λαλιά, -Gs, ἡ, (Addos, ef. Bittm. Ausf. Sprchl. § 119 Anm. 21), in prof. auth. [fr. Arstph. down] loquacity, talkativeness, talk (Germ. Gerede) [see λαλέω, init.]; in a good sense conversation; in the N. T. 1. speech, i.q.story: Jn. iv. 42. 2. dialect, mode of speech, proλαμά 3 nunciation, [W. 23]: Mk. xiv. 70 Rec.; Mt. xxvi. 73; speach which discloses the speaker’s native country: hence of the speech by which Christ may be recognized as haying come from heaven, Jn. viii. 43 [where cf. Meyer].

λαλιά lalia 3x

talk, speech; in NT matter of discourse, Jn. 4:42; 8:43; language, dialect, Mt. 26:73*

λαλία, -ᾶς, ἡ,

[in LXX chiefly for דָּבָר, דִּבְרָה;]

loquacity.

talk, speech, conversation: Mt 26:73 (cf. Ca 4:3), Jo 4:42 8:43.†

In dealing with synonyms of the N. T. we plainly need not concern ourselves with such earlier, or even contemporary, uses of the words which we are discriminating, as lie altogether outside of the N. T. sphere, when these uses do not illustrate, and have not affected, their Scriptural employment. It follows from this that all those contemptuous uses of λαλεῖν as to talk at random, as one ἀθυρόστομος, or with no door to his lips, might do; of λαλιά, as chatter («Kpacia λόγου ἄλογος, Plato, Defin. 416)—for I cannot believe that we are to find this at John iv. 42—may be dismissed and set aside. The antithesis in the line of Eupolis (Meineke, /ragm. Com. Gr. p. 174), Λαλεῖν ἄριστος, ἀδυνατώτατος λέγειν, does little or nothing to illustrate the matter in hand. The distinction which indeed exists between the words may in this way be made clear. There are two leading aspects under which speech may be regarded. It may, first, 268 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT §.xxvi be contemplated as the articulate utterance of human lancuage, in contrast with the absence of this, from whatever cause springing ; whether from choice, as in those who hold their peace, when they might speak; or from the present undeveloped condition of the organs and faculties, as in the case of infants (νήπιοι) ; or from natural defects, as in the case of those born dumb; or from the fact of speech lying beyond the sphere of the faculties with which as creatures they have been endowed, as in the lower animals. This is one aspect of speech, namely articulated words, as contrasted with silence, with mere sounds or animal cries. But, secondly, speech (‘oratio’ or ‘oris ratio’) may be regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected discourse of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind, ‘ verba legere et lecta ac selecta apte conglutinare’ (Valcknaer ; cf. Donaldson, Cratylus, 453). The first is λαλεῖνξε 134, the German ‘lallen,’ ‘loqui,’ ‘ sprechen,’ ‘ to speak’; the second =x, ‘dicere,’ ‘reden,’ ‘to say,’ ‘to discourse. Ammonius: λαλεῖν καὶ λέγειν διαφέρει" λέγειν μὲν τὸ τεταγμένως προσφέρειν τὸν λόγον" λαλεῖν δὲ, τὸ ἀτάκτως ἐκφέρειν τὰ ὑποπίπτοντα ῥήματα. Thus the dumb man (ἄλαλος, Mark, vii. 87), restored to human speech, ἐλάλησε (Matt. ix. 83; Luke, ix. 14), the Evangelists fitly using this word, for they are not concerned to report what the man said, but only the fact that he who before was dumb, was now able to employ his organs of speech, So too, it is always λαλεῖν γλώσσαις (Mark xvi. 17; Acts 1]. 4; 1 Cor. xii. 30), for it is not what those in an ecstatic condition utter, but the fact of this new utterance itself, and quite irrespective of the matter of it, to which the sacred narrators would call our attention; even as λαλεῖν may be ascribed to God Himself (it is so more than once in the Epistle to the Hebrews, as at i. 1, 2), where the point is rather that He should have spoken at all to men than what it was that He spoke. But if in λαλεῖν (=‘ loqui’) the fact of uttering articulated speech is the prominent notion, in λέγειν (=< dicere’) it is the ΦΧ SYWONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 269 words uttered, and that these correspond to reasonable thoughts within the breast of the utterer. Thus while the parrot or talking automaton (Rev. xiii. 15) may be said, though even they not without a certain impropriety, λαλεῖν, seeing they produce sounds imitative of human speech ; and in poetry, though by a still stronger figure, a λαλεῖν may be ascribed to grasshoppers (Theocritus, /dyl. v. 34), and to pipes and flutes (Idyl. xx. 28, 29) ; yet inasmuch as there is nothing behind these sounds, they could never be said λέγειν : for in the λέγειν lies ever the ἔννοια, or thought of the mind (Heb. iv. 12), as the correlative to the words on the lips, and as the necessary condition of them ; it is colligere verba in sententiam’ ; even as λόγος is by Aristotle defined (Poét. 20), φωνὴ συνθετὴ, σημαντικὴ (see Malan, Notes on the Gospel of St. John, p. 8). Of φράζειν in like manner (it only occurs twice in the N. T., Matt. xiii. 86; xv. 15), Plutarch affirms that 2 could not, but λαλεῖν could, be predicated of monkeys and dogs (λαλοῦσι yap, od φράζουσι δέ, De Plac. Phat. vy. 20). Often as the words occur together, in such phrases as ἐλάλησε λέγων (Mark vi. 50; Luke xxiv. 6), λαληθεὶς λόγος (Heb. ii. 2), and the like, each remains true to its own meaning, as just laid down. ‘Thus in the first of these passages ἐλάλησε will express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to the remaining silent (Acts xviii. 9); while λέγων proceeds to declare what the speaker actually said. Nor is there, I believe, any passage in the N. T. where the distinction between them has not been observed. Thus at Rom. xv. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 17; 1 Thess. i. 8, there is no difficulty in giving to λαλεῖν its proper meaning; indeed all these passages gain rather than lose when this is done ; while at Rom. ii. 19 there is an instructive interchange of the words. Λαλιά and λόγος in the N. T. are true to the distinction here traced. How completely λαλιά, no less than λαλεῖν, has put off every slighting sense, is abundantly evident from the fact that on one occasion our Lord claims λαλιά as well as λόγος for Himself: ‘Why do ye not understand my speech (λαλιάν) ? even because ye cannot hear my word ’’ (λόγον 270 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT § Lxxvil John viii. 43). Λαλιά and λόγος are set in a certain antithesis to one another here, and in the seizing of the point of this must lie the right understanding of the verse. What the Lord intended by varying λαλιά and λόγος has been very differently understood. Some, as Augustine, though commenting on the passage, have omitted to notice the variation. Others, like Olshausen, have noticed, only to deny that it had any significance. Others again, admitting the significance, have failed to draw it rightly out. It is clear that, as the inability to understand his ‘ speech’ (AaAua) is traced up as a consequence to a refusing to hear his ‘ word’ (λόγος), this last, as the root and ground of the mischief, must be the deeper and anterior thing. ΤῸ hear his ‘ word’ can be nothing else than to give room to his truth in the heart. They who will not do this must fail to understand his ‘speech,’ the outward form and utterance which his ‘ word’ assumes. They that are of God hear God’s word, his ῥήματα as elsewhere (John iii. 384; viii. 47), his λαλιά as here, it is called ; } which they that are not of God do not and cannot hear. Melanchthon: ‘Qui veri sunt Dei filii et domestici non possunt paterne domts ignorare linguam.’

λαλιά. From its classical sense ‘‘talkativeness,’’ ‘‘ chatter,”’ λαλιά comes to be used in the NT simply for ‘‘ speech,” “talk’’: cf. Joseph. B./. ii. 8. 5 οὐδὲ κραυγή ποτε τὸν οἶκον, οὔτε θόρυβος μολύνει, τὰς δὲ λαλιὰς ἐν τάξει παραapa χωροῦσιν ἀλλήλοις. As showing however the danger accompanying much ‘‘talking’’ we may cite the early Christian letter, P Heid 618 (iv/a.D.) (= Selections, p. 126) ἵνα οὖν μὴ πολλὰ γράφω καὶ φλυραρήσω (/. φλυαρήσω), ἐν γὰρ [πο]λλῇ λαλιᾷ (cf. Sir 205) οὐκ ἐκφεύξοντ[αι] (τ)ὴ(ν) | ἁμαρτίη (cf. Ῥτον 1019), παρακαλί(ῶ) [ο]ῦν, δέσποτα, ἵνα μνημον[εἸύῃς μοι εἰς τὰς ἁγίας σου εὐχάς, ‘in order that I may not by much writing prove myself an idle babbler, for ‘in the multitude of words they shall not escape sin,’ I beseech you, master, to remember me in your holy prayers.”’ For a new literary reference for the adj. λάλος, see the fragment of an anthology, P Tebt I. 19 (c. B.c. 100) φιλέρηpos δὲ νάπαισιν λάλος avrape(Ber’ axa, “chattering Echo, lover of solitude, answers in the dells’’ (Edd.). Aad. It may be noted that the Heb. form Aapé in Mk 15* is corrected by Mt (2745) into the Aram. λεμά. On the variety of spelling in the codd. see WH Wores*, p. 21, and the apparatus in Souter’s ov. Test. Gr.

λαλιά (lalia) — speech. λᾰλ-ιά, poetry λᾰλ-ιή, ἡ, talk, chat, λαλιὰν ἀσκῆσαι, ἐπιτηδεῦσαι, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; common talk, report, [LXX+2nd c.BC+]; in good sense, discussion, ἡ περὶ βυβλίων λ. [Refs 2nd c.BC+]; speech, conversation, [NT]; matter, subject, [LXX]

2. loquacity, [Refs 4th c.BC+]

II. a form of speech, dialect, [LXX+NT]; style, [Refs 5th c.BC+]