Share this
Many people have tried to provide an answer to basic questions about the origin of the Hebrews, Biblical Israelites, Judeans and Jews. People have approached the question from many disciplines. (See the last paragraph for an explanation of the difference between the 4 phrases 🤲🏾)
In general, what we have found is that by applying over-simplifications and linear thinking you can get any past, present or future evidence to fit many narratives.
Examples of disciplines that have tried to tackle this question are genealogists, linguistics, archaeologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and geneticists.
Linguistics has played a crucial role in tracing the origins of the Hebrews, Israelites, Judeans, and Jews, evolving from speculative methods to more rigorous scientific approaches. Initially, early linguists were over-confident and did not think they could make mistakes in tracing history through “etymologies”. It didn’t occur to them that they could fail to identify the past meaning of words, fail to identify original context in which words had significant meaning, or fail to identify the original complete construction of words originating from tonal languages. They overlooked the risk that past tones, silent sounds, and pronunciations may have been lost to present or future generations.
Initially, early linguists deciphered ancient inscriptions and languages often influenced by prevailing biases or religious perspectives, sometimes imposing erroneous assumptions on their findings. For example, early interpretations linked these groups to exaggerated or mythical linguistic roots based on contemporary beliefs.
Advancements in linguistics have revealed the Wet Sahara and Northeast African origins of Proto-Afroasiatic and the Near Eastern origins of Semitic languages (building on Northeast African linguistic foundations). Significant percentages of the Near Eastern farmers originally came from the Sahara and East Africa in so far an estimated prevalence of between 30% to 71%, from excavation site to site. The balance comprised earlier out-of-Africa descendants. The discovery of the Ugaritic texts provided significant insights into Semitic languages, revealing their complex relationships and historical context. Furthermore, administrative documents from the 2nd millennium BCE in the Hittite kingdom and Egypt mentioning the Apiru, a term associated with early Hebrews, offered crucial evidence of these groups’ historical presence and movement. The field has matured to adopt more objective, evidence-based methodologies, leading to refined theories about the linguistic and cultural origins of these ancient peoples. The apiru were found to be multiethnic, with the meaning and construction of the term Hebrew potentially changing over time. The term Apiru was an exonym – an externally imposed name for the people group.
Archaeologists also tried to tackle the same question of the origins of the Hebrews, Israelites, Judeans and Jews.
Archaeologists began as grave robbers and looters but over time the profession became more respectable, professional, and academic. The funders changed from filthy rich private individuals to universities and governments. Archaeologists therefore interpreted their results to please their funders.
When their funders were white supremacists, they discovered findings that would GLADDEN their sponsors (typically foundations): in the Philistine Pentapolis, they discovered “rationalist” and sophisticated Indo-European Philistines from Crete; in Northern Mesopotamia, they proposed that Assyrian society was composed of a fictional Indo-European white elite in charge of an Afroasiatic population; and in central Mesopotamia, they proposed that Babylonian society had a fictional Indo-European white elite in charge of an Afroasiatic population who tried to conquer change-resistant “Semites” and get them to abandon praying to God in order to learn “hard work”. DNA tests revealed instead these people (Pre-pottery Neolithic Northerner Mesopotamians) were 60 to 86% farmers with African heritage who migrated during 12,000 to 5,000 years ago. The Philistine, Assyrians and Babylonians were real historical populations that existed but the theory that these societies were composed of different races who formed racial hierarchies has been debunked as wishful thinking fashioned to legitimize 18th century to 20th century societies academics came from.
When the funders were Christian societies, the archaeologists found evidence that confirmed the Bible. When the funders were universities and results had to be published in peer-reviewed journals, academics abandoned assuming the Bible to be true. Instead they took the approach of writing their narratives based on archaeological evidence first, then referring to written records and the Bible to the extent convenient.
Over-fixation with archaeological philosophies such as evolutionism, developmental thinking, processual archaeology, or post-processual archaeology sometimes also led to misinterpretations or inconsistent interpretations of evidence, over time.
In reality, all sites selected for excavation usually have several “layers” of past habitation. There is no “conclusive” right way to allocate layers to a “correct” time period. Skilled archaeologists can therefore either prove evidence exists for the bible or provide evidence that contradicts the Bible based on their research judgements.
Some psychologists had a crack at uncovering the history of the Hebrews, Israelites, Judeans and Jews through psychoanalysis.
In psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, a Jew, wrote a book called *Moses and Monotheism* which posited that history could be uncovered like a thought fossil from ethnic groups by skilled psychologists. He posited that memories could be inherited unconsciously and that the Mosiac law, Israelite customs, and Jewish attitudes were influenced through the mechanism of a discredited scientific theory called Lamarckian evolution. Lamarckian evolution was a theory that animals (under which category Freud included humans) passed down traits acquired during their lifetime including unconscious biological and psychological traits to their offspring. No one took the book “Moses and Monotheism” seriously since there was very LITTLE science for all the theories proposed by Freud in the book.
The attempts and failures to uncover credible history through psychoanalysis of ethnic groups demonstrated that while psychology can provide insights into individual and group behaviors, motivations, and cultural patterns, it lacks the empirical rigor required for historical or prehistoric reconstruction. Archaeology, genetics, various scientific methods, and traditional historical methodologies remain the primary tools for uncovering and understanding the past. Thus, psychology’s role in this context is more supplementary than foundational.
This led to the development of two modified approaches; one called psychohistory, and another called the study of collective memories. Psychohistory combines psychology and history to analyze historical figures and events through psychological theories. It aims to understand the motivations and unconscious influences behind historical actions. While offering unique insights, its role in developing evidence-based history is limited, as it relies on interpretation rather than empirical evidence.
Scientists have also contributed significantly to the search for the origins of the Hebrews, Israelites, Yehudim, and Jews. Early attempts by eugenists and Nazis were biased and flawed, aiming to prove racial purity, and reinforced ideas of “white” master races. Physical anthropologists like Maurice Fishberg and Franz Boas demonstrated that Jews are not a homogenous race but a diverse group with differences stemming from social and economic factors. DNA studies have revealed contradictory results. Some research by Israeli citizens suggests Ashkenazi Jews have Near Eastern origins, while others (non-Israeli citizens) point to European or Khazar ancestry. Critics questioned if the beliefs of researchers were the driving factors behind results or the DNA samples. Studies on Samaritans show a significant genetic connection to ancient Israelites but also indicate considerable admixture. These findings underscore the complexities and limitations of relying solely on genetics to trace Jewish origins.
These examples of the limitations, and achievements of various disciplines illustrate the capabilities, dangers and limitations of various disciplines. The power of academics to produce incorrect or meaningful narratives based on the consequences of all judgements they take and the level of scrutiny attracted implies that research should also be read with a pinch of salt.
Overall what have we found? Ancient writers Before the Common Era proposed up to 20 different theories about the origins of the Jews, reflecting diverse and often conflicting perceptions. These theories ranged from Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Cretan origins to Indian, Assyrian, and even Scythian roots. Some speculated that the Jews descended from the Apiru, a marginalized group in the ancient Near East, suggesting that Jewish identity may have developed from a mix of various peoples united under Moses, aligning with a complex, non-linear view of human ancestry. Unity under monotheism at the time would have made them outcasts in many societies that considered polytheism the most normal and rational beliefs in the 2nd millennium BCE.
Turning to evidence from natural sciences and archaeology, the natural history of mankind spans an unfathomably long period, starting with the emergence of hominids and archaic humans, and culminating around 300,000–250,000 years ago with anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) in Africa. This extensive history includes the rise of recorded history in Sudan with the Qustul incense burner and the subsequent civilizations of Ancient Egypt, Nubia, China, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and other regions. These early societies laid the groundwork for various cultures and peoples to emerge, notably the proto-Afroasiatic speakers who significantly influenced the ancient Near East.
Proto-Afroasiatic speakers, as identified by linguists like Roger Blench, Christopher Ehret, and Tom Güldemann, are believed to have originated in northeast Africa. Their linguistic and genetic legacy is crucial for understanding the early movements and foundations of the people who would become the Hebrews. The Proto-Afroasiatic In the late Bronze Age, Egyptian and Hittite records mention the Habiru, a diverse group of mercenaries, pastoralists, migrant workers and outcasts, often considered precursors to the Hebrews. The term “Habiru” appears extensively in the El Amarna letters, emphasizing a multiethnic foundation for the early Hebrews.
Assuming the number of Hebrews that settled in Egypt was right, there are certain implications for the growth of the population from 70 people to over 2 million that one must consider. The claim that the post-Exodus Hebrews had only 70 ancestors from Canaan, as referenced in Genesis 46, overlooks the complexities of human ancestry and population genetics. Jacob’s family, including his sons, grandsons, and their wives, may have originated with a small group, but their descendants in Egypt could not have strictly married within that group for 400 years. Intermarriage with Egyptians and other groups would have introduced significant genetic diversity. Over generations, the original ancestors’ contribution to the DNA of their descendants would have diminished to a minute fraction, replaced by a diverse genetic pool. Thus, the idea of direct, linear descent from a small number of ancestors fails to account for the exponential growth and genetic blending that occurred over time. This provides a more nuanced understanding of ancestry, where the population’s lineage cannot be traced solely to the initial small group, but rather to a broader, interwoven set of origins.
The Israelites, later identified as Hebrews, settled in Canaan, forming a loosely organized confederation under approximately 12 judges. The Israelites were multiethnic having absorbed different nationalities into their nation as evidenced by the wives of Moses being a Midianite or Cushite, Joseph marrying an Egyptian, Judah marrying a Canaanite and other unions. From 1,900 BCE to 100 BCE, the nation of Israel, the northern kingdom, southern kingdom, the province of Judea absorbed various foreigners, based on biblical and extra biblical evidence. The conversion of Midianites in Numbers 31:9, captives according to Deuteronomy 20:10, foreigners bound to the Lord according to Isaiah 56:3-7, the conversion of Ruth, and the conversion of residents of Persia in the time of Esther, demonstrate that integration of foreigners occurred over a long period of time covering various transformations of Hebrew, Israelite, Judean and Jewish identity.
The story of Ruth the Moabite converting demonstrates the integration of foreigners into the Israelite bloodlines. This period set the stage for the united monarchy under Saul, David, and Solomon. However, following Solomon’s reign, the kingdom split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. Even at this time, Isaiah 56:3 records the presence of foreigners on the kingdom of Judah. The northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians, and half of its population was exiled, while the southern kingdom of Judah was later conquered by the Babylonians, leading to a period of exile. Those from the northern kingdom who avoided exile to Assyria became the Samaritans. This moment marked the end of the biblical Israelite period and paved the way for a new self-identity based of membership in the tribe of Judah, called the Yehudim (the Judeans). While in Babylon and Persia, the favour secured by Jews lead to conversions to Judean religion by some people, according to Esther 8:17.
Upon the fall of the Babylonian Empire, the exiles returned to Judah, now known as Yehudim (Judeans or Jews). This return marked significant religious and cultural transformations, including the development of the Torah and the introduction of synagogue worship. The Elephantine papyri from a Judean garrison in Egypt challenge earlier views on postexilic Judaism, depicting a community with diverse practices and limited legalistic focus.
Post-exilic Judaism saw the emergence of distinct religious sects like the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Samaritans. The Hasmonean period established Jewish independence, which lasted until the Roman conquest in 63 BCE. Fragmentation and infighting led to foreign domination by the Romans. Decentralised pockets of rebellion, embezzlement of resources by Roman officials assigned to Judea, growing insecurity, and the rise of robbers created the pretext for the Romans to destroy the Second Temple. The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE fundamentally altered Jewish practices, leading to the rise of Rabbinic Judaism, which emphasized study, prayer, and ethical living over ritual sacrifice.
Between 70 AD and 1500 AD, Jews dispersed across vast regions, establishing communities from the Iberian Peninsula to China, and from Africa to Europe. This extensive dispersion illustrates the widespread and enduring presence of Jewish communities globally. Converts played a significant role in this period, with notable examples like the conversions of the Kingdom of Adiabene and the Khazars, enriching Jewish traditions and broadening the community’s horizons.
The history of the Hebrews, Israelites, Yehudim, and Jews is a highly complex puzzle locked into place by millennia of migrations, transformations, and cultural exchanges. From proto-Afroasiatic roots to global dispersion, each phase uniquely contributed to the formation of Jewish identity. The destruction of the Second Temple marked a pivotal shift to Rabbinic Judaism, fostering inclusivity and allowing Judaism to thrive amidst global dispersion. Jewish communities flourished, sustained by a dynamic identity rooted in faith and practice.
Today, the resilience and adaptability of Jewish communities reflect a continuous legacy of cultural, linguistic, and religious evolution. The journey from proto-Afroasiatic origins to a global diaspora underscores the enduring strength of Jewish identity, shaped by historical challenges and triumphs. This narrative continues to resonate, highlighting the universal values that bind diverse Jewish communities worldwide.
Overall, the multidisciplinary search for the origins of the Hebrews, biblical Israelites, Yehudim, and Jews has resulted in significant, though sometimes flawed, achievements by different academic fields, highlighting the importance of a nuanced, interdisciplinary approach in studying the history of the Jewish people. Combining various disciplines with the oral traditions and perspectives of the Israelites, Judeans and Jews has resulted in more meaningful narratives than over-reliance on individual disciplines in a silo.
Source: Steven Weitzman’s *Origins of the Jews*
–
🤲🏾Hebrews refers to the ancient Semitic-speaking people who are traditionally considered the ancestors of the Israelites, mentioned in early Biblical texts, and associated with the patriarchs like Abraham. The term Biblical Israelites specifically refers to the descendants of Jacob (also known as Israel), who became the twelve tribes of Israel, forming a distinct national and religious identity in the Biblical narrative during the period from the Exodus to the Babylonian Exile. Judeans were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah, one of the two successor states of ancient Israel, particularly after the division of the united monarchy following Solomon’s reign. They were linked primarily to the tribe of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. Jews refers to the people who descended from the Judeans but later evolved into a broader ethnic and religious community after the Babylonian Exile, maintaining their religious identity through the practices of Judaism. The term Jew became widely used after the return from exile and especially in the Hellenistic and Roman periods to describe adherents of Judaism. Thus, while Hebrews, Israelites, and Judeans are more specific to earlier historical and geographic contexts, Jews refer to the religious and cultural identity that continued through and beyond the Second Temple period.
