Hermann Cremer.

Biblico-theological lexicon of New Testament Greek online

. (page 99 of 135)
Online LibraryHermann CremerBiblico-theological lexicon of New Testament Greek → online text (page 99 of 135)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


Heinrici on 1 Cm: p. 378. Thus the speaking with tongues of the early Church would
be regarded as a revival and purifying of the phenomenon of a past heathendom, and as
thus designated accordingly. The heathen phenomena were no longer known ; cf . the
treatise of Plutarch, Cur Pythict nunc non reddat oracula carmine, Mor. 394 sqq., but
(it is argued) the later term, techn. yXttxra-ao (but not 'yXwcraai,'; XaXelv) kept its ground ;
an expression, however, which included all unusual utterances old or new, idiotisms,
barbarisms, and the like. While, however, it cannot be denied that such an analogy
exists, it is utterly improbable that the Christian Church, in which the expression arose,
could, in the very first age of its antagonism with heathendom, have regarded this
phenomenon appearing within it as an analogon wrought by the Divine Spirit with the
old heathen oracle ; least of all, that Christians could have named it according to such
an analogy. And yet the mode of expression 'yXcocrarj or yXaxrcrai'; XaXwi/ afterwards is
said to have been ratified and supported by this reference. It is conclusive against this,
first, that the r^XSycraai of the oracles and the gods were invariably single words only or
phrases, differing indeed from the language of common life, but certainly in part grown
upon its soil, and in part moulded after its form ; expressions unusual indeed, designating
the thing referred to from a different, a special, perhaps a higher point of view ; the
utterance as a whole was not the utterance of a strange language, but in spite of the
identity of language became, through these unusual expressions, mysterious and dark.
The jKwaaai<; XaXetv, on the contrary, was not a speaking in the usual idiom, with the
meaning hidden from the congregation by strange words chosen to denote the main
points, — which might be regarded only as a new phraseology still within the idiom ;
it was, according to 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 9, 16, quite incomprehensible, directed not like
the oracles to men, but to God, edifying not the congregation, but only the speaker
himself. 1 Cor. xiv. 21-25, especially w. 22, 23, are decisive on this point. It
is not the speaking with tongues, moreover, but the aTroKoKvy^K and irpocpriTeM that
answer to the phenomena spoken of in the profane sphere. Besides, the narrative of



rXwa'aa 681 AeiaiZaiijLwv



Acts ii. 3 sqq. (x. 46, xix. 6) is conclusive against this supposed analogy. For though
it may be argued, concerning the origin of the expression, that the Epistles to the
Corinthians were written before the Book of the Acts, and that thus the expression first
sprang from Gentile-Christian soil; in any case, the narrative in the Book of the Acts
presents to us the view which was taken of the phenomenon, and according to this
narrative the expression is clearly connected with yXwaaa — tongue ; compare Mark
xvi. 17, y\ai(raaL(i '\aX'r]\ova- lv KaivaK ; Isa. xxviii. 11, ri"i.nK litJ'bai nDb ''ivb^.' Thus
j\a)a<Tai<; XaXelv must have been the original expression from which was derived the
singular ryXwaay XaXelv, as referring to a single person ; cf. 'yXataay mrpoaev'^ecrdai,
xiv. 14; yXcocraav e')(et,v, xiv. 26; ryXwcraai is the original expression for the gift, to
speak with tongues of a new world ; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 1, eav rat'; yXdcra-ai,'; tq)v
dv6pa>7rcov XaXcb koI tuv dyyeXav, where the apostle supposes a speaking with tongues
of a higher kind, which, nevertheless, is as nothing without love. From the plural, the
use of the singular in this manner first arose, 1 Cor. xiv. 2, 4, 9, 13, 14, 19, 26, 27;
yivT] yXataawv, 1 Cor. xii. 10, 28, refers perhaps to a manifoldness of the gift which
excluded interpretation by learning, and made that kpfiT^veM, which became possible as a
charisma, necessary in every case; cf. ver. 10, chap. xiv. 13. But more probably the
expression denotes nothing more than that other phrase not elsewhere used in Paul's
writings, erepai lyXwa-aai, <yX. Kaivai, in order to give prominence to the difference from
ordinary speaking. For the literature upon the subject, in addition to the books already
named, see the references in Heinrici, and Wendt on Acts ii., who starts from the
signification tongue, not language.

' ErepoyXaicrcro'; in Poly bins and Strabo = of other language, of foreign speech, and
indeed Pol. xxiv. 9. 5, TrXeio-rot? a.XXo<j)vXoK koI erepoyXmrToi'; dvBpdcri ■^prja-dfievo'; = of
various languages, men differing in language from each other (Josephus, Ant. i. 4. 3) ;
Strabo, viii. 333 ; Aquila, Ps. cxiv. 1, diro Xaov erepoyXcoaaov; LXX. sk Xaov ^ap^dpov;
Symmachus, e« X. dXXojxovov, VP '^J'?. In the N. T. 1 Cor. xiv. 21, eV eTepoyXma-aoL'i
Koi iv ^(e'lXea-iv erepcov XaXrjaoi k.t.X. ; from Isa. xxviii. 11, instead of the partially
mistaken translation of the LXX., Bid <f>avXiafiov ■x^etXewv, Bid •yXwaari'; erepat. The
parallelism with iv 'x,elXecriv er. shows that Paul regarded yXwacra as = iongiie, therefore =
other tongued.

Pu/xj'oTT??, riTo<i, T], bareness, nakedness, as the word appears only in bibUcal and
later Greek; Eom. viii. 35; 2 Cor. xi. 27; Deut. xxviii. 48. Figuratively in the same
moral sense as yvp-vo';; Eev. iii. 18, avfi^ovXevo) aoi dyopdcrat . . . Ifidria XevKa iva
Trepi^dXy Koi firj (pavepcodfj rj aia'^vvt] tij? yup.voTrjTO's aov (cf. Eev. xix. 8 ; Job xxix. 14 ;
Isa. Ixi. 10).

A ei(j ihaifjiaiv, 6, rj, synon. with deoae^rj';, Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 58 = God-fearing,
religious, originally gives expression to a strong sense of dependence upon divine power,
designating one who is very anxious for the divine favour, or who is expecting



AeiaiZaifMaiv 682 Aea



recompense, whereas 6eoe7€^i^<;, like evae^rj<s, includes indeed the sense of dependence, but
only as it manifests itself in reverence ; see evae^eia. This feature already appears in
Xen. Cyr. iii, 3. 58, ol 8e 6eoae/3a)<; Trarre? avve'jTrixt}(ya,v fieydXij rfj <pcovf} (cf. 59, o Traiav
eyevero). iv t^ tooovto) yap Brj ol SeifftSat/ioi'e? rjTTOv tov<; avOpoiTrovi (po/3ovvTai. This
explains its first appearance in a good sense, Xen. Ages. xi. 8, ael Se BeicnZaijjboiv rjv,
vofii^ayp Tov? /j,ev /taX&J? ^covTa<; ovttco evBalfiova^, Toii? Be ev/cXew? reTeXevT'rjKOTa'i i]Brj
fiaKapiov^. But already in Aristotle, Pol. v. 11, it is to be observed that the word
passes over to denote a more superstitious bearing, the prince must always appear as
oiacf)epovTCi}<; cr'TrovBd^cov ra Trpo? tol/? Oeov?, rJTTOv re yap cpo^ovvTat to ■uaQelv ri
irapavofiov vrro t5>v toiovtcov, eav Seia-cSatfiova vofil^coaiv elvai tov dp'^ovra Koi (f>povT0^ei,v
T(ov deu>v, Koi eTTi^ovXevovcnv tjttov to? av^fid-^^ovi 'i'^ovTi koI roiii Oeov'i' Set he avev
a^6\Trjpia<; <paLvecr6ai toiovtov. The word appears first in these places, and is unknown
in better Greek generally ; compare Zezschwitz, Frof. Graec. p. 5 9, " Bernhardy very
acutely notes the appearance of the word BeiaLBaifiovia as a turning-point in the history
of national life. It indicates a wavering between unbelief and pusillanimity, such as
characterized the time of the Ochlocracy." Hence in later Greek in a bad sense of
superstitious fear (Acts xvii. 2 2) ; Antoninus vi. 3 0, 6eocre^rj<; %(u/3i? Beia-iBat/jiovia^ ;
cf. Wyttenbach, Animadv. in Plut. Mot. ii. pp. 276-280 ; Hettinger in "Wieland's New
Att. Museum, ii. 1. 85 sqq. ; Schmidt, Uth. cler A. Griech. ii. 64 sqq.

AeiaiBaofiovia, t], fear of the gocls ; in Polyb. vi. 56. 7, it answers to the Latin religio,
Kai p,oi BoKel TO vapa toi? aXXot? dvOpunroLt oveiBi^ofievov, tovto avvej(eiv rd 'Pco/ialcov
irpdyfiara, \eyco Be ttjv BeicnBatfiovlav ; on the other hand, in xii. 24. 5, ivvirvLcov koX
Tepdrcov koX jjjvOojv diriOdvav Koi avWrj^Brjv B6i(TiBaifiovla<; dyevvov'; koX TepaTela<i
yvvaiKcoBovi eVrt ttXj^joj??, like BecaiBaifiovelv ix. 19. 1, x. 2. 9, in a condemnatory or
contemptible sense sls = superstition ; compare Plutarch's treatise -n-epl Beia-iBai/j.ovla';, 2, rj Be
Beia-iBaifiovia vd6o<; eK X6yov\lrevBov<; eyyeyevTjfievov. Theoph. Char. Eth. 16; Acts xxv. 19,
^TjTTj/xaTa Be TLva Trepl t^9 t'St'a? Beia-iBai/Movlw; el^ov. It indicates how remote Josephus was
from the spirit of biblical Greek, that in Ant. x. 3. 2 he speaks of "jrepl tov dehv BeiaiBuLfiovia.

Aim, to le necessary, to he oUiged, to need, connected with Bia, to hind ("hence its
taking the accusative," Curtius, 234). In the middle, to he necessary for oneself, to need,
to desire eagerly.

(I.) Active, (1) in personal construction, to need, to he in want of, e.g. Plato, Polit.
277 D, irapaBeLy/j.aTO'i . . . koI to irapdheiyp^a avro BeBerjKev. Usually ttoWoD, oXiyov
Bern, I am far from, or I am very near, etc. Plato, Theaet. 1 6 7 B ; Plut. Ad princ.
inerud. 5 (782ffi), oXiyov Bieov elirelv. More rarely, and specially in later writers, also
with the ace, e.g. Plato, Men. 71 A, too-ovtov Beco . . . elBevat. Plut. Mor. v. 2, oXlyov
iBerja-ev eK-jreaelv. In this personal construction it occurs nowhere in biblical Greek;
sometimes in Philo, (2) Usually impersonally in profane Greek, Set, it is necessary, it
behoves J only once iu Homer, II, ix. 337, who elsewhere always uses x/a?;, from which



Aeoi 683 Aioixai

Bel differs only in being more frequently used of decrees of fate, yet also like XPV> of

necessity either of duty, of circumstances, or of propriety. It always denotes a being

bound or obliged to do something, a necessity in the nature of things, not so much

personal obligation {6(j>eiX€Lv) as a necessity/ making itself felt, an unavoidable, urgent

compulsory must. Hence Bengal explains the apparently different ""and remote

significations of what must needs be and what is proper ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 0, ocpeikei. notat

obligationcm, Bet neccssitatem ; illud morale est, hoc quasi physicum, ut in vernacula, we

ought and we must. In biblical Greek it occurs in the LXX. only in Isa. xxx. 29

(r* ^10 ^^^ J°^ ^^- 3 (parallel with o(/)eXo9) ; Dan. ii. 28, 29, a Bel 'yevea6ai =

^^IP. ''1 i^? ; a little oftener in the Apocrypha, but comparatively often in the N. T., where

besides Bel we have also the forms Sej], Matt, xxvi, 35, Mark xiv. 31 ; Belv, Luke xviii. 1,

Acts XXV. 24, xxvi. 9; eSet, Matt, xviii. 33, xxv. 27; John iv. 4; often in Luke, Acts,

Hebrews; Beov, Acts xix. 36 ; 1 Pet. i. 6 {to. firj Beovra, 1 Tim. v. 13). It usually

appears with the ace. and infinitive, also with the infinitive only ; in Paul's writings,, o Set,

Eom. viii. 26, xii. 3 ; fjv eBei,, Eom. i. 27. The construction with the gen. of the thing

or the dative of the person does not occur. It stands (a) of decrees of fate, answering to

its use especially in Herodotus (viii. 53. 1, eBee yap Kara to deoirpoiriov TTatrav ttjv

'Attiktjv TTjv iv rfi rjTreipa yeveadat, inro Uepcrrjcn. Without such an addition in

ii. 161. 1 ; iv. 79. 1 ; v. 33. 92 ; vii. 6. 64 ; ix. 109. 1 ; also in later writers, e.g. Arrian,

An. ii. 3. 6), especially of events in the gospel history, of that which must occur according

to the divine counsel or the word of Scripture or of prophecy (cf. Xva irXr^pwdy).

Luke xxii. 3 7, ro yeypa/Mfievov Bel reXecrdrivat, ; xxiv. 44, Bel TfhjqpwOrjvai iravTa ;

Acts i. 16, eBei TrXrjpaOijvai ttjv yp. So in Matt. xvL 21, xvii. 10, xxiv. 6, xxvi. 54;

Mark viii. 31, ix. 11, xiii. 7, 10; Luke ix. 22, xvii. 25, xxi. 9, xxii. 7, xxiv. 7,

xxvi. 46 ; John iii. 14, xii. 34, xx. 9 ; Acts ix. 16, xvii. 3 ; Eev. i. 1, iv. 1. In like

manner of divine appointmeyit, determination, or law, which must be maintained or

accomplished, Mark xiii. 10; Luke iv. 43; John x. 16; Acts iii. 21, iv. 12, ix. 16,

xiv. 22, xix. 21, 23, xxvii. 24; 1 Cor. xv. 25, 53; 2 Cor. v. 10; Eev. x. 11, xi, 5,

xiii. 10, xvii. 10. (&) Of that which time and circumstances demand or bring about,

Matt. xxAd. 35 ; Mark xiv. 31 ; Luke xii. 12, xiii. 33, xix. 5 ; John iv. 4; Acts xix. 36,

xxvii. 21, 26 ; 2 Cor. xi. 30, xii. 1 ; Eph. vi. 20 ; Col. iv. 4 ; Heb. ix. 26 ; 1 Pet. i. 6.

(c) Of duty, or of the obligation which office and calling involve. Matt. xxv. 27 ; Luke ii. 49,

xi. 42 ; John iii. 7, 30, ix. 4, x. 16 ; Acts v. 29, ix. 6, xvi. 30, xx. 35 ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 ;

2 Thess. iii. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 2, 7, 15; 2 Tim. ii. 24; Tit. i. 7, 11 ; Heb. ii. 1, xi. 6;

2 Pet. iii. 11. (d) What belongs to one, or is becoming, Matt, xviii. 33, xxiii. 23 ;

Mark xiii. 14; Luke xi. 42, xiii. 14, 16, xv. 32 ; John iv. 20, 24; Acts i. 21, xv. 5,

xix. 36, xxi. 22, xxiv. 19, xxv. 10; Eom. i. 27, viii. 26, xii. 3; 1 Cor. viii. 2,

2 Cor. ii. 3 ; Col. iv. 6 ; 1 Tim. v. 13 ; 2 Tim. ii. 6,

(II.) Akojxai, to be regarded not as passive, but middle, as = to be obliged, to be in want
of, to need, to desire, for oneself. The future Beriaoiiai does not occur in biblical Greek,



A'eofiM 684 npoa-Beofiai



but in its stead BerjOT^ao/Muc, which belongs to later Greek, Job v. 8, ix. 15 ; the aorist
eZerjdriv, perfect BeBerjfiat., 1 Kings viii. 60. This construction of tenses seems to be the
basis of the form given by Lachmann in Luke viii. 38, iBeetro instead of iBeero, which
occurs in the MSS. of Job xix. 16 ; Attic iBelro, Gen. xxv. 21 ; cf. Lobeck, Phrijn. 220 ;
Buttmann, p. 48. (a) To need; in this sense, neither in the LXX. (concerning Ps.
xxii. 25, 26, see Se'^^o-t?) nor in the Apocrypha — not even in the places cited by Wahl,
Ecclus. XXX. 30; Wisd. xvi. 25 ; 4 Mace. ii. 8 (where, e.g., irpoaBeoixai, occurs in the
sense to need in addition, and once in the sense to ash for). It is in keeping with this
that the derivatives BiriaK, Ber]/j,a, he7]Ti,K6<s, even in profane Greek, answer only to
the meaning to ask. (b) To desire, to pray; in biblical Greek almost exclusively of
prayer or request. In the LXX. usually for pn, Hithpael, and n^n, Piel, occasionally also
for nns^ mi^ nib, Hiphil, '?s>i, Hithpael, n^an a&i nny, yitJ-.

J ir] a- 1<; seems not to occur in profane Greek in the sense need ; in the place usually
cited for this, Plato, Uryx. 405, it is joined with iinOv/jLui = desire or longing, iv i-TriOvfiia
Koi BeTja-ei,, iv eTridv/MiaK koI Berjaeaiv elvai. It is therefore very improbable that it has
this meaning {n^ed) in Ps. xxii. 25, t^ Beriaei tov tttco'x^ov = n«]t>. The rendering is not
probably a misunderstanding of the Hebrew word on the part of the LXX. as is usually
supposed, but a bending or particularizing of the idea of poverty to that of desire or
prayer (not cry, Del., et al.) by means of the Greek word ; cf. Aristotle, Bhet. ii. 7,
SejjVets ilcrlv al opi^et^, xal tovtcov fxaXiara al jMeja \virr}'^ rov jjirj yiyvo/jLevov. In
Plato the word appears (besides the place already cited) only in the sense prayer, request ;
cf Aristotle, Pol. i. 9, Kara ra? Seijcret? dvajKaiov iroietadao ra? /xeraSocret?, and it signi-
fies not the prayer of need, but more strongly of destitution and utter want. In the
LXX. it is usually = nsn'!', ^''■'l^D'?, likewise np, of complaint ; further, with evxv, "Trpoa-evxtj
= n^QPi^ and occasionally = n^V)i, V\f, nm, n^'^, et al.

IlpocrSiofiai., (a) to be in want of besides, for enlargement or support, usually
with the genitive ; cf. Tvpoa-Bel, it is, moreover, necessary thereto, Dem. 01. i. 1 9 ; Plato,
Phil. 64 B. TrpoaBelcdai, several times in Plato, e.g. Phileb. 20 E, Set lyap etir-ep nrorepov
avT&v e'cTTt raryaOov, /JiTjBev firiBevo<; irpoaBelaOai. Suidas, TrpoaBetcrdai koX evBeladat,
8ia(f)epei' to fiev yap Brj\oi oXvyav tivmv KTrjaiv, to Be iravTekrj airopiav rov oKov BrfKoi.
Often in Xenophon ; not in Demosthenes ; often in Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Polybius.
In Aristotle it stands in opposition to avrapKetv. The element of addition may fall into the
background, but never wholly disappears; cf. Pol. vi. 13. 6, el' Tt? IBmrrj^ rj ttoXc} raiv
Kara rrjv 'IraXiav Bia\vaea)<; rj eTririfi^aea^ r) ^orj6eia^ rj (pvkaKrj^ rrpoa-Belrai, i.e. if they
cannot accomplish it alone. So also in the only place in the LXX. Pro v. xii. 8, riixr]v
eavrm rrepiriOel'; kui rrpoffBeonevo'! dprov, "ipn = and has not hread enough. So also in
Ecclus. iv. 3, xi. 12 ; compare aTrpoo-Se???, 1 Mace. xii. 9. In the N. T. Acts xvii. 25,
ovBe iiTTo ^(etpSyv avQpanrivwv depaireverai, 7rpocrBeofi€v6<; rLVc;, in the strict sense. It is a
word borrowed from the Greek philosophy, expressing the truth uttered in Ps, 1. 9 sqq..



Tlpoaheo^ai 685 • ^AvaBs'^o/iat

Isa. xl. 13 sqq., and elsewhere; cf. Plato, Tim. 34 B, Bl dperrjv avrov (Oeov) avTw
Bvva/jLevov ^vyyiyveaOai, xal ovSej/o? eTspov TrpocrBeo/jLevov, yvcopi/Mov Be Kal <j)l\ov lKavSi<;
aiiTov avTw. Aristotle, Eth. Eud. vii. 12, 6 jxer apeTrj<; evBai/Mcov . . . LKav6<; avrw
crvvelvai' jxciKiaTa Be rovTO tpavepov iirl 6eov' BrfKov yap w? ovBevo<i vpoaBe6fj,evo<; ovBe
(piXov Seijcrerat. Mdaph. ix. 4, oiiBe irpoaBelrai ov6evo<; to TeXeiov. Eth. Nicom. ix. 8.
Hence it was transferred to the Alexandrine Judaic philosophy, yet in Philo (against
Dahne, Jud. Alexandr. Bel. Phil. p. 120 sqq.) the word answers rather to the concrete
representation of Scripture than to this ahstract sense, e.g. Philo, Ee opif. in. x. 22,
p.rjBevo'; •7rpoaBe6/j,evo'; aXXov iravra yap 6em Bvvard. Ibid. iii. 13; cf. a-Trpoa-Berj'i as an
epithet applied to God, 2 Mace. xiv. 35 ; 3 Mace. ii. 9, rjylaaa'; rbv ro'rrov tovtov eh
ovop,d dov TO) tSsv diravTcov irpoaBeel. Josephus, Ant. viii. 4. 3, aTrpoo-See? yap to Oetov
aTrdiiTcov, underlying the thought that we cannot give God a recompense for His goodness.
Aristeas, p. 122, ed. Hawerk., follows the sense of the Greek philosophy, o ^eos d7rpoc7Beri<i
eVrt Kol enrieiKi]'; — the pattern of a king's duty, to be master of himself, and not to need
anything; yet the iirieiKijt indicates the Bible idea. Thus also Acts xvii. 25 follows
the sense of Ps. 1. 9 sqq., the genitive Ttz'o? being neuter, not masculine. Compare
Clemens Eom., ad Cor. i. 52, diT-poaBerjt;, dBe\j>oi, 6 SecnroTT]'; virdp-^ei rav aTrdpTcov,
ovBev ovBevo'i xpji^ei el /mtj to i^op-oXoyela-dai aiirS. For other passages, see Wetstein.^
(h) In the sense to ask still in addition, the word occurs in Ecclus. xiii. 3.

■^ oXV> V> reception, entertainment, banquet ; very seldom in profane Greek. Plut.
Mor. 1102, is unmeaning as the text now runs, and besides this, we can only cite Athcn.
viii. 348 F, for this meaning. Once in Plato, Tim. 71 G = vessel or receptacle. LXX. =
nrnp. Gen. xxi. 8, xxvi. 30; Esth. i. 3, v. 4, 5, 8, 12, 14; elsewhere = tto'to?.
Apocrypha, 1 Esdr. iii. 1. In the N. T. Luke v. 29, xiv. 13.

'AvaBe'^op.ai, to undertake, to take up, to take upon oneself, a burden, work, etc.
2 Mace. vi. 19, tov fxer evKKeia'; ddvarov /laWov fj tov /xerd fivcrovi ^lov dvaBe^dfievo';.
Thus also we must understand Heb. xi. 17, o Ta? e'7rayye\la<; dvaBe^dpi.evo'; — "he who
liad taken up, undertaken," not merely " received ; " dvaBe-xpfxai implies the seizing or
laying hold upon that which is presented ; and with this appropriation of the promises on
his part, Abraham's conduct in offering up Isaac seems to stand in contradiction. Plut.
Cic. xliii. 6, of the taking upon oneself of an inheritance, d^xpt oii Kalaap 6 veo<s . . .
■jrapayevoiievo'i tov ts KXfjpov dveBe^aTO tov KaLcrapo<; eKeivov. Eurip. Iph. Taur. 818,
Kal XoOtp" e? AiiXtv pLrjTpo<; dveBe^a irdpa ; Also = to undertake to do something, with
following infinitive, 2 Mace. viii. 38. With personal object, Tivd = to undertake for some
one, to hecome surety for him, tiv6<; tivi. Not thus used in biblical Greek; compare
eKBi'^^o/JMi. In Acts xxviii. 27, dvaBe^dfievoi; rjp,d<} . . . ^iXo^pwrns e^evia-e, it is employed
instead of the usual vTroBex. = io receive hospitably; cf. Ael. Var. hist. iv. 9, vireBe^uTo
aiiTOw e5 /xdXa (j>LXo(j}p6vw';. Plut. Cat. min. li. 1, dvaB. to dyoij ets ttjv voXtv, cannot be
taken as similar. — Not in the LXX.



AiroSfx^ofiai, 686 Aiah€')(o^ai

^Air oZi'x^o fiai, with the passive aorist a.TreBi'^d'rjv, 2 Mace. iii. 9, iv. 22, Acts
XV. 4 (where Lachm., Tisch. 8 read 'n-apehe')(Or)aav), and the verbal adj. airoSe/cTo? and
d-TToBeKTeo'; = to accept, to take along with ; literally, to accept from, to receive from ; but
the fundamental meaning of Se;)^. so asserts itself that the preposition serves simply to
strengthen the idea, (a) rtvd, to receive one, 2- Mace. iii. 9, iv. 22; Pol. xxii. 24. 6;
thus, however, more rarely. As a rule, the word denotes a mental state and conduct, to
behave towards one not with reserve but cordially, with recognition, corresponding with
its use (6) to denote recognition, approval, confirmation, of a word, a doctrine, etc. Cf.
Plato, Prot. 323 C, irdvT dvSpa d'iroZe')(ovTai, Trepl ravTr]<; t?5? dperi]'; ^v/j,^ov\ov. Xen.
Ifcm. iv. 1. 1, oi fiiKpd w^eXet tou? elaOoTai re aiiTm crvvelvai Koi aTroSe^o/ieVou? eKeivov ;
Sturz, ([ui sequuntur illius clisciplinam. It denotes this bearing to a person in various
forms, 2 Mace. iii. 35, xiii. 14 = to treat friendlily. Luke viii. 40, aTreSefaro avTov 6
ox^o<;, fjcrav jdp irdvTe'i irpoaZoKMvre'i avTov^to welcome. So also Acts xv. 4, xxi. 17.
In Luke ix. 11, otSe o'^Xoi -^KoXovOijcrau avTw koi dTToBe^dixevo<; i\d\ei, avrov'i = to receive
friendlily, not to repel; compare Acts xxviii. 30, xviii. 27 = to receive with recognition.
With a thing as its object = to acknowledge ; Plut. Be -poet. And. iii. (p. 1 8 B), ji-^re
diTohe'^ecTdai &>? dX-ij^e? firjTe BoKifid^eip d><s koXov. Thus in Acts xxiv. 3, dTroBe'^^o/J^eOa
fxerd Trao-i;? e\i')(apiaTi,a';. (Cf. Philo, Leg. ad Caj. ii. 589. 37, t% irpovola'; vp,d<;
a-rroSe^erai, ; in profane Greek, usually with the genitive of the person and ace. of the
thing.) Acts ii. 41, top Xoyov, to assent to the word, to give it entrance within them.
Plato, Theact. 162 E, a av oi voXKol dTToSi)(OLVTo aKovovre';, Xiyere Tama. Phaed. 91 E.
Pol. XXV. 7. 2, Sta TO BoKelv ttjv Bcopedv d^iav etvai ■)(apiTO'i d(r/j,evco'; aTreSe^avTO Trjv
iirayyeXLav. In the N. T. only in Luke's writings. Not in the LXX.

'AttoBo'x^'^, rj, almost exclusively in later Greek = recognition, acknowledgment,
approval, and, indeed, ivilling, ready acknowledgment, e.g. Pol. i 5. 5, ttS? 6 avve'^rj'; Xoyo?
diroBo^ri'i Tvy^dvet irapd toI<; aKovovaov, preceded by 'TrapaBo'xfii d^icodfjpat Kai Trt'trTeo)?.
ii. 56. 1, of an historian, Trap' ivioii diroBoxv^ d^iovTai. Polybius often joins it with
TTt'o-Tts, e.g. i. 43. 4, vi. 2. 13. With the corresponding 1 Tim. i. 15 and iv. 9, Trto-ro? o
X0709 Ka\ irdarjt; diroBo-^rj'; agio's, cf. Pol. viii. 13. 2.

'.4 TT S e K T o 9, 7?, 6v, also aTroSeKTo?, see (h). (a) What deserves approved or recognition,
Plut. adv. Stoic. 6 (1061 A), -irov <ydp alpeTov r} ttco? d-rroBeKTov o ^rj i-rraivdv fj-ijTe
Oav/xd^etv d^iov ea-Tiv ; This form appears but seldom, and only in later Greek ; we
find the form reo? oftener in Plato, e.g. Legg. ii. 668 A, tovtov dwoBeKTsov tov Xoyov.
(b) In the N. T. 1 Tim. ii. 3, tovto yap KaXhv kuI diroBeKTOV evda-mov tov acoTPipo';
■^fiaiv Oeov. Ver. 4, tovto ydp eaTw diroB. ivcoir. t. 0., thus equivalent to Bekto';
evwp6aBeKTo<; in the sense of the perf. part, passive, and therefore here proparoxiton ;
see TrpoaBe'^o/Mai.

A laBixofjtai (a), to receive (from another or former possessor), e.g. Plato, Pep.



AiaZej(oiJLai, 687 ^ EvBc'^o/j.at,



ix. 576, e'(/>7; Si,aSe^d/j,evo<; rov Xoiyov. Polyb. ix. 28. 8, SieSe^aro m-ap auTOv rijv ap'x,'f)V
' A'ke^avhpo'; ; iv. 2. 7, Trjv iv ^vpla SteSeSe/cTo ^aaCKeiav. Lucian, Diod. Sic, Dion. Hal.,
Josephus. Thus in the only places in the N. T. Acts vii. 45, y)v {a-K^vrjv rov /xaprvplov)
icai elcrijyayov SoaBe^d/xevoi ol Trarepe? rificov. Of. Philo, de vit. Mos. i. 2. 113. 49, Trapa
irarepaiv ical "Trpoyovoov rrjv ^t^Trjcnv aXvrov BiaEe^dfMevok — (b) With personal object =
to follow iqjon one, to succeed, Straho, Polyb., ct al. So 2 Mace. ix. 23 ; 2 Ohron. xxxi. 12.
Figuratively, Wisd. vii. 30, tovto (sc. (pcosi) SiaSe^j^erat vv^. But xvii. 20, elKcov rod
/j.eXKovTO'i avTov<; SiaSe-^ecrdai ctkotov^, must be explained according to a, " an image of
that darkness which should receive them;" compare Herod, iv. 1, tow ^Kv9a<i i^eBe^aro
oiiK iXdcracov irovo';. 2 Macc. x. 28, ai/aroX?}? Sia'^eofievT]!;, is considered a better
reading than Si.aSe'^. — (c) To relieve, to redeem, in Xen. with the dative, afterwards with
the accusative, 2 Macc. iv. 31, of the deputy or governor; compare BtdBo^a, xiv. 26,
iv. 29. Without mention of the person, Xen. Andb. i. 5. 2, BiaBe^^ofievoi, who relieve
one another. So perhaps 1 Chron. xxvi. 18.

J i,dBo^o<;, 6, a few times in the LXX. and Apocrypha = substitute, 2 Chron.
xxvi. 11 ; 2 Macc. xiv. 26, iv. 29. Successor, Ecclus. xlvi. 1, xlviii. 8. Thus in Acts



Online LibraryHermann CremerBiblico-theological lexicon of New Testament Greek → online text (page 99 of 135)