>This people was under constant attack by the Jews under the later judges such as Samuel, then by Saul who battled them to a standstill, then by David who decimated them, and finally by Solomon who killed off the last Philistines some 940 BC.
Correct, but for one detail. Solomon and all who preceded him were not Jews. They were Israelites. All Jews (not to appear until ~500 years later, upon the Southern Kingdoms return from the Babylonian escapade) were Israelites, but only a few Israelites were Jews.
But I submit that my more inclusive definition of "Jews" as allowable anytime after the Exodus, or indeed anytime after the birth of Isaac, is...(drum roll)..
BOTH MORE WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED BY EDUCATED SPEAKERS AND WRITERS IN AMERICA TODAY...and also (drum roll) PREFERRED BY MOST JEWS, JEWISH SCHOLARS, AND RABBIS THEMSELVES, today,..over your more restrictive definition.
Just so you don't get the idea that anything more than that mere dictionary quibble is involved, I have no problem. I know what your posts mean, and I think you know very well what mine mean.
But in my own lifetime some cultists have taken your (perhaps merely semantic) contention and run 100 or more yards the wrong way for a touchdown, and that is what I am avoiding by using the more inclusive and consistent term as widely as I can.
Remember, ALL of our English language is much newer than even the most RECENT possible date for inception of the use of the word "Jew." You say 500 BC, I say 2000 BC, English hardly goes back more than 600 yrs without requiring translation into our tongue. That makes the whole squabble seem rather childish, doesn't it?