JEW, JEWS TIIE (4-nro, t+ilrr, or n4!Itirr ; . . . • •Chald. 1,Niro; Sept. and N. T. 'IouSaios, ol loli Saici). The term Jew' seems to have come into use first as the designation of a subject of the king dom of Judah (2 Kings xvi. 6 • xxv. 25 ; Jer. xxxii. 12 ; 19 ; xl. ; 9), though in some of these passages it is probably used in a wider sense as applicable to all who were of the seed of Abraham, aud such is undoubtedly its meaning in Jer. xxxiv. 9. After the return from the Captivity it became the designation of the whole Israelitish people (Joseph. Antiq. xi. 5. 7), a consequence probably of the predominance of the members of the kingdom of Judah among those who returned. In the later books of the O. T. we find the term thus frequently used and even extended to those who still remained dis persed among the Gentiles (Ezra iv. 12, 23 ; v. 5 ; vi. 8, etc ; Neh. i. 2 ; if. 16; v. 1, etc.; Dan. iii. S, 12 • Zech. viii. ; Esth. 4, 6, etc.) In ;he N. T. 'Ica,Saior is used as a noun—r. To describe a descendant of Jacob, a member of the Jewish community as distinguished from one of Gentile birth (Mark vii. 3 ; Luke xxiii. 51 ; John iv. 9 ; Acts xix. 33, 34, etc.) 2. To indicate one who adhered to the Jewish religion and modes of worship, especially as distinguished from the follow ers of Jesus Christ (Rom. ii. 17 ; ; Cor. ix. 20; Gal. ii. 15, etc.) 3. To denote one who truly came up to the spiritual idea of the Jewish institute, who was a true son of the covenant in its higher, its spiritual aspect (Rona. ii. 28, 29; Rev. ii. 9). The phrase oi 21ovactiot sometimes occurs with an im plied allusion to the antagonism between those who adhered to the Mosaic institute and those who em braced Christianity, to describe those who came forth as the active enemies of Christ and his cause. In this sense it is used especially by St. John in his Gosoel : and in this sense also it appears to be ern ployed in Matt. xxviii. 13, and in Acts xii. 3 ; xx. 3. By the classical writers the term Jews' is used as the proper designation of the Hebrew people. The references they make shew, for the most part, utter ignorance both of the history and character of the people. As to the origin of the naine, Justin says (xxxvi. 2) : Omnes ex nomine Jud2e qui post divisionem decesserat, Judmos appellavit (Israliel) ; Plutarch makes Judmus, the ancestor of the Jews, a son of Typhon. and brother of Hierosolymus (De Isid. et Osir, c. 31); Tacitus (Hist. v. 2) connects the name Judmus with Ida, a mountain in Crete ; while Dio Cassius (xxxvii. 17) honestly acknow ledges that he knows not whence it came into use.
The most important statements respecting- the Jews found in the classical xvriters are those made by Tacitus (Hist. v. 4. I ; v. 2); but in these we find traces of ignorance and strong prejudice. The national pride and exclusiveness of the Jews, and the contempt with which they regarded all whom they stigmatised as the uncircumcision,' could not but produce a reactive effect on the minds of men of other nations ; and this appears in such expres sions as teterrima gens,' applied to them by Tacitus (Hist. v. 8. 2); in his ascribing, to them adversus omnes alios hostile odium ;' and in such statements as those of Juvenal (Sa t. 103), Diod. Sic. (Ec/o,c. xxxiv. 1), Quintilian (inst. iii. 7. 21), Dio Cassius (xlix. 22), and Suetonius (Nero. xvi.) Strabo (xvi. p. 760) charges on them superstition and tyranny, though his account of them is on the whole more favourable than those of the preceding. Thc most friendly notice of them by any of the classical writers is that of Justin (xxxvi. 1-3), which though full of inaccuracies is on the whole just to the repu tation of the people. It is not to be expected that the true character and worth of the Jewish people should be understood by the heathen.
The external history of the Jews, after their re turn from the Captivity, and their full settlement in their own land, may be arranged undcr five cpochs. Thefirst is that of the Persian supremacy, reaching from B.C. 536 I0 330, when the Persian kingdom fell with Darius Codomannus. The second is that of the Greco-Macedonian rule, from 33o to 167. During this period the Jews were successively sub ject to the Greek kings of Egypt (323-221), then alternately to those of Egypt and Syria, and ulti mately wholly to those of Syria from the time of Seleucus Philopator to that of Antiochus Epi phanes. The third is that of the struggle for freedom and national independence, the ag,e of the Maccabees, front 167 to 141. The fourth is that of national independence under princes of their own nation, from 141 to 63. The fifth is that of the Roman rttle, during which the Jews were at first governed immediately by princes of their OWn blood, afterwards by princes of the Idumman race, and ultimately partly by Roman officers, partly by tetrarchs and kings of the family of Herod, from B.C. 63 I0 A.D. 70, when Jerusalem was taken (Jost, Gesch. der Is2-aeliten sett tier Zeit der Maccabaer, 9 vols., Berl. 182o-28). See articles CYRUS ; DARIUS ; ALEXANDER ; ANTIOCHUS ; MACCABEES ; HERODIAN FAMILY ; DISPERSION OF THE JEWS ; HELLENISTS ; JERUSALEM.