
1 K. 3:6 ff. with its description of the wisdom of moderation, or Ps. 131 with its

2 Content is often enjoined by a divine voice, either through the direct Word of the
Kupioc (as in Dt. 3:26 and related Rabbinic exegesis cf. also C. 12:9), or by the voice
from heaven, (as supra and cf. bMeg. 3a on R. Jonatan ben Uzziel).
8 The use of the Heb. and Talmudic 27 with suffix is close to the impers. apkei and
fully equivalent in content (cf. Schlatter, op. cit.). Prv. 25:16 : Mas 7:2 558 9*79 721
LXX uEll sopov payE TO (xavov.
 ApKEW - aUTaPKEIC

depiction of the quiet content of the righteous. More powerful however, in ac-
cordance with the character of this religion, is recollection of the guidance of
God and the resultant readiness to do His will (Ps. 73:23 ff.). For Jewish exegesis
an excellent example of the demand for religious satisfaction in God is to be
found in God's answer to Moses' request that he may enter the land. In the
original Dt. 3:26 : 72-3g, LXX: ikavoua0o 001, is simply a prohibition of any
further asking.+ In Rabbinic exegesis, however, it is partly related to previous
divine guidance and partly to divine grace and the future eschatological gift with
which Moses should be content. M. Ex., 17, 14 : "rab lak be content (7?1) * for
thyself thus far ; R. Joshua said: rab lak be content with the coming world."
Similarly S. Dt., 29 on 3:26; Midr. Tann., Dt. 3:26, p. 18, Hoffmann "'rab lak
be content that the evil impulse has no power over thee, yea rather that I will not
deliver thee into the hand of the angel of death, but will Myself be with thee.'
The same basic structure may be seen in the fine paraphrase of Gn. 17:1 preserved
in Gn. r., 46: "Then spake the Holy One, blessed be He: Abraham, be content
(773) that am thy God, be content that am thy Protector. And not thou only,
but the whole world should be content (i)7) that I am its God; the whole world
should be content that I am its Protector." 5
Similarly the corresponding NT passages are a faithful reflection of the view of
God and the understanding of life mirrored in them. At Jn. 14:8 to be shown whose
being is described by the name of namp is the final apkeiv which embraces or
renders superfluous all other gifts. At 2 C. 12:9 all the sufficiency of the apostle
is found in participation in the x&pus given to the do0evns and here, too, we
have a reflection of Paul's thinking on the nature of God and the nature of man,
just as the opinion of the Stoics is similarly declared in analogous statements. &

- airapreia, t autpxns.
1. The word is both a central concept in ethical discussion from the time of Socrates
and yet also a well-worn term in ordinary usage. In Cynic and Stoic philosophy it
denotes one who exercises apKsio0al in relation to his own inner possibility and
who thus becomes an independent man sufficient to himself and in need of none else.
Aristot. Pol., VII, 5, p. 1326b, 29 f. : to yap tavta STapXElv kal beiofal undevoc
aUtapKeg. The word is par. to awopoauvn and EitaEla: Epict. Gnom. Stob. Fr., 33,
Elter (p. 481, Schenkl); to other virtues, M. Ant., III, 11, 3; to # E0pos and araons,
ibid., VI, 16, 8. It is the opp. of tpuoh, Epict., op. cit.; of otAapyupla, Gnom. Byz.,
209, p. 200, Wachsm.; of Evoens, Plat. Resp., II, 369b.
In everyday speech this pregnant sense is weakened to that of "satisfactory com-
petence" or more generally "sufficient quantity." Jos. Ant., 2, 259 (sufficient water),
Sir. 34:28 (wine), 40:18 (work), Flap. 24:31 (livelihood). Ps. Sol. 5:18: UNLovEUEL

4 It is already rather more in the LXX ; cf. Wnd. 2 K., 391.

5 On the meanings of "7t 9R which to some degree point to adtapxns, > autap ns.
467.
6 Closest to Paul is the above-mentioned version of the Midr, Tannaim on Dt. 3:26. The
philosophical statements may be said to "have a wholly Pauline ring" (Wnd., 390) only
if we completely ignore their content.
aUTAPKEIG, aitapKns. Wnd. 2 K., 278; Loh. Phil., 180; Nageli, 41 f.; Moult.-
Mill., 93; H. J. Wicks, Exp. I'., 29 (1917/18), 424.
auTapKeIa

Geoc Év ouppetpla autapriac (sufficient). Sir. 5:1 warns those who rely on riches and
says : autapkn uol garv. Numerous examples are found in the pap.

2. As distinct from the rich philosophical usage, the NT term seems first to
have only the sense of a capacity for external contentment and privation. Yet this
almost banal virtue of ait&pkela is set in a new light by becoming a constituent
part of si0ÉBeIa (1 Tm. 6:6). What this means is made plain in Phil. 4:11-13.
Navia loyuw (v.13) seems to be fully identical with the philosophical airapkns
Év favl, M. Ant., I, 16, 11. Yet the root is Ev to Évouvauoivil HE. From a con-
cept of God and redemption which wholly affirms creation there arises a per-
spective on which even what is philosophically superfluous' is the gift and
purpose of Christ. Not merely the TELV&V but also the yopra⅑eolal, not merely
the taTElvouG0at but also the TEPLOGEUELV (v.12), is the object of this new
religious autapkela. 3 How it works out is described in 2 C. 9:8. Enough means
not only a sufficiency for oneself but what can also be given to one's brothers.
The Christian autoc cannot be considered in isolation. His aut-apKeia arises
only when the & oc has a share in it.
3. The inner motifs of Judaism emerge clearly in the exegetical attempts at a clear
interpretation of the divine name 997 th 2*. The starting-point is the disjunction of the
word into ti and 9 (-> apKEo), on the basis of which 'A, Z, ©, and sometimes the
LXX (Ju. 1:20 f.) translate & travoc. Here the philosophical ideal of the autapkns
is transferred to God as the One who is independent in His omnipotence and self.
sufficient. But such sufficiency can also be attributed by R. Levi to Abraham, in whom
there is nothing blameworthy except his uncircumcision ; + and this follows expressly
from the translation ikavoc in 'A. At the same time the interpretation of -71 = lkavoc
takes other directions : God, for whose Godhead the world and its fulness do not suffice
(R. Eliezer b. Jacob); God who said to the world and heaven and earth : Enough
(R. Jishaq); God who said to human suffering: Enough ! (R. Hoshaja). 6 In this
exegesis, therefore, we not only have the motif of self-sufficiency either with reference
to God or the righteous, but also the motifs of the Infinite, of the almighty Creator,
and of the One who is merciful to man.
Kittel

1 For examples, v. Preisigke Wort., 239 and Moult.-Mill., 93.

a For a different view, v. Windisch ad loc. : "Paul actualises the Stoic ideal."
Loh., ad loc. : "Not impassibility but supreme passibility, not the unimportance but the
importance of these things, is the motif in these statements.
R. Levi explains this sufficiency by comparing it with the beauty of a woman whose
only defect was that the nail of her little finger was too long: "Cut it off, and the defect
is remedied." Hence the circumcision of Abraham.
5 So Gn.r., 46 on 17:1: (lxavoc) opix) (&gios) b1oax bi9px punn.
6 Loc. cit.; also Gn.r., 92 on 43:14.
 "Ap Mayeoov

t Ap Maye6@v1

Mt. Magedon (only at Rev. 16:16) is a Heb. name for the place where the kings
of the whole earth (16:14) will assemble under the direction of demonic spirits
(16:13) for the final battle. It is thus the mountain of the world which as the
place of assembly of hostile forces is the counterpart of the mountain of God in
Hb. 12:22 ff. It is also the place of the decisive battle (Rev. 16:14; 19:19) and
consequently of world judgment (19:21). 2 The retention of the Heb. and failure
to give an interpretation are part of the style of apocalyptic.

Thus far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the name. (a) "Ap Maye6ov
seems to comprise the name of the city Megiddo (im2; Zech. 12:11 with the final n:
timp; LXX Meye86, Ju. 5:19; Mayeo8d, Jos. 17:11; Maye&dv, 2 Ch. 35:22). But we
never hear of Mt. Megiddo, nor is Megiddo given eschatological significance in con-
temporary literature, nor does the earliest exegesis of Rev. 16:16 connect it with
Megiddo. Loh. 3• tries to overcome the difficulty by translating "the Megiddo range" and
referring it to Mt. Carmel, where according to Lidz. Ginza, 121, 13 ff. (125, 4; 132, 4;
197, 20) Ruha and the planets gather to concoct the mysteries of love. But this gives
rise to the new problem of supposing that Carmel took on a new name, never attested
elsewhere, from a ruined city which was situated about 7 miles away from its southern
end, which had been ruined since 350 B.C. and which had now sunk into oblivion.'
(b) F. Hommel 5 conjectures that "Ap Maye&ov is originally a Gk. rendering of
min-a7 (mount of assembly), used in Is. 14:13 for the mountain on which the gods
assemble and which the presumptuous king of Babylon seeks to climb in blasphemous
pride. "Ap Mayeoov is thus the demonic counterpart to the mount of assembly of the
gods ; the ending -wy is a later assimilation to Mayeoov. This explanation fits the
context well, but it does not show how we are to explain the rendering of y in Tin
by .y since no f underlies this 9. Unless we are to ignore this difficulty, we must
conclude that the riddle of "Ap Mayedoov still awaits solution.

Joachim Jeremias

"A p MaYE6 V. Bss. Apk., 399; Loh. Apk., 133 f.; Rohr Apk., 119; J. Jeremias, Der
Gottesberg (1919); Clemen, 402 f.; Joachim Jeremias, "Har Magedon (Apc. 16:16)," ZNW,
31 (1932), 73-77; also "Ap Maye&ov und Megiddo, JPOS, 12 (1932), 49 f.; J. Sicken-
berger, Lex. Th. K., I, 657.
In two words and with rough breathing (Westcott-Hort) on the basis of the Heb.,
cf. 'EBpaiotl, Rev. 16:16.
2 Joh. Jeremias, Der Gottesberg (1919), 93. Cf. Ez. 38:8, 21; 39:2, 4, 17.
3 Rev., 134.
Tell el-Mutesellim. C. S. Fisher, "The Excavation of Armageddon," Or. Inst. of the
Univ. of Chicago, Commun. No. 4 (1929), 16; P. L. O. Guy, "New Light from Armageddon,
ibid. No. 9 (1931), 5.
Nk. Z., 1 (1890), 407 f.
apveoual

* apvÉouai

The basic meaning is to say no," "to deny," in description of a negative attitude
towards a question or a demand. a. "To say no" in relation to a question, either with
or without object: Thuc., VI, 60; LXX Gn. 18:15; Jos. Ant., 6, 151. The anton. is ouo-
loyeiv "to agree." A clause dependent on apvéouai mostly in infin. (sometimes part.)
either with or without un: Jos. Ant., 7, 226: leiv ouk ñpvñoato. b. "To refuse" in
relation to a demand or claim, in the absol. sense Plut. Tib. Gr., (I, 827d); Wis. 12:27
"not to be willing" ; with obj. of thing or person raising a claim, "to resist" or "to
reject," Demosth., 18, 282; 4 Macc. 8, 7; opp. "to accede,' "to grant," for oneself or
others : Hdt., III, 1, 2 : ook ETXE OUTE BoUval oUtE apvjaaalal. The negation in this
twofold sense does not imply against better knowledge or right. Conceptually &pveouat
does not include vEude0a, although the context may impart this nuance. In the
Rabbis it is the equiv. of 199 "to negate" or "to reject," bBB, 154b: "to reject an
opinion" ; S. Lv., 26, 14: to deny or resist the commandments (i.e., their fulfilment),
bShab., 116a, bSanh., 102b : to deny or resist God.

In the NT 1. we find senses a. and b. Thus a. apveiola "to deny" is found

at Lk. 8:45; Ac. 4:16; In. 1:20 : John the Baptist Kai Quo^6ynoev kal ooK novi-
oxto, "he affirmed and denied not" ; 2 Mk. 14:68,70 and par.; Jn. 18:25, 27 (the
denial of Peter); 1 Jn. 2:22: "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ.' Also Tt. 1:16; Ign. Mg., 9,1; Herm. v., 2, 4, 2; Just. Apol., I, 11, 2; Dial.,
19, 8; 78, 10. b. apveia0al "to refuse" or "to reject' Hb. 11:24 : Moses refused to
be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter ; Tt. 2:12: deny ungodliness and worldly
lusts ; also Ac. 3:13: Tape@KaTE Kal ipwhoaole, the rejection of Jesus by the
Jews, like their rejection of Moses, the type of Jesus (Ac. 7:35).
2. In addition to these two meanings there is in the NT a third which became
the main sense and gathered up the other two into it, i.e., "to deny." This concept
receives its emphasis from the fact that the object whose claim is resisted and
denied is in the NT supremely a person. Thus in the three passages already
mentioned which refer to Jesus (Ac. 3:13; Jn. 1:20 and Mk. 14:68, 70) we already
have the sense of denial. When the Jews reject Jesus before Pilate, it is their way
of denying Him. The admission of the Baptist that he is not himself the Messiah
is, as the Evangelist sees it, an indirect confession of Jesus; it is his way of not
dehying him. Peter's refusal to acknowledge Him is the moment of denial, and
behind the 6 8É p hoato Aéywv there stands the tpic HE artapvion of v. 30.
Terminologically, however, apvelola1 first means "to deny" in the saying in
Mt. 10:33 and par., just as it is in this saying that ouooysiola acquires the
pregnant sense of "to confess."
The following constitutive elements may be discerned in the concept of denial.
a. It relates primarily to a person, so that properly one can speak only of denying
someone and not something. Its tendency is to be linked with a person. Cf.
Jn. 13:38 'Inoo0v; 2 Pt. 2:1: Tov &yopaoavra autouc beoToy; 1 Jn. 2:22 f. tov
ulov; Jd. 4: rov Hovov SEATtoTV kal xupiov juov 'Inooiv Xpiorov. Cf. also

x pveou v. Str.-B., I, 585; II, 518.

Cf. Dt.r., on 3:24; v. Str.-B., II, 363; Schl. J., 38.
 apveoual

2 Cl., 3, 1; 17, 7; Just. Apol., I, 31, 6; I, 50, 12 (Christ); Herm. v., 2, 2, 8; S., 9, 26, 6;
28, 8 etc. (tov Kopiov); Herm. v., 2, 2, 7 (thv gonv); s., 8, 3, 7 (tov vouov = Son
of God) etc. But also, though not in the NT, it may refer to tov fe6v (Just. Apol.,
I, 26, 5; 1,58, 1; Dg., 10,7). The Aoyoc or &voua may also represent the person
of Christ (Rev. 3:8), or His nlots (faith, Rev. 2:13). He is present in these. On
the other hand it must be asked whether the better rendering in 1 Tm. 5:8 is not :
"He denies the faith, and in 2 Tm. 3:5 : "They deny that which gives power to
godliness." xpveio0al can also be used absolutely in relation to this personal
element; the implication is denial of Christ (2 T'm. 2:12; M. Pol., 9, 2; Herm. V.,
2, 3, 1; S., 8, 8, 4 etc.).
b. apveiola implies a previous relationship of obedience and fidelity. It can
take place only where there has first been acknowledgment and commitment.
Hence in 2 Tm. 2:12 xpveio0a ATTLOTEIV, "to be unfaithful" ; and in Rev. 2:13;
3:8 KPaTElV, T pELV is the opp. of apvelofau. In the strict sense, therefore, we
cannot use the word of the Jews or of the Baptist, as we can of Peter.
C. xpveiolat, which is unfaithfulness to the person of Jesus Christ, takes
three forms. The first is a failure to meet concretely the claim of Jesus Christ
for a confession of discipleship (Mt. 10:33 and par.). The recorded instance is
that of Peter's denial. Yet the same possibility often arose in the case of martyrs
(Rev. 2:13; 3:8; Dg., 7,7). In Mk. 8:38 we have Érraioxuveñval ue kai TOUC
Euouc A6youg, which gives the motive for such denial. This is anxiety born of
doubt as to the truth of the Lord, lest the judgment of the world in which we live
will be one of contempt. Being ashamed of the Lord in this way, and seeking honour
from the world rather than from Him, we bring the Lord Himself into contempt, so
that in this connection M. Pol., 9, 2 f. can speak of a Aouopeiv tov Xpiotov and
a BAaooNueiV tov Baciléa (cf. Just. Apol., I, 31, 6).
The second form of denial consists in a failure to do justice to the claims of
one's neighbours. This is clear from 2 Tm. 2:11 ff., where in a quotation (?) 3
we find ouvano0vhokelV and OTtouÉVELV as opp. of apveio0ai. To deny Christ
is not to be at His disposal to meet the needs and acknowledge the claims of
one's neighbours. It thus follows that any unethical conduct may be described as
a denial of Christ. There is an analysis of this connection in 2 CI., 3 and 4. Cf.
Tt. 1:16; 1 Tm. 5:8; 2 Tm. 3:5; Jd.4. It is to be noted, however, that there is no
question of the denial of Christ in the first three passages, and that in the last
three the issue is not the personal immorality of the false teachers but a wrong
theory and practice of the relationship between yvoos and rpafis.
This leads us to the third form of denial, namely, the failure to acknowledge
Jesus Christ in sound doctrine. Particularly when a statement about Christ has
consequences for the practical decisions of life, it must be made correctly and
cautiously. Nor is it merely the inner connection between teaching and practice
which makes of heresy a denial of Christ (cf. 2 Pt. 2:1 ff.). In itself false state-
ment concerning Christ is a denial of Christ. For the claim of Christ extends to
thinking, and where there is a false statement it implies that this claim is heard
but not acknowledged. This gives us the clue to Jn. 2:22. &pvEiofal oti "Inoous
OUK EOTV & XpLOT6C is apveiala ulov.
apvÉouat - & tapveouaL

d. All these three forms of denial, however, contain the source which gives rise
to it. This means, and is shown in the fact, that each individual denial is a failure
of the whole man in respect of his total truth before God. In relation to discipleship
we learn this from Mt. 10:33: ap hoouai katyo autoy EuTpooOEV TOU TaTpoc
you tou tv tois oupavois; in relation to ethical practice from 2 Tm. 2:12 : K&KEi-
vos apvhoetau juac; in relation to doctrine from Jn. 2:23 : 006É Tov tatepa
EXEL.
3. The one basic attitude which comprises &pvelolau may also be seen when
it is no longer a matter of denying Christ but in a different sense of denying
one's own person. a. 2 Tm. 2:13 : "If we are unfaithful to him, he remains faithful,
ap noaolal yap Éautov ou S0vatai." Here apveiolal Éautov is to cease to
be oneself. b. Mk. 8:34 and par.: "Whoseover will come after me, (aTt-)apvn-
cao00 Éautoy kal ap&to tov otaupov aitou." T must not confess myself and
my own being, nor cling to myself, but abandon myself in a radical renunciation of
myself, and not merely of my sins. I must no longer seek to establish my life of
myself but resolutely accept death and allow myself to be established by Christ
in discipleship. Chrys. Hom. in Mt., 55, (MPG, 58, 542): Érrapvnadro0 w Éautov,
TOUTEOTL, undev byÉto Kolvov ipoc Éautov. This is already weakened in, e.g.,
Pall. Hist. Laus., 64 (MPG, 34, 1170a): Equtov tO Koouo arapveiolat toic
Éautou & oT& FE OaL.

xtrapveouatl.
In the NT the compound in no sense differs from apveia0a, whether by
suggesting treachery1 or by giving greater intensity. That the original intensifica-
tion has been lost in the NT (as already in the classical age),2 is proved a. by
the interchangeability in par. passages : Lk. 9:23 Mk. 8:34; Mt. 16:24; Mk. 14:30,
31,72 and par. i Jn. 13:38; Mt. 10:33ab; Lk. 12:9a = Lk. 12:9b; b. by alternate
use within the same sentence or short section : Lk. 12:9; Herm. s., 8, 8, 2 ff.; and
C. by textual variants : Lk. 9:23 R Jn. 13:38 R.
Schlier

4 Cf. also Herm.v., 2, 2, 7 f.; Ign. Sm., 5, 1.

drapveoual. 1 So Cr.-Ko., S.v.
2 There is no difference in secular Gk. It occurs often in Plato, e.g., Theaet., 165a;
Resp., V, 468c. In the LXX it is found in Is. 31:7 (ox½) in the same sense as in 4 Macc. 8:7.
 apra(w

dpviov - 340

apro(w, xp ayuos

* spra(w.
"To take something forcefully" (firmly, quickly or rapaciously). Thus a. "to steal"
(Jos. Ant., 20, 214 of robbers), b. "To capture in war." 1 In the NT the word is used
in parables which speak of the conflict between the kingdom of God and that of Satan
6 AUKOS ApTACEl (steals) ta Ttp6Bata, Jn. 10:12; 00x ApTAGEI (forcefully snatch)
TIC aUTo EK tns Xelpoc you, Jn. 10:28, 29; Mt. 12:29 (the battle between the strong
man and the stronger): to OKEUN aiToi apraaal. c. With the thought of speed : Jos.
Ant., 6, 238 : ApT&CaS To 86pu ovETh&nOEV (Saul); also Jd. 23 : to "snatch" out of the
fire. d. "To take rapaciously" Epict. Diss., IV, 7, 22: loya8ok&pua TIS SLAPPIITEl'
to naibia ApTaYEl. e. "To take a man by force" : Chrys. Beat. Philog., VI, 2 (MPG,
48, 751): ÉK uÉons ths ayopas aptaoleic, Jn. 6:15; Ac. 23:10. Similarly in Mt. 13:19:
"to take away." f. To denote the rapture of visions. In this sense it does not occur in
the LXX, 2 which instead uses alpelv at 3 Bao. 18:12; Ez. 3:14 and avalauB&vEIV
at Ez. 3:12. It is found, however, in the pseudepigr. : Apc. Mos. 37; Apc. Esr. 5:7; Gr.
Bar. passim. 3 In the NT it occurs at 2 C. 12:2,4 (vision); 1 Th. 4:17; Rev. 12:5 ('to
catch up or away"); Ac. 8:39 - always expressing the mighty operation of God.

Since aprago does not here mean either to bring in by force or to plunder,
only three alternatives are open in the difficult saying at Mt. 11:12:5 & ito tov
juepiv 'IWawOU TOU BATTIOTOU tog apti n Baoilela tov oupavov BlaCETal,
Kai Blaotai ap agouolv aurv. a. It may mean that the kingdom of God is
stolen, i.e., taken away from men and closed to them ; 6 b. it may mean that violent
men culpably try to snatch it to themselves: or c. it may mean that men forcefully
take it in the good sense. Linguistically all three are possible (- supra, a.-d.).
The first and third are to be taken most seriously. The former is suggested by the
emphatic use of Bia(ouai, by the correspondence between Blaferai and Blaoral
and perhaps by the Matthean context. The latter is supported by the fact that the
decisively new thing since the appearance of John the Baptist 7 is the powerful

x PTaLw. 1 Of the river which carries away, Test. Abr. (A), 19, p. 102, 1, James.
2 Though here we have iprayn with ref. to death (Wis. 4:11).
3 In others the Gk. text is missing.
4 The accus. is always used of the thing stolen.
5 Bibliography apart from comm. and theologies : Dalman, WJ, I, 115 f.; J. Weiss, Jesu
Predigt vom Reiche Gottes?, (1900), 192-197; A. Harnack, "Zwei Worte Jesu" (SAB,
1907), 942 ff.: D. Volter, Johannes en Jesus in het licht van Mt. 11:12-15 (1909); W. Brandt,
ZNW, 11 (1910), 247; H. Scholander, ZNW, 13 (1912), 172 ff.; M. Dibelius, Die urchr.
Uberlieferung v. Joh. d. Taufer (1911), 23 ff. Exegesis depends on the evaluation of the
context in Mt. and the par. in Lk.
6 Schl. Mt. ad loc.
7 This is what is meant by do tiv nuepoov "1 w&wou.
apraga - aprayuos
irruption of the kingdom of God. This is the presupposition for its being taken.
It demands resolute earnestness on the part of men if they are to enter it. Further-
more, the idea of men themselves taking away the kingdom of God is strange and
is hardly supported by such parallels as Mt. 13:19, where the evil one snatches
away the seed and not the kingdom, or Mt. 23:13, where closing the kingdom to
men is not quite the same as taking it away. On this whole passage > Bla(ouai.

t apiaryu6c.
In the NT this is found only at Phil. 2:6 : ouy apayuov fyjoato to Elvat
tox 0E6.
In common with other subst. formed with -u6s, aprayuos first means a. the activity
of ApaLelv. 1 In non-Christian writings it is found only in this sense.
Plut. Lib. Educ., 15 (II, 11 f.); in the form apnaouos, Plut. Quaest. Conv., II, 10, 2
(II, 644a). As a variant, Paus., I, 20, 3; Phryn. Ecl., 302, p. 407, Rutherford ; Vett. Val.,
II, 38, p. 122, 1, Kroll accord. to V. Stegemann in the same sense.
The word then took on the sense of the more common apnayua and came to mean
b. "what is seized, esp. plunder or booty.2 Like &pnayua, it then came to be used in
such related expressions as supnua, Epuaiov, soroxnua, apiayua, apTayHov tl
nyeio0at, TolEl fal, tiOs Oat. These mean c. "to take up an attitude to something
as one does to what presents itself as a prey to be grasped, a chance discovery, or
gift of fate, i.e., appropriating and using it, treating it as something desired and won.
What is regarded as gain may be something which is already present and is utilised,
or a possibility which is about to eventuate and is not to be let slip. Materially, there-
fore, the sense is no less "to utilise" than "to take." 3 The connection with what
everyone" does, which is present in the above expressions, may thus easily be set in
antithesis to what is done by one who acts according to higher principles. The
figurative element in the expression still remains, and a ofov or doTep is often put
before it. 5 Although &pmayua = prey or valuable prey stands in the background, the
meaning of the verb also asserts itself ("to grasp eagerly"), so that sometimes we are
forced back on the sense of res rapienda: Eus. Hist. Eccl., VIII, 12, 2 : Those who

aprayuos. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistle to the Phil.8 (1885), 111, 133 ff.;
Haupt Gefbr.7, 69 ff.; Tillm. Gefbr.4, 144; A. Schlatter, Theologie d. Ap.2 (1922), 341 f.
Also T. Zahn, ZWL, 6 (1885), 243 ff.; J. Kogel, Christus der Herr, Erlauterungen zu Phil.
2:5-11 (1908); M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (1909), 105 ff.: L. Saint-
Paul, Rev. Bibl., NS, 8 (1911), 550 ff.; W. Lutgert, Die Vollkommenen im Phil. (1909)
591 ff.; W. Warren, JThSt, 12 (1911), 461 ff.; G. Kittel, ThStK, 85 (1912), 377 ff.;
Meyer, Ursprung, III, 380, n. 2: W. Jaeger, Hermes, 50 (1915), 537 ff., and on this A. Ju-
licher, ZNW, 17 (1916), ff.; P. W. Schmidt, Prot. Monatshefte, 20 (1916), 171 ff.; K. F.
Proost, Th.T., 50 (1916), 373 ff.; H. Schumacher, Christus in Praexistenz u. Kenose,
(1914); F. Loofs, ThStK, 100 (1927/28), ff.; E. Lohmeyer, "Kyrios Jesus," SHA, 18
(1927/8); A. Nock in Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, ed. A.E. J. Rawlinson
(1928), 99. S. Reinach, Cultes, Mythes et Rel., V (1923), 304 ff. proposes 0ix ampayuov
hynoato, but does not regard it as certain. So now F. Kattenbusch, ThStKr 104 (1932),
373-420.
1 Kuhner-Blass-Gerth, I, 2, 272.
2 In this sense, in obvious dependence on Phil., it is used in Chrys. Hom. in Phil., 7, 1
(MPG, 62, 229): o 8É BaGAEUG ueta nto^ is TolEl ths dooaieias (sc. temporarily
to lay aside his dignity). Aux tl; ot oUx ApayMov EXEI thy apxnv (as a prey).
3 May we also appeal to the expression tOv KaLpOV APTaZEIV to grasp the hour or
the opportunity ? Cf. Dio C., XLI, 14, 2; Plut. Philop., 15" (I, 364e) and Dio, 26 (1, 969c).
So Plut. Alex. Fort. Virt., I, 8 I, 330d). v. W. Jaeger, Hermes, 50 (1915), 550 f.
Eus. Vit. Const., II, 31, 2: Herond. Mim., VI, 30; Plut. Alex. Fort. Virt., 1, 8 (II, 330d).
 aprayuoc

evading the pains of martyrdom killed themselves, tov Bavatov &prayua OÉUEVOI TAS
To Suo0EBov uoxOnpias = believing death to be preferable to torments. 6

In Phil. 2:6 sense a. would imply that "He did not see equality with God in
snatching to Himself of the honour and glory bound up with it." 1 But the lack of
an object makes this impossible ; instead of aprayu6c one would expect a verb
which does not require an object, such as KUPLEUEIV. Sense b. is unintelligible
unless we paraphrase as Chrysostom does in Phil., 7, 1 (MPG, 62, 229). It may
thus be dismissed. 8 This leaves only c., " which gives us the rendering : "He did
not regard equality with God as gain, either in the sense of something not to be
let slip, or in the sense of something not to be left unutilised." The former nuance,
championed among others by Schlatter and Loofs, refers the passage to the
historical Jesus, especially in respect of the temptation. The ensuing ÉKÉvooEV
it takes to mean : "He denied himself." Yet the expression Ev buo ouat ovipo-
TOV YEVOUEVOC (cf. Rom. 8:3: Év buoibuat axpros) refers to a pre-temporal
act, and what Schlatter, in the context of the Epistle, seeks in the whole passage
from v. 6 onwards, the voluntary self-abnegation which runs through the whole
life of Jesus, is amply expressed in v. 7b and 8. Hence we may translate : "He
did not regard it as a gain to be equal with God.' The negative formulation is
readily understandable, for it is a great gain to be equal with God and "everyone"
would utilise it. In justification of the negative formulation, therefore, we do not
need think of the fall of Adam ("Ye shall be as God") or the fall of the devil.
Nor is there any suggestion of a pre-temporal temptation of Christ, since the
reference is not so much to temptation as to a free act, and in this connection we
are not to link aprayu6s with any thought of robbery or seizure by force.
Against all expectation, Jesus did not regard equality with God as a gain to
be utilised.

The expositions of the fathers, with trifling exceptions, are all to be understood
in terms of c. 10 Particularly those which 'consciously or less consciously give an
independent paraphrase, i.e., one which is not dependent on the word group apa(elv
etc., point in this direction. This must not be overlooked in relation to the passage.
Foerster

We find the same comparative significance in Orig. Joh., I, 231: Christ showed His
kindness more divinely when He humbled Himself, A El xprayuov hynoato to alval loa
DEG Kal un Bourndels eni th toU xoouou owmpla yevolal So0Xos, than if He had
thought it better to be equal with God and not freely to become a servant.
Ew. Gefbr., ad loc., also P. W. Schmidt, op. cit. and G. Kittel, op. cit.
8 The meaning which Schumacher, op. cit., tries to prove from the fathers, namely, that
He did not need to regard equality with God as wrong, cannot be maintained linguistically
and does not seem to be found in the fathers.
9 So already Bengel, ad loc.
10 Cf. W. Foerster, ZNW. 29 (1930), 115 ff.
appapoov - aptios

* appaBov 1

A loan word from the Semitic, Heb. ria72.2 Gn. 38:17 ff. (LXX, appasoov), Lat.
arrha or arrhabo (23 Gn. 38:17 ff.). The word is a commercial term (Isaeus 8:23;
Aristot. Pol., I, 11, p. 1259a, 12; esp. pap.). It signifies a "pledge" which is later returned
(only Gn. 38:17-20); a "deposit" which pays part of the total debt and gives a legal
claim (BGU, 947, 6; Ostraka, II, 1168); "earnest-money" ratifying a compact (P. Oxy.,
299, 2 f.; BGU, 446, 5). It always implies an act which engages to something bigger.
It occurs figur. in Antiph. Fr., 123, 6 (CAF, II, 60): yovtes appaBiva thy Texvnv
tou giv; Menand. Fr., 697 (ibid., III, 200): tou buoTUXEiV appabov® EXELV.

Paul uses it figuratively at 2 C. 1:22: & . Souc Tov appativa tou TVEU-
patos tv taic kapblais juov; 5:5 : 6 800c quiv tov appapiva tOU TIVEULATOS
(-* TVE ua). In the latter TOU Tveluatog is gen. appos. : "the earnest, i.e., the
Spirit" (like - drapx! tou TVEDuaTos in R. 8:23). The Spirit whom God has
given them is for Christians the guarantee of their full future possession of
salvation. Similarly in Eph. 1:14: T TVEOUXTL 8c 4 fotiv appapov ms
KAnpovouias quov.
In 2nd century Christian literature it is found only in Pol., 8,1: T& appaBiov
tis Bukaloouins juov 8c goT Xpiotos 'Inoois, Christ by His death is a pledge
that Christians will attain to righteousness at the last judgment.
Behm

appntos - Epi
aptyÉwntos

aptios, t tEaprigw, t kataptigo,

karaptiou6c, t Katoptiols
In the LXX &ptioc is found only as an adv. of time meaning "until now" (2 Bao.
15:34). Elsewhere it means a. "suitable" or "adapted" for something b. "right,"
"faultless,' "normal, "meeting demands" posed to the subst. regens: tois aQuaoiv,
Diod. S., III, 33, 6; of movements of thought, Theogn., 946; in the ethical sense, Theogn.,
154; more religiously, Philo Det. Pot. Ins., (to aptiov dyalov); c. "evenness" in

& r Dab dv. Cr. Ko., 171 f.; Pr.-Bauer, 171 f.; Deissmann B., 104 f.; Moult.-Mill., 79;
Bchm. 2 K.4, 80; Wnd. 2 K., 73; Sickb. K.4, 97 f.; Melnertz Gefbr.4, 66
A secondary form is &papov; cf. Winer (Schmiedel) § 5, 26c; Deissmann NB, 11:
Bl.-Debr. § 40; Mayser, 40.
2 Cf. Ges.-Buhl, S.v.
$ Bchm., 80; Pr.-Bauer, 171.
4 8CR A D is gramm, correct (Bl.-Debr. § 132, 1) as against 6 $G.
 aptios

mathematics ; aptiov and nepittov are for the Pythagoreans partly otolyEia of the
basic principle of numbers, and partly one of the ten basic principles (Diels, I, 347, B5).
The deriv. are late ; they are not found, e.g., in Philo, Jos., etc. LEaptigo, "to
equip," found in the LXX only at Ex. 28:7: "to bind or unite.' kataptigw (Ion.):
a. "to regulate" (politically), "to order" (Preis. Zaub., IV, 1147: 8 (Eoc 6 tov
Koouov kataptioguevoc). In the LXX "to establish,' "to create" (w 39:6, quoted in
Hb. 10:5); mid. "to prepare for oneself" (Ps. 8:2, quoted in Mt. 21:16), used also of
God's direction of the steps of men (y 16:5; 17:33); b. "to equip.' It is used absol. in
Hdt., IX, 66 of the ability of a general, variant kampiuÉvog. To this there corre-
sponds the use of Kataptiou6c and kataptiol. Plut. Alex., 7 (I, 667 f.), of education:
Plut. Them., 2 (I, 112e), with raidela (in both cases kataptioic). Neither word 19
found in the LXX.

At 2 Tm. 3:17 xptios is used in sense b. to denote what is right or proper, and
more particularly what is becoming to a Christian, obviously with a moral accent,
as shown by what follows.
At 2 Tm. 3:17 ÉEaptigw means to bring to a suitable state for Christian moral
action. It is used in Ac. 21:5 in the secular sense of "to end as prescribed.'
kataptigw l at Hb. 11:3 means a. "to order," of the aeons (- supra, Preis. Zaub.,
IV, 1147); at R. 9:22 "to foreordain" (for destruction), 2 obviously along the lines
of t 16:5 etc.). At 1 Th. 3:10, with reference to the THatIc of the Thessalonians,
it means b. "to establish,' "to confirm," especially in terms of Christian character
worked out in the sense of unity of the members of the community (1 C. 1:10),
or the restoration of the fallen brother (G1. 6:1), but also ev mavri aya0@ (Hb.
13:21). The kamptiouÉvos (like the &prios) can thus denote the ideal of the
Christian generally (Lk. 6:40). Members of the community are summoned to in-
struct and help one another with view to confirmation (2 C. 13:11), though
success is finally the work of God (1 Pt. 5:10).3 (On Mt. 21:16; Hb. 10:5 supra).
Along the same lines kataptiou6s is used at Eph. 4:12, in the context of the
edifying of the body of Christ, to denote the equipment of the saints for the work
of the ministry. The establishment of the community in work for the kingdom of
God in the widest sense thus constitutes for Paul a material precondition of the
upbuilding and consequently the actualisation of the community.
Similarly Kataptios denotes inner strength, whether of the community (oiko-
boun) in its organic relationship, or of the character of its members, i.e., their
maturity as Christians (2 C. 13:9).
Delling

OPTIOS KTA. Secular use at Mt. 4:21 and par.; cf. Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
B. Weiss (Meyer8), ad loc. suggests "ready or ripe for destruction," but with no
philological justification.
pokaTapt gElv is used in the secular sense of "prepare" (the collection) at 2 C. 9:5,
the only occurrence in the NT.
aptoc

aptos

This word is much used in the NT. It is of theological interest at the following
points.
1. In the expressions AauB&vElV, (kata-)KAdv, (81a-, Eitl-)8186val tov aprov
(Lk. 24:30; Jn. 21:13; Ac. 27:35; Mk. 6:41 par.; 8:19 par.; Jn. 6:11), it has the strict
meaning "bread." The reference here is to the head of the house who at the
beginning of a meal takes bread, gives thanks, breaks it and gives to those at
table with him. In this way it is used of the bread of the Last Supper in Mk. 14:22
and par.; 1 C. 11:23 f., 26 ff.; 10:16 f.; Ac. 2:42, 46; 20:7,11 (-* AxuBavo, - E0-
XXPIOTED, EDAOYE∞, ) KA&o0, KAGOIC, > 818wu.). It is also used of the
shew-bread of the OT sanctuary (oi &ptol ths TpoOÉ0EOC) at Mk. 2:26 and par.
(Hb. 9:2 : ñ TU POOEOLC TOV xprov). 2

In the koine aptos is the main word for bread. Hippocr, Acut., 37 still distinguished
aptos (white bread) from uaga (barley-bread), Philo Spec. Leg., I, 173 : aptos
epaoti copiac Buapxis ™poon. 3

2. Bread can also signify nourishment generally (like the OT on?). 4 aptos
ETIOUGIOG, Mt. 6:11 and par. (-* ETlouoioc). rov Éautou aptov foOlelv, 2 Th.
3:12 : "to keep oneself,' in contrast to v.8 : 8pedv &ptov payeiv Ttapa TIVOG,
"to be supported by someone for nothing." The fasting ascetic is called un tollov
aprov unite rlvov ofvov in Lk. 7:33, the guest at table 6 tpoyov you 5 Toy
aprov in In. 13:18. 6
3. The thought of participation in bliss feasting) underlies the paysiv aprov
Ev th Bacilela TOU 0E00 of Lk. 14:15 foOlo, - Bao ela), and also the
picture of Christ as the true &ptoc eK toU oipavou (surpassing the OT manna)
in Jn. 6:31 ff., as the &pros ths gons in v. 35, 48 (the bread which gives life) or
6 aptoc 6 gov in v. 51 (- oupav6s, gon), received by the believer in the
Lord's Supper.
In the LXX the manna is called &pToc EK TOU oupavou at Neh. 9:15 (= 2 Eo6.
19:15); Wis. 16:20 (&t' oupavou); Ex. 16:4 (&ptor) aptoc oipavot ; 77:24; 104:40.
The idea of heavenly bread is seen already in the Babyl. Adapa-myth. 7 Judaism ex-
pected a second and eschatological miracle of manna: S. Bar. 29:8: "At that time stores of
manna will again fall from above"; Sib. Fr., 3, 49, Geffck. yAukiv aprov a' oupavot;
Rev. 2:17; Qoh. r., 1 on 1:9 : "As the first redeemer caused manna to come down, so will
the last." In Philo manna is a type of the logos: Leg. All., III, 169 and 175 ; Det. Pot.
Ins., 118; Rer. Div. Her., 79; Fug., 137: n oupavioc spoon, the nourishment of the soul,
Sacr. AC, 86 etc. According to bJoma, 75b (Akiba) manna was "bread which ministering

aptos. 1 Cf. on this point Str.-B., IV, 620 ff.

2 P. Volz, Die bibl. Altertimer? (1925), 118 f.; G. Holscher, Geschichte der israel. u. jud.
Religion (1922), 77: Str.-B. III, 719 ff. An analogon may be seen in Ditt. Or., 56, 73.
On this pt. L. Cohn, Die Werke Philos v. Alex. in deutscher Ubersetzung, JI (1910).
59, n. and 2.
Semit. Cf. A. Debrunner, Th.BI., 8 (1929), 212.
5 MeT' quoUn a D.
t 40:9 : 8 soflov &ptous HoU.
A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte des alten Orientst (1930), 47.
 aptos - apx∞
angels eat." The bread of life and living bread are peculiar to Jn. with no parallels in
Judaism 8 or in ancient religions which speak of heavenly food that dispenses life ; 0
though cf. the Adapa-myth, B 60 f.: "the food of life" (and 29 : "the food of death"). 10
Behm

spyayyeloc -> 87 APXLEPEUS > lEpEUc

apxutouunv -} "tolunv apxiouvdrywyos ouvaywyh

apxw, apxi, anapxh,

apxaios, apxnyos, apxwv

apxw.
Act. a. "to rule"; b. "to begin" (where others continue, though this is rare later,
being found only times in Jos. [Schlatter]); mid. "to begin" (and oneself continue).
In non-biblical lit., except where it is a part., it is almost always used with the pres.
infin.; SO, too, in the NT and Jos. 1 In the LXX the act. always has the sense of "to
rule" or "to be superior (even in Sir. 47:21), except in the few cases where the
reference is to singers (2 Ch. 35:25; Job 36:24). The mid. is predominant (perf. also in
the pass. sense at 1 Macc. 5:31; Ch. 31:10); it sometimes occurs in expressions which
are to us superfluous. 2 It is worth noting that the inf. aor. is restricted to the canonical
books. Hesseling ¾ advances "the hypothesis that they (the translators) rediscovered the
timeless character of the Hebrew infinitive in the Greek aorist infinitive.'

1. In the NT the act. occurs only at Mk. 10:42; R. 15:12, "to rule." Jesus re-
lativises the concept in relation to earthly rulers ; He finds true power only in God
and not in them.
2. In almost half the cases the mid. occurs in Lk. (41 times, of which only 3 are
common with Mk. and 2 with Mt.).4 It is usually a kind of auxiliary verb
(Hunkin), as in half of the 10 cases in Ac., even in the polished chapter 24 (v.2).
Nevertheless, this use is more than a Semitism. The word is more pregnant at
In. 13:5; 8:9. Pleonastically it usually serves to draw attention to a particular
element in the story. The best course is simply to render by some such word as

Str.-B., II, 482 ff.

9 Bau. J.3, 100 f. and E. Waldschmidt-W. Lentz, "Die Stellung Jesu im Manichaismus'
(AAB, 1926, 4), 65 draw attention to a Manichean text in which the soul calls the redeemer
bread.
10 AOT, 145.
& P x co. D. C. Hesseling, "Zur Syntax von apxoual u. Verw.," Byz. Ztschr., 20 (1911),
147-164; J. W. Hunkin, 'Pleonastic' apyoua in the NT," JThSt, 25 (1923/24), 390-402.
1 Hesseling, 148-150.
2 A typical example is Ju. 19:6, where we have apEquEvoc in A and aye on in B.
3 Op. cit., 161 f.
Mt. has 6 of 13 common with Mk. In the NT it is never used with part., cf. B1.-Debr.
8 414.
apX© - apxh

"moreover" or "indeed," or by even freer expressions suggested by the context,

such as "were so bold" or "were forced to." The auxiliary character of the word
appears most plainly where &pyoual is used in connection with the evangelistic
activity of Jesus (especially in Mt. and Lk.). Yet there are still some cases in
which it has a more pregnant sense (always, of course, with &to ...), more
particularly in Lk. and in the Epistles (where it is found only at 2 C.3:1 and
1 Pt. 4:17).

+ apxñ (- xpovoc).
A. The General and Philosophical Use of xpxñ.

apxh always signifies "primacy," whether in time : "beginning," principium, or

in rank : 'power," "dominion," "office.'
1. In its temporal significance, it denotes beginning in the exact sense, i.e., "the
place in a temporal sequence at which something new, which is also finite, com-
mences' Melissus, I, 184, 29 ff., Diels ; Democrit., II, 23, 10 ff., Diels ; Gorg. Fr.,
3, II, 243, 23 ff., Diels ; xpxh YÉVEOIS Chrysipp., III, 80, 34 ff., v. Arnim ; tou
88 q tE{pou ook gotiv apxn, Aristot. Phys., III, 4, p. 203b, 7 concerning Anaxi-
mander. This precise use of the term is found again and again. How common it
became is shown by the fact that even Philo consistently uses it to denote non-
eternity (Op. Mund., 54; Aet. Mund. [53;], 118; cf. Decal., 58).1 From the parallel
aPXñ/yÉvEOIC it may be seen that to the Greek the thought of Téloc/plopa is
also present ; both are part of the concept of oik &TELpOV.- Thus in discussions
of areipov the beginning and the end form a circle. Everything proceeds from
&Telpov and everything leads back to it (Anaximander, I, 17, 17 ff., Diels). Hence
Hippocrates, imitating Heraclitus, can say: apxn SE TavToV uia Kai TE/EUTH
Tavto uic kai n aith teleuTn kal apxh (Diels, I, 111,26): all occurrence
which can be measured in time is simply a falling from the atELpOV.
The thought of the relativity of the time sequence also underlies the religious
statement that God is apxh kai TÉAoC (Preis.Zaub., IV, 2836 f.), a statement
adopted by Greek Judaism (Philo Plant., 93; Jos. Ant., 8, 280). 3 There is an ob-
vious connection with discussion of &TLELPOV when it is said of a god that he
comprises apxh and TÉloc (our^a Bov: Skythinos [imitation of Heraclitus],
I, 112, 20 f., Diels ; cf. Ael. Arist. Or., 8, 22 : pyas Kai tepata ExEI). 4

5 1:1: Sv fipEato a Érroinoev dn' apxis.

& px n. M. Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Pls. (1909), esp. 99 ff.; G. Kurze,
Der Engels- und Teufelsglaube des Ap. Pls. (1915), passim ; A. Schweitzer, Mystik d. Ap.
Pls. (1930), 58 f., 305 f. For further lit., v. Pr.-Bauer, s.v., though G. Teichmuller, Studien
2. Geschichte d. Begriffe (1874), 48 ff., 560 ff. (Anaximander) is open to question; cf.
O. Dittrich, Geschichte d. Ethik, I and II (1926), Index S.v. "Prinzip." Def. Aristot.
Metaph., IV, 1, p. 1012 f.
1 Cf. the quotation from Phaedr., 245 d; 480.
2 Cf. Phaedr., 245d : what is dyEvntov must necessarily be &81ap0opov. supra.
3 On the other hand OT Judaism does not say that God is the beginning but that He
acts in the beginning. Thus the concept of God is taken out of the category of beginning
(-> A/92).
The thought changes when it is said of God that He is the centre (Diels, II, 169, 5 f., 16;
cf. Plat. Leg., IV, 715e; Jos. Ap., 2, 190), for He is then seen to be wholly immersed in
historical occurrence.
 apxh

As used in philosophy, the term apxh is of greatest significance in cosmic

physics. 5 Here it denotes the original material from which everything has evolved. 6
In this sense, however, it is gradually replaced by OTO1XEiov. It is still re-
served, however, for the fundamental laws which control the evolution of the
world both in great things and small. Amongst other things referred to as apxh
in this sense are xpovos in the later Orphics (Diels, II, 171, 26 f.); apuoc in
the Pythagoreans (ibid., I, 347, 12 f.); the vouc from which movement proceeds
in Anaxagoras (I, 388, 39 f.); TO (eiov as an unmoved and infinite apxn in
Melissos (I, 185, 1 f.); KEVov (and the atoms) in Democritus (II, 13, 18 ff.); 8An,
Elooc (Aoyos), otepnous in Aristotle (Metaph., XI, 2, p. 1069b, 32 ff.). The sense
of temporal beginning often recurs in material definition, as when Anaximander
defines gtElpov as xpxn because "everything proceeds from it and everything
at destruction returns to it (Diels, I, 17, 17 ff.). In the Platonic concept of apxh,
too, the temporal sense is prominent : apxh 8# dyÉvntov. 2, apxis yap avaykn
TaV to yryvouevov ylyveolau, authv 88 und° KE, Évoc' El yap EK tou apxn
ylyvotto, ouK av gtl apxn ylyvolto (Phaedr., 245d).f
Stoicism could make nothing of an idealistic conception of apxn; 10 it viewed
OE6c and 8An ( TtOIOUv and "taoyov) as apyai. 11 The distinction into OE6c
and 8An is not to be taken antithetically. God penetrates matter (II, 156, 16 f.,
v. Arnim); He is identical with apxñ as with the Aoyos, vouc, and Kotos vouog
of the Stoics, or perhaps more precisely with apxh kai TÉOS, the basic meaning
and goal, the logos which penetrates and rules all being (M. Ant., V, 32). To
know xpxn kai TÉAoc is thus the sum of the perfect understanding of the totality
and goal of the Stoic (loc. cit.), so that even Judaism must make God say : apxhv
kai TÉlos olda (Sib., 8, 375).
The linguistic usage and conceptual content of Philo are not too clear. He calls the
4 elements of which the cosmos consists (Rer. Div. Her., 281) 8Aikai apxal (Det. Pot.
Ins., 153 f.); the atoms Tov 8Awv apxal (Fug., 148); apxn is the equivalent of original
matter. He has in view the leading thought or principle when he describes the number
one (Poster C., 65) or four (Op. Mund., 52) as xpxn ToOv 8Awv, obviously in de-
pendence on the Pythagoreans (cf. Rer. Div. Her., 62 : cuntop apxh). Stoic influence
may be seen in his description of the logos as apxn (Conf. Ling., 146). With com-
paratively the greatest frequency God is called apxh (Rer. Div. Her., 172; Decal., 52;
Plant., 93; cf. 77; Leg. All., I, 5). This confusion naturally corresponds to the obscurity
in general philosophical usage.
2. a. "Dominion" (often with the undertone of legality and material necessity, e.g.,
Diels, I, 368, 24 f.: &el tIva ÉTLOTaTEIaN UTOPXELV detv Kai aPxnv vouLLov tE kai
sooxñuova, nis inKood foral graatos tiv TOALToV; cf. v. Arnim, III, 81, 20 ff.;
b. "realm" (e.g., in Hdt.); c. "authorities.'

5 Cf. the naturally uncritical and imperfect summary in Stob. Ecl., I, 118-130.
6 So, e.g., Thales, ibid., I, 128, 16 ff.
7 This usage is first found in Anaximander, Diels I, 15, 24.
Together with a list of theogonic concepts encountered in many mythological systems,
esp. the Orphic.
The only new feature is the application of the term to the immortality of the soul.
10 Thus sometimes in their polemics we even find the 4 elements described as apxal
(II, 134, 39 ff., v. Arnim).
According to their teaching from the time of Zeno (II, 111, v. Arnim); the 4 elements
are expressly distinguished (Stob. Ecl., I, 126, 17 f.).
apxn

B. apxi in the LXX.

In the LXX xpxn 1. usually denotes temporal beginning (also in the pre-
positional expressions found in the NT). Occasionally it is a stock phrase for
primeval time. Only rarely is it used spatially ("head" in Jer. 22:6; "tree-top" in
Ez. 31:3, 10, 14; "ends" in Gn. 2:10 and other contexts). Many peculiarities and
obscurities are caused by the often fairly automatic use of apxn for uxi.
2. Comparatively frequently apxh is used for "dominion," "power," "position
of power" (also "host" or "division of host" ; or "sphere of power"), whence
"official posts" (Gn. 40:13, 20 f.), "leading position" (1 Ch. 26:10; 4 Macc. 4:17, of
the office of the high-priest), and finally the "person who exercises influence"
(leader in Neh. 9:17; captain in 'Qo.1:11). In Dan. E 7 xpxh means "power,'
whether of the enemies of Israel (v. 12, 26) or of the One who stands at the side
of God (v.14). It is taken away from the former and given to the One like a
man. In the blessed time of the end TaGal ai apyal will render menial service
to the people of the saints of the Most High (v. 27). Even though v. 27 shows
that the translator is still thinking of the kingdoms of the earth, c. 10 shows that
these are connected with those who wield power in the supraterrestrial sphere.
Hence it was natural enough to understand by apxh the dominion exercised by
them and by their fellows in this realm.

C. apxñ in the NT.

1. apx; = Beginning.
In the NT apxh is most frequently used for "beginning" 12 a. in the formulas
&n' and 1& apxis 18 (kat' apyac in Hb. 1:10, quoting from the LXX 4 101:26),
often with no more precise indication, so that it simply denotes the first point of
time according to the context, whether of creation (Hb. 1:10; Mt. 19:4, 8; 24:21
[Mk. 10:6; 13:19]; 2 Pt. 3:4), or of the first appearing of Jesus (Lk. 1:2; In. 15:27;
16:4), or of the beginning of being a Christian (1 Jn. 2:24; 3:11; 2:7; 2 Jn. 5, 6) etc.
(Jn. 6:64; Ac. 26:4). In 6 cases it is not clear what point of beginning is in view.
In 2 Th. 2:13 14 the reference is to the election of those who are addressed, either
from their birth or from all ages, presumably the latter. 15 The other passages
are in the Johannine writings. In In. 8:44; 16 1 Jn. 3:8 the devil is the subject, and
therefore the meaning is obviously "from all ages." This does not imply that the
devil is eternal, but that the beginning of his existence precedes earthly time,
within which alone we can speak of time.
In Jn. 1:1 the reference of 8 hv an' xpxis is to the Logos. The established
Greek term logos is avoided ; it is replaced by a neutral "it." This cannot be
embraced in any concept ; in it God gives Himself to men. It has become sensually
perceptible to the disciples and it lives also in their proclamation. In In. 2:13 f.

12 Spatially it is used only in Ac. 10:11; 11:5.

13 This occurs in In. 6:64; 16:4. In 16:4 the point of time is indicated ; cf. on this S. Dt., 29
on 3:28 : ann 727 0002 20x 73 R7.
14 The variant reading anapxv championed in Dib. Th. gives a poorer sense and makes
the Ellato difficult to understand. If it was not a mistake (as often in secular codices),
it belongs to a recension which is a little too studied.
15 Naturally not predestination in the later ecclesiastical sense.
Bau. J., ad loc. suggests the fall (-* 245).
 apxh

we have the masculine, but again without a noun, namely, He who is from before
time. With reference to Christ, this includes the assertion of eternity, for that
which or He who was from all ages can only be that which or He who is included
in the being of God. This gives us pre-existence in the strict sense. 17
b. This is even more plain in the parallel saying in Jn. 1:1 f. 18 Here, however,
the term logos is used. In a Gospel it is almost impossible not to objectivise the
It or He. The loaded term logos is an attempt to express formally what is said
more exactly in Jn. 1:1; 2:13 f. Here, then, that which is Év pxn is that which is
"before" all time, or, more correctly, that concerning which no temporal statement
can be made (cf. the secular use, esp. Plat. Phaedr., 245d, and -> supra, esp. n. 2).
This strict concept of pre-existence does not seem to be present in Jewish thinking.
At any rate, it is restricted to statements about God. 19 Even though the Torah was
before the world, its age could be assigned. For the older Synagogue there was no
thought of any "real pre-existence of the Messiah," restricted to Him alone. 20
The two other gy apxi phrases are meant relatively. Thus Phil. 4:15 refers to
the first period of Paul's evangelistic activity and Ac. 11:15 to the early days of
the Jerusalem church ; apxn has here acquired something of a romantic aura
apxaios, 486. 21
c. thy apxhv is used adverbially for "all the time" in In. 8:25. 22
d. 'Apxn in other constructions may indicate, as in 4 passages in the Gospels,
the first occurrence in a series of similar or corresponding events (Mt. 24:8
Mk. 13:8; Jn. 2:11). In Mk. 1:1 the preaching and baptism of John are the temporal
starting-point of the evangelical preaching of Jesus (in spite of Hos. 1:2). Again,
in 5 passages in Hb. the reference is to the beginning of Christian instruction and
proclamation for those addressed (5:12; 6:1), or to the beginning of the confidence
of faith (3:14). In 2:3 xpxh is related to the proclamation of salvation by Jesus
Himself (cf. Mk. 1:1). In 7:3 expression is given to the fact that Christ is beyond
time by saying that He has no cpxh or TÉAog, as the Greeks elsewhere say of
eternity (- 479); cf. esp. Philo, of whom we also have an echo in the auntop
(- 479).
2. xpxh = Power,
a. In the sense of "dominion" or "force" xpxh is always (except at Jd. 6)
coupled with tEouola in the NT. At Lk. 12:11 and Tt. 3:1 it denotes the secular
or spiritual authorities and at Lk. 20:20 it denotes the official power of the Roman
procurator. At Tt. 3:1 (cf. R.13) there is no suggestion that the apxn of the

17 Cf. In. 17:5; Zn. on Jn. 1:1.

18 Cf. on this pt. Prv. 8:22 f.: Tt po TOU alovoc É0Eu A[woÉV LE Ev apxi; 'But while
it is said of wisdom that it was created, the Logos was" (Bau. on Jn. 1:1).
19 Cf. the examples given in Str.-B., II, 353
20 Though there is, of course, the thought of an ideal pre-existence ; Str.-B., II on Jn.
1:1, esp. 333 f.
21 Ev apxi is not a Semit., in spite of the intentional par. to Gn. 1:1 in Jn. 1:1 ( Abyos);
cf. Ditt. Or., 56, 57; P. Petr., II, 37, 2b. Nor is it just attested in the koine, but classically;
U, Thuc., 1, 35, 5 : %aTEp Ev dpxi OTEITQUEV; Eur. Med., 60; Plat. Tim., 28b.
22 In the question in Ps.-Plat. Demod., 381d: apxhv 8& TI BEI Tavtoc aMous guu-
BOULEUELV Quiv etc.; often in negated propositions in Plat., Xenoph., Jos. etc.; cf. also Pr.-
Bauer, s.v.; Zn. Jn., ad loc.
apxh

state might represent a force inimical to God (- 481). The Christian owes it
obedience. 23

b. In Da. 7 the reference of apyal is perhaps to supraterrestrial and demonic

powers which are subdued by the Messiah (according to NT exegesis) and which
cannot therefore hurt the people of God any more. It is, of course, a long way
from these national angels 24 to the apxh concept of Paul. This had been worked
out by the diaspora prior to Paul. For Paul, however, there is no need to identify
apxal with national angels, since the people of God is no longer the Jewish
nation. The dominion of the apxal is thus widened, though we cannot say what
functions they have in distinction from the -• ÉEovolai and > SU quEIC
or whether they are wholly hostile to God, though this is probable in view of
Eph. 1:21 and Col. 1:16. We may gather from Eph. 6:12 that different spheres
of influence are allotted to them, probably by their over-lord (Eph. 2:2), according
to the different spheres of life, e.g., the religious (1 C. 8:5; 10:20 f.), the sexual
(1 C. 6:15 ff.; 7:14), the purely vital (1 C. 15:26), and the different social re-
lationships in terms of the general context of Eph.6. Strictly, however, the re-
ference is not to dominion over other spirits for in such cases we should expect
XPXOVTES but to power over the rest of the cosmos, especially the earthly.
They are spiritual beings 25 (Eph. 6:12), related to angels according to R. 8:38.28
For Paul this does not exclude the possession of another form (v. 12a) of cor-
poreality (cf. C. 15:35 ff.). In the plan of creation they were originally meant
to be good spirits and were created as such (Col. 1:16).21 Perhaps they were
originally assigned to a higher heavenly sphere. Their abode is now the Érroupavia
(Eph. 3:10), which is obviously the lowest of the different heavenly spheres
(cf. 2 C. 12:2) from which ok6tos comes into this world (Eph. 6:12). The powers
of the air, i.e., of the lowest heavenly sphere, have, somewhat schematically,
separated God and man until the coming of Christ. They believed that with the
rejection of the human race by God (R. 1:24) they would become unconditional
KOOUOKP&TODES, until God's original plan of salvation was disclosed in and with
the resurrection of Christ (Eph. 3:10). 28 By the crucifixion of Christ they have
been deprived of their power (Col. 2:15; apxoov, 489). The wall of partition,
which their power over the world implied, has been broken down. Christ has
subjected them to Himself (Col. 2:15; Eph. 1:21). He has now been revealed as
their Lord (Col. 2:10), 29 as He has been from the very first as their Creator,
archetype and ground of existence (Col. 1:16). This does not mean, of course,
that their power is destroyed. Man is still engaged in continuing conflict with them
(Eph. 6:12). They are not merely behind those who threaten Christians for their
faith 30 they are also behind all moral temptations. Yet they cannot decisively
affect the relationship between the Christian and God (R. 8:38), and in the final

23 On the corresponding secular use > 480.

24 Dibelius, op. cit., 10.
25 Not special aeons or stellar powers (Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 235 f. for Eph. or C. 15).
On the other hand, men can hardly be meant in Eph. 6:12 (Kurze, 82).
26 On the basic attitude of Paul to angels, &yyelos, 85 f.
27 The doctrine of the fall of angels is tacitly assumed (cf. Jd. 6).
28 The reference to "pure spirits of heaven" (Kurze, 92 f.) is meaningless.
29 It can hardly be said that Paul is "primarily thinking of the elements" (Dibelius,
op. cit.. 138).
80 Dibelius, 164.
 apxh ~ drapyh

consummation they will be definitively stripped of all their influence (1 C. 15:24). 31

3. In Col. 1:18 Christ is called the apxn in parallelism with the statements that
He is the ElKov 0E00 32 and TOWT6toKOS TooNs Kploeoc 33 who existed Ttpo
TtavtOV. In this sense He is first the apxh from which all creation has received
its norm and in which it will result with the fulfilment of the plan of creation.
This corresponds to the Stoic doctrine of the apxh as the Kowos vouos, the
dominating world principle, which gives to each in the cosmos the place which is
meaningful for the whole. In v.16b we have another formulation of the apxh
kal tEloc principle. This significance of Christ is also demonstrated in the fact
(Eva YÉVNTAL EV TROIV AUTOS TOOTEUGV) that He is the first to be raised from
the dead.
It cannot be said with certainty whether xpxñ is used in the same sense in
Rev. 3:14. 34 This is not unlikely in view of 21:6; 22:13. The Apxñ/tÉAoc statement
in relation to God and Christ (- A/Q) is wholly along the lines of philosophical
usage. In strongly eschatological thinking a certain kinship of outlook arose in
virtue of the relativising of all historical occurrence (- 479). Thus in Rev. the
One who sits on the throne, or Christ, is the One who is pre-temporal and post-
temporal, to whom the categories of time do not apply. 35

t anapxñ.
A. gapyñ outside the NT.
In the oldest literary example (Hdt., I, 92) atapyh means not only a. the true "first-
fruits" of natural products1 but also b. the "proportionate gift" from the earnings or
possessions of the pious giver, then "thankoffering" for any success, 2 and finally c. any
"offering" to the deity or to the servants or sanctuary of the deity, whether as a special
or a regular offering. Hence it is used even of the Jewish tax 3 (Jos. Ant., 16, 172), or
first-fruits to the state, or an inheritance tax. For details, cf. the similar usage in the
LXX. Figuratively it is used in Eur. Ion, 401 f.: Tpooplayuatov dntapxai, for the
first greeting or address (to Apollo). artapxñ then comes to have, like apxn, the sense
of "beginning" (hence the textual variations between dapxn(v) and t apxis),
and finally the sense of certification of birth.
Religiously the offering of men as drapxh is of interest. To be sure, the expression
is rare in this sense. When used, it is often not subject to historical control, since it

31 There is no express reference here to human apxal (Ltzm. C., ad loc.; > 482 on
Tt. 3:1.
32 In correspondence with Alexandrian exegesis of LXX Gn. 1:27, and perhaps in con-
nection with the (Philonic) logos doctrine.
83 Here we have an even plainer hint of the ideal man of Philo by whom all things were
created, v. 16.
34 "The principle and origin of creation" (Had. Apk., ad loc.). Otherwise the usage
reflects Rabbinic influence and the Messiah is before the world, yet Himself created (> 481
on Jn. 1:1).
35 Reitzenstein Poim., 287 understands by apxn kai TÉloc the totality or TAnpwua (of
creation ?).
atapxn. H. Beer, *Arapxn (Diss. Wiirzbg., 1914); P. Stengel in Pauly-W., I (1894),
2666 f.
1 Pauly-W., I, 2667.
2 Beer, 11 f.
3 v. Preisigke Wort., s.v.
4 Plut. Thes., 16 (1, 6 f.) : Pyth. Or.. 16 (II, 402a): Quaest. Graec., 35 (II, 298 f.); K.F.
atapyh

refers to the offerings of whole portions of the population of city (usually to the
Delphic Apoll.) with a view to colonisation. 5 Yet the clear impression remains that these
are regarded as religious acts and are undertaken as such. & In addition we read that
individuals are offered as + dvo0nua to a deity (Eur. Ion., 310, cf. Phoen. Schol. on
214): drapxn might easily be substituted ; and men who dedicated themselves to the
service of the sanctuary, or who were made over to the temple by their parents or
masters (lep66ou ot etc.; > 800 oc),' were in fact called arapxh (cf. Diod. S.,
IV, 66, 6).
In the LXX anapxh is first used in the original sense a. of the "first-fruits" of the
field or flocks which is offered to God (Dt. 18:4; 26:2, 10; Nu. 18:8-12; Neh. 10:37 ff.;
cf. Ez. 45:13-16) and thus separated to Him and sanctified (Nu. 5:9). The fiction is
maintained that the anapyal of men and cattle also belong to God (Nu. 18:15). The
meaning of first-fruits can even be carried so far that tov tpwtoyEvuatov can be
added to anapxn (Ex. 23:19; Sir. 45:20). The term also comes to signify, however,
b. the "regular offering" to the temple or the priests 8 (2 Ch. 31:5 ff.). Finally, it means
C. "special gifts" or "endowments" etc., also by pagans (more particularly for the
sanctuary, Eg. 39:1; Ex. 25:2 f.; 35:5; 36:6; 2 Esr. 8:25), or to idols (Ez. 20:31). Only
rarely is the word used in a non-cultic sense. In Bac. 10:4; Dt. 33:21 it signifies
"share" or "portion" and in w77:51; 104:36 "firstborn.' In Sir. 24:9 9 it is used to
indicate the extra-temporality or eternity of the hypostasis wisdom (thus drapxh is
purely temporal): npo tou aiovoc atapxnv EKTIOé ME.

B. drapxi in the NT.

1. The OT ordinance to give a heave-offering of dough as first-fruits (Nu.
15:20 f.) forms the starting-point for the exhortation of Paul in R. 11:16. Dough
is allowed to the Israelites if a portion is taken from the secular sphere and
dedicated to Yahweh. Paul goes further and brings the whole into this state of
desecularisation. Par. with the piga/k^&oot image, he uses the anapxh/oupaua
image to try to make it clear that the election of the Jewish people continues even
though a portion has fallen from it. By their membership of the race the first-fruits
of faith (e.g., Abraham) 10 guarantee the maintenance by the whole (to pupaua)
of its pre-eminent place in the divine plan of salvation.
2. Similarly the house of Stephanas baptised by Paul (1 C. 1:16) is called the
first-fruits of Achaia (1 C. 16:15). The thought is the same as in R. 16:5, unless
Paul means that, as formerly men were described as avainua TOLEOC (- 484 f.),
SO now Asia has brought its first-fruits to Christ as an offering. This would
include a special service rendered to the Gospel by this first-fruits. 11 To some
extent we have similar use in Jm. 1:18. The constancy of God is shown in the
fact that He maintains His resolve in relation to Christianity by giving new birth to
the writer and readers ; thereby, in a paradoxical formulation, they are a first-

Hermann, Lehrb. d. gottesdienstl. Altertimer (1816), 86 ff., esp. 91; cf. P. Stengel, Die
griech. Kultusaltert.3 1920), Index, s.v.
Cf. Pauly-W., I, 2667.
6 Plut. Quaest. Graec., 35 (II, 298 f., 299a): colonisation follows the failure of the Delphic
offering.
Cf. A. L. Hirt, Die Hierodulen (1818), 52 f., 64.
This is later distinguished from the offering to the Levites, who receive the tithe (Neh.
12:44; 13:5; 2 Ch. 31:10, 12, 14).
Variant for &' apxns.
10 R. 4, esp. v. 16 hardly the first Jewish Christians.
11 As a special offering for Paul during his Ephes. imprisonment ?
 arapyn - xpxaioc
fruits of humanity to God, "free in relation to all men and subject only to God." 12
The image of the redemption of the slave (- dyop (w, 125 ff.) merges into
that of dedication to God in Rev. 14:4.13 In both ways one could become the
possession of God (cf. Eur. Ion, 310 : avainua T6 EnS t TiVoS TpaOElS UTo).
The virgin 12 x 12,000 - even the continence of the lspooou1ol trap0Évou 14 is
thus maintained form the cultic personnel of the Jerusalem which is above. They
will always be in the presence of God. They alone can offer the mysterious music
of the heavenly sanctuary (v. 2 f.). As (sp66ou^ou they are Tov aNAOV SEATOTOV
kai apyovtov flEDEpOI Kal &ETOI (Plut. Amat. Narr., 21 [II, 768a]); this par-
ticular position is their reward for offering themselves to God as artapyh. 15
3. In R. 8:23 the relationship of giver and recipient 16 is reversed and anapxn is
the first-fruits of God to man (cf. 2 C. 5:5). The gift of the pneuma is only
provisional. 17 It is only the beginning which will ultimately be followed by
ulofsola, by the gift of the Qua TIVEUUATIK6V. It thus represents the final
spiritualisation of man. If atapyh has temporal significance in R.8:23, this is
emphasised in 1 C. 15:20, 23 (in v.23 almost statically in antithesis to tÉloc).
Christ is the first to be raised.

t apxaios.
Mostly "from the very beginning" (to apxaia, "the earliest time, Plato Tim., 22a),
then "'belonging to a distant time,' 'past," "old," though also used of past events in
the life of an individual. The word refers to that which is older than naAaios and
confers a romantic aura of dignity : Demetr. Phal. in Rhet. Graec., III, p. 300, 22 ff.,
Spengel : olov To apyaio avi tot malaiol Évtlu6TEpov® of yap apxaiot aVOPES
Evtluorepot; (cf. Plat. Tim., 22b). It denotes nearness to nature, to origins (Arist. Rhet.,
II, 9, p. 1387a, 16 ff.). of apxaiot is a fixed formula which takes its sense from the
context. Thus in Plat. it signifies "the ancient poets" (TtapEl noquEv tapa Tov
apxalov, Theaet., 180c); in Aristotle "the forefathers" (Pol., III, 15, p. 1286b, 37; Éni
Tov apyalov, "in the time of our forefathers," Pol., V, 5, p. 1305a, 7); "the speculative
philosophers" (Arist. Meteor., II, 1, p. 353a, 34 ff.); "the pre-Socratics." For Philo, Plato
is tic tov apxalov (Rer. Div. Her., 181).1
In the LXX it is normally the rendering of 072 and cognates. It is often used for
primeval days (thus also nuÉpat apxaiau in y 43:1), but also relatively for phases
in individual life. Sometimes &pyaioc (- apxñ) can also mean things which happened
pre-temporally in the strict sense, when the divine plans were formed (Is. 37:26; cf.
25:1); in such cases the apxaia are set in antith. to the Eoyata or HÉAAovta (y 138:4 f.;
Wis. 8:8).

12 Hirt, 53 f. infra on Rev. 14:4.

13 It is most unlikely that the Jewish Christians are called grapxn.
14 Hirt, 62; Eur. Phoen. Schol. on 224.
15 Loh. Apk., as martyrs Had., temporally as the first-fruits.
16 W. Schubart, Raccolta di Scritti in Onore di Giacomo Lumbroso (1925), is reminded
of the Egyptian drapxh, i.e., the certification of noble birth ; he thus suggests the patent
or certification of the Spirit. But this robs the phrase of its pregnancy, and it is unlikely that
Paul, even if he knew it, would have given the word this specialised sense without ex-
planation. Materially - appapov, TVE ua.
17 TVE uaTOG, gen. part.
pxaios. 1 Cf. Pesikt. Kah., 32 98b): a"ntiNg (without subst.) = Noah, Moses,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.
apxaioc - apxnyoc

In the NT the apyaios Koouos is earthly creation prior to the flood (2 Pt. 2:5).
In Mt. 5:21, (27), 33 ot &pyaiou are our (your) forefathers. In Lk. 9:8, 19 the
reference is to "one of the ancient prophets, who evoke implicit trust in contrast
to contemporaries who come with a prophetic claim. Ac. 15:21 has in view the
past of the people of Israel. On the other hand, in 15:7 the comparatively distant
days of the first community in and around Jerusalem are intended, i.e., the time
of the conversion of Cornelius, which is shown to be particularly venerable by
the use of apxaial. apxaioc is again a predicate of honour in 21:16.1
In Paul (2 C. 5:17) to apxaia are all the religious relationships which obtained
prior to the resurrection of Christ. Though these have all the honour which the
Greeks give to what is old, they are abolished by the fact of Easter. Paul is first
thinking of the attitude of contemporaries to the earthly Jesus, then of his own
Pharisaic piety.
In Rev: 12:9: 20:2 o Bpis o apaios is a name for Satan. It is taken over from
the Rabbinic usage based on Gn. 3 (S. Dt., 323, on 32:32; Gn. r., 22 on 4:15;
Tanch. glin 7 [47]).

+ apxny6s.1
a. The "hero" of a city, who founded it, often gave it his name and became its
guardian, as, e.g., Athene for Athens Ditt. Syll.3, 400, 16 (apxnyÉris). This gives us
already b. the "originator" or "author" (Zeus apxnyoc DUCEGG, Cleanthes Fr., 537, 2
[I, 121, 35, v. Arnim]). It is then found in application to philosophy (Arist. Metaph.,
I, 3, p. 983b, 20 f.) and the cultus in the widest sense (Apollo &pxnyoc tis EDoEBeias,
Ditt. Syll.3, 711, L 13) 2 and in even looser usage. On the other hand, the hero-apxnyos
concept also has the subsidiary sense of c. "captain." All three variations come together
again in the NT. In Philo the term apxnyÉins is mostly used for the patriarchs or
Adam or Noah (a.). With special pride he calls Abraham the apxnyéTs of the Jews
(Abr., 9, 276; Vit. Mos., I, 7). On one occasion, however, he uses the word in a bold
metaphor for God as the Creator and Father of all things (Ebr., 42).
In the LXX the apxnyos is usually the political or military "leader" of the whole
people, or of a part of it. It is usually the equivalent of txh, n, or Mrigg; or of the T"#P
elected in time of emergency. In the Chronicler it is also used for unn as the "head"
of the clan. It is used more figuratively only in 5 places : Mi. 1:13 (corr. to Macc.
9:61): xpxnyoc ths quaptlas (&pxnyol tis kakias): the apxnyoc is the leader
and example in an action, who stirs others to follow. The superiority of the apxny6c
emerges in 1 Macc. 10:47, where only by his ELPNVEUELV is it made possible for weaker
parties to act at all. Cf. also Jer. 3:4; Lam. 2:10.

In the NT Christ is the apxnyoc. The term does not seem to be used as in
Mi. 1:13. Yet it is thus that Christians, whose TOAlTEVua is not of this world,
answer the question of their eponymous hero (Plat. Tim., 2le). Because they
bear His name, they may be certain not merely that He regards their affairs as

2 Jos. Ant., 12,413: apyaiou mpopita; M. Ex. 17:14 : D"010NT 0°>!; Tanch. B p52
21 (72a): 09210x77 niax; cf. also Sota, 9, 12 ; Tanch. B 90* 4 (30a). This use of
apyaios (and "7) corresponds to the current tendency to ascribe the greater value to
religious traditions the higher their claim to primitive revelation.
4 Cf. apxaios
Cf. Str.-B. onuioms. Insc.
Rev. 12:9 Magn.,
and Mt. 4:1215b.
(I, 138).
corresponds apxnyems (fem. apxnyÉrus).
IB.An O brOadti Teto a tEei aLESRiIi n nca n cont, S o TEnNen
 apxnyos apxov

His but also that He gives them a share in His power and glory. It is in this sense
that Christ is the pxnyoc kai ootp (Ac. 5:31) . In the par. saying which is part
of the evangelistic preaching of Peter in 3:15 He is particularly the apxnyoc ts
gons. By His resurrection Christians have the pledge that they will share the
destiny of their Hero and Saviour.
The concept is more deeply rooted in the circle of specific Christian thinking
at Hb. 2:10. Christ is the xpxnyoc the owmplas. He leads many brethren to the
honour or glory 3 which is the end of owipla. By His suffering He accomplishes
His work as the "Author" of salvation. In 12:2 He is similarly called the "Author"
and "Founder" of Christian faith (apxnyoc ths nlotews), and more particularly,
according to the context, of the resultant moral consequences. Yet Jesus is also
xpxnyoc ths mloteoc in the sense that as the first man He gave an example of
faith in God, that by His death He "fulfilled" this faith in God's unconditional love
and its overcoming of the barrier of sin, and that He thereby gave this love
concrete and once-for-all actualisation in the history of salvation. 4

apyov.
The apxoov has a prominent position in which he exercises authority ; he is thus in
the first instance a "high official." Most civic constitutions distinguish aPXOvtES,
Bouln and Snuos (Jos. Ant., 16, 172 of Ephesus; 14, 190 of Sidon). 1 It is also used
for consul and praefectus.
In religious usage the word is comparatively rare ; Diels, 1, 318, 7: fot yap
apxov aTavtwv 0E6c (cf. Corp. Herm., XI,7: TAONS TAL,EC apyovros). More
important is the fact that in a myth of Plato (Leg., X, 903b) we meet archontes who
exercise a divinely willed oversight over individual parts of creation. These are cosmic
rulers with specific spheres of authority TOUTOIC 8' Eloiv APXOVTES TPOOTETOYUEVOL
ÉxactoIc TEAOC atElpyaouÉvot; they are thus given a positive value. Cf. also
Iamblichus Myst., II, 3.
In the LXX, too, the apxov is one who exercises authoritative influence : the term
is used for the national, local or tribal leader from Gn. to 2 Ch. In the historical books
it is used for a general, though sometimes we also read of the &PXOVTES TOv lEpEDv
(Neh. 12:7). In the later books it more often denotes officials of the overlord of
Palestine (&pXov TOU BaoiAEDS, Da. 2:15).
In Da. G 10:13, 20 f. cf. 12:1 (also Da. LXX: 10:13) it denotes the celestial beings
which guard and represent earthly states (popularly identified with the corresponding
peoples), and on the rank and power (- apxñ) of which in the spirit world the
position of these states depends. The apxov of Israel has the name of Michael. His
victory (or that of the One like a man) over the aP)OVTES of the Persians and Greeks
leads to the dominion of the Jews over these peoples. To a large extent the apXOVTES

dyayoov = who has begun to lead (aor. ingress.) by His activity up to the cross (or
part. aor. of identity, Bl.-Debr. 339, 1).
Otherwise apyny6c means exactly the same as TEAEIOThS and is to be referred to the
crucifixion as the causative presupposition of niotis.
i p x Gv. On the planetary deities as XPXOVTES, cf. Reitzenstein Poim., 270 f. apyov
"high official" : Pauly-W., s.v. for an earlier period (esp. Athens); F. Preisigke, Stadt.
Beamtenwesen (Diss. Halle, 1903), 7-15 f. for later period; cf. also APF, IV (1908), 119;
H. Swoboda, Die griech. Volksbeschluisse (1890), Index, s.v., esp. 205 f.; G. Busolt-H. Swo
boda, Griech. Staatskunde (1920/26), esp. 1081 ff. For the civic organisation of Roman
Jews, v. N. Muller, lud. Katak. am Monteverde (1919), Index, s.v.
Jos. tries to apply this to Jerusalem in Bell., 2 405, and so he does not call the high-
priests &pyovtEC (Cr.-Ko.). For the archontate, cf. esp. Athens.
2 The One like a man seems to be the real leader in the conflict.
apxoov

are opponents of the people of God who are resisted by the One like a man (later the
Messiah) and His allies, and who will be defeated in the last days. In its conflict with
earthly enemies the people of God is really engaged with these celestial powers. The
same concept is found in Pesikt. Kah., 23 (150b-151a): 85197 n1px 9700 aPXOVTES £0vov
Tou Koouou, of Babylon, Greece etc. Cf. also M. Ex., 15, 1 (36b, 6 f., Friedm.): In the
future world God will call the princes (omw) of the kingdoms to account before He
calls the kingdoms themselves.
In the NT &pyov 1. denotes Roman and Jewish officials of all kinds, often
without specifying the particular office. In Jn. and Lk. the &pXOvtES are groups in
the Jewish people, distinguished by Lk. from the TEPEO BUTEDOL, YPQUUXTEIS, ap-
XLEPEIC, and by In. from the Pharisees (and sometimes even opposed to them,
12:42), though they may be fellow-members of religious apyal. Occasionally
apxoov may simply mean "respected." There is a transition to a more religious
sense in relation to Moses in Ac. 7:35.
2. It is used doxologically of the exalted Christ in Rev. 1:5 : apxov Tov
BaoL EoN ThS yñs (the only application to Christ).
3. It denotes those who have at their command supernatural and ungodly
powers. In the Synoptists the Pharisees try to counteract the impression of Jesus'
healings of demoniacs by arguing that they are accomplished in the name of the
apyov of demons (-) BEEAZEBOUA in Mt. 12:24 and Lk. 11:15); the suggestion in
Mk. 3:22 is that Beelzebub himself is active in Jesus. Here we see already that for
the NT the work of Jesus is a conflict with supernatural powers. In Jn. the
tension is carried to the point of almost a transitory dualism. The whole Koouos
is ruled by this apyoov. 4 But the Father is with Jesus in the struggle, and his
power is already broken (12:31).5 Judgment is already accomplished on him
(16:11). For he tries to put forth his power on the sinless One (14:30) and to
engulf Him like a sinner in the destiny of death, his sphere of dominion. & Paul
speaks of several &PXOVTES ™ in 1 C. 2:6, 8. They have been rendered inoperative
by treating the Lord of &6€a as their prey in ignorance of the divine plan of
salvation. 8, 9 The TVEGua of the apyov (Eph. 2:2) works irresistibly in non-
Christians ; only Christians, through the life given them by God (Eph. 2:5), have
the power to withstand it. The chief of these personified powers is the xpxov
of the power(s) of the air 10 (Eph. 2:2; - katapyew, apxñ).
Delling

3 Cf. on &pyov tabv Baquovov, jPea., 21b, 27: X/7171 11727; Lev. r., 5, 1 on 4:3: 7172700
Mh1177.
4 82197 700, Ex. r 17, 4 on 12:23.
5 ExpAnOnoetal: in the present moment ? from the lowest heaven to hell (cf. Rev. 20)?
Zn. J. relates the saying to the judgment which is executed in the death of Jesus.
This sphere can never be related to activity as the SixBolos or accuser in the way
suggested in Zn. J. on 12:31 and 16:11.
tot aldvoc TOUTOU, gen. obj. not temp.; not, then, referring to earthly rulers. The
arguments of Kurze (-> apxn), 77 f. to the contrary are not convincing. Cf. Ltzm. Exc. on
C. 2:6; Joh. W., ad loc.; Sickb., ad loc.
8 And perhaps also of the deity of Christ Dibelius, op. cit., 90 ff.
9 W. Bousset, ZNW, 19 (1919/20), 64, thinks that "the myth of the descent to Hades of
redeemer hero, and his conflict with demonic powers, is here applied to Christ's coming
down to earth, His mortal conflict on the cross and the victory won by Him." Cf. Dibelius,
op. cit., 92 ff.; 234 ff.
10 Dib. Gefbr., 156 : of the kingdom of the air ; cf. Meinertz Gefbr.4, ad loc.
 GoENyELa - dolEVnc

doÉBela, doEBis, doEBEW -> rÉBouai.

* dOENyELa

"License," 1 mostly in the physical sphere : Polyb., XXXVI, 15, 4: TEpi tas oquati-
kac ÉnQuulas; cf. LXX Wis. 14:26; 3 Macc. 2:26; but figuratively also of the soul:
Demosth., 21, (with UBpis); Philodem. Lib., 42, 12 (anton. KoAakela).

In the NT only the older and sensual sense of "voluptuousness" or "debauchery"

is relevant (Mk.7:22). Man necessarily falls victim to this when cut off from God.
It characterises Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pt. 2:7) and the pagan world generally
(Eph. 4:19), also heresy and apostasy (Jd. 4; 2 Pt. 2:2, 18). The special sense of
sexual excess is probable in G1. 5:19 and certain in R. 13:13; 2 C. 12:21; 2 Pt. 2:2, 18;
as also in Herm. m., 12, 4, 6; s., 9, 15, 3; v., 2, 2, 2; 3, 7, 2.
Bauern[eind

dolevns, & HÉVELa,

GOOEVEw, + d00EVnLa

A. Linguistic Data.
The word group dolevns, &o0ÉVEIa, &oOEVEw, formed with & privativum from
ofÉvoc and used from the time af Pindar, Herodotus and Euripides, signifies "weakness"
or "'impotence" of different kinds.
In the LXX 1 and esp. Theodotion 2 &0OEvÉo is often used for 515 (e.g., O Da. 11:41)
and dolÉvela for %won, the latter esp. in the prophetic books (e.g., Jer. 6:21; 18:23 ?).
The explanation of this striking rendering is to be found in the Aram. background of
the translators. For the Aram. root 5pn, normally used for 2wp in the Targumim, means
a. "to stumble," "to be weak" ; just as wo sometimes approximates to this sense (e.g.,
Ps. 109:24: 31:11). From the fact that &oOEvéo thus approximates for its part to the
sense of "to stumble" -> n. 9), it is easier to explain Paul's coupling of it with
TT pOaK6TTO and oxavealioual in R. 14:21 BDG A. 2
The part. ol go0EVOUVTEC is often used in the NT for of doOEvEic (e.g., Jn. 5:3) or
interchangeably with it (cf. 1 C. 8:10 with v. 11 and Mt. 10:8 with Lk. 10:9). Similarly

dOEAYELa. 1 Etymology obscure ; for tentative suggestions W. Havers, Indogerm.

Forsch., 28 (1911), 190 ff. (& = gy + dial. FEAy beAy- "strike,' cf. also A. Walde,
Vergl. Wort. d. indogerm. Sprache, I [1930], 866); W. Prellwitz, Zeitschr. f. vergl. prac-
forsch., 47 (1916), 295 f. (& intens. + root tvelg-"strut"). In the first case the orig. meaning
would perhaps be "demonic stroke" (cf. Philostr. Vit. Ap., IV,20, the expulsion of the
demon from the HELP&KIOV dOEAyEc).
dOOENNS KTA. M. Rauer, "Die 'Swachen' in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulus-
briefen," BSt., XXI, 2/3 (1923). Bengel on R. 6:17; Nageli, 31; 41 n. 1; 77.
Cf. Helbing, 127; G. Stahlin, Skandalon (1930), 111 ff.
2 Stahlin, 85, n. 1; 91, n. 1.
doOEVAC

TO goOEVéC is sometimes used for T doOÉVEIa: Thuc., II, 61, 2 : TO GOOEVES tis
yvouns; P. Oxy., 71, II, 4: TO THE DUOEWC GOOEVES: Cl. Al. Strom., I, 1, 14, 2 : to
&o0EVEC ths umuns; and in the NT 1 C. 1:25: TO dOOEVES TOO 0EO0; Hb. 7:18:
TO aims (sc. EvtoAñc) GoOEVEC kal &VOdEAéc.
co0É nua is first attested in Arist. (Hist. An., X,7, p. 638a, 37, Gen. An., I, 18,
p. 726a, 15). It is a favourite expression in Hellenism, 3 cf. BGU, 903, 15. It is found
once in the NT (R. 15:1) for the individual expression of religious Xo0EVEIa (-> 492).

B. Material Data.
1. The first main meaning is "weak," or "weakness," or 'to be weak,' originally
in the physical sense (cf. CI. Al. Strom., II, 15, 62, 3: &olÉvEla oduatoc). In the
NT the words are hardly ever used of purely physical weakness, 4 but frequently
a. in the comprehensive sense of the whole man, e.g., the "weaker sex" in 1 Pt.
3:7: OUVOIKOUTEC KaT& yVooLV AC GODEVEATE PO OKEUEL TO yuvalKeio; cf.
P. Lond., 971, +: couvatoc yap foriv i yurn 8u& dolevlav ths rUGEwG; CI. Al.
Paed., II, 10, 107, 2: TAEoVEKTEI TO eñu 81& Thy & {ÉVELAV; or the unimpressive
appearance" of Paul in 1 C. 2:3; 2 C. 10:10: rapovola toi aduatos dole.
vhs.
It is often stated or suggested that man as a whole is an GoOevec goov, as in
Cl.Al. Exc. Theod., 73, 3; cf. Max. Tyr., II, 2, p. 20, 5, Hobein : GoOEvec ov Kou16ñ
TO avOp TELOv; CI. Al. Strom., II, 16, 72, 4 : &o0évela Tov &voponov; Paed., III,
12, 86, 2. In the NT (- cape) we have the saying of Jesus in Mt. 26:41 that
the flesh is goOEvAS in contrast to the spirit which is ttp60uuov.5 Paul has
particularly in view the religious and moral weakness of the oape, e.g., in R. 6:19:
AvO TIVoV AEYW BI& THI GODEVELCV the oapKoc Ouov. Here &vopontos,
oxpé, and &o0ÉVEIa are correlative terms. Having the character of oap,, all
creation shares in its weakness ; cf. Philo Deus Imm., 80 : Tov YEYOVOTOV
QUaIKh doDÉVEla; Spec. Leg., I, 293 f.; also CI. Al. Strom., VII, 3, 16, 2: &00ÉVEIa
8Ans. In the NT cf. 1 C. 15:43 : OTtE[pEtal EV GOOEVELQ, EyE[petal Ev SUVquEL.
b. The opp. of the do0Evela of the axpe is the Suvaus of the TVE ua which
auvavtlauBavetal th GolEVEla NuDv (R. 8:26). Yet &o{ÉVEIa is not merely
the opposite pole but in the Christian sphere can also be the place where the
divine ovaus is revealed on earth, as in 2 C. 12:9: Suvauls Ev dODEVEIa
TEEITaI, "the power is fully expressed in weakness.' The acts of God's election
relate to the weak (1 C. 1:27: TX &OOEVI TOU KOOWOU ÉEELÉEXTO O OEOC tva
Kataloxovn to toxup&). Thus Christ, to whom 2 C. 13:3: o0k dolavei &AAd
Sulxtei, properly refers, became weak as a man (Hb. 5:2 : kal aUTO TEpIKEITAL
do0ÉvElav; 2 C. 13:4 : kal yap toraupion t& tolevelac). Those who are in
Christ share the same weakness (- oUyt&ay): Kal yap queis GoDEVOULEV #v
aUTo. This is the &OOEVEC TOU GEOT of which Paul says in 1 C.1:25 that it is
loxup6tEpov tov aviponov. Thus, along the basic line of the NT paradox,
weakness as a form of manifestation of the divine on earth is mark of honour
for the Christian. For he can say : SToV yAp dOOEVD, TOTE SUVaToc Elul (2 C.
12:10). His weakness is a reason for boasting (2 C. 11:30; 12:5,9: Howra odv

3 Nageli, 41, 1.
* But 493, &o0ey- "sickness."
B Cf. Cl. Al. Paed., I, 8, 62, 2 : &o0Évela the aapros etc.
6 Cf. Ltzm., ad loc.; the sense is very different in the same expression in Gl. 4:13 : &oOÉ-
vela ths aapkos (- 493).
 doOEVhS

Ha^ov kauxnooual Ev TaiC AadEvElaIc) and for joy (2 C. 12:10; 13:9 : yal-
pouEv yap 8tav queic GoOEVQuEV).1
C. Alongside this weakness, which is accepted by God (1 C. 1:27), there is also
a "weakness which must be overcome" (-* aKavoa1ov). This is a weakness of
religious and moral condition. In this sense do0evic etc. are not found prior
to the NT;8 though cf. Epict. Diss., 1, 8, 8 : toic ATaLdEUTOIC kai goOEVéoL;
also Ps. Sol. 17:42 of the Messiah : ook GODEVHOEL tv taic nuepaIC autou erl
OEW aUToU, "He shall not be weak, nor waver in his trust in God" ® (opp. in
v. 38 : Suvatoc EATlol 0E00). Thus used, the terms ol goOEVEiC (& DEVOUVTEC)
etc. 10 (- &80vatoc) are favourite expressions of Paul, 11 although with the ex-
ception of Th. 5:14 they are limited to his chief epistles. 12 In them he was
perhaps adopting slogans current in his churches, especially in Corinth and Rome
and on the lips of the opposite group, the "strong," against whom he uses them
as a weapon (R. 15:1).18 More precisely these are the weak in faith, as in R.14:1
(cf. also 4:19): tov 8É dolevolvia T TiotEl ipoo auBovEOle, 14 though it is
not usually necessary to say this, cf. 1 C. 8:9 ff.; 9:22; 2 C. 11:29, 30. It is common
to the weak in both Corinth and Rome that they lack the yvooic of the full
Christian (1 C. 8:7), and that they have not completely loosed themselves from
their pre-Christian past. In Corinth 15 they are still bound by the outh0ela tou
El86ou, in Rome 16 by the Stakplois of meats. To some extent the locus minoris
resistentiae in them is the conscience, cf. C. 8:7, 12 : ouvelonous dolEvns (dote.
voica).
d. In a further development religious dolÉvela has almost the sense of "sin."
Hb. 4:15 : apxlepÉa Suvquevov ouutalñoa tais dolEvEiai juv, "with
our many infirmities" (- 490), cf. also 7:28, where gyov XOOÉVELOV is the opp.
of TETE EIQUÉVOS and has thus the sense of moral imperfection. Sinful seems to
be the meaning of GoOEVS in R. 5:6, for ovtov nuov &oOEVov is almost synon.
with v. 8 : Éti quaptolov ovtov nuov.
2. As a special form of bodily weakness "sickness" etc. can also be the meaning
of &6OÉvELa etc. 17 Indeed, these terms are the most common NT expressions for
sickness. In secular usage vooov is sometimes added to GoOEVEG as an explanatory
inner object.18 For the most part, however, it is used absolutely, e.g., BGU,

Philosophy demands at least an awareness of one's own weakness Epict. Diss., II,
11,1: xpxh pilocopiac auvalolnais tis aUtoi do{evElac. Cf. W. Grundmann, Der
Begriff der Kraft in der nt.lichen Gedankenwelt (1932), 75, 87 f., 103 ff., 118. > suvauls.
Nageli, 46.
Cf. P. Volz, Jud. Eschat. v. Daniel bis Akiba (1903), 232; R. Kittel in Kautzsch:
straucheln ("to stumble").
10 Cf. Rauer, op. cit., 18 ff.; F Godet, Komm. zu R.2 (1892), II, 277 ff.; E. Hirsch, ZNW,
29 (1930), 75; Stahlin, 238 f., 258; F. C. Baur, Paulus I (1845), 361 ff., thought the "weak"
were Ebionites. A. Ritschl, Entstehung der altkath. Kirche? (1857), 184 ff., found a reference
to the Essenes.
11 Nageli, 77.
12 Ibid., 80.
13 Cf. Khl. R., 445.
14 Cf. Sickb., ad loc.
15 Cf. Rauer, op. cit., 27 ff.
16 Ibid., 76 ff.
17 Cf. F. S. Steinleltner, Die Beicht (-* 268, n. ), 97 f.; Reitzenstein Poim., 19 n.
18 Cf. Kuhner-Blass, I, 305b.
&00EVHS

594, 6 : uetd TOv {EpIOuov Épyo^aBhooual, apti yap dolevi. This is what we
often find in the NT, e.g., in Mk. 6:56 : Év taic ayopaic ttlleoav toug dobe.
vouvtac. In the NT ths aapkos is sometimes added to &o0ÉVELX by way of
explanation (G1. 4:13), but normally it is absolute in both the sing. and the plur., 10
e.g., at Jn. 5:5 : gyov Ev th doOEVEla; cf. Ac. 28:9: ot EXOVTES GOOEVElaC.
For Go0evs (Lk. 10:9 DEPATEUETE TOUS Ev aiTn SC. th TO EL - &OOEVEIS)
we often have 8 goOEvoV, as in the par. at Mt. 10:8 : XO{EVOUUTAC SEPOTEDETE.
Regarding the cause of sickness there are two parallel views in the NT. a. It
is the work of spirits, e.g., Mt. 17:18 and esp. Lk. 13:11: TvEua do{evElac.
b. It is the penalty of sin, esp. C. 11:30; Mk. 2:5 ff.; also Jm. 5:16. Both attempts
at explanation are widespread 20 and are often found together. For the second, cf.
esp. the penitential psalms of the OT (e.g., Ps. 31:10), 21 as also Ps. 107:17 f. and
expiatory inscriptions from Asia Minor (e.g., quapthoas KaTaTITTO EIC &o0É-
VELOV) . 22 There is an GoOéVEla Tpoc Bavatov (Jn. 11:4) as there is also a
quaptia Ttpos lavatov (1 Jn. 5:16). But there are different ways of healing
(EEpaTEUElV gTto GoOEVELGV, Lk. 5:15; 8:2). Primarily in the NT we have the
miracles of Jesus, to mueia & ÉTOlEL éTl TOv d00EVOUVTOV (Jn. 6:2), on account
of which Mt. (8:17) can sum up the work of Jesus in a literal translation and
understanding of the saying in Is. 53:4 : aitoc tac GoOEVElac nuov #aPEV kal
tac vooouc É BaTTaoEv. In place of the healing methods of Jesus (cf. Lk. 13:12 f.)
and the apostles (Mt. 10:8; Ac. 28:9), there arise in the Church others for which
parallels may be found in religious history, such as anointing with oil (and prayer)
in Jm. 5:14 (16),23 the laying on of handkerchiefs and passing under the shadow
of the apostles (Ac. 19:12; 5:15).24
3. Figuratively, Xo0ÉVeIa can also mean impotence" in the sense of "inner
poverty or "incapacity." Thus we read of the beggarly elemental spirits in
G1. 4:9 : To &00EVn Kai TtwX& otolyeia; of the inability of the Law in respect
of the salvation of men in R. 8:3: to aouvatov tou vouou, tv i HoOEVEL
aid ths oapkos; Hb. 7:18 : &0ÉTnoIs yivetal itpoaryouons Evto nc 81& to
aiTs doDEVEC Kal AVOpE éS; of the insignificance of certain members of the
body in C. 12:22: &XAd TOAS ua Aov to SoKo0vta LÉAn TOU aquatoc
dolEVEOTEpa BT&PXELV avayKaid jotiv. 25
4. Finally &o0ÉvEla can also mean "economic weakness" or literal "poverty,"
as in Ac. 20:35 : Set &vrilauB&vE laL TOV GOOEVOUVTOV, cf. Aristoph. Pax, 636 ;
Dg., 10, 5 (&o0evés).
Stahlin

19 In the plur., cf. the occasional distinction of 72 &oOÉVElaL. Cf. Anecdota Graeco-
Byzantina, ed. Vassiliev (1893), 323 ff.
20 Cf. O. Ruhle, "Krankheit," RGG2, III, 1277 ff.; Steinleitner, op. cit., 99; F. J. Dolger,
D. heilige Fisch, II (1922), 162 ff. On the whole question cf. also Jn. 9:2 and the new
answer of Jesus in v. 3.
21 Cf. H. Gunkel, Ausgewahlte Psalment (1917), passim ; H. Hehn, Sunde und Erlosung
nach bibl. u. babyl. Anschauung (1903), 12 ff.
22 Steinleitner, No. 20, p. 46.
23 Cf. Dibelius, ad loc.; - aelgo and &0vauis.
24 Cf. Chant. de la Saussaye, I, 33, 56; among the Celts etc. healing power is attributed
to contact with boly men and things.
25 Cf. Cl. Al. Strom., VI, 18, 67,5: dolEVNs BOpE&, "a poor gift."
 aaKEd

+ coKEd

In the NT this is found only at Ac. 24:16 : Év touto kal autos oki atpoako-
nov ouvelonaw Exelv upos tov Deov Kal tous avipinous did natos in the
sense of "I exercise or exert myself.' In taking pains to have conscience void
of offence towards God and man, Paul is careful to listen constantly to the
admonishing and warning voice of conscience in order not to offend God or
man and not to neglect any obligations towards them.
This sense of doKEiv is already current in classical and Hellenistic Greek,
and also in Jewish Hellenism.
Homer uses the term only in the sense of technical adornment and artistic effort.:
From the time of Herodotus and Pindar, however, it acquires the more spiritual sense of
exercising a virtue, e.g., Hdt., I, 96; VII, 209 : thy a neeiny dokÉelv; Plat. Euthyd.,
283a : ooplav kai apetnv doKeiv; Gorg., 527e : 81kal0o0vnv xai apetnv; though
naturally also in the opp. sense, as in Aesch. Prom., 1065 : Kak6mT' goKEiV. With
the acc., doKElv in this sense (e.g., in Ac. 24:16) has also an infin., e.g., Xenoph.
Cyrop., V, 5, 12 : &okov TOUG ollouc c TAElaTa dyala TolEiv; Epict. Diss.,
III, 12, 10: &oKnooV, El yopyos EL, AOLSOPOULEVOC &veyeo0ai, atuaodels un
dyOeo0nvai. An important special meaning develops in relation to ooua doKelv, i.e.,
the training of the body in the sense of gymnastic and athletic exercises ; hence doknins
d0Ants (-> &0^É∞), as may be seen clearly in Xenoph. Mem., I, 2, 19 : opi yap,
TOTED To Tou aQuatos #pya Touc un to obuata coroivtac ou buvquÉvous
TOLEIV, OUTW Kal to the puxns epya touc un thy puxnv dakoivtac of Suvaut-
Vouc. Thus gakeiv becomes synon. with > yuuva(eolat (cf. Epict. Diss., III, 10, 7:
EvEka tOUTOU €yuuva(ounv, Éri touto tokouv), or with -> HEATOV (cf. Epict.
Diss., I, 25, 31; 1 Tm. 4:7).4
The Greek world was already familiar with spiritual asceticism in the sense of
exercise in the taming of the passions and the doing of righteous acts, or of
conscious and almost technical exercise in the control of thoughts and impulses. 3
We can see this in the older Sophists, who singled out aoknois as a third factor
(alongside ouo1c and udfnois) in the process of education. 4 Further examples
are to be found especially in Epict. Diss., III, 3, 16 : kal TOUTO El ETOLOOLEV kai
Tpoc touto noKoUuE0a Kal® nuÉpov E&, 8p0pou uÉxp1 VUKT6C, ÉyIVETo &v Tl,
vi touc DEoUG, and again in IV, 1, 81; III, 2, 1, where there is mention of the
three ToTol in which the man who would be kardc kal dya06c must exercise
himself. Cf. also III, 12, 8. In Epictetus, however, we can already see indications
of the later concept of asceticism, i.e., the voluntary adoption of renunciations,
privations and self-chastenings, cf. Ench., 47.
Philo introduced both the term and the reality into theological ethics. He allots
the three functions in the Sophist doctrine of education, i.e., uaenois, puois and
&OKNOIS, to the three patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Jacob is for him the

KOKE. 1 So already in Athenagoras Suppl., 16, 1; 22, 8.

2 Cf. also the connection with uav0ovelv in Plat. Leg., VIII, 831c; Gorg., 509a.
3 K. Deissner, Das Idealbild des stoischen Weisen (1930), 5 f.; "Die Seelentechnik in der
antiken Religion u. Sittlichkeit im Lichte d. Christentums," in Von der Antike zum Christen-
tum, Festschr. f. V. Schultze (1931), 11 ff.
4 For bibl. and examples, v. P. G. Gunning, De Sophistis Graeciae praeceptoribus (Diss.
Amsterdam, 1915).
5 K. Siegfried, Philo v. Alex. (1875), 258 ff.
GOKE

model doknins - d0^nths, the spiritual wrestler (on the basis of Gn. 32:24 ff.); 6
cf. Leg. All., III, 190 Trepi0noetal mpoc tol Ta^nv hoknkotos 'lakop
ToAnv 8' 00 thi oquatoc, did' Av talalei puxh, "poc tous avtayanords
tporous autis TadEal kal kaKlaic uayouévn. Here we have the foundation of
the later ecclesiastical concept of asceticism to the degree that in this bodily and
spiritual training the emphasis lies on the taming of desires and abstention from
all enjoyment. Philo already makes the link SAtyobetav kal EyKpaTElaV GOKEIV
in Praem. Poen., 100, as also KalapdV EDGE BEIGV GoKEIv in Abr., 129.
It is from him particularly that the fathers from the time of Clement of Alexandria
and Origen, adopt both the usage and the corresponding scriptural types (Jacob etc.).
Cf. Cl. Al. Paed., I, 7, 57; Strom., I, 5, 31 (Jacob the dolnuns and doxnuns); Orig.
Cels., VII, 48 (of Christians): doKo0al Th TAVTEAn tapÉEViav; and the ancient
burial inscription : 8 Tov novaolkov dokjaas Biov. Yet already in Tat. Or. Graec., 19
there is reference to the lavatou KataopOVEiV Kai THV aUT&PKEIAV GOKEIV of the
philosophers, which they preach but do not practise. aoKnoIS is here training and
perseverance in renunciation and contempt for death. The asceticism of Christian
monasticism has one of its roots in that of the NT. But it does not take from it either
the despising of the body or the prescription of definite exercises.
Apart from Ac. 24:16, Paul never uses the word. Yet in substance we already
find in Paul this training in bodily and spiritual self-discipline and renunciation,
e.g., in C. 9:25-27, where the words - EyKpaTEUEO0aI and > UT TtLa&G Hou
TO o ua kai Soulaywyo obviously depict the GoKElv of the spiritual athlete.
This meaning is not so dramatically expressed in Ac. 24:16. It is obvious, however,
that the concern of the apostle to have a conscience void of offence is a definite
task which fully occupies him from morning to night in all the situations in which
he has dealings with God and men.
In the LXX GokElv and its derivatives are almost completely absent. Only in 2 Macc.
15:4 do we find GoKEiv Th £B8oua8a, "to keep the Sabbath" (= mpElv in
Rev. 1:3 and tapat peiv in Gl. 4:10); in 4 Macc. 13:22 &oKnols occurs in the
sense of discipline and training in the keeping of the Law: kai ateovtal 0008P6TEPOV
o& autpooias kai ts Ka0' juÉpav ouvneelac kai tis alanc naubiac Kai the
nuetÉpas kv VOLO OEOU GOKñoEDC. The word is strangely absent from the Test. XII,
though in Ep. Ar., 168 we have a statement which almost reads like a commentary on
Ac. 24:16 in its use of goKElv: OUSEV ElKn kaTaTEtaKtal 8td ins ypaons 008É
uvewodc, d1l' iva o' Blou tou giv kal Ev tais TPAEEOIV GOKDUEV BIKa100U
TPOC T&VIAS dvOPOTOuS, HELVNUEVOL TOU SUVAOTEUOVTOC 0EO0. 10 Paul gives us
an example of genuine Jewish Hellenism in Ac. 24:16 and the whole passage 24:14-18.
Cf. also what the Jew Trypho is made to say in Just. Dial.,8,3: queivov 8: hv
OlooodElv gtl IE THY TAXTOVOG f a ou tou pilooopiav doroivra kapteplav
kal awopoaunv f Abyois t§antameival DEUSÉOL KTA. This is undoubtedly the
asceticism of Gk. philosophy, which is also included in Ac. 24:16. 11

8 Cf. H. Leisegang, Indices, 124 f., 61; Siegfried, 266 ff.

7 E. Bréhier, Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d' Alexandrie (1908), 265 ff.
8 Preisigke Wort., 225.
0 For ecclesiastical usage, cf. Canon. Apost., 53; Canones Gangra, 12 f., 21 (F. Lauchert,
Die Kanones d. altkirchlichen Concilien [1896], 8, 82 f.). Cf. also Suic. Thes., S.v.
Cf. again Ep. Ar., 225 : EOvoav doKsiv; 255 : Thy EDGÉBEIaV doKEiv; 285.
11 The Gk. Sikatoabvny goKEIv is first found in Christian literature in Herm. m., 8, 10,
cf. bEoGÉBelav &oKEIv in 2 Cl., 20, 4. Both phrases express what is meant in Ac. 24:16.
The synon. EGÉBEIAV GOKEIV, according to Moult.-Mill., s.v., is found in a Paris Pap.
(63, VIII, 24), 2nd cent. B.C.
 coKed doro<ouau

It is perhaps surprising that when gaKeiv is SO common in Jewish Hellenism

and Christian literature from the time of the post-apostolic fathers, it should occur
only once in the NT, and its derivatives not at all. For Paul (cf. C. 9:25 ff.), the
author of Acts and above all the author of the Pastorals this is possibly a mere
accident. Cf. especially 1 T'm. 4:7 f., where youva(e osaurov seems to be the
equivalent of GoKEI and onuatikn yuuvaala of &oknols, just as TO SE GOKEIV
EDOÉ BELOV might well have been written for the antithetical n 8É EDGÉBEIa.
Windisch

donatoual, t ataaTagouai, sataouoc

A. donafeolal and coraouoc outside the NT.

do a(eofal (etymology uncertain) means to effect gonaou6s, i.e. mostly "to
proffer the greeting" which is customary on entering a house or meeting someone
on the street or parting. donoou6s consists in such gestures as "embracing,"1
"kissing," 2 "offering the hand," and even sometimes proskynesis 4 (-* TtpoOKU-
vElv). It also consists in words, especially a set form of greeting. There is a good
example in Herm. v., 4, 2, 2: donateral uE Éyouoa® XaipE oU, &VOPOTE, KAi
tyo authv ovinortaoqunv® Kupla, yaipe (cf. 1, 1, 4; 1, 2, 2 and Lk. 1:27, 29).
A special, official form of go aouoc is the "homage" paid to an overlord or
superior. This can be accomplished a. by a visit : Jos. Ant., 1, 290; 6, 207. gang-
geo0al can thus mean "to pay someone a ceremonious call," "to pay an official
visit to a high dignitary," 5; coraou6s itself has here the force of an "official
call," e.g., P. Flor., 296, 57: n ÉTTODELAOUEVN uuiv rtpooKu nais kai goTtaouos
you (cf. Ac. 25:13 : &otaoquevol tov onorov). Homage can also be paid b. by
acclamation, cf. Plut. Pomp., 12 (I,624e): autoxporopa tov Moumniov jond-
GOVTO, 13 (I, 625c): Heyaln povi Mayvov not&oato (cf. Mk. 15:18 in the NT).
donaouoc in a letter is a greeting from a distance, which is a substitute for
greeting and embracing in personal encounter. It expresses sincere attachment in
separation and thus serves to strengthen personal fellowship. The custom of
epistolary greeting was only gradually adopted in the sphere of Greek and Roman
culture. In letters of the pre-Christian period greetings are not too common and
there are no long series of greetings.'

damaloual K TA. 1 Plut. Tit., 11 (I, 375b): XOTa(6UEVOI KaI TEPITAEKOUEVOL.

2 Plut. Ages., 11 (I, 602b): rtpoolovtoS AC AoTaGouÉvou kai oiAnoovtos, cf. C.
16:20 etc. (-> 501); Just. Apol., I, 65, 2; Ps.-Luc. Asin., 17: piAnuaowv nonagovto arAn-
ouc.
3 Plut. Phoc., 27 (I, 753e), Cato, 13 f. (I, 765a).
4 Jos. Ant., 11, 331: (Alex. the Gt.) TpOoEAOv uovoc TT POOEK OVNOEV TO ovo ua kai
Tov apyispea mpiroc hotdoorto.
5 Instances from the pap. in Preisigke Wort., S.v. "Judisches"; for Josephus v. Schl. Mt.,
669 f.
6 Ditt. Or., 219, 42 ff.; Ditt. Syll.3, 700, 40 ff.; 798, 20 ff.
7 Cf. F. Ziemann, De epistularum Graecarum formulis solemnibus (Diss. Halle, 1911),
325 ff.: F. H. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter (Diss. Washington, 1923), 111 f.,
115, 136; O. Roller, Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (1933), 67 ff.
data ouai
Ziemann gives as the oldest instances Cic. Fam., XVI, 4, 5 (50 B.C.): Lepta tibi
salutem dicit et omnes, and P. Oxy., IV, 745 : gona(ou TaVtaC TOUC Tap" juov
(25 B.C.). Roller, 8 however, has found rather more examples both from the last four
centuries B.C. and the first century A.D. (to 70 A.D.). Thus he mentions other greetings
in Cicero, e.g.; Att., II, 9 : Terentia tibi salutem, kal KiKÉPGV o HiKpoC doTa(ETal
Titov 'A0nvalov. But only if the letters of Plato are genuine, esp. Ep. 13, do we really
have examples of the custom in the 4th century B.C., and the letter in Witkowski Epist.
priv. Graec. (1911), No. 37 (162 B.C.) is hardly relevant in relation to this custom.
Epistolary greetings are rather better attested in the oriental correspondence which
has come down to us. Thus the religious wishing of salvation is already an established
custom in the East at the time of the Amarna letters ; 8 cf. in the letter of Ribadda
(Knudtzon, No. 68): "Ribadda spoke to his lord: The lady of Gubla give power to
the king my lord or in a letter found in Taanak : 10 May the lord of the
gods protect thy life. Rather weaker is the phrase 'many greetings" (55 xpb0) in Ezr.
5:7, though this is also to be understood as a religious wish (LXX : Axpelo tO BacilEt
Elphvn itooa). More exactly this greeting corresponds to the salutations of the apostolic
letters (xapic kai Elphvn Kt.). Greetings are also found in the Aramaic pap. letters
from Elephantine (5th cent. B.C.). A special instance is the letter of Hoseh to woman
Slwh, 11 which consist almost entirely of greetings: "The gods ask concerning thy
salvation Go2p 12ND and concerning the salvation (obri) of my lord Menachem . . .
This shows that the religious wishing of salvation in letters, of which the Gk. gora-
gouai, cora(ou, etc. is a secularised form, was customary in pre-Ptolemaic Judaism.

The basic meaning of the term seems to be "to embrace." It denotes the
embrace of greeting as well as the erotic embrace of love, Plat. Symp., 209b :
to . . . oouata ta KaAa gonaetai. That this meaning is echoed in epistolary
greeting is shown in Ps.-Plato, Ep., 13 (363d): kai TOUC FUgpXIPLATAS SATaYOu
UTtED Éuo0, "embrace our fellow-players in my place." 12 From this original con-
crete meaning the more general sense follows, a. with a personal object, "to be
fond of someone," "to like someone,' "to agree to something," "to pay one's
respects to someone (Plat. Ap., 29d. : 8r1 Eyo ouas, & &vopec "Aenvaior, dona-
gouat uev kai IA6); b. with a material object, "to give oneself gladly to some-
thing," e.g., Ps.-Xenoph., Ep., 1, 2: coplav dota(ealat; Just. Apol., I, 39, 5; 45, 5;
Test. G. 3:3 : kata aAid CoTaCETAI, "to accept with pleasure a situation or
event," Eur. Ion., 587: kyo 8É Thy LEv onuoopov aoraqouai; Jos. Ant., 6, 82 :
Exotloc 8É TOUTOV HEV HOTALETO THU EUVOLAV KAL Thy rEpl autov itpo@uulav;
7, 187: toug Aoyouc dotaoquevog; "to welcome a given factor or a prospect."
Hb. 11:13: un KOULO&UEVOL tac Errayyelias, ahia roppaleV airas ISOvtEc
Kai &oT&oQUEVOI (sc. the promised city of 11:10), is mostly interpreted along
these lines, but there seems to be rather closer analogy to greeting from a distance,
cf. Plat. Charm., 153b : kal HE ic Elbov slolovra 18 aT pooboKntou Eo0iC Top-
PoleN hoTagovto Xos aNolEV. conaquoc has the corresponding meaning of

Op. cit., 472 ff., n. 312.

A suggestion of v. Rad.
10 AOT, 371.
11 P. 13, 462 in E. Sachau, Aramaische Papyri und Ostraka aus Elephantine (1911),
58 f.; W. Staerk, Alte und neue aramaische Papyri, KI. T. 94 (1912), 68 f.; A. Cowley,
Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (1923), No. 39.
The rendering given by O. Apelt in his Platons Briefe (1918), 109 : "Give my sincere
greetings •.., can hardly be right.
498
dora(oual

"embrace," "love,' e.g., Plat. Leg., XI, 919e : TG ÉKEIvv uloEt TE kai doraoue;
b. 'greeting," "visit, P. Oxy., 471, 67; P. Flor., 296, 57.18
In the LXX proper donageo0al occurs only once at Ex. 18:7 in transl. of nibo> 287,
"to ask concerning the welfare." The whole passage introduces fairly fully the customary
greetings on visit :14 2EñA0eV 8É Mouoñs Eic ouvavinolv To yauBp@, kai
TIPOOEKUVNOEV aitd kal Éolinoev aurov, kai horaaavto alAnious. 15 donaou6c
is not found at all in the LXX. doTa(0al in this sense is more common in the
Apocrypha : Tob. 5:10; 9:6; 10:12 x of the parting greeting &TaoTaoQuEVOS, with the
parting word Bodie Eic sipnvnv; Macc. 7:29, 33; 11:6; 12:17; 3 Macc. 1:8 of solemn
meeting and accompaniment, as in Jos. Vit., 325. In Ep. Ar. &oT&(e0aL is used of the
greeting of the king by ambassadors after their return (173), of the greeting of an
embassy by the king (179), and of a friendly gesture of the king to his guests at table
when they have given good answers to his questions (235). donaouos is the greeting
at the beginning of an audience or session (246) and the attendance owed to the king
at the commencement of the working day (304). In Philo goTa(eF0aL occurs only
once 16 in Rer. Div. Her., 44 : cryarnoov oiv apetas Kai dotaral wuxn th JEXUT0O
Kai oilnoov ovtos kai nklota Boulñon to oiliac Tapakouua (caricature)
TOLEIV, KATAOIAEIV, cf. 40-43; the meaning is consciously spiritualised to signify
spiritual embrace or reception, being connected with the winning of non-erotic love.
doraou6c is not found at all in Philo.
B. In the NT,
1. Jesus' Rules of Greeting.
For the Jews greeting is an important ceremony. This may be seen from Jesus
accusation that the scribes love touc donaououc tv tais cyopais (Mk. 12:38;
Mt. 23:6 f.; Lk. 20:46; 11:43). Like the seat of honour in the synagogue or at a
feast, greeting in the market-place is one of the distinctions to which rabbis raise
claim by reason of the dignity of their office. A greeting is given on the street
when T2y bit is first addressed to the one who is to be honoured. In their desire
for a greeting, the rabbis want to be greeted first and therefore publicly re-
cognised as superiors (cf. Alexander and the high-priest in Jos. Ant., 11, 331,
496, n. 4). Censuring the claim of the rabbis to donaou6c, Jesus does not
wish his disciples to be honoured by greetings but rather to greet others. It is
known that this basic principle was taught and practised by many rabbis, espe-
cially Jochanan ben Zakkai. 17
To offer rabbis the donaou6s coveted by them was the impulse of all pious Jews.
Only once (Mk. 9:15) do we read that the multitude respectfully greeted Jesus :
186VtES aitov tElauBi0noav, kai ipoatpEXOVtES horaYovto airov. But there
is frequent mention of * TUPOGKUVELV before Jesus, and this is a particularly respectful
form of gonaou6s. The caricature of such greeting is the mocking of Jesus as the King
of the Jews in Mk. 15:18 f. : kai fipgavio dona(ealal aitov® xaipe, BaoiEd Tov
'loudaloy® kal TLOEVTEC to yovato T POOEKOVOUV auto (dota(ea0a here
means to acclaim, y 496.

13 496; Preisigke Wort., s.v.; very rare in the pap.

14 On the Heb. ceremonies of greeting, cf. G. B. Winer, Bibl. Realworterbuch, s.v. "Hof-
lichkeit"; RE3 VII, 217 f.; BW, s.v. "Gruss.'
15 Ges.-Buhl, S.v. kW. There is a literal transl. in Ju. 18:15 B: kal ppomaav aurov glc
Elpivnv (R :honaaavto aurov).
18 H. Leisegang told me this personally ; the word does not occur in his Index to Philo.
17 Str.-B., I, 382.
doTta(oual

According to Mt. 5:47 the dota(e Oal of brothers is also customary among
the heathen ; it is a natural sign of the fellowship created by kinship and friendship.
Jesus desires that we should greet on the street those who are not our brothers,
and even our enemies, and thus draw them into the circle of our fellowship, not
recognising the enmity. In just the same way R. Jochanan ben Zakkai tried to be
the first to extend greetings even to a Goy (bBer., 17a).
How seriously Jesus took this matter of don&(E 0xL may be seen finally from
the rule which He gave His envoys in Mt. 10:12 f.; Lk. 10:5 (for the doraoao0e
aitnv of Mt. Lk. has the more concrete TOTov AÉYETE' sipnin to olko TOUT).
The point at issue is that of greeting on entry into a strange house. 18 The
customary sipiin oot is the word of greeting. 19 This peace is presented quite
realistically as a dynamis. If the family is worthy of it, i.e., if the messenger is
received accordingly (Mt.), then the power of the greeting comes on it as the
Spirit comes on man, 20 or blood 21 or a curse to his destruction. 22 Otherwise
the siphvn of the disciples will return to them. This part of their power of sipñvn
will not, then, remain in the house, but will come back to the disciples for other
use. 23 The siphvn is thus a power with which the disciples can spread blessing
but the withdrawal of which has the force of a curse. The power is linked with
the word and corresponding gesture.2 The greeting of apostles who are endued
with ÉEovoia (Mt. 10:1) Sovauic is thus a sacramental action. 25
In a certain contrast to this high estimation of the greeting is the prohibition in
Lk. 10:4: undÉva kata thy 88ov coTtaono0e (without par.), i.e., Do not allow
yourselves to be held up on the way by time-wasting ceremonies, do not enter
into conversations on the streets, but hasten to the place where you are to stay
and work (anal. 2K. 4:29). The disciples are thus forbidden to make contacts by
greeting in the course of their actual journeys. 26
2. The Gonaou6s in Religious Narrative.
According to Lk. 1:29 Mary wonders concerning the greeting of the angelr
TOTaTOC EIn 6 doraouoc ottoc (dotaouos is here a word of greeting). Each
greeting has in fact its own ring. The Greek yaipe (-* 496), punningly deepened
by KEXapITOLÉVN, is related to the biblical 8 KUpIO© LETO 00U of Ju. 6:12; Rt. 2:4.
In the doTaouos there is proclaimed already something of the wonderful message
of grace which the future mother of Christ is at once to receive.

18 Cf. Lk. 1:28 f., the danaouos of the angel in the house of Mary ; Lk. 1:40 f., the
goTtaouos of Mary in the house of Elisabeth ; Herm. v., 1, 2, 2, the dotaouos of the
ecclesia ibid., 4, 2, 2; 5, 1, that of the Shepherd at the bed of Hermas.
10 Str. B., I, 388 f., Schl. Mt., 333.
20 Mt. 3:16; Ac. 19:6; Lk. 11:2 Marcion.
21 Mt. 23:35; 27:25.
22 L. Brun, Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (1932), 33. Cf. Gn. 27:13; Ju. 9:57;
o 108:17; Da. 9:11.
28 Lk. (10:6) writes : If there is there uloc elpnyns, i.e., a man to whom the Elonvn
can cleave ; and then in the next sentence : ÉravaTta oEtal Ént' autov f Elpñv Duov.
He is really thinking of the VEDua, cf. Nu. 11:25 f.; Is. 11:2; 1 Pt. 4:14.
24 Cf. the anal. ceremony of shaking off the dust in Mt. 10:14 and par. and Ac. 18:6,
where the gesture seems to be linked with a curse. The house is thus given up to judgment.
25 C. Clemen, Die Reste der primitiven Religion im altesten Christentum (1916), 20 f.;
L. Brun, Segen und Fluch, 33; A. Merx, Ev. Mt. (1902), 116.
26 Hence J. Wellhausen, Das Ev. Lucae (1904), 40 : Do not make yourselves known
before the time. The forbidding of XaipEIv AEYEIV in 2 Jn. 10 is for other reasons.
 dora(ouat

A second greeting of profoundest importance and remarkable power is that

with which Mary greets Elisabeth in Lk. 1:40-44. We are not told how it runs,
but the oovn tou donaouot of Mary stirs the child John in his mother's womb ;
it reveals to him the nearness of the mother of Christ. Through the greeting
Elisabeth herself is filled with the "Holy Ghost." Thus here again there operates in
the greeting a dynamis of divine character.
3. The Greeting of the Apostle.
In Ac. it is often emphasised that the apostle greets a congregation either on
arrival (18:22; 21:7, 19) or at parting (20:1; 21:6). At Ac. 18:22 ovaBac kal
dOTAO&UEVOS THU exk^nolav simply means that he visited the church. 27 On the
other hand, KaTThOquEV Elc Nto^euaiba Kai dOTaoqUEVOl TOUC ASEADOUG
quelvauEv nuÉparv ulav rap' airoic at 21:7 lays a certain emphasis on the scene
of the greeting, i.e., in the assembly, while at 21:19 the report is preceded by
solemn greeting of the elders assembled in the house of James. Similarly, the
greeting is significant at parting. According to Ac. 20:1 the danaoaalal or parting
greeting forms the conclusion of an exhortation to the assembled disciples. At
21:6, they knelt for prayer on the shore, and then parting from one another
(attnotaoque0or 28 a Aiious) took place prior to going aboard the ship. This
moving ceremony would consist of embracing, kissing and the wishing of peace.
The initial greeting of the apostle would again consist in a XxipETE (Lk. 1:28; 2 Jn. 10
(-> xalperv) or an elpñvn outv (- elpñv), as at the beginning of an address of
greeting : though it may be that some of the greetings found at the beginning of the
epistles (xapis outv kai Elphvn Kt/.) were also used. The concluding greeting would
be elpñvn buiv or OT&YETE EIS Elpnvnv, as at the end of epistles (Gl. 6:16; Eph. 6:23;
Pt. 5:14; 3 Jn. 15).

4. The doraquos in Epistles.

In the NT the most common use of doTagE DaL is as an epistolary formula
(47 times against 13 others). It occurs in almost all the epistles ; the only ex-
ceptions are GI., where relations were temporarily very strained, Eph., 1 Tm. and
the Catholic Epistles Jm., 2 Pt., Jd. and I Jn. If our conclusion is correct that the
custom of greeting in letters was rare prior to 70 A.D., Paul seems to have been
the first to see great significance in it. 29 He welcomed it as an expression of the
particular affection which he bore churches as a Christian and an apostle. It may
be, however, that in the environment in which he grew up, and particularly his
Jewish surroundings, the habit of epistolary greeting had been more fully adopted
than we are now in a position to show - 497).
We distinguish an imperative and an indicative form. In the imperative a. gond-
oa00e is the most common term. The writer asks his readers, whether individuals or
groups loved and esteemed by him, to present his greetings from a distance, as in the
long series in R. 16:3 ff.; Col. 4:15: kal Noupav Kal Thy Kat' olkov adTs EK-
kAnolav; Hb. 13:24 : TavtaS TOUg nyouuévous (only here is prominence given to

27 Either Caesarea or Jerusalem.

28 anaanaaaolal, a rare word, cf. Tob. 10:12 &; it is not found in Preisigke Wort.; cf.
Pr.-Bauer, 128.
29 Roller, op. cit.
dona(oual

the leaders as compared with the whole community, cf. Ign. Sm., 12,2 : gona(oual
Tov ETtlakottov kat TEPEOBUTÉPLOV kal touc 81ak6vouc); b. gonaoaale
as a greeting to all the members of the community, Phil. 4:21: Trovta &ylov Ev Xpiot
'Inoou ; Col. 4:15 : ToUC Ev Aaobikia &8e pous; 1 Th. 5:26 : touc A8EApOUg TOVTAC;
Hb. 13:24: kal naviac touc fylouc. This formula does not occur in Ign. The greeting
is naturally restricted to words. That purely human relations and evaluations are not
expressed in it is plain from the characterisation of those who receive it. Either achieve-
ments are emphasised, as in R. 16, or they are described as saints and brothers, as in
Phil. 4:21; Col. 4:15; 1 Th. 5:26. The greeting expresses and strengthens the bond of
fellowship with those who are engaged in the same task and who serve the same Lord,
i.e., with saints and brothers (cf. Jn. 1:3). A variant of b. is C. the demand to the
whole congregation dordaao0s glhouc ev dylo ot nuat, C. 16:20; 2 C. 13:12;
R. 16:16; Pt. 5:14; cf. also 1 Th. 5:26: &OT&aaa(E TOUG &OEADOUG TOVTAS Ev
oi nuat dylo. Here there is added to the greeting the gesture of -> ot^nua, 30 which
is naturally linked with embracing, so that we may translate "Embrace one another
with the holy kiss" (-> 496, n. 2). It is to be assumed that the holy kiss was customary
in the churches (Just. Apol., I, 65, 2). Hence the distinctive feature is that on the reading
of the letter it should take place at the request of the absent apostle. The fellowship
with one another and with him which is strengthened by obedient reading (cf. I Jo. 1:3)
will then be sealed by the reciprocal ceremony. This dora(eo0al, too, has within
itself holy dynamis and borders on a sacramental action. Finally, in letters to in-
dividuals d. we have the sing. &onacal, e.g., at 2 T'm. 4:19, which is just a friendly
greeting at Tt. 3:15 : &amacai touc oilouvrac quas EV TOOTEL, where the greeting
is restricted to believing friends ; 31 and at 3 Jn. 15 : &a acal TOUG oliouc kat' &voua,
which is a purely secular formula. 32
Indicative greetings are introduced either by dora(oual, which is found only in
Ign. 33 and corresponds to Paul's GoTdogo(e, or by cora(etal and dana(ovtal.
They occur a. when individual fellow-Christians, absent at the time of writing, deliver
their greetings. These are either mentioned by name (1 C. 16:19; R. 16:21-23, where we
have the rare instance of a greeting in the first person : goto(oua ouas kyo, from
the actual scribe; 3 Col. 4:10, 12, 14; Phlm. 23 f.; 2 Tm. 4:21), or referred to generally
(Phil. 4:21: of ouv quol &8elool; Tt. 3:15: of uet' Éuoi TOVTES; 1 C. 16:20: of
d8eApol TovtEc). Such greetings help to give the readers a concrete picture of the
situation in which the epistle is written and to include the friends and assistants of the
apostle in the fellowship which he enjoys with them. b. Individual groups in the con-
gregation may send their greetings where there is some particular relationship (Phil.
4:22 : ua^lota 6E of Ex Kaloapos olkiac; Hb. 13:24: of ano tis 'ItaAlas;
2 Jn. 13 : to TEKva tis ade pic oou (if these are nieces); 3 Jn. 15: of ollot; Ign.
Mg., 15 : 'EoÉolol & to Euopvns. Again c. the whole church where the apostle is
staying when he writes may send greetings to the church to which he writes : of gyiot
TOVTES, 2 C. 13:12; Phil. 4:22; 1 Pt. 5:13 : f tv BaBuAGVI OUVEKAEKTY (if this is the
church in Babylon); 2 Jn. 13 (if the sister is the church). It is here assumed that the
church knows of the despatch of the epistle and has asked the apostle to send greetings.
Furthermore d. there are ecumenical greetings, as in C. 16:19: dora(ovrai duac al
txkAnolal ths 'Aolas, and even more comprehensively in R. 16:16 : ... al ExkAnolau

30 Wnd. 2 C., 427; R. Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Urchrtt. (1930), 148; F.J. Dolger, in
Antike u. Christentum, (1930), 195 f.; (1932), 79 f.
31 Cf. P. Fay, 118.
32 Examples are given in Ziemann, 329 f.; Pr.-Bauer, 185.
83 This donatoual is directed either to the church (as in the introd. to Mg., Tr., Phld.,
Tr., 12, Pol., 8, 2), or to groups (as in Sm., 13, 1; Pol., 8, 2), or to individuals (as in Sm.,
12, 1; 13, 2; Pol., 8, 2 f.).
34 Cf. P. Oxy., 1067, 25 : koryo *AÉEarvopoc dora(oual buas ToMc.
 dora oual - doriAoc

TaGal ToU XPLoT00. In the first case Paul speaks for the churches of the province"
of Asia, in the latter for all churches everywhere. He has no particular charge to do
this, but is simply expressing the sure and certain fact that the churches are aware of
their fellowship of faith with the church to which he writes. R. 16:16 is so strongly
ecumenical or catholic that it may almost be asked whether it was not added in the
later "catholic" redaction. 35 Ign. Mg., 15 may be quoted in the same connection: kai
al lottal 6É ExKAnolal Ev tun '1noot Xpiotot dora(ovial juas.
Finally, we have a distinctive greeting e. in the formula : o conaouos th tun yepl
(IlauAou) in 2 Th. 3:17; 1 C. 16:21; Col. 4:18. According to 2 Th. 3:17 this is a InUElov
of authenticity in every letter. 36 It is a greeting in the apostle's own hand which is
part of the normal style of letter and yet which is also a requirement of the apostle,
being materially identical with an Gondaao0E (sc. from me) or an aonagouai. The
phrase gives to his greeting a certain solemnity. He performs the ceremony with a full
sense of its inner significance. A striking feature is that this donaou6s, i.e., the
formula introduced, does not in fact occur in every letter. 37 Yet there can have been no
rigidity about this, and we must also remember that many earlier and later letters of
Paul which have perished probably contained it. Above all, he may well have added
his own greeting or conclusion even in letters which do not have the formula : this
would be recognisable only in the original MS (cf. Gl. 6:11 ff.; R. 16:17-20). 38
Windisch

t gantloG
1. "Without spot," "blameless," hence cultically "free from blemish,' like the selected
white horses of Elagabal in Herodian V, 6, 16; or stones : JyIEic EUKOUG GOTIAOUS,
IG, II, 5, 1054c, 4 (Eleusis C. 300 B.C.); unAov Anth. Pal., VI, 252, 3 (Antiphil.); Preis.
Zaub., XIII (Leiden),1 369 f.: O0e A(E)ukov GAéKTOpa &antiAov.
In Pt. 1:19 we have the phrase : "Redeemed by the precious blood os auvot
auouou kai doriiou Xpiotoo." The metaphor does not exclude but includes the
thought of the sinlessness of Jesus. The holy God accepts only what is morally
blameless. Hence this usage links with that which follows.
2. "Morally pure." This is found only in biblical literature and that influenced
by it. 2 In the OT only Symmachus uses the word at Job 15:15 (deviating from
the original 7287 x2 109722). It is found in Im. 1:27: GOTLAON ÉAUTOV TPEIV ATO
tou Koouou; 2 Pt. 3:14 : &omiAo Kai quountol sopsonvau; 1 Tm. 6:14: thy
‡vto nv &oilov inpñoal. The term illustrates the way in which the NT gives
new religious and moral content to originally cultic concepts.
Oepke

35 Though cf. the no less comprehensive ecumenical statements in 1 Th. 1:6-8; R. 1:8.
86 Cf. Dob. Th. and Dib. Th., ad loc.
37 Cf., however, Roller, 70 ff., 78, 505 f. (n. 351 f.); also C. G. Bruns, "Die Unterschriften
in den rom. Rechtsurkunden" (AAB, 1876).
38 Cf. Roller, 72 f., 500 f. (n. 340 f.).
*TIAOS. 1 Cf. A. Dieterich, Abracas (1891), 170, 14 f.
2 P. Grenf., II, 113 of the Virgin.
ROTaTED - dothp

+ ROTATED

"To be unsteady or restless." a. act. of a flickering glance : Hippiatrica, III, 3;

morally "unreliable," "vacillating," Vett. Val., II, 37, p. 116, 30 : no^oKoto kal
dotatoUvtes TtEpi touc yquous; esp. for the fickleness of fortune we have the
adj. &otatog : Epicur. Ad Men., 3, 133; Ps.-Plut. Cons. ad Apoll., 5 (II, 103 f.);
Jos. Ant., 20, 57: TO the txns dotatov. b. pass. 'to be set in commotion," Plut.
Crass., 17 (I, 553b): doTatouons XElLOv The eal&oos, also spiritually dotatoc
Kai erlooBoc, Vett. Val., II, 2, p. 57, 6. C. "to wander around unsteadily, either
act. or pass.; this is rare in secular usage, though cf. 'A Is. 58:7: catatoivtac
LXX goréyous Mas. 077779, "the homeless" (for which we should perhaps
read a he, "the wandering").
Among various bodily and spiritual sufferings listed by Paul in 1 C. 4:11 we
read : Kai dotatoDuev. The meaning here is "we have no fixed abode." 1 Yet
we should not emphasise too strongly the element of "wandering," 2 for, although
this fits the sarcastic style of the whole section, it imparts rather too activist
character. The opp. Evonuñoat pos tov Kupiov in C. 5:8 is in keeping with
this sense.
Oepke

comp, dotpov

dothp almost always denotes a single "star," whereas &otpov can also be used for
"constellation." 1

For the ancients, stars were "beings." In virtue of their spiritual constitution the
Greeks regarded them as deities. Typical is the statement of Philo, who reproduced
the view of Greek philosophy, Op. Mund., 73 : 0f tol (of GoTéDES) yap gO& TE
Elval AÉyovtal kal goa voep&, uarAov Sg VOUG aUToc EKaCTOG, S1Oc 81 81ov
FrouBaiog kal TaUTOG IVETISEKTOC KaK0U. 2 Plat. Ap., 26d : 006É MAlov oude
DEAnvv &pa voulga deouc elvai, banep oi Xilot &v0 poTol. 3 On the other
hand, for the OT and later Rabbinic Judaism the stars receive and execute the
divine commands and declare the divine glory, Is. 40:26; 45:12; Ps. 19:1, 5 f.;
148:3; Gk. Sir. 43:9 f.; Apcr. Bar. 3:34 f.; Ep. Jer. 59; Eth. En. 18:13 ff.; 21:1 ff.;
41:5; 86:1 ff.; 4 Esr. 6:3; Gn. r., 6 on 1:44. What obeys the command of God is

K TATED. 1 Theophyl.: Elauv6uEla, PEUYOEV.

2 Field, cf. Moult.-Mill.
3 Cf. ÉBaciEUGATE in v. 8, and on this pt. Joh. W. 1K. and Sickb. K., 22.

astorit.fo. Ceramiple i ier in F. steini Boll, are Aus

aO 99,
lmliedsiao
iulr 1; ZNW,
d. Offenb.
nsnd tnbs
ei iae
18
context, in Catal. Cod. Astr. Graec., III, 30 : 8Ei YIVGOKEL (V) 8TL TOV KaO' EV(a) Kapov
v Topoc EV LOBIOV BAOIAEDEI o0x opualikic bt kai KUkAlKOg n Bacilela
kukAot TOv autov, alAd kard SixTT0 nV Tiva Baluov a^os dothp allote Baat-
leUEI, dothp here refers to a zodiac.
v. E. Pfeiffer, Studien zum antiken Sternglauben (1916).
8 The continuation, in which Socrates alludes to Anaxagoras, provides the necessary
qualification of the general view mentioned above.
The moon has transgressed the command of God and penetrated the sphere of the sun :
it is thus reduced in size.
 comp

not dead, even though it be the world of atoms. 5 This is expressed in pseud-
epigraphical literature by the idea of angels set above the stars: Eth. En. 72:3;
75:3; 80:1, 6; Sl. En. 19:5; Test. Ad. 4:10. In 1 C. 15:40 f. we are led by the use of
the term Qua, a parallel to living earthly oduara, and also by the context
(rtolo bE Obuat Epyovtai ol vexpot), to the conclusion that for Paul, too, the
stars are (oa. Up to v. 41 he is giving images of the resurrection of human bodies.
Hence we are not to think that for him the stellar form of existence is psychically
or spiritually nearer to God. He stands rather in the OT tradition.
In apocalyptic contexts there is reference to the fall of stars from heaven
(Mk. 13:25 and par. and Rev. 6:13, cf. Is. 34:4). Rev. 8:12 also speaks of the
obscuring of some of the stars, for which there are many biblical and later Jewish
parallels. & In Rev. 12:4 there is a reminiscence of Da. 8:10. In Rev. 8:10 the great-
ness and origin of their harmful working are symbolically depicted, while in the
related image in Rev. 9:1 the star seems to represent living being, perhaps a
fallen (?) angel. 7 The seven stars of Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1 are either to be
identified with the 7 planets which astrological belief supposed to be the shapers
of destiny, 8 or with the Great or Little Bear as the ruler of the world. 8 Yet it
is to be considered that the candlesticks mentioned in Philo, 10 Josephus 11 and
the Rabbis 12 are perhaps identical with 7 stars, so that Rev. is keeping to the
image of the candlestick, and a parallelism may be discerned between the images
for the &yyelo (= 86) and the ExkAnolai. The image of the 12 stars is based
on the zodiac, though related to the 12 tribes. 18
What is meant by the reference to the morning star in Rev. 2:28 : kal &6ow auto
rov dotepa rov ipwivov, and 22:16 : Éyo elu o comp 6 Aqurpoc 6 upoivos,
it is hard to say. Lohmeyer 14 attempts the equation of this star with the Holy Spirit.
Boll 15 takes the first passage to mean that "He will have the strongest of the stellar
angels as His servant. Schlatter 16 sees a current image for the dawn of the time of
salvation. That the morning star occupies a prominent position may be seen from
Preis. Zaub., IV, 3045/7: opklXo TE Geov pwaoopov, coauaorov, to Ev kapoia
Toons Yons Enlotquevov. But there is also an old tradition that it was created before
all other creatures. At W 109:3 LXX rendered the obscure text: 1t po £∞ao6pou
LEeyÉwnox TE E 93 ante luciferum. Aug. Serm., 119, 14 (p. 260, Mai) took this to
mean ante omnem creaturam. 17 At Rev. 22:16 it would then be the equivalent of apxh

The natural laws in which the commands of God clothe themselves to human vision
both conceal and reveal this.
6 Is. 13:10; Ez. 32:7; J1. 2:10; 4:15; Ass. Mos. 10:5; Str.-B., IV, 977 ff.
Cf. Eth. En. 86:1.
8 Sen. Dial., VI, 18, 3 in Pauly-W., II, 1813.
9 Suet. Aug., 80; Pauly-W., II, 1821; the work of Bolos of Mendes mentioned in Pauly-
W., II, 1815; H. Cohen, Descr. hist. des monnaies trappées sous T empire Romain" (1880 ff.):
Hadrian, 507; Commodus, 245, 714; Loh. Apk. on 1:16.
10 Rer. Div. Her., 221.
11 Bell., 5, 217; Ant., 3, 146.
12 Str. B., III, 717.
13 So also Bass Apk., ad loc. and Boll, Aus d. Offenbarung Joh., 99 ff.
14 Apk., ad loc.
15 Op. cit., 47 f.
16 D. AT in d. joh. Apk. (1910), 51 f.; also Charles I, 77; cf. Rohr, ad loc.
17 Cf. also 174, 1 (p. 391) and Prosp. in Ps. 109:3 (cf. F. Blatt, "Die lat. Bearbeitungen
d. Act. And. et Mtth. apud anthropophagos," Beih. z. ZNW, 12 [1930), 121).
gomp - dotparn
TAINS KTIOEOG. Only a systematic investigation of the nature of the whole imagery
of Rev. could give us any certainty in the matter.
As regards the star which appeared to the wise men, we have many instances of
special heavenly manifestations which herald the birth of great rulers according to
ancient belief. 18 Furthermore, on the basis of Nu. 24:17, later Judaism symbolised its
Messianic expectations in a star. 19 Yet we still cannot be sure what the wise men saw
or are reported to have seen, or how they interpreted it astrologically. O. Gerhardt 20
attempts such an interpretation ; he suggests that they saw the Jews' star Saturn in a
particular conjunction.
Foerster

+ dotpann

"Lightning," also "beam of light" (Lk. 11:36).1 The word is often employed
as a comparison in the NT. Thus it is used of the Easter angel in Mt. 28:3. In
Lk. 10:18 : 20epoUv tOv aaTaV&V ic dotpaTnv eK tou oupavoi TEooVIO, the
point of comparison is the suddenness of the divine working. 3 In Mt. 24:27 and
par. : Gonep yap i dotpatn BLEEPXETAL ATO avatolov kai palvetal gooc
buoudv, outos Eotal i rtapovola tou viot TOU &vOpoou, it is the inescapable
visibility + and divine suddenness (?) of the coming of the Son of Man.
In the symbolical language of the Apocalypse (4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18) the men-
tion of lightning is a link with OT theophanies. There are also echoes of the
plagues of Egypt in the last three passages. The phenomena here mentioned
(lightning, thunder, voices, hail and earthquakes) form a climax at the end of the
three series of seven plagues and are meant to show that the Lord of nature
stands behind the plagues, in which He reveals to created humanity on earth His
supremacy and severity. Hence the same phenomena are encountered in 4:5,
whereas they do not occur at the final judgment seat of God (20:11 ff.; cf.
19:11 ff.).
Foerster

18 Herodian Hist., I, 14, 1; Plin. Hist. Nat., II, 28. For the birth star of Mithridates,
Justinus Epit., XXXVII, 2, 1 f.; for Augustus, Suet. Aug., 94, 5; Dio C., XLV, 1, 3; for
Alexander Severus, Lampridius, Alex. Sever., 13, 1 f. (in Script. Hist. Aug.). Cf. Schol. in
Verg. Buc., IX, 47: astrum; id est imperare coepit.
10 For the Messianic understanding of the star in Nu. 24:17, v. the Rabbinic passages in
Str. B., I, 13c, 76 f. Simon's coins after the revolt of 132 carry star. For the later period,
cf. H. W. Beyer and H. Lietzmann, Die jud. Katakombe der Villa Torlonia (1930), 24;
also Damasc., 7, 18 f.; also K. H. Rengstorf, ZNW, 31 (1932), 37 ff., 42.
20 D. Stern d. Messias (1922).
x at amn. Aesch. Fr., 386.
2 Cf. Da. 10:6.
3 F. Spitta, ZNW, 9 (1908), 160 ff. sees here the reference to descent of Satan to do
battle against the kingdom of God, while the parallel passage in Rev. 12:9 refers to the
future. But this is unlikely.
4 Ps. 77:18; 97:4; Lv. r., 31 on 24:1 (Str.-B., I, 954, n. 2); Tanch 70129.2, 7, 48 (Schl. Mt.,
ad loc.); the lightning illumines the earth.
6 Esp. Ex. 19:16 ff.; cf. Ju. 5:4 f.; 2 S. 22:8 ff.; Ez. 1:13; Hab. 3:3 ff.; Ps. 18:7 ff.; 77:16 ff.;
97:2 ff.
 doDg EIa - gowtoc

dotpov -> dotp COUVETOC > ouvinu

CODG ELO, dopa\ns,

copalds, doparitw
All four words are current in earlier and later Gk. in the sense of "firmness,"
"certainty," "firm," "certain,' "to make firm" or "certain.' They are used with
the same meaning in the LXX and NT.
Lk. 1:4 : oywv thy dooa elav "the reliability of the words or teachings,"
reminds us of Xenoph. Mem., 6, 15 : goo&^sia Abyou.2 To this there corresponds
Ac. 25:26 : copa^és tL ypauat, and again Ac. 21:34; 22:30 : yvoval to cooarÉs
= "to know the truth.' The reference in Ac. 2:36 : gooa^ds yIVOOKéTO TaC
olkos 'lopan\, is to "certain, solid, or reliable knowledge." 1 Th. 5:3 has dooa-
Aela with Eipñvn in the sense of the security to which men should not yield in
view of current eschatological events.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt

+ dowtos, t dowria

Used in essentially the same sense from class. to Byzant. times. Aristot. Eth. Nic.,
IV, 1, p. 1119b, 31 ff.: touc yap axpateis kai eig aroaaiav Batavpoic dad-
TOUG KaAODUEV. 810 Kai paulotatol okoiolv Elvai® ntolias yap qua kakiac
Eyouolv. 00 8n oiKeloc T poga yopE ovral® BoUlEtaL yap dowToc ElvaI 8 gV TI
KaKOv ÉXOv, to pOeipElV Thy ovalav® cowtos yap 8 8t' aUTOV &TOAAOUEVOS,
SoKEt 8' anoleia TIC autoi Elval Kai n ths odolas plopa, oc TOO giv Sid
TOUTOV ovtos. The original meaning is a. "incurable": AoTw EXElV, to be hopeless-
ly sick, Aristot. Probl., 33, 9, p. 962b, 5; Plut. Quaest. Nat., 26 (II, 918d).1 gogtoc
then denotes b. "one who by his manner of life, esp. by dissipation, destroys himself" ;
&ootia thus has the sense of 'dissipation." This is the most common sense and there-
fore the only one found in definitions and comparisons, Plat. Resp., VIII, 560e, Aristot.
Eth. Nic., II,7, p. 1107b, 8 ff. : TEpi 8É 8661 xpnuatov kai Añutv uEoots uEV
É EU0EPIOTNS, UTEPBoAn SE Kai #ElIC dowria kal &vE suO pia. Plut. Adulat., 19
(II, 60d); Inim. Util., 5 (II, 88 f.), in both cases comparing gowtoc and oVE EUBEpoS;
Plut. Pelop., 3, 2 (I, 279b); Galb., 16, (1, 1060b), comparing cootia with utkpoloyia;
also in the collection of stories of &OWTOI, Athen., IV, 59 ff,
Yet the words also come to have derived and special meanings, perhaps, as Arist.
maintains (supra), because hopeless dissipation is linked with other vices, or perhaps
because of the influence of the original sense of incurable. 2 At any rate, the term

gOOXAEIA K TA. 1 Root coal- with a privativum.

goog sia is also used as a tech. legal term for "certainty" in Epict. Diss., II, 13, 7
and pap.
Meyer's rendering of &ooaleia as "full certainty of faith" in Ursprung, I, 10 (Lk. 1:4)
is perhaps a little exaggerated, but gives the right impression.
aF0T S. & outia. KI. Lk. and Zn. Lk. on 15:13.
Cf. also Cyr. Hom., XIV (MPG, 77, 1073): dowrotooias olvou, the unhealthy and
immoderate drinking of wine.
This derivation is already forgotten in Cl. Al. Paed., II, 1, 7, 5, where there is a con-
cealed allusion to dowatos.
aalTOC - aiya(o

suggests something unusual and unhealthy. Thus & wtoc is c. the "glutton" and
soutla "gluttony." Dio C., LXXV, 15,7: gowrotatoe tE & v0 potov yEVOUEVOS,
BOTE Kal EDGyElF0aL qua kal tueiv; also Plut. Apophthegm (Cato maior, [II,
198d]); Dio C., LXV, 20, 3. Again, it means d. a 'voluptuary," and sowtia "volup-
tuousness," Plut. Eumen., 13, 5 (1,591c): TOUG SE MaKES6VAG KOAAKEUOVTEC EK-
KEXUUÉVOS kai katayopnyouvtes Elg Beitva Kal @valas ollyou poo to
aTPaTOTtE6OV dowtlas ravyupifovons kataybyio ento; also Phil. Spec.
Leg., IV, 91. Finally, &owios means e. 'one who lives a wild and undisciplined life,'
dootla a "wild and undisciplined life.' Going about in women's clothing and engaging
in lighthearted vagabondage are described in Plut. Vit. Dec. Orat., 8,59 (II, 847e)
as godtoc Biivai, and Polyb. speaks of the 'lakn (read lakxixi) kai TEXVITIKn
dootla, XXXII, 11, 10. Plut. Adul., 11 (II, 55c) has cowtoS with &taKtoc, Dio C.,
LXVII, 6, 3 with doelyns, Polyb., XL, 12,7 dowtla with palvula, Athen., IV, 60
(p. 374, 14 f., Kaibel) with kivalola. 3
In the OT doWTos occurs only at Prv. 7:11 and dootia at Prv. 28:7 and 2 Macc. 6:4.

In terms of the general Gk. usage, gov xootoc at Lk:15:13 speaks of the
dissipated life of the Prodigal without specifying the nature of this life, cf. v. 30.
It is simply depicted as carefree and spendthrift in contrast to the approaching
dearth. 'Aootia occurs three times in the NT: at Eph. 5:18 : uh LEOUOKEO0E
oivo, Ev 6 fotiv gowtla; Tt. 1:6: (of the bishop) TÉKV& EXOV TIOTX, un €v
kam yopia dowtias f aviotakta; Pt. 4:4 : gEvigovral uh OUvtpEXOvtOV
Duov sic thy authy tis cowtlas avayuolv. In all these passages the word
signifies wild and disorderly rather than extravagant or voluptuous living. The
manner of life which these passages have in view would probably not have been
identified as &ootla by the Greeks, since for them dowila is only what is
particularly wasteful or luxurious or wild as compared with the average. We can
see this in the much quoted P. Flor., 99 ff. (1/2 cent. A.D.), where GoTEUE BaL
means dissipating all one's resources. 4
Foerster

ATAKTÉw, ataxtoc

auya<w, artauyaoua

+ aTya(w.
[atyh means "radiance," and is used fig. in Philo Praem. Poen., 25 : o[c ov 6 OEdc
adynv entiAauwn ths alndelas. In the NT it is used only at Ac. 20:11 for "dawn."]
adya(w signifies a. "to shine forth." It is found in the LXX at Lv. 13:24 ff., 38 f.; 14:56
(aiyafovia of the white spots in leprosy). Cf. also Preis. Zaub., III (Mimaut), 143;
IV (Gr. Paris), 2558 ; also Guauya(w at 2 Pt. 1:19. It also means b. "to illuminate"
Philo Fug., 136; Jos., 68; and c. "to see": act. Soph. Phil., 217 f. and other poets ; Philo
Vit. Mos., II, 139; mid., Philo Migr. Abr., 189 etc.

3 It must be stressed that dowtoc does not mean immoral in the narrower sense. In
Test. A. 5:1 there is only one MS for Ev to yauQ n dowtia; the others have either
axpaoia or atekvia.
'Enel 6 ufos nuov Kaotop uE0' ttepwy (the conjecture Eraupov in Zn. Lk. on
15:13 seems to be superfluous) doWTEUoUEVOC ÉondvioE id aitoi itavta.
adya(o. Wnd. C. 136, n. +; Cr.-K6., 181; Nageli, 25 f.
 atya< antalyaoua

At 2 C. 4:4 : o leos ToU alovos toutou ETUDAWOEV TO vOñuaTa Tov anlotov

Elc to un alyaoal1 tov potiouov tou EiayyeAlou this 86ens, meaning b. does
not come into consideration, but it is hard to decide between a. and c. Whereas
the older transl. and the variants seem to assume a. ("that it should not shine"),
parallelism to 3:13 : mpoc to un aTEVIOAI, is a strong argument in favour of ¢.
("that they should not see").

-f drau yaoua.
a. "Effulgence" : LXX Wis. 7:26 (synon. xroppoia); Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 123; Op.
Mund., 146; Tatian, 15, 10. b. "reflection": Plut. Fac. Lun., 21 (II, 934d) (artauyaou6c):;
"image" ; Philo Plant., 50 (synon. Elkv); cf. also Act. Thom., 6, 35.
The word is a later one. In the LXX it is used of the relation of wisdom to the
eternal light (a), in Philo of its relation to the world (b), of that of man to
God (a), and of the human spirit to the divine logos (a). We read of Christ in
Hb. 1:3 : 8c ov arauyaoua tie a6ens kai xapartp tis inoor oec aitou.
Both meanings would be possible according to usage and context, yet patristic
consensus favours the interpretation that Christ is the effulgence of the divine
doxa, as sunshine is of the sun or light of light.
Greg. Nyss. Apoll., II, 47 ff.: DOTtED ipoc rov fillov axtis kai npos tov Auxvov
To dauya(buEvov pi Chrys. Hom. in Hb. 2:2 (MPG, 63, 22): pos EK oot6s.
Kittel

ailaonc
a. "Self-satisfied," Aristot. Eth. M., I, 28, p. 1192b, 30 ff.; Jos. Bell., 2, 356; 4, 96. Cf.
the related noun adeaoela (ai0a6ia) in Is. 24:8. There the Mas. runs 9793 rixt 970;
the LXX: nerautal adladla kai TOUToc goEBoV, giving two renderings of nixo.
At Hab. 3:14 one reading in the Hexapla, without Mas. basis, has the formulation
toug TETOL6TaC ErI in ailadela airoov. 1 b. "Arbitrary," unconsidered": Preisigke
Sammelbuch, 4284; Jos. Ant., 1, 189; 4, 236; 16, 399; Philo Rer. Div. Her., 21: épaoims
HEv yap du0a6ouc, plou SE EappalEois olkeiov. In Aesch. Prom., 1034 a00q-
Sela is the opp. of EUBouAla; in Ael. Arist. Or., 45 (II, 80, 15, Dindorf) of opovois.
In 2 Qoh. 9:3 a00&8EIX = niblin, "madness." c. "Morose," "gruff": Theophr. Char., 15:
the aufaonc soon ceases to pray Seivoc 8É Kai toic Ocois un ÉTeUXEo0aI; Plat.
Resp., IX, 590a : ai0a8eta. d. "Blatant,' "shameless" : Aesch. Prom., 64; Ditt. Syll.3,
1243, 25. In LXX Gn. 49:3, 7 1 is translated ailaons; in 49:3 the sense is thus turned
into the opp. and akinpoc is made a parallel of aulaons (as also in ©). In LXX
Prv. 21:24 ai0a6ns 777;, "The critical judgment (implied in ailaonc and related
substantives) of the egocentric attitude, which as such necessarily leads to arrogance,
is peculiar to the LXX and influences later translations" (Bertram).

1 CD: Katauy&aai, A Marcion: Siavyaoai, Or vg sy rec: + autoic.

analyaaua. F.J. Dalger, "Sonne Sonnenstrahl als Gleichnis in der Logos-
theologie des Altertums," Antike u. Chrtt., (1929), 269 ff.
abed8n
(1897), c. A. Giesecke in Theophrasts Charaktere, ed. by the Phil. Ges. Leipzig
116-119.
Field, ad loc.
afa8ns - doinu
In the two passages in which aulaons occurs in the NT the reference is to
human impulse violating obedience to the divine command. In both cases it is
religious leaders who are exposed to this danger or succumb to it. At Tt.1:7:
BEi yap Tov ÉTloKoTov aveyKAntov Elval un ailaon, un Spyi^ov, un
"apotov. The related adjectives suggest meaning b. At 2 Pt. 2:10 heretics who are
afraid of nothing are called ai0&bEIs, i.e., bold and shameless fellows (d.).
Cf. the blasphemies of the aueaons in Did., 3, 6. In the similitudes of Hermas the
ailaons does not accept the hiddenness of divine mysteries (s., 5, 4, 2; 5, 5, 1; 9,22, 1).
Bauern{eind

automons apao
aurapkeia, autopins > 466
autokatakpitos -Kpivo &o0apoia, aolaptos

ApinuL, &PEFIC, TapIN I, TOPEOIS

A. The Greek Usage.

apiÉvat, "to send off," is richly attested in Gk. from an early period, and is used in
every nuance, both lit. and figur., from "to hurl" (e.g., missiles) to "to release, "to
let go," or "to let be." It may have either a material or a personal object, so that its
meaning verges both on ovinut (> &veois) and rapinut. To be emphasised is the
legal use much attested in the pap. &oLéVal TIV&, "to release someone from a legal
relation," whether office, marriage, obligation, or debt, though never in a religious
sense. In the sense of "to pardon" it is construed with the accus. of person and gen.
of object. Plat. Leg., IX,2869a : Tov Spaoavta oovou ; Plut. Alex., 13 (I, 671b): raons
aitlac; P. Tebt., 5, 2 (2nd cent. B.C.): TaviAS dyvonuatwv quapmuatov etc. In
the sense of "to remit" it takes the acc. of object and dat. of person (Hdt., VI, 30:
aitd thy altiny; Hdt., VIII, 140 : ouiv tas quaptadas, cf. Demosth., 59, 30; Polyb.,
XXI, 24, 8).
Corresponding is the use of the rarer subst. XEOIS, which often has the legal sense
of "release" from office, marriage, obligation etc., as also from debt or punishment,
though never religiously (Plat. Leg., IX, 869d : povou; Demosth., 24, 45 f. : opAquartos
or tov bpinuatov); we find it in these senses in inscriptions and pap., e.g., as
"pardon" in P. Greci e Lat., 392, 6 (3rd cent. B.C.): too BaalEw Entlypawavtos
Th &DEOIV. 2
Tapinul means "to send by" or "to cause to go past" both lit. and figur. and with
many different nuances. As "to leave behind" or "to leave off" it has the same sense
as ovinut; cf. esp. TapElUEVoG, "debilitated," "tired." This sense is often found in
the LXX, where Tape0ñval and (Ex )Au0nval are not infrequently par. (cf. Polyb.,
1, 58, 9 : ThY TE Sovquiv TapEAÉUVtO Kai TapEivto) and the subj. is often yELpE
e.g., 2 Bao. 4:1; Jer. 4:31; Sir. 2:12 f.; 25:23; as also Hb. 12:12 quoting Is. 35:3 (LXX
dvelu-); cf. 1 Cl., 34, 1 and 4. Similarly Jos. Ant., 13, 343. As "to leave" or "to let be"
it has much the same sense as dolÉval (Ex. 14:12 Tapes as elsewhere Goec): simil.
as "to abandon,' "to give up" (4 Macc. 5:29 : 8pkous; anal. &ouÉvai in Mk. 7:8; Jos.
Ant., 4, 130. The TaPLÉVaL of Lk. 11:42 corresponds to dolÉvau in Mt. 23:23). The
legal sense of "to remit" is not so prominent, but it does occur. Cf. already Aristoph.
Ra., 699; then Xenoph. Eg. Mag., 7, 10; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., II, 35, p. 310, 14; Ditt.

(1723). IV, 3-4.

A OFGIS. C. Vitringa, Observationes sacrae
1 Cf. Preisigke Wort., S.v.
a Ibid., Pr.-Bauer, Nageli, 56.
3 In the pap. "to resign, "to concede," cf. Preisigke Wort,
 ainu
Syll.3, 742, 33 and 39; Or., 669, 50; Jos. Ant., 15, 48 : thv quaptiav; in LXX Sir. 23:2
Ta quapiuata; in 1 Macc. 11:35 vl., taxes).

B. The Use of soinu, &pEoIs, 4 in the LXX.

In the LXX golÉvai is used for a whole series of Hebrew words, a. for those
which denote either "release," "surrender" etc. or "leave," "leave in peace" etc.
(esp. common for 0937 or g, e.g., Ju. 2:23; 3:1; 16:26; 2 Bao. 16:11; 20:3; ( 104:14;
or for an, Ex. 9:21; 2 Bac. 15:16 etc.; and 703, e.g., Gn. 20:6; Ex. 12:23; Nu 22:13
etc.); b. for verbs of "remission" and indeed for xis, e.g., Gn. 4:13; Ex. 32:32;
w24:18; 31:5; for 720, e.g., Lv. 4:20; 5:10, 13; Nu. 14:19; 15:25 f.; Is. 55:7; and 199,
Is. 22:14. The object of remission is sin or guilt, mostly quaptia(t), but also
avouia, doEBela, and in Gn. 4:13 aitia. The one who forgives is God ; this is
never so in Gk. usage, though it is naturally found in Josephus, e.g., Ant., 6, 92
(but more frequently in the secular sense). While the Gk. rendering corresponds
in the first case, aouÉvau significantly modifies the verbs of remission or forgive-
ness, since the original sense of the Heb. verbs is that of the cultic removal and
expiation of sin, while colÉvaL has a legal sense. The relationship of man to
God is thus conceived of in legal terms, and this is quite alien to Greek thought.
The noun &oeous is used in the LXX to translate 9211 in Lv. 25 and 27 and
7700 (or bpt) in Ex. 23:11; Dt. 15:1 ff.; 31:10. It is also used for "release" (7177
etc.) in Lv. 25:10; 'lEp. 41:8,15, 17 etc.; esp. Is. 58:6; 61:1, where it denotes
eschatological liberation. In Est. 2:18 it means "amnesty" or "exemption from
taxation.' It means "forgiveness' only in the translation of bixry) yurnx as Tov
xluapov tov biEota\uÉvov gic XEOLV at Lv. 16:26. Except in this legal sense
& EDIC is correctly used for PID8 and 123.5 Josephus uses &peo for human
forgiveness in Bell., 1, 481, but mostly for release, as in Ant., 2, 67; 12, 40; 17, 185.

C. The NT Usage.
1. NT usage exhibits most of the possibilities. aplÉval means "to let go" or "to
leave" : Mk. 1:20 and par. (Tov TaTÉpa); 10:28 f. and par. (travta etc.); 12:12 and par.
(airov); Jn. 4:3 (Thy 'loudalav); 16:28 (Tov bouov) etc. AOñKEV aUThy o TUPET6C
(Mk. 1:31; cf. Jn. 4:52) is also good Gk., as is apleval ponv (Mk. 15:37) and To
TVE ua (Mt. 27:50). 6 So, too, is goleval yuvaika or avopa in 1 C. 7:11-13 (cf. Hdt.,
V, 39). It also means 'to leave or to set aside" Mk. 7:8 (thy ÉvroAnv); Mt. 23:23
(ta Baputepa to0 vouou), cf. Jos. Ant., 4, 130 : oÉvras toug Tatpious vououc kai
Toy TOUTOUG aUToic OÉUEVOV TluOV 0&ov; 4 Macc. 5:29 (- 509); again, Mt. 5:40
(to tuatiov); Mt. 23:38 (o olkoc Duov); 24:40 f. (elc taparauBavetal kai Elg
coletal KTA.); R. 1:27 (Thy qualKnV xpñoiv); Rev. 2:4 (Thv dyanny oou thy
tpornv). It is used for 'to leave behind" in Mk. 1:18 and par. (tg 8(KTUa); 12:19-22
(tekva or aTépua); Mt. 5:24 (To 86p6v oou EuTpoo0Ev too Quaiaotpiou); 18:12
(Toug EVEVnKovTa EWEa SC. TtpoBata); Jn. 4:28 (thy 86plav); 14:18 (ouas oppa-
vous); 27 (elpnvnv); Hb. 6:1 (tov Ts xpxñs Abyov) etc. It can also mean "to leave
in peace," "to let alone" : 7 Mk. 11:6; 14:6; Mt. 3:15; 19:14; Lk. 13:8; In. 11:48; Rev. 2:20

4 Tapinu 509.
5 On &OEaIC in the LXX, Deissmann B., 94-97.
6 tv puxhv would, of course, be better Gk., cf. Jos. Ant., 1, 218; Bell., 2, 153 etc.
7 This is good Gk.; occasionally it is used for pato or in3, cf. Schl. Mt., 88, 91, 289, 484,
650.
doinut

etc.; cf. Mk. 13:2 : o0 un aoe0n Allos Eni Allov; cf. Lk. 19:44. Similarly Ac. 14:17:
O0K quaptupov aUtOv AOAKEV, and Hb. 2:8 : 008Ev AOñKEV ait avUtotaktov.
Finally, it can also mean "to allow" or "to permit" Mk. 1:34 (O0K KOLE AgAEiv to
Saquovia); 5:19, 37 and par. etc. Occasionally we also have the Hellenistic request
formula &OES (or &PETE), e.g., in Mk. 7:27; 15:36 and par.; Mt. 3:15; 7:4 and par. 8
2. There are also the instances in which &oleval means "to remit" or "to
forgive," whether in the profane sense in Mt. 18:27 (to S&VElOV) and 32 (Thy
ODELAnV), or more often in the religious. The objects are tac quaptias (Mk.
2:5 ff.; Lk. 7:47 ff.; Jn. 20:23 etc.); to quapiñuata (Mk. 3:28); ta TAPaTTO-
uata (Mt. 6:14 f.); ai avoula (R. 4:7 quoting w31:1); h Éntivoia tis kapoiac
gou (Ac. 8:22). It may be used either elliptically or absolutely (Mk. 4:12; 11:25 f.;
Mt. 6:14 f.; 12:32 and par.). The usage of the post-apostolic fathers is similar.
The noun &oeoIs almost always means "forgiveness" (God's), usually with the
gen. quapti@v (Mk. 1:4 and par.; Mt. 26:28; Lk. 1:77; 24:47; Ac. 2:38; 5:31 ; 10:43;
13:38; 26:18; Col. 1:14; cf. Hb. 10:18), and once with tov TapaTtou&tov (Eph.
1:7), either elliptically or absolutely. Even where &oEoIC is meant in the sense of
"liberation" (twice in Lk. 4:18 quoting Is. 61:1 and 58:6), this at least includes
the thought of forgiveness. The usage in the post-apostolic fathers is again the
same.
The same sense is borne by TXPEOIS, " found only once at R. 3:25 : 81d Thv
TEX DEOLV tov ipoyeyovotov quapinuatov ev th avoxn TOU 0EOO. This word,
which is not found in the LXX, has the same legal meaning as the verb TOpLÉVaL
(-> 509) and is attested in this sense 10 in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., VII, 37, p. 1393,
13 ff.: thy HEV SAOOXEPN TIOPEOIV 0UX EUpoVtO, Thv bE Eic xpovov boov neiouv
avaBolnv ElaBov.
The forgiveness denoted by &DEGIC (COLEV&I) and TaPEOIS is almost always
that of God. In the Synoptists (cf. also Ac. 8:22; Jm. 5:15) this is mostly a forgive-
ness to which man is continually referred and which he can receive on request so
long as he is ready to forgive others (Mt. 6:12, 14 f.; 18:21-35; Lk. 17:3 f; Mk.
11:25). To this extent, the concept is the same as the OT and Jewish idea of
forgiveness.12 Yet there is a new and specifically Christian feature. For the com-
munity realises that it has to receive from God the forgiveness which is offered
to men through the saving act which has taken place in Jesus Christ. As it tells

8 Cf. Blass-Debr, 364, 1 and 2: and Pr.-Bauer.

" napinut 509.
10 Perhaps also BGU, 624, 21, cf. Deissmann NB. 94.
11 The same antith. of full release and postponement is found in Philo Flacc., 84: aOEOIS
TaVTEAnC and OTÉpéE0IG. Trench, 69-74 defends the distinction between &pEOIS and
TAPETIC.
12 On the terminology and understanding of forgiveness in Judaism, cf. Bousset-Gress-
mann, 388 ff.; W. Staerk, Sinde Gnade nach der Vorstellung des alteren Judentums
(1905); O. Schmitz, Die Operanschauung des spateren Judentums und die Opferaussagen
des NT (1910); Moore, I; A. Buchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement (1928); Dalman WI.
1, 334 ff.; Schi. Mt., 213 f., 289, 559; Str.-B., 421 f., 124 ff., 495, 795 f.; II, 585 f. Jos.
uses golevat for "to forgive" (cf. Schl. Mt., 213); it also occurs in Test. G. 6:3.5; 7:5.
Philo often uses & EoIS in the sense of forgiveness (quapmu&Tov, Vit. Mos., II, 147;
Spec. Leg., I, 190 ; Sv EEquaptEv, Spec. Leg., I, 237; TtaVTOV quapinuaTwv Kai ttapa-
vounuatov, Spec. Leg., I, 215); but he also uses it for liberation, Spec. Leg., II, 39, 67 and
122; Vit. Mos., I, 123; Det. Pot. Ins., 144; and often figur. for the liberation of the puxn
from the odua and the n&0n (Rer. Div. Her., 273; Congr., 89 and 107-109; Mut. Nom.,
228: Sacr. AC, 122), or of the vouc from its own strivings (Migr. Abr., 32).
 coinut - aplomu
us that Jesus Himself dispensed forgiveness (Mk. 2:5 ff. and par.), so it, too,
dispenses forgiveness through Him (Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7; Ac. 13:38), through His
name (Lk. 24:47; Ac. 10:43; 1 Jn. 2:12), on His commission (Jn. 20:23), esp. in
baptism (Ac. 2:38; Hb. 6:1 f.; cf. Mk. 1:4 and par.) and the Lord's Supper (Mt.
26:28). To the extent that the community is established by the act of salvation
as the holy community of the last age (= ÉkkAnola), forgiveness is an eschato-
logical blessing and is expressly described as such in Lk. 1:77 (cf. 4:18) ; the same
view obviously underlies both Paul and Hb. If the thought of forgiveness is of
fundamental significance in the NT, its terminological explication is not highly
developed, and GOEOIS (or colÉvai and TapEdIc) are rare in Paul and John,
being found only at R. 3:25; Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7; Jn. 20:23; 1 Jn. 1:9 and 2:12. Yet
in Paul the thought is expressed in such terms as - Sukal0ouvn and kata-
layh, in Hb. by dylagelv and kalapl(Elv, which are also found in Jn.,
as also by such cognate or related concepts as tAxou6s, - (aTto) AutpwoIs,
- groovealal, yapiiefai etc. (cf. the linking of &oieval with related con-
cepts in R. 3:24 f.; 4:7; Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7; 1 Jn. 1:9; Hb. 9:22 f.).
All this makes it plain a. that the OT conception of God as the Judge to whom
man is responsible is maintained; b. that God's forgiveness is not deduced from
an idea of God or His grace, but is experienced as His act in the event of salva-
tion, so that preaching does not consist in illuminating instruction regarding the
idea of God but in the proclamation of the act of God ; C. that forgiveness as an
eschatological event renews the whole man, in whom sin was not just something
isolated and occasional but the power which determined his whole being; d. that
forgiveness can be received only when man affirms God's judgment on himself,
the old man, in the confession of sins (1 Jn. 1:9; Jm. 5:16; Ac. 19:18; cf. Mk. 1:5 and
par.) and penitence (Lk. 24:47; Ac. 2:38; 5:31; 8:22; Hb. 6:1, 6; cf. Mk. 1:4 and
par.), which corresponds to - nlots in Paul and John. There is thus avoided the
legal understanding of the thought of forgiveness as a remission of punishment
related only to past events : the future is included in eschatological forgiveness.
Bultmann

couldyalos - 18

doionui, gnootaola,
Sixootaoia

dolomut.
Trans. "to remove," either spatially or from the context of a state or relationship
(Tiva TIVOC or Tid &To TIvos), or from fellowship with a person - "to seduce,
"to win away" from someone, ether privately or politically. Hence also the intrans.
sense "to remove oneself," "to resign," "to desist,' "to fall away."
Of these different meanings the only ones which are important theologically are those
which concern alienation from persons.
In the LXX, with the most diverse equivalents in the Mas., coloraolat is used of
political (Gn. 14:4; 2 Ch. 21:8; Tob. 1:4) and religious (Dt. 32:15; Jos. 22:18 f., 23; Da.
9:9; Gr. Sir. 10:12) apostasy. In the latter sense it has become a tech. term, so that we
can read in Jer. 3:14 : EMOTPaONTE ULOl &OEOTNKOTES (cf. Is. 30:1: TEKva ditootato1).
Normally it is aTto 0:00 or dito kuplou, but also & ito Batixns dylac (1 Macc. 1:15)
dolomut - & nootaoia
and &TTO AaPTEI&C TaTEPWV (1 Macc. 2:19) . The material equivalents are AatpEUELV
Beoic ÉTÉpoIS Dt. 7:4); OUK ELGAKOUEIV (Dt. 9:10); KataAITEIV TOV 0E6v (Dt. 32:15).
The apostasy finds expression in a disobedient cultic and ethical worship of other gods.

In the NT the religious sense is at least found alongside others. In Ac. 15:38;
5:37; 19:9 the word seems to acquire increasingly the emphatic sense of religious
apostasy. In Hb. 3:12 it is used expressly of religious decline from God. The
opposite here is: Tv xpxnv THE UTOOT&OEDS HEXPI TÉlouC BEBaiav KaTEYELV
(3:14). This apostasy entails an unbelief which abandons hope. According to
Tm.4:1 apostasy implies capitulation to the false beliefs of heretics. This
apostasy is an eschatological phenomenon: Ev Dotépoic kaipoic. The same view
is found in Lk. 8:13, where coloraolal is used absolutely. The reference is to the
situation of Rev. 3:8. &olotao0al thus approximates to apveiolai, as may be
seen in Herm. s., 8, 8,2: TIVEC SE aUTOV elc teloc qtÉotnoav. *BAaoohunaav
TOv Kopiov kal amp hoavto Aotov. 3
a tootagio,
A later construction for aTr6oTagIc. 1 The word presupposes the concept aTtoatats
"to be an apostate,' and thus signifies the state of apostasy, whereas aTtoaTaoIC
denotes the act. Politically an &tootais is a "rebel" (Polyb., V, 41, 6; 57,4: tou
Baairtws; Diod. S., XV, 18 : ts tatplooc), and this sense is retained in &oaraola
(Plut. Galb., (I, 1052e): Tv anto NÉpovoc amoataolav; Jos. Vit., 43 : 81d Thy
grootaolav thy ato 'Paualov; Ap., 1, 135 f.; Ant., 13, 219.
In the LXX it also occurs in the political sense in Esr. 2:23. It is particularly em-
ployed, however, in the religious sense, Jos. 22:22; Jer. 2:19; 2 Ch. 29:19 (the apostasy
of Ahaz); 33:19 (of Manasseh). Cf. Macc. 2:15 (used absol.); Asc. Is. 2:4. aTtooTams
has also retained this religious sense, cf. Is. 30:1; 2 Macc. 5:8 : Jason ic toov vouov
aTOoTis kal BdEAUGObuEVOS: Nu. 14:9; Jos. 22:16, 19: &ToaTais aTto tou
kupiou.
In the NT Ac. 21:21 may be compared with 2 Macc. 5:8. Here the reproach is
brought against Paul: &ooraolov SISGOKEIG &TO MOUGEGC. Materially this
implies the rejection of the Torah. In 2 Th. 2:3 antooraola is used in the absol.
sense as an event of the last days alongside or prior to (?) the appearance of the
&ve pTos tis avoulac. Here a Jewish tradition 3 is adopted which speaks of
complete apostasy from God and His Torah shortly before the appearance of the
Messiah. This is applied to the apostasy of Christians from their faith to error
and unrighteousness (v. 11 f.) in the last days (Mt. 24:11 f.). Again we have the
situation of Lk. 8:13.4

dolornut. 1 Cf. Herm. v., 2, 3, 2; 3, 7, 2.

Cf. Herm. s., 8, 9, 1: Eveuelvav Th flotEl; Just. Dial., 8, 2 : coloraolal TOV TOU
owmpos Abywv; 20, 1: ths yuboEwc (0E00); 111,2: The TlotEoG (Xp16to0).
3 Cf.
autov. Just. Apol., 1, 50, 12 : of yvopu or aitot TotES ateomoav, ap noquevor
afootaala.1 C. A. Lobeck on Phryn. Ecl., 528.
2 Cf. Str.-B., II, 753 f.; G. Kittel, "Paulus im Talmud," in Rabbinica (1920), 14.
8 Str.-B., III, 637.
Dob. Th., 270 f. thinks that the reference is to the religious and moral declension, not
"of the community of Christians but of the non-Christian world." But the term dnogtaola
is against this, for it includes a prior turning to God. To be sure, the anootatal and the
appearance of the &voponos ths avoulas are to be differentiated, but only in such a way
 & ootaola Suxootaoia - BaBurov

In Just. Dial., 110, 2 the &vepuros thc avoulas of 2 Th. 2:3 is called o this
artootagiac &vl patoc. He comes in the power of Satan, who in Just. Dial., 103, 5
is brought into etymological connection with anootatns. Cf. Act. Thom., 32 D.

Styootaoio.
"Division," "disunity," "contention" : Hdt., V, 75; Plut. Aud. Poet., 4 (II, 20c) . Esp.
"political revolt"' or "party dissension": Solon Fr., 3, 37 (Diehl, I, 24); Theogn., 78
(Diehl, I, 121). LXX, 1 Macc. 3:29 : kai oi poporoyol tis xipac ollyot xapi The
Buxootaoias Kai TAnyis AS KaTEOKEUgOEV ÉV th yn . ..

In the NT it signifies "objective disunity" in the community. In R. 16:17 it

occurs in connection with the aKav8ala tepi thy 818axnv; in 1 C.3:3 in BA
alongside gilos Kai Epis to oyiouata of 1:10; in G1. 5:20 between Épieeia
and xipéoeic to denote general parties within the church. Probably in these
passages, too, Sixootaoia has a limited "political" sense. It is within the ExkAnoia
that Suxootaolau arise.
This political character is plain in 1 Cl., cf. 46,5: 'Ivati Epeis Kal Oupoi Kai
Buxootaoial Kai oxiouata, T6 EL6S TE Év Ouiv; 51,1 apxnyoi otooews kai
Buxootaoiac Éyevienoav. On the other hand, in Herm. s., 8, 7, 5; v., 3, 9, 9; m., 2, 3
Sixootaoia has the more general sense of 'contentiousness, and in s., 8, 10, 2 of
"cleavage.'
Schlier

goou06w ) Suoi0s coopigw Spoc

+ BaBuAdv

1. Apart from references to the Babylonian captivity in Mt. 1:11, 12, 17 and
Ac. 7:43, and the single mention in 1 Pt. 5:13 (- 2.), the term BaBu ov is found
only in the Apocalypse, where it is applied in a most significant manner as
symbolical name for the ungodly power of the last time : BaBulov n uEy&An
(14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10,21), the great city1 (17:18; 18:10, 16,18, 19, 21). The
destruction of Babylon is proclaimed by an angelic voice in 14:8. The place of the
fall of Babylon in the apocalyptic drama (with the outpouring of the 7th vial) is
indicated in 16:19. Then in 17:1 to 19:10. the divine expressly portrays this city
and its fall in 7 visions.' He paints it in the symbolical form of a harlot : the
great whore (17:1; 19:2), the mother of harlots and the abomination of the earth

that the apostasy makes possible the power of the man of sin, and this in turn increases
the apostasy. The same applies in the passage quoted from Justin.
BaBulov. Comm. on Rev. 17 and 18. Also Hastings DB, I, 213 f.; A. Schlatter, Das
AT in der Apk. (1912), 90 ff.; Gesch. d. ersten Christenheit (1926), 301 ff.; T. Zahn, Einl.
i. d. NT, II3 (1906), 17 ff. (on 1 Pt. 5:13) : A. H. Blom, "De Ondergang van Rome naar de
Apk.,' ThT, 18 (1884), 541 ff.; J. Sickenberger, "Die Johannesapk. und Rom," BZ, 17 (1926),
270 fF.
Cf. Strabo, XVI, 1, 5 (of the historical Bab.): Epnula ueyaAn 'orv h HEyaAn TOAIS;
and Rev. 18:19 n ToNIC fueyaAn Ha1g opa npnuwon.
2 v. Loh. Apk., 135.
BaBuAov

(17:5).3 She sits on a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, strikingly adorned. + Her
name is written on her forehead. 5 She is drunk with the blood of the saints slain
within the city& (17:3-6).7 The interpretation of the image (17:7-18) bursts its
framework ; its plastic fixity yields to dramatic movement. In union with 10 kings,
the beast on which the city sits the antichrist of c. 13 will destroy the city
and burn it with fire (17:16). It is God who will thus bring judgment on the city
(17:17; 18:8; 19:2) . At its fall there is jubilation in heaven but sorrow among the
inhabitants of earth (c. 18).
The most important features of this picture are taken from the OT prophets.
This is true even of the name Babylon. The historic city and empire of Babylon
were always depicted by the prophets as the ungodly power par excellence. Thus
even after the fall of Babylon, Babel, as they saw it, represented for later Jewish
readers of Scripture, and also for early Christians (-3 517), the very epitome and
type of an ungodly and domineering city, $ the localisation of which might vary
with the current historical situation. 9 The image of the whore also comes from
the OT. Tyre is thus named in Is. 23:15 fE., 10 and Nineveh in Na. 3:4.11 In addi-
tion, the same picture is often used in connection with the idolatry of Israel. 12
The image of the beast is taken even in detail from Da. 7. Thus we might well say
that the whole depiction of the Apocalypse, esp. C. 18, is made up of OT thoughts
and expressions rather after the manner of a mosaic. 13

3 The mode of expression is Jewish. Cf. the use of 28 in Rabb. writings : niaxbe niax,
Shab., 7, 2 ff.: "The 39 chief activities (forbidden on the Sabbath)"; 7243 nizx, BQ. 1, 1:
"The 4 main forms of injuries" etc. Above all S. Nu., 134 on 27:12 : Moses D789237 73N, "the
greatest prophet," "the main prophet." Thus unmp topVov means the chief whore in the
world. Cf. also Jn. 8:44 where the devil is the "father of lies." The uuotnpiov of the name
in Rev. 17:5 does not lie, then, in the expression mother," as supposed in Loh. Apk., 139,
but in the name BaBuAov. It is a uvomplov in the sense that it cannot be understood
literally, but only TIVEUUaTIKOc (Bss. Apk., 404), as a symbolical name.
This denotes the harlot, but there is also a hint of the wealth and power of the city.
5 It is attested of Roman harlots that they bore their names on their foreheads, Sen. Rhet.
Contr., I, 2, 7; Juv., 6, 122
The divine feels so strongly the unity of the images (harlot, beast) with what they
depict (city, antichrist) that he can easily pass from the one to the other in his statements.
Cf. 17:16; 17:6 with 18:24; esp. 17:3 : Ka0nuÉvv Eni Onplov yeuovra.
In the whole apocalyptic drama BaBuloov is the great antitype of the new Jerusalem
which comes down from heaven (21:2) as the holy city. In place of the ropvn Babylon in
this world there will come the vouon Jerusalem (21:2) in the new world.
8 Cf. Schlatter, Gesch. d. erst. Chr., 301.
9 Other features of the city are taken over with the type, e.g., that it is situated on many
waters (Rev. 17:1 on the basis of Jer. 51:13), even though they apply only to the historical
Babylon and are no longer relevant in the current situation (hence the allegorical inter-
pretation in 17:15).
Since Babel has become a type of the ungodly city, all the OT warnings and judgments
concerning such cities are applied to it even though originally pronounced against other
powers. Thus the complaint of kings, merchants and sailors at its fall in Rev. 18:9-19 is
largely influenced by Ez. 27, where the reference is to Tyre.
In these two passages the harlotry does not denote idolatry, as normally in the OT,
but the trading activity of the city. We are to remember this in relation to the whore
Babylon in Rev. 17; cf. 18:11-19.
12 Cf. esp. Ez. 16. To bring in Mandaean par. to explain the image (e.g., Loh. Apk., 142)
is thus unnecessary, quite apart from more general critical objections to this course,
13 The form of the quotations shows that the divine knew his Bible in the original Heb.
rather than the Gk. trans. Yet he never quotes exactly; he rather makes free use from
memory of OT expressions and clauses, often intermingling different passages, as one who
has learned much of the Bible by heart.
 BaBulov

The sayings of Jesus have also had their influence on the shaping of the visions.
Thus, for the heavenly command to depart from Babylon we have models in
Is. 48:20; 52:11; Jer. 50:8; 51:6 etc. on the one hand, but also in Mt. 24:15 ff. and
par. on the other. In Rev. 18:21 we have a mixture of Jer. 51:63 f. and Mt. 18:6
and par. Perhaps we are also to see an influence of Mt. 23:25 (cf. 23:27) on
Rev. 17:4 (the golden cup full of abomination and impurity).
Many other traditional features must have passed into the visions of the divine
which we cannot now track down in detail. Thus the fact that the woman sat
on the beast (which is disregarded in the interpretation in 17:7 ff. and even con-
tradicted in 17:16, * 515), probably derives from the writer's acquaintance with
pictures of a goddess or god riding on a beast. 14 Again, she holds a cup in
her hand, and the question arises whether this feature is suggested by depictions
of goddesses with the horn of plenty. 15
All these different elements are arranged by the divine in his visions into a
great and uniform whole in which he sees part of what is going to take place in
the immediate future (Rev. 1:1). He knows that the city which is to be destroyed
fotv f (article) ToAS f ueyaAn A
is already present, Rev. 17:18 : ñ yuvn
Eyouoa (present) Baoelav Eri tov BaaLEwv tis yns. This can only be
Rome. 16 The main arguments for this are a. Rev. 17:9: the city lies on 7 hills,
and Rome is almost proverbially known as the city of 7 hills ; 17 b. it was common
for later Judaism to apply to Rome the title Babel as a type of ungodly power
(- 515).18 Cf. Apc. Bar. 67:7; Sib., 5, 143 and 159, and many Rabbinic passages. 10
2. In 1 Pt. 5:13 also, where we have greetings from the Christian church Év
BaBu on to the churches of Asia Minor, the reference can only be to Rome.
The essential reasons for this, apart from those already mentioned, are a. the
general application to Rome in early exegesis, with only a few trifling ex-
ceptions ; 20 the lack of even a hint that Peter ever stayed or worked in the land
of Babylon, as distinct from the fairly solid historicity of his stay and martyrdom
in Rome. 21

14 E.g., the depiction of Attis sitting on the lion in Haas, No. 9-11, Leipoldt (1926),
No. 146; further examples may be found in Loh. Apk.. 136. More commonly the deity stands
on the beast, as in Haas-Leopoldt, No. 117, 119, 121, 122 (Zeus of Doliche and goddesses);
also Haas, No. Zimmern (1925), No. and 2 (Hittite); v. also 9-11, p. XV b and
XVII a.; also H. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos (1895), 365.
On the use of the popular belief in Nero redivivus in interpretation of the beast of
17:8 ff., cf. Bss., 411 ff.
16 This is the view of all the more recent expositors apart from Loh. His thesis is that
the reference to Rome is impossible because Babylon and the beast are obviously demonic
or satanic rather than political powers. This is true. But it is a feature of the Apoc. that
the world in which the divine actually lives, and the forces which determine it, are regarded
as demonic.
17 Loh., 140, with examples. The cogency of this argument is shown by the fact that
Loh. himself can hardly escape it.
18 It is to be noted that in the prophets and Judaism generally 322 denotes both the city
and the state ; the former is the epitome of the power of the latter. The equation with Rome
is later understood in the same way. Indeed, in Rabb. writings 7019 (= 'Poun) often
means the empire rather than the city.
In addition to the passages mentioned in Str.-B., III, 816, cf. also Nu. r., 7 on 5:2 ff.;
Midr. Ps. 121 (ed. Buber, 507).
20 Zn., Einleitung¾, II, 17 ff. In two minusc. this interpretation has even made its way into
the text.
21 Zn., op. cit.; H. Lietzmann, Petr, u. Pls. in Rom? (1927). On the whole subject, cf.
Wnd. Kath. Br.2, 82.
BaBuAov - Balos

If we accept this reference to Rome in Pt. 5:13, then we must follow Schlatter 22
in his deduction not merely that Peter expects the destruction of Rome and sees
it in the prophetic utterances against Babylon, but that the whole Church both
in Rome and Asia Minor shared this view.'
Kuhn

t Baloc (-* twos).

"External depth." a. The depth of a stratum ( mass or greatness), Mt. 13:5 ; Ts

yns, Jos. Ant., 8, 63; or the direction (downward), Ez. 32:24 : glc yns Baloc: Lk. 5:4 :
Eic to Baloc, not necessarily suggesting how great is the depth. Often with twos,
as in Is. 7:11: Elc Baloc n eis Syos; Dg., 7, 2; Corp. Herm., XI, 20b. b. Depth as one
dimension of a o(ua or OTEPEOv, and indeed the dimension to 10600EV kai to dvti-
KEluevov, Arist. Cael., II, 1, p. 284b, 25; the opp. of ÉitltoAn, Gen. Corr., II, 2, p. 330a,
18. Hence Baloc comes to denote the spatial depth, e.g., of the earth, Cael., II, 13,
p. 294a, 26, or of the sea, Barn., 10,10, or of the outermost sphere, Philo Som., I, 21,
or of cosmic space, Preis. Zaub., IV, 575; 662 f., or of the aBuooos, Wis. 10:19; Gr.
Sir. 24:5.
"Depth" or "depths" figuratively in many different senses, mostly to denote the in-
scrutability or hiddenness as well as the vastness or greatness of something. It may
denote the general character of man, Plat. Theaet., 183e; Plut. Fab. Max., 1 (I, 174c).
It is also used of Elomun, Philo Poster. C., 130; Som., II, 271; of coola, Ebr., 112; of
ypaoh, Orig. in Joh. XX, 10,74; of uxj, Philo Som., I, 200; Orig. in Joh. VI, 58, 297;
of kapoia, Jdt. 8:14; Just. Dial., 121, 2.

In the NT it is used of this figurative depth only 1 in relation to God or the

world. Thus in R. 11:32 2 God's depth of riches, wisdom and knowledge is distin-
guished first by His unsearchability to human judgment and then by His character
as the God who meets us in hidden ways and judgments. 3 Similarly in 1 C. 2:10
the depth of the activity of God is concealed from the world in principle ; it is
accessible only to the TIVEUua TOU 0E00. The opposite is to be found in To
Batea TOU oatava (Rev. 2:24) which disclose themselves to libertine practice.'
Analogies are to be found especially in Gnostic terminology: Tert. Val., 1; Iren.,
I, 21, 2; Hipp. Ref., V, 6, 4 : EtEK&AEOXV ÉaUToUG yUGOTIKOUG, O&OKOVTES uovol
Ta BoOn YIVOOKELV. Yet it should be noted that in Gnosticism God and His
Baloc are understood in the sense of being. For this reason there is not merely
reference to the Baloc of the tathp (Orig. in Joh.II, 2, 18; Hipp. Ref., V, 9, 1),
but God Himself can be Balos (Act. Thom., 143; Hipp. Ref., VI, 30, 7). In the NT
even the world as a hostile depth does not disclose its depth as a given quantity
but as a power which withdraws and which thus threatens in virtue of its un-
fathomable nature. In R. 8:39 Balos is Kilais like Sovauis etc. The ToTos is
known as a power, whereas in Gnosticism the power (of God) is understood as

22 Gesch. d. erst. Chr. a 303.

Ba0oc. 1 Apart from 2 C. 8:2, cf. Wnd., ad loc.
On the Hellenistic form cf. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913), 243, 3.
3 Cf. Apc. Bar. 14:8 (1 Cl., 40, 1).
Cf. the sacrament of the drolurpwais n els to Balos katayouaa autouc (Iren.,
I, 21,2).
5 Cf. C. Schmidt, "Gnostiche Schriften in koptischer Sprache," TU, 8 (1892), 336, 358.
 Balos - Baivo

ToToc. & In Eph. 3:187 Balos stands in a series TA&TOS, uNKos, twos, Balos
which denotes the heavenly KAñois or kAnpovoula. These first express the three
dimensions, the third dividing into ovos/Baloc. The heavenly inheritance is
thought of as a cube, like the heavenly Jerusalem in Rev. 21:16, bBB, 75b and the
heavenly ExkAnola in Herm. v., 3, 2, 5. They then denote the four quarters of the
earth. The inheritance is thus comprehensively indicated.
Cf. Iren. Epid., 1, 34 : (Christ) "embraces the whole world, its breadth and length,
its height and depth . illumining the heights (i.e., heaven) and penetrating to the depths,
to the foundations of the earth, spreading out the expanses from morning to evening and
directing the spaces from north to south Iren., V, 17, 4: ÉTL8ELKVOGV To ovoc
kai unkoc kai T/atoc Kai Badoc tv EXUTO (= T& TEpaTa tiS yns). Preis. Zaub.,
IV, 965 ff. : the olkoc TOU 0EOU (or God Himself) represents salvation as an embracing
cube. Pist. Soph., 133 : "To wander through the portions of the earth from without
inwards and from within outwards, from above downwards and from the heights
to the depths ... and from the length to the breadth libid., 130, 148). 2
Schlier

(Baivo,) ovaBaivo,
xatoBaivo, uEta Baive

(Baivo).
This word is not found in the NT nor in Philo. It occurs only twice in Jos : Ant., 1,20 :
TOUG E&w Balvovtas apetns LEYAAXIS TEPIB& AEL GUUoopaiC, and Ant., 19, 220 :
ou itov tois Tool Baivelv SUVQUEVOV (Claudius). In the LXX we find it in no more
than 4 passages : Dt. 28:56; Wis. 4:4; 18:16; 3 Macc. 6:31. Even on inscriptions (Ditt.
Syll.3, 540 163) and pap. (BGU, IV, 1192, 10) it is rare,
Class. Gk. is dominated by the intrans. sense of "to go," to stride," "to stretch the
legs" ("to ride"); and then "to go away," "to come" and to go on before."
The term acquires another meaning in the cultic texts of the mysteries. In the Mithr.
Liturg., 2, 7 it denotes the heavenly journey of the soul: oTtOC yo uovoc aintos
oupavov Baivo. 2 With few exceptions, 3 however, ovaBalvelv rather than Balvewv
is used for the soul's ascent to heaven.
In the secular sphere there is an analogous use of Balvelv in Anth. Pal., XVI, 6:
a SE DiAlThOU B6Ea TAALV BELGV ayx! BÉBOKE Op6vov.

6 The depth of the world is always spoken of according to the understanding and access
to it. In 129:1 Bc0n is an image for a difficult situation (= TO Ba0n tis Balaoons in
u 68:3). In Qoh. 7:24 (25) it is used ethically ; in Porphyr. Vit. Plot, 16 speculatively ; in
Mak. Homil., 8, (MPG, 34, 528c) mystically.
Ad loc. Dib. Gefbr.; A. Dieterich, Jbch. Phil., Suppl., XVI (1888), 766, 802 ; Reitzen-
stein Poim., 25 f.; E. Peterson, Etc Oe6s (1926), 250, 3.
8 J. Hehn, Siebenzahl und Sabbath (1907), 13 76 f.; J. Lewy, OLZ, 26 (1923), 538 f.
9 Without the full formula, Pogn. Inscr. Sém., 48.
Balvw. 1 It is also used trans. a. "to make go" (only fut. Brow and aor. #Broa);
b. "to mount" (a horse). This trans. sense is of no importance in the NT or indeed else-
where.
Cf. on this pt. A. Dieterich-O. Weinreich Mithr.-Liturg., 220: "The Mythras initiate
of the eagle's degree 'strides' up to heaven.
Cf. Luc. Pergr. Mort., 39 : Eliov yav, Balva 8' Es "Oluurov. Also the epigram
Anth. Pal., VII, 62 wrongly ascribed to Plato: Alete TITTE BEBnkas inep tadov;
in
(ef Mithr. Liturg., 220).
avaBaivo

ovaBaivo.
1. The basic meaning is spatial, i.e., "to rise from the depths to the heights." It is
used for climbing aboard a ship, mounting a horse or climbing a mountain. Geogra-
phically it denotes mounting from a plain to a city, 1 from the coast inland, from the
mouth of a river upstream, from the street over the threshold, up the steps of a house,
from the lower storey of a house to the upper. The orator mounts the rostrum (Eic To
Brua) or appears on an elevated place before the people (elc [Emi] to TAñdoc). The
advocate rises to address the court (Els to SiKaotpiov). 1 Sometimes ova BalvElV is
used with the simple acc. and no prep. The spatial use of avaBaivElv in the LXX
is similar. It is mostly a rendering of mby. ¾ In the NT it has this sense mostly in the
Gospels. To avoid the crowds or to pray, Jesus climbs a hill (Mt. 5:1; 14:23; 15:29 and
par.). He joins His disciples in the boat (Mt. 14:22 and par.). He goes up with them
to Jerusalem (Mt. 20:17 f. and par.). It is said of Joseph in Lk. 2:4 avéBn & Tto tis
Fallaiac éx TOLEGC NaCapE0 sic Thy 'loudaiav gic TOAIV AQUEI8. The men
who bring the sick of the palsy to Jesus do so &vaBavtEs fni to &Qua (Lk. 5:19).
Zacchaeus climbs a sycomore to see Jesus (Lk. 19:4). Even though the goal is not
stated, avaBaivelV can be understood from the context. 4
In the spatial sense ovaBaivelv is also used intrans. in the NT. The seed grows up
from the earth as a plant ; it springs up (aveBnoav al akaveal, Mt. 13:7; Mk. 4:7, 32).

2. Much more important is the use of ovaBaivelv in statements related to the

cultic life or cultic actions. Here the NT follows the usage of the Heb. OT, 5 the
LXX, & and Rabbinic writings. 723 &vaBaivElV is a "standing formula for
going to Jerusalem" (Schlatter) and the temple.
In the life of Jesus the moment of His going up from the water of baptism
(Mt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10) acquires significance from the descent of the Spirit. Going
into the sanctuary is ovaBaivelv Eis to lspov (Lk. 18:10).8 gva Balvelv is so
typical an expression for this that further indication need not be given (In. 12:20).
The cultic sense is especially common in John's Gospel : avaBaivElV EiC 'Ipoo6-
Avua (2:13; 5:1; 11:55); 0 eis thy £optny (7:8, 10): 10 gic TO ispov (7:14; cf.
Ac. 3:1).11 For Paul and the other apostles, too, the statement that they went up
to Jerusalem 12 had rather more than a topographical significance. Jerusalem meant
the mother community. This is clearest in Ac. 18:22: Kal KATEAOOV sic Kala-
pElarv, &vafac kal doraoquEvos thy ÉxkAnolav, kaTéBn Els ' Avtl6YEIOV. Nat-
urally the basic meaning in all these expressions is the topographical. Sanctuaries

avabalvo. 1 Examples are given in Liddell-Scott and Moult.-Mill., s.v. &vaBaivElv.

V. on this pt. Class. Philol., 22 (1927), 240.
2 Cf. W. Schmid, Philol. Wochenschr., 46 (1926), 137.
On 723 in the spatial sense, v. Ges.-Buhl, s.v.
4 Mk. 15:8; Ac. 8:31; Rev. 8:4; 9:2.
6 V. Ges.-Buhl, s.v. "2y.
6 V. Hatch-Redpath, s.v. avaBaivelv.
For Rabb. usage, v. Schl. Mt., 594; Schl. J., 74
8 Cf. BCH, 11 (1887), 375, 1, 14: ToUg avepyouÉvous elc TO lspov; 379, 2,9: Touc
avibvrac ec to lepov.
V. also Jos. Ant., 14, 270; Bell., 2,40 : &vaBalvElV Els "Ispooo uua; Ant., 20, 164 :
aveBnaav Elc thy ToAlv IS TPOOKUVHOOUTES TOV OEOV.
10 Blass suggests that in Jn. 7:8 we delete Elc Thy £optnv, along with Chrysost. Minusc.
69 Lat. g (Bl.-Debr. § 323, 3).
11 Cf. Jos. Ant., 12, 164 and 362; 13, 304; Bell., 2, 340 and 405; 6, 285.
12 Ac. 11:2; 15:2; 21:12, 15; 24:11; 25:1, 9; Gl. 2:1 f.
 dvaBaives

were usually located on hills, and Jerusalem is the holy city on a hill. Yet there
is also a cultic nuance, especially when the word is used without object.
That ava Balvelv was a cultic term may be seen in non-biblical writings. Stein-
leitner 13 has pointed out that, though &vaalvelv became the usual expression by
reason of the elevated situation of temples, it became a technical term for cultic
action in the sense of going to the temple.

Thus we have ovaBai 'Avtiyovn and a[v]a (B)ai uETd TOV lolwv Tavtoy 15
on inscriptions from Cnidos. Again, we find avaBovtes fnl rov Bouov tis 'Apté-
utoos ts Aeuxoopunvic 16 on a Cretan inscription. Since the immediate environs of
the temple are also holy, the expression &vaBalvelv frl to xoplov also has cultic
ring. 17 There is attestation in the pap. too. In P. Par., 49, 34 we read: Édy avapi
kdyo ipooxunoai, and 47, 19 f.: 8 atpatnyoc avaBalvEl aUpIOv EIC to Zapa-
TInv. 18 Even clearer are the accounts of the Caric Panamaros cult on the Panamara
inscr. 19 In the festival of Comyrion, held in honour of Zeus, there is reference to a cere-
mony called the &vodoc or avaBaais tof 0eo0. 20 The idol, which leaves the temple at
appointed times and then stays in Stratonikeia, is at the time of the main celebration
of the mystery cult brought back to the temple, which lay on a hill near Stratonikeia.
In the mystical sense dvaBalvElV is found in P. Oxy., 41, 5, which refers to the divine
power flowing into man to salvation: tony oili TE Kal avaBain eiruxoc tO
oiloroair.
3. The culmination of &vaBaivelv in the religious sphere is the orvaBaivElV
eic tov oupavov. This corresponds to the Heb. by1 mby (Dt. 30:12; Am. 9:2;
2 K. 2:11. Cf. 1 S. 2:10 on72 129 (LXX : Kupioc aveBn eic oipavobs).21
In Peter's first address in Ac. 2:34 there is reference to the &vaBalvElv Elg TOUg
ou pavoug. Ps. 110:1 is adduced in proof of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus.
Here, according to the argument, the prophecy is not fulfilled in the person of
David. It has been fulfilled, however, in Jesus. The author of Acts says expressly :
ou yap Aqueld &vepn els touc oipavouc. In Rabbinic literature this Psalm is
interpreted both non-Messianically and Messianically. 22 The Messianic inter-
pretations either refer it to the Messiah, or to David as prince in the last time of
salvation, or to the Messianic age with no mention of the Messiah. 23 It is just
possible that in Ac. 2:34 Luke consciously polemicises against the reference of
the Ps. to David. In relation to the ascension Luke thinks exclusively of Jesus.

13 F. Steinleitner, Die Beicht im Zusammenhange mit der sakralen Rechtspflege in der

Antike (Diss. Munchen, 1913), 41.
14 C. T. Newton, A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae
(1862 f.), II, 2, 719, No. 81, 19.
15 Ibid., 735, No. 85.
16 Ditt. Syll.3, 685, 26.
17 Cf. Steinleitner, 40 and 41, where further examples are given.
18 Moult.-Mill., I, 29 f., s.v. dvaBalvo here refers to Lk. 18:10 as a par.
19 The inscr. may be found in BCH, 11 (1887), 373 ff.; 12 (1888), 82 ff.; 15 (1891),
169 ff. Cf. H. Oppermann, "Zeus Panamaros," RVV, 19 (1924), 73-75.
20 BCH, 15, 185, No. 130, n. 15 f.; 11, 383, No. 3, 10; 15, 203, No. 144, 10. O. Weinreich
(Mithr.-Liturg., 225) refers the expression dvépn ZEOC eic 8poc xpuoouv (Mithr.-Liturg.,
20, 13 f.) to the Panamaros cult on account of the word quapa (20, 14). Oppermann
(op. cit., 207) rejects this special interpretation and takes the phrase generally, since many
temples of Zeus were located on hills.
Schl. J., 93.
22 V. Str.-B., IV, 452 ff. Excursus: "Der 110. Ps. in der altrabbinischen Literatur."
23 Examples in Str.-B., IV, 457 f.
dvaBaivo

He alone is exalted to the right hand of God and has thus been given a share in
the divine rule. He alone is the Messiah. Perhaps in such statements early
Christianity was rejecting the "ascensions" of Jewish apocalyptic. In later Judaism
we have many depictions of the heavenly journeys of famous heroes of faith
(v. 1 En. 70-71; 2 En.; Test. L. 2-5; 4 Bar.; Vis. Is.; Vit. Ad., 25 ff.; Apc. Abr.). 24
The notion of the heavenly journey of the soul, often depicted after the manner
of these ascensions, is later found in Gnostic circles. 25
In the conception of Christ in John's Gospel avaBalvelV, with KataBa(vElV,
plays an important part. The Johannine Christ has come down from heaven. He
thus knows of heavenly things (3:12 f.).28 He will be lifted up again to heaven,
to the place where He was before (6:62). His ascension is His going up to the
Father (20:17). As a heavenly being who has taken flesh and concealed His
86&a, the Johannine Christ on earth is constantly in touch with the heavenly
world. The angels maintain His uninterrupted intercourse with God. By their
descending and ascending (Gn. 28:12) they mediate this contact with the heavenly
world and "support the work of the Son of Man on earth" 27 (Jn. 1:51). 28 The
same thought is present in Eph. 4:8-10. Here Ps. 68:18, referred by the Rabbinic
tradition to Moses, 20 is reinterpreted christologically. The author uses kata-
BalvElv and &vaBalvElv of the descent and ascent of the Redeemer. He aims to
show that the One who ascends is identical with the One who descended. After
the completion of His earthly work Christ returns to His original place. Schlier 30
has rightly pointed out that katapalvelv and avafalvelv are technical terms for
the coming down of the Redeemer to earth and His going up from earth to heaven.
The questions in R. 10:6 f.: tic avaBñoetal Els TOV oupavov; and tic kata-
Broetal Elc thy &Bucaov; formulated according to Dt. 30:11-14 and certain pas-
sages from the Psalms (w70:19; 106:26 etc.), are probably only a rhetorical way
of using a proverbial saying which denotes something quite impossible. 31 If So,
the meaning is that it is not necessary to fetch the Messiah either from heaven or
hell. The righteousness which is by faith, unlike the Jews who do not believe in
Christ, knows that He is already present. At the back of Paul's thinking there is
naturally the idea of the descent of the pre-existent Christ and His resurrection
from the dead.
In Revelation the demand is made of the seer (4:1) : 'AvaBa 6bE. The state of
prophetic rapture is denoted by these words. A door is opened in heaven, and
the divine looks into the throne room of heaven.

There is an important par. in the Mithras-Liturg., 10, 22. The initiate is promised that
he will see the doors of heaven opened and that he will thus see the world of the gods

24 Cf. Bouss.-Gressm., 297 f.

25 Much material is to be found in H. Schlier, Christus u1. d. Kirche im Eph. Brief (1930),
ff.
26 Cf. Schl. J., 93 f. and H. Odeberg, Fourth Gospel (1929), 72 ff.
27 H. Windisch, "Angelophanien um den Menschenshn auf Eden," N, 30 (1931),
215. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, Angelos, (1928/30), 2 ff.; Odeberg, Fourth Gospel, 33 ff.;
H. E. Weber, "Eschatologie" und "Mystik" im NT (1930), 169.
28 A similar view is found in the Mithr.-Liturg., 6.11: &WEl BElaV HEALV, TOUC TOEDOV-
tac avaBalvovtas Elc oupavov OEOUS, gouc 8€ kataBalvovtas.
29 Str.-B., III, 596 ff.
30 Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph. Brief, 3.
31 So BM, 94a; b Git., 84a; cf. Str.-B., III, 281; Ltzm. R. on 10:6.
 avaBaivo - kata Balvo

within, so that his spirit will be enraptured by the joy and delight of his vision and will
mount up on high. 32
In other non-biblical passages 33 we also read of the ascent Elc tov oupavov, 34 Émi
Tov "O1uuTtov. 35
In Ac. 10:4 Cornelius is told by an angel who appears to him that his prayers
and good deeds have ascended up for a memorial before God (&véBnoav sic
uvqubouvov Eutpoo0 EV TOU 0E00). In Ac. 7:23 we have the peculiar expression
avEBn eni thy kapblav aitoi, modelled on the Heb. 22 by T2y ⅗6 Similarly we
read in Lk. 24:38 : 81& Tl Sa^oyiouoi avaBaivouaiv Év in kapbia ouov;
kataBaivo.
1. This word is the complete opp. of &vaBaivo, both spatially and geographically
and also cultically. Cf. the altar of the descending Demetrius (^nuntpiou katapatou)
in Plut. Demetr., 10 (I, 893, Kleinknecht). In the LXX it is usually the rendering of
77:. 1 There are no essential differences between its use in the OT and the NT.
It is often used of leaving Jerusalem or Palestine or other places. Usually the
place which one leaves or to which one goes is mentioned.2 But is also occurs
absolutely. Another usage is in relation to natural phenomena. Rain, storm, hail
and fire come down from heaven.
2. In the religious sphere kata BaivelV is mostly used in close conjunction with
avaBaivElv. In many passages (Jn. 3:13; 6:33 ff.), and especially in the self-
declarations of Jesus, the Fourth Gospel stresses the fact that the Son of Man is
o EK tou oipavoi kataBac. He has come down from heaven to do the will of
the Father who has sent Him (6:38).' The gifts which He offers are also gifts
from heaven. Jesus calls Himself 8 aptos 6 kataBac ék tou oupavou (6:41 f.).4
Those who partake of Him, the Bread of God (6:33), will partake of heavenly
being and nature. Those who feed on Him will never die but live to eternity
(6:50 f., 58). For the true Bread from heaven has two features : the kataBaivelV
EK toU oipavoi and the Gwnv Biovai Ti Koou0. 5
According to Jm. 1:17 every good and perfect gift comes down from God, the
Father of lights. 6 At the baptism of Jesus the Baptist sees the Spirit like a dove
coming down on Him (Jn. 1:32). Baptism itself is described as a kataBaivelv Elc

32 GOTE aTto ths tou Dequatoc hoovns kai ths xapac to TIVEDU& YOU CUVIP&E
Kai dvaBaivelv.
33 Cf. Porphyr. Ad Marc., 27: katavontÉov 08v Ttpotov oot tov ths dUoeG vouov,
aTto 8& Toutou avaBateov Enl Tov Oelov.
34 Dio C., 59, 11,4: AlouI6G TE TIS NENIVIoC POUAEUTNS Éc TE TOV oipavov authv
(Drusilla) &vaBaivouoay Kal toic leois aurr k‡vva Da
35 In parody Luc. Icaromen., 11: Émi tov "Oloutov avabac.
38 Cf. Bl.-Debr., $ 130, 1 and p. 291.
kataBalvw. 1 On the detailed meanings of 772 v. Ges.-Buhl, s.v. On KataBaivElV
in the LXX, cf. Hatch-Redpath, S.v.
Jn. 5:4, which is not authentic, has the prep. €v instead of the usual Eig: KaTéBaLVEV
Év th koluuBj0pa. Cf. BCH, 15, 185, No. 130, n. 15 f.: th dv660 I Ev tO (epo (= eis
TO lepov). On this pt. v. Oppermann, "Zeus Panamaros,' loc. cit. - 520. 1. 19) . In P. Par.,
42, 10 we read gov Katapool EKTOC tOU goUAou. Cf. on this pt. Moult.-Mill., IV,
324, s.v. kataBalvo.
3 On the alternation of & o and EK with kataBaivelv in Jn., v. Schl. J., 175; cf. Schl.
Mt., 268.
Cf. Schl. J., 176.
Ibid., 173.
6 On this pt. v. Dib. Jk. on 1:17 and A. Meyer, Das Ratsel des Ik. Briefes (1930), 184,
205 etc.
KataBalvu - uetaBalvo

(To) 08∞p in Ac. 8:38.7 Contact with the heavenly world is mediated for Jesus
by the kataBalvElV and avaBalvElv of the angels (Jn. 1:51; - 521). In Eph. 4:9 f.
KaTÉBn EiC to KaTo TEDa uÉpn tis yis refers to the earthly journey of the
Redeemer, 8 not to His descent into Hades. 9 Yet motifs from the journey into the
underworld are transferred to this earthly journey. 10 For kat&Baois is a technical
term for descent to the underworld. 11
3. KataBalvElV is also used of eschatological events, esp. in Rev. These start
in heaven and come down from it upon the earth and men. The parousia in
particular is a descent of the Kupios from heaven (1 Th. 4:16) . The new Jerusalem
also comes down from God out of heaven to earth (Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10).
4. kataBalvEly is used in a philosophical sense in Heraclitus Hom. Alleg., 3 : 008'
Elc to poxia ts ÉKElvou coplas kataBEB KaGlv. Philo speaks of the Spirit
descending from heaven 12 and of joy coming down from heaven to earth. 13 The souls
which enter human bodies also come down from heaven. 14

5. Finally, outside the NT KataBalvElV is a commercial term for a fall in the value
of money. Thus in P. Oxy., 1223, 33 we read: 6 ookottIvoc viv uu(pia8ov) B'K
totiv® katÉBn yap.
pET BaIVO.
The usual meaning of ueTaBalvElV is "'to move from one place to another,"
especially "to change one's dwelling," though also in speaking and writing "to
move on to a new subject," 2 and "to attain from one state to another.'
In the NT the word occurs predominantly in the topographical sense. 3 Only
in the Johannine literature is it used metaphorically. Thus in Jn. 5:24 and 1 Jn. 3:14
we have the expression: uetaBEBnKÉvaL Éx Too BaVaTOU EiG thy gonv. Be-
lievers are removed from the sphere of death. By acceptance of the divine Word
in faith they have crossed the frontier between death and life even in their earthly
existence. In Jn. 13:1 there is a sharp distinction between this world and the
heavenly world of the Father. For Jesus the hour of death means a change of
scene and therefore transition into the state of 86& a which He enjoyed as the
Pre-existent prior to His incarnation.
There is a par. in Ditt. Or., 458, 7: els druxec LeTaBEBnkoc oxiua.
Schneider

Cf. Barn., 11, 8 and 11; Herm. m., 4, 3, 1; s., 9, 16, 4 and 6.
8 Cf. Schlier, op. cit., 3.
9 So, e.g., W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos3 (1926), 30 f.
10 Schlier, op. cit., 4, n. 2.
11 Pauly-W., X (1919), 2359 ff. (Ganschinietz); v. also Anth. Pal., XI, 23 : ic alon
ula maal kataiBaaic; cf. ibid., 92 : kai répac Elc alonv kataBas, and 274 : Toc
katÉBalvev Ao Alavoi wuxh 8Qua to DEpOEp6VnS; Ps.-Plut. Vit. Poes. Hom., 126 : elc
XOOU KATEIOLV.
19 Rer. Div. Her., 274 : &vw0EV dent' oupavot kataBag o vouc.
13 Abr., 205 : yapav an' oupavoi kataBalvelv Ent thy ynv.
14 Gig., 12; Sacr. AC, 48.
HETa Balvo. 1 P. Tebt., 316, 20 and 92 cf. Lk. 10:7. Also Mart. Pol., 6, 1.
E.g.. Plat. Phaedr., 265c; Crat., 438a. Cf. also Barn., 18, 1: gl ÉtÉpav yvoow kai
B1bayqv uetaBalvEIv.
Mt. 8:34: 11:1: 12:9; 15:29; Lk. 10:7; Jn. 7:3; Ac. 18:7. In the LXX only Wis. 7:27:
19:19 and 2 Macc. 6:1, 9, 24.
There is a similar expression in Wis. 7:27: (oopla) xal KaT& yEVEOS Els tuxac
bolas usta Baivouoa.
Cf. also Anth. Pal., IX, 378 : xal Ko1& petaBac (- transgressus) dAayoOL.
 Balaau

t Balaou
1. The OT gives us two different accounts of Balaam. The first is in Nu. 22-24
(J and E); Jos. 24:9-10; Mi. 6:5; also Dt. 23:5-6 (quoted in Neh. 13:2). Balak the
king of Moab summons him to curse Israel. Instead, he blesses the people according
to the command of God. The emphasis of the story is on the blessing of the
people. Balaam himself is simply an instrument of the will of God. No question
of personal merit or personal guilt arises. The second is in Nu. 31:16 (P). On the
advice of Balaam the Midianite women (or Moabite in Nu.25:1) entice the
Israelites into licentiousness and therefore into apostasy from Yahweh to Baal
Peor. 1 Because of this, Balaam is killed in the campaign of revenge against the
Midianites (Nu. 31:8 = Jos. 13:22).
2. Later Judaism found the kernel of the story of Balaam in 31:16 and interpreted
the older account (Nu. 22-24) in the light of it. Balaam, who enticed Israel into licentious-
ness and apostasy (S. Nu., 157 on 31:8 and 16; S. Nu., 131 on 25:1, with the par.
Tanch. B p52, 74a; bSanh., 106a) 2 is the "wrongdoer" (Tanch. B pb2 69a, twice ; 70a,
several times ; Ab., 5, 19; bZeb., 116a etc.). He was envious and malicious acc. to
Nu. 24:2; proud acc. to Nu, 22:13; 3 covetous acc. to Nu. 22:18 (Tanch. B ph2, 68b;
Nu. r., 20; Ab., 5, 19). 5 What he said to the angel who stopped him in the way
(Nu. 22:34) was hypocrisy and deceit which marked him as thoroughly bad (Tanch. B
P52, 70a). In Sanh., 10, 2 he is expressly numbered among those who have no part in
the future world. & Philo depicts him in exactly the same colours (Vit. Mos., I, 264-300;
Migr. Abr., 113-115). T On the other hand, Josephus is more restrained in his judgment
(Ant., 4, 100-158). He does not censure him even in respect of his counsel (Nu. 31:16).
He stresses all the favourable aspects and either ignores 8 or quickly passes over the
rest. Josephus must have had some interest in putting him in the best possible light. 9

Balaau. W. Smith and H. Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biography (1877 ff.), I, 239 f.:
DAC, I,.127; Jew. Enc., II, 466 ff.; E], IV, 790 ff.; Comm. on Pt. 2:15 f.; Jd. 11; Rev. 2:14.
1 This story of P perhaps arose out of the fact that in J and E the account of licentious-
ness and idolatry immediately follows the Balaam story (Nu. 25:1 ff.), so that an inner
connection was sought between the two. Cf. Akiba's declaration concerning Nu. 25:1 (S. Nu.,
131): "Every section which is directly connected with what precedes (as Nu. 25:1 with
the Balaam story) must be interpreted in the light of it.
2 Str.-B., III, 793.
8 For he says here : "God has not permitted me to go with you," i.e., He will permit me
to go with greater than you (Tanch., ad loc.).
Str.-B., III, 771.
5 A. Geiger (Jid. Zeitschr. Wiss. u. Leben, 6 [1868], 31-37) has advanced the view
(followed by Str.-B., IV, 1218, Index s.v.) that in Ab., 5, 19 Balaam is a concealed name
for Jesus. Only in 2 passages and nowhere else in Rabb. literature ~ is this at all likely,
namely, in bSanh., 106a in R. Levi's (3rd cent. A.D.) exposition of Nu. 24:23 and bSanh.,
106b in the debate between R. Chanina (3rd cent. A.D.) and a heretic on the age of
Balaam (33 yrs.).
The passages might easily be multiplied. For later Rabb. views of the story, v. E]
and Jew. Encyc. (and esp. bSanh., 105 Tg. J., I on Nu. 22-24).
Cf. esp. Migr. Abr., 113 : & uataios Balaau • doEBnG Kal Enapatos; ibid., 114:
tois yap to eulois onolv airov eni pi00@ outayeevia LOVtIV YEVEODaI KAKOV
KaKoV.
E.g., the fact that the Israelites slew Balaam in revenge for his evil action (Nu. 31:8).
He gives names to the Midianite kings slain acc. to Nu. 31:8, but does not mention Balaam
(Ant., 4, 161).
For he can hardly have failed to know the later Jewish assessment, attested by Philo
as well as the Rabbis and already present in germ in P Nu. 31:16. Cf. the strange con-
Balaau - BalA&vtiov

3. This later Jewish assessment of Balaam (e.g., by, Philo and the Rabbis) was
adopted in toto by Christianity too. In 2 Pt. 2:15; Jd. 11; Rev. 2:14 Balaam is an
OT model of the licentious Gnostic whose errors disrupt the Christian community.
The true point of comparison is indicated in Rev. 2:14. As Balaam seduced the
Israelites by his counsel, so the Nicolaitans, as Rev. calls the Gnostics, 10 entice
the churches by their teaching to idolatry (the eating of flesh sacrificed to idols)
and licentiousness. 11, 12 Another less central point of comparison is mentioned in
Jd. 11 13 (as also 2 Pt. 2:15), namely, that like Balaam the Gnostics carry on their
destructive activity out of covetousness and for gain. 14 2 Pt. 2:16 sees in the
episode in Nu. 22:22-33 a proof that Balaam was hostile to God, inferring that
the heretics who are like him are similarly hostile. It may be seen that in early
Christian polemics Balaam, the dreadful example, became a catch-word and stock
comparison. The comparison did not have to be worked out in detail; it was
enough simply to make it, as in Jd.11.
Kuhn

t BaAAdVtlOV (-> thpa).

The spelling of this word varies in antiquity.1 In so far as BaAEIV is the basic
word, Baldvlov is the more correct. Yet BaAavtlov is the better attested. Textually
the two forms occur alongside, e.g., in Teleclides, 41 (CAF, 1, 219), Job 14:17 LXX (B:
#v Balavtio; x A: §v Barlavtlo) and the three NT passages (Lk. 10:4; 12:33;
22:35 f.) where the older and more important witnesses (including * ABD) favour
BaNAovtiov.
The term, first used in Epicharmus, 10 (5th cent. B.C.), 2 always 3 means "pocket"
or "purse," and esp. a "purse for money, whether with (Aristoph. Eq., 1197: apyupiou
Barlovtia) or without the explanatory addition (Telecl., 41: x Ballavlou, 4 etc.).
To this there corresponds the explanation of BaAavtlov by uXpolttos in Suidas,

cluding sentence on the Balaam story in Ant., 4, 158 : kai taita HEV ic av autoic tiol
BOKN OUT OKOTEiTwoV, which seems almost to be an excuse for his depiction to those
who think otherwise.
10 Certainly based on a NikoAaoc as the founder of the sect, since the name cannot be
understood in terms of popular etymology as a transl. of by22 ay 922 ( devourer of the
people," bSanh., 105a). Cf. R. Knopf, Das nachapostolische Zeitalter (1905), 293, n. 1;
A. v. Harnack, Journal of Religion, 3 (1923), 413 ff. (where sources and bibl. are given).
11 TropVEUoXI in Rev. 2:14 is to be taken lit. and not therefore as "syncretistic strivings"
(as in Loh. Apk., 29).
12 The 818axh Balaxu of Rev. 2:14 is to be compared with by?a bu uphba (Ab., 5, 19),
i.e., the disciples of Balaam, or those who act like him, as the opp. of 07928-50 97978,
i.e., those who are similar in character to Abr. It is erroneous to conclude that there was
sect of Balaamites.
13 The Ttovn Tou Balaau naturally denotes the 818GOKEIV payEiv slow o0uta
Kai TopVEigaI, as Rev. 2:14.
14 Cf. Ani u160 in Philo Migr. Abr., 114 (- n. 7). There is no comparison with Balaam
in respect of the despising of angels (as against Wnd. on Jd. 11).
Ballavtlov. On the question of spelling v. Thes. Steph. s.v.; Bl.-Debr. § 11, 2;
Helbing, 15 f.; Winer-Schmiedel, 55, n. 51; Liddell-Scott, 304.
CGF, I, 1, p. 92, Kaibel.
3 The only apparent exception is in a quotation of the older Dionysius of Syracuse in
Athen., III, 98d (1, p. 226, Kaibel); in a "witty" play on words Balavtiov is here claimed
for the javelin (&K6vtiov) (8tl Evavtlov BalAEtal).
Cf. Kock, ad loc.
 BalA&vtiov - Barlo

though in Gr. Sir. 18:33 the readings fv Balavtlo (nca) and Év HapoliTo (AC)
or Ev HAPOLTITIO (N*B) etc. are found alongside. It occurs 6 times in the LXX (though
only in at Tob. 1:14; 8:2); it is a translation of jiny at Job 14:17 and 092 at Pr. 1:14. 6
In later Judaism the latter became the usual word for a money-bag. 6 As a bag or
purse Ba(^) AXVtlOV is also found in Philo Jos., 180 (BaAavtlov UToueotov apyu-
piou); 207 (Thv tuunv [purchase price] Ev Balavtioi katalEivat). It does not occur
in Josephus. It is found once as an alien word in S. Lv., 109c on 25:39: ... that he
should not follow with the purse (1"0332) like a slave.'

The 4 NT occurrences are all in Lk. (10:4; 12:33; 22:35 f.) and always signify
a purse in the sense also found in Jewish Hellenism. At 10:4 it is linked directly
with > pa, and is not therefore an equivalent, an important point in fixing the
basic meaning of this term. Materially Jesus' exhortation to the seventy (-ÉB8o-
unKovta) : un BaOTO(ETE BaAA&vtLOV, is the same as that to the twelve, which
reads in Mt. 10:9: pn KThoaole ypuoov unbe opyupov unde xa\kov eic tac
Lovac ouav, and in Mk. 6:8 : un eig thy govnv kalkov, whereas in this case
Lk. (9:3) simply has unte apyupiov. On both occasions the point is that the
disciples are not to rely on greater or smaller sums of money which travellers
usually carry& to meet their needs. Matthew and Mark, however, think of the
native custom of tying coins into the girdle, ® while Luke assumes the possession
of a special purse and is thus thinking in terms of a greater amount. It is possible,
however, that Luke mentions the purse because it was part of the equipment of
the well-to-do townsman (-* supra). If the disciples were not to carry it, this would
imply renunciation of the financial security of civic society as elsewhere indicated
in Lk. 10 The second passage (12:33) is certainly relevant in this connection, while
the third (22:35 f.) refers back to 10:4, though regard is now had to the alteration
in the situation of the disciples with the approaching death of Jesus.
Rengstor[

BaAw, EK-, ETTIBXAAG

Ballo.
a. trans. the powerful 1 movement of "throwing" or "propelling," e.g., BÉAOG, Hom.
Od., 9, 495; oropov, Theocr., 25, 16; Kompla, P. Oxy., 934, 9; KAñpous, Jos. Ant., 6, 61;
opynv enl thv ynv, Jos. Ant., 1, 98; TIV& E&o yns, Soph. Oed. Tyr., 622; Eis oulaknv,
Epict. Diss., I, 1,24; vulg. "to throw out" : Elc kopakas, Aristoph. Vesp., 835; ooas
aitouc & to Tov SOuAToV, "to cast oneself down," Jos. Bell., 4, 28; Elc (tov Onoau-
pov), Jos. Ant., 9, 163; pass.: BepAnuÉvos Ttpo tov TO6 v, Jos. Bell., 1, 629. b. "to
bring to a place," "to lay down, "to pour in" : olvov Elg Ti0ov, Epict. Diss., IV,
13, 12; Évt Ovu BaNAELV, "to lay up a thought in the heart," Hom. Od., 1, 201; mid. :

5 099, which here means purse or bag generally, is sometimes rendered uapoitttlov in
the LXX, as in Is. 46:6, where it clearly means money-bag."
8 No importance is to be attached to passages like Bek., 6, 6, where 6'S has a special
meaning derived from the basic sense of purse.
KI. Lk., ad loc.
8 Cf. e.g., Lk. 10:35 : ÉxBaAdv 800 &nvapia, an expression behind which Thes. Steph.,
II, 74 (Dindorf) sees the possession and use of a BalAdvtiov.
V. the examples in Str.-B., I, 564 f., where Billerbeck also calls attention to the fact
that "the girdle is often called X731D, 7731D or 9731DN, i.e., funda = purse.
10 With the sayings against riches, cf. esp. 12:13 ff., but also Ac. 2:45 f.; 4:34 ff.; 5:1 ff.
Ballw. 1 A passionate book like Rev. uses BaAElV no less than 26 times.
BarA© - ÉkBaiAo

kpntioa (foundation stone), Pind. Pyth., 7, 4 (cf. fundamenta iacere). c. intr.2 "to
cast onself on," Eis unvov, "to sink into sleep,' Eur. Cyc., 574.
In the LXX B&XXelv is the counterpart of 5p1 hiph : xAñpous, 1 Bao. 14:42; "21:18;
aw hiph Qoh. 3:5; Is. 19:8; 79 2 Ch. 26:15; Is. 37:33; Job 38:6: 10ov yoviaiov.
In the NT Ba^AELV is first used trans. for "to throw"' or "to cast, e.g., Mt.
4:18 : 8 qupifAnotpov Eic 0x\aooav; Mt. 17:27: &ykiotpov; Mk. 4:26: ottopov;
Mk. 15:24 : kAñpov; Rev. 6:13 : "to cast off fruit. Often in the NT BaNELV is
used in different ways in connection with the thought of judgment, partly as
committal to the element which exercises it : eis rtop, Mt. 3:10; 13:42; EIC yEEVVOV,
5:29 and par., partly of expulsion from the community of salvation, as with the
adv. Ho in the sense of > ÉKB&AAEIV, Mt. 5:13 and par.; 13:48; Lk. 14:35; Jn. 15:6.
In Mt. 18:9 and par. BaE &to 000 expresses resolute separation from what
entices to sin.

On the pass. "to lie," used of the sick man in Mt. 8:6, 14, cf. T. Ket., 4, 15: 77
1710702 501 a510 etc. 4

Again, BaAELV in the NT simply means, as under b., "to lay down," "to set in
a place" : Mk. 2:22 and par.: wine in the wineskin; Mk. 7:33 : the finger in the
ears In. 20:25 : the finger in the wounds ; In. 13:2: a thought in the heart. On
the expression Elp ny or uayaipav parAelv els thy ynv, cf. the Rabb. b1w 5707
(M. Ex. 20:25; S. Nu., 16 on 5:23; 42 on 6:26).
Intr. (cf. c.) in Ac. 27:14 of the breaking of the storm.

Éxpor^o.
a. "To throw out," 'to expel," "to repel," e.g., of invading enemies, Demosth., 60, 8;
of expulsion from the government, Thuc., II, 68, 6; of the expulsion of demons, cf.
Preis. Zaub., IV, 1227: "pagic yevaia Expa^louoa baluovas; of exclusion from
the house, P. Oxy., I, 104, 17; Aoyous, Plat. Crito, 46b (of the bandying of the name).
b. "To send forth," without the accompanying sense of violence, P. Ryl., 80, 1 (1st cent.
A.D.): 68p00uAaKas, "to lead forth,' "to release": Ék ths Quakic; "to leave
aside" : to dvayvoalev 8&VEIOV, Mitteis-Wilcken, No. 372, col., 6, 23 (2nd cent. A.D.);
"to cause to break forth from within" : &&xpua, Hom. Od., 19, 362.
In the LXX ÉKBaAAElV in the sense of "to eject" or "to repel" is the usual equivalent
of 1 2 (Gn. 3:24; Ex. 6:1; Lv. 21:7, yuvaika; Ju. 6:9; Prv. 22:10, Ék guvE6plou ; also
of ahw hiph (Is. 2:20, BdeAoyuata); of vi hiph ; "to eject from possession" (Ex.
34:24, To V0vn; Dt. 11:23 etc.).
In the NT EKB&XAeIv has particularly 1. the sense of "to expel" or "to repel,"
esp. in the case of demons, who have settled in men as in a house (Mt. 12:44)
into which they have unlawfully penetrated (Mk. 1:34, 43; 3:15, 22 f.; 9:38 etc.).
By ancient custom demons were ejected by pronouncing against them the name
of a more powerful spirit (cf. Mt. 12:29). Thus there had been constructed, esp.

2 Radermacher, 23; H. Ljungvik, Studien z. Sprache d. apokryphen Apostelgeschichten

(1926), 77 f.
Mk. 1:16: duo1par elv without obj.
4 Schl. Mt., 274.
ExB&AA G. 1 Maptoptov this dylac Alkatepivas, 18, p. 17. Viteau ; D. Taba-
chovitz, Sprachl. und textkrit. Studien zur Chronik des Theophanes Confessor (Uppsala,
1926). 32; Wien. Stud., XX (1898), 159.
 £KBXAAO - ETtlBaAAo

by Judaism in the time of Jesus, a whole apparatus of formulae and measures which
were supposed to be effective against demons.2 Yet a demon can be expelled
simply by the word of command, e.g., R. Simeon. 3 Jesus, 4 who accepts the current
view of demons, ignores in His expulsions the whole apparatus constructed by
Judaism. His majesty finds expression in His accomplishment of expulsions by the
Word (Mt. 8:16). He has full power over demons, so that they cannot evade
His command (Mk. 1:27). He brings the power of God to bear against them
(Lk. 11:20). 5 The distinctive feature in His exorcisms is to be found not merely
in the powerful and majestic sovereignty therein displayed but in the appraisal of
His actions and their results. The latter are for Him a sign that the kingdom of
God is being inaugurated (Mt. 12:28). He thus engages in exorcism in conscious
connection with His preaching of the coming of the kingdom. Hence He charges
His messengers (- gootoos) to exorcise as part of their commission (Mt.
10:1,8). In the assessment of His successes against demons as devilish (Ev TO
BEEA(EBoUA, Mt. 12:24; 9:34) He sees a blasphemous misrepresentation of the
holy war which He wages in the name of God (Mt. 12:22 ff., 31). A result of
His successes is that soon His own "name" (-> Evoua) comes to be used as a
means of driving them out (Mk. 9:38; 16:17).
2. In the NT ÉKB&NAELV is also used of the expulsion of the wife or secondary
wife in Gl. 4:30 (cf. Gen. 21:10); of the plucking out of the eye (Mk. 9:47); of
expulsion from the community, as in the case of the Jews driving out those who
confess Christ (Jn. 9:34 f.). 6 In contrast, Jesus excludes from His fellowship none
of those whom the Father causes to come to Him (Jn. 6:37). T It is used of the
expulsion from the community exercised by the pLAOTPOTEDDV ALOTpÉons (3 Jn.
10) and also of the casting out of the Christian name (Lk. 6:22).
3. "To send out,"8 Mt. 9:38 and par.: épydtas elc tov depicubv; Jn. 10:4; Jm.
2:25; Ac. 16:37: "to let go, "release"; Mk. 1:12 : "to lead out" Mt. 7:4 and par. :
"to pull out" (Kappoc, 8okov); Mt. 12:35; 13:52; Lk. 10:35 : "to take forth"; Mt. 12:20 :
"to lead forth Elc vikos, unto victory"; Rev. 11:2 : "to leave out.' Pass. Mt. 15:17:
"to let fall elc apeopiova.

ETiBoAAw.
"to throw over" (x^aivarv), Hom. Od., 14, 520; "to lay on" (xeipa),
a. trans.
Aesch. Choeph., 395; (yeipas tvi), Aristoph. Lys., 440; "to add to' (yala Eni To
68@p), Theophr. Ign., 49. b. intrans. "to cast oneself on something, Hom. Od., 15, 297,
ErEBaXe TEPETIZELV, Diog. L., VI, 27; EftipaAov OUVEXWOEV, P. Tebt., 50, 12; in the
hostile sense, "to break in," Diod. S., XVII, 64, 3; "to dedicate oneself to something,

Cf. e.g., Jos. Ant., 8, 45 ff. Cf. also Str.-B., IV, 501-535 on older Jewish demonology,
esp. 533 ff.; RE3, IV, 411 ff. S.v. "Damonische"; W. Ebstein, Die Medizin im NT u. im
Talmud (1903), 173 ff.; A. Jirku, Die Damonen und ihre Abwehr im AT (1912), 41 ff.;
J. Tambornino, De antiquorum daemonismo, RVV, VII, 3 (1909), 9 ff., 16 f.
3 Me'ila, 17b : "He said : Ben Telamjon, go forth (MY), Ben Telamjon !" (Str.-B., IV,
534 f.).
O. Bauernfeind, Die Austreibung der Damonen im MkEv. (1926); W. Grundmann,
Der Begriff d. Kraft in d. nt.lichen Gedankenwelt (1932), esp. 45 ff., 54 f., 66 f.
6 Ev SaKTUAG 0E00. This is undoubtedly older than the ty TVE LATI 0:00 of Mt. 12:28,
which is a more spiritual way of expressing the same thought.
8 The meaning is twofold, as so often in Jn., i.e. out of the hall of judgment and also
out of the Jewish community, cf. 9:22.
EKB& EI is used absol. in both cases and strengthened by Ego.
8 Cf. E. Lofstedt, Symbolae philol. Danielsson (1932), 179 #F.
ETTLBXAAG -~ BaTT

Diod. S., XX, 43, 6; "to follow" Ént Baloov ton, Polyb., I, 80, 1; "to belong to": to
ÉTtlB&^^ov sc. uÉpos, Hdt., IV, 115; TOU ETIBaNAOVTOS TO aBEAO uÉpouc olklas,
P. Flor., 50, 100 (3rd cent. A.D.). A current legal term. c. mid. "earnestly to desire,'
Hom. Il., 6, 68; "to undertake," Thuc., VI, 40, 2.
In the LXX ETTIB&AAELV is used for 5p1 hiph in Gn. 2:21; for 72 th hiph in U 107:10 vl.;
for nbw in Dt. 12:7, 18; Is. 11:14; for ND1 in Gn. 39:7; 7.3 in Ex. 7:4; cp in Nu. 4:6 f.;
tuatiov aio in Lv. 10:1; Nu. 16:18 @vulaua etc.
In the NT the word depicts trans. a. the violent movement of "casting on or
over," as in C. 7:35 (Bp6xov), and especially "hostile seizure," as in Mk. 14:46
and par.; Ac. 4:3; 5:18. The Fourth Gospel shows that the Jews cannot use force
against Jesus until His hour comes (Jn. 7:30, 44). It can be used of the putting of
one's hand to work (Lk. 9:62) or the putting of patch on a garment (Mt. 9:16
and par.).
Intrans. "to cast oneself on something" (Mk. 4:37: kouara). So also Mk. 14:72:
ETuBaAov EKAaIEV, "he began to weep bitterly" ; 1 Lk. 15:12 of the portion which
lawfully accrues. Hauck

Botto, Bantizo, Bartiou6s

Bantiopa, Bartioths

Barto, Barito.
A. The meaning of Banto and Bartigo.
BaTto, "to dip in or under" (trans.): Hom. Od., 9, 392; Aesch. Prom., 863 : §v
ooaryaian Bayaaa gipoc;: "to dye,' used in Josephus only in this sense, Bell., 4, 563;
Ant., 3, 102; Bouua, "dyed material," Ant., 3, 129; P. Par., 52, 10; 53, 5 (163/2 B.C.):
Batt&, "dyed or coloured clothes."

#TIB&AAG. Cf. Bl.-Debr. 8 308, Suppl., p. 308; Theophyl. MPG, 123, p. 661d,
ad loc. ÉTIlK∞AUU&UEVOC Thy KEQaANV h ovil tou apEquevos ueta apoopointos.
The reference is obviously also to Mk. 14:72, cf. the trans. in sy$ it: "began," D: tipeato
KAalEtv. H. Ljungvik, Studien z. Sprache d. apokr. Ap. Gesch. (1926), 77 f.
BATTO K TA. RE8 XIX, 396 ff. (with older bibl.); Cr.-Ko., 194 ff.; RGG?, V, 1002 ff.;
Pauly-W., Series, IV, 2501 ff.; NT Theology H. Weinel4 (1928), esp. 63, 202 f., 247.
356, 467 f.; H.J. Holtzmann? (1911), esp. , 171 ff., 448 ff., 501; II, 195 ff., 244, 268, 317,
554 ff.; P. Feine4 (1922), Index, s.v. Taufe ; A. Schlatter, Gesch. d. Chr.2 (1923). 69 ff.;
Theol. d. Ap.2 (1922), 35 ff. 515 ff. P. Althaus, Die Heilsbedeutung der Taufe im NT
(1897); W. Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu (1903); E. v. Dobschutz, "Sakrament und Symbol
im Urchristentum, ThStKr., 78 (1905), 1.40, cf. 461 ff.; F. Rendtorff, Die Taufe im Ur-
christentum im Lichte der neueren Forschungen (1905); H. Windisch, Taufe und Suinde im
altesten Christentum (1908); W. Koch, Die Taufe im NT3 (1921). Religious History :
J. Leipoldt, Die urchristl. Taufe im Lichte der Religionsgesch. (1928); E. Rohde, Psyche®,1
(1925), II, 405 ff.; F. Cumont, Die Mysterien des Mithra3 (1923), 144; Die orientalischen
Religionen im romischen Heidentum3 (1931, Index, s.v. taurobolium ; M. Dibelius, "Die
Isisweihe des Apuleius und verwandte Initiationsriten," SAH (1917); H. Gressmann, "Tod
und Auerstehung des Osiris nach Festbrauchen und Umzig," AO, 23 (3)in
stein Hell. Myst., esp. 16,20, 41, 81, 88, 143 f., 165; Die Vorgeschichte der christl. Taufe
(1929). and on this H. H. Schaeder, Gnomon, 5 (1929), 353 ff. and Reitzenstein, ARW, 27
(1929), 241 ff.; H. Lietzmann, "Ein Beitrag zur Mandaerfrage," SAB (1930), 596 ff.; F.
Dolger, Antike u. Christentum, (1929), 143 ff.; 150 ff.: 156 ff.; 174 ff.; II (1930), 57 ff.;
63 ff.: 117 ff. Judaism (Proselyte Baptism): W. Brandt, Die judischen Baptismen (1910);
 BaTto

The intens. Barrigo occurs in the sense of to immerse" (trans.) from the time of
Hippocrates, in Plato and esp. in later writers. a. strictly, act. Bantigelv to OKao0s,
"to sink the ship, Tos. Bell., 3, 368, o KAUBwv (TAS vaig) EBXTITIZEV, Bell., 3, 423;
pass. "to sink" : Év BAn (in the mud), Plot. Enn., I, 8, 13 (I, p. 112, 6, Volkmann ;
> 532), "to suffer shipwreck, "to drown, "to perish" : Jos. Bell., 3, 525; Epict. Gnom.
Stob. Fr. 47, p. 489, Schenkl; aBaTtotoC vaUs, schol. in Luc. Jup. Trag., 47, p. 83,
Rabe). In magic a part is played by water gTo vEVqUAyNK6TOS Tolou or aTto
TAKTOVOS BEBaTtiouÉvou, Preis. Zaub., V (London), 69 (4th cent. A.D., under
Christian influence R). b. figur., act. Batti(El Thy ToAlV, "to bring the city to the
border of destruction,' Jos. Bell., 4, 137; f Aun Barrigouaa Thy puxnv, Lib. Or., 18,
286; of desires which destroy the soul, Philo Leg. All., III, 18; Det. Pot. Ins., 176; Migr.
Abr., 204; pass. "to go under" with the same double meaning as in Eng., "to sink into'
sleep, intoxication, impotence : Hippocr. Epid., 5, 63 (or meaning a. 7); Jos. Ant., 10, 169;
"to be overwhelmed" by faults, desires, sicknesses, magical arts: Plut. Galb., 21 (I,
1265c); Philo Vit. Cont., 46; Max. Tyr., XVIII, 44; Plot. Enn., I, 4, 9 (I, p. 73, 5, Volk-
mann); loyuelv puxnv Aomn BEBaTtiouÉvny, Lib. Or., 64, 115; also absol. without
specification: Banrtign "'thou lettest thyself be overborne," Lib. Or., 45, 24; opp. at-
pEDOaL, Lib. Or., 18, 18.
The sense of "to bathe" or "to wash" is only occasionally found in Hellenism,
Menand. Fr., 363, 4 (CAF, III, 105), usually in sacral contexts, > 531. The idea of
going under or perishing is nearer the general usage.
The NT uses BaTTo only in the literal sense, in Lk. 16:24; In. 13:26 for "to dip in,
and in Rev. 19:13 for "to dye" on the other hand it uses Bantigo only in the cultic
sense, infrequently of Jewish washings (Mk.7:4 R D for pavtiowvral in Lk. 11:38),
and otherwise in the technical sense "to baptise." This usage shows that baptism is felt
to be something new and strange. The use of -> Banioua, Bartoins is similar.

B. Religious Washings in Hellenism.

1. The General Facts.
Sacral baths are found in the Eleusinian and similar cults, 1 in Bacchic consecra-
tions, 2 in Egyptian religion 3 and the worship of Isis outside Egypt,1 in the

Schurer, III, 181 ff.; Str.-B., I, 102 ff.; Jeremias, ZNW, 28 (1929), 312 ff.; G. Polster,
Angelos, 2 (1926), 2 ff. Jid. Lex., IV, 177 ff., 1146 ff.; V, 876 f. John the Bapt. M. Dibelius,
Die urchristliche Uberlieferung von Joh. d. T. (1911); C. A. Bernoulli, Joh. d. T. und die
Urgemeinde (1918); R. Bultmann, ZNW, 24 (1925), 139 ff.; on the Slav. Fr. of Josephus ed.
in Germ. by A. Berendts and K. Grass (Acta et comm. Univ. Dorpat, 1924 ff.): R. Eisler,
'Incoic BaalEuc ov Baotsioas (1928) (imaginative Baci EUc n. 63). Also F.
Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), Index, S.v. Taufe: H. Baer, Der hi. Geist in
den Lk.schriften (1926), 153 ff.; E. Sommerlath, Der Ursprung des neuen Lebens nach Pls.2
(1927), 100 ff.; A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Ap. Pls. (1930), esp. 222 ff.; H. v. Soden,
*Sakrament und Ethik bei Pls.," Marb. Theol. Stud. Rudolf Otto Fest-Gruss (1931), 1-40,
esp. 35. For the latest discussions of the origin of infant baptism, > n. 72.
Eleusinian relief (5th cent. B.C.), Angelos, 1 (1925), 46, No. 1; cf. Annuario della
regina scuola archeologica di Athene delle missione italiene in Oriente, IV/V (1921/22),
Bergamo (1924), Plate III. Myst. inscript. of Andania, Ditt. Syll.3, 736, 107 [BaAQVEUE] L
EV TO lepo. 68pavoc = o dyviains tOv 'ElEUOIVIwv, Hesychius (1867), 1486. On the
other hand, Tert. Bapt., 5 is not relevant in this connection. > n. 6.
2 Liv. XXXIX,9,4: pure lautum. A stucco relief from the Roman house in the garden of
the Villa Farnese Rom., Museo nazionale, Angelos, loc, cit., also Haas, No. 9/11, Leipoldt
(1926), No. 169, 188.
3 H. Bonnet, Angelos, 1 (1925), 103 ff.; also Leipoldt, Taufe, 45 ff. (as also for most of
the other cults).
4 Apul. Met., XI, 23; Juv., VI, 522 ff.; Tib., I, 3, 23 ff.: Tert. Bapt., 5.
 BaTIto

Mithras mysteries, 5 in the Apollinarian games and in the festival of Pelusium. &
The taurobolium and criopolium attested in the worship of Attis and Mithras
are post-Christian sacral baptisms of blood, perhaps by way of rivalry to
Christianity. Hard to integrate are certain baptismal customs in the upper Jordan
valley. They certainly illustrate that ancient religion, especially in the Orient, is
carried beyond the circle of direct perception by lustrations in which water is
used. On Mandaean baptism - 536. There are many early examples of sacral
water ceremonies in Babylon, ® Persia 10 and India. 11 With the Ganges the
Euphrates came to have a religious significance comparable with that of the
Jordan among Jews and Christians. 12 It is impossible to trace all these customs
to a common root.

2. BaTtigElv in Sacral and Similar Contexts.

This usage is comparatively infrequent. The most important passages are as
follows.
a. P. Lond., 121, 441 (3rd cent. A.D.; app. wholly pagan): One should live in vege-
tarian fashion, keep silence, throw something in the river, Kal Aouoquevos kal
BattioquEvos avaBa Tapa oautov. There then follows an incantation. The synon.
is worth noting. Cf. also Preis. Zaub., IV, 44 (4th cent. A.D.): Éva lou TO ToTauo.
uE0" AS EXEIC LOONTOS BaTTIOXUEVOS AVATOBIGAV OVENO.
b. Cl. Al. Strom., III, 12, 82, 6 : ou6É unv rov anto ths kato autuyiav koltns
ouols Ac Tolal Battle al kal voy TpO T&G EL OEla 81x kupiou Ttpovola.
Cf. Jos. Ap., 2, 203 : kai uerd thy vouluov auvoualav avipoc kai yuv & to-

5 Tert. Bapt., 5. Mithr. shrine in S. Maria Capua vetere ; cf. A. Minto, Notizie degli
scavi di antichita (1924), 353 ff. Springs in the neighbourhood of the Mithr. shrines in
Treves, on the Saalburg, etc. V. Cumont, Myst. d. Mithra, 144.
6 Tert. Bapt., 5, p. 12, 4 ff., Lupton reads, as against the majority of ed.: Ceterum uillas,
domos, templa totasque urbes aspergine circumltae aquae expiant. Passim cere ludis Apol-
linaribus et Pelusiis tinguntur idque se in regenerationem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum
agere praesumunt. "Eleusiniis" is a correction for which there are no real grounds. The
Apoll. games are a Roman institution dating from the 3rd cent. B.C. (Hist. Aug. Alex. Sev.,
37, 6; Liv., XXV, 12; Macrobius Sat., I, 17, 25 ff.; Pauli excerpt. ex lib. Pomp. Festi, 21,
Lindsay): the Pelusian feast was originally an Egyptian festival, later associated with the
name of Peleus, which became very popular in the time of Marcus Aurelius and in which
lustrations in the Nile or a neighbouring lake played a part (Joh. Lyd., IV, 57; Hist. Aug.
M. Anton, 23, 8; Amm. Marc., XXII, 16, 3). Cf. Dolger, Antike und Chrtt., I (1929), 143 ff.
150 ff., 156 ff. The bath on the morning of the Saturnalia seems not to have had any sacral
significance. On the other hand, the bathings at Ostia on the occasion of the Maiumas
festival were originally sacral whatever their later development (Joh. Lyd., IV, 80; Dolger,
147).
F. Cumont, Orient. Rel.3 (1931), Index, s.v.; Prud., X, 1011 ff.; CIL, VI, 510 : in aeter-
num renatus. There are taurobolium pits in Treves (S. Loeschcke, Die Erforschung des
Tempelbezirkes im Altbachtale zu Trier [1928] No. 9) and Dieburg (F. Behn, Das Mithras-
heiligtum zu Dieburg [1928]).
8 Reitzenstein, Taufe, 18 ff.
9 Chant. de la Saussaye, I, 572.
10 Ibid., II, 241.
11 On the Vedic diksha (consecration of Brahmins), ibid., II, 49, 55 and Reitzenstein,
Taufe, 46, 120, 211 ff.
12 Cf. the Naassenes in Hipp. Ref., V, 9, 21: ñueis 8' ouÉv, onolv, of TVEULaTIKOt,
ol EkAEy6uEvol &TO tou govios Bbatos toU pÉovtoc Elopatou Bla the BaBulovos
ueons to olkelov, 8ud tis TAns OSEDOVTEC a\nOins, pris forlv 'Inoous & uaka-
pios. This is an echo of older motifs in Gnosticism. It is noteworthy that later Judaism
did not regard the Jordan as suitable for certain bathings (Str.-B., I, 109).
 BaTTe

Aouaaalal. Here, too, we have the same synon. If Clement does not regard washing as
necessary after marital intercourse, it may be assumed that he is repudiating the ex-
pression of the heathen past.
c. Plut. Superst., 3 (II, 166a) censures a superstitious remedy against fear aX' elt'
Evunvov pavragua poBEl xeovlas 6' 'Exams KOuov g8É&w, The TtEpluaKtpiav
K& eL ypauv Kai BaTti0oV gEqUTOV Elc #aAaaaav kal kafloas Év Th Yn Snué-
pEUGOV. He adduces as par. exercises: TNAdoELS, KataBopBopdoes, aapBa.
HoUg, 13 pluers Eri TpbowTov, alaXpAs TpOKat-FEIS, AMATeUREI
d. Corp. Hermet., IV, 4 : All men have the logos, but the nus is an &0 ov which God
gives only to some as He causes to come down on earth a mixing vessel filled therewith
and then causes to be preached to the hearts of men Bantioov osauthv i uvauevn
eis toutov tov xpampa, yvopi{ouoa tnl tl yeyovas < Kal> TIOTEUOUOa ott
dvelsion itpos tov katate pavta tov <patpa. gool uev oov auviKay tou
knpoyuatos, kai #Bartioavto toU vo6c, ootol METÉOXOV the yvooewG. Of these
it is then said in 5 : &0&vatol &vrl Ovntov lol.
e. P. Par., 47 - Wilcken Ptol. No. 70 (I, 330 ff.) 14 (152/1 B.C.), however, belongs
to a different context. The pap., in a letter of Apollonius to his brother, the KaTOXOC
katÉXo) Ptolemy, contains the words:
6 8TL we on T Tavta Kal of napa GE 6 For thou liest 7 and the 8 gods like-
8 Geol ouolos, 8t Ev-9 BÉBAnKav ouas wise, for they have cast us into a great
(= nuas) Elc 8Anv 10 ueyaAnv kal of morass 10 wherein we may 11 die, and if
Suvque-110a &To0avEiV, Kav tons 12 8tL thou hast seen in a dream 12 that we shall
HE^AOHEV OWOñVAI, 18 TOTE BaTtigoue. be saved from it, 13 then we shall be
Oa (= PaTtI(oue0a). plunged under.
Following the reading of Brunet de Presle, 15 Reitzenstein earlier saw in the letter the
complaint of a Serapis novice impatiently awaiting his calling to baptism (i.e., dedica-
tion) 16 in accordance with the vision of the mystagogue. Apollonius had received news
from Ptolemy that the dedication was now no longer possible and the gods had thus cast
him into much bAn. He thus complains that he has been deceived and that he cannot
now die (i.e., be baptised). But he adds hopefully : "'If, however, thou seest in a dream
that we shall be saved, then we shall let ourselves be baptised." In this case the three
terms &nolaveiv, aw0nval and Bartifealau (in the sacral sense) would be essentially
synon. and we should have proof of the understanding of baptism as a voluntary dying
two hundred years before Paul, as concept of the Mysteries. Yet, as Reitzenstein
himself has partly admitted, this interpretation is untenable. Banti(e0a is used either
in the sense of A.a. (where we also have the connection with 8An), or in that of A.b.
In either case, its use is purely secular, as is also that of anolavely and oo gEF0aL.
We may thus conclude that, while Bantlzelv, BaTtl(eola are occasionally
found in a religious or similar context in Hellenism, they do not acquire a techni-
cally sacral sense.

3. The Meaning of the Rites.

In two of the three examples given (a.-c.), the underlying motif is that of
bathing, washing or cleansing. In Hellenism, this is to be regarded as the basic
feature, as many of the rites mentioned (- 530) show and as many critical voices

18 As against Bentley's conjecture (Bantiououc). Dolger, Antike u. Christentum, 1, 154.

On the use of oaBBatiouoc in pagan writers, cf. Dolger, Ichthys, II (1922), 94, n. 8, 288 f.
To the literature given here we should add Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 206 f.: Dolger,
Antike u. Christentum, II, 57 ff.
15 Line 9 : ouac (2nd per.); line 10 : 00 Suvauela; line 13 : Bat(ouela (conj.).
16 Cf. Apul. Met., XI, 21 and 22.
BaTto

recognise. If we are to understand, we must begin with the primitive notion, later
spiritualised, that what is unclean before God, whether physically or morally, and
without any clear distinction, may be washed away like dirt, even though it
consist in blood-guiltiness (cf. Heracl. Fr., 5, Diels). Along with other means,
such as the urine of cattle, blood, clay, mud and filth, water may also be used,
especially from a river or the sea. On the other hand, d. seems to indicate a
ritual background and thus to point in a different direction. Here it is a matter
of the enhancement of life, of immortality. It is no accident that this line of
thought arises in the Hermes Mystery, i.e., in Egypt, one of the great river king-
doms of the ancient world. In the other, i.e., Babylon, water, as the water of life,
is regarded as a chief means of incantation. 17 So in Egypt there may be distin-
guished an older (?) form of the baptism of kings and of the dead with a view to
renewal of life, as may be seen from the accompanying hieroglyphics # (life)
and 1 (health), which are perhaps used in symbolical depiction of the drops of
water. 18 In this respect there is no clear distinction between the departed vitality
of the dead, which must now be replaced, the miraculous water of the Nile and
the divine seed. The dead Osiris is also sprinkled, and out of his body there
sprout blades of corn. 19 The god is identical with the Nile, and the dead man,
rightly treated, is identical with the god (Osiris NN). The thought of revivifica-
tion flows into that of regeneration among all peoples. 20 But this often rests on
the idea of a dying which is only symbolical. All these lines come together in the
belief in an apotheosis effected by drowning in the Nile. 21 Herodotus tells us in
II, 90 : "When an Egyptian or a foreigner is dragged into the water by a crocodile
and killed, or destroyed by the water itself, and it is known, then the inhabitants of
the city where he comes to shore have the solemn obligation of embalming him,
of arraying him in the most gorgeous robes and of placing him in a sacred
sarcophagus. No one may touch him, whether relatives or friends, apart from the
priests of the Nile, who must tend him with their own hands and treat him as one
who is more than an ordinary being." A man drowned in this way was called
one who had been "immersed" (Boh. ECIE, Gk. 'Eas, Lat. esietus). 22 To link

17 Chant. de la Saussaye, I, 572.

18 H. Bonnet, Angelos (1925), 103 ff.; Leipoldt, Taufe, 45 ff. A conception of the
baptism of the sun-god which leads us particularly close to the idea of regeneration is
espoused by A. M. Blackman, Receuit de Travaux relatifs a la Philologie et T'Archéologie
égyptiennes et assyriennes, 39 (1921), 44 ff.; Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., 40 (1918), 57 ff., 86 ff.;
but this view has met with opposition. In Sib., 5, 478 BantlZeoal is used of the eschato-
logical disappearance of the sun.
10 J. F. Champollion, Monuments de L'Egypte, I (1835), Plate 90 ; Haas, No. 2/4, Bonnet
(1924), No. 155.
20 - TaXAIYYEVEGIA, YEWKW, & wOEV; Mith. Liturg., Erlautrung ; . F, The
Golden Bough (1911 ff.), esp. III, 422 ff.
21 F. L. Griffith, Herodotus, II, 90, "Apotheosis by Drowning," Ztschr. f. agypt. Sprache
und Altertumsk., 46 (1909/10), 132-134 W. Spiegelberg, ibid., 53 (1917), 124 f. We have
apotheosis by a stroke of lightning in the Nabataic inscript. (225 A.D.) published in the
Acad. des inscr. et des belles lettres, Comptes rendus (1931), 144 fÉ.; > 26.
22 W. Spegelberg, Koptisches Lexikon (1921), 246. Preis. ab I 1: AaBov at[Aou-
pov [extol]noov 'Eauv & [uBaloy to o]u[a es] to 68cp, "Take a tom-cat and make
him Osiris by putting his body in the water." The transl. of touc in Gk. texts is OTto-
Bpuxioc; in Tert. Bapt., 5 esietos = quos aquae necaverunt. Dalger, Antike u. Christentum,
(1929), 174 ff.
 BaTto

this with the hsjj of the Pyramid texts, which means "extolled" or "highly esti-
mated" or "valued" 23 (= uaxapioc, "blessed" ?) is materially interesting but can
hardly be sustained philologically. Yet the term can be traced back to the Demotic.
It has a technical meaning. Thus it serves as an address to Osiris as he is given up
to the Nile. 24 Osiris is thought of in conjunction with the river. To be drowned
in the river is to enter into connection with the god and thus to be divinised.
When Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, was drowned in the Nile, there arose
a cult which lasted for centuries. 25 In this light it thus seems possible that the
baptisms of the Mysteries were understood as a voluntary dying and deification. 28
Yet it would be rash to generalise. In Apuleius the true dedication conducted in
the temple, and cultically representing dying and deification, 27 is preceded by
another washing which takes place in the public baths and is sacral only in its
second part. 28 Thus the thought of purification is the important one in the
"baptism." Except to the degree that the similarity of the rites favours a con-
junction, there is no very close connection between purification and vivification.
Apart from unimportant tendencies, both are understood, not in a moral, but in
a ritual and a magically natural sense. 29
Within paganism itself profounder thinkers were conscious of this deficiency.
Diogenes in Plut. (Aud. Poet., 4 [II, 21 f.]) says sarcastically : "Pataicion the thief
will enjoy a better fate after death than Epaminondas, for he has received the
rites." Cf. Plat. Resp., II, 361 f. and Ovid Fast., II, 45 f. :
A! nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina caedis
fluminea tolli posse putatis aqua!
Even when it took a moralistic direction, the rationalistic protest was often feeble
enough. But when it took sharper weapons from another arsenal, it presented the
dominant practice in a most unfavourable light. The Jew Philo reproaches the
heathen : "They remove dirt from their bodies by baths and means of purifica-
tion, 30 but they neither desire nor seek to wash away the passions of their souls
by which life is soiled" (Cher., 95). In Josephus, too, there shines through the

23 A. Erman-H. Grapow, Agypt. Worterbuch, III (1928), 156. In later Egyptian we have
the concept of "waters" under the roots hsw and hsj, sometimes in connection with "magic.'
24 On the address to Osiris 'Eauc kal notaLooopntos, cf. Preis. Zaub., IV, 875 f.,
V, 270, 273.
25 Haas, 9/11, No. 10, 11 Leipoldt ; cf. W. Weber, Drei Unters. Z. agypt.-griech. Rel.
(1911), 22. A parallel from the purely popular sphere is the burial altar of the five-year old
Aesculapius on the Sarapeion of Memphis with the inscription (Louvre): 'AokAnmas L
(= ETOV) E' LOINS ATTAOE, Jahrb. d. Deutsch. Archaol. Inst., 32 (1917), 200 f.
26 The inscription of El Burdj quoted in Reitzenstein. Taufe, 18: NetElpou, tou
ATOOEWOEVTOC EV TO AÉBntu 8t' of aloptai ayavtal does not prove this in spite
of ZNW, 26 (1927), 61, n. 3, since it concerns an unusual and unique process, perhaps
drowning or self-drowning in a watercourse arranged for ritual purposes. C. Clermont-
Ganneau, Recueils d' Archéol. Or., II (1898), 64 ff. 533. On P. Par., 47 > 532. Again,
it does not point unconditionally in the direction indicated if ritual washings are appointed
from the standpoint of asceticism (cf. Plut. 532 and also Juv., VI, 520 ff.
27 M. Dibelius, Die Isisweihe bei Apuleius, 19 ff.
28 Apul. Met., XI, 23 : iamque tempore, ut aiebat sacerdos, id postulante stipatum me
religiosa cohorte deducit ad proximas balneas et prius sueto lavacro traditum, praefatus
deum veniam, purissime circumrorans abluit.
29 Bonnet, op. cit., 111. Most interesting are the Lydian and Phrygian inscriptions in-
vestigated by F. S. Steinleitner (-, quaprovo, 301).
30 On Egypt. depictions of sacral sprinklings we can see the vessels with natron : Bonnet,
op. cit., 111.
BaTto

shell of rational Stoicism something of the moral earnestness of the prophets when
he writes of John the Baptist (Ant., 18, 117): "Herod put him to death although
he was a good man and directed the Jews to come to baptism in the exercise of
virtue and righteousness towards one nother and piety towards God. Thus
baptism is acceptable to God when used, not for the purification of the soul, but
for sanctification of life, the soul being already cleansed by righteousness."
This brief review has shown us how little cultic significance the word Bantifelv
has in Hellenism. Yet it has also disclosed many connections which might become
significant either positively or negatively if some stronger emphasis were given
from without to the term and to that which it represents.

C. 55t and Bant (ig) Elv in the OT and Judaism.

In the LXX BATTEIV (BATTiZEIV occurs only at 4 Bao. 5:14) as a rendering of
52p, "to dip," is used for the dipping of the morsel in wine at Ju. 2:14, of feet in
the river at Jos. 3:15, of the finger in blood in the Torah of sacrifices at Lv. 4:6, 17
etc., of the dipping of unsanctified vessels in water in the laws of purification at
Lv. 11:32 (x2 hiph). In the latter case, however, TAovo (625) and Aoboual (pna)
are more common, as in Lv. 15:11, 13 etc. The sevenfold dipping of Naaman
(2K. 5:14) perhaps suggests sacramental ideas and illustrates the importance of
the Jordan. In the later Jewish period 620 (bBer., 2b of the bathing of priests ;
Joma, 3, 2 ff. etc.) and Bartigelv become tech. terms for washings to cleanse from
Levitical impurity, as already in Jdt. 12:7; Gk. Sir. 31 (34):30. The A'2p of pro-
selytes belongs to this context.
Yet the origin of this special washing is hard to fix, since in the first instance
it does not seem to differ from other washings and is not linked to any special
ritual. 31 On inner grounds it is likely that it was already customary in the NT
period, since the purity demanded of every Jew could not be relaxed in the case
of an impure Gentile. Again, it is hardly conceivable that the Jewish ritual should
be adopted at a time when baptism had become an established religious practice in
Christianity. After 70 A.D. at least the opposition to Christians was too sharp
to allow of the rise of a Christian custom among the Jews. Proselyte baptism must
have preceded Christian baptism.
The most important external witnesses are as follows. a. Epict. Diss., II, 9, 19 ff. says
that mere appearance does not make a Stoic just as mere talk does not make a Jew
otay 8' avalaBn to Talos (uncomfortable manner of life ? persecution ?) TO TOU
BeBauuÉvou Kal ipnuevou, toTE kat got to ovl Kai kalEital 'Ioubaioc. 08 To
Kai jusis napaBattiotal, A6yQ uev 'loudaio, Epyo 8' &1o Tl. b. Sib., 4, 165
(soon after 79 A.D.), in a warning to the heathen to repent in view of the threatening
destruction of the world : Ev torquoic ouaaals gov bÉuas devooialv. c. Cas-
uistical definitions of proselyte baptism were debated in the schools of Shammai and
Hillel. These controversies are attested in the Mishnah (Pes., 8, 8; Ed., 5, 2: Str.-B.,

31 Earlier the pre-Christian origin of proselyte baptism was disputed in the interests of
the originality of Christian baptism. There is a survey and criticism of the older treatments
in Schurer, III, 181 ff. Reitzenstein, Taufe, 231 ff. contests the age of proselyte baptism in
order to be able to deduce the baptism of John and Christian baptism from syncretism. Yet
witnesses a. and b. cannot be explained in terms of oddities like Bannus (- n. 40), and
Reitzenstein has completely missed the Rabb. evidence. Against his view, in addition to
Schurer. cf. W. Brandt, Die judischen Baptismen, 57 ff.; Leipoldt, Taufe, 2 ff.; A. Oepke,
Ihmelsfestschrift (1928), 96 and ThLB1, 51 (1930), 35.
 BaTtO

I, 102 f.) and date from the 1st cent. A.D. if not from the B.C. period. d. According to
bJeb., 46a, Str.-B., I, 106, R. Eleazer and R. Joshua (both around 90-130 A.D.) discussed
the necessity of circumcision and baptism to make a full proselyte. In this discussion
some part is played by the question of a baptism of the fathers prior to the covenant
at Sinai. The line of argument in C. 10:1 ff. is best explained if similar traditions were
known to Paul. 32 Probably even earlier than the middle of the 1st century A.D., and
under the influence of the many women proselytes who could not be circumcised, the
existing washing of proselytes came to have the significance of an independent rite of
reception. 33

Genealogically the Jewish washings, including proselyte baptism, are linked with
existing rites of purification. In consequence, however, of the strongly transcen-
dental Jewish conception of God, they did not develop along the lines of sacral
magic, but exclusively along legalistic lines. Their one goal was ritual purity. 34
If the proselyte could be described as a "new-born child,' 35 this relates only to
his theocratic and casuistic position. As a heathen he did not understand the
Torah. Hence sufferings which might afflict him after his conversion are not
punishments for earlier transgressions. It is from this point on that he must keep
the commandments. There is no thought of any natural, let alone ethical, death and
regeneration.
The meanings "to drown," "to sink" or "to perish" seem to be quite absent
from the Heb. and Aram. 226 and therefore from Bant((elv in Jewish Greek. If the
spontaneous construction of such connections cannot be contested a priori, the
rise of metaphors based on them has thus far seemed to be most unlikely in the
purely Semitic field of speech. The usage of Josephus (- 530) is not specifically
Jewish Greek.

D. The Baptism of John.

Cf. Mk. 1:4-11 and par.; 11:27 ff. and par.; In. 1:25-33; 3:23 ff.; 10:40; Ac. 1:5;
11:16; 13:24; 18:25; 19:4. The baptism of John introduced a powerful Messianic
awakening from which Christianity sprang. This indicates its geometric position
within religious history, namely, Palestinian Judaism. There is no suggestion in
the Gospels that it is a child of oriental syncretism. This must be contested until
every possible closer analogy has been explored.
Attempts have been made to find the original form of John's baptism in that of the
Mandaeans, 38 whose sacred writings have been made generally accessible by M. Lidz-

82 Joachim Jeremias, ZNW, 28 (1929), 312 ff.

38 Str.-B., I, 102-108. On the following pages are assembled individual directions for the
fulfilment of washing by immersion, which also apply to proselyte baptism. G. Polster, "Der
kleine Talmudtraktat tiber die Proselyten," Angelos, 2 (1926), 2 ff. draws attention to the
distinction between proselyte baptism with and without ritual.
84 We cannot deduce from Joma, 8, 9, even in conjunction with 3, 6, that special expiatory
significance attached to immersion on the day of atonement, particularly in the case of the
high-priest (W. Bacher, Agada der Tanaiten, [1903], 280 f.). Rabb. Judaism thinks of
washing only in terms of purification from cultic uncleanness (cf. Lv. 14:8; 15:5 ff.; 15:11;
Nu. 31:23, and on this the whole Mishnah tractate Miqvaot). Forgiveness can be compared
to this, but neither it, nor especially ethical purity, can be mediated by it.
85 For examples, v. Str.-B., II, 423 ; K. H. Rengstorf, Mishnah lebamot (1927). 138 f.
38 Reitzenstein, Taufe cf. the criticism in H. H. Schaeder, Gnomon, 5 (1929), 353 ff. and
Reltzenstein's reply, ARW, 27 (1929), 241 ff.; A. Oepke, ThLBI, 51 (1930). 33 ff.; J. Jere-
mlas, ZNW, 28 (1929), 312 ff.
BaTto

barski. 37 In the Mandaean ritual the thought of purification is subsidiary and the
strongest emphasis rests on the sacramental or magical power of vivification. Every
baptismal stream, invested with heavenly fire by incantations, counts as the Jordan. Yet
in spite of their veneration of the Baptist and the Jordan, the Mandaeans probably had
little dealings with the disciples of John and arose only centuries later as a Gnostic
sect. In detail their baptismal ritual is dependent on that of the Nestorians, particularly
in the description of the water as Jordan, and on the Peshitta. The honouring of the
Baptist came into their writings only in the Islamic period. 38 Even from the much
older practices in the upper Jordan valley (+ 531) there is no solid bridge to the
Baptist. It would be easier to suppose that syncretistic influences through the Essenes 39
or odd individuals like Bannus 40 affected the Baptist. But the completely different
attitude to ritualism, demonstrated by the daily repetition of washings on the one side
and the uniqueness of baptism on the other, denotes an unbridgeable distinction.

The nearest analogies to the baptism of John are the baptisms of official
Judaism, and especially proselyte baptism. John's baptism, like that of proselytes,
is once and for all. It makes a great demand on the members of the elect people
in ranking them with the defiled Gentiles who were apparently admitted on the
same conditions (Lk. 3:14). In contrast to proselyte baptism, however, its orienta-
tion is not political or ritualistic, but distinctively ethical, with a close relation to
eschatology. To be sure, proselyte baptism can also be eschatologically grounded
and linked with a summons to polytheists to repent, Sib., 4, 165 (- 535 f.). This
application is native to Judaism. Yet in John the relationship is more essential
and urgent. His concern is not to defer the destruction of the world, but to prepare
the people for the imminent coming of Yahweh. The baptism of John is an
initiatory rite for the gathering Messianic community. Linking up with prophetic
passages like Is. 1:15 f; Ez. 36:25 (cf. Is. 4:4; Jer. 2:22; 4:14; Zech. 13:1; Ps. 51:7),
it is to be regarded as a new development. The very fact that in prophetic power
John baptised others is striking. From now on there occurs the active, and in
Christianity the predominantly passive, use of Battigelv, whereas elsewhere on
both Jewish and Gentile soil the mid. or refl. use is most common (though ) 535,
BeBauuÉvos, 2nd cent. A.D.; Bartlotns). The basic conception is still that
of the cleansing bath. Bound up with confession of sin, baptism is in the first
instance an expression of repentance, i.e., of sorrow for sin and the desire to be
free from it (Bantioua uetavoias, Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3; Elg uetavolav, Mt. 3:11).
Nevertheless, the thought of a sacramental purification for the coming aeon is at
least suggested (Els &oeoiv quaptiov, Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3). As compared with
Christian baptism, of course, that of John is mere water baptism. The saying about

37 Johannesbuch (1905/15); Mand. Liturg. (1920); Ginza (1925).

38 For the extensive liter. on the Mandaean controversy, v. RGG2, III, 1956 f. Cf.
F. C. Burkitt, JThSt, 29 (1928), 225 ff.; M.J. Lagrange, Rev. Bibl. NS, 36 (1927), 321 ff.,
481 ff.; 37 (1928), ff.; E. Peterson, ZNW, 25 (1926), 236 ff.; 27 (1928), 55 ff.; ThB1, 7
(1928), 317 ff.; C. H. Kraeling, "The Origin and Antiquity of the Mandaeans," Journal of
the Americ. Orient. Soc., 49 (1929), 195 ff.; H. Odeberg, Die mand. Religionsanschauung,
Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift (1930); H. Lietzmann, SAB (1930), 596 ff. Peterson and
Lietzmann in particular have decisively proved the post-Christian character of the relevant
Mandaean passages.
39 On these cf. Schiirer, II, 651 ff.; RE3 V, 524 ff.; RGG2, II, 374 ff.
40 Jos. Vit., 11: "When had learned that a man named Bannus was in the desert, using
clothing from trees (wool ?), eating only food which grew of itself, and often washing in
cold water day and night with view to cultic purity (Aououavov stpoc dyvelav),
became his enthusiastic follower.' This example is of course, from a later period.
 BaTTG

baptism with the Spirit (Mk. 1:8 and par.; cf. Jn. 1:26; Ac. 1:5; 11:16; cf. Ac. 19:2 ff.;
cf. baptism with fire, Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16; Ac. 2:3), if it arose on Palestinian soil and
was not put on the lips of the Baptist later, 41 shows, however, that in the baptism
of John, if only as a picture of things to come, there is at least some influence
of the idea of a life-giving inundation already familiar in Hellenism. This is not
completely unknown on the soil of Ot Judaism (cf. J1. 3:1 ff.; Is. 44:3; 32:15;
Ez. 47:7 ff.). The eschatological context prevents us from assuming that the in-
dividualistic notion of regeneration espoused in syncretism had penetrated the
circle of ideas of the Baptist, or even given essential shape to his baptism. That
John conceived of his baptism as a voluntary dying cannot be deduced from the
immersions current in Judaism generally.

E. Christian Baptism.
1. Jesus allows Himself to be baptised by John but does not Himself baptise
(Mk. 1:9 ff. and par.; Jn. 3:22 is uncertain, cf. also 4:2). This raises a two-sided
problem. The question, acutely felt by the early Church according to Mt. 3:14 f.;
Hebr. Ev. 5, 42 whether the baptism of Jesus included a confession of sin, is solved
by the suggestion that the sinlessness of Jesus was not something static and apart,
that He could not exclude Himself from the wonderful awakening, and that
baptism was for Him a dedication as the Messiah. It was in keeping with His
conception of the Messiah, based on Deutero-Isaiah, that He should not withdraw
from sinners but identify Himself with them. Thus, whether or not they are
historical in the literal sense, Mt. 3:14 f. and Jn. 1:29 (-> uv6s, 338) rightly
interpret the matter. If Jesus did not Himself baptise, we can see from Mk. 11:30
and par. and Mt. 11:7 ff. and par., in spite of Mk. 7:14 ff. and par., that this was
not due to any objections to baptism in principle as an external action. It corre-
sponds rather to the expectant manner of Jesus in movement towards His atoning
death. 43
According to Mk. 10:38 f.; Lk. 12:50, Jesus described His own death as a
Battio0nval. It is hard to suppose that we are to see already at this point an
influence of the later conception of martyrdom as baptism in blood. 44 On the
other hand, these isolated sayings hardly give us grounds for concluding that He
takes as His point of departure the conception of the baptism of John (and future
Christian baptism ?) as a voluntary dying. 45 Indeed, this is unlikely in view of
what was said on p. 536. It is not impossible, however, that in a bold and profound
image, hardly understandable to the men of his day, He anticipates the results of
the religious development of decades. The only alternative is that a popular ex-
pression, already used figuratively in the OT (cf. Ps. 42:7; 69:1; Is. 43:2; Cant.
8:7; though never transl. Bartl(elv in the LXX), has here come to be associated
with baptism by way of the linguistic possibilities described on p. 530 something
which could only happen on Hellenistic soil (- 536) and which cannot, then, be

41 Cf. Meyer, Ursprung, I, 39; Bultmann, Trad., 261 f.; W. Michaelis, Taufer, Jesus, Ur-
gemeinde (1928), 19 ff.
Acc. to Jer. Pelag., III, 2 (Hennecke, 44).
43 Well worked out, if rather one-sidedly, by Michaelis, op. cit.
44 It can be proved from the time of Iren., Dolger, Antike u. Christentum, II, 117 ff.
Hck. Mk., ad loc., following Wellhausen: "As water baptism represented the consecration
of Jesus to secret Messianic dignity, so blood baptism represented consecration to the dignity
of the Exalted."
45 Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 229 f.
BaTTO

attributed to Jesus Himself. This would give us a point of departure for inter-
preting baptism in terms of the Mysteries. 16
2. In the Christian community baptism was undoubtedly practised from the very
first (Ac. 2:38,41; 8:12 etc.; R. 6:3; C. 12:13 : *BaTTioOnuEV, understood bio-
graphically, leads us back to something like 33 A.D.). 47 It would be wrong to
attribute this fact exclusively to an influx of the disciples of John. 48 The com-
munity must have been aware that in baptising it was fulfilling the intention of
the Lord. Quite irrespective of the ceaseless critical objections to Mt. 28:18-20
and Mk. 16:16, we may conclude from the very existence and significance of the
apostolate aTt6oTo os, 431) that there was knowledge of a missionary com-
mand, or many such commands, of the risen Lord, and that in accordance with the
new situation this command was understood as a command to baptise. The
distinctive feature of Christian baptism is that it is administered Elc Xplotov or
Eic to Evoua Xplotou.
3. The syntactical connections of BaTtigELV in the NT are as follows. The link with
the inner object BaTtigEl or Bart yeolau Battioua occurs in Ac. 19:4; Mk. 10:38 f.;
Lk. 7:29; 12:50. The means by which it is administered is expressed by the dat. instr.
(68aTL, Mk. 1:8; Lk. 3:16; Ac.1:5; 11:6; TvEouati dyio, Mk. 1:8), or more commonly
by Év (Év boaTI, Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8 vl.; Jn. 1:26, 31, 33; Ev To "Top6avn, Mt. 3:6;
Mk. 1:5; EV TVEOUATL dylo [kai tupi], Mt. 3:11; Lk. 3:16; Jn. 1:33; Ac. 1:5; 11:16; in
1 C. 12:13, however, Év Évi TIVE LaTI means "embraced by one spirit"), 40 and only
once by Eic (Mk. 1:9; cf. Plut. Superst., [II, 166a] + 532; Corp. Herm., IV, 4
532). Elsewhere Elc is mostly used finally to denote the aim sought and accomplished
by baptism: sic uETovolaV, Mt. 3:11; Elc &EolV TOv quaptiov, Ac. 2:38; Eig Ev oo-
ua, 1 C. 12:13. Weakened spatial notions are present where Els denotes the constitutive
element of a form of baptism : Elc XploT6V, Gl. 3:27; R. 6:3 with Elc Tov lavatov
a0T00; Elc Tov Mouoñv, 1 C. 10:2; Els tl #Bantioents; Elc to 'Iwawou
Bantioua, Ac. 19:3. The idea of a mystically understood medium of baptism ("to be
immersed in Christ etc.") 50 is always and in every respect wide of the mark. BaTti(elv
means technically "to baptise in water." Hence it is unnecessary to specify medium.
Where this is done for some reason in the NT, it is hardly ever introduced by Els. In
Gl. 3:27 XPLOTOv ÉvE6UGao0E is a heightened form of Els Xpioiov #Bantio0nte. The
notion of being baptised in Moses would be meaningless and would clash with a second
spatial indication in C. 10:2 (Év th VEDÉAn kal Ev th (a^&oon). A trinitarian name-
mysticism in Mt. 28:19, hypothetically extended to Paul in 1 C. 1:13, 15, is quite out
of the question. The formula Elc to ovoua seems rather to have been a tech. term
in Hellenistic commerce 51 ("to the account"). In both cases the use of the phrase is
understandable, since the account bears the name of the one who owns it, and in baptism

46 In the mind of the Evangelist it is hardly accidental that baptism is mentioned along-
side the cup in Mk. 10:38 f.
47 It cannot be concluded from 1 C. 1:17 that baptism was not at first generally practised
in the Pauline communities, nor from Ac. 18:24 ff. that it might be excluded if there had
already been Johannine baptism and there was also possession of the Spirit. Cf. H. Preisker,
ZNW, 23 (1924), 298 ff.; 30 (1931), 301 ff.
48 Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 124 f.; Taufe, 266; C. Bernoulli, Joh. d. T. u. d. Urgem. (1918),
153 ff.
49 Joh. W. C., ad loc.
50 E. Wissmann, Das Verhaltnis von TaTIc und Christusfrommigkeit bei Paulus (1926),
101: "We are baptised into Christ, i.e., immersed into His pneumatic mode of being.
51 Ostrakon from Thebes, Deissmann LO, 97. Cf. Deissmann B, 143 ff.; NB, 25; ThLZ,
25 (1900), 73 f.; also W. Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu (1903), 100 ff.; F. Preisigke, Giro-
wesen im griech. Agypten (1910), 149 ff.
 BaTto

the name of Christ is pronounced, invoked and confessed by the one who baptises or
the one baptised (Ac. 22:16) or both. The question and answer in Ac. 19:3 have more
of a legal than a mystical flavour. The thought is elucidated by the addition of
- TIOTEUEIV ElG. 52 This does not mean that we are to deny pneumatic union with the
crucified and risen Christ. It means that this is not basic to the expression BaTtiZELV
els; it is not, therefore, its primary implication (-> els, > 8voua).

4. The Saving Significance of Baptism into Christ.

Christian baptism certainly has as its final goal new and eternal life. Yet even in
this respect it is not to be understood primarily or directly in terms of the idea
of vivification or regeneration. Of the passages adduced Mk. 10:38 f. may be
dismissed at once (- 538). Again, 1 Pt. 3:20 f. does not form the starting-point
for the Christian view of baptism, but contains an isolated theologoumenon which
is comparatively late even on the assumption that it was composed by Silvanus
on the direct commission of Peter. Jn. 3:5 f. and Tt. 3:5 also belong to younger
stratum of NT tradition which was under stronger Hellenistic influence. For the
most part, however, expressions used in the context (Aoutpov, oi oapkoc aTto-
DEOLS PUTTOU, TLOTEUELV) show even here that the new life stands in firm causal
connection with purification from the guilt of sin. This is particularly clear, though
often overlooked, in Paul. Because God is the only source of real life, and His
holiness excludes sin, the basic conception both of Paul and of the NT generally
in relation to baptism is that of the cleansing bath (1 C. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Hb. 10:22;
cf. Ac. 2:38; 22:16). The significance of baptism thus depends on the fact that it
is a real action of the holy God in relation to sinful man. Hence both a super-
stitious and also a purely symbolical understanding are excluded.
Rightly to evaluate the efficacy of baptism in the NT sense, it must be re-
membered that criticism of a purely external, materialistic and magical evaluation
of religious objects and actions belongs to the very essence of biblical piety from
the days of the prophets (Dt. 10:16; 30:6; 1 S. 15:22 f.; Am. 5:21 ff.; Hos. 6:6;
Is. 1:10 ff.; Jer. 2:22; 4:4; 7:3 ff.; 9:25; 31:31 ff.; Ez. 18:31; 36:26; J1. 2:13; Ps. 51:10,
16, 17; Mk. 7:14 ff. and par.; R. 2:17-29; 1 C. 10:1-11). This does not mean that
we are to depreciate the realism of references to the saving significance of baptism.
Nor are detailed inconsistencies excluded. The point is that if we leave out of
account this basic presupposition, we are from the very first in danger of distorting
the picture. To baptism as a mere rite or realistically developed symbol no such
incomparable efficacy could be ascribed in the NT world of thought. This is
indicated, not merely by the relative unimportance of the action as such (cf. C.
1:17; Mk. 16:16b), but also by express statements (Hb. 9:9 f.; 1 Pt. 3:21; 1 Jn. 5:6:
OOK Ev 88atl u6vov. Hb. 10:22 reminds us of Jos. Ant., 18, 117, -4 535, but may be
understood as a parallelism). Though mediated by men, baptism is the action of
God or Christ (Eph. 5:26) . Hence baptism by others rather than se-baptism, and
hence also the predominance of the passive. The mid. is used of Christian baptism
in the NT only in Ac. 22:16 (cf. C. 6:11: ATTEOUGGOOE), and the reflex. (- 531)
never. Standing in a definite and absolutely indispensable historical context,
baptism derives its force from the reconciling action of God in Christ, or more
exactly from the atoning death of Christ (1 C. 6:11; Eph. 5:25 f.; Tt. 3:4 f.; Jn. 5:6
- 816, + alua, 174, > 08∞p]; cf. Jn. 19:34; 1 Pt. 1:2; Hb. 10:22). It places us
objectively in Christ, the second Adam; it thus removes us from the sphere of

52 J. Bohmer, Das biblische "Im Namen" (1898), 15.

BaTTO

death of the first Adam to the Bixaloos gons and divine sonship (GI. 3:26 f.
+ Evoow, cf. R. 5:18 f.).
It is characteristic, however, that the thought of imputative purity, righteousness
and holiness impels us to that of effective, i.e., to the new ethical life (1 C. 6:11
as a basis of exhortation, and Eph. 5:26 Ff.). In Paul there is no suggestion of
cleavage between a forensic and a mystical mode of thought. Forensic justification
leads to pneumatic fellowship with Christ. The iustitia Christi extra nos posita
aims ceaselessly to become the iustitia Christi intra nos posita. There is here no
leap, and a transition only in so far as justification is not conditioned by the new
life, but the new life by justification, so that distinction of thought is demanded. 53
As imparted in baptism, bikalwous is SiKalwois gons (R. 5:18). The new life,
however, necessarily bears an ethical character. For it is life from God, the life
of Christ. Baptism implies participation in the death and resurrection of Christ
(R. 6:1-14; Col. 2:11-15; 3:1 ff.; and materially Gl. 2:19 f.; 5:24; 6:14 etc., though
characteristically with no mention of baptism).54 The break with sin is thereby
accomplished and attachment to the life of the new creation effected, yet in such
a way that in this aeon the translation into empirical reality of what God has
posited remains, or rather becomes, a task for the baptised. In the theology of the
19th century these statements were misunderstood in terms of the almost com-
pletely dominant idealistic and symbolical conceptions of the age. Thanks to
research into the history of religion, and also to other factors, 55 this misunder-
standing has now been dispelled. What is at issue is an objective process which
can be fixed in time. The appeal to the will is merely a consequence. In this respect
Paul seems to approximate to the Hellenistic notion of participation in the death
and resurrection of the Mystery deities. Indeed, it is not improbable that his
vocabulary was influenced by Hellenistic mysticism with its dying and rising
gods. Perhaps there underlies his expositions a borrowed interpretation of the rite
of baptism like that of the Mysteries. 66 Nevertheless, the material difference must
not be missed. On the one side, we have a timeless and naturalistic individualism
of regeneration, on the other a spiritual historical relationship, a new creation of
the totality, eschatologically understood. 57 Baptism is the "prodromal manifesta-
tion of the coming world" it is a "lift" not a "staircase." 58 The close connection
between the resurrection of Christ and forensic and completely non-mystical
justification, as also the basic significance of this justification, is supremely safe-
guarded in relation to baptism by Col. 2:12 ff. 69 Every interpretation of Paul's view
of baptism is thus mistaken which takes as its starting-point the subjective and

53 The attempt, most recently undertaken by A. Schweitzer in his Mystik, esp. p. 201 ff.,
to show that the forensic doctrine of justification is to be understood as a "subsidiary
crater' in the main crater of a mystical and naturalistic doctrine of redemption, breaks
down not merely on the obvious importance of forensic lines of thought in Romans and the
missionary preaching of Paul, but also on a correct understanding of Galatians.
54 For an understanding of these statements, Eyelpo and the bibl. given there.
65 The first significant opposition came from P. Althaus the elder, Die Heilsbedeutung
d. Taufe im NT (1897).
56 Dibelius, Isisweihe, 45 f.
67 Clearly proved by A. Schweitzer, op. cit., 12 ff., 22 ff., 27 ff. According to V. Soden,
op. cit., 35, R. 6 "rests on a hylozoistic understanding only as a metaphysics of the age. This
is merely the form into which a historical, christological and eschatological content is poured.
The death of Christ is the sacrament ; baptism is sacramental confession of Him in which
there is attained participation in Him, i.e., incorporation into the body of Christ.
58 A. Schweitzer, Gesch. d. pl. Forsch. (1911), 169, 175.
 BaTTO

naturalistic experience of baptism and not the objective situation in salvation

history. The death and restoration of nature-gods take place again and again at
the appropriate seasons. The consecration of the Mystery religions is renewed
every twenty years or so. Baptism, however, shares with Christ's death a strictly
once-for-all character (€oana&, R. 6:10, 383). The phrase "Christ meta-
physics" 60 more correctly expresses the existential character of the Pauline state-
ments than the unhappy "Christ mysticism." On the other hand, a place must be
found for the plenitude of pneumatic interconnections which are here felt by Paul
and which may even be comprehended psychologically and empirically. 61 Never-
theless, it must be emphasised that an immediate and almost magical transforma-
tion of human nature, in which sin is eradicated, is no more a part of Paul's logic
than an immediate destruction of suffering and death.
In 1 C. 10:1-13 Paul energetically combats a materialistic and superstitious
estimation of baptism and the Lord's Supper which would have it that their
recipients are set free from every possibility of the divine wrath - a view which
differs essentially from the objective and genuinely sacramental understanding. 62
There is no contradiction in 1 C. 15:29 as Paul sees it (cf. R. 2:28), even though
this refer to a groping attempt, unconditionally accepted by him, to apply salva-
tion in Christ to the unbaptised dead. 63 It is more likely, however, that the
argument is purely tactical; Paul is referring ironically to the inconsistency of the
Corinthians. Indeed, he may even be alluding to a non-Christian practice of the
Mysteries.
Many Gnostic sects are reported to have held vicarious baptisms. 64 It is thus
legitimate to seek a pagan origin (cf. even 2 Macc. 12:3945). Plat. Resp., II, 364bce;
365a, contains reference to expiations for the dead. Orph. Fr., 232, p. 245, Kern (8pyia
T' EKTEAÉOOUGL, ABGIV Tpoyovov A0Eu ua 6t aso speak of
substitutionary dedications. 65 In the same connection we may mention the oriental
inscription : Maya^n Mitp 'Avasitic. 'ATonAdvios Mnvoodpou STEp Atovalou
TOU GOEADOU, ETEI KATEOUGETO Ka ooK Étñpnos Thy "poleoulav ths DEoD,
&TETENÉGETO Q0T6V (163 A.D.). 66 After the death of Scyllos, severely punished by
the gods for perjury, his daughter Tatias redeems the vow. $7 It may be presumed that
baptisms were linked with such consecrations. Wild speculations concerning substitu-
1, tionary baptisms of angels for men are to be found in Cl. Al. Exc. Theod., 22.
Atte

59 By Gk. usage the aorists XapIO&UEVOS, ÉEalelyas, ipoon boas denote neither an
accompanying circumstance nor a preceding act but the means by which what is expressed
in the main verb is effected.
60 E. Lohmeyer, Grundlagen paul. Theol. (1929), 145.
61 These are not recognised by the dialectical theology. For correct view, cf. K. Mittring,
Heilswirklichkeit bei Pls. (1929), 43, 71 ff., 120; and for greater detail, ZNW, 29 (1930),
104 ff.
62 Cf. esp. v. Soden, op. cit., 23 ff., 31, though it may be asked whether Paul is not the
"true" sacramental thinker.
Joh. W. 1K., ad loc. All interpretations which seek to evade vicarious baptism for
the dead (most recently Bchm. K.) are misleading. Cf. H. Preisker, ZNW, 23 (1924),
298 ff.
64 For material, cf. Ltzm. 1 K., ad loc.
65 Cf. E. Rohde, Psyche, II, 128. P. Tannery, Rev. d. Phil., 23 (1899), 126 ff. suggests
the atonement of the sins of earlier existences. The above understanding is confirmed by
Plat. Resp., II, 364 bc : Sovauts Ovalaic TE Kal ETOOXiC, EITE TI aolxnua TOU
yEyovEv aitoi i tpoyovwv, akEiafa (cf. 364e ; 365a).
68 Jahresh. d. ost. Arch. Inst. Wien, 23 (1926), Beibl., 23 f. Cf. also Reitzenstein, Taufe,
43. It is open to dispute whether kara^obe0ai means a baptism or a forbidden washing
which would defile the holy water,
67 F. S. Steinleitner, Die Beicht, 28, No. 6.
BaTtG

We cannot know how far Paul is the author of the line of thought concerning
dying and rising again with Christ, or how far he keeps to the common stock
of Christian thinking. It is beyond question, however, that the close interrelating
of baptism and the reception of the Spirit is both general and primitive. Christian
baptism is thus represented as the completion of that of John. In a few cases the
TVEDua gylov is imparted prior to baptism (Ac. 10:44 ff.; 18:25), 68 but in the
majority either at baptism or shortly afterwards, 60 often by the laying on of hands
(- TVE ua, -> Xeip). In Luke 70 there are traces of Hellenistic influence on the
pneumatic conception of baptism, but these are not constitutive, and do not crowd
out either the thought of the forgiveness of sins or the basic ethical understanding.
Deutero-Pauline (Tt. 3:5) and Johannine (Jn. 3:5) theology approximates rather
more closely to the Hellenistic thought of regeneration from which Paul holds
fundamentally aloof, but it does not abandon the main line of a theology of faith
linked with salvation history. So far as leading circles are concerned, it is only
with the older Catholic Church that baptism becomes a means of grace which
is not specifically eschatological or christological, but physical or hyper-physical.
The preconditions for baptism of infants in apostolic Christianity are to be
weighed in the light of the presuppositions developed above. It cannot be proved
nor disproved that children were baptised with their families, 11 though this is
likely enough by contemporary analogies. Even then a distinction would have to
be made between children and infants. Infant baptism, however, represents a
departure from apostolic Christianity only where it is linked with superstitious
views of the sacrament. 72

F. Baptism as a Syncretistic Mystery,

Already in the later strata of the NT we can see indications of an approach
to Hellenism. These were not followed up in the NT itself, but increasingly so
from the post-apostolic period onwards. The eschatological context in which
baptism had been rooted from the very first thus came to lose its significance.
It was not forgotten. It ceased, however, to be the basis or leaven. It simply
became the concluding chapter or appendix. In its place, alien elements came in
from the outside world. Hitherto these had been carefully held in check by the
filter of prophetic and NT religion. But now, using external agreement as a channel,
they came in full flood. Baptism became a syncretistic mystery.
For such the first essential is the matter. Ignatius (Eph., 18, 2) already speaks
of Jesus purifying the water by His baptism in Jordan and His passion. Barn.,
11 assembles several OT passages which speak of water as intimations of baptism.
This sacramental materialism reaches a first climax with Tertullian, who in Bapt.,
4 and 9 introduces considerations concerning the nature of the water which deviate

68 LEGV TO TVE UAT of the supernatural but pre-Christian possession of the Spirit as
in Lk. 2:25; T Tepl tou 'Inoou is misunderstanding. For a partially different view, cf.
A. v. Stromberg, Studien zur Theorie und Praxis der Taufe in der altchristl. Kirche (1913),
141 ff., 148 ff.
69 Ac. 2:38; 8:16 f.; 9:17 f.; 19:1 ff., cf. Mk. 1:8 and par.; Ac. 1:4 f.; 11:16. For Paul,
cf. 1 C. 12:13 : Ev TveDua EnorloOnuev, and Gl. 3:2; 4:6; R. 8:15.
70 H. v. Baer, Der hl. Geist in den Lukasschriften (1926).
71 C.7:14 hardly affects the questio since it is restricted to the children of mixed
marriages.
72 Leipoldt, Taufe, 73-78; H. Windisch, ZNW, 28 (1929), 118-142; Oepke, Ihmelsfest-
schrift, 84-100; ZNW, 29 (1930), 81-111.
 BaTt

widely from the true point at issue. Since the time when the Spirit of God hovered
over the water at creation, this has been invested with supernatural powers.
Moreover, the rite as such is significant. As before the Isis consecration, SO
now before baptism a fast of many days is enjoined both on the one who baptises
and on those baptised (Did., 7, 4). A magical transformation is expected through
the fulfilment of the action. "We go down into the water full of sins and impurity,
but then rise out again laden with fruits" (Barn., 11, 11). Similarly Herm. s., 9,
16,4: f - oppayic 73 to towp jotly ic to 08∞p kata Baivoual veKpot, kai
avaBaivoual gOvtEC. Various ceremonies such as exorcism, anointing, first com-
munion, confirmation, investiture and candles are added to the originally simple
action. Relics of the Mysteries and OT allusions surround the action ever more
closely. If the water of baptism was formerly regarded as an antitype of the
Flood (1 Pt. 3:21) and the Red Sea (1 C. 10:1 f.), it now flows as "Jordan" into
the font. 74 The baptism of blood, with which martyrdom is now equated, sheds
an explanatory light on water baptism. 75 The thought of remission is not for-
gotten (Herm. m., 4, 3,1), but it is almost submerged under that of vivification
and regeneration. There thus arise complicated constructs like the Mandaean
ritual. which it would be a strange Quidproquo of religious history to regard as
the original form of Christian baptism.
The new approach finally comes to expression in the fact that baptism links the
baptised with the organised Church and is thus requisitioned by the Church.
Ignatius already forbids baptism without the bishop (Sm., 8, 2) and Tertullian
will not allow women to baptise (Bapt., 17).
Two forces are at work in relation to the time of baptism. On the one hand,
since baptism as a mode of attaining eternal bliss is absolutely efficacious but can
be used only once, it is postponed even to the point of death notwithstanding
Christian conviction. This does not preclude a certain seriousness in the under-
standing of the Christian life. The best known example is that of Constantine.
On the other hand, since one cannot come to participate too soon in sacramental
grace, it seems to be a duty to baptise infants at a tender age, and if possible on
the day of birth. It cannot be proved that infant baptism was an innovation adopted
in the middle of the 2nd century under the influence of a superstitious sacramental
conception and an accommodation to the surrounding world. It is incontestable,
however, that the sacramental thinking of the older Catholic Church contributed
to the triumph of general infant baptism over previous obstacles. The famous
saying of Tertullian: Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum?
(Bapt., 18) occupies middle ground between the two trends. It can hardly be used
as a witness to original practice on account of its practical bent and its sporadic
character even in Tertullian.
The question whether there is any second repentance for those who have fallen
again after being washed there never seems to have been any thought of a

73 On this term for baptism, which is borrowed from the language of the Mysteries, cf.
A. v. Stromberg, Studien zur Theorie und Praxis der Taufe (1913), 89 ff.; F. Dolger,
Sphragis (1911), 51 ff.: W. Heitmuiller in Studien G. Heinrici dargebracht (1914), 40 ff.;
Pr.-Bauer, S.v.
74 F. Dolger, Antike u. Christentum, II (1930), 63 ff.; 70 ff.: H. Lietzmann, SAB (1930),
599.
15 Dolger, op. cit., 117 ff.
76 On the detailed development of the ritual, RGG? V, 1016 ff., also Reitzenstein, Vor-
geschichte, passim.
BaTTO - Battiouos - Bartotns
second baptism gradually became an urgent problem for the whole Church.
There seem to be negative answers even in the NT (Hb. 6:4 ff.; 10:26; though
cf. 2 C. 12:21). The more magical conception of baptism increased the problem.
Later, however, a milder or even laxer view came to predominate.
+ Battiou6s, $ Bantioua.
"Immersion" or "baptism," Bantiouos signifying the act alone and Battioua the
act with the result, and therefore the institution. There are no instances of Battioua
outside the NT. Even Bartiouos used to be regarded as a new Jewish and Christian
term, 1 though cf. Antyllus Medicus (2nd century A.D.) in Oribasius, X, 3, 9, of
lethargic sleep, Archigenes Medicus (2nd cent. A.D.) and Posidonius Medicus (3/4 cent.
A.D.) in Aetius, 6, 3 (ed. Aldina [1534], 100b, 11), of the frenzy of wickedness,
Iambl. Theol. Arithm., 30; ) BaTti(o, 530. Technically only in Jos. Ant., 18, 117 with
BoTtiols for the baptism of John. 2 Neither word occurs in the LXX. On Plut. Superst.,
3 (II, 166a) - BaTto, n. 13.
Bartiouoi are Levitical "cleansings" of vessels or of the body at Mk. 7:4
(8 vi.); Hb. 9:10. Battiouov 816axh denotes instruction on the difference between
Jewish (and pagan ?) "washings" (including John's baptism ?) and Christian
baptism (Hb. 6:2). Battioua is the specific NT word for "baptism." It is used
for John's baptism in Mt. 3:7; Mk. 11:30 and par.; Lk. 7:29; Ac. 1:22; 10:37; 18:25;
19:3; Battioua uetavoias, Mk. 1:4; Ac. 13:24; 19:4; Bantioua uera ic
&DEOIV quaptiov a baptism of repentance which gives remission of sins.
Battioua is also Christian baptism, which as Battioua Eis tov Bovatov
(XpioioU) unites the baptised with the buried Christ, that in accordance with
His resurrection they should walk in newness of life, R. 6:4; cf. Col. 2:12: ouvra-
DÉVTEC aUTO Ev TO Battiquat, Ev 6 (sc. Battiouati) Kai ou nyépente.
-¾ BaTtig©, 541. In Pt. 3:21 the thoughts of washing and quickening are par-
ticularly clearly linked on the basis of the atonement (cf. 1:2). According to Eph.
4:5 Ev Bantioua is one of the seven constitutive factors of Church unity. The
word is used of the death of Christ in Mk. 10:38 f.; Lk. 12:50.3
Since the NT either coins or reserves for Christian baptism (and its precursor)
a word which is not used elsewhere and has no cultic connections, and since it
always uses it in the sing. and never substitutes the term employed elsewhere, we
can see that, in spite of all apparent or relative analogies, it understands the
Christian action to be something new and unique.
T Battioing.
The "Baptist," nickname of John, found in the NT only in the Syn : Mt.3:1;
11:11 f.; 14:2; 17:13; Mk. 6:25 and par. (6:14, 24 : '1w&wns 6 Banti(ov); 8:28
and par.; Lk. 7:20, 33. It is a Jewish habit to differentiate in this way those
who bear the same name (cf. Eluov 6 leyoueVos NÉtpos, Mt. 10:2 and par.,
Etuov 6 Kavavaios, Mk.3:18 and par., Eluov Aetpoc, Mk. 14:3 and par.,
Eluov Bupoeuc, Ac. 10:6, 32). Yet this description, specially coined for the
precursor of Jesus and used only of him, shows that his appearing was felt to be
new and unique, especially as he did not baptise himself but, contrary to all Jewish
tradition, baptised others. For a baptism to which the Word gave content a baptist
was indispensable. 1

BaTtloHaKTA. 1 Cr.-Ki.. Pr.-Bauer, S.u.

535. On the genuineness of the Josephus passage, v. Schurer, I, 436 ff.
3 In Mt. 20:22 f. the secondary text has been later brought Into line with the Syn. par.
BATTIOTNS. 1 Schl. Mt., 53 f.
 Battions BapBapoc

Acc. to Jos. Ant., 18, 116 (- Bartioua, n.2) BaTtloTs is also Jewish Greek and
therefore popular name for John. The word is not found elsewhere, though cf. rtapa-
Battiotal 535. It corresponds to a mainly active (and passive) use of BaTTIELV
- 540 which only commences with Jn. and is then found esp. in Christianity. That Mk.
prefers o Barrigwv, while Lk. generally avoids the addition in his account, shows the
stronger Gk. orientation of these two Evangelists.
The Mysteries have instances of baptisms by gods or priests.2 The disciples of the
scribes who officiate at proselyte baptisms go down with the baptised into the water in
order to repeat the Jewish obligations, but they are witnesses rather than baptisers.
At a later period we find the predic. part. hiph : nk nbaon nokn win nx 27200 woxn.
STONIT. This is distinguished from Bantloins as one who causes another to immerse
himself" from "one who immerses another.' juspoBartiotal in Epiph. Haer., 17 does
not wholly correspond to the plur. of the Rabb. 619 5420 (v. the Mishnah tractate of this
name). We should rather compare 17nd waiw in T. Jad., 2, 20. Originally the name of
a sect, this term characterises the distinctiveness of strictly Jewish circles (cf. Mk.
7:3 f.).4 Battal 5 was a name in Athens for the effeminate devotees of the Thracian
Cotys (the title of a comedy of Eupolis [416/15 B.C.]; Luc. Indoct., 27; Schol. in Juv.,
II, 92; Plin. Hist. Nat., XXXVII, 10, 55); they are not "baptists" but "dyers," because
they paint themselves.
Oepke

+ BapBapos

A. The Greek Usage.

1. The basic meaning of this word, which is so important in the history of
civilisation, is "stammering," "stuttering," "uttering unintelligible sounds."
Etymology : reduplication of sound, cf. Sansk. barbara = "stammering" ; plur. to
denote non-Aryans ; Sloven. brbrati "to babble." 1
Thus BapBapoc (like the verb BapBap[elv) is used of the twittering of birds:
Aesch. Ag., 1003 f.; Aristoph. Av., 199; Hdt., II, 54-58, the story of the priestesses of
Dodona called TEAEIASEC (doves): 816tl BapBapol roav, É86KEOV 8É apt ouoioc
8pvioL p0ÉYyE OaL (57).
2. Here we have already the transition to the most important usage, i.e., "of a
strange speech," or "the one who speaks a strange language" (i.e., other than
Greek).
The oldest example is Hom. II., 2, 867: Kapov BapBapooovav, where naturally
we also have an indirect instance of the simple BapBapos; cf. the exposition in Strab.,

2 On the murals mentioned in n. 1 and 2 of * BaTtto; cf. n. 28.

3 Gerim, 1, 8. The dative constr. mentioned by G. Polster in Angelos, 2 (1926), + does
not appear in the only MS which has come down to uS. The sources from which the
relevant tractate are compiled derive from the 1st and 2nd cent. A.D. The custom of having
assistants at baptism may be traced back to this period.
4 We are reminded of the Essenes or Bannus (-> BaTTo, n. 40). Schurer, II, 6728,
6 Not Borrtlotal, Reitzenstein, Taufe, 233.
BapBapos. A. Eichhorn, BixpBapose quid significaverit (Diss. Leipzig, 1904): H.
Werner, "Barbarus," NJbch. KI. Alt., 21 (1918), 389-408; J. Juthner, Hellenen und Barbaren
172:. for addit, bibl.' J. Vogt "Herodot in Agypten" in Genethliakon fur
(1923); W Schmoid ibid., 1920). 138 T. Pauly-W. II (1896). 2858,
Cf. A. Walde-J. Pokorny, Vergl. Worterb. d. indogerm. Spr., II, 106 [Debrunner].
BapBapos

XIV, 2, 28 ff., esp. : TOVTOV 8n tov taxuotououvtov 0it Bappapov AeyouÉvov,

Epovn to TOy a 0E0vov arouata tolaita® XÉyo 8É to Toy pun 'ElAnvov;
again, they were called BapBapouc, at first kata to Aol8opov, is av TaXuatouous
h tpaxuotouous® Elta KatExpnoquela oc EvIK® Kowi ovouiati OUTLSIXLPOUVTEC
T pos TOUC "ExAnvas (28). A further synon. cypt6owvoc is first found in Hom. Od.,
8, 294. What Herodotus says of the Egyptians (II, 158): BapBapouc 8g Ttovtac of
AlyUTTIOl KaLÉOUGL TOUC un opiol buoyAoooous, also explains the Gk. BapBapos.
The word is also found in this sense among the Romans ; 2 the classical example, and
also the best parallel to 1 C. 14:11, is in Ovid Tristia, V, 10, 37: barbarus hic ego sum,
qui non intelligor ulli ; et rident stolidi verba Latina Getae. In Plat. Crat., 421cd the
pred. BapBapikov is also applied to archaic Gk. words (cf. the Pauline AaAEiv
yAdooais).
3. From the sense "of strange speech" there naturally develops the geographical
and ethnographical sense "of a strange race, "non-Greek," as in the antithesis
n 'Elacln BapBapos (yñ), "foreign parts, and esp. the juxtaposition "EXn-
VEC Kai BapBapoi. This does not merely denote the totality of all peoples ; it
also brings out the distinction, which implies the whole of Greek history, between
Greeks and non-Greeks or barbarians. of Bap Bapot are the other peoples who are
different in nature, poor in culture, or even uncultured, whom the Greeks hold
at arm's length, and over whom they are destined to rule, esp. such national
enemies as the Persians and the Egyptians etc.

For the political and national antithesis expressed in BapBapos cf. Plat. Menex.,
242d : 5 Livius, XXXI, 29, 15 : Aetolos Acarnanas Macedonas, eiusdem linquae homines,
leves ad tempus ortae causae disiungunt coniunguntque : cum alienigenis, cum barbaris
aeternum omnibus Graecis bellum est eritque (speech of a Macedonian); cf. Ex. 17:16;
Eur. Iph. Aul., 1379 f., 1400 f.: Bappapov & "EXAnvas &PXELV EIK6S, & X' ou
BapBapouc, untep, 'Exnvov to HEv yap 800ov, of 8' £ EU0spot, approvingly
quoted by Aristot. Pol., I, 2, p. 1252b, 8. There is criticism of this distribution, in view
of the numerical disparity of the two parts, in Plat. Polit., 262de.
The antithesis of cultures is esp. expressed in Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., I, 89, 4: Many
Hellenes who dwelt #v BapBapois very quickly unlearned to 'EAAnvikov, oc untE
oohv 'EXaoa plÉyyE @au; again in the prayer of thanksgiving of Thales (Diog.L,
I, 7, 33): *PaOKE yap, pnol, tp1ov toutov gvexa xapiv gxewv Ti Toxn" mpotov
LEV STL &VOPOTOS EYEVOUNV, kal of Onplov® Elra 8tl dimp, kal 00 yuvn' tpitov
8Tl "EXAnv, kal oi BapBapoc. 6 Acc. to Isoc., 4, 157, by pious proclamation Bap-
Bapot were excluded from the Mystery rites of initiation in exactly the same way as
&vopooovot.'
The Hellenistic world established by Alexander fulfilled the ancient Greek
ideal of the dominion of the "EAnves over the BapBapot, but it also led to a
certain removal of the distinction, to a Hellenisation of the BapBapoi. This had
been prepared by the Sophists with their insight into the essential likeness of all

2 Thes. Ling. Lat., S.v. barbarus.

3 Aesch. Pers., 186 f.; Soph. Trach., 1060, we have instead o00' 'EAAS, oft' &yAwaooc
(= BapBapos yn).
Persians, Aesch. Pers. passim ; Hdt., VIII, 142 and passim. Thuc.: Eichhorn, op. cit.,
41; Xenoph.: Eichhorn, 45. Egyptians, examples in Pape, Pass., Juthner, 13 ff.
Cf. Werner, 395.
6 For a variant, referred to Plato, v. Plut. Marius, 46 (I, 433a), Lact. Inst., III, 19, 17.
7 Cf. Luc. Demon., 4, Pseudolog., 5.
 BapBapoc

men, sharply formulated by Antiphon (Diels, II3, Nachtrage, XXXVI, col. 2,

10 ff.) : 8 ETE TUOEL TOVT& TOVTES OUOIGS TEOUKQUEV KAI BapBapot kai "EX-
Anves Elval. The new view found classical form in the cosmopolitanism of the
Stoics. In this connection it should be noted that the older proponents of the
Stoa were partly of barbarian origin; they not merely assimilated Greek culture
but became teachers of the Greeks.

For comprehensive witness, v. Plut. Alex. Fort. Virt., 6 (II, 329b-d), where Alexander is
lauded as the divinely sent reconciler of humanity, the destroyer of the previous enmity
between Hellenes and barbarians (cf. Eph. 2:11 ff.); hence the restriction of the term
BapBapos to the wild peoples on the frontier of Hellenistic and Roman civilisation. 10
For differentiation among the barbarians, v. Plut. Cons. ad Apoll., 22 (II, 113a).
Naturally the Romans were at first reckoned among the BapBapoi. 11 The more
Hellenised they became, the more they earned the right to be listed with the "EXANVES
in the formula : "EXAnVES Kai BapBapol. The relationship remained obscure. One
solution was to include a third division, i.e., Greeks, Romans and barbarians, but this
was never fully adopted. 12 Even in the Epistle to the Romans Paul uses the older
formula "ElAnves Kai BapBapot. Sometimes this was abandoned altogether in favour
of Romans and non-Romans, 13

4. The ethnographical sense 3. which equates BapBapou with non-Greeks who

are destitute of Greek culture and full of all vices, leads quickly to the general
moral sense of "wild," "crude," "fierce," "uncivilised."
Aristoph. Nu., 492 : avepuos quains Kai BapBapoc; Polyb., I, 65, 7: poc
8É TOUTOIS TI SL&DÉPEI Kal Kata rooov hen oopuikta Kai BapBapa tov gv
TaLEiXIc kai vouols Kai TOALTIKOIS #OEOIV ÉKTE0pauuévov. P. C
in Latin Cic. Mil., 30, where the docti are set in antithesis to the barbari: sin hoc et
ratio doctis et necessitas barbaris et mos gentibus et feris etiam beluis natura ipsa
praescripsit. Cic. Verr., IV, 112. Sen. Marc., 7, 3 : magis barbaros quam placidae eruditae-
que gentis homines, magis indoctos quam doctos eadem orbitas volnerat. BapBapoc is
here synon. with oKAnpos, Duos, Aypios, HaviKos, &TLaTOs, &vOntos, ak
quains, &naIdEUtos, avalo0ntos. 11 How the change of meaning from 3. to 4. is
linked with the great historical work of Alexander is shown by Plut. Alex. Fort. Virt., 6
(II, 329cd): To 8' 'EXAnvikov Kai BapBapixov un xAquut Sopigelv, dAAd
To uev 'EMnvikov apetn, TO 8É BapBapikov KaKig tekuaipsolai; cf. also Cic.
Resp., I, 58 n.11).

8 Cf. H. Diels in SAB (1916), 931 ff.; W. Nestle, "Politik u. Moral im Altertum," N]bch.
K1. Alt., 21 (1918), 228 f.
9 Cf. M. Pohlenz, "Stoa u. Semitismus," NJbch. Wiss. u. Jugendbildung, (1926), 257 ff.
T have not so far encountered any Stoic statement anal. to that of Antiphon. The word
BapBapos is not found in v. Arnim's Index, nor in Epict.
Cf. Preisigke Wort., 255.
11 Juthner, 60 ff.; Werner, 397 ff. Cato in Plinius Hist. Nat., XXIX, 7, 14: nos quoque
dictitant barbaros (sc. Graeci) et spurcius nos quam alios 'OTtlK@v appellatione foedant
Livius, XXXI, 29, 30 : qui Romanos alienigenas et barbaros vocet ; Cic. Resp., 58 : Si, ut
Graeci dicunt, omnis aut Graios esse aut barbaros, vereor ne (Romulus) barbarorum rex
luerit ; sin id nomen moribus dandum est, non linguis, non Graecos minus barbaros quam
Romanos puto.
12 Cic. Fin., II, 49 : non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria ; Divin., I, 84;
cf. also Philo Vit. Cont., 48. Cf. further, Jithner, 140, n. 202.
So Ael. Arist., XIV, p. 347, 15 ff., Dindorf: Jithner, 85 f.
14 For examples, v. Eichhorn, 62 ff. For dvontoc, apart from R. 1:14 cf. Dion. Hal. Ant.
Rom., V, 4, 3. Cf. also Plut. Pelop., 21 (I, 289c): Apophthegm. (Caesar), II, 205 f.
BapBapos

5. Within the new cosmopolitanism the barbarians, or some outstanding bar-

barians, came to be highly estimated in certain circles of Hellenes. Individual
barbarian peoples were idealised and the intellectual greatness of some of their
kings highly valued (Xenoph. Cyrop.), as also that of individual sages of bar-
barian origin (the Scythian Anacharsis) and the philosophy of the barbarians,
e.g., Chaldeans and Jews. 16
Christianity found a place in this movement. Yet it was the Apologists who
first asserted the barbarian origin of this new religion or philosophy and of its
Founder, thus deducing the superiority of Christian philosophy.
Just. Apol., I, 5, 4; 7, 3; 46, 3; 60, 11; the new state of affairs is denoted by the
expression : 161tov LEV kai BapBapov To plÉyua, O0pOv 8E Kai ILOTGy TOv
VOOv 8vtov, Dial., 119, 4; esp. Tatian, etc. 16

B. BapBapos in the LXX, Jewish Hellenism and the Rabbis.

In the true LXX BapBapos occurs only twice, at Ez. 21:31 (36) and y 113:1: Ev
LE,660 "lapan\ EE AlyUTiou, olkou 'IaKoB EK Aaot BapBapou, where Aaoc
BapBapos (13) 03) 17 means a people with a stammering or alien tongue (sense 1. or
2.), and holy people of Yahweh (w 113:2) has a sense of superiority over barbarian
Egypt. At Ez. 21:31 (36), in an oracle against the Ammonites, we read: Kal ÉKXE& Énl
TE opyñv you Kai napaoion oE sic xeipas avipiiv BapBapov KtA. Here
0°733 0028 means "stupid and brutish men"18 and BapBapos is thus used in sense 4.
This is its usual meaning in the Apocrypha : 2 Macc. 4:25 : Ovuoug 8É buot tupav-
you Kal Onpoc Bappapou opyas Exov; 5:22, where it is not as a Phrygian, but in
character, that Philip is BapBapotspos than his king ; cf. also 10:4: un BAaooh-
uois kal BapBapois #Oveo tapadiooolai (cf. Ez. 21:36); 15:2 and 3 Macc. 3:24,
where the Egyptians do not want the Jews at their back as ntpoootac kal BapBapouc
ToAsulous, i.e., "fierce" enemies, though "foreign" enemies is also possible. The latter
sense is to be preferred in 2 Macc. 2:21, where the reference of to BapBapa Tinen is
to Syrian Hellenistic troops. Here the Jews speak of the Syrians as the Greeks of the
Persians. Their fight against them is one against barbarians, and we almost seem to
have the formula 'loubaiol kal BapBapot in opposition to EXAnvEs Kai Bap-
Bapor. 19
On the other hand, in Ep. Ar., 122 the description of the 70 chosen by the high-priest
is in Gk. terms ATO TEOELLEVOI tO tpaxi kal BapBapov ths Stavolac, i.e., as men
of Jewish and Greek culture they have put off the crudity of uncivilised Jews (or men).
Philo took over the Greek usage. 20 'EXAac and (f) BapBapoc (yñ) is for him the
world, and in Leg. Gaj. esp. the Roman Empire (cf. 141, 145 and 147) in which
Augustus and Tiberius disseminated their blessings. Wholly Hellenistic is the expression
in the hymn to Kaioap ZaBaoros (ibid., 145 ff.): 8 Thy uev 'EXAaoa 'EXAool
Tolaic rapauenaas, Thy 8t BapBapov €v toic dvaykalotatois tunuaow
ape Anvioas, i.e., by the spreading of Gk. culture the Roman Augustus has enlarged
Hellas and hellenised great areas of barbarian territory (147). He is also extolled,

15 So Celsus in Orig. Cels., I, 2 : (kavoug ESpEIV 86yuata tOUg BapBapous, and on

the other side xpival Kal BeBa baaolal Kai aakñaal Ttpoc ApETHV tO UTt0 BapBapov
ESpE0EVta QUEIVovEs Elolv "EXAnvES. In any case, the judgment of Celsus on Christian-
ity: BapBapov &voBEV ElvaI to Soyua (namely, of Jewish origin), implies no defect.
18 Cf. R. C. Kukula, "Was bedeuten die Namen "EAnvec und BapBapot in der alt-
christl. Apologetik ?" Festschrift f. T. Gomperz (1902), 359-363.
17 Ges.-Buhl, s.v. r9?.
18 Ibid., s.v. 792.
19 C.L. W. Grimm, Handbuch zu den Apokryphen d. AT, 4 (1857), 61.
20 H. Leisegang, Index, S.U.
 Bap Bapoc

however, as 6 tac KolV&c vooouc 'Envov Kai BapBapwv lao&uEvos (145), and
therefore, as one might say, as the saviour of both Hellenes and barbarians. Here the
idea of cultural distinction is levelled down, and even more so in Omn. Prob. Lib., 72 ff.,
where, in proof that the frugal or wise man still exists, appeal is made both to f 'EXoc
kal n BapBapos, the former with its 7 sages and the latter with its magi and gymno-
sophists ; 21 when later (75 ff.) n Nalalorlvn Zupla is also adduced with its Essenes,
there is room for doubt whether Judaism is classed with the barbarians or regarded as
a third group. The latter view is certainly found in Spec. Leg., II, 165 f.: "EXANVEC
duoi kal BapBapou have associated other deities with the one God, the TaThp OeGv
TE kai oviponov; this fault has been made good by TO 'loudalwv EOvoc; the
Jewish people is thus set in antithesis to others in virtue of its unique possession of
true knowledge of God. In addition to the Persians and Indians, Philo reckons the
Egyptians and esp. the ) Ex00al as barbarians (Vit. Mos., II, 19).22 Acc. to Vit. Mos.,
II, 19 f. the Jewish laws are also able to unite all groups where the laws of other peoples
divide, namely, BapBapouc, "Exnvas, nepitas, vnaut KTA. The destiny of
Jewish religion is to overcome the differences between Hellenes and barbarians and
thus to become the universal religion. In Philo the sense of "non-Greek" thus pre-
dominates, though we have sense 4. in Spec. Leg., III, 163 : BapBapot TOS QUOEIC,
NuÉpOU TaIBElaC &yEUATOL.
Josephus, 23 too, followed Gk. usage. The question is whether he included the Jews
among the BapBapot. Mostly he excluded them. Thus he characterises as BapBapot
the Midianites in Ant., 2, 263, the Parthians in Bell., 1, 264 and 268, Ant., 18, 328, the
branch of the Scythians known as the Sarmates, Bell., 7, 94, the non-Jewish inhabitants
of East Jordania, Ant., 12, 222, and the Arabs, Ant., 15, 130.24
It is accordingly charged against the Zealots that they rejoiced in the destruction
of their Jewish opponents as if they were barbarians (Bell., 5, 345), and against the
Idumeans that their zeal in assisting the Zealots against other Jews was greater than if
the metropolis summoned them knl Bappapous, i.e., non-Jews (4, 239).
Even when Josephus uses the expression "EXAnvec xai BapBapot, he excludes the
Jews, 25 though he does not emphasise the fact that they are a tertium genus. For
Josephus "EXAnves Kai BapBapot simply denotes non-Jews.
On the other hands, and rather surprisingly, he speaks of the Parthian Jews, for
whom he first wrote his War in their Syrian Aramaic, as toic avi BapBapoic
(Bell., 1, 3). This is an accommodation to Roman and Gk. usage, and he sets over against
these avo BapBapol toic Kata thy 'Poualov nyeuoviav (sc. olko) to whom
he now presents his War 'EXA&81 y/woon. We see the same thing when he opposes
to witnesses (about the Jews) rap' nuiv TE autoic kai tIaIv & oIC tov BapBapov
(the Persians and Macedonians) tx iTo 'Pouaiov 86yuata (Ant., 14, 178 f.).
The malicious saying AQUEOTOTOUC ETVAL TiV BappapeY (TOUG "loudaiouc) in
Ap., 2, 148, is a quotation from Apollonius Molon.
In Rabbinic lit. 26 7972, 787272, plur. 047272. K$7272 occurs only as a loan word to
denote a. Jews as spoken of by ations which subjugate them, like the Babylonians,
Medes and Romans, 27 and b. non-Jewish peoples and uncultured individuals. 28

21 Cf. Abr., 181 ff.

22 Similarly in Op. Mund., 128 Moses the law-giver of the Jews is compared with the
mathematicians of the "EXAnves Kai BapBapoi.
23 Most of these examples are from material kindly placed at my disposal by A. Schlatter.
24 Their tapavoula is so great dg ElKog EyEIV To BapBapov Kai avewontov 0E00.
25 Mostly "ElAnves Kai BapBapot relates to Gk. and oriental writers, Ant., 1, 93 and
107; Ap. 1, 58 and 161, though cf. Ant., 4, 12; 15, 136; Ap. 1, 201 (in a quotation from
• Hecataeus).
28 Str.-B., III, 27 ff.
27 E.g., in the acclamation for Nebuchadnezzar as for Titus : X;2222 X0123 = viknts
BapBapov (Str. B., III, 28).
28' Str.-B., III, 28 f.
BapBapoc

The true Rabbinic equivalent to the Gk. "EXAnvEs Kal BapBapoi is Sartr and
abi97 mex or 2 hiy: and 0787 = ol 'loudatol kal £0vn. It is only in these expressions
that we can see the similarity of the Gk. and Jewish feeling in relation to other peoples.
A typical example is the Rabb. par. to the prayer of thanksgiving of Thales (- 547),
T. Ber., 7, 18 (R. Jehuda as author): "Praised be He who hath not made me a Gentile
a woman a barbarian !" There is a variant in bMen., 43b : The three beatitudes
of R. Meir, that He hath made me an Israelite and not a Goy, . .. that He hath not
made me a woman that He hath not made me a fool (712). 29
The distinction between BapBapos and "i is that the former applies only to race,
language and culture, whereas na (= * tOvn, * quaptwl6s, 328, cf. also ) aKpo-
Buorla, 226) is a cultic and religious term which only secondarily refers to differences
of race and culture. Thus BapBapoc and 72 are not equivalents, and Heb. and Aram.
adopt "barbarous" as a loan word. The cleft between Jews and non-Jews is deeper than
that between Gks. and barbarians, the more so as the distinction between Jews and non-
Jews, between circumcised and uncircumcised, has an eschatological significance with
implications for the world to come and for eternity. 30

C. Bappapos in the NT.

The term occurs only 4 times in the NT. 31 at Ac. 28:2, 4; C. 14:11: R. 1:14
and Col. 3:11.
In 1 C. 14:11 Paul gives us a classical example of sense 1. in the general state-
ment which he makes in his discussion of tongues : Édv odv un El&G Thy Suvqulv
ths owvis, jooual to Axloiui BapBapoc kai 6 Aaliv (ev) Éul c
BapBapos here is the & A6yAwooos who speaks a language which I do not
understand. Paul thus emphasises the two-sided nature of the relationship; the
Hellene is a "barbarian" to non-Hellenes, as was Ovid to the "barbarian" Getae
(-> 547).
Similarly in Ac. 28:2, 4 oi BxpBapot are those of alien, non-Greek race, i.e.,
the Maltese who speak Punic, "natives" who use their own tongue. 32
When Luke says: of TE BapBapoi tapEiXov oU Thy tuXoiaav oilavi potlav
quiv, he means that we met with friendly treatment which as shipwrecked travellers
we had not expected, or had never met with elsewhere, from such "barbarians." Hence
there is either a contrast between BapBapos and ouavepwtla, or else a protest
against the dominant contempt for BapBapot.

In R. 1:14 f. Paul describes the universality of his apostolic commitment : "EX-

Anolv TE Kai Bappapoic, copoic TE kal &vontois opElEINS elul, and thus
deduces his readiness to preach also to the Romans. The saying is a parallel to
1:5 f.; the reference is to Tovra To #0vn. 33 The expression is wholly in line with
Gk. usage. The apposition cooois TE Kal vontols shows that Paul has also
cultural distinction in view. Bappapos thus means "non-Greek," whether in respect

29 Bousset-Gressm., 426 f.; J. Leipoldt, Jesus u. d. Frauen (1921), 3 f., 115 f.

30 Ac. 15:2; Str.-B., IV, 1, 37 ff.
31 BapBapos is not found at all in the post-apostolic fathers and only recurs in the
Apologists.
32 This is the best rendering of BapBapot in this passage. Some of them must have
known a little Greek, for Luke made out and passed on one or two of their sayings (28:4b
and 6b). Paul probably conversed with them £Bpatol SiaAéKTO, i.e., in Aram. Zn. Ac.,
ad loc.
38 Cf., e.g., Cl. Al. Prot., 12, 120, 2.
 BapBapoc

of descent or culture. 34 Yet Hellenes and barbarians are alike in the fact that the
new Gospel must be proclaimed to both, as Philo had also believed in respect of
the law of the Jews (-> 550).
As mostly in Philo, the formula includes the Romans. 35 The fact that Paul
writes a Greek letter TOIC Év 'Poun means that he classifies them with the
"EXANVES. Among the BapBapot to whom he also owes the Gospel he perhaps
groups the Spaniards to whom he plans to journey from Rome (R. 15:24), the
Celts, who were related to his hellenised &vontou Fanatal (GI. 3:1), the Germans,
the Scythians, and all non-Hellenistic peoples either within or without the Roman
Empire. 37 In general, the Roman Empire was for Paul co-extensive with Greek
society both linguistically and culturally.
According to R. 1:14 the apostle's calling has in view the two groups of Hellenes
and barbarians, i.e., the non-Jewish world (to £0vn). 38 The Jews are not counted
here, and thus constitute a tertium genus. Occasionally Paul uses in close pro-
ximity the alternative 'loudaioc kal "EXAnv (1:16), which denotes the totality
of the human race from the Jewish and biblical standpoint. Both formulae are
construed along the same lines ; 'loudaios is the equivalent of "EXANVES and
"Exiny of BapBapos. The one elect people is contrasted with all others. In the
Jewish formula "ExAny necessarily includes the BapBapot and thus equals #0vn.
We may thus put the two together to produce the three-pronged synthesis : "You-
Saio1, "EXAnvES, BapBapor, which is hinted at by Paul in Col. 3:11.
In this verse we have a fourfold grouping, in pairs, of the race as it has been united
in Christ (cf. G1. 3:28). The first two pairs are "EXAnv kai 'loudaioc and TEpITOun
kai akpoBuotia, in which we have division from the standpoint of nationality and
of salvation history and religion. The final pair is SoUoc/éAUO@pos; the sociological
division (apoEv/eñAv) is not found in the original. 39 The third pair, namely, Bap-
Bapoc/Zki0ns, is rather more difficult to understand. On the analogy of the others,
an antithesis is intended. It has been suggested that Zko0nc here stands for a noble
northern people corresponding to the idealised Germania of Tacitus and others, and
that this is set over against the BapBapos. 40 The Exo0nc, however, is almost always
thought of as a particularly uncivilised barbarian. 41 Again, in some later travel stories
the word BapBapia is used for the Somali coast and part of Ethiopia (the inhabitants
are oi BapBapot); hence it has been thought that the contrast is between southern
and northern peoples or even black and white. 42 It is unlikely, however, that in view
of the widespread use of the formula "EAnves/BapBapou Paul would adopt so
specialised and little known a sense in such close proximity to the term " EXAnvES.
It has also to be remembered that the attestation, and perhaps the designation, is post-

34 Cf. also Zn. R., ad loc.

35 Cf. Ps.-Clem. Recg., I, 7: audite me, O cives Romani; and then 9: vos o omnis turba
Graecorum (they are thus described as supposed philosophi).
Lycaonian in Ac. 14:11 is for Paul just as much a barbarian language as Celtic or
Punic Maltese.
38 Gl. 2:7 f.; R. 3:29; 1 Tm. 2:7.
39 For
formalkal
Ev als Tobalol par.Ttoyoi,
v. Plat. kai
Theaet. 175akai
Bacteis : mdmntov Kai mpoybvov WorGdec
800Ao1, BapBapoi TE Kal "EXANVES
TOAAAKIS MUpIOL YEYOVAGIV 6TWOUV.
Juthner, 55, 143.
For examples - 550; cf. also Cic. Verr., V, 150. The word TEPIOK OIKEWV occurs in
2 Macc. 7:4. Cf. Wettstein and Loh. on Col. 3:11.
12 Another possible distinction is between BapBapot subject to the Roman Empire and
those outside. Again, there is the possibility of a distinction from Berber if this designation,
common in older Arab writers, is pre-Arab, as seems possible according to information
received from G. Jacob.
BapBapoc - Bapoc

Pauline. We are thus forced to explain the formula in relation to BapBapos/"EXAnv.

Paul began with the Jewish formula. Obviously, therefore, he was taking "EAAnv in
the narrower sense of non-jews of Greek origin and culture, i.e., in the sense of the
rival formula "Elnv Kal BapBapos. He thus found it necessary to make specific
mention of the BapBapot in order to supply the missing section of the race. But there
was no available antithesis as the style of the passage demanded. To make good the
deficiency he contrasted the barbarians generally with a particularly notorious barbarian
people. The expression is thus a stylistic device.

In general, then, Paul uses the Hellenistic BapBapos in the same way as Philo
and Josephus and with a conscious exclusion of the 'loubaios. The new thing is
his desire to lead the BapBapol to the EayyÉ lov 0g00, and the doctrine that
Greeks, Jews, Scythians and barbarians are all fashioned into a totality in Christ.
Windisch

Bapos, Bapic, Bapio

Bapos.
Apart from the basic meaning, i.e., "bodily weight" in the wider sense, the word
is used figuratively to denote two important and ineluctable characteristics of
existence, namely, oppressive suffering and significant power. This is the im-
ortant point for a comparison of the secular and the NT usage.
A. In the Greek and Hellenistic World.
1. The first sense of "physical weight" provides a neutral basis. Thus B&pos is
used in cosmological discussion for the weight of the elements: Diod. S., 1, 7, 1; Philo
Rer. Div. Her., 146. It is also used for the weight of men or animals (Polyb., XVIII,
30, 4) and hence for pregnancy (Preisigke Sammelbuch, 5718). It is used of scales
(Bapeowv dvicous, Philo Jos., 140), of the freight of ships (Polyb., I, 39, 4) and of the
baggage of an army (Ju. 18:21 B, Mas. 72).
When used metaphorically of the (reduced) weight of an enclitic word 2 or of depth
of tone, 3 the idea is that by emphasis special "stress' is laid on a syllable or note.
The following nuances may be noted as leading to, though not yet expressing, the
complexes of suffering and power. 2. The element of pressure occurs when the word
is used to denote the "thrust" of active movement. The basis of "weight" may still be
seen, but it is now given emotional content to signify "force" or "violence." Thus
the violence of hail does damage (Diod. S., XIX, 45, 2; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 119); or there
is reference to the ponderous movement of troops or ships or elephants (Jdt. 7:4; Polyb.,

Bapos. Bibl. on the content of the term: E. Balla, "Das Problem des Leides in der
Gesch. der isr.-jud. Religion" in Eucharisterion, I (1923), 214 ff.; A. Beyer, "Was sagen
Jesus und Paulus uber das Leid ?" Pr. M., 20 (1916), 321 ff., 371 ff.; R. Liechtenhan, "Die
Uberwindung des Leides bei Pls. und in der zeitgenossischen Stoa,' ZThK, NF, 3 (1922),
368 ff.; O. Schmitz, Das Lebensgefuhl des Pls. (1922), 105 ff.; H. Weinel, Bibl. Th. d. NT4
(1928), 266 ff.; J. Schneider, Die Passionsmystik des Pls. (1929), 17 ff., 73 ff.; O. Kietzig,
Die Bekehrung des Pls. (1932), 193 ff.; RGG2, III, 1565.
1 In the LXX, where it occurs only infrequently, Bapos is always used for 7129. It is
striking that x7e, 520 (1 K. 11:28), 02210 (Ps. 66:11) and similar words are not rendered
Bapos.
2 Apollon Dyscol. Synt., 98, 1. Cf. P. Hanschke, De accentuum graecorum nominibus
(Diss. Bonn, 1914), esp. "De vocibus BEuc et Bapus.
Aristides Quintil. Musicus, 1, 11.
 papos

X, 12, 8; Diod. S., XX, 52, 3; Polyb., I, 74, 5), or to the baying of dogs (Alciphr. Ep.,
3, 18).
3. To some extent distinct from the basic meaning of weight, though not entirely
figurative, is the sense of "fulness" or "superfluity" or ripeness.' The significant
feature here is not just weight, though this is included, but fulness or content. This
approximates closely to the usage in which emphasis falls on the complex of power.
There is reference to the plenitude of riches in Eur. El., 1287: kal S6TG TtAOUToU
Bapos, cf. also Plut. Alex., 48 (I, 692b); to the fulness of well-being in Eur. Iph. Taur.,
416 : gABou Bapos. In the image of the scales in Philo Rer. Div. Her., 46 &x0oc is
used for weight and Bapos for mass. The state is described in the image of the fulness
and maturity of the body in Jos. Bell., 1, 507.
But we have not yet reached the main figurative meaning. 4. Bapos comes into
significant use for suffering through the emphasis on its oppressive or burdensome
nature. It applies a. to afflictions of the body : Aristot. Hist. An., VIII, 21, p. 603b,
8: KEDaAñS TtovoC Kai Bapos; Hippocr. Acut., 4; to the smart of wounds, Plut.
Alex. Fort. Virt., II, 13 (II, 345a); Diod. S., XVI, 12, 4; to exposure to an intoler-
able smell, 2 Macc. 9:10.
It also applies b. to afflictions of the soul, to oppression, dejection, depression,
misery : Soph. Oed. Col., 409 : Éotal ToT' &pa TOutO KaSuEloic Bapos; P. Oxy.,
VII, 1062, 14 : El 8é T00TO GOL Bapos pÉpEI; Ditt. Syll.3, 888, 67 (238 A.D.):
ÉnEl OUV OUKETL SUVKUE0& DÉPEIV To Bapn.
In relation to Mt. 20:12 it may be mentioned that Bapos is very common with gen.
apposit. Similar constructions to to Bopos ts nuÉpas are the burden of fate in Soph.
Trach., 325 : & X' aiev b8lvouaa auupopas Bapos; official burdens in Jos. Bell.,
4,616: Bapos ins nyeuovlas; Bell., 1,461: tov npayuatov; Philo Spec. Leg., II,
102: "payuatelov; the burden of sorrows in Philo Vit. Mos., I, 14 : Bapos Tov
opovtl8wv; cf. also Philo Vit. Mos., I, 39 : ovaykns Bapos.
c. A specialised use, very common in the pap., is to denote the burden, e.g., of
taxation, as in P. Giess., I, 7, 13 f. (117 A.D.) in relation to conditions of tenure ;
BGU, I, 159, 3 ff. (216 A.D.) in relation to national expenditure (Bapos tis AeiToup-
yias); and Polyb., 1, 67, 1 in relation to taxes (to Bapos tov popov).
5. Hardly less common than the use for suffering is the use of Bapoc for
power, 1.e. weight, dignity, influence, power or presence. The reference may be
a. to personal influence, dignity or appearance : Plut. Pericl., 37 (I, 172c); Plut.
Cat., 1 (I, 336d), 20 (I, 347 f.); Demetr., 2 (I, 889e); Diod. S., XIX, 70, 8; or b. to
the power of a state: Diod. S., XVI, 8,5 etc.; or c. to the strength of an army
or the power of arms, as sometimes in the historians and frequently in Polyb.:
I, 16, 4; II, 68, 9; V, 104, 2.

B. The NT Usage.
It is to be noted that, if faith in Christ involves a change in the use of the
word, this is particularly instructive because it illustrates the new attitude of early
Christianity to suffering, to depression, to the yoke of the Law, and to the question
of power.
In the NT use there is first reflected 1. the unchanged participation of the
Christian in earthly oppression (- n. 4). In spite of the new position of the re-
cipient of grace, this will continue until the final redemption of the body, to use
the Pauline phrase. If in Mt. 20:12 : toic Baotdoaa to Bapoc the quepas, we
have a simple and non-accentuated reference to the daily burden of work, we
are led into profound evaluation of suffering in 2 C. 4:17. To be sure, the primary
reference is to apostolic suffering. Yet a glance at R. 8:18 shows that the same
Bapos

standards apply to the Christian life in general. The Bapoc of affliction is in no

way denied or minimised. But in relation to what is to come it is an Éaopov
Bapos. The formula aloviov Bapoc S6Ens naturally reminds us that the Heb.
725 expresses both the weight and the glory. The distinctive feature in this view
of suffering is that the present burden is conceived to be productive in the
eschatological sense (katepya(etai). From the burden of suffering comes the
fulness of &6%x. If this reminds us of Mandaean parallels, where the mounting
soul carries a pure burden, it should not be overlooked that the Mandaean view
is linked with ideas of merit. 6 The result is the same if we attempt a comparison
with Wis., the Macc. and post-Pauline apocalyptic as regards the connection
between suffering and glory. Wis., too, connects the brief sufferings of this aeon
with the glory of the future world at 3:5 : 8Alya TaLOEUOÉVTEC uEy&Aa EDEPYET)-
Oncovral. It does SO, however, on the express basis of the idea of merit : 8tu
BEOG ETELPIGEV AUTOUE KAL EUPEV AUTOUG AEIOUC EXUTO Similarly, the (ela
ueplc will be won by the representative suffering of martyrs in 4 Macc. 18:3.
Again, suffering will safeguard against eternal pain according to S. Bar. 78:6. On
the other hand, at 2 Cor. 4:17 the significant feature is the new glory of the
Christian life which is already assured in affliction on the basis of grace in Christ.
Far more profoundly influenced by the later Jewish views already mentioned is the
usual Hellenistic conception, e.g., in Jos. Bell., 7, 346 (the speech of Eleazar),
where it is only through suffering that the soul ETEL&dv &TtolulElaa tOU
KalÉAKovto© authv Bapous eni ynv attains its home, its effectiveness and its
unrestricted power. Here we are expressly told that this life has no true connec-
tion with the hoped for immortality; it is quite simply a misfortune. Mysticism
goes on to seek a sloughing off of human nature by the ascetic and ecstatic
liberation of soul, but fails to do justice to the reality of the continuing existence
of suffering.
2. As regards the task of love in relation to suffering (-* n. 4), Gl. 6:2 describes
it as the sum and substance of the Christian life to bear one another's burdens.
The context shows us that the primary reference of Bapn here is to moral lapses,
temptations and guilt. Nevertheless, it is obvious that this saying offers us
basic thesis in description of the total task of love, so that we cannot restrict the
application of Bapoc to a particular sphere. 7 This is proved above all by the
sentence which follows Kai outc &VaTAN POOETE TOv vouov tou Xp10To0.4
The distinctive nature of the conception emerges from a comparison with Stoic
teaching. Here there are altruistic impulses. The demands of humanity, of KOLVO-

4 With P. W. Schmiedel, ad loc. (cf. the Zurich Bible, 1931), we should expand this to
ÉXaopov Bapos. This does not necessarily demand the obliteration of the play of meanings,
i.e., "'burden" in the first clause and "fulness" in the second, since this is preserved if
"weight" is used as the rendering in both cases.
5 Lidz. Toh., 204, 24 ff.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 355; Ir. Erl., 54. Cf. also G. Flugel, Mani
(1862), 105, and for the thought of reward Lidz. Joh., 204, 28 : Men of "tested piety" have
trodden "the way of reward and almsgiving, 23 f.
6 Gl. 6:1: Tapaiit uati un telpaoens. The burden to be borne in 6:5 is primarily that
of personal responsibility, i.e., of the decisions which have to be taken in the fight against
temptations.
For Rabb. par. cf. Ab., 6, 5 f. : to bear the yoke with one's neighbour," Str.-B., III, 577
and Gn. r., (2b): "The great of the land share the king's burden, cf. Str.-B., I, 731.
Though vouos ToU Xpl6T00 is put in place of the vouos, we have here a par. to
R. 13:10. The statement is understood in the widest sense in Dg., 10,6: SoTiS to too
TAnolov &vadÉ XEtatl Bapos.
 Bapoc - Bapic
vik6v, Uvoia and EQuÉvela, are emphasised. Yet everything remains in the
sphere of intellectualistic ethics. For there is no ÉKKAnola in which this "bearing"
can be realised as the true and concentrated content of life.
3. In relation to freedom from the yoke of the Law ( n. 4), we may refer
to Ac. 15:28° and Rev. 2:24, which resist the view that a burden in laid on the
community. This is in harmony with Mt. 11:29 f., where personal commitment to
Christ replaces the yoke of statutes. The yoke of the Torah and ordinances is
part of the earthly Bapos which is lifted from the community. 10
4. It is certainly not for nothing, nor accidental, that in all the passages in
which Bapos is used in the sense of earthly influence, importance or power, this
element is opposed, whereas Bapoc as suffering is profoundly indicated by
Bapeiolau. At 1 Th. 2:7: Suvouevou Ev Bxpel Elvat, the reference can hardly
be to financial cost, 11 i.e., the material burden the apostle might be to the com-
munity ; it is rather to conscious self-assertion. 12 Though the apostle maintains
his apostolic authority, he does not think it necessary to support it by a particu-
larly imposing appearance.

T Bapuc.
In ordinary Gk. the use of Bapuc is wholly par. to that of Bapos. The division
under A. may thus be accepted as still applicable, and our attention concentrated on the
NT passages with biblical and extra-biblical par. 1
1. Outside the NT Bapic is often used for "heavy" in the corporal sense, for
"awkward," "pregnant," "heavy with wine" (opp. Koupoc), or figur. "deep," e.g., in
tone (opp. 880c) and accent, a. of syllables (musically "deep") or b. of words (the
place of the accent in words). This usage does not occur in the NT, but the toic bol
Bapeos frouoav of Mt. 13:15; Ac. 28:27 belongs directly to this category. The quota-
tion is from Is. 6:10 (Mas. 1397 M2ND: Their ears have become "dull of hearing."
Without toic bol, Baptoc Krouov elsewhere denotes an unfavourable reception,
Polyb., XVIII, 39, 1; Xenoph. An., II, 1, 9.4
2. To the sense of Bapos which emphasises thrust or force or violence there cor-
responds that of Bapic as "forceful" or "violent," as in 2 C. 10:10 : Érotolai Bapeiat
kal loxupal the accusation made against Paul by his opponents. This is the usage
which applies the term to natural forces. It is used of the wind: votos Bapis, Paus.,
X, 17,11; of thunder : Bapeia Bpovrh, Poll. Onom., I, 118; of storms : Bapis xel ov,
Philo Gig., 51; of hail: yala(a Bapsia, Philo Vit. Mos., I, 118; or of the baying of

9 In elucidation Ac. 15:10 is important: ÉrOsival guyov (common LXX alternatives are
BapuvElv tov (uyov or tov xAol6v, 3 Bao. 12:4; 12:14; Hab. 2:6; 1 Macc. 8:31) Émi rov
tpaxnov rav uaentov. quybv and Bapos are here rejected, for the few decisions in
the decree cannot be understood thus. Zn. Einl., II, 445, n. 10 links Rev. 2:24 with the
apostolic decree, but the formal agreement may well be accidental; cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc.
10 On "yoke of the Torah" main 59 or nixp 59, cf. Ab., 6, 5 f. (the 48 demands on those
occupied with the Torah), Str.-B., III, 577, also I, 608 and 912; II, 728.
11 Like Év TIPOOAOEI TLEOVEE LaC in 2:5 and € iBapnoal tiva in 2:9; so Thdrt. But
just before we have : OUTE InTOUVTEs tE, dvipinov 86Eav. We are given the impression
that the financial theme does not recur in this instance.
12 With Chrys., Dob., Dib., ad loc.; Pr.-Bauer, S.v.
Bapuc. Cf. Hanschke, De accentuum nominibus ( Bapos, n. 2).
S61
On Is. 6:9 f. in Rabb. lit., cf. Str.-B., I, 662 f. Very common is Bapéoc DÉPEIV, Aristoph.
Vesp., 114; Polyb., I, 7, 9; 1, 38, 5 etc.; Baptoc EXEIV, P. Lond., 42, 29 (168 B.C.); Bapi
nyeiolat, Philo Leg. All., III, 90 etc.
Bapic
dogs, Alciphr. Ep., 3, 11. But it can also be used of violent anger, Soph. Phil., 368;
3 Macc. 5:1, opyn Bapsia; and of violent hostility, Plat. Ap., 23a.
3. To Bapos as fulness or maturity there corresponds the adjectival "full of age"
or the common LXX use for "numerous" (of the people, an army or a following). This
does not appear in the NT.
4. The usage in relation to suffering is most common in the NT. Investigation
shows that Bapus, too, is most often used to denote that which presses heavily,
or is burdensome or painful. This may be painful sickness, as in Soph. Phil., 1330;
Philo Op. Mund., 125; P. Lond., 1676, 15 (6th cent. A.D.); or oppressive care, bad
news, painful service, severe warfare, heavy affliction or misfortune. Thus the
Jews in Ac. 25:7 bring before Festus BapÉa aitiQuata ("grievous complaints").
Cf. Baputepa tuuopla in Diod. S., XIII, 30, 7.
From the standpoint of biblical theology the passages which deal with freedom
from the yoke of the Law are most important. a. In Mt. 23:4 Jesus accuses the
Pharisees of binding and laying poptla BapÉa, "heavy burdens,' on the shoulders
of men.
In illustration of this phrase, we may refer to copilov in Diod. S., XIII, 20, 1: Thy
Eituxlav torEp Bapi poptlov Oi pÉpOVTES. In 37:4, of misdeeds, we have : Goel
poptiov Bapi (A om) ÉBapivenaav Ent' Éu€. Cf. also poptov, Philo Poster C, 148
Bapitatov poptov (of the beast of burden). Most common is &xlos. This is first used
physically : Philo Vit. Mos., I, 231: Baputatov &yéoc (the fruits brought by the spies);
Agric., 20, of work on the land Deus Imm., 15, of the soul ; Agric., 49 to aic
UTaKOUElV apxaic avay Ka(eolat Baputatov &xloc; of the burden of cares of state,
Plant., 56. Migr. Abr., 14 : Bapitatov axlos that perspicacity is dulled by carnal
desires. Baotayua is used in Jos. Ant., 19, 362: kal TE/Elo 8' O8v Elval Bapt
Baotayua Bacilelav; Bapic guyoc in 2 Chr. 10:4: aTo tou guyou autot TOU
Bapéoc 06 #OKEV Eo" Quac (7232, of Solomon); Sir. 40:1: guyoc Bapic eni ulous
(R uloic) 'Abau (of human tribulation); Jos. Ant., 8, 213. Orders or demands (rpootay-
para, entitayuata) are described as "heavy" in Polyb., I, 31, 7; XV, 8, 11; Philo Vit.
Mos., I, 37; Conf. Ling., 92. Aeitoupyla Baputot is used of state taxes in BGU, 159, 4
(3rd cent. A.D.).

b. The same theme of liberation from the yoke of the Law underlies 1 Jn. 5:3.
The phrase : Evrolal aitoi Bapsial oUK Elolv, signifies removal of the category
of difficult commands viewed by men as demanding extraordinary achievement.'
Mt. 11:30 is important for the light it sheds, since it is the coming of Jesus which
makes the change, as the continuation in 5:4 shows (- Bapos B.3). But in itself
this reference is not enough, since in Mt. the contrast is between burdensome and
light. The form and content of the saying are influenced by Dt. 30:11 ff., a passage
often used by Philo. + As he sees it, the love of God as the sum of the com-
mandments is not burdensome or complicated or exaggerated. He emphasises that
especially the patriarchs, the embodiment of the laws of reason, prove that it is
no great effort for those who have a ready mind to live according to written
laws. As in Dt., so in 1 Jn. 5:3 there is reference to love of God. Love of God
is essentially directed to the keeping of His commands. But if it is then said that
these are not heavy, this is not an optimistically rational reference to human ability

3 On the Rabb. distinction between 742n man and 122 Mxp = Evroln Bapeia, EvtoAn
glaopo, cf. Str.-B., I, 901 ff. For 1 Jn. 5:3, cf. jKid., 61b, 58 (Str.-B., I, 902).
4 Wnd. 1 Jn., ad loc.
 Bapuc - Bapeo

and good will. The basis of the statement is that the one who is born of God
overcomes in virtue of faith in the Son of God, who has already won the victory
over the koouos, this koouoc which threatens the keeping of the commands. The
commands are not hard to keep because the believer can draw on the perfect
triumph of Christ.
5. a. On the other hand, Kai donkatE ta Bapurepa tou vouou in Mt. 23:23
does not mean the harder commands as distinct from the easier, but the weightier
as district from the trifling, such as those dealing with the tithing of herbs. We
should compare the question as to the Evtoln ipoin tavtov in Mk. 12:28. This
use of Bapic corresponds, therefore, to the sense of Bapos which we have
discussed under the complex of power (- A. 5) .*
Bapus often means "forceful" or 'significant," not merely in relation to such con-
crete things as princes (Polyb., V, 55, 2) or cities (Polyb., I, 17, 5; I, 38,7), but also to
abstract things, Polyb., V, 14, 3: uspis of the most important share (praecipuus);
Herodian Hist., II, 14, 3 : Baputatny Eubauoviav.
b. In Ac. 20:29 ElFEEUFOVTaL AuKol Bapeic eis Juas refers to dangerous,
rending wolves. Here Bapuc denotes the violent man.
Cf. Poll. Onom., V, 164; 2 Ch. 25:19 : f kapoia cou f Bapela, "insolent" ; 3 Macc.
6:5 of arrogant speech : BapÉa aA00via KOUTO kal Opaoet.

+ Bapeo.
1. BapeiolaL 1 in the sense of being physically burdened, in the first instance
without any suggestion of a basic view of earthly existence, is found in the NT

5 In the Rabb., cf. the quotations in Str.-B., I, 901.f. (No. 2 under d and e), esp. S. Dt., 79
on 12:28. Cf. also Schl. Mt., 679.
& Philology supplies some important par. for this sense. The Sansk. guru-, which means
"imposing" as well as "heavy,' is particularly used as term of respect for teachers.
The Lat. gravis is related etym., and denotes "severe," "dignified.'
Ba £ w. Anz., Subsidia, 10 f.; Moult.-Mill., 103 f. On 2 C. 5:4: E. Teichmann, Die
paulin. Vorstellungen von Auferstehung u. Gericht (1896); E. Haupt, "Einfuhrung in das
Verstandnis der Briefe des Pls. an die Kor.," Dtsch. Ev. Bl. (1903), 107 ff.; E. Kihl, Ulber
2 C. 5:1-10 (1904); F. Tillmann, Die Wiederkunit Christi nach den paulin. Briefen (1909);
K. Deissner, Aufersthungshoffu und Pneumagedanke bei Pls. (1912); J. Weiss, Das
Urchristentum (1917), 418 f.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 356; W. Mundle, "Das Problem des
Zwischenzustandes in dem Abschn. K. 5:1-10." in Festg. f. A. Julicher (1927), 93 ff.
(where older lit. is also listed). Cf. also the Comm. of Heinrici, Schmiedel. Bousset, Bach-
mann, Wnd. and Ltzm., ad loc.
Bapéo (esp. BEBapnuÉvos since Hom.) instead of Bapuvo is found already in Plato,
Dion. Hal., Lucian, Herodot. For Atticising crit. of BapÉo, cf. Luc. Soloec., 7. Cf. further
Schol. on Thuc., II, 16. Thom. Mag., p. 62, 15, Ritschi, and Suid. Except in Ex. 7:14 and
2 Macc. 13:9 the LXX uses only the older Bapovo, and Bapto only in BeBapnuÉvos
(never BeBapuouévoc); cf. Bl.-Debr. § 101, s.v.; Thackeray, I, 261. The NT, however,
has only Bapeo except for Mk. 14:40 R ABKLN etc. and some later and obviously
classicising emendations : Lk. 21:34 DH Method. Bas. Cyr. (Bapuv0oo instead of Bapn-
(oot, * ABCL etc.) and the replacement of ñpvoao0e by #Bapivate in Ac. 3:14 in
Dd Ir. Aug. In Philo BapEo is rare as in the LXX. Yet Bapéc has come right down into
modern Gk. along with Bapuvo: G. N. Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die neugriech. Gram-
matik (1892), 396 (for the islands and the Peloponnese); A. Thumb, Handb. der neugriech.
Volkssprache (1910), 310. In modern Gk. there are two trends: 1. act. Bapi, "strike" or
"hit" ; 2. dep. Bapeio0ua1 "to be satiated." Cf, Bapovo "to trouble" and dep. (= Bapel-
o0uau). On BapÉetai, first used by Hippocr. Morb., 4, 49 (VII, 578, Littré), and BEBa-
pnos instead of BeBapnuÉvos (Hom. Od., 3, 139), cf. Anz., 10.
Bapeo 559

at Mt. 26:43: foav yap aitiv ol opla\uol BeBapnuÉvot, and Mk. 14:40 CEFGH
(- n. 1.). Lk. expands UTtvq to BE Papnuevot in 9:32.
Cf. Anth. Pal., VII, 290 : TUp&T PeBapnuevou UTtve ; Heliodor. Aeth., I, 7: Kau&-
tO tE this obomtopias Bapoouevos.
The hortatory reference in Lk. 21:34 goes deeper. It speaks of the pressure of
worldly desires and cares on the heart, to be resisted by disciples with resolute
hope : TpooÉyETE SE Éautois untote Bapnewow Ouav ai Kapblal Ev KpaiTaAn
kal usOn Kal pepluvais BltiKais. In this case we are not to think of the
hardening of the heart as in LXX Ex. 7:14, but of the intoxication which drags
it down and oppresses it. 2
For this usage, cf. Hom. Od., 3, 139 : otvo Bepapnotec; 19, 122 : BeBapnota uE
opÉvas olvo; Plut. Mar., 19 (I, 416c): ra aQuata rinouovn BeBapnuÉvot; Plat.
Symp., 203b of the drunkenness of Poros: BeBapnutvos nooev; Philo Ebr., 104 :
BeBapnuÉvov Kai TETILEGUEVOV OIvO.
Much of the use of Bapuveala in the LXX does not recur in the NT. Thus we
do not find "to afflict" (2 Macc. 9:9); "to torment" (Na. 3:15, Bapuvñon for 72
hithp); nor the common #Bapiven & T6AEuos of the "outbreak of war" (Ju. 20:34 A;
Bao. 31:3; 1 Ch. 10:3; Macc. 9:17 (always 722 kal); nor "to rage, "to be severe"
(Zech. 11:8 : Bapueñoetal for 712 ; Mal. 3:13 : #Bapivate ET' Lus toug Abyous
duov, PIT, "You speak insolently against me"; 2 Macc. 13:9 A : Tois 8€ ppoynuaow
8 BaGAEUC BEBapnuÉvos MpxEto, of violent hatred). Above all, we do not find the
favourite ÉBapoven n XEip El (Jos. 19:47a; Ju. 1:35; 1 Bao. 5:3, 6; U 31:4, always in
rendering of 723 kal).
2. a. The investigation of the NT conception of affliction, commenced in re-
lation to Bapoc, is carried an important stage further by the use of Bapsiolau
in 2 C. It is conceded quite undisguisedly in 2 C.1:8 that the experience of afflic-
tion in Asia was beyond anything that could be borne in one's own strength : kad'
STEP BOANV orep SovauLv #Baphonuev. 3 On this occasion it is made clear that
the strength to endure is not to be sought in one's own will or reserves (1:9).
Those who are beset.by OAius, seeing their situation is so hopeless, cannot trust
in themselves but only in the God who raises them from the dead (R. 4:17 f.).
While in Epictetus (-> 560) Bapeiofai is either denied or explained away by
hypothetical thinking, the faith which despairs of itself here experiences deliverance
again in the midst of Bapsiolat. This is the norm as the lasting attitude of faith
(kai puoetai); an important place is left for intercession, but in such a way
(v. 11) that the gift of grace which is sought leads finally to the glory and praise
of God alone.
The discussion in 2 C. 5:4 digs deepest of all. For here affliction is shown to

BapOvelv is very common in the LXX for the hardening of the heart, esp. of Pharaoh,
Ex. 7:14 BA; 8:15 (11); 9:7; 8:32 (28); 9:34; 10:1 A; 1 Bao. 6:6, always in transl. of 722
kal or hiph. The same idea of hardening or dulling is found in respect of the dimming o'
the eyes in 1 Bac. 3:2 : Bapuveolau (772) and the making deaf of the ears in Is. 59:1;
33:15 : Bapuvov (DUx); Zech. 7:11: to ora autov #Bapuvay tou un ELOXKOUEIV (729
hiph); Sir. 21:24 : & 8E ppovuos Bapuvenoetal dtula (XAC: -lav).
Cf. Plut. Aem. Paul., 34 (1, 273d): BeBapnuevov ta TEp6a WTO TÉVOEL. P. Tebt., I,
23, (c. 119 B.C.): Kae' iTEpBoAnv BePapuuuEvor; P. Oxy., III, 525, 3 (early 2nd
cent. A.D.): Ka0" Exaomv nuepav Bapoluat ot aitov. Cf. also Moult.-Mill., 103. In
the NT we never find Bapeioéai with sins (y 37:4; £ Gn. 18:20; Is. 1:4).
 Baped

be a divinely willed expression of our as yet imperfect existence as one of hope:

kai yap ol ovtES Év To OKAVEL OTEV&YOUEV BAPOUUEVOL. As in R. 8, Paul is not
ashamed of anxious sighing. He sees in it a symptom of life in the Spirit (v. 5).
If we cannot deal fully with all the eschatological questions relating to this passage,
we can at least say that there is little probability of any basic change in Paul's
view of the parousia as between C. and 2 C. For all the problems, there is
little doubt as to the basis of the sighing. The Exd0oaalal should not 5 be re-
lated to the ¢0opa of the non-Christian, for in Paul the foundation is assurance
of owipia. The sighing is caused rather by shrinking before the act of physical
dying, which seems to be the immediate possibility awaiting the soul rather than
reclothing at the parousia (v.4). If instead we refer the STEV&GElV to fear of
being without a body in the intervening state, 7 this makes of the utterance a
rather querulous & reflection, and also seems to involve a strange eschatological
specialisation. In any case, the assumption of being without a body in the inter-
vening state is exegetically insecure. The El YE Kal EVoUOQuEVOL ou youvoi
ESpE0nooue0a is quite satisfactorily explained by reference to the purely judicial
divine judgment which tests the truth of his pneumatic being, of his fellowship
with Christ. 9 If this is correct, then the point of the Bapsiola is that for all his
assurance of faith Paul still shrinks before death as an expression of this present
imperfect existence. The earnest of the Spirit is the only guarantee of perfection.
It is on this ground that he who is so triumphantly born again in the power of
Christ can still honestly admit the oppressive yoke of death.
b. The uniqueness of this attitude is shown by comparison with similar utter-
ances in Hellenism or in Judaism which came under Hellenistic influence. Wis.
9:15 : plaptov yap oiua BapOvEl puxnv kai BOiDEL TO YEGOES OKNVOC YOUv
To uppovti6a, is very like 2 C. 5:1 ff. even in its conjunction of Bapovelv and
OKñVoS. Yet this similarity does not overcome the basic fact that there is here a
Hellenistic cleavage or dualism between odua and puxh or vouc. In Paul it is the
new pneumatic orientation which both brings out the true severity of the cleavage
and yet reveals a power which increases hope. The same is to be said of Philo,
e.g., Migr. Abr., 204, where the vouc is burdened (Bapuvouaa) and overwhelmed
by expenditure in satisfaction of the senses. A similar statement may be found in
Jos. Bell., 7, 346 (- Bapoc B. 1).11
The view of Bapeiola in Epictetus claims independent consideration. Accord-
ing to Diss., I, 1, 15 it denotes the state in which we forge heavy fetters out the
body, possessions, love of places, the family, friends, society and all the outward
things which do not belong to us but are so attractive (Bapouviov, I, 9, 14 f.).
The closer the attachment, the more these things drag us down. The required con-
quest of them takes place through skilful accommodation, through sitting loose to

4 So finally Wnd. 2 K.
5 Mundle, op. cit., 104.
6 A simple reference to the process of suffering and death (Haupt) hardly does justice
to the context.
7 Kuhl, Lietzmann and most commentators.
8 Wnd. 2 C., 161.
9 Cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 356. It makes no difference whether we read EITEO with
the Alex. text or Elye with the Western. Either way a precondition is mentioned.
10 E. Grafe, "Das Verhaltnis der paulin. Schriften zur Sap. Sal" in Theol. Abh. F. C. v.
Weizsacker (1892), 251 ff.
11 Of later writers, cf. Porphyr. Abst., I, 54 (the burden of unnecessary wealth).
Bapeo - Baaavoc

them, through patiently remaining at the post to which one is commanded

(1, 9, 14 f.), through autosuggestive exercise of the will, leading after the model of
hypothetical deduction to the persuasion that the evil does not really exist (I, 25,
17), that basically it is not the thing itself which oppresses us, but our own view
of it, which can be controlled (II, 16, 24). Bapelolal is thus rejected as a state
unworthy of the sage. The concern of the Stoic is merely with the psychological
question whether or not he has an awareness of oppression in his own spiritual
life. All OTEVA(ELV is rejected as inward bondage. The concern of Paul, however, is
with the final question of the new existence, and it is recognised that this is pro-
visionally linked with the mortal body. By faith in Christ and the hope of the
parousia EIVaL EV TO OKNVEL is given its determination, tension and solution at one
and the same time. Hence Paul does not need to deny Bapeiolat, for in faith and
hope he is certain of the newness of life.
3. In 1 Tm. 5:16 : un Bapelolo i exkAnola, the reference is to the financial
burdening of the church. There are many instances of this usage: Ditt. Or., 595, 16
(174 A.D.): iva un thy Tt6AlV Bapduev; of the burden of taxes : Polyb., V, 94, 9 :
UTTED TOU un Bapuvenosola tais siopopaic. Jos. Bell., 2, 273 : (Albinu) TO Trav
Evoc ÉBapEL taic siooopais; Dio C., 46, 32: taic slapopaic Bapoouevot; Ditt.
Or., 669, 5 (1st century A.D.): un BapuvouÉvy Kawaic kai & KOIS ELOTPAEEOI.
P. Giess., I, 4, 11 (118 A.D.): xito( TE BEBapnuÉvol TOAot xpovo1 onuoaiois
(costs of state); of the burden of the account: P. Oxy., I, 126, 8 (572 A.D.): Bapéoau
To z ov ovoua. 12
Schrenk

Bacavos, Baoavizo,
Bacaviou6s, Bacaviots
1. The Bacavos originally belongs to the calling of the inspector of coins. It is
linked with the Heb. root ,.a ("to test") and the Egyptian bhn ("basalt"). According
to K. Sethe, 1 bhn is the word which underlies the Heb. 10722 and the Gk. Baoavos.
Baaavos is generally accepted to be a loan word. Baoaiis is most closely related to
it. Bacavitou Allou 6poc is the mountain of the bhn stone. R. Herzog ¾ thinks that
he may deduce from the etymological development that the ars spectandi, the testing
of gold and silver as media of exchange by the proving stone, was first developed by
the Babylonians, + then came to the Aramaeans and Hebrews by way of Lydia (Audia
Alloc [Bacchyl. Fr., 14, 1, Blass]; Baoavos, Bacchyl., 8, 58), and from them to the
Gks. In non-biblical Gk. Bacavoc is a commercial expression, or is used in relation to
government. It then acquires the meaning of the checking of calculations, which develops
naturally out of the basic sense of Baoavos, Bacavitelv (P. Oxy., 58, 25 [288 A.D.J).

12 Cf. also Preisigke Wort. and Moult.-Mill. s.v. for further examples.
Ba avos KTA. Pauly-W., III, 39, s.v. Bacavitou Aifou opos.
2 pm2 is especially used of the testing of metal. Cf. Jer. 6:27 ff., where limaa is used in the
sense of "one who tests' or "one who tests metal" (fins = *okiuaoms, LXX).
R. Herzog, "Aus der Geschichte des Bankwesens im Altertum," Abh. d. Giessener Hoch-
schulgesellsch., 1 (1919), 29 f.
According to Herzog the stems 703 and 772 are synon.; the derivat. of the stem sep
are borrowed from Accadian. But 772 means "to purify" rather than "to test." Thus the
thesis of Herzog is not solidly grounded. V. on 77Y and sip F. Delitzsch, Assyr. Hand-
worterbuch (1896), 574, S.v.
 Baaavoc

In the spiritual sphere it has the figur. sense, which is closely related to the original
concrete meaning, of a means of testing (Anth. Pal., VII, 54 : ovopiov xpivouÉvov gy
Bacavo copins).
The word then undergoes a change in meaning. The original sense fades into the
background. Booavoc now comes to denote "torture" or "the rack," espec. used with
slaves (P. Lille, 1, 29, 22; Ditt. Syll.3, 356, 12). Baoavoc occurs in the sense of "torment"
in Theocr. Idy11., 13, p. 13, 5, Meineke ; Thom. Mag., . 94, 4, Ritschl; Demetr. Eloc.,
201, 4. An inscription from Cyprus (Salamis), BCH, 51 (1927), 148, 18, contains the
malediction : Év Bacavoic &to oITo. Vet. Val., IV, 13, p. 182, 19, Kroll has a reference
to torments of soul (yuyikac Baaavouc). 5
The change in meaning is best explained if we begin with the object of treatment.
If we put men instead of metal or a coin, the stone of testing become torture or the
rack. The metal which has survived the testing stone is subjected to harsher treatment.
Man is in the same position when severely tested by torture. In the testing of metal
an essential role was played by the thought of testing and proving genuineness. The
rack is a means of showing the true state of affairs. In its proper sense it is a means
of testing and proving, 6 though also of punishment. Finally, even this special meaning
was weakened and only the general element of torment remained.
2. In the LXX 7 the word Baoavos and deriv. are seldom found except in the
originally Gk. books, or those preserved only in Gk. A corresponding basis in the Heb.
is lacking in almost every case. The word group is most common in 4 Macc. With
Baoavoc and Baoavifelv we here find Baoaou6s, Baoanopiov (tormentum) and
stpo Baoavi(elv. In general two groups of meaning may be discerned: a. testing
afflictions which the righteous have to suffer in the world at the hands of the ungodly ;
and b. judicial sufferings which by reason of his conduct the ungodly will receive from
the righteous in time and eternity. The martyrdom which the righteous have to suffer
can consist in spiritual or physical torments (Wis. 2:19). In few passages (e.g.,
Wis. 3:1) Baoavoc is to be understood eschatologically. In Ez. 12:18, where we have
Baoavos with 880vn and oAtvis, it has the meaning of eschatological affliction. In
Ez. 32:24, 30 paaavoc refers to future torments. In Ez. 3:20; 7:19 (Heb. hit2), the LXX
has altered the original meaning of the text; Booavos is suffering in the sense of
punishment. There is a similar alteration in Bao. 6:3, 4, 8, 17, where the Heb. has aux
and refers to guilt to be atoned, whereas the LXX speaks of trouble for which payment
must be made. The same is probably true in Ez. 16:52, 54; 32:24, 30 (Heb. 7233), where
instead of shame or disgrace the LXX has affliction in the sense of punishment. The
reference in Sir. 30:35 (33:27) is to the punishment of a wicked slave. Here orpÉpAn
(otpÉBAaL kal Baoavol) is par. to Baoavos. In one passage (Wis. 2:19) Baoavos
is par. to oBpis (mockery).
With Bacav((elv we sometimes have the basic meaning of testing genuineness, as
in Sir. 4:7. The predominant meaning, however, is "to torment' or "to torture." In
Wis. 11:9 (10) Baoavi(elv and TELO&(EIV are set in juxtaposition.
Of the other translators 'A in Qoh. 1:18 and 2:23 has Baaarvoc 8 for axp2, whereas
the LXX uses anynua. In 'Iep. 20:2 Z according to Jerome has Baaavomplov sive
otpeBAwtpiov, which in the LXX is found only in 4 Macc.; the LXX and e here
have karap&k™ns. At Prv. 10:8 (LXX : OTOOKEAI(ELV) £ has Bacavi(elv, obviously
in the sense of punishing with plagues ; cf. 'A: 6ÉpG3 (Bapñoetai); the D22 (02??)
of the Heb., however, means to bring to pass. 6 at Bao, 15:33 has #BacovoEV in
the sense of penal torments ('A Z: BLEOTAOEV, LXX : tapa(e, Heb. j009).

5 Cf. also Vett. Val., IV, 25, p. 201, 32; V, 2, p. 211, 28, Kroll.
8 Cf. the common NT thesis that buffetings and sufferings serve to test our faith.
7 We are indebted to G. Bertram for the section on the LXX.
8 In 2 Ch. 6:29 Cod. 93 also has Baoavoc for 21839.
Bacavoc

3. Baaavos occurs in the NT only in Mt. and Lk. At Mt. 4:24 voool and
Baoavol are co-ordinated. 9 At Lk. 16:23, 28 the plur. Baoavol refers to the tor-
ments of hell. 10 Hell is called & ToTtoc tis Baoovou.
Baoavi(Elv means strictly to test by the proving stone" (Baoavoc), i.e., "to
rub against it, "to test the genuineness of,' "to examine or try, then "to apply
means of torture to find the truth, "to harry or torture" in a hearing or before
a tribunal. 11 In the NT it is found only in the general sense of "to plague" or "to
torment." The centurion's servant lying sick of a palsy is grievously tormented
(Mt. 8:6). 12 To those possessed with demons encounter with Jesus is a tormenting
experience (Mt. 8:29; Mk. 5:7; Lk. 8:28). At Rev. 12:2 Baoavi(,Elv, like Bacavoc
in Anth. Pal., IX, 311, is used of the pains of labour.13 At 2 Pt. 2:8 there is
reference to the inner torment of soul at the sight of the acts of the ungodly ; Lot
suffers as he sees the licentiousness of the inhabitants of Sodom. 14 This is the
only passage in the NT in which Bacav((elv is connected with the suffering of the
righteous. In Rev. Baoavi(ElV is used of the torments of the last time. At Mt. 14:24;
Mk. 6:48 it is used to depict the serious situation of the disciples on the lake ;
their boat is hard pressed by the waves. 15 The suggestion that Bacavigeo@al
denotes the torture of the disciples rowing 16 is artificial. In both passages it must
be taken passively. 17
Baoaviou6s occurs only in Rev. In 9:5 it is used actively of the torment which
will come on men as the first woe after the fifth trumpet. In 18:7 ff., however,
it is used passively and denotes the suffering of Babylon when deprived of its
power. This torment strikes the once powerful city in retribution for its wicked
conduct.
Baaavioths does not occur in the NT in the original sense of a tester'" but
it is found once in Mt. 18:34 in the sense of a "tormentor." 18
Schneider

9 Cf. P. Leid., 7, 26 ff. (Preis. Zaub., II, 102; XIII, 290), where we have together gy
Bacovoic, Év avaykaIs, and tv Spais.
10 Cf. the similar linking of KoAaaic and Baoavos in P. Oxy., 840, 6, Baoavos having
the sense of penal torment.
11 Thuc. VIII, 92, 2. Thom. Mag., p. 62, 12 ff.; 93, 17; 94, 2, Ritschl. Cf. also Preisigke
Wort., 257; and further pap. material in Moult.-Mill., II, 104, s.v. Bacavilw.
12 Selvoc Bacav buEvos. Cf. Ps.-Luc. Asin., 25: tis Bacovou To Selvov. V. also
Luc. Soloec., 6; Thom. Mag., p. 62, 13, Ritschl; Jos. Ant., 2, 14; 9, 101; 12, 413.
13 On Baoav(ouÉvn TEKEiV (Rev. 12:2), cf. T. Jeb., 9, 4: 1215 nupow 107 (simil.
S. Nu., 76 on 10:9) and Gn. 35:17.
14 Cf. also Herm. m., 4, 2, 2.
15 On Bacavige lau (of the ship), cf. S. Nu., 76 on 10:9: "When a ship is tossed to
and fro" (nab00 = Bacav(buevos).
10 Zn. Mt. on 14:24 and B. Weiss Mk. on 6:48.
17 KI. Mk. on 6:48.
18 Cf. Thom. Mag., p. 93, 17; 94, 4, Ritschl.
 BaciLEUc

BacilEus, Baartia, Baoilloaa, Bacireid,

op BaailEin, BaaiAEIoc, Bacilikos

A. BaTEUc in the Greek World.

BaoiEUc 1 denotes the king as the lawful and usually hereditary priestly ruler
of the people in the good sense. In later political practice and theory he was
distinguished from the topowvoc as an usurper.2 In the well-known verses in
Od., 19, 108 ff. Homer gives us a mythical picture and Éntaivos of the good king
and associated blessings. For the justice or otherwise of the Baoileus works itself
out on the people inasmuch as the people must either suffer or flourish and
prosper with him. The power of the king is traced back to Zeus (tuun ÉK Al6s
LOTIV, I1., 2, 197); this connection is especially denoted by the common epithet
Stotpeons (1I., 2, 196 etc.), i.e., "sustained by Zeus." In Hesiod, where the Baol-
AEUC is essentially regarded in judicial terms, we are given developed picture
of the royal wisdom which is the norm of knowledge. Not merely bards but kings

BaGLAEUC K TA. On A.: Pauly-W., III (1899), s.v. Basileus ; E. Lohmeyer,

Christuskult und Kaiserkult (1919), 11 ff. and n.; Deissmann LO, 310 f. There is a histor.
and systemat. analysis of the 5 different forms of the Bao EUs or Baoiela concept in
the class. Gk. period by Aristot. in Pol., III, 14, p. 1284b, 35 ff. On B. : H. Gressmann, Der
Messias (1929); E. Sellin, Die isr.jud. Heilandserwartung (1909); Der at.liche Prophetis-
mus (1912); L. Dirr, Ursprung 1. Ausbau der isr.-jud. Heilandserwartung (1925); S. Mo-
winckel, Psalmenstudien II : Das Thronbeseig‡ Jahe u. der Ursprung der Eschato-
logie (1922); O. Eissfeldt, "Jahwe als Konig," ZAW, 50 (1928), 81 ff. A. v. Gall, Baot-
AEla ToU Oe00 (1926); M. Buber, Konigtum Gottes = Das Rommende, Untersuchungen zur
Entstehungsgesch. des messianischen Glaubens, I (1932); R. Kittel, Die hellenist. Mysterien-
religion und das AT (1924); Bousset-Gressm., 222 ff. On C. : Dalman WJ, I, 75-119 (cf.
2[1930], 375 ff.); Str.-B., I, 172-184 etc.; Moore, I, 401, 432 ff.; II, 346 f.; 371-375. On E.:
Cf. the books mentioned. Of the vast lit., esp. on the NT Baci ela, we can only mention
the most recent works. Naturally the concept of the kingdom of God plays a decisive role
in all studies of early Christianity, and esp. of Jesus. Cf. P. Feine, Theol. d. NT5 (1931),
73 ff. (with full bibl.); K. L. Schmidt, "Jesus Christus," RGG2, III, 110-151. For more
specialised lit, cf. W. Mundle, "Reich Gottes,' ibid., IV, 1817-1822. In discussion, cf. the
report of the first British and German Theological Conference at Canterbury : "Das Wesen
des Reiches Gottes und seine Beziehung z. menschlichen Gesellschaft," ThB1 6 (1927),
113 ff. (NT contributions by C. H. Dodd, E.C. Hoskyns, G. Kittel, A. E. J. Rawlinson,
K. L. Schmidt). Of recent monographs, cf. G. Holstein, Die Grundlagen des ev. Kirchen-
rechts (1928), 5 ff.; W. Michaelis, Taufer, Jesus, Urgemeinde, die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche
Gottes vor und nach P[ingsten (1928); J. Koster, Die Idee d. Kirche beim Ap. Pls. (1928);
G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und Kirche im NT (1929); H.E. Weber, "Eschatologie" und
"Mystik" im NT (1930); H. D. Wendland, Die Eschatologie des Reiches Gottes bei Jesus
(1931).
1 It is now generally accepted that BaGAEUC is a loan word from an Aegean, pre-Gk.
language, v. Debrunner, Reallex. fur Vorgesch., IV,2 (1926), 526. For earlier etym. ex-
planations, v. Pauly-W., 55 f.
2 On this contrast cf. Aristot. Eth. Nic., VIII, 12, p. 1160b, 3 and the formulation in
Suidas, s.v.: BaciLEUS uev yap Ex rpoyovov kaTa 8ia60yhv EXEl thy apxnv énl
pnrois aBiv rÉpaat® tupavos 8É, 8c Thy xpxhv Buals apetepizetal. The antithesis
does not apply to the earlier period, for the two words were often used as synon., and it
was only with the emergence of Gk. democracy and its contrasting of vouos and tupawoc
that rpavvoc acquired the bad odour which still clings to it to-day. Cf. Pindar, who
addresses Hieron as BaalEuc in Olymp., 1, 23 ; Pyth., 3,70 ; and as topawos, Pyth.,
3, 85. Cf. K. Stegmann v. Pritzwald, Zur Gesch. der Herrscherbezeichnungen von Homer
bis Plato (1930), 93, 136 (Herodot.), 156 f. (Isocrates).
BacLLEUS

as well are inspired by the Muses : Calliope Baoiedow & " aibolowow o ndei,
Theog., 80. Infallible utterance (&ooaÉDS &YyOPEUELV, 86) is the lepn 86a1c of
the Muses to kings. Linked with this Greek ideal of kingship is the philosophical
discussion of the nature of the ideal BacilEUc' in Plato's Politicus. Knowledge
of the ideas is a royal art, and the man who has it is the royal man (Polit., 292e;
cf. the famous statement in Plat. Resp., V, 473d: gdv pan f of otA600001
BaGL EUOWOIV EV Taic TOAEOLV A oI BaciAEis TE viv Aeybuevol Kai Suvaoral
oilocophowal yvnoios OUK EaT KAKOV TAUNa TAIC TOAEOI, SOK 8'
068É to avoparivo yEVEL . . .). Reacting against a long process of development,
Plato is also the forerunner of Hellenism with its very different concept of the
king. "There arises the ideal figure of the benevolent king + moving god-like above
men and sustaining them as the shepherd his sheep. He knows no law but the
personal one of his own will, which is not subject to a social order; and his will
is the norm, not merely of a particular land or state, but of all things in general.
The nature and task of the king may be summed up in the fact that he is a
benefactor to the whole world." 5 From these philosophical ideas of the 4th cen-
tury there developed, under the dominating impress of Alexander the Great, the
monarchy of Hellenism. The early Greek idea of the divinity of a politically
creative personality linked up in Hellenism with the views of divine kingship
current among different civilised peoples of the Orient. Thus BaGEUs comes to
denote the Hellenistic God-king, who after the Persian pattern might be called
Baoileuc uÉyas or even sometimes Bacileic Bacilewv, as, for example, Antio-
chus I of Commagene : Bacileuc uÉyas 'Avtloxoc OE6c Ditt. Or., 383, 1, and
later the Roman Emperor. The Baoilela of such rulers is an ovurel0uvos apxh
(Suid., s.v.).
Alongside the use of Baosic for earthly or divinised kings the word is also used
of the ancient gods, esp. of Zeus as the OEGv BaoEUg or the BaolEuc absolutely,
Hes. Theog., 886; Op. 668, both as an epithet and as a cultic name, IG, VII, 3073, 90,
Lebadeia ; Ditt. Syll.3, 1014, 110, Erythrae. For other BaoiAEUc deities (e.g., Hades in
Aesch. Pers., 627; IG, I, 872; Poseidon, Apollo, Dionysus, Heracles), cf. Pauly-W., 82.
Kleinknecht

B. a> and n1522 in the OT.

720 is a common Semitic word from the verb 722. The original meaning of the root
is doubtful ("possessor" or "arbiter"), It is seldom used metaph. in the OT (Job 18:14).
1. It denotes national or civic monarchy. In Israel the monarchy arose under
Philistine pressure. Saul, who in the first instance was a charismatic leader like

3 On the Platonic ideal, v. G. Heintzeler, "Das Bild des Tyrannen bei Platon," Tub.
Beitr. z. Altertumswissensch., 3 (1927), 81 ff. and passim.
EdepyÉis is a favourite and striking name for the Hellenistic kings ; Antigonus and
Demetrius, for example, are celebrated as feol outpes kal eospyÉtal.
E. Lohmeyer, op. cit., 12. Cf. again Plat. Polit., 267d and 275b; or Aristotle's picture
of the ideal ruler who cannot be set under the vouot because he himself is vouos, Pol.,
III, 13, p. 1284a, 13, and also of the ideal rauBaci ela, ibid., III, 10, p. 1225b, 32 ff. On
this pt., cf. E. Meyer, KI. Schr., 12 (1924), 289 f.; again Xenoph. Cyrop., VIII, 2, 14, in
which the office of the king is compared with that of the shepherd. For examples of the
resultant Stoic and Cynic concept of the king, cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit., 48 f., n. 28, 29.
6 For its use as a title and divine predicate of Hellenistic rulers at the time of the
transition from B.C. to A.D., v. Deissmann LO, 310 f.

:400
 BaoAEUs

others before him, was chosen to be king over Israel. After his death his captain
David first became king of Judah and then of Israel, which in his person was
thus united with Judah. David ruled the two kingdoms from his new royal capital
of Jerusalem, and protected the complicated national structure from disintegration
by substituting a dynasty for the previous ad hoc designation of leaders by
Yahweh. The definitive religious legitimation of the house of David he found in
the Davidic covenant (2 S. 7 and 23:1-7) which Yahweh had concluded with
himself and his successors. After the dissolution of the personal union with the
death of Solomon, there were only shortlived dynasties in the Northern Kingdom
and the designation of the king by Yahweh again became predominant. In Judah,
however, the house of David occupied the throne for 400 years, and in theory the
line was followed even further from the genealogical standpoint.
The relationship of the monarchy to the world of religious thought in Israel
is determined by the circumstance that the monarchy came at a time when the
faith of Israel had already developed strongly along its own original lines. Thus,
in contrast to most oriental peoples, it had not developed the monarchy as an
institution alongside religion. The monarchy was not a basic element in its religion.
It was brought into secondary connection with an established religious heritage.
Yahwism brought to bear upon it an independent criticism and very definite
claims, yet also adopted it with some degree of tension into its faith and especially
its hope.
At oriental courts, where a divine-human person stood at the centre, the pre-
suppositions were present for the fashioning of a distinctive courtly language, i.e.,
of a style of addressing the king according to tradition and etiquette, of greeting
him on his mounting the throne, of extolling him in exaggerated felicitations and
songs, etc. There thus developed a definite stock of stereotyped titles, comparisons,
epithets and styles of address, and we Can see clearly how strongly Israel, too,
shared these common oriental forms. If in the so-called Royal Psalms (Ps. 2;
20 f.; 45; 72; 101; 110; 132) divine sonship and the ends of the earth are assured
to the king, if he is magnified as the king with whom a new era of peace and
righteousness dawns, this shows us that Israel has adopted many thoughts and
formulations and incorporated them into its circle of Yahwistic ideas. The king,
who according to ancient ideas embodied the people, was necessarily in Israel a
preeminent object of the gracious promises of Yahweh. Nevertheless, it is an
important truth that Israelite religion remained stronger than these adopted forms.
The king was still a man. There is in the OT no hint of the deification which lay
at the heart of the court-styles of Babylon and Egypt.
2. The word is also used for the Redeemer King. A sharp distinction is to be
made between even the most extravagant statements of the courtly language of
Israel and faith in the Messiah. None of the Royal Psalms is Messianic, for the
ruler is always conceived to be present, and the reference is to present enemies.
There is no indication of eschatological expectation of a Royal Deliverer. Never-
theless, as we can now see, the language of court forms the bridge to faith in the
Messiah. The whole complex of religious and political ideas linked with the

Cf. A. Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Palastina, Leipziger Reformationspro-

gramm (1930).
Perhaps through the medium of older traditions from Canaanite Jerusalem, cf. Ps. 110.
The one relic of this view which escaped the strict censorship is in Ps. 45:7. The
declarations of divine sonship are formulae of adoption.
BaciLEUc

empirical king ; what was expected of him ; how he was addressed ; what wonder-
ful deeds were ascribed to him all these form the soil for Messianic belief.
The connection is natural, for the expected king was of the house of David. Yet
it is still a question how the eschatological element came into the simple language
of court. Thus far there has been no satisfactory explanation of the rise in Israel
of this mysterious projection into the Loyatov. 10 We must never forget that there
is no similar eschatology, no comparable expectation of a Deliverer King at the
end of the age, in Babylon or Egypt, the classical lands of courtly address.
If Messianic belief was formally nourished by the world of courtly formulae,
materially the true point of connection, or starting-point, was the person of David
and especially the Davidic covenant (2S. 7). It was not David who was to build
a house for Yahweh; Yahweh would build David a house, and his monarchy
would be for ever. This was a great promise which, it was increasingly seen, still
awaited its full realisation in a manner worthy of Yahweh. It could not fail : if it
did not correspond to the sent, it must be projected into the future. Thus the
hope of salvation rests on the restoration of the house of David, which in Amos
(9;11) is implicitly linked with the still unfulfilled prophecy of Nathan (2 S. 7).
If David is thus to be seen as the terminus a quo for the awakening of faith in
the Messiah, the hope still has elements whose seeds are not to be found in the
empirical monarchy. Already in the difficult prophecy of Gen. 49:8 ff. there are
sounded paradisial motifs, as also in Am. (9:11-15). These are not to be taken as
an unimportant symbolical form, for they occur most strongly of all in the prophet
of the Messiah par excellence, namely, Isaiah. The shoot of the stump of Jesse
awaited in Is. 9 and 11 introduces a new aeon - of righteousness and paradisial
peace. This is preceded by the destruction of his enemies. He is a being endowed
with supernatural gifts. A similar expectation of the scion of David who brings
deliverance is found in Micah (5:1 ff.). 12 Less vivid, but more clearly delineated,
is Jeremiah's hope for the branch (23:5 f.) or Ezekiel's for the tender twig (17:22 ff.:
34:23 f.; 37:24 f.). Deutero-Isaiah regarded the Persian Cyrus (Is. 45:1 ff.) and
Zechariah the Davidic Zerubbabel (6:9 ff.) as the king of the last time. This
projection of the Messianic belief upon contemporary historical figures denotes an
important change in eschatological conception. With the failure of such hopes,
Messianic voices became very rare; they were hardly heard at all in the post-
canonical literature 13 and reappeared only in the period directly prior to the NT.
Apart from the enthusiastic phraseology of courtly style and the specific
eschatological element, both of which characterise Messianic belief in Israel, we

10 The best is still that of Diirr, 52 f., namely, that Israel's unique view of God, its belief
in the strong and trustworthy God who can help Israel, is the root of the religious ex-
pectation.
11 79 is "aeon," cf. R. Kittel, Hell. Mysterienrel., 73 ff.
12 Here we see plainly opposition to Jerusalem, which is not only not mentioned, but
which is to be destroyed, so that the Davidic dynasty will again originate in Bethlehem.
13 The Messianic hope seems to have displayed remarkable vitality in the Levitical
circles which gave rise to the Books of Chronicles, cf. G. v. Rad, Geschichtsbild des chronist.
Werkes (1930), 119 ff. Zech. 9:9 f. is hard to date. In the symbol. material in Da. 7:13
there is reference to a Messiah, but the author has reshaped it. The Servant Songs of
Dt.-Is. do not refer to a Messiah. For a recent discussion, cf. J. Fischer, Wer ist der Ebed
in den Perikopen Jes. 42 ...7 (1922); ZAW, 47 (1925), 90 ff.; 48 (1926), 242 ff.; 50 (1928),
156 ff.: 51 (1929), 255 ff. In any case, the OT never uses the title oo for the King of
the last time.
 BacAEUS

have important remnants of mythological ideas which were certainly not introduced
by the prophets and which it is very difficult to trace back to older Israelite belief.
In particular, the notion of the pre-temporal existence of this Redeemer King11
and the linking of this figure with an aeon of paradisial fruitfulness suggest that
non-Israelite mythical 15 elements concerning a returning king of the past or the
first man of Paradise have fused with the strong promises of the Davidic covenant.
If the expectations linked with the Messiah take many forms, all witnesses are
agreed that the Messiah will be for His own people a figure of peace, and that
His appearance will follow, though rather strangely it will not be related to, the
wars and conquests which precede the Messianic era. The transition to the new
aeon will not be won by Him :; 16 He will be the Ruler in a paradisial aeon after
the final conflict. Most of the witnesses to the coming of the Messiah avoid the
title 722; "it has an irreligious and much too human sound, suggesting force and
suppression." 17 Most of the Messianic statements display hostility to the empirical
monarchy.
3. A further concept is that of Yahweh as King. It is easy to see that the hope
of a Messiah does not dominate the OT. Indeed, its appearances are comparatively
isolated in relation to the whole. Better attested is faith in another supraterrestrial
kingdom determining the present and the future, namely, that of Yahweh. The
relationship of this sequence of thought to belief in a Messianic kingdom is
difficult to reduce to a single formula. 18 It will not do to assume two independent
traditions, for Isaiah, the most powerful Messianic prophet, also calls Yahweh a
King (6:5), and the same is true of Micah and Jeremiah. On the other hand, the
Psalter, to which the figure of the eschatological King is quite alien, has the most
numerous and important references to the kingship of Yahweh. 19
The application of the term 729 to the Godhead is common to all the ancient
Orient (cf., in the immediate environs of Israel, Melkart, Milcom, Chemosh-
melech); indeed, this usage is probably pre-Semitic. One of the best descriptions of
the relationship between God and man is that of God as the Lord who demands
obedience but in return gives help and protection. In Israel the emergence of this
view may be fixed with some precision. As is only natural, references are first
found only after the rise of the empirical monarchy ; Nu. 33:21; Dt. 33:5; 1 K. 22:19
and Is. 6:5 are among the earliest.
The idea of Yahweh's kingship, however, is given a very different emphasis
in the OT. Some statements underline the timeless element in the kingly being of
Yahweh as this embraces equally both past and future as well as present (Ex. 15:18;

14 Esp. Mic. 5:1; cf. Sellin, Prophetismus, 178 f.

15 R. Kittel (op. cit., 64 ff.) seeks the roots of the Isaianic view of the Messiah in the
Egyptian Osiris myth.
16 Is. 11:4 is hardly an exception, for without any weapon He miraculously fights His
enemies with the breath of His mouth.
17 W. Caspari, Echtheit, Hauptbegriff u. Gedankengang der messianischen Weissagung
Jes. 9 (1908), 14.
18 Unfortunately this question has been almost completely ignored in the present lively
discussion of OT eschatology. Caspari (op. cit., 12 ff.) pertinently notes that the Messianic
figure of Is. 9 is not an autonomous Ruler. Both t and ry19 show that He is responsible
to a higher figure, and thus a kind of vizier ; in Jeremiah (and Ezekiel), however, the
Messiah is 729 (cf. Jer. 23:5; Ez. 37:24).
10 Here, as elsewhere, Deuteronomic theology takes an independent line, with no mention
either of the kingship of Yahweh or of a Messianic hope.
 BaaLlEUC

1 S. 12:12; Ps. 145:11 ff.; 146:10). In others, the accent is placed on the element
of expectation (Is. 24:23; 33:22; Zeph. 3:15; Ob. 21; Zech. 14:16 f.). The present
alone cannot meet this claim, and the concept of the kingship of Yahweh is thus
drawn increasingly into the stream of eschatology towards which it has an in-
herent tendency; 20 hope is set on the fact that Yahweh will show Himself to be
the King. Nevertheless, even the most strongly eschatological utterances do not
question the present kingship of Yahweh. There is expectation merely of the final
manifestation of His total kingly power. A third group of statements is found in
Psalms 47, 93, 96, 97 and 99, and possibly many others. In these the distinctive
feature lies in the use of the verb a>p in relation to Yahweh (Yahweh has become
King). The Psalms are coronation Psalms probably sung in the middle of a festival
to celebrate cultically, and perhaps even dramatically, the enthronement of Yah-
weh. 21 These Psalms do not proclaim an eschatological event but a present reality
experienced in the cult.
Only the final group contains a truly concrete view of the kingship of Yahweh,
and the exponents of this cultic life may actually have felt that expectation of a
King of the last time was incompatible with their belief. In contrast, the other
statements belong to traditional poetic usage and can thus be linked relatively
easily with faith in a coming Messiah. That the two lines of thought, which un-
doubtedly developed in original independence, could later come together quite
peacefully, may be seen in Chronicles, which makes powerful use of the as yet
unfulfilled promise to David. The meaning of the Davidic covenant as understood
by the later Chronicler is that the Davidic King rules in the malkut of Yahweh
(1 Ch. 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; Ch. 9:8; 13:8).
In what the kingship of Yahweh consists the majority of passages do not tell
us more precisely. Most of the hymnal salutations of Yahweh as King do not even
tell us whether He is understood as King of Israel or King of the world. 22
Predominantly in the pre-exilic period He is described as the King of Israel, and,
whether for the present or the future, help, deliverance, righteousness and joy are
promised to His chosen people. 23 On the other hand, in the exilic and post-exilic
period He is also described as King of the world. 24 The description of Yahweh
as King impressively depicts His power, greatness and readiness to help, but this
thought is so general, and so little related to the specific concept of "'king," that
there is little hesitation in combining it with other lines of thought. Thus Micah
intermingles the idea of Yahweh as Shepherd (5:3) and Deutero-Isaiah introduces
the parallelism of Creator, Redeemer and King (43:14 f.). The nature of the malkut
of Yahweh is seldom delineated with any greater precision. It may be said, how-
ever, that it is always immanent. Even according to later pronouncements like
Is. 24:23 and Zech. 14:9, 16 Yahweh rules over the whole earth, is enthroned in
Jerusalem and is magnified by all nations (cf. Ob. 21).

20 Eissfeldt, op, cit., 96.

21 Cf. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, II. Mowinckel, however, overestimates the importance
of this festival, and the brilliant deduction of Isr. eschatology from it has been weakened
by the more recent discussion in ZAW, 52 (1930), 267, n. 3.
22 Cf. Jer. 46:18; 48:15; 51:57; Ps. 5:2; 24:7 ff.; Da. 4:34.
28 Nu. 23:21; Jer. 8:19; Zeph. 3:15; Mi. 2:12 f.; 4:6 ff.; but also Is. 41:21; 43:15; 44:6.
24 Jer. 10:7, 10 ff. (Jer. 10:1-16 hardly seems to be by Jeremiah); Zech. 14:9, 16 f.; Mal.
1:14; Ps. 22:28; 47:2, 7.
 BaGLAEUS

In recent years Martin Buber has dealt with this problem in his well documented
work on the kingship of God. 25 His theses are artificial inasmuch as no general
theological significance is attached to the attestation of Yahweh as melek in the OT,
as he presupposes. Even if we do not follow Eissfeldt, 28 who regards Is. 6:5 as the first
example, on the ground that he narrows the field unduly to lexical considerations, the
fact remains that Yahweh is never called melek prior to the monarchy. There is certainly
no exegetical basis in the text for regarding the Sinaitic covenant as a royal covenant.
The description of Yahweh as King is usually found in hymnic flights, so that there
is no cause to view it as representative of a basic attitude of faith. Buber contrasts the
malk, the divine Leader, most sharply with Baal. If he had said Yahweh instead of malk,
we could agree. But in all the serious conflict with Baal religion we think of Hosea
and Deuteronomy where is any use made of the theological slogan that Yahweh is
malk Buber adduces passages which refer to Yahweh's leading of Israel, but this hardly
gives us the theologoumenon malk in the accepted sense. The word is simply deprived of
its specific force in the passages where it really belongs, i.e., in the cultic and eschato-
logical sense.

4. niabp. The noun mabp is one of the few older Heb. abstract terms from
which the many others come. 27 It is to be rendered "kingdom" or "kingship.'
There is a slight departure from the original sense when it is used with reference
to a concrete sphere of power. 28
Mostly in the OT the word nobp is used in the secular sense of a political
kingdom (1 S. 20:31; 1 K. 2:12). Prior to Daniel the religious world made little
use of it. In analogy to the description of Yahweh as a 722, His sphere of power
is sometimes called His nabp.20 Small emendations of the original text in Chronicles
form a smooth transition to the eschatological conception which became so im-
portant in the post-canonical writings. If David was confirmed in his 722p0 in
2 S.7:16, nobnn was here meant in a much more secular sense than in Ch. 17:14,
where David is shown to be set over Yahweh's nabe. Again, in I Ch. 28:5 Solomon
sits on the throne of the niobn of Yahweh. Nevertheless, this way of speaking is
not to be understood eschatologically. The Davidic kingdom is here conceived of
as the nabp of Yahweh and the descendants of David sit on the throne of Yahweh
(1 Ch. 29:23; 2 Ch. 9:8). Yet the nuance is significant, for the Chronicler, who
belonged to an age when the Davidic kingdom was only a distant memory, thereby
displays a true, though not an eschatological, interest in the realisation of Yahweh's
niob2.
The sharp apocalyptic distinction between the present and the future aeon, first
apparent in Daniel, carries with it much more precise delineation of the kingdom

25 M. Buber, Konigtum Gottes (1932).

26 Op. cit., 104.
27 L. Gulkowitsch, Die Bildung von Abstraktbegrffen in den hebraischen Sprachgeschichte
(1931), passim. There is here a discussion of the possible derivation of the word from
official Accadian terminology, 130 f.
28 ma2pn differs only slightly in meaning from niobe, except that there is less yielding
of the abstract reference to the institutional side of monarchy (nabpn n'2 ,72007 29 for
royal city, national temple, 1 S. 27:5; Am. 7:13). In the religious sense all Israel is required
to be a kingdom of priests, esp. in Ex. 19:6, though there is here no particular emphasis on
122p2 as such. (Cf. a par. saying in Nu. 11:29 "Would that all the people were pro-
phets !") However, it certainly means "kingdom." In the true religious sense it is found
only at Ps. 22:28 and Ob. 21 in relation to Yahweh's present and final dominion.
29 Ps. 103:19; 145:11, 13; Da. 3:33. Cf. also Ps. 22:28 (72192).
 BacAEUs

of God. If in Da. 7 the kingdom which comes from above is described as 4392
the term has a particular stamp when applied to the final kingdom of the saints.
God can give the 4290 to whom He will 'Da. 2:44; 4:22); He gives it to His people
and thus establishes an eternal kingdom (Da. 7:27). Yet the reference is not to
God's napbp, nor is He the king in question. The reference is to a succession of
human kingdoms until finally the 1332 of the saints this is how the coming Son
of Man is interpreted (Da. 7:16 ff.) is inaugurated. This strongly nationalistic
hope of the a3bp frequently recurs in later apocalyptic 30 literature (Eth. En. 84:2;
90:30; 92:4; 103:1; Ass. Mos. 10:1 ff. etc.).31

C and no9 in Rabbinic Literature. 32

1. The later Jewish term aww nom owes its origin to the general tendency of
later Judaism to avoid verbal statements about God such as we find in the OT,
and to replace them by abstract constructions. It is closely related to the term
939w. As this is a simple substitute for the OT saying m7 120: "God dwells," "God
is present, 33 so later Judaism uses ww mabn for "God is King" (- 568 f.).34
Thus the Targumim often replace the OT expression by 997 Nh152n "the kingdom of
God,' e.g., Tg. O. Ex. 15:18 : pAp m"n2bp 99 ("the kingdom of God stands fast") for
the Mas. 72029 mm; Tg. Is. 24:23 : 71717 xnabp hnn ("manifest is the kingdom of God")
for the Mas. 7179 730 ; cf. also Is. 31:4; 40:9; 52:7; Mi. 4:7; Zech. 14:9, 35 though the OT
expression is retained in Ez. 20:33; Ps. 47:8; 93:1; 96:10; 97:1; 146:10.
Since the divine name 7 was replaced by 9377 in the cultic use of later Judaism,
i.e., in the Synagogue readings, the Targumim consistently have 71797 Xn159, 30 read as
931707"2. In freer use, the divine name is avoided by using amow ("of heaven") instead.
Hence in Rabb. literature outside the Targumim we always have anw no%; the slavish-
ly literal transl. in Gk. is Baosia tov oupavov (Mt.) but the material equivalent
BacilEla TOU 0EOU (Mk., Lk.). At a later point in Rabbinic usage, probably at the end
of the 1st cent. and beginning of the 2nd., even b"ow as a divine name was replaced
by the very general 0192n, "the place" (-> &yioc, 98). Only in a few fixed expressions
and formulae 37 did it continue in use as divine name, as in a°0 n12%.

The derivation of the term makes it immediately apparent that byw n3bo can
never mean the kingdom of God in the sense of the territory ruled by Him. For

30 On the use of 01530 in Rabb. Judaism, * infra.

31 Cf. Bousset-Gressm., 214 ff.
32 772 in Rabb. lit. hardly needs separate treatment, since here, in contrast to the OT,
the significance of the word group is wholly in terms of 1139p. Any important features in
the use of 722 (God as King or the Messiah King) will be noted in the next section, so
far as they have not been brought out in that on the OT.
33 V. on this pt. Str.-B., II, 314; S. Nu., 1 on 5:3 (K. G. Kuhn, S. Nu. [1933] 12 f.) =
S. Nu., 161 on 35:34.
34 A third later Jewish abstract construction of the same kind is 97 *2012, which the
Targumim use for 717 72%, and nothing more, no "'hypostasis"), v. Str.-B., II, 302 ff.
35 Cf. Dalman WJ, I, 79 and 83.
36 Or 977 Nn1250, ½ being an abbrev. for 717 (properly ", but usually written 4 on account
of the smallness of the letter, or even ,', or 77).
37 Enumerated in Str.-B., I, 172 under A and I, 862 ff.
 BaciAEUC

the expression denotes the fact that God is King, i.e., His kingly being or king-
ship. 38 Thus from the very first an n152p is purely theological construction in
later Judaism and not an application of the secular concept nabn to the religious
sphere. 30 In Rabb. writings the absol. niabn always denotes earthly or worldly
government, i.e., the Roman Empire, not so much in the sense of the state as of
Roman rule or the Roman authorities as seen from the standpoint of the subject. 41
With this secular niobs, the aww niobp, which derived from very different roots,
was sometimes contrasted in later writings when it had come to have a fixed
meaning. 42 The true and original sense of awow nipbn, as an abstract construction
to denote the fact that God is King, always persisted, however, in spite of the
Rabbis. This is shown in the fact that in the Rabbis the verses in which God is
called King are always known as nmgbn, i.e., nabn or kingship verses. 43
2. The development of the term in detail need not be followed in this context,
since the whole of the Rabbinic material has already been collected many times
(- Bibl.). Rather we should seek to present the essential aspects for an under-
standing of the range of the concept. It must be emphasised first that in relation
to the whole Rabbinic corpus omw h)obn is comparatively infrequent and not by
a long way of such theological importance as in the preaching of Jesus. In the
main, the phrase occurs properly only in two expressions which span the whole
compass of its theological significance. The one is 070 nab0 313 331p "to accept
the yoke of the kingdom of God," 44 i.e., in accordance with the above definition,
"to acknowledge God as one's King and Lord,' "to confess the one God as the
King, and to forswear all other gods." The expression thus serves to denote the
monotheism of Judaism as daily declared by every adherent of the Jewish faith
in God in the Schema® (Dt. 6:4 : "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord").
Hence p%ow n15b 219 222 is often used quite simply for reciting the Schema . 4
Here, then, anw nobn is something which a man must freely decide either to
be for or against. He always has the possibility of rejecting God as King and
Lord ("to throw off the yoke of the kingdom of God"). This possibility implies
that the kingdom is not manifest in the world. For otherwise, willingly or un-
willingly, there could only be recognition of the obvious fact that God is King.
Again, real decision is demanded, i.e., the decision which each must make for
himself and which is binding and valid only if the possibility of decision is limited

This is also stressed by Dalman WJ, I, 77 ("the rule of a king rather than the territory
of a king"). Yet he finds an empirical reason for this : "An oriental 'kingdom' is not a
state in our sense, i.e., a constituted people or country, but a 'dominion' comprising a certain
territory" ~ whereas it actually lies in the nature of the term itself. It is better not to put
this in terms of more" and "less" as in RGG, IV, 1817 (Mundle): denotes less the
geographical concept of a kingdom than the fact of the dominion of king.'
39 This transference took place much earlier and at a different point, namely, under the
Israelite monarchy (terminus quo, David) and in relation to 1?2; > 568.
40 Cf. Str.-B., I, 183 for many examples.
41 It is thus legitimate to use "more or less" (n. 38) in relation to this nip%.
42 In only three passages, all from the 3rd cent. A.D., is diw n1d20 contrasted with
7787 0137: Gn. r., 9 (7b); Pesikt., 51a (and par.); bBer., 58a (Str.-B., I, 175 f. under h).
43 So, e.g., RH, 4, 5: S. Nu., 77 on 10:10; v. on this pt. Moore, II, 210, 373.
44 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 173 ff. passim.
45 For examples, v. Str.-B., I, 177 f. under N.
BaCilEUc

and therefore finite. This brings us to the second expresson in which ayrw mabn
ordinarily occurs. For the boundary or end (rR, - TEAoC) which removes the
possibility of accepting or rejecting the kingdom of God by a free decision of the
will is the manifestation of the kingdom of God. This manifestation is a recurrent
object of Jewish petition, 46 and the Targumim often speak of the end of time
(-> TÉlos) when the kingdom of God will be revealed (71727 x05 nk*2109).47
Hence in the theology of later Judaism arw n12bp is a purely eschatological con-
cept in the strict sense of the word.
3. It should be noted especially that the people of Israel does not figure in
this whole train of thought. National membership, then, is not in any way an
element which determines religious position. At this point man stands before God
as an individual who must make his own decision, i.e., simply as man, and not
as the member of a particular people. In Rabbinic theology there is thus developed
to its conclusion a line of thought which commences in the OT prophets. The
other line of OT piety, i.e., religion which is determined by nationality and finds
its vitality especially in the Law and the cultus, has not entirely disappeared from
Rabbinic theology. On the contrary, the Rabbis constantly emphasise the religious
prerogatives of the people of Israel, according to which nationality does deter-
mine the position of a man before God. 48 Even in the concept of the tmw niobn
this thought plays a certain role. Often in Jewish prayers God is addressed as
the King of Israel. 49 The same thought is present when it is said that the pro-
genitor of the people, Abraham, made God King on earth 50 as the first to acknowl-
edge the one God as King and Lord, or when it is said that Israel, i.e., the people
as such, "accepted the yoke of the kingdom of God" at the Red Sea and Sinai
with its confession of the true God and its adoption of the Torah. 61
These two lines, religion as determined by nationality and the religion of the
individual, are thus found together in later Judaism. This juxtaposition arises from
the fact that both occur in the different OT writings, so that when the OT was
canonised both were the authoritative Word of God for Judaism, and both with
equal force. But the distinctive feature is that nowhere in Rabbinic theology do
we find any attempt to bring together into a unitary theological system these
concurrent lines which are sanctioned by Holy Scripture. The Rabbis apparently
see no need to do this. They apparently find no tension or aporia in the co-
existence of these two lines.
In the case of Daw nobn any incidental link with the thought of nationality
simply denotes a traditional attachment to the OT statements which emphasise this
factor (-> n. 49), whereas the true vitality and significance of the concept in later
Judaism were along the strictly religious lines already indicated. annw m55p is thus
one of the few, if not the only strict and pure concept in later Judaism ; the
Hoya tov of the manifestation of the gunt nibbp demands an individual decision

46 Cf. the two petitions from the tractate Soferim in Str.-B., I, 179. For further examples,
ibid., passim.
47 Cf. the passages adduced above -> 571, mostly transl. in Str.-B., I, 179 under c).
Cf. also Moore, II, 374, n. 3; Sib., 3, 47 f. (paveitau) and Lk. 19:11 (uÉXAEI i Bacilela
ToU 0E00 &vagalveolau).
48 Sanh., 10:1: All Israel has part in the future world.
40 Str.-B., I, 175 under e. Also Ps. Sol. 5:18 f.; 17:3. Dependence on the cultic piety of
the Royal Psalms is here apparent.
50 S. Dt., 313 on 32:10 (Str.-B., I, 173 under c).
51 Str.-B., I, 172 under d and 174; S. Lv., 18:6 (Shim'on ben Johai).
 BacilEUs

either to accept or to reject "the yoke of the byw n135p."

4. This enables us to fix unequivocally the difference between this concept and
expectation of the Messiah King at the end of the age. omw niobp is a purely
eschatological concept. It does not emerge in the course of a historical process.
Expectation of the Messiah King, however, develops out of the originally secular
expectation of an Israelite king who will revive the monarchy in all its greatness
and restore the splendour of the idealised Davidic kingdom. This hope becomes
a hope for the end of the age. It is not, therefore, eschatological in the strict sense.
The coming of the Messiah precedes the foyatov in Jewish thinking.52 The
difference may be stated as follows. In later Judaism the thought of the Messiah
is always the expression of a hope for the last times which knows God primarily
as the King of Israel, and which consequently links the final establishment of
the kingdom of the people of Israel, as the goal of God's plan of salvation, with
the Messiah as a King to whom all other peoples will be subject. In tow n12%,
on the other hand, the purely religious concept of the Éoyatov achieves its full
stature (God as All in All), so that there is no more place for the special thought
of a national link with Israel.
Thus the two concepts are heterogeneous. To be sure, they often appear together
as the two things on which the hope of Israel, both national and religious, is set. 53
But they are nowhere brought into an inner relationship. Nowhere do we have the
thought that the kingdom of the Messiah is the arow nobn, or that the Messiah by
His operation will bring in the tow nobp, or vice versa. Such a link with the
thought of the Messiah is quite impossible in terms of the strict concept of the
bmw niob.
Kuhn
D. Bao leia (TOU OEOU) in Hellenistic Judaism.
In the few passages in which it speaks of the kingdom of God, the LXX is in
essential agreement with the Heb. or Aram. (Da.) original. Yet there are also
some passages in the LXX which are specifically Greek or Hellenistic, and have
no Heb. original in the canonical OT. Thus Wis. 6:20 : ÉmOvula coplas dvayel
ETi Baorelav. This deals comprehensively with the high value and the accessi-
bility of wisdom. Regard for wisdom leads to dominion. This sixth chapter of the
Book of Wisdom also speaks of the BaGEla TOU 0EOD. In 6:4 the kings of the
earth will be claimed as the onnpÉral tis airou (i.e., God's) Baoileias; in 10:10
it is said of wisdom that it has shown the righteous the kingdom of God. But the
absolute use of Baoela in 6:20 (cf. 10:14) indicates the dominion of the wise.
In this respect we may also refer to 4 Macc. 2:23 : God has given man a law by
the following of which he BaoiEDoEL Baoilelav adopova tE Kai Bikaia ka
dya0nv kai dvopeiav; the Baonela is identified with the four cardinal virtues.
This ethicising of the Baoeia concept in terms of popular philosophy was carried
through more even comprehensively and clearly by Philo. So far as concerns the
general use of Bacilela, the sense of kingdom, kingship and then lordship is
predominant. The actor assumes the rapaonua (insignia) tñs Bacielas in
Flacc., 38. This meaning is also found in the plural; the possessors of military
rank are set alongside those who enjoy royal dignity, oi tas Baaielas Kai

52 Cf. Str. B., IV, 968 f.

53 E.g. at the beginning of the Kaddish prayer: "May He set up His royal dominion
and bring His Messiah.' Cf. on this whole train of thought esp. Moore, II, 371-375.
BaGLAEUC

nyeuovias avauquevol (Plant., 67). Nimrod had Babylon as the apxh ths Baot-
Aelas (Gig., 66). Philo gives many definitions. By way of hendiadys it is linked
with xpxn, Mut. Nom., 15; Vit. Mos., I, 148; Omn. Prob. Lib., 117; it is set along-
side TOAITEla, Plant., 56; it is more than byAoxparla, Fug., 10; earthly Baciela
has two tasks, ToluEVlKn HEAEI Kai poyvuvaola, Vit. Mos., I, 60. In addition,
Bacilela is constantly linked, and even identified, with apxh. The Baosla of
Moses, as his leadership, is parallel to his vouolsola, ttpoonteia and apylepo-
obvn in Praem. Poen., 53, to his vouolEtlKn #EIs, lspooon and "poonteia in
Vit. Mos., II, 187. We can see this also if we refer back to the whole of Bk.I
of the Vita, which makes it evident that the theme of this book is the Baoiela
of Moses (Vit. Mos., I, 333 f.; cf. II, 66) . In a special discussion, the distinction
between Baoleia as human monarchy, and apxlEpwoovn as the high-priesthood,
is explained in such a way that the second takes precedence of the first. For
it amounts to a GEOU OEpaTtEla whereas Bacilela is an ÉntluÉAela avoponov;
the distinction is thus found in the objects, i.e., Be6s or &vepano (Leg. Gaj., 278;
cf. on this Virt., 54). The lspooon is worthy of an EdoEBns dvip and should
be preferred to freedom and even to Bacilela, Spec. Leg., 1, 57. In a definition of
Baoela, of which the Soyuata and vouot are to be observed, we read : paot-
delay coolav Elval AÉYOUEV, ÉTtEi kai TOV 00oov Baoi Éa, Migr. Abr., 197.
A similar expression (n ToU 000OU Baotela) is to be found in Abr., 261; cf.
Som.. II, 243 f. Similarly, Saul is to learn from Samuel ra Tis Baoelas 8lkaid,
Migr. Abr., 196. That the first man gives names to the animals is understood as
coplac Kai Bacilelas to #pyov (a linking of wisdom and power), Op. Mund.,
148. The true sense of Bacileia is thus defined as simply dominion in the rule
of the wise man as the true king, Sacr. AC, 49. In relation to the wise king
Abraham &peri is defined as apxh and Baoiela, Som. II, 244. In the same way
it is said of vous that its advocates attribute to it Thv nyeuoviav kai Baotelav
tov ave patelwv tpayuotwv, Spec. Leg., I, 334. The opposite of all this is to
noeoc ghv, which it is an illusion to regard as nyeuovia and Baoeia, Ebr., 216.
Is Philo speaking of the kingdom of God, or also of the kingdom of God, in
these passages . Does he ever speak of the kingdom of God? Yes and no! Tou
Geot is once found as an attribute when the dominion of king is compared with
the Baoieia ToU 0E00, Spec. Leg., IV, 164; and it is once used as a predicate:
n Bao ela tivoc; ap' ovyl uovou 0eod; Mut. Nom., 135. There is perhaps an
allusion to the kingdom of God when the building of the tower is regarded as the
Kalalpsos tis alaviou Baselas, Som., II, 285. God is invested with the
ovavtay@viatos (invincible) and avacalpetoc (impregnable) Bacil, Spec.
Leg., I, 207. Abraham as a true king, the king of wisdom, comes from God, be-
cause God Thy tot copoi Paoielav apÉyel, Abr., 261. Moses confronts circum-
stances as a superior being directing the world xpouevov aitefouolo kai aito-
xportopi Bacirela, Rer. Div. Her., 301.
The only occasion when Philo looks to a future Baoela is in Vit. Mos., I, 290,
where he quotes the LXX of Nu. 24:7 (the Messianic prophecy of Balaam): f
TOOdE Bacilela Kat® Lkaomv nuepav itpoc tpos aphoa. Here as elsewhere
he construes the kingdom ethically.
Our general assessment of the Baoilela passages 51 in Philo can only be that
royal dominion is never conceived of as an eschatological magnitude. Rather, the

54 Cf. H. Leisegang's Indexes. The ref. V, 142,1 should read V, 14,21. In V. 230, 8 we
should derive Tov Baci elov from To Baolleia rather than i Baousia.
 Baot EUG

Baoiela constitutes a chapter in his moral doctrine. 55 The true king is the wise
man. Thus Philo adds his voice to the ancient chorus in praise of the wise. The
wise man as the true BaoiEUs (-> 565) is distinguished from ordinary earthly
kings, and is to be extolled as divine. This view also determines what Philo has to
say philosophically and religiously concerning the Baolela tOU 00000. Materially
this term also derives from ancient philosophy, though formally it comes from the
Greek Bible, which Philo interprets as in the LXX passages mentioned. It should
be noted that there were in later Judaism generally certain impulses towards this
ethicising and anthropologising. In spite of an obvious synergism, however, apocal-
yptic and Rabbinic Judaism maintained the thought of the kingdom of God which
rests on God's free decision. 56 Philo, on the other hand, has completely re-
constructed the original Baoeia concept, though as an exegete, unlike Josephus,
he is not afraid to speak of the Baciela TOU (EOU. 57
Josephus never uses the expression. Only in Ant., 6, 60 is Baoiela mentioned
in connection with God. While the Palestinian Judaism from which he came used
the phrase aww nabp, for all its present reference, in an eschatological sense as
well, Josephus uses the word eeokpatia of the present constitution of the com-
munity in Ap., 2, 165. Instead of Bareus and Baoilela he has nyeuov and
yeuovia; he ascribes ñyspovia rather than Baoueia to the Roman emperor. 58
The reason may be that on the one side Josephus is one of those who avoided re-
ferring to the Messianic and eschatological hope of his people which was linked
with the word Baoiela, and on the other that as a historian living and writing
in Rome he is an adherent of Hellenism and is yet wholly dependent on his
sources. 69

E. The Word Group BaoilEUc ktA. in the NT.

+ BaOLAEUG.
BaTiAEUS, "king," is applied in the NT to men, to gods (or God) and to inter-
mediary beings. From the standpoint of biblical theology, it is an important fact
that in the NT, in close dependence on OT and Jewish usage and in full agreement
with it, God as well as Christ (the Messiah Jesus) bears this title, and men are
restricted and depreciated as kings.
1. a. Earthly kings mentioned in the NT, either generally without name or
more particularly by name, are explicitly or implicitly contrasted with God or the
Messiah as King, or at any rate regarded as subordinate. In the non-biblical world
the following are given the title Pharaoh in Ac. 7:10, who is followed by another

65 It is striking that in the index to E. Bréhier, Les Idées philosophiques et religieuses de

Philon d Alexandrie (1908), there is a whole list of references under vertu, but royaume de
Dieu is not even mentioned. We gain similar impression from I. Heinemann, Philons
griechische und judische Bildung (1932).
56 As correctly noted by G. Gloege, Reich Gottes und Kirche im Neuen Testament (1929),
19 ff. Philo is not discussed in the section on later Judaism in this work.
67 Cf. A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (1932),
49, n. 1.
68 So A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910), 11 f.
59 Cf. G. Holscher in his art. "Josephus" in Pauly-W., IX, 1955 : "J. in his presentation
of biblical history renounces any independent use of the biblical text, whether in the Gk.
or Heb. form, and creates his material almost completely, and even to the smaller details,
from biblical models.'
BaTiEUC

king in 7:18; Hb. 11:23, 27; Herod the Great in Mt. 2:1, 3, 9; Lk. 1:5; also Herod
Antipas, though he was not king in the strict sense, in Mt. 14:9; Mk. 6:14, 22, 25,
26, 27; Herod Agrippa I, Ac. 12:1, 20; Herod Agrippa II, Ac. 25:13, 14, 24, 26;
26:2, 7, 13, 19, 26, 27, 30; also the Nabataean king Aretas in 2 C. 11:32. According
to oriental usage the Roman emperor is also king 60 in 1 Tm. 2:2; Pt. 2:13, 17;
Rev. 17:9 f. (cf. 1 CI., 37, 3). All such kings are kings of the earth Or the Gentiles
(ths yns. Mt. 17:25; Ac. 4:26; Rev. 1:5; 6:15; 17:2,18; 18:9; 19:19; 21:24; Tov
£Oviov, Lk. 22:25; tis oikouuÉvns 8Ans, Rev. 16:14). The description and evalua-
tion of the kings of the earth are taken from Ps. 2:2, t 88:27 and similar passages.
As in the OT, divine rank is not ascribed to the earthly king after the manner of
oriental court style; this dignity is ascribed only to Yahweh or His Messiah. In
Revelation this distinction is given particular emphasis by the fact that, in contrast
to the contemporary style of the Roman emperors and their oriental predecessors, 61
only the one Almighty God is called BacilEic tov £0vov (Rev. 15:3) and only
the Messiah King the Bacieds Baai Éwv Kai Kipios kupiov (Rev. 19:16; cf.
17:14). The sons of the kingdom of God are set by God or by Christ above
earthly kings with their power. They are strictly taken out of the sphere of earthly
power and serve one another as brethren (Mt. 17:25 f.; Lk. 22:25). As the king-
dom of God draws near, Christians will be brought to judgment by nyeuoves kai
Bao eis for the sake of Christ (Mt. 10:18; Mk. 13:9; Lk. 21:12). 'Ev toic oikoIc
Tov Baa fwv (vi. Baoilelov) those are at home who wear soft clothing, but
not a prophet like John the Baptist (Mt. 11:8). That which will be revealed to
the children of the kingdom is hidden from earthly kings and even from the
prophets (Lk. 10:24). Kings, whose business is war (Lk. 14:31), must hear the
Gospel like Jews and Gentiles (Ac. 9:15; cf. Rev. 10:11). At the end of the days
the kings of the East (- avaton) will be the scourge of God and will then be
destroyed (Rev. 16:12; cf. 16:14; 17:2, 9, 12, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:18 f.). On the other
hand, there is also the possibility that they will make obedient submission (Rev.
21:24).
b. No more and no less than an earthly king is an intermediary being like
'ABa8oov, the ruler of the spirits of the underworld (Rev. 9:11).
c. It is another matter that earthly figures like David and Melchisedec are also
invested with royal dignity. As in the period of the Israelite monarchy (cf. Ac.
13:21: "Afterward they desired a king, and God gave unto them Saul"), so on
the NT view David as the ancestor of Jesus Christ is a divinely recognised king
(Mt. 1:6; Ac. 13:22). 62 And Melchisedec, by allegorical interpretation, is a type of
Christ as the king of Salem, of peace and righteousness (Hb. 7:1,2).
2. a. It is thus natural that in the NT Jesus Christ should be regarded as "the
King." As the Messiah Jesus is first the Bacilsuc tov 'Ioubalov (Mt. 2:2; 27:11,
29, 37; Mk. 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Lk. 23:3, 37 f.; Jn. 18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 14 f., 19, 21). Yet
the usage is somewhat ambivalent. A disinterested contemporary like Pilate can
only accept the designation from the Jewish accusers (Lk. 23:2 f.). For the harden-
ed Jewish enemies of Jesus, in this case both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the
designation is the blasphemous claim of a false Messianic pretender. According

60 Cf. Deissmann LO, 310 f.

81 Loc. cit.
82 The difficult incident concerning the Davidic sonship in Mk. 12:35-37 and par. cannot
finally affect our judgment at this point.
 BacilEic

to Jewish opinion Jesus is a man who makes himself a king (Jn. 19:12). The
vacillating mob, detecting but not understanding the Messianic claim of Jesus,
takes the title "King of the Jews" for the most part in a political sense. Even the
disciples taught by Jesus share this view. The people thus wish to make Jesus a
king, but do not see what this really implies (Jn. 6:15) . In short, the fact that Jesus
is King raises the question in what the Messiahship of Jesus consists. If the true
Messianic claim linked with the royal title is to be underlined, then He should be
called the King of - 'lopan^ rather than the Jews. In fact, even though in-
frequently, we do find this designation BaciEic (t0U) 'lopar\ (Mt. 27:42;
Mk. 15:32; In. 1:49; 12:13). At any rate, the Jew who really knows the promise
given to his people ought to speak of the King of Israel. The promise of Zech.
9:9 : "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee" (Mt. 21:5; Jn. 12:15), is given to the
daughter of Jerusalem as the true Israel. By divine commission this Messiah King
will hold the last assize (Mt. 25:34, 40). According to 117:26 Jesus on His entry
into Jerusalem is the anointed King who comes in the name of the Lord (Lk.
19:38). It is only thus that Jesus is the Messiah King (xpiotoc Bari euc), in an
antithesis to the Roman emperor which is not understood either by Jews or
Gentiles (Lk. 23:2) . 63 It seems rather strange at a first glance that apart from
the Evangelists the authors of the NT describe Jesus Christ neither as the King
of the Jews nor the King of Israel. This title is lacking in the original kerygma
in Acts, and also in Paul. Yet there is no reason to conclude that the early com-
munity, to which the Evangelists also belong, did not know or use the title. There
is a concealed indication that it is not alien to the kerygma at Ac. 17:7, where the
Jews in Thessalonica denounce the Christians for high treason on the ground that
they maintain that there is another king, namely, Jesus. On the other hand, the
restraint in this respect is striking. We may surmise that the difficulty (already
mentioned) concerning the Messiahship of Jesus brought with it some measure of
uncertainty and caution. We may also see here an indication that the whole
complex of the Messianic secret, which the early community hesitated to take up,
really belongs to the history of Christ on earth, i.e., that Jesus Himself as the
King of the Jews or of Israel understood Himself to be the Messiah of His people.
At this point the Fourth Evangelist is in full agreement with the others, except
that in the answer to Pilate's question he goes on to give a christological definition
of the kingdom of Jesus (Jn. 18:37). A distinctive position is occupied by the
Apocalypse, which gives to the royal title a cosmological implication. The Messiah
King of the last time finally exercises His office in relation to the world. In the
so-called Synoptic Apocalypse the case is materially the same, as a'so in Paul's
depiction of the judgment by Christ at 1 C. 15:24, where Christ restores royal
dominion to God at the end of the days. It is in this sense that at 1 Tm. 6:15, in
line with the hymnic style of Revelation, Jesus Christ is the BaoEUC tov Baot-
AEU6VTOV KaL KUPIOS TOV KUPLEUOVTOV

63 On the theme of this antithesis in the framework of the Messianic secret there is
good deal of useful material in the comprehensive work of R. Eisler, 'Inooic Baoieuc ou
Baal eigas, (1929), II (1930), cf. esp. II, 374 and 688. On the other hand, the detailed
presentation, while apparently perspicacious, is often obscure and unreliable. On Eisler as
whole, cf. the discussions of his book by H. Windisch, Gnomon, (1931), 289-307; H. Lewy,
DLZ, 51 (1930), 481-494; W. Windfuhr, Philol. Wochenschr., 53 (1933), 9 ff.; they un-
animously reject Eisler's methods as unscientific.
BacilEis - Baolsia

In the post-apostolic fathers Christ is called BaoEC utyag in Did., 14, 3 after
the pattern of Mal. 1:14. He is preceded by a Messianic and apocalyptic enemy, the
BaoLEus uikpos, according to Barn., 4, 4; cf. Da. 7:24. If Christ is called King, this
helps to confirm the dignity of the Incarnate, who is instituted King by God the King
(Dg., 7, 4) . In the light of the results of the incarnation, and the example thereby given,
the attribute odoas (Mart. Pol., 9, 3) and the title 816aaka1oc (Mart. Pol., 17, 3) are
added to His style as Bacileus.

b. When royal dominion is restored to God by His Christ, God is described

by Paul as God the Father, the eternal King. This is clearly expressed in 1 Tm.
1:17, where God is called the BaoLAEic tov alovoy (cf. Tob. 13:6, 10; * alov).
Only in one passage in Mt. is God extolled as the utyas Bacilelc (5:35). It is
worth noting that Mt., who follows the OT more closely than the other Evangelists,
adduces this quotation. Similarly, Mt. gives more parables of the kingdom of God
than the others. And in the details of these parables God is the King in His
different functions ; cf. Mt. 14:9; 18:23; 22:2, 7, 11, 13.

It is in keeping with the piety and theology of the post-apostolic fathers that in them,
as in the philosophically influenced Judaism of the diaspora, more epithets are applied
to God than in the NT. As in 1 T'm. 1:17, which almost belongs to this group, so in
1 CI., 61, 2 God is Baoeic tov al@vov, also beonoms Entoupovios. He is also
lauded as 6 Baosug 6 uÉyac in Herm v., 3, 9, 8; cf. w 47:2; Tob. 13:15. God is also
BaGEUs in Dg., 7, 4.

C. According to some not too well attested readings of Rev. 1:6; 5:10, Christians,
too, may be called Bacisic. The verbs BaolAEUw and > ouuBaot suw are
certainly used of Christians. 84

t Baotlela. 65
In relation to the general usage of Bacela, usually translated "kingdom," it is to
be noted first that it signifies the "being," "nature" and "state" of the king. Since the
reference is to a king, we do best to speak first of his "dignity" or "'power." This is
true in the oldest known use of the word : thy Baaiininv (Ionic for Baorlelav) Exe
th Au8Gv, Hdt., I, 11. Similarly in Xenoph. Mem., IV, 6, 12: Baoelav kai
tupawiod apxos uev cupotepac hyeito Elvai, SIa0EpEIv 88 aXAnAov EVoul(e
(cf. what was said about the difference between Bacileic and topavos, - 564, n. 2).
Almost spontaneously there then intrudes a richly attested second meaning; the dignity
of the king is expressed in the territory ruled by him, i.e., his "kingdom.' 88 This
transition is no less obvious in the Eng. "principality," or "empire," or indeed 'domin-
ion." On the other hand, it did not wholly replace the original meaning of dignity. Both

84 There is a formal analogy to this figur. and improper use of BaGiEUS, in the sense
of a distinguished person, in Philostr. Vit. Soph., II, 10, 2, where Herodes Atticus appears
as o BaGAEUg TOv A6ywv [Kleinknecht].
65 Against Holstein and Gloege (+564, Bibl.), it should be pointed out that a primary
lexical investigation of the word as used, such as is attempted here on the foundation and
in development of that of Cr.-Ko., is particularly fruitful in questions of biblical theology,
esp. when we avoid such dubious modern categories, used esp. by Gloege, as "dynamic,"
"supratemporality" and "otherworldliness." Neither directly nor indirectly should exegesis
make use of such modern terminology - better though it may be than that which pre-
ceded ~ in attempts to free itself from the long dispute concerning the transcendence or
immanence of the kingdom of God dispute which has been inevitably fruitless.
86 Well expounded by Suid., s.v.: To dEloua kal to gOvoc BaOLAEUOLEVOV.
 Bacilela

meanings are present in Baoela. In Rev. 17:12 and 17:17 we seem to have the two
meanings almost directly alongside one another. 61
Investigation of the canonical OT (both Heb. and Aram. originals and the LXX,
+ 565 ff.), of the pseudepigraphical and apocryphal liter. (including also the Rabbinic
writings, 571 ff.) and of Hellenistic authors (esp. Philo, -> 574 ff.), shows that the
sense of dignity or power is still predominant. This is quite definitely so in the NT. 68

The Earthly Baouela.

a. To the earthly - Bacileic there corresponds the earthly Baoiela, the
kingdom of men. The two meanings mentioned in the introduction merge into one
another at this point, though in certain NT passages the context enables us to
distinguish them. Thus in the parable of the pounds in Lk. 19:12, 15 it is said of a
certain nobleman that he journeyed into a far country AxBeiv Éaut Baoilelav,
and then returned AxBovta Thy Baoilelav. The reference here is obviously to
royal dignity. 60 The same verb is to be found in Rev. 17:12 : 8Ékx Bacileic
Bac elav oUTo ElaBov. TO To this there corresponds shortly afterwards Rev.
17:17: 800val thv Bacilelav to enplo, 10 and also 17:18 : f ToAs f ueya^n f
gyouoa Pacilelav Erl tov Baoi ewv Tis yis. 11 In other passages the reference
is no less plainly to the territory. Thus in Mt. 4:8 Lk. 4:5, where in the tempta-
tion story the devil shows Jesus Taoag tac Baaieias Tou Koo ou or ts oikou-
uévns, the use of the plural and the assumption of visibility imply kingdoms in
the territorial sense. 72 When Jesus in His defence against the Pharisees says :
Taoa Bacileia uepiolsioa kat® lautns epnuoitau (Mt. 12:25; cf. Mk. 3:24 and
Lk. 11:17), the statement itself, and the comparison with a T6AIS or oikia (olkoc),
clearly incline in the same direction. Again, in the apocalyptic discourse: Éyepon-
detaI #Ovoc ét' #evoc kai Bacileia Eri Baoelav (Mt. 24:7 and par.), the
link with gOvoc points to the territory ruled. The same meaning is found in the
promise of Herod to his daughter : Exc nuloous ths Baot sias you (Mk. 6:23),
and also in Rev. 16:10 : Éyéveto n Baaiela autoi (sc. tou Onplou) ÉoKotouÉv.
Such earthly Baoiela is almost always seen in emphatic opposition, or at least
subjection, to the Bacilela of God, just as the koouos (Mt. 4: 8) or the olkou-
uÉvn (Lk. 4:5) as the Bacilela to0 Koauou (Rev. 11:15) is against God, having
given itself to "the" hostile king, i.e., the devil. This is seen particularly in the fact
that the world power of the Roman Empire (Onplov in the Apoc.), understood
apocalyptically and therefore regarded as devilish, seeks to represent the Bagela
and to spread light, even though it is in distress and darkness (éaKOTuéV, Rev.
16:10). That the devil raises the claim to have a Bagela may be seen from
the fact that as the tempter he seduces the Bacisial of the world, and that Jesus,

67 In modern Greek Bacileia means "kingship", "royal dominion" or "reign" ; the word
for territorial "kingdom" is Bao[AEIOV.
68 Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1925), 111, who interprets
"God's rule or sovereignty, the reign of God" A. Deissmann, The Religion of Jesus and the
Faith of St. Paul (1923), 108 ff. "kingdom or sovereignty, kingly rule of God" ; J. War-
schauer, The Historical Life of Christ (1927): "What we translate 'the kingdom of God'
means thus rather His "kingship,' His 'reign' rather than His 'realm'.
69 So, e.g., KI. Lk., ad loc.
70 Loh. Apk., ad loc.: "Konigtum."
71 Ibid., freely rendered "The great city is queen over the kings of the earth."
72 KI. Mt. and KI. Lk., ad loc. : "Reiche der Welt.'
Baolela

when speaking to the Pharisees of earthly kingdoms in general, then goes on at

once to speak specifically of the Baouela of the devil.
b. In this defence there is express reference to the Baculela of the devil:
TOS ouv oralnoetal n Baciela aitou (sc. to0 oatava), whether in the sense
of "realm" or "reign" (Mt. 12:26 = Lk. 11:18).
c. Apart from the earthly, human or devilish Bactela, there is the Baoi ela
of the men or people elected by God. A legitimate possessor or representative of
the Baoela is king David: Ed oynuevn f €pxouevn Baciela tou tatpoc
juov Aaul (Mk. 11:10). Only to Israel as the divine people of the old and new
covenant ('lopan^ KaTo TVEDua) does there belong this Baoiela, concerning
which the disciples hopefully ask : Kuple, El Ev TO xpovo TOUTO &TOK&OLOT&VEL
Thy Bacielav tO 'lopani ; (Ac. 1:6).
2. The Bacilela of Christ.
We have seen already that on the basis of the OT Jesus Christ is the King of
the true Israel in the NT. Hence we must now consider the Baoiela of Christ.
The Son of Man will send His angels and they will gather fk ths Baoilelac
autoi all seducers and evildoers (Mt. 13:41). Jesus says that some standing with
Him will not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming fv tn Baoela
aito0 (Mt. 16:28). It is said of the King Jesus Christ: ths Bacilelac airoi
there will be no end (Lk. 1:33). This King promises His disciples that they shall
eat and drink Év th Baal ela you (Lk. 22:30). The thief crucified with Him
asks the suffering and dying Messiah King to remember him when He comes
Els Thy Baoielav oou (vi. gy th Bacilela oou) (Lk. 23:42). Of the manner of
this kingdom Jesus says that n Baoela f Eun is not of this world (Jn. 18:36).
The apostle of Christ attests thy Éo&vElav aitoi kai thy Baoielav aitot
(2 Tm. 4:1). He knows that his Lord will deliver him glc Thy Bacilelav aitoo
Thy Éntoupaviov (2 Tm. 4:18). To us Christians entrance is given Eis thy aloviov
BagElav TOU Kupiou nuoov kai outpos 'Inoot XPLOT00 (2Pt. 1:11).
This Bacilela of Jesus Christ is also the Baciela of God. In various passages
there is reference to the kingdom of God and of Christ. The unbeliever has no in-
heritance Év Th Baoela TOU XpLoTou Kal 0E00 (Eph. 5:5). At the end of the
times the Baoiela tou Koouou has become the Baoela tou kuplou nuov
kai tou Xplotoi aitot (our Lord and His Anointed, Rev. 11:15). Thus God
and Christ are linked; sometimes the one is mentioned, sometimes the other.
On the other hand, there is no reference to the Baoela of Christ apart from
that of God. This is attested by Jesus Himself: My Father hath made over
to Me Bacilelav (Lk. 22:29). It is God who has delivered us Eic thy Bacilelav
tou vlot the dyaTs autoi (Col. 1:13) . Having thus received the kingdom from
the Father, at the end of the days Christ gives it back to Him (1 C. 15:24). He
can only give Him what belongs to Him. This brings us to the dominant NT
concept of the Baoiela (too) OEO0 which we have already been discussing
implicitly, just as we shall be explicitly discussing the Baoela (TOU) XpLOTOU
as well in the section which follows.
3. The Bacilela of God.
a. As regards the usage, four points are to be noted : 1. the alternative Baal-
Aela Tov oupaviv; 2. the references to Bacilela in the absolute; 3. the attributive
and predicative
Except statements
for the textually uncertain ; and 4. the. Yion yene. expression Baoela tov o
 Baoiela

voy ("kingdom of heaven") is found only in Mt. In Ev. Hebr. Fr., 11 it recurs as
regnum coelorum. On three occasions Mt. also uses the term which is customary
in Mk., Lk. and elsewhere, i.e., Baciela TOU (Eo0 ("kingdom of God"). To
these we should probably add a fourth in Mt. 6:33 (though not all the MSS have
ToU 0E00), and perhaps even a fifth in Mt. 19:24, if we are not to read Tov
oipavov. The question arises why Mt. has this double usage. Does he intend a
distinction in meaning between his usual tov oipaviv and his less frequent tou
000 ? In general, the very fact that the expressions are interchangeable both in
the MSS and in the Synoptic parallels forces us to the conclusion that they are
used promiscue and have exactly the same meaning. It is open to dispute whether
Jesus used the one or the other in the original Aramaic. The possibility must also
be taken into account that there is at least a nuance in the kingdom of heaven in
sO far as this refers to the lordship which comes down from heaven 73 into this
world. If so, this gives us two important insights. The first is a plain reassurance
that the essential meaning is reign rather than realm. The second is the related
indication that this reign cannot be realm which arises by a natural development
of earthly relationships or by human efforts, but is one which comes down by
divine intervention. Since heaven can be substituted for God by later Jewish
usage, what is true of Baosia tov oipaviv is also true of Barela TOU OE00.
The same holds good also of Bacilela ToU natpos ("kingdom of the Father")
in Mt. 13:43; 26:29 (cf. Mt. 6:10: "Thy kingdom come," i.e., the kingdom of
"our Father"); 25:34 and Lk. 12:32 ("It hath pleased your Father to give you the
kingdom").
Quite a number of passages speak of the Bagela without addition and there-
fore in the absolute, namely, Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 13:19; 24:14 (E0ayyÉAlov, or Abyoc
ts Barelac); 8:12; 13:38 (vioi The Baot elas) ; Hb. 11:33 (81& TLaTEOC
ram yovloavto Pacilelac); 12:28 (BaaiAelav daal nt au baos
J.m. 2:5 (kAnpovopouc tis Baolelas); perhaps also Ac. 20:25 (knpucoov Thv
Bacilelarv). 74 It need hardly be proved that in all these passages the reference
is to the kingdom of God, since this is unambiguously shown both by the context
and by the specific attributes and predicates. 75
Whether directly by the addition TOU 0e00 or tov oipaviv, or indirectly
in the absolute use, the being and action of God supply the necessary qualification.
Hence any other direct attributes are extremely rare. We have referred already
to dog EuTOC in Hb. 12:28, and to this we may add ÉTtoUpovioc in 2 T'm. 4:18
and aiovioc in 2 Pt. 1:11. In relation to the kingdom of God, however, such
attributes are largely formal and rhetorical, and add hardly anything from the
material or theological standpoint. The NT is also sparing in direct predicates.
Whose is the kingdom It is the kingdom of God, and also the kingdom of men,
but only of men who are poor in spirit (Mt. 5:3 = Lk. 6:20) and persecuted for
righteousness' sake (Mt. 5:10).

73 The plur. is a Semitism, unlike 2 C. 12:2.

74 To which many MSS add tou [kupiou] 'Inoot or TOU GEOT.
75 In the course of centuries such absolute usage has led to a religious or ostensibly
religious, but also immanent, worldly and pseudo-theological way of speaking of the king-
dom in the sense of an earthly realm. We find this even in religious Socialism on the one
side and the Third Reich of National Socialism on the other (in connection with the belief
in the Holy Roman Empire, which for its part may be traced back to this absolute usage).
BaorAeia

More extended attributes and predicates lead us into a sphere of synonyms well
adapted to bring out the complexity of the proclamation of the kingdom of God.
In this respect it makes no difference whether the synon. expressions are in-
troduced by a Kai (hendiadys) or as predicates. Again, it makes no difference in
what order they stand or are treated. The reference is always to the manifold yet
unitary being and work of God and His appeal to man and claim upon him.
Men are to seek the kingdom of God and His 8iKa10obvn (Mt. 6:33). This dikalo-
ouvn and Eipvn and xapa Ev TIVEOUaTI aylo make up the kingdom of God
(R. 14:17). This does not imply a native quality, or one attained or to be attained,
but the Ta^lyyeveola referred to in Mt. 19:28 (Jn. 3:3 ff.) where the Lucan
parallel has Baoela (Lk. 22:30). In this context the writer of Revelation ad-
dresses his fellow-Christians as their brother and companion Ev th CALVEL kai
Baoiela Kai intouonn Év 'Inoou (Rev. 1:9). There has come to him owinpla
kai Suvauls Kai f Bagsia toU OE0D juov kai h ovoia tot xpiotoi
a0t00 (Rev. 12:10). In other places, too, there is allusion to this Suvauis of God
in attempted definition of the kingdom of God. It comes Év Suvquel (Mk. 9:1).
It does not consist Év Aoy© (of men), but Ev Suvquel (of God) (1 C. 4:20).
Again, to the kingdom of God there belongs 86€a as the glory of God (1 Th. 2:12);
indeed, Bao sia and 86&a may be used interchangeably, as shown by £v th
86&,n cou in Mk. 10:37, where Mt. 20:21 has Év th Baoideia GOU. The kingdom
of Christ as the One sent by God coincides with His ÉTIO&VEIa (2 Tm. 4:1). This
BaoEia &OK EUTOS is for believers xapis (Hb. 12:28), or ÉTayye^la, as MSS
* A have for Baoiia in Jm. 2:5, or Yon, into which one enters as into the king-
dom in Mt. 18:9; the par. in Mk. 9:47 has Baoela. The Pharisees and scribes
have tried to take this kingdom from the men thereto invited by God according
to Mt. 23:13, but the fact that the parallel in Lk. 11:52 speaks of the KAEis the
yvooewc shows us that Baotela (0EO0) is the same as yvoos (BEot).
From all these synonyms we may see that the concern of the Baoilela as God's
action towards man is soteriological, so that our explanation of it stands or falls
with our explanation of soteriology generally in the preaching of Jesus Christ and
His apostles.
b. The last statement makes it plain that the kingdom of God implies the whole
of the preaching of Jesus Christ and His apostles. If the whole of the NT message
is soayyÉAtov, this is the EDayyÉAIov of the kingdom of God. For - EigyyÉAlov
TOU 0EOU in Mk. 1:14 many MSS have Eiayy#Aiov the Bacileiac tou 0:00.
This summarised account corresponds to many others (cf. Mt. 4:23; 9:35 and also
24:14). Like EoayyÉllov, EiayyeAl(e lai, too, refers to the kingdom of God
(Lk. 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Ac. 8:12). So, too, do related verbs like Knpoooeiv (Mt.
4:23; 9:35; Lk. 9:2; Ac. 20:25; 28:31; or Siauaptupeo0au: Ac. 28:23; or Stay-
yE XElv: Lk: 9:60; or TE(éEIV: Ac. 19:8; or AaAEiv: Lk. 9:11; or finally AÉyEIV:
Ac. 1:3) . Like EoayyÉ^loV, uuothpiov or uuathpia (revelation) is also men-
tioned in relation to the kingdom of God in Mt. 13:11 and par., or the A6yoc in
Mt. 13:19, where the par. passages in Mk. 4:15 and Lk. 8:12 simply speak of the

78 This saying of Paul is completely misconstrued if we see in it merely the common

antithesis between word and work, or speaking and acting. The reference is not to the fact
that men should act rather than speak. It is to the fact that the work of man is valueless in
comparison with the power of God. We catch the sense if we paraphrase : The kingdom of
God does not consist in the power of man but in the Word of God. The whole emphasis
falls on the kingdom of God as the dominant and unambiguously logical subject.
 Bacilela

Abyos as the Word of God. The whole of this proclamation is expressly attested
by the linking of word and deed which is emphasised in decisive passages. Thus
with the direction of Jesus to His disciples to proclaim the kingdom of God, we
also have the direction: Kai laola1 (Lk. 9:2; cf. Mt. 10:7 f.; Mk. 3:13 f.). Jesus
sees in the fact that He expels demons the dawn of the kingdom of God (MVt. 12:28
= Lk. 11:20). Hence we are concerned not merely with the word of the kingdom
of God but also with the coincident act of the kingdom of God. This is expressly
stated in the summarised accounts of the Gospels, following the original kerygma
(cf. Mk. 4:23).
C. What is the point of contact for this NT proclamation? Jesus of Nazareth
was not the first to speak of the kingdom of God. Nor was John the Baptist. The
proclamation of neither is to the effect that there is such a kingdom and its nature
is such and such. Both proclaim that it is near. This presupposes that it was
already known to the first hearers, their Jewish contemporaries. This concrete link
is decisive. It gives us a positive relationship of Jesus and the Baptist with apocal-
yptic and the Rabbinic writings in which there are points both of agreement and
of distinction to these two movements, which for their part derive from OT
prophecy. Details emerge from a comparison with the points already made in
sections on the OT and the Rabbinic writings. For the NT authors, who all wrote
in Greek, the Greek translation of the OT has to be taken into account in this
respect. If in Hb.1:8 we have reference to the papoos ths Baosias aitou
(LXX: cou) in the middle of long quotation from the OT, there can be no
doubt that this derives from w 44:6. 77 On the other hand, as we have seen, there
are certain Hellenistic passages in the LXX, and these form a point of contact
for the NT preaching of the kingdom of God. The same holds good of Philo and
Josephus.
d. If, as the linguistic usage has shown, the kingdom of God implies the state
of kingly rule, this emerges logically in the description of this state. The pre-
dominant statement is that the kingdom of God is near, that it has drawn near,
that it has attained to us, that it comes, that it will appear, that it is to come
KYYIKEV, Mt. 3:2; 4:17 = Mk. 1:15; Mt. 10:7; Lk. 10:9,11; Éyyus forv, Lk. 21:31;
€pxouÉvn, Mk. 11:10; Épxetal, Lk. 17:20; É0xoEv, Mt. 12:28 = Lk. 11:20; uÉAAEI
grooalveolat, Lk. 19:11; E0&To, Mt. 6:10 = Lk. 11:2.
In the preaching of Jesus of Nazareth, which is linked with that of John and
which He passes on to His disciples, the nature of this state of divine kingship is
described both negatively and positively, or in the first instance negatively and
therewith positively.
Negatively, it is opposed to everything present and earthly, to everything here
and now. It is thus absolutely miraculous. Hence we cannot understand it as
summum bonum to which man strives and gradually approximates. From the
direction in the summarised account at the beginning of the proclamation of the

The author of Hebrews is a theologian who, arguing from the LXX, writes the best
Gk. in the NT.
78 For what follows, cf. R. Bultmann, Tesus (1926), 28-54; K. L. Schmidt, "Jesus Christus"
in RGG?, III, 129-132; "Das uberweltliche Reich Gottes in der Verkundigung Jesu," ThB1, 6
(1927), 118-120; "Die Verkindigung des Neuen Testaments in ihrer Einheit und Besonder-
heit," ThB1, 10 (1931), 113 ff.
Bareia
Gospel : LETAVOEITE® MYYIKEV yap Bacilela tov oupavov (Mt. 4:17), there
arises the only question which can be and is relevant. This is not the question
whether or how we men may have the kingdom of God as a disposition in Our
hearts, or whether we may represent it as a fellowship of those thus minded.
The question is whether we belong to it or not. To try to bring in the kingdom
of God is human presumption, self-righteous Pharisaism and refined Zealotism. From
this standpoint, the supremely hard thing required of man is the patience by which
alone may be achieved readiness for the act of God. We can see this in the
preaching of the apostle Paul, for whom the vioEl and the un oBevvivai to
TVEDua are coincident (1 Th. 5:8, 19). The parables of the kingdom are spoken
to drive home this point. The man who does not display a patient openness for God
is like a man who SOWS, and then like an impatient and curious child the seed
grows he knows not how he cannot allow it to germinate and grow of itself
(the parable of the seed which grows of itself, Mk. 4:26-29). A pure miracle
takes place before our eyes when without any co-operation of our own, and
beyond all our understanding, the fruit-bearing head develops out of the tiny seed.
That modern man has done something to solve this riddle does not affect the
decisive tertium comparationis. The parables of the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31 f. and
par.) and the leaven (Mt. 13:33 Lk. 13:20 f.) carry the same lesson. It is also
present, though rather less obviously, in the other parables, except that there is
now a second meaning which we have still to consider, e.g., in the parables of the
wheat and the tares in Mt. 13:24-30, of the treasure hid in the field in Mt. 13:44,
of the pearl of great price in Mt. 13:45 f., of the drag-net in Mt. 13:47-50, of the
wicked servant in Mt. 18:23-35, of the labourers in the vineyard in Mt. 20:1-16,
of the marriage feast in Mt. 22:2-14 and of the ten virgins in Mt. 25:1-13. The
purpose of all these parables is to make it plain that the order in God's kingdom
is different from all human order, and that this kingdom is incalculably and over-
whelmingly present within the signs in which it lies enclosed in the activity of Jesus.
From this standpoint, the kingdom of God is a cosmic catastrophe depicted in
certain events which constitute the eschatological drama of Jewish apocalyptic.
Jesus is at one with those of His Jewish contemporaries whose hope is not set on
a visionary political kingdom but who look for the Son of Man coming on the
clouds of heaven (Da. 7:13) . Even though the community, in its intoxication with
apocalyptic visions, might have made some addition, esp. in the so-called Synoptic
Apocalypse in Mk. 13 and par., there can be no doubt that Jesus spoke of eating
and drinking in the kingdom of God (Mk. 14:25 and par.). Nevertheless, the
decisive point is not that Jesus shared or even surpassed the ideas of his con-
temporaries in this respect. The decisive point is that He was far more reserved,
and consciously so. In contrast to genuine Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic,
He neither depicted the last things nor enumerated the signs. The scorn of the
Sadducees, who put before Him a problem implied in the apocalyptic and re-
surrection hopes which they rejected (as distinct from the Pharisees), was ir-
relevant (Mk. 12:25 f.). Particularly striking is His rejection of any enumeration
of sighs. In the Lucan story in Lk. 17:20 Jesus tells us that the divine kingship
does not come with observation, or with "external show," as Luther freely but
excellently translates o0 HET& TapatpoEd. One cannot say, Lo here! or,
Lo there ! for the reign of God is among you not "within you," as in the mis-
leading AV and Luther.
The whole point of this much quoted and much wrested saying is that we are not to
look for signs. The question whether there is an emphasis on the presence of the kingdom
 Bagela
of God at the moment of speaking is irrelevant, since in the original Aramaic there is
no copula "is" or "will be. It has also to be considered that the Syriac translation
demands a rendering back of the Greek Evtoc into the cognate Aramaic which would
give us "among you." The saying of Jesus concerning the dating of the day of the Son
of Man (Mt. 24:26 f.; cf. Lk. 17:23 f.) is in full agreement. Those around Jesus had
very different views of the signs and nature of the kingdom of God. Thus the sons of
Zebedee, or their mother, ask concerning the best places in the kingdom, and Jesus
answers that this is a matter for God alone (Mk. 10:40 = Mt. 20:23). The apostolic
preaching of Paul also agrees, as in R. 14:17, where he tells us that the kingdom of
God dces not consist in eating and drinking etc.

Jesus was also more reserved in another respect. Even where national and
political hopes were not to the fore, but salvation was expected for the whole
world in the last time, His contemporaries still thought it important that there
should be a place of privilege for Israel. Israel was to arise with new glory, and
the scattered tribes, and indeed the Gentiles, were to stream towards the new
Jerusalem. Jesus shares this hope. He gives to His disciples, the twelve, as re-
presentatives of the twelve tribes of the people of God, the holy people, judicial
and administrative office in the reign of God (Mt. 19:28 - Lk. 22:29 f.). But like
the Baptist Jesus also emphasises the negative fact that the Jew as such has no
particular claim before God. In the day of judgment he can and will be ashamed
in face of the Gentiles. The role of the Jew is viewed as it was later by Paul
(R.2: the rejection of Israel; R.9-11: the salvation of Israel). This concern for
Israel is not directed against Rome. In this respect we should compare the Jewish
Shemone Esre and its fervent nationalism with the Lord's Prayer and its complete
absence of any such particularism. Similarly, immanence is never preached at the
expense of transcendence in the proclamation of the kingdom of God. The kingdom
of God is beyond ethics. To orientate oneself by ethics is to think of the in-
dividual. In Jesus and the apostles, however, the individual does not stand under
the promise as an individual. It is the community which stands under the promise ;
the individual attains to salvation as its member.
The proclamation of the kingdom is misunderstood if we overlook these dif-
ferences from Judaism. It is completely misunderstood, however, if we conceive
of the differences in Greek terms. The Greek view, mostly followed to-day, sees in
man a self-evolving character in which the bodily and sensual element withers
and the spiritual grows. Individualism cannot be replaced by universalism. This
ideal is alien to Jesus and His apostles, as also to later antiquity. To see the pro-
clamation of the kingdom of God in the context of this popular philosophy is to
sublimate it, substituting a refined humanism for the phantasy of human apocalyptic
and visionary political aspirations. Where God breaks in with His kingdom, where
God speaks and acts, no training of the soul, no mysticism, no ecstaticism, can
give access to Him. The cruder Jewish conceptions of heaven and hell make quite
impossible the subtler human possibilities of communion with God imagined by
the Greeks. Anthropomorphic concepts of God and His kingdom do far less
violence to God the Lord in His supraterrestrial majesty than a sublime philosophy.
It has also to be considered that expressions like supraterrestriality, transcendence,
cosmic catastrophe or miracle lose their point if they are used to fashion a higher
world. The negative point that the kingdom of God is a miracle must be main-
tained in its strict negativity. For this negative, i.e., that the kingdom of God is
wholly other, that it is absolutely above the world and distinct from it, is the
most positive thing that could be said of it. The actualisation of the rule of God
Bacilela

is future. And this future determines man in his present. The call for conversion
comes to the man who is set before God and His rule. Where man responds to
this call in faith, i.e., in obedience, he is in touch with the kingdom of God which
comes without his co-operation, and the Gospel is glad tidings for him.
e. Many terms are used to show how man comes to have dealings with this
kingdom. The basic note is that he receives it as the gift of God. God gives His
kingdom : E086KnoEV o mathp ouov Boovai duiv thy Baoielav (Lk. 12:32).
Jesus Christ promises the confessing Peter : 8aw oo Tac kAelbac ths Bacilelac
tov oipaviov (Mt. 16:19). The kingdom is taken from the obdurate Jews and
given to believers : apeñoetal do' ouv i BacilEla TOU 0EOU Kal S00 hoEtaL
EOvEL TOLOUUTL TOUG KApTOUC aiTic (Mt. 21:43) . Christ makes over the kingdom
as the Father has made it over to Him: SiT(0qual Quiv KaOdc 81E0ET6 pot o
Tamp uou Baoielav (Lk. 22:29). God calls Christians into His kingdom and
glory: TO0 0e00 TOU KaLOUVTOS JUAC EIG Th ÉaUToO Bacilav Kai 86gav
(1 Th. 2:12). God has set us in the kingdom of the Son of His love: LETÉOTNOEV
Elc thy Bacilelav TOU ulou tis dyains autot (Col. 1:13). Believers are made
worthy of the kingdom of God: Kata&, 1w0ñval ouac The Bacielas TOU 0E00
(2 Th. 1:5) . The Lord will deliver believers into His heavenly kingdom pu-
geTaI LE 6 kupioc O FEI EIC THU BaalElav aiToU Thy ETtoUp&viov (2 T'm.
4:18). God has promised His kingdom : Érnyyel^ato (Jm. 2:5). God does not act
like the Pharisees who presume to close the kingdom to men ovat. 8TI KAElETE
thy Bacilelav tiv oipaviv furpoodEv tOv avepOn (Mt. 23 cf. Lk.
11:52). To these expressions there correspond many correlatives on the side of
the believer. He receives the kingdom of God like a child: 8c ov un SÉEntau
Thy Bacilelav tOU 0e0t oc Tta18lov (Mk. 10:15 Lk. 18:17). Joseph of
Arimathea is in the attitude of one TpOO EXOLEVOS Thy BaGElav TOU 0EOT
(Mk. 15:43 = Lk. 23:51). Similarly rapa^auB&vELV at Hb. 12:28. Especially
common, and corresponding to the Suaikn of the kingdom of God, is the ex-
pression kinpovoueiv, e.g., in Mt. 25:34; 1 C. 6:9, 10; 15:50; G1. 5:21; also EXEL
kAnpovoulav Ev in Bacielq in Eph. 5:5 and xAnpovouous the Bacilelac
in Jm. 2:5. To be thus distinguished by God is to see the kingdom. Some are
privileged to see it before their death (Mk. 9:1 and par.). Only the regenerate is
worthy of this vision (Jn. 3:3). Particularly common, too, is the idea of entering
the kingdom: EloépyEo0al or ElToD&U Oa in Mt. 5:20; 7:21; 18:3 and par.;
19:23 f. and par.; 23:13, cf. Lk. 11:52; Mk. 9:47; In. 3:5; Ac. 14:22; Eloodoc in
2 Pt. 1:11. In this connection we should also refer to the passages which speak of
Ev in Bagela. .. (Mt. 5:19; 8:11 Lk. 13:28 f.; Mt. 11:11 = Lk. 7:28; Mt. 13:43;
18:1. 4; 20:21; 26:29 and par.; Lk. 14:15; 22:16, 30; 23:42 [alternative reading :
Elcl; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 1:9). The publicans and harlots will go into the kingdom
before the self-righteous Pharisees: rpoayouowv ouas Elc thy Baoielav ToU
0E00 (Mt. 21:31). The Jews should be viol tis Baolelas (Mt. 8:12), but because
of their hardness of heart they are not (cf. Mt. 13:38). The scribe who is con-
cerned for the cause of God is o0 uakpav ato tis Baailelas TOU 0EOD (Mk.
12:34). The true scribe, as God will have him, is uaen teu0eic m Bao ela TOV
oupaviov (Mt. 13:52). Whosoever truly decides for God is EU0ETOS In Barrelq
TOU OEOU (Lk. 9:62) . If this is so, there is an appeal for true concern for the cause
of God. Like the fellow-workers of Paul, we should be auvepyoi Els thy Baat-
lelay TOU 0E06 (Col. 4:11). It should be noted that the text does not say : ouvep-
you this Baoielas. Thus in spite of the phrase there is no real synergism.
 Bacilela

Since, however, faith is obedience to the command of God, our concern and
effort are demanded. Through faith we should fight for the kingdom of God like
the elect under the old covenant : &1d Tloteds Katywvloavto Baoilel (Hb.
11:33). In short, we should seek earnestly the divine rule : gnteite Ttp otov
th Baoielav (Mt. 6:33 - Lk. 12:31). This gnteiv is rather different from the
) Blaleolal and * apiaElv of Mt. 11:12 Lk. 16:16. To whom does the
kingdom of God belong? To whom is it allotted and assigned? To the poor (in
spirit) according to Mt. 5:3 (= Lk. 6:20); to those who are persecuted for right-
eousness' sake according to Mt. 5:10; to children according to Mt. 19:14 and par.
These passages make it plain how great and inexpressible is the decision required
of us. The invitation to the kingdom of God must be accepted in uetavola. For
the sake of it all the other things of this world, its riches and fame, must be
abandoned. We are not to be like those invited to the wedding who pleaded all
kind of obstacles (Mt. 22:1-14 = Lk. 14:16-24). Again there are various parables
which emphasise this with particular sharpness. For the sake of the kingdom of
God, which is like the treasure hid in a field or the goodly pearl for which all else
will be exchanged (Mt. 13:44-46), we must pluck out the treacherous eye or cut
off the treacherous hand (Mt. 5:29 f.). The most startling saying is that we must
reflect that many have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of
God (Mt. 19:12).

In contrast to isolated instances such as that of Origen in the early Church, this is
not to be taken as a moral injunction but as a striking and arresting call to consider
what it implies to take seriously the divine dominion, namely, that it may even demand
self-emasculation, which is here neither praised nor blamed, and certainly not praised.
This interpretation is preferable to the weaker, though not impossible, suggestion that
some men, like John the Baptist and Jesus Himself, voluntarily renounce the sexual life.

At any rate, true regard for the kingdom of God requires the most serious
decision, the most serious weeding out of the few from the many (Mt. 22:14).
A sharp alternative demands a pitiless decision. "No man, having put his hand to
the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62). This
decision is no mere matter of enthusiasm. It is not taken in a wave of emotion.
It is a matter for cool and sober consideration, as when an architect makes his
plans before beginning to build or a king considers his strategy before going to
war (Lk. 14:28-32). Those who are invited by God to His kingdom must reflect
whether they can really accept the invitation. Those who do so without realising
what it implies, or who hear without obeying, are like a man building his house
on sand (Mt. 7:24-27 = Lk. 6:47-49). Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord!"
will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but those who do the will of God (Mt.
7:21). Supreme readiness for sacrifice is demanded, even to the point of sacrifice
of self, or of hatred of one's own family (Mt. 10:37 = Lk. 14:26). Who is really
capable of this? Who judges that he obeys God thus? No one but Jesus Christ
Himself.

f. This brings us to the clamant question of the special and particularly close
connection between the kingdom of God and Jesus Christ Himself. It is not merely

79 Cf. the sayings about the strait gate and the broad way in Mt. 7:13 f. = Lk. 13:23 f.
Baoela

that in speaking of the kingdom of God we also speak of that of Christ (-* 581 f.).
Certain passages presuppose the actual identity of the kingdom with Christ. Thus
in Mk. 11:10 the coming kingdom of our father David is extolled, but Mt. 21:9
and Lk. 19:38 refer only to the person of Jesus Christ (in par. with Mk. 11:9).
Even more plain is the Synoptic comparison of EVEKEV ÉuoU KAL EVEKEV TOU
EdXyyEAlou (Mk. 10:29), Eveko tol guot ovouatoc (Mt. 19:29) and ELVEKEV
tie Bacelac TOU Beou (Lk. 18:29). The name and message of Jesus Christ, or
Jesus Christ Himself, are thus equated with the kingdom of God. This equation
goes rather beyond the identification of the Son of Man as a representative of
the people of God. While Mk. 9:1 (= Lk. 9:27) speaks of the coming of the
kingdom of God in power, the parallel passage in Mt. 16:28 speaks of the coming
of the Son of Man with His kingdom. Christians wait for this Son of Man and
Lord as for the kingdom of God itself ; e.g., Mt. 25:1 and Lk. 12:35 f. As parallel-
isms we have : Eayye^ ouavg rEpi this BaoiElac tou 8E00 kai too ovouatoc
'Inoot Xplorot (Ac. 8:12) and : knpuoowv thy Baci elav TOU GEt kal ot-
8&aKOV to TEpi Too kuplou 'Inoot Xplotoi (Ac. 28:31). Cf. also the parallel-
ism: i Baoela TOU OEOU nuov kai n kgouola tot xplotot airou (Rev. 12:10).
There is thus linguistic support for the obvious material fact that for Jesus the
invading kingdom of God has come into time and the world in His person, as
expressed by John in the statement 6 Abyos axpE ÉyEVETO (In. 1:14). What is
still to come and is still awaited by the Christian is only in Jesus Christ a onuepov
(Lk. 4:21; cf. Mt. 11:5 f. - Lk. 7:22) . 80 It is on this decisive fact of the equation
of the incarnate, exalted and present Jesus Christ with the future kingdom of God
that the christological Khpuyua depends with its understanding of the mission of
the Messiah as a aTae, or Éoataé event, as a unique event which cannot be
repeated, as once and for all ( 381 ff.). Christ &TEOavEV EO&TIaE, (R. 6:10, cf.
Hb. 6 ff.; Pt. 3:18). If we seek a brief formula in which to comprehend this
equation, there suggests itself the distinctive aitoBaciela of Origen (in Mt.
tom. XIV, 7 on Mt. 18:23 [III, p. 283, Lommatzsch]), 81 though not necessarily
Origen's own understanding of it. 82 Before Origen Marcion in his emphatic
Panchristismus 83 had said : In evangelio est dei regnum Christus ipse (Tert. Adv.
Marc., IV, 33 [III, p. 532, 6 f.]).* Jesus Christ alone obeyed the Law and be-
lieved (cf. Phil. 2:5 fF.), both preaching the word of the kingdom of God and
doing miracles as its signs (Mt. 11:2 ff. Lk. 7:18 ff.).
We can thus see why the apostolic and post-apostolic Church of the NT did
not speak much of the Bacela TOU OE00 explicitly, but always emphasised it
implicitly by its reference to the kopioc 'Inoouc Xpiotoc. It is not true that it
now substituted the Church (- Éxknola) for the kingdom as preached by Jesus
of Nazareth. On the contrary, faith in the kingdom of God persists in the post-
Easter experience of Christ.

80 Cf. G. Kittel, "Das innerweltliche Reich Gottes in der Verkundigung Jesu" ThB1, 6
(1927), 122
81 So P. Feine, Theol. d. NT1 (1910), 100 (6[1931], 80); Kittel Probleme, 130 f.
82 Cf. R. Frick, Die Geschichte des Rech-Gottes-Gedankens in der alten Kirch bis zu
Origenes u. Augustin (1928), 101, n. 2.
Cf. A. v. Harnack, Marcion2 (1924), 223 ff.
84 It is justly observed by R. Frick (op. cit., 52, n.1) that there are no good grounds for
deleting Christus ipse as a scribal error.
 Bacilela - BaolAloog - BadLAEUG

4. As the NT witness is plain and unequivocal in relation to the aito Baciela

of Christ, it is understandably reserved in its linking of the Bacilela TOU OE00
with Christian believers. The only relevant verse in this connection is Rev. 1:6:
Christ Énoinoev quas Baoilelav. 85 It hardly need be shown or proved, however,
that in this verse Christians may be understood as Bao ela only in a derivative
sense, i.e., as linked with Christ.

t Bacillooa.
The "queen" of the south, of Sheba, a heathen ruler who will confront the
impenitent Jews on the day of judgment because she came from the ends of the
earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon (Mt. 12:42; Lk. 11:31). The Ethiopians
have laid claim to this queen 86 (cf. Ac. 8:27). 87 Her antithesis is the great harlot
Babylon which is enthroned as a queen and is judged (Rev. 18:7).

t BaoilEUG.
This word, meaning "to be king, "to reign," is used with the emphatic article
of the BaGLAEUC Jesus Christ (-* 577 f.) and of the Baoiebs God (- 579).
Christ BaciAE/oEL fml rov olkov 'Iakob Elg Touc alovac (Lk. 1:33). With more
restricted reference to the rule of God Himself we read in 1 C. 15:25: Set autov
(sc. Xplorov) BaoilevElv axpi o6 en mdvias tous Exop s dc
aito0. Rev. 11:15 speaks of God and His Anointed as rulers to all eternity. God's
rule in the past and the future is often treated in Rev., cf. 11:17 and 19:6. With
Him will reign those who are called by Him (Rev. 5:10). They will reign with
Christ in the millennial kingdom (Rev. 20:4,6). They will reign to all eternity
(Rev. 22:5). This specific emphasis on the rule of Christians with Christ is
probably present also in C. 4:8, where Paul says ironically : xopic nuov #Baot-
AEU aTE (behind nuov we see the apostle of the Gospel as the one commissioned
by Christ). The following wish : kal 60EA6v YE #PAOLAEUCXTE iva Kai queic
TUV Ouiv ouuBao AEUOLEV, points us to the goal of Christian hope anticipated
by the Corinthians in egotistic arrogance. Linked with the thought of the Christian
reigning with Christ is that of his reigning through Him (R. 5:17).
Grace as the gift of Christ rightly occupies the place of rule (R. 5:21) when
the usurpers death and sin are destroyed (R. 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12).

Alongside this specialised use there is also reference to the reign of Archelaus in
Mt. 2:22, to reigning monarchs in 1 Tm. 6:15 and to the rule of men among themselves
in Lk. 19:14, 27.

85 We may take it that this text a quotation from the OT - is more certain than the
alternatives Baolslov or Baotdeic.
86 KI. Mt., ad loc.
87 Cf. S. Losch, "Der Kammerer der Konigin Kandake (Apg. 8:27)," Theol. Quart., 111
(1930), 477-519.
auuBaGi EUG - BaalAEIOS - BaciAlk6s Baol ela

t FuLBaGLAEU0.
It has already been mentioned that as a reigning together the reigning of
Christians stands under a oov (Xpioto), 1 C 4:8. This rule implies service,
obedience and patience : El inou€vouev, xal auuBaGi EUGO EV (2 Tm. 2:12).

$ BacilEio©.
This word, meaning "royal," is found in an uncertain reading in Mt.11:8
(- 577), better attested in the parallel Lk. 7:25 : to BaolEia, in the sense of the
royal palace or royal palaces. In the rich and pregnant saying at 1 Pt. 2:9, Baol-
AELOV LEPITEVLa is the expression, deriving from the LXX, for n"b nabpp in
Ex. 19:6, cf. Ex. 23:22. The reference here might be to the priesthood as invested
with royal dignity. But the Hebrew text has Israel in view as the people whose
king is God. Perhaps BaolAEIOS is meant in a rather weaker sense at 1 Pt. 2:9
to signify royal priesthood in the manner in which one speaks of royal service.
It must certainly be considered, as we have shown above, that in the case of
men a Bao EX ETVAI Or BaTLAEUELV does not denote an inherent quality; we
are to understand it rather as a ouuBaotAEUElV with God and His Christ. The
logical subject of the Ékkinola as the BaalElOV lEp&TEUua is God who calls
and Christ through whom the call comes.

+ Bacillkoc.
Having the same meaning "royal" (v. Ac. 12:20 f.), this word is not so common
as BaolAElos; yet it is more common in the NT.
Theologically important is Jm. 2:8 : vouov TEAEITE Bao1AlKov. The phrase vouos
BaoiAlk6c is a common literary expression, esp. in ancient philosophy (e.g., Philo
passim). It signifies the law as given by the BacAEUc. This controls access to
him, and it thus invests with royal dignity, though extending beyond, e.g., mere
differences in rank (cf. the whole tenor of James). More generally it might refer
to the predominant significance of law. Yet it is better to give it the more specific
sense and thus to see in it a reference to God as the BacAEUs who makes law. 88

In In. 4:46, 49 the concrete sense of Baciltkoc is debatable. 88 The probable reference
is to a royal official. The variant BaoAlaKoG, supported by D itvar, would denote a
petty king.

F. BarLEia (TOU 0E0D) in the Early Church. 90

Relationship between the statements concerning the kingdom of God in the post-
apostolic fathers and those in the NT is first established by the presence of certain

88 Dib. Jk., ad loc.; Wnd. Jk., ad loc.

89 Bau. Jn.3, ad loc.
$0 For Bacileus in the post-apostolic fathers, y 579.
 Baoeia
quotations, such as Mt. 5:3, 10 or Lk. 6:20 in Pol., 2, 3; Mt. 6:10 in Did., 8, 2; 1 C. 6:9 f.
(cf. Eph. 5:5) in Ign. Eph., 16, 1; Ign. Phld., 3, 3; Pol., 5, 3.
The usage in relation to the kingdom of God is in general the same as in the NT.
Baoiela ToU Xpioto0 is often used as well as Bacilela TOU 0:00, e.g., in 1 CI., 50, 3;
2 Cl., 12, 2; Barn., 4, 13; 7, 11; 8, 5 and 6; Mart. Pol., 22, and 3. Baolela also occurs
in the absolute in CI., 61, 1; 2 CI., 5, 5. Among direct attributes we may mention
alovioc in Mart. Pol., 20, 2; oupavios in Mart. Pol., 22, 3 ; Éntoupavios in Mart.
Pol. epil., 4. With regard to synonym's it is to be noted that in 2 Cl., 5, 5 the ÉnayysAia
TOU XploT0i is understood as the dvatauais this ueAlouons Baoteias Kal gons
aloviou. That the MÉMEIV #pyeo0at refers to the kingdom of God may be seen also
in 1 Cl., 42, 3. There are many ways of stating the manner in which man comes to have
dealings with this kingdom. The basic thought of the NT remains : he receives it as
God's gift. It is said of God : É8wKac Thy Égouglav tis Baot sias (1 CI., 61, 1); thy
Éy oipavi BacElav Ennyyellato kal SwaEl toic ayatnoaal aitov (Dg., 10, 2) ;
He can tovtas juas sloayayeiv Elc Thy aitot Baoelav (Mart. Pol., 20, 2);
prayer is made to Him: ouvayento FOU n EKkAnoia &TO TOV TEPATOV ths yrs
Eic thy onv Baailelav (Did., 9, 4; cf. 10, 5) ; or it is said of Christ: iva Kaua ouva-
yayn sis thy Baarelav aito0 (Mart. Pol., 22, 3). As in the NT there are on man's
side many correlatives to this mode of expression. The believer receives, encounters,
sees and inherits the kingdom of God ; he dwells, is found and is glorified in it; he
enters into it: ÉEk6Éyeo0al (2 Cl. 12, 1); &TTEal (Barn., 7, 11); 6pav (Herm. s.,
9, 15, 3); KAnpovousiv (Ign. Eph., 16, 1; Ign. Phld., 3, 3); KaTOLKEiv (Herm. s., 9, 29, 2);
§opE0ñval (Herm. s., 9, 13, 2) ; bogar0ivai (Barn., 21, 1); gpxeo0au (2 C1., 9, 6);
EloÉpXeo0a1 (Herm. s., 9,12, 3; 4; 5; 8; 15, 2, 3; 16, 2; 3; 4; 20, 2; 3; Dg., 9,1); Eion KEIV
(2 Cl., 11, 7).
In this usage the post-apostolic fathers are wholly at one with the NT. 91 The final
coming will take place with the return of Christ (1 CI., 50, 3). The entry of the Christian
is linked with the sacrament (Herm. s., , 16, 2) and good works (2 CI., 6, 9). The
ethical imperative is strongly underlined: fov oov nolñowuev thy Sikaloouvny Evav-
TOV TOU OEOU ELOnEOuEV Els Thy Baci siav aitou (2 Cl., 11, 7); 8 yap tauta
(sc. ta Sikal@uata toi kupiou) TOLV Ev th Bactela t00 GEOl BOExo0joetal
(Barn., 21, 1). To this there corresponds the stress on the thought of judgment in hope
of the kingdom of God (cf. 2 Cl., 17, 5). It is decisive, however, that God Himself
brings in the kingdom and that He calls believers in Christ: Elc thy Bao giav ToU
BEo0 & Ac EloEAOEiv 00 SUVAT&L &VOPOTOS EL un 81d Too ovouatoc tou ulou
autoo tou nyannuÉvou oT' ato6 (Herm. s., 9, 12, 5; cf. 9, 12, 8). While there is
here formal and verbal agreement with the NT, in contrast to the preaching of Jesus
Christ and His apostles the coming of the kingdom is now made dependent on the
conduct of the community, as in 2 Cl., 12, 2 ff., where the Lord is asked: TOTE REEL
autou i Bacilela, and answers : 8tov €otal Ta 800 Ev, kai TO HEW OC TO Eod,
KaL TO &POEV LETO tic OnAsias OUTE &POEV OUTE ORAU. The saying here pre-
supposed is also found in the apocryphal Egypt. Ev. and denotes an ethicising of the
idea of the kingdom of God in the direction of an ascetic and dualistic ethics of per-
fection. In Herm. the coming of the kingdom of God does not depend on man, but
entry into it is linked with a specific degree of moral perfection. In this connection
faith and the moral life are not completely divorced, but they are certainly distinguished.
In the catalogue of virtues in Herm. s., 9, 15, 2 ff. Éyxpoteia and other moral qualities
are mentioned after TloTIc. 92

91 Cf. R. Frick, op. cit., 27-35.

92 Cf. on this pt., E. Fuchs, Glaube und Tat in den Mandata des Hirten des Hermas
(Diss. Marburg, 1931).
Baot ela

The post-apostolic writings are not clear in relation to the distinction between the
kingdom and the Church, which is SO characteristic of the NT. In Barn. the kingdom is
a purely eschatological magnitude ; hence it cannot be the Church. It is a distinctive
feature of Barn. that in 8,5 f. the beginning of the reign of Christ is set at the cross:
n Baoeia 'Inoou Eri guAou, and that in a way which is almost chiliastic days of
conflict and misfortune are spoken of even in the kingdom of Christ : €v tn Bacileia
a tou quapai goovtal rovn pal kai putapai, gv alc nueic owlnoouela. While the
eucharistic prayer in the Did. distinguishes plainly between the kingdom and the EK-
KAnoia which Christ gathers into His kingdom, the distinction has faded in 2 Cl., 14, 3
to the extent that the ÉKkAnoia must be received like the Baot ela TOU 0EOU. Similarly
the two approximate closely in Herm.
Influenced by the metaphysics of Plato and the ethics of the Stoics, the Christian
Apologists 93 make little use of the concept of the kingdom of God. In so far as they
have an eschatology, it is dominated by the idea of the perfection of the individual
Christian. The conception of God asserting a claim to lordship over man with His
kingdom is alien to them. The Christian has the task of imitating God and striving
towards him ; he hopes for the Bao ela uETo 0E00 (Just. Apol., I, 11, 1). The ÉTou-
pavioc Baaleia is conceived by Athen. Suppl., 18, 1 and 2 as the Creator's power
over everything that happens. Yet neither in Athen. nor the Apologists is the idea
common. Justin uses the word Bagela chiliastically of the millennium, but does not
distinguish this clearly from the eternal kingdom. The kingdom is promised as an
eternal reward for the righteous, and is the opposite of the torments of hell (Just. Dial.,
117, 3); BaoAelav KAnpovousiv means the same as ta alovia kal aplapta kAnpo-
VOMEiV (Just. Dial., 139, 5). As distinct from these isolated references, there is frequent
mention of the BaorEla TOU 0EOU in the quotations in Justin's Dialogue and Apology.
OT sayings and Aby1a 'Inoot are quoted to clarify the relation between promise and
fulfilment and to give point to the demand of God on man. who will then be rewarded.
Yet this link with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles is more formal than material.
The starting-point is not the efficacy of divine grace, but the freedom for virtuous
living in connection with the claim to reward. Thus the theological and philosophical
work of the Apologists makes an ambiguous impression. On the one side, Greek con-
cepts of immortality, eternal life and knowledge are more important than the biblical
concept of the BacilEia TOU 0E0U. On the other, the words of Jesus and the apostles,
even though they are only quoted and not fully explored, preserve the Christian teaching
from transmutation into religious philosophy.
This introduces us to the theme of further development in ecclesiastical and theological
history. 94 The one-sided ethicising of the thought of the kingdom of God is accompanied
from the 2nd cent. onwards by a one-sided eschatologising expressed as popular religion
in the early Christian apocalypses with their Gnostic trend (cf. Asc. Is., 4 Esr., Sib.), in
stories of martyrdom and especially in burial inscriptions and pictures in the catacombs.
As against this, Greek philosophical thinking becomes predominant in Clement of Alex.,
as in the Apologists ; the Baoiela concept of this religious philosopher is in terms of
Platonism and Stoicism. It is striking that Clement turns to Stoic definitions in this field
(Strom., II, 4, 19, 3 f.). Faith in gradual progress (⅞poxorh) replaces the biblical con-
ception of the last judgment. Similarly in Origen, in spite of the formally excellent term
autoBaoAela (- 589), there is almost no place at all for the biblical message of
the kingdom of God. As distinct from this Greek mode of thought predominant in the
East, the Latin theology of the West believes in the active realisation of the kingdom
of God on earth ; this development finds its climax in the identification of the kingdom
with the Church as found in Augustine.
Karl Ludwig Schmidt

93 Cf. R. Frick, op. cit., 35-45.

94 ]bid., 73 ff.
 Backalvo

+ Baakaivo

Denominative construction of Baakavoc1 ("defamatory," "bewitching"), which is

linked with (BaaKo 1 and) Batw.3 The original meaning, (cf. the related fascinare,
root fa(ri), though the connection with Backalvo is not wholly clear) 2 is "to do
hurt to someone through unfavourable words.' According to the sense in which this was
taken in the ancient world (-* 8voua), the damage might be the result of envious
praise or of denigration. These could have the same effect as direct witchcraft. Hence
we have three senses a. "to bewitch," b. "to revile" and c. "to envy." 4 So far as
concerns a., there came to be added to the original meaning that of harm through hostile
looks, so that a. denotes "specifically the simple but all the more sinister" witchcraft
"exercised through hostile looks or words," even though it might be unintentional.' It
thus indicates amongst other things a harmful magic exercised independently of the
subjective will and with no particular technique.
The ancient world, except in so far as better instructed by the philosophical enlighten-
ment, & was conscious of being surrounded by invisible and hostile beings which sought
power over it. A particular way of attaining this was by the naming of the name
(- *voua). This in why in letters the writer adds to the name of those he greets, or
whose greetings he sends on, an XBaaKaVToUs (-01), or to the wish an ABaakavioc
(e.g., P. Oxy., II, 300, 9 [1st cent. B.C.]: daTaYou [five names are given] tous
&Baak& tous; or for the latter, cf. P. Oxy., III, 930, 23 : &ana(ovtal DE kal ro
aBaakavia Tai&la ...).8 We should thus render: "Heaven preserve us !" In all
these cases, of course, it is not merely a question of magic through the evil eye but of
any bewitching or hurting through men or non-human forces. Hence it is clear that,

BaCkalvo. E. Kuhnert in Pauly-W., VI (1909), 2009 ff.; O. Jahn, Ber. Sachs.

Gesellsch. d. Wiss., 1855, 28 ff. has some good material, though mainly in relation to the
warding off of the evil eye.
Debr. Griech. Wortb., 109 (§ 219). Boisacq., s.v.; from Baoxavoc (which does not
occur).
2 I owe this to Debrunner. Acc. to Pass., s.v. Baax© = "I speak" is used only by
grammarians to deduce Baakalvo from it.
• Originally guttural; cf. fut. Batw, perf., pass. pÉBaktal - from BaKoKEIV (not
found). Boisacq, s.v. Ba(w.
4 Cf. the lexicons. Baakavoc is attested from the 5th cent. B.C., Baokavia since Plato,
Baokalvo since Aristotle.
Kuhnert, op. cit., 2009 on fascinari.
6 For reference to the superiority of the educated man over belief in the operation of the
Baakavos, though without support for the view, cf. Plut. Quaest. Conv., V. 1 (I1, 680c).
This closely related meaning is also to be found in Preisigke Wort., s.v. abaakavtos.
8 Where there is a list of those sending or receiving greetings, and children are included,
apaakavtoc seems (mostly ?) to apply to the children, since they are particularly en-
dangered (Plut. Quaest. Conv., V, 1 (II, 680de]). Cf. also P. Oxy., IX, 1218, 11; VIII,
1159, 27; P. Giess., 23, 10; 25, 3; BGU,714, 11; 811, 4. The application can be so fully to
children that even in the gen. &Baakavia may denote children without TÉKva or rai8la.
Is a child meant also in P. Giess., 76, 8? Or why is Heracleides alone thought of with an
apotropaic wish
This is the rendering selected by Preisigke, op. cit.
Baakaivo

unless BaokalvElv is given this narrower sense by the context, it does not have to
denote the evil eye but may equally well refer to other means of harming by magic.
Thus in Aristot. Fr., No.271, p. 1527a, 29 we find the strange assertion that the
pigeon spits on its young three times after hatching out, oc un Baokavewou (this
is an attested means of protecting men against Baokaiveo0at, Theocr. Idyll., 6, 39).
Harm can also come from suspicious foods (Aristot. Probl., XX, 34, p. 926b, 20 ff.),
or from the breath, the sound of words or touch (Plut. Quaest. Conv., V, 1 [II, 680ef]).
It is to be noted, however, that BaokalvEly is never used of other magic which employs
certain external means that acquire magical power by conjuration. The magical power
of the Baakavoc lies always in his look or touch etc. This is the meaning of Plut.,
op. cit. (V, 3 [11, 681d]) when he describes BaokalvElV as primarily a psychical and
even bodily process. Of course, in popular belief the energy in question is not that of
the man himself ; it is suprahuman and often demonic. 10
That Backavia may be unintentional is shown, e.g., by belief in the unintentional
harming of children by parents endowed with the power of the Baokavoc (Plut.,
op. cit., V, 4 [II, 682a]), or of friends by one another (Heliodor. Aeth., III, 8) , or even
of the possibility that a man might aitov BaoKaIvEv (Plut., op. cit., 682b).
In the LXX it means only 'to be unfavourably disposed to" (even at Dt. 28:54, 56;
the only other instance is at Sir. 14:6, 8).

In the NT the word occurs only at Gl. 3:1 in the sense of "to bewitch" (by
words). This is not merely an exaggerated metaphor, for behind magic stands
the power of falsehood (-> yons) and this has been exercised by the tic (or
the group behind the ris) to do real harm to the voUc of the Galatians (avon-
Tou) . 12 This is certainly not to be understood in a naively realistic way as
mechanical magic. The dangerous feature is that the Galatians have willingly
yielded to these magicians and their influence without realising to what powers
of falsehood they were surrendering. The characteristic point of the Baakavia
is that it exerts its influence without extraordinary means.
Delling

10 We already have a rationalising view, differing from the popular conception, when
Plut., op. cit., II, 681 f. suggests that the bodily process of BaokalvelV (connected in Plut.
with the evil eye) receives its power from the underlying energy of soul.
11 Cf. the passages from Philo Praem. Poen., 25; Spec. Leg., I, 315; Praem. Poen., 8; Op.
Mund., 165, 2; Som., II, 40.
12 Or does avontot mean that like children those addressed have proved incapable of
resisting the Boakavor
 Baota(o

Baota(w
Found in the NT 27 times, 8 in Luke, often par. with alpo or ¢ÉpO. Relatively
rare in the LXX, the equivalent of NO: as Baotayua is of Nig. Corresponding Heb.
terms acc. to Schlatter are 320 and yv.1 The basic meaning is uncertain. 2 In the NT
it means a. "to lift up" (Jn. 10:31), b. "to bear away" (Jn. 20:15), "to pilfer" (Jn. 12:6;
cf. Jos. Ant., 1, 316 : Laban to Jacob : lep& TE Tatpia Baotaoac otxn).

Since carrying is an exertion of power and thus includes an exercise and ap-
plication of will, the word takes on ethical and religious significance, as in Epict.
Diss., III, 15, 9 : avepoe. Ti Suvacai Baotacai ; 3 The metaphor tov > otau-
pov Baotaca originally denotes the outward carrying of the cross by Jesus
(Jn. 19:17), then the personal attitude of the disciples (Lk. 14:27).4 Similarly
Euyov Baotooal at Ac. 15:10.5 Often the meaning is "to bear" (Jn. 16:12; R. 15:1;
G1. 5:10; 6:2, 5).¢ In -orlyuara Paota(o (G1. 6:17) Baota(@ means the same
as EXO "to have on oneself"; cf. Rev.7:2; 9:14; 13:17; 14:1; 16:2, where the
reference is to the bearing of the seal (sign) or name of God (or Christ) or
Antichrist. In Ac. 9:15 Baoracal to Svouc you is the service of the missionary
for Jesus, the steadfast confession of Him as the Lord. Here again Baotaoa is
very close to Eyelv. In spite of v. 16 there is no idea of a burden. 7
Biichsel

Baotalw. Pass., Preisigke Wort., s.v.; A. Schlatter, Sprache u. Heimat des 4 Evglst.
(1902), 132.
Op. cit., 111, 132, 139; Schl. J., 313. 226 originally means "to carry," though in the Rabb.
it often has the figur. sense of "to suffer" or "endure" (cf. Baota(elv in Jn. 16:12); used
of God in relation to the world it denotes His preserving, cf. Str.-B., III, 673 on Hb. 1:3.
190 means 1. trans. "to burden someone with something," figur. "to accuse or to engage
someone"; 2 intrans. "to be burdened with something,' "to bear,' cf. Baota(ewv (Jn. 19:17 -
not figur.).
The etymology does not help us. The first attested meaning is "to lift up." "To bear"
is derived from this, as with the Lat. tollere. The meaning "to take away" is Hellen. and
may have been influenced by the Lat. tollere.
Also in the pap., Preisigke Wort., s.v.
In magic the Mith. Liturg., 18,11: Baot&{ac KEVtPitIv, Reitzenstein Poim., 227: 000
8É TO TIVEDua BaTTaEas els atpa, Deissmann B., 270 : Baota&d Thy taony tou
'Oolpewc.
The expression Zuyov Baoraaal was traditional cf. Did., 62 : Baataoal 8Aov Tov
guyov tou kuplou and (uyov OTEVEYKEiV; Jos. Ant., 8, 213 and Schl. Mt. on 11:29;
also Lam. 3:27 etc. The Rabb. 319 32p (Schl., op. cit.; Dalman WJ, 1,80) is 8Éyeola
guyov and is thus to be distinguished from Baota(elv quyov. 22p = 6Éyeo0al denotes
the resolve to subject oneself to God's will; its opp. is 219 p70 (to throw off the yoke,
Dalman, op. cit.), whereas Baota(elv implies the constant attitude of submission.
Cf. already Is. 53:11 (A) and Is. 53:4 in Mt. 8:17.
7 8voua Baataaal also in Herm. s., 8, 10, 3 (of loyal confession as distinct from
apostasy); 9, 28, 5; similarly popeiv to &voua in s., 9, 13, 2 and 3 - "to confess oneself
a Christian"). Cf. also kek/nuÉvot To ovouati Kuplou in s. 8, 1, 1. Since it is in baptism
that the name of the Lord is first invoked over a man (Jm. 2:7), the Baota(ovtEs to
ovo a kuplou are the baptised (cf. W. Heitmuller, Im Namen Jesu [1903], 92, 297);
yet the reference to baptism is not essential in the formula.
Batta^0yEG

$ Battaloyid

This occurs only at Mt. 6:7 in the sense of "to babble." The non-Christian, and
non-Jew, thinks that by heaping up the names of God, of which he does not know
the true and relevant one, he can include the deity which will grant his request,
and that he can weary God this includes Jews too by constant repetition.
Jesus, on the other hand, advises a calm trust in the Father (= xpBa) who need
only be addressed as such and who will give all necessary things to His children
if they prove themselves to be such by praying first for His kingdom (6:33).

The attestation of this stem, even in substantive constructions, is so meagre that no

sure solution of the etymol. problem is possible. Batto oyÉw occurs in Epict. Ench., 37
(p. 340, Schweighauser), Vita Aesopi, 46, 21 Westermann, and in eccles. liter.; Batto-
Aoyia in Hesych.1 and the fathers; Barto/byos in the fathers and Corp. Gloss. Lat.,
III, 334, 13. Least likely are the solutions of Blass (and earlier scholars), 2 namely,
that we have a hybrid construction from Aoyo- and Syr. 302 (Aram. = "empty,
"vain"), thus giving PaTto oyEw, "to speak futilities"), and of Zahn and Schlatter : 3
"Branches of the Batta tree run together to signify futile exertion." The question which
has to be put to both these suggestions is whether such a saying would have arisen in
the Palestinian Gospel. Could the editor of Mt. expect the Greeks to grasp the meaning
of a semi-Semitic word ?
It must be granted that there is no satisfactory solution purely in Gk. terms. Hesych.
(s.v.) claims knowledge of a word Battoc which he renders "stammerer" or
"stutterer," but if in BartoloyEw we really have the addition of Aoy- to a stem
Batto-, it is hard to explain the vl. Battaloy- in Cod. x B. According to the available
material, the form Batta^- is the older. 3 The most probable solution is that, irrespective
of the rules of grammatical composition, Batra^oyéw has been constructed in analogy
with the better known Bartaplyw, "to stammer or stutter," in a free manner echoing the
common stem Aoy-; f there is certainly little doubt that both constructions are onomato-
poeic. 7 Such words sometimes defy exact linguistic analysis.
Delling

BaTtaloyEd. Bibl. in Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; Dausch Synpt.4, 122.

As suggested by Debrunner.
2 Since the 2nd. ed. of the Gramm., and still in B1.-Debr.8 (9 40), though Debrunner
later abandoned it.
Both on Mt. 6:7.
4 Debrunner has pointed out that Liddell-Scott have it, though elsewhere it occurs only
as a proper name.
5 Hence also in the Corp. Gloss. Lat., III, 73, 55 battalago (sic !) delero : Batta oyo
deliro (Debrunner).
This seems to be the view of Liddell-Scott, who simply compare it with Bartapizo
and render "to stammer, "to repeat the same thing again and again.
So Pass., Boisacq, S.v. Bartapi(o, and already Hesych., s.v. Bartapl(w. For this
reason no significance can be attached to the vi. Baroloyla in Hesych. Hence a connection
of the word with Bat(t)aloc is impossible, since in the grammars this is construed very
differently (cf. the lexicons). As shown by Debrunner, the same point emerges from
Aeschin., 2, 99 Demosthenes gv talol Wv EkAnon 8t aloxpoupylav Tivo kal
Kivai8lav Batalos: it thus denotes the paederast.
 BEA ooouaI

t Boeu ouai, t BrEuypa,

t BEEAUKTOC

From the basic stem with its sense of causing abhorrence. 1 BeAup6s and its
derivatives B8EAupEioual and B6eAupla are often found in the secular field to denote
an improper attitude, often in connection with such related expressions as ovaloxuvtos,
utap6c, Opaouc. In particular this word group denotes a shameless attitude. 2 Also
deriving from this stem are the words B8eAooouai, BoEAuyuia, p6ÉAuyua, BoE.
AUKT6c, BoeAuyuos; the last three are not found except in Jewish and Christian
literature ; 3 BEAoooual is a middle pass. with acc. in the sense of "to loathe,' "to
abhor," though it later takes on the more intensive meaning of "to censure" or "to
reject." 4
BEAup6c and its derivatives are not found in biblical usage, 5 but the word group
associated with BEA0oooual emerges the more strongly in the LXX. The act. form
seems to take on the sense of "to make abhorrent" or "to cause to be abhorred" (Ex.
5:21; Lv. 11:43; 1 Macc. 1:48) with the class. sense of the mid. and the further common
sense of "to abhor," "to reject," as also with the true pass. of "to come to be abhorred"
(Is. 49:7; 2 Macc. 5:8; Sir. 20:8). The perf. pass. has the sense of 'to be abhorrent or
unclean" (Hos. 9:10; Lv. 18:30; Job 15:16 [with &xa0aptoc]: Prv. 8:7; 28:9; Is. 14:19;
Macc. 6:9). There are also examples of the pass. in the sense of "to act abominably"
(3 Bao. 20:26; w 13:1; 52:1). Corresponding to the sense of "to abhor" is B6ÉAuyua,
"the subject of abhorrence, BEAUKt6C as a verbal adj. "'abhorrent," "unclean,"
BeAuyu6s (Na. 3:6) = Boeluktoc voul(eolau.

The constructions deriving from the stem BEAup- are not found in the Bible
because the Bible is not concerned to emphasise the abhorrent nature of things but
to describe in a plastic and anthropomorphic expression the attitude and judgment
of God in relation to things which He hates. Fundamental to the concept B6É-
Auyua, POEAUTTEOOaL in the LXX is the fact that God has a contrary mind and
rejects ; this is the guiding rule for the people Israel. In the legal parts of the Bible
the reference may be to things which are cultically (= aesthetically ?) "unclean,"
"repugnant" or "abhorrent," and especially to certain pagan things which are
particularly abominable to the God of the OT. Thus idols themselves (= op0)
may be called Bae byuata. This usage is found in the writing prophets ('Iep.
13:27; 39:35; 51:22; Ez. 5:9, 11; 6:9 etc.), but in them there is an extension which
makes B8ÉAuyua parallel to &voula (Jer. 4:1; Ez. 11:18; 20:30; Am. 6:8; w 5:7;
13:1; 52:1; 118:163; Job 15:16) . In the Wisdom literature this development leads
to the point where the opposition to paganism disappears and the word simply
denotes God's hostility to evil (Prv. 8:7; 11:1, 20; 12:22; 15:8 f., 26; 20:17; 21:27).

B8EAGaGouaI K TA. Cf. E. Kieckers, Indogerm. Forsch., 30 (1912), 190-192.

2 For examples, V, Liddell-Scott, s.v., esp. Aristoph. Ra., 465, Nu., 446, Demosth., 25, 27:
B&EAupoc kal avaions, similarly Aeschin., 1, 41.
3 BOEAUKTOS is present in B6EAOKTPOTOS.
4 Polyb., XXXIV, 14, 1: yEyOVOS Ev Tn TOAEI BOEAUTTETAL THV TOTE KOTAOTAOLV.
5 Cf. Philo Det. Pot. Ins., 95 : & tou BoeAupis kal doelyoc (nv altios.
 BEAuo oual

This mode of expression persists in the Rabbinic lit. (M. Ex. 20:21: 017p 239 2131 25
mayn ), 6 though the older usage is also found, cf. the reference to the command to
abstain from certain meats in terms of abhorring" them (bAZ, 66a bChul., 114b;
bShab., 145b apt 7551). The word group g9n is also used of those who are per-
manently or temporarily forbidden to marry (bNidd., 70a; jJeb., 4, 6b and bJeb., 11b;
in 44b 0100 $355 agn means abhorred by God.

In many passages of the Torah especially the question might be raised how
far there is perhaps a natural aesthetic as well as a religious element in the word
group b6EAuK-, 1 as, for example, when the eating of certain animals is described
as an abomination, or incest or pagan ways of life are called abominable. Probably
for the OT, which recognises God as the Creator of the world which is good,
the two elements are inseparable on profounder theological reflection, so that
even in respect of what is abhorrent the view of God is basic.

The word group B6EAUK- in the LXX 8 is a. a regular translation of the word group
59n (92 times). There are 6 exceptions in Jer., Ezr., Chr., Ez. and Prv. In Ez. the
word group gon occurs 44 times, and 30 times BEAUK- is not used ; dvou© and
derivatives are used in 24 of these. On 8 occasions out of 21 gyn is not rendered
B6EAUK- in Prv., axd0aptos, axa0apola are used 5 times. Again, b. B6EAUK- is
used relatively infrequently for certain Heb. terms for idols, along with other attempted
renderings such as slowov, yAurtov, yelporoin tov, udtaiov, Salubo, £v0vua,
filThoevua. c. It is used quite often for the word group Pp6 (9 times in Lv., 20 in
the prophets incl. Da., elsewhere only 3 times), along with such renderings as Ttpo-
coyflgelv, tpooox®ioua.
The LXX continued the extension of the term begun in the prophets, and helped
to liberate it from natural and aesthetic connections -> 598), partly by equating it with
ethical concepts like dvoula (for 7220, 599), and partly by pouring into it the purely
ethical content acquired by magin especially in Prv. (> 598), and thus giving it a
completely new orientation. This is particularly plain in Sir. 15:13, where the LXX has
Tav BÉAuyua for the double term 92901 799. As an expression of the dualistic anti-
thesis between the will of God and that of man, B6ÉAuyua can also denote the re-
pugnance of the ungodly to the will of God (Prv. 29:27; Sir. 1:25; 13:20).

In the use of the word group BeAuK- in the OT. there is reflected some part
of the obligation of Israel to separate itself from everything pagan in the natural
life of the people. In the NT this conflict is loosed from its national and natural
foundation. Hence the word is not much used. At R. 2:22: 6 BEEAUGOOUEVOC
To EISWA LEPOOUEIC, there is correspondence to the secular use, though also
a hint of paganism. In Rev. we are more in the sphere of OT and Rabbinic usage,
as shown by the fact that BOeAoyuata in 17:4 f. are "abominations linked with
heathenism," and by the similar allusion in 21:8: toic 8t Beiloic kai a latoic
Kal &B8EAUYLÉVOIC kal povedaw kal ropvois kai papuakoic kal Elowlol&-
tpais kai ndolv TOIC WEUSEOWV TO uÉpOS gy th Aluvn and 21:27: Tav
Koloy kai 6 TOIGV B8ÉAuyua Kal WETSOg In Tt. 1:16: BREAUKTOl BUtES kai

8 Schl. Lk., 379.

7 The use of 117} in relation to idols (2 Ch. 29:5) would be similar.
8 What follows is according to Bertram,
 BEAU GouaL = Be Baloc

&TELGEIs, the reference is more general. Jesus follows the prophetic use and that of
the Wisdom literature in Lk. 16:15 : To €v dvepoous dundov B8É uy a EVOTtLOV
TOU 0:06. While B6ÉAUyua has here its very concrete significance, and thus
denotes the object of the strongest (because natural) aversion among men, it also
serves to express the reaction of the holy will of God to all that is esteemed
among men ; it thus breaks quite free from the natural and aesthetic and also the
cultic connotation.
In Mk. 13:14 and par.: Stay 8e tontE tO BÉuYua ths épnudosws fomkota
oTtou 00 BET, the expression B6ÉAuyua Épnudoeos is taken from Da. 12:11,
where it denotes the desecration of the temple by an image or altar of Zeus. It
thus refers to Antichrist, as shown by the masc. construction and a comparison
with 2 Th. 2:3 f.
Foerster

* BÉBaios, T BEBO16W
t BEBaiwous

A. BÉBaioc KtA. outside the NT.

BÉBaioc 2 means "standing firm on the feet," "steadfast," "maintaining firmness or
solidity,' "steadfast for Thuc., IV, 67: kal toic Tov 'Aenvalov onAitaic fnl-
DEPOLEVOIS BeBalous tas TUlac tapÉoyov. Hence "firm" in the sense of having
inner solidity. 3 In respect of abstract things and persons BÉBaioc thus comes to mean
"steady," "sure," "reliable" "steadfast," or "certain." Xenoph. Hier., 3, 7; BeBai6tatal
orAlat; Stob. Ecl., IV, 625, 2 : BeBalotÉpav EXE ThU oiAlav mtpoc toug yoveis; Plut.
Anton., 3 (I, 917a): Xua kal Thy 880v donali to otpatE uaT Kal Thy EATida
ths vikns to otpamyo BÉBaiov; Pseud.-Isoc., 1,36 : Thv ttap' ékelvoy £ volav
BEBalotéparv EXELV; Philo Quaest. in Ex. 2:45 DC AKOVTOs EIC BeBaLotaty Tlotlv
TOv MEAAOVTWV VOUOTE{Elolau; Plant., 82 : 81d toGe' 8pkos Ovouaoon tp00-
QuEaTaTa TO THOTEWG BEBalotais aluBoov uaptupa DEO0 TrEpIEyOUoNs;
Epict. Diss., II, 11, 20: dBefaly obv tivi Bappeiv g§iov; O0. un t obv BÉBalov
i noovn; IV, 13, 15: 8e1gov Hol GEQUTOV notov, alonuova, BÉfalov, SEiEov 8TL
66yuata EXEIS oiAik&. 1 What is meant by BBaios emerges clearly in Philo Vit.
Mos., II, 14 : to SE TOUTOU uovou (voyou) BeBaia, dog EUTa, &xpaoavra, Ka-
BATTED apparyiol QUOEGC adTnS OENUaOuEVa, MEVEI TRYIOG, do' is nuepas
bypaon uexpi viv kal mpoc Tov ETElta TdVta SIQUEV EATic aird alova
DOTED &0avata . In practice, though not originally, it is close to TELOTOC.
BéBaioc is often found with reference to Aoyog. A BEBaios Abyos is a firm, sure,
well-grounded oyos. It denotes one which rests on an insight into things and grants
insight. Hence Plat. Tim., 49b : TIOTQ Kal BEBalo xproao0ai Aby@; Phaed., 90c :

9 On Boeruyua Epnudoeoc : E. Nestle in ZAW, 4 (1884), 248; Schl. Mt., 702 f.: Str.e
B., I, 945, 951; Moore, 1, 367, 6; EB, II, 2148-50.
BeBaios krA. 1-4 also, however, 602.
BeBauia : BeBauaios, cf. E. Schwyzer, Indog. Forsch., 45 (1927), 252 f.
To be distinguished from otEpEog "hard."
There can hardly be any question of an Aflc oteped.
BÉBaloc

A6yoc BÉBaioc kai dAnons kai Suvatoc katavoñaal (earlier : oUtE tov ipay.
HATHV OUBEVOS OUBEV DYIEC OUGE BÉBaLOV OUTE Tov 16ywv). The opposite is seen
in Tim., 37b : 86gau kai THOTEIS ytyvovtal BÉBalot kai dineic.
The same meanings are also seen in BeBalo0v and BeBalwalc. BeBaioiv (act. and
mid.) means "to make firm": Thuc., VI, 10: un apxis alins optyeolai mplv
Av EXOuEV BEBaLWoduEOa; Plut. Sulla, 22 (I, 166e); Plat. Crito, 53b : BeBaldogis
toic Sikaotaic thy 86Eav ("to strengthen"); Polyb., III, 111, 10 : BeBawooewv nuiv
TETtElouaI toC ÉTrayyelias ("to fulfil"). It is also used absol. in Xenoph. Cyrop.,
VIII, 8,2 ("to keep troth," "to verify"); Thuc., I, 23: ta TE TTp6TEpOV &Kon utv
AEYOUEVa, Epyo SÉ UTAVIN TEDOV BEBALOUUEV ("to confirm"); Thuc., II, 42: bokEl
8É uot onloov Avopoc ApEThV TpOT tE unvoouoa kal tEutala BeBaloiaa
voy TOv8E kataotpooñ ("to seal"); Epict. Diss., II, 18, 32; Plat. Gorg., 489a : iva
BeBalbowual hon Tapa 000 ("I will cause it to be confirmed"): Philo Som. I, 12:
To Evoola(oueva Tov itpayuatov 8pkq Buakpivetal Kai to aBÉBaia BeBaioitau'
kal t aflata Axu BoVEL Telotlv ("to give validity or force"). It is also used in the
more general sense of a strengthened TOLEiv : Xenoph. An., VII, 6, 17: €dv un BEBal
Th TP Elv auto (to achieve"). In the mid. it means "to assure for oneself" Thuc.,
VI, 78 : ThV EKEivou pilav 00X fooov BeBaldaaalal Boule lai; Polyb., II, 21, 5 :
TX TEpI Bondelas BeBauboa lau. For. BeBaimous, cf. Vett. Val., I, 1 (p. 2, 28, Kroll):
6 8É TOU Aids oualvel kolv@viav, Elaroinowv, dyaliv BeBalwo, KaKov
& raMayhy. In relation to A6yoc the meaning of BeBaloiv (and BeBalwois) is again
"to establish": Plat. Resp., V, 461e : SEi ON TO METO TOUTO BEBaldoaalal tapa
TOU A6you; Lach., 200b : Kai frelodv BEBaldooual aira, di8a%w kal of
Epict. Diss., II, 11, 24 : kai TO MIAOOODEIV TOUTO ÉOTIV, ETIOKETTEG0x1 kai BEBatoiv
TOUc kavovac.
In the LXX BéBaloc is rare : 3 Macc. 5:31: &7O&E6ELyuévov. BEBalav riotv
'loubaiov, a sure and unshakeable loyalty ; 3 Macc. 7:7 : BÉBaia EUvoia; Wis. 7:23 :
TVEDua BÉBaiov. In BeBaio0v the original meaning is again apparent: y 40:12 :
tuot 8e 81& thy akarlav atE &Bou Kal ÉBeBalwoas UE EVOTIOV OOU lic tov
atova. R translates ÉoTpémaac HE. The Heb. equivalent is av: hiph ("to set"),
elsewhere trans. ÉomoEv (Gn. 21:28; Dt. 32:8), ÉoTPl0Ev (Prv. 15:25), €oTh\woeV
(Lam. 3:12). What is meant in w 40:12 is the experience of being eternally established
by God. Y 118:28 : BeBalwobv UE Ev toic Abyoic oou "give me a basis in thy word"
(Heb. equiv. 019 pi). 3 Macc. 5:42 : aTE EataTOV BEBalos oprov opioquEvos, acc.
to R. : &T. BEBaiwOEV 8pKov, SPLOXUEVOC
BeBaioiv tov Abyov does not occur. Instead we have ovaorñaal A6yov in Ez.
13:6 = "to validate in the fulfilment" (512 pi).
Symmachus is interesting. Instead of gAndEc fatal to pnua to tapa tou 0e00
in Gn. 41:32, he has BÉBaiov The history of God is BÉBaloc in the sense that it
can be relied on, that it comes to pass, that it is proved true. In w 88:24, instead of
Kal i dAndela you kal to HAe6c Hou HET aUToi, he has kal f BEBalwolc Hou
kal to Ele6c you The underlying word is mpx, so that BEBalwois is the true
rendering. We cannot merely translate "assurance," but "establishment," or " assurance"
in the sense of true security (- &An0ela).

B. BÉBaios KtA. in the NT.

In the NT we first find a. the ordinary meanings in the more original sense
Hb. 6:19 : &ykupav dooaAn TE kai BeBalav ("reliable," "certain," "firm");
2 Pt. 1:10 : . aTOu8KaaTE BEBalav ouav thy kAñow kai Exoyny TOLEioOa1
"to make firm and valid the calling and election already present,' i.e., in the
development of - apeth; Hb. 3:14 (3:6): LOVIEP thy apxhv Ts OTtOaT& EGC
LEXpL telouc Be Balav KaTX0XO EV. Participation in Christ is actualised for us
 Be Baloc

when we grasp and hold the establishment 5 of ourselves as firm and valid in its
firmness (validity). In 2 C. 1:7 glc is called BeBala in the sense that it is firm
and does not waver. On the other hand, the ETayyEAia is firm in R. 4:16 in the
sense that it is valid and will be fulfilled. In general, BÉBaios maintains its original
character in the NT, i.e., that a thing is firm in the sense of being solidly grounded,
though it acquires the note of validity in connection with certain substantives.
This is true of BBaioiv in Col. 2:6 f., where EppigouÉvol Kai Éno1K080u06-
EVOL Ev auto (sc. Xplor) is extended and made more concrete by kal BE BaLou-
uevoL th TOtEL Kal EBaxONTE, L.e., in instruction there followed assurance
through lotG. The assuring took place as a rooting and grounding in Christ.
In C. 1:8 : 8c kai BEBaLD El Dugs denotes the establishment and assurance
known in Christ. There is a similar expression in oriental Gnosticism, e.g., O. Sol.
38:16 : "I was confirmed and won life and salvation ; my foundation was establish-
ed at the side of the Lord." Mostly, however, we should expect ounpigelv here
rather than BeBaio0v, for the former had become a technical term. Yet the two
words are interchangeable, as may be seen from a comparison of 2 Th. 2:17 with
Hb. 13:9. In R. 15:8 the original meaning is not so prominent. The link with the
AAKOEIX 0EOU, however, is worth noting. The truth of God is daily fulfilled,
i.e., in the establishment, i.e., validation, of the promises of the Father through
the ministry of Christ. Similarly in Pt. 1:19 the "poontiKos Aoyos is BeBalos,
i.e., sure, reliable, but also valid ; its declarations are fulfilled for faith by their
enactment. Here a Aoyoc is BÉBatoc, not in so far as it maintains an insight, but
in so far as it shows itself to be grounded in an event. This, and therefore the
distinction from the Greek view, becomes even clearer in Hb. 2:2, which is to be
rendered: "For if what was once spoken by angels showed itself to be valid, and
every transgression and disobedience receives the appropriate punishment . . .' The
A6yoc proves its "certainty" and 'foundation" by its efficacy. It is BÉBaios, not
as perspicacious, but as actual, effective and forceful.

b. This usage, however, is closely related to a special meaning of BÉBaios, BE-

Baloiv, BeBalwois present in both the Gk. and the Jewish world and developed in the
legal sphere. & It was said of a seller who confirmed a purchase to the buyer in face
of the claims of third parties that he accepted a BeBalwous, i.e., legally valid con-
firmation of the sale and therefore a guarantee (auctoritas, evictio). The buyer could
demand of the seller : BeBatooai, and if he did not do so could plead BeBalloEw
against him. This legal commercial term is also found in the LXX. Lv. 25:23: kai
yn 00 palñostal gic BeBalwowv® tun yap totiv n yo, Bi6tl TpoonAutol kai
TapoIKO OuEiC EATE EVavtlov yoU. Eic Befalwow is a serviceable translation of
nnmw½ in the sense of totally and for ever. What is meant in both the Heb. and the
Gk. is that the land could not be sold definitively, i.e., with a legal guarantee. On this
pt. cf. Lv.25:30 : Kupw0noetal i oikia f ouag EV TOAEI Th Exouon TELXOS B&.
Balic to kioqueVo authv. BEBalwc here means definitive, legally guaranteed
(excluding the right of redemption or lapse in the year of jubilee). This legal sense
remains even where there is no longer any question of a commercial transaction, and
in such cases BeBalwois has the sense of legal guarantee. So Wis. 6:18 and perhaps
3 Macc. 5:42.

5 Cf. also A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im NT4 (1927), 614, 617.

6 Deissmann B., 100-105; NB, 56; Cr.-Ko., 218; Mitteis-Wilcken, II, 1, 188 ff., 269; O.
Eger, Rechtsgeschichtliches z. NT (1918), 38 f.
BÉBaios

The technical sense persists in the NT. Hb. 6:16 : kal ToonS autoic avtilo-
yiac nepac eic BeBalwai (guaranteed, definitive) 6 8pxoc. Phil. 1:7: #v tE
toic Seouoic you kai ev in antoloyla kal BE BaIGGEL tO0 EiayyEAiou
attoroyla, too, has a technical legal sense. The apostle understands his ebayyE.
Alge OaL in prison as an apology, and at the same time as the fulfilment of a
legally valid witness. The Gospel is legally validated in EiayyEA (E lal. That
this does not apply only in this situation, but that preaching the Gospel is kind
of legal act, is shown by Hb. 2:2 ff. The vouos is BÉBaloc (of legal force, one
might almost say), and how much more the owinpla first spoken by the Kupios
and then Ono TOv AKOUO&VTOV Eis nuas Be Bauon, made effective and shown
to be valid by the apostles. The legal terminology is retained in v.4: OUVETluap-
tupoUvtos tou leot onueiols To the legal act of EDGyyEAigEO0aL belongs
the witness of God in miracles and signs; the owinpia constitutes itself legally
effective by signs and wonders in the Aoyoc of the apostles. This is also the
meaning in Mk. 16:20, except that here the saying is more pregnant; KnpUTTELV
is accomplished under the operation of the Lord as He gives force to the Aoyoc
in muEla. The onusia do not prove the validity of the Aoyoc; they are a way
in which the valid Logos is more forcefully put into effect. This gives us the clue
to 1 C. 1:6 : In the Corinthian community the uaptopiov tou Xp1000 has been
given legal force by the apostles, even to the institution of rich xapiouata. It is
open to question whether 2 C. 1:21 should not also be adduced here. As the
dictionaries and catenae listed by Deissmann show, -* appapov is a legal term
which stands materially in some relation to BEBalwois. 8 On the other hand, the
personal reference (quaic) and the connection with XpleIv and oopayigeolal
seem to point to a baptismal terminology such as is also found in 1 C. 1:8. It may
be that Paul found himself forced by the legal term appapov to use Be Baloiv
instead of ampigElv, so that in this indirect way we have the intrusion of a legal
character even in recollection of the sacrament. Cf. Ign. Phld., Intr. : o0c (the
deacons) kaT to tolov BEAnua ÉompEev Év BEBaiwoun to dylo autot
TIVE LATI.

In post-apostolic lit. BeBalotv etc. is used in the ordinary sense of "firm" or "in-
wardly secure, cf. CI., 6,2: BÉBaioc 8p6uoc; 1,2: BeBala Tiotis; Just. Dial.,
69, 1: BeBala yvoals; of "firm" or "well-grounded," cf. 1 CI., 47, 6 : BeBaloram
ÉxkAnoia; Ign. Mg., 13, 1: BeBaiGOfval ev toic 66yuaaiv too kuplou Kal Tov
anootolwv...; of "valid," 1 Cl., 22, 1, and esp. Ign., where the sense of "legally
valid" recurs : Mg., 4, 1; 11, 1; Sm., 8, 1 and 2.
Schlier

7 Loh. Phil., 24, n. 2.

8 Cf. Athenag. Suppl., 22, where in formal similarity we have anoloysio0a and
BEBaiouv alongside one another, though not identical in sense.
 BÉBnAos

BÉBnos, Bepnr6w

BÉBnAoc.
BÉBnAoc denotes a. the place which may be entered by anyone as distinct from
aBatov 1 and X6utov, i.e., "accessible." It corresponds exactly to the Lat. profanus.
Soph. Fr., 109 : Ec TE taBata kal ipos BEBnia. 1 It then acquires the further sense of
what may be said publicly in contrast to what must not be uttered on religious grounds :
Eur. Heracl., 404 : Hey{a kal BÉBn^a kal KEKPUp ava Abyia, Philostr. Heroic.,
p. 266, Boissonade : BEBhAc tE kal dropphto A6yo. It is used b. of persons in
the sense of "unsanctified" or "profane" quintos. Soph. Fr., 154; Anth. Pal., IX,
298: BeBnios tElETiS: Plut. Def. Orac., 16 (II, 712d): with quintos; Orpheus in
Tat. Or. Graec., 8, 4: 06pac EnldED0E PEBiAouS.
In the LXX BÉBnAos is used of things, predominantly as the equivalent of 5n, in the
sense of that which is "loosed" and may be "used freely," e.g., meats (1 Bac. 21:4 1
[aprou]; Ez. 4:14 vl.), vessels etc. It is the opp. of &yios and is par. to the antithesis
of clean and unclean. This use is still within a material conception of holiness. Then,
as in b., there is an application to persons in the sense of "unclean" (Ez. 21:25, alongside
avouos; 3 Macc. 2:2, alongside avoaioc; 2:14, alongside paouc; 4:16 BeBñAo oto-
HaTI, alongside TETAavnuÉvn opevi; everywhere in the sense of moral and religious
depreciation of an enemy of God.
In Philo BÉBnos is used figur. of "profane disposition," esp. in relation to the
covetousness which remains even in disciplined action ; + it is then used of persons,
e.g., (with ropvn) of the raped and thereby profaned virgin who in consequence cannot
become the wife of the holy high-priest.

In the NT BÉBnAos occurs only in the Past. (4 times) and Hb. (once). This is
in keeping with NT religion, which no longer distinguishes between holy and un-
holy things, nor, as in the esoteric Hellenistic religions, between sacred and
profane persons. The repeated occurrence in the Past. and Hb. attests the stronger
Hellenistic influence on the religious language of these Epistles, and especially
the ethical and religious content which the term took on in the sphere of Hellenistic
Judaism (= supra).
1. As applied to material things in the Past., the word refers to Gnostic
teachings which are scornfully described as profane and unholy uG0ou (1 Tm. 4:7)

BEBnAo S. Trench, 350 f.; Glotta, 18 (1930), 235; A. Merx, Die 4 kanon. Ev., II, 2, 1
(1905), 67 f.; Meinertz Past.4, 79, 107.
1 Etym. either "accessible' from Bn- (gBnv), or outside the threshold (BnA6s)," v.
E. Schwyzer, Indog. Forsch., 45 (1927), 252 ff. In both cases profanus = quod pro fano est.
2 Eustath. Thessal. Comm. in Hom. Il., p. 1003, 40 f.: & BnAOs, $E 00 kai BEBnAos
xuplog toroc o kai to tuyovil paayuos kal aBÉpnios o un TOloutoc.
The task of the priests in Ez. 44:23 : 818ggouoiv ava ueoov dylou Kal BeBiiou
Kal &va ufoov aral&piou kal xafapou, cf. Lv. 10:10; Ez. 22:26.
4 Spec. Leg., 150: ÉniQvuia uev obv pÉBnAos xal akalaptoc kai dvlepoc otoa;
Sacr. AC., 138 : to yap aloxpov BeBnAov, to be pipniov tavtos dvlepov.
5 Fug., 114, cf. Lv. 21:7: BeBnA∞uévn (55m.
BÉBnAos - BeBnAow - BEECEBOUA

and kevoowviaL (1 Tm. 6:20; 2 Tm. 2:16). In opposition to their claim to offer an
inward truth of religion inaccessible to others, the Gnostic statements concerning
God are actually seen to be outside the sphere of the holy God and His Gospel. '
2. As applied to persons, BÉBnAos in Hb. 12:16 (alongside ropvoc) and Tm.
1:9 (alongside avoolog, supra) denotes profane men who are far from God ;
their unholiness includes ethical deficiency in accordance with the NT approach.
Esau, with whom the BÉBnAos is compared in Hb. 12:16, is in Judaism a type of
the common mind which is unreceptive to God.

t BeBniow.
"To desecrate" : Heliod. Aeth., II, 25 (p. 64, 25, Bekker): TeuÉvn OeQv, ibid., X, 36
(p. 308, 22, Bekker): tÉuEVoS.
Common in the LXX, usually as a rendering of ½9n pi : thus of God Himself in
Ez. 13:19, of His name in Lv. 18:21; 19:12; of the temple of God in Ez. 23:39, of the
holy day of God in Neh. 13:17 f., of His land in Jer. 16:18, of His covenant in w 54:20;
88:34, of the name of the priest in Lv. 21:9, and in the last passage (only in the LXX)
with reference also to the violation of a virgin (cf. Sir. 42:10, supra, Heliod. Aeth.,
II, 25). 1

In the NT the only use is at Mt. 12:5 of the violation of the Sabbath and at
Ac. 24:6 of that of the temple, in both cases in the sense of the OT view of
holiness which is basically transcended in the NT.2
Hauck

t BEE EBOUA (-* Saluov).

On the lips of the Pharisees in Mk. 3:22 and par.; Mt. 12:27 and par.; Lk. 11:18,
this is a name for the prince of demons alluded to by Jesus in Mt. 10:25. It is with
his help that Jesus is supposed to expel demons. In His answer Jesus tacitly
substitutes Satan, since for Him the kingdom of demons stands under the one
Satan. Only in Mt. 10:25 does Jesus Himself use this name with reference to the
accusation of His enemies.

The orthography 1 and meaning are disputed. The main forms attested are BEEA(E.
BOUA, BEE(EBOUA and BEE ZEBOUB. The third of these is assimilated to 2 K. 1:2, 3, 6,

8 Cf. 3 Macc. 4:16 ( supra).

7 Gn. r., 63 on 25:29; bBB, 16b in Str.-B., III, 749.
BEBnA6w. 1 With an ethical significance ( 9:26 speaks of the ways of the sinner
and w 88:31 of the violation of the divine statutes.
2 Herm. s., 8, 6, 2: BeBnAo0 of the name of God.
BEELEBOUA. For bibl. apart from the works listed in Pr.-Bauer, v. Ges.-Buhl, S.v.
2921; Zn. Mt. and Schl. Mt. on 10:25; KI. Mk. on 3:22; Hck. Mk., 48; Str.-B., I, on Mt.
12:24; Dausch Synpt.4, 195.
The form BEAt BoUn is no longer considered, being a variation of BEEACEBOUA, nor
yet the obvious singularities of individual MSS.
 BEECE BOUA

the second is a popular Palestinian form 2 and may thus be regarded as local colour in B
and usually in x, as opposed to most MSS which have BEEACEBOUA. The latter is the
normal form. It alone is found outside the NT, 3 and if all the OT passages originally
had BEE(EBoUA, it must rest on an independent tradition which penetrated into most
of the NT MSS. The meaning of the name 4 is of little importance in the NT, for even
Jos. did not understand that there probably underlay it the name of the god of Ekron,
called 2931 bya in the OT.5 After the NT we find the name in Origen 6 and Hipp.
(as Valentinian), 1 more frequently in the Test. Sol., 8 where the reference is to
the prince of demons but there is no necessary equation with Satan. Only at Rev. 12:9
does the Armenian version substitute BEEAZEBOUA for 8iBolos. Elsewhere the name
appears in a Jewish prayer to the planets which is obviously strongly syncretistic. 8
For the NT passages it is significant that, in agreement with the usage described,
Beelzebul is for the Jews the name of one of the demon princes according to Mt. 12:24
(apywv tov Sauuwviov) and Mk. 3:30 (where the accusation of a league with
Beelzebul is equal to the charge of TVEDua AKataptov ExEt). 10 This view is strength-
ened by the fact that in contemporary Judaism the conception of Satan as the accuser
was not linked with that of demons and their princes (- 81&BoAos, Saluov).
Foerster

2 Cf. the assimilation of the Arabic art. before the sibilant.

3 n. 6-9.
4 The possibilities considered are a. that BEEA(EBouA is an easier expression or caco-
phemy for BEEAGEBOUB, the god of Ekron, in the latter case with the sense of the lord
of filth = of idolatrous sacrifice ; less probably b. that BEEAZEBoUl means the lord of
habitation, i.e., the one who dwells in the possessed, or the lord of the heavenly abode on
high ; and c. that BEEA(EBoUB is 227 2y2, i.e., the lord of enmity = Éx0p6c. It may be
mentioned that more recently the designation Zbl (= Zebil ?) has been found in religious
texts. In a poem from Ras Shamra the dying and rising god Alein is called Zbl BL, Syria,
12 (1931), 195 = Col., I, line 14 f.; 213 Col. III/IV, 3, 9, 21, 29 and 40. The editor
C. Virolleaud regards Zbl as part. kal. and thus translates : "celui qui habite le zbl du
Baal de la terre" ; he sees a similarity to such expressions as Zbl B'l sdmnt, Zbl B'1 snt,
Zbl B'l im (Syria, 12 [1931] 350). W. F. Albright, however, in the Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research, 46 (Apr. 1932), 17, thinks that Zbl (= Zebul) is a name
for the god.
5 LXX in 4 Bac. 1:2, 3 has Év TO Baal uUiav OEov 'AKkapwv, but in v. 6 it has
#v th Baal, which should require aloxuvn instead of Baal, as with the OT noa for 222
(cf. R. 10:4 and comm. ad loc.). Jos. did not understand this, cf. Ant., 9, 19 : Tpos thy
'Axapwv 0Eov Mutav, touro yap fv ovoua T 0E6.
Orig. Cels., VIII, 25 oi yap apyov autov (sc. Tov 8au ovov) 6 Beoc &XX',
is paoi of Geiol A6you, 6 "BEEA(EBOUA.'
Hipp. Ref., VI, 34, 1: Kaleital. o BuaBolos 8t 6 &pXOy TO1 KOOLOU, BeEA(E.
Bou (8') 8 tov Saquovov. It is worth noting that in this passage the devil and the prince
of demons BeeA(eBoul are distinguished.
8 C. C. McCown, The Test. of Solomon, UNT, 9 (1922), Index, II. Here, too, BEeA(E-
Boul is the prince of demons. Some MSS have secondary forms of the name with el, in
approximation to the names of angels.
9 Reitzenstein Poim., 75 f.
10 Cf. Zn. Mt. on 12:24.
BEAlap

BEAlap (-* SlaBoloc).

This name for the devil is found in the NT only at 2 C. 6:15 : tlc 8É ovuoo-
vals Xplotoi itpoc BEAlap. It cannot be determined with any certainty whether
Paul had particular reasons for the choice of this unusual name. Though it might
be a title for Antichrist, this is not likely.

It is widely assumed that it derives from the name of a god of the underworld, cf.
2 S. 22:5 and Ps. 18:4. In the OT the phrase 99:22 or more often 59:221 x and 3y:32 312
is used to denote wrongdoers. The LXX renders the Heb. (dip etc.) Aotuoc (1 Bao.
1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17,25; 30:22), trapavouos (Dt. 13:13; Ju. 19:22; 20:13; 2 Bao.
16:7; 20:1; 23:6; 3 Bac. 20:10; 2 Ch. 13:7; ( 40:8), or Tapavoueiv (Job 34:18), &opov
(Prv. 6:12; 16:27; 19:28), doEBñc (Ju. 20:13 A), duapt\6s (Sir. 11:32), &vounua,
dvoula (Dt. 15:9; 2 S. 22:5; Ps. 18:4), and avopes tie anoaraolac in 3 Bao. 20:13
acc. to A. Occasionally individual MSS retain the Heb. expression, as Ju. 19:22 e;
Ju. 20:13a (AG: BEAiqu); Prv. 16:22, where Efp. has BÉAial for h%. The brooks
of Belial in 2 S. 22:5; Ps. 18:4 are rendered XEluxppol dvoulas. In parts of the Asc.
Is., 1 Jub. 1:20 (15:33 ?) and always in Test. XII BeAlap is the name of the devil,
as in Damasc., 4, 13 and 15; 5,'18; 8,2, where at least in 5, 18 it is not the name of
Antichrist. It is first used as such in Sib., 2, 167; 3, 63 and 73, and in the Lives of the
Prophets, 17 (not 21) . 2 In the Rabb. the use of the expression 29332 (933) is par. to
that of the OT (bSanh.,111b; bQid, 66a), 3 though it must be remembered that they
understood 99:33 as 59 $33,4 and that of the later translators of the OT 'A almost
always rendered it gnootaola, while Z and E translate it variously as qvuTotaKTOC,
&VUT6OTaTOS, aTaIdEUTOS, &vou. 5 Yet this does not justify us in speaking of a
Rabb. doctrine of the Antichrist Beliar, since there seem to be only isolated and obscure
references to the doctrine of Antichrist in the Rabbis 6 (-* Xpiotos/avtlxptotos).
Foerster

BEAlap. Comm. ad loc. : Wnd., Bchm., Str.-B., Bousset-Gressm., 255, n. 1, 334 f., 341;
M. Friedlander, Der Antichrist (1901), 118 ff.; W. Bousset, ERE, I, 578 ff.; Sickb. K.4.
118 f. Further lit. in Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
1 Cf. J. Kroll, "Gott und Holle,' Stud. d. Bibl. Warburg, 20 (1932), 105.
2 Transl. by p. Riessler, Altjdisches Schri{ttum aussea d. Bibel (1928), 871 ff.
3 Examples in Friedlander, 122, n. 2 and 3.
S. Dt., 117 on 13:14; further examples in A. Buchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement
(1928), 83, n. 2 and 3 cf. Moore, II, 166, n. 2.
5 Dob. Th.T, 270, 3 (2).
As against Friedlander. 59:52 wx is also found in Sir. 11:32, and Friedlander also
suspects it in the orig. Heb. of 1 Macc. 1:11; 10:61; 11:21; 2 Macc. 4:11, p. 121, 1-4.
 BEAOS

T BÉAoS

"Pointed weapon," "javelin," esp. "arrow," 1 Ps.-Apollod. Bibl., II, 4: BÉAEOL TETU-
pouÉvois (burning arrows). In the LXX it is used for pn e.g., Is. 5:28; 7:24; 37:33;
Sir. 19:12; figur. Sir. 26:12.
In myths it is used for lightning, Hdt., IV, 79; Pind. Nem., 10, 15; of the rays of the
sun, Aesch. Choeph. 286, or of the moon or fire, Hipp., 531; El., 1159. Thus many gods
are armed with the BÉAos in Gk. mythology, esp. Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite and
Eros. When the god shoots his arrow, the result is death or mortal sickness, Hom. II.,
1, 45 ff.; 24, 758. Great spiritual agitation might also be caused in this way, Eur. Med.,
628. {uÉpou BÉAoc, Aesch. Prom., 649 (of passionate love). The arming of deity with
bows and arrows is also common in the world of Semitic religion
Similarly, the OT speaks of the divine armament. The rainbow is originally the bow
with which God shoots in the storm and which He then hangs up in the clouds. The
original mythical conception is present in weakened form at Gn. 9:13.' The lightning
is His burning arrow, Ps. 7:13; Y 143:6; Hab. 3:9 ff. Sunstroke and drought are traced
back to the deadly arrows of the burning midday sun at w 90:5. God shoots the un-
godly with His arrows, Dt. 32:23, 42; U 63:7. The sufferer bemoans the fact that he has
been the target of God's arrows, Lam. 3:12; Job 6:4; 34:6. Joash shoots an arrow of
victory from Yahweh (BÉlos owmpias to Kupto) against Aram in 4 Bao. 13:17.
The servant of the Lord is compared to a chosen arrow in Is. 49:2. The picture of the
divine armament is carried into the ethical and spiritual realm in Is. 59:17. In later
Judaism En. 17:3 speaks of the place where God's weapons (bow, arrows, fiery sword
and lightnings) are stored. Philo, on the other hand, characteristically uses the old image
in a psychological context.
The NT BÉlos occurs only in Eph. 6:16. The righteous is here addressed as
God's warrior. As in ancient mythology God strives against hostile chaos, so here
the righteous is challenged to a spiritual but very real battle against Satan. The
picture of his equipment is taken from Is. 59:17; 8 cf. also 4 Bao. 13:17: BÉAos
oomplas (-) supra). The menace of Satan's weapons is brought out by the fact

BEAOS. HW, S.v. "Bogen," I, 197; E. Kalt, Bibl. Reallex. (1931), II, 350; Meinertz
Gefbr.4, 103.
Examples may be found in Liddell-Scott, s.v.; on the etymology, v. Walde-Pokorny,
Vergl. Wort., I, 689 f.; on BaXAw, root BEA-, Bar-, BAn-.
For examples, v. O. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie u. Rel.gesch. (1906), Index, S.v.
"Pfeil." e.g., 1071, 1; 1226, 1; 1309, 17.
3 A. Jeremias, D. AT im Lichte des AO3 (1916), 421 f.; thus, e.g., Ramman-Adad is
portrayed with a bundle of lightning and double-headed axe, cf. A. Jeremias, Handbuch der
altoriental. Geisteskultur (1929), 370 f., No. 200, 202 J. Leipoldt, D. Religionen in d. Umwelt
d. Urchristent. (1926), No. 116 ff.
Cf. O. Procksch, Genesis, ad loc.
5 Det. Pot. Ins., 99 : ka^oc l8ov Epotos etpoon beivot TROOUG BEAEaIV.
6 Cf. Dib. Gefbr., ad loc. (Excurs. : "Das Bild d Waffenriistung d. Frommen"): A.
Harnack, Militia Christi (1905); Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 214 f.; H. Junker, "Uber iran.
Quellen der hell. Aionvorstellung" Vortr. Bibl. Warburg. (1923), 125 Ef., esp. 140
(Persian examples of the motif of the spiritual armour in the fight against evil); Roscher,
. 1770, 4.
 BÉAOS - Blagoual

that his arrows are called tETpouÉva. But whereas in the OT use of the image
man has no defence against the arrows of God, in the NT the real defence
(- eupE6s, v.16) of the righteous against satanic attacks lies in his union with
God (- niors).
Hauck

Blogoual, Blaors

* Biogoual.
A. Bio(ouau in Ordinary Greek.
Like Bia and its Sanskrit cognates, 1 BigCouau always denotes forced as distinct
from a voluntary act. TEl0tv is expressly contrasted with it ; Dio C.. 36, 3 : TE(Oetal
TaC notov n Bio(ETal. The Bla(ouEvoc acts as an unwilling conscript. The exercise
of force does not have to be by an external act, but may find expression in self-willed
utterance (Demosth., 21, 205) or the heretical representation of views (Gelas. Hist. Eccl.,
II, 17, 1; 20, 1). Yet in the use of the word these refinements are exceptional. The active
is rare. The mid., which easily passes over into the pass., has usually the sense of "to
force,' "to compel,' "to overpower" (sometimes militarily and sometimes sexually); the
pass. means to be constrained or oppressed." Whether the reference is to compulsion
by higher powers (nature or fate), or whether man compels himself or natural forces,
there is always the effective achievement of an act of force, or an attempt at such. In
the rich use in relation to military action, maltreatment, compulsion of various kinds
and even religious constraint, we can see clearly this basic sense of the exercise of
hostile force.

B. Blogouai in the NT.

The two NT passages in which Biagouau is used (Mt. 11:12; Lk. 16:16) demand
special treatment in virtue of their differences in linguistic structure and context.
1. Mt. 11:12 belongs to a series of related sections dealing with John the
Baptist, his position in relation to the merciful readiness of Jesus to help as the
heart of His Messianic action (11:1-6), his human character (v. 7-8), his place
in the divine history of revelation (v. 9-15), his reception by the people (v. 16-19).

For allegorical interpr., Orig. Hom. in Ex., I, 5 (p. 153, 5): cogitationes iniicit malas et
concupiscentias pessimas ; Orat., 30, 3: temptations ; Eus. Hist. Eccl., X, 4, 58: n&0n.
BialouaiktA. Apart from the comm., Kuhner-Blass-Gerth, I, 23 (1892), 382 f.;
II, 13 (1898), 120 f., 293, 325 Cr.-Ko., 219 f.; Deissmann NB, 85 f.; Moult.-Mill., s.v.; Pr.-
Bauer, s.v.; Str.-B., I, 598 f.; 601 ff. M. Schneckenburger, Beitrag z. Einleitung i. NT (1832),
48 ff.; Alex. Schweizer, ThStKr., 9 (1836), 90-122; A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (1896),
88 f., 157 f.; Dalman WJ, I, 113 ff.; J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu V. Reiche Gottes2 (1900),
192 ff.; A. Merx, Evgl. Mt. (1902), 189 f.; Evgl. Lk. (1905), 331; A. Harnack, SAB, 1907,
947 ff.; H. Windisch, D. mess. Krieg das Urchristent. (1909), 35 f.; ZNW, 27 (1928),
166; M. Dibelius, Die urchrist. Uberlieferung v. Joh. d Taur (1912
ZNW, 13 (1912), 172 ff.; M. Goguel, Jean Baptiste (1928), 60 ff.; A. Pallis, Notes on
St. Luke and the Acts (1928); W. Bussmann, Synpt. Stud., II (1929), 170 ff. I aim to present
the comparative linguistic material and history of exposition in an independent treatise the
results of which are briefly summarised in this art. For defin. cf. Hesych : Bua(etal
Bialoc rpateital; Thomas Mag., 35, 14 f., Ritschl: dvayKa(eiv emi supoyou uovov
BLaZELV Se kal enl ayoyou, oloy apudaario to peiua tot totauou ItV vauvi.
Walde-Pokorny, Vergl. Wort., 1, 666 ff.
 BlaCoua

The concluding woes on the cities of the lake (v. 20-24) are part of the call to
repentance issued to the people, who in these sayings are shown to be fickle and
impenitent sensation-mongers. The greatness of the Baptist is first indicated ; he
is more than a prophet, for he is the ayyeAos (v. 10) who precedes the Messiah
according to Mal. 3:1 and Ex. 23:20, he is Elias (v.14), and he is greater than
any born of women (v. 11). His limitation is that he does not belong to the age
in which the Bacieia deploys its power. Rather, in v. 13f. he is set in the time
of the Law and the prophets, which comes to its conclusion in him. Hence, when
it is said in this context: &7o 8g tov juepov *loawou Tou BaTtlOTOU foc
apti f Baoilela TOv oipaviv BLaCETal Kai Blaotai apragouaw aitnv, these
words obviously characterise the dominion of heaven as it has presented itself since
the turn given to affairs by John.
A first possibility a. is to take Blaletai in the sense of an intr. mid. : "the rule of
God breaks in with power, with force and impetus." 2, 3 It might be argued against this
interpretation that it truncates the basic eschatological reference of the Bacieia con-
cept. But shortly after the same Mt. has &pa Eo0aOEV (12:28, as at Lk. 11:20). The
triumphs against demons are regarded by the Synoptists as decisive indications of the
new situation which consists in the coming into effect of the divine rule. At the same
time, the kai Blaarai apiaYouaiv aurny causes difficulty, since it is construed most
naturally as an interpretation of the first part of the statement, Blaotai agreeing with
BlaEtal. Since the reference (- Blaotns) is obviously to a powerful hostile action,
it seems better to seek an explanation which will better harmonise the two parts of the
saying.
b. This is not achieved with the mid. : "The kingdom of heaven compels or forces" ;
indeed, this is out of keeping with the whole conception of the Baoieia in the
Synoptists.
c. The pass. is hardly more successful. Adopted since Cl. Al., its interpretation in
bonam partem was popularised by Luther. Bla(eo0ai is here taken to denote the ardent
pressure of needy souls from the time of the Baptist to "seize the kingdom as a prey"
BlaZE OaL, however, is not used for laudable striving, but for hostile acts of force. 5
Again, we have already seen that in the whole series of sayings (Mt. 11:1-24) the
assessment of the relation of the people to the kingdom of God is exactly the opposite.
Against this interpretation, however, the main argument is provided by the other sayings
of Jesus concerning entry into the kingdom. In view of Mk. 10:17 ff.; Mt. 5:3 ff.; 7:21,
and also the present chapter (27-29), it is hardly conceivable that He should have
spoken of men deliberately and successfully seeking to wrest the kingdom to themselves.
The Synagogue can certainly speak of the forceful initiation of the days of the Messiah
by penitence, the keeping of the commandments and especially the study of the Torah

So Melanchthon, F. C. Baur, Zahn and Harnack.

3 In the pres., we find this use in Aesch. Ag., 1510 : BlaYetal uÉlac "Apns (he rages);
Demosth., 55, 17: kov Blaontal TOTE, of an inrushing flood ; often of compelling dvoykn
Diod. S., IV, 11, 3; Jos. Ant., 2, 114; 3,5. Joh. Malalas (Corp. Script. Byz. [Dindorf], 686):
EIs HE BlaKeral oupaviov o6c.
Cl. Al. Strom., IV, 2, 5; V, 3, 16; VI, 149, 5; VI, 17, 149; Quis Div. Salv., 21, 3; Iren.,
IV, 37, ' (MPG, 7, 1103c); Orig. in Joh., VI, 19, 105; Erasmus, Luther and many moderns.
We might adduce as similar Theocr. Idyll., 22, 9 : Blafeolal aotpa; Hdt., IX, 41:
ta opayia; cf. Max. Tyr. V,1g; though always mid., not pass. In these passages, how-
ever, we have the pagan conception that the one who prays or sacrifices can exert pressure
on the deity. This applies to the bold expression in Cl. Al. Quis Div. Salv., 21, 3 : 0eov
Bidoac0ai. Paus., II, 1, 5 shows that even in the Gk. sphere, however, there is still a
feeling that this is presumption : T& Oeia Bldoaolau; the reference is to the transgression
of divinely ordained natural restrictions.
 BlaYouat

and almsgiving. 6 But this is diametrically opposed to all that is said by the Synoptists
concerning entry into the kingdom of God (-; Baoieia, 588). It can be required in
Lk. 13:24: &y ViCEG0E EloEAOEly 81& the OtEVnS 00pas. But this is hardly Bid-
(eGOaI in the sense of pious seizure. The inner difficulty is only increased by the
second part of the verse. apna(elv can certainly mean to attain something by resolute
appropriation. But when it is linked with Blage0al and Blaotai, it merely serves to
give added emphasis to the basic thought of hostile seizure by violence. d. It would
be linguistically possible to decide for a pass. in bonam partem as follows: ""The
dominion is powerfully advanced by God." 8 Materially, this would amount to much
the same as a. But the second part of the verse then confronts us with the same difficulty.
e. The only option is to consider the possibilities of a pass. in malam partem. This
would at least correspond to current usage. The saying might be pronounced against the
Zealots : the rule of heaven is sought by unprincipled enthusiasts in violent action.
The difficulty here is that Mt. is concerned with the prophets, the Law, the Baptist,
Jesus and the Baosia. It is thus hard to see the point of special reference to an
irrelevant subject when we naturally expect an important insight on the situation
depicted. In any case the Zealot movement had already been started before the ap-
pearance of John. The conjecture that something of this kind is in view, at least in
the source of the utterance, is perhaps better supported by the form of the saying in
Lk., which draws on the same source (-+ 612).

We are thus brought f. to the pass. interpretation in malam partem which refers
the Blateolal to the enemies of the divine rule, i.e., that it is contested, attacked
or hampered 10 by contentious opponents. This explanation has a twofold ad-
vantage. It corresponds to most of the linguistic parallels. And the second part of
the saying can be construed in the same sense as an elucidation of the hostile
Bia(eo0ai, namely, that it is taken from men by the violent. 12 The surest key to
what is meant by Ap a(ElV is given by Mt. himself in the only other place in his
Gospel in which this word occurs: 6 nounpos apTaCEl TO ÉonapuÉvov Év Th
kapoia aito0 (13:19). In this context it means taking the seed away from
someone. Hence in our present saying, if we are to use a similar instance for the
purpose of interpretation, the meaning is that by apnagElv violent enemies close
the kingdom to men, not allowing those who desire to enter to do so (Mt. 23:13).13
If this is correct, then in the description of the present state of the divine rule we
have urgent emphasis on the fact that it is hampered by all the hostile forces which
in the days of Jesus seek to foil His work. The strongly negative tone of the
utterance is striking. It is partly explained, however, by the first passage in this
whole series of sayings concerning John the Baptist ; for we are told at the outset

H. Scholander, 172 ff.; Str.-B., I, 599 f.

When apna(etv is linked with Bia(eolat, it usually denotes hostile plundering: Plut.
Apophth. (Pompeius), II, 203c; Luc. Hermot., 22; Luc. Nec., 20; Herodian Hist., 11, 3, 23.
There is a surprising par. in Tg. Is., 21, 2, where bin is linked with 112 in a statement that the
oppressors will be oppressed and the robbers robbed.
Magna vi praedicatur : C. A. F. Fritzsche Mt., ad loc.
9 Alex. Schweizer: B. Weiss J. Weiss ; Wellhausen ; Windisch.
10 Biate lal as "hamper" Ju. 13:15 ©; 13:16 A ; Jos. Ant., 1, 261.
11 So esp. the Syr. sys syc; Eth. and old Latin; It. : vim patitur ; Wulf. Of the moderns,
Breschneider, Schneckenburger, Hilge, Merx, Dalman, Schlatter ; M. Dibelius suggests
regents in the spirit world.
i2 On ApiaZelv, 472 f.
13 That men may hamper and delay the Messianic age by their sin is also taught by the
Rabbis : b.Ket., 111a; Midr. HL, 2,7; cf. H. Scholander, ZNW, 13 (1912), 172 ff.; Str.-B.,
I, 599 ff.
 BlaYoual

that John as a Bla(buEvoc is in the prison of the Blaoths, and this dominates the
whole section. Indeed, as we have seen already, the note of repentance is found
right on into the story of the sulking children, so that in the context there is a
special reason for this reference to the forces which hamper the Barela. All
that we read elsewhere in Mt. shows that Jesus has in view the forces which were
opposed to Him in the Judaism of His day.
2. Lk. 16:16 stands in a chain of sayings which can hardly be compared with
Mt. 11 for closeness of theme. Yet there is a common link provided by the words
Papioaiot and especially vouos. Thus the theme in Lk. 16:14-18 is not John the
Baptist but the righteousness of the Pharisees and the validity of the Law. Without
any preparation we suddenly come upon the saying: o vouos kai of ipopnitai
uÉxpi 'Iwawou® ATto tOTE n Baciela TOU 0e00 EoayyEAl(etal Kai Tac eic
authv Blafetal. Even here, however, John is put in the time of the Law and the
prophets, whereas the new era is characterised by the EdayyEA gelau this is
a distinctive feature in Lk. The subject of the saying with Bio(etal is not Baot-
Aela, as in Mt., but Tac.
If we first try to interpret the saying as under f. in Mt., we must take it in the
mid. a. : "'Every man exerts force against it." 14 In this case, however, if there were a
contrast with EoayyeAigetal, we should expect an advers. & Ad instead of kal. But in
any case, this rendering is impossible, because in Gk. BioCeolal Elc does not mean
"to exert force against" but "forcefully to press into"; to fight against" would be
Bialeolal with the accus., and if a preposition were used it would be Tp6c or emi. 15
b. Philologically possible is the pass.: "Every man is pressed into," 16 along the lines
of Lk. 14:23 : &vGyKa00V EloE OEiv. But this is artificial and is not supported by
Gk. parallels.
With full assurance we can thus assume that this time we have a mid. act. :
"Every man presses in." 17 The picture, which reminds us of the dyovi(so0s
EioE OelV of 13:24, expresses the resolute and directed movement of crowding
masses. It is thus in keeping with the missionary basis of Luke's historical work,
for which EiayyE^igeolal is a characteristic of the new age with its conversion
of the heathen. With joyful pathos the character of the EiayyÉAlov is revealed
through this TaC, which can only be meant hyperbolically if what is considered
is evident success and not a basic universalism. It assures to every one an entry
unhampered by any restrictions.
Thus in the source common to Mt. and Lk. it must have been said of John the
Baptist that he marked a turning-point in the times ; the old comes to an end in
him and the Baoela is inaugurated with the work of Jesus. As regards the
Bia(eofai, however, the more difficult Mt. text gives the impression of being
more original. Lk. seems to be secondary, since things are smoothed and simplified,
the Blaotai clause is omitted, and the whole is incorporated into the missionary
interest of Lk. 18 Consideration of the Aram, background seems to support even

14 Jerome : omnis in illud vim facit. More recently Schl. Lk., 549.
16 For extended references, v. my special study. Here we might mention Thuc., I, 63, 4;
Demosth., 7, 32; Polyb., I, 74, 5; Diod. S., XL., 50, 4; Jos. Bell., 2, 262; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 108;
Plut. Otho, 12 (I, 1072c). Bio(eolal with accus., Jos. Ant., 4, 121; 14, 173; with "pos or
enti, Polyb., II, 67 2; III, 43, 6; Diod. S., II, 19, 7.
Pesh.; Wulf. More recently Schneckenburger, Cr.-Ko., Wellhausen.
17 Ephr., cf. Merx Lk., 331; other Syr. and the Old Latin. More recently Harnack,
Dalman, Zahn, Windisch, Pr.-Bauer.
Cf. Harnack, op. cit., 949.
BlaCouat - Blaoths

more strongly the priority of Mt. DIx is probably the Aram. original of Bia-
(EO0aL.18 o1x can mean both to exert force and to rob. On the other hand, neither
the pass. Eiayye l(etal nor the Els authv Blagetal of Lk. can be traced back
to an Aram. use of o2%

3. The significance of the saying from the standpoint of biblical theology is

primarily as follows. In both Mt. and Lk. the Baoela is viewed in such a way
that after the work of the Baptist it dawns with the work of Jesus. Thus, whatever
the basic eschatological convictions, it is seriously thought to be present in Jesus.
In the Synoptists the presence and future of the divine rule are brought together
in Jesus, who is the Bearer of salvation both present and future. Jesus speaks here
as He who inaugurates the new epoch which replaces and transcends all that has
gone before, the Law, the prophets and the Baptist. To this degree the saying
underlies that of Paul in R. 10:4, i.e., that Christ is the TÉAoc of the Law (cf.
Jn. 1:17). If, however, the Baoiela is also shown to be under the pressure of
violent men which stand in its way, this means that serious account is taken of the
fact that the rule of God does not playfully disarm all opposition with self-evident
directness. On the contrary, it enters a way of suffering irrespective of the
divine sovereignty, which is indeed expressed in this basic concept of faith. It is
not for nothing that the Bla(eo0au experienced by Jesus is also referred to the
Bacela. Coming effectively into this temporal world, it is exposed to acts of
hostility and violence. The secondary form in Lk. does not have merely the same
conception of the times; it also has the same view of the present lordship and
Messiahship of Jesus. Jesus is the decisive turning-point. For Lk., however, the
true characteristic of the Bacilela in the present situation is to be seen in the
pressing into it of those for whom the collective Tac triumphantly discloses the
missionary horizon. Yet there is here no final divergence. The varied attempts of
the Evangelists to solve the meaning of the Baoela derive basically from their
fundamental concern with the great reality of the fact of Christ. In content both
the persecution of enemies and the addition of those who are no longer impeded
by the old barriers are negative and positive signs of the one reality that the
decisive change has been forcefully initiated and that this necessarily implies a
state of conflict.

t Buaomnc.
Blaothc is an extremely rare word. So far as we know, as a subst. in the pregnant
sense of "violent men," it occurs for the first time in Mt. 11:12. To be sure, we often
find Blatac in Pindar in the sense of "strong," "bold" or "brave." 1 Thus in Pyth., 1, 10
Blatac "Apns denotes the wild god of war (cf. Anth. Pal., VII, 492, 3, Anyte). We
also find it as an attribute in Pind. Pyth., 4, 419 f.: Blatas amp; 6,28 : 'Avtlloyos
Blat&c; Olymp., 9, 75 ualeiv flatpokAou Blatav voov:; Nem., 9, 51 (of wine):
Blatav Taida. Apart from Pyth., 1, 42 : copol kal xepol Blatal, its use is always
adjectival and it hardly sheds much light on the meaning of the NT word. The classical

10 Cf. Dalman, WJ, I, 113 ff., after rejection of lon8 and 92h (which has no pass.).
A. Meyer, 88 f. favoured 19!,"to take in possession." Schl. Mt., 368 inclines like Dalman to
DIN, adducing Tanch. (Buber) NON 92, 6, 108. Tg. Is., 21, 2 especially might also be men-
tioned n. 7).
1 Buar&c (-hs) is nomen agentis for Blaolau, as Blaoths for Blaouai.
 Blaorns

writers, also LXX and Jos., the main Hellenistic authors, give us no further help. Nor do
the pap. In Philo there is only one doubtful reference, namely, Agric., 89, which speaks
of the stormy waves of the passions beating against the ship of the soul, and in which
the cod. MH read : the puxns UTTO BLATTOV KATOTVEOVTOV ELs authv ta0ov TE
Kai &6IKnu&TV AvtIPPETtOUONS Kai KAtvouevns &Éapouevov eniBaiv to kia.
Cod. G (and with it Cohn-Wendl.), however, rightly has the vl.: 07o Blas tov.2
Elsewhere Buaotns is used medically in Aretaeus, IV, 12, 12 of gout. It then occurs in
patristic expositions of Mt. 11:12; 3 and later still in Eustathius Macrembolites (12th cent.
A.D.) De Ismeniae et Ismenes amoribus. as a link in the series : uotx6s, ckoAaatoc,
Blaotns.
Directed by this later development, we do better not to follow the harmless lyrical
conception of Pindar but to be guided by the analogy of similar Bla derivatives. Thus
BiaotÉov calls for consideration. A saying of Epict. runs : 4 DU BlaoTéov ThV DUalv
glAd TElOTÉov. Or again, Buaotog: Choricius in Lib. Or. (IV, p. 793, 13, Reiske):
Blaata stpayuata. Or again, Blaotik6c: Philo Spec. Leg., III, 35 : ounn0elas,
Blaotikwtatou tpayuatos, of the compulsion of habit. Or again, the subst. Biaou6c:
Plut. Amat., 11 (II, 755d): apnayn kal Biaou6s. Everywhere it is obvious that the
idea of a violent act is predominant. As a first substitute for the subst., & Bia(ouevos
is common : Diod. S., IV, 12, 5 : tois Bia(ouÉvols, of the violent centaurs XVI, 27, 1:
r STEpoxn tou Bla(ouévou, of the overwhelming power of the violent. Mostly adj.,
but in the same sense, is Bialog: Hom. Od., 2, 236 : Ép8elV #pya Blaia, of violent
crime ; Soph. Ant., 1140 : Bialac vooou; Thuc., III, 36, 6 : Bualbtato© tov ToAltov,
of the most violent; Hdt., VII, 170 : gro0aveiv Bialo lavato, cf. Plat. Resp., VIII,
566b; Tim., 64d : to jtapa pialv kal Blalov yIvouevov TXloc (at least 'forceful");
Plat. Resp., III, 399a, where we have Ev raan Blaio Épyaoiq alongside Ev TOAEuIKñ
TP&EEl; Resp., X, 603c, where there is a distinction between Biaiol and Éxovaial
TP&EEIS. Josephus, too, uses Blaios in this way, so that the element of hostile violence
is emphasised. 5

Thus the Blaoins is the violator, the man of force who achieves his desires by
theft. In Mt. 11:12 the word corresponds to the preceding BiaCeofa, which, as
we have shown, must be referred to the violence of the foes of Jesus in the
persecution and hampering of the rule of God. It is worth noting that Origen in
his Hom. in Lev., IV, 4 (p. 320, 7 ff.), restrained by the obvious meaning of
Buaots, gives an ambiguous interpretation of the second clause in Mt. 11:12:
among the raptores are both the boni who desire and therefore take the kingdom
and the mali who usurp it. As the Memphitic rendering perceived, however, the
latter is the only correct choice. Thus in the case of Blaotai apna(ouaiv we must
reject the exposition in bonam partem. & The meaning indicated by the Bla is
"violently to assault the divine rule, and to rob those who come to it of its
blessing.'
Schrenk

Strictly speaking, these are not variants but scribal interpretations.

3 Suic. Thes., S.v, adduces Basil, Chrysostom and Isidore of Pelusium, who all support
the exposition of Cl. Al. -* Blagouat, n. 4).
C. Wotke, "Epikur Spruchsammlung," No. 21, Wiener Studien, 10 (1888), 193.
5 Cf. Schl. Mt., 368.
6 In CI. Al. Bengel, Zn. and Harnack the Bla is explained to mean that the "children of
wisdom" (Bengel) use force to enter the divine kingdom.
7 For all other pts. -Bra(eolat.
BipAoc

Bip\os, BiB^lov

-f Biplos.
1. The general use. BlpAos is a loan-word from the Egyptian. It denotes in the first
instance the shrub of the papyrus and then its bark :; 1 BIBAIvoc is what is prepared
from this shrub.2 The original form is BuBos, BuBAlov. BiBAlov arises from the
second word by assimilation, and Bipos is formed accordingly. From the 1st cent.
B.C. BiBA- is crowded out by BuB-, which is the norm according to Attic judgment.
BiB-, however, is revived by itacism. There are vacillations from the 1st cent. A.D.
Thus Josephus usually has fiflos, but occasionally employs the older form. 3
Writing material made of papyrus replaces the wooden tablet in Greece as early as
the 6th cent. B.C. 4 The term thus comes to be applied to inscribed paper. In particular
it is used for a roll of papyrus. But it also comes to be used of other writing materials
such as tablets, leather, skin and parchment, and of what is written on them.
It thus comes to denote a book, a letter, a record, or a statute. 7 In the LXX B1BAlov
is more common. Like BlBAos, it is almost always used for 190. It is impossible to
establish any material distinction between the two terms. There is simply preference
in certain formulae. When an author refers to an earlier volume of his work or quotes
the volume of another writer, he may use either. 8 In the LXX, too, B1BAlov does not
have any distinctive meaning which is not in certain circumstances expressed by Biplos
at least in some MSS.
2. BiB^o lspai. According to Jos. Bell., 2, 159 the Essene prophets are BiBlous

BIBAOS, BiBAlov. L. Low, "Graph. Requisiten u. Erzeugnisse bei d. Juden" in

Beitr. z. jud. Altertskde., I (1870). S. Krauss, Talmud. Archaologie, III (1912), 132 ff.; RE3,
XVII, 766 ff.; T. Birt. Das antike Buchwesen (1882), 12 ff.; Handbuch der klass. Altertums-
wiss.3, I,3 (1913), 247-382: K. Dziatzko, in Pauly-W., III (1899), 939 ff., s.v. "Buch"
Untersuchungen iber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens (1900); W. Schubart,
Das Buch bei den Griechen u. Romern (1921). 32 f. On BuBA-, BiBl- : Moiris, Lex Atticum
(1830), p. 88, Pierson-Koch ; K. Meisterhans-E. Schwyzer, Gramm. der att. Inschr.3 (1900),
28; Kuhner-Blass-Gerth, I, 70; A. Maidhof, Zur Begriffsbestimmung der Koine (1912),
303 ff. On BiBAapiotov, BiBAi8xpiov, BZ, 6 (1908), 171. Hanel, "D. Schriftbegriff
Jesu," BFTh, 24 (1919). Book Life etc. Weber, 242, 282 f.; Dalman WJ, I, 171; P. Volz,
Jud. Esch. (1903), 93 f.; Bousset-Gressm., 258; H. Zimmern in E. Schrader, KAT3, II
(1903), 400 ff.; B. Meissner, Babylonien u. Assyrien, II (1925), 124 ff.; L. Ruhl, "De mor-
tuorum judicio, RVV, II, 2 (1903), 68, 101 ff.; J. Weiss, D. Offb. d. Joh. (1904), 57 ff.;
Zahn Einl., 1I, 600, 608 f.: A Schlatter, D. AT i. d. joh. Apk. (1912), 61 f.; W. Sattler,
"D. Buch mit 7 Siegeln,' I1, ZNW, 21 (1922), 43 ff.; W. Brickner, Die grosse und die
kleine Buchrolle in d. Offb. Kp. 5 u. 10 (1923); Rohr Off.4, 129.
Jos. Ant., 2, 246.
2 Ibid., 2, 220 : TrÉyua BiBAivov.
3 LXX: Esr. 1:31 B; Jos. : Ant., 12, 113; Vit., 365; Polyb., III, 34, 3; Diod. S., XVI,
3, 8. On the other hand Aristeas always has Biplos, BipAia.
4 The wooden tablet TUElov (119) is distinguished from BipAiov in Is. 30:8.
Is. 18:2 : ÉmiatoAai BiBAtvai.
6 The Torah was preferably written on leather rolls. In the Mishnah 720 is always used
only of animal skins, Low, 115. Cf. also S. Nu., 16 on 5:23. On the other hand Jehoiakim
in Jer. 43(36):20 ff. obviously cuts paper and not leather (LXX : yapriov).
For examples, v. Preisigke Fachworter, 40 and Wort., s.v.; Mitteis-Wilcken, I, 1,
p. XXXI, n. 2.
BiBAos: Jos. Ant., 1, 94; 4, 74 etc.; Philo Ebr., 1. BtBAlov: Jos. Ant., 20, 267; Bell.,
1, 30; Philo Sacr. AC, 51. Both writers often use the words interchangeably : jos. Ant., 8, 44;
10, 93-95; Philo Leg. All., I, 19 and 21.
 Biplos

lepais EuTta 8ot Bo LEVol Kai Bap6pois dyvelaic kai tpoontov a10o0€ya-
alv. This refers to the OT but perhaps embraces more than the Canon, for
according to 2, 142 the Essenes must swear : ouvinphoulv to ths alptoeoc aitov
BiBia. This use of Bifou lepal corresponds to the observation that occasionally
in the imperial period this expression is chosen for the hieratic book. We can
thus understand why the Ephesian books of magic are called BipAot in Ac. 19:19.
It is thus a mere transfer of ordinary usage to the OT when we meet al lspal
Bipol countless times in Josephus and Philo, not only for the books of Moses,
but for the whole collection of canonical writings.10 Philo, who limits himself to
the Torah, uses the expression of the Pentateuch. 11 Already in Daniel the OT
is referred to as ai B(Bot. 12
3. Blflos is also used to denote the individual writings of the Canon. In view
of the later ecclesiastical term "the Bible," it is to be noted that the singular has
its historical origin in the description of the Torah as BlBoc. This seems to be
grounded in the custom of writing it on a particular roll. 13 But BiBlos can also
be used of other parts of the Canon or related religious books, though not in the
LXX (- BiBilov, n. 8) . 14 In the NT Mk. 12:26 corresponds to the general usage:
Ev Th BiBA∞ MaUoÉo, as do also Lk. 20:42 and Ac. 1:20 Év Blp^o waluv, 15
Lk. 3:4 : Év Bif\o Aoyov "Hoatou, and Ac 7:42 : Év BlBlo Tov ipoon toov. 16
It is worth noting that Luke, the most Hellenistic of all the writers, is very free
in his use of the LXX formula (though cf. Lk. 4:17, -> B1BAiov, 618).
4. BIPAos yEVÉOEWC. This expression in Mt.1:1 is taken from Gn. 5:1 (for
niin 100), 17 As in Gn., it relates only to the succeeding genealogy and not 18 to
the whole Gospel or even to the infancy stories up to Mt. 2:23. Otherwise we do
violence to the traditional formula.

9 Diod. S., I, 44, 4; 73, 4; 82, 3; Philo Conf. Ling., 3; 8 book of Moses in A. Dieterich,
Abraxas (1891), 169. For further examples from Luc. and Pap., v. Nageli, 19.
10 Joseph. : {spal BiBiot for the Torah : Ant., 1, 26; 1, 82; 2, 347; 3, 81 and 105; 4, 326;
10, 58; for the whole collection : Ant., 1, 139; 9,28 and 46; 16, 164; 20, 261; Ap., 1, 1 and
91; 2, 45. Rarely BiBlia lep& : Vit., 418. Other expressions for the Canon ai 'EBpaikai
BiBlot, Ant., 9, 208; similarly, 10, 218; Ap., 1, 154. Cf. also BiBlov, n. 8, 9 and 11.
11 Decal., 154; Spec. Leg., II, 150; Abr., 157; Vit. Mos., II, 10; II, 45 (ai lepotatal
BipAor); Ebr., 208; Rer. Div. Her., 258.
12 Da. (LXX and ©) 9:2 : gy rais BIBAoIS, with reference to Jer. Cf. To BipAia,
Ep. Ar., 46.
13 For the sing. with reference to the Torah, cf. Tg., II, Est., 4, 2 : 7707 N2D02; jTaan.,
66d NO?TiN 120 7'77: Sota, 7,9 and often in Rabb. lit.: 77in 700. 1 Esr. 5:48; 7:6,9: f
MougEwc BiBAos. 2 Macc. 8:23 : f lepa BlBAos, similarly Jos. Ant., 4, 303 (never in the
sing. elsewhere in Jos.); Bar. 4:1: B(BAos tOv TpootayuatV tO1 (EOl; Philo Det. Pot.
Ins., 139: f 0806 BiBloc. On the other hand, in Jos. Ant., 12, 256 BiBloc lepa with
vouos means any individual book. Worth noting is Ep. Ar., 316 : §v BiBlo, apparently
used of the whole OT. But one would need to know whether Theodectes borrowed only
from the Torah.
Tob. 1, 1: BiBlos Abyav TwBlt; Test. L. 10:5 : n piploc 'Evoy TOU Sikaiou;
Jos. Ant., 11, 337: n Aaviniou Biploc; Philo Migr. Abr., 14: lspo Biploc 'Elayoy;
Plant, 26 : Év Aevitinn piplo; Conf. Ling., 128 : Év th tov xpi&tov B(pA©, 149 : Év
Bacilikais BiBlois.
13 Cf. 01570 720, Tanch. (Buber) ymxn, 5,46 and jMeg., 72a. In LXX B as a title:
BiBloc waluov.
16 That BipAos as distinct from BiBAlov embraces several individual writings (Cr.-Ko.)
is difficult to prove, -) BiBliov n. 8, 9, 11.
17 Cf. Philo Abr., 11.
18 Zn. Mt., ad loc.
BiBAlov

+ BiBliov.
1. The general use. BtBAlov was first a diminutive of BlBAos, but soon it came
to be conceived differently. Other diminutives replaced it, like BipAi8lov and
BiBAapioiov, Rev. 10:2, 8 (x P), 9f.1 BiBAtoy is the most common word for the
"roll of a book," a "book," or a "writing" in the koine. In the LXX (B(Bos, n. 13,
14), for example, it is used when there is reference to non-biblical writings.
Elsewhere it is used with reference to libraries, archives and chronicles. 3 The
historical work of Josephus is called td BipAla. + Like Blploc, however, the word
can also denote an epistle ® or document. Thus in Tob. 7:13 it means the record
of marriage ; in Dt. 24:1 and 3 BiBAlov arootaolou (nni2 790), as in Mk. 10:4
and Mt. 19:7, is the bill of divorce given to the wife on her release. 6
2. BiBAlov and BiBAla for the Canon.
Often in the OT we meet the demand to write down what is said 1902. This
can mean any surface or sheet adapted for writing, but the translators, who have
BiBAlov, would naturally think of the papyrus roll. Rolls are actually meant in
y 39:7: zv KEgalioi BipAiou (npo-nbina), quoted in Hb. 10:7; also Ez. 2:9, cf. the
metaphor in Is. 34:4.
With reference to the OT, To BipAlov is first the more or less solemn ex-
pression of the LXX for the book of the Law. 8 Thus Gl. 3:10 : TAS &G OUK
EuLEveL TIGolV toic yEypauuÉvois Év to BiBAlo tou vouou (LXX Dt. 27:26
follows the Mas. and has : v Taol toic Abyois Tou vouou) is in full keeping
with this usage. So is Hb. 9:19 (Ex. 24:7), where the Torah is meant, even though
the tic Buabnkns of the LXX is not added to BiBAlov.
It is worth noting that Josephus, who almost always has the plural ispai BIB oL
(- piploc, 616), uses pupAia rather than BiBAlov for the Torah and the Canon.
On this usage 2 Tm. 4:13 might well refer to rolls of the OT. If from the time of

BiBAlov. 1 BiBAxpibtov according to BZ, 6 (1908), 171, hitherto attested only in

Herm. v., 2, 1, 3 and 4, 3. C* and many min have BtBAt6apiov (cf. Aristoph. Fr. 490, CAF,
I, 518), H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apoc., II (1929), 275. But there are
other readings. On BiBA(8tov libellus, which does not occur in the NT, cf. Preisigke
Fachworter, 40; Wort., s.v.; Mitteis-Wilcken, 1, p. XXXI; APF, 5 (1909), 262 f., 441.
On the use in the post-apost. fathers, v. Pr.-Bauer, S.v.
2 Nu. 21:14; 2 Bao. 1:18; 3 Bao. 8:53; 3 Bao. 11:41; 2 Ch. 13:22 (for tam); Est. 10:2;
Job, 42:18 A in some MSS BiBlos.
3 Libraries : Ep. Ar., 9.10 and 29; Jos. Ant., 1, 10; 12, 12. Archives: Ant., 8, 55 Ezr.
and 159
Genealogies : 2 Eo8p. 17.5. BipAlov tis auvoolas. Chronicles of the fathers :
AB, cf. Mal. 3:16; Est. 10:2.
4 Jos. Vit., 361 and 364.
2 Bao. 11:14; 3 Bao. 20:8; 4 Bao. 10:1; 'lep. 36:1.
6 In the pap. it is used for many official, commercial and legal papers and documents,
cf. Preisigke, op. cit. (* n.1).
Ex. 17:14; Nu. 5:23; Dt. 17:18; Tob. 12:20; Is. 30:8 etc.
8 For the Law as to BiBAlov: Dt. 28:58; 29:20 (19); 4 Bao. 22:8 B (BipAos, 4 Bao.
22:16). BiBAIov tOO vouou: Dt. 28:61; 29:21 (20), 27 (26): 30:10; 31:26; Bao. 22:8;
22:11; Ec6p. 18:3; Biploc tou vouou : Jos. 1:8; BibAlov Mouon: 2 Ch. 35:12: BuBAlov
tol vouou Mouon : Jos. 23:6; BiBAlov vouou toU BEoU Ea8p. 18:8; BiBliov vouou
kupiou : Ch. 34:14; B1BAlov Evroliv Kupiou: 2 Ezr. 7:11; Bipllov tis bua0ikns:
Ex. 24:7; 4 Bao. 23:2, 21; 2 Ch. 34:30; Sir. 24:23.
Jos. for the Torah: Ant., 3,74; 4, 304; 12, 36, 89 and 114. For the whole collection:
Ant., 1, 15; 8, 159. Ep. Ar., 28 and 30 also speaks of the Jewish BiBAla. Cf. on the other
hand the prol. to Sir. : Thy to0 vouou Kai TOv rpoontov Kal tov XiAwv tatplov
BipAlwv avayvooiv; Cl., 14.2: ro BiBlla tov T pO ON TOv kal ol attoato ou
 BipAlov

Chrysostom 10 the canonical collection of both OT and NT has been called to

BiBla, this follows the usage found in Josephus except that it is now extended to
cover the NT Canon as well.
Even in the LXX the individual books of the OT apart from the Torah are
sometimes called BiBAfov. 11 This usage is found at Lk. 4:17. In the synagogue at
Nazareth there is handed to Jesus BiBAlov tot mtpoontou 'Hoaiou. The TITUEac
in v.20 shows that it was a roll. 12 If in Jn. 20:30 13 the author calls his Gospel
B1BAlov, this certainly does not imply any formal claim (cf. 21:25).
3. The Apocalyptic Use and the Other NT Passages concerning the Book
of Life.
The word "book" acquires a special sense in the Apocalypse as an image for
the divine secret which is declared and developed as a firmly sketched entity, 14
and also as an expression for the impregnable foundation of the divine counsel.
The author of Rev. prefers BuBAlov to Biplos; he uses it 23 times. He is much
more influenced by OT than imperial usage. Apart from the quotation in 6:14 :
BiBliov £ALOOOUEVOV (Is. 34:4), which merely strengthens the impression that
he has the idea of a roll in view, the term is applied in 5 different connections.
a. The BiBAlov of the Apocalypse, which according to 1:11 is to be sent to
the churches of Asia, contains Aoyou "poontelas which are to be observed
(22:7, 9 f., 18 f.). It is not sealed (22:10), as distinct from Da. 12:4, 9, because the
time is near, i.e., the message will be wholly worked out in the community of Jesus
Christ and is not to be set aside as a closed secret (as in 10:4). The divine has to
mediate effective instruction, consolation and direction to true hope.
b. The BiBAlov with seven seals (5:1-5, 7 f.) is again in the form of a roll, and
indeed of an énol6ypapov, 15 not a codex. This is shown decisively by the close
relation of the text to Ez. 2:9 f., where there is also a roll inscribed on both sides
and indicating the inscrutable fulness of events. According to the image, however,
there is also an influence of the Roman testament with its seven seals. 16 The
contents of the BiBAlov must be brought into relation to the whole chain of judicial

10 Hom. in Col. 9:1 (MPG, 62, 361). Cf. also Suic. Thes., s.v.
So in the numerous ref. to books of chronicles and kings : BupAiwv pnuatov tov
nuepov tov Baorewv 'Iopan^, 3 Bao. 14:19 A etc.; 1 Ch. 27:24 (for 120p); Nah. 1:1:
BiBalov apaoewc Naodu; cf. 2 Macc. 6:12. Cf. also Jos. Ant., 10, 210 : TO BiBAlov TO
Aavifiou; 11, 5: BupAlov 8 tis autot poontelas & 'Hoalac KaTÉAITEV. According
to Ap., 1, 38 he numbers in the Canon 860 ipos toic glkoal BiBAla.
On dvoleac in v. 17, cf. Ea8p. 18:5. On the other hand, cf. Macc. 3:48 : ÉEemé.
tacav to Bifllov tou vouou.
On & ook fotiv yEypauuava Ev TO BIBALd TOUTo, cf. M. Ex. 17:14; Lv. r., 35.
14 On Herm., v. Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
15 For examples, v. Bss. Apk., 254; esp. Luc. Vit. Auct., 8; Grotius, Zahn, Nestle: codex.
J. Weiss, Offb. Joh., 57 ff.: bound tables. The objection of Zahn that we could partially
read a roll which is also written on the back goes beyond what is admissible in the
Apocalypse. The roll is so bound and sealed that it cannot be read. That fni Thy BEgIov
demands a codex founders on the use of the prep. in 20:1. Nor is the ovoif at of v. 4
decisive, as shown by Lk. 4:17. Cf. Charles Apc., I, 136 ff.
16 The oldest text of 5:1 (A, Cypr., Orig.: B1BAiov yeypauuÉVOv LOW0EV kai 8TtIOOEV
Kate opayiouevov roparyiow ETa, Hoskier, II, 141 f.; Z. Ak, 328, n. 1) able
us to link fow0ev kai 8T1100EV with yeypauuÉvov (Orig., as Ez. 2:10) or to take
8T10EV KaTEGopayIquÉvoV etc. separately (Grotius: intus scriptum, extra signatum
Zn., J. Weiss). Either way there might well be reference to the official will sealed on th
back by witnesses, J. Marquardt, D. Privatleben d. Romer? (1886), 805 f.; E. Huschke,
D. Buch mit 7 Siegeln (1860). For further bibl., v, Zahn Einl., II, 609, n. 8. It should be
BipAlov

acts which unfold from c. 6 on and from which there develop organically the visions
of the trumpets and bowls. Hence we are not concerned merely with the 6 or 7
seals themselves, but with all the last events up to the consummation, and indeed
with the direction and goal given to the community. The BiBAlov is thus the book
of the sacredly established divine decrees concerning the future of the world and
the community. We do not find the expression "book of destiny" because the
eternal basis of the sovereign and historically determinative counsel of God is
fundamentally different from siuapuÉvn. As the roll of Ez. contained lamentations
and cries and woes concerning Israel and the nations, so the book with seven seals
declares the ways of God in judgment as ordained by His ruling power. 17 In the
first instance they are sealed, i.e., withdrawn from human knowledge, yet also
laid down inviolably. To open them is to fulfil the will of the testator and thus to
initiate the train of events. That no one in all creation is qualified for this task
directs attention to the fact, which is to be described as a main christological motif
in the Apoc., 18 that only the apvlov on the throne (5:6), the Crucified who as
the Lamb has gained the Lion's victory and is now enthroned, is worthy to open
the seals. Triumphant in His sacrificial death, Christ can execute the divine will
up to the final consummation. Thus the cross is the basis of His ruling power,
which can bring the divine lordship to its goal. 10
c. The BiBAxpiowov which the divine has to swallow in Rev. 10:9 f. in order
fully to assimilate news of the final events (Ez. 2:8-3:3) obviously contains the
vision of the temple and the two witnesses and therefore of God's dealings with
Israel in the last time (11:1-14).20 Here, as in all the divine books of Revelation,
the book is a sum of the active will of God. It can be read only in such a way
that, translated at once into ction, it unfolds the divine will before the community.
d. To BiBAiov tis goñs (Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27), also called f BlBAoc
ms gons like Phil. 4:3 except that there it has no article at 3:5; 13:8 N*;
20:15, is based on OT sayings which speak of all the saints and faithful, and of
all who fear God or await salvation, being inscribed in God's book. 21 In the OT

remembered, however, that the idea of a sealed book derives from Is. 29:11 and Da. 12:4
(cf. 8:26 : kai o0 oopayioov thv 8paotv); cf. Eth. En. 89:71. The sevenfold sealing is
also in keeping with the symbolism of numbers in Rev. For sealing in Judaism: Str.-B.,
III, 800; cf. Tanch. (Buber) " 1,211, the book sealed by God : M!. In Gnosticism a
great role is played by the sealed letter (O. Sol. 23) which the son of truth, who inherits
all things, brings as a message from God. Cf. H. Gressmann, SAB, 37 (1921), 616 ff. The
sealed letter also occurs in Lidz. Ginza, 552, 34; Liturg., 111 and 118; the letter in Lidz. Joh.,
241, 20; 94, 19; Ginza, 339, 16 etc. Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 66 ff.; Loh. Apk., 49.
17 For apocal. par. to this "book of the divine world plan," v. Str.-B., II, 174 ff.
18 Cf. J. Behm, "Joh. Apk. u. Geschichtsphilosophe," ZSTh, 2 (1925),
19 That world destinies are the content of the book is to be maintained against Orig.
and Victorinus (the OT fulfilled in Christ) and W. Sattler, ZNW, 21 (1922), 43 ff. (iden-
tification of the sealed book with the book of life). Both these views disrupt the forward
looking view of history in Rev. On this whole question, cf. A. Schlatter. Das AT i. d. joh.
Apk., 62.
20 W. Brickner would also include 12:1-9; 13:1-7, 11-18.
21 Ex. 32:32 f., which is the basis of Rev. 3:5; Is. 4:3, which refers to all those in Jeru-
salem written among the living t 68:28 : #galep0itwoav Ex BlBiou Tovtav; y 86:6,
the list of Jewish proselytes in heaven cf. 1 Bao 25:29 : Evoedeuévn €v beouo ths
gons; Da. 12:1: TaC yEypquuévos ev rn BipAc; Jub. 19:9, inscribed on heavenly
tables as the friend of God ; Eth. En. 47:3 books of the living philosophically attenuated,
Philo Gig., 61. On Egalelyo in Rev. 3:5, cf. Neh. 13:14; Is. 48:19; Jos. Ant., 6, 133 (based
cn Ex. 17:14) ; Eth. En. 108:3. Tg. jer. on Ex. 32:32 f.: 7119 Wth X02027 X:2'7Y 720. For
the use in the post-apostolic fathers, v. Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
 BiBlov

this is to be differentiated from the book in which God has laid down in advance
all human destinies, sorrows and joys (Ps. 56:8; 139:16).22
The same image of the writing of names in heaven is found at Lk. 10:20 (the
disciples of Jesus); Phil. 4:3 (those who stand in the service of the Gospel);
Hb. 12:23 (the community of the first-born, i.e., of the NT). The idea may have
been fostered by the establishment of genealogies, family lists and national registers
in Israel (Neh. 7:5 f., 64; 12:22 f.; Ez. 13:9; this is also the reference in Ps. 87:6),
but also by the royal "note-book" (cf. ^ e.). Yet the belief in heavenly tables of
destiny on which the fates of the living are inscribed, to which they are added,
and from which they are erased, is an ancient oriental heritage. 23 In the NT the
image is freed from fatalism and becomes an expression of the assurance of
salvation of the Christian community, which knows that it is elected on the
impregnable basis of the divine counsel of grace (2 Tm. 2:19). When Rev. 13:8
calls this BiBAlov the book of life of the crucified Lamb, it again makes the act
of redemption on the cross the foundation, as in the case of the sealed book. The
reference, however, is not now to the consummation ; it is to the salvation of
individuals. The opposite is eternal perdition (20:14). This ordination to eternal
life goes back behind the crucifixion to the karaBoAr k6ouou (13:8; 17:8), 24
but only the names of those who overcome are not erased (3:5). The divine
foreordination is thus linked with the human readiness to carry the conflict to
victory. The thought of predestination is not unaccompanied by an emphasis on
the cohortative motive for ready obedience 13:8; 17:8 (not worshipping the beast)
and 21:27 (shunning abomination and falsehood) are also to be seen in this light.
e. t Buplia, the books of judgment, are expressly distinguished in 20:12 from
the book of life. The phrase goes back to Da. 7:10 : BlpAo iveox0noav, and is
also based on Is. 65:6; Jer. 22:30 and Mal. 3:16: BiBAiov unquoouvou = 7172! 790,
"note-book," cf. Est. 6:1. 25 It is a mark of the NT view, as distinct from that of
the Synagogue, that all Epya are inscribed in these books. The thought of reckoning
and counting, and restriction to the purely negative side of transgressions, are
alien to the NT. On the contrary, the reference is to a judgment on all men's
works.
Schrenk

22 For Jewish par., v. Str. B., II, 173 f.

28 KAT3, II, 400 ff. In Judaism there develops out of this the idea that all words and
acts are written in heaven in 2 books, i.e., of the righteous and the wicked, the friends of
God and the enemies. Cf. Lev.r., 26 on 21:1; Gn.r., 81 on 35:1; Jub. 30:20 ff.; 36:10. Ac-
cording to the strict Synagogue view fulfilments of the Law are put in one book and
infringements in another : bTaan., 11a. The idea of counting or reckoning thus comes into
use : Wis. 4:20; Eth. En. 63:9; Qoh. r., 77c.; S. Lev., 26, 9. The angels, archangels, Michael,
Elias or Enoch are the recorders. Str.-B., II, 169 ff.; III, 840; IV, 1037.
24 This can hardly mean the "sowing of humanity" (A. Schlatter, Das NT ubersetzt,
1931), but the "foundation of the world."
25 Cf. S. Bar. 24:1. The books of judgment occur particularly frequently in Eth. En.:
81:4; 89:61-64, 68, 70 f., 76; 90:17, 20; 97:6; 98:7 f.; 104:7; 108:7. Transgressions especially
are noted in them - n. 23. In 4 Esr. 6:20 (Vis. II § 10, p. 102 f., Violet) the reference is to
the books of the world plan, > n. 17. For further examples of e., cf. Str.-B., II, 171 ff.
Praoonued

Bios - Yon.

* BaoonuÉw, + Baopnuia,
t prcoonuos

BAaoonuia is always the act committed in pAaopnueiv, BAdoonuos the quality

either of the doer or his attitude.

A. Blaoonuia in Greek Literature.

In secular Gk. BAaoonula is a. "abusive speech" (misuse of words) in contrast to
goonuia: Demosth., 25, 26 BAaconuiav avti tis viv soonulas; Democ. Fr., 177
(II, 97, 3 ff., Diels): oUTE Abyos to0loc paulny upigl quauplokel oUte TpñEls
dya0n A6you pAaaonuin Avuaivetal. In Eur. Ion., 1189 : €v XEpOIV EXOVTL 8É
aTtovo&c uET' XiAwv TaL8I TO teonvbtI BAxoonulav TIS OIKETOV LOOEYEaTO.
J. Wackernagel translates BAaconuia as a "word of evil sound." 1 b. The word means
further the strongest form of "personal mockery and calumniation." It almost amounts
to the same as Aoopeiv: Isoc., 10, 45 : Kon tIvEs #oi86pnoav airov, ov Thy
avoiav, 1E ov #BAaoounoav tEpi ÉKelvou, padiov antaal katquaEiv. Mostly,
however, it is stronger than Aou6opeiv and oveiol(elv, e.g., Demosth., 18, 10; 19, 210.
The living and the dead can be derided : Demosth., 18,95 : Toc BAaopnuias, ac kata
Tov EiBotov Kai ToV Bulavtlov Entoinaato; Luc. Alex., 4: Ta Xe[piota Kai
BAaoonuotata tov Eni BaBoln nept tou Flueay6pou AeyouÉvov; Herodian Hist.,
VII, 8, 9: Brao nua ToAd ElToov elc thy *Pounv kal Thy olykAntov; Demosth.,
40, 17: TEpI TEOVE& TOV aitdv BAaConuoUvtes. c. It then means 'blasphemy of the
deity" by mistaking 'its true nature or violating or doubting its power. Ps.-Plat. Alc.
II, 149c : BAaoonuouvtov obv aitdv aKovOvtes ol feol o0k artobeyovta TaC
TTOAUTEAEIC TaUTaOl TOUTOS TE Kai volac. Plat. Leg., VII, 800c: (El tiS) BAaoon-
uoi Taoav BAaoonulav. Myths which presuppose an anthropomorphic form of the
gods become Blaoonueiv gic (EoUG: Plat. Resp., II, 381e. Vett. Val., I, 22 (p. 44, 4,
Kroll); ibid., II, 2 (p. 58, 12, Kroll): Elc ra Seia PraonuoOvtEc; ibid., II, 13 (p. 67, 20,
Kroll): To Ad BAxaOnuñoEL GEOUG EvEKEY TOv auuBaivouiov aits mpay.
B. Blaoonuia in the LXX and Judaism.
The root pAaoonu- in the LXX 2 has nothing clearly corresponding in the
original. The word is used for the pi of 972, the pi of exa and the root 1bw or 720:
pAaoonula corresponds to words formed from these roots and BAdoonuos once
to I% 7222. In the translations of the Hexapla PAaoonu- is also used for ga, a92, 772
and ½5p All these terms are rendered variously and with widely varying emphases
in the Greek translations, and no firm rules can be distinguished. Alternatives
to pAxTonueiv are particularly ovEL&I(ELv and rapoguvelv, which often occur for
972, 977, 199 and PX3. As distinct from these synonyms, BAaoonu- always refers
finally to God, whether in the sense of the disputing of His saving power (4 Bao.
19:4, 6, 22), the desecrating of His name by the Gentiles who capture and enslave
His people (Is. 52:5), the violation of His glory by derision of the mountains of Israel
(Ez. 35:12) and His people (2 Macc. 15:24), all ungodly speech and action, espe-

BAaGonuED KTA. 1 Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachforsch., 33 (1895), 42.

2 For what follows, am indebted in part to Bertram.
 BAaoonuia

cially on the part of the Gentiles (Is. 66:3; 1 Macc. 2:6; 2 Macc. 8:4; 10:34 ff.;
12:14; Tob. 1:18 x), or human arrogance with its implied depreciation of God
(Lv. 24:11 in marg Codd 58, 85, 130 Braoonusiv, Codex X in marg EvBp[(Elv
for 3½p, which at 2 Bao. 19:43 LXX is rendered ippl(elv; 4 Bao. 19:22 : #Baooh-
unoas ipas sic twos tous optaluoic aou, cf. also Sir. 48:18, where 972 is
translated HEyalauyeiv brepnoavia). The very fact that they do not believe in
Yahweh makes the Gentiles Baopuols kai PBapBapoic EOvEO (2 Macc. 10:4).
With this direct or indirect reference to God, BAaoonu- also occurs in other
translations of the OT: E 2 Bao. 12:14 (Field, I, 563); 'AZ w 43:16 (Field, II, 159);
'AZO Is. 37:6, 23 (Field, II, 502 f.); 43:28 (Field, II, 519).
The varying significance of the term in Philo is best shown by considering the words
with which he associates it, OUKODXVTEiV in Leg. Gaj., 169, KaTyopEiv in Migr. Abr.,
115, KXKNy0pEiv in Spec. Leg., IV, 197, oBpis in Decal., 86, Jos., 74, BiaBoAn in
Flacc., 33, &oÉBeia in Decal., 63. BAaoonu- is sharpest when it is linked with katapa
in antithesis to Evoyla and gdyn in Migr. Abr., 117. It here denotes abuse to the
point of cursing. The religious sense is predominant, obviously under the influence of
the LXX. There is the general statement &To unoels unoÉva pAaoonun in Spec.
Leg., IV, 197. But mostly there is reference to the divine: tov ic To feiov Baoon-
utov, Leg. Gaj., 368; Decal., 63; Fug., 84. The Jew should not blaspheme other gods
according to LXX Ex. 22:28 in order that the name of God should not be brought into
jeopardy : Spec. Leg., I, 53 : TPOOTXTTEL 8É gan orouapyla xpñoaola1 kai
oxaivo yAdoon BAaoonuoivias ofc gTEpol voulgoual (goUg. Similarly Jos. Ant.,
4, 207 and Ap., 2, 237. 3 The real sin, however, is rov tov S1wv natepa Kai nointhy
BAxoonusiv, Philo Fug., 84; Vit. Mos., II, 206. In Josephus, with the secular use,
blasphemy is equated with attacks on the Jews as the people of God (Ap., 1, 59; 1, 223),
or on Moses (Ant., 3, 307; Ap., 1, 279), or on the law of the fathers (Ap., 2, 143).
In the Damascus Document, 5, 11 ff. 4 it is said of the opponents of the new covenant :
"They desecrate the Holy Spirit, blaspheming with their tongue and opening their
mouths against the laws of the divine covenant.' Here we have the thought, specifically
reminiscent of Mk. 3:28 f., that blasphemy is a transgression against the Holy Spirit,
who is here viewed as the divinely given inner purity of men.
The Rabbis 5 in their concept of blasphemy start with the divinely ordained stoning
of the blasphemer (Lv. 24:10-16) and the similar saying in Nu. 15:30 f. They find the
substance of this capital offence in one "who speaks impudently of the Torah" (S. Nu.,
112 on 15:30), in the idolater (S. Nu., 112 on 15:31) and in the one who brings shame
on the name of Yahweh (bPes., 93b). The formal exposition of the concept by later
-Rabbinic law, which finds fulfilment of the substance of blasphemy in such things as the
clear enunciation of the name of God (Sanh., 7, 5), is not yet present in the time of
Jesus. & The decisive thing in the concept of blasphemy is here, too, violation of the
majesty of God. BAaoOnuE is introduced as a loan-word into Rabb. Heb.
C. plaoonuia in the NT.
1. In the NT the concept of blasphemy is controlled throughout by the thought
of violation of the power and majesty of God. Blasphemy may be directed im-
mediately against God (Rev. 13:6; 16:11, 21; Ac. 6:11), $ against the name of God
(R. 2:24, quoting Is. 52:5 LXX, - 621; 1 Tm. 6:1; Rev. 16:9), against the Word

Cf. also Str.-B., I, 1009 f.

Cf. W. Staerk, Die judische Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes in Damaskus (1922), 23;
L. Ginzberg, Eine unbekannte judische Sekte (1922), 33 ff.
On the whole section, v. Str.-B., 1009
0 Dalman WT, I, 258. Cf. also G. Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj (1889), 44 ff.
Levy Wort., I, 235.
But also against the goddess Artemis in Ac. 19:37.
 Braoonula

of God (Tt. 2:5), against Moses and God and therefore against the bearer of
revelation in the Law (Ac. 6:11).
Distinctive is the idea of blaspheming of angelic powers by Gnostic errorists in
Jd. 8-10 : ouolwc uÉvrol kal OToL EVUTUIaCOUEVOL aXpKa uev utaivouoiv, Kupi6-
ita S& d0eToDaw, 86Eac 8E plaopnuoian. 6 8É Miyai^ 6 apxayyeloc, 8Te
to SiaB6AQ SIXKPIVOLEVOC BLEAEYETO TEPI TOU MWUFENG OQUATOG, OUK ETOA-
unoev kplolv éTEVEyKEiv pAaoonulas, alla E(TEY® ETiltlunoal oot kupIos. OUTOl
8É Sax uev oik otaaiv Blaconuoual. The verse is somewhat altered in 2 Pt. 2:10-
12. The blaspheming of heavenly beings fnl Tas Ev oupavi eelag ouoEIs is also
found in Philo : Conf. Ling., 154; Som., II, 131: KAtov kal aeAnvnv kal touc &AAouC
dotÉpac BAaoonueiv. In Jd. and 2 Pt. the reference is undoubtedly to angelic powers. 10
In Jd. 8, and even more strongly in 2 Pt. 2:10, their blaspheming is brought into con-
nection with what the Sodomites did to the divine commandments and with the libertine
immorality of the false teachers. By the spotting of the flesh they repudiate the claim
to lordship of the Kupioc and blaspheme the 86Éai, which are here to be understood
as powers of good, in close connection with the kupi6rs. 11 How seriously we are to
refrain from such blasphemy (- the passages from Philo and Jos. supra) is shown by
the fact that not even the archangel Michael dares to utter a railing accusation against
the devil.

The NT assumes this strict concept of blasphemy to be that of the Jews

an assumption supported by the LXX, Philo and Josephus (-> 621). It is thus easy
to see why Jesus should bring down on Himself the charge of blasphemy, not
unjustly from the Jewish standpoint, when He claims to be the Messiah and
assumes the prerogatives of God. As soon as Jesus forgives the sins of the man
sick of the palsy the prerogative of God alone the scribes suspect Him of
blasphemy (Mk. 2:7 and par.). The reason for the anger of the Jews is clearly
given in Jn. 10:33-36 : Ata(ouÉv TE tEpi BAaoonulas, kal 8tl of ave pattos
WV TOLEIC JEAUTOV OE6V. The blasphemy which brings about His death is His
assertion that He is the Messiah and His statement that He will be seen as the
Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Almighty, together with His apparent
inability to give any convincing proof of His omnipotence to His judges (Mk. 14:64;
Mt. 26:65) .12
2. On the other hand, for Christians it is blasphemy to throw doubt on the
lawful Messianic claim of Jesus, to deride Christ in His unity with the Father and
as the Bearer of divine majesty. When the men who guard the captive Jesus mock
His prophetic gift (Lk. 22:64 f.), this is just as blasphemous for the Evangelists
as when the crowd at the cross (Mk. 15:29; Mt. 27:39) or the impenitent thief
(Lk. 23:39) contemptuously challenge His divine sonship.
The fate of being slandered and attacked in their basic faith passed from Christ
to His community in its union with the Lord. 13 For this cause Paul as a persecutor
of Christians was a blasphemer (1 Tm. 1:13). Suffering blasphemy is one of the
sufferings laid on the community (Rev. 2:9; 1 C. 4:13;14 1 Pt. 4:4). The opposition

® J. Sickenberger, "Engel- oder Teufelslasterer im Judas- und m i

teilungen d. Schlesischen Gesellschaft . Volkskunde, 13/14 (1911), 621 ff.
10 > 86ga1 - angels, LXX Ex. 15:11. Cf. Wnd. Jd., ad loc.
11 Schriften d. NT3, II (1917), 298, 310.
12 From Rabb. writings it would seem that the mere claim to be the Messiah was not
enough for condemnation, Dalman WJ, 1, 257.
13 Though Blaoonueiv is not used, this is sharply expressed in Mt. 5:11.
14 V.1. ink BDEFGL it vg, otherwise Suaonuouuevot.
 BAaoonuia

of the Jews to the preaching of Paul is necessarily blasphemy because it attacks

its basic content, the proclamation of the Messiah (Ac. 13:45; 18:6).
3. But the Christian, too, is in danger of giving cause for blasphemy. Denial
of Christ in persecution would be such. Hence Paul can say of his activity as a
persecutor : aitoug ivayka(ov Blaoonueiv. Even in partaking of idol meats
Christians in bondage could see blasphemy (1 C. 10:30), as distinct from Paul.
Violation of the obligation of love even in such matters ouov to aya06v
(R. 14:16) could expose to scandal. False teaching is blasphemy when it perverts
from the way of truth (2 Pt. 2:2; R. 3:8). The blasphemy does not have to find
verbal expression. Any bad or unloving action can contain it, either because it
resists the holy will of God or because it causes the enemies of Christianity to
calumniate it (1 Tm. 6:1; Jm. 2:7; R. 2:24; Tt. 2:5). The basis is clearly set out in
2 Cl., 13, 2-4.
According to Mk. 3:28,29 and par. any blasphemy can be forgiven, even
though it be against the Son of Man (Mt. 12:32), but not against the Holy Spirit.
This can hardly refer to the mere utterance of a formula in which the word
TVE ua appears. It denotes the conscious and wicked rejection of the saving
power and grace of God towards man. Only the man who sets himself against
forgiveness is excluded from it. In such cases the only remedy is to deliver up to
Satan that he may learn not to blaspheme (1 Tm. 1:20) .15 Paoonueiv is related
to the Spirit in an addition to 1 Pt. 4:14 in some MSS. 16
The opposition to God of the beast of the last days is BAaoonuia (Rev. 13:1,
5, 6), as is also that of the Babylonian harlot (17:3).
The predominantly religious connotation is present even where it is not ex-
pressed, e.g., when Blaoonu- occurs in the lists of offences in Mk. 7:22; Mt. 15:19;
Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; 1 T'm. 6:4; 2 T'm. 3:2, also Herm. m., 8, 3; Did., 3, 6, or when
the general command is given in Tt. 3:2 : undÉva Blaoonueiv.
D. BAcoonuia in the Early Church.
The different nuances in the NT recur in the fathers. The concept is made
more inward when Orig. says in Joh., XXVIII, 15: PrxonuEi yap Epyois kal
Aoyois suaptias eic to 1ta pov TVE Oua &yIov 6 Kai napovtos autoo Év Th tuxn
xuaptovov. Tertullian in his Montanist days seeks to make it as strict as pos-
sible, as in Pud., 13, 17: incestum vero atque blasphemia totos homines in possessio-
nem ipsi Satanae, non angelo eius tradidisse meruerunt. In his view, Hymenaeus
and Alexander (1 Tm. 1:19 f.) were eternally lost (Pud., 13, 19 ff.). The concept
was sharpened in rather a different direction in the dogmatic struggles of the
4th century, when opposing theological views were stigmatised as blasphemy.
Gelas. Hist. Eccl., II, 22, 4 : 6 GOEPNS ÉBAXOPHUNOEV "ApEIOC EVA BEOV aKTIotoV
Kai &ov KTlOTOv ElonKoc kai To TVE ua TOU 0E00 ouolos ktlotov keknpu-
xos .. . ; II, 20, 6: To 'ApElou BAaoonua pjuata, kiloua kal Épyaleiov Tov
VIoV TOU 0EOU & toKaAov.

Already the fathers had difficulty in expounding Mt. 12:32. It was seriously discussed
how blasphemies against Christ could be forgiven, but not against the Spirit. Chrys.
Hom. in Mt., 41, 3 (MPG, 57, 449) makes the Lord answer: 8ox uEv 08v #BAaoon-
unoate kat' Euoi TIpo tou ataupot colnut® a SE TEpI TOU TIVEOUATOS Elpn-
KATE, tauta OUX HEEL ouyyvounv® ott TOUTO yvopuov ouiv gotl Kai spoc

15 Dib. Past., ad loc.; Ltzm. Exc. on

16 KLP sah.
BAaopnuia - Boat

TO Sj^a AVALOXUVTEITE® EL yap kal ÉuE LEYETE &yvoeiv, 0f on tou k&KEivo

GyVOEITE, 8tl to Saluovas EKBaMElV Kal iXOEIS ETtITELEIV TOU dyiou TVE LATOC
pyov totiv. If the solution is still found here externally in the knowledge or ignorance
of the blasphemers, Augustine has a very profound view of blasphemy against the Spirit
when he says of it in Ep., 185, 49, Goldbacher : hoc est autem duritia cordis usque ad
finem huius vitae, qua homo recusat in unitate corporis Christi, quod vivificat spiritus
sanctus, remissionem accipere peccatorum huic ergo dono gratiae dei quicumque
restiterit et repugnaverit vel quoquo modo ab eo fuerit alienus usque in finem huius
temporalis vitae, non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro.
Beyer

BLETEO - opao.

+ Boow (- pago).
"To cry, "to call." Commonly attested from the time of Hom., also in inscr. and
pap. Often expanded, e.g., avaBoaw ("to cry out"), ÉriBoow ("to call to"), kata-
Boao ("to raise a complaint"). Bon, 'outcry." 1 LXX makes considerable use of this
word group in translation of *77. pyy, pyt, of the subst. apvy and numerous other
expressions often strengthened by povn ueya^n.
a. "To exult," Gl. 4:27, quoting Is. 54:1: pifov kai Bonaov (571 "to rejoice"), 2
which is also quoted in 2 Cl., 2, 1.
b. "To proclaim the message of God," xp. So Is. 40:6 : owvh AÉyovtoc® Bonoov.
kai Elia® ti Bonow, and Is. 40:3 : pov Boovtos. By adding the words Év Th Épñuo,
Mk. 1:3 (Mt. 3:3; Lk. 3:4) makes this refer to the desert preacher, John. In Jn. 1:23 it is
put on the lips of John as his own witness to himself €yo owvn Boovioc. kaloc
ElTEV 'Hoaiac In Barn., 9, 3 it is changed into a saying about hearing which has
typical validity : 'AKOUOXTE, TÉxva, povis Bodvtoc tv Th €pñuy.
C. "To call to, "to call out." Lk. 9:38 : i8ou dyp dno tol Bylou eponoev
AÉywv.3 Cf. Is. 36:13: npxi hin-bipe X72"1, in Codd. A and S. rendered : #ponoe
covi Ley&^n kal EITIEV, while B has dveB6noev. 1 Macc. 13:45 : #Bonoav covi
HEyaAn, 4 Macc. 6:16; 10:2 : avaBoaw ("to answer with a raised voice").
d. "To raise an outcry," mostly by way of complaint, as in Gn. 39:14 of the wife of
Potiphar : Bonoa (xp) povi ueya^n; or tumultuously : Ac. 17:6; 25:24. In the same
sense the Syr. and Byz. etc. have drvaBonoac (instead of ovaB&c) at Mk. 15:8. 4 At
Ac. 18:13 the West. adds katBodVEC kal between KaTETÉomoav buo0uua86v
and AÉYOVTES. In Mart. Pol., 12, 2 f. EntiBoad occurs 3 times in the sense of "to cry
out against someone.
e. Only once in the NT is Boaw used of the cries with which demons go out of the
sick (Ac. 8:7). Elsewhere xpa(o is preferred in such accounts (e.g., Mk. 9:26). 5
Bood as Crying in Need to God.
Most significant theologically is the use of Boa∞ and cognates for the needy

Bogo. 1 V. Preisigke Wort., s.v.

Cf. also Apc. Mos., 37. By contrast, cf. the terrified outcry in 1 Bao. 28:12 : dvEB6noE
(p91) oovi ueyain.
3 The situation is different in Mk. 9:17 (grexpIOn) and Mt. 17:14 (TpooñA0EV
Éyov).
Cf. Mk. 15:14 : TEPIOONC EKPAEEV.
5 Cf. H. Leisegang, Pneuma Hagion (1922), 23 f., n. 4.
 BooG

cry of the oppressed and downtrodden to God. & In the LXX we often meet with
expressions like #ponoav (pyn) viol 'lapan^ ipoc kuplov (Ju. 10:10), aveBoñoa.
LEV (pyx) itpoc xopiov (Nu. 20:16); cf. also Bon in 1 Bao. 9:16 (pyp), Ex. 2:23
(7916, "call for help"). Innocent blood crying out to heaven for vengeance is re-
ferred to in Gn. 4:10 (pyx, Boa∞) and 2 Macc. 8:3: tov kataBowvtwV Tpoc
autov aluarov™ Eloakoioal. Similarly the OT warns concerning the cry of
labourers vainly waiting for their wages and bringing their complaint to God
(Dt. 24:15). The field itself can cry out (ÉotevaÉev) against exploiters, and the
furrows complain in Job 31:38. Yahweh is a swift witness and judge against
oppressors of labourers, widows and orphans (Mal. 3:5). The book of the covenant
demands (Ex. 22:21 ff.): "Thou shalt not vex a stranger, nor oppress him : for ye
were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless
child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, will surely
hear their cry ; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword ;
and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless." The old Midrash
on Exodus (M.Ex., 18 on 22:22) asks here: "Will God punish only when appeal
is made to Him?" and answers : "I will make haste to punish the oppressor when
the oppressed cries more than when he does not (pys)." 8
The ap9, the cry of innocent blood for vengeance, which cannot be silenced, reaches
to heaven and finds there its witness (Job 16:18 ff.) and avenger ; God Himself in the
day of vengeance undertakes to execute the penalty (Is. 26:21; cf. 1 K. 21:19 ff.). 8 In
Eth. En. the blood-drenched earth raises a cry concerning the act of violence com-
mitted (7:5, ÉvÉTUXev; cf. 87:1).10 The souls of those innocently slain charge that their
cry rings out over the earth and ascends to the gate of heaven, the angels finally bringing
it to the throne of the Most High.11 The lament of those who have suffered violence
cannot be silenced until God has brought a flood on the perpetrators (8:4, Bon; 9:1 ff.).
The souls of Abel and other suppliants await in special chambers the day of judgment
(22:7, 12). Even the souls of beasts complain acc. to Slav. En. 58:6; they accuse their
masters, i.e., men, of abusing them and offering them violence. In the Bundehesh (IV, 12,
Justi) the soul of the slaughtered bullock departs its body, and as though 1000 men
were crying at once it complains to Ahura Mazda, the heaven of the stars and moon
and sun, calling upon the deliverer of creation. The same theme is found in a very
different form in Rev. 6:9 ff.; 8:3 ff. etc.

To the same circle of ideas belongs the threat against rich exploiters in Jm. 5,
as also the parable of the widow who seeks justice in Lk. 18. The injustice done
to the labourers cries to heaven, and the complaint of those who are deprived of
their rights comes before God in evidence for the judgment of the toyotai

8 Cf. Bon-06os, "hastening on the cry of need," BonOeiv: W. Schulze, SAB, 1918,
550 f. + Bon0Ew n. 1.
For the same plur. cf. A. Durer, Tageb. d. Reise i. d. Niederlande (1521), Bergemann,
p. 58 ff.: "the innocent bloods which they (the priests) have shed."
8 Cf. also my in Levy Wort., IV, 177.
9 Cf. Ass. Mos. 9:7; 4 Esr. 15:8: sanguis innoxius et iustus clamat ad me, et animae
iustorum clamant perseveranter.
10 Eth. En. 88:15 : "The sheep began to cry out and to complain to the Lord."
Test. Jos. 19:3 f.: auvol #Bonoav itpoc Kopiov. For the complaint of the earth in the
last judgment, cf. Apc. Elias, ed. Buttenwieser (1897), p. 65.
11 9:2, 10 (pwn Bodvrov, EVTUYX&VEIV, OTEVOYHOS). The same terminology is found
in Syncellus, V. J. Flemming-L. Radermacher, D. Buch Hen. (1901), 27 f. Cf. the complaint
of the advocate in 89:57, 69; Hb. En. 44:10 (mix); Apc. Elias 16:15 ff., Steindorff (TU, 17
{1899], 62 f.; 154; Syr. Schatzhohle (Bezold), p. 21.
 Boda

quépat. '1800 6 uroloc tov ‡pyatov o AQUOTE NUEVOS Ao" DuDV KPAYEL
rai ai Boai tov {EpIdovtOV elc ta ota kuplou caBadl EloEAhAUBarv
KATESIKAGATE, EDOVEUGATE TOV BIKALOV® OK AUTI GRETa OU (4 ff.; cf.
Wis. 2:20) . In the parable, the emphasis is wholly on the penetrative quality of
the prayer for vengeance in the sense of M. Ex. on 22:22. The widow does not
rest, and leaves the judge no rest, until he helps her to her rights against her
adversary, i.e., just because she is so persistent. The more surely will God hear
the unwearied crying of His elect : tiv Boovion airo juepas kal vkT6c. The
cry of need of the persecuted hastens 12 the day of recompense: AÉyo Outv 8tl
TOLñOEL thy éxolknow autiv ev taxel Lk. 18:8).13
A different note is sounded in the prayer of Jesus on the cross in Mk. 15:34:
kai th Evain opa #Bonoev14 o 'Inoouc povn ueyain' Eot £A∞t Aqua
oxBayforvi' 15 Here, too, the elect is in extreme need, delivered up to the fury of
the ungodly. But the reference of the prayer is to God alone and not to enemies.
The Son of Man goes through the lowest depth of human need. 16 This depth,
however, is the inferno of dereliction. From it He cries as only a man can cry, with
full and final force. Yet the #Bonoev is no longer a crying to God for help and
recompense ; it is a crying after God Himself. The biblical Boav finds its deepest
meaning in prayer. Prayer, however, finds its extreme expression in the cry of the
dying Christ for God . - a cry in which a new relationship to God, a new form of
being, is already intimated.
Three things are made quite clear in this respect. The first is that prayer, as under-
stood in biblical and esp. NT religion, is an elementary crying in which the final
reserves of man are concentrated. 17 It is a cry in which the shattering and impotence
of his whole being are manifested. It is finally a mortal cry: 2822 D"ox 10b1 (Job 13:14).18

12 Cf. M. Ex., loc. cit., and the shortening of the days &I& TOUC EKAEKTOUC at Mk. 13:20;
cf. Eth. En. 80:2; S. Bar. 20:1; Barn., 4, 3: Eic touto yap 6 SEATOTNC OUVTETUNKEV
TOUC Kalpous iva taxovn 8 hyamuevos autot (cf. Lk. 18:86). God shortens
the period up to the coming of the Son of Man out of regard for the elect whose crying
comes to Him. Perhaps this is the meaning of the much contested saying in Lk. 18:7: Kai
uaKpoOuuei Én' auroic.
13' Cf. Dt. 32:43 and the martyrs of Rev. 6:10 : kal Expagav povi ueyaln LÉYOVTES°
LOG TOTE 8 SEaToTnG 00 KpIVEIC kai EK8lKEic to alua nuov EK TOV KaTOLKOUy-
Tov Enl ths yns kai EppÉon aurois, iva avatabawalv Et xp6vov ulkpov.
Similarly the Jewish prayer for vengeance from Rheneia in Deissmann LO, 352 ff., 359
ÉTikalodual Kal d(ld tov OE6V iva Éyoinons to alua To avaitiov gnthoEIs
Kai thy taxionv.
14 Mt. 27:46 acc. to N AD etc. has oveBonoev. Luke introduces the softer TXTEp, Els
Keipdec,rD death FOU cry of with Jesus the in the softer words: o∞vñoas aoeic o
<pa≤as oovi ueyaln AOñKEV to TVEDua; Lk. 23:46 is again the mildest: TOUto 8€
Elnov ÉEÉTIVEUOEV.
15 The Evangelist naturally does not mean that he prayed the whole of Ps. 22, cf.
Mk. 15:35.
16 Cf. Hb. 5:7 f.: 8c Ev tais juepais ths aaproc aUTOU SEnOEIC LETo xpauyñs
loxupas kai SaKPUWV TPOO EVEYKaC guadev ag' Wy Enadev thv otakonv. Phil.
2:8 : UThKoos EXPI eavartou; 2 C. 13:4 : ÉOTaupIn E, tOOEVElaC.
17 The much weaker Boac is used for the eschatological supplication of the Church in
CI., 34,7: Oc ÉE Evoc arouatos Bonowuev Tpoc aitov EktEV&C EIC To LETOXOUS
Nu&C yEVé OaI TOV ÉmayyeAlov, and in Barn., 3, 5, quoting Is. 58:9 : TOTE Bonoelc
kal GeoG ETaKOUGETaI OU.
18 Cf. also Ps. 119:109; also, e.g., bTaan, 8a : "The prayer of a man is heard only when
he yields up his soul"(1292 10/B)); v. Lam. 3:41.
 Bo&o - Bon0EG - Bon06c ~ Bordela

Secondly, this Boov does not ring out unheard in cold and empty space. The man who
relies on himself and his own power is silenced in his distress. The man who knows
that he confronts a divine Thou presses on to God in his distress and brings all his
need before Him. The man who does not know this kind of prayer is overwhelmed by
loneliness. Biblical man knows a profounder solitariness, namely, the abyss of isolation
from God. But this despairing and mortal loneliness wrings from him the cry in which
he confesses for good or ill the Thou of God : 7172 79X72 D'2220: "'Out of the depths
cry unto thee, O God" (Ps. 130:1). Thirdly, this cry in which man surrenders his all
to God, this mortal cry of the old man, is also the first cry of the new according to
Christian conviction, namely, the cry of the man whose life emerged in the hour of the
death of the Son of God (cf. 2 C. 13:4; Gl. 4:4 ff.). It is the TIVEDuq ulofeolac, v
& KPALOUEV® 'ABB&
GOOEVEla NuGv to yap tlWaUTWG SEKato
TPO EVE uEOa KaL SeiTO TVEOua
OUK of quev, ouvavti/auBavetal cu Ba
TVEDuC UTtEPEVTUYX&VEL OTEVaYuOic alaAn (R. 8:16,
Stauffer

BonkÉw, Bonbos,
Bordela

Bon0£∞.
Like the par. Bon-8poutw, Bon-OÉ∞ originally means "to run on a call to help,"
"to hasten to the help of the oppressed, and then "to help." Attested from the time
of Herodotus, it is found also in inscr. and pap. is common in the LXX and Josephus,
less common in Philo (e.g., Som., II, 265) and rare in the post-apost. fathers.
The basic meaning may still be seen in Ac. 21:28 : &vSpEC "IapanAital Bon-
GEiTE (cf. Aristoph. Vesp., 433 : 8 Ml8a Kai Opve, Bondeite SE0po). It is often
used of the physician, e.g., Plut. Alex., 19 (1, 674e); Epict. Diss., II, 15, 15 : VOoG,
KUpIE, Bon0noov uou; and cf, also the healings of Jesus (Mk. 9:22, 24; Mt. 15:25).
Similarly in Ac. 16:9; Rev. 12:16. Of God as the One who helps it is used only
at 2 C. 6:2, quoting Is. 49:8. It is used of help in religious need at Mk. 9:24; Hb.
2:18. The expression 06 Bonbeiv (1 C1., 39, 5; 2 Cl., 8, 2) is not found in the NT.

Bon06c.
The adj. Bon06s is formed from Bon0ÉG. It may also be used as a noun for "helper."
Attested from the time of Herodotus, it occurs in inscr, and pap., is common in the LXX
(often of God, esp. in the Ps.), is also found in Joseph. and Philo (e.g., Som., II, 265),
but is rare in the post-apostolic fathers.

In the NT it occurs only at Hb. 13:6, quoting 117:6, in relation to God as

the Helper of the righteous.

t Bordela.
"Help," constructed from Bon0ed like doBeia from doeBÉw, from the time of
Thuc., also in inscr. and pap., common in the LXX, rarer in Philo (e.g., Rer. Div. Her.,

BondEw. The oldest construction in the word group is Bonoos (Homer, e.g..
11., 13, 477; 17, 481): "hastening on the call for help" (from 0É∞, "to run"). Cf. N. Schulze,
SAB, 1918, 550 f. From this comes Bon@o£∞, preserved in Lesb. Batonut, elsewhere
Bon0éo.
2 Cf. A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (1910), 66.
Boñdela - Boulouai

58 and 60 of divine help), more frequent in Joseph., not found at all in the post-apost.
fathers. In the NT it occurs only at Hb. 4:16 (of God); Ac. 27:17. In Hb. Boneeiv
and its cognates, in accord. with the more literary form of expression, are relatively
common. On the phrase eic EUkalpov Bonfeiav (Hb. 4:16), cf. Ditt. Or., 762, 4: 6
onuos tov KiBupatov TO Sue tov Paualov Bondeito Kata TO Eukalpov;
Ditt. Syl1.3, 693, 12. In Ac. 27:17 it is nautical term, as shown by Philo Jos., 33
KuBepviis taic Tov TIVEUL&TOV HETaBOAais OUMLET&BXA EL Tac ThE EoTAolaS
Bondelac.
The sparing use of BonOsiv and cognates in the NT, as in Josephus, causes
Schlatter 2 to observe that it "distinguishes the language of the early Church from
the synergism of rational piety, which likes to speak of divine help.
Bichsel

Boulouat, Boulh,
Boulnua

Bouloual.
A. Boulouai outside the NT.
The original difference in meaning between Boulouai and (€)0ÉA∞ is disputed in
philological investigation. Two diametrically opposing views confront one another.
a. The one finds in OÉAEIV impulsive and unconscious desire, and in Bouleo0ai rational
and conscious. #OÉAEIV thus signifies volition by inclination or natural instinct, the
proclivitas animi e desiderio, while Bovleo0a denotes a decision of will based on
deliberate resolve, the consilium secundum deliberationem.2 b. On the other hand,
£OÉAElv is understood to mean the resolution of the spirit, and Bouleo0at as desire or
inclination, as the wish of the soul. 3
The first view is supported by the fact that Bouleo0au is related to BouAn, BoulEU-
ElV, BoulEUE Oat. 4 The second view argues amongst other things that it is often

Boneela. 1 E. Nestle (ZNW, 8 [19071. 75 f.) suggests "shoring," but this is hardly
likely on a voyage.
2 Mt., 490.
Booloua R. Rodiger, Glotta, 8 (1917), 1 ff.; W. Fox, Berl. Phil. Wochenschr., 37
(1917), 597 ff., 633 ff.; P. Kretschmer, Glotta, (1910), 160 ff., cf. 8 (1917), 5, n. 2; Bl.-
Debr. $ 101, s.v. OÉAe(v; 392, 1a; 359, 2; 366, 3.
The Alexandrian Ammonius flepl duolov kai 81ap6pwv AgEEwv (Valckenaer2
[1822]) 31, 70 gives the definition Boulealal uEv ETl MoVou AEKTÉOV TOU AOyIKOU, TO
8É OÉAELV kat emi x1byou (oou. Similarly Maximus Confessor, John Damascene and the
Scholastics call bÉAnois an SPEEIC QUALKn and Boulnols an opefis Aoyikn, on the basis
of comparison, of Aoyiou6s. Cf. W. Fox, op. cit.
2 From the time of Dindorf, who introduced this view into modern philology, it has been
disputed among others by G. Hermann, Ellendt, Pape, Rehdantz-Blass, Sandys, Adam and
Rodiger. Cf. Demosth., 2,20 : ov of TE Geol 0ÉAwo (are inclined) kal Sueis Boulnole
(Athenians be resolved); Plat. Resp., IV, 437bc, and on this Rodiger, 2.
Buttmann Lexilogus, Passow, Benseler-Kagi, Franke; J. H. H. Schmidt, Synon. d. griech.
Spr. (1879), 3, 602 ff. Cf. Fox, op. cit.
Thus Ps.-Plat. Def., 413c describes Boulnaic as EDEOIC ueto A6you 8p0o0, as
SpE&IC EDoyos, &pEEIc uero A6you kard pualv. Aristot. does not distinguish between
Bouleofai and (€) BÉAEIV, but calls Bou nois noylotlkn opEEIc as distinct from
eriOvula, which is called an SPEEIC &VEU A6yOu Rhet., I, 10, p. 1369a, 2 ff.
 Bouloual

used synon. with EriOvueiv. 5 It is difficult to decide between them because at a very
early date the two groups overlap. Hence the only course is to study the usage in
different periods. 6 The following results accrue from such historical investigation. In
Homer there are 38 instances of Boulouai and 294 of €0EA∞. Bouloua always has
here the sense of to prefer, "to choose,' whereas ≥0ÉA∞ is used for all the other
nuances of volition. Thus E0EA© is the older and more comprehensive term. It is
particularly loved by the poets, 8 whereas Bouloual is preferred by the prose writers
and predominates from the time of Herodotus. In time it replaces #OÉAEIV so fully that
always in Thuc., Isocr. and Lycurg., and mostly in Plato, Lysias, Andocides, Aeschines
and Demosth., this is restricted to its original sense of being ready or inclined. £ In
Polybius, and also Diodorus, É0ÉAeIv notably retreats into the background. Yet in the
NT, and also in Epict., the relationship is reversed and ÉOÉgW is more common. In
modern Gk. Bou oua has been almost completely crowded out by ÉAG.
If a decision must be made concerning the original meaning, the fact that "to prefer"
or "to choose" (often with f) seems to be the first sense of Boulouai in Homer and
Herodotus strongly favours the view, inaugurated by Ammonius, that Bouloual origi-
nally means volition on the basis of choice, preference or decision. 10 Later there develops
the general sense of desiring, wishing, purposing 12 and striving, with an emphasis
on the active element. A weaker sense sometime attested is 'to mean" or "to think." 13
But so far as concerns the exposition of the NT, there can be no establishing of a
dogmatic distinction on the basis of earlier usage, because the NT writings belong to
a period when the high tide of £OÉAElv has overwhelmed all the territory previously
reserved for BoulE Oal. Even at an earlier date 14 both words could be used to denote
conscious, decided and resolute volition. There is a widespread alternation between
the two on stylistic grounds. 15 Thus the most important task in NT exegesis is to study
the use of the word in contemporary Hellenistic Judaism.
In the LXX the two words are almost equal numerically ; BouAouai is very slightly
in the lead. This is not merely due to the fact that the LXX belongs to the age when
the distinctions were being obliterated by the struggle between the terms. It also owes
something to the fact that the Canon includes both historical and poetical sections, so
that the words preferred by both the prose authors ( supra ; Polyb., Diod. S.) and
the poets are accepted. The frequent use of OÉAEW in the Ps. is particularly noteworthy.
BoUlE OaL is usually the rendering of ren and mgx, or, in the negative 'to refuse,' of

5 Xenoph. An., II, 6, 21 ; Lys., 13, 16; Demosth., 5, 21 and 23; 13, 26; 27, 45; 29, 45. Cf.
Plat. Prot., 340ab. On the other hand, in Plat. Resp., 437bc both ÉOEAElv and Bousofa
are contrasted with ÉOvusiv as sensual desire.
& Rodiger has been the first to attempt this difficult task on a big scale. I have carried
through a comparison in the LXX, Philo, Josephus, also Polyb., Diod. S., and Epict., and
have come to much the same conclusions.
Acc. to Rodiger, Boulouau A in II., 1, 117; 11, 319; 17, 331; 23, 594; Od., 3, 232; 11, 489.
Cf. also Rodiger, 5. Hdt., III, 40, 8; 124. 10. Less frequent without f, as in II., 1, 112;
Od., 15, 88.
8 Rodiger, 4 has shown that Aristoph. is closer to prose usage in his fuller use of
Boulouat.
Rodiger, 3, 14.
10 This fits in well with the etymol. explanation of Kretschmer, which links BouAouau
with Ba^ouai. For the same sense, though ironically, cf. Plat. Crat., 420c (BaAAo).
Already in II., 23, 682; Hes. Op., 647; later Polyb., I, 1, 5; Epict. Diss., II, 1, 23 f.
12 Soph. Ai., 681; Trach., 486; Polyb., I, 7, 12. Arrian Praef., in Epict. Diss., 7.
13 Plat. Parm., 128a; Aristot. Eth. Nic., III, 2, p. 1110b, 30.
14 Thus Bouloual can mean "to resolve" Eur. Iph. Taur., 61; Aristot. Pol., V, 9,
p. 1309b, 17; Corp. Herm., IV, 6b (Bouloual, "T am resolved").
To the instances given by Rodiger, 24, which illustrate their parallel use from another
angle, I add some in which the grounds are stylistic: Plat. Gorg., 522e; Polyb., X, 40, 5;
Plut. Tranq. An., 13 (II, 472e); Epict. Diss., I, 2, 12 f.; 12, 13; III, 22, 100; 24, 54; IV, 1, 89 f.;
Jos. Ant., 1, 233; 3, 67; 6, 226; 9, 240; 10, 29 and 156 f.; 11, 242 f.: Philo Rer. Div. Her., 158;
Corp. Herm., I, 3; XIII, 15; XVIII, 7b.
Bouloua

707 pi and adj. It is often used for determined refusal, 16 but also for the royal will, 17
caprice 18 and especially the divine resolve and will. 10 This shows that it is not thought
of as merely the desire of the heart or wish of the soul. 20 Like OÉAElV, it often has
also the sense of "having a desire for," 21 of "desiring something," or "seeking," 22
"wanting," 23 or "purposing."24 Indeed, in some instances the sense is simply that of
"being ready or inclined." 25
Occasionally Josephus has the older meaning of "to prefer," mostly without h. 28
For the most part, however, the meanings "to have a desire, an inclination," "to have
an inner intention," 27 or "to wish" 28 are predominant. In the case of "to purpose," 29
it is instructive that BoUlE {a can denote an intention which is never fulfilled. 30 The
word is often used of literary projects. 31 As in the LXX we have (neg.) the sense of re-
fusal. 32 More positively, however, resolute religious volition can be expressed by
Boulouai. 33 When Joseph. says that at 16 he resolved to test the Jewish aipÉoeis,
he can use Bououal for this active resolve. 34 It is in keeping that a great role is
played by the BovAoual of the royal will, or permission, or rule more so than in
the LXX. 35 Related is the solemnly declared intention of such fathers as Moses and
Nehemiah. 36 Joseph. uses the term quite often for the divine will. 37 But he also uses
it in the weaker sense of "to mean" or "to think," 38 cf. also 6 BouAouEvos in the sense
of one who has the will or desire. 30
The basic sense of "to prefer" occurs also in Philo. 40 There are many examples of
the sense of inner intention or striving. 41 Above all, the ideas of wishing and intending

16 E.g., Pharaoh in Ex. 4:23; 8:21 etc.; of the refusal of Israel to listen to God in Ex.
16:28; 1 Bac. 8:19; Jdt. 5:7; @77:10; Is. 30:9 etc.
17 2 Bao. 6:10; 1 Macc. 15:3 x; 2 Macc. 11:23.
18 1 Macc. 8:13; 11:49.
10 Tob. 4:19; w 113:10 (115:3); Wis. 12:6; Is. 53:10; Da. LXX 4:28 etc.; Ep. Ar., 269. This
usage is very old: Hom. Od., 4, 353; Eur. Iph. Aul., 33; later Corp. Herm., I, 31; BGU,
248, 11.
20 Religious volition is particularly plain, y 39:9 : tou noujoai to 0É nuc oov, 6 OE0c
HoU, #Bouln0nv. The resolute prosecution of : goal, Ep. Ar., 250.
21 Ex. 36:2; Job 9:3; Jer. 49(42):22; Da. LXX, 11:3.
22 3 Bao. 20:6. Boulouai Ev: Bac. 18:25; 2 Bao. 24:3. OÉAELY Év is more common.
23 1 Bao. 2:25; Wis. 16:21; 1 Macc. 4:6; Ep. Ar., 5; 40; 207.
24 1 Macc. 3:34; 11:45; 15:4. With acc. of obj. U 69 (70):2; cf. Prv. 12:20; Ep. Ar., 38;
53; 180.
25 Bao. 24:11; esp. y 39:8. Cf. on the other hand for the classical writers, Rodiger, 13,
though against this we may set Plat. Crat., 384a and Gorg., 448d. Cf. in Philo Abr., 102;
Jos., 55; Rer. Div. Her., 44.
Ant., 2, 272; 12, 161.
27 Ant., 1, 102 : BouEO0E alongside to opéfelc yete; 1, 260 and 266.
28 Ant., 1, 91; 2,99; 4, 167; 6, 226 etc.
29 Ant., 1, 165; 4, 96; 7, 208 etc.
30 Ant., 12, 358. Cf. Aristot. Pol., I, 6, p. 1255b, 3: nature usually wills it, but cannot
always do it.
31 Ant., 1, 1; 4, 196; 18, 10; Vit., 27; 345.
32 Ant., 2, 197; 12, 181; Bell., 7, 51.
33 Ant., 3, 203, with TLOTEUELV.
34 Vit., 10; cf. Ant., 11, 63.
35 Ant., 2, 80; 11, 17; 12, 150; 13, 51; 14, 230 and 315 etc.; 16, 167 f.; 19, 291; Bell., 2, 184.
But OEA∞, too, can be used of official rule, as in Ant., 14, 233.
36 Ant., 1, 268; 2, 163; 4, 57; 11, 170.
37 Ant., 192; 2, 145; , 45; 4, 119; 5, 218; 7, 294 etc.
38 Ant., 2, 14; 3, 152; cf. Philo Leg. All., II, 36.
30 Jos. Ap., 1, 182; cf. Hdt., I, 54.
40 Rer. Div. Her., 290; "to prefer' without f, Abr., 216.
41 Leg. All., II, 32; Bouovtal alongside ETltEUouo: Cherub., 95.
 Bou ouat

are again to the fore. 42 Here, too, we often have the sense of zealous and resolute
volition, especially in terms of religious aspiration. 43 On innumerable occasions it is
used of the divine will, of God's goal in creation, 44 of His purpose in Scripture, 46 of
His providence, #6 of His guidance of the soul. 47 It can also be stated, however, of
TO By 48 or h poois. 49 Especially common are statements concerning the intention of
Scripture, the Lawgiver and the Law. 60 The EL BOUEl at Lk. 22:42 is much less
emphatic and much more colourless in Philo than in this passage. 51

B. Bouloua in the NT.

In the NT we have only a remnant, as it were, of Boulouai; the alternative
20£@ has carried the day. It occurs mostly in Ac., less in the Gospels, least in
the Epistles. This is linked with the fact that Ac. is stylistically more akin to
narrative prose such as that of Polybius, Diod. S. and Josephus, who still like
Bou^ouai even in the period of transition to É0EA∞. a. In most of the NT pas-
sages, as in LXX, Aristeas, Josephus and Philo, the sense is that of 'wishing,"
"desiring" 52 or "intending,' 53 often with something of all three (27 times out of
a total of 37). b. Three times Boulouau is used in the Past. with reference to
ordering by apostolic authority.
c. The most important point in terms of biblical theology is the emphasising of
the will of God, His Son and the Spirit (7 times). In the sense of the economy
of salvation it is argued in Hb. 6:17 that God willed to manifest more fully to the
heirs of promise the immutable nature of His counsel. Here Bouloual expresses
the eternal divine purpose. Similarly in 2 Pt. 3:9 the word expresses the divine will
to save. In Jm. 1:18 BouAn0Eis AREKUNOEV nuGS Abyo andelas (used absol.)
denotes the resolute will of God as the motive force which gives new life by the

42 "To wish" : Migr. Abr., 99; Abr., 129; Vit. Mos., I, 16; alongside EUxouat, Deus Imm.,
164. On Jm. 3:4 : Leg. All., III, 223. "To purpose" Vit. Mos., I, 144; Jos., 181; Det. Pot. Ins.,
1; Deus Imm., 153 etc.
43 Spec. Leg., I, 36; Leg. All., III, 134; Deus Imm., 144.
44 Op. Mund., 16; 44; 77; 138; 149; Plant., 14; Conf. Ling., 166; 196.
45 Abr., 5; 9; Decal., 9; Leg. All., III, 210; Cherub., 60; Gig., 60; Deus Imm., 21; Ebr., 85.
46 Jos., 99; 165; Poster C., 145.
47 Vit. Mos., I, 164; 198; Migr. Abr., 2.
48 Det. Pot. Ins., 154.
49 Spec. Leg., II, 48.
50 Of Scripture, Leg. All., I, 4; 35; 63; 90; III, 45-55; Cher., 14; Det. Pot. Ins., 168; Plant.,
94; Migr. Abr., 46; of the Lawgiver, Vit. Mos., I, 220; Spec. Leg., I, 96; of the Law, Spec.
Leg.. I, 116; 203 etc. milder form of the imperative:
51 Abr., 251; Leg. All., III, 69; Decal., 86. It is common as
"If thou desirest, or if it please thee," or simply as: "May it be that or : Soph. Ant.,
1168; Xenoph. An., III, 4, 4; Plat. Gorg., 448d; Symp., 201a; Phaed., 95e.
52 "To wish" In. 18:39 : BOUlEGOE ATolUGd, before a question, cf. Bl.-Debr. 366, 3.
Otherwise almost always with inf.: Ac. 15:37; 17:20; 18:15 (have no pleasure); 22:30;
23:28; 25:20, 22 (€Bou^ounv, adding to B1.-Debr. 66, 3); 1 Tm. 6:9; Phlm. 13 (cf. B1.
Debr. 359, 2); Jm. 4:4; 2 Jn. 12. With acc. c. inf.: Phil. 1:12; Jd. 5.
Mt. 1:19 : Joseph purposed to release her privately; Mk. 15:15; Ac. 5:28, 33; 12:4;
19:30; 2 C. 1:15. Thus far all with inf. With acc. inf.: Ac. 12:4; 27:43; 28:18 (or "to
wish"). In Im. 3:4 the reference is to resolute purpose ; there is an implied METOYELV or
KuBepvov. In 3 Jn. 10 TOUc BoulouÉvouc implies én16ÉXeo0ai AbEApOUS. Thus these
passages, too, belong to this category. With the acc. of object: 2 C. 1:17. For par. from
the post-apost. fathers, v. Pr.-Bauer, 229.
54 Always with acc. c. inf.: Tm. 2:8; 5:14; Tt. 3:8. Cf. Plat. Symp., 184a (the Law
demands); the examples from the LXX cited above are linked particularly with this usage,
as also those from Josephus, i.e., when the reference is to the disposition of the royal will
or the lawgiver.
Boulouai - Bouln

word of truth. 55 In Lk. 22:42 Jesus with His El Booleu 56 appeals to the divine
will, design and counsel, and makes Himself dependent on it at the very moment
when the humanly anxious request for help and deliverance presses for utterance.
The reference in the solemn declaration in Mt. 11:27 (Lk. 10:22): & Éav Bou-
Antau o vios a oka ogl, is to the omnipotence of the Son. Here the Bouleo0al
of the Son is His faithful execution of the divine Boun.
Of the Spirit, too, Paul can say in 1 C. 12:11: Sta1poiv isia ekaot® kaboc
Bouletal (in the absol.). The distribution of spiritual gifts by the Spirit takes
place, analogously to the divine will, through free resolve according to a deter-
minative selection.

+ Bouln.
A. Bouln outside the NT.
Bouln denotes "deliberation" and "taking counsel" in all its stages and effects
up to "resolve" and "decree." In the LXX the term is mostly used for a2, but
also for Tio, nya, mawne etc.
1. Boun as the first stage of inward "deliberation." Sir. 37:16 : Ttpo Toons Toa-
Eew Bouln. Hence in many cases it simply means thought,' as at Is. 55:7; 1 Macc.
4:45. The element of clever and reasoned wisdom and deliberation is usually emphasised :
Prv. 2:11; 8:12; 11:14 etc.; Sir. 35 (32) :19; Macc. 8:4. Here the connection with the
inner movement of BoulEUEo0aL is very clear. Tos. Ant., 1, 338 : 'IqkoB HEIWOEV
ÉTultpÉwal auto Boulnv ayaysiv. Epict. Diss., II, 16, 15 : tls BouEubuEvoc aurns
tis Boulns. Yet Bouln is often used, not merely for the individual process in man.
but as a characteristic of wise and thoughtful deliberation: Dt. 32:28; 4 Bac. 18:20;
Sir. 21:13; 25:4. In Is. 11:2 the spirit of counsel is a gift ; cf. Ep. Ar., 270. Bouln is
sometimes a gift of age Philo Migr. Abr., 201: TpEOBuTEpOL Boulaic; Plant., 168.
In Test. L. 4:5 it occurs along with GUVEOIS, and in Vit. Mos., I, 242 we have TEP&EEIS
with BouAai. In some cases Bouloual affects the usage as well as Bouleooual, so
that we should often render simply as "will," "expression of will," or "wish" : Philo
Poster. C., 11, 36; Jos. Ant., 19, 314.
2. Secondly, Bouln denotes the final result of inner deliberation. a. As "resolve" :
Tob. 4:19 AB; Sir. 22:16; Ep. Ar., 42; Jos. Ant., 2, 18; 9, 76; Philo Spec. Leg., III, 29
along with up&geis; Abr., 101. b. As 'intention" : 2 Macc. 14:5 : Év rivi 81adEgEl kal
Bou^n, "design, "purpose" : 3 Macc. 3:11; Philo Conf. Ling., 153; 198. C. As 'plan" or
"project," e.g., the plan in the divine message, Is. 44:26; the project of alliance with a
heathen power, Is. 30:1; the plans of the nations, ( 32:10 ABx2; Is. 8:10; of kings,
Wis. 6:3; of war, 1 Macc. 9:60, 68. Closely related is Bouln as a cunning and wicked
design, Job 5:12; 18:7; Neh. 4:15 (9) Eo8p. 14:15; Macc. 7:31; 3 Macc. 5:8; Jos.
Ant., 2, 23. d. As "counsel" given to someone : Gn. 49:6; the counsel of Ahithophel,
2 Bao. 15:31; of the old men, 3 Bac. 12:8; the stupid counsel of the wise men of
Pharaoh, Is. 19:11; the righteous man as he who does not follow the counsels of the
ungodly, Ps. 1:1; cf. Job 22:18; according to Sir. 37:13 the conscience has a part in

55 Cf. Schl. Jk., 136. A. Meyer, Ratsel des Jk. (1930), 76, n. 4; 268 sees a reference to
Reuben after the manner of an ancient onomastic. On the pt. that in Philo Boulndeic is
always at the beginning with an inf. when used of God, cf. Hck. Tk., 70, n. 17. The follow-
ing instances are relevant : Op. Mund., 16; 77; Cher., 60; Plant., 14; Migr. Abr., 2; Rer. Div.
Her., 112; 225; 243 (of Abraham). Cf. the construction in Jos. Ant., 1, 21 and 260; 12, 350;
Bell., 1, 311. For further details, cf. Hck. and Schl., ad loc.
53 On the form BouEl instead of Att. Bouln, BI.-Debr. 27, Mayser, 328 for the pap.
Par. to El BOULEL (-* n. 51) are no help to the elucidation of this passage, in which the
reference is to the revealed nature of the specific will of God.
 Bouln

Boun; according to 39:7 a just scribe gives Bouln and Eothun. In the prophecy
of the child who will be the bearer of divine counsel (Is. 9:6), the LXX reads : HeyaAns
Boulñs ayyelos. Cf. Test. Jud. 9:7, fatherly counsel ; Test. Jos. 17:7, Joseph's counsel
Jos. Ant., 7, 44, military counsel; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 294 our counsels and the Abyia
of God.
3. Bouln also denotes the official machinery of counsel and resolution. Thus it can
be used a. for the process in general: 1 Ch. 12:19, where the princes of the Philistines
hold counsel ; Jdt. 2:2, where Nebuchadnezzar holds secret counsel; cf. Jos. Vit., 204;
with reference to public gatherings in 1 Macc. 14:22: kv taic Boulaic tou onuou.
Advising is called Boulnv TpoT(e Oat in Diod. S., II, 24, 4, or ayEiv in Jos. Ant.,
14, 361, or TolEla0al in Polyb., XIV, 6,9; Jos. Ant., 15, 98. b. Then Boun is used
for the council of a city. Diod. S., XIII, 2, 4 of the council of Athens ; XVI, 15, 8: i
Boun kal of TOUTOvEIS; the senate in Rome Jos. Ant., 13, 164 f.; 18, etc.; Bell.,
1, 284 f.; 2, 209; the council in Samaria : Jos. Ant., 11, 117; in Tiberias : Vit., 64; 284. In
the edict of Claudius, Ant., 20, 11: 'Tepooo^uultiv apxouol, Bouln, Snuo. Later,
at the time of Septimius Severus in 202 A.D., Bourn is the council of a city with an
autonomous constitution. 1 c. Of resolution of state Polyb., XXI, 32, 3: onuoola
Bouln; cf. 3 Macc. 7:17: Kown Bouln, of the common resolution of the Jewish people.
4. Bouln as the "divine counsel": Job 38:2; 42:3; w 32(33):11; 72(73):24;
Prv. 19:18 (21); Wis. 9:17; Mich. 4:12; Is. 5:19; 14:26; 25:1; 46:10; Jer. 29:21 (49:
20); the counsel of wisdom, Prv. 1:25; 8:14. Josephus prefers Boulnois (cf. Boo-
Anua), and though we might mention Ant., 4, 42 the ethical concept is here
characteristically weakened.
In Hellenistic mysticism the emphasis on the Bouln of God, though not sO
prominent as ipovoia, avaykn, eluapuévn, indicates a notable penetration of the
divine transcendence. According to Corp. Herm., I, 8b the StOlyEia ThS DUOEDC
are ek Boulñs 0Eot. According to I, 31 this counsel is executed by inherent-forces.
The willing is also accomplishing : I, 14 (with reference to the God Anthropos):
qua 8€ th Bouln (or Boulnoel) EyÉVETO EvÉpyeIa. At the end of the period the
all-encompassing fetter will be loosed by God's decree (I, 18). This Bourn can
also be called 6É\nua (XIII, 19; 20, cf. 2). It is however, viewed as a goddess
and is separated from God Himself. 2 It is debatable whether the theory* is correct
which would have it that the A6yoc 0E00 in I, 8 is received by Boulh as divine!
seed to bear the Kbouoc alo0nt6s, or whether Bourn, with the help of the Logos
representing the world of ideas, creates the Koouos alo0ntoc by ulunorc.4 Either
way, we have a divine triad with the linking of Bou^n 0eo0, A6yoc and bouoc. 5
Everything is pantheistically ordained. In favour of the first view it might be
argued that even in Philo Poster. C., 175 there is reference to the pregnancy of
Bouln. The two daughters of Lot, Bouln kal OUYKaT&IEGIS, EK TOU vOU TOU
TaTpIC aiTiV EBEAOUOL TEaLSOTtoLElo0, cf. Ebr., 165; 203, where the younger
daughter is called auvalveois ("agreement"). Naturally both concepts serve only
to represent psychological processes and there is no hypostatising of Bouln. In
Philo Bouln does not mean counsel so much as wish or will. The £ lomhun and
copia of God are more closely related to the divine counsel (Ebr., 30).'

Bouln. 1 Preisigke Fachworter, 41; Wort., III, 100; Mitteis-Wicken, I, 1, 41.

J. Kroli, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos (1914), 27 ff.
3 Reitzenstein Poim., 45.
Kroll, 28.
5 ]bid.. 71.
6 E. Bréhier, Les Idées philosoph. et relig. de Philon d' Alex.? (1925), 117, 4; 119.
Bouln

B. Bouln in the NT.

1 C. 4:5 : tac Boulas tov kap8i@v. Since "heart" implies the hiddenness of the
Boulai, the meaning is to be sought under 1. or 2. We might simply translate
"thoughts," though this would lose the element of striving. "Desires" or "im-
pulses" 1 is too weak, but 'plans" or "purposes" $ is not absolutely necessary.
The reference is to the "intents" of the heart, i.e., the most inward intentions of
the inner life (2. b.) . Ac. 5:38 : 8TL Éav 19 EE &vpinov n BouAn aUrn ("design"),
certainly belongs under 2. b.
Ac. 27:12, 42 must be placed under 3. a. In both cases the Bouln of the soldiers
on the ship is the result of agreement, and they propose a plan based on delibera-
tion.
In the NT, however, BouAn is mostly used of the divine counsel. The writings
of Luke favour such usage. All the Lucan statements are elements in a total con-
ception of the divine Bouln. This rules over the preceding OT history. According
to Ac. 13:36 the death of David took place according to God's Bouln. ' It mani-
fested itself in the message of the Baptist. According to Lk. 7:30 the Pharisees
and scribes rejected the counsel of God to them 10 when they did not accept John's
baptism. Again, it ordains the self-sacrifice of Jesus. According to Ac. 2:23 Jesus
is delivered up ti piouavn Bouln kal upoyvioel TOU 0EOU. This counsel is
predetermined and inflexible. Both phrases emphasise the resolute and inviolable
determinateness of the decree. Similarly Ac. 4:28 treats of the fact that Herod,
Pilate, the Gentiles and Israel all conspired against Jesus to do 8aa i xeip oou
kat f pouAn ipoOpIoEV yEvéO0aI. Here the opi<elv and ipoyvoots, separated
in 2:23, are combined in a single word, thus showing that Luke wishes to emphasise
the elements both of impregnability and of foreordination. The related yelp stresses
the thought of the providential quidance of the world. The Bouln fills the whole
content of apostolic preaching. In Ac. 20:27 Paul tells the Ephesian elders that
he has declared to them the whole counsel of God.
In the magnifying of the divine economy of salvation in Eph.1, which is shot
through with references to the will of God (cf. the recurrent béAnua and sibokla),
the expositions of the foreordination and election of the community within a
Christological universalism which embraces both heaven and earth (v. 10), lead
finally to solemn climax in the statement (v.11): Év & Kai ÉxAnpoenuev Tt po-
OPIOOEVTES KaTa TpOlEalV tOU to tavta EvepyoUvtos kata Thy BouAn tou
{EAnuatos aitol. The inheritance of the community, which consists in the final
revelation and has its provisional seal in the Spirit (cf. what follows), is rooted in
the poopio0nval katd 11060EOLV. Everything is mediated and present once and
for all in Christ (€v air) and everything finally derives from the BouAn TOO
§EAnuatos aitoi which finally effects the whole fulness of the event of salvation.
It is quite plain that this Bouln TOU OeAnuatoc autoi has the final word, that
it not merely overarches the ÉEgAÉgato (v.4), itpooploas (v. 5,11) and TEP60EOIC
(v. 11), but that it also sets in movement everything which in this whole section
is described as the grace present in Christ and granted to the community as the

7 J. Weiss 1 K., ad loc.

8 The latter is suggested by Ltzm. 1 K., ad loc.
The context demands that m Tou 000 Bouln be related to Éxowunon, because in
contrast to David Jesus has not seen corruption. It is also easier to understand the first dat.
18l@ yEVEQ on this view.
10 The Elc Éautouc qualifies the Bourn.
 Bouln - Bounua
reality of salvation. This helps us to see that in the formula "counsel of his will"
the inflexible ordination of His will finds a full-orbed pleonastic expression. No-
where else does Paul use Boulh. 11 Instead, he has bÉAnua and once Bou^nua
(R. 9:19). But enua is strengthened here by Bourh, and behind it stands a
rich LXX usage (- 633).12 The peculiarity of Eph. 1:11 lies in the linking of the
whole olkovoula of God with His Boulh. To this degree there is a close re-
lationship in content with Ac. 20:27.
Finally, in Hb. 6:17 there is reference to the fact that God confirms TO queta-
Betov the Boulns aitot with an oath to the heirs of the promise. Here the
unbreakable and unchangeable nature of the counsel is underlined.

Boulnua.
1. The comparatively rare Bounua occurs e.g., in the LXX only in 3 (4) passages
for ny. The reading in Prv. 9:10 x* (Bounua for Bouln X ca) shows by the vacillation
how closely linked it is to Bouln. Yet it is not very difficult to discover a basic
meaning which gives the word its own nuance. It denotes the "will as plan, project,
purpose, goal, intention or tendency. The question of purpose or intention is pre-
dominant even where, as in the pap., it is used sometimes for the last will and testament.
When we turn particularly to the sphere of Hellenistic Judaism, or to Polybius and
Epictetus, this basic element seems to be less prominent in some passages. Thus in Philo
Leg. All., 62 to KaKOv aTtOTÉEOua B& toV Epyov is compared with kakov Bou-
Anua as reflection on what is odious, which is called a tpom ths puxns. Yet even
here, although there is less emphasis on active efforts and a stronger intellectual
colouring, the idea of purpose' is still present. In Vit. Mos., I, 59 it is said of Reguel
that he was , at once filled with astonishment at the appearance of Moses and at his
Bou nua, which is later listed among the HEY& AL QUOEIS. What is meant is the will
and purpose expressed in him.
Apart from such easily explicable generalisings in derivatives of Boul-, one can
almost always find the common factor in the element of purpose. At 2 Macc. 15:5 To
oyÉt^lov Bou nua is a shameful project. In Polyb., X, 18, 13 : AaBov Ev vo To
Boulnua tis yuvaiKos has reference to the intention of the wife. Serious striving is
meant in Ep. Ar., 322. Often in Phil. "purpose" is the only possible rendering, e.g., in
Spec. Leg., I, 323; II, 132; III, 85; Vit. Mos., II, 31; Det. Pot. Ins., 72. In Spec. Leg.,
III, 121 the Bournuara are the inner tendencies which are laid bare. Hence Boo nua
can also mean "plan," e.g., in Jos. Ant., 1, 278. Also favouring the basic meaning is a
phrase much used by Philo and Epictetus: Boulnua tis ouoewG, i.e., that which
nature discloses of planning and purposeful will (Philo Spec. Leg., III, 136; 176; Op.
Mund., 3; Epict. Diss., I, 17, 13-17; II, 20, 15; III, 20, 13).
Even when the reference is to the Bounua of the ruler we find confirmation of this
nuance. Thus Ep. Ar., 283 speaks of the plans and purposes of kings. In Jos. Ant., 16, 173,
after toic TOU E-Baotou Kai 'Aypitra pou nuaotv, there follows at once a descrip-
tion of the purpose, i.e., that the Jews should live according to the customs of the
fathers. Jos. Ant., 13, 425 is more general. But in Bell., 1, 178 : (Gabinius) rpoc To
'Avtatpou Bouxnua KaTEOThaTO ThV ToAlTElav, the meaning might well be
"plan." Since these purposes are not always pressed, the sense of preference or opinion
or even whim sometimes suggests itself. Thus in 4 Macc. 8:18 the BouAnuata KEV&
are empty whims, and in Epict. Diss., II, 1, 25 the reference is to being chased hither
and thither spoc to Bou nua tou kupiou (preference or opinion) . In Polyb., VI, 15, 4;

11 H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik der Eph. und Kol.-briefe (1872), 257; A. Klopper Eph. (1890),
47, n. 2, see here reason against authenticity.
12 Cf. J. Schmid, Der Eph. des Ap. Pls. (1928), 203.
Boulnua. Cf. Preisigke Wort., s.v.
Bounua - BpaBEUG

17,8: to tis auykAntou Bounua, the resolution of the senate (as compared with
XXIII, 2, 10 : kato ty ths auykintou Boulnolv, the will of the senate), Bounua
denotes the result of Bourn.
2. It may be asked whether passages which speak of the Bovrnua of God
should be construed in terms of resolve or whether the thought of purpose should
again predominate. There seems to be good evidence for the latter view. Thus in
Jos. Ant., 1, 232, in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac, Isaac is prepared to subject
himself toic aupotepwv Bournuaaw (of God and his father). The reference is
to the plan and purpose of the divine will which Isaac cannot fathom. According to
Ant., 2, 304 Pharaoh is disobedient toic TOU lEot Boulnuaolv, to the true in-
tention of God, in refusing to let the children of Israel go. According to Philo
Leg. All., III, 239, works are ordained for the temperate 0eof Bournuati (plan
and purpose). According to Vit. Mos., I,95 God reveals His Boonua, His pre-
viously undisclosed purpose, by oracles and wonders. In Rer. Div. Her., 272 the
reference is plainly to the Bou nua 0eo0 as the divine purpose to alleviate innate
evils. Most convincing, however, is Vit. Mos., I, 287, in which the Boulnua of
God in Balaam's oracle is described as contrary to the purpose of the king
(mpoaipeis).2
3. Bou nua in the NT merely confirms these findings. In Ac. 27:43 the captain
frustrates the design of the soldiers to kill the prisoners. In Pt. 4:3 : to BouAnua
TOv £0vov KaTEIpyao0at there follows catalogue of vices the community
is told that in the past it followed the tendency and direction of the Gentiles.
Finally in R. 9:19: to yap Bournuat aitot tis &veÉoiKev, what is meant is
the purposeful intention of God which has been previously (v.18) described as
the twofold will of mercy and severity. The instances adduced for "opinion" or
"'preference" only help to make clearer the sense of the term in this passage.
Schrenk

BpaBeuw, Bpapsiov

Among the technical terms of the arena introduced by Paul into the theological
speech of early Christianity (- ayovigeo0a1, dONeiv), paBsuo and especially
BpaBeiov deserve mention.
t Bpa BeuG.
Common from the time of Euripides, this word refers originally to the activity of
the umpire (Bpapeic, ppapeuinc) whose office at the games is to direct, arbitrate
and decide the contest. In the wider sense it then comes to mean "to order," "rule,' or

2 In Josephus (cf. A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? [1910] 26 f.) the divine
will is very often called BouAnows, predominantly in the sense of the purposeful guidance
and direction of Israel and its history both as a whole and in detail. It is used along with
‡vrolal in Ant., 6, 147, cf. 7, 39. Since Jos. also uses BouAnous (with i6lx, olkela, Ant.,
5, 179; 6, 143; also 3, 319; 13, 41) of capricious opinion, or of the whim of a ruler (Ant.,
6, 61; cf. Polyb., IV, 82, 5; V, 26, 13; Diod. S., III, 16, 3), it is clearly linked with the thought
of free and sovereign self-determination when applied to God.
BpaBEUG K TA. For class. examples of BpaBEUELV, BpaBEUC etc., cf. Wieneke,
Munster, Ezechielis Jadec t poetae Alexandrini fabulae quae inscribu
 BpaPEUG - BpaBeiov

"control." The LXX uses the term only once in a later passage under Hellenistic
influence, i.e., at Wis., 10:12, where wisdom is the umpire who directed and decided
the bitter contest of Jacob with the angel (Gn. 32:24 ff.): dyova loxupov EBpaPEuGEV
ait. BpaBeUElV without obj. is used of God in Philo Vit. Mos., I, 16: TaP' ÉK6VtGV
gloBe tv xpxñv, BpaBE outoc Kai ÉTIVEUOVTOC 08O0. In the sense of "to rule"
it is used of Moses in Ez. 'Egaywyh, 86 (= n. 1): autoc BpaBETOEIS Kal Kaonyion
Bootov.
Paul uses the verb of the peace which settles all strife and preserves the unity
of the Christian community : n slpnyn tot Xplotot Bpa BEVETO tv taic kapbiais
Ouv (Col. 3:15); the community is a kingdom of peace. Otherwise the simple
BpaBEUG does not occur in the NT. 2 In the analogous expression in Phil. 4:7
Paul uses another verb : n sipnvn tOU BeO0 . . . opouppoal tac Kapolac Suiv
Ev Xp1ot& 'Inoou. Obviously both terms have much the same sense of "to con-
trol" or "to rule,' as finely attested for BpaBe ElV and oulaTtEIV by a Christian
papyrus of the 6th century : bikala f 8ua0nkn. UT0 XPLOT0U • BpaBEuQLEVN
kai [qu attouavn ]. 3
+ BpaBeiov.
The subst. BpaBelov, "the prize of conflict," equated by Hesych. (s.v.) with Éil-
vikiov, grallov, vikniñpiov, quoin, is rare in secular Gk. It is used already by
Menander in a figur. sense : BpaBelov aperis ÉotIV EDTaLBEUGia (Menand. Mon., 653
[IV, p. 359, Meineke]). Later there came to be linked with the word the thought of the
warring confusion of life : opE Spotoiow E@KE BpaBnia tavta uo0oto, 6 and of
the completion and crown of life': work To BpaBlov TOU ATOTE ÉquATOS. In a
similar sense the LXX uses the image of the A0Aov - GOAEiv), but never BpaBeiov.
On the other hand, Gr. Bar. 12 speaks of the BpaBeia which the righteous gain by
fighting. As an alternative to 80ov, BpaBeiov appears in Philo's work TEpl &0Awv
Kai Éntiulov, which carries through most consistently the image of the dyov of
life from which the righteous emerges victorious: ol d0\ntal aperc
BpaBeidv kai KnpuyuaTv Kai TOV XAWV BOX VIKDOL SI80TAI METE AUBAVOV
(Praem. et Poen., 5 f.).
In the NT Paul is again the only one to use BpaBeiov in two closely related
passages : C. 9:24 ff. : Ook o18aTE 8tl of tv arablo TPÉXOVTES TXVTES LEV
tpEXoUolV, ETc 8É AxuBavEl to BpaBelov (otÉpavov aplaptov); oftoc tPÉXETE
iva kata aBntE Lyo rolvuv oftos tpÉxo ic oiK aonius ("aimless"), and
Phil. 3:13 f.: tx uEv onloo ETTLAOVIAVOLEVOS TOIS BE EUTIPOO ÉTISLS
KAT& OKOTOV SIGKG ElG to BpaBeiov ths &vo KAnoEdC. BpaBeiov is here the
prize of conflict which a man can win only if he throws in his whole self and all
his resources, namely, the resurrection to eternal life (Phil.3:11). This certainly
does not mean that man decides his own destiny by his own willing and running
(R. 9:16). The prior decision is made by God alone, who issues the call : SoKo

2 Paul once uses KaTaBpaBEUELV "to decide against someone" in a very striking manner
at Col. 2:18 : undelc Du&c kata paBEuETO (cf. 2:16 : xpivéto).
P. Masp., II, No. 67151, 221 ff.
4 As BpaBeuo can take on the sense of "to rule" (BpaBEUG, "prince"), so BoaBeiov
can denote a "sceptre,' v. Mithr. Liturg., 12, 19: o0pavot Toyai xpatoioai XP00Ea
BpaBia.
Insc. Priene, 118, 3; cf. further Moult.-Mill., s.v.; Nageli, 37; Reisch in Pauly-W., V,
801; equivalent in meaning to BpaBevua, v. Wieneke, op. cit.
8 Ps.-Oppian Cyn., 4, 197.
7 Vett. Val., VII. 5 (p. 288, 8), cf. IV, 9 (p. 174, 21, Kroll): To BpaBeiov &ToVÉUEIV.
BpaBeiov - Bpaxlov

8É El kai katalapd, Eo i Kai kate nuo0nv (Phil.3:12; cf. C.8:3; Gl. 4:9;
1 C. 13:12). The final decision is also made by God (1 C. 3:15). God is He who
in vocation sets for man the goal which at once gives meaning to his work and
direction to his life. By this divine act, however, man is summoned to supreme
activity. He must break with all the things which are behind (Phil. 3:7 ff., 13) and
bend all his thoughts and actions to the divinely appointed goal (1 C. 9:16 ff.
note the sevenfold "that," and cf. C. 9:27 and G1. 2:2 : uh TOS). He must keep
in step with the march of the divine revelation (Phil. 3:15; G1. 5:7 f.). He must
resolutely integrate his own will into the divine will: El yap ÉKOV TOUtO TIP&GOG,
urolov Exo (1 C. 9:17). The will of man is thus made free and strong, and God
reaches His goal as man does (Phil. 2:12 f.). The Bpapeiov is the point in eternity
in which the two parallel lines meet. It is the goal beyond this age and its possi-
bilities. It is the meeting-place of divine and human action.
1 Clement perspicaciously Sums up the life and death of Paul in terms of this guiding
concept : Natloc UTouovnc BpaBElov ESELEEV TO yewaiov TAS TIOTEOS a toi
KAEOC EA BEV atAlayn tol Koouou kai Eis TOV &ylov T6TtOV ‡TOpEUOn
(5, 5 ff.). And in the Mart. Pol., 17, 1 BpaBelov has become an alternative expression
for the martyr's crown: ÉOTE OVOuÉVOV tov ths aplapolac OTE aVOV kal
BpaBeiov dvavtippntov atevnveyuévov. In the same sense BpaBeiov is adopted
by Tertullian with all the terminology of the arena: Bonum agonem subituri estis, in
quo agonothetes deus vivus est, xystarches spiritus sanctus, corona eternitatis, brabium
angelicae substantiae, politia in coelis, gloria in saecula saeculorum (Ad Mart., 3). 8
But the weaker use of Bpapeiov as an expression for the profit and reward of our
action in the sense of popular Hellenistic philosophy is still found, e.g., in Tatian's Or.
Graec.. 33, 4: mouelas kai xxpaolas BpaBEiov Arn Eya.
Stauffer

t Spayiov

This word appears in the NT only in the expression the "arm of God" and
only in quotations from the LXX or similar modes of speech (Lk. 1:51; In. 12:38;
Ac. 13:17).
In the OT or LXX 217 = Bpaxiov is in this connection an expression for the
mighty works of God. The anthropomorphic figure is plainest in Is. 30:30: 787 191ht Am3,
which the LXX renders : kal tov uuov TOO Bpayiovos autou SEiEal (cf. also the
Tg. Is. 30:30). Cf. Is. 51:9 Mas. and LXX. Mostly the image is softened and & Bpaxiav
TOU éE0 simply means the "power of God.' Thus plainly in Is. 62:8; Jer. 28:14:
Yahweh swears by His arm, or Is. 59:16; 63:5, Yahweh's arm comes to help. In Ez.
30:21 ff.; Da. 11:22, it means concretely the "host of the Lord." The different terms
associated with Bpayiov1 show what is meant by the arm of the Lord. Thus there
is reference to uÉyeooc (Ex. 15:16), loxus (Dt. 9:26, 29; 33:27; 2 Macc. 15:24 etc.),
KpaTos (Wis. 11:22; 16:16), ueyaAwaovn (78:10), 80vauis (y 88:10 etc.). Or

8 The Test. of the 40 Mart. begins with quotations from Hb. 12:1 and Phil. 3:14 ÉTEL&dv
TOV TPOKELueVoV [nuiv] dyova TELEOWUEV Kal eni ta BpaBeia the avo KAñOEWC
¢OXGWUEV. 2,1 moves in the same complex of images: TAo0tov IvE AITn TapEyEl
[8 GEoG] TOiC ElG autoy T poatpEXOUOI, Ywnv 88 aldviov BpaBEdEI Toic gic autov
THOTEVOUGL. CI. also paBelov (and &0 nois) in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. (Schwartz), Index,
 Bpaxiov ~ Bpovth

Bpaxlov is used along with onusia, tÉpata, ToAEu0S, opquata (Dt. 4:34; 7:19;
26:8; 'lep. 39:21; Bar. 2:11). The arm of God describes in a concrete image the
miraculous demonstration of the power of God. Apart from a few passages where God's
arm acts on behalf of the individual righteous (2 Ch. 6:32; Wis. 5:17; Ps. Sol. 13:2), it is
used only in relation to the world and with reference to the people of God. Thus it
relates a. to creation, which is understood as a conflict with Rahab and her company at
w 88:10; Is. 51:9 f.; 3 'lep. 39:17. What is active in creation is not the arm of a tExviTs
but of the warring God Himself. Especially, however, it relates b. to the election and
redemption of the people by the wonderful exodus from Egypt (Dt. 4:34); Ex. 6:1, 6;
15:16; Dt. 3:24; 7:19 etc.; 4 Bao. 17:36; Is. 65:12; 'Iep. 39:21 etc. It relates c. to the direc-
tion and preservation of the people : Dt. 33:27; y 78:10; Is. 26:11 etc. It relates finally
d. to the bringing of eschatological salvation at w97:1; Is. 40:10; 51:9 ff.; 52:10; 53:1;
63:5; Ez. 20:33 f.

This arm of God, miraculously put forth for the salvation of His people, has
shown its power and fulfilled the ancient promise in the birth of the Messiah
(Lk. 1:51). The words which previously referred to the praise of creation, and
which in the LXX are already related to the redemption out of Egypt, are now
used to magnify the fulfilment in the birth of the Messiah. In Jn. 12:37 f. the arm
of God is the experienced demonstration of the power of God, the onusia *Inoou.
Cf. Just. Apol., I, 32, 12, where Nu. 24:17 and Is. 11:1, 10 are combined and the Bpa-
Xiov tOU 0EOU is implicitly (with &otpov and &vloc explicitly) referred to Xplor6s.
Schlier

+ Bpovtn

"Thunder." At In. 12:29 and Rev. 6:1; 14:2; 19:6, this word is used to denote
overwhelming power of voice, as also at Rev. 10:3 f., where there can hardly be
reference to the thunderous course of the planets. 1 It occurs with other natural
phenomena in Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18 (- xorparn).
In the LXX it is often used of the terrifying revelation of God ; except in Job 40:4 (9)
the verb Bpovrav is always used in this way. Cf. also the magic texts, e.g., Preis. Zaub.,
V (London, 4th cent. A.D.), 151: €yo Elul & GOT aTtoV kal Bpovtoov. On Phrygian
inscriptions Bpoviov is a common name for the deity of heaven. 3
The only other instance is in Mk. 3:17: ÉTéONKEV auToic (the sons of Zebedee)
ovouata Boavpyés, 8 fotiv uiol Bpovinc. Both the orthography of the Aram.

Bpaxiov. 1 Bpaxiov is often an altern. for XElp (Ex. 6:1; Dt. 4:34; 7:19 etc.). In
the LXX Bpaxiov is used for 7; in Ex. 6:1, where 217t is to be presupposed as original
in the Heb.; 32:11; Is. 26:11; Da. 9:15. It is also used in a secular sense for 7? at Gn. 24:18;
27:16; Ju. 15:14.
2 Common attributes are ownAoc and dyioc (y 97:1; Is. 52:10).
3 Here creation is seen together with the redemption out of Egypt and both are related
to eschatological salvation.
Bpovtn. F. Boll, Aus d. Offb. Joh. (1914), 22; H. E. Weber in Aus Schrift u. Ge-
schichte, Festschr. f. A. Schlatter (1922), 47 ff.
2 Deissmann LO, 113.
3 Moult.-Mill., s.v.
Bpovtn - Bpuxo - Bpuyuos

name and its meaning, together with that of the Gk. translation, are contested. 4 The
passage acquired particular importance when in some MSS : the name was applied to
all the apostles, as though to describe them as revolutionaries. But this weakly attested
reading is more of an attempt to smooth the awkward Marcan text than vice versa, and
there is no reason why the name should have been later restricted to the sons of Zebedee.
Foerster

Bpixw, Bpuyuoc

t Bpixw.
The co-existence of several roots Bpux-1 makes it extraordinarily difficult to review
the development of the term. To be sure, we already find a perf. BÉppuxa used by
Hom. (II., 13, 393; 16, 486; cf. Od., 12, 242 etc.) to describe the breaking out of sufferers
into open lamentation ; cf. also Soph. Trach., 1072 (tOtE TtaplÉvos BÉBpuxa KAaiov)
etc., and again Ps.-Oppian Cyn., 2, 273 of the cry of pain of stag mortally wounded
by snake-bite. Here, however, we must insert the Bpoxelv from which there developed
the common post-Homeric Bpuxaoual for loud outcry. As "to gnash" it first occurs
in the expression BPUXEl (toUs 886vtac) with which Hippocrates (Mul., 1, 2, 120
[VIII, 16, 262]; Epid., 5, 86 [V, 252, Littré]) characterises especially the ague. In the
LXX there are 5 instances of Bpuxelv (Touc) 886vtac (eni) ("IwB 16:10; w 34:16;
36:12; 111:10; Lam. 2:16) in the sense of "to gnash with the teeth," always as an ex-
pression of hate (usually that of the quapta os for the * 8(kalog) and as a
translation of 5 D230 P20 or D.t2 P27 (Job 16:9), in which it is linked with a desire
to destroy the opponent; cf. also the Rabb. liter. (Tanch. [Buber] P52 15, 140; jKil.,
32c, 37 f. etc.).4

The only NT passage (Ac. 7:54) may be classified with the OT and Rabbinic
examples both formally and materially. When the opponents of Stephen heard
his speech before the Sanhedrin, it is said of them : #Bpuyov touc bo6vtas Ént'
autov. This attests their hatred and desire to destroy him. It does so in such a
way that, according to OT usage, they are at once set in the camp of sinners who
are opposed to the righteous, even though they think they are doing God service
in removing him. It is possible that there is a direct allusion to Ps. 35:11 ff.
+ Bpuyuos.
From the time of Eupolis (CAF, I, 349) in the general sense n auvrouos £6w6f
(Etym. Gud., 290, 18, Steph.) etc., esp. of the chattering of the teeth in the ague, some-
times without TOv 680VTOV (Hippocr. Vict., 3, 84 [VI, 634]; Mul., 3,214 [VIII, 416,

4 Apart from the Comm. and the bibl. in Pr.-Bauer, S.v. BoampyÉs, v. Had. Apk., 224;
Joach. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 71, n. 4; W. Erbt. Der Anfanger unseres
Glaubens (1930), 5 f.
The Cod. W and some Ital. MSS (bceq).
b pox w. Thes. Steph., S.v.; Liddell-Scott, 331 f., s.v.: Str.-B., IV, 1040; Schl. Mt.,
2.79 P.: W. K. Hobart, The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882), 208.
Cf. L. Meyer, Handbuch d. griech. Etymologie, III (1901), 134 ff., but also K. Brug-
mann (A. Thumb), Griech. Gramm.4 (1913), 133.
2 Cf. also Bpuxn, "gnashing of the teeth," Bpuxet6s, "cald fever."
3 36:12 kal Bp xeL Kat' autou TOUG 880VTaG autou.
4 Schl. Mt., 279 f.
ppuyuos. Bibl. under Bpoxo; Clemen, 153; Zn. Mt. on 8:12.
 Bpuyu6s - Bpoua

Littré]).1 In the LXX it is used in Prv. 19:9 for 07) of the snarling of the lion, in
W 37:9 'A for 7p7) of the groaning of the heart 2 (LXX: &Tto otevay ou this kapbias
you), Zip. 51:3 of the bloodthirsty gnashing of the enemies of the righteous against
them in a favourite OT image (= ppuxw), though in wide deviation from the Heb.
Only this passage is linked linguistically with the non-biblical attestation, while the
other two display a usage which seems to be more under the influence of Bpuxcouau
(641) than Bpoxw ("to gnash"). 3 There are no later Jewish parallels.
In the NT the only relevant use is in the saying : ÉkEi foral 6 KAauluoc kai
o Bpuyuos tov 866vtov (Mt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Lk. 13:28),
in which Jesus describes the state of those who are excluded from the * Bacilela
(- ak6Toc) even though they were called to it. In spite of the Greek parallels, the
formula Bpuyuoc tov 686vtov does not denote despairing rage, and it is cer-
tainly not used to describe the bodily reaction of the excluded to the extreme cold
of their place of punishment. 5 It simply denotes the despairing remorse & which
shakes their whole body and is linked also with KAau0u6s. 1
The NT usage is thus independent both of .the general Gk. and also of the OT
attestation. It cannot be understood directly in the light of the phrase -* Spuxo touc
886vTaS, but takes its meaning from its context. The solid place of the formula in Mt.
suggests that it is really peculiar to him, 8 though there can be no certainty on this point.
To assume that it has been taken over from religious history 9 obscures rather than
elucidates the matter.

Rengstorf

t Bpiua, Bpoois
1. "Food" in the Strict Sense.
Mt. 14:15 and par.; Lk. 3:11 (Hb. 12:16).With reference to cultic and ascetic
prescriptions of Judaism which are declared to be religiously indifferent by Jesus
and early Christianity, Mk. 7:19: kalapi{ov (sc. Jesus) Tavta to Bpouarta:1
the distinction between clean and unclean meats is done away (- katapoc,
Katapl( c, Ko1v6s, Kotvoco). In his discussion of the eating of idol meats

Cf. also Apoll. Rhod., 2, 83 : Bpuxh 686 tv (in boxing).

2 Unless we adopt another reading (X'73), v. BHK?, ad loc.
3 Cle £Bpuxouny aTto Bpuyuot 37:9 'A and Zn. Mt. on 8:12.
+ So Zn., H. J. Holtzmann, KI. etc.
5 So esp. Clemen on the basis of Mazdaist conceptions of the place of punishment : cf.
also O. Holtzmann.
Cf. also En. 108:3, 5, 15.
7 Schl. Mt., 280.
8 Bultmann Trad., 352.
Clemen : Mazdaism.
Beou a, ppda . C. Pr.-Bauer, 232.
There is here no ground for adopting the modern Gk. sense of "filth" (Radermacher, 12,
Bl.-Debr. § 126, 3; cf. in opposition Pr.-Bauer, ad loc. and Moult.-Mill., 118), since ka0api-
gov Bpouata is to be understood as observation of the Evangelist in the sense of
R. 14:14, 20 (cf. Orig. in Mt. tom. XI, 12 [III, p. 97, Lommatzsch]); it succinctly denotes
the "new and basic religious conception" of Jesus that "the religious relationship of man
to God is not decided in the external and bodily sphere of man" (Hck. Mk., 92). Cf.
also KI. Mk., 80.
Bpiua
in 1 C.8, and in the controversy between the strong and the weak in R. 14, Paul
describes Bpoua as of no significance for the relationship with God: C. 8:8:
Bpoua juas ou > TAPAOTHOEL TO DEG (cf. 6:13; R. 14:15), cf. R. 14:17: of yap
Éativ n > Baoieia ToU BEot Bpwois kai 1ooic. 2 Only regard for the weaker
brother can require voluntary renunciation of offending meats, 1 C.8:13; R. 14:15,
20 f. 3 According to Hb. 9:10 Bpouata and nouata belong to the -* bikalo-
uata - aapkoc which were given for the time of the incomplete older covenant
but which have lost their validity in the perfect new order of things brought in
by Christ. Hb. 13:9 relegates Bpouata to the sphere of things which cannot con-
firm the kapoia, so that even those concerned about them can derive no profit
therefrom. The ordinances referred to here, being reckoned with the 818ayal
Tolkilal Kai EÉval, need not be restricted to the ancient Jewish statutes, e.g., the
forbidding of unclean foods or the rules for what is to be eaten on the occasion
of sacrifices, but include the syncretistic customs of the surrounding world. + There
is no point in laying special emphasis on Bpouata. At 1 Tm. 4:3 it is insisted, in
opposition to heretics who, along the lines of Gnostic asceticism (cf. Col. 2:16,
21 ff.), advance the demand ¥ qTÉyeo0aL Bpouatov, that meats are gifts of
the Creator to be enjoyed by Christians with thanksgiving. &
2. "Food" in the Figurative Sense.
a. The word is used of the miraculous food which is not of this world but
which comes down from heaven, 1 C. 10:3 : tvEVuaTiKov Bpua, i.e., the manna
of Ex. 16 (y77:24; 104:40 : aptov oipavoi; 77:25 aptov dyyÉ^ov; Wis. 16:20 :
ayyé^dv tpoohv aptov aT' oipavot : - &ptoc) as a type of the eucharistic
bread.
b. It is also used of spiritual food, C. 3:2: yala duas ETotioa, 0f Bpoua.
Milk (ya^a -) 645) was the first missionary instruction which declared the facts
of the revelation of salvation ; solid food (cf. Hb. 5:12 ff.: OTEPE6S) was the
word of wisdom which disclosed its meaning and was addressed to the ITVEU-
uatikol (3:1), though Paul Jid not think the Corinthians were as yet mature
enough to understand it.

2 To assess Bpoots Kal ToaIC (a formula from the time of Hom.) both here and in Col.
2:16, cf. bBer., 17a : "In the future world there is neither eating nor drinking" ; Philo Vit.
Mos., I, 184 : ÉTlOTquEVOV tac TOU ODUATOC &VAYKAC EK tpoons, ApmuÉvou kai
BEATOIVAIC YALETAIC OUVE(EUYLÉVOU, Bod EL Kal ToOEl; Ign. Tr., 2, 3 (the deacons)
ou Bpwuatov kai TOT S1aKovoL, gAN' EkkAnolas GEot irnperai. Qoh.r., 2, 24
(15b), Str.-B., II, 485, allegorises: Eating and drinking denote the study of the Torah and
good works.
Cf. Did., 6, 3 : tEpi 8t Thc BodTEG, 8 SUvaoa1 Baotaoov, where there is no com-
pulsion to refrain from certain meats.
For an understanding of the passage, cf. Wnd. Hb.2, 117 f.; Rgg. Hb.2, 3, 436 ff.; A. See-
berg, Hb. (1912), 142
Dib. Past.3, 40 ff.; R. Bultmann, RGG2, IV, 995; E. Hennecke, RGG2, II, 1569 f.
8 On the question of asceticism in the NT and the surrounding world of religion, cf. in
general E. v. Dobschutz, Die urchristl. Gemeinden (1902), 93 ff. 274 ff.; H. Strathmann,
RGG2, I, 575 ff.; Ltzm. R.3, 114 f.; Loh. Kol., 121 f.; Str.-B., II, 523; III, 307 f.; Reitzenstein
Hell. Myst., 329 f.; P. R. Arbesmann, "Das Fasten bei den Griechen und Romern," RVV,
21, 1 (1929).
nuivThese metaphors are common in Philo, e.g.. Congr., 19: 00x opos, 8tt kal to ooua
On ipOrEpov TtE TIn YUIaLc Kal TONuTE EaI XPITAL t ToLKi-
oic kai yalaktobEoln En fAikla Th ppeoiBEL; Omn. Prob. Lib., 160 To uEV TOO TOV
avil yalaktoc artalas tpopas... EIT' aTdIG KPaTXIOTÉPAC 18 Sv avopoleioat
kal EDEKThaaoal Ttpoc teAos alaiov aplEovtal. On their derivation from the diatribe,
 Spoua

Jn. 4:34 : Euov Bpoua Eotiv iva TOLG To eÉ nua toU TE Vaytos HE kai
TE EloO autoi to Epyov, is the answer of the Johannine Jesus to the question
of the disciples whether anyone has given Him to eat (v. 33). What nourishes
and satisfies Him belongs to another sphere than that of physical life, namely, the
sphere of His divinely given calling (cf. Mt. 4:4).8 Obediently to do the will of
God and to finish His work is for Him "as necessary and indispensable as daily
bread." 9 It is His spiritual food (Bpdous) of which the disciples are ignorant
(4:32). There is, of course, no question of a Gnostic devaluation of the earthly
and material in In. 4:34. It does not say that Jesus either will or can dispense with
earthly nourishment. 10 It is voluntaristic and active, and as such is characteristic
of the biblical history of salvation.
We read of spiritual food as the gift of the Son of Man to men in In. 6:27: un
Thy Bpoot Thy - qTo^AuuÉvnv, a^ld thy Bpwow thy - uEvouoav eis 7 gonv
> aionov, v. 55 f axpé yoU > dinedc (S: arnens) fotv ppiaic. The link
with the miracle of feeding (cf. v.26) and the goal of the address (v. 32 ff.) in
v.51 make it plain that for Jesus the food which nourishes to incorruptible and
eternal life is Himself, His presence in the Lord's Supper. Man is fed in faith in
Him (v. 29, 35). He is nourished in the Lord's Supper, the concrete representation
of the spiritual fellowship of faith with Him (v. 51, 53 ff., 63).
Bpoua is rare in the figur. sense, e.g., Aristoph. Fr., 333 (CAF, I, 480): fv uÉya Ti
Spou' ft tpuyoboTtoiuouolKn (the art of sound which underlies comedies). It does
not occur at all in the LXX and is alien to the koine. But the thought of heavenly or
spiritual food (Gr. tpoon etc. aptos, > ya^a) is common in Gk. and oriental
religion. 11 Nectar and ambrosia (= &favaola) are the food of the Homeric gods, and
when they are given as a gift of divine grace to man they invest him with immortality
and eternal youth (Hom. I1., 5, 342; Od., 5, 135).12 We may also think of the OT
manna (-> aproc), not merely in Ex. 16 but also in Dt. 8:3 (the words of God are
food necessary to life, cf. Am. 8:11 f.). According to Rabb. deliberations manna is the
food of the heavenly world. 13 Along the lines of Ps. 63:5 (the satisfying of the soul)
and Prv. 9:5 : OXyETE Tov tuQv (sc. of wisdom) aptov Kal TLETE olvov Bv ExÉpaca
outv, Philo goes further when he explain that manna, as tpooh at' oipavoi, tpooh
Oela etc., is wisdom : Mut. Nom., 259 : tov oupanov apetns Aoyov; cf. Rer. Div.
Her., 79 : To uawa Tov Ogiov A6yov, TV oupaviov uxis &plaprov tpo-
onv; Fug., 137; Sacr. AC, 86 etc. In Eth. En. 69:24 it is said of angels that "their food
consists of pure thoughts.' As in early Christian texts the Lord's Supper is described
as TVELuaTIKn tpoon (Did., 10,3), &ptoc 0Eo0 (Ign. R., 7,3; opp. tpooh p0opas)
or edyapiot leioa tpooh, L& is alua Kai OXPKES KaTO uetaBoAnv tpÉpovtal

cf. the material in Ltzm. K., ad loc.; Wnd. Hb., ad loc.; cf. more generally R. Bultmann, Der
Stil der paul. Predigt u. die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (1910), 35 ff., 88. On the differences,
cf. Joh. W. 1 K., 72; A. Bonhoffer, Epiktet u. d. NT (1911), 61 f. On the whole question,
yala. V. also CI. Al. on 1 C.3:2 (Strom., V, 66, 2): ya^a uev i kamixnois olovel
tpom wuxns tpoon von0ñoetal, Bp ua 8€ n ETottiKn leapia® GapKES a TaL kai
atua tou Xoyou, TOUTE TI KATANYIC ts lelas buvqusoc kal otolas.
8 There is an echo of this thought in Herm. s. 9, 11, 8 : É8eit noa pjuaia xupiou
8Anv Thy vuKta.
®"W. Heitmuller, ad loc. (Schriften d. NT3, IV [1918], 79).
10 On the other hand, cf. Act. Thom., 5: 81& Heigov il Tis BpdoEwg kal TOU TOTOU
310ov £v0a6e, kal iva to BÉAnua TOU Baalrewc TEAÉO.
Cf. Bau. J.3 100 f. For further religious material, cf. N. Soderblom, La Vie future
(1901), 330 ff.
12 Cf. Roscher, I, 280 ff.; K. Wernicke, in Pauly-W., I (1894). 1809 ff.
13 Str.-B., IV, 1246, s.v.: H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (1929), 239 ff.
Bpoua - ya/a
quov (Just. Apol., 1, 66, 2), and as in the legend of Joseph and Asenath 14 both enjoy
heavenly food which makes them immortal : aptov E0oyn u€vov gons kal Toth.
plov EioynuÉvov clavaolac (p. 49, cf. 61, 64), 15 so texts from the world of later
syncretism speak of foods which impart divine qualities and incorruptible life etc., or
of foods for the regenerate. Cf. the rich though partly disputed material in the Mithr.
Liturg., 100 ff.; 241 f., 16 e.g., Sallust. De Deis, 4 (p. 8, 19 ff., Nock): (of Phrygian
initiates) mporov LEV a[tou tE Kal ns & ins ntayelas kal punapas tpooñs
drexouela® Exatépa yap Evavtia yuxh Eri toutolc ya\aKtOc tpooh, toTep
gvayewouÉvov. 17 Lidz. Ginza, 357, 6 : impart strength to thee in virtue of the
Pihta" (the sacramental food of the Mandaeans), cf. 239, 27 ff.; Lidz. Lit., 70 f. According
to Act. Thom., 36 there also belongs to the "greater than these earthly things," which
includes the Gospel, TEpi this auppooubbouc tpoons kai tou ToToU ts qUTE/OU
ts  nouns, 61: KOPEO0QUEV THE autoi tpoons ths OEikñc, 120: YEv00 uol
kolvovoe tis aloviou tons, Iva Begouai Tapa 00t tpoonv TEAelav. In the song
of the daughter of light (ibid., 6), the divine king is enthroned TOEOWV TH ÉXUTOU
auppooia toug Er' aitov topuuÉvous. Ibid. the eternal ones at the feast linger in
the presence of their Lord, of thy cuBpoolav Bpwon E6Égavto undev 8Aoc & TOU-
olav gyouoav. In Mandaism, as distinct from the "food of the children of Tibil" (Lidz.
Ginza, 306, 35, cf. 320, 15), the "food of the 12 gates" (298, 19) "wherein the planets
concealed themselves' (320, 15), and the "pilgrim nourishment of the children of men"
(246, 28), a great part is played by the "nourishment" for the ascent of the soul which
"the father of the Uthras imparts to his friends" (96, 13 f.); they are "victorious in
virtue of their nourishment for the way" (247, 2 f., cf. 246, 29 f.). In 252, 9 ff. the "once
begotten" receives from the father the command : "Up, provide thy Uthras with the
nourishment which have given thee" ; cf. 273, 13 "My nourishment for the journey
comes from the strange man. If the nourishment of the wicked is their works (540, 11 f.),
the summons goes out to the elect: "Do good works, and lay up nourishment for your
way" (23, 1 f., cf. 141, 20 f.); to good works belongs perseverance in faith (377,20;
392, 32; 584, 21). Kusta, true faith, is the provision for the soul: "The Uthras of light
provided themselves with the nourishment of Kusta and armed themselves with all
its wisdom" (509, 28 ff. Lidz. Lit., 161, 5 f.); "When he wished to eat, he prepared
himself a table with Kusta" (Lidz. Joh., 106). There is a similar reference in Manichean
literature (from the Gospel of Mani): 'And the food of wisdom was proffered." 18
Behm

yola

1. 1 C. 3:1 f. ... 00k houmh0nv Aa^ñoau outv oc TVEDuaTIKOIC &AX' Oc axpki-

vois, is mnulois tv Xpioto. yala duac Énotloa, of Bpiua® ofnd yap $80-
vaole. Fala is here a figure for the kerygma brought to Corinth by Paul. Its
opposite is > Bpiua, which is the goola (the yvoos) which he cannot yet give
to them as VitIOL Ev XPLoTo.

14 P. Battifol, Studia patristica, 1 (1889).

15 Cf. on this point Schurer, III, 400 f.
16 Cf. further Bau. J.3, 100 f.
17 Cf. apart from Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 329 f. H. Schlier, Religionsgeschichtl. Unter-
suchungen zu den Ignatiusbriefen (1929), 150 f.
18 F. W.K. Muller, Handschriften-Reste aus Turfan, II (AAB, 1904), M, 17 (p. 26)
and M, 172 (p. 101).
a a. H. Usener, Rhein. Mus., 57 (1902), 177 ff.; R. Perdelwitz, "Die Mysterien-
religion u. das Problem des 1 Pt.,' RVV, 11, (1911), 56 ff.; K. Wyss, "Die Milch im
Kultus der Griechen u. Romer," RVV, 15, 2 (1914): Mithr. Liturg., 171 ff.
 yala
Similarly, yet more rhetorically, Hb. 5:12 ff. says TXALV XPEIaV EXETE ToU
816&OKEIV Ou&C tivo ra oroleia tis apxis tov oyity tou 0Eo0, kal yEyo-
VATE XPEIAV EXOUTES YAAAKTOS, OU STEPEAS tpoons. Tas yap o pETéXoV ya-
AaKTOS &TLEIpOS Abyou biKaloaivns, vhitios yap ÉaTIv' TEAEIOV 8E EOTIV A
aTEpEd tpoon. In this passage yo^q is a figure for the basic elements of divine
teaching, for the elementary Christian instruction described in 6:1 f. It is for
vAilot. The STEpEd tpoon is the Abyos Sikaiooovns, a kind of gnosis presented
by the author in 6:13 ff. This is for TEAELOL.
For both figures, i.e., the comparison of milk with initial instruction suitable for
children, and of solid food with profounder teaching more serviceable to the mature,
there is a similar usage in both Epictet. and Philo. E.g., Epict. Diss., III, 24, 9 : oUK
groyalaktioouev Kon To0" fautous kal HELVNObuE0a Tv HKoU quEv napo tov
piloabowv. In Epict., however, there must be weaning from the milk. Philo gives a
clearer parallel, e.g., in Congr., 19 : ody opas, otl Kai to odua nudv ou TP6TEpOV
TETnyUIaIs Kal ToAUtE sol xpñtal tpooais, piv i tais goikilos kal ya-
AaKToDEaIV Ev nAlKia th BpEoo6EL; tov autov on tponov kal th puxn maloikac
uev vouloov EiTpETi OaL tpooas ta fyKukAia kai td ka0' gkaotov autoy
DEW PLaTa, TEAELOTÉDAS 8E kal TEPETtOUOaS av8paoiv ic alnooc tac apetas.
Cf. Ign. Tr., 5, 1; Act. Joh., 45. The image is the same, though different objects of
teaching are denoted by milk or solid food.

That the terminology of the Mysteries occurs in C. 3:1 is no reason why we

should link this image with the ideas of the Mystery religions. These are present
only in the third 2 and very different passage.
2. Pt. 2:2 : XTOOÉUEvo1 OUv taGav KaKiav Oc aptiyévvnta Bpéon TO
AoyiKov q601ov ya\a ELto0ñoaTE, iva Ev aiTd aiEnoite eic oompiav, El
£ yeooao0E otI xpnotoc 6 kupiog. Again in the environment of the terminology
of the Mysteries, tO pñLa TO EDGYYEALOOEV Eic Ouac (1:25b) denotes here the
pure, pneumatic (divine) milk by which the new born are nourished and may grow
to owmpla. Hence to yala is not set in opposition to To Bpoua, but is itself the
gnosis provided for Christians in the Gospel.
This comparison derives from a pneumatic mode of speech which has its ultimate
basis in a mystery rite. We need not discuss in this context the disputed question
whether to ya^a often in connection with uÉAt and less frequently with olvoc)
owes its sacramental significance to a mythological conception (the food of the
gods), an eschatological (the food of Paradise), or a magical (the mediatrix of
life). All three elements probably played some part in making milk a sacramental
food and causing a particular sacramental power to be ascribed to it. Many
examples show us that it is in fact a sacramental element.
The LXX, of course, does not attest this. In it milk is a characteristic of the holy
land (Ex. 3:8, 17 etc.) and stands for blessing in general (Job 29:6). Similarly, it will
mark the eschatological marriage (JI. 3:18; Is. 60:16). On the other hand, the Egyptian
king enjoys the milk of Isis and becomes immortal. As HEAains Booc yala, when
enjoyed, it is the beginning of immortality, as wine is the end. 3 In the Berlin magic

Joh. W., 1 K., 72; Ltzm. K., ad loc.; Wnd. Hb. on 5:13; Rgg. Hb. on 5:12. n. 76.
Elsewhere in the NT it occurs only at 1 C. 9:7 in the literal sense.
A. Dieterich, Abraxas (1891), 172, 12; 181, 2.
 pap., 5025, we read : 4 Kai AaBivv to yala ouv to uEAItI ATtOTtLE "piv avatoañs
flou kal Eotal TI EvOEOV Ev Th on kap8lq. In the Dionysus cult of Southern Italy
it seems likely that the Epiool (the highest class of initiates) underwent a baptism in
milk: Éproos Es yal' ETETov. 6 As the sacramental drink of the avayEwuÉvov,
yalaktos tpoon is distinguished from all other food (altou TE kai ts alAns
TaXEiac Kai purapac tpooñc ATEXOUE0& : EK&TEPX yap Évavtla yuxi), Sallust.
De Deis, 4. Porphyr. Antr. Nymph., 28, Macrob. in Cic. Som. Scip., I, 12 report a ya.
Aakinoopos priestess who dispenses milk in the cult. In the Coptic and Ethiopian
churches the custom still persists of handing mingled milk and honey to the newly
baptised. Already in the Canon Hipp., 144 6 we read: et presbyteri portant alios calices
(after bread and wine) lactis et mellis, ut doceant eos qui communicant, iterum se netos
esse ut parvuli, quia parvuli communicant lac et mel 148, postea autem sumant lac
et mel in memoriam saeculi futuri (cf. for the latter explanation, 4 Esdr. 2:19; Apc. Pl.
23 ff.; Barn., 6, 17).
This conception of milk as the sacramental element, the drinking of which procures
&0avaala, passed over to the word of gnosis as the mysterious sacramental means of
salvation in circles where the sacrament was dissolved by gnosis and the sacramental
element was replaced by the Abyoc of gnosis. Cf. Hipp. Ref., V, 8, 30 : TOUTO (to
uuompia) jati To uÉAl kal to yala, 0f yeuaquÉvoug toug TEAEIOUS &Baol-
Aeotoug yEVéFOaL Kai uetaoxEiv tou rinpouatos. In the Od. Sol. this usage be-
comes very common. Cf. 8:16: "I have formed them limbs (i.e., the Gnostics) and
prepared them breasts to drink my holy milk (ya^a Aoylkov) and to live thereby."
Like a child of the Lord Himself the Gnostic is nourished with His milk, i.e., gnosis.
Cf. also 19:1-5 : The Gnostic, like the aeons, as one who in the pleroma is already on
the right hand, drinks milk, i.e., the Son (cf. 1 Pt. 2:3 : El ÉyE0oa00e 8TL Xpnotoc 6
kuptos), who is milked by the Holy Spirit from the breasts of the Father. 'A cup of
milk was handed to me, and I drank it with the soft sweetness of the Lord Cf.
4:10; 35:5. The gnosis of the Gnostic is itself milk, e.g., 40:1: "As honey drips from
the honeycomb, and milk from the woman giving suck to her children, so does my
praise to Thee, my God. As the fountain gushes forth its water

This terminology is also found in 1 Pt. 2:2 f. The difference between this passage
and Gnosticism lies in the matter related to such pneumatic language, namely, the
Gospel on the one side and the revelation of the Mysteries on the other. Naturally,
the choice of this terminology is not accidental. It reveals certain tendencies in
the concept of the Gospel, a. its character as pompiov, and b. its sacramental
character.
That the pneumatic mode of speaking of the Christian pjua as milk persisted on
the basis of 1 C. 3 and 1 Pt. 2, and even underwent a certain semi-speculative expansion,
may be seen from Iren., IV, 38, 1 f. (MPG, 7, 1105 ff.) and Cl. Al. Paed., I, 6, 25 ff.

Schlier

4 Preis. Zaub., I, 20.

5 Kern Orph., 32c, 11.
6 TU, 6, 4 (1891), 100 f.
 yqued

yqued, yauos (vuoios).

yquEiv "to marry" and yauos "marriage," "wedding," from the time of Homer.
Common in the plur. for 'wedding festivities" (Ditt. Sy11.3, 1106, 100). yau(getv acc.
to the grammarian Apollonius 1 means "to give a maiden or woman in marriage," though
this is the only instance in secular Gk. More common is yauioko, "to give in marriage,"
mid. "to get married." 2 In the LXX the word group is rare, though common in Philo
and Josephus.

1. Marriage Customs in the NT.

In the writings of the Heb. Canon the LXX has yauoc only 3 times : Gn. 29:22 :
Enoinoe yquov; Est. 2:18 : TUGGEV TOUG yQuouc and Est. 9:22 : quepas yauov,
always for anun "marriage feast" (orig. "carousal," Est. 9:22). yauos is very common
in Tobit, e.g., 11:19: kai fx0n 6 youos ToBla pet' soppooivns, Enta nuÉpas.
The equivalent ano occurs frequently in Rabb. works,: e.g., Halla, 2, 7 S. Nu., 110
on 15:21:1332 A0w2 Tvw n27 532 master of the house who arranges the wedding-
feast for his son (cf. also S. Dt., 343).4
The ancient Jewish custom of extending the marriage over several days (a whole
week in the case of a virgin), and also of celebrating far into the night, is reflected
in the parable at Lk. 12:36, where it may be well after midnight before the Kopioc
returns éK tOv yauov. At Lk. 14:8 Jesus speaks of the marriage-feast and warns
otav kAneñs UTT6 TIVOC Eis yquous, un katakAlOns Els thy TtPWToKAlolav.
Again at In. 2:1 ff. the reference is to wedding (yauos) in which Jesus Himself
took part and revealed Thy boEav aitot by the changing of water into wine
(v. 11).
2. The New Ideal of Early Christianity.
The firm starting-point for the early Christian evaluation of marriage is Gn. 2:24,
the saying concerning the henosis of the partners in which the original unity of man
and woman is restored. Marriage is the continuation of the divine work of creation in
the history of the human race (cf. also Gn. 1:28). 5 This thought always persisted in the
Jewish community.' Thus Tobias prays with his young wife : ou Énoinoas tov *Axu

y & uo c. H. Preisker, Christentum u. Ehe in den ersten drei Jahhunde (1927);

G. Delling, Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe (1931).
De Constructione, III, 153: ÉOTI yOP TO LEV TEPOTEpOV (= yauo) youou ueta-
AquBovw, to 8É 'yaul(w" yauou tivi HeTa8180ut. On the linguistic form, v. Bl.-
Debr., $ 101, 314.
V. Aristot. Pol., VII, 16, p. 1335a, 20 f.; Preisigke Wort., s.v.; Sickb. K.4, 37 f., which
also gives the most recent Roman Catholic literature.
Rich material on Jewish customs is to be found in Str.-B., I, 500 ff., also 45 f.; II, 398 f.
The institution of the 7 day feast is traced back to Moses himself in jKet, 25a, 26.
For further examples, cf. Str.-B., 879 on Mt. 22:2; other and less frequent terms for
the feast may also be found there.
Since the Fall, however, marriage stands under a curse. Genesis refers to tensions in
the relationship between man and woman, and to the indissoluble conflict between the self-
giving and surrender of the wife, Gn. 3:16. But Judaism also speaks of a unique fellowship
of the patriarchs under the sign of the commonly incurred curse, e.g., Vit. Ad., 3; 20; 25.
Almost always in the Jewish tradition there is exhortation to marry and bear children,
together with an attack on exogamy and licentiousness ; e.g., Jub. 25:3; 30:7 ff.; Test. L.
9:9 ff.; Bodleiana Frag., 16 f. (Charles, Test. XII, p. 247); Ps.-Phocylides, 175-205; Jos. Apc
1, 31 ff.; 2, 199. On everyday practice, v. the Jewish burial inscription from the catacomb
of Monteverde (Miller Bees, No. 145; Deissmann LO, 387 ff.).
yqué©

kal gowkas aito Bon0ov Elav kal oU Eltias® of kalov Elval tov &vl pwttov
Hovov Kai viv, KUPLE, OU YIVOOKEIC 8TL 00 61& TrOPVElav AxuBavo thy &8EA-
onv uou tautnv, alAd kata Sikalwua tOU vouOu gou Eni to ElEnOñvaL nuac
kai 80c nuiv, KUplE, TEkva kal siloylav (Tob. 8:6 ff.; cf. 7:12).7 The Jewish ideal
of marriage, however, reaches its climax in the rich circle of legends which clustered
around the marriage of Akiba and Rahel. Rahel allows Akiba to go to the house of
instruction while she remains behind in shame and poverty. After twice 12 years Akiba
returns as a great rabbi with the confession : All that we have we owe to her. Rahel
has sacrificed her hair to make study possible for him. Instead, he brings her a diadem
representing the pinnacles of the holy city which is now so dreadfully destroyed. 8 This
is the symbol of a marriage which has led two persons ceaselessly in service of their
God and people under the sign of the divine calling and the historical moment. 8
Pointing in the same direction is the ideal of marriage which Zarathustra wins from
his dualistic and eschatological understanding of life. In the marriage liturgy composed
by the prophet for the marriage of his youngest daughter (Yasna, 53), 10 marriage is the
alliance of two persons who set the will and blessing of Ahura Mazda above all else
and would strengthen their front against the evi forces which threaten catastrophe :
"Soon it will come to pass." Parseeism maintained this high view of marriage, as may
be seen from the last sentence of the Bundehesh : "He who hath thrice drawn near (to
his spouse), cannot be separated from fellowship with Ahura Mazda and the immortal
saints." 11

Jesus sees in marriage the original form of human fellowship. It has its basis
and norm in God's act of creation. It has a history which divides into three periods.
It has its time, and will end with this aeon.
*Ato apxis KTIOEOC XPOEV Kai onjAu Énoinoev autouc Kal #covtal of
860 elc oxpra ulav, Mk. 10:6 ff. This is the original state in Paradise, i.e.,
marriage as God intended it. Jesus emphasises the event, the henosis, which marks
it as belonging to creation : OUKÉTI Eloiv 800 & Ad ula oape, Mk. 10:8b. The
practical consequence is clear and is drawn by Jesus Himself in a new word of
institution: 8 oBv 6 BEOG OUVELEUEEV, &VOPGUTIOC UN XOPIé, M. 19 b
sure, Jesus realises that the primitive order has been shattered by the corruption
of the human heart. He sees the historical justification and necessity of the Mosaic
law of divorce which introduces the second period in the history of marriage,
the period of compromise: Ttpos thy axAnpoxap6lav ouov #ypauEv ouiv Thy
€vrolny taUrnv, i.e., the direction to give a bill of divorcement. Jesus Himself,
however, introduces a new period in the history of marriage. This third and
decisive period is characterised by a new conception of the law of divorce, a
deepened ideal of marriage and finally a fourfold reservation in respect of it.
Jesus begins by recalling the original order of creation, thus assuring the ele-
mentary unity and inviolability of marriage, and overthrowing the lax interpreta-
tion and practice of the Mosaic law with the corresponding Jewish Halacha and

7 From the same awareness of the henosis and historical function of marriage as rooted
in creation there also develops here and there in Judaism a sense that the destruction of
marriage is a mortal assault on the total life of creation, Pirke R. Eliez., 34. Certain of the
basic concepts of Mt. 5:27 ff. may be seen already in Job 31:1, 7 ff.: 6p0a^u6s, kapoia,
yunn.
V. esp. b.Ned., 50a; also the art. "Akiba" in EJ.
9 For the procreation of children as an act of faith, cf. Ps.-Philo Ant. Bibl., 9, 6 ff.; cf.
also Is. 8:1 ff.
10 C. Bartholomae, Die Gathas des Avesta (1905), 115 ff.
11 F. Justi, Der Bundehesh (1868), 47.
 yqued

practice of divorce : 12 un xop geto! But Jesus is no fanatic dreaming of a new

Paradise. In all sobriety He creates practical conditions for carrying out the ancient
divine order in the present aeon. In place of Jewish traditions He sets a sharper
interpretation of Moses which handles the problem of divorce according to the
principle of the lesser evil, a new Halacha which can sometimes allow legal
divorce but leaves intact the henosis of the marriage partners : oc av antolion thy
yuvaika aitou kai yauñon 13 X^Anv, wotxatal En' autnv. Kai fav aith anto-
Aboaoa tov avipa auins yauñon a ov, uoixatal (Mk. 10:11 ff.). This means
quite clearly and unambiguously that dissolution of marriage may be conceded at
a pinch, but that there must be no contracting of a new marriage. The replacement
of one spouse by another is adultery. For it affects the fundamental unity of the
partners. This unity is posited and actualised in accordance with creation. It
remains even when human oxinpoxapola causes a rift which leads to legal
divorce. Hence it must not be violated by any law of divorce permitting another
union. 14

Again, Jesus finds the starting-point of marital failure in akAnpoxapola only

with a view to establishing in the kapoia the base of a new ethos of marriage
(Mt. 5:27 f.) . It is in the heart that the decision is taken respecting the continuance
of henosis. If it is abandoned in the heart, the marriage is broken. The meaning of
henosis is fulfilled, according to Jesus, only where persons become and remain
one inwardly as well as outwardly, in a fusion which is total and all-comprehen-
sive. Physical fellowship must have and maintain its centre in moral. Copulation
without communion is fornication.

The words of Jesus permit neither free love nor double standards. Yet complete
equality is not the ideal of Jesus. The linguistic usage in Lk. 17:27 etc. proves this
( n. 15). The husband is the active partner in the conclusion and direction of marriage.
This is self-evident for Jesus.

Finally, Jesus shows that marriage is historically conditioned with a view to

making His fourfold reservation in respect of the present state of things. There
are times of threatened judgment in which careless and self-confident yqueiv and

12 The Jewish law of marriage and divorce is treated in the tractates Git., Kid., Sota and
Ket. There are excellent reviews in Str.-B., II, 372 ff.; I, 303 ff. On the hesitation in basic
attitude, v, Kittel Probleme, 98 ff. On the demand for monogamy, v. Damasc., 4, 20 ff.,
where there is an attack on the licentiousness of having two wives, and where the basis is
found in creation : "Male and female created he them," and in the ark : "There went in
two and two into the ark," so that it is written concerning the prince that he shall not
multiply wives to himself (Dt. 17:17). Cf. also Staerk, ad loc. For further details, v. K. H.
Rengstorf, Jebamot (1929), 30 ff.
18 In the LXX cf. Est. 10:6 (F3): Av Ey&unoev 6 Baoileus. yqueiv occurs without
obj. in 4 Macc. 16:9 (ot LEV ayauot, of 8€ yauñoaves); 2 Macc. 14:25 (yqua kai
Taioontoinoaolat).
14 Lk. 16:18 gives us from the Q tradition a saying with the same meaning in another
form : TaC 6 antoluov Thy yuvaika aitoi kai yauov §répav HOIXEUEL, Kai o aTTO-
AeAuuÉvnv . youov HOLyEdEI. Mt. uses both Mk. and Q, but in both cases introduces
a qualification which blunts the saying and is obviously designed to justify the practice
of the Early Church : Mt. 19:9 : un Éni TropVeia, and Mt. 5:32 : TapEKToC A6you stop-
VElac. (On > ropvela, cf. Tob. 8:7: 00 81a Topvelav Eyo Aauavo Thy A8EAONV
uou tauty sc. to wife). These casuistic clauses can hardly derive from Jesus and were
obviously not known to Pl. in 1 C. 7:10 ff.
YQuE0

yau[(eo0au 15 indicate a culpable blindness to the seriousness of the situation and

can thus be frivolous and irresponsible. One such time was in the days of the
flood ; another such time 16 has now dawned (Lk. 17:27). There are situations in
which yuvaixa Eynua can be wrong and obstructive, 1T because marriage hampers
a man's unconditional readiness for the call of God (Lk. 14:20, cf. Mt. 22:14).
There are men 18 who have the gift and task of refraining from marriage 81d 19
Thy Baoielav (Mt. 19:12).20 And a new age is coming in which there will be
no more marrying: STaV YOp EK VEKPOV avaotio, OUtE yquOUOL OUte yaui-
gOVTaI, &AX' Eloiv oc &yye ou Ev tois oupavoic (Mk. 12:25 and par.). Marriage,
too, is one of the forms of life in the present aeon which are to pass away. The
history of marriage will terminate with the end of this age.
Jesus Himself never married. But He is not a pessimist in relation to it like the
Christ of the apocryphal Acts. He does not go into houses to warn against it.
He attends weddings. He has a deep joy in children. He knows the legitimacy,
meaning and glory of marriage, as He knows the glory of the lilies which to-
morrow will have faded. One day the form of marriage will pass. But this day has
not yet come. To-day, and especially to-day, the word of institution from the time
of creation is still in force (-> 649 on Mk. 10:6 ff.). Hence a general abstinence
from marriage would be an anachronism in this aeon.
Paul in 1 C. honours all the motifs introduced by Jesus. For him, too, the saying
in Genesis concerning henosis denotes the metaphysical range of every sexual
union (1 C. 6:16 f.). Yet the thought is not developed positively in an understanding
of marriage. It is used polemically in an attack on topveia. Free love is sin against
the body (6:18b).21 In C. 7 Paul refers expressly to the saying of the Kupioc
in his radical rejection of divorce, or at any rate his prohibition of the remarriage
of a divorced wife (10 f.). 22 Once a marriage is contracted, it must be carried

15 Jesus keeps closely to the traditional modes of Jewish thought and expression when
here and in Mk. 12:25 He uses the act. (yqusiv) for the man and the mid. (yaul(eo0a)
for the woman. yaui(eiv does not occur in the LXX. Mt. 24:38 has yaulgovtes in N D and
33. B, as so often, has a more archaic reading of its own the more refined yquioKovtes;
the Byzantines have Ekyaui(ovtes. The case is much the same in Lk. 20:35.
10 Cf. also S. Bar. 10:13a: "Ye who are free, do not enter the marriage chamber."
17 Cf. Mt. 5:29 f. ( UU éDEL as in 19:10).
18 The Baptist is obviously one of these. Peter was married acc. to Mk. 1:30, and even
if he was alone at the time of Lk. 18:28 and par., he later had an doE/on to wife : the
same is true of the other apostles, v. 1 C. 9:5.
19 Cf. Rev. 2:3 : #Baotaoac did to *voua uou.
20. The Evangelist here develops the problem of marriage in exactly the same way as the
ensuing problem of judging. The disciples are roused and startled by the stringent demand
of Jesus and say to the Master: El oftoc tatlv n altla tot aviponou ueto ths yu-
ValKoC, OU OULpéDEL yaUñORI, 19:10 (cf. 19:25: tic apa buvartal ow0ñvat;). Then Jesus
reveals final point to them in the separate saying OU TAVTES XWPOUGLV Tov Aoyov
toUtov &1X' old &É8otal 8 SUV&LEVOS X(PELV XOPEITO, 19:11 f. (cf. 19:28 : xunv
Aeyo buiv 8TL busic of aro ou@ñoavtéc uor...). This is the way of the called: gloiv
EDvoiyol oitIves Edvouyioav Éatin bld thy Bacielav tov oupaviv (cf. Mt. 19:29;
Lk. 18:29 : &c XOAKEV oilkiav n yuvaika ElVEKEV THS Baoleias toU 0g00 ...). Cf.
also T. Jeb., 8, 4.
21 It is not an occasion for the kola, which is a prey to corruptibility, but an offence
against the body, which is given a new consecration by the TVEOua and assured of new
future by the fact of the resurrection (1 C. 6:14, 19). Sin against the body is thus an
offence against the coming life and the ongoing work of divine creation.
22 A new problem is whether marriage with an unbeliever should be dissolved. Paul's
answer is that the initiative should come only from the ATtotos (v. 15; cf. Pt. 3:1 f.;
for a different view cf. Jer. 8:2 ff.).
 yquÉw

out in full both physically and spiritually. Periods of withdrawal should be brief
(3 ff.; cf. 24, 27a and Col. 3:18 f.). The basis given by Paul is, however, somewhat
pessimistic : 8td tas topvelac #kaotoc Thy Eautoi yuvaixa Exéto iva
uh TELp&<n Duas o oatavas 81& Thy axpactav (v. 2, 5).23 If Jesus explained
divorce as a necessary evil, Paul seems almost to see marriage in the same light.
He thus presses even more strongly the fourfold reservation already encountered
in Jesus. Marriage can be a hindrance to final dedication to God (v. 5, 32 ff.; cf.
Lk. 14:20 -> 651). Basically, it is not consonant with this kalpos JUVE Tau Evoc
(1 C. 7:26, 28 f.); napayel yap To oxinua tou koouou toutou (v. 31; cf. Mk.
12:25 651). Hence celibacy is the true demand of the hour &1& Thy Éveatooay
ovayknv (1 C. 7:26, 29; cf. Lk. 17:27 > 651). To be sure, Paul has no use for
ascetic experiments, and if they lead to tense situations resolute marriage 24 is for
him the lesser evil. Yet it is still an evil. A widow is free to remarry ; uaKapl(TÉpa
8É ÉotIV Lav OUTKC 25 LEivn (39 f., cf. 8; R. 7:2). Finally; he could wish that all
yqueiv and yauig,Elv were at an end (1 C. 7:1, 7 f.) ald EKaotO© 1810v EXEL
xopioua EK 0E00 (v. 7). He himself has the charisma of remaining unmarried for
the sake of his unique situation and commission (cf. C. 9:5, 12, 15 ff.).268 It may
be seen that this is no accident but a demonstration. Paul is conscious of being
one of the Eivodyol Bic Thy Bacidelav (- 651, on Mt. 19:12). 27
In later writings the battle for the inviolability of marriage is prominent. 1 Cl. warns
against the discord which can even shatter marriage : gilos ann^Aotp[woEV yquETas
avopiv kai nioldoev TO pn0ev into Tatpoc nubv 'Abau: touto viv oape
ÉK This oapkos you. 28 Hb. 13:4 admonishes : tluioc & yauos tv ntaow, and Ign.
writes in the same vein to Polycarp (5, 1). Hence a Christian marriage should not be
contracted without the blessing of the Church: IT PETTEL SE tois yauotow kal tais
yquouuÉvaic ueto yvouns tou ÉTTICK OTIOU Thy Evwow mOlElofa1, Iva o yauos hi
kata Kiplov kai un kat' Én0vulav. gyvela should not be made law it becomes
a curse if it puffs up the ascetic El tic SUvatal Zy dyvela uÉvelv eig tunv ths
axpKos TOU kupiou, Év akauxnola LEVéTO (Ign. Pol.. 5, 2). And while the thought
of mere co-habitation becomes more prevalent (v. Herm. v., 1, 1 and esp. S., 9, 11, 3),
the Pastorals condemn the shunning of marriage and the questionable activities of
young widows, laying down the principle : Bouloual 0Uv VEGTÉDaC yquEiv (1 Tm.
4:3; 5:11, 14). Here, too, of course, the principle of the lesser evil lurks in the back-
ground, namely, in the motive: undsulav coopunv 8186val to OVULKELUEvG. The
ideal is again that the widow should manage without a second marriage (5:5 ff.). It is

23 On a similar basis Akiba (bSan., 76a) advises the marriage of daughters at the right
time. Cf. also Sir. 7:25: Éx8ou OuyatÉpa ; but cf. 1 C. 7:36 ff. for another aspect.
24 yauigelv act. in 1 C.7:38 (twice) and Mt. 24:38; Lk. 20:35 yqu((efa1 (the later
Byzant. have Exyaut(o in all four instances). The meaning of yaul(elv is consistent
throughout the NT, i.e., "to marry" yqueiv and yaulokelv. It seems likely that in
C. 7:36 ff. the reference is to mere co-habitation. On the linguistic and material problem,
cf. Ltzm. ad loc.; A. Juncker, Ethik des Paulus, II (1919), 191 ff.
25 Note the OUTGG. If Paul were widower, we should expect a oc koryo, as in 7:7 f.
There, however, the ayauol are to the fore, so that it is most likely that he himself was
an ayauos.
26 On the debated issue whether Paul was a widower, cf. Joach. Jeremias, ZNW, 30
(1929), 321 ff. On the problem "Ehe und Charisma bei Paulus,' v. W. Michaelis, ZSTh, 5
(1928), 426 ff.; H. Preisker, ibid., (1928), 91 f.
27 Even the ouupépel of Mt. 19:10 recurs in Paul in order to show the meaning and
pre-eminence of celibacy : touto T poc auppopov rÉyo (1 C. 7:35) . It is a technical
term for the orientation of ethics to the final goal of calling. Cf. Mt. 5:29 f.; 1 C. 6:12; 10:23;
10:33.
28 yquerh, the wife, found only here in early Christian literature.
Yquéd

demanded of the bishop in particular that he should remain ulas yuvaixos tvnp (3:2).
It is evident that the demands of Paul are increasingly restricted ; they are now limited
to bishops as the ecclesiastical successors of the apostles and charismatics.
Only in one passage in the early Christian treatment does the principle of
celibacy find a place, namely, in the picture given in Revelation of those who
followed the Lamb, 29 of the 144,000 Taplévou: oorol Elow ol ueto yuvalkov
ouK tuo ovinoav outol of &KO OuBOUVteG to xpvlo o1ou av inayn. ofto1
nyopaolnoav aito tov dvipinav drapyn ti deS Kal to apvio (Rev. 14:4).
There is here no suggestion either of human impotence on the one side or of
successful monkish achievement on the other. The reference is to the genuine
heroism of those who are called for the sake of a unique situation and commission.
Yet early Christianity does not speak only of the difficulty of marriage in this
kairos. It also speaks in strict and lofty terms of the inviolability of the marriage
bond. Jesus in His saying concerning the heart ( 650 on Mt. 5:27 f.) laid the
new foundation for a positive understanding and ethos of marriage. The house
tables 30 of the NT build on this foundation when they base the whole fellowship
of marriage and the family on - dyarn. dyarin and not #pos creates marital
fellowship. Again, the fellowship of the family is the organic centre of the actualisa-
tion of cyann, which sustains all fellowship. In the NT, however, the ground and
measure of all human dyarn are to be found in the love of God. The Epistle to
the Ephesians carries this thought further. The basis of all marital love is for the
Christian the love of Christ for His community. 31 This gives marriage its place in
the new world situation. The Christian ideal of marriage is thus brought into a
wider theological context.
3. The Messianic Wedding and Christian Marriage.
yquos acquires its greatest religious significance where it is used of the union or
close connection between God and man. The thought of divine being having sexual
intercourse with a human woman is common in the ancient Orient. It is the presupposi-
tion of the ruler ideology of Egypt, of the fertility rites of the Near East and of the
Greek Mysteries both in classical and Hellenistic times. The Spouevov of Eleusis re-
presented the lepoc yauoc between Zeus and Demeter, between the lord of heaven and
mother earth. 32 The climax of the Feast of Flowers consisted in the yauos of Dionysus,
who came in human form to his earthly bride. 33 Again, the heavenly wedding is a sign
set over the marriage of the earthly couple. Thus in the "bridal chamber" of the Villa
Item the wedding of Dionysus and Ariadne is perhaps represented as a model for the
future marriage of devotees. 34 In Plato (Resp., V, 459 ff.), where the mythical and
cultic realism is less evident, the idea of the heavenly lepoc yauos gives both form
and meaning to earthly marriage.
In the world of Israel and Judah, too, there is reference to the marriage between God
and the land or people of Israel. The OT, however, has no hint of any actualisation of
this relationship in mysteries, or of any sensually perceptible union with the deity. 35

20 &KoAoufOUvtEC in Rev. 14:4 as in Mt. 19:28 : &K0A0u0ñaavTEC (- n. 20 and 214).

They form the central corps of the people of God, cf. xtapxñ (Rev. 14:4).
30 Col. 3:18 ff.; Eph. 5:22 ff.; 1 Pt. 2:18 ff.
31 On Eph. 5 656.
32 V. O. Kern, Die griech. Mysterien d. klass. Zeit (1927), 71 f.
33 V. O. Kern in Pauly-W., s.v. Dionysos, V (1905), 1010 ff.; L. Deubner, "Dionysos u.
d. Anthesterien," Tahrb. Deutsch. Arch. Inst., 42 (1927) 172 ff. On the sacrament of the
bridal chamber, v. Mith. Liturg., 126 f.; on the wedding feast, ibid., 244.
V. M. Bieber, "Das Mysteriensaal der Villa Item,' Jahrb. Deutsch. Arch. Inst., 43
(1928), 298 ff.; 314 f.; 320.
35 J. Hempel, ZSTh, (1931), 18.
 YQUÉ0

On the contrary, marriage is simply a symbol for the covenant between God and the
people as this is to be kept in all fidelity and renewed with all passion 38 (Hos. 2:19;
Is. 54:4 ff.; 62:4 f.; Ez. 16:7 ff.).
With the same strictness with which prophecy fought the ancient fertility cults,
Hellenistic Judaism damps the erotic impulse of the Mysteries, e.g., in Wis. 14:23 ff.:
yap TEKVOOOVOUC TELETOS n popia uuoinpia h €u aveis #EXAwv OEouGv
KOuouS ayOVTES oute yauouc kalapoic ftl QuAooouolv. yauwv &taela,
uolyeia kai gofiyEla. 3T Philo uses the imagery of the Hellenistic Mysteries together
with the OT stories of Sarah and Leah to depict in a varied allegory the truth that the
dyevntos (eoc kai To odutavta yEvOv is the tatp who in the aperal gives
birth to beautiful and perfect works. 38
Wholly along the lines of the OT the Rabbis extolled the conclusion of the covenant
at Sinai as the marriage of Yahweh with Israel. The Torah is the marriage contract,
Moses is the friend of the bridegroom and Yahweh comes to Israel as a bridegroom
to his bride. 39 Acc. to Akiba the bride of the Song of Songs is Israel as the bride of
God. "I belong to my friend, and my friend belongs to me. You have no part in him
(God)." Thus speaks the people of God in a great dialogue between Israel and the
Gentiles composed by Akiba on the basis of this text (M. Ex. on 15:2). But the final
renewal of the covenant between God and the people, intimated by the prophets, was
expected by the Rabbis in the days of the Messiah. Thus we often find the view that in
these days there will take place the true marriage feast. 40 In this cornection the present
age is that of engagement, the seven years of Gog will be the period immediately prior
to the marriage, the marriage itself will dawn with the resurrection and the great
marriage feast will be eaten in the future world. 41

Jesus moves wholly within the circle of ideas of His contemporaries when He
expresses the meaning and glory of the Messianic period in the images of the
wedding and wedding feast. The virgins will wait until a late hour of the night to
accompany the bridal pair with lamps to the marriage house, where at a brightly
illuminated table the seven day feast will begin 42 Kai ai Étolol Elon10ov uET®
aUTOU Eic touC yauous. So the community of disciples hastens to the coming
of the Lord, fully alert: ypnyopEiTE oov, &tl OUK otatE thy nuÉpav ou6é Thy
tpav (MIt. 25:10 ff.). This point, cf. Lk. 12:36 ff., is undoubtedly the chief one.
But the rich imagery is chosen deliberately. This is shown by Mk. 2:19 and par.,
where Jesus describes Himself as the Bridegroom. 43 Here (and in Jn. 3:29), the

38 H. Schmidt, "Die Ehe des Hosea," ZAW, 42 (1924), 245 ff.

37 Jos. Ant., 18, 66 ff. gives us a crass example frequently quoted.
38 Cherub., 13. Cf. also yquos in Abr., 100 f. and Som., I, 200. The wedding of the king
with wisdom, Wis. 8:2, 9 (Sir. 15:2).
39 Dt. r., (200d); Pirke R. Eliez., 41; M. Ex. on 19:17 in Str.-B., I, 969 f.; II, 393.
40 V. Ex. r., 15 on 12:2; Lv.r., 11 on 9:1 and iShebi, 35c, 25, in Str.-B., I, 517. The
image of the eschatological feast, already found in Is. 25:6, is united with the thought of
mother Israel, called back by God to Himself, in the wholly Jewish verses in 4 Esr. 2:15, 38.
On the feast as a form and means of fellowship with God, v. Joachim Jeremias, Jesus der
Weltvollender (1930), 75 ff.
41 In a typical Rabb. attempt to find a theological origin for even secular marriages, it
is suggested that Yahweh is the first Bridegroom (Gn. r., 18 on 2:22).
42 Cf. b.Sukk., 25b; Pesikt., 20 (95a); 43 (180b); Ter., 11, 10 etc. in Str,-B., I, 504 ff. For
the rather different torch procession leading the bridal couple to their home or to the bridal
chamber, cf. M. Est., 1, 4, Str.-B., I, 511; also Str.-B., I, 969 (in the land of Ishmael) and
KI. Mt. on 25:1 ff. (in Trans-jordania). Torches are also mentioned in relation to the home-
coming of the bride in M. Bieber, op. cit., 318, 6; 320, 1.
43 The same thought is also found in Jn. 3:29, and possibly even in In. 2:7 ff. in the
original form of the Cana story ; so H. Schmidt, Die Erzahlung v. d. Hochzeit zu Kana.
Eine rel.-gesch. Untersuchung (1931), 25.
yquÉo

days of wedding festivity fall in the life of Jesus, whereas in Mt. 25:1 ff. they
await His return an obvious tension. Even more important is another shift in
conception. In Jewish eschatological expectation God is the One who renews the
marriage bond with His people. In the NT Christ takes the place of God as the
heavenly Bridegroom. According to Mt. 22:1 ff. He is the King's Son for whom
the Baosic holds the great wedding feast (Értolnoev yauous). Again, the image
can hardly be accidental. Jesus often speaks of the Messianic feast. 44 The Baol-
ela tov oipaviv is the great Messianic banquet to which the people of God
is invited. But those invited refuse when the yauos frolu6s fotiv. The call SEOTE
Eic tous yauous goes out to those outside, and they hear and stream in (Mt.
22:3 ff.; cf. Lk. 14:8 ff.).
Who is the bride in the Messianic feast ! In Jewish tradition it is the people of
the covenant brought home to its Lord. In the Synoptic parables, however, the
community of disciples is invited as a guest, and the bride is not mentioned. Yet
the thought readily suggests itself that the new community of the covenant is the
bride. The first traces of this view are to be found in Paul, probably in C. 6:14 ff.,
where Paul sees an analogy between pneumatic union with Christ and the henosis
of Gn. 2:24. It emerges more clearly in R. 7:4, and especially in 2 C. 11:2 : gnAo
yap ouas BEoD ChAo, mpuooaunv yap buac avi ovipi Ttap8Évov dyvhv tapa-
aTaal 16 XPIOTQ. Paul here thinks of himself as occupying a similar role to that
of the Moses of the Haggada (-> 654). He is the one who conducts the bride to
the heavenly Bridegroom, presenting the community to Him pure and chaste. The
same imagery is found in Jn. 3:29, where the Baptist has the office of friend and
therefore the community must again be the bride of the Messiah. The image of
the bride is most powerfully used in the final visions of the Apocalypse, which
brings together all the varied imagery of the Messianic banquet. 45 The bride
waits with longing : Épyou! (22:17). But the divine already catches the final
Hallelujah which intimates the day of consummation : hOev & yauos tou apviou
kai n yuvn aitoi froluaoev taumv; and at the same time a voice declares:
uak&piol of Eic To BEiTVov tot youou tou apviou kekAnuÉvo (19:7 ff.). It may
thus be seen that the thought of the community as the bride includes rather than
excludes the further thought that the individual members are invited to the wedding
as guests. The sustaining thought, however, is that of the community as bride. The
words which Trito-Isaiah 46 sets in the mouth of the divine bride Jerusalem as
an eschatological hymn are seen by the divine to be fulfilled after the final cosmic
upheavals. He sees the new city of God iroqaouÉvny oc VOLONV KEKOOUNHéVNV
TO ovopi auris (21:2) .47
In contrast to Jn. 3:29 Jesus is not the bridegroom in the Cana story. The couple is
of only subsidiary interest in this episode.' Jesus stands at the centre. Again, the
conjunction of the wedding and wine is not mythologically determined in the sense of

44 V. the par. in Lk. 14:16 ff., and much more concretely in Mk. 14:25 and par.
45 On the harlot Babylon as the opp. of the Messianic bride, cf. Sib., 3, 356 ff.: ® xAl-
Savn TOPOEVE, TOAaKI doiol toAuu otoiol yquoiol olvoleioa (-> n. 53 :
> BaBuloov, 515).
46 In the misplaced section 61:10, which must be understood in the light of 62:5.
47 In the Syr. Schatzhohle (p. 67, Bezold) a bill of divorce is given to the Jewish com-
munity after the crucifixion of Jesus.
48 H. Schmidt, op. cit., suspects an original form of the Cana story in which Jesus was
perhaps the bridegroom.
 yquE∞

the Mysteries. 49 It simply arises out of the situation. The marriage as such is not
important to the narrator (cf. 4:46), but the InuEiov which points beyond itself to the
86&a of the Son. The miracle is a miracle of revelation, like that of the bread (6:26)
and all the Johannine miracles. It is the first step on the way of the historical manifesta-
tion of the glory of the Son.
This conception of Christ as the Bridegroom underlies the house table of Ephes-
ians (5:22 ff.). Already in 2 C.11:3 (cf. 1C. 6:16 f.) the marriage bond between
Christ and the community as His bride had been set in analogy to the marriage
bond between the first human couple. In Eph. 5:31 f. the thought is worked out
typologically, and the Genesis saying 50 concerning the impulse of the man to the
woman and the henosis of the two is explained as a uuotpiov usya and referred
Elc Xplotov Kal Eic thy ÉKKAnolav. This relationship between Christ and the
community, however, is necessarily normative for that between husband and wife
in a Christian marriage. Thus Eph., developing Pauline motifs (cf. 1 C. 11:3;
6:15 ff.), offers a christological basis for the two main parts of the early Christian
marriage catechism, 51 for the subordination of the wife to the husband and the
overriding love of the husband for the wife: oc f ÉkkAnola intoroooetal to
Xprd, OUTos kai al yuvaikec toic avopaoi Ev TtavTI (5:24, cf. 22f.). Of
&VODES, AYATATE tac yuvaikas, kalig kal 6 Xplot0S hyaTNOEV Th EKKAn-
olav kai Éautov TaPES KEV OTEP aitns, iva . . . (5:25 Ff.; cf. 29 f.). The tensions
in the relationship between husband and wife, recognised already in Genesis,
are resolved Év XpLOT®. For the self-giving of the wife acquires a new dedication,
and the impulse of the husband a new content and standard, in gyaun. 62 The
wife is no longer surrendered to the husband; she is entrusted to him. He does
not have rights of lordship over her; he takes responsibility for her. Sometimes
the execution of this thought has been as artificial as its exegetical basis. But the
enterprise is magnificent and bold. It is the only attempt of early Christianity to
set marital duty definitely under the sign of the fact of Jesus.
The starting-point is obviously the old idea of the imitation of Jesus which first
arose in Judaism as the imitatio Dei ( &K0 ou0Éw), which then came to control
Christian ethics, and which played a great role from the time of Ignatius. It is no
accident that it is in Ign. that the ideas of Eph. 5 find their first echo (Ign. Pol., 5, 1).
On the other hand, there is no doubt that the thought of Christian marriage is here
referred much more strongly to that of the lspos yauos, to the analogy between
heavenly and earthly wedding which is so important in Gk. thinking.
In the later development of early Christian ideas of marriage and celibacy there is

49 E.g., M. Bieber, op. cit., 319. H. Schmidt sees in In. 2:1 ff. the reconstruction of story
which originally treated of the epiphany of a wine-god, op. cit., 30, 33. W. Bauer, too,
recalls the wine miracles of Dionysus and interprets the story as rich allegorising of the
wine of the Lord's Supper, Bau. Jn., ad loc. The specifically Johannine impress and
character of the story are especially worked out, and made fruitful for interpretation, by
K. L. Schmidt in "Der Johanneische Charakter der Erzahlung vom Hochzeitswunder zu
Kana," Harnackehrung (1921), 32 ff.
50 The Roman Catholic view starts with the application of the term uvompiov (sacra-
mentum) to the marital relationship established in Eph. 5:31 Gn. 2:24, and thus declares
marriage to be sacrament. For further details, cf. Meinertz Gefbr.4, ad loc.
650. Cf. I C. 14:34; 1 Th. 4:4; Col. 3:18 f.; Pt. 3:1, 7. Cf. also Jos. Ap., 2, 201: yunn
XE{pov avopoc els &rtavta. TOlYapoiv ETaKouÉt®, un apoc, iBpiv, ddt' tv
apxntal. bedc yap avopi To Kp&TOg #OKEV. Christian sensibility could not possibly
approve a crude saying like that of Sir. 36:26 : Tavta appEva ETISEEETAI YUVH, fotiv
oe Buy&inp euyatpoc xpeiooov.
 yqueo - yÉevva
much contact and conflict with Hellenistic motifs. Gnostics speculate on heavenly
syzygies, mystics revel in the imagery of the Song of Songs, ascetics despise the body
and ecstatic women experience the union of the soul with the heavenly Bridegroom.
Two texts stand out in the welter of literature. The Jewish legend of Joseph and
Asenath, 52 which deals with the marriage of Joseph to a daughter of the Egyptian king,
is obviously interpreted and allegorically exploited in Judaism with reference to the
marriage of the Messiah to the city of God (p. 15; 16; 17; 19); and Christians, too, work
it out in the same way, the virgin Asenath being fearfully opposed to all men until the
great stranger comes (uloc 0E00, 6; 13) who converts her to the true God and imparts
the Spirit of God to her in a kiss (19) . She gives herself to him. She is affianced to him
from eternity, and their marriage bond will last to eternity (21). Similar ideas and
motifs recur frequently in the apocryphal legends of the apostles, esp. the Acts of
Thomas. Here, too, there is an evident ascetic tendency. Jesus enters the bridal chamber
and wins the newly espoused for the ideal of continence. A higher marriage takes the
place of carnal union: ÉtÉpo yauo ñpu6o0n avopi dAndivi ouve(Edxonv
(Act. Thom., 14). And an ecstatic hymn of Thomas lauds the mystical wedding, the
dance of the seven male and female attendants and the eternal joys of the marriage feast
(6 f.). 63 In the story of Joseph and Asenath the reference is still to the relationship
between the Messiah and the community, but here it is to the sensual and supra-sensual
experiences of the individual soul. Mysticism has triumphed.
Stauffer

+ yÉEva (-> aiovios, rup).

1. yEEwa (yÉEVa, 1 yÉvva2) is Gk. form of the Aram, 53723 (bErub., 19a), 3
which for its part derives from the Heb. D37-23 (Jos. 15:8; 18:16), an abbreviation of the
original 3772 "2 (Jos. 15:18) 4 or 057 $232 22 (2 K. 23:10, Ketib). This name was given to
the Wadi er-rababi. in South Jerusalem, which later acquired a bad reputation 5 because
sacrifices were offered in it to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 K. 16:3;
21:6). The threats of judgment uttered over this sinister valley in Jer. 7:32; 19:6; cf.
Is. 31:9; 66:24, are the reason why the Valley of Hinnom came to be equated with the
hell of the last judgment in apocalyptic literature from the 2nd cent. B.C. (the oldest
instances are in Eth. En. 90:26; 27:1 ff.; 54:1 ff.; 56:3 f.). The name gehinnom thus
came to be used for the eschatological fire of hell (NT; bRH, 16b; 4 Esr. 7:36; S. Bar.
59:10; 85:13; Sib., 1, 103; 2, 291; 4, 186, vl.). This is the stage of development reflected

52 Ed. P. Batiffol, Studia Patristica, (1889).

53 Cf. O. Sol. 42:11 f (wedding couch); 38:9 ff. (bride of Satan). Ct. also Reitzenstein,
Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (1906), 134 ff.
yÉevva. G. Dalman, RE3 VI, 418 ff.; Str.-B., IV, 1022-1118; Schl. Mt., 171; Dausch
Synpt.4, 105.
Sib., 1, 103 : Elc yéEVoV. The one V is supported by the metre. In the NT cf. Mk. 9:45 E
al 47 D.
2 Preis. Zaub., IV, 3072 : yÉvva Tup6c.
3 Cf. the popular etym. in bErub., 19a : Gehenna means the valley to which one descends
by reason of frivolity (0327). In the Gk. form the final b- is omitted, as in Mapla (Lk. 2:19
0772) in order to make Gk. inflection possible.
Also written 037 12 N22 (Jer. 7:32).
5 CF. Joach. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu (1923), 17.
 yEEWa ~ yEAdo

in the NT. In the 1st cent. A.D. the term was further extended 8 to cover the place
where the ungodly were punished in the intermediate state (- gons), but this is not
so in the NT.
The LXX does not have yÉevva. Joseph. mentions neither the term nor the matter,
probably because he was a Pharisee and thus denied the resurrection of the ungodly
(Bell., 3, 374 f.; Ap., 2, 218) . Philo 'does not know the word and uses taptapoc instead
(Exsecr., 152).'
2. Fundamental for an understanding of the yÉevva passages in the NT, which
occur only in the Synoptists and John, is the sharp distinction made by the NT
between > qons and yeeva. This distinction is a. that Hades receives the un-
godly only for the intervening period between death and resurrection, whereas
Gehenna is their place of punishment in the last judgment ; the judgment of the
former is thus provisional but the torment of the latter eternal (Mk. 9:43 and par.;
9:48). It is then b. that the souls of the ungodly are outside the body in Hades,
whereas in Gehenna both body and soul, reunited at the resurrection, are destroyed
by eternal fire (Mk. 9:43 and par., 45, 47 and par., 48; Mt. 10:28 and par.).
yéewa is pre-existent (Mt. 25:41). 8 It is manifested as the fiery abyss (Mk.
9:43 etc.; cf. i kquivoc tol nup6c, Mt. 13:42, 50) only after the general resurrec-
tion (- ovaotaois) and the last judgment (-> xplois) (cf. BaAeo0ai, Mk. 9:45,
47 and par.; EuBoAAELV, Lk. 12:5). Those who fall victim to divine judgment
at the last day (Mt. 5:22; 23:33) will there be destroyed by everlasting fire. The
ungodly are the viol yEÉvvNc (Mt. 23:15), together with Satan and the demons
(Mt. 25:41; 8:29; cf. i Aluvn to0 nup6s, Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14 f., into which the
ungodly, Satan, the beast and his prophet, death and hell are thrown).
In the NT there is no description of the torments of hell as in apocalyptic
literature. If they are mentioned, it is only to rouse consciences to fear of the
wrath of the heavenly Judge (Mt. 10:28 and par.). The Kplous (sentence)1 This
YEEVVNS (Mt. 23:33) is a kplois ths opyns (Mt. 3:7 and par.). The severity of
the judgment of God on sin is expressed by Jesus in His threatening of yÉeva
even to disciples who wound their brothers with contemptuous words (Mt. 5:22).
No sacrifice is too costly in the war against sin (Mt. 9:43 ff.).
It is significant that the oldest Rabbinic reference to Gehenna (T. Sanh., 13, 3 and
par.) tells us that the disciples of Shammai, as distinct from those of Hillel, ascribe to
Gehenna a purgatorial as well as a penal character, namely, in the case of the awapm
or a'3i222, i.e., those whose merits and transgressions balance one another. It may be
that this conception of a purificatory character of the final fire of judgment underlies
such passages as Mk. 9:49; 1 C. 3:13-15; cf. 2 Pt. 3:10.
Joachim Jeremias

+ YEAGO, t kataye/ad,
+ yÉAGS

1. The Word Group Applied to Men.

yE/XO and yÉws are common from the time of Homer in all shades of their basic
meaning, whether for "free and joyous laughter" or for that of "triumph or scorn.

6 The oldest attestation is in b.Ber., 28b; Jochanan b. Zakkai (d.c. 80 A.D.).

7 Cf. Str.-B., IV. 1034, ad loc.
8 Cf. 4 Esr. 7:36. Even in Rabb. lit. the pre-existence of Gehenna is solidly maintained.
9 Schl. Mt., 686.
YEAdG

yÉAcc means not merely "laughter" itself but also the occasion for or object of
yEwc &' Eyo E€vo yÉvoual toE; Test.
laughter" (e.g., Soph. Oed. Col., 902 f.:
Sol. 26:7 [p.74 McCown]: kal #yEvounv yEAos tois ElBGoIc kal baluoou).
KaTayE aw, attested from the time of Aeschylus (Ag., 1236), is a strengthened form
denoting "hearty or loud laughter," or "ridicule." The word as applied to men has no
particular connections with religion or morality in the Gk. and Hellen. world, even
in Hesychius, s.v. Eapo6vos yÉlwc: ot thv Eap6ova KATOIKOUVTEC tO Kpovo
HOUOV YEAGUTEC kal dota(ouevol &lAnouc. Here yEAav simply means the rather
forced merriment expected of the sacrifice and those participating in it.
Things are different in the LXX. Here yE.&© as a rendering of Pay is used ex-
clusively for the true or supposed superiority towards another expressed in scorn or
laughter (cf. Abraham in relation to God in Gn. 17:17; Sarah in relation to God in
Gn. 18:12, 13, 15; the narrator (J) found a sharp contrast between the attitude of the
former in Gn. 15:6 (1*h /ItLOTEUELV) and that of the latter in Gn. 18:12 ff. (pny/yeAdv).
The word means much the same when pniy is rendered ye/ad (of the enemies of
Jerusalem laughing at the stricken city in Lam. 1:7, or the righteous laughing at a man
of deceitful tongue in w 51:6), or when it is rendered KatayE/X© (e.g., the man who
trusts in God laughing at destruction and famine in Job 5:22, or the ostrich at the horse
and rider who pursue it in Job 39:18).2 Except in Job 17:6, where there is a softening,
yÉAWC is used for phy (11 times), 3 and so far as meaning goes corresponds to the
verb, though the neutral sense has not completely disappeared (e.g., Prv. 10:23; 'EkkA.
7:4, 7). Except in Gn. 21:6 it is certainly never used for righteous joy. + In Jesus Sirach
(Ztp. 21:20; 27:13) yÉAoc is a mark of the fool (uop6c); Prv. 10:23 and 'ExkA. 7:7
speak emphatically of the yÉAos of the &opov. It should not be overlooked that
in both these cases the opposite is the 0006s, who is thus the equivalent of the righteous.
The Rabbis seldom speak of laughter. It is worth noting that both the Sny of Gn. 21:6
and the pay? of Ex. 32:6 are referred to idolatry, adultery and blood-shed (Gn. r., 53, 11
on 21:9 or Ex. r., 42, on 32:7). 6 Hence it is not surprising to read in Gn. r., 22, 6 on
4:7 that R. Chanina bar Papa (c. 300 A.D.) 6 said : "When you have an impulse
towards frivolity (amnion>, then resist it with the words of the Torah.' Here pno
is undoubtedly used for the attitude which is the exact opposite of serious application
to the Torah. Things are not quite so blunt, but take much the same course, in the

YEAXO KTA. Moult.-Mill., 122; E. Kornemann, Klio, 7 (1907), 285 ff. (on yÉAos,
P Giess., I, 3, 8 ff.); E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes (1924), 59 ff.
1 The pi'el Pry is translated ralgo (Gn. 21:9; 26:8; Ex. 32:6; Ju. 16:25) or Lurallo
(Gn. 39:14, 17).
KATaYEA&O is used for pat 2 times in the LXX, and 22 times in all, but only 4 times
for 122 once for 729 and once for 1122 o1.
Not counting Ez. 23:32 A.
4 In Gn. 21:6 matters are complicated, since there seem to be two different interpretations
of the name pmy:, and the one can be taken in a pious sense (E) whereas the other has
the profane. Yet this is not necessary; the verse may perhaps be taken to imply that Sarah
herself has now become the object of sceptical laughter. In the LXX this thought is sup-
pressed and the whole verse is given a positive meaning : yÉAwTa HoL ETolNAEV KUpIoC®
8s yap Éav arouon ouyxapaitai yol (I owe this to G. Bertram). Perhaps there is here
a desire to free the mother of the people from the charge of phy lyÉAos - hence auyya-
pEiTaL, though yÉAws itself could not be avoided in view of the existing Haggadic ex-
planation of the name Pry?.
5 These interpretations are already Tannaitic (Akiba): T. Sot., 6, 6.
The sentence derives from an older tradition, since it also seems to be linked with
R. Simon (c. 280 A.D.) in the same connection.
Naturally a bad impulse.
 YEAG

Tannaitic tradition (bBer., 31a). Here we are not only warned against praying pint rinp
as an unworthy attitude ~ the formula occurs in a kind of catalogue of vices - but
also against parting from one's neighbour pinto jinn; Here, too, pOo is contrasted with
a pious sense of dependence on God which is well-pleasing to Him. In PAY, then, there
is seen a rejection of God as the reality which determines all things and an affirmation
of man as autonomous being.

This linguistic background is most important for an understanding of the NT

passages in which there is reference to laughter. Everywhere we can see a dis-
tinction from Greek usage and dependence on the more religious Jewish usage
pny (pnt)/yEA&o. This is true even in Mt. 9:24 and par., the only passage where
KaTayE ad is used. Here it is said of those assembled in the house of Jairus that
in face of the KaOEU8El of Jesus: Kal KaTEYÉAGV a too. This obviously denotes
scornful laughter on the basis of supposedly better information and therefore of
a superiority which is not slow to make itself felt.
In Lk. 6:25 a Woe is pronounced by Jesus on the yEAOvTES vOv.; 9 a prospect
of future TEVOEiv and kAalely is held out for them, whereas it is said of the
KAalovtec vOy that they shall laugh (6:21). The old antithesis yE^av/KAaielv
(Qoh. 3:4) is thus filled with new content in relation to the eschatological division
and decision of men (though > 662). In this connection it is to be noted that the
yEAOVTES viv are set directly alongside the TAoalot and the ÉuTETAnouÉvo viv
(6:24 f.); the comprehensive reference of Jesus is to those who find satisfaction
in the present aeon in contrast to the needy. If there is no immediate thought of
sin or righteousness in the original sayings (cf. Mt. 5:6), the interpretation of
Matthew is right in so far as Jesus here threatens with judgment an attitude which
no longer reckons seriously with God and which one part of Palestinian Christian-
ity saw to be connected, either as a danger or as reality, with wealth. Thus
for James (4:9) it is part of the conversion from worldliness, however religiously
embellished, that yeA∞c 10 should disappear and give place to humility before
God if God Himself is not finally to make it TÉvlog, i.e., complaint at the loss of
worldly goods, 11 which must ultimately be wrested from man's control (4:8 ff.).
2. The Word Group applied to the Deity.
yEA&© and ye∞c are particularly important for the Gks. when brought into con-
nection with the gods. 12 Merry laughter is a divine characteristic (cf. perhaps oouuel-
ons, a name for Aphrodite as early as Homer, Od., 9, 362), and is thus inseparable
from theophany. 13 We have a particularly good example of this in the epiphany hymn
to Demetrius Poliorketes from the year 307 B.C., where it is said of the god Demetrius
on his bodily manifestation (Athen., VI, 253d): o 8' Iap6s, HOTED TOV OEOV bEi,
Kal kaloc kal yEAov TEPEOTL. 14 Alongside this we might set the legend in Plin.

8 The same usage is found in Jos. Ant., 5, 144 : the men of Gibeah Wtyopouv tou
Sikalou kal KOTEYÉAOV; cf. also Jos. Ap., 1, 69 and Schl. Mt., 319. There is instance
of Siaye ad to express scepticism towards a miracle in R. Herzog, Die Wunderheilungen
von Epidauros (1931), 10.
9 In Joseph. yEAX is used only in connection with mockery and witticisms, without
religious content ; cf. Schl. Lk., 247 1
10 Joseph. uses yÉAcs of frivolous or scornful laughter : Vit., 323; Ant., 4, 276.
11 Cf. Hck. Jk., 204.
12 I owe much of this section to the work of H. Kleinknecht.
13 Cf. on this pt., Norden, 58 and 61 ff.
14 V. Ehrenberg, Antike, 7 (1931), 290 f. refers the hymn to Dionysus : "Only to a
Demetrius assimilated to him could this hymnal form apply."
 Hist. Nat., VII, 15, 72, that the only man to laugh on the day of his birth was Zoroaster,
or the demand made of the boy hymned in Verg. Ecl., 4, 60 ff.: Incipe, parve puer, risu
cognoscere matrem incipe, parve puer, cui non risere parentes, nec deus hunc mensa,
dea nec dignata cubili est ; the underlying thought here is that laughter immediately after
birth declares the divine character of this child. 15 yÉAwc is a mark of the deity, which
also spreads yÉAos in the world around : [eati] 'HELLOG TE yEAGS. TOUTO yap
attaca Sikaic Kal fvntn blavoia yela kal roouor anelpov (Stob. Ecl., I,
781 f.). It is perhaps in this light that we should explain the difficult passage in P. Gless.,
I, 3, 8 ff., where in connection with the coronation of Hadrian there is reference to
yÉAoc of the people. This is the laughter which breaks out with the parousia of the
god (here the emperor), denoting the age of joy which he introduces. 16
From the examples adduced it may be seen that yÉAos is intrinsic to the god
in antiquity, even though it is not a trait which is regularly emphasised. The material
explanation lies in a fact which calls for attention, namely, that in contrast to
the Orient Greek religion stresses the gracious presence of deity and its union
with man. 17 It hardly need be said that the term cannot be brought into any
essential connection with the biblical view of God. This would be true even if a
certain odium did not attach to it in biblical usage. To be sure, it is said of God
4 times in the OT that He laughs (pntv, Ps. 2:4; 37:13; 59:8; Prv. 1:26).18 This does
not imply, however, that laughter is a divine characteristic. It simply expresses His
absolute superiority over the ungodly who will not accept Him as God even though
they are nothing beside Him. 19 The use of pny thus falls materially under the
biblical usage mentioned in 1., and it is in keeping that in the first 3 cases the
LXX has Ékye^qoual and in Prv. Éniye^aoual. Yet it should not be overlooked
that the Rabbis were astonished even to read of this fourfold laughter of God in
Scripture. Otherwise they would not have assembled the passages, let alone tried
to take prio in Ps. 2:4 as pi'el and thus taken it to mean that God will make His
enemies the objects of mutual derision 20 (Midr. Ps. 2 §6). Thus it is not God
Himself who laughs, and it is clear that laughter is seen to be something unworthy,
or, more correctly, that the content of pni is thought to be out of keeping with
God and His world. Why this is so cannot be pursued in the present context.
Possible the basic concern was to maintain the majesty of God. It is enough,
however, that there is this distinction from the Greek view of God, that laughter
is not ascribed to God, and that this has a bearing on the linguistic expression of
the joy which He gives to man.
In Ps. 126:2 it is said with reference to the coming time of salvation 21 that "the
mouth will be full of laughter (phiv)." 22 From the context it is obvious that this laughter
expresses superiority over previous opponents. In this case, there is here nothing un-

15 Cf. Norden, 64 ff.

16 E. Kornemann, op. cit., attempted to explain this in terms of a triumphal procession.
This is near the mark, since a merry procession is part of the parousia. > ATavINoIs, 381.
17 Cf. J. Leipoldt, War Jesus Jude: (1923), 47 ff.
18 The subject in Prv. 1:26 is really wisdom, but behind this is God.
19 It is in accordance with the sense that except at Ps. 37:13 pmt is a par. of 242.
20 Another explanation of pry7 59002 201is : "Thus saith the Holy One, blessed be He:
The ones shall laugh at the others.'
21 It makes no material difference whether the verse is taken as recollection or ex-
pectation.
22 Cf. Str.-B., IV, 965 f.
 yEA&G - YEVEa

godly, since God is gratefully praised for His liberating act (v. 2b). It is thus the more
instructive that in its rendering of pho the LXX does not use yÉAOC but xapa; it
thus imports into the text the thought of the righteous joy which has reference to God
alone. 23 What the translator has done is to set the expectation of salvation under the
thought of God. It is in keeping that in the descriptions of the time of salvation in later
Judaism there is constant reference to joy (anniv, Test. Jud. 25) but not to laughter. It is
to be noted finally that Rabbinic ethics, with its thought of rewards, rejected laughter
in relation to the coming aeon because this is something for God to give, not for man
to give himself; this is perhaps indicated by the use in this context of Ps. 126:2 with
reference to the future world (Midr. Ps. 126:2 [p.511, Buber]; bBer., 31a). 24 We may
thus say that even in the eschatological terminology and thinking of Judaism pnt /yEav
does not belie its ungodly character.

This is not without bearing on NT usage, since in the future world laughter
is the prospect of the KAalovtes viv according to the definitely eschatological
saying at Lk. 6:21. We could explain this easily if we might assume that Hellenistic
ideas that the time of salvation is the time of yEAGc had had some influence on
the formation of the saying. This is excluded, however, by the Jewish character of
the whole section. Nor can we think of a future triumph of the oppressed over
their oppressors in the original sense of Ps. 126:2. This leaves us only two possible
ways of explaining the yEAGOETE of Lk. 6:21. On the one hand, it is just possible
that Luke himself deliberately selected ye^av, in ignorance of Jewish usage, in
order to maintain the strongest possible parallelism with 6:25. On the other hand,
it is possible that the saying in 6:21 was pronounced by Jesus under the influence
of Ps. 126:2 (cf. also Mt. 5:4 with Ps. 126:5), and that pat or gan (cf. xain Tg.
Ps. 126:2) was thus adopted in conscious allusion, but this was not perceived or
regarded (cf. the yap& of the LXX) when the saying was put into its present
Greek form.25 Which of the two possibilities is the more likely and compelling,
it is hard to say.
Rengstorf

YEVEd, yEVE⅝oyia, YEVEROYEW,

dyevea byntos

YEVEd.
In general usage, this means "birth,' "descent" AltoAoc YEVEñV, Hom. Il., 23,
471: &7TO YEVEAG, "'from birth, Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 2, 8; b. "what is born,' progeny,
'descendant" : xpñuata kai yEvEav 81to8186 vaL "to deliver up possessions and
children,' Polyb., XX, 6, 6; ¢. 'race" in the sense of those bound by common descent:
AVOPOV yEVEN (opp. QUAAGV YEVEñ), Hom. 11., 6, 146; d. "generation" : TpEic yEVEai
&v8pov EKatOV Imn Elolv, Hdt., II, 142; ÉTl TOAA&S YEVEAS, Plat. Tim., 23c; also in

23 For a similar process - n. 4.

24 The tradition seems to be linked with the name of R. Shimon b. Jochai (c. 150 A.D.),
a pupil of Akiba.
25 Cf. as the closest par. Test Jud. 25:4 (xB S1 Charles): Kal oi Ev AUTN TEAEUTHOAVTES
&vaathoovtal Év xapq.
yEVE&. Pass., Pape, Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; Schl. Mt. on 18:15.
YEVE& - yEVEaoyia

the sense of age : n dv0ponivn Aeyouavn yEVE& (in distinction from the heroic age),
Hdt., III, 122. The sense of the totality of those living as contemporaries is not found
in Gk., though it must be presupposed in explanation of d.
The LXX uses the term mostly for nit, rarely for dy or anao2. 799 means 'age" or
"age of man," or "generation" in the sense of contemporaries ; 1 Aram, 77.
In the NT yEVEa is common in the Synoptics, rare in Paul, absent from Jn.,
including Rev. As purely formal concept it is always qualified. It mostly denotes
"generation" in the sense of contemporaries.
We often have the formula f yevEd aUTn, as at Mk. 8:12 (Lk. 11:29, 30); 13:30
(Mt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32); Mt. 11:16 (Lk. 7:31) ; 12:41, 42 (Lk. 11:31,32); 23:36 (Lk.
11:50,51); Lk. 17:25; Hb. 3:10.2 This generation is to be understood temporally,
but there is always qualifying criticism. Thus we read of an "adulterous'
generation (= uota^is, Mk. 8:38), or an "evil" generation (Mt. 12:45; Lk. 11:29),
or an "evil and adulterous" generation (Mt. 12:39; 16:4), or an "unbelieving and
corrupt" generation (Mt. 17:17, cf. Lk. 9:41; Mk. 9:19, which has only & lotos).
There is a combination at Ac. 2:40 : 0nTE ATO THIS YEVEAS THE aKOAIAS taUINs.
Phil. 2:15 : ufoov YEVE&S OKOAIOS kai SueoTpauuÉvs, derives from the Song of
Moses (Dt. 32:5). So too, perhaps, does Mt. 17:17 (Dt. 32:20): yEVE& #Eeotpau-
uevn totiv, uloi ols ouk HOTV TlOTIG Ev autoic. This Song is related to the
Messianic age in S. Dt., 318 on 32:15. 3 yEVE& in this critical sense is also found
in Jos. Bell., 5, 442 : un yEVEdV E aldvoc yeyoveval kakiac youluotéparv. As
shown by the usual addition of aom, 4 the phrase A yEVEd aur is a rendering
of the Rabbinic ma 777. In the role played by yEVE& in the sayings of Jesus we
can see His comprehensive purpose He is aiming at the whole people and not
at individuals and His view of solidarity in sin. Ttaoa al yeveal occurs in the
sense of all future men at Lk. 1:48, 50.
yEVEa in the sense of age" or "period" is found in Mt. 1:17; Ac. 13:36; 14:16;
15:21; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26. It occurs in the sense of "manner" in Lk. 16:8. In
Ac. 8:33 there is allusion to Is. 53:8 : ThV YEVEAV aTOU tic Sinynoetau is a literal
rendering of the obscure Hebrew text.
t yevE⅝ oyio.
"Genealogical tree." Attested from the time .of Plat. Crat., 396c: thy 'Ho1680u
yevEa^oylav, tivas ETI TOUC &VOTépW TpOyOVouG AÉYEL TOUTWV (of the gods).
Solon's attempt to recount the origin of the race is described in Plat. Tim. 22a as TEpI
AeukaAl@vos kal Fluppac puloloyeiv kal TOUg tE, aUTOv yEVEa OYEiv. Among
other forms of historical writing Polybius mentions a yEvEa^oyIKOC tpottog which he
himself does not follow (IX, 1, 4). In a formula similar to that of Plato he refers to

1 Ges.-Buhl, s.v.
2 y 94:10. We should read taurn; Exelvn is an assimilation to the LXX.
3 Cf. Schl. Mt. on 17:17.
Bl.-Debr., 306.
Cf. Schi. Mt. on 18:15.
6 There is an obvious uncertainty in v. 50, but the meaning is "for all generations."
B1.-Debr., 322 : "to many generations. The basis is the Heb. 717) 777 or bogi9 m19 (Is. 51:8;
Ps. 102:24).
yEvE& can here mean spiritual progeny (in the members of the Christian community),
or the present evil generation, or even ancestry (cf. Preisigke Wort., s.v.). I owe this
reference to G. Bertram.
yEVE aloyla. Wbg. Past., 31 ff.; Dib. Past., ad loc.; G. Kittel, ZNW, 20 (1921),
49 ff. Cf. also bibl. in p. 3.
 yEvEaoyla

many who have concerned themselves with To TE TEpI idS yevealoylas kal uufouc
(IX, 2, 1). Thus the formula uofot kal yEvea^oylau at 1 Tm. 1:4 may be regarded
as traditional. The LXX does not have the word.
In the NT it is found only at 1 Tm. 1:4; Tt. 3:9. The meaning is contested. The
total understanding of the Past. with the alternatives of authentic or unauthentic
or Gnostic or Jewish opponents, makes interpretation difficult. We should thus
start with the term itself in the context. From 1 Tm. 1:4 we learn that yEvEaAo-
yiaL cannot be separated from ut0o1. Tt. 1:14 mentions ufol 'loudaikol. It
thus follows that the yeveaoylat, too, are Jewish in content. This also cor-
responds to the fact that in Tt. 3:9 they are associated with the uayat voukai,
men (Tt. 1:14), questions their claim to be teachers of the Law (1 Tm. 1:7) and
attacked in a discussion of the Law in v. 8 ff. 1 The vouo818goka1o1 are neither
Judaists nor Nomists ; they are Jews. The issue is not the same as in Gl. 2 But
they are not Antinomians in the bad sense. They represent a Gnostic Judaism
which uses the Law (of the OT) to spread ascetic demands ("Halachot") and
speculative doctrines ('Haggadot"). Hence the author emphasises the need for a
true keeping of the Law (1 Tm.1:8), calls their teaching the commandments of
men (Tt. 1:14), questions their claim to be teachers of the Law (1 Tm.1:7) and
demands that real teachers should be provided for the communities (Tt. 3:13).
There is no longer any reason to question the possibility or probability of a
Gnostic Judaism.
We can only guess as to the nature of the yEvea oyial. They can hardly have
been lists of aeons similar to those found in the classical Gnosticism of the
Valentinians and forced into the text of the OT by violent exegesis. Such lists
are never called yEvEaAoyial.' More likely, they are the genealogies of men.
G. Kittel has shown 5 that the Rabbis had a lively interest in both their own
genealogies and those of others, but especially those taken from the OT, and that
these played a role in the debates between the Jews and Jewish Christians. The
errorists of the Past., however, are not just Jews but syncretists. Again, udlo
kai yevea oyial is traditional Greek formula. Hence it is probable that the
expression denotes the biblical history enriched by interpretations and additions. 8
If so, the yEvEaAoyiaL of Tt. 3:9 are the same as the ub0ou Kal yEveaAoyial of

The idea that the Judaism of the false teachers is simply feigned in order to make it
appear that Paul, the chief opponent of the Jews, is the author (cf. Dib. Past. on 1 Tm. 1:7)
attributes an unlikely subtlety to the writer. He would hardly make his task more difficult
by substituting Jewish for pagan-Christian Gnosticism and by linking it with the OT.
Cf. Dib. Past. dn 1 Tm. 1:7 and W. Lutgert, "Die Irrlehrer der Past.," BFTh, 13 (1909),
16 ff.
3 Cf. Lutgert, 22; Schlatter Gesch. Isr.⅜, 313-316, 397, n. 48, 443, n. 305; Schurer, III, 407-
420 ; H. Gressmann, ZAW, 43 (1925), ff.: also M. Friedlander, Der vorchristliche judiche
Gnostizismus (1897). Cf. esp. Colossians.
4 Irenaeus opens his work against heresies by referring 1 Tm. 1:4 to the Gnostics. Simi-
larly Tertullian (Praescr. Haer., and 33) refers it to heresies, esp. the Valentinians. But
neither of them says that the Gnostics spoke of yEvEaoylai.
5 Cf. also 1 Ch. 5:1: o0k Éyevea^oyhOn, in the Mas. hithp. of Wh (in the Rabbis on),
elsewhere translated kataloxla, kata oxiouoc. In bPes., 62b Ch. is probably described
as 10M) TDO (Str.-B., I, 6). I owe this reference to G. Bertram.
6 Cf. the prohibition of marriage in 1 Tm. 4:3.
7 Chrysostom ad loc. sees here an allusion to the Gks., i.e., to the myths and genealogies
of the gods cf. Wbg., 31.
Wbg., 31 points to the embellishment of the biblical narrative in the Book of Jubilees,
which an unenthusiastic critic might well have called ditÉpavtoc as in 1 Tm. 1:4.
yEVEaoyia YEVE AOYÉQ xyEvEaAbyntos

Tm. 1:4. For Philo in his review of the work of Moses (Vit. Mos., II, 45) des-
cribes as to yEVEaAoyIK6v the total loropikov (the historical parts of the
Pentateuch in distinction from the legal) apart from the story of creation, i.e., the
whole historical narrative of the Pentateuch.

* yEVEa^0yÉO.
Like yevsa^oyia, this derives from yevea^oyos, the one who gives an account
of descent or draws up a genealogy. In the LXX it occurs only at Ch. 5:1
(- yEvEa^oyia, n. 5). In the NT it is found only at Hb. 7:6 with reference to
Melchisedec: 6 88 un yEVE&AOYOU LEVOC £8 autov, "who does not derive his
descent from them (the sons of Levi).'
+ dyevea^oyntos.
This occurs only at Hb. 7:3. It means 'without descent," i.e., without having a
place by derivation in the human series, in this case as a priest.1 How important
descent was for priests on Jewish soil may be seen from Ezr. 2:61-63; Phil. Spec.
Leg., I, 110 ff.; Jos. Ap., 1, 30-37; Ant., 11, 71. That all those who wished to dis-
charge priestly functions were examined as to their descent is attested by Mid.,
5, 4; T. Sanh., 7, 1; Qid., 4, 4.
Bichsel

YEW&W, YEVNHA, YEVINTOS,

aptyÉvnt0s, dvayEvod

YEVVOW.
Like TiKto, this term is used of the "begetting" of the father and the "bearing" of
the mother, not only in Gk. generally, but also in the LXX and NT. Figur. it is used
of producing without birth, as at 2 Tm. 2:23 and also Joseph.: yevatal tv auth
coine, o KalIOToc (Ant., 9,7, cf. Bell., 4, 469); in the religious sense of the old
covenant (Gl. 4:24), of Paul in the self-protestations at C. 4:15; Phlm. 10. yEwov
with God as subj., Prv. 8:25; Ps. 2:7 (quoted in Lk. 3:22 [west. reading]; Ac. 13:33;
Hb. 1:5; 5:5). yevao0au (pass.) in Jn. 1:13; 2 3:3, 5, 6, 8; In. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18.

A. "Begetting" as an Image of the Relationship of Master and Disciple.

The use of the terms father and son with reference to the master and disciple
may be seen already in 2 K. 2:12.3 At the time of Jesus it was customary for the

9 Hipp. Ref., IX, 8, 1 describes as the yevealoylas autov thy blaboxnv the history
of Noetus and his followers in distinction from the oyuata.
AYEVERAOYNTOS. Cf. Rgg. Hb., ad loc.
2 Schuirer, 1I3, 227 ff.; Str.-B., 1, 2 ff.
YEVVXW. Pass., Pape, Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; Zn. J., 74, n. 67; Str.-B., III, 339 f.; Joh. W.,
Ltzm. on C. 4:15; H. Gunkel, Psalmen (1926), 6 f.: Str.-B., II, 287; K. H. Rengstorf,
Jebamot (1929), 138 f.; F. Buchsel, Joh. u. d. hellenist. Synkretismus (1928), 59 ff.; Wnd.
Jn., Excurs. after 3:9. Cf. also the bibl. under n. 15.
1 For examples, cf. Pr.-Bauer, S.v. and Zn. In., 74, n. 64.
2 Cf. Zn., ad loc.
3 >28 is indeed used as a general title of honour in addressing a prophet, cf. 2 K. 6:21;
13:14. In Ju. 17:10 2* seems to be the title of a priest. In 1 S. 24:12 '2& is used in addressing
the king, who for his part uses 232 (1 S.26:17).
 rabbi to call his pupil and the ordinary member of the community "my son, cf.
the style of address used by Jesus and Mt. 23:8-10. There was here no thought of
begetting, as shown by the application to favoured members of the community.
It was simply designed to emphasise the superiority and warmth of the "father"
on the one side and the reverence of the "son" on the other. The more significant
the achievement of the master and his relation to the disciple, the more he is
compared to a father. bSan., 19b : "When a man teaches the son of another the
Torah, the Scripture treats him as if he had begotten him": cf. also bSanh., 99b.
Paul goes further than this when he not only calls himself father but speaks of
his yewav (cf. Gl. 4:19). This is usually derived from the Mysteries. But the
mode of expression does not really imply more than that of the Rabbis. Again,
though the mystagogue is called the father of the initiates, the word yevvav is not
actually used. 6 Moreover, Paul begets through the Gospel (1 C. 4:15), through
public preaching, not through a mystery. + Furthermore, he begets whole com-
munities and not just individual believers. In 1 C. 4:15 and Phlm. 10 we simply
have a rhetorical development of the usual Jewish expression. It is wholly in line
with the emotional strength, forcefulness and metaphorical power of the language
of Paul. Perhaps some of his contemporaries used similar phrases.
Bichsel

B. The Idea of New Birth by Conversion to the True Religion in Later Judaism.
The idea of "new birth" or "'becoming new" by conversion to Judaism is com-
mon in the Rabbis. 8 Instead of giving several examples, we shall prove the point
by adducing two which are particularly clear. In Cant. r. 1 on 1:3 we read : "When
someone brings a creature (i.e., a man) under the wing of the Shekinah (i.e., wins
him to Judaism according to Cant.r., on 1:1), then it is counted to him (i.e., by
God) as though he had created and fashioned and formed him." Similarly, we
read in bJeb., 22a etc. : A proselyte just converted is like a child just born.
The two statements give us a glimpse into the world of thought from which they
sprang and which was given its linguistic stamp by expressions connected with
generation.
The first statement compares the one who wins a non-Jew to Judaism directly
with God. This is shown by the expressions used to extol his work. They are the
words used in the OT to describe God as the Creator ex nihilo (x72, Gn. 1:1, 27),
as the One who gives man his form (ny, Gn. 2:7; Ps. 139:16) and as the One who
holds His creative hand over him from his mother's womb (cf. apn, Ps. 139:15).
The winning of a proselyte is an achievement of unsurpassable greatness, since
it can be compared with the creative work of God (- 418). Yet this is not the
essential point in the present context. More important is the fact that the Jew
who wins another to his faith satisfies in an ideal manner the command to be

4 Cf. Str.-B., III, 339 on C. 4:14 under 1 and III, 340 on 1 C. 4:15 under C.
5 Joh. W., 1 K., 116 f.; Ltzm., 1 K. on 4:15.
6 This is proved by the collection of materials in A. Dieterich Mithr. Liturg., 146, cf.
Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 40 f. That we have parens rather than pater in Apul. Met., XI, 25
is of no significance. Apuleius displays a good deal of preciosity in his style. In Gk. the
old and honoured often address the young as TEKvoy.
That baptism establishes a spiritual relationship is not at all the thought of Paul (as
against Dieterich, op. cit., 153). It would contradict the estimation of baptism in C. 1:17.
Cf. on this pt. Rengstorf, 138 f.
YEVvaG

fruitful and multiply, which, according to the Rabbinic understanding, is laid on

all male Jews as a supreme command.' It should not be forgotten, of course, that
the whole idea remains in the realm of comparison. This fact prevents us from
finding in the statement, for which there are many parallels, 10 echoes of the
terminology of the Mysteries. In it we find ourselves within the sphere of rational
considerations. This is not altered in the very least by the final saying with its
reference to the creation of life in the narrowest sense, i.e., in the embryo.
The totally unmystical character is fully seen, however, only in the concluding
observation that the proselyte does not become a true man until his conversion to
Judaism. Previously he has been a mere creature. This is the point at which the
second sentence links up with and augments the first. The proselyte is reckoned
a child because he has only just entered into the presuppositions of true humanity.
These are found in Judaism alone because here alone, through the Law, is there
the possibility of doing the will of God and thus leading a life commensurate with
the being of man as God's image. This is the link between the two statements.
This is what links them to all similar statements. This is what brings them into
the great nexus of statements which separate the Jewish people from second-class
nations on the ground of the presence and use of the Law. 11 The whole circle of
thought illustrated here thus stands in close connection with the central concern
of Judaism in sanctification. In fact the conversion to Judaism which is here
compared with becoming new or becoming a genuine man is characterised in
another connection as the entry into state of holiness, or more accurately of
being sanctified. 12 We may thus say that "new" and "holy" are related to the
extent that "new" marks off the new state of the proselyte as compared with his
previous profane life and "holy" marks him off from his previous hopeless religious
situation. "Holy" is thus the religious and moral counterpart of the more forensic
"new." At any rate, the two terms are not schematically disparate, as might appear
from what has been said. Only in the closest relationship do they describe the
situation of the proselyte as it appears in the light of the Law, which is now the
predominant factor in his life.
The forensic and rational character of the regeneration of the proselyte is re-
vealed by the implications of his conversion to Judaism. These may be briefly
summarised in the statement that the past has now ceased to exist for him. This
is true of his previous relations. Since Judaism denies the existence of a solid
sexual morality outside the sphere of the Law (-) 325), it recognises no degree
of relationship prior to the coming of the Law. The proselyte is literally a new
born child in his new environment. He has no previous father, mother or brethren. 13
It is literally true of him that the old has passed away and all things are made
new, as Paul says in a rather different sense in 2 C. 5:17.
This is the point of transition to the corresponding terms and thought forms of
the NT. To be sure, the Rabbinic material adduced does not exclude the possibility
of some Hellenistic influence as well, especially on Paul. Yet this material has
also to be taken into account in relation to Paul's statements concerning the

Cf. Jeb., 6, 6; T. Jeb., 8, 4, and Rengstorf, ad loc.

10 Cf. Rengstorf, loc. cit.
11 324.
12 Cf. Jeb., 11, 2; T. Jeb., 12, 2 and Rengstorf, ad loc.
13 This has serious consequences in the sphere of family rights and rights of inheritance,
though we cannot pursue these in the present context,
 yEWa®

yEWnOñval of Christians. This is suggested by the existence of an unmistakeable

line of development from the Rabbinic din to the NT ) gyios; the two com-
plexes of thought are obviously inseparable. We thus do well to take into serious
account the later Jewish ideas attested in our attempt to understand Gl. 4:19;
C. 4:15; Phlm. 10 and in the last resort even 1 Th. 2:11.14 At any rate, these are
a safeguard against too strong an emphasis on the influence of the Mysteries.
We are the less exposed to this danger the more we see how strongly in Paul the
forensic element, which controls the thinking of the Rabbis, yields before the
purely religious claiming of man by God, which is at once posited for Paul by the
fact that in his thinking Christ takes the place of the Law, so that all human
strivings and achievements are surpassed and set aside by Christ's sanctification
of His people. This is the real eason why existence "through the Gospel" (1 C.
4:15) is for the NT a new being which is not a burdensome duty but a grateful
response to the divine action in Jesus.
Rengstorf

C. Generation by the Deity.

1. Generation from God in the OT and Judaism.
YEVVOV is used very rarely of God in the OT, but it occurs in significant pas-
sages. Thus the king addressed in Ps. 2 is begotten of God, as also the king in
u 109 : ÉK yaotpos itpo ÉwoDopou EEÉyENVoa FE. Finally, wisdom is begotten
of God in Prv. 8:25. In Ps. 2:7 the generation is no more than institution to the
position of son and heir ; "I have begotten thee" is probably no more than a
stereotyped formula. 15 To be sure, Ps. Sol. 17:23 ff. takes it rather differently,
but it does not infer the begetting of the Messiah by God. The Targum para-
phrases : "Thou art as dear to me as a son to his father, and innocent as though
I had this day created thee." In the Midrash on Ps. 2 §9 (14b) Rabbi Huna
elucidates the thought of generation by that of a new creation out of previous
troubles. 16 In y 109:3 the LEeyÉwnod vE was probably in the original, but owing
to corruption of the Hebrew text, not perhaps unintentional, these words had no
influence in Judaism. 17 Prv. 8:22 is clearly adopted and expounded in Sir. 24. It
is noteworthy that the yEWa ME of Prv. 8:25 is translated Éntio£v uE in Sir. 24:6
(10). But the thought of the generation of wisdom from God did not disappear
in Judaism. What Prv. 8:22 says of wisdom is referred to the Law in Sir. 24:23.
Jos. Ant., 4, 319 also says of the Law vouol ofg autos yewhoas nuiv HoOKEV,
though it is to be noted that Josephus does not use yevvav elsewhere of God. 18
Thus, even though the Jews do not say that any man is begotten of God, 19 the
thought of a generation from God has not completely perished.
Philo makes extensive and varied use of yevvav in relation to God. He can
call all God's creating (TOlEiv) "begetting" (yevvav) in Leg. All., III, 219.
Everything is begotten of God, the A6yoc (Conf. Ling., 63), but also animals and

14 Cf. on this pt. Rengstorf, 262.

Cf. H. Gunkel, Psalmen (1926), 6 f.
18 Cf. Str.-B., II, 287 under g.; also III, 21, where a serious weakening of anN .5 is ad-
duced from the Warsaw edition (1875). Cf. on this whole pt., Dalman WJ, 219 ff. and
Str.-B., III, 673 Ff.
17 Cf. the material in Str.-B., IV, 453 ff.
18 A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott ? (1910), 15,
19 Str.-B., II, 421-423.
plants (Mut. Nom., 63). The divine sonship of the Israelites, however, does not
rest on a yEwav of God. In the allegorising of Philo the idea of a marriage of
God with wisdom or knowledge plays an important role. He also speaks of a
OTE PELV of God in man in Migr. Abr., 35 etc. Behind all this stands the wisdom
of the Mysteries. 20 But for him the righteous are not yEVnOÉVTEC of God. 21

2. Generation or Adoption in the Mysteries.

In the Mysteries ideas and processes from sex life play an important part, 22
e.g., the lepoc yquos, phallic celebrations etc. A renasci, avayevaolai,
uetayevvao0ai, mediating a relationship to deities, constitutes the true meaning
of the rites. On the other hand, there seems to be no reference to the birth of the
initiate through a goddess or to his begetting by a god. In pre-Christian times,
at least, the real thought is that of adoption. 23 Now it may be that in the rites
the distinction between adoption and birth through a goddess was dimmed. But
in the B.C. period there is certainly no reference in the Mysteries to a yEWnOEis
EK TOO 0EO0. 24

A. Korte has claimed 25 that in the Eleusinian Mysteries the initiate became a physical
child of the earth mother. 26 But he has not proved this from the sources. It may be
granted that the pudendum which was contained in the kiot, and with which the
initiate undertook a mysterious action (Cl. Al. Prot., II, 21, 2: auvenua "Elevalvlov
puompiov: Évjoteuoa, E trov ToV KUKE&va, ElaBov éx kloms, €pyaoquevos
ETE0Éunv elc kaalov kal &x kalalou sic klomv), did not represent a phallos 27
but the womb of the goddess. But this does not mean that birth rather than adoption is
the meaning of the rite. For the Greeks had a form of adoption which imitated birth,
yet was not designed to mediate physical sonship, but only the corresponding legal
position, cf. Diod. S., IV, 39 : Hera adopted Heracles (ulonoñoao0au) by getting on
a bed, taking Heracles to her body and letting him down to the earth through her
garments uuuouuévny thy dln0wnv yÉvEolv. Thus, although Heracles seems to pro-

20 Cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 245 ff.

21 Cf. F. Buchsel, Joh. u. d. hellen. Synkretismus (1928), 59-61; Wnd. 1J.. Excurs.
after 3:9.
22 Cf. Windisch, op. cit. and the bibl. there given, esp. Mithr. Liturg., 134 ff.; Reitzenstein
Hell. Myst., 245 ff.; F. Cumont, Die orient. Rel. im rom. Heidentum3 (1931); M. Dibelius,
"Die Isisweihe,' SAH, 1917.
23 YEWHINS TOV DEGV in Ps.-Plat. Ax., 371d is not one who is conceived of the gods
but a fellow of the gods. yewhins is an Athenian technical term for the citizens who to-
gether make up a yÉvog. Cf. E. Rohde, Psyche 5, & (1910), II, 421, who shows that here as
elsewhere in the Gk. Mysteries the thought is that of adoption and not of conception or
generation. The kal yap Eyov ouov yevoc 8ABlov Exoual Elval of the tablets from
Sybaris (Mith. Liturg., 37) is no help. The Eleusinian lEpov ETEKe ToTVia KOUpov Boud
Bpuu6v (Hipp. Ref., V, 8) refers originally to lakchos or Pluto, not to an initiate. That
the (Naassenic) reference to an initiate is pre-Christian cannot be proved. On the contrary,
we have to remember the point made by Dibelius "that syncretistic religions appropriate
and assimilate the Christian heritage" (op, cit., 51; cf. also 52). On the touching of the
womb of the goddess, cf. what follows.
24 It is not true that renasci, avayevao0a, implies goddess to give birth. The Isis
initiate is called renatus in Apul. Met., XI, 21, and yet Dibelius (op. cit., 27) rightly explains
the rite as follows: "The union with Isis so far as one can speak of such - is thus
effected in this rite, not in the sacrament of the feast, of the lspos yauos, of adoption,
as practised elsewhere, but in that of migration through the cosmos." Cf. on this whole pt.,
Buchsel, op. cit., 61-62.
25 ARW, 18 (1915), 11-126.
28 Ibid., 12, cf. 126.
27 Mithr. Liturg., 125 f.
 ceed from her body, he is the adopted, not the physical, son of Hera. In the same way
the touching of the womb of the earth mother need not signify more than adoption in
the Eleusinian Mysteries. Adoption is by a process which imitates birth. The well-known
beaToivac UTo Ko\Tov #buv x0ovlas Bacileiac of the Orphic tablets proves that
adoption was practised in the Mysteries in the way attested by Diodorus. E. Rohde 28
came near to the correct reading. But instead he substituted a feeble modernisation
("I seek protection in her motherly bosom [or lap]"). He overlooked the fact that in
Diod. Heracles was adopted by the divine mother after his death in order to be assured
of her favour he also failed to note that adoption can be the goal of the initiate in the
hereafter even though he does not possess it in virtue of the rite. The oTo Ko/Tov
youv can only be a mysterious formulation in the first person of that which Diod.
recounts as Hera's action in respect of Heracles. That a formula like OTto TOU KOATOU
EgñA0ov is not chosen seems to make it quite evident to me that the thought was that
of adoption and not of physical birth. The Eleusinian rite is analogous. Korte seems
to have been extremely rash in his exposition of lspov TEKE Ttotvia Koupov Bptuo
Bpuuov. 20 Even if the Koupos were the initiate, this would not prevent the action
from being adoption, since this was an imitation of birth and had an equivalent result.
The passages adduced by O. Kern add nothing of material significance. 30

Ps. 2:7 is much used in the NT. At Ac. 13:33 the "to-day" of the generation
of the Son of God is the resurrection. At Lk. 3:22 (west. reading) it is the baptism
as an impartation of the Spirit. At Hb. 1:5; 5:5 it may be doubted whether any
specific point of time is in view. If we think of His coming into the world (cf.
1:6 : na^tv Eioayayn), or of the beginning of His high-priesthood in the days
of His flesh, it is again doubtful whether the reference is to His birth or to His
baptism. The birth stories in Mt. and Lk. do not quote Ps. 2:7. There is only a
distant contact between this verse and Lk. 1:35 : TO YEVVOUEVOV &yLOV kAnon-
oEtal vioc 0E00. In any case, however, we can see from Ac. 13:33 that quite early,
and independently of the idea of the Virgin Birth, Ps. 2:7 was used in interpretation
of the divine sonship of Jesus. Jesus is accepted as the Begotten of God because
the Word of God speaks thus of Him. This begetting is more than adoption. For
the resurrection, in which it was consummated, is the beginning of a new and
pneumatic, i.e., divine, mode of being the impartation of the Spirit is the earnest
of the gifts of this mode of being. On the basis of the resurrection and the endow-
ment of the Spirit, Jesus was for the community much more than a mere man in
whom the religious life of humanity reached a new level, He was the man in
whom the new aiov began. Generation from God in a very real sense was here
perceived by the community. The idea that this generation must be thought of
either in the sense of adoption or in that of the Virgin Birth 31 rests on a mis-
conception of the early Christian belief in Christ and understanding of Scrip-
ture, and especially of the basic significance of the resurrection of Jesus and the
resultant beginning of the new allv, in short, of the eschatological impulse in early
Christian thinking. 32 Only where this element is correctly evaluated can we cor-
rectly understand the divine sonship and generation of Jesus and therefore the

28 Psyche, II, 421.

20 Op. cit., 123 ff.
30 ARW, 19 (1916-19), 433-435.
31 In this false alternative there is merely reflected the unresolved antithesis between the
traditional understanding of the person of Christ and that of the Enlightenment.
32 Cf. Zn. and KI., ad loc.
 yEwa®

significance of Ps. 2:7 in the NT. But then we can also understand how believers
who were sure of the resurrection, and had the pledge of it in themselves in the
Spirit, could also believe themselves to be begotten of God. 33

4. yEvvn OnvaL in John.

In John yevn0ñva is always used with a reference to the point of origin,
mostly EK TOU (EOU or LE aito0 (1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4,18; Jn. 1:13; éK TVEO-
uatoc (Jn. 3:5, 6,8); Ég U6atos (3:5); EK ths aapKos (3:6); EK (e nuatos
(1:13); &Vo0Ev (3:3,7). The seed mentioned in 1 Jn. 3:9 is the Spirit of Jn. 3:5
rather than the Word of 1 Jn. 2:14. This birth is thus everything which it is in
virtue of its origin. As a birth from God, it is a reality but also a mystery (3:8).
Even as a birth of water and the Spirit it is a mystery, because these are what
they are through God. For In. the authenticity of his statements concerning birth
from God cannot rest on experiences and the like, for what he says about birth
from God contradicts all experience (1 Jn. 3:9; cf. Jn. 1:8-10). His statements
are statements of faith. They are true in virtue of the fellowship with God en-
joyed by the believer (1 Jn. 1:3, 6 ff.). Jn. emphasises particularly the ethical or
religious and ethical consequences of the birth. These emerge in the doing of
righteousness (1 Jn. 2:29), in not sinning (3:7 ff.), in love (4:7), in the overcoming
of the world (5:4), in faith in Jesus as the Christ (5:1). They cannot be understood
as investiture with a power or position appropriated by man. Divine sonship is all
that it is as the fellowship with God which depends on the will of God. There
is a parallel in the devilish sonship of the Jews referred to in Jn. 8:38-47. This,
too, is essentially ethical; it finds expression in lying and murder. It, too, is a
personal relationship of fellowship or dependence.
We can only guess at the origin of the Johannine view.34 John attributes this
divine generation both to Jesus (1 Jn. 5:18;Jn.1:13)and to believers. The former is
obviously primary. The description of Jesus as yevinOeis ÉK TOU OEo0 corresponds
to belief in His divine sonship on the one side and to Messianic prophecy, which
always includes Ps. 2:7, on the other (- 668). It is not difficult to transfer the
thought from Jesus to believers. For believers are members of the alov ue Awv
in which the promises of Scripture are fulfilled. They participate in the divine
Spirit. They share in the eternal divine life. They have passed from death to life
(1 Jn. 3:14; Jn. 5:24). Through the Spirit they are in some sense essentially united
to Jesus. That the yEvvav, applied to God's relationship to Jesus and believers, has
originally an eschatological sense may be seen in John only to the degree that the
kingdom of God, the seeing of which depends on the birth (3:3; cf. 3:5), is an
eschatological magnitude. The terms &vaatagic and gwn alovios, which In. uses
in the present tense, have also an original eschatological meaning. 35
It is unlikely that the idea of the divine yEVvav in Jn. derives from the Myster-
ies. There can be no doubt that the application of the idea to Jesus in Ac. 13:33
is completely independent of the Mysteries. And the Johannine yevn0ñvau ÉK
TOU 0E00 has little in common with what is called dvayevvnOñvat, renasci, ueta-

33 In Paul Jesus is the First-born of many brethren who will be fashioned according to
His image and will be co-heirs with Him (R. 8:17,29). In Rev.2:25-28 power over the
heathen is transferred in Him to believers on the basis of Ps. 2:8 ff. (cf. 19:15), and in
Rev. 3:21 session on the throne of God is also transferred to them on the basis of Ps. 110:1.
84 Cf. Wnd. 1 J., Excurs. after 3:9.
35 Buchsel, op. cit., 56.
 yEW&w - yEvnua ~ YEVVNT6C - aptyEwntos

yevnOñival, in the Mysteries. 36 There is a completely different view of both the

attitude and possession of piety. Even the link with baptism in In. 3:5-8 is no
argument for dependence on the Mysteries. 31

t yÉwnua.1
"What is born,' "fruit." Common, and often used in Philo and the LXX. In the NT
only in the phrase yewnuara eyi8viv, Mt. 3:7 (Lk. 3:7); Mt. 12:34; 23:33. The par.
SEIC in Mt. 23:33 gives us the sense. There are no examples in the Rabbis. Nor is this
construction found in Joseph. 2 or the LXX. In the post-apost. fathers it occurs only
in Did., 13, 3 : atapxnv yewnuatov Anvot kal &wvos, Boov TE kai itpoBatov.

yEvIT6S.
Often in Philo etc. In the NT only in the phrase yevntoi yuvaikv, Mt. 11:11
(Lk. 7:28). The formula derives from the OT 7 715, (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4). A common
Jewish expression, 1 this denotes men as distinct from angels and God, i.e., as earthly
creatures. It does not occur in Josephus or Philo. 2 Par. are found in the OT:
yEWnuata YUVXLKOv (Sir. 10:18); in the NT: yEVbUEVOG EK yuvaik6s (GI. 4:4);
in Herodot., VII, 141 f.: Tékva yuvalKdv; in the Mithr. Liturg., 12, 2 : yev6uEvos ÉK
Ovnuns bot&pas. In 1 Cl., 30:5 we have yevntos yuvalkoc in a literal quotation
from Job 11:2;3.

* apriyÉvntos (-> ve6putOS).

"New born," rare, though attested in Luc. Alex., 13; Longus, 1, 9; 2, 4.
In the NT it occurs in the phrase aptyÉvnta BpÉon (1 Pt. 2:2), which is a
customary expression, as may be seen from Luc. Dial. Marit., 12, 1: BpÉpos auTs
aptiyenntov. On the underlying idea of regeneration in Pt. avayEwaG;
on the comparison of a new proselyte with a new born child > yEW&©, 666.
Whether the readers are newly converted or whether the epistle, or at any rate
1:3-4:11 , is a baptismal address, 1 is an open question. For in relation to the eternal
Word of God (cf. 1:23-25) all men are only just born.
Par. words are APTLYEvAS in Nicand. Alexipharm., 357, Apriyovoc in Philo Aet.
Mund., 67, aptitoKos in Jos. Ant., 5, 11 and Boac aptItoKoug in IG, XIV, 2068, 3.

36 Ibid., 62-64.
37 What Jn. says about baptism does not confirm the view that he conceived of it as
did the Mysteries their rites. On the contrary, in Jn. 3:5 (birth of water and the Spirit as
the precondition of entry into the kingdom of God) there is an unmistakeable connection
of baptism with that of John the Baptist. In addition, it is no accident that in Jn., as also
in 1 Pt. 1:23 and Jm. 1:18, the thought of birth is not linked with baptism. Baptism is not
essential in these passages.
yevinua. Zn., Schl. on Mt. 3:7.
On the relation of yévua and yÉvua yÉvnua, 685 n. 1.
Schl. Mt., 68.
yEvintos. Schl. Mt., 364, 486; Str.-B., I, 597; Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
For examples, v. Str.-B., 1, 597 and Schl. Mt. 364, 486.
2 Schl. Mt., 364.
APTlyEvvntos. Comm. of Kn., Wnd., Wbg. on 1 Pt. 2:2.
R. Perdelwitz, "D. Mysterienr. u. d. Problem d. 1 Pt.," RVV, 11, 3 (1911), 16 ff.; W.
Bornemann, "D. Pt. eine Taufrede des Silvanus,' ZNW, 19 (1919/20), 143-165; also
Wnd., Excurs. after 1 Pt. 5:14.
avay wad

+ avayerow (=> TaALyyEVEOla, 686).

A. The Non-Biblical Usage.
This word is usually derived from the linguistic usage of the Mysteries. The
verb, however, occurs in only one passage, which is later than the NT. This is
Sallust. De Deis, 4 (p. 8, 24, Nock) in description of the Mysteries Éti TOUTOIS
yalaktos tpooh torep avayevouÉvov. Since renati can be shown to be used
of the tauroboliati 1 and in the Isis Mysteries (Apul. Met., XI, 21), the &yayevvo-
uÉvov of Sallust. may rest on a pre-Christian tradition.
In the prologue to Sirach (Swete, line 17), the vl. avayewn0els ** is an error.
In Jos. Ant., 4, 13 we should not read avayevoueva SElva but dv yEVouEVa Selva.
In the so-called regeneration Mystery in Corp. Herm., XIV dvayewav is not in the
traditional text but is only conjectured by Reitzenstein and Scott. The text has Éyevn-
On, so also Parthey. To conjecture oveyeWnOns (Reitzenstein) or avayew0e
&v (Scott) would be legitimate only if these words occurred at least once in some other
passage. But we have only yEVvQo0al (Reitzenstein Poim., 340, 3; 4; 15) and TaAlyyE-
veaia (339, 4 and 6; 340, 12; 341, 5; 342, 15; 343, 12; 344, 12 and 14; 345, 10; 348, 8).
It is obvious that Reitzenstein, and Scott after him, must have been influenced by the
NT in their conjectures. This is an instructive example of the way in which material is
sometimes gathered for the historical interpretation of the NT. The claim of Reitzenstein
that dvayewaolal and ustay woola are interchangeable in the Mithras Liturgy
is also incorrect. 2 &vayevao0al does not occur at all in the so-called Mithras Liturgy.
Though Philo borrows not a little from the Mysteries, he does not use this verb.
On the other hand, Josephus uses it in general sense, with no evident dependence
on the Mysteries. Bell., 4, 484 : Ét 8É kov toic kapois (at the Dead Sea)
aTto&idv (ashes) ovayevouÉvnv (the fruits look edible, but turn to dust and
ashes when plucked, thus attesting the judgment of God on Sodom etc.). Thus at
the time of the NT gvayevao was not common, but it was used generally and
not merely in the Mysteries, like the Lat. renasci. 3 This is confirmed by the use
of the substant. gvayÉwnalc. Philo employs this for the Stoic doctrine of the
rejuvenation of the world after the eknopwoIs (Aet. Mund., 8: ol &É Zrdikoi
Koouov uÉv Éva KE, fic TXAlV avayÉvnolv Koouou ouvlotaola). Elsewhere
he has the term TaAlyyEVEdia for the same thing, e.g., Aet. Mund., 9. avayEwnais
cannot be proved to be a technical term of the Stoics. It was a current word
(- TaAlyyEVeOla). The mere mention of avayewav does not prove any de-
pendence on the Mysteries ; this applies equally to 1 Pt. 1:3, 23.

B. ovayevvow in 1 Pt.
In 1 Pt. regeneration is God's act on man (1:3). It is effected by the resurrection
of Jesus (1:3) or by the Word of God (1:23), i.e., the Gospel (cf. v. 25). The
result of man's regeneration is a living hope (1:3). The hope is here considered
only as a personal attitude. The regenerate are thus summoned to what they have
as such (1:13).4 It is not said that regeneration is a static and observable state,
nor that it is a psychological factor, an experience. On the contrary, this seems

&vayEvvao. Kn. 1 Pt., 41 f.; Wnd. Pt., Excurs. after 2:2; Str.-B., II, 421 ff.; III,
840 ff.: Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 262. > yevv&∞, n. 7.
F. Cumont, Orient. Rel. im rom. Heident.3 (1931), 63.
2 Hell. Myst.3, 262.
3 E.g., its use in Cicero, K. Georges, Lat.-deutsches Hdwort. (1880), s.v.
TElEloc EATloal cannot be either more or less than the ÉAmic tOoa.
 dvayEwad

to be very different from what is said here of regeneration and the regenerate.'
Nor is it said that the regenerate have acquired a capability or power. On the
contrary, the power of God keeps them to salvation. They are posited on faith as
those born again (1:5). Their commitment is not a capability which they should
have but that to which they are referred (1:23; 2:2). Regeneration has posited a
beginning, not something complete (2:2). It is not mystical. The tension between
present and future, and therefore the antithesis between God and man, is not re-
moved for the regenerate ; it is sharpened. They hope for an inheritance and live
in fear of God (1:17). They stand under God's judgment (4:17). There is no
question of regeneration being effected in a cultic act or through a magically
operative sacrament. & Baptism in Pt. is simply an act of faith in which man is
cleansed by the fact that he prays God for a good conscience and receives this on
the basis of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (3:21). Regeneration consists basically
in the fact that one may hope because of the resurrection of Jesus. We do not
understand the thought of new birth in 1 Pt. if we fail to see its eschatological
character. Not the experience of Christians, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
i.e., His penetration to a new stage of being, enables us to speak of regeneration
as it is proclaimed and believed and as it is thus the foundation of a hope which
embraces and refashions the whole life of believers. There is a profound gulf
between the religion of the Mysteries, in which man is deified by magical rites,
and this religion of faith (2:6, 7; 1:5, 9, 21; 5:9), of hope (1:3; 3:15) and of the
fear of God (1:17; 2:18; 3:2, 15).7
As the OT and Jewish elements are very much alive in this religion, so the
origin of the thought of regeneration is to be sought in Judaism. It is true that
the Jews did not describe themselves or others as regenerate. Yet they hoped for
a new life for the world and themselves, and they did not speak of this merely as
resurrection or new creation, & but also thought in terms of TtaAlyyEVEFia and
Talv yEVé {al when speaking Greek. The thought of regeneration was adopted
as an expression of their hope, though not, of course, of their experience. 10 The
great difference between Jewish and Hellenistic religion is that the Jews could
only hope for what was already reality and experience in the Mysteries, i.e., the
elevation of man to a new level of being. For Christians the resurrection was
not merely an object of hope. After the resurrection of Jesus it was a present
reality. In the resurrection it was revealed that the Messianic age, the alov
uE^Awv, had begun. Believers were now linked with the risen Lord by His

6 The view of Knopf, p. 41 ff. that there is "a feeling of new joy, certainty and blessed-
ness, but also of will, moral power and religious knowledge,' is to be radically rejected.
So, too, is that of Windisch (Excurs. after 2:2), who refers to "salvation experience" and
"realistic feeling. It is worth noting that 1 Pt. speaks of the regenerate only in the plur.,
whereas Kn. has the sing. (42).
Windisch's statement that "according to the whole context baptism is to be assumed
already as the background" is not only unsupported but incorrect.
Perdelwitz, D. Mysterienrel. ( aptiyewntog, n. 1) merely discusses the words and
does not achieve any living conception of the religion of 1 Pt.
Cf. Str.-B., II, 421 ff.; III, 840 ff.
9
naAlyyEVeola. Even though there is no known Heb. equivalent for TaALYYEVEOIa,
it is not accidental that Ta^lyyveola occurs in Joseph. and Mt., both of whom are
rooted in Palestiniau Judaism. probably became current among the Gk. speaking Jews
of Palestine to express the hope of resurrection.
10 Cf. Schl. J., 89.
dvayewad - yeloual

Spirit. 11 They had tasted the powers of the alov uÉ^Aov (Hb. 6:5). The new
birth for which the Jews hoped was for them in some way a present reality. God
had already assured them of an eternal inheritance in His Word by the raising of
the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls (2:25). This lifted them up already to the
TtaAlyyEveOla. The TOAd #lEos of the Father of their Lord Jesus Christ (1:3)
gave them the right to believe this of themselves. 12
We can never be sure where the author of 1 Pt. found the word &vayEwav to
express this belief. He certainly did not take it from the Mysteries, even though
these may have influenced his use of it. Most likely it came from general usage.
The main point, however, is that the term acquired a new significance when used
by Christians to denote what God had granted to them.
Buchsel

$ yeooua

1. Strictly "to taste, e.g., Plat. Resp., VIII, 559d; Job 12:11; 34:3 (for dyp, as
throughout the LXX); Jos. Ant., 3, 26; Ign. Tr., 11, 1; P. Oxy., 1576, 4 f.: TOO olvou;
Iambl. Vit. Pyth., 28 (100, Nauck): opéatoc; Preisigke Sammelbuch, 1106: ovum6-
Flov. 2 "To enjoy," "to eat, Hippocr. Epid., III, 1 B: yeUe Oal OUK hoUvaTO ; Bao.
14:43; 2 Macc. 6:20; Jos. Ant., 6, 126 and 338; Ael. Arist., III, 39: 088' ovaykn yEo-
slal (of sacrifice); P. M. Meyer 3 passim : TOv lepelov Eyevoounv (a fixed formula
in the libelli libellaticorum of the Decian persecution). El8w00UTWV &TOYEUEO0aL is
found already in 4 Macc. 5:2; cf. also 4:26; 5:6; 6:15; 10:1. 00 yEUe0aI, fasting as a
form of mourning : 2 Bao. 3:35; 1 'Eo8p. 9:2; Jos. Ant., 6, 377; 7,42; cf. 7, 359; of peni-
tence, Jon. 3:7; of a vow, Bao, 14:24; Tob. 7:11; of ascetic practice, Herm. s., 5, 3, 7
etc. 2. Figur. "to come to feel, "to learn in one's own experience," "to come to an
inward awareness of" both good and beautiful things, but also adverse and difficult.
Cf. on the one side Hdt., IV, 147: apxñs; VI,5: Tis ÉEV0&pins: Pind. Isthm., 1,21:
OtEdoVwV; ibid., 5,20 : Buvov; Pind. Pyth., 9, 35 AAKAG ATELP&VTOU; Soph. Ant.,
1005 : Europov (fire gazing of the diviner), Leonidas (Anth. Pal., VI, 120): OnAeins
Épons lku&oa; O 34:8 8TL xpnotoc 6 Kupios; Prv. 31:18 (29:36): 8tl Ka\ov Éativ
to Epyafeofau; Jos. Ant., 4, 321: tc apetns (sc. Moses); Bell., 2, 158 : tis goolac
airov (sc. the Essenes); Ant., 2, 240 : Tv &ya0@v (of the fruits of victory); 4, 140 :
Eevix@v #0iouov; Philo Som., I, 165 Oslov Epotov; 48 opovnosos; Abr., 89:
aperic; Spec. Leg., I, 176 : un8° Evap dinoots freUDEplac; Virt., 188 coolas;
Spec. Leg., I, 37; IV, 92; Leg. Gaj., 310 : pilocoplas; Decal., 80 : maidelac opens:

11 Everywhere in the NT the Spirit is God-given, not immanent and therefore apprehen-
sible in psychological or sociological terms. The religion of early Christianity was from the
very first pneumatic. It was from the risen rather than the historical Jesus, however, that
the disciples received the Spirit.
12 Cf. A. Schweitzer's derivation of mysticism from eschatology (Mystik des Apostels
Paulus [1930], 98 f.). Here the significance of the resurrection of Jesus for early Christian
faith is excellently depicted.
y:0o uaL. Cr. Ka., 230 f.: Pr-Bauer, 245 1:, Moult - Mill., 125; Liddell-Scott. 316.
The mid. is original. YEUO, "to provide for," "to feed,' is a rare reconstruction back
from it, cf. Walde-Pokorny Vergl. Wort., I, 568 (Debrunner).
2 On the gen. and acc. with yEooual, cf. Bl.-Debr. 169, 3, also Suppl., p. 300. Cf.,
too, R. Helbing, Die Kasussyntax der Verben bei den Septuaginta (1928), 135. -> n. 7.
AAB (1910), Append., 5.
 yE ouaL

Som., II, 149 : elphvnc axpatou; Vit. Mos., I, 190 : boointos; II, 192 : EUGEBElaS;
Corp. Herm., X, 8: yuxh Els dvipinou owua EloelBodoa, kdv KaKn pelvn, ou
yeletal a0avaalac; 1 CI., 36,2: d0avatou yvoo∞. On the other side, Hom. II.,
21, 60 : boupoc axoxis; Od., 21,98 : 810t00; Pind. Nem., 6, 24 : TOVwV; Soph.
Trach., 1101: &XAwv uoy0wv puplov; Eur. Alc., 1069 : TtÉvlouc TOUSE TtIKpOU; Plat.
Resp., II, 358e: quootÉpov (sc. to do and suffer wrong): Plat. Leg., VI,752c:
ol naides tov vouov; Leonidas (Anth. Pal., VII, 662): dotopyou BavatoU. The
expression "to taste death" is often found, esp. in Sem. languages, + though not in the
OT (cf., however, 1 S. 15:32 : "The bitterness of death" ; and cf. Sir. 41:1). It occurs at
4 Esr. 6:26 : the translated men who have not tasted death," and often in Aram. and
later Rabbin. Heb. texts: nn'p loyol ayp, xhan 0o e.g., Gn. r., 9 on 1:31; 21 on
3:22; Tg.J. I Dt., 32, 1; bJoma, 78b; Midr. Qoh., 12, 5 (53a). 5 In these we also have
the phrase: Na abiyn run bgp, "to taste something of the future world," BB., 15b
(Job); 16b (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
In the NT yEooual means 1. literally "to taste," as at Mt. 27:34; Jn. 2:9. It
also means "to enjoy,' "to eat," Ac. 10:10; 20:11; Lk.14:24 (- dEiTov). At
Ac. 23:14 the voluntary abstinence which the Jewish conspirators against the life
of Paul took on themselves is called undevos yeboaalal (cf. v. 12) until the
fulfilment of their project ; this is part of a strict vow (-* 675 ; * avaleua, 355).
The rules of purity of the syncretistic teachers alluded to by Paul in Col. 2:21:
pan dun unde yeoon unde Olyns, are taboos linked with the worship of the
> otolyEia. These include some rules about food, and according to the apostle
they are beneath the dignity of Christians, who are freed by Christ from angelic
powers and are thus no longer under obligation to cosmic ordinances (v. 20). *
2. It is used figur. at 1 Pt. 2:3 : El EyeloaotE 8tL XpNoTOC & KUpLoC (= U 34:9
kal ldete) . The quotation, with the image of tasting the sweetness of the Lord,
is occasioned by the figures used in V. (new born babes and milk * yala).
As in the latter the author has in view the Word of God as the means of further
growth (1:23 ff.), so there is reference here to personal experience of the goodness
of Christ which Christians have enjoyed by regeneration through the Word (1:23;
cf. Hb. 6:5). On the other hand, there is no recollection of enjoying the Lord in
the Lord's Supper. Hb. 6:4 f. : roug & tae yEUoquÉVOUC this bopeas ts
Entoupaviou kai kalov YEUOQUÉVOUC BEOD PALA SUVKUEIC TE u#^Aovtos
alovos, describes vividly the reality of personal experiences of salvation enjoyed
by Christians at conversion (baptism). They have had a taste of the heavenly
gift (- So pEd, Éntoupdvioc) of the forgiveness of sins accomplished for them

4 Cf. J. D. Michaelis, Abhandlung v. d. syrischen Sprache? (1786), 52 ff. In the OT we

find a20 figur. for "insight" or "understanding," e.g., Ps. 119:66; Job 12:20, corresponding
to the Accadian tému. Cf. A. Jeremias, Das AT im Lichte des alten Orients+ (1930), 755.
5 Str.-B., I, 751 f. Cf. R. Wuinsche, Neue Beitrage zur Erlauterung der Evang. aus Talmud
u. Midrasch (1878), 200; A. Schlatter, Die Sprache u. Heimat des vierten Evangelisten
(1902), 35, 1; Schl. Mt., 524.
6 Str.-B., III, 690.
7 The acc. with YEUEOOaL here is perhaps influenced by the construction of ayp. Cf.
S. Nu. 86 on 11:4 : inix 1220. "they have tasted it."
Dib. Gefbr.2, 20 f., 27 f.; Loh. Kol., 128.
With Kn. Pt., 88; Clemen, 190; Wnd. Pt.2, 59 as opposed to Wbg. Pt. 53 etc. (cf. al-
ready the sacramental interpretation of Ps. 34:8 in Cl. Al. Strom., V, 66, 3). There can hardly
be a reference to the Lord's Supper in CI., 36, 2. For XTOYE EGOL and &ToyEuoIc in
magic ritual, which perhaps goes back to the Mysteries, cf. Preis. Zaub., XIII, 359 f., 377,
378; cf. also A. Dieterich, Abraxas (1891), 171, 12 f.; 172, 12 ff.
 yEoouaI - yn

by the heavenly High-priest Christ (5:1 ff.; 9:24 ff.), of the good Word of God
(- ka\6c, prua), the Gospel, and of the wonderful powers of the future aeon
(- Suvauts, _ alov) already operative in the present (2:4) .10
The formula yEUEO@aL > Bavatou - 676) in Mk. 9:1 and par.; Jn. 8:52 (cf.
the logion, P. Oxy., 654, 5); Hb. 2:9 ("to experience death as what it is"), 11 like
idElv or OeapEiv Bavatov (Hb. 11:5; Lk. 2:26; Jn. 8:51), is a graphic expression
of the hard and painful reality of dying which is experienced by man and which
was suffered also by Jesus (cf. Hb. 2:9 : to ra0nua tof lavatou) .12
Behm

yn, ÉTlyEloc

yn.-
1. The Earth, Land as a Dwelling-place of Man.
a. "Land" (in the geographical sense). A definite land which is not named: 8An n
yn ÉKelvn, "the whole district," Mt. 9:26, 31; OK6t0S Éo' 8Anv (Mt.: itaoav) thy
ynv, "darkness over the whole land," Mk. 15:33 and par., cf. Lk. 4:25; ÉK ths yñc
00U, "from thine own land,' Ac. 7:3; Eic tv ynv ta0mny, "into this land" (Palestine),
Ac. 7:4; €v yo diAotpia, "in a foreign land,' Ac. 7:6. A land which is named : yn
'loo8a, "the land of Judah, Mt. 2:6, following the Heb. st. c similarly Israel in Mt.
2:20 f.; Zabulon and Naphthali in Mt. 4:15; Midian in Ac. 7:29; Canaan in Ac. 13:19;
yi Atyuitos or AlyUitou, "the land of Egypt" in quotations from the LXX in
Ac. 7:36, 40; 13:17; also Jd. 5; with the gen.: yn Eobouov kal Touoppov, Mt. 10:15;
cf. 11:24; with gen. of inhabitants : yn XaX8aiov, Ac. 7:4; with adj.: f 'loudala yñ,
'the land of Judah," Jn. 3:22.
b. "The land of promise." The land promised to Abraham : Eic thy ynv hv av aol
Sefew, Ac. 7:3 (Gn. 12:1 LXX); Eic ynv tis enayye^ias, Hb. 11:9; in the eschatologi-
cal sense : KAnpovounooual Thy yñv, "the land will be their inheritance," Mt. 5:5
(y36:9, 11). The land which Ps. 37:11 promises the a"y is Palestine perfected in the
Messianic glory. In this and similar promises (e.g., Gn. 28:13 f.; Is. 60:21), later Judaism
took the land to mean either the whole earth (e.g., Jub. 32:18 6.)2 or the future world. 3

10 For a closer definition of the gifts of salvation enumerated, cf. the catenae ad loc., and
among newer expositors esp. Hofmann, B. Weiss, Seeberg, Riggenbach and Windisch,
ad loc. The YEUE GaL SUVquEIC uÉ Aovtoc alovoc is characteristically distinguished in
substance from the par. Rabb. passages (- 676).
Cf. Rgg. Hb., 44.
12 The ancient attempt at interpretation (cf. J. A. Cramer, Catenae in St. Pauli epistolas
ad Hebraeos [1843], 147 ff., 394 ff.) in terms of the shortness of the death of Jesus rests
on a misunderstanding both of the formula and of the context, v. Hb. 2:9.
yh. Cr.-Ko., 231; Pr.-Bauer, 246.
We cannot deal with the meanings of yi which have no bearing on the theological
understanding of the NT. For yñ in the sense of a. "the ground, b. "the fruitful earth'
and c. "land as distinct from water," reference should be made to Pr.-Bauer.
2 So often in the LXX, in which we find the same universalism of world outlook. Cf.
Hos. 4:1. In v. 3 (later acc. to Guthe in Kautzsch) the universalistic concept is already in
the Mas. At W 94:3 the Erl Taoav thy ynv has found its way into a number of important
MSS from y 46:3. In other passages, e.g., Ex. 9:5, 14, 16, P7 certainly refers to a specific
land, but yñ would be taken universalistically, at least by LXX readers [G. Bertram].
Pereq ha-shalom, 21b, Str.-B., I, 199; in the latter there are further examples with
reference to Mt. 5:5.
 It is hard to say how Jesus or the early Palestinian community understood the rox
of Ps. 37:11. Readers of the Gk. Mt., as of w 36:9,11, could only think of it in terms
of the earth.
c. "The inhabited earth" (-* oikouuevn). Men as the inhabitants of earth: ol
katolkouvtES frl tis yns, Rev. 3:10 etc.; KaOñuevot Énti the yñs, Rev. 14:6; cf.
Lk. 21:35 4 (Is. 24:17); Ac. 17:26; + ntaoa ai Tatpiai The yñs, Ac. 3:25 (Gn. 22:18);
Tooal al qulai the yis, Mt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7 (following Zech. 12:10 ff., where the
original, however, means land and not earth); of Baoileis Ths yns, of Éuropor The
yns. Rev. 18:3 etc.; aipelv ano ths yis, to remove from the earth (as the place of
the living)," Ac. 22:22; cf. 8:33 (Is. 53:8).
d. The earth as the theatre of history : of the past : 00K ÉyÉVEto do' of avepanos
€yÉveto eni tis yns, Rev. 16:18, cf. Da. 12:1; nov alua EKXUWOUEVOV ÉTi the yns,
Mt. 23:35 (Nu. 35:33), cf. Rev. 18:24 (Ter. 51:49); of the activity of Jesus: &&ouoiav
EXEL 6 vioc to6 ave potou &o1Éval quaptias Eni ths yns, Mk. 2:10; Lk. 5:24;
TOp 10ov Baleiv Énti thy ynv, Lk. 12:49; un voulonte 8tL j10ov Baleiv Eiphynv
Éni Thy ynv® oik fAlov BalEiv Elpnynv aala paryauparv, Mt. 10:34, cf. Lk. 12:51;
kyo ge £86Eaoa fml tis yns, Jn. 17:4. In these passages the concept of the earth
merges into that of the world or the human world. Cf. the parallelism of yñ and Koouoc
in Queis LOTE TO gas the yic TO oKs tou Koo oU (Mt. 5:13 f.; > kbouos).
Many passages in Rev. speak of the earth as the theatre of eschatological history cf.
Lk. 18:8; 21:23, 25.

2. The Earth as Part of the World.

The OT and ancient oriental description of the world in terms of heaven and
earth persists in the NT (- Koouoc). Heaven and earth the world) will pass
away (Mk. 13:31 and par.; cf. Mt. 5:18; Lk. 16:17; Hb. 1:10 f.; 2 Pt. 3:7; Rev. 21:1),
and in place of this world, of the first heaven and earth (n itpom yn, Rev.21:1;
cf. 2 Pt. 3:7) God will create a new heaven and earth (oupavov kalvov Kai yv
kalvnv, Rev. 21:1; kaloug oupavouc kai ynv kalvv, 2 Pt. 2:13; cf. Is. 65:17;
66:22). It would be wrong to emphasise the word yñ in exegesis of these passages,
or to read into them the metaphysical antithesis of heaven and earth discussed
below (+ 679) . New heaven and new earth is merely the older way of denoting
what is meant by aldov uÉAAov in terms of the aiov concept, namely, the
future world of eschatological expectation. Heaven and earth together constitute
the cosmos. 5 Together with them, according to the OT view (Ex. 20:11; 145:6),
the sea is a third constituent part of the world; the word yñ is thus restricted
to the totality of solid land, which is thought of as a single unit surrounded by
and resting on the sea (Ac. 4:24; 14:15; Rev. 10:6; 14:7; 21:1). A further restriction
is that the waters of earth are sometimes separated from the dry land (Hb. 11:29):
to tpltov ths yns ths Balaoos Tov Totauov (Rev. 8:7 ff.; cf. 14:7).
Another division is between what is in heaven, on the earth, and under the earth
(-> ETLYELOS, katay@ovios). Here the earth is the middle of the cosmos, cf.
Rev. 5:3 : 008glc v to oupavi 006É enti tis yns 008É OTtoK&to The yuc.
The NT, especially in eschatological passages, presupposes definite though not
very consistent cosmological conceptions. Nevertheless, in contrast to Jewish
apocalyptic (e.g., the books of Enoch), it does not contain any true cosmological

On til utpoadttov (Ttpoadnou) mis yhs, cf. Dt. 7:6; Ez. 38:20; Da. 4:19 LXX.
Cf. also Lk. 12:56; Ac. 2:19; 1 C. 8:5; 1:16, 20; Eph. 1:10; 3:15; Hb. 12:26 (Hag.

6 On the threefold division of the cosmos, v. E. Peterson, Elc ©E6s (1926), 241, n. 2i
259, n. 2; 261, n. 1; 326.
teaching. Even in Revelation the cosmological ideas are wholly subordinate to the
theological.
Detailed points to be noted are as follows. ÉK TOV TEPaTOV ts yis, "'from the
ends of the earth,' is used hyperb. at Mt. 12:42; Lk. 11:31, for "from a foreign land."
Edc loyatou the yns, "to the ends of the earth,' occurs in the spatial sense at
Ac. 1:8; 13:47 (quoting Is. 49:6 LXX; cf. Jer. 6:22; 'Isp. 27:41; 28:16; 38:8); Ev taic
reocapoiv yrviais the yns, "in the four corners of the earth" (Rev. 20:8), the earth
being here four-sided (cf. Ez. 7:2; 38:15; Is. 11:12; 24:16; Job 37:3; 38:13; Mk. 13:27;
Mt. 24:31; Rev. 7:1); ETIOUVGEEL TOUG EKAEKTOUG EK TOV TEG&POV &VU aT'
axpou yns Eoc &xpou oupavoi, "he will gather his elect from the margin of earth
to the margin of heaven" (Mk. 13:27), is rather obscure picture and is thus omitted
by Lk. and amended in Mt. 24:31 to ÉK TOV TEFFXPOV EVELUMY &T &KDOV
oupaviov gs axpov autiv; what is meant here is "from one end of the world to
the other"; the two possible ways of expressing this, namely, &T' &Kpou This yns Exc
&Kpou mis yñc (Dt. 13:7) and oft' &kpou TOU oupavoi fwc &Kpou tou oupavot
(Dt. 4:32; 30:4 and w 18:6) are combined in Mk.
There is an echo of personification of the earth at Rev. 12:16 (and Gn. 4:11: Nu.
16:30; Ex. 15:12, Tg. J., II), cf. Rev. 20:11.

3. The Earth in Its Relation to God.

As a part of the world created by God (Ac. 4:24; 14:15; 17:24; Hb.1:10; Rev.
10:6), the earth shares in the relation of the cosmos to God, of what is created
to the Creator. It is "creature" (- ktlois), not "nature" in the sense of the
philosophical concept of nature. That is to say, it exists only by the will of the
Creator and the creative Word of almighty God. Its existence is bordered by
an absolute beginning and an absolute end like that of the whole world of heaven
and earth. As a creature, the earth is God's possession (1 C. 10:26, quoting
w23:1), and God, the Kupios TOU oupavou kai ths yus (Mt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21;
Ac. 17:24) is Kopios ths yis (Rev. 11:4; cf. Zech. 4:14) as He is Geoc TOU
oupavot (Rev. 11:13 - > oupav6s).1 His omnipotence, in which Christ shares as
the Kupios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), 8 extends over the whole world, over
heaven and earth. Nevertheless, the earth does not stand in the same relation to
God as heaven. As in the OT, the idea of heaven and earth as the two parts of
creation is both augmented and broken by the idea of a distinction between them.
Already in the image of heaven as God's throne and earth as His foot-stool
(Mt. 5:35; Ac. 7:49 on the basis of Is. 66:1) the superiority of heaven is expressed.
Heaven and earth are viewed both in their indissoluble connection and also in
their differentiation in the NT. This twofold conception appears in passages like
Mt. 6:10; 23:9; Lk. 2:14, as also in places where it is said of an event on earth
that it has validity and force in heaven, e.g., Mt. 16:19; 18:18, where binding and
loosing are both on earth and in heaven, -> 8ÉW, or in Mt. 18:19, where there is
prayer on earth and hearing in heaven, or in Mk. 2:10 = Lk. 5:24, of the for-
giveness of sins on earth. The same is true in passages which refer to earthly
things which are irobelyua kal akid tov Ertoupaviov (Hb. 8:5), e.g., Hb. 8:1, 4
(the high-priest in heaven and on earth) or Hb. 12:25. In such cases the earth,
in comparison with heaven, is regarded as the place of the imperfect (Mk. 9:3;
Hb. 8:4), of the transitory (Mt. 6:19), of sin (Mk. 2:10; Rev. 17:5) and of death
(1 C. 15:47 - Enlyeloc). The difference can be stressed to such a degree that yñ

Attention should be paid to the difference in the use of kupioc and 0e6c.
8 On the formula taog touola Ev oupavi kal ent (ms) yns, cf. Da. 7:14 LXX.
 yn - EnlyEloc

and oupavoc (-* &vo and kaTo) are almost understood dualistically as two
different worlds, particularly in the Pauline Epistles and John.
Christ is the Redeemer because He is not EK Ths ync but &VOOEV, EK ToO
ojpavo (Jn. 3:31), not EK yns but E& oupavot (1 C. 15:47). He is 6 kataBac
who has come down from heaven Eic ta katotepa uepn ths yis (Eph. 4:9 f.)
and who has thus ascended far above all heavens, lifted up tk tñs ync (In. 12:32).
At this point the NT conception and terminology are influenced by an oriental
myth, based on Persian dualism, of the redeemer who descends from the upper
world of light to the depths of the world of darkness. ° But the ambiguity of to
KaTotEpa uepn ths yis (Eph. 4:9), which can mean either "the lowest parts of
the earth,' i.e., "the underworld,' or (yis as gen. epexeget.) "the spheres of the
deep, namely, the earth," means that karaBalvelV (- 522) might refer either to
the descent into Hades or to the incarnation in the sense of Phil. 2:7. We thus
see the difficulty of applying the terminology of this dualistic redeemer myth to
the biblical Christian faith. For the NT, too, there is a metaphysical distinction
between heaven and earth. But for all the sharpness of emphasis on this distinction,
the unity of the divine creation is maintained, as is also the identity of the God of
creation and the God of redemption and the interconnection of creation and re-
demption. The contrast between heaven and earth is finally in terms of sin. It is
because the earth is the setting of a fallen creation, the theatre of sin, 10 that it
stands in a different relation to God from heaven. 11 It is for this reason that the
Son of Man has come to forgive sins on earth (Mk. 2:10), that the redeemed are
of hyopaouévot oTo the yñs, "those who are ransomed from the earth" (Rev.
14:3), that believers are gÉvou Kai naperionuo éni ths yns "strangers and
pilgrims on earth" (Hb. 11:13, of the believers of the OT; 12 cf. hil. 3:20) who
must be exhorted: td avo OpOVEITE, uN to ani tis yos, "set your mind on what
is above, not on what is on the earth" (Col. 3:2), VEKP gaTE obv TO LEAn To gi
This yns, "mortify your earthly members" (Col. 3:5).
t Éniysios.
In Gk. from the time of Plato in the sense a. "existing on earth," "belonging to it,"
"earthly," in contrast to what is not on earth ; e.g., Plat. Resp., VIII, 546a : Éniyela
Cox in contrast to ÉyyEla outd. Then in the sense b. of "earthly" esp. in contrast to
what is more than earthly, or heavenly (- Ertoupavioc), e.g., Plut. Ser. Num. Pun., 22

9 W. Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis (1907); Kyrios Christos2 (1921), 26-33; 201-
206: Reitzenstein Ir. Erl., 56 ff.; 84 ff.; 92; 113 ff.; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im
Epheserbrief (1930), 27 ff.
10 Gn. 3:17: Énulkatapatos h yñ (Mas. 727N7, "the field") Ev toic #pyois 00U (771223
IVEKEV GOU ['A), e: £v ti ntapapaoel oou).
11 On the question of the relation of evil to heaven,
oipavos, Éntoupavioc.
12 This dualistic view came into the OT only at a later stage. Originally God is the
possessor of earth (though cf. Jer. 14:8) and men are strangers and newcomers (Lv. 25:23;
So also Ch. 29:15; Ps. 39:12; 119:19 [Syr.]), though in these passages there is already a
dualistic ring which is expressed in Ps. 119:19 by the substitution of 77*2 for 729 and in the
LXX w 38:12; 118:19 by the rendering of 709 as Ev th yn. Sometimes in a dualistic sense
the term yñ characterises the vanity of everything earthly, i.e., where it is linked with
OT086c in rendering of 701 and n59 as in Zip. 10:9 (cf. 17:32). In Gn. 3:14 and '1∞B
30:23 (not the Mas.), too, the term yn expresses earthly corruptibility [G. Bertram].
ETIYEIOS. Cr.-K8., 232; Pr.-Bauer, 452; Tillm. J.4, 111; Meinertz Kath. Br.4, 41.
1 Cf. ta Enlyela TOVta, go& TE au kai dut, Philo Op. Mund., 113; similarly Jos
Ant., 8, 44.
Enlyeios - ylvoual

(II, 566d). So often in Philo, e.g., Migr. Abr., 178 : Xa^aiot To ETlyeIa toic
METEMPOIS Kai to oupavia toic eri yns apuo(ouevol. Enlyeios does not occur in
the LXX.
In terms of the three divisions of the world, heaven and earth and what is under
the earth (- yñ), Phil. 2:10 describes the totality of beings which will bow before
the Kopioc Xpiotos as heavenly, earthly and under the earth : Ttov yovu
Érroupaviov kai éTlyElwv kai katayfovlwv. 2 In the NT, too, Énlyslo does not
refer only to men (cf. C. 8:5). In the first instance the earthly are simply beings
which exist on earth. Only in trains of thought in which there is strong emphasis
on the distinction of earth from heaven does Ériysios comes to mean what is
earthly in the sense of what is completely opposed to the heavenly. Thus in
2 C.5:1 n Enlyeios nuiv olkla tou oxnvous is distinguished from the olkoooun
EK OEoU, from an olkia . allovioc Ev roic oupavoic. 3 The contrast between
the earthly and heavenly body (-+ oua) here under discussion is developed
further in 1 C. 15:40 ff.: Kai oduata froupavia, kai obuata enlyela" arAd
ÉTÉpa LEV n toov Enoupavlav 86%a, ÉTepa 8É f ToV ÉTyelov. To the con-
trasting terms Énlyeloc/Éroupavios there correspond the terms plop laolapoia,
ariuia/86Ex, GODÉVELA/TUVALLS, YUXLKOC/TIVE LATIK, XI6 (f earthly ma-
terial)/LE, oupavot. To the degree that earth is the place of sin, Énlysios acquires
a subsidiary moral sense, as in Phil. 3:19 (cf. Col. 3:2): To ÉTIYEla OPOVOUUTES,
"earthly minded." In Jm. 3:15 earthly wisdom is distinguished from the wisdom
which is from above : ook fotv aut n coola &volev katepyouÉvn (cf. n
&volev coola, v. 17), xx Enlysios, wyikn, bauuondons. With this we may
compare the idea of the TVEDua ETLyEIOv of false prophets in Herm. m., 11, 6, 11-
19, and cf. also ibid., 9, 11: TlOTIC &vO0EV EOTL Trapo Tou xuplou n 8É Supuxia
ÉnlyEloV TVEDu& LOTI Tapa tof 81aB61ou, and Dg., 7, 1: e6pnua Énlyslov. The
equation of the earthly with the demonic does not exclude the fact that demonic
powers may also be thought of as heavenly (- Énoupgvioc), cf. TOS TOAELOC
Katapyeital Énoupavlov kal EntLyelov, Ign. Eph 13, 2. The meaning of EnlyEloc
in the statement in Jn. 3:12 : El r Énlyela ElTov Juiv Kai OU TILOTEUETE, Toc Lov
ElTO Duiv TO ETOUP&VIA TLOTEUOETE; cannot be determined merely from the con-
text. We are probably to think of the contrast between speaking in earthly parables
and direct instruction on heavenly things, as in 16:25 and Mt. 4:11 ff.
Sasse

vivouai, yÉveouc, yÉvoc, yÉvnua,

doyivouai, naALyyEVEGia

yivoual.
In the NT we have this lonic and Hellenistic form rather than ylyvouau. 1
Usually the term has no particular religious or theological interest in the NT.

Cf. Ign. Tr., 9, 1: Tav éroupavlwv kal Éryelov Kai intoy0ovlov; Rev. 5:3; or again
the neut. form i uneToyn to Tavta Etoup&via kal Enlyela, Pol. 2, 1; cf. Dg., 7, 2.
There is reference to demons in the different regions of the world on the magic pap., e.g.,
Preis. Zaub., IV (Paris), 3038 ff., esp. 3043; V (London), 167 (v. Pr.-Bauer, 452).
Cf. Philo Cher., 101: olkov obv Énlyelov Tv copatov puxny tot dopatou 0:00
AÉYOVTES.
yivot la 1 On the construction and meanings, cf. Pr.-Bauer, s.v., where there is
also a bibl. on the grammatical questions.
 yivoual - YÉVEOIS

Only at Jn. 8:58 is there any special distinction between ylveofat and Elval
(-> Elvai, 6 ov), though there is also an emphasis on that between death and
eternal life, or between perishing and abiding. The formulation of faith and of
the knowledge of God is not abstract and speculative; even Hb. 11:3 speaks of
BAETOUEVOV rather than YEVOUEVOV.
In the OT we often find type of construction like . . . (070x) = 2773, e.g., in
Gn. 4:8.2 Essentially this begins with 1771, which is then followed by the indication
of time either adverbially or in a subsidiary clause, and then the main clause is
usually introduced by 1 consecutive. This is not a Greek construction, and in the
LXX it is mostly translated kai NyEVETO Kal, e.g., Gn. 4:8 : Kai ÉyÉvEto Ev
tO Elval auTouc Év TO TIE SIG kai aveotn Kaiv. In some cases the LXX alters the
construction completely. In the Aram. it is found only in the Tg. as a translation
from the Heb. 3 It is rare in the Apocrypha. We do not find it at all in Tobit and
2, 3 and 4 Maccabees. 4 It recurs only in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (not in
Jn.), and here in its typical form, e.g., Lk. 5:12: Kai ÉyÉVETO Ev TO Elval atov
€£v uig TOV TOLEOV Kai i800 cip, or 5:17: kai ÉyEVETO Év WI& tOV NuEpOV
Kai autoc nv 818&JK∞V The form is not always strictly preserved. In Mk.
and Mt. we have the less Hellenised form without the Kal of the second clause,
and sometimes without the opening kai. There are 4 instances in Mk., 5 in Mt.
and 39 in Lk. In Ac. there is only one instance at 5:7, though a more strongly
Hellenised construction is found 12 times, i.e., €yÉvEto with the following acc.
c. inf., ÉyÉVETO having an ensuing 8É rather than a preceding Kal (which is better
Gk.!), e.g.: ÉyÉvEto 8É EloE BEiV aurouc els thy auvayoynv (14:1). This
construction is possible in Gk., being found in the pap. But the construction Kai
€yÉvEto Ev kai cannot be accepted as good Gk. and is to be regarded as
a conscious imitation of the style of the Bible. It shows that the Synoptists did
not merely use the common or literary speech of the everyday world but sometimes
adapted at small points the style of the OT Bible. & Even though we cannot make
it the basis of our understanding of the language of the NT. there is still something
to be said for the discarded concept of "biblical Greek.'

yÉVEOLC.
1. The basic meaning is "birth" or "genesis" (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:14). Derivative mean-
ings are a. "what has come into being" as distinct from the Creator, Plat. Tim., 29c:
YEVÉDEWS Kal Koouou apxiv; Phaedr., 245e : Tavta TE oupavoy itagov TE yÉvEOIV;
cf. Philo Poster. C., 29, where God in His rest is set in antithesis to the yÉveois creation
in its movement : b. "life, e.g., Jdt. 12:18: taoas tas nuepas tis YEVEOEO Hou,
corresponding to Ps.-Ael. Aristid., 30, 27 (Keil): of the yeveoEw Énautol; Jm.
1:23 : to 1p6owtov tic YEVEOEWC a tou can be explained along these lines as the
appearance posited with life. This is not very satisfactory, but there is no better alter-
native.

2 Cf. the collection of material by M. Johannessohn, Ztschr. f. vergl. Sprachforschung,

23 (1925), 161 ff.; also the bibl. in B1.-Debr., p. 317; esp. M. Dibelius, Gnomon, (1927),
646-650.
3 Dalman WJ, I, 25 f.
4 Johannessohn, 191 ff.
5 Pr.-Bauer, s.v. yivouat.
6 Cf. Bl.-Debr. 4.
YEVEGIS. Zn., KI., Schl. Mt. on 1:1; Dib., Wnd., Hck., Schl. Jk. on 3:6; Kittel Pro-
bleme, 141 ff.
YÉVEOIS

2. BipAos YEVEDEOS for Genealogy in Mt. 1:1.

This expression goes back to nitin 190 or 'n 728 (Gn. 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10,
27; 37:2; Ju. 4:18); LXX: aUm A BIBAOS YEVEDENC or aUTaI at YEVE EIC. The
formula is used to introduce genealogies or historical narratives (Gn. 6:9; 37:2) or
the two together. The question whether Mt. 1:1 is a heading for the whole book
or just for the genealogy in 1:2-171 cannot be decided from OT parallels. The
OT BIBAOL YEVEOEOC, are not always the same, and as genealogies they are named
after the ancestors rather than the descendants. The OT usage is undoubtedly
changed here. Since, however, v.17 refers back to v. 1 with its mention of
Abraham and David, v. is obviously meant to introduce vv. 2-17. Again, such
a heading is clearly needed, since otherwise no one would know what the reference
was in v. 2.

3. 6 TpOyO© TAS YEVEREDS as the Wheel of Life in Jm. 3:6.

This expression, which is surprising in the context, has now been shown by the
study of religious history to be a technical term in Orphic teaching.2 Simplicius
(6th cent.A.D.) gives us the phrase €v to tis eluapuevns kai yEvÉoED tpoxs.
He alludes to Orpheus in this connection, 3 and we find similar expressions among
the Orphic writers, e.g., KoKAos TNS YEVEDEGS, KUKAOS XPOVOIO, KUKA0S, 8 THE
uolpas tpoxos.4 Philo too, under Orphic influence, speaks of the KokAoc kai
tpoxos aVayKns ATE EUTtou (Som., II, 44). But there is a significant difference
between the Orphic ™poxoc and that of Jm. 3:6. The latter is set alight ; the former
rolls, but has nothing to do with fire. 5 It is indisputable that the wheel idea is
not used in Jm. as among the Orphics. If it derives from Orphism, it is certainly
not taken from it directly. 6
Among the Greeks the comparison of life with the wheel which in its turning
brings the bottom to the top and vice versa is often found in proverbial sayings.
The best known is as follows: Kolvd rtin rtavtav, 8 Blos tpoxos, aotatos
81Boc. 8 Behind this idea of the wheel stands the popular insight into the un-
certainty of human circumstances rather than the Orphic theory of finitude as
recurrence of birth and death and what is enclosed by the two. It is occasionally
said of this wheel that it turns irregularly. 10 In this sense it can even be said that
it burns, i.e., that the inversions of life bring searing pain because of guilt. I£,

1 Certainly not for 1:2-25 (2:23).

2 Wnd. and Dib., ad loc.; Kittel is unconvinced (Probleme, 141 ff.). So, too, is Hck.,
ad loc.
Simplicius Comm. on Aristot. Cael., 168b, 24 ff.; cf. Orph. Fr., Kern, No. 229 and 230.
4 E. Rohde, Psyche II 5, & (1910), 123 f.; Dib., 182.
5 To establish the dependence of Jm. 3:6, it has been stated that the Orphic tpoxos
burns ; but this is incorrect (cf. Kittel, 162). The wheel of Ixion burns because it serves as
a torch for the individual hero in the underworld. But, although Simplicius compares the
cosmic tpoxoc with the wheel of Ixion, he does not equate the two, and neither he nor
any Orphic says that the Orphic Tpoxos burns.
"The expression had already lost its Orphic character and become a current saying for
the ups and downs of life, Dib., 183; cf. Pr.-Bauer, S.v. yÉVEOIC, 4.
Hck., 162, n. 63 gives many illustrations from the Paroemiographi Graeci, I, p. 458, II,
p. 87, 223, 695.
8 Phocylides, 27; similarly Sib., 2, 87.
9 Though the two merge into one another, there is an essential difference.
10 yÉAg, TOU Blou Tov tpoxov opiov ataKtoc KUAlouEVov, Anecdota Graec., I, p. 19;
50; 87 (Boissonade).
 YÉVEOIS - yÉvoc

then, there is a greater similarity of expression between Jm. and the passage in
Simplicius, since both refer to the ™poXO© YEVEOEGC or yEVEDEOS tpoxos, there
is a greater similarity of substance between Jm. and the popular saying. We may
thus trace back Jm. to the popular saying rather than to Orphic teaching. 11
Probably there had long since been an interfusion of the Orphic and the popular
conception, so that by the time of Im. an Orphic formulation could be used in the
popular and not the Orphic sense. We have also to take into account a Jewish
saying that "there is a wheel in the world" or that "the world is a wheel.'" On
the other hand, we can hardly derive the 6 tpoxos ths yEVEOEOC of Jm. 3:6 from
this, since it is not original in Judaism (including the OT), 13 but itself derives
from Greek proverbs. For in the Jewish statement the wheel means exactly the
same as in the Greek sayings, namely, the uncertainty of human fortune. 14 Per-
haps the best solution is to derive Jm. 3:6 from the Jewish saying. But this means
that we must still find its ultimate origin in the Greek proverbs which lie behind
the Jewish saying, and perhaps in the Orphic view with which the proverbs have
interfused. It is less likely that Jm. 3:6 derives directly from the Greek proverbs,
i.e., without the mediation of the Jewish saying, since the tradition of Palestinian
Judaism obviously underlies Im. 15
In Buddhism there is much reference to the wheel, e.g., the wheel of rotation, becoming
and time. 16 The most striking feature is that this wheel is set on fire by self-conscious
ness. 17 But the speculative nature of this view is too alien to justify any direct con-
nection with Jm. 18 Here again the similarity of phrase should not blind us to the
material difference. There may be connections between Buddhism and Orphism, but
they cannot be shown, and it is hardly likely that they will be. 19

yÉvog.
1. "Posterity," "family": common in the NT. In Ac. 17:28 the quotation from
Arat. Phaen., 5 follows Stoic belief in ascribing relationship with God to all men

11 That yEveoIS in Jm. 3:6 cannot mean "becoming" rather than "life" is also shown by
comparison with 1:23, where yÉVEOIC cannot possibly mean "becoming."
12 Cf. Kittel, 142-151.
13 Kittel, 152.
14 This argues against derivation of the Jewish saying from Orphic or Buddhist sources,
in which the wheel has cosmic significance.
15 Schl., op. cit., 219-224 thinks that in view of 1:23 : To Tp6oWT0V thc YEVEOENG, the
gen. in 6 tpoxos The yEVEOEOS must be understood as a gen. of origin. He does not
relate YEVEOEWS to the origin of man but to that of nature. Hence 6 rpoyoc TAS YEVEOEGC
is the sun which according to the Rabb. view burns up the sinner on the Day of judgment.
Yet Schl. fails to give a convincing interpretation of & tpoyoc tic YEVEOEg in terms of
the Sun on p. 221. The sun can be described as a wheel, but not as 6 tpoxoc ThS yEVE-
OED; IñC YEVEOEOC is surely a gen. of elucidation,
16 R. Garbe, Indien u. d. Christentum (1914), 60, n.; Kittel, 152-158; Hck., 164, n. 69.
17 Mahavagga, I, 21; cf. Kittel, 165.
18 The flaming of the tongue (Mahavagga, I,21) can hardly be connected with pAoyi-
gouevn ind tis yEEvns in Jm. 3:6. For the former reference is to the tongue as an organ
of touch (i.e., taste), whereas in the latter it is an organ of speech.
19 The ul.: Tov tpoxov TñC YEVÉDEOS NUDV is for the most part rejected, but in the
concurrence of the Western tradition (vg) and the Alexandrian (N) it has such good
attestation (aeth syP) that it must be seriously considered. Certainly it does not fit in with
the derivation of tpoyoc TAS YEVÉOEWS from Orphic and Buddhist sources. For the wheel
of the latter rolls through the world, whereas that of the Gk. and Jewish proverb rolls
through our own lives.
yEvo^. Pass., Pape, Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
 yEvoc - yEvqua

on the basis of their existence. In Rev. 22:16 yÉvos (Éy© i pita Kai to yÉvoc
Aaul8) is used of the individual, not so much in the sense of Lohmeyer :1 "Christ
represents the whole house of David and is thus its Consummator," but rather in
the simple sense of uloc according to poetic usage (Hom. II., 19, 124; 6, 180; also
in Pindar and the tragic dramatists).
2. In the sense of "people" : often in the NT for the Jewish people, e.g., at
G1. 1:14; Phil. 3:5; 2 C. 11:26; Ac. 7:19 (cf. the LXX). It is used of Christians in
the NT only at 1 Pt. 2:9, quoting Is. 43:20. At a later date it is used more often
of Christians, as in Mart. Pol., 3, 2; 17, 1; Dq., 1; tertium genus, Tert. Nat., 1, 8. 2
In the NT Aa6s, too, is used of Christians only in quotation from or allusion to
the OT.

3. In the sense of "kind" or "species" : the species of living beings, animals and
plants, but also of voices and "tongues" (1 C. 12:10, 28).

yÉvnua.
"Product," esp. "increase of harvest," "fruit." yÉvnua is not found in the class. age
but occurs for the first time in the Hellen. The oldest examples are in the LXX, where
it is common in connection with yevnua tis yns, in the pap., 1 of which the oldest
dates back to 230 B.C., 2 on inscriptions (CIG, 4757, 62) and finally in Polyb., I, 1, 1;
79, 6; III, 87, 1.
yÉvnua "fruit of the earth" (lit. what has become), from YEV- (yivouau; cf. £-YEVñ-
Onv), must be distinguished from yevnua "offspring of man or beast (plant ?), from
yEWav, 3 though the spelling is uncertain and yÉvnua is sometimes written with one
v in the pap. It is debatable whether yÉvnua may be correctly used of the products
of plants. 5 Philo sometimes speaks of yewvav in relation to plants as well as animals ;
Op. Mund., 113: Zoa TE at Kai ourd KapToUc yevivtal. Josephus has yEwatal...
poiv&, (palms), Ant., 9,7. Did., 13, 3 refers to the yevquata Anvot kai &Awvoc.
It is misleading that Hatch-Redpath combine yÉvnua and yÉvnua, iproyevnua and
tpwtoyÉwnua, in their concordance to the Septuagint.
In the NT 2 C. 9:10 : ta yevhuata ths Sikaioouvns (here in the special sense
of "well-doing") ouGv, follows Hos. 10:12. Mk. 14:25 (Mt. 26:29; Lk. 22:18):
yÉvnua tis aunÉAou, is to be equated with 1221 1978, 6 which occurs in the blessing
of the paschal cup in Ber., 6, 1 and T. Ber., 4,3.1 The LXX has yÉvnua tou
SUTTEAGVOS COU at Dt. 22:9; the pap. ofvou yévnua in BGUI, 774, 3 (2nd cent.
A.D.) and olvkov yevnua (BGU, 1123, 9 1st cent. A.D.). The expression of the
Evangelists is particularly close, therefore, to that of contemporary Judaism. 8

1 Loh. Apk., ad loc.

2 Cf. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung (1924), 259 ff., esp. 263, n.
yevnua. Pape Pr.-Bauer,
Cf. Preisigke s.v.; Bl.-Debr. & 11,2; Radermacher, 49.
Wort., I, 286.
2 Deissmann B., 105 f. and NB, 12.
3 Cf. Radermacher, 49.
+ Deissmann NB, 12.
6 Cf. B1.-Debr. $ 11, 2.
6 Cf. G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeschua (1922), 137, 164.
7 yevqua tic dute^ou corresponds more exactly, of course, to 7227 190 RY197 (S. Nu. 23
on 6:3; cf. K. G. Kuhn, S. Nu. [1933], 79, n. 40).
8 At Lk. 12:18 we should read navia ta yeVuata you with N D it sys.c. rather than
Toy gitov kal to ayala HOU with B etc.
 artoyivoua _ TaAlyyEVEOla

* groyivoual.
A rare expression, not in the LXX, though found in the pap. 1
In the NT it occurs only at Pt. 2:24. Since XTOYEVOUEVOI is here contrasted
with Choouav, it means 'dead."
Similarly Teles, p. 45, 16, Hense 81& touc atoyevouevous tov govtov oAtyo-
pEiv; Mithr. Liturg., 14, 31: TOAIV YEV6UEVOS gnoyivouau; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom.,
IV, 15 (p. 675, 14 f.): To TAñOO TOV TE YEWQUÉVOV kal artoylvouÉvov.
Pt. 2:24 refers to the goal of the death of Jesus, and thus to the divine purpose
revealed and fulfilled in the death of Jesus. The words can hardly be taken to
indicate an inner experience underlying the Christian, for there is no experience
of the full separation from sin, both as guilt and habit, which is expressed in death.
Nor is the reference to sacramental experience. Otherwise baptism would be men-
tioned. Pt. is here expressing faith in redemption (-> gvayevvao, 673 ff.).
Since the &TOYEVOUEVOL plainly corresponds to the avayeyevnuévot of 1:23,
the root of both ideas is naturally the same, namely, the Christian interpretation of
the death and resurrection of Jesus in terms of the Jewish belief in the destruction
and renewal of the world. Even though the term groyivouai may occur in the
Mithras Liturgy, the origin of the concept does not have its locus here, since the
term was in general use.

¢ toAlyyEVsdia.
This word derives from naAlv and yÉveois 1 and thus means "new genesis" 2
either in the sense of a. "return to existence," "coming back from death to life,'
or of b. renewal to a higher existence," "regeneration" in the usual sense. 3
A. The Usage outside the NT.
The word first seems to have acquired significance in Stoicism and its doctrine
of the renewal of the world following the ÉKitopwoLs. It probably received its
distinctive impress from the Stoics. It is not attested in the Orphic 4 or Pythagorean
writings, 5 though one would expect it in view of the importance for them of re-

droyivoual. Kn., Wbg., Wnd. Pt. on 2:24.

Cf. Preisigke Wort., s.v.
2 Cf. the occurrence in the pap.
tallyyEveala. Zn., KI., Schl. Mt. on 19:28; Wbg., Dib. Past. on Tt. 3:5; Pr.-
Bauer, S.v. also YEVVaQ, 668.
Acc. to the rule established by E. Fraenkel, Ztschr. f. vergleichende Sprachforschung,
45 (1913), 160 ff., the fem. -ola replaces the simple -OIC in compounds, as OÉo1 becomes
vouo(sola, vou{sola, ulofaia and Kalapaic &kafapoia. The Koine often has TaAlv-
YEVEOiX, Debr. Griech. Wortb., 125, n.
The original notion was not that of human birth, nor esp. of birth on the basis of sexual
conception ; whether and how far this later penetrated into it calls for investigation.
3 Related words are maXryyevns, "regenerate" (first attested in Nonnus Dionys., IT, 650
[c. 400 A.D.1), which is formed analog. to dyEvns, EDYEVnS, and TaAlyyevéaios "con-
cerning regeneration" (attested in CI. Al. Paed., II, 9, 81, 3). The oldest term seems to be
Ta^lyyeveoia rather than TtaAlyyevs or TaLLYYEVEGIOS.
Cf. Orph. Fr., Kern, Index.
5 The much quoted passage from E. Zeller, Philosophie d. Griechen 15 (1892), 442, can
adduce from Porphyr. Vit. Pyth, 19 as the view of Pyth. only TX YEVouEVa ToAlV yivetat,
not TaAlyyEVEOla. It cannot be stated with any certainty that the formula was genuinely
Pythagorean. The description of the many incarnations of Pythagoras quoted in Diog. L.,
VIII, 4 from Heracleides Pont. (I, 24, 21 ff., Diels) uses other terms,
TaALyyEVEOla®

incarnation. 8 In the exposition of the Stoic view of the world in Philo Aet. Mund.,
89 ff. we often find ta\lyyeveOla. Its opposite is ExTUpwaic (47 and 76). Taly-
yEvEoia is more often linked with TtEp(ooou. Epictetus does not have it. Marc.
Aurel. says of the soul : ThI TEpIO8IKNV TaALYYEVEOLAV TOV SAWV EUT AY-
Bovel (M. Ant., XI, 1). Plutarch uses the word in his account of the myths of
Dionysus and Osiris (Ei. Delph., 9 [II, 389a]): tac aTtoBldoeIc kal TRALYYEVE-
olac (Is. et. Osir., 35 [II, 364 f.]): rois Aeyouévors "Oolpiboc Blaotaouoi Kai
taic avabliosal kal tallyyeveriau (Carn. Es., I,7 [II, 996c]). He speaks of
the TaAlyyEVEOlaL of souls in Carn. Es., II, 4 (II, 998c); cf. Def. Or., 51 (II, 438d):
xpñolat petaBoaic kal aAlyyEVEOlALG. Lucian states the Platonic doctrine of
souls as follows: anofavotaa &vlatatal kai ToALyyEVEOla tis aitn kai
Bloc alos é inapxñs yiveral (Enc. Mus., 7). In a fragment of Terentius Varro
(in Aug. Civ. D., 22, 28) TtaALyYEVEOia is used for the new birth of individuals in
a new period of the world, and this is accepted as the general Gk. usage. Thus
the word has an individual as well as the original cosmic sense.
It seems quite early to have come into use outside the Stoic schools and to have
become part of the heritage of the educated world, thus acquiring a more general
sense. This is shown by Cic. Att., 6, 6, where return from banishment is described
as TaAlyyevsaia.
It cannot be finally proved whether TaAlyyEveGia played any role in the Mysteries
of the 1st cent. A.D. The word occurs only in the so-called birth mystery in Corp.
Herm., XIII, where it is used 10 times (Reitzenstein Poim., 339, 4 and 6; 340, 12; 341, 5;
342, 15; 343, 12; 344, 12 and 14; 345, 16; 348, 8). But here the word does not have the
meaning hitherto found in pagan Gk., i.e., return to existence. It signifies renewal to a
higher existence by means of an incantation. The mystery of regeneration is certainly
later than the NT. When Plutarch uses the term in his description of the Dionysus and
Osiris myths, it is an open question whether he takes it from the Mysteries or from his
philosophical heritage. The latter is more probable, since this is almost certainly the
derivation of the parallel ovablools. In the 1st cent. B.C., then, TaALYyEVEDia is in
general use in educated circles, and its use in the Mysteries may thus be presumed.
TAlyyEVeOla occurs in magic : Antike Fluchtafeln, 4, 18, Wiinsch2: 6 Geoc 8 this
TaAlyyEVEGias OwBappaBau. The Mithr. Liturg., 1, lV YEVOUEVOS.

In Jewish literature Ta^lyyeveola is found from the time of Philo. The LXX
merely has the phrase EGG TaAIV yÉvouai at Job 14:14. This is a free rendering
of the Hebrew to denote life after death, which is doubtful in this passage. Philo
uses naAlyyeveola of the restoration to life of individuals, e.g., of Abel in Seth,
Poster. C., 124, or more generally: METO toy lavatov ic TaALyyEVEOiaNv
opuñoouev, Cherub., 114 (cf. also Leg. Gaj., 325 EK TaALyyEVEOlas dviye pas);

6 The passage from Plutarch Quaest. Conv., VIII, 3, 5 (II, 722d) quoted in Pr.-Bauer,
s.v. gives us as a saying of Democritus only vEa E' NUEpn opovEOVtEC. The preceding
Ka{XTTEP EK TRALYYEVEOIAC is from Plutarch and not Democr., as easily shown from the
other version of the saying in Lat. Viv., (II, 1129e); cf. II, 91, 19 ff., Diels. The other
passage quoted in Pr.-Bauer from P. Lond., 878, III, 42 proves nothing, since we cannot
assert with any precision the meaning of 8@pov Ta\lyyEvEolac in this pap. of the 3rd or
4th cent. A.D. The pap. has not been printed because it is not legible.
Genethliaci quidam scripserunt esse in renascendis hominibus, quam appellant Tto-
Alyyeveolav Graeci : hac scripserunt confici in annis numero quadrn quia,
idem corpus et eadem anima, quae fuerint coniuncta in homine aliquando, eadem rursus
redeant in coniunctionem. W Weber, Der Prophet und sein Gott (1925), 91 f. regards these
nativity fixers as ultimately of Babylonian origin, though without explaining their particular
doctrine.
 TtaAlyyeveola

and also of the reconstitution of the world after the Flood : Noah and his family
TRALYYyEVEGIaS EYEVOUTO HYELOVE KAI SEURA STQIpI6U Vit.
Mos., II, 65.8 Josephus calls the re-establishment of his people after the exile
avaktnol kal naAlyyEVEolav ths natpioo, Ant., 11, 66. He thus uses in a
national sense a word previously found only in the cosmic or individual. For the
resurrection he has the formula: {8∞KEv 8 (Eoc yEVéOal TE Ta lv Kai Blov
quelvo AaBeiv, Ap., 2, 218. This is a paraphrase for ta lyyEveoia.
When TtaAlyyEvedia passes from Stoicism into Judaism its meaning changes.
The new existence to which the world and man come in the new aeon is not
just a repetition of the former, as in Stoicism. It is an existence in which righteous-
ness dwells (2 Pt. 3:13). In Judaism the cosmic catastrophe is the Last Judgment,
and in contrast to that expected in Stoicism this is definitive. The naAlyyeveola
for which the Jews hoped posited a different moral nature. Even if this does not
appear in the language of Philo and Josephus, it is a self-evident presupposition.
This change with the transition of the concept from Stoicism to Judaism is of
great importance. The word is filled with a new religious content. It should be
noted in this connection that in both Stoicism and Judaism TaAlyyEVedia lies in
the future. In the former it follows the future Éxrupwous; in the latter it belongs
to the future judgment. The well-known passage in Cicero (-3 687), however,
shows that even toward the end of the 1st century B.C. a present experience
could also be called TaAlyyEVEOla.

B. nallyyEveGio in the NT,

1. In Mt. 19:28 : Év Th TaAlyyEVEOla, the use of TtaAlyyEvedia is in full
agreement with that of Philo and Josephus. The Jewish faith in the resurrection
of the dead and the renewal of the world is clothed in this term. The parallel
saying in Lk. 22:30 has Év tn Baoilela you. In Mk. 10:30 and Lk. 18:30 the phrase
§v to aion to Épxouévo has the same meaning. The Stoic usage obviously
stands behind this Jewish or Jewish Christian expression, but in the sense of Jewish
and Christian eschatology. There is no influence of the Mysteries.&
2. Tt. 3:5 : 81c Aoutpoi TaALYyEVEOlaC Kal IVaKa DEN TVE o.
Here TaALyyEVEOla is the result of baptism and parallel to dvakaivoois. It does
not mean only attainment to a new life with the end of the old life, nor does it
mean only moral renewal ; it embraces both. 10 The former, however, is the more
important, as shown by ÉowoEv and kAnpovouou (v.7). The idea is basically
eschatological, though moral renewal is included. No moral change is denoted, for
the epistle demands of the regenerate that they should deny ungodliness and
worldly lusts. The grace of God is ethically efficacious by way of instruction,
i.e., by personal fellowship, and not magically by material means. There is no
thought of TaAlyyEveola by magical incantation (Corp. Herm., XIII, 1,1) in
Tt. 3:5. The term is rather to be explained as a further Christian development of
the Jewish form of the Stoic concept. Derivation from the Mysteries would

8 The word is used in the same sense in 1 CI.,9,4: NOE TaAly yEvedian Koop©
EKnpueE ...
So far no Heb. or Aram. equivalent for TaAlyyEveGia has been found, cf. Dalman W].
I, 145. Zn. Mt.3, 601, n. 76 merely gives us a postulate. Schl. Mt., 582 constructs abign ton
from similar expressions.
10 As dvakalvwaic; cf. 2 C. 4:16, where avakalvouofal is the opp. of 61a 0Eipso0at,
and R. 12:2, where the vouc is the object of renewal in the ethical sense.
 naAlyyEVEOla - yIVOOK

presuppose its earlier use in the Mysteries, which cannot be shown. 11 On the
other hand, Mt. 19:28 proves with absolute clarity that the cosmic Stoic view of
regeneration came into early Christianity by way of Judaism. 12 And Cic. Att., 6, 6
(-+ 687) shows that we do not have to go to the Mysteries for the term it had
long since been used by the educated. Obviously we cannot exclude the possibility
that the usage of the Mysteries also lies behind Aoutpov TaALYYEVEOlAS; its true
home, however, is in Stoicism.
Buchsel

yIVOOKw, yvwois, ÉTILYLVOOKO, Éniyvwols,

KatayiioKw, akatayvwatos,
poylooKO, rp6yvwots, ouyyviopn,
yvoun, yvopizw, yvoatos

yIioKw, yviois, Etlyiiokw, Éntyvwo.

A. The Greek Usage.
yIOoKElV (older form : yuyvookelv) denotes in ordinary Greek the intelligent
comprehension of an object or matter, whether this comes for the first time, or
comes afresh, into the consideration of the one who grasps it ("to come to know,"
"to experience," "to perceive [again]") or whether it is already present ("to
perceive"). The inchoative construction shows that, while the ingressive aspect
of the act of comprehension is originally emphasised, this can fade into the back-
ground, and the meaning can be simply "to know" or "to understand." This is
shown on the one hand by the common use of ola for the perf. yvoka, and
on the other by the almost exclusive use of yvoous or yvoun for the subst.
Etonois.

11 Tert. Bapt., 5 (certe ludis Apollinaribus et Pelusiis tinguuntur idque se in regeneratio-

nem et impunitatem periuriorum suorum agere praesumunt) seems to come very near to
explaining the outpov TaALyyEVEGlac (Vulg. lavacrum regenerationis) from the language
of the Mysteries. It should be remembered, however, that the thought of baptism giving
deliverance in the Day of Judgment is undoubtedly much older than the contacts of early
Christianity with the Mysteries, and also that certain expressions like EGOEV and KAnpo-
vouot gwñs aloviou point more to Jewish Christian eschatology than to the teaching of
the Mysteries. It must also be taken into account that regeneratio came to Tertullian from
the Christian tradition, so that he rather explains it in the light of the Mysteries than creates
it from their usage. In any case, the taurobolium is not baptism but a blood rite, cf. F.
Buchsel, Joh. u. d. hell. Synk. (1928), 63, n. 1.
12 > also what is said under &vayewad (672 ff.) concerning the rise of the belief in
new birth.
yuv OOK w, yvOaIS. B. Snell, Die Ausdrucke fir den Begriff des Wissens in der
vorplaton. Philosophie (Philol. Unters., 29 [1924]):; G. Anrich, Das Antike Mysterienwesen
(1894); W. Bousset, GGA (1914), 740 ff.; also in Pauly-W., VII (1912), 1503 ff.; Reitzen-
stein Hell. Myst., esp. 66 ff. and 284 ff.; Historia Monachorum 1. Historia Lausiaca (1916),
esp. 146 ff.; J. Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos (1914), 350 ff.; A. Schlatter, Der
Glaube im NT4 (1927), 214 ff.; 316 ff.; 388 ff.; H. Jonas, Der Begriff der Gnosis (Diss.
Marburg, 1930). For OT usage: E. Baumann, "979 und seine Derivate,' ZAW, 28 (1908),
22 ff.; 110 ff.
Cf. Snell, op. cit., 30 f. For examples of the ingressive sense of YIVOOKEWV, v. Hom. I.,
17. 333 f.: c goat', Alvelas &' ExatiBolov *ArrolAova Eyvo godvia toov ("per-
 yIVOOKO

The basic meaning of yuvdaKElV, and the specifically Greek understanding of the
phenomenon of knowledge, are best shown by a twofold differentiation. The term is to
be distinguished a. from alofoveolai, which denotes perception with no necessary
emphasis on the element of understanding. Since some degree of understanding is present
in all perception, too sharp a distinction is not to be made between yIooKeIv and
alofavec0al. Indeed, alofaveofat can describe understanding perception in so far as
it is unreflective and instinctive. 2 Yet in discussion of the problem of knowledge we
must insist on the difference between alo0nois as sensual perception and yvools, or
etothun which is acquired through yuvookslv as knowledge deriving from the vouc
or Aoyos; the emphasis will sometimes fall on the contrast and sometimes on the
connection. The word is also to be distinguished b. from bokEiv and boga(elv, which
signify having an opinion (86Éa) of some object or matter with no guarantee that
it really is as supposed. In contrast, yIvooKElV embraces things as they really are, i.e.,
the ov or the &An0ela.3 To be sure, an opinion can also be correct (arnens), but
only the yIooKwv has the certainty that he grasps the a nOela, that he has
etomhun. Thus yvoois is related to Érlothun (Plat. Resp., V, 476c ff.; 508e), but
(as distinct from &yvoua, > 116) it is not used absolutely like gnomiun. It needs an
obj. gen., and in the first instance denotes the act of knowing rather than knowledge. +
The execution of YIVOOKELV is not primarily related to a particular organ or limited
to any particular mode. It takes place in man's dealings with his world, in experience.
It denotes close acquaintance with something (Hom. Od., 21, 35 f.: OUSE tpaTÉ(n
yvomv alAnlwv). It relates to the knowledge acquired in experiences both good and
bad (Hom. II., 18, 270; Od., 15, 537; Plat. Resp., V, 466c; Xenoph. An., I, 7, 4). It is
achieved in all the acts in which a man can attain knowledge, in séeing and hearing,
in investigating and reflecting (yv0t oaurov). Thus YIVOOKEIV can also mean per-
sonal acquaintance and friendship with persons (Xenoph. Cyrop., 1, 4, 27; Hist. Graec.
V, 3, 9). 5 This is a sense which developed particularly in relation to the adj. yvoatoo
and yvopuos. It is also possible that yivooKsv may simply mean "to be or to
become aware of," and that a yloakov is almost a 0006g, i.e., not a formal teacher
but one who has an understanding of life & (Plat. Resp., I, 347d). Yet this use developed

ceive"); Xenoph. An., I,7: aloyuveiolal wou boki oious juiv yvoosole touc tv ti
xopa &vtac ovipontouc ("come to know"); Soph. Ant., 1089 : (tva) yvi TOÉDEIV Thy
yAdooav nouywtepav ("learn"). Examples of the wider use may be found in Heracl. Fr.,
97 (1, 97, 5f., Diels): KUvEs yap kataBaifoualv dv ov un yioakwa ("know");
at. Crat., 435a : El ylyvooKeIC Éuo0 oleyyouÉvou ("understand"); Democr. Fr., 198
(II, 102, 6 f., Diels): To (the beast) xpngov oldEv, 8K600v xPnEL, 8€ (man) xpncov
ou yIdoKEl (almost "know").
An alo0avouevos dya0iv TE kal kalGv is one who can discern between right and
wrong (Xenophon Mem., IV, 5, 6; cf. alolous, Phil. 1:9); the alofavouevoc is the in-
telligent or perspicacious man (Thuc., I, 71,5), whereas the avalointos is the foolish or
stupid.
3 Heracl. Fr., 5 (I, 78, 11 f., Diels): 00 Tu YIVWOKWV HEOUC of 8' Apwac, ofTIvÉs
slow. The object of knowledge is the 8v, Parm. Fr., 4, 7 f. (I, 152, 12 f., Diels); Plat. Resp.,
V, 477a ff., where 86&a as lEtaEU is placed between yvoac and gyvoia ; Plat. Resp.,
IX, 581b, where it is &AnOela. It is the opp. of BoKEIV or SOE&( Elv in Heracl. Fr., 7 (II, 59,
17 ff., Diels), Plat. Men., 97a ff.; Resp., V, 476d ff.
Isolated examples of yvools in the absol. are Plat. Resp., VI, 508e (-> 693): Epicur.
(cf. Philodem., fepl kakiov, ed. Jensen, Col. VIII, 33 f.: gAuntow [elvlan [tv y]vow;
Plut. Col., 3 (II, 1108e): &vaolal Ths opens yvooewc.
This is where the apparent parallels belong which are adduced by Wettstein in relation
to Mt. 7:23; these show that yIdaKElV (and yvopigetv) with the negative can mean the
same as "to ignore.
8 Snell, op. cit., 5 ff.
 yIvooKo
less in respect of yIVOoKElV than ElÉvat, which can mean quite generally "to have
an understanding or capacity." 1
The main question, however, is which mode of knowledge primarily determines
the Greek concept of knowledge. Since ylvooKELV denotes knowledge of what
really is, it comes to have the sense of "to verify" ; and since for the Greeks the
eye is a more reliable witness than the ear (Heracl. Fr., 101a [I, 97, 15 ff., Diels];
Hdt., I, 8), and sight is ranked above hearing (Plat. Phaedr., 250d; Resp., VI, 507c,
> XK0UG, 216), this verification is primarily by observation; indeed, the link
between the verbs yIVOOKElV and ElÉval shows that knowledge is regarded as
a mode of seeing, for ElÉval means "to know on the basis of one's own observa-
tion." 8 This is the guiding conception even when yivooKslv results from the
weighing of circumstances or reflection on facts (Democr. Fr., 285 [II, 119, 13 ff.,
Diels]; Aristoph. Nub., 912; PI., 944; Thuc., I, 25,1; 43, 2; 102, 4; Plat. Ap., 27a;
Phaed., 116c etc.). Knowledge in such cases implies disclosure and is thus insight ;
its result is that something is onlov or pavepov (Philol. Fr., 11 [I, 313, 5 ff., Diels];
Archyt. Fr., 1 [I, 334, 12, Diels]; Plat. Crat., 435a). Knowledge is achieved by in-
spection from without. Its object is thought of as something present and open to
the scrutiny of the observer. The observer is himself there, and his knowledge is
thus objective ; any participation in what is known is limited to seeing. Naturally,
yIVOOKELV is not restricted to a present object or fact. Whatever can be the object
of enquiry can also be an object of y1ooKElV, e.g., the kaipos at which something
should be done (kaipov yvol., Pittac., 1 [II, 216, 10, Diels]), or what should be
done (Éyvo belv..., Xenoph. Hist. Graec., III, 1, 12). Hence yIVOOKEIV etc. can
mean "to decide" (Democr. Fr., 229 [II, 107, 1 f., Diels]; cf. xplois ÉyvoouÉvn,
Isoc., 6, 30; n yvoolsioa Slalayh, Demosth., 59, 47); and in the language of
politics and jurisprudence it can mean "to resolve"° and even "to give legal
recognition" (Plut. Ages., 3 [1, 597a]). Nowhere, however, is there a complete
abandonment of the basic idea of visual and objective verification.

7 This may relate to skill like T6&wv or aixuns E El&oG, To eunia #pya ElÉvaL,
Hom. II., 2, 718; 15, 525; 7,236, but also to all aspects of human conduct, e.g., olla
ElÉvaL, "to be friendly disposed" (Hom. Od., 3, 277), or xapiv eloevai, "to be grateful"
(frequently, though cf. also xapiv yivooKelv), or (ÉulTTa or dOeulotia (Hom. II., 5, 761;
Od., 9, 189), though also SEMIOTaC YIVOOKEIV (Theogn., 1141 f.). Similarly yvooun can
mean "reason," "reasonableness" or "insight" (Theogn., 1171 f.; Heracl. Fr., 41 [1,86, 4f.,
Diels]; Epich. Fr., [I, 120, 17 ff., Dielsl; Hdt., III, 4: yvounv ikavos; Thuc., I, 75, 1;
Xenoph. An., II, 6, 9; Plat. Resp., V, 476d (opp. 86ga), or a good or evil disposition
(Theogn., 60; 396; 408; Pind. 01., 3, 41: E00EBns yvoun ; Aristoph. Ra., 355 : Ka XPEUELV
yvoun cf. Snell, op. cit., 34). From a later period, cf. Porphyr. Marc., 11; 20; 21, p. 281, 19;
287, 17; 288, 4. Nauck; Albin. Isag., 1, p. 152, Hermann; Ditt. Syll.3, 983, 4 ff.: yeipac kai
yvounv kalapouc Kai dyiEis brtapyovias kai undev autoic SEtvoV aUVELS6tAC Kal
t& ÉKT6S. Alone, yvoun may also connote clever opinion, good counsel, a rule of
life, or pronouncement (cf. the definition of such yvoun in Aristot. Rhet., II, 21, p. 1394a,
19 ff.). Cf. also - n. 9.
8 On the connection of ylvooKElv with seeing and the verbs of seeing, cf. Snell, op. cit.,
20 ff.
9 Thus yvoun (- n. 7) can be "will" or "decision" (Pind. Nem., 10, 89; Thuc., II, 55, 2)
in the sense of popular or judicial resolutions (cf. Snell, op. cit., 35; so also inscr. and
pap.), just as yvoois can be judicial knowledge (Snell, 38,2). We must be careful,
however, not to interpret this in the light of modern ideas of the will, but rather to see
that the Greek concept of will and resolve is to be interpreted in the light of seeing. Cf.
E. Wolff, "Platos Apologie," NPhU, 6 (1929), 34 ff. on "poalpeais and B. Snell, "Das
Bewusstsein von eigenen Entcheidungen im frihen Griecn," Pi. 5 (1930), 141 ff.:
also on yvoun, E. Schwartz, Gnomon, 2 (1925), 68; J. Stenzel, GGA. 1926, 200 f. and
Pauly-W., 2, Reihe III (1927), 829.
 In the Greek world the question of truth implies that of the reality underlying
all appearances as true reality (- xAn0eia, 239). The understanding of knowledge
as that which comprises this &AnOela is shaped accordingly. The meaning and
significance of the Greek ideal of knowledge are plain when we remember that
knowing is understood as a kind of seeing. To this understanding of knowledge
there corresponds the understanding of what constitutes reality. Reality consists of
forms and figures, or rather of the elements and principles which shape these
forms and figures. Thus the yivooKElv of the investigator and philosopher has
reference to these ; the Eldoc (or 18Éxx) is what makes possible the knowledge of
things, as it also makes them what they are. 10 Hence knowing has the character
of seeing (Oe∞peiv, oKoTElV and okÉnTE Oa become terms for enquiry) and
seeing the character of grasping or comprehending in the original sense. In this
light we can also understand the importance of mathematics for knowledge (cf.
Plat. Gorg., 508a) and the fact that yivooKslv can be an equivalent of kata^qu-
Bovel and yvoois of kata nus. On the one side, therefore, the truly real, which
is to be comprehended in such knowledge, is thought of as the eternal and timeless
reality which is constant in all change and is seen by the ouua puxis. On the
other hand, the one who sees really "has" this reality, and is thus assured that
he can control as well as know it. As distinct from 86%a, Énlorhun is "bound"
(Plat. Men., 98a); it confers possession (Plat. Theaet., 209e To yap yvoval
Éntlomunv TTOU Aa Beiv eotiv; Phaed., 75d : 1o yap EldÉvaL toUt® gotiv, AxBovta
tou EnloTunv ExELV kal un &Too EeKevaL). The reality of what is known,
however, is constituted by the essential content of what is known as this is ap-
propriated in knowledge. Hence the knowledge of what really is can be the
supreme possibility of existence, for in- it the one who knows encounters the
eternal and participates in it. Though the ideal of this yviou is largely identical
with the ideal of the Bloc BE PNtIK6S, 11 there are naturally differences. For
knowledge relates not merely to the elements or ideas which form the world of
nature but also to those which give form and consistency to the human Bios and
TOAs, i.e.; apetn and the kalov (e.g., Plato Resp., V, 476cd : The man who
has the capacity for the kalopov of the ka oy is a yryvookov). Thus for Plato
yvools or Énothun is the presupposition of right political action. Knowing is here
a seeing, and action a fashioning of the tÉxvn, of the artist, who gives form to
matter as he contemplates the idea. Similarly, for Aristotle existence achieves its
supreme possibility in disinterested scientific consideration. in lepia. 12
B. The Gnostic Usage
The usage of Hellenism, and especially of Gnosticism, is to some extent pre-

10 It obviously makes no difference when instead of the Elon (apart from Plato, cf.
e.g., Antiphon Fr., [II, 292, 5 ff., Diels]) the Pythagoreans speak of the apiuoi, for
these are what make knowledge possible by giving things form and limit (Philol. Fr., 3; 4;
6; 11 [I, 310 ff., Diels]); cf. also J. Stenzel, Zahl u. Gestalt bei Platon u. Aristoteles?
(1932). Similarly the atoms of Democritus, which are different in their oxuati or EtoEL
(Aristot. Phys., I, 2, p. 184b, 21), serve to explain differences of quality as differences of
form, order and situation: indeed, he seems to have called the atoms lÉa1 as well (Diels,
II, 26, 35).
11 Cf. on this pt. F. Boll, "Vita contemplativa" (SAH. 1920); W. Jaeger, "Uber Ursprung
und Kreislauf des philos. Lebensideals" (SAB, 1928, 390 ff.).
12 It is worth noting, and is perhaps to be explained as a Semitism, that from the
Hellenistic period yLVOOKEIV is also used in the sexual sense, v. Moult.-Mill. and Pr.-
Bauer, s.v.
 yi oaKd
pared by classical development. 18 Yet it also derives from other sources : from
the Mystery religions, which mediate secret knowledge leading to salvation ; and
from magic, whose knowledge confers supernatural powers.14 Our present con-
cern, of course, is simply to describe the technical use of YIVOOKELV (yviois)
and not the general use, which remains unchanged in its religious application. 16
The yvooic which is the goal of the Hellenistic piety which (both outside and
inside Christianity) we describe as Gnostic, is characterised by the following
elements.
a. [vocic here connotes knowledge as well as the act of knowing, and it can
thus be used in the absolute without any supplementary genitive, though what is
meant is not knowledge generally (Énlorhun) but the knowledge of God. There
is a formal similarity when Plato says (Resp., VI, 508e) that the idea of the
ayalov is more lofty than yvoouc (in the absol.) and &An0ela. And if it is self-
evident for Plato that yvoos in its concern for what really is attains to the divine,
in Gnostic sources God is regarded much more exclusively as the self-evident
object of yvoois. He is so, indeed, against the background of a dualism 16 which BaL

does not accept the Greek view that the deity is beyond the world of becoming
in the sense of a reality that underlies all becoming, but which conceives of this
transcendence in terms of an absolute separation from all becoming, so that we
cannot discover the Godhead by a "recognitive" contemplation of the world but
only by turning away from it (cf. Corp. Herm., X, 5 and ayvootos). This

13 Empedocles and Plato already describe philosophy by analogy with mystical initiation
(for Plato cf. Rohde, Psyche, II, 281 ff.; Anrich, Das antike Mysterienwesen, 63); but for
Plato this is only a metaphor, whereas Neo-Platonism takes it seriously (cf. Anrich, 66 ff.;
P. Friedlander, Platon I [1928] 68 ff.; cf. also on the whole pt. J. Stenzel, Platon der Er-
zieher [1928]). The important expositions in Plut. Is. et Os., 1; (II, 351de) are still
essentially Greek ; the blessedness of God consists in entomiun and oponnois. Olual 88
kal ths alaviou gons, Av o DEOg ELAnXEV, Eboaquov Elval to th yvooel un Tt po-
aTTOAITEIV to yivoueva ("not to be behind reality in knowledge," Parthey) tou 8É
yIVOoKElV ta ovta Kai opoveiv dOXIpEOEVTOG ou Blov aila xpovov elvai thy
adavaolav. AId HEIOTNTOS ODEEIC EOTIV n ins alndelas, uallota Te tis TEpI Oeov
ÉDEOIS, GOTEP dvalnuw lepov thv uainoiv #youog Kal thy girow "especially
concern for the knowledge of the gods, which both learning and investigation serve in the
attainment of what is holy," Parthey). Worth commending is a odopwv blaita, ab-
stemiousness and participation in the cult of the temple, ov TEAOS ÉFTV too Ttp/tou
kai kuplou Kal von tot yvoous, 8v n (eoc (Isis) napakalei inteiv nap" autn Kal
LET' auts ovta Koi duvovra. Tou 8 lepot tolvoula kal oapac enayyeletai kal
woot Kal etonolv tou bvtoc ovoualerar yap Toelov, ins elao Evo to 8v, &v
ueTa Abyou kal bolog elc ro leo& TapEAOQuEV this 0E00.
14 Cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 295 f.: 300 ff.; Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos,
326 ff.; esp. 366 f.; 382 f.; Anrich, op. cit., 78 ff.; W. Bousset, Pauly-W.,
n. 13) isVII (1912),
illustrated
1521 ff. The connection with the view of the Mysteries (cf. also
by the esoteric character of yvooic and by its description as Aoyos artoppntos Kal
MUSTIKOc, Hipp. Ref., V, 7, 22. The connection with magic is shown, e.g., in Epiph., 31, 7, 8
(I, p. 397, 9): To SÉ TOYUA TO TIVEUUGTIKOV ÉAUTOUC LEYOUGIV, BOTED Kal yvwotl-
KOUC, Kal undé KauaToU ET dEouÉVOUS H MOVOV TAS YUOOEDS Kal tov Entippnuatov
Tov aitov uuomplov. As the magician can address God 80p6v uou towpjoo thy
TOO leylotou ou ovouatoc yv@ow (Preis. Zaub., II, 128), so he himself can be ad-
dressed : & uaxapie uoota tis lepac uayelac libid., 1, 127); thus uaysia and yvoolc
are equivalent. Similarly, Philo can call ortikn Énlothun, which means the same as yvoois,
an nOns uayikn, Spec. Leg., III, 100.
16 On the knowledge of God in Stoicism ayvoatos.
18 Cf. on this pt. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos2 (1921), 183 ff.; NGG (1914), 706 ff. and
Pauly-W., VII (1912), 1507 ff.: 1518 ff.
 yIVOoKO

means, however, that the knowledge with which the Gnostics were concerned, in
contrast to that of the Greeks, was distinct from all other kinds of knowledge ;
and this is in keeping with the restriction of X nOEla (- 240) and oiola to the
divine reality and nature.
b. While yIVooKElV is for the Greeks the cultivated methodical activity of the
vous or A6yoc, fulfilled in science and particularly philosophy, the yvoois of the
Gnostic, both as process and result, is a xxpioua which is given by God to man.
It is thus radically distinguished from rational thought it is illumination. 17 God
is inaccessible to man as such (- &yvooroc). But he knows men, i.e., the pious,
and reveals Himself to them : yvoc0nval Bouletal Kai YIVOOKETaL toic loloic
(Corp. Herm., I, 31 ; cf. VII, 2; X, 4 and 15 : o0k &pa xyvori tov &v0panov o
Geoc, dl^c kal fovu yvoplgel kal OÉAEL yvopi ,so0ai; Ascl., 29b [Hermetica,
I, 370, 6 f., Scott]; Cl. Al. Exc. ex Theod., 7; Porphyr. Adv. Marc., 13 and 21
[p. 283, 9; 288, 14, Nauck]; Cl. Al. Strom., V, 11, 71; O. Sol. 6:6 f.; 7:12 f.; 8:8 ff.;
15:1 ff. etc.).18 Such yviois is ecstatic or mystical vision, 10 and to this extent
knowing is still understood as a kind of seeing, though in the sense of mystic
vision rather than the older Greek sense. It does not make what is seen a pos-
session of the one who sees. On the contrary, he must pray that he may be kept
in yvious. 20 Not merely the culmination of the divine vision is described as
yvoots, but more often the way which leads to it and whose goal is lEapia in

17 If yvools is often traced back to voic or Abyoc, this does not imply a human
capacity but the supernatural power which flows into man and enlightens him, e.g., Corp.
Herm., I, 2, 22 f.; IV, 3 ff. (the divine VOUC is here distinguished from the human A6yoc).
In such cases vouc or Aoyoc really stands for TVE ua, cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 328 ff.
18 Cf. for yvoIc as xapioua R. Liechtenhan, Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus (1901),
98 ff.; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913), 287 f.; Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trisme-
gistos, 354, and esp. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 285 Ff., with the thanksgiving of the Logos
teleios which is found there and in Scott, I, 374 ff. Cf. also H. Schlier, Religionsgesch.
Unters. z. d. Ignatiusbriefen (1929), 58 ff.
19 For a description of the vision, cf. esp. Corp. Herm., I, 30; X, 4-6; XIII, 13 ff.; Stob.
Ecl., I, 189, 21 (Hermetica, I, 418, 12 ff., Scott); Kroll, Die Lehren des Herm. Trism., 355 f.
On the use of opav, feaolat, etc. as synon. of ylvookslv, cf. Kroll, 352; Reitzenstein
Hell. Myst., 352. Plotinus avoids the expression yvooic for the mystical vision. He calls
it 0Éa, while yvooic is the scientific knowledge which helps prepare for it (Enn., VI, 7, 36
[1, p. 469, 20 ff.]). yvoois has to do with the Elon (VI, 9, 3; II, p. 510, 26 f.), and in the
(ea of the gv the soul must be dveldeos (VI, 9,7 [II, p. 518, 6 ff.]). Even the Ev itself
has no ylyvooKelV, though &yvola is not on this account to be ascribed to it (VI, 9, 6
[II, p. 515, 20 f.l). The scientific grasp of the concept of the gy can, of course, be described
as YIVOOKElV (VI, 9,5 [II, p. 515, 3 ff.]). Cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 89, 1.
20 Corp. Herm., I; 32; Logos teleios, Herm. I, 376, 12 ff., Scott ; Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 7, 46.
In Cl. yvoas can, of course, become #ic through &oknous, Strom., IV, 22, 139; VI, 9, 71;
74; 78 (n yvioug . . . OUTC EV EEEL TEAEIGBELOA T LUOTIKN dUETTI TO 8T dyamv
LÉvEl).
21 On yvoais as way, cf. Corp. Herm., IV,8; 11; VII, 1 ff.; X, 15 (yvoos as gic Tov
"ON utov dvdBaoic). In the Naassene hymn (Hipp. Ref., V, 10, 2 the Redeemer says:
doparyioac ExoV KataBnOouat,
alovac 81ouc 6106E0G0,
uvompia nora & avoigo,
uopoas 8É GEOv ETISEN&w
[kal] Ta KExpupuÉva Tie dylac 6600,
yvool KarÉoas, napadoon.
Iambl. Myst., 10, 5, p. 291, 7 ff. Parthey on yvOaIc: oo(El thy dinowny Lonv eni tov
TtatÉpa autis dva youoa. It is thus ths eubaupovias 686¢, a §upa TpOC BEOv Tov
Snutoupyov tov 8ov. Cl. Al. Strom., lv 6. 39.' Cf. Kroll, op. cit., 380 ff.; Reitzenstein
Hell. Myst., 295; R. Bultmann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 173 ff.

itune ae
yIooKo
the sense of ecstatic mystical vision (Cl. Al. Strom., VI, 7, 61).21 Since on this
way there is imparted a knowledge which can be possessed, a medley of
mythological and philosophical tradition penetrates into Gnosticism, and in certain
types and strata it is hard to distinguish Gnosticism from philosophical speculation.
In Philo and Plotinus true scientific philosophy precedes mystical vision. But
in consistent Gnosticism the fiction is maintained that all knowledge preparatory
to vision is a gift of divine revelation imparted to the believer by tradition
(-> napaooris). It is an esoteric knowledge, and the instruction is more like the
teaching of initiates than philosophical instruction. The prerequisite is not a con-
trolling enquiry but the hearing of faith. 22 At the primitive stage the knowledge
imparted to the Gnostic by sacred mapaooois guarantees the ascent of his soul
after death (Iren., I, 21, 5 [MPG, 7, 665 ff.]); at a higher stage the regeneration
of the initiate takes place with the hearing of the A6yos tallyyevedia as an
efficacious mystical or magical formula (Corp. Herm., XIII).
The content of the doctrine is cosmology and anthropology, but wholly from the
standpoint of soteriology. The teaching can thus embrace to kni yns, to Év oipavo,
kai El tl EATIV OTEp oipavov (Corp. Herm., IV, 5; cf. I, 3 and 27), particularly
astrological secrets;23 but all knowledge serves the knowledge of self which is the
condition of redemption and the vision of God. Self-knowledge, however, does not mean
becoming perspicuous to oneself in the Gk. sense (ÉXUTOV ÉEETA(EIV, Plat. Ap., 38a),
i.e., as reflection on one's spiritual endowment and abilities. It is knowledge of the
tragic history of the soul, which, coming from the world of light, is entangled in
matter. It is knowledge of the Whence and Whither. 24 He who knows that he originally
comes from gon and poc will return thither (Corp. Herm., I,21). Thus although
this yvooic includes cosmological speculation, it is not a theoretically dogmatic faith.
Knowledge of self implies a definite life decision (Corp. Herm., IV, 6) and is followed
by a distinctive attitude to life. Knowledge of the kalov, however, does not serve the
shaping of the world as in Plato, but rather aversion from it; the avayvoploas
Éautov is contrasted with the dyathoas ek tiavns Epotoc To ooua. yvoac is
a definite EogBeia, 25 and &yvoua (cyvwala) is not merely ignorance but also kakia

22 For miotic in Gnosticism, cf. Corp. Herm., I, 32; IX, 10; XI, 1; esp. IV, 4 f.; 9; Ascl.,
III (Herm., I, p. 366, 7; 9; 20; 370, 12 and 15, Scott); Porphyr. Adv. Marc., 21; 22; 24
(p. 288, 7; 22 f.; 289, 18 ff., Nauck). Cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 234 f.; 385 ff.
23 Cf. Kroll, op. cit., 367 ff.
24 Cl. Al. Exc. ex Theod., 78 : EATIV 8E 00 TO oUTpOV uoNOV TO EAEUBEpOOv, GAAG
Kai n yvools, TIVES NUEV, Tl yEy6vauEv' TOU nuev f noo #BAnenuev® TOO OTTEUSOUEV,
TT6OEV AUTPOULE0a® Ti yewnois, tl avayennois. Acc. to Hipp. Ref., V, 16, 1 the
Peratae say uovol 8É nueis ot thy dviryKny Ths YEVEOEOC EYVOKOTES Kal tas
8806c, 815 ov ELOEAMAUOEV 6 & vE paTtOg glc Tov Koouov, arpipic bedi6aryuévoi
8LEA0EiV Kal TEpoOAL THV plopav uovou buvquela. Ibid., V, 6, 6: voulyouolv elval
Thy yvoaw aitou (of the &vepaios) apxny tou a0vaolat yvovaL TOv OEOV, AÉYOVTES
OUto©' "ApXi TEAELGOEDC yvwars & < Vipinou, (eo0 8t > yvoois diptouavn
tE Elwois." Act. Thom., 15, p. 121, 12 f. Corp. Herm., I, 19; 21; IV, 4 f. (dryvoouvtes fri
tl yEy6vaol kal ino rlvos). Lidz. Joh., 170, 18; 171, 17; 180, 15 f. Cf. Norden, op. cit.,
102 ff.; Kroll, op. cil.. 372 ff.: Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 201 f.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 291;
G. P. Wetter, ZNW, 18 (1917/18), 49 ff. The thought of self-knowledge is developed
rather more philosophically, e.g., in Hierocl. Carm. Aur., P. 137 ff., Mullach (esp. p. 141,
2 ff.; 142, 1 ff.); Plotin. Enn., VI, 9, 7 (II, p. 518, 28 £.): 8 88 uadov Lautov Elonoel kal
8T60Ev (cf. also V, 1, 1); Porphyr. Abst., III, 27 (p. 226, 15 ff., Nauck): (the wicked man)
ELKEL TE to OVnT® Ths pUREKC aUTO0, foc Tov vtOC Eautov oik tyvopioev. There
is a moralistic turn in Cu. Al. Paed., III, 1, 1, 1; Strom., III, 6, 44.
Corp. Herm., I, 22; 27; IX, 9; X. 21; Hermet. Fr. in Lact. Inst., II, 15, 6 (I, 536, No. 10,
Scott): i yap sonÉBeia yviolc ÉoTlv tOU 0E00; CI. Al. Strom., II, 10,46; III, 6, 43 f. (on
the connection between yvoaic and ToAITEla TOU Blou); VII, 12,71: yvoois as a loyiKoc
 yivoaKo

Ts yuxnc. 26
C. If yIvookEIv as the investigation of truth brings the Greek into proximity
to deity, because in intellectual consideration of true reality he finds his own true
being, yvoois invests the Gnostic with the divine nature, and therefore in the
first instance with immortality. By his vision he is transformed from a man into
God. 27 Indeed, the very yvoois which leads to this is regarded as a divine ova-
LIs which flows into man and, along with other powers, drives death out of him.
For Plato, too, yvious or Étothun was a Suvaus (Resp., V, 477d ff.); but here
Sovquts has the sense of a possibility native to man, of a capacity. In Gnosticism
it means magical power. 28 Like the TVEOua, it is mysterious divine fluid (mana),
and can be linked and even equated with Yon and poc. 29 Thus yvoos gives the
Gnostic tEouola and grants him freedom from Eluapuevn. 30 In this sense yvooic
is a possession, though it is always in jeopardy and must be made secure by
asceticism. It is so as a mysterious quality of the soul which is regarded as a
substance, not as knowledge which in the act of comprehension controls the con-
tent of what is comprehended.
C. The OT Usage.
1. A further presupposition of NT usage, however, is the LXX use of yivoo.
KEIV and EloÉval, or the OT concept of knowledge. This comes out most clearly

eavatoc which frees from ToOn ; VI,9: yvooic as XTX0EIX; IV, 6, 39: f yvoous tou
nyeuoviKou the puxns xa0apoic got kai EvEpyEL& ÉaTIV aya0n ; Chairemon in
Porphyr. Abst., IV, 6 (p. 237, 3 f., Nauck): to yap del ouveival th Gaia yuioEl Kai
ETtlTIvola TXONS HEV Ega tlenol mleoveElas, KaTaotEArEl 8& to taOn, SLEyE[pEL 82
ttpoc auveal tov Biov. So also the Mandaeans, cf. Lidz. Ginza, 58, 36 Cf. Kroll, op. cit.,
35326 f.; W. Jaeger, GGA (1913), 584 and 587.
oyvoia.
21 Corp. Herm., I, 27-29; IV, 4 f. (8001 uÉv obv auviKav too knpuy atos of tol
HETEOYOV TAS YVO0EWC 8001 8É the &TTO TOU 0EOU Sw pEas METEOyOV, 0ftol
d0avatol dvri Ovntov Eloi), 11 (EXEL yap Tl 1810v 1 0ea" ToUc plaoavias legoaolati
KaTEXEL kai &vEAKel KalaTEp paolv h Mayvitic AlOoc rov alonpov; VII, 1-3; X, 4-6;
XIII (the yéveous thic Debttoc is described as ma^lyyeveola; 10: £0e [pn]onuev T
<TQUTNC> YEVEOEI); Iren., I, 21, 4 (MPG, 7, 665a): the LOG &ve paTtOc is freed (Au-
rpoio0at) by yvoous; Plotin. Enn., V, 8, 10; VI, 9; Porphyr. Abst., II, 34; Hierocl. Carm.
Aur., p. 180 f., Mullach on &TODEWOIC (p. 181,13 f.: rais uev yvooeow €voutau Ti
Tavil kal TpOG aitov &vayETal TOV OEOV); CI. Al. Strom., IV, 6, 40; IV, 23, 149 : TOUT@
Suvatov TO tp6tto Tov YVOFtIKOV Kon yEVÉO⅜aL Oe6v; V, 10, 63 : TO 8É dyvoEiv TOV
TEaTÉpa HaVaTOC EATIV, oc to yvoval gon aidvioe kata uetouolav ths tou xo0ap-
TOU SUVAUENG KTA. Cf. Kroll, op. cit., 360 ff.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 288 ff., on the
Christian Gnostics, 302 ff.; Bousset, op. cit., 165 It is characteristic that in terminology
describing the relation to the object, verbs of touching and tasting are used rather than
kaTa auBOVELV,
28 Corp. Herm., XIII, 7 ff.; Iambl. Myst., 10, 5 (p. 292, 1 ff., Parthey) on yvigis as 86-
vauls; it leads is ustovolav kal Ofay toU dya0ot LETO 8É Tauta Tpoc toUg
tov dyalov Somnpac Seous gvwaiv. Cf. K. Miller, NGG (1920), 181 f.; as ovoua
yvoois, so &voua and Suvauic are used synon., Act. Thom., 27, p. 142, 13 f. Cf. again
K. Muller, 225 (yvoais) is wherever divine being is; indeed, one may say that it is
divine being.' For yvooc as aeon among the Barbelognostics, cf. Iren., I, 29, 3 (MPG,
7, 693a). The yvootikol are TIVE LATIKOL, cf. Reitzenstin Hell. Myst., 289; 292; 301; 305.
20 Corp. Herm., XIII, 7 ff. (esp. in the hymn, XIII, 18: yviou dyia, pati60eis dno
000, Sid oou to vontov pos Duv[v] ton kal pos, ao buov Elc ouac XOpEL
h Euroyla); Logos teleios, I. 374 ff.," Scott. Cf. Kroll, op. cit.,' 375 f.; Reitzenstein Hell.
Myst., 292.
30 On yvoois and tEouola, cf. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 301 f.; on liberation from
eluapuevn, ibid., 300 f.; Kroll, op. cit., 382 ff.; cf. Iambl. Myst., 10, 5.
 yIVoaK&

in the use of 37,, for which yuvookelv and EloÉval are the normal renderings in
the LXX. That these are possible renderings shows that in 979 the element of
perception is to be maintained. Indeed, the Greek and Hebrew words may be
equated to the degree that both ylvookslv and 977 denote primarily the original
phenomenon of existence, i.e., the act in which man comprehends the objects and
circumstances of his world. Like yivooKelv, 97 is not originally linked with any
specific organ, but means "coming to know" in the process of things, i.e., in ex-
perience. 31 Similarly y", like EiÉval, can also mean understanding in the sense of
ability. 32 Again, it can signify knowledge of what ought to be done. 83 Yet the
OT usage is much broader than the Greek, and the element of objective verifica-
tion is less prominent than that of detecting or feeling or learning by experience. 34
Hence 979 can govern objects which are seldom if ever found with the Greek word,
such as blows (1 S. 14:12), childlessness (Is. 47:8), sickness (Is. 53:3), divine
punishment and divine retribution (Jer. 16:21; Ez. 25:14). The LXX usually has
YIVOOKELV in such cases, but alofaveofau would be better Greek, 35 and it is
characteristic that no distinction is seen between yIVOoKElV and alofaveo0al. It
is in this connection that we are to understand the use of 97 for sexual inter-
course (Gn. 4:1, 17,25 etc.), not only of the man but also of the woman (Nu.
31:18, 35; Ju. 21:12). In 979 the element of mere information can, of course, be
emphasised (Ps. 94:11; 139:1), and ny1, especially in the Wisdom literature, can
mean the contemplative perception or knowledge possessed by the wise man
(Prv. 1:4; 2:6; 5:2; Qoh. 1:18). The distinctive feature, however, is that the con-
cept of knowledge in the OT is not determined by the idea that the reality of
what is known is most purely grasped when personal elements are obliterated
between the subject and object of knowledge, and knowledge is reduced to con-
templation from without. On the contrary, the OT both perceives and asserts the
significance and claim of the knowing subject. Hence knowledge is understood
more as a way of hearing than of seeing, and it is to be noted that seeing, too,
is understood otherwise than in the Greek world, 6pav. It is in keeping with
this that we do not find in Israel any knowledge which objectively investigates
and describes reality. It is also in keeping that for the OT reality is not con-
stituted by the &ei ov, by the timeless and permanent forms and principles which
give shape to things, but by that which constantly takes place in time. Events,
however, are not understood as the unfolding of a causal nexus of processes ;
they are a qualified action of God, or of men in relation to God. God is not

31 97 means "to know," or "to learn to know,' by personal dealings at Ex. 1:8; Dt. 9:2.
24: 1 S. 10:11 etc.; through good or bad experience at Is. 42:25; Jer. 16:21; 44:28 etc. (In
both cases the LXX has yIvooKel or Elévai). Hence the pass. part., like the Gk.
yVOOTOS, can mean an acquaintance, friend confidant, e.g., Ps. 31:11; 55:13; 88:8, 18.
32 Gn. 25:27: Ty 2.79 07N = a cunning hunter (LXX: Eloos Kuvnyeiv); S. 16:16;
K. 9:27; Is. 29:12 (here the LXX has Érlotac0al, otherwise Ei8ÉvaI). The act. part. with
nyT as object can have the same sense as the Gk. ytvookwv, namely, a man of insight or
understanding (Prv. 17:27; Da. 1:4). But the absol. 979 can also mean "to be perceptive"
(Ps. 73:22; 82:5).
33 Ju. 18:14; 1 S. 25:17 (LXX yuooKstv).
34 Characteristic is the use of 97 in the hiph with God as subject: He causes His power
to be known in punishment or blessing (Jer. 16:21; Ps. 77:14; 98:2; 106:8; LXX yvopigeiv).
33 aio0a vec0at is comparatively rare in the LXX. It is used for 972 only at Is. 49:26
(elsewhere y⅕vooKelv). alolnols, however, is often used in Prv. for n9T.
 yIVOOKO

regarded as that which always is ; He is the will which has a specific goal,
demanding, blessing and judging. The reference, then, is not to knowledge in
general sense but to knowledge in a special sense. This knowledge is the knowledge
of God (717) 13)). This does not mean that it is a knowledge of God's eternal
essence. On the contrary, it is a knowledge of His claim, whether present in
direct commands or contained in His rule. It is thus respectful and obedient
acknowledgment of the power and grace and demand of God. This means that
knowedge is not thought of in terms of the possession of information. It is pos-
sessed only in its exercise or actualisation. For this reason the ideal of the Blos
BEG PNTIK6S is just as alien to the OT as the ideal of a ToNIC or KoOLOTtOALTEla,
i.e., of an image of human society which is grounded in a theory of philosophy
and which is then to be fulfilled in action. No less alien is the thought of mystical
contemplation of the Godhead.
Thus knowledge has an element of acknowledgment. But it also has an element
of emotion, or better, of movement of will, so that ignorance means guilt as well
as error. Linguistically this is expressed primarily in the fact that knowledge,
as a grasping of the significance and claim of what is known, can have the con-
notation of an anxious concern about something, whether in relation to God or
man. 36 Above all, however, 97 is used for acknowledgment of the acts of God
(Dt. 11:2; Is. 41:20; Hos. 11:3; Mi. 6:5). And it bears the same sense when used
of the recognition that Yahweh is God (Dt. 4:39; 8:5; 29:5; Is. 43:10; Ps. 46:10).
To know Him or His name is to confess or acknowledge Him, to give Him honour
and to obey His will (1 S. 2:12; Is. 1:3; Jer. 2:8; 9:2-5; Ps. 9:10; 36:10; 87:4; Job
18:21; Da. 11:32). The "knowledge of God" (Hos. 4:1; 6:6; Is. 11:2,9), or "know-
ledge" in the absolute (Hos. 4:6; Prv. 1:7; 9:10), is almost identical with the fear
of God with which it is linked in Is. 11:2, and it implies the doing of what is right
and just (Jer. 22:16). We can thus read of the knowledge, i.e., the confession and
acknowledgment, of guilt on the part of man (Jer. 3:13; Ps. 51:3) and of the know-
ledge or recognition of innocence on the part of God (Job 31:6). "Known" men
are those who are recognised and respected (Dt. 1:13, 15; Prv. 31:23). Finally, the
element of will in 9'7 emerges with particular emphasis when it is used of God,
whose knowing establishes the significance of what is known. In this connection
97 can mean "to elect," i.e., to make an object of concern and acknowledgment. 31
2. In the LXX38 we find special nuances in certain passages. Thus yivooKelV
occurs only 6 times in Lv. (Mas. $1; 8 times), and the reference in each is to sin. This
usage forms the basis for a view of knowledge which awakens man, which threatens

36 Of man, Gn. 39:6, 8; Dt. 33:9; Prv. 12:10; Job 9:21; Ps. 101:4 (obj. 9); Ps. 119:79
(obj. "God's witnesses"). In the LXX the rendering is usually yIVOoKElV or gloeval,
though Énlotaolal occurs, and in Prv. 12:10 olktE[pEtv. Of God, Ps. 50:11; 73:11; 144:3;
YIVOaKElV in the LXX. Particularly striking are the cases in which the character of 97
is illustrated by a parallel verb, e.g., Jer. 8:7 (70), Prv. 27:23 (9TH 27; par. 132 nt). Cf.
also esp. Ps. 1:6; 31:7; 37:18.
37 Gn. 18:19; Ex. 33:12; Am. 3:2; Hos. 13:5; Jer. 1:5. doubt whether this usage rests
on the sexual, and therefore whether we should translate Am. 3:2 : "With you alone is
my marriage bond," or Hos. 13:5 "Thee alone have married," as K. Cramer maintains in
his Amos (1930), 32; 57; 60. In any case, the meaning is clarified by related or alternative
expressions such as DW9 N22 (Is. 43:1, followed by 708 9!: 45:3 f.; 49:1) or n22 and 703.
In such instances the LXX often has - aUVIEvaI as well as yivookslv and ElÉvat,
38 I am indebted to G. Bertram for this whole section.
yIdoKo
his whole existence, but which leads him to repentance and salvation if accepted. Apart
from the many instances in which yIVO0KElV in this sense simply follows the Heb.
original, the LXX often has it independently, e.g., in revelations, introduced by an
imperative, which contradict human hope and expectation. Here the irrational element
in such knowledge is stressed from the very outset (Ju. 4:9; 'IwB 19:3 [cf. v. 6 Mas.];
36:5; Prv. 29:20; Is. 8:9; 39 44:20; 40 47:10; 51:12). We are also to understand Is. 15:4
in this way, where the LXX wrongly reads 7y7; (from 977) as 7372:41 In Is. 30:15
salutary self-knowledge is demanded independently of the Mas. yIOoKELV as a dis-
turbing knowledge is the opp. of the ou yIVoKElV with which sinners and the Gentiles
are reproached (Wis. 2:22: 5:7). The same reproach is in view in the pregnant use of
oU YIVOOKELV at Zech. 7:14 : To HOvn, & o0k "yvooav. The LXX speaks of peoples
which have no knowledge of God, whereas the Mas. is simply referring to peoples un-
known to the Jews. The Mas. means that even the remotest peoples will serve the Jews ;
it thus emphasises the power of God and the future greatness of His people. Relating
the thought to the heathen, the LXX turns the passage into religious propaganda.
Something of the same is to be seen at w 17:43 according to 'A. At Is. 26:11 the LXX
uses yIV oKElV to express the shattering knowledge of the power of God's wrath.
According to the view of Guthe, who omits 105*, the weaker 7 is designed to express
the thought of salvation. 42 The case is otherwise when all knowledge of divine over-
ruling in the world is denied to the natural man, e.g., many times in Qoh. (cf. also
Wis. 9:13, 17). From this standpoint the LXX in Is. 40:13 has yIVOOKElV for the Heb.
ph pi, which in the LXX is usually equated with 712 and thus translated ÉTOlU&(ElV,
KATEUBOVEIV etc. From the idea of the incommensurability of God the Greek moves to
that of His unknowability for man ; the theological statement of the Mas. is thus re-
placed by an anthropological. Similarly in 'IwB 38:31 A the incapacity of man's
knowledge is substituted for the transcendence of the creative power of God. The Mas.
asks a rhetorical question. It is debatable whether the question of the Greek text was
always answered in the negative by Hellenistic Jews who came under astrological in-
fluences.
In many instances YIVO KElV or YIV@oKE0a signifies the divine self-revelation
as such. In this sense it is often used for the Heb. verb "y, which is rightly rendered
in different ways in the LXX. In the relevant passages in Ex. this verb is incorrectly
emended to 9T in BHK. For though 799 is once translated yvoolnooua and once
togoual in Ex. 29:42, 43, the distinction is intentional. yvwo0noouai, tafouai and
dyiao0ñoouat are three words which supplement one another in relation to God's
revelation. Man, however, is always the logical subject, so that the LXX maintains its
anthropocentric view in opposition to the Heb. 7,', which in the niphal indicates self-
revelation.

30 The LXX reads 197 instead of 997 from 997.

40 The LXX reads "y7 instead of 797 from 997.
41 The LXX also has 7 for 7, 979 for 7797 at Hos. 9:2. Guthe in Kautzsch wrongly brings
the Mas. into line with the LXX. That the threshing-floor and the wine-press will know
the chosen people no more, signifies divine condemnation. Cf. also Jer. 2:16 and 1 Bao.
10:24 where 1972 from 277 is read as 99 7.9.
42 H. Guthe in Kautzsch, ad loc. Duhm, ad loc. disagrees. Elsewhere the LXX occasion-
ally has YIVOOKElV for verbs of hearing and seeing (-+ 697 with reference to > opav).
Thus it is used for AN) in Nu. 11:23 and Ju. 2:7 (cf. also Gn. 39:23 and Ex. 22:10; 33:13)
in the sense of a saving knowledge of revelation. At Is. 48:8 yIOOKELV is used for 92W
synon. with the Émiatao0al which follows for 97, Cf. also Neh. 4:9 (15) 'A.
43 Cf. A. Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur2 (1929), 213 and Index,
S.U. "Plejaden, also Str.-B., IV, 1046 and 1048 (the Zodiac allegory in Pesikt.r., 203a, 31
and its cultic application in Tanch. 12%%7 27b, 33). From this to an astral analogy magic
is only a short step which a vEuovuos yvoois was always ready to take.
 yIVOoK®

There are far more passages in which man is the logical subject of YIVOOKEIV than
there are references to the knowledge, recognition or acknowledgment of man by God.
When used in the latter sense, yIVOOKEIV implies standing the divine test (Gn. 22:12,
cf. YIVOOKELV = Oh kal, Prv. 24:12); election (Nu. 16:5; y U 1:6; 36:18; Hos. 11:12). In
the last example the LXX goes its own way, introducing the thought of election rather
than that of the knowledge of God which threatens the sinful people with judgment. The
same idea is present in Hos. 5:3; Am. 3:2; Nah. 1:7. Closely related is the thought of
the divine omniscience, which in ylvooKelv can be linked no less with the idea of the
love of the Creator for His creatures than with the thought of election (Gn. 20:6; 44
4 Bac. 19:27; 1 Ch. 28:9; w 39:9; 43:21; 49:11; 68:5, 19; 102:14; 137:6; 138; 141:3; Am.
5:12; Bar. 2:30). In the Psalms especially, we have also to take into account both
confidence in the mercy of God and the thought of the Judge and Saviour who knows
and expiates the wrong which has been done.
The noun yvoos is much rarer in the LXX than the verb. On the other hand, it is
used comparatively much more often in a religious and ethical sense to denote a
revealed knowledge whose author is God or sophia. God is the God of knowledge
(1797 = yvools, I Bac.2:3; W72:11Z: Émlyvwous, cf. Sir. 35:8; Prov. 3:20 'A), i.e.,
of the omniscience which is the foundation of His dealings with His creature in judgment
and grace (1 Ch. 4:10;45 Wis. 1:7; Est. 14:14; 2 Macc. 6:30; Is. 40:14, 'AZO, the LXX
has Kpiov). The gnosis of the righteous derives from God. It is spiritual possession
resting on revelation. Prv. 24:26 : 0EoC 8E616axév UE coplav kal yvoa dyiov
EyvoKa. Sir. 1:19; 'I∞B 32:6;46 Prv. 16:8 (diff. from the Mas.); Prv. 2:6; Wis. 7:17;
cf. 10:10; w 93:10; 118:66. The bearer and teacher of gnosis is the pious sage, the nais
0E00 (Is. 53:11), the Sikaioc (Wis. 2:13; 16:22), the cop6c (Sir. 21:13; Prv. 15:7Z),
the ntavoupyog (Prv. 13:16; 47 14:18 48), the opoviuos (Prv. 14:6 'AZO; 19:25 'AZO).
At many points in the Wisdom literature of the OT, of course, we merely have secular
wisdom, and the concept of gnosis is used in this sense too. On the other hand, the
obvious trend of the LXX is towards a religious interpretation. This is seen in the fact
that all capacity for knowledge is denied to the worldly minded, to the GoEBñs (Prv.
13:19; 40 29:7), to the dvontoc (Prv. 1:22 'A); to the uwp6c (Sir. 21:14), to the
&OUVETOC (Sir. 21:18; Prv. 1:22 'A) and to the &poBoc (Prv. 19:20) all these are
terms used for the ungodly or the sinner. This is true even of the holy people if they turn
from God, 50 It is also the verdict on the idolater (Wis. 14:22) and the man who is far
from God (Jer 10:14; 28:17). It applies to the 0006c in the sense of this world. At
least, this is how the LXX seems to understand the Heb. in 'I∞B 15:2 : True spiritual

44 In Gn. 18:19 the LXX has the thought of omniscience instead of that of election
(Mas. + 698, n. 37).
45 The LXX reads 972 or ny70 and translates yvooic in the sense of favourable judicial
knowledge. Another rendering (Cod. 53) has Booknols on the assumption of 7272. The
Mas. has 73pp (= n. 39-41).
46 'AO yvwow; LXX gothunv. Cf. 32:8 and 33:3,4: Tvon SE TEAVTOKPOTOPOS i
818aaKouao UE.
47 In Prv. 13:16 Mas. the reference is to secular wisdom. But the LXX inserts Prv. 9:10
(in a different form) into v. 15 and thus gives the verse a religious turn, as often happens.
48 LXX navoipyol kpathooualv alo0noeos® A: avauéVouol yvoaw e:
ore Oncovtai yvooiv. The Mas. is usually understood in the sense of O.
49 Here, too, we have a misreading of yap as 977.'A translates literally : aTo KaKo0.
The same mistake is found in Sir. 8:6 and 40:5.> also n. 45.
50 The summons to conversion in Hos. 10:12 is formulated accordingly in the LXX:
pOTIOaTE Éauroic POC YVOOEDS. The Mas. reads: n2) 72 022 1723 ("Break up your
fallow ground, for it is time ."). The changing of ny into Ag], as suggested by Guthe
in Kautzsch, hardly corresponds to the original sense of the Heb.
 knowledge is concealed from the wise of this world.©1 [email protected] here is a technical
religious term in antithesis to the secular oogdc. But the usage is not unambiguous.
Yv@otc and ocogia are frequently related, and copia can even be the superior principle.
This is so in the definition of comia at 4 Macc. 1:16: ©2 comia dr) tolvuv Eotly yv@oic
Ocinv &VOpanivev Kal TOV TOUT@V Cf. also Prv. 8:12. Gnosis
is certainly also divine revelation of an objective character, but under Hellenistic in-
fluence there is a plain subjective element of profound religious knowledge in the
mystical and Gnostic sense. Thus gnosis may be insight into the world plan of God
(Da. 12:4 © and Mas., where the LXX presupposes yy rather than y1), Gnosis is
knowledge concerning God and His work which goes beyond all human comprehension
(w 138:6) and which is proclaimed for believers by the whole of creation (w 18:3).

D. The Jewish Usage.

1. The OT conception of knowledge persists in Judaism, and in the LXX and
other Graeco-Jewish sources (apart from Josephus) the use of y.iv@oxeévv is greatly
modified thereby. In Judaism, with the exception of Philo, knowledge as such is
not a problem. When the Rabbis speak of knowledge (7¥°7) in the absolute, they
mean knowledge of the requirements of the Law, ®*? as they do when knowledge is
extolled (ny7).%4 Yet knowledge can also have a general sense for the Rabbis.
A man who has ny3 is a. one who is capable of thinking, as distinct from the
child or the feeble-minded inyT i3 prw); b. one who is gifted as contrasted with the
stupid ; c. one who has acquired learning in contrast with a man of the people
pixz oy) who has had no education. For the Rabbis, however, the Torah and
tradition are the only source and theme of knowledge and instruction. Hence all
the meanings amount to very much the same in fact. Again, according to the
Rabbinic view the fulfilment of the commands present in the Torah and tradition
is possible only when they have been studied and are known. Hence the distinction
between the educated, ie., the Rabbi and the prxa oy is the same as that between
the righteous and the sinner (— c&uaptwAdc). If in the OT the thought of obe-
dience is regulative in the equation of the knowledge of God and the fear of God,
and if this obedience is rooted in knowledge, then the idea of the knowledge
which is the presupposition of obedience is dominant for the Rabbis. Nevertheless,
the specifically OT view of the knowledge of God is not wholly lost in Judaism. °°
In the liturgy the Jewish community praises God for endowment with knowledge,
and this custom is taken over by the Christian Church. ©

51 The Mas. reads: Ay? HINA (“Will a wise man propose windy knowledge
as an answer ?”, Steuernagel in Kautzsch). The ovveotsg (B) mvevua (A) in
the LXX, and the yv@otc mvevuatoc in *A and 2, have nothing to do with wind, as
shown by the continuation in the LAA.
52 Cf, Trench, 188 f., where almost exactly the same definition of cogla is quoted from
C]. Al. Paed.. II, 2, 25, 1 ff; cf. Strom., I, 5, 30, 1 f.
53 Str.-B., I, 191 f£.; Test. L. 13:3.
54 Str.-B., III, 378 on 1C. 8:1.
55 Cf Schli.-Mt., 384. Again, S. Dt.,6,6 § 33 (74a); 11,22 § 49 (85a) in Str.-B., HI,
778,776. To know God is to hear Him (Gn. r., 64,4 on 26:5, Str.-B., III, 34). Knowledge
as acknowledgment is also found, whether of a person (Str.-B., I, 469 on Mt. 7:23) or of
guilt (Test. S. 2:13 £; 4:3; Test. Iss. 7:1; Test. Jos. 3:9). Naturally “to know also continues
to be used in the sexual sense (cf. Str.-B., I, 75 £.; Schl. Mt., 24; Jdt. 16:22; Wis. 3:13; Test.
Jud. 10:3 f. etc.; Philo Poster. C.,33 and 134).
66 Apart from Midr.Sm.,5 §9 (30b) in Str.-B., III, 378, cf. W.Bousset, NGG (1915),
466 ff. (on Const. Ap., VII, 33-39) and the prayers from Jewish sources in Did.,9 and 10.
Cf. the request for knowledge in the fourth petition of the Schemone Esre.
 Hellenistic Judaism has the same usage, cf. Wis. 15:3: 16 yao énlotao8al oe
dAdKANpos Sikatoovvn, Kai el5évat Gov TO Kpc&tos Alfa aBavaclac. There is
reference to acknowledgment of the power and acts of God in Sir. 36:22 (19);
Bar. 2:15, 31; 1 Macc. 4:11; 2 Macc. 1:27; Tob. 14:4 (x); Jdt.9:7; Sib., 3,693; and
to the knowledge of His 686c¢ (6801) etc. in Wis. 5:7; 9:10; 10:8; Bar. 3:9, 14, 20;
cf. Sir. 18:28; 24:28.5* Yet along with the older usage there is also modification
(as seen already in Dt.-Is.). The monotheistic motif is stressed in opposition to
heathenism, so that the knowledge of God also means, or means specifically,
recognition of the fact that there is only one God and that the gods of the heathen
are not gods (cf. Jdt. 8:20; Ep. Jer. 22, 28, 50, 64, 71; Wis. 12:27; Sib. Fr., 1, 31 £.).
In this respect there also arises a question quite alien to the Rabbis, namely, that
of the possibility of the knowledge of God (cf. already 2 Macc. 7:28; Test. N. 3:4
and esp. Wis. 13-15, and also the whole apologetic and propagandist literature of
Hellenistic Judaism).°® Thus both the concept of knowledge and the concept of
God are to some extent hellenised in either a Stoic or a Gnostic direction. ©
2. Philo’s view of knowledge and his use of ytv@oxetv etc. are wholly Hellen-
istic, ie., rationalist or Gnostic. He can speak generally of éntyvmoicg c&AnOElac
(Omn. Prob. Lib., 74) but also of yv@vat to dv (Virt., 215). Nevertheless, what
he finally means is the knowledge of God. On the one hand he speaks of the
knowledge of the one God in opposition to polytheism (Virt., 178 £.; Ebr., 44 £.)
or to scepticism (Ebr., 19) and in so doing uses the Stoic theory of the knowledge
of God (Virt., 215 £.; Poster. C., 167). On the other hand this knowledge, as Philo
sees it, leads only to the fact of God and not His nature (Som., I, 231; Spec. Leg.,
I, 32 ££.; Praem. Poen., 39 and 44); or it leads only to a knowledge of His Suvé&uetc
(Spec. Leg., I, 43 f£.; cf. Fug., 165; Mut. Nom., 17). Beyond this, however, there is
a knowledge of God which consists in direct vision, described by Philo as the
ecstasy in which the soul is both Oop@oqa Te Kal OpmuEeWH (Som., II, 226). This
is not attained by study; it is given by God (Op. Mund., 70 £.; Abr., 79 £.; Praem.
Poen., 37 and 41 ff. etc.).©° This obviously Gnostic view of the knowledge of
God appears again in the fact that it is a yv@oicg evoeBelac (Abr., 268), ie., it
is linked with dualistic piety (Leg. All., III, 48; Deus Imm., 4 and 143). Since this
conception carries with it a depreciation of man, Philo can also adopt OT ideas

57 For émttytwv@oKo@ — 7/03.

58 Cf. Ltzm. R. on 1:20 and Excurs. on 1:25; also — &yvmotoc, n. 3. The Rabbis do not
discuss the problem (Str.-B., II], 33); when they speak of the unknowability of God, they
refer to the inscrutability of His providence (Str.-B., III, 294 f£.); — &yvwotoc.
59 Hor Stoic influence — n. 58, also Ep. Ar., 195; 210; 254 and (for Philo) R. Bultmann,
ZNW, 29 (1930), 189 ff. Symptomatic is the proximity of Zugutoc yvGoic to ZuMutoc
v6uoc in Const. Ap., VII, 33,3 (— n. 40). For Gnostic influence there may be adduced the
combination of [email protected] with Cm and &Bavacia in eucharistic prayers (Did., 9, 3; 10,2),
cf. R. Knopf, ad loc. (Handbuch z. NT, Supplement). On Philo — 2. In the Test. XII the
frequent use of ytv@ox«evv for secret eschatological knowledge may perhaps be traced back
to the same influence (e.g., Test. D. 5:6; Test. N. 4:1; Test. G. 8:2; Test. A. 7:5), and also
the oc yva@oews of Test. L. 4:3; 18:3; 11:2. Yet the genuine Jewish view of
knowledge is also found, e.g., Test. L. 18:5,9; Test. G. 5:7. Joseph. uses yyv@otc only in the
sense of the knowledge of events (Ant., 8, 171 etc.).
60 Cf. Bousset-Gressmann, 450 f£.; Bousset, Kyrios Christ., 167; H. Windisch, Die Frém-
migkeit Philos (1909), 60 ff.; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 317 f.: H.Leisegang, Der Al. Geist,
I (1919), 223,4; R. Bultmann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 189 ff. Like Plotinus (— n. 16), Philo
avoids \VMOKELV and yv@otc (though not consistently) for the vision of God, preferring
Opay, paoic, etc.; similarly he speaks of and rather than
yvootikol.
 YWWQOKD

according to which yv@otc is also tity Tob évdc (Leg. All., III, 126). The rather
obscure mixture of philosophical, Gnostic and OT ideas may be seen especially
in his interpretation of the yv@0. oautév. He certainly takes this to mean E€eta-
Tew éaxutov (Fug., 46£.; cf. Leg. Gaj.,69), but for the most part he interprets it
dualistically as aversion from the earthly together with the knowledge of God
(Migr. Abr., 8 £.; 137 £.; Spec. Leg., I, 10; 44; 263 ££.; Mut. Nom., 54 and 186). The
OT motif can thus be introduced (Deus Imm., 161; Rer. Div. Her., 30), especially
in Som., I, 54-60 (cf. 211 £; 220), where ytvooxetv éautdv is followed by &no-
and this in turn by yiv@oKew tov Svta. No less syncretistic is the
use of &yvoiax, which is sometimes depicted in Greek fashion as kaxodaipoviac
aitla (Leg. Gaj., 69; cf. Ebr.,6), sometimes in that of Gnosticism or the OT as
TAVIGV AuaotnUctov aitia (Ebr., 154 f£.; Som., I, 114).
E. The Early Christian Usage.
1. Popular Usage.
The early Christian use of (and yva@otc) raises no problems where the
reference is to knowledge in the ordinary sense and there is no question of an OT or
Greek or specifically NT concept. Thus ytv@oKetv can mean to detect’ (Mk. 5:29;
Lk. 8:46), or “to note” (Mk. 8:17; 12:12; Me. 26:10; 2C.2:4; Jn. 5:42; 8:27), or to
recognise’ (Lk. 7:39; Mt. 12:15; 22:18; Gl. 3:7; Jm. 2:20; Jn. 4:1; 5:6; 6:15), with no
clear-cut lines of differentiation. Naturally it can also mean “to learn” (Mk. 5:43; 15:45;
Lk. 9:11; Ac. 17:13, 19; Phil. 1:12; 2:19; Jn. 11:57; 12:9; 12,2; Ign. Tr., 1, 1£.; or
in the pass. Mt. 10:26 and par.; Ac. 9:24; Phil. 4:5). Sometimes it can shade into the
sense of ‘to confirm’ (Mk. 6:38; 13:28 f.; Lk. 1:18; 1C. 4:19; 2C. 13:6; Jn. 4:53; 7:51;
Did., 11, 8; esp. common in 1 Jn. in the phrase €v toUT@ ytv@oKOUEV etc.). It can also
mean “to know’”’ in the sense of awareness (Mt. 24:50 and par.; Lk. 2:43; 16:4; Hb. 10:34;
Rev. 3:3; Jn. 2:24 £; 1:27: 1 Jn. 3:20; Ign. R., 5,3) 84 or acquaintance (Mt. 25:24; Lk.
12:47 £.; 16:15: Ac. 1:7; R. 2:18; 7:1; 2C. 5:16; Jn. 1:48; 7:49; 1 CI., 31,3; 35,3) © or
even understanding (Lk. 18:34; Ac. 8:30; 1 C. 14:7, 9; Jn. 3:10).
yiv@oxKetv in the sense of mastery is found only in the interpolated Mt. 16:3, where
the original Lk. par. 12:56 has elSévau, which is better Gk. We are probably to interpret
2 C. 5:21 along these lines (tOv wh) yvovta &uaptiav) in accordance with OT usage,
though there is nothing corresponding in Rabbinic literature according to Str.-B. The
practical sense of familiarity is what is primarily meant in R.7:7: thy auaptiav ovoK
Zyvev el ut) Sick vdouou. Cf. Herm. ta witia ta wy Try
novnplav; s., 9,29, 1: ob8& Zyvwoav, ti Eotw tovnpia. The Gk. use of ytv@oxetv
for “‘to resolve” is not found in the NT, though it is common in Joseph. (e.g., Ant., 5, 22;
15, 284) and Philo (e.g., Spec. Leg., I, 176; Det. Pot. Ins., 27, also yv@otc in Spec. Leg.,
IV, 63 and 70).
émttytv@oKetv is often used instead of ytv@oxKetv with no difference in meaning. In
Gk. émtytv@oKetv can mean “to observe’ if the prepos. is emphasised, but this means
much the same as “to perceive,’ so that any distinction disappears. In fact the simple
and compound forms are used interchangeably in the pap., where Emtytv@oxevv really
means “‘to affirm’ or “to confirm” rather than “to test, as Preisigke maintains. Only
in the sense of “to (re-)cognize,” or, in law, “to reach a further conclusion, does the
compound have a special sense, but this does not affect early Christian usage, nor do

61 yivdoKetv and elS€vat can be used as full equivalents, cf. Mk. 12:15 with 8:17;
Mk. 15:10 with Mt. 27:18; Mt. 7:23 with 25:12; Ac. 1:7 with Mk. 13:32; Jn. 8:55 with 7:28;
8:19, Further passages in which the two alternate are Mk. 4:13; 1C.2:11f; 2. 5:16;
GI. 4:8 £.; Jn. 7:27; 14:7; 21:17; 1 Jn. 2:29. There are variant readings at Rev. 2:17.
62 can be used interchangeably with énlotac@ai for “to know (cf. Ac.
19:15).
 YlIV@CKA

certain special uses in the pap. In the LXX the two terms are often used as equivalents,
and they occur as par. in Hab. 3:2; cf. Ez. 25:14 with Is. 43:10; Hos. 14:10 with Jer. 3:13;
w 78:6 with w 86:4; 1 Macc. 3:42 with 3:11 etc. Sometimes seems to be
used intentionally for “to perceive’ (Gn. 27:23; 31:32; Ju. 18:3 etc.; so also Jos. Bell.,
5,262; Ant., 6, 138; 8, 417 etc.). There is often an alternation in readings, as in Gn. 42:8;
Fx. 14:4; Hos. 7:9; Jer. 4:22; 1 Macc. 16:22 etc. Philo, too, uses Emtytv@OKEtV with no
perceptible difference from ytv@oKetv, e.g., Det. Pot. Ins., 176; cf. Som., I, 231 with
I,60 or Leg. All., III, 48 with II, 126 (the noun). That there is no general distinction
between the simple and compound forms in early Christian writings is shown by a
comparison of Mk. 2:8 with 8:17; Mk. 5:30 with Lk. 8:46; Mk. 6:33, 54 with Lk. 9:11;
Mt. 7:16, 20 with Lk. 6:44; Met. 11:27 with Lk. 10:22; Lk. 24:31 with 24:35; Col. 1:6 with
2C. 8:9. Similar interchange between the two is found in Herm.s., 4,3; 9, 18, 1 £.;
Dg., 12,6 and the variant readings at Ac. 23:28; 24:11. Even in 1 C. 13:12 the alternation
is purely rhetorical ; the compound is also an equivalent of the simple form at 1 C. 8:3;
GI. 4:9. Thus étttytv@oKetv TO Sikai@ua too BEod at R. 1:32 corresponds to ytv@o-
KELV TO GEANUG at 2:18.
The general meaning of Emttytv@oKELV is “to perceive,’ and only infrequently is it
intentionally selected instead of the simple form (e.g., Lk. 1:22; 24:16, 31, though cf.
v. 35; Ac. 3:10; 4:13; 12:14; Herm. v.,5,3f.). It can also mean “‘to learn” (Lk. 7:37;
23:7; Ac. 9:30; 22:29), “‘to understand’’ (2C.1:13f., where the supplementary Ec
téAouc shows that in itself the compound does not have any additional meaning), and
‘to know” (Ac. 25:10; 2 C. 13:5). Too narrow a sense should not be read into €mtt-
yiv@oKduevot when set in rhetorical antithesis at 2C.6:9 (@¢ c&yvoovuEvol). If it
has the primary sense of “known,’’ it can also mean “‘understood” in the sense of 1:13 f.
Nor does this mean only known by man; it can also mean known by God (cf. 5:11).
The compound is perhaps chosen intentionally sometimes for “to confirm” (Lk. 1:4;
Ac. 22:24; 23:28 vl.; 24:8 vl.). Other meanings corresponding to those of ytv@WOKEtv
will be discussed later. ©

2. The OT and Jewish Usage and Its Influence.

There is no special sense even in cases where there is admonition to embrace
a special knowledge. Yet the usage diverges at this point from that which charac-
terises the Greek world. It approximates to the OT view in which knowledge is
also a movement of the will, so that yi.w@oKete means: “Let it be told you.” That
is to say, it is no mere question of objective confirmation but of a knowledge
which accepts the consequences of knowledge. Thus already in the parable in
Mt. 24:43 and par.: éxeivo d€ yivwoKxete, Et NOEL O OiKOdEOTIOTNG Again,
Lk. 10:11: TOUTO yLV@OKETE OTL Paoireia toU BE00; Eph. 5:5:
TOOTO yap (OTE YLVWOKOVTEG, OTL TAC TOPVOC OUK Eyet KANnpovoutav. CE.
also Jm. 1:3; 5:20; 2 Tm. 3:1; 2 Pt. 1:20; 3:3; 1 Cl, 7,4; 59,1; 2CI1.,5,5: 9,2: 16, 3;
Barn., 19,11; Pol., 4,3; Herm. v., 3,6, 7; m., 6,2,3 and 5. émtywwooxetv is used in
the same way at 1 C. 14:37. Yet there is here no conflict with Greek usage, ®* nor
at Ac. 2:36: yiW@oKEeTwa TAG OlKogG ‘IopomA, Stt Kal adtov ... émolnoEev
6 8edc, even though we should certainly understand this knowledge also in the
OT sense of acknowledgment.
In other passages, however, we clearly see the OT view that knowledge is
insight into the will of God in command and blessing. It is primarily acknow-

63 Cf, Moult.-Mill. s.v. and A. Robinson, St, Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (1904),
ff.
64 yiv@oKEtV is, of course, meant in the same way in Epict. Diss., I, 25, 24; II, 18, 5;
IV, 1, 13; 9,2. Cf. also Philo Cher., 29; Ebr., 160; Som., I, 54 ff.
YiVGOKO

ledgment, and obedient or grateful submission to what is known. © This is naturally

found in quotations like R.3:17 (Is. 59:8): é80v eipfyng obK Eyvwoay, and
Hb. 3:10 (Ps. 95:10): adtot 8 odk taco dd0UcG YoU. In the same con-
nection we may also mention Lk. 19:42, 44: et Zyvac ... TK TPdC COL ...
obk #yvwc Tov Katpdov Tic EtioKoTs cou, and 10:19; for 2 Pt. 2:21 — 7/06.
Similarly, there is reference to the knowledge of God's in R. 2:18 and
Ac. 22:14, & and to the knowledge of Christian salvation in 2 C. 8:9: yiwooxete
yap tiv yaptv tod Kupiou hudv *Inood Sti St Hua Entwmyevoev (cf.
Emtytv@oxetv in Col. 1:6), or to knowledge of a special grace of God in Gl. 2:9
and Rev. 3:9. %
In the same sense we read of the knowledge of God Himself at Rev. 2:23: kat
at ExxAnoiat Sti ya eiut 6 2pevvdv vempovs Kal kapolac ;
cf. Hb. 8:11, quoting Jer. 31:34. Elsewhere there is some difference in the con-
ception of the knowledge of God as compared with the OT. Unlike the preaching
of the prophets, Christian missionary proclamation is not directed primarily against
the practical denial of God in Israel; it is addressed to the heathen who do not
honour the one God. Thus in the concept of the knowledge of God the element
of knowledge emerges alongside and sometimes prior to that of acknowledgment.
The two are obviously linked in R. 1:18-23 (esp. 21: Stott yvovtEes Tov DEov OvX
@c Oedv 256Eaoav f nbyapiotnoav). Cf. 1C.1:21: yap év tH cogla
t00 E00 O0K Eyvw 6 dik THS coplac tov Oedv. GI. 4:8 £.: TOTE
uév obk ElSdtec Bedv 250vAEvoaTe TOLG gvoet pr odotv BEoic’ vuv od YVOVTEG
Ocdév ... (— infra). That there is no thought of a speculative knowledge of God
may be seen also from R. 11:34; 1C.2:16: tic yap Zyva vodv xuplou (quoting
Is. 40:13; — n.69), where ytv@oxetv means theoretical comprehension. That the
knowledge of God attained in Christianity is a service of God, is illustrated by
the material parallel in 1Th.1:9: mc éneotpépate TPdG TOV BEdV ANd TOV
elddAwv Sovrevetv GEG CSvt cat &AnOtwvG. Similarly, 1 C.8:4-6 shows that,
while the knowledge of God includes a theoretical element, this is not decisive.
The same is true of Jn. 1:10: 6 Kdou0c adtév odk though > 711 on Jn.
Similarly, theoretical and practical conversion to monotheism is meant in 1 Cl.
59,3: (God as the) d&vol&ac tobcs dpOadpovs Tig Kapdlac eic TO
KELV oe TOV év Sywlototc. The practical element is dominant in

85 also has the sense of ‘to acknowledge’ in some cases where neither God
nor His will is the object, e.g., Hb. 13:23 (?); 1 CL, 61, 1: elg¢ tO yiw@oKovtac ULXG THV
nd GOO (God) adtoic (earthly rulers) Se50névnv S6Eav Kai tu
advtoic; Ign. Pol., 5,2: éxv (sc. the ascetic) TAEOV TOU EmLOKdTIOL, E~OapTat.
Cf. émtytvooxetv at 1 C. 16:18. The sense of “concern” often borne by the OT 97 is not
found in the early Christian use of ytv@oxKetv except to the degree that it is implied in
“acknowledgment.” ytv@oxetv is used in the sexual sense at Mt. 1:25 and Lk. 1:34.
66 When Epict. Diss, IV,7,17 says: hAevOépmpar bnd tod BEod, Eyv@Ka aAvTOU
txc évTOAKC, ytv@oKetv means “to know” (cf. Mk. 10:19: tag évtoAcc ol6ac); never-
theless, Epict. means that he is ‘‘letting it be told him.”
87 In this connection we might adduce Did., 5,2; Barn., 20,2: ob} yww@oKovTEg
Sixatoovwne, for verbs of will are parallel. There is also a par. in 2 Pt. 2:15: 8¢
&Sixlac Again, the reference in Herm.s.,.9,10 and 4: yltw@oKovteg Tac
mMOGEELC AvTOV, is to acknowledgment of guilt (cf. in Herm. s., 8, 6, 3;
11,2). On the other hand, the (elSévat and) ytv@oKetv of 2C.5:16 does not mean
acknowledge in the first instance; it simply means ‘‘to know’ with a suggestion of under-
standing. Paul's concern from 1:13 f. is with the way in which he is to be understood as
an apostle and made manifest to the community (5:11), namely, in such sort that he is
known as a bearer of Car) and not kata odpKa (2:14-16; 3:7 fF; 4:7 ff).
 YlVOCK®

Did., 5, 2; Barn., 20, 2 (00 yivdoKovtEes TOV TOLOaVTA avTOUG, cf. Herm. s., 4, 4).
The theoretical aspect of conversion is more strongly emphasised in 2 CL, 3, 1;
17,1, where ywwooxetv (tov 8edv) means conversion to Christianity. The same
is true in Herm.s., 9, 18,1 £.; 16,7 (obj. t6 tod viod tov Beob) and v.,
3,6,2 (obj. the Cf. also Kerygma Petri Fr., 2 and 3. énvytvooxetv
is used in the same way at 1 Tm.4:3 (obj. tv this is used inter-
changeably with ywwo@oxev in Herm.s., 9, 18,1 £. (cf. Col. 1:16), while 2 Pt. 2:21
(ui) EmeyvaKevat tiv Od5ov Tig SiuKaLoouvng EMLyvoUoL LToOTpEat) unites
the practical and theoretical elements. Cf. also Epict. Diss., I, 6,42 f£.; 9,11; P.
Masp., 4,9 (6th cent. A.D.): tov &ldtov Emttytv@oxKeEtv BEOv.
The corresponding use for knowledge on God's part in the sense of election,
which is so characteristic of the OT, is occasionally found, most clearly at 2 I'm.
2:19: #yv@ KUptos tTobs Svtacg avTOD (== Nu. 16:5; cf. also Mt. 7:23), but also
1 C. 8:3; 13:12; Gl. 4:9 (— infra). This usage is the furthest from ordinary Greek
and was later abandoned.
The noun [email protected] occurs in the same OT sense as ytv@oKetv. yv@otc (too
8e00) is obedient acknowledgment of the will of God. When Paul in R. 2:20
characterises the Jews as Zyovta tThV THs yvOoEwS Kai thc
év TH vou, even though it does not have the supplementary gen., is
equivalent to the OT ny3, ie., knowledge of the will of God as declared év t@
vou. Yet there is also a suggestion of the theoretical knowledge of monotheism ;
this is emphasised by the addition kai th¢ a&AnB8elac. For at this point the Jew is
contrasted with the Gentile who is engulfed by the oxédtoc of polytheism. Obe-
dience is plainly meant by the yv@oicg tOv Sikatouctov of Barn., 21,5 and the
yv@oic 6500 Sixaioovvns of Barn.,5,4. The same is true of 2Cl.,3,1: tic Ff
yv@oig fh tpdg abtév (God), f} TO wh) ApvEeioBar Su 05 avdtdv (i.e.,
Christ); the required 6uoAoyla, however, consists Ev TH nmoteiv & A€yer (2 CI.
3,4). We have already seen (— 702) that the Christian liturgy takes over the
OT and Jewish concept of nyz (Did.,9, 3; 10,2; Const. Ap., VII, 33-39). In the
NT itself the concept also occurs with distinctive shades of meaning at 2C. 2:14;
4:6; 10:5 (— 710). Whether Lk. 11:52 has this in view in its alteration of Q
(cf. Mt. 22:13) is not certain; there might be a reference to theoretical knowledge
of God in the Hellenistic sense. There can be no doubt, however, that Lk. 1:77:
tod So6vai yvGow owtynplac TH Aa@ avtoo, is meant in the OT sense; the
content of owtnpla is here elucidated by the Ev apéoet GuUaptidv adtdv. Natu-
tally, yv@ouc here is not theoretical impartation, but either the divinely fashioned
acknowledgment of the new order of salvation (cf. Is. 59:7£; Lk. 19:42, 44,
—> supra) or more likely an inward appropriation or experience. God Himself
is the Subject of yv@otc in R. 11:33: & Ba&Bog nmAOUTOU Kai doglac Kai yv@oEews
Geov. The expression is OT and Jewish, though there is no direct parallel. © It

© On this pt. cf. w 15:11: éyvmpicke wot S680bc Cafic and 97:2: 2 @PLOEV KUPLOG
x8 awthpiov cto avevtiov wav Cf. also Lids: Joh, If, XVI, n-2
GTN PLAC.
89 Cf. the descriptions of the divine transcendence and inscrutability in Is. 40:12 ff.;
55:8 £.; Prv. 30:1 ff.; Job 9:1 f£.; 28:23 ff.; for Judaism cf. Bar. 3:29 ff.; Sir. 42:18 ff.; 43:15 ff.;
Wis. 9:13 ff. and Str.-B., III, 294f. on R.11:33. The OT and Judaism like to heap up
expressions for knowledge and wisdom: Ex. 31:3; 35:31 (both in the secular sense); Dt.
4:6: Is. 11:2: Prv. 1:4; 2:6; 8:12; Qoh. 1:18; 2:26; Bar. 3:14; Sir. 1:19; S. Nu.,41 on 6:25;
Barn., 2,3 (cf. Windisch in the Supplement to the Handb. z. NT); 21,5. Cf. also Phil. 1:9;
Col. 1:9; Eph. 1:17.
best fits the context to take it on the analogy of yt in the sense of election.
That is, the reference is to the gracious will of God directing history according
to His plan.
Rather curiously, the compound érlyv@otic has become almost a technical term
for the decisive knowledge of God which is implied in conversion to the Christian
faith. The verb, too, is often used in this sense (— supra). To be sure, there is
no technical use in R. 1:28 (tdv Oedv Eyew év émtyvooet, > 703). This is plain,
however, in the Past.; cf. 1 Tm. 2:4 (6e06) S¢ na&vtac &VOpHTIOUG BéAEL COMBI
Kat ele énlyvmow GAnOelac Tt. 1:1; 2 Tm. 2:25; 3:7. In the last two
passages the meaning is true doctrine as opposed to false. Similarly, Mb. 10:26
speaks of the éniyvaotc tig while 1 Cl.,59,2; Mart. Pol., 14,1; 2 Pt.
1:3, 8; 2:20 mention God or Christ as object. The theoretical element is present
in all these cases, yet it is assumed that Christian knowledge carries with it a
corresponding manner of life.
Judaism already makes frequent use of énty- (both verb and noun) for the knowledge
of God: Ex. 14:4; Hos.2:20; 4:1,6; 5:4; 6:6; Ez. 25:14; w 78:6; Prv.2:5; Sir. 23:27;
33 (36):5; Test. N. 4:3; 2 Macc. 3:28; 9:11; 9:14; Wis. 5:7 (vl.); 12:27; Sib., 3, 557;
Philo Leg. All., III, 48; Som., I, 230; Omn. Prob. Lib., 74 (mpd0c Eniyvmow c&AnBEiac).
It is just as hard to find any strict distinction between yv@oic and éniyvaotc in the
NT as it is in the LXX and Philo (— 703). The same holds good of Justin Dial., 3, 5;
Iren., I,21,4 (MPG, 7, 665a). The yyvovtecg tov Oedv of R.1:21 corresponds to the
tov Ocdv Eye Ev Extyv@oet of 1:28; and the thv auaptlav ovK Eyvav ef ph Bia
v6uou of 7:7 to the 8a yap vouou énlyv@ctc cuaptiac of 3:20. Similarly,
in Phil. 1:9 has exactly the same meaning as yyv@otc in 1C. 1:5; R. 15:14. Again, if
Yv@otc can mean inward appropriation (— 706), so, too, can émiyv@otc in R. 3:20.
Again, €TlLy\V@OKEtvV as well as yv@otc can have the sense of obedient recognition
and insight into the will of God (R.10:2; cf. v.3: oby Onetaynoav and 11:30-32).
It is in vain that Origen tries to make a distinction at Eph. 1:15 ff.:7 ef yap un
TAUTOV EOTL Yv@oic Beod Kal Enlyvwotc Yeou, GAA’ 6 EttyV@oKaov olovel &vayvo-
olCer & Eeldmc EmeAEANOTO, Goor Ev Ertyva@oet Beod H5Eoav
aotov (W 21:27 being adduced in support). ** Epict. uses Emtytv@oKetv of the know-
ledge of God in Diss., I, 6, 42; 9,11, but has the same meaning, e.g., I, 3, 2.
He uses éttiyvaoic tic &ANVElac in the same general sense as Philo (— supra). “Ett-
Yvo@otc TOV an&kvtwv is found in Ep. Ar., 139 and ytv@oKetv &navta in Chrysipp.
(III, 60, 28, Arnim). According to Iren.,1I,21,4 (MPG, 7/,665a) the Marcosites teach:
elvat Sé teAclav a&noAUTPWOLV aAUTAV TH Enlyv@otv TOU and
in Jul. Conv., p.336c (Hertlein) Hermes says: ool 6ێ OfL0QKAK TOV TIMTEDK
Mi®pav éncyvdévai. Cf. also Porphyr. Abst., Emvyv@vat tO Ev toic SAotc
TILLWTATOV Kal Ta&V TO Ev TS SAW Kyadov Kal mpoornyopov.
The Christian view of knowledge is thus largely determined by the OT. An
obedient and grateful acknowledgment of the deeds and demands of God is linked
with knowledge of God and what He has done and demands. It is in keeping that
this Christian knowledge is not a fixed possession but develops in the life of the
Christian as lasting obedience and reflection. For this reason yv@otc is regarded
as a gift of grace which marks the life of the Christian by determining its ex-

70 Philo Omn. Prob. Lib., 74 and Epict. Diss., II, 20,21 are only formal parallels; for here
Enlyvaotc (tHs¢) means knowledge of truth or reality in general.
71 JThSt, 3 (1902), 399, 26 ft.
72 Cf M. Dibelius, Né.liche Studien f. G. Heinrici (1914), 176 ff., and on 1 Tm. 2:4 (Dib.
Past.); Wnd. Hb. on 10:26.
 YtVOOKW

pression (1C. 1:5; 12:8; 73 2C. 8:7; 1Cl.,1,2; if there is here no supplementary
gen., this does not mean that we are to assume a technical Hellenistic usage).
This explains the many desires and demands for and other state-
ments concerning it. Intrinsically the usage is that of popular Greek, and we may
always translate “knowledge.” If the theoretical element determines the concept,
the practical consequences are always implied. It is characteristic that the guiding
factor is not interest in Christian learning but the edification of the community
which is to be advanced by the yv@ouc of the individual (R. 15:14; 1C. 14:6;
1 Cl., 48,5; Did., 11,2). Phil. 1:9f. shows plainly that reflective enquiry is in-
volved, but it is grounded in love and thus leads to right action: tva 1) ayatn
UU@V TIEPLOGELY Ev ETLLyVHOEL Kal TKO aloBrjoEl, Eig TO SOKILACELV DUC
TK Siapépovtar, iva: te etduxptveic Kat Cé£. also Phim. 6: 8nac i |
THC TLOTEWS Gou yéwntar év ETttyVMOEL TAVTOS tov
év eic Xpiotév. The faith which Phim. shares is to be effectual in his re-
cognition of all that is given to the believer and of what must foster union with
Christ when it is expressed. That this knowledge of the &yaOov must result in
action may be seen from what follows. In Col. 1:9f. émtiyv@otcg leads to tept-
tod Kkuplou. The new man, who has put away heathen vices, is
renewed elc¢ éniyvwo (Col. 3:10). The Christian husband lives with his wife
Kata yv@ouv (1 Pt. 3:7). In Barn., 18, ethical instruction is a distinctive form
of yv@oig and and the description of the 656¢ tod mwtdc in 19:1 is
introduced as follows: gotw obv S00eica Hiv yvGoic tod nepinateiv év
QUT TOLALTH’ Kyanyjoeig Tov Noujoavtc& oe Cf. also 2 Pt. 1:3,5£.; 3:18;
Barn., 2, 3; 21, 5.
Nevertheless, the theoretical element can be more strongly emphasised. ytvao-
KELV (or [email protected]) can be specifically theological knowledge. This grows, e.g., out
of the study of Scripture. yiv@oKetv is used in this way in Gl.3:7; Jm. 2:20;
Barn., 7,1; 14, 7; 16,2; and yv@ouc, which in Barn., 1,5 means primarily Christian
knowledge in general, later denotes the knowledge attained by allegorical ex-
position of Scripture (6,9; 9, 8; 13, 7). Similarly, in 1 Cl., 32,1; 40,1 (&yKeKkugo-
tec elc ta B&ON Tic yvmosws); 41,4, yvaoug is used for the Christian
knowledge won from Scripture. In Herm. v., 2,2, 1 understanding of the mysterious
BiBAaplSov is yvGoc. The understanding of parables or allegories (ibid., 3, 1, 2;
4 3: s., 5,3,1:; 9,5,3 etc.) is ywwooketv. Realisation that faith implies knowledge
of tx pvoTIpia Tig Paottelac tov Geod (Mt. 13:11 and par.; cf. Wis. 2:22) leads
to the idea of yiv@oxevv as systematic theological knowledge. Paul introduces his
theological interpretation of baptism at R. 6:6 with the words toto
Col. shows how faith leads etc éniyvwow to6b uvotmplov tod Xpiotod, év @
elow ma&vtecg ol Onoavupoi tig Kal (2:2); and the
author of Eph., who desires such yv@oic for his readers (1:17; 3:19; 4:13), gives
more than one example of it (— yv@p{co).
3. The Influence of Gnostic Usage.
a. Early Christianity had to develop such yv@otcg in conflict not only with

73 Tt does not seem possible to me to make a precise distinction between the Adyoc
YV@oeEac and the Adyoc cooliac in 1C. 12:8 (cf. the comm.), whether in respect of form
or of content. Certainly I do not agree with C. Weizsacker, Das aposftol. Zeitalter der christl.
Kirche® (1902), 580, that both forms of Aéyos, as forms of are to be distinguished
from c&noKc&Avwig and mpogntela. According to 13:2 and also 14:6 such a sharp dif-
ferentiation cannot be made.
YlWOOK

polytheism but especially with heathen Gnosticism, which in conjunction with the
Mystery religions competed with its preaching. The result, however, was to bring
the Christian message into some analogy with heathen Gnosticism and to expose
it to the acute danger of penetration not merely by Gnostic terminology but by
Gnostic problems and conceptions. The danger was the more acute in view of
the current infection of Jewish circles by Gnosticism. Jd., 2 Pt. and 1 Jn. are not
the first writings to oppose Gnostic teachers in the Christian communities. Rev.
2:24 is not the first statement to the effect that they Zyvwoav tx BaBéa Tov
Zatava.*4 The Past. are not the first epistles to contend against pevd@vuuoc
yv@oic (1 Tm. 6:20). The terminology of Col. and Eph. is not the first to be
fashioned in opposition to Gnosticism.* Already at Corinth there had been a
movement of Gnostic pneumatics, and Paul had had to resist their influence. The
struggle for speculative wisdom (1 C. 1:17 ff.), the insistence on yv@ouc, on the
Eovola with which it invested them in matters of personal conduct (6:12 f£.;
8:1 ff.), and on demonstrations of a pneumatic quality (2C. 10-13), shows that
the opponents were Gnostics; so, too, does the tendency towards asceticism
(1 C.7) and the denial of the resurrection of the body (1 C.15). Paul for his part
maintains the uniqueness of genuine Christian knowledge, but in so doing he
appropriates to some extent the vocabulary and approach of the Gnostics. *® This
is shown by the use of yv@otc in the absolute at 1 C. 8:1,7,10£.; 13:8. But this
brings the antithesis into clear focus. He concedes (1 C. 2:6 f£.) that the Christian,
too, has a cogia which makes possible for him a ytvwoxetv of the divine plan
of salvation which is concealed from rulers — a knowledge which penetrates the
B&On tod Ge05 because it rests on the divinely given He concedes that
the — mvevpatiKds is exalted above the — wuxikdc and is judged of no man.
But the theme of this ytv@oxetv is simply the divine act of salvation (ta O60
to0 Ge00 yapiobévta 2:12). Hence there is no question of vague specula-
tion. Again, this ytvdoxew is achieved only by those who walk according to the
(3:1 ff.). That the Gnostic does not have a mysterious quality which he
can enjoy is shown plainly by 1C.8:1ff.: ... et tig SoKEt Eyvoxevat tt,
tyva KaB@c Set yvdvar’ el 5€ tic K&yana tov Yedv, odtoc Eyvwotar Om
avtod ... Here it is plain 1. that the knowledge of the one God is not theoretical
speculation, which allows the one who has it to live according to his own caprice
(ZEovola, v.9), but is genuine only when there is corresponding 2. that
&yan&v tov is not a mystical relationship to God but finds expression in
brotherly love; and 3. that ytwv@oxKetv does not arise from within man but is
grounded in God’s knowledge of man (note the surprising substitution of the
passive for the active). That this knowledge of God is His election of grace, and
that Zyvwotat (oT adtod) is thus to be understood in terms of OT yp, is beyond

74 It is surely obvious that we have here a formula of Gnostic teaching. Probably those
under rebuke were taking Satan mythology seriously (Ophites, Cainites) and drawing
licentious deductions from Gnosticism. This is preferable to the view that the author is
simpl twisting the slogan of opponents who really spoke of the BaQéx tov
TH e conflict in Col. is against a false syncretistic and Gnostic teaching. Not merely
the vocabulary but the cosmological speculation applied in Christological exposition is
influenced by this antithesis. In Eph. there is no polemic, the vocabulary is applied in a
different direction and ecclesiological conceptions replace the cosmological; cf. esp. Dib.
Gefbr.; H. Schlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Epheserbrief (1930).
76 Cf, esp. Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 258 ff.; 333 ££; Bousset, Kyrios Chr.?, 113 ff; 130 ff.
For a different view, cf. K. Deissner, Pls. u. d. Mystik seiner Zeif? (1921); A. Schweitzer,
Die Mystik des Apostels Pls. (1930).
 question. There is an analogous case in Gl. 4:9: vuv 5€ yvdévtec Bedv, UGAAOV dE
yvmo8évtec On’ avtob. Since knowledge here is the wholly non-mystical know-
ledge imparted by missionary preaching, yv@o@8rvai can only have the same |
sense as KAfjoic and éxAoyr) elsewhere. Opposition to Gnosticism may also be
seen in 1 C. 13. The yv@ouc given to faith is not to be equated here with OT ny.
The absolute use in v.8 shows that it is viewed, on the Gnostic analogy, as a
pneumatic capacity for knowledge. This much is conceded. Nevertheless, 1. this
Yyv@oic is set under &yann, without which it is worthless; and 2. it is described
as something provisional and inadequate which will pass away, whereas totic,
and &yann remain. Gnostic piety is surpassed by &ya&nn and eschatological
faith. yv@ouc is not the true relationship to God. Indeed, there is no direct re-
lationship to God as Gnosticism claims, at any rate in this life. When Paul uses
Extyvooouat for the future relationship, he is certainly adopting Gnostic usage. ™7
But the term is robbed of its Gnostic significance by the phrase KkaO@c kal
éteyv@oOnv, which is to be understood as in 1 C. 8:3 and Gl. 4:9.
Similarly it might be shown that in the struggle against Gnostic pneumatics in
2 C. Paul adopts the Gnostic approach and describes his own calling in terms of the
dissemination of yv@ouic. But the objective genitives used with yv@oic show that
it is primarily acknowledgment (2:14; 4:6; 10:5). In the passage Phil. 3:8 ff., which
also contains Gnostic expressions, Paul undoubtedly borrows from the Gnostics
in describing the yv@oig Xpiotod *Inood as a distinctive mark of the Christian.
But this [email protected] corresponds to the resolve to renounce év oapxl
(v.4 ff.) and consists in the knowledge of Christ as the Lord. The existential
character of this emerges plainly in the fact that this resolve is not made once
and for all but must be continually renewed (v.12 ff.). In v.9£. yvéotc is ex-
plained as evpeOnvat, i.e., being drawn into God's saving act in virtue of tiottc,
which never possesses its object but looks to God on the one side and to the
future on the other. Hence yvdévat (v.10) is not withdrawal from existence in
earthly history but experience of the Thc avaot&oewmc avtod and the
Kowaovla tov TaBHUdtwov adtoO within historical life (cf. 2 C. 4:7 f£.), which for
the Christian is changed by the event of salvation and behind which stands the
éx vexp@v (v.11). That all this is very different from Gnosticism
7 A Rabbi would have spoken of ‘seeing God, though not in the sense of ecstatic
and mystical vision, cf. R. Bultmann, ZNW, 29 (1930), 186 ff. Paul does indeed begin:
BrAémouev yao &ptt, but the continuation : GPtt ytv@oKo, shows that in the chapter he is
discussing the Gnostic problem.
78 Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 383 ff. seems to me to be right in his view that in 1 C. 13:13
Paul is wrestling against a formula of Gnostic origin, in which yv@otc is a divine power
which in company with other powers (tlotic, €Attic, constitutes the pneumatic
man and establishes his immortality. Paul not only rejects the description of such magnitudes
as Suvcuetc (or ototyeta) but reduces the number to three by the exclusion of yv@ouc.
On this discussion, cf. also R. Reitzenstein, Historia Monachorum u. Historia Lausiaca
(1916), 100 f£.; 242 £.; Histor. Zeitschr., 116 (1916), 189 ff; NGG (1916), 367 ff.; (1917),
130 ff; E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (1913), 352 ff; A.v. Harnack, Preuss. Jahrb. 161
1916), 1 ££; M. Dibelius, Wochenschr. f. klass. Phil., 30 (1913), 1041 £; P. Corssen, So-
krates, NF, 7 (1919), 18 ff. On the other hand, Reitzenstein is obviously wrong in his
derivation of the correspondence between knowing God and being known by Him (1C.
8:3; 13:12; Gl. 4:9) from mystic usage. Corp. Herm., X, 15 (—> 694) is no true analogy, for
the odk &a cyvoei tov KVOPwTOV O Ged does not really refer, as Paul does, to the
act of G which in its concrete fulfilment is the foundation of the knowledge
of the individual ; it is conceived very generally. Similarly, there is no material parallel in
Porphyr. Marc., 13 (copdc 5& &VOpanosc ... yiw@oKxetat Ond Geo), since God's know-
ledge is here grounded in the conduct of the copéc.
is finally illustrated by the fact that Paul is not describing individual experiences
but the character of Christian existence in general.

b. A greater role is played by ytv@oxew in John’s Gospel and 1 John (ém-

yiv@oxetv does not occur, nor, perhaps intentionally, than in any other
early Christian writings. Apart from its ordinary use, the word here denotes
emphatically the relationship to God and to Jesus as a personal fellowship in
which each is decisively determined by the other in his own existence. As the re-
lationship between the Father and the Son, which elsewhere can be described as
etvar év (Jn. 10:38; 14:11; 17:21; cf. esp. 1 Jn. 2:3,5; 5:20) and even év elvact
(Jn. 10:30), is a mutual ytvooxevy, so is the relationship between Jesus and His
own (Jn. 10:14£.,27; cf. 7:29; 8:55), which can also be described as elvat év
(Jn. 15:1 ££.; 17:21). But if the one who knows is determined in his existence by
the one who is known, the meaning of knowledge is determined by the nature of
the one who is known. Because God and the Son are and have Cay (5:26), it is
al@vioc Cw to know God and Jesus Christ (17:3), and it “sufficeth” to be shown
the Father (14:8). Thus it is obvious that yytv@oxetv is the supreme and true
mode of being. But it is also obvious that materially this is understood to be
&yatmn. God is &yd&tm, so that the man who is related to Him is related as one
who loves (1 Jn. 4:8, 16). To be determined by love is thus a criterion of the
knowledge of God (1 Jn. 4:7 £.; c£. 4:20 £.), as also of belonging to Jesus (Jn. 13:35).
Like y.w@oKetv, c&yanav determines the relationship between the Father and the
Son (Jn. 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23 £., 26 and 14:31), and also between Jesus and His
own (13:1, 34; 14:21 f£.; 15:12, 17). Hence it is plain that does not mean
the knowledge of investigation, observation or speculation, nor of mystical vision
remote from historical contacts or action; it achieves concrete expression in
historical acts. The of God for the xédopoc is actualised in the sending of
the Son (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9£.), and the &yc&mn of Jesus in obedience to the Father
and service for the world or for His own (Jn. 14:31; 13:1 f£.; 15:9,12£.). Since
the knowledge of Jesus or of God expresses itself accordingly in &kyanav, observing
the commandments (which have in c&ycétm their content) might also be called a
criterion of ywwdoxKew (1 Jn. 2:3-5; cf. 3:6). Yet yww@oxetv, as determination by
God or Jesus, is &yéernm not merely in &yanda&v as loving action but also in aware-
ness of being loved. The saying: velvate év tH a&yary tH Eu (15:9) can signity
abiding both in being loved and in loving (cf. 17:26; 1 Jn. 4:16). Indeed, the former,
and awareness of it, are the basis of the latter (1 Jn. 4:10). The phrase xa8ac
Svas (Jn. 13:34; 15:12) means “on the basis of the fact that I have loved
you.” This means that ytvdox«evv has primarily the sense of the recognition and
reception of love, i.e., mlotic. But this shows again that the ytwooKew which is
orientated to God, which thus brings Cay to man (17:3; 14:8 — supra) and which
the Son has been sent to make possible (1:18; 17:4 ff£.), does not connote a direct
relationship to God but has its object in revelation, in Jesus. Direct knowledge of
God is excluded (1:18), and all pretended knowledge is tested by the appearance
and claim of Jesus (5:37 f£.; 7:28 £.; 8:19). God does not exist apart from revela-
tion. 79 Jesus, however, is revelation for the sinful kéouoc. To see and confess
Him is to see the Father (14:7-9; cf. 14:20; 1 Jn. 5:20). To know Him, however, is

79 This is absolutely true, and is the meaning of Jn. 1:1 ff. God was never without the
— Adyos, so that it has always been true: 6 abtOv obK Eyva (Jn. 1:10). Since
Oct this is true in a special sense: there is no knowled
cage oO f God apart from
seem CLR Bultmann, Z.d-Z.,6 (1928), 11 ff
 YiVWOKW

not merely to have information concerning the circumstances of His life (6:42;
7:28). It is to know His unity with the Father (10:38; 14:20; 16:3). Nor does this
mean a mystical relationship with Jesus. It means understanding Him in His
obedience and love. It means seeing in Him the &ytoc Tov BEd, ie., the One
whom God has sent and who has sanctified Himself for the world (14:31; 6:69;
17:3, 18 f.). He is also present as such in the proclamation of the community, so
that it may be said: 6 yiw@oKw@v Tov BEdv GKOVEL NU@V, SG OUK EOTLV EK TOU
odK c&kovet Hudv (1 Jn. 4:6; cf. 3:1). The same is true of the &AAoc tapa-
KANTO“, i.e., of the Spirit who is at work in the Church's preaching. The world
does not know Him, but the community does, because He determines its being
(14:17).
Since ytv@oxKetv this means acceptance of the divine act of love in Jesus, and
obedience to its demand, it might appear that Johannine ytvwoxetv corresponds
to OT yt. There is indeed a relationship, but we can also see the distinctiveness
of the Johannine view when we realise that it is paradoxically building on the
of Hellenistic Gnosticism. This emerges 1. in the way in which it can
be combined or used interchangeably with verbs of seeing (e.g., Jn. 14:7-9, 17, 19 £.;
1 Jn. 3:6; 4:14). The author is cbviously opposed to those who allege a non-
historical vision and knowledge of God.*° But he accepts their approach. What
they seek will be accomplished, but very differently. It also emerges 2. in the
apparently dogmatic way in which 6tt- statements describe the content of ytv@o-
Kev. There is battle for a dogma (a Jn. 7:16£.), ie., the dogma of the
divine sonship of Jesus (7:26; 10:38; 14:20; 16:3; 17:7.£.,23,25 etc.). Certainly
what is at issue is the historical nature of revelation. But this leads to the offence
of dogmatic knowledge. We cannot omit this trait in our depiction of Johannine
yiv@oKetv. It emerges 3. in the fact that obedience (&yana&v) is called the
criterion of yiv@oKxetv (— 711). This means that the author does not identify
it with yiwooxetv (cf. 9%). His polemical thesis that yiv@oxevwv is actualised in
obedience (esp. in 1Jn.) is paradoxical in relation to the presupposed concept.
Finally, it emerges 4. in the distinctive interrelating of miotevetv and ytv@oKevv.
That denotes a full and true relation to the object may be seen from
the fact that only ytv@oxetv and not TLotevEtv is used of the mutual relationship
of the Father and the ‘Son. In the relationship of man to God, or to revelation,
miotevetv denotes the first movement which, if maintained, has promise of ytv@o-"
Kew (Jn. 8:31 £. ~ 10:38; cf. 14:20). Faith alone, which is constantly
required by Jesus, is the doing of the will of God which is followed by yiv@oKetv
(Jn. 7:17). ytwwooKetv is impossible where the Word is not heard (8:43), i.e.,
where faith is refused (cf. Jn. 5:24; 6:60 with 6:64, 69; 12:46-48; 17:8: to hear or
to receive the Word is to believe). In John, therefore, miotevetv corresponds
to the OT yw, while yiv@oxew lies beyond. Far from signifying obedience or
grateful submission, it is promised to these acts. ®! This does not mean, of course,

80 1 Jn. makes it quite evident that the opponents are Gnostics.

81 Kor this reason Jn. differs from Paul in not using for God's electing, though
he has the thought of election (6:70; 13:18; esp. 15:16, 19). In 10:14 f.,27, the knowledge
of Jesus does not precede or underlie that of His disciples (note the difference in tense from
Paul). It corresponds to theirs and is contemporary with it. The relationship is that of
mutual yivmoxetv. In this respect he obviously follows Gnostic usage (— 694, and R.
Bultmann, ZNW, 24 (1925), 117 f.). Only in 8:32; 14:31; 17:23 may we see the OT
concept of 97°. The world will one day realise to its horror (cf. the @Aéyyew which the
MAOAKANTOS will exercise, 16:8-11) that Jesus is the Revealer; cf. Is. 41:20; 43:10: — 698.
that the object of yivooxevv is different from that of miotevev. Nor does it mean
that yiv@oxetv is a higher stage of development at which there is possession of
what is known. The normal movement from TLotevetv to ytv@oKetv (6:69; 8:31 £.;
10:38) can be reversed. ytv@oKetv gives TtLotevetvV new power (16:30; 17:7 £.;
cf. 1 Jn. 4:16; cf. Tob. 14:4 x). True faith, ie., the faith which “abideth,” contains
yivooKetv within itself (cf. 1 Jn. 2:4 with 6). yiwwooxKevv is a constitutive element
in It is faith’s own understanding, identical with the yap& which no
longer needs to “ask” (Jn. 15:11; 16:22-24) but for which the Word of Jesus has
the character of mappnola rather than (16:25, 29).
On the basis of his distinctive conception of the knowledge of God John can
both vary and deepen the traditional use (— 705) of ytvmoxetv (thv
for conversion to Christianity.
c. There has been much dispute concerning the interpretation of Mt. 11:27 and
par.: TAVTA Lor TapEed6O0n Ond Tob TaTPdG LOU, Kai OVSEIC ETLYLVWOKEL TOV
utdov ef wt 6 ratip, obde Tov TaTépa Tig ETLytV@oKeEL El UY O Lidg Kal @ Ecv
BobAntat 6 vidc (the Lucan version differs only in style). Apart
from Mk. 13:32, this verse, with its reference to the Son in the third person,
stands quite alone in the Synoptists, though it has affinities with Johannine usage.
It hardly seems to have any original connection with the neighbouring verses
(25 £.; 28-30); the latter have no par. in Lk.*? The text is uncertain, since the
order of the statements which describe the mutual knowledge of Father and Son
varies in the tradition, and the statement that no one knows the Father but the
Son is perhaps a later addition. If it is original, then the relationship between the
Father and the Son is here described as in John, and the view of knowledge is
necessarily the same. But even if it is not genuine, the émtytv@oxew can be under-
stood only in the Johannine sense, for in view of the kai © é&v — &roKadAvwat,
the émtytvMoKetv cannot be equivalent to the OT “nyt. Here then, as in Jn.,
we have Gnostic terminology, and the question whether this is an authentic saying
of Jesus must be discussed along the same lines as the relation of the Johannine
sayings to the Synoptic. °°

F, The Later Development of the Usage.

The works of the Apologists yield nothing distinctive. Except in quotations from the
OT, they follow popular usage, i.e., yiwwoKelv and yv@otg (or Entytv@oKetv and

82 Bultmann Trad., 171 f£.

83 It is worth noting that Str.-B. on Mt. 11:27 cannot adduce any par., and that the
Rabb. par. in Schl. Mt., 384 merely illustrate the OT and Jewish concept of The
Hellenistic nature of émtytv@oxetv in Mt. 11:27, with which we may compare the par.
Jul. Conv., 336c mentioned on — 707, is strongly felt by the Jewish exegete C. G. Monte-
fiore, The Synoptic Gospels, II (1927), 175 £. Dalman WJ, I, 158 £., who also regards the
ovde 6 vidc el uy O of Mk. 13:32 as an addition, feels that the absolute use of
‘the Father” and “the Son’ is non-Jewish, and therefore regards the statement as a very
general one, i.e., as “reference to something which is true of every father and son, and
which may thus be applied to Jesus and His Father as well. This is quite impossible.
Perhaps there is a suggestion of Gnostic terminology in the m&vta wor napedd6On, cf.
Corp. Herm., I, 32: evAoyntog elf natep’ 6 adcg &vVOpanoc ovvayiatetw cow BovAEtat,
NMAPESOKAG KUT v maoav Efovolav. Apart from the comm., cf. A. Harnack,
und Reden Jesu’ in eitr. z. Einl. in d. NT, II (1907), 189 ff.; Norden, Agnostos
Theos, 277 ff.; J. Weiss, Nt.liche Studien fiir G. Heinrici (1914), 120 ff; Bousset, Kyrios
Christ.?, 45 ff.
 — KATHYLVWOKW
En(yvawotc) always denote theoretical. knowledge, primarily as knowledge of God or
of the c&AnGetax or Christ, 84 then as knowledge attained from Scripture ®® and finally
as theological knowledge. The battle against Gnosis and wrestling with Greek
philosophy led the Alexandrians to reconstruct the view of gnosis and to distinguish
between trlotic and yvéotc, not as John does, but in such sort that yv@outc is regarded
as a higher stage of Christian life; the yvaotiKdc is the teAetocg. Here we have a
distinctive but obscure combination of the Greek conception of knowledge and the
Gnostic view of the vision of God.
That mlotic and yvaouc are linked is often stated incidentally and with no attempt
at delimitation (Corp. Herm., IV, 4; IX, 10: Porphyr. Marc., 21-24; Just. Dial., 69, 1).
The Christian Gnostics were the first to attempt a clear formulation. They were forced
to do this because they wished to maintain their own position within the Church and
had thus to recognise the ordinary Christians who were not yv@ottkoi (mvevuatikol,
TEAELOL) as those who had mlotic but not yv@ouc. In this connection the word — wuyt-
KOG, originally the opposite of mveUuaTLKOG, came to denote a new category midway
between the and the oapKikdédc. According to Cl. Al. Strom., II, 3, 10, the
use of mlotic and for two different stages goes back to Valentinus. Cl. and
Orig. accepted it as a basis for their scientific and speculative theology in the Church.
If nmlotig is a~yv@oig TOV KatETtELtydOvT@V, yv@otc is the AmodELEIG TOV
Oik TOTES TAPELANUMEVOV TH TloTEL (CI. Al. Strom., VII, 10, 57;
cf. 55 £.). mlotic is } Tpdc owtNpiav veGotc (ibid., II, 6,31), but wAEov SE
EOTL TOU TLOTEVOML TO (ibid., VI, 14, 109). The movement is éx niotewc eic
yv@outv, but always in such a way that miotic is never wholly without yv@otc and
Yv@oic is never &vev tiotewc (ibid., II, 6,31; V.1,1), so that it is possible to speak
of mloti¢ yv@otiKy or émtotnuoviKy (ibid., VI, 9, 76; II, 11,48). yva@otcg leads to
fulfilment, to vision (ibid., VI,7,61; 12,98), and when it is said that it leads to &y&m
(ibid., VII, 10,55 and 57) this &ya&rn yvwotiky (ibid., VI,9,73 and 75) is identical
with Dewpla. This yvaouc can never be lost: o6mote ov &yvoix ylvetat Hf yvGouc
ovdse TO KyaBov Eic kaKkdv (ibid., VII, 12, 70). 87
KATKYLVOOKG), KKXTAHYVQOTOC.
se ee
In Gk. usage KXTAXYLV@OKELV means “to note, to see something (bad) in someone,
“to catch someone” (cf. the pap.), “to see accurately,” especially ‘to know to be guilty,”
“to judge” (as often in the pap.), sometimes in the sense of self-judgment (cf. Moult.-
Mill), and then “to take a low view of, ‘to despise” (cf. the pap.). +
The word is rare in the LXX. It means “to condemn” at Dt. 25:1 (for yw hiph
in antith. to Suxa.obv, “to acquit’) and Sir. 14:2: yaKkc&pioc 0d o} Katéyve 7

84 E.g., Aristid., 15,3; Athenag. Suppl., 13, 1; Just. Apol., I, 19,6: Dial., 14, 1; 20, 1; Tat.
Or. Graec., 12, 4; 13,1; 19,2; 42,1; ywooKew t& toO Xptotod &Séyuata, Just. Apol.,
II, 2,2; absol. of Christian knowledge, Just. Dial., 39,5. On the possibility of philosophical
knowledge of God, cf. Just. Dial., 3 ff.
85 E.g., Just. Dial., 27, 4; 69, 1; 99, 3; 112, 3.
86 Cf, Just. Dial., 74,3: toug ... yvovtag TO oaTHptov tobto won }plov, toutéott
to 1&B0C TOU XPLOTOV. a.

87 On the mysterious conception of yv@otc in Cl. Al. > 694-696, cf. Anrich, Das antike
Mysterienwesen, 133 ff. In its practical exercise, Yv@ocg is for him theological science or
speculation as KaT& tHVv Dewplav yvGoig which follows the Kav@v Tic
mapaddcemc (Strom., I, 1,15). In Orig. who distinguishes between tlottc and yv@otc
in the same way as Cl. Al. (e.g., Comm. in Joh., XIX, 3, 16 f.), there is a greater emphasis
on the scientific character of yv@otc. Cf. also the discussion tl mpdtepov, fy yvGots fF
¥) lotic in Bas. Ep., 235 (MPG, 32, 872).
KAaTAYtLV@oKG. Apart from the lex., cf. Deissmann NB, 28 f.; Nageli, 47; F. W.
Mozley Exp., 8, Ser. ITV (1912), 143 £.; Dib. Past. on Tt. 2:8.
1 On the different forms of construction, cf. the lex. and grammars.
 KATAYIVOOKD — TIPOYLVWOK®

Woy?) adtod (Heb. ton pi). It apparently means “to scorn’ at Prv. 28:11 and
Sir. 19:5. It is used of self-judgment at Sir. 14:2 and Job 42:6 2 (for oxm); Ez. 16:61
= (for ad), and also Test. G.5:3: oby Om’ GAAOU Kataytv@oKduEvos GAA’
tic ldlac Kapdlac. This usage recurs in the NT at 1 Jn.3:20£.: 8tt Edy xata-
ywvookyn ty Kkapdla, Sti Eotiv 6 BEdc Tho Kapdlacg Kal
yiwv@oKet Ta&vta, where the play of words shows that some element of knowledge
is still felt to be present. &yammtol, écxv f kapdla ph KatayiwooKn
EYOUEV TIPOG TOV BEdv. Cf. also Act. Thom., 94, p. 207,11 £.: uaxcpror of é&yrot,
OV at Poyal OLVSETOTE EQUTOV KaTéEyvWoav.? The meaning in Gl. 2:11 is hard
to determine: Kat& mpd0mmov avtéotnv Sti Kateyvwopévog fiv. The
Vet. Lat. has reprehensus, the Vg. and Ambstr. reprehensibilis. WWe might render
detected, or better “condemned”’ or “judged,” though the reference is not to
official judgment but to what is meant in R. 14:23: 6 5& Exv OayH
KaTaKéeKpitat (Jn. 3:18 is different) or in Jos. Bell.,2,135, where the Essenes
reject the oath: fn yao KateyvGo8al gaow tov Slya GEOv.
The meaning is ‘to condemn” or ‘to despise” in Dg., 10,7: tOtTE THC AnaTHE TOU
KOOLOU Kal TIS KaTtayvo@on, Stav TO GANBGs Ev OVPAVa Crv Emvyvac.
&KATEYVWOTOG means “one against whom no fault can be alleged, and therefore no
accusation alleged or sustained.’ In Gk. it is found only in inscriptions and pap. of the
imperial period (Nageli, 47), where it is often linked with Gueuntoc. In the LXX it
occurs only at 2 Macc. 4:47: oitivec ... aKaTc&yv@otoL, and in the NT
only at Tt. 2:8: (mapeyduevoc) ... Adyov Uyth AkatayvwoTov.

MIPOYLVQOKO,
TPOYLVGOKELV usually means “to know beforehand” as human foresight or cleverness
makes this possible (Eur. Hipp., 1072 £.; Thuc., II, 64,6; Plat. Resp., IV, Hippocr.
Progn., 1), though any real foreknowledge of destiny is concealed from man (Hom.
Hymn. Cer., 256£.). In the LXX mpoytv@oxew is ascribed to coola at Wis. 8:8.
Similarly Philo speaks of a Tt THV WEAAOVTOV (through dreams) in
Som., I,2. There is a peculiar passive use at Wis. 6:13: oOcvet (sc. copla) toUG
Em1.QuuoOvtacg it comes to those who long for it, letting itself be
known beforehand.” Cf. 18:6: éxelvn tf we (of the destruction of the firstborn)
MPOEYVOOON HUOV.
In the NT mpoytvooxev is referred to God. His foreknowledge, however, is
an election or foreordination of His people (R. 8:29; 11:2) or Christ (1 Pt. 1:20)
(— y.wooKko, 698; 706).1 In Herm. m., 4, 3,4 it simply means God's foreknow-
ledge (cf. nmpoyvootns in 2C1.,9,9). On the basis of prophecy the word tpo-
yivd@oKetv can be used of believers in 2 Pt. 3:17, as also in Herm.s.,7,5 — &k-
A€yo.
Another possible meaning in Gk. is that of knowing earlier, ie., than the time
speaking (cf. Demosth., 29,58; Aristot. Rhet., II, 21, p. 1394b, 11; Jos. Bell., 6, 8).

+ There is a materially instructive par. to the use of kataytv@oKe for self-criticism in

Stob. Ecl., III, 558, 1£: AnudvaE note fpEato pirocogeiv “Ste Kata-
YlyV@oKewv Eqn “Euavtod hoEaunyv.”
TNOYLVOOKGA, TAHOYVAOLG. L. Edelstein, TEpt CEPOV (Problemata, IV),
1931, 60 ff.; E. F. K. Miiller, Die géttliche Zuvorersehung und Erwahlung (1892).
* On the underlying apocalyptic world view in 1 Pt. 1:20 (npoeyvaopévon EV TOO
. 6:1 FF.
nad
and thethe wisof pavepadevtoc
comm. B& én’
R. Knopf and H. Windisch, Zoxdtou tv cf. esp. 4
ad loc.

(OS TERS teens seagate weer =

 MPOYLVOOKW — OVYYVOUN

This is found in Ac. 26:5, where the meaning is strengthened by the addition of

In Justin God’s mpoytv@oxetv is His foreknowledge (Apol., I, 28,2 etc.) and the
Mpoeyvwopuévot are believers (Apol., 1,45, 1 etc.). The polemic against determinism,
however, shows that the OT view has been abandoned (Dial., 140,4). As One who
simply knows beforehand, God is called in Apol., I, 44, 11 etc., as is also
Christ in Dial., 35, 7; 82,1. There is also reference to prophetic foreknowledge in Apol.,
I, 43, 1; 49,6 etc. Tat. Or. Graec., 19,3 speaks of Apollo in the same terms, so that
what we have here is the Gk. understanding.

in Greek means “advance knowledge” (a technical term in medicine

from the time of Hippocrates). It is found in the LXX at Jdt.9:6 with reference
to the predeterminative knowledge of God.
The reference is to prophetic foreknowledge at Jdt. 11:19; Jos. Ant., 8,234 and 418;
15,373 (the Essene Menaem tpdyvwow éx tv Exwv) etc. For
Justin God’s nmpdyvwotc is His foreknowledge (Dial., 92,5; 134,4); and among the gifts
of the Spirit he lists the teoyv@cEwS instead of prophecy (Dial., 39,2). There
is a similar definition in Cl. Al. Strom., II, 12, 54,1: f) nmpoonteia mpdoyva@ocic Eotvy,
fy) SE yvGoig mpogynteiac vdnotc. That the Greek Christians understood the concept
in mantic terms may be seen from Tat. Or. Graec., 1,1, where the Sic TOV
is parallel to 6 ével(p~@v (cf. Preis. Zaub., VII, 294), and from
Cl. Al. Strom., I, 21, 133, 1f., where uavtiky and are parallel. The miracu-
lous element in prophetic mopdyvwotc is described in Ps.-Clem. Hom., II, 11: d&yvou
yap yv@otv ovK d6p8G@c Kplvet, ate SY) OOTE yvGoic GANBGc Kpivetv
TEMUKEV. GAA’ 1} TPOYVOOLG TOLG GYVOOVOLV TAPEYXEL THV YVGOLV.

OVYYVG@LLN.

In Gk. the verb ovyytv@oKetv means ‘‘to think the same as someone,” “to agree,
Pf
then “to yield, to recognise,’ ‘to accept, “to be aware,’ and “‘to pardon.’ ? It is
éé6é

found in the LXX only in 2 Macc. 14:31 in the sense of “to perceive’ or ‘‘to be aware,
and in 4 Macc. 8:22 in the sense of “to pardon” (cf. ouyyva@wuoveiv in 4 Macc. 5:13, as
also Ign. Tr., 5,1). Jos. has for “to know (with others)” and “to
pardon” (Ant., 6,93; Bell., 1,167) and ouyytw@oKew éaxvute for “to be aware (in
conscience)” (Ant., 1,46). ouyyvwotdéc is used in Wis. 6:6; 13:8 of one who deserves
pardon ; cf. Jos. Ant., 7, 285 etc.; Just. Dial., 65, 2. In Christian literature the verb is first
found in Ign. R., 6,2 in the sense of “to agree’; then in Athen. Suppl., 18, 1 in the sense
of “to pardon, ‘to forbear.
éé
The noun ovyyv@un in Gk. means “agreement, forbearance,” “‘pardon’ (often
with €yetv, “to pardon”, though also “to deserve pardon’). Aristot. defines it in Eth.
Nic., IV, 11, p. 1143a, 23 as yv@un Kpttiky Tov éemtetKoOcg dp. That it was highly
valued is shown by the saying (Diog.L., I, 76) quoted in Cl. Al. Strom., II, 15, 70:
ovyyvaun tiu@plac Kpeloowv. In the LXX it occurs in 2 Macc. 14:20 as “patience”,
also in Sir. Prol., 11, Swete and 3:13 in the expression ovyyvaounv Eyetv, to exercise
patience.” Cf, also Ign. R., 5:3. In Joseph. it is used for “pardon” in Ant., 6, 144 etc.;
also in Philo Spec. Leg., II, 196 (the opp. of KéAaoic), sometimes, as also the verb,
with reference to sins Kata &yvowav, Spec. Leg., III, 35; Vit. Mos., I, 273; Flacc., 7;
and cf. on this pt. Aristot. Eth. Nic., III, 2, p. 1111a, 2; Polyb., XII, 7,6: toig wév yap
Kat’ pevsoypagoday Epauev Seiv kal ovyyVOUNV
ZExxoAovubety, toic S& Kata d&napaimtov katnyoplav (cf. XV, 19, 3)

ouyyveun. 1 Cf£. Eur.Ion, 1440: yap 6

OVYYVOUN —
and Max. Tyr., 33, 3a: the is éAcetv ev TOU MaQ0UG, OVyyVvWoTOG Sé Tic
CYVOLKG.

In the NT it occurs only at 1 C. 7:6: toOto 5& Aéy@ KaT& OVYYVMUNV, OV KAT
énitayrv, obviously in the sense of “forbearance” or “concession.” Though the
context might support “personal opinion,” there is no example of this; yvopn
is the word used in such cases.

Cf. kat& ouyyveunv in Tat. Or. Graec., 20, 1. In Just. Dial., 9,1 ouyyv@un means
“pardon” (ovyyv@un oor... Kal &peBely cot).

YV@OLUN.
On the Gk. usage, — 691, n.7 and 9. Most of the senses, apart from “reason,” are
attested in Jewish and Christian literature, though the term is comparatively rare in the
LXxX. It is hard to differentiate the various nuances with any precision.

1. “Disposition,” “will.” As we find Siuxaia and yvoun in the LAA

(Pry. 2:16; 4 Macc. 9:27), so we find yvoun in Barn., 21,2 (cf. Ditt. Syll.*,
75,28 [428/7 B.C.]: yvouac &yaOdc zyetv). Here the meaning is “disposition,”
as in Jos. Ant,, 2,97; 13,416. The same rendering best fits the el¢ Qeov yvoun
of Ign. R., 7,1; Phid., 1,2, or the €v EO yv@un of Ign. Pol., 1,1, also the yv@pn
of God in Ign. Eph., 3,2; R., 8,3 etc. or of Jesus Christ in Eph.,3,2 (here He is
also called the yva@pn tod nmatpdc), while kat& yva@unv (Jos. Ant., 15, 144;
cf. Ap., 2, 166) means ‘‘according to the will of God.” In 2 Macc. 9:20, and often
in the salutations in pap. letters, the meaning of kat& yvouny is “as desired.” In
the NT we find év tH adth yv@un at 1C.1:10 (linked with év 16 adtd voi
and hardly to be differentiated from it; cf. t6 aUtTO or T6 Ev Mpoveiv at Phil. 2:2;
4:2; R. 12:16 etc.); cf. Thuc., I, 113, 2: S00 tig adtii¢ yvmuns froav.1 The sense
is the same in Rev. 17:13: (the 10 kings) ulav yvounv Eyouow and 17:17
(though — infra): 6 yap EdmxKeEV eic Tag Kapdiag KOTOV Tothoar Thy
yuounv adtod kai moujoat ulav yv@unv; cf. the ula yvaun in Demosth., 10, 59
ek pag yv@uns) and elsewhere,* also in Philo Vit. Mos., I, 235;
Spec. Leg,., II, 165; III, 73 (ato Kal THC QUTHS YY@uUNS) and Jos. Ant., 7, 60
and 276. The idea of “consent * is present in 2 Macc. 4:39; Jos. Ant., 20, 202;
Phim. 14; Ign. Pol., 4,1; 5,2. Cf. also the self-description of Isis on the Kyme
inscription:* @ya motayGv Kal Kal Badrcaoong sivt Kupia’ ovdEic
So0€dCetar &veu ths yvounsc.
1 “Resolve,” “decision.” It often has this meaning in inscr. and pap. We may also
construe Rev. 17:17 in this sense (— supra). In 2 Esr. the LXX often uses yv@un for
nyb (resolve or edict of the king), also in Da. 2:14, cf. ©, which has yv@un for n3
(royal command) in Da.2:15 and S60yuq for OYd in 13:10 etc. In Philo Som., I, 81
means much the same as vOvos, and in Jos. Ant., 13, 196 it means resolve or
intention. Only at Ac. 20:3: éyéveto yv@punsc, ‘he resolved, does it have this sense
in the NT; cf. Ign. Phlid., 6, 2.
3. “Counsel,” “opinion.” Cf. LXX w 82:3 (for 110 “proposal”); Gr. Sir. 6:23; Wis.
7:15 (2); 2 Macc. 11:37 etc. In 1C.7:25; 2C 8:10 yv@pnv Siwdovar means ‘to give

yvd@uyn. 1 Bl.-Debr. § 162, 7.

2 Pr.-Bauer, S.v.
3 Naaeli, 33.
Bees. 51 (1927). 380, 40 f.; W. Peek, Der Isishymnus von Andros u. verw. Texte
(1930), 124, 40.
 yvoun — yvopllo — yvwotoc

counsel”; cf. also Jos. Ant., 8, 379; 11,253; 7:40: xat& tThv yvounyv, ac-
cording to my opinion.”

yvopico.
1. “To make known.” In this sense the word is common in the LXX (mostly
fory?, hiph.) both in secular contexts (3 Bao. 1:27; Neh. 8:12; Prv. 9:9 etc.) and
in cases where it has an emotional ring.
The priest, teacher or prophet may be the subject (1 Bao. 6:2; 10:8; 28:15; Ez. 43:11),
or God Himself, who causes His power or grace to be known (— ytv@oxo, 698; cf.
Jer. 16:21; w 15:11; 76:14; 97:2 etc.), or declares His will (24:4: ta&¢q cou;
Fz. 20:11: t& Stkarmuat& wou, etc.), or grants secret knowledge (Jer. 11:18; Da. 2:23,
28 ff.0 etc.). The cultic declaration of the acts of Yahweh is called yvapiC@ in
1 Ch. 16:38 (&n- or &vayyéAAetv in w 104:1; Is. 12:4), and also the confession of sin
in w 31:5. In © Da. 4:3 £.; 5:8 etc. yvwplT@ is used of the interpretation of dreams and
VISIONS.

The NT use of corresponds to that of the LXX. The word often

occurs in a secular sense (1 C. 12:3; 15:1; Col. 4:7,9). Even here God is frequently
the subject, making known His power and salvation (R. 9:22 f£.; Ac. 2:28, quoting
Ps. 16:11; Lk. 2:15). Above all, the term is used for God's declaration of His secret
counsel of salvation (His e.g., in Col. 1:27; Eph. 1:9; 3:5, 10; 6:19
(ct. > oavepovdv in R. 16:25 f£.; Ign. Eph., 19, 2 £. and elsewhere). Even the declara-
tion of God's acts by men (Lk. 2:17), especially through preaching (R. 16:26;
2 Pt. 1:16), can be called In John, Jesus is the subject of yvwpiCetv as
the Revealer (15:15; 17:26). But the making known of our requests to God is also
at Phil. 4:6 (cf. 8e@ in Philo Sacr. AC, 132; Det. Pot.
Ins., 56; also Congr., 18; Fug., 38).
2. “To perceive,” “to know.” This sense is common not only in the pap. but
also in the LXX (Am. 3:3; Prv. 3:6; 15:10; Job 34:25; at Job 4:16 2 has €yvmpioa
and the LXX énéyvov). The term is found in this sense in both Philo and Joseph.
in both the act. and the pass. In the pass. it is hard to distinguish between the
senses “to be made known” and “to be known.’ When we turn to the NT we
find this meaning only at Phil. 1:22: tl ob yvapifa. yv@pifo is used
of the knowledge of God in Philo (Poster. C., 167; Mut. Nom., 17); Corp. Herm.,
X,15 (here of God’s own knowledge); the AOyog téAEtoc; + Dg., 8, 5; Act. Andr.,
6 41,7). It is also used of being known by God in Act. Andr.,1 (p. 38, 7
and 20), cf. 9 (p.42,3£.).

YV@oTOc.

In Gk. yyvaotéc means both “knowable’ and “known” (cf. the inscr. and pap..
though as a more select term). 1 In the LXX it is esp. used as a part. pass. in the sense
of “acquaintance,” “confidant,” or “relative” (4 Bao. 10:11; w 30:11; 54:13; (87:8, 18).
It is not found in Joseph., but Philo uses it in Leg. All., I, 60f., where the LAX has
In Rabb. usage relatives (7310) are distinguished from acquaintances
(Py). 2 So in Lk, 2:44: év toic Kal toig yvmototc, though in Lk. 23:49

yvapllo. 1 Hermetica, I, 376, Scott; Reitzenstein Hell. Myst., 286.

. 1 C£ Na&geli, 19.
Str-B.. 11149 on Lk. 2:44; Schl. J., 332 on Jn. 18:15,
YVAOTOG —
relatives are included among yvwortol. In Jn. 18:15 f. yvaotde obviously means ac-
quaintance.

In the more general sense of “made known,” as in the LXX Is. 19:21; Ez. 36:32;
w 75:1 and © Da. 3:18 (where the LXX has oavepév), the word is often used in
Ac. in expressions such as yvmotov éyéveto (1:19; 2:14; 4:10; 9:42 etc.). In
Ac. 4:16 (yvaotov onuseiov) the meaning is perhaps ‘clearly recognisable.” “Re-
cognisable’ (in the LXX only at Sir. 21:7) is certainly the sense in R. 1:19: to
Yyvaotov tod Be0d mavepdv éotiv év adtoic, though it is debatable whether the
gen. tod Ge00 should be understood as a partit., thus giving us “what may be
known of God,’’® or whether we should follow the analogy of such expressions
as TH KPUTTK TOD oKdtoUS in 1 C. 4:5 or Td xprotov to OEod in R. 2:4 etc. and
thus translate ‘God in His knowability.” ¢ In v. 20 the t& &épata avtob certainly
does not mean “what is invisible to Him’’ but ‘He the Invisible.’ Cf. yiv@oKxo,
705 and — &yv@otoc.
Bultmann

YADCOA, ETENOYAWOCOC

YAQ@OOK.

A. The General Use of yA@oou.

As regards the NT, the following principal meanings may be distinguished :
1, The strict physiological meaning of “tongue” +1 Hom. IL, 5,292, as the organ of
taste: Philo Op. Mund., 159: yA@tty tH or more particularly of
speech: Eur. Suppl., 203 f.: &yyeAov yA@ooav Adéyaov; Philo Conf. Ling., 36: Sick
otéuatoc kal yA@ttms Kal Tov GAA@V govyntnplov dpydvev; cf. Agric., 53: tH
Sik yA@tms Kal otduatos Peovon gavyj; Vit. Mos., II, 239: 6 d€0nota, nO &v
o€ tic Toles oTé6yatt, Tivt yA@TTy, Toig Spyavororia; Sir. 28:18:
ot nentaKndtec St& yAGooav (cf. 19 ff.). Figur. it can be used of the speaker, e.g.,

3 Cf. Bl.-Debr. § 263, 2. ¥

4 CE. 75:1: yuwotdc ... 6 Ge6c; Is. 19:21: yvwotdc ... KUptoG; Ex. 33:13: YY@oTos
(vl. yv@otéc) (6a oe 754, On
Moult.-Mill., 128; Cr.-K6., 260 EfE.; Liddell-Scott, 353; Pr.-Bauer,
&
€

glossolalia, RE, 21,749 ff; E.Mosiman, Das Zungenreden geschichtlich

psychologisch untersucht (1910, with bibl. on p. VII ff); E.
mares 5 if; T. K. Oester-
reich, Hinfihrun in die Religionspsychologie (1917), 49 ff.; W. Re (1919); P
chez les premiers chrétiens ... (1910); Joh. W. 1 K., 335 ff.; Wat 1g. 0Wirken des
wren”
hl. Geistes (1918), 120 ff.; K. L. Schmidt, D. Pfingsterzahlung ud. ©
WW. Schmiedel; “Pfingsterzablung u. Pfingstereignis,” Pr. M.,24 (1920), 73 1; lacxso
K.Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, 1 (1920), 323 ff; Bchm. | cf© Hell. Myst.
Von der Sprache der Gétter u. Geister 1921), 23 f£.; Reitzenstein Poim., 55 rm
es

~~

323 £:; H.Leisegang, Pneuma Hagion (1922), 113 ff; Zn. Ag., 1,99 ff; E. FP. Scott,
Spirit in the NT (1923), 92 ff.; Clemen, 157 f.; H. Rust, Das Zungenreden (1924); Wunder
der Bibel, 2 and 3 (1924£.); RGG?, V, 2142 Schlatter, Geschichte d. erst. Chr., 21 ff.
215 £.; EF. Biichsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 242 ff.; 321 ff; W. Bauer, Der Wort-
gottesdienst der &ltesten Christen (1930), 33 ff; Ltzm. KS, 68ff£; Das NI Deutsch, Il
(1933), 13 ff. (H. W. Beyer); ibid., 362 ff. (H. D. Wendland); R. M. Pope, DAC, II, 598 f.
1 On THs yA onc in Mk. 7:35, cf. Ditt. Syll.5, 1169, 43; Deissmann LO, 258 ff.
 in Cratinus (CAF, I, 98): ueylotn yAGtta tv ‘EAAnvibov; Jos. Ant., 3, 85: yAwtta
é&VOpanivn mpdc SUC Aéyet; P. Oxy., XI, 1381, 198 ff: “EAANv<l>¢ O& 00
yA@ooa tv onv AaA<> oe<t> totoplav k<ais> mao “EA<A>nv cavip
TOV TceOSB OO oEBHoEtat "Io <O>nVv; Preis. Zaub., XII (Leiden), 187 f.: akov-
OdTH LOL MAGA yAGooa Kal Pavy).
2. “Speech,” “manner of speech”: Hom. Il.,2,804: G&AAn & GAAWV yADdoon
Xenoph. Mem., III, 14,6: év tH yAotty ;
Aen. Tact., 42,2: éxv kata yAGoody (dialect) tig <UGAAOV> fF Kol-
vov tt &naotv; P. Giess., I, 99, 8 f.: Buvor é&i<So0vtats yA@tTtTyn Schol.
in Dion. Thr. Art.Gramm. (Tryph.) (Gramm. Graec., I, 3, p. 302 H): Aa@pic
Aextoc bo’ Hv elor yAGooa (sub-dialects) moAAat; Philo Vit. Mos., II, 40: trv
YA@TTav tihyv Xardaiov; Decal., 159: nmatpio@ yA@tty, Gn. 11:7:
KataBdvtec Exel tThv yAGooav; cf. Philo Conf. Ling.,9: tv
YE gowvijc elc wupiac Siaréxtov t&éac tour, fv KaAet (Scripture) yAwtt™¢
ovyyvow. Figur. of a “people with its own language”: Da. 3:7: mavteg ot Acaoi,
gvaai, yAGaoat; Is. 66:18; Jdt. 3:8; cf. M. Ex., 14,5: yiwd) Skylax Geogr., 15
(Geogr. Graec. Min., I, 24, Miiller): 2v toUto tH ZOvet (sc. the Zavvitar) yA@oout
Ato. otéuata tae Aatépviot KTA. (interpolation ?).
3. ‘An expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure and needs ex-
planation” :2 Aristot. Poet., 21, p. 1457b, 1 ff.: &mav ... Svouc Eottv KUPLOV (prop-
erly) f) yA@ttIa ... Aéyw@ Sé KUptov @ yAOtTtav SE @ EtEpOt,
Hote oavepov Stt kai yAGttav Kai elvat SuvatTOV TO MUTO, UN TOIC
avtoic Sé° to yao “olyuvov” Kumpioi ev Kuptov, 5& yA@tta; ibid., 22,
p. 1458a, 22 ff.: Eevixov ... AEyO yAOTtav ... Kal TH&V TO TAP TO KUPLOV’ GAA’
dv tic Kua &navta moujon, aiviyua Eotar f} BapBapioywoc’ ... EK TOV
yAwtt@v BapBapioydc; cf. Rhet., II, 10, p. 1410, 12 ff: at obv
&yv@tec,. tx S& KPa fouev; Sext. Emp. Gramm., 313: tTh¢ Kata yA@ooav mpo-
eveyOelons (sc. A€EEWSG) obonc Huiv; Plut.Is. et Os.,61 (II,
375e): & “Oarpic Ex TOD doiov Kal tepoU TOUVOUR EOXNKE ... OU
Sei 52 Oavuudclew tov dvouctov cig TO “EAANVIKOV GvarAaow Kal yap GAAa
uvpla TOIC éK THC EXPL VOV TAPaLEvEt
Kal Eevitevet TAP” ETEPOLG, OV EviK THY TOUTLKTV StaParAAovortv
ce ot Ta ToLMUTA TPOGayopEvovTEc. Or again, “archaic
expression”: Diod. S., IV, 66,6: TO yap évOeaCetw kat& yA@ttav (according to the
old expression) Omdpyetv “o.BvAAaivetv’; Galen Ling. Hippocr. Expl. procem (XIX,
62 £., Kiihn): 60a tolvuv Tv évoudct@v Ev EV Toig mM&AaL ypdvoig Av ouvyGn,
vuvi 8’ odKétt Eotl, TH EV TOLAUTA yA@TTac KaxAODGL; M. Ant., IV, 33: at warae
ouviPetc A€EEtc VGv yAwoornuata. Finally, “select poetic expression” : Plut. Pyth. Or.,
24 (II, 406 f.): (God has caused the Pythia in its oracles to pass from obscure poetic
expression to understandable prose) SE TOV yonOUdV Enyn Kal yAwooac
Kal mEpiopcoetc Kal coagetav OOTW SiaAEyEoOA TAPEDKEVAGE TOIG KPWPEVOIG
©c te T6AEOL StadEyovtat kal Baowsic évtuyxcvovor Soc Kai waOntat
SiSackGAov A&KPOGVtTat, TMPOG TO OLVETOV Kal TIBAVdV GPUOCOUEVOG; cf. Anecd.
Graec., I, 87,12: yA@TTAG TAS TOV NOWNTOV aC tiwag GAAagG also
Quintilian Inst. Orat., I, 1,35, cf. 8,15: voces minus usifatae of the lingua secretior quas
Graeci yAWOOUS vocant.

2 Cf. on this pt. F. Liibker, Reallexikon d. klass. Altertums® (1914), 418 £.

+
comme eye
YADOOR

B. The Use of yA@oou in the NT and Its Background.

1. “Tongue,” esp. as an organ of speech: Lk. 16:24; 1:64; demonically bound,
Mk. 7:35 : 6 Seoudc Tig yAM@oonc adtoo (> n. 1); author of many sins, Jm. 3:1-12
(cf. also Jm. 1:26; 1 Pt. 3:10 — Ps. 34:13).°
The striking emphasis on sins of the tongue is characteristic of practical Jewish
wisdom, though we also meet with similar warnings in other ancient oriental traditions 4
and they become a common-place of ethical exhortation in the Hellenistic period.© In
the OT such references occur mainly in the Psalter, Job and Proverbs, and cf. also Sir.
Yet there are also references in the prophets, and Jer. uses the term yA@ooa almost
exclusively in this connection. Among individual sins, mostly against the 9th command-
ment, arrogance and boasting may be specifically mentioned (w 11:3, 4; Mi. 6:12, where
the LXX with its tendency to emphasise the sin of pride reads the 7°27 of the Mas. as
a form of 039; 3 Macc. 2:17; 6:4).
No one escapes these sins of the tongue (Sir. 19:16), though with the thought that
man becomes a sinner through the tongue (wW 38:1; Prv. 6:17; cf. Herm. v., 2,2,3) there
is the further thought that the offender with the tongue gives rise to fresh evil (Prv.
10:31; 17:4). Indeed, the tongue hatches evil (w 51:4 LAX; cf. Is. 59:3). The mischief
done is incalculable (Sir. 28:14 ff.). As a scourge (I@B 5:21; Sir. 28:17), or a sword
(w 56:4; 63:3; Sir. 28:18), or a bow and arrow (Jer. 9:3,8), or the sharp tongue of a
serpent (W 139:3), the tongue is a terrible weapon which can destroy men (wp 63:8; Jer.
18:18). Hence we must be on the watch against rashness in our use of it (Sir. 4:29).
But only — ma.deia, ie., a moral and religious attitude and culture, can give power
over it (Prv. 27:20; Hos. 7:16; ct. Sir. 4:24; Is. 50:4). This must be attained or prayed
for (Sir. 22:27). For life and death depend upon the tongue (Prv. 18:21). Indeed, Cod. A
has @dvatoc Cwijc at this point, cf. Sir.5:13: yA@ooan a&vOpa@tov ntdoic avte.
Thus all the consequences of sinning with the tongue recoil on those who commit it.
It hovers as a scourge over all men (Sir. 26:6). To ward it off means security and
happiness (Sir. 22:27; 25:8).
In the OT the purely ethical exhortation with regard to sins of the tongue has a
religious significance even though there is no direct reference in most cases. For in the
last resort deception and falsehood and arrogance and boasting are directed against
God (Hos.7:16, — wevotnc; 3 Macc. 2:17; 6:4, — OBpic). Again, in the sections
dealing with this form of sin there is an unmasking of even the inner details and the
final consequences of the sin of man which, as a call to repentance, attains a profundity
that can hardly be surpassed in the soil of the practical wisdom of Judaism. It stands
at the place occupied by sins of thought in the Christian summons to repent (Ps. 51:2
LXX: &&ixlav yAGook oou, though the Mas. differs; cf. Is. 59:3). ©
In a figurative sense the tongue can be the subject of jubilation: Ac. 2:26
(w 15:9): hyyarkAtc&oato i} yA@ook pou, and praise: Phil. 2:11 (Is. 45:23): nmaoa
yA@ooa At Ac. 2:3: dpOnoav avbtoic yA@o-
oa. Moei TUpds Kai ExcOicev Eq’ Eva Exacotov avbtdv (“there appeared unto
them tongues as of fire, which parted and one of which alighted on each of them’),

3 On the background of Jm. 3:1 ff.; 1:26, cf. the Jewish and Hell. material in J. Gefftcken,
Kynika u. Verwandtes (1909), 45 fF; A. Meyer, ‘Das Ratsel des Jakobusbriefes (1930),
760 309 £. etc.; Dib., Hck., Wnd. and Str.-B., ad loc.; cf. also Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 90:
(2mOvuia) dn Sé Kat éni yASttav POcoaoa pupla Evewtépicev; Mut. Nom., 244:
yAdttnc; Som., II, 165: yA@ttav a&xadlvetov; cf. 132 and 267; Abr.
20: thy yASttav avieic Kal Kal E&kpttov omynow;
Congr., 80: EyKPATELAV Kal YAO TTS St ee eee the
4 For the ‘Babylonian material, cf. AOT, 291 and 293; cf. also the proverbs of Amen-
(em)ope, ibid., — 38 ff.
5 —» n. 3 for bibl.
6 I am indebted to G. Bertram for this section.
tongue is an image for flame (Is. 5:24 wx yiw); cf. Tg. IT Est., 6,13); the reference
is to the heavenly power of God descending on each of the disciples assembled
on the day of Pentecost (— 724; > mUp).
2. ‘Language, Ac. 2:11: &kovopev HUT@V Taig huEetépaic yAwo-
onic = v. 8: Exaxotoc TH ldla SiaAEKT@ cf. v. 6. Figur. (> 720)
it means “people” in Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6.
3. Glossolalia.
The peculiar phenomenon of AaAsiv (€v) yAwmoon (yAmooaic) (1 C. 12-14;
Ac. 10:46; 19:6), with which we should link the AaAEtv yAmooatc Katvaic of
Mk. 16:17 and the AaAsiv Etépaicg yAd@ooaisg of Ac. 2:4, may be understood only
in the light of the vivid depiction in 1C.14:2ff. Speaking with tongues, like
— Tpoontevetv, is a > a spiritually effected speaking (14:2 ff., 14 £E.,
37 f£.; c£. 12:10, 28, 30), not to men, but to God (14:2, 28), in the form of a prayer,
possibly of praise and thanksgiving and possibly sung (14:2, 14-17; cf. Ac. 10:46);
its value is for the individual concerned rather than for the community as a whole
(14:4 ff., 16 £., 28). In this inspired utterance the — voic is swallowed up (14:14,
19}, so that mysterious words, obscure both to the speaker and to the hearers,
are spoken in the void (14:2,9,11,15£.). There is an unarticulated sound as of
an instrument played with no clear differentiation of notes (14:7 £.). An impression
is left of speaking in foreign languages (14:10f.,21). The uncontrolled use of
tongues might thus make it appear that the community is an assembly of madmen
(14:23, 27). Yet tongues are a legitimate sign of overwhelming power (14:22).
There are various kinds (12:10, 28;. cf. 14:10); some are tongues of men and
others of angels (13:1). To make glossolalia serviceable to the community, how-
ever, either the speaker or another brother must be able to give an interpretation
(14:5, 13, 27 £.; 12:10, 30). In Corinth, therefore, glossolalia is an unintelligible
ecstatic utterance. One of its forms of expression is a muttering of words or
sounds without interconnection or meaning. Parallels may be found for this phe-
nomenon in various forms and at various periods and places in religious history. *
In Gk. religion 8 there is a series of comparable phenomena from the enthusiastic cult
of the Thracian Dionysus with its yA@ttms BaKyeia (Aristoph. Ra., 357) to the
divinatory manticism of the Delphic Phrygia, of the Bacides, the Sybils etc. Heracl. Fr.
(1, 96, 7 ff., Diels): ... OTOUaTL cyéAOTA Kal
Kal &uUvpLota Cf. also Plato on wavtic and in Tim., 7le-
72a: obdseic ... Evvoug EQanTETAL EvOéou Kat GAA’ Kad’
Gitrvov Tv THs TEdSyGelc Suvaurv Sick vdoov fi Si& tiva
TAPAAAGEac. GAAK EV Eu™povoc t& te Svap
Snap Ond tig wavtiKijc Te Kal EvVBovoiaotiKijig Kal doa a&v
Uata SMO], mavTaA Aoyloud Sty Trt oNualver kai Ste pwEAAOVTOS f
fj mapdvtog KaKovd f} tod S& wavévtoc Ett te EV TOUTO
uévovtoc O0K Epyov Ta Oavévta Kal bo’ Kplvewv, GAA’ €5 Kal
A€yetat TO TOdTTEW Kal ta te Kal ~Equtdv LOVE
mpoorKetv’ S0ev SB Kal TO TOV TPOPHTGV yévoc éenl taic évOEorg yavtelatc
Kpitag émikabiotd&var vouocg’ ofc udcvteig avtobc tives, TO TOV
Hyyvornkdétec, Sti tio St obtor gyuns Kal moavtc&oewc SroKxpital, Kal
06 tT. UcvtElc, TOOOATAaL SE WAVTEVOLEVOV Sikardtata dSvoudToivt’ a&v. Cf. also

7 Cf. the material in Lombard, Mosiman, Oesterreich, Giintert, op. cif.

8 Cf. E. Rohde, Psyche®-1 (1925), IT, 20 ff., 51, 58 ff., 68 etc.; Reitzenstein Poim., 55 ff.;
Joh. W. 1K.,338£; H.Leisegang, Der HI. Geist, 1,1 (1919), 168 ff; cf. 125 ff; Pneuma
Hagion, 118 ff.; Ltzm. K., 68 f.
YADOOa

Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 49: EV yao ovdeEV a&nomalvetat TO TAapPanay,

GAA” EoTiv EpuNvEeLTHNS UTOBGAAOVTOG ETEPOU TaVO Soa MPOMEPETAL, KAO Sv
ypdovov yeyovac év c&yvola, EV TOO Kat
Thy Tig akpdTOALy, Kal EvwKnKO-
toc Tod Belov mvebuatoc Kal M&daV Tic Owvijc S6pyavorottav KpovovtTds TE Kal
elc SHAwow Sv Cf. further 1,65; Rer. Div. Her.,
265; Iambl. Myst., III,4 (p. 109), 11 (p.126) etc. Nor is there lacking a connection
between Hellenistic prophecy and what Irenaeus (I, 13,3) can tell of the Christian
Gnostic Marcos, 9 whose demonic prophetic gift is transferred to a woman: 1) 5€...
&nMotTOAUa ANpwdn, Kal T& toydvtTa TdvTa KEVOC Kal TOAUNPGs, ATE
Ono Kevod or Celsus’ description of the impulse of Christian
ecstatics (Orig. Cels.,7,8f.), mamely, after prophetic utterances, which are _intelli-
gible even though uttered with the claim to be spoken by a divine Ego, mpootwWEc-
ow EgeEiig &yvwota Kal Mapototpa kal Ta&vTyn GdnAa, Ov TO EV yvOuUcK ovdEIC
&v EX@vV edpEtv yao Kai TO UNndéev, cavonta SE fF, yonrntTt
Tavti TEepl MaVTOS AMopUrV Sty TO AcyPEv ogETEpiCeoBat
(7,9). The unintelligible lists of magical names and letters in the magic pap. (voces
mysticae), which are used in the invoking and conjuring of gods and spirits, 1° may also
be analogous to this obscure and meaningless speaking with tongues. With these mystical
divine names etc., in which there are echoes of all the various oriental languages, 14
we may certainly couple the view that they derive from supraterrestrial tongues used
by the gods and spirits in heaven, each class having its peculiar or
e.g., in the Hermetic prayer in Preis. Zaub., XIII (Leiden), 139 ff.: émuxaxAovuat oe,
TOV TK MEPLEYOVTIA, MACY OWVY KAL TAON WS TP<W>THC
Guvnot oe 6 ONO Cov TayOEic Kai TavtTa TioTEvVBelc Ta Cf. the
utterance which is falsely ascribed to Plato, but which reflects the Hellenistic view,
in Cl. Al. Strom., I, 143, 1: 6 TIAd&twmv O€ Kal Toic BEotc TLVG,
UcALOTA EV ANO TOV SOVELNATOV TEKUALPOUEVOG Kal TOV yeNnoUdv, &AAWS SE
KAL ATO TOV OL THV AUTAV OO OVEYYOVTAL OWVV OSE SLAAEKTOV,
GAA THv TOV OTELOLOVT@V or Corp. Herm., I, 26a: The soul which has
mounted to the intermediate kingdom of the “Oydoac Ouvet obv Toic <éKEts oot
TOV Kal GuotwmBeic TOG ouvovot Kal TOv SuvauUE@V ONEP
THv SySoadiKhv OvOLV OLDGV Oovy Tive Lox UUVOvVOGV TOV BEdv. Similarly, there
is reference to the tongues of angels in the Test. Job (48 ff.),42 which is a Jewish
work that has undergone Christian revision. Here the three daughters of Job are given
magic girdles by their father shortly before his death: the first puts on her girdle
Kal TMapayphua go yéyove tic oapKoc ... kal aveAaBev GAANHV Kap-
Slav Oc unKétt Opovetv ta THS yrs, Tob cKyyEALKOUG
év govy Kat Guvov TH OE@ Kata thy
OuvodAoytav; the second speaks the TOV ApXOvtTOV (ApxXov?); the third
the TOV XepovuBiu. The content of the ecstatic song of praise of the second
daughter is toO OWrAOD TO TrOinUa, and it is added by way of explanation:
Site el tic BoWAETAL yvOvat TO ToinUK TOV OUPAVGV, SuVYjoETaL EUPEIV Ev TOIC
Guvoig Kaolac. The third extols tov SeonOTHV TOV KpETaV TH
S6Eav adtSv (with the explanatory addition: kat 6 BouAouEVOog AotTtoOv tyvoc ...
KATAAGABEIV THS SENG EvprjoEL Ev TAG EvXaAIC THC
"AuarGelac Képac). All three Sov te kal EpardAov kai nbAOynoav Kal ES0EoAS-

9 Cf Reitzenstein Poim., 220 ff. re e

10 E.g., Preis. Zaub., XIII (Leiden), 588 ff.: émixaAobual of, KUpte, O¢ of bnd cou
mavévtes Geol, tva Exwow' “AXEBUKPOV, OD OOFa" aaa, NHN, Owe" uu:
aaa’ aw’ Tabadd, "ApPabiaw, Zayovupr, 6 Ved “ApaG, “Adwvai, Baouuy, "Ico.
11 The magician boasts (Preis. Zaub., VIII [London], 20 ff.): ofa cov kal t& Bap-
&
i R James, Apocrypha Anecdota, Il (Texts and Studies, V,1 [1897]), 135 ff,;
Reitzenstein Poim., 57. So far as possible I follow Reitzenstein's collation of the text.
 ynoav tov Oedv, Excotn ev tH ... Ta TOU DeEov.
The voices of the four archangels, which in their different ways magnify the Lord of
glory, are already referred to in Eth. En., 40.
Paul is aware of a similarity between Hellenism and Christianity in respect of
these mystical and ecstatic phenomena. The distinguishing feature as he sees it is
to be found in the religious content (1 C.12:2£.). He can accept speaking with
tongues as a work of the Holy Spirit, as a charisma (1 C. 14:39; 1 Th. 2:19). In-
deed, he can lay claim to it himself (1 C. 14:18; 13:1; 2C. 12:4). But he demands
that its exercise before the assembled community should be subordinated to the
principles of general exhortation, order, limitation and testing (1 C. 14:26 f£., 40;
1 Th. 5:21 £.). Higher than the gift of tongues, which in view of their pagan back-
ground the Corinthians are inclined to view as the spiritual gift par excellence
(1 C. 14:37; — mvevuatikds), is the gift of prophecy, and superior to all the gifts
of the Spirit, which in themselves are valueless and transitory, is &y&mm (1 C. 13).
b. If the judgment of Paul on glossolalia raises the question whether this early
Christian phenomenon can be understood merely in the light of the ecstatic
mysticism of Hellenism, the accounts of the emergence of glossolalia or related
utterances of the Spirit in the first Palestinian community (Ac. 10:46; 8:15 ££.;
2:2 ff.) make it plain that we are concerned with an ecstatic phenomenon which
is shared by both Jewish and Gentile Christianity and for which there are analogies
in the religious history of the OT and Judaism. 7%
The ecstatic fervour of the 0°X°23, who seem to be robbed of their individuality and
overpowered by the Spirit (cf. 18. 10:5 ff; 19:20 ff.; also 1K. 18:29 finds ex-
pression in broken cries and unintelligible speech which might be derided as the babbling
of madmen (2 K.9:11). Indeed, drunkards can still mock Isaiah's ecstatic babbling of
obscure words, and he can give the sharp answer: “Yea verily, with stammering lips
and another tongue will Yahweh speak to this people’ (Is. 28:10 f.). Even in the case
of the elders upon whom the Spirit imparted by Moses descends (Nu. 11:25 ff.) the
endowment finds primary expression in ecstatic frenzy, i.e., in raving gestures and out-
cries after the manner of the 0°X°23. However, this did not last, for “it was followed by
more sober endowment for office.” 14 The later literature gives us many examples of
ecstatic speech, though not necessarily of speaking in tongues, esp. in the apocalypses,
e.g., Eth. En. 71:11, where Enoch, having been taken up into heaven, says: I then
fell on my face, and my whole body melted, and my spirit was transformed, and |
cried with a loud voice, with the spirit of power, and I praised and extolled and
magnified (Him)”; Da.4:16 LXX: Kat goBnOeig todu0u AaBdvtog adtdov Kal
Tig AUTOU KivHOaS THY KEgaATV dpav ulav anoBav-
ucoac a&nexpl6On ... pavy For additional Hellenistic Jewish material from
Philo and the Test. Job, — 722 f.
c. The event of Pentecost, as recorded in Ac. 2, belongs to the same context.
This AaAetiv Etépaic yA@ooais bears essentially the same characteristics as the
glossolalia depicted by Paul. It is an endowment of the Spirit (v. 4£; cf. v. 16£.).
It takes ecstatic forms (v. 4: ~ c&nop8Eyyouci; v. 2f.: the visionary accom-
panying phenomena of the wind from heaven and fiery tongues) which arouse
astonishment (v. 7,12). The awareness of the speakers seems to be lost as in the
case of drunkards (v.13). There is neither an orderly succession of individual
speakers nor an overriding concern for the hearers. The AaAsiv ta pe
18 Cf P. Volz, Der Geist Gottes (1910), Index, s.v. “Glossolalie” ; Bousset-Gressm.,
394 ff.
14 Volz, op. cit., 28.
too (v.11) seems to consist in praise of God (cf. 10:46: tov
Geév). As distinct from Paul and Ac. 10 and 19, however, this event is depicted in
terms of speaking in foreign tongues (yA@Gooa, v.11 — v. 6,8). In
the assembled crowd of Jews and proselytes of the diaspora each can detect his
mother tongue on the lips of these Galilean disciples (v. 8,11). This philological
miracle, which is no mere miracle of hearing, is the unique feature in this out-
pouring of the Spirit as recorded in Ac. All attempts, however, either to establish
its historicity or to explain its meaning, including that of Zahn, *° come up against
the difficulty that for each to hear his own tongue presupposes something which
both here and elsewhere seems to be excluded, namely, a multiplicity of languages.
The *Iovdalav (v.9), which is surely authentic, makes quite impossible the idea
of foreign tongues. In addition, there would be no occasion for scorn if unknown
languages were spoken intelligibly (cf. v. 11,13). Finally, in 10:44 £., cf. 11:15, 17,
particular stress is laid on the similarity between glossolalia in Caesarea and the
Pentecost incident in Jerusalem. It thus seems that, perhaps due to two sources,
the tradition in Ac. 2 is confused, and we are net given any very reliable picture
of what really happened. The historical kernel is a mass ecstasy on the part of the
disciples which includes outbreaks of glossolalia. This first experience of the
presence of the Spirit in the early community leads to enthusiastic possession,
which is quickly followed, however, by the orderly prophetic witness of Peter
(v.14 ff.) and missionary enterprise. Reflection on the basic significance of the
reception of the Spirit at Pentecost led the community to see a parallel with the
establishment of the Jewish community as depicted in Jewish tradition, namely,
that in the giving of the Law at Sinai the Word of God was distributed into
70 languages, so that each nation receives the commandments in its own tongue. 18
The miracle of tongues by which the Gospel is transmitted to the nations at
Pentecost thus corresponds to the miracle by which the Law is published to the
world. The result of this reflection, which sees in Christianity a new world religion
as distinct from Judaism, is contained in the Lucan account of Pentecost, which is
a legendary development of the story of the first and significant occurrence of
glossolalia in Christianity.
d. The question how the word yA@ooa came to be a technical term for this
ecstatic mode of expression has received different answers. Of the three main
meanings of yA@ooa, “tongue’’ (— 719, 720) is the least adapted to furnish an
explanation. It is an intrinsically unlikely assumption that glossolalia simply means
speaking with the tongue as an instrument of the Spirit, ie., to the exclusion of
human consciousness. Such a view would do justice neither to the expressions of
Paul (the individual pneumatic has yévn yAwoo@v in 1C.12:10 and is called
d AGAGV yA@ooarc (plur.) in 14:5, cf. v.18 and 13:1) nor to those of Ac. (in
2:11, cf. v.6,8, the meaning “tongue” is quite impossible, and logically the same
is true in v.4). Nor is there any support in the sources for the conjecture that
Ac. 2:3 £. led to the early Christian use of yA@ooa as a technical term for ecstatic
utterance. *” T’he sense of a “strange, unintelligible or mysterious word’ 18 (— 720)

15 Ac, I,102£. Zn. sees here the antithesis to the confusion of tongues at Babel and
an indication that the Spirit-filled community of believers is to proclaim the Gaspel to all
nations.
18 Examples are given in Str.-B., II, 604 f.; cf, Philo Spec. Leg., II, 189; Decal., 32 ff,
4617f.Behm.
Cf, also Schl.
1 K., 422, n. |. Gesch. d. erst. Chr a
18 So esp. F. Bleek, ThStKr, 2 (1829), 3 ff
 yA@ooa — EtEpOyAWOOOC

fits one essential aspect of yA@oou in Paul (1 C. 14:2,9, 11), but it is the aspect
which the apostle most sharply criticises, so that it could hardly be the most
prominent aspect even in the Corinthian church — a potiori fit denominatio!
Obviously yA@oou is for Paul more than an isolated oracle (1 C. 14:26 : yAGooav
#ye. along with paApov ..., OLOaYTV ..., ATOKAALWLV Epunvetav #ye). The
fact that he calls the charisma yévn yAwooov (1 C. 12:10, 28; cf. 14:10) indicates
that in his view the distinctive feature is to be found in the wealth and variety
of yA@ooat. The words étépat (Ac. 2:4) and kawat (Mk. 16:17) are a further
indication that the essence of the gift lies in the fact that it is implies the new and
unusual. It thus seems most likely that the word yA@ooa has here the sense of
‘language’ (— 720, 722), and that it is used as a technical expression for a
peculiar language,” 1® namely, the “language of the Spirit,” a miraculous language
which is used in heaven between God and the angels (1 13:1) and to which
man may attain in prayer as he is seized by the Spirit and caught up into heaven
(2 C. 12:2 f£.; cf. 1C. 14:2, 13 ££; Ac. 10:46; 2:11). The heavenly origin of the
phenomenon is certainly given strong emphasis in Ac. 2:2 ff. This interpretation, 7°
which does not give any final answer to the question whether yA@ooatc Aa@AEiv
is an abbreviated expression for étépaic yAM@ooatc AaAEiv (Ac. 2:4, cf. 1C.
14:21), meets the facts of the case both in Paul and in Ac., even though it is not
always possible to give a strict rendering of yA@ooau. It is also in keeping with
Hellenistic usage and syncretistic modes of thought, yet not to the detriment of
its link with Jewish conceptions (Eth. En. 40).
Like other ecstatic phenomena in early Christianity, glossolalia is more than a
tribute to the century of its origins. In the Spirit the young community learned
by experience “that decisive experiences begin with a powerful act as with an
upwelling spring.’ 2? But the first enthusiastic surge quickly assumed fruitful forms
of spiritual activity. Ecstatic egoism was harnessed to general edification (Paul).
We can thus see that the divine power of the Spirit did in fact rule in the com-
munity. Any subsequent phenomena of glossolalia in Church history can only be
hollow imitations of this first springtime of the Spirit. 7°

+ ETEPOYAWOOOC.

a, “Speaking another language,” “of an alien tongue” (synon. > BapBapos), e.g.
Polyb., XXIII, 13,2: mAelotoig &vdpcow Kal EtEepoyA@TTOIG
EVO; Onosander, 26,2: T&G EtEpOYA@OCOUG OvpLayiag TOV EOVGv ; Strabo,
VIII, 1, 2. b. “Speaking different languages,” Philo Conf. Ling.,8 (opp.
In both senses it is the equivalent of (cf. Philo Poster. C.,91; Jos. Ant.,
1,117). EtepdyA@ooos does not occur in the LXX but is found in °A at wp 113:1;
Is. 33:19.

In the NT it occurs only at 14:21: év EtepoyA@oootc (“men of foreign

speech”) Kai év yelAsotv EtéepwWV TH Aa tovUtTw Kai odd’ obtac
eloaxovoovtal pou. Here Paul is expounding Is. 28:11f., apparently according

19 Mosiman, op. cif., 35, cf. 130 ff.

20 Cf W. Bousset, GGA (1901), 773: “Utterance with tongues is the speech of angels
in which the secrets of the heavenly world are revealed.”
21 Bl.-Debr. § 480, 3.
22 Volz, op. cit., 28, n. 5,
23 Cf. Mosiman, Lombard, Oéesterreich, op. cit.
EtEepOYAWODOG — YVIOCLOG

to a text related to "A;1 LXX: 8t& MaAvALOMOV yEIAE@V, Sik yAWOooNC ETEPAC,
S6tt TH AAG TOUTH Kal obk HOEANOaV c&KovELv. He sees in it a
prophecy of early Christian glossolalia which does not aim at the edification of the
community and is thus unprofitable (cf. v.22). Glossolalia in this sense is a
miraculous divine sign which works in unbelievers to “bring about a final and
decisive repudiation of God.” ? In Is., of course, the men of another speech are
Assyrians, whereas for Paul they are men who speak the language of heavenly
spirits (— yA@ooa, 726). But this is simply an example of Paul's sovereign re-
interpretation of the OT, for which there are many parallels among the Rabbis,
and of which this is an instructive instance. 2
Behm

+ YVNOLOG

This does not derive from yévoc but from the old part. ywntoc, born,” as in
Kaolyvytos. It originally denotes the true son as opposed to the adopted,
or the legitimate as opposed to the vé@oc. It thus means ‘true born. In a wider sense it
may be used for the wife as distinct from the nmadAakic. Figur. it means “regular,”
“unfalsified,” “genuine,” or “pure.” It is a favourite word in the pap., common in Philo
and Joseph., but in the LXX occurs only in the apocryphal writings (Sir. 7:18; 3 Macc.
3:19).
In the NT it is not found in the Synopt. or Jn. (including Rev.). Jn. uses
— &[email protected]éc instead. The NT always uses it of persons by way of recognition.
Thus in Phil. 4:3 the oJ@uyoc has shown himself to be a true fellow-worker, and
in 1Tm.1:2; Tt. 1:4 Timothy and Titus are genuine sons of Paul because they
have a true faith.? In relation to 2C. 8:8: tO Thc buETepag ayann¢g yvijovov
SoKxiucCov, cf. the Sestos inscr., 7: mpd mAElotou TO TPOG THV Tratploa
yvijovov Kal éxtevéc.? Phil. 2:20: ywnolac tx mEpl OUdv, is to be
compared with 2 Macc. 14:8 : ywnolwc mpovév (in 3 Macc. 3:23 the adverb is used
in a different sense) and P. Lond., 130,3 (1/2 cent. A.D.): ywnolac te ttEept t&
oupava piAoTtovjoavtes. *
Biichsel

Pr.-Bauer, 490; Liddell-Scott, 701; COMM. OL 1 C.

ETENOYAWODOS
14:21. & Robinson): es}00v yap tx
1 Cf, the note on 1C. 14:21 in Orig. Philocal..9. 2, (p. 55, ciso H. Volimer,
loobuvapodvta tf AEE
Die at.lichen Citate bei Pls. (1895), 2
eo tem, K3,3 73: O. Michel, Pls. u. s. Bibel (1929).
°°?
a >

2 Bchm. 1 K., 420.

$ Michel, op. cit., 168.
yvrnovos. Pr.-Bauer, S.vU.
1 Cf, yéve yeyovés in explanation of yvyjatov, Demosth., 44, 49,
2 CE. yviiciog
3 Wiener Studien, elit in Reitzenstein
I (1879), 13, 3; 340
33 ff., c. 120 B.C,
4 J owe this to Bertram.
 yoyyuCw

yoyyulco, Siayoyyucw
yoy yvothyc
T yoyyuca.
A. The Greek Usage.
1. Acc. to Phrynichus, 336 this is an Ionic word, used by. Phocylides of Miletus
(c. 540 B.C.); but this derivation is debatable.1 Like the synon. Attic tovOupiCo it is
probably onomatopoeic, 2 but it is less correct and elegant, appearing in literature only
in the post-Christian epoch. The oldest incontestable attestation is in P. Petr., III, 43,
col. 3, 20 in a letter dated the 7th year of Ptolemy III (241/39 B.C.), where we read in
1, 19 ft.: Sti Méyntoc d&vaBéBnkev Kai ta Aoitk tax
ote elvan eévtadOa GAA’ fH fcc, Kal TO TANP@UA yoyyucEl
év TO Epywo fbn ufivac v, toOto 5& né&oyelv Sik TO EN
adtoic TOV tTo\ipapyov. The meaning here is ‘to be dissatisfied or “to express
dissatisfaction,” justifiably, as it appears, in this instance. There is a similar use in
P. Oxy., I, 33, col. 3, 14 (2nd cent. A.D.), where it denotes expressions of displeasure :
‘Papuatot yovyvZovovw at the procession of someone condemned to death whom they
disliked.
To the few examples from the pap.* we may add one or two literary attestations.
Epict. Diss., I, 29,55: o8 O€AEtG TA WEV AOyapIa TA TEPL TOUTMV GAAOIC AeEtvaL,
&tarainapoic &vOpwnaplotc, tv’? Ev yovia KabeCouevor
yoyyvGwouv, Sti obdSeic abtoic mapéxet OKSEV, OL SE ypHOBat olc¢
#uaOec. Here the word has the sense already noted, as also in IV, 1,79: &peEc, un
a&viitewe undé ydoyyule, where used with cvtiteivetv in the sense of
active opposition, indicates verbal protest against a distasteful action, i.e., the enforcing
of military service on the sage. In M. Ant.,2,3 we have the admonition: tiv 5& T@v
BiBAlav Sipav piwov, va ut) yoyyoCav aro8davns, GAAK TAcw@cg GANBGs Kal ano
Kapdiac ebydpiotos Toic Beoic. Here yoyyuCetv denotes “grumbling at disappointed
hopes.” It is important that the last example gives us much the same meaning as the
first in 241/39 B.C.
2. In relation to the general use of yoyyvuCevv in non-Jewish and non-Christian
Greek 5 we can easily discern its basic sense in spite of variations. It carries with
it the thought of a legal claim and the view that no satisfaction has been or is
being done to this claim. Both the claim and the opinion are, of course, subjective.
This aspect is not affected by the possibility that both may sometimes seem to be
fully justified. The examples also show us that from the very first
has no particular religious associations. I’o be sure, in M. Ant. it is used as the

yoyyUCo. Pr.-Bauer, 257; Liddell-Scott, 355; Melcher, De sermone Epicteteo

Dp
quibus rebus ab Attica regula discedat (= Diss. phil. Hal., 17 [1907], 1-114), 61.
1 Cf. the bibl. in Pr.-Bauer, 257.
2 yoyybCw is used of the cooing of doves in Poll. Onom., V, 89.
3 This means here a column of workers.
4 Cf, Preisigke Wort., 303. The most important examples are mentioned above.
5ypSo
Ocyp., 44 far
£.: as I can see, the only ena apart from those mentioned is Ps.-Luc.
vewtép@
AOuvatayap aloxog Ev
yépov.
yoy yuCw

opposite of the fitting attitude of thankfulness to the gods. This does not mean,
however, that it is in any sense a technical term. It should be noted that the
personal reaction denoted by yoyyvCevv is not represented as directed against the
gods, but simply as a personal reaction. At most in this passage we could only
say that it is a reaction which as such imputes injustice to the gods, and even this
is perhaps saying too much. The statement thus helps to clarify a point which is
not always quite so clear, namely, that behind stands man in his
totality ; yoyyuCetv describes a basic personal attitude and the external conduct
shaped by the temperament and situation of the individual.6 We have here a
presupposition for the use of the word in the LXX to the extent that in biblical
religion man is always a distinct and self-contained whole.
The unilateral character of the term perhaps gives us a second presupposition.
A strong word was needed to describe a particular attitude of the people of Israel
in certain circumstances (— 730). yoyylCew is such a word. This may be seen
from all the examples. Nor should we ignore the subsidiary element of censure.
The attitute denoted by it is not seemly in those who display it. We can see this
already in the first example in the pap. The writer of the letter uses the yoyyvCetv
of his workers as a means of pressure, but he makes it plain that their attitude is
unusual and therefore that attention should be paid to it, though he does not
identify himself with it but merely reports it. It is in keeping with this aspect that
the term is always used of others. In other words, this is a trait which even on
Greek soil marks one as a GuaptwArdc (— 320). As with the latter term, we thus
have here an important presupposition in respect of the biblical usage. Indeed, it
is one which greatly facilitates its incorporation into the biblical world of thought
and utterance as this is shaped by the concept of God, and as it does not merely
depict man, but condemns him.

B. yoyyvGw@ among Greek Jews.

1. In the LXX yoyydZew occurs 15 times, and SwyoyyoCetwv (— 735) 10 times. 7
In 12 cases it is based on the Sem.; it is used 7 times for 71>, once for 119 «ida: Is. 30:12),
3 times for y3inna (Nu. 11:1; Lam. 3:39: Ztp. 10:25) and twice for jan (kal: Is. 29:24;
niph: w 105:25). Among the passages which do not use a form of 119, Is. 30:12 imports
into 2éyéyyvoac an interpretation of the original by the translator, i.e., in respect of
the disobedience and deficient trust of the people along the lines of the traditional
national sin, though it is also possible that he had a corrupt text, or made a mistake,
and thus presumed a form of 799 for 1193. In Is. 29:24 again it is obvious that there
is an element of interpretation, as we can see especially in the rendering of npd
as OnaKkovetv. Thus we have olf 8& yoyylZovtec bnaKovelw for
o°2219). In this way the promise is accentuated; every apparent intellectual
element is excluded. 8 Those who have previously murmured against God will learn to
obey Him. The two terms yoyytCet and OnmaKkove cv, both controlled by the concept
of God, are thus seen to be opposites. This goes much beyond the original on a pre-
supposition which is in full keeping with the use of yoyyoCetv. There is a similar

6 This is true even in P. Oxy., I, 33, col. 3,14, where one might most easily assume a
different usage.
7 As counted by Hatch-Redpath. In the LXX 739 is always rendered either yoyy0Getv
or StaryoyyUZeELv, and always yoyyucevy.
8 Is, 29:24a reads : 392 IY.
 yoyyuCo

development of the original in Nu. 11:1, where 7m? [3983 99 OYA IM is trans-
lated kai fiv 6 Aadc yuyyvUC@v Tovnpa Evavtt Kuplovu. The attitude of the people
is thus lifted out of the realm of mere mood and seen as culpable guilt. It is best to
take Lam. 3:39 in the sense that the yoyyvuCetv, i.e., dissatisfaction, is really against
oneself (&uaptia) rather than against God.
A closer analysis of these passages brings out two factors. The first is the inner
consistency of the word even where it derives trom different Semitic roots. We
are not to attribute this to the translators, but to the fact that they found here
an established term adapted to express both the concern of the text and their own
concern. The second is the theological character of the term. Here already yoyyv-
Cew always signifies an ungodly attitude on the part of man and not merely dis-
satisfaction at an unfulfilled promise, as in ordinary Greek. Yet the latter con-
tributes in full measure the suggestion that the whole man shares in the attitude
thus described.

2. The term which colours in the LXX, and which is normally

translated yoyyuCevy, is 319. It occurs only in Ex. 15-17 and Nu. 14-17, apart from
Jos. 9:18. Similarly, the derivates 35m and sndm are found only in these passages.
The root 75 is always rendered yoyy-. It is thus in the light of this stem that we
are to understand yoyyvCevwv in the LXX.
75 means “to murmur,’ and except in Jos. 9:18 it refers to the attitude of the
people when delivered from Egypt but not yet brought into the promised land,
and therefore discontented with its lot. Usually the murmuring is against Moses
(Ex. 15:24; 17:3), or Moses and Aaron (Ex. 16:2; Nu. 14:2; 17:6, 20), though
there can be no doubt that it is finally against God, at whose commission these
men led the people out of Egypt (cf. Ex. 16:7, 8; Nu. 14:27, 29, 36).*° The mur-
muring always has some concrete ground, namely, hunger or thirst in the desert
(Ex. 15:24; 16:3), or the proximity and yet apparent unattainability of the pro-
mised land (Nu. 14:1). There is, of course, a certain justification for it. The pre-
supposition of the whole attitude is the election of the people in the exodus. This
is grace no less than the promise of the land. But the people makes of it a claim,
i.e., a Claim to be cared for in every respect and to be brought to the goal without
effort. When the people murmurs, it is always because it thinks that justice has
not been done or is not being done to its claim. The texts leave us in no doubt.
that the claim and this assessment of the situation are both wholly subjective. Yet
they also leave us in no doubt that in such an attitude God is reduced to human
standards and is robbed, or is in process of being robbed, of His sovereignty in
relation to the people. This is why the murmuring of the people is a tempting of
God (Ex. 17:2 etc.) or a scorning of God (px3, Nu. 14:11). This is why it is
severely punished. For murmuring is an attitude of the whole man. Hence it incurs
guilt which must be punished. Finally, this helps us to see why the right attitude,
in contrast to murmuring, is i.e., unconditional acceptance (Nu. 14:11) or
obedience, hearkening to the voice of God (Nu. 14:22).
In keeping with what has been said, we can appreciate that yoyydCewv was
peculiarly fitted by its presuppositions to express the point at issue in 735, but that

9 Here, of course, we have — Siayoyyuetv, as in Ex. 16:2, 7, 8; Nu. 14:2, 36; 16:11.
10 Cf, esp. Nu. 16:11: “What is Aaron, that ye murmur against him ?”’ Moses and Aaron
are representatives of God to the people. Cf. — 414 and esp. 415.
yoyyuCa@

in so doing it received a distinctly religious accentuation which was not present in

the Greek world. It now suggests the judgment and condemnation of God by the
man whom God has bound to Himself, who therefore owes Him trust, gratitude
and obedience, but who instead constitutes himself His judge. It also suggests
God's judgment on this man.
At this point we can easily fit the passages already mentioned (— 729)
into the history and usage of the term. This is true of w105:25, where 739 is the
original, and Dt. 1:27, where we have — 81ayoyyvCetv, since both passages refer to
the murmuring of the people after the return of the spies (Nu. 14:1 ff.}. 12 In Eup. 10:25
there is no historical allusion, but the usage is the same, especially when we consider
the Heb.: kat &vip ErtotyU@v ob —= yin» xd OOM) 12; chastisement | Ff 2
will not cause the man who knows God to become embittered. _
Of the remaining passages (Ju. 1:14; Jdt.5:22 and w 58:16), the last is the only one
to have a Heb. original, but it is too textually uncertain to be of much help. Perhaps
the translator had another text,** or perhaps he tried to enhance the severity of the
verse by referring the yoyyvuCetv to ungodly enemies. 14 It is impossible to say. In
Ju. 1:14 yoyyuCevtv is linked with xkpd&etw and is designed to strengthen a request.
In Jdt.5:22 the word expresses indignation and lively protest. In these two cases the
usage is the same as that of secular Greek both before and after Christ.15 There are
thus examples of this in the LXX too.

3. To complete the history of the term we should take a brief glance at later
Jewish usage, and also at that of Philo and Josephus. In this case the findings are
particularly instructive. For we find confirmation of the fact that, notwithstanding
certain variations in detail, the meaning of the word as determined by the under-
lying yo in Ex.15-17 and Nu. 14-17 becomes the main sense of the term in all
later Judaism. The Rabbis, Philo and Josephus are here at one. It does not affect
the thesis that good care is often taken to avoid the word. For since we can
understand the reasons for this, the affirmation only acquires the greater weight.
a. The Rabbis engage in exegesis and systematic declaration of the Law among
those who know the texts which are expounded or taken as a starting-point.
Hence there is no evading the murmuring of the people; it is attested in the
Torah. But this means that there is no evading the word which the Torah uses
for it (715). It is thus the more instructive to see the attempts made to divest this
murmuring of its ungodly and hostile character and to render it harmless. A com-
mon way of doing this is to interpret the OT word in terms of the less pregnant
or (Aram.) oysnx.
nya in the OT means “to cause to thunder,” and in 1S. 1:6 “to provoke to anger.”
Materially, then, it is not related to 715. On the other hand, in Syr. nynmeans to lilt
up one’s voice, and oy nx can sometimes mean to make oneself disagreeable etc.
The latter became the usual rendering of 75 in the Targums;7® 75 itself never

11 The translator of w 105:24 f. seems to have been familiar with At. 1:19 ff.; cf. w 105:24b
with At. 1:32.
12 This word, or perhaps 17133, is not in the original and must be supplied; cf. R. Smend,
Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (1906), ad loc.
13 Cf, BHK?, ad loc. According to G. Bertram w 58:16 rests on a confusion of and 79
iS —»
15 ot hardly
/28. fits the comparison of the ungodly with hungry dogs.
16 E.g., Tg. O., Ex. 15:24; 16:2, 7 etc.
 yoy yuCo@

occurs. 17 Even more important is the fact that the Rabbis, when they have occasion to
refer to the murmuring of the people, do not use the term suggested by the text, but
e.g., M. Ex. on 16:7 (p. 162, 10, Horovitz-Rabin): “What then are we, that ye
murmur against us?” They (i.e., Moses and Aaron) say: “Why do you pay such par-
ticular regard to us, that you rise up and murmur against us (43°59 pony nn . Br
spun, however, is not an exact equivalent of mi. If it were, all would
the specific meaning and theological thrust of 7:5 would be maintained in a new form.
In fact, however, pynnn is the word used by later Judaism for grumbling dissatisfaction
in general. Unlike 1, it is not related specifically to the concept of God. Cf. M. Ex.
on 20:2 (p. 221,21): “He murmured (pysnn 71) (against the king) because he had not
been set over the treasure of silver and gold”; jBer., 5c, 24 £.: 28 “A worker who works
only a short time but shows particular skill is given the same wage as his fellows who
had to work the whole day; hence the workers murmured (j>mysnm 1701) etc. Most
pertinent of all, however, is the use of nniyan in place of the OT i713) to express
Israel's murmuring against God (M. Ex. on 15:24 Ip. 155, 3 ff., Horovitz-Rabin]; cf.
NADIA, Tg. O.., Ex. 16:12; IA Tg. O., Ex. 16:7 £.), like the protest of someone
who has been cheated in wages, business etc. (BM, 4, 6; 6,1). In other words, we are
brought back to the situation which obtained prior to the adoption of yoyyuCew by
the translators of the OT to express the specific attitude of the covenant people of
Israel denoted by 119.

The weakening of the sinful element in Israel's murmuring against God can be
accomplished in another way. The texts leave us in no doubt as to the true
character of this murmuring even where it is not expressly stated to be against
(5y) God (— 730). The Rabbis could hardly avoid the force of this, and in M. Ex.
on 15:24 (p.155,4£., Horovitz-Rabin), for example, murmuring against Moses is
recognised to be also against God dy). But mitigation is found by re-
presenting this as a murmuring before God, so that it loses most of its character
as guilt. 1°
M. Ex. on 16:8 (p. 162, 15): .. and lo, you stand up and murmur (pny nn), before
(0995) the One who lives and continues to all eternity.” S. Nu., 84 on 10:35 (p. 80, 14£.,
Horovitz): “... then began the Israelites to murmur nin) before God 7152)”

b. The situation is even clearer in Philo and Josephus. They are writing fof
non-Jews, and in so far as they record the history of their people they are con-
cerned to make it as glorious and impressive as possible. Hence they must either
suppress any conflicts between God and His people or represent them rather differ-
ently from Scripture. The repeated murmuring of the people is part of the scriptural
record of these conflicts. It is noticeable, however, that, while the Rabbis make
mention of this in other terms, Philo and Josephus do not merely avoid the word
yoyyvdCetv but depict the events themselves from a very different angle. We can
understand this only if the word was so repugnant both to the authors and readers
that it had to be avoided on apologetic grounds. ?°

17 Levy does not have the root either in Chald. Wort. or Wert.
1 ot
19 OOH
There eS: off a par. in the efforts made b
is something the Rabbis to rob David of blame
in the affair with Bathsheba (— 325, including n. 58 f.)..
20 In view of the extent to which Josephus quotes his sources in th e Ant., and esp. the
LXX, his attitude at this point is doubly striking.
yoyyuca@

Josephus makes the murmuring of Israel against Moses at Marah (Ex. 15:23 f.) an
urgent appeal for help (Ant., 3,6), 21 that in the wilderness of Sinai (Ex. 16:2f.) a
complaint (Ant.,3,11) and movement (Ant., 3,13) against Moses, 2? that in Rephidim
(Ex. 17:1 ff.) a 80 Spyiic tov Mavofv (Ant., 3,33), that after leaving
Sinai (Nu. 11:1) 2% a otaoidCew against Moses (Ant., 3,295), and that after the
return of the spies (Nu. 14:1 ff.) ill-advised complaint linked with BAaxognulat against
Moses and Aaron (Ant., 3, 306). At every point the aspect of complaint against God
is ignored. This is true even on the last occasion when Moses speaks of the Sfptc
and Guaptywata of the people (Ant., 3, 311), for neither word presupposes the thought
of God to Gk. ears.
In Philo we find such words as Tag Puxac aAvanintev used in
respect of Ex. 15:23 f. (Vit. Mos., I, 181£.), &Oupetv, followed by an Ovedicew of
Moses, in respect of Ex. 16:1 ff. (ibid., 192), &nméyvmoig owtnplac in respect of Ex.
17:1 ff. (ibid., 196). The murmuring of Nu. 14:1 ff. is represented as cowardice (SetA{a)
and is ascribed to only 80% of the people (ibid., 233 £.). Everything is a matter of mood
and concerns only the people and not God. There is a certain exception in Vit. Mos.,
I, 236, where Moses describes the attitude of the cowards as &mLOTETV TOIG
and of the brave as xatame.WEic toic Aoyloic, but this does not alter the basic picture
nor affect its rationalistic character.

We may thus conclude that the unanimity of the theological judgment on Israel
expressed in yid/-yyoyyvZevv is not maintained in later Judaism. By choosing yoyyv-
Ceiv, the LXX reaches a high point of usage and understanding which is never
again reached in Judaism.

C. in the NT.
For a true grasp of the NT usage we must see it against the LAX background
and also take into account the deviations of later Judaism. Three groups call for
notice.
1. In Mt. 20:11 yoyydZew amounts to little more than the oy nj of later
Judaism. The Rabbis, too, can speak of the grumbling of workers who do not
think that they are properly paid (— 732). The word is used in its strict secular
sense in Lk. 5:30, where it denotes the dissatisfaction of the religious leaders at
Jesus’ dealings with publicans and sinners, which as they see it are quite improper.
The two instances of in Lk. 15:2 and 19:7 (— 735) may be placed
in the same category.
2. There is a direct connection with > at 1 C. 10:10: undé yoyyv-
Cete, tivég avTOV Eydyyvoav, Kal anm@AOVTO UNS TOU SAEOpELTOD.
This statement recalls the historical murmuring of the people and by its adoption
of the special OT term accepts the fact of its guilt. To this degree it testifies to
the readoption of the theological assessment of murmuring which was abandoned
by Judaism. This was probably a direct result of the deepening of the concept of
God by Jesus. 24 No less significant is the transfer of the word, and the judgment

21 Materially, cf. also Wis. 11:4.

22 Here we also have a warning against the threatened stoning of Moses on the ground
that it would be a toU xataKpivetv (3,21).
23 Here the LXX has yoyyvZetv even though there is no 7}? in the original.
24 The Ist chapter of 4 Esr. gives us another example which is almost certainly Christian
in origin. In 1:15 f. (p.2, Bensly-James) God says: Coturnix vobis in signo fuit, castra
vobis ad tutelam dedi, et illic murmurastis, ef non triumphastis in nomine meo de perditione
inimicorum vestrorum, sed adhuc nunc usque murmuratis.
 yoy yulcw

contained in it, to the Christian community, at least as a possibility. At this point

we can see on the one side the consistency with which Paul carries through the
thought of the new covenant people (‘IopanA tod Beov: GI. 6:16) and on the
other the danger which threatens this people if it allows its own desires and
cravings to shape its expectations and is not content with what God promises and
gives. It was along such lines that the ancient covenant people was betrayed into
murmuring disappointment, and therefore into sin against God, and therefore into

3. In the Gospel of John yoyyuCevv is used at 6:41, 43 for the rejection of Jesus
by the Jews and at 6:61 for the sceptical attitude of the disciples, 25 while at 7:32
it is used of the dyAoc in its speculation whether Jesus is after all the Christ. The
question thus arises whether there is any fixed usage in Jn. The first three passages
agree, but the fourth seems to stand apart.
a. What yoyydZetv means at 6:61 may be seen from v.61b: toUto Ouaec
oxavdanriZet; In the yoyybZew of His own, Jesus sees the danger of sinning
against Him, and perhaps even the act. Immediately preceding are His words con-
cerning the eating of His body and drinking of His blood as a presupposition for the
reception of eternal life. The disciples cannot accept this saying. It makes no odds
whether they call it oxAnpdc because of its boldness or because of their deficient
insight (6:60). The essential point is that they measure Jesus by their own ex-
pectations, which are also those of their people, and that on this basis they
criticise Him, i., they express dissatisfaction, which materially is criticism of
God and dissatisfaction with Him, since Jesus is the vidg tod &vOpa@tou (6:62).
Thus the group of disciples, like Israel in the desert, reaches a necessary point
of division and decision. It is no accident, but belongs to the heart of the matter,
that there follows the parting from Jesus of those of ov TiotEvovo ty (6:64, cf. 66)
and that in the case of those who remain yoyyvuCe.v gives way to confession
(68 f£.). This contrast makes it plain that the whole man is again at stake in

b. The most important aspects of the use of the word in 6:41, 43 are the same.
The hearers of Jesus among the people measure Jesus by their own standards and
reject Him on this ground. In so doing they display mutatis mutandis the same
attitude as that of their fathers in the wilderness. It has often been noted that John
refers here to ’Iovdaiot though in the whole passage Jesus is obviously addressing
Galileans (6:22 ff.). The point is that is used for the Jewish people as
officially 26 represented. 27 Yet the author seems to have something more in his
mind in his choice of this word. He is perhaps indicating that the attitude of the
hearers derives from a “Jewish mode of thought.” 2° He is particularly influenced,
however, by the connection between *IovSaio. and yoy y0Tovtec which is so
familiar to him from the history of the Jewish people. The Galilean hearers of
Jesus show themselves to be *Iovdator by the fact that they are yoyyucovtec
and that they withhold nlotic at the decisive moment. The Evangelist thus sees
disaster overtaking the people a second time because it cannot resolve to recognise

25 John means disciples in the widest sense (—

26 Bau. J. on 1:19.
27 Bau. J., ad loc.; H.J. Holtzmann, Das Ev. des Joh.2 (1893), on 2:19.
28 Schl. J., 175f. Zn., ad loc. is content with the purely formal explanation that the
Galileans are called Jews in characterisation of their hostile mood.
yoyyuGa — Siayoyyuoca — yoyyvopoc

God as God but insists that God must be guided by itself and its own opinions and
expectations. This thought runs though the whole Gospel from 1:11 onwards. It
helps us to see why "lIovdatot is selected to sum up and to delineate the circles
which treat Jesus with chilly reserve or even with open rejection.
c. Perhaps Jn. 7:32 is to be viewed in the same light. Comparison with 7:12
(— yoyyuoudc) shows us that yoyyvZetv does not denote mere discussion of
Jesus, or secret approval of His claim, but vacillation. It is in keeping that the
religious leaders find this dangerous, since there is the possibility of the dyAoc
turning from them. On the other hand, the Evangelist can use yoyyvCetv in the
sense of a. and b. because vacillation is not acceptance and thus falls under the
divine judgment (a&miotia). Moreover, the story of the relationship between Jesus
and the SéyAoc up to the otavpwoov provides external justification for ascribing
OT yoyyvuZetv to vacillating hearers. The word thus includes a judgment, as
accounts of the fact always carry the implied judgment of their author (— 728). ?°

t+ Stxyoyyuca.
Among Gk. writers this word occurs only in Heliod. Aeth., 7,27 in the sense of “‘to
whisper (a message or task).” It is found 10 times in the LXX and sometimes as a
textual alternative for yoyyuGw. Except in Dt. 1:27 (an niph) ? and 21p. 34:24? it is
always used for 73> © and cannot be distinguished in sense from yoyyuCo.
In the NT it is found only at Lk. 15:2; 19:7, where it denotes the dissatisfaction
of the Daptoaiot and at the conduct of Jesus. There is no direct link
with LXX usage. We best take it in terms of Hellenistic usage. To attempts to
find here the Johannine application (— 734) there is the objection that Luke does
not present the same group of ideas as John, so that it is most unlikely that there
should be this isolated example.

tT yoyyvuopoc.
Acc. to Phrynichus, 336 this is an Ionic word like and it is supposed to
have been used by Anaxandrides (c. 375 B.C.) for tovOopvopds (Fr., 31, CAF, II, 146)
in the sense of ‘murmuring’ (— 728). Thus far the only literary example known is
in M. Ant., 9,37: &Aug toO &BAlov Biovu Kai yoyyvoyod Kal ...
Kai TOUS BEovs dn TOTE ATAOVOTEPOG Kal yENOTOTEPOG yEevod — a thought
similar to that expressed in 2,3 (— 728), i.e., grumbling dissatisfaction at disappointed
expectations. In Catal. Cod. Astr. Graec., VII, 139,11 it is found in the same sense
alongside Svoapeotia, and in P. Masp., 67159, 27 it is used in the articles of association
of two builders (Dec. 16, 568) alongside Bastoupyla, and Epyav
It occurs 11 times in the LXX (not counting yOyyvoig in Nu. 14:27). OF these

29 Later Christian usage can be ignored, since it is never more than formal, e.g., Ev. Pt.,
28, where it occurs along with kénteo8at Ta OTHON as a sign of penitence, or Test. S
9,3 (p.35*, 11, McCown), where it is used of the lamentation (oiyot) of an imprisond:
eee vovy blo. Pr.-Bauer, 284.
1 —» on this passage /31.
2 The Heb. has 729° for Suxyoyyvoet.
3 Cf. Jos. 9:18, where it is not so easy to integrate 719 with the normal OT usage.
 yoy yuoudc

Ex. 16:7,8 (twice), 9,12; Nu. 17:5, 10 (20,25) use it for niaon or nian to sum up
the murmurings of Israel. The sense is exactly the same as that of p?
Relevant, too, is Sir. 46:7: yoyyvoyos tovnplac (original : 795 133); the reference is
to the yoyyvZevv of Nu. 14:1 ff. So, too, Ps. Sol. 16:11, where a righteous man, in the
same situation as that of the people in the desert, prays: yoyyuouov Kal dAtyo-
miotiav 1 év OAlwet uckKpuvov an’ E00. On the other hand, in Wis. 1:10,7 11 the
word denotes the misuse of the tongue in the widest sense, as also in Is. 58:9, where the
LXX makes? the X73 a AfUa * In Ps. Sol. 5:15 the reference is simply
to the grumbling attitude of a ‘‘benefactor.”
The case is much the same as with yoyydCetv. A more general use goes hand in hand
with the more specific. The Rabbis substitute (or corresponding Aram. con-
structions) for nisdn, and this is as little adapted as oyona to bring out the true point
at issue in 145 lyoyy0Cewy, as illustrated by the contemporary use of the term both in
theological and secular contexts.®> Thus it can mean no more than evil report” or
“calumniation, e.g., b.Ber., 12a: pran nniyaA “calumniation by heretics,’ etc. At the
very most, therefore, we can speak of only a formal and not a material par. between
yoy yuouoc/ 737A and nniysa.®
In the NT it is found 4 times: Jn. 7:12; Ac. 6:1; Phil. 2:14; 1 Pt. 4:9. a. In Jn. 7:12
there is no direct adoption of the theological use of yoyyvouoc in the LXX as
this was shaped by the thought of God. [hat is to say, the word is not used to
depict the murmuring of Israel. On the other hand, there is a link with it as the
Evangelist considers the situation in the primitive community (cf. yoyydCetv in
Jn. 7:32). yoy yuouds is used here to denote the vacillation of the people towards
Jesus as already discussed (— 735).
b. At Ac.6:1 there is obviously no connection with OT The
reference here is simply to the dissatisfied grumbling of one part of the community
at claims which are not met (cf. M. Ant., 9,37 and the Lucan use of —
and — Stayoyy0Gw). The same is even more true of 1 Pt. 4:9, where there is the
admonition : p.AdEEvot Eig AAANAOUSG AvEv yoyyvoyod, which will free hospitality
from either inward or outward unfriendliness (cf. Ps. Sol. 5:15; — supra).
c. Phil. 2:14 probably stands somewhere between a. and b.: moveite
yopic Kal diadoytouav. It is possible that Paul is here thinking of
the murmuring of Israel, as in 1 C. 10:10, and that this leads him to the admoni-
tion. Understood in this way, the admonition — cf. the verses which follow —
would tally with the general thought of the epistle, which is one long appeal for
unconditional self-surrender to God in Christ.

yoyyvoudsc. Pr.-Bauer, 257, Liddell-Scott, 356.

1 Cf. Wis. 1, where yoyyvopos is used with metpaCetv, in v.2 and BAc&oon-
oc in v. 6. Cf. also Did., 3, 6, where it is linked with BAaoonula; also > 733.
2 The only plur. in the LXXA, or anywhere apart from Phil. 2:14,
3 This is quoted in Barn.,3,5 — the only instance of yoyyvoudc in the post-apost.
fathers. yoyyuCetv does not occur at all, but we have yédyyvooc in Did., 3,6 and yéy-
yvuotc in Did., 4,7 and Barn., 19, 11 (neither in the NT).
* The thought of God is always present in ]}8, and this may well affect the meaning of
yoy yuouoc.
5 — 732.
© The list of par. in Schl. J., 189 might well leave this impression, but it is wrong.
™ The use of perhaps points in the same direction with
its suggestion of secret doubt; cf. Loh., ad loc.
yoyyvotns — yons

+
Apart from the NT this word occurs only at Prv. 26:22 = for pu (A: tovOpvotys);
Prv. 26:20 © for (LAX: Si8upoc; 2: SdAt0¢c; "A: tovOpvotijs); Is. 29:24 (LXX :
ol yoyyuCovtec).
In the NT it is used only at Jd. 16: yoyyvotai to describe false
teachers as men who are ‘dissatisfied with their lot! and therefore with God,”
though not giving to God what they owe to Him as such. Even though there is
no direct connection with the LXX usage, there is an obvious similarity.
Rengstorf

+ yonc (— ucyos)

This mostly has a. the strict sense of a magician, esp. one who works with verbal
formulae. Those who believe in demons take him quite seriously, though he is sometimes
detested, esp. by the educated. Cf. Philostr. Vit. Ap., 5, 12: Apollonius does not prophesy
on the basis of yontela, but on that of divine revelation, inspiration.+ Io be sure,
udyoc can give rise to the same antithesis between conjuring and true revelation which
is free and for that reason full. The only distinction between uccyoc and yong is that
the latter is mostly used for the lower practitioner. “To goetia belong conjurations,
since it normally works with the help of evil, lower and stupid material demons. *
Thus Aristot. Fr., 30 expressly refuses to ascribe yorntikt) uayela to the ucdyot. This
is not a hard and fast distinction, but when strictly used y6nc¢ usually bears this
derogatory sense. b. It is thus used for the “false magician’’ — this is never true of
udcyoc in more precise usage. c. It thus comes to denote the “charlatan’ in a more
general sense, as in Herodot. Cf. yontela in 2 Macc. 12:24 for “pretence.” This is the
only occurrence of the root yor- in the LXX. yontiKdc is found in ’A Prv. 26:22 in
the sense of deluding. —
The use of the word group in Philo is instructive. In the primary sense we only have
yorntevetv (Som., I, 220, where all magical practices are repudiated). Yet yons is also
used figur. to denote the confusion and delusion of idolatry in Praem. Poen., 25. The
man who abuses the divine gift of speech is grouped with charlatans (ydéntec) in
Rer. Div. Her., 302. The mtAndSovoc or sensual man is also called a yong ( ‘charlatan’)
in the list of vices in Sacr. A.C., 32. Most important is Spec. Leg., I, 315, where mpo-
YTS and yénc are contrasted. The one is the bearer of true revelation, whereas the
other composes his own alleged divine sayings. For Philo yyorntela is basically the
opposite of truth (cf. esp. Praem. Poen., 8; Som., II,40). It may thus be used as an
equivalent of falsehood or deception (with a&nmc&t in Op. Mund., 165), even where
there is not the slightest suggestion of magic (as in Plant., 106). It can thus signify
hypocritical conduct (Decal., 125; cf. Leg. Gaj., 162), deception (of in
Post. C., 101) or the natural sensual magic of woman (Vit. Mos., I, 301). In the figur.

Oy 1 Cf. Philo Vit. Mos., I, 18.

6nc. T. Hopfner in Pauly-W., XIV (1928), 373 ff.; F. Pfister, ibid., Suppl. TV (1924),
324 ff: O. Weinreich, ““Gebet und Wunder,’ Genethliakon —. W.Schmid (1929), Index,
s.u.. p.350f.; occasional remarks by A.D. Nock in F. Jackson-K. Lake, Beginnings of
Christianity, TV (1932), 516-54.
1 Weinreich esp. (op. cit.) emphasises this distinction, but his material does not justify
any clear differentiation between ucyos and yore.
2 Hopfner, 378.
 yons — ‘ydovu

sense it can also be used, of course, with reference to the world of thought of alien
religions (Op. Mund., 2; Praem. Poen., 8). Philo is not thinking only of harmless decep-
tion ; yorntela (like yénc) always carries with it the thought of deliberate deceit.
In the NT the only occurrence is at 2 Tm. 3:13. In Eur. Ba., 234 Dionysus is
called a yérnc, obviously in the sense of one who entices to impious action by
apparently pious words,* and this is the meaning in 2 Tm. 3:13. The ydntéc are
here identical with those described in v.6£. There is no contrast here between
magic and revelation. As in Philo, the word is used figuratively, yet in such a way
that the danger and evil effects of these yéntec are fully appreciated (— Baoxat-
va).
Delling

T yovu, f YOVUTETED (— MPpOOKLVED).

A, Genuflection in the NT.

Except in Hb. 12:12 (cf. Is. 35:3; Prv. 4:26; Gr. Sir. 25:23; also Polyb., XX, 10, 9)
yévu is used in the NT only in connection with genuflection. We have a. tT:8évat
tx yovata in Mk. 15:19; Lk. 22:41; Ac. 7:60; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5. Equivalents are
yovuttetetv in Mt. 27:29 == Mk. 15:19; Mt. 17:14; Mk. 1:40; 10:17; tpooKuvetv
in Mt. 8:2 — Mk. 1:40; though in Mk. 15:19 the sense is “to do homage” ; mittetv
éxi mpdomnmov or ént tic yiic, Lk. 22:41 —= Mt. 26:39 — Mk. 14:35; Mt. 8:2 —
Lk. 5:12. b. k&untew t& yovata in liturgical style at R. 11:4 (LXX: SkAaoav);
R. 14:11; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10. The equivalents make it clear that no distinction
is intended between bowing the knee and full prostration. Genuflection is linked
with prayer to God (Lk. 22:41; Ac. 7:60 etc.; Eph. 3:14), with requests to the
Kyrios (Mt. 17:14; Mk. 1:40), with greeting of the (Mk. 10:17), with
homage to the BaowWstc (Mt. 27:29) or to Baal (R. 11:4), or to God the Judge
(R. 14:10 £.), or to the Kyrios at His enthronement and proclamation as Lord of
the world (Phil. 2:10). The gesture thus expresses supplication, abasement, worship,
subjection etc.

B. Genuflection outside the NT.

The history of this term belongs to that of the wider concept of TpooKuVEtv.
TK yovata and yovuTeteiv (as an independent gesture) are
seldom mentioned among the Greeks and Romans, Eur. Tro., 1305. Mostly we
have a Latinism (cf. genua ponere, Curtius, VIII, 7, 13, Quintil., IX, 4,11; genua
submittere, Ovid. Fast., 4,317; Plin. Hist. Nat., VIII, 1,3; genua inclinare, Ps.-
Vergil Anthol., 172, 10b etc.). yovureteiv is found in Polyb., XV, 29,9; XXXII,
25,7; Cornut. Nat. Deor., 12 (though Eur. Phoen., 293: yovutetiic). Equivalents
are tooonintev, Hdt., 1,134; VIl, 136; é¢ yovu tCeoBan, Ps.-Luc. Dea Syr., 55;
mpookuvelv, Suid. etc. In Gk. and Lat. there is usually no distinction between

8 Weinreich obviously takes a different view (283, 295).

yovu

genuflection and full prostration.1 It is practised a. by a slave betore his lord,

Nonnus Dionys., 25, 2, though not among citizens, Hdt., VII, 136; Isoc., 4, 151. This
custom came to Greece and Rome from the East, Liv., XXX, 16, 48. The tkéty¢
falls on his knees before his patron and thus acknowledges himself to be his slave,
Heliod. Aeth., X, 16; Nonnus Dionys., 22, 374 £. b. There is genuflection betore the
gods in prayer (Liv., XXVI,9,6; Plut. C.Gracch.,16 [I, 482c]), esp. before
chthonic deities (Eur. Tro., 1303 ff.), in popular religion (Aristoph. Av., 501 f£.),
or in cults which stand under unofficial or oriental influence? such as the cult of
Helios (Soph. Fr., 672; Plat. Leg., X, 887e) or in a hymn to Dionysus Lysios (Ael.
Arist., 50, 39). In the normal worship of the official gods there was no bowing of
the knee.
In the LXX genuflection is rendered 6xAdCew (enti ta) ydvata, 3 Bao. 8:54;
19:18 (distinguished from tpooKvuvetv in the sense of throwing a kiss with the
hand), kcuntetv (él) ta ydvata, 4 Bao. 1:13 (cf. 9:24); Da.6:10; 1 Ch. 29:20
(with mpooKkuveiv = to cast oneself to the ground); 1 Esr. 8:70; 3 Macc. 2:1 (R)
20; k&untetv, Is. 45:23; winter, KAlvetv éni tae ydvata, 2 Ch. 6:13; 2 Esr. 9:5.
The Heb. equivalents are 02, Ps.95:6 with mw hithp mpooxuveiv and
yrs Tpoonintetv; (or272->y) yao, Is. 45:23; 1K. 8:54; 19:18; 2 Esr.9:5; sp, 1 Ch.
29:20 (Gn. 43:28; Ex. 4:31; 12:27 — xontew with mpooKuvetv, anew hithp, but
Gn. 24:26, 48 —= evdoxetv). The gesture of genuflection occurs as a sign of humility
and worship in the prayer of the individual or the community to God at 1 Ch. 29:20;
1 K. 8:54; 1 Esr. 8:70; 2 Esr. 9:5; Da. 6:10; 3 Macc. 2:1 (R), and as a sign of abase-
ment, acknowledgment and homage before God at 3 Bao. 19:18; Is. 45:23, before
the king at 1 Ch.29:20, and before the tod at 4 Bao. 1:13.
Standing, however, is more usual in prayer (Gn. 18:22; 19:27; 1S. 1:26; Ps. 134 £.).
In the Rabbis there is a systematic differentiation between individual gestures.
a. denotes brief falling on the knee; b. ap signifies falling on one’s face;
c. mInAwA is used for prostration with outstretched hands and feet. Bar Qappara
speaks of four prostrations : a. inclining ; b. npn, bowing; c. nm» casting
oneself down; d. 73°93, kneeling. *
In the Christian Church kneeling was customary both in individual prayer and public
worship. Although various terms are used (t1WEévat YOvata, Mart. Andr., 8; Act.
Thom., 167; Herm. v., 1, 1, 3; 2, 1, 23 3,1, 5; OKAACELV, Just. Dial., 90, 5; KQUTTELV,
1 Cl., 57, 1), is the commonest, * and becomes a technical term for kneeling
in divine service (e.g., Const. Ap., VIII, 10,2; Orig. Orat., 31,3). Bending the knee
expresses a. subjection (1 Cl., 57, i); b. abasement in confession and sorrow (Chrysost.
Serm. de Anna, 4, MPG, 54, 667 f£.; Bas. Spir. Sct., 27, MPG, 32, 192c; c. petition, Const.
Ap., II, 22,14. There is an obvious intermingling of pagan and Christian custom in
Act. Joh., 42: (the people after the crash of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus (kat ol
uév adtov én’ Swiv Kelwevor of S& ta yovata KAlvovtes of
52 tac éobFitac ot Sé gupeiv Enetp@vto.©° The meaning

yévu KtA. C.Sitth Die Gebarden der Griechen u. Romer (1890), 177 ff; H. Bolke-
stein, “Theophrastus Charakter der Deisidaimonia’” (RVV, 21,2 [1929]), 25 ff; J. Leipoldt,
War Jesus Jude? (1923), 44 ff.
1 Sittl, 156.
2 Cf. O. Walther, Ostr. Jhft., 13 (1910), Beiblatt, 229 ff.
3 Str.-B., II, 260, I, 401; cf. also S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertiimer (1922), 401 f.
4 Cf, Eustath. Thessal. Comm. in Il., 669, 32: ka&umtetat 58 yovu Zotiw ote xal txe-
teutikac & Kal yovuneteiv Aéyetar kal yovu KAlvew Kat ouv8étac yovuKArvely.
5 Cf, F.J. Délger, Sol Salutis,2 (1925), 78, n. 3.
 yéovu — yeauuateuc

of the symbolical gesture of kneeling in prayer may be gathered from Ps.-Just. Quaest.
et Resp. ad Orth., 115: If kneeling is more efficacious in prayer than standing, why do
not worshippers kneel on the Lord's Day and between Easter and Pentecost?
cupotépwv éyphv hyuac cael Kal tic Ev Taig auaptiaig mrm@oEwc
Kal thg xapttog ToU Xpiotob hudv, & Ac Ex THS TIMOEWS cavEoTHLUEV.
On 6 days yovuKxAtola is the ovuBoAov of the fall, and on the 7th uh KAlvew ydvu
is the oOUBOAOV ... THS AvaotdoEwc.
In modern Synagogue worship there is still genuflection to the degree that on the Day
of Atonement, at the point in the liturgy which corresponds to the utterance of the name
of Yahweh in the worship of the temple (when there was prostration, cf. Joma 6, 2), &
and also on New Years Day, at a certain point in the liturgy, there is kneeling and
then full prostration.
Schlier

]. Scribes in the NT Period.

Only once in the NT (Ac. 19:35) is yopauuatetc used as the title of a higher
Ephesian official in the ordinary Greek sense of ‘‘clerk’’ or “secretary.” 1 The
normal Jewish use, however, is very common.” According to this use, first attested
in the LXX in 2Esr. and 1 Ch., ypaupatetc is a translation of the Heb.
(Aram. x50) which means a “man learned in the Torah,” a “rabbi,’’ an “‘or-
dained theologian. ©
“scribe” or “secretary, was a title of royal officials, and only from the
time of Ezra,® Neh., 1 Ch. and Sir. did it come to denote a man learned in the
Torah, cf. also the earliest Rabbinic traditions (13 Berakha of the 18 petitions
in Meg. Taan.,12).® Apart from a few isolated occurrences in the Tannaitic

© Str.-B., II, 311 ff.

YPQAUUATEUG. Schiirer, II, 372-447; Str.-B., I, 79-82: 691-695: II, 647-661; Joach.
Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, II, A (1924), 27-32; II, B (1929), 101-114; 122-127;
J. Hoh, “Der christ. ypauuatets,” BZ, 17 (1929), 256-269; Schl. Mt., 33, 163 f., 686 £.;
A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (1932), 199 ft.;
E. Sellin, Israelit.-jiidische Religionsgeschichte (1933), 140 f.
1 Moult.-Mill., 132a; Pr.-Bauer, 259.
2 Synpt., Ac., elsewhere only 1 C. 1:20 (Jn. 8:3).
8 Cf. the synon. voutKkdcg (Mt. 22:35); (Lk. 5:17); in Joseph. €Enyn-
tal tOv Tatplav vouov (Ant. 17, 149), lepoypauuatetc (Bell., 6, 291).
4 Acc. to official lists from the time of David and Solomon (2S. 8:15 ff.; 20:23 fE.;
1 K. 4:1 ff.), the sofer was one of the 6 or 8 highest officials; cf. K. Galling, “Die Halle
des Schreibers,” PJB, 27 (1931), 56.
5 The transition may be seen in the Book of Ezra. In the royal decree in Ezra 7:12-26
“scribe of the law of the God of heaven’ is still an official title (R. Kittel, Geschichte des
Volkes Israel, III [1929], 577 ff.; H. H. Schaeder, Esra der Schreiber [1930], 48 f£.: “secre-
tary or minister of the law of the God of heaven’ — a first step towards the later dignity
of the exilarch; E. Sellin, Geschichte des israelitisch-jidischen Volkes, Il [1932], 137). In
Ezra 7:6, 11, however, it is given its later meaning.
6 In both passages ODIO or NINO "B (the rest of the scribes) is a fixed ex-
pression taken over from an earlier period (Str.-B., I, 80).
Y PAULATEUG

period,” the NT is our final witness for this use ofspio /ypauuatedtc. Neither
Philo nor Josephus ® uses the term for biblical scholars of their own day. In post-
Christian Rabbinic literature the rabbis of the day are called onzn, while or
is used for scholars of an earlier period, and in everyday life for biblical instructors
and secretaries (cf. in Josephus). °
The rabbis formed a closed order. Only fully qualified scholars, who by ordina-
tion had received the official spirit of Moses, mediated by succession *® (cf.
Mt. 23:2), were legitimate members of the guild of scribes. The high reputation
of the rabbis among the people (Mk. 12:38 f.; Mt. 23:6 £.) rested on their know-
ledge of the Law and oral tradition, and also of secret theosophic, cosmogonic
and eschatological doctrines concealed by an esoteric discipline. 14 Sociologically
the rabbis were the direct successors of the prophets, i.e, men who knew the
divine will and proclaimed it in instruction, judgment and preaching. As in-
cumbents of the teaching office, they questioned Jesus on His message and Fis
transgression of the Halacha. As members of the Sanhedrin, on which the leading
rabbis sat as leaders of the Pharisaic communities 12 and thus constituted one of
the three parties of which this supreme assembly of the Jews consisted, they took
part in the prosecution and condemnation of Jesus.

2. The Judgment of Jesus on the Scribes.

To understand the judgment of Jesus on the theologians of his age, we must
distinguish them sharply from the Pharisees, whose societies were mostly com-
posed of small people with no theological mastery. ** A certain obscurity has been
caused by the expression “scribes and Pharisees’ (used only in Mt. and Lk.). It
is helpful to compare Mt. 23:1-36 with the parallel tradition in Lk., for this shows
us that a distinction is to be made between the sayings against the scribes (Lk.
11:46-52; 20:46) and those against the Pharisees (Lk. 11:39-42, 44).44 It is only
in this light that we can understand the accusations against the scribes. As distinct
from those made against members of the Pharisaic communities, they refer wholly
to the theological learning of the scribes and the resultant social claims and
privileges. The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, like Mt. 23, contains a section
against the scribes and Pharisees. Both groups are mentioned in Mt. 5:20, and then
the theologians are singled out in 5:21-48 and members of the Pharisaic societies
in 6:1-18.

The charges of Jesus are levelled against the conduct and teaching of the
theologians of His time. As regards the former, Jesus sees a lack of humility
(Mt. 23:5 ff. etc.), of selflessness (Mk. 12:40a) and of sincerity (Mk. 12:40b etc.).
His most serious accusation, however, is that they do not practise what they
demand in their teaching and preaching (Lk. 11:46 etc.). The main reproach
against their doctrine is that their casuistry defeats the true will of God contained

7 Ser.-B., I, 80.
8 An exception in Joseph. is lepoypaupuateic in Bell., 6, 291.
® For examples, cf. Str.-B., I, 79 ff.
10 Str.-B., II, 654 £.
11 Joach. Jeremias, Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu, II B, 106 ff.
12 Jbid., 110 f.
13 Jbid., 115-140, esp. 122-130. oe

144 Lk, 11:43 is to be seen in the light of Mk. 12:38f.; Lk. 20:46, where the desire for
honour rightly refers to the rabbis rather than the Pharisees.
 YPAUUATEVG — yPaPw

in the law of love. This is stated particularly clearly in the example of the fictional
dedication in Mk. 7:9 ff. and par. In contrast, Jesus brings out the full seriousness
of the true will of God in the powerful antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount
(Mt. 5:21-48).
3. Paul, himself an ordained scribe, saw in the rejection of the preaching of
the cross by Jewish theologians a fulfilment of the saying in Is. 33:18 (105 yopau-
uatets;), which according to his exposition prophesied the futility of human
wisdom and the paradox of divine election (1 C. 1:20).
4, There is reference to the Christian yopaywuateucg ?® in Mt. 13:52; cf. 5:19;
16:19; 18:18; 23:8-12. The First Gospel, especially in its proof from Scripture,
shows us this scribe at work. ru -
Joachim Jeremias

YPagH, ypaupa, Eyypaoo,

TPOYPAPH, UTOYPALLOG

YPao.
A. The General Use of ypcow.
1. The word is found in Homer. It is used of the tearing of the flesh by a lance,
and of engraving in tables. The sense of “carving,” “engraving,” is probably the
original. In the LAX, where it is almost always used for 3n5 (predominantly kal,
occasionally niph) or for snp, it is very common. It is used of Kupio on
the plate of the high-priest (émi with gen., Ex. 36:39 [39:30]); of the carved figures in

15 This may be deduced, e.g., from his part in capital prosecutions (Ac. 26:10).
186 Cf, Hoh, op. cit., 256-269; Schl. Mt., 4 = 1.
ypaoo KTA. Deissmann B, 105-111; B, 77 f. F.R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The
Use of yp&oetv,” JThSt, 31 (1929 f.), 2717275; E. Majer-Leonhard, "Ayp&upatot (Diss.
Marburg, 1913); W. Bussmann, Synopf. Studien, III (1931), 184 ff.; H.G. Meecham, ExpT,
44 (1933), 384f. yéypanto.: G. Thieme, D. Inschriften von Magnesia am Maander u. d.
NT. (1906), 22; J. F. Marcks, Symbola critica ad epistolographos Graecos (1883), 27. On
1C.4:6: W-Liitgert, “Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth,” BFTh., 12 (1908),
07 ff.. A. Schlatter, “D. kor. Theologie,’” BFTh.,18 (1914), 7 ff. On the autographed
endings: Deissmann LO, 133 and 137; G. Milligan, The NT Documents (1913), 24:
H. Erman, Mélanges Nicole (1905), 130 ff; JThSt, 31 (1929f.), 271 ff. (—> supra). O.
Roller, D. Formular der paulin. Briefe (1933). tepx ypc&uuata: Deissmann LO, 3211.;
A. Wilhelm, Jhft., 3 (1900), 77. On the Canon : chiirer, II, 363 ff£.; F. Buhl, Kanon
u. Text des AT (1891); G. Wildeboer, D. Entstehung des at.lichen Kanons (1891); B.
Poertner, D. Autoritaé der deuterokan. Biicher des AT (1893); G. Hélscher, Kanonisch. u.
Apokryph. (1905); E. Kénig, “Kanon u. Apokryphen,” BFTh, 21 (1917), 409 ff; W.
Staerck, ““D. Schrift- u. Kanonbegriff der jiid. Bibel,” ZSTh, 6 (1928), 101-119. Rabbinic
designation and view of Scripture: G. Surenhusius, BiBAoc kataAAayfc (1713), 1-36:
Bousset-Gressm., 153 ff.; Schiirer, II, 390-414; Weber, 80-118: Moore, I, 233-250; A. Schlat-
ter, D. Theologie des Judentums nach d. Bericht d. Josefus (1932), 64-72, 151 £; G. Aicher,
“Das AT i. d. Mischna,’ BSt, 11 (1906). Jesus and Paul and the OT: De Vel. Tesé. locts
a Paulo apostolo allegatis, Diss. Leipzig (1869); H. Vollmer, D. af.lichen Citate bei Paulus
(1895); J. Hanel, “D. Schriftbegriff Jesu,’ BFTh, 24 (1919); Ltzm.Gl., Excurs. on 4:31;
E. v. Dobschiitz, “The Attitude of Jesus and St. Paul toward the Bible,” The Bible Mag.
(1914); P. Bratsiotes, “O a&nédotoAog TlavAog Kal tHv °O (1925); W.
Windfuhr, “D. Ap. Paulus als ZAW, 44 (1926), 327 ff; E. v. Dobschiitz,
“Zum pauli n. Schriftbeweis,” ZNW, 24 (1925), 306; A.v. Harnack, “D. AT i. d. paulin.
9
Briefen u. i. d. paulin. Gemeinden, SAB (1928), 124 ff.; O. Michel, Paulus und seine Bibel
YeEAOa

1 K. 6:28 (29): Eypawe ypagld: yepouBelv; of the hewing out of a chamber in the
rock in Is. 22:16; of the engraving of the Law on the stones of Jordan in Dt. 27:3;
Jos. 9:5 (8:32); of inscribing on bronze tablets in 1 Macc. 14:18 (with the dat.). Writing
on tablets may be meant in this context, since it is often hard to determine how far the
original idea of engraving or inscribing is still present: el¢ touov or mvElov or Ent
mvetov, Is. 8:1; Hab. 2:2; Is. 30:8; figur. "lep. 38:33 (31:33): Ent Kapdiac, Prv. 3:3
"A: nl td TATOOS Thc Kapdiac cou. Simple writing is certainly meant in Da. 5:5
LXX: énl tod tolyou tov oikov.
In the NT, apart from Eéyypaoetv, we have the original sense of engraving in Jesus
KATAYPAOELV or yodoerv eic THV yrv in Jn. 8:6, 8, also in Lk. 1:63, where Zacharias
writes the name of John on a waxed tablet (mtvaxldtov),? and finally in Rev. 2:17
(— 745).
2. yeckoetv is commonly used for “painting’’ or “drawing,” e.g., Aristoph. Ra., 537;
Hdt., II, 41; Aenophanes, 13 (I, p. 59,1, Diehl); Plat. Gorg., 453c; Jos. Ap., 2, 252.
3. It is used of the activity of writing generally. When Paul dictates his letters (in
R. 16:22 Tertius is the true ypawac), he usually appends a greeting in his own hand,
as in 2 Th. 3:17: o6twc GI. (— 764). There can be no doubt that the
dictating is also called yoc&oetv, for does not mean only to write with ones
own hand. Thus in 1 C. 4:14 or 14:37 all that is meant is that Paul now imparts this
to the community, whether by dictation or in his own hand. In the light of this in-
controvertible fact it may be asked whether the 6 ypawac taxvUta of Jn. 21:24 might
not simply mean that the beloved disciple and his recollections stand behind this Gospel
and are the occasion of its writing. This is a very possible view so long as we do not
weaken unduly the second aspect. Indeed, it would be difficult to press the formula to
imply other than an assertion of spiritual responsibility for what is contained in the
book, 4
When Paul refers to an earlier letter, he can say, eg., in 1C.5:9: Eypawa
2y ti emotoAfj.© yeaetv can be used both of an earlier writing of the community

(1929); G. Schrenk, “Die Geschichtsanschauung des Paulus auf d. Hintergrund s. Zeit-

alters,” Jahrbch. d. Theol. Schule Bethel, 3 (1932), 74 ff. Florilegia: E. Hatch, Essays in
Biblical Greek (1889); R. Harris, Testimonies I/II (1916-20); Ltzm. Gl. Relations to Hellen-
‘em: R.Bultmann, D. Stil der paulin. Predigt u. d. kynisch-stoische Diatribe (1910), 94 ff.
R Hirzel, Nouoc &ypagoc, ASG, XX,1 (1900), 27; E, Pascher, (1927),
159 ff.- E. v. Dobschiitz, “Vom vierfachen Schriftsinn,’ Harnack-Ehrung (1921), 1-13. Post-
Wnd. Barn., 313-316; A. v. Ungern-Sternberg, dD.
Apost. Fathers : A. v. Harnack, op. cit.;
traditionelle at.liche Schriftbeweis de Christo u. de evangelio i. d. alten Kirche (1913). Lhe
Doctrine of Scripture in the Gk. Fathers: Suic. Thes. ‘(dogmatic standpoint). For further
liter., v. Michel, op. cit. on

1 Il., 17, 599; 6, 169: év mivakt mtUKt® (both aor.).

2 AEYOov = ond is added (4 Bao. 10:6); cf. on this Sem. expression BI.-Debr., 420, 2;
E. Kieckers, Indogerm. Forsch., 35 (1915), 34 ff. On this whole question, cf. Str-B., Il,
108 ff.
3 The Alkxowc you aow th 2ufn xetpl (Zn. Gl, ad loc.) might be related
to the whole letter, ut to am CE 1C. 16.21. Whether or not
Paul dictated all his epistles can hardly be decided so long as the authenticity of 2 Th. and
R. 16 is debated. Cf. JThSt, 31 (1930), 273 f., where there is additional material on the
éndings and dictation in the case of Romans.
4 Cf. J. H. Bernard, Joh. (1929), II, 713; JThSt, loc. cif. Appeal to Ju. 8:14 LXX and the
writing of the titAoc by Pilate (— infra and n. 10) hardly touches the heart of the matter.
The question of writing with one’s own hand is quite subsidiary in Jn. 21:24.
5 On yokoetv émotoAry in Ac. 23:25; 2 Pt. 3:1, cf. 2 Ch. 30:1; 2 Esr. 4:6; 1 Macc. 13:35;
4 Macc. 9:18: 3 Macc. 3:11,30 (where we have tiém0Gg as in Ac. 23:25); M. Ex., 18,6:
Moses nana id 3nd (to Jethro); Tanch. mw, 5, 164. ypa&qew BiBAlov can also be used
for writing a letter, as in Hdt., I, 125; cf. 4 Bao. 10:1; 2 Ch. 32:17. In Ac. 18:27 the re-
ference is to a letter of the brethren commending Apollos.
 Yepaow

(1C.7:1) and also of preceding material in the letter of the apostle (1C.9:15). For
sending a communication by delegates Ac. 15:23 has: ypc&oetv St& xetpdc tivoc (of
the decree sent by Barnabas and Silas). Ai& 2ZtAovavod Eypawa (1 Pt.5:12) might
be taken in the same way,® but the reference could also be to the scribe or to an
associate in composition. ®
4. “To set down” or “to draw up.” Thus in Plat. Leg., XI, 923c; 924a, SitaByKHVv
ypcibetv means “‘to make testamentary disposition.” ® Again, in Jer. 39:25 Eypoawa
BiBAlov refers to a bill of sale.
In the NT yodoetv is used in this way in relation to the BiBAlov anootaciou
(— BiBAlov, 617) in Mk. 10:4 and the debt in Lk. 16:6 f. The writing, or more strictly
the order for the writing of the titAoc 1° on the cross by Pilate in Jn. 19:19, together
with the objection and the striking answer : 6 yéypaoa yéypaoa, in v. 21 f£., obviously
refers to a similar public document. A voluntary putting on record of debt is also to
be seen in Phim. 19: €y@ IlatAoc Eypawa tH éun xeErpl.
It is obviously from this usage, with its sense of public accusation, that there develops
in Attic judicial terminology the phrase yop&omeo8ar tiv& Tivos in the sense of ‘to
accuse someone.” 11 Cf, Aristoph. Nu., 1482; Demosth., 18, 103; Plat. Euthyphr., 2b. This
is not found in the NT. Nor is the sense of “to enter as,’ “to inventory . Jos. 18:9
(recording of the land); 1 Ch. 4:41; Jer. 22:30; 1 Macc. 8:20; and often in an ideal
figurative sense in Philo: Rer. Div. Her., 245, 250. “To characterise someone as : Hdt.,
VII, 214; Philo Poster. C., 80; Leg. All., III, 198; Spec. Leg., II, 132. “To be viewed or
treated as’: Det. Pot. Ins., 141; Vit. Mos., I, 35.

5. Composition of a Writing or Inscription in a Roll or Book.

Mal. 3:16; Bar. 1:1: yopdoet eic BiBAlov *lep. 39(32):10; Tob. 12:20; év: *Iep.
43(36):18; 12:1; éni (with acc.): w 138(139):16; “lep. 43(36):2. For the NT
— BiBAoc, BrBAlov. For in the sense of ‘to describe’ in Polyb., IT, 56, 4 there
is a par. in Rev. 22:18 f£.

In the OT writing down is an important mark of revelation. Thus God Himself

writes down in Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15, 32; 34:1: Dt. 4:13; 9:10 etc. Moses writes
down the commandments of the Lord in Ex. 24:4; 34:27; Joshua in Jos. 24:26,
Samuel in 18. 10:25. The king is to cause the Law of God to be written down
(Dt. 17:18). The people is to write the words of God on the door-posts (Dt. 6:9;
11:20). The authoritative significance of writing in the OT, in so far as it mediates

6 Ror examples from the post-apost. fathers, cf. 1 Pt., ad loc.

7 Eus. Hist. Eccles., IV, 23,11: émtotoAnv dia ypagpeioav. A different
sense is borne by the. ta yEYPAUMEVA Ola TOV of Lk. 18:31, where the Sie
has much the same force as an On0. In Est. 8:10 Eypagn Stk to Baowséwc means in
the name of the king. &é

8 On the common NT phrase yoaoetv tivi, tive tt to write to someone’ (R. 15:15;
2. C. 2:4; 1 C. 14:37; Gl. 1:20 etc.), cf. Pr.-Bauer, where some LXX examples are given. Cf.
Jos. Ant., 12, 16. With inf., Ac. 18:27. On ypaget nepl tivoc in Jn. 5:46; Ac. 25:26 (Festus
of litterae dimissoriae to Caesar); 1C. 7:1; 2 .9:1; 1 Th. 4:9; 5:1; Jd. 3; 1 Jn. 2:26, cf. Jos.
Ant., 17, 81; 18, 262; 20, 154; Vit.,62. — yéypantat, 748.
® For the varied use in the pap., cf. Preisigke Wéort.
10 On titAocg (Mt. 27:37: aitla; Lk. 23:38: Enmtypaor), which might be used either of
the tablet with the name of the delinquent or of the inscription itself (Columella, 9: scribere
titulum), cf. Suet. Calig., 32: praecedente titulo qui causam poenae indicaret ; and perhaps
also ibid., Domit., 10: cum hoc titulo; Eus. Hist. Eccl., V, 1,44: alvaxoc adtdv 1p0é-
YOvtos Ev © éyéypanto *Papatotl xtA. In Tac. Ann., II,22 Caesar sets up a pile of
(1875), 441,UE.
» FIL. CEalso
aleeJinot,
Pengeop. eee od liter,
cil., On ye cf. O. Zéckler,
Evov Boat D.
“EBpatotl Kreuz
(KtA.
KTA. ininJn.Christi
Jn.19:20,
19:20
cf. Schl. J., ad loc. with examples from Joseph. and the Rabbis.
Cf. Suid., s.v. dvtl tod yocet, f
Ypag@

the declaration of the will of God, is fully endorsed in the NT, even though the
meaning of the authority is very different, cf. the éypc&on of Paul when he dis-
cusses the purpose of OT Scripture in 1C. 9:10; 10:11; R. 4:23; 15:4.7% On the
other hand, from the standpoint of the history of revelation the significance of
ypaoey is given a remarkably different emphasis in the NT generally. Thus Jesus
Himself is never presented as One who wrote down revelation, nor even as One
who caused others to write, except in the case of the Apocalypse. We may also
remember the natural tone of the #50€ xc&uol ypdwou of Lk. 1:3 in this con-
nection. There is certainly an awareness that writing in the service of the Gospel
is undertaken for a supreme purpose and before God (GI. 1:20; R.15:15). But
neither in the Synoptists nor in Paul is there the emphatic claim to be writing
sacred literature. In this regard the Johannine writings stand apart. In the Fourth
Gospel the proclamation of the kingship of Christ in the titXoc on the cross is
particularly significant (— 744), and soa, too, is the concluding statement that the
goal of the work is faith in Christ the Son of God (20:30£.) and the emphatic
equation of uaptup_eiv and yecoetv in the witness of the author (21:24 £.). When
quoting the OT, John almost always uses the introductory yeypauuévov (— 749),
and in 20:31, when speaking of the aim of his own writing, i.e., to awaken faith,
he can use a word which elsewhere he reserves for OT Scripture, namely, yé-
ypanta.. Indeed, in the previous verse (v.30) we already find the expression :
& OOK ZoTLV Ev TO BiBAl@ TobTtTe@. This solemn statement is striking.
Naturally, it does not imply that the unheard of wealth of the activity of Jesus
can be adequately presented in literature (21:25). Yet there is a no less solemn
emphasis on the testimony of writing in 1 Jn. °°
Even more emphatic, in accordance with the sense of apocalyptic declaration,
is the conviction of the revelatory significance of writing in the Apocalypse. The
writing of the divine stands under the promise and direction of God. This refers
to the whole book (1:11, 19). Blessed is the man who keeps t& év yeypau-
(1:3, cf. 22:19). With equal solemnity the exalted Lord requires of the
of the seven churches that he should write: ypd&wov (2:1-3:14).When
it is important to emphasise the sacred validity and import of certain sayings, the
divine receives the specific command: ypc&wov (14:13; 19:9; 21:5),14 and there
is a corresponding prohibition in 10:4. The fact that what is written has a hypo-
static background in the heavenly world testifies to the significance of the roll
written on both sides in 5:1 etc. 1° and the repeated mention of those whose names
are written in the book of life or of the Lamb throughout the Apocalypse (— Br-
BAbov, 617). Apart from this use of yoedoerv for literary inscription, however, the
wotd yodoetv is often linked with in images which have a strong personal
reference. In 2:17, for example, there is the promise to the one who overcomes,
as by strenuous effort in the games, that he will receive the white stone with a

onwa
thisror reasons
Eyp&qn of Rer.
Philo convenience this Pauline
Div. Her., 172: weOdptocis8treated under
6 odTOG —> 799. Cl
yeaon.
13 Cf. the — tva- statements in 1 Jn. 1:4; 2:1; 5:13 and the repeated ypa&qo and Eypapa
in 2:12-14.
14 On Kol A€yet’ yoduov (Rev. 21:5), cf. *lep. 37:2 and the 21n3 12 Wax and similar
expressions in T.Sanh., 2, 6; S. Dt., 357 on 34:5; M. Ex., 22, 24.
15 In relation to the art. > BiBAlov, it may be added that the tables of the Law are
written on both sides, also the roll in Ez. 2:10 (cf. Ex. 32:15). They are also written by the
finger of God (Ex. 31:18; Dt. 9:10).
 Ypaow

name engraven on it, ie., a new name.?® Again, in 3:12 the fact that the victor
belongs wholly to God is expressed in the writing upon him of the sacred name.
Again, the 144.000 bear on their foreheads the divine name (14:1).7*7 Again, there
is reference to a name on the forehead of the whore (17:5). Finally, we read of
the secret and manifest name of the returning Logos. In all such cases ypaoetv
or yeypaupévov is used. The God of revelation proclaimed by the divine declares
Himself in readable signs. He does not merely manifest Himself; He also gives
forceful expression to His will to save. Nor is the sacred book the final thing.
The perfect expression of the divine will consists in writing on and in persons.
6. ypdoev in Legislative Activity.
Already in Pind. Nem., 6,7 ypcoetv is used in the sense of ‘to prescribe’ or to
decree”: ypc&ogetv vduouc means “to give or lay down laws.” In Demosth., 24, 48
yopdoetv is used with in Xenoph. Mem., I, 2,42 we read: vopor od¢
tO Eypawe; I, 2, 44 refers to the legislative activity of the usurper. The same
usage is found in the OT, e.g., of God in 4 Bao. 17:37 (tac EvtoAc&c); of Darius and
Cyrus in 1 Esr. 4:55, 56; 6:16 (17); of the instruction of officials by Demetrius in 1 Macc.
13:37. Josephus and Philo have the same expression. Thus in Jos. Ant., 3,213 we find
vouous Zypawe; in 11,92, with reference to the written order of Cyros, oikodopunoat
with the infin.; also 12,201. Cf. also with 11,127 and cf. 216. Philo Ebr., 64:
ypaoetv with vouo8eteiv. ypdoetv vououc: Conf. Ling., 112; Som.,1,92 and 95;
Vit. Mos., I, 300; II, 14; Decal., 132. Of the codification of laws in the Chaldean
language, Vit. Mos., II, 26; 6 yypaoeic véuoc, Conf. Ling., 160; Congr., 137 védpoc
éypaon; of the issuance of the divine decree Conf. Ling., 197; of the
judicial sentence: Decal., 40.

In the NT, too, we have Mavofic E€ypawev 4 in the sense of ‘legislative pre-
scription: Mk. 10:5: tiv évtoAnyv tavtmyv; 12:19, par. Lk. 20:28: Eypa-
wev futv Sti, followed by Dt.25:5f. The meaning of is similar. In
Jn. 1:45; 5:46, 2° however, the yopdetv of Moses signifies his prophesying of the
Messiah. Yet formally 1 Jn. 2:7£.: obx EvtoAnV Kaiwhv yoaow (cf. 2Jn.5), again
suggests legislative activity, except that the nomistic character of the new law
is changed by the fact that the commandment is true in Him (Jesus). In R. 2:15:.
Epyov Tov véuou ypaTttov Ev taic Kapdiatc, the reference is to the counterpart
of the Mosaic codification. Heathen doers of the Law make it clear that the
required work of the Law is codified in their hearts.

B. The Special Use of yéypantat and yeypappevov.

ypantéc, -d6v is always “that which is fixed in writing.” P. Amh., 78, 17 (2nd cent.
A.D.): ypanth, “written bond of indebtedness.” It is often used as the
opp. of non-written or verbal, cf. APF, IV, 259 f. So also Ep. Ar., 56: Sia ypantov,
previously &ypaoa; ypanmtocg Adyos, ‘written utterance’: P. Petr., III, 219, 38. V.
further Moult.-Mill., s.v. In the LAX (always for 23%), 2 Ch. 36:22; 2 Esr. 1:1: év
ypant@, and 1 Esr. 2:2: Sick ypantév, for the written decree of Cyrus, and 2 Macc.

16 Zn. Apk.,. I, 276 ff.; Had. Apk., 50.

17 On Rev. 3:12, cf. b.Joma, 8a; Ex. r., 15 on 12:2.
18 Cf. Jos. Ant., 3,74; 4,326; 17,159; Philo Op. Mund., 163. On the other hand, cf. Jos.
Ant., 1, 95: Mavor¢ aveypaipev, “has reported.” Tanch. 8p" 18 and 10: Jeroboam says:
mina 3nd NWA. Similarly Philo Sobr., 68: 6 npogntiKdg Adyoc Eyp Ev (Gn. 49:22). )
19 BG lat syr Chrys Ambrst Pelag: yodper thy Btkctoobvny, ace. of object,
20 1:45: Sv Eypawev (acc. of person); 5:46: mepl
YePago

11:15: Sick nepl tdv "Iovdalav, memorandum on the Jews laid before
Lysias by Maccabeus.
A stock expression for written laws is tax (— 748). There is a
striking similarity between the use of ypc&qew as a legal expression in the Greek
sphere and its legal use in the Israelite and Jewish sphere. The innumerable re-
ferences to Tx yeypauuéva in the OT correspond to the view that the written
Law is authoritatively binding. The same is to be said of yéypantat. This denotes
not merely the appeal in Greek law to the impregnable authority of the law but
also the validity of what is written for Israel both in the absolute religious sense
and also in the juridical.24 What is quoted as yéypantat is normative because it
is guaranteed by the binding power of Yahweh the King and Lawgiver. This is
basically true of the Law of Moses, but is then applied also to the prophets and
ketubim. If the assertion that the véuoc has legal validity in Israel does not express
the whole meaning of the embracing authority of the divine work of revelation, the
usage can hardly be understood apart from the legal element. In the Rabbis the
legal view of the written word is developed in isolation. The NT conception of
yéypanta. and yeypauuévov, however, is rather different (> ypagy, 757).
The Specific Use of yeypantat.
a. On the simple use as in Mt. 4:4-10; Lk. 4:8; 19:46; 1C.9:9 (Ev 1 Mavoéwc
v6uw); 14:21 (év tT vdu@),22 cf. 2 Esr.5:7; Gk. addition to Job 42:17a; w 39:7;
1 Macc. 16:24; Test. Zeb. 3:4: év vdu0u Mavoéacg yéypantat. Josephus:
Ap., 1,154: yéypantat év adtaic (our books). Elsewhere Joseph. prefers ctvayé-
ypantat év taic tepaic BiBAotc, Ant., 3,81; 9,28 (Philo Vit. Mos., II, 188) or €év
toic Mavoeéwmc vouotc, Ant., 13, 297.2% The same formula is used of bronze tablets
with Jewish rights, 7,110; of Phcenician annals, Ap.,2, 18; of the memoirs of
Vespasian, Vit., 342; of the historical books of Tyre, Ant., 9,283. In Philo: Rer. Div.
Her., 102; Congr., 126; Decal.,47. In the Rabbis the simple yeypantat is s3n>5 Tanch.
15 95 9 and 67; Gen.r., 11, 1 on 2:3. 24 In the inscr. and pap. the reference is very often
to a normative record,-as in Inschr. Priene, 105, 83 (9 B.C.): @¢ Kal é€v t@ Kopvedtor
vouat yeypantat, P. Hal., 1,96 (3rd cent.-B.C.).
b. The confirmatory formula yeypantat is found in Mk. 1:2 (é€v tT@ “Hoata
1 TpOOrty, as in 2 Ch. 32:32); Lk. 2:23 (&€v véuqm Kupiov); Ac. 7:42 (év BiBA@
TOV TEPOONTOV); 15:15. It occurs 14 times in Paul, 10 times in R. and 4 in C. 7° In the
LXX, cf. 4 Bao. 14:6 (év BiBAl@ vdum@v Ma@vof A al); 2 Ch. 23:18; Test. L. 5:4 (Ev
TAGE TOV Tanch. 45 45, 16, 73 mina WNW ind; Pes. Kah., 5; 50a; Tanch.
12,41 and in countless other passages: Ditt. Syll.8, 736,44 (92 B.C.);
CPR, 154, 11; 1 Cl, 48, 2.
c. On 6tt yéypantat, Gl. 3:13: KaxOdoti, P. Par., 13,13 (157 B.C.); P. Leid. O., 19
(89 B.C.). 76

21 In the debate between Cr.-K6., 264 and Deissmann B., 108 ff. both are really right.
Cf. Schl. Mt., 35.
22 On néAtv yéypanta, Mt. 4:7, cf. ypaor, 758, n. 43. For yy & yEyYPantat
in 1C. 4:6, cf. — 760, and n. 55. For the striking expression in Jn. 20:31, cf. — 745.
23 Cf, H. Driiner, Untersuchungen tiber Josefus (Diss. Marburg, 1896), 54, n. 1; 85. For
&vayéypantat in Arrian, cf. H. Wilcken, Philol., 53 (1894), 1171.
24 On Jn. 8:17: év tT vduwo TH OuEtEp~ yéypantat (the outsider quotes the Law),
cf. the Rabbin. par. in Schl. J., 206 £.
25 Bor lists of formulae in Pl., cf. Michel, 72; for examples from Barn., ibid., 209, n. 1;
from 1 Cl., ibid., 201, n. 2.
26 VY. further Deissmann B., 110.
 yeaow

d. @¢ yéyparntat, Mk. 7:6; Lk. 3:4 (év BIBA@ Adyav "Hoatou tod npooijtov):
Ac. 13:33 (€v t@ warud t@ Sevutépe); donep, 1C. 10:7; cf. 2 Ch. 35:12 (év BiBAl@
A, vl.); 2 Eodp. 20:37 AR (év T@ vdou@); Ditt. Syll.3, 45, 44.
e. yéypantai, R. 3:4; 9:13 etc. Cf. Tegea building inscr. (c. 3rd cent.
B.C.) in P. Cauer, Delectus Inscriptionum Graec. (1883), 457, 50 £.; Inschr. Perg., 251, 35
(2nd cent. B.C.); xaOc&, Jos. 9:4: (8:31) (Ev vdu@ Mavon); BGU, 252,9 (98 A.D.);
Inscr. Mar. Aeg., 761,41 (Rhodos, 3rd cent. B.C.): kaxOa& Kal Ev toig vopolg yé_-
ypantat; P. Par., 7,6 (2nd or Ist cent. B.C.).
f. obtawc yéypantat, Mt. 2:5 (Oi tob mpogytou); Tanch. *npna 4; 110: 3nd yaw;
Cant. r., 8, 14 (on Mi. 5:2): and 4d; 1 Cl, 17, 3. 74
g. On yéypantat oti, Mt. 4:6; Mk. 11:17, cf. Phil. Post. C., 24.
h. yéypantar yao, Mt. 4:10; Ac. 1:20 -(év BIBA@ waduev); R. 12:19; 14:11;
1C. 1:19; Gl. 3:10 etc., cf. Tanch. 7? 75 8,66 and often elsewhere 2°33; Phil. Post. C.,
102; 176; 179; 1 Cl., 36, 3; 39,3 etc.
i. On nrepl 05 yéypantat, Mt. 11:10; Mk. 14:21 and Mt. 26:24: wept avtou, cf.
13 in T. Sota, 6,6 and 7 of Abraham and Moses. ?* Cf. also Pes. Kah., 28, 185b:
ma NIT Mw At; Tanch. 37%, 13, 184.

2. The Specific Use of yeypaupevov.

In illustration of the class. use of tx yeypauuéva for “written laws’ we may refer
to Demosth., 58, 24; Plat. Leg., VI, 754e: nap& tax yeypauuéva; Aristot. Rhet., I, 10,
p. 1368b, 7 f£.: yeypaupévov, opp. &ypaoa. There is a similar use of ypagevta for
a medical prescription in Plat. Polit., 295d.
Of the countless references to the OT as t& yeyopaupéva in the LAA we may
mention év (t@) vdu@ or év tH BIBAw Mavoéwec, 3 Bao. 2:3 (A al); Da. 09:11;
Tob. 7:12 8; 2v v6u@ Kupiov, 2 Ch. 35:26; tobs Adyoug tod vduou Tobs
vouc ént to6 BiBAlovu, 2 Ch. 35:19; Ent tO BiBAlw, 4 Bao. 23:24, Of the many re-
ferences to the words of the written Law, cf. Dt. 28:58; 30:10; Jos.9:7 (8:34); 1K. 2:3;
cf. 2 Ch. 31:3; 2 Eodp. 18:14. There are also innumerable references to specific books,
e.g., 1K. 14:10 A; 2 Ch. 9:29; 26:22 etc.
The findings are similar in the case of Aristeas, Josephus and the Rabbis. Ep. Ar., 311:
TX yeypauuéva; Jos. Ant., 11,6; Ant., 13,297, of the divergent attitude of the Sad-
ducees to Tx and napd&dSooig tHv natépwv. Elsewhere Joseph. prefers
the cvayeypauuéva év taic lepaic BiBAotcg (Ant., 1,26) or év totic Aoylotc (Bell.
6, 311); cf. Ant., 9,208. In the Rabbis there is a regular occurrence of the formula
JIN 7, e.g., 09932 in M. Ex., 17, 14.
In the NT yeypauppévov is used less frequently of Scripture. It is most com-
mon in Lk. and Jn., rarer in Pl. Cf. Lk. 4:17; 20:17; 22:37. It should be emphasised
that with respect to Jesus Lk. gives prominence to wa&vta t& yeypauyéva in
connection with the thought of fulfilment (teAéa, tANPd0, > ypaor, 758), e.g..
in 18:31; 21:22; 24:44; Ac. 13:29; 24:14 (cf. Lk. 24:27, év nc&oaic taic ypaoais),
and most completely in Lk. 24:44 (the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the
Psalms). It is he who most strikingly and impressively underlines the fact that
all the Scriptures bear witness to Christ.

27 In the LXX l500 yéypantat is often used for non-biblical sources, e.g., in 2 Bao.
1:18: 3 Bao. 8:53a; 11:41: 2 Ch. 33:19; Est. 10:2; though also for biblical, e.g., in 3 Bao.
22:39; 4 Bao. 8:23 etc.
28 Acc. to Schl. Mt., 363.
— ypaor
On this mé&vta, cf. Jos.9:7 (8:34) — infra; 23:6; Tanch. ox, 5,16; ew, 15,9
TVAD BND 9-79.
Only at 8:17 does Jn. speak of the véu0c as yéypantat. He prefers
uévov. Thus he has the simple Zotiv yeypauuévov (Ev toig Mpopytatc) at 6:4,
or as a question at 10:34 (€v 16 vduw OuGv), or with the succeeding Sti at 15:25.
Or
at ne nas KaBoc éotiv yeypappévov at 6:31; 12:14 or Sti yeypappévov é
Paul uses yeypaupévos only in 1 C. 15:54: 6 6 yeypaupévoc (Is. 25:8)
and 2 C. 4:13: kata Td yeypaupEéevov.
On the latter, cf. Jos.9:7 (8:34): Kkat& wavta ta Ev TH VOU
4 Bao. 22:13; 1 Ch. 16:40 (év véu@m Kuplov); 2 Ch. 34:21 (Ev tO BtiBAl@
tout@, of the book of the covenant); 1 Esr. 1:10 (€v BiBAl@ Mavon); 2 Esr. 3:2 (&v
vou@ Movon); Bar.2:2. In the sing., 2 Eodp. 18:15; 2 Esr. 3:4. For the plur., cf.
Inschr. Priene, 12, 12 (300 B.C.); Ditt. Syll.8, 955, 22; 1016, 6. For the sing., cf. Gn. r., 79
on 33:18 sansw Taan., 3,3: aingp; Ditt. Syll.?, 438, 13; 84; Orig. Comm. in Joh.,
1,17, p. 494.

Sometimes or yéypantat is used in relation to Jesus. This is

expressed by a dat. or énl. Cf. Lk. 18:31: teAcoOhoetat m&vta Ta
OK TOV TPOPHTOV tH viG tod a&vOpanov, where the dat. belongs to yeypau-
uéva in the sense of “concerning” or “with reference to’;?® cf. 1 Esr. 4:47;
3 Macc. 6:41. In Jn. 12:16 the same thought is expressed in the phrase fiv én” avt@
yeypaupéva. Another example is Mk.9:12£., where the yéypantat is linked
with éni with the acc.
TX is also found in Church usage, as in Orig. Princ., IV, 2,6 (p. 316).
yéypantat refers to the sayings of Jesus in Barn., 4, 14; 14,6, and the sayings of the
apostles in Orig. Princ., III, 1,19 (p. 232, 6), a quotation from 1 C. 3:6£,; cf. Jn. I, 3, 18:
tx ONO TOV AMOOTOAWV This is in keeping with the consolidation of
the NT Canon.

Ypaon.
A. ypaoH in Secular Greek.
1. In the first instance ypaor) means inscribed “writing,” or “written characters,”
or in a rather wider sense the “art of writing.’ Soph. Trach., 683: yaAKijg Ex SEATOU
ypaoryv. Hence, as in the case of ypc&oetv, it may be used for “what is inscribed, i.e.
“inscription” ; this is still very close to the original meaning: Thuc., I, 134; IG, AII, 5,
No. 679 (Syros); Epigr. Graec., 347 (Chios). So, too, in the LXX: 3 Macc. 2:27 of the
inscription on the pillar at Alexandria ; Sir. 45:11 (an33) of the engraven inscription on
the breastplate of the high-priest. Jos. Ant. 15,417 of the inscription in the temple
warning aliens ; Philo Poster. C., 113. Of the divine characters on the tables of the Law:
Ex. 32:16: ¥) yoauor) ypaor év taic Dt. 10:4 (in both
cases cf, Jos. Ant., 3, 101; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 287. The mysterious inscription on
the wall at Babylon, Da. LXX © 5:6-26 (and).
In the LXX ypaoy is always the rendering of 31nd, and, and once wATD (2 Ch.
24:27). On the other hand, spo is never ypady but BiBAlov, BIBAoc (— BiBAoc, 614).

29 With KI. Lk., ad loc. and Pr.-Bauer, Zurich Bible. For a different view, cf. Zn.,
Cr.-Ké., who relate the dat. to teAco@Orjoetat.
 ypaor

The reference in Plat. Phaedr., 274b is to the ‘‘art of writing.

2. “Copy” or “drawing”: Hdt., II, 73; IV, 36; Plat. Symp., 193a: Kata
Philo uses this in a platonising sense of the original plan of the tabernacle which Moses
saw on the mount: Vit. Mos., II, 74; of the exemplar of the works of nature: Spec.
Leg., IV, 55; of the virtuous life as ypaorh Virt., 51; Jos., 87; Omn. Prob.
Lib.,62 and 94. The term is used for ‘“‘picture’” or “‘painting’ in Hdt., II, 24; Philo
Vit. Mos., I, 158; Spec. Leg., I, 33; Leg. Gaj., 151 (ypagat with &vdpic&vtec); Abr., 11
(with uviyun); Cher., 104 Kal ypagpal kat mivaKia); Eus. Vit. Const.,
III, 3. It is used for “‘art’’ in Jos. Ant., 19, 7; Bell., 7, 159.
3. It can also mean “written statement in personal or official dealings.’ In the widest
sense it means ‘what is written’ or “writing.” Hence a written report is a report d1&
tHe ypadgfic: Polyb., 1,56, 11; cf. 1Ch.28:19: ma&vta év ypagy XEtpoc KUpiov
ZSaxe Aavid (3n3); Sir. 39:32: Ev ypagy agrynka (23), I put it down
in writing’; 42:7 of the writing down of what is received and spent. a. Letter’:
2 Ch. 2:10, é€v ypaon “by letter” (3n52); 2 Ch. 21:12 % 3nd”) ;* Jos. Ant., 12, 226. Also
in modern Gk. b. “Piece of writing’: P. Hibeh, 78,18 (3rd cent. B.C.);+ Philo Leg.
Gaj., 276. c. “Record,” “document”: 1 Macc. 14:48: 16 c&vtiypapov Tic ypagnc;
copy” 8:22 A; 14:27; “genealogy”: 2 Esr. 2:62; 1 Esr. 5:39 (yevixr) ypagy); 2 Eodp.
17:64 (ypagi) tic ouvodlac). “Contract”: CPR, 224,6; P. Amh., 43,13 (2nd cent.
B.C.). Of the state archives as a repository for documents: IG, XI, 203 B, 100 (Delos,
3rd cent. B.C.). d, “List,” “inventory,” “survey”: Polyb., III, 33, 18; Ez. 13:9: ypagn
otkou *IopanjA(sn3), 2 e. “Decree,” “edict”: Da. © 6:8 (9) of royal edicts Eus.
Eccl. Hist., VIII, 4, 5; IX, 7,2 of imperial edicts.? f. “Accusation” in legal Attic, and
hence more generally. ? Cf. Philo Poster. C., 38; Sacr. AC, 71: ypagon aoeBeiac.
4, “Published work’’ in the literary sense. In Jos. Ap., 1,236 ypaornv
does not have this literary sense, but in Sir. 44:5 Enn Ev bears
this meaning. In Jos. Ant., 20, 261; Ap., 1,20; 58 is used in a literary con-
nection. The word is used of non-biblical books in 1 Macc. 12:21: of the historical work
of Nikolaos in Jos. Ant., 16, 185; of philosophical writings in Philo Abr., 23; Migr. Abr.,
34; cf. ypaoic kal &Etoc in Abr., 11. It is also used of the present work of
the author in Jos. Ant., 3,74; Ap., 2,147; Philo Ebr.,11 etc., or with reference to
previous volumes in Jos. Ant., 19,298; Philo Som., I,1. It is used for in
Jos. Vit., 361, esp. Josephus’ own authorship in Bell.,5,20: 6 véduog tig ypagne;
Fus. Hist. Eccl., I, 1,5.
5. “Written law or statute.’ Plat. Leg., XI,934c of written law; kata ypagoac
with ref. to laws: BGU, 136,10 (135 A.D.). The sing. is sometimes used in this sense
in the LXX, perhaps with something of the suggestion of “Holy Scripture.’ At 2 Esr.
7:22: kal Gag ob obk ott year (and) the meaning is simply ‘prescription, but
sometimes there seems to be a certain influence of the use in the sing. for “Holy
Scripture”: 1 Ch. 15:15: Oc éveteiAato Mavors Ev Ady@ GEod kata tThv ypagnv
(747 2 Ch. 30:5: Stt OOK ENoinoE KATA THY yeagry (sind), 30:18:
GAN” Epayov TO PKOEK TAPA THY in a contrary manner to that
prescribed.” In all such cases, however, we ought to render ypaoy as “legal regulation,
since the Mas. never gives any reason for thinking of it as a title for Scripture. Cf.
2 Ch. 35:4: Kat& thy Aavid Bacttéwc *loponjA also 1 Esr. 1:4. In
Philo Vit. Mos., II, 203 -ypaor) can mean “‘account of the divine order.’’ Cf. the medical
use in Galen, XII, p.293; XIII, p. 638; XV, p. 918, Kiihn, where ypaory
means medical prescription.

For bibl. — ypdagw, 742 f. The definitions of Hesych. and Suid. emphasise
the official and judicial usage (— supra).
1 VY. further Preisigke W6Ort., s.v.
2 On d. and e., ibid.
3 On f. v. Liddell-Scott, s.v.
yeaorn

B. ypaorn as Holy Scripture.

1. ypaoat of the (Holy) Scriptures, or the Collection of Individual Books.
It is to be noted that ai tepal ypaoal is a specifically Rabbinic mode of expression
which is also found in Philo and Hellenistic Judaism but not in the OT. In the Rabbis
the formula is wpm * The usage in Josephus falls short of this. It is infrequent,
e.g., Ap., 2,45: Ptolemy Philadelphus demands taic t&v tepdSv ypaodv BIBAotc
évtuyeiv. Here the concept of book is contained in BiBAot, but the BiBAot contain
sacred utterances (— 752). Philo, on the other hand, often speaks of at tepal ypagat
and he obviously means the OT, esp. the Pentateuch: Abr., 61; Congr., 34; 90; Decal.,
8; 37; Fug., 4; Op. Mund., 77; Rer. Div. Her., 106; 159; 286; Spec. Leg., I, 214; II, 104;
134. Very occasionally the superlative is used: Abr.,4: év taic tepatd&taig ypagatc.
There is also a use of the sing. in Vit. Mos., II, 84 with reference to the curtains
frequently mentioned in Ex. 26: &c Sik tic tep&c yopaorc @véuaoev. The sing. in
Test. N. 5:7: 600 ypaor ayia o8n does not refer to the OT but to a visionary
apocalyptic oracle (— 752).

It is worth noting that in the NT holiness is very rarely applied to Scripture.

It is not found at all in the Gospels, though used there of the Father, the Spirit,
and the angels (— There is thus no formula to denote the perfection of
Scripture in the sense of the concept of divine holiness. Paul does once say in
R.1:2: 6 mpoemmyyelrAato dik THV Ev ypaoaic caylaig* (not
tepaic) when speaking of the Gospel. We may also think of R.7:12 with its
reference to the vducc tepdc is used in relation to ypauuata only at
2 Tm. 3:15 (> ypdupa, 765).

We may thus conclude that the phrase at tepai ypagal perpetuates in the
Church a Jewish and Hellenistic rather than a specifically early Christian usage.

at tepai ypagat occurs in 1 Cl, 45,2; 53,1. It is used of the books burnt in per-
secution in Eus. Hist. Eccl., VII, 2,1. CE. Philostorg. Hist. Ecc., VIII, 11 (p. 112, 13);
Gelas. Hist. Eccl., II, 21, 14; sing.: f} tep& ypaon, ITI,9; without hua@v: Thdrt.
Ep., 14, MPG, 83, 1188c. at Oetat ypagal is often found in the early Church: Gelas.,
II, 16, 14, cf. II, 20,5; Method. Symp., IV, 3,99; Philostorg. Vit. et Mart. Luc., 2 (185,
18); sing. of the OT: Chrysostom Hom. in Gn. X,3 (MPG, 53, 84); ai Geta yoaoat
in relation to a NT passage: Eus. Marcell. Fr., p. 186, No.6; p. 192, No. 43; p. 212,
No. 121 etc. } ypagr of the NT’: p. 192, No. 42. Elsewhere at kuptakat yoaoat
is used: Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 1,4; 16,94, 1; Method. Resurrect., I, 62,4 (of the OT,
Levit.).

4 Tanch. addition to m7, 1,95; T. Shab., 13,1; B 1,6. Cf. Levy Chald. Wért., I, 395;
Levy Wort., II, 435 f.; G. Aicher, D. AT i. d. Mischna (1906), 22; Str.-B., III, 14.
6 Hinel, 18, has advanced the thesis that in Jewish usage 8°2N5 without attribute does not
have the pregnant sense of “Scripture kat’ , but that for this purpose is al-
ways added like tepal to al ypaoal in Hellenistic Judaism. In face of the Rabbinic
31n37, however, this thesis can hardly be sustained (— infra; 749).
6 It is noteworthy that in Mt. 7:6 tO a&ytov is used of the message which the disciples
have to deliver.
7 Cf. Hipp. Ref., I, praef. 8, also without art. That the lack of article is of no significance
may be seen from R. 16:26, or in the sing. 1 Pt. 2:6; 2 Pt. 1:20.
 yeaon

Of the OT as a whole the simple plur. at ypaqgal is equally well established,

though this may refer to the statements therein contained. In the Rabbis we find
(S.Dt.1 on 1:1) or (M. Ex., 19,19). Philo occasionally has at
ypaoal (Abr., 236), or dupdtepar al ypapal with reference to the Mas. and the
Gk. translation (Vit. Mos., II, 40). In the NT, too, at ypagat is constantly used
of the OT Canon. It cannot be shown that the reference is only to individual
passages. To be sure, in Mt. 21:42 the phrase is followed by ovdénote avéyvote
tv taic ypaoaic (Ps. 118:22 £.) and in Mt. 22:29 those who scoff at the resurrec-
tion are answered by the phrase nAavaoGe pn) tac ypagac, and then by
a quotation from Ex. 3:6. § On the other hand, in Mt. 26:54 : nao ov
al ypaoai 5t1 obtwco Sei there is no mention of any particular writer
(par. Mk. 14:49), and the same is true of Mt. 26:56, except that here one portion
of the Scriptures is specifically mentioned (at ypaoal tOv npogyntav). A particu-
larly plain argument for the view that al ypagal can mean Scriptures and not
just passages of Scripture is the elucidation of év n&oaicg Taig ypaoaic in Lk.
24:27 by &pEuEVOG ad Mavoéac kal &nd Td&vtIMV TOV This ex-
pository instruction of the risen Lord is described in Lk. 24:32, 45 as a Stavolyevv ®
of the ypaoat. Similarly, it is highly doubtful whether the reference in Jn. 5:39:
EPELVATE TAG yeaocde, is to passages or oracles *° and not to the Scriptures. In
Ac. 17;2,11; 18:24; 28, the reference is to something comprehensive, either in
terms of searching the OT or seeking proofs for Christ from the Scriptures. The
four passages in which Paul uses at yopaoal (without d&ylat), ie. 1C. 15:3 £.,%
the repeated kat& tac ypaodc; R. 15:4: Bi& tig TOV yPagOv;
R. 16:26: S& ypagGv npogntikGyv, all point in the same direction; they link
the saving act of Christ, His suffering, death and resurrection, and the Gospel in
general, with all the OT Scriptures and their prophetic witness.
2. ypaor of Individual Passages of Scripture.
It is incontestable that in the Syn., Ac. and Jn. } ypaor is also used for in-
dividual biblical statements, though we cannot say that it is used only in this
sense. 1?

Cf. 4 Macc. 18:14, where obviously the Uneuluvnoxe tiv ’"Hoalou ypagrv thy
A€yovoavy refers to the verse from Is. which is then cited (Is. 43:2 LXX). In the Rabbis :

8 Par. Mk. 12:24. Schl. Mt., 653 quotes in this connection the related expression in S. Nu..
112.
® On this expression, cf. the MNB in jChag., 77d (Schl. Lk., 459).
10 Schl. on Jn. 5:39; Hanel, 15.
11 Bultmann, III, 186 ff. has advanced the interesting hypothesis that Paul’s xkatc& T&G
yoaode refers to early stories of the passion and resurrection which underlie the present
Gospels. Jiilicher has suggested that R. 16:26 refers to current prophetic works. But in face
of the broad tradition in the use of the formula these theories are quite untenable. An
erstwhile Rabbi can only have had the OT in view in using such a phrase as KaT& TAG
ypaoac. There are good reasons for the fact that this traditional formula occurs only in
1C. 15:3 f., namely, that he is here dealing with a formulation handed down by the early
community. On the other hand, there was no reason why he should not vary the current
formula: there are countless examples of such variation from the time of the OT itself
right on into the Gk. Church.
12 H4nel, 14, claims that this is so in the case of the Gospels, but it seems to me to k
highly debatable in that of Jn.
Yeon
ie ane rans, M.Ex., 14,3; Tanch. x7, 20,158. Philo Rer. Div. Her., 266: to 68
Pe srousov <A (the particular verse Gn. 15:13); Abr, 131: GAA Kol tA
ANTS yeaors tade TEPLEXOVONG.
The following individual references may be noted in the NT: Mk. 12:10: tiv
yeaonv tavtnv; Lk. 4:21: h ypagh abtyn; Jn. 19:37: Kal EtEpa ypagn;
Ac. 1:16: #5 Thv ypaory fv TpoEinev TO TvEDUK TO CyLOV OL
otouatog Aavid (there follows w 69:25; 109:8); Ac. 8:32, where 1} TEptoxr) THIS
ypaoijc which the treasurer reads is Is.53:7f£.; and Ac. 8:35: &p&&yEvVoc ano
THG Ypadic On the basis of these findings it is also likely, though not
certain, that ypaqor) denotes an individual saying whenever followed by a quota-
tion, e.g., in Mk. 15:28 & lat syP; Jn. 7:38; 2% 13:18; 19:24,36. Yet even in such
cases there may well be a reference to Scripture as a whole.
How does it stand with Paul? Our best starting-point is Gl. 3:8,22 (— 754),
where the personification of ypaor makes it quite inconceivable that Paul should
simply have in view an individual text. On the other hand, the reference may well
be to a single saying in the 5 instances (or 6 if we include 1 Tm. 5:18) of Aéyet F
ypaor 14 (GI. 4:30; R. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2), for here we have a quotation follow-
ing. The situation is complicated, however, by R. 11:2: év "HAla tt A€yet F} year.
For it is better to take this to signify the utterance of all Scripture in Elias, or
in the story of Elias, rather than this particular passage in Elias. Again, we can
see from R. 11 : tl A€yer 6 ypruatiouds, that Paul can use other expressions
to emphasise a particular passage. Hence it is more likely that he is using 1) ypaor
for the OT as a whole. There is even the possibility that when he uses the phrase
Aéyet tf) ypaor he has no fixed conception in his own mind, as often happens when
there is a variation in usage. We can certainly trace this twofold use of ypagy
right on into the early Church (— infra; 755).
In Jm. 2:23 the situation is much the same as in Paul’s general use of Aéyeu Ff
ypaor. Followed by Lv. 19:18, kat& thy ypagry (2:8) obviously refers to a single
passage. Thus the true parallel is not 2Esr.6:18: kata tv yepagrv BIBAou
but the sinap of the Rabbis. In Jm. 4:5, however, the Soxette Ott KEVOC
f) ypaor Aéyet must surely be with reference to Scripture as a whole.
The post-apost. fathers have instances of both forms of usage. Thus there is reference
to all Scripture in, e.g., 1 Cl., 42,5: mod A€éyet } 2 C1.,6,8: Aéyer ypaor
év t® "leCexujA; Barn., 6,12 (where 1) ypaor is equated with God). There is dubiety
in 1 Cl., 34, 6; 35, 7; 2 Cl., 14, 1£.; Barn., 4,7; 5,4; 13,2. On the other hand, individual
passages are plainly in mind in 1 Cl., 23, 3: } ypagr abtm (apocryphal) and 2 Cl., 2,4:
5é yepaor (a NT verse). This twofold usage persists in later writers. Cf. Hipp.
Ref., V, 7, 24: to elpnuévov év tH VI, 10,2: fh ypaon, with Orig.
Comm. in John., X, 14, 81: €v TH TOU EvayyEALOU though he, too,
can elsewhere use both ypaor and ypagat of Scripture as a whole. Method. Symp.,
VIII, 8, 191 can still say : €v Tivt

18 We cannot be sure whether the reference here is to a combination of OT passages

(Schl. J., 200 £.: Moses’ dispensing of water along with Is. 44:3; Ez. 47:1; Zech. 14:8, cf.
Akiba, S. Dt., 48 on 11:22), or to a particular verse in the Canon (Hanel, 13: Tg. Cant.,
4,15), or perhaps even an apocryphal saying. Cf. Bau. J., ad loc.
14 On “saying of Scripture’ in Rabb. usage, cf. Schl. J. on 7:38,42 (p. 200,202). The
formulae 7218 31N33 or 4 Y are fixed.
15 On in Jos. : chl. Theol. d. Judt., 67; AOy.ov and 66.
 Yoaor

3. ypaor is never used in the NT of a single book of the Bible, though this usage
is elsewhere common in Hellenistic Judaism. The only possible example is 2 I'm. 3:16:
NAOK ypagr Sednvevotoc, but according to current analogies this obviously means
every passage of Scripture. 16
Instances of its use for individual books are 2 Esr. 6:18: xat& thy ypaorv BIBAou
2 Ch. 24:27: ypagt tév PaowEov( v7); Test. Zeb, 3:4: év Yeah
vouou Mavoéac. Of the Torah at least : Jos. Ant., III, 38; Philo Vit. Mos., II, 51; of the
Decalogue: Spec. Leg., 1, 1; of the first table of the Law: Decal.,51: 1) ula ypaqy.
In the Gk. fathers, Orig. 1,12: 4) toO vouou Kal tig totoplac
yoaor; VI,49: i mepl avOpanav yevécewo (Genesis); Eus. Marcell. Pr.
No. 23: *) tig "EE650u ypagr; of the Gospel : Orig. Cels., II, 27: } meat ypagy;
cf. 1,59; f) year.
4. ypaor emphasising the Unity of Scripture: the Totality of OT Scripture.
In Test. Zeb., IX, 5 it is said of the OT: év ypaof tOv naTEpwV pLoVU. Again, in
Ep. Ar., 155; 168: Sux thc ypaofc, the term is synon. with and denotes
Scripture as a whole.17 This usage might well have developed out of the Rabbin.
We certainly do not have it in Joseph. or Philo, where the plur. alone is used
for all Scripture. 18

At this point we must resume our discussion of ypaor) in Paul. It has been
briefly mentioned (— 753) that in GI. 3:8: mpoitdob0a ft and GI. 3:22:
OUVEKAELOEV VT) yeoaor Ta TaVTa Ond dUaptiav, Paul takes the unity of Scripture
so seriously that he can personify it. But there is no sense in this unless he has
in view its identification with God's own speaking (cf. R.11:32, where ovvé-
is used of God Himself). The only point of Paul’s hypostatising of
Scripture is that he regards it in its essential unity as a declaration of the divine
will. 18 In this respect, of course, he is simply using a customary Rabbinic mode
of expression. *°
Our findings with regard to Paul have an important bearing on the understanding
of the post-pauline Gospel of John. If there can be no doubt (— 753) that the
meaning in Jn. 19:17 is “saying,” and if this is at least a possible, though not a
necessary, rendering in 7:38, 42; 13:18; 19:24, 28, 36 — in fact the tva fh} ypagr
— WAnpwbF or teAEiwOf] seems to refer more naturally to the fulfilment of all
Scripture, including its individual utterances — there can hardly be any doubt

16 Cf Pr.-Bauer, Schlatter, as against Cr.~-K6., Meecham.

17 wy 86:5: év Aadv, does not refer to the OT, cf. H. Gunkel, Rsalmen* (1926),
379 (and — BBAlov, 620). Nor does Da. 10:216: év yopag i adAnOelac (LXX: c&no-
ypaof) (2n>), where the reference is to the secret apocalyptic book of God in which
future events and national destinies are written.
18 Though cf. BGU, 5273 (5th cent. A.D.): tf KaAAlviKog Kat
P.19
Lond., 981, 4mnolv
The A€yet, (4th cent. A-D.):
of Paul yeypammton
in 1C.6:16; R.15:10f,ey wtthe
and Yeah
Agyeu yap in 2 C. 6:2,
have little bearing on the question. They naturally refer to Scripture, but in a general sense
which is also common in the diatribe and Philo. The Rabbis have 7” x3v or 1718). Cf. Epict.
Diss., I, 28,4: Oc Aێyet TI, 24,99: 6 Saxpcme (cf. IV, 1, 41).
20 For examples of Rabbinic personification of the Torah, cf. Str.-B., III, 538, with
reference to the formula 71N 772: “How, or on what grounds, does the Torah come
to say this or that 2?’ TBQ, 7, 2 (357); the same of Scripture, S. Lv., 23, 22 (410a); b.BQ,
79b: “Why has the Torah threaterted a more severe punishment ?’”” Cf. further S. Lv., 5, 17;
S. Nu., 151 on 29:35: Tanch. oman, 3, 151; 7, 30.
yeaorn

whatever that in 2:22: éniotevoav th ypaoh, and 10:35: ob} SUvataL AVEO Vat
f) ypagr (cf. 7:23 of the vduoc: tva ur) and also in 17:12: tva ypaor
(with no particular citation) and 20:9: ovdénwa yap fdEeioav tiv
ypaorv, we are to think of the unified totality of Scripture. Similarly, it is im-
possible to take 1 Pt. 2:60: mepiexet Ev ypaon, or 2 Pt. 1:20,71 in any other way.
Cf. this use of ypaor in the early Church, which also included the NT Canon: 22
Orig. Comm. in Joh., A, 23, 131: ta tig Philostorg. Hist. Eccl.,
III, 8; Gelas., If, 17, 16. Orig. can say of the OT: 4} ypaor, Cels., VII, 24:
Method. Symp,., III, 1,52; 8,69; V,2,110 (including the apostolic writings as well as
the OT); Gelas., II, 19,3 (of the Gospel of Mt.).

C. The Question of Scripture,

1. The Judaistic View of Scripture.
According to the later Jewish view, Scripture has sacred, authoritative and
normative significance. It is of permanent and unassailable validity. As the dictate
of God, it is given by His Spirit. This view referred originally to the Pentateuch
but was then transferred to the Prophets and Writings. The implication of the
doctrine of inspiration is that the revealed truth of God characterises every word.
The Alexandrian synagogue devoted particular attention to the question of in-
spiration and interpreted it along the lines of Greek ecstaticism. The author be-
comes the organ of God's dictation in Exotaotc. 7? In Epunvela Moses, the pro-
phet kat’ interprets the will of God in human speech. mpogntela is
distinguished from this inspiration, however, and may be experienced by the sage
speaking in rapture. **
The use of Scripture in the Rabbinic synagogue is determined by the concern
to rediscover and prove the mapc&dooicg which had established itself alongside
Scripture. This demands literal attention to the wording, as does also the casuistical
nomism and the onesidedly legal conception of Scripture. Already in the Pirke
Aboth Moses is viewed as the first to pass on the tradition of the Torah received
at Sinai (Ab., 1,1). If the whole Halacha is to be spun out of Scripture and
established by it, there is naturally demanded a minute treatment of the text which
goes rather beyond exegesis. Hillel's 7 rules (nitm) are only the beginning of a
system of schematic, syllogistic and scholastic wresting of the text in which
justifiable concerns are immediately choked by a tendentious over-minuteness
which cannot possibly do justice to the living realities of the statements.?° The
Alexandrian treatment of the text, which is rather freer in relation to the mapc-
Sooic but surrenders the more easily to a whole host of Hellenistic motifs, is
particularly influential by reason of its allegorising. The Palestinian synagogue had
already adopted this to some degree (the Midrash and older Targumim). This
method is the unavoidable consequence of forcing the text into a schema imported
from without.

21 Without the art. — na. 7.

22 For the post-apost. fathers, Pr.-Bauer, s.v. ypaqy).
23 Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 49; Rer. Div. Her., 265.
24 Philo Vit. Mos., II, 191; Mut. Nom., 126.
25 Ror the later 13 rules, cf. Weber, 109 ff. On this whole section, cf. Str.-B., IV, 415-451
(Excurs.: “Der Kanon des AT u.s. Inspiration’).
 yYpaon

2. The Early Christian Canon.

Hand in hand with the consolidation of the Pharisaic movement, which is par-
ticularly concerned to erect a dam of law and tradition against the Hellenistic
flood, there goes the formation of the Canon, which is shaped to a surprising
degree by this anti-Hellenistic tendency. 7° The absolute normativity of a binding
text demands a carefully differentiated and integrated number of books.
The NT helps us to understand this development at many points. Thus we can
see from Mt. 23:35 that Chronicles (2 Ch. 24:20f£.) was then the last book. ?*
Again, in Lk. 24:44 we have the same threefold division as in the Prologue to
Sir. (c. 130 B.C.).?8 The fact that the prophecies of Jeremiah are presupposed
in Da. 9:2 shows us that the prophetic writings were already in use at this period,
and the fact that the Corpus propheticum was then closed makes it plain that Da.
was not included in it. The Bible of Jesus must certainly have included the oan
and early Christian tradition records that Jesus quoted especially from Da., the
Twelve, Is., Ps. and Dt.?® Paul quotes most heavily from Is. and Ps., then the
Torah (especially Gn. and Dt.).®° He uses the LXX #1 in older recensions or
strata no longer extant. *?
There is little apocryphal citation in the NT, and the same solemnity does not
attach to it as to canonical citation. °°
The fact that Test. N. 2:14, Test. S. 5:4 introduce the Book of Enoch as (f}) yoaon
"Eva@y does not imply more than that it is literature. In 2 Macc. 2:4 there is a similar
reference to apocryphal material: @v tH (cf. 2:1: év taig
but no particular claim is involved.
In the NT we have to consider Lk. 11:49 (} comla« to elnev, a book of
wisdom ?); Jn. 7:38; 1 °C. 2:9; 34 9:10 (doubtful); Eph. 5:14 (8160 Aéyet);%> Jm.4:5 (7
ypaor A€éyet); 26 Jd. 14 ff. (“Evay Aéyov, a reference to Eth. En.; cf. the allusion

26 Acc. to Jos. Ap., 1,40 the 22 (or 24 in 4 Esr. 14:44) books of the Canon derive from
the period from the death of Moses to Artaxerxes. They receive their authority from Moses
and the prophets who follow him. On the difference between the concept of Scripture and
that of the Canon in the Synagogue, cf. Staerk, op. cif.
27 As against Hanel, 96.
28 Lk. 24:44: év tT vduw@ Mavoéac kai Tolg mpogytaig Kai WwaAruoic; the last is
pars pro foto for 0°31n2. Elsewhere Lk. likes the expression 6 véuoc Kal of
Lk. 16:16, 29, 31; Ac. 13:15; 28:31; cf. 24:14; 28:23. The tripartite division is found in Philo
Vit. Cont., 25: vduoug Kal AOyiax Sik TEPOONTEV Kai Buvouc. Philo ex-
pounds the Pentateuch but occasionally quotes from all three parts (Ps., Prv., Job from
the 3rd). Paul (1C. 14:21 — a saying from Is. as véuoc) and Jn. (10:34; 15:25 — of
verses from the Ps.) follow Jewish custom in using vouoc for Scripture as a whole.
29 Cf Hanel, 35-44. Hanel links his findings from the Gospels directly with Jesus, though
his views really apply to the early Christian tradition inaugurated by the influence of Jesus.
80 Michel, 11. Of the O°21n> Pl. quotes Ps., Prv., Job. For his following of the threefold
division, > 758, n. 43. It is likely that he knew Wis., but the allusions are not quotations
and his basicstriking
81 Particularly orientation is
is is acceptance f the 430 years in Gl. 3:17 acc. to the LXX
of
and not the Mas. (Ex. 12:40). On Joseph. and the LXX, Schl., Theol. d. Judé., 151 f.
82 [tzm. Gl., 32-34; A. Rahlfs, ZNW, 20 (1921), 182 ff.
33 The judgment of B. Poertner, 31 and E. Konig, 43 is to be modified in the light of
m. 4:5.
JO Nc. to Orig. on Mt. 27:9 (Lommatzsch, V, 29), Ambrosiast., Euthalius, from an Elias
Apoc.; Jerome on Is. 64:4 regards this verse or 63:16 as the original of the quotation.
35 Acc, to Epiph. Haer., 42, 12.3 this Tapa T "HAle was to be found in an Elias Apoc.
36 The interpretation in Cr.-Ké., 265, where v.5b is not regarded as a quotation, 1s
forced.
yepaon

to the Ass. Mos. in v.9). The situation is basically the same in the post-apost. fathers.
In 1Cl.,23,3 there is an apocryphal citation introduced by } ypaorh aim, Strovu
Aéyet (Eldad and Modad, or Ass. Mos. which is also found in 2 CI., 11,2 as
ONTLKOG Adyos. In Barn., 16,5 there is a saying from En. 89:56 ff. introduced by Aéyet
yao fy ypaor. Apocryphal sayings are also quoted in terms of yéypantat in Herm. v.,
2, 3, 4; Barn., 4, 3.
The Pauline Epistles are already called ypaoal in 2 Pt. 3:16. A saying of the Lord
is called yoaor in 2 CL., 2, 4.
3. The Belief of the Early Church as regards Scripture.
a. Inspiration. In Jn.5:39: Epevvate tag ypaode, it is acknowledged that
Judaism takes great pains to investigate the Scriptures with a view to attaining
eternal life.** Early Christianity did not free itself from the Jewish doctrine of
inspiration nor even from the influence of its exposition at certain points. It is a
matter of far-reaching significance, however, that mapc&dooig was no longer ac-
cepted as an equally important magnitude. In addition, the sayings of the Lord
came to be given the same authority as the OT (cf. the Sermon on the Mount,
also 1C. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23), thus modifying the original authority. For the “I say
unto you’ caused great changes in the whole concept of authority, especially in
relation to the validity of Scripture (— 760). The ypaoat were still the basic
expression of the will of God. This is established by the fact that the divine
Spirit was said to speak in Scripture, though this formulation is rare as compared
with all that is said concerning the non-capricious charismatic utterances of the
Spirit. 5 Thus David in the Psalms speaks by the Spirit (Mt. 22:43; Mk. 12:36; 39
Ac. 1:16). Again, the prophets speak by the Spirit (Ac. 28:25; 1 Pt. 1:11, the Spirit
of Christ; 2 Pt. 1:21: 6nd caylou EAGANOAV ard BEG
&vOpano1). Hb. especially emphasises the fact that the Spirit speaks in the sayings
of the OT (3:7; 9:8; 10:15). The true doctrinal formulation of inspiration is most
comprehensively given‘in 2 Tm. 3:16: maxoa ypagr But Eph. 6:12
presupposes the same conviction, and all emphasis upon the fact that God speaks
in Scripture (Mk. 12:26; par. Mt. 22:31; Mt. 15:4; 19:5), or that the KUptoc speaks
by the prophets (Mt. 1:22; 2:15; cf. KUptocg as an introductory formula in
Pl.: 1C. 14:21; 2C. 6:17; R.12:19; cf. also 2C. 6:2, 16; R.9:15, 25, where Aéyet
presupposes 6 testifies at root to exactly the same point as is at issue in
the doctrine of inspiration. Naturally, when we ask concerning the relation between
Scripture and Spirit, we again come up against the new norm of the words of
Jesus, which acc. to Jn. 6:63 are spirit and life; and in Jn. 14:26 it is the Paraclete
who will bring to the minds of the disciples what was said to them by Jesus.
We may perhaps conclude that there is a greater sense of the persons of the
authors in early Christianity than in Judaism, *° and therefore a greater regard for
the natural and historical mediation of the divine utterance. Yet this does not in

87 On — in Joseph. the Rabb., Philo, cf. Schl. J., 158; on Philo cf. Leg. All.,
III, 84; Congr., 44.
88 Rather surprisingly, Paul never lists true exposition of Scripture among the gifts of the
Spirit.
39 ‘This does not weaken the doctrine of inspiration (Hanel) by suggesting: that there
are in the Ps. things which David did not speak by inspiration.
40 This is esp. striking in Mt. (2:5, 17,23; 3:3; 4:14; 8:4,17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 22:24;
24:15; 27:9). For a Pauline list, v. Michel, 69. The difference from Hb. is palpable, cf.
Michel, 68.
 ypaor

any way weaken the basic conviction that it is God who speaks in Scripture. The
fact that Paul, for example, sometimes handles his texts very freely shows us that
his belief in inspiration does not entail slavery to the letter. But in comparison
with the liberties and capricious alterations which are made by Josephus in spite
of his insistence on the sanctity of the very letter of Scripture, ** Paul is by far
the more reverent, especially in his high regard for the fact of what is reported
in the OT. #
Rabbinic influence ** may still be seen in Paul's allegorising (— c&AAnNYyopED,
263 £.): &twe Eotiv GI. 4:24; cf. GI.3:16 (omépuata, onép-
ua); ** GI. 3:19 (Statayeig SU a&yyéAwv); 4° 4:25 (Hagar, Sinai); 4° 4:30 (Ish-
mael); 47 1C.10:4 (the rock which is Christ—Haggadic).*® Yet if we compare
Paul with Philo, it is instructive that 1d 6ntdv, the literal sense, does not have
for Philo *® the same value as for Paul when compared with the allegorical. The
allegories of Paul are relics of Rabbinism. Allegorising is not his predominant
mode of exposition. **
On the inspiration of Scripture in the Gk. fathers : Chrysost. De Lazaro, IV,3 (MPG,
48,1010): & at ypapal p8éyyovtat, taita 6 Aeondtyns
Great use was made of the term Oe6nvevotoc: Cl. Al. Strom., VII, 16, 101, 6; Orig.
Comm. in Joh., VI, 48, 248; on John. 1:17 (p. 494); Cels., ITV, 17; Hom. in 15. 28:3-25
(p. 286, 2 £.); Thdrt. Interpret., 2 Tm. 3:16 (MPG, 82, 849b).
b. The Thought of Fulfilment as the Heart of the Early Christian Under-
standing of Scripture. All the writings of the NI display a conviction of the
mTANPwOFvar or of Scripture in and through Jesus Christ. In the
Gospels this is a main theme in Christian edification. ypaoal are par-
ticularly related to this thought in Mk. 14:49; 15:28 & lat syP; Mt. 26:54, 56; Lk.
4:21; Ac. 1:16; Jn. 17:12; 19:24, 28 (iva teAEtwoOn), 36. It is also to be noted that
this thought underlies the whole emphasis on the fact that there is Messianic
prophecy in the OT, and that the life and work of Jesus, His mission as Christ,
His suffering and resurrection, may be found in the Law, Prophets and Writings. ©

41 Schl., Theol. d. Judt., 65.

42 On Paul's handling of Scripture, v. Michel, 74 f. (list), 76 ff. Hb. is more literal. On
the license of Joseph. and the influence of legends on him, cf. Schl., Theol. d. Judt., 68-72.
On Paul’s attitude to the historical element in Scripture, cf. G. Schrenk, Geschichtsanschau-
ung des Paulus, 74 £. (— 743 n.).
43 That Paul derives from the Rabb. tradition may be seen formally from the fact that
like the Rabb. he combines quotations from all 3 groups (Michel, 83), and that he likes to
heap up key sayings and to draw up catenae (Windfuhr). This is Rabb., as is also the
nm&Aw yéypartat of Mt. 4:7. On florilegia, which are not definitely found prior to Barn.,
cf. Hatch: Vollmer; Harris ; Michel ; Ltzm. Gl., 33; for Barn., cf. Wnd. (— 743 n.).
44 Philo Mut. Nom., 145.
45 Str.-B., ITI, 554 ff.
46 Philo Leg. All., III, 244; Mut. Nom., 66, 77.
47 Str.-B., IIT, 575.
48 Philo Leg. All., II, 86; Det. Pot. Ins., 115-118.
49 Philo Abr., 68; 131; 236; Praem. Poen., 65.
60 G. Schrenk, op. cit., 74 fE.
51 How a true disciple of Philo allegorises is shown by Orig. On the alleg. and liter.
meaning of Scripture, cf. Princ., 1V, 2,2; IV,3,4; IV, 3,11. For the Gnostic view of the
harmony of the organic whole of Scripture, cf. Comm. in Joh., X, 18, 107.
52 On which corresponds to the Rabb. 4%), “to sustain,”’ “to prove valid,”
cf. Str.-B., I, 74 and Schl. Mt., 21. In any case, the final realisation or “‘bringing to pass”
is in view (cf. the of Jn.), even in Mt. 5:17, where the opp. is kataAGoat, said in
relation to the vOuoc. Joseph. does not have the concept of the fulfilment of Scripture.
yeaory

The great message of Scripture is confirmed by its actualisation in Christ, e.g.,

in His passion. In Lk. 24:27, 32, 45 the risen Lord Himself shows this. Paul takes
the same line in Ac. 17:2; 28:23. Apollos finds proof from the Scriptures in Ac.
18:28. Indeed, the same conception underlies the whole of the NT even when we
do not have the kat& tac yoaoas of 1C. 15:3 £,
This thought of fulfilment does not imply only that individual passages provide
scriptural proof for various concrete facts or features relating to what took place
in Christ. Paul especially has a larger understanding in view when he describes
the purpose of the OT for the Christian community in terms of éypcon 50 hudcc,
éypcon tva. He is claiming no less than that OT Scripture finally belongs to the
Christian community rather than the Jewish.©* All that is written (R. 15:4) was
written for the instruction of Christians and the fostering of their hope by the
patience and comfort of the Scriptures. He applies this in all its breadth. Thus in
R. 16:26 he says that the evUayyéA.ov for the nations was revealed by prophetic
Scriptures. Again, in R.4:23 he emphasises that the Aoy{Ceo8at in the case of
Abraham dt yuac Eypaon, or in 1 C. 10:11 that the true aim of every OT story
depicting the visitation of divine judqment is to serve as an example, or in 1C.
9:10 that the saying concerning the ox which treads out the corn, and which is
not to be muzzled, 50 hua Eypc&on, disclosing the mind and principle of the
divine rule in the instruction of the servants of the Gospel concerning their attitude
to the question of support. Everywhere, then, the thought of fulfilment is con-
ceived in such a way that the profoundest sense of Scripture is effectively realised
in the community of Christ.
Along the same lines Jn. argues that the yopaoal bear witness to Christ (5:39-
47), and that they do so in their totality. Abraham is a prophet of Christ (8:56).
Moses wrote concerning Him (5:46f.). The cross and resurrection are prophesied
in Scripture (19:37; 20:9), but so, too, is the freedom of Jesus in relation to the
Sabbath (7:22). Indeed, His Sonship is proved from Scripture (10:34 ff.).
Hb. gives us the most penetrating and consistent detailed exegesis in homiletical
form. In it apologetic value in ascribed to the word of Scripture. Hence it is not
surprising that everything is here brought under the conception of fulfilment;
the events and institutions of the OT are applied typologically as shadows of the
higher future reality of the Christ revelation. Everything, then, is lit up by Christ.
His superiority to the angels, to Moses, to Aaron and to Melchisedec is established
by proofs from Scripture. The main theme, however, in this outworking of the
thought of fulfilment is that of His superiority to the cultus. In Hb. 11, a meditation
which has obvious links with the homiletic traditions of the Synagogue, the wit-

°3 From the observation that solemn scriptural proof is adduced with remarkable one-
sidedness only in Gl., R., and 1 and 2C., but plays very little part in 1 and 2 Th., Phil., Col.
and Eph., Harnack (op. cif.) has concluded that the OT was not used for purposes of
edification in the community, and that Paul turned to it only in conflict with Judaism.
Yet R. is surely written to a predominantly Gentile community, and the same is probably
true of Gl. and 1 and 2C. as well. Paul presumes a fair knowledge of Scripture in his
churches. That searching the Scriptures played a great part in them is rightly noted in
Ac. 18:24; 17:11. Cf. further Hb. 4:12; Jn. 19:7. It is impossible to conceive either of the
missionary preaching of Paul or of the instruction of the communities without the proof
from Scripture. This is attested by the saying in 2 T'm.3:16 concerning the value of
Scripture — which is surely more than pious moralising. éAeypoc, Emavop-
madela év are words which~describe the total service of to
the community.
 ypaor

nesses of the OT generation of faith must again proclaim the content of Christian
faith in terms of hope.
In Rev. the OT provides an instructive treasury of images for the portrayal of
the final denouement to which the community looks forward, except that there is
now an undreamed of heightening of what is therein narrated. Scripture is thus an
authority to the extent that it is interpreted in the light of the event of salvation
accomplished in Christ. It is a transparency in which Christ may be seen, and its
office ig to advance Christianity. There may be difficulties to-day as regards some
aspects of this understanding, but basically the detailed interpretation is not the
new thing but the rule that the fact of Christ is normative and regulative for the
whole use of Scripture. Early Christianity no longer has Scripture without Christ.
It has Scripture only to the extent that in it the Christ event has been fulfilled.
It is characteristic of the NT conception of faith that there is no reference to
belief in Scripture. The phrase miotevetv TH yepaoy in Jn. 2:22, and the question
MLOTEVELG TOIG in Ac. 26:27, imply believing Scripture, but not belief
in it. 4
c. The Twofold Attitude to Scripture in Early Christianity. The thought of
fulfilment carries with it a negative conception in so far as it conceives of Scrip-
ture in terms of something which is fulfilled, which does not therefore exist alone,
which is nothing apart from the fulfilment. Yet the concept of authority remains
unshaken. This is the real problem in the early Christian understanding of Scrip-
ture. Jn. states the principle of authority in the saying in 10:35: kat Suvata
AvOFvat tf) ypaor. Scripture is of unimpeachable validity. The same point is em-
phasised in Mt. 5:18. On the other hand, the Law and the Prophets are only until
John (Lk. 16:16), and Zac &v na&vta yévntat is an integral part of Mt. 5:18. Thus
the thought of fulfilment both sustains and modifies that of authority. According
to the Synoptic record, even though Jesus sees the will of God in the Torah, He
opposes to it His own cecisions in such matters as marriage, retribution, hatred,
the law, of the Sabbath, the law of purification, the Messianic ideal of Israel, and
other questions. He does not merely transcend the older statement; He can set
it aside in virtue of His own incomparable authority, which is superior both to
tradition and to the written OT. Jesus criticism of the word of Scripture may be
seen most clearly in His distinction between the original will of God and the
concession of Moses as regards divorce. He maintains that the Word of God has
been added to by men. If Scripture is an authoritative declaration of the divine
will, its authority is not valid apart from the | say unto you.” In other words, the
concept of authority is changed by that of fulfilment.
In Paul we find the same duality of the unbroken and the broken attitude, of
bondage and freedom. In 1 C. 4:6 the principle of ur) Onép & ppovetv ©
is polemically established. But this can never mean Scripture apart from Christ, just
as vouov lotdévouev in R. 3:31 can never mean Law apart from the fulfilment of
its final purpose in Christ. For Paul, the vouoc and yp&uua are transcended by

54 Acc. to Jn. 20:30f. the goal of the Fourth Gospel (tattax 5& yéypantat, Two
MLotevNte is not faith in what is written but faith in the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God. Cf. Orig. Hom. in 1 S. 28:3-25 (p. 287, 1£.): ypapr Set
55 Whether or not this is to be viewed as the slogan of a libertine theology in Corinth
(Liitgert, 97 ff.; Schlatter, Kor. Theol., 7 ff.) — and it may be that too much is read into
the saying — there can be no doubt that the norm of Scripture is emphasised.
yeaon —
Christ and the Spirit, and are thus given their true validity. We read this from
the Law or from Scripture itself. The lasting soteriological, ethical and eschatolog-
ical truths 5 which Paul still takes from Scripture are of great significance even
though the same Scripture tells him that the Law which is its kernel is overcome.
In the great discussion of Christ and the OT in Hb., Scripture serves to prove
that Christ is incomparably more than the OT. The NT represents a higher stage.
Yet the OT — as shown, e.g., by the chain of witnesses — reveals also the con-
tinuity of the whole revelation ; the OT demands the NT as a link and continua-
tion.
This duality in the early Christian view reveals a truth which is first brought
clearly to light by Paul in his discussion of the yopa&uua. For early Christianity
Scripture is no longer just what is written, nor is it just tradition ; it is the dynamic
and divinely determined declaration of God which speaks of His whole rule and
therefore of His destroying and new creating, and which reaches its climax in the
revelation of Christ and the revelation of the Spirit by the risen Lord. Because
Scripture serves and attests Christ, it can contain the most diverse elements, in-
cluding some which disturb the old concept of authority or contradict the new.
If the historical rule of God in creation and redemption is His foreshadowing and
fulfilment, His prophesying and realisation, then basically the full revelation in
Christ and the Spirit is more than what is written. The latter has its true force
only in this event and not in codification.
ypappa.
A. yo&upa in Greek and Hellenistic Usage.
The use of yokuuc is par. to that of ypagry. yepauua is properly what is “inscribed”
or “engraven’’ and then what is “written” in the widest sense.
1. The primary sense is most clearly seen in the prohigition of yo&upata ottKkté,
tattooing, (|ypyp nah>) in Lv. 19:28; cf. Philo Spec. Leg., I, 38. The word is thus often
used for “inscription”: Hdt., I, 187; Plat. Phaedr.,229e; Charm., 164d; Xenoph. Mem.,
IV, 2, 24; Plut. Lucull., 10,4 (I, Polyb., IV, 33,2. Engraven symbols like those
on the headband of gold in Ex. 36:39 (39:30): ypauuata EKtEetuT@pEVa (3NdN);
Ep. Ar., 98; Jos. Ant., 3, 178; Bell., 5,235; or the names of the sons of Jacob inscribed
on the breastplate: Jos. Ant., 3,169; Philo Rer. Div. Her., 176 are tepk. or or
Oeia yepa&uuata. Here the are symbols (— infra), but the idea of engraving
is still preserved.
2. yo&kuua can also mean “picture,” like yoaor (Plat. Resp., V, 472d; Crat., 430e),
or geometrical figure. *
3. yop&uuata can also be “symbols” or “letters’’ without the idea of engraving.
It is used a. of ‘‘writing in characters,” e.g., by the Phoenicians, Hdt., V, 58; Jos. Ap..
1,28; or by the Jews, Jos. Ant., 12, 15; or by the Gks., Jos. Ap., 1,11. Egyptian hiero-
glyphics are called tep& yp&upata, Diod. S., I, 27, 3; 45, 2; 55, 7; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 23;
Ditt. Or., 56, 36 (3rd cent. B.C.); 90,54 (2nd cent. B.C.). It is also used b. of the
‘individual letter,” as when yo&upata is linked with ovAAaBal in Plat. Crat., 390e;
Philo Mut. Nom., 64. In this sense it may signify the letters used for the quarters of a

56 Cf Ltzm. GIl., 33 in an excellent summary.

yoaupua. For bibl. > ypaoow, 742, n. The def. of Hesych.: ta Kat
ovAAaBal, Kat tx Kal ta Ev Taig Sikaotaic wrgotc. Kal oypaoal
is instructive when compared with our findings in the NT, and esp. Paul, for it gives prior
significance to what is written rather than to ovAAaBatl.
1 Cf, Liddell-Scott, s.v.
city, or for numbers: Barn., 9,7 f. (cf. the Hellenistic mysticism of letters).* It may
also be used c. for the “letters of a book’: Jos. Ant., 12,83: ypuootg yo&uucaot on
the rolls of the Torah; Epict. Diss., II,23,1: BtBAlov evonuotépoic ypc&uucot
yeypauuévov. It is used d. for “handwritten characters : Jos. Bell., 1,529; Method.
Symp., V, 4, 117.
Lk. 23:38 xx AD it: yocuuaow EAANVIKOIcg (Kal) (Kal) EBpaiKoic
(cf. Jn. 19:20) should be compared with Hdt., IV, 87 on an inscription in two languages :
2vIaUaV yoauuata éc thv *Acovpia, éc 5€ THv “EAAnviKa; Ep. Ar., 4 on the
Law: 1c TO yeypaoOat map’ adtoic év “EBpaixoic 176:
ye&uuaot; P. Lond., 43,3 (2nd cent. B.C.). In Joseph. it is used of the
inscriptions on the temple barriers, Bell., 5, 194: at uév “EAAnvikotc at 5& “Papuaikoic
yec&uuaot; 6, 125: yp&uaow ‘EAAnvicoic kal fuetéporg Kexapayyevacg (oT)-
Aac); Hipp. Ref., IV, 28,2: “EBpaixotc ypauucot.
e. In such cases as that of translation yo&uuata can also have the sense of
“language”: Ep. Ar., 38; Jos. Ant., 12, 48; cf. 14, 319; 197; 20, 263.
4. It will be seen that yod&uua always connotes “what is written.” Logically, then,
it can be used in antithesis to the spoken word : Philo Plant., 131 and 173. It is no contra-
diction that in Plat. Phileb., 18c; Philo Mut. Nom.,63 yp&upata &pova are mute
sounds. Here, as in the sense of musical notes (Anth. Pal., 11, 78, Lucill.), the reference
is to the notation rather than the phonetic aspect. Often kata yoa&uuUata is used to
emphasise the literal sound, as in Aristot. Polit., III, 14,4, p.1286a, 12; III, 16, 5,
p. 1287a, 33 £.; P. Giess., 30,6,15 (2nd cent. A.D.): ta& tTHG OoUyypagns yeaupata
of the wording of the contract. In keeping with this is the etymological observance of
the yocuua in Aristot. Eth. M., I, 6, p. 1185b, 39.
5. “What is written’ and “writing are basic elements in education. “Grammar, ypau-
(Jos. Ant., 20, 263, or ypayuuata, Philo Spec. Leg., I, 336; II, 230; cf.
Epict. Diss., I, 12). Yet yoc&uuata can also be used for academic disciplines” and all
that pertains to academic education: Xenoph. Cyrop., I, 2,6; Plat. Ap., 26d: a&meipouc
yeauuctov; Diod.S., V, 40,2; Jos. Ant., 10, 187: ta tav Xaddalov
yod&uuata can be so used in the Israelite sphere that the reference is to the Law: Test. L.
13:2: SE Kai TK TEKVA VOUDV YEOAUUATA, (va Exot OUvEOLV Ev TOY
TH Cop AOTOV, VAY LVOOKOVTEG TOV vouov TOU 8e00. The learning of
yekuuata is especially related to knowledge of the Law, cf. Test. R. 4:1. In the first in-
stance, however, yo&uUUata or wxvOavev etc. simply means “learning to read
and write.” Demosth., 18, 265. Da. 1:4LXX and 0; nadeverv : Jos. Ap., 2,
204, uxvOcvetv: Plat. Alc., I, 106¢; Prot., 325e; P. Flor., III, 382,79 (3rd cent. A.D.): 6
Seiva Rabbin. : Ex. r., 20, 15 on 13:17: pany tide ty. The
EMLOTAKUEVOS YOGUUATA or YPALUATOV ETLOTI}UOV is one who can read and write :
Is. 29:11 f. (apo 97°); Jos. Ant., 12,209; P. Amh., 82,4 (3/4 cent. A.D.). The opp. is
Ye&uuata wr) or elSévat: Plat. Leg., III, 689d; Ditt. Syll.2, 844, 5; BGU.
351. Hence for an unlettered man’ (Ac. 4:13).4
6. yoauua, are most commonly used for various kinds of “written
pieces.” Especially a. tx yoa&uUUata means a letter,” Hdt. I, 124; Polyb., Il, 6, 4; 1Macc.
5:10; Est. 8:5; Ep. Ar., 43; Jos. Ant., 7, 137; E,pict. Diss., ITI, 24, 26: Alex. Erot. Fr., 30, 5
(Grenfell, 2nd cent. B.C.); P.Amh., IT, 143,10 (4th cent. A.D.). “Letters of recom-
mendation” are called yoa&uUWata ovotatike in Epict. Diss., II, 3,1. It also means b.
a “report” or “document,” as generally in Aristoph. Nu.,772: t& yyp&upata THC
Sixnc. “City records” are called TH YPALUATA in Jos. Bell., 7, 61, also “acts ©
in Jos. Ant., 14, 255 (though cf. Ap., 1,116), or the “archives” in which they are de-

W ort., S.v.
Sorel Gphaira (1903), 469 ff.; Reitzenstein Poim., 260 ff.. 288 ff.
4 CE] E. Majer-Leonhard, Pr.-Bauer Wort.
 posited in Ant., 14,243 and 253. In Vit.,337 mAaota& refers to falsified
accounts of a treaty. In Philo Spec. Leg., IV, 30 the reference is to records of loans
on interest. The word is used of a ‘‘deed of gift’ in Euseb. Vit. Const., II, 21: to tig
Swpeac yo&uua;® of a “bill of indebtedness” in Jos. Ant., 18, 156 (sing.); P. Tebt,
II, 397,17 (198 A.D.); of “proofs” in a law-suit in Philo Dec., 140; ® of an “accusation”
in Jos. Ant., 17, 145: énl katnyopla; of “national rolls’ in Jos. Ap., 1, 35
and of “guard rosters” in Ditt. Syll.2, 569, 21 (Cos, 3rd cent. B.C.). Again, it means c.
an “official report” in Jos. Ant., 17, 133; 19,292. It means d. the “decree” or ‘‘decision™
of the king in Est. 4:3, 8; 8:10; 9:1: Jos. Ant., 11,222 and 224; 14, 265 etc.; Bell., 7, 433;
Eus. Hist. Eccl., [X, 1,1; 9,13; of the governor in P. Oxy., 1104,9 (4th cent. A.D.).
Joseph. often uses Te6ypauuc for “edict,” e.g., in Ant., 12, 145; Vit., 370.
Worth noting is the use of teo& or Oeia for “royal letters and decrees,”
esp. in the eastern world: CIG, 2943, 10 (age of Augustus) ; Ditt. Or., 502, 13 f. (age of
Hadrian); IG, XII, 5, No. 132; Ditt. Syll.3, 881 (both 3rd cent. A.D.); Beta ypayuyata,
P. Herm. (Wessely, 1905), 119 B, III,19 (3rd cent. A.D.); Ditt. Syll.%, 888, 95.
7. “Laws fixed in writing,” Plat. Polit.,302e: €v yoa&uuaow &yaB8oic, obs vououc
Agyouev; cf. ibid., 293a for the contrast between Kata ypa&uuata and &vev yoau-
uct@v XPYelv. KATH and Kat& vouous are synon. in Aristot. Pol., IT, 9,
p. 1270b, 30 in the sense of legal statutes. The same sense is found in Plat. Ep., 7, 325d.
The contrast between written law and unwritten national custom may be seen in Aristot.
Pol., III, 16, p. 1287b, 5 £.: €tt Kupt@tepot Kal mepl KUPLMWTEP@V TOV KaTa& ypecu-
Uata of kata tx €O0n eEloiv. Philo uses yoauua both for 1. commandment
and 2. table of the Law (Spec. Leg., III, 8), and also for the power of nature as a
divine law (Migr. Abr., 85: yoc&uua Seiov). For further material details on written
and unwritten law, — 768. The sing. can be used in Thuc., V, 29,3 of the individual
clause in a contract.
8. yeoauua, as “literature.” Joseph. uses ypauuata for his sources, the
records of Egypt, Phoenicia, Chaldea, T’yre and Greece, in Ap., 1,21 f.; 59; 73; 104 f.
etc.; cf. Philo Vit. Mos., I, 23 : tx "Acoupiax (though the reference here may
be to sciences rather than literature). It may thus be used for “books” or “individual
writings,” Xenoph. Mem., [V, 2,1; Philo Sacr. AC, 79; Jos. Ap., 1,12; Eus. Vit. Const.,
I, 10 of his biography of Constantine.
Q. As a Term for the Sacred Scriptures of the OT and NT.
a. It is not quite accurate® that in the Jewish sphere yo&uuata is used of Holy
Scripture only with the addition lteoc& etc. Joseph. in Ant., 5,61 can say: Sick
TOV QCVAKELMEVOV EV TH [EPG Here of course the epithet is hardly neces-
sary, since it is said that Scripture is preserved in the sanctuary. But in relation to a
specific book of the Canon we find yo&uuata alone in Est. 6:1 (of Chronicles); in Jos.
Ant., 3,322 (of the Pentateuch: t& OTO Mamvotas cf.
Philo Conf. Ling., 50: kat& TO Mavoéac in introducing quotations); in Jos.
Ant., 10, 79 of the prophecies of Jeremiah: he left them €v yoaupucot.
Elsewhere yocuuata is more common with an epithet: Ep. Ar., 121: t& *lovda0ika;
Jos. Ant., 1,5: t& “EBpaixc yoc&uuata or tx (Six, ta hétepax yoauwata; Ap.,
1,42 and 128; cf. 160. The most common formula is t& tepk The Syna-
gogue furnished the original with its recurrent wpm cand. We find it in Jos. Ant., 10,
210; 13, 167; 16, 168; 20, 264: Ap., 1,54; 127; 228; Philo Praem. Poen., 79; Spec. Leg.,

5 Cf. Jos. Ant., 17,115: mponopadropevoc of the will set out in writing.
Much additional material may be found from the pap. in Preisigke W6Ort., s.v.
6 K, Latte in Pauly-W., XIV (1930), 2032 ff. s.v. martyria.
7 V. further Deissmann LO, 321 f.
8 Cr.-K6., 266.
 IT, 159; 238: Vit. Mos., II,290: to téAoGg lepdv ypauuctov (Dt. 34 of the
Pentateuch); II, 292; Leg. Gaj., 195; Vit. Cont., 28; cf. 75 and 78.

The term lepx ypc&uuata passes into the usage of the early Church. Orig. has
Ocia yoc&uuata in Cels., 1V,9, but more often lepax e.g., in Cels., IV, 27;
II,4: tx tep& Mavoéac cal TOV TEOONTLKGV yoauUatwv; VI, 18: t& lepa TOV
MpOontav Method. Symp., V, 1,109 of the NI. For Orig. the OT and
NT are the yp&uuata in Princ., III, 1,16: n&vta fyyetoOar Evoc elvar ypau-
uata Oe00. He often uses kat& TO esp. for the Law (Cels., II, 1, 386;
II, 2, 387; II, 4, 390; VII, 18, 707; Comm. in Joh., XXVIII, 12,95), but can also use it for
the NT (Comm. in Joh., XIII, 8,47). Along with t& voutk& yoa&upata etc. in Cels.,
II, 76; II,6 and t& yocuuata in Cels., II,28 we also have tx EvayyeE-
Auk& yp&uuata in Cels., I, 70 (or sing. Comm. in Joh, XXVIII, 24, 211) and
TX yoauuata TlavAovu, Cels., III, 76,497. Together with ta narkatk
in Cels., III, 46,478 we may mention td katvov yoc&uua in Comm. in Joh., X, 29, 179
(opp. mpeoBUtEpov). Method. likes (tx) Oedmvevota Resurr., I, 28, 4;
Symp., IT, 6,45 (of the NT).
b. Like ypaoh, yec&uuca can also be used with reference to what is written in a
specific place.” Est. 6:2: in the Book of Chronicles eSpe ta ta ypapEevta
mepl Mapdoyxaiou (33n9). Philo in Migr. Abr., 195 quotes a saying from Homer's Od. :
KATA TO TOMNTLKOV yeaa; and in Leg. Gaj., 69 he refers to the yv@Ot oeautov as
to Aedoixov Cf. Conf. Ling., 50 in a quotation from Nu. 16:15: Kat& to
Mavotac also Deus Imm.,6 (Nu. 28:2); Migr. Abr., 139 (Nu. 31:28 etc.);
Rer. Div. Her., 258 : yo&uua Pntdv of an express saying év tepaic BipAotc.

B. ypapya in NT Usage.
1. In Lk. 23:38x* AD it (— 744) are “written characters,” and in
Gl. 6:11 they denote ‘letters in the handwriting’ of Paul (— 743).°
2. In Jn. 7:15 linguistic par. show that the question: mc oBtog yeaupata
(without art.) ofdev uy simply means: Whence hath this man learning,
seeing he +hhas never received any instruction ? (> 762). In the context, however, the
reference is to the whole 516coKetv and of Jesus. The examples from
Test. XII on — 762, esp. Test. L. 13:2, illustrate the obvious fact that schooling
and schooling in the Law are very closely related in Judaism, and even identical.
Thus we need not interrupt the train of thought on the one side! nor deviate
from the customary meaning of eldévat on-the other. On the contrary,
_ we have a parallel to Test. L. 13:2. The unity of education and instruction in the
Law is in view, and the disparagement of Jesus‘! as implies that
He is not fit to teach. A very different estimate of learning is found in the saying
of Festus to Paul in Ac. 26:24: ta TOAAG o& eic pavlav TEPLTPETEL;
the reference is to much studying or great learning, more specifically in Scripture.
3, Ac. 28:21: ote yeoc&upata tepl ood and tic “Iovdalac. The
reference here is to “communications by letter” (— 762). Lk. 16:6 £.: 5&€at gov

® On the debated question whether this refers to the whole letter (Hofm., Zn.), or simply
to the conclusion, > yek&oo (743, n. 3).
10 Bau. J., ad loc. ere is only one learning, i.e., that of the Torah. In Rabb. Judaism,
there is only one discipline from the first beginnings of childish learning, i.e., the study of
the Torah. This embraces all knowledge.
11 In view of the exaggerated scorn, it is not unlikely that the education of Jesus is
deliberately ignored.
Ta ypcupata Kal Kabloacg tayéwc ypdwov This obviously refers
to a bill of indebtedness (— 763). 1
4. Jn.5:47: et 5& toic éxelvou yokuuaow ov TAG TOIG ELOIG
miotevete; here the are the Books of Moses or the Pen-
tateuch (— 763). Presupposed is the conviction of the early Church, which under-
lies all the Gospels (— ypaoy, 758), that the yp&upata, the authoritative Scrip-
tures established among the Jews and accepted as Mosaic, bear witness to Christ.
If the Jew does not give credence to the yp&upata, he will certainly not believe
the Oyuata of Christ. yp&upya, then, denotes a palpable authority for the Jew.
If this authority, with its prophetic witness, is resisted, then the living Word of
Christ will obviously be resisted. (On the interrelationship of Scripture and Word,
— 762.) 2 Tm. 3:15: dtt Boéqouc oldac refers to the OT as
a whole (— 763). The lack of article makes no difference in what is clearly a
technical term. **

There are important passages in Paul in which we see a significant antithesis

between yoc&uua and In R. 2:27 ypa&uua is the Law as what is demon-
strably written, just as Tepito is a demonstrable sign. Neither can guarantee
fulfilment of the Law. Without this doing of the Law, however, thé two gifts of
the older phase of revelation confer no advantage as compared with the
When we are told in v.27 that the Jew dt& yoauuatog Kai mEepitouns is a
transgressor of the Law, the cannot just be translated “in spite of” as though
to denote an accompanying circumstance ; ‘* it must also be given an instrumental
significance. It is precisely through what is written and through circumcision that
the Jew is a transgressor. He is to see that his true position involves possession of
the and tepitoun, but with no genuine fulfilment of the Law, since
neither what is written nor circumcision leads him to action. The word yp&uua
does not mean ‘letter’ in this context. It characterises the Law in its quality of
what is written or prescribed. The true meaning is ‘prescription of the Law’
(— 763); this goes far beyond the customary ‘letter’ of exegetical tradition. The
choice of the term is partly influenced by the similarity of sound which it has to
for an impressive antithesis is thus created. In 2:29 the mepitopr) Kapdtac
introduces a theme which dominates all the passages in Paul.
The fashioning of the kapdla afresh to obedience is the antithesis not merely to
a false use of the Law but to every pre-Christian use. This renewal, however, is
effected by the Spirit. In v. 28 £., where it is emphasised that this working of the
Spirit on the kapdla makes the true Jew, yockupa and already linked
in v.27, are brought more closely together by the use of the phrase mtepitop év
for the which is a purely legal happening, and the opposing
to it of mepitouy év mvevuatt. In both cases the év is to be taken strictly in-
strumentally. 1° As the one takes place only through the Spirit, the other does so

12 The S€Eat compels us (against Zn., ad loc.) to assume falsification.

13 Without t&:8 CbD*G 33 Clem. Epiph. t&: AC*S is a correction. For Yeappata
or leo& without the art., cf. Est. 6:1; Jos. Ant, 16, 168; Orig. Princ, III, 1, 1
‘yocuuorta £00); Method. Symp., II, 6,45: év eonvebotoig ypaupaow; Philo Ker.
De Her, 258 : ev lepatc BIBAots. Cf. also on Philo, Dib. Past., ad loc.
14 [tzm.R., ad loc.
15 With Zn. R., ad loc.
 YepauUa

only through the ypd&uua, there being merely an execution of the prescription or
written Law. The opposing of o&p& to xkapdia and of Ev TH Mavepe to év
KOUTT@ underlines the fact that the truly decisive invasion of the personal life
is opposed to purely external prescription and the mere affecting of the physical
life in terms of the sign. The antithesis is absolute in so tar as the yo&uua can
never accomplish what is done by the What is merely written does not
have the power to produce observance. It is not even remotely suggested that the
might use the yp&uya to bring about this observance. The whole point
of the argument (cf. R.7 and 8) is that the Spirit alone makes possible the true
circumcision and true observance which the Jew cannot achieve by his Holy
Scripture. The point of the passage is perhaps alien to us. It is hampered by the
ecclesiastical understanding of Scripture. But we can appreciate it once we re-
cognise that Paul is speaking of the inadequacy of the véuoc, which is here used
synonymously with ye&uua. The vduos as here understood is that which is merely
written in contrast to the mvevuc.
R.7:6 makes it particularly plain that in its character as as a Law
which does not rule in the kapdla, the v6uoc cannot accomplish SovAEvEt in
relation to God. Here again we have confirmation of the fact that when Paul
speaks of the Law he always raises the question how there may be fulfilment of
the will of God. If the present passage teaches that we are now dead to the Law,
the continuation shows that this means our death to the character of the Law as
yp&uua, to its quality as what is merely written. This character belongs to what
is past (— madadtys); it is done away. Only in the being of the Spirit can the
goal of SovAEveEtv be attained. Without Christ and the Spirit what is written is
absolutely ineffective. The question again arises whether there is not a ypc&upa
sustained by the Spirit. Do Scripture and Spirit stand in unconditional antithesis ?
Paul's view of yoaor has to be taken into account in this connection. His ex-
positions, however, are no less difficult than all that he says concerning the Law
to which we are dead but which is still holy. There can certainly be no doubt that
Scripture as what is merely written has no power to give new life. Behind these
deliberations concerning the “past being of the Bible” 1* yocupatoc)
stands his experience of the futility of the religion of the Synagogue, for all its
emphasis on Scripture, in virtue of its inability to press on to the service of God
(cf. Jn. 5:39-47, where this is equated with its failure to press on to Christ).
The most comprehensive discussion of this question is found in 2 C. 3:6 £., where
ypa&uua is linked with makar& SiaxOyKn. The statements concerning Scripture and
Judaism in vv. 12-18, and especially vv. 14-16, are particularly valuable in our
attempt to see the relationship of the ypauya/ntvetua antithesis to the total
Pauline view of Scripture. The gen. of quality yo&uuatoc and in 3:6
are closely related to katvy The new covenant is not characterised by
what is merely written and prescribed, but by the Spirit. The use of the term
shows us that the whole antithesis yp&upa/tvetua in Paul derives from his
understanding of *Iep. 38:33 (31:33). For Paul, therefore, the nature of the new
covenant lies in the fact that this 01\00U¢ 6WOw Vvdo~OUG You (Mas. sing.) eig TH
Sicvoiav Kal éni kapdlacg aALTOV ypawo adtows is now fulfilled. There
is no stronger argument for the interrelating of vouocg and yod&uya than the fact
that in ’Ilep. 38:33 what Paul in his exposition always calls ypc&uuca is the plur.

16 Schl. Erl., ad loc.

Ypauuc

véuot, but the new activity of God is described as His inscribing on the heart. If,
then, the apostle goes on to say that the yocuuc kills, this is to be compared with
what he elsewhere says concerning the vouoc. Thus in R. 7:9. he argues that in
virtue of its character as €vtoAy the vduoc brings sin and death to fruition. The
meaning in the present passage is exactly the same. The killing is a consequence
of the fact that this Law is only what is written or prescribed (—= évtoAy). Neither
here nor in R.7 can this killing be attributed only to a false use of the Bible or
the Law. As always when Paul speaks radically of the negative operation of the
Law, he is thinking in terms of the divine purpose. The disposing of God is with
a view to the exercise of judgment by Scripture as Law. What is merely written
or prescribed can only kill. The Spirit alone can make alive and not Scripture.
The new covenant, however, is wholly determined by the Spirit.
In 2C. 3:7: et 5& FY Stakovia toO Oaveétou év ypaupaot Al-
27 the plur. ye&uuata undoubtedly means inscribed on stones in the form
of letters (— 761). The reference is to the tables of the Law. The verse does not
conflict, however, with our previous findings. If the old is described in the sing,.,
it does not imply that only the “‘letter’’ is meant. The letters of the tables of the
Law bear eloquent witness to the fact that the véuoc is only what is written. To
translate ‘“‘letter’’ is to miss the deep seriousness of what is said. Ihe sing,.,
strengthened by the plur., introduces an antithesis which embraces what is written
as such. Paul is not merely saying that Judaism has a literal exposition of Scripture,
though this would be correct enough in fact.1® He is claiming that the whole of
the older phase of revelation is not yet determined by Christ and the Spirit. Never-
theless, there is a glory even in this ministry of death engraven in letters of stone.
To translate yog&uua as “letter” is to foster an idealistic interpretation of Paul's
argument. Any suggestion is to be rejected which would have it that the spirit of
Scripture is here opposed to its letter, or its true or richer sense to the somatic body.
The Alexandrians rightly perceived that in 2C.3 the reference is to the voutKkov
29 But their whole conception of Scripture depended upon an opposition of
the vonti éxSoy1 to the aioOnt) TOv 20
A related conception, no less incongruent with Paul, dominates the Platonic statements
which would have it that what is written is an inadequate means to express spiritual
insights. Here the problem is that of the interrelation of what is written to intellectual
truth as the perception of the soul. 24

That the solemn antithesis yop&uua/nvebua does not refer merely to a false
use of Scripture may be seen particularly clearly from 2 C. 3:14-16. For it is only
here that consideration is given to the Jewish use, which is characterised by the

17 Rollowirlg Ex. 36:39 LXX: kal én”? adtod evtetuTOpEVa

(— 762).
18 Cf, on this pt. Gelas. Symp., IX, 1, 235.
19 Orig. Cels., VII, 20, 708 f. Theophylact. Expos. in 2C.4:6 (MPG, 124, 829a) also
speaks at this pt. of the working of the Law. ar,

20 Orig. Cels., VI,70 (p. 140, 16 ff.); cf. Thdrt. Hist. Eccl., ['V,29,4 of Didymus: ty¢
Oelac ueucOnkev od} pdvov TK GAA Kal TA TOUTOV VON UATE.
We often find in Orig. the antithesis kat& 10 yo&uua / Kat& TO Comm. in
Joh., XIII, 10, 61; 49, 325; XX, 3, 10; cf. X, 26, 161: of Eni Tob yec&upatog pay
attention to OWUMATLKOV LOVOV.
21 Plat. Phaedr., 276a; Ep., 7,341, esp. d. That the antithesis wholly concerns under-
standing, and that it is a question of the distinction between ypcoetv and
is shown especially by Ep., 2, 314bc.
fact that the twofold veil, ie., on Scripture and on the heart, conceals the truth
in Christ. This is a consequence of the present obstinacy of the Jews (v. 14). It is
not said that this use alone is characterised by yoa&upa. This is true of the older
revelation of Law in general.
6.
In sum, it may be said that the antithesis is not directed absolutely against
ypaor as such. We have seen that Paul affirms the lasting significance of Scrip-
ture and he does not intend in any way to weaken its authority. As for him the
véuoc is &ytog (R. 7:12), so, too, is Whatever he may say concerning the
inferiority of the Law does not affect its divine nature. Similarly, whatever he
may say about the supersession of the yo&uua does not dispute its value as re-
velation. It is plain that Paul does not use yocuua as a title for Scripture in the
same way as he uses your). He uses it rather to characterise the Law. yoc&uux
is not used when he speaks of the positive and lasting significance of Scripture.
This positive task is always stated in terms of ypaor. When the reference is to
Paul is always thinking of the legal authority which has been replaced.
The relationship between ypaorn. and yecuua in Paul is thus to be stated as
follows. yp&uua represents the legal authority which has been superseded, while
yeaor is linked with the new form of authority determined by the fulfilment in
Christ and by His Spirit, the determinative character of the new no longer being
what is written and prescribed. The word which is near (R.10:8) is not the
yep&uua but Scripture, which is self-attesting through the Spirit of Christ. To this
extent we can say that Paul is contending against a religion of the book.** Mere
concentration on the book is set aside. This does not mean, however, that we have
a purely Marcionite antithesis.” 2% The diversitas instrumentorum is not meant
in such a way that the supersession of the yop&uua involves that of the ypaor.
On the contrary, the latter becomes an authority regulated by Christ and His
Spirit. In particular, there does not develop out of the diversitas instrumentorum
a diversitas deorum as in the case of Marcion. What we can say, however, is that
these discussions imply that the external writing is not to be described as the
distinctive mark of the revelation of the new covenant (— ypaqevv, 745). This
does not live only by what is written. For the Church's use of Scripture there is
the solid norm that all legal use kills, even though it is use of the NT. It may be
questioned, however, whether Paul would have formulated it in this way, since
the Katy Kn of his time had not yet been committed to written records. **
His basic position has reference finally to the Law.
The Pauline antithesis is in no sense parallel to the Greek distinction between written
law and vouoc &ypagos. 2° Here it is a matter of the relationship of written law to
the law of nature and reason. When Sophocles 7° speaks of &ypanta Gedv
véutua, he has in view the distinction between transgression of the written law and
protection by the unwritten law of the gods. In Paul, however, we have something
unwritten, i.e., the Spirit, giving power to fulfil the innermost intentions of what is

22 Harnack, D. AT, 141; Wood. 2 K., 111.

23 Wnod. 2 K., 110.
24 Whnd. 2 K., ad loc.
25 R, Hirzel, NOuoc &ypaoos, op. cit.; Wnd. 2 K., 111 £.
26 Soph. Ant., 450 ff., esp. 454.
Ypauuan — Eyypagow

written. Acc. to Hippias of Elis,27 the &ypapocg vouoc, which represents what is
universally valid, e.g., worship of the gods, the honouring of parents, upbringing of
children etc., is in agreement with @votc, while positive law is a Tupavvoc?2® com-
pelling men to do many things which are against nature. In both Plato?® and Philo 3°
the antithesis is between natural law and written political law. The mvebuc of Paul,
however, is a miraculous power which has nothing whatever to do with these con-
siderations of natural law.

Tt Eyypago.
1. On Lk. 10:20.
Zyypc&oew is not merely used a. of “writing in a letter or petition’: Thuc., I, 128;
Jos. Ant., 11,271; P. Oxy., 237,5, 14 (2nd cent. A.D.): ta tO BipAvdio EevyEeypau-
uévar, the “contents of a petition”, but also b. of solemn “entry in a document.” Thus
in Jos. Ant., 17,226 Archelaus is mentioned as king in his father’s will, Eyyeypaupevoc
in Bell., 1,625 Antipater is named as successor; in Philo Spec. Leg., II, /2
the word is used of a marriage contract; in Polyb., III, 21,4 means written
in a peace treaty; Polyb., III,24,6 eipywn eyypantoc; III, 25,3 etc. ouupayia
#yypamtoc, always with the sense of something firmly laid down in a written compact.
This use, which emphasises the element of documentation, leads to the sense of to
prosecute’ in penal law: Aristoph. Pax, 1180; Demosth., 37, 24. Also determined by penal
law is the image or matter in Jer. 17:13 x¢-8-: &nd THIS yc Eyypapéetwoayv (AB xal)
(an> niph); cf. also Ps. 149:9: xpipa €yypantov; Ep. Ar., 110. c. Also deserving of
notice is the popular use of for “to inscribe in a list, an inventory, or a
public register’: P. Hal., 1,247 (3rd cent. B.C.); Isaeus, 7, 1; Ditt. 921,97: Eyypa-
oe 2c Ta KOLWK yoauuateia; Demosth., 18, 261: eig tobc Snudtac; Ps.-Plat. Ax.,
366e: etc tobc éorBouc; Ditt. Syll.3, 736, 163: eig tobc toAEUapyXouG. Related,
though rather more generally, is Jos. Ant., 16,225: through circumcision Eyypagrjvat
toic tav 1 Macc. 13:40: to be enrolled in the bodyguard. Philo
makes extraordinarily heavy use of the image of being inscribed on the list of citizens
(non-figur. in Omn. Prob. Lib.,7); he metaphorically applies the EyypagecBar TO
MOALTEOUATL or TH ToAtteia, TaTPLdSt to the civic list of virtue: Conf. Ling.,
109; Op. Mund., 143; Gig., 61; Leg. All., III, 244; Vit. Mos., I, 157, etc. This type of
expression is quite essential to an understanding of Lk. 10:20. Here, however, the well-
known image from civic life is combined with the biblical conception of inscription in a
book, for d. in the LXX, Jos., and Philo €yypaqetv is used quite simply for the in-
scribing of divine words in the Bible’: 3 Bao. 22:46; 2 Ch. 34:31 A; *Iep. 28:60 A;
Jos. Ant., 10, 35; 12, 89; Philo Det. Pot. Ins., 139; in a free rationalisation, Leg. All.,
I,19: the figures inscribed in the book of divine reason. On the other hand, it is not
this sacred book which is in view in Lk. 10:20, but e. the “book of life’ (— BiBAlov,
619). Da. LAX, 12, 1: Eyyeypaupevoc év TH BiBAle@ (ano kal), cf. Ez. 13:9, the book
in which God writes His people. 1

27 Xenoph. Mem.., IV, 4, 19; Plato Prot., 337c.

28 For tyrants as the originators of written laws Plat. Leg., IV, 722e: tupawikdv
Ua; Seneca Ep., 90, 3 f£.; cf. further Wnd. 2 K., 111.
29 Plat. Gorg., 484a.
30 Philo Abr., 5: tx THG OUK Anger; 60: Abraham
follows not merely God's verbal and written commands, but also voic; 275: he observes
the Law, not merely as taught by Scripture, but aypap@ Ty uot. Philo conceives of
laws as additions tTo0 thc dpH00 Adyou: Jos., 31; cf. Spec. Leg., I, 31.
ivy paoo. 1 Cf. Herm. v., 1,3, 2. Elsewhere Herm. has éyypaqgetv cic apiWydv;
vy. Pr.-Bauer.
 EYYPAOD — TPOYPAOw

When, therefore, the Lord says to the returning 70 disciples in Lk. 10:20: yat-
pete SE Sti ta SvduatTAa OUGV EyyEypantar* Ev TOG OUPavoic, we have a
particularly solemn image which carries with it the thought of the ancient custom
of inscribing in a list of citizens, but which is also linked with the idea of the book
of life. The meaning is that by Svouag, i.e., as persons of individual worth, those
who belong to Jesus are God's inalienable possession and citizens of the heavenly
moAttela. The opposite is stated in “lep. 17:13 as follows: of kataAtndv-
TEC OE KPEOTHKOTES ETL THS YS yepapetwoay. *
2. When Paul in 2 C. 3:2 £. describes the Corinthians as a letter inscribed on his
heart: émiotoAy, Ev Taig Kapdlaig NUOV, ov
GAA C@vtoc, ouK Ev TAGELV ALOivaig GAA’ Ev TAaEIV
Kapdlaig oapKivaic, the word Eyypcow is used in the sense of engrave, which
is the original meaning of ypaow, ypaor, yeauua.
Thus can often be used for “inscribing on a tablet” : Soph. Trach., 157;
Jos. Ant., 3,101 (cf. 8, 104); Epict. Diss., III, 16,9. Hence Lys., 30,2: Eyypdaoew voé-
‘to codify.” Or of “inscribing on pillars” : Hdt., II, 102; Ditt. Syll.*, 966, 38; Philo
Spec. Leg., III, 36; Jos. Ant., 1,70. Hence as the public “posting up of
an edict’: ibid., 19,291. Cf. also inscription on the altar in Jos. Ant., 4, 308; on the
crown in 11,331; on the breastplate in Ex. 36:21 (39:14) B; Jos. Ant., 3, 166.
The Pauline expression “to inscribe on the heart’ etc. is widespread in the ancient
world. Cf.. already Aesch. Prom., 789: fv Eyypagovu ov UvnMOOLV SEATOIC
Xenoph. Cyr., ITI,3,52: wedAdAovor EyypaonoeoVar avOpa@tToic. The
év éyyéypantat Evamiov Kupiovu in Test. Jud. 20:4 B AS? has basic-
ally the same meaning (cf. Jos. Ant., 4,213: on the forehead and arm); Jos. Ant., 4, 210:
taic woyaic éyypaoévtac, of impressing laws on the soul. According to Philo Spec.
Leg., 106 the soul of a woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man is no longer
adapted like wax to receive TOv Eyypagnoovuevwv Soyuctav. The simple yodaoetv
is used for “to inscribe in the heart or soul’ in Soph. Phil., 1325; Philo Rer. Div. Her.,
294 (in the soul of the new-born child, which is like wax); Op. Mund., 78 (the im-
pressions of the heavenly music of the spheres in the soul).
In 2 C, 3:2 £., however, Paul is building on the expression in ’Iep. 38:33: Eni kapdiac
ypawo and Prv.3:3 A: ypaov (7:3: emiypawov) 5& adbtac éni TO THC
Kapdiac cov, except that in the LAX we do not find either in these or any
of the passages which exerted a formal and material influence on 2 C. 3:2 £.:: Ex. 24:12:
31:18; 34:1 (the yodoetv on the tables of stone) and Ez. 11:19; 36:26 (the influencing
of the heart).

T
1. Eph. 3:3: xaOa@c mpoéypawa, “as I have written above, in the same writing.”
This usage for something already mentioned is very common. Hence nmpoypaoy can
be used for the heading of a work intimating and preceding the contents: Polyb., AI,
1 ff.;1 in Da. LXX 3:3, 87 Syr. the ot mpoyeypauuévot are “the persons already
mentioned,’ as in P, Amh., 42, 10 (2nd cent. B.C.) sing. The word is often used in this
sense in the pap. and inscr.: BGU, 1131,55 (1st cent. B.C.); P. Petr., III, 104,11 (3rd
cent. B.C.); tx mpoyeypaupeva: P. Oxy., I, 79,17 (2nd cent. A.D.); P. Lips., 26,

2 2yvyéypantat is found in’ BLX ; éveypagn, 157; €yp&opn (Blass) is secondary ; cf.
70. Lk.
8 Cr.-K6é. draws attention at this pt. to ypd&oet etc 68a or év GSatt: Plat. Phaedr.,
276c; Luc. Tyr., 21 SSatosc).
TNOYPAQDW. 1 Preisigke Wért.; APF, IIT, 504; Mitteis-Wilcken, I, 2, 540.
 13,14 (4th cent. A.D.). kat& t& is often used to introduce quota-
tions: P. Petr., Ill, 179 (3rd cent. B.C.); BGU, 1107, 30 (ist cent. B.C.). Sometimes we
have KaOéti TPOYEYPANTAL : P. Tebt., 104,38 (ist cent. B.C.); BGU, 189 (7 A.D.).?
2. R.15:4: 50a yap npoeypc&on, El tiv huEetépav Eypagn; here
the reference is to ‘things previously written, i.e., in times past.
Cf. P. Oxy.,291,7 (1st cent. A.D.): mpoéypawa oot, “I have written you once
before” : P. Hal., 7,3 (3rd cent. B.C.): tov Seiva TK TPOYEYPALUEVE,
‘‘of which I wrote before.

3, G1. 3:1: ol¢ Kat’ SqOadrpods *Incobs Xpiotds There are here
two possibilities. a. We can take mpoypc&oetv as “public promulgation.” ° It is
often used for published placards and notices.
Aristoph. Av., 450: év totic mtvaxiotc. Plut. Demetr., 46 (I,912b), where a soldier
writes the beginning of Oed. Col. on the tent of Demetr. Plut. Pyth. Orac., 29 (II, 408e);
Epict. Diss., III, 1, 28 £.; 24, 80, of the posting of an advertisement referring to an object
of interest. For the publication of a notice, cf. BGU, 1046, II, 17 (2nd cent. A.D.); IG,
X, 4,24; for summoning by such: Plut. Camill., 11 (I, 134 f.); P. Amh., 135, 12 (2nd
cent. A.D.); for following up with a warrant: P.Tebt., II,411,8 (2nd cent. A.D.).
Cf. the use of mpdéypauua for “edict,” “decree,” ‘‘official notice,” “proclamation”
or “governmental order”: Jos. Ant., 10, 254; 12, 145; Vit., 370. #
b. The second possibility is the usually adopted rendering “‘to depict before
your eyes,” in the sense of making the image of the Crucified as vividly as possible
(xat’ the object of this proclamation. Linguistically this is possible,
but the fact remains that the word is never attested in this sense, though ypdaoetv
(— 743) is often used for “to draw” or “to paint.’ Furthermore, there is nothing
in Paul to suggest that in his proclamation of the cross he gave centrality to a
heart-rending depiction in the sense of later homiletical and lyrical understanding
and practice. Is it likely, then, that his missionary preaching would differ from the
KYpuyua of the word of the cross in the epistles, which is certainly important
and central, which undoubtedly extols the saving act of God, but which never
even attempts to impress by physical depiction ?
Evaluation of the meaning of mpoypadetv thus brings into focus the distinction
between the Pauline proclamation of the act of salvation and the later ecclesiastical
understanding of depiction after the influential manner of the salve caput cruen-
fatum of Arnulf von Lowen. The linguistic findings themselves compel us to adopt
the surest translation: “Before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been set as the
Crucified like a posted proclamation.’ In this sense the saying helps us to under-
stand the missionary preaching of Paul as solemn announcement by divine com-
mission, which is comparable to an edict.
4, Jd. 4: of ma&Aat Eig TOUTO TO KPa.
This corresponds to a usage found in Polyb., 32,5, 12; cf. 6,1, where mpoypdoetv
has the sense of the publication of lists of influential people who are proscribed. The
of 6,1 are proscripti or outlaws, cf. Luc. Tim., 51: mpobtypd&onv év
TQ I was put on the list.” To fill out the picture we should also note the

* Cf. further Moult.-Mill.; for the post-apost. fathers, v. Pr.-Bauer.

3 Lightfoot Gl., ad loc.; F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899),
189; Moult.-Mill. on tpoypcoetv.
4 Cf, further Preisigke W6Ort., Moult.-Mill.
 mpoypaoa —
sense of “‘to enlist,” e.g., in the army of the king: 1 Macc. 10:36, or to appoint’:
mooyeypauuévn huépa, “the appointed day,” Jos. Ant., 11, 283; to mpoyeypaypévov
“the appointed ransom,” Ant., 12,30 (cf. 12, 33).
It is thus indisputable that the reference in Jd. 4 is to the divine appointment of
false teachers to judgment, though with no suggestion of eternal reprobation. 5
They are “long since” appointed elg toUto tO Kplua, and are thus entered as
proscribed offenders ® in the judgment book of God (— BiBAlov, 620). When this
entry took place, however, is not stated.

+ (UTOyYPagw).
is very rare. Thus it is not found in Polyb., Diod.5., Joseph., Philo, he

Epict. or the pap. Is it attested only in “biblical and post-Christian Greek ?* The 4
earliest known instance is certainly in 2 Macc. 2:28, where the epitomist says that he
will leave the minuter detail to the author and simply give an abridgment of the books of line

Jason. This abridgment, however, will deserve the name of TO dé Emt-

Toic tic Stanovobvtec. There is little doubt
that what is in mind is a model or example, as more clearly in Cl. Al. Strom., V, 8, 49, 1,
where for the purposes of instruction a word is proposed (several examples are given)
which contains all the letters of the alphabet in a form in which children can remember
them, so that a model is given which is called TaLOLKOG.
a. To this there corresponds the use of Obmoypdoetv as an academic expression. In
Plat. Prot., 326d: Onoypd&wavtes TH is used for the drawing of
lines by the elementary teacher in order to guide children who are learning to write.
Along the same lines is the figur. use by Origen when in Orat., 18,1 he says of the
Lord’s Prayer: tiv bnoypageioav O10 Tov KUpiou It is the model
prayer, the example of instruction in prayer.? Thus Onoypaqetv comes to mean rather
more generally “to give an example.” Acc. to Plat. Leg., [V,711b the tyrant should win
‘nfluence over the citizens in this way: a0TOV TP@tTov TadVvIA TO
TOCAKTTELV.
b. From the original pedagogic sense we can trace the common use of the term in
Diod. S., Polyb. and Philo for “to show,” ® “to describe,” “‘to represent,” “‘to depict,
“to denote,” “to signify,” “‘to set in view,” “‘to ascribe.” In Philo Spec. Leg., I, 65
bnOyp&oeL is used of Moses, who “indicates” in his description 3 in Polyb., Il, 14, 3 it is
used of describing the distinctive features of the land; in Polyb., III, 47,9; Philo Leg.
All., I, 21 and 56; II, 6; Op. Mund., 67 of depicting or representing. Hence Snoypagn
for “description” in Polyb., V, 21,7. The sense of “to denote’ is found in Philo Deus
Imm., 95; of “to signify” in Jos.,92; Conf. Ling., 67; of “to set in view” in Conf. Ling..
166; of “to ascribe something to someone’ in Gig., 66; cf. Deus Imm., 70. c. It can also
take on the sense of ‘‘to demand, as in 1 Macc. 8:25, 27; 3 Macc. 6:41. Again, d. it can
have the sense of “dazzling,” cf. Diod.S., XIX, 46,3; Polyb., V, 62,1; Jos. Ant., 15,
399; Bell., 6, 287, usually in respect of disappointed hopes. Related is its use in Philo

5 Calvin, ad loc.: aeternum Dei consilium.

8 Bq : qui olim praescripti sunt in hoc iudicium. It might equally well have been rendered
proscripti.
Defin. Ps.-Ammon. Adfin. Vocab. Diff., 134 (Valckenaer):
UT OY Px
pauLov LOto
avti S Hesych.: = tutoc, ulunua. Schol. in Aristoph. Ra.,
74, where it is used synon. with mpoypaypos.
1 Cr,-K6., 268.
2 Cf, Eus. Hist. Eccl., VIII, 10,2 where with Onodelyuata (“examples”) we have O10-
ypaupol (“models”) and kaka (“marks”). They are laid down in Holy
Scripture.
8 Cf. Suid. Snoypdoetar: Selkvutat. He quotes Diod.S., XIX, 46, 3.
OTOYPAULOSG —
Vit. Mos., 1,69 for “counting on something.” e. Omoypaor can also be used for
painting e.g., under the eyes in the case of women trying to adorn themselves: Jos.
Bell., 4, 561; Philo Leg. All., III, 62, where there is a close approximation to the first
sense. f. It can even be used for literary reference and official protocol, i.e., “that which
follows or is written below’ in Polyb., III, 22,3; 1 Esr. 2:5,25; 2 Macc. 9:18; 3 Macc.
6:41; Jos. Ant., 12, 57 and 258; and therefore quite often for “subscribing, 4 as in P. Oxy.,
136, 10 (6th cent. A.D.), though this is a somewhat remote development.
In 1 Pt. 2:21: Ouiv OnoAtund&vev iva Totc txVvE-
ow avtod, the reference is to Christian slaves. They are told that Christ in His
suffering has left footprints which we must take as models or examples in the
way that the scholar follows the guiding lines of his teacher. This does not mean
that there is to be a copying or imitatio of Christ. The point is that we must accept
the vocation of suffering laid down for the community by the passion of its true
and legitimate Lord. The Oroypauudc does, however, express commitment to the
lines (steps) traced out by Him.
The further development of in the early Church is closely linked with
this passage. Thus Pol. Phil., 8, 2; 1 Cl., 16, 17; 33, 8 make a similar statement about Christ
and 1Cl.,5,7 about Paul. Cl. Al. Paed., I, 9, 84,2 explains Ez.34 in terms of the
thought that God as the true has given the mpeoButEepot a model in His
saving concern for the sheep. Along the lines of Christ as example we may also mention
Mac. Hom., 19,2 (MPG, 34, 64b); Custodia Cordis, ibid., 837a; Joh. Damasc. Hom. in
Sabb. Sanct., 24 (MPG, 96, 624a); Fid. Orthod., III, 1 (MPG, 94, 984c). The word is
linked with Dion. Areop. in Mich. Syncellus, Vita Dion. Areopag. (MPG, 4, 632d).
Worth noting is the constant interrelating of Omoypaupyoc and — toT0c.®© In Eus.
Dem. Ev., IV, 16,55 the term seems to be synon. for the typological significance of
the OT cultus. Ps.-Athan. Hom. in S. Patr. et Proph., 8 (MPG, 28, 1072a), in accordance
with his symbolical conception of the Lord's Supper, conceives of the Eucharist as an
action elc Joh. Damasc. Fid. Orthod., TI, 18 (MPG, 94, 1076) says of
the Son that He is and The same words are used in Rhet. Graeci
(ed. C. Walz), I (1832), 643,27. There is a similar use of with oKvo-
yoaoo. in Eustathius De oboedientia magistratui christ. debita, 18,1 and 24 (MPG,
136, 313, 317). There is thus no doubt as to the sense of example’ or “model.”
Schrenk

Ypnyopéw — Eysipa.

yupuvoc, yurvotye,
YULVACO, YUOLVAOLA

+ YUpPVO.
Attested since Hom.; common in the LXX: Gn. 3:7; Job 1:21 etc.; a favourite word
of Philo.
1. “Naked” in the strict sense. a. “Unclothed,” Anth. Pal., X,58 (Pallades): yas
2néBynv yuuvdcs, youvdc 0” bnd yatav Grew | Kal tl pa&mVv YoX8G, yupvov
dpdv td téAoc. In the NT: Mk. 14:51, 52. b. “Badly clothed” : BGU, 846,9 (2nd cent.

4 Preisigke Wéort.; Fachw., 175 £. On Onmoypagr as the completion of a document by

subscription, cf. Mitteis-Wilcken, IT, 1,56.
5 Cf, Hesych. (— 772, n.).
 yuuvec

A.D.): (the lost son to his mother) altypawa oot Stt yuuvdc elvet. Tob. 1:17; 4:16;
Job 22:6; Is. 58:7. In the NT: Mt. 25:36, 38, 43, 44; Jm. 2:15. c. “Unclothed or stripped
by force’: P. Fay., 12,20 (c. 103 B.C.): e€€vteg yuuvdv 2 Ch. 28:15. In the NT:
Ac. 19:16; Rev. 17:16. d. “Without an upper garment, not fully clothed”: Aristoph.
Nu., 498; P. Magd., 6,7 (3rd cent. B.C.); Is. 20:2. In the NT: Jn. 21:7 (— n.6).
2. Naked in the Figurative Sense.
qa “Unconcealed,” “disclosed,” ‘manifest’: Diod. S., I, 76: yuupvOv tov teay-
ud&tav Philo Migr. Abr., 192: youve ... ta Svta opav. In the
NT : Hb. 4:13: w&vta youve kal tetpaynAtopéva toicg HUTOU.
b. “Without bodily form”: Hadrian at death addressed his animula nudula:*
f woyh youn) tod adpatoc, Plat. Crat., 403b; yupvdg Kal d&o@patog (to salva-
tion), Philo Leg. All., 11,59; Porphyr. Abst., 1, 31: the soul must fight naked like
the boxer. In the NT, 1C. 15:37 ff.: The contrast between the yupivocg KOKKkoc
and the plant which it receives as a body on dying illustrates the glory of the
resurrection body in comparison with the earthly. The detailed exposition of the
image is difficult, not merely because of our different scientific understanding, but
because the naked seed represents both the body which is buried and also the
bearer of individuality, ie. the soul in the current and not the Pauline sense.
Nevertheless, the comparison is both meaningful and illuminating. In 2C.5:3 we
should accept the reading : ef ye? kai EvdvodcuEvor ? o} yupvoi It
is arguable whether what Paul wishes to avoid is the temporary loss of the body
by believers prior to the parousia* or the final destiny of unbelievers for whom
there will be no heavenly body.® It is hardly conceivable that Paul should have
thought of the intervening state as one of dreadful nakedness, cf. Phil. 1:23 (ovv
Xptot® elvar).® On the other hand, the damned were often thought of as naked.
Thus in the Samaritan liturgy for the eve of the Day of Atonement the goyim
will be raised naked, whereas the righteous will rise again with the clothes (?) in
which they were buried (* 3p” 979 7137 ani>303 7 It thus seems that there is little

yuuvdoc. 1 Deissmann LO, 249, 1.

2 BDG: einep.
3 D*G it Mcion, Chrys. : Exdvocuevot, in correction of the apparent tautology.
4 Ror current exposition, cf, the NT theologies of H. J. Holtzmann and P. Feine; cf. also
E. DADED,
—? Kiihl, ber
III. 2 K. 5:1-10 (1904); H. E. Weber, “Eschafologie” und “Mystik
Pope , aK. on rather different but better grounds, W.Mundle, Jilicherfestschrift
(1927), 93-109, esp. 101. — éx-, év-, Emevdva.
6 Wh. 2K. recalls the cultic horror of nakedness, e.g., in Ex. 20:26; Jn. 21:7; Rev. 3:18;
16:15; Jos. Bell., 2, 148; T.Ber. II, 14 and 15 (Angelos, 3 [1930], 159£.); cf also the
ordinances for the flamen dialis in Gell., X, 15,20; Plut. Aet. Rom., 40 (II, 274a f.).
J. Heckenbach, “De nuditate sacra,” RVV,9,3 (1911), 1 ff, 55 f.
7 A. Merx, Der Messias oder Ta’eb der Samaritaner (1909), 15,13. IStar puts off an
article of clothing at each gate of hell and appears naked before the queen of hell. On her
ascent she resumes the garment. There would be a fine illustration of the shrinking of the
apostle on a Gnostic fresco in Rome (the catacomb on the Viale Manzoni) if only we
could be sure that the three naked figures before the weaver’s loom were among the damned.
Wilpert, however, thinks of those who are naked in the sense of Mt. 25:36, while Bendinelli
is reminded of a scene in the Odyssey. Cf. J. Wilpert, Atti della pontificia academia Romana
di archeologia (Ser. III, 1,2 [1924]), 26-30, Plate 16, the best reproduction ; G. Bendinelli,
Notizie degli scavi, 17 (1920), 135; O. Marucchi, Nuovo bullettino di archeologia christiana,
Z/ (1921), 44-47; J. Sauer, Neues Licht auf dem Gebiet der christlichen Archaologie (1925),
31 ff. On the idea of the clothing of souls in general, cf. the source material and bibl. in
F. Cumont, Orient. Relig.® (1931), 290 £. Cf. also Ltzm. 2 K., ad loc.
youvos — yuuvdtns — youvaZo — youvaola

place in 2C. 5:3 for any thought of the intervening state. The second explanation
is right. ®
c. “Without the preparedness of the inner man.” Philo knows a nakedness | of
the soul which is to perdition as well as one which is to salvation (Leg. All., II, 60:
yuuvec &petic; cf. Leg. All:, III, 55). In the NT: Rev. 3:17; 16:19.
+ yUuLvoTys.
Rare in secular Gk. In the good sense, M. Ant., 11,27 syn.: t&Etc, Kkabapotne,
ovdév yap mpoKéAvUUa &otpO0U; Philo Leg. All., II, 59: yuuvdtns puxXiky; on the
other hand cf. Ps.-Dion. Hal. Art. Rhet., X,6 (II, p. 363,9£, Usener): yuuvdtms tav
TPOTAOEWV <= the poverty of assertions. Not found in Joseph., and in the LXX only
Dt. 28:48 A.

In the NT§ ‘nakedness,’ “emptiness,” “poverty” (R. 8:35; 2C. 11:27; tigur. in
Rev. 3:18 : aloydwy tis yuuvdotntdc cov (— yuuvos, supra).

t+ yULVaCO.
“Tro exercise naked.’ Ps.-Isoc. Demon., 21: yuuvaCe oeautov mdvoic Exovotlotc;
Jos. Ant., 6,185: David ox éyeybuvaoto; cf. 16, 400; Bell., 3,73; 2 Macc. 10:15:
"lSouuator ... EyWUuUvaCov tots *loubaioucg (kept them occupied); figur. Ditt.
578, 29 (2nd cent. B.C.): Sma@c SE Ev Toig yuuvaCovtac ol
maioec; Gern. Epict. Diss., I, 26,3: odv ent BEewpiacg yuuvaCovotv
Hus ol mrdooogor; II, 18, 27: obtég Eotw 6 Taig 6 MPO TAG
oavtaciacg yuouvacov éautdv; III, 12,7 etc. Philo Virt., 18: yuuvcoat
similarly Vit. Mos., I, 48; Jos. Ant., 3,15 of God: dv eixog tiv
KpETHV KOTOV ... yuuVvaCerv ToOIg Apt
In the NT it occurs only figur. and in writings under Hell. intluence. 1 Tm. 4:7:
youvace oEeautov ttpdc demands concentration on what is inward
instead of externally dualistic asceticism (— yuuvacia). Cf. materially 1 C. 9:24-
27; Phil. 2:12; 3:12 ££. In Hb., too, there is a faint echo of Greek perfectionism :
5:14: terelov ... tOv Sick tHv t& aloByntIH pia yeyuouvaopeva EXOVTOV TIPOG
StdaKpiow te Kal 12:11: (matdela) Kapidov elpryviKov Toic ot
yeyuuvacpévoic Sikatoobwns; 2 Pt. 2:14: Kapolav yeyuu-
vaouévnv mAEovetlac (vl. mAcoveElaic), might be meant sarcastically, though it
reflects a later and weaker usage.
Cf. P. Masp., 20,16 (6th cent. A.D.): yuuvaTeoOar tO eritnSevuati, “to devote
oneself to one’s calling.” On the constr. with the gen., cf, Philostr. Heroic., 2, 15; 3:1;
10, 1: yeyuuvacutévoc TOAEUaV, copiac.
ft yupvacia.
From the time of Plato and Aristotle (Pol., IV, 13, p. 1297a, 17: law concerning the
palaestra); militarily, Polyb., IV, 7, 6; Jos. Bell., 2,649. Figur. “exercise” in political con-
cerns, Polyb.,I, 1; “philosophical disputation,” Plat. Theaet., 169c etc.; “martyrdom,”
4 Macc. 11:20 (only here in the LXX).
1 Tm. 4:8: 4 yuouvacia mpdc SAlyov gotiv The anti-
thetical evoéBeia allows the linguistically most obvious rendering “physical

8 L. Brun has restated the argument of Mundle in ZNW, 28 (1929), 207 ff., but he does
not reject the dominant opinion (209).
 youvacia — yu}

exercise.’ The context, however, makes it clear that there is no attack on Hellenic
development of the body, as lexical association might seem to demand (cf. v.7),
but rather a rejection of narrow encratitic strivings (cf. 4:3; 5:23; Tt. 1:15).
More common in this technical sense is — G&oxnoic: Philo Spec. Leg., IV,99:
&oKnotc thc éyKpatelac; Strab., XV, 1,61; XVII, 1,29; Jos. Bell., 2, 150. yuuvacla
does not seem to occur elsewhere.
Oepke

yuvn

In general Gk. from the time of Homer, as also in the LXX and the NT,
denotes a. the “female” as distinct from the male: &vOpec Kai yuvatikec, Ac. 5:14;
8:3 etc. yuvarkog 1C.7:1; FY yuw) otav tiktn, Jn. 16:21; yewnrtoi
yovak@v, Mt. 11:11, cf. Gl. 4:4; Mk. 5:25 par.; Lk. 15:8 etc.; b. the “wife : -yuvatkec
Kat Xenoph. An., III, 2,25; Opp.: étatoa, Isaeus 3:13; Dt. 13:6; Mal. 2:14
etc.; Lk. 1:5; 1C. 7:2; Eph. 5:22 ff.; Col. 3:18 £.; 1 Pt.3:1. So also Mt. 5:28: the wife
of another,” and 1C.9:5: &SeAgnv yovaika mepiccyety, “to take a fellow-Christian
around with one as wife.” 1 Similarly in 1 C. 7:27 the reference is to a wife rather than
one who is spiritually affianced. 1C.5:1: yuv) tod matpdc, “step-mother” (cf. Lv.
18:8, 11). By Semitic marriage law the bride is already called Gn. 29:21; Dt.
22:24: Rev. 21:9; cf. 19:7; Mt. 1:20, 24. In Lk. 2:5, however, TH, BUTE
yuvarikt 2 is a later conflation. On yuw) for “widow” in 3 Bao. 17:9; Lk. 4:26,
cf. BGU, 522, 7 (2nd cent. A.D.): yuw) xHpa Kai aBonOyTOC.

yuvn. RGG?, II, 25 ff, 718 ff.; IV, 616 ff; V, 184 ff, 738 ff; H. Weinel, Né.liche
Theol. (1928), 304f., 490£., Index s.v. “Ehe’; H. Jacoby, Nétliche Ethik (1899), 123 ff.;
230 ff., 348 f£., 369 ff.; E. Grimm, Ethik Jesu? (1917), 207 ff.; A. Juncker, Ethik des Apostels
Pis., II (1919), 167 ff., 181 ££. H. Preisker, Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahr-
hunderten (1927); J. Leipoldt, Jesus und die Frauen (1921); G. Delling, Pls. Stellung zu
Frau u. Cf.
is listed. Ehe (1931).
also In these
F. Litbker, books
Reallexikon d. a good
klass. deal of(1914),
Altertums older theological andVhistorical ma
318 ff; Pauly-W.,
(1905), 2011 ff., 481; 1241 ff.; XIV (1930), 2259 ff.; H. Bliimner, Die rdmischen Privat-
altertiimer (1911), 341 ff; L. Friedlander, Darstellungen aus der Sittengesch. Roms’, I
(1922), 267 ff.; K. Hermann-H. Bliimner, Griech. Privatsaltertiimer® (1882), 64 f£.; T. Birt.
Frauen der Antike (1932); L, Radermacher, “Die Stellung der Frau innerhalb der griech.
Kultur, Mittlgen. d. Freunde d. humanist. Gymnas. Wien, 27 (1929), 6 ff.; E. Hruza, Bei-
trage z. Gesch. des griech. Familienrechts, I (1892); S.G. Huwardas, Beitrage z. griech. u.
grakoagypt. Eherecht der Ptolemaer- und friihen Kaiserzeit (1931). H.Holzinger, “Frau
und Ehe im vordeuteronomischen Israel,” in Wellhausen-Festschrift (1914), 227 f£.; A. Ber-
tholet, Kulturgesch. Israels (1 1920); I, Benzinger, Hebr. Archaologie?, (1927), 112 ff; G.
Beer, Die Soziale und relig. Stellung der Frau im israel. Altertum (1919); U. 'Tirck, “Die
Stellung der Frau in Elephantine;” ZAW, 41 (1928), 166 ff; S. Krauss, Talmud. Archao-
logie, II (1911), 1 ff; H. Norden, Die eheliche Ethik der Juden z. Zt. Jesu (1911); R.H.
Charles, The Teaching of the NT on Divorce (1921); A. Ott, “Die Auslegung der nt.lichen
Texte tiber die Ehescheidung,’ NtJiche Abhdigen, II (1911). L. Zscharnack, Der Dienst
der Frau in den ersten Jdten. d. christ. Kirche (1902); E. Goltz, Der Dienst der Frau in der
christl. Kirche? (1914); A.Kalsbach, Die altkirchl. Einrichtung der Diakonissen bis zu
threm Erléschen (1926), with full bibl.
1 Roman Catholic exegesis usually interprets &SeAOHV yuvaika in terms of the very
different &vdpec &SeAool of Ac. 15:7 as a single concept denoting either mafrona serviens
(Jer, Aug., A. Maier [1857], ad loc.) or spiritual marriage for the support of womens
work (Cl. Al. Strom., III, 6; Vulg.). F.Gutjahr (1907), ad loc. tries to combine the two.
The real meaning seems obvious enough. Cf. Sickb. K., ad loc., also A. Bisping (1855),
ad loc., though cf. K. Pieper, Paulus (1926), 137.
2 AAO min lat as against yuvatKkl @UTOU it sys, éuvmotevuévyn att & BDLW min
Tat.
yovn

The address (@) ybvau in Mt. 15:28; Lk. 13:12; 22:57; Jn. 2:4; 4:21 (8:10 vl.);
19:26; 20:13, 15; 1 C. 7:16 is in no way disrespectful or derogatory. When Jesus
addresses His mother in this way in Jn. (2:4; 19:26), however, it excludes the
filial relationship.
Cf. Eur. Med., 290; Menand. Fr., 363, 1 (CAF, III, 105); Dio C. LI, 12,5 (Octavian
to Cleopatra); Jdt. 11:1; Jos. Ant., 1,252: Abraham's servant to Rebekah’s mother : Hom.
Od., 7,347: yyuvy with Derekh Erec, 6: a beggar to the wife of Hillel,
©
A. Woman in the Contemporary NT World.
Characteristic of the traditional position and estimation of woman is a saying
current in different forms among the Persians, Greeks and Jews in which man
gives thanks that he is not an unbeliever or uncivilised, that he is not a woman
and that he is not a slave. 4 The Greek versions are in the field of anecdotes. The
proverb is undoubtedly of oriental origin. Correctly to understand it, we must
take into account the low level of woman in the oriental world. The general rule
in this matter is that the further west we go the greater is the freedom of woman.
In detail, however, there are the widest possible variations.
1. The Greek World and Hellenism.
Athenian woman is of inferior status. She is guarded by dogs in a separate chamber
(Aristoph. Thes., 414 ff.; 790 ff.). With some exceptions, Attic tragedy treats her as an
inferior being. yuvatEt Kdopov fy ovyt) mépet (Soph. Ai., 293). SoKouc Ey@ yuvarkodc
Eig 5609 yecoow (Soph. Fr., 742). Comedy, which draws its spectators mostly from
men, is frequently insulting and spiteful. Woman is fickle (od mé&vu | ef@O’ &ANBEC
Ev AE€yEtv yuvn, Menand. Fr., 746 [CAF, ITI, 210]), contentious (Fr., 754, ibid.,
p. 212), nature's greatest misfit (TOAA@V yfv Kal Kkat& OdAattav Onpiov |
OvT@V EoTtL Bnpiov yuvy [Fr. 488, ibid., p. 141]; Smov yuvaikéc eon,
mMmavt Exel KaKK [Fr. 804, ibid., p.220]), with no claim to culture. To instruct a woman
is simply to increase the poison of a dangerous serpent (Fr., 702, ibid., p.201). Only
the hetaera is cultivated. A house in which woman has the final say will inevitably
perish (Fr., 484, ibid., p. 140). Aristophanes satirises a communistic regime of women in
Ecclesiazusai. This presupposes that there were women who could assert themselves. But
this was unusual. The normal fate of woman was to be despised and oppressed, espe-
cially if she did not enjoy male protection (cf. P. Flor., 58, 14 [3rd cent. A.D.|: [kata-
mpovolivtéc you Oc yuvaikocg co[O]e[vo]ic). The principle of the comedy of
Poseidipp : utov TOEMEL TAC KAV TEVNG TIS @V TUYYH & ExtiOynot, Kav
# mAovotoc (CAF, III, 338), was followed even at the beginning of the present era
(P. Oxy., IV, 744, 9 £.). Women occupied a position of more freedom and influence in
the Doric world. We are given a vivid impression of the proud and heroic nature of the
women of Sparta in Plutarch’s collection Lacaenarum Apophthegmata (II, 240c ff.).

In spite of all this, the Greek ideal of woman is a lofty one. Greek poetry offers
a wealth of impressive and imperishable types of womanhood both in the physical

8 J. Wackernagel, Uber einige antike Anredeformen (1912), 25 £.; Str.-B., If, 401; Schl.
Mt., 491; Schl. J., 67.
4 Among the Rabb. it is traced back to R.Jehuda b. Elaj (c. 150 A.D.) T. Ber., 7, 18:
jBer., 13b, 57 ff.; bMen.,43b; among the Gks. to Thales, Socrates, Plato (Diog.L., I, 33-
Lact. Inst., 19, 17; cf. Plut. Mar.,46 (I, 433a)). D. Kaufmann, MGWJ, 37 (1893), 14 f§ J,
is still found in the modern Jewish prayer-book (ed. E.Cohn), with the consoling addit;
for women: “Praised be Thou, Eternal One, Lord of the world, who hast made meac~ 4.
cording to Thy will.
 yovn

and the spiritual sense: Niobe, Helena, Nausicaa, Penelope, Andromache, Anti-
gone, Cassandra, Clytaemestra, Iphigenia etc., and not forgetting the careful
Eurycleia. There are nobler strains even in the mocker Menander: tapteiov
&pethc got Hf odppav you} (Fr., 1109 [CAF, III, 269]). Plato in the Republic
makes the demand, revolutionary in the Attic world though common in the Doric,
that there should be an equality of women, even in respect of exercise in arms.
In fact the capable woman, especially in Hellenistic Asia Minor but also in Greece,
could occupy a surprisingly independent and influential role even in public life. §
Plutarch wrote: Stt kal yuvaika maidEevutéov (Stob. Ecl., II, 520, 10 ff; IV,
89, 9 ff.). His work consolatio ad uxorem is a notable testimony to his own close
personal relationship to his wife Timoxena.
Marriage is the rule except in so far as freer forms of sexual intercourse replace
it. A vivid light is thrown on the various relationships by the speech of Ps.-
Demosth. against Neaira (59, 122): ““We have harlots for our pleasure, concubines
(marAAakac) for daily physical use, wives to bring up legitimate children and to
be faithful stewards in household matters.”” In Homeric days there was concubinage
with slaves, or with prisoners of war who were sometimes of royal blood, but this
was no longer a recognised practice in the classical period. There are cases of
bigamy to a late period, though very rarely among citizens.® No legal restrictions
existed. In practice, however, Greek marriage was strictly monogamous in the
later period. A man might freely resort to a harlot, but if he married her he must
leave his first wife. To the Greeks, Egyptian concubinage was very lax. In Graeco-
Egyptian marriage contracts we often find clauses like the following: uh é&éota
Se yovaika GAAnV Em OBpet Anuntplac yndé tEKvo-
EE GAANS yYUVALKOS. ‘
According to the pap. the mutual relations of married couples were often
affectionate, especially in middle class circles. Thus the wife of an officer who
for reasons of service is left alone at nights assures him that she has no more
pleasure in food or drink. ® In such letters there is often evidence of gentle manners.
The more blatant, however, are the many bitter complaints. Divorces were not
uncommon. They occurred by common consent, or by. the unilateral action of the
husband or the wife (&noAeinew tov &vdpa) after the sending of
an official notice, or by simple declaration before a judge, or even through third
parties. There were looser forms of marriage, e.g., synchoresis and homology in
Egypt, or the y&uoc &ypaoc which appeared under Roman influence and which
was a marriage with no official status yet not always without a written contract.
Full marriage was often the goal. How far these looser forms contributed to the
incidence of divorce is hard to say. The need to divide possessions was always a
restraining factor. The oepvi forfeited at divorce was a kind of conventional
punishment. °
In Sparta childlessness was a ground for divorce (or for taking a second wife, H
V, 39 £.), though it is not clear whether the cowardice of the husband might also J+
considered such, as among the Parthians (Jos. Ant., 18, 360 f.).

5 Cf. the material in Delling, op. cié., 8 ff.

6 Dionysius the Elder married two wives on the same day (Diod.S., ATV, 44). Hruza,
op. cit., II, 31. On polygamy, loc. cif.; on concubinage, p. 93.
7 P, Eleph., 20, No. 1, 7 ff.
8 P Giess., 1,19 (early in the 2nd cent. A.D.).
® Huwardas, op. cit., 47 f. It is almost a tragi-comedy when in the dissolution of the
gamos agraphos the wife receives a few earrings and a little money.
 Repeated divorce might lead to a form of polygamy. Though there is satirical
exaggeration, there are also grains of truth in the picture of Menander Fr., 547/8
(CAF, III, 166), that eleven and even twelve wives were not uncommon and those
who had only had four or five were regarded as kataotpoo?) yijc, unmarried and
deserving of pity. The epithet udvavipoc, often found on the gravestones of faith-
ful wives, is generally designed as a protest against this looser practice, and ob-
viously so when the widower makes the inscription. We should not assume any
opposition to second marriage when the first was broken by death. ?° In such a
case to remain unmarried was regarded as the sign of special continence and some-
times even had cultic significance, as in the cult of Ge in Aegira: yuw) 5€ F
cel tiv tepwovovnv AauBavouom GyLOTEVEL WEV TO ATO TOUTOL, OU UNV OUdE
TK TPOTEPA Eota ff Evdc Ec TEtpav (Paus., VII, 25, 13),
though it may be that the opposition is here to remarriage after divorce. 14 That
there is no counterpart in the case of the male is characteristic of the prevailing
double standard of morality.
There were always varying estimates of marriage. Stobaeus collected a number of
statements under the double heading: 6tt k&AAtotov 6 yc&uos and: Stt obK &yaBov
TO yauetv (Ecl., IV, 494, 2 and IV, 513, 2). It is cynicism rather than asceticism which
informs the suspicion of marriage in Menand. Fr., 650 (CAF, IJI, 191): mEevéuEevoc
BovAetar Crv Woewe, | ETEPHV AUTOG anEXECBW yauou. The older
Stoicism displays a high sense of the value of marriage. Antipater of Tarsus (d. 151/150
B.C., Fr. in v. Arnim, IIT, 254 ff.) describes it as KpGotc, the full union of man and
woman. Already in Epictetus, however, it is regarded as better not to marry, at least
for the Cynic in his exercise of supervision over all men (Diss., III, 22,77). Neo-
Platonism adopted a fully ascetic view. The marriage of Porphyry with the sickly
widow Marcella was completely non-sexual. Even in early Greek thinking a certain
antithesis was found between sexual intercourse and cultic approach to the godhead.
Continence was demanded of the Eleusinian hierophants before and during the fasts, and
of some other priests more generally. The growing influence of the Mysteries strength-
ened this tendency. In a simultaneous protest against widespread excesses both in and
outside marriage, the ideal of absolute continence spread in wide circles.?% Spiritual
marriage was adopted in paganism even earlier than in Christianity. 4° In face of the
older eroticists, Heliodorus of Emesa (3rd cent. A.D.) gives evidence of the changed
view in his Ethiopian romance when he concludes the work with a marriage of the
lovers from which all sexual elements are strictly excluded.
2. Rome.
Among the Romans, as among primitive peasant peoples, the position of the
housewife was relatively high. The husband had only a mild superiority (manus)
which constantly diminished. Corporal chastisement was sometimes recommended
but rarely practised. In comedy the wife, too, could sometimes box the ears. The

10 The only instance is in J.B.Frey, “La signification des termes MONANAPO2 et

univira,’ Recherches de Science Religieuse, 20 (1931), 48 ff.
11 Cf on this pt. and on what follows E. Fehrle, “Die kultische Keuschheit im Altertum,”
RVV, 6 (1910).
12 For further details on the religious and philosophical basis of the movement of sexual
abstinence and on its effects, cf. Preisker, op. cif., 32 ff., 45 ff.; Delling, op. cit., 19 £, 26,
72 and 90.
13 R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzahlungen (1906), 146 ff., Historia monacho-
rum (1916), 55; A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung* (1924), I, 232 ff. (where a re-
ference to Galens testimony concerning the continence of Christians, preserved by the
Arabs, finely illustrates the parallelism of views).
 yuvr)

respectful domina was used even by the husband. In the conduct of the household
the matrona had equality. There was no special chamber for women. They could
move about freely (Corn. Nep. Vit. prooem., 6 f.). Even among the Roman Stoics
there were exertions on behalf of equal education. Both male and female horses
and hounds were trained for racing and the chase. Why, then, should not daughters
be educated as well as sons (Mus. Ruf. in Stob. Ecl., II, 235, 24 ff.)? Juvenal can
already satirise the bluestocking (Sat., 6, 434 ff.), as also Martial, II, 90,9: sit non
doctissima coniux! (cf. XI, 19).
Roman history is rich in noble women as well as reprobate. Cornelia, the mother
of the Gracchi, and Livia, the wife of Augustus, are good examples. Prop. cele-
brated another Cornelia in the “queen” of his elegies (IV, 11). In the Roman
Stoic Musonius, a contemporary of Paul, the antique estimation of woman and
marriage reaches its climax. All sexual intercourse either outside or prior to
marriage is frowned upon. In marriage the physical union is for the purpose of
producing good citizens. It is to be sustained, however, by the spiritual communion
of the partners, who are fully equal. **
Roman marriage had always been monogamous. This did not exclude inter-
course with slaves or harlots. In. general this was not regarded as reprehensible. *®
But Roman law could admit only one mater familias. A characteristic of the legal
development is its progressive softening.
In the older period manus marriage was contracted either without form and by usus,
or by ceremonial purchase (coémpftio), or by a religious ceremony of confarreatio. This
meant that the wife joined the family circle of her husband. Increasingly, however, this
was replaced by marriage without manus contracted sometimes by muftuus consensus
without any preceding betrothal, festivities, or written agreement. In such cases the wife
remained in the household of her father and did not become mater familias but uxor. In
addition, there were looser forms such as the concubinage which was practised in the
army and which Christianity refused to countenance, or the .contubernium which was
not accepted as marriage, i.e., the more lasting union between slaves, often at the wish
of their master. These could be concluded and dissolved quite freely. Divorce was also
possible in other cases by mutual repudiation. In the imperial period marriage by con-
farreatio, which had previously been indissoluble, became dissoluble by diffarreafio.
The only exception was the marriage of the flamen dialis. Grounds of divorce were the
rise of the husband to a higher social class, childlessness, the use of false keys, poisoning
of the children, or si quid perverse taetreque factum est a muliere, often merely the
desire for another marriage.

In the increase of divorces we have an expression of the moral corruption of

the later period. The moralists strove against them, but in vain. Wives counted
the years by their husbands rather than by the consuls (Sen. Ben., III, 16, 2 and 3).
Eight marriages could be contracted in the course of five autumns (Juv. Sat., 6,
229 £.). Ovid speaks cynically of his three wives (Trist., IV, 10, 69 f£.). In contrast
to this degeneracy burial inscriptions sing the praises of the univira. 1® Character-
istically, there is nothing corresponding in the case of the husband. Prop. (IV, II,
91£.) regards it as the ideal for. the widower not to remarry, but is not so sure
of its feasibility.

14 For further details, cf. Delling, op. cit., 24 f.

15 Liv, XXXIX,9,5f. calls Hispala a scortum nobile and intercourse with her minime
adulescentis aut rei aut famae damnosa.
16 Bliimner, Privataltertimer, 350 and 364; Frey, op. cit.
yuvn

3. Woman in the OT.

In spite of certain rather doubtful relics of matriarchate, woman was legally
more a chattel than a person in Israel. In marriage she passed from the dominion of
her father to that of the husband to whom he gave her in marriage (15S. 18:17,
19, 27 etc.). In the process such matters as the dowry played a part. If her husband
died or she was put away, she came under the protection of her grown-up son
or of her own family. Levirate marriage could be rejected by the man concerned,
but not by the woman (Dt. 25:5 ff.). Rest was made a duty for all on the Sabbath,
but not for the woman (Ex. 20:8 ff.; Dt.5:12 ff; though she did in fact rest,
2 K. 4:22 £.). In every respect the husband was her lord (Gn. 3:16). He determined
her portion at the sacrificial meal (1S. 1:5). Fidelity was demanded of her alone,
though the husband had to avoid adultery. Betrothal was equivalent to marriage
(Nu. 5:11 ££; Ex. 22:15 Dt. 22:23 ££; Gn. 38:15 f£.). Polygamy was a heavy
burden on the wife. Above all, if she did not enjoy the blessing of children and
especially sons, she occupied an -unenviable position in relation to more fortunate
wives or concubines. She was particularly lucky if she did not forfeit the affection
of her husband in consequence (15S. 1:5 ff£.; Gn. 16:4 f£.).
There were, however, more favourable aspects. Wives and girls could appear
publicly in everyday life, at festivals and on sacral occasions (Gn. 24:13 ff£.; Ex.
2:16; Dt. 12:12; Ju. 21:21; 25.6). Where there were no sons, the daughters had
rights of inheritance (Nu. 27:8). In these and even in other cases (Nu. 36:6) the
inclination and will of the girl could also be consulted in marriage (Gn. 24:39, 58).
The woman had almost incalculable influence, especially when she had sons and
when she could act adroitly. Figures like Sarah, Rebekah, Michal, Abigail and
especially the evil Jezebel, offer convincing proof. Indeed, a woman like Deborah
can even attain to an extraordinary position in public life. The basic biblical
tradition, which emphasises the secondary position of woman by creation and
her greater susceptibility to temptation (Gn. 2:22; 3:6 ff.), also shows a fine and
profound appreciation of her position as the helpmeet of man, of her divine like-
ness even if only by derivation, and of the close relationship of the one man and
the one woman.

Woman in Judaism.
Judaism, however, involves more reaction than progress. Woman is openly
despised. ‘“‘Happy is he whose children are males, and woe to him whose children
are females’ (bQid, 82b). The honourable title of ‘daughter of Abraham” is rare
in Rabbinic literature as compared with the corresponding “son of Abraham. **
Women are greedy, inquisitive, lazy, vain (Gn.r.,45 on 16:5) and frivolous
(bShab., 33b). “Ten gab of empty-headedness have come upon the world, nine
having been received by women and one by the rest of the world” (bQid., 49b).
“Many women, much witchcraft” (Hillel, c. 20 B.C., 2,7). The custom of women
preceding corpses in many places finds aetiological explanation in their assumed
responsibility for death (Slav. En. 30:17; Vit. Ad., 1,3 etc.; jSanh., 20b, 44).™
Conversation should not be held with a woman (cf. Jn. 4:9,27), even though she
be one’s own (bErub.,53b; Ab., 1,5). “May the words of the Torah be burned,
they should not be handed over to women” (jSota, 10a, 8). “The man who teaches

17 Setr.-B., IT, 200.

18 Jbid., IV, 581.
 yovn

his daughter the Torah teaches her extravagance’”’ (Sota, 3, 4; cf. bSota, 21b). The
wife should neither bear witness, instruct children, nor pray at table; she is not
even bound to keep the whole Torah. In the synagogues women are assigned
special places behind a screen. Special chambers are provided for them not only
in Palestine but even in Alexandria (Philo Flacc., 89). Hellenistic Judaism generally
shows little enlightenment on this question. Philo says (Op. Mund., 165): “In us
the attitude of man is informed by reason (vovc), of woman by sensuality (ato6n-
o.c).”” And Josephus, if the passage be genuine, says quite succinctly : yow) yelpav
&vipdc eic &ravta (Ap., 2, 201).
Nevertheless, other notes are also sounded in Judaism. Thus the Wisdom
literature, while it speaks bluntly of the malign influence of ambitious, talkative
and undisciplined wives (Prv. 6:24; 7:5; 9:13; 11:22; 19:13; 21:9; 25:24; 27:15;
Sir. 25:16 f£.; 19:2; 9:3 f£.), can also sing enthusiastically the praises of a virtuous
woman (Prv. 12:4; 18:22; 19:14; 31:10-31; Sir. 36:27 f£.; 26:13 ££: “As the sun
rises on the heavenly hill of the Lord, so does the beauty of a righteous woman
in the well-ordered household of her husband”). Even in Rabbinic writings we
occasionally hear similar notes. ‘‘Her husband is adorned by her, but she is not
adorned by her husband” (Gn.r.,47 on 17:15).2° Before God wives have equal
if not greater promise than their husbands (Ex.r., 21 on 14:15; Tanna debe Eliahu
Rabba, 9; Rab. gest., 247 A.D.; bBer., 17a). Particular mention may be made of
Beruria (Veluria? Valeria?), the daughter of R. Chanina ben Teradion, and wife
of R. Meir (c. 150 A.D.) as an outstanding and quick-witted woman, or of Rahel,
the wife of Akiba (— 649), as an example of one who manifested an extra-
ordinary piety and readiness for sacrifice in the Jewish sense.

Marriage was a duty for loyal Jews and therefore a presupposition of ordination as
rabbi. 24 Not to further propagation of the species was tantamount to shedding blood or
despising the image of God. 2” If there were no children after ten years, another marriage
had to be contracted, and the husband had liberty whether or not to divorce the first
wife, 23
Polygamy remains legitimate. In relation to the practice of Herod, Joseph. explains
that it is a patriarchal custom in an attempt to neutralise the alienation of Greek and
Roman readers (Ant., 17, 14). Of two high-priestly families in Jerusalem it was known
that they descended from double marriages (bJeb.,15b). In a famine (according to
T. Ket., 5,1) a prominent rabbi, R. Tarfon, married 300 wives in order to care for them
(as a wealthy priest), though the marriages were only temporary and formal. The
question of the treatment of the children of rival wives formed a subject of dispute
between the schools of Shammai and Hillel. The community of the new covenant at
Damascus (1st cent. B.C.?) attacked polygamy on the basis of Gn. 1:27.24 R. Ami
also championed monogamy in. principle. But the first formal prohibition of polygamy
was issued only by R. Gershom ben Jehuda in Mainz c. 1000 A.D., and it applied only
to the West. In practice, of course, the expense and the problems entailed constituted
a strong barrier, especially in the lower middle classes.*° The NT thus seems to assume

19 Jbid., 1226, Index.

20 Ibid., III, 610 £.
21 For material, cf. ZNW, 25 (1926), 310 ff; 28 (1929), 321 ff.
22 bJeb., 63b.
23 Jeb., 6, 6. Divorce seems to have been the rule (bjeb., 64a; T. Jeb., 8, 4 249; cf. Str.-B..
I, 317).
ee Schechter, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, 1 (1910), IV, 21.
25 Cf S. Krauss, Talmudische Archaologie, II (1911), 26 ff.; RGG?, III, 481.
yovn

that monogamy is the general rule. The real evil in the Jewish and the Hellenistic world,
together with divorce and prostitution, was successive polygamy (— 779; 780; 783).
Marital intercourse was demanded by the Rabbis, though not to excess.7° It was
emphasised that it should not be for reasons of carnal desire, especially where there
was Hellenistic influence (Tob. 8:7; Philo Spec. Leg., I, 112; Virt.,207 etc.; Jos. Ap., 2,
199). The smaller married sect of Essenes refrained from intercourse during pregnancy
(Jos. Bell., 2, 161). Strict Judaism opposed not only adultery and-unnatural licence, but
also extramarital intercourse, with an energy inexplicable to paganism, though these
evils were never completely overcome. In relation to them, the main odium fell on the
woman (Mt. 21:31 £; Lk. 7:39). Ascetic ideas were for the most part alien to Judaism, **
though they made occasional inroads under Hellenistic influence. The didactic poem of
Ps.-Phokylides combines insistence on the duty of marriage with a certain restraint in
the sense of popular Hellenistic philosophy (175 £.; 193 f.). There are also ascetic trends
in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Test. R. 6; Iss. 2; Jos.9 £.). Philo obviously
sympathises with the asceticism of the Therapeutae, 2° but he himself was married and
had many things to say in praise of marriage.

Though the main emphasis in Judaism is on the physical side of marriage, there
is not lacking a more spiritual and personal relationship between the partners and
an appreciation of this factor. Even after ten years of childlessness Philo cannot
conceive of the unconditional dissolution of a marriage because the bond of love
is too strong (Spec. Leg,., III, 35). He depicts a restrained courtship under the
impulse of affection in terms which are almost modern (Spec. Legq,., III, 67). Even
the Talmud claims in relation to the betrothal of children that a grown-up daughter
alone can say that ‘‘she will have the one proposed.” ?®
The Jews staunchly maintained their singular law of divorce. At bottom, this gave
the initiative only to the husband. [he distinctive feature was that he could give a bill
of divorcement conferring freedom .to marry again. *° Apart from childlessness, the main
ground was “something scandalous (na nny, Dt. 24:1). The school of Shammai took
this to mean only licentiousness, but the school of Hillel included a variety of lesser
matters from salting food to the mere finding of someone else more beautiful. 4 The
fact that Salome herself dissolved her marriage according to Gk. custom is described as
repugnant to Jewish law in Jos. Ant., 15,259. To be sure, there were times when the
Jewish wife could and should ask for divorce, e.g., when her husband forced her into
a morally doubtful vow. 3% But this, too, could be made into a stratagem by men seeking
divorce. Hence even divorces on trivial grounds were hardly less common among the
Jews than among pagans. Joseph. speaks quite dispassionately and complacently of his
many marriages in Vit., 414 f£.; 426 f.

26 Cf. the material in Str.-B., III, 371.

27 In bjJeb., 64ab sexlessness is claimed for Abraham and Sarah. If this is supposed to
illustrate the power of God and the effectiveness of prayer, then it may be that there are
underlying ascetic tendencies (of Hellenistic origin ?).
28 The work De vita contemplativa is now acepted as authentic in spite of Schiirer, ITI,
687 ff. Cf. H. Leisegang, RGG*, IV, 1197,
289 bOid, 41a; Str.-B., I, 381.
$0 Dd, Gk. c&mootco.ov. The word first takes on this special significance in
Jewish Gk. In the pap. the phrase &nootaotou ouyypaor means a document of renunciation
in financial matters. For the form of a Jewish bill of divorcement, cf. Str.-B., I, 311 £. The
best material on divorce is to be found in the tractate Gittin.
81 For examples, cf. Str.-B., I, 312 ff.; also Schiirer, II, 494.
32 Ser.-B., I, 318 f.
 yuvy

In Judaism, too, the real evil was successive polygamy. What was originally
designed to protect the wife and to prevent cruelty became an aid to injustice and
oppression. Individual rabbis protested against divorce, but the evil was not tackled
at the root.
Commenting on Mal. 2:13 £. R. Eleazar said: “If a man divorces his first wife, even
the altar sheds tears over him.” It is expressly stated, however, that this applies only
to the first wife. °°

B. Woman in Christianity.
The foundations of the Christian view are to be found in the two factors,
1. that it is an order of creation that man and woman should become one in in-
violable monogamous marriage, and 2. that the lordship of God radically removes
all the differences which separate them. On the other hand, primitive Christianity
did not deduce from these two factors an absolutely new and predominantly
spiritual ideal of woman and marriage, nor did it champion any such view with
revolutionary vigour. In practice it showed itself to be conservative and even
perhaps reactionary from the standpoint of Hellenistic culture. To this degree,
it offered a corrective to the desire of antiquity for complete emancipation. On
the other hand, for all its reserve Christianity showed itself to be most adaptable
and capable of transforming inwardly both the old which it had inherited and the
new which it added to it.

1. jesus. *
At this point, too, Jesus is not the radical reformer who proclaims laws and
seeks to enforce a transformation of relationships. He is the Saviour who gives
Himself especially to the lowly and oppressed and calls all without distinction to
the freedom of the kingdom of God. Characteristic is the small trait that in His
parables Jesus turns frequently and with such tenderness to the everyday life of
the woman with its anxieties and joys (Mt. 13:33; 25:1 ff.; Lk. 15:8 ££.; 18:1 ££.).
The Rabbinic parables are much poorer in such references. Where necessary,
Jesus seems to observe the Jewish proprieties. Thus he does not approach the bed
of Jairus’ daughter without witnesses (Mk. 5:40). On the other hand, to fulfil His
calling in relation to women He can break rigid Jewish custom with matter-of-fact
boldness. Thus He does not hesitate to speak with a woman (Jn. 4:27 etc.), to
teach a woman (Lk. 10:39) or to call a woman the daughter of Abraham (LK.
13:16). He speaks on behalf of women (Mk. 12:40 and par., 41 ff. and par.; 14:6
and par.) and helps the needy among them more than any Rabbinic thaumaturge
had ever done (Mk. 1:29 ff. and par.; 5:21-43 and par.; 7:24-30 and par.; Lk. 13:10-
17; 8:2; 7:11-17; Jn. 11:1-44). On behalf of a sick woman, He breaks the Sabbath
(Lk. 13:10 ff.) and He does not shun contact with unclean women (Mk. 1:31 and
par.; 5:27 ff. and par., 41 and par.; Lk. 7:38 ff.). Whatever our view of the
historical details, John paints a similar picture when he shows Jesus wrestling for
the soul of the Samaritan woman (Jn. 4:7 f£f.). Jesus is surrounded by a band of
women (Lk. 8:2£.) who are with Him in His suffering (Mk. 15:40 and par.,
47 and par.) and glorification (Mk. 16:1 ff. and par.; Jn. 20:1, 11 £f£.). Even on

3,
3 Duit. 90b; Str.-B., I, 320, where other examples are given.
On the attitude of Jesus to marriage, monogamy and divorce, — 648 ff.
yovn

women who stand at a greater distance He exercises an extraordinary influence

which He can also deepen (Lk. 11:27 £.; 23:27 ££.; cf. Mt. 27:19). We never hear
from the lips of Jesus a derogatory word concerning woman as such. In holding
out the prospect of sexless being like that of the angels in the consummated king-
dom of God (Mk. 12:25 and par.; on the very different Jewish views — éyelpo),
He indirectly lifts from woman the curse of her sex and sets her at the side of
man as equally a child of God.
2. The Community.
In the early community there was no doubt as to the full membership of women
(Ac. 1:14; 12:12). After the Jewish pattern, but without succumbing to the feminism
of Jewish and Gnostic propaganda (Ac. 13:50; 17:4,12; 2Tm.3:6; Act. Pl. et
Thecl., 41), the Christian mission wins women from the very outset (Ac. 16:13 £.;
17:4, 12, 34; 18:18). As men are called brothers, so women are called sisters
(R. 16:1; 1C.9:5 etc. > &dEAGN).
a. In Paul there is perhaps a stronger tension than one might have expected
between a progressive and a Jewish reactionary tendency. The same Paul who can
write Gl. 3:28 can also emphasise that it was Eve who was seduced (2C. 11:3)
and that by creation woman was a stage further removed from God than man
(1C. 11:3, 7). The tension is not to be resolved by referring some statements to
woman as a sexual being by nature and others to woman as sexually neutralised
in Christ.*° It is removed by understanding and therefore transcending the dit-
ferences in the light of God and the new aeon. Although this is of immediate and
radical significance, however, it does not lead to practical consequences of a
revolutionary kind. Thus woman is still subject to man in spite of her equality in
divine sonship (1 Cor, 11:10 — @&ovoia; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21 £.). It is the duty of
man, however, to exercise his leadership, not selfishly, but with love and con-
sideration. The full removal of sexual distinction must await the coming aeon
(1 C. 6:13). °°
b. The later apostolic and post-apostolic periods manifest the same tendency
as is seen in Paul. The fall of Eve is emphasised in almost Jewish fashion in
1 I'm. 2:13 £. On the other hand, 1 Pt. 3:7 demands full recognition of woman as a
joint heir of life. The ideal of woman, however, differs in practice from the thought
of emancipation and remains conservative. This does not exclude Hellenistic in-
fluences in the house-tables, as already in Paul.** The positive tendency emerges
especially in the Pastorals (= 652; 1 Tm. 2:15). By contrast, the apocryphal Acts,
which essentially follow the traditions of later Hellenistic Rome,** extol the
ascetic ideal and especially that of spiritual marriage (Act. Ptr., 33 £.; Act. Jn., 63;
Act. Pl. et Thecl., 9 f£., Act. And., 4 ff; Act. Thom., 12 ff.; 88 ff.; 117 etc.). There
is evidence of non-sexual co-habitation in Hermas (s., 9,11) and perhaps in the
Didache (11,11), and later this became increasingly common until the synods
began to take action against it. - mtapOévoc, also 652.

35 Delling, op. cit.. 120 on Gl. 3:28: “In the community of Christ, sexual differences
cease only when men themselves no _ longer exercise them, when woman no longer tempts
man either directly or indirectly.” Paul, however, warns against ascetic experimentsin} 3
marriage (1C.7:3,5), and he does not forbid Christians to marry (1. 7:28 36, 30).
an e
). The
>
exposition in 1 C. 11:3 ff. is with reference to Christians.
a7 otthese
37 On Virginity, marriage
passages, cI. ane clvorce
eidinger,
o
> ; teln
651,
Die Haustafel (1928),
88 F. Pfister in Hennecke, 163 ff,
 yuvr

C. Sacral and Social Functions of Woman.

1. Non-Christian Antiquity. Throughout antiquity the participation of woman is
customary not merely in the family cultus*? but also in the public cultus*° and the
celebration of the Mysteries. 41 There are some festivals which are only for women, 4?
whether for all, or for the blameless wives of citizens, who are to prepare by a nine day
period of abstinence, e.g., the Thesmophoria, Scirophoria, Brauronia and Adonia 43
in Attica and a seven day festival of Demeter Mysia in Pellene. 44 On the other hand,
women are excluded from some sacred rites, such as that of Aphrodite Acraia on the
Cypriot Olympus. *° In the Dionysus cult women play a very prominent part as
maenads and the thyads. #6 Priestesses are very common both in public cults (— 779, the
Vestals etc.) and in those of the Mysteries (the hierophants in Eleusis, the priestesses
of Isis etc.). Their ministry is not in the least restricted to women.4* Outstanding
ecstatic endowment assures women of prophetic rank as sybils.4% The best known
specific instance is the Pythia in Delphi. #9
2. The OT. In characteristic distinction from pagan antiquity there are no
priestesses of Yahweh in Israel. In the strict sense sacral ministry is reserved for
men. This does not mean the exclusion of women from the religious community
or from the cultus. Women take part in national festivals (25S. 6:19; Dt. 12:12;
cultic naw). They are also active in cultic dancing (Ju. 21:21) and in the sacrificial
meal (18. 1:4f.), especially the passover. Not merely the men, but the whole
community, including women and children and aliens, is brought into covenant
with Yahweh (Dt. 29:10 £.). Women are even admitted to lower offices at the
entrance to the tent of revelation (Ex. 38:8). A religious significance almost
equivalent to that of men is achieved by prophetically gifted women like Miriam,
Huldah and Noadiah.
3. Judaism. Judaism not only conferred no new rights on women but curtailed
the earlier rights. The older piety, orientated to the natural side of life, retreated

39 Cf. the Aesculapius and Hygieia family sacrifices, Paris (Louvre), Photo. Alinari,
22, 767.
40 P, Stengel, Die griechischen Kultusaltertiimer, (1920), 235 £. etc. Women appear, e.g.,
in the Panathenean processions (Eastern Parthenon frieze, Photo. Girandon, 1018).
41 Ror women in the Eleusis Mysteries on the Niinnionpinax, Haas, No. 9/11, Leipoldt
(1926), 6. L. Deubner, Attische Feste (1932),5,1. The Andania inscr. prescribes the dress
for women who are to be or are already consecrated (tepat) (Ditt. Syll.3, 736, 15 ff.).
Mithra excludes women from its mysteries, but in its missionary work associates with
Cybele. On women in the Isis cult, Apul. Met., XI, 9.
42 Stengel, op. cit., 231, 235, 247, 250 f.
43 For pictures of the Adonis rites on vases, cf. Haas, 9/11; Leipoldt, 105 ff.; Deubner,
op. cit., 25.
44 Stengel, 25/7.
45 Strab., XIV, 6, 3.
46 Part. impressive is the depiction in Eur. Ba., 1050 ff. Depictions of maenads are so
common that enumeration is unnecessary. On the other hand, reference may be made to
the Bacchic frieze of the Villa Item at Pompeii, Photo. Anderson, 26 380-26 387, cf. M.
Bieber, Jbch. d. Deutsch. Arch. Inst., 43 [1928], 298 ff.; J. Leipoldt, Dionysos [1931], 28 fE.;
the best coloured reproduction with the text is in A. Maivri, La villa dei Misteri [1931]).
It probably represents the consecration of brides in the Dionysiac mysteries.
47 This was certainly true of the Eleusinian Haloa (L. Deubner, Attische Feste [1932],
63). On the other hand, cf. the Choa festival, at which the sacred marriage of Dionysus
is commonly celebrated with the Basilinna, whom the Archon Basileus must have married
as a virgin (ibid., 100).
48 FE, Rohde, Psyche®-19 (1925), 63 ff.
49 H. Leisegang, Pneuma Hagion (1922), 32 f.
yovn

more and more into the background. The destruction of the temple made it im-
possible to carry out most of the earlier practices, including the passover. The
nomistic piety of the Rabbis was wholly a matter for men.
In Herods temple women were limited to the eastern part of the inner court, the
“court of women’ (Jos. Ap., 2, 104). In the synagogue they sat in special places, often a
gallery, behind screens as mere spectators. They were committed to only partial ob-
servance of the Torah and had no right to study it (— 781 £.). There were exceptions,
like Valeria or the mother of Rabina. ®° Like slaves and children, they did not have to
recite the sch€ma nor carry phylacteries, though they had the obligation of daily prayer,
the mezuza and saying grace (Ber., 3,3). On the other hand, they were not to say grace
publicly. “Cursed is the man whose wife and children say grace for him’ (bBer., 20b).
In principle there seems to have been the possibility of women being summoned to read
the Torah in the synagogue. But custom demanded that they should refuse.°4 We are
reminded of the ministry of women in the Christian church when we read of the niece
of R. Eliezer the elder (c. 90 A.D.) offering to wash the feet of his disciples. 5% The
true practice of charity, however, was in the hands of men. 5%

a. Jesus had women followers who ministered to Him of their substance and
by their labour (Lk. 8:2 £.). No women, however, were admitted to the circle of
the twelve (— 85@dEKa).
b. In the early Christian and Pauline churches women were not merely the
objects (Ac. 6:1; 9:39) but also the subjects of charitable practice (Ac. 9:36 ff.).
Both in Palestine and the Gentile Christian world this practice seems, however,
to have had a voluntary and purely charismatic character. In addition to Lydia
(Ac. 16:15), we may mention the women who are particularly noted in R. 16:6,
12f. for their zeal in the Lord — Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis and the
mother of Rufus. The description of Phebe as the of the church at
Cenchrea indicates the point where the original charisma is becoming an office
(R. 16:1).5* The general usage of the NT (Sickkovoc), however, is a reminder
that, in spite of mpootdtic in v.2, we are not to think exclusively or even pre-
dominantly of works of charity in this connection, but of all kinds of service
rendered to the community. Women like Prisca (Ac. 18:26; R. 16:3; 1C. 16:19),
Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2 £.) give suitable support to Paul in his evangelistic
work. They can even minister to men, e.g., Apollos. In 1C. 11:3 ff. Paul confers
on prophetically gifted women the unfettered right to speak and pray (before
the assembled community ?), so long as they do so in an appropriate manner.
There is a certain tension between this and the famous mulier taceat in ecclesia
(1 C. 14:34 £.). This saying. is not beyond suspicion on textual grounds. On the
other hand, there is no necessary contradiction. The apostle is simply preventing
women from taking the initiative in speaking, but allows exceptions where there
is genuine pneumatic endowment.

60 Leipoldt, op. cif., 13.

5t Str.-B., IIT, 467; IV, 157 f£.
52 Ab. R. Nat., 16 (6a), Str.-B., III, 653.
53 Cf. Der talmudische Traktat Pea tbersefzt ... nebst einer Abhdlg. von Versorgung
der Armen bei den Juden, J.J. Rabe (1781); Str.-B., IV, 536 ff.,. Exc. 22.
54 Esp. if kal (& BC* against D*G it) is genuine.
55 DG 88 it Ambst put v. 34f. after v.40. Perhaps we have here a later ordinance
deriving from 1 Tm, 2:12.
 yovr

c. In the later apostolic and post-apostolic periods the charismatic element

fades increasingly into the background. As regards the work of women, this has
three consequences. In some cases it dies away. In others it takes a heretical form
(Rev. 2:20), so that the sober sense of the Church is against it (1 Tm. 2:11 ff., and
perhaps also 1 Tm. 5:13, — infra). In others again it is integrated into the regulated
life of the community. The loosest form of organisation is the division of the
community into the groups apparently recommended in It. 2:2 ff. In these the
elder women have the duty of exhorting the younger to family life as Christians.
In 1 Tm. 3:11: yuvaikac d@oavtag coeuvac xtA., © there is reference to official
deaconesses with much the same duties as their male counterparts. Their work is
designed to support that of the bishops or presbyters. It is certainly not limited
to charitable endeavour, but consists rather in organisational or even pastoral work
among women. Nothing is said concerning their family relationships. This suggests
that they are single and elderly ladies who devote all their energies to the com-
munity. Their relationship to the widows in 1'Tm.5:3 ff. creates problems. There
can be little doubt that in the first instance the latter receive support (v. 4, 16). It is
generally assumed that in return they rendered charitable and pastoral services,
but this cannot be deduced with certainty from the text. For v. 10 does not speak
of the future tasks of widows put on the roll, but of their worthiness, which is
also determined by the free exercise of mercy. Again, the reference in v. 13 is not
to pastoral visitation but more generally to the wanton and gossipy curiosity and
busybodying of younger widows who desire to remarry and for whose support
the community should no longer accept responsibility. The position of widows on
the list, however, is an honourable one. If they were too old for physical work,
e.g., nursing the sick (v.9), they might well be used for the tasks outlined in
Tt. 2:3 ££. The further development of the institution of widows certainly points
in a semi-clerical direction (— infra; >
Among the requirements for such widows we read in 1 Tm. 5:9: Evdg &vbpoc yuvi.
The usual view is that this is aimed against second marriage after the death of the first
husband 57 but there are several arguments against this. 58 First, there is the meaning of
udvavipoc and univira in common usage (— 779; 780). Again, the right of second
marriage in such a case is taken for granted in the NT. Only rarely do we get hints
that it is better to refrain from it (R.7:3; 1C. 7:39 f., 8f£; cf. Lk. 2:36 £.).59 Again, the
Pastorals favour marriage (— 785), everywhere assuming a married clergy (1 Tm.
3:2,12) and recommending the younger widows to marry again (1 Tm. 5:14). The ob-
jection in v.11 is against subsequent relapse from widowhood. In v.12 the nmp@tm
miotic has nothing to do with fidelity to their first husband but refers to the loyalty
to Christ of a life wholly devoted to Him in widowhood. We may thus conclude that
the phrase Evdc ‘yovn, in addition to excluding common licentiousness, is aimed
specifically against successive polyandry, i.e., against those who are divorced, or even
repeatedly divorced.

56 So also W. Brandt, Dienst u. Dienen im NT (1931),177. The arguments against a

reference to the wives of deacons are convincingly assembled by G. Uhlhorn, Die christliche
Liebestatigkeit, I (1882), 396 £. Dib. Past., ad loc. does not come to any clear decision but
inclines to the rejected view.
57 So finally Preisker, 148; Frey, op. cif.; Delling, 136 ff.
58 Dib. Past., ad loc. and on 3:2 rightly contests the reasons for the other view but hardly
gives sufficient consideration to successive polygamy.
59 The vl. huépac sys’ Ephr. probably derives from latian's Diatessaron.
 yuvyy — Toy kal Mayoy

5 Further Development in the Church.

The work of women teachers is for the most part found only in sectarian
circles, e.g., Thecla, ® or Priscilla, Maximilla and Quintilla among the Montanists,
or women in Gnosticism. ®! In some places the Church took over from the sects the
practice of having women's choirs in divine service, though this was much op-
posed. © More widely developed was the participation of women in works of
charity and in pastoral visitation, especially among women. The younger Pliny
mentions Christian ancillae called ministrae in Ep.,96. In Rome
Grapte, herself a widow, is to exhort widows and orphans with the visions of
Hermas (v. 2,4,3). Very early young unmarried women come to be enrolled on
the official lists (Ign. Smyrn., 13,1: wap8Evouc, tao AEyouEVaG some-
times being under twenty years old. (Tert. Virg. Vel.,9). These “widows are
reckoned among the officers of the community in the West and Egypt, but stand
under the bishops, presbyters and deacons and are not ordained by laying on of
hands. In the East there is fuller development of deaconesses. According to the
Syrian Didascalia (14 and 15) the institution of widows comprises all the widows
of the community above the age of fifty. But these have only modest functions
and are more strictly the poor of the community. Women who bear office are
called deaconesses. It is debatable whether this is only a difference in terminology
or whether a new order had been formed consisting of ascetic virgins. With the
passage of time these women clergy were more and more restricted to activity in
divine service, assistance at the baptism of women, visitation of women, the
bringing of the elements for the Lord’s Supper etc. The true sacral functions
ardently desired by some were not granted to them. ** Even the right of baptising
in emergency cannot be proved in the early Church. ®* Tertullian expressly forbade
it (Bapt.,17). In both East and West the decisions against women exercising
priestly functions became increasingly stricter. The history of the ministry of
women finally ended for the time being in the convent ; the title of deaconess was
borne by the abbess in the early Middle Ages (— Stc&Kovoc, tapBEvoc, xnpa).
Oepke

+ Toy kat Mayoy

In the NT this occurs only at Rev. 20:8-9 as a mythical name for the heathen
host which, after the Messianic period of the millennial reign, will wage final
conflict against the people of God and will be destroyed by God with fire. Both
the name and the whole idea are taken by the divine from the prophecy of Ezekiel

60 The Act. Pl. lie inside the Church, but their anti-Gnostic purpose does not mean that
they are not under Gnostic influence.
61 Ror more details, cf. Zscharnack, op. cit., 156 ff.
62 J, Quasten, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der heidnischen Antike und christlichen
Frithzeit (1930), 114 ff.
63 The Arabic tradition of the canones of the apostles mentions women readers (Quasten,
op. cit., 120).
64 Zscharnack, 93. Appeal to the se-baptism of Thecla allowed by Paul (Act. Pl. et
Thecl., 40 f.) was a weak argument.
ro Kat Mayory. Comm. on Rev. 20:8 £.; also A. Schlatter, Das AT in der joh.
Apk. (1912), 93 ff; Bousset-Gressm., 205 ff.
 Foy cal Mayoy

(Ez. 38-39).1,2 The order especially is taken from Ezekiel. In Ezekiel we have
the Messianic reign in 37, Gog and Magog and their destruction in 38-39, and
the new Jerusalem in 40 ff.; in Rev. the millennial kingdom in 20:4-6, Gog and
Magog in 20:7-10, the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment in 20:11-15,
and the new heaven, the new earth and the new Jerusalem in 21:1 ff.
The same schema, i.e., Gog after the Messianic age, is found elsewhere, e.g., most
of the relevant passages, and all the earliest, in the Rabbinic literature (esp. S. Nu., 76
on 10:9; M. Ex. 16:30* and Pesikt., 181b-182a).© Cf. also Sib., 3,652-701, where,
although the names Gog and Magog do not occur, we have the sequence: Messianic
kingdom, attack of the nations on it, their destruction by God. On the other hand there
could obviously be no place for the Ez. tradition where the Messianic period was re-
garded as the period of the absolute consummation of salvation, as in Test. XII and
Enoch. ® For the same reason it is not found in the Apc. Bar. or 4 Esr., though these
distinguish between the Messianic period and the future world * and thus allow space
for the interposition of the war of Gog and Magog. On the other hand, if the Messianic
period was seen in this light, in spite of the Ez. tradition the Gog and Magog episode
might well be put before the time of the Messiah, as in some Rabbinic writings. ® Cf.
Enoch 56:4-8, where there is reference to an attack of the Parthians and Medes prior
to the Messianic kingdom, though Gog and Magog are not mentioned. ®
It is striking that in the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphical literature, apart from the
fruitless references in Sib., 3, 319 ff. and 3,512 ff., there is no mention whatsoever of
Gog and Magog. 1° Several individual themes are taken from Ezekiel 38 f.22 (as in
Sib., 3, 652 ff. and Enoch 56:4 ff.), but the prophecy of Ezekiel as such, which is so
closely linked with the names of Gog and Magog, is not incorporated into the schema.
On the other hand, among the Rabbis the war of Gog and Magog, on the basis of

1 The destruction by fire is taken from Ez. 38:22; 39:6.

2 Our present concern is simply with the literary dependence of the divine on the pro-
phetic Scripture. Hence we are not pursuing the various questions which arise in relation
to Ez. (the origin of the names, their reference to specific princes or peoples etc.), nor
the later, post-Johannine development of the saga, which displayed a certain independence
of Rev. 20. On the first point, cf. the art. of H. Gunkel in RGG?, II, 1303 and the bibl.
there given ; on the second, cf. the art. of F. Pfister in the Handwért. d. désch. Aberglaubens,
III, 910 ff. with references to liter.; also M. J. de Goeje, De muur van Gog en Magog
(1888); A.R. Anderson, Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the inclosed Nations
(= Monographs of the Medieval Academy of America, XII [1932], with full bibl.); cf.
also E. Littmann in DLZ, 54 (1933), 1276 ff.
3 The introduction of resurrection and judgment at this point comes from another schema
which. the divine has here combined with that of Ez. and which is given in a pure form in
Syr. Bar and 4 Esr.: Messianic kingdom, resurrection, last judgment, new creation.
4 Here we have the correct sequence of the three judgments: woes of the Messianic
period, the day of Gog and Magog, the great day of judgment. In the par. M. Ex. 16:25
the sequence is wrong.
5 Cf. A. Schlatter, Das AT in der Apk., 93 £.; further refs. in Str.-B., ITI, 833 f. under d.
In so-called 3 Enoch, which belongs to the Rabbinic literature, we have in § 45,5 (ed.
Odeberg), the sequence: Messiah ben Josef, Messiah ben David, Gog and Magog (with
the rather inconsistent addition “in the days of the Messiah’), their destruction by God
(not by the Messiah, whose day is already past).
6 Cf. Str.-B., IV, 802 ff.
7 Ibid., 808 ft.
8 Jbid., II, 832 f. under a. and b.
® Cf. Bss. Apk., 440, n. 1.
10 The passages Jub. 7:19; 8:25; 9:8 are not relevant, since they have nothing to do with
Ez. 38 f£.; they are based on Gn. 10:2.
11 These are mostly linked with the very different motif, which derives from other
sources, of the war of the Messiah against the nations and His victory over them.
Tay cai Mayoy — yovia

Fz. 38f., is a constituent part of apocalyptic thinking. 12 In this respect, therefore, the
Johannine Apocalypse, which rests on the prophetic sayings of the OT, stands much
closer to the more scriptural apocalyptic of the Rabbis than to the apocryphal and
pseudepigraphical writings. 1

There is one characteristic difference between Rev. 20:8 £. and Ez. 38 f. For all
the fantastic depiction, Ez. is offering real prophecy. He is referring to future
historical events. In Rev. 20:8 £., however, the whole conception is mythical. Pro-
phecy has become apocalyptic. Thus Ezekiel gives precise names to the princes,
peoples and kingdoms which make this attack on the people of God; he makes a
more or less clear geographical and political identification. Even when he describes
the destruction of the invaders in the land of Israel he mentions the place and gives
a detailed account. In Rev. 20:8 £., however, the armies come from the four corners
of the earth émi t6 Tic yijc (— infra).
Hand in hand with this there is an altered understanding of the names. In
Ezekiel Gog is the prince who leads the invaders and Magog the territorial name.
Elsewhere in the OT Gog is a personal name (1 Ch. 5:4) #4 and Magog that of
the people or of the land in which he dwells (Gn. 10:2; 1 Ch. 1:5). In Rev. 20:8 £.,
however, the two very similar > names are brought together as a mythical double
name for the hostile host, and this name still has a sinister ring for the rece
The divine did not create this form of the name. It was common to the whole of later
Judaism. The Rabbis have it in this form, 16 and cf. also Sib., 3,319 and 3,512. Since
the name in this form reflects the mythicising of the whole conception, the latter, too,
is a feature which the Apocalypse has in common with all later Judaism.
Kuhn

YaOvla, KKPOY@VLALOG,
KEQAATH Yoviac

T
“Corner” (Mt. 6:5; Ac. 26:26), hence of the four corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1;
20:8). The two passages from Rev. throw light on the cosmology of the author. In
oriental and OT cosmology ! the earth? is thought to have four corners. To these

12 Cf also the Rabbinic 3 Enoch (— n,.5).

13 Cf, Schlatter, op. cit. (— n.5).
14 In the textual variants in Nu. 24:7 (LXX, Samarit. etc. 2122 instead of Mas. 2X?
it is hard to say whether Gog is a personal or territorial name. In any case, this _passage
(“the kingdom of the Messiah will be higher than Gog’) is the oldest instance of the in-
corporation of the prophecy of Ez. into the schema of later Jewish eschatology.
15 There are many instances of the formation of like-sounding words of no particular
significance by the addition of the prefix ma-; cf. the “hocus, pocus, malocus” of children.
[I owe this to H. A. Winkler. |
16 Here, however, Gog is more common alone, though as a national rather than a
personal name, cf. Str.-B., III, 832.
yavia. 1 A.Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultuc? (1929), 142 ff.
2 The four ends of the earth: Jer. 49:36 (—= LXX 25:16); P. Lond., 122,8: év tai[c]
5° yaviaic to The four parts of the underworld : Eth. En. 22; spurious Joh. Apc.
25:2: tx tEooapa EPH THS
 yovia — a&kpoy@viatog — KEgaAH yoviac

correspond the four winds (Rev. 7:1),* which are here controlled by four angels
(7:1). From the four corners blow the winds of destruction over the godless world
(7:1). From them come also the anti-Christian nations (Rev. 20:8) to attack the
holy city, which stands on a mountain in the centre of the earth (20:9). *

+ &Kpoya@viatog (— KE~arr yoviac).

The “final stone’ in a building, probably set over the gate. In the NT the
word is found only in 1 Pt. 2:6 (— Is. 28:16) and Eph. 2:20, in both cases with
reference to Christ.
The meaning may be gathered from Test. Sol. 22:7 (McCown, 66*): kai 6 vadc
ouveTAnpovto. Kai Av AlBoc a&Kpoywviaiog Uéyac, Sv EBovAduNV Geivar eic
KEQAANV yoviag THG TOO vaovU TOU BEod (=—= Eic TO TNTEPUyLOV TOO
vaou, 22:8 = eic Thv a&pyhv THe ywviac tavTHC thc OoNG év TH EvTIPETELA TOO
vaov, 23:2); 23:3 (69* f.) Kat &vnAGev eic tov (sic) KAluaKka BaotaCwv tov Aibav
(sic) kai EB8eto axvbtdov eic TV &kpav Tijc Eloddou toO vaov.1 These sentences
depict the conclusion of the building of Solomon’s temple. Confirmation is found in
4 Bao. 25:17, where &kpoyoaviatov is used for (the head of a pillar). Again, the
Pesitta describes the stone of Is. 28:16 as the “head of the wall’’ and Aphrahat (I, 6 f.,
p.17, Parisot) calls it the final stone. The LXX of Is. 28:16: “l600 €éy@ éEuBcAA@
cic tx AlBov ExAEKToOv A&Kpoya@viaiov Evtiov elc Ta
BeuecrAta avtijc identifies akpoya@viatoc with the foundation stone, but this usage is
not found except in LXX Is. 28:16 and quotations from it.

Eph. 2:20, like 1 Pt. 2:1, describes the community as a spiritual temple. The
apostles and prophets are the foundation, and Christ is the corner-stone who binds
the whole building together? and completes it (Eph. 2:20 £.). Underlying the image
is the lofty declaration of Jesus that He is the final stone in the heavenly sanctuary
(> KEegadrr yoviac).

tT KEQAAT yoviac (— &kpoyaviaiosc).

The Hebraism Kegadn yoviac is produced by a literal rendering of (Ps.
118:22). The phrase occurs only in LAX w 117:22: AiBov bv aredoKiuaoav ot oiko-
obtog cic KEmaAnv ywviac, and the derived literature. The
sense of “final stone in the building’ may be most clearly deduced from Test. Sol. 22:7 ff.
(— &Kpoyaviatoc) and Pesitta Ps. 118:22 (“head of the building”).
In the NT yoviac (Mk. 12:10 and par.; Ac. 4:11; 1 Pt. 2:7; all quoting
LXX w117:22) is consistently used of Christ. According to Mk. 12:10 and par.
Jesus described Himself as the stone, rejected by the builders, which has been
chosen by God as the chief corner-stone in the heavenly sanctuary. The saying

8 Jer. 49:36; Ez. 37:9; Zech. 6:5; Da. 7:2; Mk. 13:27 and par.
4 Joach. Jeremias, Golgotha (1926), 43 fh; 51 ff.
&Kpoyaviatosc. Joach. Jeremias, Der Eckstein,’ Angelos, 1 (1925), 65 ff.; Gol-
gotha (1926), 77 ff.: yovlag — akpoyaviaiocg,” ZNW, 29 (1930), 264 FF.
1 Hs. E.7:6 (113*): ele thyv Tp@tnv Kepadralav tod vaod.
2 The term ouvapuodAoyetobat (Eph. 2:21) occurs elsewhere in the NT only at Eph.
4:16, where it is used of Christ as the Head by which the whole body is integrated (cf.
Col. 2:19). Eph. 4:16 confirms the fact that the integration is from above, so that the
&Kpoyaviatoc of 2:20 is to be sought high up in the building.
KEQDAAYH yavias. For bibl. — a&kpoyavictioc.
KEMAAT) YOViac

is one of the lofty declarations of Jesus in which He relates Himself to the

heavenly sanctuary. 1 He is not merely the final stone, i.e., the Consummator, but
also the Builder of the new temple (Mk. 14:58 and par.; cf. Mt. 16:18). Hence He
can say of Himself that He stands above the earthly temple (Mt. 12:6).7 With
this description we are to link very closely the lofty predicates which describe
Jesus as the cosmic rock dispensing the water of life? (— A(Ooc).
The early community found in Ps. 118:22 scriptural evidence for the death and
resurrection of Jesus. The Crucified is the rejected stone which in the resurrection
is made by God the chief corner-stone in the heavenly sanctuary (Ac. 4:11), to
be manifested as such in the parousia.
1 Pt.2:7 interprets Ps. 118:22 in terms of the oxc&viaAov which Jesus is for un-
believers. In other words, the KEegaAr ywviac is not so much the final stone but a
sharp stone at the corner of the building against which men stumble and fall. This
interpretation is suggested by the quotation from Is. 8:14 which immediately follows
(1 Pt. 2:8).

Joachim Jeremias

1 J. Jeremias, Jesus als Weltvollender (1930), 79 ff.

2 It is also significant that Jesus refers Ps. 110 to Himself (Mk. 12:36 and par.), for here
the Lord of David is called a ‘priest after the order of
3 J. Jeremias, Golgotha (1926), 80-85.