(H. E. vi. 14), makes continually the antithesis to Ἑβραῖοι, not Ἑλληνισταί, but Ἕλληνες and ἔθνη. Theodoret (Opp. vol. ii. p. 1246) styles the Greekwriting historian, Josephus, σvyypapeùs 'Eßpaîos: cf. Origen, Ep. ad Afric. 5. Neither in Josephus himself, nor yet in Philo, do any traces of the New Testament distinction between 'Eẞpaîos and 'EXλnviorns exist. Only this much of it is recognised, that 'Eẞpatos, though otherwise a much rarer word that 'Iovdaîos, is always employed when it is intended to designate the people on the side of their language; a rule which Jewish, heathen, and Christian writers alike consent to observe, and which still survives in the fact, that we speak to the present day of the Jewish nation, but of the Hebrew tongue.

This name 'Iovdaîos is of much later origin. It does not carry us back to the very birth and cradle of the chosen people, to the day when the father of the faithful passed over the river, and entered on the land which should one day in his children be his; but keeps rather a lasting record of the period of national disruption and decline. It arose, and could only have arisen, with the separation of the tribes into the two rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Then, inasmuch as the ten tribes, though with the worst right, assumed Israel as a title to themselves, the two drew their designation from the chiefest of them, and of Judah came the name D', or 'Iovdało. Josephus, as far as I have observed, never employs it in telling the earlier history of his people. The first

occasion of its use by him is, I believe, at Antt. x. 10. 1, and in reference to Daniel and his young companions. Here, however, if his own account of the upcoming of the name were correct, he must have used it by anticipation, for his statement is that it first arose after the return from Babylon, and out of the fact that the earliest colony of those who returned were of that tribe (Antt. xi. 5. 7): ἐκλήθησαν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ἐξ ἧς ἡμέρας ἀνέβησαν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος, ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰούδα φυλῆς, ἧς πρώτης ἐλθούσης εἰς ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους, αὐτοί τε καὶ ἡ χώρα τῆς προσηγορίας αὐτῆς μετέλαβον. But in this he is clearly in error. We meet 'Iovdaîoɩ in books of the sacred canon composed anterior to, or during the Captivity, being employed in them as a designation of those who pertained to the smaller section of the tribes, to the kingdom of Judah (2 Kin. xvi. 6; Jer. xxxii. 12; xxxiv. 9; xxxviii. 19); and not first in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; however in these, and especially in Esther, it may be of far more frequent occurrence.

It is not hard to perceive in what way the name extended to the whole nation. When the ten tribes were carried into Assyria, and disappeared from the world's stage, that smaller section of the people which remained henceforth represented the whole; and thus it was only natural that 'Iovdaîos should express, as it now came to do, not one of the kingdom of Judah as distinguished from that of Israel, but any member of the nation, a 'Jew' in this wider sense, as opposed to a Gentile.

M

In fact, the word 'Iovdaîos underwent a process exactly the reverse of that which 'Eẞpatos had undergone. For 'Eẞpaios, belonging first to the whole nation, came afterwards to belong only to a part; while 'Iovdaîos, designating at first only the member of a part, ended by designating the whole. It now, in its later, like 'Eßpaîos in its earlier, stage of meaning, was a title with which the descendant of Abraham designated himself, when he would bring out the national distinction between himself and other people (Rom. ii. 9, 10); thus 'Jew and Gentile;' never' Israelite and Gentile' or which others used about him, when they had in view this same fact; for example, the Eastern Wise Men inquire, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" (Matt. ii. 2), testifying by the form of this question that they were themselves Gentiles, for they would certainly have asked for the King of Israel, could they have claimed any nearer part or share in Him; as, again, the Roman soldiers and the Roman governor give to Jesus the mocking title, "King of the Jews" (Matt. xxvii. 29, 37), while his own countrymen, the high priests, challenge Him to prove by coming down from the cross that He is "King of Israel" (Matt. xxvii. 42).

For indeed the absolute name, that which expressed the whole dignity and glory of a member of the theocratic nation, of the people in peculiar covenant with God, was 'Iopanλírns. It is a title of unfrequent occurrence in the Septuagint, but often used by Josephus in his earlier history, as convertible with 'Eßpaîos (Antt. i. 9. 1, 2); in the

middle period of it to designate a member of the ten tribes (viii. 8. 3; ix. 14. 1); and toward the end as equivalent to 'Iovdaîos (xi. 5. 4). It is only in its relations of likeness and difference to this last that we have to consider it here. This name was for the Jew his especial badge and title of honor. To be descendants of Abraham, this honor they must share with Ishmaelite and Edomite; but none except themselves were the seed of Jacob, such as in this name of Israelite they were declared to be: nor this only, but more gloriously still, their descent was herein traced up to him, not as he was Jacob, but as he was Israel, who as a Prince had power with God and with men, and prevailed (Gen. xxxii. 28). That this title was accounted the noblest, we have ample proof. Thus, as we have seen, when the ten tribes threw off their allegiance to the house of David, they claimed in their pride and pretension the name of "the kingdom of Israel" for the new kingdom which they set up-the kingdom, as the name was intended to imply, in which the line of the promises, the true succession of the early patriarchs, ran. So, too, there is no nobler title with which the Lord can adorn Nathanael than that of "an Israelite indeed" (John i. 47), one in whom all which that name involved, might indeed be found. And when Peter, and again when Paul, would obtain a hearing from the men of their nation, when therefore they address them with the name most welcome to their ears, avspes 'lopanλirai (Acts ii. 22; iii. 12; xiii. 16; cf.

Rom. ix. 4; Phil. iii. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 29) is still the language with which they seek to acquire their good-will.

When, then, we limit ourselves to the employment in the N. T. of these three words, and to the distinctions which there exist between them, we may say that 'Eẞpaîos is a Hebrew-speaking, as contrasted with Greek-speaking, or Hellenizing, Jew; what in our Version we have well called a 'Grecian,' as differenced from "EXλny, a veritable 'Greek' or other Gentile; 'Iovdaîos is a Jew in his national distinction from a Gentile; while 'Iopaniτns, the augustest title of all, is a Jew as he is a member of the theocracy, and thus an heir of the promises. In the first is predominantly noted his language, in the second his nationality ('Iovdaïouós, Josephus, De Macc. 4; Gal. i. 13; 'lovdathew, Gal. ii. 14), in the third his theocratic privileges and glorious vocation.

§ xl.—αἰτέω, ἐρωτάω.

THESE words are often rendered by the authors of our Version, as though there was no difference between them; nor can any fault be found with their rendering, in numerous instances, aireîv and épwrâv alike by our English' to ask.' Still it must be admitted that there are occasions on which they have a little marred the perspicuity of the original by not varying their word, where the original has varied its own. Thus it is, for example, at John