Apologies for the month long delay in response:
--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Thomas L. Thompson <tlt@...> wrote:
> From: Thomas L. Thompson <tlt@...>
> Subject: SV: [ANE-2] Re: Request for Assistance
> To: ANEemail@example.com
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 1:36 P
> No there is no consensus and for her bibliography,
> it certainly makes sense to be inclusive.
In reply to:
>>Is there any consensus on the "correct"
>>definition or usage of these three terms?
In the absence of consensus, would it be reasonable to explore a process by which consensus on such an important question might be pursued?
Perhaps this could be started by considering that 'Hebrew' and 'Israel' appear to have been quite ancient ethnic designations. 'Israel' perhaps related to a people or location associated with El worship (cf. Mark Smith), and 'Hebrew' equally old, but of unknown derivation
'Jewish/Judaic' however, might be thought of primarily as a religious description - arguably related to the post-exilic diaspora, arising during a time when the Elohist-Yahwist fusion was well advanced.
If such could be agreed, perhaps the question would become a matter of deciding when 'Judaism' as a religious concept became associated with the ethnic demography. The argument has been made of course that during the course of composing the HB, Judahites absorbed the term 'Israel' to advance the concept of 'all Israel.' Conceivably the chronology of the emergence of Judaism could be linked to the reported ceremonial reading of the law in Ezra/Nehemiah (whether or not the event was literary fiction).
This of course is no more than a suggestion of an approach which might be taken to differentiate these words.