ζόφος, -ov, 6, (akin to γνόφος, δνόφος, νέφος, κνέφας. ser Bum. Lexil. ii. p. 266 [Fishlake’s trans. p. 378]; ef. Curtius p. 706), darkness, blackness: Heb. xii. 18 L T Tr WH; as in Hom. II. 15,191; 21,56, ete., used of the darkness of the nether world (cf. Grimm on Sap. xvii. 14), 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6; Coos τοῦ σκότους (cf. NyOX-Wwn, Ex. x. 22), the blackness of (i. e. the densest) darkness, 2 Pet. ii. 17; Jude 13. [Cf. Trench § c.]

ζόφος zophos 5x

gloom, thick darkness, Heb. 12:18; 2 Pet. 2:4, 17; Jude 6, 13*

** ζόφος, -ου, ὁ

(akin to γνόφος, q.v.), [in Sm.: Ex 10:22, Jb 28:3, Ps 10(11):2 90(91):6, Is 59:9*;]

in Hom. the gloom of the under-world; hence, darkness, deep gloom (poët. and late prose writers): He 12:18, II Pe 2:4, 17, Ju 6, 13.†

OF σκότος it needs hardly to speak. It is the largest and most inclusive word of this group; being of very frequent occurrence in the N. T., both in this its Attic form, as also in that of σκοτία, which belongs to the common dialect. It is the exact opposite to das; thus in the profoundly pathetic words of Ajax in Sophocles (4). 394), ἰώ: σκότος ἐμὸν φάος: compare Plato, Rep. vii. 518 a; Job xxii. 11; Luke xii. 3; Acts xxvi. 18. Γνόφος, which is rightly regarded as a later Doric form of δνόφος, occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Heb. xii. 18.and there in connexion with ζόφος : in which same connexion it is found elsewhere (Deut. iv. 11.; Exod. x. 22; Zeph. i. 16). There was evidently a feeling on the part of our early Translators, that an element of tempest was involved in the word, the renderings of it by them being these: ‘mist (Wiclif and Tyndale) ; ‘storm’ (Cranmer); “ blackness’ (Geneva and Authorized Version); ‘ whirlwind’ (Rheims, as ‘turbo’ in the Vulgate). Onur ordinary lexicons indicate very faintly, or not at all, that such a force is to be found in γνόφος : but it is very distinctly recognized by Pott (Htymol. Forsch. vol. v. page 346), who gives, as explanatory equivalents, ‘ Finsterniss,’ ‘ dunkel,’ ‘ Wirbelwind,’ and who with the best modern scholars sees in végas, νέφος, γνόφος and ζόφος, a group of words having much in common, perhaps only different shapes of what was once a single word. It is joined, too, in the Septuagint, where it is of frequent use, with νεφέλη (Joel 11. 2; Ps. xevi. 2; Ezek. xxxiv. 12), and with θύελλα (Deut. iv. LE S:¥.:32), Ζόφος, which occurs four times in the N. T. (2 Pet. ii. 4, 17; Jude 6, 13), or five times, if we make room for it at 374 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, § c Heb. xii. 18, as it seems we should, is not found in the Septuagint; twice, however, namely at Ps. x. 2, (Ps.) xe. 6, in the Version of Symmachus. The ζόφος may be contemplated asa kind of emanation of σκότος : thus ὁ ζόφος τοῦ σκότους (Jude 13); and signifies in its first meaning the twilight gloom which broods over the regions of the setting sun, and constitutes so strong a contrast to the life and light of that Orient where the sun may be said to be daily new-born. Ἠερόεις, or the cloudy, is in Homer the standing epithet with which ζόφος, when used in this sense, is linked. But it means more than this. There is a darkness darker still, that, namely, of the sunless underworld, the ‘nigra Tartara’ of Virgil (din. vi. 134) ; the ‘opaca Tartara’ of Ovid (Met. x. 20); the κνεφαῖα Ταρτάpov βάθη of Aischylus (Prom. Vinct. 1029). This, too, it further means, namely that sunless world itself, though indeed this less often than the gloom which wraps it (Homer, Hymn. ad Cer. 338 ; Euripides, Hippolytus, 1434; cf. Job x. 21, 22). It is out of the ζόφος that Ahriman in the Persian mythology is born, as is Ormuzd out of the light (Plutarch, De Is. et Osir. 47). It will at once be perceived with what fitness the word in the N. T. is employed, being ever used to signify the darkness of that shadowy land where light is not, but only darkness visible. ᾿Αχλύς occurs only once in the N. T., namely at Acts xiii. 11; never in the Septuagint, although once in the Version of Symmachus (Job iii. 5). It is by Galen defined as something more dense than ὀμίχλη, less dense than νέφος. In the single place of its N. T. use it attests the accuracy in the selection of words, and not least of medical words, which ‘the beloved physician’ so often displays. For him it expresses the mist of darkness, ἀχλὺς καὶ σκότος, which fell on the sorcerer Elymas, being the outward and visible sign of the inward spiritual darkness which should be his portion for a while in punishment for his resistance to the truth. It is by ‘mist’ that all the §ca. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 375 translations of our English Hexapia render it, with the exception of the Rheims, which has ‘ dimness’; while it is rendered well by ‘caligo’ in the Vulgate. St. Luke’s use of the word in the Acts is divided by nearly a thousand years from its employment by Homer; but the meaning has remained absolutely the same ; for indeed it is words with an ethical significance, and not those which express the phenomena of the outward world, that change with the changing years. Thus there is in the Odyssey a fine use of the verb ἀχλύειν (xii. 406), the poet describing there the responsive darkness which comes over the sea as it is overshadowed by a dark cloud (ef. ‘inhorruit unda tenebris’: Virgil, An. 111. 195). ᾿Αχλύς, too, is employed by Homer to express the mist which clouds the eyes of the dying (Jl. xvi. 344), or that in which the gods, for one cause or another, may envelope their favourites. § ci. βέβηλος, Kowvos. THE image which βέβηλος, derived from βηλός, a threshold, suggests, is that of a spot trodden and trampled on, lying open to the casual foot of every intruder or careless passer-by ;—and thus, in words of Thucydides, ἃ χωρίον βέβηλον (iv. 97). Exactly opposite to this is the ἄδυτον, a spot, that is, fenced aud reserved for sacred uses, as such not lightly to be approached, but in the language of the Canticles, ‘a garden enclosed, a spring shut up, a fountain sealed ’ (Cant. iv. 12). It is possible indeed that the ‘profaneness’ which is predicated of person or thing to whom this title is applied, may be rather negatively the absence of any higher consecration than positively the active presence of aught savouring of unholy or profane. Thus it is often joined with ἀμύητος (as by Plutarch, De Def. Orac. 16), signifying no more than one uninitiated, the ἀνοργίαστος, and, as such, arcendus a sacris ; compare Plato, Symp. 218 ὃ, where it is joined with ἀγροῖκος. In like manner ἄρτοι θέβηλοι 276 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 8 οι. (1 Sam. xxi. 4) are simply unconsecrated common loaves, as contrasted with the shew-bread which the high priest declares to be holy. Not otherwise the Latin ‘ profanus ’ means no more than that which is left outside the τέμενος, that which is ‘pro fano,’ and thus wanting the consecration which the τέμενος, or sanctuary, has obtained. We, too, in English mean no more, when we distinguish between ‘sacred’ and ‘ profane’ history, setting the one over against the other. We do not imply thereby any profaneness, positive and properly so called, in the latter, but only that it is not what the former is, a history having in the first place to do with the kingdom of God, and the course of that kingdom. So too it fared at first with βέβηλος. It was only in later use that it came to be set over against ἅγιος (Ezek. xxii. 6) and ὅσιος, to be joined with ἀνόσιος (1 Tim. i. 9), with γραώδης (iv. 7), with ἄνομος (Ezek. ii. 25), that μιαραὶ χεῖρες (2 Mace. v. 16) could within a few lines be changed for βέβηλοι, as an adequate equivalent. But in what relations, it may be asked, do βέβηλος and κοινός stand to one another? Before bringing the latter into such questionable company it may be observed that we have many pleasant and honourable uses of κοινός and its derivatives, κοινωνία and κοινωνικός, in the N. T.; thus Jude 3; 2 Cor. xiii. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 18; while in heathen Greek Socrates is by Dio Chrysostom happily characterized as κοινὸς καὶ φιλάνθρωπος, giving himself, that is, no airs, and in nothing withdrawing himself from friendly and familiar intercourse with his fellow-men; the word being capable of finding a yet higher application to Him, of whom some complained that He ate with publicans and sinners (Matt. ix. 10, 11). He, too, in this sense, and in the noblest aspect of the word, was κοινός. This, however, only by the way. The employment with which we have here to do of κοινός and κοινόω in sacred things, and as equivalent to βέβηλος and βεβηλόω, is exclusively Jewish Hel§cr. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 377 lenistic. One might claim for it to be restricted to the N. T. alone, if it were not for two exceptional examples (1 Mace. i. 47, 62). Comparing Acts xxi. 28, and xxiv. 6, we have curious implicit evidence that such an employment of κοινός was, at the time when the Acts were written, unfamiliar, probably unknown, to the heathen. The Jewish adversaries of St. Paul, when addressing their Israelitish fellow-countrymen, make their charge against him, κεκοίνωκε τὸν ἅγιον τόπον (Acts xxi. 28) ; but when they are bringing against him the same accusation, not now to their Jewish fellow-countrymen, but to Felix, a heathen, they change their word, and the charge runs, ἐπείρασε βεβηλῶσαι τὸ ἱερόν (Acts xxiv. 6); the other language would have been here out of keeping, might very likely have been unintelligible. Very noticeable is the manner in which κοινός in the N. T. more and more encroaches on the province of meaning which, first belonging exclusively to βέβηλος, the two came afterwards to divide between them, but with the result that κοινός gradually assumed to itself the larger share, and was used the most often (Mark vii. 2; Acts x. 14; Rom. xiv. 14, bis; Heb. x. 29). How this came to pass, how βέβηλος had, since the Septuagint was written, been gradually pushed from its place, is not difficult to see. Kovvés, which stepped into its room, more commended itself to Jewish ears, as bringing out by contrast the ἐκλογή of the Jewish people as a λαὸς περιούσιος, having no fellowship with aught which was unclean. The less that there necessarily lay in κοινός of defilement, the more strongly the separation of Israel was brought out, that would endure no fellowship with things which had any commonness about them. The ceremonially unclean was in fact more and more breaking down the barrier which divided it from _ that which was morally unclean; and doing away with any distinction between them. 378 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 8 σι.

ζόφος. For the corresponding adj. see Vett. Val. p. 312° διὰ τὸ Τοφῶδες τοῦ ἀέρος. The subst. is cited by Thumb (He//en. pp. 218, 225) as amongst the “ poetic’’ words, which have passed into general use in the Kowy. MGr fodds, “¢ dark.” Ὁ, ζυγός. ek For this word, which survives in MGr, in its literal sense cf. P Rein 172° (B.c. 109) ἄροτρον ἃ ζυ[γὸ]ν a, P Fay 1214 (c. A.D. 109) εὖ ποιήσεις δοὺς Οὐηστείνωι cis τὸν ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ ζυγόϑδεσμον καινὸν στερεόν, ‘kindly give Vestinus for his yoke a new strong yoke-band” (Edd.), P Strass I. 3215 (A.D. 261) ζυγὸν δὲ ἐνάγων παρά σοι τὸν ἐπιτηδειότερον αὐτῷ παράσχες. The neuter form of the subst. =‘‘ balance,” as in Rev 6°, occurs in A/ichel 1222 (ii/B.C.) τὸ ζυγὸν Kal τὰ σταβθμία.

ζόφος (zophos) — darkness. ζόφος, ὁ, nether darkness, ἱεμένων Ἔρεβόσδε ὑπὸ ζόφον [NT+8th c.BC+]; Ἀΐδης δ᾽ ἔλαχε ζόφον ἠερόεντα obtained the realms of gloom for his share, [Refs 8th c.BC+]

2. generally, gloom, darkness, [NT+8th c.BC+]; χειμέριος ζ. the gloom of winter, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II. the dark quarter, i.e. the West, ἤδη γὰρ φάος οἴχεθ᾽ ὑπὸ ζόφον [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ποτὶ ζόφον, opposed to πρὸς ἠῶ τ᾽ ἠέλιόν τε, [Refs 8th c.BC+] (the North accusative to [Refs 1st c.BC+]; Γαδείρων τὸ πρὸς ζόφον to the west of.., [Refs 5th c.BC+] —poetical and later Prose. (Prob. _cognate_ with ζέφυρος.)