G1006 βόσκω (bóskō)

βόσκω; as in Grk. writ. fr. Hom. down, to feed: Mk. y. 14; Lk. xv. 15; ἀρνία, πρόβατα, Jn. xxi. 15, 17, (in a fix. dise. portraying the duty of a Christian teacher to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church); ὁ βόσκων a herdsman: Mt. viii. 33; Lk. viii. 84. In Pass. and Mid. [pres. ptep. βοσκόμενος, οἵ. W. § 38, 2 note] of flocks or herds, to feed, graze: Mt. viii. 30; Mk. v. 11; Lk. viii. 32. (In Sept. for myy)

βόσκω boskō 9x

to feed, pasture, tend while grazing; βόσκομαι, to feed, be feeding, Mt. 8:30, 33; Lk. 8:32, 34

βόσκω,

[in LXX for רעה;]

prop., of a herdsman, to feed: Mt 8:33, Mk 5:14, Lk 8:34 15:15; metaph., of Christian pastoral care, Jo 21:15, 17. Pass., of cattle, to feed, graze: Mt 8:30, Mk 5:11, Lk 8:32.†

SYN.: ποιμαίνειν, to tend, shepherd, a wider term, including oversight as well as feeding (v. Tr., Syn., §xxv).

WHILE βόσκειν and ποιμαίνειν are both often employed in a figurative and spiritual sense in the O. T. (1 Chron. xi. 2; Ezek. xxxiv. 3; Ps. lxxvii. 72; Jer. xxiii. 2), and ποιμαίνειν in the New; the only occasions in the latter, on which βόσκειν is so used, are John xxi. 15, 17. There our Lord, giving to St. Peter that thrice-repeated commission to feed his “lambs” (ver. 15), his “ sheep ” (ver. 16), and again his “ sheep” (ver. 17), uses first βόσκε, then secondly ποίμαινε, returning to βόσκε at the last. This return, on * It is evident that the same comparison had occurred to Shakespeare: ‘The cloyed will, That satiate yet unsatisfied desire, That tub both filled and running.’ Cymbeline, Act i. Se. 7. § ταν. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 85 the third and last repetition of the charge, to the word employed on the first, has been a strong argument with some for an absolute identity in the meaning of the words. They have urged, with some show of reason, that Christ could not have had progressive aspects of the pastoral work in his intention here, else He would not have come back in the end to the βόσκε, with which He began. Yet I cannot ascribe to accident the variation of the words, any more than the changes, in the same verses, from ἀγαπᾶν to φιλεῖν (see p. 41), from ἀρνία to πρόβατα. It is true that our Version, rendering βόσκε and ποίμαινε alike by “‘ Feed,” as the Vulgate by “ Pasce,” has not attempted to follow the changes of the original text, nor can I perceive any resources of language by which either our own Version or the Latin could have helped itself here. ‘Tend’ for ποίμαινε is the best suggestion which I could make. The German, by aid of ‘ weiden’ (= βόσκειν) and ‘hiiten’ (Ξ- ποιμαίνειν), might do it; but De Wette has ‘ weiden’ throughout. The distinction, notwithstanding, is very far from fanciful. Booxew, the Latin ‘ pascere,’ is simply ‘to feed: ’ but ποιμαίνειν involves much more; the whole office of the shepherd, the guiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as the finding of nourishment for it. Thus Lampe: ‘Hoe symbolum totum regimen ecclesiasticum comprehendit;’ and Bengel: “ βόσκειν est pars τοῦ ποιμαΐίνειν.᾽ The wider reach and larger meaning of ποιμαίνειν makes itself felt at Rev. ii. 27; xix. 15; where at once we are conscious how impossible it would be to substitute βόσκειν ; and compare Philo, Quod Det. Pot. Insid. 8. ‘There is a fitness in the shepherd’s work for the setting forth of the highest ministries of men for the weal of their fellows, out of which the name, shepherds of their people, has been continually transferred to those who are, or should be, the faithful guides and guardians of others committed to their charge. Thus kings in Homer are 86 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xxv. ποιμένες λαῶν : cf. 2 Sam. v. 2; vil. 7; Ps. lxxviii. 71, 72. Nay more, in Scripture God Himself is a Shepherd (Isai. xl. 11; Ezek. xxxiv. 11-31; Ps. xxiii.); and God manifest in the flesh avouches Himself as ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός (John x. 11); He is the ἀρχιποιμήν (1 Pet. v. 4) 3 ὁ μέγας ποιμὴν τῶν προβάτων (Heb. xiii. 20); as such fulfilling the prophecy of Micah (v. 4). Compare a sublime passage ia Philo, De Agricul. 12, beginning : οὕτω μέντοι τὸ ποιμαίνειν ἐστὶν ἀγαθόν, ὥστε οὐ βασιλεῦσι μόνον καὶ σοφοῖς ἀνδράσι, καὶ ψυχαῖς τέλεια κεκαθαρμέναις, ἀλλὰ καὶ Θεῷ τῷ πανηγεpove δικαίως ἀνατίθεται, with the three δὲ preceding. But it may very naturally be asked, if ποιμαίνειν be thus so much the more significant and comprehensive word, and if on this account the ποίμαινε was added to the βόσκε in the Lord’s latest instruction to his Apostle, how account for his going back to βόσκε again, and concluding thus, not as we should expect with the wider, but with the narrower charge, and weaker admonition? In Dean Stanley’s Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 138, the answer is suggested. The lesson, in fact, which we learn from this is a most important one, and one which the Church, and all that bear rule in the Church, have need diligently to lay to heart; this, namely, that whatever else of discipline and rule may be superadded thereto, still, the feeding of the flock, the finding for them of spiritual food, is the first and last; nothing else will supply the room of this, nor may be allowed to put this out of that foremost place which by right it should occupy. How often, in a false ecclesiastical system, the preaching of the Word loses its preeminence; the βόσκειν falls into the background, is swallowed up in the ποιμαίνειν, which presently becomes no true ποιμαίνειν, because it is not a βόσκειν as well, but such a ‘shepherding’ rather as God’s Word by the prophet Ezekiel has denounced (xxxiv. 2, 3, 8, 10; ef. Zech. xi. 15-17; Matt. xxiii.). gxxvi. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 87 ὃ xxvi. ζῆλος, φθόνος. THESE words are often joined together; they are so by St. Paul (Gal. v. 20, 21); by Clement of Rome (Cor. 3, 4, 5); and virtually by Cyprian in his little treatise, De Zelo et Invore: by classical writers as well; by Plato (Phileb. 47 6: Legg. 111. 679 δ; Menew. 242 a); by Plutarch, Coriol. 19; and by others. Still, there are differences between them; and this first, that ζῆλος is a μέσον, being used sometimes in a good (as John ii. 17; Rom. x. 2; 2 Cor. ix. 2), sometimes, and in Scripture oftener, in an evil sense (as Acts v. 17; Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 20; Jam. iii. 14, in which last place, to make quite clear what ζῆλος is meant, it is qualified by the addition of πικρός, and is linked with ἐρίθεια) : while φθόνος, incapable of good, is used always and only in an evil, signification. When ζῆλος is taken in good part, it signifies the honorable emulation,! with the consequent imitation, of that which presents itself to the mind’s eye as excellent: ζῆλος τῶν ἀρίστων (Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 17): ζῆλος τοῦ βελτίονος (Philo, de Pram. et Pen. 3) 3 φιλοτεμία καὶ ζῆλος (Plutarch, De Alex. Fort. Or. ii. 6; An Seni Resp. Ger. 25) 3 ζῆλος καὶ μίμησις (Herodian, ii. 4) ; ζηλωτὴς καὶ μιμητής (vi. 8). It is the Latin ‘ emulatio,’ in which nothing of envy is of necessity included, however such in it, as in our ‘ emulation,’ may find place; the German ‘ Nacheiferung,’ as distinguished from ‘ Hifersucht.” The verb ‘emulor,’ I need hardly observe, finely expresses the difference between worthy and unworthy emulation, governing an accusative in cases where the first, a dative where the second, is intended. South here, as always, expresses himself well: ‘We ought by all 1 Ἔρις, which often in the Odyssey, and in the later Greek, very nearly resembled ζῆλος in this its meaning of emulation, was capable in like manner of a nobler application; thus Basil the Great defines it (Reg. Brev. Tract. 66): ἔρις μέν ἐστιν, ὅταν τις, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ ἐλάττων φανῆναί τινος, σπουδάζῃ ποιεῖν τι. 88 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. §xxv1. means to note the difference between envy and emulation ; which latter is a brave and a noble thing, and quite of another nature, as consisting only in a generous imitation of something excellent; and that such an imitation as scorns to fall short of its copy, but strives, if possible, to outdo it. The emulator is impatient of a superior, not by depressing or maligning another, but by perfecting himself. So that while that sottish thing envy sometimes fills the whole soul, as a great dull fog does the air; this, on the contrary, inspires it with a new life and: vigour, whets and stirs up all the powers of it to action. And surely that which does so (if we also abstract it from those heats and sharpnesses that sometimes by accident may attend it), must needs be in the same degree lawful and laudable too, that it is for a man to make himself as useful and accomplished as he can’ (Works, London, 1737, vol. v. p. 403; and compare Bishop Butler, Works, 1836, vol. i. p. 15). By Aristotle ζῆλος is employed exclusively in this nobler sense, as that active emulation which grieves, not that another has the good, but that itself has it not; and which, not pausing here, seeks to supply the deficiencies which it finds in itself. From this point of view he contrasts it with envy (Rhet. ii. 11): ἔστι ζῆλος λύπη Tis ἐπὶ φαινομένῃ παρουσίᾳ ἀγαθῶν ἐντίμων. ... οὐχ ὅτι ἄλλῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι οὐχὶ καὶ αὑτῷ ἐστι " διὸ καὶ ἐπιεικές ἐστιν ὁ ζῆλος, καὶ ἐπιεικῶν" τὸ δὲ φθονεῖν, φαῦλον, καὶ φαύλων. The Church Fathers follow in his footsteps. Jerome (zp. in Gal. v. 20): ᾿ ζῆλος et in bonam partem accipi potest, quum quis nititur ea que bona sunt emulari. Invidia vero aliend felicitate torquetur;’ and again (in Gal. iv. 17): ‘Aimulantur bene, qui cum videant in aliquibus esse gratias, dona, virtutes, ipsi tales esse desiderant.’ (£cumenius: ἔστι ζῆλος κίνησις ψυχῆς ἐνθουσιώδης ἐπί τι, μετά τινος ἀφομοιώσεω“ τοῦ πρὸς ὃ ἡ σπουδή ἐστι: cf. Plutarch, Pericles, 2. Compare the words of our English poet: ¢ Envy, to which the ignoble mind’s a slave, Is emulation in the learned and brave.’ But it is only too easy for this zeal and honorable rivalry to degenerate into a meaner passion; the Latin ‘simultas,’? connected (see Déderlein, Lat. Synon. vol. iii. p- 72), not with ‘simulare,’ but with ‘simul,’ attests the fact: those who together aim at the same object, who are thus competitors, being in danger of being enemies as well; just as ama (which, however, has kept its more honorable use, see Plutarch, Anim. an Corp. Aff. Pej. 3), is connected with dua; and ‘rivales’ meant no more at first than occupants of the banks of the same river (Pott, tym. Forsch. ii. 2. 191). These degeneracies which wait so near upon emulation, and which sometimes cause the word itself to be used for that into which it degenerates (‘pale and bloodless emulation, Shakespeare), may assume two shapes: either that of a desire to make war upon the good which it beholds in another, and thus to trouble that good, and make it less; therefore we find ζῆλος and ἔρις continually joined together (Rom. xiii. 13 ; 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20; Clement of Rome, Cor. 3, 6): ζῆλος and φιλονεικία (Plutarch, De Cap. Inim. Util. 1): or, where there is not vigour and energy enough to attempt the making of it less, there may be at least the wishing of it less ; with such petty carping and fault-finding as it may dare to indulge in—¢6ovos and μῶμος being joined, as in Plutarch, Prec. Reg. Reip. 27. And here in this last fact is the point of contact which ζῆλος has with φθόνος (thus Plato, Menex. 242 a: πρῶτον μὲν ζῆλος, ἀπὸ ζήλου δὲ φθόνος : and Aischylus, Agamem. 939: ὁ δ᾽ ἀφθόvyntos οὐκ ἐπίζηλος πέλει) ; the latter being essentially passive, as the former is active and energic. We do not find φθόνος in the comprehensive catalogue of sins at Mark vii. 21, 22; but this envy, δύσφρων ἰός, as Aschylus (Agam. 755), σημεῖον φύσεως παντάπασι πονηρᾶς, as Demosthenes (499, 21), πασῶν μεγίστη τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις 90 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xxvt. νόσος, as Huripides has called it, and of which Herodotus (iii. 80) has said, ἀρχῆθεν ἐμφύεται ἀνθρώπῳ, could not, in one shape or other, be absent; its place is supplied by a circumlocution, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός (cf. Ecclus. xiv. 8, 10), but on putting it in connexion with the Latin ‘invidia,? which is derived, as Cicero observes (Twsc. iii. 9), ‘a nimis imtwendo fortunam alterius;’ cf. Matt. xx. 15; and 1 Sam. xviii. 9: “ Saul eyed,” ὁ. 6. envied “ David.” The ‘urentes oculi’ of Persius (Sat. ii. 34), the ‘mal’ occhio’ of the Italians, must receive the same explanation. φθόνος is the meaner sin,—and therefore the beautiful Greek proverb, ὁ φθόνος ἔξω τοῦ θείου xopov,—being merely displeasure at another’s good;' λύπη ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίοις ἀγαθοῖς, as the Stoics defined it (Diogenes Laértius, vii. 63, 111), λύπη τῆς τοῦ πλησίον εὐπραγίας, as Basil (Hom. de Invid.), ‘egritudo suscepta propter alterius res secundas, quee nihil noceant invidenti,’ as Cicero (Tusc. iv. 8; cf. Xenophon, Mem. iii. 9. 8), ‘ odium felicitatis aliene,’ as Augustine (De Gen. ad Lit. 11-14), with the desire that this good or this felicity may be less: and this, quite apart from any hope that thereby its own will be more (Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 10) ; so that it is no wonder that Solomon long ago could describe it as ‘the rottenness of the bones’ (Prov. xiv. 30). He that is conscious of it is conscious of no impulse or longing to raise himself to the level of him whom he envies, but only to depress the envied to his own. When the victories of Miltiades would not suffer the youthful Themistocles to sleep (Plutarch, Them. 3), here was ζῆλος in its nobler form, an emulation which would not let him rest, till he had set a Salamis of his own against the Marathon of his 1 Augustine's definition of φθόνος (Exp. in Gal. v. 21) introduces into it an ethical element which rarely if at all belongs to it: ‘ Invidia dolor animi est, cum éndignus videtur aliquis assequi etiam quod non appetebas.’ This would rather be νέμεσις and νεμεσᾶν in the ethical terminology of Aristotle (Ethic. Nic. ii. 7. 15; het. ii. 9). * ‘Sick of a strange disease, another’s health,’—Phineas Fletcher. ὃ xxvi. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. οἱ great predecessor. But it was φθόνος which made that Athenian citizen to be weary of hearing Aristides evermore styled ‘ The Just’ (Plutarch, Arist. 7); an envy which contained no impulses moving him to strive for himself after the justice which he envied in another. See on this subject further the beautiful remarks of Plutarch, De Prof. Virt. 14; and on the likenesses and differences between μῖσος and φθόνος, his graceful essay, full of subtle analysis of the human heart, De Invidid et Odio. Βασκανία, a word frequent enough in later Greek in this sense of envy, nowhere occurs in the N.T.; βασκαίνειν only once (Gal. ii. 1. § xxvii. ζωή, Bios. Tue Latin language and the English as well are poorer than the Greek, in having but one word, the Latin ‘ vita,’ the English ‘life,’ where the Greek has two. There would, indeed, be no comparative poverty here, if ζωή and Bios were merely duplicates. But, contemplating life as these do from very different points of view, it is inevitable that we, with our one word for both, must use this one in very diverse senses ; and may possibly, through this equivocation, conceal real and important differences from ourselves or from others; nothing being so effectual for this as the employment of equivocal words. The true antithesis of ζωή is θάνατος (Rom. viii. 38; 2Cor.v. 4; Jer. viii. 3; Ecclus. xxx. 17; Plato, Legg. xii. 944.¢), as of ζῆν, ἀποθνήσκειν (Luke xx. 38; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rev. i. 183 cf. Jl. xxiii. 70; Herodotus, i. 31; Plato, Phedo, 71 d; οὐκ ἐναντίον φὴς τῷ ζῆν τὸ τεθνάναι εἶναι 3) ; ζωή, as some will have it, being nearly connected with aw, ant, to breathe the breath of life, which is the necessary condition of living, and, as such, is involved in like manner in πνεῦμα and ψυχή, in ‘spiritus’ and ‘anima.’ But, while ζωή is thus life intensive (‘ vita qué vivimus ’), Bios is life extensive (‘ vita quam vivimus’), the period or 92 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃ xxvu. duration of life; and then, ina secondary sense, the means by which that life is sustained; and thirdly, the manner in which that life is spent; the ‘ line of life,’ “ profession,’ career. Examples of βίος in all these senses the Ν. T. supplies. Thus it is used as— a. The period or duration of life; thus, χρόνος τοῦ βίου (1 Pet. iv. 3): cf. βίος τοῦ χρόνου (Job x. 20): μῆκος βίου καὶ ἔτη ζωῆς (Prov. iii. 2): Plutarch (De Inb. Ed. 17), στιγμὴ χρόνου πᾶς ὁ βίος ἐστί: again, βίος τῆς ζωῆς (Cons. ad Apoll. 25); and ζωὴ καὶ βίος (De Plac. Phil. v. 18). . The means of life, or ‘living,’ A. V.; Mark xii. 44; Luke viii. 43; xv. 12; 1 John iii. 17, τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου; cf Plato, Gorg. 486 d; Legg. xi.936c; Aristotle, Hist. An. ix. 23. 2; Euripides, Jon, 329; and often, but not always, these means of life, with an under sense of largeness and abundance. y. The manner of life; or life in regard of its moral conduct, having such words as τρόπος. ἤθη; πρᾶξις for its equivalents, and not seldom such epithets as κόσμιος, χρηστός, σώφρων, joined to it; 1 Tim. ii. 2; so Plato (Rep. i. 344 6), βίου διαγωγή : Plutarch, δίαιτα καὶ Bios (De Virt. et Vit. 2): and very nobly (De Is. et Os. 1), τοῦ δὲ γινώσκειν τὰ ὄντα Kal φρονεῖν ἀφαιρεθέντος. οὐ βίον ἀλλὰ χρόνον [οἶμαι] εἶναι τὴν ἀθανασίαν : and De Lib. Ed. 7, τεταγμένος Bios: Josephus, Antt. v. 10.1; with which compare Augustine (De Trin. xii. 11): ‘Cujus vite sit quisque; id est, quomodo agat hec temporalia, quam vitam Greeci non ζωήν sed Biov vocant.’ In βίος, thus used as manner of life, there is an ethical sense often inhering, which, in classical Greek at least, ζωή does not possess. Thus in Aristotle (Pol. i. 13. 13), it is said that the slave is κοινωνὸς ζωῆς, he lives with the family, but not κοινωνὸς βίου, he does not share in the career of his master; cf. Ethic. Nic. x. 6.8; and L. draws, according to Ammonius, the following distinction: βίας ἐστὶ λογικὴ ζωή : Ammonius himself affirming βίος to be §xxvu. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 93 ΄ never, except incorrectly, applied to the existence of plants or animals, but only to the lives of men.! I know not how he reconciled this statement with such passages as these from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. i. 1. 153 ix. 8.13; unless, indeed, he included him in his censure. Still, the distinction which he somewhat too absolutely asserts (see Stallbaum’s note on the Timeus of Plato, 44 d), is a real one: it displays itself with singular clearness in our words ‘zoology ’ and ‘biography ;’” but not in ‘ biology,’ which, as now used, is a manifest misnomer.? We speak, on one side, of “ zoology,’ for animals (ζῶα) have the vital principle; they live, equally with men, and are capable of being classed and described according to the different workings of this natural life of theirs: but, on the other hand, we speak of ‘biography ;’ for men not merely live, but they lead lives, lives in which there is that moral distinction between one and another, which inay make them worthy to be recorded. They are ἔτη ζωῆς, but ὁδοὶ βίου (Prov. iv. 10); ef. Philo, De Carit. 4, where of Moses he says that at a certain epoch of his mortal course, ἤρξατο μεταβάλλειν ἐκ θνητῆς ζωῆς eis ἀθάνατον βίον. From all this it will follow, that, while θάνατος and ζωή constitute, as observed already, the true antithesis, yet they do this only so long as life is physically contemplated ; thus the Son of Sirach (xxx. 17): κρείσσων θάνατος ὑπὲρ ζωὴν πικρὰν ἢ ἀῤῥώστημα ἔμμονον. But so soon as a moral element is introduced, and ‘life’ is regarded as the opportunity for living nobly or the contrary, the antithesis is not between θάνατος and ζωή, but θάνατος and Bios: thus compare Xenophon (De Rep. Lac. ix. 1): αἱρετώτερον εἶναι 1 See on these two synonyms, Vémel, Synon. Worterbuch, p. 168 sq. ; and Wyttenbach, Animadd. in Plutarchum, vol. iii. p. 166. 3 The word came to us from the French.. Gottfried Reinhart Trevisanus, who died in 1837, was its probable inventor in his book, Biologie, ou la Philosophie de la Nature vivante, of which the first volume appeared in 1802. Some flying pages by Canon Field, of Norwich, Biology and Social Science, deal well with this blunder. 94 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃ χχσιι. τὸν καλὸν θάνατον ἀντὶ τοῦ αἰσχροῦ Biov, with Plato (Legg. xii. 944 d): ζωὴν αἰσχρὰν ἀρνύμενος μετὰ τάχους, μᾶλλον ἢ μετ᾽ ἀνδρείας καλὸν καὶ εὐδαίμονα θάνατον. A reference to the two passages will show that in the latter it is the present boon of shameful life, (therefore fw7,) which the craven soldier prefers to an honorable death ; while in the former, Lycurgus teaches that an honorable death is to be chosen rather than a long and shameful existence, a Bios ἄβιος (Empedocles, 326); a Bios ἀβίωτος (Xenophon, Mem. iv. 8.8; cf. Meineke, Fragm. Com. Gree. Ῥ. 542); ἃ βίος οὐ βιωτός (Plato, Apol. 38 a); a ‘vita non vitalis ;? from which all the ornament of life, all reasons for living, have departed. The two grand chapters with which the Gorgias of Plato concludes (82, 83) constitute a fine exercise in the distinction between the words themselves, as between their derivatives no less; and Herodotus, vii. 46, the same. But all this being so, and βίος, not ζωή, the ethical word of classical Greek, a thoughtful reader of Scripture might not unnaturally be perplexed with the fact that all is there reversed; for no one will deny that ζωή is there the nobler word, expressing as it continually does all of highest and best which the saints possess in God; thus στέφανος τῆς ζωῆς (Rev. ii. 10), ξύλον τῆς ζωῆς (ii. 7), βίβλος τῆς ζωῆς (iii. 5), ὕδωρ ζωῆς (xxi. 6), for καὶ εὐσέβεια (2 Pet. i. 3), ζωὴ καὶ ἀφθαρσία (2 Tim. i. 10), ζωὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Ephes. iv. 18), ζωὴ αἰώνιος (Matt. xix. 16; Rom. ii. 7),' ζωὴ ἀκατάλυτος (Heb. vii. 16) ; ἡ ὄντως ζωή (1 Tim. vi. 19) ; or sometimes ζωή with no further addition (Matt. vii. 14: Rom. v.17, and often); all these setting forth, each from its own point of view, the highest blessedness of the creature. Contrast with them the following uses of ios, ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου (Luke viii. 14), πραγματεῖαι τοῦ βίου (2 Tim. ii. 4), ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου (1 Johnii. 16), βίος τοῦ κόσμου (iii. 17), + Ζωὴ αἰώνιος occurs once in the Septuagint (Dan. xii. 2; ef. ζωὴ ἀέναος, 2 Mace. vii. 36), and in Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 1. μερίμναι βιωτικαί (Luke xxi. 34). How shall we explain this ? A little reflection will supply the answer. Revealed religion, and it alone, puts death and sin in closest connexion, declares them the necessary correlatives one of the other (Gen. i-iii.; Rom. v. 12); and, as an involved consequence, in like manner, life and holiness. It is God’s word alone which proclaims that, wherever there is death, it is there because sin was there first; wherever there is no death, that is, life, this is there, because sin has never been there, or having once been, is now cast out and expelled. In revealed religion, which thus makes death to have come into the world through sin, and only through sin, life is the correlative of holiness. Whatever truly lives, does so because sin has never found place in it, or, having found place for a time, has since been overcome and expelled. So soon as ever this is felt and understood, ζωή at once assumes the profoundest moral significance ; it becomes the fittest expression for the very highest blessedness. Of that whereof we predicate absolute ζωή, we predicate absolute holiness of the same. Christ affirming of Himself, ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ζωή (John xiv. 6; cf. 1 John i. 2; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 4: Χριστὸς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἡμῶν nv), implicitly affirmed of Himself that He was absolutely holy ; and in the creature, in like manner, that alone truly lives, or triumphs over death, death at once physical and spiritual, which has first triumphed over sin. No wonder, then, that Scripture should know of no higher word than ζωή to set forth the blessedness of God, and the blessedness of the creature in communion with God. It follows that those expositors of Ephes. iv. 18 are in error, who there take ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ, as ‘alienated from a divine life,’ that is, ‘from a life lived according to the will and commandments of God’ (‘remoti a vité, ill que secundum Deum est:’ as Grotius has it), ζωή never signifying this. The fact of such alienation was g6 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃ xxvul. only too true ; but the Apostle is not affirming it here, but rather the miserable condition of the heathen, as men estranged from the one fountain of life (παρὰ Σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς, Ps. xxxv. 10); as not having life, because separated from Him who only absolutely lives (John v. 26), the living God (Matt. xvi. 16; 1 Tim. iii. 15), in fellowship with whom alone any creature has life. Another passage, namely Gal. v. 25, will always seem to contain a tautology, until we give to ζωή (and to the verb ζῆν as well) the force which has been claimed for it here.

βόσκω. The verb is used in connexion with πρόβατα in P Magd 615 (B.C. 221) τά τε πρόβα]τα βεβοσκηκότας, P Tebt 11. 295°* (A.D. 107-8) προβ]άτων βοσκ[ο(μένων), P Thead 575 (A.D. 317) βόσκοντος αὐτοῦ τὰ π[ρό]βατα, and with a herd of swine, as in Mk 514, in the illiterate BGU 111. 757!° (A.D. 12) ἃ βόσκουσιν ὑικὰ κτήνηι. Cf. Sy// 531° (iii/A.D.) πρόβατα δὲ μὴ ἐξ]έστω ἐ[πιβό]σκε[ι]ν e[ts] τὸ τέμενος μηδενί, on pain of confiscation to the god—see the editor’s note. A derived noun occurs in P Lond 219 vecfo (an account for food—ii/B.c.) (=IL p. 2) ἰδίῳ Books. It is frequently found as a termination, e. g. tepakoBookds (P Petr III. 99°, ἰβιοβοσκός (2/. 58(e)i ) (both ili/B.c.): see Mayser Gr. Ρ. 471.

βόσκω (boskō) — to feed. βόσκω, imperfect ἔβοσκον, Epic dialect βόσκε [Refs 8th c.BC+]: future -ήσω[Refs 8th c.BC+]: aorist ἐβόσκησα [Refs]: perfect βεβόσκηκα [Refs 3rd c.BC+] —passive and middle [Refs]; Ionic dialect imperfect βοσκέσκοντο [Refs 8th c.BC+]future βοσκήσομαι Sarap. in [Refs 1st c.AD+], Doric dialect βοσκησεῦμαι [Refs 3rd c.BC+]: aorist ἐβοσκήθην [Refs 2nd c.BC+]

I. properly of herdsmen, feed, tend, αἰπόλια [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ὁ βόσκων the feeder, [Refs 4th c.BC+]

I.2. generally, feed, nourish, βόσκει γαῖα.. ἀνθρώπους [Refs 8th c.BC+]; maintain, keep, ἐπικούρους [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οἰκέτας[Refs 5th c.BC+]; πράγματα β. troubles, i.e. children, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II. passive, of cattle, feed, graze, [Refs 8th c.BC+]: c.accusative, feed on, ποίην [Refs 4th c.BC+]

II.2. metaphorically, to be fed or nurtured, ἰυγμοῖσι [Refs 5th c.BC+]; β. τινί or περί τι run riot in a thing, [Refs]. (g[uglide]ō, cf. Lithuanian guotas 'herd'.)