Voci HTLS

As regards the verb ἐκλέγω, its prevalent meaning is conveyed by the middle voice ἐκλέγομαι, which expresses the idea of making the most appropriate choice among a group of animated/unanimated beings. This group can be expressed either by pure genitive, or by ἐκ (or ἀπό) + genitive. Sometimes the object of the verb is expressed by ἐν (= Hebrew preposition be) + accusative or dative. The purpose of the selection can be expressed by εἰς τὸ or ἵνα + infinitive.
In the Septuagint, when the subject of the verb is God, ἐκλέγομαι conveys the idea of God’s choice of the people of Israel/the Levitical tribe/the city of Jerusalem/the temple. In such cases, it acquires a full “technical” meaning, expressing the (divine) election.
Sporadically, ἐκλέγω also means “speak completely, express fully, tell out” (Latin “e-loquor”). This meaning, though, is generally expressed by the second aorist form (ἐξεῖπον), which is not present the Septuagint.
In the LXX ἐκλέγομαι refers to the act of sensibly choosing animated beings, things, abstract concepts, God/gods which/who are considered worthy for the person who makes the choice. The middle voice stresses the fact that the choice is made not only “by” but, most of all, “for” the person who is choosing. The subject of the choice is generally expressed: it can be a human or, most frequently, God himself. Preceded by a negative conjuction/adverb (οὐδὲ, οὐ, οὐκ) ἐκλέγομαι can also express the rejection, i.e. the non-election (by God): f.i., in 1 Kgdms [1 Sam] 16:8.9.10 (rejection of the sons of Jesse in comparison to the election of David) or in Baruch 3:27 (rejection of the giants).
As regards the term ἐκλεκτός, this is a verbal adjective from ἐκλέγω (→). Like most verbals in -τος accented on the last syllable, it conveys the notion of either the possibility or the capability of performing the action expressed by the verb (cf. Smyth 1920 §425c.N.). Thus, in its literal meaning, it indicates something or someone either “selectable” (“eligible”) or “deserving of selection” (“election”).
ἐκλεκτός is also attested as a proper name by Dio Cassius (72.4.6; 73.1.1), Herodianus (1.16.5; 1.17.2), and some papyri and epigraphs (e.g. P.Oxf. 3, 142 C.E., Arsinoites; IG II2 2068, 155/6 C.E., Attica).
In Greek, Jewish and Christian texts, ἐκλεκτός refers to people or things that are either “excellent”/“of high quality” (i.e., “selectable” as the best possible option) or “collected”/“chosen”/“(s)elected” because of a peculiar feature that makes them suitable for a specific assignment. In the latter case, a reference to the notion of divine election can easily be implied: God (or Christ) is considered the agent of the election, while the ἐκλεκτός can be Jesus the Christ/the Messiah (when the subject is God), as well as the humankind, a specific person, a group, the people of Israel, the city of Jerusalem. As regards the Christian texts, more specifically, ἐκλεκτός is referred either to Christian Church or to specific groups/ “churches”: especially in the latter case, it is often used in dualistic (the chosen/elected vs. the rejected) and gnostic contexts. This use is also typical in Manichaean settings.

The semantic field of ἐχθρός includes the noun ἔχθρα and the rarer verb ἐχθραίνω, and it carries the idea of enmity and hostility on a broad spectrum. Etymologically, the word ἐχθρός has the same root of the Latin word extra: this emphasizes the original meaning of the lemma as indicating a person coming from outside, hostile because foreigner. Compared to the main group of its synonyms (be here sufficient to mention verbs such as μισέω, πολεμέω, δυσμενέω and their semantic fields), ἐχθραίνω / ἐχθρός / ἔχθρα expresses a concept of personal enmity scantly connoted in a technical-military sense. In fact, to designate the enemy in war, the ancient Greek language uses the lemma πολέμιος, often as a substantive (“adversary, enemy, hostile person in war”). As a result, it seems that in the classical Greek world the concept of being hostile is not semantically associated with the idea of the enmity in war. ἐχθρός is simply the opposite of φίλος; an ἐχθρός also happens to be one who had been a φίλος, but has been subsequently alienated.

This entry examines the semantic history and cultural use of the Greek terms, tracing their development from classical Greek literature through Jewish and early Christian texts. In classical Greek usage, the verb primarily means “to show forth,” “to come into view,” or “to appear,” often referring to visible phenomena, enemies appearing in battle, dreams, or natural events. The noun and adjective similarly indicate visibility, clarity, distinction, or public prominence. From the Hellenistic period onward, however, these terms increasingly acquire a religious and political meaning, designating divine manifestations and the public appearance of rulers, especially within royal ideology.
In inscriptions and papyri, the vocabulary frequently describes divine epiphanies in military or cultic contexts, miraculous healings, or the prestigious presence of emperors and kings. The epithet Epiphanes, for example, becomes a royal title associated with Hellenistic rulers such as Antiochus IV and Ptolemy V, showing the convergence of religious language and political legitimation.
In the Septuagint, these terms occur relatively rarely. When they appear, they usually translate Hebrew verbs meaning “to shine” or “to appear,” and they often describe mediated manifestations of God associated with mercy, salvation, or divine intervention rather than direct visual epiphany. The Maccabean books provide notable exceptions, where divine epiphany language is used in military narratives and in ironic reference to Antiochus IV’s royal title.
Greek-Jewish literature outside the Septuagint, such as Philo and Josephus, uses the vocabulary both in its general sense of appearance and in theological contexts describing visions, prophecy, or divine revelation. Yet the New Testament employs the terminology sparingly; only a few passages speak of the manifestation of grace in Christ or of eschatological appearances. This scarcity suggests that earliest Christian texts avoided the full Greco-Roman epiphany vocabulary. By contrast, early Christian literature of the second to fourth centuries uses these terms extensively to express the doctrine of Christ as divine manifestation. Writers such as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius apply ἐπιφάνεια to Christ’s incarnation, prophetic anticipation, miracles, and eschatological return, as well as to liturgical feasts commemorating these events.
Overall, the entry shows that the semantic evolution of this vocabulary reflects broader cultural processes: from visibility and public presence, to divine epiphany, to royal ideology, and finally to Christian theological language. The history of these terms thus illustrates how Greek linguistic traditions were reshaped within Jewish and Christian interpretive frameworks, revealing complex interactions between language, ritual, power, and religious imagination in the ancient Mediterranean world.

This entry analyses the semantic development of the Greek terms, tracing their meanings from classical Greek literature to Jewish and early Christian texts. In classical usage, the verb primarily denotes displacement or change: to remove, alter, abandon, or stand aside. Metaphorically, it comes to mean emotional disturbance or loss of rational control, such as amazement, fear, or madness. The noun similarly refers to displacement, change, astonishment, or intense inner agitation, while the adjective describes someone excitable, unstable, or capable of producing mental disturbance. These meanings revolve around a core semantic field of movement and departure from one’s normal state. From this base, Greek philosophical and literary traditions develop the idea of inner transformation or “standing outside oneself.” In Neoplatonic thought, especially in Plotinus, ἔκστασις becomes a technical term describing the soul’s ascent toward the One through contemplative experience, although such experiences should not be anachronistically labeled “mystical.”
Papyrological and epigraphic evidence shows more practical uses. The verb can mean resigning property or abandoning rights, while the noun may denote taxes, legal release, or astonishment. These attestations demonstrate the continued presence of everyday meanings alongside psychological or religious ones.
In the Septuagint, both verb and noun appear frequently and translate a wide range of Hebrew terms expressing fear, astonishment, agitation, joy, or emotional upheaval. The Greek vocabulary therefore conveys reactions to divine intervention, battle, visions, or punishment. In some contexts, it describes prophetic or visionary experiences that may involve altered states of consciousness, suggesting contact with the supernatural.
Greek-Jewish literature, especially Philo of Alexandria, further elaborates the concept. Philo distinguishes several forms of “exit from the self,” including negative confusion, astonishment at unusual events, peaceful rest of the mind, and divine inspiration. Josephus uses the vocabulary more rarely, usually in the sense of fear or abandonment.
In the New Testament, the verb appears about seventeen times, typically describing amazement at miracles or extraordinary events, but occasionally referring to visionary trance experiences, as in Acts. The noun likewise denotes astonishment, fear, or ecstatic vision. These uses suggest that ecstasy is part of a broader spectrum of emotional responses interpreted as signs of divine action.
Early Christian literature expands the vocabulary further. Authors employ it to describe prophetic inspiration, visions, spiritual transports, heretical delusions, or emotional excess. The terms can denote both authentic divine inspiration and pathological or deceptive experiences, reflecting debates about authority and religious authenticity.
Overall, the semantic history of these words shows how a basic idea of displacement develops into a complex language of psychological, philosophical, and religious experience. The vocabulary of “ecstasy” thus illustrates the interaction between linguistic tradition, anthropology of religion, and the evolving interpretation of altered states in ancient Mediterranean cultures.