Hi
@rosends
Rosends said : “intuiting ethnicity from names is rife with problems.” (post #199)
I agree, especially in modern times. But we are not talking about modern times. We are speaking of specific historic periods. Look at the names of the bible in the early periods.
While "Shlomo" and "Moshe" could be common Mexican names and "Jose" could be Swedish and "Roger" could be a common name of an african tribe in the 1400s but these would be strange exceptions.
While there are many exceptions to this nowadays, It doesn’t take a linguist to understand that certain names on a list of thousands of ancient names on ancient lists are associated with certain nations.
1) IF THEY WERE GENTILES IN THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH THAT DID NOT CONVERT TO JUDAISM, THEN THEY REMAINED GENTILES IN JUDAH
Rosends said : “I said that there were commentators that said they converted fully and some that said they didn't convert fully” (post #199)
So, if they started out as non-Jews among Jews and did not convert, then they remained non-Jews among Jews.
Rosends said : “ I explained (had you read, you would have seen) that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation.” (post #199)
OK. Give readers evidence that R. Cohen did not mean what he said and that he was reflecting
“one specific classic commentator”.
Tell readers what commentator he was speaking of?
Tell readers what specific situation he was referring to?
2) THE DISAGREEMENT IS NOT ABOUT THE HISTORICAL USE OF THE WORD ISRAEL BUT THE SPECIFIC ORIGIN AND USAGE OF THE WORD "JEW"
Rosends said : There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.” (post #199)
I agree that
in this context, “Isreal” is simply is a geographical. However the word we disagree on is not “Israel” but the word “Jew”.
Rosends said : I never said it was a catch all for non-Jews. There is no evidence that a non-Jew was called a Jew.
Of course there is historical evidence of this but that was irrelevant to my point.
Perhaps we can review a bit of history to put this issue to rest as it appears to be important to you, (but not to me).
It matters whether you are speaking
historically or “modern” usage. For example, Even you used “
yehudin” as a non-historical way, as a “catch-all” term that it has become.
BUT, IF we are speaking “historically” then it matters how it is used and what time period one is are referring to.
Lets use your family friend and historical Scholar Rabbi Cohen of Harvard as a source since you seem to trust him (though Gruen, Janowitz, Grabe, Porton, etc al. have reviewed and agree with him on much of his work)
So, R. Cohen tells us, “
to make a Jew” (la’asot jehudi),
“to be made a Jew did not simply mean “to convert to Judaism”.
Rabbi Cohen, tells us that medieval copyists had difficulty with understanding terms (such as Mityahadin and
yudazein, etc) that they understood “
Make yourselves Jews” to mean “
pretend to be converts" and thus substituted
gerim for
yehudin.
Even words such as “
Ioudazein and Ioudaios” did not have the meaning you apply to them.
I claimed the term originated from the name Judah, but it evolved into a term that could be applied to anyone who lived in Judaea.
This is why Rabbai Cohen says it could, historically (for a time) be applied to anyone who lived in Judaea.
Thus a gentile who lived in Judaea could call himself a Jew just a someone from Texas might call themselves a Texan regardless of religion.
The point is that the term evolved.
This is Cohens (and other historians) point. You simply could not tell what religion a “Jew” was at one point in history.
This is why the romans were able to present themselves to Rabbi Gamaliel as converts. It was, as Rabbi Cohen said, “
easy to pass as a Jew”.
While Cohen says “
Before or about 100 b.c.e. Ioudais always and only” meant a function of birth and/or geography (pp. 70-71 in his book) without a religious or cultural meaning with later meanings developing only from approximately the 2nd century b.c.e.
He attributes the Maccabean conflict to the development of the later “catch-all” nature of the term.
Before the existence of Rabbinic Judaism the term was certainly less defined.
So, when you talk about foreigners being called “Jews” it did not have the meaning then that you are applying to it now.
As rabbis innovated religious rules and regulation for this relatively new religion “Rabbinic Judaism” (or Rabbanate Judaism) rules such as Immersion the term Jew, historically, took on more of a “religious” catch-all meaning as you called the term.
So, what was once a name of a son of Israel (Judah/Jew), over time took on a geographic meaning, and added an ethnic character to it, and added a religious meaning and a cultural meaning according the Cohen.
This is why at certain periods of time the term “
Ioudaia” is taken by the historian Cohen to mean “Judean” instead of “Israelite”.
At later periods,
Ioudaios takes on a clearly religious character such as when Mattathias slays the priest in Maccabees.
Cohen even gives examples where the different meanings are used in proximity such as in 2 Macc 6:1 versus 6:6.
So, as we approach the end of the 2nd century c.e. Ioudaia was used to mean anyone residing in judea whether they were Jewish or not and the newer meaning that emerged is a person of Jewish culture/religion/heritage, etc.
When you use the term you simply used it as a “catch-all” term. There is a problem with such non-specificity.
4) THE RESULTS OF USING INCREASINGLY LESS SPECIFIC TERMS AND USING THE TERM "JEW" AS A “CATCH-ALL”.
For example, when I was young, I remember that the term “I Jewed him down” meant that a person bargained with another for a much lower price. Even the online Etymology Dictionary still contains the verb “Jew” as meaning “to Cheat” or “drive a hard bargain”. Such meanings stem from a tendency to use terms as an improper “catch-all” and instead of a specific meaning.
If I use the term “The Jewish religion” as a “catch-all” then it can apply to multiple religions.
For example,
Early Christianity can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that accepted the Messiah” given their interpretation of the old testament.
Rabbinic Judaism can easily be referred to as a form of “Judaism that did not accept the Messiah” given their interpretation of the Old Testament.
Islam can be a form of “Judaism that accepted Mohammed as the final prophet of Judaism” with their own interpretation of the Old Testament and while Islam emerged near the six hundreds, Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity emerged much closer in time period.
If we do not retain
specific meaning HISTORICALLY, then History and meaning evolve incorrectly and terms are used improperly or at least lose their original meaning and historical confusion results.
Clear
