Hebrew
Hebrew
(Heb. Ibri , plur. or Exo 3:18; fem. , Hebrewess, plur. Greek ), a designation of the people of Israel, used first of their progenitor Abraham (Gen 14:13; Sept. ). This name is never in Scripture applied to the Israelites except when the speaker is a foreigner (Gen 39:14; Gen 39:17; Gen 41:12; Exo 1:16; Exo 2:6; 1Sa 4:6; 1Sa 4:9, etc.), or when Israelites speak of themselves to one of another nation (Gen 40:15; Exo 1:19; Jon 1:9, etc.), or when they are contrasted with other peoples (Gen 43:32; Exo 1:3; Exo 1:7; Exo 1:15; Deu 15:12; 1Sa 13:3; 1Sa 13:7). See Gesenius, Thes. Heb. s.v. (The only apparent exception is Jer 34:9; but here there is probably such an implied contrast between the Jews and other peoples as would bring the usage under the last case.) By the Greek and Latin writers this is the name by which the descendants of Jacob are designated when they are not called Jews (Pausan. 5. 5,2; 6:24, 6; Plut. Sympos. 4, 6, 1; Tacit. Hist. 5, 1); and Josephus, who affects classical peculiarities, constantly uses it. In the N.T. we find the same contrast between Hebrews and foreigners (Act 6:1; Php 3:5): the Hebrew language is distinguished from all others (Luk 23:38; Joh 5:2; Joh 19:13; Act 21:40; Act 26:14; Rev 9:11); while in 2Co 11:22 the word is used as only second to Israelite in the expression of national peculiarity. On these facts two opposing hypotheses have been raised; the one that Israelite or Jew was the name by which the nation designated itself (just as the Welsh call themselves Cymry, though in speaking of themselves to a Saxon they would probably use the name Welsh); the other is that Hebrew is a national name, merely indicative of the people as a people, while Israelite is a sacred or religious name appropriate to them as the chosen people of God. This latter opinion Gesenius dismisses as without foundation (Lexicon by Robinson, s.v.), but it has received the deliberate sanction of Ewald (Ausfhrl. Lehrb. der Heb. Spr. p. 18, 5th ed.).
Derivation of the Name.
I. From Abram, Abraei, and by euphony Hebrcei (August., Ambrose). Displaying, as it does, the utmost ignorance of the language, this derivation was never extensively adopted, and was even retracted by Augustine (Retract. 16). The euphony alleged by Ambrose is quite imperceptible, and there is no parallel in the Lat. meridie =medidie.
II. According to the sacred writer, , Hebrew, is a derivative from , Eber, the ancestor of Abraham; at least the same persons who are called Hebrews are called , sons of Eber (Gen 10:21); and Eber (Num 24:24); and this is tantamount to a derivation of the name Hebrew from Eber. In support of this, it may be urged that is the proper form which a patronymic from would assume; according to the analogy of , a Moabite , a Danite, , a Calebite, etc. (Hiller, Onomast. Sac. c. 14:p. 231 sq.). What adds much force to this argument is the evident antithesis in Gen 14:13, between and ; the former of these is as evidently a patronymic as the latter. This view is supported by Josephus, Suidas, Bochart, Vatablus, Drusius,Vossius, Buxtorf, Hottinger, Leusden, Whiston, and Bauer. Theodoret (Quaest. in Genesis 61) urges against it that the Hebrews were not the only descendants of Eber, and, therefore, could not appropriate his name; and the objection has often been repeated. To meet it, recourse has been had to the suggestion, first adduced, we believe, by Ibni Ezra (Comment. ad Jon. 1, 9), that the descendants of Abraham retained the name Hebrew from Eber, because they alone of his descendants retained the faith which he held. This may be, but we are hardly entitled to assume it in order to account for the fact before us. It is better to throw the onus probandi on the objector, and to demand of him, in our ignorance of what determined the use of such patronymics in one line of descent and not in others, that he should show cause why it is inconceivable that Abraham might have a good and sufficient reason for wishing to perpetuate the memory of his descent from Eber, which did not apply to the other descendants of that patriarch. Why might not one race of the descendants of Eber call themselves by pre-eminence sons of Eber, just as one race of the descendants of Abraham called themselves by preeminence sons of Abraham. But Eber, it is objected, is a name of no note in the history; we know nothing of him to entitle him to be selected as the person after whom a people should call themselves. But is our ignorance to be the measure of the knowledge of Abraham and his descendants on such a point? Because we know nothing to distinguish Eber, does it follow that they knew nothing? Certain it is that he was of sufficient importance to reflect a glory on his father Shem, whose highest designation is the father of all the children of Eber (Gen 10:21); and certain it is that his name lingered for many generations in the region where he resided, for it was as Eber that the Mesopotamian prophet knew the descendants of Jacob, and spoke of them when they first made their appearance in warlike force on the borders of the promised land (Num 24:24).
On the other hand, it is contended that the passage Gen 10:21 is not so much genealogical as ethnographical; and in this view it seems that the words are intended to contrast Shem with Ham and Japhet, and especially with the former. Now Babel is plainly fixed as the extreme east limit of the posterity of Ham (Genesis 10), from whose land Nimrod went out into Assyria (Genesis 11, margin of A. Vers.): in the next place, Egypt (Genesis 13) is mentioned as the western limit of the same great race; and these two extremes having been ascertained, the historian proceeds (Gen 13:15-18) to fill up his ethnographic sketch with the intermediate tribes of the Canaanites. In short, in Genesis 6-20 we have indications of three geographical points which distinguish the posterity of Ham, viz. Egypt, Palestine, and Babylon. At the last-mentioned city, at the river Euphrates, their proper occupancy, unaffected by the exceptional movement of Asshur, terminated, and at the same point that of the descendants of Shem began. Accordingly, the sharpest contrast that could be devised is obtained by generally classing these latter nations as those beyond the river Euphrates; and the words father of all the children of Eber, i.e. father of the nations to the east of the Euphrates, find an intelligible place in the context.
It must also be confessed that in the genealogical scheme in Gen 11:10-26, it does not appear that the Jews thought of Eber as a source primary, or even secondary of the national descent. The genealogy neither starts from him, nor in its uniform sequence does it rest upon him with any emphasis. There is nothing to distinguish Eber above Arphaxad, Peleg, or Serug. Like them, he is but a link in the chain by which Shem is connected with Abraham. Indeed, the tendency of the Iraelitish retrospect is to stop at Jacob. It is with Jacob that their history as a nation begins: beyond Jacob they held their ancestry in common with the Edomites; beyond Isaac they were in danger of being confounded with the Ishmaelites. The predominant figure of the emphatically Hebrew Abraham might tempt them beyond those points of affinity with other races, so distasteful, so anti-national; but it is almost inconceivable that they would voluntarily originate and perpetuate an appellation of themselves which landed them on a platform of ancestry where they met the whole population of Arabia (Gen 10:25; Gen 10:30).
III. Hence others (as Jerome, Theodoret, Origen, Chrysostom, Arias Montanus, R. Bechai, Paul Burg., Munster, Grotius, Scaliger, Selden, Rosenmller, Gesenius, and Eichhorn) prefer tracing to the verb , to pass over, or the noun , the region or country beyond,. By those who favor the former etymology, Hebrew is regarded s equivalent to the man who passed over; by those who favor the latter, it is taken to mean the man from the region beyond; and under both suppositions it is held to be applied by the Canaanites to Abraham as having crossed the Euphrates, or come; from the region beyond the Euphrates to Canaan. Of’ these etymologies the former is now generally abandoned; it is felt that the supposition that the crossing: of the Euphrates was such an unparalleled achievement as to fix on him who accomplished it a name that should descend to his posterity, and become a national appellation, is somewhat too violent to be maintained; and, besides, as the verb signifies to pass from this side to that, not from that side to this, it would not be the term applied by the people of Canaan to designate the act of one who had come from the other side of the Euphrates to them. The other etymology has more in its favor. It is that sanctioned by the Greek translators (Sept. , Aq. v); it is in accordance with the usage of the phrase , which was employed to designate the region beyond the Euphrates (Jos 24:2-3; 2Sa 10:16; 1Ch 19:16); and it is not improbable that Abraham, coming among the Canaanites from beyond the Euphrates, might be designated by them the man from the region beyond, just as Europeans might call an American a transatlantic. But, though Bleek very confidently pronounces this view without doubt the right one (Einleitung ins A. T. p. 72), it is open to serious, if not fatal objections.
1. There is no instance of by itself denoting the region beyond the Euphrates, or any other river; the phrase invariably used is . Rosenmller following Hyde (Histor. Relig. Vet. Pers. p. 51), seeks to supply this desiderated instance by taking as epexegetically of in Num 24:24 affligant Assyriam et totam transfluvialem regionem. But the learned writer has in his zeal overlooked the second , which quite precludes his exegesis. Knobel avoids this error by simply taking =Assyria, and =Mesopotamia; but in this case it is the proper name , Eber, and not the preposition , trans, which is in question.
2. If was the proper designation of those who lived on the other side of the Euphrates, we should find that name applied to such as continued to dwell there, not to a race descended from one who had left that region never to return.
3. Though Abraham, as having been originally a transfluvian, might be so called by the Canaanites, it is improbable that they should have extended this name to his posterity, to whom it in no sense applied. No one would think of continuing the term transatlantic to persons born in. Britain on the ground that a remote ancestor had come from across the Atlantic to settle in that country! As to the sanction which this etymology derives from the Sept., no great weight can be attached to that when we remember how often these translators have erred in this way; and also that they have given as the rendering of in Num 24:24; Plus vice simplici hallucinati sunt interpretes Graeci eorum ut nobis standum cadendumve non sit autoritate (Carpzov, Crit. Sac. V. T. p. 171). We may add that the authority of the Sept. and Aquila on such a point is urged with a bad grace by those who treat with contempt the etymologies of the Hebrew text as resting on mere Jewish tradition; if a Jewish tradition of the time of Moses is subject to suspicion, afortiori is one of the age of Ptolemy Lagi and of Alexandrian origin. Ewald pronounces this derivation quite uncertain. 4. This derivation is open to the strong objection that Hebrew nouns ending in are either patronymics or gentilic nouns (Buxtorf, Leusden). This is a technical objection which-though fatal to the , or appellative derivation as traced back to the verb-does not apply to the same as referred to the noun . The analogy of Galli, Angli, Hispani, derived from Gallia, Anglia, Hispania (Leusden), is a complete blunder in ethnography; and, at any rate, it would confirm rather than destroy the derivation from the noun.
IV. Parkhurst, whose works occasionally present suggestions worth consideration, has advanced the opinion that is a derivation from the verb in the sense of passing through or from place to place (compare Gen 18:5; Exo 32:27; Eze 35:7; 2Ch 30:10, etc.); so that its meaning would be a sojourner or passer through, as distinct from a settler in the land. This undoubtedly exactly describes the condition of Abraham and his immediate descendants, and might very naturally be assumed by them as a designation; for, as the apostle says, they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth (Heb 11:13). In this case the statement in Gen 10:21; Num 24:24, must be understood as referring to the posterity of Eber generally, and not to the Hebrews specially or exclusively. The most serious objection to Parkhurst’s suggestion arises from the form of the word . A word from , to convey the meaning of transitor, or one passing through, we should expect to find in the form or .
On the whole. the derivation of Ibri (Hebrew) from Eber seems to have most in its favor and least against it. (See on this side Augustine, De Civit. Dei, 6, 11; Buxtorf, Diss. 3, 27; Bochart, Phaleg, 2, 14; Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 4; Leusden, Phil. Heb. Diss. 21; Morinus, De Ling. Primcev. p. 64; Pfeiffer, Diff. Script. Locc., Opp. p. 49; Carpzov, Crit. Sac. p. 165; Hezel, Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. sec. 4; Ewald, Asfiihrl. Lehrbuch der Heb. Gram. p. 19, 5th edit.; Geschichte des V. Israel, 1, 334; Havernick, Introd. to the O.T. p. 125; Baumgarten, Theol. Comment. sum Pent. ad loc. On the other side, see Theodoret, Quaest. in Genesis 16; Chrysostom, Hom. 35 in Genesis; Selden, De Diis Syris, p. 13; Walton, Proleg. p. 15 sq., in Dathes edit. p. 68; Gussetius, Comment. Ling. Heb. Diss. Proem. p, 7; Michaelis, Spicileg. Geogr. Heb. Ext. 2, 66; Gesenius, Gesoh. der Heb. Spr. p. 11; Grammar, sec. 2.) SEE JEW.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Hebrew
a name applied to the Israelites in Scripture only by one who is a foreigner (Gen. 39:14, 17; 41:12, etc.), or by the Israelites when they speak of themselves to foreigners (40:15; Ex. 1:19), or when spoken of an contrasted with other peoples (Gen. 43:32; Ex. 1:3, 7, 15; Deut. 15:12). In the New Testament there is the same contrast between Hebrews and foreigners (Acts 6:1; Phil. 3:5).
Derivation. (1.) The name is derived, according to some, from Eber (Gen. 10:24), the ancestor of Abraham. The Hebrews are “sons of Eber” (10:21).
(2.) Others trace the name of a Hebrew root-word signifying “to pass over,” and hence regard it as meaning “the man who passed over,” viz., the Euphrates; or to the Hebrew word meaning “the region” or “country beyond,” viz., the land of Chaldea. This latter view is preferred. It is the more probable origin of the designation given to Abraham coming among the Canaanites as a man from beyond the Euphrates (Gen. 14:13).
(3.) A third derivation of the word has been suggested, viz., that it is from the Hebrew word _’abhar_, “to pass over,” whence _’ebher_, in the sense of a “sojourner” or “passer through” as distinct from a “settler” in the land, and thus applies to the condition of Abraham (Heb. 11:13).
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Hebrew
Shem is called “the father of all the children of Eber,” as Ham is called “father of Canaan.” The Hebrew and Canaanites were often brought, into contact, and exhibited the respective characteristics of the Shemites and the Hamites. The term “Hebrew” thus is derived from Eber (Gen 10:21, compare Num 24:24). The Septuagint translated “passer from beyond” (perates), taking the name from eeber “beyond.” Abram in Palestine was to the inhabitants the stranger from beyond the river (Gen 14:13). In entering Palestine he spoke Chaldee or Syriac (Gen 31:47). In Canaan he and his descendants acquired Hebrew from the Hamitic Canaanites, who in their turn had acquired it from an earlier Semitic race. The Moabite stone shows that Moab spoke the same Hebrew tongue as Israel, which their connection with Lot, Abraham’s nephew, would lead us to expect.
In the patriarchs’ wanderings they never used interpreters until they went to Egypt. In Israel’s bondages in the time of the judges they never lost their language; but in the 70 years’ captivity in Babylon their language became in a great degree Aramaic or Chaldee, and they adopted the present Hebrew alphabet. Thus it is proved the Israelites spoke the languages of the surrounding peoples. The sense of Gen 10:21 is: as in Gen 10:6-20 the three Hamite settlements are mentioned, Babylon, Egypt, Canaan, so next the Shemite races are spoken of as commencing at the most easterly point of the Hamites, namely, Babylon and the Euphrates.
Shem was “father of all the children of Eber,” i.e. of the nations settled eastward, starting from beyond the Euphrates. The name Hebrew, applied to them in relation to the surrounding tribes already long settled in Canaan, continued to be their name among foreigners; whereas “Israelite” was their name among themselves (Gen 39:14; Gen 39:17; Gen 43:32; 1Sa 4:6; 1Sa 4:9). In New Testament the contrast is between “Hebrew” and those having foreign characteristics, as especially the Greek or any Gentile language (Act 6:1; Phi 3:5 (See GREEK; GRECIAN), 2Co 11:22; Luk 23:38).
The name Hebrew is found in Genesis and Exodus more than in all the other Books of the Bible, for it was the international name linking Jacob’s descendants with the nations; Israel is the name that separates them from the nations. After the constitution of Israel as a separate people (in Exodus) Hebrew rarely occurs; in the national poetry and in the prophets the name does not occur as a designation of the elect people among themselves. If, as seems implied in Genesis 10, Eber be a patronymic, his name must be prophetic (as Peleg is) of the migrations of his descendants.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
HEBREW
The name Hebrew comes from Eber, a descendant of Shem, the son of Noah. This means that the Hebrews were one of the Semitic peoples, Semites being those descended from Shem (Gen 10:21; Gen 10:25). Abraham was a Hebrew, being descended from Shem through Eber (Gen 11:10-26; Gen 14:13). The descendants of Abraham, therefore, were also Hebrews (Gen 39:17; Gen 40:15; Gen 43:32).
In time the meaning of the name Hebrew became more restricted in that it applied only to those who were descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. In other words, Hebrew became simply another name for Israelite (Exo 1:15; Exo 2:6; Exo 2:11; Exo 3:18; Exo 5:3; Exo 21:2; 1Sa 4:6; 1Sa 13:19; 1Sa 14:11; 1Sa 29:3; Jer 34:9; Jon 1:9; Act 6:1; 2Co 11:22; Php 3:5). A third name, which came into use later, was Jew, and this has remained in common use till the present day (Jer 34:9; Joh 1:19; Act 2:5; Rom 11:1; see JEW). (Concerning Hebrew as the language of the Old Testament see MANUSCRIPTS.)
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Hebrew
HEBREW.See Eber; Text Versions and Languages of OT.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Hebrew
[He’brew]
Designation of Abraham and of his descendants. The name is first met with when Lot had been carried away prisoner, one came and told Abram ‘the Hebrew.’ Gen 14:13. Hence it is applied to Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and Jacob in distinction to the name of Israelites (from the name of Israel given to Jacob), which is their covenant name, the name of promise. It may be remarked how Saul king of Israel had lost the sense of this when he said “Let the Hebrews hear.” 1Sa 13:3.
The term occurs in the N.T. only in Act 6:1 to distinguish the Greek-speaking Jews from those of Palestine, and in 2Co 11:22 and Php 3:5 concerning the ancestors of Paul, wherein, to meet the cavilling of the Judaising teachers, he calls himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews, one who had descended without any Gentile or proselyte blood.
It is not very clear why Abraham was called a Hebrew. It is generally supposed to be derived from his ancestor Eber or Heber; but it will be seen from Gen 11:17-26 that there were five generations between Eber and Abraham, so by this derivation many others might have been called Hebrews. Gen 10:21 says that Shem was “the father of all the children of Eber.” This shows that the Hebrews were Shemites, but many other tribes were ‘Shemites’ that could not be called Hebrews. In scripture the name is not applied to any except to Abraham and his descendants, and only to those who descended through Isaac and Jacob, to the exclusion of the children of Ishmael and Esau. So that there must be some other reason for the name and for its being thus restricted.
The root of the word is ‘to pass over,’ as when one passes over a river, or from one region to another. Abraham was bidden to leave his country and his kindred and to go into the land of Canaan, and the word Hebrew is not employed until Abraham had left his country and was in the land of Canaan. Gen 14:13. When there he was a ‘sojourner,’ in a strange country, dwelling in tents. Heb 11:9. The name was therefore characteristic, and the people of the land could go to Abraham the ‘sojourner’ and tell him that Lot had been taken prisoner. Joseph when in Egypt said he had been stolen from “the land of the Hebrews.” Gen 40:15. The above characteristic was doubtless subsequently lost, and nothing seen in it but the natural descent from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob; the same persons being mostly called Israelites. The descendants of Ishmael and Esau were not sojourners in the promised land, but wandered whither they would. The name Hebrew does not occur in the O.T. after 1 Samuel except in Jer 34:9; Jer 34:14 and once in Jon 1:9.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Hebrew
H5680
A word supposed to be a corruption of the name of Eber, who was an ancestor of Abraham
Gen 10:24; Gen 11:14-26 Genealogy
Applied to:
– Abraham
Gen 14:13
– Abraham and his descendants
Gen 39:14; Gen 40:15; Gen 43:32; Exo 2:6; Deu 15:12; 1Sa 4:9; 1Sa 29:3; Jon 1:9; Act 6:1; 2Co 11:22; Phi 3:5
Used to denote the language of the Jews
Joh 5:2; Joh 19:20; Act 21:40; Act 22:2; Act 26:14; Rev 9:11 Israelites; Jews
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Hebrew
Hebrew (h’brew), a name given to Abram by the Canaanites, Gen 14:13, because he had crossed the Euphrates. The name some derive from ber, “beyond, on the other side,” Abraham and his posterity being called Hebrews in order to express a distinction between the races east and west of the Euphrates. It may also be derived from Eber, or Heber, one of the ancestors of Abraham. Gen 10:24 See Jews.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Hebrew
He’brew. This word first occurs as given to Abram by the Canaanites, Gen 4:13 because he had crossed the Euphrates. The name is also derived from Eber, “beyond, on the other side”, Abraham and his posterity being called Hebrews, in order to express a distinction between the races, east and west of the Euphrates.
It may also be derived from Heber, one of the ancestors of Abraham. Gen 10:24. The term Israelite, was used by the Jews of themselves among themselves; the term Hebrew was the name by which they were known to foreigners. The latter was accepted by the Jews in their external relations; and after the general substitution of the word Jew, it still found a place in that marked and special feature of national contradistinction, the language.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Hebrew
Hebraios (G1445) Hebrew
Ioudaios (G2453) Jew
Israelites (G2475) Israelite
Although all of these names are used to designate members of the elect family and chosen race, the terms may be distinguished.
Because it is the oldest term, Hebraios deserves to be considered first. Most likely Hebraios is derived from ‘eber (H5676), the same word as hyper (G5228) and the Latin super (beyond). Hebraios alludes to the passing over of Abraham from the other side of the Euphrates. In the language of the Phoenician tribes among whom he came to live, he was “Abram the Hebrew, ” or ho perates as it appears in the Septuagint (Gen 14:13), because he was from beyond (peran, G4008) the river. Thus Origen correctly spoke of “Hebrews, which is translated foreigners [peratikoi].” Therefore Hebraios is not a name the chosen people adopted for themselves but one that others gave them. It is not a name they have taken but one that others have imposed on them. The use of Hebraios throughout the Old Testament is entirely consistent with this etymology. In every case Hebraios is either a title foreigners use to designate the chosen race or one the chosen people use to designate themselves to foreigners or when they set themselves in tacit opposition to other nations. Hebraios is never used without either a latent or an expressed sense of national antagonism.
Later when Ioudaios came into use, the meaning of Hebraios changed. Frequently when a new term appears, a related word’s meaning will contract and be more narrowly defined. This happens when new terms arise and all the various meanings of related older terms are no longer needed. At the same time, such older words lend themselves to new shades of meaning, as was the case with Hebraios. In the New Testament the “external perspective” on the Hebrew nation no longer existed. Not every member of the chosen family was a Hebraios, only those who retained Hebrew as their native language (whether they lived in Palestine or elsewhere). The true complement and antithesis to Hebraios is Hellenistes (G1675), a word that first appeared in the New Testament to designate a Jew of the Dispersion who spoke Greek, not Hebrew, and who read or heard the Septuagint version of the Scriptures in the synagogue.
The distinction between Hebraios and Hellenistes first appears in Act 6:1 and is probably intended in the two other New Testament passages where Hebraios occurs (2Co 11:22; Php 3:5), as well as in the superscription of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is important to remember that the language one spoke, not the place where one lived, was the defining factor in being considered a “Hebrew” or a “Hellenist.” As long as a person’s mother tongue was Hebrew, he was considered a “Hebrew,” regardless of where he lived. Thus Paul, though settled in Tarsus, a Greek city in Asia Minor, described himself as a “Hebrew” of “Hebrew” parents and as “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Php 3:5; cf. Act 23:6). Although the greatest number of “Hebrews” were resident in Palestine, it was their language, not their place of residence, that gave them this title.
The distinction between Hebraios and Hellenistes is a distinction within the nation and not between it and other nations. This distinction is exclusively a scriptural one, though it was hardly recognized by later Christian writers and not at all by Jewish and heathen ones. Thus Eusebius said of Philo, an Alexandrian Jew who wrote exclusively in Greek, “By race he was a Hebrew [Hebraios].” Clement of Alexandria always made Hellenes (G1672) and ethne (G1484), not Hellenistai, the antithesis to Hebraioi. Theodoret styled the Greek-writing historian Josephus as “a Hebrew [Hebraios] author.”
No traces of the New Testament distinction between Hebraios and Hellenistes exist in Josephus, Philo, or in heathen writers. Hebraios, however, though rarer than Ioudaios, always refers to the people in terms of their language, a rule observed by Jewish, heathen, and Christian writers alike. Even today we speak of the Jewish nation but of the Hebrewtongue.
The name Ioudaios is of much later origin. It did not originate at the birth of the chosen people, when Abram passed over the river and entered the land of inheritance, but later at a time of national disruption and decline when the Jewish tribes separated into the rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah. At that time the ten tribes assumed “Israel” as their title, and the other two tribes took the name yihdm (G3064), or Ioudaioi, from the more important of the two. Josephus’s first use of Ioudaioi was in reference to Daniel and his young companions, not in the earlier history of the Jewish people. In reference to Daniel, however, Josephus used Ioudaioi by anticipationnamely, that it first arose after the return from Babylon, because the earliest colony to return was of that tribe: “They were called by this name from the day they went up out of Babylon, [taken] from the tribe of Judah as it was the first to enter those regions; both they and the land adopted this very name.” But Josephus’s account is clearly erroneous, Ioudaioi, or its Hebrew equivalent, first appears in biblical books that were composed before or during the captiv–ity as a designation of those who belonged to the smaller group of the tribes, the kingdom of Judah, not first in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, though the term occurs more frequently in these books (especially in Esther).
It is easy to see how Ioudaioi was extended to the nation as a whole. When the ten tribes were carried into Assyria and were absorbed and lost among the nations, the smaller group of Jews who remained behind came to represent the entire Jewish nation. Thus it was only natural that Ioudaios should refer to any member of the nationa “Jew” in the wider sense of one who was not a Gentileand not just to someone from the kingdom of Judah as distinguished from the kingdom of Israel. In fact Ioudaioi underwent a process exactly the converse of the one Hebraios had undergone earlier. On the one hand, Hebraios initially referred to the nation as a whole but later came to refer only to a part of the nation. On the other hand, Ioudaios initially referred only to a part of the nation and later to the nation as a whole. The later use of Ioudaios, like the earlier use of Hebraios, was employed as a national self-designation to distinguish a descendant of Abraham from other peoples (Rom 2:9-10). Consequently the Scriptures contrast “Jew and Gentile” but never “Israelite and Gentile.” Additionally, Ioudaios was used by others to maintain the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Thus the wise men from the East inquired, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews?.” (Mat 2:2). The form of this question implies that the wise men were Gentiles. Had they been Jews, they would have asked for the King of Israel. So, too, the Roman soldiers and governor gave Jesus the mocking title “King of the Jews” (Mat 27:29; Mat 27:37), but his own countrymen challenged him to prove by coming down from the cross that he is the “King of Israel” (Mat 27:42).
Israelites is the absolute name used to express the dignity and glory of a member of the theocratic nation in a unique covenant relation with God. Israelites rarely occurs in the Septuagint but often was used by Josephus in his earlier history as a synonym for Hebraios. In the middle period of his history, Josephus used Israelites to refer to a member of the ten tribes and toward the end of his history as a synonym for Ioudaios. We will only consider the last meaning here. Israelites was the Jew’s special badge and title of honor. The honor of being descendants of Abraham was shared with the Ishmaelites (Gen 16:15), and the honor of being descendants of Abraham and Isaac was shared with the Edomites (Gen 24:25). Only the Jews, however, are descended from Jacob, a name that is declared in the title Israelite. The Jews did not trace their descent from Jacob as Jacob but from Jacob as Israel, who as a prince had power with God and with men and prevailed (Gen 32:28). There is ample proof that this title was the noblest of them all. When the ten tribes cast off their allegiance to the house of David, they pridefully and pretentiously took the title “the kingdom of Israel” thus implying that their kingdom was heir to the promises and the true successor of the early patriarchs. Jesus could not have given a more noble title to Nathanael than to have called him “an Israelite indeed” (Joh 1:47), one in whom all that the name involved might be found. When Peter and Paul wanted to obtain a hearing from the men of their own nation, they addressed them with the name they would most welcome, andres Israelitai, by whose use they sought to secure their favor.
By restricting ourselves to the New Testament usage and distinctions among these three words, we may say that Hebraios refers to a Hebrew-speaking as contrasted with a Greek-speaking or Hellenizing Jew, that Ioudaios refers to a Jew nationalistically in distinction from Gentiles, and that Israelites, the most majestic title of all, refers to a Jew as a member of the theocracy and heir of the promises. The first word predominantly refers to a Jew’s language, the second to his nationality, and the third to his theocratic privileges and glorious vocation.