2. Of interpreting a foreign langunge. Egyp- tian beinjj, of course, the langu.a^e of tlie court, the conversation between Joseph and his brethren was carried on by the medium of an interpreter, who was probably always expected to be in attendance at court ((in 42" y^pO with art. ' the interpreter'). The inteijjreter being between (DcO'3 ib.) the two parties, j"':; can be U8eaas = 'ambas.sador' (2 Ch 32") or ' mediator ' (1843", of prophets standing between J " and Israel ; Job 33^, of an angel as interpreting to man God's providential treatment of him and what is right tor him to do [Davidson], probalily also as interceding for man to God [IJillmann, Siegfried-Stade]). |"St and its derivatives (cf. njc'-9 in Hab 2", ' taunt-song ') have always the sense of cleriling or taunting except in the four above-cited pas.sages, Gn 42-=", 2 Ch 32^', Is 4.3-"', Job 33" (contrast 16**), and in Pr 1* where ■ijc'?^ (LXX aKOTdfOi \6705) prolialily means ' a dark saying' (KV 'a figure') rather than ' interpretn- tion ' (.\V, IlVm).
In Ezr 4' the passive ptcp. cpr.:} is used of a translation from Persian into Aramaic. From this root comes the well-known word Targuin ('paraphrase') as well as the designation metur- geman applied to the official in tlie synagogue, who was required to translate the Hebrew (wliich was read to, but no longer understood by, the people) into the Aramaic vernacular. Latterly, in addition to translating the sacred text, the metur- qcnuin was wont to add all manner of Uaggada to It (W. K. Smith, OTJC^id, 04 n., 154).
In NT we have the familiar plira.se ' which is, being inter|)reted,' etc. {ned€piir)reviturot, i ipiii)- rfucrai, 5i€p^r)yev6fui'ox, 6 fi€dfpfirjvfij(Tai),'wln:Te A Heb. or Aram, expression is rendered into Greek (Mt 1", Mk 5" 15*^- ". Jn 1»-" etc. Ac 9«> 13"), asymlKilical force being also sometimes discovered in it (Jn 1" 9', Ac 4», He 7').
Although it scarcely falls within the scope of the present article, the reference of Papias {np. Eu.seoius, JIE iii. 39) to St. Mark as the ' inter- preter' {{pfiTiytvT^t) of St. Peter may he mentioned (see Makk). Link (i'A', IS'.iO, Heft iii. p. 4U5 tr. ; cf. Erpos. Times, Aug. IS'.Hi, p. 4iit>) contends strongly that 'interpreter' here is to tie under- stood in its strictly literal sense, implying that the Apostle Peter, in his mis-sionary journeys among the Jews of the Dias|Kira, availed himself of St. Mark's services to render Aramaic into Greek.
3. Of interpreting the utteranca of thott who tpckc with l:iiigu(s. This was a 'gilt' (xdptff*^) which might or might not Indong to the siieaker with tongues himself (1 Co 12'° »° 1 4». i«. A r. »). See Chukch, vol. i. p. 428", and ToxODES (GIFT OF).
4. Considerable uncertainty attaches to the meaning of the word * interpretation ' in 2 P !■ {yifiinrKoyTtt 5n raaa Tpc^ijrtui ypa^iji liias #¥>
478
INTREAT, ENTREAT
INWARD, INWARDS
XiJfffws oi ylyerai, ' knowing that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation ' ; cf. the use of iiTiXveii' in Mk 4*^ and Ac \'.F-'). All the varieties of explanation may be grouped under two heads, according as the ' interpretation ' is (a) ours or (6) the prophet's own. Both the context and tlie very similar lan^a^e of Philo {Quis rer. div. htcr. p. 52) plead in favour of the second explanation, (himm, indeed (Clavis, s. ylyfoixai), supports the first, taking the meaning to be that no one can by liis own mental powers explain the proi)hecies of the OT, but that lie requires the aid of the same spirit which originally called forth their utterance. But this true conception seems hardly in place here. See further Aliord, «</ ^oc, and I'arrar (Early Dai/s of Chris/unnti/, 110 n.), who takes the meaning to be that ' the prophets did not speak by spontaneous knowledge and spoke more than they could themselves mterpret . . . If this utterance is not his own, his interpretation may also well be inadequate (ef. 1 P l'""'-).'
I'W interpretation of propliecy see Prophecy.
Tlie history of tlie various schemes, Jewish and Christian, for interpreting Scripture, the supposed double sense, the allegorizing method once so niucli in vogue, etc., lie outside the scope of this article. For details, the reader must refer to works on Rabbinical Theology and on Hermeneutics.
J. A. Selbie.
INTREAT, ENTREAT.— In the edd. of AV since 1760 ' entreat ' has the meaning of ' deal with,' •handle' (mod. 'treat'), and ' in treat ' of 'be^,' ' jiray.' But they are ditierent spellings of the same verb (fr. Lat. in-tractare, through Fr. en- trniter), and in 1611 the spelling was indifferently • entreat ' or ' in treat.'
In the sense of treat, 'entreat* occurs in AV 1611 eleven limes, 'intreat' twelve times; in the sense of pray, 'entreat' occurs eleven times, ' intreat* twenty-eight times, in Job 1918 we find ' I intreated him with my mouth,' but in the next verse ' I entreated for the children's sake.' Again in Jer isn we read, ' I will cause the enemie to intreat thee well in the time of evill,' while the marg. has ' Or, I will entreat the enemie for thee.' The subst. is found once 'intreaty' (Pr 1823), once 'entreaty' (2 Co 8-1), both meaning ' petition.'