ἄλλος, -7, -o, [cf. Lat. alius, Germ. alles, Eng. else; fr. Hom. down], another, other; a. absol.: Mt. xxvii. 42; xx. 3; Mk. vi. 15; Acts xix. 32; xxi. 34 (ἄλλοι μὲν ἄλλο), and often. b. as an adj.: Mt. ii. 12; iv. 21; Jn. xiv. 16; 1 Co. x. 29 (ἄλλη συνείδησις 1. 6. ἡ συν. ἄλλου τινός). ο. with the art.: ὁ ἄλλος the other (of two), Mt. v. 39; xii. 13, etc. [cf. B. 32 (28), 122 (107)]; of ἄλλοι all others, the remainder, the rest: Jn. xxi. 8; 1 Co. xiv. 29. [Syy. ἄλλος, ἕτερος: &A. as compared with ér. denotes numerical in distinction from qualitative difference; &A. adds (‘one besides’), ἕτ. distinguishes (‘one of two’); every ér. is an &A., but not every ἄλ. is a €r.; ἄλ. generally ‘ denotes simply distinction of individuals, ἕτερος involves the secondary idea of difference of kind’; e. g.2 Co. xi. 4; Gal.i. 6,7. See Bp. Lghtft. and Mey. on the latter pass.; Trench § xcv.; Schmidt ch. 198.]

ἄλλος allos 155x

another, some other; ὁ ἄλλος, the other; οἱ ἄλλοι, the others, the rest

ἄλλος, -η, -ο, (cf. Lat. alius, Eng. else),

[in LXX for אַחֵר ,אֶחָד, etc.;]

other, another: absol., Mt 20:3, al.; ἄ. δέ, I Co 3:10 12:8; pl., Mk 6:15; attached to a noun, Mt 2:12 4:21, al.; c. art., ὁ ἄ., the other, Mt 5:39, Jo 19:32 (Bl., §47, 8); οἱ ἄ., the others, the rest, Jo 20:25, I Co 14:29; ἄ. πρὸς ἄλλον = πρὸς ἀλλήλους (BL, §48, 10), Ac 2:12; ἄλλ’ (i.e. ἄλλο) ἤ (Bl., §77, 13), Lk 12:51; seq. πλήν, Mk 12:32; εἰ μή, Jo 6:22; παρά c. acc., I Co 3:11.

SYN.: ἕτερος, q.v. ἄ. denotes numerical, ἕ. qualitative difference (Cremer, 89). ἄ. generally "denotes simply distinction of individuals, ἕ. involves the secondary idea of difference in kind" (v. Lft., Meyer, Ramsay, on Ga 1:6, 7; Tr., Syn., §xcv; Bl., §51, 6; M, Pr., 79f., 246; MM, VGT, s.vv.). As to whether the distinction can be maintained in I Co 12:8, 10 v. ICC, in l., and on He 11:35f., v. Westc, in l.

“AXXos, identical with the Latin ‘alius,’ is the numerically distinct ; thus Christ spoke we are told ‘ another ’ parable, and still ‘ another ,’ but each succeeding one being of the same character as those which He had spoken before (Matt. xiii. 23, 24, 31, 33), ἄλλην therefore in every case. But Zrepos, equivalent to the Latin ‘alter,’ to the German ‘ander’ (on which last word see an instructive article in Grimm’s Wéorterbuch), superadds the notion of qualitative difference. One is ‘ divers,’ the other is ‘diverse.’ There are not a few passages in the N. T. whose right interpretation, or at any rate their full understanding, will depend on an accurate seizing of the distinction between these words. Thus Christ promises to his disciples that He will send, not ἕτερον, but ἄλλον, Παράκλητον (John xiv. 16), ‘another’ Comforter therefore, similar to Himself. The dogmatic force of this ἄλλος has in controversy with various sects of πνευματομάχοι been often urged before now; thus by Petavius (De Trin. ii. 13. 5): ‘ Hodem pertinet et Paracleti cognomen, maxime cum Christus aliwm Paracletum, hoc est, parem sibi, et equalem eum nominat. Quippe vox alius dignitate ac substantid prorsus eundem, et equalem fore demonstrat, ut Gregorius Nazianzenus et Ambrosius admonent.’ Butif in the ἄλλος there is a negation of identity, there is oftentimes much more in érepos, the negation namely, up to a certain point, of resemblance; the assertion not merely of distinctness but of difference. A few examples will illustrate this. Thus St. Paul says, ‘I see another law’ [ἕτερον νόμον], a law quite different from the law of the spirit of life, even a law of sin and death, ‘working in my members’ (Rom. vii. 23). After Joseph’s death ‘another king arose’ in Egypt (βασιλεὺς ἕτερος, Acts vii. 18; cf. Exod. i. 8), one, it is generally supposed, of quite another § xev. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 359 dynasty, at all events of quite another spirit, from his who had invited the children of Israel into Egypt, and so hospitably entertained them there. The odds ἑτέρα and καρδία ἑτέρα which God promises that He will give to his people are a new way and a new heart (Jer. xxxix. 39; cf. Deut. xxix. 22). It was not ‘another spirit’ only but a different (ἕτερον πνεῦμα) which was in Caleb, as distinguished from the other spies (Num. xiv. 24). In the parable of the Pounds the slothful servant is ἕτερος (Luke xix. 20). When Iphigenia about to die exclaims, ἕτερον, ἕτερον αἰῶνα καὶ μοῖραν οἰκήσομεν, a different life with quite other surroundings is that to which she looks forward (Euripides, Iphig. in Aul. 1516). The spirit that has been wandering through dry places, seeking rest in them in vain, takes ‘ seven other spirits’ (ἕτερα πνεύματα), worse than himself, of a deeper malignity, with whose aid to repossess the house which he has quitted for a while (Matt. xii. 45). Those who are crucified with the Lord are ἕτεροι δύο, κακοῦργοι, ‘two other, malefactors,’ as it should be pointed (Luke xxiii. 32; cf. Bornemann, Schol. in Lucam, p. 147; it would be inconceivable and revolting so to confound Him and them as to speak of them as ἄλλοι δύο. It is only too plain why St. Jude should speak of ἑτέρα σάρξ (ver. 7), as that which the wicked whom he is denouncing followed after (Gen. xix. 5). Christ appears to his disciples ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ (Mark xvi. 12), the word indicating the mighty change which had passed upon Him at his resurrection, as by anticipation at his Transfiguration, and there expressed in the same way (Luke ix. 29). It is χείλεσιν ἑτέροις, with altogether other and different lips, that God will speak to his people in the New Covenant (1 Cor. xiv. 21); even as the tongues of Pentecost are ἕτεραι γλῶσσαι (Acts ii. 4), being quite different in kind from any other speech of men. It would be easy to multiply the passages where ἕτερος» could.not be exchanged at all, or could only be 360 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW ΤΕΒΤΑΜΕΝΊ. ὃ χον. exchanged at a loss, for ἄλλος, as Matt. xi. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 40; Gal. 1. 6. Others too there are where at first sight ἄλλος seems quite as fit or a fitter word ; where yet ἕτερος retains its proper force. Thus at Luke xxii. 65 the ἕτερα πολλά are ‘multa diversi generis convicia,’ blasphemous speeches now of one kind, now of another; the Roman soldiers taunting the Lord now from their own point of view, as a pretender to Ceesar’s throne; and now from the Jewish, as claiming to be Son of God. At the same time it would be idle to look for qualitative difference as intended in every case where ἕτερος is used; thus see Heb. xi. 36, where it would be difficult to trace anything of the kind. What holds good of ἕτερος, holds good also of the compounds into which it enters, cf which the N. T. contains three; namely, ἑτερόγλωσσος (1 Cor. xiv. 21), by which word the Apostle intends to bring out the nonintelligibility of the tongues to many in the Church; it is true indeed that we have also ἀλλόγλωσσος (Ezek. iii. 6) ; ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν (1 Tim. i. 3), to teach other things, and things alien to the faith; ἑτεροζυγεῖν (2 Cor. vi. 14), io yoke with others, and those as little to be yoked with as the ox with the ass (Deut. xxii. 10) ; cf. ἑτεροκλινής (Clement of Rome, Cor. 11), swerving aside; ἑτερογνώμων (ibid.), an epithet applied to Lot’s wife. So too we have in ecclesiastical Greek ἑτεροδοξία, which is not merely another opinion, but one which, in so far as it is another, is a worse, a departure from the faith. The same reappears in our own ‘heterogeneous,’ which is not merely of another kind, but of another and a worse kind. For this point also deserves attention, and is illustrated by several of the examples already adduced; namely, that ἕτερος is very constantly, not this other and different, ἄλλο καὶ διάφορον, only, but such with the further subaudition, that whatever difference there is, it is for the worse. Thus Socrates is accused of introducing into Athens ἕτερα καινὰ δαιμόνια (Xenophon, Mem. i. 1. 1); δαίμων ἕτερος (Pindar, Pyth. iii. 61) isan evil or hostile deity; ἕτεραι θυσίαι (Aischylus, Agamemnon, 151), ill-omened sacrifices, such as bring back to their offerer not a blessing but a curse; δημαγωγοὶ ἕτεροι (Plutarch, Pericles, 3), are popular leaders not of a different only, but of a worse stamp and spirit than was Pericles. So too in the Septuagint other gods than the true are invariably ἕτεροι θεοί (Deut. ν. 7; Judg. x. 13; Ezek. xlii. 14; and often) ; compare Aristophanes (Ran. 889): ἕτεροι γάρ εἰσιν οἷσιν εὔχομαι θεοῖς. A barbarous tongue is ἑτέρα γλῶσσα (Isai. xxviii. 11), the phrase being linked with φαυλισμὸς χειλέων. We may bring this distinction practically to bear on the interpretation of the N.T. There is only one way in which the fine distinction between ἕτερον and ἄλλο, and the point which St. Paul makes as he sets the one over against the other at Gal. i. 6, 7, can be reproduced for the English reader. ‘I marvel,’ says the Apostle, ‘that ye are so soon removed from them that called you into the grace of Christ unto another (ἕτερον) Gospel, which is not another’ (ἄλλο). Dean Alford for the first ‘other’ has substituted ‘different’; for indeed that is what St. Paul intends to express, namely, his wonder that they should have so soon accepted a Gospel different in character and kind from that which they had already received, which therefore had no right to be called another Gospel, to assume this name, being in fact no Gospel at all; since there could not be two Gospels, varying the one from the other. Cocceius: ‘ Vos transferimini ad aliud Evangelium quod aliud nec est, nec esse potest.’ There are other passages in the N. T. where the student may profitably exercise himself with the enquiry why one of these words is used in preference to the other, or rather why both are used, the one alternating with, or giving partial place to, the other. Such are 1 Cor. xii. 8-10; 2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts iv. 12. See also Plato’s Politicus, 6 a, and Stallbaum’s.note thereupon. ‘ 362 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § χονι. § xevi. ποιέω, πράσσω. THERE is a long discussion in Rost and Palm’s Lezicon, s. v. πράσσω, on the distinction between these words; and the references there given sufficiently attest that this distinction has long and often occupied the attention of scholars ; this occupation indeed dating as far back as Prodicus (see Plato, Charmides, 162 d). It is there rightly observed that ποιεῖν brings out more the object and end of an act, πράσσειν the means by which this object is attained, as, for instance, hindrances moved out of the way, and the like; and also that the idea of continuity and repetition of action is inherent in mpdocew=‘agere’ or ‘ gerere,’ ‘handeln,’ ‘to practise’; but not necessarily in ποιεῖν τε ‘facere,’ ‘machen,’ which may very well be the doing once and for all; the producing and bringing forth something which being produced has an independent existence of its own; as ποιεῖν παιδίον, of a woman, ποιεῖν καρπούς, of a tree; in the same way, ποιεῖν εἰρήνην, to make peace, while πράσσειν εἰρήνην is no more than to negotiate with the view to peace (see Pott, Htym. Forsch. vol. iii. p- 408) ; that attaining what this is only aiming to attain. IIpatrew and ποιεῖν are in this sense often joined together by Demosthenes, and with no tautology ; thus of certain hostile designs which Philip entertained he assures the Athenians ὅτε πράξει ταῦτα καὶ ποιήσει (Orat. xix. 373), he will busy himself with the bringing about of these things, and he will effect them! (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop. ii. 1 These are some of Rost and Palm's words: Auch Kriiger und Franke (Demosthenes, Olynth. iii. 15) unterscheiden πράσσειν als die geschaftige, ποιεῖν als die schaffende Thitigkeit. Zuliinglicher wird es indess sein, diesen Unterschied dahin festzustellen, dass bei ποιεῖν mehr die Vorstellung von dem Product der Thitigkeit, bei πράσσειν mehr die von dem Hinarbeiten auf ein Ziel mit Beseitigung entgegentretender Hindernisse, von den Mitteln und Wegen vorherrschend ist, wodurch dasselbe erreicht wird. Damit verbindet sich die Vorstellung einer wenigstens relativen Continuitit, wie aufgewandter Anstrengung. It ὃ xcvi. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 363 .2. 29; Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. vi. 5. 3): πράσσειν, in the words of a recent German scholar, ist die geschiiftige, ποιεῖν die schaffende Thitigkeit. How far can we trace the recognition of any such distinction in the Greek of the N. T.? ‘There are two or three passages where it is difficult not to recognize an intention of the kind It is hard, for example, to suppose that the change of words at John iii. 20, 21 is accidental ; above all when the same reappears at chapter v. 29. In both places it is the φαῦλα πράσσειν, which is set, in the first instance, over against the ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, in the second against the ποιεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά, justas at Rom. vil. 19 we have ποιεῖν ἀγαθόν and πρᾶσσειν κακόν. It would of course be idle to assert that the ποιεῖν relates only to good things, for we have ποιεῖν ἀνομίαν (Matt. xiii. 41), ἁμαρτίαν 2 Cor. v. 21), τὰ κακά (Rom. iii. 8); not less idle to affirm that πράσσειν is restricted to ill things; for, to go no farther than the N. T., we have πράσσειν ἀγαθόν (Rom. ix. 11). Still it is not to be denied that very often where the words assume an ethical tinge, the inclination makes itself felt to use ποιεῖν in a good and πράσσειν in an evil sense; the latter tendency appearing in a more marked way in the uses of πρᾶξις, which, occurring six times in the N. T. (namely at Matt. xvi. 27; Luke xxiii. 51; Acts xix. 18; Rom. viii. 13; xii. 4; Col. iii.9), has in all these places except the first an evil signification, very much like our ‘ practices’; cf. Polybius, iv. 8. 3 (πράξεις, ἀπάται, ἐπιβουλαί): v. 96. 4. Bengel, at John iii. 20, gives the proper explanation of this change of words: “πράσσων. Malitia est irrequieta ; est quiddam operosius quam veritas. Hine verbis diversis notantur, uti cap. v. 29. There may be a busy activity may be added that in πράσσειν the action is always more or less conscious of itself, so that, as was observed long ago, this could not be predicated of animals (Ethic, Eudem. vi. 2.2); while the ποιεῖν is more free and spontaneous. 364 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 8 χονι. in the working of evil, yet not the less it is true that ‘ the wicked worketh a deceitful work,’ and has nothing to show for all his toil at the end, no fruit that remains. Then too evil is manifold, good is one ; they are ἔργα τῆς σαρκός (Gal. v. 22), for these works are many, not merely contradicting good, but often contradicting one another ; but it is καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος (Gal. v. 19), for there is an inner consent, between all the parts of good, a consensus virtutum,’ as Cicero calls it, knitting them into a perfect and harmonious whole, and inviting us to contemplate them as one. Those are of human art and device, this of Divine nature. Thus Jerome (in loco): ‘In carne opera posuit [Paulus], et fructus in spiritu; quia vitia in semetipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes frugibus pullulant et redundant.’ Here is enough to justify and explain the fact that the inspired reporter of our Lord’s words has on these two occasions (John iii. 20, 21) exchanged the φαῦλα πράσσειν for the ποιεῖν ἀλήθειαν, ποιεῖν τὰ ἀγαθά, the practising of evil for the doing of good. Let me add in conclusion a few excellent words of Bishop Andrewes: ‘There are two kinds of doers: 1. ποιηταί, and 2. πρακτικοί, which the Latin likewise expresseth in I. ‘agere,’ and 2. ‘facere.’ ‘Agere,’ as in music, where, when we have done singing or playing, nothing remaineth : ‘ facere,’ as in building, where, after we have done, there is a thing permanent. And ποιηταί, ‘ factores,’ they are St. James’ doers. But we have both the words in the English tongue: actors, as in a play; factors, as in merchandise. When the play is done, all the actors do vanish: but of the factors’ doing, there is a gain, a real thing remaining.” On the distinction between πρᾶξις and ἔργον see Wyttenbach’s note on Plutarch’s Moralia, vol. vi. p. 601. δ xcvu. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 365 § χουν. βωμός, θυσιαστήριον. THERE was occasion to note, in dealing with the words προφητεύω and μαντεύομαι (ὃ vi.), the accuracy with which in several instances the lines of demarcation between the sacred and profane, between the true religion and the false, are maintained in the words which, reserved for the one, are not permitted to be used for the other, each retaining its proper and peculiar term. We have another example of this same precision here, in the fact of the constant use in the N. T. of θυσιαστήριον, occurring as it does more than twenty times, for the altar of the true God, while on the one occasion when a heathen altar needs to be named (Acts xvii. 23), βωμός is substituted in its stead. But, indeed, there was but a following here of the good example which the Septuagint Translators had shown, the maintenance of a distinction which these had drawn. So resolute were they to mark the difference between the altars of the true God and those on which abominable things were offered, that there is every reason to suppose they invented the word θυσιαστήριον for the purpose of maintaining this distinction; being indeed herein more nice than the inspired Hebrew Scriptures themselves ; for these, while they have a word which they use for heathen altars, and never for the altars of the true God, namely 1193 (Isai. xv. 2; Amos vii. 9), make no scruple in using 73!2 now for the one (Lev. i. 9), and now for the other (Isai. xvii. 8). I need hardly observe that θυσιαστήριον, properly the neuter of θυσιαστήριος, as ἱλαστήριον (Exod. xxv. 17: Heb. ix. 5) of ἑἱλαστήριος, nowhere occurs in classical Greek; and it is this coining of it on the part of the Septuagint Translators which Philo must have had in mind when he implied that Moses invented the word (De Vit. Mos. iii. το). With all this the Greek of the Ὁ. T. 306 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃ xcvu. does not invariably observe this distinction. I cannot indeed accept Num. xxiii. 1, 2 as instances of a failure so to do; for what altars could be more truly heathen than those which Balaam reared? Still there are three occasions, one in Second Maccabees (xiii. 8), and two in Ecclesiasticus (1. 12, 14), where βωμός designates an altar of the true God; these two Books, however, it must be remembered, hellenize very much. So too there are occasions on which θυσιαστήριον is used to designate an idol altar; for example, Judg. ii. 2; vi. 25; 2 Kin. xvi. Io. Still these are rarest exceptions, and sometimes the antagonism between the words comes out with a most marked emphasis. It does so, for example, at 2 Macc. x. 2, 3; but more remarkably still at 1 Macc. i. 59, where the historian recounts how the servants of Antiochus offered sacrifices to Olympian Jove on an altar which had been built over the altar of the God of Israel (θυσιάζοντες ἐπὶ τὸν βωμόν, ὃς ἣν ἐπὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου). Our Translators are here put to their shifts, and are obliged to render βωμός ‘idol altar,’ and θυσιαστηρίον ‘altar... We may compare Josephus, Antt. xii. 5. 4, where relating these same events he says, ἐποικοδομήσας καὶ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ βωμόν, σύας ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατέσφαξε. Still more notable, as marking how strong the feeling on this matter was, is the fact of the refusal of the Septuagint Translators to give the title of θυσιαστήριον (Josh. xxii.) to the altar which the Transjordanic tribes had reared—being as it was a piece of will-worship upon their parts, and no altar reared according to the will, or by the express command, of God. Throughout the chapter this altar is βωμός (ver. 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 26, 34), the legitimate divinely ordained altar θυσιαστήριον (ver. 19, 28, 29), and this while the Hebrew text knows no such distinction, but indiscriminately employs 319 for both. I mentioned just now an embarrassment, in which on one occasion our Translators found themselves. In the § xovin. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 367 Latin there is no such difficulty; for at a very early day the Church adopted ‘altare’ to designate her altar, and assigned ‘ara’ exclusively to heathen uses. Thus see the Vulgate at Judg. vi. 28; 1 Macc. i. 59; 2 Mace. x. 2, 3; Acts xvii. 23. Cyprian in like manner expresses his wonder at the profane boldness of one of the “ turificati “— those, that is, who in time of persecution had consented to save their lives by burning incense before a heathen idol,—that he should afterwards have dared, without obtaining first the Church’s absolution, to continue his ministry—‘ quasi post aras diaboli accedere ad altare Dei fas sit (Ep. 63). In profane Latin ‘ara’ is the genus, ‘altare ’ the specific kind of altar on which the victims were offered (Virgil, Hcl. v. 65, 66; cf. Tacitus, Anal. xvi. 31, and Orelli thereupon). The distinction between βωμός and θυσιαστήριον, first established in the Septuagint, and recognized in the N. T., was afterwards maintained in ecclesiastical Greek; for the Church has still her θυσία αἰνέσεως (Heb. xiii. 15), and that which is at once her θυσία ἀναμνήσεως and ἀνάμνησις θυσίας, and therefore her θυσιαστήριον still. We have clear testimony to this in the following passage of Chrysostom (in 1 Cor. Hom. 24), in which Christ is supposed to be speaking: ὥστε εἰ αἵματος ἐπιθυμεῖς, μὴ τὸν τῶν εἰδώλων βωμὸν TO τῶν ἀλόγων φόνῳ, ἀλλὰ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἐμὸν τῷ ἐμῶ φοίνισσε αἵματι (compare Mede, Works, 1672, p. 391 : Augusti, Christl. Archdol. vol. i. p. 412; and Smith, Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, s. v. ‘ Altar’). § xeviii. λαός, ἔθνος, δῆμος, ὄχλος. Λαός, a word of rarest use in Attic prose, but occurring between one and two thousand times in the Septuagint, is almost always there a title reserved for the elect people, the Israel of God. Still there are exceptions. The Philistines are a λαός (Gen. xxvi. 11), the Egyptians 368 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xcviu.(Exod. ix. 15), and the Moabites (Ruth i. 15); to others too the name is not refused. Then, too, occasionally in the plural of λαοί are=ra ἔθνη ; as for example at Neh. i. 8; x. 30, 31; Ps. xcvi. 6; Hos. x. 10; Mic. vi. 16. Or again we find λαοί joined with ἔθνη as a sort of exhaustive enumeration of the whole race of mankind; thus Ps. evii. 4; Wisd. iii. 8; Rev. v. 93 vii. 93 x. I13. Xi. Ὁ xiii. 7; xiv.6; xvii. 15. It is true indeed that in all these passages from the Book of Revelation the exhaustive enumeration is fourfold; and to λαοί and ἔθνη are added φυλαί and γλῶσσαι, on one occasion φυλαί making way for βασιλεῖς (x. 11) and on another for ὄχλοι (xvii. 15). We may contrast with this a distributive use of λαός and ἔθνη, but λαός here in the singular, as at Luke ii. 32; Acts xxvi. 17, 23, where also, being used together, they between them take in the whole of mankind, but where λαός is claimed for and restricted to the chosen people, while ἔθνη includes all mankind outside of the covenant (Deut. xxxii. 43; Isai. xv. 1, 2; 2 Sam. vii. 23; Acts xv. 14). And this is the general law of the words’ use, every other being exceptional; λαός the chosen people, ἔθνη, or sometimes more fully τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κόσμου (Luke xii. 30), or τῆς γῆς ; but always in the plural and with the article, the residue of mankind (οὗ κατάλοιποι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Acts xv.17). At the same time ἔθνος in the singular has no such limitation ; it is a name which, given to the Jews by others, is not intended to convey any slight, thus τὸ ἔθνος τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Acts x. 22); they freely take it as in no way ὃ dishonorable title to themselves, τὸ ἔθνος ἡμῶν (Luke vii. 5; cf. xxiii. 2; John xi. 18), τὸ ἔθνος τοῦτο (Acts xxiv. 3; cf. Exod. xxxiii. 13; Deut. iv. 6; Wisd. Xvii. 2); nay sometimes and with certain additions it is for them a title of highest honour; they are ἔθνος ἅγιον (Exod. xix. 6; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9); ἔθνος ἐκ μέσου ἐθνῶν (Clement of Rome, Cor. 29). If indeed the word be connected with ἔθος, and contemplates a body of people living ὃ χουπι. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 369 according to one custom and rule, none could deserve the title better or so well as a nation which ordered their lives according to a more distinctive and rigidly defined custom and rule of their own than probably any other nation that ever lived. Δῆμος occurs only in St. Luke, and in him, as might be expected, only in the Acts, that is, after his narrative has left behind it the limitations of the Jewish Church, and has entered on and begun to move in the ampler spaces, and among the more varied conditions of the heathen world. _ The following are the four occasions of its use, xli. 223 xvii. 5; xix. 30, 33; they all exemplify well that fine and accurate use of technical terms, that choice of the fittest among them, which we so often observe in St. Luke, and which is so characteristic a mark of the highly educated man. The Greek δῆμος is the Latin ‘ populus,’ which Cicero (De Re Publ.i. 25; cf. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ii. 21) thus defines: ‘Populus avtem non omnis hominum ccetus quoquo modo congregatus, sed coetus multitudinis juris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus ;’ ‘die Gemeinde,’ the free commonalty (Plutarch, Mul. Virt. 15, in fine), and these very often contemplated as assembled and in actual exercise of their rights as citizens. This idea indeed so dominates the word that év τῷ δήμῳ is equivalent to, ‘in a popular assembly.’ [Ὁ is invariably thus used by St. Luke. If we want the exact opposite to δῆμος, it is ὄχλος, the disorganized, or rather the unorganized, multitude (Luke ix. 38; Matt. xxi. 8; Acts xiv. 14); this word in classic Greek having often a certain tinge of contempt, as designating those who share neither in the duties nor privileges of the free citizens. Such contempt, however, does not lie of necessity in the word (Rev. vii. 9; Acts i. 15), and there is no hint of it in Scripture, where a man is held worthy of honour even though the only πολέτευμα in which he may claim a share is that which is eternal in the heavens (Plul. iil. 20). BB 370 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ὃ xcix, ὃ xcix. βαπτισμός, βάπτισμα. THESE are exclusively ecclesiastical terms, as are βαπτιστής and βαπτιστήριον ; none of them appearing in the Septuagint, nor in classical Greek, but only in the N. T., or in writings dependent on this. They are all in lineal descent from βαπτίζειν, a later form of βάπτειν, and to be found, though rarely, in classical Greek; thus twice in Plato (Euthyd. 277 d; Symp. 176 b), in which last place βεβαπτισμένος signifies well washed with wine; the ‘uvidus’ of Horace (Carm. ii. 19. 18); and often in later writers, as in Plutarch (De Superst. 3; Galba, 21), in Lucian (Bacch. 7), and in others. Before proceeding further, a word or two may fitly find place here on the relation between words of the same family, but divided from one another by their several terminations in μα and pos, as κήρυγμα and κηρυγμός, δίωγμα and διωγμός, δῆγμα and δηγμός, with others innumerable. It seldom happens that both forms are found in the N.T.; that in μα being of the most frequent occurrence; thus: this has ἀπαύγασμα (Heb. i. 3), but not ἀπαυγασμός ; σέβασμα (Acts xvii. 23), but not σεβασμός; βδέλυγμα (Matt. xxiv. 15), but not βδελυγμός ; ῥῆγμα (Luke vi. 49), but not ῥηγμός ; περικάθαρμα (1 Cor. iv. 13), but not περικαθαρμός. Sometimes, but more rarely, it offers us the termination of wos; thus ἁρπαγμός (Phil. ii. 6), but not ἅρπαγμα; ἀπαρτισμός (Luke xiv. 28), but not ἀπάρτισμα: καταρτισμός (Ephes. iv. 12), but not κατάρτισμα; ἁγιασμός (Rom. vi. 19), but not ἁγίασμα. It will happen, but only in rare instances, that both forms occur in the N. T.; thus μίασμα (2 Pet. ii. 20) and μιασμός (2 Pet. ii. 10); and these with which we have at present to deal, βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός. There is occasionally, but not in the N. T., a third form; thus besides σέβασμα and σεβασμός there is c¢Bacis; besides ἀπάρτισμα and ἀπαρτισμός there ὃ χοιχ. SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 371 _is ἀπάρτισις ; besides πλεόνασμα and πλεονασμός there is πλεόνασις ; besides ἅρπαγμα and ἁρπαγμός there is ἅρπασις; and so too besides βάπτισμα and βαπτισμός we have βάπtists in Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5. 2) and in others. There is no difficulty in severally assigning to each of these forms the meaning which properly belongs to it; and this, even while we must own that in actual use the words are very far from abiding true to their proper significance, those with the active termination in pos continually drifting into a passive signification, as is the case with πλεονασμός, Bacavicpés, and in the N. T. with ἁγιασμός and others; while the converse, if not quite so common, is yet of frequent occurrence; cf. Tholuck, Disp. Christ. de loco Pauli Ep. ad Phil. ii. 6-9, 1848, p. 18. Thus, to take the words which now concern us the most nearly, βάπτισις is the act of baptism contemplated in the doing, a baptizing; βαπτισμός the same act contemplated not only as doing, but as done, a baptism; while βάπτισμα is not any more the act, but the abiding fact resulting therefrom, baptism; the first embodying the transitive, the second the intransitive, notion of the verb; while the third expresses the result of the transitive notion of the same—this last therefore, as is evident, bein g the fittest word to designate the institution of baptism in the Church, as an abstract idea, or rather as an ever-existing fact, and not the same in its several concrete realizations. See on these passives in wa the exhaustive essay on πλήρωμα in Bishop Lightfoot, On the Colossians, pp. 323-339. How far is this the usage of the N. T.? It can only be said to be approximately so; seeing that βαπτισμός has not there, as I am convinced, arrived at the dignity of setting forth Christian baptism at all. By βαπτισμός in the usage of the N. T. we must understand any ceremonial washing or lustration, such as either has been ordained of God (Heb. ix. 10), or invented by men (Mark vii. 4, 8) ; but in neither vase as possessing any central significance : BB2 272 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. § xcix. while by βάπτισμα we understand baptism in our Christian sense of the word (Rom. vi. 4; 1 Pet. ili. 21; Ephes. iv. 5); yet not so strictly as to exclude the baptism of John (Luke vii. 29; Acts x. 37; xix. 3). This distinction is in the main preserved by the Greek ecclesiastical writers. Josephus indeed calls the baptism of John βαπτισμός (Antt. xviii. 5. 2); but Augusti (Christl. Archdol. vol. ii. p. 313) is strangely in error, affirming as he does of the Greek Fathers that they habitually employ the same for Christian Baptism. So far from this, it would be difficult to adduce a single example of this from Chrysostom, or from any one of the great Cappadocian Fathers. In the Latin Church it is true that ‘baptismus’ and ‘ baptisma’ are both employed to designate Christian baptism; by Tertullian one perhaps as frequently as the other; while ‘baptismus’ quite predominates in Augustine; but it is altogether otherwise in ecclesiastical Greek, which remains faithful to the distinctions which the N. T. observes. These distinctions are there so constantly maintained, that all explanations of Heb. vi. 2 (βαπτισμῶν διξαχῆϑ), which rest on the assumption that Christian Baptism is intended here, break down before this fact; not to urge the plural βαπτισμῶν, which, had the one baptism of the Church been intended, would be inexplicable. If, indeed, we take the βαπτισμοί of this place in its widest sense, as including all baptisms whatever with which the Christian had anything to do, either in the way of rejecting or making them his own, we can understand a ‘ doctrine of baptisms,’ such as should teach the young convert the definitive abolition of the Jewish ceremonial lustrations, the merely preparatory and provisional character of the baptism of John, and the eternal validity of the baptism of Christ. We can understand too how these all should be gathered up under the one name of βαπτισμοί, being that they were all washings; and this without in the least allowing that any other save βάπτισμα was the proper title of that λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας which is the exclusive privilege of the Church of Christ.

ἄλλος. The differentia of ἄλλος as distinguished from ἕτερος may be left to the latter article. With ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία in Mt 27% cf. P Petr III. 59 (c) (Ptol.), where a great many names appear as Θάησις ἄλλη, Κόνρηις ἄλλος, even where no duplicate appears in the document itself—its fragmentary character presumably accounts for this. (Grimm’s article on Μαρία (3) suggests the remark that the repetition of the same name within a family is paralleled in papyri: thus P Petr III. 117 (9) 4-17 £ ΓΜΠάνρης μικρὸς Τεῶτος kal Μάνρης ἀδελφὸς ὡσαύτως .---τνε quote without prejudicing the discussion as to the Maries!) The form τἄλλα with crasis is frequent: see Witkowski? (Index) p. 162 for several instances. For ἄλλος used = alter, see Proleg. p. 80 n.1, where an ex. is quoted from a Doric inscr. as early as B.C. 91. An idiomatic use of ἄλλος may be quoted from P Oxy VII. ro70% py... , ὃ μὴ εἴη, GN ἐξ ἄλλων γένηται, “lest... , what heaven forbid, we find ourselves at sixes and sevens” (Edd.) : the note is, “ ἄλλ᾽ ἐξ ἄλλων, if the letters are rightly so interpreted, seems to be a phrase meaning out of harmony, one person doing one thing and another another.

ἄλλος (allos) — another. ἄλλος, η, ο, [Refs 5th c.AD+] yος, cf. Latin alius):—another, i. e. one besides what has been mentioned, either adjective or pronoun: when adjective, its substantive is either in the same case, or in genitive, Ζεῦ ἄλλοι τε θεοί[Refs 8th c.BC+] —ἄ. μέν.. ἄ. δέ.. one.. another.., more rarely the one.. the other.. (of two persons, etc.), [Refs 8th c.BC+]; τὰ μέν.. ἄλλα δέ.. [Refs 8th c.BC+], and Attic dialect; ἕτερον μέν.. ἄλλον δέ.. [Refs 8th c.BC+]; ἄλλο μέν.. ἑτέρου δέ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II. with τις, any other, οὐδέ τις ἄ. ἔγνω ἀλλ᾽ ἄρα Κασσάνδρη[Refs 8th c.BC+]; οὐδεὶς ἄ. no other, [Refs]; ἄλλα πολλά[Refs 8th c.BC+]

II.2. frequently with another of its own cases or derived Adverbs, ἄ. ἄλλα λέγει one man says one thing, one another, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; see at {ἄλλοθεν, ἄλλοσε, ἄλλοτε}; also with Verb in plural, παραλαμβάνων ἄ. ἄλλον ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου, τὸν δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλου χρείᾳ.. ἐθέμεθα πόλιν ὄνομα[Refs 5th c.BC+] when the several parties are plural, λείπουσι τὸν λόφον.. ἄλλοι ἄλλοθεν[Refs 5th c.BC+]

II.3. ἄ. καὶ ἄ., one and then another, one or two, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο one thing after another, [Refs]; πρὸς ἄλλὡ καὶ ἄλλὡ σημείὡ to different points, [Refs 3rd c.BC+]

II.4. repeated for emphasis, ἄ. ἄ. τρόπος quite another sort, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II.5. οὐδ᾽ ἄ. for οὐδέτερος, [Refs 3rd c.BC+]

II.6. with Article, ὁ ἄλλος, the rest, all besides; in plural, οἱ ἄλλοι (Ionic dialect contraction ὧλλοι) all the others, the rest, frequently from [Refs 8th c.BC+]; τὰ ἄλλα, contraction τἆλλα, all else, τἆλλα πλὴν ὁ χρυσός[Refs]; in Attic dialect frequently as adverb, for the rest, especially in amendments to decrees, τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καθάπερ ὁ δεῖνα κτλ. [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ὁ ἄ. χρόνος, ={ὁ λοιπὸς χρόνος}, of the future, [Refs 5th c.BC+] (but also of the past, [Refs 4th c.BC+]; τῇ ἄλλῃ ἡμέρᾳ, τῷ ἄλλῳ ἔτει, next day, next year, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; οἵτε ἄλλοι καί.. all others and especially.., γυναῖκας ἄλλας τε πολλὰς καὶ δὴκαὶ βασιλέος θυγατέρα[Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἄλλα τε δὴ εἶπε, καί.. [Refs 5th c.BC+] —τὸ ἄλλο is much less frequently than τὰ ἄλλα.

II.7. with Numerals, yet, still, further, τρίτον ἄ. γένος[Refs 8th c.BC+]; πέμπτος ποταμὸς ἄ. yet a fifth river, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

II.8. in enumerations, as well, besides, ἅμα τῇγε καὶ ἀμφίπολοι κίον ἄλλαι with her their mistress came attendants also, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; οὐ γὰρ ἦν χόρτος οὐδὲ ἄ. δένδρον οὐδέν there was no grass nor any tree at all, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; προσοφλὼν οὐ τὴν ἐπωβελίαν μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλην ὕβριν besides, [Refs 8th c.BC+]; with comparative, frequently in [Refs 8th c.BC+]; with superlative, ὀϊζυρώτατος ἄλλων[Refs 8th c.BC+]

III. less frequently, ={ἀλλοῖος}, of other sort, different, [Refs 8th c.BC+]

III.2. in this sense, with genitive, ἄλλα τῶν δικαίων other than just, [Refs 5th c.BC+] —followed by ἤ.., with preceding _negative_, οὐδὲ ἄλλο.., οὐδὲν ἄλλο (or ἄλλο οὐδέν).., ἤ.. nothing else than.., [Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἃ μηδὲν ἄλλο ἢ διανεῖταί τις which one only thinks, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; τί δ᾽ ἄλλογ᾽ ἢπόνοι..; [Refs 5th c.BC+]; τί ἄλλο (i.e. ἐποίησαν) ἢ ἐπεβούλευσα; [Refs 5th c.BC+]; by Preps., πρό..[Refs 5th c.BC+]; ἀντί.. [Refs 4th c.BC+]; παρά.. [Refs 8th c.BC+] —see also ἄλλο τι.

III.3. other than what is, untrue, unreal, [Refs 8th c.BC+]

III.4. other than right, wrong, bad, ἄλλου τινος ἡττῆσθαι yield to some unworthy motive, [Refs 4th c.BC+]; compare ἄλλως.