Your understanding of Israel is over 2000 years old. If we used your line of reasoning with the United States, we would see a very different place 2000 years ago. Italy would extent beyond the Tigris river and to the British Isles. The same is true of Israel. With time and conquest, tribes, clans and nations change. The bible tells us all the tribes of Israel were carried off into captivity first by the Assyrians and then later by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Most all of them never returned to the land of the forefathers. Both the Assyrians and Babylonians had allies, who helped conquer Israel. Historical record tells us that the vacated lands (i.e. homes, shops, farms, orchards,towns, cities etc.) were given to their allies as spoils of war. The Assyrians moved other alien people in and settled them in Samaria (norther kingdom of Israel). Nebuchadnezzar was allied with the Edomites, who hated Israel. As a reward, the Edomites inherited the vacated lands of Judah. The Edomites became the dominant population in the region. Only a very small remnant of Israelites returned after 70 years of captivity in Babylonia. The recorded number was 42,600 people (of which slightly over 8,000 were not of any of the tribes of Israel at all, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah show). There were 34,000 people who could trace their ancestry to Judah, Benjamin, or Levi; that's all. They were a small minority compared to the vast majority population that already settled in Judah under Nebuchadnezzar reign. We read that the Samaritans (i.e. Edomites , et. al.) greatly harassed the small Israelite remnant when they were building the second temple (Ezra 4:4). This would not occur if they were the dominant population.
Even the Greeks called the region "Idumea", which means land of Edom. Much later, Herod is king of the region. He too is an Edomite. It is reasonable to conclude that an individual becomes king by representing the will of its inhabitants.
Then we read that,
“The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus who forcibly converted them (the Edomites) to Judaism, and from then on they constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod being one of their descendants”, The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966), pg. 594, AS WELL AS in the The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589
"From this time the Idumeans [read: Edomites] became an inseparable part of the Jewish people”, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, in Volume 8, page 1147
Israel and the Levant are the crossroads of land trade between three continents. Who controls this region has been historically coveted by three continents of people all through recorded history.
The Outline of History. H. G. Wells, "It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine 'at all,' which witnesses the power of historical assertion over fact."
The Jews are not Israelites. Judaism is not Hebraism. Jesus did not practice Judaism. Judaism is a religion formed earnestly after Christianity.
From their own academic texts we find:
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'". -- 1980 Jewish Almanac, 1st chapter "Identity Crisis". (Jewish Encyclopedia IV, 1902, p 335).
Archaeological finds have revealed ancient Israelites remains. Cranial shape and size does not change racially. The Israelite skulls were dolichocephalic (long-headed) with avg. cranial capacity of 1416cc. This is identical to modern northern Europeans. Modern day Jews are brachycephalic (round-headed) with a much smaller avg. cranial capacity of 1266cc. This fact alone convincingly proves modern Jews are not descendants of ancient Israel. Furthermore, in Jewish texts we find that,
"Jews began in the 19th century to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860". – Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol 10:23.
Here is a list of books that will show that the Jews are not Israelites and never have been:
The Jewish Encyclopedia: (1973)
The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972)
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Americana (1985)
Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition)
Academic American Encyclopedia (1985)
Encyclopedia Americana (1985)
The American People’s encyclopedia for 1954
Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925
The Encyclopedia Judaica
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia
Academic American Encyclopedia, Deluxe Library Edition, Volume 12
The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6
Collier’s Encyclopedia, Volume 14
New Catholic Encyclopedia
The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia
The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler
The Zionist Connection II, Alfred M. Lilienthal
The History of The Jewish Khazars, by D.M. Dunlop
Facts Are Facts, By Benjamin Freedman.
Whew! Not a single reference from The Bible. Biblical literally means “of the Bible”. I’m starting to worry that too many of us interpreted this phrase incorrectly “It’s going to be Biblical”.
biblical
bĭb′lĭ-kəl
adjective
Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible.
Being in keeping with the nature of the Bible, especially.
Suggestive of the personages or times depicted in the Bible.
This is a fair criticism in that I didn't provide Internal evidence. However, I provided External evidence. This is actually part of the tests of historiography, which is used for all books of antiquity and judged by for their authenticity. There are a total of three tests, (1) Bibliography test, (2) Internal Evidence test, and (3) External Evidence test.
The Internal Evidence test examines what the writers have said about the events that took place in the text itself. Aristotle’s dictum is implied – “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” As an analogy, if I told you I owned a green coat, it is your responsibility to prove I do not own one. Until then, it is assumed that this is indeed the truth. In law, this premise is called the law of presumption.
What I provided was External Evidence test. It accounts for whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal evidence found in the manuscripts. For example, there are over 21 documents that are widely accepted by archaeologists outside of the books of the Bible. These all confirm the message of the New Testament. Some of these are Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Plineus Secondus, Tertullian, Cornelius Tacitus, Hippolytus, Polycarp, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara bar-Serepion, the Talmud, Eusibius, Irenaeaus, Ignatius, Origen, Cyprian, Clement of Rome, et. al.
The last test of historiography is the Bibliography test. This is where the number of manuscripts and the earliest copies are evaluated. For example, Aristotle wrote his writings of poetics in 343 BC and yet the earliest copy [manuscript] we have is dated 1100 AD. That’s nearly a 1,400-year gap in time. Only 5 manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic wars between 58 – 50 BC and yet the earliest copy we have is a 1,000 years after his death. Only 9 to 10 copies now exist. In comparison, there are 24,363 manuscripts of the Bible. After the papyri manuscripts were discovered, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. We have manuscripts that date to 60 AD within a generation of Jesus' live (i.e. Magdalene papyrus, 7Q4 and 7Q5 of Qumran 68 AD).
Your criticism isn't the Bibliography test that's in dispute. Your criticism is for the lack of Internal evidence I provided. Fair enough, let's look at that. I'll start with the following:
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Who are "them" if they are not Jews? Many people would look no further than what is written. However, God calls us to know His Word. Etymology is very important. In fact, when we apply this to the often used word 'Jew', we find through etymology that it never existed during Roman times. In fact, it didn't exist until the 16th century. This word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites".
Word manipulation and name-stealing has a long history, The word 'Jew' derives actually from the French 'Juerie'. I will get to the significance of this in a moment. But first, the history of Judah, as a living, breathing individual, and the land of his posterity, it was called Judah until his posterity was forcibly and completely removed from the land of Judah to Babylonia. The proper word describing Judah's offspring and descendants has always been Judahites. The word 'Jew' never derived from Judah and certainly did not exist during the Roman times as I will explain in the following paragraphs. First, let's look at where the word Judahite is used in the Bible.
Some Biblical excerpts using the word Judahite:
2 Ki 18:26 Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the chief adviser, "Speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Don't speak with us in the Judahite dialect in the hearing of the people who are on the wall."
2Ki 18:28 The chief adviser then stood there and called out loudly in the Judahite dialect, "Listen to the message of the great king, the king of Assyria.
2Ki 25:23 All of the officers of the Judahite army and their troops heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah to govern. So they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah. The officers who came were Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maacathite.
1Ch 4:18 (His Judahite wife gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.) These were the sons of Pharaoh's daughter Bithiah, whom Mered married.
2Ch 13:13 Now Jeroboam had sent some men to ambush the Judahite army from behind. The main army was in front of the Judahite army; the ambushers were behind it.
2Ch 13:16 The Israelites fled from before the Judahite army, and God handed them over to the men of Judah.
2Ch 32:18 They called out loudly in the Judahite dialect to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, trying to scare and terrify them so they could seize the city.
Certainly, these verses above could have had the word "Jew' used instead of Judahite. But, it is clear the Bible is talking about the offspring of Judah. In other parts of the Bible the words have been intermingled along with Judea, Judean, Israelite, and so forth.
Rome referred to the region in the Latin as 'Iudaea' (Engl.: 'Judea'), which is derived from the Greek 'Idumea'; which means the "land of Edomites" and those people of the conquered region as 'Iudaeans' (Judeans). From the time that Alexander the Great conquered the region, it was called Idumea. The influence of the Greeks in the entire Levant was so culturally dominating that the Hebrew written language was threatened. This written language is referred to as paleo-Hebrew, which has been lost in antiquity for more than 2000 years. Thanks to Ptolemy Philaphelphus and the 70 Isrealite scholars he assembled, the Greek Septuagint was written in 256 BC and as a result saved the Old Testament from being lost in antiquity. The international language throughout the eastern Mediterranean was koine Greek. Without records, it is plausible that Jesus may have read from the Greek Septuagint. We don't know for sure. Nevertheless, the Romans readily accepted the Greek influence existing there and added their own Latin version. The Romans simply used the Latinized version ('Iudaea') of the Greek 'Idumea'. 'Iudaea' in English is Judea.
Much later the word Jew comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi).
Returning to Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, we see from Strong's Concordance G2453. The Greek word ἸουδαῖοςIoudaîos is used. Who is Ioudaîos?
G2453 Ioudaios – belonging to Judah (as respects to birth, origin, heritage).
Related words are:
G2448 Iouda – Judah = those who praise Yah. The fourth son of Jacob. The tribe that were the offspring of Judah. The region occupied by the tribe.
G2455 Ioudas – Judah, son of Jacob. The offspring of Judah referred to themselves as Judahites.
In this context Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 tells us these people are not sons of Jacob; the Judahites, but 'someone' else fraudulently identifying themselves as Judahites.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing:
"Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.[13]"
This statement is so true......
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. This is the Roman name for the region. Most of these writers cite Steve Mason's 2007 article, "Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History". Mason and others argue that "Judean" is a more precise and a more ethical translation of ioudaios than is "Jew".[15]
There is a lot more information on this that I can provide... The important thing is knowing God's Word is researching it from the etymological aspect to understand how words have been changed over time and applying the Tests of historiography............
Your understanding of Israel is over 2000 years old. If we used your line of reasoning with the United States, we would see a very different place 2000 years ago. Italy would extent beyond the Tigris river and to the British Isles. The same is true of Israel. With time and conquest, tribes, clans and nations change. The bible tells us all the tribes of Israel were carried off into captivity first by the Assyrians and then later by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Most all of them never returned to the land of the forefathers. Both the Assyrians and Babylonians had allies, who helped conquer Israel. Historical record tells us that the vacated lands (i.e. homes, shops, farms, orchards,towns, cities etc.) were given to their allies as spoils of war. The Assyrians moved other alien people in and settled them in Samaria (norther kingdom of Israel). Nebuchadnezzar was allied with the Edomites, who hated Israel. As a reward, the Edomites inherited the vacated lands of Judah. The Edomites became the dominant population in the region. Only a very small remnant of Israelites returned after 70 years of captivity in Babylonia. The recorded number was 42,600 people (of which slightly over 8,000 were not of any of the tribes of Israel at all, as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah show). There were 34,000 people who could trace their ancestry to Judah, Benjamin, or Levi; that's all. They were a small minority compared to the vast majority population that already settled in Judah under Nebuchadnezzar reign. We read that the Samaritans (i.e. Edomites , et. al.) greatly harassed the small Israelite remnant when they were building the second temple (Ezra 4:4). This would not occur if they were the dominant population.
Even the Greeks called the region "Idumea", which means land of Edom. Much later, Herod is king of the region. He too is an Edomite. It is reasonable to conclude that an individual becomes king by representing the will of its inhabitants.
Then we read that,
Israel and the Levant are the crossroads of land trade between three continents. Who controls this region has been historically coveted by three continents of people all through recorded history.
The Outline of History. H. G. Wells, "It is highly probable that the bulk of the Jew's ancestors 'never' lived in Palestine 'at all,' which witnesses the power of historical assertion over fact."
The Jews are not Israelites. Judaism is not Hebraism. Jesus did not practice Judaism. Judaism is a religion formed earnestly after Christianity.
From their own academic texts we find:
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew'". -- 1980 Jewish Almanac, 1st chapter "Identity Crisis". (Jewish Encyclopedia IV, 1902, p 335).
Archaeological finds have revealed ancient Israelites remains. Cranial shape and size does not change racially. The Israelite skulls were dolichocephalic (long-headed) with avg. cranial capacity of 1416cc. This is identical to modern northern Europeans. Modern day Jews are brachycephalic (round-headed) with a much smaller avg. cranial capacity of 1266cc. This fact alone convincingly proves modern Jews are not descendants of ancient Israel. Furthermore, in Jewish texts we find that,
"Jews began in the 19th century to call themselves Hebrews and Israelites in 1860". – Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 Vol 10:23.
Here is a list of books that will show that the Jews are not Israelites and never have been:
The Jewish Encyclopedia: (1973) The Encyclopedia Judaica (1972) The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Encyclopedia Americana (1985) Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition) Academic American Encyclopedia (1985) Encyclopedia Americana (1985) The American People’s encyclopedia for 1954 Jewish Encyclopedia for 1925 The Encyclopedia Judaica The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia Academic American Encyclopedia, Deluxe Library Edition, Volume 12 The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6 Collier’s Encyclopedia, Volume 14 New Catholic Encyclopedia The Cadillac Modern Encyclopedia The Thirteenth Tribe, by Arthur Koestler The Zionist Connection II, Alfred M. Lilienthal The History of The Jewish Khazars, by D.M. Dunlop Facts Are Facts, By Benjamin Freedman.
Whew! Not a single reference from The Bible. Biblical literally means “of the Bible”. I’m starting to worry that too many of us interpreted this phrase incorrectly “It’s going to be Biblical”.
biblical bĭb′lĭ-kəl adjective Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible. Being in keeping with the nature of the Bible, especially. Suggestive of the personages or times depicted in the Bible.
This is a fair criticism in that I didn't provide Internal evidence. However, I provided External evidence. This is actually part of the tests of historiography, which is used for all books of antiquity and judged by for their authenticity. There are a total of three tests, (1) Bibliography test, (2) Internal Evidence test, and (3) External Evidence test.
The Internal Evidence test examines what the writers have said about the events that took place in the text itself. Aristotle’s dictum is implied – “The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, and not arrogated by the critic to himself.” As an analogy, if I told you I owned a green coat, it is your responsibility to prove I do not own one. Until then, it is assumed that this is indeed the truth. In law, this premise is called the law of presumption.
What I provided was External Evidence test. It accounts for whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal evidence found in the manuscripts. For example, there are over 21 documents that are widely accepted by archaeologists outside of the books of the Bible. These all confirm the message of the New Testament. Some of these are Flavius Josephus, Justin Martyr, Plineus Secondus, Tertullian, Cornelius Tacitus, Hippolytus, Polycarp, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara bar-Serepion, the Talmud, Eusibius, Irenaeaus, Ignatius, Origen, Cyprian, Clement of Rome, et. al.
The last test of historiography is the Bibliography test. This is where the number of manuscripts and the earliest copies are evaluated. For example, Aristotle wrote his writings of poetics in 343 BC and yet the earliest copy [manuscript] we have is dated 1100 AD. That’s nearly a 1,400-year gap in time. Only 5 manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic wars between 58 – 50 BC and yet the earliest copy we have is a 1,000 years after his death. Only 9 to 10 copies now exist. In comparison, there are 24,363 manuscripts of the Bible. After the papyri manuscripts were discovered, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light. We have manuscripts that date to 60 AD within a generation of Jesus' live (i.e. Magdalene papyrus, 7Q4 and 7Q5 of Qumran 68 AD).
Your criticism isn't the Bibliography test that's in dispute. Your criticism is for the lack of Internal evidence I provided. Fair enough, let's look at that. I'll start with the following:
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
Who are "them" if they are not Jews? Many people would look no further than what is written. However, God calls us to know His Word. Etymology is very important. In fact, when we apply this to the often used word 'Jew', we find through etymology that it never existed during Roman times. In fact, it didn't exist until the 16th century. This word 'Jew' has been intermingled with the words 'Israelite', 'Judahite', 'Judean', 'pharisee', and 'Edomite' for over 400 years. It's use in the Bible is ambiguous and unfortunately needs to be deciphered for every verse that it is used. Some times it refers to the Roman province of Judea, other times it refers more accurately to Edomites. Other times it references 'Israelites".
Word manipulation and name-stealing has a long history, The word 'Jew' derives actually from the French 'Juerie'. I will get to the significance of this in a moment. But first, the history of Judah, as a living, breathing individual, and the land of his posterity, it was called Judah until his posterity was forcibly and completely removed from the land of Judah to Babylonia. The proper word describing Judah's offspring and descendants has always been Judahites. The word 'Jew' never derived from Judah and certainly did not exist during the Roman times as I will explain in the following paragraphs. First, let's look at where the word Judahite is used in the Bible.
Some Biblical excerpts using the word Judahite:
2 Ki 18:26 Eliakim son of Hilkiah, Shebna, and Joah said to the chief adviser, "Speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it. Don't speak with us in the Judahite dialect in the hearing of the people who are on the wall."
2Ki 18:28 The chief adviser then stood there and called out loudly in the Judahite dialect, "Listen to the message of the great king, the king of Assyria.
2Ki 25:23 All of the officers of the Judahite army and their troops heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah to govern. So they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah. The officers who came were Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maacathite.
1Ch 4:18 (His Judahite wife gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.) These were the sons of Pharaoh's daughter Bithiah, whom Mered married.
2Ch 13:13 Now Jeroboam had sent some men to ambush the Judahite army from behind. The main army was in front of the Judahite army; the ambushers were behind it.
2Ch 13:16 The Israelites fled from before the Judahite army, and God handed them over to the men of Judah.
2Ch 32:18 They called out loudly in the Judahite dialect to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, trying to scare and terrify them so they could seize the city.
Certainly, these verses above could have had the word "Jew' used instead of Judahite. But, it is clear the Bible is talking about the offspring of Judah. In other parts of the Bible the words have been intermingled along with Judea, Judean, Israelite, and so forth.
Rome referred to the region in the Latin as 'Iudaea' (Engl.: 'Judea'), which is derived from the Greek 'Idumea'; which means the "land of Edomites" and those people of the conquered region as 'Iudaeans' (Judeans). From the time that Alexander the Great conquered the region, it was called Idumea. The influence of the Greeks in the entire Levant was so culturally dominating that the Hebrew written language was threatened. This written language is referred to as paleo-Hebrew, which has been lost in antiquity for more than 2000 years. Thanks to Ptolemy Philaphelphus and the 70 Isrealite scholars he assembled, the Greek Septuagint was written in 256 BC and as a result saved the Old Testament from being lost in antiquity. The international language throughout the eastern Mediterranean was koine Greek. Without records, it is plausible that Jesus may have read from the Greek Septuagint. We don't know for sure. Nevertheless, the Romans readily accepted the Greek influence existing there and added their own Latin version. The Romans simply used the Latinized version ('Iudaea') of the Greek 'Idumea'. 'Iudaea' in English is Judea.
Much later the word Jew comes into existence in England in circa 1600s, which coincides with a wave of Yiddish immigrants coming from France and Deutschland. These Yiddish settlers came from eastern Europe and originated from Khazaria, not the Middle East, but rather the steppes of Caspian and Black Seas, which had since fallen to the proxy Byzantine and Caliphate conquering armies. The French and Europeans viewed these immigrants negatively and treated them similarly to gypsies. They allowed them to quarter in only a designated area of the city. A French derogatory term for 'ghetto' and the Yiddish district of town was called – 'Jeuerie'; "ghetto", from Anglo-French 'Juerie', Old French 'Juierie’ or the later English version 'Jewry'. Originally the English term 'Jewry' referred to those immigrants coming from Eastern European people who spoke Yiddish (Ashkenazi).
Returning to Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, we see from Strong's Concordance G2453. The Greek word Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaîos is used. Who is Ioudaîos?
G2453 Ioudaios – belonging to Judah (as respects to birth, origin, heritage).
Related words are:
G2448 Iouda – Judah = those who praise Yah. The fourth son of Jacob. The tribe that were the offspring of Judah. The region occupied by the tribe.
G2455 Ioudas – Judah, son of Jacob. The offspring of Judah referred to themselves as Judahites.
In this context Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 tells us these people are not sons of Jacob; the Judahites, but 'someone' else fraudulently identifying themselves as Judahites.
In 2001, the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, one of the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek,[12] supported translation of the term as "Judean", writing:
"Incalculable harm has been caused by simply glossing Ioudaios with ‘Jew,’ for many readers or auditors of Bible translations do not practice the historical judgment necessary to distinguish between circumstances and events of an ancient time and contemporary ethnic-religious-social realities, with the result that anti-Judaism in the modern sense of the term is needlessly fostered through biblical texts.[13]"
This statement is so true......
Academic publications in the last ten to fifteen years increasingly use the term Judeans rather than Jews. This is the Roman name for the region. Most of these writers cite Steve Mason's 2007 article, "Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History". Mason and others argue that "Judean" is a more precise and a more ethical translation of ioudaios than is "Jew".[15]
There is a lot more information on this that I can provide... The important thing is knowing God's Word is researching it from the etymological aspect to understand how words have been changed over time and applying the Tests of historiography............
This is so well thought out and explained! I’ll have to read through it several times to get it all and respond thoughtfully.
Thank you!