History Lessons (1)
Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. James 1:27 NASB
Religion– A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away—we investigated thrēskeía, the Greek term James uses in this verse translated “religion.” The translation obscures some of the odd history of this word. First, it’s not common in the LXX or in the New Testament. That means it doesn’t have an obvious Hebrew connection. Secondly, in the ancient Greek world, it’s principally about rituals and the externals of worship.[1] You can read that analysis if you wish, but right now let’s concentrate on one of the implications of James’ amazing definition.
Notice that James says nothing about doctrine, creed, or dogma. True thrēskeíais found in the practice of compassion and abstention. But, of course, James isn’t giving this definition in a vacuum. He is, in fact, addressing the synagogue made up of believers in Messiah, both Jews and gentiles. He’s informing them that there is a code for following the King, namely, acting in ways that exhibit the character of the King (doing what he did). The implication is that believers operate within a kingdom, a kingdom that is uniquely separated from the other kingdoms of the world by these actions.
Wyschogrod reveals something we may have missed in our Greek/church view of James’ remark. “The church thus understands itself as having universalized the national election of Israel by opening it to all men who, in entering the church, enter a spiritualized, universalized new Israel.”[2] Did you get that? The focus of God’s involvement with Israel, and the emphasis of the writers of the apostolic material, is not on worldwide evangelism. The Bible is not a book of universal ethical instructions. God is focused on Israel and His word is directed to them, to the Jews! Why? Because God’s plan is to work through this divinely chosen people to reach the rest of humanity. It is to the Jew first, then to the rest of us. And that plan didn’t change when Yeshua came on the scene. In fact, he even reiterates this “first-then” movement. When the Church universalizes the message, it does so at the peril of losing touch with God’s intention. A universalized message does not need the particularity of Jewish expression, the uniqueness of a Jewish worldview or the special language of an ancient people. So the message can be converted into whatever is necessary for the “universal” audience. And faith becomes doctrine.
If true thrēskeía is found in the actions James outlines, does that mean it is divorced from Israel’s understanding of these actions? Absolutely not! You might think caring for widows and orphans and keeping yourself pure is all that’s needed—you would be wrong. What is needed is to perform these acts as a citizen of Israel, and that means knowing what these acts mean within the tribe. Not every act of compassion and purity is thrēskeía. This is not a universalized ethic. It is a very particular way of active involvement in community. James simply assumes that his audience will understand this. Why shouldn’t they? He isn’t writing to everyone. He’s writing to those in the “assembly” (actually, synagōgḗ, a Jewish synagogue, despite the English translators’ attempt to remove the Jewish implication. James 2:2). He knows they already have a particular view of compassion and purity. Do you know what that is?
Topical Index: thrēskeía, religion, compassion, purity, synagogue, Wyschogrod, James 1:27
[1]https://skipmoen.com/2018/04/catechism-1/
[2]Michael Wyschogrod, Abraham’s Promise, ed. and trans. R. Kendall Soulen (Eerdmans, 2004), p. 95.
In Acts, there is a description of the ecclesia that is repeated over and over and over “and they were all of one accord”, but in the stoning of Stephen, this phrase is used to also describe the mob that stoned him: “they were of one accord”. I believe this is not describing JUST a single worldview, even though that could be a subset: I think this is really describing a shared spirit: a single motivation.
John warns us to “try the spirits, whether they are of God” (1John 4:1). He goes on to say there are many spirits that have gone out into the world. Apparently, there can be false spirits not of God that can provide a unifying platform: a singleness of purpose that all people who are trying to achieve a “body” – unity – must have. Even folks who are ‘merely’ trying to unify themselves with shared doctrine and creed won’t be able to achieve singleness of purpose – “one accord” – without a spiritual motivation (purpose), even if that spirit is “not of God”. I suspect there are spiritual motivators behind all beliefs, but not all of them are of God. For example, if you believe that women should be seen and not heard in spiritual spaces, the unity you feel with others who share that doctrine – that worldview – is a very spiritual experience: a convicting experience: so convicting, in fact, that you could think that it is “of God” (if you didn’t know any better). So how would you “try that spirit”? There is only one way that we have been given: it is the way that was hammered out with a group of folks – the Jews – just like us; over and over: even if they never got it (Stephen accused them “who have received the law” of just that: “and have not kept it” Acts 7:53)).
The lens they were given to look through is the same one we were given, too. The question is, what are we looking through? What are we utilizing to provide our unity? The Spirit of God can only be identified by the same lens the Jews were handed. Even if they never really got the hang of it, we have no excuse: we who were given the baptism of the Holy Spirit to “give us an heart of flesh” and to unify us with. So how are we going to know if the spirit that is behind what we are choosing to believe and that is driving the purpose of our hearts is the Spirit of God?
Yeshua asked “what is written in the law? How readest thou?” (Luke 10:23). Well, then; what does that Book have to say about women regarding spiritual matters again? Only the Spirit of God – as defined ONLY in the Book given to the Jews (yes, the New Testament was also written to Jews, too) – has the ability to unite ALL people with “one accord”. I think all other shared spiritual motivations behind all other beliefs that we find in this world are going to be leaving at least somebody out: guaranteed.
Art Katz suggests to truley understand any scripture one must be “in the same spirit ” as he who penned that scripture. This would agree with your comment above and perhaps amplify it?
Profound implications…
Yes, the context is about doing. Verse 25 speaks of the perfect law, which, to my mind, seems best understood as that embodied in the Ten Commandments (I refrained from using “Torah”, as it seems some expand this beyond Moses’ tablets). The next verse, 26, reiterates James’ point about bridling the tongue, providing a prelude to his main point in this part of his letter in 27.
But the recipients of the letter are specifically identified in 1:1 as the twelve tribes that are dispersed. Now, I’m not suggesting we should construe James’ epistle’s teachings as for Jews over against Gentiles—I’m just pointing out the specified audience of this particular letter. And while the use of synagōgḗ in 2:2 might initially be understood to be purposely used over against ekklēsia, James counters any sort of negative implications on the latter by his use of ekklēsia in 5:14. One must reconcile this somehow.
The ‘Jewishness’ of the letter is further exemplified in the use of kyriou sabaōth (Lord of armies/hosts) in 5:4—used only one other time in the NT (Romans 9:29—a quotation of Isaiah 1:9)—and while kyrios is most often used of Yeshua in the NT, in this context I don’t think we can make that case. It may, or it may not (though 3:9 uses “Lord and Father”, tilting the evidence to God the Father as referent here, to my mind [or “God” generally, leaving room for an understanding of ‘complex in His unicity’?]). However, note the exalted language specifically used of Jesus in 2:1: “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (see Isaiah 42:8).
When I am possibly wrong about something, I like to correct the record. In looking for something totally unrelated a came across this in Louw and Nida’s lexicon regard ‘the twelve tribes’:
So, maybe it refers to only Jews, or maybe it refers to all God’s people. I still think it’s the former, but I offer this for consideration.
If, as Skip says, the Church is guilty of universalizing the message “at the peril of losing touch with God’s intention”, then I wonder if the Messianic Movement we are currently witnessing is not guilty of the same sin of universalism. Many Messianic synagogues copy the practices of Orthodox Judaism without any understanding, regard or apology and like their Christian cousins, have become “principally about rituals and the externals of worship”. The true “Jewish expression, the uniqueness of a Jewish worldview” has been appropriated, universalized and marginalized…once again. And Messianic Universalism becomes the new “faith” to which we must bow the knee, pay the fee and sing with glee.
I am afraid you are correct. One more “denomination” in the larger Christian domain.
Indeed.
To me, as one of Hebrew ancestory, I walked most of my life on a “Christian” path. Untill expressly called of God to change my aligences. I was called to embrace my Hebrew heritage and walk like I had. We must of course remember “Jew” is generally nominclature for those who pratice some form of Judisam or are from the tribe of Judah. There are still eleven other tribes walking the earth. And we are beginning to be woken up from our slumber. (I stumbled upon a prophetic verse about the tribes in the dispora being “awakend” from their slumber during the end times, but can not find it agin. It is however my experiance) Throughout my life the real defining thing is in what kingdom does one walk not what religious doctrines do you “confess” . So many I have known profess rightious convictions but they are actually just religious confessions that do not lead to actuale behavioural diffrences from the rest of those within present world sytemn. This is why,( and I invite comment) that I suggest the kingdom of Yehovah and the kingdom of this present world systemn are simultaneously coexisting but mutually exclusive. Excellent posting thanks…
I think the Holy Spirit is the only One who can add by multiplication: all other motivations, I have noticed, seek to add by division. I will be impressed the day I see a community who understands how to draw a circle that can take EVERYBODY in: an attraction that everybody can see they want. (No, I don’t think that is the motivation of “tolerance”.) And let it begin with me.
Having a picture to reply to, for today’s post Thursday I reply with the term Messianic universalism, I think it is most important to acknowledge that there are two backgrounds united into one, the Jewish faith and the Christian faith. Should consider each other as the same, but different backgrounds. History shows where the Christian faith started, but that should not consider it is still viable. And essential to overrule historical Hebrew background. When Paul speaks of our forefathers he speaks of Hebrews, not only that. But the book of Hebrews itself, addresses Hebrews, it should not be addressed to Christians, except Hebrew lens, very clearly and precisely, and on purpose, showing the separation and difference buy also our Union the one new man so to speak. I have tried to explain the marriage supper of the Lamb, in this context many do not do the research for them. Ugh
I agree with this brother. Yeshua’s condemnation on the religious leaders of his day was”You teach the traditions of men as if they where the ways of God”. Christian religious pratice and many of its leaders are now agin “teaching the traditions of men” (now the “church fathers”) as if they where the ways of God”. We individually must each , in my conidersations, “try the spirit” and “take captive every thought and subject it to (the knowedge or mind of ) Christ (Messiah)” to be sure we are walking in the way word and true spirit of Yehovah, the one true God our creator-The king of heavens armies. Not some impostor created by the minds, traditions, and doctrines of mankind.
God is focused on Israel and His word is directed to them, to the Jews! Why? Because God’s plan is to work through this divinely chosen people to reach the rest of humanity. It is to the Jew first, then to the rest of us.
This is where we continue to forget the goal of forming the nation of Israel that “is not counted among the other nations” as we were so eloquently told last week by the prophet Balaam. Israel is set apart so as to set the standard for the rest of the nations in the world to come.
We’re currently in the process collecting up the citizenry of that nation (from every tongue and tribe and nation) for that particular future purpose. Remembering where we’re at in this divine plan is the trick. Were gathering in the “elect” right now. The world to come is yet to come. That’s why Yeshua could say that he was in the world but not of the world. He was separated from the world to become High priest of the world to come and the head of a royal priesthood separated out of the nations (from Egypt forward) to minister between God and the nations in the world to come. The example is Aaron who was separated from Israel and still in Israel to minister between Israel and God. The one of the primary functions of the undefiled set apart priesthood was to distribute the tithes that were for the orphans and widows as well as the ger toshav to ease their afflictions. This was a direct hand to mouth from the hand of God provision for the helpless and needy within the borders of Israel. But it was also supposed to be a life example intended to train all Israel to be like Him by personally protecting and providing for the poor. The Royal priesthood bring life to the poor and needy of the nations.
A nation of pure and undefiled royal priests before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. James 1:27 NASB
I am so glad to see you quoting Wyschogrod. The last time you mentioned him it was not very encouraging yet I think his book is fundamental reading for Jews and Christians alike. Dan is still working his way through this book, we Kraemers can be plodders sometimes but hopefully thorough whatever we are espousing.
The Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires collapsed partially due to the fact that they had no vision and action plan that the people could buy into. Yeshua changed all that but unfortunately it all got perverted by the church at Rome with rituals, popes, creeds, dogma, doctrine and control of the people via politics.
Do you think Yeshua would recognize his message at a Mass and sermon in St. Peters Cathedral? Hmmm.
I am so glad to see you quoting Wyschogrod. The last time you mentioned him it was not very encouraging yet I think his book is fundamental reading for Jews and Christians alike. Dan is still working his way through this book, we Kraemers can be plodders sometimes but hopefully thorough whatever we are espousing.
The Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires collapsed partially due to the fact that they had no vision and action plan that the people could buy into. Yeshua changed all that but unfortunately it all got perverted by the church at Rome with rituals, cardinals, popes, dogma, doctrine and control of the people via Roman politics.
Do you think Yeshua would recognize his message at a Mass and sermon in St. Peters Cathedral? Hmmm.
It seems that web problems are obviously still with us for a while.
I am reposting this because my own response to my comment @ July 23, 2019 8:45 am is not visible when clicked on under the “Recent Comments” section. (Is this an issue just with nested comments, I wonder?):
When I am possibly wrong about something, I like to correct the record. In looking for something totally unrelated a came across this in Louw and Nida’s lexicon regard ‘the twelve tribes’:
So, maybe it refers to only Jews, or maybe it refers to all God’s people. I still think it’s the former, but I offer this for consideration.
And it seems to me the former too, as “all God’s people” could have easily been written and assumes a Christian view of James.
Yep; in this context I agree. But, it may be best to fully explain.
Here’s Peter David’s commentary (The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC; [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], pp 63-64) on James 1:1 (brackets [ ] and bold mine):
“In using the phrase αἱ δώδεκα φυλαί [the twelve tribes], the author looks on the recipients of the epistle as the true Israel. The church has quite naturally appropriated the title, for it was the work of the Messiah to reestablish the twelve tribes (Je. 3:18; Ezk. 37:19–24; Pss. Sol. 17:28), and Christians [to be understood here as both Jews and Gentiles] recognized themselves as the true heirs of the Jewish faith (Romans 4; 1 Cor. 10:18 [‘the nation Israel’]; Gal. 4:21–31 [‘children of the promise’ in v. 28]; Phil. 3:3 [‘the {true} circumcision’]). While such a term for the church would fall quite naturally from the lips of a Jewish Christian, Paul also uses it in his letters to gentile churches [as exhibited by Davids’ Scripture refs just above].
“The second part of the title, however, produces some controversy; the term διασπορά [diaspora] was used by Jews to indicate that part of Judaism living outside of Palestine (cf. K. L. Schmidt, TDNT II, 99–101), but what would such a term mean to Christians [both Jew and Gentile]? On the one hand, it is possible that they adopted the term and used it metaphorically to indicate their state as ‘strangers and pilgrims’ upon the earth (cf. Heb. 11:13; 13:14; and 1 Pet. 1:1, 17; 2:11). Thus Dibelius sees the book addressed to ‘the true Israel, whose home is in heaven, but for whom the earth is only a foreign land.’ This would be the most likely meaning of the term if the work were written outside of Palestine (and a possible meaning if it were written within that land). On the other hand, if one assumes not only a Palestinian, but a Jewish Christian provenance for the work, it would be unnatural to leap over the literal meaning. What other term would such a group have used to refer to [Jewish only?] Christians outside of Palestine, i.e. to [Jewish only?] Christians living ‘in the Diaspora’? This was the logical and natural way to do so. As a result, we conclude with Mussner that although the metaphorical sense is attractive, accepting as we do the Jewish Christian origin of this epistle, the most: natural way of reading this phrase is as an address to the true Israel (i.e. Jewish Christians) outside of Palestine (i.e. probably in Syria and Asia Minor).”
First of all, my opinion is that the Messiah’s coming to regather the twelve tribes refers to the Second Coming—a future event (see 2 Thess 2:1, 8). So, I disagree with Davids here, unless I can find any NT Scripture to back up such a position.
There is only one other time diaspora can be construed to speak of Christians generally (1 Peter 1:1), but this is not in conjunction with “the twelve tribes” but with “strangers,” “aliens,” etc.—meaning in a spiritual sense of being aliens to this world. Thus, in partial agreement with Davids—I disagree that the full phrase “the twelve tribes of the diaspora” can ever refer to Christians generally, and I find a spiritual application of this to be incorrect—I’m of the persuasion that James 1:1 is indeed to be taken literally as Jewish Christians, as opposed to Jewish and Gentile Christians (with the latter word shorn of any negative connotation) just as Davids ultimately opines above.
And, I also stand by the entirety of my July 23, 2019 8:45 am comment.
It seems to me that Davids is entirely replacement theology. Suggesting that Jewish CHRISTIANS even existed at the time, and that the church is the true Israel is just nonsense but, of course, legitimized nonsense from the perspective of the church. Are we to read every reference to the tribes as hidden allusions to Christians? Why not take it as it stands – the tribes of ISRAEL, still spread around the Mediterranean. And how did “Palestine” get into this mix? “Heirs of the Jewish faith?” You have to be kidding. In what possible way are men of the synagogue (clearly addressed in chapter 2) “heirs” of the Jewish faith? This is really straight replacement and, as such, theological bias in every sense.
But, you haven’t addressed the fact (in my comment @ July 23, 2019 8:45 am) that ekklēsia is found in 5:14 as well. This must be reconciled somehow, and I submit that in the one instance of “synagogue” it does in fact refer to the Jewish synagogue, whereas ekklēsia (“presbyterous, elders of the ekklēsia“) refers to Christians, whether ethnic Jew or Gentile. Otherwise, where do we find leadership of the Jewish synagogue referred to as presbyterous?
I welcome any other opinions on what ekklēsia may refer to in 5:14.
Given that most of the Pharisees in the NT, e.g., were not followers of the Messiah, how can they rightly be called part of the ekklēsia Jesus established (Mt. 16:18)?
From Wikipedia entry on Palestine (and see map there):
Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia usually considered to include Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in some definitions, parts of western Jordan.
The name was used by ancient Greek writers, and it was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima, and the Islamic provincial district of Jund Filastin. The region comprises most of the territory claimed for the biblical regions known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra’el), the Holy Land or Promised Land, and represents the southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan, Syria, ash-Sham, and the Levant…
Modern archaeology has identified 12 ancient inscriptions from Egyptian and Assyrian records recording likely cognates of Hebrew Pelesheth. The term “Peleset” (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in five inscriptions referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c. 1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first known mention is at the temple at Medinet Habu which refers to the Peleset among those who fought with Egypt in Ramesses III’s reign, and the last known is 300 years later on Padiiset’s Statue. Seven known Assyrian inscriptions refer to the region of “Palashtu” or “Pilistu”, beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c. 800 BCE through to a treaty made by Esarhaddon more than a century later. Neither the Egyptian nor the Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term.
The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BCE Ancient Greece, when Herodotus wrote of a “district of Syria, called Palaistinê” (Ancient Greek: Συρίη ἡ Παλαιστίνη καλεομένη) in The Histories, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition for the region in Meteorology, in which he included the Dead Sea. Later Greek writers such as Polemon and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. The term was first used to denote an official province in c. 135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and the Paralia to form “Syria Palaestina”. There is circumstantial evidence linking Hadrian with the name change, but the precise date is not certain and the assertion of some scholars that the name change was intended “to complete the dissociation with Judaea” is disputed.
The term is generally accepted to be a translation of the Biblical name Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth,, usually transliterated as Philistia). The term and its derivates are used more than 250 times in Masoretic-derived versions of the Hebrew Bible, of which 10 uses are in the Torah, with undefined boundaries, and almost 200 of the remaining references are in the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel. The term is rarely used in the Septuagint, which used a transliteration Land of Phylistieim (Γῆ τῶν Φυλιστιείμ) different from the contemporary Greek place name Palaistínē (Παλαιστίνη).
(This is in response to Skip @ July 28, 2019 1:47 pm, since my two comments responding to it are not visible.)
But, you haven’t addressed the fact (in my comment @ July 23, 2019 8:45 am) that ekklēsia is found in 5:14 as well. This must be reconciled somehow, and I submit that in the one instance of “synagogue” it does in fact refer to the Jewish synagogue, whereas ekklēsia (“presbyterous [elders] of the ekklēsia“) refers to Christians, whether ethnic Jew or Gentile. Otherwise, where do we find leadership of the Jewish synagogue referred to as presbyterous?
I welcome any other opinions on what ekklēsia may refer to in 5:14.
Given that most of the Pharisees in the NT, e.g., were not followers of the Messiah, how can they rightly be called part of the ekklēsia Jesus established (Mt. 16:18)?
From Wikipedia entry on Palestine (and see map there):
Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn; Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina) is a geographic region in Western Asia usually considered to include Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in some definitions, parts of western Jordan.
The name was used by ancient Greek writers, and it was later used for the Roman province Syria Palaestina, the Byzantine Palaestina Prima, and the Islamic provincial district of Jund Filastin. The region comprises most of the territory claimed for the biblical regions known as the Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra’el), the Holy Land or Promised Land, and represents the southern portion of wider regional designations such as Canaan, Syria, ash-Sham, and the Levant…
Modern archaeology has identified 12 ancient inscriptions from Egyptian and Assyrian records recording likely cognates of Hebrew Pelesheth. The term “Peleset” (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in five inscriptions referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c. 1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first known mention is at the temple at Medinet Habu which refers to the Peleset among those who fought with Egypt in Ramesses III’s reign, and the last known is 300 years later on Padiiset’s Statue. Seven known Assyrian inscriptions refer to the region of “Palashtu” or “Pilistu”, beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c. 800 BCE through to a treaty made by Esarhaddon more than a century later. Neither the Egyptian nor the Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term.
The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt was in 5th century BCE Ancient Greece, when Herodotus wrote of a “district of Syria, called Palaistinê” (Ancient Greek: Συρίη ἡ Παλαιστίνη καλεομένη) in The Histories, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley. Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition for the region in Meteorology, in which he included the Dead Sea. Later Greek writers such as Polemon and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. The term was first used to denote an official province in c. 135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and the Paralia to form “Syria Palaestina”. There is circumstantial evidence linking Hadrian with the name change, but the precise date is not certain and the assertion of some scholars that the name change was intended “to complete the dissociation with Judaea” is disputed.
The term is generally accepted to be a translation of the Biblical name Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth,, usually transliterated as Philistia). The term and its derivates are used more than 250 times in Masoretic-derived versions of the Hebrew Bible, of which 10 uses are in the Torah, with undefined boundaries, and almost 200 of the remaining references are in the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel. The term is rarely used in the Septuagint, which used a transliteration Land of Phylistieim (Γῆ τῶν Φυλιστιείμ) different from the contemporary Greek place name Palaistínē (Παλαιστίνη).