Ioudaios
edition published: 2023
language: en
availability: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Morphology

Ἰουδαῖος -α -ον adj. Jewish, Judean; subst. a Jew, a Judean, Judea; personal name; lat. Iudaeus -a -um

ἡ Ἰουδαία / Ιούδα subst. Judea (the region), lat. Iuda / Iudaea

Ἰουδαῖος a personal name

a rare form: Ἰουδαϊκός -ή -όν adj., lat. Iudaicus -a -um

a rare derivant: ὁ Ἰουδαϊσμός subst. Judaism, lat. Iudaismus

Etymology

From the Hebrew noun יְהוּדָה (y'huda) which is the kingdom of Judah and its region, and a personal name. Occurs in the Hebrew bible 819 times (Liljeqvist 2010, 204). Also the Hebrew adjective יְהוּדִי(y'hudi) meaning “of Judah”, especially “of the tribe of Judah”. Occurs in the Hebrew bible 76 times (Liljeqvist 2010, 204). Closely related to the origins of Judaism.

The Aramaic noun is יְהוּד (y’hud) and adjective יְהוּדָי (y’hudai) (Liljeqvist 2010, 585). Probably the Greek word is loaned from Aramaic rather than Hebrew for the former was the official language of the area during Persian rule, and more widely used before Alexander’s conquest, and the Aramaic word also has the /ai/ element visible in the Greek. However, the Hebrew and Aramaic words are almost identical.

The Greek word family is originated from the place name, Judah (Bauer 1988, Ἰουδαία), with which the form Ιούδα seemingly coincides. If loaned from the Hebrew noun, for the adjective an ending with a iota has been added, resulting as Ἰουδα-ῖος. If loaned from the Aramaic adjective, the Greek ending was added, resulting as Ἰουδαῖ-ος. A variant of the place name, ἡ Ἰουδαία, is derived from the Greek adjective. The rare adjectival variant Ἰουδαϊκός bears the same meaning. This form may be modelled on adjectives like Ἑλληνικός and Ῥωμαϊκός (derived respectively from Ἕλλην and Ῥωμαῖος). However, Ἰουδαϊκός is very rare and its meaning seems to be the same as Ἰουδαῖος, which some authors use of people, and Ἰουδαϊκός of things. The substantive ὁ Ἰουδαϊσμός (Judaism) is very rare in Antiquity, appearing during the Hellenistic era, formed in the same way as Ἑλληνισμός (Hellenism).

The Latin word Iudaeus is loaned from Greek and attested since Cicero (A. Ernout, A. Meillet 1959, iudaeus). The region is either Iuda or Iudaea (Maltby 1991, Iudaea). Also the vartiant Iudaicus exists. In later Latin, the term Iudaismus is sometimes found in reference to Judaism.

As a personal name, Ἰουδαῖος is a variant of Judas (Williams 1997, 250).

The rare verb Ἰουδαΐζω, in Lat. Iudaizo, has been derived from the adjective, as well as the rare adverb Ἰουδαϊκῶς, in Lat. Ioudaice.

Testimonies

The word has two main meanings: it refers both to the people of the region and to the religion, hence Judean, Jewish and Jew. Remarkably, these are not the same, for all Judeans were not Jews and vice versa, but all the meanings are part of the same semantic range of the word. The exact meaning in each occurrence depends on the context and is sometimes questionable. More precisely, the meaning can be divided into four parts: geographical, ethnic, religious and political, and the meaning might include several of these aspects. In English, there are two possible words: Jew (adj. Jewish) and Judean, which emphasize the religious and geographical aspects.

For the discussion, I have chosen a wide range of different texts and authors both in Greek and Latin, who represent different genres and religious affiliations, including epigraphical and papyrological documents. The time range is from the 3rd century BCE to the early 5th century CE and the texts are composed all around the Mediterranean. The objective is to give an overview of the different uses of the words in different contexts.

Inscriptions

In the inscription IJudO I Ach 45 (Oropus, Amphiareion, 300—250 BCE.), which combines a manumission and a dedication in one stele, the dedicator, a freedman, is Μόσχος Μοσχίωνος Ἰουδαῖος (r. 11). The text is remarkably distinct: it is the earliest Greek inscription that uses the word Ἰουδαῖος (Cohen 1999, 96), it is the only manumission from the Amfiareion (IJudO I p. 178), the only Jewish/Judean inscription from Oropos, the only text from Antiquity that describes a Jew making an incubation (IJudO I p. 179 and Panayotov 2004, 183) and it also describes a Jew/Judean having a religious experience that includes Greek gods.

In this text people are described with three words: their personal name, father’s name and place of origin, for example Ἀθηνόδωρος Μνασικῶντος Ὠρώπιος (r. 7—8). In the sacred law of Oropos name and city of the people committing an incubation are told to be written down.1 In the Delphoi manumissions this is not the case, place of origin being mentioned in half of the texts (Hopkins 1978, 139). Otherwise the manumission of Moskhos is notably similar with the later Delphoi manumissions(IJudO I p. 178—179). Leipziger, Gibson, Williams and Schürer think that the term Ἰουδαῖος means here “Jewish” (Leipziger 2021, 16; Gibson 1991, 67; Williams 1997, 250, 255 and App.1; and Schürer 1973, 65).

There are three manumission documents from Delphi that use the word discussed here. The first one is IJudO I Ach 42 (Delphi, the Polygonal Wall of the Temple of Apollo, 163/2 BCE?): ὄνομα Ἰουδαῖος τὸ γένος Ἰουδαῖον. Here we have a person called Ioudaios who is manumitted. It is noteworthy that usually when a slave is named like this, it refers to their ethnicity instead of religion (IJudO I p. 170; the examples are Κύπριος τὸ γένος Κύπριον and Λίβυς γένος Λίβυς). The second text, IJudO I Ach 43 (Delphi, the Polygonal Wall of the Temple of Apollo, 158/7 BCE), is similar to the first one: ὀνόματα Ἀντιγόνα τὸ γένος Ἰουδαίαν. In the third case, IJudO I Ach 44 (Delphi, the terrace of the Treasury of the Athenians, 2.—1. century BCE), we have a person called Ioudaios who is the manumitter, not the slave: Ἰουδαῖος Πινδάρου, his name occuring in the text several times. The general opinion seems to be that these three people, i.e. the ex-slaves Ioudaios and Antigona and the slave owner Ioudaios, are Jews.3 However, Schürer thinks that Ioudaios the manumitter’s Jewishness is uncertain, because he does not take the name as a certain indicator of one’s Jewishness (Schürer 1973, 65).

In three or four manumission documents ( IJudO I BS 5-7, no. 9 is very fragmentary) from the Black sea, the community (synagogue) of Jews guarantees the manumission. In BS 5 (Panticapaeum, 81 CE) the expression is: συνεπινευςάντων…τῆς συναγογῆς τῶν Ἰουδαῖων (with the community of the Jews providing a joint guardianship). In this document the manumission is said to be done in the prayer house, which supports the religious meaning of Ἰουδαῖος.

In Egypt, the word was in use since Hellenistic times. For example in the dedication JIGRE 22 (246—221 BCE, Schedia (Nashwa)) οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι dedicate a proseuche in behalf of the Ptolemies. Here the meaning is clearly religious, Jews. Similarily in JIGRE 24 (140—116 BCE, Xenephyris), 25 (140—116 BCE, Nitriai), 27 (2. or 1. cent. BCE, Athribis) and 117 (246—221 BCE, Arsinoe-Crocodilopolis).

The word is used also in later times in both meanings. In the epitaph JIWE I 188 (Villamesías, Lusitania, Spain, 1.—3. cent. CE) the deceased is Alucius Roscius Cai libertus -- Iudeus, a Jew. The inscription IJudO II 40 from Smyrna (list of donors, c. 120 CE) mentions οἱ ποτὲ Ἰουδαῖοι , which Kraabel thinks for semantic reasons means former Judeans and current Smyrnans, not former Jews (Kraabel 1982, 455), but Margaret Williams argues that ποτέ is never used that way in geographical expressions, in which case the meaning would be religious, “former Jews” (Williams 1997, 252). In the epitaph JIWE II 567 (city of Rome, exact location unknown, 3.—4. cent. CE) the deceased is described as follows: ἐνθάδε κεῖτη Κυιανος Ἰουδαῖος. There is also a menorah. Here the editor suggests that Ἰουδαῖος means ”Jew” and the name might be Quirinus. The same applies to JIWE II 233 (epitaph, Vigna Randanini, Rome, 3—4. cent. CE) where the deceased is Marcia Bona Iudea and the stone also has a menorah, which supports the religious meaning. In the epitaph IJudO I Ach 40 from Piraeus, date unknown, the text reads: Δημήτριος Δημητρίου Εἰουδαῖος (Demetrius son of Demetrius, a Jew). Normally, if a person’s place of origin is mentioned, the city is named, not the region.

The epitaph I.J.Afr. 71 (2. cent. CE, Cirta, Numidia) reads: D(is) M(anibus) Iuliae Victoriae [Iu]deae. And the epitaph IJudO I Pan 4 (2.—3. cent. CE., Siklós, Pannonia): D(is) M(anibus)Septimiae Mariae Iudaeae. Both Christians and Jews used the DM formula (Williams 1997, 253; She also takes Iulia from Cirta to be Jewish, 260). Kraemer brings up the idea that Maria herself did not have to be Jewish, but her parents gave her a Jewish name because they were interested in Judaism admiring it and thus included Iudeus to their child’s name (Kraemer 1989, 49). This theory has been criticised for making difference between ”real” Jews and people merely interested in Judaism is practically impossible (Van der Horst 1991, 70—71). Additionally, the editors do not agree with the idea of Maria’s trinomina, because her parent’s names only have two parts (IJudO I, p. 16).

In the votive inscription CIL V 4221 (2. cent. CE, Brixia, Lombardia) the donor describes herself as “Juda”: Iunonibus Annia L(ucii) l(iberta) Iuda pro suis v(otum) s(olvit). Kraemer suggests that Annia had converted to Judaism, polytheism being a remnant of her former religious practises (Kraemer 1989, 42). Solin, on the other hand, proposes an alternative reading: Iuda might have been a mistake, the intended word maybe having being Iulia. He also points out that Iuda was a male name, whereas Annia was a woman (Solin 1983, 743). It is hard to say whether the intended word was the adjective or the place name. The form seems like the place name, but in this context the adjective or the place name in an inflected form is rather expected.

In the Dalmatian funerary inscription IJudO I Dal 3 (4. cent. CE, Salonae ) a distinction is made between Romans, Jews and Christians: Romani sive Iudei vel Crissiani. Here Iud(a)eus refers to a religious group and even though in administrative sense Jewishness is not an opposite of Roman, in religious and cultural sense it here is. The term is also used to describe synagoues, for example IJudO II 157 (epitaph, dating uncertain,Pargoire, Nikomedeia, Bithynia): τῇ συναγογῇ τῶν Ἰουδέων. Maybe also in JIWE II 18 (Castel Porziano, Ostia, 2nd cent. CE) which perhaps reads [synagoga (?)] Iudeorum. In the votive inscription IJudO I Pan 3 (Dunapentele, Pannonia, 233–235 CE) the votive is made to the Deus Aeternus in behalf of the emperor, the donor’s name beginning Spondill*, and he is a synag(oga) Ioudeor(um) (from the Jewish synagogue), the last word being outside frame of tabula ansata.

There is one inscription where the meaning cannot be geographical. In a funerary inscription from Rome (3.—4. cent. CE) the deceased is Ἀμμιὰς Ἰουδέα ἀπὸ Λαοδικίας (CIJ 296). For there is no such town as Laodikea in Judea, the word here must have a religious meaning (Williams 1997, 251 and App. 1 no. 6). Silmilarily in instances where another geographical place is mentioned the meaning of Ἰουδαῖος is more likely religious, for example in the epitaph IJudO I Dal 2 (Senia, Dalmatia, 3.–4. cent. CE) the deceased is Ἀὺρηλιους Διονυσιους Ἰουδεους Τιβεριηνσις (Aurelius Dionysios, a Jew from Tiberias).

Notes

1) The sacred law is I. Oropos 277 and this commandment is on r. 40—41. The law dates c. 386—373 BCE which makes it older than the Moskhos inscription. About the text see Renberg 2016, 275.

2) The word ὀνόματα is in plural, because Antigona is manumitted with her daughters, Theodora and Dorothea. The children are not part of the discussion here because they are not described with the term Ἰουδαῖος.

3) IJudO I editors, see the texts in the corpus; Frey 1975, 512—513; Panayotov 2004, 175—176; Cohen 1999, 98; Gibson 1991, 68—69. Gibson says ”of jewish origin”; Schürer 1973, 65; Gruen 2016, 125; Williams 1997, 250 and App.1.

Papyri

Along with the geographical, ethnic and religious meanings, the word has a military aspect, apparent especially in papyri. During Hellenistic times, people described as Ἰουδαῖοι served in armies, which had troops of foreign origin, like Thessalians, Macedonians and Persians, under both Ptolemies and Seleucids (CPJ I, p. 11—12).

Josephus describes the men in Ptolemies’ army in AJ 12.7-8 saying that they were gathered from around Judaea, Jerusalem, Samaria and Gerizim, but not calling them Ἰουδαῖοι. However, he brings up the incident of Alexander and the Jewish high priest in Jerusalem, described by himself in AJ 11.318, where the high priest keeps his promise not to fight Dareius despite Alexander’s request of support. By connecting the gathering of the Ptolemaic army with the high priest Josephus implies that the people were the same: Jews. The meaning in papyri is more nuanced than Josephus lets understand. The national designations changed when a person was moved from one unit to another, because of which the term Ἰουδαῖος may refer rather to the persons position in the army and the army’s structure than religion (CPJ I, p. 13—14).

For example, in CPJ I 18 (a deed of renunciation, 260 BCE, Phebichis/Herakleopolites) the other party of the quarrel is: συγγραφὴ … καὶ Άλεξάνδρου τοῦ Άνδρονίκου Ἰουδαίου (writing of Alexander son of Andronikos, Ἰουδαῖος) and as the editors note, the witnesses are of Greek origin. The only religious part of the text is the dating in the beginning which includes deified rulers, thus there is no internal reason to understand Ἰουδαῖος in a religious sense. Yet “Judean” is also problematic for the person might have lived in Egypt for a long time, which on the other hand does apply to the other national designations as well, such as “Macedonian”. The religious and geographical meanings both being problematic, the ethic meaning seems the most plausible, with an emphasis on geography rather than religion, for the designations are based on region, not religion. Hence, I suggest we translate Ἰουδαῖος as “Judean” in Hellenistic military contexts keeping in mind that the person might have never actually been to Judea. To give another example of the same kind, in CPJ I 19 (a trial document, 226 BCE, Krokodilopolis / Fayum) the parties are described: Δωςίθεος … Ἰουδαῖος τῆς ἐπιγονῆς Ἡρακλείαι Διοσδότου Ἰουδαίαι (Dositheos son of… Judean of the Epigone, to Herakleia daugher of Diosdotos, Jewess). In Herakleia’s case the meaning is more difficult to define, for she was not in the army herself but the use of the term may imply her being close to it by family connections. Calling her Judean seems safer than supposing her religion in a context that has no religious implications, but her being from Judea is unlikely as well. Thus, the meaning is highly debatable, but her being Jewish seems more probable than Judean, for as well known, there were significant Jewish communities in the area.

The term also appears outside military context. CPJ I 8 is a fragment of an account (Philadelphia / Fayum, 256 BCE) and reads: Ἀντιγόνης Ἰουδαῖος κε(ράμια) κη (Antigones the Jew, 28 jars). The context does not allow understanding the nuances of the meaning and neither translation, Jew nor Judean, can be strongly defended based on the text alone, like in the former case of Herakleia, but Jewish seems more probable. In cases like this it is also notable that usually a person’s place of origin is a city, not a region. Similarly, in one of the letters from the Zenon archive ( CPJ I 9 = P. Edg. 108, 253 BCE, Philadelphia / Fayum), Zenon tells Krotos to get wool from Pasis (a): παρὰ Πάσιτος τοῦ Ἰουδαίου (from Pasis the Jew) and Pasis also receives corn (b): Πάσιτι Ἰουδαίω (to Pasis the Jew). In the petition CPJ I 38 (Krokodilopolis / Fayum, 218 BCE), which concerns a purchase of wool, the petitioner and a wool-merchant Harmiysis writes to the king complaining: ἀδικοῦμαι ὑπὸ Σεῶτος Ίουδαίου τῶν κατοικούντων έν Ἀλαβανθίδι (I am being wronged by Seos, a Jew living in Alabanthis).

To give an example of the complex designations in military context, in the document CPJ II 417 (an agreement concerning a loan, Babylon (Heliopolite district), 59 CE) there are three Ἰουδαῖοι, who nevertheless are also Persians by epigone and come from a Syrian village: οἱ τρίς Ἰουδαῖοι Πέρσαι τῆς ἐπι̣γονῆς τῶν̣ ἀπὸ Σύρω̣ν κώμης. Here the meaning of the term seems to be religious or ethnic with a cultural emphasis.

The one last category of papyri I would like to discuss is that of the Jewish tax. Jews of course paid different taxes like any other people, but in the case of the Jewish tax the question of one’s Jewishness rises. For administrational purposes there was an official, presumably gentile, who decided who had to pay. Unfortunately, there is no information who did the decisions and on what basis – how did the Hellenistic and later Roman administration define the Jewishness of their subjects? The situation in the Roman case is easier: the didrachmon paid to the Temple was directed to Jupiter Capitolinus after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and since paying the didrachmon was a religious act, the Jewish tax was targeted to Jews (see CPJ p.112—113).

As for earlier Hellenistic times, the situation is less clear. At first, till the end of the 3rd cent. BCE, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι were counted as Hellenes, who had tax privileges, but after that they were categorized under their own title, even though the status supposedly remained the same (Clarysse, Thompson 2006, 147—148). The question is, who were these Ἰουδαῖοι? Clearly not Egyptian, but on what basis did officials define their Jewishness/Judeanness and were they interested rather on the geographical meaning keeping in mind the military settlers from Judea, or cultural and religious aspects, which usually were key elements of Hellenism? At least it is clear that the decision was political and that in this context οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι were pampered instead of oppressed.

Literary sources

In the 1st Maccabees (c. 1. cent. BCE), we can divide three major groups in the region: Jews (the rebels, Israelites), the enemies (officials) and a more ambiguous group of the “bad Jews” (Jews but not rebels) and other inhabitants of the region whose religious feelings are unclear, Judeans. The author of the 1st Maccabees usually refers to the religious group using the word Israel and to the region as Judah. Hence here Ἰουδαῖος usually but not always refers the region instead of religion.

For the bad Jews, 1. Macc. 1:11 says Εν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθον ἐξ ᾿Ισραὴλ υἱοὶ παράνομοι καὶ ἀνέπεισαν πολλοὺς-- (KJV: In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many) and 1:15 καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκροβυστίας καὶ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ διαθήκης ἁγίας καὶ ἐζευγίσθησαν τοῖς ἔθνεσι καὶ ἐπράθησαν τοῦ ποιῆσαι τὸ πονηρόν (KJV: And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief). Also 1:43: καὶ πολλοὶ ἀπὸ ᾿Ισραὴλ εὐδόκησαν τῇ λατρείᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔθυσαν τοῖς εἰδώλοις καὶ ἐβεβήλωσαν τὸ σάββατον (KJV: Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath).

The rebels are described τότε συνήχθησαν πρὸς αὐτοὺς συναγωγὴ ῾Ασιδαίων, ἰσχυροὶ δυνάμει ἀπὸ ᾿Ισραὴλ, πᾶς ὁ ἑκουσιαζόμενος τῷ νόμῳ· (2:42) (KJV: Then came there unto him a company of Assideans who were mighty men of Israel, even all such as were voluntarily devoted unto the law). Notably the word Ἰουδαῖος is not used, instead the word used to refer to the religion is Israel. There are other expressions too, such as τὸ γένος ᾿Ιακώβ (5:2) (the offspring of Jacob). The Israel vocabulary is used also for the “bad Jews”: πάντες ἄνδρες ἄνομοι καὶ ἀσεβεῖς ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ (7:5) (KJV: all the wicked and ungodly men of Israel).

In the same work, the meaning Judea is used: 1:29 says εἰς τὰς πόλεις ᾿Ιούδα (to the cities of Judah). The next passage (1:30) talks about Jerusalem and the inhabitants killed there are the people from Israel: λαὸν πολὺν ἐξ ᾿Ισραήλ (lots of people from Israel). Similarly, Jerusalem and cities of Judah are mentioned: εἰς ῾Ιερουσαλὴμ καὶ τὰς πόλεις ᾿Ιούδα (1:44) (to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah).

A use of Ἰουδαῖος referring to the rebels is 8:20, which says ᾿Ιούδας ὁ Μακκαβαῖος καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (KJV: Judas Maccabeus with his brethren, and the people of the Jews). The meaning here is ambiguous for the distinctive feature of the rebels is their religious ideas but on the other hand the context is a speech to the Romans to get support. We have similar uses in 12:3 ᾿Ιωνάθαν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ τὸ ἔθνος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (KJV: Jonathan the high priest, and the people of the Jews) and 12:6 ᾿Ιωνάθαν ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ ἡ γερουσία τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς καὶ ὁ λοιπὸς δῆμος τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (KJV: Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other of the Jews). Representing all Judeans as a unanimous group and as rebels is possibly a rhetoric choice. Speaking of Simon, 13:42 reads: ὁ λαὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ -- ἐπὶ Σίμωνος ἀρχιερέως μεγάλου καὶ στρατηγοῦ καὶ ἡγουμένου ᾿Ιουδαίων (KJV: Then the people of Israel -- In the first year of Simon the high priest, the governor and leader of the Jews). Here there is in the same sentence the people of Israel and Simon, the leader of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. Similarly,14:47: --Σίμων -- στρατηγὸς καὶ ἐθνάρχης τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (KJV: Simon -- captain and governor of the Jews). The meaning of ᾿Ιουδαῖος here remains questionable, but the context does seem official and Simon the leader of the whole area, therefore the meaning would be Judeans, including Jews.

Notably, in 2:23 there’s an ἀνὴρ ᾿Ιουδαῖος (KJV: one of the Jews) who comes to sacrifice at the altar of Modein against the Maccabees’ will. The strong reaction of the Maccabees indicates that he was not only Judean but also a Jew. Also, the camp of the rebels is described using ᾿Ιουδαῖος: ἐπὶ τὴν παρεμβολὴν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων (4:2) (KJV: in upon the camp of the Jews). Speaking of the camp it is clear that the people are Jews, the rebels, not just any Judeans.

In the 2nd Maccabees (c. 1. cent. BCE) describing the content of the book, the author tells that it’s about people of Ἰουδαϊσμός, who came to control the land even though they were few: 2:21 --ὥστε τὴν ὅλην χώραν ὀλίγους ὄντας λεηλατεῖν. In this book, the people in Judaism are systematically called Ἰουδαῖος, which is notably different from the 1st Maccabees. The first book was originally written in Hebrew by a Judean whereas the Second in Greek by a Diaspora Jew (Schwartz 2014, 12), which explains the different uses of the words.

οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι were a minority in Jaffa (Joppe): τοὺς σὺν αὐτοῖς οἰκοῦντας Ἰουδαίους (12:3) (KJV: the Jews that dwelt among them), also in Jamnia (12:8). Here οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are Jews, representatives of certain habits and religious ideas, not all Judeans. 8:9 τὸ σύμπαν τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων – γένος (KJV: the whole generation of the Jews) is about the Jewish nation/people, whom Nikanor was sent to destroy. The object is the rebels, not the whole population. In 8:10 ἐκ τῆς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων αἰχμαλωσίας there are Jewish captives. The war is fought against the rebels and παντοκράτωρ is said to revenge for them so we are talking about Jews. In the next sentence the same captives are referred as ἐπ᾿ ἀγορασμὸν ᾿Ιουδαϊκῶν σωμάτων (KJV: a sale of the captive Jews). The two adjectives Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊκός seem to be synonyms the latter being used for things, the bodies, and the former for people, captives. 8:36 says ὑπέρμαχον ἔχειν τὸν Θεὸν τοὺς ᾿Ιουδαίους (KJV: 36 the Jews had God to fight for them). Here we have a religious context: οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are the rebels and they are said to have a protector-god, which emphasizes the religiousness of the group. Passage 8:1 ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιουδαϊσμῷ describes the rebels, who are “in Judaism” (David Schwartz arguments that Ἰουδαϊσμός here means indeed the religion, Judaism; Schwartz 2014, 7—8).

Another use of Ἰουδαϊκός is in 13:21 Ρόδοκος ἐκ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαϊκῆς (Rodokos of the Jews). In this chapter the rebels (the followers of Judas) are οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, for example 13:18 τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων εὐτολμίας (the courage of Jews). Rodokos was a traitor but in no other instances “bad Jews” are referred to with a different word. Hence it seems that here as well Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊκός are synonyms and there is no apparent reason for the change of word. Rodokos is from ἡ Ἰουδαϊκή, the exact meaning remaining unclear.

Cicero (106 – 43 BCE) mentions Jews a few times in his speech Pro Flacco, dealing with the gold given by Jews around Rome to Jerusalem (aurum Iudaeorum nomine, 28.67). Here the use is clearly religious for he speaks about people residing all over the empire participating a common practise for the Temple. Pro Flac. 28.68: non enim credo religionem et Iudaeorum et hostium impedimento praestantissimo imperatori, sed pudorem fuisse. (For I do not suppose that the religion of the Jews, our enemies, was any obstacle to that most illustrious general, but that he was hindered by his own modesty.) (Translation by C. D. Yonge, B. A. London. Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1856. Perseus)

Strabo (1st cent. BCE – 1st cent. CE) calls the land ἡ Ἰουδαία and tells that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are people living in this region (16.2.2). A bit later, describing the Palestinian coast, he calls the people of the area again οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. He describes Jerusalem as their city: τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα τὴν τῶν Ἰουδαίων μητρόπολιν (16.2.28). They are an ἔθνος and because of the geographical nature of the work, the meaning is primarily Judean – their cultural or religious customs are not mentioned, and the Diaspora is not taken into account.

Philo (c. 20 BCE – 1st cent. CE) uses Ἰουδαῖος for people and Ἰουδαϊκός for things, the meaning of both adjectives being religious. Philo writes from the Diasporan point of view and discusses the universal phenomenon of Judaism, not merely Judeans.

Speaking about conversion, in Virt. 108 Philo says that a person should be taken into the τὴν Ἰουδαίων πολιτείαν (community of Jews). The meaning is clearly religious for in the same passage that is mentioned to include divine revelations. In Virt. 212 he describes Abraham: --τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ὁ πρεσβύτατος γένος μὲν ἦν Χαλδαῖος, πατρὸς δὲ ἀστρονομικοῦ τῶν περὶ τὰ μαθήματα διατριβόντων -- (The most ancient member of the Jewish nation was a Chaldaean by birth, the son of an astrologer, one of those who study the lore of that science--). Philo highlights Abraham’s diverse background bringing up him being Chaldaean (Text and translation Loeb Philo, On the virtues, p. 228, 292).

Philo explains Moses in relation to the Jews. Mos. 1.1: Μωυσέως τοῦ κατὰ μέν τινας νομοθέτου τῶν Ἰουδαίων, κατὰ δέ τινας ἑρμηνέως νόμων ἱερῶν -- (Moses, whom some describe as the legislator of the Jews, others as the interpreter of the Holy Laws). Also Mos. 1.7: τοῦ σύμπαντος Ἰουδαίων ἔθνους ἀρχηγέτης (the founder of the whole Jewish nation). Similarly, Philo’s Flaccus opens with τὴν κατὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιβουλήν (the policy of attacking the Jews) (Flac. 1). In the same work, he describes Jews as fellow-citizens of other Alexandrians, referring also to their religious practises: -- τοῖς πολίταις αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίοις εἰς τὰς προσευχὰς καὶ τὰ πάτρια νεωτερίζοντες (--outrage their Jewish fellow-citizens by rioting against their synagogues and ancestral customs.) (Flac. 47) (Text and translation Loeb Philo, Flaccus, p. 302, 328).

As for Ἰουδαϊκός, in Flaccus 73 Philo writes: μηδὲν μέρος τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν (no side of Jewish life) (Loeb p. 342), here the neuter plural τὰ Ἰουδαϊκὰ means “Jewish things”. The use of the adjectives is especially demonstrative in Flac. 55: πέντε μοῖραι τῆς πόλεώς εἰσιν -- τούτων δύο Ἰουδαϊκαὶ λέγονται διὰ τὸ πλείστους Ἰουδαίους ἐν ταύταις κατοικεῖν (The city has five quarters -- two of these are called Jewish because most of the Jews inhabit them) (Loeb p. 332). In other words, Ἰουδαῖος describes people, Jews, and Ἰουδαϊκός things, here the quarters. Other authors don’t employ this division as scrupulously.

Josephus (1st cent. CE) lists Jewish cities (AJ 13.395) and here οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is a group within the region of Judea, hence not all Judeans but Jews. Tessa Rajak argues that for Josephus οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are Jews and he describes the population of the area using the division Jews-Greeks-barbarians (Rajak 2001, 138—139). Daniel Schwartz divides Josephus’ “Jews” into two: he argues that in his earliest work, War, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are Judeans, but later the author shifts to a diasporan point of view and in Antiquities they are Jews, by which Schwartz means that the Jewish law was not dependent on a place but on the religion (Schwartz 2014, 61). Both of these arguments are partly true: as stated, the semantic range of the word includes all of these meanings and indeed, the conflict was not between the whole Judean population and authorities but a smaller group, and Josephus’ aspect seems to have changed during the decades between the two works. Religious practises were in the centre of the conflict and thus calling οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Jews is justifiable, keeping in mind Schwartz’ argument about the change of the meaning.

However, Schwartz points out that when speaking of the Alexandrian Jewry, calling them Judeans would be misleading for here the geographical meaning has fainted away – these people have lived in Egypt for centuries and they are not Judeans but Jews (Schwartz 2014, 5). BJ 2.487: Κατὰ δὲ τὴν Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἀεὶ μὲν ἦν στάσις πρὸς τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις ἀφ᾽ οὗ χρησάμενος προθυμοτάτοις κατὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων Ἰουδαίοις Ἀλέξανδρος γέρας τῆς συμμαχίας ἔδωκεν τὸ μετοικεῖν κατὰ τὴν πόλιν ἐξ ἴσου μοίρας πρὸς τοὺς Ἕλληνας. (But for Alexandria, the sedition of the people of the place against the Jews was perpetual, and this from that very time when Alexander [the Great], upon finding the readiness of the Jews in assisting him against the Egyptians, and as a reward for such their assistance, gave them equal privileges in this city with the Grecians themselves--) Here Josephus uses both Ἰουδαῖος and Ἰουδαϊκός. In the first expression, πρὸς τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν, the word is in neuter singular, and it could be translated as “the Jewry”. It does not refer to any single person but to the group as a whole. In the next expression we have Jews against Egypt, κατὰ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων Ἰουδαίοις, where Ἰουδαῖος is used in masculine plural as “Jews”, not the group but many individuals.

The next passage talks about Romans: -- ἐπεί τε Ῥωμαῖοι κατεκτήσαντο τὴν Αἴγυπτον, οὔτε Καῖσαρ ὁ πρῶτος οὔτε τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτόν τις ὑπέμεινεν τὰς ἀπ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρου τιμὰς Ἰουδαίων ἐλαττῶσαι. (BJ 2.488) (when the Romans got possession of Egypt, neither the first Caesar, nor any one that came after him, thought of diminishing the honors which Alexander had bestowed on the Jews.)The “honors of Jews” is expressed with Ἰουδαῖος in masculine plural.

In Antiquities, the case of the Alexandrian Jews is similar: they are Jews, not Judeans. In AJ 19.278 they are opposed to the Hellenes: Στασιάζεται δὲ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν τὸν χρόνον Ἰουδαίων τὰ πρὸς Ἕλληνας ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων πόλεως -- (Now about this time there was a sedition between the Jews and the Greeks, at the city of Alexandria;). The identity of the Jews is further explained in AJ 19.281: -- τοὺς ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ Ἰουδαίους Ἀλεξανδρεῖς λεγομένους -- (-- the Jews of Alexandria, called Alexandrians--).

At the beginning of War, Josephus mentions ἅπαν τὸ ὑπὲρ Εὐφράτην ὁμόφυλον (all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates) and τὸ ὑπὲρ Εὐφράτην ὁμόφυλον ἡμῖν (those of our nation beyond Euphrates) (BJ 1.5 and 6). Like the Alexandrian Jewry, these people do not live in Judea, yet they are described as something like Ἰουδαῖοι – Jews.

Josephus only uses Ἰουδαϊκός a few times and he usually uses that adjective to refer to things, Ἰουδαῖος being for people. However, as seen earlier with “Jewry”, this distinction is not absolute. In AJ 12.34: --τὸ περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν βιβλίων ἀναγραφῆς δόγμα-- (in writing his sentiments concerning the transcribing of the Jewish books) the adjective Ἰουδαϊκός refers to books, not people. Similarly in AJ 14.228: -- πολίτας Ῥωμαίων Ἰουδαίους ἱερὰ Ἰουδαϊκὰ ἔχοντας καὶ ποιοῦντας ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πρὸ τοῦ βήματος δεισιδαιμονίας ἕνεκα στρατείας ἀπέλυσα. (I have at my tribunal set these Jews, who are citizens of Rome, and follow the Jewish religious rites, and yet live at Ephesus, free from going into the army, on account of the superstition they are under). We have Ἰουδαῖος for people and Ἰουδαϊκός for rites. Notably these people live in Ephesus, they are mentioned to be Romans and additionally they are Jewish, which here means by religion. Also in AJ 14.230: Ἰουδαίους τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ --ὁ ὕπατος -- ἀπέλυσεν τῆς στρατείας (the consul freed the Jews that are in Asia from going into the armies) we have Jews in Asia.

Near the end of the Antiquities, Josephus refers to the topic of War: περὶ τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου βίβλοις (books about the Jewish war) (AJ 20.258). The context alone doesn’t reveal whether he means “war of Jewish people” or “war of Jewish things/ideas”, but the earlier uses of Ἰουδαϊκός as the thing-adjective would support the latter, or Ἰουδαϊκός could be understood as “Jewry”.

Josephus also gives an etymological explanation for the word: καὶ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς τὸ ἔργον παρεσκευάζοντο. ἐκλήθησαν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τῆς Ἰούδα φυλῆς, ἧς πρώτης ἐλθούσης εἰς ἐκείνους τοὺς τόπους αὐτοί τε καὶ ἡ χώρα τὴν προσηγορίαν αὐτοῖς μετέλαβον (So the Jews prepared for the work: that is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon, which is taken from the tribe of Judah, which came first to these places, and thence both they and the country gained that appellation)(AJ 11.173). This explanation heightens the geographical meaning but does not exclude the religious one.

About other designations of the Jews, David Miller has counted that in the first 11 books of Antiquities Josephus uses “Israelites” 186 times and Ἰουδαῖος only 65 times. In the later books Ἰουδαῖος is used 582 times. Thus, Miller concludes, the name of the people changed before or during the Persian era (Miller 2010, 102).

Tacitus (56 – c. 120 CE) included the events around 70 CE in Judea and Jerusalem to his Histories. In Hist. 5.1 he describes the military situation speaking clearly of the region and its inhabitants, Judea and Judeans: perdomandae Iudaeae ( the subjugation of Judæa), there were legions in Iudaea (in Judea), and the Arabs had neighbourly hatred towards them solito inter accolas odio infensa Iudaeis Arabum manus (a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbours).

Tacitus’ theories of the origins of Judeans are remarkably distinct: Hist. 5.2:

Iudaeos Creta insula profugos novissima Libyae insedisse memorant, qua tempestate Saturnus vi Iovis pulsus cesserit regnis. argumentum e nomine petitur: inclutum in Creta Idam montem, accolas Idaeos aucto in barbarum cognomento Iudaeos vocitari. quidam regnante Iside exundantem per Aegyptum multitudinem ducibus Hierosolymo ac Iuda proximas in terras exoneratam; plerique Aethiopum prolem, quos rege Cepheo metus atque odium mutare sedis perpulerit. sunt qui tradant Assyrios convenas, indigum agrorum populum, parte Aegypti potitos, mox proprias urbis Hebraeasque terras et propiora Syriae coluisse. clara alii Iudaeorum initia, Solymos, carminibus Homeri celebratam gentem, conditae urbi Hierosolyma nomen e suo fecisse.

(Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighbouring tribe, the Idæi, came to be called Judæi by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighbouring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbours to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name.)

The passage discusses the origins of the people dwelling in the area, hence Judeans, not all Jews, of whom most lived in Diaspora in Tacitus’ days, without commenting any religious aspects. However, in 5.3 begins a lengthy description of Moses (Moyse) and the habits of the people, the focus shifting from geography to traditions and religion. They make special panis Iudaicus (Jewish bread), the adjective being the c-variant (derived from the Greek κ-variant), in memory of their ancestors. Seems that Tacitus is uncertain about the involment of gods to the practises, i.e. the religiousness. He begins 5.4 saying: Moyses quo sibi in posterum gentem firmaret, novos ritus contrariosque ceteris mortalibus indidit (Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men) presenting the practises as not having a divine source, but later he continues: alii honorem eum Saturno haberi (but others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn).

Having discussed the origins of Judeans Tacitus moves to explain their practises (mores), and here is a clear shift from Judean to Jewish. The religion is not tied to a specific region but it is universal, conversion also being possible, hence Jewish. 5.5 reads as follows: transgressi in morem eorum idem usurpant, nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quam contemnere deos, exuere patriam, parentes liberos fratres vilia habere (Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren) and also Iudaeorum mos absurdus sordidusque (the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean). He also describes their ideas of gods: Iudaei mente sola unumque numen intellegunt (the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence). In this religious context Iudaei are Jews, not Judeans. In 5.6. he moves back to geographical description of the land.

In 5.8. Tacitus begins with some geographical information of Judaea, then moves to go through the Jewish/Judean history. The history focuses on the area, Judaea, but treats the religious aspects as its inseparable part talking about the temple, priests and also the Maccabian revolt: rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus (King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition, and to introduce Greek civilization). Here Judeans and Jews are the same, which Tacitus explains: [reges] superstitionem fovebant, quia honor sacerdotii firmamentum potentiae adsumebatur (princes--fostered the national superstition by appropriating the dignity of the priesthood as the support of their political power), presenting the religious practises as a political instrument. Similarily in 5.9, going through the history of the region starting from the late republic, the people are Iudaei and they also have certain religious ideas, for example: Romanorum primus Cn. Pompeius Iudaeos domuit templumque iure victoriae ingressus est (Cneius Pompeius was the first of our countrymen to subdue the Jews. Availing himself of the right of conquest, he entered the temple) and dein iussi a C. Caesare effigiem eius in templo locare arma potius sumpsere (But when the Jews were ordered by Caligula to set up his statue in the temple, they preferred the alternative of war).

Even though Tacitus describes some Jewish religious aspects, most of the time his focus is on the region rather than the religion – the war is between Romans and the inhabitants of the region, and the Diaspora is not commented. Thus, I suggest that in Tacitus Iudaeus should be understood primarily as Judean and only in some occurrences as Jewish.

In the case of the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple, the geographical, ethnical and religious meanings of the Ἰουδαῖος word family are all employed, both by Josephus and Tacitus. The events took place in a certain region, Judaea, where the war was fought between the emperors’ Romans, an outsider group governing the area, and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, inhabitants of the region (i.e. Judeans), who shared distinctive religious practises (i.e. Jews). The quarrel that led to the war and the destruction of the Temple emphasize the religious aspects of the conflict, yet it concerned only the locals, the diasporan Jewry remaining spectators. For Tacitus the religious aspects remain more questionable than for Josephus, who was a priest himself, but even Tacitus in his scepticism could not overlook the religious features. Hence, in the context of the First Jewish War, the meaning of Ἰουδαῖος/Judaeus is notably diverse.

In the Gospels (1. cent. CE) the authors employ Ἰουδαῖος vocabulary diversely; in Matthew and Luke it usually refers to the place, Mark barely uses the word, whereas John uses it a lot, both of people and of the place. What all the Gospels have in common is the “king of the Jews” -expression. Vulgata repeats the same uses with only a few exceptions.

As for the place, for example Mat. 2:1 ἐν Βηθλέεμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, Vulgata in Bethlehem Juda (in Betlehem of Judaea/Judah), 3:1 ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, Vulgata in deserto Judææ (in the wilderness of Judaea), 4:25 ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ Δεκαπόλεως καὶ Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ Ἰουδαίας καὶ πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, Vulgata de Galilæa, et Decapoli, et de Jerosolymis, et de Judæa, et de trans Jordanem (from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.), Luk. 4:44 εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας (to the synagogues of Judaea), but Vulgata in synagogis Galilææ (in synagogues of Galilee), 1:65 ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ὀρεινῇ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, Vulgata super omnia montana Judææ (in all the mountain country of Judaea), 21:21 οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ, Vulgata qui in Judæa (the people in Judaea). Luke also uses the other place name: εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα, Vulgata in civitatem Juda (to a city of Judah) (1:39). John calls the place both with the noun alone and the adjective: 3:22 εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, Vulgata in terram Judæam (to the land of Judea), 11:7 εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν, Vulgata in Judæam (to Judaea). In Joh. 7:1 we have both the place and the people living there: Καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ· οὐ γὰρ ἤθελεν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, Vulgata Post hæc autem ambulabat Jesus in Galilæam: non enim volebat in Judæam ambulare, quia quærebant eum Judæi interficere (and after that Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judaea, because οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι/ Judæi seeked to kill him). This highly geographical context would support the geographical meaning, Judeans, but the motive to kill is religious, hence Jews is justifiable as well. Both parts of the double meaning are employed. In Vulgata, the place name is usually the same as in Greek, Iudaea being the most common one.

As for the King of the Jews (βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων / rex Judæorum), in Mat. 2:2 and 27:11, 29, 37 outsiders whose religious affiliations remain unclear call Jesus by that name, whereas in 27:42 the term used by high priests is βασιλεὺς Ἰσραήλ, Vulgata rex Israël (king of Israel), similarly in Mark: 15:2, 9, 12, 26 and high priests 32. Luke only gives the name used by outsiders (Luk. 23:3, 37, 38). In John a Jew, Nathanael, says to Jesus: σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, Vulgata tu es rex Israël (1:49) using the insider’s title. Similarly, the crowd on the way to Jerusalem (12:13). John also repeats the king of the Jews -title in the crucifixion (18:39, 19:3, 19, 21). Notably Herod’s title employs the place name: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἡρῴδου βασιλέως τῆς Ἰουδαίας, Vulgata in diebus Herodis, regis Judææ (in the days of Herod king of Judaea) (Luk. 1:5), like does Pilatus’: ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίαςa, Vulgata procurante Pontio Pilato Judæam (when Pontius Pilatus ruled Judaea) (Luk. 3:1).

As for the people (Ἰουδαῖοι / Iudaei), the only time Matthew talks about Jews is in 28:15: διεφημίσθη ὁ λόγος οὗτος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις, Vulgata Et divulgatum est verbum istud apud Judæos (this saying is commonly reported among the Jews). Since the context is religious Ἰουδαῖοι/Iudaei could be understood primarily as a religious expression, for the people behind the lie of the soldiers are the high priests their motive being religious. Describing a Joseph, Luke mentions a city of Judeans, Arimathaea: ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας πόλεως τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Vulgata ab Arimathæa civitate Judææ (23:51). By the way Joseph is described this designation might have a religious meaning, but the city was located in Judaea and hence the meaning is rather geographical, a city of Judeans. John uses the word often in the religious meaning, Jews, for example 1:19 οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων, Vulgata Judæi ab Jerosolymis (Jews of Jerusalem), the context mentioning priests and Levites supports the religious meaning, 2:6 κατὰ τὸν καθαρισμὸν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Vulgata purificationem Judæorum (the purifying of the Jews), 3:1 ἄρχων τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Vulgata princeps Judæorum (ruler of the Jews), 8:31 πρὸς τοὺς πεπιστευκότας αὐτῷ Ἰουδαίους, Vulgata ad eos, qui crediderunt ei, Judæos (to those Jews which believed on him), 11:55 τὸ πάσχα τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Vulgata Pascha Judæorum (the Passover of the Jews), 19:21 οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων, Vulgata pontifices Judæorum (the high priests of the Jews).

Describing Palestine, Cassius Dio (c. 150– 235 CE) says: “Ταῦτα μὲν τότε ἐν τῇ Παλαιστίνῃ ἐγένετο· οὕτω γὰρ τὸ σύμπαν ἔθνος, ὅσον ἀπὸ τῆς Φοινίκης μέχρι τῆς Αἰγύπτου παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τὴν ἔσω παρήκει, ἀπὸ παλαιοῦ κέκληται. ἔχουσι δὲ καὶ ἕτερον ὄνομα ἐπίκτητον· ἥ τε γὰρ χώρα Ἰουδαία καὶ αὐτοὶ Ἰουδαῖοι ὠνομάδαται· ἡ δὲ ἐπίκλησις αὕτη ἐκείνοις μὲν οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅθεν ἤρξατο γενέσθαι, φέρει δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ὅσοι τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν, καίπερ ἀλλοεθνεῖς ὄντες, ζηλοῦσι. καὶ ἔστι καὶ παρὰ τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις τὸ γένος τοῦτο, κολουσθὲν μὲν πολλάκις, αὐξηθὲν δὲ ἐπὶ πλεῖστον, ὥστε καὶ ἐς παρρησία τῆς νομίσεως ἐκνικῆσαι. κεχωρίδαται δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἔς τε τἆλλα τὰ περὶ τὴν δίαιταν πάνθ᾿ ὡς εἰπεῖν, καὶ μάλισθ᾿ ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἄλλων θεῶν οὐδένα τιμῶσιν, ἕνα δέ τινα ἰσχυρῶς σέβουσιν. οὐδ᾿ ἄγαλμα οὐδὲν οὐδ᾿ ἐν αὐτοῖς ποτε τοῖς Ἱεροσολύμοις ἔσχον, ἄρρητον δὲ δὴ καὶ ἀειδῆ αὐτὸν νομίζοντες εἶναι περισσότατα ἀνθρώπων 3θρησκεύουσι. καὶ αὐτῷ νεών τε μέγιστον καὶ περικαλλέστατον, πλὴν καθ᾿ ὅσον ἀχανής τε καὶ ἀνώροφος ἦν, ἐξεποίησαν, καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν τοῦ Κρόνου καλουμένην ἀνέθεσαν, καὶ ἄλλα τε ἐν αὐτῇ ἰδιαίτατα πολλὰ1 ποιοῦσι, καὶ ἔργου οὐδενὸς σπουδαίου προσάπτονται.”

(This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Jews. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances. They are distinguished from the rest of mankind in practically every detail of life, and especially by the fact that they do not honour any of the usual gods but show extreme reverence for one particular divinity. They never had any statue of him even in Jerusalem itself, but believing him to be unnamable and invisible, they worship him in the most extravagant fashion on earth. They built to him a temple that was extremely large and beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless, and likewise dedicated to him the day called the day of Saturn, on which, among many other most peculiar observances, they undertake no serious occupation.) (37.16.5 – 17.3.) (Loeb Cassius Dio, Roman History, Volume III: Books 36-40, p. 126, 128. Open access).

On one hand, Cassius Dio’s description is highly geographical explaining the territory of Judea, which he names Ἰουδαία. This way also Ἰουδαῖοι are strongly connected to the land. In the other hand, he continues explaining the universal nature of Jewishness and describing religious practises, which gives Ἰουδαῖοι the meaning “Jews”. This way the author explains the double meaning of the word, Judean and Jewish.

Tertullian (c. 155 AD – c. 220 AD) in his Apologeticum speaks about the Jewish origins of Christianity. In this religious context Iudaeus is always Jewish as a contrast to Christian or Roman. He uses iudaicus for things: -- in quo videtur thesaurus collocatus totius Iudaici sacramenti et inde iam nostri (in which the treasure of the whole Jewish religion, and hence of ours also) (19.2) and a Iudaico more (from the Jewish custom) (16.11). As for Josephus, a person, he uses the other adjective: Iudaeus Iosephus (the Jew Josephus) (19.6). He also employs the Ἰουδαῖος in plural genitive, “of Jews”: antiquissimis Iudaeorum instrumentis (by most ancient Jewish documents) (21.1). The region Tertullian calls Iudaea: apud Galilaeam, Iudaeae regionem (in Galilee, a district of Judea) (21.23). He also mentions Palestine: Nondum Iudaeum ab Aegypto examen Palaestina susceperat (Palestine had not yet received its Jewish swarm from Egypt) (40.7) and here the people adjective Iudaeus is used of examen. See also Ἑβραῖος.

For John Chrysostom (c. 347 – 407 CE) as well, in his Adversus Judaeos, Ἰουδαῖοι and gentile are “the others” as a contrary to Christians, and the use is purely religious (Sandwell 2007, 64, 87). In Chrysostom’s works religion is the central feature of one’s identity in an exclusive way (Sandwell 2007, 152), hence being both Greek and Jewish was not possible. The distinctive feature of the Ἰουδαῖοι was their religious beliefs and practises which partly overlapped but critically differed from Christian (Sandwell 2007, 85). He speaks about their practises and beliefs systematically using Ἰουδαῖος of people and Ἰουδαϊκός of things, for example 1.5: τοὺς δὲ τὰ Ἰουδαϊκὰ νοσοῦντας (those who are sick with the Judaizing disease) and αἱ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἑορταὶ (the Jewish festivals). 3.1: Οἶδα ὅτι πολλοὶ αἰδοῦνται Ἰουδαίους, καὶ σεμνὴν νομίζουσιν εἶναι τὴν ἐκείνων πολιτείαν νῦν (Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one). 3.2: Οὐδεὶς Ἰουδαῖος προσκυνεῖ τὸν Θεόν (no Jew adores God). In 6.1 he mentions both Jews and Judea when speaking of the Septuagint: Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Φιλάδελφος τὰς πανταχόθεν βίβλους συναγαγὼν, καὶ μαθὼν ὅτι καὶ παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις εἰσὶ γραφαὶ περὶ Θεοῦ φιλοσοφοῦσαι, καὶ πολιτείας ἀρίστης, μεταπεμψάμενος ἄνδρας ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας-- (Ptolemy Philadelphus had collected books from all over the world. When he learned that the Jews had writings which treated of God and the ideal state, he sent for men from Judea--). 6.5: σεμνὰ καὶ μεγάλα τὰ Ἰουδαίων (the ceremonies of Jews). 8.1: ἄλλο τι μικρὸν ἢ μέγα Ἰουδαϊκὸν ἔθος (any other Jewish ritual great or small). See also Ἑβραῖος.

Catalogue of occurrences

Inscriptions

CIJ 296

CIL V 4221

I.J.Afr. 71

IJudO I Ach 40, 42-45, Pan 3, 4, Dal 2, 3, BS 5—7, 9

IJudO II 40, 157

JIGRE 22, 24, 25, 27, 117

JIWE I 188

JIWE II 18, 233, 567

Papyri

CPJ I 8, 9, 18, 19, 38, 417

Literary sources

Cassius Dio 37.16.5-17.3

Cicero Pro Flac. 28.67-68

Gospel of Matthew 2:1, 2; 3:1; 4:25; 27:11, 29, 37, 42; 28:15

Gospel of Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 26, 32

Gospel of Luke 1:5, 39, 65; 3:1, 22; 4:44; 11:7; 21:21; 23:3, 51

Gospel of John 1:19, 49; 2:6; 3:1; 7:1; 8:31; 11:55 12:13; 18:39; 19:3, 19, 21

John Chrysostom Adv. Jud. 1.5; 3.1; 3.2; 6.1, 5; 8.1

Josephus AJ 11.173; 12.34; 13.395; 14.228, 230; 19.278, 281; 20.258; BJ 2.487, 488

1st Maccabees 1:11, 15, 29, 30, 43, 44; 2:23, 42; 4:2; 5:2; 7:5; 8:20; 12:3, 6; 13:42; 14:47

2nd Maccabees 2:21; 12:3, 8; 8:1, 9, 10, 36; 13:21, 18

Philo Flac. 1; 47; 55; 73; Mos. 1.1; 7; Virt. 108; 212

Strabo 16.2.2, 28

Tertullian Apol. 19.2; 16.11; 19.6; 21.1, 23; 40.7

Discussion / interpretation

Originally the word group refers to the tribe and kingdom of Judah, but in Antiquity it has already got a second meaning, that refers to the religious phenomenon, Judaism or Jewishness. The double meaning remains in use throughout Antiquity, both in Greek and Latin, and with the rise of Christianity the religious meaning gains weight. Authors use the words differently and the exact meaning must be derived from the context. David Miller points out that for ancient people the ambiguity of the word was not as problematic as it is these days, for they did not have the same conceptual boundaries and they understood the concept, being able to read the context, but it was not clear what semantic distinctions they made (Miller 2010, 99, 119). However, the distinction between Jews and Judeans did exist in Antiquity, too, for there were conflicts between the authorities and (at least some) Jews, not the whole population of Judea. David Schwartz suggests that the division Jew – Judean, i.e., Diasporan – Judean, describes the extremities of the semantic range, but the real life is more complex and variegated and usually the meaning is something in between (Schwartz 2014, 83—84). David Miller emphasizes the ethnic meaning of the word: it is not only geographical, but describes people with a common background, cultural and religious ideas (Miller 2010, 112, 122). On the other hand, David Schwartz finds the ethnic meaning problematic, for even though it adds the idea of descendance to the geographical meaning, it does not include proselytes (Schwartz 2014, 5—6). If the geographical meaning is chosen for the context, the religious diversity of Judeans should be kept in mind.

The original geographical meaning loses some ground for texts that date after the end of the 2nd century CE, for the name of the province was changed to Syria Palestine (Williams 1997, 251). This could apply to official documents, but in everyday language the name Judea, which was used for centuries, may have persisted, which means that for example in graves the religious meaning should not be taken for granted. However, Williams argues that there was “no hard epigraphic evidence” for the geographical meaning in any times and that the religious meaning was the most central one, even though other meanings appear as well (Williams 1997, 252—253, 257). Schwartz agrees and parallels the situation with that of Hellenism: since Hellenistic times Hellenism did not require a person to be born in Greece, and similarly Judaism did not require descendance from Judah, but was instead religious and cultural, something other than Hellenism (Schwartz 2014, 8).

As for different contexts, Williams identifies two uses: in a Jewish context the use of the word is rare, but when it is used, the meaning is laudatory – Jewishness is a quality cherished. In a non-Jewish context the word is used to make difference between Jews and non-Jews (Williams 1997, 254—255).

In military context the meaning reflects mainly the structure of the army and only secondarily has an ethic nuance. As for taxation, in Ptolemaic Egypt Jews were part of the privileged Hellenes till the end of the 3rd cent. BCE, when they were divided under their own category, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, their status likely remaining the same despite the change (Clarysse, Thompson 2006, 147—148). The question is, how was that group defined and what kind of relationship did it have with Jews as a religious group. In Roman times, after the destruction of the Temple, Jews paid the Jewish tax, and in this case the religious meaning is emphasized.

The problem is, how to specify the meaning of the term in a faint context, especially in one where the religious meaning would challenge our understanding of Judaism. Even though the term is indeed sometimes used in a geographical meaning, even then it is closely related to the religious one. In a religiously surprising occasion, there might be temptation to call it ethnic rather than religious, for not all Judeans were representatives of Judaism and Judaism as a religion is more strictly defined than the ethnic meaning. Unfortunately, the ancient vocabulary does not allow very nuanced differentiation – and this is what I would like to emphasize. The people were the same, stuffed all under the same umbrella term, no matter if they were inhabitants of Judea, offspring of Jacob or followers of the religious practises who shared at least to some extent similar theological ideas. A person called Ἰουδαῖος did not have to be “a good Jew”, they were still a Jew, a member of this diverse group. I suggest we take these people, accept their diversity attempting to understand it rather than exclude those who do not fit into a frame of Judaism, basing our understanding of Judaism of the day on these people, the Jews. What I wish to say is, that any Ἰουδαῖος is as Jewish as anyone, a practiser of Judaism, a phenomenon deeply rooted to Judea whose branches grew so long that some of its flowers blossomed very far away.

There are two exceptions, which have already been risen in this paper. In the cases of Hellenistic armies and taxation, Ἰουδαῖος is a technical term, a status given by local authorities, the basis of the decision remaining highly unclear. In these contexts I would like to suggest high caution.

For the difference between Ἰουδαῖος and Ἑβραῖος, see Ἑβραῖος.

Corpora:

CIL V ”Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V: Inscriptiones Galliae Cisalpinae Latinae. Pars I: Inscriptiones regionis Italiae decimae”, ed. T. Mommsen, Berolini: apud G. Reimerum 1872.

CIJ ”Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum vol. I Europe”, B. Jean-Baptiste Frey, Ktav publishing house, 1975.

C. P. Jud. I "Corpus papyrorum Judaicorum", eds.Tcherikover, Avigdor, Fuks, Alexander, Stern, Menahem, Magnes Press, Hebrew University by Harvard University Press, 1957.

I.J.Afr. ”Inscriptions juives et judaïsantes de l’Afrique Romaine”, ed. Y. le Bohec, Antiquités africaines, 1981.

IJudO I ”Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis I: Eastern Europe”, eds. D. Noy, A. Panayotov, H. Bloedhorn, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 101, Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

IJudO II ”Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis II: Kleinasien”, ed. W. Ameling, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 99, Mohr Siebeck, 2004.

JIGRE ”Jewish Inscriptions of the Graeco-Roman Egypt”, eds. W. Horbury, D. Noy, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

JIWE I ”Jewish inscriptions of Western Europe I: Italy (excluding the City of Rome), Spain and Gaul”, ed. D. Noy, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

JIWE II ”Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe II: the city of Rome”, ed. D. Noy, Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Studies:

Bauer 1988 “Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament”, Walter Bauer, de Gruyter, 1988.

Cohen 1999 ”The beginnings of jewishness. Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”, Shaye J.D. Cohen, University of California Press, 1999.

Clarysse, Thompson 2006 ”Counting the People in Hellenistic Egypt, volume 2. Historical Studies”, W. Clarysse, Dorothy J. Thompson, Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Ernout, Meillet 1959 “Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue Latine. Histoire des mots”, A. Ernout, A. Meillet, quatrieme edition, Librairie C. Klingksieck, 1959.

Gibson 1991 ”The Jewish Manumission Inscriptions of the Bosporus Kingdom”, E. Leigh Gibson, Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 75, Mohr Siebeck 1991.

Gruen 2016 ”Constructs of Identity in Hellenistic Judaism. Essays on Early Jewish Literature and History”, Erich S. Gruen, de Gruyter, 2016.

Hopkins 1978 ”Conquerors and Slaves”, K. Hopkins, Sociological studies in Roman history, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Kraabel 1982 ”The Roman Diaspora: six questionable assumptions”, A. T. Kraabel, JJS 33, 1982.

Kraemer 1989 ”On the meaning of the term ”Jew” in Graeco-Roman inscriptions”, R. S. Kraemer, HTR vol. 82 no. 1, 1989.

Leipziger 2021 ”Lesepraktiken im Antiken Judentum. Rezeptionsakte, Materialität und Schriftgebrauch”, J. Leipziger, De Gruyter, 2021.

Liljeqvist 2010 “Vanhan testamentin heprean ja aramean sanakirja”, Matti Liljeqvist, Finn Lectura, 2010.

Maltby 1991 “A lexicon of ancient Latin etymologies”, Maltby, Francis Cairns publications, 1991.

Miller 2010 “The Meaning of Ioudaios and its Relationship to Other Group Labels in Ancient ‘Judaism’”, David M. Miller, Currents in Biblical Research, September 2010, Sage 2010.

Panayotov 2004 ”The jews in the Balkan provinces of the Roman empire: an epigraphic and archaeological survey”, A. Panayotov, diss. University of St Andrews, 2004.

Rajak 2001 ”Ethnic Identities in Josephus”, T. Rajak, The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction, ed. T. Rajak, Brill, 2001.

Renberg 2016 ”Where Dreams May Come. Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World.”, vol. 1, Gil H. Renberg, Brill, 2016.

Sandwell 2007 “Religious Identity in Late Antiquity : Greeks, Jews and Christians in Antioch”, Isabella Sandwell, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Schwartz 2014 “Judeans and Jews: four faces of dichotomy in ancient Jewish history”, Daniel R. Schwartz, University of Toronto Press, 2014.

Schürer 1973 ”The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. – A.D. 138), vol. III”, E. Schürer, revised and edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, T.and T. Clark LTD, 1973.

Solin 1983 ”Juden und Syrer im westlichen Teil der römischen Welt. Eine ethnisch-demographische Studie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der sprachlichen Zustände”, H. Solin, ANRW II.29.2, 1983.

Van der Horst 1991 ”Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An introductory survey of a millennium of Jewish funerary epigraphy (300 BCE – 700 CE)”, Pieter W. van der Horst, Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1991.

Williams 1997 “The Meaning and Function of Ioudaios in Graeco-Roman Inscriptions”, Margaret H. Williams, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 116 (1997), published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH.