The Land Of Purple

AND WHAT ABOUT THE CHRISTIANS?

We’ve seen the onomastics in JUDAIC lore; but what of the CHRISTIANS? Let’s start with Late Antiquity? In the earliest centuries of Christianity, and throughout the Middle Ages, Christians were undertaking pilgrimages to Palestine. How did THEY refer to this particular tract of land? Not as “Israel”; as “Israel” referred to a people, not to a place. As it turns out, it was simply dubbed the “Holy Land” [“Terra Sancta” or “Loca Sancta” in Latin; the equivalent of the Hebrew “Eretz ha-Kodesh”]. How do we know this? The most detailed account available is a travelogue from some point between the late 4th to early 6th century, composed by someone named Egeria [alt. “Aetheria”]. The document is now known as the “Itinerarium Egeriae” [alt. “Peregrinatio Aetheriae”]. THAT is how he referred to the Land of Purple.

Meanwhile, in his “Historia Ecclesiastica” (written in the decades prior to c. 323), Eusebius of Caesarea cited Sextus Julius Africanus (c. 200), who stated that–sure enough–JoN hailed from “villages in Judea” (Book I; chapt. 8). Throughout the Middle Ages, the only other reference to the land was as “Pal[a]estina[e]”. Thus, in the early 4th century, the celebrated Church Father, Eusebius of Caesarea, composed his “History of the Martyrs in Palestine”.

So what of Christian SCRIPTURE? In the original version of the Gospel (that of “Mark”), Yeshua [Jesus] of Nazareth addressed his (Jewish) followers thus: “Hear, O Israel! God is one god; and you shall love him with all your heart, and all your soul, and all our mind, and all your strength” (12:29). Clearly, he was addressing PEOPLE, not TERRITORY. (Abjuring a tract of land to heed one’s call is nonsensical.) Moreover, living as he did in the Roman province of Palestine, this fabled Galilean Jew was not imploring some imagined future nation-state. (“My kingdom is not of this world,” he specified.) Indeed, “Israel” referred to his fellow Jews…irrespective of from whence they hailed. ALL of them considered themselves residents of PALESTINE, and thus identified themselves as Palestinians (or alternately as “Yehudim”; “Judeans”). To say that they lived “IN ISRAEL” would not have made any sense. {21}

When we hear that this humble Nazarene carpenter was the King of ISRAEL [“Melech Yisra-El”], it does not refer to the sovereign of some worldly domain. As the Messiah, Yeshua was “Melech Ha-Yehudi[t]” (Hebrew), “Basileus ton Ioudaion” (Greek), and “Rex Iudaeorum” (Latin)–all of which mean “King of the JEWS”. This appellation occurs in all four canonical Gospels: Mark (15:26), Matthew (23:38), Luke (27:37), and John (19:20). Recall that “Yehudi[t]” is based on the name of the Jewish kingdom: “Yehudah”. This explains why the alternate Greek rendering was “Basileus ton Ioudaioi”–effectively: “King of the Judah-ites”. {9}

In “Matthew”, Jesus exhorts his disciples to go out and preach not to the Gentiles and Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of [the House of] “Israel” (10:5-6). He was not instructing them to go to a specific place; he was instructing them to proselytize to certain people (fellow Jews) rather than to other groups of people. (Never mind that such exclusivity contradicts 28:19, where he enjoins his followers to bring all nations into the fold. The transition to inclusivity seems to occur in 12:17-21, as a response to the Pharisees’ rebuke.) And in the opening chapter of the original Gospel (Mark), the authors refer to the region west of the Jordan River (a.k.a. “Gilead”) as (part of) “the Judean countryside”.

Meanwhile, when referring to the PLACE where believers dwelled, the New Testament uses the label, “Jud[a]ea”. Thus in “Mark”, when exhorting the residents of the region to flee, they are referred to as “those who are in Judea” (13:14). This nomenclature is consistent throughout the synoptic Gospels. The land in which Bethlehem is located is referred to alternately as Judea and as the land of “Yehud[ah]”; while the Lord’s people are addressed as “Israel” (as in Matthew 2:5-6). “[Beth] Israel” is synonymous with the House of Jacob–which simply meant the Jewish people, wherever they happen to be.

We might also look to the Pauline letters. Saul of Tarsus clearly thought of “Israel” as a community. In his letter to the Romans (9:6), he noted that not all “Israelites” belong to “Israel”; which is to say that not all those considered “Israelites” are actually confessors in the proper sense (and so are not religiously Jewish). He goes on to mention that “Israel” failed to obtain what it was seeking. Yet he concludes on a high note: “All of Israel shall be saved!” (11:26). Clearly, he was not prognosticating the preservation of a territory, he is referring to the salvation of a community of believers.

Saul proceeds to refer to the wayward Hebrews as “Israel” throughout chapter 11. He speaks of “Israel” being hardened (of their spirituality being attenuated); of “Israel” being jealous; of “Israel” stumbling (of their trespass / failure). He then speaks of “Israel” being saved–always equating “Israel” with the seed of Jacob. He does so by recalling what had been written in antecedent scripture: “The deliverer will come from Zion; and will turn Jacob [the Jews] away from godlessness.” Here, Zion refers to a place (Jerusalem) and Jacob refers to a people (a.k.a. “Israel”). Meanwhile, when referring to the churches in the region, Saul refers to it as “Judea”–as in his first letter to the Thessalonians (2:14). Mentioning churches “in Israel” would not have made any sense.

In the Book of Acts, god’s message was sent to whom? To “Israel” (10:36). It spread where? Throughout “Judea”, starting in the Galilee (10:37). Hence it was specified WHERE the message spread after we are notified TO WHOM it was spread. In every case, “Israel” did not designate a place; it designated a people.

Such nomenclature is found throughout the New Testament. In the letter to the Hebrews (possibly written by Barnabas), we are reminded that god made a covenant.  With whom? With “[Beth] Israel” (8:10).