πανήγυρις, -ews, 4, (fr. mas and ἄγυρις fr. ἀγείρω), fr. Hat. and Pind. down; a. a festal gathering of the whole people to celebrate public games or other solemnities. Ὁ. univ. a public festal assembly; so in Heb. xii. 22 (23) where the word is to be connected with ἀγγέλων [so GL Tr (Tdf.); yet see the Comm.]. (Sept. for 75, Ezek. xlvi. 11; Hos. ii. 11 (13); ix.5; Moy, Am. v. 21.) [Cf. Trench § i.]

πανήγυρις panēgyris 1x

pr. an assembly of an entire people; a solemn gathering at a festival; a festive convocation, Heb. 12:22*

πανήγυρις, -εως, ἡ

(< πᾶς + ἄγυρας = ἀγορά), [in LXX: Ho 2:11 (13) 9:5, Ez 46:11 (מוֹעֵד), Am 5:21 (עֲצָרָה)*;]

prop., a national festal assembly in honour of a god; hence, generally, any festal assembly: He 12:23 (for exx. in π., v. MM, xviii).†

SYN.: ἐκκλησία (q.v.), συναγωγή.

THERE are words whose history it is peculiarly interesting to watch, as they obtain a deeper meaning, and receive a new consecration in the Christian Church; words which the Church did not invent, but has assumed into its service, and employed in a far loftier sense than any to which the world has ever put them before. The very word by which the Church is named is itself an example—a more illustrious one could scarcely be found—of this progressive ennobling of a word.' For we have ἐκκλησία in three distinct stages of meaning—the heathen, the Jewish, and the Christian. In respect of the first, ἡ ἐκκλησία (ΞΞἔκκλητοι, Euripides, Orestes, ‘ Zezschwitz, in his very interesting Lecture, Profangrdcitét und Biblischer Sprachgeist, Leipzig, 1859, p. 5, has said excellently well, ‘ Das Christenthum wiire nicht als was es siegend iiber Griechenthum und Romerthum sich ausgewiesen, hitte es zu reden vermocht, oder zu reden sich zwingen lassen miissen, nach den Grundbegriffen griechischen Geisteslebens, griechischer Weltanschauung. Nur sprachumbildend, ausstossend was entweiht war, hervorziehend was griechische Geistesrichtung ungebiihrlich zuriickgestellt hatte, verklirend endlich womit das aichtmenschliche, von Anfang an so sittlich gerichtete Griechenthum die Vorstufen der gittlichen Wahrheit erreicht hatte: nur so ein in seinen Grundbegriffen christianisirtes Griechisch sich anbildend ‘konnten die Apostel Christi der Welt, die damals der allgemeinen Bildung nach eine griechische war, die Sprache des Geistes, der durch sie zeugte, vermitteln.’ B 2 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 939) was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the right of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs. That they were swmmoned is expressed in the latter part of the word; that they were summoned owt of the whole population, a select portion of it, including neither the populace, nor strangers, nor yet those who had forfeited their civic rights, this is expressed in the first. Both the calling (the κλῆσις, Phil. iii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 9), and the calling out (the ἐκλογή, Rom. xi. 7; 2 Pet. i. 10), are moments to be remembered, when the word is assumed into a higher Christian sense, for in them the chief part of its peculiar adaptation to its auguster uses lies.' It is interesting to observe how, on one occasion in the N. T., the word returns to this earlier significance (Acts xix. 32, 39, 41). Before, however, more fully considering that word, it will need to consider a little the anterior history of another with which I am about to compare it. Συναγωγή occurs two or three times in Plato (thus Theet. 150 a), but is by no means an old word in classical Greek, and in it altogether wants that technical signification which already in the Septuagint, and still more plainly in the Apocrypha, it gives promise of acquiring, and which it is found in the N. T. to have fully acquired.” But συναγωγή, while travelling in this ’ Both these points are well made by Flacius Illyricus, in his Clavis Scripture, 5. v. Ecclesia: ‘Quia Ecclesia a verbo καλεῖν venit, hoc observetur primum; ideo conversionem hominum vocationem vocari, non tantum quia Deus eos per se suumque Verbum, quasi clamore, vocat ; sed etiam quia sicut herus ex turba famulorum certos aliquos ad aliqua singularia munia evocat, sic Deus quoque tum totum populum suum vocat ad cultum suum (Hos. xi. 1), tum etiam singulos homines ad certas singularesque functiones. (Act. xiii. 2.) Quoniam autem non tantum vocatur Populus Dei ad cultum Dei, sed etiam vocatur ex reliqua turbé aut confusione generis humani, ideo dicitur Ecclesia, quasi dicas, Evocata divinitus ex reliqu4é impiorum colluvie, ad cultum celebrationemque Dei, et eternam felicitatem.’ Compare Witsius In Symbol. pp. 394-397. ? An American scholar (Church Review, July 1881) says well, ‘The Septuagint represents only a half-way step in this assignment of the Greek language to the expression of Hebrew ideas.’ §1 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 3 direction, did not leave behind it the meaning which is the only one that in classical Greek it knew; and often denotes, as it would there, any gathering or bringing together of persons or things; thus we have there συναγωγὴ ἐθνῶν (Gen. xlviil. 4); συναγωγὴ ὕδατος (Isai. xix. 6); συναγωγὴ χρημάτων (Hcclus. xxxi. 8), and such like. It was during the time which intervened between the closing of the O. T. canon and the opening of that of the New that συναγωγή acquired that technical meaning of which we find it in full possession when the Gospel history begins; designating, as there it does, the places set apart for purposes of worship and the reading and expounding of the Word of God, the ‘ Synagogues,’ as we find them named; which, capable as they were of indefinite multiplication, were the necessary complement of the Temple, which according to the divine intention was and could be but one. But to return to ἐκκλησία. This did not, like some other words, pass immediately and ata single step from the heathen world to the Christian Church: but here, as so often, the Septuagint supplies the link of connexion, the point of transition, the word being there prepared for its highest meaning of all. When the Alexandrian translators undertook the rendering of the Hebrew Scriptures, they found in them two constantly recurring words, namely, ΠῚ and Dap. For these they employed generally, and as their most adequate Greek equivalents, συναγωγή and ἐκκλησίά. The rule which they seem to have prescribed to themselves is ag follows—to render ΠῚ for the most part by συναγωγή (Exod. mie; ley, ty. 13; Num. 1. 2. and altogether more than a hundred times), and, whatever other renderings of the word they may adopt, in no single case to render it by ἐκκλησία. It were to be wished that they had shown the same consistency in respect of Onp ; but they have not; for while ἐκκλησία 15 their more frequent rendering (Deut. xviii. 16; Judg. xx. 2; 1 Kin. viii. 14, and in all some seventy times), they too often render this also by συναγωγή (Lev. iv. 13; Num. xvi. a. Deut. v. 22, and in all some five and twenty times), thus B2 4 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 breaking down for the Greek reader the distinction which undoubtedly exists between the words. Our English Version has the same lack of a consistent rendering. Its two words are ‘ congregation ’ and ‘ assembly ;’ but instead of constantly assigning one to one, and one to the other, it renders 77 now by ‘congregation ’ (Lev. x. 17; Num. i. 16; Josh. ix. 27), and now by ‘assembly’ (Lev. iv. 23); and on the other hand, Sap sometimes by ‘assembly ’ (Judg. xxi. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 23), but much oftener by ‘congregation’ (Judg. xxi. 5; Josh. vill. 35). There is an interesting discussion by Vitringa (De Synag. Vet. pp. 77-89) on the distinction between these two Hebrew synonyms; the result of which is summed up in the following statements: ‘Notat proprie bap universam alicujus populi multitudinem, vinculis societatis unitam et rempublicam sive civitatem quandam constituentem, cum vocabulum fy ex indole et vi significationis sue tantum dicat quemcunque hominum cetum et conventum, sive minorem sive majorem ’ (p. 80). And again: ‘ Swaywyy, ut et ΠΝ, semper significat cetum conjunctum et congregatum, etiamsi nullo forte vinculo ligatum, sed ἡ ἐκκλησία [ = ΠΡ] designat multitudinem aliquam, que populum constituit, per leges et vincula inter se junctam, etsi spe fiat ut non sit coacta vel cogi possit’ (p. 88). Accepting this as a true distinction, we shall see that it was not without due reason that our Lord (Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17) and his Apostles claimed this, as the nobler word, to designate the new society of which He was the Founder, being as it was a society knit together by the closest spiritual bonds, and altogether independent of space. Yet for all this we do not find the title ἐκκλησία wholly withdrawn from the Jewish congregation; that too was ‘the Church in the wilderness’ (Acts vii. 38); for Christian and Jewish differed only in degree, and not in kind. Nor yet do we find συναγωγή wholly renounced by the Church; the latest honourable use of it in the N. T., indeed the only Christian use of it there, is by that Apostle to whom Siew VVONIVYS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 5 it was especially given to maintain unbroken to the latest possible moment the outward bonds connecting the Synagogue and the Church, namely, by St. James (ii. 2); ἐπισυναγωγή, Τ may add, on two occasions is honorably used, but in a more general sense (2 Thess. ii. 1 ; Heb. x. 25). Occasionally also in the early Fathers, in Ignatius for instance (Hp. ad Polyc. 4; for other examples see Suicer, s.v.), we find συναγωγή still employed as an honorable designation of the Church, or of her places of assembly. Still there were causes at work which led the faithful to have less and less pleasure in the appropriation of this name to themselves ; and in the end to leave it altogether to those, whom in the latest book of the canon the Lord had characterized for their fierce opposition to the truth even as ‘ the synagogue of Satan ’ (Rev. iii. 9; cf. John viii. 44). Thus the greater fitness and dignity of the title ἐκκλησία has been already noted. Add to this that the Church was ever rooting itself more predominantly in the soil of the heathen world, breaking off more entirely from its Jewish stock and stem. This of itself would have led the faithful to the letting fall of συναγωγή, a word with no such honorable history to look back on, and permanently associated with Jewish worship, and to the ever more exclusive appropriation to themselves of ἐκκλησία, so familiar already, and of so honorable a significance, in Greek ears. It is worthy of note that the Ebionites, in reality a Jewish sect, though they had found their way for a while into the Christian Church, should have acknowledged the rightfulness of this distribution of terms. Epiphanius (Heres. xxx. 18) reports of these, συναγωγὴν δὲ οὗτοι καλοῦσιν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ οὐχὶ ἐκκλησίαν. It will be perceived from what has been said that Augustine, by a piece of good fortune which he had no right to expect, was only half in the wrong when transferring his Latin etymologies to the Greek and Hebrew, and not pausing to enquire whether they would hold good there, as was improbable enough, he finds the reason for attributing συναγωγή to the Jewish, and ἐκκλησία to the Christian Church, 6 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 in the fact that ‘ convocatio’ (= ἐκκλησία) is a nobler term than ‘congregatio’ (= συναγωγή), the first being properly the calling together of men, the second the gathering together (‘ congregatio,’ from ‘ congrego,’ and that from ‘ grex ἢ of cattle.! See Field, On the Church, i. 5. The πανήγυρις differs from the ἐκκλησία in this, that in the ἐκκλησία, aS has been noted already, there lay ever the sense of an assembly coming together for the transaction of business. The πανήγυρις, on the other hand, was a solemn assembly for purposes of festal rejoicing ; and on this account it is found joined continually with ἑορτή, as by Philo, Vit. Mos. ii. 7; Ezek. xlvi.11; cf. Hos. ii. 11; ix. 5; and Isai. Ixvi. 10, where πανηγυρίζειν = ἑορτάζειν : the word having given us ‘ panegyric,’ which is properly a set discourse pronounced at one of these great festal gatherings. Business might grow out of the fact that such multitudes were assembled, since many, and for various reasons, would be glad to avail themselves of the gathering; but only in the same way as a ‘fair’ grew out of a ‘ feria,’ a ‘ holiday’ out of a ‘holy-day.’ Strabo (x. 5) notices the business-like aspect which the πανηγύρεις commonly assumed (7 τε πανήγυρις ἐμπορικόν τι πρᾶγμα: cf. Pausanias, x. 32.9); which was indeed to such an extent their prominent feature that the Latins rendered πανήγυρις by ‘ mercatus,’ and this even when the Olympic games were intended (Cicero, Twsc. v. 3; Justin, xiii, 5). These with the other solemn games were eminently, though not exclusively, the πανηγύρεις of the Greek nation (Thucydides, i. 25; Isocrates, Paneg.1). Keeping this festal 1 Enarr. in Ps. |xxxi. 1: ‘In synagog& populum Israél accipimus, quia et ipsorum proprie synagoga dici solet, quamvis et Ecclesia dicta sit. Nostri vero Ecclesiam nunquam synagogam dixerunt, sed semper Ecclesiam : sive discernendi causa, sive quod inter congregationem, unde synagoga, et convocationem, unde Ecclesia nomen accepit, distet aliquid ; quod scilicet congregari et pecora solent, atque ipsa proprie, quorum et greges proprie dicimus ; convocaré autem magis est utentium ratione, sicut sunt homines.’ Soalso the author of a Commentary on the Book of Proverbs formerly ascribed to Jerome (Opp. vol. v. p. 533); and by Vitringa (p. 91) cited as his. §u SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 7 character of the πανήγυρις in mind, we shall find a peculiar fitness in the word’s employment at Heb. xii. 23, where only in the N. T. it occurs. The Apostle is there setting forth the communion of the Church militant on earth with the Church triumphant in heaven,—of the Church toiling and suffering here with that Church from which all weariness and toil have for ever passed away (Rev. xxi. 4); and how could he better describe this last than as a πανήγυρις, than as the glad and festal assembly of heaven? Very beautifully Delitzsch (in loc.) : “Πανήγυρις ist die vollzihlige, zahlreiche und insbesondere festliche, festlich frdhliche und sich ergétzende Versammlung. Man denkt bei πανήγυρις an Festgesang, Festreigen und Festspiele, und das Leben vor Gottes Angesicht ist ja wirklich eine unaufhérliche Festfeier.’ S$ il. θειότης, θεότης. NEITHER of these words occurs more than once in the N. T.; θειότης only at Rom. 1. 20 (and once in the Apocrypha, Wisd. xviii. 9) ; θεότης at Col. ii. 9. We have rendered both by ‘ Godhead’; yet they must not be regarded as identical in meaning, nor even as two different forms of the same word, which in process of time have separated off from one another, and acquired different shades of significance. On the contrary, there is a real distinction between them, and one which grounds itself on their different derivations; θεότης being from Θεός, and θειότης, not from τὸ θεῖον, which is nearly though not quite equivalent to Θεός, but from the adjective θεῖος. Comparing the two passages where they severally occur, we shall at once perceive the fitness of the employment of one word in one, of the other in the other. In the first (Rom. i. 20) St. Paul is declaring how much of God may be known from the revelation of Himself which He has made in nature, from those vestiges of Himself which men may everywhere trace in the world around them. Yet it is not the personal God whom any man may learn to know by these 8 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $1 aids: He can be known only by the revelation of Himself in his Son; but only his divine attributes, his majesty and glory. This Theophylact feels, who on Romans i. 20 gives μεγαλειότης aS equivalent to θειότης ; and it is not to be doubted that St. Paul uses this vaguer, more abstract, and less personal word, just bacause he would affirm that men may know God’s power and majesty, his θεῖα δύναμις (2 Pet. 1. 8), from his works; but would not imply that they may know Himself from these, or from anything short of the revelation of his Eternal Word.! Motives not dissimilar induce him to use τὸ θεῖον rather than 6 θεός in addressing the Athenians on Mars’ Hill (Acts xvii. 29). But in the second passage (Col. ii. 9) St. Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fulness of absolute Godhead ; they were no mere rays of divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up his person fora season and with a splendour not his own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses θεότης to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son; in the words of Augustine (De Cw. Dei, vii. 1): ‘ Status ejus qui sit Deus.’ Thus Beza rightly: ‘Non dicit: τὴν θειότητα, i.e. divinitatem, sed τὴν θεότητα, 1.6. deitatem, ut magis etiam expresse loquatur; .. . ἡ θειότης attributa videtur potius quam naturam ipsam declarare.’ And Bengel: ‘Non modo divine virtutes, sed ipsa divina natura.’ De Wette has sought to express the distinction in his German translation, rendering θειότης by ‘ Gottlichkeit,’ and θεότης by ‘ Gottheit.’ There have not been wanting those who have denied that any such distinction was intended by St. Paul; and they rest this denial on the assumption that no such difference between the forces of the two words can be satisfactorily made out. But, even supposing that such a difference could not be shown in classical Greek, this of itself would be in no way decisive on the matter. The Gospel of Christ might for all this put into words, and again draw out from them, new " Cicero (usc. i. 13): ‘Multi de Diis prava sentiunt; omnes tamen esse vim et naturam divinam arbitrantuy.’ §u SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 9 forces, evolve latent distinctions, which those who hitherto employed the words may not have required, but which had become necessary now. And that this distinction between ‘deity ’ and ‘ divinity,’ if I may use these words to represent severally θεότης and θειότης, is one which would be strongly felt, and which therefore would seek its utterance in Christian theology, of this we have signal proof in the fact that the Latin Christian writers were not satisfied with ‘ divinitas,’ which they found ready to their hand in the writings of Cicero and others; and which they sometimes were content to use (see Piper, Theol. Stud. ει. Krit. 1875, p. 79 sqq.); but themselves coined ‘ deitas’ as the only adequate Latin representative of the Greek θεότης. We have Augustine’s express testimony to'the fact (De Cw. Dei, vii. 1): ‘Hane divinitatem, vel ut sic dixerim deitatem; nam et hoc verbo uti jam nostros non piget, ut de Greco expressius transferant id quod illi θεότητα appellant, &c.;’ ef. x. 1,2. But not to urge this, nor yet the different etymologies of the words, that one is τὸ εἶναί τινα θεόν, the other τὸ εἶναί twa [or τι] θεῖον, which so clearly point to this difference in their meanings, examples, so far as they can be adduced, go to support the same. Both θεότης and θειότης, as In general the abstract words in every language, are of late introduction; and one of them, θεότης, is extremely rare. Indeed, only two examples of it from ᾿ς classical Greek have hitherto been brought forward, one from Lucian (Icarom. 9); the other from Plutarch (De Def. Orac. 10): οὕτως ἐκ μὲν ἀνθρώπων εἰς ἥρωας, ἐκ δὲ ἡρώων εἰς δαίμονας, αἱ βελτίονες ψυχαὶ τὴν μεταβολὴν λαμβάνουσιν. ἐκ δὲ δαιμόνων ὀλίγαι μὲν ἔτι χρόνῳ πολλῷ OV ἀρετῆς καθαρθεῖσαι παντάπασι θεότητος μετέσχον : but to these a third, that also from Plutarch (De Isid. et Osir. 22), may be added. In all of these it expresses, In agreement with the view here asserted, Godhead in the absolute sense, or at all events in as absolute a sense as the heathen could conceive it. Θειότης is a very much commoner word ; and its employment everywhere bears out the distinction here drawn. There is ever a manifestation of the divine, of some divine attributes, in that to which θειότης 10 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $11 is attributed, but never absolute essential Deity. Thus Lucian (De Cal. 17) attributes θειότης to Hephestion, when after his death Alexander would have raised him to the rank of a god; and Plutarch speaks of the θειότης τῆς ψυχῆς, De Plac. Phil. v.1; οἵ, De Is. et Os. 2; Sull. 6; with various other passages to the like effect. It may be observed, in conclusion, that whether this distinction was intended, as I am fully persuaded it was, by St. Paul or not, it established itself firmly in the later theological language of the Church—the Greek Fathers using never θειότης, but always θεότης, as alone adequately expressing the essential Godhead of the Three several Persons in the Holy Trinity. δ᾽ lll. ἱερόν, ναός. WE have in our Version only the one word ‘ temple’ for both of these ; nor is it easy to perceive in what manner we could have marked the distinction between them; which is yet a very real one, and one the marking of which would often add much to the clearness and precision of the sacred narrative (see Fuller, 4 Pisgah Sight of Palestine, p. 427). Ἵερό (= templum) is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the τέμενος, including the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated to the temple itself: ai οἰκοδομαὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (Matt. xxiv.1). But ναός (= ‘ edes’) from ναίω, ‘habito,’ as the proper habitation of God (Acts vii. 48 ; xvii. 24; 1 Cor. vi. 19); the οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ (Matt. xii. 4; ef. Exod. xxiii. 19), the German ‘duom’ or ‘domus,’ is the temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole; the Holy, and the Holy of Holies, called often ἁγίασμα (1 Mace. i. 87; iii. 45). This distinction, one that existed and was acknowledged in profane Greek and with reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek and with relation to the temple of the true God (see Herodotus, i. 181, 188; Thucydides, iv. 90 [τάφρον μὲν κύκλῳ περὶ τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ τὸν νεὼν ἔσκαπτον] ; v.18; Acts xix. 24, 27), is, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the δ SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT II temple at Jerusalem, alike by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, andin the N. T. Often indeed it is explicitly recognized, as by Josephus (Antt. viii. 8. 9), who, having described the building of the ναός by Solomon, goes on to say: ναοῦ δ᾽ ἔξωθεν ἱερὸν φκοδόμησεν ἐν τετραγώνῳ σχήματι. In another passage (Antt. xi. 4.3), he describes the - Samaritans as seeking permission of the Jews to be allowed to share in the rebuilding of God’s house (συγκατασκευάσαι τὸν ναόν), This is refused them (cf. Ezra iv. 2); but, according to his account, it was permitted to them ἀφικνουμένοις εἰς TO ἱερὸν σέβειν τὸν Ocov—a privilege denied to mere Gentiles, who might not, under penalty of death, pass beyond their own exterior court (Acts xxi. 29, 80; Philo, Leg. ad Cat. 81). The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the N.T. When Zacharias entered into “the tenple of the Lord’’ to burn incense, the people who waited his return, and who are described as standing “ without ’’ (Luke i. 10), were in one sense in the temple too, that is, in the ἱερόν, while he alone entered into the ναός, the ‘temple’ in its more limited and auguster sense. We read continually of Christ teaching ‘in the temple” (Matt. xxvi. 55; Luke xxi. 87; John viii. 20) ; and we sometimes fail to understand how long conversations could there have been maintained, without interrupting the service of God. But this ‘temple’ is ever the ἱερόν, the porches and porticoes of which were excellently adapted to such purposes, as they were intended for them. Into the ναός the Lord never entered during his ministry on earth; nor indeed, being ‘made under the law,’ could he have so done, the right of such entry being reserved for the priests alone. It need hardly be said that the money-changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep and oxen, whom the Lord drives out, He repels from the ἱερόν, and not from the ναός. Profane as was their intrusion, they yet had not dared to establish themselves in the temple more strictly so called (Matt. xxi. 12 ; John ii. 14). On the other hand, when we read of another 12 SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT $i1v Zacharias slain “between the temple and the altar” (Matt. xxiii. 85), we have only to remember that ‘temple’ is ναός here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which may perhaps have presented itself to many—this namely, Was not the altar 7m the temple ? how then could any locality be described as between these two? In the ἱερόν, doubtless, was the brazen altar to which allusion is here made, but not in the ναός : “in the court of the house of the Lord” (cf. Josephus, Antt. viii. 4. 1), where the sacred historian (2 Chron. xxiv. 21) lays the scene of this murder, but not in the ναός itself. Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the despair and defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the ναός itself (Matt. xxvii. 5), into the‘ adytum’ which was set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down before them the accursed price of blood! Those expositors who affirm that here ναός stands for ἱερόν, should adduce some other passage in which the one is put for the other. δ iv. ἐπιτιμάω, ἐλέγχω (αἰτία, ἔλεγχος).

πανήγυρις. The word is common in inscrr. relating to γές sacrae, but seems to have remained in ordinary use. Thus BGU IV. 1074° (official—a.p. 275) Ἰεῖναι οἱ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην πα]νήγυριν ἀγωνοθέται πειθαρχήσουσιν, and P Oxy I. 411 (iii/iv a.p.) . . » Japlas πανηγύρεως οὔσης opens (fragmentarily) a very incoherent report of a public meeting. The ‘‘festal ’’ idea is prominent in such passages as P Fay 931! (a.p. 161) χωρὶς ἀγορῶν σὺν πανηγύρεσιν, ‘with the exception of markets and festivals’’ ; P Oxy I. 423 (proclamation regarding an assault at arms—A.D. 323) τὸ ἔθος ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἡ πανήγυρις προάγουσα [σ]ημαίνει [ὅτ]. προθυμότατα τοὺς ἐφήβους [τ]ὰ γυμνι[κὰ] ἐπιδείκνυσθαι προσήκει, ‘ tradition, no less than the distinguished character of the festival, requires that the efhedz should do their utmost in the gymnastic display”; and 76. IX. 12148 (v/a.p.) φεδρύνων (.ha8pivev) τὴν π[α]νήγυριν τῆς γενεθλίου τοῦ υἱοῦ pov Γενναδίου καταξίωσον, ‘‘deign to gladden the birthday festival of my son Gennadius.”’ ‘* Festa assembly” would apparently render the word best in Heb 1223, where Moffatt (ZCC ad 4) aptly cites Philo ἦγε Flacc. 118 ἱλαρᾶς εὐθυμίας, ἣν πανήγυρις ἐπιζητεῖ : cf. also Trench Sy p. 6f. For the verb cf. PSIIV. 3741 (B.c. 250-49) πανηγυριεῖν τοὺς ναύτας, and P Oxy IV. 705% (A.D. 200-2) kal ἔτι kal viv τὴν τῶν ἐπινεικίων ἡμέραν ἑκάστου ἔτους πανηγυρίζοντας. MGr πανηγύρι (παναγύρι), πανηγυρίζω.

πανήγυρις (panēguris) — assembly. πᾰνήγῠρ-ις, Doric dialect πανᾱγ-, εως, ἡ, (πᾶς, ἄγυρις) general or national assembly, ἐν πανηγύρει βουλευσόμεσθα [Refs 4th c.BC+]; especially a festal assembly in honour of a national god, Δήμητρος ἁγνῆς καὶ Κόρης [Refs 7th c.BC+]; πανηγύριας πανηγυρίζειν, ποιήσασθαι, to hold such festivals, keep holy-days, [Refs 5th c.BC+]; θεωρίαι ἐς τὰς ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι π. Decrees cited in [Refs 5th c.BC+]; in Egypt, [Refs 3rd c.BC+]; ἐν ταῖς π. καὶ δείξεσι τῶν σοφιστῶν [Refs 4th c.BC+]

2. any assembly, θεῶν ἅδε πανάγυρις [Refs 4th c.BC+]; νεοσσῶν, φίλων, [Refs 5th c.BC+]

3. metaphorically, π. ὀφθαλμῶν feast for the eyes, [Refs 2nd c.AD+]; τὸν.. Ἔχετον χρυσὸν ἀποδείξων καὶ π. destined to exhibit [Refs 5th c.BC+] as gold and a feast (by comparison with himself), [Refs 4th c.AD+]

3. b in bad sense, παίγνιον ὁ βίος καὶ πλάνη καὶ π. [Refs]

II. people assembled, τῇ π. δέος ἐγένετο μὴ.. [Refs 5th c.BC+]: generally, crowd, audience, ὅταν ᾖ π. [Refs 4th c.BC+]