Hebrews, Jews, and Israelites-An Argument
By Harvey Freilich

Once I was a Hebrew,
Where now I am a Jew,
And Hebrew's now my language,
Where once Jews spoke Jewish - Nu?

Confusing? You bet! I've been trying to make sense of it since I began studying Torah sixty years ago, at the age of nine. I've figured most of it out by now. There are still a few sticking points, but the gist of it is that, all Jews are really Hebrew, but not all Hebrews became Jews. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, allow me to give you the short version of a heritage spanning almost six thousand years, and the wrinkle in its chronology which produced a new identity for a tribal confederation identified as the Hebrew Children of Israel.

Once upon a time, between some thirty-seven hundred, and thirty-three hundred years ago, there lived a man called, Abraham. Where biblical historians once thought his homeland to be in southern Mesopotamia, it appears modern researchers place his origin to the northern borders of Syria, at an ancient Sumerian locale called, Urartu of the Chaldeans.

This is because the Ur spoken of as Abraham's home in the Bible didn't come into existence until some one thousand years after Abraham's death!

According to legend, Abraham's father, Terah, was an idol maker; a molder of pagan idols for worship. Abraham, according to the story, is told by the deity today worshipped as G_d by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims to leave his father's house and move to the nearby city of Haran, where he establishes monotheism. He sojourns between Haran, Egypt, and a place called, Mamre, named after a confederate, where he dwells for a time, and here is where the story begins to get a bit muddled.

In the Bible, at Gen. 14:13, Abraham is identified as a Hebrew, and historians, as well as Church clergymen and Rabbinic Talmudists clash in defining what the Hebrew term means. Most authorities see the term as meaning to "cross over," by reason of the root verb from which "Hebrew" is derived [avar]. Others see in its construct an even more obscure meaning, taken from an archaeological dig at Tel El-Armana, identifying mercenaries to the ancient Sumerian kings as the "br" or "Habiru." To complicate the matter, an etymological association is proffered for its meaning to an ancestral uncle of Abraham by the name of Eber, or Ever [thus, all the children of Eber are Eberites, and by that implication, Hebrews].

You want more? I believe there to be a fourth definition, and one that is mine, alone. In the biblical sentence of Gen. 14:13, where the term, "Hebrew" is first seen, is a word to express how a person sits, or dwells on the land. In the Hebrew tongue it is shawkan. Earlier, at Gen. 13:18, Abraham sits or dwells upon the same land in a different manner; i.e. yawshab. Both terms are descriptive of dwelling or sitting, and my question has always been, does being a Hebrew change how one sits or dwells upon the land he is occupying?

Just when I'm ready to address that question, a new one pops up! Not only is this one a puzzler, but it turns out to actually help in answering the first one! Look at any English translation of the Hebrew Bible, and you'll find the term, "Israelites" as descriptive of the Children of Israel…but there is no such word in the Torah; go ahead, try to find it. You'll find a word for a woman of Israel [Yisraelitis], but no "Yisraelim" ["Israelite"], only bene Yisrael is used to identify the Sons or Children of Israel…why? I think I know! It goes directly to the residency of Abraham, and the fact that after Gen. 14:13 he only sojourns upon the land he occupies; he never becomes a citizen therein, and by so doing, remains a resident without city-state status; sort of like the green card alien resident living and working in the United States today, but not a citizen of the land!

Thus, "Israelites" would be an inappropriate term for the Children of Israel. They, like their father, Abraham, are sojourners. The Hebrew suffix "-im" [the English "-ite"] could not be attached to the term, "Israel," as its use would connote them as city-state citizens [which the tent-dwelling, nomadic tribes of Israel were not].

For corroboration of this idea, note the determinative symbol used for Israel upon the stele of Merenptah housed in the museum of Cairo as a people without city-state, or kingdom status.

Is Isaac identified as a Hebrew? No! He remains upon the land where he was born; in his father's house-not, as yet, a sojourner. Joseph? Yes! He is sold by his brothers to the Midianites, who in turn sell him into the house of the pharaoh as a bond-servant [a displaced sojourner], and recognized as a Hebrew by Potiphar's wife. The Hebrew slaves of Goshen in bondage, recognized by the G_D of the Hebrews to be such at Ex.3:18 and Ex.5:3 are also displaced sojourners, as are the soldiers of King Saul, Jonah, the prophet, and Saul called, Paul [St. Paul of the New Testament], who doesn't question his ethnicity utilizing the idiom of his day: "Am I not a Jew of the Jews?" but rather queries: "Am I not a Hebrew of the Hebrews?" For has he not become a displaced sojourner himself; a spokesman for Jesus' ministry, rather than the former tax collector, citizen, and prosecutor of Jews?

The establishment of the Davidic Monarchy in 1000 B. C. E. eliminated the need for the term, “Hebrew” for now, as city-state dwellers, the Hebrew appellation would have been inappropriate. Thus, from 1000 B. C. E., and for about one hundred years thereafter, "Hebrew" was unspoken of as an identity for the children of Israel.

When David and Solomon died, the son of Solomon caused a rift between tribal factions of Israel, and the Kingdom split into two monarchies. Ten tribes took the Northern provinces in and about Samaria as the Kingdom of Israel, while the tribes of Judah and Benjamin took the southern provinces in and around Jerusalem as the Kingdom of Judah.

Here, the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin ‘nationalized’ themselves into a single nation populated by “Jews” [Yehudim - see 2nd Kings 16:6]; circa 735 B.C.E., not in 586 B.C.E. Post-Babylonia, as modern scholarship asserts. The northern Kingdom of Israel retained its identity as a tribal confederation, opting not to utilize the “-im” suffix which connoted a kingdom-dwelling “citizen-nationality” thus, the continued absence in the historical texts of the term “Israelites” [Yisraelim]!

For about two hundred years the two kingdoms coexisted as estranged, until the nation of Assyria set its sights upon Damascus [Syria], and moved upon it.

Syria pleaded with Israel for assistance against a common foe, for if Syria fell, surely the border Kingdom of Israel would be next. Israel agreed, and reluctantly petitioned the Southern Kingdom of Judah to join in the fray.

Judah refused, drawing the wrath of Israel, which then attacked Jerusalem with their Syrian allies. The king of Judah sent a tribute of silver to the Assyrian king, that he might find favor in the king’s eyes as a vassal state, if only the Assyrian army would stave off Israel’s invasion against Jerusalem. This the Assyrian king and his successors did until, some fourteen years later, the Kingdom of Israel fell.

Those not returned to Assyria as captives, were left to their own devices, as the Assyrian king displaced Israel’s citizens with people of his own choosing. With nowhere else to go or turn, the bulk of Israel’s displaced citizenry [they had again become Hebrews, so-called] was absorbed into the southern Kingdom of Judah as serfs and bondservants [see Jer. 34:14 -16]! Corroborative evidence of this absorption can be found in the discovery of retaining walls uncovered by Professor Nachman Avidad in 1970, and constructed in the eighth century before the Common Era (during the Assyrian invasion of Israel), which expanded the perimeter of Jerusalem to incorporate an additional twenty thousand people.

In Magen Broshi’s words regarding Professor Avidad's discovery, “Jerusalem’s population had mushroomed, historically speaking, overnight!”

Thus, when some hundred and thirty years later, Babylonian forces crushed Assyria, and marched upon Jerusalem and the Southern Kingdom of Judah, it was written that the “Jews” were routed from their Kingdom for, by then, the absorbed ex-citizens of the Northern Kingdom of Israel were part of the “Jewish” population of the Kingdom of Judah where “Jews” lived!

By the time the children of Israel had ended their Babylonian captivity, their sojourn in Persia, and re-established their schools in the 1st and 2nd centuries of the Common Era, the idea of Hebrew, Jew, and “Israelite” were one, and interchangeable. This is easily corroborated with the Book of Esther, at Es. 2:5, wherein Mordechai, Esther’s uncle, is spoken of as both a man of Benjamin (Heb. Yemeeni), and a Jew (Yehudee). The children of Israel had forgotten who was who, before they had become who they were known to be.

This penchant for modification by the redactors of the Biblical Canon can be readily understood by noting the order of its books and their content. In the Books of Samuel, which follows the Book of Joshua, the Hebrew term can be found throughout, but in the Book of Joshua, supposedly penned before the Books of Samuel, the Hebrew term is non-existent!

Problematic; especially here, where its use would be required to carry along the chronological tide of those so identified in Exodus as the Hebrews liberated from Egyptian bondage by Moses, who is himself known to be an Hebrew of the Hebrews.

As the centuries passed, the errant and/or modified history was compounded by the Talmudic Schools of thought, which promulgated the acceptance of misnomers and modified history. By the time Rashi began commenting on the TaNaKh early in the twelfth century of the Common Era, the mindset of the descendants of Abraham had already been affected by the revisionism which had begun with the Jews of the Kingdom of Judah, after the Assyrian Diaspora of Israel at Samaria [circa 735 - 721 B. C. E.], and continued with the teachings of the Talmudic School.

The truth of this observation can be seen in Rashi’s commentaries themselves, as they utilize, and so perpetuate, errant nomenclature the Talmudic sages who preceded Rashi had already been using for centuries. Rashi recognizes the descendants of Abraham in the Pentateuch as not only the Hebrew children of Israel, but Jews and “Israelites,” as well.

As Rashi’s tutelage was gleaned from the schools and scholars of Worms and Mainz in Germany, and even then from family members and influences, it's obvious the Talmudic school of Rabbinic thought already prevailed.

The terms, “Jews” and “Israelites,” when referring to the Hebrew children of Israel are, in the former a chronological misnomer, and in the latter a non-existent word in the Pentateuch.

I have given some reasons as to how the Hebrews of ancient times came to become the Jews they are considered to be today. The question has never been answered as to the why of accepting the wrong identification of the children of Israel when referring to them as Jews in the Pentateuch. Ease of comprehension is a poor excuse for historical modification; so is forgetting one’s roots!

The answer to this question must lie in the fact that the victors or survivors of civil conflicts write the history; for the Hebrew term is not to be found after the monarchial division as describing a Jew or one of "Jewish" descent, nor can the term be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, even in the telling of the ancient story of Abraham, where its use would have been chronologically appropriate. The fact of the matter is, the Hebrew has always been a Hebrew, but a Jew has not always been a Jew. Thus, and especially during the observance of the High Holy Days [such as the Passover], it is, and will continue to be inappropriate to extol the liberation of the Hebrew Children of Israel, by identifying them as “Jews” or “Israelites!”

The Torah is quite specific about who these people were, and what they were called. As mentioned before, and as it is written in the Five Books of Moses, at Ex. 3:18, “…tell the king of Egypt the God of the Hebrews has met us…” Thus, when speaking of the descendants of Abraham, or the children of Israel, prior to any conversation regarding the Divided Monarchies [circa 735 B. C. E. or 2nd Kings 16:6, Biblically], the correct terminology is either: Hebrews, The Children of Israel, or Israel [the collective].

Im sorry, what question were you answering???

Initially, the question was: Why is it acceptable, when referring to the Children of Israel, in identifying them as "Jews," i.e. "reading back" a "Jewish" history into a Hebrew past? For example, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin's chapter on Moses in his book of Jewish history utilizes: Hebrews, Jews, Israelites, etc; where only Hebrew(s) would be chronologically appropriate [such as Abraham being a Jew or Jewish]. Since the term, Jew did not surface as indicative of the Abrahamic descendancy until some six hundred years after the Exodus, it is chronologically inappropriate to state that, "Moses led the Jews out of Egypt." Although it is understood by many that what is meant by the statement refers to the Hebrews, it would be more beneficial in teaching Hebraic or Judaic scholarship by using the correct terms of identification in a Biblically accurate manner. Thus, when referring to the identity of the Abrahamic descendancy in the Five Books of Moses, they were, are, and forever will be Hebrew(s).

Okay, you just hit on a pet peeve of mine. In our prayers we say Kol Beit Israel, In the Haggadah we just sang, "Betzet Israel MiMitzrayim. And I really have realized over the past couple of years how I despise this penchant for inserting the word Jew into our Torah. If we are Bnai Israel, then call us at that and at the very least in referring to pre Hezekiah era when their were still 12 Shvatim.

Though as far as Hebrews are concerned, to me it is more a generic rather then genealogical label. We are Hebrews because we came over Ever-Hayarden, over the Jordan. In Jacob we got our true blood name of Israel. And again later we went back into being something else. Instead of Hebrews it is now Jews. But we are all Israelite under the skin more or less.


But the problem, not for me, occurs in that in correcting this backwards labeling we must include others. The much despised Karaites are Bnai Israel, even if they arent "Jews". The Shomronim, even if mixed up,are at least kin to us in that they do have Israelite blood in their history.

"We are Hebrews because we came over Ever-Hayarden, over the Jordan... But we are all Israelite under the skin more or less."

Allow me to recognize your power of deductive reasoning; I respect that highly. As to your two statements above:

I understand the root, avar, could mean to 'cross over,' but my studies seem to indicate that in the case of Abraham, the term, Hebrew is specific to his sojourning where he dwells, and not so much from where he 'crossed over.' As to "Israelite," I never utilize the term, as it is absent from Torah, and my comprehension is that the Bene Yisrael, being sojourning, nomadic wanderers, never opted to add the city-state dwelling "-im" [the English "-ite"] suffix to their banner title of Yisrael. I know; sounds like semantics, again; I think it more historical, and ancestral heritage accuracy. May the dialogue continue in friendship.

Maybe you don't read the same archeology books as I do, but the last time I checked Ivri was a general name for the peoples who migrated from mesopotamia to the levant over a few hundred years period. It does not necessary designate a group and it loosely translated as roving bandits.

Interestingly the two groups which joined us but did not have rabbinical tradition (the indian jews and the ethiopians) called themselves beta yisrael.

The Samaratans hold they are the descendents of Menasheh and Ephraim and the genetic evidence indicates that this is correct. The people moved into the Shomron by the Babylonian kings were apparently someone else or was just a select group of officials who had no genetic imput on the descendents of menashah and ephraim.

If you want to start with all the mistranslations and anachristic terms in any discipline, it would be a very long list, e.g. we still say burning calories for using up food but the analogy of the body with the steam engine has longed been abandon. The function of language is communication not historical accuracy. Even terms with halachic significance like the norse gods for the names of the weekdays or the roman gods for the names of the months are ignored. However I see the PC people are pushing for C.E. and B.C.E. (which is find with me).


Aryeh Shore

My respects to Laurence Shore, and my gratitude for his response.
Approaching the language of "The Torah" as a secular researcher, analytical archaeology plays a smaller role to me than does the text as written.
Although I agree with your assessment that, "...the function of language is communication, not accuracy," it [language]nevertheless becomes paramount to the Orthodox adherent religiously...and that is what I am responding to: the statements in the writing as written, not perceived, nor interpreted for historical alteration [e.g. Gen. 14:13 - Abram, the Ivri]. It is obvious the redactor of this statement understood, in and of his time, who and what an Ivri was. If applied to all other Ivrim, as biblically described, it appears the term relates more to how an individual resides on the land he occupies, more than the fact of his "crossing over" from one place to another, or from one belief system to another [idolotry to montheism].
In my understanding of, and consideration of the biblical text as written, and the Hebrews, in particular, the players of this story [one of many proffered by various societies and civilizations]are unique in their exclusivity; in that their belief system has survived the many centuries of time - whereas their surrounding neighbors, who seemed greater within their kingdoms, have gone to dust.
Thus, Hebrews are a fascination to me, and I am not speaking of the Habiru [the "roving bandits" you allude to], but the agriculturally-oriented descendants of Abraham and Jacob. I am questioning the Talmudic Rabbinate's offering for the definition of the term, Hebrew; my "gut" feeling, if you will, is that its meaning, in modern comprehension, might be something other than how it is defined in Orthodox terms.
As an illustration of how I perceive the accuracy or errancy of biblical text, I offer 2nd Sam. 12:31, and David's barbarity, rather than the Talmudic modification, which renders the dark light of protective sovereignty a muted pastoral shade of invention and fantasy.
I didn't say these topics were easy; I do believe they deserve the dialogue...and for that, Laurence Shore, I thank you.
With respect, and in friendship.
Harvey Freilich