‘perimentally ;
Wile
technical term.” But as Anrich shows (Das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 125) φωτισμός was not one of the technical terms of the mysteries [‘‘ Der Ausdruck φωτισμός begegnet in der Mysterienter- minologie nie und nirgends”.] The word is of frequent occurrence in the LXX, see esp. Hos. x. 12. φωτίσατε ἑαυτοὺς φῶς γνώσεως [‘ Ausdrugk und Vorstellung sind alttestamentlich”’]. Of course it is the fact that φωτισμός was used by Justin and subsequent fathers to denote baptism (vide. Suicer, s.v.), and several interpret the word here in that sense. So the Syrian versions; Theo- doret and Theophylact translate by βάπτισμα and λουτρόν. For the use made of this translation in the Montanist and Novatian controversies see the Church Histories, and Tertullian’s De Pudic., c. xx. The translation is, how- ever, an anachronism. [In this connec- tion, the whole of c. vi. of Clement’s Paedag. may with advantage be read. ἐφωτίσθημεν ' τὸ δ᾽ ἐστιν ἐπιγνῶναι τὸν Θεόν. . . . Βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμεθα - φωτιζόμενοι νἱοποιούμεθα: υἱοποιούμενοι τελειούμεθα.]
γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρ- ανίου, ‘‘and tasted the heavenly σι”. yevoap. here as elsewhere, to know ex- cf. ii. Ὁ; Matt. xvi. 29. The heavenly gift, or the gift that comes to us from heaven and partakes of the nature of its source, is according to Chrys. and Gécum: ‘The forgiveness of sins” ; and so, many moderns, David- son, Weiss, etc.; others with a slight difference refer it to the result of for- giveness ‘‘ pacem conscientiae quae con- sequitur peccatorum remissionem ”’ (Gro- tius). Some finding that δωρεά is more than once (Acts ii. 38, x. 45) used of the Holy Spirit, conclude that this is here the meaning (Owen, von Soden, etc.) ; while Bengel is not alone in render- ing, ‘‘Dei filius, ut exprimitur (ver. 6.) Christus, qui per fidem, nec non in sacra ipsius Coena gustatur’’. Bleek, con- sidering that this expression is closely joined to the preceding by τε, concludes that what is meant is the gift of enlight- enment, or, as Tholuck says, ‘‘ the δωρεά is just the Christian φῶς objectively taken”. The objection to the first of these interpretations, which has much in its favour, is that it is too restricted: the last is right in emphasising the close connection with φωτισθ., for what is meant apparently is the whole giit of redemption, the new creation, the ful- ness of life eternal freely bestowed, and