Re: Jewish history in nursing text

On Sep 26, 3:12 am, mi...@xxxxxxxxxxx (Micha Berger) wrote:
Fiona Abrahami <fiona@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hebrew is a perfectly acceptable term (when used in the correct context).
Jews, from the tribe of Jehuda, are a subset of the Hebrews, all Jews are
Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews (technically speaking, Cohanim and
Leviim are not Jews but Levites from the tribe of Levi) - but that's a bit
too nuanced for your average anti-semitic.

You are mistaken. All survivors of the First Temple period Kingdom of
Judea are Jews. "Ish YEHUDI yayah beShushan habira... there was a Jewish
man in the Shushan, the capital, and his name was Mordechai, the son
of Shim'i the son of Kish, a man of Benjamin". Benjaminite, Simeanite,
Levite, Kohen, convert or a survivor who joined us from the Kingdom of
Israel, we were all called "Jew".

The Ethiopian Jews, assuming they are truly from the tribe of Dan, would
be Hebrews but not Jews, in this biblical sense of the word.

However, as I just tried to illustrate by example ("Ethiopian Jews")
"Yemenite Jews") the mmeaning of the word has moved on. Just as
"antisemite" no longer refers to hating non-Jewish Semites. I therefore
used "biblical sense" (Esther is in Tanakh, no?), not "technical".

As you point out, usage has changed. These days, "Hebrew[s]" (in
reference to Jews rather than language) is usually an indication that
the person using it isn't particularly familiar with Jews and the
Jewish community, and thinks that it's the term we prefer in reference
to ourselves.

Eliyahu

.

Relevant Pages