Three Meanings of the Word Israel

- “Israel” has three distinct meanings. The word can refer to the ancient Kingdom of Israel, the Jewish people collectively, or the modern State of Israel, established in 1948. Although these meanings are historically connected, they are not interchangeable, and confusing them can lead to serious misunderstandings about history and contemporary politics.

- Ancient Israel existed, but its biblical origins are not fully supported by historical evidence. Matt Baker rejects both the idea that the entire biblical account is literally true and the idea that ancient Israel was entirely mythical. He argues that the ancient kingdoms were real, while the biblical stories explaining their origins must be evaluated against archaeological and historical evidence.

- The Bible presents Israel's origins as a continuous family history. According to the biblical narrative, Abraham received God's promise of land for his descendants in an area corresponding broadly to modern Israel and Palestine. Abraham's son Isaac fathered Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel.

- The biblical account connects the Israelites to Jacob's twelve sons. Their descendants became the twelve tribes of Israel, were enslaved in Egypt, and were subsequently rescued by Moses, who led them toward the promised land. The tribes eventually formed a kingdom named after their ancestor Israel.

- The united kingdom supposedly divided into Israel and Judah. In the biblical account, the northern kingdom retained the name Israel because it contained most of the tribes, while the southern kingdom became Judah, named after the tribe of Judah. The northern kingdom was eventually conquered by Assyria, and Judah was conquered by Babylon approximately a century later.

- The biblical narrative spans two different archaeological periods. Baker places the events preceding Moses in the Bronze Age and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Iron Age. This chronological distinction underpins his argument about which parts of the biblical narrative can be historically corroborated.

- The Mesha Stele provides external evidence for King Omri of Israel. The stone inscription, dated to approximately 840 BCE, names Omri, who also appears in the Bible. Baker notes that the context supports identifying the person mentioned in both sources as the same historical king.

- Assyrian records independently corroborate the biblical account of King Hezekiah. The Bible describes the Assyrians attacking Hezekiah, king of Judah. Contemporary Assyrian records also document an attack on a king named Hezekiah during the corresponding period.

- The biblical figures corroborated by archaeological evidence belong to the Iron Age. Baker observes that the individuals whose names have been identified in the archaeological record in the appropriate historical context come from this period. He connects this pattern to the dating of the Hebrew Bible's composition.

- Baker argues that most of the Hebrew Bible was written during or after the Iron Age. According to his account, textual analysis places the vast majority of its composition in the Iron Age, with some books written later and no sections demonstrably composed during the Bronze Age. He uses this chronology to explain the difference in historical reliability between the biblical narratives.

- The Iron Age biblical narratives can be treated as broadly historical, with qualifications. Applying the same standards used to evaluate other ancient texts, Baker considers many events described in the Iron Age portions reasonably accurate, provided that theological interpretations and embellishments are distinguished from historical information. He compares this approach to evaluating the writings of Herodotus.

- The Bronze Age biblical stories should instead be approached as mythology and legend. Baker argues that figures such as Abraham and Jacob cannot be established as historical individuals from the available evidence. He allows that the stories might preserve fragments of historical memory but considers their detailed accounts of divine promises and family ancestry historically unverified.

- The historical existence of Israel and Judah does not depend on the biblical family tree being literally accurate. Baker maintains that both kingdoms existed and that their populations developed traditions explaining their origins. The historical question is how these kingdoms emerged and became connected, rather than whether every event in the biblical narrative occurred as described.

- The biblical explanation of the relationship between Israel and Judah differs from the historical reconstruction. In the biblical account, Judah separated from a previously united Israelite kingdom. Baker presents an alternative historical interpretation in which the two kingdoms may originally have developed independently.

- The destruction of the northern kingdom helped Judah adopt the broader identity of Israel. According to the historical interpretation presented, after Assyria destroyed Israel, many former northern Israelites fled south and joined Judah. Their arrival influenced Judah's culture and religion, contributing to the later association between Judah and the name Israel.

- The populations of Israel and Judah gradually became connected during the late Iron Age. Baker argues that the northern kingdom's destruction and the movement of its people into Judah help explain why the names Israel and Judah eventually became interchangeable. This reconstruction differs from the biblical account of a single kingdom that subsequently divided.

- The survival of Judah explains the continuity of Jewish identity in the narrative. The northern kingdom of Israel disappears as a political entity after its conquest, whereas the people of Judah return to their land following their own conquest and continue living under foreign rule. The southern kingdom therefore plays a central role in the later history of the Jewish people.

- By the time of the New Testament, Israel and Judah could refer to the same broader people. In the biblical narrative, Judah increasingly represents Israel as a whole because the northern tribes are no longer treated as a separate surviving kingdom. Baker explains that the terms were consequently used interchangeably in this later period.

- The term “Jew” derives from Judah, while “Israel” continued as a collective identity. By the time of Jesus, the descendants associated with the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah were generally known as Jews, a designation connected to Judah. Nevertheless, the New Testament continued to use Israel to refer to the people rather than to an existing ancient Israelite state.

- The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE did not end the use of Israel as a name for the Jewish people. Following the Roman destruction, Jewish communities continued beyond the territory of the ancient kingdoms. Baker notes that the collective use of Israel persisted even after Jews became dispersed across different regions.

- In Jewish prayers, “Israel” generally refers to the Jewish people, not the modern country. Baker distinguishes this religious and collective usage from references to the ancient kingdom or a particular geographical territory. He explains that the expression “land of Israel” can refer to the territory, whereas Israel by itself often denotes Jews collectively, wherever they live.

- Modern Jews have genealogical connections to Jews of ancient times. Baker answers affirmatively when addressing whether contemporary Jewish populations descend from ancient Jewish communities. He uses the history of Jewish communities outside the Middle East, particularly Ashkenazi Jews, to challenge claims that modern Jewish identity lacks historical continuity.

- Baker identifies three broad Jewish ethnic groupings after 70 CE. He describes Mizrahi Jews as remaining in the Middle East, Sephardi Jews as settling in Spain, and Ashkenazi Jews as settling initially in Germany before later moving into Eastern Europe. These communities developed distinct geographical histories while retaining connections to ancient Jewish populations.

- Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry includes both Middle Eastern and European components. Baker explains that early Ashkenazi communities intermarried with Italians, contributing to their European genetic ancestry. He cites multiple DNA studies as support for his estimate that Ashkenazi ancestry is approximately 50% Middle Eastern and 50% European.

- Baker rejects the claim that Ashkenazi Jews are fake Jews or simply descendants of Khazari converts. He argues that genetic research supports their descent from ancient Middle Eastern Jewish populations. Their European appearance, in his explanation, reflects historical intermarriage and migration rather than an absence of ancient Jewish ancestry.

- The modern State of Israel was established in 1948 by Zionists. Baker identifies this as the third meaning of Israel and distinguishes the country's modern political existence from the ancient kingdom and the Jewish people as a collective identity.

- Zionism emerged as a movement seeking a secure Jewish homeland. Baker explains that Zionists are a subset of Jews whose movement takes its name from Mount Zion near Jerusalem. Its central objective, as presented in the video, was to establish a homeland where Jews could live safely.

- Centuries of persecution in Europe formed an important background to Zionism. Baker notes that anti-Jewish persecution intensified during the 1800s and ultimately culminated in the Holocaust during World War II. This history provides the context for the movement's objective of establishing a secure Jewish homeland.

- The location and name of the eventual Jewish state were not predetermined. Baker emphasizes that several locations were proposed before the eventual site was selected. He also notes that the state's name was debated rather than being an inevitable choice.

- Several alternative names for the modern state were considered. The proposed names included Judea, Zion, Ever, and Carmelia, the last referring to Mount Carmel near Haifa. The name Israel was ultimately selected.

- “Israelite,” “Jew,” and “Israeli” describe different identities. Baker distinguishes an ancient inhabitant of the Kingdom of Israel, called an Israelite, from a Jew, referring to the Jewish people, and an Israeli, referring to a citizen of the modern State of Israel. These terms are related historically but do not mean the same thing.

- The distinction between Jewish identity and the modern Israeli state is central to Baker's argument about antisemitism. He says that antisemitism, meaning hostility toward Jews, and anti-Zionism, which he defines as hostility toward the State of Israel, have both been increasing in recent years. He insists that the two must not automatically be treated as equivalent.

- Criticism of the Israeli government does not automatically constitute antisemitism. Baker argues that someone can criticize Israel's government or its actions without expressing hostility toward Jewish people. He points out that many Jews, including Jews living in Israel, oppose the actions of their own country's current government.

- Blaming Jews worldwide for the actions of the Israeli state crosses into antisemitism. Baker draws a distinction between criticizing a country's government and holding all Jews responsible for that government's conduct. In his view, treating Jews everywhere as collectively accountable for Israel's actions conflates the modern state with the Jewish people.

- The recurring problem is the conflation of three different meanings of Israel. Baker argues that confusion arises when the ancient kingdom, the Jewish people, and the modern country are treated as one entity. Keeping the distinctions clear helps separate historical questions, Jewish identity, and political criticism.

- The video's closing chart summarizes the three meanings and their associated dates. Baker gives approximately 930–720 BCE for the ancient Kingdom of Israel, identifies the collective use of Israel for the Jewish people as dating from at least 720 BCE to the present, and dates the modern State of Israel from 1948. The corresponding identities are Israelite, Jew, and Israeli.

- Baker announces a follow-up video about the different meanings of “Palestine.” He says the next week's episode will examine how that term is used in different contexts, extending the same approach of distinguishing related but nonidentical historical, geographical, and political meanings.