Well, Wells and Beaty get minor roles in the development of the Khazar hypothesis, but every time that's come up I've pointed out that the Khazars were circumcised and naturalized, and then intermarried with other Jews, giving the Jewish people every right to continue the name of Jew because it was the merger of two peoples instead of two completely distinct lines. I silence people by saying that if Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then that allows Jews to claim the same right to say Americans aren't Americans (as immigration proponents like Schumer are doing).
But the Khazar hypothesis isn't the Edomite, which isn't the Babylonian, which isn't the Phoenician. And all those are the same category, partial mergers and influences. At no point do the people known in local language as Judahites lose the right to be called that, and at no point does a separate people arise who are not born into or naturalized into the Judahites but who take up the name that is not theirs. (Unless you count a handful of Gentiles in Smyrna and Philadelphia, who may have included Onkelos; but even he later converted to Judaism.) None of the theorists that have advanced any of those hypotheses have a whit of data about there being some other people than the Jews.
Another thing that shuts them up is that the Khazar hypothesis was invented by Jews, first to claim the Khazar power as their own (Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Daud) and later to minimalize their Jewish heritage to get exemptions from persecution (Isaac Levinsohn, Abraham Harkavi, Abraham Firkovitz). Now it's being thrown back at Jews to claim they all lose all heritage, which is as I say self-destructive of the accusers: Gentiles are using a Jewish-invented pilpul while denouncing the Jews and not realizing that the same logic denounces themselves too just as the Jews are accused of desiring.
You switch to "Hebrews", and nowadays we think of Hebrews as the same as Jews, but Abram was a Hebrew and that meant son of Eber, and there were many other (Semitic) Hebrews, which obtained the name Habiru and the title Hyksos. So tacking to "Hebrews" doesn't help. Those in Babylon had come from the kingdom of Judea and were Judeans (for which Jews is simply a short form first attested in French ca. 1000 AD where "Ju" elided "Judaeus").
You give no evidence that Jews are identified with Tyrians and Sidonians (who used those city-based names rather than tribe-based names). These peoples are kept distinct by basically everyone. You seem to accept Judges 3 about there being Canaanites but you don't seem to be comfortable with the implication that the Israelites were there distinguished from them, or that Judahites were then a key tribe of Israelites (Judg. 1:1-20).
No, it doesn't sound familiar for there to be Carthaginian converts after their utter defeat by Rome in 146 BC because there was no Carthage anymore. If you'd said Punic converts, which is what the remaining people were called, I wouldn't call it out as an obvious invention, but I still see no evidence that Punic people converted to Second Temple Judaism at large.
So you're not carrying the water. To the idea "Jews descend from Phoenicians" I answered Jews descend from Judah (b. 1793 BC) and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jews aren't Israelite" I answered Judah's father was Israel and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jerusalem was in Ebla tablets 3000 BC" I answered there's no evidence of Jerusalem before 1900 BC nor of Ebla tablets before 2500 BC and you didn't respond. Now you throw in some Khazar hypothesis i.e. "Jews aren't Ioudaios", where I've answered that nobody who says that has put forward any proof that modern Jews aren't the same people; and you say "Jews descend from Tyrians and Sidonians", but I answer that Tyre and Sidon were on the boundaries of Asher, not Judah (Josh. 19:28-29), and were never taken by Asher (Judg. 1:31). Do you have any claims that aren't batting .000?
Well, Wells and Beaty get minor roles in the development of the Khazar hypothesis, but every time that's come up I've pointed out that the Khazars were circumcised and naturalized, and then intermarried with other Jews, giving the Jewish people every right to continue the name of Jew because it was the merger of two peoples instead of two completely distinct lines. I silence people by saying that if Americans can tell Jews they're not Jews, then that allows Jews to claim the same right to say Americans aren't Americans (as immigration proponents like Schumer are doing).
But the Khazar hypothesis isn't the Edomite, which isn't the Babylonian, which isn't the Phoenician. And all those are the same category, partial mergers and influences. At no point do the people known in local language as Judahites lose the right to be called that, and at no point does a separate people arise who are not born into or naturalized into the Judahites but who take up the name that is not theirs. (Unless you count a handful of Gentiles in Smyrna and Philadelphia, who may have included Onkelos; but even he later converted to Judaism.) None of the theorists that have advanced any of those hypotheses have a whit of data about there being some other people than the Jews.
Another thing that shuts them up is that the Khazar hypothesis was invented by Jews, first to claim the Khazar power as their own (Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Daud) and later to minimalize their Jewish heritage to get exemptions from persecution (Isaac Levinsohn, Abraham Harkavi, Abraham Firkovitz). Now it's being thrown back at Jews to claim they all lose all heritage, which is as I say self-destructive of the accusers: Gentiles are using a Jewish-invented pilpul while denouncing the Jews and not realizing that the same logic denounces themselves too just as the Jews are accused of desiring.
You switch to "Hebrews", and nowadays we think of Hebrews as the same as Jews, but Abram was a Hebrew and that meant son of Eber, and there were many other (Semitic) Hebrews, which obtained the name Habiru and the title Hyksos. So tacking to "Hebrews" doesn't help. Those in Babylon had come from the kingdom of Judea and were Judeans (for which Jews is simply a short form first attested in French ca. 1000 AD where "Ju" elided "Judaeus").
You give no evidence that Jews are identified with Tyrians and Sidonians (who used those city-based names rather than tribe-based names). These peoples are kept distinct by basically everyone. You seem to accept Judges 3 about there being Canaanites but you don't seem to be comfortable with the implication that the Israelites were there distinguished from them, or that Judahites were then a key tribe of Israelites (Judg. 1:1-20).
No, it doesn't sound familiar for there to be Carthaginian converts after their utter defeat by Rome in 146 BC because there was no Carthage anymore. If you'd said Punic converts, which is what the remaining people were called, I wouldn't call it out as an obvious invention, but I still see no evidence that Punic people converted to Second Temple Judaism at large.
So you're not carrying the water. To the idea "Jews descend from Phoenicians" I answered Jews descend from Judah (b. 1793 BC) and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jews aren't Israelite" I answered Judah's father was Israel and you didn't respond. To the idea "Jerusalem was in Ebla tablets 3000 BC" I answered there's no evidence of Jerusalem before 1900 BC nor of Ebla tablets before 2500 BC and you didn't respond. Now you throw in some Khazar hypothesis i.e. "Jews aren't Ioudaios", where I've answered that nobody who says that has put forward any proof that modern Jews aren't the same people; and you say "Jews descend from Tyrians and Sidonians", but I answer that Tyre and Sidon were on the boundaries of Asher, not Judah (Josh. 19:28-29), and were never taken by Asher (Judg. 1:31). Do you have any claims that aren't batting .000?