Government – Greeks, Grecians

Government

The purpose of this article will be to sketch in outline the forms of government among the Hebrews at successive periods of their history. The indications are in many cases vague, and it is impossible to reconstruct the complete system; at no period was there a definitely conceived, still less a written, constitution in the modern sense. For fuller details reference should be made throughout to the separate articles on the officials, etc., mentioned.

We may at once set aside Legislation, one of the most important departments of government as now understood. In ancient communities, law rested on Divine cqmmand and Immemorial custom, and could as a rule be altered only by ‘fictions.’ ‘The idea of avowedly new legislation to meet fresh circumstances was foreign to early modes of thought. At no period do we find a legislative body in the Bible. Grote’s dictum that’ The human king on earth is not a lawmaker, but a judge,’ applies to all the Biblical forms of government. The main functions of government were judicial, military, and at later periods financial, and to a limited extent administrative,

1. During the nomadic or patriarchal age the unit is the family or clan, and, for certain purposes, the tribe. The head of the house, owing to his position and experience, was the supreme ruler and judge, in fact the only permanent oflicial. He had undisputed authority within his family group (Genesis 22. 38:24, Deuteronomy 21:18, Judges 11:34). Heads of families make agreements with one another and settle quarrels among their dependents (Genesis 21:22 31) the only sanction to which they can appeal is the Divine justice which ‘watches’ between them (31:49, 53 49:7). Their hold over the individual lay in the fact that to disobey was to become an outlaw; and to be an outcast from the tribe was to be without protector or avenger. The heads of families combined form. In a somewhat more advanced stage, the ‘elders’ (Exodus 3:16 18:21, Numbers 22:7)) and sometimes, particularly in time of war, there is a single chief for the whole tribe. Moses is an extreme instance of this, and we can see that his position was felt to be unusual (Exodus 2:14 4:1, Numbers 16). It was undefined, and rested on his personal influence, backed by the Divine sanction, which, as his followers realized, had marked him out. This enables him to nominate Joshua as his successor.

2. The period of the ‘Judges’ marks a higher stage; at the same time, as a period of transition it appeared rightly to later generations as a time of lawlessness. The name ‘Judges,’ though including the notion of champion or deliverer, points to the fact that their chief function was judicial. The position was not hereditary, thus diitering from that of king ( Judges 9 ft. Gideon and Abimelech), though Samuel is able to delegate his authority to his sons (1 Samuel 8:1). Their status was gained by personal exploits, implying Divine sanction, which was sometimes expressed in other ways; e.g. gift of prophecy (Deborah, Samuel). Their power rested on the moral authority of the strong man, and, though sometimes extending over several tribes, was probably never national. During this period the nomadic tribe gives way to the local; ties of place are more important than ties of birth. A town holds together its neighbouring villages (‘daughters’), as able to give them protection (Numbers 21:25, 32, Joshua 17:11). The elders become the ‘elders of the city’; Judges 8:6, 14, 14 mentions officials (sSrlm) and elders of Succoth, i.e. heads of the leading families, responsible for its government. In H’ the elders of Gilead have power in an emergency to appoint a leader from outside.

3. The Monarchy came into being mainly under the pressure of Philistine invasion. The king was a centre of unity, the leader of the nation in war, and a judge (1 Samuel 8:20). His power rested largely on a personal basis. As long as he was successful and strong, and retained the allegiance of his immediate followers, his will was absolute (David, Ahab, Jehu; cf. Jeremiah 36. 37). At the same time there were elements which prevented the Jewish monarchy from developing the worst features of an Oriental despotism. At least at first the people had a voice in his election (David, Rehoboam). In Judah the hereditary principle prevailed (there were no rival tribes to cause jealousy, and David’s line was the centre of the national hopes), but the people still had influence (2 Kings 14:21 21:24). In the Northern Kingdom the position of the reigning house was always insecure, and the ultimate penalty of misgovernment was the rise of a new dynasty. A more important check was found in the religious control, democratic in its best sense, exercised by the prophets (Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, etc.). The Jewish king had at least to hear the truth, and was never allowed to believe that he was indeed a god on earth. At the same time there is no constitutional check on misrule; the ‘law of the kingdom’ in Deuteronomy 17:14 deals rather with moral and religious requirements, as no doubt did Jehoiada’s covenant (2 Kings 11:17). With the kingdom came the establishment of a standing army, David’s ‘mighty men’ quickly developing into the more organized forces of Solomon’s and later times. The command of the forces was essential to the king’s power; cf. insurrection of Jehu ‘the captain’ (2 Kings 9), and Jehoiada’s care to get control of the army (11:4). Side by side with the power of the sword came the growth of a court, with its harem and luxurious entourage, its palace and its throne. These were visible symbols of the royal power, impressing the popular mind. The lists of officers (2 Samuel 8. 1 Kings 4) are significant; they indicate the growth of the king’s authority, and the development of relations with other States. The real power of government has passed Into the hands of the king’s clientile. His servants hold office at his pleasure, and, provided they retain his favour, there is little to limit their power. They may at times show independence of spirit (1 Samuel 22:17, Jeremiah 36:25), but are usually his ready tools (2 Samuel 11:14; cf . the old and the young counsellors of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:6 ff.). The prophetic pictures of the court and its administration are not favourable (Amos 3:9 4:1 6, Isaiah 5 etc.). The methods of raising revenue were undefined, and being undefined were oppressive. We hear of gifts and tribute (1 Samuel 10:27, 2 Samuel 8:10, 1 Kings 4 10:11–25), of tolls and royal monopolies (lOis. 28. 29), of forced labour (5:13) and of the ‘king’s mowings’ (Amos 7:1), of confiscation (1 Kings 21), and, in an emergency, of stripping the Temple (2 Kings 18:15). In time of peace the main function of the king is the administration of justice (2 Samuel 15:2, 2 Kings 15:5) his subjects have the right of direct access (2 Kings 8:3). This must have lessened the power of the local.elders, who no doubt had also to yield to the central court officials. ‘The elders of the city’ appear during this period as a local authority, sometimes respected and consulted (2 Samuel 19:11, 1 Kings 20:7. 2 Kings 23:1), sometimes the obedient agents of the king’s will (1 Kings 21:8, 11. 2 Kings 10:1, 5). 2 Chronicles 19 describes a judicial system organized by Jehoshaphat, which agrees in its main features with that implied by Deuteronomy 16:18 17:8–13) there are local courts, with a central tribunal. In Dt. the elders appear mainly as judicial authorities, but have the power of executing their decisions (I912 21. 22:15 etc.). The influence of the priesthood in this connexion should be noticed. The administration of justice always included a Divine element (Exodus 18:15, 19 21:6 22:8; cf. word ‘Torah’), and in the Deuteronomic code the priests appear side by side with the lay element in the central court (17:9 19:17; cf. Isaiah 28:7, Ezekiel 44:24 etc.). But the government is not yet theocratic. Jehoiada relies on his personal influence and acts in concert with the chiefs of the army (2 Kings 1 1 . 12), and even after the Exile Joshua is only- the fellow of Zerubbabel. The appointment of Levites as judges, ascribed to David in 1 Chronicles 23:4 26:29, is no doubt an anachronism. Cf. also art. Justice (ii.).

4. Post-exilic period. — Under the Persians Judah was a subdistrict of the great province west of the Euphrates and subject to its governor (Ezra 5:3). It had also its local governor (Nehemiah 5:14). virith a measure of local independence(Ezr 10:14) we read, too, of a special official ‘at the king’s hand in all matters concerning the people’ (Nehemiah 11:24). The elders are prominent during this period both in exile (Ezekiel 8:1 4:1 20:1) and in Judah (Ezra 5:9 6:7 10:8, Nehemiah 2:16). The chief feature of the subsequent period was the development of the priestly power, and the rise to importance of the office of the high priest. Under Greek rule (after b.c. 333) the Jews were to a great extent allowed the privileges of self-government. The ‘elders’ develop into a gerousia or senate — an aristocracy comprising the secular nobility and the priesthood (1 Maccabees 12:6 14:20) ; it is not known when the name ‘Sanhedrin’ was first used. The high priest became the head of the State, and its official representative, his political power receiving a great development under the Hasmonaeans. Owing to the growing importance of the ofiice, the Seleucids always claimed the power of appointment. In b.c. 142, Simon is declared to be ‘high priest, captain, and governor for ever’ (1 Maccabees 14:27–47). The title ‘ethnarch’ (see Governor) is used of him and other high priests. Aristobulus becomes king (b.c. 105), and Alexander Jannffius uses the title on coins (b.c. 104-78). Under Roman rule (b.c. 63) the situation becomes complicated by the rise to power of the Herodian dynasty. Palestine passed through the varying forms of government known to the Roman Imperial constitution. Herod the Great was its titular king, with considerable Independence subject to good behaviour (rex socius). Archelaus forfeited his position (a.d. 6). Thenceforward Judaea was under the direct rule of a procurator (see next article), except from a.d. 41 to 44, when Agrippa i. was king. Antipas was ‘tetrarch’ of Galilee and Peraea; Mark’s title of ‘king’ (6:14) is corrected by Matthew and Luke. The position was less honourable and less independent than that of king. The high priest (now appointed by the Romans) and the Sanhedrin regained the power which they had lost under Herod; the government became once more an aristocracy (Jos. Ant. xx. x.). Except tor the power of life and death the Sanhedrin held the supreme judicial authority; there were also local courts connected with the Synagogue (Matthew 5:22). Its moral authority extended to Jews outside Palestine. In the Diaspora, the Jews, tenacious of their national peculiarities, were in many cases allowed a large measure of self-government, particularly in judicial matters. In Alexandria, in particular, they had special privileges and an ‘ethnarch’ of their own (Jos. Ant, xiv. vli. 2). For the cities of Asia Minor, see Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, chs. xi. xii. For ‘governments’ (1 Corinthians 12:28) see Helps.

C. W. Emmet.

Governor

This word represents various Heb. and Gr. words, technical and non-technical. In Genesis 42 (Joseph, cf . 41:40) it is probably the Tor-te, the second after the king in the court of the palace; cf. 1 Kings 18:3, Daniel 2:48 for similar offices. It frequently represents an Assyr. word, pechah, used of Persian satraps in general (Esther 3:12 8:8), and of Assyrian generals (2 Kings 18:24, cf. 1 Kings 20:24). It is applied particularly to Tattenai, the governor of the large Persian province of which Judaea was a sub-district (Ezra 5:3 6:6 etc., cf. Nehemiah 2:7). It is also, like tirshatha (wh. see), applied to the subordinate governor of Judaea (Ezra 5:14 [Sheshbazzar] 6:7 [Nehemiah], Haggai 1:1, 14 [Zerubbabel]). The first passage shows that the subordinate pechah was directly appointed by the king.

In the NT the word usually represents Gr. hdgemHn, andis used of Pontius Pilate (Luke 3:1 etc.), of Felix ( Acts 23). , and of Festus (26). The proper title of these governors was ‘procurator’ (Tac. Ann. xv. 44), of which originally eparchos and then epitropos were the Gr. equivalents. Josephus, however, uses hegemBn, as well as these words, for the governor of Judasa, so that there is no inaccuracy in its employment by NT writers. But, being a general word, it does not help us to decide the nature of the ‘governorship’ of Quirinius (Luke 2:2). The procurator, originally a financial official, was appointed directly by the Emperor to govern provinces, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, and Judaea, which were in a transitional state, being no longer ruled by subject kings, but not yet fully Romanized, and requiring special treatment. The procurator was in a sense subordinate to the legate of the neighbouring ‘province,’ e,g. Cappadocia to Galatia, Judsea to Syria; but except in emergencies he had full authority, military, judicial, and financial. In 1 Peter 2:14 the word is specially appropriate to any provincial governor, as ‘sent’ by the Emperor. In 2 Corinthians 11:32 it represents ‘ethnarch,’ a word apparently used originally of the ruler of a nation (ethnos) living with laws of its own in a foreign community; but as applied to Aretas it may mean no more than petty king. In Galatians 4:2 it means ‘steward’ (RV), the ‘tutor’ controlling the ward’s person, the steward his property (Lightfoot, ad toe). In James 3:4 RV has ‘steersman.’ The ‘governor of the feast’ (John 2:8. RV ‘ruler’ ) was probably a guest, not a servant, chosen to control and arrange for the feast; it is doubtful whether be is to be identified with the ‘friend of the bridegroom" or best man. C. W. Emmet.

Gozan

One of the places to which Israelites were deported by the king of Assyria on the capture of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6 18:11, 1 Chronicles 5; mentioned also in 2 Kings 19:12, Isaiah 37:12). Gozan was the district termed Guzanu by the Assyrians and Gauzanitis by Ptolemy, and it was situated on the KhabQr. L, W. King.

Grace

Grace (from Lat. gratia [ =favour, — either received from or shown to another], through the Fr. grace). — Of the three meanings assigned to this word in the Eng. Diet. — (1) ‘pleasingness,’ (2) ‘favour,’ (3) ‘thanks’ (the sense of favour received) — (1) and (2) belong to the Eng. Bible; (3) attaches to the equivalent Gr. charts, where it is rendered ‘thank(s)’ or ‘thankfulness’ (Hebrews 12:28 RVm.). The specific Biblical use of ‘grace’ comes under the second of the above significations; it is prominent in the NT. The OT usage requires no separate treatment. (2) is the primary meaning of the Hebrew original, rendered ‘favour’ almost as often as ‘grace’; but (1) of the Greek charts, which at its root signified the gladdening, joy-bringing. Hence the correspondence between the common Greek salutation chaireite) or chairein (‘Joy to youl’) and the Christian charts (‘Grace to youl ‘) is more than a verbal coincidence.

1. Of the sense charm, winsomeness (of person, bearing, speech, etc.) — a usage conspicuous in common Greek, and personified in the Charites, the three Graces of mythology — the prominent instances in the OT are Ps i5’ (‘Grace is poured on thy lips ‘) and probably Zee 4:7; add to these Proverbs 1:9 3:22 4:9 22:11 31:30 (‘favour’). The same noun occurs in the Heb. of Proverbs 5:19 11:16, and Ecclesiastes 10:12, Proverbs 17:8, under the adjectival renderings ‘pleasant,’ ‘gracious,’ ‘precious,’ and in Nahum 3:4 (‘well-favoured’). For the NT, ‘grace’ is charm in Luke 4:22. Col 4:6; in Ephesians 4:29 there may be a play on the double sense of the word. Charm of speech is designated by charts in Sirach 20 21:16 37:21, in the Apocrypha. In James 1:11 ‘grace of the fashion’ renders a single Greek word signifying ‘fair-seemingness,’ quite distinct from charts.

2. The OT passages coming under (2) above, employ ‘grace’ chiefly in the idiom ‘to find grace (.or favour),’ which is used indifferently of favour in the eyes of J" (Genesis 6:8) or of one’s fellow-men (39:4), and whether the finder bring good (39:4) or ill (19:19) desert to the quest. With this broad application, ‘grace’ means good-will, favourable inclination towards another — of the superior (king, benefactor, etc.) or one treated as such by courtesy, to the inferior — shown on whatever ground. In the Eng. NT, ‘favour’ is’ reserved for this wide sense of charts; see Luke 1:30 2:52. Acts 2:47 7:10, 46 25:3: ‘grace’ has the same meaning in Luke 2:40, Acts 4:33. Zee 12:10 is the one instance in which ‘grace’ in the OT approximates to its prevalent NT import; but the Heb. adj. for gracious, and the equivalent vb., are together used of J", in His attitude towards the sinful, more than twenty times, associated often with ‘merciful,’ etc.; see, e.g.. Exodus 33:19 34:6, Psalms 77:9 103:8, ji 2, Jonah 4:2. The character in God which the OT prefers to express by mercy, signifying His pitiful disposition towards man as weak and wretched, the NT in effect translates into ‘grace,’ as signifying His forgiving disposition towards man as guilty and lost.

3. Christianity first made grace a leading term in the vocabulary of religion. The prominence and emphasis of its use are due to St. Paul, in whose Epp. the word figures twice as often as in all the NT besides. ‘Grace’ is the first word of greeting and the last of farewell in St. Paul’s letters; for him it includes the sum of all blessing that comes from God through Christ: ‘grace’ the source, ‘peace’ the stream. In the Gospels, the Johannine Prologue (vv. 14–17: contrasted with ‘law,’ and co-extensive with ‘truth’) supplies the only example of ‘grace’ used with the Pauline fulness of meaning. This passage, and the Lukan examples in Acts (6 IV 13 14 15 20), with the kindred uses in Hebrews, 1 and 2 Pet., Jude, 2 Jn., Rev., may be set down to the infiuence of Paulinism on Apostolic speech. There is little in earlier phraseology to explain the supremacy in the NT of this specific term; a new experience demanded a new name. ‘Grace’ designates the principle in God of man’s salvation through Jesus Christ. It is God’s unmerited, unconstrained love towards sinners, revealed and operative in Christ. Titus 2:11–14. interpreted by Romans 5:1, is the text which approaches nearest to a definition; this passage shows how St. Paul derived from God’s grace not only the soul’s reconciliation and new hopes in Christ (Romans 5:1–11). but the whole moral uplifting and rehabilitation of human life through Christianity. St. Paul’s experience in conversion gave him this watchword; the Divine goodness revealed itself to the ‘chief of sinners’ under the aspect of ‘grace’ (1 Corinthians 15:9 f.; 1 Timothy 1). The spontaneity and generosity of God’s love felt in the act of his salvation, the complete setting aside therein of everything legal and conventional (with, possibly, the added connotation of charm of which charts is redolent), marked out this word as describing what St. Paul had proved of Christ’s redemption; under this name he could commend it to the world of sinful men; his ministry ‘testifies the gospel of the grace of God’ (Acts 20:24). Essentially, grace stands opposed to sin; it is God’s way of meeting and conquering man’s sin (Romans 5:20 f. 6"‘- He thus effects’ the impossible task of the Law’ (Romans 7:7). The legal discipline had taught St. Paul to understand, by contrast, the value and the operation of the principle of grace; he was able to handle it with effect in the legaUst controversy. Grace supplies, in his theology, the one and sufficient means of deliverance from sin, holding objectively the place which faith holds subjectively in man’s salvation (Ephesians 2:8. Titus 2:11). Formally, and in point of method, grace stands opposed to ‘the law,’ ‘which worketh wrath’ (Romans 3 4:15. Galatians 2:15–21 5:4) it supersedes the futile ‘works’ by which the Jew had hoped, in fulfilling the Law, to merit salvation (Romans 4:2–8 11, Galatians 2:16–20. Ephesians 2:8 f.). Grace excludes, therefore, all notion of ‘debt’ as owing from God to men, all thought of earning the Messianic blessings (Romans 4:4) by establishing ‘a righteousness of one’s own’ (Romans 10:3) through it men are ‘justified gratis’ (Romans 3:24) and ‘receive the giit of righteousness’(5")- In twenty-two instances St. Paul writes of’ the grace of God’ (or ‘his grace’); in fifteen, of ‘the grace of Christ’ (‘the Lord Jesus Christ,’ etc.). Ten of the latter examples belong to salutation-formulae (so in Revelation 22:21). the fullest of these being 2 Corinthians 13:14, where ‘the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ’ is referred to ‘the love of God’ as its fountain-head; in the remaining five detached instances the context dictates the combination’grace of Christ’ (‘our Lord,’ etc.),— Romans 5:15. 2 Corinthians 8:9 12:9, Galatians 1:6, 1 Timothy 1:14 (also in 2 Peter 3:18). In other NT writings the complement is predominantly ‘of God’; 1 Peter 5:10 inverts the expression^‘the God of all grace.’ Once— in 2 Thessalonians 1:12 — grace is referred conjointly to God and Christ. Christ is the expression and vehicle of the grace of the Father, and is completely identified with it (see John 1:14 "), so that Ood’s grace can equally be called Christ’s; but its reference to the latter Is strictly personal in such a passage as 2 Corinthians 8:9. A real distinction is implied in the remarkable language of Romans 5:15, where, after positing ‘the grace of God’ as the fundamental ground of redemption, St. Paul adds to this ‘the gift in grace, viz. the grace of ihe one man Jesus Christ,’ who is the counterpart of the sinful and baleful Adam: the generous boimty of the Man towards men, shown by Jesus Christ, served an essential part in human redemption.

Cognate to charts, and charged in various ways with its meaning, is the vb. rendered (RV) to grant in Acts 27:24, Galatians 3:18, Philippians 1:29. Philem give in Philippians 2:9, freely give in Romans 8:32, 1 Corinthians 2:12, and (with ‘wrong’ or ‘debt’ for object, expressed or implied) forgive in Luke 7:42 f.; 2 Corinthians 2:7, 10 12:13, Ephesians 4:32. Colossians 2:13 3.

There are two occasional secondary uses of ‘grace,* derived from the above, in the Pauline Epp.: it may denote (a) a gracious endowment or bestowment, God’s grace to men taking shape in some concrete ministry (so Ephesians 4:7, in view of the following context, and perhaps Galatians 2:9; cf. Acts 7:10) — for charts in this sense charisma (charism) is St. Paul’s regular term, as in 1 Co 12:4 etc.; and (6) a state of grace, God’s grace reahzed by the recipient (Romans 5:2. 2 Timothy 2:1). G. G. Findlay.

Gracious

^This Eng. adj. is now used only in an active sense ="‘bestowing grace,’ ‘showing favour.’ And this is its most frequent use in AV, as Exodus 33:19 ‘And [I] will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.’ But it was formerly used passively also =‘favoured, " accepted,’ as 1 Esdras 8:20 ‘Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken of our Lord; but he made us gracious before the kings of Persia, so that they gave us food.’ And from this it came to signify ‘attractive,’ as Proverbs 11:16 ‘a gracious woman retaineth honour,’ lit. ‘a woman of grace,’ that is, of attractive appearance and manner; Luke 4:22 ‘the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth,’ lit., as RV, ‘words of grace,’ that is, says Plummer, ‘winning words’; he adds, ‘the very first meaning of charts is comeliness, winsomeness.’

Grafting

In olive-culture grafting is universal. When the sapling is about seven years old it is cut down to the stem, and a shoot from a good tree is grafted upon it. Three years later it begins to bear fruit, its produce gradually increasing until about the fourteenth year. No tree under cultivation is allowed to grow ungrafted; the fruit in such case being inferior. Grafting is alluded to only once in Scripture (Romans 11:17 etc.). St. Paul compares the coming in of the Gentiles to the grafting of a wild olive branch upon a good olive tree: a process ‘contrary to nature.’ Nowack (.Heb. Arch. i. 238) says that Columella’s statement that olive trees are rejuvenated and strengthened in this way (see Comm. on Romans, by Principal Brown and Godet, ad toe), is not confirmed. Sanday-Headlam say (,ICC on ‘Romans,’ p. 328): ‘Grafts must necessarily be branches from a cultivated olive inserted into a wild stock, the reverse process being one which would be valueless, and is never performed.’ ‘The ungrafted tree,’ they say, ‘is the natural or wild olive,’ following Tristram, Nat. Hist, of the Bible, 371-377. Prof. Theobald Fischer inclines to view the olive and the wild olive as distinct species; in this agreeing with some modern botanists ( Der Olbaum, 4 f .) , a contrary opinion being held by others (p. 5). Sir William Ramsay, Expositor, vi. ix. [1905], 154 ff., states grounds on which the oleaster (Eleagnus angustifolia) may be regarded as the plant intended. This is the type to which the cultivated olive tends to revert through centuries of neglect, as seen, e.g., in Cyrenaica. (Prof. Fischer does not admit this iDer blbaum, 69].) When grafted with a shoot of the nobler tree it gives rise to the true olive. But the two are clearly distinguished by size, shape, and colour of leaves and character of fruit.

No one could mistake the oleaster for the olive; but the case is not clear enough to justify Ramsay in calling the oleaster the wild olive (Expositor, ut supra, 152). Dr. W. M. Thomson, whose accuracy Ramsay commends, citing him in favour of his own view (i6. 154), is really a witness on the other side, quite plainly holding that the wild olive is the ungrafted tree (LB in. 33 ff.); and this is the universal view among olive growers in modern Palestine. The fruit of the wild olive is acrid and harsh, containing little oil.

Prof. Fischer states that in Palestine it is still ‘customary to re-invigorate an olive tree which is ceasing to bear fruit, by grafting it with a shoot of wild olive, so that the sap of the tree ennobles this wild shoot, and the tree now again begins to bear fruit’ (Der Olbaum, 9). He gives no authority. Ramsay accepts the statement without question (Expositor, ut supra, 19), and the value of his subsequent discussion rests upon the assumption of its truth. The assumption is precarious. The present writer can find no evidence that such an operation is ever performed. In response to inquiries made in the main olive-growing districts of Palestine, he is assured that it is never done; and that, for the purpose indicated, it would be perfectly futile.

Sanday-Headlam seem rightly to apprehend the Apostle’s meaning. It is not their view that St. Paul proves a spiritual process credible ‘because it resembles a process impossible in and contrary to external nature’ (Ramsay, i6. 26 f .) . He exhorts the Gentiles to humility, because God in His goodness has done for them in the spiritual sphere a thing which they had no reason to expect, since it, according to Sanday-Headlam, never, according to Ramsay, very seldom, is done in the natural. The language of St. Paul is justified in either case: it might be all the more effective if the former were true. Mr. Baring Gould’s inference as to the Apostle’s ignorance only illustrates his own blindness (Study of St. Paul, p. 276). See also art. Olive. W. Ewinq.

Grapes

See Wine and Strong Drink.

GRASS, — (1) chat^r — equivalent of Arab, khudra, which includes green vegetables; many references, e.g. 1 Kings 18:5, 2 Kings 19:26; tr. ‘hay’ in Proverbs 27:25, Isaiah 16:6, and in Numbers 11:5 ‘leeks’; refers to herbage in general. (2) deshe’ (Aram, dethe), Jeremiah 14:5, Proverbs 27:25, Job 38:27, Isaiah 66:14 (‘pasture land’), Daniel 4 {‘tender grass’). (3) yereq, tr. ‘grass,’ Numbers 22:4; see Herb. (4) ‘iseb, Deuteronomy 11:15 32:2 etc., but tr.’ herb’ in other places; see Herb. (5) charlos, Matthew 6:30, Mark 6:39 etc. Pasturage, as it occurs in Western lands, is unknown in Palestine. Such green herbage appears only for a few weeks, and when the rains cease soon perishes. Hence grass is in the OT a frequent symbol of the shortness of human life (Ps 90 103. Isaiah 40:6; cf. 1 Peter 1:24). Even more brief is the existence of ‘the grass upon the [mud-made] housetops, which withereth afore it groweth up’ (Psalms 129:6). E. W. G. Masteeman.

Grasshopper

See Locust.

Grate, Grating

See Tabernacle, § 4 (a).

Grave

See Mourning Customs, Tomb.

Graven Image

See Images.

Gray

See Colours, § 1.

Great Bible

See English Versions, § 22.

Great Sea

See Sea.

Great Synagogue

See Synaqoqub.

Greaves

See Armour, § 2 ((i).

Greece

Greece represents in English the Latin word Grwcia, which is derived from Ormci. This name Graci properly belonged only to a small tribe of Greeks, who lived in the north-west of Greece ; but as this tribe was apparently the first to attract the attention of Rome, dwelling as it did on the other side of the Adriatic from Italy, the name came to be applied by the Romans to the whole race. The term Grwcia, when used by Romans, is equivalent to the Greek name Hellas, which is still used by the Greeks to describe their own country. In ancient times Hellas was frequently used in a wide sense to include not only Greece proper, but every settlement of Greeks outside their own country as well. Thus a portion of the Crimea, much of the west coast of Asia Minor, settlements in Cyrene, Sicily, Gaul, and Spain, and above all the southern half of Italy, were parts of Hellas in this wide sense. Southern Italy was so studded with Greek settlements that it became known as Magna Grwcia. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, who died 323 b.c, all the territory annexed by him, such as the greater part of Asia Minor, as well as Syria and Egypt, could be regarded as in a sense Hellas. Alexander was the chief agent in the spread of the Greek civilization, manners, language, and culture over these countries. The dynasties founded by his generals, the Seleucids and Ptolemys for example, continued his work, and when Rome began to interfere in Eastern politics about the begiiming of the 2nd cent. B.C., the Greek language was already firmly established in the East. When, about three centuries after Alexander’s death, practically all his former dominions had become Roman provinces, Greek was the one language which could carry the traveller from the Euphrates to Spain. The Empire had two official languages, Latin for Italy and all provinces north, south-west, and west of it; Greek for all east and south-east of Italy. The Romans wisely made no attempt to force Latin on the Eastern peoples, and were content to let Greek remain in undisputed sway there. All their officials understood and spoke it. Thus it came about that Christianity was preached in Greek, that our NT books were written in Greek, and that the language of the« Church, according to all the available evidence, remained Greek till about the middle of the 2nd cent. a.d.

As Galilee was thickly planted with Greek towns, there can be little doubt that Jesus knew the language, and spoke it when necessary, though it is probable that He commonly used Aramaic, as He came first to ‘the lost tribes of Israel.’ With St. Paul the case was different. Most of the Jews of the Dispersion were probably unable to speak Aramaic, and used the OT in the Greek translation. These would naturally be addressed in Greek at least, but this occasion was exceptional. It was a piece of tact on his part, to secure the respectful attention of his audience. Probably only the inhabitants of the villages in the Eastern Roman provinces were unable to speak Greek, and even they could doubtless understand it when spoken. The Jews were amongst the chief spreaders of the language. Some of the successors of Alexander esteemed them highly as colonists, and they were to be found in large numbers over the Roman Empire, speaking in the first instance Greek (ct. Acts 2:9). When they wrote books, they wrote them in Greek: Philo and Josephus are examples. It is not meant that Greek killed the native languages of the provinces: these had their purpose and subsisted.

The name Hellas occurs only once in the NT (Acts 20:2). There it is used in a narrow sense of the Greek peninsula, exclusive even of Macedonia: it is in fact used in the sense of Achaia (wh. see). A. Souteh.

Greeks, Grecians

Both these terms are used indifferently in AV of OT Apocr. to designate persons of Gr. extraction (1 Maccabees 1:10 6:2 8:9. 2 Mao i^ etc.). In NT the linguistic usage of EV makes a distinction between the terms ‘Greeks’ and ‘Grecians.’ ‘Greeks’ uniformly represents the word HellSrils, which may denote persons of Gr. descent in the narrowest sense (Acts 16:1 18:4, Romans 1:14). or may be a general designation for all who are not of Jewish extraction (John 12:20. Ro lO’^, Galatians 3:28). ‘Grecians,’ on the other hand (Acts 6:1 QM), is AV tr. of HdKnistai, which means Gr.-speaking Jews (RV ‘Grecian Jews’). See preced. art. and Dispersion. An interesting question is that of the correct reading of Acts 11:20. Were those to whom the men of Cyprus and Cyrene preached, Grecians or Greeks? In other words, were they Jews or Gentiles? The weight of MS authority is in favour of ‘Grecians,’ but it is held by many that internal evidence necessitates ‘Greeks.’