2. But, even in early Jewish times, the tenn goyim received bj- anticipation a significance of wider range than the national experience (Lev, xxvi, 33, 38 ; Deu!.- XXX, 1), and, as the latter was gradually developed dur- ing the prosperous times of the monarchy, the goyim were the surrounding nations generally, with Avhom the Israelites were brought into contact by the extension of their commerce, and whose idolatrous practices they readily adopted (Ezek, xxiii, 30; Amos v, 26). Later still, it is applied to the Babylonians who took Jerusa- lem (NTeh. v, 8; Psa. Lxxix, i, 6, 10), to the destroyers of Moab (Isa. xvi, 8), and to the several nations among whom the Jews were scattered during the Captivity
HEATHEN
120
HEATHEN"
(Psa. cvi, 47 ; Jer. xlvi, 28 ; Lam. i, 3, etc.), the practice of idolatn- stiU beint? their characteristic distinction (Isa. xxx;-i, 18 ; Jer. x, 2, 3 ; xiv, 22). This sigmhca- tion it retained after the return from Babylon, though it was used in a more limited sense as denoting the mixed race of colonists who settledin Palestine duruig the Captivity (Xeh.v, 17), and who are described as feanng Jehovah while serving their own gods (2 Kings xvii. 29-33 ; Ezra vi, 21).
Tracing the synonymous term tOvt] through the apocr^•phal witiiigs, we find that it is ai^plied to the nations around Palestine (1 IWacc. i, 11), including the Svrians and Philistines of the army of Gorgias (1 Mace. iii, 41 , iv, 7, 11, 14), as well as the peojile of Ptolemais, Tyre, and Sidoii (1 Mace, v, 9, 10, 15). They were im- age-worshippers (1 Mace, iii, 48; Wisd. xv, 15), whose customs and fashions the Jews seem still to have had an uncoiKiuerable propensity to imitate, but on whom they were bound by national tradition to take ven- geance (1 Jlacc. ii, 68 ; 1 Esdr. viii, 85). Followng the customs of tlie ffw/ini at this period denoted the neglect or concealment of circumcision (1 ^Macc. i, 15), disregard of sacrilices, jtrofanation of the Sabbath, eating of swine's flesh and meat offered to idols (2 INIacc. vi, 6-9, 18 ; xv, 1,2). and adoption of the Greek national games (2 Mace. iv, 12, 14). In all points Judaism and heathenism are strongly contrasted. The "barbarous midtitude" in 2 aiacc. ii, 21 are opposed to those who played the man for Judaism, and the distinction now becomes an eccle- siastical one (comp. Matt, xviii, 17). In 2 Esdr. iii, 33, 34, the '• gcntes" are defined as those " qui habitant in saiculo" (comp. Matt, vi, 32; Luke xii, 30).
As the Greek influence became more extensively felt in Asia jNIinor, and the Greek language was generally iised, Hellenism and heathenism became convertible terms, and a Greek was synonymous with a foreigner of any nation. This is singidarly evident in the Syriac of 2 Mace. V, 9, 10, 13 ; comp. John vii, 35 ; 1 Cor. x, 32 ; '2 Mace, xi, 2.
In the N. T., again, wc find various shades of mean- ing attached to iBvij. In its narrowest sense it is op- posed to " those of the circumcision" (Acts x, 45 ; comp. Esth. xiv, 1.5, where aX\or()io£- = a7r£piV/i>jrof), and is contrasted with Israel, the people of Jehovah (Luke ii, 32), thus representing the Hebrew C^IS at one stage of its history. But, like f/o'/im, it also denotes the people of the earth generally (Acts xxii, 20; Gal. iii, 14), In Matt, vi, 7, tfjviKog is ajiplicd to an idolater.
But, in addition to its significance as an ethnograph- ical term, f/oyim had a moral sense which must not be overlooked. In Psa. ix, 5, 15, 17 (comp. Ezek. vii, 21) the word stands in parallelism with ""d"!, rdska', the wicked, as distinguished bj' his moral obliquity (see Ilnpftld on Psa. i, 1) ; and in verse 17 the people thus i!i>ignated arc described as "forgettcrs of (iod," that know not Jehovah (Jer. x, 25). Again, in Psa. lix, 5, it is to some extent commensurate in meaning with '.'^^ *^'!!"'2, "iniquitous transgressors;" and in these pas- sages, as well as in Psa. x, 15, it has a deeper signifi- cance than tliat of a merely national distinction, al- though the latter idea is never entirely lost sight of.
In later .Jewish literature a technical definition of the word is laid down which is certainly not of universal application. VAiaa Levita (quoted by Eisenmenger, Kut(l(('kli's Jtidcntlnim, i, 665) ex]ilains the sing, r/oy as denoting one who is not of Israelitish birth. This can only have reference to its after signification ; in the O. T. the singular is never used of an individual, but is a collective term, applied equally to the Israelites (Josh. iii, 17) as to the nations of Canaan (Lev. xx, 23), and denotes sini])ly a body politic. Another distinction, CHlually unsupported, is made between a"i'l5, f/uyim, and CJSN, nmmiv), the former being defined as the nations who liad served Israel, while the latter were those who had not (Jd/hil Cliadash, fol. 20, note 20 ; Eisenmenger, i, 667). Abarbanel, on Joel iii, 2, appUes the former to
both Christians and Turks, or Ishmaelites, while in ;Se- pher Juchasin (fol. 148, col. 2) the Christians alone are distinguished by this appellation. Eisenmenger gives some curious examples of the disabilities under which a goy labored. One who kept Sabbaths was judged de- serving of death (ii, 206), and the study of the law was prohibited to him under the same penalty , but on the latter point the doctors are at issue (ii, 209) — Smith, s. v. See Gentile.