The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before. They were Jews (Judah) before the Achaemenid Persian empire began. Judah was a tribe of Israel and then became a separate kingdom in 930 BC. The 9th-century Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David, which is admittedly Judahite. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 597 his chronicle calls it Iaahudu (Judah). He then annexed the region and called it the Province of Yehud. Israel Finkelstein estimates that 75% of Jews remained in the province during the diaspora, maybe 50,000 people. I understand that Cyrus subsidized the Jews for political purposes but he didn't invent them.
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before
You didn't understand anything I said. And I made sure to end my long message with: "So the Jews were invented by the Persians to administer and control the Levant. Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews. So Israel and the Jewish identity are constructs of the imperial imagination.".
The Jews have been used by empires throughout history. Probably the first was Cyrus who discovered that these exiled Israelites in Babylon were really good administrators. And Cyrus used them, that's why I'm saying they were invented by the Persian Empire (before they were Israelites). Subsequently they were re-invented by the Greek Empire, and by the Roman Empire, and by the British Empire, and by the American Empire... But they have always been willing to serve the imperial interests, as long as they're in-charge and can administer and control the nations. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (a Jew)
Why is so hard for you to understand what I'm really saying. As opposed to playing a game with words? I'll tell you what, you really try and make an effort to understand what I'm saying, or there's no point in communicating any further. It's a waste of time for both of us.
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior
But I said "Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews.". We can talk about the word "Jew" and even the letter J. For instance many argue the first time the word Jew was used was in 18th century CE, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". And that the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. Or, Judean or Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite.
But I don't think that's correct. "Jews" is a Persian term, let me explain. First let's talk about Jerusalem, the area. So, this area is only a very small part of the Levant. But this part is specifically for the Jews. And it's part of this Persian province called Beyond the River. And they call it the province of Yehud. That's why we have the term Jews. Okay? Because they are part of the province of Yehud. So Yehud was established by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. I don't know what you have against the word "invented", maybe I should have used the word "established" instead. My point, and to repeat myself, Jews is actually a Persian term. So, the Jews were created/established (not invented) by the Persians to control the Levant.
Anyway, they are surrounded by enemies. The Samaritans are Israelites, like I said, who have stayed in the land. So most people around them are in fact Israelitess who adapted to local circumstances and that means that they practice different religions. So what happens is that these exiles from Babylon, they come back and they say, "No, we're the true Israelites. You guys are the false Israelites. The reason why we're true is we have stayed loyal to our religion.". So what's going to happen over the next few decades is almost a civil war between Israelites who've stayed and Israelites who left but came back. And this is exactly what the Persian Empire wants in order to maintain stability in the Levant. Because you have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. This is divide & conquer rule and strategy. Worked then and works now.
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.
The irony was lost on you. You can't invent "Jews" and then have them return somewhere they were before. They were Jews (Judah) before the Achaemenid Persian empire began. Judah was a tribe of Israel and then became a separate kingdom in 930 BC. The 9th-century Tel Dan stele mentions the House of David, which is admittedly Judahite. When Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 597 his chronicle calls it Iaahudu (Judah). He then annexed the region and called it the Province of Yehud. Israel Finkelstein estimates that 75% of Jews remained in the province during the diaspora, maybe 50,000 people. I understand that Cyrus subsidized the Jews for political purposes but he didn't invent them.
You didn't understand anything I said. And I made sure to end my long message with: "So the Jews were invented by the Persians to administer and control the Levant. Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews. So Israel and the Jewish identity are constructs of the imperial imagination.".
The Jews have been used by empires throughout history. Probably the first was Cyrus who discovered that these exiled Israelites in Babylon were really good administrators. And Cyrus used them, that's why I'm saying they were invented by the Persian Empire (before they were Israelites). Subsequently they were re-invented by the Greek Empire, and by the Roman Empire, and by the British Empire, and by the American Empire... But they have always been willing to serve the imperial interests, as long as they're in-charge and can administer and control the nations. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild (a Jew)
Why is so hard for you to understand what I'm really saying. As opposed to playing a game with words? I'll tell you what, you really try and make an effort to understand what I'm saying, or there's no point in communicating any further. It's a waste of time for both of us.
If by "invented" you mean that the people were called Jews in various spellings for many centuries prior, as shown by archaeology, were then repurposed for an imperial end, well that makes sense. But you're acting like all the history I showed you means there were no Jews before about 522 BC, which is false. Your implication is not the meaning of "invented".
But I said "Before the Jews were of course the Israelites. Now we have the Jews.". We can talk about the word "Jew" and even the letter J. For instance many argue the first time the word Jew was used was in 18th century CE, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". And that the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. Or, Judean or Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite.
But I don't think that's correct. "Jews" is a Persian term, let me explain. First let's talk about Jerusalem, the area. So, this area is only a very small part of the Levant. But this part is specifically for the Jews. And it's part of this Persian province called Beyond the River. And they call it the province of Yehud. That's why we have the term Jews. Okay? Because they are part of the province of Yehud. So Yehud was established by the Persian king Cyrus the Great in 539 BCE. I don't know what you have against the word "invented", maybe I should have used the word "established" instead. My point, and to repeat myself, Jews is actually a Persian term. So, the Jews were created/established (not invented) by the Persians to control the Levant.
Anyway, they are surrounded by enemies. The Samaritans are Israelites, like I said, who have stayed in the land. So most people around them are in fact Israelitess who adapted to local circumstances and that means that they practice different religions. So what happens is that these exiles from Babylon, they come back and they say, "No, we're the true Israelites. You guys are the false Israelites. The reason why we're true is we have stayed loyal to our religion.". So what's going to happen over the next few decades is almost a civil war between Israelites who've stayed and Israelites who left but came back. And this is exactly what the Persian Empire wants in order to maintain stability in the Levant. Because you have this small minority of exiles from Babylon who've come back and they're in conflict with everyone else. This is divide & conquer rule and strategy. Worked then and works now.
I just told you that Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Iaahudu in 597 BC and Babylon thereafter called the conquered region the Province of Yehud. So Cyrus didn't establish anything new, except for taking over the prior government. He didn't establish the term, he transferred the name from the previous Babylonian name and that from the previous self-governing name. And Finklestein finds there were many Judahites (and Samaritans) there when Cyrus added a large number of Judahites (and so Babylon either didn't see civil war between them, or saw it and thus had the whole Persian dynamic you describe before Persia). Nor was it the first time that the Judahites had been a client state of a larger realm, but in prior cases the Judahites had eventually overthrown the ruler and returned to self-governance; so that "establishment" wasn't new either.
If you wanted to say that Cyrus first successfully established the principle of having some Judahites and some nominal Israelites (Samaritans) continuously rivals to each other, that might have been a first I suppose, but there were wars between the two before this, so I don't think even that was new enough to say that Cyrus hit upon something totally novel. You're repeating yourself, contradicting and ignoring historical artifacts, and taking a political theory (that would be relatively innocuous in itself) too far by calling it an innovation when it isn't.