Say
Say
laleo (G2980) Say, Speak
lego (G3004) Tell, Talk
(lalia [G2981] (Speech, Talk
logos [G3056]) Word)
In dealing with synonyms of the New Testament, we do not need to examine earlier or even contemporary uses of words that lie completely outside of its sphere, as long as these uses do not illustrate and have not affected their scriptural use. As a result, all of the contemptuous uses of lalein (to talk at random, one who is athyrostomos) and of lalia (chatter, an illogical mixture of words) may be dismissed and set aside. The antithesis in Eupolis, “very good at chattering [lalein] but unable to speak [legein]”sheds little, if any, light on the meaning of laleo and lego.
The distinction between laleo and lego may be clarified by examining the two leading aspects in terms of which we may understand speech. Speech may be understood as the articulate utterance of human language as contrasted with its absence. This absence may be due to choice, as is the case with those who hold their peace when they might speak; or it may be due to an undeveloped condition of the organs and faculties of speech, as is the case with infants (nepioi, G3516); or it may be due to natural defects, as is the case with those born without hearing; or it may be due to an inherent inability to speak, as is the case with animals. Speech also may be understood as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected discourse of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind: “To speak and to join together aptly chosen and selected words.” The first is lalein, which is equivalent to the Hebrew dibber (G1699), to the German lallen (to mumble) and sprecken (to speak), and to the Latin loqui. The second is legein, which is equivalent to the Hebrew ‘amar (G559), to the Latin dicere, and to the German reden (to talk, to discourse). Ammonius wrote: “Lalein and legein differ; legein is the orderly presenting of discourse, while lalein is the disorderly uttering of chance phrases.”
The dumb man (alalos,216; Mar 7:37) whose speech was restored is called elalese (Mat 9:33; Luk 11:14) by the Gospel writers, who were not concerned to report what the man said but only that the previously mute man now was able to speak. Thus it is always lalein “in tongues” (Mar 16:17; Act 2:4; 1Co 12:30), since the sacred narrators emphasize the ecstatic utterance per se, not its content. Lalein may be ascribed to God himself, as in Heb 1:1-2, where the emphasis is on God speaking to men rather than on what God spoke.
If lalein primarily refers to the articulated utterance of human language, then legein primarily refers to the words that are uttered, to the verbally expressed thoughts of the speaker. Although lalein may be applied to a parrot or talking automaton (Rev 13:15), since both produce sounds that imitate human speech, and though in poetry lalein may be ascribed to grasshoppers, pipes, and flutes, nothing lies behind these sounds, which therefore may not be referred to by legein.Legein always refers to the ennoia (G1771) or thought of the mind (Heb 4:12) as that which is correlative to spoken words and as their necessary condition. Legein means “to bring together words in a sentence,” just as Aristotle defined logos as “a compound intelligible sound.” Similarly, Plutarch argued that phrazein could not be predicated of monkeys and dogs”for they utter sounds [lalousi] but do not explain [phrazousi]”but that lalein could.
Often when lalein and legein occur together in phrases like elalese legon (Mar 6:50; Luk 24:6), laletheis logos (Heb 2:2), and the like, each word retains its own meaning. Thus in the first phrase, elalese refers to opening the mouth to speak, as opposed to remaining silent (Act 18:9), and legon refers to what the speaker actually said. I do not believe there is any passage in the New Testament where the distinction between these words has not been observed. Thus in Rom 15:18; 2Co 11:17; and 1Th 1:8, there is no difficulty in giving lalein its proper meaningindeed all these passages gain rather than lose when this is done. In Rom 3:19 there is an instructive interchange of the words.
In the New Testament, lalia and logos follow the distinction described above. The one occasion when Jesus claimed lalia as well as logos for himself”Why do you not understand my speech [lalian]? Because you are not able to listen to my word [logon]” (Joh 8:43) shows that lalia and lalein do not mean anything disrespectful. To understand Joh 8:43 we must understand the contrast between lalia and logos, something that commentators have interpreted in different ways. Some, like Augustine, have failed to notice the difference between the two words. Others, like Olshausen, have noticed the difference but have denied that it has any significance. Others have admitted that there is a significant difference between the words but have failed to explain the difference correctly. The inability to understand Jesus’ “speech” (lalia) is a consequence of refusing to hear his “word” (logos). This refusal is a deeper problem and the root of the trouble. To hear Jesus’ “word” can mean nothing less than to open one’s heart to the truth that Jesus speaks. Those who will not do this necessarily fail to understand Jesus’ “speech,” the outward form that his uttered “word” assumes. Those who belong to God hear God’s wordshis rhemata (G4487) as they are called in other passages (Joh 3:34; Joh 8:47) or his lalia as they are referred to here, which those who do not belong to God do not and cannot hear. According to Melanchthon: “Those who are God’s true sons and family cannot be unacquainted with the language of the paternal household.”
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Say
primarily, “to pick out, gather,” chiefly denotes “to say, speak, affirm,” whether of actual speech, e.g., Mat 11:17, or of unspoken thought, e.g., Mat 3:9, or of a message in writing, e.g., 2Co 8:8. The 2nd aorist form eipon is used to supply that tense, which is lacking in lego. Concerning the phrase “he answered and said,” it is a well known peculiarity of Hebrew narrative style that a speech is introduced, not simply by “and he said,” but by prefixing “and he answered” (apokrinomai, with eipon). In Mat 14:27, “saying,” and Mar 6:50, “and saith,” emphasis is perhaps laid on the fact that the Lord, hitherto silent as He moved over the lake, then addressed His disciples. That the phrase sometimes occurs where no explicit question has preceded (e.g., Mat 11:25; Mat 17:4; Mat 28:5; Mar 11:14; Mar 12:35; Luk 13:15; Luk 14:3; Joh 5:17, Joh 5:19), illustrates the use of the Hebrew idiom.
Note: A characteristic of lego is that it refers to the purport or sentiment of what is said as well as the connection of the words; this is illustrated in Heb 8:1, RV, “(in the things which) we are saying,” AV, “(which) we have spoken.” In comparison with laleo (No. 2), lego refers especially to the substance of what is “said,” laleo, to the words conveying the utterance; see, e.g., Joh 12:49, “what I should say (lego, in the 2nd aorist subjunctive form eipo), and what I should speak (laleo);” Joh 12:50, “even as the Father hath said (laleo, in the perfect form eireke) unto Me, so I speak” (laleo); cp. 1Co 14:34, “saith (lego) the law;” 1Co 14:35, “to speak” (laleo). Sometimes laleo signifies the utterance, as opposed to silence, lego declares what is “said;” e.g., Rom 3:19, “what things soever the law saith (lego), it speaketh (laleo) to them that are under the law;” see also Mar 6:50; Luk 24:6. In the NT laleo never has the meaning “to chatter.”
“to speak,” is sometimes translated “to say;” in the following where the AV renders it thus, the RV alters it to the verb “to speak,” e.g., Joh 8:25 (3rd part), Joh 8:26; Joh 16:6; Joh 18:20 (2nd part), Joh 18:21 (1st part); Act 3:22 (2nd part); 1Co 9:8 (1st part); Heb 5:5; in the following the RV uses the verb “to say,” Joh 16:18; Act 23:18 (2nd part); Act 26:22 (2nd part); Heb 11:18. See Note above, and SPEAK, TALK, TELL, UTTER.
“to declare, say,” (a) is frequently used in quoting the words of another, e.g., Mat 13:29; Mat 26:61; (b) is interjected into the recorded words, e.g., Act 23:35; (c) is used impersonally, 2Co 10:10.
an obsolete verb, has the future tense ereo, used, e.g., in Mat 7:4; Luk 4:23 (2nd part); Luk 13:25 (last part); Rom 3:5; Rom 4:1; Rom 6:1; Rom 7:7 (1st part); Rom 8:31; Rom 9:14, Rom 9:19-20, Rom 9:30; Rom 11:19; 1Co 15:35; 2Co 12:6; Jam 2:18. The perfect is used, e.g., in Joh 12:50; see No. 1, Note. The 1st aorist Passive, “it was said,” is used in Rom 9:12, Rom 9:26; Rev 6:11. See SPEAK, No. 13.
and proereo, “to say before,” used as aorist and future respectively of prolego (pro, “before,” and No. 1), is used (a) of prophecy, e.g., Rom 9:29; “to tell before,” Mat 24:25; Mar 13:23; “were spoken before,” 2Pe 3:2; Jud 1:17; (b) of “saying” before, 2Co 7:3; 2Co 13:2, RV (AV, “to tell before” and “foretell”); Gal 1:9; Gal 5:21; in 1Th 4:6, “we forewarned,” RV. See FORETELL, FOREWARN, TELL.
“to say against” (anti, “against,” and No. 1), is so rendered in Act 4:14. See GAINSAY.
Notes: (1) Phasko, “to affirm, assert,” is translated “saying” in Act 24:9, AV (RV, “affirming”), and Rev 2:2 in some mss. (AV). See AFFIRM, No. 3. (2) In Act 2:14, AV, apophthengomai, “to speak forth” (RV), is rendered “said.” (3) The phrase tout’ esti (i.e., touto esti), “that is,” is so translated in Mat 27:46, RV (AV, “that is to say”); so Act 1:19; in Heb 9:11; Heb 10:20, AV and RV, “that is to say;” in Mar 7:11 the phrase is ho esti, lit., “which is;” the phrase ho legetai, lit., “which is said,” Joh 1:38; Joh 20:16, is rendered “which is to say.” (4) In Luk 7:40; Act 13:15, the imperative mood of eipon and lego, respectively, is rendered “say on.” (5) In Mar 6:22, AV, autes, “herself,” RV, is rendered “the said.” (6) In Heb 5:11, “we have many things to say” is, lit., “much (polus) is the word (or discourse, logos) for us.”