II. THE USE OF ἀπoλύτρωσ ς
I. ETYMOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The basic word in the word-group is λύτρoν, ‘ransom’. This word is derived from λύω, a verb with the general meaning of ‘to loose’. It was used of all kinds of loosing, for example, for the loosening of one’s clothing, the loosening of armour, of tied animals, and so on. And sometimes it was used of men to indicate that they had been loosed from captivity or the like. Particularly did this apply to the loosing of prisoners of war when a ransom price had been paid. In time a new word-group was developed to give precise expression to this form of loosing. To the stem λυ- there was added the suffix -τρoν to give the noun λύτρoν. The suffix -τρoν denoted originally the means whereby an action is performed. A typical use is for implements, e.g. ἄρoτρoν, ‘a plough’. Secondly it came to denote the place where the action could take place, as θέατρoν, ‘a place for seeing’, ‘a theatre’. In the third stage the -τρoν suffix was used, often in the plural, for the payment which brought about the action, such as τὰ δ
δά
τρα, ‘the teacher’s fee’, or τὰ θρέπτρα, ‘the payment for rearing’, ‘the nurse’s wages’.1 λύτρoν, a comparatively late word, is a word of this third class. Its meaning accordingly is ‘payment for loosing’, ‘ransom price’. From λύτρoν a complete new word-group developed. Thus we have the verb λυτρόω, ‘to release on receipt of ransom’ (in the middle voice, ‘to secure release by payment of ransom’, ‘to redeem’). Then there is the noun λύτρωσς, ‘the process of release by payment’, and various compounds of each of these forms, especially those with ἀπό and ἐ.
δάτρα, ‘the teacher’s fee’, or τὰ θρέπτρα, ‘the payment for rearing’, ‘the nurse’s wages’.1 λύτρoν, a comparatively late word, is a word of this third class. Its meaning accordingly is ‘payment for loosing’, ‘ransom price’. From λύτρoν a complete new word-group developed. Thus we have the verb λυτρόω, ‘to release on receipt of ransom’ (in the middle voice, ‘to secure release by payment of ransom’, ‘to redeem’). Then there is the noun λύτρωσς, ‘the process of release by payment’, and various compounds of each of these forms, especially those with ἀπό and ἐ.It is important to realize that it is this idea of payment as the basis of release which is the reason for the existence of the whole word-group. Other words were available to denote simple release. Men could (and often did) go on using λύω, or ῥύoμα, etc. When they chose to use λύτρoν (or its cognates) it was because they wanted a term which expressed in itself, and not simply by inference from the context, the idea of release by payment. Etymological considerations are, of course, not final. Usage must be our final criterion. But it is worth noting at the beginning that the very existence of this word-group is due to the desire to give precise expression to the conception of release by payment.2 There is thus a prima facie case for holding that the redemption terminology is concerned with the price-paying method of release.
, etc. When they chose to use λύτρoν (or its cognates) it was because they wanted a term which expressed in itself, and not simply by inference from the context, the idea of release by payment. Etymological considerations are, of course, not final. Usage must be our final criterion. But it is worth noting at the beginning that the very existence of this word-group is due to the desire to give precise expression to the conception of release by payment.2 There is thus a prima facie case for holding that the redemption terminology is concerned with the price-paying method of release.This seems to be borne out by Greek usage in general. The words are used again and again to denote this form of release. Now and then metaphorical ways of using the word-group are found, but they depend for their force on the recognition of the price-paying idea. Apart from this there would be no point to the metaphor. And in the overwhelming preponderance of cases the thought of the actual payment is to be found.
The word-group was not confined to its use with respect to prisoners of war. This use remained frequent, but there were others. Thus a slave might buy his freedom. He would save his meagre earnings and what other small amounts of money came his way, probably over a long period of time, until he had the necessary sum. Then he could be freed. B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt outline one method of procedure in these words: ‘the terms of freedom having been agreed upon by master and slave, a notification of the details of the transaction was sent to the agoranomus by the banker through whom the purchase money was paid, accompanied perhaps by his receipt for the payment ... The slave was then presumably declared by the agoranomus to be free.‘3
They cite a typical document of this type, dated AD 86, and their translation is as follows: ’Chaeremon to the agoranomus, greeting. Grant freedom to Euphrosyne, a slave, aged about 35 years, born in her owner’s house of the slave Demetrous. She is being set at liberty under ... by ransom (ἐπ
λύτρo[ς]) by her mistress Aloine, daughter of Komon, son of Dionysius, of Oxyrhyncus, under the wardship of Komon, the son of Aloine’s deceased brother Dioscorus. The price paid is 10 drachmae of coined silver and 10 talents, 3,000 drachmae of copper. Farewell.’4
λύτρo[ς]) by her mistress Aloine, daughter of Komon, son of Dionysius, of Oxyrhyncus, under the wardship of Komon, the son of Aloine’s deceased brother Dioscorus. The price paid is 10 drachmae of coined silver and 10 talents, 3,000 drachmae of copper. Farewell.’4Or the slave might be freed by the process of sacral manumission. In this case he paid the money into the temple treasury of some god. Then his master went through the solemn rigmarole of selling him to the god. Quite often the document would include some such expression as ‘for freedom’, ‘let no man henceforth enslave him’ (cf. Gal. 5: 1). Technically he remained the slave of the god (and a few pious obligations might be laid on him to remind him of the fact), but as far as men were concerned he was a free man. A. Deissmann shows the importance of this process for an understanding of many New Testament passages. He gives an example of this form of manumission from an inscription on the polygonal wall at Delphi, dated 200-199 BC: ’Date. Apollo the Pythian, bought from Sosibius of Amphissa, for freedom, a female slave, whose name is Nicaea, by race a Roman, with a price of three minae of silver and a half-mina. Former seller according to the law: Eumnastus of Amphissa. The price he hath received. The purchase, however, Nicaea hath committed unto Apollo, for freedom.’5
From all this it is plain that the word was one in common use, and that its connection with the release from captivity was well known. Indeed, Deissmann could go so far as to say: ‘when anybody heard the Greek word λύτρoν, “ransom,” in the first century, it was natural for him to think of the purchase-money for manumitting slaves.‘6
Sometimes the word-group was employed to denote expiatory offerings.7 This does not call for much comment, as it is a very natural development. Worshippers find themselves in a serious plight on account of their sin. They buy themselves out of it with their redemptive offerings.
The importance of all this is that much of the New Testament was written to people living in a Gentile environment. While we cannot assume without further ado that this was the only association the word-group could have for them, yet we cannot overlook the extent and the significance of this usage. Good reason will need to be shown if it is claimed that they could use the redemption terminology without their words being understood in terms of this well-known and widely practised custom.8
Sometimes the word is used metaphorically, as when Philo speaks of the wise man as the ‘ransom for the foot’,9 or of the ‘aspirations of the reason to wisdom and knowledge’ as “ ‘ransom” and “first-born” ’ for the man’s life.10 But he brings out the force of ransom in the first passage by adding that the fool’s existence ‘could not endure for an hour, did not the wise provide for his preservation by compassion and forethought’. In the second, the force of ‘ransom’ is just as little destroyed by the metaphorical use as is that of ‘first-born’. In other words, while Philo is an incurable allegorizer, he knows what ‘ransom’ really signifies.
The derivative verb λυτρόω usually means in the active ‘to release on receipt of ransom’, or possibly ‘to hold to ransom’. In the middle the sense is rather ‘to secure release by payment of ransom’, i.e. ‘to redeem’.11 The meaning at bottom is the giving of a price in exchange, often for that which was one’s own and which has somehow found its way into someone else’s possession. There is also a derived noun λύτρωσς. This is a rare word, and the lexicons seem to cite but three occurrences in non-biblical Greek. It fits in with the usual sense of the word-group.
ς. This is a rare word, and the lexicons seem to cite but three occurrences in non-biblical Greek. It fits in with the usual sense of the word-group.