Discussing the term "Jew"

[OtherCheek]

In my LDS faith, I have always made a distinction between the descendants of Jacob, and the descendants of one of his 12 sons, like Judah. I thought most people of other Christian backgrounds did this as well. But I seem to be wrong in that assumption.

As an LDS person, I think the distinction is an important one. Our doctrine speaks of the "gathering of the Israel" which is a larger gathering of great numbers of people, and also speaks of the "gathering of the Jews" which is a smaller gathering of fewer people.

I have always looked at the Jews as descendants of Judah, plus those who identified themselves with the Southern Kingdom who may have been from other tribes of Israel. I have looked at "Israel" to include the descendants of all the sons of Jacob. I think this was the way it was originally known in O.T. times.

I found this article online, it isn't from an LDS source, but it makes the same distinction that I do. "Who is a Jew?"

The article states that: ""Jew" now refers to all physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob" But it doesn't state when this happened or why.

I know that some folks believe that the 10 tribes (some say 9 tribes) taken captive by Assyria returned long ago to unite with the Kingdom of Judah before Christ came. While others believe they are still "out there" scattered among the nations.

Ahhh. I just found this article that kind of answer the question of WHEN and WHY, but it also emphatically states at the end:

Some Chinese are bald, but the word bald does NOT identify one as a Chinese. A fraction of the Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews' and NON-Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews', while 9 of the tribes of Israel are never identified as Jews, but in bloody battles ISRAEL fought against JUDAH/JEWS.

Do not be deceived into believing that the word Jew ever identified the 12 tribes of the Israelites.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_...st_called_Jews

[Sparko]

In my LDS faith, I have always made a distinction between the descendants of Jacob, and the descendants of one of his 12 sons, like Judah. I thought most people of other Christian backgrounds did this as well. But I seem to be wrong in that assumption.

As an LDS person, I think the distinction is an important one. Our doctrine speaks of the "gathering of the Israel" which is a larger gathering of great numbers of people, and also speaks of the "gathering of the Jews" which is a smaller gathering of fewer people.

I have always looked at the Jews as descendants of Judah, plus those who identified themselves with the Southern Kingdom who may have been from other tribes of Israel. I have looked at "Israel" to include the descendants of all the sons of Jacob. I think this was the way it was originally known in O.T. times.

I found this article online, it isn't from an LDS source, but it makes the same distinction that I do. "Who is a Jew?"

The article states that: ""Jew" now refers to all physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob" But it doesn't state when this happened or why.

I know that some folks believe that the 10 tribes (some say 9 tribes) taken captive by Assyria returned long ago to unite with the Kingdom of Judah before Christ came. While others believe they are still "out there" scattered among the nations.

Ahhh. I just found this article that kind of answer the question of WHEN and WHY, but it also emphatically states at the end:

Some Chinese are bald, but the word bald does NOT identify one as a Chinese. A fraction of the Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews' and NON-Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews', while 9 of the tribes of Israel are never identified as Jews, but in bloody battles ISRAEL fought against JUDAH/JEWS.

Do not be deceived into believing that the word Jew ever identified the 12 tribes of the Israelites.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_...st_called_Jews

In the NT, there are people from many other tribes mentioned than just Judah and they are all called Jews. The people who lived in the lands of the 10 tribes (other than Benjamin and Judah) were scattered but that doesn't mean that people from the 12 tribes didn't live in the land of Judah. It is more like the "government" of the various tribes was disbanded, but the people of the tribes still existed.

[Tanakh Keeper]

That article doesn't make the same distinction that you do. As Abraham was the first Jew, the covenant passed through him to Isaac, and then to Jacob. All 12 descendents of Jacob are Jewish, as are the tribes that each son founded. The reason that not every descendent is Jewish is that Jewish identification has always gone through the mother. So if a person has a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father, they aren't a born Jew. On the other hand, a non-tribal descendent can become a Jew through a proper conversion. As tribal affiation only goes through the father, the convert is Jewish with no tribal affilation. A descendent of the converted Jew could gain a tribal status if they marry a Jewish man that has a tribal status.

[Cow Poke]

That article doesn't make the same distinction that you do. As Abraham was the first Jew, the covenant passed through him to Isaac, and then to Jacob. All 12 descendents of Jacob are Jewish, as are the tribes that each son founded. The reason that not every descendent is Jewish is that Jewish identification has always gone through the mother. So if a person has a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father, they aren't a born Jew. On the other hand, a non-tribal descendent can become a Jew through a proper conversion. As tribal affiation only goes through the father, the convert is Jewish with no tribal affilation. A descendent of the converted Jew could gain a tribal status if they marry a Jewish man that has a tribal status.

I actually found that quite interesting.

[OtherCheek]

That article doesn't make the same distinction that you do. As Abraham was the first Jew, the covenant passed through him to Isaac, and then to Jacob. All 12 descendents of Jacob are Jewish, as are the tribes that each son founded. The reason that not every descendent is Jewish is that Jewish identification has always gone through the mother. So if a person has a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father, they aren't a born Jew. On the other hand, a non-tribal descendent can become a Jew through a proper conversion. As tribal affiation only goes through the father, the convert is Jewish with no tribal affilation. A descendent of the converted Jew could gain a tribal status if they marry a Jewish man that has a tribal status.

Jewish can also refer to those who adhere to a certain religion. I'm talking about actual descendancy, and in reference to the literal gathering of Israel, which I believe is a much larger gathering than just 14 or so million Jews. Abraham was a Hebrew. The word Hebrew means something different than Jew. The designation "Jew" came with the name for the tribe of Judah. "Judah" was not yet in existence when Abraham lived. The term Hebrew was.

[Adrift]

The reason that not every descendent is Jewish is that Jewish identification has always gone through the mother. So if a person has a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father, they aren't a born Jew.

I actually found that quite interesting.

Meh, whether Tanakh Keeper knows it or not, the subject is not so clear cut.

Who is a Jew? Matrilineal or Patrilineal Descent

Matrilineal descent, the passing down of a child's Jewish identity via the mother, is not a biblical principle. In biblical times, many Jewish men married non-Jews, and their children's status was determined by the father's religion.

According to Professor Shaye Cohen of Brown University:
"Numerous Israelites heroes and kings married foreign women: for example, Judah married a Canaanite, Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women of every description. By her marriage with an Israelite man a foreign women joined the clan, people, and religion of her husband. It never occurred to anyone in pre-exilic times to argue that such marriages were null and void, that foreign women must "convert" to Judaism, or that the off-spring of the marriage were not Israelite if the women did not convert."

Talmudic Times

Sometime during the Roman occupation and the Second Temple period, a law of matrilineal descent, which defined a Jew as someone with a Jewish mother, was adopted. By the 2nd century CE, it was clearly practiced. http://judaism.about.com/od/whoisaje...jewdescent.htm

© source where applicable

Reformed, Liberal, Reconstructionist, and Karaite Jews don't seem to have a problem with patrilineal descent.

[Cow Poke]

Meh, whether Tanakh Keeper knows it or not, the subject is not so clear cut.

Well, I said "interesting", not "true".

[nrajeff]

Jewish can also refer to those who adhere to a certain religion. I'm talking about actual descendancy, and in reference to the literal gathering of Israel, which I believe is a much larger gathering than just 14 or so million Jews. Abraham was a Hebrew. The word Hebrew means something different than Jew. The designation "Jew" came with the name for the tribe of Judah. "Judah" was not yet in existence when Abraham lived. The term Hebrew was.

My memory is not clear on the following but I think Moses led the Hebrews out of Egyptian captivity, correct?
And how about the NT Epistle of Paul (?) to the Hebrews--who did the author have in mind--all descendants of Abraham, or a subset or tribe of Israel?

[OtherCheek]

My memory is not clear on the following but I think Moses led the Hebrews out of Egyptian captivity, correct?
And how about the NT Epistle of Paul (?) to the Hebrews--who did the author have in mind--all descendants of Abraham, or a subset or tribe of Israel?

Right. Like those articles I posted indicate, there are a lot of people (not just Mormons), who make the distinction that Jews are Judah, and Israel is the other 9 or 10 tribes.

[Adrift]

Well, I said "interesting", not "true".

for all intents and purposes, its probably been true for conservative and Orthodox Jews for around 2,000 years, so... there's that i suppose And yeah it is interesting

[Cow Poke]

for all intents and purposes, its probably been true for conservative and Orthodox Jews for around 2,000 years, so... there's that i suppose And yeah it is interesting

I've actually read quite a number of conflicting articles over the years, and it seems that just because somebody is a Jew by Nationality does not mean they are a Jew by Religion, or, that a Jew by Religion necessarily adheres to that Religion. (I don't know why I'm Unnecessarily Capitalizing some words )

My Exec Assistant was a Jew, though I had been to Synagogue more times in the last 30 years than she had, and the NEXT time I go will be my second time!

[Adrift]

I've actually read quite a number of conflicting articles over the years, and it seems that just because somebody is a Jew by Nationality does not mean they are a Jew by Religion, or, that a Jew by Religion necessarily adheres to that Religion. (I don't know why I'm Unnecessarily Capitalizing some words )

My Exec Assistant was a Jew, though I had been to Synagogue more times in the last 30 years than she had, and the NEXT time I go will be my second time!

Well unlike Christianity or Islam, Judaism is a faith, an ethnicity, and a nationality, so there's a lot of leeway for claiming to be Jewish I suppose. Gotta keep in mind that like Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhists, etc., that there are denominational differences within Judaism as well. Most of the Jews I grew up with were Reform. Reform Jews seem to be pretty progressive and liberal. They seem less serious about the faith, but maybe that's just the impression I got from those Reform Jews I knew. Tanakh Keeper appears to be Conservative, so he probably has quite a different take on his faith than someone who's Reform I'm guessing.

Not much different than the more on fire Christians I know versus some of my much more liberal Christian acquaintances. Most of the time the only thing the two seem to have in common is that they both believe Jesus is Lord, and I know of some folks who would claim to be liberal "Christian" who don't even do that (which seems pretty nonsensical to me). Eh... watcha gonna do.

[One Bad Pig]

In my LDS faith, I have always made a distinction between the descendants of Jacob, and the descendants of one of his 12 sons, like Judah. I thought most people of other Christian backgrounds did this as well. But I seem to be wrong in that assumption.

As an LDS person, I think the distinction is an important one. Our doctrine speaks of the "gathering of the Israel" which is a larger gathering of great numbers of people, and also speaks of the "gathering of the Jews" which is a smaller gathering of fewer people.

I have always looked at the Jews as descendants of Judah, plus those who identified themselves with the Southern Kingdom who may have been from other tribes of Israel. I have looked at "Israel" to include the descendants of all the sons of Jacob. I think this was the way it was originally known in O.T. times.

I found this article online, it isn't from an LDS source, but it makes the same distinction that I do. "Who is a Jew?"

Didn't I point you to that article just yesterday?

The article states that: ""Jew" now refers to all physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob" But it doesn't state when this happened or why.

Yes, it does.

Originally, the term Yehudi referred specifically to members of the tribe of Judah, as distinguished from the other tribes of Israel. However, after the death of King Solomon, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms: the kingdom of Judah and the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 12; II Chronicles 10). After that time, the word Yehudi could properly be used to describe anyone from the kingdom of Judah, which included the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, as well as scattered settlements from other tribes. The most obvious biblical example of this usage is in Esther 2:5, where Mordecai is referred to as both a Yehudi and a member of the tribe of Benjamin.

In the 6th century B.C.E., the kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and the ten tribes were exiled from the land (II Kings 17), leaving only the tribes in the kingdom of Judah remaining to carry on Abraham's heritage. These people of the kingdom of Judah were generally known to themselves and to other nations as Yehudim (Jews), and that name continues to be used today.

In common speech, the word "Jew" is used to refer to all of the physical and spiritual descendants of Jacob/Israel, as well as to the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives, and the word "Judaism" is used to refer to their beliefs. Technically, this usage is inaccurate, just as it is technically inaccurate to use the word "Indian" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Americas. However, this technically inaccurate usage is common both within the Jewish community and outside of it, and is therefore used throughout this site.

I know that some folks believe that the 10 tribes (some say 9 tribes) taken captive by Assyria returned long ago to unite with the Kingdom of Judah before Christ came. While others believe they are still "out there" scattered among the nations.

Ahhh. I just found this article that kind of answer the question of WHEN and WHY, but it also emphatically states at the end:

Some Chinese are bald, but the word bald does NOT identify one as a Chinese. A fraction of the Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews' and NON-Israelites were under the subset of 'Jews', while 9 of the tribes of Israel are never identified as Jews, but in bloody battles ISRAEL fought against JUDAH/JEWS.

Do not be deceived into believing that the word Jew ever identified the 12 tribes of the Israelites.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_were_...st_called_Jews

Do not be deceived into believing Wikipedia.

[OtherCheek]

Didn't I point you to that article just yesterday?

Oh, sorry. I probably overlooked it.

Yes, it does.

The second article had an answer more specific as to when. I was looking for more than a general time frame.

Do not be deceived into believing Wikipedia.

I don't carte blanche trust everything in wiki, but neither do I carte blanche distrust everything. I'm not trying to argue over who is THE authority on this issue, I was showing that Mormons are not the only ones to draw the distinction between Jew and the greater Israel.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't carte blanche trust everything in wiki, but neither do I carte blanche distrust everything. I'm not trying to argue over who is THE authority on this issue, I was showing that Mormons are not the only ones to draw the distinction between Jew and the greater Israel.

You fairly explicitly trusted the wiki article over the one indisputably written by a Jew.

And the Anglo-Israelites are quite, quite adamant about drawing that distinction as well.