ἔλαιον, -ov, τό, [fr. Hom. down], Sept. chiefly for jaw, also for 17737; olive-oil: used for feeding lamps, Mt. xxv. 3 sq. 8; for healing the sick, Mk. vi. 13; Lk. x. 34; Jas. v.14; for anointing the head and body at feasts (Athen. 15, c. 11) [ef. s. v. μύρον], Lk. vii. 46; Heb. i. 9 (on which pass. see ἀγαλλίασις) ; mentioned among articles of commerce. Lk. xvi. 6; Rev. vi. 6; xviii. 13. Cf. Win. RWB. s. v. Oel; Furrer in Schenkel iv. 354, Schnedermann, Die bibl. Symbolik des Oelbaumes u. d. Oeles, in the Zeitschr. f. ἃ. luth. Theol. for 1874, p. 4 sqq-; [B. Ὁ. s. v. Oil, Π. 4; and Mey. ed. Weiss on Mk. vi. 13].

ἔλαιον elaion 11x

olive oil, oil, Mt. 25:3, 4, 8; Mk. 6:13

ἔλαιον, -ου, τό

[in LXX chiefly for שֶׁמֶן ;]

olive-oil: Lk 16:6, Re 6:6 18:13; for lamps, Mt 25:3, 4, 8; for healing, Mk 6:13, Lk 10:34, Jo 5:14; for anointing at feasts, Lk 7:46, He 1:9 (LXX).†

SYN.: μύρον, ointment, v. Tr., Syn., 135

Some have denied that the O. T. knows of any distinction between ‘oil’ and ‘ointment;’ and this on the very insufficient grounds that the Septuagint renders }2W sometimes by μύρον (Prov. xxvii. 9; Cant. i.3; Isai. xxxix. 2; Am. vi. 6); though more frequently, indeed times out of number, by ἔλαιον. But how often in a single word of one language are latent two of another; especially when that other abounds, as does Greek compared with Hebrew, in finer distinctions, in a more subtle notation of meanings ; παροιμία and παραβολή furnish a well-known example of this, both lying in the Hebrew Syn ; and this duplicity of meaning it is the part of a well-skilled translator to evoke. Nay the thing itself, the μύρον (=‘ unguentum’), so naturally grew out of the ἔλαιον (=‘oleum’), having oil for its base, with only the addition of spice or scent or other aromatic ingredients,—Clement of Alexandria (Pedag. ii. 8) calls it ‘adulterated oil’ (δεδολωμένον <Aavov'),—that it would be long in any language before the necessity of differencing names would be felt. Thus in the Greek itself μύρον first appears in the writings of Archilochus (Athenus, xv. 37). Doubtless ' Compare what Plutarch says of Lycurgus (Apoph. Lac. 16; τὸ μὲν μύρον ἐξέλασεν, ὡς τοῦ ἐλαίου φθορὰν καὶ ὄλεθρον. Compare too Virgil (Georg. ii. 466): ‘Nec casia liquidi corrumpitur usus olivi.’ 128 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xxxvii there were ointments in Homer’s time; he is satisfied, however, with ‘sweet-smelling oil’ (εὐῶδες ἔλαιον, Od. ii. 889), ‘roseate oil’ (ῥοδόεν ἔλαιον, Il. xxiii. 186), wherewith to express them. In later times there was a clear distinction between the two, and one which uttered itself in language. A passage in Xenophon (Conv. ii. 8, 4) turns altogether on the greater suitableness of ἔλαιον for men, of μύρον for women; these last consequently being better pleased that the men should savour of the manly ‘oil’ than of the effeminate ‘ ointment’ (ἐλαίου δὲ τοῦ ἐν γυμνασίοις ὀσμὴ Kal παροῦσα ἡδίων ἢ μύρου γυναιξί, καὶ ἀποῦσα ποθεινοτέρα). And on any other supposition our Lord’s rebuke to the discourteous Pharisee, “ My head with oil thou didst not anoint, but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment” (Luke vii. 46), would lose all, or nearly all, its point. ‘Thou withheldest from Me,’ He would say, ‘cheap and ordinary courtesies ; while she bestowed upon Me costly and rare homages ;’ while Grotius remarks well: ‘ Est enim perpetua ἀντιστοιχίά. Mulier illa lacrimas impendit pedibus Christo proluendis: Simon ne aquam quidem. Illa assidua est in pedibus Christi osculandis: Simon ne uno quidem oris osculo Christum accepit. Illa pretioso unguento non caput tantum sed et pedes perfundit : ille ne caput quidem mero oleo: quod perfunctorie amicitie fuerat.’ Some have drawn a distinction between the verbs ἀλείφειν and χρίειν, which, as they have made it depend on this between μύρον and ἔλαιον, may deserve to be mentioned here. The ἀλείφειν, they say, is commonly the luxurious, or at any rate the superfluous, anointing with ointment, χρίειν the sanitary anointing with oil. Thus Casaubon (Anim. in Atheneum, xv. 89) : ‘ ἀλείφεσθαι, proprium voluptuariorum et mollium: χρίεσθαι etiam sobriis interdum, et ex virtute viventibus convenit :’ and Valcknaer : ‘ ἀλείφεσθαι dicebantur potissimum homines voluptatibus dediti, qui pretiosis wnguentis caput et manus illinebant: χρίεσθαι de hominibus ponebatur oleo corpus, sanitatis causd, inunguentibus.’ No §xxxIx SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 129 traces of such a distinction appear in the N. T.; thus compare Mark vi. 13; Jam. v. 14, with Mark xvi. 1; John xi. 2; nor yet of that of Salmasius (Herc. p. 330), ‘ Spissiora linwnt, χρίουσι: liquida perfundunt, ἀλείφουσι.᾽ A distinction 7s maintained there, but different from both of these; namely, that ἀλείφειν is the mundane and profane, χρίειν the sacred and religious, word. ᾿Αλείφειν is used indiscriminately of all actual anointings, whether with oil or ointment ; while χρίειν, no doubt in its connexion with χριστός, is absolutely restricted to the anointing of the Son, by the Father, with the Holy Ghost, for the accomplishment of his great office, being wholly separated from all profane and common uses: thus see Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27; x. 88; 2 Cor. i. 21; Heb. i. 9; the only places where it occurs. The same holds good in the Septuagint, where χρῖσις, χρῖσμα (ef. 1 John ii. 20, 27), and χρίειν, are the constant and everrecurring words for all religious and symbolical anointings ; ἀλείφειν hardly occurring in this sense, not oftener, I believe, than twice in all (Exod. xl. 13; Num. iii 3). ὃ xxxix. “Efpatos, Ἰουδαῖος, ᾿Ισραηλίτης. Att these names are used to designate members of the elect family and chosen race ; but they are very capable, as they are very well worthy, of being discriminated. ‘EBpatos claims to be first considered. It brings us back to a period earlier than any when one, and very much earlier than any when the other, of the titles we compare with it, were, or could have been, in existence (Josephus, Antt. i. 6. 4). It is best derived from 72y, the same word as ὑπέρ, ‘ super ; ’— this title containing allusion to the passing over of Abraham, from the other side of Kuphrates; who was, therefore, in the language of the Pheenician tribes among whom he came ‘Abram the Hebrew,’ or 6 περάτης, as it is well given in the Septuagint (Gen. xiv. 13), being from beyond (πέραν) the river : thus rightly Origen (in Matt. tom. xi. 5): Ἑ βραῖοι, οἵτινες ἑρμηνεύονται περατικοί. The name, as thus explained, is not K 130 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xxxix one by which the chosen people know themselves, but by which others know them ; not one which they have taken, but which others have imposed on them ; and we find the use of Ἕ βραῖος through all the O. T. entirely consistent with this explanation of its origin. In every case it is either a title by which foreigners designate the chosen race (Gen. xxxix. 14, 17; xii, 12: Exod. 1, 16, 19; 1 Sam.:iv. 6; xii. 19; xxix. 8; Judith xii. 11); or by which they designate themselves to foreigners (Gen. xl. 15; Exod. ii. 7; iii. 18; ν. 8; ix. 1; Jon. i. 9); or by which they speak of themselves in tacit opposition to other nations (Gen. xliii. 82; Deut. xv. 12; 1 Sam. xiii. 3; Jer. xxxiv. 9, 14); never, that is, without such national antagonism, either latent or expressed. When, however, the name Ἰουδαῖος arose, as it did in the later periods of Jewish history (the precise epoch will be presently considered), Ἕ βραῖος modified its meaning. Nothing is more frequent with words than to retire into narrower limits, occupying a part only of some domain whereof once they occupied the whole; when, through the coming up of some new term, they are no longer needed in all their former extent ; and when at the same time, through the unfolding of some new relation, they may profitably lend themselves to the expressing of this new. It was exactly thus with “EBpaios. In the N. T., that point of view external to the nation, which it once always implied, exists no longer ; neither is every member of the chosen family an ‘Efpatos now, but only those who, whether dwelling in Palestine or elsewhere, have retained the sacred Hebrew tongue as their native language ; the true complement and antithesis to Ἕ βραῖος being Ἑ) λληνιστής, a word first appearing in the N. T. (see Salmasius, De Hellenisticé, 1643, p. 12), and there employed to designate a Jew of the Dispersion who has unlearned his proper language, and now speaks Greek, and reads or hears read in the synagogue the Scriptures in the Septuagint Version. This distinction first appears in Acts vi. 1, and is probably intended in the two other passages, where Ἕ βραῖος occurs (2 Cor. xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5); as well as in the superscription, §xxxIx SYVONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 131 on whosesoever authority it rests, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is important to keep in mind that in language, not in place of habitation, lay the point of difference between the ‘Hebrew’ and the ‘Hellenist.. He was a " Hebrew,’ wherever domiciled, who retained the use of the language of his fathers. Thus St. Paul, though settled in Tarsus, a Greek city in Asia Minor, describes himself as a ‘Hebrew,’ and of ‘ Hebrew’ parents, “ a Hebrew of Hebrews ” (Phil. iii. 5; cf. Acts xxiii. 6); though it is certainly possible that by all this he may mean no more than in a general way to set an emphasis on his Judaism. Doubtless, the greater number of ‘ Hebrews’ were resident in Palestine ; yet not this fact, but the language they spoke, constituted them such. It will be well however to keep in mind that this distinction and opposition of ‘EBpatos to Ἑλληνιστής, as a distinction within the nation, and not between it and other nations, is exclusively a Scriptnral one, being hardly recognized by later Christian writers, not at all by Jewish and heathen. Thus Eusebius can speak of Philo, an Alexandrian Jew, who only once in his life visited Jerusalem, for so much I think we may gather from his own words (vol. ii. p. 646, Mangey’s Ed.), and who wrote exclusively in Greek (Hist. Hecl. ii. 4): τὸ μὲν οὖν γένος ἀνέκαθεν “Ἑβραῖος ἦν: cf. iv. 16; Prep. Evang. vii. 13. 21; while Clement of Alexandria, as quoted by Eusebius (H. ΕἸ. vi. 14), makes continually the antithesis to ‘EGpato, not Ἑλληνισταί, but “Ἕλληνες and ἔθνη. Theodoret (Opp. vol. 11. p. 1246) styles the Greek-writing historian, Josephus, συγγραφεὺς Ἕ βραῖος : cf. Origen, Hp. ad Afric. 5. Neither in Josephus himself, nor yet in Philo, do any traces of the N. T. distinction between Ἕ βραῖος and λληνιστής exist ; in heathen writers as little (Plutarch, Symp. iv. 6; Pausanias, v. 7. He x. 12.5). Only this much of it is recognized, that Ἑβραῖος, though otherwise a much rarer word than Ἰουδαῖος, is always employed when it is intended to designate the people on the side of their language. This rule Jewish, heathen, and Christian writers alike observe, and we speak to the present day of the Jewish nation, but of the Hebrew tongue. Kk 2 132 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ὃ xxxix This name ᾿Ιουδαῖος is of much later origin. It does not carry us back to the very birth and cradle of the chosen people, to the day when the Father of the faithful passed over the river, and entered on the land of inheritance ; but keeps rather a lasting record of the period of national disruption and decline. It arose, and could only have arisen, with the separation of the tribes into the two rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Then, inasmuch as the ten tribes, though with worst right (see Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part i. p. 188), assumed Israel as a title to themselves, the two drew their designation from the more important of them, and of Judah came the name osm, or Ἰουδαῖοι. Josephus, so far as I have observed, never employs it in telling the earlier history of his people ; but for the first time in reference to Daniel and his young companions (Antt. x. 10.1). Here, however, by anticipation ; that is, if his own account of the upcoming of the name is correct; namely, that it first arose after the return from Babylon, and out of the fact that the earliest colony of those who returned was of that tribe (Antt. xi. 5. 7): ἐκλήθησαν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ἐξ ἧς ἡμέρας ἀνέβησαν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος, ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιούδα φυλῆς, ἧς πρώτης ἐλθούσης εἰς ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους, αὐτοί τε καὶ ἣ χώρα τῆς προσηγορίας αὐτῆς μετέλαβον. But in this Josephus is clearly in error. We meet ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, or rather its Hebrew equivalent in books of the sacred canon composed anterior to, or during, the Captivity, as a designation of those who pertained to the smaller section of the tribes, to the kingdom of Judah (2 Kin. xvi. 6; Jer. xxxii. 12; xxxiv. 9; xxxviii. 19) ; and not first in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther ; however in these, and especially in Esther, it may be of far more frequent occurrence. It is easy to see how the name extended to the whole nation. When the ten tribes were carried into Assyria, and were absorbed and lost among the nations, that smaller section of the people which remained henceforth represented the whole; and thus it was only natural that Ἰουδαῖος should express, as it now came to do, not one of the kingdom of Judah as distinguished from that of Israel, but any member of the nation, a‘ Jew’ in this wider sense, as opposed to a §xxxIx SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 133 Gentile. In fact, the word underwent a process exactly the converse of that which ‘EBpatos had undergone. For ‘EGpaios, belonging first to the whole nation, came afterwards to belong to a part only; while Ιουδαῖος, designating at first only the member of a part, ended by designating the whole. It now, in its later, like “Ἑβραῖος in its earlier, stage of meaning, was a title by which the descendant of Abraham called himself, when he would bring out the national distinction between himself and other peoples (Rom. ii. 9,10); thus ‘Jew and Gentile ;’ never ‘ Israelite and Gentile:’ or which others ‘used about him, when they had in view this same fact; thus the Eastern Wise Men inquire, ‘‘ Where is He that is born King of the Jews ?”’ (Matt. ii. 2)—-testifying by the form of this question that they were themselves Gentiles, for they would certainly have asked for the King of Israel, had they meant to claim any nearer share in Him. So, too, the Roman soldiers and the Roman governor give to Jesus the mocking title, ‘King of the Jews”’ (Matt. xxvii. 29,37), while his own countrymen, the high priests, challenge Him to prove by coming down from the cross that He is “ King of Israel’ (Matt. xxvii. 42). For indeed the absolute name, that which expressed the whole dignity and glory of a member of the theocratic nation, of the people in peculiar covenant with God, was Ἰσραηλίτης. It rarely occurs in the Septuagint, but is often used by Josephus in his earlier history, as convertible with ‘EBpatos (Antt. ii. 9. 1,2); in the middle period of his history to designate a member of one of the ten tribes (viii. 8. 3; ix. 14. 1); and toward the end as equivalent to Ἰουδαῖος (xi. 5. 4). It is only in its relations of likeness and difference to this last that we have to consider it here. This name was for the Jew his especial badge and title of honour. To be descendants of Abraham, this honour they must share with the Ishmaelites (Gen. xvi. 15); of Abraham and Isaac with the Edomites (Gen. xxv. 25); but none except themselves were the seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they were declared to be. Nor was this all, but more gloriously still, their descent was herein traced up to him, not as he was 134 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § x. Jacob, but as he was Israel, who as a Prince had power with God and with men, and prevailed (Gen. xxxii. 28). That this title was accounted the noblest, we have ample proof. Thus, as we have seen, when the ten tribes threw off their allegiance to the house of David, they claimed in their pride and pretension the name of the “ kingdom of Jsrael’’ for the new kingdom which they set up—the kingdom, as the name was intended to imply, in which the line of the promises, the true succession of the early patriarchs, ran. So, too, there is no nobler title with which the Lord can adorn Nathanael than that of “an Israelite indeed’ (John i. 47), one in whom all which that name involved might indeed be found. And when St. Peter, and again when St. Paul, would obtain a hearing from the men of their own nation, when therefore they address them with the name most welcome to their ears, ἄνδρες Ἰσραηλῖται (Acts 1. 22; iii. 12; xiii. 16; cf. Rom. ix. 4; Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xi. 22) is still the language with which they seek to secure their good-will. When, then, we restrict ourselves to the employment in the N. T. of these three words, and to the distinctions proper to them there, we may say that “Ἑβραῖος is a Hebrew-speaking, as contrasted with a Greek-speaking, or Hellenizing, Jew (which last in our Version we have well called a ‘ Grecian,’ as differenced from Ἕλλην, a veritable ‘ Greek’ or other Gentile) ; ᾿Ιουδαῖος is a Jew in his national distinction from a Gentile ; while ᾿Ισραηλίτης, the augustest title of all, is a. Jew as he is a member of the theocracy, and thus an heir of the promises. In the first is predominantly noted his language; in the second his nationality (᾿Ἰουδαΐσμός, Josephus, De Macc. 4; Gal. 1. 13: “Iovdaifew, Gal. ii. 14) ; in the third his theocratic privileges and glorious vocation. § xl. airéw, ἐρωτάω. THESE words are often rendered by our Translators as though they covered the same spaces of meaning, the one as the other ; nor can we object to their rendering, in numerous instances, §xL SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT τὸς αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν alike by our English ‘ to ask.’ Yet sometimes they have a little marred the perspicuity of their translation by not varying their word, where the original has shown them the way. For example, the obliteration at John xvi. 23 of the distinction between αἰτεῖν and ἐρωτᾶν might easily suggest a wrong interpretation of the verse,—as though its two clauses were in near connexion, and direct antithesis,—being indeed in none. In our Version we read: ‘In that day ye shall ask Me nothing [ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν]. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask [ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσητε] the Father in my name, He will give it you.” Now every one competent to judge is agreed, that “ye shall ask’’ of the first half of the verse has nothing to do with “ ye shall ask’”’ of the second; that in the first Christ is referring back to the ἤθελον αὐτὸν ἐρωτᾶν of ver. 19; to the questions which the disciples would fain have asked of Him, the perplexities which they would gladly have had resolved by Him, if only they dared to set these before Him. ‘In that day,’ He would say, ‘in the day of my seeing you again, I will by the Spirit so teach you all things, that ye shall be no longer perplexed, no longer wishing to ask Me questions (cf. John xxi. 12), if only you might venture to do so.’ Thus Lampe well: ‘ Nova est promissio de plenissima cognitionis luce, qué convenienter ceconomiz Novi Testamenti collustrandi essent. Nam sicut questio supponit inscitiam, ita qui nihil amplius querit abunde se edoctum existimat, et in doctrina plene exposita ac intellecta acquiescit.’ There is not in this verse a contrast drawn between asking the Son, which shall cease, and asking the Father, which shall begin; but the first half of the verse closes the declaration of one blessing, namely, that hereafter they shall be so taught by the Spirit as to have nothing further to inquire; the second half of the verse begins the declaration of a new blessing, that whatever they shall seek from the Father in the Son’s name, He will give it them. Yet none will say that this is the impression which the English text conveys to his mind. The distinction between the words is this. Airéw, the 136 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § xX. Latin ‘peto,’ is more submissive and suppliant, indeed the constant word for the seeking of the inferior from the superior (Acts xii. 20) ; of the beggar from him that should give alms (Acts 111. 2); of the child from the parent (Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 11; Lam. iv. 4); of the subject from the ruler (Ezra viii. 22); of man from God (1 Kin. ii. 11; Matt. vii. 7; Jam. i. 5; 1 John i. 22; cf. Plato, Huthyph. 14: εὔχεσθαι [ἔστιν] αἰτεῖν τοὺς θεούς). ’Epwrdéw, on the other hand, is the Latin ‘ rogo ;’ or sometimes (as John xvi. 23; cf. Gen. xliv. 19) ‘interrogo,’ its only meaning in classical Greek, where it never signifies ‘to ask,’ but only ‘ to interrogate,’ or ‘to inquire.’ Like ‘ rogare,’* it implies that he who asks stands on a certain footing of equality with him from whom the boon is asked, as king with king (Luke xiv. 42), or, if not of equality, on such a footing of familiarity as lends authority to the request. Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the singular accuracy in the employment of words, and in the record of that employment, which prevails throughout the N. T., that our Lord never uses αἰτεῖν or αἰτεῖσθαι of Himself, in respect of that which He seeks on behalf of his disciples from God; for his is not the petition of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dignity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out in this, that often as He asks, or declares that He will ask, anything of the Father, it is always ἐρωτῶ, ἐρωτήσω, an asking, that is, as upon equal terms (John xiv. 16; xvi. 26; xvii. 9, 15, 20), never airéw or αἰτήσω. Martha, on the contrary, plainly reveals her poor unworthy conception of his person, that she recognizes in Him no more than a prophet, when she ascribes that αἰτεῖσθαι to Him, which He never ascribes to Himself: ὅσα ἂν αἰτήσῃ τὸν Θεὸν, δώσει σοι ὃ Θεός (John xi. 22): on which verse Bengel observes : ‘ Jesus, de se rogante loquens ἐδεήθην dicit (Luc. xxii. 32), et ἐρωτήσω, at nunquam αἰτοῦμαι. Non Grece locuta est Martha, sed 1 Thus Cicero (Planc. x. 25): ‘Neque enim ego 510 rogabam, ut petere viderer, qui a familiaris esset meus.’ §xLI SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 137 tamen Johannes exprimit improprium ejus sermonem, quem Dominus benigne tulit: nam αἰτεῖσθαι videtur verbum esse minus dignum:’ compare his note on 1 John v. 16. It will follow that the ἐρωτᾶν, being thus proper for Christ, inasmuch as it has authority in it, is not proper for us; and in no single instance is it used in the N. T. to express the prayer of man to God, of the creature to the Creator. The only passage seeming to contradict this assertion is 1 John v.16. The verse is difficult, but whichever of the various ways of overcoming its difficulty may find favour, it will be found to constitute no true exception to the rule, and perhaps, in the substitution of ἐρωτήσῃ for the αἰτήσει of the earlier clause of the verse, will rather confirm it, ϑ 3 ,ὔ 2 § Χ]]. ἀνάπαυσις, ἄνεσις. Our Version renders both these words by ‘ rest’; ἀνάπαυσις at Matt. xi. 29; xii. 48; and ἄνεσις at 2 Cor. ii. 18; vii. 5; 2 Thess. i. 7. No one can object to this; while yet, on a closer scrutiny, we perceive that they repose on different images, and contemplate this ‘rest’ from different points of view. ᾿Ανάπαυσις, from ἀναπαύω, implies the pause or cessation from labour (Rev. iv. 8); it is the constant word in the Septuagint for the rest of the Sabbath ; thus Exod. xvi. 28; ΧΧΧΙ, 15; xxxv. 2, and often. “Aveows, from ἀνίημι, implies the relaxing or letting down of chords or strings, which have before been strained or drawn tight, its exact and literal antithesis being ἐπίτασις (from ἐπιτείνω) : thus Plato (Rep. i. 349 6): ἐν τῇ ἐπιτάσει Kai ἀνέσει τῶν χορδῶν : and Plutarch (De Lib. Hd. 18) : τὰ τόξα καὶ τὰς λύρας ἀνίεμεν, ἵνα ἐπιτεῖναι δυνηθῶμεν : and again (Lyc. 29): οὐκ ἄνεσις ἦν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπίτασις τῆς πολιτείας : οἵ. Philo, De Incorr. Mun. 18. Moses in the year of jubilee gave, according to Josephus (Antz. iii. 12. 3), ἄνεσιν τῇ γῇ ἀπό τε ἀρότρου καὶ φυτείας. But no passage illustrates ἄνεσις so well as one from the treatise just quoted which goes by Plutarch’s name (De Lib. Hd. 18): δοτέον οὖν τοῖς “ “ 4 5 ᾽ “ A ε / παισὶν ἀναπνοὴν TOV συνεχῶν πόνων, ἐνθυμουμένους, ὅτι πᾶς ὁ Bios 138 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §xXu1 ἡμῶν εἰς ἄνεσιν καὶ σπουδὴν διρηται" καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐ μόνον ἐγρήγορσις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὕπνος εὑρέθη" οὐδὲ πόλεμος, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰρήνη " οὐδὲ χειμών, ἀλλὰ καὶ εὐδία οὐδὲ ἐνεργοὶ πράξεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑορταί... καθόλου δὲ σώζεται, σῶμα μέν, ἐνδείᾳ καὶ πληρώσει" ψυχὴ δέ, ἀνέσει καὶ πόνῳ: Plato has the same opposition between ἄνεσις and σπουδή (Legg. iv. 724 a); while Plutarch (Symp. v. 6) sets ἄνεσις over against στενοχωρία, as a dwelling at large, instead of in a narrow and straight room; and St. Paul over against θλῖψις (2 Cor. vill. 13), not being willing that there should be ‘ease’ (ἄνεσις) to other Churches, and ‘affliction’ (θλῖψις), that is from an excessive contribution, to the Corinthian. Used figuratively, it expresses what we, employing the same image, call the relaxation of morals (thus Atheneeus, xiv. 13: ἀκολασία καὶ ἄνεσις, setting it over against σωφροσύνη: Philo, De Cherub. 27; De Hbriet. 6; ἄνεσις, ῥᾳθυμία, τρυφή : De Merc. Meret. 2). It will at once be perceived how excellently chosen ἔχειν ἄνεσιν at Acts xxiv. 28 is, to express what St. Luke has in hand to record. Felix, taking now a more favourable view of Paul’s case, commands the centurion who had him in charge, to relax the strictness of his imprisonment, to keep him rather under honorable arrest than in actual confinement; which partial relaxation of his bonds is exactly what this phrase implies ; cf. Ecclus. xxvi. 10; Josephus, Anit. xviii. 6. 10, where ἄνεσις is used in a perfectly similar case. The distinction, then, is obvious. When our Lord promises ἀνάπαυσις to the weary and heavy laden who come to Him (Matt. xi. 28, 29), his promise is, that they shall cease from their toils; shall no longer spend their labour for that which satisfieth not. When St. Paul expresses his confidence that the Thessalonians, troubled now, should yet find ἄνεσις in the day of Christ (2 Thess. i. 7), he anticipates for them, not so much cessation from labour as relaxation of the chords of affliction, now so tightly drawn, strained and stretched to the uttermost. It is true that this promise and that at the heart are not two, but one ; yet for all this they present the blessedness which Christ will impart to his own under different xt SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 139 aspects, and by help of different images; and each word has its own fitness in the place where it is employed.

ἔλαιον. For ἔ. = ‘‘olive-oil,’’ it is sufficient to cite P Par 434 (B.C. 154) καλῶς ποιήσεις ἀποστεῖλαί por ἡμίχουν ἐλαίου, P Oxy I. 91" (receipt of wages for nursing—a.D. 187) ὑπὲρ τροφείων καὶ ἐλαίου Kal ἱματισμοῦ, P Grenf II. 7738 (iii/iv A.D.) (= Selections, p. 122) where arrangements are made that a man conveying a dead body should be entertained ἐν ψωμίοις kal [οἰ]ναρίῳ καὶ ἐλαίῳ, and the Christian letter P Heid 651 (iv/a.p.) (= Selections, p. 127) καταξίωσον δέξεσθαι τὸ μικρὸν ἐλέου διὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ἡμῶν Mayapiov. The word is used = “olive-tree’’ in P Petr I. 297 (ili/B.C.) τὸ δὲ ἔλαιον δέδωκεν χοῦς ς. For ἐλαιοκάπηλος, see PSI IV. 372° (B.c. 250-49), and for ἐλαιουργεῖον, 22. 4385 (iii/B.c.).

ἔλαιον (elaion) — olive oil. ἔλαιον, τό, (ἐλαία) olive-oil, in [Refs 8th c.BC+] mostly anointing-oil, used after the bath, λοεσσαμένω καὶ ἀλειψαμένω λίπ᾽ ἐλαίῳ [Refs 8th c.BC+]; before wrestling and other gymnastic exercises, πωλησεῦντι τὸ ἔ. εἰς τὸ γυμνάσιον [Refs]; ἔ. θεῖναι to provide oil at the baths, [Refs] (a); ἐλαίῳ πῦρ κατας βεννύναι [Refs 2nd c.AD+]; εὐῶδες ἔ. [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ῥοδόεν (rose-scented) [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ἔ. λευκον[Refs 4th c.BC+]

II. any oily substance, ἔ. χήνειον [Refs 5th c.BC+]; κίκινον, ἀμυγδάλινον ἔ., etc., [Refs 1st c.AD+]; ἔ. ἀπὸ σελαχῶν, like our 'cod-liver oil', [Refs 4th c.BC+]; ἔ. ἀπὸ γάλακτος butter, [Refs 4th c.BC+]

III. at Athens, oil-market, ἀναμενῶ σε.. πρὸς τοὔλαιον [Refs 4th c.BC+]