That which is morally evil may be contemplated on various sides and from various points of view; the several epithets which it will thus obtain bringing out the several aspects under which it will have presented itself to us.
Κακός and πονηρός occur together,
But the πονηρός is, as Ammonius calls him, ὁ δραστικὸς κακοῦ, the active worker out of evil; the German ‘Bösewicht,’ or as Beza (Annott. in Matt. v. 37) has drawn the distinction: ‘Significat πονηρός aliquid amplius quam κακός, nempe eum qui sit in omni scelere exercitatus, et ad injuriam cuivis inferendam totus comparatus.’ He is, according to the derivation of the word, ὁ παρέχων πόνους, or one that, as we say, ‘puts others to trouble;’2 and πονηρία is the ‘cupiditas nocendi’; or as Jeremy Taylor explains it: ‘aptness to do shrewd turns, to delight in mischiefs and tragedies; a loving to trouble our neighbour and to do him ill offices; crossness, perverseness, and peevishness of action in our intercourse’ (Doctrine and Practice of Repentance, iv. 1). In πονηρός the positive activity of evil comes far more decidedly out than in κακός, the word therefore being constantly opposed to χρηστός, or the good contemplated as the useful (Isocrates, Or. i. 6 d; viii. 184 a; Xenophon, Mem. ii. 6. 20;
Ὁ μὲν πονηρὸς οὐδὲν ἄλλο πλὴν κακός.
A reference to the context will show that what Euripides means is this, namely, that a man of an evil nature (πονηρός) will always show himself base in act (κακός).
But there are words in most languages, and φαῦλος is one of them, which contemplate evil under another aspect, not so much that either of active or passive malignity, but that rather of its good-for-nothingness, the impossibility of any true gain ever coming forth from it. Thus ‘nequam’ (in strictness opposed to ‘frugi’), and ‘nequitia’ in Latin (see Ramsay on the Mostellaria of Plautus, p. 229); ‘vaurien’ in French; ‘naughty’ and ‘naughtiness’ in English; ‘taugenichts,’ ‘schlecht,’ ‘schlechtigkeit’ in German;3 while on the other hand ‘tugend’ (==‘taugend’) is virtue contemplated as usefulness. This notion of worthlessness is the central notion of φαῦλος (by some very questionably identified with ‘faul,’ ‘foul’Etym. Note. 35), which in Greek runs successively through the following meanings,—light, unstable, blown about by every wind (see Donaldson, Cratylus, § 152; ‘synonymum ex levitate permutatum,’ Matthäi), small, slight (‘schlecht’ and ‘schlicht’ in German are only different spellings of the same word), mediocre, of no account, worthless, bad; but still bad predominantly in the sense of worthless; thus φαύλη αὐλητρίς (Plato, Conv. 215 c), a bad flute-player; φαῦλος ζωγράφος (Plutarch, De Adul. et Am. 6), a bad painter. In agreement with this, the standing antithesis to φαῦλος is σπουδαῖος (Plato, Legg. vi. 757 a; vii. 814 e; Philo, De Merc. Mer. 1); the Stoics ranging all men in two classes, either in that of σπουδαῖοι or φαῦλοι, and not recognizing any middle ethical position; so too it stands over against χρηστός (Plutarch, De Aud. Poët. 4); καλός (De Adul. et Am. 9); ἐπιεικὴς (Aristotle, Ethic. Nic. iii. 5. 3); ἀστεῖος (Plutarch, De Rep. Stoic. 12); while words with which it is commonly associated are ἄχρηστος (Plato, Lysias, 204 b); εὐτελής (Legg. vii. 806 a); μοχθηρός (Gorg. 486 b); ἀσθενής (Euripides, Med. 803); ἄτοπος (Plutarch, De Aud. Poët. 12; Conj. Proec. 48); ἐλαφρός (De Adul. et Amic. 32); βλαβερός (Quom. Aud. Poët. 14); κοινός (Proec. San. 14); ἀκρατής (Gryll. 8); ἀνόητος (De Comm. Not. 11); ἄκαιρος (Conj. Proec. 14); ἀγεννής (De Adul. et Amic. 2); ἀγοραῖος (Chariton). Φαῦλος, as used in the N. T., has reached the latest stage of its meaning; and τὰ φαῦλα πράξαντες are set in direct opposition to τὰ ἀγαθὰ ποιήσαντες, and condemned as such to “the resurrection of damnation” (
1 Cremer: ‘So characterisirt κακός dasjenige was nicht so beschaffen ist wie es, seiner Natur Bestimmung und Idee nach, sein könnte oder sollte.’
2 J. H. H. Schmidt is of the mind that the connexion between πόνος and πονηρός is not this, but another; that we have here one of those illustrations of what we may call the aristocratic tendencies of language, which meet us so often and in so many tongues. What, he asks, is the feature concerning their poorer neighbours’ manner of life which must most strike the leisured few—what but this, namely that they are always at work; they are πονηροί or laborious, for their πόνοι never cease. It is not long, however, before a word constantly applied to the poor obtains an unfavourable subaudition; it has done so in words out of number, as in our own ‘churl,’ ‘villain,’ and so many more; the poor it is suggested in thought are also the bad, and the word moves into a lower sphere in agreement with the thought.
3 Graff (Alt-hochdeutsche Sprachschatz, p. 138) ascribes in like manner to ‘bose’ (‘böse’) an original sense of weak, small, nothing worth.
[The following Strong's numbers apply to this section:G2556,G4190,G5337.]
The Blue Letter Bible ministry and the BLB Institute hold to the historical, conservative Christian faith, which includes a firm belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Since the text and audio content provided by BLB represent a range of evangelical traditions, all of the ideas and principles conveyed in the resource materials are not necessarily affirmed, in total, by this ministry.
Loading
Loading
Interlinear |
Bibles |
Cross-Refs |
Commentaries |
Dictionaries |
Miscellaneous |