a town of Judah:
the Grecian Jews:
the men of Judah:
the land of Judah:
a non-Jewish person
an inhabitant of the land of Greece; member of the Greek race
the language used by the people of Greece
a members of the nation of Greece
people that speak Greek and follow Greek culture even though they are not necessarily Greek by race
residents of the territory or district of Judah, originally a people who were "the main historical representatives of Ancient Israel" (ZD)
pertaining to Jews
relating to the Jews; of the Jews
the people descended from Israel
a son of Joanan; the father of Josech and an ancestor of Jesus.
the son of Jacob and Leah; founder of the tribe of Judah
a tribe, the land/country
a son of Joseph; the father of Simeon; an ancestor of Jesus
son of Jacob/Israel and Leah; founder of the tribe of Judah
the tribe of Judah
citizens of the southern kingdom of Judah
citizens of the Persian Province of Judah; the Jews who had returned from Babylonian exile
"house of Judah", a phrase which highlights the political leadership of the tribe of Judah
"king of Judah", a phrase which relates to the southern kingdom of Judah
"kings of Judah", a phrase relating to the southern kingdom of Judah
"princes of Judah", a phrase relating to the kingdom of Judah
the territory allocated to the tribe of Judah, and also the extended territory of the southern kingdom of Judah
the Province of Judah under Persian rule
"hill country of Judah", the relatively cool and green central highlands of the territory of Judah
"the cities of Judah"
the language of the Jews; Hebrew
head of a family of Levites who returned from Exile
a Levite who put away his heathen wife
a man who was second in command of Jerusalem; son of Hassenuah of Benjamin
a Levite in charge of the songs of thanksgiving in Nehemiah's time
a leader who helped dedicate Nehemiah's wall
a Levite musician who helped Zechariah of Asaph dedicate Nehemiah's wall
the Jewish religion/beliefs
a man surnamed Iscariot; the disciple who betrayed Christ and then hanged himself.
a brother of Jesus, brother of James and writer of the book of Jude.
a man who was one of Jesus' apostles
a man from Galilee who stirred up trouble
a man with whom Paul stayed in Damascus
a prophet surnamed Barsabas sent with Silas to Antioch
a son of Mary and Joseph; half-brother of Jesus)
a region that roughly corresponded to the earlier kingdom of Judah
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Judah, Judaea, Judas, Jude, Judea, Judith)
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Judah, Jew, Judas, Jude, Judea, Judith)
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Jew, Judaea, Judas, Jude, Judea, Judith)
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Judah, Jew, Judaea, Jude, Judea, Judith)
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Judah, Jew, Judaea, Judas, Judea, Judith)
the praise of the Lord; confession ( --> same as Judah, Jew, Judaea, Judas, Jude, Judith)
1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans,
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians
Synonym : See Definition 5927
1484 ethnos eth'-nos
probably from 1486; a race (as of the same habit), i.e. a tribe;
specially, a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually, by implication,
pagan):-Gentile, heathen, nation, people.
see GREEK for 1486
1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main
land or of the Greek islands or colonies
2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that
made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own;
the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship
1672 Hellen hel'-lane
from 1671; a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a
Greek-speaking person, especially a non-Jew:- Gentile, Greek.
see GREEK for 1671
1) the fourth son of Jacob
2) an unknown ancestor of Christ
3) a man surnamed the Galilean, who at the time of the
census of Quirinus, excited the revolt in Galilee, Ac 5:37
4) a certain Jew of Damascus, Ac 9:11
5) a prophet surnamed Barsabas, of the church at Jerusalem, Ac 15:22,27,32
6) the apostle, Joh 14:22, who was surnamed Lebbaeus or
Thaddaeus, and according to opinion wrote the Epistle of Jude.
7) the half-brother of Jesus, Mt 13:55
8) Judas Iscariot, the apostle who betrayed Jesus
2455 Ioudas ee-oo-das'
of Hebrew origin (3063); Judas (i.e. Jehudah), the name of ten
Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its
region:-Juda(-h, -s); Jude.
see HEBREW for 03063
1) the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob
2) the tribe that were the offspring of Judah
3) the region occupied by the tribe
4) a city of the tribe of Judah, conjectured to be Hebron, which was
a city assigned to the priests and located in the hill country,
and the native place of John the Baptist according to Jewish tradition
2448 Iouda ee-oo-dah'
of Hebrew origin (3063 or perhaps 3194); Judah (i.e. Jehudah or
Juttah), a part of (or place in) Palestine:-Judah.
see HEBREW for 03063
see HEBREW for 03194
1) in a narrower sense, to the southern portion of Palestine lying on
this side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, to distinguish it from
Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Idumaea
2) in a broader sense, referring to all Palestine
2449 Ioudaia ee-oo-dah'-yah
feminine of 2453 (with 1093 implied); the Judaean land (i.e. Judaea),
a region of Palestine:-Judaea.
see GREEK for 2453
see GREEK for 1093
1) the son of Jacob by Leah
2) the tribe descended from Judah the son of Jacob
3) the territory occupied by the tribe of Judah
4) the kingdom comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin which
occupied the southern part of Canaan after the nation split upon
the death of Solomon
5) a Levite in Ezra's time
6) an overseer of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah
7) a Levite musician in the time of Nehemiah
8) a priest in the time of Nehemiah
3063 Yhuwdah yeh-hoo-daw'
from 3034; celebrated; Jehudah (or Judah), the name of five
Israelites; also of the tribe descended from the first, and of
see HEBREW for 03034
(Heb., usually in plural, goyim), meaning in general all nations except the Jews. In course of time, as the Jews began more and more to pride themselves on their peculiar privileges, it acquired unpleasant associations, and was used as a term of contempt.
In the New Testament the Greek word Hellenes, meaning literally Greek (as in Acts 16:1, 3; 18:17; Rom. 1:14), generally denotes any non-Jewish nation.
Hellenists, Greek-Jews; Jews born in a foreign country, and thus did not speak Hebrew (Acts 6:1; 9:29), nor join in the Hebrew services of the Jews in Palestine, but had synagogues of their own in Jerusalem. Joel 3:6 =Greeks.
Found only in the New Testament, where a distinction is observed between "Greek" and "Grecian" (q.v.). The former is (1) a Greek by race (Acts 16:1-3; 18:17; Rom. 1:14), or (2) a Gentile as opposed to a Jew (Rom. 2:9, 10). The latter, meaning properly "one who speaks Greek," is a foreign Jew opposed to a home Jew who dwelt in Palestine.
The word "Grecians" in Acts 11:20 should be "Greeks," denoting the heathen Greeks of that city, as rendered in the Revised Version according to the reading of the best manuscripts ("Hellenes").
the name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites.
The history of the Jewish nation is interwoven with the history of Palestine and with the narratives of the lives of their rulers and chief men. They are now  dispersed over all lands, and to this day remain a separate people, "without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image [R.V. 'pillar,' marg. 'obelisk'], and without an ephod, and without teraphim" (Hos. 3:4). Till about the beginning of the present century  they were everywhere greatly oppressed, and often cruelly persecuted; but now their condition is greatly improved, and they are admitted in most European countries to all the rights of free citizens. In 1860 the "Jewish disabilities" were removed, and they were admitted to a seat in the British Parliament. Their number in all is estimated at about six millions, about four millions being in Europe.
There are three names used in the New Testament to designate this people, (1.) Jews, as regards their nationality, to distinguish them from Gentiles. (2.) Hebrews, with regard to their language and education, to distinguish them from Hellenists, i.e., Jews who spoke the Greek language. (3.) Israelites, as respects their sacred privileges as the chosen people of God. "To other races we owe the splendid inheritance of modern civilization and secular culture; but the religious education of mankind has been the gift of the Jew alone."
praise, the fourth son of Jacob by Leah. The name originated in Leah's words of praise to the Lord on account of his birth: "Now will I praise [Heb. odeh] Jehovah, and she called his name Yehudah" (Gen. 29:35).
Soon after the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites, Judah went to reside at Adullam, where he married a woman of Canaan. (See ONAN; TAMAR.) After the death of his wife Shuah, he returned to his father's house, and there exercised much influence over the patriarch, taking a principal part in the events which led to the whole family at length going down into Egypt. We hear nothing more of him till he received his father's blessing (Gen. 49:8-12).
the Graecized form of Judah. (1.) The patriarch (Matt. 1:2, 3).
(2.) Son of Simon (John 6:71; 13:2, 26), surnamed Iscariot, i.e., a man of Kerioth (Josh. 15:25). His name is uniformly the last in the list of the apostles, as given in the synoptic (i.e., the first three) Gospels. The evil of his nature probably gradually unfolded itself till "Satan entered into him" (John 13:27), and he betrayed our Lord (18:3). Afterwards he owned his sin with "an exceeding bitter cry," and cast the money he had received as the wages of his iniquity down on the floor of the sanctuary, and "departed and went and hanged himself" (Matt. 27:5). He perished in his guilt, and "went unto his own place" (Acts 1:25). The statement in Acts 1:18 that he "fell headlong and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out," is in no way contrary to that in Matt. 27:5. The sucide first hanged himself, perhaps over the valley of Hinnom, "and the rope giving way, or the branch to which he hung breaking, he fell down headlong on his face, and was crushed and mangled on the rocky pavement below."
Why such a man was chosen to be an apostle we know not, but it is written that "Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him" (John 6:64). Nor can any answer be satisfactorily given to the question as to the motives that led Judas to betray his Master. "Of the motives that have been assigned we need not care to fix on any one as that which simply led him on. Crime is, for the most part, the result of a hundred motives rushing with bewildering fury through the mind of the criminal."
(3.) A Jew of Damascus (Acts 9:11), to whose house Ananias was sent. The street called "Straight" in which it was situated is identified with the modern "street of bazaars," where is still pointed out the so-called "house of Judas."
(4.) A Christian teacher, surnamed Barsabas. He was sent from Jerusalem to Antioch along with Paul and Barnabas with the decision of the council (Acts 15:22, 27, 32). He was a "prophet" and a "chief man among the brethren."
After the Captivity this name was applied to the whole of the country west of the Jordan (Hag. 1:1, 14; 2:2). But under the Romans, in the time of Christ, it denoted the southernmost of the three divisions of Palestine (Matt. 2:1, 5; 3:1; 4:25), although it was also sometimes used for Palestine generally (Acts 28:21).
The province of Judea, as distinguished from Galilee and Samaria, included the territories of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, and part of Ephraim. Under the Romans it was a part of the province of Syria, and was governed by a procurator.
A corrupted form, doubtless, of Judah, and applied to the people of the kingdom of Judah and Benjamin, 2 Kin. 16:6; 25:25; 2 Chr. 32:18.
After the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel the name was applied to all Israelites, as well as to those of the two tribes. See: Israel.
(nations). All the people who were not Jews were so called by them, being aliens from the worship, rites and privileges of Israel. The word was used contemptuously by them. In the New Testament it is used as equivalent to Greek. This use of the word seems to have arisen from the almost universal adaption of the Greek language.
(Grecian), the term applied in the New Testament to Greek-speaking or "Grecian" Jews. The Hellenists as a body included not only the proselytes of Greek (or foreign) parentage, but also those. Jews who, by settling in foreign countries, had adopted the prevalent form of the current Greek civilization, and with it the use of the common Greek dialect. (Acts 6:1; 9:29)
(a man of Judea). This name was properly applied to a member of the kingdom of Judah after the separation of the ten tribes. The term first makes its appearance just before the captivity of the ten tribes. The term first makes it appearance just before the captivity of the ten tribes. (2Ã‚Â Kings 16:6) After the return the word received a larger application. Partly from the predominance of the members of the old kingdom of Judah among those who returned to Palestine, partly from the identification of Judah with the religious ideas and hopes of the people, all the members of the new state were called Jews (Judeans) and the name was extended to the remnants of the race scattered throughout the nations. Under the name of "Judeans" the people of Israel were known to classical writers. (Tac. H. v.2, etc.) The force of the title "Jew" is seen particularly in the Gospel of St. John, who very rarely uses any other term to describe the opponents of our Lord. At an earlier stage of the progress of the faith it was contrasted with Greek as implying an outward covenant with God, (Romans 1:16; 2:9,10; Colossians 3:11) etc., which was the correlative of Hellenist [HELLENIST], and marked a division of language subsisting within the entire body, and at the same time less expressive than Israelite , which brought out with especial clearness the privileges and hopes of the children of Jacob. (2Ã‚Â Corinthians 11:22; John 1:47)
(from Judah), a territorial division which succeeded to the overthrow of the ancient landmarks of the tribes of Israel and Judah in their respective captivities. The word first occurs (Daniel 5:13) Authorized Version "Jewry," and the first mention of the "province of Judea" is in the book of Ezra, (Ezra 5:8) It is alluded to in (Nehemiah 11:3) (Authorized Version "Judah"). In the apocryphal books the word "province" is dropped, and throughout them and the New Testament the expressions are "the land of Judea," "Judea." In a wide and more improper sense, the term Judea was sometimes extended to the whole country of the Canaanites, its ancient inhabitants; and even in the Gospels we read of the coasts of Judea "beyond Jordan." (Matthew 19:1; Mark 10:1) Judea was, in strict language, the name of the third district, west of the Jordan and south of Samaria. It was made a portion of the Roman province of Syria upon the deposition of Archelaus, the ethnarch of Judea, in A.D. 6, and was governed by a procurator, who was subject to the governor of Syria.
(praised, celebrated), the fourth son of Jacob and the fourth of Leah. (B.C. after 1753.) Of Judah?s personal character more traits are preserved than of any other of the patriarchs, with the exception of Joseph, whose life he in conjunction with Reuben saved. (Genesis 37:26-28) During the second visit to Egypt for corn it was Judah who understood to be responsible for the safety of Benjamin, ch. (Genesis 43:3-10) and when, through Joseph?s artifice, the brothers were brought back to the palace, he is again the leader and spokesman of the band. So too it is Judah who is sent before Jacob to smooth the way for him in the land of Goshen. ch. (Genesis 46:28) This ascendancy over his brethren is reflected in the last words addressed to him by his father. The families of Judah occupy a position among the tribes similar to that which their progenitor had taken among the patriarchs. The numbers of the tribe at the census at Sinai were 74,600. (Numbers 1:26,27) On the borders of the promised land they were 76,500. (Genesis 26:22) The boundaries and contents of the territory allotted to Judah are narrated at great length, and with greater minuteness than the others, in (Joshua 15:20-63) The north boundary, for the most part coincident with the south boundary of Benjamin, began at the embouchure of the Jordan and ended on the west at Jabneel on the coast of the Mediterranean, four miles south of Joppa. On the east the Dead Sea, and on the west the Mediterranean, formed the boundaries. The southern line is hard to determine, since it is denoted by places many of which have not been identified. It left the Dead Sea at its extreme south end, and joined the Mediterranean at the Wady el-Arish. This territory is in average length about 45 miles, and in average breadth about 50.
surnamed Barsabas, a leading member of the apostolic church at Jerusalem, (Acts 15:22) endued with the gift of prophesy, ver. (Acts 15:32) chosen with Silas to accompany Paul and Barnabas as delegates to the church at Antioch. (A.D. 47.) Later, Judas went back to Jerusalem.
called also LEBBEUS and THADDEUS, Authorized Version "Judas the brother of James," one of the twelve apostles. The name of Jude occurs only once in the Gospel narrative. (John 14:22; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; John 14:22; Acts 1:13) Nothing is certainly known of the later history of the apostle. Tradition connects him with the foundation of the church at Edessa.
GENTILES - jen'-tilz (goy, plural goyim; ethnos, "people," "nation"): Goy (or Goi) is rendered "Gentiles" in the King James Version in some 30 passages, but much more frequently "heathen," and oftener still, "nation," which latter is the usual rendering in the Revised Version (British and American), but it, is commonly used for a non-Israelitish people, and thus corresponds to the meaning of Gentiles." It occurs, however, in passages referring to the Israelites, as in Gen 12:2; Dt 32:28; Josh 3:17; 4:1; 10:13; 2 Sam 7:23; Isa 1:4; Zeph 2:9, but the word (`am) is the term commonly used for the people of God. In the New Testament ethnos is the word corresponding to goy in the Old Testament and is rendered "Gentiles" by both VSS, while (laos) is the word which corresponds to `am. The King James Version also renders Hellenes, "Gentiles" in six passages (Jn 7:35; Rom 2:9,10; 3:9; 1 Cor 10:32; 12:13), but the Revised Version (British and American) renders "Greeks."
The Gentiles were far less sharply differentiated from the Israelites in Old Testament than in New Testament times. Under Old Testament regulations they were simply non-Israelites, not from the stock of Abraham, but they were not hated or despised for that reason, and were to be treated almost on a plane of equality, except certain tribes in Canaan with regard to whom there were special regulations of non-intercourse. The Gentile stranger enjoyed the hospitality of the Israelite who was commanded to love him (Dt 10:19), to sympathize with him, "For ye know the heart of the stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt" (Ex 23:9 the King James Version). The Kenites were treated almost as brethren, especially the children of Rechab (Jdg 1:16; 5:24; Jer 35). Uriah the Hittite was a trusted warrior of David (2 Sam 11); Ittai the Gittite was captain of David's guard (2 Sam 18:2); Araunah the Jebusite was a respected resident of Jerusalem. The Gentiles had the right of asylum in the cities of refuge, the same as the Israelites (Nu 35:15). They might even possess Israelite slaves (Lev 25:47), and a Gentileservant must not be defrauded of his wage (Dt 24:15). They could inherit in Israel even as late as the exile (Ezek 47:22,23). They were allowed to offer sacrifices in the temple at Jerusalem, as is distinctly affirmed by Josephus (BJ, II, xvii, 2-4; Ant, XI, viii, 5; XIII, viii, 2; XVI, ii, 1; XVIII, v, 3; CAp, II, 5), and it is implied in the Levitical law (Lev 22:25). Prayers and sacrifices were to be offered for Gentilerulers (Jer 29:7; Baruch 1:10,11; Ezr 6:10; 1 Macc 7:33; Josephus, BJ, II, x, 4). Gifts might be received from them (2 Macc 5:16; Josephus, Ant, XIII, iii, 4; XVI, vi, 4; BJ, V, xiii, 6; CAp, II, 5). But as we approach the Christian era the attitude of the Jews toward the Gentiles changes, until we find, in New Testament times, the most extreme aversion, scorn and hatred. They were regarded as unclean, with whom it was unlawful to have any friendly intercourse. They were the enemies of God and His people, to whom the knowledge of God was denied unless they became proselytes, and even then they could not, as in ancient times, be admitted to full fellowship. Jews were forbidden to counsel them, and if they asked about Divine things they were to be cursed. All children born of mixed marriages were bastards. That is what caused the Jews to be so hated by Greeks and Romans, as we have abundant evidence in the writings of Cicero, Seneca and Tacitus. Something of this is reflected in the New Testament (Jn 18:28; Acts 10:28; 11:3).
If we inquire what the reason of this change was we shall find it in the conditions of the exiled Jews, who suffered the bitterest treatment at the hands of their Gentile captors and who, after their return and establishment in Judea, were in constant conflict with neighboring tribes and especially with the Greek rulers of Syria. The fierce persecution of Antiochus IV, who attempted to blot out their religion and Hellenize the Jews, and the desperate struggle for independence, created in them a burning patriotism and zeal for their faith which culminated in the rigid exclusiveness we see in later times.
GRECIANS; GREEKS - gre'-shanz, greks: In the Old Testament the word "Grecians" occurs but once (Joel 3 (4):6). For references to Greece in the Old Testament see JAVAN. In the King James Version of the Old Testament Apocrypha "Grecians" and "Greeks" are used without distinction, e.g. 1 Macc 1:10; 6:2; 8:9; 2 Macc 4:15,36. Thus, in 1 Macc 1:1, Alexander the Great is spoken of as king of Greece, and in 1 Macc 1:10 the Macedonian empire is called "the kingdom of the Greeks" (basileia Hellenon). In 2 Macc 13:2 the army of Antiochus, king of Syria, is called "Grecian" (dunamis Hellenike), and in 2 Macc 6:8 the "Greek cities" (poleis Hellenides) are Macedonian colonies. Reference is made in 2 Macc 6:1 to an aged Athenian who was sent by Antiochus the king charged with the duty of Hellenizing the Jews; in 2 Macc 9:15 Antiochus vows that he will make the Jews equal to the Athenians; in 1 Macc 12 through 14, reference is made to negotiations of Jonathan, the high priest, with the Spartans, whom he calls brethren, seeking the renewal of a treaty of alliance and amity against the Syrians. With the spread of Greek power and influence, everything not specifically Jewish was called Greek; thus in 2 Macc 4:36; 11:2; 3 Macc 3:3,1 the "Greeks" contrasted with the Jews are simply non-Jews, so called because of the prevalence of Greek institutions and culture, and "Greek" even came to be used in the sense of "anti-Jewish" (2 Macc 4:10,15; 6:9; 11:24).
In Isa 9:12 the Septuagint reads tous Hellenas, for Pelishtim, "Philistines"; but we are not therefore justified in assuming a racial connection between the Philistines and the Greeks. Further light on the ethnography of the Mediterranean
basin may in time show that there was actually such a connection; but the rendering in question proves nothing, since "the oppressing sword" of Jer 46:16 and 50:16 is likewise rendered in the Septuagint with "the sword of the Greeks" (machaira Hellenike). In all these cases the translators were influenced by the conditions existing in their own day, and were certainly not disclosing obscure relations long forgotten and newly discovered.
In the New Testament, English Versions of the Bible attempts to distinguish between (Hellenes), which is rendered "Greeks," and (Hellenistai), which is rendered "Grecians" or "Grecian Jews," or in the Revised Version, margin "Hellenists," e.g. Acts 6:1; 9:29. These latter were Jews of the Dispersion, who spoke Greek (see HELLENISM; HELLENIST), as distinguished from Palestinian Jews; but since many of the latter also spoke Greek by preference, the distinction could in no sense be absolute. Indeed in Jn 7:35, "the Dispersion among (the Revised Version, margin, Greek "of") the Greeks," can hardly refer to any but "Grecian Jews" (Hellenistai), although Hellenes is used, and in Jn 12:20 the "Greeks" (Hellenes) who went up to worship at the feast of the Passover were almost certainly "Grecian Jews" (Hellenistai). Thus, while English Versions of the Bible consistently renders Hellenes with "Greeks," we are not by that rendering apprised of the real character of the people so designated. This difficulty is aggravated by the fact, already noted in connection with the Old Testament Apocrypha, that, in consequence of the spread of Hellenism, the term Hellenes was applied not only to such as were of Hellenic descent, but also to all those who had appropriated the language of Greece, as the universal means of communication, and the ideals and customs collectively known as Hellenism. The latter were thus in the strict sense Hellenists, differing from the "Grecians" of English Versions of the Bible only in that they were not of Jewish descent. In other words, Hellenes (except perhaps in Jn 7:35 and 12:20, as noted above) is, in general, equivalent to ta ethne, "Gentiles" (see GENTILES). The various readings of the manuscripts (and hence the difference between the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American)) in 1 Cor 1:23 well illustrate this. There is consequently much confusion, which it is quite impossible, with our limited knowledge of the facts in particular cases, to clear up. In general, it would seem probable that where "Greeks" are comprehensively contrasted with "Jews," the reference is to "Gentiles," as in Acts 14:1; 17:4; 18:4; 19:10,17; 20:21; Rom 1:16; 10:12; 1 Cor 1:22-24 (the Revised Version (British and American) "Gentiles," representing ethnesin; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11. In Mk 7:26 the woman of Tyre, called "a Greek (the Revised Version, margin "Gentile") a Syrophoenician," was clearly not of Hellenic descent. Whether Titus (Gal 2:3) and the father of Timothy; (Acts 16:1,3) were in the strict sense "Greeks," we have no means of knowing. In Rom 1:14, "I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians," there is an undoubted reference to Greeks strictly so called; possibly, though by no means certainly, the "Greeks" of Acts 21:28, alluding to Trophimus the Ephesian (Acts 21:29), are to be taken in the same sense. References to the Greek language occur in Jn 19:20 (Lk 23:38 is properly omitted in the Revised Version (British and American)); Acts 21:37; Rev 9:11.
In Acts 11:20 the manuscripts vary between Hellenistas, and Hellenas (the King James Version "Grecians," the Revised Version (British and American) "Greeks"), with the preponderance of authority in favor of the former; but even if one adopts the latter, it is not clear whether true Greeks or Gentiles are intended.
HELLENISM; HELLENIST - hel'-en-iz'-m, hel'-en-ist: Hellenism is the name we give to the manifold achievements of the Greeks in social and political institutions, in the various arts, in science and philosophy, in morals and religion. It is customary to distinguish two main periods, between which stands the striking figure of Alexander the Great, and to apply to the earlier period the adjective "Hellenic," that of "Hellenistic" to the latter. While there is abundant reason for making this distinction, it must not be considered as resting upon fortuitous changes occasioned by foreign influences. The Hellenistic age is rather the sudden unfolding of a flower whose bud was forming and maturing for centuries.
1. The Expansion of the Greek Peoples:
Before the coming of the Hellenic peoples into what we now call Greece, there existed in those lands a flourishing civilization to which we may give the name "Aegean." The explorations of archaeologists during the last few decades have brought it to light in many places on the continent, as well as on the islands of the Aegean and notably in Crete. When the Hellenic peoples came, it was not as a united nation, nor even as homogeneous tribes of a common race; though without doubt predominantly of kindred origin, it was the common possession of an Aryan speech and of similar customs and religion that marked them off from the peoples among whom they settled. When their southward movemerit from Illyria occurred, and by what causes it was brought about, we do not know; but it can hardly have long antedated the continuance of this migration which led to the settlement of the coast districts of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean from about the 13th to the 10th centuries BC. In the colonization of these new territories the Hellenic peoples became conscious of their kinship, partly because the several colonies received contingents from various regions of the motherland, partly because they were in common brought into striking contrast to the alien "Barbarians" who spoke other untintelligible languages. As the older communities on the mainland and on the islands began to flourish, they felt the need, arising from various causes, for further colonization. Among these causes we may mention the poverty of the soil in Greece proper, the restricting pressure of the strong tribes of Asia Minor who prevented expansion inland, a growing disaffection with the aristocratic regime in almost all Greek states and with the operation of the law of primogeniture in land tenure, and lastly the combined lure of adventure and the prospect of trade. Thus, it came about that in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, two great movements of colonial expansion set in, one toward the Hellespont and to the shores of the Pontus, or Black Sea, beyond, the other westward toward Southern Italy, Sicily, and beyond as far as Gades in Spain. To the 7th century belongs also the colonization of Naucratis in Egypt and of Cyrene in Libya. Then followed a period of relative inactivity during the 5th century, which was marked by the desperate conflict of the Greeks with Persia in the East and with Carthage in the West, succeeded by even more disastrous conflicts among themselves. With the enforced internal peace imposed by Macedonia came the resumption of colonial and military expansion in a measure before undreamed of. In a few years the empire of Alexander embraced Thrace, Asia Minor, Egypt, and Asia eastward beyond the Indus. The easternmost regions soon fell away, but Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt long continued under Greek rule, until Rome in the 1st century BC made good her claims to sovereignty in those lands.
2. The Hellenic State:
Throughout this course of development and expansion we speak of the people as Greeks, although it is evident that even such racial homogeneity as they may have had on coming into Greece must have been greatly modified by the absorption of conquered peoples. But the strong individuality of the Hellenic population manifested itself everywhere in its civilization. In the evolution from the Homeric kingship (supported by the nobles in council, from which the commonalty was excluded, or where it was supposed at most to express assent or dissent to proposals laid before it) through oligarchic or aristocratic rule and the usurped authority of the tyrants, to the establishement of democratic government, there is nothing surprising to the man of today. That is because Greek civilization has become typical of all western civilization. In the earlier stages of this process, moreover, there is nothing strikingly at variance with the institutions of the Hebrews, at least so far as concerns the outward forms. But there existed throughout a subtle difference of spirit which made it possible, even inevitable, for the Greeks to attain to democratic institutions, whereas to the Hebrews such a development was impossible, if not unthinkable. It is difficult to define this spirit, but one may say that it was marked from the first by an inclination to permit the free development and expression of individuality subordinated to the common good; by a corresponding recognition of human limitations over against one's fellow-man as over against Deity; by an instinctive dread of excess as inhuman and provoking the just punishment of the gods; and lastly by a sane refusal to take oneself too seriously, displaying itself in a certain good-humored irony even among men who, like Socrates and Epicurus, regarded themselves as charged with a sublime mission, in striking contrast with the Hebrew prophets who voiced the thunders of Sinai, but never by any chance smiled at their own earnestness. Even the Macedonians did not attempt to rule Greece with despotic sway, leaving the states in general in the enjoyment of their liberties; and in the Orient, Alexander and his successors, Roman as well as Greek, secured their power and extended civilization by the foundation and encouragement of Hellenic cities in extraordinary numbers. The city-state, often confederated with other city-states, displaced the organization of tribe or clan, thus substituting a new unit and a new interest for the old; and the centers thus created radiated Hellenic influence and made for order and good government everywhere. But in accordance with the new conditions the state took on a somewhat different form. While the city preserved local autonomy, the state became monarchical; and the oriental deification of the king reinforced by the Hellenic tendency to deify the benefactors of mankind, eventuated in modes of speech and thought which powerfully influenced the Messianic hopes of the Jews.
3. Hellenic Life:
The life of the Greeks, essentially urban and dominated by political interests fostered in states in which the individual counted for much, was of a type wholly different from the oriental. Although the fiction of consanguinity was cultivated by the Hellenic city-state as by the Semitic tribe, it was more transparent in the former, particularly in the newer communities formed in historical times. There was thus a powerful stimulus to mutual tolerance and concession which, supported as it was by the strong love of personal independence and the cultivation of individuality, led to the development of liberty and the recognition of the rights of man. A healthy social life was the result for those who shared the privileges of citizenship, and also, in hardly less degree, for those resident aliens who received the protection of the state. Women also, though not so free as men, enjoyed, even at Athens where they were most limited, liberties unknown to the Orientals. In the Hellenistic age they attained a position essentially similar to that of modern Europe. There were slaves belonging both to individuals and the state, but their lot was mitigated in general by a steadily growing humanity. The amenities of life were many, and were cultivated no less in the name of religion than of art, literature, and science.
4. Hellenic Art and Letters:
As in every phase of Greek civilization, the development of art and letters was free. Indeed their supreme excellence must be attributed to the happy circumstances which suffered them to grow spontaneously from the life of the people without artificial constraints imposed from within, or overpowering influences coming from without: a fortune which no other great movement in art or letters can boast. Greek art was largely developed in the service of religion; but owing to the circumstance that both grew side by side, springing from the heart of man, their reactions were mutual, art contributing to religion quite as much as it received. The creative genius of the Hellenic people expressed itself with singular directness and simplicity in forms clearly visualized and subject to the conditions of psychologically effective grouping in space or time. Their art is marked by the observance of a just proportion and by a certain natural restraint due to the preponderance of the intellectual element over the purely sensuous. Its most characteristic product is the ideal type in which only enough individuality enters to give to the typical the concreteness of life. What has been said of art in the narrower sense applies equally to artistic letters. The types thus created, whether in sculpture, architecture, music, drama, history, or oratory, though not regarded with superstitious reverence, commended themselves by the sheer force of inherent truth and beauty to succeeding generations, thus steadying the course of development and restraining the exuberant originality and the tendency to individualism. In the Hellenistic age, individualism gradually preponderated where the lessening power of creative genius did not lead to simple imitation.
5. Philosophy of Nature and of Conduct:
The traditional views of the Hellenic peoples touching Nature and conduct, which did not differ widely from those of other peoples in a corresponding stage of culture, maintained themselves down to the 7th century BC with comparatively little change. Along with and following the colonial expansion of Hellenism there came the awakening intellectual curiosity, or rather the shock of surprise necessary to convert attention into question. The mythology of the Greeks had contained a vague theology, without authority indeed, but satisfactory because adequate to express the national thought. Ethics there was none, morality being customary. But the extending horizon of Hellenic thought discovered that customs differed widely in various lands; indeed, it is altogether likely that the collection of strange and shocking customs which filled the quivers of the militant Sophists in the 5th century had its inception in the 6th and possibly the 7th century At any rate it furnished the fiery darts of the adversary until ethics was founded in reason by the quest of Socrates for the universal, not in conduct, but in judgment. As ethics arose out of the irreconcilable contradictions of conduct, so natural philosophy sprung from the contradictions of mythical theology and in opposition to it. There were in fact two strata of conceptions touching supernatural beings; one, growing out of a primitive animism, regarded their operations essentially from the point of view of magic, which refuses to be surprised at any result, be it never so ill-proportioned to the means employed, so long as the mysterious word was spoken or the requisite act performed; the other, sprung from a worship of Nature in her most striking phenomena, recognized an order, akin to the moral order, in her operations. When natural philosophy arose in the 6th century, it instinctively at first, then consciously, divested Nature of personality by stripping off the disguise of myth and substituting a plain and reasoned tale founded on mechanical principles. This is the spirit which pervades pre-Socratic science and philosophy. The quest of Socrates for universally valid judgments on conduct directed thought to the laws of mind, which are teleological, in contradistinction to the laws of matter, which are mechanical; and thus in effect dethroned Nature, regarded as material, by giving primacy to mind. Henceforth, Greek philosophy was destined, with relatively few and unimportant exceptions, to devote itself to the study of human conduct and to be essentially idealistic, even where the foundation, as with the Stoics, was ostensibly materialistic. More and more it became true of the Greek philosophers that they sought God, "if haply they might feel after him and find him," conscious of the essential unity of the Divine and the human, and defining philosophy as the endeavor to assimilate the soul to God.
6. Hellenic and Hellenistic Religion:
The Homeric poems present a picture of Greek life as seen by a highly cultivated aristocratic society having no sympathy with the commonalty. Hence, we are not to regard Homeric religion as the religion of the Hellenic peoples in the Homeric age. Our first clear view of the Hellenic commoner is presented by Hesiod in the 8th century. Here we find, alongside of the worship of the Olympians, evidences of chthonian cults and abundant hints of human needs not satisfied by the well-regulated religion of the several city-states. The conventionalized monarchy of Zeus ruling over his fellow-Olympians is known to be a fiction of the poets, having just as much--no more--foundation, in fact, as the mythical overlordship of Agamemnon over the assembled princes of the Achaens; while it caught the imagination of the Greeks and dominated their literature, each city-state possessed its own shrines sacred to its own gods, who might or might not be called by the names of Olympians. Yet the great shrines which attracted Greeks from every state, such as those of Zeus at Dodona (chiefly in the period before the 7th century) and Olympia, of Apollo at Delos and Delphi, and of Hera at Argos, were the favored abodes of Olympians. Only one other should be mentioned: that of Demeter at Eleusis. Her worship was of a different character, and the great repute of her shrine dates from the 5th century. If the Zeus of Olympia was predominantly the benign god of the sky, to whom men came in joyous mood to delight him with pomp and festive gatherings, performing feats of manly prowess in the Olympic games, the Zeus of Dodona, and the Delphian Apollo, as oracular deities, were visited in times of doubt and distress. The 7th and 6th centuries mark the advent--or the coming into prominence--of deities whose appeal was to the deepest human emotions, of ecstatic enthusiasm, of fear, and of hope. Among them we must mention Dionysus, the god of teeming Nature (see DIONYSUS), and Orpheus. With their advent comes an awakening of the individual soul, whose aspiration to commune with Deity found little satisfaction in the general worship of the states. Private organizations and quasi-monastic orders, like those of the Orphics and Pythagoreans, arose and won countless adherents. Their deities found admission into older shrines, chiefly those of chthonian divinities, like that of Demeter at Eleusis, and wrought a change in the spirit and to a certain extent in the ritual of the "mysteries" practiced there. It was in these "mysteries" that the Christian Fathers, according to the mood or the need, polemic or apologetic, of the moment, saw now the propaedeutic type, now the diabolically instituted counterfeit, of the sacraments and ordinances of the church. The spirit and even the details of the observances of the "mysteries" are difficult to determine; but one must beware of accepting the hostile judgments of Christian writers who were in fact retorting upon the Greeks criticisms leveled at the church: both were blinded by partisanship and so misread the symbols.
If we thus find a true praeparatio evangelica in the Hellenistic developments of earlier Hellenic religion, there are parallel developments in the other religions which were adopted in the Hellenistic age. The older national religions of Persia and Egypt underwent a similar change, giving rise respectively to the worship of Mithra and of Isis, both destined, along with the chthonian mysteries of the Greeks, to be dangerous rivals for the conquest of the world of Christianity, itself a younger son in this prolific family of new religions. Space is wanting here for a consideration of these religious movements, the family resemblance of which with Christianity is becoming every day more apparent; but so much at least should be said, that while every candid student must admit the superiority of Christianity in moral content and adaptation to the religious nature of man, the difference in these respects was not at first sight so obvious that the successful rival might at the beginning of the contest have been confidently predicted.
As with other manifestations of the Hellenic spirit, so, too, in matters of religion, it was the free development of living institutions that most strikingly distinguishes the Greeks from the Hebrews. They had priests, but were never ruled by them; they possessed a literature regarded with veneration, and in certain shrines treasured sacred writings containing directions for the practice and ritual of the cults, but they were neither intended nor suffered to fix for all time the interpretation of the symbols. In the 5th and 4th centuries the leaders of Greek thought rebuked the activity of certain priests, and it was not before the period of Roman dominion that priests succeeded even in a small measure in usurping power, and sacred writings began to exercise an authority remotely comparable to that recognized among the Jews.
A most interesting question is that concerning the extent to which Greek civilization and thought had penetrated and influenced Judaism. During three centuries before the advent of Jesus, Hellenism had been a power in Syria and Judea. The earliest writings of the Hebrews showing this influence are Dan and the Old Testament Apocrypha. Several books of the Apocrypha were originally written in Greek, and show strong influence of Greek thought. The Septuagint, made for the Jews of the Dispersion, early won its way to authority even in Palestine, where Aramaic had displaced Hebrew, which thus became a dead language known only to a few. New Testament quotations of the Old Testament are almost without exception taken from the Septuagint. Thus the sacred literature of the Jews was for practical purposes Greek. Though Jesus spoke Aramaic, He unquestionably knew some Greek. Yet there is no clear evidence of specifically Greek influence on this thought, the presuppositions of which are Jewish or generally those of the Hellenistic age. All the writings of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek, though their authors differed widely in the degree of proficiency in the use of the language and in acquaintance with Hellenic thought. Their debt to these sources can be profitably considered only in connection with the individual writers; but one who is acquainted with the Hebrew and Greek literature instinctively feels in reading the New Testament that the national character of the Jews, as reflected in the Old Testament, has all but vanished, remaining only as a subtle tone of moral earnestness and as an imaginative coloring, except in the simple story of the Synoptic Gospels. But for the bitterness aroused by the destruction of Jerusalem, it is probable that the Jews would have yielded completely to Hellenic influences.
JUDAEA - joo-de'-a, ju-de'-a (Ioudaia): The "land of the Jews," the Greco-Roman equivalent of Judah. As most of the Israelites returning from the captivity belonged to the tribe of Judah, they came to be called Jews and their land Judea. In Tobit 1:18 the name is applied to the old kingdom of Judah. For a general description of the physical geography and early history of this region see JUDAH. The limits of this district varied greatly, extending as the Jewish population increased, but in many periods with very indefinite boundaries.
Under the Persian empire, Judea (or Judah) was a district administered by a governor who, like Zerubbabel (Hag 1:14; 2:2), was probably usually a Jew. Even as late as Judas Maccabeus, Hebron and its surroundings--the very heart of old Judah was under the domination of the Edomites, whom, however, Judas conquered (1 Macc 5:65); in the time of his brother Jonathan (145 BC), three tetrarchies of Samaria, Aphaerema, Lydda and Ramathaim, were added to Judea (1 Macc 10:30,38; 11:34); in some passages it is referred to at this time as the "land of Judah" (Iouda) (1 Macc 10:30,33,37). The land was then roughly limited by what may be called the "natural boundaries of Judah" (see JUDAH).
Strabo (xvi.11, 21) extends the name Judea to include practically all Palestine; as does Lk (4:44 m; 23:5; Acts 2:9; 10:37, etc.). In several New Testament references (Mt 4:25; Mk 1:5; 3:7; Lk 5:17; Jn 3:22; Acts 1:8), Judea is contrasted with its capital Jerusalem. The country bordering on the shores of the Dead Sea for some miles inland was known as the Wilderness of Judea (see JUDAH; JESHIMON) (Mt 3:1), or "the wilderness" (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:2); here John the Baptist appeared as a preacher. According to Mt 19:1 (but compare Mk 10:1, where the Revised Version (British and American) has "Judaea and beyond Jordan"), some cities beyond Jordan belonged to Judea. That this was an actual fact we know from Ptolemy (v.16,9) and Josephus (Ant., XII, iv, 11).
According to Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), Judea extended from Anuath-Borkaeos (i.e. Khan Berkit near Khan es Saweh, close to the most northerly frontier of Judah as described in JUDAH (which see)) to the village Jordan, possibly Tell `Arad, near Arabia in the South. Its breadth was from Joppa in the West to Jordan in the East. The seacoast also as far north as Ptolemais (`Akka), except Jamnia, Joppa and (according to the Talm) Caesarea, belonged to this province.
After the death of Herod the Great, Archelaus received Judea, Samaria and Idumea as his ethnarchy, but on his deposition Judea was absorbed into the Roman province of Syria, the procurator of which lived at Caesarea.
Of later history it is only necessary to notice that in the 5th century Judea became part of the land known as Palaestina Prima; that at the time of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem (12th century) all the hill country of Judah from Sinjil to Tekoa was the royal domain, while the southern section to Beersheba belonged to the Seigneur de Abraham (i.e. of Hebron); and lastly that a district, the rough equivalent of the kingdom of Judah, though larger, and of the Judea described by Josephus (BJ, III, iii, 5), though slightly smaller, forms today the Mutaserraflic of el Kuds, an administrative area where more than in any spot in the world the problem of the "land of the Jews" is today increasingly acute.
JUDAH (2) - (yehudah; in Gen 29:35 Codex Vaticanus, Ioudan; Codex Alexandrinus, Iouda; elsewhere Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, Ioudas):
1. Jacob's Son:
The 4th son born to Jacob by Leah in Paddan-aram (Gen 29:35, etc.). Of this patriarch's life only scanty details remain to us. He turned his brethren from their purpose to slay Joseph, persuading them to sell him to the Midianites at Dothan (Gen 37:26 ff). A dark stain is left upon his memory by the disgraceful story told in Genesis 38. Reuben forfeited the rights of primogeniture by an act of infamy; Simeon and Levi, who came next in order, were passed over because of their cruel and treacherous conduct at Shechem; to Judah, therefore, were assigned the honors and responsibilities of the firstborn (34; 35:22; 49:5 ff). On the occasion of their first visit to Egypt, Reuben acted as spokesman for his brethren (42:22,37). Then the leadership passed to Judah (43:3, etc.). The sons of Joseph evidently looked askance upon Judah's promotion, and their own claims to hegemony were backed by considerable resources (49:22 ff). The rivalry between the two tribes, thus early visible, culminated in the disruption of the kingdom. To Judah, the "lion's whelp," a prolonged dominion was assured (49:9 ff).
2. Tribe of Judah:
The tribe of Judah, of which the patriarch was the name-father, at the first census in the wilderness numbered 74,600 fighting men; at Sinai the number "from 20 years old and upward" was 76,500 (Nu 1:27; 26:22; see NUMBERS). The standard of the camp of Judah, with which were also the tribes of Zebulun and Issachar, was to the East of the tabernacle "toward the sunrising," the prince of Judah being Nahshon, the son of Amminadab (Nu 2:3). Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, represented Judah among the spies (Nu 13:6); he also was told off to assist at the future allocation of the tribal portions (Nu 34:19).
The land assigned to Judah lay in the South of Palestine (see JUDAH, TERRITORY OF), comprising part of the mountain, the Shephelah, and the maritime plain. The information given of its conquest is meager and cannot be arranged in a self-consistent story. In Josh 11:21 ff, the conquest is ascribed to Joshua. Caleb is described as conquering at least a portion in Josh 14:12; 15:13 ff; while in Jdg 1 the tribes of Judah and Simeon play a conspicuous part; and the latter found a settlement in the South within the territory of Judah The tribal organization seems to have been maintained after the occupation of the land, and Judah was so loosely related to the northern tribes that it was not expected to help them against Sisera. Deborah has no reproaches for absent Judah. It is remarkable that no judge over Israel (except Othniel, Jdg 3:9-11) arose from the tribe of Judah. The first king of all Israel was chosen from the tribe of Benjamin. This made acquiescence on the part of Judah easier than it would have been had Saul sprung from the ancient rival, Ephraim. But the dignity of Judah was fully vindicated by the splendid reigns of David and Solomon, in lineal descent from whom the Saviour of the world should come. The further history of the tribe is merged in that of Israel.
(3) Judas, son of Chalphi, a Jewish officer who supported Jonathan bravely at the battle of Hazor (1 Macc 11:70; Ant, XIII, v, 7).
(4) A person of good position in Jerusalem at the time of the mission to Aristobulus (2 Macc 1:10); he has been identified with Judas Maccabeus and also with an Essene prophet (Ant., XIII, xi, 2; BJ, III, 5).
(5) Son of Simon the Maccabee, and brother of John Hyrcanus (1 Macc 16:2). He was wounded in the battle which he fought along with his brother against Cendebeus (1 Macc 16:1 ff; Ant, XIII, vii, 3), and was murdered by Ptolemy the usurper, his brother-in-law, at Dok (1 Macc 16:11 ff).